Saving the Wizard Class

[Captain Shrek]

Magic is inherently flashy and extraordinary in the way humans understand the word. It ought to be over powering to justify that feeling. I would be very happy if wizards could do that. I particularly despise a design that views magic as only special fx damage dealing in combat. magic should be about molding the world in uncanny ways, like shaping the earth or creating storms/rain/summoning creatures etc. Only then really can it be appreciated as something really distinct from fighter combat. Take for example the rain spell in D:OS. Now *that* is magic well done.

 

Now from the perpsective of the game, it should also have limitations that allow fighters to justify their importance in war.

 

There are two ways as I see it, to make that work:

 

1) Fighters need no resource to use their skill. So they are always up to the task. Wizards on the other hand require special resources, like gems or ritual sacrifices for casting spells etc, which limit how often they can cast the spell.

 

2) Figthers are fast. At the briefest requirement they can act. Spell casters require a lot of preparation, but if they are ready they are practically invulnerable.

 

A combination of this would completely eliminate the shallow "per day" system which has no reason to exist beyond game logic that everything needs to be balanced.

 

There is a danger here however that the fighter no longer seems "interesting".

 

That can be easily avoided by giving them more tactical options, awesome abilities (which need to be from 80's movies) that remind you of olympic heroes; both sports and mythos.

 

 

 

Quoting my view about wizards from somewhere else of the forums. 

[archangel979]

You know, I just typed up a response to the points each of you adressed, but for a good part there will be no respectful discussion here, no matter how much effort I put into it, so I deleted it. In fact, it can be easily summed up:

 

You guys think its great to have an omnipotent class that is basically able to do anything in a game, and that is fine. I think it's not much fun because that makes it a clear better choice every single time, devaluing everything else in the game.

I feel like your points are valid (but coming down to preference), but you blow them out of proportions, so feel free to disagree.

 

I'll probably get a game that I'll enjoy more than you guys will, and I can live with that conclusion.

For the rest, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I just fought a Dragon in IWDEE made for a lvl 13+ party. The mage was least useful in that fight and my melee Paladin and ranged Archer did most damage. And through most of the combat in IWDEE those two do most damage. 

 

Now you can say "but if I wanted I could solo the game with Mage but I could not solo it with a Paladin" to which I say, "I don't fracking care for fringe cases, in full 6 man party Mages don't steal the show". 

 

BWT, spell Prismatic Eyes is the coolest spell ever. I hope we see spells of such ambition in PoE 2 at some point. 

Edited November 15, 2014 by archangel979

[Malekith]

Doppelschwert, on 15 Nov 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

Ok, but you still haven't answered my second, more important question. A game could have a very unique magic system, where magic sucks in combat. Would that be fine?

 

Don't even go there. Yes, it would be fine, great even. After all my favourite IE spell was the IWD's "Contact other plane".

I would prefer a game where magic is completely separated from combat, were playing a mage would be a game in itself. You could pass through walls, read peoples minds, dominate  them in dialogue, divining Information, insta killing enemies with time consuming rituals etc. I would be ok if said magic didn't have a combat application at all like throwing fireballs around.

 

That said, the magic system is outside the scope of PoE, nor would be a fitting IE successor, even if i believe most IE fans would prefer said wizard from the one Josh gave us in PoE so far.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Malekith

[Dark_Ansem]

+1 to that. that magic system seems amazing.

[Captain Shrek]

 

Doppelschwert, on 15 Nov 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

Ok, but you still haven't answered my second, more important question. A game could have a very unique magic system, where magic sucks in combat. Would that be fine?

 

Don't even go there. Yes, it would be fine, great even. After all my favourite IE spell was the IWD's "Contact other plane".

I would prefer a game where magic is completely separated from combat, were playing a mage would be a game in itself. You could pass through walls, read peoples minds, dominate  them in dialogue, divining Information, insta killing enemies with time consuming rituals etc. I would be ok if said magic didn't have a combat application at all like throwing fireballs around.

 

That said, the magic system is outside the scope of PoE, nor would be a fitting IE successor, even if i believe most IE fans would prefer said wizard from the one Josh gave us in PoE so far.

 

 

 

Indeed. I would pay through my nose to see that kind of magic implemented in a game. Goddamn battlemage-lovers. 

EDIT: BTW. You might enjoy Blackguards. The game has a tutor character who practically tells you that only idiots prefer to use magic for direct damage spells. 

Edited November 15, 2014 by Captain Shrek

[Hiro Protagonist II]

One of these days, Stun, you're going to have to get over the fact that most people choose to play these games as games to be beaten rather than role play them, and that most people who role play do not use crpgs as their main vehicle for it.

 

Weasel words. One of these days Kjaamor, you might want to stop using weasel words.

[Malekith]

Captain Shrek, on 16 Nov 2014 - 12:59 AM, said:Captain Shrek, on 16 Nov 2014 - 12:59 AM, said:

 

Malekith, on 16 Nov 2014 - 12:20 AM, said:Malekith, on 16 Nov 2014 - 12:20 AM, said:

 

Doppelschwert, on 15 Nov 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:Doppelschwert, on 15 Nov 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:Doppelschwert, on 15 Nov 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

Ok, but you still haven't answered my second, more important question. A game could have a very unique magic system, where magic sucks in combat. Would that be fine?

 

Don't even go there. Yes, it would be fine, great even. After all my favourite IE spell was the IWD's "Contact other plane".

I would prefer a game where magic is completely separated from combat, were playing a mage would be a game in itself. You could pass through walls, read peoples minds, dominate  them in dialogue, divining Information, insta killing enemies with time consuming rituals etc. I would be ok if said magic didn't have a combat application at all like throwing fireballs around.

 

That said, the magic system is outside the scope of PoE, nor would be a fitting IE successor, even if i believe most IE fans would prefer said wizard from the one Josh gave us in PoE so far.

 

 

 

Indeed. I would pay through my nose to see that kind of magic implemented in a game. Goddamn battlemage-lovers. 

EDIT: BTW. You might enjoy Blackguards. The game has a tutor character who practically tells you that only idiots prefer to use magic for direct damage spells. 

 

I like Battleguards. Through to be honest i value story and writing the most in games, so i'm more excited about PoE. I still expect to like it (love it actualy) even with the boring chore of a gameplay it will propably have. Pity since i loved BG2 gameplay and i was hoping for something similar.PST with BG2 gameplay.

Guess you relly can't a game where both story and gameplay are good. Unatainable dream after all.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Malekith

[Tamerlane]

Wizards suck in real life and I am happy to see this reflected in the game.

[Yonjuro]

"You guys think its great to have an omnipotent class that is basically able to do anything in a game, and that is fine. I think it's not much fun because that makes it a clear better choice every single time, devaluing everything else in the game."

 

This +1000

 

 Umm, no. In BG1 (using BGTuTu) mages were good but the most powerful class was the ranger with the archer kit.

 

 In BG2 anything with mage in the title was very powerful (but playing a mage isn't the easiest way to play, especially at the beginning). Then again, thieves were really powerful too, especially the bounty hunter and swashbuckler kits (for different reasons). All thieves got timestop as a high level ability (in the form of a trap) and also spike traps which could kill just about anything if you planned ahead enough to set them. Paladins, especially inquisitors, nullified mage abilities and, as such were an exceptionally powerful class. Monks got so much magic resistance that mages were essentially irrelevant to them. Ranger/clerics were, well. maybe you get the idea already. Mages didn't nullify all of the other classes.

 

 Have you played any of the classes I mentioned in the IE games?

 

Just listen to yourselves ,...

 

 You aren't following the argument. If you want, have a look at my earlier post and focus on the part in huge letters.

 

 Balance is fine. Achieving balance by making all of the classes equally uninteresting is not fine. Is the point clearer now?

 

 A wizard that functions purely as artillery is not an interesting class. That's the point. Even if it gets really powerful at higher levels, it still isn't interesting if it is purely a ranged damage class.

[Yonjuro]

 

...

 

I see where you are coming from and I got something out of your posts before as well. As I said, I think its just about personal preference.

 

 Yup. We might not agree, but that's fine. And, if it isn't clear, I do think PoE will be a good game with some amount of replay value due to the story. The combat, so far, seems to have a sameness about it. I'll say more about that below.

 

..

Its hard to come up with interesting spell combos because I don't really know what you'd consider interesting.

 

 Fair enough, I'll give you an example - but (If you are playing the beta; if you aren't, then I realize that it's impossible to answer this question from the spell descriptions alone) are there tactics that you think are interesting? This isn't a rhetorical question - there may very well be more to the spell system than I've noticed so far.

 

 Here's an example that I think could be interesting: There's a wizard spell (or talent) to switch places with any character. An interesting tactic could be to start combat with a high damage AoE spell which would draw the enemies to the wizard. Then, as they close in, do a very damaging spell that requires the wizard to be at close range. Finally, switch places with the rogue using your special ability and simultaneously use the rogue's escape ability and a second AoE spell. This requires a high enough damage output from the three spells (especially the in-close spell) to make it a worthwhile tactic. In particular, you need a spell that is worth the risk of allowing the enemies to get close to the wizard and the rogue; otherwise it would be smarter to stay in the back row and hurl bombs at the enemy.

 

 Getting back to the earlier point:

 

 Compared to BG1, in PoE you basically can't cast outside of combat, there is no magic invisibility and no instadeath / immunity spells.

 

 I think this is a big part of the problem. The limitations on casting outside of combat limits the strategic decisions to the initial positioning and attack (if you start the fight). During the fight, the engagement mechanic limits your movements to the extent that tactical retreating is pretty much impossible (unless you use Sensuki's exploit where he killed an enemy purely by retreating (which repeatedly triggered disengagement attacks on the enemy), but presumably that won't be possible in the final game). 

 

 It might partially be due to being less familiar with PoE than with the IE games, but the PoE fights seem to have a lot less variety of strategy and tactics than the IE games did. It's one fight repeated a bunch of times.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Yonjuro

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

 

 

You know, I just typed up a response to the points each of you adressed, but for a good part there will be no respectful discussion here, no matter how much effort I put into it, so I deleted it. In fact, it can be easily summed up:

 

You guys think its great to have an omnipotent class that is basically able to do anything in a game, and that is fine. I think it's not much fun because that makes it a clear better choice every single time, devaluing everything else in the game.

That didn't happen in Bg2, did it. In BG2, mages were very much omnipotent, as you say, in every role conceivable except perhaps melee (and once you got shapechange, EVEN melee...especially melee lol)

 

But funny thing... I had more fun with my various sneak build runs (Rogues, Stalkers). Much of that had to do with the increased challenge, of course. But the main reason was because of ROLE PLAYING. People always forget this. Especially the Balance-firsters, like Josh. They forget that we're talking about a ROLE PLAYING game, not some PvP MMO. When you're role playing, the question of: "Is the class I chose just as powerful as the other classes?" is not relevant. It's not relevant because power differentials do not matter. There are only 2 things that matter in a role playing game:

 

1) Does the class possess enough skills to beat the game/overcome the game's challenges?

2) Does this class feel unique?

 

BG2 (and all the IE games) get away with having an imbalanced magic system because they absolutely nail #1 and #2.

 

 

 

PoEs design goals and Joshs motivation are very much 1) and 2) in my eyes. Access to effects are split up more or less evenly between all classes and they have unique mechanics for the most part. I'm also sure that 1) will eventually be met with proper balancing.

 

By that logic, shouldn't get PoE away with a balanced magic system? If you disagree whether PoE achieves 1) and 2) or not, do I understand you correctly that a game that has balanced magic would be perfectly fine if it satisfied constraints 1) and 2)?

 

This seems orthogonal to your arguments before, so I'm not sure I understand you correctly on this.

 

Class differentiation could have been easily achieved simply through the resource mechanics that the classes employ. Nobody confused Bards, Sorcerers, and Wizards in BG2, or any other game. Instead he fractured the entire magic system into contrived and boring MMO roles that can safely be claimed that every backer here unanimously rejects. Reviving what was great about the classics with 4th edition D&D MMO crap? Seriously?

 

It would go a long way to give Chanters, Ciphers, and Wizards access to the same spell list. Chanters would still select and cast them as free "evocations", Ciphers would still have to mine soul energy to cast, and Wizards would have their conventional resource limitations. That one single thing would do WONDERS. It won't happen though. Josh Sawyer fears wizards breaking his game THAT much.

 

Never mind that all of the spells were made mediocre in both capability and duration. It would just be too much to endure for him. The omni-class is gonna get'cha! Boo! The motivations for obliterating magic and their subsequent classes is all the more confusing and pointless consider that the original design gave every class the ability to, detect trap, disarm traps, pick locks, stealth, craft, repair, perform feats of athleticism, resolve every dialogue option, etc.

 

*Edited to quote box.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Mr. Magniloquent

[Tamerlane]

Oh dammit guys we meant to fund FY:SMD:Josh Sawyer Presents Ars Magica all along.

[Bester]

I just fought a Dragon in IWDEE made for a lvl 13+ party. The mage was least useful in that fight

 

 

That's a very good point by the way.

 

Mages compliment melee fighters. Same as archers compliment melee fighters. Same as clerics compliment melee fighters. And vice versa. A balanced party in IE ends up having 1 warrior, 1 cleric, 1 mage, 1 thief, 2 open slots.

 

You all whine that a big spell selection like in IE games will render other classes useless. Well did you play as an all mage party in IE games then? Did ya?

Edited November 16, 2014 by Bester

[Dark_Ansem]

It didn't happen even in Planescape Torment, with the most powerful mage ever!

[Bester]

And by the way, 1 mage, 1 warrior, 1 cleric and 1 rogue - it's the hallmark of a d&d party, it's the classics, it's a very important part of all IE games (slightly less true for IWD, now that I think about it...). Each of those classes is almost a must, each of them fills a certain role. And yet in PoE why would I even consider taking a mage? No role and no use. What a great game design.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Bester

[Dark_Ansem]

And by the way, 1 mage, 1 warrior, 1 cleric and 1 rogue - it's the hallmark of a d&d party, it's the classics, it's a very significant fact of all IE games. Each of those classes is almost a must, each of them fills a certain role. And yet in PoE why would I even consider taking a mage? No role and no use. What a great game design.

 

that's not entirely true. I like the principles of the mage class, and the grimoire thing is a nice take on the "spellbook" hint: allow us to get more powerful\special grimoires...

it's just hampered by being very weak. it definitely is not like the Baldur's gate mage, which at level 3 was very, very useful.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Dark_Ansem

[Bester]

Nonsense. Take fireball and mod it to deal insane damage. Mages still boring, still have no role, still have no importance.

[constantine]

 

Thanks for being needlessly condescending. I know that you can revert the spell effect after the battle. How does that help you during the battle, however?

If you want your guy to be back during the battle, you either have it memorized or you don't. If you don't know if the enemy has access to the spell, you memorize it in case he does and if he does, good for you, if not, spellslot wasted.

 

And that's true for all hard counters. Either they are applicable or spell slot wasted.

For the 3rd time... there's a counter to EVERYTHING in BG2.

 

To protect against Imprisonment during a battle, any intelligent mage will cast Spell Immunity (abjuration). It will grant you immunity to imprisonment for many, many rounds. It's a 5th level spell, which means your mage/wild mage/sorcerer will have access to it (many copies of it, even) several dozen hours before ever facing anything that can toss an imprisonment at him.

 

And in case you're thinking to yourself: "well, it seem silly to waste a spell slot on a spell that will only come in handy in very rare (almost never) instances when someone might Imprison you".... Nope. Spell Immunity has several uses in BG2. A good mage will always have it at hand anyway. The fact that you can use it to protect you from Imprisonment is actually kind of trivial in the grand scheme of things. When I play a mage in BG2, I typically find myself using its enchantment version right at the outset of any major battle because I dislike getting disabled by mind effecting spells.

 

But I digress. Here I am ranting again...in an obnoxiously offensive debate that shouldn't be happening. There is no comparison between BG2's magic system and PoE's "magic" system. One is gloriously awe inspiring, while the other is an insult to the very concept of "magic" in a fantasy RPG.

Well said.

 

However Obsidian devs stated situations like that as 'gm sucker-punch' right from the very start of development and wanted to eliminate them.

 

Irony is, they also stated that PoE is going to be a game that it won't hold the player's hand through quests. Also Expert Mode is supposed to remove journal entries that tell you where to go and what to do next in each specific quest.

 

So players are encouraged to read and not wait for all to be given to them. On the contrary, combat is to lack this kind of treatment, where every build & Class combination is viable (at least that was the initial intention).

 

Obsidian has shown their focus right from the start. No wonder combat is as it is.

[Dark_Ansem]

underpowered does not just mean that can't deal damage. it also means lack of versatility

[Doppelschwert]

Class differentiation could have been easily achieved simply through the resource mechanics that the classes employ. Nobody confused Bards, Sorcerers, and Wizards in BG2, or any other game. Instead he fractured the entire magic system into contrived and boring MMO roles that can safely be claimed that every backer here unanimously rejects. Reviving what was great about the classics with 4th edition D&D MMO crap? Seriously?

 

It would go a long way to give Chanters, Ciphers, and Wizards access to the same spell list. Chanters would still select and cast them as free "evocations", Ciphers would still have to mine soul energy to cast, and Wizards would have their conventional resource limitations. That one single thing would do WONDERS. It won't happen though. Josh Sawyer fears wizards breaking his game THAT much.

 

Never mind that all of the spells were made mediocre in both capability and duration. It would just be too much to endure for him. The omni-class is gonna get'cha! Boo! The motivations for obliterating magic and their subsequent classes is all the more confusing and pointless consider that the original design gave every class the ability to, detect trap, disarm traps, pick locks, stealth, craft, repair, perform feats of athleticism, resolve every dialogue option, etc.

 

*Edited to quote box.

 

 

I wouldn't start arguing with the majority of backers, seriously. I'm not even sure about the majority on these forums, it's only clear what the vocal majority prefers.

Your proposed change may be good enough for you, but that is (for a change) not good enough for me. This comes to personal preference, so don't tread this like an attack, but to me, different cast mechanics being the only difference is about the most boring system I could imagine to diversify classes.

 

From a gameplay point of view, in the end, most of these classes will be overshadowed by some variant because balance is not possible, and then there is exactly no reason to pick the inferior ones up anymore.

In the NWN games, I would never pick a wizard if the sorcerer is available. Without meta knowledge, the restriction of prepared spells goes away and if you pick the right spells and buy some scrolls, you can easily even out the narrow spell selection. Also, more prestige classes are available. What you have in the end is variant of a class, not a new class. At least I don't consider the wild mage or sorcerer totally new and different classes compared to the wizard, its more like a kit. Kits are fun, don't get me wrong, but I'm sceptical about the ratio between the cost of implementing them and players actually using them in the end, in particular when certain play styles seem way more attractive than others.

 

Which leaves me with the sole reason of this being implemented for having kits for roleplaying purposes. By that line of argument, why should casters be the only class that gets kits for flavour? I may want 5 different kinds of monks with the same ability pool but different means to built up their class ressources then. That is why I feel that this proposal is really arbitrary.

[Shevek]

PoE has its flaws. The skill system and the xp system (slightly better now but still a bit meh) really stand out to me. Magic trumps those problems tho.

 

The priest and, especially, the wizard feel a bit meh to me. The issue with those classes being that spells feel a bit uninspiring.

 

Still, I cant help but wonder if magic isnt the easiest issue to mod in. Duration (from seconds to minutes), castability out of combat, damage numbers, etc... Can't we just edit game files and make the wizard a real Wizard again? Yes, adding in utility spells etc would not be so easy but cant we edit whats there already and make the system decent with little effort?

Edited November 16, 2014 by Shevek

[archangel979]

PoE has its flaws. The skill system and the xp system (slightly better now but still a bit meh) really stand out to me. Magic trumps those problems tho.

 

The priest and, especially, the wizard feel a bit meh to me. The issue with those classes being that spells feel a bit uninspiring.

 

Still, I cant help but wonder if magic isnt the easiest issue to mod in. Duration (from seconds to minutes), castability out of combat, damage numbers, etc... Can't we just edit game files and make the wizard a real Wizard again? Yes, adding in utility spells etc would not be so easy but cant we edit whats there already and make the system decent with little effort?

I would guess it should not be too hard to also change spell levels and also give spells from other classes to wizards and such. The problem is that enemy spellcasters might not have access to those spells and by doing this the whole game might become super easy. 

[Barleypaper]

A lot of people have already made a lot of good arguments here (on both sides) so I'll just add my point of view to the heap.

 

I'm one of the many people that loved wizards in the IE games; I thought save-or-die spells were cool as hell (even when my own party was torn apart) and I enjoyed the hard counters and spell defense mechanics.

 

I also want to stress the role-playing argument again; playing a wizard isn't about ranged DPS and crowd control, it's about being a wizard. People played druids, even if clerics might have been mechanically superior. I chose wizard over sorcerer purely for lore reasons. Classes aren't just stats; you can't roll-play a spreadsheet.

I can understand why Obsidian has designed their wizard the way it has. It's to make the game a fun and "balanced" experience for everyone, or something like that. However, the more they alter and restrict the original implementation, the less the class is going to resemble the IE wizard. And that's a problem, because I liked the IE wizard. Something's got to be wrong if someone who enjoyed playing wizards in the IE games no longer wants to play wizard in PoE.

But If that leads to a game that more people will enjoy in the end, then maybe it's for the best. Maybe it's a necessary sacrifice in order to obtain true RPG excellence. Maybe, to appease the many opponents of the old magic system, the wizard class has to become a drab husk of it's former self. I'd be fine with that, I'm not bitter about it, honest.

[Shevek]

 

PoE has its flaws. The skill system and the xp system (slightly better now but still a bit meh) really stand out to me. Magic trumps those problems tho.

 

The priest and, especially, the wizard feel a bit meh to me. The issue with those classes being that spells feel a bit uninspiring.

 

Still, I cant help but wonder if magic isnt the easiest issue to mod in. Duration (from seconds to minutes), castability out of combat, damage numbers, etc... Can't we just edit game files and make the wizard a real Wizard again? Yes, adding in utility spells etc would not be so easy but cant we edit whats there already and make the system decent with little effort?

I would guess it should not be too hard to also change spell levels and also give spells from other classes to wizards and such. The problem is that enemy spellcasters might not have access to those spells and by doing this the whole game might become super easy. 

 

Who is to say you cant edit creature files like you could in the IE games?

[Malekith]

I posted it it in Shevek's thread so the start maybe out of context, but here

 

Quote

The thing that absolutely destroys PoE combat for me is the lack of hard counters, interesting and overwhelming spells and spell combos, and the puzzle like nature (with multiple solutions) of some encounters.

Even IWDs which didn't had so much hard counters and puzzle like battles (and as such were more boring than BG2) still had the overwhelming spell combos that could change the battle on the spot.

 

PoE spells are severly underwhelming compaired to even that, and it's by design. And don't start about overpowered mages. Nothing stoped Josh from making the mages on par with the BG2 ones, and use the soul excuse to give the other classes hard counters and supernatural abilities of equal power. Give Chanter all summoning spells and allow out of combat summons. Give chanter all the charm/stun/dominate, but increase the duration of these spells as it was in AD&D.

Give rogue invisibility/short range teleport/ shadow door/poison abilities. Make paladins magic registand like monks were in BG2. Give monks antimagic abilities like inquisitors had in BG2 etc.

You could retain class balance while still having overwhelming magic, hard counters and chess like wizard duels with move and countermove. Only now the other classes could take part in those duels as well, turning BG2 wizard duels  in PoE party duels.

 

I would consider a game with a combat system like this combined with Obsidian's writing ten times better than BG2, and BG2 is my favorite game besides PST.

It all comes to Josh Sawyer (and others) not enjoying that kind of combat and me (and others) not enjoying the kind of combat he prefers.

So yeah, from my point of view PoE combat still sucks, and will continue to do so since it's intentional.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Malekith