Saving the Wizard Class

[Quetzalcoatl]

 Yes,  I have been playing the beta and using the stealth system. (And, I agree that in some ways it's better but, if you recall, stealth and invisibility allowed you do  things in the IE games that the stealth system in PoE does not allow you do - so to say it's far superior is a a bit of stretch).

 

  In any case, I was responding to a post that said that preparing for a battle is the same as metagaming. My point was that if you have stealth (as you do in both the IE games and PoE) then you are not metagaming, you are using knowledge that you gained by scouting to get ready for the battle. 

You should read my earlier post. You couldn't use stealth to scout in the IE games on a consistent basis because dungeons were filled with traps, and you couldn't detect them while being stealthed. Therefore, stealthing through a dungeon did effectively require meta-game knowledge. Not only does PoE fix this issue, but you can stealth through with the entire party.

 

 The IE games had a second level mage spell that you could cast on your thief that also solved that same problem. It lasted for 12 hours and disarming traps didn't break invisibility.

Call me crazy, but I don't think thieves should need the help of another class to be useful at the one thing they're supposed to be good at: thieving (considering they weren't all that great in combat).

 

Yes, you did post this earlier. It's better not to keep repeating this because it's wrong.

 

The stealth skill of thieves, rangers and monks worked in the IE games required you to break line of site. That was the minigame of using stealth for combat in the IE games. You needed to hit and fade using the environment to restealth for backstabs etc.

You're misinterpreting what I posted - deliberately, I have to assume, since it's fairly obvious what I mean. Once you were stealthed in the IE games, you could walk up right to an enemy and remain stealthed. You were effectively invisible. The enemy could detect you if your skill was too low, but that depended on a dice roll, not on the fact that you were standing right in front of them. You can't do this in PoE. You have to move around the enemy carefully and anticipate their movement and react to it. You're free to prefer the former, but the latter strikes me as a better game mechanic.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Quetzalcoatl

[Malekith]

J.E. Sawyer, on 19 Nov 2014 - 11:05 PM, said:

 

On a related note, if you want to play Wizards Are Cool: The Game, I do recommend Ars Magica 5E.

Next kickstarter pls

[Dark_Ansem]

 

May I ask the reason of so much hostility towards spellcasting?

 

I don't have any hostility toward spellcasters/spellcasting.  In A/D&D, I usually play clerics.  For the past year and a half, I've been playing in one Ars Magica game and running another.  Magic is a big part of most FRPGs.  The difference between a game like Ars Magica, where magi are explicitly stated to be insanely powerful compared to mundanes, and a game like D&D or PoE, where wizards are ostensibly roughly on par with other classes, is the expectation of viability and relative difficulty.  You should have fun playing a wizard, I should have fun playing a priest, Gfted should have fun playing paladin, Volourn should have fun playing a dwarf, etc.  It's impossible to make everyone happy, but viability and relative balance are a big part of ensuring that the character you choose to play is going to feel good throughout the game, beginning to end.

 

I believe there is a healthy place between "balance is irrelevant" and "perfect balance is necessary".  I don't want wizards to receive the exact same number of powers as a fighter -- or even the same number of powers as a priest -- because having access to a boatload of spells is part of the fantasy of playing a wizard.  Obviously having a lot of options that feel weak is bad, so we need to find the right level of power per spell, speed of casting spells, number of spells available, casts available per rest/per encounter, etc.  But it's also important that when someone plays a rogue, a druid, a cipher, a fighter, etc., they shouldn't feel like they dead-end with the character or run out of steam while other classes easily sail by every challenge in the game.

 

We want people to have different experiences when they play different classes, but we want all of those experiences to feature the same relative level of challenge and power growth (which are strongly connected).  This is a difficult thing to do and it takes a lot of iteration, but that is the onoing goal.

 

On a related note, if you want to play Wizards Are Cool: The Game, I do recommend Ars Magica 5E.  It has a lot of cool things going for it, most obviously the magic system but also the general downtime system.  Also, Pendragon seems to be Knights Are Actually Cooler and Wizards are Terrible: The Game, so check that out if you want to be a glory hound, manage a manor, and brutally destroy Saxons from horseback.

 

 

I want to play Pillars. I don't want to play another game.

I still percieve a certain degree of anger. aimed at me, none the less, who did nothing

[Yonjuro]

...

 Obviously having a lot of options that feel weak is bad, so we need to find the right level of power per spell, speed of casting spells, number of spells available, casts available per rest/per encounter, etc.  But it's also important that when someone plays a rogue, a druid, a cipher, a fighter, etc., they shouldn't feel like they dead-end with the character or run out of steam while other classes easily sail by every challenge in the game.

...

 

 There were some nice examples in BG2 of spells that worked much better in combination than they did individually. I think that's a big part of the reason why a lot of us still play it. An area where PoE could really shine is to take that further, including synergies of spells(/talents) between different classes (including the non-spell casting classes). 

[J.E. Sawyer]

 

 

J.E. Sawyer, on 19 Nov 2014 - 11:05 PM, said:

 

On a related note, if you want to play Wizards Are Cool: The Game, I do recommend Ars Magica 5E.

Next kickstarter pls

 

 

I was really disappointed that the Ars Magica Kickstarter didn't take off.

 

 

I want to play Pillars. I don't want to play another game.

I still percieve a certain degree of anger. aimed at me, none the less, who did nothing

 

I don't have anger toward anyone on these forums, but it does bother me that people think I'm trying to sabotage their favorite class, class feature, game feature, etc.  It is not possible for us to make everyone's vision of this game come true.  It's not even possible for us to make everyone's vision of an individual class, race, etc. come true.  When I make decisions about how to balance parts of the game, it's based on the feedback that people give me and how I observe them playing the game (and previous games I've worked on).  I don't place value judgments on how a person plays a game (at least I don't think I do!).  If you want to play the game solo, or with all wizards, or murdering everyone, that's all fine.  It's still my responsibility to make sure that all of these options maintain a good level of player engagement and enjoyment across the spectrum.  Balancing and tuning is an ongoing process, but that's what I'm trying to do.

[InsaneCommander]

I really liked the wizards in the infinite engine games. If they are different in PoE, then I'll play with one of the other classes. But that doesn't change how much I'm looking foward to this game.

[Captain Shrek]

 

May I ask the reason of so much hostility towards spellcasting?

 

I don't have any hostility toward spellcasters/spellcasting.  In A/D&D, I usually play clerics.  For the past year and a half, I've been playing in one Ars Magica game and running another.  Magic is a big part of most FRPGs.  The difference between a game like Ars Magica, where magi are explicitly stated to be insanely powerful compared to mundanes, and a game like D&D or PoE, where wizards are ostensibly roughly on par with other classes, is the expectation of viability and relative difficulty.  You should have fun playing a wizard, I should have fun playing a priest, Gfted should have fun playing paladin, Volourn should have fun playing a dwarf, etc.  It's impossible to make everyone happy, but viability and relative balance are a big part of ensuring that the character you choose to play is going to feel good throughout the game, beginning to end.

 

I believe there is a healthy place between "balance is irrelevant" and "perfect balance is necessary".  I don't want wizards to receive the exact same number of powers as a fighter -- or even the same number of powers as a priest -- because having access to a boatload of spells is part of the fantasy of playing a wizard.  Obviously having a lot of options that feel weak is bad, so we need to find the right level of power per spell, speed of casting spells, number of spells available, casts available per rest/per encounter, etc.  But it's also important that when someone plays a rogue, a druid, a cipher, a fighter, etc., they shouldn't feel like they dead-end with the character or run out of steam while other classes easily sail by every challenge in the game.

 

We want people to have different experiences when they play different classes, but we want all of those experiences to feature the same relative level of challenge and power growth (which are strongly connected).  This is a difficult thing to do and it takes a lot of iteration, but that is the onoing goal.

 

On a related note, if you want to play Wizards Are Cool: The Game, I do recommend Ars Magica 5E.  It has a lot of cool things going for it, most obviously the magic system but also the general downtime system.  Also, Pendragon seems to be Knights Are Actually Cooler and Wizards are Terrible: The Game, so check that out if you want to be a glory hound, manage a manor, and brutally destroy Saxons from horseback.

 

 

 

Hi Josh.

 

Just to point out; there is nothing wrong with overpowered spells. That is something which could be readily addressed with casting dependent on resource. Right now, that resource is rest. Which is comparatively easily available. How about spell components? Would that not be an easier solution to the problem of quadratic wizards than balancing out per day rate or something?

[Dark_Ansem]

 

 

 

J.E. Sawyer, on 19 Nov 2014 - 11:05 PM, said:

 

On a related note, if you want to play Wizards Are Cool: The Game, I do recommend Ars Magica 5E.

Next kickstarter pls

 

 

I was really disappointed that the Ars Magica Kickstarter didn't take off.

 

 

I want to play Pillars. I don't want to play another game.

I still percieve a certain degree of anger. aimed at me, none the less, who did nothing

 

I don't have anger toward anyone on these forums, but it does bother me that people think I'm trying to sabotage their favorite class, class feature, game feature, etc.  It is not possible for us to make everyone's vision of this game come true.  It's not even possible for us to make everyone's vision of an individual class, race, etc. come true.  When I make decisions about how to balance parts of the game, it's based on the feedback that people give me and how I observe them playing the game (and previous games I've worked on).  I don't place value judgments on how a person plays a game (at least I don't think I do!).  If you want to play the game solo, or with all wizards, or murdering everyone, that's all fine.  It's still my responsibility to make sure that all of these options maintain a good level of player engagement and enjoyment across the spectrum.  Balancing and tuning is an ongoing process, but that's what I'm trying to do.

 

 

that is true. but still, you could consider us and our opinions a bit more. a bit more satisfaction and interaction go a long way. if people are left to speculate, it is inevitable someone gets the blame.

and if you don't implement the things in-game, at least consider keeping that part of the engine unlocked in case we want to change it.

[Seari]

Different power levels througout the game is what makes the IE games fun. Warrior classes were stronger at low to mid levels, while mages were the strongest at higher levels. Doesn't mean any of them were useless at any point of time, or that you would want a party of 6 "overpowered" mages.

 

Another example of this would be dota2 or league of legends(i'm more familiar with the latter) - carries are weak in lower levels, but are strongest at higher levels, so there are other roles which are stronger early like bruisers and junglers. Doesn't mean you want to have a team full of carries. The roles compliment each other, like they do in the IE games.

[J.E. Sawyer]

 

Hi Josh.

 

Just to point out; there is nothing wrong with overpowered spells. That is something which could be readily addressed with casting dependent on resource. Right now, that resource is rest. Which is comparatively easily available. How about spell components? Would that not be an easier solution to the problem of quadratic wizards than balancing out per day rate or something?

 

It would be a much more difficult solution, IMO.  People are already reticent to use per rest resources and consumables.  Combining them, plus linking components to spells and disseminating them throughout the game would be extremely time consuming and, again IMO, would likely cause people to be even more conservative about using them.

 

 

 

that is true. but still, you could consider us and our opinions a bit more. a bit more satisfaction and interaction go a long way. if people are left to speculate, it is inevitable someone gets the blame.

and if you don't implement the things in-game, at least consider keeping that part of the engine unlocked in case we want to change it.

 

I do consider your opinions, but we are also trying to final the game.  In addition to the general balance/feel considerations, we have a lot of regular functionality bugs to fix. That's the main reason we haven't been as present on the boards lately.

[Captain Shrek]

I am not sure if the comment about per rest spells being on reserve is really all that important. People play as they like to. Some of us use that the resource often and some of us don't. Finally, it's a tactical choice everyone makes. There always have been extreme players who tend to minimize their resource consumption. It would be a folly to base the gameplay after their behavior. 

 

As for time, yeah. You are right. I guess it is too late to change the current "vancian" system to something else. 

[Dark_Ansem]

I am not sure if the comment about per rest spells being on reserve is really all that important. People play as they like to. Some of us use that the resource often and some of us don't. Finally, it's a tactical choice everyone makes. There always have been extreme players who tend to minimize their resource consumption. It would be a folly to base the gameplay after their behavior. 

 

As for time, yeah. You are right. I guess it is too late to change the current "vancian" system to something else. 

 

too bad. I am still rooting for Spell Recharge ala Unearthed Arcana  and modal spells

Edited November 19, 2014 by Dark_Ansem

[Yonjuro]

 

 

 

Also, in doing away with pre-battle metagaming tactics, PoE also does away with many of the strategies that one could employ in the IE games using stealth to pre-scout an encounter. That isn't metagaming at all - it is making use of stealth to be better prepared. It made the IE games more interesting.

You realize this game has a stealth system as well, one that is far superior to that of the IE games?

 

 

 Yes,  I have been playing the beta and using the stealth system. (And, I agree that in some ways it's better but, if you recall, stealth and invisibility allowed you do  things in the IE games that the stealth system in PoE does not allow you do - so to say it's far superior is a a bit of stretch).

 

  In any case, I was responding to a post that said that preparing for a battle is the same as metagaming. My point was that if you have stealth (as you do in both the IE games and PoE) then you are not metagaming, you are using knowledge that you gained by scouting to get ready for the battle. 

You should read my earlier post. You couldn't use stealth to scout in the IE games on a consistent basis because dungeons were filled with traps, and you couldn't detect them while being stealthed. Therefore, stealthing through a dungeon did effectively require meta-game knowledge. Not only does PoE fix this issue, but you can stealth through with the entire party.

 

 

 You could use it without metagaming if you understood how it worked. When you are stealthed, you hear a sound that indicates that you are breaking stealth. You can: 1. detect traps (important that this is first) 2.  Enter stealth and move forward - there are no traps close to you because you've already looked in step 1). 3. Detect traps while stealthed - you will break stealth but not immediately. 4. Repeat from step 2

 

Try it, it works. It's certainly easier to use the mage spell, but you can use stealth if you don't have a mage in your party.

 

 

 The IE games had a second level mage spell that you could cast on your thief that also solved that same problem. It lasted for 12 hours and disarming traps didn't break invisibility.

Call me crazy, but I don't think thieves should need the help of another class to be useful at the one thing they're supposed to be good at: thieving (considering they weren't all that great in combat).

 

 You're not crazy. You just don't know how to use stealth in the IE games. See above. 

 

 

..

You're misinterpreting what I posted - deliberately, I have to assume, since it's fairly obvious what I mean. Once you were stealthed in the IE games, you could walk up right to an enemy and remain stealthed. 

 

 Here is exactly what you said:

 

 

It's not the 'turn invisible (even right in front of an enemy)'

 

 

 

 

 Perhaps you meant to say: "turn invisible (out of sight of the enemy) and stay that way (even right in front of the enemy)" but what you said is what I quoted. If you meant the latter, fine, but it isn't obvious, at all, from that quote. I (and, I'm sure, many other people) might have misunderstood you, but nobody is misrepresenting anything.

 

 

 

You were effectively invisible. The enemy could detect you if your skill was too low, but that depended on a dice roll, not on the fact that you were standing right in front of them. You can't do this in PoE. You have to move around the enemy carefully and anticipate their movement and react to it. You're free to prefer the former, but the latter strikes me as a better game mechanic.

 

 Neither system is a realistic simulation of sneaking up on someone, but sure, the PoE system is interesting and it gives you a new stealth minigame.

 

 The IE games stealth gave you a hit and fade minigame. Not everyone liked backstabbing as a mechanic (I didn't use it that often), but for some people, it's a major element of the IE games, so to them, the PoE stealth system won't be a clear win as it is for you.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Different power levels througout the game is what makes the IE games fun. Warrior classes were stronger at low to mid levels, while mages were the strongest at higher levels. Doesn't mean any of them were useless at any point of time, or that you would want a party of 6 "overpowered" mages.

 

I agree with this generally, but I think there are exceptions.  I think it's important for your main character (in a game like BG/BG2 and PoE) to feel solid from beginning to end.  The games are built around parties, but people pretty much always want their MC to feel strong.  In BG1, magic users were extremely weak at low levels -- especially before adding party members -- and it was frustrating for a lot of people.  Before kits, I'd say that pure thieves and bards felt pretty bad most of the time in in BG, especially with another thief (albeit multiclassed) in the party very early on.

 

I am not really concerned about things like a 20% power/efficiency difference between classes, more with players picking a class, getting 5 minutes in or 50 hours in and thinking, "This sucks."  Perfect balance is not required to solve this problem, but we do have to pay attention to balance in broad strokes.

[Lephys]

I am not sure if the comment about per rest spells being on reserve is really all that important. People play as they like to. Some of us use that the resource often and some of us don't. Finally, it's a tactical choice everyone makes. There always have been extreme players who tend to minimize their resource consumption. It would be a folly to base the gameplay after their behavior.

You don't seem to realize, though, that people's gameplay behavior isn't just 100% preference. Just like people's existing mentality affects how they play a game, how they're allowed to play the game affects their mentality.

 

Lots of people won't go buy a bunch of cookies. Yet, if you give them free cookies, they're going to eat some. It's not as simple as "everyone either never buys or eats cookies, or freely buys and eats cookies, no matter what."

 

Another thing, regarding the "Hey Josh, listen to us more" sentiments and all, is that this is an iterative process. Just because something's too this or too that in the current beta build doesn't mean Josh and crew think that it's the perfect amount. And just because they're not posting on the forums doesn't mean they're not toiling diligently, every single day, on things.

 

90% of their work doesn't involve sitting around tossing design ideas and tweaks around. That's only part of it. They have to get to a point where they can actually tweak things, first, and they've got a lot on their plate.

 

You don't have to believe they're going to make the perfect game just because you cut them some slack. You can be understanding and still complain about things simultaneously.

 

They're just humans, like the rest of us.

[Captain Shrek]

Post likes these why I want a blocking feature. 

[Seari]

My settings>ignore preferences

[Quetzalcoatl]

 

 

 

 

Also, in doing away with pre-battle metagaming tactics, PoE also does away with many of the strategies that one could employ in the IE games using stealth to pre-scout an encounter. That isn't metagaming at all - it is making use of stealth to be better prepared. It made the IE games more interesting.

You realize this game has a stealth system as well, one that is far superior to that of the IE games?

 

 

 Yes,  I have been playing the beta and using the stealth system. (And, I agree that in some ways it's better but, if you recall, stealth and invisibility allowed you do  things in the IE games that the stealth system in PoE does not allow you do - so to say it's far superior is a a bit of stretch).

 

  In any case, I was responding to a post that said that preparing for a battle is the same as metagaming. My point was that if you have stealth (as you do in both the IE games and PoE) then you are not metagaming, you are using knowledge that you gained by scouting to get ready for the battle. 

You should read my earlier post. You couldn't use stealth to scout in the IE games on a consistent basis because dungeons were filled with traps, and you couldn't detect them while being stealthed. Therefore, stealthing through a dungeon did effectively require meta-game knowledge. Not only does PoE fix this issue, but you can stealth through with the entire party.

 

 

 You could use it without metagaming if you understood how it worked. When you are stealthed, you hear a sound that indicates that you are breaking stealth. You can: 1. detect traps (important that this is first) 2.  Enter stealth and move forward - there are no traps close to you because you've already looked in step 1). 3. Detect traps while stealthed - you will break stealth but not immediately. 4. Repeat from step 2

 

Try it, it works. It's certainly easier to use the mage spell, but you can use stealth if you don't have a mage in your party.

I have no idea what you're really describing, but it sounds extremely tedious and it also sounds like it relies on abusing a glitch or technical oddity (stealth not breaking immediately). Why would I want to subject myself to that when PoE offers a very simple and sensible solution?

 

Besides, your scenario ignores one very obvious fact - what if there are enemies around?

 

And if detecting traps while stealthed was indeed possible, then quite a few people apparently missed the memo: http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/17951/detect-traps-hide-in-shadows

Edited November 19, 2014 by Quetzalcoatl

[archangel979]

 

Different power levels througout the game is what makes the IE games fun. Warrior classes were stronger at low to mid levels, while mages were the strongest at higher levels. Doesn't mean any of them were useless at any point of time, or that you would want a party of 6 "overpowered" mages.

 

I agree with this generally, but I think there are exceptions.  I think it's important for your main character (in a game like BG/BG2 and PoE) to feel solid from beginning to end.  The games are built around parties, but people pretty much always want their MC to feel strong.  In BG1, magic users were extremely weak at low levels -- especially before adding party members -- and it was frustrating for a lot of people.  Before kits, I'd say that pure thieves and bards felt pretty bad most of the time in in BG, especially with another thief (albeit multiclassed) in the party very early on.

 

I am not really concerned about things like a 20% power/efficiency difference between classes, more with players picking a class, getting 5 minutes in or 50 hours in and thinking, "This sucks."  Perfect balance is not required to solve this problem, but we do have to pay attention to balance in broad strokes.

 

From what I read PoE will not let people play just with MC and let party member do their thing (like khm some other recently released game does). That would mean players will play with all character as a party RPG should be played and they will get attached to them all. I feel you are overestimating the importance of MC in a team RPG. 

Yes for story purposes MC should get all the cool toys, but I would urge you to balance the game around the balanced party and let those players that want something special (to be special snowflakes) figure out themselves how to accomplish this. This is how IE games worked, they counted on you to have a proper party and then players on second play through or third experimented with different classes that might not have been balanced well against each other but worked very well together.  

[Yonjuro]

 

 

 

You could use it without metagaming if you understood how it worked. When you are stealthed, you hear a sound that indicates that you are breaking stealth. You can: 1. detect traps (important that this is first) 2.  Enter stealth and move forward - there are no traps close to you because you've already looked in step 1). 3. Detect traps while stealthed - you will break stealth but not immediately. 4. Repeat from step 2

Try it, it works. It's certainly easier to use the mage spell, but you can use stealth if you don't have a mage in your party.

I have no idea what you're really describing, but it sounds extremely tedious and it also sounds like it relies on abusing a glitch or technical oddity (stealth not breaking immediately). 

 

 Err, I'm really describing exactly how you can use stealth in the IE games to detect traps and, as far I know, that's how it was intended to work. Note that if you use invisibility to detect traps in BG you can't just walk at full speed or you will trigger some of the traps.

 

Why would I want to subject myself to that when PoE offers a very simple and sensible solution?

 

 I'm just telling you how the BG system worked. I'm not suggesting that you should like it better than the PoE system. (Unless BG style backstabbing is important to you. In that case, you would clearly like the BG system better.)

 

 

Besides, your scenario ignores one very obvious fact - what if there are enemies around?

 

 No, it doesn't ignore anything. I have completed the game using the technique that I posted. It works.

 

 You are using stealth to avoid being seen and detecting traps. If there are enemies around, you may need to stop detecting traps and fight the enemies (limiting your movements to the places where you have already disarmed the traps; so, e.g., backstabbing might be out of the question).

 

And if detecting traps while stealthed was indeed possible, then quite a few people apparently missed the memo: http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/17951/detect-traps-hide-in-shadows

 

  Yup. BG is complex. A lot of people missed a lot of things about it.  

[Scottfree6000]

In BG the schools of spells added some depth the to wizard and It maybe have been the reason was overpower

 

Spells like Mordenkainen's Sword may sound mundane but when you are in a room full mindflayers is critical 

 

Summoning Spells being limited in the wizard spells rosters I get   sometime spamming fodder is the quick strategic solution hard fights

(and chanter seems to be have satisfying summons in it's roster)

 

What happen to my some illusion spells like invisibility and the divination spell clairvoyance, far sight, some detection spells and my favorite true seeing 

(and even if these aren't suit for the wizard, the cipher as op as it is can use stealth and strategic)

 

some spells that aren't even meant for combat but dungeoneering spells like knock and find traps  

 

 

Although, these spells weren't OP as greater malison and death spell, they offer way to approach a situation with wizard both in party and solo

 

Anyway I love how the game looked and keeping up great job polishing the game thx   obsidian  

[IRMA]

 

 

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.

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.

Nice, but this is successor to IE and that means roleplaying no matter what does the CoD generation do with games.

[IRMA]

Just listen to yourselves , how can you possibly expect Obsidan to take you seriously. You are upset because you can't make an all powerful god like character. Balance in this game is probably important to a lot of people. Obsidan is a business and they have to make sure that the game has a wider appeal than a couple of hardcore gamers hanging around a forum. The bottom line , is that the people posting here - including me, do not speak for the majority of players. It's critical that Obsidan (and other companies) understand this, and make a game that will sell. So yeah, they are not likely to jump every time a few loud people cry.

The single player rpg's task is to be fun for all classes. This does not in any way interfere with more powerful class being mages at all, because people like different play strategies and not automatically the most powerful class in the game and thats it. And who said mage is the only class that is able to become godlike? Or that there arent any combinations on IE better that mage?

You listen to yourself ffs.

 

AND, in bg2 thieves could use scrolls as well and that is where the fun starts for me

[Mr. Magniloquent]

First off, thank you for visiting my thread. I'm glad that you have been reading it, regardless of what has become of it.

 

Casting times have been adjusted downward for all standard casts (from 3 seconds to 2 seconds).  You should see this in the next Backer Beta update (I don't think it's in the version you have).  I do think that the traditional caster classes (wizard, priest, druid) do need more casts per rest.  I also certainly agree that we need to find a better balance between the number of per rest uses and the power of individual spells.  Most spells take longer to cast and recover from than weapon-based attacks, and they're linked to a per rest resources, so they should have some kick to them.

 

I'm surprised that you're giving most every spell a uniform casting time. With the weapon system design you have, wouldn't it be more more consistent to have spells with graduated casting times? In that way, casting duration and recovery would be proportionate to the power/level of a spell.

 

I do not think we need to move to a point based system for wizards.....

 

I didn't expect that suggestion to be well received, but it felt more consistent with the lore of the grimiore. I like the other options it opens up, but I imagine this treads too much on Cipher stylization to be considered.

 

.....and I don't think that wizards need to be able to do everything.  What they do does need to be expansive IMO, with many potential good spells to choose from, and those spells should feel appropriately powerful for the limited per rest use the wizards get out of them (and the time they take to cast).

 

Emphasis mine. This is something that I just plainly do not understand. Especially before the skill system was changed, every class could do nearly everything anyway. Stealth, detect secrets/traps, disable traps, craft, overcome athletic/lore/survival challenges, succeed any dialogue check, wear any armor, use any weapon, etc. Every class already has/had the ability to do everything, more or less. How does restricting spell lists prevent any of that?

 

What they do does need to be expansive IMO, with many potential good spells to choose from.....

 

This is probably the most severe complaint about the wizard class. The spell selection does not feel diverse or interesting. Fracturing spell selection across three classes may press them into a very specific roles, but it has worked against this class. Balance issues exacerbate it, but the poor spell selection is truly part of the problem. I think this could be critically alleviated by merging the Chanter invocations, Cipher abilities, and wizard spells into one pool. The classes would still be unmistakable differentiated by their resource mechanics.

 

......and those spells should feel appropriately powerful for the limited per rest use the wizards get out of them (and the time they take to cast).

 

Balance will do much for this class, but it is inevitably secondary to the point above. The other thing is that wizard class is severely hindered by their friendly fire. Even if damage and durations were to be "ideally" balanced, the wizard class would still be a very impinged by their inability to freely target. Contrast to the druid who has roughly 13:14 Foe Only:Friend & Foe areas of effect. The friendly-fire aspect is all the more punitive with PoE's combat that quickly become a scrum, and where engagement severely inhibits arranging your forces in such a way to where the wizard spell will do more good than harm.

 

I don't have anger toward anyone on these forums, but it does bother me that people think I'm trying to sabotage their favorite class, class feature, game feature, etc.  It is not possible for us to make everyone's vision of this game come true.  It's not even possible for us to make everyone's vision of an individual class, race, etc. come true.  When I make decisions about how to balance parts of the game, it's based on the feedback that people give me and how I observe them playing the game (and previous games I've worked on).  I don't place value judgments on how a person plays a game (at least I don't think I do!).  If you want to play the game solo, or with all wizards, or murdering everyone, that's all fine.  It's still my responsibility to make sure that all of these options maintain a good level of player engagement and enjoyment across the spectrum.  Balancing and tuning is an ongoing process, but that's what I'm trying to do.

 

Emphasis mine. Is that response surprising? The magic/spell selection in the IE games was a massive part of what made them what they were and are. Aside from the narrative and general glorious adventure, it's perhaps the most iconic part of the greatest success among the IE games, Baldur's Gate 2. Where gaming really changed after it was the word you use frequently within this quote: "balance".

 

That word is the poison which has largely afflicted cRPGs since 2002 second only to the epithet: "streamlined". Both the individual spell design and the ability to access them all made the IE games have a spell system greater than the sum of their parts because it allowed the player input to utilize them beyond intended or imagined use. This is a major legacy of the IE games. The spell casting in PoE does not appear so much balanced between classes as it does fragmented. This is a stark contrast, and gives the wizard class in particular an unsatisfying and contrived feeling. Is it not worth considering that perhaps the class limitations through spell selection are simply not desirable means or ends?

[Shevek]

I'm surprised that you're giving most every spell a uniform casting time. With the weapon system design you have, wouldn't it be more more consistent to have spells with graduated casting times? In that way, casting duration and recovery would be proportionate to the power/level of a spell.

I strongly second this.