Saving the Wizard Class

[Stun]

I dont see anything in companions and exploration that implies any game mechanics will be carried over... Just that there will be interesting companions and lots of stuff to explore. I think they name dropped these games because they are immersive, party-based crpgs that PoE has been done in the spirit of. I'll preface the rest of this with a warning so that too many don't gank me here, I've played BG (not IWD) and liked it, it didn't blow my mind or anything. I dont see a reason why the devs should bend over backward to recreate a game that has already been made, with different lore. Lemmy Kilmister once said one of his biggest influences was Jimi Hendrix... That doesn't mean their songs need to sound exactly the same.

 

This isn't me slamming the pro-BG-style magic system, but I guess I just dont understand the specific complaint (that the system isn't enough like BG's). Presumably you already own BG, dont you want to play something a little different, or if not, why not just play BG again? I get that wizards need work but maybe they just won't be that big a deal in this game and other stuff will be. I dunno, I just dont get the rage. I feel like since Wizards are definitely not going that way, this argument works contrary to getting the PoE wizard class fixed.

Well, sure.

 

I didn't mean to imply that we should get a carbon copy of Baldurs Gate. But there are specific things that are givens. For example, there's a huge difference between, say, the Dragon Age games and the IE games, even though both of them have memorable companions and party-based gameplay.

 

One of those things is combat - specifically, the spell system. I won't be a complete idiot and claim that PoE's current spell system feels like a spiritual successor to DA:O's. But, I also can't honestly say that it feels influenced by the IE games either. It's different (and it SHOULD be different) but the problem is that it's TOO different. It's missing the "spirit" and "soul" of magic that made the IE games so friggin awesome.

 

A 5th level sleep spell with a 10 second duration is an example of what I mean. in the IE games, a friggin sword that puts people to sleep for 10 seconds upon a successful hit would be considered underpowered vendor trash about halfway through the game. But in PoE, that spell is reserved for 9th or 10 level mages to cast once or twice a day. It pretty much constitutes the best their spell casting has to offer.

 

Where is Magic's *impact*? Where is that moment when we can nod our heads and say: "Yep. My mage's spells are more dynamic and more powerful than my fighter's Axe". Or: "Oh yeah, my rogue may be the "DPS king", but my Wizard can make all the enemies on the battlefield kill each other while he sits back and watches the show."

Edited December 29, 2014 by Stun

[morrow1nd]

 

One of those things is combat - specifically, the spell system. I won't be a complete idiot and claim that PoE's current spell system feels like a spiritual successor to DA:O's. BUT, I also can't honestly say that it feels influenced by the IE games either. It's different (and it SHOULD be different) but the problem is that it's TOO different. It's missing the "spirit" and "soul" of magic that made the IE games so friggin awesome.

 

A 5th level sleep spell with a 10 second duration is an example of what I mean. in the IE games, a friggin sword that puts people to sleep for 10 seconds upon a successful hit would be considered underpowered vendor trash about halfway through the game But in PoE, that spell is reserved for 9th or 10 level mages to cast once or twice a day.

 

 

 

 

Where is Magic's *impact*? 

 

Has to be quoted.. Well said man..

 

And i'd like to add Magic is a finite source of asset, you can cast it only few times per rest. In a game with no rest spam,  damage of spells should be on par with ''impact'' because you have a casting time and have to choose the exact spell that party needs in the right time and at right place.. (hurray friendly fire!)

Edited December 29, 2014 by morrow1nd

[Killyox]

@morrow1nd, can you type with standard colour and font size instead of switching it every single post? It's annoying. Imagine if everybode types like that. Chaos.

 

OR do you like this more

 

@morrow1nd, can you type with standard colour and font size instead of switching it every single post? It's annoying. Imagine if everybode types like that. Chaos.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Killyox

[Longknife]

Accordingly to both Old Mebbeth and Quell, a Spellbook's appearance is important after all, a ruthless wizard cannot go around with a Hello Kitty spellbook, can he?

 

 

You take that back, sir!

 

My muscle Wizard, Bolt VanderHuge, is feared across the lands for being able to slaughter hordes of beetles and spiders at a time with his Hello Kitty spellbook.

[Killyox]

Because there seem  to be no schools, magic feels limited. I myself always went for illusions, summoning, mind tricks, debilitating effects and necromancy. To me magic that is just about a lot of damage is too simply, boring and imagical.

 

Cipher thus far looks far more interesting than wizard as does druid.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Killyox

[archangel979]

I think we should stop QQ'in about wizards now.

 

392 bb seems to be on the good way for caster classes.

 

I dont know whats happens to me after reading the sensible comments of Nakia...

We are talking about wizards here, not caster classes. Beta members don't have as much problems with other casters.

[PrimeJunta]

Yeh, the wizard is still a little dull. Not as dull as originally, but they could seriously use a broader range of different types of spells. I wouldn't bring schools into it though.

[Nakia]

The soul is extremely important in PoE.  Wizards draw upon the power of their souls to create magic. As I understand it magic cannot be taught it must be given birth through various disciplines undergone by the individual.  I find this interesting and novel a change from what other games have done.  My current BB wizard is very powerful and dealing a great deal of damage.

[archangel979]

The soul is extremely important in PoE.  Wizards draw upon the power of their souls to create magic. As I understand it magic cannot be taught it must be given birth through various disciplines undergone by the individual.  I find this interesting and novel a change from what other games have done.  My current BB wizard is very powerful and dealing a great deal of damage.

But can he do anything else interesting except dealing good damage? Every martial character deals damage, why must wizard also do the same?

 

In IE games, my fighters and archers did most damage, wizards disabled enemies and improved chances for fighters and archers to deal more damage. Those wizards were much more interesting.

[Nakia]

 

The soul is extremely important in PoE.  Wizards draw upon the power of their souls to create magic. As I understand it magic cannot be taught it must be given birth through various disciplines undergone by the individual.  I find this interesting and novel a change from what other games have done.  My current BB wizard is very powerful and dealing a great deal of damage.

But can he do anything else interesting except dealing good damage? Every martial character deals damage, why must wizard also do the same?

 

In IE games, my fighters and archers did most damage, wizards disabled enemies and improved chances for fighters and archers to deal more damage. Those wizards were much more interesting.

 

Depends on your view point.  I am finding this wizard much more interesting.

[Luckmann]

 

The soul is extremely important in PoE.  Wizards draw upon the power of their souls to create magic. As I understand it magic cannot be taught it must be given birth through various disciplines undergone by the individual.  I find this interesting and novel a change from what other games have done.  My current BB wizard is very powerful and dealing a great deal of damage.

But can he do anything else interesting except dealing good damage? Every martial character deals damage, why must wizard also do the same?

 

In IE games, my fighters and archers did most damage, wizards disabled enemies and improved chances for fighters and archers to deal more damage. Those wizards were much more interesting.

 

 

From a min-max standpoint, wizards were probably - objectively speaking - the most powerful in the old IE games, but when it came to just all-out ravaging everything around me, nothing will ever come close to the complete and utter rapefest that was the time I played with two protagonists (using Multiplayer); both elves, one Kensai, one Archer, Longswords and Longbows.

 

The archer could easily dish out 9¾ Attacks/Round, by the time we met the Tethyrian army in ToB, these two could easily mow through them all without breaking a sweat.

 

It was glorious.

[archangel979]

 

 

The soul is extremely important in PoE.  Wizards draw upon the power of their souls to create magic. As I understand it magic cannot be taught it must be given birth through various disciplines undergone by the individual.  I find this interesting and novel a change from what other games have done.  My current BB wizard is very powerful and dealing a great deal of damage.

But can he do anything else interesting except dealing good damage? Every martial character deals damage, why must wizard also do the same?

 

In IE games, my fighters and archers did most damage, wizards disabled enemies and improved chances for fighters and archers to deal more damage. Those wizards were much more interesting.

 

Depends on your view point.  I am finding this wizard much more interesting.

 

95% of games have PoE's boring wizards. Only IE games had different ones (and other D&D games). The whole point of PoE was to bring us back what we waited for years, not make wizard be like in any other crappy game that came out in last 10 years. You have plenty of such games to play if you enjoy that, I got nothing except replaying IE games over and over. Edited December 31, 2014 by archangel979

[dr membrano]

I agree that the wizards could use some change. My take is that they're somewhat limited. They have a few targeted damage spells and a couple multi-target spells. While I feel as though the damage and speed are appropriate, it also feels like the spells are really specific, even as to be named after a specific person. I understand that the devs were trying to get away from generic "fireball", "shock", "harm" spells, and that's cool, but at the same time the spells are for use in combat, against enemies, and there's a certain level of energy efficiency required on the wizard's part. 

 

I think that in order to achieve the desired effect with these wizards there should just be more spells. So long as there's a stark choice between choosing to learn "deal 15 damage" and "raise allies PE 15%" rather than choosing which to use first. Obviously I've only seen a few of the spells so maybe it opens up more later on.

[Lord Wafflebum]

I'm still having a hard time finding it enjoyable to even have a wizard in the party. I murder my BB Wizard outright and get myself a chanter and cipher, who each individually I find much more useful than the wizard in any encounter in the beta.

 

I mostly consider having a wizard in the party as a liability. They're weak, slow and their spells tend to do as much harm to me as the enemy. By the time that dummy of a wizard casts a fireball the enemy in the AoE is already dead and I've wasted a spell or the only creatures in that AoE are my party members moving to their next targets.

[PrimeJunta]

BB Wizard's spell selection is suboptimal, and the ones he has in his grimoire are even... more suboptimal.

 

My playthrough with two wizards in the party firing combos was fairly devastating. Stop them with Slicken or Web, then nuke them with AoE's. A wizard+druid combo works really well too, as they have debuffs which complement each other's attack spells. It's not as interesting as it could be, but it's certainly not weak, slow, or useless.

[nipsen]

So basically: Buff/debuff spells that have no target, and ignore friendly fire good. Potentially devastating spells that have to be aimed or protected against - bad.

 

Even though as it is a mage doesn't start with all available spells, is limited to low-level spells. And you could actually see some existing spells in the dropped spellbooks at the two opposite edges of dyrwood a while back. And even though you can both build a wizard to be quick and light, and still resilient against certain attacks for a short amount of time (such as until a massive spell goes off) - and build front-line fighters with high relfex saves to minimize fireball crash. Or for example build some with high fortitude, to save against necromancy and poison spells, etc.

 

But we don't really care about that, we care about having more buttons to click again, don't we.

 

No, hold on. Actually, I think the high point earlier in the thread was where someone insisted that the mages in the older IE games were more dynamic and fun to play than the mage in PoE. And that this was actually Josh' intention, because he hates mages. Because obviously in the IE games, fireballs didn't cause friendly fire! And you always felt powerful and awesome! And stuff!

 

Seriously, where do you guys come from? How do you end up with viewpoints like this? How in the world do you feel they are so obviously correct that you seem to think they will never be contradicted by anyone? I mean, I'm saying this in some kind of surprise - but I've met Magic The Gathering folks who secretly think of themselves as a real wizard, and essentially think in tapping lands and playing spells whenever they do everyday things - who still weren't as impossible to discuss things with as some of the people who post here.

 

I mean.. how? I'm genuinely curious about where these things come from - and I'd love to hear any of you take a stab at actually explaining it.

[Stun]

Or for example build some with high fortitude, to save against necromancy and poison spells, etc.

There ARE no Necromancy or Poison spells. Not for Wizards.

 

And that's the first problem - Which was mentioned earlier on this thread - which you mocked: the overly limited, 2 dimensional nature of the Wizard spell choice list. There's also no Summoning spells for wizards. There's no Misdirection spells (Dimension door, shadow door, teleport field etc). There's no Save or Die spells. There's no Charm spells, or dire charm spells, or confusion spells, or chaos spells. There's no invisibility or Improved invisibility spells. There's no ESP-ish spells (wizard eye, clairvoyance, farsight, detect X etc.) Even PoE's attempts to duplicate the effects of the most basic of low level wizard Necromancy spells (the touch spells. ie. Ghoul touch, Vampiric Touch) ended up being unimaginatively generic elemental-based damage spells....just like every other damage spell in PoE.

 

 

 

As to your greater point: I asked this earlier on this thread, but didn't get an answer because I was preaching to the choir. But now we've got someone who disagrees (you), so maybe you can answer it: What happened to the *magic* behind magic? Do you remember the IE games? Do you remember when wizard spells used to have their own system and didn't, for example, have to adhere to the hit-miss-graze-crit table that governs a warrior's sword swing? Yeah, so do I. That's where *MY* viewpoint comes from.

 

Magic should be balanced against *itself*, not against a fighter's weapon, or a Monk's fists, or even a priest's prayers. THAT is what separates Josh Sawyer's philosophy from mine. He vehemently contends that the best system is one where all classes possess the same level of power. Consequently, this means that Wizard spells are going to end up feeling weaker and more limited in scope than they were in the IE games. And I say, Screw That. There's nothing more dull than a level playing field.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Stun

[nipsen]

Well, I would agree with you if the game turned up as it is now. And that in the IE games, having a wizard "balanced" against a fighter would be incredibly boring. Have no problem seeing that.

 

The ruleset we saw before that, though.... it's a bit different. Instead of having a fighter simply being a person not being graced with magical ability, all creatures in PoE have soul magic. They just have different ways of applying it to the world. So a wizard would have a set of specializations, a fighter would have a different one. And in my opinion, the way it was implemented with per-day casts of "unbalanced" spells, and per-engagement casts of abilities, targeting obeying the rest of the (now unknown) rules, etc., actually worked. Unlike now, when the hit/miss calculations seem very arbitrary and pointless for magic, I fully agree with that.

 

But it worked in the original version, because the characters were specialized so heavily, and had very particular weaknesses and strengths. That a creative set of players in a pnp game, or a clever player in the computer game version, would be able to exploit. In the process making both magic and weapons extremely powerful in certain situations, if you played into the specialization. And through that avoiding the problem where you essentially have a wizard that's simply a weak character for a bunch of levels -- before magic rules everything.

 

It's something I dislike with pnp games, and try to work around when being gm. But yes, I can see the point of view that you might want the wizard to be a ridiculously powerful character when it levels up. That magic should be the end-all in a universe where magic exists. And yet - wouldn't it be more satisfying to not end up with simply a specific ability shaping the entire game once it unlocks? You know, that is the beauty of that original ruleset. Where you specialize characters until they become very powerful - but where they develop severe weaknesses (or perhaps in some respect disabilities) along with it. This allows someone to really design their character and role-play it, without having to be hampered by cheesy leveling compensations.

 

In fact, I think it would make the character feel more powerful, when they don't have to face artificial and arbitrary GM-introduced difficulties to have a challenge. And the entire party would still be useful, right.. That's how that really works.

 

But yeah, I understand where that particular idea comes from better now, about wizards making more sense if they can cast insanely powerful magic. That it would make more sense if magic was simply not part of the character ability and class system as it is in the game now.

 

(Btw - a few leech and weakness spells for the wizard really were in the game earlier...)

[prodigydancer]

I am finding this wizard much more interesting.

Good for you. "Boredom is fun" is exactly the kind of attitude you need to appreciate J.E.Sawyer's games.

 

/sigh

 

I think good old times are gone for good. It's time to stop dreaming about the triumphant return of IE and embrace the contemporary value system where the appeal of an arcane caster class in a CRPG is measured solely by the said class DPS potential.

Edited January 2, 2015 by prodigydancer

[PrimeJunta]

I think good old times are gone for good. It's time to stop dreaming about the triumphant return of IE and embrace the contemporary value system where the appeal of an arcane caster class in a CRPG is measured solely by the said class DPS potential.

That is unfair. The chanter and cipher are both cool new takes on arcane casting, and their coolness has nothing to do with their DPS potential.

 

The wizard is duller than it should be, but the reason isn't some "value system" you're attributing to J.E. Sawyer.

[prodigydancer]

The chanter and cipher are both cool new takes on arcane casting, and their coolness has nothing to do with their DPS potential.

And I thought we were discussing wizards here...

 

The wizard is duller than it should be, but the reason isn't some "value system" you're attributing to J.E. Sawyer.

Read my post. I'm not attributing it to Sawyer, I'm attributing it to people who say that PoE wizard is "more interesting" than IE (AD&D) wizard. But I do wonder what Josh's honest take on the matter is. Does he himself believe he did well?

 

---

 

My point is there's no reason to include Wizard just because Fireball is a staple of the genre. Nobody wants to play a dull class. D&D has eight magic schools. Eight. And Evocation is hardly the most interesting to play with.

Edited January 2, 2015 by prodigydancer

[Sarex]

Read my post. I'm not attributing it to Sawyer, I'm attributing it to people who say that PoE wizard is "more interesting" than IE (AD&D) wizard. But I do wonder what Josh's honest take on the matter is. Does he himself believe he did well?

 

As far as I remember he said something that boils downs to "wizards are good they only need tweaking".

[Stun]

^he also said a couple of other things (on this very thread, in fact) that concern me:

 

1)Wizards received the most skills/abilities of any class

-this one goes without saying. They have a spell book. Fighters and rogues don't. But this comment is utterly pointless/meaningless to anyone except a) another developer; and b) legions of modern gamers who are used to modern games where mages are only called mages because their "feats" happen to BE their spells (see: Dragon age!)

 

2)They did not have the time or resources to make a more robust spell list

-This one I totally understand and even respect. It's a straight forward, honest explanation.

 

 

But these two only beg the Obvious question: How the hell did Josh and Black Isle manage to develop Icewind Dale 2 in 10 months? you know, IWD2, the game with all the spells that are missing from PoE (edit: from 1st to 9th level in fact), plus the massive, (and separate) Feat and skill system for all the classes, plus the inclusion of the additional classes, and the whole multiclassing element, etc.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Stun

[View619]

But these two only beg the Obvious question: If #1 and #2 are true, then How the hell did Josh and Black Isle manage to develop Icewind Dale 2 in 10 months? you know, IWD2, the game with all the spells that are missing from PoE, plus the massive Feat and skill system for all the classes, plus the inclusion of the additional classes, and the whole multiclassing element, etc.

 

Lower standards from the main stream players means less effort?

[Malekith]

Stun, on 03 Jan 2015 - 02:22 AM, said:

2)They did not have the time or resources to make a more robust spell list

-This one I totally understand and even respect. It's a straight forward, honest explanation.

 

 

But these two only beg the Obvious question: How the hell did Josh and Black Isle manage to develop Icewind Dale 2 in 10 months? you know, IWD2, the game with all the spells that are missing from PoE (edit: from 1st to 9th level in fact), plus the massive, (and separate) Feat and skill system for all the classes, plus the inclusion of the additional classes, and the whole multiclassing element, etc.

yes and no. While i accept the explaination, not only on spell list but in many other issues of the game, the fault still lies with the devs. Josh should had focused more in the magic system and design it in a completely different way (more close to BG2) from the start. Same thing with engagment and other things.

When some of us didn't like many of Sawyer's ideas from the start, he replied that while many people react negative to some ideas on paper, actualy playing the game will change their opinion. Ok, i accept that.

After the start of the beta, while many didn't like these ideas even after playing them, the solution was to try and fix them through tweaking and balancing. Ok, logical move.

Now, three months after the start of the beta, while the problems still exist for many people, the line is that at this point the game is too far away in production to radicaly change things. Understandable, but that doesn't excuse anything.

 

If you imply that the only reason you don't change something is that you have no more money and time to change it, is as if you admit that it is faulty. And then it's your fault for not realizing your design was wrong until it was too late to change it.

So, budget  doesn't excuse anything design wise. Sawyer could have followed BG2 design to the letter, and it would actualy saved them money to just copy AD&D as close as he was legaly capable, thing that would have silenced all his recent detractors. The downside to that would be that he would aslo had copied the things that he and some others didn't liked in the IE games, so there would still be complains about his copying the past.

He chose to "improve" the IE gameplay instead of copy it (good along with bad), so he must roll with it.

Either he will succeed on making good gameplay or he won't. But i won't accept "we couldn't make good gameplay because we hadn't the time to change the ****ty parts" when they put the ****ty parts there in the first place.