Saving the Wizard Class

[Luckmann]

[...]

 

 

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.

 

Icewind Dale 2 is based on the Infinity Engine, and could pull on all the resources created previously. I don't think there's that many IWD 2 spells that weren't already in one of the earlier games, were there?

[prodigydancer]

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

...

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

Before we buy this excuse let's see some numbers.

 

PoE Wizard spells

67 total, 33 DPS. Non-DPS effects are mostly limited to CC, debuffs, self-buffs and self-protections.

 

BG Wizard spells

58 total (w/o TotSC), 15 DPS. Non-DPS effects include various party buffs (really various, e.g. non-detection), invisibility, summons and non-combat spells (Friends, Luck).

 

So what gives? They have more arcane spells than vanilla BG and yet there's less variety? How can this situation be justified? They didn't even try to be overly original - they simply copied half of IE spell list and padded it with bland DPS spells. Would it be so hard to add the other half then? Again, I'm not even talking fancy BG2 stuff like Find Familiar, Farsight or Polymorph Self. How about basics like PfE or Armor castable on anyone?

 

/sigh

Edited January 3, 2015 by prodigydancer

[Stun]

Icewind Dale 2 is based on the Infinity Engine, and could pull on all the resources created previously. I don't think there's that many IWD 2 spells that weren't already in one of the earlier games, were there?

I thought about that, but then I remembered the massive conversion to 3e that IWD2 had to make for every spell. Plus an entire skill and feat system that wasn't present in earlier IE games.

 

And...10. Months.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Stun

[Luckmann]

 

Icewind Dale 2 is based on the Infinity Engine, and could pull on all the resources created previously. I don't think there's that many IWD 2 spells that weren't already in one of the earlier games, were there?

I thought about that, but then I remembered the massive conversion to 3e that IWD2 had to make for every spell. Plus an entire skill and feat system that wasn't present in earlier IE games.

 

And...10. Months.

 

 

In-engine, was the conversion really that massive, though? Honest question, I don't have any of the games installed to check.

 

The skill and feats system was technically already in the game. It's pretty much built straight up around the Skills and Proficiencies, afaik.

[PrimeJunta]

As an aside, a report from just starting IWD: I now have a level 4 mage. Currently she has memorized two Identifys, Web, and Melf's Acid Arrow. That's pretty boring even compared to what BB Wizard can do.

 

I.e. I get the feeling that low-level P:E wizards are actually more fun than low-level AD&D mages. The "dullness" starts to bite around the time the AD&D wizard would start to shine, which would be towards the middle/end of the BB. And there, there really is a problem methinks.

[prodigydancer]

As an aside, a report from just starting IWD: I now have a level 4 mage. Currently she has memorized two Identifys, Web, and Melf's Acid Arrow. That's pretty boring even compared to what BB Wizard can do.

Are you complaining about spell selection or spells per day? I don't remember IWD that well (it's been a long time) but neither was such a big issue in BG. You could easily buy spells from Thalantyr in High Hedge and rolling a specialist mage (why not?) gave you a decent amount of spell slots. And of course there was an easily accessible Ring of Wizardry - pretty big deal at low levels but some people would say that using it amounted to cheating.

[Luckmann]

 

As an aside, a report from just starting IWD: I now have a level 4 mage. Currently she has memorized two Identifys, Web, and Melf's Acid Arrow. That's pretty boring even compared to what BB Wizard can do.

Are you complaining about spell selection or spells per day? I don't remember IWD that well (it's been a long time) but neither was such a big issue in BG. You could easily buy spells from Thalantyr in High Hedge and rolling a specialist mage (why not?) gave you a decent amount of spell slots. And of course there was an easily accessible Ring of Wizardry - pretty big deal at low levels but some people would say that using it amounted to cheating.

 

 

Well strictly speaking, it's not about Spell Selection or Spells Per Day, it's about what a Wizard can do at any one time. I don't think his objective was to complain, but rather to highlight the important differences.

[Dark_Ansem]

If spell recharge was implemented, it would make the overall experience more enjoyable.

[Stun]

^You mean, like cooldowns? Ugh. No. Kill it with fire. Get thee away from here, ye modern gamer. Scourge of my gaming life. Cooldowns serve no purpose but to keep the action 'actiony'. True role players appreciate the planning and strategic use of their spells that the per-day system gives them.

 

Anyway:

As an aside, a report from just starting IWD: I now have a level 4 mage. Currently she has memorized two Identifys, Web, and Melf's Acid Arrow. That's pretty boring even compared to what BB Wizard can do.

 

I.e. I get the feeling that low-level P:E wizards are actually more fun than low-level AD&D mages. The "dullness" starts to bite around the time the AD&D wizard would start to shine, which would be towards the middle/end of the BB. And there, there really is a problem methinks.

True. It'd be silly to claim that mages were exiting to play from 1st-4th level in the IE games. The mere implementation of rods and scepters *alone* already insures that you'll get more meaningful gameplay out of your newborn mage in PoE than you got out of him in BG1 and IWD1.

 

Still, for people who place value in specific role-play themes in their character building, IWD still does it better early on. IWD gives low level mages the option to theme their spell choices. For example, if you wanted to create a necromancer build, The game instantly presents you with a meaningful choice of spells for such a build right at the outset. Thus your 4th level Necromancer can have a spell book filled with: Chill Touch, Larloch's Minor Drain, Ghoul touch and Horror. While an Evoker build would have magic missile, chromatic Orb, Burning hands, and Aghanazzar's Scorcher. etc. The end result is that your mages feel and play differently.

 

But that's purely a matter of taste, and kinda an off topic tangent. The bottom line is what you noted: Mages in the IE games are worthless at low levels and then party superstars later. And frankly, that's the way it *should* be. One who plays a mage should have to earn the right to be the most powerful guy in the room.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Stun

[Lord Wafflebum]

I heard cooldowns are how the devil gets into your heart.

[Sock]

But that's purely a matter of taste, and kinda an off topic tangent. The bottom line is what you noted: Mages in the IE games are worthless at low levels and then party superstars later. And frankly, that's the way it *should* be. One who plays a mage should have to earn the right to be the most powerful guy in the room.

 

 

Or, alternatively, mages can get off their high horse and take a step back and realize that they are just as valuable to a team as anyone else. 

 

It may be disappointing to not be the "strongest guy in the room" anymore, and instead they are sitting at the table as equals.

[archangel979]

Wizards were never worthless in my games at early levels. Sleep spell is the main reason. Horror and Web after that.

[Osvir]

From another thread:

If anything, it's a bit too easy. I just had three wizards basically cruising through beetles, spiders and the ogre, more or less just rotating spells I felt like casting. The priest and the fighter was pretty much inactive, while BB rogue cleaned up a few baddies when needed. 

Oooh! This reverbates some stuff I brought up (and I even made an expansive Class idea for it xD)

So, IndiraLightfoot, out of curiosity, is the strength of the "Wizard" Class in numbers? Is it more fun to play when you have 2-3 Wizards in your party? What was your experience like? Satisfying or did you ever feel that your 3 Wizards took too much space in your party, and were you bothered by it in any way?

[Mr. Magniloquent]

^You mean, like cooldowns? Ugh. No. Kill it with fire. Get thee away from here, ye modern gamer. Scourge of my gaming life. Cooldowns serve no purpose but to keep the action 'actiony'. True role players appreciate the planning and strategic use of their spells that the per-day system gives them.

 

Roleplaying is not why I typically prefer spells without cooldowns. Cooldowns typically ensure that a spell will be bland, flaccid, and without impact since it can be used again. It's one reason why I argue for "true" vancian casting. If you only get to cast a spell but once, it needs to matter. That's when magic gets to be magically, rather than MMO ranged DPS garbage.

 

As an aside, a report from just starting IWD: I now have a level 4 mage. Currently she has memorized two Identifys, Web, and Melf's Acid Arrow. That's pretty boring even compared to what BB Wizard can do.

 

I.e. I get the feeling that low-level P:E wizards are actually more fun than low-level AD&D mages. The "dullness" starts to bite around the time the AD&D wizard would start to shine, which would be towards the middle/end of the BB. And there, there really is a problem methinks.

True. It'd be silly to claim that mages were exiting to play from 1st-4th level in the IE games. The mere implementation of rods and scepters *alone* already insures that you'll get more meaningful gameplay out of your newborn mage in PoE than you got out of him in BG1 and IWD1.

 

Even levels are a bit nebulous in AD&D. Even still, a level 4 mage can blind, summon, charm, stun, sleep, turn invisible, detect invisibly, identify, scry, dispel, knockdown, and much more in addition to what a PoE wizard can do. I will take the AD&D wizard over PoE's fractured joke any day.

[Osvir]

Even levels are a bit nebulous in AD&D. Even still, a level 4 mage can blind, summon, charm, stun, sleep, turn invisible, detect invisibly, identify, scry, dispel, knockdown, and much more in addition to what a PoE wizard can do. I will take the AD&D wizard over PoE's fractured joke any day.

Here's some keywords:

- Kickstarter Budget

- Expansion/Sequel

- Mods

- Future

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Even levels are a bit nebulous in AD&D. Even still, a level 4 mage can blind, summon, charm, stun, sleep, turn invisible, detect invisibly, identify, scry, dispel, knockdown, and much more in addition to what a PoE wizard can do. I will take the AD&D wizard over PoE's fractured joke any day.

Here's some keywords:

- Kickstarter Budget

- Expansion/Sequel

- Mods

- Future

 

Here's a good link.

[Lord Wafflebum]

 

Even levels are a bit nebulous in AD&D. Even still, a level 4 mage can blind, summon, charm, stun, sleep, turn invisible, detect invisibly, identify, scry, dispel, knockdown, and much more in addition to what a PoE wizard can do. I will take the AD&D wizard over PoE's fractured joke any day.

Here's some keywords:

- Kickstarter Budget

- Expansion/Sequel

- Mods

- Future

 

Eh, I think criticism of the wizard is more than fair. The class feels kind of cobbled together like they had one unique idea with the grimoire (which I like, but think the UI for it could be improved) and were kind of uninspired by spells for wizards after making the chanter and cipher so very special. 

 

How things currently stand with the wizard shouldn't be. Time should have been spent making the wizard as special as many of the other classes.

[Osvir]

 

Even levels are a bit nebulous in AD&D. Even still, a level 4 mage can blind, summon, charm, stun, sleep, turn invisible, detect invisibly, identify, scry, dispel, knockdown, and much more in addition to what a PoE wizard can do. I will take the AD&D wizard over PoE's fractured joke any day.

Here's some keywords:

- Kickstarter Budget

- Expansion/Sequel

- Mods

- Future

 

Here's a good link.

Some key-sentences:

- Assets/Resources in place ("Edit Spell Description, Trigger" is much easier than "Create Spell Description, Trigger, VFX, SFX")

- Infinity Engine had 3-4 games on its neck before IWD2, an established world in both PnP D&D and AD&D. Forgotten Realms is a well-developed universe that has decades on its neck.

- 3E was created and developed and released before IWD2, so all the data, text, description, rules, also already existed. PoE uses different rules, and Eora is a 2+ years development that hasn't seen the light of a release, yet.

- Obsidian has been building PoE from the ground up, they found some untouched, empty land and started building. The Infinity Engine (by the time of IWD2) was a large city.

 

@Lord Wafflebum: I agree mostly, I think the Wizard has a small spell list and honestly, I'd like it to have much much more to it as well. But there's the thing, you say "Time" should have been spent on the Wizard further, and how much "Time" exactly?

 

Some, really, pointless IF's

- IF more time would've been spent on the Wizard, would other classes have been compromised?

- IF more time would've been spent on the Wizard, would game/story content have been compromised?

 

And then I'm thinking... why should they have spent more time on the Wizard making the first game... when they can improve the Wizard across several installments whilst making the series? Make a stable core/base that is easy to add content to. Which is exactly the feeling I get from it.

 

One of the most outspoken argument for why the Wizard is "bad" is that it doesn't have the large spell list that it had from the Infinity Engine games... does it mean that people would have enjoyed the Wizard and applauded it if it had had all the spells? Does it mean that the core Wizard class that Obsidian has developed is "bad" because it hasn't "learned" enough spells yet?

 

If that's the case, then I don't agree. Because I think the core of the Wizard is stable, and more stuff can be added on top of it. All of the classes have great "pillars" in my opinion, and more content will most likely be developed for them by developers and hobbyists over the course of the years to come, post-release.

 

EDIT: From the Wizard entry on Wiki:

As wizards continue to research, more spells are created every year. Some spells remain in the private collections of individual wizards while others see widespread distribution and can be found in grimoires all over the known world.

 

Edited January 5, 2015 by Osvir

[Lord Wafflebum]

Lol, the last bunch are more statements than keywords 

[Osvir]

"Some key-sentences:"

[Nakia]

Magic should have its limitations.  

A wizard should be as valuable from level1 as any other class.

A wizard should not be more valuable than any other class.

 

I like the spell system used in PoE but agree that the wizard is a bit boring but that may also be because they are so common in fantasy.  Hmm so are fighters so maybe that last isn't true.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

 

 

Even levels are a bit nebulous in AD&D. Even still, a level 4 mage can blind, summon, charm, stun, sleep, turn invisible, detect invisibly, identify, scry, dispel, knockdown, and much more in addition to what a PoE wizard can do. I will take the AD&D wizard over PoE's fractured joke any day.

Here's some keywords:

- Kickstarter Budget

- Expansion/Sequel

- Mods

- Future

 

Here's a good link.

 

 

Some more keywords:

- Assets/Resources in place ("Edit Spell Description, Trigger" is much easier than "Create Spell Description, Trigger, VFX, SFX")

- IE engine had 3-4 games on its neck before IWD2

 

Don't give me that worn-out limited asset apology. It's a red herring. Existing volume of spells by class:

• Cipher: 30
• Druid: 45
• Priest: 45
• Wizard: 67

Total: 187

 

Baldur's Gate 1 (pre-ToSC) total across all spellcasters: 96

 

This is on top of all of the copious abilities for these and other classes. We asked for a wheel and Josh Sawyer tried to reinvent it. All they had to do was create spells and give them a name that doesn't bait copy-write suits. Furthermore, magic in PoE is not differentiated between Arcane and Divine. They could have created one unparralled spell list using the entire IE compendium as a template, then organized it from there out.

 

Chanters and Ciphers would exist exactly as they do now, but draw from a greater spell list when choosing invocations and powers. Priests, Paladins, and Druids would draw from the same pool, but be limited to those belonging to their domains. Wizards would also draw from the same spell list. They all would still be further differentiated not merely by their resource mechanic, but by their class features and abilities.

 

That would have been significantly less work and produce a marvelous spell list. Instead, Josh Sawyer was more keen on pigeon-holing classes into MMO roles and gutting what makes magic magical. The failure of the wizard class in PoE, and it's magic by large is a failure of concept--nothing else.

[Osvir]

 

 

 

 

Even levels are a bit nebulous in AD&D. Even still, a level 4 mage can blind, summon, charm, stun, sleep, turn invisible, detect invisibly, identify, scry, dispel, knockdown, and much more in addition to what a PoE wizard can do. I will take the AD&D wizard over PoE's fractured joke any day.

Here's some keywords:

- Kickstarter Budget

- Expansion/Sequel

- Mods

- Future

 

Here's a good link.

 

 

Some more keywords:

- Assets/Resources in place ("Edit Spell Description, Trigger" is much easier than "Create Spell Description, Trigger, VFX, SFX")

- IE engine had 3-4 games on its neck before IWD2

 

Don't give me that worn-out limited asset apology. It's a red herring. Existing volume of spells by class:

• Cipher: 30
• Druid: 45
• Priest: 45
• Wizard: 67

Total: 187

 

Baldur's Gate 1 (pre-ToSC) total across all spellcasters: 96

I'm not following, I was discussing IWD2 (which you directed me to) and trying to make sense of why it took 10 months to edit all the 3E rules into it (also, thinking about it some more, by the time of IWD2 Bioware probably had a much larger dev team as well).

 

For the rest of your post, it's a lot of (sorry) pointless "IF they had only".

Edited January 5, 2015 by Osvir

[Stun]

I'm not following, I was discussing IWD2 (which you directed me to) and trying to make sense of why it took 10 months to edit all the 3E rules into it (also, thinking about it some more, by the time of IWD2 Bioware probably had a much larger dev team as well).

You mean Black Isle? I doubt the team that worked on IWD2 was any larger than the one that's working on PoE. And they certainly weren't more experienced. Plus the development tools are so much more powerful today than they were in friggin 2002.

 

In the end we'll probably get our answer when the game comes out and we can play the whole thing. IWD2 wasn't very content heavy. It was very much a linear game with small maps, not much NPC interaction, and loads of filler. I'm sure PoE, by contrast, will *feel* like a game that took 2 1/2 years to make. Still, if I'm forced to choose between "more gigantic companion dialogues" and "more dynamic spell choices for wizards", I'm going to choose the latter.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Stun

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

From another thread:

If anything, it's a bit too easy. I just had three wizards basically cruising through beetles, spiders and the ogre, more or less just rotating spells I felt like casting. The priest and the fighter was pretty much inactive, while BB rogue cleaned up a few baddies when needed. 

Oooh! This reverbates some stuff I brought up (and I even made an expansive Class idea for it xD)

 

So, IndiraLightfoot, out of curiosity, is the strength of the "Wizard" Class in numbers? Is it more fun to play when you have 2-3 Wizards in your party? What was your experience like? Satisfying or did you ever feel that your 3 Wizards took too much space in your party, and were you bothered by it in any way?

 

I can only comment on this based on my only wiz playthrough, which is with three wizards, and those where the ones I had an active focus on.

 

Three wizards is certainly an interesting number, since they almost cover all spells available at spell level 1 and 2, and if you indeed customize your wizards to have spells that fit their different roles, you get a mean magic machine. It was pretty easy for me to slip into this way of thinking since I'm playing two quite different wizards in DA:I on Nightmare difficulty. It entails a lot of pausing and alternating spells, so they support the party and themselves, while dealing various types of damage ever so often. It requires combined arms sequences that work and that you can rinse and repeat (including combined defences that you need to keep up during each encounter). I reckon, it's a pretty rewarding way to play. If anything, I assume that two wizards will be much more than the sum of their parts, as it were, as opposed to a single wizard in PoE.

Edited January 5, 2015 by IndiraLightfoot