Saving the Wizard Class

[Namutree]

 

Also in Vanilla BG1 what ranged weapon can the mage even use?

In BG1 a mage can use slings, throwing daggers and Darts.

 

Note: Darts can actually be pretty darn powerful for a mage, since the game gives you darts of wounding and darts of stunning. Stunning darts are particularly powerful because they're the only weapon in the game that can stun an opponent. And with darts a mage can have 2 attacks per round. The downside to darts, though, is that they lack the range of slings, so a mage who uses them has to put himself in danger to do so.

 

Oh yeah. Still; he needs to have darts/bullets. That means using your proficiency points on those (as opposed to quarterstaff or dagger), and a bit of GP I suppose.

[Kjaamor]

Oh yeah. Still; he needs to have darts/bullets. That means using your proficiency points on those (as opposed to quarterstaff or dagger), and a bit of GP I suppose.

 

Practically speaking, at least in the original BG, the biggest problem with darts was their small stacks and the way you had to keep going into your inventory to reload.

 

Personally, I've always had my mages use slings and staves. The exception to the rule was Xan, whose Moonblade made it worth githing with him, but generally I preferred the artillery approach to magic.

[Lephys]

No. I do not accept your distinction. The power and versatility of the IE games were fundamental to their game play. They have still not been matched, rivaled, or duplicated in any cRPG since. I don't loathe Mr. Sawyer or Obsidian. I generally have high regard for them, which is why I funded. If my acute and valid criticisms appear harsh, then it is likely because they are accurate.

I'm sorry, but I still disagree. I realize that they'd be different if not for the D&D ruleset and specific spells and flavor and all that, but I simply can't bring myself to consider nothing else "similiar" without directly rivaling such specific aspects of an overall game. I think the infrastructure of the game is much more important. If you were to change, for example, the manner in which locations are explored, the manner in which stats affect things, the general manner in which combat takes place (say... making it a direct, button-makes-sword-swing action combat system), the general design of the world and the way in which your characters' choices affect it (and vice-versa), etc.... THAT would make it a dissimilar game. Not using a different ruleset, with a different way of going about magic.

 

This is an excellent example of a spell you shall not see in PoE. With Mirror Image, any attack that strikes an image will have its damage and effects absolutely negated. That is undesirable by Mr. Sawyer's design philosophy. As such, the spell only grants +20 Deflection and decreases with each hit. I use the Stoneskin Ironskin to further illustrate this point. Rather than absolutely negating the physical damage of 1 attack per 2 caster levels as with the IE games, the user is granted +8 DT for 10 attacks. This is a monumental difference. If you're not sure why, I can explain the reasons if you so desire. This is what is meant by Mr. Sawyer disapproving of "hard-counters". It is far more insidious than simply omitting spells like Protection from Fire.

A fair point, in that I'd rather see something like Mirror Image (even if abstracted) function differently than anything else that provides you with a Deflection bonus. Or, rather, not necessarily that specific spell, but I'd like to see some spell function differently than that, but be a similar type of spell. For what it's worth, though, judging by the spell icon, and what lack of lore description we have for the spell, it appears as though that particular spell functions as it should. It seems to create extra images of you (as if the enemy is looking at one of those "I'm trying on clothes" triple-mirrors") in relation to your location, not separate images that jog around on and act on their own or anything. So, it makes sense that you only gain a Deflection bonus, as the enemy is still swinging at "you," he just can't tell exactly where he should swing, because his visual perception and distance/positioning judgement is compromised. But, when he swings at an image and misses you (or... even if he happens to hit you because he's swinging close enough to you), he then knows that his blade did not, in fact, come into contact with THAT targeted image. So, he can discount that one (even though he can still see it) and adjust for a better swing next time.

 

Again, that being said, the flavor text matters little when the spell functionally just boosts Deflection, which 80 other things in the game already do. That doesn't mean "You can't have a spell that boosts deflection!" But, it would definitely be nice to see more spells that don't focus on adjusting the outcome of attack resolution, directly.

 

 

I'll give Yonjuro's "what would you like to see?" question a go:

 

 

(Insert Cool Wizard's name here)'s Pet

 

Creates a 15-foot tentacle made of pure lightning that sprouts from the ground in the chosen location. It bears the level of sentience of a construct, able to target one foe at a time and make attacks, which consist of it slamming against the ground like a whip, striking anyone (within range) in-line with the target. It lacks the ability to physically knock anyone about, but deals shock damage and has a 30% chance to stun anyone stricken. It can be commanded to move, but it cannot attack whilst moving. Also, each movement consumes part of its manifested form, reducing its damage by 15% for the remainder of its duration.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Lephys

[Captain Shrek]

As Josh already explained, complaining about core issues  *now* with hardly 4 months left is pointless. I think the energy involved in it should be spent elsewhere.

[Yonjuro]

....

I'll give Yonjuro's "what would you like to see?" question a go:

 

 

(Insert Cool Wizard's name here)'s Pet

 

Creates a 15-foot tentacle made of pure lightning that sprouts from the ground in the chosen location. It bears the level of sentience of a construct, able to target one foe at a time and make attacks, which consist of it slamming against the ground like a whip, striking anyone (within range) in-line with the target. It lacks the ability to physically knock anyone about, but deals shock damage and has a 30% chance to stun anyone stricken. It can be commanded to move, but it cannot attack whilst moving. Also, each movement consumes part of its manifested form, reducing its damage by 15% for the remainder of its duration.

 

 

 This is a cool idea. The damage reduction when it moves means that it can be a powerful summon without being overpowered. It could be used like a trap or ambush either by casting it before combat or by having the wizard fade back and cast it similar to an IE thief setting a trap.

 

 Maybe there are other good ways to allow the caster to summon something powerful but with some limitation that wouldn't make it so powerful that it becomes the default tactic for every situation.

[archangel979]

 

This is an excellent example of a spell you shall not see in PoE. With Mirror Image, any attack that strikes an image will have its damage and effects absolutely negated. That is undesirable by Mr. Sawyer's design philosophy. As such, the spell only grants +20 Deflection and decreases with each hit. I use the Stoneskin Ironskin to further illustrate this point. Rather than absolutely negating the physical damage of 1 attack per 2 caster levels as with the IE games, the user is granted +8 DT for 10 attacks. This is a monumental difference. If you're not sure why, I can explain the reasons if you so desire. This is what is meant by Mr. Sawyer disapproving of "hard-counters". It is far more insidious than simply omitting spells like Protection from Fire.

A fair point, in that I'd rather see something like Mirror Image (even if abstracted) function differently than anything else that provides you with a Deflection bonus. Or, rather, not necessarily that specific spell, but I'd like to see some spell function differently than that, but be a similar type of spell. For what it's worth, though, judging by the spell icon, and what lack of lore description we have for the spell, it appears as though that particular spell functions as it should. It seems to create extra images of you (as if the enemy is looking at one of those "I'm trying on clothes" triple-mirrors") in relation to your location, not separate images that jog around on and act on their own or anything. So, it makes sense that you only gain a Deflection bonus, as the enemy is still swinging at "you," he just can't tell exactly where he should swing, because his visual perception and distance/positioning judgement is compromised. But, when he swings at an image and misses you (or... even if he happens to hit you because he's swinging close enough to you), he then knows that his blade did not, in fact, come into contact with THAT targeted image. So, he can discount that one (even though he can still see it) and adjust for a better swing next time.

 

This mirror image then works as a weaker Displacement spell from D&D. Displacement gave enemies 50% miss chance on all attacks (vs non spell attacks) while mirror image reduces hit chance by 20% (which also works more like Blur from IE games) but images only protect from few hits. The spell overall is too weak. Either make it like Blur so it gives +20 deflection for the duration or make it like Mirror Image and that vs each attack rolls a chance of caster being hit or image being hit with images disappearing once hit. Edited November 25, 2014 by archangel979

[Lephys]

This mirror image then works as a weaker Displacement spell from D&D. Displacement gave enemies 50% miss chance on all attacks (vs non spell attacks) while mirror image reduces hit chance by 20% (which also works more like Blur from IE games) but images only protect from few hits. The spell overall is too weak. Either make it like Blur so it gives +20 deflection for the duration or make it like Mirror Image and that vs each attack rolls a chance of caster being hit or image being hit with images disappearing once hit.

I'm not sure where the basis is for "it's too weak." Just because directly compared to a spell from another spell system, it's lesser? I don't think that follows.

 

It might be too weak, but that wouldn't even mean "make it like some other spell from D&D that's way stronger." Maybe it just needs a little tweaking, or a name change or something. THEN, make sure there's a more potent spell in that functions a bit differently.

 

That's what I'm getting at. People are a bit quick to judge these spells on the wrong criteria, like "there was a D&D spell called that, and it didn't work that way, so it's WRONG!"

 

 

Also, 'nother spell idea:

 

(Insert cool Wizard's name here)'s Befuddlement:

 

Creates a dome at a specified location, within which one's perception of time's passage becomes skewed. Those affected have difficulty telling what's actually happening when, or how to time things, so they suffer a -5 penalty to all defenses, as well as suffering a 30% increase to recovery time.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Lephys

[archangel979]

Name change to Blur would probably be best :D

[Lephys]

Agreed. Just to make sure I'm clear, by all means, critique the spells. I just think the best reasons for changing them should be in how the spell relates to the game (or, in this instance, how the name relates to the player's interpretation... more minor, but still important.)

 

"Mirror Image" definitely implies an entire 'nother image (as when you look in a mirror), so maybe that name should be reserved for a spell that actually creates one or more entirely separate images of the caster. *shrug*. Especially lore-wise, I think either blur, or something that makes your image seem to constantly shift around in a small area would be best for this type of spell.

 

But, as for the actual mechanical function of the spell, what matters is contextual application. If a deteriorating 20 Deflection is just never useful in comparison to any other option at your disposal, then it should definitely be tuned.

[Zeckul]

However, I've found throughout my career that people who minimize resource consumption are not extreme and they're not small in overall number.  It's a very common behavior exhibited by a lot of players, both RPG veterans and new players.*

 

* Not me, honestly.  I use per rests/dailies/consumables all the time.

Don't you think that making rest depend on consumables could lend these players (of which I definitely am part) to treat spells as they do consumables? This might even create some metagaming, i.e. you need to know the area and encounters to plan exactly what to spells to use and when, rather than being able to improvise on the go without fear of running out of vital resources later and be forced to reload from some much earlier point.

 

IMO camp supplies should be abundant to prevent such behavior and unpleasant experiences, at least on easy and normal difficulty. Still prevents players from abusing rest, but shifts focus away from resource management which isn't much fun in my experience. Give me plenty of challenge but plenty of resources to deal with it.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Zeckul

[Guest 4ward]

according to wiki the amount of consumables your party can carry depends on difficulty level (from 2 to 6 consumables). You can also rest for free at already established campsites according to wiki. Personally i’d like to rest at those free campsites and at those places that give you xp when they’re uncovered. I just don’t like their idea with campsite supplies but anyways…

I’m not sure what to think of their idea to have a long-term bonus for one of your stats for resting at special inns or at your stronghold if you have the money and built a forum (int bonus) or library (lore bonus).

[archangel979]

It is only a bonus until next time you rest. And bonus is small.

[Guest 4ward]

yes, i'm fine with that, also good for the athletics skill. I'd like the stronghold be a permanent raise of one of your stats.

Edited November 26, 2014 by 4ward

[Lephys]

I do think that per-encounter should be a lot more common, from the start. That way, you're still completely limited in any given combat encounter, but you're never just out-of-juice until you rest again. You could even split it up for the same spell -- maybe 5 per-rest castings of LvL 1 spells (for example), and 3 per-encounter castings, from the start. That way, many encounters will probably not be very easy to get through without casting MORE than 3 LvL 1 spells, but you always have those three, in a new encounter.

 

You still always have limited resources (as opposed to cooldowns, which allow for infini-combat, so long as you can hold out for long enough to get the spell back), yet you won't be quite so worried about using up purely finite stuff, or resting to get it back.

 

You could even (and this is a pretty rough idea) do something like representing less-than-full resting. Instead of using a cooldown, or time-based system, though, you could use encounters as a counter. So, say you run out of per-rest spells in an encounter. After the NEXT encounter, you get 1 per-rest casting back. So, whatever you're without, you still have to make it through another encounter just to get something back, but, you don't just have to choose between pushing on through encounter after encounter, or using up a finite camping supply in order to fully recover everything.

 

*shrug*

[Arsene Lupin]

I wouldn't be so quick to blame Sawyer for the impotent magic system here. The broken experience mechanics? Sure. But not the magic.

 

Why? Asymmetrical class systems (as exemplified in the classic Infinity Engine games) are, for whatever reason, very much a thing of the past. All the games with class systems these days--from Mass Effect to Dragon Age to Borderlands to The Elder Scrolls to Kingdoms of Amalur to whatever and etc., etc. all use symmetrical class systems.

 

The basic idea between a symmetrical class system is to even out the classes, so that a player never feels that he or she is missing out on something really cool just because he or she chose a certain class. This is usually accomplished by homogenizing DPS values and equalizing abilities. The end result is that each class feels samey--which is the intent.

 

I would also caution very strongly against counting on mods to fix this, or any other major issue with the game (like experience). I would point to Skyrim and Dragon Age Origins as games with poor magic systems and varying degrees of mods attempting to fix things--but failed to do so. To get a solid asymmetrical class system in a game, the developer really has to do it.

[archangel979]

I wouldn't be so quick to blame Sawyer for the impotent magic system here. The broken experience mechanics? Sure. But not the magic.

 

Why? Asymmetrical class systems (as exemplified in the classic Infinity Engine games) are, for whatever reason, very much a thing of the past. All the games with class systems these days--from Mass Effect to Dragon Age to Borderlands to The Elder Scrolls to Kingdoms of Amalur to whatever and etc., etc. all use symmetrical class systems.

 

The basic idea between a symmetrical class system is to even out the classes, so that a player never feels that he or she is missing out on something really cool just because he or she chose a certain class. This is usually accomplished by homogenizing DPS values and equalizing abilities. The end result is that each class feels samey--which is the intent.

 

I would also caution very strongly against counting on mods to fix this, or any other major issue with the game (like experience). I would point to Skyrim and Dragon Age Origins as games with poor magic systems and varying degrees of mods attempting to fix things--but failed to do so. To get a solid asymmetrical class system in a game, the developer really has to do it.

Wasn't the whole point of KSing PoE so people can get a game that supports a better system - the asymmetric one? Edited November 27, 2014 by archangel979

[Sensuki]

Yep ...

[Nakia]

The magic system in BG was one thing I didn't care for especially at the lower levels.  Mages/wizards didn't seem very useful to me until they got to higher levels.  Since BG/SoA started at higher levels it wasn't so bad.

[archangel979]

But they were, but not for every combat. Sleep, Color Spray, Chromatic Orb, Horror, Web were useful spells that could turn the tide of battle. 

I am just playing IWDEE on Heart of Fury difficulty but I started with a lvl 1 party and those low levels spells are saving my low level ass. 

Edited November 27, 2014 by archangel979

[Trodat]

The basic idea between a symmetrical class system is to even out the classes, so that a player never feels that he or she is missing out on something really cool just because he or she chose a certain class. This is usually accomplished by homogenizing DPS values and equalizing abilities. The end result is that each class feels samey--which is the intent.

 

And this argument is the most retarded one ever, because you are controlling A GROUP OF CHARACTERS, in PoE's case six of them. Makes no sense at all.

 

 

I would also caution very strongly against counting on mods to fix this, or any other major issue with the game (like experience). I would point to Skyrim and Dragon Age Origins as games with poor magic systems and varying degrees of mods attempting to fix things--but failed to do so. To get a solid asymmetrical class system in a game, the developer really has to do it.

 

Unfortunately, I think you are right. It can be *fixed" but you will still have this little feeling that it could be better.

[Stun]

I wouldn't be so quick to blame Sawyer for the impotent magic system here. The broken experience mechanics? Sure. But not the magic.

 

Why? Asymmetrical class systems (as exemplified in the classic Infinity Engine games) are, for whatever reason, very much a thing of the past. All the games with class systems these days--from Mass Effect to Dragon Age to Borderlands to The Elder Scrolls to Kingdoms of Amalur to whatever and etc., etc. all use symmetrical class systems.

 

The basic idea between a symmetrical class system is to even out the classes, so that a player never feels that he or she is missing out on something really cool just because he or she chose a certain class. This is usually accomplished by homogenizing DPS values and equalizing abilities. The end result is that each class feels samey--which is the intent.

Next up, UI's designed for consoles. MMOish collection-based quests (with markers!), and multiplayer. Why? Because PC-based UIs, hand crafted questlines, and 100% focus on single player campaigns... are a "thing of the past" too.

 

Am I missing anything? Oh yeah.... Day 1 DLC.

 

By the way, IF that's *really* the intent, then why the hell shouldn't we utterly blame Sawyer and everyone else at Obsidian? Are they not the ones designing the f*cking game? Excuse me, are they not the ones designing an IE spiritual successor without any publisher-enforced design structure to keep things familiar and accessible for the modern dummy?

Edited November 28, 2014 by Stun

[constantine]

Dear backers, it is very likely that many mods will exist to fix PoE, the Wizard fix being one of them.

And Im up for it, I don t like a Campaign World where wizards and arcane magic is so inferior.

Quoting myself, I want to say I've changed my mind. I would like to play the game as the devs wants us to experience it, no matter how bad some things may be. At least this is what I'll do the 1st time around. Edited November 29, 2014 by constantine

[Infinitron]

This is an excellent example of a spell you shall not see in PoE. With Mirror Image, any attack that strikes an image will have its damage and effects absolutely negated. That is undesirable by Mr. Sawyer's design philosophy. 

 

Nonsense. You don't understand his philosophy. The mirror images can be torn down fairly swiftly with a variety of attacks (including mundane attacks), hence it is not a hard counter.

 

The Mirror Image spell in PoE, all things being equal, is actually more powerful than its AD&D counterpart. Several images with the same poor AC versus one character with very high Deflection that goes down piecemeal with every hit - the former are easier to destroy.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Infinitron

[Lephys]

But they were, but not for every combat. Sleep, Color Spray, Chromatic Orb, Horror, Web were useful spells that could turn the tide of battle.

So is a small child with a hidden rope in a field, who pulls it taught when the enemy is running through, and trips them. Doesn't mean it's fun to play a helpless child who can only spring traps, until you eventually become a demigod.

 

Any class should be useful in every instance of combat. That still leaves room for their sometimes being more useful, and sometimes being a bit less useful.

[Dark_Ansem]

Not to mention, the various Hybrid classes modders could add... *cough*Warpriest*cough*