Why Don't Wizards Have Summoning Spells?

[Marcvs Caesar]

I've been reading the PoE wiki and noticed that wizards have no summoning spells, which is disappointing considering I love having my minions do my dirty work for me. Is there a reason as to why the class that specializes the most on the study of the arcane does not have access to summoning magic?

[Quetzalcoatl]

http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Essential_Phantom

 

This game has a different conception of magic than D&D, by the way.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Quetzalcoatl

[Sheikh]

Das good.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I don't think they have any other summons in their arsenal, so I wouldn't get your hopes up. Chanters and to a lesser extent Druids have a lot of summoning spells.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Quetzalcoatl

[Marcvs Caesar]

http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Essential_Phantom

 

This game has a different conception of magic than D&D, by the way.

 

 

That is more akin to D&D's Project Image illusion spell.

 

I don't think they have any other summons in their arsenal, so I wouldn't get your hopes up. Chanters and to a lesser extent Druids have a lot of summoning spells.

 

That makes no sense. Why Chanters and Druids but not Wizards? I hope being a Wzard in PoE is more than just hurling fireballs and casting buffs and defuffs. That's too simplistic.

[Naurgalen]

I must agree that it is indeed strange that the wizard lacks summoning spells. (what descent mage doesn't want to acquire knowledge via interdimensional beings? or creating / summoning minions to do his biding? maybe even try to create life?)

 

 

I will totally miss some of the most traditional and iconic spells that a mage can have

[Sheikh]

I will totally miss some of the most traditional and iconic spells that a mage can have

 

Thats great. **** traditions, Obsidian with innovation up in this mother****er.

 

 

Why Chanters and Druids but not Wizards?

 

Because Obsidian decided so. Their rationale behind this decision was that "we think its good".

 

Do you disagree or what were you saying again?

 

Thing is, if you disagree, at least have the guts to say it out loud.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Sheikh

[Lephys]

Is there a reason as to why the class that specializes the most on the study of the arcane does not have access to summoning magic?

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the majority of summoning in PoE exists in a non-class-restricted form (figurines, I believe, if not additional other means?). So, Wizards will actually have access to summoning magic. It just won't be via class abilities/spells.

[BMac]

FWIW, I was able to make a pretty satisfactory necromancer using the Chanter class during the play week.  There's no derth of summoning magic in the game, but as others have pointed out, it's been moved around a bit.

[Sheikh]

FWIW, I was able to make a pretty satisfactory necromancer using the Chanter class during the play week.  There's no derth of summoning magic in the game, but as others have pointed out, it's been moved around a bit.

And can you have like 20 skeletons like in Diablo 2?

[Marcvs Caesar]

 

I will totally miss some of the most traditional and iconic spells that a mage can have

 

Thats great. **** traditions, Obsidian with innovation up in this mother****er.

 

 

Why Chanters and Druids but not Wizards?

 

Because Obsidian decided so. Their rationale behind this decision was that "we think its good".

 

Do you disagree or what were you saying again?

 

Thing is, if you disagree, at least have the guts to say it out loud.

 

 

 

Innovation is only good if it's an improvement over tradition, this however doesn't seem to be the case.

 

 

 

That's a foolish rationale that I thought was beyond the talented developers at OE.

 

I disagree. Wizards (and perhaps the other classes as well?) seem to be simplistic and limited, more akin to a common mmorpg rather than the old IE games.

 

"Guts"? Yes, I'm sure posting my opinion on an internet forum requires a great deal of courage indeed.

 

FWIW, I was able to make a pretty satisfactory necromancer using the Chanter class during the play week.  There's no derth of summoning magic in the game, but as others have pointed out, it's been moved around a bit.

 

If my assumptions are correct you probably did it so as to make each class unique. I can't hide my disappointment though, D&D was one of the main reasons I enjoyed the old IE games so much due to its complexity and playing as a wizard was incredibly satisfying. I can't see that complexity in PoE's class system though, like I said previously it's more akin to a common mmorpg than the old IE games. Regardless, I haven't played the game yet so I'll just leave it at that.

I just hope you have a proper in-game explanation for it in the lore, a RPG is more than just gameplay mechanics, world and lore consistency is equally, if not more, important.

[Sheikh]

Innovation is only good if it's an improvement over tradition

 

No it isnt.

 

Whether it is better or not in the end has absolutely nothing to do with it. If it takes things forward or even tries, its innovation. Whether its forward to worse or better is irrelevant to whether its innovation.

 

At the end of the day, this is how you innovate. You take things forward and try what works and what doesnt. The only thing that sticking to status quo aciheves is stagnation. If the innovation does not work out, we learn from it and create something more innovative yet. Sticing to status quo just because it didnt quite work out is the most retarded solution ever.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Sheikh

[Marcvs Caesar]

 

Innovation is only good if it's an improvement over tradition

 

No it isnt.

 

Whether it is better or not in the end has absolutely nothing to do with it. If it takes things forward or even tries, its innovation. Whether its forward to worse or better is irrelevant to whether its innovation.

 

At the end of the day, this is how you innovate. You take things forward and try what works and what doesnt. The only thing that sticking to status quo aciheves is stagnation. If the innovation does not work out, we learn from it and create something more innovative yet. Sticing to status quo just because it didnt quite work out is the most retarded solution ever.

 

 

I don't completely disagree with that, but you're confusing theory with practice. You should only apply an innovative theory into practice if it works/is superior. You're being absolute when it's relative.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Marcvs Caesar

[Sheikh]

if it works/is superior. 

 

And in this case whether it works better or not is down to pure opinion. And whos opinion is that? Everyone has their own. The way you find out if more people think its better or not is to innovate with something new and then people will judge and let you know. If you cut off the innovation by saying that my opinion is above the opinion of all players then nothing new will come out at all and you have stagnation.

 

Also, in our hearts we all love you.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Sheikh

[Sheikh]

I don't completely disagree with that, but you're confusing theory with practice. You should only apply an innovative theory into practice if it works/is superior. You're being absolute when it's relative.

Nooooo! You are best off aplying it and then seeing if it works. But YOU YOURSELF cant be the judge whether it works if you are making the game for an enormous audience, not just for yourself. Onlt the enormous audience can judge meaningfully. And that means releasing the game and getting the due criticism.

 

Also in case anyone is confused, Marcvs Caesar deleted most of his post that is just before my 2 posts.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Sheikh

[gkathellar]

I must agree that it is indeed strange that the wizard lacks summoning spells. (what descent mage doesn't want to acquire knowledge via interdimensional beings? or creating / summoning minions to do his biding? maybe even try to create life?)

 

Emphasis mine. Over half of the classes in PoE are mages of some sort or another, and as originally pitched, all of them were supposed to be.

 

The necromancer minion-master archetype is there. It's in the Chanter class, which is immaterial, unless your issue is that necromancer archetypes should also be able to do everything else. If your only gripe is that it's not in the wizard class, that's ... well, I guess that's your gripe. But wizards aren't supposed to be able to do everything in PoE. Them's the breaks.

[Marcvs Caesar]

 

Also in case anyone is confused, Marcvs Caesar deleted most of his post that is just before my 2 posts.

 

 

No I didn't, I only corrected a few errors immediately after I posted that. What's the meaning of this?

Edited November 28, 2014 by Marcvs Caesar

[Marcvs Caesar]

 

I must agree that it is indeed strange that the wizard lacks summoning spells. (what descent mage doesn't want to acquire knowledge via interdimensional beings? or creating / summoning minions to do his biding? maybe even try to create life?)

 

Emphasis mine. Over half of the classes in PoE are mages of some sort or another, and as originally pitched, all of them were supposed to be.

 

The necromancer minion-master archetype is there. It's in the Chanter class, which is immaterial, unless your issue is that necromancer archetypes should also be able to do everything else. If your only gripe is that it's not in the wizard class, that's ... well, I guess that's your gripe. But wizards aren't supposed to be able to do everything in PoE. Them's the breaks.

 

The problem is that Wizards are limited to damage, buff and debuff spells only. For someone used to the versatility and complexity of D&D Wizards, it's disappointing to say the least. As for Chanters, well their archetype is similar to the Bard class from D&D and I really don't like Bards.

If I had to pick a class to play right now, I would be staring at the screen not knowing what to pick.

[rjshae]

The problem is that Wizards are limited to damage, buff and debuff spells only. For someone used to the versatility and complexity of D&D Wizards, it's disappointing to say the least. As for Chanters, well their archetype is similar to the Bard class from D&D and I really don't like Bards.

 

If I had to pick a class to play right now, I would be staring at the screen not knowing what to pick.

 

Well the AD&D wizards needed toning down a bit: they were way too powerful at high levels. But I agree that diversity in their capability would be quite appropriate to the archetype. As described, those sound primarily like battle mages.

[Marcvs Caesar]

 

The problem is that Wizards are limited to damage, buff and debuff spells only. For someone used to the versatility and complexity of D&D Wizards, it's disappointing to say the least. As for Chanters, well their archetype is similar to the Bard class from D&D and I really don't like Bards.

 

If I had to pick a class to play right now, I would be staring at the screen not knowing what to pick.

 

Well the AD&D wizards needed toning down a bit: they were way too powerful at high levels. But I agree that diversity in their capability would be quite appropriate to the archetype. As described, those sound primarily like battle mages.

 

 

And they were way too weak at low levels, easily killed without defensive magic and could only cast a few spells per spell level. I'm pretty sure the weaknesses outweigh the strengths. From my perspective no they were not way too powerful, perhaps they were annoying sometimes to fight but definitely not overpowered. Most importantly however, considering the world and setting it made sense for wizards to be powerful at high levels.

 

Playing as a Wizard in AD&D was hard and frustating at lower levels but incredibly satisfying when you finally managed to reach high levels. That's what playing as a wizard meant, and I liked it.

[Sheikh]

Wizard = weak early, strong late

 

Warrior = opposite

 

Thats called variety/depht. Not every class or any game element have to be the same in any concievable way at all. In fact its best if they are different to some degree in all concievable ways.

[Lephys]

Wizard = weak early, strong late

 

Warrior = opposite

 

Thats called variety/depht. Not every class or any game element have to be the same in any concievable way at all. In fact its best if they are different to some degree in all concievable ways.

That's actually just called terrible design. It works in a PnP game, because you've got SO many minute aspects to draw from for any given situation. But, in a cRPG, it just turns into "you have a small situational window in which playing your class won't feel crappy."

 

It's not about making them the exact same, either. People misunderstand the crap out of balance, just because certain dev teams do it wrong with games, and tend to apply the term WAY too generally. It's not that the Wizard should do exactly the same DPS and serve the same functions as the Warrior. The "wrongness" is in the Wizard being so ridiculously weak and mostly useless early on, and in the Warrior being pretty sub-par later (albeit, less sub-par than the early Wizard).

 

Anywho, it's never good design to balance something out with "don't worry, you'll suck for a while, so it's okay."

[Marcvs Caesar]

 

Wizard = weak early, strong late

 

Warrior = opposite

 

Thats called variety/depht. Not every class or any game element have to be the same in any concievable way at all. In fact its best if they are different to some degree in all concievable ways.

That's actually just called terrible design. It works in a PnP game, because you've got SO many minute aspects to draw from for any given situation. But, in a cRPG, it just turns into "you have a small situational window in which playing your class won't feel crappy."

 

It's not about making them the exact same, either. People misunderstand the crap out of balance, just because certain dev teams do it wrong with games, and tend to apply the term WAY too generally. It's not that the Wizard should do exactly the same DPS and serve the same functions as the Warrior. The "wrongness" is in the Wizard being so ridiculously weak and mostly useless early on, and in the Warrior being pretty sub-par later (albeit, less sub-par than the early Wizard).

 

Anywho, it's never good design to balance something out with "don't worry, you'll suck for a while, so it's okay."

 

Don't forget that the reason behind the fact that fighters were sub-par at higher levels is because of physical limitations. That's why non-magical classes required magical equipment. It's good design because it's supposed to be a role-playing game and role-playing games require verisimilitude.

Your type of balance still requires placing unnecessary limitations.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Marcvs Caesar

[Sheikh]

That's actually just called terrible design. It works in a PnP game, because you've got SO many minute aspects to draw from for any given situation. But, in a cRPG, it just turns into "you have a small situational window in which playing your class won't feel crappy."

Terrible thats your judgement and do you even have any basis to go by? In which game have you experienced this and felt it was bad?

 

If it works in Pnp, I dont see why it wouldnt work in crpg.

"you have a small situational window in which playing your class won't feel crappy."

That would only be if it was very very exaggerated. The fact that your class is weak at any given point does not mean you dont need to overcome challenges. Its the overcoming challenges thats interesting to me, not feeling powerful.

It's not about making them the exact same, either.

So you agree with me, we just dont neccessarily agree on the strength of this difference. Where shall we put it on the very same scale of 100 to 0? If we put it at around 80, it means in early game wizard is 80% as strong as warrior and lategame is the opposite. Thats where I would put it. Thats probably sort of where it was in Icewind dales and that worked well.

 

Personally I would go more like 60-40 or 50-50 if I was making a game.

Anywho, it's never good design to balance something out with "don't worry, you'll suck for a while, so it's okay." 

Yes it is. Sucking does not mean the game is not fun, in fact, quite the opposite. Sometimes the game is harder, other times easier, thats great fun in my opinion. The way you seem to see it is "sometimes, the game is less fun and other times more fun". I dont agree that being powerful is equal to having fun (or the game being easy equal to having fun). This is where it comes down to pure opinion I suppose.

The "wrongness" is in the Wizard being so ridiculously weak and mostly useless early on, and in the Warrior being pretty sub-par later (albeit, less sub-par than the early Wizard).

You like to feel powerful, I dont so I dont agree, probably? Im not sure. But what needs to be seperated is two things:

 

1. The wizard needs to be of different power levels in different parts of the progression of the game than the warrior. This has two answers: yes and no. I say yes.

2. How much they would differ in this regard. This has infinite answers and further negotiations are needed to determine how much we agree on this (or not).

Edited November 30, 2014 by Sheikh

[Lephys]

Don't forget that the reason behind the fact that fighters were sub-par at higher levels is because of physical limitations. That's why non-magical classes required magical equipment. It's good design because it's supposed to be a role-playing game and role-playing games require verisimilitude.

Your type of balance still requires placing unnecessary limitations.

Yes, but who's to say in a fantasy magic world physical limitations have to be the same as in the real world. It's almost a staple of the fantasy genre to have characters whose physical skill level is exaggerated almost to the point of being supernatural. And/or, you can have people who utilize magic to amplify their own abilities, solely.

 

I'm not saying there's no room for a more realistic take on physical limitations. I'm simply saying that it's not mandatory. Likewise, magic does not need to be the most ridiculous power in the universe. There are plenty of fictions in which magic is handled much more like physical limitations are (telekinetically moving a large boulder is more straining than moving a smaller rock. Moving something farther away is harder than moving something close-by, etc.). Nothing says you need to be able to utter the proper words and perform the proper ritual, and have the moon cease its existence.

 

 

 

Terrible thats your judgement and do you even have any basis to go by? In which game have you experienced this and felt it was bad?

On the basis of principle. For the same reason that a restaurant doesn't give you half the food you ordered, then say "don't worry... the NEXT time you come in and eat here, we'll give you 5 plates of food! 8D" and that's somehow okay.

 

 

 

If it works in Pnp, I dont see why it wouldnt work in crpg.

 

 

Then I suppose you don't see any differences at all between PnP gameplay and cRPG limitations. *shrug*

 

 

 

So you agree with me, we just dont neccessarily agree on the strength of this difference.

 

 

Not at all. I think slapping a power difference percentage on anything is just as folly as trying to get them the exact same. You could even have a Warrior and a Mage be quantitatively identical in "power" (do a bunch of math to get their DPS the same, etc.), and still have them function very, very differently and have their situational usefulnesses be quite varied as well. Just for what it's worth.

 

 

 

 

Yes it is. Sucking does not mean the game is not fun, in fact, quite the opposite.

 

 

It depends on what you mean by "sucking." By definition of a game, lacking in capability compared to the standard capability of the rest of the game is un-fun. It is inherently un-fun, in the context of a game, to play soccer with a bunch of people who can fly and you can't. Why? Because the fact that you're specifically playing a sport with rules and specific challenges to overcome means that there's something about that that you enjoy. Otherwise, you would just enjoy getting your butt whooped at soccer by people who can fly because you can never even get to the ball, and they can block all your shots.

 

 

 

You like to feel powerful, I dont so I dont agree, probably? Im not sure.

 

 

To an extent. As does anyone. Even a Cleric likes to feel powerful, right? How fun would it be if you could only heal 1HP per year? Not very. On the other hand, how fun would it be if you healed infinite HP for everyone, every time you blinked? Pretty dumb.

 

Challenge is a bell curve. At a certain point on the low side of capability, you're not even contributing significantly enough to constitute usefulness, and at a certain point on the high side of capability, you're incapable of being anything but maximally useful.

 

And that's a curve spanning an awful lot of different factors. There's no one factor that determines it. Which is why I think it's silly to kind of just go by power, alone. "Well, you'll just be really weak at the beginning. Then later on, whether you like it or not, you'll be stupidly powerful."

 

D&D and other PnP worlds have all kinds of stuff in them that go a bit crazy, like "get within 1 mile of this thing, and you TURN TO SANNNNND!!!... unless you pass a Will save!". BUT, it's a PnP environment, specifically designed to have all its lore wrangled and aimed by a DM. That's what makes it not ridiculous. If your DM was all "Suddenly, you're surrounded by 7 Tarrasques! FIGHT!", you'd probably just flip him the bird and walk out of the room. That's why he doesn't do that. He typically handpicks/adjusts factors so that the situation allows for you to encounter a Tarrasque and actually have some chance of doing something other than dying.

 

A lot of this does vary from person to person -- the specific factor values and such. But, the general idea doesn't. Nobody plays a game for the challenge that isn't even possible to overcome. That doesn't make any sense. You play games to pit capabilities against limitations, in whatever form or fashion. That is what challenge is born of.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Lephys