Why Don't Wizards Have Summoning Spells?

[Sheikh]

Soccer is a game with strict rules, infinity is not. Theres tons of possibilities to help you.

 

If you have a party of 6, it doesnt matter that one character is slightly weaker or stronger early game and another is the opposite.

 

No I dont want to feel powerful. Healing 1hp per year is just not worth my time, its not about power.

 

Lephys we are talking pure theory. Who even said that when you do what we talking about the game will become impossible or hard? I am not even talking about a specific game at all, the game doesnt exist and you have no idea whether it would be hard or not. And those extreme examples...what are they useful for? I brought you an 80-20 example, I dont get where you are coming from. Do yuo even speak about the same thing I am talking about? Feels like you want to subject the game to socialism, forcing everyone to be equal.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Sheikh

[Silent Winter]

^There's a difference between balancing classes and making them equal in terms of dps.  DPS is not the be-all and end-all of classes.

A wizard might be able to do things differently than a fighter (sleep/haste spells as an example) but have less raw dps power.

Alternatively, a wizard might have more dps but low hp (D&D).

 

It's not about getting the 50-50/80-20 balance right - it's about making all the classes interesting to play and worth having in your party at all levels.

So you're not left compensating for the lame and fragile wizard early on and then having your fighter hack near-uselessly while your  wizard obliterates at high levels.

 

on-topic - whether the wizard has summoning spells or not is not my main issue - it's whether the wizard has enough variety to make them interesting to play (same as for any given class)

[Sheikh]

not left compensating for the lame and fragile wizard early on

 

What the hell is wrong with that? I want to compensate for the poor wizard because he has special talents and can be useful in some situations (you know sometimes you cant get past a point at all without some certain talents) and will be the core of my damage in late game.

 

Having him in my party is worth it and I dont care if I have to take care of him at some points. I mean you have to take care of a wizard either way to keep him from getting raped in melee, for example.

 

If we play online, you can be the wizard in my party so at least you dont have to compensate for others if you hate that so much.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Sheikh

[Silent Winter]

^there's a difference between "differently useful at all levels" and "90% useless until level-x" - in a team game like PoE, I want each class to compensate for each other through the whole game.  The wizard needs the fighter/barbarian who need the priest who needs the rogue who needs the wizard etc (except more intertwining rather than rock,paper,scissors)

If the wizard has flaws that are always there at all levels, and same for the fighter and same for the rogue etc, then I'd find that more interesting than "babysit the wizard for 6 levels until they can do it all themselves and then babysit the fighter"

[in NWN, for example, once the mage/sorceror has "open lock" and "find traps" the rogue becomes a sub-standard melee add-on (not even a superior scout thanks to "invisibility")]

 

As I said, having a glass-cannon is one way to do that (but the introduction of stoneskin and protection from xyz made that into an adamantium cannon) - remove those OTT protection spells and you can have your glass cannon throughout.

Personally, I'd prefer a wizard with more variety - not merely a glass cannon - but I've yet to play the game so perhaps chanters and ciphers will make for an interesting mix.

[Suen]

An in universe explanation could be that something in their soul magic makes the summoning unstable and unpredictable.

 

The game should include summoning scrolls and then if a wizard use those, you'd get a random effect:

 

- a wheel of cheese
- the summoned creature starts to vibrate and explodes (like a bloody sausage)
- the summoned creature is incorporeal and "poof" away after few seconds
- the summoned creature explodes in a "poof" of poisonous spores

- a scrap of paper with a stick figure on it
- a black rock
- etc...

[Sheikh]

"90% useless until level-x" - 

Havent ever seen that, but thats fine too. Not optimal, but fine. In fact I think its wonderful if this has already been done before, those guys knew what they were doing. Who were they?

Edited December 1, 2014 by Sheikh

[rjshae]

It might be that in this setting, Wizards in particular can only summon existing beings; not some random cookie-cutter creature from the plane of infinite summoning. That would imply that wizard summonings require a certain amount of unique paraphrenalia and knowledge. For example, you would need to build a ritual circle of summoning, acquire the knowledge of the true name of the creature being summoned, and purchase the necessary accoutrements and materials. You may need to acquire the summoning knowledge through exploration and research, then build a chamber of summoning in your stronghold. In that case, the summoned creature would be of more specialized and limited use, although it could be employed in the safeguarding of your keep or to attack a rival.

[Sheikh]

^there's a difference between "differently useful at all levels" and "90% useless until level-x" 

No there isnt actually any fundamental difference at all. Its fundamentally the exact same thing, just different position on the scale. So again we are at this, where do you want the position to be on the scale? I understand 10-90 is too much. How much is good for you?

[Captain Shrek]

Also, it needs to be pointed out that wizards being powerful was a pretty meta situation. In most non-trash cases, you needed to know which spells to prepare. So yeah, Wizards were not really broken. As others have pointed out earlier, even this was true only at high level. Just a reminder: Druids and Clerics were equally good at those levels. 

 

Not to mention that Wizards needed to be played VERY manually, thus their power came at a cost. Which is fine. 

[Silent Winter]

 

^there's a difference between "differently useful at all levels" and "90% useless until level-x" 

No there isnt actually any fundamental difference at all. Its fundamentally the exact same thing, just different position on the scale. So again we are at this, where do you want the position to be on the scale? I understand 10-90 is too much. How much is good for you?

 

perhaps you could clarify what you mean by this 10-90 or 50-50 scale?

I got the impression before that you were talking about different portions of the game (not great for the first 50% but then great for the latter 50%) (kinda like how mages weren't very good early BG but then awesome later) - this is what I want to avoid.

Now I'm thinking I misunderstood you - do you mean 'useful in 50% of the situations through the whole game' ? Or 'highly/not effective against 50% of the enemies through the whole game?'

 

What I'm saying is that all classes should have something to offer in all situations but by using different tactics.

Yes, there'll be times when wizards are more effective because the enemy are clumped together and you can fireball them, then other times the fighter might be king because the enemy hits hard and fast, others the rogue will be more effective because the enemy can be [status-effect]-ed and hit for super-damage, etc etc.

But this should be the case at ALL levels.  Not for a small part of the game where the classes equalise before one shoots off into the stratosphere.

(minor class imbalance is ok as it's a team game - they needn't be 100% equal at all levels - but that could fluctuate at different levels, sometimes wizard is a little better, sometimes ranger, etc)

 

 

Not to mention that Wizards needed to be played VERY manually, thus their power came at a cost fun. Which is fine. 

FTFY

(just my opinion of course - and I wouldn't want a whole party of them)

[Elerond]

D&D Wizard's are usually very powerful in CRPG, but D&D Sorcerers are in my opinion most superior class especially in AD&D, as they have access to all wizard spells, meaning that they aren't never ill prepared to any situation or limited on spells that you have found in the game. 

 

Wizards don't have summoning spells in PoE because Obsidian feels that they don't fit in their role in the game or more accurately they don't want wizard's to step on roles that they have planed for other classes to make them more attractive choice. This is also reason why priest don't have summoning spell like they have in D&D.

 

For lore reason's wizard's don't have access to summoning spell because they focus so much to control their soul energy by focusing it rough their grimoires which they have fulled with schemas that they have found out to control how soul power manifests via research and testing. This approach let them have more control over what they can do with soul energy, but it also blocks them some things that other's can do with that don't have so controlled approach towards it.

 

Priest get their control over soul energy from faith and dedication towards their god(s), even though soul energy comes from themselves, things that they can do with it are limited by their faith and things that they think their god(s) will and will not approve.

 

Druids and Chanters have more naturalistic approach towards their control over their soul energy. Druids create connection with web of living souls, which gives them limited ability to control things and essences of things in nature and Chanters use stories and legends to control soul energy from soul fragments and lost souls around them, which gives them ability to get them do things for them, like animating corpses or manifesting as spirits.

[Sheikh]

 

So you would like Wizards to be exactly as powerful as warriors in all stages of the game, except to achieve this power in different ways?

[Silent Winter]

^Pretty much - except that I'm not equating 'power' with 'equally useful'  - what are we using to define 'power'?  Only dps?

Is 'sleep' more powerful than 'cleave'?  Not in terms of DPS but in terms of how easy it is to defeat a group perhaps.

 

I just want all the classes to have something useful to do and not feel like I could do without them - and certainly not having it so that one class is much better earlier but becomes (relatively-) rubbish later while another class does the opposite.  That makes the former class go downhill, which is frustrating later on, and the latter class is also less fun to play initially.

One could say that in a team game it's less important, and that's right, but for my PC I don't want to become less important to the group.

 

Each class might need different tactics to make the most of it, and all the classes should be challenging to play.

[Sheikh]

^Pretty much - except that I'm not equating 'power' with 'equally useful'  - what are we using to define 'power'?  Only dps?

COMBAT USEFULNESS

[Silent Winter]

^So we're not really defining it - just saying that we want them to be equally useful - great

This can be achieved in many ways - so long as the enemies are varied (in terms of numbers, positions and types), we should end up with different encounters needing a focus on different skills.  Some classes will shine in some encounters and others in others.  But overall, each class should have strengths and flaws throughout (hopefully compensated for by the others in the team).

 

Having a class be simply weak early but strong later (and vice-versa) isn't great character development IMO - better would be keeping all the classes useful in their own niches.

[Sheikh]

Noooooooo, I dont want them to be equally useful! I want wizards combat usefulness to be garbage like in early game in BG (compared to warrior) and complete opposite late game, more or less, for example!

 

In fact, this is the best:

#1 class is very bad in combat early game, average late game. But he is extremely useful at noncombat tasks (talking, picking locks, you know anything noncombat)

#2 class is bad in combat early game, awesome late game. Has moderate noncombat use.

#3 class is awesome in combat early game and good in combat in late game. But he has no noncombat use at all.

 

Classes dont eve have to be balanced from a combat perspective at all. They can be balanced for their lack of combat usefulness through their noncombat usefulness. Thats extreme depth and I love it!

 

For example you can pick class #3 purely to compensate for class #1 in combat, if you already picked class #1. And of course theres infinite shades of grey between all of these three classes.

 

 

Having a class be simply weak early but strong later (and vice-versa) isn't great character development IMO - better would be keeping all the classes useful in their own niches.

So in this regard we are doing that, but the niche is not just combat, but also noncombat.

 

I mean wizard using fireball to be useful in combat and warrior using [axe +3, 20 strength and a feat or two] is variety within the combat niche itself. But in this way, we take variety to a higher level, which I am sure is even better.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Sheikh

[Marcvs Caesar]

D&D Wizard's are usually very powerful in CRPG, but D&D Sorcerers are in my opinion most superior class especially in AD&D, as they have access to all wizard spells, meaning that they aren't never ill prepared to any situation or limited on spells that you have found in the game. 

 

Wizards don't have summoning spells in PoE because Obsidian feels that they don't fit in their role in the game or more accurately they don't want wizard's to step on roles that they have planed for other classes to make them more attractive choice. This is also reason why priest don't have summoning spell like they have in D&D.

 

For lore reason's wizard's don't have access to summoning spell because they focus so much to control their soul energy by focusing it rough their grimoires which they have fulled with schemas that they have found out to control how soul power manifests via research and testing. This approach let them have more control over what they can do with soul energy, but it also blocks them some things that other's can do with that don't have so controlled approach towards it.

 

Priest get their control over soul energy from faith and dedication towards their god(s), even though soul energy comes from themselves, things that they can do with it are limited by their faith and things that they think their god(s) will and will not approve.

 

Druids and Chanters have more naturalistic approach towards their control over their soul energy. Druids create connection with web of living souls, which gives them limited ability to control things and essences of things in nature and Chanters use stories and legends to control soul energy from soul fragments and lost souls around them, which gives them ability to get them do things for them, like animating corpses or manifesting as spirits.

 

Finally a proper answer to my question. It's unfortunate though. AD&D classes were complex and versatile but in PoE it seems to be the opposite, they're more simplistic and focused and therefore not very open to personalization. Like someone mentioned before, Wizards seem to be the archetype of a Battlemage.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Marcvs Caesar

[Mlatimudan]

@ Sheikh

Why would you want any class to have no non-combat use?

I don't understand how that adds depth, why can't a warrior be good at sneaking around or talking to people? Surely a warrior who has trained himself to be good at those things is a deeper more interesting character then Og the brainbasher who can only bash brains and is outwited by pastry filling.

 

On the opposite end of the scale surely a Rogue has to be at least reasonably powerfull in a fight when his lady's husband sir Musclehulk the Armoured comes home early and the bedroom is on the 4th floor.(not saying powerfull as in lifting boulders, but a good combatant, he could kick him in the groin and stab him in the neck) Why does a rogue have to be an open lock/ disarm trap robot to have depth?

 

If every class is pretty good at combat in its own very special way, surely that adds more depth since they all do things differently but still effectively so some will be more usefull in certain situations while worse in others, but never outright bad.

 

If every class can be invested in a certain skill surely that also adds more depth to the use of that skill, a sneaking rogue will backstab an enemy while a sneaking wizard can drop a cloud of sleeping gas in a room without being detected, the guards would just think they dozed off, a sneaking chanter might invoke panic on the back row of an enemy formation collapsing the formation for his friends without having to fight through enemies. A fighter could sneak into an enemy formation while under protection from lightning and attack an enemy, the enemies would cluster around him and before they knew it the fighters druid friend zapped them all with thunderbolts.

 

Surely people should be able to roleplay a somewhat mechanically inclined ranger who uses crossbows or guns, or a rogue who has high lore knowledge so he knows what's worth stealing, or maybe even a stealthy barbarian whose tribe fought from ambushes, or a priest who is good at survival since he was a missionary in barren lands where resources were scarce.

[Elerond]

 

D&D Wizard's are usually very powerful in CRPG, but D&D Sorcerers are in my opinion most superior class especially in AD&D, as they have access to all wizard spells, meaning that they aren't never ill prepared to any situation or limited on spells that you have found in the game. 

 

Wizards don't have summoning spells in PoE because Obsidian feels that they don't fit in their role in the game or more accurately they don't want wizard's to step on roles that they have planed for other classes to make them more attractive choice. This is also reason why priest don't have summoning spell like they have in D&D.

 

For lore reason's wizard's don't have access to summoning spell because they focus so much to control their soul energy by focusing it rough their grimoires which they have fulled with schemas that they have found out to control how soul power manifests via research and testing. This approach let them have more control over what they can do with soul energy, but it also blocks them some things that other's can do with that don't have so controlled approach towards it.

 

Priest get their control over soul energy from faith and dedication towards their god(s), even though soul energy comes from themselves, things that they can do with it are limited by their faith and things that they think their god(s) will and will not approve.

 

Druids and Chanters have more naturalistic approach towards their control over their soul energy. Druids create connection with web of living souls, which gives them limited ability to control things and essences of things in nature and Chanters use stories and legends to control soul energy from soul fragments and lost souls around them, which gives them ability to get them do things for them, like animating corpses or manifesting as spirits.

 

Finally a proper answer to my question. It's unfortunate though. AD&D classes were complex and versatile but in PoE it seems to be the opposite, they're more simplistic and focused and therefore not very open to personalization. Like someone mentioned before, Wizards seem to be the archetype of a Battlemage.

 

I would argue that you could say that Battlemage is also only archetype in most AD&D CRPGs that you can play as you can only decide which combat role you specialize them in, because they had little to nothing spells and abilities outside combat, although they were able to effectively fulfill more roles than what PoEs wizards can, but this is deliberate design choice from Obsidian, because they didn't want wizards be similar default party member choice like it was in those games (you could play them without wizard, but that usually made things harder especially in later parts of the games).

 

Archetypes that wizards have in PoE depend on how you specify them. But their main role in game's combat is to be versatile crowd controllers. They can play role of Glass Cannon by focusing on long range spells and doing lots of AoE damage and disabling opponents or by focusing making themselves able take hits in front line by using self boost spells and using cone and other short ranged spells to dismantle charging enemies they can take role of arcane warriors. And of course you can mix this two extremity to something else with addition of their single target spells, which gives them change to work in damage dealing and leadership roles (although they usually can't do as good job as classes that are meant to specialize on those roles). 

 

From role-playing perspective main difference between classes in PoE is what role they play in combat, although there is some difference between classes in conversations and how NPCs react towards them.

 

So there is versatility in PoE's wizards but it will never rise on similar level than what you get in AD&D and wizards probably will not be able to compensate other class roles same way as they do in AD&D, as Obsidian don't want PoE's wizards be similar superior beings that they are in AD&D in latter levels. But there is much more choice to personalize your characters in PoE than what there are in AD&D, even though roles that classes can play in combat maybe more restricted, this is because of talents that you can pick for your characters.

[Marcvs Caesar]

 

 

D&D Wizard's are usually very powerful in CRPG, but D&D Sorcerers are in my opinion most superior class especially in AD&D, as they have access to all wizard spells, meaning that they aren't never ill prepared to any situation or limited on spells that you have found in the game. 

 

Wizards don't have summoning spells in PoE because Obsidian feels that they don't fit in their role in the game or more accurately they don't want wizard's to step on roles that they have planed for other classes to make them more attractive choice. This is also reason why priest don't have summoning spell like they have in D&D.

 

For lore reason's wizard's don't have access to summoning spell because they focus so much to control their soul energy by focusing it rough their grimoires which they have fulled with schemas that they have found out to control how soul power manifests via research and testing. This approach let them have more control over what they can do with soul energy, but it also blocks them some things that other's can do with that don't have so controlled approach towards it.

 

Priest get their control over soul energy from faith and dedication towards their god(s), even though soul energy comes from themselves, things that they can do with it are limited by their faith and things that they think their god(s) will and will not approve.

 

Druids and Chanters have more naturalistic approach towards their control over their soul energy. Druids create connection with web of living souls, which gives them limited ability to control things and essences of things in nature and Chanters use stories and legends to control soul energy from soul fragments and lost souls around them, which gives them ability to get them do things for them, like animating corpses or manifesting as spirits.

 

Finally a proper answer to my question. It's unfortunate though. AD&D classes were complex and versatile but in PoE it seems to be the opposite, they're more simplistic and focused and therefore not very open to personalization. Like someone mentioned before, Wizards seem to be the archetype of a Battlemage.

 

I would argue that you could say that Battlemage is also only archetype in most AD&D CRPGs that you can play as you can only decide which combat role you specialize them in, because they had little to nothing spells and abilities outside combat, although they were able to effectively fulfill more roles than what PoEs wizards can, but this is deliberate design choice from Obsidian, because they didn't want wizards be similar default party member choice like it was in those games (you could play them without wizard, but that usually made things harder especially in later parts of the games).

 

Archetypes that wizards have in PoE depend on how you specify them. But their main role in game's combat is to be versatile crowd controllers. They can play role of Glass Cannon by focusing on long range spells and doing lots of AoE damage and disabling opponents or by focusing making themselves able take hits in front line by using self boost spells and using cone and other short ranged spells to dismantle charging enemies they can take role of arcane warriors. And of course you can mix this two extremity to something else with addition of their single target spells, which gives them change to work in damage dealing and leadership roles (although they usually can't do as good job as classes that are meant to specialize on those roles). 

 

From role-playing perspective main difference between classes in PoE is what role they play in combat, although there is some difference between classes in conversations and how NPCs react towards them.

 

So there is versatility in PoE's wizards but it will never rise on similar level than what you get in AD&D and wizards probably will not be able to compensate other class roles same way as they do in AD&D, as Obsidian don't want PoE's wizards be similar superior beings that they are in AD&D in latter levels. But there is much more choice to personalize your characters in PoE than what there are in AD&D, even though roles that classes can play in combat maybe more restricted, this is because of talents that you can pick for your characters.

 

A Battlemage is a magic user who focuses on spells that are useful in close combat, spells that deal damage, buff self/allies and debuff enemies.

 

I don't particularly care about tactical roles, I'm more interested in actual roles. The classes in PoE were built for combat only it seems. What about role-playing? Did the developers forget about that? Was the whole game built on the idea of balance between the classes in relation to combat?

Do you know what my favourite spell in all the history of AD&D computer games was? Contact Other Plane. It had no use in combat yet why did I like it? It had role-playing value.

 

Wait. What do you mean by "leadership roles"?

Edited December 2, 2014 by Marcvs Caesar

[Sheikh]

@ Sheikh

Why would you want any class to have no non-combat use?

Because it makes that class different from the classes that have it. Difference is the essence of variety and indirectly of depth because variety is a component of depth. TL;DR: More depth.

I don't understand how that adds depth, why can't a warrior be good at sneaking around or talking to people?

Because then he isnt any different from the thief class in that regard. One class can, other cant, means there is more difference between those classes and as a results there is more variety=depth in those classes. Choice of class becomes a bigger challenge.

Surely a warrior who has trained himself to be good at those things is a deeper more interesting character then Og the brainbasher who can only bash brains and is outwited by pastry filling.

Good point, but thats multiclassing. Ideally multiclassing imposes special restrictions so that doing it demands a little sacrifice, this, again, forces and chllenges the player to choose.

 

Thats the main reason why this is all good, to make the player have to think about their choices and therefore make them think about the differences between the classes. That brings out the depth (difference between the classes) that is there.

 

So with that in mind, if you want a fighter who sneaks, it forces you to explore the differences between fighting and sneaking - through asking yourself the question "is it worth it" - that makes you compare fighting to sneaking in the context of the game and how valuable each is, in your mind and thats awesome. But if the multiclassing sacrifice is small, you can essentially do it just as well as if the fighter could simply learn to sneak just so.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Sheikh

[Captain Shrek]

We don't need "equally useful" or "equally combat worthy" classes. What we need is enough content in the game to justify the abilities of the classes. I find it awfully hard to believe that it is impossible to create situations where core DnD classes (as an example) are  NOT useful.

 

It is not that hard to come up with situations and restrictions that allow full set of abilities as they are to be preserved, all the while making all abilities useful. It is the basis of god encounter design. Any average DM will pull it off. That is why people still play Fighters and Monks in D&D games. In the end it all boils down to how the content is implemented. 

[Elerond]

 

 

 

D&D Wizard's are usually very powerful in CRPG, but D&D Sorcerers are in my opinion most superior class especially in AD&D, as they have access to all wizard spells, meaning that they aren't never ill prepared to any situation or limited on spells that you have found in the game. 

 

Wizards don't have summoning spells in PoE because Obsidian feels that they don't fit in their role in the game or more accurately they don't want wizard's to step on roles that they have planed for other classes to make them more attractive choice. This is also reason why priest don't have summoning spell like they have in D&D.

 

For lore reason's wizard's don't have access to summoning spell because they focus so much to control their soul energy by focusing it rough their grimoires which they have fulled with schemas that they have found out to control how soul power manifests via research and testing. This approach let them have more control over what they can do with soul energy, but it also blocks them some things that other's can do with that don't have so controlled approach towards it.

 

Priest get their control over soul energy from faith and dedication towards their god(s), even though soul energy comes from themselves, things that they can do with it are limited by their faith and things that they think their god(s) will and will not approve.

 

Druids and Chanters have more naturalistic approach towards their control over their soul energy. Druids create connection with web of living souls, which gives them limited ability to control things and essences of things in nature and Chanters use stories and legends to control soul energy from soul fragments and lost souls around them, which gives them ability to get them do things for them, like animating corpses or manifesting as spirits.

 

Finally a proper answer to my question. It's unfortunate though. AD&D classes were complex and versatile but in PoE it seems to be the opposite, they're more simplistic and focused and therefore not very open to personalization. Like someone mentioned before, Wizards seem to be the archetype of a Battlemage.

 

I would argue that you could say that Battlemage is also only archetype in most AD&D CRPGs that you can play as you can only decide which combat role you specialize them in, because they had little to nothing spells and abilities outside combat, although they were able to effectively fulfill more roles than what PoEs wizards can, but this is deliberate design choice from Obsidian, because they didn't want wizards be similar default party member choice like it was in those games (you could play them without wizard, but that usually made things harder especially in later parts of the games).

 

Archetypes that wizards have in PoE depend on how you specify them. But their main role in game's combat is to be versatile crowd controllers. They can play role of Glass Cannon by focusing on long range spells and doing lots of AoE damage and disabling opponents or by focusing making themselves able take hits in front line by using self boost spells and using cone and other short ranged spells to dismantle charging enemies they can take role of arcane warriors. And of course you can mix this two extremity to something else with addition of their single target spells, which gives them change to work in damage dealing and leadership roles (although they usually can't do as good job as classes that are meant to specialize on those roles). 

 

From role-playing perspective main difference between classes in PoE is what role they play in combat, although there is some difference between classes in conversations and how NPCs react towards them.

 

So there is versatility in PoE's wizards but it will never rise on similar level than what you get in AD&D and wizards probably will not be able to compensate other class roles same way as they do in AD&D, as Obsidian don't want PoE's wizards be similar superior beings that they are in AD&D in latter levels. But there is much more choice to personalize your characters in PoE than what there are in AD&D, even though roles that classes can play in combat maybe more restricted, this is because of talents that you can pick for your characters.

 

A Battlemage is a magic user who focuses on spells that are useful in close combat, spells that deal damage, buff self/allies and debuff enemies.

 

I don't particularly care about tactical roles, I'm more interested in actual roles. The classes in PoE were built for combat only it seems. What about role-playing? Did the developers forget about that? Was the whole game built on the idea of balance between the classes in relation to combat?

Do you know what my favourite spell in all the history of AD&D computer games was? Contact Other Plane. It had no use in combat yet why did I like it? It had role-playing value.

 

Wait. What do you mean by "leadership roles"?

 

So for you battlemages mean every other magic users that use any other spells than heal (although one could argue that heal is buff) and summoning in combat? 

 

Roleplaying aspect of PoE is not tied on its class system, but instead it gives player freedom to explore lots of different type characters regardless of what their class is. This characterization is mainly done via conversations and general decisions how player decides to solve quests. This gives player ability play lots if different roles. Main purpose behind class mechanics is to determine how any particular character works in the combat. There was talk and some promises about non-combat spells during kickstarter campaign, but at least yet we have seen little of those, but from how things are done in backer beta I would guess that non-combat spell usage and spells are tied to conversations and event screens, as we see Ciphers be able to use their mind controlling capability at least one conversation, which is not open to any other class, so I would guess that we probably see similar things more in full game at least in some extent. I would guess that they have gone towards this route because they don't want make player choose between characters' combat and non-combat capability during level upping.

 

Leadership roles in PoE mean characters that focus on buffing your own party and debuffing enemies, main classes that are meant to fulfill this role are Priest, Paladin and Chanter, but wizards has ability to work in such roles, but they aren't necessary as effective. Other main roles in PoE's combat are Damage Dealers (Rogues, Rangers, Ciphers), whose main point is to be able to do lots of single target damage, wizards can also play in this role but not necessary as effective as those that are meant to specialize in it. Then there is front liners (Fighters, Monks and Barbarians), which are meant to be able to take punishment and give it back and also tie enemies in combat so that you other characters have easier time to deal with them or enemy's ranged characters, which is role that wizards can also play like I mentioned in my previous post. And final major role group is crowd controllers which is role that wizard is mainly meant together with druid, although wizards are also meant to be versatile so that they can work in any other major combat role at least in some capacity.

[Sheikh]

We don't need "equally useful" or "equally combat worthy" classes. What we need is enough content in the game to justify the abilities of the classes. I find it awfully hard to believe that it is impossible to create situations where core DnD classes (as an example) are  NOT useful.

 

It is not that hard to come up with situations and restrictions that allow full set of abilities as they are to be preserved, all the while making all abilities useful. It is the basis of god encounter design. Any average DM will pull it off. That is why people still play Fighters and Monks in D&D games. In the end it all boils down to how the content is implemented. 

Yeah thats true.

 

So a more general point is that its good if the classes are extremely varied and have many niche abilities. The way to solve this is to create more situations that cater to each classes very specific talents. Meaning we make them useful based on situations, not based on themselves. So to make wizards more useful, instead of making them not totally **** in early game in terms of combat usefulness, you create very specific situations where wizards can be useful despite being **** at combat, in early game. Thats how I expand upon this comment.

[Failion]

Pillars wizards are not DND wizards. Not all rpgs handle wizards the same. In the wizardry games they are glass cannons with some buffs debuffs. Seems like thats what they are here also.