Why Don't Wizards Have Summoning Spells?

[Marcvs Caesar]

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.

 

 

Several spells don't fall into that category: Summoning spells, illusion spells, some divination spells, etc.

 

"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"

So they removed the role-playing from the character progression system? Great... Though I've seen the simplicity that is the skill system already. Five broad categories with no room for personalization.

 

Thank you for the detailed explanation, seriously.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Marcvs Caesar

[Sheikh]

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. 

Sounds good, at least. So they are rather special specialists as I take it?

[Silent Winter]

 

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.

Here at least I can agree - we should also consider non-combat skills when judging a class' worth to the party ... but then D&D adds 'knock' and 'find traps' (and invisibility) which largely negates a thief's worth.

So long as the system doesn't do that, I'm fine with having 'less effective, but still helping a bit, in combat while being useful outside combat'

 

(I just don't think it's necessary to tweak the class' combat effectiveness to be weak early but strong later and vice-versa.)

[Sheikh]

Everything you can possibly tweak in the name of depth is worth trying to tweak, in my opinion, which is includes some extremely fundamental/high level things to the game.

 

 

Like lets make the story of the game be narrated by one fictional character in one style in the first half of the game and diferently by a different character later, just as an example. This is all good.

 

Edited December 3, 2014 by Sheikh

[Elerond]

 

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.

 

 

Several spells don't fall into that category: Summoning spells, illusion spells, some divination spells, etc.

 

"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"

So they removed the role-playing from the character progression system? Great... Though I've seen the simplicity that is the skill system already. Five broad categories with no room for personalization.

 

Thank you for the detailed explanation, seriously.

 

 

Illusion spells are mostly damage buff or debuff spells in CRPG versions of AD&D, invisibility spells are I remember only illusion spells that don't fall on those categories, although I would but mirror image and similar spells (which PoE wizards have) to summoning spells but earlier in this thread you disagreed with such categorizing, although you said them belong in illusion spells, which means that there I at least some spell in PoE for Wizards that go with your strange (for me) categorizing for non-battlemage spells. Divination spell at least in Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2 focused mainly on non-combat application although some where such that they also dispelled illusion based combat buffs.

 

Broadness of skill system depends on which perspective you look at it. From AD&D perspective it adds more depth, but if you look it from perspective of much more complex skill system it is where simplified one.

 

Also they didn't remove role-playing from character progression, as they make new system that is not based on any existing one so they can't remove or add anything, and their main source of inspiration AD&D don't have role-playing options in character progression either (except if you reckon that thief skills or wizards spells that they learn outside of character level progression are such). I also would point out that leveling up is not only character progression method that there is in PoE, as there is also reputation system that keeps count how people see your character's actions and character sheet that keeps track on how you have chosen to identify your character. 

 

PoE is focused heavily on party based combat, it is one of the main pillars which Obsidian used to sell it for their backers, which is probably reason why they created system where combat is system is mostly separated from their role-playing system which is mainly build around their quest, conversation, reputation and event system, cross-overs mainly only be in their attribute system that works as base for both sides of the game. 

[Silent Winter]

Everything you can possibly tweak in the name of depth is worth trying to tweak, in my opinion, which is includes some extremely fundamental/high level things to the game.

 

 

Like lets make the story of the game be narrated by one fictional character in one style in the first half of the game and diferently by a different character later, just as an example. This is all good.

 

Not everything you can tweak is 'depth' - depth involves having more options, not making a class weaker or stronger.

 

No, that's not all good - that would not add depth, that would only add difference. (It's possible that could be done well, but simply doing it does not add depth)

 

[Sheikh]

Variety then at least. Not depth in that sense though yeah. I still think its good to add as much variety as possible, more or less on as many different levels as possible. Is nice.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Sheikh

[Silent Winter]

^Yes, variety is good.

 

I still don't think weak->strong for one class while another does the opposite is good design.

Giving each class something good and being variably useful in different situtions (and having a good balance of those situations) while still being able to offer something even when they're not at their most useful, is the ideal for me.  (Just don't ask me to design it )

[Captain Shrek]

^Yes, variety is good.

 

I still don't think weak->strong for one class while another does the opposite is good design.

Giving each class something good and being variably useful in different situtions (and having a good balance of those situations) while still being able to offer something even when they're not at their most useful, is the ideal for me.  (Just don't ask me to design it )

 

 

It's not that hard really. But it does reduce the combat to an appreciable degree. Which is NOT a bad thing at all if you think about it. We need better-designed challenging encounters and not trash mobs. 

[rjshae]

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.

 

From what I've seen thus far (at least in terms of the skills system), there's a lot riding on the selection of Talents in ToE as a means to differentiate your characters. It's unfortunate that we don't get to see the full set of talents until release. Hopefully the Talents will allow for a variety of different tactical combinations in combat, and will provide some unique abilities out of combat.

 

 

^Yes, variety is good.

 

I still don't think weak->strong for one class while another does the opposite is good design.

Giving each class something good and being variably useful in different situtions (and having a good balance of those situations) while still being able to offer something even when they're not at their most useful, is the ideal for me.  (Just don't ask me to design it )

 

I agree it's not the best design. I mean, why be creative with your tactics when a few high level fireballs will win 90% of your battles? It's more enjoyable in the long term to use the flexible combined arms approach of having each class be more beneficial in certain ranges of situations, and to combine the different advantages in creative ways.

[Naurgalen]

Returning to the original point of the thread, I don't see why summoning things should be an "exclusive" for a class instead of a "type" of magic (conjuration in d&d) that can be tailored to every class where it makes sense. For example of the variety of spells that can be made in this approach:

 

- Summoning creatures that can be tailored for the classes, common examples:

* Many but not very strong minions -aka swarm type- for area or concentrated damage if you command them (druids insect/spiders swarms?) (weak to area dmg)

* 1 strong, durable summon -aka tank/dd type- for cc/focused dd (wizards demon/elemental?)

* A couple of medium spirits with support spells (priests prob)

* The rangers pet, that is unique because it is related to his master instead of being other creature

* A time limited "resurrection" of the enemy's body for necromantic wizards-priests-cypher all can be candidates

 

- Summoning weapons (Chanters would be awesome for this, like they narrate the story of the legendary sword and summon it for a limited time, but priest, paladins and wizards can have it too)

- Teleporting oneself or others (there is already 1 spell)

- Summoning area denial - "soft" CC things: walls (can be elemental too), grease, poison clouds, ice etc... (*)

 

(*) magic traps work the same, you let opponents walk over them and suffer or go around. Rouge traps are "invisible" and don't really work as area denial but as a burst of damage, a CC or whatever.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Naurgalen

[Sheikh]

Because classes of magic are an imaginary concept which have no basis in the reality inside the game world. Its just a rough imaginary conceptualization to approximate the spells into groups/clusters based on observational values.

 

What does have reality is what the different classes use to cast spells - their soul or other things and how they use these things.

 

In other words types of magic is wack. Or if it isnt, whats the basis for segregating spells into types of magic?

Edited December 3, 2014 by Sheikh

[rjshae]

Returning to the original point of the thread, I don't see why summoning things should be an "exclusive" for a class instead of a "type" of magic (conjuration in d&d) that can be tailored to every class where it makes sense. For example of the variety of spells that can be made in this approach:

 

I like the general way you're heading with this. But a more significant way to differentiate summoning is by the amount of control the summoner exercises over the summoned creature. A chanter's ability to string together sequences should provide an innate means of summoning and controlling a creature. Likewise, a druid's link with nature should make the summoned creature a natural ally.

 

However, in the case of a wizard, the summoned creature should begin with no control--all of the soul-based energy is being used just to drawn the creature hither. Instead, the wizard needs to find a means, whether by another spell or through a talent, to exert control. Otherwise, the summoned creature should just do whatever it would normally be inclined to do. Note that this can still be useful since the creature could be summoned behind the enemy ranks; it just wouldn't be inclined to serve as a meat shield.

[Naurgalen]

 

Returning to the original point of the thread, I don't see why summoning things should be an "exclusive" for a class instead of a "type" of magic (conjuration in d&d) that can be tailored to every class where it makes sense. For example of the variety of spells that can be made in this approach:

 

I like the general way you're heading with this. But a more significant way to differentiate summoning is by the amount of control the summoner exercises over the summoned creature. A chanter's ability to string together sequences should provide an innate means of summoning and controlling a creature. Likewise, a druid's link with nature should make the summoned creature a natural ally.

 

However, in the case of a wizard, the summoned creature should begin with no control--all of the soul-based energy is being used just to drawn the creature hither. Instead, the wizard needs to find a means, whether by another spell or through a talent, to exert control. Otherwise, the summoned creature should just do whatever it would normally be inclined to do. Note that this can still be useful since the creature could be summoned behind the enemy ranks; it just wouldn't be inclined to serve as a meat shield.

 

 

I wanted to focus on the gameplay aspects to demonstrate how different summonings can be made flavored to every class to don't disrupt the "uniqueness" that they have , but yes, those things add to the feeling and roleplay and would be nice to have too. (and can be expanded too, like demons needed to be summoned from the body of one enemy, or whatever thing that complements and benefits the lore of this new universe obsidian is making)

[BigBripa]

Feels like you want to subject the game to socialism, forcing everyone to be equal.

 

Just wanna point out that this is not at all what socialism means, socialism would be like, if after a Wizard reaches a certain level he has to devote a certain amount of his skills to helping other party members, aka party based combat, cuz the wizard is powerful but if it weren't for everyone else he'd be dead pretty quickly.

 

As for the general balance discussion, we are not talking about market mechanics here, there are only a set number of classes and I don't think anyone is saying they should be completely equal, just equally viable.

 

In specific, I dont think that stripping Wizard of mobs is an inherent negative, as long as there is an avenue available for that playstyle in another class. Just because it isn't called "Wizard" doesn't mean you can't have the same experience, unless of course you were looking forward to putting on your robe and wizard hat...

[Luridis]

I'm personally inclined to think that if they don't include summons for wizards then they find them to be viable without that ability, or more likely overpowered with it.

[Luckmann]

I'm personally inclined to think that if they don't include summons for wizards then they find them to be viable without that ability, or more likely overpowered with it.

 

Summons can be incredibly hard to balance, considering that even a single mook, even if it was bloody rabbits, it's another opponent that will distract enemies and soak up at least a single hit, requiring the enemy to stop and whatnot.

 

I think that the Ranger is in it's current place specifically because of this; an attempt to balance the fact that the class can put another mobile punching bag on the board.

[PrimeJunta]

OTOH chanters have fairly huge summoning abilties. Can't see why you couldn't give one to wizards. If you want to add a cost to it, make it drain Endurance when active... or, hell, make it share the caster's health pool, like the Ranger's animal companion.

 

I think they're a bit bugged though. My skeletons either didn't appear, or just stood around doing nothing much other than following the party. They also usually appeared rather too late to make much of a difference.

 

At least in a previous build, the cipher's Charm ability was a fairly massive game-changer though.