[392] Enemy casters need to be more threatening

[Karkarov]

So the Chanter, Druid, Ranger, and Rogue get 20% more HP than the Cipher, 33% more than Priest, and 60% more than wizard.

Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Paladins obviously have a lot more than the others, Barbarians with twice as much as a Rogue, and three times that of a Wizard.

 

It definitely look like the Wizard is the odd one out, with significantly less HP than most other classes. But Junta specifically says he's referring to all spellcasters, not just wizards. Which means the complaint would naturally extend to Chanters, Rangers and Rogues also, which most likely drop just as easily to a cannon barrage.

Chanters and Druids do honestly need a nerf there.  You are right though, most of those classes can be cut down fairly easy regardless because they have poor deflection in general and if focused can be hurt very bad very fast by any number of means.

[PrimeJunta]

@Karkarov there is a continuum between "dead with one volley" and "Kangaxx" you know. It's not either-or.

[Lord Wafflebum]

I got time to play around with the wizard last night a bit more in depth, and I take back what I said. 

 

I was definitely not using the wizard right. Apparently I needed to watch Josh play to appreciate the class more.

 

That said, I'm of the mind that the current AI under-utilizes wizards much like I have been. I can effectively ignore wizards in combat and focus on other peeps without any terribly negative consequences. When I use a wizard now, I can make a really tough fight trivial with one or two spells. 

 

I should be afraid of enemy spellcasters, but they act like it's Monday morning at the office and kinda just phone it in until they die. My wizard has complete control of the battlefield in a few seconds, but enemy wizards seem like they can't really be bothered with this combat nonsense right now.

 

I know they're still tweaking things, but I hope helping enemy wizards pay more attention to what's going on is on the to-do list. Maybe the wizards just need a cup of coffee?

[BrainMuncher]

One potential thing that could be causing this is that constitution adds 3% more HP per point. This creates an unequal scaling where each point of CON is three times more effective for a barbarian than for a wizard in terms of raw HP gain. So a Wizard can't really compensate for low base HP by pumping CON, because it's so inefficient relative to other classes.

 

At level 7:

 

Wiz, 10 con: 300 hp

Wiz, 20 con: 390 hp

Barb, 10 con: 960 hp

Barb, 20 con: 1248 hp

 

Poor wiz isn't getting much bang for his attribute buck there

[Karkarov]

@Karkarov there is a continuum between "dead with one volley" and "Kangaxx" you know. It's not either-or.

The only difference between Kangaxx and Mage#5 was his HP bloat.  I see where you are coming from Junta, I am just perfectly fine with them being glass cannons.

[zimcub]

He is stating that the caster was the biggest threat because Junta killed him first, and guess what, he is right.

 

No he's not

 

Well the reason the potential threat didn't become effective is because it got blasted in the face with a firearm barrage.

 

Obviously it makes sense to remove whichever threat poses the greatest potential for harm first. This suggests that the OP regarded the spell caster as the greatest threat, and dealt with it first.

 

 

Not even close.

There is also priority on who you can kill the fastest.

If you have 2 enemies that are equally threatening, you're going to go for the one you can kill the fastest.

Edited January 18, 2015 by zimcub

[Luckmann]

 

@Karkarov there is a continuum between "dead with one volley" and "Kangaxx" you know. It's not either-or.

The only difference between Kangaxx and Mage#5 was his HP bloat.  I see where you are coming from Junta, I am just perfectly fine with them being glass cannons.

 

 

Are you drunk? Kangaxx was much more than Mage #5 with HP. In fact, Kangaxx has incredibly low HP.

 

I realize that's not your overall point, but if that's what you think separates Kangaxx from Mage #5, you clearly don't see where PJ is coming from.

[Karkarov]

Are you drunk? Kangaxx was much more than Mage #5 with HP. In fact, Kangaxx has incredibly low HP.

I realize that's not your overall point, but if that's what you think separates Kangaxx from Mage #5, you clearly don't see where PJ is coming from.

I hate BG2 mages.  Period.  Anyone who wants to even slightly go in that direction, I am your worst enemy.  I don't give a crap about any named encounter, be it Kangaxx, Irenicus, or anyone else.

 

Get BG mages out of my game if they are there, and don't try to bring them in if they aren't.

 

That is the be all end all of my point.  Is my "overall point" clear now?

[Sarex]

I'm afraid you're in a minority here, like the world 0.01% rich population minority.

[wanderon]

I'll join the hate BG2 mages faction especially the whole silly buff/debuff nonsense...

[GreyFox]

BG2 mages were awesome and that was some of the best combat in a CRPG. 

 

PE went with the boring all around combat style so bland game play is what we have in comparison to IE games.

 

Good wizards would probably spice PE up a bit and make it look less boring.

[RoughOne]

I like some of the new classes approach to magic, like the Chanter.  I do have to agree, however, Wizards are a non plus for me, in general.  I simply hate the idea of DnD 'spells' and have since I ran table tops.  I wished PoE had given some thought to a more component based system, like Ars Magica.  A fireball spell would be akin to a fire element component, a shape, and a motion component.  The more 'mana' you channel into said spell, the bigger the bang, the farther away the target, the more mana required.  Every wizard could create their own spells to suit their character this way.  Learn bits and pieces of the system to suit the character.

[anameforobsidian]

I'm not a fan of BG2 mages either.  I think that they take up too much of other class roles, and such an emphasis was put on mages that it limited the capability of other classes.  Playing the BG series with scs showed me how many kludges they used to make mages fun enemies, and how the layers of protection absolutely wrecks the fun in the game at higher levels.  Scs mages are a lot smarter, but they're also not very fun to fight.

 

That said, Kangaxx was significantly different from any other fight in the game.  Both his ability to use an insane number of imprisons and his many magix resistances (always on resist magic weapon! etc.) 

[prodigydancer]

I simply hate the idea of DnD 'spells' and have since I ran table tops.  I wished PoE had given some thought to a more component based system, like Ars Magica.  A fireball spell would be akin to a fire element component, a shape, and a motion component.  The more 'mana' you channel into said spell, the bigger the bang, the farther away the target, the more mana required.  Every wizard could create their own spells to suit their character this way.  Learn bits and pieces of the system to suit the character.

TES is that way.

 

This game was supposed to be a spiritual successor for IE games. I know it's a bit of a moot point now considering how far Obsidian has already deviated from the IE design principles. But I really don't see how changing the magic system so fundamentally would help with anything. Sandbox magic system fits TES perfectly because TES games are sandboxes. PoE isn't a sandbox game however and it isn't meant to be one.

Edited January 19, 2015 by prodigydancer

[PrimeJunta]

I don't particularly care for BG2 mages either. But I still think casters in P:E ought to be less easy to suppress/murder somehow.

[Luckmann]

 

Are you drunk? Kangaxx was much more than Mage #5 with HP. In fact, Kangaxx has incredibly low HP.

I realize that's not your overall point, but if that's what you think separates Kangaxx from Mage #5, you clearly don't see where PJ is coming from.

I hate BG2 mages.  Period.  Anyone who wants to even slightly go in that direction, I am your worst enemy.  I don't give a crap about any named encounter, be it Kangaxx, Irenicus, or anyone else.

 

Get BG mages out of my game if they are there, and don't try to bring them in if they aren't.

 

That is the be all end all of my point.  Is my "overall point" clear now?

 

 

I feel that the issue here is that you have absolutely no idea what constitutes a BG2 wizard, since you just said that the only thing that separates Kangaxx from Mage #5 is HP Bloat.

 

Kangaxx.

 

The Demi-Lich with infinite at-will Imprisonment, a lvl 9 spell of the save-or-die variety.

 

I don't even have words for how hard you've disqualified yourself from the argument on this. It's not even called Mage in D&D. Seriously, you have all of my whats.

 

 

I don't particularly care for BG2 mages either. But I still think casters in P:E ought to be less easy to suppress/murder somehow.

 

I dislike the incredible discrepancy that exists between the things a Wizard can do and the things... well.. everyone else can do. Bar, perhaps, Clerics, Sorcerers, and Druids. Essentially D&D casters. But like you said, there has to be something inbetween the wet blanket that dies in the initial attack and the glorious demi-godhood of endgame D&D casterdom (although bar PnP, they'll still not be a Kangaxx by any means).

 

To me, it's less about the glasscannon-ness of wizards in PoE and more about the fact that there's simply no counterspelling/spell-tactics at all, which would make it extremely hard to balance wizards. Either you make them tougher to kill, and they will become overpowered, or they remain wet blankets. In BG2, they were tough to kill unless you stripped their defences.

 

Because of how PoE avoids counters like the plague, there's really no remedy that wouldn't severely unbalance things. Without means to strip defences, you can't offer defences to be stripped.

 

Edit: Or offensive powers to be countered.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Luckmann

[Sensuki]

At level 7:

 

Wiz, 10 con: 300 hp

Wiz, 20 con: 390 hp

Barb, 10 con: 960 hp

Barb, 20 con: 1248 hp

 

Poor wiz isn't getting much bang for his attribute buck there

Do you actually play the beta? Those numbers are completely wrong, for starters. The single number is HP per level and the multiplier is amount of Health, which is a strategical resource that isn't really relevant for enemies at all in combat.

[BrainMuncher]

No I don't play the beta Mr. Grumpypants. Just looking at the wiki.

 

And I'm assuming they use the class system to easily create NPCs, because why wouldn't they?

 

Either way, the precise accuracy of those numbers is irrelevant to my point, which was about the relative effectiveness of the constitution multiplier.

[archangel979]

No I don't play the beta Mr. Grumpypants. Just looking at the wiki.

 

And I'm assuming they use the class system to easily create NPCs, because why wouldn't they?

 

Either way, the precise accuracy of those numbers is irrelevant to my point, which was about the relative effectiveness of the constitution multiplier.

Well in that, they are following IE games :D

In IE games warrior classes could get +5 bonus HP per level from 19 Con (which you could get with any of them in BG1 due to Con +1 Tome of Health) which non warrior classes could only get up to +2 bonus with same Con.

[Sensuki]

relative effectiveness of the constitution multiplier.

No, not really. It applies to player controlled characters on some difficulties (Easier difficulties allow you to rest more), but not really enemies.

[BrainMuncher]

So are you telling me that an NPC (enemy) barbarian with 20 CON will have the same HP as an enemy barb with 10 CON? Because that would be wierd.

 

Or are you saying that they just don't use the class system at all for enemies and assign arbitrary stats manually for each enemy?

[PrimeJunta]

At level 4, the relevant numbers are 59/71 and 95/114, for a wiz and a barb with Con 9/19, respectively. Endurance, not health. Health is irrelevant for enemies.

Edited January 19, 2015 by PrimeJunta

[Luckmann]

At level 4, the relevant numbers are 59/71 and 95/114, for a wiz and a barb with Con 9/19, respectively. Endurance, not health. Health is irrelevant for enemies.

 

It should probably be noted that those 12 Endurance the Wizard gains matters a whole lot more to him than the 19 Endurance matters to the Barbarian.

[Malekith]

BrainMuncher, on 19 Jan 2015 - 1:00 PM, said:

So are you telling me that an NPC (enemy) barbarian with 20 CON will have the same HP as an enemy barb with 10 CON? Because that would be wierd.

 

Or are you saying that they just don't use the class system at all for enemies and assign arbitrary stats manually for each enemy?

He is saying that enemies don't use Health, so their HP is irrelevant. You could manualy assign 9999 Hp to each and every one of them and the combat would remain the same.

[Landak]

Personally, I'm a _very_ big fan of 2nd Ed AD&D Spellcasters. I admit that they might be slightly overpowered, but they present at worst a worthy tactical challenge -- without protective spells, they're sunk; with them, they're dangerous. The glass cannon is a good one. 

 

The corresponding lack so far of contingencies -- stoneskin, etc -- in PE is a bit sad. Mages don't really feel like they're much of a threat. In fact, combat as a whole could be a bit more engaging, but maybe I haven't turned the difficulty slider up enough. I'm sure there's a lot more variability in the actual game. 

 

One thing that does annoy me is the fact that it's very hard to spy a group of enemies, and effectively get your spellcasters to simultaneously ambush them with the usual mix of fireball-web. What tends to happen is that by the time they start casting, the enemy are standing next to your front line...