[392] Enemy casters need to be more threatening

[Lord Wafflebum]

My initial reaction to the wizards were instinctively, "oh God kill him now!!!!!!!" Now when I encounter wizards I just spread my guys out and stop worrying. I use my cipher to make any wizard irrelevant. 

 

I'd be good with making wizards a force to be concerned with more. Maybe it's because I now outright murder the BB Wizard when I start a new game and don't know the full abilities of the wizard, or the enemy wizard AI doesn't know how best to be a wizard either. I wouldn't mind being more scared of wizards.

 

Wizard.

[Karkarov]

Mages should be like every other class as far as the threat they represent.

 

As far as I can tell, they are.

Exactly.  Wizards are fine.  Druids and Chanters need some light taps from the nerf bat though.  People feel wizards are too weak because of two things.  1: Game has friendly fire, dammit you mean I actually have to aim and think about how I am positioning dudes now?  2: They aren't the be all end all of the encounter and stupidly OP like they were in Baldur's Gate 2.

[PrimeJunta]

I wasn't talking just about wizards though. I said "casters" in the topic and "spellcasters" in the message body, and I meant it. Enemy chanters and druids are just as un-threatening as they're so easy to interrupt/chunk.

 

Why I think this is a problem? Because figuring out how to take out the biggest threat in an encounter is half the fun. If you have casters with dangerous spells -- and yes, the spells are dangerous -- but there's a simple, reliable, obvious, and near-universally applicable tactic to take them out, then the combat suffers. Caster? Opening volley. Then do the actual fight.

[Luckmann]

I wasn't talking just about wizards though. I said "casters" in the topic and "spellcasters" in the message body, and I meant it. Enemy chanters and druids are just as un-threatening as they're so easy to interrupt/chunk.

 

Why I think this is a problem? Because figuring out how to take out the biggest threat in an encounter is half the fun. If you have casters with dangerous spells -- and yes, the spells are dangerous -- but there's a simple, reliable, obvious, and near-universally applicable tactic to take them out, then the combat suffers. Caster? Opening volley. Then do the actual fight.

That sounds like something a grognard might say.

 

 

one of us

one of us

one of us

 

 

Seriously though, couldn't agree more.

[Sabotin]

So wizards need something to survive the start of combat; some kind of temporary protection that's good for the start of every combat - a regenerating shield if you will .

 

On a more serious note doesnt every caster have some sort of basic protection spell that would make them last long enough to be threatning? Or is the issue with AI not using them properly? I seem to recall the deal with casters in IE games was that their protections allowed them time to be dangerous. Perhaps at low levels before that it was more about the reliable damage and certain spells costing you the game, but I really can't remember exactly how it looked.

[PrimeJunta]

Wizards have Arcane Shield, and it is true they don't use it much. Thing is, firearms bypass it completely. Other caster classes don't have anything analogous.

[Malekith]

PrimeJunta, on 17 Jan 2015 - 2:51 PM, said:PrimeJunta, on 17 Jan 2015 - 2:51 PM, said:PrimeJunta, on 17 Jan 2015 - 2:51 PM, said:

Wizards have Arcane Shield, and it is true they don't use it much. Thing is, firearms bypass it completely. Other caster classes don't have anything analogous.

The problem is Sawyer's obsesion against hard counters. The problem would be away instantly if Arcane Veil/shield whatever it's called made the wizard completely immune to physical damage for a short time (let's say the time he needs to fire 2 spells) Only magic can harm him in that state, and firearms that bypass it entirely.

So you have more tactical decisions to make.

Do you leave him until his Veil drops, accepting the 2 spells he will throw at you?

Have your casters try to kill him, leaving only your other members available to fight the rest of the opposition?

Equiping your party with firearms, killing the mage , but taking damage in the prossess from his allies and suffering a cooldown when changing Weapons for the firearm to something else?

Etc. Hard counters and counterspelling are way more interesting and fun than Sawyer's "unified" "softer" "balanced" effects.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Malekith

[morhilane]

I'm still wondering why the spellcaster should have a "opening volley immunity" when that idea can be user against any enemies and they will most probably die when they get hit by 6 players each shooting an arquebus too.

[aeonsim]

Are there any classes in the game that can survive an opening volley from 6 guns?

It's not that the casters aren't threatening it's the you consider them such a risk that you focus entirely on them at the start, something that I'm not sure any of the classes can survive.

 

As such do you really want to change the casters in such a manner that they have better initial survivability than other classes? Also the positioning of the casters in the Beta isn't that much of a threat they're usually at the front or off to one side which makes them pretty easy to target. If they were further back so your'd have to run into the enemies to target them they might be a bigger issue.

 

Not that I'm completely against caster with getting better seeing they're my fav class generally.

[Lord Wafflebum]

I've been reading Josh's tumblr a lot today (I highly recommend it to everyone; things make more sense with perspective) and from the arguments for how wizards currently are I think I may be playing the wizard wrong. I think I'll have to create my own to play with when I get a chance next.

[PrimeJunta]

Wizards are fine mechanically, as in, highly useful to have in the party. Some of us just find them a bit one-dimensional compared to their DnD counterparts who had a much broader repertoire of spells than just damage, debuff, or self-buff.

[Lord Wafflebum]

Wizards are fine mechanically, as in, highly useful to have in the party. Some of us just find them a bit one-dimensional compared to their DnD counterparts who had a much broader repertoire of spells than just damage, debuff, or self-buff.

I guess my problem is that I don't see how they're more useful than, say, a cipher. I can reasonably control, on Normal, most battles with engagement and cipher abilities. For me that makes wizard spells (primarily AoE damage) a liability. Self buffs I don't bother with as I think it wastes spell usage. The only thing I may not be using to its potential are the debuffs, but I find myself unsure why I would bother when I can use a cipher to mess with specific enemies until my front line and gunners can focus on them.

[Karkarov]

I guess my problem is that I don't see how they're more useful than, say, a cipher. I can reasonably control, on Normal, most battles with engagement and cipher abilities. For me that makes wizard spells (primarily AoE damage) a liability. Self buffs I don't bother with as I think it wastes spell usage. The only thing I may not be using to its potential are the debuffs, but I find myself unsure why I would bother when I can use a cipher to mess with specific enemies until my front line and gunners can focus on them.

Well as long as you understand that you only get 6 party members and you aren't going to get to use all classes to begin with.  It is okay if one class simply "doesn't work" for you and doesn't match your playstyle.  It doesn't mean the class is steaming ass and needs a rework now, it means it just doesn't appeal to you and you prefer the Cipher as a class over the Wizard.

 

Also Junta.  You do realize the only difference between BG2 mage and Eternity wizard is two things.  The Wizard is not stupidly over powered with ridiculously high damage aoe or tons of instant kills/permanent disables.  Also I don't have to play "hard counter the wizards protection spells" before my fighter kills the wizard in one round in Eternity.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Karkarov

[Gfted1]

Is there a Stoneskin type spell in the game? Meaning, a protection spell that completely absorbs hits and comes off in layers instead of coming off after one hit / few seconds?

[anameforobsidian]

Wizards are fine mechanically, as in, highly useful to have in the party. Some of us just find them a bit one-dimensional compared to their DnD counterparts who had a much broader repertoire of spells than just damage, debuff, or self-buff.

 

The wizard's utility came at the cost of other classes in the IE games.  That's not to say other classes were useless, because they clearly weren't.  However, the other classes were rigidly chained to a specific role in a way that wizards were not.  There was more variation inside the wizard class then there was between rangers and fighters.

 

This is even worse in pnp.  The amount of new spells wizards get far exceeds the number of new abilities people come up with for fighters.  Fighters get trip and grapple, wizards get flight and teleport.

[prodigydancer]

The wizard's utility came at the cost of other classes in the IE games.

So instead of trying to make other classes more versatile, let's nerf the hell out of Wizard to make it as bland as everything else. Perfect solution, thanks.

[Sarex]

So instead of trying to make other classes more versatile, let's nerf the hell out of Wizard to make it as bland as everything else. Perfect solution, thanks.

 

That has been their solution to everything so far in PoE.

[BrainMuncher]

The fact that the OP chooses to snipe the spell caster first with an opening volley suggests that the spell caster was already the most threatening enemy. Otherwise they would have sniped an other, more threatening enemy instead?

[Karkarov]

 

The wizard's utility came at the cost of other classes in the IE games.

So instead of trying to make other classes more versatile, let's nerf the hell out of Wizard to make it as bland as everything else. Perfect solution, thanks.

Except that isn't what they did.  They took the be all end all class that basically all high level combat revolved around, actually made them something sane, then gave everyone else cool things too.  If you play Eternity and make a boring fighter who has no skills other than hitting stuff and engaging things that was your choice.

[anameforobsidian]

 

The wizard's utility came at the cost of other classes in the IE games.

So instead of trying to make other classes more versatile, let's nerf the hell out of Wizard to make it as bland as everything else. Perfect solution, thanks.

 

Wizards went beyond versatile in several of the IE games.  They actively took over functions of another class.  Tenser's Transformation allowed wizards to "become a beserk fighter," and that's a sixth level spell.  Knock and invisibility took over more than half of a rogue's class function (scouting & lockpicking), and they're level two spells.  It's pretty telling when scs improved rogues use potions that mimic a wizards powers rather than stealth, because wizard powers are better than a major class feature.

 

Plus, the protection combos means that the only way to stop a wizard at high levels devolves  into one of three strategies.  Get a wizard to untangle the series of spell protections, send in a high-hp / high-mr fighter, or use an item which emulates a wizards spells.  So basically your options are: have a wizard, be bored for ten years, or pay extra to pretend to be a wizard (usually using an otherwise substandard class).

 

So yes, they nerfed wizards to bring them in-line with the expectations of a class based system.  A class based system means that you have a limited set of powers and a role to play within the party.  It does not mean that you have all the powers, and your role is not carrying the party.  BG2 only got around the clear deficiencies in the system by overleveling enemy mages and under-utilizing their spell selection.  If you want characters with all the powers, play classless systems like Skyrim or Wasteland 2.  Anything else will seem like a nerf.

Edited January 18, 2015 by anameforobsidian

[prodigydancer]

The fact that the OP chooses to snipe the spell caster first with an opening volley suggests that the spell caster was already the most threatening enemy.

Usually if an enemy can hit you at all it always presents non-zero threat. Minimizing incoming damage is often in priority (especially in "no healing" games like PoE) so basic kill order goes like this: healers (again, no healers in PoE) > ranged casters that can AoE or CC > ranged DPS > melee DPS > tanks. The actual kill order may vary from encounter to encounter but generally targets that potentially can blast you hard are a high priority. It has nothing to do with how well such targets can defend themselves.

 

What PrimeJunta is trying to say is that any threat consistently removable before it can manifest itself is effectively not a threat at all. You're talking about threat potential whereas we're discussing the effective threat.

Edited January 18, 2015 by prodigydancer

[BrainMuncher]

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

 

A threat is exactly that, the threat of something that hasn't happened yet. 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 really sure what you're getting at prodigy, either I missed your point or you missed mine.

Edited January 18, 2015 by BrainMuncher

[prodigydancer]

either I missed your point

You certainly did.

 

I don't know why you insist on arguing semantics but fine. Replace "not threatening enough" with "too fragile". Feeling better? Good for you if you do but the problem the topic is about is still there.

Edited January 18, 2015 by prodigydancer

[Karkarov]

You certainly did.

I don't know why you insist on arguing semantics but fine. Replace "not threatening enough" with "too fragile". Feeling better? Good for you if you do but the problem the topic is about is still there.

Pretty sure you missed his point not the other way around.  He is stating that the caster was the biggest threat because Junta killed him first, and guess what, he is right.  You don't kill the guy who is no danger to you first.  The problem is a poor thread title.  It should be "Enemy casters need to harder to kill".  Which is something I just don't agree with.  You don't want the highest potential damage dealers, with the most versatility, to also be "hard to kill" or it trivializes every other enemy in the encounter.  AKA: Baldur's Gate 2 combat.

[BrainMuncher]

Well being too fragile is another thing entirely, I wasn't being pedantic with semantics, I just didn't realise that's what you were getting at.

 

Looking at the wiki I see these HP numbers for the classes, in ascending order:

 

Class: (Endurance per level, HP multiplier)

 

Wizard: 10 x 3

Priest: 12 x 3

Cipher: 10 x 4

Chanter, Druid, Ranger, Rogue: 12 x 4

Fighter, Paladin: 14 x 5

Monk: 14 x 6

Barbarian: 16 x 6

 

 

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.