are magic users gonna stomp all over all other builds?

[apolloooo]

so far in my cRPG experience (planescape torment, baldur's gate 1,2, neverwinter nights 1/2/motb ), properly leveled, pure magic users outclass melee and rogue build. they can support, heal, and launch a barrage of god-level attack. even with slow agility, low endurance, a simple haste and armor spell can make them decent in surviving, maybe not tanking like warriors or paladins, but you can take some hits at least. with high-leveled armor / haste spell, you're practically untouchable, then there's summon, morphing, time-manipulation,etc etc.

 

after playing mage in baldur's gate 2 i can't go back to being a puny warrior or rogue. in most of those games, my strategy is basic lure to tank/rogue with backstab, the rest of the mages heal and burn.

[Mazisky]

I was reading that shield spells for mages take a little amount of time to be effective and some kind of attacks (guns or fast spells) can rek them before they can cast a defence.

 

I guess a couple of beefy warriors are needed as frontline

 

Also, my english sucks, but i hope u understood

Edited February 23, 2015 by Mazisky

[Elerond]

Magic users don't stomp over other classes (with exception of ranger maybe, but it is currently stomped by all other classes).

 

Although wizards are most versatile class in game in role wise, but other classes are usually much better in specific roles. Other magic user are contained more specific roles:

• Ciphers are damage dealers, but rogues are usually more consistent in this role (ranger which is also damage dealing class usually can't compete with them in damage dealing).
• Chanter are support caster they aren't that good in direct combat or damage dealing, but their chants work as flexible way to buff your party and their invocations, are good, but as they need to first power them up they aren't overpowered, especially now when their summons don't live after combat.
• Priest are another support caster class, who have much wider selection (as they get all their spell during level up instead of selecting some of them) of spells in their use that they can cast in higher rate than ciphers and chanters, but they are also less powerful, but priests are most versatile support class meaning that you can rely on them in any situation
• Paladins are final of support classes they are most passive caster with their modal auras that de/buff, but they are most able support class in armed combat.
• Druid are crowd control class which is role that they share with wizards, although because of wizards versatility druids often fare better in this role than wizards. Druids like priests also get all their spell during level up. 

Classes that haven yet mentioned are Fighters, Monks and Barbarians that are front line classes that can take damage better than any other class and they deal damage best after damage dealing classes. And games engagement mechanic gives them ability to work as road blocks for enemies.  

[Mazisky]

What is the mostly evocation based class? I mean to create lot of creatures (es. skeletons) who tanks for me. 

 

Chanters?

 

Also, i can't find a proper translation for "Chipers" in my language, is there a synonim or a kinda-similar term to describe them? Just to have an idea

Edited February 23, 2015 by Mazisky

[CaptainMace]

An equivalent would be psychic for the overall idea, or at least that's how I see it. Though lorewise that doesn't really suffice to describe it.

Edited February 23, 2015 by CaptainMace

[Mazisky]

Nice, i just read the description and i agree that psychic (or psionic, whatever) is the best alternative term to describe them. Thx mate

 

PS: they seems interesting, maybe they'll have lot of charme\control power over enemies

Edited February 23, 2015 by Mazisky

[Elerond]

What is the mostly evocation based class? I mean to create lot of creatures (es. skeletons) who tanks for me. 

 

Chanters?

 

Also, i can't find a proper translation for "Chipers" in my language, is there a synonim or a kinda-similar term to describe them? Just to have an idea

 

Chanter are best class if you want to create summoner

[Mazisky]

 

What is the mostly evocation based class? I mean to create lot of creatures (es. skeletons) who tanks for me. 

 

Chanters?

 

Also, i can't find a proper translation for "Chipers" in my language, is there a synonim or a kinda-similar term to describe them? Just to have an idea

 

Chanter are best class if you want to create summoner

 

 

Thank you. I remember i did lot of summoners when playing Baldur's Gate, it was nice  and i just wanna do the same thing, after so many years :-P

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Probably not. And Battlemage can usually kick a purecasters ass in most games.

 

What is the mostly evocation based class? I mean to create lot of creatures (es. skeletons) who tanks for me. 

 

Chanters?

 

Also, i can't find a proper translation for "Chipers" in my language, is there a synonim or a kinda-similar term to describe them? Just to have an idea

The Cipher is sort of like a mix between DnD 3.X SoulKinfe and Psychic Warrior. They aren't pure casters and need to be built to do some weapon damage. They're probably the class most suited to gish builds, as Wizards are **** in melee.

[anameforobsidian]

It's worth pointing out that evocation refers to fireballs and explodey spells in D&D.  Conjuration is summoning.

 

Cipher means a secret form of information, a code, or having to do with encrypting and decrypting.  They're psychics that use mind powers to read souls and thoughts.  They're a cross between magic users and skirmishers.

[apolloooo]

there is also psionic class, it maybe can be really interesting.

[Flow]

We've only got the BB content to judge by, but using basic tactics magic users have been very effective for me.

 

Use a couple of fighters to engage and hold the line while you move a couple of magic users to the flanks for line-of-sight to the enemy rear. Then AoE 'til you win. As of now, the AI mostly doesn't seem smart enough to engage squishy damage dealers even if they're off in the corner totally unprotected.

[apolloooo]

We've only got the BB content to judge by, but using basic tactics magic users have been very effective for me.

 

Use a couple of fighters to engage and hold the line while you move a couple of magic users to the flanks for line-of-sight to the enemy rear. Then AoE 'til you win. As of now, the AI mostly doesn't seem smart enough to engage squishy damage dealers even if they're off in the corner totally unprotected.

so do the ai go to the nearest character, or go for the first attacker, or the highest damage dealer?

 

the latter is probably the most problematic, if i use my warrior to lure the mooks to attack him, and i throw fireball spell, and deal alot of damage, they will change the target to the caster? or it will stick to the first that we aggro'd? if so, then caster will really have clear advantages in a group. you just have to keep the tank alive, and other just attack, and watch out for new spawning enemies that we haven't aggro'd.

 

 

i remember in kotor, NWN, they go for the highest damage dealer so we cannot spam fireblast or missiles and stay at the same place, but there are skills that keep enemies targeting one person or easily use a binding spell (esp if they are low level mook with low effect threshold)

Edited February 24, 2015 by apolloooo

[Namutree]

 

We've only got the BB content to judge by, but using basic tactics magic users have been very effective for me.

 

Use a couple of fighters to engage and hold the line while you move a couple of magic users to the flanks for line-of-sight to the enemy rear. Then AoE 'til you win. As of now, the AI mostly doesn't seem smart enough to engage squishy damage dealers even if they're off in the corner totally unprotected.

so do the ai go to the nearest character, or go for the first attacker, or the highest damage dealer?

 

the latter is probably the most problematic, if i use my warrior to lure the mooks to attack him, and i throw fireball spell, and deal alot of damage, they will change the target to the caster? or it will stick to the first that we aggro'd? if so, then caster will really have clear advantages in a group. you just have to keep the tank alive, and other just attack, and watch out for new spawning enemies that we haven't aggro'd.

Once the enemies are engaged with your fighter they aren't going anywhere. The Engagement mechanic will make sure of that.

[archangel979]

so far in my cRPG experience (planescape torment, baldur's gate 1,2, neverwinter nights 1/2/motb ), properly leveled, pure magic users outclass melee and rogue build. they can support, heal, and launch a barrage of god-level attack. even with slow agility, low endurance, a simple haste and armor spell can make them decent in surviving, maybe not tanking like warriors or paladins, but you can take some hits at least. with high-leveled armor / haste spell, you're practically untouchable, then there's summon, morphing, time-manipulation,etc etc.

 

after playing mage in baldur's gate 2 i can't go back to being a puny warrior or rogue. in most of those games, my strategy is basic lure to tank/rogue with backstab, the rest of the mages heal and burn.

That is funny because in both NWN1 and NWN2 well build warriors dominated the battlefield by a mile. In NWN1 HotU my Fighter/Weapon Master killed anything in one round, no caster could do that.

In NWN2, Barbarian/Bard/Dragon Disciple was just unstopable and dominated everything. Or any build that focused on critical hits murdered enemies much faster than any spellcaster.

Edited February 25, 2015 by archangel979

[DarkWanderer]

 

so far in my cRPG experience (planescape torment, baldur's gate 1,2, neverwinter nights 1/2/motb ), properly leveled, pure magic users outclass melee and rogue build. they can support, heal, and launch a barrage of god-level attack. even with slow agility, low endurance, a simple haste and armor spell can make them decent in surviving, maybe not tanking like warriors or paladins, but you can take some hits at least. with high-leveled armor / haste spell, you're practically untouchable, then there's summon, morphing, time-manipulation,etc etc.

 

after playing mage in baldur's gate 2 i can't go back to being a puny warrior or rogue. in most of those games, my strategy is basic lure to tank/rogue with backstab, the rest of the mages heal and burn.

That is funny because in both NWN1 and NWN2 well build warriors dominated the battlefield by a mile. In NWN1 HotU my Fighter/Weapon Master killed anything in one round, no caster could do that.

In NWN2, Barbarian/Bard/Dragon Disciple was just unstopable and dominated everything. Or any build that focused on critical hits murdered enemies much faster than any spellcaster.

 

Early to midgame maybe - later on casters were much better as far as i remember.

[apolloooo]

yup. early game, and baldur's gate 1 ( since you cannot level up to high level, only in level 7-8's) warrior are always better, the steep curve comes after level 12+ and tier 5/6 spells are more common

[Yellow Rabbit]

so far in my cRPG experience (planescape torment, baldur's gate 1,2, neverwinter nights 1/2/motb ), properly leveled, pure magic users outclass melee and rogue build. they can support, heal, and launch a barrage of god-level attack. even with slow agility, low endurance, a simple haste and armor spell can make them decent in surviving, maybe not tanking like warriors or paladins, but you can take some hits at least. with high-leveled armor / haste spell, you're practically untouchable, then there's summon, morphing, time-manipulation,etc etc.

 

after playing mage in baldur's gate 2 i can't go back to being a puny warrior or rogue. in most of those games, my strategy is basic lure to tank/rogue with backstab, the rest of the mages heal and burn.

*shrug* All games you've listed based on D&D, right? As far as I'm familiar with this game system (that would be from 1st AD&D up to 3rd D&D) pure casters tend to suck in early levels, be kinda ok in the middle and dominate everything in the late, because IT'S FRIGGIN' MAGIC, MAN! Largely depends on campaign itself, of course, but tendency stands. And in NWN/NWN2 (3rd Ed based games) with all those prestiges you can grow up a really scary pal on whatever base you want, if you're up for it. Breeding horrible monsters of a characters that would make Frankenstein stammer was considerable part of the fun with those games.

 

Point is, PoE doesn't use D&D, casters in it have some humility built in on ruleset level, so the answer to OP is "very unlikely". Many people don't like magic users being so underpowered comparing to IE games, but I, for one, am glad that I won't have to panic looking at the enemies group having three major casters in it (Kangax. Twisted Rune. I'm not good with BG2 at all, flog me).

[apolloooo]

 

so far in my cRPG experience (planescape torment, baldur's gate 1,2, neverwinter nights 1/2/motb ), properly leveled, pure magic users outclass melee and rogue build. they can support, heal, and launch a barrage of god-level attack. even with slow agility, low endurance, a simple haste and armor spell can make them decent in surviving, maybe not tanking like warriors or paladins, but you can take some hits at least. with high-leveled armor / haste spell, you're practically untouchable, then there's summon, morphing, time-manipulation,etc etc.

 

after playing mage in baldur's gate 2 i can't go back to being a puny warrior or rogue. in most of those games, my strategy is basic lure to tank/rogue with backstab, the rest of the mages heal and burn.

*shrug* All games you've listed based on D&D, right? As far as I'm familiar with this game system (that would be from 1st AD&D up to 3rd D&D) pure casters tend to suck in early levels, be kinda ok in the middle and dominate everything in the late, because IT'S FRIGGIN' MAGIC, MAN! Largely depends on campaign itself, of course, but tendency stands. And in NWN/NWN2 (3rd Ed based games) with all those prestiges you can grow up a really scary pal on whatever base you want, if you're up for it. Breeding horrible monsters of a characters that would make Frankenstein stammer was considerable part of the fun with those games.

 

Point is, PoE doesn't use D&D, casters in it have some humility built in on ruleset level, so the answer to OP is "very unlikely". Many people don't like magic users being so underpowered comparing to IE games, but I, for one, am glad that I won't have to panic looking at the enemies group having three major casters in it (Kangax. Twisted Rune. I'm not good with BG2 at all, flog me).

 

the problem is non D&D games are like that too >__>

 

try morrowind, evernum series even some of the final fantasy games. unless this will the most balanced offline RPG ever. i this isn't really a complain tho. i'm fine with being overpowered. i'm just wondering

[archangel979]

 

 

so far in my cRPG experience (planescape torment, baldur's gate 1,2, neverwinter nights 1/2/motb ), properly leveled, pure magic users outclass melee and rogue build. they can support, heal, and launch a barrage of god-level attack. even with slow agility, low endurance, a simple haste and armor spell can make them decent in surviving, maybe not tanking like warriors or paladins, but you can take some hits at least. with high-leveled armor / haste spell, you're practically untouchable, then there's summon, morphing, time-manipulation,etc etc.

 

after playing mage in baldur's gate 2 i can't go back to being a puny warrior or rogue. in most of those games, my strategy is basic lure to tank/rogue with backstab, the rest of the mages heal and burn.

That is funny because in both NWN1 and NWN2 well build warriors dominated the battlefield by a mile. In NWN1 HotU my Fighter/Weapon Master killed anything in one round, no caster could do that.

In NWN2, Barbarian/Bard/Dragon Disciple was just unstopable and dominated everything. Or any build that focused on critical hits murdered enemies much faster than any spellcaster.

 

Early to midgame maybe - later on casters were much better as far as i remember.

 

You remember wrong. Find good warrior builds for NWN1 and NWN2 and go play again. You will see how powerful these characters are.

[anameforobsidian]

That is funny because in both NWN1 and NWN2 well build warriors dominated the battlefield by a mile. In NWN1 HotU my Fighter/Weapon Master killed anything in one round, no caster could do that.

In NWN2, Barbarian/Bard/Dragon Disciple was just unstopable and dominated everything. Or any build that focused on critical hits murdered enemies much faster than any spellcaster.

 

 

I NWN any halfway decent character could wreck everything else at higher levels.  It was not terribly balanced.  Maximized missile swarm made everything including dracoliches point-click-die.  

Edited February 26, 2015 by anameforobsidian

[h3st]

Also, i can't find a proper translation for "Chipers" in my language, is there a synonim or a kinda-similar term to describe them? Just to have an idea

Cipher, not Chiper. According to wiki, the equivalent italian term is Cifrario or cifra. Dictionary.com gives its etymology as:

• 1350-1400; Middle English siphre, from
• Medieval Latin ciphra, from
• Arabic ṣifr empty, zero; translation of
• Sanskrit śūnyā empty

[Mazisky]

 

Also, i can't find a proper translation for "Chipers" in my language, is there a synonim or a kinda-similar term to describe them? Just to have an idea

Cipher, not Chiper. According to wiki, the equivalent italian term is Cifrario or cifra. Dictionary.com gives its etymology as:

 

Problems is that such term does not have any sense considering it as a class name, i'm wondering how it will be translated , that word is like "coded string"

 

It will be like "nice, let me build party: mmmmh, a warrior, ok, a paldin, nice. Let's create backline now, mmmh, wizard of course and..and...a coded string. WTF IS THIS GUY?? Is that a bug?" :-D

Edited February 26, 2015 by Mazisky

[Lephys]

Thanks to the perfect clarity of the English language, obviously a "Cipher" is "one who ciphes."

 

Cobbler - one who cobbles.

Thatcher - one who thatches.

 

See? So, we just need to look up the verb "to ciphe."

[Lord Wafflebum]

Thanks to the perfect clarity of the English language, obviously a "Cipher" is "one who ciphes."

 

Cobbler - one who cobbles.

Thatcher - one who thatches.

 

See? So, we just need to look up the verb "to ciphe."

Thanks for clearing all that up