Spells should all be per encounter

[Epsilon Rose]

I fail to see how a twice usable aoe damage plus daze is lackluster.  Maybe it's just me, but an AOE damage + decent debuff is pretty strong in my book.  If the argument is that the abilities aren't flashy enough, well that is a valid opionion, but doesn't really have anything to do with game balance. There are many wizard spells that are extremely powerful in the hands of someone who knows how to setup for their use and having more of these would be game breaking IMO.

The fact that the visuals are boring is important. Just look at FPSs with guns that have weaksounding reports; even though they might be statistically powerful, they still won't feel satisfying. The same is true for the wizard aoe. However, on the balance side, it's a realatively small AoE that does relatively little damage twice. There's also little tactical choice in when to use it no meaningful choices regarding it. That is, you are always better off using both uses in an encounter (assuming the fight lasts long enough), you are always better off trying to hit as many targets as possibly (but they tend to cluster together, so that's not too big of an issue), and it will always just be a small amount of damage + daze on a small burst at close range. It can't be a cone that does slow, a touch attack that hits a single target for lots of damage, a bolt or anything else.

[Dongom]

I think Tier 1 spells becoming encounter based at level 4, and Tier 2 spells becoming encounter based at level 6 would completely even the playing field for general Wizard useful ness across all battles.

 

Currently this happens at lvl 9 and 11, but I think that is a bit too far of a wait and nothing but artificial difficulty. 

[lucid1222]

 

I fail to see how a twice usable aoe damage plus daze is lackluster.  Maybe it's just me, but an AOE damage + decent debuff is pretty strong in my book.  If the argument is that the abilities aren't flashy enough, well that is a valid opionion, but doesn't really have anything to do with game balance. There are many wizard spells that are extremely powerful in the hands of someone who knows how to setup for their use and having more of these would be game breaking IMO.

The fact that the visuals are boring is important. Just look at FPSs with guns that have weaksounding reports; even though they might be statistically powerful, they still won't feel satisfying. The same is true for the wizard aoe. However, on the balance side, it's a realatively small AoE that does relatively little damage twice. There's also little tactical choice in when to use it no meaningful choices regarding it. That is, you are always better off using both uses in an encounter (assuming the fight lasts long enough), you are always better off trying to hit as many targets as possibly (but they tend to cluster together, so that's not too big of an issue), and it will always just be a small amount of damage + daze on a small burst at close range. It can't be a cone that does slow, a touch attack that hits a single target for lots of damage, a bolt or anything else.

 

There is a tactical choice on when to use or not use the per encounter abilities, it is called your spells.  So no you are not always better of using both uses per encounter.  It isn't all or nothing on spells or encounter abilities.  Yes the damage is a bit low on the AOE encounter ability but it does daze which in turn does alot of damge by letting your other members hit and crit more as well as get hit less I think you are way undervaluing the ability especially on a wizard with high might the damage is pretty good for an encounter AOE ability. Again you can aoe your auto attack as well, the wizard has so many options, and their spells are powerful enough that they don't need to be spammed unless you are not playing well. I for one like how they've done the wizard because they have so many encounter options and it's not just spamming your grimore spells so they feel special.  I mean you can still cast once or twice from your grimore per encounter and still not have to rest that often.  They have done a great job with the wizard as it still scales like old D&D games but has more options early than said games for contribution to more fights.

[CynicalP]

I love playing wizards, but I always disliked the D&D rest mechanic.  This is one mechanic I was hoping wouldn't make it into the game.  I prefer a mana based system where I can regenerate my mana over time. You could make regen only takes place outside of combat thus still limiting you mage durning an encounter or you could just simply make spell usage per encounter, same thing really.   I always felt melee charaters had no limitations and could go on and on with health being their limiting factor and this was a little unfair to caster classes.  Perhaps they should expand the fatigue system more to simulate melee needing rest after a strenuous battle.

[gurugeorgey]

The solution is to use spells to the extent that you need them.  And try to use them from weakest-viable-first, saving "big" spells by preference, but using them if you have to.

 

I think that's what the game expects you to do, and if you do it that way you'll be resting a reasonable amount of times, as rationed by camping gear.

 

I think it's a good system, too much per encounter would cheapen the strategic layer and turn it into MMO style gameplay, and that's anathema to a game like this.

[Viperswhip]

My wizard mostly doesn't travel with my group because he doesn't, until higher levels, feel like he has enough Foe only spells to be worth it. Druids and Priests can go crazy, but really, it's not a big deal, I feel like if you don't go overboard, you should be running out of spells right around the time you need to rest anyway.

 

Many combats don't need a lot of flashy spells to finish up quickly.

[Jojobobo]

I prefer hitting a couple of times very hard and having to rest to reinforce the camping mechanic rather than being able to spam lowish damage spells that could be used every encounter. What's the point when most character's can do lowish damage every encounter anyway? To let people use full power spells every encounter is silly without tweaking the mechanics as mentioned, and by having it as is it really enhances resource management at the higher difficulties.

 

A great choice by Obsidian, IMO.

[Epsilon Rose]

The solution is to use spells to the extent that you need them.  And try to use them from weakest-viable-first, saving "big" spells by preference, but using them if you have to.

 

I think that's what the game expects you to do, and if you do it that way you'll be resting a reasonable amount of times, as rationed by camping gear.

 

I think it's a good system, too much per encounter would cheapen the strategic layer and turn it into MMO style gameplay, and that's anathema to a game like this.

I would challenge you to play a game of Legend (with a competent DM) and still say that. Per encounter, or even at will, abilities don't necessarily cheapen your tactical options or make the game like an MMO.

[Bazy]

I prefer hitting a couple of times very hard and having to rest to reinforce the camping mechanic rather than being able to spam lowish damage spells that could be used every encounter. What's the point when most character's can do lowish damage every encounter anyway? To let people use full power spells every encounter is silly without tweaking the mechanics as mentioned, and by having it as is it really enhances resource management at the higher difficulties.

 

A great choice by Obsidian, IMO.

But this is exactly what happens to a worse extent. But instead of "spamming lowish damage spells" you spam autoattacks. 

[cctobias]

I absolutely do not think all spells should be per encounter.

 

Per encounter is tactical.  Per rest is strategic by doing this you will remove a significant amount of strategery from the game.

 

 

However I will concede that Druids/Wizard/Priest (maybe not Druid since they have spiritshift) need more things do on a per encounter basis before they get 1st and second level spell at per encounter.

 

Make no mistake a level 11 wizard is pretty darn strong.  4 per encounter slicken is close to insanely good.  

 

But the early level wizard can't do jack except blast and arcane assault.  Additionally Blast is "attack" based and wizard have abyssmal accuracy.  For AA the daze is nice and the damage is ok.  But its not enough to make up for the lack of interesting things to do.  Blast can be at least enough to not make the wizard a tag-a-long of occasional use.

 

Basically they need one or two talents/abilities that can be subbed out or added to blast.  Maybe something that can give one more encounter thing(i.e. branch away from normal attacks) and something to boost accuracy on blast or something.

 

At level 11 though wizard have 8 per encounter casts, so it flips around completely.

[vistani]

I'm happy with the rest mechanics.  I haven't ran myself out of camping supplies yet on normal and my wizard spells seem to last about as long as my tanks health does.  I mean I could explode the !@#$ out of 1 encounter and pew with my wand for a few fights so I feel like im getting my camping worth I guess but if I'm going to blow my load, it better be some scary stuff after me.

[Bazy]

Per encounter is tactical.  Per rest is strategic by doing this you will remove a significant amount of strategery from the game.

 

 

Make no mistake a level 11 wizard is pretty darn strong.  4 per encounter slicken is close to insanely good.  

This makes no sense. Most classes don't have many per rest abilities. Nobody complains they lack a "significant amount of strategy." Why are druids, priests and wizards so different.

 

 

And and level 11 wizards shows you absurdity with a per rest system. The difference in power between a 4 slicken wizard and a 0 slicken wizard is ridiculous. 

[Wolken3156]

This makes no sense. Most classes don't have many per rest abilities. Nobody complains they lack a "significant amount of strategy." Why are druids, priests and wizards so different.

To be fair, if Druids and Wizards could use their most powerful spells with reckless abandon, every other class would feel weaker in comparison, even including Ciphers.

 

Why poke things with a sword when you can just spam Fireball over and over, knowing you'll get them all back in the next fight?

Edited March 31, 2015 by Wolken3156

[Dongom]

At level 9 , wizard becomes the best class in the game.

[Epsilon Rose]

 

This makes no sense. Most classes don't have many per rest abilities. Nobody complains they lack a "significant amount of strategy." Why are druids, priests and wizards so different.

To be fair, if Druids and Wizards could use their most powerful spells with reckless abandon, every other class would feel weaker in comparison, even including Ciphers.

 

Why poke things with a sword when you can just spam Fireball over and over, knowing you'll get them all back in the next fight?

 

I you made spells per encounter (or gave them a selection of other per encounter abilities), why would you set them to the same balance point as spells that are supposed to be per rest?

[Wolken3156]

 

I you made spells per encounter (or gave them a selection of other per encounter abilities), why would you set them to the same balance point as spells that are supposed to be per rest?

In the case of 1st and 2nd level spells... that is likely because they do become per encounter once you reach level 9.

 

But for 3rd level and higher? No way. Spamming those would be really make the game too easy. Death Ring and or Adragan's Gaze already end encounters with just one cast. Spamming those would just be ridiculous.

[Epsilon Rose]

 

 

I you made spells per encounter (or gave them a selection of other per encounter abilities), why would you set them to the same balance point as spells that are supposed to be per rest?

In the case of 1st and 2nd level spells... that is likely because they do become per encounter once you reach level 9.

 

But for 3rd level and higher? No way. Spamming those would be really make the game too easy. Death Ring and or Adragan's Gaze already end encounters with just one cast. Spamming those would just be ridiculous.

 

So, again, why wouldn't you just re-balance them if you made them per encounter? "X as it currently is would be too powerful if you could use it per encounter" isn't a valid argument when you can also change X to X2.

[Hatred]

Been thinking about this. I am a fan of the 'oldschool' games which inspired so many people to kickstart this (i was busy living under a rock so I was not one of them). I think making wizards per encounter is an interesting idea personally. It would mean totally re balancing the class though. Maybe if Wizards learnt one spell per level and could cast one spell per two levels per encounter it might make them a bit more user friendly and a bit more fun to play. 

 I am not unhappy with the implementation of wizards in this game. I recently tried playing a gnome illusionist in Baldurs Gate (when I was just a wee lad I always chose beefcake characters) and it was pretty painful. Very painful even. I rolled a druid for my first playthrough of PoE and  have found it to be much more forgiving and fun than a playthrough of BG.