Is it too late for a redesign of the encounter/daily system for spellcasters?

[PugPug]

The transition of per-day spells becoming per-encounter is obvously a huge game-changer when it happens. It's a big topic of conversation. I would say it fundamentally changes the play of each of the three classes.

 

Isn't that... kind of a bad thing? Shouldn't there be consistency?

 

I see a class having only per-day spells as a big step backward for the genre. I'm hoping to see a balance struck between the two, but I think it's tough to make sweeping class changes after launch.

 

On the subject, it also seems druid spiritshift should be an at-will power and its stats should scale better with level and gear, though I understand it's already one of the better classes when in humanoid form.

[Concordance]

I doubt there would be any major changes to the spellcasting system. The game has been released for weeks, many people are already deep into their playthroughs and are firmly set in their builds and character composition. You can expect balance tweaks at best.

 

They did try a more "modern" spellcaster design with no daily spells. The result is a class that excels both at crowd control and AoE DPS, and is probably the strongest class overall. If you dislike the daily spell limit, you can play Cipher and witness the full glory of the "be-all end-all Wizard" trope Sawyer tried so hard to avoid.

[Climhazzard]

If you make to much stuff from casters per battle instead of per rest, it starts to negate the advantage that melee dps has over caster classes.  My monk performs very well over the long haul because my wizards and druids can't break out all their biggest spells for every battle.  I already see arguments around here that melee dps is useless, and though i disagree wholeheartedly, the more per battle spells that casters have, the less useful melee dps becomes.

[Epsilon Rose]

If you make to much stuff from casters per battle instead of per rest, it starts to negate the advantage that melee dps has over caster classes.  My monk performs very well over the long haul because my wizards and druids can't break out all their biggest spells for every battle.  I already see arguments around here that melee dps is useless, and though i disagree wholeheartedly, the more per battle spells that casters have, the less useful melee dps becomes.

That really just suggests that the melee types also need to be fixed.

[Climhazzard]

 

If you make to much stuff from casters per battle instead of per rest, it starts to negate the advantage that melee dps has over caster classes.  My monk performs very well over the long haul because my wizards and druids can't break out all their biggest spells for every battle.  I already see arguments around here that melee dps is useless, and though i disagree wholeheartedly, the more per battle spells that casters have, the less useful melee dps becomes.

That really just suggests that the melee types also need to be fixed.

 

 

Or, that they are both fine as is, kinda depends on how you look at it i guess.  I personally think that all melee abilities should be per encounter though.  And that wizard/druid spells should be balanced better vs each other.  But I am okay with the amount of per battle/rest spells that casters get atm.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Climhazzard

[Epsilon Rose]

 

 

If you make to much stuff from casters per battle instead of per rest, it starts to negate the advantage that melee dps has over caster classes.  My monk performs very well over the long haul because my wizards and druids can't break out all their biggest spells for every battle.  I already see arguments around here that melee dps is useless, and though i disagree wholeheartedly, the more per battle spells that casters have, the less useful melee dps becomes.

That really just suggests that the melee types also need to be fixed.

 

 

Or, that they are both fine as is, kinda depends on how you look at it i guess.  I personally think that all melee abilities should be per encounter though.  And that wizard/druid spells should be balanced better vs each other.  But I am okay with the amount of per battle/rest spells that casters get atm.

 

The problem with that is there are a lot of other problems that you can point to for per rest mechanics.

1. Resting doesn't have a substantial in-game cost. It's purely an out of game frustration, meaning you're giving the player the option of trading enjoyment for power, which is never a good choice to offer.
2. It makes it hard, if not impossible, to balance encounters properly, because it creates an incredibly wide variance in how much power a player can bring to bear, beyond just differences in level and build. A player could spend none of a daily resource, an encounter's worth of power, or most of a day's worth of power on any given encounter. The final option will always easily overpower any encounter designed for the first two, but the first two might not be able to meet a challenge designed for the last and the same is true between the first two on their own.
3. It doesn't actually add tactical depth to the game. Tactics rely on information, but you can't know the difficulty or number of encounters you'll face before your next rest; so, at best, you are essentially gambling when determining how much power you spend.
4. Per rest abilities ask you to make decisions on the per-rest scale, but the game gives you know ability to act on that scale and, in fact, assigns no value to that scale beyond the recovery of those abilities.

That is four reasons to not have per-rest abilities irrespective of their relative balance to per encounter and at-will abilities.  However, I could also make  arguments about the lack of active abilities for melee and options for casters who have spent/don't want to use their spells being a bad choice, because it minimizes engagement.

[Climhazzard]

You just start an encounter with your per battle abilities, interdiction for example, and ration out a few per day abilities, then go from there.  You can kinda judge if the battle can be easily finished with that much, of if you should go all out.

[Althernai]

The transition of per-day spells becoming per-encounter is obvously a huge game-changer when it happens. It's a big topic of conversation. I would say it fundamentally changes the play of each of the three classes.

 

Isn't that... kind of a bad thing? Shouldn't there be consistency?

It does change how you play, but is that really a bad thing? It helps prevent the gameplay from becoming too stale. Also, only really changes how you face fights with weaker enemies. In a serious battle, you'll want to break out the higher-level stuff in any case.

[Emptiness]

The transition from per-rest to per-encounter usage of spells is probably too sharp.  In other words, one level all of your spells of a certain level are restricted per-rest, and then the next level they are suddenly all per-encounter.  There wouldn't be such a dramatic jump in caster power level if the transition was more gradual.  After all, when you first gain the abilities to cast spells of a certain level you don't also gain the ability to cast four of them per-rest at the same time.

 

Here's an example of what I mean:

Current Wizard Spell Progression           Modified Wizard Spell Progression
         Spell uses per Spell Level                 Spell uses per Spell Level
Level    1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th           Level    1st       2nd       3rd       4th 5th 6th
 1       2/r  -   -   -   -   -             1       2/r        -         -         -   -   -
 2       3/r  -   -   -   -   -             2       3/r        -         -         -   -   -
 3       4/r 2/r  -   -   -   -             3       4/r       2/r        -         -   -   -
 4       4/r 3/r  -   -   -   -             4       4/r       3/r        -         -   -   -
 5       4/r 4/r 2/r  -   -   -             5       4/r       4/r       2/r        -   -   -
 6       4/r 4/r 3/r  -   -   -             6       4/r       4/r       3/r        -   -   -
 7       4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r  -   -             7       1/e + 3/r 4/r       4/r       2/r  -   -
 8       4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r  -   -             8       2/e + 2/r 4/r       4/r       3/r  -   -
 9       4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r  -             9       3/e + 1/r 1/e + 3/r 4/r       4/r 2/r  -
10       4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r  -            10       4/e       2/e + 2/r 4/r       4/r 3/r  -
11       4/e 4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r           11       4/e       3/e + 1/r 1/e + 3/r 4/r 4/r 2/r
12       4/e 4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r           12       4/e       4/e       2/e + 2/r 4/r 4/r 3/r

The idea would be that just as you are gradually introduced to casting spells of a certain level, the ability to cast spells of that level per-encounter would develop over the course of several levels.  In my example I chose to start the transition 6 levels after the ability to cast spells of that level was first acquired, but exactly when it starts is not as important as the gradual nature of the transition.

 

This would introduce an added layer of complexity for spell casters, who would need to be able to understand from the UI how many spells of each level can be cast per-encounter, and whether casting a spell of a certain level is going to count against their per-rest limit.  There is a potential for confusion, but I don't think that it is beyond the limits of the UI, and I expect that the average player will be able to come to an understanding of how the system works with a reasonable amount of experience.

[Daemonjax]

The transition from per-rest to per-encounter usage of spells is probably too sharp.  In other words, one level all of your spells of a certain level are restricted per-rest, and then the next level they are suddenly all per-encounter.  There wouldn't be such a dramatic jump in caster power level if the transition was more gradual.  After all, when you first gain the abilities to cast spells of a certain level you don't also gain the ability to cast four of them per-rest at the same time.

 

Here's an example of what I mean:

Current Wizard Spell Progression           Modified Wizard Spell Progression
         Spell uses per Spell Level                 Spell uses per Spell Level
Level    1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th           Level    1st       2nd       3rd       4th 5th 6th
 1       2/r  -   -   -   -   -             1       2/r        -         -         -   -   -
 2       3/r  -   -   -   -   -             2       3/r        -         -         -   -   -
 3       4/r 2/r  -   -   -   -             3       4/r       2/r        -         -   -   -
 4       4/r 3/r  -   -   -   -             4       4/r       3/r        -         -   -   -
 5       4/r 4/r 2/r  -   -   -             5       4/r       4/r       2/r        -   -   -
 6       4/r 4/r 3/r  -   -   -             6       4/r       4/r       3/r        -   -   -
 7       4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r  -   -             7       1/e + 3/r 4/r       4/r       2/r  -   -
 8       4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r  -   -             8       2/e + 2/r 4/r       4/r       3/r  -   -
 9       4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r  -             9       3/e + 1/r 1/e + 3/r 4/r       4/r 2/r  -
10       4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r  -            10       4/e       2/e + 2/r 4/r       4/r 3/r  -
11       4/e 4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r           11       4/e       3/e + 1/r 1/e + 3/r 4/r 4/r 2/r
12       4/e 4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r           12       4/e       4/e       2/e + 2/r 4/r 4/r 3/r

The idea would be that just as you are gradually introduced to casting spells of a certain level, the ability to cast spells of that level per-encounter would develop over the course of several levels.  In my example I chose to start the transition 6 levels after the ability to cast spells of that level was first acquired, but exactly when it starts is not as important as the gradual nature of the transition.

 

This would introduce an added layer of complexity for spell casters, who would need to be able to understand from the UI how many spells of each level can be cast per-encounter, and whether casting a spell of a certain level is going to count against their per-rest limit.  There is a potential for confusion, but I don't think that it is beyond the limits of the UI, and I expect that the average player will be able to come to an understanding of how the system works with a reasonable amount of experience.

 

This.  Just for the wizard, though.  I've said it multiple times so I can't agree more -- except I'd have the spells per encounter progression start at level 2, and you have to pick which single spell every other level became once per encounter.  

 

Every even level you can pick one 1st to 2nd level spell you know, and that becomes a once per encounter ability -- so at level 12, you'd have 6 different spells that are per encounter.

 

That would be a lot closer to new D&D edition cantrips.  Either that or design a whole cantrip section of spells.

[Schyzm]

I agree that per rest mechanic is a 2 to 3 decade old anachronism in modern rpgs and wish it had gone away. I actually don't use wizards/druids/priests atm just to avoid the mechanic.

[MaxDamage]

iroll20s rest, otherwise wait for a proper mod

[MadDemiurg]

Tbh I quite like the per rest mechanic. It has a lot of balancing issues, but there are plenty of games that do not use it, so it is nice to play one that does for a change. It is much better than let's say Dragon Age Inquisition MMOified crap. I do see a potential snowball problem with per encounter spells once the level cap is raised though.

 

Also, with this system resting should not be free as it is now. There should be zones you can't backtrack from, and 0 cp inns should not exist (or should give you big penalties after rest). Right now it's too exploitable.

 

What people seem to miss is that in PoE all classes have a per rest resource - health. So spending your spells is much more straightforward than hypothesising about the next encounters you might face - you spend spells to make encounters easier and minimise health loss. If your health is low you MUST rest. So if you're running with full spells and your tanks have red health you're doing it wrong. If you're running empty and your tanks are at full health you are also probably doing it wrong, although it depends. Rationing spells requires you to properly access the difficulty of each encounter (with stealth it's possible even before jumping into combat), which is a skill a lot of players don't seem to have, hence the complaints.

Edited April 14, 2015 by MadDemiurg

[Darkcloud1987]

I doubt there would be any major changes to the spellcasting system. The game has been released for weeks, many people are already deep into their playthroughs and are firmly set in their builds and character composition. You can expect balance tweaks at best.

 

They did try a more "modern" spellcaster design with no daily spells. The result is a class that excels both at crowd control and AoE DPS, and is probably the strongest class overall. If you dislike the daily spell limit, you can play Cipher and witness the full glory of the "be-all end-all Wizard" trope Sawyer tried so hard to avoid.

I don't know Ciphers are good for trash mob sweeping but in long battles they are great in the beginning and the later effectivenes greatly depends on how well they can hit the enemy to regain focus. 

[Epsilon Rose]

Tbh I quite like the per rest mechanic. It has a lot of balancing issues, but there are plenty of games that do not use it, so it is nice to play one that does for a change. It is much better than let's say Dragon Age Inquisition MMOified crap. I do see a potential snowball problem with per encounter spells once the level cap is raised though.

 

Also, with this system resting should not be free as it is now. There should be zones you can't backtrack from, and 0 cp inns should not exist (or should give you big penalties after rest). Right now it's too exploitable.

 

What people seem to miss is that in PoE all classes have a per rest resource - health. So spending your spells is much more straightforward than hypothesising about the next encounters you might face - you spend spells to make encounters easier and minimise health loss. If your health is low you MUST rest. So if you're running with full spells and your tanks have red health you're doing it wrong. If you're running empty and your tanks are at full health you are also probably doing it wrong, although it depends. Rationing spells requires you to properly access the difficulty of each encounter (with stealth it's possible even before jumping into combat), which is a skill a lot of players don't seem to have, hence the complaints.

Health as a per rest resource gets brought up in nearly every game with a per rest mechanic, but it's not really the same. For starters, health is a single value, rather than a collection of abilities with different effects. Second, health has a very clear optimization strategy: lose as little health as possible.

 

Also, the idea that you can use Stealth to gauge the difficulty of a battle before it begins and, thus, properly plan out your spell uses is somewhat erogenous. You can figure out the difficulty of the next battle, sure, but you also need to know the difficulty and number of every other battle you'll encounter before you rest. Maybe you'll face a really hard battle soon, so you should stockpile for it. Maybe you'll just face a bunch of small battles, so you should toss a few spells at each. Maybe this is the hard battle, despite it being easier than other hard battles. You have no way of knowing and that makes proper planning impossible. What you are doing is gambling.

[MadDemiurg]

 

Tbh I quite like the per rest mechanic. It has a lot of balancing issues, but there are plenty of games that do not use it, so it is nice to play one that does for a change. It is much better than let's say Dragon Age Inquisition MMOified crap. I do see a potential snowball problem with per encounter spells once the level cap is raised though.

 

Also, with this system resting should not be free as it is now. There should be zones you can't backtrack from, and 0 cp inns should not exist (or should give you big penalties after rest). Right now it's too exploitable.

 

What people seem to miss is that in PoE all classes have a per rest resource - health. So spending your spells is much more straightforward than hypothesising about the next encounters you might face - you spend spells to make encounters easier and minimise health loss. If your health is low you MUST rest. So if you're running with full spells and your tanks have red health you're doing it wrong. If you're running empty and your tanks are at full health you are also probably doing it wrong, although it depends. Rationing spells requires you to properly access the difficulty of each encounter (with stealth it's possible even before jumping into combat), which is a skill a lot of players don't seem to have, hence the complaints.

Health as a per rest resource gets brought up in nearly every game with a per rest mechanic, but it's not really the same. For starters, health is a single value, rather than a collection of abilities with different effects. Second, health has a very clear optimization strategy: lose as little health as possible.

 

Also, the idea that you can use Stealth to gauge the difficulty of a battle before it begins and, thus, properly plan out your spell uses is somewhat erogenous. You can figure out the difficulty of the next battle, sure, but you also need to know the difficulty and number of every other battle you'll encounter before you rest. Maybe you'll face a really hard battle soon, so you should stockpile for it. Maybe you'll just face a bunch of small battles, so you should toss a few spells at each. Maybe this is the hard battle, despite it being easier than other hard battles. You have no way of knowing and that makes proper planning impossible. What you are doing is gambling.

 

Think you're getting it backwards. You NEED to rest when your resources run out. If you've saved all your spells but your tanks are at 0 health your savings were worthless. You don't know the next battles. But if you see that in this battle you either need to use spells or you'll end up with half of your party down to red health you use them. There's no point in conservation if your party is half dead. Likewise, if you can take 0 damage without casting any spells there's no point in casting any. Spells are a tool to minimise health loss. A party without spellcasters would run out of health and have to rest after x encounters. A party with spellcasters would run out of health after y encounters (presumably y < x), but can increase that number spending spells. By properly accessing difficulty of each encounter you can usually identify how many spells you need - if you overspend you burn out faster, if you underspend you end up with conserved spells and weakened party. That's the tricky part.

 

You're correct that you don't know WHAT spells you'll need later for the optimal strategy, but given how all PoE spellcasting is spontaneous this is less of an issue, although since you have limited # of spells per level still an issue somewhat. If PoE used D&D psionic-like spellcasting with fixed # of spell points per rest it wouldn't be an issue at all.

 

Scouting ahead helps with accessing whether you need to rest now or you can take the next encounter.

Edited April 14, 2015 by MadDemiurg

[cctobias]

The transition from per-rest to per-encounter usage of spells is probably too sharp.  In other words, one level all of your spells of a certain level are restricted per-rest, and then the next level they are suddenly all per-encounter.  There wouldn't be such a dramatic jump in caster power level if the transition was more gradual.  After all, when you first gain the abilities to cast spells of a certain level you don't also gain the ability to cast four of them per-rest at the same time.

 

Here's an example of what I mean:

Current Wizard Spell Progression           Modified Wizard Spell Progression
         Spell uses per Spell Level                 Spell uses per Spell Level
Level    1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th           Level    1st       2nd       3rd       4th 5th 6th
 1       2/r  -   -   -   -   -             1       2/r        -         -         -   -   -
 2       3/r  -   -   -   -   -             2       3/r        -         -         -   -   -
 3       4/r 2/r  -   -   -   -             3       4/r       2/r        -         -   -   -
 4       4/r 3/r  -   -   -   -             4       4/r       3/r        -         -   -   -
 5       4/r 4/r 2/r  -   -   -             5       4/r       4/r       2/r        -   -   -
 6       4/r 4/r 3/r  -   -   -             6       4/r       4/r       3/r        -   -   -
 7       4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r  -   -             7       1/e + 3/r 4/r       4/r       2/r  -   -
 8       4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r  -   -             8       2/e + 2/r 4/r       4/r       3/r  -   -
 9       4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r  -             9       3/e + 1/r 1/e + 3/r 4/r       4/r 2/r  -
10       4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r  -            10       4/e       2/e + 2/r 4/r       4/r 3/r  -
11       4/e 4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r           11       4/e       3/e + 1/r 1/e + 3/r 4/r 4/r 2/r
12       4/e 4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r           12       4/e       4/e       2/e + 2/r 4/r 4/r 3/r

The idea would be that just as you are gradually introduced to casting spells of a certain level, the ability to cast spells of that level per-encounter would develop over the course of several levels.  In my example I chose to start the transition 6 levels after the ability to cast spells of that level was first acquired, but exactly when it starts is not as important as the gradual nature of the transition.

 

This would introduce an added layer of complexity for spell casters, who would need to be able to understand from the UI how many spells of each level can be cast per-encounter, and whether casting a spell of a certain level is going to count against their per-rest limit.  There is a potential for confusion, but I don't think that it is beyond the limits of the UI, and I expect that the average player will be able to come to an understanding of how the system works with a reasonable amount of experience.

 

Yeah instead of a sharp transition to bam 4 at level 9 there was a say 1e/3r at level 6, 2e/2r at level 7 I think that you would kill two birds with one stone and have a much less jarring change in gameplay while also addressing the problem of caster doing very little most of the time in the early game unless they seriously cultivate blast or whatever.

 

I don't think a transition from per rest to per encounter is problematic in and of itself, but the huge change in what you can do is simply far to jarring.  You still need to manage the gamechanger higher spells on a per rest basis etc.

 

Now we need to differentiate that some spell are possibly too strong to be level 1.  People will probably say 4 per encounter slicken is to OP.  Fine but that is not an issue with per encounter low level spells, that is an issue with Slicken.

 

So currently, esepcially for Wizards, we have a double effect.  Per encounter plus a very powerful first level spell makes the transition from level 8 to level 9 wizard pretty insane.  You go from a decent CC guy that may need some resting to keep it up to a crazy shut down tons of stuff every encounter caster.  You go from helping in some/many(depending on how often you rest) encounters to dominating every encounter where you can prone things.

 

 

In general I would say no level 1 spell should dominate an encounter even if its cast 4 times and I would say slicken cast 4 times can do this.  On the other hand the Wizard lvl 1 deflection buff seems quite reasonable to have a few times per encounter and allows for a different more tanky playstyle which is good.

 

So I feel that per encounter is fine, but way to jarring currently and some spells simply radically change things when you can machine gun over and over, but that is a problem with those spells really.  They still cause the same issue on per rest anyway, just hopefully more rarely. 

[dekergus]

well the spell / rest system seems just fine to me.

 

you have to save your spells and/or your camping kits to avoid going back to the surface every two encounters when you are in the depths of the infinite paths... and also make a decision to continue or not when your party members start to be low on life , short on spells....

you have also the choice to buy items to get bonus spells , or other kind of boost.

all these choice matters, especially if you play ironman mode.

 

on a roleplay side , i dont want my characters to unleash infinite magic power like semi gods or something.

[b0rsuk]

I don't understand what this fuss is about. I'm barely even using camping supplies or inns. This is on Hard.

 

On my second plathrough I have a monk as a main, Pellegrina, Kana (melee with shields), Grieving Mother, Sagani, Aloth. This is 3 tanky characters + Itumaak, covered by aura of ... Endurance. I use Aloth's spells as support. Often stuff like Miasma of Dullmindness, and other weakening spells. Arcane Assault is used all the time, largely for the daze it provides.

 

I like per-rest abilities. They make me think harder about using them. If all were per-encounter, all encounters would probably feel similar. You'd use them all as fast as possible. Also, figurines would be next to impossible to balance. I go as far as I can without resting, it's just more enjoyable than resting every encounter. I treat it as a challenge.

 

Sometimes encounters start with Kana being badly wounded, so he probably will be in the back row. In others I'm out of level2 spells, because they were very handy in a particular battle. In others I need to be very careful about shielding Aloth from damage. All this creates variety and forces me to approach even similar encounters in different ways.

 

This party kills most of monsters in melee. Three ogres and an ogre druid - sounds like fun! I fight them all at once, chokepoints limit me. Aloth is not "DPS", he's support. The concept of "DPS" is quite meaningless with per-rest abilities anyway, and that's good. In many cases, discussion about DPS indicates a shallow game. There is so much more to this game than how damaging a weapon is.

Edited April 14, 2015 by b0rsuk

[Schyzm]

well the spell / rest system seems just fine to me.

 

you have to save your spells and/or your camping kits to avoid going back to the surface every two encounters when you are in the depths of the infinite paths... and also make a decision to continue or not when your party members start to be low on life , short on spells....

you have also the choice to buy items to get bonus spells , or other kind of boost.

all these choice matters, especially if you play ironman mode.

 

on a roleplay side , i dont want my characters to unleash infinite magic power like semi gods or something.

 

 

going back is more a hassle than a strategic decision. which is just one of the many problems w/ per rest abilities. you're not making any real in game tradeoff so much as a real life tradeoff of 5 minutes of ur actual time. 

 

but yah per rest is old and busted and shouldn't have been included in game.

[Luckmann]

The transition from per-rest to per-encounter usage of spells is probably too sharp.  In other words, one level all of your spells of a certain level are restricted per-rest, and then the next level they are suddenly all per-encounter.  There wouldn't be such a dramatic jump in caster power level if the transition was more gradual.  After all, when you first gain the abilities to cast spells of a certain level you don't also gain the ability to cast four of them per-rest at the same time.

 

Here's an example of what I mean:

Current Wizard Spell Progression           Modified Wizard Spell Progression
         Spell uses per Spell Level                 Spell uses per Spell Level
Level    1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th           Level    1st       2nd       3rd       4th 5th 6th
 1       2/r  -   -   -   -   -             1       2/r        -         -         -   -   -
 2       3/r  -   -   -   -   -             2       3/r        -         -         -   -   -
 3       4/r 2/r  -   -   -   -             3       4/r       2/r        -         -   -   -
 4       4/r 3/r  -   -   -   -             4       4/r       3/r        -         -   -   -
 5       4/r 4/r 2/r  -   -   -             5       4/r       4/r       2/r        -   -   -
 6       4/r 4/r 3/r  -   -   -             6       4/r       4/r       3/r        -   -   -
 7       4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r  -   -             7       1/e + 3/r 4/r       4/r       2/r  -   -
 8       4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r  -   -             8       2/e + 2/r 4/r       4/r       3/r  -   -
 9       4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r  -             9       3/e + 1/r 1/e + 3/r 4/r       4/r 2/r  -
10       4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r  -            10       4/e       2/e + 2/r 4/r       4/r 3/r  -
11       4/e 4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r           11       4/e       3/e + 1/r 1/e + 3/r 4/r 4/r 2/r
12       4/e 4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r           12       4/e       4/e       2/e + 2/r 4/r 4/r 3/r

The idea would be that just as you are gradually introduced to casting spells of a certain level, the ability to cast spells of that level per-encounter would develop over the course of several levels.  In my example I chose to start the transition 6 levels after the ability to cast spells of that level was first acquired, but exactly when it starts is not as important as the gradual nature of the transition.

 

This would introduce an added layer of complexity for spell casters, who would need to be able to understand from the UI how many spells of each level can be cast per-encounter, and whether casting a spell of a certain level is going to count against their per-rest limit.  There is a potential for confusion, but I don't think that it is beyond the limits of the UI, and I expect that the average player will be able to come to an understanding of how the system works with a reasonable amount of experience.

 

I think the suggested table is still too sharp, and in some regards it's even worse from a balance, for example, you actually end up even crazier than now (with 2/e of 3rd Rank spells).

 

But the idea of it starting earlier is good, I just think it should be much, much slower, and certainly not at the point of having two full spell ranks at level 12 at 4/e (and definitely not three and a half spell ranks).

 

I also want it to work differently between the spellcasting classes, where their "extra progressions" work differently. Per-Encounter spell slots for wizards, Deity-specific spells for Priests, and added Spiritshifts/Wildshapes or similar for Druids. This isn't just because there's a marked difference between Wizards and Priests/Druids (Wizards can only fit 4 spells in their Grimoires; when Priests and Druids get to level 9, entire spell ranks gets unlocked), but because spellcasters are just too same-y.

[Epsilon Rose]

 

The transition from per-rest to per-encounter usage of spells is probably too sharp.  In other words, one level all of your spells of a certain level are restricted per-rest, and then the next level they are suddenly all per-encounter.  There wouldn't be such a dramatic jump in caster power level if the transition was more gradual.  After all, when you first gain the abilities to cast spells of a certain level you don't also gain the ability to cast four of them per-rest at the same time.

 

Here's an example of what I mean:

Current Wizard Spell Progression           Modified Wizard Spell Progression
         Spell uses per Spell Level                 Spell uses per Spell Level
Level    1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th           Level    1st       2nd       3rd       4th 5th 6th
 1       2/r  -   -   -   -   -             1       2/r        -         -         -   -   -
 2       3/r  -   -   -   -   -             2       3/r        -         -         -   -   -
 3       4/r 2/r  -   -   -   -             3       4/r       2/r        -         -   -   -
 4       4/r 3/r  -   -   -   -             4       4/r       3/r        -         -   -   -
 5       4/r 4/r 2/r  -   -   -             5       4/r       4/r       2/r        -   -   -
 6       4/r 4/r 3/r  -   -   -             6       4/r       4/r       3/r        -   -   -
 7       4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r  -   -             7       1/e + 3/r 4/r       4/r       2/r  -   -
 8       4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r  -   -             8       2/e + 2/r 4/r       4/r       3/r  -   -
 9       4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r  -             9       3/e + 1/r 1/e + 3/r 4/r       4/r 2/r  -
10       4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r  -            10       4/e       2/e + 2/r 4/r       4/r 3/r  -
11       4/e 4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r           11       4/e       3/e + 1/r 1/e + 3/r 4/r 4/r 2/r
12       4/e 4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r           12       4/e       4/e       2/e + 2/r 4/r 4/r 3/r

The idea would be that just as you are gradually introduced to casting spells of a certain level, the ability to cast spells of that level per-encounter would develop over the course of several levels.  In my example I chose to start the transition 6 levels after the ability to cast spells of that level was first acquired, but exactly when it starts is not as important as the gradual nature of the transition.

 

This would introduce an added layer of complexity for spell casters, who would need to be able to understand from the UI how many spells of each level can be cast per-encounter, and whether casting a spell of a certain level is going to count against their per-rest limit.  There is a potential for confusion, but I don't think that it is beyond the limits of the UI, and I expect that the average player will be able to come to an understanding of how the system works with a reasonable amount of experience.

 

I think the suggested table is still too sharp, and in some regards it's even worse from a balance, for example, you actually end up even crazier than now (with 2/e of 3rd Rank spells).

 

But the idea of it starting earlier is good, I just think it should be much, much slower, and certainly not at the point of having two full spell ranks at level 12 at 4/e (and definitely not three and a half spell ranks).

 

I also want it to work differently between the spellcasting classes, where their "extra progressions" work differently. Per-Encounter spell slots for wizards, Deity-specific spells for Priests, and added Spiritshifts/Wildshapes or similar for Druids. This isn't just because there's a marked difference between Wizards and Priests/Druids (Wizards can only fit 4 spells in their Grimoires; when Priests and Druids get to level 9, entire spell ranks gets unlocked), but because spellcasters are just too same-y.

 

Given how long combat lasts, or doesn't, I'm not sure there's a significant difference between having 2 spells of a level be per encounter and having all the spells of that level be per encounter, particularly if you also have spells of another level as per encounter.

[BrickleberryPi]

The transition from per-rest to per-encounter usage of spells is probably too sharp.  In other words, one level all of your spells of a certain level are restricted per-rest, and then the next level they are suddenly all per-encounter.  There wouldn't be such a dramatic jump in caster power level if the transition was more gradual.  After all, when you first gain the abilities to cast spells of a certain level you don't also gain the ability to cast four of them per-rest at the same time.

 

Here's an example of what I mean:

Current Wizard Spell Progression           Modified Wizard Spell Progression
         Spell uses per Spell Level                 Spell uses per Spell Level
Level    1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th           Level    1st       2nd       3rd       4th 5th 6th
 1       2/r  -   -   -   -   -             1       2/r        -         -         -   -   -
 2       3/r  -   -   -   -   -             2       3/r        -         -         -   -   -
 3       4/r 2/r  -   -   -   -             3       4/r       2/r        -         -   -   -
 4       4/r 3/r  -   -   -   -             4       4/r       3/r        -         -   -   -
 5       4/r 4/r 2/r  -   -   -             5       4/r       4/r       2/r        -   -   -
 6       4/r 4/r 3/r  -   -   -             6       4/r       4/r       3/r        -   -   -
 7       4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r  -   -             7       1/e + 3/r 4/r       4/r       2/r  -   -
 8       4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r  -   -             8       2/e + 2/r 4/r       4/r       3/r  -   -
 9       4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r  -             9       3/e + 1/r 1/e + 3/r 4/r       4/r 2/r  -
10       4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r  -            10       4/e       2/e + 2/r 4/r       4/r 3/r  -
11       4/e 4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r           11       4/e       3/e + 1/r 1/e + 3/r 4/r 4/r 2/r
12       4/e 4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r           12       4/e       4/e       2/e + 2/r 4/r 4/r 3/r

The idea would be that just as you are gradually introduced to casting spells of a certain level, the ability to cast spells of that level per-encounter would develop over the course of several levels.  In my example I chose to start the transition 6 levels after the ability to cast spells of that level was first acquired, but exactly when it starts is not as important as the gradual nature of the transition.

 

This would introduce an added layer of complexity for spell casters, who would need to be able to understand from the UI how many spells of each level can be cast per-encounter, and whether casting a spell of a certain level is going to count against their per-rest limit.  There is a potential for confusion, but I don't think that it is beyond the limits of the UI, and I expect that the average player will be able to come to an understanding of how the system works with a reasonable amount of experience.

 

That's a really cool idea gradually introducing per encounter casts. However, at max level, that's still a base 10 casts per encounter which is, imo, too much.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Spells per day is an excellent mechanic when the spells are powerful and varied. By virtue of being highly conserved, it's permissible to let loose the magic and watch it go. We got neither variation nor power, just the rest mechanic. Ironically, the caster with the best spells (Cipher), can have them flow almost relentlessly. Hopefully the will eliminate the MMO class design and D&D reactionism for PoE 2. I wouldn't hope for much change until then.

[hugin7]

iroll20s rest, otherwise wait for a proper mod

 

This, a thousand times.  You can always backtrack for free rest, so iroll20s/rest is not really a cheat, but a time-saver.  There is no rule or guideline that states that you should rest only every x encounters, so why self-impose a rest limit or waste your personal time to trudge to an inn/stronghold?

 

Paying for rest costs coppers that could otherwise be saved and spent elsewhere.  Saving spells keeps you from unleashing the full potential of your party on a regular basis.  If you are not taking full advantage of resources available to you, you're not playing optimally.

 

PoE's game design puts the players in an awkward position of having to choose among potentially unpleasant options.  At one extreme, a well-designed wizard-heavy party tears through everything as long as the player is not averse to resting frequently.  The game is clearly not balanced for this, yet does nothing to prevent a persistent powergamer from employing this play style, since one can always rest for free the easy way (iroll20s/rest), or the hard way (backtracking).  The same wizard-heavy party struggles with trash if the player self-imposes stringent rest limits.

 

At another extreme is a cipher-heavy party, a rest-hater's paradise.  This type of party feasts on trash and although it's not as strong as a wizard-heavy party for the most challenging encounters, it can still easily handle anything PotD has to offer, along with a clear conscience for those who self-impose rest limits.

 

A pure powergamer might choose a wizard-heavy party and take advantage of free rest.  While this is not technically cheating, challenge would be lacking.  A rest-averse player might go cipher-heavy, compromising their power for the most difficult encounters.  Unfortunately, the latter party can still tear through PotD, but that's beside the point.  It would be nice if the game didn't force the players to make such choices and allowed us to play optimally without resorting to cheats or testing our tolerance for drudgery.

Edited April 16, 2015 by hugin7