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

[zmierch]

So maybe system where after rest you are full-ability-possibility (FAP), and after hard fight where you used all abilities (USELESS), you can get back one point of each type (level) ability (NOTSOUSELESS).

This solution offer something from need to rest before hard battle, and smooth transition in practice/non-practice whit use of skills that have small number of uses per rest.

[Epsilon Rose]

So maybe system where after rest you are full-ability-possibility (FAP), and after hard fight where you used all abilities (USELESS), you can get back one point of each type (level) ability (NOTSOUSELESS).

This solution offer something from need to rest before hard battle, and smooth transition in practice/non-practice whit use of skills that have small number of uses per rest.

Actually, I don't think that addresses any of the problems with rest. You still have a rest mechanic that has you trading out-of game frustration for in-game power, still does not actually constrain you, still discourages using many of your more interesting abilities, still asks you to plan on the per rest timescale but doesn't give you anything to effect that scale, and still doesn't really have the wide breadth of powerful abilities that can pretend to warrant it.

[hugin7]

trading out-of game frustration for in-game power

 

 

This is precisely the type of trade-off that must be avoided in a well-designed game, in line with what I mentioned above.  With the current game design, players are being put in a lose-lose situation, while developers are unable to balance encounters properly due to their inability to anticipate how rested the party is.

[Epsilon Rose]

 

trading out-of game frustration for in-game power

 

This is precisely the type of trade-off that must be avoided in a well-designed game, in line with what I mentioned above.  With the current game design, players are being put in a lose-lose situation, while developers are unable to balance encounters properly due to their inability to anticipate how rested the party is.

 

I know. You'll find I've stated both points several times, possibly in this thread.

[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.

 

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.

 

 

I think there's a huge difference between having two free spells and having four free spells, especially because of how long combat (doesn't) last. 2 casts is considerable. 4 casts will probably carry you through the entire battle.

 

Also, I think it's a lot about what you can cast. I don't want the full blanket spell ranks unlocked. There needs to be progression there, too. A wizard could start with 1 use of 1 spell per encounter, and then gradually (slowly) unlock more uses of more spells.

[mintberrycrunchs]

I've been asking myself why they dont use a similar system as the one they created with Endurance and Health?
Like you have a certain amount of Mana/Energy or however u wanna call it that u can use per Battle and that restores itself every Battle and using it drains from a Base pool ...

 

 

While it would be probably not that easy to balance out (for example the cost of low tier spells vs higher tier spells) i think it would be a huge improvement!

Not sure how much the community would like such a drastic differenciation from the old DnD rules, but i feel they way mages worked in DnD has allways been one if not the weakest part of the whole ruleset.

 

Not exactly "On topic" but i just wanted to get this thought out of my Head ...

Edited April 16, 2015 by mintberrycrunchs

[Epsilon Rose]

I've been asking myself why they dont use a similar system as the one they created with Endurance and Health?

Like you have a certain amount of Mana/Energy or however u wanna call it that u can use per Battle and that restores itself every Battle and using it drains from a Base pool ...

 

 

While it would be probably not that easy to balance out (for example the cost of low tier spells vs higher tier spells) i think it would be a huge improvement!

Not sure how much the community would like such a drastic differenciation from the old DnD rules, but i feel they way mages worked in DnD has allways been one if not the weakest part of the whole ruleset.

 

Not exactly "On topic" but i just wanted to get this thought out of my Head ...

That would likely help to make the amount of power a mage can bring to bear in a single fight more predictable. That said, I'd think it would be REALLY hard to balance properly, to the point that you'd be better off losing the "HP" portion of it and just making it a per encounter limiter.

[gkathellar]

Yes, it is.

[dekergus]

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.

couldn't agree more