An idea on how to make all classes combat super-fun, like the Cipher already is

[b0rsuk]

Linear fighters, quadratic wizards. Too bad PoE didn't escape that one (.

[Gromnir]

Is cipher really this good?

the cipher is powerful, and given the current rest mechanic, it is a much more forgiving class o play til one hits level 9ish.  frequently when folks want classes to be more fun, what they is actual asking for is more power.  

 

the kit offerings for iwd2 were illustrative o' what the community thinks is fun. iwd2 were, initially, gonna be a 2nd edition game, with kits.  the black isle folks presented folks with a few kit options.  

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/54409-dragon-age-discussion/?p=1039586

 

funny stuff.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sable Phoenix]

I too agree that each class needs some kind of resource.  The best classes are the ones that are built around unique mechanics: Cipher and Chanter rule the heap, with the ability to alter the entire battlefield with a single cast, but which require buildup (either generated by hitting, with the Cipher, or over time, with the Chanter) to use those abilities.  Monk is also a great idea, once again being based on a resource built up through gameplay.  Barbarian is almost there, with a very well-defined role, but no particular mechanic unique to it.

 

They could give the Wizard a mana resource, a slowly but constantly regenerating resource necessary to cast spells, rather than having a hard cap of spells-per-rest.  It would make the Wizard a sort of reverse-Chanter, able to blow its entire load at the start of a fight but then having to wait until that mana regenerates, while the Chanter requires time to build up after the start of the battle until it can pull out those devastating summons... there would be some nice overlap there, using your Wizard to open the battle and your Chanter to wrap it up.  That's just one idea, possibly the easiest, but every class could be built on some unique resource that would make them stand out from the other classes and appeal to different players' individual styles.

 

Then you could have the Druid, which has a static pool of Nature's Favor or something (the name is immaterial) which would start at 0 every encounter.  In order to regenerate the Nature's Favor the druid needs to spiritshift into animal form, the Nature's Favor would charge up to 100 on the same timer that the spiritshift form lasts.  Nature's Favor is required to cast Druid spells.  You could cancel the spiritshift at any time, but of course the Nature's Favor pool wouldn't have charged to full, so you couldn't cast as many spells before bottoming out, and you also can't spiritshift unless the pool is at 0.  It would give the class a lot of dynamic back-and-forth that meshes with their signature power.

 

Priests could have Faith (again the name's immaterial), a static pool of per-enconter spellcasting power.  Once it's depleted, that's it, no more casting for the rest of the encounter.  This would require you to ration the Priest's spells and only use what you really need them to use when you need them to use it, rather than blowing all your buffs and smites at the start of the fight.

 

Hey, this is fun!  I don't have ideas for the rest of the classes, yet, but it's obviously possible to do this with all of them.

[Gromnir]

suggestions that the poe wizard and priest should be less vancian and utilize mana or universal fatigue pool were derided by initial backers on these boards.  such mechanics were too removed from the ie games.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[MadDemiurg]

As for resource mechanics, I think one of the option would be to introduce a per rest pool, not unlike health, with per encounter limit on how much you can spend for some class and get rid of spell "levels" and move to costs. Basically a per rest mana pool with per encounter limit. This would limit the "nova" potential while giving more flexibility in terms of casting.

 

Another interesting option would be to give some starting amount of resource, not unlike cipher, but not allow any additional generation without tapping into some "per rest" pool like health. So you can use a few abilities for free and if you want more you get taxed. In fact, I'm gonna write down a class idea based on that for fun.

 

But as I said, I like existing classes as is, some new unique ones would be cool for PoE2 though.

[perilisk]

Tbh I think wizard's grimmoires should either be ditched or some new mechanics (like metamagic) should be introduced fro them to make sense. As for cipher being OP, he might be on low-mid levels, although he's quite squishy to compensate. At high levels, when priests and wizards have a lot more spells per day and much more powerful effects available to them. They were much more important for tough encounters in my party playthrough. Also, wait for the expansion when fireballs are per encounter at level 13 (unless Obsidian decides to completely rework the system, which I doubt) and see how's cipher OP then.

 

Personally I enjoy Vancian casters and I think they're fine apart form some gimmicky mechanics like wizards grimmoire and some spell balance problems, with only a handful of spells useful per level. As for martial classes, yes, they are low maintenance, but I don't see much wrong with having a low maintenance class. You're playing with a party of 6, 6 wizards would be a lot of clicking. I've played with 4.5 casters (I count chanter as 0.5) and that was more than enough for my liking. You have a freedom to chose how much micromanagement you want in your party and compose it accordingly. Some minor improvements for martial classes per encounter abilities are imo in order though (Rogue's high level strikes are bloody useless for instance).

 

Wizards may have been less boring if metamagic was the core class concept -- if they were something like a Warlock with more flexibility and Vancian spell limitations.

[MadDemiurg]

 

Tbh I think wizard's grimmoires should either be ditched or some new mechanics (like metamagic) should be introduced fro them to make sense. As for cipher being OP, he might be on low-mid levels, although he's quite squishy to compensate. At high levels, when priests and wizards have a lot more spells per day and much more powerful effects available to them. They were much more important for tough encounters in my party playthrough. Also, wait for the expansion when fireballs are per encounter at level 13 (unless Obsidian decides to completely rework the system, which I doubt) and see how's cipher OP then.

 

Personally I enjoy Vancian casters and I think they're fine apart form some gimmicky mechanics like wizards grimmoire and some spell balance problems, with only a handful of spells useful per level. As for martial classes, yes, they are low maintenance, but I don't see much wrong with having a low maintenance class. You're playing with a party of 6, 6 wizards would be a lot of clicking. I've played with 4.5 casters (I count chanter as 0.5) and that was more than enough for my liking. You have a freedom to chose how much micromanagement you want in your party and compose it accordingly. Some minor improvements for martial classes per encounter abilities are imo in order though (Rogue's high level strikes are bloody useless for instance).

 

Wizards may have been less boring if metamagic was the core class concept -- if they were something like a Warlock with more flexibility and Vancian spell limitations.

 

While I agree that metamagic is fun and would make wizards more fun, I don't see how wizards are boring. Are you bored of all Vancian spellcasters? They're definitely more fun than autoattack classes. Cipher is probably more fun, mainly because he both uses abilities more often AND a lot of his spells require you to be more creative with positioning and application. I'd say wizards would be more fun if they had more diverse spells and more highly specialized but extremely effective in certain condition spells (this would also give some meaning to having multiple grimmoires).

[Gromnir]

have universal fatigue control all actions including combat moves and spell casting.  this makes constitution universal vital. 

 

...

 

such suggestions, including mana, were made and near universal rejected when the wizard were being developed in earnest.... years ago.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[demeisen]

frequently when folks want classes to be more fun, what they is actual asking for is more power. 

 

 

I think you're probably right about that, which makes for a conundrum for gaming companies.  There's a large contingent of players who want to "feel powerful", and don't care if that makes the game not as challenging.  Then there's another contingent, maybe not quite as large but still sizeable, who wants the game to be challenging at the expense of feeling powerful.  These are contradictory desires, so you see some folks saying, "Class XYZ isn't powerful enough... here's how to spruce it up!" while others reply, "woah, woah, woah, the game is already way too easy.  Making players even more OP will make it much less fun."

 

To some extent, each group can each be catered to via difficulty levels or other such mechanics, but that only goes so far.  In a way, these two groups almost want to be playing different kinds of games.  It's hard to make them both happy.

[perilisk]

Then you could have the Druid, which has a static pool of Nature's Favor or something (the name is immaterial) which would start at 0 every encounter.  In order to regenerate the Nature's Favor the druid needs to spiritshift into animal form, the Nature's Favor would charge up to 100 on the same timer that the spiritshift form lasts.  Nature's Favor is required to cast Druid spells.  You could cancel the spiritshift at any time, but of course the Nature's Favor pool wouldn't have charged to full, so you couldn't cast as many spells before bottoming out, and you also can't spiritshift unless the pool is at 0.  It would give the class a lot of dynamic back-and-forth that meshes with their signature power.

 

 

Maybe a reverse metamagic scenario. Give the Druid an at will ability (Natural Attunement or something) that lets them go into a trance and set up one of a list of massive AoE small-impact effects with a natural theme (mud, snow, geothermal vents, plant growth, stormy weather, etc.). Each Druid spell would be linked to one of these attunements. While attuning, the Druid can take no other action. When they finally cancel, or hit max attunement for their level, they have an attunement level. For each attunement level, all Druid spells that are linked to that attunment get bumped down one vancian level, and spells that get bumped to level 0 or below can be cast on a per-encounter basis. Maybe balance it out by only giving 3 spells per tier instead of 4.

[LeonKowalski]

suggestions that the poe wizard and priest should be less vancian and utilize mana or universal fatigue pool were derided by initial backers on these boards.  such mechanics were too removed from the ie games.

 

Mana wouldn't have helped, the balance with the Cipher would have stayed exactly the same because you still have the problem of daily vs. per encounter resources ... you'd have just pissed off the people who wanted a more Vancian wizard for nothing.

Edited April 24, 2015 by LeonKowalski

[b0rsuk]

I too agree that each class needs some kind of resource.  The best classes are the ones that are built around unique mechanics: Cipher and Chanter rule the heap, with the ability to alter the entire battlefield with a single cast, but which require buildup (either generated by hitting, with the Cipher, or over time, with the Chanter) to use those abilities.  Monk is also a great idea, once again being based on a resource built up through gameplay.  Barbarian is almost there, with a very well-defined role, but no particular mechanic unique to it.

 

They could give the Wizard a mana resource, a slowly but constantly regenerating resource necessary to cast spells, rather than having a hard cap of spells-per-rest.  It would make the Wizard a sort of reverse-Chanter, able to blow its entire load at the start of a fight but then having to wait until that mana regenerates, while the Chanter requires time to build up after the start of the battle until it can pull out those devastating summons... there would be some nice overlap there, using your Wizard to open the battle and your Chanter to wrap it up.  That's just one idea, possibly the easiest, but every class could be built on some unique resource that would make them stand out from the other classes and appeal to different players' individual styles.

1. The problem is coming up with such an unique and interesting resource! Cipher is glorified rage mechanic. Chanter is even simpler. They're almost cooldown classes.

 

2. Cipher's focus is close enough for mana. I don't want any more classes that make me count tiny points. There's a reason board games often use small integers and few fields. Because it's easy for HUMANS to calculate in head. It's one of cases where computer can only hide complexity instead of reducing it. Even with computers, it's easier to reason about strategy if you know you can cast two level3 spells and four level2 spells.

 

3. I think Monk would be more interesting if 1) wounds were tied to health loss, not endurance loss 2) they carried over to next battles until used or healed via resting.

----------------------------

re: MadDemiurg, Jack Vance

Correct me if I'm wrong but all wizards in Dying Earth seemed to only have a single copy of each spell memorized per day... ? What if grimoires worked like this:

 

1. Each grimoire can fit one instance of each spell

Slicken, Dazzling Lights, Chill Fog, Miasma of Dullmindness, Necrotic Lance, Fireball....

2. You can cast as many of these spells as you like, but never repeat a spell in the grimoire. If you want to repeat a spell, you must switch grimoire. Then your list of available spells is reset to that new grimoire. On the other hand, per-rest requirement of spellcasting for wizard is GONE. But each grimoire may only be used once per rest (this means as soon as you switch FROM a grimoire, it can't be used again until you rest).

3. Low level spells should be more easily available than higher level spells. So a grimoire of a level2 wizard might have 3 level1 slots. A grimoire of a level3 wizard might have 4 level1 slots and 1 level2 slot. Each grimoire.

 

This idea is cool, therefore it won't be used in PoE. It is also MORE Vancian than IE games (because only 1 of each spell).

Edited April 24, 2015 by b0rsuk

[b0rsuk]

The board game Dungeoneer uses one of the most amusing resource systems I've seen. The game plays like a clone of Talisman with more modular board and rules. Recommended.

 

In Dungeoneer, players race to complete a few objectives. They can play some cards to become more powerful. These cards cost Glory points. No surprise here.

In Dungeoneer, players can also cast cards that hurt other players, for example forcing them to fight a monster.

 

But who in his right mind would spend his points, his resource to harm another player ? This is just bad strategy ! Your power doesn't change, another player's power decreases, but YOU lose your resource! So both you and your target suffer, while your remaining opponents are relatively better off. This is a common problem in board games.

 

But wait. Dungeoneer has Glory points and Threat points. As you explore the dungeon, you accumulate both Glory and Threat points.

You spend your own Glory points to buy power-ups, like enchantments, weapons, allies etc.

Other players spend YOUR Threat points to play harmful effects on YOU.

 

This has funny implications: players can play positive effects for themselves as usual. Players are free to play bad stuff on their opponents, and they lose nothing for doing that ! Additionally, it's not possible to gang up on the runaway leader too much because his threat points are limited. (Everyone gains Threat points faster than Glory, though).

-----------------------------------

 

What does it mean in context of PoE ? There could be a class that spends MONSTERS' resource to play bad stuff ON THEM. Imagine a Paladin that doesn't have his own resource at all. Instead, whenever a monster damages one of party members, that monster gets Revenge points. Paladin can spend those monster's Revenge points to cast stuff like Flames of Devotion on that monster.

Edited April 24, 2015 by b0rsuk

[perilisk]

While I agree that metamagic is fun and would make wizards more fun, I don't see how wizards are boring. Are you bored of all Vancian spellcasters? They're definitely more fun than autoattack classes. Cipher is probably more fun, mainly because he both uses abilities more often AND a lot of his spells require you to be more creative with positioning and application. I'd say wizards would be more fun if they had more diverse spells and more highly specialized but extremely effective in certain condition spells (this would also give some meaning to having multiple grimmoires).

 

 

Well... they are more boring than in many of their Black Isle/Bioware/Obsidian D&D incarnations, let's leave it at that. It isn't vancian casting that is the issue, just their spell selection. I don't know if making them metamagic-heavy would fix that, but it would at least set them apart from druids and priests on a more fundamental level.

[Sable Phoenix]

The board game Dungeoneer uses one of the most amusing resource systems I've seen. The game plays like a clone of Talisman with more modular board and rules. Recommended.

 

In Dungeoneer, players race to complete a few objectives. They can play some cards to become more powerful. These cards cost Glory points. No surprise here.

In Dungeoneer, players can also cast cards that hurt other players, for example forcing them to fight a monster.

 

But who in his right mind would spend his points, his resource to harm another player ? This is just bad strategy ! Your power doesn't change, another player's power decreases, but YOU lose your resource! So both you and your target suffer, while your remaining opponents are relatively better off. This is a common problem in board games.

 

But wait. Dungeoneer has Glory points and Threat points. As you explore the dungeon, you accumulate both Glory and Threat points.

You spend your own Glory points to buy power-ups, like enchantments, weapons, allies etc.

Other players spend YOUR Threat points to play harmful effects on YOU.

 

This has funny implications: players can play positive effects for themselves as usual. Players are free to play bad stuff on their opponents, and they lose nothing for doing that ! Additionally, it's not possible to gang up on the runaway leader too much because his threat points are limited. (Everyone gains Threat points faster than Glory, though).

-----------------------------------

 

What does it mean in context of PoE ? There could be a class that spends MONSTERS' resource to play bad stuff ON THEM. Imagine a Paladin that doesn't have his own resource at all. Instead, whenever a monster damages one of party members, that monster gets Revenge points. Paladin can spend those monster's Revenge points to cast stuff like Flames of Devotion on that monster.

 

That...

 

... is brilliant.

[MadDemiurg]

re: MadDemiurg, Jack Vance

Correct me if I'm wrong but all wizards in Dying Earth seemed to only have a single copy of each spell memorized per day... ? What if grimoires worked like this:

 

1. Each grimoire can fit one instance of each spell

Slicken, Dazzling Lights, Chill Fog, Miasma of Dullmindness, Necrotic Lance, Fireball....

2. You can cast as many of these spells as you like, but never repeat a spell in the grimoire. If you want to repeat a spell, you must switch grimoire. Then your list of available spells is reset to that new grimoire. On the other hand, per-rest requirement of spellcasting for wizard is GONE. But each grimoire may only be used once per rest (this means as soon as you switch FROM a grimoire, it can't be used again until you rest).

3. Low level spells should be more easily available than higher level spells. So a grimoire of a level2 wizard might have 3 level1 slots. A grimoire of a level3 wizard might have 4 level1 slots and 1 level2 slot. Each grimoire.

 

This idea is cool, therefore it won't be used in PoE. It is also MORE Vancian than IE games (because only 1 of each spell).

 

Well, You still have a per rest requirement, your spells are just distributed between grimmoires and you can cast more that 1 of each without switching... which sounds fun on paper,  but imo is not that great in practice. Plus given how you can hoard grimmoires now, Per rest would be effectively gone when you assemble enough of them and this would make wizard highly item dependent. Not sure that I like it.

 

The board game Dungeoneer uses one of the most amusing resource systems I've seen. The game plays like a clone of Talisman with more modular board and rules. Recommended.

 

In Dungeoneer, players race to complete a few objectives. They can play some cards to become more powerful. These cards cost Glory points. No surprise here.

In Dungeoneer, players can also cast cards that hurt other players, for example forcing them to fight a monster.

 

But who in his right mind would spend his points, his resource to harm another player ? This is just bad strategy ! Your power doesn't change, another player's power decreases, but YOU lose your resource! So both you and your target suffer, while your remaining opponents are relatively better off. This is a common problem in board games.

 

But wait. Dungeoneer has Glory points and Threat points. As you explore the dungeon, you accumulate both Glory and Threat points.

You spend your own Glory points to buy power-ups, like enchantments, weapons, allies etc.

Other players spend YOUR Threat points to play harmful effects on YOU.

 

This has funny implications: players can play positive effects for themselves as usual. Players are free to play bad stuff on their opponents, and they lose nothing for doing that ! Additionally, it's not possible to gang up on the runaway leader too much because his threat points are limited. (Everyone gains Threat points faster than Glory, though).

-----------------------------------

 

What does it mean in context of PoE ? There could be a class that spends MONSTERS' resource to play bad stuff ON THEM. Imagine a Paladin that doesn't have his own resource at all. Instead, whenever a monster damages one of party members, that monster gets Revenge points. Paladin can spend those monster's Revenge points to cast stuff like Flames of Devotion on that monster.

This, OTOH, is a pretty cool idea.

 

 

 

 

For what it's worth, here's a write up of a class that uses one of the alternative resource ideas:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/77556-new-character-classes/?p=1674302

Edited April 24, 2015 by MadDemiurg

[b0rsuk]

 

re: MadDemiurg, Jack Vance

Correct me if I'm wrong but all wizards in Dying Earth seemed to only have a single copy of each spell memorized per day... ? What if grimoires worked like this:

 

1. Each grimoire can fit one instance of each spell

Slicken, Dazzling Lights, Chill Fog, Miasma of Dullmindness, Necrotic Lance, Fireball....

2. You can cast as many of these spells as you like, but never repeat a spell in the grimoire. If you want to repeat a spell, you must switch grimoire. Then your list of available spells is reset to that new grimoire. On the other hand, per-rest requirement of spellcasting for wizard is GONE. But each grimoire may only be used once per rest (this means as soon as you switch FROM a grimoire, it can't be used again until you rest).

3. Low level spells should be more easily available than higher level spells. So a grimoire of a level2 wizard might have 3 level1 slots. A grimoire of a level3 wizard might have 4 level1 slots and 1 level2 slot. Each grimoire.

 

This idea is cool, therefore it won't be used in PoE. It is also MORE Vancian than IE games (because only 1 of each spell).

 

Well, You still have a per rest requirement, your spells are just distributed between grimmoires and you can cast more that 1 of each without switching... which sounds fun on paper,  but imo is not that great in practice. Plus given how you can hoard grimmoires now, Per rest would be effectively gone when you assemble enough of them and this would make wizard highly item dependent. Not sure that I like it.

 

 

Yes, it would switch Wizard from per-rest spells to per-rest grimoires. Grimoire hoarding could be addressed by having Wizard sleep with his grimoires under his pillow. That is, you put grimoires in his quick slots, and rest. Those quick slots are occupied by grimoires until you rest.

 

The system is not without flaws, and the interaction with Deep Pockets would have to be determined, but at least there would be a reason for grimoires, and especially grimoire switching. Currently there is absolutely no point to switching grimoires, and the limit of 4 spells per level (in grimoire) meaningless in practice.

 

I'd prefer almost anything to the current grimoire system of wizards. It does me no harm, but it's so pointless. What if grimoires simply worked passively to increase spell limits ? A normal grimoire is +2 level1 spells, Fine is +1 level2, +1 level3, Exceptional is +1 level3, +1 level4, Superb is +1 level4, +1 level5, +1 level6 ? Or something like that... Basically, they would be similar to rings which add spell level slots.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Well, I'm glad you've discovered that everything needs to be brought up to the cipher's level, rather than have it dragged downward like so many here have been declaring necessary. For all of the terror that gripped Mr. Sawyer about wizards and class redundancy in general, the Cipher can actually do a bit of everything and do those things (relatively) well. Imagine that. The class is enjoyable because it's the least restrained of them all. Imagine that.

 

I do not like the notion of giving every class the focus type resource. Frankly your suggestions sound very Diablo 3 to me. The solution isn't to make all the classes like the cipher, it's to radically redesign all of them--permitting broader roles and greater overlap of abilities. Classes should be robust unto themselves, yet distinctive. They should not be fractured MMO derivatives or one/two trick ponies.

[b0rsuk]

It's much easier to bring one overpowered class like Cipher into the line than buff all the others and resolve the ensuing balance nightmare. "Don't nerf classes, just buff everything else" is a populistic idea. If you asked people if everyone should get free gold they would say YES! But it doesn't mean it's a smart idea.

[Bryy]

About to start my second playthrough (since I hit a brick wall of super strong enemies in the final area) as a Cipher.

[rheingold]

Is cipher really more powerful than a druid or wizard? I'd say it depends... For much of the game, yes. But my experience with them is that they are underpowered for the big boss fights. When the crunch comes I'd much rather have a wizard/druid.

Basically they play like NW 2warlocks, they ARE great for 90 percent of the game, but they cannot match a druid or wizard in the important fights when the big guns are free to unload all their spells. Of course if they have used all their spells then it swings back to the cipher. So I reckon they actually got the balance between cipher/wizard and Druid spot on.

[scrotiemcb]

The OP is a bad idea. Not because I dislike the cipher resource system, or that I want other classes to be unfun. Instead, it's that I feel each class should come as close as possible to having its own distinct feel and, if possible, its own resource system. I think the similarity in feel between Wizard spells and Druid/Priest spells is something which should be further accentuated, in a good way, rather than a boring "equality" solution of doing away with Grimoires and giving Wizards access to their entire spell list. Not that that's the topic; just saying.

 

I feel AT MOST two classes could use the Focus mechanic, and even that would force one class to be "ranged cipher" and the other "melee cipher." More likely than not, even that much separation would be unhealthy for the game. We're probably best off with Focus being a mechanic for one class only.

[petrivanzyl]

It would be cool if melee fighters has a finishing move for example for every three hits you get a attack guaranteed to crit

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

  frequently when folks want classes to be more fun, what they is actual asking for is more power.  

 

 

I reckon this is spot on, and since I have pushed the envelope and taken on the game at solo PotD, I'd say there is certainly room for a little more power to most classes in this game. It may be populistic, heh, but it is the fun route. I'd never sacrifice power for a cake walk game, though.

 

Well, I'm glad you've discovered that everything needs to be brought up to the cipher's level, rather than have it dragged downward like so many here have been declaring necessary. For all of the terror that gripped Mr. Sawyer about wizards and class redundancy in general, the Cipher can actually do a bit of everything and do those things (relatively) well. Imagine that. The class is enjoyable because it's the least restrained of them all. Imagine that.

 

I do not like the notion of giving every class the focus type resource. Frankly your suggestions sound very Diablo 3 to me. The solution isn't to make all the classes like the cipher, it's to radically redesign all of them--permitting broader roles and greater overlap of abilities. Classes should be robust unto themselves, yet distinctive. They should not be fractured MMO derivatives or one/two trick ponies.

Yeah, as you noticed, I feared that it may be too D3'y in my OP. Still, like you said, it's a much nicer approach to bring stuff up to the cipher's level.

 

A number of people have asked: Is the cipher OP? Well, in the flexibility department, yes. It's the best. The druid, which I also very much like is varied too, but the things you can do with a cipher already from like level 3 is fantastic.

[b0rsuk]

Is cipher really more powerful than a druid or wizard? I'd say it depends... For much of the game, yes. But my experience with them is that they are underpowered for the big boss fights. When the crunch comes I'd much rather have a wizard/druid.

Basically they play like NW 2warlocks, they ARE great for 90 percent of the game, but they cannot match a druid or wizard in the important fights when the big guns are free to unload all their spells. Of course if they have used all their spells then it swings back to the cipher. So I reckon they actually got the balance between cipher/wizard and Druid spot on.

 

That may very well be true, but for the remaining 10% fights you can just use comsumables. There's one that looks like green stuff in a mortar. +4 focus on hit. That would only have issues if you can't hit the boss at all, and I can only think of one such baddie in the game.