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

[anameforobsidian]

Ciphers are really fun, but I do think they need to be toned down a bit.  Part of that is that confuse needs to be more unique from dominate.  The BG version of confuse where they turn uncontrollable and attack anything nearby would have been better.  I might even like to see them push dominate back to level 7, and have a stronger version of confuse where the target goes into a barbarian rage (+damage / attack speed, - deflection).  In later game fights, I hardly noticed focus because I had so much of it, and it only took a shot from my blunderbuss to get a lot back, so I also think that might be toned down.  And repulsive wave or whatever definitely needs to be toned down.

 

Also, I really enjoyed the game on normal and I'm having a lot more fun on my PoD run.  It forces you to start playing with all the systems, and you can really see how they work together a lot better.  Sometimes you do have to break engagement and run, or you will die.  Knowing when to do so is quite valuable.  The hordes of large enemies that overrun your positioning and force you to react is also more fun.  Having the food / rest / potion / and item buffs work in tandem is quite nice, and makes you think about what you value.

 

All of that said, I think the cipher's true secret to being more fun is not being slightly OP.  It's being a unique surprise.  IE engine classes were relatively samey.  You had the cannon/tank/rogue/healer thing going on with multiclass leading to gishes, except by BG:ToB healers are pretty much dropped for rods of resurrection.  Most games have some variant of this, normally dropping it to cannon/tank/healer.  The cipher is a gishy controller that uses dps as a resource.  It is what Pillars of Eternity fights are at their best: fast, smart, and lethal.  I've found that the other classes that up the stakes like that are also really fun, particularly Barbs.

[MadDemiurg]

Cipher's not more OP than other spellcasters. Just more noob friendly (and more fun to play, although that depends).

 

His different mechanics make him hard to balance. He already has less nova potential and generally weaker (with few exceptions) spells and more limited spell selection. He trades that for ability to spam spells in every encounter (which is of questionable value, but makes him more fun) and better weapon combat ability. If his spellcasting is significantly nerfed, he'll need to be turned into full combat class like monk to be viable. I don't think PoE needs another combat class.

Edited April 25, 2015 by MadDemiurg

[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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

Yeah, absolutely, but equally for the other 90 percent of the game do you need an overpowered cipher. Wizards and Druids can use guns, scrolls or the occasional spell. I'm not saying one class is better than the other, they are just different. It depends if you want an easy ride for the majority of the game or if you want a class can really lay the smack down on the few tough fights.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

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.

 

Cipher is without doubt, far more powerful in all situations than a Wizard or Druid. Regardless of how many spells per day the wizard/druids have remaining, this is just as true for trash as it is for boss fights--even more so for boss fights. The durations of their spells are significantly longer and their damage ranges far greater. Couple these with their ability to do things like reduce DR, reliably paralyze, while not suffering from the inevitable miss/grazes, their superiority to the wizard is unquestionable.

[MadDemiurg]

 

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.

 

Cipher is without doubt, far more powerful in all situations than a Wizard or Druid. Regardless of how many spells per day the wizard/druids have remaining, this is just as true for trash as it is for boss fights--even more so for boss fights. The durations of their spells are significantly longer and their damage ranges far greater. Couple these with their ability to do things like reduce DR, reliably paralyze, while not suffering from the inevitable miss/grazes, their superiority to the wizard is unquestionable.

 

How's that? Most cipher CC is single target. Wizard's is aoe. Damage ranges are not true either, cipher generally has less aoe and damage, outside of ray spells that do great damage but are difficult to execute properly. Wizard has aoe confusion on L2 and big aoe confusion on L4, along with huge duration aoe prone on L5. Wizard has petrify. Cipher has no petrify. Cipher indeed has slightly more accuracy, because of base 25 and +10 on some spells. Imo these spells should be toned down to +5, but that's hardly game changing. So cipher's CC is only slightly more reliable in general. Wizard can also reduce DR in aoe and whatever. The only unique cipher effects are charm/dominate which are mostly redundant with current confusion implementation anyway. Properly played wizard is much more powerful than cipher in big fights. Same for druid really.

 

The main outlier in Cipher's arsenal is amplified wave tbh. it requires no proper positioning, has huge foe only aoe and does good damage and CC. It's level 6 though, and in boss fights stuff like petrify and essential phantom still wins.

 

Warlock vs Wizard D&D comparison makes sense, although both wizard and cipher are much less powerful than these D&D counterparts.

Edited April 25, 2015 by MadDemiurg

[LeonKowalski]

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.

 

If you design a game around solo play you will end up with lots of samey classes ... a class shouldn't be able to do everything relatively well.

 

I want the game to be designed about group play and be excrutiangly annoying when played solo, with every class. Where's the challenge in going solo if you don't even notice the lack of party roles?

Edited April 25, 2015 by LeonKowalski

[Crucis]

I have to say that I don't particularly like the OP's idea in large part because I don't agree with his definition of "fun".  I don't think that it's "fun" to have to micromanage each and every single frickin' party member to take advantage of their resource based abilities.  Honestly, I find that to be boring, not fun.  I like having a decent number of good auto-attack characters.  First of all, it lets me focus  my attentions on my spellcasters.  And secondly, it reduces the amount of constant micromanaging I have to do in battle.  If Eder is engaging an enemy and holding his own, I don't feel the need to have to issue a new order for him every couple of seconds.  I like that I can let him go about his business.

 

Simply put, constantly micromanaging all 6 characters isn't fun.  It's tedious and boring.  Occasional MM of the auto-attackers is fine.  Constant MM is not.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Crucis

[Ineth]

Well, I have put the Cipher through its paces on Path of the Damned triple solo, and I must say, it's the best.

 

Some of the best Cipher abilities must be targeted on a ally though, not oneself.

 

Doesn't that make it sub-optimal for soloing?

 

Or did it work with summoned creatures from figurines?

Edited April 25, 2015 by Ineth

[illathid]

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.

 

While this is a really cool idea, I think it could create lots of UI problems...

[MadDemiurg]

 

Well, I have put the Cipher through its paces on Path of the Damned triple solo, and I must say, it's the best.

 

Some of the best Cipher abilities must be targeted on a ally though, not oneself.

 

Doesn't that make it sub-optimal for soloing?

 

Or did it work with summoned creatures from figurines?

 

Cipher loses a fair chunk of its power solo. You can still use figurines for tough fights, but with party many of his better power are easier to use/make more sense. it's still one of the better solo classes, but i won't put him at #1.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

 

 

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.

 

Cipher is without doubt, far more powerful in all situations than a Wizard or Druid. Regardless of how many spells per day the wizard/druids have remaining, this is just as true for trash as it is for boss fights--even more so for boss fights. The durations of their spells are significantly longer and their damage ranges far greater. Couple these with their ability to do things like reduce DR, reliably paralyze, while not suffering from the inevitable miss/grazes, their superiority to the wizard is unquestionable.

 

 

How's that? Most cipher CC is single target. Wizard's is aoe. Damage ranges are not true either, cipher generally has less aoe and damage, outside of ray spells that do great damage but are difficult to execute properly. Wizard has aoe confusion on L2 and big aoe confusion on L4, along with huge duration aoe prone on L5. Wizard has petrify. Cipher has no petrify. Cipher indeed has slightly more accuracy, because of base 25 and +10 on some spells. Imo these spells should be toned down to +5, but that's hardly game changing. So cipher's CC is only slightly more reliable in general. Wizard can also reduce DR in aoe and whatever. The only unique cipher effects are charm/dominate which are mostly redundant with current confusion implementation anyway. Properly played wizard is much more powerful than cipher in big fights. Same for druid really.

 

The main outlier in Cipher's arsenal is amplified wave tbh. it requires no proper positioning, has huge foe only aoe and does good damage and CC. It's level 6 though, and in boss fights stuff like petrify and essential phantom still wins.

 

Warlock vs Wizard D&D comparison makes sense, although both wizard and cipher are much less powerful than these D&D counterparts.

 

Level by level, all Cipher spells have greater damage ranges than wizard spells. Most durations are close to double the base of wizard spells. The base durations for the wizards confusion spells are like 6 seconds on a hit. That's awful. Other offensive durations are equally unimpressive. Even their spell which reduces DR only reduces it by 5, whereas the Cipher can steal 10 DR. The base duration is also far longer.

 

Most wizard spells posses AoE, but I find the circumference of these spells to be sorely lacking. They are often too small to risk casting at a moving target, and rarely fit more than 2 enemies within them without risking friendly-fire. Several Cipher spells posses AoE and most do not have any sort of friendly-fire involved. Those that do are more easily managed than the wizards spells at the very least. The one aspect where there might be a deficiency, is that some of the cipher spells have gimmicks, like the requirements of being cast on a friendly target. Unless you are soloing, this is rarely a problem.

 

Essentially the only thing the Wizard has as being noteworthy over the Cipher is Gaze of the Adragon, and possibly Essential Phantom if soloing. Else, the Wizard loses. Inferior potency, inferior accuracy, inferior duration, inferior ease of use. When you couple this with how large a percentage a wizard's spells will be lost to grazes and even misses, the wizard falls even further behind.

[MadDemiurg]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Cipher is without doubt, far more powerful in all situations than a Wizard or Druid. Regardless of how many spells per day the wizard/druids have remaining, this is just as true for trash as it is for boss fights--even more so for boss fights. The durations of their spells are significantly longer and their damage ranges far greater. Couple these with their ability to do things like reduce DR, reliably paralyze, while not suffering from the inevitable miss/grazes, their superiority to the wizard is unquestionable.

 

 

How's that? Most cipher CC is single target. Wizard's is aoe. Damage ranges are not true either, cipher generally has less aoe and damage, outside of ray spells that do great damage but are difficult to execute properly. Wizard has aoe confusion on L2 and big aoe confusion on L4, along with huge duration aoe prone on L5. Wizard has petrify. Cipher has no petrify. Cipher indeed has slightly more accuracy, because of base 25 and +10 on some spells. Imo these spells should be toned down to +5, but that's hardly game changing. So cipher's CC is only slightly more reliable in general. Wizard can also reduce DR in aoe and whatever. The only unique cipher effects are charm/dominate which are mostly redundant with current confusion implementation anyway. Properly played wizard is much more powerful than cipher in big fights. Same for druid really.

 

The main outlier in Cipher's arsenal is amplified wave tbh. it requires no proper positioning, has huge foe only aoe and does good damage and CC. It's level 6 though, and in boss fights stuff like petrify and essential phantom still wins.

 

Warlock vs Wizard D&D comparison makes sense, although both wizard and cipher are much less powerful than these D&D counterparts.

 

Level by level, all Cipher spells have greater damage ranges than wizard spells. Most durations are close to double the base of wizard spells. The base durations for the wizards confusion spells are like 6 seconds on a hit. That's awful. Other offensive durations are equally unimpressive. Even their spell which reduces DR only reduces it by 5, whereas the Cipher can steal 10 DR. The base duration is also far longer.

 

Most wizard spells posses AoE, but I find the circumference of these spells to be sorely lacking. They are often too small to risk casting at a moving target, and rarely fit more than 2 enemies within them without risking friendly-fire. Several Cipher spells posses AoE and most do not have any sort of friendly-fire involved. Those that do are more easily managed than the wizards spells at the very least. The one aspect where there might be a deficiency, is that some of the cipher spells have gimmicks, like the requirements of being cast on a friendly target. Unless you are soloing, this is rarely a problem.

 

Essentially the only thing the Wizard has as being noteworthy over the Cipher is Gaze of the Adragon, and possibly Essential Phantom if soloing. Else, the Wizard loses. Inferior potency, inferior accuracy, inferior duration, inferior ease of use. When you couple this with how large a percentage a wizard's spells will be lost to grazes and even misses, the wizard falls even further behind.

 

Do you even play the classes or just read the outdated wiki?

 

Level 1 wizard spell: Fan of Flames - 40-55 damage

Level  1 cipher spell: Soul Shock (the most comparable one) - 22-30

 

Level 1 wiz CC: Aoe prone for 4 sec base

Hazard aoe bilnd with 12-18 damage per tick and Blindness for 3 sec each tick, base duration 15 sec

 

Level 1 cipher CC: confuse 1 target for 6 sec or charm for (9? don't have this one on hands)

 

6 sec is horrible... You know, mental binding is 6 sec base... Level 2 wiz confusion is 5 sec base aoe, and confusion > paralyze. Level 4 is 8 sec base and huge aoe. Level 5 aoe knockdown for 10 base...

 

Cipher durations double the wizard ones? Which one? Phantom lolsfoes?

 

Some more damage numbers: 

L4 wizard missles: 15-25*5 aoe

L4 cipher lance: 35-42 line

 

L5 wizard frost blast 50-80

L5 cipher... oh wait cipher L5 dd spells are all crap...

 

DT steal is 7 btw (10 is outdated data on wiki) and it's singe target level 4. Wiz is aoe -5 DT -10 Deflection & Concentration aoe level 3. The fact that it gives DT to cipher is pointless unless you solo.

 

The list can go on.

 

I'm not saying wiz is OP, but saying that cipher has stronger spells is just ignorant.

Edited April 25, 2015 by MadDemiurg