Shouldn't all spells be per combat encounter? Not per rest?

[Gfted1]

...So to disprove my point about how you seem to prefer insulting people randomly when they disagree with you to discussing anything - you again randomly insult me and throw a childish quip about how I'm imagining a "co-conspirator" inside Obsidian with inside information, etc.

 

When what I referred to was a producer guy who processed the refund. The source of the other information is none of your business, but you can obviously confirm it's correct. And frankly, so can everyone else based on when the craziest "fixes" stopped happening, as well as that this coincided with when Paradox Q&A "thanked" the community for all it's invaluable feedback. Before things belatedly started moving on to picking up that endless backlog of actually needed fixes from the beta reports, that some of us provided Obs. for free.

 

Other than that I made a few fairly obvious observations about how Obsidian Q&A seems to operate, based on how very strange and badly thought through suggestions, on this forum, turned into equally strange and badly thought through implemented updates. And how the weirdness of that was not helped by for example how the moderator team is hostile to discussing views and explaining where opinions actually come from. Even to the point where they insult people with opinions they don't like. If you wanted to meet any of that criticism in some way, you could obviously do that.

 

But in the meantime, you're not adding anything to the topic, you're harassing people, and derailing the thread by flatly lying people up in their face. So why are you here? Really, why are you a mod?

Disprove your point? I don't care at all about your point. Your point has sailed over the horizon and now you stop by long enough to regurgitate the same post over and over. Which I don't care about either. You should put the bullet points in your sig and save everyone the hassle of wading through all that garbage.

 

Lying? Show me a lie.

 

Why am I a mod? Im a giver. Im here for you, nipsen.

[nipsen]

All spells shouldn't be per encounter, but there should some that are per encounter earlier than level 9.  I don't know if it would be possible but making lower level spells 1 per encounter, with additional uses per rest might be a good balance. If not changing how spells work, more Arcane Assault, Grimoire Slam type abilities might be useful or perhaps upgrade talents for Arcane Assault.

Mm. But they're so difficult to explain into some sort of background lore Do the wizards scribble in extra cheat-spells in the bindings of the book or something like that..? Fold out pages..? Meter long chinese rolling scrolls? Enchantments prepared on beforehand that break once they're cast?

 

An idea I heard from someone I played with for a while was to let the wizards use magical spells that could be based on intuitive abilties - like detect magic, or levitation, hypnosis - as a recharging ability pool, once they level high enough. We never got that far in the game, but we sort of thought that you could only do that if you specialized in one specific domain. That you would sacrifice spells from the opposite domain (evocation and force projection is opposed to illusion and charms, or similar), but gain lower level spells as more frequent abilities.

 

I liked that because it could explain away the need for a spellbook. That once you become advanced enough, the wizard can learn to hold spells and create complex spells without incantations or assistance from a book. But it'd only be in a type of spells the wizard casts intuitively on beforehand, at the cost of other types of spells, and so on. Looked a lot like the "favored domain/weapon/stick" perks as well - but wasn't a flat bonus, so that it would make a real difference when you chose it.

 

 

 

Why am I a mod? Im a giver. Im here for you, nipsen.

 

A threat as well, now. So entertaining.

 

And no, you're not a giver - you're a servant. Your purpose as a mod is to encourage free flowing debate for everyone else. Whether you do that in one way or another is not the problem, the result of the way you do it is. 

 

So unless the idea was to demonstrate by example how not to behave, what it amounts to is that you're abusing your moderator privileges at other people's expense.

[Yonjuro]

 

 

Why am I a mod? Im a giver. Im here for you, nipsen.

 

A threat as well, now. So entertaining....

 

 

 I think you misunderstood the joke (whether or not it was funny is left as an exercise for the reader). He meant "I'm here to help you." 

[MunoValente]

 

Mm. But they're so difficult to explain into some sort of background lore Do the wizards scribble in extra cheat-spells in the bindings of the book or something like that..? Fold out pages..? Meter long chinese rolling scrolls? Enchantments prepared on beforehand that break once they're cast?

 

An idea I heard from someone I played with for a while was to let the wizards use magical spells that could be based on intuitive abilties - like detect magic, or levitation, hypnosis - as a recharging ability pool, once they level high enough. We never got that far in the game, but we sort of thought that you could only do that if you specialized in one specific domain. That you would sacrifice spells from the opposite domain (evocation and force projection is opposed to illusion and charms, or similar), but gain lower level spells as more frequent abilities.

 

I liked that because it could explain away the need for a spellbook. That once you become advanced enough, the wizard can learn to hold spells and create complex spells without incantations or assistance from a book. But it'd only be in a type of spells the wizard casts intuitively on beforehand, at the cost of other types of spells, and so on. Looked a lot like the "favored domain/weapon/stick" perks as well - but wasn't a flat bonus, so that it would make a real difference when you chose it.

 

I think the level 9 wizard already has something like this in a way and the start of the game Arcane Assault fills the niche.  The problem is the huge cap between level 9 and after Arcane Assault becomes weak and/or boring.  Maybe around level 5 or 6 they could add a talent that lets you choose a single low level spell to make per encounter, call it Spell Mastery: X or something and make the lore that the Wizard knows that one specific spell really well (Aloth probably knew Fan of Flames really well my first time through), maybe even have it cost a use of Arcane Assault or replace Arcane Assault.

 

Or they could just make Arcane Assault more interesting and upgradable like Holy Radiance and Interdiction.  The Druid I think is similar to the Wizard in this regard, where the per rest limitations wouldn't be as bad if the shape change ability was better and more customizable and upgradable.

 

More specialized Wizard classes I think would good for the expansion no matter what else they do with the Wizard.

[luzarius]

Was that a solo or party playthrough with druid ?

 

5 man party which was my druid, aloth, eder, kana & durance.

 

I wish I could update my original post.

 

I need to ask you guys an important question, but I'm worried about spoilers.

 

Does the game ever prevent you from resting for free at the inn?  DO NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION, but it's a question that needs to be asked. (Confusing I know).

 

If the game actually prevents you from resting at an inn, then I can understand the importance of saving magical spells for when it matters most.  But how do you know when it matters most unless you meta game? That is why I meet challenges with such overwhelming force as to not lose. Trial of Iron demands you pay the iron price.

 

If the game prevents you from resting at the inn for free, then that would change everything.  Remnids me of Scrotie's suggestion as to keep players in an area until it's clear, it's more in depth than that. It would be nice to see Scrotie link his recommendation exactly, it has LOTS of merit.

 

NOTE: I am trying to offer as much feedback as possible, without bias to be used for POE 2.  Keep in mind, I enjoy the current system even though I think it's slightly flawed with unlimited resting at the inn for free.  I repeat, I do not mind the current system as is, but if it were to evolve, I don't mind that either. If the current system ends up in POE 2 I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, but if you decide to make it more challenging on the hardest difficulty, well.............

 

I WOULD GLADLY WELCOME THAT BECAUSE I'M A BAD ASS AT NO DEATH RULESETS AND TRIAL OF IRON.

 

 

HELL YES, I AM THE KING OF NO DEATH RULESET, I AM THE KING OF TRIAL OF IRON. NONE OF YOU WILL USURP ME (translation, this is a friendly challenge in hopes of motivating me to stream again on twitch.tv, Bioware broke my heart with Dragon Age Inquisition, if you want to get in my face, perhaps even start a fig.. N/m .... I'm bad like that .. oops).

Edited May 7, 2015 by luzarius

[Namutree]

 

 

If the game actually prevents you from resting at an inn, then I can understand the importance of saving magical spells for when it matters most.  But how do you know when it matters most unless you meta game? That is why I meet challenges with such overwhelming force as to not lose. Trial of Iron demands you pay the iron price.

 

 

You know because some fights are obviously easy. If I see a couple of small spiders I know the battle doesn't warrant the use of any per-rest spells (or at least not any high level ones). Though resource management isn't just about whether or not you use your spells, but whether or not you use them well. One well placed fan of flames can basically end a lot of the game's early fights for example. You gotta ensure maximum spell efficiency or else you'll be making a lot trips back to the inn which would be tedious.

 

You can always rest at the inn in Gilded Vale for free.

[Jimmysdabestcop]

I dont think per rest spells and the camping mechanic makes the game awful or that it takes "points" off of a review or anything. I continue to think its confusing to have limited camping and 3 different rule sets for casters.

 

They could do a variation of the D&D 5ed ruleset for casting. in that you can cast spell on different level. Example 1st level heal you can cast as 5th level spell. What PoE could do is take idea and say give all casters a new ability say 2-3 times per encounter where it lets them cast any spell they know. Could pick this talent on 2nd level.

 

Maybe the talent starts at 1 spell per encounter then they allow for a second or third upgrade. Honestly that is all that is probably missing. is there a reason you need to cast 12 spells for each caster every encounter? Probably not. But it be cool to cast 1-3 spells per encounter.

 

i think something along those lines would be a neat compromise and not even upset the game balance or mechanics. Some players might not even pick it for all their casters. They might want better offense or defense or maybe more overall spells. It adds a lot of flexibility to the game and probably more fun as well.

[Namutree]

I dont think per rest spells and the camping mechanic makes the game awful or that it takes "points" off of a review or anything. I continue to think its confusing to have limited camping and 3 different rule sets for casters.

 

They could do a variation of the D&D 5ed ruleset for casting. in that you can cast spell on different level. Example 1st level heal you can cast as 5th level spell. What PoE could do is take idea and say give all casters a new ability say 2-3 times per encounter where it lets them cast any spell they know. Could pick this talent on 2nd level.

 

Maybe the talent starts at 1 spell per encounter then they allow for a second or third upgrade. Honestly that is all that is probably missing. is there a reason you need to cast 12 spells for each caster every encounter? Probably not. But it be cool to cast 1-3 spells per encounter.

 

i think something along those lines would be a neat compromise and not even upset the game balance or mechanics. Some players might not even pick it for all their casters. They might want better offense or defense or maybe more overall spells. It adds a lot of flexibility to the game and probably more fun as well.

Or they could just leave it alone and let people pick the spell casting class that best reflects the style of play they prefer. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

[Jimmysdabestcop]

Or they could just leave it alone and let people pick the spell casting class that best reflects the style of play they prefer. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

 

 

Perhaps. But still don't see any logical reason for 3 completely different types of magic casting. 1 preferred. 2 ok I will live with it. 3 I can see how first timers and cRPG newbies are completely lost.

 

Having 3 magic systems doesn't make the game better, more fun, or more challenging then developers have to ask why are we using 3 systems? If it doesn't improve the game and its just how they invisioned the classes then concessions have to be made for the general audience.

[Namutree]

 

Or they could just leave it alone and let people pick the spell casting class that best reflects the style of play they prefer. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

 

 

Perhaps. But still don't see any logical reason for 3 completely different types of magic casting. 1 preferred. 2 ok I will live with it. 3 I can see how first timers and cRPG newbies are completely lost.

 

Having 3 magic systems doesn't make the game better, more fun, or more challenging then developers have to ask why are we using 3 systems?

 

Having 3 does make the better and more fun. It allows people to pick the casting system they prefer. Some people don't like the way the wizard works; some people don't like the way the cipher works. No problem though; the cipher or druid is their for those who don't enjoy the wizard, and the wizard and druid is their for those who don't enjoy the cipher. Everyone wins. That's the great thing about different classes in general, different play styles for different tastes.

[Silent Winter]

I like having different styles of spellcasting for different kinds of spellcasters.

If they all had the same style of spellcasting, they'd be the same kind of spellcaster by a different name.

I enjoy playing wizard with the grimoir decisions and druid, and I'm sure I'll like the cipher when I play one, I like the idea anyway.

[luzarius]

I play on POTD difficulty & TOI, but I still don't see a reason to have multiple grimoires. Will I eventually figure it out? I'm new to this genre of gaming.

[Namutree]

I like having different styles of spellcasting for different kinds of spellcasters.

If they all had the same style of spellcasting, they'd be the same kind of spellcaster by a different name.

I enjoy playing wizard with the grimoir decisions and druid, and I'm sure I'll like the cipher when I play one, I like the idea anyway.

I found the cipher to be pretty boring to play personally.

[oaktownbrown]

I play on POTD difficulty & TOI, but I still don't see a reason to have multiple grimoires. Will I eventually figure it out? I'm new to this genre of gaming.

 

 

I am playing solo PotD (but not with a wizard). If I used a wizard instead, I might equip an extra grimoire that contained spells that were very useful in specific situations but not generally useful. I've done that a couple of times in a party playthrough as well but I generally don't.

 

I like having a class where you have a very wide range of spells that are potentially available but you need to find and learn them. It adds variety for me. I think that needing to find and learn spells is a good trade-off for the larger number of spells a wizard can eventually learn. However, I think it can cause problems bc newbies (even to this game but especially to the genre) won't know which spells to pick at character creation or level up unless they have metaknowledge. I'm torn bc respeccing your main character seems very gamey but I'm not sure how else one can deal with the problem of newbies choosing bad spells, talents, and attributes for their PC. I know that players can make a wizard adventurer and learn their spells but some newbies have trouble getting enough money to do so at lower levels (and they seem to be the ones who routinely trek back to the inn at Gilded Vale to rest for free but then complain about what a PITA it is to do so) and that doesn't address the problem of poor attribute or  talent selection. I'd suggest a respec option solely on easy but, unless you are playing PotD, you can freely change difficulty level during the game.

 

On the general topic, I like scrotie's suggestion of not being able to leave some optional dungeons. However, it would cause players like me to rest more often bc I like to go to new areas when my health is in the mid-low range. I think it's a challenge. E.g., in the Eothis temple, I first went solo at level 2 and my health was barely in the red when I first entered. Such a change would cause me to not enter until after I'd rested. I'd still probably end up losing the dungeon bc I'd probably need to recruit Eder at least and possibly level up. I always hard save before entering a dungeon though so I could replay it if I knew beforehand that I would have negative consequences if I left the dungeon to rest.

 

I think that scrotie's suggestion would be a good idea since there seem to be few consequences for resting frequently. It would allow players who need to rest frequently to do so since the areas are optional but make limited resting rewarding. It would also encourage new players to learn to manage their per rest resources and camping supplies. On other boards, I have seen many complaints from ppl who don't understand that the player is supposed to manage their use of per rest spells/abilities and see the resting system as a frustrating punishment from devs who seem to encourage players to backtrack to the inn a lot for some inexplicable reason.

Edited May 7, 2015 by oaktownbrown

[Silent Winter]

 

I like having different styles of spellcasting for different kinds of spellcasters.

If they all had the same style of spellcasting, they'd be the same kind of spellcaster by a different name.

I enjoy playing wizard with the grimoir decisions and druid, and I'm sure I'll like the cipher when I play one, I like the idea anyway.

I found the cipher to be pretty boring to play personally.

 

 

I'll have to get back to you on that one then - intend to play a rogue in next playthrough but I'll use the cipher companion too. (Current, nearly finished, playthrough is just using the companions as I met them so no GM).

I play on POTD difficulty & TOI, but I still don't see a reason to have multiple grimoires. Will I eventually figure it out? I'm new to this genre of gaming.

I wouldn't switch often - 4 spells per level is usually enough to get a good mix - but there are certain spells that are useful in certain situations that you might want to switch to depending on enemies.

[nipsen]

Backup Grimoire? Like a mini-grimoire in the inside suit pocket ...what would it take to get people to want to use this, though? Would it be enough to eventually introduce new spells later in the game, so you would end up with a second grimoire as full as the first one - or would it work better to always offer at least one similar but specialized cast every time you gain a new spell? From the beginning of the game. Or would it work to encourage people to create one "green" grimoire and a "black" one, for example. Would it work to have this as a quest? That it's part of wizard lore to craft your own book?

 

Because a bit of the problem with having too many spells is that you might tend to choose a selection of the spells you have in the grimoire. And then rotate with other spells in that grimoire, while ignoring spells you don't have or can't get into that first grimoire. Or, that you end up with two spellbooks with an equally random selection of spells..

 

So I'm wondering if there's a more intuitive way to get around this.

 

 

 I think you misunderstood the joke (whether or not it was funny is left as an exercise for the reader). He meant "I'm here to help you." 

 

Well, I don't need or want help like that. But, if I want to derail a discussion by having people scream their opinions at each other while holding for their ears, I'll be sure to ask.

[Gfted1]

Wizard should get access to all spells (per appropriate level) and they should be on cooldowns. Problem solved.

[scrotiemcb]

Wizard should get access to all spells (per appropriate level) and they should be on cooldowns. Problem solved.

I thought spells on cooldown was the chanter's deal.

[View619]

Wizard should get access to all spells (per appropriate level) and they should be on cooldowns. Problem solved.

 

Eh, this exists in D:OS and leads to the unbalanced power of spells in mid to late game, imo. Pretty sure it would just result in Wizard magic completely overshadowing all other methods of attack/defense/cc/etc since you could just cycle through useful spells not on cooldown until the others are ready.

 

Although, allowing a moddable player stat to reduce spell cooldowns doesn't help either. Bad decisions by Larian.

Edited May 7, 2015 by View619

[Gfted1]

I didn't get far into D:OS but that sounds more like a balancing problem then a system problem. Longer cooldowns or less powerful spells are possible solutions, no? Im not opposed to a mana system either.

[View619]

I didn't get far into D:OS but that sounds more like a balancing problem then a system problem. Longer cooldowns or less powerful spells are possible solutions, no? Im not opposed to a mana system either.

 

Yeah, it may just be the way intelligence affects cool-downs. Once you get it to decent levels spells recharge in one turn.

[scrotiemcb]

I didn't get far into D:OS but that sounds more like a balancing problem then a system problem. Longer cooldowns or less powerful spells are possible solutions, no? Im not opposed to a mana system either.

In a general sense, I'm not opposed to these things, either. If I was, I would be arguing for the removal of the Chanter (cooldowns) and Cipher (mana system). I'm not.

 

But what I am opposed to is the removal of per-rest abilities and classes which specialize in per-rest abilities. Those deserve to remain in the game.

 

If you don't like it, play a Chanter or a Cipher instead of trying to give everything the same ability mechanics. Sameness is boring.

[EvilCalvin42]

Most RPG's I've played use the "per-rest" scenerio to refill the spells. I think it is fine as it adds a bit of strategy to the encounters otherwise you don' think much about it and it is just like a consumable.

[Gfted1]

Yeah, it may just be the way intelligence affects cool-downs. Once you get it to decent levels spells recharge in one turn.

So you could for example, cast Fireball every turn if your Int was high enough? That does sound OP. Maybe I should give D:OS another try.

 

In a general sense, I'm not opposed to these things, either. If I was, I would be arguing for the removal of the Chanter (cooldowns) and Cipher (mana system). I'm not.

 

But what I am opposed to is the removal of per-rest abilities and classes which specialize in per-rest abilities. Those deserve to remain in the game.

 

If you don't like it, play a Chanter or a Cipher instead of trying to give everything the same ability mechanics. Sameness is boring.

Why do you feel it is fine for Cipher and Chanter but no other class?

[archangel979]

I got a better question: Why are any spells encounter? It just made me use those each fight and barely any others and resulted in game having very little resource management except for health. And the worst part is that on Hard I was able to get away with such playing in 99% of encounters