Are per encounter spells needed? And are they balanced?

[FlintlockJazz]

They's fine as is.  I always said wizards were fine when people were claiming they were rubbish at the start and I still say they are fine.  Favourite class in the game, and not because they are powerful but because they are fun and feel like a wizard, love the grimoire system really makes spellbooks feel important to me.

[Infinitron]

The more I think about Infinitron's suggestion of, "per encounter Vancian", the more I like it.  I'm still concerned about the UI problem and also if it's still too wide a net...not sure.

 

What's good about is that it really makes you think "When should I use this spell? When is the most opportune time?".

 

When I played the IE games, I would never memorize a particular spell more than once. It's fun to consider how you're going to use a toolkit made up of disposable one-use tools, and the option to do that is something that's been kind of lost in the transition from Mage to Sorcerer-style spellcasting in PoE. I still think it was the right move for per-rest, but a return to Vancian-style in the more forgiving domain of per-encounter could be very nice.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Infinitron

[pi2repsion]

My opinion is that it was a good idea but it is currently scaling too fast.

 

Lvl 15, devotion of the faithfull, confusion and calling the world maw (the super slicken) will become per encounter.

 

I think 1 additional per encounter spell level every 4 levels instead of 2 would be ok.

 

Lvl 3 spells per encounter at lvl 17 seems powerful but not broken.

If, at level 15, you are going to be defeating what passes at that time for challenging encounters using primarily level 1-4 spells with little use of level 5-8 spells that are then available, then there is a significant problem and it isn't that people can cast level 4 spells per encounter, but that the difficulty level and challenge is seriously screwed up such that the challenges can be beaten using low-level spells.

 

And if you aren't, but it does allow you to blaze through easy encounters without using your many high-level spells, what's the problem?

 

Spells per encounter have nothing to do with power and everything to do with convenience in Pillars of Eternity, as you are never in a situation where husbanding per-rest resources is forced upon you rather than being a choice once you have exited the starter dungeon and have gained access to the overworld map.

 

Rather, the use of camping supplies is weighed against the challenge of encounters; The more challenging encounters are for you, the more you will need to rest to replenish resources, but if the encounters aren't all that challenging and don't drain the health of your party or the high level spells of your casters significantly, then you can just keep going and going without using the per-rest abilities, whether they be spells for casters or per rest abilities for other classes. Your wizards, druids, priests, ciphers, warriors, rogues, etc. will plow through the easy encounters using just their per-encounter abilities.

 

 

If you think spellcasters are too powerful - and granted, they are very powerful at higher levels - reducing the number of spells they can cast or the power of spells would be the way to go; changing whether spells are per rest or per encounter makes no difference in practice.

Edited September 16, 2015 by pi2repsion

[Elric Galad]

You may be right (especially about spamming slicken) but I'm a powergamer who wants to avoid resting in a way that would break immersion.

 

Resting all the time is contrary to my own bushido ^^

 

Moreover, all class abilities and not only spells are balanced according to their number of uses, and per rest or per encounter seems to have been taken into account for this purpose.

 

So I believe "my own bushido" is in some way the principle that the dev had in mind when balancing abilities.

 

Having class (or abilities) specialized in either limited or renewable ressource (like cipher vs wizards) is IMHO an interesting part of gameplay.

 

So I think it does matter in practice.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Elric Galad

[MunoValente]

I think getting the same amount per encounter that you used to get per rest is a bit much. Something like 1 or 2 per encounter with the rest per rest might be better or perhaps per rest but have some but not all regenerate after battle.

[curryinahurry]

 

My opinion is that it was a good idea but it is currently scaling too fast.

 

Lvl 15, devotion of the faithfull, confusion and calling the world maw (the super slicken) will become per encounter.

 

I think 1 additional per encounter spell level every 4 levels instead of 2 would be ok.

 

Lvl 3 spells per encounter at lvl 17 seems powerful but not broken.

If, at level 15, you are going to be defeating what passes at that time for challenging encounters using primarily level 1-4 spells with little use of level 5-8 spells that are then available, then there is a significant problem and it isn't that people can cast level 4 spells per encounter, but that the difficulty level and challenge is seriously screwed up such that the challenges can be beaten using low-level spells.

 

And if you aren't, but it does allow you to blaze through easy encounters without using your many high-level spells, what's the problem?

 

Spells per encounter have nothing to do with power and everything to do with convenience in Pillars of Eternity, as you are never in a situation where husbanding per-rest resources is forced upon you rather than being a choice once you have exited the starter dungeon and have gained access to the overworld map.

 

Rather, the use of camping supplies is weighed against the challenge of encounters; The more challenging encounters are for you, the more you will need to rest to replenish resources, but if the encounters aren't all that challenging and don't drain the health of your party or the high level spells of your casters significantly, then you can just keep going and going without using the per-rest abilities, whether they be spells for casters or per rest abilities for other classes. Your wizards, druids, priests, ciphers, warriors, rogues, etc. will plow through the easy encounters using just their per-encounter abilities.

 

 

If you think spellcasters are too powerful - and granted, they are very powerful at higher levels - reducing the number of spells they can cast or the power of spells would be the way to go; changing whether spells are per rest or per encounter makes no difference in practice.

 

 

 

You're analysis is off.

 

First,  with regards to spell level and power; there is no DC (Difficulty Class) or saving throws in PoE, only resistance in the form of defense, and the system is designed around hitting (including grazes which impart effects).  So your caster will usually hit, and the effectiveness will remain strong at any level because it is based on the casters' ability and not inherent spell power level.  Thus, with all the buffs, etc. one can make even first level spells quite powerful.  That was the intention of the system from the beginning, and Obsidian has done a great job pulling this part off.  Which makes the spamming of x level spells even more problematic.

 

Second, your point about convenience is poorly reasoned.  Camping supplies are at the service of Strategic planning.  Spells per encounter all but throws strategy out that window because it provides a nearly bottomless resource and almost no opportunity cost.  Also, the convenience to spell-casting works against tactics because an approach of, " Big CC and whittle down the mobs with lower level spells and then let the Martial classes wade in to mop up the leftovers," becomes a dominant, brain-dead approach.  Thus we have an inversion, tactics and strategy come to serve convenience...lazy design.

 

Finally, your conclusion that spell number of casting is more important than per rest/ per encounter is a false dichotomy.  The two are interlinked.  If one cast 10 spells per level per rest, then per encounter becomes irrelevant.  Same as if one can cast 4 spells of a given level per encounter.  If the limiter is health, and your tank can slog through 10 discrete encounters in a day, that is a potential 40 castings of a given spell level...that is essentially limitless casting.

Edited September 16, 2015 by curryinahurry

[pi2repsion]

I must disagree with your reasoning, curryinahurry.

 

While it is certainly true that early spells remain relevant at higher levels and as powerful at high levels as at low, I have not denied that, and that is not the same as them having the same power as higher level spells.

 

If you are completing encounters using only the lower level spells when you are high level, then you are not fighting anything that requires you to use your most powerful spells, and the encounter is per definition not a difficult one in the first place, since a difficult one would be one that was a challenge to you and required you to use some of your most powerful resources not to fail.

 

Take Slicken as an example. It is an awesome level 1 spell that remains relevant, but the level 5 Call to Slumber is better in every which way, being foe only, having a larger radius, and having a longer duration. But if high level encounters are designed such that they are trivialized by a wizard spamming Slicken without using more complicated spells, or by some other class using some lowlevel ability, then these are per definition not difficult encounters as you are capable of beating them using your weakest spells. And Fireball is awesome, but Nynagauth's Shadowflame is better. As for debuffs, which lower level debuffs have the power of the 6th level Hex or Gaze? And it goes on; As a general rule, higher level spells are more powerful, because that's part and parcel with the design idea.

 

Which, of course, was my point. The question was never whether lowlevel spells were still relevant or useful - it would have been a failure of the stated design during development if they were not - only that if they are all you need to beat an encounter at a high difficulty level, then you are fighting a trivial encounter and not a challenging one.

 

 

As for your second point, I find your statement that my argument is poorly reasoned to miss the point:

 

I quite agree that per-encounter spells trivialize the need of strategic hoarding of resources when fighting trivial encounters. That was the entire point.

 

It is, as I said, a matter of convenience to the user. By doing this, it frees the player from devoting significant time for trivial tasks, whether it be buying camping supplies to beat trivial battles quickly or stretching out trivial battles that hold no challenge in the first place in order to conserve resources.

 

There are enough battles as it is, and I find it convenient only having to concentrate on resources when I fight battles that actually have some sort of tactical challenge for the party, just like I prefer facing strategic challenges that aren't trivialized by spending a few minutes jumping through hoops.

 

 

EDIT: I see you've added a conclusion, so let me address it:

 

As for your final conclusion where you try to look at a hypothetical situation of 10 spells rather than 4 to expose what you consider a false dichotomy, I can only say that I was making statements about how the game works in the context of changing whether spells were per rest or per encounter, which is the subject of discussion in this thread, not a broader statement about how the game might work, were it fundamentally different.

 

Yes, there'd be a different situation if there were 10 spells per level rather than 4. And another situation entirely if there was only 1. And how about if health values were twice as big? Or only one third?  Each radically different situation would significantly affect the value of the individual spell and the question of frequency of resting. But none of these situations are relevant to the discussion of whether per encounter spells are needed or balanced in Pillars of Eternity.

Edited September 17, 2015 by pi2repsion

[Zherot]

You can criticize all you want but openly asking for nerfs is ridiculous, if Wizard or spells per encounter in this matter where truly OP they would have adressed it by now seriously, i mean they wouldnt even designed them that way, they could just do de same resource system with mana and stuff wich i personally like more but they decised to go this route for a reason.

 

 

In the end what you want in a an RPG its to become powerful after all the suffering of the first levels, if you take that away then there is no reward.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Tigranes
lots of angry

[Teioh_White]

I'm not really seeing the argument that if I can beat a fight entirely with per-encounter spells, it's a trivial fight, and it's not worth considering, so it's an argument to let us I have per-encounter spells. The only thing I can see is you're arguing the player is going to rest as much as they feel like they want too to enjoy the game, as there is no system to stop players from unlimited resting, so this is a nice compromise to give the players enough resistance to resting spam, and enough spells to play with, that the Devs can still have cool high level spells, without the player entirely abusing them?

 

I think it's just a design philosophy between resource based and encounter based system, of which Pillars really shoulda just picked a side of the fence to be on.

[Gorgon]

It might interest you to know that at least one developer is reading this thread. This would be a good time to make an effort to be on point with your arguments and resist the urge to respond to personal attacks. If you don't, they won't be looking at your particular suggestions. 

[bonarbill]

 

Balancing a game is fine.  If a certain skill is making the game boring or is breaking the game, then it's cool.  However, overbalancing things because someone is butthurt about x being slightly stronger than y in a single player game is a waste of time and energy, especially in a game that's been out for god knows how long now.  Does it hurt your invisible teammate's feelings that a mage is doing more dps than a rogue, despite the fact that rogue is viable enough to get through the game.  It just leads to nerfing things that don't need to be nerfed.

[FlintlockJazz]

I'm happy with it as it is, maybe it might become an issue as more and more spell levels become per-encounter at higher levels but what we got at the moment doesn't seem an issue to me.  At the level they become per-encounter they are not the spells I will decide to rest when I run out of them, it's when I run out of the high level spells that I will rest and I tend to run out them before I would run out of the low level ones anyway as keeping them per rest would just mean that I would refrain from bothering to cast them in most cases, and would make very little difference other than drawing out a battle slightly longer imho.

[Tigranes]

 

Balancing a game is fine.  If a certain skill is making the game boring or is breaking the game, then it's cool.  However, overbalancing things because someone is butthurt about x being slightly stronger than y in a single player game is a waste of time and energy, especially in a game that's been out for god knows how long now.  Does it hurt your invisible teammate's feelings that a mage is doing more dps than a rogue, despite the fact that rogue is viable enough to get through the game.  It just leads to nerfing things that don't need to be nerfed.

 

 

Overbalancing is certainly a thing and there's no need to achieve DPS Equality For All in a single player game. Still, it would be equally nonsensical to say that nothing should be nerfed or changed because the game has been out for too long or because we don't need perfect balance. The point is that designing the game to introduce interesting tradeoffs and alternative strategies makes things more fun for everybody, as long as it doesn't become excessive. 

 

The question with per encounter spells is whether it gets rid of interesting choices by making spell use trivial spamming. If you stop and think to yourself, "is it fun to cast Fan of Flames 4 times every battle and thereby 800 times in total", that's a better way to consider pros and cons than "omg u r nerfin wiz" or whatever else. 

 

Ironically, one of Obsidian's goals were to make lower level abilities viable throughout the whole game, and they did pretty well on that. I like the fact that level 1 / 2 spells aren't useless later on. But this is exactly what makes per encounter rather powerful. It would be interesting to make it a Talent available in higher levels, so that players again have a choice of developing their wizards into spellspamming bag of tricks or into a more focused character. 

[Oralaina]

 

Ironically, one of Obsidian's goals were to make lower level abilities viable throughout the whole game, and they did pretty well on that. I like the fact that level 1 / 2 spells aren't useless later on. But this is exactly what makes per encounter rather powerful. It would be interesting to make it a Talent available in higher levels, so that players again have a choice of developing their wizards into spellspamming bag of tricks or into a more focused character. 

 

 

I like the "take as a talent" idea, a lot!

[Zherot]

 

 

Ironically, one of Obsidian's goals were to make lower level abilities viable throughout the whole game, and they did pretty well on that. I like the fact that level 1 / 2 spells aren't useless later on. But this is exactly what makes per encounter rather powerful. It would be interesting to make it a Talent available in higher levels, so that players again have a choice of developing their wizards into spellspamming bag of tricks or into a more focused character. 

 

 

I like the "take as a talent" idea, a lot!

 

 

Which everybody is going to take... and now you are making it mandatory.

[Oralaina]

 

 

 

Ironically, one of Obsidian's goals were to make lower level abilities viable throughout the whole game, and they did pretty well on that. I like the fact that level 1 / 2 spells aren't useless later on. But this is exactly what makes per encounter rather powerful. It would be interesting to make it a Talent available in higher levels, so that players again have a choice of developing their wizards into spellspamming bag of tricks or into a more focused character. 

 

 

I like the "take as a talent" idea, a lot!

 

 

Which everybody is going to take... and now you are making it mandatory.

 

 

Um.  In one of my groups I would, yes.  In the other, no.  And it's not a "competing against the rest of the world" game anyway, so why would it matter?  Besides, no one from the devs has said they're going to do this, so why are you getting defensive?

[curryinahurry]

I must disagree with your reasoning, curryinahurry.

 

While it is certainly true that early spells remain relevant at higher levels and as powerful at high levels as at low, I have not denied that, and that is not the same as them having the same power as higher level spells.

 

If you are completing encounters using only the lower level spells when you are high level, then you are not fighting anything that requires you to use your most powerful spells, and the encounter is per definition not a difficult one in the first place, since a difficult one would be one that was a challenge to you and required you to use some of your most powerful resources not to fail.

 

Take Slicken as an example. It is an awesome level 1 spell that remains relevant, but the level 5 Call to Slumber is better in every which way, being foe only, having a larger radius, and having a longer duration. But if high level encounters are designed such that they are trivialized by a wizard spamming Slicken without using more complicated spells, or by some other class using some lowlevel ability, then these are per definition not difficult encounters as you are capable of beating them using your weakest spells. And Fireball is awesome, but Nynagauth's Shadowflame is better. As for debuffs, which lower level debuffs have the power of the 6th level Hex or Gaze? And it goes on; As a general rule, higher level spells are more powerful, because that's part and parcel with the design idea.

 

Which, of course, was my point. The question was never whether lowlevel spells were still relevant or useful - it would have been a failure of the stated design during development if they were - only that if they are all you need to beat an encounter at a high difficulty level, then you are fighting a trivial encounter and not a challenging one.

 

 

As for your second point, I find your statement that my argument is poorly reasoned to miss the point:

 

I quite agree that per-encounter spells trivialize the need of strategic hoarding of resources when fighting trivial encounters. That was the entire point.

 

It is, as I said, a matter of convenience to the user. By doing this, it frees the player from devoting significant time for trivial tasks, whether it be buying camping supplies to beat trivial battles quickly or stretching out trivial battles that hold no challenge in the first place in order to conserve resources.

 

There are enough battles as it is, and I find it convenient only having to concentrate on resources when I fight battles that actually have some sort of tactical challenge for the party, just like I prefer facing strategic challenges that aren't trivialized by spending a few minutes jumping through hoops.

 

 

EDIT: I see you've added a conclusion, so let me address it:

 

As for your final conclusion where you try to look at a hypothetical situation of 10 spells rather than 4 to expose what you consider a false dichotomy, I can only say that I was making statements about how the game works in the context of changing whether spells were per rest or per encounter, which is the subject of discussion in this thread, not a broader statement about how the game might work, were it fundamentally different.

 

Yes, there'd be a different situation if there were 10 spells per level rather than 4. And another situation entirely if there was only 1. And how about if health values were twice as big? Or only one third?  Each radically different situation would significantly affect the value of the individual spell and the question of frequency of resting. But none of these situations are relevant to the discussion of whether per encounter spells are needed or balanced in Pillars of Eternity.

 

 

Your responses don't really address the problems I stated do they?  So Let me try again.  Simpler this time

 

My first point is that lower level spells aren't particularly weak in this game as they are dependent on caster ability and not arbitrary difficulty ceilings.  In fact, I believe you gush about spamming fireballs and Kalakoth's Minor Blights in the other Wizard thread...sounds a bit like you are bring dishonest about power and efficacy of low level spells in this thread, yes?

 

With regards to my second point, and to a degree my final point; I understand your comment about convenience and spell spamming as a solution as a way  of dealing with lower level mobs, the problem that I was pointing out is that when you have a nearly bottomless resource in spells, the concept of what is a level appropriate of difficult encounter get's largely thrown out the window.  Thus the inversion I brought up that tactics becomes subservient to convenience as the only encounters that become classifiable as difficult are the ones that can't be won by spamming low level spells.  

 

Also, you pretty much missed the point on my conclusion as well.  The point was not the first sentence, which was purely an example of how per encounter and per rest spells are interlinked.  You stated earlier that, "changing whether spells are per rest or per encounter makes no difference in practice,"as they are a function of convenience and not power ( a statement that you seem to not really believe based on your posts in the other wizard thread, as I pointed out).  So my comment was merely that once you are dealing with a nearly bottomless resource (by level 13, when you get 3rd level spells, you may able to cast an additional 14 spells per encounter, multiplied by a hypothetical 10 encounter day, you are looking at and additional 140 spell casts per casting class), the encounters considered trivial shift massively because strategic thinking becomes largely an afterthought.

 

BTW,  I'm pretty sure you understand all of this, you just don't want to give up your Shinies, and I respect that, but the reason this thread exists is because many understand just how broken this feature is, and the anecdotal evidence on these forums (much provided by you in the other Wizard thread) is pretty clear.

Edited September 17, 2015 by curryinahurry

[Zherot]

 

 

 

 

Ironically, one of Obsidian's goals were to make lower level abilities viable throughout the whole game, and they did pretty well on that. I like the fact that level 1 / 2 spells aren't useless later on. But this is exactly what makes per encounter rather powerful. It would be interesting to make it a Talent available in higher levels, so that players again have a choice of developing their wizards into spellspamming bag of tricks or into a more focused character. 

 

 

I like the "take as a talent" idea, a lot!

 

 

Which everybody is going to take... and now you are making it mandatory.

 

 

Um.  In one of my groups I would, yes.  In the other, no.  And it's not a "competing against the rest of the world" game anyway, so why would it matter?  Besides, no one from the devs has said they're going to do this, so why are you getting defensive?

 

 

Because i dont like people telling me how should i play my single player games, also that talent would be mandatory because it would be just too good to not use it, which will then make people come here to the forums and whine about that talent being too powerful.

[Tigranes]

(1) Not everyone will take it. For someone who keeps yelling that other people should leave you alone and shut up about how the game should be played, you seem to have laser insight about what everybody else is doing.

 

(2) Whether everyone takes it or not, the talent makes sure that a powerful ability doesn't come scot free but has a cost (and surely the cost is more than reasonable if you think 'everyone will take it') - and the cost means you now have a choice in how important that ability is, and how you want to build your wizard. 

 

(3) You're upset because making it a talent will make people whine... except they're whining right now anyway... and you surely don't want the ability to be removed.... so it sounds like you just want people to stop talking about it, in which case I'd probably bet that you're out of luck.

[Zherot]

(1) Not everyone will take it. For someone who keeps yelling that other people should leave you alone and shut up about how the game should be played, you seem to have laser insight about what everybody else is doing.

 

(2) Whether everyone takes it or not, the talent makes sure that a powerful ability doesn't come scot free but has a cost (and surely the cost is more than reasonable if you think 'everyone will take it') - and the cost means you now have a choice in how important that ability is, and how you want to build your wizard. 

 

(3) You're upset because making it a talent will make people whine... except they're whining right now anyway... and you surely don't want the ability to be removed.... so it sounds like you just want people to stop talking about it, in which case I'd probably bet that you're out of luck.

 

Well, then do whatever you want im gonna still use per encounter spells even if i have to use a mod to achieve it, and since i doubt this will be implemented anytime soon i will finish my game with my "OP" wizard per encounter spells so i hope that at least gives TC diarrhea and everyone else that is QQing for nerfs in sp games and i doubt i will finish the game a second time, who knows, i dont think so since even with the AI and some improvements the combat still feels like a mess and cheesy, but thats another topic, thing is the only enjoyable thing for me is to use my Wizard and knowing im gonna get per encounter spells soon, the reward after having to rest every single time i ran out of spells.

 

Eliminating this reward from the players that choose spellcasters is just gonna make the game more tedious than already is, which is not good for the game BUT whatver, shoot yourselves in the foot if you want and like i said, if this becomes a "talent" then people will cry about that talent being too powerful... You already have a choice, you dont need the devs to do what you can already achieve, you dont want per encounter spells, mod the game, thats it, there is no need to impose your BS on everybody else and make the devs to waste resources and time on something that is nothing more than a tantrum, thats what mods are for, to tweak the game as you personaly feel it would be better for your experience, but when you are crying and trying to make this changes to everyone else then it becomes a problem and you bet your ass im gonna stand against it.

[curryinahurry]

@ Tigranes

 

 Actually you may be on to something with the idea of casting talents.  People have also been asking for metamagic feats and this may be a nice way to combine both discussions.  

 

maybe the talent would be something like, 'per encounter use of x level spells in exchange for permanent loss of 1 spell slot 4 levels higher'.  That way your at least create a trade-off for those who want spell spamming.

 

Likewise, you could allow an ability that would allow casters to cast empowered versions of spells (say 25%) in exchange for using all per encounter uses of a spell 3 levels lower.  So you could cast 1 Concussive missile Doing 20-33 (base 15-25) per, at the cost of your 4 level one per encounter spells.  That would be ok.

 

Either way, Obsidian is going to have to re-think higher level gameplay because it's not great right now and they have fallen into al ot of the problems they wanted to avoid whens tarting this project

[Oralaina]

I'm.... not sure at all what you're on about Zherot.  This is a "private" game.  No one else can know what you do or why or how often.  You may choose to play this game any way you wish, which is entirely a GOOD thing, is it not?

 

Whatever your issue is, I hope you continue to have fun with this game.

[KDubya]

I'm not singling out Wizards here, its just that I have a lot more experience with them. I'd assume that Druids and Priests have an equal opportunity to use per encounter spells to their benefit, perhaps excessively well

 

 

 

In Baldur's Gate Wizards start really bad. Really low hit points, can't hit anything, can't wear armor, can only use crappy slings and get like one spell. It takes several levels of baby sitting a wizard to get to a level that it feels powerful. By the middle of the game in BG2 you are really powerful, at the end you are supreme. People fear high level mages for a reason.

 

In PoE Wizards don't start off as worthless. The twice per encounter Arcane Assault is a great spell, implements do damage per second as good as bows or firearms which gets even better with a few talents adding DR bypass and AoE. This is like carnage but with the equivalent of DR bypassing bows. Wizards are still less sturdy than other classes and but do fine. Nothing to change here yet.

 

Even getting the level one and two spells per encounter did not really change the power curve that much. You could grab the +50 endurance buff with your first action, maybe grab an Eldritch Aim or Wizard Double for defense. All of which takes time away from casting the big spells. I'd make time for the endurance buff, but that is just what I'd do YMMV. No complaints as far as I remember on the forum. Level one and two had some utility type spells, single target CC, minor damage, all useful but nothing game changing here.

 

Now with the expanded levels you get level 3 per encounter, and with a ring you'll have six. Level 3 has some really useful buff spells like the +50% action rate Alacrity and the Displaced Image that gets a big deflection, reflex and 50% hit>graze, the ever useful blights and the standard fireball/noxious burst. With Alacrity available every battle using it is pretty much a no brainer.

 

At the start you go Alacrity, then the displaced image then the +50 endurance. Prior to this level setting up this layered defense would have used two of your possible six casts per rest and effectively limited you to three battles or you'd hold back in reserve for the tougher fights. Now there is no reason to hold back.

 

For a normal encounter you can then throw out three fireballs or noxious bursts with your Alacrity enhanced casting speed and still have one cast left to get you around a minutes worth of blights that are enhanced with your implement talents. You can do this every battle.

 

For the hard encounters you still have all the rest of your level four, five six and seven spells., all of which will also benefit from your +50% alacrity speed buff.

 

Assuming that you get level four spells per encounter in the next expansion, you can start with a barrage of at least four Confusions which would devastate the enemies. Or better yet the new improved freezing fireball spell. And you'll be able to do this every encounter.

 

What will be a limiter to the above tactic? To kill the party in the first five seconds of every encounter? Have every enemy use Dragon Leap and go after the Wizard?

 

I don't see how you can balance with level three as per encounter. Level three spells needs to be as useful as they are now for all the levels before you get to 13th as they are limited by the per rest mechanic. People have always had the option to use as many spells as they wanted and just rest more.

 

What could be done:

 

1.) Nothing. At the next expansion you get level four per encounter at level 15. - Easiest solution, takes no effort from the Devs and judging by many of the comments in the thread, it'd be the most welcome. Like limiting your rest you could self regulate to maintain your own level of balance/cheese tolerance.

 

2.) Reduce the power of spells so that having them per encounter is not game breaking. - Terrible Idea in my opinion.

 

3.) Eliminate per encounter spells - Not a good idea after having them be available already. Back in the Beta this might have been the better design choice but that horse has already left the barn.

 

4.) Change the rate at which per encounter spells are gained - Maybe have them start at an earlier level but not be all of your available casts. At level seven you get one first level spell per encounter, at level nine you get a second, at level eleven you get a third first level and one second level, at level thirteen you get your fourth first level and your second second level spell, at level fifteen you get your third second level and your first third level.

[Pelmaleon]

This is a single player game. Why do you minmaxing mooks care so much about balance. If you think a spell is too broken/imbalanced and you play mostly for a challenge, then don't use it. If you don't have enough willpower to do this, then stop playing video games and work on your real life ego/willpower because it is obviously a more outstanding issue.

 

One well placed level 4 confusion spell is almost always enough to perfunctorily win any non-Dragon fight anyway, so why would it even matter if it is per encounter if the spell is mathematically (radius and duration are too large) broken in the first place? You have enough rests (even on Hard/PotD) to use one/two per tougher fight and still never have to scurry back to town to grab more camping supplies (unless you are tactically inept).

 

My point is that you are complaining about a game mechanic (per encounter spells) which makes the game more fun for 99% of players, instead of complaining about the broken spells themselves, abundance of easy, zerg encounters (even on PotD), and stupid enemy AI which all make the game not as challenging as thus not as fun for a huge portion of players. In a game like Dota, where there is a great competitive element (5 vs 5 battle), balance is extremely important. A single player game doesn't need virtually flawless balancing to make it a fun, immersive, and challenging game. If a wizard is better than other classes at high levels, then I applaud the devs for giving most crpg players a nostalgia boner because that's how wizards worked in the other infinity engine games. What we should be complaining about is the lack of extremely unique spells and the extremely broken early-mid level spells, not the game mechanic itself which makes the game more fun to play.

 

An aside to the OP: play on PotD if you find hard too easy - it's that simple, dude.

[KDubya]

 

(1) Not everyone will take it. For someone who keeps yelling that other people should leave you alone and shut up about how the game should be played, you seem to have laser insight about what everybody else is doing.

 

(2) Whether everyone takes it or not, the talent makes sure that a powerful ability doesn't come scot free but has a cost (and surely the cost is more than reasonable if you think 'everyone will take it') - and the cost means you now have a choice in how important that ability is, and how you want to build your wizard. 

 

(3) You're upset because making it a talent will make people whine... except they're whining right now anyway... and you surely don't want the ability to be removed.... so it sounds like you just want people to stop talking about it, in which case I'd probably bet that you're out of luck.

 

Well, then do whatever you want im gonna still use per encounter spells even if i have to use a mod to achieve it, and since i doubt this will be implemented anytime soon i will finish my game with my "OP" wizard per encounter spells so i hope that at least gives TC diarrhea and everyone else that is QQing for nerfs in sp games and i doubt i will finish the game a second time, who knows, i dont think so since even with the AI and some improvements the combat still feels like a mess and cheesy, but thats another topic, thing is the only enjoyable thing for me is to use my Wizard and knowing im gonna get per encounter spells soon, the reward after having to rest every single time i ran out of spells.

 

Eliminating this reward from the players that choose spellcasters is just gonna make the game more tedious than already is, which is not good for the game BUT whatver, shoot yourselves in the foot if you want and like i said, if this becomes a "talent" then people will cry about that talent being too powerful... You already have a choice, you dont need the devs to do what you can already achieve, you dont want per encounter spells, mod the game, thats it, there is no need to impose your BS on everybody else and make the devs to waste resources and time on something that is nothing more than a tantrum, thats what mods are for, to tweak the game as you personaly feel it would be better for your experience, but when you are crying and trying to make this changes to everyone else then it becomes a problem and you bet your ass im gonna stand against it.

 

 

 

This is a single player game. Why do you minmaxing mooks care so much about balance. If you think a spell is too broken/imbalanced and you play mostly for a challenge, then don't use it. If you don't have enough willpower to do this, then stop playing video games and work on your real life ego/willpower because it is obviously a more outstanding issue.

 

One well placed level 4 confusion spell is almost always enough to perfunctorily win any non-Dragon fight anyway, so why would it even matter if it is per encounter if the spell is mathematically (radius and duration are too large) broken in the first place? You have enough rests (even on Hard/PotD) to use one/two per tougher fight and still never have to scurry back to town to grab more camping supplies (unless you are tactically inept).

 

My point is that you are complaining about a game mechanic (per encounter spells) which makes the game more fun for 99% of players, instead of complaining about the broken spells themselves, abundance of easy, zerg encounters (even on PotD), and stupid enemy AI which all make the game not as challenging as thus not as fun for a huge portion of players. In a game like Dota, where there is a great competitive element (5 vs 5 battle), balance is extremely important. A single player game doesn't need virtually flawless balancing to make it a fun, immersive, and challenging game. If a wizard is better than other classes at high levels, then I applaud the devs for giving most crpg players a nostalgia boner because that's how wizards worked in the other infinity engine games. What we should be complaining about is the lack of extremely unique spells and the extremely broken early-mid level spells, not the game mechanic itself which makes the game more fun to play.

 

An aside to the OP: play on PotD if you find hard too easy - it's that simple, dude.

 

 

I am sorry that asking a question is offensive to all of you.

 

STFU and learn to play NooB should be used more often on the forum, cut down on all that  offensive discussion.

 

If discussing the topic makes you all mad just don't participate. This isn't a college campus where different thoughts need to be shouted down.

 

 

 

Other than my original playthrough on hard I have switched to PotD. Not that that would matter. Having a permanent +50% action speed, +25 deflection, +20 reflex and a 50% graze to hit for deflection and reflex plus a free +50 endurance every battle would still be the move of choice.

 

What spells would you rather the devs address? My thought is that instead of rebalancing the spells you could delay or stop access to the level three and soon to be level four which is where the game breaking potential starts to take hold.

 

I'd be interested to see what specific spells and abilities you'd rather have changed.