Are per encounter spells needed? And are they balanced?

[Dongom]

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.

 

Because badly balanced SP is a sign of poor game design.

[Pelmaleon]

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

 

To name a few: wizards: slicken duration, fan of flames damage, lvl 2 and 4 confusion radiuses, miasma of dull-mindedness and curse of blackened sights radiuses, chill fog damage and blinded duration.

 

priests: allow enemies to phase through withdrawn targets, iconic projection damage/healing, devotions of the faithful accuracy buff/debuff.

 

druids: talon's reach radius, hold beasts radius, returning storm and relentless storm stun duration.

 

Like I aforementioned, it's not a big deal that some classes are a bit or a lot better than other classes because the amount of fun emerging from the immersive and challenging aspects aren't being affected much for the majority of players, but extremely overpowered/broken low-mid spells will undoubtedly decrease the amount of fun had (for the majority) by taking away both an excessive amount of challenge and the amount of spell diversity employed in battles.

[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.

 

Because badly balanced SP is a sign of poor game design.

 

 

Ok, but a minute sign or hint of worse things to come does not automatically make the rest of the game's elements and mechanics poorly designed. Perhaps one of the devs in charge of the balancing is just not as experienced or bright as the other devs who made other parts of the game? Or maybe he was rushed because of a relatively larger workload during his designing process and didn't get enough time to balance-check the spells' numbers?

[Tigranes]

 

Well, then do whatever you want im gonna still use per encounter spells even if i have to use a mod to achieve it

 

 

OK, have fun. Nobody else ever cared about that, you know. 

 

 

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

 

Sounds like a case of "the thing I like, everybody likes it, the thing I don't like is the real problem". Isn't it just as valid for someone to complain the other way round? 

 

Anyway, I brought up the talents option, but I"m not sure either how big a problem per encounter spells are. They obviously do become quite significant as the levels go up, because they start making the entire class non-vancian, but removing it outright would probably leave glass cannon wizards really bored. When you look at spells like Adragan's Gaze or even Deleterious Alacrity, they clearly weren't meant to be spammed 4 times per battle, whereas even with highly effective spells like Fan of Flames, it's not a huge problem. You could start categorising spells into per-enc and per-rest from the very start, but handling two spellbooks would also get very cumbersome.

[KDubya]

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

 

To name a few: wizards: slicken duration, fan of flames damage, lvl 2 and 4 confusion radiuses, miasma of dull-mindedness and curse of blackened sights radiuses, chill fog damage and blinded duration.

 

priests: allow enemies to phase through withdrawn targets, iconic projection damage/healing, devotions of the faithful accuracy buff/debuff.

 

druids: talon's reach radius, hold beasts radius, returning storm and relentless storm stun duration.

 

Like I aforementioned, it's not a big deal that some classes are a bit or a lot better than other classes because the amount of fun emerging from the immersive and challenging aspects aren't being affected much for the majority of players, but extremely overpowered/broken low-mid spells will undoubtedly decrease the amount of fun had (for the majority) by taking away both an excessive amount of challenge and the amount of spell diversity employed in battles.

 

 

Maybe I am attributing the underlying issues that you list here as being caused by the per encounter mechanic when it is a few specific spells than need to be adjusted. Or not.

[Zherot]

 

Well, then do whatever you want im gonna still use per encounter spells even if i have to use a mod to achieve it

 

 

OK, have fun. Nobody else ever cared about that, you know. 

 

 

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

 

Sounds like a case of "the thing I like, everybody likes it, the thing I don't like is the real problem". Isn't it just as valid for someone to complain the other way round? 

 

Anyway, I brought up the talents option, but I"m not sure either how big a problem per encounter spells are. They obviously do become quite significant as the levels go up, because they start making the entire class non-vancian, but removing it outright would probably leave glass cannon wizards really bored. When you look at spells like Adragan's Gaze or even Deleterious Alacrity, they clearly weren't meant to be spammed 4 times per battle, whereas even with highly effective spells like Fan of Flames, it's not a huge problem. You could start categorising spells into per-enc and per-rest from the very start, but handling two spellbooks would also get very cumbersome.

 

 

Good job ignoring the rest of my post.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Zherot

[Pelmaleon]

 

Well, then do whatever you want im gonna still use per encounter spells even if i have to use a mod to achieve it

 

 

OK, have fun. Nobody else ever cared about that, you know. 

 

 

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

 

Sounds like a case of "the thing I like, everybody likes it, the thing I don't like is the real problem". Isn't it just as valid for someone to complain the other way round? 

 

Anyway, I brought up the talents option, but I"m not sure either how big a problem per encounter spells are. They obviously do become quite significant as the levels go up, because they start making the entire class non-vancian, but removing it outright would probably leave glass cannon wizards really bored. When you look at spells like Adragan's Gaze or even Deleterious Alacrity, they clearly weren't meant to be spammed 4 times per battle, whereas even with highly effective spells like Fan of Flames, it's not a huge problem. You could start categorising spells into per-enc and per-rest from the very start, but handling two spellbooks would also get very cumbersome.

 

 

Understandable? Yes. Valid? Not really. If you contemplate the results of both scenarios (one with per encounter spells but non-broken (and no relatively extremely overpowered) spells and the other with broken (and relatively extremely overpowered) spells but no per encounter spells) then you most likely would be agreeing with me.

[Pelmaleon]

 

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

 

To name a few: wizards: slicken duration, fan of flames damage, lvl 2 and 4 confusion radiuses, miasma of dull-mindedness and curse of blackened sights radiuses, chill fog damage and blinded duration.

 

priests: allow enemies to phase through withdrawn targets, iconic projection damage/healing, devotions of the faithful accuracy buff/debuff.

 

druids: talon's reach radius, hold beasts radius, returning storm and relentless storm stun duration.

 

Like I aforementioned, it's not a big deal that some classes are a bit or a lot better than other classes because the amount of fun emerging from the immersive and challenging aspects aren't being affected much for the majority of players, but extremely overpowered/broken low-mid spells will undoubtedly decrease the amount of fun had (for the majority) by taking away both an excessive amount of challenge and the amount of spell diversity employed in battles.

 

 

Maybe I am attributing the underlying issues that you list here as being caused by the per encounter mechanic when it is a few specific spells than need to be adjusted. Or not.

 

 

Yes, the issue lies mostly with the spells themselves, not the per encounter mechanic which (imo) makes the game more fun to play. I suppose there could be an entire removal of per encounter spells, and in exchange give the players a lot more uses per rest for these previously per encounter spells, but they still wouldn't make broken spells not broken, which subsequently remove an excessive amount of challenge and fun from the game.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Pelmaleon

[Guest 4ward]

 

unlimited ammo from implements + mana = Dragon age combat / MMO

spells per rest = wizard in IE

spells per rest for caster, limited choice of spells but good amount of it = sorcerer in IE

(playing a sorcerer in BG2 is a completely other gameplay experience in BG2 than any other class, an active damage dealing caster like in PoE but still has the choice to go with his magic missiles if his melf minute meteors are low)

per-encounter is the first step to mana, unlimited ammo is already present in PoE

 

what do you guys want? Where does Obs want the combat to go in PoE2?

[Darkpriest]

They are ok. On higher difficulties higher level enemies require you to use quite a few spells. Removing those low level ones fro per encounter to per rest would just encourage rest spamming and backtracking to inns/stronghold.

[Guest 4ward]

 

Josh&co could make all spells per-rest like sorcerer in BG2 and then at the very higherst levels, e.g. lvl18-20 (let's say you start PoE2 at lvl 8 and can go up to lvl 20) let the player choose a lvl 1 spell from his grimoire to be added as a per-encounter ability. Let's also not forget that abilities like grimoire slam are already per-encounter. The only time my sorcerer ran out of every option was in the last fight vs Melissan/ToB, which was a pretty long fight, there i would have wished to have a grimoire slam to smack her at the haed and bring her rest 5 hp to 0.

[Killyox]

 

I don't think they are.

 

You don't think they are what?

 

Ah true, replied to first part of the thread name.

 

I don't think they are needed. Balanced? Yeah. I still use more high level spells and when I run out of them switch to per encounter and then simply go as long as I can before my party runs out of health  Spells are plenty powerful eitherway. 

 

Is it really needed? Nope. I would actually favor making all spells for druids/priests/wizards per rest and converting more warrior/rogue/paladin/etc skills into per encounter. That would balance it out and make non-casters more interesting.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Killyox

[pi2repsion]

@Curryinahurry,

 

Of course I gush over the fireball spells and minor blights in the other thread! They are great spells, for level 3, just like the Ninagauth Shadowflames is a great spell for level 4 (and better than the level 3 fireballs).

 

And of course I spam fireballs to finish off trivial encounters in next to no time at higher levels. And while they are insufficient to deal with any real challenge at those levels, as such encounters require me to use Shadowflames, Freezing Pillars, Call to Slumber, etc. the fireballs remain a valuable supplement as I break out the big guns, because, as you say and I have agreed all along, they maintain the power level they have had all along and remain useful and relevant; they have only been overtaken in power and efficiency by higher level spells, not made obsolete.

 

And once level 4 spells become per encounter at level 15 (if the game is thus extended in White March part 2), I'll damn well be spamming both fireballs and frostballs to finish off trivial encounters, with frostballs in preference to fireballs and casting fewer 1st and 2nd level spells. And I'll be using the 5th through 8th level spells to address the real threats. The higher level I get, the less use I have when facing anything tactically challenging for the lower level spells that don't provide unique buffs; not because they don't work, but because they just aren't as powerful as higher level spells.

 

I really, dearly, and sincerely don't understand why are you trying to impute me a motive of dishonesty by holding up my gushing over how good lower level spells are for solving lower level problems while still remaining relevant at higher levels as an example of something you consider to be at variance with my stance in this tread... where I am gushing over the convenience of being able to breeze through trivial encounters at higher levels using lower level spells. That's in line with the point I've been making all the time, that trivial encounters that present no tactical challenges do not require one to use more powerful abilities, that I consider this a good thing, and that I therefore consider turning these lower level abilities into per encounter is good for convenience.

 

I mean, even if you disagree with my conclusion that the convenience is a good thing, and you obviously do, why you'd think there was some type of logical contradiction between my stance on spells like fireball and blights in the other thread and this one is beyond me.

 

ANYHOW,

 

Since I think you consistently seem to fail to either understand my arguments or accept their validity, and (as I see it, though I might be wrong) you seem to think much the same about my arguments, I'd under normal circumstances end it here with an "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree" since I don't have enough invested in this debate to perpetuate it, and hope you accepted that.

 

But as you furthermore chose to impute me motives (see: "being dishonest" and "don't want to give up your shinies" arguments) as a way of denigrating my person and brushing aside my arguments, which argumentative approach is a no-go in logical debate, I will instead use my last word to you in this thread to urge you to refrain from doing so in the future, and instead grant the people you debate the same respect they extend to you by assuming that you are arguing sincerely.

Edited September 17, 2015 by pi2repsion

[Killyox]

+1 pi2repsion

 

Agreed about low lvl spells and high level spells. Just different power spectrum vs diff enemies. All are useful and low lvl spells are definitely NOT better than high level ones.

[curryinahurry]

 

 

Yes, the issue lies mostly with the spells themselves, not the per encounter mechanic which (imo) makes the game more fun to play. I suppose there could be an entire removal of per encounter spells, and in exchange give the players a lot more uses per rest for these previously per encounter spells, but they still wouldn't make broken spells not broken, which subsequently remove an excessive amount of challenge and fun from the game.

 

 

Your rationalization is an act of grasping at straws.  None of the spells you named are particularly OP, particularly at the levels you gain them. and none you mentioned are broken.  The fact that they become OP once you can use them per encounter speaks to the problems with the per encounter use and not the relative power of those spells.  

 

Truth is that all RPG systems start getting funky at higher levels because keeping power curves reasonable is very difficult.  The per encounter spell system needs to be addressed because it so heavily favors 3 classes at the moment, that Obsidian's only options in the future are to give other classes matching ridiculous powers that will lead to the kinds of nonsense we see at the Epic levels of D&D 3.5, or to reign in the power curve so that the game remains playable and enjoyable into higher levels.

Edited September 17, 2015 by curryinahurry

[FlintlockJazz]

I agree with pi2repsion (mmmm pie... *drools* ) and he puts what I'm thinking into words that I struggle with.  I shall appoint him my official Wizard-speaker!

 

Seriously though, I agree totally with pi2repsion.  I think if low level spells were not per encounter at higher levels then you risk parties with wizards to wind up actually resting more and more as the wizard levels up, so the more 'powerful' the wizard becomes the more he ends up having to rest, which kinda feels opposite to what it should be, whereas currently you still seem to rest the same amount.  On my current playthrough at level 7 (nearly level 8 ), the wizard and druid I have in the party (Aloth and Hiravias) both consistently run out of high level spells long before they run out of the lower level spells, and I often find that I spam the low level spells at that point to avoid 'wasting' them before resting.

Edited September 17, 2015 by FlintlockJazz

[curryinahurry]

@Pi2repsion:

 

From the, "Is Wizard Still Garbage" Thread

 

"In 2.0 I am now playing a wizard on POTD, and while it is certainly a greater challenge, it is hard to shake the feeling that the wizard trivializes most of the content, and that the time when I ran two wizards (main + Aloth) until I picked up the Devil of Caroc was equivalent to bumping down the difficulty level one notch to hard."

 

Sorry if I don't understand, but it sure seems that you're saying here that wizards effectively break the game and then have come here to say that low level spells per encounter are merely for convenience.  Does that mean that without the option of spamming per encounter spells wizards would still be OP?  I think you should try to play POTD with that constraint and report back.

 

@ FlintlockJazz,

 

No one in this thread, including myself, is saying completely get rid of the per encounter spells.  Some people, including myself, just want to either tone down the number or have some sort of trade-off that isn't just a giveaway to the 3 classes that benefit from it.  Whether that be fewer castings, slower accumulation, or talents.  None of these things is particularly punitive, it's just that people who like to play casters always scream the loudest when you want to touch their shinies.  Go look at the requests in the, 'role of the fighter' thread.  It's laughable by comparison.

Edited September 17, 2015 by curryinahurry

[FlintlockJazz]

@ FlintlockJazz,

 

No one in this thread, including myself, is saying completely get rid of the per encounter spells.  Some people, including myself, just want to either tone down the number or have some sort of trade-off that isn't just a giveaway to the 3 classes that benefit from it.  Whether that be fewer castings, slower accumulation, or talents.  None of these things is particularly punitive, it's just that people who like to play casters always scream the loudest when you want to touch their shinies.  Go look at the requests in the, 'role of the fighter' thread.  It's laughable by comparison.

And I'm saying it's not needed.  They seem fine as is.  I've looked at the role of the fighter thread, and I plan on playing one as my main next or the one after (assuming I don't change my mind again), not seeing what comparison you are making?

[Teioh_White]

I'm still not understanding your argument at all pi2. Could you bullet point this for me? Right now, i'm just getting that fights that can be won soley with per encounter spells are just not worth our time, so the game might as well let us blow through them, rather then engange in resource management? It can't be that the fights themselves are trivial in a vacuum: it's the per-encounter spells that make that can lock down and wreck an entire 6m radius every single encounter that make it a joke. Would you rather the fights not be there at all? Is it that your convinced people would always just keep resting up, so this saves the player time, while still incentivizing them just enough to not only use the end powers? Is a fundamental disagreement with resource management based gameplay?

 

Either way, if you look at it from a balance perspective, it's completley out of whack. Which isn't a big deal, for the devs. Balance is rarely why a single player game does well or not, as it has to be hilarious out of whack to turn off the average player. It only really matters to those of us who play the game multiple times, and we're not worth marketing too. The poor storytelling and excessivly micro focused gameplay are the reasons none of my friends could get through the game, and going one way or the other on any balance issue is uniliekly to make a blip in the sales.

[curryinahurry]

@ FlintlockJazz

 

I'm glad that you and others are happy...there are many, including myself, who think it's a fairly awful design decision that needs to be addressed.  So far, nothing you or anyone else has stated makes that decision seem as anything other than a fairly arbitrary, broad brush solution to a problem that likely needed a finer, directed tuning, and works against the design principles espoused by the games lead designer.

 

The point behind my comment about the fighter thread is that what is mostly being asked for there is an expansion of fighter capabilities in a very modest manner, design changes that are relatively nuanced and tame compared to the spell spamming of Wizards once they get to higher levels, yet both are 2 sides of an overall balance problem many see at the higher levels of gameplay.

 

What's laughable is the white knighting being done by the same group of posters on both threads to keep design as is.  Hard to reconcile in my mind.  

Edited September 17, 2015 by curryinahurry

[Pelmaleon]

 

 

 

Yes, the issue lies mostly with the spells themselves, not the per encounter mechanic which (imo) makes the game more fun to play. I suppose there could be an entire removal of per encounter spells, and in exchange give the players a lot more uses per rest for these previously per encounter spells, but they still wouldn't make broken spells not broken, which subsequently remove an excessive amount of challenge and fun from the game.

 

 

Your rationalization is an act of grasping at straws.  None of the spells you named are particularly OP, particularly at the levels you gain them. and none you mentioned are broken.  The fact that they become OP once you can use them per encounter speaks to the problems with the per encounter use and not the relative power of those spells.  

 

Truth is that all RPG systems start getting funky at higher levels because keeping power curves reasonable is very difficult.  The per encounter spell system needs to be addressed because it so heavily favors 3 classes at the moment, that Obsidian's only options in the future are to give other classes matching ridiculous powers that will lead to the kinds of nonsense we see at the Epic levels of D&D 3.5, or to reign in the power curve so that the game remains playable and enjoyable into higher levels.

 

 

Wrong. More resource efficient =/= more powerful or broken. Having a relatively more auspicious outcome per cast = more powerful or broken.

 

The spells listed (and others) are extremely powerful and break (hence the term "broken") the game's challenge, even on PotD. They would still be extremely powerful even if they were per rest; there would be nothing stopping you from going back to town to gather more camping supplies in between relatively trivial encounters  - this option and scenario does not alter the present potency of the spells I listed, seeing as you would have the same amount of spells for every battle. All the per encounter to per rest change would do is force players to go through more loading screens to gather more supplies if they were tactically inept (which is a huge portion of the player base), but it would not alter the spells being extremely overpowered. 

 

You are most likely just using the aforementioned spells incorrectly. Have you beat the game on PotD before without using Barbarian's pre-patch One Man Standing or are you the one grasping at straws?

Edited September 17, 2015 by Pelmaleon

[pi2repsion]

I'm still not understanding your argument at all pi2. Could you bullet point this for me? Right now, i'm just getting that fights that can be won soley with per encounter spells are just not worth our time, so the game might as well let us blow through them, rather then engange in resource management? It can't be that the fights themselves are trivial in a vacuum: it's the per-encounter spells that make that can lock down and wreck an entire 6m radius every single encounter that make it a joke. Would you rather the fights not be there at all? Is it that your convinced people would always just keep resting up, so this saves the player time, while still incentivizing them just enough to not only use the end powers? Is a fundamental disagreement with resource management based gameplay?

 

Either way, if you look at it from a balance perspective, it's completley out of whack. Which isn't a big deal, for the devs. Balance is rarely why a single player game does well or not, as it has to be hilarious out of whack to turn off the average player. It only really matters to those of us who play the game multiple times, and we're not worth marketing too. The poor storytelling and excessivly micro focused gameplay are the reasons none of my friends could get through the game, and going one way or the other on any balance issue is uniliekly to make a blip in the sales.

 

I quite agree that difficulty does not exist in a vaccuum. There is no meaningful way of measuring the difficulty of an encounter that doesn't take party composition into account. I measure the difficulty of fights by:

1. The degree of tactical thinking I have to engage in.
2. The resources I have to expend to win without ever being being in a situation during the fight where I risk losing.

These are not independent, and they most certainly depend on party composition, stats, levels, equipment, and available resources.

 

If I can defeat an encounter by spamming a few lowlevel spells with casters or just chop my way through it due to outleveling/outgearing encounters, or burn through them by having chanters singing their damage chant, I have little tactical thinking to do, whereas if an encounter is such that I carefully have to choose from the available spells or abilities during the encounter, it is tactically harder. While some fights that are tactical challenges can be solved by the application of lower powered abilities, mostly they require application of more force in the form of higher level abilities.

 

Since the game allows the player full access to all per rest and per encounter abilities whenever he wishes it after gaining access to the overland map (until the final dungeon of Breith Eaman, and even there you can find camping supplies), whether characters' abilities are per rest or per encounter makes no difference to the level of power characters can bring to defeat encounters, should the player so desire, only to how convenient it is for the player to bring his maximum level of power to bear in an encounter.

 

So when talking about the difficulty of an encounter, I weigh the encounter against what characters can bring to bear if they are rested.

 

When I say in the wizard "omg" thread - and earlier in this thread as well - that I consider wizards to be very powerful, trivializing most content, it has nothing to do with whether their spells are per encounter or per rest and everything to do with how powerful the wizard's spells and synergies with talents are, as they are what determine what a wizard can bring to bear when it matters/when the player wants it.

 

And the spells are very strong indeed if you take advantage of the available synergies, and even more if you use the rest of your party to compensate for the wizard's weaknesses or buff him. (The latter of which should be no surprise; it is a party game, after all. Set up your party to support your raging Barbarian main, and he too will perform much better than one that is unsupported - but possibly not to the degree that a wizard benefits.)

 

 

To return to the issue of per-rest or per-encounter, it is a logistics issue, and one with a trivial solution: Spend a bit of time buying supplies. As such, the strategic and tactical implications of per-rest abilities/spells are minimal as they do not touch on the player's chance of success, but only the player's weighting of time spent on going to buy supplies due to spending per-rest abilities in encounters and depleting health vs the time spent on those encounters.

 

By gradually making lower level spells per-encounter rather than per rest, the developers have ensured that the player, should he so desire and use spellcasters (which is likely in any game that isn't played as a special challenge), can minimize the time spent in and outside combat dealing with encounters that are much easier than what his party is capable of dealing with - i.e. the encounters that are trivial for his party, while still having the "time spent on getting supplies" matter in the player's logistics calculations when dealing with encounters that are not trivial for his party.

 

This is how it works. How players deal with it is different issue. And if camping supplies were not trivial to restock at will (say they had high scarcity, high cost, or what have you), they'd have a different impact on the game. But they don't, and that's that.

 

I like it, as it allows me to concentrate on the parts I enjoy, the story, equipping characters, having spellcasters spending more time in battle casting spells than conserving spells as they grow more powerful, and having battles that involve a risk of losing require me to carefully think about the choices while tempting me to conserve my more powerful abilities (and thus increasing risk of failure) to save time backtracking for supplies without spending much time on things I don't enjoy, such as frequently backtracking for resources or deliberately extending the duration of fights I stand no risk of losing in the first place, in order to conserve resources so I won't have to backtrack to be ready to fight a battle in which I may stand a risk of losing.

 

Whether you or others prefer resting frequently or not doing so, or giving camping supplies a much larger role in your decisions than justified by how the game works for roleplaying reasons or personal preference is none of my concern; Just like my own preference of preferring the convenience, as stipulated above, they don't affect the question of how the game works, only how we deal with it.

 

----

 

As for the "balance" issue, I don't think I have addressed that in past (though others have), because to me, and I am not insisting that anybody else should feel the same, I don't care much about class balance in singleplayer roleplaying games, and don't consider balanced classes to be a worthy design goal in itself for such games. If one class is clearly more powerful than another, that's fine with me. If one is more versatile than another? Equally fine. It certainly helps to distinguish classes from each other.

 

That just means that if I want a bigger challenge next time I play, I'll play without that class in the party, or with a smaller party, or play with home-made restrictions. Or if I want an easier challenge, I'll take two! I'd MUCH rather that than trying to normalize the power of classes by doing away with some of what makes a class fun to play.

 

What matters to me in singleplayer games with classes is that each class be good at what it is designed to do and fun to use, not how it measures up to other classes; So if a class isn't fun to play because it doesn't achieve its design intent, by all means it needs changing! But if it is fun or does succeed and happens to be considered more powerful? Fine.... But I'd be a fool to insist that others share this preference, so I don't.

Edited September 17, 2015 by pi2repsion

[Abc123rage]

I don't even run a Wizard, not because I don't like them in Pillars of Eternity, I just hate all Wizards except like Elminster anywho...

I don't even use my per encounter spells on my Priest really if anything its just convenience really, well now I just booted up Pillars and check out Aloth and his deal.
 
My conclusion is that it is balanced. Yup as far as I'm concerned it's pretty legit I've gone through POTD a bunch of times, not 100% if its balanced for Wizards.

If anything I would like to see diminishing returns on the increase of Accuracy on lower level spells as you get higher level.

[Gfted1]

All spells and abilities should be per encounter (or even cooldowns) and resting should be done away with.

[FlintlockJazz]

 except like Elminster anywho...

 

 

Elminster's a hack!!!  My grandma's toe has more magical power than he can fart out in a week!