Confirmed - per-encounter spells are getting nerfed

[SubRosa]

This sounds disappointing. I vastly preferred the spells per encounter. Once my wizard hit 9th level, she could actually spend all of her time casting spells. Granted, it was mostly Minolleta's Minor Missiles, but she at least felt like a magic user.

Edited September 29, 2015 by SubRosa

[gkathellar]

@AndreaColombo, Infinitron, others - My issue isn't that an extra spell per major fight is necessarily a huge deal. My issue is that doing so increases the theoretical power maximum that casters can hit even farther, something which there is no reason to do and plenty of reasons not to do (the ability to drop a 5th slicken in major fights among them).

 

There is a sizeable group of people who think the per-encounter spell should be nerfed, and there are reasons to cater to those people (personally, I don't think they're overpowered or underpowered, so much as they are part of a separate discussion). The solution Josh presented even borders on making sense - for instance, I could totally see a more gradual transition into per-Encounter spells, maybe going from 4/rest to 3/rest+1/encounter at level 9, and then 2/rest+2/encounter at 11, or something like that. But why would anyone think that the solution is to give casters more things? Do casters really need bigger novas?

Edited September 29, 2015 by gkathellar

[MunoValente]

If they are going to do it this way, which I think is a fine way of doing it, I don't think they should wait until level 9, they should start at level 7 or perhaps 5.  Casters need more per encounter abilities earlier in the game and by making this weaker, that should allow it to be available earlier.  I'd also like to see talents that increase the amount of mastered spell uses.

Edited September 29, 2015 by MunoValente

[Gunnar.Maluf]

My main concern is with priests, where you need to cast buffs/debuffs more often.

[Alexander1]

I still think the better solution would simply be to strengthen the weaker classes, the reduce per-encounter spells.  The reduction of "trash mobs" solves the per-encounter problem fairly well as is -- the general consensus, from what I've seen, is that wizards are too much more powerful than other non-magician classes.  So, strengthening the non-magician classes would fix that, rather than just re-balancing wizards in a way that may or may not be effective.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Alexander1

[Gfted1]

Wasnt one of the points of per-encounter spells to make up for the lack of spell scaling? Everyone trots out the Slicken example but meanwhile Minoletta's Minor Missiles never changes the entire game. Why not nerf the OP spells instead of the entire system? 

[Elric Galad]

Perfect !!! Balanced and save a bit of fun.

 

Lvl 1 Slicken, blessing, sunbeam

Lvl 2 not sure, repulsing seal, swarm

Lvl 3 Alacrityn, circle of protection, returning storm.

 

 

Now, I just have to wait chanter and fighter buff...

And everything will be perfect.

Forever.

The perfection I've waited for so long...

Infinity, I can finally touch your feet !!!

[Tennisgolfboll]

This is the wrong way to go.

 

Casters should have more spells per encounter but be less OP.

 

This doesnt fix the insanely OP cc available and super spells.

 

But as said add to casters power in boss battles while making them not cast against alot of trash.

 

100% wrong.

[Elric Galad]

This is BG spiritual successor. That's what backers paid for.

 

It is far less cheesy than his ancestor, but super per rest caster spells are BG trademark.

 

You could just rest before every single fight in this time, so it was far worse than now. But no one complained because games were not really balanced. It was dark ages before the birth of WoW...

 

PoE tried to mitigate the problem to make the game more compatible with today's standards, but they can't remove this aspect of the game without removing BG spirit.

 

Well, CC might be a bit too strong by the way. In BG, there were no graze and a tons of spell/status immunities. So I admit this could be a problem.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Elric Galad

[hilfazer]

Do You people believe this change to per-encounter spells was Obsidian's doing?

 

 

Fools!

 

It was all Infinitron's and curryinahurry's fault! Just look at their suggestions:

 

My suggestion is to consider making them "per-encounter Vancian". You get to cast one of each spell per-encounter. Further castings of the same spell deplete your per-rest counter as before.

 

[...]

 

At level 9, Wizards, priests and Druids can each choose 1 spell to make per encounter,

 

[...]

 

At level 10, these classes would get another 1st level spell use in the same manner.  At level 11, we start the same with 2nd level spells.  At 13, 3rd level, and so on.

 

[...]

 

 

 

Obsidian merely just merged and then implemented both of them.

[FlintlockJazz]

Do You people believe this change to per-encounter spells was Obsidian's doing?

 

 

Fools!

 

It was all Infinitron's and curryinahurry's fault! Just look at their suggestions:

 

My suggestion is to consider making them "per-encounter Vancian". You get to cast one of each spell per-encounter. Further castings of the same spell deplete your per-rest counter as before.

 

[...]

 

At level 9, Wizards, priests and Druids can each choose 1 spell to make per encounter,

 

[...]

 

At level 10, these classes would get another 1st level spell use in the same manner.  At level 11, we start the same with 2nd level spells.  At 13, 3rd level, and so on.

 

[...]

 

 

 

Obsidian merely just merged and then implemented both of them.

Thank Bob they didn't go with the first suggestion purely, then the spellcasters would have gotten EIGHT spells per level (one per encounter for each spell plus the four resting ones).  Not at all broken for boss battles....

[FlintlockJazz]

Oh, and people will of course then feel the need to respec their wizards when this change hits, but with the fact that all learned spells get lost and they have to spend money to re-learn them...

[MunoValente]

Do You people believe this change to per-encounter spells was Obsidian's doing?

 

 

Fools!

 

It was all Infinitron's and curryinahurry's fault! Just look at their suggestions:

 

My suggestion is to consider making them "per-encounter Vancian". You get to cast one of each spell per-encounter. Further castings of the same spell deplete your per-rest counter as before.

 

[...]

 

At level 9, Wizards, priests and Druids can each choose 1 spell to make per encounter,

 

[...]

 

At level 10, these classes would get another 1st level spell use in the same manner.  At level 11, we start the same with 2nd level spells.  At 13, 3rd level, and so on.

 

[...]

 

 

 

Obsidian merely just merged and then implemented both of them.

 

 

Sounds like something I said in May:

 

 

 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 

 

Although this had nothing to do with getting rid of high level per encounter spells, it was related to a complaint the wizards didn't have much to do per encounter at lower and middle levels.

Edited September 29, 2015 by MunoValente

[sapientNode]

 

No, it's not a good point, it's a completely trite point. Stronger by one cast? Big deal.

 

Being able to spam four Slickens on every encounter was the problem. Going all out on the bosses is something you could do in any game of this type even without the existence of per-encounter mechanics.

 

And no, they don't need to increase the number of per-rest casts to compensate. It's fine the way it is.

This will not prevent the 4 slickens. Wanna slicken your way through? Rest before each fight.

 

The only place it will make a difference is in the pit. Other than that you can just rest as much as you want.

 

 

This is exactly what I have been saying.  I guess certain groups of people role play the rest mechanic or use it as a block that isn't a block.

 

Per rest meant you slept before each big fight.

Per encounter means you do not spend either 140-180cp at an inn or you do not burn your camping supplies.

 

Usually a map even on PoTD consists of groups in such a way that you might use 1 or 2 camp supplies and you can still use slicken a lot.  Especially if you get the awesome ring from the cave.  But if your spamming slicken your basically not able to use your really great spells in the higher levels.  So it ends up being a choice.  Even with high int slicken does not allow for perma disabling and casting of other attack spells.  I have encounter spells enabled through iemod at level 6. And even with them enabled I definitely do not sit there and spam fest slicken.  I would rather make use of the spell tier I just learned and actually have variety than sit and spam slicken and fall asleep anyway.  I mainly have per encounter so if I am up in the really long stamina fight and I am out of upper tier spells at least I have a fall back.  And as of now with the ring I am at 6 level 1 spells before rest/encounter.  That is a fairly significant number even for the masses in PoTD.

 

I feel like this may just be to calm the people who have been getting really vocal about the OP casters.

Which ultimately is like a MMO argument in a single player game.

 

As stated also in this thread this change when studied actually increases the power of a Mage/Caster

 

In an MMO I kind of understand the arguments about per encounter but a single player game.  I mean we are not competing against other players playing their single player game.  And if you are internally competing with your caster and another melee class I think that is a whole different problem altogether.

 

I am glad this option will stay in iemod because for me all it does is allow for less of a time sink because I do not have to go back to town or drop my bedroll and take a clicky nap.

 

Sounds like the change pleased some people though so great for them.  Doesn't entirely make any sense because nerfing is really for mmo games in my opinion unless its an absolutely absurd imbalance.  I honestly do not get it in an MMO even because who cares who gets to the end first or is more powerful.  Eventually we all end up there just with a different story to tell.

 

I would of much rather seen them refine the crafting system or add things to the game.

Or add fighting to resting.

Or better yet make the modding functionality more robust so we can tweak the game as we wish.

 

[sapientNode]

I still think the better solution would simply be to strengthen the weaker classes, the reduce per-encounter spells.  The reduction of "trash mobs" solves the per-encounter problem fairly well as is -- the general consensus, from what I've seen, is that wizards are too much more powerful than other non-magician classes.  So, strengthening the non-magician classes would fix that, rather than just re-balancing wizards in a way that may or may not be effective.

 Apologies for back to back posting I do not know how multiquote works.

 

Along with the above post I agree with I agree here as well.  I have not ever understood the idea of eliminating as a solution.  I do not get it in most MMO decisions and I especially do not get in a single player game.

 

They could easily introduce more power to the other classes over time based on feedback or their own internal discussion/design groups.

 

Why is the only solution to these sorts of problems a removal of something. 

Why not instead of reporting that casters are OP instead make statements about increased power other classes could receive to balance the situation.

Especially in a game like this which is single player and does not step on toes of the super competition element we could have a lot of varying additions to skills and powers instead of the easy less time consuming nerf bat.

[MunoValente]

Given how easy the game already is, making one class slightly weaker is a lot easier than making every other class stronger and making every single monster in the game stronger.  You're basically asking to re-balance the whole game instead of tweaking one thing.

 

It's not like that haven't made some classes stronger, Paladins and Rangers are both stronger than at release.

[CynicalP]

I would rather them decrease the number of spells per level to cast but make them all per encounter.  That would have been a better way to balance this in my opinion. That way casters could have all their tactical spells on hand for each encounter. This might encourage the use of scrolls or potions which I rarely use. If I really had my way I would prefer a cool-down based casting system similar to Divine Divinity Original sin. The whole resting mechanic  is not enjoyable.

[AndreaColombo]

^ Why decrease the number of spells per level that can be cast?

 

If you're going to keep the per-encounter novafest (which I'm enjoying as much as the next guy, don't get me wrong; but it is objectively cheesy), keep it as is.

[CynicalP]

^ Why decrease the number of spells per level that can be cast?

 

If you're going to keep the per-encounter novafest (which I'm enjoying as much as the next guy, don't get me wrong; but it is objectively cheesy), keep it as is.

My position is that all spells should be per encounter starting at level 1 on up.   I am not a fan of the per rest mechanic. It limits low to mid range casters capabilities in any fight. The per rest mechanic forces to save your spells only for toughest fights which is boring and inefficient. I tolerated the low to mid caster play but the game play is so much more enjoyable once you get the per encounter spells. However, I can see the point of  those who are critical of the current system.    Having  up to 5 level spells per level per every fight is tad overpowering so a good compromise would be to lower the available number of spells per level  to say  2 or 3 (untalented) but have them per encounter from the very start.  This will allow the caster to contribute their full potential in every fight but perhaps be a little more  tactical in their approach of using those spells.  Maybe that would placate those few fans that think the current system is unfair to their sensibilities.  Since this is a single player game I don't understand why the system should change at all now that the game has been out for months.  Rather have the Devs spend their  time  adding content or improve the enemy AI.

[junki]

Caster classes in this game are mostly auto-attacking wastes of space until level 9, when they begin to matter due to spells becoming per encounter. The per rest mechanic is an anachronistic artifact from yesteryear's (lack of) game design that raises the burden of and obfuscates optimal play (much like scrolls and potions).

 

Make all spells per encounter, give me a spell book that says I can choose 1 spell from all my known spells to actually cast in battle. Increase the slots by 1 every 2-5 levels.

[Tigranes]

Caster classes in this game are mostly auto-attacking wastes of space until level 9, when they begin to matter due to spells becoming per encounter. The per rest mechanic is an anachronistic artifact from yesteryear's (lack of) game design that raises the burden of and obfuscates optimal play (much like scrolls and potions).

 

Make all spells per encounter, give me a spell book that says I can choose 1 spell from all my known spells to actually cast in battle. Increase the slots by 1 every 2-5 levels.

 

That's not how any of my casters fight. POE battles rarely take more than 30 seconds to be decided, and in early level fights, two or three judicious spells from the caster is already enough to turn the fight. And most caster builds with accommodation for non-magical combat contribute just fine, and no, you don't need Blast, and no, you don't need to spam rests. 

 

Anyway, wouldn't your solution make casters more boring? You go into battle, you can only cast like one or two spells until level 9. How is that more fun?

 

I do think the per enc / per rest system right now is just a mess, and should be overhauled entirely. I like per rest spells like IE games, but right now it's just a weird mix where it's really hard to avoid making something be really underpowered/useless/boring. 

[Teioh_White]

I also agree that casters are hardly useless pre lvl 9. My Wizard was easily the MVP before he reached per encounters, even with the heavy rest restrictions I play under. (No resting at inn or buying supplies, only resting off found supplies.) The per encounters just moved him from MVP to a one man show. It's not just that the Wizard lead in damage, either, it was the key use of spells made fights go easier, unlike say a Barbarian, who gets crazy damage numbers, but won't change the outcome of a tough fight.

 

This is mostly because early on, there are less fights and less mobs per fight, so even one Chill Fog will have a huge effect on the fight, and the ability to spam some AoE's to end a tough encounter is priceless. For example, probably the first map one does, Magran's Crossing, has 4 'trash' fights, and 3 real fights. The wizard will just do what everyone else does on the trash fights, and on the real fights, he'll end them.

 

On the issue of casters being auto-attack wastes of space, auto attacking is what characters pretty much spend the vast majority of time doing in these games. Which is fine, this some multi player game where you control just one character, you have the team. It's fine if some characters aren't always doing something every battle; you have 6 you're doing things with.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Teioh_White

[Oralaina]

I don't have an opinion one way or the other on this change as yet.

 

But what I DO want to know is why a dev of this game does not announce a change of this nature ON THIS FORUM.  I have no clue what that forum is, and I'm not about to mess with ANOTHER forum in addition to this one.

 

*boggle*

[Althernai]

That's too bad. The switch to per encounter was the one really original mechanic PoE had. It was a bit weird and perhaps somewhat unbalanced, but at least it changed how the Vancian classes play in the middle of the game. I'm disappointed, but not really surprised: they were a dramatic improvement and as such absolutely antithetical to the rest of PoE. For whatever reason, nearly everything else (items, spells, talents) that made me think "Wow, this is really much better than what I had before!" has been nerfed so this change is perfectly consistent with the philosophy of stuffing one of the worst aspects of MMOs into a single player game.

 

Incidentally, this is not how Vancian casting worked in the Baldur's Gate games at higher levels. They didn't make the spells per encounter, but there existed high level spells that allowed a caster to duplicate his or her entire arsenal as well as consumable items (Projected Image) or even restore the entire party's spells during a battle (Wish, though granted, it required a bit of luck).

[curryinahurry]

^ There will still be per encounter spells.  They are just tuning the balance by allowing access to 1 per encounter spell at level 9, which will be separate from the spells in the per rest system (but not new spells).  I assume that after level 9, such spells will accrue at 1 per level and new spell levels available every other level (level 1 spells at ninth level, level 2 spells at 11th, 3rd at 13th, etc.).  It brings the Vancian casters more in line with the 4E D&D versions that was the inspiration for the game's class design.