Spell Mastery for casters in 3.0

[Wolken3156]

Fun fact about Spell Mastery I just realized. It doesn't have to be one spell of each level, you can choose to pick lower level spells in place of higher ones.

 

This is probably irrelevant though since the 1st - 4th spell levels are very linear in terms of actual power anyway (Unlike 5th - 8th) with the exception of maybe Wizard, since their 3rd and 2nd level spells are so powerful they can even compare to the 4th level ones, but even that's a stretch since the Wizard's 4th level spells are amazing anyway (Pull of Eora is sooo good).

[MaxQuest]

Fun fact about Spell Mastery I just realized. It doesn't have to be one spell of each level, you can choose to pick lower level spells in place of higher ones.

 

Hmm. That could be useful for a taek-wanding wizard who wants to master both Deleterious Motion and Kalakoth's Blights...

Edited February 17, 2016 by MaxQuest

[sims796]

I'm really not hating this Spell Mastery change as much as I thought. One one hand, I lose out on a lot of options, and that sucks (as a Druid main), but on the other, I'm not outright better than every other non spellcaster on the team in terms of efficiency and what I add to the group as a whole. I don't mind being forced to rest more, hell, that was the purpose of this change. I never really had to rest before, and my encounters had no thought, since I can skip using my doom spells and spam Sunbeam and Slicken or whatever.

[Braven]

Many people are treating this change like a nerf, but really it was yet another buff and casters are even more insanely powerful. They can now cast even more spells per battle: 5 per level eventually, if I understand correctly.

 

There is this notion that per rest abilities are "weaker", but that is not true. They are just more annoying because you have to run back to the stronghold more often to rest and/or buy camping supplies, even though they are dirt cheap and lying around everywhere. Unless they actual penalize resting in some real way, besides making people feel bad for doing so, per rest is just a meaningless time waster.

 

What is the purpose of trying to balance a game if the players nerf themselves constantly by refusing to min/max, refusing to rest, refusing use per rest extremely liberally, refusing to use figurines/potions/scrolls, etc... Even though the rules fully allow it. We nerf ourselves more than the developers ever have.

 

If they actually wanted to weaken wizards and/or force them to diversify their spell usage, i suggest this simple solution:

 

First, remove all notion of "per rest". Make every individually named spell once per encounter max so it can't be spammed. Every level, increase the number of per encounter casts you can do per battle. At level 1, one level 1 spell. Level 2, two level 1 spells. At level 3, 1 second level spell, etc. (you can never cast more than two spells per spell level in the same battle)

 

It may seem like at level 16, "Wow, 16 per encounter spells that include two level 8 spells! Totally OP compared to martial classes!" But currently, you get something like 35 spells per battle at level 16, so we are actually not making casters any stronger. If people think that is still too generous, they can create "house rules" about limiting spells per battle just like they already do about resting too often.

 

An alternative, to keep per/rest alive and meaningful, is to make resting have a penalty that actually matters. Maybe give enemies a "rest" bonus too (they spent the time you rested enchanting their weapons or gaining a +accuracy vs Kith survival bonus. If you can, why can't they do it too). The same would happen if you rest at an Inn.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Braven

[TheMetaphysician]

Regarding the resting mechanic, I recommend checking out a series of posts by SilchasRuin on an old thread: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76011-lets-talk-class-balance. I found his posts cumulatively to be an utterly convincing defense of the resting mechanic. His posts begin on page 13 and continue for a while. Ignore his annoying, unsophisticated interlocutors. Posts #263, #265, #267, #272 are important, but the final paragraph of post #249 is especially important. (You only need to read those five posts. His is a really sophisticated take on the mechanics of this game system, the most sophisticated and insightful I've ever seen, and it is buried in the middle of an old forum thread. Pretty funny.) That paragraph in #249 helped me understand why I intuitively preferred RPGs with resting mechanics over RPGs where the resources reset after every battle (like Dragon Age Origins).

[Teioh_White]

I think the big issue with a 'rest' system, is it depends on, well, there being some defined interval for what a 'rest' is. Every (that I know of) game to employ a 'rest' system hasn't really done that. Leading to what Braven posted, where the distinction between 'per rest' and 'per encounter' can only be manually enforced by the player. His attempt to say the 'time' is a punishment to the player, and thus Pillars restritcions is actually there, doesn't really hold water. Instead, while it's not quite as bad as Braven said (every encounter is tech per rest), it can get close enough to not be a meanigful distinction, especially later in the game where you have so many resources at hand, you can go Nova multiple times per rest.

 

I mean, I love the idea behind per rest. I'm all about some resource management. I'd rather be forced to win fights well, than something like Dragon Age, where you just have to be able to win somehow.

 

But I doubt we need yet another thread rehashing this debate, especially somewhat deep in a thread, so we probably shouldn't get too much into it.

[Braven]

Thanks for the links. I read his posts. I never really thought about it like that and he does make some valid points. Yet, I still can't shake off the feeling that I don't like the "per rest" system, and find it is less enjoyable.

 

It feels like the designers are saying, "Here is a vague, poorly defined resting guideline for your chosen difficulty, but if you want to go back to town more or less often, we are totally cool with that because we want everyone to be happy and win on POTD regardless of skill level or character build. We understand that some people just want the steam "achievement", so don't take our difficulty settings seriously and just set up your own, personal house rules to create challenge instead."

 

How does an honorable gamer find and exploit game-breaking combinations the Devs never considered and exploit them for maximum effectiveness if not within a well defined set of rules? Is going back to town to rest the same as opening the console bar and typing "I roll 20s"? Is saving right before a hard battle and reloading when you die the same thing?

 

I really don't like blurry lines between "cheating", "cheese", and "legit super clever strategy".

Edited March 3, 2016 by Braven

[Teioh_White]

Yeah, me neither. I dislike having to 'self police' and make my own rules for what seems to be 'fair'. I tend to do it all of my games (no supply crawlers in SMAX, SCC in FFT, etc), but it's waaaaay more fun to have to push it to the limit and work the system to its bones, rather than sit there and decide how much of this meat I need to leave on it before I get too fat. I'd really enjoy a strict per rest system; sadly, Pillars doesn't (or any CRPG, really) offer that. But now I should really take my own advice and be quiet, heh.

[Ymarsakar]

I liked how Torment Tides has minor rests, as well as tavern/night rests. During a fight or elsewhere, you can use 1 of 3 minor rests to get back some pts to cast some ability.

 

Instead of only having 8 hours of rest in Pillars, they might be able to do in combat or out of combat rests for x time, like a nap, to recover fatigue and what not. Maybe resting a wizard every fight will let him cast one more spell, renewing his mastery spells. Or perhaps resting 1 hour, will restore 1 spell level out of half. Instead 4/4/4, it might be 2/1/1 restored.

 

But if they add more simulation and depth to the game, it gets easier to mod and balance, but also more difficult to design as well.

[TheMetaphysician]

Thanks for the links. I read his posts. I never really thought about it like that and he does make some valid points. Yet, I still can't shake off the feeling that I don't like the "per rest" system, and find it is less enjoyable.

 

It feels like the designers are saying, "Here is a vague, poorly defined resting guideline for your chosen difficulty, but if you want to go back to town more or less often, we are totally cool with that because we want everyone to be happy and win on POTD regardless of skill level or character build. We understand that some people just want the steam "achievement", so don't take our difficulty settings seriously and just set up your own, personal house rules to create challenge instead."

 

How does an honorable gamer find and exploit game-breaking combinations the Devs never considered and exploit them for maximum effectiveness if not within a well defined set of rules? Is going back to town to rest the same as opening the console bar and typing "I roll 20s"? Is saving right before a hard battle and reloading when you die the same thing?

 

I really don't like blurry lines between "cheating", "cheese", and "legit super clever strategy".

 

This is helpful, and I think you make fair points. I agree that the lines are somewhat blurry; I think that was actually SilchasRuin's point when he drew a distinction between "hard" failure (a game over screen that forces a reload) and "soft" failure (having to backtrack to town to rest). It isn't absolutely hit-you-over-the-head obvious that the "soft" failure is a failure at all, which is probably what makes the lines, as you said, "blurry."

 

What he really helped me see is that the soft failure (like having to backtrack to rest) IS nevertheless a kind of failure. He said it is a failure because it is a time sink (which is basically all the hard failures are anyway; a 'game over' screen just forces a fairly quick reload, after all). But I also think it is a failure in an RPG context because it is immersion-breaking, just as a reload is. You have very nicely pointed out that backtracking to rest and then coming back to no change is not very realistic. So if you are forced to that, you've had to break character because of your battle-managing failures. And that's a kind of failure.

 

I wonder if RPGs really are better set up for these kinds of "soft" failures, and those of us (I'm guilty here too!) who are min-maxers and play Trial of Iron are sort of trying to turn an RPG into a non-RPG tactics game with only "hard" failures that are relevant. Hmmm...I'd have to think about that more.

[Braven]

The problem with defining soft fails as anything that slows you down is that it encourages a single, arbitrary strategy (do whatever wins the game fastest).  If anything beneficial to your party is considered a "soft fail", then it encourages sub-optimal play, in which case you might as well let the AI control your characters or purposely play poorly.  If it is RPG immersion, then it is so subjective that we might as well not have any rules at all, or we should have rules in the game that specifically force players to not abuse things that hurt immersion, like actually preventing people from returning to town and resting in the middle of a quest.  

 

If resting is a "soft" fail, then almost anything you do is a soft fail. For example, if you focus on a character with very high defenses, but very low damage output, you already failed because all of your battles take longer just like encountering a game over would. Doing any sort of optional side quest is "failing". A good player shouldn't need that loot or EXP so you must be bad by actually wanting to play the game to it's fullest.

By that logic, it is now just a speed game instead of an RPG. In fact, role-playing elements of any kind results in failure... Reading the conversation text of characters you meet is wasted time, just like a game over screen or resting.  Carefully considering what weapon you want to use wasted more time than the advantage the weapon provides over an alternative.

 

So now you say:  Okay, that is no fun.  We will now say that doing something just to play as fast as possible is now the new "soft fail".  Where does it end??

Regarding your other point about anything that breaks the RPG immersion could be considered a soft fail. That means all Min-Maxers are inherently failures. Or anyone who posts on this forum asking for character build advice and what stats to take.  They should just do what their "RPG hearts" tell them to do and they should adjust the difficulty level accordingly.  If we all get to determine what is good immersion, and how often we our party should rest to maintain that, then why have a rest supply limit at all?  Our RPG morality should prevent us from abusing resting anyways.

If we shouldn't even consider strategy beyond what our "virtual" characters think is best, my fighter would have high tailed it out of Drywood the moment he saw that tree with dead bodies. No way is he risking his neck questing here!

I guess I just find having a single failure condition, death, to be a lot more satisfying than hundreds of "soft" failure conditions which are not even official fail conditions and open to individual interpretation.  The point of the "hard fail" is not to punish players (reloading is not that much of a setback), but to provide a single point of focus for players to optimize toward.  It is about having an unmovable goal that is solid as a rock. A huge, heavy object we can set our picks to finding a weakness in.  We will constantly attempt all manner of strategies in order to crush it into tiny little pieces without using the cheat console.  The ultimate goal is to cheat death without actually cheating.  Then.. when we have done just that, the developers should release a new version of that "hard fail" rock with the "weakness" reinforced (after we had a reasonable  amount of time to relish in our victory)

 

With "game over" (or the cheat console) being the only way to fail, the best strategy is currently to rest after every battle and either kite everything in a way that you take no risks what-so-ever (like with Iron Man mode) or go nova every battle.  Easy fix - They patch the game with a difficulty setting that actually punishes you for excessive kiting and resting.  If you need to do so for a tough battle, you must now give a donation to the priest at the town's temple afterwards and repent for your cheesy sins with a huge pile of gold that is not easy to recoup.  Now, with that cheesy tactic squashed, we can all move and discover the next thing that completely breaks the game and I will love every second of the discovery process!

Edited March 3, 2016 by Braven

[TheMetaphysician]

I think "soft" fails either encourages a single strategy (whatever wins the game fastest) which is not very fun, or is so subjective you might as well not have any difficulty settings at all.  Instead, just have a single, casual difficulty level where you are expected to always be  sub-optimal and anything clever is considered cheese.  But is this really a game then?  Might as well just let the AI control your characters and just watch.

 

If resting is a "soft" fail, then almost anything you do is a soft fail. For example, if you focus on a character with very high defenses, but very low damage output, you already failed because all of your battles take longer just like encountering a game over would. Doing any sort of optional side quest is "failing". A good player shouldn't need that loot or EXP so you must be bad by actually wanting to play the game to it's fullest.

 

By that logic, it is now just a speed game instead of an RPG. In fact, role-playing elements of any kind results in failure... Reading the conversation text of characters you meet is wasted time, just like a game over screen or resting.  Carefully considering what weapon you want to use wasted more time than the advantage the weapon provides over an alternative.

 

This is a very good argument, Braven. I think it does show that a simple time-penalty is not a sufficient condition even for a "soft" fail, though it might be a necessary condition. So SilchasRuin's original idea is incomplete. I tried to handle that problem by adding the immersion-breaking condition, as many of your examples don't involve immersion-breaking. There may be other options here, too, to figure out what a "soft fail" might be.

 

Regarding your other point about anything that breaks the RPG immersion could be considered a soft fail. That means all Min Maxers are failures. Or anyone who posts on this forum asking for character build advice. Why even have this forum, if doing so is "bad"?

...

 

Yes, with just death as the fail condition the best strategy is now to kite everything and take no risks what-so-ever (like with Iron Man mode) and doing otherwise risks failiure, but I am okay with that and won't be doing kite strategies.  I like taking risks... I like the fact that I can fail.  But please.. please.. don't put even more tempting candy in front of me like free resting that -prevent- me from failing and just wastes my time.  It is bad enough having to resist using Kite strategies to ensure victory.

 

This is really interesting. I think you may be right at least that min-maxing that doesn't fit your view of your character (say, giving him 3 intellect when you think he is actually really smart) is a kind of failure, a failure to play the role. Lots of min-maxing and ideal character building doesn't violate role-playing, though, like just picking the best abilities as you level up and planning that out in order to synergize your party's abilities with each other.

 

That's bad news for me, since I'm a min-maxer. But I find the idea of "soft failure" convincing enough that I'm open to the possibility that I've been playing the games somewhat incorrectly -- or, perhaps more precisely, I've been taking a game that is designed to be one thing (a tactical ROLE-playing game) and turning it into something else (a purely tactical game). But if I'm doing that, I don't get to complain that the design isn't to my liking, since I've wrenched the game away from its original purpose. It is like using the console to create characters I like (which I am currently doing, actually), and then being unhappy that the balance isn't right for those characters. If I turn this into a different game, then I am now the creator of this new(ish) game, and I am responsible for the balance issues and design decisions.

 

I wonder if role-playing games automatically bring with them this issue of soft failure -- because one way to fail is to fail to play the role, and they have to give you freedom to fail in that way without giving you a game-over screen (which isn't really freedom). So it may be that the concerns you have will automatically apply to any role-playing game. Does that sound right? I'm not confident of that conclusion, but it feels right.

 

One thing I've noticed about myself is that the more times I play through the game, the less I'm interested in the role-playing and the more I try to turn it into a purely tactical game. That's because I've heard the story already. I think we compulsive re-players just have to remember that this isn't supposed to be a purely tactical game; it is a role-playing game, and the design is appropriately focused around that. If we treat it as a purely tactical game, some things which are designed to feel like failures won't feel like failures to us (like abusing resting). But that's a problem with us, not with the game.

 

Thanks for this conversation! I'm learning a lot and getting to think through why I love these games so much and how best to play them in the future. I think I'm going to go back to my playthrough and try to get into the role-playing better than I have this time through. That might actually enhance the tactical challenge.

[Teioh_White]

 

One thing I've noticed about myself is that the more times I play through the game, the less I'm interested in the role-playing and the more I try to turn it into a purely tactical game. That's because I've heard the story already. I think we compulsive re-players just have to remember that this isn't supposed to be a purely tactical game; it is a role-playing game, and the design is appropriately focused around that. If we treat it as a purely tactical game, some things which are designed to feel like failures won't feel like failures to us (like abusing resting). But that's a problem with us, not with the game.

 

I get that way too, to the point where I've frequently wished their was some sort of 'arena' option. Something that would just have the fights in a rough order of how you run into them, with breaks every so often between them heal up, choose gear upgrades, and level. Just speed through the game with soley the tactical parts. Be much easier to balance a mode like that, as well.

 

Also completely pointless to design, as I bet less than 1% of folks who get these games replay it the 5+ times needed to reach that state of mind.

[Ymarsakar]

White March has all those items which can be souped up with bonuses, to support the tactical game. Design wise, a lot of the replay content is the tactical real time pause combat mechanics. But unlike BG2 which also had tactical mods that made certain enemies immune to often used powers, you can't easily add in another story npc with its own writing or voice dialogue to Pillars, to break up the pace of the quest plots. It's a one time deal, so far.

 

In BG2, everytime I replayed through the damn Irenicus dungeon again, there would usually be some new story content, npcs, quests, etc while I also get a different tactical experience. I think I finally found a mod to remove Irenicus dungeon entirely.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Ymarsakar

[TheMetaphysician]

Yeah, I think it is just that role-playing games don't lend themselves all that well to replayability. We want new stories, new adventures.

[Braven]

You make a really good point about trying to make the game into something it is not.  But how do we even know this is an RPG game?  Because it says so on the box?  I would argue it is more of a tactical party-based combat game, with a little bit of RPG theme attached for flavor.  Other then picking conversation options (which usually have no real impact on the progression of the game), there is not really that much role playing going on.  All inventory items have to do with combat and pretty much every game mechanic does too.  Even the so-called non-combat skills all help combat now and really has more impact there than for RPG purposes (Athletics, survival, etc).  I guess they unlock a couple conversation options, but that is certainly not the focus.

 

I just find it strange that there is a big focus  to "balance" the game with patches, if it is really just about role-playing.  Sometimes I think RPG-oriented players are actually the one with the blinders on, thinking that this is a true roleplaying when it is not.

 

I am perfectly capable of "roleplaying" my way to 3 int, 3 resolve, and 18s.  I can come up with a backstory to explain it all.  Also, who wouldn't want to unload all their spells each battle?  In the "real" world, it is unlikely anyone would ever be involved in two different battles in the same day anyway.  Also, if I lived in a fantasy world, and were in a possible life/death situation, I wouldn't hold back any punches just because I am too lazy to walk back to the inn and rest few hours.  Even if I knew I could win without the spells as long as I take some health damage and pace myself, tell me this:  Would you want to be hit with a sword any more than you have to?  Those things hurt!  Totally not worth it just to find some random farmer's lost pig.

 

If I was really interested in the RPG factors and going after the main bad guy, why in the world did we decide to go to the White March at all?  A holiday?  Because the PC and all the companions suddenly deeply care about Dwarven Archeology?  How can you rebuild a Stronghold with that much damage in like a week and for the same cost as a few nights lodging at an inn.  I think I can forgive a min-max stat line, given everything else that is equally not plausible in the game.

 

 

I guess we all have to determine, individually for ourselves what the game really is and by what rules we use to navigate it.  It probably has a different meaning to each person.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Braven

[TheMetaphysician]

Well, I guess it is both a tactical and a role-playing game. Hopefully those two elements reinforce each other and feed into each other. We eviscerate both parts if we make the game about just one or the other.

[TheMetaphysician]

Even if I knew I could win without the spells as long as I take some health damage and pace myself, tell me this:  Would you want to be hit with a sword any more than you have to?  Those things hurt!  Totally not worth it just to find some random farmer's lost pig.

 

This is hilarious. Had me cracking up reading it. 

[Braven]

 Glad you liked it.

 

The post was mostly in jest, but also to poke fun at how we rationalize things.  Most people think of resting after each battle as a "cheesy meta game tactic", but it actually makes perfect sense that a fantasy character would do just that.  The fact is, in a more realistic fantasy world, there simply wouldn't be nearly as much combat.  And why is there a rush to battle through tons of (non threatening) foes anyways?  Because you want to collect some minor loot on a long dead corpse?  Or perhaps you want to gain "experience" which is also a meta game construct added to reinforce the combat side of the game.   Really, you are killing tons of innocent fantasy creatures just for the sake of "practice" so you can get better at -murdering- other people in the future.  How awful.

 

The PC doesn't seem to be in any particular rush to actually complete the original main quest anyways, given the expansions and stronghold management duties which are encouraged right in the middle of his quest which will probably take months to complete.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Braven

[TheMetaphysician]

That is an interesting, deep point. The "role-playing" we do in these games is not playing a realistic role; you are right about that. So what is it?

 

I can only speak for myself. I think what I'm doing is playing a role as I would want it written in a fantasy book. I still remember the first time I played Baldur's Gate in middle school, and was totally blown away -- what blew me away is that I felt like I was somehow inside the fantasy books I loved so much. I think I've been trying to recreate that feeling ever since, which is probably impossible given my age and experience differences with middle-school me.

 

And, of course, what happens in a fantasy book is quite far removed from realism. It has its own rules.

[Braven]

Yeah, it is hard to explain the allure of the computer roleplaying experience if placed under the lens of rationalism, but I think the roleplaying magic is still there in much the same way as it can exist in a fantasy novel, as long as your mind is open to it.  I guess we all kind of fill in the missing pieces with our own imaginations and just ignore parts that run counter to our own heroic version, a realm where anything is possible and mundane matters do not persist.

 

As people get older, I guess some of that magic is naturally lost to adult reasoning and cold logic.  But we must cling to whatever remains and trap it in a bottle lest it leave forever.

 

The thing I like most about Pillars of Eternity is that it reminds me so much of Baldur's Gate; a game I played and enjoyed very much.  Probably a lot of people feel that way, at least who are old enough to have played those games.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Braven

[Ymarsakar]

A CRPG simulates role playing elements, but perhaps not as well as a human DM could do so using rules and dice games.

 

The issue with Pillars is how broad the design limit for the initial conditions that players can set for themselves. That generates "reactivity", but the diversity is so diverse that it has diffused itself. Take any strong substance, water it down, and you can get a lot of it, but it's still diluted. A normal table top or war game, had certain limitations. The experience was customized for your player only, because nobody else's combination mattered if they weren't part of the party or part of the DM creation.

 

The pillars critical path, which is well done, is not customized for the player, because the player could be any number of combination of background, race, stat, etc. So a the critical path had to made where all that stuff doesn't matter. But if all that stuff doesn't matter to the story, except some permutations which you can replay for flavor, then what does matter? Why do RPGs even have stats to begin with.

 

Megatravellers 2, the PC game, was like the Traveler rpg ruleset game. I spent a long time generating characters for that, and they both had a story, a mechanical, a tactical, and a role playing effect in game. With so many rules and skill limits, it might have felt constraining to some, but to me it felt like a deeper world to learn. That didn't even have sprites. So it wasn't an engine limitation or effect. But a conscious design choice. It was another way to ensure the main story could take place irregardless of who made up the party, but the game mechanics of the world were so deep, I easily forgot that my character skills didn't matter to the story. Because it was extremely difficult even to finish one quest on a world, let alone the dozens of other worlds out there, plus the critical path. Partially because there was no journal and I spent a lot of time making money in the slot casinos.

 

PST took the reverse line, by focusing almost everything on a pre created character and background. Like a novel would. Multi classing and class change was at will for the MC there, which I thought was a great game feature that didn't get very popular. Even though people seem to do it all the time switching their class in rpg games like Pillars, trying out new stuff.

 

POE was kickstarted with BG2 and Infinity Engine games in mind as a model. So they succeeded in that vision mark.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Ymarsakar

[demeisen]

I haven't read the whole thread, but have gotten far enough in V3 to see this change.  (PC = Wizard on both plays).

 

IMHO, it would be better part way between where it was and where it is.  It's been a while and maybe I forgot the exact details of how it worked in V1, but I remember it being pretty OP and trivializing many encounters, but it feels a bit too restricted now.  I'd like to see a single cast per encounter, but let you pick any spell of the given level at the time you cast, instead of having to pick the spell on level up. That way you could pick your strategy to fit each unique fight, but it wouldn't be like V1 days, which I feel did need to be dialled back somewhat.

[Necrobro]

My Spell Masteries for POTD

 

Wizard

1st: Slicken. Huge aoe with reflex based knockdown? Yes, please!

2nd:Miasma of Dull Mindness. Extremely crippling debuff. 

3rd: Minor Blights. Amazing damage, will last for the entire fight.

4th: Confusion. Life Saver, foe only, decent area.

 

Druid:

1st: Tanglefoot. Instant cast, huge area, hobble is an amazing debuff, especially when most druid spells target reflex which is the weakest enemy save even on POTD. Great synergy with Slicken.
If you go with two druids, then have the other master Sunbeam. Awesome range, damage and blind for a very long duration. What's not to love?

2nd:Autumn's Decay. Good area, amazing damage for a level 2 spell. The cone is rather easy to get off against knocked down enemies or the ones being held at chokepoints by your tank.

3rd: Twin Stones. Great damage, huge area, foe only. Perfect.

4th: Calling the World's Maw. Great damage, huge area, knockdown. Gotta love knockdown.

 

Priest:

1st: Blessing. More accuracy and damage are always nice.

2nd: Supress Affliction. Even if you have a paladin, one more way of stopping afflictions can be very useful, especially since you can use it as party wide.

3rd: Dire Blessing. More crits = more fun. Instant cast time is great!

4th:Devotions for the Faithful. Great buff AND debuff all in a single spell with good duration to boot! Shining Beacon can be nice but I find the super short range rather awful, especially since my priests don't wear armor.

[demeisen]

Arrggh!  I can't decide between Chill Fog and Slicken for the level 1 mastery.  On one hand, most monsters seem to have lower dex than fortitude, so that would argue for slicken.  But slicken only lasts a few seconds, where Chill Fog (which attacks fortitude) can blind for a longer time, and blind is powerful.  It also adds some DoT into the mix.  On the other other hand, I'm expecting many creatures in WM to have high cold resist.

 

What do you all think?  CF or S?

 

*Edit* playing, PoD, non-minmax, story NPCs.

Edited March 4, 2016 by demeisen