spell mastery - please dont do this

[Gidpo]

I haven't been able to actually find patch notes that say this, only a few posters talking about the change in beta. From what I gather spells switching from per rest to per encounter at later levels is gone. In place is a system that allows for mastery of one particular spell that can but used per encounter and other spells remain per rest.

 

I apologize in advance for not having the time to write out a very detailed post on the pros and cons of per rest vs per encounter. It has been debated at length on this forum though and of the argument put forth I would like to simple add this.

 

I agree with nearly every point that supports a per encounter system, and find the arguments for the vancian spell system to be antiquated.

 

Perhaps most importantly for me, the per encounter system is simply more FUN. Also the per rest system FEELS like I need meta knowledge of the game (like what mobs are around the corner) to use spells correctly.

 

So this post is simply a plea from someone who has sunk over 200 hours into this game, please don't move closer to the per rest spell system.

 

If anything I have been looking forward to having more spells become per encounter as my casters in all my different parties move into the final phase of the game.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Gidpo

[HawkSoft]

I haven't been able to actually find patch notes that say this, only a few posters talking about the change in beta. From what I gather spells switching from per rest to per encounter at later levels is gone. In place is a system that allows for mastery of one particular spell that can but use per encounter and other spells remain per rest.

 

I apologize in advance for not having the time to write out a very detailed post on the pros and cons of per rest vs per. It has been debated at length on this forum though and of the argument put forth I would like to simple add this.

 

I agree with nearly every point that supports a per encounter system, and find the arguments for the vancian spell system to be antiquated.

 

Perhaps most importantly for me, the per encounter system is simply more FUN. Also the per rest system FEEL like I need meta knowledge of the game (like what mobs are around the corner) to use spell correctly.

 

So this post is simply a plea from someone who has sunk over 200 hours into this game, please don't move closer to the per rest spell system.

 

If anything I have been looking forward to having more spells become per encounter as my casters in all my different parties move into the final phase of the game.

OK, now I can read it.

 

I think the change is sensible but misnamed, it's encouraged me to branch out and try more spells rather than just spamming the low level ones.

[Kriber22]

I like the general idea of this system, but I wish it would kick in a lot sooner than level 9. By the time you get that far, one additional 1st-level spell per encounter is not all that useful.

[Njall]

I feel for you, OP. Yeah, pouring a lot of time into a game, coming to enjoy the mechanics and then having the rug pulled from under one's feet sucks.

Don't misunderstand: I think that per-encounter spells as they were before 3.0 were too good, in the context of how the game was (supposed to be) balanced; OTOH, a change of this magnitude is, IMHO, more suited  to a sequel than a DLC/expansion.

Just my two cents, anyway; I really hope you'll enjoy the second part of the expansion despite the disappointment.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Njall

[Gfted1]

Iirc, one of the reasons for "per encounter" casting was because spells don't scale with level. For example, Minoletta's Minor Missiles do the same 12-21 damage if cast by a level 1 wizard or a level 14 wizard.

 

Since "per encounter" has been taken off the table, what is being used to compensate for lack of spell scaling? Only the one spell with "mastery"?

[DreamWayfarer]

Iirc, one of the reasons for "per encounter" casting was because spells don't scale with level. For example, Minoletta's Minor Missiles do the same 12-21 damage if cast by a level 1 wizard or a level 14 wizard.

 

Since "per encounter" has been taken off the table, what is being used to compensate for lack of spell scaling? Only the one spell with "mastery"?

Well, the problem is that some spells are better or less situational than others for most builds.

 

A Wizard build that uses Penetrating Shot and Combusting Wounds will probably still spam Minoletta's throught all game, while a controler or melee Wizard wouldn't pick them at all.

 

On the other hands, that ice-based first level Touch spell, or even most touch spells, won't be used no matter the levelbor number of uses.

[Njall]

Iirc, one of the reasons for "per encounter" casting was because spells don't scale with level. For example, Minoletta's Minor Missiles do the same 12-21 damage if cast by a level 1 wizard or a level 14 wizard.

 

Since "per encounter" has been taken off the table, what is being used to compensate for lack of spell scaling? Only the one spell with "mastery"?

 

I don't think they're compensating in any way; this is a straight up nerf, the decrease in power is, to my understanding, very much intended.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Njall

[HawkSoft]

I don't think they're compensating in any way; this is a straight up nerf, the decrease in power is, to my understanding, very much intended.

It's been said that v3 will have fewer trash fights so there should be less need for spell spamming.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

Is it really an issue though? I mean, I find per-rest to be an artificial limitation anyway. You just. . rest. I mean maybe if you were going for the special 10-rest-only achievement but otherwise it's always seemed like per-rest was there more for the nostalgic flavor than because it made a real gameplay difference.

 

Functionally per-rest and per-encounter are the same limitation. 

Edited February 2, 2016 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

[Kinowek]

It's a terrible change, apparently in response to a vocal minority of people complaining on these forums about balance in a single player game.

 

Luckily, IEMod already allows you to change all spells to per encounter, so if you disagree with this change like I do, download IEMod.  Hopefully the IEMod guy(s) are quick to update for version 3.0 in a few weeks!

 

Per-Rest spells just lead to people trudging back to an Inn or using campfires... honestly the rest system needs to be reworked, and all spells should be balanced around per Encounter, but I digress.

 

Slightly related topic, removing 'trash' fights seems like it will dramatically decrease the ability to level up certain Soulbound weapons that have high kill requirements.  Another mistake, which can eventually be fixed by mods, much slower than the per rest/per encounter spell change.

[Tigranes]

Every decision made during development is a decision about / mindful of balance. It's not like the original design somehow had nothing to do with it. Anyway, it's an inelegant solution to an inelegant problem.

 

More generally, per-rest/per-enc does need a major overhaul, in the sense that both sides of the coin need to be overhauled. It's far too difficult to design per-rest properly in a CRPG, and the only silver lining is that people can set their own challenge - people who just want to lob spells every 3 seconds can rest every 2 minutes, people who enjoy attrition and scarcity won't. Per-encs are typically balanced out with cooldowns, which leads to a braindead 'click all the buttons when they light up' gameplay, but there're many ways to have smart, interesting per-encs with supporting mechanics that force tactical decisions (a robust casting time/interrupt system, spell maintenance / upkeep costs, etc). 

[limaxophobiacq]

I feel like this might have been changed to make weapon-talents and per-encounter abilities for casters feel like less of a waste. If you can cast 4 4th level spells per encounter as a priest, investing 2 talents to get painful interdiction or one for your deity-specific weapon focus seems not that usefull. Same for druids and investing talents in wildshape.

 

 

Is it really an issue though? I mean, I find per-rest to be an artificial limitation anyway. You just. . rest. I mean maybe if you were going for the special 10-rest-only achievement but otherwise it's always seemed like per-rest was there more for the nostalgic flavor than because it made a real gameplay difference.

 

Functionally per-rest and per-encounter are the same limitation. 

 

Obviosly you can but if we are going to balance like that then we might as well make all abilities per-encounter. If you actually do rest after every encounter this change actually makes casters more powerfull since now you can cast one more spell per encounter for every spell you've mastered.

Edited February 3, 2016 by limaxophobiacq

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

 

 

Obviosly you can but if we are going to balance like that then we might as well make all abilities per-encounter. If you actually do rest after every encounter this change actually makes casters more powerfull since now you can cast one more spell per encounter for every spell you've mastered.

 

 

Well yeah, but if you don't need to rest after an encounter, then it wasn't an encounter that was challenging and therefore it isn't an encounter that needs to be considered from a balancing perspective.

 

I mean even on PotD there are the encounters you get through with minimal suffering -- "trash" -- and the mini-boss type fights that you rest after because you have to. in the first you're not using any critical spells and in the second you're throwing everything you have anyway. 

 

It might make a difference in some unusual cases -- say, not having Prayer Against Fear available because you let Durance blow his spells  on an earlier fight where it wasn't necessary -- but if that happens there's just the minor annoyance of having to find an inn or some camping supplies. It's not like you're ever on a timer. 

 

The whole rest system just seems more like a nod to nostalgia than a functional gameplay limitation to me. There's nothing wrong with that, this game is all about nostalgia, but I'm not sure per-rest vs. per-encounter is something that deserves any significant weight in balancing discussions. As you say, this change has functionally increased caster's power by giving them a set of extra per-encounter casts they didn't have before.

[HawkSoft]

As a non-power gamer I very much like the distinction between per-encounter and per-rest abilities, I only wish it were tied to some kind of timer (a Watcher's fate?) linked to the main quest.

EG The protagonist could:

• Slowly losing their sanity/will,
• Gain some kind of negative experience points over time and by resting.

 

I find the system a pleasant change from button-mashing cooldown systems and potion-chugging mana systems

I don't agree that it's just a piece of nostalgia.

[Panteleimon]

Without resting there is no real natural passage of time.  In BG1 you had one or two weeks to get to Nashkel after recruiting Khalid and Jaheira and/or Xzar and Montaron or they would leave(the same with Minsc and Dynaheir) .  Per-rest mechanics and fatigue over time were two mechanics that essentially by themselves were responsible for giving meaning to what would otherwise be a cosmetic day-night cycle.  This was especially important because normal resting was the most central device used to tell your character's story(through dream sequences) .  That you were having those dreams when and where you chose to rest and not because you were teleported to "Da Camp of Da Heroes" rooted you all the more strongly in the world.

 

 

This is a huge, glow in the dark line between role-players and power gamers. 

Edited February 3, 2016 by Panteleimon

[HawkSoft]

Minsc attacked me once because I was too slow to rescue Dynaheir (I'd have preferred if she had survived to BG2 rather than Jaheira).

 

BG1 was very good at making you feel time was passing and a fuse was burning down, BG2 less so.

 

PoE has reduced the sense of time by taking away travel fatigue in the 3.0 beta, I'd be OK with that (it IS an annoying mechanic) if it were replaced by some kind of countdown on the watcher's sanity. This Could be driven by a player selected timer so we could set our own challenge, it should not be tied to game-play difficulty.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

This is a huge, glow in the dark line between role-players and power gamers.

As a non-power gamer I very much like the distinction between per-encounter and per-rest abilities, I only wish it were tied to some kind of timer (a Watcher's fate?) linked to the main quest.

EG The protagonist could:

• Slowly losing their sanity/will,
• Gain some kind of negative experience points over time and by resting.

I find the system a pleasant change from button-mashing cooldown systems and potion-chugging mana systems

I don't agree that it's just a piece of nostalgia.

 

Yeah, but none of those passage-of-time mechanics are actually in the game, especially now that there's no fatigue. It's a valid roleplay tool if you want it to be, sure, but I'm just talking gameplay mechanics.

[Orillion]

Minsc attacked me once because I was too slow to rescue Dynaheir (I'd have preferred if she had survived to BG2 rather than Jaheira).

 

BG1 was very good at making you feel time was passing and a fuse was burning down, BG2 less so.

 

PoE has reduced the sense of time by taking away travel fatigue in the 3.0 beta, I'd be OK with that (it IS an annoying mechanic) if it were replaced by some kind of countdown on the watcher's sanity. This Could be driven by a player selected timer so we could set our own challenge, it should not be tied to game-play difficulty.

Countdown mechanics add absolutely needless stress to the game, regardless of whether or not they are likely to be reached in normal play.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Orillion

[Ineth]

One gamer's stress, is another gamer's excitement...

[Wolken3156]

Per rest abilities? Oh no, resource management in an RPG what has the world come to

 

The main downside to the per rest system is that unlike older RPGs, there's no real punishment in realizing you didn't bring enough items or you were a little too trigger happy with your spells. Enemies do not respawn when you leave an area, and don't spawn to block your only way out of a dungeon either. If you choose to camp instead, you're never at any risk of being attacked by a group of enemies.

 

Of course, these are things that could possibly be implemented, but I imagine many will argue it may break the game's flow and pacing.

 

Personally though, I don't even care about the per encounter change. I felt battles became very one-dimensional once 3rd-level spells became per encounter, since at that point you can just recklessly spam them and they can easily destroy most enemies without putting a single tear on your party's resources. Heck, this is even true to 1st-level spells becoming per encounter.

 

As a non-power gamer I very much like the distinction between per-encounter and per-rest abilities, I only wish it were tied to some kind of timer (a Watcher's fate?) linked to the main quest.

EG The protagonist could:

• Slowly losing their sanity/will,
• Gain some kind of negative experience points over time and by resting.

Timers are almost never a good idea in any kind of game. This especially true with PoE, which has an enormous amount of content outside of the main story to explore and complete. Adding a timer would only encourage players to rush towards the endgame, ignoring the side content. This is true, regardless of how generous the timer is.

 

Plus in general it'll just cause a huge influx in negative reactions. No one likes being rushed.

 

Iirc, one of the reasons for "per encounter" casting was because spells don't scale with level. For example, Minoletta's Minor Missiles do the same 12-21 damage if cast by a level 1 wizard or a level 14 wizard.

 

Since "per encounter" has been taken off the table, what is being used to compensate for lack of spell scaling? Only the one spell with "mastery"?

Damage doesn't scale with level for any class, even martial characters. So a Fan of Flames spell from a Wizard will still remain a powerful attack even during late game, especially when you take into account the expanded options a high level Wizard has to augment its damage, through the appropriate talents or buffs.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Wolken3156

[Gfted1]

Damage doesn't scale with level for any class, even martial characters. So a Fan of Flames spell from a Wizard will still remain a powerful attack even during late game, especially when you take into account the expanded options a high level Wizard has to augment its damage, through the appropriate talents or buffs.

But melee weapons can be enchanted all the way from "barrel garbage" to Legendary, right? I assume this causes them to deliver more damage in addition to melee talents and buffs. Spells are the wizards weapons but never improve and, afaik, grimoires cannot be enchanted. Or can they?

[Wolken3156]

But melee weapons can be enchanted all the way from "barrel garbage" to Legendary, right? I assume this causes them to deliver more damage in addition to melee talents and buffs. Spells are the wizards weapons but never improve and, afaik, grimoires cannot be enchanted. Or can they?

Grimoires cannot be enchanted. As I mentioned though, the damage of spells can be boosted with buffs and talents, its just the approach for them is is different compared to a weapon. For example, a direct damage spell like Chill Fog becomes a lot stronger if the Wizard has the Secrets of Rime talent and can also be used as an interruption tool if you pick up Interrupting Blows.

 

As another example, Minoletta's Minor Missiles (Since you mentioned it) only deals around 12 - 22 damage per projectile. This damage however can be boosted with a high Might score, so if you have a Might score of 19 for example, this becomes 15 - 27 damage per projectile. Since the spell does Corrode damage as well, if you grab the Spirit of Decay talent, that's a 20% damage boost to the spell. Finally, since the spell is a projectile, it does work with Penetrating Shot, which allows the spell to bust through an enemy's DR. Toss in Combusting Wounds and you add an extra 5 burn damage that ignores DR to each projectile.

 

Ok maybe I over elaborated, but you can see the spell becomes very powerful under the right conditions, to the point it even matches higher level spells.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Wolken3156

[why]

Good point, Gfted1. One would think that higher level spells are the equivalent of higher level gear, but enchantments kind of turn that idea on its head. I think higher level spells should be more powerful overall than lower level spells, but I would also like to see some lower level spells retain their utility. Of course, having just finished my second run, I have to admit that that grease looking first level spell stays useful and I used it pretty much to the end. Also, the magic missile spell has some uses, especially for drawing baddies to better positioning. It's got a tremendous range. Fireball is still pretty good later. Not because it does a lot of damage, but it's a fast casting spell. My priest used a couple of second level healing spells the whole game.

 

But forget spell casters, how about scrolls? In the final fight, I had three characters cast moonwell for four HoT spells running concurrently. Let me tell you, that was sweet. It allowed my priest to focus almost entirely on debuffs and buffs. When you can pump up someone's lore sufficiently, you get a massive array of spells and it just goes to underscore how useful they are during the game.

 

I get what you're saying, though. If you're only going to get one reset on encounter spell, you should make sure that one spell is really worth it. After all, that's a pretty high level class ability.

[HawkSoft]

As several people have selectively quoted me I'm going to quote myself:

PoE has reduced the sense of time by taking away travel fatigue in the 3.0 beta, I'd be OK with that (it IS an annoying mechanic) if it were replaced by some kind of countdown on the watcher's sanity. This Could be driven by a player selected timer so we could set our own challenge, it should not be tied to game-play difficulty.

I appreciate the problems of imposed timers and would not want to make one a fundamental part of the main quest. The only example of a watcher gone mad we have is Maerwald whose sanity appears to have decayed over years or decades rather than months and that was whilst living with the pernicious influence of the Master Below.

 

My expectation is that any timer might, by default reduce the watcher's will (any other suggestions?) by one point per year of game time (= no effect) but that the player could set the tick rate to any number of days they wanted or to have no effect at all. Experienced players could then set the timer to suit their requirements, be they role playing or simply making the game harder.

 

 

Time pressures are not all bad, I remember the *thrill* of tackling Bodhi's dungeon in BG2 for the first time and my eventual disappointment when I discovered that the party was not being pursued after all.

[why]

I saw your post and thought immediately of Mask of the Betrayer, Hawk. I'm not sure I want that scenario for the Watcher, but it's an interesting idea in terms of leaving the rest mechanic in place as is and simply creating consequences for using it. Frankly, I think 'rest spamming,' so called, excites people beyond reason. Rest spamming seems like pretty much a non-issue for me. I never rest spam and the game is plenty easy. If some folks want to rest after every battle? Hey, it's their time, not mine.