Spell mastery

[Skladzien]

As i think about it there is only one question i want to ask: Why?

Using spells of levels 1-3 once per encounter was thing that was making playing any caster class rewarding, while now i  totally prefer having more fighters than spellcasters (only chanter is now worth something and maybesome OP-built cipher), but wizard, druid and cleric lost a lot of charm. Also I washappy about changes on Athletics,but it seemsthey changed "everyone has to have atletics on 5" to "everyone has to have survival on 6" so it is not fun at all :-/ I was so happy about changes (before i played a bit) and now i stopped playing at all. It just stopped being fun (

[Francis Ironwood]

What's stopping you from resting to recover spells? I'm playing on hard and even with max 2 camping supplies I can keep resting with the camping supplies I find.

 

As to the why? It's obviously for balance. Spells are already some of the best abilities in the game and you got like 4(?) of them per encounter, when most other abilities are 1 or 2 per encounter. Doesn't that sound a bit too strong?

Edited February 20, 2016 by Francis Ironwood

[Ineth]

As i think about it there is only one question i want to ask: Why?

 

Because the power spike was too extreme.

 

everyone has to have survival on 6

 

Why six? Even a single point in Survival allows you to get a camping bonus.

Six points just allows you to choose different ones.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Ineth

[archangel979]

As i think about it there is only one question i want to ask: Why?

Using spells of levels 1-3 once per encounter was thing that was making playing any caster class rewarding, while now i  totally prefer having more fighters than spellcasters (only chanter is now worth something and maybesome OP-built cipher), but wizard, druid and cleric lost a lot of charm. Also I washappy about changes on Athletics,but it seemsthey changed "everyone has to have atletics on 5" to "everyone has to have survival on 6" so it is not fun at all :-/ I was so happy about changes (before i played a bit) and now i stopped playing at all. It just stopped being fun (

Because even on hard even with just two spellcasters you rarely needed to use any other spells but your encounter spells. It made the game stupid. I only rested when fighters were out of Health or fatigue kicked in. Later I started using other higher levels spells for kicks, not because I needed to win fights. Edited February 20, 2016 by archangel979

[Ohioastro]

Vancian spellcasting was a terrible idea from the beginning, and the sooner it goes away the better.  It ends up rewarding metagaming; but the worst part is that you end up not using your spells because you're saving them for emergencies.  So casters end up being crappy ranged damage dealers that you uncork for large battles.  Instead of a limited number of specialized and overpowered spells, better to have balanced abilities that you can use indefinitely.

[Skladzien]

Vancian spellcasting was a terrible idea from the beginning, and the sooner it goes away the better.  It ends up rewarding metagaming; but the worst part is that you end up not using your spells because you're saving them for emergencies.  So casters end up being crappy ranged damage dealers that you uncork for large battles.  Instead of a limited number of specialized and overpowered spells, better to have balanced abilities that you can use indefinitely.

And "rest per encounter", the worst part of all IE games. Pillars were free from it since starting from lvl 9 you can rest only to replenish Health (occasinally if micro was good), and now this nightmare is back....

[AndreaColombo]

I would understand the complaint if low-level spells stopped being viable at higher levels, as was the case in (A)D&D. In PoE, however, spells scale very well and remain viable throughout the whole game.

 

Getting 4 uses per encounter of level 1-4 spells would have been a massive power spike that would have made casters overwhelmingly superior to every other class. It also would have made spells beyond level 4 much less attractive: Either you wouldn't have had a need for them (DAOM, Shadowflame, 4 x Fireball = everybody dies. Rinse; repeat) or you would have saved them for emergency and relied on per-encounters anyway.

Edited February 20, 2016 by AndreaColombo

[Sceptenar]

I have to say I prefer the way it used to be. Before I actually ended up using spells, but the way it is now I just find myself "saving" my spells for tougher fights all the time without ever using anything unless it's a really tough fight, meaning my casters only use their ranged weapons instead of contributing with their unique talents. Did we really need to gimp casters so they wouldn't kill trash mobs too fast?

[redneckdevil]

I can see "why" they did it and usually I agree with their changes, but this was a disappointment. For awhile casters felt like "break glass and use in emergencies" at first but then as they got higher level really started feel AS powerful as the other classes.

[Tigranes]

You don't need to rest all the time. Nothing is forcing you. It's not even intended design, whether in IE or POE. These games were never made so that the player uses all the best spells in a single fight, and then rests 8000 times. Neither is it necessary to do this to win. 

 

By the same token, nobody is forcing you to save all your spells and just sit there firing arrows or swinging staves all day long. Just like people who end up with 900 potions/consumables because they were afraid of using them up, it's just the player's idiosyncrasy rather than the game 'forcing' them to hoard. 

 

POE battles tend to be pretty quick - the winner is generally decided in less than 10 rounds. Having, say, 2 mages in the party cast 20 spells in that timeframe is kind of overkill. At the same time, there are plenty of camping supplies and resting spots, such that you don't need to go ten battles without a rest if you don't want to. You can throw several spells per fight. 

 

It just comes down to: do you want each battle to basically take place in a vacuum, completely irrespective of the rest of the dungeon, as if you're in an arena, and do you want to be able to smash enemies with a non-stop spam of spells? Or do you want to your dungeon to actually feel like a dangerous trek, where you are thinking about the next fight and your party's resources when you battle, and the decision to use a high level spell is a meaningful one? 

 

(That said, I don't really find the current change a particularly good solution. There was nothing hugely wrong with the old spell mastery. What we need for POE2 is a better per-enc/per-rest balance to begin with.)

[Sceptenar]

Nothing is forcing you isn't really an argument. Nothing is forcing me to play the game to begin with, but I do it anyway to have fun. And the fact of the matter is I had more fun with my spellcasters when they had the old system than I do with the new.

[Tigranes]

You sure did. Did I say that's not true, or that you were wrong, or that recent changes are wonderful?

[Ohioastro]

You don't need to rest all the time. Nothing is forcing you. It's not even intended design, whether in IE or POE. These games were never made so that the player uses all the best spells in a single fight, and then rests 8000 times. Neither is it necessary to do this to win. 

 

By the same token, nobody is forcing you to save all your spells and just sit there firing arrows or swinging staves all day long. Just like people who end up with 900 potions/consumables because they were afraid of using them up, it's just the player's idiosyncrasy rather than the game 'forcing' them to hoard. 

 

POE battles tend to be pretty quick - the winner is generally decided in less than 10 rounds. Having, say, 2 mages in the party cast 20 spells in that timeframe is kind of overkill. At the same time, there are plenty of camping supplies and resting spots, such that you don't need to go ten battles without a rest if you don't want to. You can throw several spells per fight. 

 

It just comes down to: do you want each battle to basically take place in a vacuum, completely irrespective of the rest of the dungeon, as if you're in an arena, and do you want to be able to smash enemies with a non-stop spam of spells? Or do you want to your dungeon to actually feel like a dangerous trek, where you are thinking about the next fight and your party's resources when you battle, and the decision to use a high level spell is a meaningful one? 

 

(That said, I don't really find the current change a particularly good solution. There was nothing hugely wrong with the old spell mastery. What we need for POE2 is a better per-enc/per-rest balance to begin with.)

 

My quarrel with it is that it's never been a good system, period.  You can trivialize trash encounters with spells, and the only balancer is making it tedious to do so.  Furthermore, the reason why most people complain isn't the set-piece battles - which are designed around everyone doing everything.  It's the fact that you have to slog through a bunch of filler fights, not using the tools to make them quick, because it's annoying. 

 

Having played plenty of other games, there is no particular reason to keep this approach.  You can have a smaller tool-set that's still perfectly enjoyable - ciphers and chanters in this game manage to have interesting tactical choices without dozens of things or without having to stop and rest.  In reality, most of us pick a subset of the laundry list of spells and just use those as standard tools.  Six spells to cure six different conditions isn't more tactical, or better, than a single cure 'em all spell.  And you can do this without dumbing the game down.

[Gidpo]

It just comes down to: do you want each battle to basically take place in a vacuum, completely irrespective of the rest of the dungeon, as if you're in an arena, and do you want to be able to smash enemies with a non-stop spam of spells? Or do you want to your dungeon to actually feel like a dangerous trek, where you are thinking about the next fight and your party's resources when you battle, and the decision to use a high level spell is a meaningful one? 

 

This is the big problem with per rest, and limiting how many times one can rest.

 

Unless you have meta knowledge every battle does take place in a vacuum essentially. 

 

The planning the vancian camp advocates sounds a lot like the "not using your spells because you're saving them for emergencies" approach those in the per encounter camp hate being forced into. Not so much planning just auto-attacking

 

Whats the big deal if a caster does sling or spam spells? That's their role.

 

Also resting because a party member is injured doesn't seem weird or out of place, same for resting because my party trekked half way across country.

 

Resting because I casts spells? That is annoying, and obviously discouraged because supplies are limited and are limited even more as you increase difficulty.

[Raz415]

I didn't mind the old system and I don't mind the old one. If you need a spell you use it, if you don't, you don't. Everyone has nice per encounter skills you can start with and decide what you need to do next. It's obvious when a big fight is coming up and when you need to start by buffing everyone as soon as the fight begins. 

[Infinitron]

My quarrel with it is that it's never been a good system, period.  You can trivialize trash encounters with spells, and the only balancer is making it tedious to do so.  Furthermore, the reason why most people complain isn't the set-piece battles - which are designed around everyone doing everything.  It's the fact that you have to slog through a bunch of filler fights, not using the tools to make them quick, because it's annoying. 

 

Having played plenty of other games, there is no particular reason to keep this approach.  You can have a smaller tool-set that's still perfectly enjoyable - ciphers and chanters in this game manage to have interesting tactical choices without dozens of things or without having to stop and rest.  In reality, most of us pick a subset of the laundry list of spells and just use those as standard tools.  Six spells to cure six different conditions isn't more tactical, or better, than a single cure 'em all spell.  And you can do this without dumbing the game down.

 

 

Thanks for telling us what we find tedious and how most of us play the game

 

The ability to roleplay a wizard with lots and lots of spells which are useful in all sorts of situations is a design goal of this game, and part of the fantasy that it's trying to evoke. What you're saying is that fantasy can't or shouldn't be achieved in a computer roleplaying game, which is preposterous.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Infinitron

[JJGee]

A bunch of people seem to be of the opinion that a smaller number of spells intended for a specific situation is better than having a wider variety of options that may not be as distinguished from one another, just for more choice. I don't agree with that, because that's what a bunch of recent mainstream games does - streamline everything, have as little of everything as possible, and hopefully attract the maximum number of players, none of whom will get as invested because there isn't that much to invest in. If there's three spells that can be used to achieve the same goal, so what? Is it really a bad thing that the game allows that tiny feeling of tactical choice? I hate the idea that there is a single right answer to every challenge the game presents, because that also means there's an absolute right way and wrong way to play it. And that doesn't suit a game like Pillars of Eternity. Not to mention the fact that out of a few similar choices, many players may develop their personal favorites, making that playthrough that much more personal.

 

As for the topic itself, I'd like a bit wider variety of Per Encounter spells to pick from. It doesn't need to be like it was before this latest update, where you could cast a bunch of spells Per Encounter, per spell level, but maybe 1 extra spell from each level for each encounter? In other words, instead of picking one spell to "master" or having a large number of all spells to cast in every combat situation, perhaps take the middle ground and allow one "free" spell from each of the first few spell levels in every encounter. This would allow for at least some tactical thinking in fights, and work as an incentive to revisit the lower level spells instead of exclusively using the higher level ones, but it wouldn't cripple your casters quite as quickly, as you could probably manage the more trivial combat situations without dipping into the Per Rest spells.

 

I'm not all that disappointed in having only a few "mastered" spells to use Per Encounter, but it does minimize how much I vary my playstyle between separate encounters. I suppose that's not a big issue, but I did like mixing it up with a bigger pool of renewable spells.

[Sonntam]

I think there is an unique appeal in having a lot of spells. Sure, in the end most people will choose a couple spells they will spam every fight, but those couple spells will be different for everyone. 

 

Part of the Kickstarter promise was this exact type of gameplay with ridiculously many options. It's not something you can find in any other game released these days and that's what makes it unique. 

 

I myself love the idea of having so many tools. Sure, I may not use debuffs/buffs overly much, but when I run into a difficult fight I may reassess spells I considered useless and find out that they are immensely helpful. That kind of discoveries are what makes the system excel. Even after putting 60 hours into the game it's still possible for me to create new strategies. With a more limited ability set I would know it inside out after 20-30 hours maximum. 

[JJGee]

I think there is an unique appeal in having a lot of spells. Sure, in the end most people will choose a couple spells they will spam every fight, but those couple spells will be different for everyone.

 

Exactly - you put it better than I did. What harm did choice ever do? If the spells you tend to use the most were the only spells available, then you'd feel like you use them because you have no choice. But having a bigger selection of which to pick your favorites, it makes it feel like you have a little more tactical and creative freedom.

 

By the same logic that there's too many spells, aren't there too many classes too? You can only have 6 members in your party, and there's a concept for an optimal party setup, so why not just have 6 classes available? And why are there 8 companions, plus 3 more from the expansions, if only 5 can be present at any given time?

 

Sorry, that sounds more hostile than it was supposed to. But my point is, I love how old games used to have a lot of things you could do, but a lot of them you never would, or at least not in a single playthrough. I also love that in Pillars of Eternity.

[anameforobsidian]

I don't see an issue with spell mastery because I almost always run out of endurance before spells on higher difficulties, and that's using a couple a fight.  Maybe spell mastery could be raised to add two or three more uses per encounter, but I would only feel it pretty rarely.  Or maybe improved spell mastery could become a feat that allowed a greater number of uses of the spell.

 

My quarrel with it is that it's never been a good system, period.  You can trivialize trash encounters with spells, and the only balancer is making it tedious to do so.  Furthermore, the reason why most people complain isn't the set-piece battles - which are designed around everyone doing everything.  It's the fact that you have to slog through a bunch of filler fights, not using the tools to make them quick, because it's annoying. 

 

Having played plenty of other games, there is no particular reason to keep this approach.  You can have a smaller tool-set that's still perfectly enjoyable - ciphers and chanters in this game manage to have interesting tactical choices without dozens of things or without having to stop and rest.  In reality, most of us pick a subset of the laundry list of spells and just use those as standard tools.  Six spells to cure six different conditions isn't more tactical, or better, than a single cure 'em all spell.  And you can do this without dumbing the game down.

 

 

At higher difficulty levels fights only feel like trash if you've significantly over-leveled them, and spells do not trivialize fights - they're necessary to survive them.

 

Six spells to cure six different conditions is more tactical when you have limited time and are worried about two different conditions.  Especially when the conditions do different things to your characters.  You have a choice to make with benefits and opportunity costs.  If you make the right choice the game becomes easier.  

 

Furthermore, people do pick a laundry list of spells, but those spells can lead to wildly different playstyles.  Off the top of my head, mages can: go melee and drain heavy; use combusting wounds and quick AoEs to pepper the enemy with small damage; focus on debuffs; control the battlefield with spells like confusion and oil slick; go implement heavy interrupting blasters; and go a straight up AoE damage build.  The limited spell slots is a way of forcing players to choose a build and it avoids the whole "my mage does everything your class does but better problem."

 

But the real issue is this: if you like chanters and ciphers better, then just run with chanters and ciphers.  There are 11 viable classes, and only three of them are Vancian casters.

Edited February 21, 2016 by anameforobsidian

[Ohioastro]

 

My quarrel with it is that it's never been a good system, period.  You can trivialize trash encounters with spells, and the only balancer is making it tedious to do so.  Furthermore, the reason why most people complain isn't the set-piece battles - which are designed around everyone doing everything.  It's the fact that you have to slog through a bunch of filler fights, not using the tools to make them quick, because it's annoying. 

 

Having played plenty of other games, there is no particular reason to keep this approach.  You can have a smaller tool-set that's still perfectly enjoyable - ciphers and chanters in this game manage to have interesting tactical choices without dozens of things or without having to stop and rest.  In reality, most of us pick a subset of the laundry list of spells and just use those as standard tools.  Six spells to cure six different conditions isn't more tactical, or better, than a single cure 'em all spell.  And you can do this without dumbing the game down.

 

 

Thanks for telling us what we find tedious and how most of us play the game

 

The ability to roleplay a wizard with lots and lots of spells which are useful in all sorts of situations is a design goal of this game, and part of the fantasy that it's trying to evoke. What you're saying is that fantasy can't or shouldn't be achieved in a computer roleplaying game, which is preposterous.

 

There is a reason why this system is basically never used in newer games - and, no, it isn't because they're dumbed down.  The cipher class is a counter-example: very much in the fantasy domain, no, and very popular?

 

I suppose there are people who enjoy repetitive trash fights, but I've always viewed them as something that I put up with rather than something that I enjoy.  By contrast, the well-designed main battles are the ones that I remember and like.  Per encounter spells are irrelevant for the big fights and just speed up the trivial ones; I don't see keeping slow trash clearing as a core design goal.

 

In terms of spells, would it really hurt if priests had one heal spell instead of restore light, medium, heavy endurance?  If they could remove more conditions with the same spell as they leveled up, as opposed to getting half a dozen different remove condition spells?  Looking through the lists, there are numerous barely different conditions and spells that could effortlessly be merged for the other classes too.  That's pretty much the difference between the few and many spell schools that I'm discussing.

[Aotrs Commander]

I presume the decision was made to prevent a party walking through (say) the entirity of WM1's final level or so on a single rest on normal by use of the per-encounter spells. That was, of course, due to the number of "not worth breaking anything out encounters;" contrasted with the outside of Concelhaut's tower (which admittedly I'd tackled first) where resting was required after everny one or two encounters.

 

They've spoken about removing the "trash mobs" in fair number of places, so it may be they are trying to make the game a bit more like "(nearly) every fight is boss fight" (which I think is preferable to a lot of grinding on chaff). It may be the intention is that, as the fights are intended to now be harder - so as to flip the flag that says "don't husband the shinies¹" - people would have found they are naturally using more pre-rest resouces (like higher level spells) during fights anyway, so the larger number of lower level spells would become irrelevant.

 

Whether this has actually WORKED, is of course, in the proof of the pudding.

 

 

 

¹ Because, intentional or not, RPGs do this for most people and have since D&D started up; a large number of people will always end a game (be it tabletop or CRPG) with dozens of spare disposables that were saved "for an emergancy" that never came, and limited resources functions lke spells fall under the same category. (The structure of CRPGs (notably the old IE games) - and even some recent tabletop RPGs like 4th Edition D&D - has not especially helped this.) The only way to get rid of it in practise is to have the aforementioed "(nearly) every fight is a boss fight" - something I try to do when I'm DMing my tabletop games, with the occasional chaff fight thrown in to ease people back into a party they've not played for a whie, for instance.

[Gidpo]

But the real issue is this: if you like chanters and ciphers better, then just run with chanters and ciphers.  There are 11 viable classes, and only three of them are Vancian casters.

I dont think thats the real issue. 

 

I think the issue is as of a week ago of the 11 classes none of them were truly Vancian casters, and now there is 3 that pretty much are.

 

I think there was a fix for a problem that didnt exist. (were an overwhelming majority of players dropping every non caster from their party after level 9 or so?) And did this fix really improve game play or just make it more tedious?

Edited February 21, 2016 by Gidpo

[Infinitron]

More tedious? Spamming 4+ crowd control spells on every single encounter in the game wasn't tedious?

 

The people who don't see how per-encounter spellcasting was a problem just weren't good enough at the game to realize how absurd it was.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Infinitron

[Gidpo]

More tedious? Spamming 4+ crowd control spells on every single encounter in the game wasn't tedious?

But you didn't have to cast all four every fight!

 

Now you don't have a choice.

 

If the fight was that easy just and you didn't want to be bothered, before you could have just auto attacked or let the AI clear it