The loss of Vancian casting?!

[Boeroer]

Tyranny wasn't a bad game. But combat and mechanics in Tyranny were pretty lame. Char building was disappointing, too.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Boeroer

[anameforobsidian]

It'll still be a popular move; even though Vancian systems have their defenders, most people prefer non-vancian (especially if they have little/no history with D&D or IE games). Tyranny's system was a success, especially the spell customisation factor that doesn't really mesh with the D&D setup of IE/PoE1.

 

I think a big part of the change in system is that they want to head away from just emulating the IE games and male their own identity; I'm pretty sure they cited that as a reason behind the move from 6 to 5 party size. Still, we'll have to wait and see how it holds up against PoE1's system. I'd personally be in favour of a split system; the most significant, powerful abilities being per-rest but with a greater selection of per-encounters than PoE1. It would feel less limiting and over-managed than pure Vancian, but would still include an element of tactical resource management.

 

The per encounter per rest emulated DnD 4e; there were no per encounter abilities in Baldur's Gate.  Also, this game is very specifically made and targeted at a niche.  Beyond the fact that there's no reliable data out there on preference; even if there were, it would have to target fans of this niche.  Pillars was successful in large part because it was a competent effort targeted at a niche.  

[MaxQuest]

Tyranny's system was a success, especially the spell customisation factor that doesn't really mesh with the D&D setup of IE/PoE1.

Ehm, a firm no.

Spell crafting/customization concept was a success.

Spell crafting/customization system wasn't.

 

The concept was fresh and innovative. The idea itself was great.

But system's mechanics were askew and ehh, bluntly speaking imbalanced. As result spell sequences you ended up using, and even optimal builds you could make heavily lacked variety.

Edited February 4, 2017 by MaxQuest

[Tigranes]

It'll still be a popular move; even though Vancian systems have their defenders, most people prefer non-vancian (especially if they have little/no history with D&D or IE games). Tyranny's system was a success, especially the spell customisation factor that doesn't really mesh with the D&D setup of IE/PoE1.

 

I think a big part of the change in system is that they want to head away from just emulating the IE games and male their own identity; I'm pretty sure they cited that as a reason behind the move from 6 to 5 party size. Still, we'll have to wait and see how it holds up against PoE1's system. I'd personally be in favour of a split system; the most significant, powerful abilities being per-rest but with a greater selection of per-encounters than PoE1. It would feel less limiting and over-managed than pure Vancian, but would still include an element of tactical resource management.

 

"Most people" = is there any indication of this, or are we just being Trumpian and making it up?

 

Tyranny's system was a success? I don't know if you mean everybody loved it or you think it was a success, but the spellmaking system was the only bright spot in a braindead combat system where you just mashed shiny buttons to win... until, even on POTD, you got strong enough that you could even stop pressing the buttons half the time. 

[Yonjuro]

A strategy will win you a war (campaign), a tactic will win you a battle.

 

 

 That is not the conventional definition. The strategy for a campaign, battle, chess game or whatever is the plan, including contingencies based on what your opponent does, the weather etc.

 

 Tactics are what you execute to carry out the plan. Which tactics you execute will depend on the contingencies. 

 

 In my earlier example, Alexander's goal was to avoid getting overrun by the Persians who outnumbered him. His strategy was to route the weakest part of their line in hopes of starting a general rout (and presumably with contingency plans to avoid charging into a a position where he was surrounded if the rout didn't happen etc.).  His first tactic was to charge with his cavalry followed up by his phalanx and finally his other troops to the left flank where he had prior knowledge that the enemy was weakest.

 

 If you program computers, the strategy is the program; the tactics are the statements that actually get executed at run time for a particular set of circumstances. (If you aren't a programmer, ignore the useless analogy).

[Caeyrii]

There's no moment in PoE that made me think of being a "general" cleverly utilizing weapons(magic, if it's unclear) at my disposal that are limited by an inane resource constriction, other than in boss battles. I get hard whenever the game telegraphs that I'll be facing a boss since I can finally use my total maximum allowance of 3 spells per wizard sleep.

 

PoE using Vancian was literally bait to hook in the DnD bois.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

The value of "Vancian" spells is that you can have extreme powerful and unique spells because they are so highly conserved. This system can become problematic in the CRPG environment when combat is constant, and magic is reduced to a combat skill exclusively. Make the spells worthwhile but limited in quantity, and players complain of idleness. Make the spells worthwhile and bountiful, and players complain of balance. Make the spells mediocre but plentiful, and it defeats the point of magic.

 

I find the best systems are the ones were magic is versatile and potent, but has a drawback mechanic. Systems like FATE which feature backlash mechanics, or cost your stamina/health like Betrayal at Krondor tend to work the best. That being said, I have accepted that for any person which fancies great wizardry should just skip right past whatever Josh Sawyer touches.

[grumpymoose]

I'm not going to pretend it's the end all be all of combat systems, but I enjoyed the magic system in Tyranny well enough. I certainly would have preferred more variety in it, a grander scope, but the basics in combat seemed to work out. Cooldowns, some per fight abilities here and there, neat little combo abilities with party members. I realize it's meant to be a different game, in some aspects, but I think Tyranny provided some valuable lessons. Though, arguably, it's most wondrous aspect was the dialogue system - a massive improvement on any dialogue system I've seen in any CRPG, yet the change seems so simply on the surface that it's hard to believe someone didn't think of it back in the IE days.

 

I prefer magic classes in RPGs almost exclusively, so I'm quite invested in seeing the magic system further progress and improve. I won't pretend to know what they have planned, but between Wizards and Cyphers I have high hopes. I like the idea of spells you can use consistently, counter balanced by big game changing spells with drawbacks or limited uses in tune with the power of the given spells.

 

I'm not married to the, uh, "Vancian" system . . . but I do enjoy a good game of chess. Big moves. Big sacrifices. The big turn around. The game changing moment. I suppose in my head that's what casters are, your warrior maintains consistency, your priest keeps people going, your thief keeps everyone safe from traps and opens up paths and chests you couldn't otherwise . . . and the spell caster makes that one game changing move. It's not always needed, so they have utility, but they also have that spell that can just turn things around at the right moment.

 

I realize it's hard to turn something a player "feels" in those moments into actual gameplay, but I feel I'd be amiss in some form if I didn't describe what brings me to magic users across many different games and settings. Also, magic is just cool.

[ShadySands]

I just hope the files are easily edited so I can tweak spell damage if needed since I'm afraid that I'll find it underpowered

[grumpymoose]

Nothing worse than raining meteors and lightning bolts down on the field, only for the enemy to be barely grazed eh?

[ShadySands]

I'm sure there are worse things but it's pretty annoying to me at least

[grumpymoose]

I just imagine raining lightning bolts and meteors down on something, and the thing still being alive, would be a fairly bad situation is all. Especially if it has a big club and likes to smoosh mages.

[Casper]

how about using a mage to laydown a large & painful AoE spell only to miscalculate and watch your followers run into the killzone before you can intervene. that would be worse i think.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Casper

[ManifestedISO]

... more variety in the Tyranny magic system ... there was like eleven core sigils, nearly the same number of expressions, and almost forty unique accents ... the variety of magic in Tyranny is TOO DAMN HIGH

 

not really, it was actually super fun, although I'm glad Pillars and Tyranny are more separate than alike.

[ShadySands]

I'm fine with it and they knew the risks

 

I'd rather that than no friendly fire at any rate... and isn't friendly fire a toggle or tied to difficulty level anyway?

Edited February 5, 2017 by ShadySands

[Fenixp]

there was like eleven core sigils, nearly the same number of expressions, and almost forty unique accents ... the variety of magic in Tyranny is TOO DAMN HIGH

Yes, you could choose color of your generic spell, shape of your generic spell and slightly tweak numbers for your generic spell. Amount of combinations is not the problem, combinations barely ever resulting in anything remotely interesting is. My usual combat goes along the lines of "Shoot blue bolt. Now red bolt. Now brown bolt. Now blue cone. Green bolt."

And sad thing is that you can absolutely make a spell crafting system which operates with fun effects, or which results in entirely different results if you pick the right combos (see Magica. Yes, the system could absolutely be translated into turn-based game)

[Starwars]

For me, having a fair amount of per-rest stuff kinda adds a feeling of... well, the game feeling a bit more open. Some may argue that it's easier to tune combat encounters when you always know what the player's arsenal will be, and that is certainly true, but to me it just feels so... ugh, I don't know. It just feels too controlled. 

I love the feeling of being able to A) walk into a tough encounter and getting owned because I was sloppy with controlling my per-rest stuff or alternatively B) being able to just unleash all of my arsenal because I happened to have a lot of that stuff saved.

 

Also, having that "strategic layer" (and I'm not saying it's rocket-science to manage or that it can't be improved or whatever) just adds a feeling of the world being "alive" and breathing and sort of independent of the player. I guess many people disagree but I was kinda disappointed when they removed the fatigue thing from PoE. Not because it's a problem or an obstacle in any way but... because it adds to the feeling of being out on an adventure somewhat, and that was always a strong suit in the BG games especially.

 

In Tyranny, I literally feel like I'm just moving from combat encounter to combat encounter, pushing buttons that light up. It's all about the "feel" for me, it just feels too dry and too controlled.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Starwars

[Flouride]

I'm fine with it and they knew the risks

 

I'd rather that than no friendly fire at any rate... and isn't friendly fire a toggle or tired to difficulty level anyway?

 

Yes, friendly fire is optional. Path of the Damned or on hard? Can't remember exactly

Edited February 5, 2017 by Flouride

[ManifestedISO]

No, no friendly fire on any difficulty. 

 

I just started a cipher in PoE for the first time and I think I love the spell mechanic more than wizard/priest style.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

In Tyranny, I literally feel like I'm just moving from combat encounter to combat encounter, pushing buttons that light up. It's all about the "feel" for me, it just feels too dry and too controlled.

This regarding Tyranny.  I'm sorry, it has a good story and everything, but I literally stopped at your trial with Tunon, despite being near the end, because I just could not put up with the combat anymore.  Clicking through all the lit up icons and then starting at the beginning again is not tactical, you could probably get a bot to do it.  

[Osvir]

... more variety in the Tyranny magic system ... there was like eleven core sigils, nearly the same number of expressions, and almost forty unique accents ... the variety of magic in Tyranny is TOO DAMN HIGH

 

not really, it was actually super fun, although I'm glad Pillars and Tyranny are more separate than alike.

 

I agree. The "Spell Crafting", if you will, was really good. Cooldowns and all was necessary for that game, but not for a Pillars game. Spell Crafting though?

 

I really really liked Tyranny's system, all that variety and combinations (to later have 3 Mages debuff and buff and destroy everything in its path, with one God Tank).

 

​In Pillars of Eternity (and the Infinity Engine Games), I only dislike the spell dumping you get on Priest/Cleric and Druid, "You Leveled up! Here's 10 new spells!".

 

​As a Druid, if you could choose spells/ability every level, you'd be able to build a "Shapeshifter" build, or a "Lightning Druid" build, or "Shaman" build (rejuvenate/heal~ would be a really good Chanter/Druid). Or a Debuff Priest, Buff Priest, Heal Priest, Afflictions Priest, etc. etc.

 

​The actual "How to cast" system doesn't need to change that much. I like "Mastery" in Pillars 1 though, maybe get that earlier?

 

​Spell Level 1: 0/0 0/0 0/0... Mastery

​Spell Level 2: 1/1 0/0 0/0... Mastery

​Spell Level 3: 2/2 1/1 0/0... Mastery

Spell Level 4: 3/3 2/2 1/1... Mastery

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by Osvir

[Gfted1]

I like per encounter precisely because it does allow the full use of my party abilities for every fight. Ive yet to play a game where the mooks are at less than full strength so the thought of going into each fight a little more beaten down and diminished in capability is why I rest and save often.

[Ulicus]

 

 

In a Vancian system, if you've used all but one of a level X spell use, then you start hoarding it for the right moment. So, you can't lean on it every fight. For instance, Slicken. It's level one, and you have four casts initially, but you've use 3. It's your best disable given what your fighting, but you don't want to burn the last one because a bigger fight is possibly ahead where you will need it. So, you save it, and you find other spells from other levels to use that will make due.

 

Where if everything is per encounter, you will always have it available, and you use it every fight.

 

Yes and no. For many people, the vancian system of the Baldur's Gate series simply meant that after every single fight you had a nap. Spells were essentially per encounter with the annoying interruption of clicking the rest button after each fight.

And PoE had limits to resting supplies which stopped rest spamming. So, that issue wasn't prevalent.

 

I don't know about that. There were never more than four difficult encounters in a dungeon (or on a dungeon level), so you could always rest spam as much as you actually needed to.

 

The only thing that ever stopped me were self-imposed RP restrictions, like "I don't think it makes sense for the party to rest here and now, even though the game would let me".

[Guest 4ward]

 

IMO they could have went completely with per-rest similar to the way the sorcerer progressed in SoA. Just for illustration purpose this is the spells availability between rests for my sorcerer at lvl 19 / final save SoA:

 

 

There‘s no way that you‘re forced to rest because you run out of abilities. It‘s true that the sorcerer is a slow start but at lvl 8 things get interesting and at lvl 12 he‘s very potent and a powerhouse at lvl 15. So, yeah they could have expanded on that instead of going per-encounter. The problem has always been and still is that some of you guys think that everybody played the old IE games like you did. Take a small sample size, extrapolate it and make a design decision on that and cut the options the player has – that‘s what‘s been going on the last years. So here we have a playerbase who never liked resource management just like Josh Sawyer never was a fan of. Didn‘t he once mention that he likes to use up his resources and not hold them back? Gone are the days where players would tap themselves on the shoulder if they accomplished something because they managed their resources or took challenges with just a measly amount of available abilities. And you could do that if you just looked in your backpack, potions, other magic items, free movement, areas and enemy AI. Yet, let me guess, you waste a fireball on gibberlings then complain that you didn‘t have a chance against the hobglobins with poisend arrows or that human party and so were ‚forced‘ to rest.

[Midas Touch]

How about going to a mana/spellpoint system where Constitution gives you an energy pool that spells and abilities draw from?  For the sake of simplicity, it could just be a duplicate endurance pool that is drained only by ability use.  No cooldowns on abilities beyond the standard action recovery time.  Replenished on resting like Endurance as well.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Midas Touch