The loss of Vancian casting?!

[Ganrich]

I worry that if Empower increases things that the attributes govern then it may further marginalize them. It's not like the attributes have a whole lot of weight to them to begin with. Obviously, it isn't my only worry, but it is one of them. I still think locking hard CCs and immunities by requiring Empowering those abilities would be the best way to go.

[Gromnir]

IMO, the primary check against "do the same thing every time" should be encounter design-- different encounters should offer different challenges that reward variations in your approach.  Resource availability has a role to play in helping that along (e.g., limit gimmick builds that spam certain potions endlessly), but I don't see that it necessarily has to include having the vast majority of the class-based abilities for 3 classes be per-day. 

 

I wonder if they're including area-of-effect as the thing that gets "Empowered" for some spells.  E.g., "basic" Blessing as single-target, but Empowered Blessing as AOE. 

one reason we want a more expansive beta which allows greater access to a more complete range o' levels, abilities and talents is 'cause the developers will, regardless o' their best efforts, be caught off guard by the manner in which people actual play their games.  the original poe developers no doubt assumed they had considerable diversity o' encounter challenges, but the reality is players found optimal tactics which made adjustments irrelevant.  the developers is gonna fail to recognize the manner in which players exploit obscure synergies-- is a given.  is not a criticism o' the developers.  is axiom.

 

with new mechanics and multi-class we foresee fertile soil for exploitive gameplay. let players break the game so developers can fix exploits before release.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[SunBroSolaire]

This sounds like a major step down from PoE tbh...

 

More per encounter abilities = more spamming the same things every fight. Pillars of Eternity already had a problem with that, why change it to be worse?

[DeHavilan]

I almost never get on to post, but this is really something I feel strongly about.  Other people have done a good job of outlining why this could potentially negatively impact the game, so I won't just rehash what everyone has said.  I will say that having tried out Tyranny's system, where you basically just spam all of your abilities in every fight, it was significantly less gratifying.  We already have multiple no Vancian resource systems in the game, so I don't see the value of eliminating it.

[Urthor]

Losing Vancian magic will basically just mean every combat will devolve into a player following a certain recipe of best buff in the game+best debuff in the game targeting their will/fortitude score, followed by "best will/fortitude exploiting ability" targeting their will/fortitude score," and each party pretty much following that recipe for the entire game.  

 

Compared to where Vancian magic was in Pillars of Eternity, that's really just a major step back.  Vancian casters meant you had to really vary the spell choice, couldn't just use the same will spell every time or the same fortitude spell.  

[Althernai]

Vancian casting has always had an uneasy relationship with CRPGs. Systems that used it either had to accept that some players would just rest all of the time and thereby make the game too easy or come up with progressively more convoluted (and usually more contrived) means of limiting rest which never really worked. Thus, I'm not too sad to see it go.

 

However... getting rid of it does have the potential to homogenize the classes somewhat: if all spells are per-encounter now, they're probably going to be nerfed accordingly. I don't want a game where there is little to no difference between spellcasters and warriors (i.e. where each has a set of per-encounter powers with per-rest boosts and the only difference is in the names, animations and perhaps function groups such as "ranged area-of-attack").

[Bobby Null]

Hey Everyone,

 

Figured I'd chime in here for a second as this is a bit of a hot topic. I've been so swamped recently I've not been very good at being a good spokesman for the game. I'm just so used to being the dude designing in the shadows of my little office that I sometimes forget my responsibility to you, our awesome fans/backers- my apologies. So I figured I needed to poke my head out of my dungeon and join the conversation. Let me address some points in no particular order.

 

1. As the community seems to be dubbing me the Obsidian Grognard, it won't surprise anyone I am a fan of vancian casting. I do feel it works much better in PnP than it does in a CRPG, but I am still a big fan.

 

2. I expressed my fears to Josh when we spoke about the current per rest changes and we had a semi-lengthy discussion about it. I was immediately on board with the supercharge idea, though.

 

3. I am not such a grog that I am afraid to try new approaches regarding design mechanics or to try to move the genre forward. Josh feels strongly about this direction and he has more than earned the right to try new things. I've worked with Josh for years and he is right far more often than he is wrong. Far more than any other designer I've ever worked with, and I've worked with some REALLY talented people. When designs don't work out, we will continue to tweak, improve, or in some cases scrap them. I think this is evident with the amount of post release support we did with the first title and well into the expansions.

 

4. There are other factors that we are working into combat. Josh and I were just talking about the importance of longer cast times for certain abilities. This is something we are going to be working on. It will help to vary abilities and will allow for some really hard hitters. It also increases the usefulness of interrupting and magnifies risk vs reward in what ability you choose in moment to moment gameplay.

 

5. We are working hard on creatures and encounters being more unique and a fair amount less frequent. You can see some of that work in the White March expansions and we are pushing to do more of that on both the system and level design front.

 

6. There are some new gameplay elements mixed into certain environments that can change the tactical thinking for many of our encounters. Not sure if Josh has talked about any of these so I'll keep quiet on these for the moment.

 

7. If something sucks or isn't fun, we will iterate and/or change what needs to be changed.

 

8. I hope this helps somewhat. In the end, we are trying to make a game we think you all will fall in love with. There are still a ton of cool announcements on the horizon that we're pretty excited about. Hope you all have a great night.

 

-B

[Rolandur]

~puts away ten foot pole~

[Bobby Null]

~puts away ten foot pole~

 

No need, that's a feature. Is that a spoiler? Hmm.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

~puts away ten foot pole~

 

No need, that's a feature. Is that a spoiler? Hmm.

 

If that's in...  Hang on! Hey, are tridents in? Please, let me know, or at least give me a hint, heh.

[Rolandur]

 

~puts away ten foot pole~

 

No need, that's a feature. Is that a spoiler? Hmm.

 

 

Back when our gaming group were tabletop gaming it was 11 foot poles though--Spinal Tap just came out. =)

[Boeroer]

one reason we want a more expansive beta which allows greater access to a more complete range o' levels, abilities and talents is 'cause the developers will, regardless o' their best efforts, be caught off guard by the manner in which people actual play their games. the original poe developers no doubt assumed they had considerable diversity o' encounter challenges, but the reality is players found optimal tactics which made adjustments irrelevant. the developers is gonna fail to recognize the manner in which players exploit obscure synergies-- is a given. is not a criticism o' the developers. is axiom.

 

with new mechanics and multi-class we foresee fertile soil for exploitive gameplay. let players break the game so developers can fix exploits before release.

 

HA! Good Fun!

So true.

 

Although... I like breaking the released game with a char build and then see OBS fix it with a new patch release.

 

RIP Backlash Beldam and friends...

Edited February 3, 2017 by Boeroer

[PrimeJunta]

Josh explained the thinking behind these changes elsewhere: that some players insist on resting after every fight and trekking back and forth for more camping supplies, regardless of the tedium. In my view, sacrificing strategic resource management on that altar is rather too much. Why not just add a toggle for unlimited resting, or bake that into difficulty modes?

 

I really, really feel that rationing spells (and other per-rest resources) is central to the IE/Pillars experience. Remove that, and something of value will be lost.

 

I hope you'll find some other way to accommodate the players who do that sort of thing. From what I've heard, some of them even enjoy it. Just... please don't take away our strategic resource management. Pretty please?

[rheingold]

Vancian casting goes back some way in gaming. I'd second some of the comments requesting a rethink. Pretty much changing everything to a cooldown timer or to per encounter really changes the game  - not necessarily badly, just different. And I presume I'm not alone in backing Deadfire because I want more Pillars not DAI. I thought Pillars had pretty good balance between the two approaches.

(I do realize no one has specifically mentioned a cool down timer but still per encounter is enough of a change from good old vancian casting to be concerned.)

[Gromnir]

am thinking folks are purposeful or accidental reducing josh comments for reason o' finding some, any, reason to be rejecting. the change away from vancian is not simple 'bout purging a resting abuse.  and the fact o' the matter is that at mid and later levels, whatever tactical considerations related to resource management concerns o' vancian casting has largely evaporated. before every major encounter, a player is likely to rest regardless.  get caught unawares by an unexpected boss fight or particular tough encounter and have significant diminished spell repertoire is not a measure o' the increased challenge resulting from vancian so much as it is proof o' the idiotic limitation o' vancian casting.  moderate difficult encounters become near impossible 'cause o' depleted vancian casters.  prompts a reload. converse, tough encounters become relative easy 'cause vancian casters recent rested?  stoopid. 

 

folks want better encounter design but ignore how vancian makes such a task far more difficult.  that the number o' vancian casters in a party so profound impacts the potential difficulty o' any encounter should be seen as an inherent flaw, but for some reason is being described as a strength.  curious.

 

vancian is increasingly anachronistic in crpgs.  if we weren't discussing a game inspired by 2e d&d mechanics, we would be unlikely to need have this discussion.  in spite o' the claims o' vancian being such a kewl and nifty tactical option, not even the d&d/ie game grognards would wanna vancian abilities to a fallout game.  vancian is terrible, but is having such a nostalgia grip on folks that they see an obvious flaw as a strength.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Infinitron]

am thinking folks are purposeful or accidental reducing josh comments for reason o' finding some, any, reason to be rejecting. the change away from vancian is not simple 'bout purging a resting abuse.  and the fact o' the matter is that at mid and later levels, whatever tactical considerations related to resource management concerns o' vancian casting has largely evaporated. before every major encounter, a player is likely to rest regardless.  get caught unawares by an unexpected boss fight or particular tough encounter and have significant diminished spell repertoire is not a measure o' the increased challenge resulting from vancian so much as it is proof o' the idiotic limitation o' vancian casting.  moderate difficult encounters become near impossible 'cause o' depleted vancian casters.  prompts a reload. converse, tough encounters become relative easy 'cause vancian casters recent rested?  stoopid. 

 

folks want better encounter design but ignore how vancian makes such a task far more difficult.  that the number o' vancian casters in a party so profound impacts the potential difficulty o' any encounter should be seen as an inherent flaw, but for some reason is being described as a strength.  curious.

 

vancian is increasingly anachronistic in crpgs.  if we weren't discussing a game inspired by 2e d&d mechanics, we would be unlikely to need have this discussion.  in spite o' the claims o' vancian being such a kewl and nifty tactical option, not even the d&d/ie game grognards would wanna vancian abilities to a fallout game.  vancian is terrible, but is having such a nostalgia grip on folks that they see an obvious flaw as a strength.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

The issue here is not just whether Vancian is good or bad. It's also that the suggested replacement for it, full-blown per-encounter spellcasting, has already proven to be a pain in the ass - see PoE1 before Spell Mastery.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Infinitron

[Gromnir]

 

am thinking folks are purposeful or accidental reducing josh comments for reason o' finding some, any, reason to be rejecting. the change away from vancian is not simple 'bout purging a resting abuse.  and the fact o' the matter is that at mid and later levels, whatever tactical considerations related to resource management concerns o' vancian casting has largely evaporated. before every major encounter, a player is likely to rest regardless.  get caught unawares by an unexpected boss fight or particular tough encounter and have significant diminished spell repertoire is not a measure o' the increased challenge resulting from vancian so much as it is proof o' the idiotic limitation o' vancian casting.  moderate difficult encounters become near impossible 'cause o' depleted vancian casters.  prompts a reload. converse, tough encounters become relative easy 'cause vancian casters recent rested?  stoopid. 

 

folks want better encounter design but ignore how vancian makes such a task far more difficult.  that the number o' vancian casters in a party so profound impacts the potential difficulty o' any encounter should be seen as an inherent flaw, but for some reason is being described as a strength.  curious.

 

vancian is increasingly anachronistic in crpgs.  if we weren't discussing a game inspired by 2e d&d mechanics, we would be unlikely to need have this discussion.  in spite o' the claims o' vancian being such a kewl and nifty tactical option, not even the d&d/ie game grognards would wanna vancian abilities to a fallout game.  vancian is terrible, but is having such a nostalgia grip on folks that they see an obvious flaw as a strength.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

The issue here is not just whether Vancian is good or bad. It's also that the suggested replacement for it, full-blown per-encounter spellcasting, has already proven to be a pain in the ass - see PoE1 before Spell Mastery.

 

not a particular compelling argument.  poe 1 started with a vancian and per-encounter caster frankenstein system and then tried to add/subtract more per encounters to find a balance.  the cobbled-on per-encounter additions to an already broken vancian caster with excessive spell catalogs is hardly an accurate measure o' the viability o' per-encounter casters.  *chuckle*  what should be noted how is in spite o' the dedication to vancian casters in poe, the developers kept trying to add per encounter aspects to try improve/fixh the inherent problems o' vancian.  

 

again, poe is the exception.  vancian is anachronistic. is only a game such as poe where we even see this debate.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am not understanding the peculiar convoluted reasoning whereby every failure o' vancian is somehow seen as proof o' its greatness.  is not as if the developers attempted to improve ciphers by adding vancian. nevertheless, post release attempts to fix vancian by adding a per-encounter bandaid to the classes is somehow a condemnation o' per-encounter?  how does such make any sense?

Edited February 3, 2017 by Gromnir

[Silent Winter]

4. There are other factors that we are working into combat. Josh and I were just talking about the importance of longer cast times for certain abilities. This is something we are going to be working on. It will help to vary abilities and will allow for some really hard hitters. It also increases the usefulness of interrupting and magnifies risk vs reward in what ability you choose in moment to moment gameplay.

As much as this makes sense, I don't like super-long cast times (battle-speed in PoE1 was such that lengthy chants evocations (4-5) didn't get used much if at all as the battle was over already - summon drake to deal with the one ooze that's left).

The higher interrupt chance and risk-reward factor is good - but will there be abilities to help prevent interruption? - such as having Eder on guard-duty - taking all the hits for Aloth (perhaps at an increased defensive penalty) to protect him while he revs up his spell?  Something like that could be interesting and add to the team dynamic.

[Infinitron]

not a particular compelling argument.  poe 1 started with a vancian and per-encounter caster frankenstein system and then tried to add/subtract more per encounters to find a balance.  the cobbled-on per-encounter additions to an already broken vancian caster with excessive spell catalogs is hardly an accurate measure o' the viability o' per-encounter casters.  *chuckle*  what should be noted how is in spite o' the dedication to vancian casters in poe, the developers kept trying to add per encounter aspects to try improve/fixh the inherent problems o' vancian.  

 

 

again, poe is the exception.  vancian is anachronistic. is only a game such as poe where we even see this debate.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am not understanding the peculiar convoluted reasoning whereby every failure o' vancian is somehow seen as proof o' its greatness.  is not as if the developers attempted to improve ciphers by adding vancian. nevertheless, post release attempts to fix vancian by adding a per-encounter bandaid to the classes is somehow a condemnation o' per-encounter?  how does such make any sense?

 

 

Yes, yes, you keep bringing up how much you dislike Vancian, but the fact of the matter is that the only actual experience we have right now with per-encounter spellcasting in a PoE game is high level Wizards, Priests and Druids in pre-Spell Mastery PoE1, and it's not a great one. That's a compelling enough argument to me.

 

nevertheless, post release attempts to fix vancian by adding a per-encounter bandaid to the classes is somehow a condemnation o' per-encounter?  how does such make any sense?

 

 

Wait, do you even understand what I'm talking about. The post-release update removed (or greatly nerfed) the per-encounter bandaid.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Infinitron

[Blarghagh]

Josh explained the thinking behind these changes elsewhere: that some players insist on resting after every fight and trekking back and forth for more camping supplies, regardless of the tedium. In my view, sacrificing strategic resource management on that altar is rather too much. Why not just add a toggle for unlimited resting, or bake that into difficulty modes?

 

Can you explain to me how it's strategic? I've never understood this claim. It seems to me that the choice you refer to as tedious is the only choice you're making. It's convenience rather tactical. You ration your magic because the game gives you mind-numbing boredom if you don't, not because rationing it gives you a tactical edge anywhere because in practice, resting before every encounter always gives you the tactical edge. It's a punishment mechanic, not a tactics mechanic.

[Gromnir]

 

4. There are other factors that we are working into combat. Josh and I were just talking about the importance of longer cast times for certain abilities. This is something we are going to be working on. It will help to vary abilities and will allow for some really hard hitters. It also increases the usefulness of interrupting and magnifies risk vs reward in what ability you choose in moment to moment gameplay.

As much as this makes sense, I don't like super-long cast times (battle-speed in PoE1 was such that lengthy chants evocations (4-5) didn't get used much if at all as the battle was over already - summon drake to deal with the one ooze that's left).

 

that's the kinda trade-off being proposed though, yes? is more powerful, but takes longer, so why would you use your tactical nuke to deal with the single ooze? with per encounter, your are less likely to have exhausted all of your useful solitary ooze killing spells during your previous two encounters. 

 

 

not a particular compelling argument.  poe 1 started with a vancian and per-encounter caster frankenstein system and then tried to add/subtract more per encounters to find a balance.  the cobbled-on per-encounter additions to an already broken vancian caster with excessive spell catalogs is hardly an accurate measure o' the viability o' per-encounter casters.  *chuckle*  what should be noted how is in spite o' the dedication to vancian casters in poe, the developers kept trying to add per encounter aspects to try improve/fixh the inherent problems o' vancian.  

 

 

again, poe is the exception.  vancian is anachronistic. is only a game such as poe where we even see this debate.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am not understanding the peculiar convoluted reasoning whereby every failure o' vancian is somehow seen as proof o' its greatness.  is not as if the developers attempted to improve ciphers by adding vancian. nevertheless, post release attempts to fix vancian by adding a per-encounter bandaid to the classes is somehow a condemnation o' per-encounter?  how does such make any sense?

 

 

Yes, yes, you keep bringing up how much you dislike Vancian, but the fact of the matter is that the only actual experience we have right now with per-encounter spellcasting in a PoE game is high level Wizards, Priests and Druids in pre-Spell Mastery PoE1, and it's not a great one. That's a compelling enough argument to me.

 

yes, yes, you keep bringing up how much you like vancian, so am understanding why you see an attempt by the developers to fix broken poe vancian casters by adding per-encounter abilities would result in you finding a compelling argument for per-encounter fail rather than the more obvious conclusion.  nevertheless, the reasoning is baffling.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Infinitron]

[Gromnir]

oh and the following is complete untrue:

 

"but the fact of the matter is that the only actual experience we have right now with per-encounter spellcasting in a PoE game is high level Wizards, Priests and Druids in pre-Spell Mastery PoE1."

 

the post-release (post-release o' the game obviously) bandage o' spell mastery is not the only example o' per-encounter spell casting in poe. am sure you will realize your error.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[aluminiumtrioxid]

The thing I'm more worried about is the sheer number of tools per-encounter casting will give casters at higher level. A fighter - even a fighter purposefully built to rely on active abilities - usually has no more than 6-8 total uses of active abilities. With a level cap of 18 and presumably the introduction of 9th level spells, by the end of the game, casters can throw 9 abilities around per encounter at minimum, and up to 36 if the current system (4 uses of spells per level) holds. To me, that doesn't sound like a system that promotes carefully considered tactical decision-making, it sounds like a convoluted mess where I won't - and really, can't - use most of my abilities to their full extent.

Edited February 3, 2017 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Gromnir]

The thing I'm more worried about is the sheer number of tools per-encounter casting will give casters at higher level. A fighter - even a fighter purposefully built to rely on active abilities - usually has no more than 6-8 total uses of active abilities. With a level cap of 18 and presumably the introduction of 9th level spells, by the end of the game, casters can throw 9 abilities around per encounter at minimum, and up to 36 if the current system (4 uses of spells per level) holds. To me, that doesn't sound like a system that promotes carefully considered tactical decision-making, it sounds like a convoluted mess where I won't - and really, can't - use most of my abilities to their full extent.

is a pretty big "if," no?  and ciphers are current only bounded by their focus generation.  a current poe cipher can cast infinite spells if the encounter lasts long enough.  also, keep in mind you aren't actual using an actual encounter as an example. can you think o' any battle where you had the opportunity to cast spells 36 times?  

 

the tactical decision-making will, one hopes, be determined by the encounter design rather than how temporal remote you are from your last rest opportunity. 

 

HA! Good Fun!