Mages.

[molotov.]

 

Spells outside of combat should be implemented for all classes, but I don't think that giving the wizard every single type of spell - like the OP is proposing - would make any sense, it would just turn all of the others characters obsolete.

 

The OP never said that.  Stop putting words into people's mouths.

 

 

What about rogues and fighters? They desperately need more attention from the team, not this unbalanced, overpowered, silly, and illogical class that is the wizard. 

 

Kind of weird to compare classes like Rogues and fighters to a class that is meant to have a variety of spells.  =\

 

"The gameplay received a lot of attention towards class balance, even if it's exclusively a single-player experience. And so, the mage archetype was a lot simplified in my opinion and was restricted to a fireworks cannon. This time classes seem to be less restrictive and "locked". Well why not.

 

But will mages have invocations? Transmutations ? Can they transform themselves into pink rabbits? Others? Will they be able to transform a pink rabbit into an angry internet forumer? A pink forumer into an internet rabbit, maybe? .... or is it just about spamming fire/ice/sparks/stinky balls?" Quote from the FIRST comment of the OP, he clearly stated that he wanted more spells. Spells that the other classes already have. =\

One more example of his desire for more spells: "You could invoke a dancing sword duelling with your enemies, make a door appear out of thin air that teleported you in another place, you could transform into a dragon!

Invocations were not limited to elementals and shades, but Ogres, djinns and devils. You could call the haunting spirits of a place to demand informations about your surroundings.

You could charm your oponents and then talk to them, you could even ****ing stop the time." Now, tell me, if the wizard can summon, buff, stop time, charm enemies, make a door appear, why would I need a chanter or a cipher? Geez... we need to explain every little detail...

I'm not comparing the spells of each class, I'm comparing the attention that the designer have towards the classes, let me explain that to you: if the team decides to make a bunch of new spells for the wizard - like the OP wants - they will give a lot of attention and resources towards the wizard, but others classes like the fighter and rogue - which was arguably the weakest class in the game - need more of that attention and resources than the wizard, now... did you understand or I'll need to make a graph?

Edited March 9, 2017 by molotov.

[Bill Gates' Son]

 

I'm not comparing the spells of each class, I'm comparing the attention that the designer have towards the classes, let me explain that to you: if the team decides to make a bunch of new spells for the wizard - like the OP wants - they will give a lot of attention and resources towards the wizard, but others classes like the fighter and rogue - which was arguably the weakest class in the game - need more of that attention and resources than the wizard, now... did you understand or I'll need to make a graph?

 

 

The fact that you think Rogues and Fighters are bad (when they're clearly not) makes your whole argument meaningless to me, so I guess I'll stop talking here.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Bill Gates' Son

[molotov.]

 

 

I'm not comparing the spells of each class, I'm comparing the attention that the designer have towards the classes, let me explain that to you: if the team decides to make a bunch of new spells for the wizard - like the OP wants - they will give a lot of attention and resources towards the wizard, but others classes like the fighter and rogue - which was arguably the weakest class in the game - need more of that attention and resources than the wizard, now... did you understand or I'll need to make a graph?

 

 

The fact that you think Rogues and Fighters are bad (when they're clearly not) makes your whole argument meaningless to me, so I guess I'll stop talking here.

 

Interesting... it seems that you are the one putting words in my mouth... Where did I said they were bad? Please quote where I said that specific. My PC and favourite class in the game is Fighter, but the abilities had little to no animations - Josh explained the reason for that in his latest Q&A-, so to give a proper animation for the skills they need more attention - logic! IMO fighters are the best tank in the game.

Now, rogues, I never played with them until my last playthrought and I have to say that they are strong - my favourite was a semi tank build -, but why use a rogue if you can have a ranger or barbarian? What the rogue brings to the table that a ranger and barbarian don't? The rogue class lacked "personality", the stealth system wasn't robust enough to give the rogue any proper usage for it, that is why I think that the rogue need more attention, and that is why I said it was the weakest class.

 

"so I guess I'll stop talking here."so... you are leaving before reading any proper argument of my part to feel like a victory? That is a bit silly.

 

Funny that you didn't adressed my first comment, I don't know if you didn't read that or you just don't have a response...

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Wizards are arguably the most versatile of all the casters in PoE, they may be limited to preparing a few spells but they get access to a lot of useful stuff. I'm not quite sure what else you want, besides maybe more out of combat spells/abilities.

 

And Rogues were the worst class in the game besides maybe Chanter, completely outshined by Ciphers and Rangers for damage while being comparatively more vulnerable.

[rjshae]

And Rogues were the worst class in the game besides maybe Chanter, completely outshined by Ciphers and Rangers for damage while being comparatively more vulnerable.

 

Really? That wasn't my experience; my rogue PC kicked butt. Maybe they've been "rebalanced" since then?

[Baron Pampa]

This discussion is going off the rails. I have few postulates:

-Let's expand it to all caster classes, not only wizards
-Let's put aside our sentiments or resentments towards D&D reality-bending mages and priests
-Let's focus on question:
"How can magic feel more magical without hurting game's design goals or enjoyment flowing from game?"

Giving the wizard ability to do anything he wishes(as high-level D&D wizards used to) might make a fun game with nice atmosphere (BG II anyone?), but is obviously against the spirit of PoE. However, while I wouldn't like to twist commisar's thought*, I don't think he meant we should create overpowered wizards making all classes redundant. The point is to make classes more atmospheric, unique and wild. Just think of the difference between "You can teleport to a chosen point" and "The wizard summons a door out of thin air, and then walk through it to reappear at a chosen point". Then think of animations of a wizard teleporting some random way, and animation of wizard conjuring the door and crossing it. From a mechanichal perspective, it's the same. Which one appeals to the imagination stronger?
It's not about combat and balance. It's about flavour.

*or would I...?

P.S. I think that PoE1 did very well on distinguishing that many classes, but due to it's scale it lacked small kinds of reactivity in dialogues in interactions. Again, White March did much better in that regard
P.S.2 Chanter's phrases and invocations names are phenomenal

Edited March 9, 2017 by Baron Pampa

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

And Rogues were the worst class in the game besides maybe Chanter, completely outshined by Ciphers and Rangers for damage while being comparatively more vulnerable.

 

 

Really? That wasn't my experience; my rogue PC kicked butt. Maybe they've been "rebalanced" since then?

Yes. Rangers can out DPS them with the benefit of range while Ciphers have several powers that give them the edge. That's not to say the PoE rogue is at the level of the BG Beastmaster or single class thief, but compared to other classes it definitely falls behind. Comparitively Chanters are bad because by the time they can pull out an invocation the fight is mostly over, unless it's a boss or PotD.

[draego]

 

 

And Rogues were the worst class in the game besides maybe Chanter, completely outshined by Ciphers and Rangers for damage while being comparatively more vulnerable.

 

Really? That wasn't my experience; my rogue PC kicked butt. Maybe they've been "rebalanced" since then?

Yes. Rangers can out DPS them with the benefit of range while Ciphers have several powers that give them the edge. That's not to say the PoE rogue is at the level of the BG Beastmaster or single class thief, but compared to other classes it definitely falls behind. Comparitively Chanters are bad because by the time they can pull out an invocation the fight is mostly over, unless it's a boss or PotD.

 

 

If you talking about damage then chanters are one of the best in the game. Not sure what you are trying to compare here. Check out Boeroer's Drake's Ambassador

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

And Rogues were the worst class in the game besides maybe Chanter, completely outshined by Ciphers and Rangers for damage while being comparatively more vulnerable.

 

Really? That wasn't my experience; my rogue PC kicked butt. Maybe they've been "rebalanced" since then?

 

Yes. Rangers can out DPS them with the benefit of range while Ciphers have several powers that give them the edge. That's not to say the PoE rogue is at the level of the BG Beastmaster or single class thief, but compared to other classes it definitely falls behind. Comparitively Chanters are bad because by the time they can pull out an invocation the fight is mostly over, unless it's a boss or PotD.

 

 

If you talking about damage then chanters are one of the best in the game. Not sure what you are trying to compare here. Check out Boeroer's Drake's Ambassador

 

I clearly expressed the issue with Chanters is that most fights(outside of PotD) are over before they can use their invocations, which means that for most fights they're a basic attack who provides decent buffs to the party. Not bad in itself, but compared to what other classes bring it's hard to justify a Chanter over pretty much anything else outside of bosses or when playing on PotD.

[FacesOfMu]

Anything that helps the Wizard class be more of a spellcaster and less of an elementalist is good flavouring in my opinion. Compared to many other titles out in the last few years Obsidian is leading the pack and deserves awards and accolades for their class crafting for the Wizards and their magic systems. I'm all in favour of adding more non-combat utility and expression of the Wizard, and encouraging the Wizard to be a battlefield tactician and commander when it comes to combat options.

[JFSOCC]

This discussion is going off the rails. I have few postulates:

 

-Let's expand it to all caster classes, not only wizards

-Let's put aside our sentiments or resentments towards D&D reality-bending mages and priests

-Let's focus on question:

"How can magic feel more magical without hurting game's design goals or enjoyment flowing from game?"

 

I've always avoided playing caster classes, for several reasons, one of which is the "they can do anything another class can, but often times better" feel

I think however, reading the OP, that the desire is to make the casters feel more like toolbox characters, more versatility.

Having spells only be accessible in combat detracts from the fantasy of having a character that can deal (potentially) with any problem anywhere.

 

Perhaps having contextual casting options can solve the "cast anywhere" game breaking potential while introducing out of combat utility for spells.

These contextual clues would be hidden unless the PC or Companion Character has the relevant spell in their repertoire.

 

See unlit torches? if you have a flame spell, they can be lit using it. (with a nice animation to show your pc casting a flame travelling past all torches nearby)

If you see a glint in a ceiling, perhaps an earthquake spell will make the chandelier fall, a shatter spell might do the same, etc.

[1varangian]

I hope they hide the spellbook from the character models this time. Carrying a massive tome in combat just looks silly.

 

And let Wizards have the ranged attack as a class ability instead of forcing them to carry a wand/rod/scepter. These "implements" aren't a big deal for the class anyway save for maybe blast, and they can be used by any class so they don't feel all that special. I don't understand why Wizards should be forced to carry a stick instead of a traditional staff or sword anyway.

[injurai]

I liked the wizards. If they could make them feel more esoteric, I'd love that. But the truth is I don't know what I want and I'd rather be surprised anyways.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I hope they hide the spellbook from the character models this time. Carrying a massive tome in combat just looks silly.

 

And let Wizards have the ranged attack as a class ability instead of forcing them to carry a wand/rod/scepter. These "implements" aren't a big deal for the class anyway save for maybe blast, and they can be used by any class so they don't feel all that special. I don't understand why Wizards should be forced to carry a stick instead of a traditional staff or sword anyway.

They aren't forced, it's just common because blast and 2-types of damage are mechanically great. Parasitic staff is really good and a spellsword using Steadfast would be good as well.

[zimcub]

Wizards are arguably the most versatile of all the casters in PoE, they may be limited to preparing a few spells but they get access to a lot of useful stuff. I'm not quite sure what else you want, besides maybe more out of combat spells/abilities.

 

No they arent. Druids are by a mile.

[Ninjamestari]

I hope they go at least a bit crazy on the utility side; teleporting, creating temporary walls, magical darkness was always an interesting concept, maybe even flight or levitation if they go really crazy and can come up with a way to achieve that in a visually pleasing manner in their engine.

[1varangian]

 

I hope they hide the spellbook from the character models this time. Carrying a massive tome in combat just looks silly.

 

And let Wizards have the ranged attack as a class ability instead of forcing them to carry a wand/rod/scepter. These "implements" aren't a big deal for the class anyway save for maybe blast, and they can be used by any class so they don't feel all that special. I don't understand why Wizards should be forced to carry a stick instead of a traditional staff or sword anyway.

They aren't forced, it's just common because blast and 2-types of damage are mechanically great. Parasitic staff is really good and a spellsword using Steadfast would be good as well.

 

That's the whole point, getting Blast without having to wield a sissy wand.

[Boeroer]

Using what? Your clipped-off fingernails? Your spit?

 

Wizards already have Arcane Assault 2/encounter which is a very powerful attack given that it's raw damage and you have it from lvl 1 on. 

 

It's totally fair that wizards have to use an implement in order to profit from blast. But it has benefits, too. Because all spell chances (Golden Gaze's Expose Vulnerabilites for example) or on-crit effects (stunning, overbearing) carry over to the Blast's AoE. The chance to proc a spell chance is very high with Blast because you will hit multiple enemies with one shot. Without an implement you couldn't profit from that. It would just be a weak ranged AoE attack that would be of no use in the mid to late game.

 

It doesn't sound like you want wizards to get nerfed, so maybe you didn't think through your logical chain of reasoning.

 

Giving wizards Blast for every ranged weapon would make them the superior ranger - so that's not an option.

 

I agree that the grimoire looks kind of stupid with certain setups. Dual wielding or using two handers (except implements) will remove the grimoire, but one handed setups look kind of silly if you are wielding a mace and a book. Or another example: I'm playing a wizard with Novice's Suffering at the moment (quite nice with high MIG + Citzal's Martial Power) and instead of using two fists he punches with one fist and one grimoire...   I mean I also use Grimoire Slam with this guy (first time I ever use this - actually it's not that bad with high MIG + Citzal's Martial Power, too - same as Arcane Assault - high base damage + high MIG and crits lead to high damage numbers) and there it's ok of course - but watching your burly wizard (in hide armor) punching enemies with his book all the time seems a bit weird. Like a granny slapping a thief with her handbag.

 

A simple option to switch off grimoire display would be nice. Like they are doing with helmets.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Boeroer

[1varangian]

Using what? Your clipped-off fingernails? Your spit?

 

Wizards already have Arcane Assault 2/encounter which is a very powerful attack given that it's raw damage and you have it from lvl 1 on. 

 

It's totally fair that wizards have to use an implement in order to profit from blast. But it has benefits, too. Because all spell chances (Golden Gaze's Expose Vulnerabilites for example) or on-crit effects (stunning, overbearing) carry over to the Blast's AoE. The chance to proc a spell chance is very high with Blast because you will hit multiple enemies with one shot. Without an implement you couldn't profit from that. It would just be a weak ranged AoE attack that would be of no use in the mid to late game.

 

It doesn't sound like you want wizards to get nerfed, so maybe you didn't think through your logical chain of reasoning.

 

Giving wizards Blast for every ranged weapon would make them the superior ranger - so that's not an option.

 

I agree that the grimoire looks kind of stupid with certain setups. Dual wielding or using two handers (except implements) will remove the grimoire, but one handed setups look kind of silly if you are wielding a mace and a book. Or another example: I'm playing a wizard with Novice's Suffering at the moment (quite nice with high MIG + Citzal's Martial Power) and instead of using two fists he punches with one fist and one grimoire...   I mean I also use Grimoire Slam with this guy (first time I ever use this - actually it's not that bad with high MIG + Citzal's Martial Power, too - same as Arcane Assault - high base damage + high MIG and crits lead to high damage numbers) and there it's ok of course - but watching your burly wizard (in hide armor) punching enemies with his book all the time seems a bit weird. Like a granny slapping a thief with her handbag.

 

A simple option to switch off grimoire display would be nice. Like they are doing with helmets.

I mean separating Blast from ranged weapons completely so the class isn't railroaded into a stick and book wielding stereotype.

 

I would also combine Blast and Arcane Assault into one ability that would cost Endurance to use. An unlimited use with a cost would turn it into a tactical choice instead of always using exactly two Arcane Assaults in every single fight. Same goes for basically all per encounter abilities.

[Boeroer]

I mean separating Blast from ranged weapons completely so the class isn't railroaded into a stick and book wielding stereotype.

I addressed that, too - and showed why it's not a good idea. It would have to scale in order to be of any use later in the game and it would also be boring because you can't alter it in any way. With implements you can determine how you blast works to a certain degreee and that adds options which is always good.

 

The class of wizard is by no means railroaded. It's one of the most versatile classes in the game. Just because there are two talents around implements doesn't mean you have to take them. Not taking them doesn't gimp your wizard. They just turn him into a unique implement user like a ranger's Twinned Arrows make him a unique bow user. I guess you don't want to take away Twinned Arrows from the ranger because it railroads him into bow usage?

 

 

 

I would also combine Blast and Arcane Assault into one ability that would cost Endurance to use. An unlimited use with a cost would turn it into a tactical choice instead of always using exactly two Arcane Assaults in every single fight. Same goes for basically all per encounter abilities.

That is an approach that wouldn't work well - because constant healing would allow you to abuse this system. Without any health mechanic left there is no limit to your endurace as long as you can heal. So you would have a ton of uses per encounter as long as you have some sort of healing - which would break the game.

You would have to detach endurance from "hit points" in order to make this work - and that would be the same as a mana pool (named endurance). PoE and PoE2's base restriction of usage is per encounter or per rest - and also some limited resources like phrases, wounds or focus which can be refilled in combat. And there are no cooldowns (which I am very thankful for because cooldowns are an awful mechanic - look at Tyranny). So far PoE's resource system works quite well after all those patches.  

 

 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2017 by Boeroer

[1varangian]

 

I mean separating Blast from ranged weapons completely so the class isn't railroaded into a stick and book wielding stereotype.

I addressed that, too - and showed why it's not a good idea.

 

Because the current implements have secondary effects that carry over to Blast?

 

Let's say Wizards get an innate magical ranged attack with a Blast option. The same implements can still exist and modify this attack just the same. In fact, that's how they should design implements in the first place - to amplify certain types of magic and boost the wizards abilities. Right now the "implements" are basically ranged weapons available to any class and they don't feel at all special or magical. Equipping an "Exceptional Rod" feels the same as equipping a bow. If you call them implements they must always have properties that are relevant to spellcasting.

 

And the implements should come in the form of books, staffs, orbs... not just little sticks.

[Boeroer]

Right now the "implements" are basically ranged weapons available to any class and they don't feel at all special[...]

Same goes for rangers with bows. Rangers can do more stuff with bows than other classes while wizards can do more stuff with implements than other classes. Where's the problem?

If OBS would have also invented some mechanic around backstab being better with concealable weapons like daggers and stilettos then rogues could do more stuff wth daggers than other classes (sadly, OBS didn't do this so backstab is best with a two hander...  ).

 

I can't see why this is generally a bad thing.

 

And the implements should come in the form of books, staffs, orbs... not just little sticks.

That, on the other hand, is a nice idea.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Boeroer

[1varangian]

Wizards can do exactly one thing with implements. And even that is a passive AoE ability. 

 

I'm not at all opposed to Wizards using implements but the way PoE did it feels restrictive, unnecessary and unfinished.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Why do wizards need to do more with implements? Spells are their main thing after all.

[Regggler]

 but watching your burly wizard (in hide armor) punching enemies with his book all the time seems a bit weird. Like a granny slapping a thief with her handbag.

 

I gotta say, that sounds pretty damn hilarious. I agree though, it's probably only funny for the first fight, then gets annoying quickly.