Casting outside of Combat

[hilfazer]

I prefer having encounters balanced by designers with the knowledge that I have not cast a bunch of buffs. The fewer unknowns they have to consider, the better they can do their jobs.

 

There should also be an opportunity cost with these spells.

They cost you spell slots.

 

Pre buffing in Pillars would work better than in IE games for 2 (if not more) reasons:

1. You have less spell slots per rest, spending them on buffs is relatively more 'expensive'

2. Durations are much shorter than in D&D so casting all of your buffs before combat starts may not be the best idea.

[Varana]

I don't think 2) is a good way to balance this.

 

For long-lasting pre-buffs, you essentially go the BG2 Stoneskin way: First thing after resting is casting Stoneskin. (Or swap that for "upon entering an area with possible combat".) Once your Stoneskins are used up, you rest.

For short-duration buffs, you have a list of spells you cast. Every time. With maybe slight variations which of the Spell Immunities might be most useful.

Restricting the duration so much that the buff doesn't even last a few rounds, completely defeats the purpose of buffing before a fight. In that case, you can simply switch it off like PoE does.

 

With good autopause options, you can basically string spells together without missing a second in between. (Pause game, set to autopause on spell cast. Have your party start buffing. As soon as someone's done with their spell, the game pauses and you can order the next spell to be cast.) If you restrict the duration so much that casting only a few buffs per character has the first one run out already, you've successfully rendered your spell useless.

And you're not gaining much. If implemented in that way, you're basically designing everything around that just to have pre-buffing for the sake of having it. That's not worth the hassle.

[Churon127]

Second that motion!

[Abel]

I voted for yes. The main reason is that i feel it's unbelievably silly that you can cast a fireball when someone need to kill you but something prevents you to so when it's not the case. Like in "oh! i suddenly find the urge to cast a fireball, just because. Let me find someone who want to kill me in order to be allowed to do so". It's cringing as hell.

 

Sawyer seemed to forget a bit too often, while designing the game mechanics, that this game is meant to be a RPG. If my character feels like using a fireball outside of combat in order to start a barbecue in the forest, it should be up to him. Not restricted by dumbed game mechanics. Plus, i desperatly miss utility spells (even hardly usefull ones). Inside, and outside of combat.

 

I seem to remember that there were a third reason why this mechanic exists. And it's that it was a way to solve a nasty bug. Regarding save games i guess. Not sure anymore.

Edited March 25, 2017 by Abel

[rjshae]

n/m 

Edited March 25, 2017 by rjshae

[Guest Blutwurstritter]

I woudn't mind casting outside combat as long as it does not lead to prebuff orgies as in the infinity games. This was one reason why mages where so godamn powerfull later on and impossible to balance in BG2, the other reasons being spell sequencer and contingencies. Disabling casting outside of combat (and the lack of sequencers, contingencies) removed this completely which is more boon than bane in my opinion. As long as they don't reintroduce these aspects, casting outside of combat woudn't be a problem.  And as others noted before, the combat mechanics also improved since you have to find a balance between buffing and attacking with spells, although this is also connected to spell duration and not only to the ability to cast in or outside of combat.

[Varana]

That call for "realism" is also usually pretty one-sided in that it rarely takes into account that realistically, NPCs should be able to do the same stuff, as well. (PnP suffers from that problem, too.) Scouting out an enemy party and then throwing fireballs at them from afar sounds fun. Walking down the road and then have half your party wiped from within the fog of war without the option to actually detect them, less so. I mean, as a player you kind of expect combat mode to start when combat starts - that's what it's for. Having combat begin after an enemy party immobilised your guys via spells from the shadows defeats the point, in a way.

At least it's next to impossible to implement in a satisfying way without making that the central point of your gameplay, and then this becomes a very different game, with the focus on stealth and detection.

Game rules are abstractions to serve a certain goal. You can come close to free-for-all with basically story-telling PnP games because that is more or less entirely created by human intelligence, and nothing we know beats the human brain. For everything else, it's a game that is supposed to create fun via decisions guided by rules. Those restrict by definition. And for CRPGs, that's even more so because in those, the large majority of things have to be pre-planned. There is no flexibility in video games. Some may create the illusion by giving you a certain amount of tools and then have the world react to those options, and we may come closer to spontaneous gameplay by advances in artificial intelligence, but in the end, it's all about pre-programming stuff into the game, and what you didn't plan for ahead, doesn't happen.

Coming back to fireballs - the question is not whether I should realistically be able to throw fireballs at random but what does the specific game and ruleset require and which option helps the game more.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Because of the way Deadfire will be balanced with per encounter abilities, I'm in favor of no pre-buffing and utility magic being a scripted interaction thing. Though perhaps allow buffing when an enemy is sighted, so there are advantages to complete party stealth than first strike.

[Abel]

Because of the way Deadfire will be balanced with per encounter abilities, I'm in favor of no pre-buffing and utility magic being a scripted interaction thing. Though perhaps allow buffing when an enemy is sighted, so there are advantages to complete party stealth than first strike.

 

Looks like the topic has badly shifted. If i read the OP correctly, the poll was not about pre buffing. It was about magic outside combat. Don't tell me that one goes necessarily with the other. There are probably plenty other ways to prevent or limit abuses (granted that they are a problem in a single player game). And magic outside combat allows way more than just prebuffing.

 

I quoted you, but my post is not for anyone specifically. I just happen to have read this several times already.

Edited March 25, 2017 by Abel

[alsey]

4th option is good. Please for the love of all that is good, don't resurrect the prebuffing thing.

[Katarack21]

I wish like *hell* they'd bring back prebuffing. Seriously. But, here's the thing: I'd love the various types of stat, armor, and elemental buffs to come back.

But ****** the spell-level buffs. Having six spells all saying "Prevent six spells of three different spell levels" and having to cast them all at the right times in the right orders and then the special ones that only block certain types or schools of spells and then spells that don't get blocked at all and special blocker spells at high-levels that *only* block the spells that can't be blocked any other way and blah blah blah blah blah.....it's enough to drive one mad, if one weren't already quite mad.

[Ninjamestari]

If they just brought in mana, they could utilize concepts like upkeep-spells ^^

[HangedMan]

I'm not really a fan of pre-buffing, though I can understand why some people want it; and if they did implement pre-buffing, I would want the game balanced with the assumption that buffs are NOT used. In this way, people can, in their own way, set the difficulty of encounters. Try an encounter on its own; get wiped out? Try it again buffed out!

 

But I would like to see utility spells. I like the idea of, if I have a naturally stealthy character; why not give him a little 'performance enhancement' courtesy of the wizard, or even the priest? Of course, that's one less spell slot I'll have for when the fighting breaks out, but that's how choices and consequences work.

[Regggler]

If they just brought in mana, they could utilize concepts like upkeep-spells ^^

Don't need mana for this - upkeep could simply limit your number of spells per rest / per encounter.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Regggler

[Varana]

In this way, people can, in their own way, set the difficulty of encounters.

I can already see the wailing and gnashing of teeth of all those who complain about the game being too easy.

 

---

 

Yes, casting outside of combat doesn't necessarily mean pre-buffing; but it's a large part of it because it is the thing directly affecting combat, the most important activity in the game.

 

I for one could certainly live with distinguishing between combat-spells and non-combat-spells, meaninjg that you can cast certain spells only in combat, the others only outside of it. But I suspect that that's not going so well with the realism faction here.

[Dredd]

Yes -  As someone who played BG1 and 2 to death I found myself frustrated with the mechanic. In PoE would just look for a work around like casting fireball and as soon as the encounter started drinking all the potions and casting all the buffs I could anyways - pointless.

[firkraag888]

Look what the haste spell did in bg2.

 

Just got ridiculous to the point where if you weren't hasted all the time It didn't feel right.

 

Buffing before combat no thank you.

[Gregorovitch]

My view is PoE got this right and that the inability to prebuff is a huge improvement. Three main reasons:

 

1. Prebuffing is a godawful chore

2. Having to choose between buffs and decide cast order in-battle adds tactical depth and choice to the game

2. You either balance for a prebuffed party, in which case prebuffing is mandatory (and therefore pointless), or you don't in which case prebuffing is simply cheese.

 

I played Mask of the Betrayer again three years or so ago and it really brought home just how boring and pointless prebuffing is. [edit] Almost forgot, prebuffing in Tyranny was also a godawful chore and one of the seriously bad design decisions for that game - a step back.

 

Prebuff: RIP as far as I'm concerned.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Gregorovitch

[Amros]

I'd like to see utility spells and some protection/conjuration spells. i.e. I could cast invisibility on my scout to approach the enemy, see what I'm facing to, and take some minor advantage like drinking a potion of bulwark against the elements or summon a few monsters with any figurine.

 

I think this doesn't break balance for anyone and gives a slight edge to who takes a more tactical approach.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Amros

[Abel]

Look what the haste spell did in bg2.

 

Just got ridiculous to the point where if you weren't hasted all the time It didn't feel right.

 

Buffing before combat no thank you.

 

I barely ever used Haste. The reason is that my characters would be tired afterwards. Which is a bad thing, unless you love to spam rest. Actually the spam rest problem is linked to the pre buffing one. If you can't spam rest and still mean to use half your spells for pre buffing for each single combat, you'll have a hard time. I used some pre buff for battle against Kangaxx or Firkraag in BG2, but aside of this, one blessing spell here and there and that's it (and that's the reason why i used to have 2 priests in the party, which ended up being really usefull while playing like this. Especially their healing spells outside combat). People like me who will hardly ever use the rest feature outside of an inn have no problem with pre buffing. It's all about power gamers' bad habits, i guess. So, if you're complaining about pre buffing the way you do here, i think i kind of understand where you come from.

 

I feel the "tired" status could simply be used to determine when you can rest. Since it's pretty hard to have 8 hours worth of good sleep when you woke up 2 hours ago, it would make sense that your characters would not be able to rest unless they have walked for 6 hours in the wilds, or unless it's night time.

 

As for the combat being the most important part of the game... While i won't deny that there are quite a lot in Pillars, i don't feel that it's the most important thing in the game. At least, for me. But anyway, magic outside of combat could bring a lot more than pre buffing. Especially with imaginative game designers.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Abel

[Varana]

We had a really, really long discussion about resting in its own thread, and that is not an easy topic.

Resting is a thing that the game allows me to do. Doing it is no more "power gaming" than, hmm, buffing.

And if the game doesn't allow resting for some time but I want to because some important battle is coming up, I'll make me some tea while the ingame hours run by.

But as I said, that was talked about quite in-depth elsewhere.

[Abel]

We had a really, really long discussion about resting in its own thread, and that is not an easy topic.

Resting is a thing that the game allows me to do. Doing it is no more "power gaming" than, hmm, buffing.

And if the game doesn't allow resting for some time but I want to because some important battle is coming up, I'll make me some tea while the ingame hours run by.

But as I said, that was talked about quite in-depth elsewhere.

 

The only thing i said is that i don't think you can discuss the topic of pre buffing while ignoring the problem of spam rest. Some here really *want* to discuss pre buffing, while i'm pretty sure there are countless threads about it in Pillars 1 forums already. Do i really need to urge all these people to look once more to the poll as a *whole* ? The thread's name is "Casting outside combat", not "Do you want pre buffing back?" Just because pre buffing is a thing for you does not mean that this is all there is about casting outside combat. You keep bringing the same thing without even trying to imagine what "casting outside combat" could mean with a creative approach. While you seem to urge me to stay on topic, i feel the urge to do the same for you. Though, i said this twice already, and probably won't bother to do so thrice.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Abel

[Katarack21]

 

We had a really, really long discussion about resting in its own thread, and that is not an easy topic.

Resting is a thing that the game allows me to do. Doing it is no more "power gaming" than, hmm, buffing.

And if the game doesn't allow resting for some time but I want to because some important battle is coming up, I'll make me some tea while the ingame hours run by.

But as I said, that was talked about quite in-depth elsewhere.

 

The only thing i said is that i don't think you can discuss the topic of pre buffing while ignoring the problem of spam rest.

 

Whether or not it's even defined as a problem is the reason that other thread went on for 9 pages.

[firkraag888]

I can understand why this poll is being run but it is not going to come within a bulls roar of convincing the devs to re-introduce pre-buffing.

 

They have already stated there opinion on this and rightly so.

 

Pre- buffing makes the game far less real eg just creep up on the fog of war or re-load a save from where you died last time so you can hide out of site and buff yourself then enter combat..

 

I mean cmon really?

 

The pillars team are trying to move forward from stuff like that and create more of a seamless experience. If you could prebuff you would just keep reloading saves right before a encounter and then buff your way out of it.

 

This poll is going no where and rightly so.

[Ninjamestari]

 

If they just brought in mana, they could utilize concepts like upkeep-spells ^^

Don't need mana for this - upkeep could simply limit your number of spells per rest / per encounter.

 

 

SHHHH! not so loud, everyone will hear. I want to get a mana system