Casting outside of Combat

[Ninjamestari]

You just have to really careful that the magic solution doesn't take the spotlight away from more mundane characters that have that particular thing as their main focus.

Spells that open locked doors are fine as long as the wizard sacrifices as much skill points, hit points, or whatnot to use them, as a rogue does. Using a wizard as as rogue is good; using him as rogue plus various other things that eclipse the role a rogue could play, is not.

It's not impossible to do, it's just not easy to balance these utility spells plus combat abilities in order to make all classes useful.

It's not *hard* to balance those things. There are variables you can track, like the ones you mentioned, that can be used to make sure that a wizard isn't just all other classes put together + more powerful. For example, if you have "lockpicking" as a separate skill, then you don't have to make a spell that simply opens locks, you can have a spell that lets you attempt lockpicking without having an actual lockpick, which can work fine in a game where lockpicks are a limited resource. To be honest, the things you are worried about are not caused by magic systems and wizards, but are actually just a side effect of rigid class-based systems. For example, what's the point of having a rogue if you can just bash open all the doors and containers?

 

I understand that magic makes you uneasy and you're afraid of wizards too easily becoming too powerful, but your fears are misplaced, as that same risk applies to every single class. Magic and Wizards aren't 'special' in this regard.

[Silent Winter]

In BG, wizards could open locks and become invisible - but I don't think they could disarm traps (summoned monsters could set them off in one version, but I think BG2 stopped that).  Wizards could also eclipse fighters for tanking and damage.  They were weak at the start but became OP by the end.  But each class could be built to be powerful.  A thief with UAI and spike-traps could do a ton of damage and stay invisible almost all the time (with staff of the magi).

 

In NWN2, wizards' 'find traps' could disarm traps too.  So the rogue was always left behind in the OC for me because I had to take the enforced members.

 

The trick might be in making interesting spells, but also making other classes interesting too.  Rather than saying that the other classes must be static so the wizards can't get more spells.

 

Having utility spells that are special to a wizard, then having rogue-skills that are special to a rogue (like the reverse pick-pocketing - but I'm not sure if that's a skill all classes can take) might be the way to go.  Fighters can have fighter skills that make them special, etc.

 

PoE was great for me in terms of making each class feel special.  The sub-classes proposed for PoE2 sound even better in that regard.

 

A utility wizard could be an interesting idea.

[zimcub]

I think wizard felt too powerful because of the rest system in BG, where you could get them back to max power with resting non stop. I think it's fine if you have some classes that are meant to be able to go from battle to battle without their power dropping, like fighters/rogues/rangers and then have some that are better for single encounters. It brings variety to classes at least, as opposed to everyone just spamming their per encounter ability, every chance they get.

I imagine wizards now having per encounter spells is going to be as much of a headache as having several ciphers in your party. I'm guessing this is the reason they dropped the party down to 5. You need some classes that are low management so you can focus on classes that have a lot of utility. It's a party based game. So what if every class doesn't have something to spam each encounter.

 

As for Wizard's being utility focused....Didn't Sawyer already said that wizard were suppose to be the jack of all trades in PoE1?

They just didn't meet that goal.

 

Ninjamestari made a really interesting point regarding the simplicity of spells. I think the spells in PoE were very complex regarding trying to figure out how much they would benefit you in combat. Doing calculations for each enemy was a headache with nothing much to show for. You would achieve a similar result with flat out % increase in terms of buffs and debuffs. I still have no idea if the mirrored image spell is good or not. +30 deflection? How much will that benefit my wizard with 60% stamina? The BG version was much simpler to understand.

Edited April 2, 2017 by zimcub

[PizzaSHARK]

I think wizard felt too powerful because of the rest system in BG, where you could get them back to max power with resting non stop. I think it's fine if you have some classes that are meant to be able to go from battle to battle without their power dropping, like fighters/rogues/rangers and then have some that are better for single encounters. It brings variety to classes at least, as opposed to everyone just spamming their per encounter ability, every chance they get.

I imagine wizards now having per encounter spells is going to be as much of a headache as having several ciphers in your party. I'm guessing this is the reason they dropped the party down to 5. You need some classes that are low management so you can focus on classes that have a lot of utility. It's a party based game. So what if every class doesn't have something to spam each encounter.

 

As for Wizard's being utility focused....Didn't Sawyer already said that wizard were suppose to be the jack of all trades in PoE1?

They just didn't meet that goal.

 

Ninjamestari made a really interesting point regarding the simplicity of spells. I think the spells in PoE were very complex regarding trying to figure out how much they would benefit you in combat. Doing calculations for each enemy was a headache with nothing much to show for. You would achieve a similar result with flat out % increase in terms of buffs and debuffs. I still have no idea if the mirrored image spell is good or not. +30 deflection? How much will that benefit my wizard with 60% stamina? The BG version was much simpler to understand.

 

For Pillars 2, they really just need to copy Pathfinder mechanics and just have Mirror Image, Displaced Image, etc the typical "one in X% chance of missing" function.  I think that's what the current large Def bonus is intended to emulate, but it doesn't.  Don't give them a Def bonus, just change it so that a hit has a chance of failing, and consuming an image in the process.  Weaker effects could simply convert hits to grazes, and so on.  I feel like Pillars in numerous areas is two steps forward, three steps back (or two forward and two back.)  They were trying to fix things that, IMO, weren't broken to begin with.

 

In regards to the overall topic - I think casting should be allowed out of combat, and they should delineate between powerful in-combat buffs with short durations and weaker buffs or utility-oriented buffs with long durations.  In particular, I think long-duration buffs should generally be single-target (or caster-only, such as Pillar's version of Mage Armor, Spirit Shield) or through consumables (scrolls, food, etc.)  I'd also start giving spellcasters Spell Mastery MUCH earlier, since almost all spellcasters are extremely heavily penalized on base stats in exchange for having a number of generally powerful per-rest abilities.

 

This ties into a larger problem with Pillars being absolutely horrible at telling players what buffs do and don't stack, and HOW they stack.  They need to take a page from Pathfinder and list bonuses as a specific TYPE of bonus, and then say whether or not that TYPE of bonus stacks with others of the type (or if they just override each other.)  For example, in Pathfinder affecting your Armor Class, you might have:

 

- Armor Bonus, generally from worn armor or spells like Mage Armor; does not stack

 

- Circumstance Bonus, generally from specific circumstances (I have the high ground, Anakin!); stacks, except for the same source (you don't get two "high ground" bonuses, this is usually GM discretion)

 

 

- Deflection Bonus, from a myriad of sources such as a Ring of Protection; does not stack

 

- Dexterity Bonus, from your Dexterity modifier; "stacks" in the sense that increases to your Dexterity also increase this bonus (but worn armor can impose a maximum)

 

- Dodge Bonus, from a myriad of sources (most often feats or class abilities); stacks

 

- Enhancement Bonus, typically from magically enhanced armor (Chainmail +1, Mithral Full Plate +2, etc); does not stack on the same source (a +1 on your suit of armor and a +1 on your shield will stack, but not if you were wearing a +1 on some padded armor underneath your +1 plate armor)

 

- Shield Bonus, typically from a worn shield or a spell like Shield; does not stack

 

- Luck, Insight, Morale, Natural (creature with a thick hide or scales, like a dragon or golem), Sacred/Profane (good/bad juju respectively); none of them stack with like

 

It's important to note that all effects stack with other sources, though.  So your AC bonus from your leather armor will stack with your buckler's bonus, and they also stack with your Deflection bonus from a feat.

 

It seems confusing, and to an extent it can be, but it's important because once the player learns the various categories, they don't have to ask "will this stack?"  If you already receive a Luck bonus from a racial trait or feat, you already know that a spell that gives you a Luck bonus of equal or lesser value is effectively useless for you.

 

Pillars' system already works fine, the problem is they don't have any of it categorized so that's why posts asking "why doesn't this stack" or "what's going on here?" are so damn common.

[Lord_Mord]

But as you know it doesn't really lead to simplicity; a chaotic code is a mess because it is complicated. What I mean with simplicity is that the core system, the core systems should be simple.

 

It's hard to argue with what you said. OK, a mana system is interesting, too. Now I'm even interested in playing a game that uses such a system to it's full extend. In fact I agree with you in every point but the one I cited above.

 

A core system does not necessarily have to be as simple as possible it has to be designed as simple as possible. It all depends on what you are achieving. If for example your goal is to create a Vancian system, well then that is the system of your choice. You don't choose it the same way you would choose your graphics engine, you choose it just because you want to. If you wanted to create a card game, you wouldn't say: I want it to be like poker, because poker is simple. You might say something like: I want to create the most complex card game in history and it should be something like bridge, just because I like bridge and my players like it too.

 

Now if you've chosen your system you come to the hard part: How can I get this complex bitch of a system under control? Now your math comes in. You want to design your system in a way that is easily understandable for your players and easily balancable for your programmers. That is hard work but you shouldn't change your design goals to make it easier for you.

 

 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Lord_Mord

[Ninjamestari]

A core system does not necessarily have to be as simple as possible it has to be designed as simple as possible. It all depends on what you are achieving. If for example your goal is to create a Vancian system, well then that is the system of your choice. You don't choose it the same way you would choose your graphics engine, you choose it just because you want to. If you wanted to create a card game, you wouldn't say: I want it to be like poker, because poker is simple. You might say something like: I want to create the most complex card game in history and it should be something like bridge, just because I like bridge and my players like it too.

 

A minor distinction, but admittedly an important one. I'm glad you emphasize the importance of the context of the overall goal because it really can't be emphasized enough. A coherent goal is what is used to define 'good' and 'bad'; without a coherent goal those words have no context and no meaning. So in essence, the "best" solution is the simplest solution that achieves all the goals it is set to achieve (stuff like flexibility, scalability, style etc.) If the goal is to make a vancian system, then doing a non-vancian system really isn't an option, but if the system is still undecided, there are objective factors that can be considered to see what kind of system best achieves the other goals that have been specified.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the better you understand your goals, the better you can define the merits and flaws of individual design options, and a simple code that does the exact same thing as a complicated code is just a superior code. Simpler is better as long as it does everything it needs to do.

[Lord_Mord]

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the better you understand your goals, the better you can define the merits and flaws of individual design options

 

I think part of the problem with Pillars mages is, that Obsidian is kind of unsure what the goal here is. Its no secret that Josh does not like the Vancian system, but on the other hand wants to provide one, just because a lot of people want it. In my opinion the outcome is already a bit half baked and while reading the stuff about enforcement I get the impression that it wont get better. They should finally decide wether they want it or not. A half assed vancian system is worth nothing.

 

 

 

My personal solution would be the most hardcore one. Programmers would hate it.

 

Every class would have it's own system and the goal is to make them as distinct as possible while keeping them balanced. That means: If mages are vancian, they are 100% vancian. No compromises.

 

In my game mages for example would work like BG mages. Ciphers, monks and priests could stay the same. Druids could work something like current Pillars mages with per encounter spells and enforcement. Fighters would have cooldowns, while Paladins would have per encounter ablities and so on and so on. Classes would not share spells. If for example you have more than one class that could summon, summons would work totally different for those two classes. (The chanter makes combat-only chants that are more powerful but get destroyed after the fight, while that mage can create weak minions that actually come to life until they die, the druid calls creatures from the forest that stay as long as the druid upkeeps the spell...)

 

That system would be complex as hell, the more complex, the more I would love it. One would have to find ways to balance that, like an underlying mana-like logic and conversion tables to keep track of the value and cost of all abilites.

[Ninjamestari]

I think part of the problem with Pillars mages is, that Obsidian is kind of unsure what the goal here is. Its no secret that Josh does not like the Vancian system, but on the other hand wants to provide one, just because a lot of people want it. In my opinion the outcome is already a bit half baked and while reading the stuff about enforcement I get the impression that it wont get better. They should finally decide wether they want it or not. A half assed vancian system is worth nothing.

 

This here I agree with 100%.

I think I even spoke about Obsidian's indecisiveness causing many of the problems in Pillars, not just the mages, in another thread.

 

As far as the system you're proposing, I think you might better get to what you want by starting out with a simple system and building around it, instead of starting at the complex level and then trying to get all work together seamlessly. I like the idea of different classes having different systems governing the way their abilities work, but instead of arbitrarily deciding things like "fighters use cooldowns and paladins have per-encounter", one should start from the very basics of the class fantasy: how does a paladin gain their powers? How does a paladin use their powers? Do they call upon an energy source, or are their abilities simply a manifestation of their convictions? If the former, how does that energy source function, if the latter, is their conviction a constant upon the battlefield or do they struggle with it etc etc. If you work through that kind of a process you can achieve a system for every class that is both unique *and* ties well into the game lore. 

 

A fighter for example could make use of a concept of 'momentum'; they use certain types of attacks to build up their momentum, which will allow them to keep on pounding the enemy with powerful swings, while other maneuvers might have other effects at the cost of sacrificing ones momentum. In essence you'd have fighting moves that build up momentum, moves that maintain momentum while taking advantage of it (damage or something else scales with the momentum you've built up), other moves could require you to sacrifice that momentum while others could utilize it. A disengagement maneuver that gives you temporary breathing room would obviously sacrifice your momentum, as would a massive strike where you use all your momentum for a single reckless all-in attack you're not even attempting to swing around in order to carry on swinging.

 

Then there could be other forms of 'spell-casting'. For example there could be a class that instead of mana would use powerful sigils to invoke magic. Every 'spell' they would cast would require the activation of one or more sigils, these sigils could be etched onto their skin, they could be inscribed into a piece of equipment or something like that. Every time a sigil is activated, it gets drained of its power and will require a cooldown period to recharge; they could either recharge simultaneously or one at a time. Tying this to the mana system could give plenty of interesting abilities; for example these sigil casters could have a 'release mana' ability of some sort they could use to grant mana to a mana-based spellcaster. Another aspect of this would be that this different manner of 'spellcasting' would also render the sigil using fellow immune to mana burns and drains, unless he multiclasses into a mana-using class ofc. Coming up with these sorts of different systems and then mixing and matching can be incredibly fun.

 

And as far as balancing such a vast amount of variety, you'll simply have to have the same amount of variety in your combat encounters and other situations the characters can find themselves in. Drop in a few anti-magic fields and you'll suddenly appreciate that warrior a whole lot more than you did just a few moments ago, have a spell immune monster or two to tackle. You might even have some drawn out dungeons where you're just trapped; you might allow the player a single rest at the beginning, for example you're in a sealed portion of an underground temple, and while you can get out, no one can get in, and after you go out, you can't get back into that safe zone either and will just have to do with what you have.

 

If every situation the game puts you through is essentially just a variation of the same situation over and over and over again, then the game becomes a cookie-cutter game, and then the most powerful build will be the cookie-cutter build. This is what caused all the problems in World of Warcraft for example; they got rid of the old talent system because they didn't want to force players into these cookie cutter builds, but the problem was never the system, the problem was that the players never had to face any challenges besides cutting cookies. If all your role consists of is doing damage to a single target in a boss encounter, then all that is going to matter is the amount of damage you do and that +1% damage will always be better than that neat utility skill. Variety quite easily balances itself out if you have enough of it.

 

But in essence, you don't want complexity for it's own sake, complexity just is a natural result of the vast amount of variety and epth you aim for, and I fully agree with you that this is the way to make the good stuff, but it is still easier to build such a system by first making a simple but flexible core you can then build around, and you are right that even this kind of system can be balanced around the numbers with proper conversion tables as you can track things like how much initial bursting punch a class has, how much staying power they have etc etc. This data can then be used to create a multitude of various encounters and scenarios to make sure that every single class gets their opportunities to shine.

[Morkatog]

The whole you can't buff before combat is the reason I didn't get POE2. There is nothing more annoying then having a fighter, but no system that allows him to keep aggro, and then seeing all enemies run off to your squishier party members and flooring them in seconds, unless you keep them a 100 yards away, start buffing for 4 rounds the second combat starts.

 

Either give me the ability to blast off spells and survive being meleed by a guy 3 levels lower without buffs, or allow me to pre-buff.

Edited October 6, 2018 by Morkatog

[Wormerine]

The whole you can't buff before combat is the reason I didn't get POE2. There is nothing more annoying then having a fighter, but no system that allows him to keep aggro, and then seeing all enemies run off to your squishier party members and flooring them in seconds, unless you keep them a 100 yards away, start buffing for 4 rounds the second combat starts.

 

Either give me the ability to blast off spells and survive being meleed by a guy 3 levels lower without buffs, or allow me to pre-buff.

Good thing that fighter alone has plenty abilities to block enemies from engaging your back line, draw enemies back to him or allow companions to safely disengage.

[Verde]

I think the lackthereof creates a disconnect between the combat and non combat worlds. I love how BG2 had spells like Detect Traps and Friends.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Verde

[hilfazer]

 

Pillars' system already works fine, the problem is they don't have any of it categorized so that's why posts asking "why doesn't this stack" or "what's going on here?" are so damn common.

 

 

Such questions were common in the times of PoE already, where things *were* categorized.

 

https://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Stacking

[Wormerine]

I think the lackthereof creates a disconnect between the combat and non combat worlds. I love how BG2 had spells like Detect Traps and Friends.

I do agree that the overlap of the same abilities throughout different gameplay branches would be a great design - I think that is one of the thing Divinities did really well, and managed to keep pre-combat buffing, while at the same time making it quite trash (not many spells you can cast before entering combat before they expire). Overall, it would be cool if Deadfire had more utility spells/abilities, though the current system doesn't really support it. I think, what I really want in my head is tight combination of IE style game with Fallout2. 

 

IE style prebuffing is a no-no for me though. I don't think Deadfire would suffer to much if it were implimented (to few spells long for long enough to make it worth it) but some spells would be a must cast as: 

1) without per rest system they would be free

2) they would make you much stronger until they expire. 

Edited October 8, 2018 by Wormerine