Per-Encounter spells ruin casters

[LampStaple]

In Pillars 1, playing a caster really did feel like you were playing a badass mage. And while tons of people hated that spells were per-rest, I think per-rest spellcasting was what allowed casters to feel so amazing.

When all your spells are per-encounter, your highest level spells feel underwhelming. There's no reason not to unleash your full arsenal of strongest spells every fight. This makes casting powerful spells feel mundane. Imagine if in pillars 1 you casted minor avatar and storm of holy fire every fight...

 

The empower system does not nearly come close to emulating this feeling. First of all, you're boosting the spell's EFFECTS and not casting a better spell. Having your numbers be slightly more inflated in a boss fight doesn't feel like anything because bosses have inflated numbers too. In addition to the numbers, it's the spell's effects, the animations, and the consumption of scarce resources (high level spell slots) that makes casting a high level spell feel impactful.

 

Not only that, but the fact that all spells are per-encounter means that the spells' effectiveness seems to have been drastically lowered (damage and debuff spells are near useless but enchantment buffs are incredibly powerful, but I'm just going to write that off as beta balance. I have faith that this will be balanced by release). High cast times and low reliability on most spells makes sense given that they're per encounter, but why be per-encounter in the first place? Spellcasters are traditionally balanced around having scarce resources but powerful effects for spending those resources. Since spellcasts are per-encounter now, that means they're just mediocre effects for spending common resources.

 

Obsidian, I'm begging you to reconsider making all spellcasters per-encounter spellcasters. The resource system of caster classes and non-caster classes feel so homogenized right now that I can barely tell the difference between playing a paladin and playing a wizard. At least split the casters into per-encounter casters and per-rest casters to appease both the people who enjoy being able to blow their load every fight as well as the people who enjoy resource management and being able to pop off in boss fights with spells they can't afford to cast in more mundane encounters.

[Frog Man]

Nope.

[KDubya]

The problem was that people did cast their best spells every time and then just rested. At a minimum you'd rest before any major fight so you'd have the big spells available. Now with everything per encounter you can let loose with everything and the encounter can be balanced based on that.

 

The new limited use empower is pretty much the only resource that needs managing.

[hilfazer]

Obsidian either does not know how to solve rest spamming or does not see it as a problem.

They actually want to encourage players to rest in PoE2.

 

It is not an easy problem to solve.

You do a hard counter like time limit and players will go ballistic on you.

You do a soft counter like supplies&inns an players will complain that there are workarounds.

You can make a proper economy but that's certainly not an easy task. And it's not immune to complainers either.

 

There's one more option - reward players who don't rest often. It could be an XP bonus if Obsidian stops showering us with XPs.

[Archaven]

It's just beta. If they tweak the food system to be scarce then you will have an issue.

[draego]

The problem was that people did cast their best spells every time and then just rested. At a minimum you'd rest before any major fight so you'd have the big spells available. Now with everything per encounter you can let loose with everything and the encounter can be balanced based on that.

 

The new limited use empower is pretty much the only resource that needs managing.

 

Ye i actually tried to play strategic and not rest after every encounter and not spam all my spells and push to see how far i could go but ye i have seen the other side where people would complain 'i have to bactrack to inn after every fight to reload spells and its so tedious'. I never understood this and i like the first system but resting always an issue and there will always be players that rest after every fight.

Edited November 19, 2017 by draego

[theBalthazar]

There negative effects and positive effects.

 

And if I have to choose..

 

Per encounter for me. I was the guy who came back as soon as he had no more devotion of the faithful...

 

I think you do not hesitate to send your spells with this system. Personally I prefer.

 

The empower system does not nearly come close to emulating this feeling.

 

 

If you want this aspect yet : it's the way. Empower IS the feeling of put a big shot. Perhaps the limit of ONE empower ? Indeed. I agree with you (perhaps 2 empower by encounter ? (actually 1) and more empower per rest globally ?), but the concept is here, and the beta is not finished.

 

For me, the best number is 4 spells (by level in POE1) / 2 = 2.

 

2 empowers by encounter.  everyone will be happy with that.

[Aramintai]

I don't mind per encounter system in theory, however right now in the beta I can't properly appreciate the idea because casting times are abysmal and actually landing an oompfy aoe spell is feat in itself.

[cheesevillain]

In Pillars 1, playing a caster really did feel like you were playing a badass mage. And while tons of people hated that spells were per-rest, I think per-rest spellcasting was what allowed casters to feel so amazing.

 

 

I'm happy you were happy. I wasn't happy. My wizard didn't do anything in most fights, and that made him feel useless and weak. To me, Vancian magic makes wizards feel like wimpy computer programmers, not mighty masters of magic.

 

It's not like wizards hit that much harder than the other classes. They hit slightly harder, and in return they barely got to fight at all.

 

According to the Devs spells are actually intended to be more powerful in PoE2 than they were in PoE1, balanced by the drawbacks that (1) casting times are longer, (2) interrupts are more powerful, and (3) you have fewer spells you can cast per individual combat than in PoE1. Right now, playing wizards feels terrible, but that's just a tuning issue. We need grazing, or something equivalent. I like the design, which allows me to cast more often, and cast more powerfully.

 

The empower system does not nearly come close to emulating this feeling. First of all, you're boosting the spell's EFFECTS and not casting a better spell. Having your numbers be slightly more inflated in a boss fight doesn't feel like anything because bosses have inflated numbers too. In addition to the numbers, it's the spell's effects, the animations, and the consumption of scarce resources (high level spell slots) that makes casting a high level spell feel impactful.

 

 

I was pretty meh about empower until I actually started using it. It's not somehow a replacement for problems with the wizard class, but it does feel great to use.

Edited November 19, 2017 by cheesevillain

[Sedrefilos]

There is only 1 way to solve rest spamming: don't use rest mechanics at all. Although I like it as a concept, I've never seen it implemented well. The new resting system looks better, imo, but, if one thinks rest-spamming is indeed a problem, I don't believe it'll solve it.

 

I'm always a fan of DA:O style: survive the encounter or game over + wounds for the fallen to spice up things. So build better and fewer encounters.

 

I'd love to see a rest mechanic that will be meaningful enough to represent what it supposed to be, but until then, DA:O style ftw.

Edited November 19, 2017 by Sedrefilos

[Hariwulf]

In my experience, per-rest mechanics takes away the "badassery" if anything, and having to spam sleep to refill spells was very annoying.

Use "Empower" on a spell, that will be fun. Having the right spell at the right time is very satisfying. Spellcasters are on steroids in POE2.

[PugPug]

Was it also badass to plink away with your wand through most fights so as to save your badass spells? Do you think Eder really appreciated that? Or making him go to bed when he wasn't tired?

[tinysalamander]

Or making him go to bed when he wasn't tired?

 

He used that time to recover from foxpetting.

[Blades of Vanatar]

If they just create lots of interesting encounters that have triggers that bring more enemies into the fight it would stop players from just unleashing everything from the get go. Less crap fights more scripted fights. A good mix of both is perfect. They did so with the WM 2 expansion.

[demeisen]

​

There is only 1 way to solve rest spamming: don't use rest mechanics at all.

 

​Only one way, except for the other way, which is to have real rest limits.  POE1 didn't: you could effectively rest as much as you wanted, either by backtracking to an inn, or even on PotD there were more camp supplies than you could use anyway.  In effect there was no limit.

​

​If there would be a real limit, then there can be no rest spamming, per-rest spells can be powerful but balanced by not having very many, and having to consider when to use them.  There's still plenty for casters to do even when not using those spells.  POE1 had some ability to turn low level spells into per-encounter.

​

Or, as LampStaple suggested, have two subclasses.  Weak spells & per encounter, and strong spells & per rest.  Then you can pick what suits your style.

​

[LampStaple]

 

In Pillars 1, playing a caster really did feel like you were playing a badass mage. And while tons of people hated that spells were per-rest, I think per-rest spellcasting was what allowed casters to feel so amazing.

 

 

I'm happy you were happy. I wasn't happy. My wizard didn't do anything in most fights, and that made him feel useless and weak. To me, Vancian magic makes wizards feel like wimpy computer programmers, not mighty masters of magic.

 

It's not like wizards hit that much harder than the other classes. They hit slightly harder, and in return they barely got to fight at all.

 

According to the Devs spells are actually intended to be more powerful in PoE2 than they were in PoE1, balanced by the drawbacks that (1) casting times are longer, (2) interrupts are more powerful, and (3) you have fewer spells you can cast per individual combat than in PoE1. Right now, playing wizards feels terrible, but that's just a tuning issue. We need grazing, or something equivalent. I like the design, which allows me to cast more often, and cast more powerfully.

 

The empower system does not nearly come close to emulating this feeling. First of all, you're boosting the spell's EFFECTS and not casting a better spell. Having your numbers be slightly more inflated in a boss fight doesn't feel like anything because bosses have inflated numbers too. In addition to the numbers, it's the spell's effects, the animations, and the consumption of scarce resources (high level spell slots) that makes casting a high level spell feel impactful.

 

 

I was pretty meh about empower until I actually started using it. It's not somehow a replacement for problems with the wizard class, but it does feel great to use.

 

 

Do you have a link to the devs saying that spells are intended to be more powerful with longer cast times/stronger interrupts? If they do end up tuning casters that way, I'd be fine, I'm just disappointed that casting fireball at an opponent is roughly equivalent to building up a large sneeze at them and I attributed that to the fact that casters are no longer limited by per-resources.

 

In any case, I'm still disappointed that they homogenized ALL casters by turning them into per-encounter casters. I still very much believe they could have achieved a balance in different casting styles to appeal to different players; clearly, there are tons of people who prefer per-encounter, but there are also people who enjoy per-rest. I stand by my opinion that Wizards should be a per-rest style caster; Wizards embody the archetype of a caster who is meticulously preparing and planning and just spamming per-encounter spells doesn't feel wizard-y. A Druid's "nature" themes would make sense as a per-encounter caster. There's plenty of room for different styles of unique casting - after all, Ciphers and Chanters are already unique casters in that they generate resources to cast spells, while Druid, Priest, and Wizard all cast spells from a finite pool of resources. I don't think it'd be unreasonable to at least take ONE of those three homogenized casting styles and switch them from per-encounter resources to stronger per-rest resources - after all, they feel a bit same-y right now and this would be a great way of mechanically differentiating the themes of the casters.

[injurai]

Auto-casting + repeatedly using your only per-encounter spells was equally frustrating.

 

I think the point of empower is to keep that sense of unleashing a torrent of arcane.

 

However it's possible that maybe empower should have been a magic-user only thing.

[SaruNi]

Agree that a strong enough Empower should have additional effects and animations....

 

But the rest spam issue is a really strong counterargument. 

 

It would be interesting if the system also went in the opposite direction---not just per rest, but some sort of mechanic that limits the highest-powered spells to a few usages per level or per life. Maybe powerful spells causing the caster major injuries, or sacrificing a level, and/or powerful spells bound to scrolls or self-consuming grimoires or other items that only have limited uses....

[Lamppost in Winter]

I marginally preferred per-rest spells gameplay-wise, especially as I learned to use them more efficiently so I wasn't just saving them all for the Big Boss Battles.

My problem with them is that you'd never run into an enemy caster who's saving their spells for the next thing; they're always fighting at full power, which puts some gulf between enemies and players.

 

Personally I think long casting times but stronger spells is a fine way to balance per-encounter spells. I just hope they can get the "stronger spells" part right.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Lamppost in Winter

[vanyel54]

The per rest system work better for me.
With the POE2 system, you will always ending using the same spells and it will become a little boring. I like to administrate my pool of spells and to use discover other way to win when i have no more shadowflame/returning storm/devotions
Once more (as for the abilities/talents tree problem), it's less choice and strategic thinking.
Sure, the per rest need some tweaking (2 camps in potd is a bit low) but you don't need to throw it all like that.

[Katarack21]

The problem for casters right now is that between long cast times, penetration issues, and a lack of grazes it feels like a lot of sitting around just for a really high chance of doing not much. That's a balance problem, and I have faith it will be solved.

[Novem]

I think Obsidian has actually implemented the perfect solution in POE2 Deadfire. A way to keep spellcasters impactful without rendering them overpowered. The Vancian Per-Rest system had the problem of spellcasters only being useful situationally, and making every spell per-encounter would make them underpowered because their spells would have to be adjusted to compensate. But Obsidian has done neither of these things because of the addition of extremely long cast times. This way, spells can remain very powerful without being overpowered. Plus, your primary complaint about every spell being per-encounter is that you don't need to adapt to being down spells, but I actually think the long cast times completely invalidate that point because if you waste time casting a spell you don't actually need then you are essentially not adapting to the situation correctly (not to mention that this very harshly punishes poor positioning since you can be so easily interrupted).

 

What needs to be done is that spells need to be made more powerful all across the board. In the current beta build, spells are extremely underpowered because they're still balanced at POE1 levels or below which doesn't account for the extremely long cast times. A completed spell should have extreme impact because of the time it takes to execute, but currently it does not.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Novem

[SaruNi]

You don't break stealth/invisibility until the spell is actually cast, right? I've always liked the idea of a stealth-based spellcaster. (Though the more limited number of spells might probably make scrolls more useful, such that Stealth comes at the significant expense of Arcanum....)

 

Guess there aren't any new invisibility spells/abilities yet or they'd have been mentioned.

[theBalthazar]

Auto-casting + repeatedly using your only per-encounter spells was equally frustrating.

 

 

 

2 solutions to that :

 

1) A true choice of many grimoire. (In POE1 who use grimoires ? Nobody. Not intuitive and not useful)

 

2) Add an additional spells each level for singleclass.

 

Seems legit. But the system is not bad himself. Per Encounter is more fun.

Edited November 20, 2017 by theBalthazar

[Nail]

I like Deadfire per combat spell mechanics more, but, what I really don't like - casting speed and changes to grimoire system.