Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Per-Encounter spells ruin casters


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#21
Katarack21

Katarack21

    Chief Eldritch Abomination of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 2462 posts
  • Steam:Katarack21
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

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.



#22
Novem

Novem

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 29 posts
  • Steam:obrusnine
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

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 by Novem, 19 November 2017 - 11:15 PM.

  • dukeisaac and Lamppost in Winter like this

#23
SaruNi

SaruNi

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 183 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

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.



#24
theBalthazar

theBalthazar

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 510 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

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 by theBalthazar, 20 November 2017 - 12:17 AM.


#25
Nail

Nail

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 237 posts
  • Location:Kiev, Ukraine
  • Steam:Perebor
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

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



#26
zealotstim

zealotstim

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 46 posts
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
I really enjoy the new spell and ability systems they have created for pillars 2. If you need more casts, just use empower. If not, you have extra. The number of spell casts you get seems balanced pretty well for one's level.

#27
jaydee.2k

jaydee.2k

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 45 posts
  • Deadfire Backer

The drop of the vancian casting model including the spellbooks was a really big mistake in my opinion.

The system like it was in Pillars 1 was totally fine. Now it feels like WoW, in a bad way...


Edited by jaydee.2k, 23 November 2017 - 05:32 AM.

  • Peter Bazooka and demeisen like this

#28
MortyTheGobbo

MortyTheGobbo

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 348 posts

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.

 

This is an oft-overlooked point. In a game like Pillars, where many enemies use the same abilities as the PCs, per-rest spells favour them immensely.

 

Apart from that, I'll add my voice to what everyone else has been saying. Per-rest spells are impossible to balance and completely wreck pacing. It was possible, in Pillars, to have your spellcasters consistently and strongly contribute with their passive and per-encounter abilities. Which, of course, is a problem, because then they contribute closely to the other classes while still sitting on spells that can decide an encounter.

 

I don't know what problems spellcasting has in the beta right now, but per-rest spells belong six feet under.


  • kanisatha likes this

#29
dam

dam

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 450 posts
  • Location:France
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

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...

 

I somewhat agree with your first point, strongly disagree with your second.

 

 

Nothing stops you from unleashing your strongest spells ?

 

Except, I don't know... friendly fire perchance ?

That, and enemies ruining your casts ?

 

 

Furthermore, nothing stops the enemies from unleashing their more devastating spells either...

Lastly, you get more spellcasts between rests, but you can use less of them every fight.

 

 

In POE1, pretty much all of us ended up saving our spells for that one big fight where they would actually make a difference.

Then, you'd empty your daily allotment.

 

So yeah, your spells felt awesome I absolutely agree with you there ; you just never got to use them !

 

 

 

I'm still not sure how I feel about per-encounter spells (because one feels like they have to be less powerful, to make up for the increase in availability), but I know I disliked the idea of regular per-rest spells on wizards/druids/priests when ciphers could spam theirs for free.


  • Wormerine likes this

#30
dam

dam

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 450 posts
  • Location:France
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

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.

 

This is an oft-overlooked point. In a game like Pillars, where many enemies use the same abilities as the PCs, per-rest spells favour them immensely.

 

Apart from that, I'll add my voice to what everyone else has been saying. Per-rest spells are impossible to balance and completely wreck pacing. It was possible, in Pillars, to have your spellcasters consistently and strongly contribute with their passive and per-encounter abilities. Which, of course, is a problem, because then they contribute closely to the other classes while still sitting on spells that can decide an encounter.

 

I don't know what problems spellcasting has in the beta right now, but per-rest spells belong six feet under.

 

While this is a cogent point indeed, that enemies get to use their full repertoire against you, there are other much more impactful elements they do not get.

 

 

 

They don't get to pause the game and think on the situation.

They cannot predict your behaviour, while you can definitely predict theirs.

They have no real intelligence, they're merely using weights to influence the "decision" they'll be "taking".

They don't get to set-up (position characters, eat food, change gear, even set traps...) like you do.

They don't get to reload once you've wiped them.

They don't get to revive their comrades, you do ! (chanter evocation, paladin exhortation...)

 

 

 

Seem like oft-overlooked points as well ?

You bet they are, and these work in our favour.

All in all, enemies get more power, but you get prediction, unlimited time to think, gear swapping, buffing, positioning...

Ours is an immeasurably stronger position than theirs.


  • Lamppost in Winter likes this

#31
Lamppost in Winter

Lamppost in Winter

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 189 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

They don't get to pause the game and think on the situation.

They cannot predict your behaviour, while you can definitely predict theirs.

They have no real intelligence, they're merely using weights to influence the "decision" they'll be "taking".

They don't get to set-up (position characters, eat food, change gear, even set traps...) like you do.

They don't get to reload once you've wiped them.

They don't get to revive their comrades, you do ! (chanter evocation, paladin exhortation...)

 

 

 

Seem like oft-overlooked points as well ?

You bet they are, and these work in our favour.

All in all, enemies get more power, but you get prediction, unlimited time to think, gear swapping, buffing, positioning...

Ours is an immeasurably stronger position than theirs.

 

 

These are good points. Josh has emphasised the smarter AI, so I wonder if we'll ever have AI that uses abilities close to player efficiency. Or at least, don't fry their own dudes with friendly fire.

 

Corpse Eater Barb's description say that they "kill the target permanently", so I wonder if enemies can use revives now. I do hope so, since again, I like players and (standard kith) enemies to be on relatively equal footing.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users