First, before anyone points it out, I know that Druids, Priests and Wizards weren't true Vancian casters in Pillars, and that they are even less so in Deadfire. However for simplicity that's what I'll call them.

 

In Deadfire the Vancian casters have had their spells changed from per rest to per encounter, and they can now only cast each spell level twice per encounter (rather than the four times per rest of Pillars). I was thinking that a better system might be to assign each spell a casting cost (presumably equal to their spell level) and give each caster a unique resource like other classes. This way a high level Wizard could, for example, choose between casting lots of Minoletta's Minor Missiles or a fewer Minoletta's Concussive Missiles.

 

Part of the reason I'd prefer this, other than the greater flexibility it would provide, is that there are some spell levels with a greater number of useful spells than others (particularly when you're a specialist wizard), and there are also some spells that you might only want to cast once per battle (some buffs for example) and others that you'd want to cast multiple times (things like Minor Missiles). For example I created an Evoker who only took one second level spell, Infuse Vital Essence, and only ever cast it once per battle (to activate the Nature Godlike's Wellspring of Life), but who would have loved to be able to cast Minor Missiles more than twice.

 

It also seems odd from a lore perspective that a highly powerful Wizard can't choose to cast their lowest level spells more than twice.

 

Thoughts?

Just give them regenerating mana, it'll happen in the next game so why not get it over with.

Isn't the rigid spell structure supposed to differentiate them from the other classes, who can spend their resources as they please?

Isn't the rigid spell structure supposed to differentiate them from the other classes, who can spend their resources as they please?

 

Probably. I'm not a fan of it though for the reasons stated (I actually didn't mind it when it was per rest, but the new system of only 2 per encounter casts per level just feels too restrictive) and I'm interested in what others think.

 

I'm guessing daven isn't a fan of the change to per encounter in the first place from his comment. To be honest I quite liked per rest but I can't see Obsidian changing back to that now.

Not a bad idea in the abstract but then why are you making Ciphers build focus?

 

Like, the whole cipher thing is increased flexibility at the price of having to build focus. That advantage is already turned into a hindrance in Deadfire by the move to per-encounter casting -- Wizards can often dump their whole spellbooks by the time a Cipher has made one or two casts.

 

You could make the change but at that point you'd need to change Ciphers too somehow, maybe just get rid of the focus mechanic entirely.

Good point. Same with Chanters I guess, although at least their Chants do something whilst building up their second resource.

 

Two casts per spell level just feels so limiting though.

Good point. Same with Chanters I guess, although at least their Chants do something whilst building up their second resource.

 

Two casts per spell level just feels so limiting though.

 

Well in the full game presumably there will be things like Rings of Wizardry, and I imagine you'll get more low level casts at higher levels too.

Well in the full game presumably there will be things like Rings of Wizardry, and I imagine you'll get more low level casts at higher levels too.

 

I believe that we were told it'd be two per level all the way till max level (with the exception of when you first get access to a given level, when it's one rather than two). 

 

Well in the full game presumably there will be things like Rings of Wizardry, and I imagine you'll get more low level casts at higher levels too.

 

I believe that we were told it'd be two per level all the way till max level (with the exception of when you first get access to a given level, when it's one rather than two). 

 

 

 

Oh boo

 

I support the "more wizard casts of low level spells" agenda

Wizards can often dump their whole spellbooks by the time a Cipher has made one or two casts.

Can you elaborate on this. Google tells me that both Wizard spells and Cipher powers had casting times in PoE. Has this changed in PoE2?

Can you elaborate on this. Google tells me that both Wizard spells and Cipher powers had casting times in PoE. Has this changed in PoE2?

 

I think the point is the Cipher has to spend time building up Focus, whereas the Wizard can simply cast Spells uninterrupted. In PoE this was balanced by the fact that Wizard Spells were per rest whereas Cipher's could use their Powers as often as they could gain enough Focus to do so, but now that Spells are per encounter the Wizard has no reason to hold back from emptying their spell books.

 

I would say however that the Cipher is likely doing pretty good damage whilst building their Focus up, so it's not like they're getting nothing during their non-casting time.

 

Wizards can often dump their whole spellbooks by the time a Cipher has made one or two casts.

Can you elaborate on this. Google tells me that both Wizard spells and Cipher powers had casting times in PoE. Has this changed in PoE2?

 

 

 

Oh sorry if that created confusion. I was talking about a mechanical change from PoE to Deadfire.

 

In PoE 1, yes everyone had casting times, but each class also had additional limitations: Wizards were Per-Rest for most of their powers, while Ciphers were per-encounter (but had to build focus). So in PoE, theoretically a wizard could dump their whole spellbook in the time it took a cipher to build focus and cast half as many powers, but the wizard would be paying the price of  using up per rest abilities.

 

In Deadfire there have been a lot of changes; wizards are now Per-Encounter on all abilities, ciphers get 25% focus returned instead of 35% (lack of grazing in the current beta doesn't help either, etc.). The result is that a typical wizard in the current Deadfire beta can cast their whole spellbook (i.e., five spells) in about the time it takes the Cipher to cast once or maybe twice (depending on which powers they're casting -- if a cipher wants to use their top level power they have to build focus first, otherwise they could cast two lower level powers in about the same timeframe). 

 

There's also variation based on which weapons the cipher is using, etc., but the basic point I was aiming at is just that the move from per-rest to per-encounter casting on Wizards, Priests, and Druids  made Ciphers relatively less useful, because their big advantage was per-encounter flexibility, and while they still have a degree of flexibility, they're no longer the only per-encounter caster (but they still have to build focus, and other classes don't).

So Cipher's cant "bank" focus? It must be re-earned every encounter?

So Cipher's cant "bank" focus? It must be re-earned every encounter?

 

Right. You do get a small pool at the start of each new encounter but it's generally enough for lower-level casts only, so you can open with a low level power -> gain focus -> cast next power or open with an attack -> gain focus -> high level power cast.

So Cipher's cant "bank" focus? It must be re-earned every encounter?

 

Yep. They also have a max focus cap so even if they could it wouldn't allow them to spam nearly as many powers as Wizards.

 

Another thing I'm not particularly fond of in the new Deadfire system is the loss of niche powers. In Pillars the spell Charm Beast was great when fighting beasts and useless otherwise: it still exists in Deadfire but I can't imagine any Druid ever taking it since it's a waste for all those fights where you aren't fighting beasts. In fact I suspect that only a small selection of spells for each of the Vancian casters will ever be taken.

 

 

 

I would say however that the Cipher is likely doing pretty good damage whilst building their Focus up, so it's not like they're getting nothing during their non-casting time.

 

 

 

Yeah it's not the biggest deal in the world, it's just a thing that would need to be taken into account if you moved other casters to a mana based system or w/e.

 

 

 

So Cipher's cant "bank" focus? It must be re-earned every encounter?

 

Yep. They also have a max focus cap so even if they could it wouldn't allow them to spam nearly as many powers as Wizards.

 

Another thing I'm not particularly fond of in the new Deadfire system is the loss of niche powers. In Pillars the spell Charm Beast was great when fighting beasts and useless otherwise: it still exists in Deadfire but I can't imagine any Druid ever taking it since it's a waste for all those fights where you aren't fighting beasts. In fact I suspect that only a small selection of spells for each of the Vancian casters will ever be taken.

 

 

 

This is a really good point. I think those more situational powers might make good "freebies" (like if you're a Galawain worshipper or however it is druid subclasses are divided). Overall though there's just a much more restricted power list in Deadfire and it forces a lot more uniformity of builds. It seems unnecessary too -- having a wider selection of spells doesn't mean wizards get more casts per encounter, etc.

If you only want to cast spell once per battle, you can do that.

If it's your only spell from given spell level then there are 2 possible reasons:

1. other spells from this spell level are not cool enough but that's another problem to solve,

2. you're powergaming so that's on you.

 

As for casting one spell ad nauseum, there's already a solution in PoE1:Dyrwood - Spell Mastery. Only this time it would not turn per-rest into per-encounter but per-encounter into at-will. It would also solve issue some players have with traditionally vancian casters running out of spells too quickly. And let's not forget this problem is only going to grow bigger once cast times get reduced.

 

BTW thank you for your first paragraph, OP.

1 and 2 seem the same to me. The reason I might not cast more than one spell from a given level is because I have better options at other levels. This could be seen as powergaming I guess (though I challenge you to find me people who will choose to cast worse spells for role-playing reasons) but it's also a problem of poor spell selection at that level. This is particularly bad when you're a specialist mage, since you can find yourself losing access to more than 40% of spells at some levels.

 

At will spell mastery could help this a situation a bit yes, though as yet we've not heard that it's going to be a feature.

 

And you're welcome Almost every time I see the term Vancian caster used I see someone point this out so I thought I'd preempt.

Like, the whole cipher thing is increased flexibility at the price of having to build focus.

True that.

 

You could make the change but at that point you'd need to change Ciphers too somehow, maybe just get rid of the focus mechanic entirely.

Please don't)

 

Personally I love focus mechanics. It's like: if you can figure out how to generate focus at a good enough rate, you can trump wizards in terms of inflicted spell damage.

 

This way a high level Wizard could, for example, choose between casting lots of Minoletta's Minor Missiles or a fewer Minoletta's Concussive Missiles.

What ratio do you propose?

E.g. a wizard can cast 1 spell of rank 9 or 2 spells of rank 5 or 4 spells of rank 1.

Edited December 6, 20178 yr by MaxQuest

Another thing I'm not particularly fond of in the new Deadfire system is the loss of niche powers. In Pillars the spell Charm Beast was great when fighting beasts and useless otherwise: it still exists in Deadfire but I can't imagine any Druid ever taking it since it's a waste for all those fights where you aren't fighting beasts. In fact I suspect that only a small selection of spells for each of the Vancian casters will ever be taken.

 

Well put. I would also argue that this has an even greater effect on the lack of flexibility than the limited casts than the spell level has, although their impact does accumulate.

Well put. I would also argue that this has an even greater effect on the lack of flexibility than the limited casts than the spell level has, although their impact does accumulate.

 

Agreed, and honestly I don't think it would make Druids or Priests much more powerful if they were given access to their full suite of spells as they were in Pillars as they'll still be limited by the number of casts per encounter. Similarly for Wizards and scribing spells.

What ratio do you propose?

E.g. a wizard can cast 1 spell of rank 9 or 2 spells of rank 5 or 4 spells of rank 1.

 

That's a good question. My initial thought was make each spell cost X spell points, where X = spell level. However without testing it's hard to tell whether this would be a good ratio. Balancing casting ten Minor Missiles against one level 10 damage spell is going to be rather tricky as you've going to have to weigh up the AoE (and whether it's foe only), the cast time, the penetration and the overall damage.

 

Well put. I would also argue that this has an even greater effect on the lack of flexibility than the limited casts than the spell level has, although their impact does accumulate.

 

Agreed, and honestly I don't think it would make Druids or Priests much more powerful if they were given access to their full suite of spells as they were in Pillars as they'll still be limited by the number of casts per encounter. Similarly for Wizards and scribing spells.

 

 

 

Apparently from what Josh has said on SA, the problem is that if you give players a big pile of spells on levelup, it's too much for most people to process and most spells end up never used or ignored. 

 

Possible solution:

 

Let high level characters unlock a few extra low level spells. Like, you hit level 9, you get a level 5 spell and unlock two extra level 1 spells. 

Apparently from what Josh has said on SA, the problem is that if you give players a big pile of spells on levelup, it's too much for most people to process and most spells end up never used or ignored. 

 

So the solution to most players not using most their spells is to remove most spells from all players?

 

This seems like a strange thing to do. Is the experience really changing much for those players who already didn't use most the spells?

 

Apparently from what Josh has said on SA, the problem is that if you give players a big pile of spells on levelup, it's too much for most people to process and most spells end up never used or ignored. 

 

So the solution to most players not using most their spells is to remove most spells from all players?

 

This seems like a strange thing to do. Is the experience really changing much for those players who already didn't use most the spells?

 

 

 

Well, they have a point. Like I didn't even bother to use most priest spells in PoE until my third or fourth playthrough because you got so many new ones at each level up that you just ignored them mostly.

 

 

Wizards at least are getting grimoires to expand their power selection and allow some flexibility, but Priests and Druids don't seem to be getting anything similar.

 

And of course CIphers who never had that problem at all are getting hit with the solution, too, going down to 1 power / level instead of the previous 2 powers odd levels / 1 power even levels setup. 

 

I'd suggest that high level Priests and Druids start getting extra unlocks of low level spells, just one or two additional ones per level, so that they gradually unlocked more of the spell tree. That way players end up the same place but have more time to learn each new spell. 

Edited December 6, 20178 yr by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy