I was thinking—the effects of power level and Empower on skills could be added to tooltips via code, which would save the team a lot of time (on top of being less prone to error.)

 

The original IE games included a section in weapon descriptions that listed which classes could or could not use that weapon. That section was manual, as in written manually for each weapon. In the Enhanced Editions it is automated: The engine reads usability flags in each item and populates the list.

 

Something similar could be done in Deadfire, where code adds to each description a section for Empowered stats and a section for power level effects.

Edited December 15, 20178 yr by AndreaColombo

Perhaps indicate a Growth rates in the description ?

 

Minor Missiles of Minoletta with

+1 power level = +x penetration +x accuracy, +x missiles etc.

With empower = +x etc.

 

For each spell/ability ?

Edited December 15, 20178 yr by theBalthazar

The problem with making spells scale with actual character levels instead of power levels is that multiclassed casters would be straight-up better than their single-classed counterparts. Scaling via power level is a way to give single-classed casters an edge (the extent to which that edge is effective is of course debatable; but IMO the principle is sound.)

 

It’s the UI’s job to explain to you how the mechanics work in a way that is informative and unambiguous. I think we can all agree that the Deadfire UI in its current implementation falls short in that department.

Aren't dual casters a bit overly punished by that? I'm not in the beta, so I woudn't know, but as far as I understand, not only would dual caster (wizard/druid) have his progression slowed and access to his top level spells denied, but his spells would also be weaker.

At this point, is there any reason whatsoever to ever play a dual caster?

 

I'm asking because I actually intended to play one when the game comes out.

Well, the answer is yes and no—it depends

 

True: Your spells are weaker, though not by much (as mentioned in the post SaruNi quoted above, 1 power level typically adds a fraction of something; multiclassed characters end up 2 power levels behind) and your progression is slower. In exchange, you gain the extra flexibility and the synergy of playing two classes at the same time.

 

Additionally, some things are scaling with actual character level to prevent them from being weaker on multiclassed characters. Examples are summoned weapons, spiritshift, and—IIRC—a Ranger’s animal companion.

Edited December 15, 20178 yr by AndreaColombo

Well, the answer is yes and no—it depends

 

True: Your spells are weaker, though not by much (as mentioned in the post SaruNi quoted above, 1 power level typically adds a fraction of something; multiclassed characters end up 2 power levels behind) and your progression is slower. In exchange, you gain the extra flexibility and the synergy of playing two classes at the same time.

 

Additionally, some things are scaling with actual character level to prevent them from being weaker on multiclassed characters. Examples are summoned weapons, spiritshift, and—IIRC—a Ranger’s animal companion.

I see, yet I'm still confused. I've read in another thread that a subclass bonus is tied to it's parent class source (I'm I wrong on this?), meaning that, say, wizard elemental spells get no bonus from the fury subclass, nor do the druid spells receive the evoker subclass bonus. In short, synergy is.. well, not very synergistic as I understand it.

 

Is the added flexibility of a dual casting list really worth it? 

What's so confusing about "+1 Caster level"? It's only the standard way to describe ability and spell scaling in pretty much every game ever made, used and understood by just about anybody ever. You say "+1 Power Level", okay, that's great...

 

Fighers, Rogues, Monks, Paladins, Rangers and Barbarians aren't casters, but have abilities that scale with power level. When it comes down to it power level is basically the same thing as caster level except with a name that doesn't imply it only applies to casters.

 

once you explain what a power level does, in detail, so we can understand what that means. Once we learn to integrate the power level system, once it's explained and we learn how it works, once we learn this additional system.

 

You'd have to explain the same thing if you used to term "caster level" too. Just because the name is familiar doesn't mean people will magically know that increasing it would increase Accuracy, number of projectiles, damage etc.

 

But other, simpler and more direct setups that didn't involve additional complex systems, would have worked fine, too. That's my point. Not that Power Level is bad; just that it's another later of complexity that obfuscates the system and isn't necessary.

 

I honestly don't see what the complexity is. As Sedrefilos said:

 

It's very clear and simple: power levels are levels of power.

 

The details of what extra levels of power mean needs to be learnt, but the same would be true of extra caster levels too.

Edited December 15, 20178 yr by JerekKruger

Is the added flexibility of a dual casting list really worth it? 

 

It depends?

 

If you want a spiritshifted Druid with Flame Shield and Mirrored Image, for example, it is.

 

What's so confusing about "+1 Caster level"? It's only the standard way to describe ability and spell scaling in pretty much every game ever made, used and understood by just about anybody ever. You say "+1 Power Level", okay, that's great...

 

Fighers, Rogues, Monks, Paladins, Rangers and Barbarians aren't casters, but have abilities that scale with power level. When it comes down to it power level is basically the same thing as caster level except with a name that doesn't imply it only applies to casters.

 

once you explain what a power level does, in detail, so we can understand what that means. Once we learn to integrate the power level system, once it's explained and we learn how it works, once we learn this additional system.

 

You'd have to explain the same thing if you used to term "caster level" too. Just because the name is familiar doesn't mean people will magically know that increasing it would increase Accuracy, number of projectiles, damage etc.

 

But other, simpler and more direct setups that didn't involve additional complex systems, would have worked fine, too. That's my point. Not that Power Level is bad; just that it's another later of complexity that obfuscates the system and isn't necessary.

 

I honestly don't see what the complexity is. As Sedrefilos said:

 

It's very clear and simple: power levels are levels of power.

 

The details of what extra levels of power mean needs to be learnt, but the same would be true of extra caster levels too.

 

1) Yeah, but they're still "casting" abilities. +1 Knockdown level means Knockdown is being cast at 1 level higher? Easy. It's really super simple. It's not nearly as complex as your making it out to be. Elex, D:OS, Diablo, and a million others use a variation of this system, as do *many* others. It's basic and well-understood as a convention of the genre.

 

2) Not really. You'd have to give some basic details about how it works in this game, but not *anywhere* to the same extent. You don't have to learn what the **** a caster level *is* the same way you do with a Power Level, which nobody has ever ****ing heard of before this game as this Power Level system is unique. With caster levels, character levels, etc. instead of learning a whole new system and what it means, you just have to learn how this system you already have a framework for applies in this situation.

 

3) That's a tautology, and I'm pretty sure it's a joke. Saying "Power Levels are levels of power" doesn't mean anything. We all have an intrinsic understanding of the concept of caster level--we understand in theory how caster level works and can grasp it because all have a framework for it in our minds. Nobody knows what the **** a power level is until the Devs explain it, because it's a unique custom-built system that none of us have ever experienced before.

Edited December 15, 20178 yr by Katarack21

 

Is the added flexibility of a dual casting list really worth it? 

 

It depends?

 

If you want a spiritshifted Druid with Flame Shield and Mirrored Image, for example, it is.

 

 

It's okay for self-only buffs. Wizards have several. Vanilla or Rejuvenation Druids have one from their spiritshift form (cat druid +speed is good for casting). Ciphers have a couple but only at high tiers (not accessible for mutliclasses in current beta). Priests have their spiritual weapons which presently apply their damage bonus to spells as well but that's probably not intended. But with the exception of cat speed and +spell damage from spiritual weapon it seems like the synergy applies almost exclusively to weapons attacks, tanking, and a few wizard self-buffs for improving accuracy / concentration / speed. For a pure caster at range, it seems very limited currently.

Edited December 15, 20178 yr by SaruNi

Katarack21 — If you're only advocating for a nomenclature change, I frankly don't see the point. We can grow accustomed to Power Level in the same way we've grown accustomed to Caster Level. If it stays as is mechanically, you'd have to explain it to the same extent regardless of its name, because it is the way it works that is unique, and it is the way it works that matters; not so much its name. I also dislike the notion that non-caster classes would be given a caster level, if we're to discuss semantics—Power Level seems more appropriate an umbrella term, in my opinion.

 

We need the UI to be explicit as to its effects*, but I'm still convinced that the system itself adds value and is not just a gratuitous extra layer of complexity (it is an extra layer of complexity, but one that makes the game better.)

 

*and many other things, to be honest.

Edited December 15, 20178 yr by AndreaColombo

1) Yeah, but they're still *casting* abilities. +1 Knockdown level means Knockdown is being cast at 1 level higher? Easy. It's really super simple. It's not nearly as complex as your making it out to be. Elex, D:OS, Diablo, and a million others use a variation of this system, as do *many* others. It's basic and well-understood as a convention of the genre.

 

To me saying I "cast" Knockdown sounds clunky. It's a minor thing I agree, but it might be part of why Obsidian went with power levels (it also might not )

 

2) Not really. You'd have to give some basic details about how it works in this game, but not *anywhere* to the same extent. You don't have to learn what the **** a caster level *is* the same way you do with a Power Level, which nobody has ever ****ing heard of before this game as this Power Level system is unique. With caster levels, character levels, etc. instead of learning a whole new system and what it means, you just have to learn how this system you already have a framework for applies in this situation.

 

I really think you're under estimating the ability of players to (a) intuit what a power level is or (b) learn what it is from reading a very simple tooltip. You're making the whole system sound a lot more complicated than it actually is.

 

The actual nitty gritty comes with what exactly increasing power levels does to abilities, but that's no different to character level or caster level.

 

3) That's a tautology, and I'm pretty sure it's a joke. Saying "Power Levels are levels of power" doesn't mean anything. We all have an intrinsic understanding of the concept of caster level--we understand in theory how caster level works and can grasp it because all have a framework for it in our minds. Nobody knows what the **** a power level is until the Devs explain it, because it's a unique custom-built system that none of us have ever experienced before.

 

I'm pretty sure it was a joke yes. I quoted it because I don't actually think you need anything more than the name "power level" to understand what power levels are. I mean, how else are you going to interpret "whilst under the effect of a Might, Constitution or Dexterity Inspiration all abilities get +2 power levels"? Sure, you don't know exactly what that means (hence the thread title) but I don't think many people are going to fail to realise it means the ability becomes more powerful.

Edited December 15, 20178 yr by JerekKruger

We need the UI to be explicit as to its effects*, but I'm still convinced that the system itself adds value and is not just a gratuitous extra layer of complexity (it is an extra layer of complexity, but one that makes the game better.)

 

Indeed. When I mouse over the Empower ability I want it to tell me exactly how many bonus power levels it provides, and then when I have Empower selected I want the tooltips of all spells and abilities to be modified to take this into account (at the moment they display their stats without the modification). I also want every aspect of spells affected by power levels to have a hyperlink breaking down the calculation (currently some do, some don't) and I want there to be an Encylopedia entry that breaks down, in detail, exactly what power levels do to different types of spells.

 

 

What's so confusing about "+1 Caster level"? It's only the standard way to describe ability and spell scaling in pretty much every game ever made, used and understood by just about anybody ever. You say "+1 Power Level", okay, that's great...

 

Fighers, Rogues, Monks, Paladins, Rangers and Barbarians aren't casters, but have abilities that scale with power level. When it comes down to it power level is basically the same thing as caster level except with a name that doesn't imply it only applies to casters.

 

once you explain what a power level does, in detail, so we can understand what that means. Once we learn to integrate the power level system, once it's explained and we learn how it works, once we learn this additional system.

 

You'd have to explain the same thing if you used to term "caster level" too. Just because the name is familiar doesn't mean people will magically know that increasing it would increase Accuracy, number of projectiles, damage etc.

 

But other, simpler and more direct setups that didn't involve additional complex systems, would have worked fine, too. That's my point. Not that Power Level is bad; just that it's another later of complexity that obfuscates the system and isn't necessary.

 

I honestly don't see what the complexity is. As Sedrefilos said:

 

It's very clear and simple: power levels are levels of power.

 

The details of what extra levels of power mean needs to be learnt, but the same would be true of extra caster levels too.

 

1) Yeah, but they're still *casting* abilities. +1 Knockdown level means Knockdown is being cast at 1 level higher? Easy. It's really super simple. It's not nearly as complex as your making it out to be. Elex, D:OS, Diablo, and a million others use a variation of this system, as do *many* others. It's basic and well-understood as a convention of the genre.

 

2) Not really. You'd have to give some basic details about how it works in this game, but not *anywhere* to the same extent. You don't have to learn what the **** a caster level *is* the same way you do with a Power Level, which nobody has ever ****ing heard of before this game as this Power Level system is unique. With caster levels, character levels, etc. instead of learning a whole new system and what it means, you just have to learn how this system you already have a framework for applies in this situation.

 

3) That's a tautology, and I'm pretty sure it's a joke. Saying "Power Levels are levels of power" doesn't mean anything. We all have an intrinsic understanding of the concept of caster level--we understand in theory how caster level works and can grasp it because all have a framework for it in our minds. Nobody knows what the **** a power level is until the Devs explain it, because it's a unique custom-built system that none of us have ever experienced before.

 

 

 

With regards to 2/, actually, it only comes down to the spell's or ability's description.

 

In the BG series, you knew your spell dealt 2d6 + 3/level , or 5d6 + 1d6/level up to a cap of 15d6, stuff like that.

Absent this description, nobody would understand what the effect of gaining a "power" or "caster" level means.

 

Good/better documentation will take care of that.

3) That's a tautology, and I'm pretty sure it's a joke. Saying "Power Levels are levels of power" doesn't mean anything. We all have an intrinsic understanding of the concept of caster level--we understand in theory how caster level works and can grasp it because all have a framework for it in our minds. Nobody knows what the **** a power level is until the Devs explain it, because it's a unique custom-built system that none of us have ever experienced before.

 

I'm pretty sure it was a joke yes. I quoted it because I don't actually think you need anything more than the name "power level" to understand what power levels are. I mean, how else are you going to interpret "whilst under the effect of a Might, Constitution or Dexterity Inspiration all abilities get +2 power levels"? Sure, you don't know exactly what that means (hence the thread title) but I don't think many people are going to fail to realise it means the ability becomes more powerful.

 

The thing is, "powerful" is both a subjective and vague term.

What makes an ability powerful ?

 

 

 

To me, powerful goes like this :

 

For instant kill binary spells (flesh to stone, finger of death -like spells), it's their ability to hit consistently.

You either get an effect or you don't.

 

For non-instant kill spells (mostly debuffs or CC such as slow, blind...), it's their duration and area of effect.

And to a lesser extent, their ability to hit obviously.

 

For damage spells (fireball, ice lance...), it's either their damage, or their duration.

And again to a lesser extent, their ability to hit reliably.

 

 

 

In the end, we still need to know how this or that ability is made "more powerful".

@dam - I completely agree. I was simply pointing out that "power level" would be understandable to the same extent as "caster level" i.e. something that makes your spells more powerful. The details definitely need to be spelled out in the UI and in game documentation.

Aren't dual casters a bit overly punished by that? I'm not in the beta, so I woudn't know, but as far as I understand, not only would dual caster (wizard/druid) have his progression slowed and access to his top level spells denied, but his spells would also be weaker.

At this point, is there any reason whatsoever to ever play a dual caster?

 

I'm asking because I actually intended to play one when the game comes out.

 

 

I've seen the opposite complaint: why would you play a single-class caster when dual class casters get so much more flexibility? Power level is essential to avoid making single-class characters underpowered.

 

Another advantage: it's not only flexibility, but the total number of spells you can cast during combat. The 2-casts-per-level restriction on Druids, Wizards and Priests means they run out of spells in any lengthy combat. Dual casters cast more spells per combat.

 

Aren't dual casters a bit overly punished by that? I'm not in the beta, so I woudn't know, but as far as I understand, not only would dual caster (wizard/druid) have his progression slowed and access to his top level spells denied, but his spells would also be weaker.

At this point, is there any reason whatsoever to ever play a dual caster?

 

I'm asking because I actually intended to play one when the game comes out.

 

 

Another advantage: it's not only flexibility, but the total number of spells you can cast during combat. The 2-casts-per-level restriction on Druids, Wizards and Priests means they run out of spells in any lengthy combat. Dual casters cast more spells per combat.

 

 

Yes, but single-level casters will get one or two additional spell levels they can access, so in practice it's more like one extra spell... which you're trading for higher-level spells, which you can no longer access (a major loss of flexibility, unless you really want a Wizard that can heal, or a Priest that has fast cast self-buffs).

 

Stronger argument would be for cases where spells of a certain type are clustered at the same low-ish level(s). Presently, fast casting DD  spells....

 

The flexibility argument has potential, but is it really realized? There are some Druid spells that can be useful against specific enemy types, but useless against others... less so iirc for the other casters, aside from elemental resistances.   

Edited December 15, 20178 yr by SaruNi

 

 

 

What's so confusing about "+1 Caster level"? It's only the standard way to describe ability and spell scaling in pretty much every game ever made, used and understood by just about anybody ever. You say "+1 Power Level", okay, that's great...

 

Fighers, Rogues, Monks, Paladins, Rangers and Barbarians aren't casters, but have abilities that scale with power level. When it comes down to it power level is basically the same thing as caster level except with a name that doesn't imply it only applies to casters.

 

once you explain what a power level does, in detail, so we can understand what that means. Once we learn to integrate the power level system, once it's explained and we learn how it works, once we learn this additional system.

 

You'd have to explain the same thing if you used to term "caster level" too. Just because the name is familiar doesn't mean people will magically know that increasing it would increase Accuracy, number of projectiles, damage etc.

 

But other, simpler and more direct setups that didn't involve additional complex systems, would have worked fine, too. That's my point. Not that Power Level is bad; just that it's another later of complexity that obfuscates the system and isn't necessary.

 

I honestly don't see what the complexity is. As Sedrefilos said:

 

It's very clear and simple: power levels are levels of power.

 

The details of what extra levels of power mean needs to be learnt, but the same would be true of extra caster levels too.

 

1) Yeah, but they're still *casting* abilities. +1 Knockdown level means Knockdown is being cast at 1 level higher? Easy. It's really super simple. It's not nearly as complex as your making it out to be. Elex, D:OS, Diablo, and a million others use a variation of this system, as do *many* others. It's basic and well-understood as a convention of the genre.

 

2) Not really. You'd have to give some basic details about how it works in this game, but not *anywhere* to the same extent. You don't have to learn what the **** a caster level *is* the same way you do with a Power Level, which nobody has ever ****ing heard of before this game as this Power Level system is unique. With caster levels, character levels, etc. instead of learning a whole new system and what it means, you just have to learn how this system you already have a framework for applies in this situation.

 

3) That's a tautology, and I'm pretty sure it's a joke. Saying "Power Levels are levels of power" doesn't mean anything. We all have an intrinsic understanding of the concept of caster level--we understand in theory how caster level works and can grasp it because all have a framework for it in our minds. Nobody knows what the **** a power level is until the Devs explain it, because it's a unique custom-built system that none of us have ever experienced before.

 

 

 

With regards to 2/, actually, it only comes down to the spell's or ability's description.

 

In the BG series, you knew your spell dealt 2d6 + 3/level , or 5d6 + 1d6/level up to a cap of 15d6, stuff like that.

Absent this description, nobody would understand what the effect of gaining a "power" or "caster" level means.

 

Good/better documentation will take care of that.

 

You're right, but you're wrong. It's not that BG's description told us what "caster level" means, it just told us how Caster Level applied in BG. We all understand that +caster level means your using this spell or ability as if it were a higher level; how that "higher level" works is different in each game, but the experience we have with ten thousand games using this conventions let's understand the basics of how it will apply.

 

Power Level is more mysterious for a lot of reasons, including lack of clarity about how Power Level affects abilities/spells and real murkiness about the interaction between Power Level and Character Level. We all get that it makes an ability more powerful, but that's *all* we get. The connection between Power Levels and actual Character Levels isn't super clear, and the effects of Power Levels themselves haven't been revealed at all, so when we see "+1 Power Level" *all we know* is "generic power bump".

 

If you say "+1 caster level" it's easy to understand what the effects will be of this ability at my next level; even if that's not the specifics of how it will work for this spell in this game, it gives you a general idea to work with. If you say "+1 Power Level", it means *nothing* until it's made clear what the Power Level *system* is.

 

 

"I mean, how else are you going to interpret "whilst under the effect of a Might, Constitution or Dexterity Inspiration all abilities get +2 power levels"?

That's a very good representation of the problem. I know +2 Power Levels is a good thing, but I don't know *what it actually does*. You can literally say *ANYTHING*, or even *nothing*, in place of "Power Level" and get the exact same information. "When under the effects of a Might inspiration, all abilities get +2 levels" gives you the same amount of information. This problem exists, I believe,because Power Levels is a unique, complex system designed not for clarity and ease of use for the player but for purposes of system design and mechanics tracking.

 

If it stays as is mechanically, you'd have to explain it to the same extent regardless of its name, because it is the way it works that is unique

Yes. And thus it's not a nomenclature problem, it's a system problem. It's not nomenclature I'm talking about, it's the fact that the system is new, unique, and complex and creates and additional layer of difficulty in interacting with the rest of the game's system.

 

I'm not saying it's bad, and I'm not saying people can't learn or adjust, I'm just saying 1) It's a problem 2) The problem has not been addressed from either a design or UI standpoint 3) The problem goes deeper than just UI issues, and explaining what Power Level is and how it works should be addressed as a fundamental aspect of early gameplay design.

Edited December 15, 20178 yr by Katarack21

 

 

Aren't dual casters a bit overly punished by that? I'm not in the beta, so I woudn't know, but as far as I understand, not only would dual caster (wizard/druid) have his progression slowed and access to his top level spells denied, but his spells would also be weaker.

At this point, is there any reason whatsoever to ever play a dual caster?

 

I'm asking because I actually intended to play one when the game comes out.

 

 

Another advantage: it's not only flexibility, but the total number of spells you can cast during combat. The 2-casts-per-level restriction on Druids, Wizards and Priests means they run out of spells in any lengthy combat. Dual casters cast more spells per combat.

 

 

Yes, but single-level casters will get one or two additional spell levels they can access, so in practice it's more like one extra spell... which you're trading for higher-level spells, which you can no longer access (a major loss of flexibility, unless you really want a Wizard that can heal, or a Priest that has fast cast self-buffs).

 

Stronger argument would be for cases where spells of a certain type are clustered at the same low-ish level(s). Presently, fast casting DD  spells....

 

The flexibility argument has potential, but is it really realized? There are some Druid spells that can be useful against specific enemy types, but useless against others... less so iirc for the other casters, aside from elemental resistances.   

 

 

Thing is, by going dual class, you also get double passives.

Some of which have excellent synergy.

 

Soulblade + Assassin lets you open fights with a tremendous HP nuke, and even rinse/repeat twice with Shadowing Beyond.

 

 

 

In the game's current state and with the current level cap, multiclass characters are more powerful than single classes.

How both develop at later stages remains to be seen.

 

 

 

Aren't dual casters a bit overly punished by that? I'm not in the beta, so I woudn't know, but as far as I understand, not only would dual caster (wizard/druid) have his progression slowed and access to his top level spells denied, but his spells would also be weaker.

At this point, is there any reason whatsoever to ever play a dual caster?

 

I'm asking because I actually intended to play one when the game comes out.

 

 

Another advantage: it's not only flexibility, but the total number of spells you can cast during combat. The 2-casts-per-level restriction on Druids, Wizards and Priests means they run out of spells in any lengthy combat. Dual casters cast more spells per combat.

 

 

Yes, but single-level casters will get one or two additional spell levels they can access, so in practice it's more like one extra spell... which you're trading for higher-level spells, which you can no longer access (a major loss of flexibility, unless you really want a Wizard that can heal, or a Priest that has fast cast self-buffs).

 

Stronger argument would be for cases where spells of a certain type are clustered at the same low-ish level(s). Presently, fast casting DD  spells....

 

The flexibility argument has potential, but is it really realized? There are some Druid spells that can be useful against specific enemy types, but useless against others... less so iirc for the other casters, aside from elemental resistances.   

 

 

Thing is, by going dual class, you also get double passives.

Some of which have excellent synergy.

 

Soulblade + Assassin lets you open fights with a tremendous HP nuke, and even rinse/repeat twice with Shadowing Beyond.

 

 

 

In the game's current state and with the current level cap, multiclass characters are more powerful than single classes.

How both develop at later stages remains to be seen.

 

 

Caster passives apparently only apply to spells which use the resource of the class they're associated with. Fury only gets the bonus for elemental spells cast using Druid spell points (and not Priest spell points even for a Priest of Eothas using them to cast Druid elemental spells, if what I've read is accurate), the Evoker's bonus only applies to Wizard spells, Cipher's +1 spell penetration is only for Cipher spells, Rejuvenation Druid's bonus only applies to Druid spells cast with Druid spell points, et cetera.

 

(Incidentally, the caster passives also don't seem to apply to scrolls.)

 

The one major exception being Wildstrike, which might not be intended.

Edited December 16, 20178 yr by SaruNi

Yeah sorry Katarack but I simply don't agree with your objections to the power level system. It is no more complicated than caster or character level as a method of scaling abilities and your claims otherwise haven't convince me otherwise.

Edited December 16, 20178 yr by JerekKruger