Jump to content

What does everyone think about the new casting system?


Recommended Posts

I thought the rest system was something new and intriguing although it had its flaws. The per encounter/rest mechanic annoyed me at times, but the health/endurance mechanic made sense to me. One has to say though that I played either on normal or hard and Eder would, at times, be at 50% health because I did not think I needed to rest. I believe I rested so little in the first part of the game that I thought I could get that achievement.

 

With the system mostly gone, you still need some type of economy for fights, and I think it should apply to all classes, that is why I liked the old system. Just limiting the spells like BG did is just restricting certain very powerful classes, while melee could just keep on hacking away. So as long as they replace an economy with another one I am fine with it, they should just make sure they drop all the dead weight from the previous mechanic though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m honestly surprised more people aren’t talking about how spells need to go through, armor, a save, and a need to be accurate in order to be effective let alone actually manage to get through the air with things like interupts flying around and your spells taking so very long to cast. Granted I know their value has been lowered to account for the fact that you can now use them every encounter but still that seems like a bit much in order to make a spell count when you cast it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must be one of the only ones here who does not particularly favor the resting system of older classics. I like something a little more contemporary/modern. Casting at will.

 

One of my favorite things about Tyranny was it's per cast system which some consider weird or strange but I felt was a great way for a mage/witch to express thyselves.

 

Would be curious to see what Gromnir think, they seem to be relatively loud about the subject when sharing their thoughts on other threads amongst these boards.

its times like this i wish there was a "dislike" button

 

no offence sonic btw but the words "tyranny"  "casting system" and "great" do not belong in the same sentence

Edited by master guardian
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no offence sonic btw but the words "tyranny"  "casting system" and "great" do not belong in the same sentence

I thought that spell crafting was really neat. But other than that yeah, I didn’t like the “classless system” tyranny had, and combat was really dull overall.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if there is any game with OP mages it's Tyranny. I do like the spell creation system though and it was a good game overall. 

 

I was fine with the original system but then I didn't rest spam, I went as far as I could before resting and saved my spells for when I needed them, if I had to backtrack I did but I didn't backtrack often. Every area had at least two camping supplies in a container anyway most of the time I had more than I needed. I didn't play on POTD tho just on hard. 

 

At first I did not like the new system at all but with some changes in build and strategy it can work. The long cast times are annoying though and they do seem to make some spells that were great in the last game almost useless in deadfire. Mostly it's small stuff like I don't think you should be in a situation where u use up an empower on a spell time it so it hits the enemies you want despite the long cast time only to have it miss entirely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not in the beta, so I'm waiting to find out.

 

So Tentatively speaking, I'm neutral but I'm erring towards disappointment...

 

I don't mind Vancian-casting, but it must be tuned right. In PoE1 it wasn't quite there, because you had 2 main reasons to rest. Out of spells, or low Health/Endurance. Some other needs crop up too like ailments and rest bonuses running out. So 2+ orthogonal reasons that might trigger the need to rest. If you are punching above your weight in an area (which means you are having fun, and you should always be having fun, so the game should always be somewhat challenging) then you'll burn through your per-rest abilities fast even having just rested on account of health. Next thing you know your health is fine, but now you must rest again to recoup your spells.

 

^ That was the problem. Empower sought to fix this to an extent, allowing you to manage a Vancian-like empower but keep the utility of your spells by your side at all times. After all it's your ability to pick from all or most of your abilities that makes use of your build interesting.

 

Instead...

 

I think they used Multi-classing / Sub-classing as a way to categorize existing spells/abilities (while cutting many as well) instead of using it as a chance to grow the sorts of spells/abilities of the series. This regression I believe has led them to make some questionable choices (like 2 abilities per level) in order to preserve choice and differentiation. Instead of making choices natural as you progress, it forces you to pre-plan, because once you declare your character there does not seem to be nearly the choice available that there had been in PoE1. Now the plus-side though, is that your declared class might enable far more intricate reactivity to your build within the narrative, but that remains to be seen. That in my mind would justify this change to pre-declaration of choice limitation.

 

I'm also a bit split on the increased casting time. I like that spells are getting more oomph, but getting to cast 5 spells instead of 3 during a fight of the same length seems more interesting to me. Maybe to other's that is more tedious, but I'd rather be engage in a deeper sense instead of clicking to get through battles. Having to plan more moves out is always a good thing and I'll shut off my mind if I'm planning ahead but the battles keep ending before I ever get there. Too much wasted thought.

 

Honestly, if Might wasn't returning I'd really really really be bemoaning casting right now. Instead I'm somewhat annoyed but somewhat undecided and partial.

 

Because of longer cast times, less spells to choose from, and I think the somewhat regressive nature of the class system. The issue now will be that you're locked into a very primitive and un-interesting spell rotation. The concern of rotation spamming is probably the most apt complaint with regards to your standard encounters.

 

I'd rather Obsidian do things differently, I think a lot of their decisions are correct and better than what has been done in the past. So here is what I want:

  • Save long casts for Empower (wasn't that the whole point? Unfortunately long casts are probably their solution to guard against spell-rotations... which is a lame solution!!!)
  • Make a class system that makes the build options more vast, not just seemingly combinatorially more vast cause you've diced up the categories far finer. (Too late probably.)
  • Bring back the old Health/Endurance system, but keep an improved injury system. (Less important, but an unnecessary regression imo.)

 

You'd think because now we have 1-less party member they would have decreased cast times a bit, and increased the amount of spells you could pick per level.

 

It's clear the Class-system is very much at odds with most of the other design decisions. Too many abilities where garnished into the sub-classes, and multi-class diversity has distracted from building solo-class that rival or are greater than their Pillars1 counter-parts.

 

If anyone thinks I'm getting it wrong or off-base I'd like to know, once again I'm not in the beta. But have watched plenty of streams and have tried to keep up.

 

edit: Some grammar mistakes.

Edited by injurai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@injurai I think that a lot of your obeservations arent wrong, but I also feel that it is difficult to judge how it really plays until full game comes out, when we have more enemies to fight against, and more levels to experiment with.

 

Really, the only danger I see with the new casting system is restriction on available spells - especially subclasses seem to force you into rather narrow range of spells. However, I have been observing my gameplay style through recent playrheoughs of BGs and PoE. And I know it is just me, and someone else might play differently, but I would be surprised if Obsidian would make those changes before consulting data first.

 

It’s true, in Deadfire you will have to specialise your casters. But don’t players to it already? Yeah, your wizards can have multiple Grimoires giving them access to every spell in the game, but did anyone really used them on regular basis? I am actively trying to juggle 2 Grimoires and it’s just not happening. I have built my current mage with using magic weapons in mind, and I stick to it. I have 2nd grimoire prepared for a long range fight, but so far I didn’t use it. I feel the same about druids and priests - once I set my mind on using them for certain purpose I rarely go beyond that.

 

I think that the restriction of choice might be felt more by “single character” people. It certainly will make those classes less flexible. At the same time, I don’t think that self imposed challenge runs should inform overall design of party based game.

 

And as far as few spells cast per encounter. There are about, what 9 or 10 power levels? For mages that means over 40 spells to choose from, with an ability to cast what...? 16-20 per encounter? Early levels will be slower, but so they are in PoE1. Casting time means you probably won’t empty your access to spells, but who knows. Combat in Deadfire certainly feels more active with more things to do per encounter and more things to keep an eye on.

 

Solo classes will get a big buff by being granted and extra ability to pick per power level. The multiclass vs singleclass is difficult to judge without full skill trees, but multi seems to sit on top.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No no, I think you got it right.

 

One thing I'd add to Vancian & Empowering Topic that bugs me out.

Empowering gives you the ability to "Restore" lost Spells :

  • So why would they remove Per-Rest Spells, now that there's an additionnal way of restoring them aside from Resting ? [Which is what some people complained about]

I know Empowering doesn't really "restore lost spells" properly speaking, it restores lost "Power Sources Points" back, (used to cast your Spells/Abilities).

That said, I think they probably should :

  • Get rid of that Source thing entirely.
  • Go back to POE "Casting System". (Bringing back all the Spells they cut off in the process, if they can... But I wouldn't mind)
  • Keep the Empowering thing to Boost some Spells, as it does now, that thing is cool actually.
  • But where you could also use it to "NOT Boost a Spell", but instead, "Restore a chosen Per-Rest lost Spell", if you need to.

Right-now you can use One Empower Point per fight, (Either to Boost, or Restore Power Source), one or the other. It's really limited.

I think the amount of usage should be Unlimited, until you'd run out of those points.

By Level 20, you should be given a total pool of 20 Empowering Points.

 

You should be able to Empower your Fireball if you feel like it, then Empower your Arcane Veil because you need it, Etc, in the same Fight.

If it happens that you think you're gonna need the Citzal Lance or whatever is the Spell you need to win the Fight ? But you didn't rest yet, and it's not available ?

Then, you should be able to spend an Empowering Point, to be able to Restore & Cast it.

 

Spoiler about the Soulbound Dagger unlocked potential (Currently in the Beta) :

 

We know that this Dagger gives you a percentage of Chance to literally Restore "Empowering Points" back.

So Empowering Points would not only be restored by resting, it could happen directly in combat.

 

But what's the point ? If you began the Fight by Empowering a Fireball ? You just used the only Empowering Point available for you to be used !

 

On the other hand, if the Dagger gives you one "Usable" Empowering Point back, then you might make it out of a Bad Situation, just because that thing Procs out.

Which would give you the opportunity to Restore/Cast THE Spell that will save the day. And I think that could be kinda cool.

Right now ? well... You got a point back, but you can't use it. So it doesn't change anything...

Not really a fun thing.

 

 

What I'm saying is that, having a Pool of 20 Empowering Points, by Level 20, [Or Whatever the Number is ! Balance it Wisely !]

Plus the Possibility of Unlimited Usage during a Fight [Given how many Points left] & having the "Choice" to use it :

  • To Boost
  • To Restore
  • Or not using it, & Economize it !

Then the whole "Empowering Mechanic", could actually be, what would bring back the Economy & Ressources Management that is Lost at the moment.

Although, Early Levels could be tricky, because at Lvl 3, 4, or whatever, you'd probably constantly Rest to Restore your Lost Empowering Points, BUT :

  • Josh wants to make Resolve a worth Stats >>> Make it so that the more you invest in it, the more Empowering Points are Given Back at the End of a Fight.

 

[EDIT : I agree though, that I still need to see how is plays out within 20-30hrs of actual Gameplay]

Edited by DexGames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say I am not a fan of Empower. I am not convinced to its usefulness or role. It seems like a weak system left over as a tribute to old per-rest resource management but I don't think its very interesting mechanically. When I say "usefulness" I am not saying that it doesn't impact the game - empowered spells are noticably more powerful and gaining another healing spell might save from injury, but tactically it is not interesting. Its problems are very similar to old per-rest system - they help winning the fight, but you don't need them to win a fight. In the end its something I don't think about at all when considering my choices. It certainly doesn't force the rest out of me if I run out of empowers (did I even run out of empowers?) Maybe if old health/endurance system was in, it would have a value as ending fights with as little damage received would have been beneficial. In Deadfire as long as no one falls to the ground you are fine.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say I am not a fan of Empower. I am not convinced to its usefulness or role. It seems like a weak system left over as a tribute to old per-rest resource management but I don't think its very interesting mechanically. When I say "usefulness" I am not saying that it doesn't impact the game - empowered spells are noticably more powerful and gaining another healing spell might save from injury, but tactically it is not interesting. Its problems are very similar to old per-rest system - they help winning the fight, but you don't need them to win a fight. In the end its something I don't think about at all when considering my choices. It certainly doesn't force the rest out of me if I run out of empowers (did I even run out of empowers?) Maybe if old health/endurance system was in, it would have a value as ending fights with as little damage received would have been beneficial. In Deadfire as long as no one falls to the ground you are fine.

 

This is a really solid point. I think there was a handful of criticism laid at Obsidian's feet that was true in it's relation to other mechanics. But when you make a handful of changes, all of a sudden the justification of some changes vanishes yet you're left with the changes none-the-less.

 

The new injury system seems above all like a superfluous change mechanically that strips away yet another foundational constant that defined the first game. I believe their justification was to make a system that was easier to learn, more teachable, less confusing to new players. It's one of those changes where I think a better tutorial or documentation would have sufficed, but they opted for a system change and thus there are some unintended side-effects with how the game's systems play off of each-other.

 

If nothing else though, Empower makes for interesting "spice" that embellishes the combat system.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new injury system seems above all like a superfluous change mechanically that strips away yet another foundational constant that defined the first game. I believe their justification was to make a system that was easier to learn, more teachable, less confusing to new players. It's one of those changes where I think a better tutorial or documentation would have sufficed, but they opted for a system change and thus there are some unintended side-effects with how the game's systems play off of each-other.

I think it all comes down to what role health/endurance was supposed to fill. Its biggest advantage over current system was that health was a resource that was drained during each fight - you can heal all you want, but if you tank too much with one character he will run out of health.

 

I thought it was a cool mechanic but the question is: what was it supposed to achieve? What I like about new injury system that it does force resting but only if you fail - let your people get knocked out. If health/endurace's role was to provide some kind of token perma death system and encourage resting if you get some serious not intended beating than injuries are a better way of doing it. However, I did like extra nuance that health added to each combat encounter. The question is: was it intended, and would bigger structure of Deadfire still support it. 

 

In PoE there were a lot of save zones - backtracking was save, traveling was save. Not so much in PoE. I don't know if random encounters were scrapped, of if they are still a thing in full release. If they are it makes sense for you team to always be on full or almost full health.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The new injury system seems above all like a superfluous change mechanically that strips away yet another foundational constant that defined the first game. I believe their justification was to make a system that was easier to learn, more teachable, less confusing to new players. It's one of those changes where I think a better tutorial or documentation would have sufficed, but they opted for a system change and thus there are some unintended side-effects with how the game's systems play off of each-other.

I think it all comes down to what role health/endurance was supposed to fill. Its biggest advantage over current system was that health was a resource that was drained during each fight - you can heal all you want, but if you tank too much with one character he will run out of health.

 

I thought it was a cool mechanic but the question is: what was it supposed to achieve? What I like about new injury system that it does force resting but only if you fail - let your people get knocked out. If health/endurace's role was to provide some kind of token perma death system and encourage resting if you get some serious not intended beating than injuries are a better way of doing it. However, I did like extra nuance that health added to each combat encounter. The question is: was it intended, and would bigger structure of Deadfire still support it.

 

In PoE there were a lot of save zones - backtracking was save, traveling was save. Not so much in PoE. I don't know if random encounters were scrapped, of if they are still a thing in full release. If they are it makes sense for you team to always be on full or almost full health.

PoE1 health was a trash mechanic because even if you played really conservatively you were forced to rest due to running out of health

 

Really unenjoyable mechanic for me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the idea of the health/endurance split, but the execution always felt very awkward. One character would always end up focus-fired by enemies and lose a bunch of health. And there's really not a whole not you can do about it. This was particularly brutal for characters with less health and/or armor who wandered over to the front line. But ranged attacks could mess up your back line this way as well, even if you protected them.

 

I'd still like some sort of compromise between everyone being fine as long as they don't drop to 0 and unforgiving attrition, but it'd have to be something else. I guess I do wish Obsidian had tried to refine it, rather than drop it altogether.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of all the changes it still boils down to cast time for me. Everyone complains about lack of spell diversity, or lack of times can cast per encounter, but none of that matters if you never get a spell off because of stupidly long cast times and interrupt being way worse this time around.  Its an easy fix, just go into a few files, erase 6 seconds with 3 seconds. Done.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of all the changes it still boils down to cast time for me. Everyone complains about lack of spell diversity, or lack of times can cast per encounter, but none of that matters if you never get a spell off because of stupidly long cast times and interrupt being way worse this time around.  Its an easy fix, just go into a few files, erase 6 seconds with 3 seconds. Done.

Overall yes, some spells could use a shorter cast time I think (see MaxQuest mod: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/96158-beta-speed-mod/)

 

I am not sure that not getting interrupted to be a good reason for that. Move you caster away before casting a big spell or boost concentration. Use other characters to protect the mage. This is a key mechanic for you and your enemies to use to get an advantage.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 4ward

<snip>

 

Really, the only danger I see with the new casting system is restriction on available spells - especially subclasses seem to force you into rather narrow range of spells. However, I have been observing my gameplay style through recent playrheoughs of BGs and PoE. And I know it is just me, and someone else might play differently, but I would be surprised if Obsidian would make those changes before consulting data first.

 

<snip>

 

in regards to BG2, players who haven‘t made a playthrough of BG2 with a sorcerer do not understand that per-rest system can be extremely fun for players who like to play casters. BG2 plays entirely different with a sorcerer in your party. I would be very surprised if anyone at Obsidian has actually made a playthrough with a sorcerer in BG2 (including Josh Sawyer). This class was basically introduced in BG2 because the role/importance of magic increased by leaps and bounds compared to the prequel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

in regards to BG2, players who haven‘t made a playthrough of BG2 with a sorcerer do not understand that per-rest system can be extremely fun for players who like to play casters. BG2 plays entirely different with a sorcerer in your party. I would be very surprised if anyone at Obsidian has actually made a playthrough with a sorcerer in BG2 (including Josh Sawyer). This class was basically introduced in BG2 because the role/importance of magic increased by leaps and bounds compared to the prequel.

I am pretty sure they did as PoE1 casters system has more similarities to sorcerer than a D&D wizard. IMO sorcerer was the most enjoyable spellcaster in BG2, though balance wise it traded overall flexibility for being less a pain in the butt to manage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 4ward

 

no, they don‘t trade flexibility at all, the sorcerer can cast spells from scrolls just like any other mage in BG2. So in addition to the load of spells he can cast between rests, he has all bases covered with scrolls which you can store in scroll cases. With that in mind why exactly would anyone want a per-encounter system? The entire point of the per-rest vs. per-encounter discussion is that casters in the old games are, as you put it, a pain in the butt to manage. Enter the sorcerer, problem solved and resource management is still alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I like per-encounter more is that I use tools at my disposal. Per rest system encourages using as little spells per combat as possible - well I do just that. In most cases that means not using any spells at all. I just find toning down spellcaster potency and making them use spell more often to be a much more entertaining proposition. 

This whole "spreading out resources" doesn't really speak to me because:
1) resources are too easily regained

2) resources are rarely needed to win a fight, therefore I don't use them unless its a big fight.

In addition, as Deadfire casters are limited as to what spells they can learn I will probably make more use of scrolls. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I like per-encounter more is that I use tools at my disposal. Per rest system encourages using as little spells per combat as possible - well I do just that. In most cases that means not using any spells at all. I just find toning down spellcaster potency and making them use spell more often to be a much more entertaining proposition. 

 

This whole "spreading out resources" doesn't really speak to me because:

1) resources are too easily regained

2) resources are rarely needed to win a fight, therefore I don't use them unless its a big fight.

 

In addition, as Deadfire casters are limited as to what spells they can learn I will probably make more use of scrolls. 

 

Which is why I think in systems where you are to manage resources, it should be done through some fungible pool of resources. Otherwise it's just saving grenades.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like a game with both sorcerer and wizard, so I can choose. I thought POE1 was smart to bring in Wizards/Priests and Ciphers/Chanters to give you a per-rest and per-encounter option. I would have preferred if they differentiated even further in POE2, rather than go all in on per-encounter. I like per-encounter sometimes, but I also like per-rest sometimes. If they left Wizards as per-rest and switched priests to the way they have it now, best of both worlds, IMO. I would throw in a per-rest spell switch-up for priests, too, even though some folks complain about rest-spamming, because I don't care if somebody rest-spams. Leave Druids like they are in POE2. All different! Some people measure success by difficulty, some by gold, some by level, some by efficiency... we all have different ways of giving ourselves the satisfaction of winning in our own ways. Feeling like you "won" by conserving resources and resting less frequently doesn't hurt anybody else. Just play a Cipher with lots of scrolls if you want a caster who can do everything and never needs to rest.

 

Slightly off topic, but I'd bring back health in the expert mode. I liked it, too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like a game with both sorcerer and wizard, so I can choose. I thought POE1 was smart to bring in Wizards/Priests and Ciphers/Chanters to give you a per-rest and per-encounter option. I would have preferred if they differentiated even further in POE2, rather than go all in on per-encounter. I like per-encounter sometimes, but I also like per-rest sometimes. If they left Wizards as per-rest and switched priests to the way they have it now, best of both worlds, IMO. I would throw in a per-rest spell switch-up for priests, too, even though some folks complain about rest-spamming, because I don't care if somebody rest-spams. Leave Druids like they are in POE2. All different! Some people measure success by difficulty, some by gold, some by level, some by efficiency... we all have different ways of giving ourselves the satisfaction of winning in our own ways. Feeling like you "won" by conserving resources and resting less frequently doesn't hurt anybody else. Just play a Cipher with lots of scrolls if you want a caster who can do everything and never needs to rest.

 

Slightly off topic, but I'd bring back health in the expert mode. I liked it, too.

To be honest I just want a well designed game. You can't have everything. I am all for per-rest and I am all for per-encounter. I like singleplayer and I like multiplayer. But those require dedicted design. You can't do both well at the same time. There is no "best of both worlds" because those two mechanics work differently and pace game differently. I know some people prefer a wider range of playstyles, over tight experience but I am just not one of those. I prefer good, over a lot.

 

To have a good per-rest system you have to design around that - with economy, level design, story structure. I would say you need a procedural generation to make planning and choice make sense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the multi-/sub-classing is probably a large reason why they went all in on per-encounter. Which I think was probably the right choice, otherwise you might end up with a build where you burn through one aspect of your build then get stuck with a gimped version of your other class. Which with some builds might lead to rampant rest-spamming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...