the decision to not give casters a lot of spells (like POE1)

[moxsapphire]

I can sort of understand it - you got a ton of spells at level up in POE 1 and only ended up using 2-3 of them per level. But I'm not sure I can agree with the decision - it seems to detract from the coolness and d&d ness of the game. From an assets and game profit and money perspective I can understand it also, because it means they have to spend less money doing the programming assets and art for spells that will be rarely used

 

Im hoping modders will be able to add the old system back in

 

Current system feels too much like its geared for newbies that 'get confused' with too much choice

[LordBlade]

Personally, I find more to be better. As long as they're useful in some way. And I mean useful to someone, I know a lot of people have a much different playstyle than myself. Personally, I never really used buffs. Everything I used was just straight damage stuff. But I'm sure there's people who use nothing but buffs.

 

In a lot of these games though, it does come down to most people having that same basic list of spells as a go to. It's nice to be able to find some variety.

 

My biggest problem with the first game was how most mages shared the same damn spellbooks. You'd kill 20+ mages from a group, and they all carried the exact same list of spells. I would have loved to see them give every mage their own spell list. Even if many are similar (which makes sense) add a little variety here and there to make each mage unique.

[Wormerine]

From an assets and game profit and money perspective I can understand it also, because it means they have to spend less money doing the programming assets and art for spells that will be rarely used

 

Huh? Even if you don’t pick spells they are still in the game. Programming and art work was put into them no matter if you end up using them or not.

[master guardian]

@OP

 

In POE1 a wizard could literally nuke and entire battle field. Fun the first few time you do it yes, also quite satisfying.

 

Fun the tenth or twentieth time you so it, not so much.

 

You get the point?

[swamp_slug]

I presume the limitations are to do with multiclassing.

 

If Druids and Priests just learnt all their spells upon gaining a new power level and Wizards could just learn spells by copying them from grimoires then at level up any Wizard, Druid or Priest multiclass would be able to dedicate all their ability points to their other class' abilities. 

 

It also helps with learning what the spells do. By having to select known spells at level up it forces you to read and understand the options, while in PoE1 I frequently found myself frantically searching through all the Priest spells to see if I could find a spell that would help. Combat is not the time to learn what your class can do.

[Balbanes]

I can sort of understand it - you got a ton of spells at level up in POE 1 and only ended up using 2-3 of them per level. But I'm not sure I can agree with the decision - it seems to detract from the coolness and d&d ness of the game. From an assets and game profit and money perspective I can understand it also, because it means they have to spend less money doing the programming assets and art for spells that will be rarely used

 

Im hoping modders will be able to add the old system back in

 

Current system feels too much like its geared for newbies that 'get confused' with too much choice

 

You can add the "missing" spells yourself with console commands.  As noted above, doing so will somewhat unbalance multiclassing, since you'll be able to use all of your ability points on the melee class, same as the "pure" version of the melee class.

[Ryz009]

Yeah my only issue with the spells is in a long battle (since you can only use one empower per fight) I tended to run out. =/ at least let me use 2 empowers per battle.

[XANi]

Personally, I find more to be better. As long as they're useful in some way. And I mean useful to someone, I know a lot of people have a much different playstyle than myself. Personally, I never really used buffs. Everything I used was just straight damage stuff. But I'm sure there's people who use nothing but buffs.

 

You might want to look into some. There is one on wizard spell list that gives +5 to might and intellect and that is HUGE buff to damage and AoE for you. You can make it auto cast at start of fight pretty easily.

 

@OP

 

In POE1 a wizard could literally nuke and entire battle field. Fun the first few time you do it yes, also quite satisfying.

 

Fun the tenth or twentieth time you so it, not so much.

 

You get the point?

 

That's bad point. POE1 still have limit on the number of spells that you could cast. Only real difference is that you don't always  have "spell for the job" on you, but spellbooks kinda negate that anyway.

 

I presume the limitations are to do with multiclassing.

 

If Druids and Priests just learnt all their spells upon gaining a new power level and Wizards could just learn spells by copying them from grimoires then at level up any Wizard, Druid or Priest multiclass would be able to dedicate all their ability points to their other class' abilities. 

 

It also helps with learning what the spells do. By having to select known spells at level up it forces you to read and understand the options, while in PoE1 I frequently found myself frantically searching through all the Priest spells to see if I could find a spell that would help. Combat is not the time to learn what your class can do.

 

That doesn't fix it, really, as you still kinda need to test spell in combat to know whether it fits you. If all you wanted is for player to learn spells gradually, then just change it so they get to choose a new spell per level

 

Multiclassing is concern, yes, but then instead of spells you could just have something else to spend your skill points on. In case of wizard it could be extra memory slots so you could choose to be more versatile in combat vs putting more points into other class.

[Celan]

This does feel quite confining. One of the things I loved about my PoE1 druid was being able to select from a range of spells.

[Balbanes]

I agree with everyone here. 

 

One of the things that distinguishes archetypal casters from non-casters is that they have a lot more options at their disposal.  There's only so many ways a fighter can swing a sword, but there are generally lots of first-level spells available in a given system.  By limiting the casters to picking spells the same way non-casters choose abilities, the devs have eliminated the versatility that makes casters special.  Now all the casters have are abilities like everyone else-- except caster abilities take an ungodly amount to time to "cast" and can be easily interrupted.  All of the bad, none of the good.

 

I am sensitive to multiclass breaking concerns, but I think that can be handled in other ways.  In particular, casters should have more caster-specific abilities that increase power level, increase range, increase casts, reduce casting time, increase penetration, etc. for some but not all of their spell types.  That would let a pure caster specialize in fire/protection/touch/AoE/etc. spells in a way that's less accessible to multiclass casters, while maintaining the wealth of combat options that should define a caster.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Balbanes

[ArmyP]

Counter to the complaint that wizards should be weak now , epic later?

[evilcat]

I suppose that Wizzard + Priest/Druid MC should provide alot of spells. Since you can jugle grimuars. And get 1 free from deity/tradition. And still pick some more.

 

Too many spells and some will be clearly inferior, so just will take place.

 

The current system is easy to get used to. All classes get very similar amount of perks per level. So it feels balanced.

Edited May 11, 2018 by evilcat

[Volourn]

Treating spells like abilities was a poor choice imo.

[Multihog]

I can sort of understand it - you got a ton of spells at level up in POE 1 and only ended up using 2-3 of them per level. But I'm not sure I can agree with the decision - it seems to detract from the coolness and d&d ness of the game. From an assets and game profit and money perspective I can understand it also, because it means they have to spend less money doing the programming assets and art for spells that will be rarely used

I agree, but I used a lot more than 2-3 myself, especially when it came to priest spells. I loved the vast selection that allowed for so much freedom in playstyle. I can't help but feel restricted with the new system. Sure, the extensive selection of spells meant that there was a learning curve to mastering the spellcaster classes but, in the end, it was well worth it. It was reminiscent of—like you said—D&D and Baldur's Gate 2. 

 

I agree that the new system appears to sacrifice freedom, choice, and healthy complexity in favor of accessibility and a shorter learning curve; in other words, it wouldn't be entirely wrong to say that it's dumbed down.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Multihog

[Boeroer]

Depends. For balancing it's a much better choice. For raw power it's not.

[Multihog]

Depends. For balancing it's a much better choice. For raw power it's not.

I'd say having more choice, which leads to interesting combinations and more potential playstyles, trumps precise balance in a single-player RPG. Besides, having a lot of spells and a balanced game aren't mutually exclusive. 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Multihog

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm fine with it, Deadfire casters are now like D&D spontaneous casters or PoE Ciphers and Chanters in terms of spell breadth. The spells seem to be about the same amount as before too, so casters still have a lot of spells with potentially 4(5 for wizard with grimoire) per spell level for single class that forgo passives. I don't understand the complaint about confusion with too much choice, given that the amount of choice is increased for Priests and Druids and around the same for Wizards once you factor in the loss of learning from Grimoires.

[whiskiz]

I don't get why spellcasters should be allowed to have plenty more abilities than melee (their spells)

 

I do get that a ton of variety was fun.

 

I do get giving us a ton of variety then taking it away, seriously sucks.

 

I didn't get why it was that way in the first place, but again it was fun, but this way makes more sense and is balanced.

 

I also get treating spells like abilities because they are - they are both a spell and an ability and it doesn't make sense why ranged/spellcasters got so many more options than melee.

 

They should have taken maybe 50% of the options away and added 50% to melee abilities, still balancing them but giving them both more options in total, instead of balancing both to a minimum amount.

 

 

I agree with everyone here. 

 

One of the things that distinguishes archetypal casters from non-casters is that they have a lot more options at their disposal.  There's only so many ways a fighter can swing a sword, but there are generally lots of first-level spells available in a given system.  By limiting the casters to picking spells the same way non-casters choose abilities, the devs have eliminated the versatility that makes casters special.  Now all the casters have are abilities like everyone else-- except caster abilities take an ungodly amount to time to "cast" and can be easily interrupted.  All of the bad, none of the good.

 

I am sensitive to multiclass breaking concerns, but I think that can be handled in other ways.  In particular, casters should have more caster-specific abilities that increase power level, increase range, increase casts, reduce casting time, increase penetration, etc. for some but not all of their spell types.  That would let a pure caster specialize in fire/protection/touch/AoE/etc. spells in a way that's less accessible to multiclass casters, while maintaining the wealth of combat options that should define a caster.

 

Only so many ways you can swing a sword? Sounds a little biased and dismissive, wanting all the options in the world for casters while ironically doing the same thing with melee by writing them off.

 

I could think of plenty different attacks with a sword, all that do different effects as well as varying amounts of damage. Uppercut Slash - big dmg can set prone, Multi Slash - hits multiple targets if near or one multiple times for reduced damage, Hamstring - hobbles enemy, Forward Thrust - extra armor pen, Cross Slash - inflicts damage over time (bleed), Pommel Bash - chance to stun, Round Slash - aoe, Impale - increased crit chance, Leap Strike - daze, movement, Whirlwind - multi aoe and the list could go on. 

 

Then unique attacks per weapon, more per weapon type and even more per class (like Shadow Strike for Rogue instead of Leap Strike, with added/modified effect like adds bleed and positions you behind opponent and triggers a sneak attack)

 

Etc.

Edited May 11, 2018 by whiskiz

[grausch]

@OP

 

In POE1 a wizard could literally nuke and entire battle field. Fun the first few time you do it yes, also quite satisfying.

 

Fun the tenth or twentieth time you so it, not so much.

 

You get the point?

Yep, my wizard could quite easily nuke the battlefield in PoE 1. However, that was mostly done by opening with Ninagauth’s Shadowflame and then hitting my paralyzed opponents with Kalakoth’s Freezing Rake until the battle was over. It does not look like the current system addresses that. It merely allows me to do that every encounter, whereas previously I would need to rest before I could do that again.

 

The current rule changes seem to encourage the above, rather than discourage it. My wizard tended to preserve his spells and only use what was needed for the situation (since I needed to rest). Why would I need to do that now?

 

Having flexibility means that casters could find more interesting solutions to problems. Right now, I need to preplan my build more and it needs to be more specialized in order to ensure that I can nuke when I need to. I would also like to experiment with different spells to see how they work and whether they are useful. Doing that now just seems to be a massive pain.

[moxsapphire]

well, one thing I AM finding, by dropping the venserian system of magic, casters, are suddenly gaining way more sustain, i think (?)

 

i need to delve into the manual to figure it out, but it seems classes (even my beloved rogue) have power source points or something ... mine are called "guile"

 

i think they regenerate in battle, somehow? i'm not really sure. but im watching the wizard AI mow down enemies every fight now

 

so you say no spells were removed going from poe1 to poe 2? ok. my bad. it seems like they were. i remember you get like 10 spells per level as a priest, and it didnt seem like there was a selection of 10 on that tree

 

it knd of feels like 4th edition d&d right now. 

 

i guess it's not bad or good but a change... maybe it's not so bad because the micromanagement and the anxiety of the decision to use a spell slot or not is gone io poe 2... just fire away every battle, right...? or am i missing something...

[Wintermist]

I don't mind this new change really, but I do wish they would add one more spellcast per encounter, atleast for single class characters.

[daven]

Less is more!

 

Define 'coolness' by the way. It's doesn't really mean anything saying 'because it's cool', 'coolness'. I'm not having a go at you but it seems to be used as a reason quite a lot. 'Because it's cool'.

[Zoso der Goldene]

After playing as a Wizard on PotD for maybe 10 hours, I can say that I understand the attempt to balance game play by introducing power sources for everyone, and having them restored between battles, and reduce the power of individual spells: In PoE, casters could make there special, high-power spells that were intended to be per-rest into per-encounter spells by just resting between each and every encounter. That made them outshine any melee-based character in my opinion, and it creates an insurmountable balancing challenge. (Whether balance is indeed a challenge to be taken on in single player computer games is another matter.)

So the move to per-encounter actually levels the field for everyone, and from a balance perspective, that's a good thing, I guess.

 

I just noticed two negative side effects:

• I didn't have to rest once during the first 10+ hours of gameplay on the highest difficulty setting (PotD, ToI, Expert mode (which doesn't work BTW), Level Scale All (Scale Up Only)). While the hack-and-rest fests of PoE 1 were not too entertaining to be honest, this feels a little too easy. I'm sure PotD is going to be harder to beat after they fix it, but per-encounter spells take most of the blame in my opinion.
• The way grimoires work - it's clearly a compromisem, and I don't have a better solution to propose. They wanted to give wizards some of their former flexibility back, but editing grimoires (I didn't miss anything, did I?) or learning spells from a grimoire were non-options for obvious reasons. But this makes some of my ability/spell choices obsolete: You find a grimoire that does what you want, and boom, three of your five spell are no longer relevant, so you feel like you created a failed character in a sense. Yes, that's only a problem if you object to respecing (like I do, but that's another discussion), or on your first blind playthrough (that's when it matters most, at least for me).

[whiskiz]

 

After playing as a Wizard on PotD for maybe 10 hours, I can say that I understand the attempt to balance game play by introducing power sources for everyone, and having them restored between battles, and reduce the power of individual spells: In PoE, casters could make there special, high-power spells that were intended to be per-rest into per-encounter spells by just resting between each and every encounter. That made them outshine any melee-based character in my opinion, and it creates an insurmountable balancing challenge. (Whether balance is indeed a challenge to be taken on in single player computer games is another matter.)

So the move to per-encounter actually levels the field for everyone, and from a balance perspective, that's a good thing, I guess.

 

I just noticed two negative side effects:

• I didn't have to rest once during the first 10+ hours of gameplay on the highest difficulty setting (PotD, ToI, Expert mode (which doesn't work BTW), Level Scale All (Scale Up Only)). While the hack-and-rest fests of PoE 1 were not too entertaining to be honest, this feels a little too easy. I'm sure PotD is going to be harder to beat after they fix it, but per-encounter spells take most of the blame in my opinion.
• The way grimoires work - it's clearly a compromisem, and I don't have a better solution to propose. They wanted to give wizards some of their former flexibility back, but editing grimoires (I didn't miss anything, did I?) or learning spells from a grimoire were non-options for obvious reasons. But this makes some of my ability/spell choices obsolete: You find a grimoire that does what you want, and boom, three of your five spell are no longer relevant, so you feel like you created a failed character in a sense. Yes, that's only a problem if you object to respecing (like I do, but that's another discussion), or on your first blind playthrough (that's when it matters most, at least for me).

 

"I'm sure PotD is going to be harder to beat after they fix it, but per-encounter spells take most of the blame in my opinion."

 

There's absolutely no reason why PotD can't be balanced with per encounter abilities, when it is actually balanced post release.

 

Per encounter abilities aren't to blame, the fact they did state PotD hasn't been balanced properly yet and even if it was - it'd just be because they still haven't done it properly.

 

Because it's per encounter and we can now multi class or have stronger solo classes, that just then means adding an extra say +3 enemies or 1 level stronger enemy types or increasing numbers that much more, on top of what was already going to be added for PotD balancing.

 

It is not beyond devs ability in this day and age of technology to balance combat just because skills are per encounter.

 

If everyone else can manage it, that don't have some rando archaic "per rest" restriction on half the game, surely these guys will be able to, too. 

Edited May 11, 2018 by whiskiz

[Zoso der Goldene]

 

 

After playing as a Wizard on PotD for maybe 10 hours, I can say that I understand the attempt to balance game play by introducing power sources for everyone, and having them restored between battles, and reduce the power of individual spells: In PoE, casters could make there special, high-power spells that were intended to be per-rest into per-encounter spells by just resting between each and every encounter. That made them outshine any melee-based character in my opinion, and it creates an insurmountable balancing challenge. (Whether balance is indeed a challenge to be taken on in single player computer games is another matter.)

So the move to per-encounter actually levels the field for everyone, and from a balance perspective, that's a good thing, I guess.

 

I just noticed two negative side effects:

• I didn't have to rest once during the first 10+ hours of gameplay on the highest difficulty setting (PotD, ToI, Expert mode (which doesn't work BTW), Level Scale All (Scale Up Only)). While the hack-and-rest fests of PoE 1 were not too entertaining to be honest, this feels a little too easy. I'm sure PotD is going to be harder to beat after they fix it, but per-encounter spells take most of the blame in my opinion.
• The way grimoires work - it's clearly a compromisem, and I don't have a better solution to propose. They wanted to give wizards some of their former flexibility back, but editing grimoires (I didn't miss anything, did I?) or learning spells from a grimoire were non-options for obvious reasons. But this makes some of my ability/spell choices obsolete: You find a grimoire that does what you want, and boom, three of your five spell are no longer relevant, so you feel like you created a failed character in a sense. Yes, that's only a problem if you object to respecing (like I do, but that's another discussion), or on your first blind playthrough (that's when it matters most, at least for me).

 

"I'm sure PotD is going to be harder to beat after they fix it, but per-encounter spells take most of the blame in my opinion."

 

There's absolutely no reason why PotD can't be balanced with per encounter abilities, when it is actually balanced post release.

 

Per encounter abilities aren't to blame, the fact they did state PotD hasn't been balanced properly yet and even if it was - it'd just be because they still haven't done it properly.

 

Because it's per encounter and we can now multi class or have stronger solo classes, that just then means adding an extra say +3 enemies or 1 level stronger enemy types or increasing numbers that much more, on top of what was already going to be added for PotD balancing.

 

It is not beyond devs ability in this day and age of technology to balance combat just because skills are per encounter.

 

If everyone else can manage it, surely these guys will be able to. 

 

Well, per encounter spells make it harder to make PotD challenging but not impossible to beat, at least:

To force me to rest, my characters have to be knocked out on a regular basis now. This can go south pretty easily.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Zoso der Goldene