Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Baldur's Gate PoE vs IE: Do wizards need to have more stuff to do in combat? DISCUSS!

TheLostOne

Savant
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
770
Location
Limbo
I prefer the high impact occasional game changers than the spamalot crap.

Using KotC as an example since I've played it recently, my wizard practically sits out 75% of battles. I mean he's got a nice xbow and can drop a mook or two, but the knights do the heavy lifting in the bog-standard fights. It's when the big fights come that he saves the day, paralyzing giants, confusing enemies and disintegrating wizards left and right, and it's fun as hell when he does

Some people say that's shoddy design. You don't want to have a character that's not effective in every fight. I disagree. I like the idea of having specialists.

A highly trained sniper might not be super useful clearing an indoor complex, but can destroy high priority targets and have great demoralizing effect in the right conditions. But screw that. He's not effective 100% of the time so lets not train snipers and get another grunt with an assault rifle.

A talented kicker in football (murican) might not do much for 90% of the time, but they can certainly win (or lose) the game for a team.

Why does all gameplay have to be homogeneous and symmetrical?
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,228
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
I prefer the high impact occasional game changers than the spamalot crap.

Using KotC as an example since I've played it recently, my wizard practically sits out 75% of battles. I mean he's got a nice xbow and can drop a mook or two, but the knights do the heavy lifting in the bog-standard fights. It's when the big fights come that he saves the day, paralyzing giants, confusing enemies and disintegrating wizards left and right, and it's fun as hell when he does

Some people say that's shoddy design. You don't want to have a character that's not effective in every fight. I disagree. I like the idea of having specialists.

A highly trained sniper might not be super useful clearing an indoor complex, but can destroy high priority targets and have great demoralizing effect in the right conditions. But screw that. He's not effective 100% of the time so lets not train snipers and get another grunt with an assault rifle.

A talented kicker in football (murican) might not do much for 90% of the time, but they can certainly win (or lose) the game for a team.

Why does all gameplay have to be homogeneous and symmetrical?

Believe it or not there is a middle ground between "homogenous and symmetrical" and "sitting out 75% of battles".
 

TheLostOne

Savant
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
770
Location
Limbo
Believe it or not there is a middle ground between "homogenous and symmetrical" and "sitting out 75% of battles".

Of course there is. I was giving an example. 3.5 is hardly the perfect game system.

That said, I don't mind at all that the wizard doesn't work hard in the mook fights. He doesn't have to. That's the BSF's job and he does it admirably. That stuff's beneath the notice of the masters of the arcane, anyway.

You can't deny that there is a school of thought that says "not useful 100% of the time=bad design" and I'm merely stating my disagreement.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,228
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
"Useful" is a relative term. A wizard might not be able to contribute mega damage in all fights, but it's better if he at least always has something to do (even if it's an auxiliary activity).

The weird "wizard as stone slinger" archetype commonly seen in the IE games is basically a half-assed attempt to achieve that.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,228
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth

Because doing stuff - having to do stuff - is more tactically interesting than not doing stuff.

Those fights in low level D&D that your mage can "sit out"? There's nothing monocled about those. You know what they are? They're easy fights. Because you could manage them with a smaller party than the game allowed you - the mages didn't need to be there at all, you were just babysitting them because "D&D Grognard 101" says you're supposed to have a mage.

Sorry, but I don't buy into that stuff anymore.
 

TheLostOne

Savant
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
770
Location
Limbo
What socialist tripe... Shooting a crossbow isn't sitting out, you're just not the star of that particular fight.

The idea that everybody has to feel speshul and effective every fight is weak-minded and boring.

Give me god of death archers that crumble if closed with and fighters that dread the open field over the happy playground you envision where everyone gets a medal every game.
 

Zetor

Arcane
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
1,706
Location
Budapest, Hungary
I don't think I've seen the "mages are heavy artillery that win fights for you 25% of the time and are idle 75% of the time" concept in any CRPG made since the early 80s (japanese Wizardry clones may be an exception). In a blobber mages could hit enemies with staves while being safely in the back line, and in other games you'd use darts or slings. In both cases this meant doing low damage that was only really useful to finish off weak critters that already took some damage from the fighters (and in later games such 'caster weapons' would have a decent chance of inflicting some status effects to make them more useful against typical mook encounters), but I don't remember non-casting mages being useless party-fillers at all. And if shit got serious, you could always make the decision to spend your mages' limited resources on 'trash mobs'.

And of course in an important fight the mages would bring in the big guns and fighters would be a bit less useful (especially in early games, when all a fighter could do was [A]ttack).


edit to be a bit more on-topic: for me in BG1/2 most of the fun related to casters was to squeeze out as much usefulness from their spells as possible and resting as little as possible (usually no resting at all in a hostile area until I cleared it out). This also increased the value of scrolls and potions quite a bit. Blowing my entire repertoire on any remotely challenging fight and then resting to get it all back again for the next part of the dungeon doesn't sound fun to me at all.
 
Last edited:

Zombra

An iron rock in the river of blood and evil
Patron
Joined
Jan 12, 2004
Messages
11,538
Location
Black Goat Woods !@#*%&^
Make the Codex Great Again! RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
I think that it's bad policy to have characters with nothing much to do sometimes - in turn-based games.
Having a character's turn pop up only to shrug and go, "End Turn, I guess" ... that's disappointing.

In party-based RTWP, though, it's completely fine to have some guys carry the ball while the others wait around for their "moment of specialness".
In games like IWD, I certainly don't lose too much sleep over whether or not my mage is well stocked with darts to throw when he's not casting.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,228
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
The idea that everybody has to feel speshul and effective every fight is weak-minded and boring.

Yeah, the idea certainly sounds boring when you describe it that way. But how does your idea work in practice? Luckily we have some actual games to test that out with.

Unlike most Codexers, I'm a BG1-fag. When I think of the Infinity Engine experience, I think of fighting kobolds and hobgoblins - and I fucking love that stuff.

I've played through BG1 a bunch of times, and each time I did, I went by the book. The typical D&D party. Two fighters, two clerics/druids, a thief and a mage. I totally bought into the fantasy, and I tried to make it work.

And you know what, in retrospect, I look back at all those kobold fights where I dragged along my hapless mage along, and I realize: THAT KIND OF SUCKED. My mages could have had more to do, and it would have been fine. No monocles would have been shattered, no moles would have been popped.

I'll say this again - it seems to me that most posters ITT look at the Infinity Engine experience from the perspective of Baldur's Gate 2, and they don't really understand the kinds of things low level D&D-style combat needs in order to be engaging.
 
Weasel
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
1,865,661
When playing a single character game I understand everything needing to be balanced. But with a party of 5 or 6 I quite like the fact that some characters shine in certain situations and are less useful in others. Especially in a rtwp game - the fact that a couple of them might be just firing missiles in a certain battle doesn't bother me in the slightest, they don't need to be doing something awesome all the time. That's why I have a varied party after all.

Having 6 jack-of-all trades characters who are equally useful in all fights doesn't seem as interesting to me, in terms of putting my party together and taking them through different situations, but I guess this is a personal preference.
 

buzz

Arcane
Joined
Apr 1, 2012
Messages
4,234
The point of RPG is specialization. That comes with its own form of C&C

Wizard-type classes being useless in early game but being power-horses in late-game. Clerics being good at healing but sucking at fighting. Thieves being used for surprise attacks or disarming traps, but not for something direct.

The point of having all these advantages and drawbacks inherent to the classes is part of the appeal. You're supposed to work with your friends, trying to make a balanced party out of all the classes and everything. It's the fun way to be. X decides to be the wizard, he is going to be frail and useless at the beginning and the fighters will have to protect him. Then he gets some heavy power and its his time to wreck shit and shine.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,228
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
the fact that a couple of them might be just firing missiles

What sorts of missiles? Weaksauce, thematically inappropriate, lame-excuse-to-do-something sling stones, or something that's actually interesting to use like this game's novel Blast ability?

http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Blast

Whenever a wizard uses an implement (a wand, a rod or a sceptre) they generate a "Blast" on their target. The Blast does a modest amount of damage to all enemies in a small area around the target but does not affect the target itself.[2]

I'm sure many people here think this ability is popamole because "mages are not supposed to be rocket launchers" hurr durr.

X decides to be the wizard, he is going to be frail and useless at the beginning and the fighters will have to protect him. Then he gets some heavy power and its his time to wreck shit and shine.

Who decided this was the only way to do it? Why is this the only acceptable form of "specialization" for a mage? Have you considered that there might be more interesting, more engaging ways to "specialize" classes?
 
Last edited:

Zetor

Arcane
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
1,706
Location
Budapest, Hungary
I'll say this again - it seems to me that most posters ITT look at the Infinity Engine experience from the perspective of Baldur's Gate 2, and they don't really understand the kinds of things low level D&D-style combat needs in order to be engaging.
If this is aimed at me, I fully understand what low-level d&d mages need to be engaging, since I played plenty of those games (in fact, the original Pool of Radiance is one of my fav goldbox games) and played a low-level mage in pnp too: more abilities instead of just 2 first-level spells... but that's the system's problem, and I'm not sure what BG1 - a CRPG that's supposedly based on ad&d - could do to make low-level mages more interesting. High-level mages being world-destroying monstrosities is the other problem with the system, which is why high-level ad&d sucks to play either in p&p or in a CRPG. Later editions gave mages a few more things to do via cantrips, innate abilities, whatever... but the 'magical artillery' concept never changed.

Now if you're talking about "d&d-style"... shrug, I'm fine with whatever ability mages get, as long as fighters can do something other than [A]ttack (which it looks like they can in POE). I was ok with the ranged staff autoattack in DAO, fwiw, and blast seems to be at least moderately interesting (and potentially a micromanagement nightmare if there are any charm/sleep-type abilities that are broken by damage)
 

Jaesun

Fabulous Ex-Moderator
Patron
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
37,241
Location
Seattle, WA USA
MCA
If Wizards could use bows in 2E that would make them a little more useful.

That would make them incredibly over powered. Though that would be an interesting experiment to try in the Dungeon Craft engine, if it ever gets finished.
 
Weasel
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
1,865,661
Comparing using a "wand, rod or a sceptre" to a sling stone? Doesn't seem like a reasonable comparison. Obviously using a wand is more "interesting" or makes you feel powerful or whatever.

I just don't really get this idea that mages in low level D&D parties are pointless and need more superpowers to make the game interesting. Yes, they are known to be weaker than fighters at lv1, and as Buzz mentions later on mages obviously become more powerful. Luckily we have a varied party then. But everyone is pretty weak at level 1. You thief can also be one-shotted and will be swinging hopelessly at targets with his rusty shortsword. Your cleric will have one healing spell and a club. Part of the fun of low level D&D imo. Your mage will be hitting occasionally with sling stones but on the other hand has 2 spells, and one sleep spell can turn the whole course of a battle at this level.

That seems fine to me, but again this is a personal preference so if you find this boring then I guess these extra abilities will make you enjoy using all 6 characters more. To me though, as I said I don't really see the need in a party-based rtwp game. I guess we'll find out when we finally get to play Sawyer's ode to balance.
 

tuluse

Arcane
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,400
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong
Comparing using a "wand, rod or a sceptre" to a sling stone? Doesn't seem like a reasonable comparison. Obviously using a wand is more "interesting" or makes you feel powerful or whatever.

I just don't really get this idea that mages in low level D&D parties are pointless and need more superpowers to make the game interesting. Yes, they are known to be weaker than fighters at lv1, and as Buzz mentions later on mages obviously become more powerful. Luckily we have a varied party then. But everyone is pretty weak at level 1. You thief can also be one-shotted and will be swinging hopelessly at targets with his rusty shortsword. Your cleric will have one healing spell and a club. Part of the fun of low level D&D imo. Your mage will be hitting occasionally with sling stones but on the other hand has 2 spells, and one sleep spell can turn the whole course of a battle at this level.

That seems fine to me, but again this is a personal preference so if you find this boring then I guess these extra abilities will make you enjoy using all 6 characters more. To me though, as I said I don't really see the need in a party-based rtwp game. I guess we'll find out when we finally get to play Sawyer's ode to balance.
They don't need more superpowers, they need more weakish powers that are fun to use.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,228
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
If this is aimed at me

It isn't.

blast seems to be at least moderately interesting (and potentially a micromanagement nightmare if there are any charm/sleep-type abilities that are broken by damage)

It might be, but you can also use a ranged weapon (any weapon, not just slings) to hit something directly.

I wonder if Blast can autoattack.
 
Last edited:

Sensuki

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,799
Location
New North Korea
Codex 2014 Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong A Beautifully Desolate Campaign
I think Infinitron is correct in that you really don't need a Wizard in Baldur's Gate 1 for the most part, perhaps even full stop. Cleric spells come in handy a lot more often.

My historical BG1 playthrough is a lot more martial. I usually have one Wizard and one Cleric. I never originally cheesed through fights with Fireball, Web and the Cloud spells like other people seem to have done.
 
Weasel
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
1,865,661
They don't need more superpowers, they need more weakish powers that are fun to use.
Will spamming the same low-level ability be more 'fun' overall when you have a party of 6 to manage? Perhaps it will, I guess we'll find out soon.
 

Zetor

Arcane
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
1,706
Location
Budapest, Hungary
blast seems to be at least moderately interesting (and potentially a micromanagement nightmare if there are any charm/sleep-type abilities that are broken by damage)

It might be, but you can also use a ranged weapon (any weapon, not just slings) to hit something directly.

I wonder if the game's autoattack is smart enough to be able to Blast enemies by aiming near them?
Word. I also wonder if you can aim it at friendlies (ie. your warrior with 5 enemies around him)?

For BG1 I typically went with two archers (Coran and Kivan) to completely murderize everything from range, Minsc to hold off enemy melee, and Dynaheir to act as the token mage because Minsc leaves otherwise. I typically played a cleric/druid type, so the last character was a wildcard (Imoen maybe, though I'd ditch her after getting Coran).
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom