-
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!
- Thread starter TheLostOne
- Start date
- Joined
- May 29, 2010
- Messages
- 35,828
I'm barely paying attention to this banal magic discussion but from what I've skimmed it's a bunch of grognards complaining about the possibility of wizards being able to use magic too much before alt-tabbing into D:OS discussion and sucking more Larian cock. Fuck all of you, you don't know what you want.
Volourn
Pretty Princess
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2003
- Messages
- 24,924
"I'm barely paying attention to this banal magic discussion but from what I've skimmed it's a bunch of grognards complaining about the possibility of wizards being able to use magic too much before alt-tabbing into D:OS discussion and sucking more Larian cock. Fuck all of you, you don't know what you want."
I suck Larian cock now? This would be news to Larian cocksuckers in the DOS threads. LMFAO
I suck Larian cock now? This would be news to Larian cocksuckers in the DOS threads. LMFAO
Sensuki
Arcane
I'm going to continue complaining about that until it's toned down or they tell me to stfu
Sensuki
Arcane
ROFL.
The thought that every class in the party needs to "have to do something useful" all the time, ideally dealing comparative DPS like everybody else - which is what it boils down to in the end - must be a mentality stemming from MMOs or something.
Of course doing a "Blast" every round is so much more exciting than using the crossbow. It's called Blast after all.
A wizard is not supposed to do the dirty work, or to concern himself with DPSing kobolds. That's the fighter's job. A wizard's job is to alter the reality of a given encounter if the situation calls for it, to enable the BSF and the glass cannon to excel at their own job. Bonus fun to be had if you always strive to accomplish this with the least spellcasting possible. That's the appeal.
Of course doing a "Blast" every round is so much more exciting than using the crossbow. It's called Blast after all.
A wizard is not supposed to do the dirty work, or to concern himself with DPSing kobolds. That's the fighter's job. A wizard's job is to alter the reality of a given encounter if the situation calls for it, to enable the BSF and the glass cannon to excel at their own job. Bonus fun to be had if you always strive to accomplish this with the least spellcasting possible. That's the appeal.
Last edited:
To be fair the thought that every class needs something similarly useful to do all the time leads to stuff like 4th edition. And I prefer a stone slinging wizard over that, even tho it might not be the perfect solution. Magic should feel special, powerful and frighteningly dangerous. If you start casting spells every round from 1st level on it loses some of it's, well... magic.
murloc_gypsy
Cipher
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2014
- Messages
- 323
There's a cool article someone wrote over at Dragonsfoot forums (a forum for AD&D) about the history of Magic-User throughout the editions. http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=64642
My two cents: First Edition did it right. 4E did it worst. IE games come pretty close to that, esp. BG2.
• Hit points. In 1st edition you rolled 1d4 hit points as a first level wizard. If you had a constitution of 15, you could get a +1 bonus, or with a 16, a +2 bonus. That was it. The maximum possible hit points for a first level magic-user were 6. In 3.5 you started with maximum hit points for your hit die at 1st level. Additionally, constitution bonuses began at 12 rather than at 15, meaning that a lower score could result in a higher bonus than in previous editions. Finally, and most damning, was the Toughness feat. This innocent feat, considered underpowered by some, gives you +3 hit points at 1st level. Given your low hit points at 1st level, it was a good idea to spend your 1st level feat on it, and thus gain survivability. An average wizard in 3.5 could be expected to start with about 8 hit points. The theoretical maximum would be about 12, which means that a wizard could start with as many hit points as a fighter. The math at higher levels as well shows that 3.5 wizards have many more hit points than their AD&D counterparts.
• Bonus spells. In 3.5, you gain bonus spells for high intelligence as a wizard, just like clerics did in AD&D. So while the AD&D wizard starts with exactly one spell per day, his counterpart in 3.5 starts with 3 0-level spells and usually 2 1st level spells. It should also be noted that 3.5 0-level spells (cantrips) are significantly more powerful than the cantrips shown in the AD&D Unearthed Arcana. This trend of more spells per day for a 3.5 wizard continues into the higher levels.
• Spells Known. A limiting factor on AD&D wizards was a maximum number of spells per level known, and the necessity of rolling to determine if you understand a given spell. No AD&D wizard was guaranteed to possess every spell he wanted to. 3.5 wizards on the other hand, are free to choose which spells they want, ensuring that they will always possess the most powerful spells in the game. In addition, they have no maximum spells known, meaning that they could theoretically possess every spell in the game.
• Armor. In AD&D you could not wear armor as a magic-user, with the exception of elven fighter/magic-users, who are a different topic altogether. Additionally, there was no easy way of getting better armor for yourself. Your best low-level defensive spell, shield, lasted but 5 minutes/level. Additionally, the beloved displacement spell of 3.5 wizards was not in existence. Instead, AD&D wizards had to use the dangerous and unpredictable blink spell. In 3.5, armor had a “spell failure chance.” This was a chance that your spell would fail due to the armor interfering with the spell’s somatic components. A variety of methods (using mithril armor, taking certain feats, “dipping” classes, etc.) could easily nullify the spell failure chance, allowing for wizards to wear armor. Finally, even without armor, it is entirely possible for a 3.5 wizard to get an Armor Class of 42 by 20th level, or an AC of -32 in AD&D terms. The more a wizard can defend himself, the less he needs a fighter to defend him.
• Magic Items. In AD&D, one had to be fairly high in level to create the majority of magic-items, 11th level to be precise. Potions and scrolls could be made sooner, but the creation process for all magic items was exceedingly onerous and difficult. Additionally, in AD&D it was impossible to purchase magic items. In 3.5, potions could be brewed by 3rd level, wondrous items could be made by 3rd level, and magic swords and armor could be made by 5th level. More insidiously, it was permissible to purchase magic items in large cities. This means that any magic item you wanted could be either crafted or bought. The DM was no longer in charge of distributing magic items. Although this might sound good in theory, it means that any magic item you want can be yours. Since players always take what is best for them, it means that every D&D character will have the “good” items. This helps wizards inordinately, for now they can guarantee themselves better protection and better offensive capability.
• Spellcasting. In AD&D, spells took a set amount of time to cast, and taking even a single point of damage during the casting of the spell would disrupt and ruin your spell. It was imperative that fighters guard the magic-user, for if the party mage got hit, there would be no spell from him that round. In many cases, this could mean the difference between victory and defeat. In 3.5, you could make a concentration check if struck while casting, giving you a chance of not failing your spell.
• Magic Resistance. In AD&D, magic resistance worked on the principle that for every level below 11th, a magic-user has a -5% penalty on his magic resistance roll, and for every level above 11th, a +5%. If he fails, the spell does not work on the creature. 3.5’s spell resistance works on the basis that the wizard rolls a d20 and adds his level. If he beats the monster’s spell resistance number, his spell works. These two systems are very similar. The difference is that a 3.5 wizard can pick up the feats Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration to give himself a combined +4 on the roll. Furthermore, he can use the Assay Spell Resistance spell from the Spell Compendium to give himself a +10 on the roll. Again, in 3.5 there are always ways to work around your limitations as a wizard.
• Saving Throws. In AD&D, saving throws got better as you gained levels. Difficulty remained static. Your spells as a magic-user were always the same level of power, but monsters simply became more resistant to them. This resulted in spells dealing half damage or being negated routinely by higher powered monsters. In 3.5, the difficulty of resisting your spells scales alongside the monster’s save bonuses. Your intelligence modifier and the level of the spell that you are casting, plus feat modifiers, all apply to the difficulty class of your spell. With a bit of work, you can make even powerful monsters routinely fail their saves versus your spells.
• Bonus spells. In 3.5, you gain bonus spells for high intelligence as a wizard, just like clerics did in AD&D. So while the AD&D wizard starts with exactly one spell per day, his counterpart in 3.5 starts with 3 0-level spells and usually 2 1st level spells. It should also be noted that 3.5 0-level spells (cantrips) are significantly more powerful than the cantrips shown in the AD&D Unearthed Arcana. This trend of more spells per day for a 3.5 wizard continues into the higher levels.
• Spells Known. A limiting factor on AD&D wizards was a maximum number of spells per level known, and the necessity of rolling to determine if you understand a given spell. No AD&D wizard was guaranteed to possess every spell he wanted to. 3.5 wizards on the other hand, are free to choose which spells they want, ensuring that they will always possess the most powerful spells in the game. In addition, they have no maximum spells known, meaning that they could theoretically possess every spell in the game.
• Armor. In AD&D you could not wear armor as a magic-user, with the exception of elven fighter/magic-users, who are a different topic altogether. Additionally, there was no easy way of getting better armor for yourself. Your best low-level defensive spell, shield, lasted but 5 minutes/level. Additionally, the beloved displacement spell of 3.5 wizards was not in existence. Instead, AD&D wizards had to use the dangerous and unpredictable blink spell. In 3.5, armor had a “spell failure chance.” This was a chance that your spell would fail due to the armor interfering with the spell’s somatic components. A variety of methods (using mithril armor, taking certain feats, “dipping” classes, etc.) could easily nullify the spell failure chance, allowing for wizards to wear armor. Finally, even without armor, it is entirely possible for a 3.5 wizard to get an Armor Class of 42 by 20th level, or an AC of -32 in AD&D terms. The more a wizard can defend himself, the less he needs a fighter to defend him.
• Magic Items. In AD&D, one had to be fairly high in level to create the majority of magic-items, 11th level to be precise. Potions and scrolls could be made sooner, but the creation process for all magic items was exceedingly onerous and difficult. Additionally, in AD&D it was impossible to purchase magic items. In 3.5, potions could be brewed by 3rd level, wondrous items could be made by 3rd level, and magic swords and armor could be made by 5th level. More insidiously, it was permissible to purchase magic items in large cities. This means that any magic item you wanted could be either crafted or bought. The DM was no longer in charge of distributing magic items. Although this might sound good in theory, it means that any magic item you want can be yours. Since players always take what is best for them, it means that every D&D character will have the “good” items. This helps wizards inordinately, for now they can guarantee themselves better protection and better offensive capability.
• Spellcasting. In AD&D, spells took a set amount of time to cast, and taking even a single point of damage during the casting of the spell would disrupt and ruin your spell. It was imperative that fighters guard the magic-user, for if the party mage got hit, there would be no spell from him that round. In many cases, this could mean the difference between victory and defeat. In 3.5, you could make a concentration check if struck while casting, giving you a chance of not failing your spell.
• Magic Resistance. In AD&D, magic resistance worked on the principle that for every level below 11th, a magic-user has a -5% penalty on his magic resistance roll, and for every level above 11th, a +5%. If he fails, the spell does not work on the creature. 3.5’s spell resistance works on the basis that the wizard rolls a d20 and adds his level. If he beats the monster’s spell resistance number, his spell works. These two systems are very similar. The difference is that a 3.5 wizard can pick up the feats Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration to give himself a combined +4 on the roll. Furthermore, he can use the Assay Spell Resistance spell from the Spell Compendium to give himself a +10 on the roll. Again, in 3.5 there are always ways to work around your limitations as a wizard.
• Saving Throws. In AD&D, saving throws got better as you gained levels. Difficulty remained static. Your spells as a magic-user were always the same level of power, but monsters simply became more resistant to them. This resulted in spells dealing half damage or being negated routinely by higher powered monsters. In 3.5, the difficulty of resisting your spells scales alongside the monster’s save bonuses. Your intelligence modifier and the level of the spell that you are casting, plus feat modifiers, all apply to the difficulty class of your spell. With a bit of work, you can make even powerful monsters routinely fail their saves versus your spells.
My two cents: First Edition did it right. 4E did it worst. IE games come pretty close to that, esp. BG2.
TigerKnee
Arcane
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,920
When I first eyeballed this topic title I thought it was some kind of parody. I always figured the most common complaint for "they have nothing to do in combat" are martial classes, ESPECIALLY the thief types in early RPGs where their role is basically "play with a smaller party size for combat, but you can get more loot through trapped treasure chests and you won't die to traps"
Seriously, when was wizards not having things to do in combat ever a problem except very early on in D&D games and maybe some of the older Wizardries where you can't rest after every battle to restore spells? What a weird academical debate.
Seriously, when was wizards not having things to do in combat ever a problem except very early on in D&D games and maybe some of the older Wizardries where you can't rest after every battle to restore spells? What a weird academical debate.
eremita
Savant
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2013
- Messages
- 797
Exactly. You know that there's something wrong with your system (in terms of utility) when dual classing the thief with mage on early levels provide benefits only. Nalia with 4 thief levels is better mage than Nalia with no levels. Imoen with 7 thief levels is even better because she's still not restricted from the most powerfull spells and HLAs. Nalia can shoot arrows, has better THAC0, have some useful tricks and still manages to be a decent spellcaster.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 97,497
Yeah, that's what we're talking about. Depending on your definition of "very".
eremita
Savant
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2013
- Messages
- 797
That doesn't imply passive role in combat. You can make this formula work without forcing mage to nose-picking...
For me, I don't care if my characters are doing something or not doing something during combat. What I do care about is whether I as the player has some variety of tactical/strategic decisions to make during combat, and preferably this is balanced among all characters. In this context, for the most part Fighters actually give you very little to do in IE games besides target selection. Then they just autoattack with no input from the player. Wizards, on the other hand, actually make you think about what spell to use and when. Then they "don't do anything." But to the player, I find that I am doing more with Wizards than with Fighters, because I am making more meaningful decisions with what to do with my Wizard rather than with the Fighter.
In other words, your character doing something != the player has stuff to do. IMO Wizards have enough to do in IE games, and Fighters do not. In PnP, melee combat has the complexity of 5-foot-steps, charging, disarming, etc. That's not in IE. It is in TOEE, which is cool. But it's not in IE, and auto attack does not, to me, mean that my character is doing something interesting.
Now, stuff like 5-foot-steps and disarming is probably micromanagement hell for a real-time game. Nor do I propose giving Fighters abilities that are just renamed Wizard spells.
Instead, I actually like what I've seen from PoE so far. There are going to be modal abilities which I assume are like stances, giving Fighters a tactical decision to make during combat that is not at all like a magic spell. There are situational abilities, such as the Barbarian's Wild Sprint, that interact with the melee engagement mechanic. We know that the 'tankier' melee classes can Engage more characters than other classes. And hopefully the engagement mechanic is complex enough to, by itself, give melee characters tactical decisions to make.
In other words, your character doing something != the player has stuff to do. IMO Wizards have enough to do in IE games, and Fighters do not. In PnP, melee combat has the complexity of 5-foot-steps, charging, disarming, etc. That's not in IE. It is in TOEE, which is cool. But it's not in IE, and auto attack does not, to me, mean that my character is doing something interesting.
Now, stuff like 5-foot-steps and disarming is probably micromanagement hell for a real-time game. Nor do I propose giving Fighters abilities that are just renamed Wizard spells.
Instead, I actually like what I've seen from PoE so far. There are going to be modal abilities which I assume are like stances, giving Fighters a tactical decision to make during combat that is not at all like a magic spell. There are situational abilities, such as the Barbarian's Wild Sprint, that interact with the melee engagement mechanic. We know that the 'tankier' melee classes can Engage more characters than other classes. And hopefully the engagement mechanic is complex enough to, by itself, give melee characters tactical decisions to make.
Last edited:
craft wands win gaem.
Ebonsword
Arcane
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
- Messages
- 2,340
They can--just have them start off as a Fighter and then switch to Mage at second level.
Sensuki
Arcane
Straight Wizards 
Dual classing does fix this
Dual classing does fix this
roshan
Arcane
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,440
Being "tehh awsum!!!0" all the time is NOT interesting.
Hobo Elf
Arcane
I thought the reason for parties was exactly so that when one person was useless the others would cover his ass? You have a thief to unlock doors and traps, Wizard for handling magical curios and encounters, fighters to kill the mooks etc.
I mean Bilbo went on his journey because the dwarves and Gandalf needed a burglar. I know he saved the dwarves' asses many times during their adventure, but they hadn't anticipated that at all. They took him specifically for one niche purpose only and they were all fine with that.
I mean Bilbo went on his journey because the dwarves and Gandalf needed a burglar. I know he saved the dwarves' asses many times during their adventure, but they hadn't anticipated that at all. They took him specifically for one niche purpose only and they were all fine with that.
Delterius
Arcane
My other post ended in the Lilura thread and I think it bears repeating: unlike the IE games, PoE is being made with strategic resource management in mind. As much as I and some others preferred to play Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate without rest spamming, PoE will have demands and incentives to that effect out of the box. That's the most important change here because that is the very premise of an interesting Mage. Wether or not you want more things to do during lesser encounters, everyone here looks forward to that time to shine, which is when you unload the spellbooks.
The second most important change is that those spellbooks themselves are changing. For each of the game's 6 spell levels, the Wizard holds a certain allotment of spellpoints which he can use to cast what he needs on the fly, this selection being only limited by what spells are inscribed in his spellbook. The spellbook itself can be changed during but preferably in between combat. This hybrid of a Sorcerer and a Mage is, in my opinion, a very important change because it may have been necessary due to the demands of no less rest spamming. It also turns the Mage into a much more powerful focused spell caster than he was in the IE games since the Sorcerer's versatility completely outclassed everyone who wasn't Edwin in BG2.
In face of these two changes, the per encounter/ always there powers Blast, Arcane Veil and Grimoire Slam are relatively minor additions which should be on par with other classes'. A straight wizard wouldn't necessarily want the opportunity to use either Veil or Slam, the former meaning you allowed him into danger and the later being basically a touch attack. Blast itself is meant to cause 'modest damage' and since it is tied to auto attacks it shouldn't matter in the balance of spells. The thematic change from stone slinging to wands and rods is welcome regardless of preference. Ultimately, the things that matter are also the more sensible ways to improve the Mage's standing: the changes to spellcasting and resting directly influx into the game's encounter design and pacing. Adventures will be controlled environments where your resource management, from health to spells, will hopefully be tested by the developers.
The second most important change is that those spellbooks themselves are changing. For each of the game's 6 spell levels, the Wizard holds a certain allotment of spellpoints which he can use to cast what he needs on the fly, this selection being only limited by what spells are inscribed in his spellbook. The spellbook itself can be changed during but preferably in between combat. This hybrid of a Sorcerer and a Mage is, in my opinion, a very important change because it may have been necessary due to the demands of no less rest spamming. It also turns the Mage into a much more powerful focused spell caster than he was in the IE games since the Sorcerer's versatility completely outclassed everyone who wasn't Edwin in BG2.
In face of these two changes, the per encounter/ always there powers Blast, Arcane Veil and Grimoire Slam are relatively minor additions which should be on par with other classes'. A straight wizard wouldn't necessarily want the opportunity to use either Veil or Slam, the former meaning you allowed him into danger and the later being basically a touch attack. Blast itself is meant to cause 'modest damage' and since it is tied to auto attacks it shouldn't matter in the balance of spells. The thematic change from stone slinging to wands and rods is welcome regardless of preference. Ultimately, the things that matter are also the more sensible ways to improve the Mage's standing: the changes to spellcasting and resting directly influx into the game's encounter design and pacing. Adventures will be controlled environments where your resource management, from health to spells, will hopefully be tested by the developers.
That would work if there were a balanced number of the encounter types you mentioned (like in a good PNP campaign). But a game like PoE is seemingly going to be too combat heavy for that; and if a game is going to be combat heavy, better to have tactically interesting combat mechanics rather than "realistic" ones. Class distinctions like that might work in Torment Numanuma though.
TheLostOne
Savant
That's the whole thing. Classic party stories are all based around the idea that everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. I just feel like games have drifted away from this idea in the interest of making things "fair."
I get that there are challenges designing a game around specialists and party building. You don't have the luxury of modifying your game on the fly that a PnP GM does, so if you make a bunch of traps and the player doesn't bring a rogue you need to consider that in your design and create workarounds.
Still, I feel like when that effort is put in it pays off in a much more satisfying feeling game.
Sorry, didn't follow PoE much, just to recap, in PoE instead of using slings/crossbows wizards use "Blast" which is tied to auto-attack and we call this "having something useful to do each round?" I wonder how this auto-attack improves on the traditional kinds of auto-attack. I guess it does more damage and doesn't require a to-hit roll, so even a non-spellcasting wizard is a constant source of moderate DPS. Sounds like the kind of balance Sawyer would regard as desirable.
http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Blast
http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Implement#Implements
I doubt it will play much differently, it's just a quick auto ranged attack with splash damage for wizards. You do it when you can afford to have your wizard in range and have no spells that need casting. Just like auto attacking with a sling/darts. I suppose being able to switch to a different weapon for interrupt or when there's not many enemies to hit with the splash is a little more interesting?
Per encounter spells are probably a bigger deal. Once you have a few, with there being no reason not to blow them in a fight, you might be trying to cast something a lot more often than IE games.
http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Implement#Implements
I doubt it will play much differently, it's just a quick auto ranged attack with splash damage for wizards. You do it when you can afford to have your wizard in range and have no spells that need casting. Just like auto attacking with a sling/darts. I suppose being able to switch to a different weapon for interrupt or when there's not many enemies to hit with the splash is a little more interesting?
Per encounter spells are probably a bigger deal. Once you have a few, with there being no reason not to blow them in a fight, you might be trying to cast something a lot more often than IE games.
Huhwaht
wizards start as very useful even in first dungeon when you kick spiders and quickly progress to be more and more powerful up to coneofcolding everything and FoDin dragons.
Were you that kind of player who memorised only magic missiles?
I think at will 4th ed spells aren't bad but they will mostly work in turn based game, where every turn is important and it doesn't feel like you spam stuff. In real time at-will rays of frost oomped with realtime or rtwp kiting would look just like you said.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.