Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate III by Larian Studios - Early Access announcement on June 13th

Magic of BG1/2 was fun since there were a ton of spells and a ton of effects. And it didn't shy away from save or die spells.
Being Vancian is in my opinion the least important reason why mages/magic was great in those games. Similarly, cooldowns
neither make or break your magic system unless you go full retard with them. I don't get why people focus on this aspect
although it says almost nothing about the quality of the magic system.

 

Cooldowns encourage rotations which make for repetitive gameplay. The Vancian system only makes sense when resting is limited.

 

Limited resting only makes sense when there are both local (supplies) and global (time-limit) restrictions, otherwise you might as well be rid of them.

PF:KM did resting right, but it's a rare exception.

 

The Vancian system also encourages repetitive gameplay unless you can get intel on what you are facing. Otherwise, you end up always loading the same generic purpose spells.
That is why I think sorcerers work best, unless the game provides a better way to know what's ahead than reading an online guide or reloading your game.

 

Larian won't be able to limit rests in any sensible way. They need to appeal to a large crowd of casual players who can't be bothered to plan ahead and play an "hidden" resources management minigame. It would be an incredible risk.

 

Probably. But since we can only rest in the camp they've shown, they might flash a "camping here is dangerous" in dungeons. That doesn't mean you won't be able to exit the dungeon and rest then.

I've never caught myself using the same things in the IE games constantly. PoE yes, but that's because 90% of the spells were useless.

 

From what they've shown so far, resting and camping seems to be central to the gameplay so I'm curious to see how they will implement it

 

Kingmaker resting is a perfect example to summarize the entire game: it works great, but it's plagued by appalling and time-wasting mechanics and interfaces.

 

Didn't they say that spells are going to be per encounter?

 

No?

 

Did they? Is it gonna be another of those "pure DnD" games, streamlining "unneeded", "time-wasting" mechanics?

 

What they said is that every space of time outside of combat is considered a short rest, so those spells/abilities which require a short rest will be replenished after combat. Long rests is the camping thing.

 

So warlock spells will gonna be per encounter...

Mainly due lv cap = 10. Warlocks can regain spells up to tier 5 in a short rest

 

You don't play them newfangled vidyagames very often, do you?

Let me spell it out for you:

• With resource based casting you can cast the same, even powerful spell multiple times in quick succession if you have resources for that. That means, among other things, that other combatants are not automatically safe for X turns after one gets finger of death cast on them.
• With resource based casting casting one spell depletes your resource for others so you need to weigh your spells carefully rather than cycling between your several most powerful nukes until combat is resolved.
• Cooldown system is by far the most horribly unnatural and game-y system imaginable, because with few, rare exceptions it's pretty much impossible to justify in fluff.

And finally - whatever you can accomplish with cooldowns you can accomplish with casting times, in addition to a bunch of other things:

• Casting times are very natural concept - a wizard needs time for their waving hands and speaking gibberish with high-budget electronically enhanced voice and accompanying light show, presumably the more time the more impressive the end effect is going to be.
  
• With casting times you need to commit well in advance of getting desired effects. That enforces tactical thinking and balances powerful abilities.
• With casting times defending side has options besides tanking that fireball. That means that spells don't have to be nerfed, and encumbered by save-or-die that frequently have the outcome of the entire battle hinging on a single roll, just to have them straddle the thin line between cheese and uselessness. That in turn means the spells can be much more powerful and reliable - you now can have this spell that reanimates skeletons while still inside living enemies and has them climb out and it won't necessarily be hilariously broken even if it doesn't fail 99% of the time.
• Conversely, because the defending side can and will act to prevent being hit by spells attacker needs to protect their casters against death or interruption and prevent enemy from taking effective cover instead of spells just being fire-and-forget nukes.
• Finally, because of powerful spells not relying on non-determinism and unreliability for balancing, the game is much less broken by even non-restrictive save-load meta-mechanics.
• Casting times are even more restrictive than cooldowns - even though you also get to cast given spell at most once per X turns, you additionally get an X turns delay before first casting, have to commit in advance and cannot cast your other spells during casting time.

 

I agree with you, though I would say in this point in particular, wouldn't the "rotation" of spells and "fire-and-forget" nukes be more an issue of the magic systems themselves rather than cooldowns? For example, a Mesmer from the Guild Wars 1 is focused on CC, and the class was quite difficult and fun to play because you had to observe what the enemy was using or going to use and cast the right spells. Timing was very important for this, as the cooldown meant you won't be able to stop them for a while, yet they had to be instant as to be able to be used before the enemy could act. In this instance, magic isn't about casting strong spells to kill, but more as a way to respond to enemies attacks and control them. Wouldn't perhaps in situations like this, with classes that relay on instant responses to enemy actions, cooldowns be good option to create interesting gameplay that punishes misusing spells?

I could see a game having both casting time and cooldowns as mechanics for different casters, specially with things like 5e reactions or just good old regular ready actions. And even without those they could function as a way to counter spell-casting based on casting times. It could also give different magic schools distinct flavor mechanically. Regardless, while I still enjoy cooldown systems, I won't lie saying that I don't agree with you, casting time and resource management do seem like it offers more interesting tactical gameplay than cooldowns in general.

 

Cooldowns can be explained for characters like Wizardry 8 gadgeteer. You use your gizmo, then you need to wait for it to literally cool-down before you can use it again. But yeah, without something physical that needs to literally "cool down" it's hard to explain, and if Wizard himself has to cooldown that doesn't explain individual cooldowns for different spell instead of one cooldown for the wizard.
Vancian magic makes more sense for characters that use a talismans or runes or something like that, you trap some of your magic power in an object, then you destroy it to release it in combat. Which makes you able to recover your magic power and trap it again during the rest.

 

Its not like you cant use them together. D:OS2 has source points and cooldowns and i don't think the game would be better if it only had some sort of mana as resource.
You'd end up spamming meteor shower, hail storm, etc, if they weren't limited by a cooldown. Cooldowns as a limiting property do work and can work with other mechanics,
i see no benefit in limiting the mechanics by excluding cooldowns per se. I also like casting times or channeling/interruption mechanics, but they also do not exclude cooldowns
and could be used side by side. They are actually very intiuitive to use together since it makes you even more careful about using your spells at the right time instead of simply
spamming them, knowing that you won't be able to use your best spell anytime soon again if you are interrupted.

The fluff point is moot and purely subjective. There are already so many game-y systems anyways, cooldowns aren't any worse or harder to explain if you wish to do so.
Take turn based combat itself as example, that is as game-y as it gets without any logical explanation whatsoever. If you can accept that in a game, how can you have
problems with cooldowns ? Just take them as part of the game mechanics.

 

There is nothing intuitive about cooldowns. And there is nothing more limiting than casting times. Imagine having a 3 round casting time, you won't be clamoring for the cooldowns any time soon in that context.

 

There are a lot of spells that require so long casting time that are not useful on combat. On 5e, animate dead is useless in combat since it takes 10 rounds(1 minute) to be cast. On Vampire, The Masquarede, Tremere received a huge nerf on their most recent edition, a lot of powerful thaumaturgy abilities are now rituals.

Turn based is a abstraction. Reaction, free action, bonus action(...) is just abstractions

--------------------

I really miss when "RPG elements" was stats measuring your character capabilities, armor class, skill levels, etc; and not cooldowns, stat stickie gear, number inflation, etc

 

Does it need to be justified in fluff though? I find it working well within the system you're creating it for being far more important consideration. Was lore ever important when it came to any Baldur's Gate game? Or any cRPG game with magic? Death Gate had its magic explained, but that's because how it worked was very important part of the game (both in fluff and out of fluff), but that was an adventure game with a fixed storyline/progression, which is an entirely different animal.

Question: Cooldowns and casting times don't have to be mutually exclusive, do they?

I do get the other points, but I don't see why you don't have to weight how you use your spells if they have cooldowns, when said cooldowns aren't short and combat itself is taxing your other resources (health, for example), so that you can't prolong it enough to spam your desired spells over and over again.

 

It becomes an issue when you become unable to process what is happening on the screen. You can imagine that the spell disappears from the mind after being cast, especially if you've read Jack Vance previously. But it's harder to imagine how is it possible that my fighter cannot charge just because he did it some time ago, I can imagine that he's tired from overextending himself but he can do a whirlwind just fine. There needs to be some sort of explanation of what is going on when I click on my fireball spell and see that it's on cooldown.

 

That needs context otherwise it is wrong. First of all it depends on what you can do in 1 round. 3 rounds can mean a lot or next to nothing. Cooldowns are extremely easy to understand and
to grasp. They are very intuitive from a mechanical point of view. You can also easily draw analogies to real life by likening it to exhaustion after an tiresome activity. What is not intuitive about that or less intuitive than other
abstract game mechanics that are common in games ?

 

Precisely. Cooldowns can make sense if use of ability relies on something external to the user: energy weapon or device that actually needs to cool down (or heavy cannon with autoloader), amulet, weather control spells, certain summons, etc. Then the cooldowns are on this object/resource - for example if a wizard casts weather control spell in snowy Northernlandia, then immediately teleports to sunny Tropicia, they can immediately cast their weather control spell again even though it's still on cooldown in northernlandia. Meanwhile a gadgeteer that's tagging along still has his technomagick raygun on cooldown, but he could use another one with or without travel if he had a spare.

Cooldowns don't and can't make sense on individual abilities that are realized by the character themselves.

Vancian is second only to cooldowns in being unreasonable. With memorization fluff it's just cheesy. Without and with component system it's actually a kind of crafting and should be replaced with prepared or "partially pre-cast" spells being actually represented in character's inventory (though with additional restrictions).

I'd rather replace it with DOS2-esque memorization system (you memorize spells, NOT castings), but with spells being memorized from books/scrolls rather than learned by character destroying the physical object, and having to be re-memorized on rest (automatically when applicable). That would create interesting imperfect symmetry between physical and caster types (physical relying on equipment, but having their abilities permanently learned, arcane relying on their library from which they memorize their spell loadout), and make strength useful for casters.

Not if resource depletion prevents you from casting that other type of nuke or even weaker spells. Do you cast one nuke (which one?) and then spend the rest of the battle swinging stick, or maybe cast a succession of weaker spells at opportune moments?
VS
Nuke1, Nuke2, Nuke3, Shitty filler spell(s), Nuke1, Nuke2...

It's not like you would want to, apart from few specific cases.
(See Gangrelrumbler 's post)

Nope. Because if my caster is asked "Why haven't you cast second fireball right after the first, so our companions would still be alive?" he can't answer "game mechanics".

 

No you can't. Because the character is not exhausted, he can do a number of other exhausting things if he wants to, he just can't do this one specific thing. That's what's bonkers about the entire concept.

Also, are you aware that your posts look like this to other people?:

 

No, i was not aware that my posts look like this. They show up normal on my screen. I'll stop paragraphing them for my view, that should help.

The analogy doesn't work one to one, that's a given. The cheap way out is to say that each spell has its own unique magical exhaustion that is restored after waiting a bit. There you go. I am sure if someone spent a bit more effort on an explanation, you could come up with something that is more convincing. The Vancian system is not exactly intuitive either. I only know it from games but my shallow understanding is that it has something to do with memory and that you forget a spell once you casted it. If that is roughly correct how does it make sense to have the same spell prepared multiple times in your spell book ? How can you forget something more than once ? I guess my understanding/information about the Vancian system is incomplete since that doesn't make any sense. None of the infinity games explains exhaustively how magic works, so from a video gaming point of view it doesn't matter much anyways.

I am not arguing for cooldowns everywhere and i don't think they should be forced into games that use an existing system that does fine without them. But in general, i don't see how cooldowns are any worse than other mechanics that are readily accepted. They all have their place and can be used for good or worse. The cases where one is better than the other is mostly due to the surrounding design choices but not an inherent property.