Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 Pre-Release Thread [EARLY ACCESS RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Cryomancer]

Lore and mechanics should be consistent, but lore should never refer to purely mechanical

You are 100% right. Nobody is asking for GURPS style ultra detailed rules, like one book chapter only to rule about walking in frozen lakes... If we decide to go full simulation, we need rules about fire/acid/cold/wathever effects affecting armor. Which one is the best representation of Avada Kedavra on Harry Potter?

A ) A skill where every wizard from lv X learns, deals 500% of the size and sharpness of wizard damage and has 3 minute cooldown

B ) Like Finger of Death on D&D 3.5e.

"but saves, there are no way to resist it on HP", for human wizards which has low FORT save. There are no evidence that powerful magical creatures like dragons can't resist the spell https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/3glljz/could_avada_kedavra_kill_a_dragon/

 

[Silly Germans]

If all spells require the same "fuel" you will most likely end up with using the same spell all the time, the best spell in its respective category.
There would be no incentive to use other spells. Cooldowns are an easy way to avoid that and help to differentiate spells further.

The answer to that problem would be to have the spells different enough to be useful in different situation. If I have 3 damage spells, one dealing 50 dmg, the other 30 and the last one 15 then I don't see how forcing me to circle through them makes the game more interesting.

Just like i reduced mana systems to its worst outcome, you are reducing cooldown mechanics to their worst outcome, i.e. causing simple cycling.
I agree that in this case nothing is won, but cooldowns can interplay with the dynamics of the battle. If it is well designed it might not be
the best option to cycle through them nonstop but to consider when you should use them and what you are risking if you put your best spell
on cooldown right now. Cooldowns and Mana aren't even opposites and can be used together.

But if you wait for the perfect moment to use a given spell you risk a situation where you could use that spell and have it restored by the time you needed it. For example you put-away using charge which has 2-turn cooldown for 5 turns waiting for a good opportunity only to realize that you've wasted on charge by being indecisive. Which is why people end-up cycling through their best abilities.
If your goal is to make players hesitate before shooting away all their best spells then the old vancian system or limiting their per-encounter use is better.

I don't play PnP but the games that come to mind (BG, IWD, NWN, PoE) did a poor job at making you hesitant at using your spells. You can most of the time
blow away your best spells in each encounter since resting is often possible in between. Instead of cycling you get a single iteration from top to bottom.
I have replayed BG2 with SCS and Ascension not to long ago and at higher levels you have so many spells and HLA's that fights are over before you can even
empty your lvl 8 and lvl9 spell slots.
I don't think that a Vancian/slot system is inherently better than a cooldown system. Both can be used as tools to design good combat mechanics,
they don't exclude each other and could be used together.

 

[DraQ]

Lore and mechanics should be consistent, but lore should never refer to purely mechanical

You are 100% right. Nobody is asking for GURPS style ultra detailed rules, like one book chapter only to rule about walking in frozen lakes... If we decide to go full simulation, we need rules about fire/acid/cold/wathever effects affecting armor. Which one is the best representation of Avada Kedavra on Harry Potter?

A ) A skill where every wizard from lv X learns, deals 500% of the size and sharpness of wizard damage and has 3 minute cooldown

B ) Like Finger of Death on D&D 3.5e.

"but saves, there are no way to resist it on HP", for human wizards which has low FORT save. There are no evidence that powerful magical creatures like dragons can't resist the spell https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/3glljz/could_avada_kedavra_kill_a_dragon/

Dunno, I don't into children books.

I don't think that a Vancian/slot system is inherently better than a cooldown system. Both can be used as tools to design good combat mechanics,
they don't exclude each other and could be used together.

Vancian system is inherently better than cooldown system, and that should tell you something as I consider Vancian to be pretty crap overall.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

If all spells require the same "fuel" you will most likely end up with using the same spell all the time, the best spell in its respective category.
There would be no incentive to use other spells. Cooldowns are an easy way to avoid that and help to differentiate spells further.

The answer to that problem would be to have the spells different enough to be useful in different situation. If I have 3 damage spells, one dealing 50 dmg, the other 30 and the last one 15 then I don't see how forcing me to circle through them makes the game more interesting.

Just like i reduced mana systems to its worst outcome, you are reducing cooldown mechanics to their worst outcome, i.e. causing simple cycling.
I agree that in this case nothing is won, but cooldowns can interplay with the dynamics of the battle. If it is well designed it might not be
the best option to cycle through them nonstop but to consider when you should use them and what you are risking if you put your best spell
on cooldown right now. Cooldowns and Mana aren't even opposites and can be used together.

But if you wait for the perfect moment to use a given spell you risk a situation where you could use that spell and have it restored by the time you needed it. For example you put-away using charge which has 2-turn cooldown for 5 turns waiting for a good opportunity only to realize that you've wasted on charge by being indecisive. Which is why people end-up cycling through their best abilities.
If your goal is to make players hesitate before shooting away all their best spells then the old vancian system or limiting their per-encounter use is better.

I don't play PnP but the games that come to mind (BG, IWD, NWN, PoE) did a poor job at making you hesitant at using your spells. You can most of the time
blow away your best spells in each encounter since resting is often possible in between. Instead of cycling you get a single iteration from top to bottom.
I have replayed BG2 with SCS and Ascension not to long ago and at higher levels you have so many spells and HLA's that fights are over before you can even
empty your lvl 8 and lvl9 spell slots.
I don't think that a Vancian/slot system is inherently better than a cooldown system. Both can be used as tools to design good combat mechanics,
they don't exclude each other and could be used together.

But that's more of a problem with higher level DnD spells giving you too many spell slots and letting you rest too often, and also adding too many samey spells. Making player hesitant about using his most powerful spells right away can be done using mana by simply making powerful spells cost significantly more mana, and making the fights varied enough to not make players want to use the same spell over and over again instead of forcing him not to. Wizardry 8 managed to do that pretty well.

Also I think there is something wrong with the device you are using to post because the way the lines are broken in your post is kinda weird.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

The solution to how conserved spell casting is, is quite simple. Give players their 2nd Edition awesome spells. Let them cast them as much as they want. Place an appropriate drawback proportionate to the value of the spell. I have a homebrew RPG where consequences range from the spell merely fizzling, to violently detonating the caster, and much much more. Gives the player freedom, no resting drudgery, but enforces discipline to bring force proportionate to the challenge. It also introduces lots of fun mechanics, as well as giving a rational reason why the world isn't awash in "easy-button Harry Potter grade" magic. Mundane skills also become a lot more practical. Do you cast 'Knock' on that lock when it could possibly make your entire party go insane, or do you break out the lockpick tools?

 

[Poseidon00]

I don't play PnP

Spoken like a true 5e fan

 

[AndrewCC]

Are there any 4th Ed D&D games?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Are there any 4th Ed D&D games?

Neverwinter(the MMO) originally was iirc

 

[luj1]

Are there any 4th Ed D&D games?

PoE I-II core ruleset was inspired by 4ED.

 

[Harthwain]

The "core" of an RPG is a band of adventurers traveling together

Wrong. The core of a RPG is role playing.

Not in video game adaptations. There are 2 (3) RPGs in existence which focus on roleplaying - AoD and Fallout (and 2).

Indeed. In most cRPGs player takes on the role of murderhobo and combat is the main part of the game. This is why some are confused by games like Disco Elysium, where there is very little combat present and it isn't done as its own separate mechanic.

Funnily enough, Larian tries to encourage roleplaying by increasing the player's ability to interact with the world, so even though their games are still mostly about killing enemies, they do feel a bit more RPGy in that sense. I wish more cRPGs focused on interactions (and before someone screams - I consider combat as an interaction, I just not see the need for it to be a dominant one).

If all spells require the same "fuel" you will most likely end up with using the same spell all the time, the best spell in its respective category.
There would be no incentive to use other spells. Cooldowns are an easy way to avoid that and help to differentiate spells further.

That only means something in your combat system is shit (usually due to bloat) and you are using cooldowns as bandaid for that.

I don't see much difference between "cast X times per rest", "cast X times per encounter", a cooldown and something like mana you replenish by resting/drinking mixtures. It's all amounts to the same: restricting you from using certain abilities/spells too much in too short window of time. Or do you mean to say that cooldowns are the least restrictive, therefore they are the lamest resolution for restricting the overuse of certain spells/abilities?

 

[Silly Germans]

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.

 

[Lacrymas]

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

 

[Parabalus]

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.

 

[Galdred]

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

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.

 

[NJClaw]

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

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.

 

[Lacrymas]

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[Jimmious]

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

 

[NJClaw]

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.

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.

 

[Ontopoly]

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

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.

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

 

[Lacrymas]

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

No?

 

[user]

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

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.

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

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

 

[Lacrymas]

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.

 

[Cryomancer]

What they said is that every space of time outside of combat is considered a short rest,

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

 

[DraQ]

The solution to how conserved spell casting is, is quite simple. Give players their 2nd Edition awesome spells. Let them cast them as much as they want. Place an appropriate drawback proportionate to the value of the spell. I have a homebrew RPG where consequences range from the spell merely fizzling, to violently detonating the caster, and much much more. Gives the player freedom, no resting drudgery, but enforces discipline to bring force proportionate to the challenge. It also introduces lots of fun mechanics, as well as giving a rational reason why the world isn't awash in "easy-button Harry Potter grade" magic. Mundane skills also become a lot more practical. Do you cast 'Knock' on that lock when it could possibly make your entire party go insane, or do you break out the lockpick tools?

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

I don't see much difference between "cast X times per rest", "cast X times per encounter", a cooldown and something like mana you replenish by resting/drinking mixtures. It's all amounts to the same: restricting you from using certain abilities/spells too much in too short window of time. Or do you mean to say that cooldowns are the least restrictive, therefore they are the lamest resolution for restricting the overuse of certain spells/abilities?

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.

 

[Anonona]

• 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.

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.