99 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyberarmy]

What i would like to see some magician duels.
İncluding silent spells, spell countring, protection against weapons/spells and cannon fodder summoning.

I really like to develop strategies against wizards, not just nuke the hell out of'em like DA games.

[AmstradHero]

Pausanias wrote...

All this discussion about whether to memorize ahead or to have mana-based casting I think is taking away from the main point, which is that magic has lost a lot of what made it interesting in video games, including Bioware's.

No spell sequencers

This was a nice gimmick, but often for me it felt like it was more just rationale for enemies to be able to pull off quick combos in a way that seemed "fair". That said, it was nice to occasionally use one of these yourself.

Pausanias wrote...
No timed spell-casting with spell fizzling

Well, actually that still exists in Dragon Age: Origins. Levelling up the combat skill even let you take more damage before a spell was interrupted.

Pausanias wrote...
No spell protections

Again, not entirely true, since you still do get "anti-magic". You just don't get the variance in spell protections.

Pausanias wrote...
It is now reduced to pretty much a thoughtless process.

No. It's largely reduced to DPS. That's not quite the same.

Like I said, it comes down to allow combat (and non-combat) skills/spells perform equally effectively, but in different ways. At the moment we get a lot of "deal X damage in fire" or "deal X damage in lightning". Though the cross class combos were a great addition to the Dragon Age combat system, a lot of it was still just "make those combos for higher DPS". It's not thoughtless, if just doesn't allow for a wide range of creativity.

[Lotion Soronarr]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

OH NOES! A system that actualy requires some thought! TOO DIFFICULT FOR OUR PUNY MINDS!

It doesn't really require any amount of thought though. On the first playthrough where the player is not meta-gaming, they will either hyper-specialise and then get screwed over a lot ("magic missile is generally the bomb, so I didn't memorise this other spell that was useful in this one situation") or they will keep token spell slots looking the same throughout most of the game. For instance, one identify spell in case they find a magic item and one fire arrow in case they meet a troll.

What you descriibe IS tought and planing in advance.
A selection of multi-purpose spells for various situations. Gathering info befeore going in (talking to NPC about the dungeon/forest, use of tracking feats, etc..) and preparation.
That's what any sane and smart adventuring party would do.

In fact I think the only time I've ever seen a wizard do any big changes to his spellbook before heading out to an adventure in D&D (non-4E since 4E doesn't really have Vancian casting outside of daily powers) is when I had put glowing neon signs saying "this will be a fire-based dungeon" prior to them getting there. If they had simply come upon the dungeon without me telegraphing that back in town, he would have went in there with his usual spellbook.

And it would be their fault for not being properly prepaired adn getheing info. So what? That's not a flaw.
The game shouldn't do the thinking for me.

I mean sure, he could've asked the group to go back outside and regroup so he could waste a day's time to ready a new spellbook once he realised there was only fire stuff in that dungeon, but how interesting would that be, really?

Given that it takes only a few moments in-game, and not an actual day? Not a problem.
And why shouldn't retreat be a viable option in games?

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 31 août 2012 - 08:41 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

AmstradHero wrote...
Okay, unwinnable in a reasonable manner. I don't consider having to use up a ridiculous amount of your consumable items in order to succeed a reasonably balanced encounter simply because you haven't got one or two spells are your disposal. That was indeed liable to happen in some D&D games. When you could run away and rest, you'd get smashed the first time because you lacked the necesary spells that made the fight trivial. So you reload, memorise those spells, come back, and the fight is trivial. That's not a rewarding experience. That's jumping through hoops. Do you remember this happening to you when playing BG2 for the first time? Because I sure as heck do.

Sez who?
I do consider it a rewardign experience. I was rewarded for adjusting my strategy and turned a difficult encounter into a managable one.

Sometimes retreat and rest is not an option.

It almost always is. Few dungeons are so big that you can't backtrack to the exit, especially after you cleared the way.
And given the wide spell selection, there's practicly always a way to win if you use the spells you have intelligently

While I do agree games like BG2 and its compatriots had some nice counterspell type systems going, as I've pointed out, some of the fights could be near impossible without the right spell (or two), but trivially easy with them. That's not an ideal balance.

Adn the current systems and boring, trivial, unchallenging and devoid of depth.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

NWN magic > DA magic

[Mr Fixit]

AmstradHero wrote...

In fact, I'd argue there are insufficient utility abilities (or insufficient advantage offered by them) in many modern RPGs over the old school. Remember when you cast invisibility on your thief (or got them to swig a potion of super strength and then invisibility) so that they could deal massive damage to a target in the D&D days?

Welcome to the days of the Her Royal Highness, The Balance, the only God in residence these days.

[Firky]

But, in BG2 you had to pay attention so you'd know what to memorise ahead of time, not reload the dungeon when you realised it had a whole bunch of mindflayers in it ... ? (Like, my recollection is people, or the game, warning you of what was coming, a fair bit.)

I'm defending memorisation, but only for the good stuff it left behind, not because it's necessarily better overall. ^ Pertaining to my above example, memorisation made me concentrate more, whereas, much as I love DA2, concentration was more based on bits of the story I was interested in and battle by battle.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Precisely. The game gave you options to prepare. You could take to people before going into an area to know what to expect and prepare accordingly.

Sometimes you ran into unexpected stuff. But that too is to be expected. It's how life works.
I really never had trouble with preparations.

[Mr Fixit]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Precisely. The game gave you options to prepare. You could take to people before going into an area to know what to expect and prepare accordingly.

Sometimes you ran into unexpected stuff. But that too is to be expected. It's how life works.
I really never had trouble with preparations.

For me, one of the favourite things with Vancian casting (and non-regenerating health) is the sense of progress I'm getting while going through a dangerous dungeon or enemy territory. Although the game (talking about BG/BG2) generally let me rest wherever I wanted, I always behaved in-character. Would you really rest in the middle of a dragon's lair? Not bloody likely. So I pressed on with depleted resources, every following encounter a greater and greater strain on the party. 

Completing a quest or clearing a dungeon with barely a spell left, and half the characters in the red -- it was a great feeling, one that can't be repeated with instahealings and endless resources.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 31 août 2012 - 11:48 .

[Kidd]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What you descriibe IS tought and planing in advance.
A selection of multi-purpose spells for various situations. Gathering info befeore going in (talking to NPC about the dungeon/forest, use of tracking feats, etc..) and preparation.
That's what any sane and smart adventuring party would do.

It is also planning that does not need to be done every time you visit a new dungeon. How you wish to specialise your character and what options should be open to them can be chosen during level up instead.

And it would be their fault for not being properly prepaired adn getheing info. So what? That's not a flaw.
The game shouldn't do the thinking for me.

Not every situation makes it possible to put up neon signs. Can you know whether you find one or four unidentified items in a dungeon?

Given that it takes only a few moments in-game, and not an actual day? Not a problem.
And why shouldn't retreat be a viable option in games?

In-character, it takes waiting until the next night, sleeping during it and then waiting an hour for the wizard to finish preparing their new spellbook. Yes, out of character we can often handwave this, but if we're willing to handwave such a long amount of waiting then why even have the requirement of waiting at all? If you're skipping something repeatedly, it may as well not be there at all.

Which brings me to the five minute adventure day, a horrible concept that quite naturally comes along with Vancian spellcasting. It's a problem with any system that doesn't renew resources through anything but time (yes, mana has this problem as well unless you auto-regen all mana out of combat), but it is a lot worse in a Vancian system than any other.

If you rely on, say, the fireball spell to clear out rooms, but can only afford two fireball spells per day due to needing other spells in the other slots, you will only clear two rooms a day. As soon as that second room is finished, the wizard will demand a rest. With a mana system (or the 3.5 sorcerer system), the wizard could instead continue casting fireball for a few more rooms - only paying their own versatility in the process. For instance, since they cleared a third room, the wizard will be unable to identify the dagger found there.

This becomes a huge issue where the wizard demands rest all the time to stay functional. And if the adventuring party isn't full of fighters who don't regard their own lives very highly, they will allow the wizard their rest. Thus the five minute adventure day is born. It makes perfect sense in-character since that's how a Vancian magic setting works, but game design-wise it is pretty odd.

As for retreating being an option, I'd wager to say the only moment I'll ever admit to thinking Vancian resource management has an ounce of interesting moments in its design is for those moments where retreating simply isn't an option. But even then - in a CRPG - we will simply feed meta-gaming since you will/can play the same content multiple times either through new playthroughs or reloads upon failing.

Mr Fixit wrote...

For me, one of the favourite things with Vancian casting (and non-regenerating health) is the sense of progress I'm getting while going through a dangerous dungeon or enemy territory. Although the game (talking about BG/BG2) generally let me rest wherever I wanted, I always behaved in-character. Would you really rest in the middle of a dragon's lair? Not bloody likely. So I pressed on with depleted resources, every following encounter a greater and greater strain on party's resources.

I agree. When resting and retreating isn't an option, that sense of progress can be pretty cool. I'd still take a mana resource over Vancian spellcasting any time though due to the issues I pointed out above. A non-instant-regenerating mana source will have the same sense of "progress" but without the huge downsides and lack of versatility.

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 31 août 2012 - 11:49 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I agree that there should be more ways for mages to neutralize each other. Just like a warrior will most likely run into the fray attacking other melee enemies, mages should look at taking each other out first by design. An enemy mage who is located at the far end of the room and throws up a protection spell would then need to have a dispel spell cast on them. While your mage is recovering, the enemy casts a silence or slow spell on you, which reduces your ability to cast. You manage to get off a debuff spell on them, which reduces their mana regeneration. Etc.

Instead, mages just spam their most powerful AoE spells and kill pretty much everyone. And, since they are much less "squishy" in DA2, if an enemy breaks ranks to attack them, its not instant death, so you don't need to worry about protecting these powerhouses anymore.


What I think would also be a good compromise between current mana pools casting and Vancian casting is having the cooldowns get larger and larger after each time you use a spell from a certain tree or school.

For instance, if you use the Elemental spell Firestorm, all of the spells in the Elemental school you have would be under a 30 second cooldown. So you could not cast Firestorm, then cast Fireball or Cone of Cold right afterwards, they would all be on a similar cooldown. Then, after that 30 second cooldown is complete, you can cast another Elemental spell, but its cooldown would be increased by 25%. So if you cast Fireball, which usually has a 20 second cooldown, it would instead be a 25 second cooldown. If you cast Cone of Cold, which usually has a 30 second cooldown, it would be instead a 36 second cooldown. After each subsequent casting of a certain school, that cooldown would increase by 25% again (so 50% after the second cast, 75% the third, etc.,etc.).

This would stop people from spamming the same spells over and over again and would incentivize investing points into other schools.

Also, sustained skills, like Rock Armor or Elemental Weapons, would leave a permanent 25% increase in cooldown for their respective skill tree/school.


This would essentially boil down to not being able to cast the same three spells over and over again. Which may be different than what the DA developers want, given how the average console player would have to choose their skills. But still, just an idea.

[Mr Fixit]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Not every situation makes it possible to put up neon signs. Can you know whether you find one or four unidentified items in a dungeon?

So? You don't know what the items are until you find a suitable source of identifying magic, whether through rest and memorising appropriate spells, or by going to a specialist. Why would that be a problem?

In-character, it takes waiting until the next night, sleeping during it and then waiting an hour for the wizard to finish preparing their new spellbook. Yes, out of character we can often handwave this, but if we're willing to handwave such a long amount of waiting then why even have the requirement of waiting at all? If you're skipping something repeatedly, it may as well not be there at all.

See my previous post for my thoughts on this matter.

Which brings me to the five minute adventure day, a horrible concept that quite naturally comes along with Vancian spellcasting. It's a problem with any system that doesn't renew resources through anything but time (yes, mana has this problem as well unless you auto-regen all mana out of combat), but it is a lot worse in a Vancian system than any other.

I've never had that problem in cRPGs. It's only there if you let it, and if you discharge the whole magic repertoire in a fight or two and then feel the need to rest to bring casters back to full strength. Off the top of my hat, I see two workarounds:

a) conserve your magic and use it wisely, waiting for the best moment to unleash a powerfull spell
if you fail to observe a), mages can always use slings:innocent:

Seriously now, I find that with the right strategy and smart use of spells, especially when I reach mid levels, I almost never run out of spells. It's much more likely my fighters are battered and bruised by the time party rests.

If you rely on, say, the fireball spell to clear out rooms, but can only afford two fireball spells per day due to needing other spells in the other slots, you will only clear two rooms a day. As soon as that second room is finished, the wizard will demand a rest. With a mana system (or the 3.5 sorcerer system), the wizard could instead continue casting fireball for a few more rooms - only paying their own versatility in the process. For instance, since they cleared a third room, the wizard will be unable to identify the dagger found there.

This becomes a huge issue where the wizard demands rest all the time to stay functional. And if the adventuring party isn't full of fighters who don't regard their own lives very highly, they will allow the wizard their rest. Thus the five minute adventure day is born. It makes perfect sense in-character since that's how a Vancian magic setting works, but game design-wise it is pretty odd.

Well, don't fireball every single room you chance upon. Simple as that. In pre-4E D&D mages were designed as "spike" classes, their powers available fewer times, but each single release being much more powerful. It's a different paradigm to constant-discharge low-power concept of non-spellcaster.

As I said, I've never had any problems with it. You just don't approach spellcasters with the same mindset as more mundane classes. And frankly, I liked it that way. 4E system of uniform beige blandness where every class is the same, all for the sake of the Holy Balance was a death blow from which it's unlikely D&D will ever recover.

[Kidd]

You are essentially saying "don't play optimally" (in-character and out-of-character perspectives both). A game system is flawed if you find yourself not wanting to give it your all. Street Fighter, Magic the Gathering, StarCraft, all these games would not be half the games they are today if a basic part of their game design was that you shouldn't play the best you could.

Vancian systems enable and encourage five minute adventure days when you're not in a rushed situation. That's not a strength of the system, it's definitely a huge flaw.

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 31 août 2012 - 12:23 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

There is a difference between playing optimally and squandering resources.

Just like you shouldn't use a stealth bomber to take out one man with a gun, you shouldn't use fireball spells to take out mooks unless it is really deserved. That's all Vancian casting systems try to enforce - a disciplined rationing out of magical power.

[DarthChicken]

I don't like vancian casting in my Dungeons and Dragons and I sure don't want it in my games either.

[Lotion Soronarr]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What you descriibe IS tought and planing in advance.
A selection of multi-purpose spells for various situations. Gathering info befeore going in (talking to NPC about the dungeon/forest, use of tracking feats, etc..) and preparation.
That's what any sane and smart adventuring party would do.

It is also planning that does not need to be done every time you visit a new dungeon. How you wish to specialise your character and what options should be open to them can be chosen during level up instead.

That is inflexible. It would mean you can't change anything untill the next DING.
It also a means a false choice utterly ruins you.
Being able to mix and match and chance selections is far more flexible.

You can reduce the amount of planing required by making a jack-of-all-trades mage. A good multi-purpose selection of spells usefull in most situations. Even runing sub-optimal you should be able to beat most encoutners (and I did in the old games)

And it would be their fault for not being properly prepaired adn getheing info. So what? That's not a flaw.
The game shouldn't do the thinking for me.

Not every situation makes it possible to put up neon signs. Can you know whether you find one or four unidentified items in a dungeon?

So? It's not like you MUST ID the item right away. You can easily ID it once back in  town.
Priorities. Also use of limited resources. If you don't have spell X ready, use other spells at your disposal. When's the last time there was only ONE way to beat a nencounter? I honestly don'trecall it.

Given that it takes only a few moments in-game, and not an actual day? Not a problem.
And why shouldn't retreat be a viable option in games?

In-character, it takes waiting until the next night, sleeping during it and then waiting an hour for the wizard to finish preparing their new spellbook. Yes, out of character we can often handwave this, but if we're willing to handwave such a long amount of waiting then why even have the requirement of waiting at all? If you're skipping something repeatedly, it may as well not be there at all.

Why is it a problem in-character? It makes perfect sense to prepare. It's no different than going backto town to re-supply with health potions.

Which brings me to the five minute adventure day, a horrible concept that quite naturally comes along with Vancian spellcasting. It's a problem with any system that doesn't renew resources through anything but time (yes, mana has this problem as well unless you auto-regen all mana out of combat), but it is a lot worse in a Vancian system than any other.

If you rely on, say, the fireball spell to clear out rooms, but can only afford two fireball spells per day due to needing other spells in the other slots, you will only clear two rooms a day. As soon as that second room is finished, the wizard will demand a rest. With a mana system (or the 3.5 sorcerer system), the wizard could instead continue casting fireball for a few more rooms - only paying their own versatility in the process. For instance, since they cleared a third room, the wizard will be unable to identify the dagger found there.

So? You have other resources. Is the fireball the ONLY way to clear a room? Heck no.
I'm plaiying ToEE right now, and I sure as hell don't go resting in the middle of the dungeon just because I ran out of fireballs. There's plenty of other usefull spells (and not only mages can cast spells) and ther'es also fighters and archers in my party.

[Realmzmaster]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Vancian spellcasting is terrible. It promotes meta-game thinking on replays and generally screws a lot with the first time player.

OH NOES! A system that actuayl requires some thought! TOO DIFFICULT FOR OUR PUNY MINDS!

There was a reason for Vancian spell casting in p n p rpgs. It was
easier to keep track of which spells were used. The only reason why it
continued into crpgs is because the games were base exactly on the D
& D ruleset or loosely based on it. There was no reason for vancian
spell casting except gamers were use to it from having played p n p
systems.

A computer does not have the limitation that a DM has in
this regard. A computer has no problem keeping track of how much mana
is used for a spell and how much mana the mage has left.

So the
limitation on spell casting becomes the amount of mana as it should be.
It makes very little sense to say the mage must re-memorize a spell. It
is not like the mage forgot the spell or how to cast it.

It all depends how magic is explained.
Let's say for example that spells are complex and take a long time to cast and drain a mage. So to be effective in battle, a mage prepares beforehand by casting a spell in advance and have in "waiting" to be a ctivated by a few final words/gestures. There you go. Makes perfect sense now.

Not the way it is explained in the p n p systems. The spell is memorized and not cast. Only certain spells had a time delay like delayed fireball. All other spells could not be put on hold because it would consume mana which did not happen in D & D and the other older systems especially Wizardry. The spell and spell level power were selected and cast at the same time. You are trying to use an explaination that does not exist in the RAW.

[Fast Jimmy]

someone definitely not Fast Jimmy wrote...

I agree that there should be more ways for mages to neutralize each other. Just like a warrior will most likely run into the fray attacking other melee enemies, mages should look at taking each other out first by design. An enemy mage who is located at the far end of the room and throws up a protection spell would then need to have a dispel spell cast on them. While your mage is recovering, the enemy casts a silence or slow spell on you, which reduces your ability to cast. You manage to get off a debuff spell on them, which reduces their mana regeneration. Etc.

Instead, mages just spam their most powerful AoE spells and kill pretty much everyone. And, since they are much less "squishy" in DA2, if an enemy breaks ranks to attack them, its not instant death, so you don't need to worry about protecting these powerhouses anymore.


What I think would also be a good compromise between current mana pools casting and Vancian casting is having the cooldowns get larger and larger after each time you use a spell from a certain tree or school.

For instance, if you use the Elemental spell Firestorm, all of the spells in the Elemental school you have would be under a 30 second cooldown. So you could not cast Firestorm, then cast Fireball or Cone of Cold right afterwards, they would all be on a similar cooldown. Then, after that 30 second cooldown is complete, you can cast another Elemental spell, but its cooldown would be increased by 25%. So if you cast Fireball, which usually has a 20 second cooldown, it would instead be a 25 second cooldown. If you cast Cone of Cold, which usually has a 30 second cooldown, it would be instead a 36 second cooldown. After each subsequent casting of a certain school, that cooldown would increase by 25% again (so 50% after the second cast, 75% the third, etc.,etc.).

This would stop people from spamming the same spells over and over again and would incentivize investing points into other schools.

Also, sustained skills, like Rock Armor or Elemental Weapons, would leave a permanent 25% increase in cooldown for their respective skill tree/school.


This would essentially boil down to not being able to cast the same three spells over and over again. Which may be different than what the DA developers want, given how the average console player would have to choose their skills. But still, just an idea.

Man... this idea is awesome! I like how it doesn't require planning and forethought before a battle to require loading just because you don't have the right setup, but it also forces conserving your most powerful spells and skills. This is a great compromise! Man, we should talk about the merits of this plan and TE genius who wrote it, instead of just having agoing-nowhere argument about Vancian castig.  :innocent:

[Vox Draco]

Funny thing that lately I thought much the same when I looked at the magic-system of various games...though I am not so much a supporter of the memorization of spells. It worked kinda in DND but I'll be true to myself here: While a "real" Wizard might have always memorized certain spells for the "just in case" scenario along the road, my CRPG-Wizards usually only had damage-dealing spels anyway

But I remember how dangerous Mages were in BG2. All those layers of protection. Stoneskins, magic wards, you had to first bring them down, disspelling them before having a chance to kill the wizard...

But what really bugs me about modern magic is far more that it somehow has lost its "mysteriousness" and specialty. Spells have become more like skills. You level up, choose a new spell, that's it. I far more loved it that a wizard could learn new spells when he found scrolls, adding them to his spell book. It also felt more grandious and powerful when you were finally able to cast a meteroic storm of level eight(or nine?)...and there are far more fun spells in DnD than Dragon Age...

I can't really put my finger on why it is so...somehow modern mages just lack something. And the silly hats from DAO didn't help much to make mages cool as the old days...

[Kileyan]

Vox Draco wrote...


But what really bugs me about modern magic is far more that it somehow has lost its "mysteriousness" and specialty. Spells have become more like skills. You level up, choose a new spell, that's it. I far more loved it that a wizard could learn new spells when he found scrolls, adding them to his spell book. It also felt more grandious and powerful when you were finally able to cast a meteroic storm of level eight(or nine?)...and there are far more fun spells in DnD than Dragon Age...
.

Exactly, that is what I tried to say earlier. My magic using DA character is really just another way of doing damage if you fancy being a robed dude instead of an arrow dude. Nothing really make you feel like a rare person tapping the powers of the fade or spririts. You are just a guy throwing glowy dps rather than arrowy dps. I'm not saying go back to the old days of memorizing spells, but surely there is something in between the old systems and this bland World of Warcraft system.

[AmstradHero]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
When you could run away and rest, you'd get smashed the first time because you lacked the necesary spells that made the fight trivial. So you reload, memorise those spells, come back, and the fight is trivial. That's not a rewarding experience. That's jumping through hoops. Do you remember this happening to you when playing BG2 for the first time? Because I sure as heck do.

Sez who?
I do consider it a rewardign experience. I was rewarded for adjusting my strategy and turned a difficult encounter into a managable one.

Read again. I have no problem turning a difficult encounter into a manageable one. I have a problem with turning a near-impossible encounter into a trivial one.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sometimes retreat and rest is not an option.

It almost always is. Few dungeons are so big that you can't backtrack to the exit, especially after you cleared the way.
And given the wide spell selection, there's practicly always a way to win if you use the spells you have intelligently

Provided the design is done right. Sometimes it wasn't.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

While I do agree games like BG2 and its compatriots had some nice counterspell type systems going, as I've pointed out, some of the fights could be near impossible without the right spell (or two), but trivially easy with them. That's not an ideal balance.

Adn the current systems and boring, trivial, unchallenging and devoid of depth.

There's no need to be so dismissive. Are you missing the point where I said the current system needs to change?

I agree that the current system is far from ideal. It's focussed exclusively on DPS, which is an extremely poor way to run a mechanic set. However, just adopting the old design wholesale has flaws as well. I'd like to see a compromise between the two by highlighting the issues with both. I'd like to have a constructive discussion about how the elements of old and new systems can be combined to make something that has a good balance for everyone going forward.

[AmstradHero]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

someone definitely not Fast Jimmy wrote...
{Details of an interesting timer/cooldown/tree spell system}...

This would essentially boil down to not being able to cast the same three spells over and over again. Which may be different than what the DA developers want, given how the average console player would have to choose their skills. But still, just an idea.

Man... this idea is awesome! I like how it doesn't require planning and forethought before a battle to require loading just because you don't have the right setup, but it also forces conserving your most powerful spells and skills. This is a great compromise! Man, we should talk about the merits of this plan and TE genius who wrote it, instead of just having agoing-nowhere argument about Vancian castig.  :innocent:

I like the cooldown idea, but as you've stated yourself - the problem is the interface. On a console controller, this is going to be hell. This is one case where it actually can be legitimately argued that consoles (or rather, their input devices) are having a negative impact on the complexity of gameplay.

You can't have a quick slot bar on a console due to the controller, and increasingly fewer publishers are willing to release PC only games. The only feasible way I can think of to get some sort of sufficiently large easy-spell selection system would be to implement a layered radial menu (a la NWN) through a shoulder button, and I hated NWN's layered radial menu.

As for the system itself, I do like it. I think it would be an interesting means to stop the mass spamming of pure damage spells. However, the fault isn't entirely with those who came up with the mechanics. The problem also lies with the gameplay designers who allow players to simply get away with only selecting DPS based spells and rarely providing sufficient incentive to adopt utility spells.

Mr Fixit wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

In fact, I'd argue there are insufficient utility abilities (or insufficient advantage offered by them) in many modern RPGs over the old school. Remember when you cast invisibility on your thief (or got them to swig a potion of super strength and then invisibility) so that they could deal massive damage to a target in the D&D days?

Welcome to the days of the Her Royal Highness, The Balance, the only God in residence these days.

This is the problem with making rogues the go-to DPS class when warriors switch to the tank role. Suddenly giving thieves the ability to deal a massive chunk of health before having to get to safety (or have the tank just pull aggro off them with ease) as well as being the primary DPS means that they're quite a bit more powerful than warriors.

We need incomparable abilities. The rogue isn't DPS except in niche cases, but can really dish it out when those circumstances can be manufacturer, and is vital for disarming debilitating traps and managing a number of other non-combat considerations.

Moving away from a DPS model and more into a model of controls, counters, and unique options would make for a far more interesting and varied experience.

[JohnCena94]

King Cousland wrote...

I don't think that spells outside of comabt, healing or "buffer" spells are really suited to DA. Certainly not with the mechanics you describe. I'd welcome toning down some of the more modern RPG elements, but I firmly believe that combat in a video game should not be determined by invisible dice rolling in the background. 

I agree to an extent.  I love Alpha Protcol, but my god that game made it insanely hard to pull off a simple shot that anyone who wasn't blind could have made.

[Yrkoon]

Emzamination wrote...

Sorry pausanias but this is the New school and that's not how we do things anymore.Those rules were great regarding Technological Dark age games like Baldurs gate and Nwn but that time is past and it's never coming back.

We're getting this  from a console gamer?    Really?

Hahaha.  Call me when your method of gaming  technology advances past 2006.  Because as far as I can see, THAT's what's holding the  entire industry back.  So much in fact, that  the 'tech-advanced' generation of today's gaming world play games on their phones and Facebook  when they want something fresh.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 01 septembre 2012 - 02:42 .