Goblin Squad Member
|
... eg producing a pattern in the air...Wow! That's just brilliant. To actually see the lines of magic weaving together, and having the effectiveness of my spell based in part on how well I can manipulate those lines just seems awesome. I don't know if it's workable, but man, it sure is cool :)
Please, no. That's like removing character ability and replacing it with player dexterity. There are people with disabilities who you'd be shutting out of the game by doing such a thing.
I'm a member of Able Gamers, so I'm always considering these sorts of things. My personal disability is mostly visual, so I just hope for a UI I can customize to be clear enough to read without filling my whole screen, but for gamers that have manual dexterity issues, requiring intricate movements on the part of the player could shut them out of any part of the game that requires them. I suppose they could get a friend to program a controller to have a macro that perfectly executes the spell every time, but then, everyone could do that and you'd be left with a configuration annoyance, not an interesting gameplay element.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are people with disabilities who you'd be shutting out of the game by doing such a thing.
Actually, I've been a pretty strong proponent of making the game playable for severely disabled players (think Stephen Hawking) for a while now.
I don't agree that "producing a pattern in the air" necessarily requires significant dexterity - although it's easy to see why that's the first reaction. What I was really excited about was seeing the magic on-screen, and being able to manipulate it as the spell is being cast. That manipulation doesn't have to be any more twitch-based than any other manipulation the player is doing.
One thought that occurs to me is something akin to the Warden's Gambits in LOTRO.
I could see this translating to PFO for spell-casting by having the caster activate certain spell-building abilities in the proper sequence and then activating the spell itself. Personally, I would find this much more interesting than simply activating a spell and waiting for the cast bar to finish. It would be possible to add new spell-building abilities over time, so that some high level spells could still be made to have short cast times.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Keovar: No, I would not advocate a system of user input that requires dexterity for magic users. That's contrary to what I'd prefer to see: Using a different part of the brain for magic-users in keeping with the intended experience.
I'm sure some sort of pattern UI could be done and players could end up relying on their memory of how a pattern fits together or something so all they'd need is to remember the right buttons on a keyboard or something or if a particular type of puzzle is presented, then they know it has a particular response - something like that, that's also avoiding botting - think 'capcha' atst.
The ideal would be a system where player mastery of input is a cerebral experience (and in the case of the Bard: Musical!). So long as a keyboard is usable.
This is what I don't want to see:
Wizard: more spell variety
Sorcerer: more endurance/frequency
Why? Because this makes sorcerers superior blasters in PnP, and would do the same in the MMO. I think that's an unacceptable tradeoff in an MMO these days. I should be able to build a wizard blaster that is as effective as a sorcerer blaster.
The tradeoff should be:
Wizard: more overall variety but choices are restricted in the short term
Sorcerer: less overall variety but unrestricted choices in the short term
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Aren't sorcerers superior blasters in PnP? More spells/day and all that?
I would like to see them best at different specialties, and then have things balanced so that a group which has both specialties covered by a specialist is superior to a group that has doubled up on one and leaves the other vacant.
Considering the four categories of damage, buffs, debuffs, and healing, there are 12 ways to have one highly effective (major), two baseline effective (minor), and one not very effective.
If we gave wizards a major in debuffs and a minor in buffs and damage, sorcerers a major in damage and a minor in buffs and debuffs, bards a major in buffs and a minor in debuffs and healing, we can pretty much follow the PFRPG concepts and create a system where having a mixed group is better than a single-typed group.
I'm not sure how to do this and not make the dual or triple-trained characters either excessively powerful or painfully weak.
I guess I should clarify a little.
Yes, sorcerers are better blasters than wizards in PnP because they get more spells per day. Thus, making an optimal blaster in PnP means rolling a sorcerer.
I don't want a chracter's potential to be limited by chosing to follow a certain archetype. I want the limitation to be on the build instead.
Part of the spirit of the PnP game I want left out of the MMO is the idea that one class should be better at something than another because that is the flavor of the class. Fighters are superior melee damage dealers to rogues, whose flavor is more skill-based. Sorcerers are superior blasters to wizards, whose flavor is more control-based. I think the MMO should have a different standard. Those superiorities should be build-dependent, not archetype dependent. Rolling a wizard shouldn't automatically de-optimize your DPS potential like it does in PnP.
To come back to the thread question, how I think magic should be done is, first and foremost, equitably, and flavor considerations should be secondary.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I guess I should clarify a little.
Yes, sorcerers are better blasters than wizards in PnP because they get more spells per day. Thus, making an optimal blaster in PnP means rolling a sorcerer.
I don't want a chracter's potential to be limited by chosing to follow a certain archetype. I want the limitation to be on the build instead.
Part of the spirit of the PnP game I want left out of the MMO is the idea that one class should be better at something than another because that is the flavor of the class. Fighters are superior melee damage dealers to rogues, whose flavor is more skill-based. Sorcerers are superior blasters to wizards, whose flavor is more control-based. I think the MMO should have a different standard. Those superiorities should be build-dependent, not archetype dependent. Rolling a wizard shouldn't automatically de-optimize your DPS potential like it does in PnP.
To come back to the thread question, how I think magic should be done is, first and foremost, equitably, and flavor considerations should be secondary.
So, if every archetype should be able to fill every role equally well, we are left with reskinning the exact same mechanics from one to the other. We end up with the original Warcraft RTS, where a troll and a elf with the same upgrades always kill each other in a duel because they have the same range, rate of fire, damage, and armor. Any difference, however small, creates either situational advantage or general advantage, and if it isn't intended then it is harder to tell where that advantage lies. I'm fine with cosmetic options being available, but cosmetic changes shouldn't be the major difference between archetypes.
I'll leave it to the Charop boards to figure out if a fighter build or a rogue build does the most melee damage; last I checked was 3.5, and the rogue was doing more d6 of damage per round against anatomically quantifying targets than the fighter's damage, or some such.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some good discussion above. Topic gets very large however. I think "equitable" is a good idea in theory for balance, but I'm not so sure balance is possible in sandbox, with so many variables such as player skill, class/spec, gear, context, grouping mix, numbers of players and so on... . Personally the main thing is for allowing players "experiences" according to what they like to spend their game activity doing. So if an archetype is a broad term for a type of class/group of related activities which can all be done in slightly different ways that's good. Eg I feel a ranger should be expected to want to be out in the wilds a lot (Where), and another option they should have is having some mechanic which allows them to fill up a data log of player movements (who/what) in an area, eg caravans of goods being transported with details not normally accessible of what goods are being shipped around - this fits with the "scout" activity and this info could be valueable for a fee. This is just one form of activity I feel a ranger should be employed doing: Eyes and ears that can see and hear but not be seen or heard themselves :). Another might be prospecting resources/ dungeons out in the wilds and so on or scouting for an army...
There may be a similar role for a wizard archetype by extension eg being able to manipulate their alignment status to fool others etc.
On magic again, the game Legend Of Grimlock (similar to Dungeon Master) you have runes which you combine with other runes to perform spells is another eg of UI adding combinations to create a spell, albeit just using some basic symbols instead of a more complex approach of patterns to create symbols to combine into spells.
This might be slightly off-topic, but nevertheless.
My opinion on balance between classes (or skill sets as they really are) is that every skill set should be focused on a role AND that you are limited to a certain number of skills on your hotbar (8 is a good number). Skill sets could be Buffs, Debuffs, Crowd Control, Single Target Damage, AoE damage, Heals over Time, Single Target Heals, AoE heals etc. Every role should have a counter, much like rock, paper, scissor. Some counters are natural (Single Target is better vs AoE if 1on1 for example, not all roles should be equal 1on1 or in larger fights). Some counters should be implemented as a game mechanic. This could be damage reduction from armor vs certain weapons/magic or investing in certain feats etc.
My preference is that you should be able to spec in 2 of these roles/skill sets at the same time, so called hybrids (multiclassing to some extent). You could spec in only 1 role, but there would be no benefits for it other than you being able to perform that role 100% of the time rather than 50/50 or 70/30 etc.
It's very important that skills from different skill sets rely on each other to work optimally. For instance in one skill set you have a skill that gathers your opponents in a small area in front of you, it does minor damage, lets call it Vacuum. While in another skill set you have a skill called Fire Beam that does major damage in a small area in front of you. There are so many ways to naturally create such ''combos'' without having a ''combo-system'' in place like some mmorpgs try to implement. You rarely see natural combos in mmorpgs because devs usually lack creativity/experience with such things in the first place AND combat in mmorpgs is usually a bit too fast paced to create strategical/natural combos. In other genres where it's not all about the button smashing it's done with great success though.
Hybrids give the player freedom to create a character that he enjoys to play and experiment with. It creates a much more interesting meta game, creative builds and cooperation between skill sets (players).
Now in Pathfinder Online we'll have multiclassing, but we'll have to see how effective that will be. Usually hybrids end up being 70% effective in the two roles it tries to fill. But why should be it be like that? It should be 100% effective for both roles, but it has to split it's time between what it should do. Everyone has the possibility to create a hybrid, and every skill set has a counter, so there should be no balance issues.
A big factor when it comes to be able to perform two roles equally is gear. Itemization usually tends to favor the specialist and not the hybrid. This is because damage is usually extracted from the direct damage of a weapon, while heals, buffs etc. is a standard value and/or comes from stats on weapons, not caring about what damage it does. In my opinion Diablo 3 did one good thing, and that was taking away this type of itemization, all skills was relying on weapon damage. This could be transferred to a mmorpg as well. Have all skills be reliant on weapon damage, be it buffs, debuffs, heals etc. This way a hybrid is able to do both roles at 100% while still having a tough choice of deciding what skills to put on his hotbar (remember you have a limited number of skills available at any given time). Now a problem with Diablo 3's itemization is that every weapon is almost equal, only attack speed varies. This creates a pretty dull meta game where it doesn't matter much what type of weapon you have, only it's stats.
I would like to see that different weapon types/magic types have bonuses vs different armors for example. If you are wielding a big hammer you do bonus damage vs heavy armored units. Cold magic would do bonus damage vs cloth users.
Your choice in what weapon/armor/skills to use, how you cooperate with other skill sets, and how good you are at targeting the right persons (with the right armor type) on the battlefield decides the outcome of the battle, not how fast you are able to smash your buttons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If we gave wizards a major in debuffs and a minor in buffs and damage, sorcerers a major in damage and a minor in buffs and debuffs...
This seems very wrong to me.
Yes, sorcerers are better blasters than wizards in PnP because they get more spells per day.
I just read over the Sorcerer and Wizard classes again. The quote that sticks out for me is "A sorcerer's selection of spells is extremely limited". At first, it doesn't look too bad because they can add 1 known spell per level while Wizards only add 2. However, at level 20, a Sorcerer is limited (forever!) to 43 spells known (9 of which are 0 level).
Why isn't the proper course of action to replicate this? To simply limit the number of different spells a Sorcerer can know?
Ultimately, I would think it would be pretty simple for me to pick out 43 spells that made a Sorcerer a very effective Debuffer, while I chose to prepare spells on my Wizard that made him an extremely effective damage dealer...
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If we gave wizards a major in debuffs and a minor in buffs and damage, sorcerers a major in damage and a minor in buffs and debuffs...This seems very wrong to me.
Yes, sorcerers are better blasters than wizards in PnP because they get more spells per day.I just read over the Sorcerer and Wizard classes again. The quote that sticks out for me is "A sorcerer's selection of spells is extremely limited". At first, it doesn't look too bad because they can add 1 known spell per level while Wizards only add 2. However, at level 20, a Sorcerer is limited (forever!) to 43 spells known (9 of which are 0 level).
Why isn't the proper course of action to replicate this? To simply limit the number of different spells a Sorcerer can know?
The right way is not to do that: The PFRPG sorcerer is better at is chosen specialty (by having more spells/day than the wizard) and less effective outside that specialty (by not having any spells).
The PFO wizard needs to be better at something than the PFO sorcerer, and the PFO sorcerer needs to be better at something than the PFO wizard in order for those two classes to be balanced. Giving them the same spell list and mucking around with how many spells they can cast how often will tend to make one better overall, and not provide a significant distinction between the two. Giving them different spells and/or different effectiveness with the spells that overlap is compatible with giving them different preparation mechanics while also allowing them to be distinct.
There's also the option of having one of them be better at fighting with magic, and the other better with crafting with magic, but that only works if you can make that tradeoff be reasonable.
So, if every archetype should be able to fill every role equally well
When I say this:
I don't want a chracter's potential to be limited by chosing to follow a certain archetype. I want the limitation to be on the build instead.
the only role I'm referring to is damage.
I think "equitable" is a good idea in theory for balance, but I'm not so sure balance is possible in sandbox
There are certainly a lot of variables, but those are all in the player's control. I'd be surprised if the potential maximum damage output of each archetype couldn't be balanced within a few percent of each other. (Maybe that's not something they're worrying about, but if not I'm requesting that they do.) Obviously there will be unanticipated combinations, but those can be tuned as they arise.
I just read over the Sorcerer and Wizard classes again. The quote that sticks out for me is "A sorcerer's selection of spells is extremely limited". At first, it doesn't look too bad because they can add 1 known spell per level while Wizards only add 2. However, at level 20, a Sorcerer is limited (forever!) to 43 spells known (9 of which are 0 level).
Why isn't the proper course of action to replicate this? To simply limit the number of different spells a Sorcerer can know?
Ultimately, I would think it would be pretty simple for me to pick out 43 spells that made a Sorcerer a very effective Debuffer, while I chose to prepare spells on my Wizard that made him an extremely effective damage dealer...
Sure, except by choosing wizard you are automatically reducing your potential damage. Certainly you can still be effective without being optimal, but it is still an unremediable handicap. That's the only thing I take issue with.
Alternatively, so long as it's made very clear when you choose archetypes exactly what their strengths and weaknesses are, it's not as big an issue. If the wizard blurb advertises the archetype as a controller first and a blaster second, that's probably fine. It's the feeling of rolling a class thinking you can do something with it that turns out later to not be the best choice that I want to avoid. Like rolling a druid in vanilla WoW thinking you would do anything other than heal, or rolling an illusionist in EQ thinking you would have a place in a raid.
... AND that you are limited to a certain number of skills on your hotbar (8 is a good number).Please, no.
It works for Diablo and Guild Wars. GW2 for example gives you 5 abilities (4 really since one is autoattack) that are predetermined by your weapon, 1 heal ability, and 4 open abilities chosen from a long list of options you have to earn. IMO it's an improvement on the WoW model where you have to hotkey 25-50+ different abilities. 25 is doable for me (F1-F12, ~-=) but more than that and I start cutting things and making macros. Less is more.
The WoW devs have recently argued (and GW2 seems to agree based on their design) that 4-5 rotational abilities are ideal (with the rest being utility or situational). Fewer than that feels remedial, and more starts to feel cumbersome. If you add 4-5 utility or situational abilities, 8-10 total abilities feels reasonable. Of course these would be selected from the catalogue of skills you have earned. I'm not saying it should be that way, but in an open ended skill system, you could quickly run out of keybinds. Some hard cap just makes sense. Somewhere between 10-25 I think.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There's also the option of having one of them be better at fighting with magic, and the other better with crafting with magic...
Anything remotely along those lines is a terrible idea. Don't pigeonhole a Wizard into a role that they're not pigeonholed into in the RPG.
And don't base it on what munchkins consider the appropriate role for each class.
If the wizard blurb advertises the archetype as a controller first and a blaster second, that's probably fine.
That doesn't make any sense to me. If the Sorcerer is a better Blaster because he has more spells per day, then why can't he also be a better Controller for the same reason?
If we're going to be suggesting significant departures from the RPG, why not just shoot straight for the problem area and ignore the precedent that Sorcerers have more spells per day than Wizards? Then we can simply focus on the fact that Sorcerers have a very limited Spell Book from which they can cast any spell, while Wizards have a much larger Spell Book but must prepare a specific set of spells.
... 8-10 total abilities feels reasonable.
I have no problem whatsoever with GW designing the game with an eye towards making it efficient for the player to focus on 4-5 rotational abilities, etc. I have a huge problem with an arbitrary cap.
Let each player choose for themselves how many abilities they're comfortable managing.
If the wizard blurb advertises the archetype as a controller first and a blaster second, that's probably fine.That doesn't make any sense to me. If the Sorcerer is a better Blaster because he has more spells per day, then why can't he also be a better Controller for the same reason?
If we're going to be suggesting significant departures from the RPG, why not just shoot straight for the problem area and ignore the precedent that Sorcerers have more spells per day than Wizards? Then we can simply focus on the fact that Sorcerers have a very limited Spell Book from which they can cast any spell, while Wizards have a much larger Spell Book but must prepare a specific set of spells.
Good point. Forget what I said about that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having a Sorc and a Wiz casting the same fireball spell (or similarly blasty), with the same training time, and having one do more damage/efficacy than the other only really makes good sense in the case of a) a reasonable trade off for the "lesser" powered caster, and b) in the case of a hard class system. PFO might have archetypes, but without some higher level breakaway between the two types of casters, there's literally nothing stopping some one from cherry picking the best options as suits their needs. For this reason I'm not in favor of one "type" of caster having a higher damage potential for the same spell. It also makes the design work much much easier to manage if all the spells have a "static" range of efficacy (although I believe a fire specialized caster should have a bump to fire spells, that's a different topic).
As to the possibility of differing spell lists between the two archetypes, I think changing this paradigm might be one of the things that breaks just a bit too far away from the expectations of Pathfinder flavor. Maybe its required to enhance archetype differentiation, but I can easily see this being a point of contention with PnP enthusiasts. Personally, I think there's a solution that shouldn't require it, even if I don't have an idea of what that solution is. I'm in favor of multiple archetypes tapping into the same spell lists (with minor exceptions), as is the case in the PnP world. Now also consider, the spell lists are likely to be (dramatically?) culled down to mesh with the MMO format.
How I've been pondering this is to look at it from the most base level of difference, and trying to work my way down from there. The major key difference between a Sorcerer and a Wizard is in the mechanical source of their power. Wizards master formulae and arcane rituals, and a Sorcerer manages to convince magic to work through sheer force of personality. How this relates mechanically is a wizard's dependance on Intelligence, and a sorcerer's on charisma. In PFO this could make a fairly dramatic difference, particularly if stat advancement is either static or has a minor increase over time (as in PnP).
If there's one skill tree for casting spells based on Charisma, with some ancillary benefits and penalties, and one skill tree for basing it all on Intelligence (also Wisdom for divine casters), then from that premise what sort of delivery differences can be used to format good gameplay? If we draw directly from the PnP examples, then a Sorcerer would be selecting a static list of spells to specialize in, and (maybe) they gain an increased efficiency (lower mana costs?) or a faster cast time. The trade off for slower/less efficient casting as a Wizard is the ability to change out your spells with relative ease (not in combat, but with maybe a 10-30 second process). Also worth noting for Sorcerer's in PnP Pathfinder, they gain significant class abilities to make up for this relative lack of flexibility. Perhaps this sort of thing could be represented by having a bonus reward ability of note for every N skills acquired in a given tree. Spend enough training time to get 5-6 Charisma based skills, boom bonus feat and extra Bloodline power.
Additionally, having spells based on a differing ability score has other non-casting related implications. Just off the top of my head, you're much more likely to see a Sorcerer as a leader of a Unit Formation (if say social/leadership skills are based on CHA) than a wizard, who might have key understandings of how to affect aberrant horrors from the darklands.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... a mage charecter would be capable of of "researching magic" where he would custom create a spell, from runes that would be compiled into an ever growing list, mixing and matching witch would lead to different results where the magic class's would all count as mystics, and depend on what spells the players research through they're journeys... finding runes in towns, chapel's, dungeons old castles and ancient documents(drops)...
this type of system actually already has a basis in Pathfinder in the Words of Power subsystem. While innovative, it is a pretty dramatic departure from the methods of the norm. This type of flexibility also could have a lot of overhead when applied to a skill/training time based system. Its flexible but complex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't assume that all spells in the Player's Handbook will be in the game. Don't assume that all characters will have access to all the spells in the game. Don't assume that Wizards and Sorcerers will use the same lists of spells.
(Just for the record, these are all assumptions baked into the tabletop game but most players ignore them. They treat the Player's Handbook like a grimoire, even though that's not the correct way to play. Wizards in particular are supposed to have very constrained access to new spells based on what the GM decides to allow into the game, or the GM and player mutually agree the player's character will research.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to add another element to this storm of ideas, but here's another angle to consider:
What about the non-blasting spells? Some of the most fun I've had as a Bard or Wizard is how much I can do without grabbing for a single d6 (or d20, for that matter). Illusions to confuse, protect, and hinder, Transmutations for buffs and shapeshifting to fill other roles, Enchantments for short-term knockouts against weak-minded grunts, and Conjuration for...well...everything: Calling in allies, summoning walls, building an entire square fort out of walls in 24 seconds, shaping part of it in another 6 seconds, then having my summoned minions man the ramparts, with a few illusions at the ready... good times.
Now here's my rant about theme-park MMO's especially WoW. Most of them turn the Mage/Spellcaster into just, "Fireball! Fireball! Fireball! Time to mix it up... MAGIC MISSILE!", resulting in a whole bunch of gamers to write off the class that can shape space and time with a word as just "more ranged dips". (At least the LOTRO Loremaster gets a bunch of knockdowns/debuffs... Though the Runekeeper is definitely more like the standard MMO mage.)
Now, why they just go with damage spells is pretty obvious: They're the easiest to code. Adding in area debuffs and shapeshifting, and especially summoning creatures and/or walls, is really hard to code and balance for gameplay; too little, and it's just gimmicky, too much, and every other class will whine (well, so what? The wizards spent years learning how to make reality their mistress, why not show it off?)
And that's not even approching the other issues addressed: Spells/day, known spells vs. spellbook vs. words of power vs. whatever else...
Yikes. This magic stuff is complicated. No wonder you need Int 10 just to begin to grasp the basics...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Things
- Age of Conan had a pretty decent spellweaving system. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3h-juMLLho )
- Has anyone of you ever played Legend of Grimrock? I liked the idea of combining runes to "craft" a spell. If GW would do that a little more complex (maybe drawing symbols?) that could be a way to implement magic in a challenging way, at least gameplaywise.
- As for spells per day: Maybe it's possible to simply adjust the spells per day to an MMO friendly extent, so maybe 100 or 150 spells per day. Some spells a little rarer, others not. Combine that with a few possibilities to gain spells back and you had a magic system which is not too limiting but also provides the player with a little bit of strategic needs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yikes. This magic stuff is complicated. No wonder you need Int 10 just to begin to grasp the basics...
Exactly.
To add, thinking about the archetype description for Wizard:
Wizards—masters of hermetic magic. These shrewd magic-users seek, collect, and covet esoteric knowledge, drawing on cultic arts to work wonders beyond the abilities of mere mortals.
So in a lot of mmorpgs, you level up and then get given your new spell/skill. In PfO you have to practice the skill to level up the next skill in the tree.
It might be interesting to make Wizard spells require players to go around finding this knowledge in various ways. These ways could be varied for each player drawing from a pool of potential locations, criterias and so on? They may involve solving riddles/puzzles or other conditions? Something about searching/learning added would be interesting to add to the method of spell casting also. If the process of finding spells has that randomization element and variety element, then it might be different for each player learning wizard spells, their own experience of earning these skills to practice?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not to add another element to this storm of ideas, but here's another angle to consider:
What about the non-blasting spells? Some of the most fun I've had as a Bard or Wizard is how much I can do without grabbing for a single d6 (or d20, for that matter). Illusions to confuse, protect, and hinder, Transmutations for buffs and shapeshifting to fill other roles, Enchantments for short-term knockouts against weak-minded grunts, and Conjuration for...well...everything: Calling in allies, summoning walls, building an entire square fort out of walls in 24 seconds, shaping part of it in another 6 seconds, then having my summoned minions man the ramparts, with a few illusions at the ready... good times.
Now here's my rant about theme-park MMO's especially WoW. Most of them turn the Mage/Spellcaster into just, "Fireball! Fireball! Fireball! Time to mix it up... MAGIC MISSILE!", resulting in a whole bunch of gamers to write off the class that can shape space and time with a word as just "more ranged dips". (At least the LOTRO Loremaster gets a bunch of knockdowns/debuffs... Though the Runekeeper is definitely more like the standard MMO mage.)
Now, why they just go with damage spells is pretty obvious: They're the easiest to code. Adding in area debuffs and shapeshifting, and especially summoning creatures and/or walls, is really hard to code and balance for gameplay; too little, and it's just gimmicky, too much, and every other class will whine (well, so what? The wizards spent years learning how to make reality their mistress, why not show it off?)
And that's not even approching the other issues addressed: Spells/day, known spells vs. spellbook vs. words of power vs. whatever else...
Yikes. This magic stuff is complicated. No wonder you need Int 10 just to begin to grasp the basics...
I agree whole heartedly. I've always had more fun finding creative uses for non-combat spells than just flinging fireballs. Its why I prefer wizards over sorcercers. Because of the flexibility to learn a huge list of spells.
For instance Rope Trick is one of my fav spells. You can use it to hide from bad guys, hide stolen loot, and even as a delayed bomb by stashing barrels of oil and alchemist fire it it and waiting for it to expire. Arcane eye and magic jar are two other awesome spells. Arcane eye for safely scouting out enemy teritory (or rival army or nation), and magic jar for infiltration and life saving. It would be seriously awesome if you could swap bodies with a creature and then walk into their lair and take out the big boss, or steal their loot.
I'm seriously hoping that PFO will be able to implement spells other than damage, protection and enhancement spells. Even if some of these spells don't make it into the first release, it would be nice to know that GW is committed to adding in these types of spells.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd actually like to see the Words of Power make up the casting abilties.
Wizards have more Words of Power, but they recharge more slowly, while Sorcerers have a more limited selection, but a much faster recharge mechanic.
Wizards then are rewarded for combining their Words of Power in different ways to create a broader variety of spell effects, while Sorcerers have the ability to create a smaller variety of spells much quicker.
Both classes can 'burn' through their Words at exactly the same rate, but the differences in the mechanics means that the two Archetypes have a very different feel to each other.
Clerics and Druids have similar selections but each have their own unique Words that give them their different abilities.