Spell casters are WAAAY overly restricted in this game

[moysha]

What is the point of having a gun that can't shoot? Compared to thieves and fighters the spell casters are a joke, completely not fun to use. A general rework is required, IMO. I'd be fine if they could cast something every battle but the mana management is killing the category for me.

[Neo007]

The thing is its the magos or arcane casters that get shafted, the cleric classes are all viable with 1 hybrid cleric class getting free stuns that dont cost attunement in their tree and the other hybrid class getting two handed feats (which is the strongest weapon type in the game) and cleave that can proc infinitely there is no real comparison. Mage classes are the worst performing in the game, you can enjoy them, say you claim you like it that way or whatever your justification is. Hell I play a battlemagos on hardest with additional difficulty tweaks for roleplay and the challenge - they are objectively the worst group of classes by general performance - and thats BEFORE considering that we all know they don't count in the same class for damage.

[WoodenMage]

Originally posted by night4:

Not in the slightest. Mages/Sorcerers in BG1 are godly even at level 1. (...)
And if you actually played Skald through or read from someone who has, you'd know that the issues with casters persist throughout the game.

My guy, I'm literally playing through the game on Hard and I havent encountered any of the issues people are complaining about, Guild mage with earth magic is probably objectively the strongest character in the party in terms of how he's able to affect the fights, all cleric subclasses are really good as well. You guys just need to stop expecting to be spamming fireballs every turn and start playing tactically and conserving resources. This is how oldschool RPGs are supposed to play.

The only real issue I see is that battlemagos is really weak, both because fire magic is pretty awful and his spec doesnt give him any real survivability. But thats just this one subclass thats really bad, NOT the whole "caster" archetype, like the hyperbolic thread title suggests.

Originally posted by Macro Tofu:

Don't make people laugh. Mage in bg1 has the most op spell in the entire early game: sleep.

And its a very limited resource that you use for CROWD CONTROL and setting up other party members. Same as you use the mage in Skald. Analyze the spells (especially summons) and figure out how you can make encounter-altering use of them.

[Macro Tofu]

Originally posted by WoodenMage:

Originally posted by night4:

Not in the slightest. Mages/Sorcerers in BG1 are godly even at level 1. (...)
And if you actually played Skald through or read from someone who has, you'd know that the issues with casters persist throughout the game.

My guy, I'm literally playing through the game on Hard and I havent encountered any of the issues people are complaining about, Guild mage with earth magic is probably objectively the strongest character in the party in terms of how he's able to affect the fights, all cleric subclasses are really good as well. You guys just need to stop expecting to be spamming fireballs every turn and start playing tactically and conserving resources. This is how oldschool RPGs are supposed to play.

The only real issue I see is that battlemagos is really weak, both because fire magic is pretty awful and his spec doesnt give him any real survivability. But thats just this one subclass thats really bad, NOT the whole "caster" archetype, like the hyperbolic thread title suggests.

Originally posted by Macro Tofu:

Don't make people laugh. Mage in bg1 has the most op spell in the entire early game: sleep.

And its a very limited resource that you use for CROWD CONTROL and setting up other party members. Same as you use the mage in Skald. Analyze the spells (especially summons) and figure out how you can make encounter-altering use of them.

You don't need "other party members." Sleep lasts long enough that you can stab enemies to death with the +1 dagger you got in candlekeep. And where is your "CROWD CONTROL" in SKALD? Clerics are doing mass fear/stun/blind (the former two also deal damage), stunning touching bosses to death, and also healing their party members while you are conserving resources for summoning some oozes and gnats. Not saying they are weak in themselves, they are just comparably weak.

[Neo007]

Originally posted by WoodenMage:

Originally posted by night4:

Not in the slightest. Mages/Sorcerers in BG1 are godly even at level 1. (...)
And if you actually played Skald through or read from someone who has, you'd know that the issues with casters persist throughout the game.

My guy, I'm literally playing through the game on Hard and I havent encountered any of the issues people are complaining about, Guild mage with earth magic is probably objectively the strongest character in the party in terms of how he's able to affect the fights, all cleric subclasses are really good as well. You guys just need to stop expecting to be spamming fireballs every turn and start playing tactically and conserving resources. This is how oldschool RPGs are supposed to play.

The only real issue I see is that battlemagos is really weak, both because fire magic is pretty awful and his spec doesnt give him any real survivability. But thats just this one subclass thats really bad, NOT the whole "caster" archetype, like the hyperbolic thread title suggests.

Originally posted by Macro Tofu:

Don't make people laugh. Mage in bg1 has the most op spell in the entire early game: sleep.

And its a very limited resource that you use for CROWD CONTROL and setting up other party members. Same as you use the mage in Skald. Analyze the spells (especially summons) and figure out how you can make encounter-altering use of them.

You can like your character, that's fine feel passionately about your perspective I do too but it doesnt change some base facts you can test this. Also I appreciate that you separated the two classes because guild magos (in theory) should serve a different role but the battle magos implementation currently just sucks, but objectively you can do without a mage they ad nothing necessary that other classes can't do better except for a few niche spells and the summons are good at higher levels, though havent seen any arguments against that just that attunemet cost is too high and other gimped mechanics.

I am playing battle magos btw and I tried the different classes except ranger;the magos classes just lags behind. For e.g you need heals so armsmaster self heal, I think ranger migth have one and of course clerics, for cc clerics have stun and other stuff already, including decent buffs and debuffs and rogues are dps kings and queens, so what does the Magos bring that ads value the other classes cant?

Try any class combination magos aren't in the same category. I am playing a battle magos on custom hard difficulty with upped sliders for increased challenge and there is fun there its a good game, doesn't change the fact that magos (but especially battlemagos lag behind in nearly every peformance metric when compared to other classes. Apart from personal preference (again I still like the idea of the magos) they are objectively and unecessarily worse in their efficacy denying that doesn't change the facts of what most ppl are recognizing in their review and analysis of the class. If their is hyperbole sure call it out (you are right that its not ALL casters as I pointed out in my post just above yours).

Certainly the guild magos can more than meet expectations if you had relatively low expectations to begin with (not meant as an insult to your sensibilities just that others had different expectations) or perhaps you just dont care that they do piddly damage unlike a DnD mage but don't blanket dismiss criticisms merely because it doesn't personally bother you.

Sure you don't need to care that they feel a certain away about those facts about higher comparative power costs and numerically lower damage and while It's not gonna start or stop WW3 (in the end this is just a game) it still based on facts.

[Frostfeather]

Originally posted by WoodenMage:

Originally posted by night4:

Not in the slightest. Mages/Sorcerers in BG1 are godly even at level 1. (...)
And if you actually played Skald through or read from someone who has, you'd know that the issues with casters persist throughout the game.

My guy, I'm literally playing through the game on Hard and I havent encountered any of the issues people are complaining about, Guild mage with earth magic is probably objectively the strongest character in the party in terms of how he's able to affect the fights, all cleric subclasses are really good as well. You guys just need to stop expecting to be spamming fireballs every turn and start playing tactically and conserving resources. This is how oldschool RPGs are supposed to play.

The only real issue I see is that battlemagos is really weak, both because fire magic is pretty awful and his spec doesnt give him any real survivability. But thats just this one subclass thats really bad, NOT the whole "caster" archetype, like the hyperbolic thread title suggests.

Originally posted by Macro Tofu:

Don't make people laugh. Mage in bg1 has the most op spell in the entire early game: sleep.

And its a very limited resource that you use for CROWD CONTROL and setting up other party members. Same as you use the mage in Skald. Analyze the spells (especially summons) and figure out how you can make encounter-altering use of them.

Hilariously tone deaf response. A couple of the issues with Skald are that you can't see a spell list to plan ahead, and that spell information is woefully inadequate. So players can't "analyze" anything.

Then you talk about fireball spamming (which you brought up out of nowhere). That's just you projecting and/or making incorrect assumptions.

And then you say fire magic is weak in Skald while claiming that you've not encountered any of the issues described here... even though the weakness of fire magic is a main concern in this thread.

Basically, you're just talking out of your butt and nothing you say could possibly be taken seriously.

[Dr. Mattaconda]

Lol. Some of the kiddos complaining about these kind of things have never played B/X D&D or AD&D and it shows.

This game is fantastic and I see no issue with spellcasters.

[BATTLEMODE]

Originally posted by Dr. Mattaconda:

Lol. Some of the kiddos complaining about these kind of things have never played B/X D&D or AD&D and it shows.

This game is fantastic and I see no issue with spellcasters.

Yep, spellcasters in SKALD are really strong.

I'd strongly advise playing more proper CRPGs (Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't count) and then reevaluate whether statements like "needs a general rework" are particularly helpful when criticising a system people have been working on for ~40 years now.

[moysha]

Originally posted by BATTLEMODE:

Originally posted by Dr. Mattaconda:

Lol. Some of the kiddos complaining about these kind of things have never played B/X D&D or AD&D and it shows.

This game is fantastic and I see no issue with spellcasters.

Yep, spellcasters in SKALD are really strong.

I'd strongly advise playing more proper CRPGs (Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't count) and then reevaluate whether statements like "needs a general rework" are particularly helpful when criticising a system people have been working on for ~40 years now.

any argument with substance?

dnd 5 wizards is a many many years of iterations of balance between utility and enjoyment. waving it off like it's nothing is arrogant at best.

[Marfin_]

Originally posted by moysha:

Originally posted by BATTLEMODE:

Yep, spellcasters in SKALD are really strong.

I'd strongly advise playing more proper CRPGs (Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't count) and then reevaluate whether statements like "needs a general rework" are particularly helpful when criticising a system people have been working on for ~40 years now.

any argument with substance?

dnd 5 wizards is a many many years of iterations of balance between utility and enjoyment. waving it off like it's nothing is arrogant at best.

You're misunderstanding. He's not saying new D&D is necessarily bad, but that Skald is based off older rpgs, so mages work a bit differently. If you haven't played older rpgs, you might expect things to work differently from what the developers intended.

[Marfin_]

Originally posted by night4:

Hilariously tone deaf response. A couple of the issues with Skald are that you can't see a spell list to plan ahead, and that spell information is woefully inadequate. So players can't "analyze" anything.

Then you talk about fireball spamming (which you brought up out of nowhere). That's just you projecting and/or making incorrect assumptions.

And then you say fire magic is weak in Skald while claiming that you've not encountered any of the issues described here... even though the weakness of fire magic is a main concern in this thread.

Basically, you're just talking out of your butt and nothing you say could possibly be taken seriously.

Yes, that does suck, but people have already posted a spell list in the guide section.

So now that you have the option of adequately planning a character, are their any substantial issues?

[Neo007]

"straw manning" is never a good look for credibility or intelligence and is usually a function of an unhealthy and immature ego, ive played the wizardry's and even oubliette and sampled the gold box titles, haven't even bothered with BG3 sure its a well produced game just not that super enthused to play it, maybe it will blow my mind who knows.

The casters in those genre defining titles I mentioned were arguably well designed and well implemented, always liked the spell slots system and the resource management that came with it, after all the spells were usually very powerful, clever or just fun compared to what fighters could do they were often unique or plain superior as well. The implementation in this game could use some work....

[atmasabr]

You don't need "other party members." Sleep lasts long enough that you can stab enemies to death with the +1 dagger you got in candlekeep.

I have a run of Baldur's Gate active. Enemies get a save against Sleep. I am deeply worried the second Wolf will wake up before I kill it. There's a bear over there and Im out of Sleeps. Gibberlings can survive Magic Missile. Meanwhile my darts keep missing. I will gladly give up Sleep (no I wont) for better weapon skills.

[MagiKarp]

Originally posted by Marfin_:

Originally posted by moysha:

any argument with substance?

dnd 5 wizards is a many many years of iterations of balance between utility and enjoyment. waving it off like it's nothing is arrogant at best.

You're misunderstanding. He's not saying new D&D is necessarily bad, but that Skald is based off older rpgs, so mages work a bit differently. If you haven't played older rpgs, you might expect things to work differently from what the developers intended.

The thing is, spell casters were ridiculously overpowered in both Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, so it's kind of funny to see someone dismiss the 3rd game as not being a proper CRPG, lol.

As for Skald, I don't think the Magos are as bad as some people are saying in this thread but they could definitely use tweaking. They're some spells that cost way too much for what they do and there's not enough ways to improve magical aptitude. Another thing is intelligence is so bad compared to any other stat...

[Serverus88]

It does need some tweaks for sure, I find running Magic Missile worth it. It can do very little or alot of damage, very RNG. Its also very low on the cost value. The easiest wat to fix this would be to slightly over tune it but just increasing the values and lowering the mana costs slightly

[Frostfeather]

Originally posted by Marfin_:

Originally posted by night4:

Hilariously tone deaf response. A couple of the issues with Skald are that you can't see a spell list to plan ahead, and that spell information is woefully inadequate. So players can't "analyze" anything.

Then you talk about fireball spamming (which you brought up out of nowhere). That's just you projecting and/or making incorrect assumptions.

And then you say fire magic is weak in Skald while claiming that you've not encountered any of the issues described here... even though the weakness of fire magic is a main concern in this thread.

Basically, you're just talking out of your butt and nothing you say could possibly be taken seriously.

Yes, that does suck, but people have already posted a spell list in the guide section.

So now that you have the option of adequately planning a character, are their any substantial issues?

Reread this entire thread for your answer, as you've ignored almost everything mentioned. There's another discussion about class balance going in another thread you should probably look at too.