But i said that PoE 1 had extremely weaker spells and hence had to be changed to per encounter on Deadfire, because more powerful a spell is, more limited his usage should be.
it was changed to per-encounter, because Obsidian decided to do so. If they wanted spells to be stronger they would have done so. Spells are still really effective in both PoEs. PoE2 might have made spellcasters a bit too good IMO.
They already experimented with per-encounter design in PoE1 expansions. There is no point to rest system, in a game which doesn’t have structure to pace rests. It was always a problem in Infinity games. Per-encounter makes power available to player constant and therefore allows for better encounter design. PoEs have better combat than IE could ever hope for. Or so I believe. Some people say that P:K is good. I guess opinions differ.
Well, my point is that they changed to per encounter because even for the most arcane nerfer of all time, Josh Sawyer realized that wizards was too weak on PoE1. "for the sake of balance, lets nerf things to only cause frustration and make the fans of certain class fell worthless" and he got his well desired balance? No. If you look to beamdog forums favorite mage specialization, no school had more than 1/4 of the picks (
https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/3640/favourite-mage-specialisation-bg-series/p1 ), over 95% of people on Deadfire plays as a generalist or evoker. Everything else is worthless.
I don't mind making spell scrolls extremely expensive like Dark Sun : Shattered lands, nor by putting a lot of enemis with high resistance to magic and which can dispel your characters buffs like IWD final boss but Sawyer just nerfs things...
As for resting, look to pathfinder kingmaker. They made time matters in that game AND made resting on wilderness involving a lot of "rolls", some times i rather deal with the fatigue/exhaustion than rest on kingmaker.
When the "Arcanist" class first appeared in PF1e they used the same spellcasting rules that later are used by the wizards in 5e (albeit arcanists could apply metamagic) and I do not remember a big backslash or people arguing that this class was especially hard to play or understand.
I suppose many of them were RPG veterans, tho
Yep; in fact arcanists are far more complex than 5e wizards. Because :
- They have metamagic
- They have exploits
- They have two main attributes, INT and CHA
- They have arquetytpes which changes how the class plays like blood arcanist
Even in mainstream console games, i never saw any backlash against spell slots on FF1, Suikuden, Dark Souls, etc. In fact, the recent D&D adaptations like Sword Coast Legends, everyone criticized that they got rid of spell slots.
The unique 5e class with a learning curve is IMO warlock. Why?
- Instead of choosing a subclass at lv 3, you chose your patron which will teach magic to you at lv 1
- Warlocks combines invocations from 3.5e(but far weaker) with spell slots from 5e.
- Warlocks has unique mechanics involving his spells slots, eg, a lv 10 fiendish warlock will cast fireball as a 5th tier spell.
- They also has way more limited spell picks
- They need to manage short and long rests far more than other classes
- Mystic Arcanum and other high levle sutff
Compared to 3.5e which warlocks was very simplistic and effective and 2e where they was a wizard kit not that different from wizard, they are relative complex on 5e.
