Decline I hate what has been done to video game mages/wizards because I play shitty action games

[Slow James]

If 90% to 100% of the game is combat, it's no wonder that wizards are all about combat too.
And if there is something besides combat, casters are first to get some useful non-combat abilities. Travelling, buffing non-combat skills and abilities, crafting magic stuff, charming NPCs, navigation, divination, removing obstacles, etc.

Actually, I'd say rogues are the first. It is (relatively) easy to put a lockpicking or trap disarming system in. Even DA2 had these types of lip service to non-combat skills, which were basically gating the player into certain party builds.

 

[Ninjerk]

Dota's Invoker has plenty of fun lines and style to represent the classic elemental, fireball caster guy, though he's the typical arrogant mage ("I am a beacon of knowledge blazing out across a black sea of ignorance!")

Bro do you even Rubick.

Shut your mouth.

http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/dota2.gamepedia.com/8/87/Silen_shitwiz_01.mp3

 

[baturinsky]

Btw, if you are interested in playing "non-combat mage", there are Minecraft mod/modpacks for this. Such as Thaumcraft and Ars Magica.

 

[Keldryn]

D&D wizards are appealing from the perspective of character diversity, but practically speaking it makes very little sense for people who regularly participate in combat and need to endure a lot of physical hardships just from traveling by foot around the world adventuring to be physically weak and have no combat skills. It's another thing if either casting spells literally enfeebles spellcasters (which actually makes some degree of sense) or if wizards are so awesomely powerful that they can curbstomp everything without even bothering with any of that nasty fighting, but neither of those things is really true of adventuring low-level D&D wizards. So in the end it's more of a gameplay contrivance. In real life, if I were a wizard running out of spells, I sure as hell would rather have a sword to defend myself with than some pesky dagger, no matter how much that breaks character class conventions.

The classic archetype of the wizard's apprentice typically has him performing years of manual labour before getting to learn much magic. He needs to learn how to do something without magic before his master teaches him how to do it with magic.

It's this idea that magic should not be trifled with that has gone missing in modern RPGs. Wizards are messing with the very fabric of the universe, and they are taught not to treat it lightly. That is what makes the renegade evil wizards so dangerous; their wanton use of magic is without regard for the consequences. Magic should always have a price.

AD&D 1st Edition magic was generally pretty reliable, but limited in how often it could be used. Many of the more powerful spells had drawbacks (or potential drawbacks); having a haste spell cast on you sped up your metabolism to the point where you aged an entire year. Other spells would age you prematurely as well. A teleport spell had a good chance of missing an unfamiliar target, with often disastrous results. Many spells required rare or expensive material components. Getting raised from the dead cost you one point of Constitution, permanently; you also were not guaranteed to survive being raised from the dead. Spells took longer to cast, so once you start casting a spell, you were very vulnerable until the spell went off. And if you got hit while casting, your spell was lost. Spell recovery itself was more difficult as well; to re-memorize a spell took 15 minutes per level of the spell. A higher-level magic-user could require more than a day of dedicated studying to re-memorize all of his spells.

Unfortunately, many of these drawbacks required extra bookkeeping or often made the class a lot less fun to play at lower levels, so they gradually disappeared over time. Probably because a lot of players ignored them anyway.

I don't like the aesthetic of wizards tossing low-powered magic bolts all day long. Mechanically, it's not much different from having a bow or crossbow, but it feels really lame.

And yes, any characters who engage in the typical activities of D&D adventurers are likely to be physically fit and somewhat capable of defending themselves. They're also unlikely to be particularly stupid or clumsy. Even if they're not Big Damn Heroes, I think they would generally be above average in most respects.

 

[DragoFireheart]

The worst thing is PnP players who play wizards like shitty action game characters. The wizard in my D&D group just spams fireballs and lightning bolts, and refuses to even learn haste.

Sleep, Identify, Web (especially in BG series), Haste, Stonekin, and some AoE lingering spell like Cloudkill to throw on top of the Web spell.

All done until epic levels. Fireball is a waste of spell slots honestly. I don't even slot Magic Missile anymore.

 

[Slow James]

The classic archetype of the wizard's apprentice typically has him performing years of manual labour before getting to learn much magic. He needs to learn how to do something without magic before his master teaches him how to do it with magic.

It's this idea that magic should not be trifled with that has gone missing in modern RPGs. Wizards are messing with the very fabric of the universe, and they are taught not to treat it lightly. That is what makes the renegade evil wizards so dangerous; their wanton use of magic is without regard for the consequences. Magic should always have a price.

AD&D 1st Edition magic was generally pretty reliable, but limited in how often it could be used. Many of the more powerful spells had drawbacks (or potential drawbacks); having a haste spell cast on you sped up your metabolism to the point where you aged an entire year. Other spells would age you prematurely as well. A teleport spell had a good chance of missing an unfamiliar target, with often disastrous results. Many spells required rare or expensive material components. Getting raised from the dead cost you one point of Constitution, permanently; you also were not guaranteed to survive being raised from the dead. Spells took longer to cast, so once you start casting a spell, you were very vulnerable until the spell went off. And if you got hit while casting, your spell was lost. Spell recovery itself was more difficult as well; to re-memorize a spell took 15 minutes per level of the spell. A higher-level magic-user could require more than a day of dedicated studying to re-memorize all of his spells.

Unfortunately, many of these drawbacks required extra bookkeeping or often made the class a lot less fun to play at lower levels, so they gradually disappeared over time. Probably because a lot of players ignored them anyway.

I don't like the aesthetic of wizards tossing low-powered magic bolts all day long. Mechanically, it's not much different from having a bow or crossbow, but it feels really lame.

And yes, any characters who engage in the typical activities of D&D adventurers are likely to be physically fit and somewhat capable of defending themselves. They're also unlikely to be particularly stupid or clumsy. Even if they're not Big Damn Heroes, I think they would generally be above average in most respects.

I agreed with everything until the last part.

"Above average" would be okay if it weren't for the fact that enemies are assumed to be anything BUT average.

Your average bandit, the mookiest of mook in most cases, usually has a class of rogue or warrior... not one of commoner class. A lifestyle of making your living attacking, stealing and killing others involves physical exertion and weapon expertise, for sure.

A level 1 bandit is a pushover. Yet a level 1 bandit is more than a match physically for a level 1 wizard... as it should be. The wizard has a lifestyle that requires hours, if not days, of intense study, with little physical activity or distraction. Sure, they get fresh air and exercise traipsing across the plains, but it pales in comparison to the physical prowess of enemies that make their living every day through physical attacks and violence, let alone animals, monsters or other beings whose very nature is more fit and powerful than humans.

Wizards aren't inherently wimps... but they shouldn't be able to easily wield deadly physical force against enemies that, by their very nature, should be more powerful than them.

 

[Keldryn]

I agreed with everything until the last part.
"Above average" would be okay if it weren't for the fact that enemies are assumed to be anything BUT average.
Your average bandit, the mookiest of mook in most cases, usually has a class of rogue or warrior... not one of commoner class. A lifestyle of making your living attacking, stealing and killing others involves physical exertion and weapon expertise, for sure.
A level 1 bandit is a pushover. Yet a level 1 bandit is more than a match physically for a level 1 wizard... as it should be. The wizard has a lifestyle that requires hours, if not days, of intense study, with little physical activity or distraction. Sure, they get fresh air and exercise traipsing across the plains, but it pales in comparison to the physical prowess of enemies that make their living every day through physical attacks and violence, let alone animals, monsters or other beings whose very nature is more fit and powerful than humans.
Wizards aren't inherently wimps... but they shouldn't be able to easily wield deadly physical force against enemies that, by their very nature, should be more powerful than them.

Fair enough. I'm a programmer and sit on my ass at a desk all day. Even though I lift weights and I have done some martial arts training on and off over the years, a street thug would most likely kick my ass if I got in a fight with him.

I was thinking in terms of what adventurers actually have to do, but realistically, only a fraction of their time is actually spent exploring dungeons and fighting battles.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

I wouldn't call a game having a couple non-combat spells doing it justice. 99% of the spells in both Arcanum and PST are strictly combat-related. I believe it's Morrowind that has the most utility effects: levitation, water-walking/breathing, detecting stuff, invisibility, teleports etc. - but here we come to the other problem with non-combat magic: quest and level design only rarely supports its use. The aforementioned "Conjure Spirit" spell from Arcanum was only useful in exactly two places (and one of them had a workaround) IIRC. But there's an even worse example: "Body of Water" spell gives you the ability to walk on water - but there isn't a single place in the whole game where you would need that.

Levitation and invisibility and teleportation spells are very common in cRPG's, but I agree the bulk of spells are principally combat-only. I think the true gold standard for cRPGs in this regard is a balanced ratio of pure damage spells to other spells. Games with more pure damage spells tend to be not as deep, although not necessarily simple. The successful ones in this category make it fun by giving you a rich challenging environment, as opposed to a rich spell book. But the most successful cRPGs are hybrids and are able to give you a balance of pure damage spells and other spells without confusing you and without turning the focus away from the environment. They turn out to be accessible AND deep.

I agree the quest and level design is usually deficient. I think ti's hard to make good content for a diverse range of spells. The method to defeat an enemy tends towards a linear route only because the creators of these games haven't created a suitable answer. So even though there can be good cRPGs which attempt to accomplish this, they will still fall short. This means they can continue to improve on these things into the distant future.

 

[Slow James]

Fair enough. I'm a programmer and sit on my ass at a desk all day. Even though I lift weights and I have done some martial arts training on and off over the years, a street thug would most likely kick my ass if I got in a fight with him.

I was thinking in terms of what adventurers actually have to do, but realistically, only a fraction of their time is actually spent exploring dungeons and fighting battles.

True.

I like to think of it like Lord of the Rings. Hobbits are very non-physical creatures, by habit and nature. By the end of the trilogy, the four hobbits have been through battles and traversed most of the known world on foot.

Yet physically, they still can be picked up and manhandled by your average orc. They are probably some of the most physically experience hobbits in the Shire, able to run circles around the run of the mill there... but when it comes down to it, they can't hold a candle to even your average cannon fodder mook physically.

I view wizards in a similar light - sure, they aren't two foot shorter or a hundred pounds lighter than anyone else like a hobbit, but someone who is really in shape compared to just sitting around all day is still not really much of a match for someone who trains constantly in the physical act of killing. Which is what a warrior is - a powerful, well trained killer. A solider. Someone who takes sharp objects that weigh dozens of pounds and, through muscle strength and years of expertise, slice their opponents open.

Try struggling with slicing a dead, well-cooked moist turkey with a butcher knife half the size of the bird this Thanksgiving and then think about how much harder it would be if that turkey was as tall as you, armored and actively trying to not only avoiding your weapon but trying to kill you as well. Being able to deal with that and come out on the winning side the vast majority of times is not something that can be gained by doing calisthenics or walking around a lot. "In good shape" is a lot different than "strong or dexterous enough to cleave apart a living being."

 

[k0syak]

Wizards aren't inherently wimps... but they shouldn't be able to easily wield deadly physical force against enemies that, by their very nature, should be more powerful than them.

A wizard could get physical training, but it should make him a less powerful caster, compared to one that devoted all his time to learning magikz.

Fair enough. I'm a programmer and sit on my ass at a desk all day. Even though I lift weights and I have done some martial arts training on and off over the years, a street thug would most likely kick my ass if I got in a fight with him.

That's the difference - a street thug is not going to "fight" anyone, if you look like you could potentially pose a threat, you get knocked with a 2X4 from behind

 

[Karellen]

I agreed with everything until the last part.

"Above average" would be okay if it weren't for the fact that enemies are assumed to be anything BUT average.

Your average bandit, the mookiest of mook in most cases, usually has a class of rogue or warrior... not one of commoner class. A lifestyle of making your living attacking, stealing and killing others involves physical exertion and weapon expertise, for sure.

A level 1 bandit is a pushover. Yet a level 1 bandit is more than a match physically for a level 1 wizard... as it should be. The wizard has a lifestyle that requires hours, if not days, of intense study, with little physical activity or distraction. Sure, they get fresh air and exercise traipsing across the plains, but it pales in comparison to the physical prowess of enemies that make their living every day through physical attacks and violence, let alone animals, monsters or other beings whose very nature is more fit and powerful than humans.

Wizards aren't inherently wimps... but they shouldn't be able to easily wield deadly physical force against enemies that, by their very nature, should be more powerful than them.

I largely agree with this, but it's worth keeping in mind that in any realistic setting, not every combatant is a proper warrior. The people who live and breathe violence represent an extreme of the bell curve even among combatants, probably even professional soldiers. I don't want to downplay the importance of training, experience and constant exposure when it comes to physical combat, because it's crucial, but the fact of the matter is that even in the medieval times there simply wasn't enough violence to go around for most people to get any good at it, even psychologically. Now compare this to what characters in RPGs go through - just on the way from Candlekeep to Nashkel Mines, Charname and his low-level buddies will probably have killed enough things to put to shame pretty much anybody short of Miyamoto Musashi or William Marshal. I've always tended to think of PC adventurers as being exceptional, not in the sense that they're "destined heroes" or whatever, but simply because the experiences they regularly go through are highly extreme by most human standards. So if in real life I was watching a street fight and had to choose between putting my money on your average meathead bandit or the starting PC wizard who's seen more dead things in a week than most people see in their lifetimes, I'd go with the wizard. If he's not a psychological wreck at that point, he's some kind of natural born killer.

 

[Ninjerk]

I agreed with everything until the last part.

"Above average" would be okay if it weren't for the fact that enemies are assumed to be anything BUT average.

Your average bandit, the mookiest of mook in most cases, usually has a class of rogue or warrior... not one of commoner class. A lifestyle of making your living attacking, stealing and killing others involves physical exertion and weapon expertise, for sure.

A level 1 bandit is a pushover. Yet a level 1 bandit is more than a match physically for a level 1 wizard... as it should be. The wizard has a lifestyle that requires hours, if not days, of intense study, with little physical activity or distraction. Sure, they get fresh air and exercise traipsing across the plains, but it pales in comparison to the physical prowess of enemies that make their living every day through physical attacks and violence, let alone animals, monsters or other beings whose very nature is more fit and powerful than humans.

Wizards aren't inherently wimps... but they shouldn't be able to easily wield deadly physical force against enemies that, by their very nature, should be more powerful than them.

I largely agree with this, but it's worth keeping in mind that in any realistic setting, not every combatant is a proper warrior. The people who live and breathe violence represent an extreme of the bell curve even among combatants, probably even professional soldiers. I don't want to downplay the importance of training, experience and constant exposure when it comes to physical combat, because it's crucial, but the fact of the matter is that even in the medieval times there simply wasn't enough violence to go around for most people to get any good at it, even psychologically. Now compare this to what characters in RPGs go through - just on the way from Candlekeep to Nashkel Mines, Charname and his low-level buddies will probably have killed enough things to put to shame pretty much anybody short of Miyamoto Musashi or William Marshal. I've always tended to think of PC adventurers as being exceptional, not in the sense that they're "destined heroes" or whatever, but simply because the experiences they regularly go through are highly extreme by most human standards. So if in real life I was watching a street fight and had to choose between putting my money on your average meathead bandit or the starting PC wizard who's seen more dead things in a week than most people see in their lifetimes, I'd go with the wizard. If he's not a psychological wreck at that point, he's some kind of natural born killer.

Also worth noting how pretty much all entertainment that depicts physical combat undersells how exhausting it is to fight. People watch someone in boxing or MMA fight for a few minutes, take a break, fight a few minutes, but they rarely get to see how the athletes overcondition themselves to perform at that level.

 

[TigerKnee]

The sentiment that modern RPGs have ruined magic by making them too combat focused seems odd, unless some posters are conflating their PnP experiences with their CRPG experiences because magic being mostly combat focused has mostly always been that way.

If the argument is changed to "there's too much of a focus on Direct Damage combat spells nowadays and that's boring as far as magic goes", then that one probably holds more merit, but it seems mostly only to D&D rather than most other RPG competitors at the time, it seems. Something like Wizardry has mostly combat-blasty spells, for example.

One thing that can be said about D&D's non-DD combat spells is that their effects are very obviously strong to anyone who even bothers to use them. When you cast Sleep and it basically insta-wins a low level battle as the rest of your party CDG all the sleeping goblins, there's no real question that it's a very strong spell, the players can see it themselves.

But in other games you have spells like debuffs with description of "makes enemies easier to hit" or "improve your hit chance" and then your player's head is filled with questions with "by how much?" and "did casting that armor buff really improve my battle performance at all?" and unless someone sits down and math out the average results over 50 battles or so the usual conclusion that most players come to is generally "nah, better cast a blaster spell instead"

 

[Slow James]

The sentiment that modern RPGs have ruined magic by making them too combat focused seems odd, unless some posters are conflating their PnP experiences with their CRPG experiences because magic being mostly combat focused has mostly always been that way.

If the argument is changed to "there's too much of a focus on Direct Damage combat spells nowadays and that's boring as far as magic goes", then that one probably holds more merit, but it seems mostly only to D&D rather than most other RPG competitors at the time, it seems. Something like Wizardry has mostly combat-blasty spells, for example.

One thing that can be said about D&D's non-DD combat spells is that their effects are very obviously strong to anyone who even bothers to use them. When you cast Sleep and it basically insta-wins a low level battle as the rest of your party CDG all the sleeping goblins, there's no real question that it's a very strong spell, the players can see it themselves.

But in other games you have spells like debuffs with description of "makes enemies easier to hit" or "improve your hit chance" and then your player's head is filled with questions with "by how much?" and "did casting that armor buff really improve my battle performance at all?" and unless someone sits down and math out the average results over 50 battles or so the usual conclusion that most players come to is generally "nah, better cast a blaster spell instead"

Given that many old school RPGs mimicked, if not directly lifted, DnD rules, I'm a little confused. Look at the Ultima games, where your spells involved creating food, generating light, translating foreign languages and communing with the dead. Or Baldur's Gate, with direct transfer of DnD spells, combat and non-combat alike.

Is Vancian casting the end-all-be-all of magic systems? No. But combat magic - including ancillary buff spells, healing spells and also direct damage - being the ONLY sort of magic is not a given in CRPGs. Has it been expertly utilized? No, not in the least. But it did exist and it has since all but died out.

 

[Shaewaroz]

Well I mean how it seems so tacky to have some sort of magic wall mart that sell you neatly packaged spells. That seems like horseshit on the face of it. You'd think casting specific spells would be a result of learning new techniques and methods, not finding some specific incantation scribbled somewhere that you can just repeat to make a spell happen. I guess the skills required are abstracted into the level requirement to purchase/learn those spells, but it still strikes me as odd.

It's not odd if you think of magic as a science where spells are formulae that are discovered and like any other formula, can be replicated. D&D takes this approach for wizard spells, I believe.

I prefer to think of it more as an engineering problem. Like, knowing the formula for how a particular set of pulleys work isn't really useful, what matters is understanding the concept of how and why they work, so you can use them in appropriate ways. Though I suppose building a bomb would be a closer analogy. My image a a wizard is someone who knows how to build bombs from the bottom up, based on the physics and chemical properties, not someone who knows recipes for various bombs but has no idea how they work or how to make substitutions.

This is sort of the way Morrowind and Daggerfall approach magic. However I prefer to see magic in a more anthropogical way (as a secret art) because it's more entertaining.

Also, only a really phenomenal mathematicians or physicist can create a wholly new scientific theory, others have merely learned their discoveries through studying. Even a relatively simple scientific formula reguires a significant amount of talent to figure out by yourself. Most matematician could never come up with even the most simple theory by themselves, they can only follow other people's instructions to solve problems. I'd prefer to see most magicians as mediocre scientists who are craving to learn new laws and formulas of magic through texts other people have written down.It's easier to pretend to be smart when you're standing on the sholders of giants.

Using scientific formulas to solve problems equels to using spell to your benefit in RPGs. A substitution of a premade spell is maybe just the same spell of different strength.

 

[pakoito]

Retardo question here, but keeping magic focused in combat but opening the spellset a bit...why the fuck hasn't anyone just ripped off Dota (+HoN)'s spells?

It has all the damage rules well defined, the spellset has a lot of variation between buffs, debuffs and utility. Itemization is awesome too. Slap lots of generic items in between uniques, give PCs a Vancian-style spell learning while retaining cooldowns and place them in a setup of increasing challenge.

 

[Ninjerk]

Retardo question here, but keeping magic focused in combat but opening the spellset a bit...why the fuck hasn't anyone just ripped off Dota (+HoN)'s spells?

It has all the damage rules well defined, the spellset has a lot of variation between buffs, debuffs and utility. Itemization is awesome too. Slap lots of generic items in between uniques, give PCs a Vancian-style spell learning while retaining cooldowns and place them in a setup of increasing challenge.

inc bawwing about mobas

 

[pakoito]

Retardo question here, but keeping magic focused in combat but opening the spellset a bit...why the fuck hasn't anyone just ripped off Dota (+HoN)'s spells?

It has all the damage rules well defined, the spellset has a lot of variation between buffs, debuffs and utility. Itemization is awesome too. Slap lots of generic items in between uniques, give PCs a Vancian-style spell learning while retaining cooldowns and place them in a setup of increasing challenge.

inc bawwing about mobas

Before Dota there were the Warcraft 3 RPG modules. Where do you think the original heroes were taken from? It was a compilation of the most popular ones in arena battles.

Dota as we know it today didn't come up until Icefrog took over with Dota-Allstars modeled after Aeons of Strife.

 

[TigerKnee]

Look at the Ultima games, where your spells involved creating food, generating light, translating foreign languages and communing with the dead. Or Baldur's Gate, with direct transfer of DnD spells, combat and non-combat alike.

Ultima (V) was one of the games I can think of with pretty interesting non-combat utility spells, sure. I kind of liked how you can use Jump/Teleport-ish spells to break dungeons, which I guess is really only a thing in Ultima because dungeons weren't that big a part of the game (skipping entire levels by warping through walls in Wizardry would probably throw off its pacing)

And I can't quite remember the specifics of BG. Refresh me on why you consider it interesting?

But it did exist and it has since all but died out.

Sure it did, but a bunch of posters made it seem like there was this golden era where it was the norm that most games had extremely interesting non-combat utility spells. It was usually rudimentary and rare even back in the old days!

 

[TigerKnee]

Retardo question here, but keeping magic focused in combat but opening the spellset a bit...why the fuck hasn't anyone just ripped off Dota (+HoN)'s spells?

RPG fans hate inspiration from other genres except perhaps hardcore strategy games

 

[Slow James]

Ultima (V) was one of the games I can think of with pretty interesting non-combat utility spells, sure. I kind of liked how you can use Jump/Teleport-ish spells to break dungeons, which I guess is really only a thing in Ultima because dungeons weren't that big a part of the game (skipping entire levels by warping through walls in Wizardry would probably throw off its pacing)

And I can't quite remember the specifics of BG. Refresh me on why you consider it interesting?

There were skills like Detect Evil (not necessarily a mage spell, but it's the first example that pops in mind for that system) that allows the player to determine if the NPC the player is talking to is trustworthy or not. Absolutely zero combat application, but still a useful skill in determining how to go about the correct course of action.

Not every skill or spell needs to be about fighting, damaging, immobilizing, weakening or protecting against an enemy attack. Once that concept is abandoned, so that leveling up only unlocks increasingly more over-the-top ways to hurt enemies, then that's when you get Mages who are walking nuke spells on a 60 second cooldown instead of a more complex class that has a more balanced approach to dealing with the world.

Sure it did, but a bunch of posters made it seem like there was this golden era where it was the norm that most games had extremely interesting non-combat utility spells. It was usually rudimentary and rare even back in the old days!

Nearly EVERYTHING was rudimentary back in the old days. That's not the point - the philosophy is the problem here. That philosophy, that building a character should be more than what animations they use to whittle down HP bloat mooks, is what is dead or dying in RPG development these days.

 

[Akratus]

The problem is that they can add silly spells with polished particle effects in a jiffy but there's no time in the schedule for animating a barbarian ripping every monster's jaw off.

 

[Alex]

The sentiment that modern RPGs have ruined magic by making them too combat focused seems odd, unless some posters are conflating their PnP experiences with their CRPG experiences because magic being mostly combat focused has mostly always been that way.

If the argument is changed to "there's too much of a focus on Direct Damage combat spells nowadays and that's boring as far as magic goes", then that one probably holds more merit, but it seems mostly only to D&D rather than most other RPG competitors at the time, it seems. Something like Wizardry has mostly combat-blasty spells, for example.

One thing that can be said about D&D's non-DD combat spells is that their effects are very obviously strong to anyone who even bothers to use them. When you cast Sleep and it basically insta-wins a low level battle as the rest of your party CDG all the sleeping goblins, there's no real question that it's a very strong spell, the players can see it themselves.

But in other games you have spells like debuffs with description of "makes enemies easier to hit" or "improve your hit chance" and then your player's head is filled with questions with "by how much?" and "did casting that armor buff really improve my battle performance at all?" and unless someone sits down and math out the average results over 50 battles or so the usual conclusion that most players come to is generally "nah, better cast a blaster spell instead"

Ultima 7, and especially 8, had some variety of non combat spells. Text adventures like Enchanter, Sorcer and Spellbreaker, as well as the Quest for Glory games also did this well. And several roguelikes, while still being focused on combat, had either (or both) a good selection of utility spells or interesting/smart uses for combat spells, such as freezing a body of water.

By the way, I think listing games that had interesting magic might be a worthwhile thread.

 

[Athelas]

I disagree - Mages were turned into battle blasters by the removal of non-combat skills across the board by ARPGs. It removed the entire dimension of magic outside of doing damage. In that regard, Mages are insanely overpowered, but have real limits on how often they use that power (at least in DnD).

With the Diablo/MMO/ARPG model, Mages are instead expected to spam magic attacks non-stop, turning a staff from a worthless combat stick that had (sparingly used) magical attacks to a electric rifle, while the spells most powerful in a Mage's arsenal were to be used over and over and over again.

Ironically, the first Diablo had telekinesis which you could use to interact with the environment, a petrify spell. various teleportation spells, etc.

 

[Akratus]

Nox has cool magic.