spells that defend against magic: variety or simplicity?

when designing spells that are meant to protect the party against enemies that deal a lot of magic damage, how much variety do think adds a nice amount of strategic depth, without giving needless repetition? or do you think just one type of defensive spell (with perhaps 2 or 3 versions that get progressively stronger or affect all allies instead of a single ally) is best?

to give a more concrete example of what i'm talking about:

you could give a spell that offers resistance to fire for a couple turns. You could have a spell for each element in your game that does this...if you use 8 elements, that's 8 spells. if you have a different version of the spell for a single ally and all allies, that'd be 16 spells.

or...you could simply make a magic barrier type of spell, that provides the resistance against ALL magic damage for a couple turns. maybe you have a weak and strong version of this spell, and also a weak and strong version that affects all allies rather than single target. that's 4 spells - much simpler.

Do you prefer giving the player more choices (having to use the right elemental spell in the right situations), or just the more simple and straightforward "cast this spell when the enemy has a lot of magic dmg." Or maybe you use both ,and make the "all-resistance" spells cost more MP? Maybe you have an even more creative approach to these types of defensive spells which i'd love to hear.

Personally I would prefer having 2 spells: magic resistance for one character and magic resistance for all characters. Having 16 spells just for one mechanism seems a bit too much.

I'm all for complex mechanisms to make the battle more fun and less repetitive, but I believe having a couple of simple mechanisms is better than having one complex mechanism.

I always go for simplicity and have defensive skills boost defence for all types of damage, no exceptions. I never liked having a big list of skills that are all the same, but with elemental differences, so I'm not doing that for my own games.

depend on what the designer after, I guess.

Personally, I like the simple choice in this situation. Less work and easy to understand in general.

Tho, the complex choice with each element got its own defensive spells reminds me of SMT games where the main point in battle is a game of figuring out each person's elemental weakness to get bonus turns. In those games, knowing what element each party member or enemies are weak to is vital, so elemental blocking spell that resit or nullify certain element is useful in countering enemies' moves while not making it too easy for the player(plus skillsets are more customizable too). Still, SMT series is generally hard anyway.
Elements' variety could use a tone down to lesser number tho. 16 spells are quite too much.

I just have spells that grant temporary hp.

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I'm going for variety. Generally, I want my buffs to be party-wide because "Increase fire resistance by X% for Y turns to one ally" is pretty dumb when the fire dragon is belching flames all over the whole party. That said, I like the idea of encouraging the player to think a little bit about who they use in their party (they can swap out during combat) instead of just using the same tactic on everything. Damage types lose a lot of gameplay depth if the players have easy access to abilities that offer general, wide-sweeping resistance.

On the other hand, is it dumb when your support character has Fire Ward, Ice Ward, Lightning Ward, etc all the way to Potato Ward? Yeah, I'll admit it's just ability bloat, but thankfully, the approach in my game isn't quite like that. While I don't want zero-strategy, swiss army knife characters that can do everything, I'm also not a fan of "I am a fire mage. Fire is all I know!" So, for characters to whom a ward ability is deemed relevant, they'll get one that's along these lines:

Elemental Ward: Reduces Fire, Wind, Water, and Earth damage by 50% for 3 turns to all allies.
Celestial Ward: Reduces Light and Dark damage...
Storm Ward: Reduces Wind, Water, and Lightning damage...
Energy Ward: Reduces Fire, Lightning, and Light damage...

...and so on. While there will be some overlap for flexibility, when fighting (for example) a Wind/Lightning enemy, you'll get better character slot/turn efficiency by using the Storm Ward character over a mix of the Elemental Ward and Energy Ward characters.

I use all damage cut for all type of attack mainly because how I setup enemies in my game. Since I randomize the composition of the encounter, having a reliable source of damage cut is better than having variety of reducing a specific type of damage cut. There is no "this area encounter would be mostly are fire based enemy that deals fire damage", so there is no point. The only variation I have is only one target damage cut with few turns up, and party wide damage cut for one turn, like AoE guard skill (basically, all of them will be safe for one turn).

What I think you've really got to look out for, friend, is where and when you expect players to even need these spells. Because if you expect players to spam these and stack them constantly, then they just shouldn't be included at all. An actor's turn is a valuable thing, and if you expect players to just reset the same turn counters over and over, it definitely isn't very interesting or engaging.

For instance, if players are asking themselves "should I shield from Fire, or Ice?" what you're asking them to do is guess what the opponent is doing, and in that instance you've somewhat already lost as a designer. This is because players will either have no way of knowing, rendering the skills a lot less useful, or they'll know exactly because you've told them, in which case the decision isn't tactically meaningful; it's just picking "the answer". Elements in general often have this problem.

On the other hand, I think I like your simple option better. Because if a player has to choose "should I give one person 75% resistance to these magic attacks, or everybody 25% resistance?", then they are making a tactical choice. They have to consider the strength of the attacks, the durability of their party, whether or not the spell stacks, the amount of MP they can afford to have their character invest, and if that character shouldn't just use some other skill.

That's my opinion on the matter, anyway.

I'm a tad late on this, but to add on to the above comments that a "resist magic" spell should really be handled with care or not used at all, this old N64 game did it so wrong:

Personally, I went for the following approach, keeping in mind in my world everyone is of one of 8 elements:

Low Level: Basic 25% Resistance to one.
Mid Level: 50% Resistance to one.
High Level: Null or Absorb that element, one, depending on what felt like it fit that element better.

I also had some classes get damage block or an ability to boost the resistance of the entire party, though to keep it balanced the highest level version of that reduced all damage by 30% from all 8 elements.

Next game though I will admit I am probably going to shake this up a bit, and maybe go 50%/Null/Absorb instead, or make them target the entire party instead and drop the resistance to all 8 elements skill. Still pondering that one more. But the current system is too far along to change it much in the current game (as at some point you got to say It works, else you are always editing and improving, and you never release).

I prefer to have variety (within reason) when it comes to protection. I feel like it adds just a tad more strategy to make the player think about which element to defend against rather than just casting a single defense boosting spell and calling it done. Depending on how many elements you have and how you balance the effects of the spells themselves also plays a part in how well this will resonate with players.

ScientistWD was very correct when they stated that every single turn is super valuable to players. Most players aren't going to even consider an option if they feel like the turn/MP/time could be better spent elsewhere. So the balance is to make the effect powerful and cost effective without making it the best and only option.

Here's how I handled it in my game (so far):

* There are 8 elements: Fire, Water, Lightning, Wind, Earth, Ice, Light, and Dark.
* There are 6 defensive spells available to defend against Fire, Water, Lightning, Wind, Earth, or Ice.
* Having a defense up will reduce that elemental damage by 50%.
* There are no spells that defend against Light or Dark (making these reliable elements to use against players/enemies using these defense spells).
* Each spell defends against only 1 element requiring the player to purposely choose the correct spell to add some depth/strategy.
* Each spell affects the entire party to get the most use out of the player's turn/MP.
* Each spell also lasts several turns and persists after battle into the next to avoid having to constantly recast.
* You can also cast out of battle to prepare for a fight instead of waiting until a battle (still testing this out but I think it adds a nice extra layer of depth to the buffs).
* Currently MP cost is comparable across most skills in my game to try to encourage players to experiment with different skills (trying to go for a "toolbox" feel more than a list of "power moves").

Note, my game is no where near being complete so this is all a work-in-progress and hasn't been fully tested at all but I figured it never hurts to see how others have done things to help think outside the box. I think the way I've done it at least makes the option more appealing to players in battle and I can already see a scenario where a player would feel smart and/or rewarded for figuring out that they can cast "anti-fire" outside of the battle before taking on a "fire dragon boss".

I agree, which is why developers have to mix things up. For example, not every single enemy in the Wind Temple should require you to use Wind Barrier, but by adding in 1-2 enemies with really strong wind attacks, the player learns to cope with those particular foes by keeping somebody with a wind barrier handy, just like they'll want somebody on hand to deal with status ailments while exploring a giant spider nest. In contrast, if everything just attacks the same way or you have One Barrier To Rule Them All, then what's the point?

That Quest64 video is a great example of why I'm not too keen on "keeping it simple" with just basic resist-everything buffs. If every group of enemies is fought the same way by using the same buffs followed by the same attacks, I kind of feel like the developer has failed somewhat, unless of course combat was never meant to be an important part of their game in the first place.

I think the intended goal is for players to learn. You may not know that a given enemy uses Fire or Ice the first time you encounter them, but once that enemy starts acting, and especially if that enemy's Fire or Ice spell is meant to be dangerous, they'll learn and they'll remember for the next time they meet that enemy, or if it's a boss, they'll adapt their strategy.

A really good question, but one to which I'm going to give my stock answer about the complexity of combat systems: Keep it simple until you have a compelling reason not to. I've harped on this concept a lot when discussing physical/magical damage types and individual elements, and the same mantra applies.

Here, that means that in most games, the ideal solution would be a single spell to reflect/reduce all incoming damage (and I'd actually keep it to ONE skill, unless you're combining the utility with completely different types of utility, e.g. you are also dealing attack damage with the skill - I'd generally avoid complicating the balance with things like party-wide reflect skills).

Of course, there are games which offer dynamics where having multiple skills that each reflect/counter/reduce a specific type of damage would be a good addition. Examples of such games might include:

• A game where Elements or Damage Types are an extremely integral part of combat, and the player is able to frequently and feasibly change their team's character and/or skill lineups to suit any given situation they find themselves in. (Persona is a good example.)
• A highly competitive and highly tactical game where the player has a limited number of skill slots, and therefore extremely specific skills like "reflects fire damage only, at 2x the original power" can be extremely powerful because of the opportunity cost of using up a skill slot. (Pokemon is a great example in its PvP, though not in its standard adventure.)
• A game where a battler's intentions, though not their actual actions, tend to be highly telegraphed. (CCGs like Hearthstone tend to be good examples of this, since you can recognize deck archetypes. I'm not entirely sure I've seen this in an RPG before, but an example of an RPG combat system that might work like this would be one where battlers need to first charge up each element in order to use it, and once an element is charged up, you can use a spell from that element on any one future turn of your choice.)

I would have to agree with @Aesica the most.

One thing I'd like to bring up, is the same shtick I point every time I stick my paw into discussions - think it terms of the story you are trying to tell.
If you are trying to portray an omnipotent being, or an extremely wise mage, they have probably mastered a skill to protect against everything for a long period of time.
A younger mage? Well, now you have the "fire triangle" of items: amount of protection + effort to cast/uphold + duration = quality
You kind of need all three for the skill to work, so tweaking either one would make the spell more "personal" to that character.

As @Aesica pointed out - Fire mage is good against fire. Let's not scale to potato defense (Oh this joke was great... I am thiefing it and using it!)
Let's take for example an average party. Warrior and Thief, let's discard right away, since they would be more physical... but it would also make it more complex to discuss the defenses.
Let's look instead at the "Void Mage" and the "Cleric of her Divine Grace Milenia Goddess". (random names)

Void mage would probably have some sort of defensive barrier. After all, they've managed to survive this long and probably adventured alone for a bit too. So how would they defend themselves? Maybe the shell cast at them, a projectile, would be instead thrown "into the void"... but because opening the void and handling the aftershock requires skill, mana and time, that would hit the mage back - mana cost, some HP loss, cast time.
Also, it would most likely only protect one person, not the whole party... since forcing elements is hard for a young and inexperienced mage.

The cleric would pray to her goddess for "divine" protection instead of manipulating (forcing) any powers of any element. Let's omit the fact that the gods sometimes do not hear the prayers and the cleric dies, wondering why =D This is not one of those clerics, she has ear of her goddess that she can sometimes whisper requests for divine intervention.
She asks for help to guard her and her party... now... if you want to be fun, roll the dye. Maybe the young cleric was not clear enough in her request? The strength of the shield, the duration... is random. However, you are guaranteed that it will cover the whole party.

A great addition I like to apply is the "survivor complex"... How did this character manage to survive in this "dangerous" world this long? They definitely have something that others don't have to keep them alive?

I really enjoy the simplicity of "white magic" that Final Fantasy games use - from simple to more complex and more protecting for more MP used. It is a simple tool to use.
However, personally, I prefer to write character sheets for all of my NPCs and make their skills unique to their character. This way its not just "mash enter to use defauult attack", but actual roleplay, since you understand the characters at least a little bit.