DigitalCrack

I really don't understand why people would care if you have more tactical choices in combat than less. Doubling up on penalties for movement doesn't add to your pool of tactical choices it takes away from them, which is good how? And if it doesn't bother you that you can't move much then why does it matter to you if someone else wants to be able to? The removal of the recovery penalty doesn't affect how you wanna play anyway so why argue agaisnt it? Would you not react the same way if mechanics were put in place to purposely limit the way you wish to play the game? Of course anyone would.

I'm not sure if you're actually this dense, or if you're just trolling. And at this point I'm afraid to ask. However, I'd like to rephrase something. It's not useless. It's meaningless. Subtle but important difference. That's just it - it's NOT meaningless - it's an option that works and what is ridiculous is to keep telling people that your only options are full plate or naked when that is clearly not so! The point trying to be made is not about whether its doable or not. Its that there should be a benefit or incentive to use mid ranged armor just like there is incentive to running full plate or no armor currently. There should be more reason than style choice. Again not about if you can or can't be successful wearing mid range armor, its not balanced because it doesn't do anything better or equal to plate or no armor for character combat performance.

Its been mentioned before but changing con from a % bonus to health will help in making low endurance classes viable in melee.

Really some non fighter specific armor handling talents for each category would be fun. You could get different bonuses for specializing in different type of armor.

Honestly a quicker fix would probably be just to lessen the speed penalty for everything but plate and then add a penalty for wearing nothing. Like you take a lot more direct health damage when not wearing armor.

All categories, including no armour, should have differing penalties and bonuses. Like no armour you take almost all direct health damage along with endurance but you get an appropriate bonus for being unhindered by armor. Where as all armor would mitigate that direct health damage and then each category would have a differing bonus along with a penalty.

I think that was my post? I think you misunderstood. They are average(~ish). There not being any 'average'is just how the current naming scheme labels it.Very Low (30+10/level) - Cipher+, Wizard Low (36+12/level) - Chanter, Druid, Priest-, Ranger+, Rogue High (42+14/level) - Fighter, Monk+, Paladin Very High (48+16/level) - Barbarian (The +/- is their health multiplier, relative to the 'average' of their grouping. (V. Low 3, Low 4, High 5, and V. High 6) You would prefer they rename Low to Average? Does that matter? I see what you were saying. I didn't know what the actual number spread was and the naming convention used leads one to believe there is a huge gap between "high" and "low". On a side note I do think those three classes should be heartier than they are or at the very least game systems reworked to actually let you build them to be less squishy

This is nothing to do with attributes but it was pointed out to me that there are no classes that have average endurance. Classes are either some degree of high or low but nothing on between. I haven't had a chance to confirm but if so that's seems a little ridiculous that classes like rouge, chanter, and ranger couldnt be bumped to an average health bracket considering based off their descriptions they should be heartier than more scholarly classes.

Honestly Chanters should have average endurance instead of low. Why should they be as fragile as a book leanred class when they are more drifter types obtaining their abilities through travel and exploration instead of soley books. I realize its a balance issue but doesn't male sense when considering the concept of the class.

Really one handed should be represented like your character is a duelist essentially. So like added accuracy and penetration to represent a person trained in fencing as an example, someone who uses one weapon with an emphasis on percision.

Aside from the convoluted way DR is presented for each armour, an issue I have is the speed penalty is too steep. I wish they at least had some "amour handling" talents to offset the penalty or get more out of armour in general. It just seems wrong that going without armour is a better choice on average.

Talking just base class stats. It doesn't make sense for the Chanter and druid to be low endurance and health. Chanters are supposed to be adventuring types so would make more sense for them to be at least average endurance and low health, to show that they are semi tough in a fight due to adventuring but low overall health due to bardic life of parties and story telling. As for the druid a guy who spends any amount of time in nature you would think would be a little more durable.

The chanters at its base was far more durable than any other caster like class. They had higher endurance and decent melee accuracy, I mean not fighter levels but a far cry from a Wizard or Cipher.

Super disappointed to hear the class is crippled. I loved that you could have a bard-like character that could stand at the front and still be effective. Made for a really interesting melee option. I don't understand what the point is of obsidian stressing build diversity and playing classes anyway you want and then turn around and cripple a class, making it worthless to try and play certain ways.

I like the idea of Grimoire specific skills and they could be a really cool and unique aspect to the class but currently most of them are too weak to be useful.

Agreed. Its definitely a class that favors creativity in its ability use also, which really opens it up for whatever play style really.

I'm thinking with less than 8 weeks to release classes are pretty much finished and that what we see in the final beta build is going to be pretty much what we get. I didn't mean unfinished in the sense that they aren't done as a concept just they haven't all been fully implemented in the beta yet. So we don't know what they have to offer completely.

Also keep in mind that all the classes aren't finished yet so some others may prove more useful in full release based on beta feedback and full implimentation of the class.

The Chanter and Cipher can do well on the line with the fighter if you shape them to be more melee oriented. I guess I don't know about on hard or expert specifically but at normal they still proved fairly effective in the fray assisting the fighter on the front line. Both have skills that enable them to be played that way.

Chanter - Love the versatility of the class. A true "Jack-of-All-Trades" class that compliments any configuration of party. I love that the class can be effective at range or melee, not fighter strong but not wizard weak either just a nice middle ground that still allows the class to be effective in many roles without being better than the classes that can be best in certain roles (depending how you play those classes anyway). Plus the mechanics and class design are fresh which is a plus for me. Cipher - really didn't have a fair assumption of this class, weak ranged wizard-y sort of class... However I was wrong. The class abilities really allow you to mold it to the style of play you want and proved to be fun and effective. The class definitely allows for a lot of creativity in the implementation of it abilities. For example, mine worked in tandem with the rogue (utilizing its disengagement based abilities) as the medium through which I dealt death to enemies. Like running my rogue behind a pack of enemies while a beam of crushing force bounced between him and the cipher haha good times... Not entirely sure who would be my number 3. I will leave that as an undecided for the moment.

To expand on this, races in PoE are different in the way a man and a woman are biologically different not in the way human races (white, black, latino, etc..) are different. Not to say there aren't slight differences as far as general physical build for human races. The difference between a man and a woman is far more pronounced and distinct biologically, being more than some minor physical differences. Each gender has some completely unique parts (for instance) that they don't share with the other as well as differing physiological limits.

I never even noticed any anti-communist bias. I never played Dragonfall though. You encounter a orkish Communist policlub calling themselves the Arbeiters. Turns out they're just a bunch of thugs spouting vaguely Marxist dialog lines. You can express sympathy for them but the dialog lines read like whoever wrote them had a manager standing behind their back going "Write them! Write them or you'll never work in this town again!" It's striking how different their portrayal is from the F-state anarchists. It's quite clear where their sympathies lie. Which is perfectly fine of course. But a game based on Iain M. Banks's, China Miéville's or Ken MacLeod's unabashedly Communist ideas would be very cool too, and not only because my politics tilt more that way. Its seems people who work in every facet of game development have very strong political leanings and it definitely comes out through the game. Its typically not hard to tell what the political stance is of the guy in charge of a particular game's development... or at the very least, Ideals that are important to them.

My point that I was going to make was that it's impossible to say, because since you seem to be asking somewhat from a powergaming standpoint, it really depends on how much of a powergamer you are. And if you truly want to min-max, of course race is going to matter a lot. Mechanically, the difference isn't huge in v392 (except for the overvaluing of Accuracy, which is granted by Perception) but if you are the type that wants to pinch that last drop out of the system to get the best of the best of your given concept, then yeah, it's going to matter exactly as much as you want it to. To get back to the actual topic... This ^ answers the question of importance.

The idea of communism isn't intrinsically evil, its more so that it just doesn't work. too much of the concept requires Ideal circumstances to remain consistent over time which is why it inevitably ends in corruption or never truly get implemented correctly in the first place. Its biggest problem is it leaves no room for the fact that people are human and despite our best efforts people will never be unified on a level required for the concept to "work". Pinko commie. I'm calling the FBI. Haha ok, although I resent being called commie considering I am definitely for capitalism. I just believe in seeing things for what they are instead of having a black and white opinion. Plenty of evil people have used communism as a guise for their deeds but that doesn't mean the concept was designed to be evil even if it that is the inevitable end result due to human nature.

The idea of communism isn't intrinsically evil, its more so that it just doesn't work. too much of the concept requires Ideal circumstances to remain consistent over time which is why it inevitably ends in corruption or never truly get implemented correctly in the first place. Its biggest problem is it leaves no room for the fact that people are human and despite our best efforts people will never be unified on a level required for the concept to "work".