DigitalCrack

@Dr. Hieronymous Alloy Not gonna debate it beyond this but according to its definition, Soul whip doesn't contribute to focus gain its the sole reason a cipher collects any focus at all from physical attacks. That is simply how it is, no other way of interpreting it. So Its not unreasonable to think that having soul whip damage scale instead of being a fixed percentage would directly help with focus gained on hit since its how a cipher is even able to obtain focus to begin with. So instead of making a cipher's melee damage dependant on the weapons damage via strength you could get the same affect by boosting resolve thus boosting overall weapon damage utilizing soulwhip instead of the weapon itself which woukd fix the cipher issue of having too many stats that need a decent point investment.

I don't really see where you're coming from on this -- do you have any numbers to back that up or is it just intuitive? Because if it's just an intuitive argument I'd ask you to look at the numbers instead. Mathematically, 18 might would give a 24% damage bonus; that's higher than the base soul whip bonus of 20%. Now with this change, those points need to go somewhere else (if, say, you ever want to do damage with a power cast, etc.) Remember: Ciphers gain focus from weapon damage dealt. A 24% drop in their weapon damage dealt means a corresponding 24% drop in their focus gained. This change doesn't just shift some numbers around. Imagine if wizards lost a quarter of their spell list every fight. That's the equivalent of what this change does to ciphers. And there's no way to "balance this properly" because if you gave Ciphers enough of a damage bonus to even this out -- say, an additional 24% bonus to Soul Whip -- suddenly Soul Whip is doing +44% damage! (Base, not counting Biting Whip etc). AT that point, multiclass cipher/melee classes become absurdly powerful just from the bonus damage, without ever bothering to actually cast cipher powers! It's a @#$@$ mess. Nope, dont have any specific numbers to propose. Also Soulwhip is how they collect focus according to lore. Without it they gain nothing from hitting people with various implements. "Soul Whip is the Cipher's passive ability that activates in combat as long as the Cipher's Focus level is below maximum. Causes the Cipher's weapon(s) to generate a field of parasitic energy that lashes out at the target, increasing Damage inflicted and generating Focus for the cipher. It can be used with ranged weapons."

What then happens in the case of a multiclass Cipher or even a pure Cipher who pumps both Might and Resolve? This idiotic stat change is just going to make a whole series of cascading problems. While I agree that this stat change creates more issues then it fixes, I think soulwhip scaling with resolve could work. The extra damage it provides would have to start lower than it currently does for it to balance out properly.

For Cipher I think the best way to change the class would be making soulwhip have damage that scales with resolve spell damage. Instead of however it works now, you just have the extra damage it applies scale up with resolve. Strength becomes less needed as you gain more extra damage from soul whip when rolling high resolve. That way the damage needed from weapons to build focus takes less of a hit with the new stat setup.

Not really on topic except that it is cipher specific, but I wish soulwhip had a lash effect again. Not sure when but it was mostly patched out of PoE1 but would be cool to have your weapon light up with purple flames (or however you want to portray it) when entering combat. I remeber it being a cool unique visual element to ciphers in PoE1's original release.

Ah thanks was never clear to me if it did.

Kind of skimmed through this and do like the way people are thinking on these suggestions. Another idea, what about having resolve decrease recovery time for actions or would that be too much? Dex is just action speed which doesn't affect recovery correct? It fits in my mind with resolve. Not sure this is a better suggestion then ability damage or affliction duration.

It was very enjoyable to play and thats why it succeeded. shocker that people like fun games and balanced doesnt always equate to fun. A certain level of inbalance is required for games to feel fun imo

Honestly, yeah I think that's how it should be. Maybe it's the bg2 fanatic in me, but I think that if a wizard wants access to the highest level spells in the game they should have to forego melee capability to do this. That's the beauty of the multiclass system - a single class wizard has a very well defined role, and if you want a wizard that is good at melee then you have to give up some of the late game wizard powers Totally fair point and I like the honest answer.

Oh, okay. Well, if that were the case, then I would make scrolls limited in use. I would rather not do that, and have them just be equal. Also meant that it should be tested to see if it currently is, not that it should be better. Man I am not typing everything I am thinking haha people cant read my thoughts.

Great idea. My only qualms, then, would be defining where to stop. One handed, two handed, weapon and shield, dual wield (fighter), deep pockets(rogue), gunner, marksman(ranger), slayer talents(barbarian), and use of scrolls (cipher, chanter, priest, wizard, druid). I'd say add to that some minor hand-to-hand technique like a kick (monk), and an inspiring war cry (paladin). Or something like that.I wonder exactly how much power is gained with scrolls per point invested in Arcana skill? Only pondering if technically a martail class could get more power out of a single magic scroll then a caster gets out of weapon after taking a weapon style proficiency.That would be too much. A fighter will still be better in melee because of stances. A caster, respectively, should always be better with spells because of power, area of affect, penetration, or something like that. Efficacy, basically. sorry I meant it to read as a fighter being better with sub optimal magic (via scrolls) then a wizard with sub optimal melee (via weapon style buff). hopefully that makes more sense.

Great idea. My only qualms, then, would be defining where to stop. One handed, two handed, weapon and shield, dual wield (fighter), deep pockets(rogue), gunner, marksman(ranger), slayer talents(barbarian), and use of scrolls (cipher, chanter, priest, wizard, druid). I'd say add to that some minor hand-to-hand technique like a kick (monk), and an inspiring war cry (paladin). Or something like that. I wonder exactly how much power is gained with scrolls per point invested in Arcana skill? Only pondering if technically a martail class could get more power out of a single magic scroll then a caster gets out of weapon after taking a weapon style proficiency.

I disagree the reason casters were so much better was because they each had a combination of area cc, damage, and buff that out classed most of the martial classes abilities to do the same and could be cast at greater rates later in the game. It had near nothing to do with caster ability to be build like a warrior. Those abilities just allowed you to change the traditional role a caster is suppose to occupy enough to make for interesting builds. Let's say for argument that you're correct. It still means, by your very own words, that the caster classes were built to be able to do everything whereas the warrior classes were not. So my point still stands. I think a lot of us disagree because your point was "new people searched for powerful classes and the answer was casters because of flexibility to do what martial classes do," and that rings false to us. As in, yes the answer was casters, but not because of flexibility. A new player searching for powerful classes is looking for a class that is powerful out of the box (with easy to use, powerful spells), not looking to build mages who are good at melee (which is a niche thing that takes knowledge of the systems to pull off, not something a new player would have any interest in doing). That's not true. I was deliberately abstract in my post in not specifying the exact things identifiable with warrior classes vice caster classes. My point was that the caster classes could take on the roles/functions of warrior classes in a party, however those roles/functions may be defined, but the reverse was not possible. Or put another way, one could have a party of entirely casters and successfully win all battles whereas a party of entirely warriors could not do so (at least not for someone like me where I've admitted I am not a hardcore player).That is true. But it has nothing to do with the talents but all with the spells and abilites those casters have. FOr example a wizard can fill the role of a barbarian because he can summon Citzal's Spirit Lance and go wild with Martial Power. He can grap self buffs and replace the fighter tank. Those are all results of the spell design and not of the talants which only round the pickture a bit. spirit lance spell is still a martial beast without any extra talents buffing it. its an issue of class desparity with abilities and that basically some Martial classes need better, designed/or in general, abilities.

I was just saying that,you'll have to forgive the odd timing if my posts, I'm on my phone in the doctor's office. Anyway, I would say scrolls aren't quite the same because they're not reusable, but if they were, ohoho, now we're cooking with oil. At least in deadfire by upping arcana it also ups the power of scrolls you use. Maybe simply expanding a little on the current scroll system would be acceptable for martial classes gaining some magic.

I think part of this stems from a a warped call for verisimilitude, where they can see someone who can change the fabric of reality having enough time to dabble in swordplay (implying swordplay is easy to learn), but it's unreasonable for the trained swordsman to learn a bit about magical components needed to cast spells (implying it's impossible to understand unless you commit all of your time to learning everything about it). I think what everyone wants is that little bit of specialization to say that yes, my character spent a little more time to learn swordplay better than most. And I'm fine with that, but the logical equivalence would be the ability to pick up a couple spells, abilities, or what have you from other classes. Like "My fighter is a master with sword and shield, but also is a bit religious and can cast bless." I don't think anyone's opposed to that, but neither are they clamoring for it. Frankly, I hate playing as casters, so I'm fine giving passives to everyone so long as Fighters and the like get something more unique to them. But if we're talking about balance, this is definitely skewed. would actual be kind of neat if there was a genric grimore proficiency that allowed a you to utilize found grimores up to spell lvl 1 or 2. That aside scrolls and the arcana skill can be used by any class and do allow them to utilize some magic.

Agreed, but let's keep in mind that the feedback they're receiving is not representative because the testers are self-selected and not randomly distributed. This is my fundamental issue. For PoE1, if you do a search of these very forums for an answer to the generic question of "What are the 'best'/'most powerful' classes to play as," you will get a very solid consensus on these classes: wizard, priest, druid, cipher (which I will group as "caster" classes). The answer to the same generic question in reverse equally generates a solid consensus on these classes: fighter, barbarian, ranger, rogue (which I will group as "warrior" classes). So why is it so much better to play one of the caster classes over one of the warrior classes? The answer is very obvious. The caster classes can all be built to do a lot of what the warrior classes can do but not vice versa. In other words, the casters can make for pretty good warriors, but the warriors can never be pretty good casters. This is very clearly an unfair imbalance in favor of the caster classes which was taken for granted by many on these forums because this thread clearly shows that the hardcore forumites clearly favor the caster classes over the warrior classes. But it seems that Josh Sawyer, bless his heart, recognized this unfair imbalance in PoE1 and tried to remedy things in PoE2 by making it not possible for caster classes to be good warriors in the same way that the warrior classes cannot be good casters. If you wanted to be somewhat good in both, you needed to multiclass, which is the whole point of adding in the new multiclassing system. This was exactly the right and proper approach to take, and I strongly commend Sawyer's initial impulse. But of course all the caster class favoring forumites couldn't bear to see their cherished caster classes not having warrior abilities in the exact same way that the warriors don't have caster abilities. So now we go back to how things were in PoE1, where the caster classes get to be pretty good warriors (without having to multiclass), but the warrior classes cannot be pretty good casters (unless they multiclass). I hope someday Sawyer gets to make his historical RPG, so that there can be no spellcasting and no caster classes and only warrior classes in the game, and those of us who favor warrior classes can finally have our day. Except All classes are (supposed to be) more then the weapons they use. They are defined by how they use them. whether directly integrated with their abilities (e.g. martial classes+cipher) or a complimentary support tool for other abilities (casters+chanter). So if there is imbalance it has nothing to do with what generic equipment they can use and more an issue with the class itself being underpowered in its primary function whatever that may be. Edit: imo fighter needs to be more then a series of buffs and thats the real issue not that they are losing exclusive rights to a couple of fairly generic buffs. This even applies in some respect to all the martial classes.

In POE2, a Wizard and Fighter have the same accuracy, both get the same dual wield talent, end result both are equally efficient in dual wielding prior to buff. The POE2 Wizard has spells that does pretty much everything the Fighter's active buffs and most passives do outside the outrageous amount of + engagement option the Fighter gets and constant recovery. The Wizard defensive spells are actually better than what the Fighter is getting, like way better. For + engagement Wizard are stuck to using a weapon that grants it. For constant recovery, eat poultry on rest, it gives +HP every couple of seconds. Before the change, the Wizard had to sacrifice power levels to gain that dual wield talent. By the way, weapon specialization is just a small weapon damage bonus and Josh's tweets said nothing about Fighters getting the weapon styles twice or new passives. He says they will be able to pick from either the class talents pool or the proficiency pool. You are correct Josh did not elaborate on any exact plans for fighters weapon style talents. Will hold off my further comments on it until I see what they plan to do with the fighter and how the proposed update plays.

A Wizard is a spellcaster, not a Battlemage, not an Eldritch Knight. If your Wizard is proficient with martial weapons like a Fighter is without multiclassing, the Wizard identity is now homogenized with the Fighter. It's not a Wizard anymore, it's a martial class that can cast spells. In POE2, people who wanted a Battlemage were supposed to multiclass with a Fighter. Going by this thread, multiclassing was a waste of time and effort form Obsidian. The "my flexibility fans" here don't want to multiclass to make a Battlemage, they want to pick a Wizard and give it Fighter's talents. There is already people asking that Fighters get access to spells because their weapon styles are now "universal", jeez. People here keep on bringing up NWN/NWN2. 3.Xe doesn't allow a Wizards to use martial weapons or armor without them wasting their precious few feats on those proficiencies to not suck with them, losing their casting abilities when wearing armor and their to-hit will never catch up to a martial class even if multiclassed. In POE2, a Wizard can wear all armor types without penalty others don't have, their to-hit with weapons was homogenized with all the other classes. The per-encounter changes turned their spells to just be actives abilities. Their only class identity was "I got more actives than martial classes and can't pick martial talents"...half of that was just removed. Now they just have more actives which will probably be gone soon, because people in this thread keep on asking for more actives for the martial classes. I call that a color-coded class system: all the classes are the same, minus the colors of their actives abilities. Because a wizard can get a dual wield talent doesnt mean that he can utilize it anywhere close to the level of a pure fighter or even a a multiclass fighter/wizard. fighter is way more melee capable with stances also exclusively gets armored grace allowing him to negate some of the speed penalty and extra weapon specializations and extra style specializations.. but totally a wizard with a dual wield talent basically negates all of that..

I just dont understand how by the current reasoning that class identity has been gutted because of a few general proficiencies being added in. does it literally have to be Wizards can only cast spells, wear robes, and use implements unless they multiclass to even be acceptable as a "defined" role?

Some people prefer classless.Those people scored a victory with this update. It's okay to be upset that the game isn't what you wanted, but I think proponents of classless systems outnumber you by quite a bit. People just want a small amount flexibility and letting a wizard get a small bonus to dual wielding melee weapons does not make him play anything like a fighter or mean that Deadfire is now classless. Yes obviously always fine to be dissapointed with changes that dont match your preferrence but there is a little too much hyperbole happening from the rigid class role crowd from such a small change imo. Edit: I am sure there will be plenty more changes to come that will make the rounds on dissapointing various fans. Also I actually like class based more then classless as a side note. Just a supporter of limited flexibility.

The current classes are POE1 classes with already more abilities/passives (minus Priest/Chanter/Wizard). And people are demanding more? You're just level 5! Level 5 on 20... I'm starting to think that making the whole thing visual was a big mistake. I do find it hilarious that now some vocal backers got to make Obsidian dilute some of the classes and now people who actually like the more focused classes are demanding compensation. But just stop it, not only is this going to lead to crazy power creeps with all the stacking (which is already worst than what was in POE1), but in the end there won't be any identity left to the classes and multiclassing is going to be totally pointless unless it is for more power creeps. Classes are just going to use different colors for abilities at this speed. I know plenty of people who do not like POE1 because class identity do not exist in that game and they feels like the class they select made no difference to how they play the character. POE2 was a step in the right direction, everything was focused. But with the latest announcement, we took a step back toward the "class but it's closer to classless with different ability icons" system that POE1 had. In no way would I ever have called PoE1 classless (or even close) in feel or otherwise. To say PoE1 classes all felt the same is a pretty big stretch. That being said Deadfire, even with adding more general proficiencies is still significantly more focused class to class role wise then PoE1.

yeah both the stalker and Ghost heart could use a talent or two to help seperate them further from base ranger. doesnt help that the base ranger talent tree (currently) favors the sharpshooter's playstyle. Really feel like stalker could use a combo of better melee option and maybe some enhanced pet options, as its bonus incentivises boosting your pet. Ghost Heart needs to have the pet heal and revive replaced (since it cant use either) on the talent tree with something unique to Ghost Hearts.

Yeah I would rather see a few melee abilities thrown in before more ranged stuff or maybe just make all ranger abilities weapon versatile so they are indescriminent of ranged or melee.

I like the Mage Slayer. Its the Barbarian sub I usually take when I multiclass a Barbarian. I play him Mobil and just have him rush casters. Especially loved the Mage Slayer/Soul Blade together.

Really a ranger melee build is a pet build. At the moment there isnt many melee options outside building your pet. I have run ranger in several melee builds and my favorites have been Barbarian/Ranger and A soul blade/ghost heart.