Elric Galad

I've played both melee and ranged ciphers, and I found melee ones to be more efficient, more fun and more in line with my playstyle. Melee weapons does more damages. That's the basis. You may loose time due to positionning, you may loose DPS because your stats are a bit less min-maxed, but in the end of the day, ranged weapons do something like 60% of melee ones. More damages, more focus. More focus, more fun. The only exception are firearms. They don't do more damages, but they allow a big spike at the beginning of each battle, especially if you use quickswitch (which I find annoying). Big spike damages means big spike focus, which can be incredibly handy. But noone would stop your melee cipher from opening with (a few) alpha strikes with firearms. Ranged damages are a great tactical advantage, ranged cipher are great but I just prefer melee ones. You don't like "psion with a bow" ? So why not "psion with a two-handed sword" ?

Check on Character build forum section. There was a thread about class tier in 3.03 maybe one month ago. Most people didn't put Cipher on top tier. Wizard, Priest and Druid were on top tier. The rest was argued. Cipher had a coupled of broken spells in 1.0. Most have been fixed now. Even then, they hardly compared to the other casters named above. But Ciphers were (and still are) incredibly convenient and handy in trash fights, that's why they were seen as powerful.

Do you mean zealous endurance is like being drunk all the time ? Now I finally understand why those goody paladins always refused alcohol...

No, it doesn't. I remember Boeroer stated it. It works with blast and rot skull. I wonder if it works with minor blights plus blast by the way.

Check the spell description. Some damaging spells do not interrupt. Some non damaging spells do.

Yop. It was a bit the point of the thread ^^

There is an entire quest and location about pale elfs in act III. It's hard to say that there is nothing about pale elf. Deadfire Archipelago ? Living lands ? Even Old Valia has pretty much zero content. I guess pale elfs are secretive and that conquerors never try to attack their homeland for obvious reasons. So they are not the most famous culture. But for sure, more content won't hurt in PoE 2.

The map does not seem so bad White that wends as a far south antarctica. Living lands in the north...

What I would call animancer is a kind of scientist who has scientific abilities to manipulate souls. Different from Cipher who does it as a natural ability. Gameplay-wise, I'm imagining it as a kind of necromancer, who can perform pre-battle "rituals"... But it could also be a background rather than a class. I've been surprised that you can't actually play one in Pillars (except if you consider it simply as a subcase of "Scientist")

Reading your post, it seems that you didn't take into account WM content. Wizard had a lot of content such as Lvl 4 Shadowflame, Lvl 7 Crushing Doom, Lvl 8 Wall of many colors and freezing rake. Even before this, Lvl 3 alacrity by itself makes a juge difference because you can cast MORE spells or just auto attack with summoned weapon. Lvl 6 Freezing pillars is Venombloom counterpart.

Well, turn-based has a niche appeal. But PoE isn't exactly mainstream either. It is just that it is another niche.

Actually, it is not so far from what I was suggesting in my previous (long) post. Except I'm speaking about 1 spell per encounter per tier instead of 1/2 per encounter in total. Then, in the side-note of this post, I was saying consumables could be used to refresh used abilities. (Could be applciable to non-casters too for balance purpose.) I like a lot of ideas in this thread, but I'm sure I would have liked them even more for an "original game". I personnally prefer ideas not so far from PoE current mechanics. I believe it would be a risk for Obsidian to change completely their mechanics because of players' exceptations. Some posts really support it. New mechanics would be more acceptable if they choose to design a new class... like "Animancer"

Check this thread, it's probably the best "classic" druid build down here. https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/86064-class-build-the-thundercat-or-crit-me-maybe-on-more-time/

Based on second Murphy Law which says that if something don't work and you tell it to everybody, it would suddenly work, you should beat it soon. More seriously, I think paralyzis works very well on it.

Also Druids and Priests both have a spell anti immobilization. In my experience, it worths it for a moon godlike, perhaps for a fire one (but it was not so efficient for my playstyle). Death and Nature godlikes do no worth it. Pallegina is a special case : her godlike bonus is meh but her unique powers are so good that she worths it anyway. I had a moon goflike rogue once, and silvertide really helped her tankyness, and even helped the whole party. In my experience, silver tide was a very solid choice, but of course you should avoid it on backrow caster, and it can be an overkill on a too resilient front row melee. As a final note, a spiritshifted druid looses bonus of all his/her equipment, but not godlike bonus. So for druids, taking a godlike worths it a bit more.

Well, the problem is that most of the difficulty in this game comes from about a dozen of hard battles. Repeated medium battles are rarely a big threat except in the Abbey. So without classes fitted for those battles, you will feel the difference. (Scrolls and items mitigate it a bit) Apparently, there is absolutely no consensus on this topic. We should recognize it. IMHO, that's a very good argument for an option. (I don't think it would be that hard to implement for a NEW game. But I admit it could be harder to balance.)

All classes are equal, but some are more. For me it is hard to imagine something coming close from Devotion + Crown of the faithful, or chained Shadowflames or a Spiritshifted druid charging with all storm spells active. A balanced party should have a mix of classes, but vancians caster will dominate the difficulty spikes most of the time. Still, there is no huge gap between class. Even with rank #10, the CC level of a Disciplined fighters using Overwhelming wave with an item is hard to beat. Same for rank #11, a Rogue using Deathblows and duplicated fireball sabers to fast cast Direballs is hard to beat for damages too. There might be Ranks, but there are also niche for very specific roles.

Well, your whole post gives excellent arguments to defend the per rest system, and I can say that your game experience remembers me some of my own feelings. It's possible that the only thing that needs to be done is adjusting the game so it would sometimes be harder to rest. However, there is currently a thread about strongest class on this forum, and no one seems to doubt that Priest, Wizard and Druid are rank #1, #2, #3. So I think there's an issue about it. One of my secondary suggestion above is an Option at the start of the game to choose between several system, as for Expert Mode. I think an option about a per rest or per encounter system would be relatively easy to implement and would preserve the game experience of people like you as well as fixing the balance issue for the ones who care. After reading your post, I think it would be the best solution.

Cipher are not "that low" in my list, it's just that the other classes are higher Basically, Obsidian did an excellent job about balance and for me rank #4 to #9 are quite hard to determine. Even #10 and #11 are not that much below. So I might reconsider a bit cipher's rank. It won't make a big difference. Defensive Mindweb is indeed very strong but drain most of your focus. It worths it, but I'm not sure it can contest a druid chain casting Storm, Form of the Delegan, Moonwell and Venombloom even if none of these spells worth Mindweb on its own (well, maybe Relentless Storm). That's why IMHO Vancians are hard to beat.

I’m now convinced that per Rest abilities, especially spells, should be reworked. I understand that it was almost impossible to perform such a change DURING PoE1 (due to players potential discontent/surprise). But I think it would be reasonable to change this for PoE2. The 2 major arguments in favor are the following : - Per Rest abilities are not very fun. Obsidian knows it. Apart for spells, WM I&II have introduced an “impressive” total of 1 per rest ability (revive pet)… - 3/4 per rest spell + 1 mastery per tier is overpowered if resting a lot. Based on the assumption that PoE 2 would enable reaching char lvl 20 and spell progression would be linear, that means 39 spells per rest from tier 1 to 10 and 6 mastery per encounter from tier 1 to 6. These are virtually unlimited resource when resting before each encounter. Therefore, I wanted to suggest a change. In addition to the 2 problems quoted above, I wanted to keep the “spell tier” resources separated because I wished that Druid/Wizard/Priest to be significantly different from Cipher and Chanter (and monk). My suggestion is : Each spell tier should be switched to 1/encounter (that you get on odd levels) Instead of spell mastery, the “vancians” would get a second per encounter use of the spell tier (starting from a 2nd tier 1 per encounter use at lvl 9). Other “per rest” abilities should be reworked too. (I already told something similar above, sorry for repeating, but I wished to analyze it a bit more deeply.) At lvl 20, that would be : - 2 spells per encounter on tier 1 to 6 - 1 spell per encounter on tier 7 to 10 It means 16 spells per encounter, which is a lot, but shouldn’t be that much higher than a martial class final number of activated abilities. Then, I listed the Pros and Cons of such a change : ------------------------------------------------ Pros (with arguments) : ---- + This is a simple change for the Devs Simple changes are most likely to happen. Simple changes require less effort that could be used on other contents. Simple change have less risk to “destroy the game” or brake it durably. Simple changes don’t betray too much the original game, but this is a “Pro” only for a guy like me with a high nostalgia factor. So this is not really a valid reason, I admit. ---- + Easier balance between classes Martial classes often get per encounter ability with a couple of uses. If vancians spell tier were per encounter, they would be much more similar to Martial’s active abilities, except that the said spell tier could be used in various way instead of a single way. Leaving apart Cipher, Chanter and Monk and comparing classes with no resource pool if vancians spell tier were per encounter, the differences between casters and martials would be the following : - Casters would still be more versatile due to their spellbook. - Martials would still have better base stats. - Martial would still have a starting passive which is usually better than caster’s signature starting ability (Arcane assault vs Carnage...) - Martial would still be better at action economy, as casters have zero passive except talents. Even a greater choice of activated ability won’t completely make up for this : martial character are able to pile up their advantages, meanwhile casters need time to pile them up. Eventually, as the above advantages and drawbacks above more or less compensate, the following principles could be deduced from the above when it comes to balance : As both spell and activated abilities of the same level would be usable “around 1/encounter”, they should have a comparable raw power. => “1 activate ability ~1 spell” (Fundamental Approximation of Balance) Of course, it is an approximation, as long as it is “not too false”, balance would be easier. Furthermore, , it would also make multiclass design (if any) slightly easier for the designers as spells and abilities would be easier to “exchange” (multiclass design would probably be far more complex than this, but it would certainly help). ---- + This solution keeps most of caster’s versatility. A caster would anyway have access to around 40 abilities at the start of a fight, so I think they could be said to be still versatile… ---- + This solution saves Ciphers / Chanters / (monk) specificity about “common pool” and infinite resource. That is the major reason behind my suggestion. Otherwise, there would be risk that Wizard with a mana pool would look a bit too much like Cipher… Ciphers and Chanters can select less spell when they level up. But Cipher and Chanters can use freely powers, phrases and invocations from any tier. So Ciphers and Chanters would have less possibilities at the start of the fight, but would keep an upside : their ability to focus on one precise ability. With the proposed change, I think that all 5 five caster classes would have a similar level of versatility overall. In addition, Ciphers and Chanters (and Monks) would still be the only classes with infinite resources. On the other hand, casters would still be able to chain cast their spells… at least as long as they have resources. ---- Cons (with counter arguments ) : ---- - This solution reduces casters versatility compared to current status or common mana pool, as each spell could be cast only once (or twice). The reason why I think a “Mana Pool” of common resources would not be a good choice for PoE : - “Mana pool” is annoyingly common in other games. I wish PoE to be a bit different. - The best concept for mana regeneration might have been already used for other class. In PoE, you already generate resources by hitting (Cipher), getting hit (Monk), and waiting (Chanter). Other possibilities might be found, but I fear they would be a bit redundant, or relying on fairly circumstantial mechanics… - Separate Tier resources force player to use several different spells. It sounds like a restriction but similar designs have proven to be enjoyable in Video Games history. For example, the unability to use constantly the same spell due to cooldown was one of the basis of Guild Wars 1 gameplay (I know it is not strictly the same concept). ---- - This solution reduces the possibility to combine spells of the same level. Do you like combo between spells ? Then, you will be limited because it would become harder to combine high level ones when they belong to the same tier. However, with high level spells becoming more quickly per encounter, there is enough room for new builds ! For example, it would be easier to build a wizard relying on a particular summoned weapon. From level 9, he will be able to use the deadly Citzal lance every fight. And before this, he could rely on Concelhaut Staff for the same purpose. Basically, I’m sure people will find another combos with these new constraints. ------------------------------------------------ A few side notes : ---- I think Per Rest ability could be left as they are for some items. Yeah, maintaining per rest uses with items sounds inconsistent when the whole point of my post was to say that per rest abilities should be avoided. But I think it would play the same role as consumables as jokers. Except these would be daily jokers. As they are available for all classes, this is not the same level of threat for balance between classes. Plus, you don’t feel committed by an item like you feel about an ability. If you don’t like, you can just change (you have more items than abilities, and you also change between fights). So I think it’s tolerable this way. ---- Consumables items or even spells could help refreshing or saving per encounter ability (not only spells) for important battle. I can see “your next ability won’t consume charge” on a special drug. I can even see wizards getting spells for this (or good old druid’s “wondrous recall”). For example, a fast cast lvl 7 spell could avoid next spell to use its per encounter charge. So you trade a “Fast Cast + Recovery delay” against the ability to use of a potentially higher level spell once more. Life is made of choices. That would have the side effect to add some depth to wizard repertoire without the same consequences for balance as a time stop or contingency. ---- Another option could be to maintain per rest system but introduce a cooldown to reuse a given tier during an encounter. (15s, 30s, 60s ? depending on Tier/Caster level ? Modifiable by talents ? or encounter end) Mastery could be left as they are. That would completely fix the boss-spell-spamming problem, without leading to trash-encounter-spell-spamming. However, people also want to use their high-tier spell more often. Look at the recent joy of barbarian players when Heart of Fury was made per encounter ! This option won’t fix this… ---- It might be interesting to rework a bit non-spell casters abilities at the same time. I mean the default ones : Arcane Assault, Radiance and Spiritshift, and some of the talent ones : Interdiction, Grimoire slam, etc… My idea would be to introduce cooldown for various abilities. These non-spell casters abilities should have a cooldown instead of per encounter uses. This would be especially important for early game. But I may develop this idea in another post. ------------------------------------------------ My next aim would be to create a new thread dedicated to vancian rework with a poll. The poll will present different solutions. I want to put mine in the poll, but I wish to add ideas from other people too. Currently, I think the proposed answers could be : · Keep per rest / per encounter spell system as it is. · Switch to a common Mana-like common pool of resources (with possible differences between Druids, Wizards and Priests). · Switch to per-encounter spells (1-2 per spell tier). · Add a cooldown to each spell tier. · Having 2 options among the above configurable as a game option (same as “Expert Mode”). So if you have any suggestions…

By the way, you can unlock the last level of the scepter by beating your teammate.

1 - Priest : Basically buff your party up to crazy levels. Also best healer. Solid damage dealer during his/her free time. 2 - Wizard : AoE CC and damages like no other. 3 - Druid : like a weaker wizard, but storms and support spells are awesome. Then, there is a gap. 4 - Paladin : Support tank with even AoE damages 5 - Chanter : crazy tanky AoE damages with dragon trashed 6 - Ranger : very high single target damages, pet tanking and recursive CC 7 - Monk : damages and CC at will when beaten. Tanky. 8 - Cipher : solid class, lots of good spells, but less raw power than true casters. 9 - Barbarian : lots of improvement im 3.03. Tankier than what you would expect. Very good AoE, crazy heart of fury. 10 - Fighter : solid class, does not shine that much but extremely reliable. 11 - Rogue : Best single target damages. But that's about it. This is for party play. For solo, I'm not sure but Wizard and Druid would probably be very high.

Ah ah I personnaly count Cipher and chanter 1/2 casters, as Cipher are half melee damage dealers.

In my first PoTD run I didn't have priest and it was fine. OP has Lay on Hands + support, chanter aura + support and 2,5 casters. should be fine as it is. A priest would most likely make it easier, that might be true, but I don't think it's mandatory. Well... you said recommended, I can agree to that. But you can totally play like this if you like this party better or don't want to have priests. I said recommanded also because he played only in Normal before And he does not have a druid either. I guess your 2.5 casters party had a druid, didn't it ? Druids can provide backup party healing and some party buffs (moonwell). If OP really don't want druid or priest, them I strongly recommand having a couple of characters with high lore and a couple other characters with average lore for scroll use in tough encounters. Being able to cast scroll of defense, valor, prayer against x... would be priceless. Even if you eventually don't need it, it considerably recudes the risk of facing brick walls. You'll sleep better with some Lore.

1 - Same as above : For your first PotD run, having a priest is recommanded.