shadowbunker

If the Devs started with a smaller number and apply character level scaling on this skill, it'd be much more usable at lower levels. But effects scaling with character levels is so rare that I think the Devs hate such idea.

Or we can make such mod ourselves as it's not that hard - and guess what, The json gamedatabundle clearly shows that "active/passive stacking rule" is a complete illusion. To be fair, this time the game's screwed up logic favors the player instead. Background: Mr. Voltron's "Sword Singer" thread mentioned that, Mith Fyr's +15% lash stacks with Eternal Devotion's +10% lash (so as shared flames). The findings: If we look at the two dmg lash source below, 1. Mith Fyr from abilities.gamedatabundle ("Chant_Aefyllath_Ues_Mith_Fyr") The game data clearly defines it as an active ability & a modal with flags: "IsPassive": "false", "IsModal": "true", The corresponding +15% dmg lash is from statuseffect "Aefyllath_Ues_Mith_Fyr_SE_BurnProc" in statuseffects.gamedatabundle, "StatusEffectType": "BonusDamageProc", "BaseValue": 0.15, "DynamicValue": {"Operator": "Add"}, "DamageTypeValue": "Burn", And these are the key fields that makes the +15% burn dmg lash. 2. Eternal Devotion ("Eternal_Devotion", it's the one with no subclass effects) Again it is an active ability by design without question: "IsPassive": "false", The corresponding +10% dmg lash for 15 seconds is from statuseffect "Eternal_Devotion_SE_MinorBurnDamage" "StatusEffectType": "BonusDamageProc", "BaseValue": 0.1, "DynamicValue": {"Operator": "Add"}, "Duration": 15, "DamageTypeValue": "Burn", Both looks like non-stacking active abilities. And guess what, the dmg lash stacks. For reference - the truly non-stacking active ability modal, Zealous Focus ("Zealous_Focus") "IsPassive": "false", "IsModal": "true", +5 Acc comes from Status Effect "Zealous_Focus_SE_Accuracy" "StatusEffectType": "AllAccuracy", "BaseValue": 5, "DynamicValue": {"Operator": "Add"}, "DamageTypeValue": "All", It is a modal just like Mith Fyr Chant does, but it doesn't stack. MAYBE the Devs screwed it up when making Chants not directly related to its effects, but through phrase entries: Chant_Aefyllath_Ues_Mith_Fyr (active modal) has StartingPhrasesIDs pointing to Aefyllath_Ues_Mith_Fyr (a phrase that don't have much properties defined) Aefyllath_Ues_Mith_Fyr has StatusEffectsIDs pointing to Aefyllath_Ues_Mith_Fyr_SE_BurnProc And somehow the game forgot the dmg lash is from an active modal...? Just a speculation. While modals like "Zealous_Focus" and "Sword_Half_Sword" directly mentions the Status Effects they carry. For a proper code design, this should not lead to difference in-game.

Wait what And as if it wasn't for pointing out that, an active trigger doesn't necessarily make things not fit as passives! Jesus Christ Seriously, you've never heard of toggle-able passives? And if you didn't get my statement - you think this isn't a crystal clear case (i.e. inconclusive), then the game shouldn't judge and shouldn't put it into game rules. Being inconclusive doesn't mean all players are neutral to it. If you're neutral or luckily sides with the Devs, nothing goes wrong; if you're unlucky, this design hurts as bad as "press down to jump". Of course we can git gud and get used to it, but it doesn't change the fact that it hurts player experience.

I'm not sure what repeating the phrase "toggled-passive" is intended to achieve. The fact that apparently modals are considered as such in some other games does not imply that they are or should be in PoE. Mechanically, there is no general argument to consider them 'active' or 'passive' or something else (if nothing else, since what being considered as such actually means will itself depend on the rest of the game mechanics). To also address your earlier statement: "Players who experience this game, with knowledge of toggled-passive in mind, are to be punished by the game". No, they are not. Players who come to this game expecting things to work in the way they do in some other games may find those expectations being confounded, but that is hardly punishment. If you play a new game and don't bother to learn anything about its mechanics, that's your own responsibility. Things like armour work differently as well; it's actually quite different even going from PoE1 to PoE2. So why would 'stacking' or 'active vs passive effects' be any different in that regard? And frankly, although the game could definitely be much clearer on its mechanics in many respects, the fact that modals are considered active is mentioned explicitly in the in-game Stacking entry. You can disagree with that choice and reasonable arguments can certainly be given against it, but it being done differently in other games is not such an argument. As for your rather bizarre example, I'm not sure what to make of that to be honest. If I had to classify them in terms of game abilities, without question I would consider both laziness and veganism to be passive. They are both more or less persistent and permanent traits/dispositions/convictions of a person. These can change over time of course, but certainly not at will; you cannot start and stop being a vegan at a whim, for example. Whereas you can easily change from one fighting stance to another, which is what those modals represent and how in a general sense it would work in real life (in combat and elsewhere). In combat, I would assume any competent fighter (of whatever kind) is able to adopt different strategies and fighting styles depending on circumstances, on the opponents they're facing and their weapons, etc. What works against a single heavily armoured opponent is wildly different from what works against fighting three unarmoured ones, for example. And by the way, though I care very little for veganism as such I feel I should point out: being a vegan definitely isn't equivalent to "eats only veggies every meal" I've already stated that the phrase does not answer your comment - so, what bothers you? And the term was brought to the table when Boeroer said modals' switch are actively triggered and thus "doesn't fit the criteria of being "passive"". If it doesn't fit, how was it possible that people invented the phrase and made it common enough among gamers? I am not forcing the term into this game, Boeroer was denying its existence, don't mix it up. And the active/passive stacking design has a key difference from other things you mentioned. One property of counter-intuitive design is that it cannot be fixed by learning. Consider the following example: In a random game, you press "A" to confirm, press "B" to cancel. Fair enough right? But in the crafting menu or whatever, sorry, you should press "B" to confirm and "Y" to cancel. Now the player have learned it, Is it players' own responsibility mixing it up from time to time? Is it players' own responsibility finding it irritating and feel punished? It is the exact same thing happening on us who naturally feels modals are passives. As mentioned earlier in this thread, we define it by its effect - in this case, it is zero-cost, it lasts indefinitely, so we think it's a passive (I hope that is a fair definition to you.) Actives don't stack, passives stack, right? (let's pretend it's that simple.) And then boom! We got shocked by the modals which doesn't stack. In this case, modals become an *Exception* in the rule to us (us=who feels it should be passive). Exceptions are bad, exceptions that go directly against normal case are very bad. (i.e. free lasting effect is passive vs free lasting effect is active, and "B" is cancel vs "B" is confirm) As for the example, if you do not agree with the base assumption (that those things are changeable at will), of course it doesn't make any sense to you - that is not how example works. Did you watch too much Jackie Chan? No stances doesn't change by BGM. And sorry I cannot agree on your example in general - fighting strategies are passives in my opinion. Once we're good enough to practice it, it's there. Now, there is one thing I'm curious about: If rings can be equipped / unequipped in battle #FrodoBaggins, you gain its effects through an explicit action (pick it and equip it), it is gained totally at will. Does that makes rings' effect active too?

Because Obsidian wants poe to be featured in an AVGN episode. That explains all.

FYI toggled-passives or "permanent passives at will", but I think that does not answer your comment. Conceptually...let's say I'm a lazy vegan (at will - I can eat meat without mental breakdown) I have two abilities here: - Stay lazy: do everything in a lazy way - Vegan: only eats veggies in every meal 1. I've been "staying lazy" and "being a vegan" recently. I'm typing (lazily) right now. Does it count as "multi-tasking" ? 2. I've been eating veggies only in every meal recently. I'm not eating right now. Am I a vegan right now? "Stay lazy" is basically any auras or Warrior stance, (well we cannot "stay focused" permanently IRL so R.I.P. focus aura) "Vegan" works just like Cleave stance.

Counter-intuitive design causes impact on user experience. When it is such design, no justifications can make it acceptable... You cannot change users' instinct with arguments. And it seems you think that "modals are passives" and "modals are actives" are both acceptable. If that is the case - why the game's mechanics force you to treat modals as actives? The game punish players who think modals are passives at first sight. If you know what a toggled-passive is, Let me put the statement here - "Players who experience this game, with knowledge of toggled-passive in mind, are to be punished by the game" Can't you see how bad it is? That is wrong. My first statement and shadowbunker's response: If OB Devs used similar method for classification then well we're all screwed.Which implied that my opinion on this is something that is stupid and following this will screw all people over. Your thought process has the same mistake as creationist does and sorry I'm allergic to that. Your statement works like this: You learnt that modals are actives - You are able to provide a justification for that (i.e. you actively trigger them) - You concluded that it is OK. This is basically picking facts favorable to the conclusion. It is bad because it makes you miss out the whole picture.

Seriously, you've never heard of toggle-able passives?

What's that supposed to mean? Trying to be c0cky? Have you ever wonder why, new players in forum and reddit can't learn the fact "modals are actives" intuitively? This issue involves user experience, And "modals are actives" is a counter-intuitive design, it cannot be resolved with justifications. Once users got choked by it, it's done. No amount of reasoning can change it. (And IMO the passive effects should be the main part of an ability, not the triggering method. But it's not an important point.)

If OB Devs used similar method for classification then well we're all screwed. @OP Welcome to the game, yes modals are counted as actives non-stacking, awkward isn't it. if we take 99% of other games and/or their popularly modded versions as the norm, This game's mechanics are very unpleasant and irrational. This is just like Skyrim and DOS2, great game but some in-game logic are just fxxking irritating.

Then stuff like Zealous Focus stacked with Warrior Stance and a nerf would be the result. Not good for single classes. The non-stacking of modals / putting modals into the active category is the better solution in my opinion.Stances are self-targeted effects, Devs can easily tune it to prevent OP fighters. Auras are fine as-is EXCEPT Zealous Focus. Everyone on the team needs Accuracy, i.e. benefits from it. +3 would be good enough as a passive. Blame Warrior Stance if fighter's Acc goes too high. Weapon modals are bad enough and is completely trash when suppressed.

Then stuff like Zealous Focus stacked with Warrior Stance and a nerf would be the result. Not good for single classes. The non-stacking of modals / putting modals into the active category is the better solution in my opinion. I agree, the activate ability not stack rule can make Single class more attracting. As a Crusader you're already able to stack passive to get all 6 Stats Resistance, making activate ability stack will make them too OP.That's not the point, no one here wants or suggested that.We're talking about the incorrect classification of Modals, which are passive in nature (but got thrown into the active list).

It's really simple, but it's really BS too. If Modals' effects are sub-par & can be suppressed by Active skill effects Then any proper team composition with buffs won't pick it. If Modals' effects are on-par with Active skills & can be suppressed by Active skill effects Then Modals will suppress most on-par Active buffs instead. The fact that Modals are zero-cost in battle has limited its options. @theBalthazar Devoted +2 Pen is passive.

Seriously? Auras and Stances should be counted as Modals, not actives, and should stack with everything else. Can anyone check weapon modals too?

Herald is too good, specially the rapper, best soloer and best team buffer imo. Can't say it's "too good" when it's strong but not OP.It's simply a combination of two straightforward classes not being screwed by weird mechanics.

Bleak Walkers everywhere! Zero points in Diplomacy. lol

????? please elaborate? how you no still broken? they did 1000+ fixes this patch I would advise play the game now and then do another playthrough after the 3 expansions have been released How did you count 1000+ fixes lolAnd if you know that many fixes are in place, Why you didn't realize something as important as companion relationship bug has not been fixed yet? That person don't need to elaborate. YOU need to elaborate. I dont NEED to do anything you git Obsidian stated themselves in the patch release that there are over 1000 fixes. go read there patch notes That's a nice FYI from patch note...It's a subtle FYI as we *gain no knowledge* from that number without comparison. 1k known bugs fixed out of how many? And see, you read & remember the patch notes in such detail, that's good, and still you can miss the critical companion relationship issue. Seems the patch notes did not really help users to realize what's fixed and what's not. Seriously, we get much much less info from patch notes than from other sources. Not good.

When they just lost the brilliant inspiration and sacred immolation hasn't got its fix...

????? please elaborate? how you no still broken? they did 1000+ fixes this patch I would advise play the game now and then do another playthrough after the 3 expansions have been released How did you count 1000+ fixes lolAnd if you know that many fixes are in place, Why you didn't realize something as important as companion relationship bug has not been fixed yet? That person don't need to elaborate. YOU need to elaborate.

How about Helwalker's +5% received damage per wound, any change?

I believe the +30% shock is additive with other "deal +25% as XXX damage" effects, i.e. It is not +30% total damage if your weapon/skills/etc are also stacking such damage. And damn I forgot if such damage is same as +XX% damage buffs (soul whip) or not...

Is crushing doom the best lv7 spell?

Um....anyone knows if this affects sacred immolation at all? (Or similar attacks/spells)

Hope things will be brighter after scared immolation receives its fix. And pal no beacon? Well I guess we do need most resource being spent on FoD spams.

To conclude, 1. When multiclassing wizard, should I expect more from the buffs or CC, than DD spells? 2. If it's buff focused, how should we compare herald and arcane knight?