Valorian

This is necromancy. Really, a talent that lets the priest be more effective against undead creatures would be fine too.

It's not, I don't have anything against you personally. Sometimes I retaliate too hard, I'm sorry. I don't think you're delusional.

When the AI is improved that won't be the case, and even now they are a trap choice compared to the other weapons except in the specific use cases of applying debuffs or a Bow Ranger that focuses on Interrupt when specifically using the high damage Bear Companion. I believe you are making an incorrect statement about Bows and if people listened to you and bows were not made viable, Bows would remain an underpowered and uncompelling choice for characters from a powergaming perspective. We can certainly agree on the importance of the AI targeting ranged characters too, from time to time, let's leave it at that.

Bows fire slower than melee weapons do, and you will also note if you read my post earlier in the thread replying to Josh that 1H fast and 1H normal weapons are also an inferior choice at the moment against any armor (except Stilettos and Maces) compared to 2H weapons. Ignorance is bliss I guess. Sure you have... and bow wielding people won't be interrupted nearly as often as melee characters, or have to turn on defender mode slowing their attack speed to hold more people, or suffer from on-hit status effects as frequently as melee guys, and so on. I appreciate your passion and I understand that you have a specific "me me me / I developer" delusional compulsion, but at least dial it down a notch.

.... How does the 9-16 bow compare to 10-16 melee weapons? Is that a factor in your observations or does "bow too weak! change!!" exist in a vacuum?

Right. 30-50 damage is clearly trashy sheetty banal boring against armor.

*very sad that the least visually appealing fast melee weapon has a nifty deflection bonus*

Well, that doesn't mean that bows are terrible weapons... it could mean that crossbows, arbalests and guns are too good.

Does your math take into account them being ranged weapons and the advantages that come with it?

They do have a varied list of abilities and I find them interesting in the context of my play-style. I enjoy characters who are exceptionally good at holding the line. However, talents. This: Yes. The only thing we need to shape the characters we want to play is being able to select talents frequently. Combat style talents at level one would do wonders for customization, I think. If someone wants to play a ranged fighter or rogue, let them select a talent that increases the efficacy of all ranged weapons. Same for dual-wielding, two-handed weapons, weapon and shield and single weapon. *** Also, I don't think it should be a must for all classes to get talents at the same rate (I suppose this won't be very popular), but what if: Warrior classes (fighter, rogue, barbarian, paladin, ranged, monk) get talents at level 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12. Caster classes (wizard, chanter, cipher, druid, priest) at level 1, 3, 6, 9, 12. The difference is only 2 talents. I'd be fine with everyone having access to 7 talents, of course.

Bows are not terrible (compared to melee weapons), but I believe that colossal-damage-per-hit weapons need to be toned down, including the powerhouses you mentioned and their melee counterparts. They laugh at DT and due to the way on-hit effects work in PoE (scaled in relation to base weapon speed) they're good for that too.

+ on character creation. I suppose it does sound good to (almost) everyone, as it's been suggested plenty of times. Even back in 2013. when some people had meltdowns while arguing that the ratio of combat abilities to non combat abilities wouldn't ever possibly be greater than 9:1 in favor of combat abilities.

I'll just say that it's disappointing that by level 8 the player gets to pick 2 talents.

I agree, fighters and rogues aren't boring. Some classes (out of 11) need to have less active abilities than passive and modal ones to accommodate different preferences. Even if you pick a class that you find boring, for whatever reason, there are 5 more people that can join your party and it all becomes high-maintenance deluxe. As for the 2nd question, here's the thing. There are only 4 talents to pick throughout 12 levels. Even if they include 1000 brilliant and inspiring talents; it's still just 4 talents total on level up, starting at level 3. While I can understand their reasoning behind wanting players to use some weapons before investing a talent into their weapons of choice, there's no reason to extend this to all talents. Weapon focus could thus have a level 3 requirement for all classes, but I believe players don't need to, e.g., test combat styles to figure out that they really want to fight with a two-handed weapon, with a shield, with two weapons or from a distance like they have in most other games. It's perfectly reasonable to offer style talents at level 1, for those of us who are sure about their affinities.

Ok.

Not to derail this thread any further, but... Just like 18 dex + 18 might will deal more damage than 3 dex + 18 might, 3 dex + 18 PER will not interrupt as often as 18 + 18. Yes, attributes are interlinked.

They could make downed character's fatigue level rise, which would make their efficiency drop after each downing. Actually, I think I've come up with the most straightforward solution. Make regenerating your stamina from unconsciousness cost a larger chunk of your health than healing the equivalent of amount of regular stamina damage does. Or direct health damage whenever you fall unconscious, -10 health or something. If they believe falling in combat should be additionally punished, that is.

Clearly it depends on the numbers: does 1 point in perception increase my chance to interrupt (considerably) more than 1 point in dexterity. That's hardly a shocking revelation.

Let's make it simple: Character A with 3 PER and 18 DEX. His chance to hit against a specific opponent is 50%. His chance to interrupt on a hit is 20%, on a graze 10%. Character B with 18 PER and 3 DEX. His chance to hit against a specific opponent is 35%. His chance to interrupt on a hit is 60%, on a graze 30%. Character B is not "gimped".

No. Low Accuracy High Interrupt is a gimped character. You're wrong, because you can't lower your dexterity to the point of not hitting anything. There's a base accuracy that advances as you level up, not to mention abilities/spells/gear. That would be like saying; low accuracy (you rarely hit anything!) + high damage (from might) is a gimped character; might is useless! It's just an unlikely scenario, like the above. You'll graze/hit things regardless.

Interrupt chance is modified whether the hit is a graze or a crit (halved or doubled), therefore it relies on Accuracy vs Defense. For every point of Accuracy you have, you are increasing your chance of scoring an Interrupt. Just like a point in dexterity increases your chance do deal damage (which is, in turn, modified by might). As long as a point in perception has a greater impact on your ability to interrupt than a point in dexterity, it's fine. Interrupt potential should take into account if it's a graze, hit or crit, as is the case now. The same is true for other on-hit effects.

Then let's go gamist and decrease all defenses when wearing armor! If you don't mind might affecting all sources of damage and dexterity all types of attacks... I don't see the issue.

I think they are too long when all combined together. It's not the armor recovery penalty, it's the action penalty themselves. Yeah but like I said, the inverse would be true then. Ranged characters wearing heaviest armor all the time because they're rarely being challenged. When they are they'll take less damage. 1) I disagree that they're too long when combined. 2) That's not true. When attacked, they'd also suffer from the deflection penalty, remember? It would be the same consideration for both melee and ranged combatants (do I want to sacrifice some deflection for some DT?). I'll repeat that I'm also fine with the current armor system.

That's putting words in my mouth. All I said was, imagine if the Wood Beetles had a ranged attack. My following post talked about Dragons. As Tartyanco said, there will probably be a lot of encounters where there are ranged combatants, or creatures with AoE damage spells and such. It wasn't my intention to put any words in your mouth or imply that you'd want creatures to have nonsensical ranged attacks, it was just an observation. People who assume that (heavy) armor is less useful on characters in the back are correct. I don't see this as a huge problem (compared to some attributes being less useful for ranged combat), but it's something that can be discussed. Also, when enemies overcome your tank, armor for everyone else becomes the difference between victory and being wiped out. Recovery times are absolutely not too long. Of course, I'd not simply take it away without putting a deflection penalty on it.

To force an arbitrary and nonsensical ranged attack on every creature is absolutely not the solution. Nor should all humanoids have a bow in their pockets to deal with the nudists. It isn't. I pointed out that this is a topic about armor and I offered a solution specifically to make armor equally appealing to frontline combatants and the ones in the back (a solution that can't be applied to res and con). It's just that I also like the current system of armor slowing down actions.