AndreaColombo

Let me reiterate that summoned weapons should be instant just in case this wasn't carved in stone already I agree we need consistency. A good rules set should be maximally intuitive, which Deadfire's currently isn't. It's fine if it's a complex system, so long as it's internally consistent and players can reliably predict behaviors based on said consistency. Right now casting times and stacking rules are the opposite of that and the game's UI tends to be vague and thrifty when it comes to explaining how things work.

This is another good example of why ditching slow mode was a mistake. Now normal combat is slower, which makes 0 recovery more powerful, so we must ditch 0 recovery—which was never a design goal in the first place. If a change in design results in a cascade of band aids, it wasn’t a very good change. I don’t like sitting through recovery and watching my DPS-oriented characters (generally more than half of my party) do nothing while a gold bar expires over their heads. If I can’t get rid of it, then I have bad/weak DPS-oriented characters; the kind of characters I’ll soon lose interest in.

I dearly hope 0 recovery can be reached in Deadfire, and with all weapons to boot. It’s the holy grail of DPS and running a DPS-oriented character who doesn’t have 0 recovery makes me feel like I’m gimping myself. Appreciate others may have different tastes and play styles, but 0 recovery is essential to my fun and, as it is, you already need to sacrifice a number of skill points to get it while negating speed-boosting abilities that don’t stack. EDIT: Moreover, making 0 recovery attainable by just one style is a bad idea. That style would always be the strongest by far and trump all others. If all styles can reach it, you can afford the luxury to choose whichever you prefer without feeling like you’re curbing your DPS potential. Granted, 0 recovery on a 2-hander is going to be more powerful than with DW but you’ll need to pull a few extra somersaults to achieve it—as was the case in PoE. Whether that’s worth it depends on you, and I think that is good.

https://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/946521701050851328

Adopting MaxQuest’s proposal for damage coefficient (while restoring MIG) would probably mitigate melee combat reasonably. No need for more nerf; applying multiple fixes to the same issue is typically a bad idea.

Agreed. I don’t need an extra 50% damage to mop the floor against under-leveled enemies I can still hit after taking a -20 Accuracy penalty. If they’re so much below my level, I’ll kill them quickly enough already.

Sigh. Watch the ability to reach 0 recovery as it is taken away from us so bad casters look less bad in comparison to melee... To be honest, a fully custom party of optimized melee guys deserves to steamroll the game. It’s your reward for studying and implementing five optimal builds. That none of those optimal builds is a pure caster speaks to how bad casters are, more than anything. I agree with Aramintai—making melee as bad as casting is a worse solution than the other way around. If the game is too easy as a result, buff enemies or sharpen their A.I..

I appreciate that, but it still doesn’t super make sense for its spiritshift form’s weapon to be 2-handed, IMO

Even then, who’s gonna sit through 6 seconds to cast a Fireball instead of rolling a melee guy who wreaks havoc right away? I’d try something in-between the first game and what we have now in terms of casting time, with 0.4/0.0 for summoned weapons. Let’s see what that feels like and fine-tune from there.

Whoa, if the claws are 2-handed the Fury really is a lot weaker than the other subclasses...!

To the best of my knowledge, MCA, Tim Cain, and Liam Esler are the only ones who worked on the first game and aren’t working on the second. MCA and Eric Fenstermaker left Obsidian; Liam’s contract expired. Oh, and of course George Ziets was a stretch goal for the first game but isn’t working on the second.

I did. He’s proposing multiplicative coefficient buckets with MIG falling into one of them. Simply returning to additive MIG without the rest of his proposal would not be good; as he explains, there was a reason for the change

I too wish we get Might back as it was before, but not as additive. MaxQuest’s proposal is a lot better: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/94949-should-might-stay-multiplicative-or-return-to-additive/page-4?do=findComment&comment=1964087

My main issue is that the term “universal proficiency” suggests that everyone and their neighbor should be proficient with it. If the Devoted is an exception to this rule, it should be stated explicitly in its description; players shouldn’t find out that their builds aren’t viable after taking them to battle. Either the weapons are truly universal, or exceptions should be communicated explicitly as early on as possible. I agree if the blights were using the rod proficiency in the first game, that should be the case again in Deadfire. Granted, Devoted/Wizard may remain an unviable build if the purpose is to focus on summoned weapons. I’m not a fan of that but I can live with it.

Isn’t that how it currently works, though? Quarterstaff proficiency works with the summoned staff.

Dual sword is also my current pick for Devoted builds.

So -20% is actually more useful information than +25%. If I want to reach 0 recovery, I need to stack -100% and it doesn’t work the other way around. DEX’s description would benefit from being expressed this way for clarity.

How does the math work? That’s something I’ve been wondering lately. How do I figure that moving 25% faster reduces the length of my action by 20%?

^ this way characters who don’t invest in CON are penalized, which shouldn’t be the case. The purpose of making stats appealing or useful is not to encourage average stat distributions where characters with 13 to everything are optimal. It’s to avoid a situation where investing in a given stat is always subpar compared to investing in the others. In other words, investing in CON should be about as attractive as investing in, say, DEX for different reasons; not investing in CON should be about neutral; dumping CON should be about as bad as dumping DEX (again, for example) for different reason. If all defenses are suddenly made less effective, investing in CON becomes the norm to offset the nerf and not doing so penalizes you.

Devoted’s being limited to melee is still a thing; that’s why I called the blights a stretch I’d love to be able to use them as a Devoted but I understand that’s probably just not meant to be.

What’s the point of UI misinformation, though?

Agreed on its being terrible if it’s intended. Those speed bonuses were fine and needed no fine-tuning.

That’s why we need the unarmed proficiency. Just doing away with the penalty means you’d be better off picking an unkitted Fighter anyway (and the issue with universal weapons has been abundantly discussed in the bug subforum—they should probably specify in the Devoted’s subclass description that its penalty also constitutes an exception to the “universal proficiency” rule.) Picking the unarmed proficiency as a non-Monk or non-Druid would be an odd choice, as you wouldn’t have Transcendent Suffering or Spiritshift. However we need a way for the Devoted to become proficient in those weapons. They give up all others and have recently been nerfed to boot—least we can do is give them a chance to really pick whatever weapon (the blights would be a stretch as they aren’t melee.)

Unarmed proficiency would benefit Devoted/Monk builds too, both for Transcendent Suffering and The Long Pain. If Kalakoth’s Minor Blights are given the unarmed proficiency too, Devoted/Wizards everywhere would rejoice

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/95205-gilded-enmity-turns-character-invisible-upon-expiring/?do=findComment&comment=1963563 This sure got buried quick!