Ganrich

If they follow how thing worked with PoE1 then when beta starts you will get a key for steam. When the game releases you will get another key for either steam or GoG. The beta will remain beta forever.

One of my major gripes with PoE is the amount of AoE that is available. Most casters have a huge amount of it. Get ready for a wordy post, and I apologize if it isn't very well laid out. My Computer is on the fritz, and i had to do this on my tablet. :/. Ryzen can't come soon enough. Lol So what do each of the caster classes have that are AoE? Priest - heals, buffs, debuffs. Wizards - debuffs and Damage. Druids - lol Chanters - almost everything, but they make sense as AoE monsters. Ciphers - they have some too. Pally - Auras Barb - Carnage Monk - Torment' Reach and Rooting Pain Rogues, rangers, and fighters - not much. Scrolls - a lot. I may have missed some. Obviously, these have varying degrees of AoE size. So, we have some changes in classes, scaling being added to abilities via Power level, reduced party size, Empowering spells and abilities is a new mechanic, and Vancian is going away. I bring these points up because I think that these changes could be used to tone down the sheer amount of AoE, and allow more single target abilities. Now, this isn't saying that there aren't single target abilities in PoE1, but that the first game has a great deal of AoE, imho. Maybe too much. But that could just be me, and some might prefer how much there was. First we need to look at why PoE had so much AoE: A). Justifying Intellect. Intellect effected AoE and Duration. So abilities that were over time, AoE, or both were common. It is a ramifications, in part, of the attribute system. B). The amount of enemies in the field were often equal to or larger than the 6 man party. This justified AoE because of enemy numbers. C). IMHO, (and I could be wrong) if you scaled the enemy stats too high you ended up with PotD type stat bloat (which is great on PotD, but could be agitating for those on lower difficulties), and I think that the easier option was adding enemies vs finding that sweet spot in enemy stats for each difficulty increase. This isn't to say this is impossible to fix, but that it is what it is in the first game. A quick note: I asked if attributes were changing in the Fig comments, and Feargus (I believe) said that they were planning to keep attributes the same. This is something we should keep in mind because whatever debate is had we must try not to reduce any attribute's value. So, in this case, Intellect will still govern Duration and AoE, and we don't want to create a dump stat. Also, unrelated, but info I've had answered on Fig are that racial bonuses should stay the same, and each class still gets equal number of skill points. I've got a few ideas that I'd like to discuss in this thread. One thought I've had is a ramification of moving away from Vancian, adding the Empower concept, and adding scaling is that we could have less AoE at lower levels. Perhaps, those lower level abilities could become more potent with scaling or Empower usage in terms of damage/rebuff/buff strength, but lack the AoE component. This means you can AoE with a higher level spell but have a more marginal effect, or you can use a lower level spell/ability that has scaled to do a stronger single target effect. What these buffs/debuffs would effect/target would be the same , but the single target would have a greater effect numerically (example below). This would still allow Intellect to play its part on Duration early on, and AoE in later spells/abilities. Example: Level 1 spell that debuffs reflex by 2 and movement speed by 10 for 10 seconds. This single target scales with the power level (Arcane for Wizards, for instance). A level 4 AoE of the same spell does the same amount of debuff statistically (reflex -2 and MS -10 for 10 seconds. However, just to cast that spell it requires Arcane level 15 (arbitrary number) so it doesn't scale yet. However, the level one version has scaled a bit by this time, and it will give reflex -4 an MS -20 for 10 seconds. However, when your Arcane level is 30 the AoE variant is now scaling, but it still isn't as potent as the single target. Add Empower to the mix and you could increase Duration, accuracy, or add another effect (root for 5 seconds or -x recovery speed). This sort of system would tone down on the AoE porn by shifting some importance to Duration, while keeping AoE important/useful for later levels. Intellect would grow in importance to casters as they level, it still wouldnt necessarily be a requirement. Side effect would be Multiclassing into caster classes might get away with minimal intellect, but that may be a good thing for build diversity. Empower "could" add an AoE component to some things, but I don't know if that's wise. But it's worth discussing. So, please do. Also, this will obviously effect different classes differently. Chanters will most likely retain heavy AoE abilities through out, but scaling could make their lower level chants more viable over time and reduce the need for higher level chants requiring longer cast times because they haven't scaled yet. Thus fixing their issues of building phrases potentially. Just a thought. Where a Wizard/Priest/Druid/Cipher would start more focused on single target abilities and build into AoE as examples above if that's their design. Ciphers could become even more single target focused to differentiate them from the rest of the pack of casters. 5 man parties will reduce enemies on the field to an extent, and this means single target abilities could be a better focus and durations strength could benefit here. This is by proxy of reducing the weight of importance of AoEs. Depends on how you look at it, I guess. Scrolls - they need more variety anyway, but they would likely be changed if a system like this was implemented anyway. More single target abilities means more scrolls based on those abilities. Non-caster classes: Rangers, fighters, and rogues aren't AoE focused, and would be largely uneffected by this as far as I can see. Barbs can have carnage's AoE grow as they scale in power, and via intellect. Pallys would be similar with their auras. Monks have a few AoEs, but I havent put much thought into them. So, ideas are welcome. Anyways, this is all hypothetical, but I find it an interesting topic for discussion. Do you think this would negatively impact the value of intellect on some classes? I don't think so, but I'm sure there are things that I've over looked. You could also have Intellect effect the Duration on single target abilities slightly more than AoE if you feel that change would be needed. This would give some choice and consequence to spell casting that I felt was missing in the first game. Do you hit that big guy with a hard debuff, or blanket everything with a smaller one? Anyway, I hope this topic interests you as much as it does me and we can discuss it at length.

I worry that if Empower increases things that the attributes govern then it may further marginalize them. It's not like the attributes have a whole lot of weight to them to begin with. Obviously, it isn't my only worry, but it is one of them. I still think locking hard CCs and immunities by requiring Empowering those abilities would be the best way to go.

Well, I doubt we will see a game that starts mid-level (maybe a post campaign xpac). They know that it will decrease their audience, and wont do it. I'm pretty sure of that. They also seem to be increasing the level cap by 2 each time. So I doubt that will be an issue. They went from 12, to 14, to 16, and now 18.

Actually, I just thought of this. Getting definitive names for the class combos is a better idea. That way, if you run across any multiclassed Ogre no-names it will say "Ogre Battlemage" over their heads and instantly let you know what it's capable of. It's a smart move. They could still let you rename the class, but they need to give them definitive names.

Nothing about this so far. Now that I think a bit more about this, it could have the undesirable side effect of causing your class abilities to become weaker after a level up. E.g. 17/0 leveling up to 17/1 can cause your primary class (the class you have 17 levels in) abilities to become weaker. Can anybody think of a scheme that doesn't do that? I suppose it would require a steep power curve where an extra level in one class is as good as several lower levels in a second class or treating a max level single class in a special way. Josh, if you read this, how will you prevent a 17/1 multi-class from being strictly better than a level 18 single class? Boss Talents with level restrictions might do it. That way the level 18 gets something that is specifically better. This wouldn't be unlike Epic Feats in 3.5. If the level cap is raised to 20, and I think someone was saying they saw it instead of doubling VO earlier when they did the update, then those feats could require level 20 instead. Basically put the talent at the level cap, and have one (or a few if they can manage it) for each class. That's all I got. Edit: I mean class level restrictions vs PC level. It could use the power source: Discipline, or whatever.

Fighter + Rogue = Swashbuckler (easy peasy) Rogue + Cipher = Beguiler or Assassin Cipher + Fighter = Warlock Barbarian + Chanter = Bardbarian 0_o. Seriously, I got nothing but that bad joke.

it's a single-player game, so why not let let the player name their multiclass combo? when first taking a second class, player gets the option to name their new combo. sure, a Black Isle Bastard would still be a fighter/rogue for purposes o' the game and any content, but am thinking the folks best able to come up with an appropriate name for a combo is the player. just a thought. HA! Good Fun! I agree, but it gives each combo an identity. Even if only superficially. I'd be fine if they let us name them, but it'll keep people from just saying fighter/Wizard. Which sounds silly. Where as Battlemage doesn't. I don't know. I could go either way on it. I'm happy either way I think.

Monk + Rogue = Ninja? Priest + Chanter = Preacher (see what I did there). Lol Wizard + Chanter = Scholar or Arcane Scholar Paladin + Priest = Templar Fighter + Chanter = Warlord (this could be Paladin + Fighter too) I will think a bit more on this.

I think Josh will probably get pretty close to balancing this out, but I doubt they will keep certain combos from reigning supreme. However, ensuring that everything is at least viable should be possible. I'm pretty excited about it, and I think it's a great addition. I really like they are putting effort into new class names when you Multiclass too. It makes sense.

So, maybe all of us content lovers for stretch goals will get their fix I really don't want another Mega-dungeon, but something similar would be great. There weren't any puzzles, really, in the dungeon. I would want something with a few puzzles. Picking up a handful of stones to open a door isn't really a puzzle. Anyway, I'd prefer more dungeons like Durgan's Battery, or something else other than a dungeon oriented goal entirely.

This isn't the first time MFL has been on Kickstarter, but this seems more obtainable. There are too many crowdfunding campaigns going on right now. Beautiful Desolation, Deadfire, Banner Saga 3, MFL and I'm probably forgetting something. Ugh... wallet drained.

Naval warfare is a grand hope of mine, too. Many people, myself included, expect the "Stronghold Replacement" is a ship. I keep crossing my fingers that the stretch goals allow for combat with it in a RtwP scenario. All the upgrade systems from PoE1 would still work, but this time they could be functional. Add DR, damage, movement speed, etc. Hirelings could effect certain things too such as reload speed, maneuverability, etc. All those systems could allow you to design your ship to your specifications. Then they can have a small handful of ocean maps for traveling between the islands, and bam! You've got something pretty sexy, imho. It's a pipe dream, I think, but I'm eager to hear about the Stronghold update before giving up hope. Edit: they could even add special ship abilities based on the Watcher's primary class. It has a lot of potential.

I wouldn't hold my breath... In the director's commentary I recall Sawyer saying that they were not happy with the decision of adding a second big city, or at least the end result. If I recall correctly, they felt they were unable to develop it properly and give it the focus it was due and so on. I reckon they'll likely stick with one big city this second game (and no multi-level dungeon). Of course, maybe I'm wrong and maybe they do feel more confident in making two big cities instead of one. Yup, this. I would prefer a single decently sized city anyway. Give me a Baldur's Gate, a Beregost, a Nashkel, a Friendly Arms Inn, and a Candlekeep. Obviously, it doesn't need to be as big as Baldur's Gate, nor as many small towns, but the general idea is what I like.

Josh has mentioned a Stronghold replacement, and that there will be stretch goals associated with it. More reactivity, and all that too. More talents/feats than the first game would be great. Perhaps some requiring subclasses, and/or certain Multiclassing combos. That's really all I want, or that I can think of.

I've said it before, and I'll repeat it. They are probably doing a translation for a larger demographic followed by a smaller demographic. That means with the next two goals being shown at any given time there is always a larger demographic in there. It helps pull the funding along.

Still not sold on it stopping people from using the same tactics over and over, but it's good to know more. It seems Empower is just a boost to the spells current effects (damage/duration/buff numbers/debuff numbers/etc). I still think it will lead to less tactical usage of abilities and spells, but always prepared to be surprised. We will see.

I was kind of thinking of something similar; what if all spells just consumed the same, per-rest resource, with higher level spells taking more? Wouldn’t that make it a mana system? And while I do prefer mana-based systems I haven’t really seen that many pro-mana people in D&D crowds outside of XPH lovers. IMHO it would definitely be a mana system, and without cold downs you still run into the issue of spamming your best spells with reckless abandon. The only difference is, if you want the REALLY good version of the spell, you are somewhat limited.

So, thinking about this a bit more. IF, and it's a big if, almost all spells are damage or debuff (MAYBE soft CCs like slow), and in order to disable (knockdown, stun, root, etc) you have to apply empower, then this system might work ok. That way the best spells (hard CC's) are limited by rest, and may stop too much repetitive spell casting.Using Slicken as the example again. By itself, it doesn't knock down, it it slows the enemy and reduces something like dex and reflex. However, when Empowered, it has a knockdown added to it. Since Empowering stuff is limited per rest then you still have some tactics required in managing that resource. While simultaneously you are avoiding casters having a limited subset of things to do when they are tapped for spells. Combine this with more enemy diversity, with different immunities and the like. You might swing this and still keep a decent tactical element. I asked Feargus about last night about enemies. Particularly, since we repeat from level one if they've added new monsters, and he said they have added new monsters, and that they have more types of reoccurring monsters. So we will have new ones, plus more Xaurip types, more beetle types, more Fampyr types, more blight types, etc. I am liking this idea, though I can see it being a nightmare to implement since you're basically designing double the number of spells. Powerful effects still have to be conserved for tough fights, while Wizards/Priests/Druids still have plenty to do during an easier fight. It does sound daunting, but it is the only thing I can think of that won't lead to incredibly repetitive combat. If empower is just adding to accuracy or damage then it could minimize attributes, but I'd have to see the numbers to be sure. The more I think about it, the more I might prefer what I'm suggesting to Vancian, and that means (with my luck) it won't be this interesting.

Sawyer mentioned there are Stronghold replacement's stretch goals in this interview. https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/01/31/josh-sawyer-teases-replacement-stronghold-pillars-eternity-ii-deadfire/ So, not all the meaningful features are in the base game. I, for one, would take goals like this over more VO. YMMV. I'm not saying more VO is bad, but there are more meaningful features we could get, imho.

Had the same thought - Bard? (he would require some unique mechanic, to not interfere with Chanter)- Warlock? (haven't seen much demons; but I guess he could be focused on damage over time spells and drain-tanking)- Necromancer? (lots of skeletons and vessels out there, but would require quite lot of unique spells besides Raise Dead)But what else could there be? Subclasses could cover nearly any of these concepts. Chanter Subclass could be Bard, Wizard subclasses could be Warlock or Necromancer. Then with Multiclassing you could cobble a couple of classes together to make anything that is missing. We have all our classes. 11 (classes) x 3 (2 subclasses + base class) = 33. Now, how many Multiclassing options will you have? More than enough to probably make any archetype that you can think of. I'm also a bard player, and as long as they fix how long it takes for phrases to build up... I'm fine with Chanters.

Yeah, DAO is more a NWN spiritual successor if we have very limited enemy types, limited number of classes, and boring aggro mechanics. A 4 man party is boring, 3 classes is boring, 8 enemy types is boring, etc. I can deal with a 5 man party because I still think interesting class comps can be obtained, but any lower and I wouldn't back it without a whole lot of coercion. Even then it would be a minimum backing amount, and the game better have a NWN-esque mod tools/editor. Or be turn based, but being turn based would be very coercive.

The better way to fix that is to improve encounter design and spell balance. Or you make the system better, and you can still improve the encounter design and get a win/win. Having someing fundamentally flawed and saying "Well if we just make encounters better, it'll work out" is functional, but I'd say not optimal. I'd prefer they do both to get the most variation in combat and increase the tactical depth simultaneously. Doing one or the other is a half measure.

What if your best disable isn't your best disable without being empowered? Remember, every character still has empowerment as a per-rest resource, so you still can't cast a spell at its full potential on a per-encounter basis. Again, I think a lot of people are reading "per-encounter spells" and ignoring "that aren't at their full power without spending a per-rest resource." Plus, I agree with tinysalamander: If spamming the same spell for every fight is the best way to play, that's not going to change whether spells are all per-rest or all per-encounter. That's down to spell design and encounter design more than how your resource works. I gave an example of this in one of my previous posts. If Slicken doesn't knockdown unless empowered then that limitation might work. If it still has a knockdown when not empowered then I'll use it every time an enemy is susceptible to it. If all empower does to Slicken is increase accuracy or whatever then it will be spammed every time vs an enemy susceptible to it is present without empower. The best Actually, per-rest spells can't be spammed because of the simple fact that they are limited in number of casts between rests. So, even if it works well against an enemy the player can do a cost benefit analysis on whether they want to cast the spell or not. Group isn't a threat because it is a trash fight? Don't waste it. Group is huge and you need to buy time? Use it to its fullest. Don't get me wrong, encounter design needs to be better, but you can't always chalk up the problems in the system to encounter design. Sometimes the system is janky, and needs to be looked at. If this system is like I laid out: spells/abilities are buffs/damage/debuffs without empowering them, and then they become immunities/moar damages/hard CC when you do empower them... it could work. And I might like it, but I'd want to give it a go before being sold on it.

You will have it available at the start of the fight doesn't mean you will use it every fight. Going by how druids, priest and the grimoire will have less spells (bloat and redundant spells getting removed) and the switch to per-encounter, don't expect to be casting 4 spells of each level each fight.I'm expecting max 2 per-encounter spell per level while my character knows about ~6 spell per level. If spell y is best against enemy x you will use spell y every time you fight enemy x. If you have burned up limited casts of level z spells (the level that spell x is in) then you can't cast it against enemy x.