kanisatha

A point of clarification: nowhere in my big post a couple of pages ago did I even mention the word "talent." The purpose of that post was to try and move our debate (and it has been an awesome debate so far) away from just narrowly discussing talents to what I consider to be the underlying real issue: that warrior classes cannot fill the roles of caster classes in the same way that caster classes can fill the roles of warrior classes. My take is that Sawyer was trying to fix this, but I can accept that taking away general talents may not be the best approach to fixing this problem (though I still personally believe losing general talents was not that big of a deal). So, I'm very much interested in your thoughts on how the warrior classes can be fixed so that they can effectively fill caster roles in parties, going beyond just changing up a few talents. Tell me how a party with no spellcasters can do just fine in PoE2?

Exactly! By the way those "talents" I called for have never been very powerful in the first place. It's just nice to put some flavor onto your melee single class wizard (specialized on summoned weapons), your defensive druid - whatever. I'm totally all in when it comes to more and better abilites for the martial classes instead of making weak stuff like Two Handed Style their "own thing". How I praised Charge when it came out because it was/is a nice, interesting and also powerful ability for a fighter. Not Two Handed Style or Weapon and Shield Style - pah! Yeah and I don't want to multiclass into fighter just because I want the weapon style to expand my play style. You mean the weapon style bonus, because the weapon style itself was very much available to you.

I disagree the reason casters were so much better was because they each had a combination of area cc, damage, and buff that out classed most of the martial classes abilities to do the same and could be cast at greater rates later in the game. It had near nothing to do with caster ability to be build like a warrior. Those abilities just allowed you to change the traditional role a caster is suppose to occupy enough to make for interesting builds. Let's say for argument that you're correct. It still means, by your very own words, that the caster classes were built to be able to do everything whereas the warrior classes were not. So my point still stands. I think a lot of us disagree because your point was "new people searched for powerful classes and the answer was casters because of flexibility to do what martial classes do," and that rings false to us. As in, yes the answer was casters, but not because of flexibility. A new player searching for powerful classes is looking for a class that is powerful out of the box (with easy to use, powerful spells), not looking to build mages who are good at melee (which is a niche thing that takes knowledge of the systems to pull off, not something a new player would have any interest in doing). That's not true. I was deliberately abstract in my post in not specifying the exact things identifiable with warrior classes vice caster classes. My point was that the caster classes could take on the roles/functions of warrior classes in a party, however those roles/functions may be defined, but the reverse was not possible. Or put another way, one could have a party of entirely casters and successfully win all battles whereas a party of entirely warriors could not do so (at least not for someone like me where I've admitted I am not a hardcore player).

Items have no bearing on this discussion. They're largely available for everyone. And pulling the old "you lack knowledge and experience" card is beneath you, Boeroer. I always respected you and thought you to be better than that.

Agreed, but let's keep in mind that the feedback they're receiving is not representative because the testers are self-selected and not randomly distributed. This is my fundamental issue. For PoE1, if you do a search of these very forums for an answer to the generic question of "What are the 'best'/'most powerful' classes to play as," you will get a very solid consensus on these classes: wizard, priest, druid, cipher (which I will group as "caster" classes). The answer to the same generic question in reverse equally generates a solid consensus on these classes: fighter, barbarian, ranger, rogue (which I will group as "warrior" classes). So why is it so much better to play one of the caster classes over one of the warrior classes? The answer is very obvious. The caster classes can all be built to do a lot of what the warrior classes can do but not vice versa. In other words, the casters can make for pretty good warriors, but the warriors can never be pretty good casters. This is very clearly an unfair imbalance in favor of the caster classes which was taken for granted by many on these forums because this thread clearly shows that the hardcore forumites clearly favor the caster classes over the warrior classes. But it seems that Josh Sawyer, bless his heart, recognized this unfair imbalance in PoE1 and tried to remedy things in PoE2 by making it not possible for caster classes to be good warriors in the same way that the warrior classes cannot be good casters. If you wanted to be somewhat good in both, you needed to multiclass, which is the whole point of adding in the new multiclassing system. This was exactly the right and proper approach to take, and I strongly commend Sawyer's initial impulse. But of course all the caster class favoring forumites couldn't bear to see their cherished caster classes not having warrior abilities in the exact same way that the warriors don't have caster abilities. So now we go back to how things were in PoE1, where the caster classes get to be pretty good warriors (without having to multiclass), but the warrior classes cannot be pretty good casters (unless they multiclass). I hope someday Sawyer gets to make his historical RPG, so that there can be no spellcasting and no caster classes and only warrior classes in the game, and those of us who favor warrior classes can finally have our day. I disagree the reason casters were so much better was because they each had a combination of area cc, damage, and buff that out classed most of the martial classes abilities to do the same and could be cast at greater rates later in the game. It had near nothing to do with caster ability to be build like a warrior. Those abilities just allowed you to change the traditional role a caster is suppose to occupy enough to make for interesting builds. Let's say for argument that you're correct. It still means, by your very own words, that the caster classes were built to be able to do everything whereas the warrior classes were not. So my point still stands.

Agreed, but let's keep in mind that the feedback they're receiving is not representative because the testers are self-selected and not randomly distributed. This is my fundamental issue. For PoE1, if you do a search of these very forums for an answer to the generic question of "What are the 'best'/'most powerful' classes to play as," you will get a very solid consensus on these classes: wizard, priest, druid, cipher (which I will group as "caster" classes). The answer to the same generic question in reverse equally generates a solid consensus on these classes: fighter, barbarian, ranger, rogue (which I will group as "warrior" classes). So why is it so much better to play one of the caster classes over one of the warrior classes? The answer is very obvious. The caster classes can all be built to do a lot of what the warrior classes can do but not vice versa. In other words, the casters can make for pretty good warriors, but the warriors can never be pretty good casters. This is very clearly an unfair imbalance in favor of the caster classes which was taken for granted by many on these forums because this thread clearly shows that the hardcore forumites clearly favor the caster classes over the warrior classes. But it seems that Josh Sawyer, bless his heart, recognized this unfair imbalance in PoE1 and tried to remedy things in PoE2 by making it not possible for caster classes to be good warriors in the same way that the warrior classes cannot be good casters. If you wanted to be somewhat good in both, you needed to multiclass, which is the whole point of adding in the new multiclassing system. This was exactly the right and proper approach to take, and I strongly commend Sawyer's initial impulse. But of course all the caster class favoring forumites couldn't bear to see their cherished caster classes not having warrior abilities in the exact same way that the warriors don't have caster abilities. So now we go back to how things were in PoE1, where the caster classes get to be pretty good warriors (without having to multiclass), but the warrior classes cannot be pretty good casters (unless they multiclass). I hope someday Sawyer gets to make his historical RPG, so that there can be no spellcasting and no caster classes and only warrior classes in the game, and those of us who favor warrior classes can finally have our day.

Agreed. But also, in that general talents pool/tree, there need to be talents drawn from classes other than the martial classes, for example spellcasting equivalent talents. If the wizard can now take a sword & board general talent, the fighter should be able to take a healing/buffing general talent.

Those are made-up numbers. I was just using a made-up example to illustrate my point. But, thinking on this further, ultimately it matters not one bit to me what happens in others' games. Only what happens in my own games matters to me. Thus, if in the process of taking what in my opinion are fighter talents and making them available to other classes, they compensate fairly by taking spellcasting abilities and make them available to fighters and other melee classes, that would actually be pretty awesome for me. If the melee classes can also cast some heals, buffs and debuffs, then I won't need to drag along any spellcasters in my party, and that would be ideal. I only love the melee classes and can't stand the stupid weenie spellcasters, but in PoE1 it was just not possible to get through the game without having casters in my party (as the non-hardcore casual gamer that I am). If PoE2 will allow me to run an all-melee party and still beat the game and do most of the side quests and do all of this without having to be a hardcore player, I would be VERY ok with that.

If you're so convinced that Fighters need to be masters of all fighting, why not give them 1 passive that gives the effect of all 4? Now that would make a Fighter a master of weapons, able to use any fighting style effectively due to their mastery. But a rogue training with 2 weapons is too much? Or a Paladin with a sword and shield? Or a barbarian with a two-hander? They just have to be rank amateurs? Please. Well firstly, nothing I've said is mutually exclusive with what you're saying. I can get behind what you're saying. But it's your definition of "amateur" that perplexes me. Here's a simple example: 1) Fighters get +5 deflection w/ a sword & shield class talent. Paladins don't get the talent so no bonus. 2) Fighters get +8 deflection w/ a sword & shield class talent. Paladins get a +3 deflection w/ a sword & shield cross-class talent. For you it seems condition 1 above represents the paladin being "untrained" or an "amateur." For me both conditions are exactly the same and I don't see condition 1 representing being an amateur. But if condition 2 makes you feel better about the non-amateur status of paladins, I can live with that.

Sure. I guess to be annoying I'll answer your question with another question: "why should Fighters get the ability to be more skillful at dual wielding when previously (in PoE) it was universal?" You're asking why Fighters are losing something but to me the question is why every other class lost it in the first place. As for why Wizards get to cast spells that Fighters don't: the same reason Fighters get stances, and knockdown and all their other abilities. Well, but here you are merely asking me to comment on whether or not PoE1 had everything perfectly right. And of course for me, the answer is definitely not, because I always felt the fighter class got screwed exactly because everything they did other classes could also do, and for the most part about as well. So my unhappiness is exactly because it seemed like finally the fighter class was being given some well-deserved respect in PoE2, but now that maybe going away. And all this comes from the fact that over my almost thirty years of playing D&D-style RPGs the pure fighter is my all-time most favorite class-type of all. I just wish at least one stinking cRPG would give them their due <sigh>.

Perhaps I'm just tired, but aren't there more choices and more possibilities if you're allowed to create the character just the way you feel like as opposed to picking between a few "classes" and rigid talent trees? Certainly. But the way I see it, choices should be about consequences, and the truest consequences are ones that close off some options because of other options you chose. Being able to take a little of everything may give you the widest range of choices, but if nothing is ever closed off as a result of your choices then the choices are not truly meaningful imho.

It could be, and maybe it even will be. Who knows what Obsidian will decide between now and the end of the beta. Why I don't think it should be boils down to the fact it wasn't in Pillars and that the Fighter does have plenty of abilities that other classes can't get access to. Also it's not clear to me that if only one class were to get these abilities why it should be the Fighter and not the Rogue. In the original class descriptions shock troops were described as being Rogues whereas Fighters were described as being unified by their focus on endurance and melee defence. Sorry, maybe it wasn't clear that I was just using fighter versus wizard as only an example to make my points. All of this can absolutely apply to some other classes as well, especially the other melee classes such as barbarian and rogue.

I for one would have loved a classless system in Deadfire and PoE1, just like Josh and his RPG version of Pillars of Eternity. Alas... Sorry, but I would've hated that. Arguments were made earlier in this thread about all of this being about choice. Well, in my view having distinct classes is very much about choice. It is what makes character building choices meaningful, because once you make a choice ("I pick the fighter class") you are locked out of casting wizard spells ("I didn't pick the wizard class"). So, your choices matter and have consequences in the game. A classless system essentially is about giving players the appearance and feeling of being empowered with choices, but where at the end of the day those choices don't have much value because everything ends up being the same.

But "slightly better" doesn't make the fighter class anything special and still begs the question: why ever bother with a single-class fighter? I ask a very simple question: How come casting wizard spells can be unique to the wizard class, but being (significantly) more skilled at fighting with dual weapons cannot be unique to the fighter class?

Exactly, which, if taken to its logical conclusion, means all classes are essentially the same with only minor, superficial differences. Every class can do everything. Wonderful.

I'm definitely on the side of the minority in this thread. The complaints about single class talents and especially fighter talents (yes those are "fighter" talents) seem rather over the top. Essentially it boils down to wanting fighter talents to be available to all classes but the talents of other classes to not similarly be available for all classes. So now, per Sawyer's tweet, every other class gets what makes a fighter special. So what's the point of the fighter class? Maybe they should give fighters the same spells as the spellcasting classes as fair compensation, you know, because I demand that I should be able to play a spell-flinging fighter without having to multiclass. Per the original system, any class could, without restriction, do the same things as a fighter - dual weapons, sword & board, etc. - just not as well as a fighter. What the heck was wrong with that? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I'm really curious too. And really excited for the announcement. I just hope it will be in a setting that does not involve guns.

How do you know? The Deadfire SEC filing from March of this year. You can finesse the truth a little bit when dealing with fans or the media, but when you're providing information to potential investors, you have to be very careful to stick to verifiable facts. Yes indeed. And some stories online also seem to confirm it will be a AAA game, which makes a lot of sense given Feargus has in the past commented on how he'd really like to make a AAA game someday. Since he's mentioned his impending retirement in a few years, now would be that time.

Wonder if this is Tim Cain's project we've been hearing about Has to be. I sure hope it's something I'll want to play unlike with Tyranny.

Ok fair enough, and I'm happy to extend that benefit of the doubt to you. But I still see your argument as opinion more than logic. The devs have offered their (logical?) argument, and I've stated here my personal opinion that their argument just doesn't wash for me and explained why this is so. As for larger party sizes, yes, as a matter of fact even though my personal enjoyment of a game is directly related to party size (i.e. more is better), there are other important considerations involved as well including things becoming unwieldy and impractical as party size increases. So six (plus animal companions/familiars, summons, NPCs required to be taken along with you) is actually the sweet-spot for me at the convergence of those two important considerations.

Aloth, Edér, Maia Rua, Pallegina, Serafen, Tekēhu and Xoti. That's seven full companions. On top of that there are four sidekicks, for a total of eleven NPCs who can join your party. Of course twelve person parties are ridiculous. My point was to show the flaw in kanisatha's argument in favour of six person parties by pointing out that it actually favoured even larger parties. My entire argument was very strictly speaking to the five versus six discussion. I never made any claims about wanting an infinitely large party. That said, one could favor a party greater than six (though not necessarily anywhere near twelve, seven for example) and there wouldn't be anything wrong with that. So I don't see a "flaw" in my argument at all. The only flaw I see here is people assuming things and then impugning others on the basis of those assumptions. If you were serious about "discussing," you could easily have just asked me what I favored. Oh, and the "I know stuff and you don't" condescension is laughable. I'm sure I had already learned the principles of logic while you were still in elementary school, so enough with the silly insults. I have yet to be provided with a *logical* argument for why five is better than six given that gameplay was just fine with six in PoE1, all of the personal opinions in this thread not withstanding.

In that vein, Josh did a Twitter poll on Monday regarding whether to keep both "Easy" and "Story Time" difficulty modes in the game. (In this case, the venue makes sense. Folks hanging around the Obsidian forums--or the subreddit, or the hundreds-of-pages-long SA thread-- months prior to the game's release are probably not the kind of players who use either of those game modes.) Oh that sucks that it was just on Twitter as I flatout refuse to join any social media platform. One of the best additions to PoE for me was Story Time. I hope somebody from Obs is reading this as Story Time is awesome for older gamers like me with limited game-playing time but with a passionate preference for such things as exploration, roleplaying, lore and story over combat.

The big mistake you're making is assuming that by giving combat as an example that's all I care about. Character development and companion interactions are both important to me, but I don't buy the more is better argument. So you actually want a twelve person party right? I mean there are going to be twelve companions/sidekicks in Deadfire so, by definition, having a party of only six means having half as much fun as having a party of twelve. As Fardragon says it's a false comparison. Character development looks to be significantly deeper in Deadfire as compared to Pillars such that I'll probably spend more time making choices in it than I did in Pillars. No, actually it's you guys making a specious argument here. Character development is absolutely not zero-sum, so there's no such thing as spreading myself thin. Number of companions directly relates to amount of character development I can engage in. And yes, I was referring to the mechanical development of my characters but also to narrative and story development. I especially also include optimally equipping my party as development, which again means the bigger the party size the more equipment I can optimally distribute across them. Claiming that I must want party size 587 is just straw-man reductionism. The one thing that would make the situation ok for me would be if the game (a) made it easy to swap companions in and out of the party without appreciable loss of XP levels, loss of banter, loss of progress on companion quests, etc., and (b) provided a UI where all companion paperdolls and inventories can be simultaneously accessed (not just those in the party). This would effectively make your entire group of companions your "party size" for the purpose of character development, which would be awesome. This is in effect what you have with companions in all of the Dragon Age games as well as NwN2, something I really liked and appreciated about those games.

Now I can think of arguments in favour of five over six, most notably the fact that combat was often hectic in Pillars due to much fewer passive character classes than the old IE games and the fact that this would likely get worse with the increased availability of combat abilities in Deadfire; but as Sedrefilos says none of us really know whether it'll be better or worse until the game is released. Actually, I do know whether it will be better or worse already. The big mistake you make is assuming the issue of party size is, for all players, all about combat. For me, the party size issue has nothing to do with combat, or any other aspect of gameplay for that matter. The progressive development of my party characters during the course of "adventuring" with them is what I care about in my games. This is why even though I have played through PoE1 many times, I've yet to actually finish the game, because "winning" or "beating the game" are not at all important to me. By the time my party reaches a high level I start losing interest in the game because there's no more character development left to be done. So I just quit and restart from the beginning again. Developing my characters is what's fun for me, and having only five to develop instead of six, by definition, means I will have 1/6th less fun therefore "worse" for me.

Then why in nine hells are you a backer, if devs opinions don't carry any weight with you? Yeah, see, I have the freedom to back whatever the hell I want, so ....