Gromnir

has been suggested... frequent. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66382-your-poe-pros-and-cons-5-and-5/?p=1461922 have all character actions deplete fatigue and have fatigue at least partial linked to constitution. never seems to get much traction. HA! Good Fun! ps the vancian arguments is still all topsy-turvy. is so difficult to get anywhere when every negative is reimagined, inexplicable, as a boon. high-level bloat is a positive. huge difference 'tween relative combat effectiveness o' a spell depleted wizard v. one who has recent rested is just a kewl tactical/strategic (you folks ever come to a conclusion?) concern. obsidian tried to add per-encounter to fix vancian and somehow such is evidence o' why vancian is bestest. weak low-level v. op high level is sucky, but somehow good. dunno. regardless, is extreme difficult to get far with this debate as everything is all inverted and upside down from some folks. but again, we only see this debate with poe and a small handful o' fantasy crpgs with familiar wizards and priests. even the folks most dogged arguing for vancian don't suggest adding more vancian to mass effect or fallout or even recent fantasy crpgs. why not? btw, this kinda wacky debate is familiar. thac0. unbalanced level progression for classes. non-linear attribute score bonuses/penalties. etc.

part o' the problem we current have is the momentum we original had died when we got answers from obsidian. unlike the order naming, which went relative smooth, we can't simple argue 'mongst ourselves, come up with a dozen or so options, and then vote. needed ask questions. when considering purchasing the pirate crew option as a group, we had questions for obsidian. aarik presented our questions to the developers, and with surprising speed, we got answers. [aside: thanks again to obsidian for quick response.] unfortunate, the answers we got were not exact what folks hoped or expected-- back to square one? so, pirate crew, the original notion having considerable support, were dashed 'pon the rocks like a small dingy in a hurricane. what then? some folks wanted an island? well, no islands remain, but we got threads for such. tavern? those are gone too. there hasn't been a single concept the community has spontaneous rallied behind as happened with the pirate crew. left floundering a bit. need find some way to resurrect the pirate crew, or if this is gonna be a community thing, one needs find a way to rally folks behind a single viable option. when the pirate crew option were sunk it kinda took the wind out o' our sails, no. HA! Good Fun! ps some small apology for all the terrible puns.

it sounded as if input for the pirate ship & crew were a bit limited. something more involved, such as the possibility o' designing a multi-event adversary woulda' been nifty, but such a thing were increasing dubious. honest, design something like the giantslayer's from admeth's den would be kinda fun, but would needs be more than a one-off to be worth the investment... 'least from our pov. first have an initial encounter early in the game to establish raison d'être and personalities. midway we get a battle, possible broken up by a storm preventing a final resolution. add a final confrontation with multiple possible resolutions (but likely ending in battle) near late portion o' game. such a multi-event encounter with a serious tough and unique adventuring group/pirate crew would be unique and memorable. didn't sound likely. HA! Good Fun!

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/91244-about-sea-explorationnaval-combat/?p=1876380 gonna be some redundancy. am still favoring the impossible turn-based maritime combat mini game idea. HA! Good Fun!

our board personality makes us less than ideal for team and/or consensus building efforts. am trying not to interfere too much. will help if needed or asked. HA! Good Fun!

april 22, 2017 am not a dyed-in-wool evironmentalist, but with the proposed march on washington o' american scientists objecting to trump's alternative facts, policies (stalinist policies?) regarding the release o' scientific findings, and his often comical (but potential dangerous) beliefs regarding a wide range o' issues such as climate change and vaccinations, am expecting this will be the first earth day we look forward to. previous earth days has been met with Gromnir indifference or perhaps a fleeting desire to punch a hippie in the face. HA! Good Fun!

fighter/barbarian = brute barbarian/monk = brawler from a josh post at sa. HA! Good Fun!

once again, am gonna request o' the moderators a single thread for all o' these wishlists. is already a half dozen, and they is becoming a bit repetitive. HA! Good Fun!

No a paladin is not a fight/priest in this POE Ye conceptually it doesn't seem like these types are different but in POE1 these classes were vastly different with different abilities and different strengths so ye there is a point to all these multiclasses because they all bring different things to the tables. This isnt d&d where paladin has access to priest spells. paladins are not priest in this game at all. They are not based on gods they dont have any spells or ability overlap. Even the heal the paladin gets is different than priest heals. Paladin is fighter with healing powers. perhaps a side issue, but the above is/were untrue. the paladin in poe were designed to be a low-maintenance and resilient support class. weren't actual meant to be equivalent o' a fighter with healing powers. flames of devotion were a late addition to the game and it were resulting in any number o' curious balance issues for the class. nevertheless, just 'cause the paladin o' poe shared a name with a class available in other games, the name were not indicative o' its intended role in poe. similar, a fighter weren't 'posed to be akin to fighters from dozen o' other crpgs. the poe fighter were 'posed to be a reliable damage dealing class, but were never envisioned to a particular noteworthy dps class. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66380-update-81-the-front-line-fighters-and-barbarians/?p=1460938 by the time poe had become 3.0, the fighter were far more similar to 2e d&d game incarnations than were the class at the start o' beta. the 3.0 fighter could laugh off trebuchet strikes and were also an impressive dps machine with a considerable number o' per-encounter combat abilities. the names o' poe classes were a mistake. familiar names resulted in expectations. to match player expectations, the classes were often altered in ways which did not necessarily improve the game. am gonna be curious to see what changes is made to the poe2 classes, 'cause, for example, the paladin were never intended to be a fighter who could heal. will obsidian attempt to turn back the clock to pre-beta poe roles and goals for classes? doing so would likely result in classes much easier to balance, but am doubtful the obsidians wanna once again try and battle the expectations o' the fanbase. HA! Good Fun!

were a mention o' a monk who benefits from consumables, yes? HA! Good Fun!

possibly, but at the very least you gotta recognize that the problem you identified for high-level gameplay is actual already an issue precise 'cause of vancian casting. yeah, we suspect there is gonna be all kinda problems with poe2 being balanced, but your immediate concern o' +30 spells being available to a high-level caster and robbing tactical consideration 'cause o' the bloat is actual more acute and real 'cause of vancian. the arguments 'gainst per-encounter keep coming at us all inverted and backwards. but yeah. there will be problems. am less concerned with per-encounter, but multi-class will clear be an issue, and there will be dozens o' other problems. no cure-all neither. regardless... *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

is a pretty big "if," no? and ciphers are current only bounded by their focus generation. a current poe cipher can cast infinite spells if the encounter lasts long enough. also, keep in mind you aren't actual using an actual encounter as an example. can you think o' any battle where you had the opportunity to cast spells 36 times? Well yeah, that is pretty much what I meant by "can't use most of my abilities to their full extent". Even 9 is way too many, in fact. I'm not against the new system, but to me, it feels like the current design is not particularly concerned about problems that will emerge in high-level gameplay. am not actual seeing the problem as you do. but am also not starting with the assumption we will see the same kinda spell advancement as poe 1. for all we know, you might have a total pool of 8 or 9 spells you might cast per encounter, regardless o' level. but am thinking you have backwards. the thing is, currently, following a rest, your wizard, priest and druid have their full range o' spells available to them. so in poe 1 is where we is certain a wizard can cast literal dozens of spells during a single high-level battle. the current mechanic is the one which is busted for high-level gameplay. a wizard, immediate following rest is a whole different order o' magnitude o' power than one following a couple encounters. you gotta see how that reality makes encounter design and challenge more difficult, yes? HA! Good Fun!

am not seeing an issue. obviously the rogue's total first level abilities and talents will need be balanced 'gainst other classes and with encounter difficulty in mind. is not gonna be much more difficult with scale than w/o. in fact, will be easier at low-levels than at higher levels precisely 'cause there will be fewer total available options which will need be balanced. HA! Good Fun!

is a pretty big "if," no? and ciphers are current only bounded by their focus generation. a current poe cipher can cast infinite spells if the encounter lasts long enough. also, keep in mind you aren't actual using an actual encounter as an example. can you think o' any battle where you had the opportunity to cast spells 36 times? the tactical decision-making will, one hopes, be determined by the encounter design rather than how temporal remote you are from your last rest opportunity. HA! Good Fun!

such scaling is a prerequisite for balancing given the addition of multi-class. such balancing will be imperfect. will be interesting. HA! Good Fun!

oh and the following is complete untrue: "but the fact of the matter is that the only actual experience we have right now with per-encounter spellcasting in a PoE game is high level Wizards, Priests and Druids in pre-Spell Mastery PoE1." the post-release (post-release o' the game obviously) bandage o' spell mastery is not the only example o' per-encounter spell casting in poe. am sure you will realize your error. HA! Good Fun!

am agreeing... sorta. there will be exceptions. unforeseen gearing, talent and ability synergies will result in a few no-brainer multi-class combos. perhaps a priest/paladin will be balanced, unless he/she has a particular helm equipped and your party has at least one cipher with access to _________. is so tough to predict such stuff, and poe has so many customization options. HA! Good Fun!

As much as this makes sense, I don't like super-long cast times (battle-speed in PoE1 was such that lengthy chants evocations (4-5) didn't get used much if at all as the battle was over already - summon drake to deal with the one ooze that's left). that's the kinda trade-off being proposed though, yes? is more powerful, but takes longer, so why would you use your tactical nuke to deal with the single ooze? with per encounter, your are less likely to have exhausted all of your useful solitary ooze killing spells during your previous two encounters. Yes, yes, you keep bringing up how much you dislike Vancian, but the fact of the matter is that the only actual experience we have right now with per-encounter spellcasting in a PoE game is high level Wizards, Priests and Druids in pre-Spell Mastery PoE1, and it's not a great one. That's a compelling enough argument to me. yes, yes, you keep bringing up how much you like vancian, so am understanding why you see an attempt by the developers to fix broken poe vancian casters by adding per-encounter abilities would result in you finding a compelling argument for per-encounter fail rather than the more obvious conclusion. nevertheless, the reasoning is baffling. HA! Good Fun!

The issue here is not just whether Vancian is good or bad. It's also that the suggested replacement for it, full-blown per-encounter spellcasting, has already proven to be a pain in the ass - see PoE1 before Spell Mastery. not a particular compelling argument. poe 1 started with a vancian and per-encounter caster frankenstein system and then tried to add/subtract more per encounters to find a balance. the cobbled-on per-encounter additions to an already broken vancian caster with excessive spell catalogs is hardly an accurate measure o' the viability o' per-encounter casters. *chuckle* what should be noted how is in spite o' the dedication to vancian casters in poe, the developers kept trying to add per encounter aspects to try improve/fixh the inherent problems o' vancian. again, poe is the exception. vancian is anachronistic. is only a game such as poe where we even see this debate. HA! Good Fun! ps am not understanding the peculiar convoluted reasoning whereby every failure o' vancian is somehow seen as proof o' its greatness. is not as if the developers attempted to improve ciphers by adding vancian. nevertheless, post release attempts to fix vancian by adding a per-encounter bandaid to the classes is somehow a condemnation o' per-encounter? how does such make any sense?

am thinking folks are purposeful or accidental reducing josh comments for reason o' finding some, any, reason to be rejecting. the change away from vancian is not simple 'bout purging a resting abuse. and the fact o' the matter is that at mid and later levels, whatever tactical considerations related to resource management concerns o' vancian casting has largely evaporated. before every major encounter, a player is likely to rest regardless. get caught unawares by an unexpected boss fight or particular tough encounter and have significant diminished spell repertoire is not a measure o' the increased challenge resulting from vancian so much as it is proof o' the idiotic limitation o' vancian casting. moderate difficult encounters become near impossible 'cause o' depleted vancian casters. prompts a reload. converse, tough encounters become relative easy 'cause vancian casters recent rested? stoopid. folks want better encounter design but ignore how vancian makes such a task far more difficult. that the number o' vancian casters in a party so profound impacts the potential difficulty o' any encounter should be seen as an inherent flaw, but for some reason is being described as a strength. curious. vancian is increasingly anachronistic in crpgs. if we weren't discussing a game inspired by 2e d&d mechanics, we would be unlikely to need have this discussion. in spite o' the claims o' vancian being such a kewl and nifty tactical option, not even the d&d/ie game grognards would wanna vancian abilities to a fallout game. vancian is terrible, but is having such a nostalgia grip on folks that they see an obvious flaw as a strength. HA! Good Fun!

agreed. is possible the reality o' new features and mechanics will disappoint, but thus far we have been happy with announced changes-- save one: unified health. is this the "winter of our discontent?" we think not. in short order we will no doubt yield to our natural cynical bent. am expecting increasing familiarity will build if not contempt, then, at the very least, a kinda jaundiced caution. even so, at the moment, health is the only change which vexes us. HA! Good Fun!

not nerfed, but scaled. HA! Good Fun!

one reason we want a more expansive beta which allows greater access to a more complete range o' levels, abilities and talents is 'cause the developers will, regardless o' their best efforts, be caught off guard by the manner in which people actual play their games. the original poe developers no doubt assumed they had considerable diversity o' encounter challenges, but the reality is players found optimal tactics which made adjustments irrelevant. the developers is gonna fail to recognize the manner in which players exploit obscure synergies-- is a given. is not a criticism o' the developers. is axiom. with new mechanics and multi-class we foresee fertile soil for exploitive gameplay. let players break the game so developers can fix exploits before release. HA! Good Fun!

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!

until the beta am not gonna say whether poe2 multiclass is good or bad, but as josh clear identified the same problems o' multiclass as we did earlier in the thread, and recognizing how he has at least considered how to deal with such problems, am gonna be optimistic with some caution. HA! Good Fun! ps the more we see multiclassing and hear 'bout all the changes to poe mechanics, the more certain we is regarding the need for a more encompassing beta. again, we don't want more content such as quests and locations, but find some way to give the beta folks access to as much o' the full range o' talents and abilities as possible and let folks try and break the game in beta.