OrangePulp

So I've got it working, although it's definitely something of a workaround, and a decent amount of manual work for each spell. Seems like setting the scaling at 0 for the weapon buffs does start at 0 regardless of spell level; or at least, it's behaved that way for parasitic staff and kalakoth blights so far. How many summon weapons are there? Wonder if it's worth grabbing a json library and writing a script to handle it.

I'm thinking now about a possible workaround: remove scaling from the summoned weapons themselves, but have the spells apply a separate buff that grants all the same benefits. My questions, for any who've been more in the guts of these things than I have: Is there a flag to make it stack with everything, as a weapon buff actually would? I wouldn't want to have it overwrite or be overwritten by some other accuracy buff or what have you. I'm pretty sure making it apply only to weapon attacks and not spells won't be too hard, but is there a way to make it cancel or dispel itself when switching weapons? Unlike monk's transcendent suffering buff, I don't have a single attack type to bind the buff to, and I wouldn't want it to persist if the character isn't using that summoned weapon. Edit: So, looking more closely, I could actually model it after Transcendent Suffering, by adding a keyword to all the summon weapon attacks (which I thought were just base quarterstaff or whatever, but I was mistaken). Now the question is, if I add a buff to each weapon summon ability, can I make the power level of that status effect independent of it's originating ability/attack? Most of the statuseffects I look at have the scaling base level set at 0, but it seems to inherit the level of the ability itself. I would want a status that actually scales from power level 0, like transcendent suffering does.

I've been trying to implement a mod that makes summoned weapons based on power level rather than character level, and I'm starting to think it's impossible. I initially tried cloning Scaling_Weapon, as well as it's subsidiaries Scaling_Weapon_SE_Accuracy, Scaling_Weapon_SE_Damage, and Scaling_Weapon_SE_Penetration, with new names/guids but changing them to power level scaling, and setting one test weapon (concelhaut's staff) to use it. When that didn't work, I simply modded the scaling for Scaling_Weapon_SE_Accuracy to use power level rather than character level, and all of a sudden I was getting 0 accuracy from it. Decided to try basing it off the monk's transcendent suffering abilities instead, and I realized that they're not actually parented to monk fists; rather, it's a base ability tied to monk that only applies to a certain attack type of unarmed. I'm starting to wonder if maybe the item itself can't properly access the wielder's power level? Maybe only character level is exposed, because they made all summoned weapons based on CL rather than PL. Does anyone know of any equipment or summoned weapon that does scale based on player PL? Always possible there's something I'm overlooking. Otherwise, really dashes my hope of a single-class conjurer with pumped PL for big summon weapon damage.

I honestly don't remember if they were always this way, as I don't think I used any on my initial playthrough at release, but summoned weapons in PoE1 are currently typed Universal (like soulbound weapons) so you get the benefit of any proficiency you have.

Whether +25% damage + 50% pen is enough, I don't think we really have enough data to draw a conclusion right now; might be that base criticals need to be buffed. However, I'm always wary of critical hit damage as a stat in games, because it's another multiplier that gets thrown into the mix. Criticals are already a multiplier by themselves, and when you add another on top, sometimes you start to see cases in games where crit as a stat overtakes everything else. And there are already abilities that are giving things like 50% hit to crit.

Forget to mention that Dex has diminishing on DPS because the more you put into it, the less u you get due to how it is calculated. What's the calculation on that? I had thought that each point would be more valuable, as it's a reduction from 100%, and each point reduces by 3% (so if you had it down to 50%, hypothetically, another 3% reduction would be twice as valuable as when it was at 100%). Is it done differently?

...do traps even add any real value to gameplay? Other than situations where you can't easily disarm them due to combat, but you don't have to have them be otherwise hidden to accomplish that. That being said, I feel like the change to traps requiring perception is something based on a more... 'realistic' look at things, to the detriment of gameplay. You're still going to focus mechanics on a character in almost all situations (really, in a 5 person party, who wouldn't dedicate someone to that for convenience and loot), so now we have an extra mandatory stat just for exploration sake. More necessary than having high mechanics in pillars 1, I'd say, given how punishing traps are; you used to be able to just soak some of the nastier ones with a high hp tank, but no one wants to take 25% max hp damage.

My suspicion was that grazes were removed by default specifically because of spells and abilities, namely CC. As has been suggested before, maybe CC should have a lesser effect on graze, but for some CCs, even 50% duration was really strong, as you could then combo into something else with the reduced defenses.

The one thing I wonder about with the no helmets thing is how in poe 2, each slot is supposed to essentially be a single stat (as far as what magical effects it can have), which can throw off some of the balance, since your'e more specifically limited in one stat (which seems, overall, stronger as it's easier to plan for lacking in that one stat for the entirety of the game). Regardless, I feel like it's an important gameplay consideration to trade out for the more powerful racial, which are generally stronger than a single talent anyways. And think about it, in pillars 1, if you could just wear a hat that had something like the moon godlike (obviously the strongest), or even something like fire godlike in some circumstances, racial benefit, wouldn't you? A lot of cases where that's stronger than whatever else you're getting off a helmet. So far in this game seems like it would be nature godlike for that power level bonus.

Anyone else concerned about how armor is going to scale on enemies, compared to penetration? On a non-devoted martial character, the only way I can think of to increase penetration is weapons with modals, or naturally high penetration. That doesn't feel... great, to me. At the moment each enchantment tier adds what, +1 pen? And baseline weapon pen is 5. So if you're using a non-pen weapon, at exceptional, you'd be at 7. Compared to the lagufaeth that are what, level 7-8 enemies, that have 9 base armor? I felt like in pillars 1, when characters needed to switch weapons to get a different damage type, it was usually against enemies who had much higher resist against one type of damage, and a lot lower to others. In this scenario, using any of the non-pen weapons, and with the upcoming pen changes, you're doing half damage. I feel like my main problem with this is that penetration doesn't feel very easy to come by. If accuracy ended up being much more important than anything else, you can at least build characters with high perception. But for armor pen... what do you do as a rogue, or a ranger? Or really anything that isn't a devoted fighter. Building accuracy can help, with crits giving that 50% bonus, but I don't feel like that's enough. I'm especially concerned about any big monster encounters, dragons and the like, having very high armor in addition to high defenses otherwise. Possibly even worse for casters, as they have less options for increasing penetration than melee chars, really. No weapon modals for them; hope you really enjoy those spells with naturally high penetration! Obviously the numbers, and even the current class/build options we have, aren't final; just saw that sawyer tweeted out changing priests to no longer having restricted spells, which is great. And I do like the idea of armor being relevant to large amounts of damage, so that it's more universal. But I feel like getting the current system balanced is going to be very tricky.

Don't they have lightning fist from swift strike instead of flaming fist now? It would be OP if they have both. They had both before, the lightning upgrade was in PoE1 (for 25%, don't remember if it's the same here).

I haven't seen anything that requires both, it seems to be one or the other. Some things have been changed, like Swift Strikes now using the per-encounter resource (called Mortification for monks), and Clarity of Agony now using wounds.

For sure a bug, and apparently also already on their bug tracker

I've noodled around with the Helwalker, and while it is a glass cannon, it sure doesn't feel weak to me when I've played it. It's especially mean when multi-classed, say, with a Cipher or a Sharpshooter. You have to remember that buffs stack more easily in PoE2. So the Helwalker can simultaneously enjoy the buff to his might from his wounds, as well as from a priest, and so forth. It's not hard to get him shooting arrows like thunderbolts. It's also just dandy that we now have a ranged monk build, which we did not have in the first game. Is this based around using that ability that generates accuracy and wounds? I'll admit I hadn't thought much about that from a pure ranged perspective. Otherwise I'm not sure how you'd generate wounds, the mortify self thing seems insufficient. If turning wheel is out due to helwalker monk, which is my suspicion as they accomplish something of the same thing, I'll be very disappointed. It was so good. Really liked holding wounds for 50% burn lash as an alternative to torment spam.

To be honest even helwalker seems kinda weak; 1 might per wound as 3% additive damage, stacking with all the other additive you might have (which includes transcendent suffering now, it seems), compared to the old turning wheel which was 5% lash per wound, a multiplicative bonus. Not to mention taking 5% more damage per wound is pretty rough; can get 'free' wounds with that stance, if you're not getting hit, but the penalty for an enemy turning their gaze on you seems pretty high. And yeah, the mortification/wound thing seems kinda odd to me, at least as it currently is. Granted, monk always had some per-encounter/per-rest abilities, but I'm not sure they split very well with that system. If anything, I'd think force of anguish would be mortification, and swift strikes a wound ability.

With the switch of swift strikes to be per-encounter, I feel like early level monk options for using wounds are severely lacking. It seems like, at the least, torment's reach and force of anguish should switch places. Force of anguish is a much more situational ability, as you don't always want to push enemies away. Compared to Pillars 1, we had a choice of swift strikes and torment's reach for wound use at level 1 (both being very useful in a general sense), and then at level 3 getting options for force of anguish, as well as turning wheel for those that would rather sit on wounds and enjoy a passive buff. About the only thing gained in 2 is getting a buffed clarity of agony at tier 2, which is nice, but I'd still rather have an offensive option at that point than a defensive one. All this may seem somewhat moot once players get higher level, but multiclassing does keep you in lower tier abilities longer, so I think it's an important concern. I feel like 'knock target back a significant distance' should not be the only way to offensively spend wounds for as many as 6 character levels on a multiclass monk.

To be completely pedantic for a moment, the monk is more proficient than the knight, due to transcendent suffering. But yeah, my comment on proficiency probably wasn't very accurate; or at least, the level of proficiency everyone would have in unarmed is the same that everyone has by default for all weapons, which is no penalty, but no specific benefits (or in this system, not actually being 'proficient' in the weapon). Monk does have something at later level which I hadn't considered, which is the buff they can use to get 4 more armor pen (as well as 5 might). However, I still feel like a more pure unarmed focus should be possible as a character concept, and the Devoted fighter is perfect for just that; only thing getting in the way is proficiency. Maybe transcendent suffering could count as unarmed 'proficiency'?

I'm somewhat split on this topic, as I did like the idea of health being a resource overall; there are some things I enjoy about not having it, though. Running weaker characters such as ciphers and wizards as melee seems like it will be more practical, as in pillars 1 I typically felt like eventually I'd have to rest simply based on the lower pool of health those classes had, due to incidental damage they'd take. In general having a strategy of enduring and healing damage is much more viable. Boeroer mentions just stacking healing and focusing on offense (and presumably ignoring defense), and granted, he knows PoE better than I or probably anyone else on these boards. Still, I feel like that's more a question of specific balance, rather than healing itself being overpowered or not. I don't feel like stacking healing as a defensive option is inherently worse than other defenses, unless it's way easier to achieve or what have you. Something else to consider is that in one of the QAs, Josh Sawyer said that he personally liked the health/endurance system, so presumably it wasn't just some sort of knee-jerk reaction. Might come down to the changes overall regarding resting, per-rest abilities (which I've hated since AD&D, thanks Jack Vance), and how all that interplays.

As a counterpoint to the idea of per-rest abilities, and the idea of whether to conserve or not in a given fight, I feel like it always comes down to guesswork (Unless you've already played through the game before, which I personally don't think should be a consideration). You might know that you haven't faced the 'boss' of a dungeon, but will you need to save that big AoE spell for it? Or maybe it's going to be more of a single-target affair? Is it better to have a fortitude or will attacking spell for it? I suppose a general strategy is just 'use the minimum possible', which I don't find very compelling. When your spells are all per encounter, it's not a question of whether to use a spell at all, but rather, whether to use this spell at this time or not. And considering you seem to have 2 casts per level, that's still a fairly important choice. You can essentially see everything involved in the choice you're going to make, rather than guessing at a nebulous future. That being said, at the moment it does feel like they've increased cast times, without a subsequent increase in spell power. So far I've only really played with the mercenary wizard (without knowing that you can turn off the auto-level and choose level them manually, so I've had to deal with a spell selection I'm not really a fan of), but things feel like they take a while to get off without having a large impact. I also suspect the removal of grazes in general (with them only happening with specific talents/buffs) was something of a targeted nerf at debuff spells (which I do feel were too strong in pillars 1, the optimal way to handle tough fights seemed to be debuff until they're not that tough). Now that you don't have a chance at half duration, which may have been all you really needed to get in a knockdown or petrify or whatever, debuffs are going to feel less effective. Armor seems more impactful as well, especially for burst damage spells.

Honestly I think that problem is significantly more common in the new system than it was in PoE. Set the game to pause when weapons are ineffective and you'll realize just how bad it is. Literally the game is always paused and you're constantly digging through the combat log to see who's attacking something they shouldn't be. But the weapons still do some damage when ineffective, unless the critter has a complete immunity, right? Not to double-post, but pillars 1 still had minimum damage at 20%. 2's minimum is 50% higher at 30%, but I'd hazard a guess that you're hitting that minimum way more often than with 1.

A common sentiment I've seen regarding this game (and one I share) is hoping that it would be Obsidian's BG2 to their PoE1 (as BG1). I personally felt like a big part of that was taking mechanics that they already refined over the years with PoE1, using them as a baseline, saving them from having to go back and tweak things retroactively like they did with the last game. And by changing up systems, it kinda feels like tossing all that out the window. I can understand the desire for more simplicity with something like this; can be easier to balance and design around, etc, when you only have two possible outcomes (I suppose three with the overpenetration 30% damage buff, but that doesn't seem too significant to me). But personally I see that sort of binary reduction as a big step backwards. You lose the fast-versus-slow weapons choice, where one is more susceptible to armor than the other, but also benefits more from penetration. I also think it feels really bad to just be one point shy of penetrating, only to have to use some other weapon option; especially as something like an unarmed focused monk, or maybe a shifted druid. Obviously cases like this existed before, but felt much more infrequent. The lack of generic talents also definitely plays into it; you can't just go grab vulnerable attack to deal with higher armored targets. Another side effect to this system is that it can make higher level enemies much tougher. I found myself doing the lagufaeth stuff right at the start, not realizing that it is (or seems to be, at least) a slightly higher level area, and had a really hard time with some of the enemies, because I just didn't have weapon types that penetrated, and the overall armor values were much higher than the main quest dungeon.

Just went through it again, and worked fine this time. Is there a way to dump out game state, or force a save or something, if it happens again? Can't normally save due to being in combat, but if this is something inconsistent, might be hard to track down otherwise.

On two separate characters now, fighting the blights to the right of the dungeon entrance, after killing them my characters have been stuck in combat. In one case I was able to trigger the spirit vision of the guys running up to the entrance, and it brought me out, but on another character even that didn't work. Tried to attach savegame, but apparently I'm not permitted?

Parasitic staff doesn't seem to be draining health at all, that I can see

At the moment it seems that unarmed attacks don't count as a proficient weapon, nor is it something you can choose proficiency in. It's understandable that everyone would be proficient in it, but (at least based on the Devoted's passive ability) it doesn't seem to accrue bonuses from (fighter) abilities that work based on weapon proficiency. Seems like a Monk/Devoted Fighter would be a fun build with an increased focus on unarmed attacks, especially with other things like the passives for chance to graze and increased damage, but at the moment that's not really an option. Was this an intentional design decision, or more of an omission due to unarmed not having/requiring a selectable proficiency?