Sword Modal counting as active, intended?

[Beanna]

I always supposed that weapon modals were counted as passives because, well, they are passives... But recently I discovered that the additional +2 Pen from my Sword Modal was actually suppressing the bonus penetration from my Tenacious inspiration (from Berserker's Frenzy). 

 

Now that seems very odd to begin with that modals aren't actually considered as passives and I would really like to know if this is working as intended.

Also it's very counterintuitive that the sword Modwyr appears as a weapon perfectly tailored for Berserkers as it cancels the Confused status and friendly fire from Carnage but in fact you're being punished for activating the sword modal because it cancels your Tenacious inspiration as well as afflicts your character with a Deflection penalty... So basically it's best to not increase your sword proficiency and not use the modal... Surely that can not be the intended design.

 

Just wanted to shed some light on this issue in case it's not common knowledge yet and maybe bring it to the attention of Obsidian in case it's an oversight.

 

These staking rules are really crippling build crafting and optimization... I do understand the limitation for balance purpose but it is really frustrating to come up with new multiclass combinations and group compositions only to realize that half the synergies are arbitrarily suppressed. It feels too narrow to me.

[Climhazzard]

The weapon modals are mostly garbage anyways....

 

I also happen to hate the stacking rules.  They made it so item bonuses stack, probably to make it easy to understand...  but went in completely the opposite direction for abilities. 

[Loren Tyr]

I find many of them quite useful actually.

 

But yes, it is intentional and supposed to happen this way. They have to be activated, hence being classified as active; it also says so in the in-game cyclopedia. Though I imagine for example the melee-deflection bonus of quarterstaff does stack with other active general deflection bonuses, so in practice it depends a bit.

[Boeroer]

Intentional. All modals are actives (since you can actively trigger them I think that's ok).

[shadowbunker]

Intentional. All modals are actives (since you can actively trigger them I think that's ok).

If OB Devs used similar method for classification then well we're all screwed.

 

 

@OP

Welcome to the game, yes modals are counted as actives non-stacking, awkward isn't it.

 

if we take 99% of other games and/or their popularly modded versions as the norm,

This game's mechanics are very unpleasant and irrational.

This is just like Skyrim and DOS2, great game but some in-game logic are just fxxking irritating.

[Kaylon]

I find many of them quite useful actually.

 

But yes, it is intentional and supposed to happen this way. They have to be activated, hence being classified as active; it also says so in the in-game cyclopedia. Though I imagine for example the melee-deflection bonus of quarterstaff does stack with other active general deflection bonuses, so in practice it depends a bit.

The staff modal gives deflection only vs melee weapons which is different from the common deflection buffs which have no restrictions, so they stack.

 

The weapon modals are mostly garbage anyways....

There are a some modals which give a lasting debuff and you can switch them on/off - they're ok. Blunderbuss modal (powder burns) can be used without penalty if you're resistant to perception afflictions. The deflection penalties (sword/estoc) don't make a big difference because there are many ways to increase deflection. The accuracy penalties for ranged weapons (hunting bow/pistols) are less harsh because you have items with ranged accuracy (Acina's Tricorn/Ring of the Marksman) to compensate, while the dps gains are huge. Great sword/ arquebus modals are ok for alpha strikes... The ones who penalize damage/recovery are bad however.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Kaylon

[Boeroer]

Modals of morning star, flail and club are really awesome.

 

If OB Devs used similar method for classification then well we're all screwed

What's that supposed to mean? Trying to be c0cky? Edited June 12, 2018 by Boeroer

[shadowbunker]

Modals of morning star, flail and club are really awesome.

 

If OB Devs used similar method for classification then well we're all screwed

What's that supposed to mean? Trying to be c0cky?

 

Have you ever wonder why, 

new players in forum and reddit can't learn the fact "modals are actives" intuitively?

 

This issue involves user experience, 

And "modals are actives" is a counter-intuitive design,

it cannot be resolved with justifications. Once users got choked by it, it's done.

No amount of reasoning can change it.

 

(And IMO the passive effects should be the main part of an ability, 

not the triggering method. But it's not an important point.)

[Boeroer]

I agree that there should be some obvious information that mobals from proficiencies are actives like all other modals and thus don't stack. For abilities it's easy: if they are displayed under the active (left) side they don't stack, if they are on the passive side they do. Since proficiencies are displayed on another page it's not obvious at all that they are considered actives.

 

But that's only an issue with displaying info properly, not with my argument that modals can be considered actives because you have to actively trigger them. That doesn't fit the criteria of being "passive".

[shadowbunker]

I agree that there should be some obvious information that mobals from proficiencies are actives like all other modals and thus don't stack. For abilities it's easy: if they are displayed under the active (left) side they don't stack, if they are on the passive side they do. Since proficiencies are displayed on another page it's not obvious at all that they are considered actives.

 

But that's only an issue with displaying info properly, not with my argument that modals can be considered actives because you have to actively trigger them. That doesn't fit the criteria of being "passive".

Seriously, you've never heard of toggle-able passives? Edited June 13, 2018 by shadowbunker

[KentDA]

World of Warcraft is a fine (recent) example of toggled abilities in an RPG that provide a passive effect so long as it is active.

 

So yeah, toggled passives (which are quite often either used for switching combat modes) are quite common in RPGs.

 

It's not uncommon to see an RPG where a Warrior can switch between Stances which provide Passive advantages AND disadvantages. Typically said switching has a CD so its not abused.

[Boeroer]

 

I agree that there should be some obvious information that mobals from proficiencies are actives like all other modals and thus don't stack. For abilities it's easy: if they are displayed under the active (left) side they don't stack, if they are on the passive side they do. Since proficiencies are displayed on another page it's not obvious at all that they are considered actives.

 

But that's only an issue with displaying info properly, not with my argument that modals can be considered actives because you have to actively trigger them. That doesn't fit the criteria of being "passive".

Seriously, you've never heard of toggle-able passives?

I have heard of a lot of things.

 

That doesn't mean that they are the one and only acceptable truth.

 

If Deadfire put modals into the passive category I wouldn't object. I'm sure you can make a case for that and bring forth some good arguments. But on the other hand I can also see why you might want to put it into the active compartment. I simply said that I find it "ok" that modals are actives since you have to actively trigger them. I didn't say that this is the only and undisputable way to do it. You can agree or disagree, but no need to get cheeky.

[Crumbleton]

 

 

I agree that there should be some obvious information that mobals from proficiencies are actives like all other modals and thus don't stack. For abilities it's easy: if they are displayed under the active (left) side they don't stack, if they are on the passive side they do. Since proficiencies are displayed on another page it's not obvious at all that they are considered actives.

 

But that's only an issue with displaying info properly, not with my argument that modals can be considered actives because you have to actively trigger them. That doesn't fit the criteria of being "passive".

Seriously, you've never heard of toggle-able passives?

I have heard of a lot of things.

 

That doesn't mean that they are the one and only acceptable truth.

 

If Deadfire put modals into the passive category I wouldn't object. I'm sure you can make a case for that and bring forth some good arguments. But on the other hand I can also see why you might want to put it into the active compartment. I simply said that I find it "ok" that modals are actives since you have to actively trigger them. I didn't say that this is the only and undisputable way to do it. You can agree or disagree, but no need to get cheeky.

Ad a random bystander and someone who has no stake in any of this I'd say you definitely started off with the cheeky passive agressive tone

[Boeroer]

Ad a random bystander and someone who has no stake in any of this I'd say you definitely started off with the cheeky passive agressive tone

That is wrong. My first statement and shadowbunker's response:

 

Intentional. All modals are actives (since you can actively trigger them I think that's ok).

If OB Devs used similar method for classification then well we're all screwed.

Which implied that my opinion on this is something that is stupid and following this will screw all people over. Edited June 13, 2018 by Boeroer

[theBalthazar]

This story of active and passive is a fake story.

 

Flame of devotion (+10) = Active

Zealous focus (+5) = Active

 

= Stack

 

Devotion for the faithful (+10) = Active

Zealous focus (+5) = Active

 

= Don't stack

 

 

EDIT : A modal is a counterpart between a negative effect and a positive effect. So perhaps THE things who need to be stacked.

 

Really stupid to stay with Tenacious + Half sword : You only have a pure malus and no superior bonus. Proficiency is here a pure loss, a pure malus.

Edited June 13, 2018 by theBalthazar

[Boeroer]

We already discussed that and the bonus of FoD is not a buff. It's a bonus that is inherent to FoD like spell bonuses were in PoE or Accurate Wounding Shot is - or like Crippling Strike has +2 PEN that doesn't get suppressed. Sure, this has to be communicated better, but it's not a fake story. Repeating that over and over agsin just because you don't like the stacking rules will not make that statement true. It just makes me respect your opinion less - which is not good because usually I like to follow your thoughts. You stated that you like the stacking rules of PoE better than those of Deadfire. Fair enough. But don't push your opinion on others like an agenda. If you point out flaws in the stacking mechanic I'm happy to read about that, but don't make it a crusade.

 

Deadfire's stacking rules are not perfect, but they are a lot easier to understand and know less exceptions than PoE's.

You might like PoE's better because they allow you more stacking, but that doesn't mean that Deadfire's are "fake" or worse.

 

Active buffs don't stack, passives don't. The general rule is simple. You just need better explanation what is considered passive and what active - and also when this rule doesn't apply and why.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Boeroer

[theBalthazar]

 It's a bonus that is inherent to FoD like spell bonuses 

 

 

Like +5 of accuracy is inherent to zealous focus. Each ability have an inherent value. That's why people invest in X or Y. There is no rationnal explication to supressed more this or this for active abilities.

 

It is an illusion. If not you must say :

 

Active doesn't stack (except... !... heuuu "triggering Active abilities")

 

= Too much complicated and not understandable. Not more than POE1, finally.

 

And I can tell :

 

Yes, but auras are passive. Yes ... A passive is a "bonus without intervention, without overtime". Zealous aura is that.

 

So Active abilities are globally 50 % of "abilities with triggering" (Barbaric blow / FoD, Withering strike etc.). So say "active = don't stack" is a big lie.

 

So in fact, the only abilities that don't stack, are "false passive abilities", classified in... active abilities : p

 

Incomprehensible.

Edited June 13, 2018 by theBalthazar

[dunehunter]

Active doesn't stack rule is not applied  to Healing per tick spells, we need to address that!

[Boeroer]

I said active buffs. A bonus to a single attack is not considered a buff. Healing is not considered a buff.

 

A buff is something that gives you bonuses for a certain duration (even if its endless). I know that Obsidian's wording isn't like that. That's why I said that this needs better explanation.

 

However, my point is that the stacking rules are a lot more consistent than in PoE. In PoE we had Inspiring Radiance which is an active buff and stacks with everything, even itself. We had Liberating Exhortation and other examples where active buffs stacked like passives. In fact code wise they were passives attached to an active ability - very unintuitive and not easy to find out. Deadfire does this way better. The general rule (if explained properly) applies. Tell people what the rule exactly is and what is considered an active buff, give examples and you are fine. In PoE you couldn't do that because it was way to inconsistent. Deadfire is not. It's just not good yet in explaining the stacking rules properly.

[theBalthazar]

Yes but why Obsidian doesn't explain that ?

 

Because in fact, it will be hurt himself :

 

Obsidian will be forced to recognize there BONUSES more INTERRESTING ^^ than others...

 

Yes Boeroer, you read correctly.

 

If I say to you :

 

OK. There is TRUE Buffs at the right. And FALSE buffs to the left. And, at the left you have triggering abilities that keep always theyre bonuses.

 

Analyze of smart people : I take triggering abilities of the left and Buff bonuses of the right. All the rest have a risk to be supressed. End the game...

 

Eventually you take the biggest bonus of each classes for the "false buffs" but no more.

Edited June 13, 2018 by theBalthazar

[Boeroer]

I don't know why. They are building a reputation on not explaining mechanics properly. It would be very easy to fix and yet they don't.

 

I also agree to the rest. That's the consequence.

 

But the general implementation of stacking rules is sane and good enough in my opinion. It's a complex game - not everything can be put into easy rules without allowing big loopholes to appear. Regarding that the stacking rules are consistent and will work well - if they get explained properly. I hope they will.

[Crumbleton]

I will say its fairly unclear in design.

 

When you click a modal Ex:  Brisk recitation  you understand you are gaining X losing Y it's clear it makes sense.

 

With weapon modals that do not stack with frenzy etc it does not make sense.  You have something that is clearly passive in nature (modal) interacting  as if it were an active ability.  The previous example of paladins aura is spot on.  If you gained 1 bonus armor from a modal (theoretically) you would expect it to stack with the aura because of the inherent passive nature of a modal.    If it did not stack i would assume it was a bug, a simple tool-tip under modals could be a simple fix but it is pretty unclear.  The game seems to make an active ability =  cost resources, you can click a modal on and off at will so in a sense the design space behind it is incredibly unclear and should be remedied.   I don't care if the ability works with x or y but regardless it is unclear and poor design.

 

I believe this single modal is really the only culprit i can think of so it's not the end of the world but it is so counter intuitive to all of the systems present it should be changed or clarified

[Boeroer]

Fair enough. I agree it has to be explained better.

[Loren Tyr]

I definitely agree that the mechanics in both PoE and PoE2 are just not adequately explained (though Obsidian is hardly the only studio guilty of this unfortunately *glares at Fallout 4*).

 

However, I don't see how (@Crumbleton) modals are "clearly passive in nature". Mechanically, it's something you have to turn on; for some of the modals you may just want to turn them on and leave them there (which arguably means they're badly designed; if pretty much always you'd want them on they probably shouldn't have been modal), but it still is something you have to choose to do and can change at any moment.

 

Similarly, conceptually, the modal can be seen as a particular fighting stance or whatever that the character chooses to adopt at a particular moment. Taking a more aggressive or defensive posture, prioritising specific strikes, etc. So from the perspective of the character this is also a decision being actively made. Whereas the passive abilities tend to be things that are either some skill that has simply improved (eg. weapon style abilities) or an attribute that has been honed, or they are more reactive / conditional skills (which in part you can perhaps also see as a general skill, eg. sneak attack reflecting a rogue's ability to see opportunities to take advantage of an enemy being distracted etc.).

 

So both conceptually and mechanically, to me it does feel more natural to classify modals as active rather than passive. At least given the need to do so at all of course. Because personally I probably would prefer them to just be lump modals into their own category for stacking purposes, don't have them stack with each other but do stack them with active. Maybe some might need to be toned slightly in that case, but for the most part that's hardly going to be game breaking (and eg. Warrior Stance definitely could do with being able to stack with actives).

[Crumbleton]

I definitely agree that the mechanics in both PoE and PoE2 are just not adequately explained (though Obsidian is hardly the only studio guilty of this unfortunately *glares at Fallout 4*).

 

However, I don't see how (@Crumbleton) modals are "clearly passive in nature". Mechanically, it's something you have to turn on; for some of the modals you may just want to turn them on and leave them there (which arguably means they're badly designed; if pretty much always you'd want them on they probably shouldn't have been modal), but it still is something you have to choose to do and can change at any moment.

 

Similarly, conceptually, the modal can be seen as a particular fighting stance or whatever that the character chooses to adopt at a particular moment. Taking a more aggressive or defensive posture, prioritising specific strikes, etc. So from the perspective of the character this is also a decision being actively made. Whereas the passive abilities tend to be things that are either some skill that has simply improved (eg. weapon style abilities) or an attribute that has been honed, or they are more reactive / conditional skills (which in part you can perhaps also see as a general skill, eg. sneak attack reflecting a rogue's ability to see opportunities to take advantage of an enemy being distracted etc.).

 

So both conceptually and mechanically, to me it does feel more natural to classify modals as active rather than passive. At least given the need to do so at all of course. Because personally I probably would prefer them to just be lump modals into their own category for stacking purposes, don't have them stack with each other but do stack them with active. Maybe some might need to be toned slightly in that case, but for the most part that's hardly going to be game breaking (and eg. Warrior Stance definitely could do with being able to stack with actives).