Frustrated by the game design

Welp, it's a forum.

 

The members here live to hate everything. It's their "right" to do so

The old armour system isn't immersive- what, does 20% of a real life club magically phase through plate armour to hurt you?- but it has the advantage of being an older system

 

Because the impact can still dmg your body. It's like with explosion, just the wave can dmg/kill you even if you're not burned or pierced by a debris. Fire dmg? even if the armor protect from the burn, the heat can kill you.

 

 

I don't get why they broke the system, replacing a perfectly logical and immersive one with an absurd and obscure other, to keep the broken situations manageables, instead of actually repairing the broken situations. Gah.

Josh says it is players feedback that made him re-examine AR/DR system in an attempt to make it less "mushy".

Here are a few related links:

- one

- two

- three

- four

 

Oh gawd...

 

The whole accusation of "mushiness" doesn't make any sense to me - I mean that literally, I don't understand what it refers to.

 

As for this reaction to the feedback, it's pretty, well, between /facepalm and depressing. It seems to, again, focus entirely on the mechanist aspect while ignoring the immersion/simulationist and not realizing that maybe these complaints weren't actually valid...

The entire idea that all damage should be reduced the same is just idiotic, and a reason why I hate penetration... Small strikes SHOULD be much affected by armors, large strike SHOULD be less affected. That's logical, and that's precisely a mechanical difference allowing for variety instead of everything being the same, duh.

 

Well, it partially does sense to me. Through if speaking of preferred armor/penetration system, I would describe it as follows:

 

 

And by that I mean:

- yeah, it is more realistic when effective armor protection is not linear, and that bigger damage is mitigated less. So it shouldn't be a strict % reduction. But neither just a flat reduction as it would render heavy armor almost useless vs the heaviest-hitters.

- but I also do like the idea itself of having penetration (completely, or at least partially) separated from weapon damage.

 

Also I do find it a bit weird when a plate-armored character tries to tank a dragon that weights like 10.000kg? How do you even stand your ground against such thing?

 

Tbh I am more liking tanking separation:

- Heavy-clad warriors tank via armor and shield blocking. And this is effective vs anyone except for:

> massive heavy-hitters (for whom that plate is like a tinfoil)

> really quick and precise enemies that can target weak spots between the armor plates.

 

- Light-weight warriors and rogues "tank" via evasion. This being effective vs:

> slow heavy-hitters - since they have hard time to actually hit you, due to dodging.

> small enemies - whose attacks you can also parry.

But this is less effective vs not so slow medium-armored enemies; and also when out-numbered, because evading a swing from one enemy, puts you in reach of another.

 

- Spellcaster tanking:

> a non-channeling, barrier buff - that blocks 1 attack and breaks after that.

> a channeling barrier which you have to actively maintain (and usually can't do anything else while you do this) - which blocks all attacks while you hold it, but consumes resources. And still breaks if the damage exceeds certain threshold and staggers the caster.

Edited January 4, 2019 by MaxQuest

 

 

It's not. Deadfire is much more beginner friendly and the rules are considerably easier to grasp. In theory Kingmaker offers you way more customization with your characters, but unless you really know what you're doing (or use a respec mod lol), you can mess up pretty badly.

 

I still have no idea how to really use the non D&D classes. Magus was easy to understand, and that companion is a beast. But, I have no idea why people rave about the alchemist, since he seems liked a gimped spell caster that has a limited supply of bombs per-rest. Only level 7, so he was mostly leveled for me, so no idea if I broke his build or not. Inquisitor is confusing, with super-limited class resources. At least the tiefling warlock equivalent is pretty straight forward.

 

Now, the arcane trickster is awesome and seems like your stereotypical 3.5E broken non-sense. Full spellcasting and sneak attacks, sneak attacks applied to touch spells, and eventually, she can sneak attack with fireballs.

For an Alchemist, all you need to do is to pick Extra Bombs feat quite often. Mid-to-late game you will never run out of bombs, because when you're running low you have to rest anyway because your party members need their spells restored. And while you're fighting, you're doing AoE damage without friendly-fire on each attack, with additional CC effects or elemental damage, whatever you need at the moment. With unique spells you can change your bombs to be single-target nukes, too. The only spells you need are buffs, and you can cast them on party members after you take a feat for that. Vivisectionist is a better Sneak Attacker than a Rogue, 1 level dip is common for almost every melee dps, and Knife Master/Vivi combo (you can build Nok-Nok that way) is a monster.

 

Inquisitor is like a super-powered version of D&D Favoured Soul. You're basically a cleric who casts like a Sorc, with you biggest boon being spreading Teamwork feats. Except one of this class archetypes has massive summoning abilities, allowing you to eventually summon extremely powerful monsters, and you can use this ability a LOT of times before you have to rest. You combine that with Animal domain to create one of the strongest builds in the game.

 

 

 

 

What was the backlash to 1.1?

A lot of people really, really did not like the widespread nerfs in 1.1. I bet it showed up in their metrics too.

 

Out of curiosity, I went back to the Announcements page and read the patch threads. Yikes. Pretty harsh.

 

 

As Josh said - it is only in our heads!

 

We, in our human imperfection, are reading selectively. We pay much more attention to nerfs than buffs. Even when there's more buffs we think there's more nerfs.

 

I'm sure patch 1.1 has buffed more than it nerfed and we're just biased little players.

Long live the Sawyer and Obsidian.

 

I love this post so much.

 

 

I recognized the Favored Soul in Inquisitor, just with less spell casting and more combat stuff, thanks for the clarification.

 

All of the companions seem built well, except for Valerie, who is the Pallegina of PKM. With the exception of the arcane trickster, none of them are really OP either. I will look into the alchemist more. I think the companion is a standard alchemist.

 

All of the companions seem built well, except for Valerie, who is the Pallegina of PKM. With the exception of the arcane trickster, none of them are really OP either. I will look into the alchemist more. I think the companion is a standard alchemist.

 

See, this is what I meant about the game knowledge. If you have extensive knowledge about Pathfinder, you can do wonders. The companions actually have terrible stats and are generally much worse than any custom mercenary you create (except Ekun and Nok-Nok), but if you know what you're doing, each one of them can be a monster.

 

For example, Valerie can be built into 4 Sorc/4DD/rest EK and becomes a monster of a melee dps who can also go on the spell offensive when needed - she actually has decent stats for this type of build! Another example, you can build Linzi as 10 Bard/EK and stack archery feats, which turns her into a very strong archer who also has access to buff song and a ton of spells. Even Regognar, whom I've initially underestimated, eventually becomes an unbreakable tank with massive touch AC attacks.

 

Yeah, Jubilost is a standard Alchemist and not a Grenadier (boo), but that's okay. Can still be built for bombing stuff.

 

Deadfire's system is so much more user friendly, there is no comparison.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Manveru123

What I despise most in the PoE system is that spells go through the same resolution as attacks do. Early-mid casters feel like crap to play, summons are terrible, damage spells feel like a weak aoe attack that casually misses even if they are limited per combat - only CCs are somewhat worth it but I found that it is better using a different setup in the first place.

I think you got it all wrong.

damage spells feel like a weak aoe attack that casually misses even if they are limited per combat - only CCs are somewhat worth it

Yeah, removing the bonus acc from spells made this even worse. The dps provided by spells isnt high enough to justify using limited casts on them rather than improving infinite auto attacks by casting debuffs instead, especially when enemy vulnerabilities and weaknesses are flattened by the potd bonuses. Whenever you can do decent damage with a spell, the fight usually didnt matter anyway.

What I despise most in the PoE system is that spells go through the same resolution as attacks do. Early-mid casters feel like crap to play, summons are terrible, damage spells feel like a weak aoe attack that casually misses even if they are limited per combat - only CCs are somewhat worth it but I found that it is better using a different setup in the first place.

Early-mid casters suck, now that's new! Never has it happened before in any game ever! =P

 

What I despise most in the PoE system is that spells go through the same resolution as attacks do. Early-mid casters feel like crap to play, summons are terrible, damage spells feel like a weak aoe attack that casually misses even if they are limited per combat - only CCs are somewhat worth it but I found that it is better using a different setup in the first place.

Early-mid casters suck, now that's new! Never has it happened before in any game ever! =P

 

 

Nope, casters are not just weak early in the game like it happens in dnd games until they get some good spells. They are useless throughout most of the game because of accuracy. I haven't had a worse time using magic in any game so far - this one takes the cake.

 

They can be powerful only late in the game, but even then the most popular wiz build for example, is the melee wizard. BG/ToEE/IWD/P:K/NWN - casters were a blast to play even if they were weak early on. After a few levels magic felt impactful, saving throws in dnd games are actually more forgiving than the miss/graze fest here and the spell effects were powerful enough to justify their limited use. Not to mention their meh defense buffs that are easily expended and don't stack, the possibility of a CC lasting for less than a round and their huge casting times (even with the talent). 

 

Spells shouldn't go through the same attack resolution in the first place. There should be a differentiation from normal attacks. Here, spells feel like cheap parlor tricks or colorful aoe attacks which are limited and when you expend them all you are left with is a squishy, useless character.

 

And it's not like I haven't experienced the system fully. I've finished PoE 1 and 2 both with a full party and solo characters casters included and I've tested most spells. 

Edited January 5, 2019 by Bleak

And yet you don't know how to make it work?

 

Buff ACC, debuff defenses and then nuke (if you must).

 

It's a party game.

 

If casters would you do auto-hits with big, high damage AoE spells while mundane classes could only hack at single targets and miss/graze occasionally... would neither be balanced nor fair.

 

Casters are in a good spot. No need for crutches.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Boeroer

And yet you don't know how to make it work?

 

Buff ACC, debuff defenses and then nuke (if you must).

 

It's a party game.

 

If casters would you do auto-hits with big, high damage AoE spells while mundane classes could only hack at single targets and miss/graze occasionally... would neither be balanced nor fair.

 

Casters are in a good spot. No need for crutches.

 

Make what work exactly? I am just saying they feel terrible to play. Buffing up with EA for example and debuffing enemies isn't even worth it on 99% of the fights on potd because after all that buffing/debuffing other classes will have dealt 10x of the damage of that fireball you will throw and will have tanked all the enemy hits. Spells feel like weak attacks, need positioning, they are limited and they take much longer to apply. "End-game" casters are in a good spot (mostly because of their magic weapons ironically). 

 

Casters in DnD feel great imo, they start off weak, but their power progression is impactful, taking the time to cast a spell almost never goes to waste (even if a ST succeds) and they are much different mechanically than other classes. I don't see why we can't have this here.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Bleak

I've got problems with knowing what stacks and what doesn't. I have no idea which chanter chants stack, except the healing chant. Thankfully we got these new buff names such as strong and aware and only one of those can be active. But still, no idea if it's possible to have 4 Ues mith fyr chants going, giving 4x15% fire damage, my guess is no but it's pretty hard to test because in easy fights the enemies die so fast it's hard to tell and to test it in hard fight it's even harder to tell because the enemies take so little damage anyway. And it makes things more complicated that some things say in the description that they stack, suchs as weapon stacking abilities. This is done correctly, it's very clear and your stacking progress is even shown. Then some abilities stack, but there's not mention about it, such as ancient memory. And some things don't stack and there is no mention that they don't such as some chants.

 

And another thing are hard fights and damage spells. Let's say I've got 1 spell that hits hard and 1 - 2 uses in battle. But hard enemies are always hard to hit so most likely that one spell just misses and then it's wasted. The spell description says like, omg 60 damage + nasty side-effects. And when you use it in battle, it does 0 damage and no effect and took 6 seconds to cast. In easier fights the spell can be used for lolz. I don't even take damage spells anymore because they always miss during difficult fights. It's much better to take healing or buff ability and difficult fights are those that matter because they are about survival. Easy fights are just exploration and fun. What is difficult sets the boundaries.

 

And to add insult to the injury, enemy cool damage spells almost always hit.

 

So some of the things in the game are a bit counter-intuitive because everything is roll-based. It's really challenging game in this regard, but I'm personally not a big fan of maths. Thankfully things are a bit better in PoE II, because in PoE I had problems with all sorts of afflictions and how to remove them. So that's thankfully fixed.

 

Anyway, PoE and PoE II are probably the best games I've played for a long time. I wouldn't complain so much if they weren't.

 

 

What I despise most in the PoE system is that spells go through the same resolution as attacks do. Early-mid casters feel like crap to play, summons are terrible, damage spells feel like a weak aoe attack that casually misses even if they are limited per combat - only CCs are somewhat worth it but I found that it is better using a different setup in the first place.

Early-mid casters suck, now that's new! Never has it happened before in any game ever! =P

Nope, casters are not just weak early in the game like it happens in dnd games until they get some good spells. They are useless throughout most of the game because of accuracy. I haven't had a worse time using magic in any game so far - this one takes the cake.

 

They can be powerful only late in the game, but even then the most popular wiz build for example, is the melee wizard. BG/ToEE/IWD/P:K/NWN - casters were a blast to play even if they were weak early on. After a few levels magic felt impactful, saving throws in dnd games are actually more forgiving than the miss/graze fest here and the spell effects were powerful enough to justify their limited use. Not to mention their meh defense buffs that are easily expended and don't stack, the possibility of a CC lasting for less than a round and their huge casting times (even with the talent).

 

Spells shouldn't go through the same attack resolution in the first place. There should be a differentiation from normal attacks. Here, spells feel like cheap parlor tricks or colorful aoe attacks which are limited and when you expend them all you are left with is a squishy, useless character.

 

And it's not like I haven't experienced the system fully. I've finished PoE 1 and 2 both with a full party and solo characters casters included and I've tested most spells.

Not arguing the *feelings*, they are a persons objective reallity and don't need justification (one either likes or dislikes something, no point for discussion), but from a technical point of view, casters in PoE are beast from start till end. Only times they struggle to meaningfully contribute are endurance run battles like in SSS or the mega bosses. But that's true for other classes w. limited recources too.

 

 

Spells shouldn't go through the same attack resolution in the first place. There should be a differentiation from normal attacks. Here, spells feel like cheap parlor tricks or colorful aoe attacks which are limited and when you expend them all you are left with is a squishy, useless character.

 

 

a nonsense solution to an imaginary problem.  am admitting there is a whole list o' poe/deadfire problems, but caster accuracy is not one o' 'em.  early during the beta there were indeed a problem with spell penetration, but such were addressed.  beta spells were consistent ineffective 'cause o' insufficient penetration. however, if you cannot generate caster accuracy, am curious what in the heck you are doing.  aloth is typical one o' our high-damage companions regardless o' party composition and am only ever playing potd.  the elf wizard is even more valuable with debuffs and cc.... effects which use same maths as damage spells. furthermore, the solution o' creating a complete separate mechanic for casters to address the s'posed paucity o' caster accuracy makes even less sense.  if the problem were caster accuracy, then obvious solution would be a buff to caster accuracy.  create seperate mechanic which would obvious cause more bug opportunities and make multiclassing more problematic, is... pointless.  other than a slavish devotion to d&d norms, am seeing no reason for inserting a separate mechanic for spells.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 6, 2019 by Gromnir

 

 

Casters in DnD feel great imo, they start off weak, but their power progression is impactful, taking the time to cast a spell almost never goes to waste (even if a ST succeds) and they are much different mechanically than other classes. I don't see why we can't have this here.

 

Ehhh that depends. For example in 5th edition casters are mostly buff and debuff bots, while in 2nd edition they used to be gods.

 

 

 

Spells shouldn't go through the same attack resolution in the first place. There should be a differentiation from normal attacks. Here, spells feel like cheap parlor tricks or colorful aoe attacks which are limited and when you expend them all you are left with is a squishy, useless character.

 

 

a nonsense solution to an imaginary problem.  am admitting there is a whole list o' poe/deadfire problems, but caster accuracy is not one o' 'em.  early during the beta there were indeed a problem with spell penetration, but such were addressed.  beta spells were consistent ineffective 'cause o' insufficient penetration. however, if you cannot generate caster accuracy, am curious what in the heck you are doing.  aloth is typical one o' our high-damage companions regardless o' party composition and am only ever playing potd.  the elf wizard is even more valuable with debuffs and cc.... effects which use same maths as damage spells. furthermore, the solution o' creating a complete separate mechanic for casters to address the s'posed paucity o' caster accuracy makes even less sense.  if the problem were caster accuracy, then obvious solution would be a buff to caster accuracy.  create seperate mechanic which would obvious cause more bug opportunities and make multiclassing more problematic, is... pointless.  other than a slavish devotion to d&d norms, am seeing no reason for inserting a separate mechanic for spells.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

You can dismiss any problem as nonsense or imaginary because it's not yours, it's the easiest thing to do. However I do not enjoy using casters only as limited utility bots (which are not even reliable or worth in most occasions). Maybe as you said, DnD has spoiled me since no matter how I see it, both theoretically and practically, "DnD norms" just seem to be more enjoyable for me and I can't help that I don't enjoy how casters work in this game. 

 

What is this hyperbole about a whole new different system? A small differentiation will suffice, like changing how attributes affect casters, or making spells just go through a different attack resolution, or even having accuracy affect spells in a different way for example, would all be simpler solutions. And don't tell me about streamlining, user-friendliness or "intuitiveness" - this is not a mobile game and I think we can handle some extra complexity.

 

In the case where this system had only one kind of armor, would you again say, "why add more kinds of armor it doesn't make sense"? The answer is variety - the same applies for attack resolution. In the same way that a normal attack being reduced by armor, should not use the same mechanics as a fire attack being reduced by the same kind of armor, magical incorporeal aoe spells should not use the same accuracy that is used for mundane attacks. The fact that their completely unreliable, long-casting spells are limited only adds insult to the injury. 

Edited January 6, 2019 by Bleak

So if I understand correctly, the major complaint Bleak has about the magic system in PoE is that magic should feel important. That every cast should do something with a measurable impact and never have a chance to just miss. See, to me that makes casters more important than martial classes. Casters would have a built in guarantee that they will be effective, whereas martial classes would have to be built around being effective and closing up their limitations. My first question under that line of thinking would be "Other than a tank why would I ever want to take a martial class over a caster?"

 

Guaranteed accuracy and all or nothing defense rolls are fine in a PnP setting. The DM (ideally) is there to ensure that even if the dice send things off the rails they can still bring things back on track and let the players have a good experience. The DM also ensures that the players don't have the option to just rest after every fight, forcing casters to ration out their resources. In a video game though, where a mindless computer is running things? I just feels swingy and unbalanced. There were lots of situations in the BG games where a single saving throw meant I might as well reload my save because I was going to lose. It also made me feel like if I wasn't resting often I was just wasting potential. Regardless of whether I liked all of that, I'd be an idiot to not have casters because of how stupidly powerful they became over martial classes.

 

Personally I like that casters are not inherently better than more mundane options. I like that they need to actually aim things just like the rest of us mortals. I like that magic is just one flavor for dealing with the game's challenges. I especially like that I'm not penalized if I choose to say **** it, magic can go to hell, all martial party here I come!

 

Obsidian's focus in this series seems to have been on trying to make everything viable without any choice overshadowing another. It's a hard line to balance, and they could still tweak it in places. In the end I think it's a much better goal than sticking with tradition.

 

I have to question if casters are truly as weak as you make them out to be Bleak. Honestly my first instinct is a bit of confirmation bias combined with a resistance to shoring up the character's accuracy needs. Yeah, PotD is hard with tons of inflated defenses. If you're having a single character debuff defenses and cast nukes in a party setting I don't see that as a good use of party synergy.

 

If you're trying to play solo, well solo reinforces cheese tactics because it's not the way the devs intend for the game to be played. They don't take away the option for it, but they aren't balancing the game around it either.

am dismissing as "imaginary" 'cause it is not gromnir's experience using even mediocre built aloth on potd.  am dismissing as imaginary 'cause almost nobody save you is having same problem.  am dismissing as imaginary 'cause when developers speak o' frustrations o' players via twitch and message board feedback, of all the possible stuff which comes up, caster accuracy is not one.  has been noted via multiple asides in twitches how developers feel play w/o a wizard is a kinda self handicapping... is a way to make playthrough a bit tougher.  am not gonna simple cave to popular feedback on issues particular as this board is less than representative o' the average deadfire gamer, but if pretty much everybody posting shares an opinion, then we gotta at least consider the possibility o' a general feels argument with much support.  add on developer and our own extensive personal experience, and am further inclined to recognize your observation for what it is: imaginary.  

 

as an aside, we will note how given developer changes and our own increased meta knowledge, we have been able to get companions other than aloth to produce near equal big damage numbers as the wizard.  maia example, were initial a bit o' a disappointment for us when we played deadfire.  for a dps character, she weren't doing fantastic dps.  obsidian altered the ranger class post release and we discovered perfect gear loadouts to make her more effective so now she is doing fantastic damage, but am still using aloth as kinda a benchmark for efficacy.  heck, have found our self underutilizing aloth empowers as it feels like overkill in most encounters. even so, with meta knowledge, aloth has stood out less from the rest o' the companions insofar as efficacy is concerned, which am s'possing is actual unfair to aloth.  haven't spent near as much effort attempting to optimize a pure deadfire arcane caster as such seems like kinda a default setting.  

 

"What I despise most in the PoE system is that spells go through the same resolution as attacks do."

 

change basic maths all characters current use is indeed creating a new system. you are clear calling for more than a simple buff and have pointed to the d&d system as a example o' such done right. 

 

so, give an actual example o' a new attack resolution for casters, and be specific so we may see how easy such would be to add to deadfire.  if is difficult to imagine easy, then is probable not easy.  if the problem were low level casting accuracy for wizards, would be ez to imagine adding an inherent accuracy buff to low-level spells and/or low-level casters. specific buff numbers would be subject to argument (and is indeed wholly unnecessary) but figure out how to implement a flat accuracy buff to casters and or specific spells would not require much mental gymnastics.  so, do similar and be specific with your call for alternative attack resolution.  show us how we were being hyperbolic with a concrete example which would not be difficult to implement and would not muck up multiclass. 

 

will wait.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am not understanding your armour example.  in deadfire, adding an integrated and secondary armour mechanic is what many in this thread is complaining 'bout.  penetration.  poe dr were complained 'bout by enough fans such that obsidian made a change, but instead o' making a change to dr, obsidian instead added the penetration mechanic which, particular in the beta, had potential to largely nullify weapon or spell damage.  buffing accuracy had negligible impact on penetration and there were exceeding few deadfire options for increasing penetration or decreasing armour. now admitted, penetration is indeed integrated into deadfire attack resolutions, and is modified by crits and grazes... although grazes were exceeding rare in initial deadfire release, seeming only available through specific talents or through a singular priestly spell. 

 

yeah, am actual stretching to make penetration into a genuine separate mechanic, but such is illustrative o' just how difficult your task in coming up with a seperate caster mechanic will be. penetration were an initial bust and has taken substantial efforts by developers to make it less bad. so, is now your turn-- come up with genuine unique, insular and discrete mechanic for casting which avoids problems with multiclassing and is better than were obsidian penetration efforts and nevertheless still works w/i deadfire overall system.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Gromnir

create seperate mechanic which would obvious cause more bug opportunities and make multiclassing more problematic, is... pointless.  other than a slavish devotion to d&d norms, am seeing no reason for inserting a separate mechanic for spells.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Maybe unifying spells and attacks shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Diablo 3 did push magic closer to weapons - Want to cast powerful spells? Equip a huge weapon!

Path of Exile didn't. Path of Exile defeated Diablo 3.

Perhaps bringing magic and weapons closer isn't the way to go.

 

create seperate mechanic which would obvious cause more bug opportunities and make multiclassing more problematic, is... pointless.  other than a slavish devotion to d&d norms, am seeing no reason for inserting a separate mechanic for spells.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Maybe unifying spells and attacks shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Diablo 3 did push magic closer to weapons - Want to cast powerful spells? Equip a huge weapon!

Path of Exile didn't. Path of Exile defeated Diablo 3.

Perhaps bringing magic and weapons closer isn't the way to go.

 

Path defeated Diablo 3? In what way? Cause I have my doubts that Path made more money, which is the only metric that ultimately matters.

 

create seperate mechanic which would obvious cause more bug opportunities and make multiclassing more problematic, is... pointless.  other than a slavish devotion to d&d norms, am seeing no reason for inserting a separate mechanic for spells.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Maybe unifying spells and attacks shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Diablo 3 did push magic closer to weapons - Want to cast powerful spells? Equip a huge weapon!

Path of Exile didn't. Path of Exile defeated Diablo 3.

Perhaps bringing magic and weapons closer isn't the way to go.

 

you might be correct.  'cause less intuitive, straightforward and simple is always a good starting point.

 

wait, that doesn't make sense, does it?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Not even sure what hamster wheel genre has to do with discussion tbh. might as well relate differences in caster mechanics to differences between street fighter and mortal kombat.

 

That angle would be novel at least.

 

 

create seperate mechanic which would obvious cause more bug opportunities and make multiclassing more problematic, is... pointless.  other than a slavish devotion to d&d norms, am seeing no reason for inserting a separate mechanic for spells.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Maybe unifying spells and attacks shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Diablo 3 did push magic closer to weapons - Want to cast powerful spells? Equip a huge weapon!

Path of Exile didn't. Path of Exile defeated Diablo 3.

Perhaps bringing magic and weapons closer isn't the way to go.

 

Path defeated Diablo 3? In what way? Cause I have my doubts that Path made more money, which is the only metric that ultimately matters.

 

It's a better game of that type. I imagine some people like, i dunno, players, care about that.

Not even sure what hamster wheel genre has to do with discussion tbh. might as well relate differences in caster mechanics to differences between street fighter and mortal kombat.

 

That angle would be novel at least.

 

such comparisons from limited and arguably unrelated games is also a hasty generalization/false analogy fail.

 

*shrug*

 

the thing is, you are always gonna run up against ie/ad&d fans.  get folks to understand how is possible to like ie/ad&d in spite o' mechanics is almost impossible.  

 

HA! Good Fun!