Dev Feedback Needs: Improving Class Advancement/Improving Class Features

[swordofthesith]

Hi BBs! 

 

Hat tip for Josh for always coming to the Beta Backer forum first with the important details about the development of PoE. We know where his loyalties lie. 

 

He provided us with a great list of stuff that he and the rest of the team are hoping to work on over the coming months and I figured we could try and put our collective thinkmeats together for the greater good of PoE! Here are two items at the top of his list currently:

 

 

1) Improving Class Advancement

 

* Restructuring class advancement to allow more options, both within the selection of core class Abilities and through the (many) Talents that we implemented based on backer feedback.

 

2) Improving Class Features

 

* Modifying some class features to be more transparent or just fundamentally work better.  Monk wounds (and many of their abilities) were very confusing previously.  We've revised them to make what's happening much clearer and easier to use.

 

 

So, gurus of Eternity, how would you go about improving class advancement and class features? Let's get the team the kind of feedback they need!  

 

- Dork Sith

Edited October 6, 2014 by swordofthesith

[IndiraLightfoot]

Well, this is perhaps asking for too much, but I know plenty of people have asked for something similar, so here goes:

 

A number of classes need to have some multi-fork (often dual) already at level one, where they get to pick one branch or the other.

Here are a few rough suggestions.

 

Rogue == Assassin (like it's atm) OR Thief/Scoundrel (more social, more skill-monkey)

Druid == Shapeshifter (like it's atm) OR Plant Bender OR Animal Summoner

Fighter == Melee Tank (like it's atm) OR Marksman

Ranger == Ranged Specialist with Spirit Animal (like it's atm) OR Dual-Wielding Blade Specialist with no Spirit Animal

 

Then they get to pick from talent pools with passive and active abilities every level, some related to the class, and others to the class-sub-branch picked at level 1, perhaps this can shift every other level?

[swordofthesith]

Well, this is perhaps asking for too much, but I know plenty of people have asked for something similar, so here goes:

 

A number of classes need to have some multi-fork (often dual) already at level one, where they get to pick one branch or the other.

Here are a few rough suggestions.

 

Rogue == Assassin (like it's atm) OR Thief/Scoundrel (more social, more skill-monkey)

Druid == Shapeshifter (like it's atm) OR Plant Bender OR Animal Summoner

Fighter == Melee Tank (like it's atm) OR Marksman

Ranger == Ranged Specialist with Spirit Animal (like it's atm) OR Dual-Wielding Blade Specialist with no Spirit Animal

 

Then they get to pick from talent pools with passive and active abilities every level, some related to the class, and others to the class-sub-branch picked at level 1, perhaps this can shift every other level?

 

Hey Indira! Great suggestion. I think it would be excellent if the Dev team could sit down and map out multi-fork development specializations for all the classes. Given the amount of classes already in-game, the easiest thing to do would be to gift the specialization with boosts to derived attributes and select talents and gift the character with a free specialization talent every 4 or 5 levels. 

 

Would you recommend that classes receive both a core class talent AND a specialization talent - or one or the other Indira?

Edited October 6, 2014 by swordofthesith

[IndiraLightfoot]

I believe many people expect the classes in PoE to be much more flexible and varied within each class than how they have appeared in the beta, and I'm pretty sure that Josh is well aware of this and he wants to rectify it.

 

They expect this because:

-In the IE games, especially for characters at low and mid level, you built your fighter or your cleric as you saw fit, via slots, with a few weapon proficiencies, and more importantly, using the weighty attributes (which PoE sorely lacks), you could end up with quite different fighters and clerics. I have played BG1 so many times, and I have indeed made for instance an entire party out of fighters. And each fighter got a distinct role and competence. That's pretty impressive. And let me say this: It was an easy party to play compared to a party of all mages.

-People want their characters to feel unique, and I am a firm believer in attributes being an important factor. For instance, in WL 2, I love that the attributes are that important.

-In the IE games, you could multi-class. With this feature gone in PoE, it's even more important to have a few multi-forks at level 1 for the classes

-Also, with IWD2, you had D&D 3.0, and also in NWN1, and later D&D 3.5 and NWN2, and all of that set a new standard. Making a character was almost an entire game itself. I absolutely adore 3.5 for that. So, NWN2 offered so much replayability that it's ridiculous.

 

Unfortunately, from those classes I have levelled from 5 to 8 - and thanks to testers like Mutonizer, I have seen the level progression from level 5 to 12 - I can tell, the PoE classes have nothing on the freedom described above, neither in AD&D nor in 3.0/3.5, in fact, not even close. Very few things happen, and when they do, it doesn't feel varied and significant enough for an endless replay value (high standards, I know, but I want PoE to deliver that. WL2 can, so why not PoE?)

 

Without multi-classing, and sadly without attributes that matter much, multi-forking for classes and heaps and heaps of talents and feats are the only remedies I can see for a decent class development in PoE right now.

[swordofthesith]

Without multi-classing, and sadly without attributes that matter much, multi-forking for classes and heaps and heaps of talents and feats are the only remedies I can see for a decent class development in PoE right now.

 

Bang on. Josh has been pretty open about need additional ideas for class talents from us Testers. I think we need to re-double our efforts with that kind of feedback. 

[Doppelschwert]

Well, this is perhaps asking for too much, but I know plenty of people have asked for something similar, so here goes:

 

A number of classes need to have some multi-fork (often dual) already at level one, where they get to pick one branch or the other.

Here are a few rough suggestions.

 

Rogue == Assassin (like it's atm) OR Thief/Scoundrel (more social, more skill-monkey)

Druid == Shapeshifter (like it's atm) OR Plant Bender OR Animal Summoner

Fighter == Melee Tank (like it's atm) OR Marksman

Ranger == Ranged Specialist with Spirit Animal (like it's atm) OR Dual-Wielding Blade Specialist with no Spirit Animal

 

Then they get to pick from talent pools with passive and active abilities every level, some related to the class, and others to the class-sub-branch picked at level 1, perhaps this can shift every other level?

 

So you're basically asking for 22 classes instead of 11 and a lot of stuff from DnD, totally ignoring the design intent in the process as always. *sigh*

 

I believe many people expect the classes in PoE to be much more flexible and varied within each class than how they have appeared in the beta, and I'm pretty sure that Josh is well aware of this and he wants to rectify it.

 

They expect this because:

-In the IE games, especially for characters at low and mid level, you built your fighter or your cleric as you saw fit, via slots, with a few weapon proficiencies, and more importantly, using the weighty attributes (which PoE sorely lacks), you could end up with quite different fighters and clerics. I have played BG1 so many times, and I have indeed made for instance an entire party out of fighters. And each fighter got a distinct role and competence. That's pretty impressive. And let me say this: It was an easy party to play compared to a party of all mages.

 

Let me guess, every fighter had a different weapon and their stat allocation were not equally optimized? I'm sure it feels very distinct to hit baddies with different weapons and that is something PoE can never achieve at this very moment. Seriously?

 

For one time, I'd like to see one of these threads give actual useful feedback that respects the design intent instead of going all like: 'Make me some more DnD'.

 

I think what they'd want to hear is the design of actual talents with a clear vision of how they are supposed to make a class more viable in a new situation it wasn't before, without it stealing the role of another class.

 

For example, you could give the monk an ability that converts wounds into healing for everyone around him except himself, attenuating the necessity of a priest. Or, which has already been mentioned, giving the monk a taunt-like ability to make his class ability work better.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Doppelschwert

[swordofthesith]

 

I think what they'd want to hear is the design of actual talents with a clear vision of how they are supposed to make a class more viable in a new situation it wasn't before, without it stealing the role of another class.

 

For example, you could give the monk an ability that converts wounds into healing for everyone around him except himself, attenuating the necessity of a priest. Or, which has already been mentioned, giving the monk a taunt-like ability to make his class ability work better.

 

 

That is also a good suggestion. But it would still be helpful to map out the talent sets through an imagined class specialization, otherwise it will be a complete mess of random abilities that don't do much to expand play options with the class. 

[IndiraLightfoot]

Doppelschwert: Like it or not, the IE games were based on versions of D&D. PoE has all the way been in the spiritual successor of these, from the KS promo video, to basically all texts Josh have ever written on PoE. So, I do respect the design intent. In fact, Pillars of Eternity even uses the concept "IE games" in its tutorial texts at the very beginning, for instance when you make a new game and pick difficulty. Pick Hard, and it says "This difficulty is suited for IE games veterans who want a challenge".

 

And no, I don't suggest new classes. Perhaps you reckon a fighter that gets to specialize with a bow as a new class, I don't. Nor do I see a ranger wielding two short swords as a new class, or a druid specializing in summoning animals. This has nothing to do with D&D. I'm also asking, like lots of other people, for a bit of wiggle-room in each and every class. There is almost more in-class variety in the new Gauntlet game for heaven's sake!

 

And another no, this time, on making a number of fighters in BG1. They got different weapon styles, but more importantly, I could vary the attributes and get something different RPG-wise and combat-wise, even dual-class them. And BG:EE's class kits (from BG2), made them almost like different classes, but still they were not.

 

Having said all this, I do agree with you that we need to come up with new and cool talents as well, and your suggestion sounds mighty darn fine.

[Azrael Ultima]

Doppelschwert: Like it or not, the IE games were based on versions of D&D. PoE has all the way been in the spiritual successor of these

That is correct. And doesn't help you one bit. PoE is a spiritual successor to the IE games, not the D&D rule system.

It's quite clearly not intended to be a carbon copy of the mechanics, as evidenced by the fact that they work pretty much completely different.

 

A ranger without a pet would be rather different a class. He'd basically be a fighter.

[archangel979]

Well, this is perhaps asking for too much, but I know plenty of people have asked for something similar, so here goes:

 

A number of classes need to have some multi-fork (often dual) already at level one, where they get to pick one branch or the other.

Here are a few rough suggestions.

 

Rogue == Assassin (like it's atm) OR Thief/Scoundrel (more social, more skill-monkey)

Druid == Shapeshifter (like it's atm) OR Plant Bender OR Animal Summoner

Fighter == Melee Tank (like it's atm) OR Marksman

Ranger == Ranged Specialist with Spirit Animal (like it's atm) OR Dual-Wielding Blade Specialist with no Spirit Animal

 

Then they get to pick from talent pools with passive and active abilities every level, some related to the class, and others to the class-sub-branch picked at level 1, perhaps this can shift every other level?

I don't agree with melee ranger without animal. How will I make my Drizzt?

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Doppelschwert: Like it or not, the IE games were based on versions of D&D. PoE has all the way been in the spiritual successor of these

That is correct. And doesn't help you one bit. PoE is a spiritual successor to the IE games, not the D&D rule system.

It's quite clearly not intended to be a carbon copy of the mechanics, as evidenced by the fact that they work pretty much completely different.

 

A ranger without a pet would be rather different a class. He'd basically be a fighter.

 

Heh! You misunderstand me. I'm just comparing the superior class variety those pc-game-adapted versions of D&D gave us as players, nothing more. Although I do really like D&D, each of its iterations had plenty of problems, faults and absurdities. The goal for PoE is to surpass that IMHO, since it was designed as a CRPG from scratch.

 

But one thing you are entirely correct about: It was wrong of me to remove the ranger's spirit animal from that dual-wielding branch. It should of course remain.

[Doppelschwert]

Doppelschwert: Like it or not, the IE games were based on versions of D&D. PoE has all the way been in the spiritual successor of these, from the KS promo video, to basically all texts Josh have ever written on PoE. So, I do respect the design intent. In fact, Pillars of Eternity even uses the concept "IE games" in its tutorial texts at the very beginning, for instance when you make a new game and pick difficulty. Pick Hard, and it says "This difficulty is suited for IE games veterans who want a challenge".

 

And no, I don't suggest new classes. Perhaps you reckon a fighter that gets to specialize with a bow as a new class, I don't. Nor do I see a ranger wielding two short swords as a new class, or a druid specializing in summoning animals. This has nothing to do with D&D. I'm also asking, like lots of other people, for a bit of wiggle-room in each and every class. There is almost more in-class variety in the new Gauntlet game for heaven's sake!

 

And another no, this time, on making a number of fighters in BG1. They got different weapon styles, but more importantly, I could vary the attributes and get something different RPG-wise and combat-wise, even dual-class them. And BG:EE's class kits (from BG2), made them almost like different classes, but still they were not.

 

Having said all this, I do agree with you that we need to come up with new and cool talents as well, and your suggestion sounds mighty darn fine.

 

I'm fine with DnD. Still, by suggesting to make the rogue a skill monkey, you are making exactly what I said you were:

Disregarding design intent and wanting more DnD. There are no skill monkeys in PoE, as combat and noncombat skills are separate and every class gets the same amount of the latter. This being your first example, it may have been wrong to understand the other suggestions the same way, but the context would be there.

 

I'm also asking for more wiggle room in classes, don't get me wrong. You said characters should choose one exclusive skill tree to go down, but this has an issue IMHO:

 

Skilltrees should be balanced against each other -> you basically have to treat every skill tree as a separate class -> 22 classes

 

Otherwise, if one skilltree is just better, why have the other one at all.

 

In particular, why do we need to restrict this? Just don't make the talents exclusive and let them combo into each other. More freedom, more builds and actual easier to balance, as you only need to balance single talents against each other, not sets of them.

 

 

Regarding your fighter party:

I would hardly qualify what you describe as a all fighter party if they are multiclassed or using kits from BG2, as your initial argument was about BG1 in the same level range. For the rest, that is, fighters from vanilla BG1, you are actually confirming what I said: They only differed in weapons and amount of optimization in stat distribution, as you can easily dump all stats but strength, constitution and dexterity. If anything, BG1 vanillla should be the point of comparison for PoE, not some modded game that had several iterations. You can compare that to PoE2 or something along those lines.

 

I probably come off harsher as I intend to, but I think it's important to focus on giving feedback that is actually applicable to the game.

 

Regarding the topic, it would be nice if there were some general talents concerning more efficient uses of traps in order to specialize in ambush style kind of fighting.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Doppelschwert: No worries, mate! You make some good points. My using "skill monkey" was unfortunate. I just wanted to give a picture of a less-combat oriented Rogue. This may sound absurd, but I actually do roleplay my party members in a CRPG, and often I gimp them a bit or even roll up WIS, INT or CHA heavy fighters in BG, for instance. For me, it's an important aspect of a good CRPG (I am a pretty old PnP D&D:er at heart, that's why). So even with self-made parties (using no companions), I roleplay them all through the game.

Here's my doing it by the way:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68266-bgee-indira-lightfoot-and-her-bad-band/

 

And yes, I am that crazy.

 

So, that's why I describe them as varied. The same goes for youngsters claiming that D&D was imbalanced etc. No, much less than you think, in P&P, that is. However, in a computer RPG format, it became slightly bonkers.

 

Back to your suggestions:

I agree with you on the dual-fork skill tree criticism. It would perhaps be too class-like locking it all in with two branches on a skill tree. Your suggestion sounds better.

[Azrael Ultima]

Heh! You misunderstand me. I'm just comparing the superior class variety those pc-game-adapted versions of D&D gave us as players, nothing more. Although I do really like D&D, each of its iterations had plenty of problems, faults and absurdities. The goal for PoE is to surpass that IMHO, since it was designed as a CRPG from scratch.

Not really a fair comparison. D&D was decades old already when the IE games were released. This is a completely new system. They already have a quite daunting class variety for that.

 

Let them get their feet on the ground first.

[morhilane]

I don't think any of the classes need a major rework.  Also, I think that the class specialization should be kept over any kind of flexibility, a Ranger should always keep his pet and be primarily a ranged class we got enough melee-oriented class has is. Or a Wizard shouldn't become a summoner because some people can't stand the word Druid or Chanter on their character sheet.

 

Classes

 

Clerics are now just healbots in v301: AoE size reduction made their support spells too costly to use and they have really low health value making them backline casters. Also, level two spell list has 3 spells that restore endurance, that's a bit much. Although, the main reason they are healbot is because between level 1 and 5 they are the only class with any healing spells (beside Paladins getting one Lay On Hand). In previous beta, they were still healbot, but you didn't feel like you wasted a per-rest spells because it would affect everyone (less or more).

 

The other "Leader" is the Chanter, which do no get a single healing chant/invocation despite being "Leaders". They only get Ancient Memories that heals a very small amount once in a while. They can pad in for a Cleric in term of buff, but not healing.

 

The Druids can be played has melee (shapeshifting) or has mid/melee-range casters and their spell list isn't that bad (although low on buff, but there is plenty of buff among the other classes so it's probably by design). Their first heal spell is a level 3 spell, they cannot replace a Cleric in that duty in the early level of the game (although, I'm not requesting them to be able to do so).

 

Fighter, Paladin and Barbarian, with the merging of base accuracy, mostly just need talents to specialize in ranged or melee weaponry (it doesn't need to be a class ability from my point-of-view). Basically, Savage Attacks need a ranged counterpart. Some of the Ranger class abilities should probably be universal talent: Swift Aim/Vicious Aim. Fighter's are probably getting too many defensive abilities though.

 

Wizard, I need to play a self-made one. I do know that BB Wizard's grimoire sucks for the type of Wizard I usually make, but the full spell list seems to have the spells I seek. Also, rod/scepter/wand do pitiful damage, but I guess they are the throwing dart/sling of PoE. Beside that they do have flexibility in term of melee, ranged and AoE spells selection, along with a few self-buff spells.

 

Ciphers need a visual effect for the whip, you have to check the focus pool to know if it's working or not. Right now it's quite a debuff/damage oriented class, it might need more "spell" like Psychovampiric Shield where they steal something from a target and give themselves a buff in the process (or give an ally a buff, used like Soul Shock which result in a buff on the ally while debuffing the nearby enemies).

 

Rangers are kind of the opposite of the Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian, but there is already talent to improve melee. They mostly need their bug/balance fixed. Also, maybe alter receiving the ranger's abilities and the pet's related abilities, right now the class seems to get most ranger's ability first and the pet stuff at "end-game" (unless these were removed).

 

Rogues were much improved with v301. They can be scout, heavy hitters (melee and ranged),  get CCed and the best mechanic around...and all that at the same time.

 

Something more generic

 

Differentiation of spells between beneficial and harmful. The IE games color-coded their spells icons: blues = beneficial , red = harmful, white=utility. For example, Cleric's spell list contains many harmful spells, you just don't know that without reading all the spell descriptions. The color-coding is makes spell selection faster (well until you know all of them by heart at least).

 

There is a lack of "suppress/suspend" status affects spread around the classes. This is another case where you need a Priest in the party. The Druid and Chanter can remove only a subset each. Paladin can suspend for a time, but not remove them. The Monk has a seflfy.

[rjshae]

The one I have a concern about is the dual-wielding specialist for Ranger. I don't see a plausible reason why a Ranger would choose this path since it relies on having plenty of open space; try flailing a pair of scimitars around in the woods and see how soon it takes you to get entangled.

 

To me a Ranger should be better at maneuvering around obstacles and taking advantage of terrain. They would use thrusting weapons like a spear, or short weapons with smaller arcs. As long as they are using suitable weapons, I'd give them a speed and deflection bonus while fighting in the wilds.

[IndiraLightfoot]

rjshae: I never thought about it like that, almost realistical, and your suggestions makes sense. I just went with some stereotypical thing (which doesn't make sense), so short weapons it is, or perhaps a spear.

[AlekzanderZ]

Here the way I would like to see it for every classes.

 

Level 1 Select a martial art background. Select a level 1 class ability from a small pool.

 

Level 2 Select a level 1 class ability from the same pool.

 

Level 3 Select a Talent.

 

Level 4 Select a level 2 class ability from a pool. ( level 1 abilites are no more accessible)

 

Level 5 Select a level 2 class ability.

 

Level 6 Select a talent.

 

...

 

In every ability pool there's some passive/active offensive/defensive abilities. It give the possibilty for a low maintenance character and some defensive/offensive directions.

 

Talents are general but strong advantages that reinforce even more the direction you want to give to your character.

[archangel979]

The one I have a concern about is the dual-wielding specialist for Ranger. I don't see a plausible reason why a Ranger would choose this path since it relies on having plenty of open space; try flailing a pair of scimitars around in the woods and see how soon it takes you to get entangled.

 

To me a Ranger should be better at maneuvering around obstacles and taking advantage of terrain. They would use thrusting weapons like a spear, or short weapons with smaller arcs. As long as they are using suitable weapons, I'd give them a speed and deflection bonus while fighting in the wilds.

Scimitars are only a signature weapon of one fantasy Ranger. Normal dual weapon wielding uses short weapons like you said. And they don't flail around, it is a fighting style no better or worse than others. It has advantages and penalties, but fighting in tight spaces is not one of its penalties.

[gkathellar]

Ranger == Ranged Specialist with Spirit Animal (like it's atm) OR Dual-Wielding Blade Specialist with no Spirit Animal

 

No, no, just ... just no. I know it's tradition, but I am so, so tired of that tradition. A ranger is a guy who roams across the wilderness. There is nothing linking that archetype to fighting with paired blades, other than giving players a way to play the Drizzit (and that wasn't even related to his being a ranger! 1E drow were all ambidextrous!). You want a ranger? This is a ranger. These are some rangers. And you know what, fine, this can be a ranger too; but he fights with a blade in each hand because he got a racial feature or spent some feats or whatever, not because he's a ranger.

 

/nerdrage

Edited October 6, 2014 by gkathellar

[IndiraLightfoot]

gkathellar: Just because I suggested stuff that others had asked for doesn't mean that I like it. I love rangers, but have nearly never played a dual-wielding one. Also, I don't like Drow at all, let alone Drizzt. I really love your rangers, so I'll join you in your nerdrage!  

[archangel979]

 

Ranger == Ranged Specialist with Spirit Animal (like it's atm) OR Dual-Wielding Blade Specialist with no Spirit Animal

 

No, no, just ... just no. I know it's tradition, but I am so, so tired of that tradition. A ranger is a guy who roams across the wilderness. There is nothing linking that archetype to fighting with paired blades, other than giving players a way to play the Drizzit (and that wasn't even related to his being a ranger! 1E drow were all ambidextrous!). You want a ranger? This is a ranger. These are some rangers. And you know what, fine, this can be a ranger too; but he fights with a blade in each hand because he got a racial feature or spent some feats or whatever, not because he's a ranger.

 

/nerdrage

 

From your examples only Aragorn is one true Ranger. And D&D rangers were based on him. He is not a ranged weapon specialist. 

Later dual wielding rangers become popular and then it became part of their base design. 

For a game that is a spiritual successor to IE games where all 4 combat ones had dual weapon rangers, there is nothing wrong in asking for a dual weapon rangers. The focus around animal companion is already a unique twist on the classic archetype, no need to remove dual wielding "just because". 

[Doppelschwert]

 

Ranger == Ranged Specialist with Spirit Animal (like it's atm) OR Dual-Wielding Blade Specialist with no Spirit Animal

 

No, no, just ... just no. I know it's tradition, but I am so, so tired of that tradition. A ranger is a guy who roams across the wilderness. There is nothing linking that archetype to fighting with paired blades, other than giving players a way to play the Drizzit (and that wasn't even related to his being a ranger! 1E drow were all ambidextrous!). You want a ranger? This is a ranger. These are some rangers. And you know what, fine, this can be a ranger too; but he fights with a blade in each hand because he got a racial feature or spent some feats or whatever, not because he's a ranger.

 

/nerdrage

 

 

I expected the power rangers among one of these links, am disappointed now.

 

On topic:

I don't feel like there need to be special benefits for certain weapon styles on a class, as they already have certain advantages/disadvantages encoded in the general mechanics (attack speed, absolute damage, accuracy and deflection).

In particular, if you wanted to make someone better at a certain weapon style, you might as well provide it as a general talent so that every class has the opportunity. (I see the distinction between ranged and melee as something different in this context, as you can still choose your weapon in each category).

 

A nice talent for rangers would probably be a talent that shifts vulnerability between pet and ranger, that is, the ranger could receive X % more damage while the pet receives X % less damage during some short time given that they share the same effective health, it would be a good way to reduce damage. It's not necessary with the AI at the moment but alternatively, one could imagine some similiar effect to damage or accuracy.

[forgottenlor]

Well, this is perhaps asking for too much, but I know plenty of people have asked for something similar, so here goes:

 

A number of classes need to have some multi-fork (often dual) already at level one, where they get to pick one branch or the other.

Here are a few rough suggestions.

 

Rogue == Assassin (like it's atm) OR Thief/Scoundrel (more social, more skill-monkey)

Druid == Shapeshifter (like it's atm) OR Plant Bender OR Animal Summoner

Fighter == Melee Tank (like it's atm) OR Marksman

Ranger == Ranged Specialist with Spirit Animal (like it's atm) OR Dual-Wielding Blade Specialist with no Spirit Animal

 

Then they get to pick from talent pools with passive and active abilities every level, some related to the class, and others to the class-sub-branch picked at level 1, perhaps this can shift every other level?

 

Why should classes branch? Why shouldn't there simply be more talents which allow development along a certain line? For example a marksmen branch of say 4-5 talents that build up ranged weapons that any class can take. Why can't I build a marksman chanter, for example, if I really want, if I dish out all my talents for ranged combat? Or for that matter a skill monkey branch. Why can't I get bonuses to all skills, or an extra skill for my fighter, if I really want them to be a jack of all trades?, or why couldn't a group of talents that strengthen summons for any class (that has access to summons)? That would be preferable in my eyes than branching each class into two paths.

Edited October 6, 2014 by forgottenlor

[IndiraLightfoot]

Personally, I agree with you. That would make for even more unique builds.