I think you made a mistake with 1.05 concerning Cipher focus

[MadDemiurg]

 

Since BG2? Never played BG1 so not sure about that one. The only D&D edition where casters are not overpowered is the 4th (which would make a pretty solid cRPG foundation tbh, with all classes having their at will, per encounter and per rest abilities).

 

As an aside, I find the fact that we never got a proper turn-based CRPG with the 4e system (and probably never will at this rate) to be one of the biggest missed opportunities in CRPGs.

 

Slightly more on topic, maybe the changes to Cipher focus will make the focus-boosting amulets slightly more attractive options. Has anyone found a guaranteed spot to pick up a Talisman of the Unconquerable?

 

Yeah, it's probably the most cRPG friendly edition as well.

 

 

 

The only D&D edition where casters are not overpowered is the 4th (which would make a pretty solid cRPG foundation tbh, with all classes having their at will, per encounter and per rest abilities).

 

Which is why there was much said about Balance Man's supposed fondness for 4e during the backer beta, and how that system had more influence on PoE's design than something atrocious like BG2's 2e.

The end result looks noting like 4e though.

Edited May 6, 2015 by MadDemiurg

[MadDemiurg]

Ciphers are actually stronger than casters for most of the game.

 

If you mean "ciphers can do more in trash encounters that doesn't really matter in the first place since you can beat them with little to no health lost" then yes.

[Zwiebelchen]

The cipher nerfs to focus gain and starting focus were necessary.

 

 

Currently, a cipher can mental-bind 3 enemies right at the beginning of each battle, fire a blunderbuss for a giant focus boost, then rush in and nail one of the mental-binding enemies with dual-wield stilettos, gaining focus to apply another round of mental binding faster than the debuff runs out. You know that a class is broken when you can stunlock multiple enemies endlessly...

 

The way focus gain works currently is absolutely lopsided towards fast weapons and multi-hit attacks. 1.05 will push it into the right direction, basing focus gain on damage dealt, not damage events. At least now all weapons are equally viable. I'd still assume fast weapons are better for focus gain (simply because I assume that all damage events will be rounded up so that you always gain at least 1 focus per attack, regardless of damage), but things definitely get better.

 

 

I don't see how halved starting focus would make ciphers any weaker in early game. It just prevents you from immediately stunlocking everything before the battle even started.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Zwiebelchen

[abaris]

Could it be that the Cypher nerf has been rolled back or is it a bug? Suddenly my cypher's startout focus rose by ten points without doing anything.

[grasida]

I think the talent that used to increase max focus now applies to starting focus. I didn't take it myself, but that's what I've read.

 

Fast weapons will always have some advantage over slow weapons for ciphers, at least once you can hit through DR reasonably well, not because of the quantity of focus gain, but rather because of the granularity. Gaining focus in small amounts at a time quickly is inherently better than getting a lot at once slowly for the reason that fine grained gains allow you to cast as soon as you have enough for the power you want. With a slow weapon, you overshoot what you need, and then have to wait for the long recovery time to expire before you get to cast. In the end you might have more total focus gained, but you'll probably have fewer spells cast. Even if your estoc only costs you two "wasted" seconds compared to dual wield, two seconds is a lot of time in this game.

[knownastherat]

The caster nerfings will continue until morale balance has improved. Er, except for the Wiz overbuff, presumably that will be tweaked eventually.

 

Solo achievements and "challenge modes" are JSaw's way to get dedicated cheesers to find anomalies in the game for him, so he can quash them over time. It's working splendidly so far.

 

 

 

 

Also

 

what's

 

up

 

with

 

making

 

a 

 

separate

 

paragraph

 

for

 

each

 

sentence?

 

 

 

So what Josh have you for? Balance seeing how the game works .. lol?

 

Well, Josh you lost one dedicated cheeser. Hopefully, it will not hamper your efforts at balancing.

[mazeltov]

The end result looks noting like 4e though.

 

It looks more like 4e than it does any other D&D system, which is the relevant point. The per encounter/per rest ability split happened in 4e. The strongest push for "aggro management" mechanics happened in 4e. Attempts to bring casters more in line with the power of other classes happened in 4e etc. etc.

 

 

 

So what Josh have you for? Balance seeing how the game works .. lol?

 

Well, Josh you lost one dedicated cheeser. Hopefully, it will not hamper your efforts at balancing.

 

One more time, but in English.

[JONNIN]

before, I could cast the paralysis/root skill twice before earning any focus at all at very low levels, allowing my melee to crit-kill the two most difficult targets in whatever group without a lot of trouble.   Now the class is a little more like the chanter, having to build up a little before cutting loose, and I can live with that.   The aggravation is that before this change, the talent to add 10 focus was mostly not necessary, now it might be worth having --- that is good from a balance/choice standpoint but bad for established characters that did not take it... 

[MadDemiurg]

 

The end result looks noting like 4e though.

 

It looks more like 4e than it does any other D&D system, which is the relevant point. The per encounter/per rest ability split happened in 4e. The strongest push for "aggro management" mechanics happened in 4e. Attempts to bring casters more in line with the power of other classes happened in 4e etc. etc.

Of course it's closer to 4e compared to 2e than a 2e game . But it's still much closer to 2e/3e than to 4e by itself. Casters have mostly per rest abilities (turning to per encounter later on though) and martial classes have almost no abilities. In 4e everyone gets more or less the same amount of per rest/per encounter/at will abilities. Engagement is a glorified AOO, I wouldn't compare it to 4e defender mechanics or god forbid the atrocious aggro based systems.

Edited May 6, 2015 by MadDemiurg

[knownastherat]

 

The end result looks noting like 4e though.

 

It looks more like 4e than it does any other D&D system, which is the relevant point. The per encounter/per rest ability split happened in 4e. The strongest push for "aggro management" mechanics happened in 4e. Attempts to bring casters more in line with the power of other classes happened in 4e etc. etc.

 

 

 

So what Josh have you for? Balance seeing how the game works .. lol?

 

Well, Josh you lost one dedicated cheeser. Hopefully, it will not hamper your efforts at balancing.

 

One more time, but in English.

 

 

Sure. IF the so-called alleged cheesers help Josh to balance the game, THEN what you help Josh with? Because if its with balance THEN lol

[mazeltov]

Of course it's closer to 4e compared to 2e than a 2e game . But it's still much closer to 2e/3e than to 4e by itself. Casters have mostly per rest abilities (turning to per encounter later on though) and martial classes have almost no abilities. In 4e everyone gets more or less the same amount of per rest/per encounter/at will abilities. Engagement is a glorified AOO, I wouldn't compare it to 4e defender mechanics or god forbid the atrocious aggro based systems.

 

Martial classes (which I assume means non-casters) have plenty of abilities, both per encounter, and for the more powerful ones, per rest. The exact number of active abilities a non-caster will have depends on which abilities/Talents are selected on level up. Pick a bunch of passive stat-increasing Talents? Character has less active abilities to use. Prior to 4e, there were no per encounter powers, since "encounter" wasn't a discrete concept for action budgeting yet. This makes the PoE power system closer to to 4e by default than to other editions.

 

The way Engagement works now is that it controls melee mob movement so well that there basically are no attacks of opportunity, so to call it "glorified AOO" doesn't make sense. PoE Engagement is much more robust as a system of aggro control and zoning than 3e's AoO mechanic, and closer to 4e to the extent that both 4e and PoE try to treat aggro control as more than a passing concern.

 

Level-based AC scaling, saving throws converted to AC analogues, Health/Endurance recalling healing surges, the list goes on and on.

[the streaker]

 

Ciphers are actually stronger than casters for most of the game.

 

If you mean "ciphers can do more in trash encounters that doesn't really matter in the first place since you can beat them with little to no health lost" then yes.

 

 

If you made a list of the top spells in this game, cipher spells would be all over it.

[MadDemiurg]

 

 

Ciphers are actually stronger than casters for most of the game.

 

If you mean "ciphers can do more in trash encounters that doesn't really matter in the first place since you can beat them with little to no health lost" then yes.

 

 

If you made a list of the top spells in this game, cipher spells would be all over it.

 

Nope?

[PIP-Clownboy]

 

Cipher still has better spell access if you don't want to spam rest. Also cipher pre 1.05 was absurdly good, the nerf to their starting focus of all things didn't make the class useless.

 

But it did make them useless/boring in the beginning of the game, while almost not hurting them in the mid to late game where they should have been nerfed. Try reading my post next time. 

 

 

Just about every class is boring aside from maybe Druids very early game. 

[Jimmysdabestcop]

And even if it does really make the beginning of the game slower. It would either need to be a PC cipher or created one because GM is hard to pickup until levels 5/6 usually. And the PC early game will be 1 level ahead of all created characters anyway. So maybe the first 45 minutes of the game might slower.

 

I haven't tested the beta patch myself I am just guessing off of info provided.

 

I can say right now in my hard play through. I have 1 caster a Cipher. And yup mental bind everyone all the time non stop basically.

[CriticalFailure]

GM is hard to pickup until levels 5/6 usually.

 

On a first playthrough, yes, but once you're familiar with the game, it's possible to get all the companions at level 3 (Pallegina will be level 4 regardless). You only need to fight in Caed Nua, and most of the enemies in the courtyard can be skipped if you use stealth and stay close to the walls. Once you've recruited everyone, you can go back to Gilded Vale and its surrounding areas and do all the sidequests.

[taek]

I honestly see little change in the Cipher performance early game.

 

The loop where a very low level Cipher can

 

1. paralyze an opponent

2. opponent cannot harm you

3. opponent has -40 deflection, easily hit or crit

4. cipher gains focus from hitting/critting

5. cipher uses focus to paralyze, go to step 1

 

Is still useable infinitely as long as enemies are left alive.

 

Seems like the only real nerf was using a blunderbuss for insane focus gen, which always felt like an oversight on their part.