Obsidian should rework the classes for POE2

[Fenixp]

I understand there are more possible combinations of all these. But to me it doesn't matter because most of are meaningless. Sure you can make a party of 6 naked dwarfs with only daggers equipped but it won't add to the overall number of possible playthrus.

 

There were fewer combinations in the older games but very much viable. Take weapons for some classes only. You find some super duper sword but it's only for a paladin, so you remember to pick it up on your next playthru.

In reality it's exactly the other way around. A lot of people have a tendency of seeing old Infinity Engine games with rose-tinted glasses, but the truth is, those games were insanely unbalanced. Even base classes played how they were intended were not all really viable - ranger was the king and a party without mage, cleric and a rogue had a very hard time getting trough the game. I believe it was combo of Cleric and Ranger? which essentially broke the game.

 

Pillars of Eternity, on the other hand, offers a small selection of classes, but all of them are similarly viable. And pretty much any logical build you can think of will probably work fairly well. And then there's a ton of builds which will work well in spite of being insane - check out the character builds subforum to see all the weird combinations which can work very well.

 

As for getting a sword which you'll get to use on your next playtrough... There's been quite a few weapons I found in Pillars that none of my party members was focusing on and therefore his performance with the weapon did not do it justice. There are builds emerging which essentially rely on a character using a single weapon. In spite of being able to use all weapons, it's almost never efficient to use different ones than those you have constructed your character around.

 

I'm just saying, if you are part of a faction, order, military group or whatever, usually they are trained in certain ways, if you come from a certain school you come with a somehow defined setting, to see them said setting be easely swapped because...

And that's exactly why you can choose weapon focus. The weapon focus talents even describe what kind of backgrounds do they portray. Using weapons which you are not focused on will be a lot less efficient than using those you are focused on. What I do not understand is why would a man trained with swords be entirely unable to use a spear when he has no choice to the point where he'd rather use his bare fists than a weapon. Edited December 16, 2015 by Fenixp

[Ink Blot]

 

I'm just saying, if you are part of a faction, order, military group or whatever, usually they are trained in certain ways, if you come from a certain school you come with a somehow defined setting, to see them said setting be easely swapped because... reasons is kinda mindblowing "oh hey I trained for 20 years in a Shaolin kung fu temple but when I hit lvl 2 I'll go full dual wielding Uzis in full postman outfit while my special ops partner will swap to jazz teachings in a white tutu, our background story and lore? Pshe, who needs them anyway".

 

If the mechanics and gameplay don't match the lore, then why even bother creating it? Just do a endless dungeon game and let the players mess around.

 

Saying that monks shouldn't be able to dual wield axes is arbitrary logic, could you then tell me the non arbitrary logic for them to dual wield said axes? Because... reasons, yeah?

You sound like you're completely stuck in the old AD&D way of thinking about classes. There is no reason to restrict classes to specific weapons and armor. If it irks you that a monk can dual wield axes, then don't build your monk that way. It being a single player game, the focus should be on the player's ability to have fun. And having no arbitrary (and yes, they're arbitrary) class restrictions on weapons and armor is certainly more fun for the vast majority of players than class restrictions. With the exception of a very few items, I think Obs got this right and I really would be disappointed if they decided to go further down the class restriction route.

[yoomazir]

 

 

I'm just saying, if you are part of a faction, order, military group or whatever, usually they are trained in certain ways, if you come from a certain school you come with a somehow defined setting, to see them said setting be easely swapped because... reasons is kinda mindblowing "oh hey I trained for 20 years in a Shaolin kung fu temple but when I hit lvl 2 I'll go full dual wielding Uzis in full postman outfit while my special ops partner will swap to jazz teachings in a white tutu, our background story and lore? Pshe, who needs them anyway".

 

If the mechanics and gameplay don't match the lore, then why even bother creating it? Just do a endless dungeon game and let the players mess around.

 

Saying that monks shouldn't be able to dual wield axes is arbitrary logic, could you then tell me the non arbitrary logic for them to dual wield said axes? Because... reasons, yeah?

You sound like you're completely stuck in the old AD&D way of thinking about classes. There is no reason to restrict classes to specific weapons and armor. If it irks you that a monk can dual wield axes, then don't build your monk that way. It being a single player game, the focus should be on the player's ability to have fun. And having no arbitrary (and yes, they're arbitrary) class restrictions on weapons and armor is certainly more fun for the vast majority of players than class restrictions. With the exception of a very few items, I think Obs got this right and I really would be disappointed if they decided to go further down the class restriction route.

 

Man the whole AD&D argument some of you pull gets tiring since I never played those games, unless NWN2 applies to the formula, yet class based games do exists and when done right never had people complaining about it.

 

Let's take Shadowrun for example, last games that came out are single player, it has classes that allow diversity yet don't go full derp "you can do anything YOLO" simply because it's a single player game, the rules are a little bit more grounded yet you can do plausible hybrid builds within the lore and they do RESPECT the lore, so what's the excuse with POE? Oh lore wasn't well defined or meant to be, the Goldpac paladins? Each individual members were so diverse in their attire and weaponry, same as the Shieldbearers, same as the monks, same as the chanters etc etc, hell I could tell you a story where brother Celsius, a Skaen priest, thought he had found is doppleganger in Erik, monk from the far away moutains of whaeteveryouwanttocallit, both of them had the same attire, armor and weaponry and were somehow doing the same role in their teams.

 

As much as some think it would be, defining a little bit more the classes between them wouldn't be a life shattering experience for people who want to experiment builds.

Edited December 16, 2015 by yoomazir

[Ganrich]

Only thing I would do is add more talents and class abilities(where applicable). You can do this in a way to get even more focus in your class/build.

 

I still think certain classes have too few class specific talents. Chanters come to mind. They could use some active abilities to use between invocations, and talents could bring that.

 

I like the fairly open design on the classes themselves though.

[Guest BugsVendor]

 

I understand there are more possible combinations of all these. But to me it doesn't matter because most of are meaningless. Sure you can make a party of 6 naked dwarfs with only daggers equipped but it won't add to the overall number of possible playthrus.

 

There were fewer combinations in the older games but very much viable. Take weapons for some classes only. You find some super duper sword but it's only for a paladin, so you remember to pick it up on your next playthru.

 

In reality it's exactly the other way around. A lot of people have a tendency of seeing old Infinity Engine games with rose-tinted glasses, but the truth is, those games were insanely unbalanced. Even base classes played how they were intended were not all really viable - ranger was the king and a party without mage, cleric and a rogue had a very hard time getting trough the game. I believe it was combo of Cleric and Ranger? which essentially broke the game.

 

Pillars of Eternity, on the other hand, offers a small selection of classes, but all of them are similarly viable. And pretty much any logical build you can think of will probably work fairly well. And then there's a ton of builds which will work well in spite of being insane - check out the character builds subforum to see all the weird combinations which can work very well.

 

As for getting a sword which you'll get to use on your next playtrough... There's been quite a few weapons I found in Pillars that none of my party members was focusing on and therefore his performance with the weapon did not do it justice. There are builds emerging which essentially rely on a character using a single weapon. In spite of being able to use all weapons, it's almost never efficient to use different ones than those you have constructed your character around.

 

Sure the oldies were unbalanced but so its poe. So many years, no improvements in this department.

 

All this type of games are quite poor at their strategy component.

 

But this is not the point I made.

 

I just said it felt so much better, roleplay wise and "look and feel" wise when most classes had limited weapons.

 

It doesn't matter how many possible combinations there are, because each time you will have all characters equipped with crossbows and such. Each time your party is almost the same because of that.

[Zenbane]

 

 

Man the whole AD&D argument some of you pull gets tiring since I never played those games

 

Then maybe instead of continuing this debate you should go play some AD&D games in order to see what happens when a game does as you suggest. I'm sure people who enjoy PoE's current system are equally tired of others suggesting that PoE become more AD&D.

[Fenixp]

Sure the oldies were unbalanced but so its poe. So many years, no improvements in this department.

PoE is a far better balanced game than Infinity Engine games. That's not even a subjective argument, it just is. Not saying it's perfect, but the difference is massive.

 

It doesn't matter how many possible combinations there are, because each time you will have all characters equipped with crossbows and such. Each time your party is almost the same because of that.

That's up to you, isn't it? If you build all your characters in such a way that they're all effective with crossbows, you only have yourself to blame when all your characters use the same weapon. In Pillars of Eternity, it's up to you to roleplay your characters. And don't say that one ranged weapon is inherently more powerful than another one, because that's not the case - I found a mix of ranged weapons was generally more useful than everybody using the same one. That might have been the case after PoE got released, but after heavy patching and balancing, it's just not true.

 

Man the whole AD&D argument some of you pull gets tiring since I never played those games, unless NWN2 applies to the formula, yet class based games do exists and when done right never had people complaining about it.

Here you have a full thread of people complaining about those systems.

 

Let's take Shadowrun for example, last games that came out are single player, it has classes that allow diversity yet don't go full derp "you can do anything YOLO" simply because it's a single player game, the rules are a little bit more grounded yet you can do plausible hybrid builds within the lore and they do RESPECT the lore, so what's the excuse with POE?

Where does PoE not respect the lore when a class is using various weapons? No class that I know of has any weapons dictated by its lore. Edited December 16, 2015 by Fenixp

[yoomazir]

 

Man the whole AD&D argument some of you pull gets tiring since I never played those games

 

Then maybe instead of continuing this debate you should go play some AD&D games in order to see what happens when a game does as you suggest. I'm sure people who enjoy PoE's current system are equally tired of others suggesting that PoE become more AD&D.

 

If all the AD&D argument is just about restrictive classes for you then more power to you.

Otherwise, my point about classes & lore stands.

Edited December 16, 2015 by yoomazir

[Vorad]

Casters have good talents: Extra level 1 spell, extra level 2 spell... they do not need more.

 

Those talents are abysmal, they are mediocre at best. You might wish to think those talents are good but adding 1 more spell is not such a big deal especially since you can always rest either on the nearest town or twice per dungeon(potd) if out of spells. Furthermore casters don't really need more spells per rest to begin with they got more than enough already. It's like giving a few extra bucks to a billionaire he won't care.

 

When I compare these talents and  make the claim that they are worthless I compare them to what other spellcasters in similar systems used to get. Feats/talents that would make your caster interact more actively with his spells like changing a spells shape or element for instance duration or any other spell specific parameter. That to me is more interesting and would allow for more variation in comparison to just being able to cast one more low level spell from the 4 available slots per level. They don't have to be overpowered they just have to be more interesting and interactive because right now class specific caster talents for me at least are plain boring also why would someone pick + 1st level spell when you can pick +20 % more damage with certain element(which can affect more than a single spell for a given element). Right now the 20% elemental damage utility talents overshadow any class specific talents  especially when it comes to druids/wizards.

 

The typical wizard build for example consists of at least 3 utillity elemntal talents then the mediocre at best 1 whole extra low level spell/rest or some kind of extra interrupt coupled with extra damage for wands/scepters again mediocre at best since it's only useful for low level gaming after level 10 you won't even bother autoattacking with your wizard any more.

 

Furthermore why would you bother to spend an entire talent point in order to gain a single spell when there are items in game like rings of wizardry that give you more than enough spells to begin with? You gain 3 spells/rest from Telda's and 4 spells/rest from Seloam's and that's with 2 items permanently. That's how crappy those talents are.

 

Again spellcasting talents don't have to be overpowered they just have to be more interesting and interactive with the spellcaster's weapons(i.e. his spells)

[evilcat]

Only thing I would do is add more talents and class abilities(where applicable). You can do this in a way to get even more focus in your class/build.

 

I still think certain classes have too few class specific talents. Chanters come to mind. They could use some active abilities to use between invocations, and talents could bring that.

 

I like the fairly open design on the classes themselves though.

OMG this.

Game just need more abilities/talents. And improvments to some of existing one. This will spawn more builds.

That is especially true for no casters, since casters have many spells and at least some of them are ok.

There could be more love for abilities + talents combo, that is heavy investment and should do something impressive. Too often effect is just ok, overbalanced.

There could be some alternative paths support, not exclusive, but number of talent/ability slots is limited so you can never have it all. Like:

Barbarians seems to favour 2H weapons, but having some talent which would pimp 2wf and make it somehow different.

Fighters seems to be more into melee, but maybe they could have some talents tailored for range.

Most important Chanters have like none class specific talents, but definetly could benefit from some.

Good example is Ranger, who can go for bows, or xbows, or beasts. Some of these are better, but it looks as there are different builds.

 

But keep it open.

Edited December 17, 2015 by evilcat

[Guest BugsVendor]

 

Sure the oldies were unbalanced but so its poe. So many years, no improvements in this department.

 

PoE is a far better balanced game than Infinity Engine games. That's not even a subjective argument, it just is. Not saying it's perfect, but the difference is massive.

 

It doesn't matter how many possible combinations there are, because each time you will have all characters equipped with crossbows and such. Each time your party is almost the same because of that.

 

That's up to you, isn't it? If you build all your characters in such a way that they're all effective with crossbows, you only have yourself to blame when all your characters use the same weapon. In Pillars of Eternity, it's up to you to roleplay your characters. And don't say that one ranged weapon is inherently more powerful than another one, because that's not the case - I found a mix of ranged weapons was generally more useful than everybody using the same one. What you say might have been the case after PoE got released, but after heavy patching and balancing, it's just not true.

 

 

God, this is like a marketing department.

 

You just have to make sure you  point by point, clearly state that this game is better than previous ones in every single dimension. Well it is not.

 

I will argue that since anyone can use the best ranged weapons the whole mechanics of the game is so UNBALANCED in this regard that apart from the tank there is no need what so ever to use melee weapons.

 

Now, in the old IE games you had no choice but to use the weapons that you could and most of the time you would have had at most 2 members of the same class in a party. It forced a nice variety.

[Fenixp]

God, this is like a marketing department.

Yes, people on official discussion boards about a game will generally be biased towards liking that game. What I don't understand is how is this surprising.

 

You just have to make sure you  point by point, clearly state that this game is better than previous ones in every single dimension. Well it is not.

Yes, I personally believe Pillars of Eternity improves on vast majority of aspects of old Infinity Engine games. Do you want me to apologize for this or where exactly are you going with this line of argumentation?

 

I will argue that since anyone can use the best ranged weapons the whole mechanics of the game is so UNBALANCED in this regard that apart from the tank there is no need what so ever to use melee weapons.

And I'd argue the game is so balanced that even this kind of crazy composition will work if you pull it off well enough. All classes are equals if built smart. Why you'd want to play the game in such a boring way I don't understand, but it's up to you - the game doesn't force you into anything. As far as I'm concerned, that's fantastic design.

 

Now, in the old IE games you had no choice but to use the weapons that you could and most of the time you would have had at most 2 members of the same class in a party. It forced a nice variety.

Look, I get it, some people need restrictions to have fun. I have more fun without restrictions. It really is as simple as that. I hated weapon restrictions when playing Infinity Engine games originally, I hate weapon restrictions in just about any game I run across them, I'm happy Pillars of Eternity dropped them. Am I running around discussion boards of games with weapon restrictions, demanding they switch to a system I personally prefer? No, I'm not, because I know it's important games cater to all audiences. If you're so bothered by lack of weapon restrictions and need a game to restrict you to have fun, there are many games out there which offer this. Edited December 16, 2015 by Fenixp

[evilcat]

 

Casters have good talents: Extra level 1 spell, extra level 2 spell... they do not need more.

 

Those talents are abysmal, they are mediocre at best. You might wish to think those talents are good but adding 1 more spell is not such a big deal especially since you can always rest either on the nearest town or twice per dungeon(potd) if out of spells. Furthermore casters don't really need more spells per rest to begin with they got more than enough already. It's like giving a few extra bucks to a billionaire he won't care.

 

When I compare these talents and  make the claim that they are worthless I compare them to what other spellcasters in similar systems used to get. Feats/talents that would make your caster interact more actively with his spells like changing a spells shape or element for instance duration or any other spell specific parameter. That to me is more interesting and would allow for more variation in comparison to just being able to cast one more low level spell from the 4 available slots per level. They don't have to be overpowered they just have to be more interesting and interactive because right now class specific caster talents for me at least are plain boring also why would someone pick + 1st level spell when you can pick +20 % more damage with certain element(which can affect more than a single spell for a given element). Right now the 20% elemental damage utility talents overshadow any class specific talents  especially when it comes to druids/wizards.

 

The typical wizard build for example consists of at least 3 utillity elemntal talents then the mediocre at best 1 whole extra low level spell/rest or some kind of extra interrupt coupled with extra damage for wands/scepters again mediocre at best since it's only useful for low level gaming after level 10 you won't even bother autoattacking with your wizard any more.

 

Furthermore why would you bother to spend an entire talent point in order to gain a single spell when there are items in game like rings of wizardry that give you more than enough spells to begin with? You gain 3 spells/rest from Telda's and 4 spells/rest from Seloam's and that's with 2 items permanently. That's how crappy those talents are.

 

Again spellcasting talents don't have to be overpowered they just have to be more interesting and interactive with the spellcaster's weapons(i.e. his spells)

 

 

That would be interesting, there is possibly a lot of talents to pimp casting:

+ more dmg to specific element

+ more acc for specific alement

+ Casting spell of favorite elements gives caster "shield"

+ Gain some iconic spell as 3/encounter (like magic missiles or flame fun)

+ more healing (either clean or vampiric)

+ longer range

+ longer duration

+ higher accuracy for spells

+ larger aoe

+ faster casting

+ longer summons

and so on...

 

The problem is... caster in comparison to no casters are doing quite well, so if such talents be introduce one of two must happen:

1) Non caster receive similar buff and to keep game difficult everthing is pimped

2) Everything else stay same, but base of caster spells base is reduced.

 

Not telling it is bad idea, just a lot time needed.

Edited December 16, 2015 by evilcat

[Ink Blot]

Man the whole AD&D argument some of you pull gets tiring since I never played those games

And how in hell would I know that? As far as I saw in this thread you never mentioned not having played AD&D games. You'll note I said 'sound like'.

 

And yes, you'll get people pointing out how what you want is very similar to the AD&D rules. Because it is. Clerics (Priests) could only use blunt weapons. Thieves (Rogues now) could only wear leather armor and were restricted to a handful of weapons. Wizards couldn't wear armor at all, etc etc.

 

What you seem to be unwilling to grasp (note I said 'seem') is that the folk frequenting these boards (at least the ones interested in discussing this idea) for the most part aren't interested in restricting the classes to that extent. You threw the idea out here and it appears it's not looked upon with favor.

[MunoValente]

One thing with monks I wouldn't mind seeing is perhaps a bonus to their deflection in lighter armor, perhaps shift some of their base deflection into the bonus, as it currently is, I think armored monks are a good amount better than more traditional light armor monks and crossover a bit much with fighters.

[Hebruixe]

I strongly disagree with the OP.

[Heligor]

no restrictions means that YOU can impose yourself all the restrctions you want.

Dual sabres wielding rogues have the highest DPS in the game? f**k that, i'm going with a torch in each hand cause for my wilderness rogue fire is sacred.

[Teioh_White]

I've always  firmly come down on the side of defined class systems with custom options within the class, rather than a 'make your own build' classless system. The same gear/stat/talent/stat growth options for all in Pillars does make it a bit samey at times (or more, I can do what you do + cast spells), but it's not so bad to turn me off right now. I wouldn't mind if Pillars 2 did more to define the classes from each other, but I'd really dislike a shift further the other way.

 

The distinction, of course, isn't as big a deal for single players games as it is for co-op/pvp games though, so I'm sure it'll work out.

[PrimeJunta]

Actually, 6 naked dwarves with daggers sounds fun.

I hereby move the party size cap be raised to 7, if and only if they're all dwarves, and 8 if the eighth member is a dark-haired female pale elf.

[PrimeJunta]

Let's take Shadowrun for example, last games that came out are single player, it has classes that allow diversity

Shadowrun has a classless system.

[yoomazir]

 

Let's take Shadowrun for example, last games that came out are single player, it has classes that allow diversity

Shadowrun has a classless system.

 

You're right, they have archetypes.

[PrimeJunta]

 

 

Let's take Shadowrun for example, last games that came out are single player, it has classes that allow diversity

Shadowrun has a classless system.

 

You're right, they have archetypes.

 

More than that, archetypes are just half-finished example builds. You can assign all the karma yourself to build a character entirely from component parts.

[evilcat]

Weapon and armour specialization proccess naturally. Very fast you need to pick weapon group and combat style (s&b, 2h, 2wf, range). Still can go outside build, but missing +6 Acc, and like 10% dmg ... not good. Talent slots are limited.

 

For armors: Ranged wear light, tankish heavy, and some dps (rogue, barbarian, monk) light/medium.

 

There are no hard limits, but some choices are just better. Rogue can wear heavy armor and greatsword, but is wearing lighter robe and two weapons is just better.

 

I do not understand complain about lady with musket. There is Pelegina (avian paladin), she is from specific order and land, and starts game with firearm. So there are specific order for Paladins just as OP wanted. Unfortunetly Paladin Orders are not so good, since for npc character devotion does not build up, and some of order specific talents are uninspiring (weak).

 

Devs have limited time, and there can not be many orders for each class. Such development would be with cost for ather aspects of the game.

We can hope that each class will have 2-3 supported styles  - like fighter could be tankish, dps or range or shouter or mix - with enought talents/abilities to make that style viable. But in open way, so players can experiment and come with some sick combos, or create "own" build which in fact devs ware thining off as 2h style just without tagging it with official specialization.

[Guest 4ward]

 

for me the real issue is the gameplay not necessarily the classes. PoE is more geared towards knocking enemies prone and whacking on them, it's a routine in combat. Casters should be protected better perhaps with no speed penalty like it was in BG2. I could protect them with good spells which i could cast before battle, enemy mages would counter with sequencer spells, this is important to buy them time. Single-target buffs/debuffs/dispells, status effects again being as important as in the old games. Things like detect invisibility, returning projectiles, protection vs magic/normal weapons, etc. anything that breaks the routine during combat, untargettable enemies, breach etc. Then the routine would be broken and classes would have different tasks during combat and feel more distinctive. As it is, while classes are probably well balanced, they are not balanced against enemies, enemies stand no chance. Immunities were a good first step which i hope they expand upon.

[PrimeJunta]

Unfortunetly Paladin Orders are not so good, since for npc character devotion does not build up, and some of order specific talents are uninspiring (weak).

 

This.

 

I really dig the way ethics/reputations are mechanically tied to priest/paladin class features, and I found it a big let-down that it only applies to the PC. Having the reputations affect everyone would add another dimension to party-building: you'd want paladin and priest companions compatible with your outlook. 

 

I understand that they didn't do this so they wouldn't discourage players from taking on Durance or Pallegina, but with more companions from WM1 and another one coming in WM2, I think this could be safely changed. After all, if you don't like it, you can always roll your own, or give Pallegina or Durance the talent that neutralises negative faith effects.