Chanters need a redesign

[Ganrich]

I switch between hard or PotD depending on my mood. Sometimes I just want to play through the game, and not deal with HP and defense stat bloat on enemies. On PotD Chanters are fine, but on any other difficulty they rarely do much other than Chant. On hard you will get to use Invocations on big fights, and maybe on some smaller fights if you screw up, get a damage dealer CCed, or what have you. Which the latter is rare if you've been playing the game long enough.

 

I expect summons to get better accuracy, defenses, damage, etc. They need to become stronger, and maybe increase the number of creatures summoned with certain Invocations. What is the point of increasing their Duration if the class is backloaded on casting and summons disappear after combat? It would be fine on PotD, but on every other difficulty increased Duration would be useless for a Chanter in their present state.

[tinysalamander]

AFAIR, +3 levels for empower is just a default which can be customized by devs. Which means they can improve stats and/or abilities of empowered summoned monsters. Not that it changes the fact that you need to wait anyway.

[ThatUndeadLegacy]

I didn't use the chanters at all. 

[grumpymoose]

Scaling, in some ways, is important for any ability with any class. So yes, anything could be level 1 and scale, technically. Using talents to build on or mutate abilities, of any sort, for varied purposes, is very tempting design from a player perspective (for any class). Maybe less so if you have to develop and balance it. I know some people think things are too complex already, but I do love to fiddle . . .

 

I'm actually with you on Chanter in general though. Even if I didn't it's still something to consider, better to talk through than not.

[evilcat]

The song mechanic is fresh so that is a good thing.

I wish chanters to be top3 healers. With healing songs and invocations.

It is just cooler if you can use other class for healbot duty other than priest.

[Bill Gates' Son]

It is just cooler if you can use other class for healbot duty other than priest.

 

Paladins and Druids can heal.

[scythesong]

Have you people actually tried playing a chanter as a warrior? Melee? Ranged? Two-handed? Dual-wield?

 

I'm really not sure what posts like these are getting at. The thing that has always made chanters amazing for me was the fact that you could fully customize them. If your party could use another ranged attacker, then stack as many ranged talents on your chanter as you can. He may be a subpar archer but ONLY in comparison to other specialized builds - fact is, as far as the game is concerned your chanter may as well be just another beastly ranger. That tends to happen given the relatively class-neutral game mechanic PoE has regarding the power of normal attacks.

And the best thing about chanters is that their most powerful abilities - their phrases/invocations - are available regardless of whatever else you set them up to be. Hell, the mechanic even ignores recovery speed. AND many of them are game-changers

"Hello, my subpar chanter-ranger has a drake companion. Yours has a... fox. Cute."

And I have never seen any point in introducing more chanter-specific talents. You're never going to run out of useful warrior talents, so what's the point?

 

The weirdest thing about all this is that some of you people are basically arguing that the chanter should just be another caster. You are arguing for the class to be dumbed down because you see class' versatility - the best of its type among all the other classes in PoE - as a bad thing (assuming you even see it at all).

Personally, I don't want another dumbed down class because some people can't use their creativity to make playing the current one more interesting or because some people  have become far too engrossed in the current "meta" that they've pretty much killed their own ability to invent/improvise.

 

As for PoE2 chanters there's always room for improvement, especially with how phrases work.

If people really want a dumbed down version of the chanter for PoE2 then perhaps the devs should come up with chanter-specific talents to compensate..  but generally speaking and relative to other classes (as far as PoE1 goes) the class is fine the way it is.

Edited April 1, 2017 by scythesong

[Ninjamestari]

I never really liked the playing style of chanters, having to spend the vast majority of any fight simply shooting that boomstick of yours and scratching your junk, then getting to cast that single invocation right before the final monster kicks it. This is by far in my mind the issue that should get the most attention when it comes to Chanters. The Dexterity proposal might work to counter this a little bit, but since it would also allow a chanter to gain those chant-points (or what ever) they use for invocations that much faster, which would lead into Dexterity suddenly becoming the most important stat for the class. Especially if it increases the linger portion of the chants (2 sec chant + 2 sec linger turning into 1 sec chant + 3 sec linger instead of 1 sec chant + 2 sec linger). I think the latter option would be better, as intelligence already increases linger duration. The point is that while dexterity shouldn't as viable a dump stat as it is, it shouldn't be the king-stat you always maximize either.

[firkraag888]

@OP

 

I agree chanters need an overhaul. I hardly ever found a need for chanters in my party and when I did try and roll one I became frustrated with them kicked them out.

 

Maybe post smaller posts next time. A lot of people wouldn't read through all that because it's to big.

 

And yes one high level ability (dragon thrashed) does not IMO turn a bad class into a good class. I hope they get overhauled.

[firkraag888]

 

Underwhelming? It's one of the most powerful classes in the game despite being no vancian caster.

Yeah, I'm definitely not arguing from the stance of power in PoE1. They aren't weak by any stretch. I just think I need to clarify that. They are just a bit of a one trick pony. Max Strenth, Intellect, Res. Dump Dex, leave Con at 10, rest of points in Perception. Give heavy armor and a 1 handed weapon with shield. Pick Talents for defence and select Sdionc of FLame or equivalent. Select Dragons Thrashed when available, or build your Chillfog Chanter.

Yeah and that is a seriously boring way to play the game.

 

And yes would rate chanters in the bottom three classes for power.

Edited April 1, 2017 by firkraag888

[basic_hitler]

 

 

2)  Build time for Invocations, in its current state with PoE1, nearly requires long fights.  On lower difficulties it becomes rare that the Chanter actually gets to the point of casting Invocations.  When they do the fight tends to be over anyway, and the invocations are used for cleanup.  So, this further reduces the necessity of Dex.  The solution in the first game was a passive called Brisk Recitation which reduces the speed at which chants are spoken, and thus reduces the time needed to cast those invocations.  However, this means that Chanters don't really start using Invocations (on most difficulties) until later in the game, and even then its late in the combat or in a boss fight.

 

I don't entirely disagree with your post, but I want to hammer on this point a bit. It's true that chanters shine over time, moreso than others, but I hardly consider this a bad thing. There are some fairly long fights in this game. On upper difficulties in PoE1, There are a few named/Boss fights that test your ability to time and use abilities, and the Chanter absolutely shines here.

 

I like to use an off-tank chanter. In this scenario, when your wizard has started to expend his useful spells, priests are down to their early-level casts, or mobs are starting to break off and nibble on your ranged guys, a chanter is just there pounding along singing with joy, and in RP mode this is a morale boost for sure, but in the numbers game, his summons and abilities are picking up the DPS/control slack as a good number of your other people start running out of abilities.

 

The chanter's power over time is definitely inverted compared to a wizard or any other ability-heavy class (aside from a cipher maybe), but it's absolutely excellent to have a class that builds up over time while your other party members are starting to drop off.

 

I've beaten a few fights by the skin of my teeth and you'd better believe it was the chanter that got me through to the end.

[draego]

Then you would be wrong. I think people confuse weak with boring (subjectively speaking). As many have proved in many play throughs they can be the top dps character in your party while being a tank. I dont love the chanters but the only thing i think they need is to be given the Sirin setup from Tyranny. Meaning, you can stack chants pre battle so you can cast faster at beginning of fight. Other than that i dont see that they need much changing but look forward to the sub-classes. They can also fit any role in the party, ranged, ranged melee, melee, tank melee. 

Edited April 1, 2017 by draego

[PugPug]

I've never liked that high-level chants take longer to chant. You have to choose between nicer chants or more frequent invocations on a class that is already a snooze fest. Find another way to keep low-level chants relevant.

[injurai]

I never really liked the playing style of chanters, having to spend the vast majority of any fight simply shooting that boomstick of yours and scratching your junk, then getting to cast that single invocation right before the final monster kicks it. This is by far in my mind the issue that should get the most attention when it comes to Chanters. The Dexterity proposal might work to counter this a little bit, but since it would also allow a chanter to gain those chant-points (or what ever) they use for invocations that much faster, which would lead into Dexterity suddenly becoming the most important stat for the class. Especially if it increases the linger portion of the chants (2 sec chant + 2 sec linger turning into 1 sec chant + 3 sec linger instead of 1 sec chant + 2 sec linger). I think the latter option would be better, as intelligence already increases linger duration. The point is that while dexterity shouldn't as viable a dump stat as it is, it shouldn't be the king-stat you always maximize either.

 

Literally my experience. It was like pre-heating an oven only after an encounter started. You were lucky to get one batch of cookies out before the battle was over.

[scythesong]

If you think the class is boring then you can blame that on the way general combat is set up because you've basically just eliminated roughly half the classes in the game (and just about all of them from mid-early game perspective) from being "interesting", as you seem to define it.

 

Phrases and invocations aside (and it's nice to note that, at least, most people agree that phrases-scaling needs work and phrase length should not be balanced around the level of phrase) the chanter is basically a jack=of-all-trades talent-dependent combat class. How it well performs in combat directly reflects PoE combat in general.

Its conceivable that if combat mechanics involved a more dynamic combination of active/passive skills rather than mostly just modal/passive talents + lots of questionably useful actives then people would appreciate the class more because from a purely results-based perspective the whole "one-tricky pony" and "underwhelming" thing makes zero sense. Pomp and fireworks =/= effectiveness, though I suppose with players these days it doesn't matter that your character can destroy things so much as he can do it with style or "engaging" combat mechanics.

Edited April 1, 2017 by scythesong

[MaxQuest]

WALL OF TEXT INBOUND!!!!!

That's quite a wall indeed)

I wouldn't say that chanter needs a redesign, but a few tweaks and additions would be great. Specifically I like the talents (p3) that you have proposed.

 

And to add to your suggestions a few quick ideas:

- "Battle Summoner" talent (passive): the first summoning invocation (per-encounter) needs 2 less chant counter to be casted.

- "Battle Chanter" talent (passive): adds +20% to melee and ranged damage; and additionally +2 to endurance-to-hp coefficient. Mutually exclusive with Battle Summoner.

- "Chanting Mastery" talent (passive): you can master one 1st level phrase, making it a permanent effect. But it will no longer increase phrase counter.

- "Chanting Alacrity" talent (passive): the first phrase you chant is considered as already being chanted for 3s, shifting the loop forward. Mutually exclusive with Chanting Mastery.

- "Ancestor's Trance" 2nd level phrase: reduces deflection and reflex by 15, increases concentration and will by 40; You gain 2 counter at the end of chanting this phrase.

- Defensive-buffing chants now are affected by Resolve. Getting +5% bonus/malus per 1 point above/below 10. E.g. At the Sight of their Comrades, their Hearts Grew Bold chanted by a chanter with 20 res, would grant +15 to fortitude and will.

- Offensive-buffing chants now are affected by Dexterity. Getting +5% bonus/malus per 1 point above/below 10. E.g. Sure-Handed Ila chanted by a chanter with 20 dex, would grant +30% reload and ranged attack speed.

Edited April 1, 2017 by MaxQuest

[Omega01]

1)  It doesn't see benefits from Dexterity.   Dexterity is almost 100% dump-city.  Dex reduces the down time after using an Invocation, and outside of PotD the use of Invocations is rare.  Of course, it will reduce attack speed, but since your attacks will be mediocre at best it is best to build a tank.  (maxing Resolve and Intellect).  In fact, very few builds I have seen don't include near maxing of Might, Int, Res.  Con isn't needed, but shouldn't be dumped, and Perception is much the same way.  However, the class does benefit from Perception for its offensive Chants vs enemies to land.  So, because its main stay abilities aren't effected by Dex, it tends to be dumped.  Most other classes gain greater benefits from Dex either through attack speed for the mundane classes, or reduced cast times for casters.  In the end, this runs counter to Josh's philosophy on Attributes as it creates a very effective dump stat.

 

Kinda disagree with this point. Chanter is the best class for spamming scrolls in boss fights and high dex obviously helps with that. I actuall really like ranged dps/support chanter.

I think its an overall very well designed and interesting class. The main issue I have with chanters is that in an "optimal" party they compete with priests for the support slot and priest is one of these completely overpowered vancian casters

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Well I definitely agree that Chanters need a redesign. I'm currently playing with the IE mod and Kana gets phrases maxed when combat starts, though I think this is a little much. Quickfire what I think could work:

 

1)Change of the Chants/Invocations to where Chants are all 0-level with the same chant times and Invocations follow a path similar to Cipher Power. This would remove the long buildup from high level phrases and ensure that you aren't ditching low level phrases when they get phased out. And obviously room for more invocations is good.

2)Some phrases at the start of combat. Maybe half of max, this would allow quick building of phrases similar to how Ciphers operate with focus.

3)Chant mastery, which reduces the cost of a selected Invocation or allows 1 free cast.

 

For everything else I think Ganrich is right on target.

[Ganrich]

 

1) It doesn't see benefits from Dexterity. Dexterity is almost 100% dump-city. Dex reduces the down time after using an Invocation, and outside of PotD the use of Invocations is rare. Of course, it will reduce attack speed, but since your attacks will be mediocre at best it is best to build a tank. (maxing Resolve and Intellect). In fact, very few builds I have seen don't include near maxing of Might, Int, Res. Con isn't needed, but shouldn't be dumped, and Perception is much the same way. However, the class does benefit from Perception for its offensive Chants vs enemies to land. So, because its main stay abilities aren't effected by Dex, it tends to be dumped. Most other classes gain greater benefits from Dex either through attack speed for the mundane classes, or reduced cast times for casters. In the end, this runs counter to Josh's philosophy on Attributes as it creates a very effective dump stat.

Kinda disagree with this point. Chanter is the best class for spamming scrolls in boss fights and high dex obviously helps with that. I actuall really like ranged dps/support chanter.

I think its an overall very well designed and interesting class. The main issue I have with chanters is that in an "optimal" party they compete with priests for the support slot and priest is one of these completely overpowered vancian casters

Just because you can doesn't make it good. My favorite Chanter is an archer too, but he isn't nearly as good as my sword and board Max Might, Intellect, high res/perception build. Why? Because AoE and Duration are tied to Int, Might makes the damage for Chants too good, offensive Chants work best with melee (not saying this shouldn't be the case).

 

You sacrifice too many Recommended attributes to spec the Chanter in odd-ball ways.

 

My Archer Chanter was high might/per/int (int near Max), near maxed Dex was a wood elf with deep pockets, lore, and marksmen. I basically used buff chants, level 1 damage invocations (using the int buff zone on spells so as to keep in the range that Marksmen and wood elf racial worked).

 

It was a lot of micro to be less effective than the stock Chanter build. However being a skirmish Archer meant that my buff chants almost always covered the entire party. It was a trade off, but the buffs aren't as good as many of the top tier damage chants. I made the character to make the chanter more engaging to play, and it worked. I would still like more ways to build as to make the class less passive.

 

At the very least the class needs some major re-tuning. I should be able to make a more active chanter without resorting to a strange build. Even if current mechanics stay then at the very least we need more Chanter specific talents. Having two class talents (one being a buff to the other) is sad. Every other class gets far more play in that department.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Ganrich

[scythesong]

Your post pretty much confirms your bias.

 

"Spec the chanter in odd-ball ways?" "Resorting to a strange build" The chanter was DESIGNED to be a kind of jack-of-all-trades in combat. You can see it everywhere if you just bothered to look at the class from the perspective of a designer - from the way phrases/invocations work to Kana's old build. Customizing him/her is pretty much the point.

Class simplification, as I said. I've seen the same argument so many times in so many games. Almost always it turns out that something else was to blame and so the attempt fails. Spectacularly. To everyone's detriment.

 

My favorite chanter build starts combat using ranged weapons before switching to melee once enemies are engaged or buffs/debuffs are in place. This allows him to gauge what types of phrases/chants/items and consumables to use as well as open the possibility for interesting combinations with caster spells. In melee, he dual-wields - and as a result he actually does a massive amount of damage on his own. For obvious reasons Dex is important to him.

In a pinch, I can set him up to use a shield and help hold the line for a limited time but he's really not built for that.

I actually see builds like the "stock build" you mentioned or (to a lesser extent) Kana's as limiting except for specific party combinations, given the sheer power of the Vancian casters. My chanters never compete for the same slot as any one or two of them, but serve as more of a universal complement/damage dealer - the "third" DPSer/multiplier in MMO terms, basically.

 

Anyway I think what's really sad is that you're on the cusp of figuring for yourself what's really wrong but then you fall back back to old biases. Fine, I get that you want things simple. Class simplfication doesn't help though, because we don't really need another unique class. Hell, we already have 4 different casters that run the gamut of offensive/defensive and we have even MORE warrior classes.

The thing is you apparently see past your biast whenever you play that "favorite" archer chanter. He was obviously working well for you, but the COMBAT SYSTEM made it boring or less rewarding. You probably couldn't make that logic leap because you are not actively comparing PoE combat mechanics to that of a game that actually has (and rewards) an active playstyle. Other games improve on general combat by introducing weapons with unique (active) attributes, for example, like swords being automatically AoE (wide swings) and maces causing bash. The equivalent of weapon talents in these games gave you access to improved combat maneuvers automatically gained on level up instead of static +x modifiers PoE currently has, resulting in engaging gameplay for characters that spend a lot of time swinging a weapon.

I'm honestly not sure why new generation strategy games like PoE don't implement their own version of these mechanics, when it seems like action games are only too happy to steal mechanics from old generation strategy games and add their own unique twist to them.

 

In case you didn't notice, the "boring" combat system (specifically the role of actives/passive and modals) that is integral to what makes the chanter work is something of a major problem among ALL classes that rely almost exclusively on it . Or haven't you tried playing a fighter recently?

 

As for the comment below, that is actually a very accurate observation.

Like bards, chanters just need a little work and creativity to get them going. Bards in BG can use bows, can steal things so your party ends up better geared, can defend the party from fear (which low level casters love to use) and can use wands to overpower foes despite their own lack of proper spell progression (among lots of other things). None of these benefits fall under your neat "everyone must have a defined front line/caster/damage dealer/whatever role" philosophy, and yet they are obviously significant (to the point of actually being OP, in the original BG).

Chanters are much the same, though the devs "fixed" that OP phase and phrase-scaling needs work.

Edited April 3, 2017 by scythesong

[firkraag888]

I think chanters are like the baldurs gate bard.

 

"Jack of all trades and master of none"

 

hence why people get the feeling that they aren't really contributing to the party the way specialists are

 

I personally have tried numerous times to roll a chanter and I have never been able to make them work for the following reasons:

 

FRONT LINE TANKS : they are inferior to fighters, paladins,

CASTERS: inferior to mages, druids, priests, ciphers

MELEE DAMAGE DEALERS: inferior to fighters, rogues, barbs, ciphers

RANGED DAMAGE DEALERS: inferior to rangers, ciphers, rogues

 

As you can see no need to pick a chanter. One could argue a cipher is a "jack of all trades and master of none " but they seem to be far more capable IMO I think because you don't have to wait around for phrases to accumalate

 

Activating dragon thrashed at high level IMO doesn't make up for all of this.

Edited April 3, 2017 by firkraag888

[Ninjamestari]

I think the mistake here was making the whole class in the first place. A single player computer game doesn't benefit that much from having a vast and versatile class system. Bioware realized this in Dragon Age: Origins, and the epitome of narrative driven RPGs, ME2. Having too many different options simply means you cannot tailor the story properly for anyone, which greatly diminishes player engagement. You know, despite its flaws, Tyranny was very easy to get into with your character having a clearly defined role and the classless system making sure that your personal vision of your character's identity didn't really matter from the storytelling standpoint. The classless system was an awesome idea, and the only thing holding it back was the god-awful implementation.

 

Some times less is more. The amount of player identities you allow can easily be seen as ground you have to cover when making a map. You can make a large huge mega-map, but then you'll be overwhelmed with the task of making sure it doesn't feel empty. With a smaller map you can achieve a much more powerful experience due to being able to fill it with content and stuff to do. The same goes with having multiple classes. I mean seriously, there really is no valid game-play reason to have anything except for the basic fighter, mage and a rogue. And maybe a priest. Having weird classes like monks, druids, ciphers and such adds no value to the game beyond the sentimental reasons of some people simply wanting them everywhere, even in game worlds where they ultimately feel out of place. This is just another reason why you can't really run a game-company like a democracy; too many competing visions and interests will rob the end product of a proper identity, which is kinda what is holding PoE back.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like playing around with a versatile class system, coming up with builds, but in the long run it only detracts from the game, and the people who really want these things don't really enjoy playing these games as much in the first place, but rather tend to fool around with the system in their heads. Nothing wrong with that, but that is difficult to translate into a meaningful gaming experience, and especially difficult to translate into sales. Why I bring up sales is that I have a dream of financially independent game developers who have the freedom to chase their own visions instead of being saddled into either brainless masses or soulless corporations. The more obsidian makes money, the less reliant they are of outside funding, which means they don't have to tie their hands by catering to crowd-funding-bull**** like arbitrary stretch-goals. Just imagine PoE without the backer NPCs and you'll understand how fundamentally better the game would be if Obsidian could've just focused doing their own thing instead of pandering to the source of their funding.

[rheingold]

I like the chanter as is, though it does like some of the other classes need to be tweaked a bit, but not much. It is mainly a melee/support class. While you can certainly make it into an archer that's not its main selling point. I don't see people complaining that you can't make a barbarian or fighter into an effective archer. What it does it does really well. And that seems to be a mark of a well designed class.

[scythesong]

Are you actually implying that Dragon Age: Origins' strategy combat system is somehow inferior to the action game combat system of DA:2 or ME:2? A system that basically amounts to "aim that cursor, shoot stuff and evade enemy fire"? Do you actually know the difference between a strategy game and an action game ?

There's a reason a "less is more" system works for an action game. I'll leave you to meditate on that. Hint - it's got something to do with visceral nature of playing the game from the perspective of the first person, and how overloading someone with extra info can kill the experience.

 

While you're at it, imagine a room of people  playing a game that uses a complicated system of numbers, rules and dice rolls to define a world. A few portraits are probably all that anchors/defines the characters/setting of the game in a visual way.

Quite complex, but If you think a game like that isn't marketable then you badly need a reality check.

 

Speaking from precedence, you're dead wrong about your assessment simply because of the existence of the game known as Dragon Age 2. Now, taken by itself (as an action game and a precursor to DA:I) DA:2 was actually a good game. Hell, for people who could connect with what it's like to live under the shadow of ethnic traditions/a religious organization or who had to start over from scratch after migrating somewhere, it was probably one hell of a game. It definitely had its flaws, but do you know why so many people "hated" the game, almost irrationally?
Because DA:O was a STRATEGY game, and DA:2 was an ACTION game. Because DA:O was SUPPOSED to usher in a new generation of strategy games.

The backlash from that alone (that makes it possible to "hate" a game that should, objectively, be decent) should prove, without a doubt, that people realized on some level that had been taken away from them. Most people simply couldn't pin down what that "something" was.

 

Also your "less is more approach" failed spectacularly in ME3. The devs pretty much just did their own thing there, guess how well that that turned out.
If only video game development (especially new generation strategy game development, in this case) was so simple.
 

Edited April 3, 2017 by scythesong

[DigitalCrack]

I think the mistake here was making the whole class in the first place. A single player computer game doesn't benefit that much from having a vast and versatile class system. Bioware realized this in Dragon Age: Origins, and the epitome of narrative driven RPGs, ME2. Having too many different options simply means you cannot tailor the story properly for anyone, which greatly diminishes player engagement. You know, despite its flaws, Tyranny was very easy to get into with your character having a clearly defined role and the classless system making sure that your personal vision of your character's identity didn't really matter from the storytelling standpoint. The classless system was an awesome idea, and the only thing holding it back was the god-awful implementation.

 

Some times less is more. The amount of player identities you allow can easily be seen as ground you have to cover when making a map. You can make a large huge mega-map, but then you'll be overwhelmed with the task of making sure it doesn't feel empty. With a smaller map you can achieve a much more powerful experience due to being able to fill it with content and stuff to do. The same goes with having multiple classes. I mean seriously, there really is no valid game-play reason to have anything except for the basic fighter, mage and a rogue. And maybe a priest. Having weird classes like monks, druids, ciphers and such adds no value to the game beyond the sentimental reasons of some people simply wanting them everywhere, even in game worlds where they ultimately feel out of place. This is just another reason why you can't really run a game-company like a democracy; too many competing visions and interests will rob the end product of a proper identity, which is kinda what is holding PoE back.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like playing around with a versatile class system, coming up with builds, but in the long run it only detracts from the game, and the people who really want these things don't really enjoy playing these games as much in the first place, but rather tend to fool around with the system in their heads. Nothing wrong with that, but that is difficult to translate into a meaningful gaming experience, and especially difficult to translate into sales. Why I bring up sales is that I have a dream of financially independent game developers who have the freedom to chase their own visions instead of being saddled into either brainless masses or soulless corporations. The more obsidian makes money, the less reliant they are of outside funding, which means they don't have to tie their hands by catering to crowd-funding-bull**** like arbitrary stretch-goals. Just imagine PoE without the backer NPCs and you'll understand how fundamentally better the game would be if Obsidian could've just focused doing their own thing instead of pandering to the source of their funding.

This mentality represents a philosphy of game design that is straight up ruining rpg's... Sure there are some it will work for but its been treated as sort of a trendy thing to do and is being blanketed across games it has no business being apart of. Oddly enough its this philosphy that has spawned games like PoE in the first place as a counter to "simplification" and to reintroduce a more complex rpg.