Removing non class specific talents was a bad idea

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

I hope you are all happy now

 

Now everyone can metagame, get a single weapon proficiency for the chosen endgame weapon and fill the rest of the proficiencies with the dire needed passives. Have fun with the power creep...

 

At the same time, you missed the opportunity to campaign for more class related talents rather than a pool of generic talents.

I'm also looking forward to all the complaints about the fighter being a boring / weak choice for (multi)class.

 

 

yes actually I'm pretty happy with this.

 

Main thing I was looking for was a return of open talents in some form for all classes. We got that, that's great, that's the big thing.

 

Plenty of time for further refinement moving forward. Maybe they'll need to fill in the class trees a bit further too, we'll see.

[anfoglia]

Let's be real here - would you rather:

 

Have 5 weapon proficiencies or 2 weapon proficiencies and a boost to reflex, foritude and will?

Spend a talent to get a passive upgrade or a weapon proficiency?

 

Besides, the class trees will feel as empty as they did before, because literally nothing changed. If people start claiming now that the single classes have been redeemed through this change, they are beyond redemption.

 

I would rather have the boost to reflex, fortitude, and will. But as I said, there are ways to buff proficiency and/or limit the number of generic passives a character gets to choose.

 

The fact that this particular change doesn't spice up class trees does not mean that the narrow classes will stay that way forever. Obsidian can address them as separate issues (even if one option would have been to some set of passives directly into the trees).

[AndreaColombo]

Doppelschwert - why do you think being powerful and role playing are mutually exclusive? They really aren’t.

 

Besides, I do enjoy meta- and power gaming after my first run. It’s a play style like any other, not an inherently evil thing.

 

Moreover, having 5 proficiencies (which is still going to be possible) means nothing to me if I’m only ever going to use one or two. Being forced to take stuff I won’t use or care about doesn’t equate good role playing or good game design.

[JerekKruger]

Have 5 weapon proficiencies, or 2 weapon proficiencies and a boost to reflex, foritude and will?

 

Two weapon proficiencies and a boost of defences definitely. I rarely use more than two weapon types on any given character anyway. In fact I already disliked the fact that I'd end up picking proficiencies I'd never use, so the change has an added bonus for me.

 

Besides, the class trees will feel as empty as they did before, because literally nothing changed. In fact, this has just worsened the problem for all the classes with access to those passives, because why would they spent a talent to get them when they could just use a prophiciency instead.

 

Yes, the class trees will still feel rather empty. That's something else that will hopefully be improved by Obsidian in time. I also agree that the ability for Fighters to take these talents as both proficiencies and talents is not exactly thrilling.

 

It's almost funny, but if people start claiming now that the single classes have been redeemed through this change, they are beyond redemption.

 

There's still a way to go, but it's a big improvement for all single classes other than the Fighter.

Edited November 21, 2017 by JerekKruger

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Josh has spoken...

 

https://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/933088736954408960

 

Looks pretty good to me.

 

Yeah, this seems pretty fine. Now, the single classes just need a bit more meat, especially as far as the casters and choices within each single class go.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Have 5 weapon proficiencies, or 2 weapon proficiencies and a boost to reflex, foritude and will?

 

Two weapon proficiencies and a boost of defences definitely. I rarely use more than two weapon types on any given character anyway. In fact I already disliked the fact that I'd end up picking proficiencies I'd never use, so the change has an added bonus for me.

 

Yeah, that's an easy choice. I didn't like being pushed into superfluous weapon proficencies.

[CottonWolf]

Especially Fighter now. Though the ability to take dual weapon twice for a 40% attack speed increase is pretty cool. But nonetheless, if most Fighter passives are just repeats that's pretty terrible.

[MortyTheGobbo]

It sounds like they really need to add some more actual abilities to fighters, rogues and barbarians now. Since now everyone can take abilities that used to be theirs.

[Wormerine]

 

 

Josh has spoken...

 

https://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/933088736954408960

 

Looks pretty good to me.

 

Yeah, this seems pretty fine. Now, the single classes just need a bit more meat, especially as far as the casters and choices within each single class go.

 

Do they? Now they pick spells AND some passive talents to make them weapon proficient. Unless non casting classes get some love (fighters, rangers, rogues, monks) spellcaster mght end up being crazy powerful.

[Breckmoney]

I just don't think this changes much in the end. Either monsters or items or something else need to be rebalanced around people now having access to more damage (which they're almost sure to take) or the game gets a bit easier. Meanwhile classes that had these abilities just become less interesting.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

 

Josh has spoken...

 

https://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/933088736954408960

 

Looks pretty good to me.

 

Yeah, this seems pretty fine. Now, the single classes just need a bit more meat, especially as far as the casters and choices within each single class go.

 

Do they? Now they pick spells AND some passive talents to make them weapon proficient. Unless non casting classes get some love (fighters, rangers, rogues, monks) spellcaster mght end up being crazy powerful.

 

Sorry guys, it's late at night over here. I meant: "Now, the single classes just need a bit more meat, especially as far as the martials and choices within each single class go."

[kanisatha]

I'm definitely on the side of the minority in this thread. The complaints about single class talents and especially fighter talents (yes those are "fighter" talents) seem rather over the top. Essentially it boils down to wanting fighter talents to be available to all classes but the talents of other classes to not similarly be available for all classes. So now, per Sawyer's tweet, every other class gets what makes a fighter special. So what's the point of the fighter class? Maybe they should give fighters the same spells as the spellcasting classes as fair compensation, you know, because I demand that I should be able to play a spell-flinging fighter without having to multiclass.

 

Per the original system, any class could, without restriction, do the same things as a fighter - dual weapons, sword & board, etc. - just not as well as a fighter. What the heck was wrong with that? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[kanisatha]

It sounds like they really need to add some more actual abilities to fighters, rogues and barbarians now. Since now everyone can take abilities that used to be theirs.

Exactly, which, if taken to its logical conclusion, means all classes are essentially the same with only minor, superficial differences. Every class can do everything. Wonderful.

[IndiraLightfoot]

I'm definitely on the side of the minority in this thread. The complaints about single class talents and especially fighter talents (yes those are "fighter" talents) seem rather over the top. Essentially it boils down to wanting fighter talents to be available to all classes but the talents of other classes to not similarly be available for all classes. So now, per Sawyer's tweet, every other class gets what makes a fighter special. So what's the point of the fighter class? Maybe they should give fighters the same spells as the spellcasting classes as fair compensation, you know, because I demand that I should be able to play a spell-flinging fighter without having to multiclass.

 

Per the original system, any class could, without restriction, do the same things as a fighter - dual weapons, sword & board, etc. - just not as well as a fighter. What the heck was wrong with that? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I hear you. The solution is surely a mix of fighter getting early access to a few of these skills, as well as making som fighter versions of skills that are slightly better than that available to other classes, and finally adding one or two new talents, unique to the single class fighter. 

[JerekKruger]

I'm definitely on the side of the minority in this thread. The complaints about single class talents and especially fighter talents (yes those are "fighter" talents) seem rather over the top. Essentially it boils down to wanting fighter talents to be available to all classes but the talents of other classes to not similarly be available for all classes. So now, per Sawyer's tweet, every other class gets what makes a fighter special.

 

If Two-Weapon Style or Weapon and Shield Style were what made Fighters special, the class would have been pretty boring. Luckily it has other, more interesting and still unique abilities and passives that leave it interesting. It might need a little more love to make up for this but it's hardly been ruined.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Exactly, which, if taken to its logical conclusion, means all classes are essentially the same with only minor, superficial differences. Every class can do everything. Wonderful.

 

 

I for one would have loved a classless system in Deadfire and PoE1, just like Josh and his RPG version of Pillars of Eternity. Alas...

Edited November 21, 2017 by IndiraLightfoot

[kanisatha]

But "slightly better" doesn't make the fighter class anything special and still begs the question: why ever bother with a single-class fighter?

 

I ask a very simple question: How come casting wizard spells can be unique to the wizard class, but being (significantly) more skilled at fighting with dual weapons cannot be unique to the fighter class?

[IndiraLightfoot]

 How come casting wizard spells can be unique to the wizard class?

Like I said. If I had it my way, you could build your very own character, talent by talent, proficiency by proficiency, and skill by skill.

So I wouldn't really want any spells or talents to be unique to a certain "class".

 

EDIT: Come to think of it, classless CRPGs are very rare. PoE1 had quite a bit of that vibe, but how sweet wouldn't be to see Deadfire set free character creation wise?

That's true roleplaying, at least in one sense.

 

Josh, it's not too late!

Edited November 21, 2017 by IndiraLightfoot

[blotter]

I ask a very simple question: How come casting wizard spells can be unique to the wizard class, but being (significantly) more skilled at fighting with dual weapons cannot be unique to the fighter class?

 

I haven't fiddled around with Arcana in the beta myself, but if it's like it was in Pillars 1, then everyone actually can cast some wizard spells without multiclassing already. Not all of them, granted, but then again it's not like everyone has access to all of the fighter's talents either.

[kanisatha]

 

 

Exactly, which, if taken to its logical conclusion, means all classes are essentially the same with only minor, superficial differences. Every class can do everything. Wonderful.

I for one would have loved a classless system in Deadfire and PoE1, just like Josh and his RPG version of Pillars of Eternity. Alas...

Sorry, but I would've hated that. Arguments were made earlier in this thread about all of this being about choice. Well, in my view having distinct classes is very much about choice. It is what makes character building choices meaningful, because once you make a choice ("I pick the fighter class") you are locked out of casting wizard spells ("I didn't pick the wizard class"). So, your choices matter and have consequences in the game. A classless system essentially is about giving players the appearance and feeling of being empowered with choices, but where at the end of the day those choices don't have much value because everything ends up being the same.

[JerekKruger]

I ask a very simple question: How come casting wizard spells can be unique to the wizard class, but being (significantly) more skilled at fighting with dual weapons cannot be unique to the fighter class?

 

It could be, and maybe it even will be. Who knows what Obsidian will decide between now and the end of the beta.

 

Why I don't think it should be boils down to the fact it wasn't in Pillars and that the Fighter does have plenty of abilities that other classes can't get access to. Also it's not clear to me that if only one class were to get these abilities why it should be the Fighter and not the Rogue. In the original class descriptions shock troops were described as being Rogues whereas Fighters were described as being unified by their focus on endurance and melee defence.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

 

A classless system essentially is about giving players the appearance and feeling of being empowered with choices, but where at the end of the day those choices don't have much value because everything ends up being the same.

Perhaps I'm just tired, but aren't there more choices and more possibilities if you're allowed to create the character just the way you feel like as opposed to picking between a few "classes" and rigid talent trees?

[Wormerine]

But "slightly better" doesn't make the fighter class anything special and still begs the question: why ever bother with a single-class fighter?

 

I ask a very simple question: How come casting wizard spells can be unique to the wizard class, but being (significantly) more skilled at fighting with dual weapons cannot be unique to the fighter class?

I feel you. It seemed that in PoE you could easily multiclass fighter and priest/cipher/mage/Druid without milticlassing being a thing. Fighters had stat advantage but to some extend stats has been univeriliesed as, let’s be honest, dealing mainly in stats in a game where rolls are done in the background is not very fun.

 

This first draft of classes for Deadfire had a benefit of:

 

1) Clearly stating what each class does

2) making choosing skills impactful, due to them being class specific rather than bunch of minor boosts

3) allowing you to mix talents of two classes of your choosing by multiclassing.

 

To be honest, I am a bit confused on how classes still work. What it all might mean is that in addition to proficiency now you will have to pick a talent to make weapon of your choice a legit choice, while fighter will get talents to still make him better in what he does than a mage. Enemies will get buffed to counter that and we will pretty much be at the very same spot as we are not. Except players will feel like they chose something. Which might be good enough.

 

We will see. Beta is for testing. I can’t imagine Obsidian wouldn’t foresee a possibility of fan base not appreciating the restrictions.

[MortyTheGobbo]

Boring number increases were a bad choice for fighter-specific abilities, or barbarian-specific etc. If they have to exist, and I honestly don't think they do, they belong in the proficiency system. But now the fighter and some other classes only have a handful of abilities that are actually unique to them. Deadfire was supposed to improve on that, but when I look at the ability trees for the "martial" classes and subtract the talent-equivalents... there's not much left.

[kanisatha]

 

I ask a very simple question: How come casting wizard spells can be unique to the wizard class, but being (significantly) more skilled at fighting with dual weapons cannot be unique to the fighter class?

 

It could be, and maybe it even will be. Who knows what Obsidian will decide between now and the end of the beta.

 

Why I don't think it should be boils down to the fact it wasn't in Pillars and that the Fighter does have plenty of abilities that other classes can't get access to. Also it's not clear to me that if only one class were to get these abilities why it should be the Fighter and not the Rogue. In the original class descriptions shock troops were described as being Rogues whereas Fighters were described as being unified by their focus on endurance and melee defence.

Sorry, maybe it wasn't clear that I was just using fighter versus wizard as only an example to make my points. All of this can absolutely apply to some other classes as well, especially the other melee classes such as barbarian and rogue.