Removing non class specific talents was a bad idea

[KDubya]

Currently Fighters get:

 

1.) regen

2.) weapon styles such as sword and shield and dual wielding

3.) Combat stances such as warrior and defender

4.) ways to increase engagements and make breaking them more punishing

5.) passive defense buffs

6.) activated defense buffs

7.) a few other things I can't remember

 

If you want those things you need to multi with a fighter.

 

If everyone could get Fighter abilities why be a Fighter? Your 'general talent pool' with weapon styles would get chosen automatically by anyone who uses a weapon. That would not promote diversity, everyone would end up the same.

 

Single class Casters don't have access to passives but instead get increased power level which helps massively with their spells. If you want passives you just need to pay the cost and multi with whatever you feel you are lacking.

[Katarack21]

If everyone could get Fighter abilities why be a Fighter? Your 'general talent pool' with weapon styles would get chosen automatically by anyone who uses a weapon. That would not promote diversity, everyone would end up the same.

That sounds like an argument for why those talents are to broadly useful to be fighter-specific.

[dunehunter]

Currently Fighters get:

 

1.) regen

2.) weapon styles such as sword and shield and dual wielding

3.) Combat stances such as warrior and defender

4.) ways to increase engagements and make breaking them more punishing

5.) passive defense buffs

6.) activated defense buffs

7.) a few other things I can't remember

 

If you want those things you need to multi with a fighter.

 

If everyone could get Fighter abilities why be a Fighter? Your 'general talent pool' with weapon styles would get chosen automatically by anyone who uses a weapon. That would not promote diversity, everyone would end up the same.

 

Single class Casters don't have access to passives but instead get increased power level which helps massively with their spells. If you want passives you just need to pay the cost and multi with whatever you feel you are lacking.

 

Well there are still some other talents than weapon styles, like deep pocket, extra weapon set and those boost your fortitude/reflex/will defense. 

 

And we are talking about adding talents like +damage to fire spell which is missing in current game.

[KDubya]

Mages getting some sort of elemental damage boosting passives sounds like a good idea.

 

Deep pockets is a Rogue (I think) ability now. Similar to my views on taking Fighter multi if you want Fighter abilities, I'd say take Rogue if you want Rogue abilities. All of the 'general talent pool' abilities are specific to one or more classes, making them available to everyone cheapens the class that had them. 

 

Plus where do you draw the line? If weapon styles are OK for everyone why not combat stances or regen? If you make the general pool abilities weaker they can still end up being an auto pick or be complete trash. 

[Answermancer]

Deep pockets is a Rogue (I think) ability now. Similar to my views on taking Fighter multi if you want Fighter abilities, I'd say take Rogue if you want Rogue abilities. All of the 'general talent pool' abilities are specific to one or more classes, making them available to everyone cheapens the class that had them. 

 

Plus where do you draw the line? If weapon styles are OK for everyone why not combat stances or regen? If you make the general pool abilities weaker they can still end up being an auto pick or be complete trash.

This seems like circular reasoning to me:

"Only fighters get weapons styles now, therefore only fighters should get them or they are getting cheated. Only rogues get deep pockets, therefore only rogues should get them."

 

Sure that's true right now, but that's not much of an argument because it wasn't true in Pillars 1 (nor D&D since 3E for that matter, two-weapon fighting, my goto example was a generic perk available to anyone who met the stat requirement).

 

There's nothing explicitly Fighter about two weapon fighting, or explicitly rogue about deep pockets. They just happen to be limited that way right now, and clearly some of us disagree with that decision.

 

As to where to draw the line, drawing it the same place as Pillars 1 makes sense for a start. In my little writeup idea and mockup I even specifically got rid of the class-defining passives from the second tab (Sneak Attack for rogues, Constant Recovery for Fighters, things like Soul Whip or Carnage, etc. etc.).

 

In contrast, I don't think there is anything at all about deep pockets that screams rogue to me, nor anything about two weapon fighting that screams fighter.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Answermancer

[Katarack21]

Why is two-weapon fighting more of a fighter thing than a rogue thing? Other than "that's the tree it's in", I mean. What about two-weapon fighting is more fighter-defining than rogue-defining?

It seems like an arbitrary decision. It's more like "we couldn't think of anything really good and iconic for fighters so we just put the weapon styles there instead".

[KDubya]

 

Deep pockets is a Rogue (I think) ability now. Similar to my views on taking Fighter multi if you want Fighter abilities, I'd say take Rogue if you want Rogue abilities. All of the 'general talent pool' abilities are specific to one or more classes, making them available to everyone cheapens the class that had them. 

 

Plus where do you draw the line? If weapon styles are OK for everyone why not combat stances or regen? If you make the general pool abilities weaker they can still end up being an auto pick or be complete trash.

This seems like circular reasoning to me:

"Only fighters get weapons styles now, therefore only fighters should get them or they are getting cheated. Only rogues get deep pockets, therefore only rogues should get them."

 

Sure that's true right now, but that's not much of an argument because it wasn't true in Pillars 1 (nor D&D since 3E for that matter, two-weapon fighting, my goto example was a generic perk available to anyone who met the stat requirement).

 

There's nothing explicitly Fighter about two weapon fighting, or explicitly rogue about deep pockets. They just happen to be limited that way right now, and clearly some of us disagree with that decision.

 

As to where to draw the line, drawing it the same place as Pillars 1 makes sense for a start. In my little writeup idea and mockup I even specifically got rid of the class-defining passives from the second tab (Sneak Attack for rogues, Constant Recovery for Fighters, things like Soul Whip or Carnage, etc. etc.).

 

In contrast, I don't think there is anything at all about deep pockets that screams rogue to me, nor anything about two weapon fighting that screams fighter.

 

 

As a Rogue that does not multi with a Fighter, either staying pure or multi classing with something else, you can still dual wield, you just don't get the -20% attack speed that Fighter get. Fighters are the martial mastery class, fighting is what they do and is all they do and they do it better than amateurs. Getting access to lots of passive abilities is what Fighters have as their 'thing'.

 

If Fighters are going to be only about having a ****ty knockdown and other 'meh' abilities they might as well just get rid of them as a class. Currently I use Fighters a lot in my multi classing as I like melee characters and Fighters are great at melee, They blend well with lots of classes.

 

Want a combat focused weapon using monk? - Take Devoted and add a Shattered Pillar choosing whether you want a Monk who has a combat stance and a weapon style or a Fighter who gains wounds and uses them on Torment's Reach or a little from both. If I could get the weapon style of my choice without taking Fighter then I could go with a Cipher Monk and get the big damage increase from Soul Whip plus get a spammable power or two. In effect I'd have three classes.

 

Deep Pockets to me sounds like what a Rogue would have who uses a lot of grenades or sets lots of traps.

 

In the example of your Rogue who wants two weapon style what is stopping you from multi classing with a Fighter? You must value whatever else you did more than getting access to two weapon style. Sounds like a choice with consequences to me.

[Gairnulf]

Currently Fighters get:

 

1.) regen

2.) weapon styles such as sword and shield and dual wielding

3.) Combat stances such as warrior and defender

4.) ways to increase engagements and make breaking them more punishing

5.) passive defense buffs

6.) activated defense buffs

7.) a few other things I can't remember

 

If you want those things you need to multi with a fighter.

 

If everyone could get Fighter abilities why be a Fighter? Your 'general talent pool' with weapon styles would get chosen automatically by anyone who uses a weapon. That would not promote diversity, everyone would end up the same.

 

Single class Casters don't have access to passives but instead get increased power level which helps massively with their spells. If you want passives you just need to pay the cost and multi with whatever you feel you are lacking.

The simple answer - some people don't want to play a character class - based game, and the fact that they have to choose a class with evident sets of advantages and disadvantages messes up their decision-making proccess. They are looking for the feeling that they have it all (although in PoE they didn't have it all but that's how it felt).

[ghostwriter]

Mages getting some sort of elemental damage boosting passives sounds like a good idea.

 

They will get them, and some other abilities, as passive boosts from different grimoires.

 

Also as someone has already pointed out, there will be a number of unique class abilities available to all single class players from items in the game. We've already seen a few in the beta(Leap, Graze on hit etc.).

[Katarack21]

 

 

Deep pockets is a Rogue (I think) ability now. Similar to my views on taking Fighter multi if you want Fighter abilities, I'd say take Rogue if you want Rogue abilities. All of the 'general talent pool' abilities are specific to one or more classes, making them available to everyone cheapens the class that had them. 

 

Plus where do you draw the line? If weapon styles are OK for everyone why not combat stances or regen? If you make the general pool abilities weaker they can still end up being an auto pick or be complete trash.

This seems like circular reasoning to me:

"Only fighters get weapons styles now, therefore only fighters should get them or they are getting cheated. Only rogues get deep pockets, therefore only rogues should get them."

 

Sure that's true right now, but that's not much of an argument because it wasn't true in Pillars 1 (nor D&D since 3E for that matter, two-weapon fighting, my goto example was a generic perk available to anyone who met the stat requirement).

 

There's nothing explicitly Fighter about two weapon fighting, or explicitly rogue about deep pockets. They just happen to be limited that way right now, and clearly some of us disagree with that decision.

 

As to where to draw the line, drawing it the same place as Pillars 1 makes sense for a start. In my little writeup idea and mockup I even specifically got rid of the class-defining passives from the second tab (Sneak Attack for rogues, Constant Recovery for Fighters, things like Soul Whip or Carnage, etc. etc.).

 

In contrast, I don't think there is anything at all about deep pockets that screams rogue to me, nor anything about two weapon fighting that screams fighter.

 

 

If I could get the weapon style of my choice without taking Fighter then I could go with a Cipher Monk and get the big damage increase from Soul Whip plus get a spammable power or two. In effect I'd have three classes.

What the...? No, you wouldn't "in effect have three classes". Does a +20% action speed with one-handed weapons really define a character as effectively having fighter classes? Does that seem so powerful and uniquely fighter that it effectively grants the benefits of the fighter class?

 

If you give a Paladin sneak attack, that Paladin effectively has the fundamentals of the Rogue class. Same if you gave a Paladin frenzy--it effectively has the fundamentals of the barbarian class. Those things would change the way the paladin plays to be more like those other classes, because they are fundamental to those classes.

 

But I don't think giving a Paladin +15% damage with two-handed weapons effectively makes that Paladin play any more like a fighter. It just makes that Paladin do more of what it already does.

 

Those weapon talents are, as I said, to broadly useful to be class-specific talents.

[Boeroer]

I didn't know that about the grimoires, nice.

 

I wonder what trinkets for other classes may do. Looking forward to it.

 

Of course, what Obsidian always can do is to introduce items that give you special abilites that usually your class wouldn't get. Like the gauntlets and the tricorne hat in the beta. If they compensate the loss of universal talents with such items then I'm satisfied. Because for me it doesn't matter so much how I can achieve out-of-the-box builds (also for single classes) that work but that it's possible at all.

[CottonWolf]

To be honest, at this point, what I'd do is throw out single class characters entirely and make every character multiclassed. Then have them reach the max power level in both classes and balance appropriately. Want the fighting skills? Be X/fighter. Want some magic? Be X/wizard. And so on.

[Answermancer]

Why is two-weapon fighting more of a fighter thing than a rogue thing? Other than "that's the tree it's in", I mean. What about two-weapon fighting is more fighter-defining than rogue-defining?

 

It seems like an arbitrary decision. It's more like "we couldn't think of anything really good and iconic for fighters so we just put the weapon styles there instead".

Exactly! 

 

Fighters are the martial mastery class, fighting is what they do and is all they do and they do it better than amateurs.

This meme needs to die, rogues haven't been "the guy that takes lockpicking and stealth and suck at fighting" for a long time. They are the ninja/agile melee dps class. This has been true in almost every game for like 20 years. They are listed as a Striker, not "Utility with some pity DPS". It absolutely makes sense that they should have some degree of weapon mastery (maybe for limited sets of weapons).

 

Hell, Eder was originally a rogue in Pillars! Same guy, same backstory, rogue. They only changed it because they wanted the first companion you find to be a fighter (read: tank so that new players don't get wiped as easily). Check the original Kickstarter for Pillars 1 if you don't believe me.

 

If Fighters are going to be only about having a ****ty knockdown and other 'meh' abilities they might as well just get rid of them as a class. Currently I use Fighters a lot in my multi classing as I like melee characters and Fighters are great at melee, They blend well with lots of classes.

So give them better abilities, including passives, rather than taking crucial passives from everyone else. Who knows, their high-level abilities might be great.

 

If I could get the weapon style of my choice without taking Fighter then I could go with a Cipher Monk and get the big damage increase from Soul Whip plus get a spammable power or two. In effect I'd have three classes.

Not with my idea, which doesn't touch multi-class characters at all . You wouldn't be able to multi-class AND take a weapon style with my system (problematic and overcomplicated though it is).

 

In the example of your Rogue who wants two weapon style what is stopping you from multi classing with a Fighter? You must value whatever else you did more than getting access to two weapon style. Sounds like a choice with consequences to me.

Because the archetype I want is the rogue who attacks super fast with 2 weapons but is still a rogue. I don't want to multiclass and take all of Fighter (which I want 1 single passive out of) and lose out of a ton of Rogue abilities (as opposed to 1-2 if the talent was universal or I had some other way to get it) just for that.

 

I can do this in every edition of D&D from 3 up, I can do this in Pillars 1, I can't do it here.

 

Although right now, if the system doesn't change I probably will make a Rogue/Devoted. And everyone who wants to play a melee character will make an X/Devoted. How boring is that? It's the same as 3rd edition where every single melee class took a level or two of fighter, rogues included.

 

At least in 3rd edition you could still take two weapon fighting without doing that . 

 

What the...? No, you wouldn't "in effect have three classes". Does a +20% action speed with one-handed weapons really define a character as effectively having fighter classes? Does that seem so powerful and uniquely fighter that it effectively grants the benefits of the fighter class?

 

If you give a Paladin sneak attack, that Paladin effectively has the fundamentals of the Rogue class. Same if you gave a Paladin frenzy--it effectively has the fundamentals of the barbarian class. Those things would change the way the paladin plays to be more like those other classes, because they are fundamental to those classes.

 

But I don't think giving a Paladin +15% damage with two-handed weapons effectively makes that Paladin play any more like a fighter. It just makes that Paladin do more of what it already does.

 

Those weapon talents are, as I said, to broadly useful to be class-specific talents.

Totally agreed.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Answermancer

[Katarack21]

 

Because the archetype I want is the rogue who attacks super fast with 2 weapons but is still a rogue. I don't want to multiclass and take all of Fighter (which I want 1 single passive out of) and lose out of a ton of Rogue abilities (as opposed to 1-2 if the talent was universal or I had some other way to get it) just for that.

 

Although right now, if the system doesn't change I probably will make a Rogue/Devoted.

 

 

 

That's exactly what I wanted, and exactly what I did. Turns out a devoted/streetfighter is a total badass.

[Answermancer]

That's exactly what I wanted, and exactly what I did. Turns out a devoted/streetfighter is a total badass.

Oh for sure, I'm sure it's fantastic, but it will never have access to high level rogue abilities AND it will use a lot of fighter abilities because why not? It would be a waste not to.

 

So yeah it's a totally badass character, and probably what I will make if they don't change things, but it's a different archetype both from my Pillars 1 rogue, and from the "super fast attack rogue" in general.

[Katarack21]

 

That's exactly what I wanted, and exactly what I did. Turns out a devoted/streetfighter is a total badass.

Oh for sure, I'm sure it's fantastic, but it will never have access to high level rogue abilities AND it will use a lot of fighter abilities because why not? It would be a waste not to.

 

So yeah it's a totally badass character, and probably what I will make if they don't change things, but it's a different archetype both from my Pillars 1 rogue, and from the "super fast attack rogue" in general.

 

Oh, agree 100%. A devoted streetfighter is lots of fun, but at the end of the day it's *approximating* the duel-wield rogue.

[theBalthazar]

Currently Fighters get:

 

1.) regen

2.) weapon styles such as sword and shield and dual wielding

3.) Combat stances such as warrior and defender

4.) ways to increase engagements and make breaking them more punishing

5.) passive defense buffs

6.) activated defense buffs

7.) a few other things I can't remember

 

If you want those things you need to multi with a fighter.

 

If everyone could get Fighter abilities why be a Fighter? Your 'general talent pool' with weapon styles would get chosen automatically by anyone who uses a weapon. That would not promote diversity, everyone would end up the same

 

you do not understand that you can also boost the fighter with new active abilities or new passive abilities.

 

If you want a superiority with fighter without sacrifice the feeling of choice :

 

Let the general pool. And add another talent to fighter. Easy and Simple.

 

Like : 

 

Two handed style : +15 % for two handed (general pool)

 

SUPERIOR Two handed style : +30 % for two handed (ONLY FIGTHERS, if devs have serious reason to deal this talent to him and not barbarian for exemple)

 

End of the game : p ^^

 

PS : And don't tell it is the same things by gap : this in any case regulates the multiplicity of choice.

Edited November 21, 2017 by theBalthazar

[Answermancer]

Yeah, and if you're tired of my rogue-centered whining (though I will advocate for freed Weapon Styles until release ), consider the shield Paladin:

• There's a Paladin order called the Shieldbearers of St. Elcga.
• They get a bonus when using a shield.
• They can't get Shield and Weapon style (without becoming another victim of X/Devoted).

Are you really going to argue that a Paladin whose order is centered all around training with a shield shouldn't get access to Shield and Weapon style because "Fighters are the masters of arms and everyone else is an amateur"?

 

It's a totally arbitrary decision to put the Styles in Fighter instead of more interesting passives, and deny them to everyone else. I don't buy the "it's special to fighters!" thing at all, Contant Recovery is special to Fighters, as well as stances, as well as various martial tactical moves around bullying enemies.

[KDubya]

 

 

Because the archetype I want is the rogue who attacks super fast with 2 weapons but is still a rogue. I don't want to multiclass and take all of Fighter (which I want 1 single passive out of) and lose out of a ton of Rogue abilities (as opposed to 1-2 if the talent was universal or I had some other way to get it) just for that.

 

Although right now, if the system doesn't change I probably will make a Rogue/Devoted.

 

 

 

That's exactly what I wanted, and exactly what I did. Turns out a devoted/streetfighter is a total badass.

 

 

Great, sounds like the problem is solved!!!!

 

As a bonus tip you could make a Monk/Rogue and use Swift Strikes to get increased attack speed.

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

Because the archetype I want is the rogue who attacks super fast with 2 weapons but is still a rogue. I don't want to multiclass and take all of Fighter (which I want 1 single passive out of) and lose out of a ton of Rogue abilities (as opposed to 1-2 if the talent was universal or I had some other way to get it) just for that.

 

Although right now, if the system doesn't change I probably will make a Rogue/Devoted.

 

 

 

That's exactly what I wanted, and exactly what I did. Turns out a devoted/streetfighter is a total badass.

 

 

Great, sounds like the problem is solved!!!!

 

As a bonus tip you could make a Monk/Rogue and use Swift Strikes to get increased attack speed.

 

Not really. A devoted/streetfighter is a total badass, but it's not a duel-wielding high-attack-speed rogue. It's a fighter/rogue. I'm having fun playing my devoted/streetfighter, but it's *not the character I wanted to make*. It's just a decent substitute. A duel-wielding high-attack-speed rogue was totally doable in Pillars...but not in Pillars 2. In Pillars 2, the best you can do is a fighter/rogue to *simulate* that.

[KDubya]

Yeah, and if you're tired of my rogue-centered whining (though I will advocate for freed Weapon Styles until release ), consider the shield Paladin:

• There's a Paladin order called the Shieldbearers of St. Elcga.
• They get a bonus when using a shield.
• They can't get Shield and Weapon style (without becoming another victim of X/Devoted).

Are you really going to argue that a Paladin whose order is centered all around training with a shield shouldn't get access to Shield and Weapon style because "Fighters are the masters of arms and everyone else is an amateur"?

 

It's a totally arbitrary decision to put the Styles in Fighter instead of more interesting passives, and deny them to everyone else. I don't buy the "it's special to fighters!" thing at all, Contant Recovery is special to Fighters, as well as stances, as well as various martial tactical moves around bullying enemies.

 

Actually you'd probably be better going Unbroken instead of Devoted. They get some nice shield buffs and benefits to engagement. Once Devoted get fixed such that the actually only have one weapon proficiency and penalties to everything else they won't be the one stop shop that they currently are. Throw in a fix to the too fast recovery on many melee weapons and then we can see what is powerful.

 

And i would stick with the Fighters are the masters of martial combat mantra. Paladins have lots of useful abilities why do they need to take from Fighters without having to multi?

 

I don't see why you can't just multi-class? This is the defining feature of this new game, embrace it as its not going away.

[Skaddix]

The fix will probably be locked in Fighting Styles for Paladins. Shieldbearers will get one handed and shield. Bleakwalkers will probably get two handed, etc.

[CottonWolf]

 

Yeah, and if you're tired of my rogue-centered whining (though I will advocate for freed Weapon Styles until release ), consider the shield Paladin:

• There's a Paladin order called the Shieldbearers of St. Elcga.
• They get a bonus when using a shield.
• They can't get Shield and Weapon style (without becoming another victim of X/Devoted).

Are you really going to argue that a Paladin whose order is centered all around training with a shield shouldn't get access to Shield and Weapon style because "Fighters are the masters of arms and everyone else is an amateur"?

 

It's a totally arbitrary decision to put the Styles in Fighter instead of more interesting passives, and deny them to everyone else. I don't buy the "it's special to fighters!" thing at all, Contant Recovery is special to Fighters, as well as stances, as well as various martial tactical moves around bullying enemies.

 

Actually you'd probably be better going Unbroken instead of Devoted. They get some nice shield buffs and benefits to engagement. Once Devoted get fixed such that the actually only have one weapon proficiency and penalties to everything else they won't be the one stop shop that they currently are. Throw in a fix to the too fast recovery on many melee weapons and then we can see what is powerful.

 

And i would stick with the Fighters are the masters of martial combat mantra. Paladins have lots of useful abilities why do they need to take from Fighters without having to multi?

 

I don't see why you can't just multi-class? This is the defining feature of this new game, embrace it as its not going away.

 

 

Because people don't want to lose their highest level talents. Which is why I suggested getting rid of single classed characters. At that point you're getting the flexibility and not losing anything.

 

The fix will probably be locked in Fighting Styles for Paladins. Shieldbearers will get one handed and shield. Bleakwalkers will probably get two handed, etc.

 

Everyone knows that the true Bleak Walker is the gun-adin.

Edited November 21, 2017 by CottonWolf

[dunehunter]

 

The fix will probably be locked in Fighting Styles for Paladins. Shieldbearers will get one handed and shield. Bleakwalkers will probably get two handed, etc.

 

Everyone knows that the true Bleak Walker is the gun-adin.

 

 

+1

[Skaddix]

I didnt suggest two handed because I personally like it the best or anything just its the most obvious stereotypical weapon style for the "evil" paladin.