Removing non class specific talents was a bad idea

[Juodas Varnas]

To me it just seems that Obsidian REAAAAALLY want you to always be multi-classing.

 

I personally always hated multi-classing in everything

 

Really do not get the logic behind limiting the weapon styles to just the fighters. They should AT LEAST apply to all the martial classes (Fighter/Paladin/Rogue/Barbarian and maaaaaybe Ranger).

Edited November 21, 2017 by Juodas Varnas

[Answermancer]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

It's only "taking away" from Fighters because Obsidian decided, completely arbitrarily, to give these styles only to them, without any precedent in the first game or any other game, or any of the games this series in based on.

 

I want to make the kind of Pure Rogue that I've been able to in every D&D inspired game since Icewind Dale 2, which shouldn't include giving up high-level rogue skills for a bunch of Fighter/Monk/Whatever skills that I don't want.

 

Obviously they could give Fighters different and better passives in place of these!

 

There is nothing defining about styles for Fighters, they were never even tied to Fighters previously, and I don't know why you think that Fighters "obviously" have to be masters of fighting styles and nobody else can when Fighters in Pillars have a bunch of other defining characteristics that are way more iconic IMO. Like I said, Constant Recovery, improved heavy armor via Armored Grace, Stances, and abilities that move, lock down and control enemies.

 

And I really can't see how you can argue against Shieldbearers of St. Elcga having access to Weapon and Shield style without multiclassing. I mean honestly, come on. If you make a pure-class Shieldbearer, how does it make any sense for them to be worse at fighting with a shield than a random fighter or X/fighter off the street?? A whole order of Paladins devoted to fighting with shields and they can't even match a pure fighter?

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Exactly! If this is the direction they wanna go then just give the full range of abilities to multi-class characters, don't give each class a point every level or whatever and make them share a bit, and get rid of single class altogether because it will never fit previously available archetypes.

 

Like, apparently the archetype of a Shield-focused Paladin isn't the guy who's a Paladin in the order of the Shieldbearers. No, he's the guy who's a Paladin in the order of the Shieldbearers but also moonlights as an Unbroken for some reason. Oh, and he never learned enough to be a master of either one.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Answermancer

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

I want to make the kind of Pure Rogue that I've been able to in every D&D inspired game since Icewind Dale 2

Hell, even BG2's Swashbuckler kit gave thief's three stars in two-weapon fighting. It was no sorcerer kensai, but it's a thief you can't make in Pillars 2.

[Wormerine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

I was worried about my imported cypher - with new system I won’t be able to improve his firearms and reload times while being a pure cypher. So at the end of my run I bought 7th lvl companion to try cypher builds. I made ranger/cypher... getting all basic cypher spells I wanted and nice long range accuracy, reload boost. I am kinda loving it. He also has an antilope running around.

[Boeroer]

Yes, but he never will get the highest cipher powers and has a pet running around that you didn't want in the first place. But as I said: Given the few special items we saw in the beta I suspect we'll see some more of those that help with this issue.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Boeroer

[Wormerine]

Yes, but he never will get the highest cipher powers and has a pet running around that you didn't want in the first place. But as I said: Given the few special items we saw in the beta I suspect we'll see some more of those that help with this issue.

if PoE2 cypher is anything like PoE1 cypher I am not loosing that much. The only regret I have is that there is no ferret to pick as a pet. Supported animal companions don’t really fit my ex-merchant, forced to be an adventurer Orlan from Old Valia.

[JerekKruger]

is perfect rational to, in the absence of rational and reasonable criticism regarding the current scheme, suggest an alternative reason for universal talents is actual at work.

 

It's not rational to state something is the case when one doesn't have evidence that it is. Believe without evidence is textbook irrationality.

 

You could have said "I think that the real issue at work for many is the sacrifice of power level and ability tier that comes with multiclassing", but instead you stated that this was the real issue, that people who don't admit it's the real issue are lying or hiding it from themselves, and that it's an entitlement issue.

 

nevertheless we got complaints 'bout naming nomenclature for chrissakes.

 

Because that's something that bothers people. It, presumably, doesn't bother you, and that's great, but it does bother some people. To jump to the assumption that they're making it up because they don't want to admit their true issue with the system is a stretch.

 

what you don't seem to realize is that the folks wedded to the old system actual has not yet provided the kinda evidence you is demanding.

 

Evidence I am demanding? Where am I demanding evidence?

 

is an appeal to feel.  as we stated earlier, and you seeming failed to notice, is a fundamental truth that there is no way to reject with reason and rationality what boils down to feel.

 

I'm well aware that it's an appeal to feel as you call it. I'm also well aware that there's no way of rationally dismissing such an appeal.

 

What you seem to be missing is that this is, ultimately, a feel issue. There isn't a rational argument one way or the other on this issue that doesn't, eventually, boil down to something that is decided on personal preference. That universal talents would make this system harder to balance presupposes balance is a priority for people (for many it's not); that multiclassing increases the number of options compared to Pillars presupposes people are happy to always multiclass (some aren't).

 

Ultimately Obsidian will have to decide what feel the game is going to focus on, then find the best way to achieve that, but I don't really see the issue with people expressing their own desires in the mean time and dismissing them as appeals to feel rather than rational is, in my opinion at least, silly.

 

we observed it is a mistake to assume fans is reacting with rationality or exhibiting reason.

 

It's also a mistake to assume they are not. They might have different preferences to you or Josh, but their conclusions are almost certainly built rationally upon those preferences.

 

is no evidence for your feels other than the absence o' reason and rational.  so, congrats?

 

There's plenty of evidence that builds or options that I, or others, might want to use can't be done, or require multiclassing to achieve. You don't think that's a legitimate criticism of the system but to claim otherwise is simply wrong.

Edited November 21, 2017 by JerekKruger

[Bathum]

I'm sorry I didn't read th whole discussion (few first and few last pages tho), so maybe this idea has already been discussed.

 

The point Boeroer had in the OP really triggers me. This seems game-changing, and while I do want some change and improvement, I don't want a whole new way of building characters... And I certainly not want to be forced to multiclass just because they want me to.

 

As for the current debate "fighters shouldn't be the only one to master weapons", I think the Weapon and Shield unpickable by Shieldbiearers paladins is very illustrative of the problem : this doesn't make any sens.
Just as having a rogue unable to master daggers or stilettos...

 

But on the opposite, I always thank it was kinda weird to be able to have casters mastering two handed blades or battle axes...

 

I think that if the primary goal is to say "classes should be more focused on the weapons they are intended to", those classes should be able to have access to a pool of shared talents.

Fighters (and paladins?) would have all of them, and other classes only a few.

Rogues could master only firearms/small bows, daggers etc...

Wizzards could have staffs, scepters, rods...

 

And so on.

 

Same thing for the non-weapon related talents.

 

EDIT : now that I'm reading that, they already have done half of the work for the weapon focus by distributing weapons in the talents.
Knight and Soldier weapon focus only available for paladins

Peasant and Ruffian for rogues

Adventurer and Knight for barbarians...

Edited November 21, 2017 by Bathum

[Katarack21]

Paladins should have access to weapon and shield. Barbarians should have access to two-handed. Rogues should have access to two-weapon. Fighters should have access to *all*.

[vanyel54]

Paladins should have access to weapon and shield. Barbarians should have access to two-handed. Rogues should have access to two-weapon. Fighters should have access to *all*.

 

Exactly.

When you level up a single class in POE1 you have way more choice than in POE2. It's not a feeling, it's a fact.

But keep these new abilities as player choice. We should be able to play a paladin with two handed but in this case, the multi classing with fighter make sens. The same with rogue and two weapons style...

And integrate slayer and defensive boos talents for everyone.

I'll give the elemental talents for the casting classes (well for the priest only the fire one ).

The problem is what to give to the cipher or the chanter ?

[Lamppost in Winter]

Going through the PoE1 Talents and seeing what I miss and what I could do without. Only going by memory for the Deadfire stuff so I could well be forgetting some things.

 

- I'm fairly ambivalent on weapon talents now. Since everybody gets Proficiencies now, the talents can just be the "Fighters are good with (melee) weapons thing". I still would prefer everybody getting access to the basic weapon styles, but Fighters getting access to a more advanced form.

 

- Defensive talents definitely feel generic enough that their class restriction is arbitrary, especially since the Affliction system has changed and apparently these are quite a bit more attractive than they were in PoE? Need that Cyclopedia entry on Afflictions/Inspirations to fully understand. 

 

- X-Slayer/Bane I liked as generics for flavour. Not sure why Wilder Slayer is in Barb? I feel like these could also be in Ranger as a "favoured enemy" type thing.

 

- Elemental Scion talents: definitely miss these, both mechanically and for flavour.

 

- Dunno if the various ranged talents (Shot on the Run, Gunner, etc.) are still in the game as Ranger passives, but I think it would be nice to have these separate since Rangers already had loads of stuff that made them better with ranged weapons than other classes.

 

- Most of all I miss the Utility stuff like Field Triage, though, looking back on it, I guess there weren't that many (nearly half the list is just the variations on the Elemental Scion stuff). I guess I could forgive most things if I had a nice big list of Utility talents, ala Fallout Perks.

 

- The Priest passives that modified Interdiction and Holy Radiance are also very sorely missed as they went a long way to defining roles within the class. Don't know how these would work with Interdiction as a spell now. Perhaps some passives that modify certain schools or keywords of spells could be fun?

 

- Wizard passives were mainly about Blast (now a universal weapon thing) and modifying Arcane Veil (now a spell), as well as the Invulnerability Spell Heuristics thing.

 I'd suggest passives that modify keywords of spells (since the broader "schools" are already covered by subclasses), but I'm still afraid this might step on the toes of subclassing a bit too much.

 

- Same suggestions and caveats for Druid as Wizards and Priests. 

 

That's all I can think of for now, at least.

TL;DR: Can live without generic weapon talents, defensive talents feel like they should be generic, I like Utility stuff and want more of it, don't know what to do with caster passives right now.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Lamppost in Winter

[KDubya]

Paladins should have access to weapon and shield. Barbarians should have access to two-handed. Rogues should have access to two-weapon. Fighters should have access to *all*.

 

Why can't Paladins have Two handed or Barbarians have  Two weapon style? How about Monks or Ciphers or .....?

 

The game as designed now allows for all of that via multi-classing. Like it or hate it, that's the game we have. In this game choices and options come at a cost. Deciding whether or not some additional ability is worth the cost is up to you to decide.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

The game as designed now allows for all of that via multi-classing. Like it or hate it, that's the game we have.

 

No need to be this resigned, and no need to assume that all you see in this early beta is set in stone.

On the contrary, Obsidian want us to give feedback, and then, if they see it fit, they'll adjust and change stuff to make what they think is a better Deadfire.

If you like something or hate something in the game systems, now is the time to speak up and make your voice heard.

[Katarack21]

 

Paladins should have access to weapon and shield. Barbarians should have access to two-handed. Rogues should have access to two-weapon. Fighters should have access to *all*.

 

Why can't Paladins have Two handed or Barbarians have  Two weapon style? How about Monks or Ciphers or .....?

 

The game as designed now allows for all of that via multi-classing. Like it or hate it, that's the game we have. In this game choices and options come at a cost. Deciding whether or not some additional ability is worth the cost is up to you to decide.

 

The system I suggested provides more choice and allows more options while maintaining uniqueness in the fighter class and keeping it withing some bounds of realism--ciphers with greatswords without multiclassing makes *much* less sense than a barbarian whose skilled with a large two-handed sword (have you never seen *that* archetype?).

 

This is the time for feedback and suggestions on what we want this game to be. I fully expect other people to have other suggestions and other feedback, and to criticize mine.

[DigitalCrack]

weapon styles really should just be generic proficiencies (which has been brought up before) you get enough of them that its not gonna dip into your weapon choices if you decide to invest in a style and then you can focus on new abilities for classes instead of wasting talent space on weapon styles.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

Paladins should have access to weapon and shield. Barbarians should have access to two-handed. Rogues should have access to two-weapon. Fighters should have access to *all*.

 

 

Everybody should have access to all of these. From a design perspective removing that wide-open choice is one of the biggest changes from the first game, and there's no particular reason you shouldn't be able to make a dual-wielding paladin or a mace-and-shield barbarian if you wanted. Or, hell, a two-handed specialist cipher. It's just an arbitrary limitation that seems driven more by UI limitations than anything else.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

[CottonWolf]

The system I suggested provides more choice and allows more options while maintaining uniqueness in the fighter class and keeping it withing some bounds of realism--ciphers with greatswords without multiclassing makes *much* less sense than a barbarian whose skilled with a large two-handed sword (have you never seen *that* archetype?).

 

I feel the need to point out that the default cipher in the PoE1 character creator uses greatswords. It's basically the most standard cipher archetype.

[Katarack21]

 

Paladins should have access to weapon and shield. Barbarians should have access to two-handed. Rogues should have access to two-weapon. Fighters should have access to *all*.

 

 

Everybody should have access to all of these. From a design perspective removing that wide-open choice is one of the biggest changes from the first game, and there's no particular reason you shouldn't be able to make a dual-wielding paladin or a mace-and-shield barbarian if you wanted. Or, hell, a two-handed specialist cipher. It's just an arbitrary limitation that seems driven more by UI limitations than anything else.

 

I wouldn't be against that--I'd rather fighters have *interesting talents* rather than these useful, but ultimately not-dazzling mundane utility talents. What I proposed is something of a compromise.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

 

The system I suggested provides more choice and allows more options while maintaining uniqueness in the fighter class and keeping it withing some bounds of realism--ciphers with greatswords without multiclassing makes *much* less sense than a barbarian whose skilled with a large two-handed sword (have you never seen *that* archetype?).

 

I feel the need to point out that the default cipher in the PoE1 character creator uses greatswords. It's basically the most standard cipher archetype.

 

 

 

Hah! Good catch.

 

Ciphers have to do damage with their weapons to gain focus, so limiting their secondary weapon talents is actually a really big deal and a harsh pointless punishment for them. Without the secondary talents, they can't generate focus as quickly, can't cast as often, etc.

[Katarack21]

 

The system I suggested provides more choice and allows more options while maintaining uniqueness in the fighter class and keeping it withing some bounds of realism--ciphers with greatswords without multiclassing makes *much* less sense than a barbarian whose skilled with a large two-handed sword (have you never seen *that* archetype?).

 

I feel the need to point out that the default cipher in the PoE1 character creator uses greatswords. It's basically the most standard cipher archetype.

 

The lore talks about the original "mind hunters" using stilettos and hatchets, so that's why I said that. I admittedly didn't think of what the default classes have equipped.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Katarack21

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

 

 

The system I suggested provides more choice and allows more options while maintaining uniqueness in the fighter class and keeping it withing some bounds of realism--ciphers with greatswords without multiclassing makes *much* less sense than a barbarian whose skilled with a large two-handed sword (have you never seen *that* archetype?).

 

I feel the need to point out that the default cipher in the PoE1 character creator uses greatswords. It's basically the most standard cipher archetype.

 

The lore talks about the original "mind hunters" using stilettos and hatchets, so that's why I said that. I admittedly didn't think of what the default classes have equipped.

 

 

 

Well, you aren't far wrong. The most popular PoE 1 Cipher builds are probably either ranged weapons or dual wielding melee. The main issue is that regardless of which specialization you pick, if you're playing a PoE 1 Cipher you do have to spend a lot of level-up talents specializing in some type of weapon, because a weapon is a huge part of the class.

 

That's not as big an issue in the current beta because it's low-level still and other problems are even more visible, but it'll become huge at higher levels unless they implement a lot of weapon choice options for Ciphers. Problem is 1) doing so as "powers" limits spell selection in a big way, and 2) given the current system it looks like ciphers will get railroaded into a particular build type (i.e., two handed, etc.) unless they choose to multiclass and cut off their top-level abilities.

 

It's a mess all around but it highlights the limitations of the new system really well because it puts the class in between a rock and a hard place: they need to generate focus by attacking with a weapon, but they won't be able to specialize in using a weapon, or at least not the weapon of their choice.

 

 

That's why I think the best option is probably to allow high-level "proficiency" slots to be spent on "general" talent proficiencies, as before. Make people take weapons at level one but after that open it up to defensive or specialist "proficiencies," i.e., PoE 1 talents.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

[Gromnir]

 

is no evidence for your feels other than the absence o' reason and rational.  so, congrats?

 

There's plenty of evidence that builds or options that I, or others, might want to use can't be done, or require multiclassing to achieve. You don't think that's a legitimate criticism of the system but to claim otherwise is simply wrong.

 

this is the kinda thing am talking 'bout.  is a given you cannot replicate every poe build in deadfire.  keep repeating the deadfire impossible builds tragedies is pointless.  nobody is arguing with you on this point.  is unreasonable 'cause you see such an axiomatic result as a problem w/o describing why is a problem beyond feels. not rational. even the folks complaining 'bout their inability to replicate specific poe builds in deadfire freely admit that deadfire is giving them more customization options in total.  folks such as boeroer were concerned during development 'bout the balance problems inherent in multiclassing poe with so many distinct classes and talents and the current multi-class scheme allows for far more control o' such balance issues than would universal talents. etc.   

 

each additional posting o' impossible poe builds using deadfire is irrational. it proves nothing and nobody is arguing the point you believe such postings is making.  am thinking you would admit how ridiculous it would be if every time a poe impossible build were submitted as evidence, the response were to post two deadfire builds which would be impossible in poe. nevertheless, while the inanity o' such evidence seems obvious, you nevertheless proffer the impossible poe builds as meaningful.  irrational. unreasonable. 

 

and if you got hung up on Gromnir stating an alternative rationale in the absence o' reasonable responses from the poe universal talent advocates, feel free to add the obvious implied "it is Gromnir's opinion," to such posts as necessary.

 

*eye roll*

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps throwing up your hands and dismissing the entire issue as an emotional appeal is equal ridiculous.  reductio ad absurdum is not a good way to respond to Gromnir's claims.  you do not honest believe the changes made by obsidian were based on gut-level feel, do you?  is hard and cold reasoning from obsidian which resulted in the current multi-class system.  changes made achieve increased customization while also maintaining the ability to better regulate and balance o' the much expanded customization options.  as Gromnir observed earlier, every sequel in which the developers removes powerful features has resulted in negative backlash.  the current fanbase reaction to multiclassing is hardly unpredictable. in spite o' predictable outcome, obsidian changed the poe system anyways.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Gromnir

[CottonWolf]

The lore talks about the original "mind hunters" using stilettos and hatchets, so that's why I said that. I admittedly didn't think of what the default classes have equipped.

 

Yeah, I was really just being pedantic for the sake of it. I completely agree with your underlying point.

[Katarack21]

 

 

is no evidence for your feels other than the absence o' reason and rational.  so, congrats?

 

There's plenty of evidence that builds or options that I, or others, might want to use can't be done, or require multiclassing to achieve. You don't think that's a legitimate criticism of the system but to claim otherwise is simply wrong.

 

this is the kinda thing am talking 'bout.  is a given you cannot replicate every poe build in deadfire.  keep repeating the deadfire impossible builds tragedies is pointless.  nobody is arguing with you on this point.  is unreasonable 'cause you see such an axiomatic result as a problem w/o describing why is a problem beyond feels. not rational. even the folks complaining 'bout their inability to replicate specific poe builds in deadfire freely admit that deadfire is giving them more customization options in total.  folks such as boeroer were concerned during development 'bout the balance problems inherent in multiclassing poe with so many distinct classes and talents and the current multi-class scheme allows for far more control o' such balance issues than would universal talents. etc.   

 

each additional posting o' impossible poe builds using deadfire is irrational. it proves nothing and nobody is arguing the point you believe such postings is making.  am thinking you would admit how ridiculous it would be if every time a poe impossible build were submitted as evidence, the response were to post two deadfire builds which would be impossible in poe.

The argument is that you can't replicate certain class builds in PoE 2. The rebuttal is that you have many more options over all thanks to multiclassing.

 

That is true. You have more options overall thanks to multiclassing.

 

The problem is not that. The problem is that *single-class builds are more limited*. You can duplicate many if not quite all of those builds--by *multiclassing*, which is where *all the options are*. You can *not* duplicate many of these builds *within the class that they were originally created in*.

 

Mutliclassing and a plethora of options via multiclassing is an answer to a different problem. The *multiclass* options in this beta are amazing. The *single class* options are...less so.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Hey,

 

Thanks for posting! It would be fantastic to hear your input, because all our Backers voices matter and should be heard!

 

 

Edited November 21, 2017 by IndiraLightfoot