Jump to content
Boeroer

Removing non class specific talents was a bad idea

Recommended Posts

 

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*.

 

 

 

you continuing to gloss over how are able to create many more new builds in deadfire than you could create in poe. is not a different problem.  you ain't making sense.  to make a weapon-focused druid in poe, the character chose the appropriate (essential) general talents. there were no multiclassing in poe.  poe2 achieves greater customization through multiclassing. can make a weapon-focused druid in both games, but the method to achieve must needs be different.

 

the options for a weapon-focused druid in deadfire is much greater than those available to a player o' poe.  can choose to multi-class with fighter or rogue or paladin or barbarian and each has unique advantages and drawbacks, but if goal is to make a weapon-focused druid, then you got far more options in deadfire. is no denying such an observation.  sure, you lose poe specific builds, but ultimately the range o' options for customization is massive improved in deadfire.

 

with all the new multiclassing options, were a forgone conclusion there would be balance issues. (see josh pinned tweet 'bout balance if you are one o' those folks irrational dismissive o' all balance concerns.) the new scheme allows base classes to remain distinct and controllable. more options and better balancing scheme. 

 

so why the reluctance to use multiclassing to achieve a weapon-focused druid?  naming nomenclature? please. there is a cost for achieving customization through multiclassing.  is that the issue?

 

claim is a separate issue is silly.  is 'bout achieving a character concept and putting tools to match such a concept in the hands o' the player.  compartmentalize single class v. multiclass is illusory.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited by Gromnir
  • Like 3

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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*.

 

 

 

you continuing to gloss over how are able to create many more new builds in deadfire than you could create in poe. is not a different problem.  you ain't making sense.  to make a weapon-focused druid in poe, the character chose the appropriate (essential) general talents. there were no multiclassing in poe.  poe2 achieves greater customization through multiclassing. can make a weapon-focused druid in both games, but the method to achieve must needs be different.

No. I can *not* make a weapon-based druid in both games. I can make a druid with fighter levels. I can not make a pure druid character who has weapon skills, but *no other fighter qualifiers because they're still just a damn druid*. A druid/fighter and a druid with a few weapons talents are not the same character--they play differently because they *are* different.

 

It's like the rogue. I can't make a rogue who plays *exactly* like a rogue but has the high-speed duel weapons of a PoE 1 rogue. I can make a fighter/rogue--but *that* rogue plays differently, even if I never take a single fighter talent other than two weapon fighting, because it has bonus deflection, endurance, and accuracy to reflect the fact that it's not just a rogue--it's been *trained as a fighter*. It will progress differently over time than a pure rogue. It's not the same character. A rogue/fighter isn't the same as a PoE rogue with two-weapon fighting. It doesn't play the same; the experience even outside of gameplay isn't the same.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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*.

 

 

 

you continuing to gloss over how are able to create many more new builds in deadfire than you could create in poe. is not a different problem. you ain't making sense. to make a weapon-focused druid in poe, the character chose the appropriate (essential) general talents. there were no multiclassing in poe. poe2 achieves greater customization through multiclassing. can make a weapon-focused druid in both games, but the method to achieve must needs be different.
No. I can *not* make a weapon-based druid in both games. I can make a druid with fighter levels. I can not make a pure druid character who has weapon skills, but *no other fighter qualifiers because they're still just a damn druid*. A druid/fighter and a druid with a few weapons talents are not the same character--they play differently because they *are* different.

 

It's like the rogue. I can't make a rogue who plays *exactly* like a rogue but has the high-speed duel weapons of a PoE 1 rogue. I can make a fighter/rogue--but *that* rogue plays differently, even if I never take a single fighter talent other than two weapon fighting, because it has bonus deflection, endurance, and accuracy to reflect the fact that it's not just a rogue--it's been *trained as a fighter*. It will progress differently over time than a pure rogue. It's not the same character. A rogue/fighter isn't the same as a PoE rogue with two-weapon fighting. It doesn't play the same; the experience even outside of gameplay isn't the same.

I guess that's the price we have to pay for multiclassing?

Aloth massages his temples, shaking his head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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*.

 

 

you continuing to gloss over how are able to create many more new builds in deadfire than you could create in poe. is not a different problem. you ain't making sense. to make a weapon-focused druid in poe, the character chose the appropriate (essential) general talents. there were no multiclassing in poe. poe2 achieves greater customization through multiclassing. can make a weapon-focused druid in both games, but the method to achieve must needs be different.
No. I can *not* make a weapon-based druid in both games. I can make a druid with fighter levels. I can not make a pure druid character who has weapon skills, but *no other fighter qualifiers because they're still just a damn druid*. A druid/fighter and a druid with a few weapons talents are not the same character--they play differently because they *are* different.

 

It's like the rogue. I can't make a rogue who plays *exactly* like a rogue but has the high-speed duel weapons of a PoE 1 rogue. I can make a fighter/rogue--but *that* rogue plays differently, even if I never take a single fighter talent other than two weapon fighting, because it has bonus deflection, endurance, and accuracy to reflect the fact that it's not just a rogue--it's been *trained as a fighter*. It will progress differently over time than a pure rogue. It's not the same character. A rogue/fighter isn't the same as a PoE rogue with two-weapon fighting. It doesn't play the same; the experience even outside of gameplay isn't the same.

I guess that's the price we have to pay for multiclassing?

 

It doesn't have to be.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the actual answer is that right now classes are purposefully more specialized. It's not something that's being given up because multiclassing exists, it's just a design decision. Fighters don't have damaging abilities really, they're just the masters of auto attacking, whereas rogues are built less around autoattacks than the first game and more around ability usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you continuing to gloss over how are able to create many more new builds in deadfire than you could create in poe. is not a different problem.  you ain't making sense.  to make a weapon-focused druid in poe, the character chose the appropriate (essential) general talents. there were no multiclassing in poe.  poe2 achieves greater customization through multiclassing. can make a weapon-focused druid in both games, but the method to achieve must needs be different.

 

the options for a weapon-focused druid in deadfire is much greater than those available to a player o' poe.  can choose to multi-class with fighter or rogue or paladin or barbarian and each has unique advantages and drawbacks, but if goal is to make a weapon-focused druid, then you got far more options in deadfire. is no denying such an observation.  sure, you lose poe specific builds, but ultimately the range o' options for customization is massive improved in deadfire.

 

with all the new multiclassing options, were a forgone conclusion there would be balance issues. (see josh pinned tweet 'bout balance if you are one o' those folks irrational dismissive o' all balance concerns.) the new scheme allows base classes to remain distinct and controllable. more options and better balancing scheme. 

 

so why the reluctance to use multiclassing to achieve a weapon-focused druid?  naming nomenclature? please. there is a cost for achieving customization through multiclassing.  is that the issue?

 

claim is a separate issue is silly.  is 'bout achieving a character concept and putting tools to match such a concept in the hands o' the player.  compartmentalize single class v. multiclass is illusory.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Regardless of the number of poe1 builds or poe2 builds or multiclassing or whatever, the issue is that progression when you pick a single class character *feels* linear. Choices *are* limited. And I think this is potentially concerning. And by potentially, I mean that we haven't seen high level talent trees or unique items.
 
Not that I'm advocating for the return of general talents, never liked those very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

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*.

 

 

you continuing to gloss over how are able to create many more new builds in deadfire than you could create in poe. is not a different problem. you ain't making sense. to make a weapon-focused druid in poe, the character chose the appropriate (essential) general talents. there were no multiclassing in poe. poe2 achieves greater customization through multiclassing. can make a weapon-focused druid in both games, but the method to achieve must needs be different.
No. I can *not* make a weapon-based druid in both games. I can make a druid with fighter levels. I can not make a pure druid character who has weapon skills, but *no other fighter qualifiers because they're still just a damn druid*. A druid/fighter and a druid with a few weapons talents are not the same character--they play differently because they *are* different.

 

It's like the rogue. I can't make a rogue who plays *exactly* like a rogue but has the high-speed duel weapons of a PoE 1 rogue. I can make a fighter/rogue--but *that* rogue plays differently, even if I never take a single fighter talent other than two weapon fighting, because it has bonus deflection, endurance, and accuracy to reflect the fact that it's not just a rogue--it's been *trained as a fighter*. It will progress differently over time than a pure rogue. It's not the same character. A rogue/fighter isn't the same as a PoE rogue with two-weapon fighting. It doesn't play the same; the experience even outside of gameplay isn't the same.

I guess that's the price we have to pay for multiclassing?

It doesn't have to be.
I do think single classes need some love as it stands right now - multiclassing is just so superior that NOT multiclassing in something like Fighter or Rogue is a waste.

 

On the other hand, I see what others are saying. If you can get the passives for fighting styles without multiclassing to fighter, and you get that bonus AND your highest level single class abilities... why does Fighter even exist?

 

So maybe Fighter also needs some love.


Aloth massages his temples, shaking his head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

multiclassing is just so superior that NOT multiclassing in something like Fighter or Rogue is a waste.

 

 

 Exactly. It's not truly multiclassing atm.

It's obligatory Fighter or Rogue plus the class you chose.

  • Like 3

*** "The words of someone who feels ever more the ent among saplings when playing CRPGs" ***

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like the rogue. I can't make a rogue who plays *exactly* like a rogue but has the high-speed duel weapons of a PoE 1 rogue.

 

Well actually you can, just use two weapons and pump dex. Of course you won't have access to the two-weapon fighting talent so you'll be attacking a little slower, but the game is not balanced around you having that talent so in the end it makes no difference. Your effectiveness will be the same.

Edited by ghostwriter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the notion of "paying a price for multiclassing" is the wrong approach.

 

The original game has probably the most flexible class-based character building system of any cRPG ever sold. It's amazingly flexible, both in the stat design, talent design, class design; you can make muscle wizards and melee rangers and high-Int barbarians and there's a valid way to make everything work; pretty much any character build you can dream up, within the confines of the system, you can find a way to make it work.

 

The new system adds multiclassing and takes away open talent selection. If those changes add more depth and freedom to the existing system, they're a step forward; if they don't, they're a step backward. They aren't, necessarily, a package deal, not at this stage; that's what beta means.

 

My personal take is that the current implementation is a step backward, mostly because locking what were previously open talents into specific class trees makes for more regimented, less open builds; for example, if I want to build a Cipher who specializes in ranged weapons, I am now strongly encouraged to multiclass as a ranger, even if I have no interest in roleplaying a ranger, dealing with a pet, etc. It's a more regimented, pre-plotted, locked system. In that sense, it doesn't really matter if X number of builds was possible under the old system and Y number of builds are possible under the new; what matters is that the builds in the old system were less regimented and the builds in the new system are moreso.

 

It's the difference between driving a car and riding a train: you might be able to get to plenty of places either way, but in a car you have more freedom as to how you get there; in a train, you're on rails.

 

 

To build a bit on my earlier suggestion, what I would suggest is returning general talents to the proficiency pool, specifically as follows (presuming I'm correct that you get a new proficiency slot every five levels):

 

 


 

Initial character building: as now, weapon proficiencies only.

 

Level 5: unlock the Weapon Passives (Two Weapon Style, Two-Handed Style, One-Handed Style, Weapon and Shield Style, Marksman, Gunner, Dangerous Implement)  as proficiencies (where they have been moved to class trees, move them back). Players at level five could choose one of these or another specific weapon proficiency.

 

Level 10: Unlock the Utility talents (Quick Switch, Deep Pockets, Arms Bearer; possibly Wound Binding and Field Triage) and the "Slayer" talents ((Beast Slayer, Primal Bane etc.). Players could choose one of those, an additional Weapon Passive, or an additional specific weapon proficiency.

 

Level 15: Unlock the Elemental and Defensive talents (Scion of Flame, Secrets of Rime, Snake's Reflexes, Mental Fortress). 

 

Many of those talents would probably need reworking a bit for balance and gameplay in the new system; for example, you might want to make the Defensive talents give "resistance to [stat] afflictions" so they were a little more useful, you might want to combine Marksman and Gunner, etc.  

 

 

 

Such a system would preserve the free-form character building of the first game through the "talent layer" without really touching the multiclassing system; multiclassing would then be an additional way to specialize your character, rather than a replacement for the prior game's freeform character building. The limited number of additional talents would also reduce the balance implications -- you're talking four non-weapon talents total over the life of your character, significantly fewer than in the first game.  

 

Edit: I should probably note that each individual class retains a lot of specialization under this system. I haven't looked at each new tree in detail, but nothing in this proposal would (for example) give stances to paladins or let ciphers use Twinned Shot. It would just give players a few tools to shape their characters a bit and wander a little bit "off the rails," which is important for a lot of reasons, not least of them the sense that your character reflects your unique choices.

Edited by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is a given you cannot replicate every poe build in deadfire.  

 

It doesn't have to be.

 

keep repeating the deadfire impossible builds tragedies is pointless.  nobody is arguing with you on this point.

 

I may be wrong, but I believe it's the first time I've brought it up.

 

is unreasonable 'cause you see such an axiomatic result as a problem w/o describing why is a problem beyond feels. not rational. 

 

You have a bizarre idea of what it means to be rational. As I said in my previous post, we all have personal preferences which act like axioms from which we then argue rationally. If you believe you don't then you've not looked at your own arguments carefully enough.

 

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.

 

Yes, and?

 

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.

 

And there is, of course, a balance to be had. I happen to think this balance can be achieved whilst leaving many universal talents in the game. If you have a rational argument as to why it's impossible to balance the game whilst keeping universal talents in the game do feel free to share it.

 

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.  

 

You seem to have a remarkable knowledge of what I am thinking and what I believe. What exactly is the point that I believe such posts are 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. 

 

The more I read of your posts, the less clue I have as to what you think rational means.

 

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.

 

The lack of "in my opinion" was hardly the problem with your statement. The problem with your statement was your insinuation that those arguing in favour of universal talents were being dishonest in their arguments (keeping secret their true problem with the changes) and that it was largely an issue of entitlement.

 

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.

 

I believe Obsidian set out what they wanted to see from the new system, then tried to come up with a system that fitted that vision. The vision however was not achieved through cold hard reasoning.

Edited by JerekKruger
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the notion of "paying a price for multiclassing" is the wrong approach.

 

The original game has probably the most flexible class-based character building system of any cRPG ever sold. It's amazingly flexible, both in the stat design, talent design, class design; you can make muscle wizards and melee rangers and high-Int barbarians and there's a valid way to make everything work; pretty much any character build you can dream up, within the confines of the system, you can find a way to make it work.

 

The new system adds multiclassing and takes away open talent selection. If those changes add more depth and freedom to the existing system, they're a step forward; if they don't, they're a step backward. They aren't, necessarily, a package deal, not at this stage; that's what beta means.

 

My personal take is that the current implementation is a step backward, mostly because locking what were previously open talents into specific class trees makes for more regimented, less open builds; for example, if I want to build a Cipher who specializes in ranged weapons, I am now strongly encouraged to multiclass as a ranger, even if I have no interest in roleplaying a ranger, dealing with a pet, etc. It's a more regimented, pre-plotted, locked system. In that sense, it doesn't really matter if X number of builds was possible under the old system and Y number of builds are possible under the new; what matters is that the builds in the old system were less regimented and the builds in the new system are moreso.

 

It's the difference between driving a car and riding a train: you might be able to get to plenty of places either way, but in a car you have more freedom as to how you get there; in a train, you're on rails.

 

 

To build a bit on my earlier suggestion, what I would suggest is returning general talents to the proficiency pool, specifically as follows (presuming I'm correct that you get a new proficiency slot every five levels):

 

 

 

Initial character building: as now, weapon proficiencies only.

 

Level 5: unlock the Weapon Passives (Two Weapon Style, Two-Handed Style, One-Handed Style, Weapon and Shield Style, Marksman, Gunner, Dangerous Implement)  as proficiencies (where they have been moved to class trees, move them back). Players at level five could choose one of these or another specific weapon proficiency.

 

Level 10: Unlock the Utility talents (Quick Switch, Deep Pockets, Arms Bearer; possibly Wound Binding and Field Triage) and the "Slayer" talents ((Beast Slayer, Primal Bane etc.). Players could choose one of those, an additional Weapon Passive, or an additional specific weapon proficiency.

 

Level 15: Unlock the Elemental and Defensive talents (Scion of Flame, Secrets of Rime, Snake's Reflexes, Mental Fortress). 

 

Many of those talents would probably need reworking a bit for balance and gameplay in the new system; for example, you might want to make the Defensive talents give "resistance to [stat] afflictions" so they were a little more useful, you might want to combine Marksman and Gunner, etc.  

 

 

 

Such a system would preserve the free-form character building of the first game through the "talent layer" without really touching the multiclassing system; multiclassing would then be an additional way to specialize your character, rather than a replacement for the prior game's freeform character building. The limited number of additional talents would also reduce the balance implications -- you're talking four non-weapon talents total over the life of your character, significantly fewer than in the first game.  

Fantastic post! It sums up how I feel, and I really do hope Obsidz read this very post. Why fix something that wasn't particularly broken overall, especially since Josh had preferred classless altogether (see PoE RPG)?

And your suggestion is very beautiful as well. Great stuff!

Edited by IndiraLightfoot
  • Like 7

*** "The words of someone who feels ever more the ent among saplings when playing CRPGs" ***

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely ZERO reason for fighters to be the only ones who can take weapon styles as they already have stances that are essentially specialized weapon style modals that they can switch between on command. Having the passives just comes off as filler talents for the fighter instead of a unique enhancement to the class (like the style modals are).

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question: What is exactly the problem with Fighter having access to perks which make him able to make a better use of his weapons? Is it a really "possible built" limitation, or what we percieve as a limitation, because if I won't pick a perk for two weapons combat that means using two weapons is impossible? If remember correctly usually "two weapon" proficiency was focused around being able to use two weapons - you would get heavy negative rolls making dual wielding bad, unless to took perks which would reduce those penelties. In Deadfire however:

o3VZHgL.jpg

 

That is certianly good. Does it mean however, that you can't use pure Rogue with dual wield without this talent? I don't believe so. He will attack slower than trained fighter, but rogues get some really strong distruptive skills to make up for it. 

In a similar way: 

 

ARiTIvT.jpg

It makes fighter with this perk a bit more efficient with two handed weapons, that lets say a Palladin, who gets his own set of benefits. 

 

The same with shields:

IEZtPSf.jpg

and one handed weapons:

Qp5SxVD.jpg

My point is:

I saw post asking for those base "buffs" being available to everyone, and even further bonuses for fighters only. Does that really make sense though? You can still equip one handed weapon and shield on your other characters and they will benefit from it in the intended way. You can still have dualwielding rogue, its just warrior is a bit better in it. 

Didn't they just skip one step forward making all those combinations available for EVERYONE without a need for a special perk and gave additional talent boost for fighters?

And if you create a mage, or rogue or palladin and want him to be very very good in handling weapons, doesn't it make sense to dip into fighter multiclassing?

Edited by Wormerine
  • Like 5

h1dczBG.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question: What is exactly the problem with Fighter having access to perks which make him able to make a better use of his weapons? Is it a really "possible built" limitation, or what we percieve as a limitation, because if I won't pick a perk for two weapons combat that means using two weapons is impossible? If remember correctly usually "two weapon" proficiency was focused around being able to use two weapons - you would get heavy negative rolls making dual wielding bad, unless to took perks which would reduce those penelties. In Deadfire however:

 

 . . .

I saw post asking for those base "buffs" being available to everyone, and even further bonuses for fighters only. Does that really make sense though? You can still equip one handed weapon and shield on your other characters and they will benefit from it in the intended way. You can still have dualwielding rogue, its just warrior is a bit better in it. 

 

Didn't they just skip one step forward making all those combinations available for EVERYONE without a need for a special perk and gave additional talent boost for fighters?

 

And if you create a mage, or rogue or palladin and want him to be very very good in handling weapons, doesn't it make sense to dip into fighter multiclassing?

 

A few answers.

 

First is that people want their characters to be skilled at their jobs without having to multiclass. For example, someone might always just play barbarian characters with huge two-handers in every RPG they play, want to replicate that in this, and feel shut out of that build because they don't want to play a fighter/barbarian, they want to play a pure barbarian. You run into the same issue with almost any "RP" style build, especially builds carried forward from the first game --  for example, if someone wanted to make a Bleak Walker paladin that specialized in guns (which would have been perfectly viable in the first game, if a bit niche), they couldn't really do that in this game without dual-classing their paladin as a ranger, and where did this pet come from, I didn't have a pet in the first game, etc. 

 

Second answer is you should be able to have some degree of "weapon specialist" in your party without having to have a fighter in the party. If you have a paladin and a barbarian instead, they should perform "well enough" to fill in. They don't have to be equally good but they should be able to play in the same ballpark so that fighters don't become a requirement. Allowing some degree of open weapon talent selection makes it easier for non-fighter classes to fill the fighter role in a pinch. 

 

Third answer is that some classes have to be relatively good at using weapons even if weapons aren't their specialty. For example, ciphers have to be good with a weapon to generate focus, so requiring them to multiclass into ranger or fighter or whatever to gain weapon talents makes it a lot harder to play a single-class cipher.

 

Basically the short answer is people shouldn't have to multiclass if they don't want to, and if you have to multiclass to get effective weapon talents, people are going to feel compelled to multiclass rather than playing the characters they envision and want. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people feel compelled to do so, though. Barbarians and rogues and paladins are balanced around not having access to additional weapon expertise. This doesn't mean they are worse than their Pillars 1 version because they can't get it, other things changed as well, they're just different. Pure Ciphers don't need additional weapon training - their focus gain in this game is balanced different than the first.

Edited by Breckmoney
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

you continuing to gloss over how are able to create many more new builds in deadfire than you could create in poe. is not a different problem.  you ain't making sense.  to make a weapon-focused druid in poe, the character chose the appropriate (essential) general talents. there were no multiclassing in poe.  poe2 achieves greater customization through multiclassing. can make a weapon-focused druid in both games, but the method to achieve must needs be different.

 

the options for a weapon-focused druid in deadfire is much greater than those available to a player o' poe.  can choose to multi-class with fighter or rogue or paladin or barbarian and each has unique advantages and drawbacks, but if goal is to make a weapon-focused druid, then you got far more options in deadfire. is no denying such an observation.  sure, you lose poe specific builds, but ultimately the range o' options for customization is massive improved in deadfire.

 

with all the new multiclassing options, were a forgone conclusion there would be balance issues. (see josh pinned tweet 'bout balance if you are one o' those folks irrational dismissive o' all balance concerns.) the new scheme allows base classes to remain distinct and controllable. more options and better balancing scheme. 

 

so why the reluctance to use multiclassing to achieve a weapon-focused druid?  naming nomenclature? please. there is a cost for achieving customization through multiclassing.  is that the issue?

 

claim is a separate issue is silly.  is 'bout achieving a character concept and putting tools to match such a concept in the hands o' the player.  compartmentalize single class v. multiclass is illusory.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 
Regardless of the number of poe1 builds or poe2 builds or multiclassing or whatever, the issue is that progression when you pick a single class character *feels* linear. Choices *are* limited. And I think this is potentially concerning. And by potentially, I mean that we haven't seen high level talent trees or unique items.
 

 

This is also what worries me most.

 

I very much appreciated how PoE1 allowed me to custom tailor each party member to the role my party needed most (even though their classes were set in stone).

In particular I found that the flexibility which PoE1's general talents offered worked great in combination with the option to respec our party. We could swap out companions and respec them to rebalance the party as a whole. It offered a way to change our party tactics once a certain composition got stale. I would swap one or more companions every few hours and every time the party dynamics would change a bit. It was great.

 

I'm sure there's a way to have this flexibility without general talents. I just don't think being forced to multiclass is that way.

 

Since it has been confirmed that the respec will not apply to classes, I'm afraid that our party members' roles will be largely defined from the start (being character creation for the PC, recruitment for the companions). I'll admit that I haven't played the beta but from what I'm reading it doesn't look like there's much versatility within (single) classes. Therefore under the new system a respec will not allow us to fundamentally change a party member's role within the party, and we would be stuck with certain companions not out of choice but out of necessity. So for example if I would like to swap out a melee companion on which my frontline relies heavily, I would not (or less) be able to boost the melee skills of other party members to rebalance the group as a whole.

 

I absolutely loved the announcement that we would be able to multiclass in PoE2. But honestly I'm starting to love it less the more I read about its - imo unnecessary - consequences.

Edited by Pope
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw post asking for those base "buffs" being available to everyone, and even further bonuses for fighters only. Does that really make sense though? You can still equip one handed weapon and shield on your other characters and they will benefit from it in the intended way. You can still have dualwielding rogue, its just warrior is a bit better in it.

The thing is:

- TwoWeapon Style might be essential in achieving zero recovery (provided it's still possible in Deadfire).

- 1H&Shield Style can be very decent on a pure chanter, wizard or priest offtank. Also think of something like goldpact/rogue built around riposte.

- TwoHanded Style is really important for cc-oriented/low-might ciphers.

 

And if you create a mage, or rogue or palladin and want him to be very very good in handling weapons, doesn't it make sense to dip into fighter multiclassing?

Atm to be "very very good in handling weapons" you indeed have to dip into fighter.

But sometimes you don't need it, you just want "to be good enough" and select another second class. E.g. not monk/fighter but monk/barb,.. with TwoWeapon Style.

 


I've seen a few related suggestions, and the most I liked are:

v1.

- have these weapon style talents given to all classes

- while fighters get some sort of Greater Specialization starting from power level 4/5.

v2.

- have these weapon style talents distributed around martial classes:

- paladin: can get access to TwoHanded and 1H&Shield styles

- rogue: TwoWeapon and OneHanded

- monk: TwoWeapon

- cipher: TwoHanded; and TwoWeapon (but at power level 5+)

- barbarian: TwoWeapon and TwoHanded

- ranger: TwoWeapon and TwoHanded

- fighter: all four

 

... additionally there could be Ranged Weapon Style... either as ranger exclusive, or ranger + fighter + rogue + (arguably) cipher.

Edited by MaxQuest
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people feel compelled to do so, though. Barbarians and rogues and paladins are balanced around not having access to additional weapon expertise. This doesn't mean they are worse than their Pillars 1 version because they can't get it, other things changed as well, they're just different. Pure Ciphers don't need additional weapon training - their focus gain in this game is balanced different than the first.

 

 

I think that's a premature assumption; focus gain right now isn't really balanced at all; for that matter, most cipher powers aren't balanced at all (Whisper of Treason takes six seconds to cast for ten seconds of effect, and misses half the time now with no grazing!). I'd suggest actually playing a pure cipher right now -- given the miss rates it can take an extraordinarily long time to gain focus. I don't think I've cast Domination yet, I've never gotten up to 30 focus in a fight, it takes too long.

 

Fighters are always going to have the stances and the other fighter abilities; they don't need every weapon skill. 

 

More importantly though it's just a roleplaying thing. People want to be able to say "My paladin is skilled in guns" or "my barbarian is good with two-handers." Yeah, the weapon proficiencies do that to an extent but it's a matter of being able to personalize your build beyond just clicking the "multi class into fighter" checkbox. For a lot of people, multiclassing is just an option they're not interested in, for personal or narrative or roleplay reasons. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To build a bit on my earlier suggestion, what I would suggest is returning general talents to the proficiency pool, specifically as follows (presuming I'm correct that you get a new proficiency slot every five levels):

 

 

 

Initial character building: as now, weapon proficiencies only.

 

Level 5: unlock the Weapon Passives (Two Weapon Style, Two-Handed Style, One-Handed Style, Weapon and Shield Style, Marksman, Gunner, Dangerous Implement)  as proficiencies (where they have been moved to class trees, move them back). Players at level five could choose one of these or another specific weapon proficiency.

 

Level 10: Unlock the Utility talents (Quick Switch, Deep Pockets, Arms Bearer; possibly Wound Binding and Field Triage) and the "Slayer" talents ((Beast Slayer, Primal Bane etc.). Players could choose one of those, an additional Weapon Passive, or an additional specific weapon proficiency.

 

Level 15: Unlock the Elemental and Defensive talents (Scion of Flame, Secrets of Rime, Snake's Reflexes, Mental Fortress). 

 

Many of those talents would probably need reworking a bit for balance and gameplay in the new system; for example, you might want to make the Defensive talents give "resistance to [stat] afflictions" so they were a little more useful, you might want to combine Marksman and Gunner, etc.  

 

 

 

Such a system would preserve the free-form character building of the first game through the "talent layer" without really touching the multiclassing system; multiclassing would then be an additional way to specialize your character, rather than a replacement for the prior game's freeform character building. The limited number of additional talents would also reduce the balance implications -- you're talking four non-weapon talents total over the life of your character, significantly fewer than in the first game.  

 

Edit: I should probably note that each individual class retains a lot of specialization under this system. I haven't looked at each new tree in detail, but nothing in this proposal would (for example) give stances to paladins or let ciphers use Twinned Shot. It would just give players a few tools to shape their characters a bit and wander a little bit "off the rails," which is important for a lot of reasons, not least of them the sense that your character reflects your unique choices.

This is kind of what I was imagining with introducing FO style Perks to the system, though you've only focused on returning the PoE General Talents pool. I personally was hoping they could reintroduce those but also come up with some more inventive, high risk/high reward, talents too. Not so much goofy like FO, but similar in the effect they can have on your play style and build.

 

I also would not mind if they brought back Cross-Class Talents as odd as that might seem now given that we have true Multi-classing. But I thought those were interesting options for single class characters and still would be, in some fashion at least, worthwhile to allow people to further augment their single class characters play styles, even if they reduced the bonuses from what they were in PoE. I'd also be in favor of having this upgrade option every 4 levels and not 5. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand why people feel compelled to do so, though. Barbarians and rogues and paladins are balanced around not having access to additional weapon expertise. This doesn't mean they are worse than their Pillars 1 version because they can't get it, other things changed as well, they're just different. Pure Ciphers don't need additional weapon training - their focus gain in this game is balanced different than the first. 

 

 

Choice atm is bad.

 

Take the priest. If we say that it is PERFECTLY balanced. Let's admit this state of affairs. (I do not think so, but let's say that)

 

One of the reason of the global disatisfaction of this topic is : we have less choice in two first levels (and more...). But let's take the two first.

 

1) One school out (Why ? There was too much choice to do that? : p)

2) No general talents if I dislike spells of the first levels.

3) only two spells by level. Spe (constraint)+ One Choice.

 

It is a fact. You can take that in an other way like Grommir and is fabulous "there are already enough choices and fun with the multiclass" but it is fact (and rationnal, what will please to grommir : p)

 

I love the sharing ressource Passive+active (more flexibility), BUT that should not hide a lack of choice...

Edited by theBalthazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I don't understand why people feel compelled to do so, though. Barbarians and rogues and paladins are balanced around not having access to additional weapon expertise. This doesn't mean they are worse than their Pillars 1 version because they can't get it, other things changed as well, they're just different. Pure Ciphers don't need additional weapon training - their focus gain in this game is balanced different than the first.

 

I think that's a premature assumption; focus gain right now isn't really balanced at all; for that matter, most cipher powers aren't balanced at all (Whisper of Treason takes six seconds to cast for ten seconds of effect, and misses half the time now with no grazing!). I'd suggest actually playing a pure cipher right now -- given the miss rates it can take an extraordinarily long time to gain focus. I don't think I've cast Domination yet, I've never gotten up to 30 focus in a fight, it takes too long.

 

Fighters are always going to have the stances and the other fighter abilities; they don't need every weapon skill.

 

More importantly though it's just a roleplaying thing. People want to be able to say "My paladin is skilled in guns" or "my barbarian is good with two-handers." Yeah, the weapon proficiencies do that to an extent but it's a matter of being able to personalize your build beyond just clicking the "multi class into fighter" checkbox. For a lot of people, multiclassing is just an option they're not interested in, for personal or narrative or roleplay reasons.

Yeah all sorts of balance is jacked right now. I've played a pure Cipher and can indeed be rough going if you get a miss streak. The graze gauntlets help quite a bit. My point is that when the game is "finished" they will be balanced around the abilities and items available to them regardless of what those are. If they can't get access to Two-Weapon Style then they'll be balanced assuming that and there won't really be a difference.

 

Like do people want them to add in the generic talents and then rebalance everything? Then you just take an additional talent that isn't very interesting and your character winds up in the same spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


I've seen a few related suggestions, and the most I liked are:

v1.

- have these weapon style talents given to all classes

- while fighters get some sort of Greater Specialization starting from power level 4/5.

v2.

- have these weapon style talents distributed around martial classes:

- paladin: can get access to TwoHanded and 1H&Shield styles

- rogue: TwoWeapon and OneHanded

- monk: TwoWeapon

- cipher: TwoHanded; and TwoWeapon (but at power level 5+)

- barbarian: TwoWeapon and TwoHanded

- fighter: all four

 

 

 

This would be better than the current implementation sure but it'd still be fairly limiting -- for example, you've left Rangers out, as well as the ranged talents, so what about the gun paladin or gun cipher? What about the melee ranger? And for that matter, what about wizards and priests using summoned weapons? 

 

There's no reason for arbitrary class role limitations and both games have studiously avoided them otherwise --- see, e.g., wizards wearing plate if they want to. Restricting ranged weapon skills to only Rangers or locking paladins out of two-weapon fighting or whatever just seems like a step backward. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You simply dont give fighters a weapon style buff talent to replace losing weapon style talents. They already have stances which are essentially specialized styles. You actually give them 3 new talents unrelated to weapon styles but still fighter appropriate and hopefully more interesting then a weapon style buff.

Edited by DigitalCrack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...