Removing non class specific talents was a bad idea

[Boeroer]

'course your observation is unexpected reasonable in this swamp o' a thread.  is neither reasonable nor rational to demand talents which does not actual improve customization or increase functionality o' a character.  nevertheless, in spite o' the fact you has recognized by implication how weapon damage potential for classes 'cross the board is already effective in the beta, such weapon focused talents is what obsidian is giving... 'cause such is what folks want... and folks cheered the addition o' such talents. for reasons stated already, making such weapon focused talents available will actual reduce customization as they will be no-brainer choices. 

Right, you are the only rational person here. Standing on the hill of sanity and reason, waving the flag of prudence. All those people who oppose you are obviously sentimental, unreasonable or outright stupid. 

[morhilane]

Because a wizard can get a dual wield talent doesnt mean that he can utilize it anywhere close to the level of a pure fighter or even a a multiclass fighter/wizard. fighter is way more melee capable with stances also exclusively gets armored grace allowing him to negate some of the speed penalty and extra weapon specializations and extra style specializations.. but totally a wizard with a dual wield talent basically negates all of that..

In POE2, a Wizard and Fighter have the same accuracy, both get the same dual wield talent, end result both are equally efficient in dual wielding prior to buff.

 

The POE2 Wizard has spells that does pretty much everything the Fighter's active buffs and most passives do outside the outrageous amount of + engagement option the Fighter gets and constant recovery. The Wizard defensive spells are actually better than what the Fighter is getting, like way better.

 

For + engagement Wizard are stuck to using a weapon that grants it. For constant recovery, eat poultry on rest, it gives +HP every couple of seconds.

 

Before the change, the Wizard had to sacrifice power levels to gain that dual wield talent.

 

By the way, weapon specialization is just a small weapon damage bonus and Josh's tweets said nothing about Fighters getting the weapon styles twice or new passives. He says they will be able to pick from either the class talents pool or the proficiency pool.

Edited November 22, 2017 by morhilane

[DigitalCrack]

 

Because a wizard can get a dual wield talent doesnt mean that he can utilize it anywhere close to the level of a pure fighter or even a a multiclass fighter/wizard. fighter is way more melee capable with stances also exclusively gets armored grace allowing him to negate some of the speed penalty and extra weapon specializations and extra style specializations.. but totally a wizard with a dual wield talent basically negates all of that..

In POE2, a Wizard and Fighter have the same accuracy, both get the same dual wield talent, end result both are equally efficient in dual wielding prior to buff.

 

The POE2 Wizard has spells that does pretty much everything the Fighter's active buffs and most passives do outside the outrageous amount of + engagement option the Fighter gets and constant recovery. The Wizard defensive spells are actually better than what the Fighter is getting, like way better.

 

For + engagement Wizard are stuck to using a weapon that grants it. For constant recovery, eat poultry on rest, it gives +HP every couple of seconds.

 

Before the change, the Wizard had to sacrifice power levels to gain that dual wield talent.

 

By the way, weapon specialization is just a small weapon damage bonus and Josh's tweets said nothing about Fighters getting the weapon styles twice or new passives. He says they will be able to pick from either the class talents pool or the proficiency pool.

You are correct Josh did not elaborate on any exact plans for fighters weapon style talents.

Will hold off my further comments on it until I see what they plan to do with the fighter and how the proposed update plays.

[kanisatha]

Agreed. New systems require testing and polishing. Obsidian have a pretty good track record of listening to testers' feedback, as proven recently by Josh's tweets about changes to talents, armor penetration, and even the walk toggle. Let's have some faith in them

Agreed, but let's keep in mind that the feedback they're receiving is not representative because the testers are self-selected and not randomly distributed.

 

This is my fundamental issue. For PoE1, if you do a search of these very forums for an answer to the generic question of "What are the 'best'/'most powerful' classes to play as," you will get a very solid consensus on these classes: wizard, priest, druid, cipher (which I will group as "caster" classes). The answer to the same generic question in reverse equally generates a solid consensus on these classes: fighter, barbarian, ranger, rogue (which I will group as "warrior" classes). So why is it so much better to play one of the caster classes over one of the warrior classes? The answer is very obvious. The caster classes can all be built to do a lot of what the warrior classes can do but not vice versa. In other words, the casters can make for pretty good warriors, but the warriors can never be pretty good casters.

 

This is very clearly an unfair imbalance in favor of the caster classes which was taken for granted by many on these forums because this thread clearly shows that the hardcore forumites clearly favor the caster classes over the warrior classes. But it seems that Josh Sawyer, bless his heart, recognized this unfair imbalance in PoE1 and tried to remedy things in PoE2 by making it not possible for caster classes to be good warriors in the same way that the warrior classes cannot be good casters. If you wanted to be somewhat good in both, you needed to multiclass, which is the whole point of adding in the new multiclassing system.

 

This was exactly the right and proper approach to take, and I strongly commend Sawyer's initial impulse. But of course all the caster class favoring forumites couldn't bear to see their cherished caster classes not having warrior abilities in the exact same way that the warriors don't have caster abilities. So now we go back to how things were in PoE1, where the caster classes get to be pretty good warriors (without having to multiclass), but the warrior classes cannot be pretty good casters (unless they multiclass).

 

I hope someday Sawyer gets to make his historical RPG, so that there can be no spellcasting and no caster classes and only warrior classes in the game, and those of us who favor warrior classes can finally have our day.

[Gromnir]

 

'course your observation is unexpected reasonable in this swamp o' a thread.  is neither reasonable nor rational to demand talents which does not actual improve customization or increase functionality o' a character.  nevertheless, in spite o' the fact you has recognized by implication how weapon damage potential for classes 'cross the board is already effective in the beta, such weapon focused talents is what obsidian is giving... 'cause such is what folks want... and folks cheered the addition o' such talents. for reasons stated already, making such weapon focused talents available will actual reduce customization as they will be no-brainer choices. 

Right, you are the only rational person here. Standing on the hill of sanity and reason, waving the flag of prudence. All those people who oppose you are obviously sentimental, unreasonable or outright stupid. 

 

am clear not alone on the hill, but you are correct in observing how the mob has responded in predictable fashion.  as an example, you didn't reply to us by explaining why a paladin w/o weapon and shield is current inadequate.  instead, you went with... emoji.  way to prove our point.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[draego]

 

Agreed. New systems require testing and polishing. Obsidian have a pretty good track record of listening to testers' feedback, as proven recently by Josh's tweets about changes to talents, armor penetration, and even the walk toggle. Let's have some faith in them

Agreed, but let's keep in mind that the feedback they're receiving is not representative because the testers are self-selected and not randomly distributed.

 

This is my fundamental issue. For PoE1, if you do a search of these very forums for an answer to the generic question of "What are the 'best'/'most powerful' classes to play as," you will get a very solid consensus on these classes: wizard, priest, druid, cipher (which I will group as "caster" classes). The answer to the same generic question in reverse equally generates a solid consensus on these classes: fighter, barbarian, ranger, rogue (which I will group as "warrior" classes). So why is it so much better to play one of the caster classes over one of the warrior classes? The answer is very obvious. The caster classes can all be built to do a lot of what the warrior classes can do but not vice versa. In other words, the casters can make for pretty good warriors, but the warriors can never be pretty good casters.

 

This is very clearly an unfair imbalance in favor of the caster classes which was taken for granted by many on these forums because this thread clearly shows that the hardcore forumites clearly favor the caster classes over the warrior classes. But it seems that Josh Sawyer, bless his heart, recognized this unfair imbalance in PoE1 and tried to remedy things in PoE2 by making it not possible for caster classes to be good warriors in the same way that the warrior classes cannot be good casters. If you wanted to be somewhat good in both, you needed to multiclass, which is the whole point of adding in the new multiclassing system.

 

This was exactly the right and proper approach to take, and I strongly commend Sawyer's initial impulse. But of course all the caster class favoring forumites couldn't bear to see their cherished caster classes not having warrior abilities in the exact same way that the warriors don't have caster abilities. So now we go back to how things were in PoE1, where the caster classes get to be pretty good warriors (without having to multiclass), but the warrior classes cannot be pretty good casters (unless they multiclass).

 

I hope someday Sawyer gets to make his historical RPG, so that there can be no spellcasting and no caster classes and only warrior classes in the game, and those of us who favor warrior classes can finally have our day.

 

 

I disagree the reason casters were so much better was because they each had a combination of area cc, damage, and buff that out classed most of the martial classes abilities to do the same and could be cast at greater rates later in the game. It had near nothing to do with caster ability to be built like a warrior. Those abilities just allowed you to change the traditional role a caster is suppose to occupy enough to make for interesting builds.

Edited November 22, 2017 by draego

[Boeroer]

 

Agreed. New systems require testing and polishing. Obsidian have a pretty good track record of listening to testers' feedback, as proven recently by Josh's tweets about changes to talents, armor penetration, and even the walk toggle. Let's have some faith in them

Agreed, but let's keep in mind that the feedback they're receiving is not representative because the testers are self-selected and not randomly distributed.

 

This is my fundamental issue. For PoE1, if you do a search of these very forums for an answer to the generic question of "What are the 'best'/'most powerful' classes to play as," you will get a very solid consensus on these classes: wizard, priest, druid, cipher (which I will group as "caster" classes). The answer to the same generic question in reverse equally generates a solid consensus on these classes: fighter, barbarian, ranger, rogue (which I will group as "warrior" classes). So why is it so much better to play one of the caster classes over one of the warrior classes? The answer is very obvious. The caster classes can all be built to do a lot of what the warrior classes can do but not vice versa. In other words, the casters can make for pretty good warriors, but the warriors can never be pretty good casters.

 

That's not true.

 

The reason is that casters get crazy good abilites (spells) and can spam them in tough fights while they still have good enough per-encounter abilites so that they are not useless in trash fights. It has NOTHING to do with the universal talents and ALL to do with the class based abilites every class got. And the priest ist not the most powerful class in PoE because he can pick Two Handed Style or Bull's Will, but because he can cast Inspiring Radiance + Crowns + Devotions and boost party's accuracy (and defenses) into the sky like no other class, making most encounters jokes. Or he can buff himself into the heavens with Minor Avatar and then cast Shining Beacon which will kill everything that hasn't bought a ticket for the burn-immune train. Note that those things are all priest-only abilites.

 

Also, barbarian for example is a class that turns from ok-ish to one of the most powerful ones - once you get Heart of Fury, a class defining ability.

 

This all shows that the universal talents are nice for flavor mostly, but never gimp or skyrocket a build alone. You forgot monk by the way who is very powerful.

 

Also, saying that a rogue or fighter can never be a good spellcaster in PoE is just lack of knowledge and experience. There are a lot of spell-binding/-holding/-defense/-striking items that can turn a rogue into a caster monster - because the spells work with Deathblows, Deep Wounds (partially) and crit conversion. Same with fighter and Disciplined Barrage for example.

 

On the other hand - it's just cool if you want to play a melee wizard and can pick Two Handed Style for your staff. It will boost your single target melee damage by 15% additive - which is not very powerful - but it fits.

 

The perceived weakness of martial classes in PoE is not that casters can use universal talents, but that the abilites of those martial classes are underpowered. This got a little better with Charge for the fighter for example.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Boeroer

[kanisatha]

 

 

Agreed. New systems require testing and polishing. Obsidian have a pretty good track record of listening to testers' feedback, as proven recently by Josh's tweets about changes to talents, armor penetration, and even the walk toggle. Let's have some faith in them

Agreed, but let's keep in mind that the feedback they're receiving is not representative because the testers are self-selected and not randomly distributed.

 

This is my fundamental issue. For PoE1, if you do a search of these very forums for an answer to the generic question of "What are the 'best'/'most powerful' classes to play as," you will get a very solid consensus on these classes: wizard, priest, druid, cipher (which I will group as "caster" classes). The answer to the same generic question in reverse equally generates a solid consensus on these classes: fighter, barbarian, ranger, rogue (which I will group as "warrior" classes). So why is it so much better to play one of the caster classes over one of the warrior classes? The answer is very obvious. The caster classes can all be built to do a lot of what the warrior classes can do but not vice versa. In other words, the casters can make for pretty good warriors, but the warriors can never be pretty good casters.

 

This is very clearly an unfair imbalance in favor of the caster classes which was taken for granted by many on these forums because this thread clearly shows that the hardcore forumites clearly favor the caster classes over the warrior classes. But it seems that Josh Sawyer, bless his heart, recognized this unfair imbalance in PoE1 and tried to remedy things in PoE2 by making it not possible for caster classes to be good warriors in the same way that the warrior classes cannot be good casters. If you wanted to be somewhat good in both, you needed to multiclass, which is the whole point of adding in the new multiclassing system.

 

This was exactly the right and proper approach to take, and I strongly commend Sawyer's initial impulse. But of course all the caster class favoring forumites couldn't bear to see their cherished caster classes not having warrior abilities in the exact same way that the warriors don't have caster abilities. So now we go back to how things were in PoE1, where the caster classes get to be pretty good warriors (without having to multiclass), but the warrior classes cannot be pretty good casters (unless they multiclass).

 

I hope someday Sawyer gets to make his historical RPG, so that there can be no spellcasting and no caster classes and only warrior classes in the game, and those of us who favor warrior classes can finally have our day.

 

I disagree the reason casters were so much better was because they each had a combination of area cc, damage, and buff that out classed most of the martial classes abilities to do the same and could be cast at greater rates later in the game. It had near nothing to do with caster ability to be build like a warrior. Those abilities just allowed you to change the traditional role a caster is suppose to occupy enough to make for interesting builds.

Let's say for argument that you're correct. It still means, by your very own words, that the caster classes were built to be able to do everything whereas the warrior classes were not. So my point still stands.

[Boeroer]

 

 

'course your observation is unexpected reasonable in this swamp o' a thread.  is neither reasonable nor rational to demand talents which does not actual improve customization or increase functionality o' a character.  nevertheless, in spite o' the fact you has recognized by implication how weapon damage potential for classes 'cross the board is already effective in the beta, such weapon focused talents is what obsidian is giving... 'cause such is what folks want... and folks cheered the addition o' such talents. for reasons stated already, making such weapon focused talents available will actual reduce customization as they will be no-brainer choices. 

Right, you are the only rational person here. Standing on the hill of sanity and reason, waving the flag of prudence. All those people who oppose you are obviously sentimental, unreasonable or outright stupid. 

 

am clear not alone on the hill, but you are correct in observing how the mob has responded in predictable fashion.  as an example, you didn't reply to us by explaining why a paladin w/o weapon and shield is current inadequate.  instead, you went with... emoji.  way to prove our point.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

How can I? I'm obviously mentally unstable and can't think straight for two seconds. Please cut me some slack. 

 

Wait... forgot emoji...

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Boeroer

[mostundesired]

But of course all the caster class favoring forumites couldn't bear to see their cherished caster classes not having warrior abilities in the exact same way that the warriors don't have caster abilities. So now we go back to how things were in PoE1, where the caster classes get to be pretty good warriors (without having to multiclass), but the warrior classes cannot be pretty good casters (unless they multiclass).

I think part of this stems from a a warped call for verisimilitude, where they can see someone who can change the fabric of reality having enough time to dabble in swordplay (implying swordplay is easy to learn), but it's unreasonable for the trained swordsman to learn a bit about magical components needed to cast spells (implying it's impossible to understand unless you commit all of your time to learning everything about it).

 

I think what everyone wants is that little bit of specialization to say that yes, my character spent a little more time to learn swordplay better than most. And I'm fine with that, but the logical equivalence would be the ability to pick up a couple spells, abilities, or what have you from other classes. Like "My fighter is a master with sword and shield, but also is a bit religious and can cast bless." I don't think anyone's opposed to that, but neither are they clamoring for it.

 

Frankly, I hate playing as casters, so I'm fine giving passives to everyone so long as Fighters and the like get something more unique to them. But if we're talking about balance, this is definitely skewed.

[hilfazer]

 

What is the bonus for wielding 1 1h weapon and having other hand empty?

Judging by 1H Style description it is no longer accuracy.

The +accuracy for holding a 1h weapon was never part of a talent. Everyone has that feature starting from level 1.

 

The one-handed weapon bonuses was converting 15% hits into crits in POE1, but converted 10% misses into grazes in POE2.

 

 

I know it wasn't a part of a talent.

Since it is still accuracy bonus we are back to bad design Obs did for PoE1 and fixed like a year later... just wow.

[DigitalCrack]

 

Agreed. New systems require testing and polishing. Obsidian have a pretty good track record of listening to testers' feedback, as proven recently by Josh's tweets about changes to talents, armor penetration, and even the walk toggle. Let's have some faith in them

Agreed, but let's keep in mind that the feedback they're receiving is not representative because the testers are self-selected and not randomly distributed.

 

This is my fundamental issue. For PoE1, if you do a search of these very forums for an answer to the generic question of "What are the 'best'/'most powerful' classes to play as," you will get a very solid consensus on these classes: wizard, priest, druid, cipher (which I will group as "caster" classes). The answer to the same generic question in reverse equally generates a solid consensus on these classes: fighter, barbarian, ranger, rogue (which I will group as "warrior" classes). So why is it so much better to play one of the caster classes over one of the warrior classes? The answer is very obvious. The caster classes can all be built to do a lot of what the warrior classes can do but not vice versa. In other words, the casters can make for pretty good warriors, but the warriors can never be pretty good casters.

 

This is very clearly an unfair imbalance in favor of the caster classes which was taken for granted by many on these forums because this thread clearly shows that the hardcore forumites clearly favor the caster classes over the warrior classes. But it seems that Josh Sawyer, bless his heart, recognized this unfair imbalance in PoE1 and tried to remedy things in PoE2 by making it not possible for caster classes to be good warriors in the same way that the warrior classes cannot be good casters. If you wanted to be somewhat good in both, you needed to multiclass, which is the whole point of adding in the new multiclassing system.

 

This was exactly the right and proper approach to take, and I strongly commend Sawyer's initial impulse. But of course all the caster class favoring forumites couldn't bear to see their cherished caster classes not having warrior abilities in the exact same way that the warriors don't have caster abilities. So now we go back to how things were in PoE1, where the caster classes get to be pretty good warriors (without having to multiclass), but the warrior classes cannot be pretty good casters (unless they multiclass).

 

I hope someday Sawyer gets to make his historical RPG, so that there can be no spellcasting and no caster classes and only warrior classes in the game, and those of us who favor warrior classes can finally have our day.

Except All classes are (supposed to be) more then the weapons they use. They are defined by how they use them. whether directly integrated with their abilities (e.g. martial classes+cipher) or a complimentary support tool for other abilities (casters+chanter). So if there is imbalance it has nothing to do with what generic equipment they can use and more an issue with the class itself being underpowered in its primary function whatever that may be.

 

Edit: imo fighter needs to be more then a series of buffs and thats the real issue not that they are losing exclusive rights to a couple of fairly generic buffs. This even applies in some respect to all the martial classes.

Edited November 22, 2017 by DigitalCrack

[JerekKruger]

On the other hand - it's just cool if you want to play a melee wizard and can pick Two Handed Style for your staff. It will boost your single target melee damage by 15% additive - which is not very powerful - but it fits.

 

And in Deadfire that 15% is even less since, as far as I can tell, all summoned weapons have the same base damage as their mundane counterpart.

[kanisatha]

 

Also, saying that a rogue or fighter can never be a good spellcaster in PoE is just lack of knowledge and experience. There are a lot of spell-binding/-holding/-defense/-striking items that can turn a rogue into a caster monster - because the spells work with Deathblows, Deep Wounds (partially) and crit conversion. Same with fighter and Disciplined Barrage for example.

Items have no bearing on this discussion. They're largely available for everyone.

 

And pulling the old "you lack knowledge and experience" card is beneath you, Boeroer. I always respected you and thought you to be better than that.

[Boeroer]

but the logical equivalence would be the ability to pick up a couple spells, abilities, or what have you from other classes.

This could be done in PoE1 as well. Remember Scion of Flame? This was intended as caster talent but also worked well if you had a weapon with an elemental lash. Just one example.

 

Then we had Dangerous Implement - another talent that sounds like it's made for casters. But a ranger or cipher focusing on implements could take this talent as well and be quite good with those things. Nobody would complain now that the ranger took away that precious caster talent.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Boeroer

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

'course your observation is unexpected reasonable in this swamp o' a thread.  is neither reasonable nor rational to demand talents which does not actual improve customization or increase functionality o' a character.  nevertheless, in spite o' the fact you has recognized by implication how weapon damage potential for classes 'cross the board is already effective in the beta, such weapon focused talents is what obsidian is giving... 'cause such is what folks want... and folks cheered the addition o' such talents. for reasons stated already, making such weapon focused talents available will actual reduce customization as they will be no-brainer choices. 

Right, you are the only rational person here. Standing on the hill of sanity and reason, waving the flag of prudence. All those people who oppose you are obviously sentimental, unreasonable or outright stupid. 

 

am clear not alone on the hill, but you are correct in observing how the mob has responded in predictable fashion.  as an example, you didn't reply to us by explaining why a paladin w/o weapon and shield is current inadequate.  instead, you went with... emoji.  way to prove our point.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

How can I? I'm obviously mentally unstable and can't think straight for two seconds. Please cut me some slack. 

 

Wait... forgot emoji...

 

 

never made such a claim or even insinuated such. even so, we will defer to your expertise on the matter o' your mental stability, clarity o' thought, and your facility with emojis. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Boeroer]

 

Also, saying that a rogue or fighter can never be a good spellcaster in PoE is just lack of knowledge and experience. There are a lot of spell-binding/-holding/-defense/-striking items that can turn a rogue into a caster monster - because the spells work with Deathblows, Deep Wounds (partially) and crit conversion. Same with fighter and Disciplined Barrage for example.

Items have no bearing on this discussion. They're largely available for everyone.

 

And pulling the old "you lack knowledge and experience" card is beneath you, Boeroer. I always respected you and thought you to be better than that.

 

I didn't say that you personally lack knowledge - and I also didn't mean it that way. I just wanted to point out that such a general statement as "rogues/fighters can't be good at casting spells" usually stems from lacking knowledge at best (when it comes to PoE). They are actually the better spellcasters - if you give them spells. Nobody complaints that those items gave everybody spells that should be unique to casters, right?

[mostundesired]

The last few posts have been enlightening. So weapons are thought of as tools, but all spells count as abilities? Fair enough. Then what about talents that let a barbarian use grimoires to cast low level spells at their power level? This could work for everything. Make priests need holy symbols, chanters need instruments, ciphers need a focus of some sort.

 

This is leaning heavily on being classless, and very unlikely to happen, but it's cool to think about.

[Answermancer]

 

 

 

 

 

I disagree the reason casters were so much better was because they each had a combination of area cc, damage, and buff that out classed most of the martial classes abilities to do the same and could be cast at greater rates later in the game. It had near nothing to do with caster ability to be build like a warrior. Those abilities just allowed you to change the traditional role a caster is suppose to occupy enough to make for interesting builds.

Let's say for argument that you're correct. It still means, by your very own words, that the caster classes were built to be able to do everything whereas the warrior classes were not. So my point still stands.

 

 

I think a lot of us disagree because your point was "new people searched for powerful classes and the answer was casters because of flexibility to do what martial classes do," and that rings false to us.

 

As in, yes the answer was casters, but not because of flexibility. A new player searching for powerful classes is looking for a class that is powerful out of the box (with easy to use, powerful spells), not looking to build mages who are good at melee (which is a niche thing that takes knowledge of the systems to pull off, not something a new player would have any interest in doing).

[Boeroer]

never made such a claim or even insinuated such. even so, we will defer to your expertise on the matter o' your mental stability, clarity o' thought, and your facility with emojis.

Hehe - that made me laugh. You're one of the few persons who can be spocky and intentionally funny at the same time.

[DigitalCrack]

 

But of course all the caster class favoring forumites couldn't bear to see their cherished caster classes not having warrior abilities in the exact same way that the warriors don't have caster abilities. So now we go back to how things were in PoE1, where the caster classes get to be pretty good warriors (without having to multiclass), but the warrior classes cannot be pretty good casters (unless they multiclass).

I think part of this stems from a a warped call for verisimilitude, where they can see someone who can change the fabric of reality having enough time to dabble in swordplay (implying swordplay is easy to learn), but it's unreasonable for the trained swordsman to learn a bit about magical components needed to cast spells (implying it's impossible to understand unless you commit all of your time to learning everything about it).

 

I think what everyone wants is that little bit of specialization to say that yes, my character spent a little more time to learn swordplay better than most. And I'm fine with that, but the logical equivalence would be the ability to pick up a couple spells, abilities, or what have you from other classes. Like "My fighter is a master with sword and shield, but also is a bit religious and can cast bless." I don't think anyone's opposed to that, but neither are they clamoring for it.

 

Frankly, I hate playing as casters, so I'm fine giving passives to everyone so long as Fighters and the like get something more unique to them. But if we're talking about balance, this is definitely skewed.

 

would actual be kind of neat if there was a genric grimore proficiency that allowed a you to utilize found grimores up to spell lvl 1 or 2. That aside scrolls and the arcana skill can be used by any class and do allow them to utilize some magic.

Edited November 22, 2017 by DigitalCrack

[IndiraLightfoot]

In a number of posts in this thread, I see a misunderstanding getting repeated ad nauseam:

People wanting more general talents are not to be assumed to be driven by some power-gaming munchkin urge, waiting to pick always the optimal choices.

I for one, find that this kind of building has a lot to do with having fun, being creative, roleplaying in some sense, and lending the game much needed longevity.

 

Another tiresome misunderstanding is that these assumed "power gamers" run roughshod over the game, crushing its RPG intentions, and thriving on meta knowledge.

Everyone frequenting these forums, are steeped in metagaming. It's just part of life. Trying the beta out? Good bye, meta-innocence.

Lots of players love making crazy builds in its own right, just to see how the game plays out. I have literally dozens of entire playthroughs of NWN2, and believe me, there are some really fun and crazy builds you can do within that system. If any creative CRPG like that comes my way, I'll jump on that train like there is no tomorrow.

Edited November 22, 2017 by IndiraLightfoot

[mostundesired]

would actual be kind of neat if there was a genric grimore proficiency that allowed a you to utilize found grimores up to spell lvl 1 or 2. That aside scrolls and the arcana skill can be used by any class and would allow them to utilize some magic.

I was just saying that,you'll have to forgive the odd timing if my posts, I'm on my phone in the doctor's office.

 

Anyway, I would say scrolls aren't quite the same because they're not reusable, but if they were, ohoho, now we're cooking with oil.

[Boeroer]

In a number of posts in this thread, I see a misunderstanding getting repeated ad nauseam:

People wanting more general talents are not to be assumed to be driven by some power-gaming munchkin urge, waiting to pick always the optimal choices.

I for one, find that this kind of building has a lot to do with having fun, being creative, roleplaying in some sense, and lending the game much needed longevity.

 

Another tiresome misunderstanding is that these assumed "power gamers" run roughshod over the game, crushing its RPG intentions, and thriving on meta knowledge.

Everyone frequenting these forums, are steeped in metagaming. It's just part of life. Trying the beta out? Good bye, meta-innocence.

Lots of players love making crazy builds in its own right, just to see how the game plays out. I have literally dozens of entire playthroughs of NWN2, and believe me, there are some really fun and crazy builds you can do within that system. If anything near that comes my way, I'll jump on that train like there is no tomorrow.

Exactly!

 

By the way those "talents" I called for have never been very powerful in the first place. It's just nice to put some flavor onto your melee single class wizard (specialized on summoned weapons), your defensive druid - whatever. I'm totally all in when it comes to more and better abilites for the martial classes instead of making weak stuff like Two Handed Style their "own thing". How I praised Charge when it came out because it was/is a nice, interesting and also powerful ability for a fighter. Not Two Handed Style or Weapon and Shield Style - pah!

[DigitalCrack]

 

would actual be kind of neat if there was a genric grimore proficiency that allowed a you to utilize found grimores up to spell lvl 1 or 2. That aside scrolls and the arcana skill can be used by any class and would allow them to utilize some magic.

I was just saying that,you'll have to forgive the odd timing if my posts, I'm on my phone in the doctor's office.

 

Anyway, I would say scrolls aren't quite the same because they're not reusable, but if they were, ohoho, now we're cooking with oil.

At least in deadfire by upping arcana it also ups the power of scrolls you use. Maybe simply expanding a little on the current scroll system would be acceptable for martial classes gaining some magic. Edited November 22, 2017 by DigitalCrack