Removing non class specific talents was a bad idea

[kanisatha]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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).

That's not true. I was deliberately abstract in my post in not specifying the exact things identifiable with warrior classes vice caster classes. My point was that the caster classes could take on the roles/functions of warrior classes in a party, however those roles/functions may be defined, but the reverse was not possible. Or put another way, one could have a party of entirely casters and successfully win all battles whereas a party of entirely warriors could not do so (at least not for someone like me where I've admitted I am not a hardcore player).

[dunehunter]

 

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!

 

 

Yeah and I don't want to multiclass into fighter just because I want the weapon style to expand my play style.

[Boeroer]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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).

 

That's not true. I was deliberately abstract in my post in not specifying the exact things identifiable with warrior classes vice caster classes. My point was that the caster classes could take on the roles/functions of warrior classes in a party, however those roles/functions may be defined, but the reverse was not possible. Or put another way, one could have a party of entirely casters and successfully win all battles whereas a party of entirely warriors could not do so (at least not for someone like me where I've admitted I am not a hardcore player).

 

That is true. But it has nothing to do with the talents but all with the spells and abilites those casters have. FOr example a wizard can fill the role of a barbarian because he can summon Citzal's Spirit Lance and go wild with Martial Power. He can grab his self buffs and replace the fighter tank.

 

A druid can replace a rogue because he can do MORE single target damage with Spiritshift + Wildstrike + Avenging Storm while also being able to cast Relentless Storm.

 

Those are all results of the somewhat unbalanced spell/ability design and not of the talents which only round the pickture a bit. If a rogue would have get an ability which drops a poisonous bomb and destroys low-level enemies with it - it would be like a spell - and it would be cool. But unfortunately OBS didn't introduce such things.

 

Don't blame the talents for the somewhat poor ability pool some martial classes have in PoE.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Boeroer

[Answermancer]

I do find it hilarious that now some vocal backers got to make Obsidian dilute some of the classes and now people who actually like the more focused classes are demanding compensation.

Btw, I take issue with this. I was one of the people pushing hard for generic Weapon Styles AND for Fighters to get something more interesting in "compensation."

 

There is no conflict there, I don't think that Weapon Styles are in any way iconic or important to Fighters (nor have they ever been), and that currently Fighters need something unique and interesting. Using weapon styles to make Fighters "unique" is a cop-out (and doesn't make sense, IMO).

 

Instead I posted a bunch of things that would actually be unique and interesting and create a better class identity. How is it not boring and bland to have the Fighter class identity be "they know how to fight with a weapon and sword, or wow or wait you guys... they know how to fight with a 2-hander, so exciting"? 

[kanisatha]

 

 

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!

 

Yeah and I don't want to multiclass into fighter just because I want the weapon style to expand my play style.

You mean the weapon style bonus, because the weapon style itself was very much available to you.

[theBalthazar]

EDIT

 

(Fuuu... I lost my long text with a bug)

 

Good. To resume :

 

I talked about feat of NWN2. And to conclude with my deveppement (^^...) :

 

With general pool

 

Single : Talents x99 - Active abilities x1

Multi : Talents x 99 - Active abilities x 2

 

Without

 

Single : Talents x1 - Active abilities x1

Multi : Talents x2 - Active abilities x2

 

So for balancing in favor of Single class, the answer is also general pool. Single class is already less attractive, so...

 

(I said a lot of -more or less- smart things but no matter, it is lost : p)

Edited November 22, 2017 by theBalthazar

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

That is true. But it has nothing to do with the talents but all with the spells and abilites those casters have. FOr example a wizard can fill the role of a barbarian because he can summon Citzal's Spirit Lance and go wild with Martial Power. He can grap self buffs and replace the fighter tank.

 

Those are all results of the spell design and not of the talants which only round the pickture a bit.

 

 

 

I'll go a bit farther: I'm not sure that it's even a problem. 

 

If people want to make wizard fighters with summoned weapons .. .great? If people want to make fighter wizards who just use scrolls constantly . . . also great?

 

I'm perfectly happy if any given class in the game can, with careful planning and character building, at least do an ok job filling in the role of every other class. 

[DigitalCrack]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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).

That's not true. I was deliberately abstract in my post in not specifying the exact things identifiable with warrior classes vice caster classes. My point was that the caster classes could take on the roles/functions of warrior classes in a party, however those roles/functions may be defined, but the reverse was not possible. Or put another way, one could have a party of entirely casters and successfully win all battles whereas a party of entirely warriors could not do so (at least not for someone like me where I've admitted I am not a hardcore player).

That is true. But it has nothing to do with the talents but all with the spells and abilites those casters have. FOr example a wizard can fill the role of a barbarian because he can summon Citzal's Spirit Lance and go wild with Martial Power. He can grap self buffs and replace the fighter tank.

 

Those are all results of the spell design and not of the talants which only round the pickture a bit.

spirit lance spell is still a martial beast without any extra talents buffing it. its an issue of class desparity with abilities and that basically some Martial classes need better, designed/or in general, abilities.

[Boeroer]

Exactly

[mostundesired]

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.

Great idea. My only qualms, then, would be defining where to stop. One handed, two handed, weapon and shield, dual wield (fighter), deep pockets(rogue), gunner, marksman(ranger), slayer talents(barbarian), and use of scrolls (cipher, chanter, priest, wizard, druid). I'd say add to that some minor hand-to-hand technique like a kick (monk), and an inspiring war cry (paladin). Or something like that.

[Boeroer]

Deep Pockets would be nice on a Nalpasca by the way. I mean: where else to put all dat dope?

[draego]

This general talent issue isnt just about casters. I general play martial classes like ranger or barbarian. I want those general talents to help round out builds like from POE1. Like melee dps or off tank ranger or main tank babarian. i dont need them to be as good a rogue or fighter in these roles or have any of those other classes core abilities but those general talents help round out these build in a ways the class only talents dont and then i can take the final abilities of these classes to make up for lack of fighter or rogue abilities. Although i am worried about ranger high level abilities. Goodbye melee stunning shots  I have a bad feeling

Edited November 22, 2017 by draego

[DigitalCrack]

 

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.

Great idea. My only qualms, then, would be defining where to stop. One handed, two handed, weapon and shield, dual wield (fighter), deep pockets(rogue), gunner, marksman(ranger), slayer talents(barbarian), and use of scrolls (cipher, chanter, priest, wizard, druid). I'd say add to that some minor hand-to-hand technique like a kick (monk), and an inspiring war cry (paladin). Or something like that.

I wonder exactly how much power is gained with scrolls per point invested in Arcana skill? Only pondering if technically a martail class could get more power out of a single magic scroll then a caster gets out of weapon after taking a weapon style proficiency.

[mostundesired]

 

 

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.

Great idea. My only qualms, then, would be defining where to stop. One handed, two handed, weapon and shield, dual wield (fighter), deep pockets(rogue), gunner, marksman(ranger), slayer talents(barbarian), and use of scrolls (cipher, chanter, priest, wizard, druid). I'd say add to that some minor hand-to-hand technique like a kick (monk), and an inspiring war cry (paladin). Or something like that.

I wonder exactly how much power is gained with scrolls per point invested in Arcana skill? Only pondering if technically a martail class could get more power out of a single magic scroll then a caster gets out of weapon after taking a weapon style proficiency.

That would be too much. A fighter will still be better in melee because of stances. A caster, respectively, should always be better with spells because of power, area of affect, penetration, or something like that. Efficacy, basically.

[DigitalCrack]

 

 

 

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.

Great idea. My only qualms, then, would be defining where to stop. One handed, two handed, weapon and shield, dual wield (fighter), deep pockets(rogue), gunner, marksman(ranger), slayer talents(barbarian), and use of scrolls (cipher, chanter, priest, wizard, druid). I'd say add to that some minor hand-to-hand technique like a kick (monk), and an inspiring war cry (paladin). Or something like that.

I wonder exactly how much power is gained with scrolls per point invested in Arcana skill? Only pondering if technically a martail class could get more power out of a single magic scroll then a caster gets out of weapon after taking a weapon style proficiency.

That would be too much. A fighter will still be better in melee because of stances. A caster, respectively, should always be better with spells because of power, area of affect, penetration, or something like that. Efficacy, basically.

sorry I meant it to read as a fighter being better with sub optimal magic (via scrolls) then a wizard with sub optimal melee (via weapon style buff). hopefully that makes more sense.

Edited November 22, 2017 by DigitalCrack

[mostundesired]

sorry I meant it to read as a fighter being better with sub optimal magic (via scrolls) then a wizard with sub optimal melee (via weapon style buff). hopefully that makes more sense.

Oh, okay. Well, if that were the case, then I would make scrolls limited in use. I would rather not do that, and have them just be equal.

[DigitalCrack]

 

sorry I meant it to read as a fighter being better with sub optimal magic (via scrolls) then a wizard with sub optimal melee (via weapon style buff). hopefully that makes more sense.

Oh, okay. Well, if that were the case, then I would make scrolls limited in use. I would rather not do that, and have them just be equal.

Also meant that it should be tested to see if it currently is, not that it should be better. Man I am not typing everything I am thinking haha people cant read my thoughts.

[mostundesired]

Also meant that it should be tested to see if it currently is, not that it should be better. Man I am not typing everything I am thinking haha people cant read my thoughts.

Partly my fault, I'm having way too much fun theorycrafting

[JerekKruger]

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.

 

Ah yes but that's an appeal to feel, which is not rational, so you should be ashamed of yourself or something

[Gromnir]

 

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.

 

Ah yes but that's an appeal to feel, which is not rational, so you should be ashamed of yourself or something

 

praytell, how should the developer judge competing feel arguments? we almost never see consensus on these boards. so why is one fan's feel more relevant than another's?  

 

we linked an interview with josh in which he described, 'mong other things, the difficulty in choosing 'tween competing emotional appeals. can review... or not.  your choice.  regardless, is some insights to be gleaned from how the developer sees the problem o' choosing 'tween emotional appeals and feel arguments.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[kanisatha]

A point of clarification: nowhere in my big post a couple of pages ago did I even mention the word "talent." The purpose of that post was to try and move our debate (and it has been an awesome debate so far) away from just narrowly discussing talents to what I consider to be the underlying real issue: that warrior classes cannot fill the roles of caster classes in the same way that caster classes can fill the roles of warrior classes. My take is that Sawyer was trying to fix this, but I can accept that taking away general talents may not be the best approach to fixing this problem (though I still personally believe losing general talents was not that big of a deal).

 

So, I'm very much interested in your thoughts on how the warrior classes can be fixed so that they can effectively fill caster roles in parties, going beyond just changing up a few talents. Tell me how a party with no spellcasters can do just fine in PoE2?

[spartacus]

I just dont understand how by the current reasoning that class identity has been gutted because of a few general proficiencies being added in. does it literally have to be Wizards can only cast spells, wear robes, and use implements unless they multiclass to even be acceptable as a "defined" role?

Honestly, yeah I think that's how it should be. Maybe it's the bg2 fanatic in me, but I think that if a wizard wants access to the highest level spells in the game they should have to forego melee capability to do this. That's the beauty of the multiclass system - a single class wizard has a very well defined role, and if you want a wizard that is good at melee then you have to give up some of the late game wizard powers.

[Katarack21]

 

 

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.

 

 

Ah yes but that's an appeal to feel, which is not rational, so you should be ashamed of yourself or something

praytell, how should the developer judge competing feel arguments? we almost never see consensus on these boards. so why is one fan's feel more relevant than another's?  

 

we linked an interview with josh in which he described, 'mong other things, the difficulty in choosing 'tween competing emotional appeals. can review... or not.  your choice.  regardless, is some insights to be gleaned from how the developer sees the problem o' choosing 'tween emotional appeals and feel arguments.

 

HA! Good Fun!

At the most basic level it all comes down to feels. Within the system the math is objective, but everything about how that should work--whether injuries should be harsher or not, whether penetration should have a hard line or not, whether priest should have more options or not, all of it--comes down to subjective opinion. There is no hard and fast evidence-based objective rating of what makes a game good. It's all feels.

 

The job of a game maker is, in part, to make arbitrary decisions revolving what kind of game they want to make.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

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.

 

Ah yes but that's an appeal to feel, which is not rational, so you should be ashamed of yourself or something

praytell, how should the developer judge competing feel arguments? we almost never see consensus on these boards. so why is one fan's feel more relevant than another's?  

 

we linked an interview with josh in which he described, 'mong other things, the difficulty in choosing 'tween competing emotional appeals. can review... or not.  your choice.  regardless, is some insights to be gleaned from how the developer sees the problem o' choosing 'tween emotional appeals and feel arguments.

 

HA! Good Fun!

At the most basic level it all comes down to feels. 

while this observation is failing from a fair bit o' reductio ad absurdum, it is also not complete wrong. as we observed earlier, ignoring feel is as much a mistake as is simple abandoning rational and reasonable. ultimately, regardless o' whether a game system objective provides more options and flexibility, if the folks playing and purchasing feel more limited, then the additional options is wasted.  am not denying the importance o' feel.  we explicit stated the importance o' feel.  nevertheless,  our query remains: how should the developer judge competing feel arguments?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[DigitalCrack]

 

I just dont understand how by the current reasoning that class identity has been gutted because of a few general proficiencies being added in. does it literally have to be Wizards can only cast spells, wear robes, and use implements unless they multiclass to even be acceptable as a "defined" role?

Honestly, yeah I think that's how it should be. Maybe it's the bg2 fanatic in me, but I think that if a wizard wants access to the highest level spells in the game they should have to forego melee capability to do this. That's the beauty of the multiclass system - a single class wizard has a very well defined role, and if you want a wizard that is good at melee then you have to give up some of the late game wizard powers

Totally fair point and I like the honest answer.