Removing non class specific talents was a bad idea

[cheesevillain]

 

now weapons come with a pre baked model for something resembling one of these effects and new ones. This is not the same and provides less options . 

 

 

It provides more options in the sense that you have the option whether or not to activate the modal every combat, and within combat, whereas most of the general talents were passive.

We also get more options period. In PoE1, say, a fighter got one talent/ability every level. Now that fighter gets 1 every level, but also gets a weapon proficiency every 4 or so levels. He gets more stuff overall.

 

 i am working to find synergies like the wareaxe modal is bleed and that triggers predator's sense for my ranger animal which is nice but i dont get to use any other weapon to do this therefore its not a general talent in the same since.

 

 

 

See, here we have a choice with interesting strategic depth. Do you use a war axe modal or use wounding shot with a ranged weapon to activate wounding shot? And that question will becomes more interesting in context, e.g. if you find a Unique War Axe you love. The options with the new weapon proficiencies are much more interesting options.

[draego]

 

 

now weapons come with a pre baked model for something resembling one of these effects and new ones. This is not the same and provides less options . 

 

 

It provides more options in the sense that you have the option whether or not to activate the modal every combat, and within combat, whereas most of the general talents were passive.

We also get more options period. In PoE1, say, a fighter got one talent/ability every level. Now that fighter gets 1 every level, but also gets a weapon proficiency every 4 or so levels. He gets more stuff overall.

 

 i am working to find synergies like the wareaxe modal is bleed and that triggers predator's sense for my ranger animal which is nice but i dont get to use any other weapon to do this therefore its not a general talent in the same since.

 

 

 

See, here we have a choice with interesting strategic depth. Do you use a war axe modal or use wounding shot with a ranged weapon to activate wounding shot? And that question will becomes more interesting in context, e.g. if you find a Unique War Axe you love. The options with the new weapon proficiencies are much more interesting options.

 

 

Yes it a choice but those 'same' weapon proficiencies were universal in POE1 providing more choice. meaning i get to choose what weapon to apply what modal to not have the choice made for me. Yes its nice and it not totally restricted. so 0 being no modals and 10 being vulnerable attack in POE1 this is 5. So i am luckwarm on it. It was nice to find but in my opinion it could be better by decoupling the modals from specific weapons and make them more general stuff all classes can pick. I dont want to sound like i totally hate it or something and fyi wounding shot being only ranged was a nice splash of cold water in my face for my melee ranger build but whatever.

Edited November 17, 2017 by draego

[cheesevillain]

Yes it a choice but those 'same' weapon proficiencies were universal in POE1 providing more choice. meaning i get to choose what weapon to apply what modal to not have the choice made for me. Yes its nice and it not totally restricted. so 0 being no modals and 10 being vulnerable attack in POE1 this is 5. So i am luckwarm on it. It was nice to find but in my opinion it could be better by decoupling the modals from specific weapons and make them more general stuff all classes can pick. I dont want to sound like i totally hate it or something and fyi wounding shot being only ranged was a nice splash of cold water in my face for my melee ranger build but whatever.

 

 

You got to choose the weapon, but the choice was largely irrelevant because most weapons work the same way, as they do in most games. It's always been unfair how two wizard spells like fireball and blizzard work differently, but an axe and a sword largely work the same. I mean, you wouldn't say that the "choice is being made for you" if the blizzard spell slowed down enemies, and the fireball didn't. People think it's cool that fire and ice are work differently, and there's a meaningful choice, not a cosmetic one. Weapon choices in the first game were largely cosmetic. Universal choices are not always good choices.

 

I agree with you that it sucks that Rangers don't have more melee capability, and since the Stalker subclass is melee focussed, I've got to believe that's something the devs are planning to fix. The Wounding Shot especially sucks. It felt great in PoE1 when a melee Ranger engaged an enemy and used Wounding Shot, while the companion got behind and enjoyed bonus damage from Predator's Sense and Merciless Companion.

Edited November 17, 2017 by cheesevillain

[Boeroer]

All this talks about Weapon Proficiencies being the new universal talents (which is nonsense in my opinion - those are only weapon related and can't substitute stuff that alters you char and has nothing to do with the weapon you're using*) doesn't change that the development/progression of single classes feels bland and railroaded now. If you want to build an interesting out-of-the-box character tou have to use multiclassing now. And that's because there are not enough options to pick from. Now instead of inventing a lot of additional class specific abilities, which would mean a ton of work, it would be much easier to put universal abilities back in.

 

Of course more options means more ways to possibly break balance with an overpowered combo or to build a crappy character. But honestly: what do you want? A casual game where you can't make mistakes because you're taken by the hand? OR a rpg with a complex (but we'll explained) set of choices to pick from so that you can come up with unusual yet working build ideas?

 

I get that this is not so important for the one time player who likes immersion and stuff, but I'm complaining from my point of view, what I miss. It's feedback from a player who has no problems with bad level up choices - there is always the tool of retraining - but who likes to fiddle around with builds. And multiclassing aside: this beta feels like a huge step backwards in that regard. Also because it's not needed and was totally uncalled for. The ability trees already look a bit empty. No problem UI-wise to add a few abilities that all or most classes share.

 

* Think of Battle Forged + Scion of Flame for example.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Boeroer

[cheesevillain]

 ...the development/progression of single classes feels bland and railroaded.

 

The ability trees already look a bit empty.

 

In PoE1, the Rogue had 12 abilities, and 11 rogue-specific talents. In the 5 out of 9 levels we've seen in PoE2, we have 7 abilities, 11 upgrades that customize abilities, and 10 rogue-specific talents. So I don't agree that the ability tree is thin, even if I disregarded the three subclasses which change fundamentally how the class plays. I don't accept that the trees are railroaded. Now certainly, some of them have obvious holes which need to be patched up, like the Priest and Ranger trees.

 

In PoE1, you could use general talents to push your character outside of its conventional path. I think that weapon proficiencies are a partial substitute for that. I also think that the expanded skills do a lot more to make your character unique in and outside combat.

 

All this talks about Weapon Proficiencies being the new universal talents (which is nonsense in my opinion - those are only weapon related and can't substitute stuff that alters you char and has nothing to do with the weapon you're using

 

I can't argue with that, and I would also welcome some general use talents, especially for RP reasons. People need to feel like they can create any character they want, and goof around doing crazy things. The weapon proficiencies do a lot, but they are fairly bland, so even if I'm changing how my character plays, I don't feel like I'm changing who my character is.

 

Sorry for surgically removing some parts of your post, but there's a lot of substance there, and I can't respond to it all at once.

Edited November 17, 2017 by cheesevillain

[Boeroer]

So I don't agree that the ability tree is thin

I meant that they don't look crowded and there's much space where some shared abilites could fit.

 

I don't accept that the trees are railroaded.

Then don't. Martial single classes are railroaded pretty much because you get one ability per level-up, but you can't choose freely because they all come in tiers which limits your choice. That means that in most cases you choose two out of three abilites in one tier. That's... boring?

 

In PoE1, you could use general talents to push your character outside of its conventional path. I think that weapon proficiencies are a partial substitute for that.

Only partial because they only work with weapons. It's all about weapons. Casters who want to mainly cast don't profrit from those at all and can't be pushed outside of their conventional path.

 

I also think that the expanded skills do a lot more to make your character unique in and outside combat.

I'm not complaining about the skills. Those are nice but have little impact on combat (and that's all the abilites are about). I'm complaining about the level-ups of single classes being extremely boring atm.

 

I can't argue with that, and I would also welcome some general use talents, especially for RP reasons. People need to feel like they can create any character they want, and goof around doing crazy things. The weapon proficiencies do a lot, but they are fairly bland, so even if I'm changing how my character plays, I don't feel like I'm changing who my character is.

Exactly!

 

Sorry for surgically removing some parts of your post, but there's a lot of substance there, and I can't respond to it all at once.

No problem, all good. Edited November 17, 2017 by Boeroer

[ghostwriter]

I just don't get it why my paladin can't take Weapon & Shield Style anymore.

 

Same reason a fighter can't take Gunner anymore... same reason my wizard can only pick one spell per level now.

 

The game has to accommodate multiclassing, which leads to different priorities with regards to distinctiveness of classes and balance.

[Boeroer]

Don't want to sound rude, but that's nonsense. Some general or "generic" abilities like gunner, weapon & shield, Two Handed Style and whatnot (those things that everybody can learn without doing a whole apprenticeship) could be made accessible to all classes easily without harming multiclassing at all. At the same time specific abilities should be really unique, interesting and tied to the core of the class. Like rangers getting stuff like Predator's Sense, Paladins getting Flames of Devotion, Fighters getting Armored Grace and so on.

 

Can't see how a general Weapon & Shield ability would break multiclassing. It only adds options for single classes (important) and also multiclassing char (maybe less important, but still nice).

Edited November 17, 2017 by Boeroer

[ghostwriter]

The problem is casters would have to give up spells to get these talents. And with the already more limited spell selection, that wouldn't be fair at all. Especially to new players who didn't know what they were doing and weren't going for some specific build. How would you get around this?

[cheesevillain]

The problem is casters would have to give up spells to get these talents. And with the already more limited spell selection, that wouldn't be fair at all. Especially to new players who didn't know what they were doing and weren't going for some specific build. How would you get around this?

 

 

By allowing respecs, like the did in the first game. Also, by adding a tutorial note warning novice players about the potential difficulty. Easy enough to do.

[Lamppost in Winter]

Or have Talents separate from spells, same as PoE?

[IndiraLightfoot]

A little devil just whispered to me: "Why not just add one general or shared talent pick at every other level up? Then make the enemies slightly harder. This would be fair to caster classes and martial classes."

[ghostwriter]

By allowing respecs, like the did in the first game. Also, by adding a tutorial note warning novice players about the potential difficulty. Easy enough to do.

 

 

General talents existed to complement core class abilities(especially spells) not replace them. When you present them as equal you're opening the game up to a lot of gimped builds. There is a difference between allowing respecs and encouraging them, and you would be crossing that line with this mechanic. It really doesn't sound good to me if you have to tell new players "Hey you know this option that is being presented as equal... it actually isn't and you would probably be hurting your build severely if you pick this." Just sounds like overall bad game design.

 

Or have Talents separate from spells, same as PoE?

 

Sounds simple but it would require a major overhaul of the current multiclass system.

 

A little devil just whispered to me: "Why not just add one general or shared talent pick at every other level up? Then make the enemies slightly harder. This would be fair to caster classes and martial classes."

 

Once again, it sounds simple but would require a reshuffle of class talents across the board. I think it is also worth asking obsidian devs whether they wanted to make individual classes more distinct as a design goal and leave the wacky/hybrid builds to the multiclass system.

[Boeroer]

General talents existed to complement core class abilities(especially spells) not replace them. When you present them as equal you're opening the game up to a lot of gimped builds.

And this is the source of most problems in gaming nowadays: taking the player by the hand as if he's a five-year old - preventing that he makes his own experiences. I don't mean that things don't have to be explained. THey should be. PoE did a poor job explaining how things worked. But game designers turning into helicopter parents when it comes to level-ups can't be the solution. You prevent gimpy builds but at the same time you prevent choice, creativity and thinking out-of-th-box. And in the long run you also prevent fun and gimp replay value (like a lot).

 

Where's the problem when a caster has to give up a spell in order to use a shield better? It's like trading a passive bonus for an active ability. If I wanted to build a tanky single class wizard I could use weapon & shield together with the defensive buffs and make myself sturdy while I sling some spells. Sure, not as many spells as a wizard who put all points into spells - but at least I stay alive. Why not? What's unfair about that? Why do I have to be forced to multiclass with a fighter just in order to use a shield better? I pay for that with later spells and not getting the most pwoerful ones. Now that is unfair I'd say.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Boeroer

[Wormerine]

 

Once again, it sounds simple but would require a reshuffle of class talents across the board. I think it is also worth asking obsidian devs whether they wanted to make individual classes more distinct as a design goal and leave the wacky/hybrid builds to the multiclass system.

I think that’s very much the point - how do you mak multiclassing work and a system which already supports flexible builds with single classes? Restrict single class characters, move interesting hybrid builds to multiclassing. This system has its benefits. If you want a wizard who only casts spells you choose a pure wizard. If you want to a wizard no goes beyond that you multiclass him. It is really all that different than in original? The downside is that once you opt for single class character levelling up is boring as you won’t even have a choice of expanding your character.

[Boeroer]

Yes, it is different: read my post above. Single classes will suck unless you invent a whole lot of additional specific abilites (which is hard to do and not necessary).

 

It would be so easy to add a few general abilities which everybody can take and it would cost so little. It doesn't mess up your multiclasses. Multiclassing can be used to mix really specific abilites that are core to the classes that you mix. But why on earth should you multicalss just for getting Two Handed Style and nothing else for example? It's easy to learn how to swing with both hands - nothing that cries out "look, i have to be tied to the fighter because this is fighter business".

Edited November 17, 2017 by Boeroer

[Katarack21]

Yes, it is different: read my post above. Single classes will suck unless you invent a whole lot of additional specific abilites (which is hard to do and not necessary).

 

It would be so easy to add a few general abilities which everybody can take and it would cost so little. It doesn't mess up your multiclasses. Multiclassing can be used to mix really specific abilites that are core to the classes that you mix. But why on earth should you multicalss just for getting Two Handed Style and nothing else for example? It's easy to learn how to swing with both hands - nothing that cries out "look, i have to be tied to the fighter because this is fighter business".

Why is Two Handed Style fighter exclusive without multiclassing? Why? That makes no sense. I use that on barbarians and paladins both. Why is it fighter exclusive?

 

Seriously. That's a *perfect* example of something that really should not be a class-exclusive ability but for some reason is.

[wolfstriked]

IS the problem here that many of the POE fans are hardcore POTD solo players while the devs are striving to make a great party based RPG that forces you to use all 5 characters with differing classes to fill in the deficiencies....ala D&D?

Edited November 17, 2017 by wolfstriked

[DigitalCrack]

Yes, it is different: read my post above. Single classes will suck unless you invent a whole lot of additional specific abilites (which is hard to do and not necessary).

 

It would be so easy to add a few general abilities which everybody can take and it would cost so little. It doesn't mess up your multiclasses. Multiclassing can be used to mix really specific abilites that are core to the classes that you mix. But why on earth should you multicalss just for getting Two Handed Style and nothing else for example? It's easy to learn how to swing with both hands - nothing that cries out "look, i have to be tied to the fighter because this is fighter business".

This is exactly the issue with single clasz and why the argument "just multiclass" falls apart. If I have a wizard and I only really want 1 or 2 weapon style talents and nothing else I should not have to multiclass with a fighter (sacrificing all high tier spells) just to get a single talent.. Single class choices should at minimum be able accomodate that level of flexibility. Anr really to do this you dont even have to create a whole new general talent system. you just copy some general talents across most classes. Personally I would turn styles into proficiencies. Anyway some classes already have shared talents so from a multi class perspective it just gets treated the same way it already does.

[Nail]

At current state I feel it's really too simplified with current level system.

 

All there is now - attack, defense and some kind of utility thing (almost useless as I see it)

 

If you can mix the strongest points in each class - why wouldn't you?

There is no reason to stay in single class without any additional skills like we had in PoE I...

 

Still I have to do some testing, right now it's too early to tell.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

The way they have things currently set up, my cipher is going to be drowning in weapon proficiencies they don't want by like level eight.

 

Return some general "weapon group" proficiencies like Two Handed Style or Gunner to the "choose a proficiency" table everyone can pick from, seems like it would be a good idea. It's a nice character building thing too, you want the feeling your character has specialized in guns or bows or whatever, or hasn't.

[DigitalCrack]

The way they have things currently set up, my cipher is going to be drowning in weapon proficiencies they don't want by like level eight.

 

Return some general "weapon group" proficiencies like Two Handed Style or Gunner to the "choose a proficiency" table everyone can pick from, seems like it would be a good idea. It's a nice character building thing too, you want the feeling your character has specialized in guns or bows or whatever, or hasn't.

 

Thought the same thing cause you get so many proficiencies that it would actually work out well.

[Christliar]

Just a friendly reminder - D&D 3/3.5E had a much more complicated multi-classing system, being able to pick up to 4 classes at any level while also having universal feats anyone can pick up. Yeah, it was much easier to munchkin and a lot of classes were  downright useless while others were literally god-mode and could do anything, but NWN1 and 2 proved that you could prune the more insane abilities and make the classes somewhat balanced, even though spellcasters were still a notch overpowered compared to martial classes, but that's because they had many more tools to work with. My point is that multi-classing and general feats don't contradict each other.

[BrettNLowe]

A good bit of this is largely what Josh talked about regarding taking things away vs giving new things. If Two-Handed Style had never been in P1, would you be missing it now that it was added to give Fighters more to choose from? Did anyone complain in P1 that they couldn't make a sword-wielding Priest because only Fighters have access to Weapon Mastery: Soldier?

 

If you want to make a Two-Hander Priest, do it! Use Two-handed weapons, grab two-handed proficiencies. No, you can't get the +15% damage, but you are different from a Priest with one-handed proficiencies. Maybe you can't match the Fighter's default damage with the talent, but you pop a Priest goodie like Minor Avatar and you'll lay on the damage.

 

That said, it does sound like we need some more Talent options, and I do agree there should be a few more proficiencies to help define characters. I don't like one-handed, dual-wield, or two-handed - those would just become proficiency taxes. It sounds like shields have modals - is that done through picking shields as a proficiency? That sounds like the right way to make defensive characters. What I think should be added are spell-ish proficiencies.

 

Scion of Flame - add a little accuracy to fire spells, then Modal - sacrifice accuracy for damage on active abilities.

Spirit of Decay - +acc corrosion, Modal - sacrifice damage for penetration on abilities

Heart of the Storm - +lightning, Modal - sac accuracy for interrupt/lower cast time

 

etc etc.

 

For the sake of build diversity, I also think it is time to bust up Might and take at least Healing from it (and possibly even splitting off ability damage from auto-attack damage) and put it somewhere else (probably Resolve, moving Concentration to Constitution), but that's a whole nother can of worms.

[morhilane]

Why is Two Handed Style fighter exclusive without multiclassing? Why?

Because Rogue, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk get class flavored version that do similar things that didn't exist in POE1 (for the most part, some stuff was tweaked too). Ranger need to be "fixed" to get their own.

 

That leave out the "casters" (Wizard, Priest, Chanter, Druid, Cipher). Out of them, Druid gets more wildstrike upgrades than in POE1 and Cipher have a few more options for soul whips.

 

Wizard/Priest/Chanter have no passives to pick from, so no surprise they don't have any. Whatever that is per design or not is unclear. I need to check if the Wizard weapon summons have those bonuses included or not for example. I know that the Priest god's weapon do have perks (just not good enough perks, but that's balance).

 

Making the Weapon style available to all would mean removing these new things, reducing the class options as a whole or inventing something else for the Fighter and balancing everything for a +15/20% more potential incoming weapon damage from all classes.

 

Right now the POE2 classes feels a lot like D&D 5e classes. While POE1 was a bastard version of D&D 4e and D&D 3.0e without any multiclassing.