A case for not adding general abilities to Proficiencies

[KingDiamond]

 

 

 

 

 on PotD being efficient in your choices and character design are key along with understanding the game mechanics.

 

 

This is complete bull****. One can roleplay PotD just fine. No needs for efficient choice in character design.

 

 

So PotD is easy when you don't understand the game mechanics and pick abilities wily nily?

 

I never said anything about understanding game mechanics. But you can pick abilities you like, what feel cool or in character without problem. No need for min maxing stats either.   I would not say it's easy, I find the difficulty just fine when I play like that.

[KDubya]

Nope, I'm afraid that wasn't clear, at least not to me, sorry.

 

 

You are working under the very misguided assumption that Obsidian wish to implement every single ability and passive as generally available.

That is simply pure speculation at this point my friend, there is no supporting evidence.

 

 

 

Now, I'm going to be a bit aggressive, I apologize in advance.

You keep going on about fighter this, fighter that.

Let's be honest here, this is all this is about.

Fighter this, fighter that.

There is no concern for any other class whatsoever, all you seem to care about are your precious fighters.

This is not speculation, this is fact, you've written it yourself : "the reference to passives was in regards to the fighter passives"

 

You're bitching like a crybaby for something that is not even implemented yet.

You're bitching over the possibility that things might not turn out how you'd like.

 

Perhaps you would better be served by "wait[ing] and see[ing]", as opposed to dismissing the possible change outright.

 

 

 

 

 

My understanding is that the passives being implemented into the weapon proficiency list are primarily the weapon style ones like weapon and shield and the defense boosters like Bulls will. Most of these are currently Fighter exclusives so I'm theorizing as to what this will mean for Fighters in particular.

 

Discussing the possible ramifications of what may or may not occur with proposed changes is why the devs have the beta and ask for our input. Better to hash it out now rather than wait until its been coded and added to the game.

 

I see this addition as adding to power creep as well as restricting freedom of choice based on how efficient a single path will be. So far no one has shown me where my fears are unjustified.

[dam]

My understanding is that the passives being implemented into the weapon proficiency list are primarily the weapon style ones like weapon and shield and the defense boosters like Bulls will. Most of these are currently Fighter exclusives so I'm theorizing as to what this will mean for Fighters in particular.

 

Discussing the possible ramifications of what may or may not occur with proposed changes is why the devs have the beta and ask for our input. Better to hash it out now rather than wait until its been coded and added to the game.

 

I see this addition as adding to power creep as well as restricting freedom of choice based on how efficient a single path will be. So far no one has shown me where my fears are unjustified.

 

In my opinion you're over reacting.

 

Lose your precious fighter-exclusive Aware ?

Priests can bestow it as well, on the full party.

 

Lose your precious fighter-exclusive better defenses ?

Monks get some as well you know (and then some more, actually)

 

 

 

If I read them correctly, in your own words, fighters are in a very good position right now thanks to these exclusives.

It then follows that one should, to maximize their effectiveness (your words here), pick a fighter class ?

Fighter coupled with whatever, but fighter nonetheless ?

 

That may be too much of a pigeonhole to be left as is, which is why a change is required.

 

That this change has a positive effect, and its ramifications and subsequent adjustments remain to be seen.

[KDubya]

 

My understanding is that the passives being implemented into the weapon proficiency list are primarily the weapon style ones like weapon and shield and the defense boosters like Bulls will. Most of these are currently Fighter exclusives so I'm theorizing as to what this will mean for Fighters in particular.

 

Discussing the possible ramifications of what may or may not occur with proposed changes is why the devs have the beta and ask for our input. Better to hash it out now rather than wait until its been coded and added to the game.

 

I see this addition as adding to power creep as well as restricting freedom of choice based on how efficient a single path will be. So far no one has shown me where my fears are unjustified.

 

In my opinion you're over reacting.

 

Lose your precious fighter-exclusive Aware ?

Priests can bestow it as well, on the full party.

 

Lose your precious fighter-exclusive better defenses ?

Monks get some as well you know (and then some more, actually)

 

 

 

If I read them correctly, in your own words, fighters are in a very good position right now thanks to these exclusives.

It then follows that one should, to maximize their effectiveness (your words here), pick a fighter class ?

Fighter coupled with whatever, but fighter nonetheless ?

 

That may be too much of a pigeonhole to be left as is, which is why a change is required.

 

That this change has a positive effect, and its ramifications and subsequent adjustments remain to be seen.

 

 

So you see no cause for concern for power creep when everyone will take the +6 accuracy as a proficiency pick as soon as its available? If everyone has more accuracy the mobs will need to have additional deflection or else they encounter difficulty gets skewed.

[dam]

So you see no cause for concern for power creep when everyone will take the +6 accuracy as a proficiency pick as soon as its available? If everyone has more accuracy the mobs will need to have additional deflection or else they encounter difficulty gets skewed.

 

Your reasoning is skewed towards what behaviour you would adopt.

 

There is no empirical evidence supporting your claim, which leads us back to the topic of speculation.

 

 

 

 

Furthermore and yet again, balance changes happen over the whole life cycle of a game, from alpha to post-release.

 

You are working yourself up over mere speculation on an issue which will assuredly be tuned over the time.

 

You need to enhance your calm.

[Madscientist]

After reading all of this I think the current system is not so bad.

 

Giving all passive abilities (weapon style, weapon focus, . . . ) to every class would make these talents feel like a must have.

In PoE1 every char (except pure casters) had them. And you are correct when you say that this is not perfect.

 

In the current system, every class can give something useful to the other classes. Thats how it should be. e.g. multiclassing with fighter surely makes another class fight better with weapons, but you cannot select sneak attack, animal companion, spells, . . . instead and you cannot get the top abilities of the single class.

While I like to keep the general system, I agree with Boeroer that single classes should be made more interesting, especially casters.

You should be able to select something else than one spell at every level up.

[dam]

After reading all of this I think the current system is not so bad.

 

Giving all passive abilities (weapon style, weapon focus, . . . ) to every class would make these talents feel like a must have.

In PoE1 every char (except pure casters) had them. And you are correct when you say that this is not perfect.

 

In the current system, every class can give something useful to the other classes. Thats how it should be. e.g. multiclassing with fighter surely makes another class fight better with weapons, but you cannot select sneak attack, animal companion, spells, . . . instead and you cannot get the top abilities of the single class.

While I like to keep the general system, I agree with Boeroer that single classes should be made more interesting, especially casters.

You should be able to select something else than one spell at every level up.

 

Further to the point, it makes as much sense to give a fighter an extra dual wield ability, as it does a rogue or a ranger.

Yet, they do not have it available.

 

There is, obviously, a middle ground to be found.

 

 

 

 

In the end, we ought to wait and see what implementation we get, and what abilities it makes available.

Only then will we be able to discuss facts as opposed to mere speculation, voodoo and mysticism.

The current debate is devoid of base making it sterile, and, in my opinion, irrelevant at this point.

 

 

 

 

I would offer we postpone further arguments and comments on the topic until we know what we are actually discussing.

Right now, this is leading us nowhere.

[JerekKruger]

Well that and Weapon Focus is an autopick. Probably better to leave that one as a barbarian exclusive.

 

I'd say Weapon Focus should either be removed altogether (my preference) or moved to either Fighters or Rogues (or both). If it's universal it becomes a tax on characters who intend to use weapons and either all enemies are balanced around the assumption that you'll take it (and hence spell accuracy has to be rebalanced too) or it's very powerful. If it's left as specific to one class I really don't understand why that class would be the Barbarian. Barbarians in Pillars were somewhat defined by their lower accuracy: both lower than other pure martial classes and then even lower for Carnage*. It seems odd therefore to give Barbarians the accuracy bonus talent rather than Fighters or Rogues (both of whom have a strong claim on the weapon master role). 

 

*Admittedly Carnage eventually became very accurate due to the accuracy per level bonus to all abilities.

[AndreaColombo]

I’d be OK with Weapon Focus staying where it is, to be honest.

Edited November 24, 2017 by AndreaColombo

[JerekKruger]

I’d be OK with Weapon Focus staying where it is, to be honest.

 

I just don't understand why Barbarians get it. Beyond that I haven't got a handle on how important Accuracy is in Deadfire compared to Pillars, where it was king.

 

As I said though, I'd prefer to see it removed altogether. Replace it on Barbarians with something that modifies Carnage or is otherwise more Barbarian specific.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

This post seems to be making some assumptions that I'm not sure are valid. Primarily, just because some passive abilities are becoming available through the proficiency table, doesn't mean all talents from the first game are.

 

For one thing, the "Weapon Focus" groups no longer exist in deadfire; I'm not sure why they would be returning, as they've been replaced by the individual weapon proficiencies. (Edit: oh you mean the individual Barbarian class ability Weapon Focus. Why do you think that will become generally available? Not all passives are becoming talents).

 

You also seem to be assuming a new proficiency slot every three levels instead of every four. 

 

We also know that not all passive abilities are becoming general talents; for example, fighters are retaining weapon specialization and (I  believe?) Fearless as fighter-unique.

 

So I'd suggest first waiting on implementation and seeing which actual specific passives become available as talents and which don't, because I think a lot of the fears you're describing are premature and won't be born out in implementation.

 

 

All that said, I made my case for opening up the open proficiencies in the prior thread : https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/94357-removing-non-class-specific-talents-was-a-bad-idea/?p=1954672

 

I think the case for doing so is fairly simple: the first game had an open free-form character creation system, the new system without open proficiencies puts characters on rails. Without some kind of open proficiency, if you want a character to be good at ranged weapons, you're gonna need to multiclass ranger; if you want to be good at twoweapon fighting, you'll need to multiclass fighter. That ends up leading to more homogeneity, not less. 

 

That said, I'd agree that not all prior open talents should return. There's no place for the Weapon Focus groups in the new game, definitely. I think the main "unlocks" should be the four Weapon Styles, the utility talents like Deep Pockets and Arms Bearer, and then perhaps the elemental and slayer and defensive talents, but only with a high level requirement so that players can only pick one or two of them. 

 

I also dont think there should be very many total proficiency slots -- this stuff should be character gravy, not main abilities. Two weapon proficiencies at base level and four more over the life of the character seems plenty.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

Oh one additional point -- I will agree that I'd like to see a few more *active* abilities added to fighters and especially to Rangers. Rangers seem to have really suffered by having a lot of their prior defining class active abilities (rapid fire, powder burns) removed to become weapon proficiency modals. 

[Madscientist]

The Dr. before me said:

 

"I think the case for doing so is fairly simple: the first game had an open free-form character creation system, the new system without open proficiencies puts characters on rails. Without some kind of open proficiency, if you want a character to be good at ranged weapons, you're gonna need to multiclass ranger; if you want to be good at twoweapon fighting, you'll need to multiclass fighter. That ends up leading to more homogeneity, not less."

 

I want to say that you do not need the fighter class to make a good dual wielder ( look at the paladin/monk from dunehunter) and you can surely create a useful char who uses mostly ranged weapons without using the ranger class.

Of course, using those classes seem to be the most obvious choice when you want to create such a char. But it is definitely not the only choice and in some cases it may not even be the best.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

The Dr. before me said:

 

"I think the case for doing so is fairly simple: the first game had an open free-form character creation system, the new system without open proficiencies puts characters on rails. Without some kind of open proficiency, if you want a character to be good at ranged weapons, you're gonna need to multiclass ranger; if you want to be good at twoweapon fighting, you'll need to multiclass fighter. That ends up leading to more homogeneity, not less."

 

I want to say that you do not need the fighter class to make a good dual wielder ( look at the paladin/monk from dunehunter) and you can surely create a useful char who uses mostly ranged weapons without using the ranger class.

Of course, using those classes seem to be the most obvious choice when you want to create such a char. But it is definitely not the only choice and in some cases it may not even be the best.

 

True, it's not an absolute requirement, but you're giving up a lot if you don't.

 

It's easy to say you don't need two-weapon fighting but a 20% boost to action speed is huge. Similarly, yeah, you can be a ranged character without dual-classing Ranger -- but not having Marksman and Gunner will make a big difference in effectiveness over the life of the character. 

 

And the return of a few open talents to general availability doesn't take anything away from the specialist classes. Fighters still get stances and Confident Aim; rangers still get Driving Flight and (probably) Twinned Arrows. 

[theBalthazar]

Don't forget the main rule of stack :

 

All abilities stacks.

 

So, two panels with twice the same abilitie = double effect.

 

Already possible on the same panel with multiclass = wildstrike x 2 for druids etc.

 

 

Weapon Focus

 

 

Witch weapon focus ?

 

POE2 = General mastery for all proficiency. RP Similar to Fighter. (= general mastery with all weapons

POE1 = Panel of few weapons (I always found that was illogical)

 

In short I prefer special approach of proficiency, but I dislike the "package" of POE1. Best system is (for me) :

 

Proficiency = One special weapon focus with accuracy. (few in number not like now)

Weapon focus (like it is in POE2) = special and specific deal with one or two class max (general mastery of weapons... Like Fighter for exemple (Why specifically barbarian ? Mystery...)

Edited November 24, 2017 by theBalthazar

[JerekKruger]

Don't forget the main rule of stack :

 

All abilities stacks.

 

So, two panels with twice the same abilitie = double effect.

 

I suspect that's not intended. For example being able to take Bull's Will twice and get +20 to Will is probably an oversight on Obsidian's part.

 

The Wildstrike thing might or might not be intended though.

[CENIC]

What about adding "Elementalist" as a Wizard sub-class? More damage and shorter cast time for spells with elemental keywords, and some sort of penalty.

[Wormerine]

Thank you OP! I was thinking about doing post like that but you really well summarized my feelings. As an experiment I am currently doing a run with a Paladin to see if those "no weapon focus" complaigns are really is a thing. He seems to be doing very well. She is DPS focused, with two handed weapons (estoc/morningstar) and she is doing really well. Her abilities get boosted from Paladin unique skills (sworn enemy, flames of devotion). Does adding a perk (20% more damage) really is needed?

Like OP I feel that what will happen is enemies will get rebalanced around everyone performing better with weapons, and I hope for fighter's skills to get ugraded, which pretty much puts us in the same place we were before the change, except everyone is restricted to weapons they picked at the character creation. If you want to dual wield you can, you don't need a talent for that in current build.

 

Between PoE and PoE2 priests got hit the hardest. They got their priest abilities for free, meaning they could spend their talents on what was pretty much multiclassing. However, if you want to be priest and frontline fighter I think it is reasonable to ask players to multiclass AND it makes more sense for first time players. 

 

Something I don't like and hope to see improved is that fighter seem to be really married to melee combat and rangers to range combat. I am fine with fighter being weapon focused class, using them more efficiently than everyone else, but I wish they would have more freedom as to their role. Similarly ranger could use universal "melee, range" skills rather than heavy focus on range.

[KDubya]

 

The Dr. before me said:

 

"I think the case for doing so is fairly simple: the first game had an open free-form character creation system, the new system without open proficiencies puts characters on rails. Without some kind of open proficiency, if you want a character to be good at ranged weapons, you're gonna need to multiclass ranger; if you want to be good at twoweapon fighting, you'll need to multiclass fighter. That ends up leading to more homogeneity, not less."

 

I want to say that you do not need the fighter class to make a good dual wielder ( look at the paladin/monk from dunehunter) and you can surely create a useful char who uses mostly ranged weapons without using the ranger class.

Of course, using those classes seem to be the most obvious choice when you want to create such a char. But it is definitely not the only choice and in some cases it may not even be the best.

 

True, it's not an absolute requirement, but you're giving up a lot if you don't.

 

It's easy to say you don't need two-weapon fighting but a 20% boost to action speed is huge. Similarly, yeah, you can be a ranged character without dual-classing Ranger -- but not having Marksman and Gunner will make a big difference in effectiveness over the life of the character. 

 

And the return of a few open talents to general availability doesn't take anything away from the specialist classes. Fighters still get stances and Confident Aim; rangers still get Driving Flight and (probably) Twinned Arrows. 

 

 

So the issue is you want the power boost without having to take the class that currently exclusively has the ability?

 

I want a dual wielding Monk, taking Fighter for the two weapon style would add a lot of DPS, I'd also like some cool Cipher abilities along with soul whip. Right now I need to choose between a Monk/Fighter and a Monk Cipher. Make two weapon style available and I will take it and make a Monk/Cipher.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

Yeah, I don't think you should have to mandatory multi-class fighter in order to be at least somewhat specialized in, say, two-weapon fighting, or two-handed-weapon fighting.

 

I also don't think you should have to mandatory multi-class ranger in order to specialize in ranged weapons, no.

 

I completely support your monk/cipher agenda. From what I remember two-weapon fighting on monks was something that was valid in the first game and I don't see why it shouldn't be in the second.  

 

I mean, you're still making tradeoffs. The monk/cipher won't have confident aim or stances, for example. 

 

 

 

I should probably also mention that "roleplaying" is a big part of this kind of thing. I understand why you want to keep the debate focused on gameplay mechanics and it makes sense to have that debate, but roleplay considerations do matter too. It's not so much that I "want the power" as that I want a character who's good at their job (which, to take the example of cipher, is at least half "dealing weapon damage") without feeling like I have to shove the round peg of my character concept into the square hole that is multiclassing. I don't wanna be a ranger! Where the *#@$# did this bear come from all of a sudden?  (You say "take Ghost Heart"; I respond "Oh great now I'm haunted by the memory of a nonexistent bear. Eothas really %^$&ed my dude up!)

 

I mean, I ain't asking for anything that wasn't already part of my character in the first game! If it was fighter or ranger or w/e exclusive then, great, they should keep those exclusives! But being arbitrarily locked out of stuff that was a core part of my character concept in the first game (for example, I really liked my dual-weilding barbarian, or my gun specialist cipher) just feels like an arbitrary step backwards.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

[AndreaColombo]

As a side note: Will the Devoted subclass be able to pick these general talents at levels where they would normally not get a proficiency owing to their limitations?

 

If not, this change is effectively making the Devoted’s penalty a heck of a lot harsher (everybody’s gaining a lot in terms of power except the Devoted.) If yes, the Devoted becomes completely broken as their limitation no longer applies.

Edited November 24, 2017 by AndreaColombo

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

As a side note: Will the Devoted subclass be able to pick these general talents at levels where they would normally not get a proficiency owing to their limitations?

 

If not, this change is effectively making the Devoted’s penalty a heck of a lot harsher (everybody’s gaining a lot in terms of power except the Devoted.) If yes, the Devoted becomes completely broken as their limitation no longer applies.

Good question. I dunno. My instinct would be "let Devoted take non-weapon proficiencies but not specific weapon proficiencies", i.e, two handed style Ok, extra Poleaxe proficiency no.

 

Devoted seem buggy and implemented weirdly right now though (you get two proficiencies in character creation?) so I'm not sure what direction they're going with that.

[Wormerine]

I should probably also mention that "roleplaying" is a big part of this kind of thing. I understand why you want to keep the debate focused on gameplay mechanics and it makes sense to have that debate, but roleplay considerations do matter too. It's not so much that I "want the power" as that I want a character who's good at their job (which, to take the example of cipher, is at least half "dealing weapon damage") without feeling like I have to shove the round peg of my character concept into the square hole that is multiclassing. I don't wanna be a ranger! Where the *#@$# did this bear come from all of a sudden?  (You say "take Ghost Heart"; I respond "Oh great now I'm haunted by the memory of a nonexistent bear. Eothas really %^$&ed my dude up!)

Sure, but character were competent with weapons even without a need for a talent. 

 

But roleplaying aspect is important to keep in mind. Even if character didn't HAVE to pick a talent to use certain weapons or certain weapons combinations, if in majority player's head it felt bad to use dual wielding daggers on their rogue without picking dualwielding talent it is important, even if mechianically it was completely irrelevant. 

 

I am surprised Josh came around so easily. Looking forward how it will all work in later patches.

[Doppelschwert]

There is not much to add to what KDubya already said and reiterated throughout the thread - my opinion aligns perfectly, and for the same reasons.

 

Regarding the argument that this is about roleplaying instead of mechanics:

I hope everyone realizes that we still have attributes that give mechanical advantages as well.

If you want that extra deflection, attack speed or accuracy to flesh out your character concept, how about putting more points into resolve, dexterity or perception?

 

If those attributes are already high, you don't really need them higher just to differentiate your role, because you already did so through the attributes.

And if those attributes are low, you're only trying to game the system, since from a roleplaying perspective, you should not be good at these things in the first place.

 

Most of the roleplaying people here are basically asking for the talents to be able to remove the consequences of their attribute spread, which should actually be much more important in defining the character from a roleplaying perspective.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Doppelschwert

[theBalthazar]

I suspect that's not intended. For example being able to take Bull's Will twice and get +20 to Will is probably an oversight on Obsidian's part.

 

The Wildstrike thing might or might not be intended though.

 

 

In the beta you have a tooltip on stack rules.

 

They define all abilities passives and actives = stack. Wildstrike is a special case indeed, because you must have 2pts to create this exploit when you take the wildstrike (twice =multiclass). But after all is not particulary cheat. (It is not intended obviously, because, following levels don't allow that).

 

But, for me it is not a big problem : you spend 2 pts...

 

it deprives you of other options. Recall that in this idea : any abilitie must be equal to others after all ... If not : balancing all abilities.

Edited November 24, 2017 by theBalthazar