A case for not adding general abilities to Proficiencies

[JerekKruger]

In the beta you have a tooltip on stack rules.

 

They define all abilities passives and actives = stack.

 

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 ...

 

I agree that it's not a big problem, I just suspect that Obsidian didn't intend for people to be able to take the same talent twice. You either have the will of a bull or you don't. That said if it remains I don't mind particularly.

[Katarack21]

"Again someone please give an explanation as to why a character needs access to a weapon style or a defensive boost other than for increased power?"

 

Because it makes my Paladin feel more real to represent his regimented knight-like training in a semi-military order tjrough the use of talents that show and indicate that.

 

It's not bs and it's not made up. It's not a justification nor rationalization. Just because *you* don't feel that way doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[dam]

There is no use debating speculation, which we are doing right now.

 

Let's all wait for the next update and debate the facts instead guys, to be honest.

 

I suspect it'll be much more productive, and much less frustrating, for all of us.

 

 

 

 

Edit: somehow managed to link to the wrong post

Edited November 24, 2017 by dam

[Lamppost in Winter]

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.

 

This is what I mean, though. The attribute system supports more niche builds, but the fairly generic defense talents are currently arbitrarily class-locked. I'm OK with more high-level unique stuff like Rogue's Evasion or the Paladin's Divine Purpose being class-specific, but having some generic talents would help define those further outside of just picking the attribute spread.

 

And of course, I would like more interesting non-class specific talents in general. Hell, they wouldn't even have to include the current generic defense talents, as long as they were interesting.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Lamppost in Winter

[Katarack21]

Note that my desire to have Two Weapon Fighting on my Barbarian is *independent* of what it provides. Of course, I'd prefer it to be nice, but it could be +3 accuracy with two handers and I'd still take it to reflect my character.

[theBalthazar]

So, in Q/A Sawyer said there is no proficiency of unarmed (monk)/claw (druid) because good enough effective ?

 

Bad thing, Proficiency is not for efficiency, it is much more a deal. Advantage in many case but sometimes bad.

 

I am surprised at this choice.

[Climhazzard]

So, in Q/A Sawyer said there is no proficiency of unarmed (monk)/claw (druid) because good enough effective ?

 

Bad thing, Proficiency is not for efficiency, it is much more a deal. Advantage in many case but sometimes bad.

 

I am surprised at this choice.

 

 

If some general abilities do end up being pulled into a general ability pool, then I hope that either weapon focus does not end up there or that fists gain a weapon proficiency for monks.  Otherwise fist users will have lower than average accuracy.

[theBalthazar]

If some general abilities do end up being pulled into a general ability pool, then I hope that either weapon focus does not end up there or that fists gain a weapon proficiency for monks.  Otherwise fist users will have lower than average accuracy.

 

 

So what is the final choice of Josh about this subject ? We know ? General pool or reinforced pool for each class ?

 

Moreover, we agree that the estoc, sword and the rapier on the best modals ? : p

 

It is perhaps the bigger problem, you quickly take the same weapons each time...

Edited November 24, 2017 by theBalthazar

[Wormerine]

 

If some general abilities do end up being pulled into a general ability pool, then I hope that either weapon focus does not end up there or that fists gain a weapon proficiency for monks.  Otherwise fist users will have lower than average accuracy.

 

 

So what is the final choice of Josh about this subject ? We know ? General pool or reinforced pool for each class ?

 

Moreover, we agree that the estoc, sword and the rapier on the best modals ? : p

 

It is perhaps the bigger problem, you quickly take the same weapons each time...

I like mace - lowering armour. Not as effective per person as estoc but you debuff enemies for everyone. Might not be helpful if penetration gap is bigger than 1, but with new system it should be always a boon.

[KDubya]

There is no use debating speculation, which we are doing right now.

 

Let's all wait for the next update and debate the facts instead guys, to be honest.

 

I suspect it'll be much more productive, and much less frustrating, for all of us.

 

 

 

 

Edit: somehow managed to link to the wrong post

 

The reason to debate the possible unintended consequences now is that if we can identify trouble areas then the dev team can think about how to overcome them before they do all the work of adding them.

 

Plus what else is this forum for besides arguing about wild conjecture?

 

 

 

 

 

"Again someone please give an explanation as to why a character needs access to a weapon style or a defensive boost other than for increased power?"

 

Because it makes my Paladin feel more real to represent his regimented knight-like training in a semi-military order tjrough the use of talents that show and indicate that.

 

It's not bs and it's not made up. It's not a justification nor rationalization. Just because *you* don't feel that way doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

 

So your reason is for roleplaying purposes. Great, that's what the game is about. Roleplaying can justify pretty much anything with enough thought and effort. Again not a problem.

 

In my roleplay I'd see the situation as my paladin served in a knightly organization (multi class with Fighter) and now he is both a martial master and a member of his Order. See roleplay just showed that you need to multi to get weapon styles.

 

When you get down to the mechanics then you can see possible problems. 

 

Example - your paladin gets base deflection 20 just like everyone else. You take Deep faith for +20 to all defense. You now have 40 deflection, you add a medium shield and you are at 52 deflection. Your paladin drops the shield and goes for dual wielding and his deflection is 40 which is still more than a weapon and shield Fighter will have.

 

A Fighter gets the 20 base deflection and takes weapon and shield style and a medium shield, he now has 38 deflection (and +18 reflex) 

 

Anyone else grabs the medium shield and they have 32 deflection.

 

Currently your paladin is more tanky then anyone else and by a large margin.

 

Now if you add in weapon styles your Paladin can pick up another +6 deflection and +18 reflex bringing him to 58 deflection. You can get to this by taking the Fighter multiclass and paying the cost. Getting this for a measly proficiency pick means it is nearly free, plus you are then free to multi with something else or stay pure for high level abilities.

[Katarack21]

 

There is no use debating speculation, which we are doing right now.

 

Let's all wait for the next update and debate the facts instead guys, to be honest.

 

I suspect it'll be much more productive, and much less frustrating, for all of us.

 

 

 

 

Edit: somehow managed to link to the wrong post

 

The reason to debate the possible unintended consequences now is that if we can identify trouble areas then the dev team can think about how to overcome them before they do all the work of adding them.

 

Plus what else is this forum for besides arguing about wild conjecture?

 

 

 

 

 

"Again someone please give an explanation as to why a character needs access to a weapon style or a defensive boost other than for increased power?"

 

Because it makes my Paladin feel more real to represent his regimented knight-like training in a semi-military order tjrough the use of talents that show and indicate that.

 

It's not bs and it's not made up. It's not a justification nor rationalization. Just because *you* don't feel that way doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

 

So your reason is for roleplaying purposes. Great, that's what the game is about. Roleplaying can justify pretty much anything with enough thought and effort. Again not a problem.

 

In my roleplay I'd see the situation as my paladin served in a knightly organization (multi class with Fighter) and now he is both a martial master and a member of his Order. See roleplay just showed that you need to multi to get weapon styles.

"Paladins are martial zealots, devoted to a god, a ruler, or even a way of life. They can be found in any culture where a fanatical group of like-minded individuals have formed a warrior society dedicated to advancing their cause. Among those aligned to their worldview, paladins are viewed with respect and admiration, if a bit of fear. Many paladins hold leadership positions in armies and mercenary companies, but in the heat of battle their fanaticism often overrules the chain of command - and common sense."

 

"Paladins are extremely devoted, often fanatical, soldiers who have pledged themselves to a chosen cause. They have founded many elite fighting forces."

 

"The Darcozzi Paladin, the oldest known paladin order in the world, was founded as the guards of the Darcozzi Palace in Grand Vailia."

 

Paladins shouldn't *need* to multiclass to have martial training. The whole character archetype of *PALADIN* is "knight". The word "paladin", in *real* life, means "The twelve foremost warriors of Charlemagne's court." Paladins, according to the lore, background, and history of Pillars of Eternity, are *trained, organized warriors*. There is no lore-friendly reason why you should have to train as a fighter to be good with weapons as a Paladin; *PALADINS ARE TRAINED WITH WEAPONS AS THEY ARE FRONTLINE SOLDIERS IN MOST ARMED CONFLICTS IN EORA*.

 

Edited November 25, 2017 by Katarack21

[KDubya]

 

"Paladins are martial zealots, devoted to a god, a ruler, or even a way of life. They can be found in any culture where a fanatical group of like-minded individuals have formed a warrior society dedicated to advancing their cause. Among those aligned to their worldview, paladins are viewed with respect and admiration, if a bit of fear. Many paladins hold leadership positions in armies and mercenary companies, but in the heat of battle their fanaticism often overrules the chain of command - and common sense."

 

"Paladins are extremely devoted, often fanatical, soldiers who have pledged themselves to a chosen cause. They have founded many elite fighting forces."

 

"The Darcozzi Paladin, the oldest known paladin order in the world, was founded as the guards of the Darcozzi Palace in Grand Vailia."

 

 

 

Paladins shouldn't *need* to multiclass to have martial training. The whole character archetype of *PALADIN* is "knight". The word "paladin", in *real* life, means "The twelve foremost warriors of Charlemagne's court." Paladins, according to the lore, background, and history of Pillars of Eternity, are *trained, organized warriors*. There is no lore-friendly reason why you should have to train as a fighter to be good with weapons as a Paladin; *PALADINS ARE TRAINED WITH WEAPONS AS THEY ARE FRONTLINE SOLDIERS IN MOST ARMED CONFLICTS IN EORA*.

 

 

 

The thing is that you don't need weapon styles to be good with weapons as a Paladin. Its not as if they somehow suck without them.

 

You just aren't the Best without multiclassing with a Fighter.

 

I have no problem roleplaying that.

[spartacus]

 

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.

I think this is really the crux of the argument. Everyone is used to being able to specialize in a fighting style (regardless of class) to get better at using your desired weapons. I felt the same way with my rogue - I was shocked when I realized I couldn't take a dual wielding talent.

 

And yet, my rogue was super powerful without that talent, so in the end I was perfectly happy not having that talent.

 

I think (and I could be wrong, please correct me if I am) that the majority of people don't want the weapon style talents because it feels good to specialize, not necessarily because they felt like their character wasn't as they envisioned.

 

In old school dnd, the proficiency talents (especially dual wielding) were extremely necessary to make your character able to bit anything. However, in PoE2 there are no inherent restrictions on different weapon styles, so I don't think that the weapon style talents are necessary for all classes.

[Katarack21]

 

 

"Paladins are martial zealots, devoted to a god, a ruler, or even a way of life. They can be found in any culture where a fanatical group of like-minded individuals have formed a warrior society dedicated to advancing their cause. Among those aligned to their worldview, paladins are viewed with respect and admiration, if a bit of fear. Many paladins hold leadership positions in armies and mercenary companies, but in the heat of battle their fanaticism often overrules the chain of command - and common sense."

 

"Paladins are extremely devoted, often fanatical, soldiers who have pledged themselves to a chosen cause. They have founded many elite fighting forces."

 

"The Darcozzi Paladin, the oldest known paladin order in the world, was founded as the guards of the Darcozzi Palace in Grand Vailia."

 

 

 

Paladins shouldn't *need* to multiclass to have martial training. The whole character archetype of *PALADIN* is "knight". The word "paladin", in *real* life, means "The twelve foremost warriors of Charlemagne's court." Paladins, according to the lore, background, and history of Pillars of Eternity, are *trained, organized warriors*. There is no lore-friendly reason why you should have to train as a fighter to be good with weapons as a Paladin; *PALADINS ARE TRAINED WITH WEAPONS AS THEY ARE FRONTLINE SOLDIERS IN MOST ARMED CONFLICTS IN EORA*.

 

 

 

The thing is that you don't need weapon styles to be good with weapons as a Paladin. Its not as if they somehow suck without them.

 

You just aren't the Best without multiclassing with a Fighter.

 

I have no problem roleplaying that.

 

You do, however, need to have weapon styles to differentiate yourself as having more weapon skill than a priest, or a frickin' wizard.

 

"I've spent my entire life training in drills over and over as a career solidier in a dedicated fighting force of frontline infantry. I'm as good with a sword as any jackass in a robe."

[KDubya]

 

 

 

"Paladins are martial zealots, devoted to a god, a ruler, or even a way of life. They can be found in any culture where a fanatical group of like-minded individuals have formed a warrior society dedicated to advancing their cause. Among those aligned to their worldview, paladins are viewed with respect and admiration, if a bit of fear. Many paladins hold leadership positions in armies and mercenary companies, but in the heat of battle their fanaticism often overrules the chain of command - and common sense."

 

"Paladins are extremely devoted, often fanatical, soldiers who have pledged themselves to a chosen cause. They have founded many elite fighting forces."

 

"The Darcozzi Paladin, the oldest known paladin order in the world, was founded as the guards of the Darcozzi Palace in Grand Vailia."

 

 

 

Paladins shouldn't *need* to multiclass to have martial training. The whole character archetype of *PALADIN* is "knight". The word "paladin", in *real* life, means "The twelve foremost warriors of Charlemagne's court." Paladins, according to the lore, background, and history of Pillars of Eternity, are *trained, organized warriors*. There is no lore-friendly reason why you should have to train as a fighter to be good with weapons as a Paladin; *PALADINS ARE TRAINED WITH WEAPONS AS THEY ARE FRONTLINE SOLDIERS IN MOST ARMED CONFLICTS IN EORA*.

 

 

 

The thing is that you don't need weapon styles to be good with weapons as a Paladin. Its not as if they somehow suck without them.

 

You just aren't the Best without multiclassing with a Fighter.

 

I have no problem roleplaying that.

 

You do, however, need to have weapon styles to differentiate yourself as having more weapon skill than a priest, or a frickin' wizard.

 

"I've spent my entire life training in drills over and over as a career solidier in a dedicated fighting force of frontline infantry. I'm as good with a sword as any jackass in a robe."

 

 

The Wizard can also take Weapon styles in the proposed system and will be just as good as your Paladin so i'm not sure what you are gaining in the new system other than a general power creep for everyone.

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

 

"Paladins are martial zealots, devoted to a god, a ruler, or even a way of life. They can be found in any culture where a fanatical group of like-minded individuals have formed a warrior society dedicated to advancing their cause. Among those aligned to their worldview, paladins are viewed with respect and admiration, if a bit of fear. Many paladins hold leadership positions in armies and mercenary companies, but in the heat of battle their fanaticism often overrules the chain of command - and common sense."

 

"Paladins are extremely devoted, often fanatical, soldiers who have pledged themselves to a chosen cause. They have founded many elite fighting forces."

 

"The Darcozzi Paladin, the oldest known paladin order in the world, was founded as the guards of the Darcozzi Palace in Grand Vailia."

 

 

 

Paladins shouldn't *need* to multiclass to have martial training. The whole character archetype of *PALADIN* is "knight". The word "paladin", in *real* life, means "The twelve foremost warriors of Charlemagne's court." Paladins, according to the lore, background, and history of Pillars of Eternity, are *trained, organized warriors*. There is no lore-friendly reason why you should have to train as a fighter to be good with weapons as a Paladin; *PALADINS ARE TRAINED WITH WEAPONS AS THEY ARE FRONTLINE SOLDIERS IN MOST ARMED CONFLICTS IN EORA*.

 

 

 

The thing is that you don't need weapon styles to be good with weapons as a Paladin. Its not as if they somehow suck without them.

 

You just aren't the Best without multiclassing with a Fighter.

 

I have no problem roleplaying that.

 

You do, however, need to have weapon styles to differentiate yourself as having more weapon skill than a priest, or a frickin' wizard.

 

"I've spent my entire life training in drills over and over as a career solidier in a dedicated fighting force of frontline infantry. I'm as good with a sword as any jackass in a robe."

 

 

The Wizard can also take Weapon styles in the proposed system and will be just as good as your Paladin so i'm not sure what you are gaining in the new system other than a general power creep for everyone.

 

Yes, to indicate that *THAT* wizard has had martial training. Without those general proficiences, all non-fighters are essentially shown to be identically capable with all weapons. Every barbarian and every wizard have identical capabilities with a two-handed sword, without those general proficiencies. It's ridiculous.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

One thing that's interesting about this discussion is that both sides are framing it as if something is being "taken away" from their characters; on the one hand, what are at the moment fighter-exclusive abilities are being handed out to everyone else, on the other, people whose characters had those same abilities in the first game feel they're losing them in this one. So everyone feels like they're at risk of losing something.

 

The problem with that framing is that only one group is actually at risk of "losing" anything -- the people who wanted to carry over characters from the first game, as intact as possible, or rebuild their first-game character in the sequel. The fighter classes aren't actually losing anything at all -- all they're losing is exclusivity! They'll have the same ability to take two-weapon or two-handed fighting or whatever, as anyone else does!

 

But the people who wanted to bring their two-weapon melee ranger or their ranged cipher or their two-hander barbarian forward into this game . . ok, they've got a real mechanical problem if open talents are gone, because suddenly their only option is to multiclass. Multiclassing may be fine for some of them, but for others, it probably won't -- for example, if I want to re-make my same ranged gun-specialist Cipher from the first game, I'd now have to multiclass into Ranger. And suddenly I'd have to explain how I both gained (and, if i went ghost heart, lost) a pet bear in between the first game and now. 

 

As  I said above -- Eothas must have really done a number on my character if now she's hallucinating ghost bears everywhere. 

 

The fact that this game is a sequel matters -- people want to carry over their characters from the first game to at least some degree, and the characters in the first game had open talents. If people can't access open talents in the second game, they're going to feel like they're losing parts of their characters (and, in a very real way, they will be). And if people are forced to multiclass just to remake their characters -- well, at that point, they aren't necessarily the same characters any more. 

 

And that's the thing -- with open talents, relative to the first game, nobody really loses anything. Fighters still have all the class-defining abilities they had in the first game. Constant Recovery, Stances, Knockdown, etc., it's all still there. Rangers -- well, ok, Rangers probably need some love, since they lost some abilities like weapon modals to the proficiencies, and some of their abilities are now coded ranged-only and no longer function with melee. Everybody else has the same choices they had before plus multiclassing. 

Edited November 25, 2017 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

[Gromnir]

"The fact that this game is a sequel matters"

 

 

is largely irrelevant.  care to name all the excellent crpgs which altered rule systems mid franchise?  as we said before, this whole scenario is all too familiar to anybody following these kinda games.  bg grandmastery. iwd archery. me2 complete overhaul of me rules. etc.  heck, iwd2 were a sequel and while many folks initial complained 'bout the change, following the game's release, the 3e rules implementation were one o' the most lauded aspects o' that game. and don't try and tell us iwd2 were different 'cause it were not a continuation o' the same protagonist.  the complaints 'bout 3e implementation were the same.  same sequel bluster. "why call it iwd2 if you are going to abandon what made iwd so enjoyable?" do you honest believe that if the original watcher's story ended at the conclusion o' poe and a new protagonist were essential for deadfire that this thread would be any different?  

 

*snort*

 

oh, and btw, the majority o' poe disagreements were also frightening similar, but with one small change to your observation...

 

the fact that this game is a spiritual successor matters.

 

claim actual sequelness makes different ignores history.  by selling poe to fans o' the ie games, obsidian owed it to purchasers to retain the feel o' those games.  were misleading o' obsidian to abandon ________ or add _________. what is particular sad/funny/sad is how a few o' the folks current complaining 'bout absence o' poe general talent availability were folks criticizing the ie game grognards during poe development. 

 

 

been there and done that.

 

any change, any improvement to poe status quo can be attacked with, "the fact that this game is a sequel matters." in and of itself, the nostalgia argument is less than compelling, no?  not even need argue.  

 

even so, obsidian, recognizing the feels contingent, attempts to distill what is the essential aspects for maintaining feel.  is not an easy task.  apparently some folks believe weapon focus talents is essential to feel.  others will be happy with if they get a few o' the fighter style talents.  based on their announced solutions, obsidian seems to think the general talent appeal is a bit transparent and are responding with supplementing weapon proficiencies (HA!) but regardless, obsidian is attempting to find some kinda impossible sweetspot for feel.

 

is tough to figure out feel.  again, we suggest reviewing the interview link we provided earlier in this thread. feel for everybody is different.  is no way to measure.  deadfire tank paladins are not current underpowered, but nevertheless, folks want weapon and shield.  efficacy o' paladins can be measured with maths.  obsidian reviews many hours o' qa to see how various builds is performing when actual played. even the folks current demanding weapon and shield for paladins are not witnessing a surfeit in tanky prowess from paladins in deadfire. (insert icecream headache here) etc. every poe talent absent in deadfire as a general talent is enjoying unique feel which obsidian cannot hope to measure. 

 

some chafed at our entitlement label, but it is an increasing apropos descriptor o' the desire o' many to maintain the powhaz their poe character had access to w/o having to adjust to the changes o' deadfire... changes which were, to some degree, inevitable.

 

am not denying that many folks believe the fact deadfire is a sequel matters.  is poe development all over again. the fight 'bout per kill xp for poe is illustrative. per kill xp is essential to the feel of an ie game spiritual successor.  multiple 30 page threads on that issue. turned out to be a non-issue. nevertheless, argue incessant for months with folks insisting "it all comes down to feel" and/or "you cannot deny the importance of feel."  

 

feel is important, as Gromnir noted 'bove.  the problem is nobody can identify what is the essential feel features and qualities o' poe.  feel is fluid and often mind boggling... such as the weapon and shield demand for deadfire paladins. provide weapon and shield to already strong tanks to make up for loss of... feel?  provide more weapon talents when classes as a whole is hardly suffering from ineffectiveness in weapon combat? heck, is not even being argued the deadfire paladin cannot get weapon and shield, 'cause he/she can.  the paladin need multi-class to get weapon and shield, and while multi-class opens up a vast array o' additional customization options not possible in poe, it is different than poe weapon and shield for paladins... much like how bg2 grandmastery were different, and iwd archery were different and me2 rules were different and iwd2 using 3e multiclass were different... and arguable better. 

 

"The fact that this game is a sequel matters little."

 

fixed.

 

make deadfire better than poe.  slavish devotion to sequelness is decreasing the likelihood o' improvement. sure, change is not inherent superior neither. some folks is equal dazzled by new as some o' the grognards is fixated 'pon the past.   am personal not giving any kinda inherent value to new and/or different.  even so, objectively, deadfire changes provide more player options and would appear to be easier to balance than the poe approach.  one week o' feel weirdness which has us seeing widespread demand for weapon talents for already effective weapon users and wants o' additional tanky talents for already effective tanks has us bemused.

 

the real sequelness here is how much this thread is a replay o' dozens o' poe development threads.  you folks is turning us into a god.  not The God, but a god.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Lamppost in Winter]

To be honest, Weapon Focus aside, I can't really see why the general talents and amount of class passives from PoE staying more or less the same would be incompatible with the new multiclass system. Maybe there was a lot of power creep in PoE I hadn't noticed; I don't know.

 

The stated reason for previously general talents being moved into classes was because people felt the general talents were a bit generic and uninspiring. From the general response, it seems like it only succeeded in making people feel like classes were stuffed with generic passives.

 

Some of them fit; Bloody Slaughter for Barbarians? Sure. Shot on the Run for Rangers? Kind of sucks for other classes who use ranged weapons, but it does fit. Same with weapon styles. Weapon Focus is also something I can live with being stuck in Fighter (it's currently in Barbarian I believe? Which is weird)

 

The problem, I think, is a lot of the general talents that were turned into class passives weren't modified to make them fit the class, so they still feel generic, and in some cases are available to other classes too. So you have a situation where classes are more strictly defined, but some of the things they choose don't feel like "cool thing only X class can do". Some of that is probably because we had those passives as generics in PoE, but the point stands is that they were written as generic talents for PoE and so they still feel that way.

 

My solutions are still one of a) having more "out-there" generic talents (my preference), b) having more of the generics (but not necessarily the weapon styles, and almost definitely not the weapon focus) available for more classes and/or c) making new passives that feel more unique to each class.

 

I still don't know what to do with Weapon Proficiencies, though. I feel like most people will definitely hit an excess of proficiencies and it would be nice to have something cool to pick as an alternative without making it a no-brainer if you don't need any more proficiencies.

[KDubya]

-SNIP-

 

I still don't know what to do with Weapon Proficiencies, though. I feel like most people will definitely hit an excess of proficiencies and it would be nice to have something cool to pick as an alternative without making it a no-brainer if you don't need any more proficiencies.

 

My suggestion is to add Deep Pockets, Arms Bearer, Quick Switch, and Field Triage (have it remove one injury from one character or maybe even all?) to the Weapon Proficiency choices starting at level four. All of these add flavor but no real power creep issues arise from this.

 

I'd also change Island Aumaua back to what they had before with the extra weapon slot.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

re: Sequels mattering --

 

If it matters little then  . .  it matters. "little" is a nonzero value (and a subjective one; such things will matter more to some players than others). 

 

I also think the "spiritual successor" argument matters less than it did in the first game. Sure, we're locked into a few decisions because that's the first game was marketed and sold on kickstarter as a "spiritual successor" to the BG games, and that's why we can't have turn based. But this game was marketed as a successor, not just to BG, but to PoE 1. PoE 1 was a success in its own right, and established its own brand; a lot of the people backing and (hopefully) buying this game did so or will do so because they liked PoE 1, whether or not they even remember BG. Those people are going to want to port their characters over and are going to expect & hope for an "as good or better" overall experience. If nothing else, fairly or unfairly, PoE establishes the benchmark for PoE 2 to match or exceed.

 

That said, your more substantive point seems to be that the more important thing is whether the change is an improvement or not. In that you're correct.

 

 

 

 

make deadfire better than poe.  slavish devotion to sequelness is decreasing the likelihood o' improvement. sure, change is not inherent superior neither. some folks is equal dazzled by new as some o' the grognards is fixated 'pon the past.   am personal not giving any kinda inherent value to new and/or different.  even so, objectively, deadfire changes provide more player options and would appear to be easier to balance than the poe approach.  

 

 

I'm not really sure that the new Deadfire changes do actually provide more player options. There are eleven PoE classes; so that's. . something like 110 possible class/class combinations. Each of those new class combinations, however, has a fairly heavily restricted class tree; by picking, say, Barbarian/Priest, you're locking yourself out of a lot of passive skills that are locked into other classes. The math for that would be fairly complicated, but it'd also be a fairly limited number; end of the day, you're looking at probably a few tens of thousands of possible character builds.

 

On the other hand, the PoE open talent system allowed for . . let's see . .  11 classes, any one of which could, theoretically, take up to .. what, eight? of the (45 or more) open talents.  So that's 11 classes x (45X44X43X42X41X40X39X38) = if I did my math correctly which is NOT something I guarantee = 95,602,153,046, 400 possible combinations of classes and talents, not counting class-specific talents, class powers, or the cross-class talents added in White March. 

 

That may seem counter-intuitive, but think about it: In the first game, you could take any eight talents with any one class. Now you can . . take any two classes. In the first scenario, you're multiplying one class by the whole list of possible talents, multiple times; in the second, you're multiplying one class by just one other class. It's inherently a shorter list. 

 

So . . objectively, mathematically, the PoE 1 open-talent system allowed for far far far more builds than a pure multiclass system with no open talents would. Sure, a lot of those builds would be inferior or "non viable," but when there are that many builds, it doesn't really matter, half the fun is in going fishing for new character designs anyway.

 

As to the "ease of balancing" issue   . . . balance isn't all that important, it's a single-player game, and to the extent that it IS important, they managed it decently well in the first game, which already had (again, if my math is correct, which no guarantees) literal billions of possible combinations. They did it once, they can do it again. Adding in multiclassing is just taking things up a notch.

 

And that brings us back to your core point -- which is absolutely valid -- if they aren't progressing and moving the game design forward, then that's bad. The open talent system in PoE 1 was in a lot of ways a masterpiece, possibly the game's strongest feature from a design perspective (the "no useless stat" stat system perhaps taking precedence). If they toss that open talent system out and replace it with a much more constrained and restricted, "on rails" multiclass system, that isn't a step forward, it's a step back (or at least I'd think so). 

 

On the other hand, add some open talents *on top of* the multiclass system . . great! then that's even more possible combinations and builds. If it's harder to balance . . . well, that's why we're all here in beta, let's figure out how to make it work. Even if they can't, I'd rather they tried.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

 

My suggestion is to add Deep Pockets, Arms Bearer, Quick Switch, and Field Triage (have it remove one injury from one character or maybe even all?) to the Weapon Proficiency choices starting at level four. All of these add flavor but no real power creep issues arise from this.

 

I'd also change Island Aumaua back to what they had before with the extra weapon slot.

 

 

 

I agree about Island Amaua. Slog Zones don't seem common enough to warrant the racial. There are a few other racials that need tweaking too (Moon Godlike's heal needs to scale with level, etc.)

 

Past that though .. .  I don't think "power creep" is a concern at this stage. We're still in beta, they can still make changes. That's especially true right now when, mechanically, the classes that got all these passives are dominating in effectiveness, and the ones that lost access are hurting. Try playing a ranged-weapon single-class cipher right now if you don't believe me!

Edited November 26, 2017 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

[KDubya]

 

 

My suggestion is to add Deep Pockets, Arms Bearer, Quick Switch, and Field Triage (have it remove one injury from one character or maybe even all?) to the Weapon Proficiency choices starting at level four. All of these add flavor but no real power creep issues arise from this.

 

I'd also change Island Aumaua back to what they had before with the extra weapon slot.

 

 

 

I agree about Island Amaua. Slog Zones don't seem common enough to warrant the racial. There are a few other racials that need tweaking too (Moon Godlike's heal needs to scale with level, etc.)

 

Past that though .. .  I don't think "power creep" is a concern at this stage. We're still in beta, they can still make changes. That's especially true right now when, mechanically, the classes that got all these passives are dominating in effectiveness, and the ones that lost access are hurting. Try playing a ranged-weapon single-class cipher right now if you don't believe me!

 

 

In the case of a single class ranged Cipher what exactly would adding any of the weapon style stances do for them as they are all only for melee?

 

A weapon switching gun user will be hampered by not having any weapon slots to fill with guns. My proposal of adding the Quick Switch and Arms Bearer to weapon proficiencies would address that. The only other passive that might affect them is Gunner which is now Ranger only.

 

If you add that you need to add the rest and then it starts to be tricky as far as what Fighter take at second level when all of their choices can be chosen with a low value weapon proficiency pick instead of a valuable ability pick.

 

I'm a big believer in stopping Power Creep before it happens. Give everyone access to Weapon Focus and then try and take it away at a later time See how well that works out for you.

[dunehunter]

 

Paladins shouldn't *need* to multiclass to have martial training. The whole character archetype of *PALADIN* is "knight". The word "paladin", in *real* life, means "The twelve foremost warriors of Charlemagne's court." Paladins, according to the lore, background, and history of Pillars of Eternity, are *trained, organized warriors*. There is no lore-friendly reason why you should have to train as a fighter to be good with weapons as a Paladin; *PALADINS ARE TRAINED WITH WEAPONS AS THEY ARE FRONTLINE SOLDIERS IN MOST ARMED CONFLICTS IN EORA*.

 

 

 

Honestly I feel Paladin/Fighter is the most boring multi-class combo. Just boring...

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

 

 

 

In the case of a single class ranged Cipher what exactly would adding any of the weapon style stances do for them as they are all only for melee?

 

 

 

 

I went over this above in detail repeatedly -- the open talents weren't just the weapon style stances, but also things like Marksman, Gunner, Shot on the Run, etc.  There's a reason I keep bringing up Rangers; just like they decided to flesh out the Fighter tree by yanking all the melee open talents and putting them in the Fighter tree, they fleshed out Rangers by yanking all the ranged open talents and putting them in the ranger pool. So now if you want to make a ranged weapon character you have to dual-class ranger, just like if you want to make an effective melee character you're very strongly encouraged to dual-class fighter. 

 

If you want to stick with fighters though feel free to make a single-class melee cipher too.  Same arguments either way. ([i should warn you that I put the same challenge to a poster over on SomethingAwful and he took it and ended up basically agreeing with me afterwards, so this wouldn't exactly be a blind experiment].)

 

As to Quick Switch and Arms Bearer, Weapon switching gun users were always a gimmicky niche build that never really worked up to billing and took far too much micromanagement to be worth it; weapon switching isn't a build, it's the first ten seconds of a fight (and if you don't have grazing you'll probably miss anyway!). As far as that goes, given the new penetration system, it would probably be better to just give all characters both those talents automatically, the new game places a much higher premium on weapon switching than the old one did. 

 

Past that . .  I just don't buy the "power creep" concerns. These are single player games; balance doesn't matter that much as long as there's a basic degree of challenge, and even that basic challenge is something most players choose to turn off anyway (statistically, relatively few people played on Path of the Damned). Past that  .. .  I look at the beta and, relatively speaking, the fighters are doing just fine right now, and everyone else is hurting. Fighters have an ability that lets them conveniently graze; nobody else does. Melee classes are absolutely dominating spellcasters in effectiveness; cast times for many spells are longer than most fights, and then the spells miss! 

 

Basically all the concerns you're raising about open talents seem really theoretical and nonspecific to me ("power creep," "hard to balance," etc), while the harm from not having open talents seems clear and obvious. People can't make the characters they want to make, they can't replicate their PoE 1 characters in Deadfire, the overall framework of possible builds is much more regimented and "on rails", etc. 

 

It's not like we're operating in a vacuum here. PoE 1 had open talents, the system worked, so we know it can work. Taking it away isn't going to magically give fighters (or rangers, or any other classes that managed to snag some former open talents) anything extra. It's just limiting the options of everyone else. 

 

EDIT: if your argument is "fighters could use a few more abilities to broaden out their tree" then sure, I have no objections to fighters getting a few additional bubble options in their tree. Meanwhile, though, you'll still be free to take a power at level 2 and a proficiency at level 4 . . .

Edited November 26, 2017 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy