A case for not adding general abilities to Proficiencies

[draego]

 Dr. Hieronymous Alloy - 

I also think the weapon proficiencies were a step back in the spirit of POE 1 more open general talent design. It would be nice if they let you choose what type of effect you want for which weapon. I know some of this would be imbalanced to much like for the ranged knockdown effect to be applied to hunting bow. Melee weapons for the most part seem like they could be more interchangeable like in POE1 i could apply vulnerable attack to any weapon or savage attack likewise, it was left up to the players imagination. In POE2 i dont see why you couldn't let a player decide if they want the lower penetration, will, reflex, or fortitude, etc on any weapon they want to play. (i know pen is king right now but that is a balancing thing) Now it would be harder to balance the game but i like your break down comparison of POE1 to 2 in regards to openness and it would be a shame to lose that.

Edited November 26, 2017 by draego

[Gromnir]

 

 

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.

 

 

your notions 'bout sequels and the relative importance o' staying true for deadfire ignores not only how people actual responded during poe development, but glosses over examples o' me2 and iwd2.  your sanctity-o'-the-sequel notions is, once again, a touchy-feely argument.  there is indeed some segment o' the fanbase which is gonna express the belief that the original iteration o' the sequel is a sacred cow. others will be less dedicated to the ideal.  regardless, games such as me2 and iwd2 and even poe reveal just how misleading the messageboard feedbacks can be when trying to guestimate the genuine ardor o' real fans.  boardies is only the smallest fraction o' fans after all, and history does suggest the fans is far less moribund than you believe. your guesstimates 'bout the importance o sequelness is, one suspects, tinted by your desire to see more o' poe carried over to deadfire.  regardless, any predictions o' doom for a developer who fails to stay rooted in the past seem, at the very least, premature. 

 

equal plausible outcome o' staying faithful to poe is condemnation from critics and fans who rail 'gainst lack o' anything meaningful new in spite o' the opportunity provided by the sequel.  want more o' the same, then build an expansion, but xcom2 and iwd2 and a host o' other games benefit from serious mechanics overhaul 'cause the past suggests slavish devotion to a successful predecessor is bad business even if it is what fans is demanding.  is a curious truism that give folks what they want will make 'em hate you as nothing else.  tired. derivative. banal.  

 

'course is also amusing to see what a no-win situations the developers face in regards to fan expectations.  one o' the biggest complaints regarding bg were the largely empty wilderness maps filled with a couple hobgoblin or gnoll ambushes and maybe a minor quest.  endless and mindless mowing o' such maps were considered the nadir o' bg content by a large percentage o' board feedback. particular following totsc release, the desire to see more durlag's tower and less wilderness slogs were the most common wish for bg2.

 

*chuckle*

 

bg2 releases and the new complaint du jour is 'bout the lack o' exploration.

 

even when there is unity o' desire from fans, there is a fair chance you is gonna cheese off those fans.

 

if there is tens o' thousands o' viable deadfire options, such is gonna be far more than poe offered.  yeah, there is a few completely useless deadfire builds as subclasses, in particular, can be combined to form hopeless handicapped characters.  even so, the number o' actual viable builds is gonna be quite high, particular with expanded skills and the current weapon proficiency options.  can get the developers to respond to this one over at sa perhaps as they do not share in this place anymore.  shame.  regardless, much as with fallout, the number o' actual builds people played in poe is far smaller than your numbers suggest.  simple look at the poe builds thread.  see how many common talents is shared.  argue the number o' possible combinations is swell and all, but it utter ignores reality. 

 

as to balance, am gonna once again refer folks to josh sawyer's pinned tweet regarding balance.  the notion o' balance being unimportant in a sp game is flawed.  thought this one had been effective put to rest, but am seeing such were wishful thinking. most common complaints 'ccording to obsidians for ALL of their games is as follows:

 

the game was too easy.

 

the game was too hard.

 

both such is the two most common complaints for every game... in spite o' difficulty sliders. disappointed due to ease or frustrated due to difficulty makes future purchases less likely, so beyond josh explanations (which we recommend familiarizing yourself with... along with the interview regarding feels we keep mentioning), there is obvious business reasons for obsidian balance concerns in their sp games.

 

oh, and while you see the open talent system as a masterpiece, just as many people see it as an utter mess.  am suspecting/knowing a few o' the developers were less than satisfied with the end results.  the developers were trying to avoid winner and loser talents.  they failed.  they failed predictably.  the obsidian developers, with general talents, were trying to overcome some o' the limitations o' a class-based system. in this they were somewhat successful... and calling class systems limited is not a criticism.  classes is necessarily limited.  is s'posed to be limited.  the uniqueness o' classes is the point o' the classes. nevertheless, with level-up class powers and large pool o' general talents, the resulting in bloat and marginalization which is endemic in all such attempts took place in poe... particular in the expansions.  is no mystery whey josh, following poe, decided to use a classless system for the pnp version o' deadfire.  clearly not awed by the masterpiece o' poe.

 

but again, since you largely ignored the pivotal, folks is demanding general talents to fix a problem which does not seem to exist save as a feel.  paladins w/o weapon and shield is not current squishy.  weapon users in deadfire is not hamstrung by their lack o' weapon stances or accuracy boosts or whatnot.  folks is demanding a solution to a problem which only exists as feel, and the feel is based on a mere week o' beta experience by a small number o' people. as kdubya notes in this thread. and Gromnir pointed out elsewhere, by providing no brainer general talents, not only is customization options functional reduced as players predictable gravitate to their use, but in spite o' you being dismissive o' balance, based on all their feedback and poe patches, is clear the obsidians take balance more serious. is current no need for increased weapon efficacy to makes weapon users viable in combats, so adding no brainer weapon feats will definite result in a predictable response from developers.  tanks, all tanks, is already a bit op at the moment, so clear they do not need any help.  even so, the peculiar rp limitations o' a few players who need weapon and shield for their paladin is gonna require tuning from developers. talents which is current not needed is added to the game and instant become essential.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited November 26, 2017 by Gromnir

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

Draego --

 

I'll have to think about that. In one sense (I hadn't thought about this) the weapon proficiencies are the new "open talents" -- in fact, a lot of things that were previously class abilities, like rapid shot or powder burns, got moved to become weapon proficiencies now, which is one reason they had to fill in the ranger tree with open talents!  I'm still playing with that part of the system and don't have a firm opinion on it yet -- on the one hand, I kinda like that each weapon has a unique thing that sets it apart, on the other, i can kinda feel it driving me to make various weapon choices. The design team has clearly put a lot of work into the new proficiencies system though and I can sense some real potential so I'm inclined to give it a chance. 

 

End of the day though . . . if they can balance all those weapon proficiencies, they can balance the open talents too!  Get enough options in play and if the system is designed well they'll mostly all even themselves out (and if not players will find the weak spots for you!)

[draego]

Draego --

 

I'll have to think about that. In one sense (I hadn't thought about this) the weapon proficiencies are the new "open talents" -- in fact, a lot of things that were previously class abilities, like rapid shot or powder burns, got moved to become weapon proficiencies now, which is one reason they had to fill in the ranger tree with open talents!  I'm still playing with that part of the system and don't have a firm opinion on it yet -- on the one hand, I kinda like that each weapon has a unique thing that sets it apart, on the other, i can kinda feel it driving me to make various weapon choices. The design team has clearly put a lot of work into the new proficiencies system though and I can sense some real potential so I'm inclined to give it a chance. 

 

End of the day though . . . if they can balance all those weapon proficiencies, they can balance the open talents too!  Get enough options in play and if the system is designed well they'll mostly all even themselves out (and if not players will find the weak spots for you!)

 

Ye i see that but for instance if you pick class talents from mult or single that favor say lowering fortitude, it becomes basically a gamey choice to me for a melee build (although i am leaving out other sources of lowering fortitude from casters for the moment). I can see someone look at the proficiencies and say well what lowers fortitude oh pick morning star. Instead of a more role playing or aesthetic view of liking a few weapon types that you find during the game (maybe you find a cool unique in game) but then also finding a generic ability to lower fortitude and being able to apply it to whatever weapon types you happen to like. I kinda went through this with the battle axe which has bleed to trigger predators sense. It seemed odd that i couldnt use that on other weapons if i wanted this run to use say a two handed or some other weapon i happen to like other than axes. This feels like a step back to old BG type games although not nearly as bad where before the game even started you pick weapon proficiencies without knowing the weapon itemization and maybe find the weapons you end up wanting dont work with the proficiencies you picked. Now it not that bad and the proficiencies dont preclude using other weapons and if they dont change it (and probably wont) , its not the end of the world. Just commenting on it for now.

Edited November 26, 2017 by draego

[Lamppost in Winter]

 

-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.

 

 

Seems reasonable to me. If this were the system, I would hope that Obsidian could come up with more niche/flavour talents like these to have an adequate variety for the 6 times we take would make these choices. Assuming Field Triage is still even in the game (josh pls)

 

 

 

 

oh, and while you see the open talent system as a masterpiece, just as many people see it as an utter mess.  am suspecting/knowing a few o' the developers were less than satisfied with the end results.  the developers were trying to avoid winner and loser talents.  they failed.  they failed predictably. 

 

Not saying the PoE Talents were a "masterpiece" (though I did like them), but I can't think of any talents I felt were a must-have, even on POTD, except maybe Weapon Focuses. There were powerful synergies, but nothing that made you inherently gimped if you didn't take them.

 

As for Proficiencies, they have come out better than I had expected. Still some weird arbitrary stuff (like the implements - why is Blast purely a Rod thing, and Dangerous Implement a Scepter thing?), but most of them seem logical. Seems like part of the effort to get players to switch up weapons more often.

[Climhazzard]

 

-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.

 

 

 

I could get behind something like this...  I really want to have quick switch and arms bearer on basically all my characters so I can swap for appropriate damage types and also use large shields to prevent my characters from moving if I need to.

[MortyTheGobbo]

I'm really not seeing how being able to increase your accuracy in a fairly specific way is a requirement for a character to be considered a trained combatant. Does a paladin have abilities that enable them to fight enemies in close combat and support their allies? If yes, then that's all it should take. If no, then a +6 to accuracy isn't going to change much.

[Wormerine]

I'm really not seeing how being able to increase your accuracy in a fairly specific way is a requirement for a character to be considered a trained combatant. Does a paladin have abilities that enable them to fight enemies in close combat and support their allies? If yes, then that's all it should take. If no, then a +6 to accuracy isn't going to change much.

I believe that the issue isn’t that paladins or barbarians aren’t good in close combat. Their class skills and starting statistic make them good. It seems some people have a desire to be able to pick talents which directly reflect their character’s training with arms. That is true that on th basic level paladins are as proficient with weapons as mages, even though the lore doesn’t really support that. They are better than mages is combat due to their class skills being more directly tied to that, but the desire to accent their character’s commitment to martial arts is there.

 

I personally don’t have an issue with that, nor that my PoE1 cipher isn’t recreatable in PoE2 system right now. It’s been 5 years. He didn’t get much practice with firearms being a land lord and all. Or he adopted a baby bear to not feel lonely in Caed Nua. Either works.

[CENIC]

I wish I could get Fast Runner on my Mindstalker. It's gated to Barbarian now... even though they have Wild Sprint already.

[Katarack21]

 

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.

I'm actually pretty sure they're adding weapon styles *in addition to* weapon proficiencies, so that at each level up that you used to get weapon proficiences you can now pick that *or* a weapon style. It creates additional choice and prevents the last two or three of those selections feeling entirely unimportant.

 

 

 

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.

That's entirely meaningless. It literally has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand. I'll just give you the point that PoE 2 Paladins are entirely capable of being tanky and are not underpowered, because it's not even at issue.

 

 

 

 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?

If you took away weapon and shield from Fighters wouldn't they still be capable of being strong tanks? And if you removed it entirely from PoE, both paladins and fighters would still be decent tanks. Weapon and shield itself doesn't make or break a tank. It's effectiveness as a talent isn't the question, nor is the power capability of either paladins or fighters.

 

 

 

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

No, it's different from how grandmastery was different. Multiclassing changes your character; it changes their progression path, it changes their endurance, their accuracy, their deflection, etc. Multiclassing isn't *just* about access to talents; it's a much broader alteration of the character that causes that character to play very differently. Changes to grandmastery were ultimately just about different number progressions and names with differing damage amounts; it didn't actually change the fundamental nature of your character as a whole, while multiclassing *does*. A ranger/cipher is an entirely different character from a cipher with marksman, from their endurance to their accuracy to one of them having a pet. It's a *much* larger change that creates an inherently different character, and it's not the character that I want to play.

 

That's the whole point. You say "just multiclass" as if that answers all questions about options, but it doesn't. Making great options via multiclassing is excellent, but it *doesn't answer the problem* of narrowly specialized single-class characters. A ranged cipher and a ranger/cipher are different characters in every single way, and I should be able to play *either one*.

 

 

objectively, deadfire changes provide more player options and would appear to be easier to balance than the poe approach.

It provides more *total* options overall than PoE, but *fewer options within each class*. If you were to add the general talents back in, you'd have all the nuanced builds available within PoE+all the multiclass options within PoE 2. You could build a ranged cipher, or a ranger/cipher, or a ranged cipher/melee ranger. Right now you could only build the ranger/cipher, you could *not* build the ranged cipher.

[Doppelschwert]

 

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

No, it's different from how grandmastery was different. Multiclassing changes your character; it changes their progression path, it changes their endurance, their accuracy, their deflection, etc. Multiclassing isn't *just* about access to talents; it's a much broader alteration of the character that causes that character to play very differently. Changes to grandmastery were ultimately just about different number progressions and names with differing damage amounts; it didn't actually change the fundamental nature of your character as a whole, while multiclassing *does*. A ranger/cipher is an entirely different character from a cipher with marksman, from their endurance to their accuracy to one of them having a pet. It's a *much* larger change that creates an inherently different character, and it's not the character that I want to play.

 

 

In contrast to PoE, accuracy is the same for all the classes in PoE2.

 

Also, I find it contradictionary to argue that Grandmastery just changed a couple of numbers and the progression path when multiclassing... does the very same. The little redistribution of defensive stats is most likely lower than the impact of the talents you want to differentiate your character, so claiming that those talents are hardly interesting for their mechanical part while claiming that the multiclass changes the fundamental nature of the character seems a bit of a stretch to me, at least regarding stats.

Again, if you multiclass, and ignore almost all of the talents of the other class, you end up with a slight alteration of the single class that trades higher power level for strictly more talents. It's almost like a completely new mode to creating single class characters - trade power for versatility (given a couple more class talents, so that there are more choices, of course).

 

Regarding the loss of powerlevel in order to continue the character from PoE1:

If you hit lvl 20 as a multiclass character, you'll have acess to the same tier of abilities your character from PoE had (since the level only went to 16), so you can recreate your single class character from PoE as a multiclass character in PoE2 and you will still have access to all the abilities you had back then.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Doppelschwert

[Katarack21]

 

 

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

No, it's different from how grandmastery was different. Multiclassing changes your character; it changes their progression path, it changes their endurance, their accuracy, their deflection, etc. Multiclassing isn't *just* about access to talents; it's a much broader alteration of the character that causes that character to play very differently. Changes to grandmastery were ultimately just about different number progressions and names with differing damage amounts; it didn't actually change the fundamental nature of your character as a whole, while multiclassing *does*. A ranger/cipher is an entirely different character from a cipher with marksman, from their endurance to their accuracy to one of them having a pet. It's a *much* larger change that creates an inherently different character, and it's not the character that I want to play.

 

 

In contrast to PoE, accuracy is the same for all the classes in PoE2.

 

Also, I find it contradictionary to argue that Grandmastery just changed a couple of numbers and the progression path when multiclassing... does the very same. The little redistribution of defensive stats is most likely lower than the impact of the talents you want to differentiate your character, so claiming that those talents are hardly interesting for their mechanical part while claiming that the multiclass changes the fundamental nature of the character seems a bit of a stretch to me, at least regarding stats.

Again, if you multiclass, and ignore almost all of the talents of the other class, you end up with a slight alteration of the single class that trades higher power level for strictly more talents. It's almost like a completely new mode to creating single class characters - trade power for versatility (given a couple more class talents, so that there are more choices, of course).

 

Regarding the loss of powerlevel in order to continue the character from PoE1:

If you hit lvl 20 as a multiclass character, you'll have acess to the same tier of abilities your character from PoE had (since the level only went to 16), so you can recreate your single class character from PoE as a multiclass character in PoE2 and you will still have access to all the abilities you had back then.

 

1) My bad about accuracy.

 

2) It still changes *every single aspect* of your character. Literally *everything that can be changed*. Every time you level you'll get more endurance and deflection than you would as a single class. You limit how far you can progress. For most classes you *inherently* obtain various abilities (such as sneak attack or a pet or carnage) that alter the entire way your character plays.

 

To liken multiclassing to grandmastery is straight-up disingenuous. It's like comparing being nauseous to having food poisoning. Grandmastery is a change to a specific stat. Multiclassing is a broad and general alteration to every aspect of your character. The only reason to try and compare the two is to artificially simplify multi-classing into a small and minor change, when it is not in any way small or minor.

[Doppelschwert]

1) My bad about accuracy.

 

2) It still changes *every single aspect* of your character. Literally *everything that can be changed*. Every time you level you'll get more endurance and deflection than you would as a single class. You limit how far you can progress. For most classes you *inherently* obtain various abilities (such as sneak attack or a pet or carnage) that alter the entire way your character plays.

 

To liken multiclassing to grandmastery is straight-up disingenuous. It's like comparing being nauseous to having food poisoning. Grandmastery is a change to a specific stat. Multiclassing is a broad and general alteration to every aspect of your character. The only reason to try and compare the two is to artificially simplify multi-classing into a small and minor change, when it is not in any way small or minor.

I agree that it changes everything, but I don't think that 'everything' amounts to too much. I just looked it up:

Class determines starting values of Endurance, Deflection, Reflex, Fortitude and Will. Each of the later four differs by at most 15 points between classes and has a fixed progression independent of class (the base values should all sum up to 85). Since multiclasses use the mean, these values will shift at most 7-8 points from your original class, and that's it regarding stats.

Endurance is more noticeable, I give you that.

 

My conclusion is that the stats are only slightly reordered (the change involves less than half of the interval from attributes at CC), and they most likely would support the role that necessitated the multiclass in the first place.

 

I'll also agree about the forced passives on lvl 1 multiclass, which I forgot when I wrote the post; those get in the way if you want to ignore the second class.

However, I think it is easy to ignore the forced lvl 1 actives when you multiclass.

 

 

If that's acceptable or not, is, in the end, everyone's own decision. Personally, I think ignoring the second class in a multiclass is a viable way to play a variant of the single class that has broader talent selection (all chosen from the first class!) in favour of higher power level. It's a nice side-effect.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Doppelschwert

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Personally, I think ignoring the second class in a multiclass is a viable way to play a variant of the single class that has broader talent selection (all chosen from the first class!) in favour of higher power level. It's a nice side-effect.

Hmm, interesting. So if you just pick a second class, but then go bananas with your first class, you get rewarded for it?

I haven't checked, but if true, this is objectively worse than one level dipping in D&D 3.0 and 3.5. I'm not saying it's bad - I love these systems - but I'm saying it's contrived.

[Katarack21]

Marksman and Gunner are Level 2 ranger abilities. In order to replicate my character from PoE 1--a ranged cipher--I would have to take three levels of ranger and get two useless abilities that I would then have to ignore for RP reasons before I was then able to take the one ability I actually care about for my character. *THEN* I get to ignore ranger forever and take all my cipher levels, minus two talents and with a lower ending level...plus a bunch of stat boosts I didn't want and a pet.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Marksman and Gunner are Level 2 ranger abilities. In order to replicate my character from PoE 1--a ranged cipher--I would have to take three levels of ranger and get two useless abilities that I would then have to ignore for RP reasons before I was then able to take the one ability I actually care about for my character. *THEN* I get to ignore ranger forever and take all my cipher levels, minus two talents and with a lower ending level...plus a bunch of stat boosts I didn't want and a pet.

And all this just to preserve the integrity of single classes a bit more. This new ludicrous creative free(serf)dom cannot possibly be what Josh, as a proponent for a classless system, had in mind for Deadfire when introducing multiclassing.

[Doppelschwert]

 

 

Personally, I think ignoring the second class in a multiclass is a viable way to play a variant of the single class that has broader talent selection (all chosen from the first class!) in favour of higher power level. It's a nice side-effect.

Hmm, interesting. So if you just pick a second class, but then go bananas with your first class, you get rewarded for it?

I haven't checked, but if true, this is objectively worse than one level dipping in D&D 3.0 and 3.5. I'm not saying it's bad - I love these systems - but I'm saying it's contrived.

 

I wouldn't say rewarded as there is a trade-off. You trade 33% more class talents for the loss of 2 power levels and the corresponding talents - if that's worth it is anyone's guess. Keep in mind that this means a lot more talents per power level:

You're looking at 26 talents distributed on 7 power levels as compared to 20 talents distributed on 9 power levels. The ratio shifts from 2.2 talents/PLVL to 3.7 talents/PLVL, which means you can learn everything you think that you'll need.

 

Martials can learn more passives this way and casters can memorize more spells, but of lower level, and at a later time.

By choosing the second class solely to manipulate your base stats, you can also slightly rearrange your defenses, but that's it.

 

The first character I made ended up this way (Devoted / Monk) since I didn't like anything from the monk talents for my kensai concept, so I just stacked more passives on the fighter side.

 

Marksman and Gunner are Level 2 ranger abilities. In order to replicate my character from PoE 1--a ranged cipher--I would have to take three levels of ranger and get two useless abilities that I would then have to ignore for RP reasons before I was then able to take the one ability I actually care about for my character. *THEN* I get to ignore ranger forever and take all my cipher levels, minus two talents and with a lower ending level...plus a bunch of stat boosts I didn't want and a pet.

 

What does it mean to take 3 levels of ranger?

You'd multiclass cipher/ghostheart to ignore the pet, take one of the active starting abilities (which you could completely ignore.. or use) and be on your way. I looked it up: You'd lose 5 points in will and get 2 points in reflex (there is a strange logic to how the base stats are arrived - you should come out at a sum of 0).

Later on, you take marksman and gunner when you unlock power level 2 and 3, learning cipher spells at *every* level, just as you would with a single class cipher. At LVL20, you end up with access to the same cipher spells you had in PoE (power level 7), and 4 additional cipher spells that you got when unlocking power level 4, 5, 6 and 7. That results in ~2 spells more for each power level on average, which might have some tactical merit.

Summarized, you trade versality (the ranged talents + more spells per level) for power (lower power level). I think that is reasonable, but YMMV.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Doppelschwert

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

Personally, I think ignoring the second class in a multiclass is a viable way to play a variant of the single class that has broader talent selection (all chosen from the first class!) in favour of higher power level. It's a nice side-effect.

Hmm, interesting. So if you just pick a second class, but then go bananas with your first class, you get rewarded for it?

I haven't checked, but if true, this is objectively worse than one level dipping in D&D 3.0 and 3.5. I'm not saying it's bad - I love these systems - but I'm saying it's contrived.

 

I wouldn't say rewarded as there is a trade-off. You trade 33% more class talents for the loss of 2 power levels and the corresponding talents - if that's worth it is anyone's guess. Keep in mind that this means a lot more talents per power level:

You're looking at 26 talents distributed on 7 power levels as compared to 20 talents distributed on 9 power levels. The ratio shifts from 2.2 talents/PLVL to 3.7 talents/PLVL, which means you can learn everything you think that you'll need.

 

Martials can learn more passives this way and casters can memorize more spells, but of lower level, and at a later time.

By choosing the second class solely to manipulate your base stats, you can also slightly rearrange your defenses, but that's it.

 

The first character I made ended up this way (Devoted / Monk) since I didn't like anything from the monk talents for my kensai concept, so I just stacked more passives on the fighter side.

 

Marksman and Gunner are Level 2 ranger abilities. In order to replicate my character from PoE 1--a ranged cipher--I would have to take three levels of ranger and get two useless abilities that I would then have to ignore for RP reasons before I was then able to take the one ability I actually care about for my character. *THEN* I get to ignore ranger forever and take all my cipher levels, minus two talents and with a lower ending level...plus a bunch of stat boosts I didn't want and a pet.

 

What does it mean to take 3 levels of ranger?

You'd multiclass cipher/ghostheart to ignore the pet, take one of the active starting abilities (which you could completely ignore.. or use) and be on your way. I looked it up: You'd lose 5 points in will and get 2 points in reflex (there is a strange logic to how the base stats are arrived - you should come out at a sum of 0).

Later on, you take marksman and gunner when you unlock power level 2 and 3, learning cipher spells at *every* level, just as you would with a single class cipher. At LVL20, you end up with access to the same cipher spells you had in PoE (power level 7), and 4 additional cipher spells that you got when unlocking power level 4, 5, 6 and 7. That results in ~2 spells more for each power level on average, which might have some tactical merit.

Summarized, you trade versality (the ranged talents + more spells per level) for power (lower power level). I think that is reasonable, but YMMV.

 

I literally just made this character--cipher (no sublcass)/ghost heart. Marksman and Gunner are Power Level 2. You don't get a *choice* on having to take level one ranger abilities. You don't get a *choice* on having a pet (or a pet-summon ability). You don't get a choice on all the stat boosts. So I end up with three abilities I *don't want to have*, a bunch of stat boosts *I never wanted*, and shorted on *end-game progression abilities* all for the sake of having a cipher with marskman.

 

I. Don't. Want. To. Play. A. Ranger. I don't like rangers. I have no intention of playing a ranger. I don't think it's fair that I have to sacrifice all my end-game progression and be *forced* to take cross-class abilities *I don't want to have* in order to play a cipher who is good with a bow.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Katarack21

[CENIC]

Summarized, you trade versality (the ranged talents + more spells per level) for power (lower power level). I think that is reasonable, but YMMV.

In the first game you didn't have to trade anything. Why does this game have to be different?

[Katarack21]

In the first game you can play a cipher who is particularly good with bows. In this game you *cannot* do that. You can only play a cipher who is also a ranger.

Multiclass is *great*, and all the various options it opens up are *awesome*, but it shouldn't *force* me to multiclass. That's not fun. Multiclassing should never be the default way to create nuanced specialized characters--it should always be an option to create different characters entirely. You should never *have* to multiclass to do something as generic as "learn to use a bow better". Multiclassing is much more basic and fundamental to a character.

[AndreaColombo]

In the first game you didn't have to trade anything. Why does this game have to be different?

 

Because it's a different game. The first game didn't have subclasses or multiclassing either

[CENIC]

 

In the first game you didn't have to trade anything. Why does this game have to be different?

Because it's a different game. The first game didn't have subclasses or multiclassing either

Don't get me wrong, I'm super excited about multiclassing (my rogue from PoE will be a rogue/cipher in DF) but when you have to multiclass to Fighter or Ranger to be superior at handling melee/ranged weapons there is a problem. Those benefits should NOT be class gated.

[AndreaColombo]

I’m not necessarily against moving weapon styles to a general talent tree, but what would the Fighter’s shtick be, if those were taken away? IIRC a recurring complaint about Fighters in the first game was that they were boring and non-denominational. Now they aren’t. If we give their perks to everyone, they’ll be boring and non-denominational again.

 

There are talents I would like to have in a general talent tree, but I’m not sure I’d want weapon styles to be among them.

[CENIC]

what would the Fighter’s shtick be, if those were taken away?

If Fighter/Ranger's "shtick" is nothing but "really good with melee/ranged weapons" that's a design issue.

 

IIRC a recurring complaint about Fighters in the first game was that they were boring and non-denominational.

That's Obsidian's problem, not mine. Again, design issue.

 

Now they aren’t.

Debatable.

 

If we give their perks to everyone, they’ll be boring and non-denominational again.

Except those perks didn't "belong" to them last game. There is a precedence now for any class being able to take those. Breaking precedence is not a good idea.

And again, if Fighters/Rangers are fundamentally "boring" they should be redesigned from the ground up and given new talents created specifically with them in mind.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

I’m not necessarily against moving weapon styles to a general talent tree, but what would the Fighter’s shtick be, if those were taken away? IIRC a recurring complaint about Fighters in the first game was that they were boring and non-denominational. Now they aren’t. If we give their perks to everyone, they’ll be boring and non-denominational again.

.

 

 

I disagree with this from a few different angles, I think.

 

Fighters have all the same active abilities they had before, and a few  passives (that they also had before and . . . will still have post change) aren't the reason fighters are any more interesting in this game than they were before. 

 

To the extent fighters are more interesting now, it's because:

 

1) Multiclassing means you can build more interesting fighter/x combinations

 

2) everybody else is pretty broken because the game hasn't been balanced yet so the absence of grazing and longer power cast times are hurting everybody else, but aren't a problem Fighters currently have to deal with, so they're currently more functional than most other classes.

 

Again, the notion that anything is being "taken away" from the Fighter is just demonstrably false. Fighters had these abilities in the first game (as open talents), they'll still have them after the next patch; in fact, they'll have more access to them than other classes, since they'll be able to take them as power slots or as open proficiencies. 

 

 

And to come at this from the other side, if fighters do need something more to make them interesting, a few passive talent slots aren't going to cut it. Fighters already have a whole host of unique abilities: universal grazing, stances, constant recovery, knockdowns, etc. If they need something more to make them more interesting, then what they need is more active ability choices.  Passives . . . aren't that interesting. If your problem is "fighters are boring and they need more stuff to do," hoarding passives away from other classes isn't going to solve that problem. 

 

If you think Fighters are boring, what active things would you like them to be able to do, that they can't? I never had a problem with Eder in the first game -- he always did his job and was a star party member, almost always the first into the fight and the last to fall. I haven't seen anything to show that fighters in Deadfire will be any worse at that job, or that anyone else will be any better.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy