A case for not adding general abilities to Proficiencies

[Raenvan]

 

Why not that to reconcile everyone :

 

Weapon focus (General Pool)

Superior Weapon focus (Barbarian, Fighter etc.)

 

We have specificity (concept of classes mentionned above) and freedom of choice (general pool)

 

Technically, I suppose we could.

 

I would question, however, how much sense it would make.

 

Let's assume Weapon Focus as it currently is becomes a general talent that everyone can take. +6 Accuracy at the cost 1 talent point would already be a pretty good deal; at the cost of 1 proficiency, it is a total no-brainer. Everyone who needs to hit their enemies (e.g. every non-support character who doesn't rely on spells to cause damage) would take it; not doing so would be willfully gimping oneself, which most players won't do (only veterans in search of a challenge via self-imposed rules would, in fact.)

 

At that point, we have two scenarios:

 

• Everything stays the same (i.e. monsters are not rebalanced around the assumptions that most characters would have Weapon Focus.) This preserves the essence of the Weapon Focus talent, which is to give you an edge in combat versus the "normality" (which is not having a +6 Accuracy bonus on every attack.) However, everybody and their neighbor would take Weapon Focus because it's up for grabs at what amounts to no cost, and gives a very good advantage. Suddenly the game is too easy—and certainly easier than intended by the developer at any rate.
• Everything is rebalanced around the assumption that most characters have Weapon Focus in order to retain the challenge. This makes Weapon Focus a de facto must pick or you would be factually gimping yourself, since monsters' stats are such that you are expected to have it. Weapon Focus goes from being a talent you choose to gain an advantage to a talent you must pick to not be at a disadvantage.

 

I'd say both scenarios are equally undesirable. Josh mentioned in one of the Q&A streams that for Deadfire they tried to limit the amount of things that could increase Accuracy specifically because it is such an important stat. Everyone would jump at the opportunity to increase their Accuracy, and it becomes harder for designers to balance the game and provide a challenge without being unfair to players.

 

Now, let's assume you'd still give Barbarians an exclusive talent called Superior Weapon Focus that gives, say, +8 Accuracy instead. I see at least two problems:

 

• The game would still need to be balanced around the assumption that most characters would get a +6 Accuracy bonus, so my point about Weapon Focus becoming a must to avoid a disadvantage still stands.
• Barbarians would have a ridiculously high +14 Accuracy bonus from taking both, which would make them far superior to most other melee classes, if not all. The solution would be not to make the two stack; Barbarians would still get a +8 Accuracy for 1 talent point deal, which is a bit too good. Perhaps we could make Weapon Focus +4 and Superior Weapon Focus +6, mutually exclusive, to ameliorate the issue—but it would be too much work for too little benefit, imo, as the previous point would still be a problem.

 

I definitely advocate for Weapon Focus to stay where it is now. It's OK as a Barbarian talent.

 

Weapon Styles can become general if Fighters get something unique in their talent tree in exchange. Similarly, Bull's Will, Snake's Reflexes, and Bear's Fortitude should probably be general and replaced by something different in the classes that get them; and by all means, let's bring back the elemental talents for the general talent pool—they were flavorful and interesting, and it's a pity not to have them in Deadfire.

 

 

 

Well Fighters/barbarian lack interesting active abilities, Casters lack passive abilities. So if we move the generic talents to a generic tool, of course it will displease warrior fans because casters got their passive now but left fighters not have cool/unique things.

 

I'd rather move these to a generic pool to make build characters more fun, and give fighters cool active abilities. win-win.

 

How about a possible minimal solution for the main concern?

• Weapon focus should be definitely restricted to one or few selected class, otherwise the game needs to be rebalanced assuming that almost everyone has it.
• Let's make weapon styles available to every class, since casters lack passives, and many players are eager to have the option to select them. Since fighters lose their unique abilities, they should be compensated.
• While I agree that it would be best to give fighters cool actives, the simplest form of compensation is sharing weapon focus with them.

To my opinion, this solution diverges the least from the original intentions of the devs. Further refinement can be proposed during later iterations, of course.

[MortyTheGobbo]

I'm honestly not sure if weapon styles are any different than weapon focus here. They don't do anything new, they just double down at what a given style already does. A shield protects, a two-handed weapon deals strong damage, a single one-hander is accurate and a ranged weapon, well, stays at range. So if they're universal, they become no-brainers just like weapon focus.

Edited November 28, 2017 by MortyTheGobbo

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

I'm honestly not sure if weapon styles are any different than weapon focus here. They don't do anything new, they just double down at what a given style already does. A shield protects, a two-handed weapon deals strong damage, a single one-hander is accurate and a ranged weapon, well, stays at range. So if they're universal, they become no-brainers just like weapon focus.

 

The main difference is that everyone uses a weapon, but different builds use weapons differently. Building a character to use two-handers is going to involve a lot of other secondary choices like favoring might over dex, or investing in heavy armor to mitigate loss of a shield. If you're making a two-weapon build, you're going to seek out a lot of other attack speed bonuses (probably). If you're going Ranged, you'll probably dump resolve and con, since you're not planning on being in the front lines. Etc., etc. 

 

*Everybody* would take a "more accuracy in the weapon I'm already using" talent. Almost everyone (except pure casters) might take a weapon style talent also, but they'll take different weapon styles. It's a real choice.

[MortyTheGobbo]

That's kind of my whole point. Specializing in a particular fighting style already comes with a lot of choices to that end. Stacking a talent of passive ability on top of that is just a tax.

[mostundesired]

The main difference is that everyone uses a weapon, but different builds use weapons differently. Building a character to use two-handers is going to involve a lot of other secondary choices like favoring might over dex, or investing in heavy armor to mitigate loss of a shield. If you're making a two-weapon build, you're going to seek out a lot of other attack speed bonuses (probably). If you're going Ranged, you'll probably dump resolve and con, since you're not planning on being in the front lines. Etc., etc.

 

*Everybody* would take a "more accuracy in the weapon I'm already using" talent. Almost everyone (except pure casters) might take a weapon style talent also, but they'll take different weapon styles. It's a real choice.

This response doesn't make sense to me. Picking up a weapon style talent isn't a choice, it's increasing the efficiency of a choice you already made: using a weapon style. The bonus is already inherent in dual wielding or whatever. Does increasing that bonus count as a choice? Because I'm pretty sure the other person was saying that it's not much of a choice.

 

EDIT: ninja'd

Edited November 28, 2017 by mostundesired

[JerekKruger]

That's kind of my whole point. Specializing in a particular fighting style already comes with a lot of choices to that end. Stacking a talent of passive ability on top of that is just a tax.

 

If weapon styles remain as proficiencies then yes, but if they become passive abilities instead then, so long as there are other good abilities, it becomes a choice.

 

For example suppose Wizards get access to weapon styles as passive abilities. The Wizard is forced to choose between taking a weapon style or choosing a spell each time they get a new ability point. Most Wizards are going to choose a spell, but a Wizard who wants to specialise in using summoned weapons might sacrifice a spell choice in exchange for Two-Handed Style. I'd say that's a choice.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

That's kind of my whole point. Specializing in a particular fighting style already comes with a lot of choices to that end. Stacking a talent of passive ability on top of that is just a tax.

 

It's as much of a choice as any of the other choices that go into the whole of "specializing in [____] weapons." Equipping a shield is a choice too, even if it's pre-determined because you've already taken a bunch of shield talents; choosing a background that takes your Dex to 20 is a choice even if your dex is already at 19; etc. I didn't say it was a big choice, but it's one choice out of the set of possible choices, which taken together result in a built character.

 

 

 

 

If weapon styles remain as proficiencies then yes, but if they become passive abilities instead then, so long as there are other good abilities, it becomes a choice.

 

For example suppose Wizards get access to weapon styles as passive abilities. The Wizard is forced to choose between taking a weapon style or choosing a spell each time they get a new ability point. Most Wizards are going to choose a spell, but a Wizard who wants to specialise in using summoned weapons might sacrifice a spell choice in exchange for Two-Handed Style. I'd say that's a choice.

 

 

Fair point. Open talents as proficiencies is a bit of a kludge solution but it's one that's possible given the current UI without throwing together a whole new character interface, doesn't require a rebalance of the total number of ability slots, etc. Presumably there will be a UI redesign / final draft before  the end of the beta and stuff like this can get sorted out.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

[MortyTheGobbo]

 

That's kind of my whole point. Specializing in a particular fighting style already comes with a lot of choices to that end. Stacking a talent of passive ability on top of that is just a tax.

 

If weapon styles remain as proficiencies then yes, but if they become passive abilities instead then, so long as there are other good abilities, it becomes a choice.

 

For example suppose Wizards get access to weapon styles as passive abilities. The Wizard is forced to choose between taking a weapon style or choosing a spell each time they get a new ability point. Most Wizards are going to choose a spell, but a Wizard who wants to specialise in using summoned weapons might sacrifice a spell choice in exchange for Two-Handed Style. I'd say that's a choice.

 

 

True. If they're part of the ability pool, it does become a real choice of whether to shore up your basic weapon style or take other abilities. I'm still not sure if they should exist at all, as even passive abilities can be more interesting than that.

Edited November 28, 2017 by MortyTheGobbo

[mostundesired]

I had a thought. Would people be content with a general talent pool (or maybe put this on the proficiency page) that had passives like this:

 

"Dual wielder: +1 to dexterity in calculating weapon and recovery speed when wielding two weapons"

"Resolute: +1 to resolve in calculating resistance to a will affliction"

"Crowd controller: +1 to intelligence for calculating affliction duration on targets"

"+1 to might when calculating damage with two handed weapons"

Etc...

 

Functionally, it's just increasing an attribute, but it puts something on your character sheet and makes mechanical difference, if slight.

[theBalthazar]

That's kind of my whole point. Specializing in a particular fighting style already comes with a lot of choices to that end. Stacking a talent of passive ability on top of that is just a tax.

 

 

Except if, like now, you have a poor choice.

 

If its a single class and I MUST take a talent that I don't like (or that I take "by default", the "best" of remaining abilities...)... = bad system.

Edited November 28, 2017 by theBalthazar

[AndreaColombo]

I see it from a different angle.

 

Investing a proficiency point in a weapon means you are trained in its use and better at it than average Joe or anybody who doesn't have that proficiency. The lack of a penalty for using weapons you have not invested in, as well as the extreme nature of the modals from proficiency points, don't help the feeling that this is the case—however that's the very definition of proficiency in a weapon.

 

The Fighter is the martial professionist par excellence. Fighters are trained in warfare more than any other class, and therefore get an extra perk that makes them better at it—the weapon style talents.

 

Again, I can live with those being made general—I just think the current system makes sense and doesn't prevent roleplaying a character who's good at a weapon. That's what proficiency points are for (yes, you'll be as good as a Wizard with the same proficiency; if the Wizard also takes the style talent from the generic pool, you'll still be as good as that Wizard when you take it.)

[MortyTheGobbo]

 

That's kind of my whole point. Specializing in a particular fighting style already comes with a lot of choices to that end. Stacking a talent of passive ability on top of that is just a tax.

 

 

Except if, like now, you have a poor choice.

 

If its a single class and I MUST take a talent that I don't like (or that I take "by default", the "best" of remaining abilities...)... = bad system.

 

 

How does adding boring number-adders solve this problem? Taking something that'll make me slightly better at what I already to isn't much different from not taking anything.

[Lamppost in Winter]

I had a thought. Would people be content with a general talent pool (or maybe put this on the proficiency page) that had passives like this:

 

"Dual wielder: +1 to dexterity in calculating weapon and recovery speed when wielding two weapons"

"Resolute: +1 to resolve in calculating resistance to a will affliction"

"Crowd controller: +1 to intelligence for calculating affliction duration on targets"

"+1 to might when calculating damage with two handed weapons"

Etc...

 

Functionally, it's just increasing an attribute, but it puts something on your character sheet and makes mechanical difference, if slight.

 

I wouldn't necessarily want them to look like this, but yes, I would like more of these general sort of passives/talents.

[mostundesired]

What would you want them to look like, out of curiosity?

[Lamppost in Winter]

What would you want them to look like, out of curiosity?

 

Your idea seems good, though I think I'd just give the straight bonus, e.g., "+X% duration when inflicting Y Affliction", rather than "+1 Int". Less confusing that way. Bonuses to inflicting certain afflictions could be good, like +duration or accuracy to inflicting Might afflictions, for example. Situational combat bonuses in general like the elemental scions I would like. Perhaps they could be made stronger and mutually exclusive, or come with maluses to the opposing element to balance things out.

 

I've talked about this a lot, but mainly I want utility stuff like Field Triage, or even non-combat talents. I think the Divinity: Original Sin and Fallout Talents/Perks list would be the main inspiration. I know this might be a problem because Deadfire takes the philosophy of separating combat and non-combat stuff, but given the suggested rate for talent acquisition is fairly slow and the non-combat gameplay has been expanded, I think it could work.

 

This could still run into the problem of these Talents being strictly better than taking weapon proficiencies, especially for classes that don't rely on weapons. I suppose if the modals are broadly useful enough, it would encourage taking weapons more and make it a harder choice, but perhaps Talents could just be separate. Wouldn't be too much bloat since Proficiencies are only active when using that weapon and you only get these every 4 levels.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Lamppost in Winter

[mostundesired]

I see. What I suggested was based off the premises of "I just want something on my character sheet" and "you could just pump stat x" So if you want some specialized build variance, you could take a passive that was equivalent to, but distinct from, adding one more point to the governing attribute.

[Katarack21]

 

They're irrelevant in a mechanical sense by late mid-game. I've said before I don't even really care what the bonus provided by the weapon styles or weapon focus or marksman or whatever even is; it could be +3 accuracy or +30% damage, and I'd take it either way for a character I felt it was appropriate for.

For me it serves two purposes: One, a slight nudge towards distinct roles, with lesser impact and overall character affect than multiclassing. Two, roleplay purposes.

I do get “role playing” argument, though I am much more interested in mechical side of combat, and would happily trade obvious and meaningless choices for a smaller set of interesting ones.

 

But how does it help to distinguish your roles? I imagine you will get weapon focus on all of characters, as it won’t cost you nothing (you don’t need more that two weapon proficiencies per character) which means you paladin trained with shields will be just as trained as mage whom you have a shield to boost his defences. Unless, of course you handicap yourself due to role playing reasons, which is cool, but still gives us a pretty bad system.

 

Not for roleplaying reasons. I don't have any need to give weapon+shield to my wizard when I have a buff spell that's more versatile, works in different situations, etc and I have the choice of something like a Scion talent or something more versatile like Quick Switch. I *might* take it, but that would be an artifact of the weapon talents being provided on the proficiency page and a lack of a real general talent pool--eventually once you've taken all the profiencies you realistically need for your non-weapon-using-wizard, something like weapon+shield might be taken due to lack of other options.

 

I can assure you, I did not regularly take any such talents with my wizard in PoE, because it doesn't play well with the way I play a wizard. I'd rather take things like Scion talents or Triage or other things that increase my wizards versatility while depending on his spells, other characters abilities, and being far away from the melee to survive.

 

But take Marksman. If I'm playing a ranged cipher--*not* a ranger/cipher--then Marksman is one part of my overall ranged-weapon-using-cipher build. It's a small nudge towards being more of a ranged character than a melee character, helping me to define my cipher as a particular *type* of cipher without having to be a whole different character from a cipher. Overall, with things like Marksman and stat allocations and weapon profieciences, I can define my cipher character as being very much unique from a melee cipher. Not just in "what weapon I'm currently using", but in the overall defining aspect of the character--I can literally create my cipher to be uniquely distinct and specialized as a ranged character, without having to change every aspect of him, sacrifice the final two levels of character progression, or be forced to play a class I have no interest in.

 

That's why general talent pools are important to me. I don't want the only distinction between my ranged cipher and a melee cipher to be the weapon that we currently have equipped, and I don't want to be forced to play a class I have no interest in just to be able to define my role on the battlefield.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Katarack21

[Answermancer]

 

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*.

 

I missed this thread because I was only watching the other one while I was busy over Thanksgiving, and I will finish reading it before commenting further, but I want to reiterate how much I agree with Katarack here, and how incredibly frustrating it is to have KDubya constantly dismiss our perspective about this with "just multi-class, look how fun it is for me to roleplay a multi-class."

 

Good for you.

 

I want my pure Rogue (an agile, tricksy Striker, not a thief or any other archetype) to be specialized in two-weapon fighting, and just as good at two-weapon fighting, as any Fighter. This is not a crazy request, it is completely logical that a character whose entire life has involved fighting with two weapons is just as good at it as a Fighter. I should not have to give up half my damn class just for this small bit of specialization.

 

I don't care if the bonus is 5% or 20%, I care that my Rogue can be just like every other Rogue in every other similar damn game in existence in the last 20 years: a specialist in two-weapon fighting.

 

And if that "dilutes" Fighters then all that means is that Fighters need more interesting abilities. I will say again, if you want a Fighter to feel like an "expert" give him one passive that gives him each of the weapon style bonuses whenever he is using that combination of weapons. Then the rest of us can specialize our non-Fighter characters and Fighters can stil be "experts" in weapon styles if that is really important to you.

[Aramintai]

@Answermancer

Well said

 

[vanyel54]

@Answermancer : i couldn't agree more

As it has been said many times, it's perfectly logical to have rogue with two weapons expertise, paladin with weapon and shield etc...

The root of the problem may lie in the fact that these classes are fighters. So they need also fighter talents.

what is a rogue if not a dirty fighter ?

what is a paladin if not a religious fighter ?

what is a barbarian if not a savage fighter ?

Perhaps Obsidian should have rename this class and add more personality to it.

[fable123]

@Answermancer

I agree as well. There's probably a happy medium for allowing each class to do their own thing but also be able to have interesting abilities that fit an arch type.

 

@all

A few thoughts (some might be op) and what rank these would fall in the class trees (and if specific to particular classes) would be debatable. The emphasis is on interesting abilities that allow for some flexibility depending on what kind of weapons are equipped without being fully niched*. Perhaps placing these in higher ranks in the trees so multi-classing can't double dip.

 

"War Veteran" - "gain 5% damage with 1-handed melee weapons and for every 10 seconds of battle gain 5 accuracy with 1-handed melee weapons"

"Berserker's Rage" - "gain 5% damage with 2-handled melee weapons and for every 10 seconds of battle gain 5% damage with 2-handled melee weapons"

"Assassin's Mark" - "gain 5% damage with melee weapons and for every 10 seconds of battle gain 1 penetration for each currently equipped weapon"

"Sight of the Eagle" - "gain 5% damage with range weapons and for every 10 seconds of battle gain 5 accuracy with range weapons"

"Immovable Bulwark" - "gain 5% all defense while equipped with a shield and for every 10 seconds of battle gain 5 deflection while equipped with a shield"

 

*definition of fully niched - specifically "sword", specifically "medium shield", etc. or only applying to proficient weapons.

 

The point I am trying to make, as several others have mentioned, is that it should be possible to customize your character the way you want without necessarily having to multi-class to get to particular abilities that fit your play style. This doesn't diminish multi-classes; it just gives another way to build your character.

 

[mostundesired]

I disagree with Answermancer's assessment of Fighter being "Jack of all trades" type for weapons. Their trade isn't "I can use all melee weapons," that would be the subclass of black jacket. Their trade is "I focused on being in melee combat more than anyone else."

 

I'm okay with a rogue who dual wields being a cut above dual wielders, but a Fighter should be even better than that; while the rogue was learning underhanded tricks to use while dual wielding, the fighter was doubling down on their ability to dual wield.

 

Essentially, it's dictating that the fighter class shouldn't be the best at melee combat because we (royal we) want rogue to be just as good, or whatever other class.

 

Functionally, however? Yeah, I'm down for that. It's why they have a higher base deflection than other classes: to be better in melee combat. If we give other classes the ability to specialize in a weapon more than their peers, something should be given to Fighters, then, to reinforce their role as melee experts. I wouldnt know what, though. More deflection? Active abilities? Passives that do something else? Who knows.

 

Same for Ranger, but substitute melee combat concepts with range combat concepts.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

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*.

 

I missed this thread because I was only watching the other one while I was busy over Thanksgiving, and I will finish reading it before commenting further, but I want to reiterate how much I agree with Katarack here, and how incredibly frustrating it is to have KDubya constantly dismiss our perspective about this with "just multi-class, look how fun it is for me to roleplay a multi-class."

 

Good for you.

 

I want my pure Rogue (an agile, tricksy Striker, not a thief or any other archetype) to be specialized in two-weapon fighting, and just as good at two-weapon fighting, as any Fighter. This is not a crazy request, it is completely logical that a character whose entire life has involved fighting with two weapons is just as good at it as a Fighter. I should not have to give up half my damn class just for this small bit of specialization.

 

I don't care if the bonus is 5% or 20%, I care that my Rogue can be just like every other Rogue in every other similar damn game in existence in the last 20 years: a specialist in two-weapon fighting.

 

And if that "dilutes" Fighters then all that means is that Fighters need more interesting abilities. I will say again, if you want a Fighter to feel like an "expert" give him one passive that gives him each of the weapon style bonuses whenever he is using that combination of weapons. Then the rest of us can specialize our non-Fighter characters and Fighters can stil be "experts" in weapon styles if that is really important to you.

 

Yeah, I couldn't agree more. I became so irate that I made a whole thread devoted to this kind of arguments a week ago:

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/94843-does-deadfire-fail-to-match-classes-with-their-lore-if-so-how-to-fix-it/

[AndreaColombo]

Based on Josh's feedback on SA, weapon styles will become part of the general talent pool and remain in the Fighter talent pool as well (i.e. no new passives for Fighters.)

 

All non-Fighter builds who want those talents will have to take them from the general talent pool; Fighters get to choose which pool to take them from (though honestly, why would they take them from the Fighter-specific pool when they can take them instead of a considerably less useful proficiency?)

 

Barring any difficulty implementing it, Devoted will get to choose talents from the general talent pool on "proficiency" levels even though they couldn't choose another proficiency (pretty big buff for the class, though preventing it would have given a buff to everyone except Devoted—another reason why I'm not sure this is a good change.)

Edited November 29, 2017 by AndreaColombo

[takamorisan]

Fighters should be able to improve their combat styles.

E.G.:

Two handed

Greatsword you will be able to use cleave skills, overhead strike and behead.

Estoc: Thrust, Crippling Blows and Pommel Strike

Pike: Brace, Thrust, Long Reach

Poleaxe: Armor Debuff, Bleed and Long range Attacks of Opportunity

Morning Star: Fortitude Debuff, Armor Penetration and Stun

Staff: Double strike, Deflection Stance and trip attack

 

Parrying Blade: Counter Strike, Deflection Stance and Disarm

Axe: Armor debuff, Bleed and Hamstring

Flail: Reflex Debuff, Armor Penetration and trip

Hatchet: Double Strike, Bleed, Interfering Strikes

Mace: Rending Smash, Fortitude Debuff and Stun

Rapier: Thrust, Taunt and Bleed

Sabre:Faster Attacks, Slit Wrist, Deflection Stance

Spear: Brace, Long Reach and Thrust ability

Stilleto: Thrust,Bleed and armor penetration

Sword:Overhead strike, Thrust and Pommel Strike

War Hammer: Stun, Fort Debuff and Interfering Strike

 

Dual wielding lets you do a power attack based on the two weapon you are using.

 

If someone wanna try making suggestions to ranged weapons be my guest z.z

Edited November 29, 2017 by takamorisan