A case for not adding general abilities to Proficiencies

[kanisatha]

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?)

Yep, this is exactly what I feared would end up happening. This way they can still make it look like the fighter talent tree has lots of options. As you say, why indeed would I want to take these abilities from my fighter talent pool? So they will remain in the fighter talent pool to falsely inflate that pool and the fighter class gets screwed. How typical.

[CENIC]

So, there was a small update last night, and today when I was puttering around in the beta I noticed something.

[JerekKruger]

though honestly, why would they take them from the Fighter-specific pool when they can take them instead of a considerably less useful proficiency?

 

Yeah that's the problem. Who, other than perhaps a Blackjacket Fighter, is going to use more than three different weapon types on a regular basis. I'd be surprised if most characters use more than two. In the beta, with a level cap of 9, we get (iirc) four proficiencies: that suggests that by level 20 we'll have around eight. With the current proposed change, most characters will be able to take all the weapon styles they want, and some they don't as well. There's essentially zero cost to doing so.

[JerekKruger]

So, there was a small update last night, and today when I was puttering around in the beta I noticed something.

 

I can't tell what it is?

[CENIC]

I can't tell what it is?

It looks like I'm getting something for two-weapon or one-handed style on non-Fighter characters. Unless this is something all characters get?

[JerekKruger]

It looks like I'm getting something for two-weapon or one-handed style on non-Fighter characters. Unless this is something all characters get?

 

Oh right. Well I might be wrong but I think these are just the basic bonuses for those styles. In Pillars you attacked faster or got more accuracy if you used two weapons or one weapon respectively even without the associated talent.

[mostundesired]

 

I can't tell what it is?

It looks like I'm getting something for two-weapon or one-handed style on non-Fighter characters. Unless this is something all characters get?

Hasn't that always been the case? Even in the first game?

[draego]

 

though honestly, why would they take them from the Fighter-specific pool when they can take them instead of a considerably less useful proficiency?

 

Yeah that's the problem. Who, other than perhaps a Blackjacket Fighter, is going to use more than three different weapon types on a regular basis. I'd be surprised if most characters use more than two. In the beta, with a level cap of 9, we get (iirc) four proficiencies: that suggests that by level 20 we'll have around eight. With the current proposed change, most characters will be able to take all the weapon styles they want, and some they don't as well. There's essentially zero cost to doing so.

 

 

I actually wonder if this has to do with the weapon itemization. Giving players basically a shotgun pattern of weapon proficiencies you have less to worry about when the only flaming weapon in the game will be a dagger and the only dragon slaying weapon will be an estoc so odds are you will happen to pick a weapon prof that matches a cool weapon. Also when players find that their favorite weapon during most of the game cant have its quality upgraded past exceptional because it started out as fine (which i really dont like this change either, i like some of the new enchanting changes just not the quality one), it is less painful to change weapons when the game tries to trick by saying well at least you picked 7 other weapon types. . This is why i dont really love the proficiencies. They should be turned into abilities that are more generic modals or abilities that let you apply to the weapon or couple of weapons you want to play the game with not say well you like lower fortitude pick morning star. I know not all of them would be fair but if you had a general pool of them, then you dont need all these abilities anyway.

 

Prob also has to do with new Penetration mechanics with all the weapon switching needed i suppose

Edited November 30, 2017 by draego

[CENIC]

 

It looks like I'm getting something for two-weapon or one-handed style on non-Fighter characters. Unless this is something all characters get?

 

Oh right. Well I might be wrong but I think these are just the basic bonuses for those styles. In Pillars you attacked faster or got more accuracy if you used two weapons or one weapon respectively even without the associated talent.

 

 

 

 

 

I can't tell what it is?

It looks like I'm getting something for two-weapon or one-handed style on non-Fighter characters. Unless this is something all characters get?

 

Hasn't that always been the case? Even in the first game?

 

Darn... I got ahead of myself because of that update...

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

Darn... I got ahead of myself because of that update...

 

 

 

It got us all. I was checking the vendor in the town and everything.

[KDubya]

The inherent attack speed buff from dual wielding of -50% has been in the game the whole time, as has the +12 accuracy from single wielding (which applies to pistols and other ranged one handers as well).

 

All Fighter get with two weapon style is -50 + - 20 for a -70% attack speed (actually just recovery speed but ...). Everyone else gets -50%. The difference is not that big of a deal

 

One handed style has to be the worst ability in the game. With it you change 10% of misses to grazes. AT equal deflection and accuracy you miss 15% so 10% of that is 1.5% which become a graze which does -50% damage so the net gain on average is a wopping 0.075% damage increase which is commonly referred to as a rounding error  

[Answermancer]

@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.

Exactly!

 

Give Fighters a stronger identity (my take in the other thread was themes of: discipline, great morale, teamwork/formation, flexibility, defense/toughness), instead of taking away specialization from all other melee "fighters".

 

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.

I strongly disagree with the idea that Fighters should be best at melee. That's some 2E crap, in my opinion, along with the idea that rogues are "theives" and should be bad at fighting and good at out of combat crap (which isn't even true in this game!).

 

In-game, right now, Fighters are listed as Defenders, with a minor role of Striker. Meanwhile rogues, rangers, and monks are listed as primary Strikers. For rogues and rangers in particular, their entire kit of abilities is focused on doing damage, it's the only role they can fill effectively. They can only be effective Strikers, but they should be worse Strikers than a Fighter, who can choose to be a (fantastic) Defender also? How does that make any sense?

 

Furthermore, you say that rogues get underhanded tricks so their damage should be lower. Well, Fighters get disciplined barrage, lots of bonuses to defenses, constant healing, and lots of other stuff. How come rogues should pay a price for their "tricks" but Fighters shouldn't pay a price for their perks?

 

The other big thing is, I'm mostly concerned about fighting styles specifically, because they help give your character an identity. "I'm the rogue that's amazing at dual-wielding, it's all I do, I'm better at it than a random wizard, or fighter who hasn't specialized the same way, and I'm different from the rogue who spends all his time with a bow, or swashbuckling with a rapier, or a two-hander like a weirdo." I think that feeling of identity is important.

 

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/

Great thread!

[mostundesired]

I strongly disagree with the idea that Fighters should be best at melee. That's some 2E crap, in my opinion, along with the idea that rogues are "theives" and should be bad at fighting and good at out of combat crap (which isn't even true in this game!).

 

 

In-game, right now, Fighters are listed as Defenders, with a minor role of Striker. Meanwhile rogues, rangers, and monks are listed as primary Strikers. For rogues and rangers in particular, their entire kit of abilities is focused on doing damage, it's the only role they can fill effectively. They can only be effective Strikers, but they should be worse Strikers than a Fighter, who can choose to be a (fantastic) Defender also? How does that make any sense?

 

Furthermore, you say that rogues get underhanded tricks so their damage should be lower. Well, Fighters get disciplined barrage, lots of bonuses to defenses, constant healing, and lots of other stuff. How come rogues should pay a price for their "tricks" but Fighters shouldn't pay a price for their perks?

 

The other big thing is, I'm mostly concerned about fighting styles specifically, because they help give your character an identity. "I'm the rogue that's amazing at dual-wielding, it's all I do, I'm better at it than a random wizard, or fighter who hasn't specialized the same way, and I'm different from the rogue who spends all his time with a bow, or swashbuckling with a rapier, or a two-hander like a weirdo." I think that feeling of identity is important.

 

I didn't even say Rogues should be bad at fighting, or that they should do less damage. You're extrapolating "does less damage" from "not the best at fighting." I said Fighter should be better at melee fighting. Melee fighting. Not dealing the most damage in melee combat. Things like disciplined barrage, lots of bonuses to defenses, constant healing, lots of other stuff. I would just add on to that list "deeper mastery of fighting styles." I still expect Rogues and Monks and Rangers to do consistently more damage than Fighters in some way, either because of DPS or burst damage or DoTs. But I expect Fighters to be better with the basics. Rogues don't pay any price for their tricks, they're rewarded for using those tricks in combat and take advantage of enemy's weaknesses (read: more damage). That's why their power source is called Guile. Fighters are rewarded for mastering the direct approach (read: trained defense, steady offense). It's the reason their power source is called Discipline. If a Rogue specialized in dual wielding, they did that in tandem pragmatism aimed at dealing more damage. If a Fighter specialized in dual wielding, they emphasized it the mastery of it.

 

 

I love the idea of a character being better at dual wielding than any random schmo who picked up weapons without training and specialization. That character practiced and practiced, and it's their fighting style of choice. But I don't want that at the expense of the Fighter whose main thing is their fighting style of choice. If your idea of dual wielder is someone uses two weapons efficiently, more so than others, looking for maximum damage regardless of technique and willing to do the unconventional, you're looking at a Rogue. If your idea of a dual wielder is someone who practiced day in and day out with two weapons, becoming so much better at it than others that it's one of their defining traits, you're looking at a Fighter. At least insofar as my understanding of the core class concept of Fighter and Rogue in Pillars goes.

 

I'll repeat for clarity: I'm not picky in how it's achieved. If Obsidian decides that the way Fighters become better at melee combat is through defense, teamplay, and active abilities, then so be it (and actually better for me because I love me some tanky Fighters). I think we're in agreement in what should be done, but not in why. Your why is "I want to be able to master this fighting style more than others, but Fighter shouldn't be a redundant class." (Correct me if I'm wrong) My why is "Everyone should be able to specialize, but the Fighter should have a leg up in specializing in fighting styles in some way." And I think the latter is a better way to look at it because it keeps the Fighter's class role in the forefront, rather than scrambling to come up with a new role for Fighters.

 

Incidentally, Fighter and Rogue are my favorite classes, so this particular idea is one I have some vested interest in. I'm not the 2E grognard you seemed to expect me to be, Rogues doing subpar damage and only being useful for lockpicking is a pet peeve of mine, and I much prefer to have Fighters in defensive roles over offensive (who better to hold up defense than the guy trained in understanding combat?)

 

TL;DR: Better at fighting doesn't mean doing more damage, that's too narrow a way of looking at it. I want Rogues to do damage, among the highest. I like characters having a specialized fighting style, but I think Fighters should get those by default because that's their thing, and they should never be worse at their thing than other characters. Taking away their thing, spreading it out, and giving them something else would create a hole in the characters people can make, shaped like a trained combatant who can steadily do their part (or excel when they need to).

[Answermancer]

I understand your point of view, sorry if I came off combative or like I was misinterpreting your viewpoint specifically. That's not really it.

 

I'm just a little sick of explaining why I feel that the weapon styles are important to me, because some people ignore what I'm saying and just respond with "so multi-class, you don't wanna be a pure rogue anyway, you wanna be a Fighter/Rogue" which is totally glossing over my concerns with, essentially, a strawman.

 

I mostly agree with what you're saying but here's the one thing I disagree on:

 

I like characters having a specialized fighting style, but I think Fighters should get those by default because that's their thing, and they should never be worse at their thing than other characters. Taking away their thing, spreading it out, and giving them something else would create a hole in the characters people can make, shaped like a trained combatant who can steadily do their part (or excel when they need to).

 

I disagree that weapon styles are their thing, have ever been their thing, or should have ever been made their thing.​

 

​Until this game, it was never a Fighter thing. Not in Pillars 1, not in D&D, not in basically anything related. In my opinion it's completely arbitrary that it's suddenly "their thing" in this Backer Beta.

 

I understand that an argument based on "but that's not how it used to be" is not particularly strong (if you disagree with me), but I don't think it's any weaker than the tautological argument that "it's their thing right now, therefore it should remain their thing."

 

I think the value of being able to "specialize" my melee character into their single preferred fighting style, so that they feel like they've fought with that style all their career, and are differentiated from another character of the same class, or an untrained character of another class, outweighs the value of it suddenly and arbitrarily being a "Fighter thing".

 

And I also think that making weapon styles a Fighter thing is rather lazy, and they could do much more interesting stuff, here's some things I came up with pretty quickly in the other thread which seems to be dead now:

 

So give Fighters stuff that is specialized to their role and class fantasy, emphasize their discipline, good morale, technical skill with many different weapons, and tactical acumen. The things that make them good soldiers, mercenaries, etc.

 

Ideas:

• When you wield a weapon 1-handed you get +6 accuracy or something right? Give them a talent where they get this bonus for 2-handers as well (because they've trained with many different weapons, bastard swords, etc.)
• Give them stuff to emphasize fighting together with an army, a bonus when near other characters perhaps ("Back to Back"), could be deflection and will (to show they have good morale and won't break, or just good old fashioned damage/Penetration from having someone watching their back and coordinating effectively).
• Maybe Will bonuses in general (again, good morale, won't break).
• Maybe something focused on reach weapons like pikes and polearms, again, the army/guard aspect (extra penetration with them, damage, better engagement attacks, lots of options here). Lots of unexplored possibilities with reach weapons, I think.
• They know about weapons and armor right? Give them a chance to break weapons or armor or parry enemy attacks in particularly effective ways (even if it's just a chance on hit to reduce their damage or accuracy for a while, or to reduce their armor).
• "Clean cuts", their attacks aren't sloppy and violent, they are disciplined, maybe this means they can go from a miss straight to hit, skipping graze entirely. (This is the kind of thing that it would make sense to multi-class for, now you're not just a sloppy barbarian, you're a Fighter/Barbarian, you don't flail wildly you have precision).
• Maybe they have exceptional armor and weapon maintenance. Give them a passive that gives +1 Pen AND +1 Armor, or something else that emphasizes that quality (their weapons are always tip-top shape).
• Passives focused on tactical skill and exploiting enemy opening/weaknesses, not coming up with anything here right now because I'm tired, but I bet I can if I keep thinking about it.

I'm not saying any of those ideas are great or balanced, or anything like that, but at least some of them are interesting and reflect a class fantasy that isn't just "fights with 2-handers a lot," or whatever.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Answermancer

[MortyTheGobbo]

I agree that weapon styles shouldn't be the fighters' "thing". Treating them as "the weapon-using class" is why they're so unbelievably dreadful in most editions of D&D. Pillars should do better. I don't think weapon focus and weapon style talents/abilities should exist at all and I've explained why. If they do exist, they should be available to all the five "martial" classes at minimum. Fighters are supposedly defence and interrupt specialists in Deadfire, so they should get things that help with that.

[mostundesired]

 

I disagree that weapon styles are their thing, have ever been their thing, or should have ever been made their thing.​

 

​Until this game, it was never a Fighter thing. Not in Pillars 1, not in D&D, not in basically anything related. In my opinion it's completely arbitrary that it's suddenly "their thing" in this Backer Beta.

 

I understand that an argument based on "but that's not how it used to be" is not particularly strong (if you disagree with me), but I don't think it's any weaker than the tautological argument that "it's their thing right now, therefore it should remain their thing."

 

I think the value of being able to "specialize" my melee character into their single preferred fighting style, so that they feel like they've fought with that style all their career, and are differentiated from another character of the same class, or an untrained character of another class, outweighs the value of it suddenly and arbitrarily being a "Fighter thing".

 

And I also think that making weapon styles a Fighter thing is rather lazy, and they could do much more interesting stuff...

If it wasnt their thing, then why did they exclusively get weapon focuses in the first game? This is half a challenge, and half an actual question. The challenge half comes from the fact that the weapons were grouped by who would be likely to use that those weapons based on their... Well, style.

 

I like your ideas in spirit, but it still glosses over the notion I made that mastering multiple weapons isn't a Fighter thing, it's a Black Jacket Fighter Subclass thing.

 

You say you want them to have fought that way for their career, and for that to differentiate them from others of the same class. There is no conflict with that and also saying that Fighter is the best in melee combat by default. Which they are, even if other classes get the same exact fighting style bonuses. Defenses, damage, accuracy, a little CC, they're all-rounders, and if they choose to specialize in a weapon, they take that with them. And there is where they're better.

 

In a vacuum, where we only speak of fighting styles as -50% recovery speed or whatever, then I have no problem with all classes having the same potential. Outside of that vacuum, Fighters should come out on top in terms of efficacy and stability. Not damage.

 

Maybe I'm at fault for sticking with the term "fighting style." Should I say "fighting style, when combined with other things?" Like, my understanding of the concept is that when a Fighter specializes in a fighting style, they're adding it on top of melee combat expertise, and when a Rogue takes it (sticking with Rogue for consistency), they're adding it on top of exploiting weaknesses and unconventional pragmatism.

 

Again, I don't think we disagree on what should be done. The point I'm harping on is that it should be consistent with what a Fighter is: melee combat specialist. No one else should be a melee combat specialist. To call that tautology is silly imo, because the classes are already arbitrarily designed, and define by what they do. What a Fighter do is specialize in melee combat, not defined here and now, but when we look at the abilities Fighters get in the first Pillars.

 

But that doesn't mean other classes shouldn't excel and flourish in melee combat, arguably more so if what you want is raw damage dealt.

[theBalthazar]

If you want calm down haters of new system and if they want to stay in class specific talents, the only solution is to create the same variety of choice for each classes. (or almost)

There was 55-60 talents in POE1 ?

 

= 35 interresting talents for each classes in POE2. For the figure, in the first version of beta, Druid have 3 talents, and priest 0 talents. No comment : p

Some may be duplicate (Bull's Will etc.) but 70 % of new things.

 

If not, it can be badly perceived.

 

You go after original sin 2, which has multiplied all his talents...

 

Recall of facts : There is no new class... Multiclass is a good thing but be careful. Be careful to simplify the system too much, not to bring enough new things ...

 

I want a 94 for the game I support. Obsidian must beat OS2... (Competition is good to go beyond)

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/divinity-original-sin-ii

Edited November 30, 2017 by theBalthazar

[MortyTheGobbo]

The number of talents is meaningless if all they do is give you some numbers here and there. Which... most of the talents we're discussing here did. If there were to be more talents that actually do something, like Field Triage, it'd be a different story.

Edited November 30, 2017 by MortyTheGobbo

[theBalthazar]

The number of talents is meaningless if all they do is give you some numbers here and there.

 

 

I strongly disagree. 

 

There is a difference between no new talents and too much talents, or, at all price.

 

It is POE2, not a restructuration of the first game...

 

Quality and quantity are possible. Proof ? NWN2. There is much problems with this game indeed, but all feats = pure pleasure. You have this feeling there is a true choice. Reason ? The "number" of feat mainly. And a majority seems credible.

 

But in POE1 there was much less talents than NWN2 feat, there was still trash.

 

It is not like : talents of POE1 was ALL perfectlty in osmosis with the game, and the ++number risk to break this dream...

 

So, excuse-me, but this is not a argument...

 

The game must make good impressions. A wind of freshness (New talents...). There is Original Sin 2 in front of ...

Edited November 30, 2017 by theBalthazar

[MortyTheGobbo]

Using the game that pretends Toughness and Power Attack are equally valuable feats for a 1st level fighter as an example is a risky proposition, friend. D&D 3E feats are the very definition of quantity over quality. Most of them are rubbish.

 

Perhaps there need to be class-neutral talents, more class-related passives or both. But they should be real choices.

[theBalthazar]

D&D 3E feats are the very definition of quantity over quality. Most of them are rubbish.

 

 

 

With much less talents, POE1 is not better. There is always 20-30 % of choice in the pannel that is too specific/not very interresting.

 

But I prefer 200 talents and 30 % of trash, than 60 talents and 30 % of trash.

[Answermancer]

If it wasnt their thing, then why did they exclusively get weapon focuses in the first game? This is half a challenge, and half an actual question. The challenge half comes from the fact that the weapons were grouped by who would be likely to use that those weapons based on their... Well, style.

 

[...]

 

Maybe I'm at fault for sticking with the term "fighting style." Should I say "fighting style, when combined with other things?" Like, my understanding of the concept is that when a Fighter specializes in a fighting style, they're adding it on top of melee combat expertise, and when a Rogue takes it (sticking with Rogue for consistency), they're adding it on top of exploiting weaknesses and unconventional pragmatism.

 

Again, I don't think we disagree on what should be done. The point I'm harping on is that it should be consistent with what a Fighter is: melee combat specialist. No one else should be a melee combat specialist. To call that tautology is silly imo, because the classes are already arbitrarily designed, and define by what they do. What a Fighter do is specialize in melee combat, not defined here and now, but when we look at the abilities Fighters get in the first Pillars.

 

But that doesn't mean other classes shouldn't excel and flourish in melee combat, arguably more so if what you want is raw damage dealt.

Yes, I don't think we really disagree much .

 

At this point I'm mostly defending the new direction that Josh has announced for weapon styles, since I felt strongly that they should be generally available but there is already pushback (even though it's not even in the build yet). I'm not sure if making them part of the proficiency system is the right solution, I would have preferred them to use the existing pool of points personally, but I'm glad that they will be available in some form.

 

I focus heavily on weapon style specifically (not even weapon focus, necessarily) because I think that from a flavor perspective, they're the most problematic thing to take away from melee (or ranged) damage dealers. Someone who fights with weapons as their "job", by definition should be better at it than someone who doesn't, and I think it makes perfect sense for them to have a preferred style and be able to specialize in it (or take no style, save a point, and be more of a generalist). 

 

A rogue that is specialized in two-weapon fighting, feels quite different from one specialized in bows, or 2-handers, even if all their other abilities are more or less the same.

 

And again, this doesn't feel to me like taking something from fighters, based on the precedent of many years of games, it feels like giving it to fighters is actually taking it away from everyone else.

 

Weapon focus I am more ambivalent about. I think being able to focus on a specific set of weapons (like Peasant) has a similarly useful differentiating effect, but I think the variety of weapon styles is slightly more inherent (again, you're someone who fights with some combination of weapons no matter what) and interesting (+attack speed from dual wield vs. +damage from 2 hander) than the difference between (+acc with swords vs. +acc with rapiers) or whatever.

 

Basically, if my choice is to give everyone weapon style or weapon focus, I'd prefer weapon styles.

[AndreaColombo]

I'll be honest: If weapon styles are part of the general talent pool but the elemental talents from the first game aren't (or worse they don't make a comeback at all), the disappointment and incredulity will be real.

Edited November 30, 2017 by AndreaColombo

[Answermancer]

I agree, personally.

 

I think the elemental talents are the exact same sort of important differentiator, for casters primarily.

 

"I'm the guy whose fireballs are mighty (phrasing)" vs. "I'm the guy who throws Zeus-level lightning bolts" has the same sort of impact on the feel of the character.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Answermancer

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

Plus the elemental talents add a lot of versatility in character building. They aren't just for casters -- they work with Stormcaller or a fire godlike monk or any number of other things too. Just great flavor all around.