Well well well, so I'm not the only one to think that. : ) ...
In fact, one can consider that is OK. A Poor passives tree ability is completely assumed choice.
In Divinity OS 1 for example, you have poor choice of active abilities, it is not a real problem !
The only difference is that here, talents/active/passives are not particurlarly tactical (Sadly or not, this is not the question). So for me, the pleasure isn't to cast FoD at the good time for example, contrary to OS 1 where you must rapture, soul sap, battering ram etc etc at the good moment (and all are useful !...). Here with pillars saga, this is more like NWN 2 and others game of BUILDING numbers.
So, in this situation, number of associations is important. Look at the number of feat in Neverwinter nights 2 and you have your answer. NWN2 is not an example for everything, but honestly, there is a big big choice. Often not balancing at all, casting pre-buff before battle when this is 6s by level is awful, but this game is diversified and fun.
Pillars if far better for a great amount of thing, but not his tree. Tyranny for example was interresting but extremely linear and limited (Even if there was perhaps more choice each line than POE2 actually for one class...). And in exchange you can create your spell. THIS idea save literally the game. The feeling of choice is incredible.
So, if in POE2, there is "divinity side" (tactical), OK, a poor choice is not very problematic. But honestly, pillars stay pillars. Too much on the D&D model to change his prerogatives (beta 1 to 4 give general same "feeling" than POE1).
in this type of game, people must to have fun with the combinations. So :
- Soften Stacking rules.
- Always offer more unique abilities per line. I mean look at line 1 of Fighter. Seriously... ?
This gives the impression to the player that he did not choose "forcibly".
Edited by theBalthazar, 05 April 2018 - 09:44 AM.