|
On April 04 2023 01:05 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 00:34 andrewlt wrote:
For what it's worth, in Diablo 1, you can also pick up all the spells that your class can use with only one character. Being forced to make "meaningful" decisions started with Diablo 2. Some people loved it. Some hated the grind to try more skills. I'm in the latter. I played most classes once then gave up on the game. But in D1 you had to pick your stat points which determine what spells you can learn and how effectively you cast them, also what other items you can use and the effectiveness. Don't think you could reset those.
I'm pretty sure the int cap for warriors and rogues are low enough that you can easily max them if you really want to cast spells using those classes. All classes use the same pool of spells. Other than your main stat, the max level for your other stats are low.
|
On April 04 2023 02:14 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 01:05 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On April 04 2023 00:34 andrewlt wrote:
For what it's worth, in Diablo 1, you can also pick up all the spells that your class can use with only one character. Being forced to make "meaningful" decisions started with Diablo 2. Some people loved it. Some hated the grind to try more skills. I'm in the latter. I played most classes once then gave up on the game. But in D1 you had to pick your stat points which determine what spells you can learn and how effectively you cast them, also what other items you can use and the effectiveness. Don't think you could reset those. I'm pretty sure the int cap for warriors and rogues are low enough that you can easily max them if you really want to cast spells using those classes. All classes use the same pool of spells. Other than your main stat, the max level for your other stats are low.
Yeah I remember that you know what I'd make that criticism about D1, potentially unlimited elixirs or gold and maybe not enough amplitude for some stats to make different enough builds on a same class. Maybe it was only the magic stat that had a particularly low max for warrior and then you have quite some choice for the other 3 but eventually I guess you'll just max everything (?? didn't get to that point). The idea of having some max for some stats depending on class is interesting though or lower effectiveness - last one is what D2 started to do.
|
On April 04 2023 00:34 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2023 07:42 Miragee wrote:
On another note, I would also like to know when this shift happened. Classic RPGs like Baldur's Gate were very successful and I never heard any complaints about not being able to respec. People who only did one casual playthrough were fine without seeing everything or making "wrong" decisions. Today, everyone seems obsessed with the idea of playing the optimal way and getting to experience 100 % of the game, yet they call themselves casuals. Doesn't sound very casual to me but that's another discussion. Baldur's Gate is beloved by the kinds of people who frequently post here but that style of game is pretty niche. Research has shown that the long character creation process before even starting the game is a turn off for most people. You can't make meaningful choices if you haven't even played the game to get a feel for the combat. That kind of western-style crpg is a bit of a dying genre outside a small, passionate fanbase. And other than class, there weren't many choices you need to spec into in Baldur's Gate anyway. Feats, skills and all that jazz for physical damage classes were added in later games. In Baldur's Gate, you just picked a weapon specialization and that's it. Wizards were the only arcane class in BG1 and they can learn everything. You just have to choose which spells to memorize on rest. It's basically a respec! I'm pretty sure clerics and druids can learn everything in BG1 as well but it's been a while. The only choice in BG1 is whether to specialize your wizard in a school and it's not recommended for beginners. For what it's worth, in Diablo 1, you can also pick up all the spells that your class can use with only one character. Being forced to make "meaningful" decisions started with Diablo 2. Some people loved it. Some hated the grind to try more skills. I'm in the latter. I played most classes once then gave up on the game.
Is Baldur's Gate really that much of a niche? It's a pretty big name. Like when I talk to people, who don't play video games or not a lot, about RPGs IRL it's way more likely they have heard about Baldur's Gate than PoE for example. BG3 seems to have a fair reach based on its name and on Larian as a studio, which is most famous for Divinity series.
The choices at the start are a bit jarring, I agree. But that's a carry-over from pen&paper and I feel like pen&paper games are only becoming more popular these days.
About the spells: yeah, memorising spells is kind of a respec. Since it's a whole party, I suppose you have to chose which character learns which spell and if you replace that character you lose access to those spells. Priests and druids have their own spell book. All caster classes have some restrictions for learning spells though I think. I think they are mentioned on the scrolls? Iirc, weapon specialisations cannot be respecced and those carry quite some weight for non-caster classes. BG also had attributes to spec into at the beginning, which couldn't be changed later.
On April 04 2023 01:51 BluemoonSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2023 04:52 Manit0u wrote:
In D3 you didn't really need respecs because there wasn't much of a "build" to begin with and then everything really depended on your items, not your skills, so whatever you choose was pretty much meaningless anyway.
Unfortunately D4 seems to be heading the same way, something I've been against from the start and have been vocal about in this thread. IMO items should not be the focal point of your build, nor should they define it. Might as well just omit the talent tree and skills altogether, to get rid of the illusion that you're actually "building" your character in any other way than finding items. in d3 different activities absolutely required you to respec into different versions of the build you were playing, or a different build entirely because it was more efficient. especially later on when many of the legendaries were altered and power level for sets took you into deep greater rifts, but you could cut pieces for high torment rifts/farming or bounties. i'm not sure what else you're advocating for, if not items being important to your build in d4. if you are playing a certain build and a piece of gear drops for another, it's by no means going to force you to play that build the way that d3's set bonuses forced you to pick those pieces of gear. what other system would work in a game that is built around killing monsters and picking up their items? this isn't a proper MMORPG with fixed loot and drop tables from endgame bosses.
I think what he is saying that the items which drop should enhance your build, not define it. Like, a build should work without interactions caused by items, which in D4's case are provided by legendary affixes. I'm on the fence on this point. Both can work imho. In D2, builds largely worked on their own, although there were some build-enabling items. PoE has a ton more build-enabling items and I think that's cool. There are also a ton of builds which don't rely on specific items of course. GW would be on the opposite end of the spectrum because everything is about the skills and their interaction. Items really only enhance the build a bit (some attributes, cast/recharge rate, armour, that's basically it). I think the problem with D3 was that items defined builds in the most boring way possible: no choices.
|
D1 never felt like build identity was a strong facet of the game. Honestly, character development felt more like Slay The Spire than modern ARPGs - your character operates within the bounds of its class, and the character's identity is largely determined by drop luck and which events / shrines occur.
Also, from memory using spells as other classes was pretty bad. Even though you could use a lot of the spells, ALL spells scale in level (and requirement) the more books of that spell you read. Casting noncombat spells (healing, town portal) is doable as the non-sorceror classes, but rarely is it something you'd actually build into.
|
On April 04 2023 04:07 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 00:34 andrewlt wrote:On April 03 2023 07:42 Miragee wrote:
On another note, I would also like to know when this shift happened. Classic RPGs like Baldur's Gate were very successful and I never heard any complaints about not being able to respec. People who only did one casual playthrough were fine without seeing everything or making "wrong" decisions. Today, everyone seems obsessed with the idea of playing the optimal way and getting to experience 100 % of the game, yet they call themselves casuals. Doesn't sound very casual to me but that's another discussion. Baldur's Gate is beloved by the kinds of people who frequently post here but that style of game is pretty niche. Research has shown that the long character creation process before even starting the game is a turn off for most people. You can't make meaningful choices if you haven't even played the game to get a feel for the combat. That kind of western-style crpg is a bit of a dying genre outside a small, passionate fanbase. And other than class, there weren't many choices you need to spec into in Baldur's Gate anyway. Feats, skills and all that jazz for physical damage classes were added in later games. In Baldur's Gate, you just picked a weapon specialization and that's it. Wizards were the only arcane class in BG1 and they can learn everything. You just have to choose which spells to memorize on rest. It's basically a respec! I'm pretty sure clerics and druids can learn everything in BG1 as well but it's been a while. The only choice in BG1 is whether to specialize your wizard in a school and it's not recommended for beginners. For what it's worth, in Diablo 1, you can also pick up all the spells that your class can use with only one character. Being forced to make "meaningful" decisions started with Diablo 2. Some people loved it. Some hated the grind to try more skills. I'm in the latter. I played most classes once then gave up on the game. Is Baldur's Gate really that much of a niche? It's a pretty big name. Like when I talk to people, who don't play video games or not a lot, about RPGs IRL it's way more likely they have heard about Baldur's Gate than PoE for example. BG3 seems to have a fair reach based on its name and on Larian as a studio, which is most famous for Divinity series. The choices at the start are a bit jarring, I agree. But that's a carry-over from pen&paper and I feel like pen&paper games are only becoming more popular these days. About the spells: yeah, memorising spells is kind of a respec. Since it's a whole party, I suppose you have to chose which character learns which spell and if you replace that character you lose access to those spells. Priests and druids have their own spell book. All caster classes have some restrictions for learning spells though I think. I think they are mentioned on the scrolls? Iirc, weapon specialisations cannot be respecced and those carry quite some weight for non-caster classes. BG also had attributes to spec into at the beginning, which couldn't be changed later.
Baldur's Gate is the 800-lb gorilla in the Western-style CRPG world but that world is pretty niche. Even JRPGs are pretty niche nowadays aside from games like Elden Ring, which is more of an action game, and Final Fantasy, which is less and less of an RPG with every iteration.
The original Baldur's Gate was based on 2nd edition rules. And I think they added the sorceror in BG2? Can't remember the exact timing anymore. Wizards can learn all arcane spells available to the class. They can specialize in a spell school (at character creation) to be able to memorize an extra spell per spell level at the cost of not being able to learn spells of the opposing school. I think clerics and druids back then automatically learn everything available to them and you just need to choose which spells to memorize.
Weapon specializations, I feel, are a pen and paper thing and just end up being obnoxious in a video game, especially one with predetermined loot. All it does in the end is limit what weapons your characters can wield the most effectively. It feels more like a drawback rather than a benefit. Ranger specializations are the same thing. Hard to pick what class of monster to hate when you have no idea what monsters you are going to have trouble with. BG had rolls for attributes just like pen and paper. Later games changed it to give players a set amount of points but I can't remember which game started that.
For all the name recognition Baldur's Gate gets, it was based on a ruleset that was changed soon after. 3rd edition changed up a lot of things and I think later rulesets are more in the spirit of 3e. I feel like most people would be more familiar with the later rulesets even if they are more familiar with the Baldur's Gate name.
|
SoCal8910 Posts
On April 04 2023 04:07 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 01:51 BluemoonSC wrote:On April 03 2023 04:52 Manit0u wrote:
In D3 you didn't really need respecs because there wasn't much of a "build" to begin with and then everything really depended on your items, not your skills, so whatever you choose was pretty much meaningless anyway.
Unfortunately D4 seems to be heading the same way, something I've been against from the start and have been vocal about in this thread. IMO items should not be the focal point of your build, nor should they define it. Might as well just omit the talent tree and skills altogether, to get rid of the illusion that you're actually "building" your character in any other way than finding items. in d3 different activities absolutely required you to respec into different versions of the build you were playing, or a different build entirely because it was more efficient. especially later on when many of the legendaries were altered and power level for sets took you into deep greater rifts, but you could cut pieces for high torment rifts/farming or bounties. i'm not sure what else you're advocating for, if not items being important to your build in d4. if you are playing a certain build and a piece of gear drops for another, it's by no means going to force you to play that build the way that d3's set bonuses forced you to pick those pieces of gear. what other system would work in a game that is built around killing monsters and picking up their items? this isn't a proper MMORPG with fixed loot and drop tables from endgame bosses. I think what he is saying that the items which drop should enhance your build, not define it. Like, a build should work without interactions caused by items, which in D4's case are provided by legendary affixes. I'm on the fence on this point. Both can work imho. In D2, builds largely worked on their own, although there were some build-enabling items. PoE has a ton more build-enabling items and I think that's cool. There are also a ton of builds which don't rely on specific items of course. GW would be on the opposite end of the spectrum because everything is about the skills and their interaction. Items really only enhance the build a bit (some attributes, cast/recharge rate, armour, that's basically it). I think the problem with D3 was that items defined builds in the most boring way possible: no choices.
i guess i just don't understand where the impetus to chase down items (or a better version of your current item) comes from in a game where there isn't a strict loot table or strict drops (ie: every XYZ legendary has the same XYZ rolls, but different values in the range)
builds not being tied to items works in games like wow because you have to repeat the same instance and kill the same boss to obtain the item you're after and it is like every other version of that same item.
if your build is complete before you even kill a monster at max level in a game where any monster can drop the item you're looking for, what's the point of killing monsters?
PoE has a ton more build-enabling items and I think that's cool. There are also a ton of builds which don't rely on specific items of course.
i actually don't agree with the notion that there are a ton of builds that don't rely on a specific item. in poe you're either chasing a particular unique or you're trying to craft a specific rare item for your build. you will never make it to red maps, let alone pinnacle bosses without items that make your build functional.
the most simplistic example being resistances on certain slots allowing you to have other important suffixes in your other slots (ie: spell suppression). if you want a poison build, poison chance doesn't come naturally on many skills. mana reservation is a big offender. the list goes on.
|
On April 04 2023 04:15 Fleetfeet wrote:
D1 never felt like build identity was a strong facet of the game. Honestly, character development felt more like Slay The Spire than modern ARPGs - your character operates within the bounds of its class, and the character's identity is largely determined by drop luck and which events / shrines occur.
Absolutely. This is such a good insight, I never made the connection of Diablo to Roguelikes (and it's not one) but a lot of common elements are definitely there.
|
On April 04 2023 06:13 BluemoonSC wrote:Show nested quote +PoE has a ton more build-enabling items and I think that's cool. There are also a ton of builds which don't rely on specific items of course. i actually don't agree with the notion that there are a ton of builds that don't rely on a specific item. in poe you're either chasing a particular unique or you're trying to craft a specific rare item for your build. you will never make it to red maps, let alone pinnacle bosses without items that make your build functional. the most simplistic example being resistances on certain slots allowing you to have other important suffixes in your other slots (ie: spell suppression). if you want a poison build, poison chance doesn't come naturally on many skills. mana reservation is a big offender. the list goes on.
hmm I don't agree with this. There are many builds that are utterly gear independent. Not that you can clear pinnacle bosses with no items (the vast majority of players never do this no matter their gear), but clearing red / t16 maps with just generic rares with life and res is very doable. Tho maybe my perspective is skewed because I typically start with very meta builds and have a lot of experience with self gearing
granted, the vast majority of builds are item dependent, but that's just because there's so many niche uniques and skill interactions. if you want to play generically powerful build there are at least 10 options I could provide that are meta - quick, strong, and solo self found viable, no specific items needed. more or less builds depending on your standards
that might not sound like many builds, but if you're willing to bend on like 1 build enabling item (e.g. Vixens) that is often super cheap or ez to acquire, then the build variety possible is really high. it's really not a game where you are limited in options, unless you are very dialed into the meta
idk if it bothers yall that I'm just in here talking about PoE, but PoE is really on my mind right now xD
|
On April 04 2023 06:04 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 04:07 Miragee wrote:On April 04 2023 00:34 andrewlt wrote:On April 03 2023 07:42 Miragee wrote:
On another note, I would also like to know when this shift happened. Classic RPGs like Baldur's Gate were very successful and I never heard any complaints about not being able to respec. People who only did one casual playthrough were fine without seeing everything or making "wrong" decisions. Today, everyone seems obsessed with the idea of playing the optimal way and getting to experience 100 % of the game, yet they call themselves casuals. Doesn't sound very casual to me but that's another discussion. Baldur's Gate is beloved by the kinds of people who frequently post here but that style of game is pretty niche. Research has shown that the long character creation process before even starting the game is a turn off for most people. You can't make meaningful choices if you haven't even played the game to get a feel for the combat. That kind of western-style crpg is a bit of a dying genre outside a small, passionate fanbase. And other than class, there weren't many choices you need to spec into in Baldur's Gate anyway. Feats, skills and all that jazz for physical damage classes were added in later games. In Baldur's Gate, you just picked a weapon specialization and that's it. Wizards were the only arcane class in BG1 and they can learn everything. You just have to choose which spells to memorize on rest. It's basically a respec! I'm pretty sure clerics and druids can learn everything in BG1 as well but it's been a while. The only choice in BG1 is whether to specialize your wizard in a school and it's not recommended for beginners. For what it's worth, in Diablo 1, you can also pick up all the spells that your class can use with only one character. Being forced to make "meaningful" decisions started with Diablo 2. Some people loved it. Some hated the grind to try more skills. I'm in the latter. I played most classes once then gave up on the game. Is Baldur's Gate really that much of a niche? It's a pretty big name. Like when I talk to people, who don't play video games or not a lot, about RPGs IRL it's way more likely they have heard about Baldur's Gate than PoE for example. BG3 seems to have a fair reach based on its name and on Larian as a studio, which is most famous for Divinity series. The choices at the start are a bit jarring, I agree. But that's a carry-over from pen&paper and I feel like pen&paper games are only becoming more popular these days. About the spells: yeah, memorising spells is kind of a respec. Since it's a whole party, I suppose you have to chose which character learns which spell and if you replace that character you lose access to those spells. Priests and druids have their own spell book. All caster classes have some restrictions for learning spells though I think. I think they are mentioned on the scrolls? Iirc, weapon specialisations cannot be respecced and those carry quite some weight for non-caster classes. BG also had attributes to spec into at the beginning, which couldn't be changed later. Baldur's Gate is the 800-lb gorilla in the Western-style CRPG world but that world is pretty niche. Even JRPGs are pretty niche nowadays aside from games like Elden Ring, which is more of an action game, and Final Fantasy, which is less and less of an RPG with every iteration. The original Baldur's Gate was based on 2nd edition rules. And I think they added the sorceror in BG2? Can't remember the exact timing anymore. Wizards can learn all arcane spells available to the class. They can specialize in a spell school (at character creation) to be able to memorize an extra spell per spell level at the cost of not being able to learn spells of the opposing school. I think clerics and druids back then automatically learn everything available to them and you just need to choose which spells to memorize. Weapon specializations, I feel, are a pen and paper thing and just end up being obnoxious in a video game, especially one with predetermined loot. All it does in the end is limit what weapons your characters can wield the most effectively. It feels more like a drawback rather than a benefit. Ranger specializations are the same thing. Hard to pick what class of monster to hate when you have no idea what monsters you are going to have trouble with. BG had rolls for attributes just like pen and paper. Later games changed it to give players a set amount of points but I can't remember which game started that. For all the name recognition Baldur's Gate gets, it was based on a ruleset that was changed soon after. 3rd edition changed up a lot of things and I think later rulesets are more in the spirit of 3e. I feel like most people would be more familiar with the later rulesets even if they are more familiar with the Baldur's Gate name.
I just booted up BG to make sure: Yes it rolled your attributes but basically only the amount of attribute points. This is a stupid system of course because you could reroll forever until you hit max roll. After the roll you could take points away from single attributes and put them into another one. Later on you couldn't change this anymore.
For the other stuff I'm not sure what we are arguing about anymore. I just said I don't remember people complaining about no respecs in BG very much and it was a successful game and so was BG2. Both sold 3.5 M copies, respectively, which is massive in the time they got released. There is really nothing niche about them as far as computer gaming goes and the name still carries weight 2 decades after the fact. If you want a more recent example, look at the Witcher. I think there was some respec in the games but it was basically not available to anyone. The games were still very successful. Did Elden Ring have respec? I haven't played that one yet but since you mention it...
On April 04 2023 06:13 BluemoonSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 04:07 Miragee wrote:On April 04 2023 01:51 BluemoonSC wrote:On April 03 2023 04:52 Manit0u wrote:
In D3 you didn't really need respecs because there wasn't much of a "build" to begin with and then everything really depended on your items, not your skills, so whatever you choose was pretty much meaningless anyway.
Unfortunately D4 seems to be heading the same way, something I've been against from the start and have been vocal about in this thread. IMO items should not be the focal point of your build, nor should they define it. Might as well just omit the talent tree and skills altogether, to get rid of the illusion that you're actually "building" your character in any other way than finding items. in d3 different activities absolutely required you to respec into different versions of the build you were playing, or a different build entirely because it was more efficient. especially later on when many of the legendaries were altered and power level for sets took you into deep greater rifts, but you could cut pieces for high torment rifts/farming or bounties. i'm not sure what else you're advocating for, if not items being important to your build in d4. if you are playing a certain build and a piece of gear drops for another, it's by no means going to force you to play that build the way that d3's set bonuses forced you to pick those pieces of gear. what other system would work in a game that is built around killing monsters and picking up their items? this isn't a proper MMORPG with fixed loot and drop tables from endgame bosses. I think what he is saying that the items which drop should enhance your build, not define it. Like, a build should work without interactions caused by items, which in D4's case are provided by legendary affixes. I'm on the fence on this point. Both can work imho. In D2, builds largely worked on their own, although there were some build-enabling items. PoE has a ton more build-enabling items and I think that's cool. There are also a ton of builds which don't rely on specific items of course. GW would be on the opposite end of the spectrum because everything is about the skills and their interaction. Items really only enhance the build a bit (some attributes, cast/recharge rate, armour, that's basically it). I think the problem with D3 was that items defined builds in the most boring way possible: no choices. i guess i just don't understand where the impetus to chase down items (or a better version of your current item) comes from in a game where there isn't a strict loot table or strict drops (ie: every XYZ legendary has the same XYZ rolls, but different values in the range) builds not being tied to items works in games like wow because you have to repeat the same instance and kill the same boss to obtain the item you're after and it is like every other version of that same item. if your build is complete before you even kill a monster at max level in a game where any monster can drop the item you're looking for, what's the point of killing monsters? Show nested quote +PoE has a ton more build-enabling items and I think that's cool. There are also a ton of builds which don't rely on specific items of course. i actually don't agree with the notion that there are a ton of builds that don't rely on a specific item. in poe you're either chasing a particular unique or you're trying to craft a specific rare item for your build. you will never make it to red maps, let alone pinnacle bosses without items that make your build functional. the most simplistic example being resistances on certain slots allowing you to have other important suffixes in your other slots (ie: spell suppression). if you want a poison build, poison chance doesn't come naturally on many skills. mana reservation is a big offender. the list goes on.
To your first point: First of, in the case of GW there is more strife for skins than power. Max items are, except for rare instances, very easy to acquire. Then you are chasing rare skins. Now that's not an option for D4 (not only because of the shop they are designing). However, it's still possible to give the items power without letting them define your build. Your build still can become stronger by getting stronger items. That doesn't mean those items need to define the build or the build wouldn't work without them in a weaker way. To make a very stupid example to make it obvious: Imagine there is a skill which costs 120 mana but your max mana is 100 and the only way to get to 120+ is one certain item. That build defining. Or a single target skill with low damage, which doesn't kill anything even with the best generic damage items in the game but there is a specific item that gives it a billion damage and aoe. That would be build defining.
Using generic items to enhance the power of a build is fine and actually what Manitou wants, if I understood it correctly. So you are chasing stronger items, not ones that enable your build. It's also what I meant about PoE and this is to your second point: A lot of builds don't need certain uniques in PoE. They function just fine with generic rares giving you damage and defenses. Yes, you might need a certain amount of damage or of a certain stat but there are many sources to get those. They aren't tied to one specific item or set. I also bet you there is a ton of builds with just generic rares which can play in red maps and probably also kill pinnacle bosses. They won't kill them in seconds, it will take a while, of course. But they are still functional and that's what I meant. At some point you will always need more powerful items to make a build push into higher content, sure, but I don't think that's a point of contention.
|
On April 04 2023 02:49 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 02:14 andrewlt wrote:On April 04 2023 01:05 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On April 04 2023 00:34 andrewlt wrote:
For what it's worth, in Diablo 1, you can also pick up all the spells that your class can use with only one character. Being forced to make "meaningful" decisions started with Diablo 2. Some people loved it. Some hated the grind to try more skills. I'm in the latter. I played most classes once then gave up on the game. But in D1 you had to pick your stat points which determine what spells you can learn and how effectively you cast them, also what other items you can use and the effectiveness. Don't think you could reset those. I'm pretty sure the int cap for warriors and rogues are low enough that you can easily max them if you really want to cast spells using those classes. All classes use the same pool of spells. Other than your main stat, the max level for your other stats are low. Yeah I remember that you know what I'd make that criticism about D1, potentially unlimited elixirs or gold and maybe not enough amplitude for some stats to make different enough builds on a same class. Maybe it was only the magic stat that had a particularly low max for warrior and then you have quite some choice for the other 3 but eventually I guess you'll just max everything (?? didn't get to that point). The idea of having some max for some stats depending on class is interesting though or lower effectiveness - last one is what D2 started to do.
Let me clear some misinformation here... First of all, unlimited elixirs are meaningless because you can't bring your stats past the cap with them, the only way to get them higher is through items.
With every class being able to learn every spell, sure, but then again Warrior has terrible cast times for example and let's not forget that spells only scale with spell level and every new level requires more magic to learn. To put it in perspective, if you want to learn Teleport at first level you will need 105 magic (max for Warrior is 50 and Rogue 70). This means that you'd need to acquire a lot of +magic gear just to be able to learn the spell (and then run out of mana after 2 casts). All of that is expensive and takes space in your inventory (gotta keep in mind that gold also took away a big chunk of your inventory in D1).
And regarding the max stats, it's impossible to max them all with just skill points. Sure, you may max your 3 non-class stats by level 50 but your main stat has a cap of 250 which you won't reach (you get 245 stat points to distribute in total and you need around 375 to max everything).
|
On April 04 2023 07:54 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 02:49 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On April 04 2023 02:14 andrewlt wrote:On April 04 2023 01:05 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On April 04 2023 00:34 andrewlt wrote:
For what it's worth, in Diablo 1, you can also pick up all the spells that your class can use with only one character. Being forced to make "meaningful" decisions started with Diablo 2. Some people loved it. Some hated the grind to try more skills. I'm in the latter. I played most classes once then gave up on the game. But in D1 you had to pick your stat points which determine what spells you can learn and how effectively you cast them, also what other items you can use and the effectiveness. Don't think you could reset those. I'm pretty sure the int cap for warriors and rogues are low enough that you can easily max them if you really want to cast spells using those classes. All classes use the same pool of spells. Other than your main stat, the max level for your other stats are low. Yeah I remember that you know what I'd make that criticism about D1, potentially unlimited elixirs or gold and maybe not enough amplitude for some stats to make different enough builds on a same class. Maybe it was only the magic stat that had a particularly low max for warrior and then you have quite some choice for the other 3 but eventually I guess you'll just max everything (?? didn't get to that point). The idea of having some max for some stats depending on class is interesting though or lower effectiveness - last one is what D2 started to do. Let me clear some misinformation here... First of all, unlimited elixirs are meaningless because you can't bring your stats past the cap with them, the only way to get them higher is through items. With every class being able to learn every spell, sure, but then again Warrior has terrible cast times for example and let's not forget that spells only scale with spell level and every new level requires more magic to learn. To put it in perspective, if you want to learn Teleport at first level you will need 105 magic (max for Warrior is 50 and Rogue 70). This means that you'd need to acquire a lot of +magic gear just to be able to learn the spell (and then run out of mana after 2 casts). All of that is expensive and takes space in your inventory (gotta keep in mind that gold also took away a big chunk of your inventory in D1). And regarding the max stats, it's impossible to max them all with just skill points. Sure, you may max your 3 non-class stats by level 50 but your main stat has a cap of 250 which you won't reach (you get 245 stat points to distribute in total and you need around 375 to max everything).
But then if you can buy elixirs of strength from NPC for 5000gold and you can reset the monsters, you can just farm your 250 strength eventually no? Until you do though you definitely get to make interesting stat choices. I mean I really like D1 a lot for a lot of things, I think D2 is an amazing sequel that goes so much deeper in a lot of aspects.
|
On April 04 2023 07:54 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 02:49 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On April 04 2023 02:14 andrewlt wrote:On April 04 2023 01:05 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On April 04 2023 00:34 andrewlt wrote:
For what it's worth, in Diablo 1, you can also pick up all the spells that your class can use with only one character. Being forced to make "meaningful" decisions started with Diablo 2. Some people loved it. Some hated the grind to try more skills. I'm in the latter. I played most classes once then gave up on the game. But in D1 you had to pick your stat points which determine what spells you can learn and how effectively you cast them, also what other items you can use and the effectiveness. Don't think you could reset those. I'm pretty sure the int cap for warriors and rogues are low enough that you can easily max them if you really want to cast spells using those classes. All classes use the same pool of spells. Other than your main stat, the max level for your other stats are low. Yeah I remember that you know what I'd make that criticism about D1, potentially unlimited elixirs or gold and maybe not enough amplitude for some stats to make different enough builds on a same class. Maybe it was only the magic stat that had a particularly low max for warrior and then you have quite some choice for the other 3 but eventually I guess you'll just max everything (?? didn't get to that point). The idea of having some max for some stats depending on class is interesting though or lower effectiveness - last one is what D2 started to do. Let me clear some misinformation here... First of all, unlimited elixirs are meaningless because you can't bring your stats past the cap with them, the only way to get them higher is through items. With every class being able to learn every spell, sure, but then again Warrior has terrible cast times for example and let's not forget that spells only scale with spell level and every new level requires more magic to learn. To put it in perspective, if you want to learn Teleport at first level you will need 105 magic (max for Warrior is 50 and Rogue 70). This means that you'd need to acquire a lot of +magic gear just to be able to learn the spell (and then run out of mana after 2 casts). All of that is expensive and takes space in your inventory (gotta keep in mind that gold also took away a big chunk of your inventory in D1).
Except apocalypse is only available on staff so does spell level matter? Warrior/rogue having worse cast speed is somewhat important, but apocalypse damage projection is larger than the screen so you just don't run into a whole pile of mobs and get stun locked when you can offscreen things.
|
On April 03 2023 04:43 Miragee wrote:
...
You are trying to explain to us that it doesn't make a difference for us when it obviously does. How is it so hard to understand that all the fun of decision making is gone for some people (e.g. myself) if the decision is meaningless. The disadvantage is clear: The game is not fun, period. This is the same in reverse for you without respec. So no, your TL;DR is wrong. An ARPG with free respec doesn't let me play the way I want because it isn't fun because it feels meaningless.
...
my last addition as its pointless with ppl like you:
free respec: both off us can play how they want (if you need a hard game rule to play the game thats your problem and not that of the rest of the player base)
cost respec: its impossible to play how i want to play (no feelings here), i named points why its prohibitive for my playstyle, your point is that the mere existence of the option of respecs (and they will be in the game anyway btw) threatens your playstyle ..
never to mention that you wrote it yourself that the respecing wasnt the problem in d3 for you. ppl like you a ruining the fun for others because they arent even able to let other ways of playing the game an option for them,
im sure youll be in the first row to complain when additional charcter slots are added to the gamestore for rl money
|
On April 04 2023 04:07 Miragee wrote:
I think what he is saying that the items which drop should enhance your build, not define it. Like, a build should work without interactions caused by items, which in D4's case are provided by legendary affixes. I'm on the fence on this point. Both can work imho. In D2, builds largely worked on their own, although there were some build-enabling items. PoE has a ton more build-enabling items and I think that's cool. There are also a ton of builds which don't rely on specific items of course. GW would be on the opposite end of the spectrum because everything is about the skills and their interaction. Items really only enhance the build a bit (some attributes, cast/recharge rate, armour, that's basically it). I think the problem with D3 was that items defined builds in the most boring way possible: no choices.
while i guess a lot of people (me included) dont like the itemization of d3 that much, i think its pretty hard to impossible to find the balance here, at the end of the day you want something to grind for in arpgs, thats one of the core elements.
and for the grind to be worth it for most, there has to be more than a mere stat upgrade involved. and the fact that you want new stuff over the lifetime always leeds to more powerful builds, as again showed in excess in d3.
ways around there for me are either:
1.) add loads and loads of skill with interaction and relativly little uniques, ala last epoch, where the longevity of the game will come from trying all sorts of builds/chars and less the grind, but things like fresh start seasons do have less of an impact (and i really like seasons)
2.) make gear quite powerfull but rare (like certain d2 runewords for example), if they are not rare enough you get in the d3 problem again.
ultimatly it comes down to taste here, i see d4 heading more towards the second option, which probably is why i enjoy last epoch much more, although its obvious to me that i will never spend the amount of hours there as is did in d2 and d3, which is a little bit sad for me but if im honest if the endgame is a mindless grind anyway maybe its for the better
|
On April 04 2023 07:25 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 06:04 andrewlt wrote:On April 04 2023 04:07 Miragee wrote:On April 04 2023 00:34 andrewlt wrote:On April 03 2023 07:42 Miragee wrote:
On another note, I would also like to know when this shift happened. Classic RPGs like Baldur's Gate were very successful and I never heard any complaints about not being able to respec. People who only did one casual playthrough were fine without seeing everything or making "wrong" decisions. Today, everyone seems obsessed with the idea of playing the optimal way and getting to experience 100 % of the game, yet they call themselves casuals. Doesn't sound very casual to me but that's another discussion. Baldur's Gate is beloved by the kinds of people who frequently post here but that style of game is pretty niche. Research has shown that the long character creation process before even starting the game is a turn off for most people. You can't make meaningful choices if you haven't even played the game to get a feel for the combat. That kind of western-style crpg is a bit of a dying genre outside a small, passionate fanbase. And other than class, there weren't many choices you need to spec into in Baldur's Gate anyway. Feats, skills and all that jazz for physical damage classes were added in later games. In Baldur's Gate, you just picked a weapon specialization and that's it. Wizards were the only arcane class in BG1 and they can learn everything. You just have to choose which spells to memorize on rest. It's basically a respec! I'm pretty sure clerics and druids can learn everything in BG1 as well but it's been a while. The only choice in BG1 is whether to specialize your wizard in a school and it's not recommended for beginners. For what it's worth, in Diablo 1, you can also pick up all the spells that your class can use with only one character. Being forced to make "meaningful" decisions started with Diablo 2. Some people loved it. Some hated the grind to try more skills. I'm in the latter. I played most classes once then gave up on the game. Is Baldur's Gate really that much of a niche? It's a pretty big name. Like when I talk to people, who don't play video games or not a lot, about RPGs IRL it's way more likely they have heard about Baldur's Gate than PoE for example. BG3 seems to have a fair reach based on its name and on Larian as a studio, which is most famous for Divinity series. The choices at the start are a bit jarring, I agree. But that's a carry-over from pen&paper and I feel like pen&paper games are only becoming more popular these days. About the spells: yeah, memorising spells is kind of a respec. Since it's a whole party, I suppose you have to chose which character learns which spell and if you replace that character you lose access to those spells. Priests and druids have their own spell book. All caster classes have some restrictions for learning spells though I think. I think they are mentioned on the scrolls? Iirc, weapon specialisations cannot be respecced and those carry quite some weight for non-caster classes. BG also had attributes to spec into at the beginning, which couldn't be changed later. Baldur's Gate is the 800-lb gorilla in the Western-style CRPG world but that world is pretty niche. Even JRPGs are pretty niche nowadays aside from games like Elden Ring, which is more of an action game, and Final Fantasy, which is less and less of an RPG with every iteration. The original Baldur's Gate was based on 2nd edition rules. And I think they added the sorceror in BG2? Can't remember the exact timing anymore. Wizards can learn all arcane spells available to the class. They can specialize in a spell school (at character creation) to be able to memorize an extra spell per spell level at the cost of not being able to learn spells of the opposing school. I think clerics and druids back then automatically learn everything available to them and you just need to choose which spells to memorize. Weapon specializations, I feel, are a pen and paper thing and just end up being obnoxious in a video game, especially one with predetermined loot. All it does in the end is limit what weapons your characters can wield the most effectively. It feels more like a drawback rather than a benefit. Ranger specializations are the same thing. Hard to pick what class of monster to hate when you have no idea what monsters you are going to have trouble with. BG had rolls for attributes just like pen and paper. Later games changed it to give players a set amount of points but I can't remember which game started that. For all the name recognition Baldur's Gate gets, it was based on a ruleset that was changed soon after. 3rd edition changed up a lot of things and I think later rulesets are more in the spirit of 3e. I feel like most people would be more familiar with the later rulesets even if they are more familiar with the Baldur's Gate name. I just booted up BG to make sure: Yes it rolled your attributes but basically only the amount of attribute points. This is a stupid system of course because you could reroll forever until you hit max roll. After the roll you could take points away from single attributes and put them into another one. Later on you couldn't change this anymore. For the other stuff I'm not sure what we are arguing about anymore. I just said I don't remember people complaining about no respecs in BG very much and it was a successful game and so was BG2. Both sold 3.5 M copies, respectively, which is massive in the time they got released. There is really nothing niche about them as far as computer gaming goes and the name still carries weight 2 decades after the fact. If you want a more recent example, look at the Witcher. I think there was some respec in the games but it was basically not available to anyone. The games were still very successful. Did Elden Ring have respec? I haven't played that one yet but since you mention it... Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 06:13 BluemoonSC wrote:On April 04 2023 04:07 Miragee wrote:On April 04 2023 01:51 BluemoonSC wrote:On April 03 2023 04:52 Manit0u wrote:
In D3 you didn't really need respecs because there wasn't much of a "build" to begin with and then everything really depended on your items, not your skills, so whatever you choose was pretty much meaningless anyway.
Unfortunately D4 seems to be heading the same way, something I've been against from the start and have been vocal about in this thread. IMO items should not be the focal point of your build, nor should they define it. Might as well just omit the talent tree and skills altogether, to get rid of the illusion that you're actually "building" your character in any other way than finding items. in d3 different activities absolutely required you to respec into different versions of the build you were playing, or a different build entirely because it was more efficient. especially later on when many of the legendaries were altered and power level for sets took you into deep greater rifts, but you could cut pieces for high torment rifts/farming or bounties. i'm not sure what else you're advocating for, if not items being important to your build in d4. if you are playing a certain build and a piece of gear drops for another, it's by no means going to force you to play that build the way that d3's set bonuses forced you to pick those pieces of gear. what other system would work in a game that is built around killing monsters and picking up their items? this isn't a proper MMORPG with fixed loot and drop tables from endgame bosses. I think what he is saying that the items which drop should enhance your build, not define it. Like, a build should work without interactions caused by items, which in D4's case are provided by legendary affixes. I'm on the fence on this point. Both can work imho. In D2, builds largely worked on their own, although there were some build-enabling items. PoE has a ton more build-enabling items and I think that's cool. There are also a ton of builds which don't rely on specific items of course. GW would be on the opposite end of the spectrum because everything is about the skills and their interaction. Items really only enhance the build a bit (some attributes, cast/recharge rate, armour, that's basically it). I think the problem with D3 was that items defined builds in the most boring way possible: no choices. i guess i just don't understand where the impetus to chase down items (or a better version of your current item) comes from in a game where there isn't a strict loot table or strict drops (ie: every XYZ legendary has the same XYZ rolls, but different values in the range) builds not being tied to items works in games like wow because you have to repeat the same instance and kill the same boss to obtain the item you're after and it is like every other version of that same item. if your build is complete before you even kill a monster at max level in a game where any monster can drop the item you're looking for, what's the point of killing monsters? PoE has a ton more build-enabling items and I think that's cool. There are also a ton of builds which don't rely on specific items of course. i actually don't agree with the notion that there are a ton of builds that don't rely on a specific item. in poe you're either chasing a particular unique or you're trying to craft a specific rare item for your build. you will never make it to red maps, let alone pinnacle bosses without items that make your build functional. the most simplistic example being resistances on certain slots allowing you to have other important suffixes in your other slots (ie: spell suppression). if you want a poison build, poison chance doesn't come naturally on many skills. mana reservation is a big offender. the list goes on. To your first point: First of, in the case of GW there is more strife for skins than power. Max items are, except for rare instances, very easy to acquire. Then you are chasing rare skins. Now that's not an option for D4 (not only because of the shop they are designing). However, it's still possible to give the items power without letting them define your build. Your build still can become stronger by getting stronger items. That doesn't mean those items need to define the build or the build wouldn't work without them in a weaker way. To make a very stupid example to make it obvious: Imagine there is a skill which costs 120 mana but your max mana is 100 and the only way to get to 120+ is one certain item. That build defining. Or a single target skill with low damage, which doesn't kill anything even with the best generic damage items in the game but there is a specific item that gives it a billion damage and aoe. That would be build defining. Using generic items to enhance the power of a build is fine and actually what Manitou wants, if I understood it correctly. So you are chasing stronger items, not ones that enable your build. It's also what I meant about PoE and this is to your second point: A lot of builds don't need certain uniques in PoE. They function just fine with generic rares giving you damage and defenses. Yes, you might need a certain amount of damage or of a certain stat but there are many sources to get those. They aren't tied to one specific item or set. I also bet you there is a ton of builds with just generic rares which can play in red maps and probably also kill pinnacle bosses. They won't kill them in seconds, it will take a while, of course. But they are still functional and that's what I meant. At some point you will always need more powerful items to make a build push into higher content, sure, but I don't think that's a point of contention.
Elden Rings respec is quite unique: You have to defeat a specific story boss to unlock it and need a unique ressource which guaranted drops about 12-14 (not sure, can probably google the exact amount) times per playthrough from specifics bosses / chests.
This story boss is about after 25% of the game (20 hours in or sth.). If you are good and know what you do, you can be there quicker ofc
The respec is only for the gained levels and will not affect the base stats of your class which will always stay the same. Though there is a class which basically starts with zero base stats
|
On April 04 2023 10:39 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 07:54 Manit0u wrote:On April 04 2023 02:49 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On April 04 2023 02:14 andrewlt wrote:On April 04 2023 01:05 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On April 04 2023 00:34 andrewlt wrote:
For what it's worth, in Diablo 1, you can also pick up all the spells that your class can use with only one character. Being forced to make "meaningful" decisions started with Diablo 2. Some people loved it. Some hated the grind to try more skills. I'm in the latter. I played most classes once then gave up on the game. But in D1 you had to pick your stat points which determine what spells you can learn and how effectively you cast them, also what other items you can use and the effectiveness. Don't think you could reset those. I'm pretty sure the int cap for warriors and rogues are low enough that you can easily max them if you really want to cast spells using those classes. All classes use the same pool of spells. Other than your main stat, the max level for your other stats are low. Yeah I remember that you know what I'd make that criticism about D1, potentially unlimited elixirs or gold and maybe not enough amplitude for some stats to make different enough builds on a same class. Maybe it was only the magic stat that had a particularly low max for warrior and then you have quite some choice for the other 3 but eventually I guess you'll just max everything (?? didn't get to that point). The idea of having some max for some stats depending on class is interesting though or lower effectiveness - last one is what D2 started to do. Let me clear some misinformation here... First of all, unlimited elixirs are meaningless because you can't bring your stats past the cap with them, the only way to get them higher is through items. With every class being able to learn every spell, sure, but then again Warrior has terrible cast times for example and let's not forget that spells only scale with spell level and every new level requires more magic to learn. To put it in perspective, if you want to learn Teleport at first level you will need 105 magic (max for Warrior is 50 and Rogue 70). This means that you'd need to acquire a lot of +magic gear just to be able to learn the spell (and then run out of mana after 2 casts). All of that is expensive and takes space in your inventory (gotta keep in mind that gold also took away a big chunk of your inventory in D1). Except apocalypse is only available on staff so does spell level matter? Warrior/rogue having worse cast speed is somewhat important, but apocalypse damage projection is larger than the screen so you just don't run into a whole pile of mobs and get stun locked when you can offscreen things.
The problem here is that 1 cast of Apocalypse takes 150 mana where Warrior with maxed out magic has 98 mana. So you need at least +52 magic on items to cast the spell once. It's hard to go for Apoc even with maxed Sorcerer.
I kind of miss the stat caps in D2. Would definitely be a bit different if say Sorc couldn't ever get more than 25 strength and 50 vitality or something like that. This would not only influence builds but also your gear choices.
D4 not having you spend points into attributes is a missed opportunity IMO.
|
On April 04 2023 20:54 Manit0u wrote:
...
I kind of miss the stat caps in D2. Would definitely be a bit different if say Sorc couldn't ever get more than 25 strength and 50 vitality or something like that. This would not only influence builds but also your gear choices.
D4 not having you spend points into attributes is a missed opportunity IMO.
if you have max values for attributes allowing the player to allocate them would loose a lot of value, since you very likely max out all of the ones with low limits anyway. you still need some wiggleroom for actual descisions there. if ~5 lvl ups worth of attributes are enough to max a stat for a class then there is little variation in there making the option rather pointless
i do agree thought that its an elegant way of adding a certain feel to classes, a huge barbarian should have way more life and tankiness then a frail wizard/sorc/necro, but not even in d1 that was accomplished since manashield was way to good back then (but htats another discussion)
but still, hiding gear options behind stats instead of the class itself adds a lot of possibilties to builds which is always a good thing in arpgs.
|
On April 04 2023 22:09 uummpaa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 20:54 Manit0u wrote:
...
I kind of miss the stat caps in D2. Would definitely be a bit different if say Sorc couldn't ever get more than 25 strength and 50 vitality or something like that. This would not only influence builds but also your gear choices.
D4 not having you spend points into attributes is a missed opportunity IMO. if you have max values for attributes allowing the player to allocate them would loose a lot of value, since you very likely max out all of the ones with low limits anyway. you still need some wiggleroom for actual descisions there. if ~5 lvl ups worth of attributes are enough to max a stat for a class then there is little variation in there making the option rather pointless i do agree thought that its an elegant way of adding a certain feel to classes, a huge barbarian should have way more life and tankiness then a frail wizard/sorc/necro, but not even in d1 that was accomplished since manashield was way to good back then (but htats another discussion) but still, hiding gear options behind stats instead of the class itself adds a lot of possibilties to builds which is always a good thing in arpgs.
That's exactly my point. It's not really about making completely different character by allocating your stats differently but rather having those caps that force you into some tough decisions when it comes to gearing. With Sorc as example in D2, do you go full glass cannon or do you get some items that improve your vitality etc. The same thing goes for barb or paladin that wants to use a shield but can't put enough points into dex to achieve max block without getting some +dex on items.
It gets more interesting and then it makes powerful items that define your build make actual sense when you need to sacrifice something in order to fulfill the requirements of the item that you want to build your char around. Imagine if items in D2 like Enigma would have requirements like 200 energy to equip and use it and Paladin having 150 energy max or something. Hammerdins would be vastly different from their most common iteration.
|
On April 04 2023 16:20 uummpaa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2023 04:43 Miragee wrote:
...
You are trying to explain to us that it doesn't make a difference for us when it obviously does. How is it so hard to understand that all the fun of decision making is gone for some people (e.g. myself) if the decision is meaningless. The disadvantage is clear: The game is not fun, period. This is the same in reverse for you without respec. So no, your TL;DR is wrong. An ARPG with free respec doesn't let me play the way I want because it isn't fun because it feels meaningless.
... free respec: both off us can play how they want (if you need a hard game rule to play the game thats your problem and not that of the rest of the player base) cost respec: its impossible to play how i want to play (no feelings here), i named points why its prohibitive for my playstyle, your point is that the mere existence of the option of respecs (and they will be in the game anyway btw) threatens your playstyle ..
free gems: both of us can play how they want, if you want limited gems thats your problem and not that of the rest
have to drop and earn gems: its impossible to play how i want to play, its prohibitive for my playstyle of socketing anything instantly and in whatever quantity and quality at any time...
it doesn't rly make sense sry. you'd be able to respec for any boss or pvp encounter, other players are there. You could respec for free to earn w/e at some max efficiency. You could do speedrun with free respec. Etc. Every game rule affects all players by affecting other players that you play with or against.
|
On April 04 2023 23:14 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2023 16:20 uummpaa wrote:On April 03 2023 04:43 Miragee wrote:
...
You are trying to explain to us that it doesn't make a difference for us when it obviously does. How is it so hard to understand that all the fun of decision making is gone for some people (e.g. myself) if the decision is meaningless. The disadvantage is clear: The game is not fun, period. This is the same in reverse for you without respec. So no, your TL;DR is wrong. An ARPG with free respec doesn't let me play the way I want because it isn't fun because it feels meaningless.
... free respec: both off us can play how they want (if you need a hard game rule to play the game thats your problem and not that of the rest of the player base) cost respec: its impossible to play how i want to play (no feelings here), i named points why its prohibitive for my playstyle, your point is that the mere existence of the option of respecs (and they will be in the game anyway btw) threatens your playstyle .. free gems: both of us can play how they want, if you want limited gems thats your problem and not that of the rest have to drop and earn gems: its impossible to play how i want to play, its prohibitive for my playstyle of socketing anything instantly and in whatever quantity and quality at any time... it doesn't rly make sense sry. you'd be able to respec for any boss or pvp encounter, other players are there. You could respec for free to earn w/e at some max efficiency. You could do speedrun with free respec. Etc. Every game rule affects all players by affecting other players that you play with or against.
thank you for proving me right i guess,
make switching talents a 10 s cast/only be done at an npc in town, not in combat etc, all things that solves your points up there, your gem example would make sense if i would argue against a max number of skill, and i never did for one of the things you mentioned
so thanks for further showing that the issues against reskilling are artificial for the most part
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
