Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - General Game Balance : Melee is terrible

Nonsense. You can just as easily invest a little into either magic, scoundrel or expert marksman to broaden the available tools for a warrior.



Plenty of games in which mages weren't great and warriors were top. Also most of the time these "facts" are getting blown out of proportion so much it is not funny anymore.

Obviously a spellcaster is not going to get all 50+ spells, but there are a lot more viable and worthwhile options than MoA provides. And there is no reason a spellcaster couldn't dip a little to get those Scoundrel skills as well. The point is a spellcaster can focus on INT only and gets tons of variety and depth. A class that focuses on STR or DEX cannot do the same. DEX is a bit better off due to the variety of arrowheads though.

And spellcasters can do the same to cherrypick the lowhanging MoA/Marksman/Scoundrel fruit as well. The point is, by focusing on INT you get access to a lot more skills than you do by focusing STR or DEX.


And this isn't one of them. What's wrong with expecting some semblance of class balance?

And if spellcasters think they can really access all 5 schools of magic, you're high.

You're not going to have enough points and you'll be bleeding ap left and right because your skill level is not high enough. Stop theorizing and actually address the game. The mage might have access to 50+ abilities but he will never use them all because they severely gimp his effectiveness.

There is nothing wrong with two handed melee or sword and shield melee. You don't even understand how to play the game.

Two handed melee are great damage dealers while sword and shield melee can rush to the enemy backline and survive on their own without any need for support from your other characters.

It must be wonderful to have 200 skill points to get all these 50+ spells and scoundrel and MoA and Marksman....



I doubt at this point many have really played a Sword and Board warrior like this since my experience is that ranged enemies mostly focus those who are closest to them which is actually logical since those pose the highest threat to them.
Most seem to think they just crash into the front lines and the AI is stupid enough to just focus them while the rest of your team sits back and trashes them.

I instist that if you think Warriors are UP you haven't gotten far yet.
For me at lvl 12-13 Flurry totals 1000-2000 damage unbuffed, 2000-4000 damage if buffed. Mages can't beat that.
Also, meleers are terribly resistant if you stack armor/resistance properly.

Here is the trick:
- Rage +50% damage
- Oath +50% damage
- Melee Power Stance +30%
- Bully +50%

That's +180% damage (almost triple damage) on a class that hits for at least 40% more damage than mages of the same level (providing you have good gear).

Also get your critical chance as high as possible with both traits and modifiers.

They just suck in the EARLY game because you don't have the gear/skills to make them work.

PS: I'm talking 2H warriors btw. Haven't tried 1h+shield.

The main problem early on is AP mostly imho. Once you get 3 in armor skill they are mobile enough without Battering Ram that they can just crash into the biggest pile and lay waste in a manner no wizard can ever hope to achieve or rather has to waste 1/2 to 1/3 of his AP for a summon and hope it survives more than 1 round while the warrior can just be his own tank and continue beating the crap out of them.

Yes yes, this. Armor skill to 3-5 is good for AP.

I use 2 2h Warriors, 1 Rogue and 1 Mage, everything goes smoothly on Hard.
Even the hardest enemy can't stand the gorillions of damage coming at them from meleers.

You don't need 200 skill points to get the best skills/spells from all the skill lines. With ~50 you can focus on a couple spellcasting skill lines and dip one or three points into most others and get the vast majority.



And despite my best efforts, you don't even understand my (or OP's) arguement. Sad.

A couple? You mean 2? Phew good we cleared that up. So just like melees mages are best when they focus on 1-2 main categories and maybe get a splash from others for some added utility/survivability in.
Really glad we agree on that finally.

Oh on the contrary, I understand you very well, it just seems to elude you that you are grossly exaggerating especially when you claim that melees are terrible when it has already been shown that melees are strong and can do very well in any group composition even melee heavy with "only" one mage.

At most I can agree with that it would be nice to get 1-2 more melee orientated skill lines into the game but that is a completely different matter.

LOL

/close thread

D&D is a bad example, especially 2.0 where mages become pretty godlike post level 20.

In most games actually warriors and mages feel pretty samey, to the point where swords are as powerful as meteors falling out of the sky. So far, D:OS seems to handle glass cannon mages fairly well (that talent is very good at balancing things out). Mages feel like a destructive force with some high risk, which is what I look for. We'll see how that opinion changes throughout the game...

This thread is like a train wreck that you can't look away from lol

Melee gets better later in the game. You need to stop building him as a pure tank and invest stats into damage.

The problem is that Ranged and Magic users can be "less optimized" and still get by, while a melee character needs to be fully optimized to be OP -- otherwise she becomes useless until very late in the game.

For example, a magic user should try to max 2 magic schools so he doesn't stretch himself too thin, but he can invest 1 or 2 skill points in another magic school or even in utility skills like Lockpicking and get by. He can also diversify his Attribute selection, e.g. going +5 INT/+1 SPEED or +3 INT/+2 SPEED and get by.

The melee character needs to be more optimized than that, otherwise she'll die early in combat when she gets focused/CC'd, or risk becoming a meat shield tank that doesn't aggro properly (as in the OP's case).

In other words: If you know how to play melee, she's great. If not, you're f--ed.

What are your thoughts of Glass Cannon without Lone Wolf?

Melee is perfectly viable, hell it's even overpowered with certain builds and is completely destroying everything, while spells struggle to stay relevant damage wise later in the game.

GIT
U
D

Sounds like the reverse of D&D.

In addition to thanking the original poster for starting off with a well reasoned post, I just want to address some of the responses in this thread.

First of all, if you aren't playing on the "Hard" difficulty setting, you're feedback is going to be less useful. The problem is the Hard difficulty setting decreases your vitality (and your chance of hitting), which makes Man-at-Arms talents like "Picture of Health" less effective. And, as we all know, Mages can ignore the to-hit penalty Hard difficulty brings where as Warriors can not. Thus, "Hard" mode is actually harder on Warriors than it is Mages, and the balance between the two is quite different on Hard mode versus Normal or Easy (both of which actually receive a Vitality *bonus* rather than a penalty).

Second, if your advice consists of something that can be summarized as "Execute maneuver 38!" - that is, you're advising someone to beat each encounter by approaching it with a specific assortment of skills used in a specific order with specific classes, you're not being helpful. The whole point of this game is to not have everyone forced into one mold.

Third, I see a lot of people making the mistake of trying to define what a Warrior's role is supposed to be. It shouldn't have to be only a tank, nor should it have to be only a damage dealer. Another big point of this game is to have a classes system where you can build the type of Warrior you personally prefer, and they should all be viable within reason.

That also brings us to "the proper party". There is no "proper party" make up, especially when players have the option of using anywhere from two to four characters and expecting a relatively balanced experience either way. If your response insists that every group should have a specific class of character (e.g. Warrior) filling a specific role (e.g. Tank), you're not helping.

Also, I've seen post suggesting several different abilities should be raised to "5" in order to create an effective character. A single ability at 5 is a huge investment, requiring almost one-third of the total ability points you receive on your journey to level 20 (assuming you're not using Lone Wolf). Yes, you are obviously supposed to rely on bonuses from gear to help get you there, but that depends on luck with RNG and can only help you so many ways (that is, there are only so many body parts to cover with equipment, and thus a fixed number of opportunities to modify your ability and attribute scores).

Using the effectiveness of "Legendary" equipment as part of a balance argument is just silly. Again, RNG. Congrats on your toy, not everyone has it.

Finally, one of the big problems (I believe) are the Attributes (STR, DEX, INT, etc). In my opinion none of the attributes should ever have a direct impact on anything beyond a secondary attribute that can not be directly modified by the player (which in turn directly impacts everything). In other word, Warrior gear should not be Strength dependent. Instead it should be "Might" (or whatever) dependent, with "Might" equaling some combination of Strength, Constitution, and Speed - all attributes that are vital to a Warrior, yet no single one of them should define a Warrior.

This would allow for a greater variety of builds while not leaving players feeling like they must pool most of their Attribute points into a single stat in order to keep up with gear requirements. And if something similar is applied to DEX and INT dependent characters, it can help alleviate the concern that Warriors depend on too many stats while Mages depend on too few.

Gyson, that doesnt make alot of sense. First your talking about hard mode. Its supposed to be HARD(Shocker...). Now your saying its harder for melee then it is for mages, but....who cares ? I mean look you selected hard for a reason and even though this game is multiplayer its co-op. So your never in direct competition with anyone which you could then justifiably complain about. If you like playing melee and the game is TOO HARD for melee in hard mode then turn the dial down. The challenge level is completely up to you, and if they buff warriors then people will start complaining that hard mode is too easy for warriors.

Your also arguing that you dont want to have to use a specific skill or technique and that people shouldnt define what the role of a warrior is....but let me throw that back at you - I want to play a mage that runs into the middle of 10 monsters and kicks butt in melee range. How well do you think Id do ? Maybe I dont want the mage to be defined as a ranged damage dealer...oh wait, thats really kinda what they are designed to be. The minute I go battlemage class I start running into the same problems your complaining about because I now need str+speed+int and thats a problem. So yes, warriors are designed to be close up damage dealers or tanks, if you want a hybrid, just like the battlemage, your going to make things harder on yourself.

Lastly, Almost everyone in this thread seems to be missing crafting stats. There is no rng for crafting. You use certain components to give you the stats you want. Which means you can craft weapons/armor that all add speed for example which will increase you mobility. Though I havent made any yet, I did see a recipe list that indicated you could add action points with some items. Also you can pretty easily just at 1 point in the rogue and ranger lines and end up with 3 teleport type movements and the ram as well.

Im sorry but what it really feels like is people wanting to be overpowered. You want the best armor/defenses + the best damage + the best mobility. Warriors are fine.

In Divine Divinity & Divinity 2 warriors were crap compared to mages/rangers until later levels. It seems nothing has changed much.