Larian Studios Forums Divinity: Original Sin 2 Divinity - Original Sin 2 - General Talents and design thereof

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_2_perks

Is a good guide-line. They might seem random, but they are actually not. Very few of them affect combat and even fewer give you flat +damage and +universal AP. Talents adding damage should be avoided, for the reasons I mentioned above. Unifying theme can be "non-combat" with a few exceptions if necessary. The exceptions could be hard-to-increase statistics like critical strike chance or chance to hit, or making unarmed combat viable. I.e. something that is easy to balance around. The *higher* level talents can be combat oriented, but they should modify your existing abilities in a way that isn't +dmg. Like adding a stun to chain lightning if it doesn't have it before or fire spells lowering armor etc. Though it's better to avoid combat oriented perks in general, unless they are game changers like Lone Wolf.

You have to realize that, by giving us hodge-podge choices, they have to balance around none of them, because if they do balance around them they end up mandatory and not choices. Unless they make the hardest difficulty only beatable by min-maxers, then I'd be fine with whatever talents they throw in the pot. It still won't be good or elegant design, but at least the hodge-podge can be useful.

EDIT: The theme could also be "combat" and not have any non-combat perks. The point is that it should be coherent and follow its own internal logic. "Random" isn't logic :p

About 40% of the Fallout 2 Perks affect combat (and that's being generous and shifting a couple over to non-combat). That's not "very few". And why is adding talents for non-viable damage types (Hand-to-Hand) better than making said damage types viable in the first place?

In D:OS 1, a non-combat approach was not possible the same way it was in Fallout. D:OS 2 will probably be closer, but it still may not get all the way there.




Sorry, but I have absolutely no problem with the hodge-podge of talents in D:OS. I do not think it is a problem, never mind anything which needs to be solved.

I just think there are too few and a lot of what is there sucks.

There is one kind of F2 perks I do not like.
- Perk X increases skill Y by Z percent, if skill Y is already very high.

I think this kind of over specialization is not good.
I like the list of F1 better than the one of F2.

PS: Opening the link slows down my computer a lot.

I guess many people will prefer combat related feats over others.

I wrote a guide about character creation in NWN2 on gog.
Here is one thing I wrote:

When you cannot go on in this game, it is most likely because you cannot win a fight. A dumb char with no dialogue skills might not always get what he wants, but he will be able to finish the game.
When talking about good chars, I mean chars that are good in fighting.

This is also true in D:OS1+2. A char must be able to finish the game without social skills. Else social skills would be mandatory and you have no choice at all.

If you like role playing and you know the game, you can create whatever char you like. But beginners and min/maxers will most likely go for combat skills.

They affect combat, but they aren't combat perks, if that makes sense. 13 (those that affect combat without the exceptions I mentioned and I'm counting the resistences) out of 70 isn't 40% :p Besides, it's just a guide-line, fallout never had a perfect perk system. The *objective* problem of random talents is balancing. What you think of it has little bearing on the matter. Balance around combat talents = mandatory talents, No balance around combat talents = overpowered characters. There is no way around it.

That is easily rectified by having two systems that don't exclude each other. One for combat talents and one for non-combat. Actually, the whole problem will be fixed by having a dual system like this and allow us to have our cake and eat it too.

That would make things much more complicated.
Having 2 perk types (combat and non combat) would require the devs to create a much larger number of perks and they need to balance both kind of perks. I do not think this will happen.

The good thing about the perks in fallout is that all of them have only positive effects. This is something you chose in the game to make your char better. It is not like the background in arcanum (positive and negative effects). The main disadvantage of a perk is that you cannot chose another one instead. Of course, things look very different when you look at game changers like lone wolf or glass cannon.

They wouldn't need to create more perks. Just divide the current talents to combat and non-combat. They might feel a little on the few side, but it's better this way. Or just alternate between the combat and non-combat points granted by level-up. I.e on level 3 you get 1 combat point and on level 6 you gain 1 non-combat point. They don't balance anything at the moment because it's impossible. They would at least have a concept and logic to balance from. Social skills aren't balanced in the same way combat is, not really. Besides, nobody said game development is easy or fast. No art is.

Here I excerpted some of the Fallout talents frm the wiki:


In Fallout 2 there are many more talents than in D:OS most of them because you can increase skills like Gambling or First Aid or Doctor or Outdoorsman or Speech or...
Then there is a lot that increase dialog statistics.
Then there are many that are for combat, like unarmed or +criticals.
Then there are things that could have fit into D:OS, like "Fortune Finder".
A really few of them are utility perks (and not dialogue related) like

Vice versa you cannot find most of the game changers of D:OS in Fallout like Zombie, Comeback Kid and Lone Wolf. This is the main difference. [I did not use it but I like Zombie more than the other talents because it could be the groundwork of an entire built and not per se balanced or unbalanced]

Actually it is hard to find non-equivalent talents from both games. Mostly there are just more of them in Fallout 2. And their talents are much less daring, more comparable, less situational and hence more balanced. (although +2 ability points as a talent was underpowered for other reasons, the number should have increased by level)

No, it does not make sense.

And I counted 29 (out of 68) as combat perks (and I considered resistances as non-combat). Of course, you arbitrarily decided that ones that affected Hand-to-Hand combat didn't count as combat perks for *reasons*

Sorry, I can't agree with a definition that narrow.





Is there mandatory combat in D:OS 2? I don't know, but my guess is "yes". Probably not just the "generic enemies in the woods" combat too, but main-quest "you must fight this boss to pass" combat.

If there are no mandatory fights, then combat talents are non-mandatory. If there are mandatory fights, then having mandatory combat talents is not inherently wrong. Combat IS a major part of the game. Why on earth should anything affecting combat be arbitrarily excluded?

You shout "think of the balance", but the thing is that there is not just one type of combat style, but a lot of them. And so there is not just one combat talent, but a lot of different talents. Which talents in particular are good depends on your character.

There are (or should be, at least) no "no-brainer" Talents which everyone should or will take. If there are no universally great Talents, then the balance is less about talents and more about builds.

---

I'd like Talents to go in the direction of specialization. For example, I proposed a revised Demon Talent for D:OS 1, which would boost the (Talent + gear) cap on fire resistance from 80% to 120%, but lowers the (Talent + gear) cap on the other elemental resistances from 80% to 40%. This produces someone who could heal from fire, but is weaker against other elements.

If there are mandatory talents, then why give choice? Everything I say is based on the assumption that we want choices. Mandatory talents are pointless, just work them into the characters instead of giving us the choice to pick them up. And the "reasons" I state aren't random and not thought-out, they are actual reasons that have basis in reality. I explained multiple times what the logic is. If we hand-wave whatever reason we are presented with then we'll never get anywhere. Sure, Fallout wasn't a very good example and it strains my arguments too much. My arguments are still sound, though, regardless of my example being bad.

P.S I'm still talking about flat +damage (in whatever context) and +universal AP kind of talents.

I think Stabbey's point is that in a game where combat is mandatory, it's somewhat expected that you'll take at least a couple purely combat talents (i.e., the game is balanced with each character taking at least a couple purely combat talents), but none of those particular combat talents are required. And ultimately, all talents and player skills tend to contribute to combat prowess in indirect ways anyway. If you're a skilled barterer and talents help you get good gear or items, even if you sacrifice a certain amount of combat skills to become a good barterer, the extra gear and items you get will at least partially make up for your smaller investment in direct combat skills or talents.

I don't see what makes +damage/+AP talents so special. They just need to be balanced correctly so they're not the obvious choice. I think Bully could drop down to 20-25% damage bonus, and Glass Cannon could drop from 100% AP bonus to 50% AP bonus. On the other hand, Anaconda with its mere 10% bonus for maces only is pretty useless. They could add stun chance or a sunder armor effect to all bludgeoning attacks and that'd more interesting. What A Rush is a pretty situational AP bonus.

Where has anyone said that they balanced around having some of the combat talents? It's blindingly obvious that they didn't lulz, but if you have some info and source I'd be glad to look it over. I've explained multiple times why dmg/ap talents are not conducive to balance. Balancing around them = mandatory talents = pointless = underpowered characters who don't have them; Not balancing around them = overpowered characters = boring (for people who like challenge). If you make them so underwhelming that even balancing around them doesn't change anything, then why have them? Adding on top of existing abilities, like a chance to stun isn't the most fluid design imaginable, but it's a bit better than pure, no-brainer +dmg/ap. Game Changers like Lone Wolf and Glass Cannon are fine in theory, but they need number crunching and tweaking. Combat being mandatory is the intial problem. It's always, *always* a good choice to pick up a no brainer like +dmg, but it isn't very clear on the social skills.

Disclaimer: All my arguments stem from the initial assumption that we want valid choices and a balanced game. If you don't want these things then this isn't the thread for you. OK, that's a bit harsh, it sounds like "if you don't agree with me then shut up", that's not my intention. It's just that some posters aren't clear on what I'm trying to achieve and talk about, or at least I think they aren't clear.

Quick, point out to me any single Talent in D:OS that is absolutely mandatory for every single possible build, and I mean EVERY build. If you can't, then stop setting up your strawman.

Not even one. That's because it wasn't balanced around talents at all, like I said in literally the second sentence in my last post. What has that got to do with anything?

I'm very much an advocate for balance, and it's definitely an insanely hard thing to pull off. The talents were poorly balanced, but I imagine they took them into account at least somewhat in D:OS, and I'm sure much moreso in the EE. I can't imagine they just threw the talents in at the end without tweaking anything with them in mind, but who knows? I wouldn't say it's obvious that they didn't consider their effect on balance.

To make all talents seem valuable, they need to make social skills just as important as combat ones.

This wasn't necessarily the case in D:OS1, but with the importance of origin stories and 7 writers on the team, I think it's much more clear that building someone who's a social idiot with insane combat skills won't necessarily do as well as a more rounded character, especially with competitive questing. Take the Dwarf getting into the town example. A meathead will have to go around and other characters might have a headstart on other factors, but a charismatic dwarf might be able to get in right away.

I imagine tons of situations where characters with social skills or talents will be able to obtain allies, items, more ideal quest solutions, etc. compared to a meathead. In that way, +damage talents like Bully will be useful of course, but so will something like Pet Pal or Politician. A meathead might beat a more social character in a 1v1 fight, or kill monsters faster, but they could lose out on other situations. Getting an ideal quest solution is often more satisfying than being able to kill everything. And, as I said before, social skills often earn you things that aid you in combat anyway, but maybe not quite as much as direct combat skills.

Probably the best way to deal with maintaining a challenge is just to have enough difficulty levels to satisfy everyone. I'm imagining Easy: combat is trivial, Normal: combat still pretty easy but not a pushover, Hard: combat is decently hard, but most non-idiotic builds will still prevail, Hardcore: Only really smart players and min-maxers will survive.

I still don't really understand what theme you want talents to go under. Splitting social and combat talents COULD work and make balancing a little easier, but that means a lot more talents. There's only like 5 social talents right now. Keeping them in one list seems fine to me and makes for more meaningful decisions (do I sacrifice combat prowess for social skills, or vice versa?)

Yeah, I'm a big fan of difficulty settings and I think I've mentioned that difficulty settings provide a way to have our cake and eat it too.



That's a fair point and it does add the dimension of choosing what you want your character to be. The problems arise when you take into account that D:OS was a very combat heavy game. Its difficulty was trivial, so your choices of talents didn't matter in a combat context, but what if it was more challenging and they did? You'd hardly have any choice because of the aforementioned combat-heaviness. If you could use your social skills to skip all/almost all fights except the most trivial of them that don't require any kind of combat talent investment, then great.

This over-reliance on combat is the true core of the issue. The difficulty was the only saving grace of the talents, because it was obvious that most of them were kind of thrown in there as last-minute ideas. The problem would be more pronounced if the combat was harder, like I said. Apart from splitting combat and social talents or NOT having any +dmg/+ap talents at all, and mostly avoiding combat talents in general, the other solution would be to make any playstyle viable to reach the end.

VTMB is a good example (at least the first 2/3rds) - it was balanced very well in the first 2/3rds of the game. Characters *focused* on any one of the main ways (combat, stealth, social) could progress. They ran out of time/money at the end and it's just a shooting gallery from then on, you were screwed if you neglected your combat skills. This way relies *heavily* on good writing though, and is much harder than endless combat arenas.

I looked at D:OS1 again to see how character creation is done. I think D:OS has one of the best character systems I know and talents are NOT a big problem in this game.

My biggest problem (regarding perks) was, that dialogue choices gave you such things. You answer one time in a spiritual way and you are fearless forever (until you answer in an opposite way). People chose answer A over answer B because they wanted perk A, not because answer A made sense for this char in this situation.

The biggest problem in D:OS1 was that my chars had no personality. They were a set of stats and skills walking around, solving quests and do lots of fighting. But in D:OS2 other chars will react to your race, background and reputation, so there is also improvement.

I think the devs do most things right. Keep the stat system similar to D:OS1 and use your many new writers to make more and more interesting character interactions (party members among each other when working together or against each other, and how party members interact with other people in the world.)

regarding the last posts: Both D:OS1+2 have lots of fighting that cannot be avoided so it makes sense that players chose combat related talents. Things would look different if there was a peaceful solution for most hard encounters, but I do not think this will happen.

They weren't because they didn't matter in a combat context. That's what we (I) are trying to avoid in the sequel.



Don't get me started on perks. I'd just remove the whole concept. We aren't talking about them, because I totally forgot about them. They were even worse lulz.



They were virtually blank slates. Most other characters and npcs are flamboyant and outspoken enough though, just like in all Larian games. They might not be serious or deep, but eeehh. It's either blank slate with no true involvement in the story because you don't exist, not really, you are just a problem solving machine; OR forcing some kind of backstory on your characters. That isn't bad at all, though. KotOR2 managed to perform miracles with a backstory for the PC. Torment as well. Though to be fair, they are introducing "origins", but by "origins" they truly mean backstories. If they could explore and develop all of them in a meaningful and non-trivial manner throughout the game it will be great. Though I somehow think the origins are just going to be gimmicks.



There is room for improvement in the stat department as well, but I will have more in-depth thoughts when the EE comes out.



Exactly. That's why we need a more thought-out talent system, because the combat isn't going to be avoidable (maybe, we'll see).

Well, I think we agree on some things and disagree on others. I also think traits giving stat bonuses is a bit dubious. Neat in theory, but in practice, it tends to encourage people to roleplay in a certain way to gain certain bonuses. And also, some bonuses are way better than others. I don't think it's a huge issue, but I hope they affect dialogs and stuff more so if there's stat bonuses, that won't really be the biggest consideration. I mean, the player's moral concerns should be the biggest consideration anyway, but some people need a bigger push.

I really don't think the origins are going to be gimmicks. They're going to have huge impacts on the game. Maybe not every single area will have unique things for each origin, but they very well could. If the demo was any indication of how origins and race will affect quest possibilities and character reactions throughout the game, we're in for a highly reactive world. I'm sure Larian has more money to spend on D:OS2 than D:OS1, not event counting the kickstarter, since D:OS1 was so successful.

Another way to deal with your concern of combat being balanced with or without combat talents in mind is to make a bunch of entirely optional, very difficult fights. So someone with a shitty build for combat might have a really hard time winning these fights, but they won't need to win these fights to get through the game. The arena will be a good place to do this, as well as various sidequests, maybe somehow marked as "challenge quests" or something with a disclaimer to explain that these are quests with hard as hell fights only for the most hardcore. Probably people will still complain about that, but people will complain no matter what.