Originally Posted by Stabbey
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.


Quote
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


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.


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.