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
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.
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.
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.
