i'm wondering if you two are working with different definitions of "imbalance"?

personally, i totally agree with stabbey - having skills in the game that are almost never worth using contributes to nobody's experience and only narrows possible strategies by making it strictly disadvantageous to use certain skills over others; assassinate is a perfect example, deep freeze is another (4 AP for its effect is a complete joke, that's the same amount of AP that most tier 3 source spells cost and those spells are exponentially more worthwhile, even with the source cost)

but to your point, i understand that you want there to be options that aren't considered "optimal" in order to not make the game feel like a breeze. truth be told, that isn't really for the developers to decide. if i feel like a challenge, i'll run sub-optimal builds like hybrid characters with split stats, since that's much less effective than a pure mage or warrior or rogue, but can add fun flavour to the experience. if you want to play in a way that isn't the most strategically sound then that's on the individual player to decide. i don't think this really has anything to do with improving certain skills that aren't of any real use to players under normal circumstances, and i think improving those skills will only lead to more different and fun builds that can be run on tactician or honour mode

in short, if you want to intentionally make subpar decisions to make the game harder for yourself then that's fine, and doing so will always be possible regardless of where "balance" goes. however, i do think larian should continue to update this game and make more skills and options viable for players

edit: accidentally posted this halfway through, oops

Last edited by miaasma; 19/10/19 11:29 PM.