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

First of all, if you aren't playing on the "Hard" difficulty setting, you're feedback is going to be less useful.

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.

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.

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.

I don't believe I ever complained about the difficulty of Hard mode, and I'm not sure where you got that impression. I only pointed out why Hard mode was more difficult for certain classes than others - which is a problem in of itself, but I'll touch on that later. *

That the difficulty scales differently for Warriors (compared to Mages) between easy/normal/hard makes a comparison of a Warrior & Mage duo on Normal and a Warrior & Mage duo on Hard pointless. And yet I see a lot of "Well, I'm not seeing a problem with my Warrior & Mage team, but I'm playing on normal difficulty." That's pointless feedback when the original poster specified he was playing on Hard mode. Warrior are closer to being on par with Mages in Normal mode. The same is not true, however, in Hard mode. And so reviews from Normal mode are not adding anything useful to the discussion when the original poster was not complaining about balance from Normal mode to begin with.

Already disproven.
Furthermore, the OP simply states that melees are terrible. This also has been disproven and the difficulty is meaningless to this discussion.

A Warrior is NOT depending on more Stats than a Mage.
You need like 11 Str on level 16 for all Warrior Equipment and only his Damage is scaling with Str -> he can invest some Points into Speed for Damage ( more Ap ) or Con ( more max Ap / Life ) without Sacrifing too much.
While as a Mage i get Cooldown Reduction and Damage from Int.
So a Warrior can freely adjust his Points as he pleases I have to go Full Int because High Level Skills still have Cooldowns > 1 Turn.
So Int >>>> everything else as long as for example Earthquake and Chain Lightning dont have 1Turn Cooldown because i would severely Gimp myself with everything else.

So a Warrior really depends on 0 Stats while a Mage has to go Full Int.

And as i already said Stat Points are no Problem. You can only skill them to 15 ( which is done quite early ) and you can buy more Stat Points in the End of Time.

*In your opinion*, one which others obviously don't share. Warriors are impacted more by the difficulty changes than Mages. I'd love to know how you went about disproving a fact.

And I think the original poster put a little more thought behind his argument than you're doing now.

Interesting topic so far. Let me pose a hypothetical for you guys:

In a PvP setting, Warrior vs Caster, both Lone wolf and min-maxed for efficiency - Who do you think would win?

I'd imagine that a Warrior with heavy armor and higher resists, build as a mage-slayer would have the upperhand.

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).

Thank you, someone else who has actually tried melee on hard for longer than 5 minutes and understands. There are a ton of drawbacks to being melee, and none of the benefits justify them. Consider the following massive theoretical changes:

- Battering Ram : CD is reduced by 1 turn for each target hit, damage scales with strength instead of knockdown.
- Whirlwind : CD reduced from 6 turns to 1 turn.

Even if you did those things, which are massive, MASSIVE changes, melee would STILL suck. That's the point I'm making.

Ok, you misunderstood what I was talking about. In fact, I specifically said "viable within reason". Your examples are not what I would define as "reasonable". I suggest re-reading what I wrote again.

You describe a tactic that uses more than 2 turns, having "tanking,""patience," and "emergency." And claim that it is somehow better than 2 handers. Hahahaha

It's rather unfair to compare a glass cannon mage with a non-glass cannoned melee though.