Larian Studios Forums Divinity: Original Sin 2 Divinity - Original Sin 2 - General One Vote decides two skill trees?

Unarmed combatants could actually throw enemies around, use grapples, all sorts of things that physical fighters right now cannot do, which would be realy great for teamplay.
Pin down an enemy and have your friend stab him in the gut.

Bards for the most part tend to be either hybrids or buffers, which in a party based game is ok.

Alchemist could be realy cool, throwing other potions like granades? damn right! Poisons? Yes please.

Imagine what kinda stuff you could do with that. Instead of having to use abilities, you could make your normal attacks have all kinds of effects based on the poisons.

Such as imagine having a poison that makes your enemy incorporeal, making him unable to participate in the fight, or have a poison that disintigrates his armor.

Imagine throwing health potions as a ranged heal, imagine having potions as a form of liquid. Like Acid or Water.

Imagine throwing a pool of healing potion on the ground healing anyone that stands in it, how cool would that be? Or a pool of fire resistance potion? Crazy stuff like that!

None of this is any different to what mages can do or could be made to do. Of course, an alchemist would have their own group of abilities, so when implemented it would be easy to differentiate them.

However, the conceptual differentiation is that alchemists are forced to craft their spells ahead of time. This adds a whole new crafting minigame that -- to me -- really seems more like tedious micromanagement than anything fun. Crafting a weapons and armour is kind of fun, but having to collect the ingredients and craft every potion for every action I want to perform in combat ahead of time sounds tedious.

That said, I fully support the concept of the Full Metal Alchemist variety of "alchemy". That looks fun.

And thats the point, but you have it the wrong way.

WHY would we make this into something a mage does when you might aswell have a martial do it?
Even tho i dont agree with you because no a mage would not grapple or throw enemies.

So far there are 3 trees that arent mage based. Only ONE of them is a fighter tree.
one is the rogue tree and one is the archer tree.
Then you got 5 mage trees.

WHY would we need more mages?
All these trees are based on the same stat. Why would we want more mages when Martials could do all these things?

I was referring specifically to the alchemist.

But I'll address the unarmed combatant:

Grapples could be interesting, and it'd be nice to have more non-mage abilities. But the problem with building this into an "unarmed combatant" is that it's restrictive instead of additive. When you build a warrior with a weapon, you can't just start investing points in unarmed in the same way as a fire mage can invest points in water magic.

In D:OS, Larian have done a much better job of creating cohesion between the magic skill groups. As a mage, you might cast an earth spell to lay down some oil and then immediately follow-up with a fire spell to set it all on fire. How awesome is that?

But a warrior/rogue? You could get bow skills but you'll need to equip a bow. You could get melee skills but you need to use a melee weapon. If we'd voted differently, we could have gotten unarmed skills, but then you'd need to ditch your weapon entirely. All of these skill groups basically mandate that once you pick your skill group you have little room left for any creativity. The closest I ever got to this was by combining Bull Rush with Bully to deal some bonus damage, but it was hard to pull off.

For the record, my first vote actually went to the Juggernaut because it could potentially open up some skills that could be added to the other martial skills, instead of just creating a new niche.

Who says you will have to be unarmed to use unarmed skills?

It could easily be viable with a weapon drawn, but just not gain benefit from it.

OR have a specific Unarmed combatant weapon that is compatible with the Marshal skillsets.

You're right. It's a silly assumption that being unarmed means not being armed.


Absolutely. The "unarmed" title is a little misleading as Larian planned to provide "unarmed" weapons such as knuckle dusters and claws. However, standard weapons such as swords were explicitly out-of-scope for an effective unarmed combatant.

The effect is that armed and unarmed specialisations will be incompatible.

If the skill group were labelled "marshal" or "brawler" or "grappler" or whatever and lacked the weapon-restrictions then I would definitely be more supportive of this.