The Passive Tree should be the same across all classes.
" It would make classes obsolete to... add minion damage to a 16% spell damage node across the board, that requires crawling into the level 1 witch start to get? Because ascendancy isn't a thing, I see. So I can just slot titan's bag increase in without any prereqs, because adding 16 minion damage to a slot at level 1 in case a player on marauder wants to waste his time going there would 'invalidate classes.' ??? Gambling addiction means that I win more than you do.
|
|
" That's what I'm saying, its so minor too, but it sets a bad precedent! Gambling addiction means that I win more than you do.
|
|
" "this class is for this thing" was already shoved on you and baked into your choices as soon as the characters started on different parts of the circle. If you want to do a poison build, you pick a character that starts where the poison nodes are. If you want to do a minion build, you pick a character that starts where the minion nodes are. Nobody is going to make a poison build Templar. Add to that ascendency, and the build types are very baked into your choices. Even if it wasn't already the case that nobody will make a poison Templar because of the circle, they're especially not going to make a poison Templar when that means not having Pathfinder's poison skills. I would never make a minion Sorc, because then I wouldn't have Infernalists minion ascension nodes. No Sorc I ever made would ever take any minion nodes anyway. So it's good that something else actually useful to a Sorc is there. That aside, there should absolutely be real, tangible, significant differences between the characters. Otherwise, there's no point in there being characters. If a build type doesn't coincide with one of the character options, then there's no basis for picking any of the character options for that build. How, then, would you choose? Currently, when deciding to run poison it takes half a second to pick Pathfinder and be happy with my build decisions. Because that class is for that thing, and other class is for other thing. If there was no level of "this class for that build" then when thinking to run poison I'd be sitting in the character selector, having no reason to pick any of them, until I logged out without making the character. Undoubtedly, I want to decide what build I'm doing first, then pick whichever of the characters is the best aligned with that build. Which requires them to have build-affecting differences. Such as having the tree be a little different based on which character you are. That is a positive. Last edited by The_Song#4903 on Jan 6, 2025, 7:07:19 AM
|
|
" Yeah, that's right. It won't happen...get used to it. |
|
" what are you talking about? POE1: Each class has the same tree but starts at a different location. POE2: Each class has the same tree but starts at the center of the tree with a different starting point. They are both the exact same system. All classes in each game share the same big tree, each node on the tree is the same for each class in each of the poe games. The only difference is, that POE1 has all the classes visibly on the tree whereas POE2 got rid of that for more clarity and overview, showing only the class played in the center of the tree. We still have to work around starting at different nodes on the tree for different classes. I really dont get why this is a problem. Why not make only one class and let us chose the ascendancy in our first trail. Like, what would that even lead to. PoE 1 + 2 are games where we have to solve problems, this is what makes creating builds fun and creates differences between certain archetypes and builds. And starting in different areas is one of those obstacles that require problem solving for certain approaches. Not every class suits every archetype the same way. This is required, mandatory, intended. I dont understand how such a basic pillar of PoE game design could be worth an argument. if you nerf 10 gems out of 30, you automatically buff the other 20!
|
|
|
There still is an issue with how the tree is done.
I'm all for the starting nodes to be different for each classes, but there is a problem concerning other starting areas. For example let's take the witch and sorceress. The witch has its own start, the sorceress has its own start. But if you start with another class, monk or ranger for example, you'll see that all the int nodes are sorceress nodes. That means that only the witch gets its own starting nodes. That I think, is a problem balance wise. Because if you want to make an elemental build with monk or templar for example, you can go up and pick sorceress' nodes. But if you're playing a minion build, you don't have the option to go to the witch area because its not accessible, you're forced with the sorceress' start. For that I have 2 propositions : 1. make a general base tree and on top of it, add a custom starting area for the class. That way, the sorceress and witch have their own exclusive start, but for every other class, the int start will be a general weaker start, similar to how poe 1 witch start is, with one minion branch, one elemental branch, one spell branch. 2. leave it has it is but link different offstart to different classes. Like make sorceress, druid, warrior, mercenary, ranger and monk share the same starting areas and witch, templar, shadow, marauder, duelist, huntress share their starting area. That way if you pick templar, you get access to witch area and if you pick druid you get access to sorceress area, so witch now isn't isolated. Last edited by sajahvarel#5154 on Jan 6, 2025, 7:28:15 AM
|
|
" Incorrect. Each starting area is going to have 3 version in poe2. One for each of the classes that actually starts there, and a third generic one for any other class. Currently we can already see that the Witch has some of the spell nodes replaced with minion nodes nobody else gets. |
|
" We agree the Tree is a WIP. Could you clarify what you meant by 'int nodes'? Ranger and especially Monk have decent proximity to a couple Notables that award >5 Int (monk needs to allocate at least 19 to reach +25Int, Ranger 26!). I don't see a great disparity between Witch and Sorc, they both have a minimum 17 nodes distance from the +25 Int (Ranger & Monk are both 15 nodes away from the +25 Dex). edit: for completeness War is at a minimum 11 nodes from +25 STR while merc requires 15. Given the inherent Attribute synergy for Gemlings, thats probably for the best. Last edited by LeFlesh#9979 on Jan 6, 2025, 7:44:19 AM
|
|
" I'm just using the old poe 1 tree section. You know witch int, ranger is dex, templar is str/int. I could have said north side. I'm not talking about the actual nodes. Last edited by sajahvarel#5154 on Jan 6, 2025, 7:47:11 AM
|
|
" Check starting nodes of Witch and Sorceress. They are different. The same will be true for all dual class from the same starting point. Which means that in PoE2 characters don't have the same tree. |
|
