Shapeshifting should have been tied to a druid ascendancy not weapons.

"

baconbyte#0146 เขียน:

"

lupasvasile#5385 เขียน:

If a witch can use crossbows as well as a mercenary then what is the point of having 2 different classes? The insignificant amount of differences between them does not justify it.

Nodes on the passive tree can be and are different depending on the class....

Thankfully, that's one thing that's keeping the whole class thing divided.
Still hate the Ascendancies though, way too open to interpretation.

Skill gems are tied to weapons.

Shapeshifting skills are skill gems that cause you to shapeshift.

Infernalist demon form is not a skill gem and is one node that transforms you for a period of time without needing to use a skill gem.

"

Ispita#4020 เขียน:

Nobody plays sorc with quarterstaffs. How did it not work with druid then? This is obviously a flaw in the design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puiHHBnQX5U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpAdVRJzAog

"

StrykerxS77x#8221 เขียน:

"

FipsDieGrille#2655 เขียน:

what i said is completely true. the demon form does not have own skills. Shocking that you do not see the difference. You still do not understand the game design. Locking shapeshifting to druid would be stupid. And it was clear from the beginning that it will not be like this. sorry, if that surprised you but then you did not understand the game.

You said "no ascendancy is necessary for anything" which isnt true. There is literally a different form in the game right now gated behind an ascendancy. If you gate some things then clearly some people are going to assume the shapeshifting advertised with Druids was for Druids specifically.

At this point it is just complete ignorance. Sorry i did not choose my words that properly for you not to misunderstand them. Still, for anyone knowing the least about PoE it was clear that shapeshifting will be tied to the weapon. And as i have posted the part of the interview, it will stay this way, no matter how often people will ask for having a shitty class system like any other game out there.

"

LexBolt#0100 เขียน:

"

Ispita#4020 เขียน:

"

Jideament#2792 เขียน:

Nobody plays sorc with quarterstaffs. How did it not work with druid then? This is obviously a flaw in the design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puiHHBnQX5U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpAdVRJzAog

It sometimes makes me sick that you people can't even properly quote a post, yet you try to play such a complicated game. I didn't write it, that's their quote.

"

Direfell#7544 เขียน:

"

Ispita#4020 เขียน:

Nobody plays sorc with quarterstaffs.

I did. But I moved on to quarterstaff on witch.

Yes you and maybe let me check... yes the other 5 people did play that not 95% of the playerbase that wanted to play monk archetype that played monk.

"

yosheee89#3525 เขียน:

Skill gems are tied to weapons.

Shapeshifting skills are skill gems that cause you to shapeshift.

This is just a matter of perspective. They could have coded it any other way they like.

"

Jideament#2792 เขียน:

It sometimes makes me sick that you people can't even properly quote a post, yet you try to play such a complicated game. I didn't write it, that's their quote.

It sometimes makes me sick when people overreact and pretend they've been mortally wounded. All you had to do was ask me to correct the mistake.

It's done. You're welcome.

"

Ispita#4020 เขียน:

"

Direfell#7544 เขียน:

"

Ispita#4020 เขียน:

Nobody plays sorc with quarterstaffs.

I did. But I moved on to quarterstaff on witch.

Yes you and maybe let me check... yes the other 5 people did play that not 95% of the playerbase that wanted to play monk archetype that played monk.

Goalpost shifting. You claimed nobody did it and are now shifting to few people have done it. But let's assume you were writing rhetorically....

Yes, a few people have been particularly creative and come up with powerful builds doing so while most have preferred to follow the crowd and play a sea of Deadeyes. And? If you want to play a shapeshifting druid you can...but other concept involving shapeshifting exist and tying the ability to weapon enables them.

"

LexBolt#0100 เขียน:

It sometimes makes me sick when people overreact and pretend they've been mortally wounded. All you had to do was ask me to correct the mistake.

No, I don't have to do or ask anything to anyone.

"

Ispita#4020 เขียน:

"

Direfell#7544 เขียน:

"

Ispita#4020 เขียน:

Nobody plays sorc with quarterstaffs.

I did. But I moved on to quarterstaff on witch.

Yes you and maybe let me check... yes the other 5 people did play that not 95% of the playerbase that wanted to play monk archetype that played monk.

"

yosheee89#3525 เขียน:

Skill gems are tied to weapons.

Shapeshifting skills are skill gems that cause you to shapeshift.

This is just a matter of perspective. They could have coded it any other way they like.

The perspective expression is very accurate, and it's one of the few things that bothered me a lot in PoE2. Why can I cast spells with all the other weapons? This is GGG's "we do it this way, you have to adapt" mentality again. I wish I could use some of the mace slam abilities with spears too.

This is incredibly simplistic and contradictory from a design standpoint. If you do this, you were supposed to say "only druids can use talismans, and their abilities only work with talismans," which isn't something I, or many players, want to see. So weapon restrictions are just an old RPG tradition, and I think it makes the game boring. Just like the forced-campaign-content which I've to play for 100000000000th time since 2013 PoE1 times and I'm at this point thinking about hiring a kid to do that for me with cash.

"Shapeshifting should have been tied to a druid ascendancy not weapons"

nope. thats not how POE works.
im pretty excited to see the neat things that come of shapeshifting being available to all classes. i think weapon swap gains a load of potential here.

"

Ispita#4020 เขียน:

Everybody is theorycrafting...

first damn thing you do in this thread is admit that you are killing your own enjoyment by worrying about what other people are going to potentially do, maybe. smh.