Valour points.

[Korhilus]

Too many skills and too few Valour points.

With a squad of 6 people and a tent of 7 points, the average is 1 per person.
Take a knight with a shield, 1 for a counter attack, 1 for a shield, 1 for healing or provocation - 3 points for 1 round.
Or an assassin, 2 points for 3 hits and 2 points for 50% damage amplification - 5 per round.

And what's the point of having so many skills if Valor points are not enough even for 1 full round?

The simplest solution is to make some of the skills free, but with a recharge of 2-3 rounds. The fight lasts 3-4 rounds on average.

[SumEdd]

I have to disagree. You already have the advantage of position and turn choice, so getting free recharge skills will just make it unbalanced. Unless you are suggesting the other side gets the same.

What I find is it forces me to make choices as to which of the enemies I have to kill this round, and how (i.e. who will get to use their skills from the shared pool).

But two things that will offset it, having in the final game more valour point adding structures, or just a higher tent limit. And, perhaps a basic skill tree that will allow you to pick skills, level up certain ones with tiers, and a skills that are generally more useful for the valour points they require.

(also I said the same thing about Wraith, 50% damage for 2 points, being useless and outclassed by level 3 skills in my feature suggestion thread. Basically only useful for a first strike warrior (+100% damage first skill, so maybe +300% altogether)

[Korhilus]

It's not about balance, it's about your idea.
The point from so many skills, if you use 2-3 most effective per battle ?

The balance naturally needs to be adjusted, 1 hit kill with the legendary hammer is not normal. Opponents use skills, one of the gang leaders used a poison bomb.
Using skills will make opponents more interesting, what's the interest if the opponents only move and hit ?
Opponents use the same weapons and classes, then the skills must also be used.

And the specializations seem to be unbalanced. An assassin with a dagger kills more effectively than a poisoner. Or the master of the sword, where to apply the skill you need 2 attacks, and 2 attacks are 2 rounds, in the 3rd round the fight ends.


That's just the point, the skill for a bonus to damage by 50% becomes useless if there is a herald with the same 50% per group, еhey cost the same 2 points.
Even if the Assassin has this skill, then I would rather spend 2 points on a triple hit than + 50% damage on a normal attack. And if I have 3 assassins, this is 6 points per round, for others there is no more.
After the first round, all the variety of skills disappears, since there is no energy left for them.

And if skills by 3 points are added with the level, then the previous skills may also become useless.

[SumEdd]

Originally posted by Mordrakus:

It's not about balance, it's about your idea.
The point from so many skills, if you use 2-3 most effective per battle ?

The balance naturally needs to be adjusted, 1 hit kill with the legendary hammer is not normal. Opponents use skills, one of the gang leaders used a poison bomb.
Using skills will make opponents more interesting, what's the interest if the opponents only move and hit ?
Opponents use the same weapons and classes, then the skills must also be used.

And the specializations seem to be unbalanced. An assassin with a dagger kills more effectively than a poisoner. Or the master of the sword, where to apply the skill you need 2 attacks, and 2 attacks are 2 rounds, in the 3rd round the fight ends.

That's just the point, the skill for a bonus to damage by 50% becomes useless if there is a herald with the same 50% per group, еhey cost the same 2 points.
Even if the Assassin has this skill, then I would rather spend 2 points on a triple hit than + 50% damage on a normal attack. And if I have 3 assassins, this is 6 points per round, for others there is no more.
After the first round, all the variety of skills disappears, since there is no energy left for them.

The hammer is odd because with control of turn order you can make your bruiser go last, then first, or you can engage and set him up for hits. It's only really effective because of this mechanic (and also why the opposite enemies, raiders, are so ineffective).

I'm not sure if lv 3+ enemies have skills, I don't remember when I fought them. I do know bosses do. If it moves to having enemies having the same skills I agree it could be more interesting, as long as that is the balance.

For the sword, you can use lacerate in the 2nd round by the way, because the attack doesn't end your ability to use other skills (I actually picked this spec with my swordsman).

But for the total number, I think you're making the same point over again, and my point is that 2 AP skill of an assassin is an almost guaranteed kill (especially if they have the poison spec, that is 4 instances of 5 stacks of poison, really. 20 damage to that guy every round after on top of all the direct damage including likely crits). So really, you can't be hitting all guaranteed kills from the skills every round or it will be OP and not require much tactics anymore.

And I'm sure they'll balance specs over time, but the poisoner may be better if you want to capture prisoners since you can add a -3 poison on units with no direct damage, and the smoke screen makes sense if you're going to engage a bunch (like a pure melee build, which might be more your style).

[EpikBekxa]

i agree about the too few valour points. it is hard to enjoy a game if you are limited to using a feature in it so much.