This is not always the case. There are a lot of different factors that go into the decision making of whether a skill is exclusive to a mastery class or not. For example, werebear form would be a useful skill for melee beastmaster builds, but it’s druid specific in part to make melee druid builds more distinct from melee beastmaster builds.
3 Likes
I wish other classes could use similar synergies of skills from neighboring classes.
All this looks very interesting.
Aw thats a little disappointing it’s still a forced hindrance. Why not leave it up to the player how thin they want to spread their points rather than forced limitations? The unique passive from mastery and half bar panel limitations to other two classes already provide a guided direction itself.
Archetype retention.
[I think “Archetypenbeibehaltung” looks nicer…]
Are you suggesting to remove all Mastery granted skills? Werebear, Forge Strike, Storm Totem etc.
Not so much remove, but put them as 1st tier skills within the arch type, not locked out. If a shaman wants a pet raptor more power to them etc. You just have to make the choice whether you want to build deep into that sub-arch type tree (or at least the 1st half of it) to make those skills make the most out of their main purpose spec. etc. If the worry is you can take a 1st tier skill and only the first half of the passive panel to make it OP without investing into the 2nd half of the panel, the panel likely needs a balance review.
The only thing I would like to see is a Werewolf form in Beastmaster. The tree, in my imagining, would focus on being the Alpha to the pack (maybe buffs depending on number of summoned wolves?) and lots of bleed support. To tie it to the Beastmaster, its functions should be tied to your companions.
Well that’s why I was hoping for the werebear to be unlocked to use as a beastmaster, I would imagine once they get around to releasing skill skins werewolf would be the first variation they release for the bear - I am aiming for the long game lol.
But that would be removing them as mastery skills and giving them to all builds, as SirFreckle said (though he may not have been clear).
Then yes I would suggest removing mastery skills its just a forced needlessly limiting function to fun build experimentation. You already have mastery passives and limitation of only half investments allowed on sub-arch types limiting the full potential you can actually make of the skills themselves.
Though I would argue all skills should be able to be unlocked at most at the halfway investment panel and leave it to the player if they want to go that deep and spread their build that thin fully acknowledging they will not be able to see that trees full potential as it’s only a sub-archtype, placing more skill gates is just limiting fun build experimentation.
That’s also assuming mastery skills are equal in strength. I’d argue in the case of primalist base werebear is significantly stronger than a base raptor or storm totem.
If the argument is werebear is too strong and then all three archetypes would just go bear regardless of primary archetype then the other currently tagged mastery skills should be reviewed for balance and brought up to par (I know prelease game etc.)
Again, that’s not really my point, it’s just a needlessly added extra limitation to build experimentation in the longevity of the game to issue outright at the start. Do note, this statement isn’t exclusive to just primalists but all classes, I was hoping before release mastery skills would actually be unlocked with and current limitation is just to semi-force people to fully explore the current split arch types while balancing goes on etc.
Why stop there? What the point of having classes at all.
Just put every together like a huge dumpster fire and let people get creative themselves.
Whats the point of everything really
3 Likes
Assuming you are having one of those days…
sends a virtual beer, coffee, beverage of your choice…
hang in there… 
1 Like
The mastery passives and sub-archtype limitations already enforce the classes themselves.
To be fair, I was thinking about making that argument.
@Faolchu You may not be aware, but the devs view the masteries as separate classes rather than variations on a central theme.
1 Like
or do you just want a beer too?
No thanks, I have tea & some custard cremes.
Old man… 
The perception of this moment is greatly influenced by the realization of this moment, as well as the experience from other games.
As an example, the game GrimDown, we select branches and use them as we want, without any restrictions.
Due to the way this system is implemented in LE, the players have a feeling of “boundaries and prohibitions”, we seem to have access to neighboring archetypes, but we are limited.
In my opinion, to avoid this, you need to more accurately implement the “visible” part of the character customization.
That is, so that the player, choosing a particular class, sees the integrity of his class.
If you still have some beer, I’d take one!
And back to the topic, mastery skills enforce mastery identity. I feel making them class-wide would damage that identity.
2 Likes
But in GD you can’t use a skill from one class if you’ve chosen two others. EHG want to lock certain skills behind choosing that particular class/mastery (like GD & most other aRPGs do, PoE being the main one that doesn’t) to promote certain themes or play-styles. That’s the other side of the example.