Regarding the Mechanic of Skill Level Reduction Upon Respecialization

[blobcat]

In the hack-and-slash genre, the design philosophy of introducing intentional inconveniences—primarily aimed at “padding content” and “artificially extending playtime”—still persists to this day. The mechanic whereby specialized skills temporarily lose levels upon respecialization is a quintessential example of such an outdated practice.

The true appeal of hack-and-slash games lies in the freedom to experiment with a vast array of skill and equipment combinations, and to refine one’s own tactical approach through iterative trial and error. However, the current system of skill level reduction upon respecialization significantly restricts this freedom, serving not to encourage creativity, but rather to suppress experimentation altogether. Especially for new players, who have yet to fully understand the game systems, skill synergies, and enemy behaviors, being forced to finalize a build prematurely imposes an excessive penalty on failure and retrial, gravely undermining their motivation to explore.

I do understand the rationale behind wanting to discourage playstyles that involve “using area-of-effect-focused builds for regular encounters, then switching to single-target-specialized builds for bosses” without limitation, as it could overly emphasize efficiency at the expense of strategic consistency. However, specifically within the campaign (ACT progression), enemy strength is deliberately set at a moderate level, allowing players to win with relative ease regardless of their skill builds. Therefore, it must be said that there is little rational justification for imposing penalties on players for switching builds between regular fights and boss encounters during this phase.

Furthermore, while imposing stricter constraints may be more appropriate after reaching the Monolith phase, where optimization becomes essential, the pace of leveling during the campaign is relatively slow. For players who wish to experiment with various builds, as well as for beginners still familiarizing themselves with the game systems, the mechanic of skill level reduction upon respecialization functions merely as a cumbersome hindrance. Imposing excessive costs on experimentation at this early stage only serves to stifle the development of creative playstyles.

In conclusion, while the skill level reduction mechanic is ostensibly introduced under the pretense of “adding strategic depth,” in practice, it unjustly curtails player flexibility and freedom of experimentation. What modern game design should aspire to is not the perpetuation of such outdated restrictive measures, but rather the creation of systems that respect and foster players’ strategic choices and creative build construction. I firmly believe that this approach will lead to higher player satisfaction and truly extend the lifespan of the title.

[DJSamhein]

@blobcat

I do understand the rationale behind wanting to discourage playstyles that involve “using area-of-effect-focused builds for regular encounters, then switching to single-target-specialized builds for bosses” without limitation, as it could overly emphasize efficiency at the expense of strategic consistency.

That would be because that leads to less build diversity.
Instead of having to solve a problem and figure out how to have enough AoE for clearing and enough ST for bosses (and deciding if you want more AoE for speed running and less ST or vice versa), you’d just have 2 builds: one all out AoE speed clearing one and one all out ST boss killing one.

@blobcat

Furthermore, while imposing stricter constraints may be more appropriate after reaching the Monolith phase, where optimization becomes essential, the pace of leveling during the campaign is relatively slow. For players who wish to experiment with various builds, as well as for beginners still familiarizing themselves with the game systems, the mechanic of skill level reduction upon respecialization functions merely as a cumbersome hindrance.

The campaign is very easy. You can finish it with pretty much any skill with barely any points in it.
I have often fully respeced a gear during campaign, both early on during acts 1-3 and later on at acts 6-9 (because I unlocked the skill I wanted) and I never once felt that progress had stopped. I still cleared everything just as well as before.

It feels bad (and that should be addressed), but once you do it a few times you realize it’s not a big deal.

@blobcat

the skill level reduction mechanic is ostensibly introduced under the pretense of “adding strategic depth,”

It’s not. It’s introduced as “cheese prevention”.

[blobcat]

Thank you for your detailed reply. I appreciate the opportunity to continue this discussion.

First, regarding the point that unrestricted respecialization would harm build diversity:
I fully agree that, in an endgame context where optimization is the primary goal, unrestricted switching between hyper-specialized AoE and single-target builds would undermine the need for well-rounded character construction. However, my primary concern lies with the campaign phase, where enemy difficulty is deliberately kept low to allow for varied approaches, and where players are still learning the game’s systems.
At this stage, encouraging broad experimentation is far more important than enforcing optimization standards. Penalizing respecialization in the campaign risks teaching new players to fear experimentation, rather than rewarding creativity and adaptation.

Second, while it is true that the campaign can be completed relatively easily—even after a full respec—the fact that “it doesn’t stop progression” does not invalidate the criticism.
The issue is not one of completing content, but one of player experience quality.
Being forced to re-level skills introduces unnecessary friction precisely when the game should be encouraging fluid exploration and dynamic learning.
Saying that “you get used to it” does not necessarily mean it is good design; it simply means players are tolerating a system that could be improved.

Lastly, regarding the statement that the skill level loss is intended as “cheese prevention” rather than “strategic depth”:
Even so, it remains a form of mechanical restriction that discourages flexible problem-solving.
Especially during the campaign, where “cheese” (in the sense of build swapping for hyper-efficiency) is neither necessary nor common, the cost of preventing a rare edge case is imposed universally on all players, at the expense of experimentation and creative growth.

In summary, while I understand the rationale behind the current system, I firmly believe that the campaign phase would benefit from a more experimentation-friendly environment, even if stricter measures remain appropriate for the Monolith and endgame stages.

Thank you again for engaging in this discussion.

[DJSamhein]

@blobcat

However, my primary concern lies with the campaign phase, where enemy difficulty is deliberately kept low to allow for varied approaches, and where players are still learning the game’s systems.
At this stage, encouraging broad experimentation is far more important than enforcing optimization standards. Penalizing respecialization in the campaign risks teaching new players to fear experimentation, rather than rewarding creativity and adaptation.

Yes, it’s often been argued that the relevel costs could be alleviated at lower levels, so you don’t lose as many levels early on and then it tapers off to the current limitations at endgame.
Pretty much the rest of your follow up arguments rely on this, so the answer applies to them all.

Most players agree that you could increase minimum levels sooner for early level experimenting. I don’t think you’ll find many that disagree with this part.

You’ll just find disagreement when trying to do the same for endgame respecing.