I think there are too many talent points

[Dilbon]

Having 30 or 31 points per tree is way too much and leads to cookie cutter specs. And why isn't there a racial talent tree? 61 points split between three trees would work better.

[Puupi]

Feelscraft.

[hulkgor]

Sure buddy.

[schwarzkopf]

Having 30 or 31 points per tree is way too much and leads to cookie cutter specs

Let's look at the options:

1. The last 4 expansions have had 5-7 talent points to assign, forcing you into cookie cutter specs
2. Dragonflight has 61 talent points to assign, giving you the OPTION of cookie cutter specs.

Therefore if you are concerned about cookie cutter specs, then option 2 (Dragonflight) is BY DEFINITION the better option.

[Dilbon]

I played a bit with the talent calculator and I didn't have to make any compromises whatsoever. I could get everything I wanted and have points left over. Not very interesting.

[Puupi]

I played a bit with the talent calculator and I didn't have to make any compromises whatsoever. I could get everything I wanted and have points left over. Not very interesting.

Yeah right.

[Gourbaak]

don't worry will will pick exactly the same talents as everyone and don't look at it until the next patch or switch of meta

[Makabreska]

I played a bit with the talent calculator and I didn't have to make any compromises whatsoever. I could get everything I wanted and have points left over. Not very interesting.

Which specs were these? Link your builds, pls.

[ReVnX]

Don't ruin a good thing

[Puri]

I mean, it's going to be cookie cutter no matter what.
There is no way for me to tell if the "2m BAM cd" or the passive "get 15% more ressources" choice are better. So the only way to make a reasonable choice here is following some guide who says (and usually can explain) why the choice is better for what. So when the patch comes I will go to some site, and mimic what's going to be the best m+ spec for the next 4 weeks is, then I will look up what the best leveling spec is (or "find" it by myself, there's no real min maxing while leveling), and when I'm max level I will look up what the best m+ spec is once again.

I assume there will be some actual choices left (for example different trees for tyrannical or fortified) so it's not as set in stone as now, but generally people will just follow some guide.

[Beefhammer]

Let's look at the options:

1. The last 4 expansions have had 5-7 talent points to assign, forcing you into cookie cutter specs
2. Dragonflight has 61 talent points to assign, giving you the OPTION of cookie cutter specs.

Therefore if you are concerned about cookie cutter specs, then option 2 (Dragonflight) is BY DEFINITION the better option.

Never used a cookie cutter spec before or after the removal of talent trees. I know many just want to be told how to play and will gravitate to what they are told is the best. I just play how I want.

[azshanna]

I have tested a few classes and here is my opinion on them:
SP- 2 completely different single target builds, and one aoe
Enh shaman- 2 completely different single target builds, one single target+minor aoe, and one full aoe
Furry- 2 different single target builds, and an aoe
Protection paladin- extremely divers imo, you have access to so many good talents and builds for each situation
Uh&frost dk- not so many meaningful options imo and there is only one good build for single target and one for aoe.
Vengeance dh- tested shortly, really strong and meaningful and diverse choices

Depend on your play-style and your taste many of these builds are close, IE the shadow priest builds are quite close. performance wise, in real encounters there might be negligible differences between them.

[schwarzkopf]

Never used a cookie cutter spec before or after the removal of talent trees.

Of course you did - there wasn't an option, the cutting was built into the game.

I just play how I want.

And finally you get to do that.

[Villager720]

Firstly, OP is asking for something to have less options to avoid being “cookie cutter”, which of course will make it more “cookie cutter”.
And secondly, the notion of a ‘racial talent tree’ sounds like something straight out of eugenics.

[Dilbon]

And secondly, the notion of a ‘racial talent tree’ sounds like something straight out of eugenics.

There already are racial traits so why not expand them into a full talent tree.

- - - Updated - - -

Which specs were these? Link your builds, pls.

Shadow priest. Although I admit that after MoP I still don't really know how that class even works.

[Villager720]

There already are racial traits so why not expand them into a full talent tree.

Because it was always a bad idea: just look a priest racials back in the day and how/why they were removed.

[Dilbon]

The point of a racial tree would be that investing in it would take points off the class trees.

[Lochton]

Having 30 or 31 points per tree is way too much and leads to cookie cutter specs. And why isn't there a racial talent tree? 61 points split between three trees would work better.

I suggested a racial one, maybe in the future.

As for the points, you can get cookie-cutter builds on everything, even in vanilla, even with current talent trees. The points are fine. You cannot avoid cookie cutter without breaking apart the talent tree and dumping in monotonous options

- - - Updated - - -

The point of a racial tree would be that investing in it would take points off the class trees.

Naw.

Racial tree should be separate from the class and spec tree.

A racial tree should offer you a racial point pr. 10 points, and have some options of current and new racial benefits. There should be a restriction of a maximum 3-4 active abilities, and then 3-5 passive talents.

[LordVargK]

Depends on Spec and Class.

Warlocks, for example, have too few points, because every possible ability is a net gain and provides a good use.

DPS Evokers on the other hand are the opposite: I've skilled them, have too many points and am forced to use abilities, I don't even want to use, since their mechanics are terrible. In that case I have points to spare.

[Xilurm]

Better than having just 5.