Feedback on the Third Edict Changes

Hello GGG team,

First off, I want to say that overall the improvements in the Third Edict are really strong and push Path of Exile II in a great direction. The polish and ambition show, and as a long-time player I really appreciate the effort behind these changes.

That said, I’d like to share three areas where I think the long-term design could be reconsidered:

Skill Gem System (Class I / II distinction)

While I understand the intent, the new multi-class skill gem system feels overly complicated compared to the elegant systems PoE has historically been known for. It risks overwhelming players rather than deepening the experience.

A possible solution might be introducing a dedicated currency item to upgrade or even downgrade a skill gem between classes. This would give players clarity, agency, and flexibility, without cluttering the system with multiple versions of the same gem.

Skill Synergies and Transparency

I believe this is one of the most important areas impacting new player retention. Right now, the way skills synergize is unclear — and that lack of transparency makes it easy for new players to feel lost or frustrated.

In Diablo II, synergies were simple, direct, and visual: the skill tree literally showed a line connecting related skills. This gave new players an immediate understanding of what boosted what, creating a sense of direction and payoff.

In Path of Exile II, synergies often feel scattered and hidden. As someone who played during the early access release, I personally struggled to even identify which abilities worked well together. New players are being asked to experiment with dozens of options, but without clear indicators, they can’t recognize the relationships that actually matter.

If PoE II adopted a more transparent system — for example, a lightning skill showing “synergizes with lightning” or tooltips directly highlighting related abilities, perhaps with visual connections like Diablo II’s lines — players would not only make better decisions but also feel rewarded for discovering natural connections.

I’m confident that making these links clear would tremendously improve retention, because it would give new players that “aha!” moment of building something powerful, instead of walking away frustrated.

Questing Flow

In Act 4 specifically, I found the questing to be very disorganized. Having to complete multiple quests on an island — without being aware of this at the start — felt like a poor design choice, especially since these quests turned out to be mandatory for continuing the storyline. This kind of structure breaks immersion and creates unnecessary frustration.

Across Acts 1–4 in general, having optional side quests that are not mandatory feels like an odd approach. Instead of sending players off the main path to hunt for scattered side quests, I think these should be naturally integrated into the main storyline. This would make progression feel smoother and more purposeful.

Again, throughout Acts 1–4, the pacing suffers because the main event often feels disconnected from these smaller objectives. A more structured, guided approach would improve flow and keep players engaged in the story.

Overall: I understand the intention behind the approaches you’re taking, and the ambition to innovate is clear. But I think many of these issues come down to visual and communication clarity — whether that’s through better in-game visuals, clearer tooltips, or stronger player instructions. These are not fundamental design flaws, but areas that can be fixed with clearer presentation, which would go a long way in making the game more accessible and enjoyable for both new and veteran players.

Thanks again for all the work you’ve put into the game — it’s clear how much passion drives it.