<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"This guy is either a clueless newb or an obvious troll (I lean towards a bit of trolling-- it's too perfectly designed to provoke a response), but either way, he claims that he didn't just forget to use his talents, he actively chose not to.  That's right-- he claims he can go all the way to 70 without using talents at all.Even if he is kidding (and he must be, right?  the talents you choose are based on your own \"skill and merits\"), what would that be like?  Could you imagine going to 70 without Nature's Swiftness or Vampiric Embrace or Tactical Mastery?  I guess it's possible, but unless you just wanted to prove you could do it (hey, people have done crazier things), how hard would the game really be without talents?  By definition, no talent is necessary for the core gameplay-- the whole point of having three trees is that you can go without the other two you don't choose.  But is it possible to build a viable character using no talents at all?Troll away, talentless player.  But thanks for making me consider something I'd never thought of before: just how much do the talents you choose govern your gameplay?  And if you didn't have any of the talents that you have, how much would your game player differ, or suffer?"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/07/a-literally-talentless-player/>