DigitalCrack

I think its mostly just cause its still in concept so with black jacket it could certainly be very cool but just doesnt sound like its that big will need to see it in action before judging that one. the druggy monk is blah though and summoner chanter sounds blah without any hints to the mechanics surrounding it

see it would be neat to add in the to hit defense with PoE's current setup. so light armor wearers could be a little more durable while still taking more per hit damage than a heavy armored character who may be hit more often but for much less.

Agreed and I dont think thats what people are hoping to be able to do. People are really looking more for like a light armor equivalent to deflection where when you do get hit you still take appropriate damage based off your low deflection making heavy armor in general better when your hit. light armor wpuld simply grant evasion, with an approriate talent. Like from the IE games you could have a swashbuckler that could at least last in a fight while wearing leather armor thanks to Dex adding to leather armor effectivness. Realize PoE has a different defense setup but would be nice to have an equivalent.

Really hoping that the subclasses are a decent deviation from the base class. So far the Ghost Heart class sounds like its the only known one that is a significant difference in concept from its base. Hoping that all subclasses end up being fairly unique from their base when we get real details instead of concepts.

Love all of it! except classless system. Thats why I love PoE. I dont like the Elder Scrolls just do whatever you want. Having a chosen discipline is huge. I was a Forward Observer in the military and was very GOOD at spotting targets, Fire Missions, firing my rifle and and navigation as I was always reading maps. But I wasnt a very good at fixing tactical vehicles because I wasnt a mechanic. Yeah the classless suggestion would ruin this game... Not to say it doesnt work great in other games but this being a throwback to IE games.. having Classes was a huge part of what made those games so awesome and memorable.

not bad except I would keep it a talent instead of armor having a natural dodge only cause as was pointed out ealier the Monk class gets screwed if evasion exists naturally.

Lowest Rank had nothing to do with how hard or easy training was with a bow. It was entirely a prestige thing... to be a bowman wasn't as chivalrous or prestigious and didn't require any family pedigree to be one which translates to more people being able to become bowmen because there were not societal role restrictions surrounding it. It has everything to do how easy or hard the training would be...Lowest Rank means that they needed a bunch of people in that position right? So to have a bunch of people in that position it required less time of training, so they needed to give those soldiers a simple weapon to use, hence the longbow. Foot soldier weren't prestigious position and they weren't the lowest rank, why? Because they needed more training, or you think that using a shield and sword is easier than using a bow? "Longbows were very difficult to master because the force required to deliver an arrow through the improving armour of medieval Europe was very high by modern standards. Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 360 newtons (81 pounds-force) and possibly more than 600 N (130 lbf), with some estimates as high as 900 N (200 lbf).[citation needed] Considerable practice was required to produce the swift and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers are recognizably adapted, with enlarged left arms and often osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers.[24] It was the difficulty in using the longbow that led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the Assize of Arms of 1252 and Edward III of England's declaration of 1363: "Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery." If the people practiced archery, it would be that much easier for the King to recruit the proficient longbowmen he needed for his wars. Along with the improving ability of gunfire to penetrate plate armour, it was the long training needed by longbowmen that eventually led to their being replaced by musketeers. " From wikipedia on longbows. You forgot one thing, it says "Longbows were difficult to master" and I totally agree with that, but my argument is that it was an easy weapon to use, and it is, just like a gun in real life, if you get one right now I'm sure you know how to use it, but will you hit the target? Archers didn't shoot like you see in movies "1, 2... 3... FIRE!" They did that non stop, their job was to shoot a good amount of arrows into the enemy lines, it was a basic job that didn't require years of training - you had 15.000 targets... you don't have to be Legolas to hit one-, different from foot soldiers and knights, that had to learn about stances, formations, weapons types, martial arts, etc. You specifically said "british bowmen" when talking about lowest rank and british bowmen use longbows which did take years of training. Why dont you go take a look at the sources provided on the longbow wiki page instead of taking my word or just continue to substitute in your own reality...

Lowest Rank had nothing to do with how hard or easy training was with a bow. It was entirely a prestige thing... to be a bowman wasn't as chivalrous or prestigious and didn't require any family pedigree to be one which translates to more people being able to become bowmen because there were not societal role restrictions surrounding it. It has everything to do how easy or hard the training would be... Lowest Rank means that they needed a bunch of people in that position right? So to have a bunch of people in that position it required less time of training, so they needed to give those soldiers a simple weapon to use, hence the longbow. Foot soldier weren't prestigious position and they weren't the lowest rank, why? Because they needed more training, or you think that using a shield and sword is easier than using a bow? "Longbows were very difficult to master because the force required to deliver an arrow through the improving armour of medieval Europe was very high by modern standards. Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 360 newtons (81 pounds-force) and possibly more than 600 N (130 lbf), with some estimates as high as 900 N (200 lbf).[citation needed] Considerable practice was required to produce the swift and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers are recognizably adapted, with enlarged left arms and often osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers.[24] It was the difficulty in using the longbow that led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the Assize of Arms of 1252 and Edward III of England's declaration of 1363: "Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery." If the people practiced archery, it would be that much easier for the King to recruit the proficient longbowmen he needed for his wars. Along with the improving ability of gunfire to penetrate plate armour, it was the long training needed by longbowmen that eventually led to their being replaced by musketeers." From wikipedia on longbows.

That's why you make the "evasion from Dexterity" part of a light armor handling talent. So evasion isn't naturally granted by Dex to people who wear light armor, they have to have the talent. So shouldn't effect the monk. Edit: regardless of how its done would just be nice to see armor handling talents for light, medium, and heavy. giving you a bonus for "training" in a particular category of armor.

Lowest Rank had nothing to do with how hard or easy training was with a bow. It was entirely a prestige thing... to be a bowman wasn't as chivalrous or prestigious and didn't require any family pedigree to be one which translates to more people being able to become bowmen because there were not societal role restrictions surrounding it.

Would be cool to see a wizard subclass that's a spell eater. Basically he would emit an aura that devours any magic (friendly or otherwise) cast his way, ignoring its affects and fueling his own magic. Make him more martial oriented, limit his spell pool to buffs and short/melee range attack spells. For each spell devoured he gets one charge and each spell he has cost one charge to cast (regardless of level) so technically his casting would be limitless per encounter but would be dependent on being targeted with magic. His big drawback is that the only magic that affects him is his own, so no team buffs or heals from priests.

Or make evasion reduce accuracy of opponent targeting you. So if you have 30% evasion then your oppenents accuracy value is cut by 30%. This would inadvertently make one handed better against light armor proficiency, as well as the black jacket subclass. Just my thoughts anyway to make armors outside of heavy appealing. Also by making evasion vs accuracy, when you do get hit you woukd still take damage like a light armored person would.

totally agree on more actives especially for non-caster classes.

A rogue talent, for every successful time you hit an enemy without getting hit you gain something, possibly attack speed? Evasion? A active parry ability that completely negates the enemies next physical attack? God I wish I could work in game balance/design. good idea except I would rather see like a light armor training talent thats available for all classes and something along the lines of.. for every 2 points (over 10) in dexterity now yields you (x)% evasion EDIT: while wearing light armor. Then evasion basically equates DR except you make it null (or loses some effectiveness) if you are suffering a status effect that affects mobility. doing that would still mean high deflection armor is universally better for defense but not the only "best" choice for melee characters.

It sucked that there was no upside to wearing light/some medium armor. Not to say you couldnt do it and be fine.. It was just a style choice that disadvantaged you a little at that point. It was always better to go heavy on melee and as light as possible on ranged. If they decide to keep it mostly the same setup I at least hope they provide talents or proficiencies for light, medium, and heavy armor to make so light armored melee doesnt always have to be a glass cannon.

I wouldnt mind an "evasion" mechanic of some sort to make light armor melee a thing. you could balance it out by making evasion based defenses null if dazed or confused or any effect that would prevent you from evading attacks where as traditional armor provides protection no matter what.

This for sure... rpgs are easily ruined this way.

The queen should fit in nicely with how I like to play. subltey and probably a lot of grey area to navigate and nuance. plus my melee cipher with a background of hunting magical beasts in the deadfire means he should fit nice with the locals.

Just saying if you had watched the 3rd Q&A specifically there wouldnt be an arguement as they clearly stated (at the very least) 1 new gun type already added just as an example of the weapons changes they are doing for pillars 2. so say balance and resources all you want they are adding new weapons that are not a variation of an existing weapon type.

am not certain if you are doing this purposeful. your suggestion is adding a whole new mechanic. is not filling an already existing gap. the kinda balance and program concerns for simple adding sharpness to a large, two-handed weapon is anything like what you suggest? HA! Good Fun! Well the throwing suggestion is simply based off watching one of the fig vids where they show a torch being thrown at an enemy, so possibly its a mechanic they may be working on already. This is a fruitless debate your reasons for not wanting new weapons are no more or less arbitrary than anything I have given. Basically boils down to "well I dont feel like there is any need. complete misrepresentation. we made balancing and resource arguments. but if you is gonna go so far as to purposeful mischaracterize, then am agreeing 'bout the worthless pursuit o' further debate. HA! Good Fun! Saying "because balancing reasons.." almost that plainly somehow constitutes as more specific or detailed or valid than anything I said... not hard to just dismiss everything someone else says and then substitute your opinion as reality...

am not certain if you are doing this purposeful. your suggestion is adding a whole new mechanic. is not filling an already existing gap. the kinda balance and program concerns for simple adding sharpness to a large, two-handed weapon is anything like what you suggest? HA! Good Fun! Well the throwing suggestion is simply based off watching one of the fig vids where they show a torch being thrown at an enemy, so possibly its a mechanic they may be working on already. This is a fruitless debate your reasons for not wanting new weapons are no more or less arbitrary than anything I have given. Basically boils down to "well I dont feel like there is any need." which isnt more valid then me or others wanting a hand full of new ones that would not disrupt any other balance or process by adding them. In Q&A's they have already comfirmed work is being done on weapons and that specifically there are new firearms being added. Based off that nothing I have said is crazy and is currently more reasonable than saying "they should do nothing new"

A gap huh... throwing weapons or a hybrid weapon that can be both ranged and melee, just off the top of my head. There are definately other weapons roles that could be catered to by adding new weapons.

Much of these could simply be differently skinned variants of standard weapons to be fair. Think along the lines of Xaurip Spears. There's no need introduce entirely new weapon classes, unless there isn't an existing one that is roughly the same. I understand that and agree I dont think we need to double up or anything. just look at real life old world powers sure they all had their own versions of swords but literally all the cultures have a weapon thats unique in function that the others did not. So in fantasy setting and with a place like deadfire, that has so many cultures converging on it and pre exisiting. That they wouldn't have at least a handful of new weapons unseen in the rest of the world that deserve their own classification would seem ridiculous. Bottom line is its totally justifiable to add a few more new melee types.

Mostly from a lore and culture aspect, would be kind of lame that the peoples of the Deadfire somehow had absolutely no weapon advancements of there own to contribute? Not saying that we just throw a bunch more in but a certain amount needs to be added to make sense.

There is a need for new weapons to freshen up the pool of choices and keep thing interesting. from a pure funtionality stand point we could justify that we really only need about 5 to 6 total weapon choices but that would be boring. Its a new game and every aspect is getting some kind of addition so it would make sense that all weapons get a pass and at least a few additions. Plus from a world building perspective the Deadfire SHOULDN'T have the exact same weapons available only, given that its a totally different culture and should come with some locally developed weapon types.