Crucis

I have been wanting to play one more run through PoE1 before PoE2 arrives, but I haven't been able to come up with a character concept for my PC. (I am *NOT* looking forward to the 5 character max party size though.) I've been somewhat tempted to try a paladin, possibly built as an "undead hunter", but I'm hesitant because I love having Pallegina round so much and am wary of playing with 2 paladins in the party. I like the variety of classes, and the potent interaction of having a wide variety of different classes in the party.

Yes, there is that too.

Thanks for the support, Torm. And, ya know, it's not like I've said that paladins as they currently exist are horrible, terrible, or a scourge on the game, or whatever. I just don't like or agree with the direction the devs took with them. I think that they're uninteresting and boring, which I find sad because in all of the old IE games, I always would play at least one paladin in a play through, because I loved them. On top of that, in almost all (if not 100%) of my play throughs of PoE, I've used Pallegina, a paladin, because I thoroughly enjoy having her in my parties. I love her accent. I've said it in the past (probably a couple years back, but what the heck) that I wish that more of the companions (Sagani, Aloth, and Kana come to mind as companions who aren't from the general area of the Dyrwood) had more interesting and exotic accents, particularly those who are not from the Dyrwood. I've just felt that it would have made them more interesting and gave them a bit more of the "not from around here" feel that I get from Pallegina. I'm so glad that Pallegina is one of the Companions chosen to be carried over into PoE2.

Except that their Zealotry is LITERALLY their power source (and not some random deity. This isn't DnD) Just like with the Priests, it's the FAITH ITSELF fueling their abilities (hence the Eothasian priests being able to cast their wiggity woo, despite their god being literally dead, and Durance still being able to do the same, despite his goddess trying to kill him and not even able to recognize him) You can't just attempt to make one setting conform to the rules of another. It's not about making one setting conform to another. It's about not LIKING one setting's definition of paladins and wishing that it was something else. Really? You're gonna go there?

Except that their Zealotry is LITERALLY their power source (and not some random deity. This isn't DnD) Just like with the Priests, it's the FAITH ITSELF fueling their abilities (hence the Eothasian priests being able to cast their wiggity woo, despite their god being literally dead, and Durance still being able to do the same, despite his goddess trying to kill him and not even able to recognize him) You can't just attempt to make one setting conform to the rules of another. It's not about making one setting conform to another. It's about not LIKING one setting's definition of paladins and wishing that it was something else.

On PoTD Inspiring Liberation is GREAT. + 10 Accuracy thay stacks with everything that last at a base line of 20 seconds with 10 INT is awesome in dragon fights. Helping CC land reliably. But you don’t like Darcozzi Darcozzi are a Kingsguard like in Game of Thrones. I like it. I used to be old school like you about Paladins but I like the take on them in this game. You don’t have to follow a god to be zealous about something. And I like the leader concept better than the D and D version But to each his own of course. I bet you were jealous of those Berathian Paladins in Raedrics Keep! A. I don't do POTD. B. Never watched Game of Thrones. Heck, I don't think that I've even had cable in more than 10 years. Just wasn't worth the ridiculously high price IMO. And on principle, I hate channel bundling, which is another reason I refuse to get cable. C. I don't see zealotry as a legitimate source of power for a paladin's abilities. To me, a guardsman is nothing more than a fighter. I see paladins as requiring a tie to a deity because it's only through that deity that they get their power, their divine abilities. D. I don't like the leader concept because if you have a group of paladins, like those Berathian Paladins, they can't ALL be leaders. Too many chiefs, not enough indians. But when you're talking about holy warriors, well, you avoid that problem. or if the term "holy warrior" doesn't work for you, think instead of them as "champions" (of their deity). A champion is still a holy warrior of sorts, though not necessarily a zealot in the colloquial sense. They may be leaders, but not necessarily so. They'd be warriors chosen and blessed by their deity to be one of that deity's chosen champions in this world (Eora, in this case). (FYI, I'm thinking of David Weber's War God series, where the primary character, Bahzell Bahnakson, is a Champion of the god of war and justice, Tomanak. He's no zealot by any stretch of the imagination. Arguably, he's not even all that "holy" a warrior. He's certainly not religious. He doesn't really see Tomanak as a god to be worshiped. He tends to see Tomanak as being more like his really, REALLY super powerful boss, in whose name Bahzell fights. And that's OK with Tomanak because he wants Bahzell to be exactly who he is, not some boot-licking toady.) Frankly, I think that all of the abilities we see in the game could be easily enough explained without needing this leader foolishness. In a very real sense, the abilities we see paladins get in PoE aren't all that different from those Paladins got in D&D, at least in the IE D&D games. They're just not bundled up as "spells". But they still do similar kinds of things. Help companions. Hurt enemies. That sort of thing. Anyways... I wish that the devs had done more to create a lot more differentiation between the paladin orders, because right now, there seems be very little differentiation, except for how you have to role play a pally PC relative to your order's F+C dispositions. All fair points. You can also read GoT that’s where I first heard of them! I see what you are saying though too many Chiefs not enough Indians. But to be honest I was a Marine and we had the same ethos in that we train everyone to be a leader from a Private to the Commendant. So that if your lieutenant is dead the sergeant has no issue taking over and the sergeant is out the corporal is trained to lead etc. That being said there is still a rank structure and in training and combat chain of command is followed. I think it’s the same with the Paladin Orders in this setting.Also not everyone in the Knights Templar was a Templar they had support troops. I would think it the same for the orders here. I do like D and D Paladin style as well though. As far as differentiating other then Disposition I think might be a tough to balance issue? I like PoTD group play but that’s me PS PS I agree that none of the order talents are real difference makers save Darcozzi Inspiring Liberation and that’s only on a certain difficulty. Some are ok though Remember Rakhan Field makes Bleak Walkers the best Alpha strike Paladins as no other order can add an extra damage type to their FoD. Also Goldpact Knight Immunity to mind crontrol is great. Their Enduring Flames DoT can also be extremely punishing against bosses. Bait a mind control by popping an ally out of stealth then hit them with Liberating Exhirtation and they are immune. The AI has cool downs on some abilities like that so they won’t be able to cast it again for a while. It’s more niche but it really works. Also the Sword and the Shepherd from Kind Wayfarers a nice quick heal when you need something faster then Lay on Hands or an Aoe Heal. Strange Mercy is a stronger heal but it’s not on command you need a Kill. Shield bearer talents need work in my personal case as I play PoTD and deflection is your second least useful defense. Last being Will and most important being Fort. Giving extra deflection to allies is meh. Deflection is most useful in trash fights and in trash fights you don’t need much of it. I get that not everyone in the KT's was a Templar. It's the same in the Dave Weber War God series. Not all warriors in the order of Tomanak were champions. Heck, as the story goes, there were only 19 champions for the entire continent. And they weren't really members of the Order, per se. The Order actually existed to support the Champions. And there were various ranks, and lots of "lay brothers" who were the Order's soldiers. The Champions were essentially Tomanak's appointed generals for the Order. Where they went, the Order followed. The Order selected its members. The god Tomanak selected His champions. Regarding differentiating, seems to me that it'd be no more difficult to balance than any other class related balance related work. Another reason I wish that the paladin's had been linked to dieties is for the differentiation. I would have loved to see MUCH more wildly differentiated paladins, above and beyond merely "good" or "evil" paladins. The devs could have selected deities who covered a WIDE array of different things. Magran, a goddess of war and flame. And perhaps her paladins might have some flame based abilities. Or Galawain, the nature God of the Hunt. Imagine what a champion of that god might be like. Perhaps almost like a cross between a "paladin" and a ranger, a tree-hugging paladin, I suppose. Or Eothas, perhaps the most "good" god of the bunch, whose champions might be the most traditional goody two-shoes of paladins. Or Hylea, the goddess of the birds and sky. Perhaps her champions might have some weather related abilities, like rain based or call lightning. It just seems to me that this could have been incredibly interesting and differentiated.

On PoTD Inspiring Liberation is GREAT. + 10 Accuracy thay stacks with everything that last at a base line of 20 seconds with 10 INT is awesome in dragon fights. Helping CC land reliably. But you don’t like Darcozzi Darcozzi are a Kingsguard like in Game of Thrones. I like it. I used to be old school like you about Paladins but I like the take on them in this game. You don’t have to follow a god to be zealous about something. And I like the leader concept better than the D and D version But to each his own of course. I bet you were jealous of those Berathian Paladins in Raedrics Keep! A. I don't do POTD. B. Never watched Game of Thrones. Heck, I don't think that I've even had cable in more than 10 years. Just wasn't worth the ridiculously high price IMO. And on principle, I hate channel bundling, which is another reason I refuse to get cable. C. I don't see zealotry as a legitimate source of power for a paladin's abilities. To me, a guardsman is nothing more than a fighter. I see paladins as requiring a tie to a deity because it's only through that deity that they get their power, their divine abilities. D. I don't like the leader concept because if you have a group of paladins, like those Berathian Paladins, they can't ALL be leaders. Too many chiefs, not enough indians. But when you're talking about holy warriors, well, you avoid that problem. or if the term "holy warrior" doesn't work for you, think instead of them as "champions" (of their deity). A champion is still a holy warrior of sorts, though not necessarily a zealot in the colloquial sense. They may be leaders, but not necessarily so. They'd be warriors chosen and blessed by their deity to be one of that deity's chosen champions in this world (Eora, in this case). (FYI, I'm thinking of David Weber's War God series, where the primary character, Bahzell Bahnakson, is a Champion of the god of war and justice, Tomanak. He's no zealot by any stretch of the imagination. Arguably, he's not even all that "holy" a warrior. He's certainly not religious. He doesn't really see Tomanak as a god to be worshiped. He tends to see Tomanak as being more like his really, REALLY super powerful boss, in whose name Bahzell fights. And that's OK with Tomanak because he wants Bahzell to be exactly who he is, not some boot-licking toady.) Frankly, I think that all of the abilities we see in the game could be easily enough explained without needing this leader foolishness. In a very real sense, the abilities we see paladins get in PoE aren't all that different from those Paladins got in D&D, at least in the IE D&D games. They're just not bundled up as "spells". But they still do similar kinds of things. Help companions. Hurt enemies. That sort of thing. Anyways... I wish that the devs had done more to create a lot more differentiation between the paladin orders, because right now, there seems be very little differentiation, except for how you have to role play a pally PC relative to your order's F+C dispositions.

Well, I have to disagree. I think that it's a bad thing to not have paladins tied to deities. You see it as one dimensional. I don't. To me, it's nearly sacrilegious for them to not be linked to a deity. To me, the PoE form of paladin is what's boring. Give me my Holy Warriors who are looking to slay dragons and so forth!!! As for monks, I never saw them as a group that'd be tied to deities, though I suppose it might depend on what one thinks of when they think of "monks". If one is thinking of them as martial artists, yeah, I don't see that as being tied to deities. OTOH, if one seems monks in a more religious sense, like real world monks who are just religious people who aren't really priests as such and who live in monasteries, then I suppose that they should be tied to deities. That said, who's really going to want to play that sort of monk? Doesn't even seem like a playable class. But the more martial artsey monks seem like they'd be off contemplating all sorts of things, as well as learning their fighting style(s), and so forth. But they seem more ... secularly philosophical rather than religious to me.

I didn't really mean to imply that they'd bail on a contract. I meant it more in the sense that before a contract was signed, one assumes that they'll fight for whomever pays them the most. But yes, once a deal's signed, a deal's a deal. Still, that hardly seems like a proper ideology for an order of paladins. It sounds more like a good policy for a reliable mercenary group.

I realize that this is a thread necro, and I'm definitely late to the party. But this is an interesting topic, and it seems better to just thread necro than create a new thread on the same topic. I think that there are two very different ways to look at the question of favorite paladin order. There's the which order's abilities/talents do you like best. And then there's the which order's background do you like best. Being more of a role player, I prefer the second question. I'm rather old school when it comes to paladins. I personally don't like this semi-supporting leadership style of paladin. I prefer the old school "holy warrior" style of paladin. It seems a lot more fun to me. But sadly, that's not what's in PoE. Furthermore, I don't particularly like the Darcozzi or Gold Pact Knight orders, because I don't see any central concept or ideology that defines them. The Gold Pact Knights seem more like a mercenary group than an order of paladins. And fighting for whomever pays you the most hardly seems like an ideology that should define a group of paladins. As for the Darcozzi, I can't even go that far. I have no idea at all what binds them together, other than being guardians and ambassadors of the Darcozzi family, which again hardly seems like something that should define a group of paladins. In both of these cases, they seem like groups of warriors, with the GPK's being more mercs while the Darcozzi being more guardsmen. But either way, not paladins, at least as I would see "paladins". As for the Bleak Walkers, I can see them as paladins, almost certainly evil, though it's hard to see a binding ideology. Their description seems to describe more of means to their ideology than an ideology itself. But I have no idea what the ideology their brutal and merciless nature exists to support. This leaves the Kind Wayfarers and the Shieldbearers. I can see these two as old school paladins of roughly similar flavor. Protectors of the innocent, etc., etc., etc. Maybe what's really missing, at least for me, are ties to Eora's deities, since tying an order to a specific deity would pretty much define an order's philosophy. If an order was linked to Magran, a paladin would be a champion of the goddess of war and fire, and so forth, for example. Anyways, looking at the paladin orders from an talent perspective, it seems to me that they're all relative weak and unappealing. The only talent that seems at all potent is Pallegina's Wrath of the Five Suns talent. It seems to me that other than the Faith and Conviction dispositions, the 5 playable orders are all rather generic in their abilities because their talents are so lame. Oh, sure, you've got to work your dispositions during your game play, and that's a good thing. But in terms of abilities, all paladins seem like they're pretty much the same in combat. It would be nice if there was more differentiation between the orders in terms of what they bring to combat. It might also be nice if each order had specific requirements or strongly favored attributes that related to that order's special skills, talents, and/or abilities, so that paladins of different orders didn't have so much of a sameness about them.

Yes, that's what I did in my first playthrough - on normal - which was too easy. And then I optimized the bleep out of everything when playing "Path of the Damned" which is supposed to be very difficult. Which it isn't. I thought that difficulty setting was made for people who optimize the bleep out of everything. If not, we need another difficulty setting. "Path of the Powergamer" or so. Well, to be fair, Boeroer, I did mention over-optimization and the XP issue relating to completionism separately. Another reason things might be "too easy" is that some players may be very familiar with this sort of game, and simply understand how to play them well from the start, once they understand the various spells, etc., while the average player who may have never played an old infinity engine game in their lives may be starting from a very different starting point and may take a lot longer to learn to details, concepts, and strategies that really help in this sort of game. I have to admit that I've never been much of a powergamer. And while I might plan my PCs before hand, I've never been one to worry about the equipment. I only think about what skills and talents to take, and just deal with equipment on the fly. So, from a power gamer perspective, I may not have parties that are all that well optimized. At the same time, I am very much of a completionist. Not exactly out of some hardcore desire to find every little shred of XP or every single task. I just like getting the most of a play through, rather than trying to rush from start to finish. But I do recognize that this means that your characters can end up being over-powered and make things seem rather easy. I just don't worry about it as much as others. But that's neither here nor there. And if being a hardcore powergamer floats your boat, go for it. It might be amusing to have a Path of the PowerGamer. One question: How does Path of the Damned compare to the super-hard mode (forget the name) in the IWD games where the enemies got ridiculous amounts of HP, and you often had to summon mobs of your own monsters and animals for cannon fodder and to help grind down the enemy?

I'm gonna thread necro this one, because it's an amusing question the OP poses, even if I've never been a fan of Godlikes (because I don't like giving up helmets). I've read his question a little differently than some. I guess that I'm taking it more literally, as in what class best fits each GL's overall theme. There may not be a single perfect answer, but 2-3 good ones per GL subrace. Note that I haven't listed classes that I think would synergize well with a GL's abilities. I only picked classes that seemed to thematically synergize with each GL's special nature. Moon GL: Either Shieldbearer or Kind Wayfarer Paladins seem like a good fit here. Maybe it's because Moon GL's seem like "good" paladin types to me. I suppose that a Priest of Eothas might be a good fit, though perhaps he's a little too sunshine-y for a MOON GL. Nature GL: Seems rather obvious that either Rangers or Druids would be the perfect fit for a Nature GL, being so in tune with nature and all. I suppose even Barbarians might fit here as well, as they may be a bit more in tune with nature than your more civilized kith. Fire GL: I suppose that Chanters with all those fire-based abilities seem appropriate. Wizards might be quite appropriate, particularly if using fire based spells more often than not. Note: I suppose that it's possible that I've picked Chanters and Wizards here less for thematic reasons than GL ability synergizing. A priest of Magran also seems quite appropriate, being as she's the goddess of war and fire. And while IIRC, druids have some fire spells, somehow fire GL's don't seem like a great fit as tree huggers. Death GL: First off, a rogue assassin, a Bleak Walker paladin, and a priest of Berath all seem somewhat obvious, though I'm not exactly sure that congregations would ever want to be preached to by a death GL.

I think that one problem, though it may not be the OP's problem, is that it's always seemed to me that some people are such hardcore min-max optimizers (of character attributes, skills, equipment mixes, etc.) that they end up making the game too easy, and then some (not all) turn around and complain about it. Maybe some people should be less concerned about optimizing the bleep out of everything and just play the game. Please don't think of this is an insult or whatever. It's more of an observation. Much as I'm sure that the developers love that people love their game and want to play it repeatedly, they can't design a game around such a small percentage of the game's potential audience. It's got to be designed for the vast majority of players. I will say, though, that perhaps the devs should at least look at the difficulty of the game from the perspective of the completionist player who may not be a hardcore min-maxer, but does want to play as much of the game as possible, though it can cause them to have enough XP and thus character levels to make the game a bit less difficult than the devs intend. Of course, I suppose that that's hard to balance as well, because at the same time there may be players who go for the other extreme, i.e. trying to get through the main storyline as quickly as possible, etc., etc. So I'm not sure how they can balance for both of those extremes, other than perhaps the difficulty scaling they added in after WM1 or WM2 (don't remember which one).

A bit of a thread necro, but what the heck. It's been a while since I played but have some thoughts. 1. I'm surprised that you're playing on POD difficulty on your first play through. 2. I wouldn't get too worried about which companions to take, or rather get stuck on playing strictly with any single group of them. While I found that I had my favorites, and certain ones might feel necessary to cover certain roles, it also helps to mix and match them from time to time. For one thing, if you rotate all of the companions through your party, you can work all of their personal quests. It also helps you learn different classes that you might not be familiar with. It's also nice to "recruit" them and have them hanging around your stronghold as a reserve. Furthermore, on occasion, you might come across a battle here and there with which you have difficulty. And sometimes the best way to handle it is to head back to your stronghold and switch up your party lineup. Everyone has favorite companions. Mine happens to be Pallegina. I just love her "foreign" (to the Dyrwood) accent. 3. I'm a bit stale on crafting, i.e. upgrading, armor and weapons, and so on. But I can tell you this. Some items are fairly common. But certain items, like dragon scales and durgan steel, are extremely limited.

It depends on who else is in the party. I don't remember the name of the weapon. But if you don't have a ranger in your party, the Soulbound hunting bow is excellent for GM. However, if you do have a Ranger in the party for the long haul, that bow should probably be in their hands since it's more powerful in the hands of a ranger than a cipher. But even used by a Cipher it's pretty nasty.

A little late to the party, but what the heck. Given the overall size of the game, I suggest trying to use as many of the Companions as possible. From my experience, it's possible to complete all of their personal quests and gain whatever XP is to be gained (not really that big a concern) and whatever special items might be gained (probably a bigger concern). Furthermore, trying to play all or most of the Companions is a good way to learn the different classes. And it can be very useful at certain points in the game, if you run into a situation where you have great difficulty with a certain party composition, to have a nice "bench" of backup companions back at your stronghold, ready and waiting for you. You can then mix and match different lineups to see what works for you. I remember once having trouble in a certain area with a lot of monks where I was having to reload relatively often and had trouble with a boss battle. So I reloaded and trudged back to the stronghold, and switched up my lineup to one I felt would work better. And it did. I got past the boss battle a lot easier with a different lineup. I'm not really sure that any of the Companions significantly affect the main story line. (It's been a while since I did a run through.) But each has their own personal story line. Some are more conversational, while others are more action oriented. But it's fun to do as many of them as possible. My personal favorite Companion is Pallegina. Largely because I absolutely love her accent. Plus, she's a very capable character (paladin) with a unique paladin order and abilities.

The general ignorance of the playerbase is no reason to use inaccurate and therefore inferior terms. A game that can teach you something is always better than a game that simply lowers itself to your level of knowledge. The fact that you're unable to appreciate the historical accuracy doesn't suggest that it's not worth it, it in fact suggests that perhaps there's some reading you ought to do on the subject. It's not about appreciation. It's about really not caring. This isn't meant to be snarky towards people who care about firearms history. It's just not my cup of tea. And the terms "rifle" and "shotgun" are just so much easier to use, spell, and grasp as concepts. Musket wouldn't be all that bad an alternative. I guess it's just a matter of taste.

This is SOOOOOOOOO true. IMO, all major NPC's you encounter along your journey should have portraits. And when you get right down to it, how many "major" NPCs are there really in PoE that would/should require a portrait? It's been so long since I've played PoE that I don't remember the NPCs all that well. But there's Lady Webb, Iovara, Thaos, the lord of that castle in the first act that you have to deal with. The Master of the dungeon, I suppose, though he may actually be more of a minor NPC when all's said and done. There might be a couple in WM1 and 2. All in all, not that many that are truly significant enough to warrant a portrait. On a lesser level, it might have been nice if there were a variety of small thumbnail portraits for various inn keepers and merchants, though that would be a luxury.

I guess that I'm more the reverse. I wasn't a great fan of Iovara, though perhaps part of that was because I wasn't really much of a fan of the entire "the gods aren't real" storyline/conflict between Thaos and Iovara. Maybe this was just the producers/writers way of differentiating PoE from, say, the Forgotten Realms of D&D where there was an established set of deities that the people of the Realms take as a given. But honestly, I kind of like that sort of thing in a fantasy setting. And the "gods aren't real" story arc felt a smidge preachy for me. Of course, it could hardly be any other way, given that the two main characters in this arc (Thaos and Iovara) were both preaching opposite sides of the "gods are or aren't real" philosophy/heresy. And, of course, this was also the overriding story arc of the entire game, so without it, the game's entire story would have required another plot. Lady Webb wasn't, I suppose, absolutely necessary to moving the story forward. The PC could perhaps have pieced together enough of the mystery to keep advancing the story. OTOH, Lady Webb was a convenient focus for getting you on the track of the main story line and keeping you there during the middle part of the game. Could it have been been done differently? I suppose. But it might have take a lot longer for the PC to track down enough clues to find your first steps along the main story line's "path". Overall though, I didn't mind Lady Webb. Regardless, different strokes and all that...

Meh. I just like the elegant simplicity, inaccurate though it may be, of calling them rifles and shotguns. That's how I've always thought of them in PoE. Frankly, I doubt that many people even know what arquebusses and blunderbusses are other than being "guns". It just seems to me that calling them rifles and shotguns is just simpler. (Not to mention easier to spell.)

This is my first post on a PoE2 topic. (Haven't played PoE in a year or more.) While part of me wishes that guns were never a part of the game in the first place, since they are in the game, I kind of wish that the devs had taken a leap in nomenclature and just called arquebuses "rifles" and blunderbusses "shotguns". For one thing, the modern words are a LOT easier to spell. And players will instantly understand the difference between the two weapon types instinctively.

Yes - look at the Batsh!t Crazy build (https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/83775-class-build-batsht-crazy-disabling-druid-tank/).It's tanky enough and a great walking CC effect with the storms. Once cast, Relentless Storm doesn't care about DEX and armor penalties. As long as you stand upright it will keep on cracking. Those are the reasons I nearly never use pure "traditional" tanks like paladins or fighters. They are too limited and no fun. Boeroer, I guess that think that different people will see it differently. I really enjoy the simplicity of Fighters and to a lesser degree, paladins. I've never played a pally PC, mostly because I like having Pallegina in the party so much and don't particularly like duplicating classes in my parties.

Honestly, I like having some duplication in healing and affliction removing spells/abilities, just in case one of the characters is knocked out, etc. Besides, I find that AoL is a nice, easy to use ability that isn't limited in its uses, and obviously extremely useful when you're facing fampyrs.

Pirates? The easy answer is a Rogue, but I think that it could be done with a Fighter, Barbarian, or Chanter fairly easily as well. I suppose that cipher is possible too. Wizards, monks, paladins, priests, druids, and rangers don't seem to be a good fit, but who knows?

I'm not really sure what class I'll want to carry over into PoE2. I'm very fond of rangers, but tend to find them a bit of a pain in that they take up a backliner slot in my party, without being the party's mechanic. My last 2 PC's have been Fighters. Never played a Fighter PC in the BG games as I thought they were boring compared to paladins. But they're so much more interesting to me, in PoE.