Crucis

You don't NEED a rogue. For one thing, there are other classes that get a bonus to Mechanics at creation, albeit +1 rather than the +2 that Rogues get. And you can take a background that provides another +1 bonus to Mechanics. IIRC, Chanter and Cipher are two of the classes that give a bonus to starting Mechanics. Maybe Wizards as well, but I'm not sure without looking. Personally, I always have a rogue because I enjoy having them along As for needing Wizards, no, they're not necessary. In theory, you can get along without any of the casting classes. But if you want to have a caster or 2 but not a wizzy, you can get by quite well with a Cipher instead of a Wizard. Just know that the way you'll need to play the party will be a little different.

Yep, I believe that's who you need to see.

I could go on and on about this. IMO, this is a reason why I think that it's so difficult (at least for me) to not use an Island Aumaua for a melee character, because I find having at least 3 weapon slots to be so incredibly valuable. Honestly, much more so than for pretty much any other racial special ability. Sort of int he same way that I find the Wood Elven special ability ("Ranged Advantage") to be so valuable that it's hard to not use Wood Elves for any ranged character. Personally, I see this as a flaw in the character generation system. IMO, none of the special abilities should be so good that it causes a given race or sub-race to seem like not taking it would be to create a character that was less than it could be. I don't have a really solid alternative to this, though I suppose that instead of having racial special abilities, maybe every character could be given a single Talent point at creation. And perhaps the list from which you could choose might be somewhat limited so as to not allow for overly powerful 1st level characters.

That's such a bad way to make a RTwP game play... My will to play this game goes down every time I read posts here... Like there is no point in making it a RTwP game, if you are going down that route then just make it turn based. Wellllllll, I sorta agree with you, Sarex. OTOH, I can see where Fenixp is coming from. He's just using the game's Pause settings to make his decisions to pause the game for him. I personally don't have that many auto-pauses set. I know that I have autopause set for when the enemy is first sighted. But beyond that, I don't remember if I have any other auto-pauses.

Andrea, I think that you misread what Junai said about Dexterity. What he said about dexterity was a little more subtle (or maybe just poorly communicated) than just assuming that he meant that the DEX stat didn't matter. IMO, what he was trying to say was along the lines of a complaint that Deflection, i.e. the stat measuring one's ability to avoid being hit, was based on RES rather than on DEX. IMO, basing DEFL on RES seems incredibly counter-intuitive. It seems to me that there is no logical argument centered on the real life meanings of the words describing the 6 attributes that can justify DEFL being based on one's resolve. It just seems silly. The only argument that can be made is one based on game design and balance, etc., which IMO will always leave people looking at that decision and thinking that it was illogical and silly.

As I understand it, it was a conscious design decision to get away from the way things were in the old IE games where players would cast a half dozen buffing spells regularly before battles, and it got to the point where it seemed that you had no choice but to do it because the designers back then may have ended up balancing some battles on the assumption of massive pre-battle buffing. Personally,, I really LOVE that pre-battle buffing has largely gone away. I always found all that pre-battle buffing to be an annoyingly tedious process that got in the way of good game play and fun. And for what it's worth, there are still a few buffs you can do before a battle. They're largely food and drink consumable items.

Ksajal, while there's nothing wrong with Battle Axes, I'm not sure that the Knight weapons group is such a good one overall for a melee rogue. When you look at the Ruffian group, it seems like the entire mix of weapons is a pretty decent fit for a melee rogue, but game play wise and RP wise.

I read a post a while back (probably long before WM1 was released) where the player posted his dual wielding stiletto rogue. He was very pro-stiletto due to the DR bypass that all stilettos get, and some get additional DR bypass, plus you can select a feat that adds even more DR by pass. So you end up with these tiny little weapons that look like they'd be so weak but are actually doing a lot more damage than you'd ever expect. Regardless, a dual wielding rogue seems like it'd be fun, though I can see where it might be useful to have either a ranged weapon or a pike (or Qstaff) in reserve for when your rogue is really beat up and needs to fight from behind your tanks.

What about the Devil of Caroc? Good question. I think that the answer comes on two levels. First, arguably, her animantic (if that's a word to be used) possession of her "body" seems rather different from animats. Animats seem like they essential PoE's version of golems. Whatever soul they possess seems like it's just enough to power the animat for use as a "golem" or robot-like creature. (I haven't played PoE in quite a few months and haven't played WM nor Devil, so I'll admit up front to a level of ignorance on Devil and am only speculating about her, so forgive any obvious errors that I may make here.) Devil's possession of her "body" seems like it was designed to allow her soul to have a new body and yet still be as much of who she used to me. She is not a mindless automaton, like an animat. And as a result, she remains vulnerable to all the same mental attacks that would threaten an normal person. Secondly, I think that Devil was made to have the same vulnerabilities as normal people in PoE because the Devs didn't want to create a player usable character that had the potential for massive player exploits of the game. At least where it came to mental attacks. Frankly, I think that the second one is the REAL answer. And that the first answer is just the window dressing to justify the real answer.

I'm with you, Wanderon. To me, it's always been completely silly that any character the size of any of the races in this game could knockdown something as massive as a dragon. It's also been silly that fire could damage a fire elemental (or blight or whatever). And so on. Enough with this silliness that shouldn't pass any sane and logical person's laugh test. I don't think that immunities should seem random. They should be logical. Furthermore, any argument that claims that adding immunities reduces variety is silly. Yes, could you use any of the many tactical choices before these immunities existed? Of course. That's not the point. The real point is that players usually wouldn't. People get into set patterns. They have their familiar tactics and will use them endlessly unless something line immunities forces them to re-open their tactical toolboxes and come up with some different. I mean, seriously... is it so damned difficult to open your minds and accept the challenge of coming up with new tactics to deal with monsters with an immunity? Or does it all come down to this? WAHHHHH!!!!! I wanna keep using my wizzy's Fireball spell!!! I don't care that Fire Blights are made of fire and are immune to fire damage! WAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!

Yeah, it is. Not everyone plays the same way that you do. Not everyone has the same priorities, likes, or dislikes. Some people LIKE playing bow using rangers. Get over it, and get over yourself. And learn the freaking difference between THEN and THAN!!!!

I'd think that a parrying dagger or "main gauche" would be a more appropriate weapon to have a deflection bonus than a friggin' hatchet, of all things. And for that matter, how about getting some 2-handed great axes and hammers into the game? They're common fodder for fantasy games. It just looks wrong not having a bad arse dwarf wielding a great axe or 2H hammer in a game like this.

wbc, I guess that my problem here is that poleaxes are what they are. They ARE long weapons. That's just a fact. They're not in-close melee weapons, and trying to say otherwise doesn't pass the laugh test. They can (if they so choose) claim balance issues. I don't care. Poleaxes are LONG weapons. Period. Longer than legitimate quarterstaffs. And at some point reality shouldn't be so casually tossed aside on the bloody alter of game balance. Balance around the reality of poleaxes, don't just ignore it because it's too inconvenient.

How "offensive" is your paladin? I'm not sure if I'd enjoy a pally who was nothing more than a hold the line, aggro magnet tank, or a pally whose only real purpose was to use auras to enhance the rest of the team. I guess that I'm a dinosaur who thinks that paladins should be true front line holy warriors, not this warlord or general sort of character. It just seems like it might be less interesting than I'd like it to be. With your above mentioned pally, I'd probably put a blunt weapon in the 3rd slot, probably a warhammer and shield, since you seem to be set up to have the Soldier weapon focus talent. But that's my play style. I like having a blunt weapon option for my melee characters because you never know when you're going to run across something with overly strong resistances to slash and/or piercing damage. My Kind Wayfarer is leading my team in damage. 18 Might, 10 con, 10 dex, 15 per, 10 int and 15 res. Heavy plate armor, the one you get from Vampire Raedric, wielding Durgan enhanced TideFall, Long Feller Arquebus for a FoD alpha and Grey Sleeper since I wanted to have someone use it and I had already given the Soulbound Great Sword to Pallegina who uses Estocs.already. Pellagrinna will do better with a Durgan Blade of the Endless Paths instead of Grey Sleeper. Definitely not a meatshield but a frontline melee. Deflection is nothing special but DR is over 30 and the other defenses are high. KDubya, I thought that Flames of Devotion was a melee only ability. Did this change in a recent patch? EDIT: And while you're at it, what Talents did you take for your Kind Wayfarer? (And what race is he or she?) I was thinking about (for a Shield Bearer) Weapon Focus Soldier Two-handed Weapon Style Superior Deflection Deep Faith Critical Focus and perhaps Bull's Will or Arms Bearer (I love the AB talent). Speaking of Arms Bearer, this is a perfect example of why I think that Island Aumauas are so difficult for me to not want to take in a melee character because I find having the 3rd weapon slot sooooooo much more valuable than pretty much any other race's special ability when it comes to a front liner. I have this custom portrait that I'm working on of an armored elven woman that I'd love to use (could be either a pale elf or wood elf, depending on how I customize it). But compared to an Island Aumaua, using an elf as a front liner seems line a serious downgrade and would be strictly an RP choice.

He said "Meadow Folk", so .... human.

I've never been a big user of poleaxes, but I do find it a little annoying that there are so few unique ones, as well as clubs, in the game. I that the Devs would rectify this by looking at the list of unique weapons and backfilling any unique weapon types that are in short supply. And BTW, it's even a little worth worse when you consider Half-Mast since it can only be gotten by killing a certain character, which if you made a different choice along the way, you might legitimately choose not to kill. It'd be nice if there were 1 or 2 more unique poleaxes in more general locations, i.e. treasure chests or stores. On a side note, it bugs me that poleaxes aren't reach weapons and quarterstaffs are. IMO, this is 180* out of phase. But the situation would still be a lot better if Qstaffs remained reach weapons, but poleaxes became reach weapons. It seems dumb to have 2 two-handed weapons in the Adventurer group without one of them being a reach weapon, particularly when historically (I think) one would always think of pole axes as very long (aka reach) weapons. Also, it bugs me that Qstaffs are reach weapons, because that's just not the way that staff fighting is ever portrayed. It seems to me that true reach weapons are long, pokey types of weapons that you hold down near the end of the staff/pole, whereas Qstaffs are fought by holding the staff around the middle, which would pretty much negate any use of whatever "reach" it might have. Meh. Regardless, this is just a pet peeve of mine.

^This! And I would generally suggest that the one go with either a slash or pierce weapon and a crushing weapon. Note that some weapons with have two damage types, and will choose the most effective one when it applies the damage. While often not the most damaging of weapons, these dual damage type weapons are very flexible when it comes to this issue. A good reason to open extra weapon slots as well...2 for melee 1 for ranged! Entirely true, Wanderon. To me, 3 weapons slots is the optimal number for most characters, though particularly front liners. One Pierce or slash weapon, one blunt weapon, and a hard hitting ranged weapon (i.e. not a bow or magical implement). Of course, for me, this is a play style issue because I like to open up battles with a ranged volley from all of my characters (except anyone casting a spell). With any luck, it's possible to take down one or two enemies before they can even get into melee range. Though I can see how other people would prefer to do things differently. Still, I kinda wish that the "warrior" classes (i.e. fighter, paladin, barbarian, and ranger) got 3 weapon slots as part of the class package. It would seriously reduce the pressure I feel when wanting to create a "warrior" class character to pick Island Aumaua for the extra weapon slot.

I think that it depends entirely on what class your PC is. Some classes should really specialize in certain skills. Wizards, for example, really should go all-in on Lore. Rogues should go all-in on Mechanics. OTOH, a Fighter PC is likely to be a good example of a generalist in skills, since they're not really defined by their skills anyways.

I think that it depends on what class your PC is. If you're playing a Rogue PC, to me, it makes perfect sense for him or her to be he traps and locks specialist (as well as having lots of stealth). Of course, you're not wrong that those skills don't affect any dialogs. So if that matters to you, arguably that's a reason to not have a Rogue PC. Also, if you're looking for a PC that's good for dialogs, you may end up having to divert a fair amount of stat points away from more combat useful stats, which can weaken the combat ability of a Rogue ... which arguably is another good reason to avoid a Rogue PC. I suspect that the most effective combat rogues would be NPC, whether it's the Devil of Caroc or a mercenary Rogue. A merc rogue's stats can be designed with the knowledge that it won't need any stats for dialogs, only combat, thus allowing you to create a more combat effective Rogue.

It's popular to make your mechanic one of your front-row or at least second-row characters, so they can detect traps before someone else in your party trips them! Do this, and/or use the option to auto pause when detecting hidden objects, to help avoid tripping traps. If you detect a trap that you can't disarm, either leave and come back at a higher level, or send your party back and have your tankiest character set it off. Call me old fashioned, but I like to have a Rogue be my traps and locks master. And in addition to that, any skill points left over, I put into Stealth, so that my Rogue can be the party's scout who looks for both traps and bad guys.

^This! And I would generally suggest that the one go with either a slash or pierce weapon and a crushing weapon. Note that some weapons with have two damage types, and will choose the most effective one when it applies the damage. While often not the most damaging of weapons, these dual damage type weapons are very flexible when it comes to this issue.

This is interesting. i selected the island aumaua for my initial play through without the realization the third slot would be such a boon. as others characters came on board, having two slots seemed limiting. it's been pretty hard for me to stay away from the arms bearer and deep pockets talents though it seems a waste. Would be a real boon for certain race/class/background combos to unlock some of these slots. concerning skills for the main character, i'd have to agree mechanics and lore are simply too practical to avoid. i usually take a few ranks in athletics as well. a few skill points cuts back on the naps. I've taken the Arms Bearer for nearly all of my characters, PC or companion, I find it so useful. (EDIT: useFUL, not useless. Ooops.)

How "offensive" is your paladin? I'm not sure if I'd enjoy a pally who was nothing more than a hold the line, aggro magnet tank, or a pally whose only real purpose was to use auras to enhance the rest of the team. I guess that I'm a dinosaur who thinks that paladins should be true front line holy warriors, not this warlord or general sort of character. It just seems like it might be less interesting than I'd like it to be. With your above mentioned pally, I'd probably put a blunt weapon in the 3rd slot, probably a warhammer and shield, since you seem to be set up to have the Soldier weapon focus talent. But that's my play style. I like having a blunt weapon option for my melee characters because you never know when you're going to run across something with overly strong resistances to slash and/or piercing damage.

Honestly, I find it very difficult to not want to use Island Aumaua on any melee character for this very reason. It may just be my play style, but I really, really like having more options when it comes to weapons, and having only 2 weapons slots seems too limiting for my taste. I personally like being able to have any melee character be able to have 2 melee weapon options (usually one slash or pierce, and the other blunt) and a ranged weapon. (And with melee characters, I tend to prefer hard hitting, slow reloading ranged weapons, since I don't really intend on taking more than one shot, so it's better to make it a hard hitting as possible.) In a way, I think that this is a flaw in the character creation design. There are a small number of the races/subraces whose special ability is sooooo desirable for a given role (Island Aumaua and Wood Elf being the most obvious) that it can be very difficult to not pick that race, unless you wanted to pick a less desirable race for strictly RP reasons. Personally, I wish that the Devs would tweak the racial special abilities so that all were equally desirable. Or in the alternative, perhaps replace those special abilities and give players the ability to pick one talent at creation (perhaps from a limited list of talents). Along these lines, I'm designing a paladin right now that I intend to use as my next PC. I'd really like to use a Pale Elf female, because I have a custom portrait I'd love to use. That said, it's soooo damned hard to not want to use Island Aumaua to get that 3rd weapons slot, since I find a 3rd weapons slot to be one heck of a lot more valuable than the Pale Elves' cold and fire DR bonuses. Oh well.

I'm not sure what the OP means by a witch. An evil (?) female wizard? Some sort of undead mage? I don't know. As for aweigh's suggestion, it looks like some sort of Undead Hunter, which isn't a bad idea, though invest 2 of your 6 talent points into slaying talents may be a bit much. The upside is that there are plenty of undead things to kill in this game, but arguably it may make the character a little too focused on a certain type of monster and leaves him weak against everything else. It's debatable. Anyways ... If one was going to go whole hog on an Undead Hunter, one might also want to invest in one of the Will defense talents, like Bull's Will or Mental Fortress. Regardless, it is an interesting concept. Paladins are probably uniquely qualified given their paladin abilities which can be tailored for the role.