Crucis

I'd probably agree that the noble group is perhaps the worst. Of course, I personally think that this weapon focus group concept is perhaps the one thing in PoE that I dislike the most. I find them very constricting if your character doesn't happen to fit an obvious stereotype, such as soldier, knight, ruffian, or peasant. The WF groups make maces an almost never used weapon, at least for me because it belongs to such a lame group. (Maces belong in either the knight or soldier group, IMO.) Personally, if WF groups were going to remain, I'd like to see the Noble and Adventurer groups removed and their weapons spread around into the other groups, though this is far from a perfect solution. Off the top of my head, here's one way that I could see the Noble and Adventurer weapons dispersed. Adventurer Estoc > Knight Flail > Knight Wand > Don't know. Warbow > Soldier or Peasant Pollaxe > Soldier Noble Scepter > Don't know. Rod > Don't know. Mace > Knight Dagger > Ruffian or Peasant Rapier > Don't know. (Personally doesn't seem to fit at all the game to me, as it's more of a gentleman's dueling weapon than a practical battlefield weapon.) Also... Greatsword > Knight (great swords and estocs are IMO much more knightly weapons than pikes and pollaxes, which seem more soldier type of weapons) Accurate is a decent weapon feature, but DR bypass is probably better, since a bypass of 3 DR is a guaranteed 3 more damage that damage the target rather than gets absorbed by its defenses. Also, for what little it's worth, it's not really a surprise that the Noble group doesn't have a bow, xbow, or gun option. Those weapons weren't for nobles (nose stuck way in the air....). Another problem with the Noble group from a theoretical PoV is that any nobles who were going to be combatants, would probably be knights in the first place, making a "noble" group sort of superfluous IMO. As for implements, I don't really know what to do with them. One idea that's a little outside the box could be to create an "arcane" WF group that consists of somewhat stereotypical magely weapons (though there could be some overlap with other WF groups, which may have some underlying issues that I'm not aware of). Such a group might be like: wands, scepters, rods, quarterstaffs, daggers, and possibly rapiers. Just a thought. Anyways, that's enough off the wall theory-crafting for now.

Yeah, but it's your choice - jump or not. And I think you just need to beat the drake to access the master staircase which is one fight where you can go full nova. Actually, the Drake fight is the one big fight you don't have to do to get to the master staircase on that level. I do agree that jumping down that hole is your choice. But if you make that choice on your first run through of the game and you do it at too low a party level, you can find yourself in a world of hurt. Avoiding the drake fight and getting to the master staircase (which BTW, you may not even know exists, since IIRC, level 5 is the first time you run across an entrance to it) isn't necessarily all that difficult. But if you don't know any better and try to climb back up and out of the dungeon the long way, you'll hit the ogre level next, I think. And that may be as bad or worse than the drake. Dealing with a single ogre isn't impossible for a lower level party. Dealing with a bunch of them with ogre druid support is darned right scary.

Or spelling.

MD, there's one other area that you can't retreat from that comes to mind. Remember in the Endless Paths, IIRC on the 2nd level, there's some sort of pit you can scale down or jump into that takes you down to the 5th level? You can't retreat back up that pit. Of course, if you go down the stairs and get to the 5th level that way, retreat is an easy option. OTOH if you take the drop down the pit, you have to fight your way through to find either the normal stairs back up, or the master staircase. But there's no retreat. As for the estimating how much magic is needed, you're 100% correct. Sometimes encounters are best dealt with using physical force, and sometimes you need the party's heavy artillery support (i.e. magic) to get the job done.

What's a "pull"?

The problem I see with stopping the riots is that there's largely no non-lethal way to do it in the game. In real life, unless you're a really blood-thirsty brutal dictator, you just don't go out and kill all the rioters. You try to subdue them and arrest the worst of them, and try to get the rest to disperse and go home. That said, if the rioting was portrayed not as outright fighting between the rioters and the Knights, perhaps there'd be a chance for the party to go around the city and talk to various rioting/protesting groups to get them to back down. And how is it determined that you've succeeded in quelling the rioting and completed the "stop the rioting" quest? For what it's worth, it seems that trying to stop the riots means that you're siding with the Knights and probably the Doemenels, whereas the Dozens are on the side of the rioters. On the flip side, what if you prefer to side with the rioters? Put another way, what if you side with the Dozens and the common people against the city's nobles? How is that handled? Do you attack any Cruc. Knight you see and then attack their HQ as well? Of course, the thing is that if you side with the rioters, you are effectively doing what Thaos wants, unless you can find a way to side with the Dozens, etc. but stop the destruction of the Sanitarium.

You can swing both ways at the hearing and Thaos can only swing two ways at the hearing. So one of the two possible outcomes must be in Thaos' interest. Not sure what you're trying to say here. Thaos wants to be certain that there's only one possible outcome ... his outcome. That's why he does what he does. He doesn't care what the various reps say. But your argument only holds water if his outcome is to kill the Duc in any case to blame it on animancy. But if animancy is in fact outlawed in the proceedings, there's no need for him to further expose himself. So one of the two possible outcomes of the hearing should be in his favor and therefore not require direct action. You're assuming that he wants a simple outlawing of animancy. By doing what he did, Thaos caused a violent uprising against animancy, which in turn caused far more destruction to the "science" than merely outlawing ever could. It also leads to the destruction of the Sanitarium and providing good cover for killing Lady Webb - neither of which would have worked as well had Animancy just been outlawed (thus allowing the Sanitarium Animancers to go to ground with their research and equipment and not hiding the massacre of Dunryd Row under the guise of the riots). Good points. I think that Thaos (and Woedica) wanted Animancy to be more than outlawed. I think they wanted it destroyed. And assassinating the Duc, thus fomenting the riots which caused the deaths of so many animancers and the destruction of the sanitarium (not to mention providing cover for killing Lady Webb) seems much more along the lines of what Thaos wanted.

I'm getting really annoyed with this random merchant that shows up at the strong hold. All I ever seem to get out of him is the Wormwull armor, perhaps those grossly overpriced gloves, or the nice morning star. I wish that Azzuro would just show up with his entire frigging stock and take up residence, for crying out loud. I picked up that Autumn Fire scale armor, and darned, it's nice looking! A nice scale armor that I came across that's quite interesting looking is the Scales of the Raven. Very scaly, very black. Whether it's nice looking is a matter of opinion, but one can't deny that it looks different from all the shiny armors out there. And a very nice, very impressive looking leather armor I purchased (IIRC) is Kerdhed Pames. It's a suit of Exceptional Leather Armor that comes with a +3 bonus to Resolve, which adds +3 to DEFL. I'm using this armor on my offensive Fighter PC in my current party.

I think that the Recovery period is based on your armor, not the weapon. The Reload is based on the weapon. There are two periods. Recovery and Reload. But yes, if you swap weapons, it does affect recovery. OTOH, I've noticed that it seems like if you change weapons instantly after firing, the recovery doesn't appear to get any longer than 100%. When it really hurts to change a weapon is when the recovery is well under way. Arguably, a barbarian wanting to a gun-to-melee weapon switch might be better off with a longer ranged ranged weapon to give him a little more time. But since we're talking about the barb in question using Ruffian weapons, his two choices both have 8m ranges. (He could still use weapons outside the group, I suppose.) Generally, I like using ranged weapons for an opening salvo from every single character. But in this case, it may not be optimal for the barbarian. For a high DEFL defensive tank, I don't think that it's that big a deal since such a character isn't that concerned with instantly switching to the offensive and has the defenses to have a good chance of evading the first melee attack. But a barbarian may not have the defense to avoid that first attack, while he's recovering from taking an opening pistol shot, so maybe the tactic of an opening pistol shot isn't as safe for him. Something to consider.

1. Perhaps you find them offensive, but remember that PoE, like the BG and IWD games, is a computer role playing game. Is it really any surprise that role players think that min-maxers aren't playing the game the way it's meant to be played? Or for that matter, maybe you should understand that some of them may find extreme power gamers "offensive" because the role players see them as going against the spirit of a role playing game. As for "Can't enter a forum anymore without them sniffing down their long noses", while I won't claim that you're doing this, I've certainly had some power gamers look down their noses at me, a moderate role player who min-maxes a little, when I try to talk builds. Some of them seem to think that the Characters, etc. sub-forum only exists for their (i.e. the extreme min-maxing power gamers') use. They insult me for daring to suggest less than perfectly efficient character builds. 2. Regarding pistols: It's a good point that pistols hit nearly as hard as rifles (I'm getting tired of calling them arquebusses, too hard to spell), and fire more quickly, though at the expense of range, which is 80% of a rifle's range. I actually have my current party's ranged rogue use a rifle or an arbalest for an opening shot (for the maximum damage) and a warbow (Cloudpiercer) for the rest of the battle, for the rate of fire. (She also has the Arms bearer talent for the 3rd weapon slot for her melee weapon.) So, I don't find the idea of using two ranged weapons all that strange. Anyways, I don't doubt that pistols can be nasty weapons and all. I just don't like giving up the range of bows and crossbows/arbalests for a sniper character (like a ranger or a ranged rogue), since there's value in being to hit targets at that range. Still, that's not to say that there can't be a role for a pistoleer in a party. Maybe a cipher would be a good choice for a pistoleer? Just a thought. You're right about "Speed" weapons. It's a shame that they don't work (yet), ranged or melee.

For me it's not just about how good a weapon is. It's also about where it is placed in the game or when it is generally available and to a lesser extent, how easy/costly it is to get it. In that regard, I also do feel Ravenwing is strong as you can get it by just doing the main quests in Defiance Bay and exploring the relevant areas, without too much trouble. Good enough to take a weapon focus for it is debatable, but it is a good weapon nonetheless, especially for mid level characters. Implements are meh for the rest of the classes, but a pretty reasonable weapon for Wizards with Blast+Penetrating Blast, against massed mobs with DR, tanked/held in place at chokepoints. Tack on Kalakoth's Minor Blights and really go to town with damage. Aloth comes from a Noble background, so it wouldn't be terribly odd to see him take up an associated weapon focus. Agreed on Fighter. Unfortunately, Eder comes with Weapon Focus: Ruffian. Which is a little odd, considering his background is Farmer. Also agreed on Rogue. I'm curious as to what you would give a Cipher. Grieving Mother doesn't come with a Weapon Focus when picked up at L6 and Blunderbuss cheese is gone in 1.05. I only dressed her in robes/clothes for fast casting and so put a Warbow on her to keep her out of harms way. I'm also already having quite a few meleers (Rogue, Eder, Pallegina/Kana, Itumaak) so went ranged to reduce crowding. But at times, I wonder if I would be better off making her melee or pairing her with another weapon with appropriate weapon focus for more dps output. Drath, you must not have the latest patch (1.05) installed, because in 1.05, all Companions are set to level one when you meet them, thus allowing you to level them up and pick their abilities and talents (but not their initial build stuff) as you see fit. This would allow you to pick a WF group other than Ruffian for Eder, if that's what you wanted to do. I tend to think that Eder's better with either the Soldier or Knight WF groups or both. Regarding Aloth, he doesn't really come from a noble background. His background is listed as "gentry", which means that he comes from the upper class of society, but not quite a noble. Still, that's probably enough to justify a Noble WF group. Speaking of Maces, I find it rather frustrating that they're part of the Noble WF group because it makes them far less desirable for a front liner to use. Maces should be part of the Soldier or Knight group. Of course, I tend to think that the Adventurer group should be dropped entirely and its weapons dispersed amongst the remaining groups, but that's neither here nor there since it's just my opinion.

I absolutely disagree with this statement. I have every character in my parties armed with a ranged weapon, even the front liners. Why? Because even front liners can fire at charging enemies before they get close enough for melee. I tend to arm front liners with hard hitting, slow reloading weapons that I don't care if they get used once in a battle. If I have 2 front liners, each with an arquebus or arbalest, that's 2 shots at doing around 30-40 or more damage at an enemy that I don't like to waste. Of course, this is also why taking the Arms Bearer feat is almost a requirement for nearly every character I play, but particularly melee characters. I like having slots for 1 ranged weapon and 2 melee weapons. In the end, I suppose that it's just a question of play style. I prefer shooting at enemies while they charge at my party, rather than waste the chance and charge at them instead.

1. If people want to role play their characters in a certain way, why not just leave them be? If they want to RP in a more DnD stereotypical way, I don't really care. As for Paladin as war-leaders vs holy warriors, I think that this was a bad decision. It's seems to have made paladins into rather weak and a bit boring shadows of what they were in the old IE games, particularly BG2. 2. I'm not all that enamored with pistols. Oh, sure, they can hit hard. There's no denying that. My problem with them is their short range, which I find rather limiting. I suppose that pistols (and blunderbusses) aren't so bad on front liners, particularly if you're only going to fire one shot and switch to melee weapons. But for back liners, it seems to me that longer ranged weapons would give you more flexibility. That said, if pistols float your boat, more power to ya.

Speed mod on unique weapons - currently dead weight - you cannot even enchant it out .. They are aware of the problem but there is no announced fix . I was wondering this as well. I've heard the same thing, and have been assuming that the Speed enchantment wasn't working. I hope that they fix it soon cuz there are some nice weapons that would actually BE much better if the Speed enchantment actually did what it said it does.

I have different advice for group WF allocation. A defensively oriented, plate-wearing tank, whether Fighter or Paladin: Knight or Soldier, or both. I personally think that if the character is defensively oriented and his job is to hold the line and stay on his feet as long as possible, then it's best to use 1H-ed weapons and shields for max deflection. For an offensively oriented fighter, or barbarian: I'd suggest Ruffian, if you want to dual wield, since dualed sabers are beastly. (Plus you get the choice of pistol or blunderbuss as a ranged weapon.) Of course, if the idea of dualed axes floats your boat (not as good as sabers, but not bad, and a nice stereotype to go with), then Knight. For a character you want wielding two-handed weapons, probably Soldier for Greatsword or Pike. Or Adventurer, for Estoc or Poleaxe. Arguably the best 2H-ed weapon in the game is the greatsword, Tidefall. But the Pike, Tall Grass, is outstanding as well. For a priest of Magran (sch as Durance), IMO, you need no WF. Just take the Magranic talent that gives a +10 accuracy in Arquebus and Sword, and you're good to go. For other priests, check out their own diety's class weapon talent, since, IIRC, they're all +10 accuracy in two weapons, which is better than taking a WF ... though to be fair, not all of them come with a ranged and melee option, like Magran does. For Rogues, IMO, it depends on whether you're looking at a primarily melee rogue or a primarily ranged rogue. If melee, then yeah, Ruffian would probably be an excellent choice. OTOH, if it's a ranged rogue, I suggest Adventurer (warbow) or Soldier (Arquebus and Arbalest). My current party's rogue picked both Adventurer and Soldier because she tends to open battles with a rifle shot for max damage, then switches to her warbow, Cloudpiercer, for the better rate of fire. (I like being able to have her change targets more quickly than using an arquebus would allow, given that it's the slowest reloading weapon type in the game, IIRC.) Cipher: I like Soldier so that they can use arquebus or arbalest, plus Pikes. Pikes are great for squishier back-liners to use since they can move up and use pikes from behind their front line buddies and still do good damage. Probably not a bad choice for wizards as well, though I have to admit that I tend to care more about giving Ciphers good weapons before wizards, because ciphers need to do damage to power up their focus. That said, you make a good point about how that Wizard spell's spirit lance is a pike. Honestly though, if I have a cipher and a wizzy in the same party, might not every pick a WF for the wizzy. And if the wizzy is meant to stay at range, I'd probably choose Marksman over a WF group. And that way, the wizzy could use any ranged weapon without being tied to any specific WF group. Here's on you overlooked.... Monk. This one's easy. Peasant, because unarmed combat is part of the Peasant WF group. And if one wants to role play monks, Qstaffs, spears, and hunting bows seem like they fit the image of a Asian "monk". I've played my monks using little more than fists and a bow, and done quite well with them. For the other classes I haven't mentioned, I'd probably just make choices that worked around the other more well-defined choices, perhaps making WF choices that used groups that are unused by others in the party, or no WF group at all.

If you did what I did and set up my party on the lower level and forced Raedric to come to me, you can set up a flame seal spell on the stairs because there's no way the enemy can get down the stairs without triggering it. Also, if you time your castings right, you can send AoE attacks onto the stairs at the same time, right at the start of the battle. However, you're 100% correct that after the enemy starts swarming and charming the occasion team mate, those area effect damaging spells become too dangerous to use. You're limited to single target damage spells and non-damaging mental spells. But that's OK. They work too. I also use that "monocle hat" item, on my PC. I won't say that she can't be charmed, but it's a lot more difficult. One thing I've been learning lately, was the value of not ignoring the need for a wizard to defend himself in melee. I'm not one who looks to sens my wizzies into melee. That said, there are things one can do with little effort to make a wizard a more difficult target in melee. Having a strong, hardened Arcane Veil. Having Flame Shields. Carrying some sort of shield with a 1H'ed melee weapon. Even with just Hardened Arcane Veil, Flame Shields, and a Fine Small Shield, Aloth is a considerably more challenging target in melee than otherwise. And I'm sure that there are other spells that would make him even more difficult. Personally, my preference is for him to stay at range and doing ranged or arcane combat. But sometimes, you just can't stop an enemy from getting into your rear, like in this Raedric battle. And Aloth really needs to be able to look after himself.

I fought the undead Raedric battle last night with my level 11 party, which consisted of Eder, Aloth, GM, Durance, a (level 10) custom ranged Rogue, and my swashbuckler fighter PC, on Normal difficulty. It took me 2 tries (sorta). The first time, I accepted the fampyr greeter's offer to be lead to Raedric, cuz I didn't know where he would be. And frankly, you get led and placed in a position that isn't particularly good from a defensive standpoint, so I got mobbed and I bailed on the battle because it wasn't going to end well. The second time, I just killed the greeter fampyr at the front gate and went to where Raedric was on my own. However, I did NOT go up the stairs to where he was until I'd had Durance place a Flame seal, and I'd positioned everyone how I wanted them. Then I had my PC go up the stairs to start the encounter. In theory, I could have sent someone else, but I was slightly role playing it by having my PC personally respond to Raedric's challenge. And the instant the dialog ended and the battle started, I had her run back to the party ASAP. Anyways ... at that point I had Aloth cast a Chill Fog on the stairs on top of the Flame Seal and had everyone else fire their ranged weapon at the first enemy that came down the stairs and nuked him. At this point it became a general melee, with the fampyrs trying to get around my flanks and my party doing their best to prevent it or engage them as best as possible. It was one heck of a mess, and IIRC a couple of my characters got knocked out. But in the end, Raedric was sent back to Berath's Wheel, like he deserved!!! It helps to fight it on ground of your own choosing. Also, it was a tricky battle for GM (at least for me) because I like the cipher level 2 mind blades spell, but if I had a party member charmed, I didn't want GM to be unintentionally damaging them with mind blades. IIRC, Mental Bindings ended up being more useful in this battle, since it's a Foe only AoE. And even if it paralyzes a charmed team mate, at least it's not doing any direct damage to them. This was one tough but very satisfying battle.

I agree that this scenario is entirely possible. I've played through that scene 3 times, and have never come out squarely against animancy. I think that twice I said that it needed to be more carefully regulated and the other time used the response that if they outlawed animancy, someone else would have an advantage over the Dyrwood later on. I don't know what sort of scripted reaction from the Duc and the reps you get if the PC says that animancy should be outlawed, in spite of all the evidence he's collected. I have no doubt that Thaos still attacks though, if only because I think that that's how the devs have scripted the overall scene. In theory, if the PC comes out against animancy, it's entirely possible that the Duc would accept the PC's opinion and outlaw animancy. But is that really what Thaos wants? Given Thaos' apparent history of violent solutions, I left to wonder if merely causing animancy to be banned really isn't Thaos' goal. Oh, I think that it's definitely part of what he wants, but I suspect that he wants more than that. Or at least his history easily leads one to think that is the case.

While there's no question that the Outworn Buckler is good, the problem is that it leaves Pallegina using only a one-handed weapon, which with her meager Might, means that she'll be doomed to doing only minimal damage. Now, if that's OK with you and you're playing her mostly as a hold-the-line sort of frontliner, no prob. But if you're trying to get some useful damage out of her, she probably needs to be using a two handed weapon of some sort. Of course, this all depends on party composition, what abilities and talents you've given Pallegina, how far along in the game one is, and what items you have available for her to use. With enough stat buffing items and excellent plate armor, Pallegina can be entirely effective using a 2H weapon.

You can swing both ways at the hearing and Thaos can only swing two ways at the hearing. So one of the two possible outcomes must be in Thaos' interest. Not sure what you're trying to say here. Thaos wants to be certain that there's only one possible outcome ... his outcome. That's why he does what he does. He doesn't care what the various reps say. But your argument only holds water if his outcome is to kill the Duc in any case to blame it on animancy. But if animancy is in fact outlawed in the proceedings, there's no need for him to further expose himself. So one of the two possible outcomes of the hearing should be in his favor and therefore not require direct action. You're assuming that he wants a simple outlawing of animancy. By doing what he did, Thaos caused a violent uprising against animancy, which in turn caused far more destruction to the "science" than merely outlawing ever could.

I wouldn't look for Pallegina to be a big damage dealer. As Manty pointed out, she doesn't really have the Might to be a truly BIG damage dealer. A great sword is a good idea. Also a Pike can be a good idea as well. I have to admit that I tend to take the Arms Bearer feat with nearly every serious front line character I play, just because I like being able to carry a ranged weapon, as well as two different melee weapons. For melee weapons, I prefer to have one crushing weapon and the other be either a slashing or piercing type of weapon. (Sometimes, you can get both with a weapon like a greatsword or regular sword whose damage is officially "slashing or piercing", which works out rather well.) For Pallegina, she'd be good with a greatsword or pike, and perhaps a warhammer and shield as the backup melee weapon for those times when your enemy's DRs are strong vs slash and pierce, but weak against crushing damage. It's always good to have options in situations like this.

I'm in my 3rd run-thru of the game, and you make some excellent points above. Let me expand on them. 1. If you're not familiar with this style of game from having played the Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale games, I don't think that it's a good idea at all to play your first party on anything other than Easy or perhaps Normal mode, with Expert mode NOT turned on. Being able to see where your area affect spells will and won't hit matters .. a lot. Sure, once you have a firm handle on the game, one can give Expert mode a try, but trying to play the game on hard settings and expecting to succeed without any familiarity with the game is crazy. 2. On your first point, there's more to combat than melee and magic. There's nothing wrong with using ranged combat. Please note that I'm not any sort of extreme powergamer here, but I played the BG and IWD games and am familiar with how this overall style of combat works. My personal style is to have two dedicated front liners whose job is to try to hold back the enemy melee mobs. Then I have one or two in-betweeners who can go to the front line or stay behind and use ranged weapons and/or spells. And I have a couple of backliners who are meant to be strictly ranged combat and spells. (I don't stick with this strictly. It's more of a guideline to me...) I happen to like having a good archer in my parties, even in this game with the presence of guns. Guns have nice damage, but their slow reload makes them weaker for responding to quickly changing tactical situations. They're like heavy artillery, whereas a good archer is like a quicker to respond sniper. A good archer (i.e. rogue or ranger) can be great for when you see a very weak enemy that you want to get dead ASAP without waiting for a long reload. Or maybe a spellcaster that you want to try to hit asap to interrupt a spellcasting. This isn't to say that I don't have people using guns. I do. I just like having one archer for these reasons. Also, you want to avoid being surrounded and enveloped by the enemy. Often, you'll be outnumbered, and you only win because of better tactics. Try not to let the enemy flank you. And if one enemy happens to sneak into your rear, try to have everyone except your front liners gang up on this leaker to kill him ASAP. But if at all possible, try to keep the enemy in front of your front liners! 3. Armor: Agree 110%. With my current party, I have Eder, my primary hold-the-line fighter, in the best plate possible. And at the same time, I have my PC, Takka, an Island Aumaua from Deadfire with a raider background (who I'm aggressively playing as a swashbuckling sort of fighter), wearing only leather armor. She wore chain mail for the longest time, but I found that I could get away with her wearing only leather armor. She doesn't seem to be taking significantly more damage than before, and her attack speed has increased significantly. Takka is outperforming Eder offensively by a WIDE margin, wearing only leather armor (a unique suit of exceptional leather armor named Kerdhed Pames with a little extra enchantment, but leather armor nonetheless). I tend to put Durance in excellent plate armor because I put him on the front lines rather often, and expect him to get hit, since his DEFL isn't particularly spectacular. But I keep my rogue and cipher in no more than leather armor (and may be "less" as I procure some of the great padded armors and robes that exist later in the game). 4. Disengaging: If you have a character that you'd desperately like to disengage from melee, but are afraid to get hit running away, there's a trick you can use sometimes. If you're next to a Fighter (such as Eder) who has the Knockdown ability, have that Fighter do a knockdown attack on the enemy you want to disengage from. And if the fighter is successful at knocking that enemy down, then your other character is free to run away safely. The fighter knockdown ability can be very useful for situations like this. I personally don't knock down enemies just because I can. I save knockdowns for situations like this one where knocking down an enemy can save a team mate's life.

You can swing both ways at the hearing and Thaos can only swing two ways at the hearing. So one of the two possible outcomes must be in Thaos' interest. Not sure what you're trying to say here. Thaos wants to be certain that there's only one possible outcome ... his outcome. That's why he does what he does. He doesn't care what the various reps say.

Haha, ikr. That representative made me feel a bit embarrassed for backing up Dozens. Everyone at the hearings was so professional and civil except that guy, he was so mad and yelling all the time, felt like at any moment he would have killed that animancer in any case. :D The Knights' rep was a bit snarky at one point. But at least she was snarky in a civil and professional way. The Dozens' rep was just a total embarrassment. Seriously, this guy said that if the Duc didn't do what the Dozens wanted, the Dozens intended to start a civil war. In the real world, this sort of thing could easily get you arrested. I think that the Dozens' rep was really unrealistically written in this regard. I think that it should have been possible to write the Dozens' rep in such a way that still showed the Dozens' considerable dissatisfaction with animancy without the character saying things that would be grossly unrealistic for an actual person in a similar situation.

I think that you're misreading this. If not for Thaos' act, the PC's words almost certainly would have had a difference on the Duc' decision. The point is that Thaos' act completely superseded whatever was going on during the hearing, just as any assassination would do at any similar such hearing. Do you think that the words of a hearing's witnesses is going to change what happens if a madman decides to assassinate someone at such a hearing? Of course not. The only way to change the outcome of that scene would have been for the PC to know Thaos' plans so that he could attempt to stop them. But the PC doesn't know them. The PC is there only to tell the Duc what's he's discovered and hopefully affect the Duc's decision. Frankly, I have no problem with the way the hearing scene ended. (My only problem with that scene was that the Duc should have told the Dozen's representative to keep a civil tongue in his mouth, leave, or be arrested.)