CriticalFailure

Not to mention the whole fatigue when travelling thing, which happens to be one of my gripes when paired with the current resting system. One would think that the characters would stop and take a break at some point during their off-screen journey, but apparently, travelling non-stop for several days across the whole country is perfectly normal. They can rest when they arrive to their destination... if they have supplies.

Some people seem to be under the impression that those of us who don't like the current resting mechanic just want to rest every two seconds. Is that what they do in other games with free resting? Are they unable to put their own restrictions? I'm not against resting restrictions in general, but I think there are better ways to do it than putting an arbitrary cap on camp supplies (meanwhile, I can carry around 100 full plates like it's nothing). At least in my case (and others who have expressed such), it's a matter of convenience, and not about "cheating" or making the game easier.

But you can still do it, that's the point. You may want to play a paladin for other reasons than sheer optimisation while still wanting to be something else than a mere meat shield. Which doesn't mean that paladins are the best at it or don't need a buff. Edit: Ninja'd. I was replying to gkathellar.

Ah, I must have missed that part. Good to know.

Technically off-topic, but somewhat related: I don't know the specifics, but I've just read that priest's Holy Radiance depends somewhat on reputations. Is this an issue with NPCs too? If so, can it be fixed in a similar way?

Any word?

Yeah, you can do that. Although imo any 6 man party without a priest is suboptimal, he's a huge power multiplier. I'd bring a priest if repulsing seal and devotions of the faithful were his only spells. Well, a paladin or two may be able to somewhat make up for the lack of a priest regarding buffs, but the healing is harder to substitute, unless you happen to be a moonlike. There's Lay on Hands, but that's not much, and druid requires micromanaging as well. If you're gonna have a druid in the party either way, I guess you have a point.

I know, but I think it's in part a psychological factor, rather than practical. Depending on your party composition, you may as well be giving up some of the top weapons for the sake of using the shield, or maybe even have more than one paladin in the party (no need to discuss the merits of this in detail). Or you may want a more offensive paladin focused on the on-kill talents. Or whatever. Don't take me wrong, it's a great item, but it's not the only option, and it's no Carsomyr. Please, not this again. People are not confused with the names, they are disappointed with the ****ty abilities and class mechanics in general. Simply changing a few names isn't going to make them any less ****ty. @b0rsuk, you keep talking as if the auras can easily reach anyone who isn't hiding in a bush half a kilometer away. Again, look at the pic in the previous page. What kind of leader are you if your leadership talents are lost on anyone who's two steps away from you?

So can a paladin. I'm not arguing whether it's better or worse than a fighter, but nothing forces paladins to use a shield. Only that none of the characters in that pic is "a coward who stays back", they're all pretty close and fighting in melee. As others have said, there's a middle ground between being in the back row, several meters away, and having to hug the paladin in order to be "inspired" by him. I agree that simply increasing all auras' ranges to the same as Zealous Charge sounds about right.

It's 4. Dispositions go up to 4, but Faith and Conviction maxes out at 3. As far as that talent goes, there's no difference between 3 and 4.

NWN is a special case because of the insane amount of custom modules and content in general, so it doesn't compare, IMO. If we're talking about the original campaign only, I prefer PoE. Personally, I'd put it one step below the Baldur's Gates and DAO (maybe up there with BG1), but it's still a very solid game and the best RPG I've played in the last few years (though I haven't really tried many new ones). It's not without issues, but I definitely recommend it. Just don't go expecting it to be better than X and enjoy it for what it is.

I agree with the first part of that paragraph. I actually find it pretty funny that people refer as "tanks" to defensive characters who deal no damage... Tanks are resilient, yes, but they also have a goddamn cannon. As for the second part, the way I see it, a typical warrior is an armoured guy with a sword. Armour means s/he should be well protected against physical damage, and the sword means s/he should be able to kill things with it. This doesn't mean that they should be the absolute best at both, but at least good enough. Their weakness would be anything related to magic, I guess. Extremes are silly (if a "tank" can't hurt anything with a sword, what's the point of using it?) and I'd prefer it if they weren't the powergame option, but as others have said, a "balanced" approach is viable, and it seems too late for an overhaul of the whole system to me.

Yeah, I get that part, but I was referring to the weapon talents specifically: So, to clarify: - Even though TWS is on a different line, I assume you wouldn't take it if you're planning to take Shield Style, right? - If you choose to go unarmed (which I hear is worse in the long run, but whatever), does any of the weapon style talents have any effect on fists? - About WF-Peasant, I can see taking it if you're going unarmed or with a hatchet + shield, but if you're dual wielding, aren't there better weapon types? Assuming there's no overlap with the rest of the party, would you still take Peasant over, say, Ruffian or Noble? I want to try a monk but I haven't got round to it yet, so I'm wondering if I'm missing something here or it's just one of those things you can't edit.

Nice guide, thanks for posting it. I have a question: What weapon(s) is the monk supposed to use? I assume WF-Peasant is for fists, but then you're taking 2 weapons and/or weapon + shield styles... Care to explain? PS: Call me nitpicky, but I'd put the class names in the original post in a different colour. Dark blue is hard to read on a dark background.

I don't think anyone has mentioned it, but the difficulty you're playing on may play an important part. If you're not playing on the hardest ones and your party has decent defences and can kill stuff fast enough, you may not need a lot of healing anyway. Considering the passive regen of fighters, you could just put yours on the frontline instead of the chanter.

If you're referring to those who mentioned the Romans, fair enough. In my post, though, I spoke strictly about what the game says (except maybe the percentage of the population thing), and didn't make any real world comparisons. It's not about what anyone thinks; the game specifically states so, at least concerning some of the subraces. That's my point. Not really interested in discussing this to death, anyway. I just wanted to point that out, but I can live with the backers as they are, and this has gone off-topic enough.

The descriptions of death and nature godlikes literally say that they're often killed at birth. Moon's description says that they're the most tolerated of their kind, which implies that the whole godlike race is not very tolerated in general. That doesn't necessarily mean "killed on sight" (though probably on occassion), but I wouldn't expect a bunch of godlikes hanging out with the locals in every tavern as if nothing happened, or even being admitted in the first place. Not to mention that, killed at birth or not, the percentage of the population that has been touched by the gods is probably supposed to be quite small.

To each their own, some people like micro more than others, and of course, a player controlled character or party is always going to be more effective than an AI controlled one. Having the option would be nice for many of us, though. Well, if by "old school" you mean the Infinity Engine games, those did have an AI.

Not really, what the game has is more like auto-self defence. A character who isn't being attacked just stands there, watching, until you order him/her to do something. I'd certainly welcome some kind of AI, even if it's just something simple like in Baldur's Gate. No idea if it could be added via a mod or it needs to be handled by the devs. It has been requested before, anyway.

Oh, I agree. Just saying that combat abilities (on-kill ones, FoD...) do exist and are kinda crappy, and addressing only the support isn't gonna fix them. Not beyond "slightly less crappy", anyway. But I'm saying nothing new here.

You're missing my point and you seem determined to mistake a different opinion for inability to understand you, so I'm not going to keep wasting my time.

The barbarian tribe could be: - Barbarian (duh). - Caster druid (shaman). - Melee druid in bear form, no spells (maybe use a mod to extend the shift duration?). - Chanter (skald/warchanter/whatever). - Ranger. - ... I don't know. Maybe a free spot for default companions' sidequests, if you're interested in that. Or just go with 5 and consider the ranger pet the 6th member, or repeat some class, or maybe a rogue.

The abilities that are in the actual game were put there by the developers too. You seem to be ignoring that part. Mistaking them with their counterparts in other games is not the issue; I'm just looking at other things besides your link. If you improve solely their support, they'll still have problems, unless you just revamp the whole class from their current state (which is about the same as in DnD in practice, regardless of the original intention). If you want to quote stuff that the devs wrote, this is from their description in game: So I'm not pulling the "warrior" part of the class out of my ass.

God forbid that people have read the link and don't agree 100% with you. No one is denying that they are supposed to have support abilities, but they're also a warrior class. Those on-kill abilities, for example, are also part of the class, so it's reasonable to ask for something that helps activating them. Do you want to improve their support skills too? Sure, but you can't just support your enemies to death. Now, I don't see the point of arguing what's the absolute best class at whatever. And if fighters are better at fighting... well, they're called FIGHTERS for a reason.

I don't exactly disagree, but isn't Diplomatic/Aggressive somewhat contradictory? Looking at her reactions to the player's comments during her personal quest for the ambassador, if those are any indication, she seems to favour Aggressive and Passionate responses, as opposed to Stoic and Rational (though the latter is mostly "do what your boss says and you won't get in trouble"). That said, I'm not convinced if I like NPCs getting bonuses or penalties depending on the player's choices. Yes, they're in the same party, but they don't necessarily agree with them. Another option (if technically doable at all) would be to increase the bonuses at level up.