HoopleDoople

It's actually not that bad of a build IMO considering it wasn't designed to be optimized. There's really just two flaws that will hold you back somewhat. One problem is that Humans aren't a particularly good race and don't match well with a tank. However, you will get a damage/accuracy boost whenever things get rough for your Paladin, which can be helpful for a tank that hasn't dumped dexterity and/or might. The other, bigger issue is your low intelligence. Intelligence is hugely important for a Darcozzi Paladin to increase aura AoE and ability duration, particularly for Liberating Exhortation/Inspiring Liberation. 10 intelligence won't necessarily be insurmountable though. You can get a helm or amulet with a 2 INT bonus in Copperlane and The Charred Barrel inn in Brackenbury can get you a whopping 4 intelligence rest bonus. When you make a trip to Dyrford you can add Boots of Zealous Command to increase aura AoE. Unfortunately there isn't much you can do to help your intelligence/aura radius in act 1 which is precisely when you need it the most. The accuracy bonus from Zealous Focus is incredibly helpful when all your characters have pathetic accuracy early on. The good news is your downsides can be easily overcome if you have a Priest in the party (not that it's ever a bad idea to have a Priest in your party, and that goes double for trial of iron). Blessing can provide the accuracy bonus you desperately need for the entire party early on. Priest healing will allow you to put your Fighting Spirit bonus to use without having to waste time healing yourself. And if you ever get your Paladin into a bad spot Withdraw will save you.

I personally prefer War Hammer to Rapiers due to higher base damage, a more useful weapon focus, and the dual damage type that includes crush (pierce is frequently resisted, crush infrequently, and both rarely). In terms of the specific weapons I think Measured Restraint is probably initially superior due to its incredible accuracy bonus. If you upgrade Shatterstar from fine to exceptional I believe it should compare much more favorably. Honestly my preference of Shatterstar is more about the Arquebus than anything. Landing a big hit on the enemy of your choice before switching to melee is often a tank's primary damage contribution to the battle. Might as well take a War Hammer to piggyback off the accuracy bonus (and damage bonus in the case of the Fighter). I still prefer Cladhaliath to them both, however.

A well built tank is going to have plenty of deflection from PER, RES, and a shield, so most of the time you should be fine without 5 extra from the hatchet. The real question is which weapons would be more useful for a tank character. Two options come to mind: 1) Shatterstar, a warhammer that increases your maximum enemies engaged by one (and +.5 to crit damage multiplier, not that it'll matter much for a tank), is a good option for non-fighters to help them better tank for the party. Warhammers are of the solider grouping, along with the Arquebus. This works out nicely to let your likely slow attacking tank get the most out of his alpha attack and still benefit with his melee weapon. 2) Cladhaliath, a spear that you can customize the properties on during the quest. If forged with the marking property (+10 accuracy granted to an ally attacking the same target) it is, in my opinion, the best weapon for a tank. The question is if another character in your party would prefer to use it. In particular Cladhaliath may be forged with the stunning property (attack can stun on crits) which pairs nicely with its high accuracy (+5 for being a spear and +4 when teaming up on an enemy if forged with the coordinating property). It would then be given to a DPS character.

It definitely stacks on steam currently, hopefully it will stack for you once the update hits GoG.

Due to the miss/graze/hit/crit system a +5 to accuracy is a bigger bonus than it might seem. When accuracy minus enemy defense is around zero, increased accuracy shifts misses (0% damage) to crits (150% damage). Lets assume a 10 damage attack made with 20 accuracy against an enemy with 20 deflection. If attack is made 100 times, with each roll (1 to 100) made once, the following will happen: 15 misses for 0 total damage 35 grazes at 5 damage each for 175 total damage 50 hits at 10 damage each for 500 total damage Total damage: 675 (6.75 average damage) If we give +5 to accuracy and repeat this, we instead get: 10 misses for 0 total damage 35 grazes at 5 damage each for 175 total damage 50 hits at 10 damage each for 500 total damage 5 crits at 15 damage each for 75 total damage Total damage: 750 (7.5 average damage) That 75 bonus damage from 5 increased accuracy is an extra 11.11% average damage. But in practice the bonus of extra accuracy is actually much higher due to damage reduction. If we assumed the enemy we were attacking also had 5 damage reduction, the 5 damage grazes would be reduced to 1 damage each, the 10 damage hits would be reduced to 5 damage each, and the 15 damage crits would be reduced to 10 damage each. This would make our 0 (net) accuracy average damage only 2.85 and our 5 (net) accuracy average damage 3.35. This time our 50 bonus damage from 5 increased accuracy resulted in an extra 17.54% average damage. It is worth noting that accuracy has smaller bonuses when accuracy minus defense is very low (shifting misses to hits or grazes) or very high (shifting grazes or hits to crits). The lower damage reduction is the less boost accuracy has. It is also very important to consider that accuracy also applies to non-damage spells/abilities, which includes some of the most potent CC. I'm still trying to determine exactly how much the damage bonus from strength helps and in what cases, but it does seem to compare favorably much of the time. This assumes each point of perception would give 1 point of accuracy; if each point of perception gave 2 or more accuracy it would crush the bonus from strength. However, strength's damage bonus is significantly impacted if your net accuracy is low. In any case every non-tank build would do their best to max both perception and strength.

Points in STR also contributes to fortitude and tends to be more useful because they boost the damage of your attacks/abilities and the potency of your heals. Pumping STR, PER, and RES gives you a decent baseline in each defense and then you can distribute the rest of the points as you see fit to match your build. If you're ever particularly worried about your tank lacking high fortitude choose to make him a Coastal Aumaua for bonuses against prone and stun. In the case of a Paladin INT is very useful for aura range and abilitiy duration, which really leaves nothing for CON. With Faith and Conviction bonuses (5/10/10/10 base, can be slightly higher with disposition bonuses) and the Outworn Buckler (+5 to all defenses, applies to other party members in a small radius, can stack with other item defense bonuses) you can get your fortitude plenty high.

I'm very skeptical about the idea of changing PER to affect accuracy, if that is in fact an intended change for 1.07. Accuracy is so overwhelmingly important that high/max PER would be the standard for nearly every build. Only pure tanks could justify sacrificing accuracy, and even they would likely still prefer some. I think enhancing interrupt to make it viable would be a far better plan. If we do go about making any significant alterations to attributes I almost think we need to get really creative and rework all the stats. It would be nice if each stat had a clear and unique use for both offense and defense. Currently the stats can be roughly categorized as DPS stats (MIG, DEX, INT), tank stats (PER and RES), and dump stats (CON). Attribute distribution is only somewhat interesting for melee DPS characters, as they need to both maximize damage and obtain a moderate amount of durability.

I'm curious about why this is taken so universally true as gospel in this game. In other games, there is debate over whether to prioritize endurance (i.e. health, typically) or defensive stats. I have not gotten very far in the game, but are there no enemies that can one-shot a tank with minimized Constitution on PoTD? If heals are put aside, 3% endurance would translate to 3% longer survival at values close to normal. Yes the value of this would decrease slightly the more there is, but not tremendously, as we are just talking numbers up to around 30% above normal. Conversely, minimized Con would mean your tank survives 21% less time than normal, or 79% of normal. Heals of course can help compensate, but they are also harder to get off the lower your tank's health pool, all things equal. Of course, all things aren't equal, and I don't know how I'd begin to calculate the impact of Perception or Resolve on average survival time. It would depend on which defense the attack was targeting, obviously. Then again, Constitution also improves Fortitude. I don't know how common damaging Fortitude attacks are throughout the whole game, but Prone and the other disabling attacks are certainly annoying. Hmm... this discussion probably belongs elsewhere. Does anyone have a link handy? There's a few reasons for constitution being minimally useful, even to a tank character: 1) The health/endurance penalty for dumping CON isn't particularly severe nor are the gains for pumping it all that spectacular. 21% won't make or break you. 2) Just as accuracy is essential to DPS your defenses are essential to your survival. Having a little extra endurance pales in comparison to having defenses higher and thus turn some crits to hits, hits to grazes, and grazes to misses. CON only gives one defense (fortitude) while PER and RES give two each (including the highly important deflection). 3) As long as you can avoid dying to a one shot (or a lot of rapid strong attacks) there are plenty of good healing options to keep your characters alive. Eventually you'll run out of health but if you aren't worried about conserving rests its rare any one battle will be enough to fully deplete your health (except perhaps at very low levels). There are definitely benefits to not entirely dumping CON, but when in doubt its a good place to steal attribute points from. The one case where CON is actually desirable is for a Monk. Their unusual wound system makes it beneficial for them to take a lot damage. You'll need that extra endurance/health to keep the Monk in the fight and lower defenses to allow him to get hit.

Regarding Faith and Conviction it activates very quickly, in fact it's next thing to instant. The only way I can catch it not being active during combat is through auto-pause. I'm playing on steam version 1.0.6.0617. There was an update today that may have been only for steam. I checked on perception, which people had mentioned was erroneously saying it boosted accuracy, and it is showing the normal stat boots (again?). It is entirely possible this update fixed the Outworn Buckler as well as whatever the last hotfix broke.

I did some testing on this topic. Here are defensive stats on my Paladin (Deflection/Fortitude/Reflex/Will): Small shield, no other stat boosting items - 57/13/44/60 Stat boosting rings - 62/18/49/65 Stat boosting rings AND Outworn Buckler - 67/23/54/70 Stat boosting rings AND Outworn Buckler (combat, initial) - 67/23/54/70 Stat boosting rings AND Outworn Buckler (combat, 7/14/14/14 faith and conviction bonus active) - 74/37/68/84 And the defensive stats on a Monk in the party: No stat boosting items - 19/60/30/26 Stat boosting rings - 24/65/35/31 Stat boosting rings AND Outworn Buckler on Paladin - 29/70/40/36 Stat boosting rings AND Outworn Buckler on Paladin (combat) - 29/70/40/36 I'm definitely not seeing these stat bonuses suppressing each other. I've also checked the character screen and nothing is showing up as suppressed. I even got my Paladin repeatedly confused by a Wisp and the stats never seemed to change from the 74/37/68/84 I had in combat. The only thing noteworthy I've seen is that the bonus stats from Outworn Buckler only apply within a modest radius. Using the first preset formation my Paladin in the front just barely covers the whole party; even moving her slightly forward or sideways causes one character in the back to lose the defense bonus. I'm not sure if INT affects the radius covered by the Outworn Buckler, but I'm guessing not (my Paladin has 18 INT). I would consider this radius of effect a strong sign that the bonus applying to the party was intended by the developers.

Making accuracy tied to a stat would be a very poor choice in my opinion. Literally every build short of a pure tank would demand maximum perception for increased accuracy (and even on PoTD a pure tank is pretty much overkill). I would definitely be in favor of trying to better equalize the stats but simply creating a new god-tier for attributes doesn't really accomplish this. I would suggest looking into enhancing interrupt to make it a more relevant stat. I would also like to note that if there's any one stat that clearly lags behind it is constitution. After you get a few levels worth of health/endurance there just isn't much reason to put points into constitution except perhaps for Monks.

I agree that the optimal balance for the Outworn Buckler is providing the +5 to all defenses party wide but unable to stack with other gear providing the same bonuses. However, it should be clearly shown to players when the bonus is being suppressed, not just in combat. The mechanics used in Pillars of Eternity are confusing enough without the game basically lying to you.

Thanks for the advice everyone. I've started it up and so far things are mostly working out for me. I've decided that: 1) 10/3/10/19/18/19 - so far my Paladin is quite resilient with superlative defenses (save fortitude) despite the CON dump. Dumping more DEX for STR might have been a reasonable choice but I wanted my Paladin to not be too terribly slow. 2) I'm trying Zealous Focus due to my high int. It covers the whole party in my standard formation plus a little extra, and that's without resting bonuses. I'll just need to pay attention and bring my ranged attackers up a little closer whenever my Paladin advances. 3) I opted for Moon Godlike Monk to provide my party with some healing and allow him to make up for the damage he's going to take tanking/obtaining wounds. I decided my Barbarian is going to be primarily a Pike wielder so I opted for Hearth Orlan to get those extra crits for Tall Grass. 4) I looked around and it sounded like fists weren't optimal so I'm going Ruffian for Sabres. 5) I still haven't figured this one out but I'm not planning to take a weapon focus for several levels. Please let me know what you think. 6) I'm going with the Druid for now but if it doesn't seem to be necessary I might hire another adventurer as a Ranger or ranged Rogue.

I'm going to be starting a PoTD playthrough with the following party - Darcozzi Paladin PC, Monk, Barbarian, Cipher, Wizard, Druid(?). I had a few specific questions regarding builds: 1) What is a good way to distribute attribute points for a support/tank Darcozzi Paladin? INT and RES definitely seem to be crucial, but everything else appears to be helpful but not required. Which attributes, if any, would you recommend dumping? 2) Is Zealous Focus or Zealous Endurance likely to be more useful for this party? 3) What races are recommended for DPS/off-tank Monk and Barbarian? 4) Which melee weapons (or lack thereof, in the case of fists) are optimal for a Monk? 5) Which ranged weapon type has the best focus generation for Ciphers? I am not interested in micromanaging multiple guns on the Cipher, if that makes a difference. 6) Would you suggest any other class in place of the Druid? Please note I'd prefer not to use a Fighter or Priest in this party. Please feel free to answer as many or as few of these questions as you are able to. Any other relevant advice you have on the party composition or class builds is also welcome.

I booted up PoE today and hit continue, which promptly froze the game until it eventually crashed. A second attempt had the same result. On my next try I selected load and clicked on my most recent save. The screen went black for about one second then reverted to the main menu. I was able to load an older save (several hours back unfortunately) and it ran fine. When I tried loading the more recent save while in-game it didn't work. I will note that I have the IE mod installed. I haven't experienced any problems with my save files before this, including both before and after adding IE mod. If anyone knows what the problem might be so I can avoid it in the future please let me know. As a precaution I'll be alternating save slots from now on and turning off IE mod if the problem recurs.

Console commands can be a bit tricky.The first issue is making sure you're using the correct name for your character. The command for this is "FindCharacter name". Next you need to determine the correct ability name. Navigate to C:\Program Files\Steam\SteamApps\common\Pillars of Eternity\PillarsOfEternity_Data\assetbundles\prefabs\objectbundle for a list of items/abilities/talents and do a search for the ability. In this case we find that the name is "spiritshift_boar". Here's an example of how this might look: FindCharacter Hiravias Companion_Hiravias(Clone)_1 AddAbility Companion_Hiravias(Clone)_1 spiritshift_boar Hiravias was granted Spiritshift Boar

I don't believe that there is any need for enforced minimum attributes by class. The reason this is often implemented in games is to prevent players from creating dead end builds. PoE has much less dramatic bonuses/penalties so any bad decisions result in a merely sub-optimal build that is still functional. To enforce minimums on attributes would thus eliminate viable builds. Also keep in mind that PoE is a single player game. If some players want to have Fighters with 3 constitution for role playing, power gaming, or challenge purposes it shouldn't make a difference to you. And if you personally want to play with self-enforced attribute minimums that match each class go right ahead. Everyone is more than welcome to play in a way they find enjoyable even if other players would disagree.

You win some and you lose some. I didn't buy a Bioware game since DA:O for the abysmal route they've taken. So count me out as a potential audience for any of these games. I did buy Skyrim and in hindsight I don't exactly regret the decision, but I won't buy another Elder Scroll game either as long as there isn't solid evidence that they did their homework and stopped catering to the lowest common denominator. So there's a market for deeper role playing games. The sales figures point in that direction and I would regret it, if your appeal to a larger audience approach would feature in their decision making. Why water down a concept that has found it's audience. And probably won't lose it either, since people interested in that kind of game are usually older and not that driven by the next shiny sensation on the horizon as the console generation. To tell the truth, the only company that didn't utterly dissapoint me at some point in their existence is Obsidian. All the others have been either eaten alive by EA or taken the first exit to mainstream like Bethesda. Funny thing is, while looking at DA:I, to see if there's still some signs of intelligent life in Bioware, I stumbled over D:OS and gave them my money instead. And when playing D:OS, I stumbled over POE and preordered. And now I'm looking at Legends of the Sword Coast, which also looks pretty promising. So there are still games that don't try to appeal to everyone. And that's a good thing I'm willing to support with my money. To clarify I am not suggesting that the core features that makes games like PoE beloved to me and the rest of the community be altered to dumb the game down or radically transform it. I'm asking for a little polishing that will have little to no impact on the core audience while also making the game more palatable to a wider audience. Consider my previous suggestions. Everyone would win from having the mechanics be more transparent and better explained. Baldur's Gate style party AI settings wouldn't harm anyone as it would be entirely optional to use. Not suddenly making the majority of side quests available all at once provide beginners with steadier pacing and provide a more consistent challenge to veterans who wouldn't be able to acquire quite so much end-game gear so quickly. Adjusting poor builds mid-game wouldn't really make a difference to veterans and would be entirely optional anyway (not to mention many players use IE mod to do this currently). More equivalent rewards from branching quests encourages role playing and increases replay value (as power gamers wouldn't be bound to the same choices for maximum rewards).

You're definitely on the right track. I did notice that at level 5 Chanters receiving 2 phrases per chant would need 2 chants for either a level 1 or level 2 invocation, which is probably not ideal. Thus I prefer my earlier "option 1" suggestion. In retrospect it would be better to frame it as Chanters having their invocation cost reduced by 1 phrase at level 5 and by 2 phrases at level 9. This ensures that each subsequent invocation level always takes longer to reach. Where the idea needed expanded on, as you pointed out, is that it would make low level invocations way too spammable. While nerfs are likely still in order, I think we can avoid anything too drastic by making one simple tweak to our invocation cost. The reduced phrases per invocation would only apply to the first invocation of each battle. Thus a high level Chanter could opt to use a level 1 invocation after only one phrase, but then he'd need at least 3 additional phrases for his next invocation. This would both provide a tactical choice to the Chanter (get a little help earlier or wait a bit longer for a much more powerful ability) and prevent invocation spamming. If we're willing to accept a little more complexity in mechanics in order to account for really long battles, we could have the phrase reduction merely be on cooldown for a set period of time (30 seconds?).

I think the problem is that as the video gaming community has expanded and evolved interest has drifted away from D&D inspired RPG games to more simplistic and streamlined RPGs. Thus games like PoE are often viewed as either a revival of a mostly dead genre (similar to old school adventure games) or part of a niche genre not suitable for the average gamer. It is therefore not surprising that many reviewers see this game as an exercise in nostalgia rather than a continuation of a viable genre. Though I personally very much enjoy PoE I would not recommend it for everyone. In particular players more accustomed to modern games may object to the pace of play, the micromanagement needed to effectively control a 6 character party, and the complexity of the underlying mechanics. As all of these attributes are central to the genre, it is pretty much inevitable games like PoE will never strongly appeal to a mass audience. I do believe that developers can and should make efforts minimize the annoyance of the core features of these games. For example, highly complex mechanics is less problematic if: The mechanics actually work as intended and stated Players can access all the information they need to master the mechanics through: Clear and accurate tooltips As much information as possible accessible in game via glossary, bestiary, encyclopedia, etc. A complete and updated wiki that covers all the minutiae Well designed tutorials to help players grapple the basics (and possibly optional tutorials that cover more advanced concepts) Some other suggestions to increase the appeal of PoE: Allied AI settings would be a nice option to have available for players who want a simpler combat experience. Tighter pacing on quest availability would probably be wise. The glut of quests available at the start of act 2 can be rather overwhelming. The ability to adjust the player character build at the end of introductory area as well as methods to purchase a character reset later (ability/talent only for premade companions, disabled in expert and possibly PoTD mode). A greater effort to offer the player equivalent rewards for branching quest lines, so that roleplaying is less penalized and using walkthroughs less rewarded.

I've been using a Chanter on my PoTD run and I've been very disappointed with the class so far. In a straight fight battles are almost always decided before the Chanter can use even an invocation. At best I'm really just using Phantoms to minimize health damage while mopping up the last couple enemies. Outside of boss fights you pretty much have to either make enemies walk a long way to your party or chain encounters together in order to really make good use of the invocations. I do think the concept of the Chanter is very solid, just not the execution. It is nice to have a low micro unit that provides passive benefits at all times and can periodically contribute with a powerful summon/ability. I have some possible suggestions on how to improve the Chanter. Please note that these would all be straight buffs to the Chanter and thus would likely need to be paired with some nerfs, particularly to specific invocations. Option 1 - Allow mid level Chanters to start combat with one phrase and high level Chanters to start combat with two phrases. This will allow Chanters to dramatically scale with level but still preserve the trade-off between the weaker/faster chants and the stronger/slower ones. Option 2 - Give Chanters modal talents that alter chants I'd suggest 3 different talents as follows: -Chants are completed in half the time but provide only half the effect -Level 2 and level 3 chants complete 2 seconds faster (i.e. level 1/2/3 chants would have a duration of 4/4/6 seconds) -Chants effect increased 50% *Chant linger duration would always scale with chant duration This would allow Chanters to opt for quick invocations, powerful chants, or a balanced approach. Spending multiple talents on these would provide tactical flexibility to the Chanter. Option 3 - Simply speed up chants. Perhaps chant duration could go from its current 4/6/8 seconds to 3/4.5/6 seconds. Again, the linger duration would scale appropriately.

As fun as this game is I definitely believe it could use improvements to the difficulty. Here's my take on how to tackle the most commonly mentioned problems, if not for this game then perhaps for a sequel. 1) PoTD is too significant of a jump from hard Solution - patch the game to smooth out the difficulty progression with both stats and enemy density increasing as the difficulty goes up. Also introduce the concept of custom difficulties, which would allow for the enemy stat increase and density to be set independently. 2) PoTD isn't hard enough for expert players Solution - allow the custom difficulties we introduced above to allow for enemy stat increases and densities even higher than what is currently found on PoTD. Eventually it would be nice to introduce improved enemy AI. Ideally enemy AI would get more intelligent as the preset difficulty is increased and have its own slider for custom difficulties. 3) Players can rest after almost every single battle if they so desire, which makes standard encounters too easy Solution - I can't really come up with any brilliant fix for PoE, but a sequel could be designed from the start to avoid this problem. One possibility is to include "expedition" style quests where players are unable to leave the area to replenish supplies until they either complete or abandon the quest (players could redo abandoned quests at a later time). Any content outside of these expeditions would involve significantly harder fights with the understanding that players could and likely would be resting frequently. 4) The difficulty curve is kind of backwards - the game gets easier as it progresses Solution - a good start would be make early encounters slightly easier and harder encounters slightly harder, but more fundamental issues would likely need to be addressed in a sequel. One big problem is that in later acts player effectiveness is highly variable - completionists will be far better equipped than those rushing through the main quests. The first key to solving this issue is tighter pacing - with content introduced at a more controlled pace it is easier to understand and account for the maximum and minimum party strength. The exponential increases in experience gained and needed to level as the game progresses keeps level disparities in check if set properly. Fewer side quests available at any one time should prevent players from amassing a large set of end-game items too early. Another issue is the existence of mass crowd control spells (stun, paralyze, charm, dominate, etc.). Once these become available using a spell like Returning Storm is effectively an instant win, at least on lower difficulties. Having stats scale up smoothly across difficulties would definitely help reduce the effectiveness of these abilities. I would also recommend looking into giving certain enemies proactive and reactive answers to crowd control to supplement the resistance provided by defensive stats.

I finally reached the final boss fight and had a couple interesting problems with it. My first attempt went as follows: 1) Down Thaos 2) Kill the statue that his soul wasn't in 3) Kill the statue his soul was in 4) Kill Thaos for good 5) Have my main character knocked unconscious and Durance die outright immediately after Thaos was dead This resulted in an auto-pause at a time when I couldn't unpause and me starting at Thaos' corspe. Alt-tabbing out and back got the game unpaused but with Durance dead I couldn't see his final converse. Thus I made a second attempt which went as follows: 1) Down Thaos 2) Kill the statue that his soul wasn't in 3) Kill the statue that his soul was in 4) Instant victory without Thaos ever getting back up I don't know what caused Thaos to get back up and I don't think that was how the battle was intended to go. As I'd beaten it the hard way already I didn't bother giving it a third try, though I still have a save I can go back to if I feel like it. If I had to guess I'd say one of my Druid spells might have created a problem and killed Thaos right after he was vulnerable again but somehow before he could fully heal. During the battle I used: Embrace the Earth-Talon (petrified Thaos early on, probably wore off before he was downed), Venombloom (cast on Thaos and statues, may or may not have still been active on Thaos when he should have got back up), and Returning Storm (definitely still active when Thaos should have got back up). The only other offensive spells I remember using that battle were Mental Binding and Cleansing Flame.

Alright here goes: Chanter - Coastal Aumaua M 18, C 10, D 3, P 10, I 19, R 18 Rogue - Hearth Orlan M 17, C 6, D 19, P 20, I 6, R 10 Fighter - Island Aumaua M 20, C 14, D 14, P 10, I 3, R 17 Druid - Wood Elf M 19, C 3, D 19, P 9, I 18, R 10 Priest - Wood Elf M 18, C 7, D 18, P 8, I 19, R 8 Wizard - Moon Godlike M 18, C 3, D 17, P 10, I 20, R 10 If anything sticks out as a really stupid choice please let me know, and any advice is welcome. I'm particularly uncertain about my Wizard attributes. I'm very unfamiliar with the class so I don't know if he needs better Con/Per/Res in order to survive at closer ranges.

Well, more than anything I'm trying to avoid making the same stupid mistakes that annoyed me during my first run. I have no problems taking a sub-optimal build and/or a build that is counter to what someone else prefers so long as it is a build I enjoy. I do not want to accidentally create a build that doesn't work for its intended purpose, as I would have by, for example, not taking much INT on my Chanter. I'm pretty close to being ready to start my run, but I want to post some proposed attributes to be checked for any particularly poor choices. I should have those ready for posting tonight. After that I'll probably just ask any questions on the forums as they come up, particularly regarding talents.