spardeous

I don't entirely agree with the OP's methodology, but I do agree that Grimoires should be more useful/important than they currently are. As it stands, they are one of the most forgettable items in the game. Among other things, they should have actual mods and properties to them and should be enchantable - though, to be fair, the enchanting as a whole in Pillars is a huge letdown.

So there's a bug in Twin Elms with Alarhi. After completing 'Hard Bargain', you can trade with her in the market, and she gives you a discount. The problem is, that she gives you more coin for gems than what they cost to buy back from back. So, if you sell all of your diamonds/emeralds/rubies/etc to her and then buy them back, you will end up with a large surplus of coin. This can be repeated infinitely.

In a future version, could we get an actual readout for attack speeds of weapons and the player in numerical terms? The current system is vague and confusing when trying to weigh the pros and cons of a particular weapon choice.

That works until you're up against casters and they hit you with a debil. I'm most of the way through POTD and it seems that virtually every spell lands no matter what, unless it's Eder or Pellegrina. I've had no problems surviving encounters, but it's mostly through trial and error, figuring out the best spots to corral enemies or pulling them with the moving fireball spell. Mainly, my suggestion centers around versatility, which is never a bad thing when it's promoting class diversity. I still think it's bad game design(and suicidal behavior) that enemies will run right past front-line fighters and cut themselves off from their back-line fighters, leaving their light combatants to die. Animals do not even act this way. Your comment about 'tank-n-spank' means very little. Establishing rank has been a thing since the Bard's Tale(mechanically enforced tanking) or probably even before that.

Is that the only way to tank is through high deflection. Minimum damage should be brought way down, or there should be abilities/talents to significantly lower it to near 0 and significantly raise DR. Deflection tank would be better in low to mid-high range encounters - disadvantage would be death from big strong enemies. DR tank would be better in high end encounters and boss battles - disadvantage would be death by 1000 papercuts. People keep making arguments against the notion of a tank role, but what other option is there? On lightly armored characters, deflection buffs don't last long enough to make them worthwhile in most fights, combine that with their relatively low END and enemies who will suicidally rush to engage them, and you have the makings of an insta-gib situation. Equipping everyone in heavy armor would just be silly, and using doorways/narrow hallway tactics to prevent engagement is already silly. My wizards(Main+Aloth) are routinely slaughtered by enemies within a few seconds of engagement. Both are in medium armor. Hallway tactics, and intentionally avoiding engagement until Eder/Pellegrina have significantly damaged enemies are the only ways I've been able to circumvent this, but they are both rinky-dink solutions.

And PoE isn't an MMO either. No class is supposed to be a tank. Fighters have some offensive abilities and some defensive ones. It 'just happens' you can build them as a tank. Or at least you could before the nerf to Defender. Regardless of what you may think about roles, they are absolutely necessary. Deflection buffs do not last long enough to provide meaningful protection, and decking out every character in heavy armor would be silly.

That seems like using RP as equivocation. Why would enemies who were seeking to do the most damage attack the most threatening foe? Also, people who live in that world and are aware of magic are probably aware of the danger. When in doubt, kill the mage seems like a pretty good philosophy for fighters. It also isn't neurosurgery to figure out. Also, I think taunt systems are ridiculous in any form of roleplay. To quote the ever-terrible RA Salvatore: "You're mother is an ore-loving harlot." The orc ran at the dwarf instead. There are much more realistic(ish) ways to deal with overly aggressive enemies. Trips and knockdowns. Dimensional shifts. Grimoire slam back into the fighter they just disengaged (Grimoire slam is super fun, it's worth taking a suboptimal feat to literally beat your enemies to death with books). Sleep spells. Llenegrath's safeguard. Using summons to get in the way. Charm Spells. Silent scream. The utterly ridiculous amplified wave. And the list goes on and on. Basically, if you use your abilities to harass, harry, and control opponents you can get much greater mileage out of them. Charming the enemies and having them go to town on each other has always been more effective than engagement anyways. Same with the remarkable slicken and adragan's gaze. I didn't use the word taunt, and I disagree with your assumption about it's implied meaning, your definition is far too literal and completely nonsensical. Taunt basically means 'threat points'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_%28gaming%29 Threat points are not just about who is putting out the most damage, but about who is the most immediate threat to the fighter and his team. This does not just include latent danger(such as damage taken) but also potential danger(such as an enemy trying to slip by the orc wielding a flaming greatsword in melee range, to be met by another heavy combatant, except now flanked). Threat points also include non-damaging maneuvers, such as healing and buffing spells. I cited the example in another thread about enemies running STRAIGHT PAST tanks, leaving their light combatants wide open to attack and effectively cutting them off from the rest of their allies. It's completely irrational. Animals won't even operate that way.

The issue of enemies not being able to assess risk works both ways - why are their tanks rushing past your tanks leaving their lighter combatants wide open? Breaking rank because the guy in the back is doing 5 more points of damage is suicidal not just to yourself, but to your team. Maybe you'll pick that guy off, but what about your comrades? That's why a taunt make sense, so that enemies can keep their priorities straight. If it worked like how other aoe abilities worked in the game, it would not affect rangers, casters, and enemies outside of it's range, who might very well take issue with those 5 points of damage.

Yeah he is serious. So is it still too hard or were you just trying to do content your party wasn't prepared for? Ok stop. Here is your problem. First stop saying the word "tank". Eder is a fighter, Pallegina is a paladin, etc etc. This is not World of Warcraft, it was never meant to be a "tank and spank", Eder's job was not supposed to be "get hit and not fall down while the DPS kill the mob". Simply put, you misunderstood what this game is. It is supposed to be a real time with pause tactical combat strategy RPG. It is not an MMO and everyone complaining about the combat keeps describing MMO combat. If that is what someone was looking for... sorry, you got the wrong game. You've misunderstood my point, but there is fundamentally no difference between how either of these classes mitigates damage(high deflection). They fill the same role in different ways. You can call it whatever you wish, but it doesn't change the dynamic. Second, are you sincerely trying to insinuate that, in a combat situation, the angry guy rushing at you in plate armor trying to decapitate you at close quarters is somehow less dangerous than the guy standing in the back row wearing robes and waving a wand? That combatants should automatically DROP EVERYTHING THEY'RE DOING and suicidally rush to engage that guy? Enemies in PoE do not seem to have a good grasp of risk assessment, and situations such as 'guy swinging a flaming greatsword at you in close quarters' should not be given the same weight as 'guy standing behind 5 other guys in back row shooting missiles.' Logistically, it doesn't make any sense. Hence my suggestion.

The problem with tanking in Pillars as I see it is that there is only really one role for a tank, and that is basically the high deflection build.Paladin and Fighter fill the primary tank role, but there is no real difference in how they mitigate damage. This basically gives each class the same role in the every situation, which to me, is completely ridiculous. Fighters should be the class with high deflection(due to their higher mobility) and should be able to completely avoid taking damage better than any other class. Paladins, on the other hand, should be the ones who are able to reduce damage PAST bare minimums(perhaps to even fractions of a point) and should have talents that radically reduce the raw numbers for incoming damage. I see this as a better alternative to the engagement system, since it would allow each class to specialize in it's own way while still filling the role of tank. It would also give each class a sizeable advantage over the other in specific situations and help to better differentiate between the two. Also, to add to the discussion, I think that the tank classes should have ways of holding aggroe outside of DPS. For Paladins, I think that they should have a fear aura AOE. For fighters, I think they should have a distraction/intimidation aura AOE. Both should incite enemies to attack the tank.

I, for one, find the doorway tanking system in this game to be absolutely ridiculous. My strategy in most battles has consisted of finding a narrow or limiting hallway or opening and pulling with a chill fog(which they all have to pass through). If tanks were able to hold aggroe in ways besides straight damage - as they rightfully should - then this would not be a problem. if I wasn't so fearful of their utter impotence in maintaining aggroe, then this would not be the case. I guess my idea of a tank's role relies on seeing them not as endurance toll booths, but foes to be rightfully more fearful of, in the moment. I see the former as a fundamental misconception of the role. My conception of why an enemy would come after a tank would basically be that their presence(how they look and act) would make them a bigger immediate threat in split-second high-pressure moments of decision making.