AeonsLegend

Or perhaps because blunt weapons are the only thing that can harm a heavily armored person in real life. In real life a sword and dagger are completely and utterly useless vs anyone in plate armor especially if they're wielding a long reach weapon. No one in their right mind would actually use a dagger in actual combat, that only happens in fantasy games where "rogues" are a thing. That stuff never existed in the real world.

Probably Warcaller then. https://pillarsofeternity2.wiki.fextralife.com/War+Caller Best weapons is decided by the type of focus you want to have. For instance do you wan to go with a crit build or just on hit. Do you have a preference in type of weapons such as swords vs axes or is anything ok? If you go Devoted subclass for fighter you have to pick 1 type for the bonus or get a massive penalty. In that case two swords are pretty safe to go with. There's a lot to choose from and they have 2 damage types. Other than that axes are good and sabres are good as well. There's a sabre in the game that synergizes with chanter songs. Stat wise I'd focus on everything except constitution and resolve. Focus specifically on perception if you want to go with a crit build. Otherwise any combo is ok. Might is important if you want to deal damage or heal. And chanter and fighter do both. Dexterity is good so you can cast more often and hit faster with weapons Perception is important for crit builds Intelligence is good for longer chanter effects and larger AoE for your chanter spells Regarding spells just read them and choose whatever you feel is best and fits your style. Remember you can always pay money at the inn to change your setup whenever necessary. If however you want to follow blade closer in terms of spells you may want to choose wizard since bards in DND pull from the wizard class and don't have their own spells. You just don't get a "bard song" nor the "bard" skills Edit: dangit, this is the PoE forums and not the PoE II forums. No multiclassing involved here. I'll leave my post so it may be of use to you in PoE II.

I've never thought about doing that. That's actually pretty cool

No I'm saying on kill trigger is sweet, because if you build right you will trigger it consistently. Together with the fact that some on kill abilities are really good it makes it worth it. And let me tell you why on kill is sweet. You can build a character with on hit, on crit AND on kill abilties and make use of all of them. Looking at them separately as if they are mutually exclusive is not the right way of looking at it. And here's another difference that adds to the goodness. Since on hit and on crit abilities apply on the target, on kill does not. On kill may have AoE effect on all enemies in the area or all your party members in your party. Therefore they are different and good to have. Sure the application of on hit is more consistent than on kill, but the result is not the same as the triggers are different. You should not compare them that way.

I can't say ****. Can I say poop? Edit yes I can! I trigger that POOP at least twice a fight. Okay doesn't sound as good, but censorship is for people that think lesser of others.

I dunno. On kill is pretty sweet. Try combining a Cipher/Paladin and get the two on kill passives and just fear enemies and buff your allies for free for every enemy you kill. I trigger that **** at least twice in a fight, and the buffs/debuffs are substantial. Can make hard fights really easy.

He's asking for bounty hunters, not a pop group with swords. Although "only in it for the money" would work in this regard.

Reading up on player experiences a Ranger/Cipher is better than Rogue/Cipher in terms of safely gaining focus. But blunderbusses are completely and utterly broken in this game. So any build will work with those and make you snooze through the game. Trust me, it gets boring. I've played pure Ascendant with a blunderbuss for the immediate max focus on first ability and then just spam attacks. Max out int and dex. It was fun, but I didn't really got the my character is bad ass vibe from it like I did from my Lord Daryns Voulge builds.

Thanks. Hm, doesn't multilcassing to gain back the missing spells feel counterintuitive? Might as well play single class wizard with no subclass or go Evoker. It'd be better. I'm looking for a conjurer build to focus on that, not to give the character options he does not have and be average at all of them. I do like Fassina as a Conjurer/Druid. There's some mean damage in the Druid kit as well. But I'm now looking to see if a focus on conjurer is actually something that would be fun and good to play. Or if it is simply making your character weaker and boring.

Hi everyone. Has anyone played as this wizards subclass? And if so, how is it? Have you done single or multiclass? How are the summons and summoned weapons?

Yea I was hoping with the forum update that the edit function would have a grace period like on other websites.

Is there a way for me to stay signed in? Like people before stated the login seems to not last very long. Now I just have to log in every time I use the site

I've seen people play all chanter parties. But is looks utterly boring.

For the topic: Story and overall atmosphere: PoE. Like, by miles Characters: PoE Combat: PoE2 World and exploration: PoE Customization: PoE2 So which did I enjoy more? Not a definitive answer there. In terms of an RPG with atmosphere and story, it's PoE. But if enjoyment is combat and character customization and such it would be PoE2. Having the stat and reputation checks on feels like an inbuilt spoiler. I can definitely see how that could take away from the experience. I have always had them off, never even considered having them on. To the extent that playing like this has a downside, it's that you may well miss the fact that a certain dialogue could lead elsewhere, if you had the skills/stats/whatever. But I'm fine with that. agreed except where the 'clever' and 'cruel', etc options in responses are sometimes necessary to tell you the tone in which you're saying something. Although mostly clear, there were a few times the check didn't match my reading of the text. I enjoyed both Poe I+II for different reasons. I preferred the setting in PoE (grim though it was at times) and the overall narrative (rushed though the ending seemed with the 'reveal'). The gameplay of Deadfire was generally better (though the move to per-rest meant I no longer needed to stretch myself in some dungeons) and the encounter design was improved. I'm neutral on multi-classing but the sub-classes added something for me. This is somewhat mandatory for paladins and priests that follow their order. If you want to RP this and have no idea what option is what you will not be RPing propperly. I don't see it as spoiling anything. It's just a sign of what the tone is. Ultimately it is your choice what dialogue to pick.

Well there's a difference between true RPing or just going along for the ride and make some choices along the way. If I'm completely honest I don't want to have to RP my way through a poorly designed story. I rather have a fleshed out story with meaningful things happening. This means things happen to you, rather than you choosing to RP something happened.

Yes but remember the whole point of Romance in RPG is to actually succeed in the Romance, this may sound obvious but it has nuance If the Romance could fail, and they can fail, then you cant RP or imagine that aspect of the RPG journey. So for example lets say you wanted to join the Dark Brotherhood in Skyrim and you go on these quests that possibly allow you to do this but then you are denied actually joining the DB your character is simply not part of the DB so on the rest of the journey in the Skyrim world you cannot RP this development Romance is a small part of the character and party interaction in almost all RPG but it still should exist so we can explore this avenue of immersive party and or follower interaction I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. ', Sorry, let me explain another way. You said basically that Romance feels cliched and false in a RPG as its very easy to Romance someone I was saying Romance in a RPG is designed to be easy on purpose, you are suppose to succeed in Romance because like other RPG components they provide a challenge but the end goal should be for the player to succeed So in other words if RPG made Romance dialogue and actions overly complicated it may defeat the point of encouraging Romance ...it was just a thought, Im not sure how relevant it is because I dont see how a game designer could " make Romance arcs overly complicated " Ok I see. Thanks for the explanation. The thing is romance isn't complicated in real life. The reason I'm not digging the romance options in RPG's is because there is a specific dialogue line, usually with colors or heart indication that makes it so you romance someone. Hence the jedi mindtrick reference I made. And why shouldn't you be able to fail at romancing? Millions of people fail at that stuff every year. The thing that is lacking in a game is actually being "in love". You can't role play that, that's absurd. It'd be very likely that a team member would leave or you'd tell a team member to leave when the love isn't reciprocated. Can't have that **** bother anyone when you're trying to save the world/universe. In fact being in love will probably have you make dumb decisions during important events as well. Fail at combat and so forth. And even íf the love is reciprocated, having your loved one near you in dangerous situations will probably have you make dumb decisions as well. Everything about romance in video games is so unrealistic that perhaps it is even better to have it be a gimmick. Everyone swoons at Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet in Pride and Prejudice, but that isn't because Elizabeth chose a specific dialogue option and then they lived happily ever after. No the whole romance stumbles, fails, seems not to exist and then still.... there it is. That stuff isn't possible when people roleplay. You can make a much much more powerful romance with predfined characters. One of my favorite romantic part in a story is the one in Cowboy Bebop. For those who haven't seen it, it's not a happy ending. I'm not saying every love story should be like that, but it's another example of something that probably wouldn't work in a game without predefined characters unless a lot of time is spent on actually giving your character a personality. Like for instance Commander Shepard. Characters that have no voice such as in Outer worlds or Pillars of Eterinity (for the sake of immersion as some people say) also have no personality. So real love stories can't exist imo.

They should hire Kevin Michael Richardson as narrator for PoE3. I'd definitely play it then. Also bring back Grey Delisle and give her some bitchy character to play. She's one of the reasons I really enjoyed playing Dragon Age Awakenings because of how much Velanna reminded me of Viconia. Edit: I just noticed that Delisle is the name of her first husband. And this ladies is why you use your birth name if you're going to be an actor. Can't have your name change all the time. Come on. Here's some party banter between the two https://youtu.be/1axqw0hn1Dw?t=159 Man if you just listen to this banter and then compare it to PoE... yea leagues apart...

Yes but remember the whole point of Romance in RPG is to actually succeed in the Romance, this may sound obvious but it has nuance If the Romance could fail, and they can fail, then you cant RP or imagine that aspect of the RPG journey. So for example lets say you wanted to join the Dark Brotherhood in Skyrim and you go on these quests that possibly allow you to do this but then you are denied actually joining the DB your character is simply not part of the DB so on the rest of the journey in the Skyrim world you cannot RP this development Romance is a small part of the character and party interaction in almost all RPG but it still should exist so we can explore this avenue of immersive party and or follower interaction I don't really understand what you're trying to say here.

Don't forget that you never actually have to do anything to win someone over. All you need to do is use jedi mind trick and then you're golden. Romance in these games is a gimmick, it's not rewarding. It doesn't even feel like romance to be honest.

Its a good thing when The creators aren't interested in implementing it The narrative doesn't support it in a way that isn't contrived The development of romance options would take resources away from creating other interesting role playing opportunities The development wouldn't support the creation of romances within the scope of the project in general I'm sure there are more reasons we could come up with. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a place for a well implemented and thought out romance or romances in a RPG, but that doesn't mean it has to be present in the game anymore than, say, swords or relationships with your parents. I understand your points, and perhaps my opening post was a bit sharper than it should have been, but here's my take if you don't mind a bit of a rebuttal. Romance is one of the biggest and most important aspects of the human condition. Some might call the search for love and acceptance THE single most important factor in that human condition. So completely divorcing this aspect of playing a role from a role playing game is essentially removing one of the biggest aspects of playing a character. Love, and the search for it, is one of the biggest motivators out there. Romance done well can add far more to a story than romance done poorly can detract from a story. (IMO of course.) Some of the best video games of all time have featured love as a central component, and I have a hard time listing a bunch of all-time great RPGs that completely ignored this aspect. A short list of my favorite RPGs of all time: Planescape: Torment - Has romances Witcher 3 - Has romances Jade Empire - Has romances Mass Effect Trilogy - Has romances Dragon Age: Origins - Has romances Kotor - Has romances Kotor 2 - Has romances Neverwinter Nights 2 - Has romances Dragon Quest VIII - Has romances...really, really bad ones but they are there. Star Control 2 - Has romance Final Fantasy IV - Has romance Final Fantasy VI - Has romance Final Fantasy IX - Has romance Persona 3 - Has romances Persona 4 - Has romances Fallout 1+2 - No real romances to speak of tbh. The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind - No real romances to speak of. Chrono Trigger - Has romance, but very little. I do get that romance in video games can be a challenge. I get that they can be poorly written. I get that they can be expensive and time consuming to implement. But the list of all-time great RPGs that ignores this side of the human condition is pretty damn short. This is obviously excluding games that fall more into the "action RPG" trope than actual RPGs. I like From Software's games but there's precious little roleplaying even if they are labeled as "Action RPGs" because it has stats and leveling up and stuff. I consider most of them to be all-time great games, but I don't consider them to be RPGs. Excellent points raised, I have also never understood this aversion to optional Romance in RPG, in fact I consider it a lacking design component if you create an immersive RPG but leave out Romance In RPG we can generally create customized characters, use multiple spells, create potions, craft weapons and armor, go on epic quests, interact with people, make moral choices , explore ancients lands ..the list goes on and on with features yet we...dont want Romance, why? Romance is a normal part of human interaction, emotion and defines part of our humanity so to exclude it seems counter productive to role-playing realistic characters who we like to identify with which is the essence of role-playing our own way. No Romance is the antithesis of an immersive and inclusive " RPG World " Romance or Romancable companions. A lot of RPG's have some sort of romance, but no romancing options. In fact most RPG's that have romance do not have this as an option to choose who to romance. I would wager that about 99% of RPG's do not have romance options. I don't think it is immersive or a design component that should be in the game. Most people that play these games (men) don't really care for romancing because we just want to explore, slay beasts or other and go on an epic adventure. Romance is secondary. Like I said in my previous response I don't mind it being in the game, but if it is half assed like almost every game that incorporates it, then I rather not have it at all. I rather see a well thought out predefined romance than going through a dialogue tree with cringe worthy options to ultimately see some poorly animated sex scene. I mean when I was younger and this was new I was intrigued. Seeing how it has developed over the years it's more in your face and we have to make everyone bisexual otherwise we lose out on options. That's just really making this romance a total bs experience. It's not immersive at all, it's annoying and in most cases out of place. Trust me, romance options in rpg's is a gimmick. The games won't sell any more or be judged any better with romancing options in them.

Got mixed feelings. Up to a point where POE3 yes or no doesn't even matter to me. I did enjoy playing this game and probably will do so again, but the story is incredibly lackluster. I've stated this in other topics as well, but I feel that the main character has 0 impact on the events that unfold. I don't like that.

I don't think I've ever heard that before. That sucks man. So many good First person games out there. You will miss out on Cyberpunk as well then which is probably the only game I look forward to right now. (even with Borderlands 3 coming out)

I have *so* man hours in Pillars 2. And the romances are not nearly as bad as all that. Xoti is awesome and I will romance her every damn time. That's because you secretly enjoy a zealot with 0 intelligence. We're not all like that my friend

Not more expensive, just different area design to suit third person camera angles. If you're going for third person AND first person then you're always going to get ****ty piece of both. Third person games have been propperly built for years, in fact most games from Japan are third person. Only a handful of shooters are first person. The only thing that you need to take into account is animation when you create a third person character. Games such as Fallout 3 and New Vegas and even Skyrim have ultra ****ty third person animation and design. Fallout 4 was A LOT better, but still not perfect because in essence the game was primarily designed for first person. So camera angles and certain shooting angles were busted. first person was great for picking up stuff in skyrim and recent fallout but third person was necessary for avoid sticking the camera on all those repetitive dungeon walls with only a few kind of different texture Yea but the camera isn't buitl for third person in Bethesda games. Shooting around a corner with clear view of your enemy in your reticule will still have you hit the wall. Third person was just slapped on. I do enjoy playing third person,I mostly prefer it over first person. Especially if the game has character creation so I can actually see my character when I play.

Not more expensive, just different area design to suit third person camera angles. If you're going for third person AND first person then you're always going to get ****ty piece of both. Third person games have been propperly built for years, in fact most games from Japan are third person. Only a handful of shooters are first person. The only thing that you need to take into account is animation when you create a third person character. Games such as Fallout 3 and New Vegas and even Skyrim have ultra ****ty third person animation and design. Fallout 4 was A LOT better, but still not perfect because in essence the game was primarily designed for first person. So camera angles and certain shooting angles were busted.