molotov.

Why are people so fanatic towards wizards? Dozens of threads arguing that wizards must receive more attention or more spells... you guys really want them to become unbalanced and over powered like they were in every IE game? Or it's just a secret religion?

So it's basically saying that the most powerfull nations are on the early modern period, 16th-18th century...so... thanks for proving me right? Or are you trying to say that it's not the 16th century because other civilizations were living in the stone age? Of course some of the more remote civilizations are still on the stone age or bronze age, that happened in the real world as well, Azteks didn't had any guns, it's normal, not every civilization has the same technology, some advance more than others... just look nowadays, some cities in Africa are still living on the middle ages, **** even here in Brazil, some places don't even have electricity, so if we follow your logic, here in Brazil we don't live in the 21th century we are on the 20th century, lol, I guess I'm speaking from the past! You do realize that you are achieving nothing right? Your arguments don't debunk any of my previous arguments... I really don't see your point... It's pretty ****ing clear about a mixture of technology from Medieval trough Rennaisance. *THE* most *AGGRESSIVE* and *POWERFUL* nations have Rennaisaince-era technology. That's, like...two countries. The Vaillian Republic and Readceras, I'm guessing. The other powerful nations--you know, the other 8 on the top 10?--are Medieval-era technology. Then some are Stone Age, but note that it says remote civilizations, not isolated tribes like in the modern era. This is a mixture of Eearth periods. You have Rennaisaince-era Italy. You have Medieval Europe. You have Colonial North America. You have Colonization-Era Near-East. So yeah. That's some seriously twisted logic you're using there to try and justify your "This is all 16th century!" bull****. You didn't even read my previous comment? If the most powerfull countries have modern technology so the world lives in the modern era, because the strong countires control the market, politics and war, that is pretty basic history lol. I'll explain to you, the early modern era began when the navigations began, it was something that impacted the whole world, the late modern era began after the the french revolution because it affected the whole world. "*THE* most *AGGRESSIVE* and *POWERFUL* nations have Rennaisaince-era technology. That's, like...two countries. The Vaillian Republic and Readceras, I'm guessing. The other powerful nations--you know, the other 8 on the top 10?--are Medieval-era technology. . "that is plainly wrong. I think you didn't got the lore right... but the Rautai are extremely agressive, they even built a big wall separetting them from the world - lol...-, the Rautai armada is famous, they possess the best weapons and ships in the World, Kana and Pallegina had a banter about it. So Rautai and the Vailians Republic have the best technology avaible, which are based on 16th century, so the game is on a World that the top quality weapons have 16th century tech... because the Vailian Republic and Rautai have made a big impact on how the people on the world lives. "Then some are Stone Age, but note that it says remote civilizations, not isolated tribes like in the modern era." That could have happened even in England, the rural areas didn't had top quality technology like Londom, sure some of them were living by medieval age standards. "This is a mixture of Eearth periods. You have Rennaisaince-era Italy. You have Medieval Europe. You have Colonial North America. You have Colonization-Era Near-East." Yes... the real world is a mixture of periods, but the one that we live in is the contemporary era because the most powerfull nations, that control the world have the technology of the contemporary era. "So yeah. That's some seriously twisted logic you're using there to try and justify your "This is all 16th century!" bull****." Yes they live in the 16th century but not everyone can afford the technology, ****, I have to teach history to someone in the forum... Let me illustrate why you are wrong: By your logic, some countries in Africa and some places here in Brazil live in the past, because they don't have electricity.

So it's basically saying that the most powerfull nations are on the early modern period, 16th-18th century...so... thanks for proving me right? Or are you trying to say that it's not the 16th century because other civilizations were living in the stone age? Of course some of the more remote civilizations are still on the stone age or bronze age, that happened in the real world as well, Azteks didn't had any guns, it's normal, not every civilization has the same technology, some advance more than others... just look nowadays, some cities in Africa are still living on the middle ages, **** even here in Brazil, some places don't even have electricity, so if we follow your logic, here in Brazil we don't live in the 21th century we are on the 20th century, lol, I guess I'm speaking from the past! You do realize that you are achieving nothing right? Your arguments don't debunk any of my previous arguments... I really don't see your point...

YES! The colonizations were from, approximately, the 16th-18th century! You are correct. That is why the tech of the first game is from the 16th century, and I bet that the tech for Deadfire will be from 17th century.Again, Obsidian and Josh said that PoE 1 had tech from the 16th era, I'm not making this up it's on the various sites that made anything about Pillars. I'm not discussing guns in Deadfire. Yeah...but its onlyba *five year difference in game*. You see the problem? Tech from *many eras*...together. I want guns to be treated better than they were in the first game, so someone tried to prove me wrong by saying that bows were better than guns in the 16th century then I procceded to use a bunch of material to prove that they were much better than bows in the 16th century, the era that the game was based on, that's all. And here you are trying to prove me wrong by saying that the game was based on tech of various eras... but you don't have any example of that right? So you are trying to use Deadfire as one... and well... we don't know if the tech will still be the same, I doubt that, but we have to wait to see. But we are discussing the tech from the FIRST GAME right? So give me examples from the first game. Try to debunk Obsidian, because, like I already said, even they said that the game was based on 16th century tech... and hey... if you live in the 16th century you can still use a gun from the 15th century...

In the PoE universe Dyrwood and Readcearas are both former Aedyran colonies that have been independent for over a century though. Eora's history hasn't followed Earth's that closely. Deadfire have a really distinct atmosphere, colonization, big ships, conquests, war between big nations and tribes, what that reminds you of?

YES! The colonizations were from, approximately, the 16th-18th century! You are correct. That is why the tech of the first game is from the 16th century, and I bet that the tech for Deadfire will be from 17th century. Again, Obsidian and Josh said that PoE 1 had tech from the 16th era, I'm not making this up it's on the various sites that made anything about Pillars. I'm not discussing guns in Deadfire.

But the game is not situated in the 15th century.Their game isn't situated in *any* historical era directly analogous to *any* Earth period. Middle 15th to early 16th is the technological range shown, that's all.Your thread is "Things you want PoE 2 to specifically avoid if possible" I said that I wanted them to avoid being unrealistic with guns, some people tried to debunk this by saying that bows were better than guns in that time period 16th century in the real world, the period that the game is based, and using real life examples so I debunked their argument with an argument adressing the real world 16th century, that's all.So I should have just said to them "hey it's just a fantasy" or "hey it's my opinion" instead of making a little research and proving my point? So discussing anything in the forum is pointless? Everyone can just say "hey it's fantasy"? They're game is not "based" on the 16th century tech. It's based on tech from *various points with a hundred years time span*. There's isn't an exact "guns, armor, and bows from 1540" deal. It's just what they thought was cool. The conflict is that your looking for hard definitions when they're using broad strokes. Well... you have to tell that to Obsidian, they advertized the game as based on the 16th century technology, just look at ANY site advertizing the game... And... Deadfire is just a confirmation of this information, which century the colonization and conquests of the land previous owned by indiginous people began?

You specifically said "british bowmen" when talking about lowest rank and british bowmen use longbows which did take years of training. Why dont you go take a look at the sources provided on the longbow wiki page instead of taking my word or just continue to substitute in your own reality... I already explained that.... I used british bowmen because I knew that the longbow was a difficult weapon to master and the stronger of the trio longbow, bow, crossbow, I could have said "crossbowmen were the lowest rank of the french army". I really don't know why you are so salty about it. I'm a big fan of armours and arms that is why I know this stuff, I'm not creatting nor "substitute in your own reality" anything, if you want any proof just go to youtube, you have Skallagrim, Lindybeige, Shadiversity, scholagladiatoria are good sources. Ps: I think you didn't got my full comment, I edited some stuff to make it more understandable. See if that makes sense to you: You use a lot of longbowmen in your army, at least 3/5 of your army are longbowmen, but you lost a battle, you need to get more longbowmen and fast, you have more 5.000 training, but the training takes 5 years... sorry, you will have to wait... "My point is: The King of England was so preoccupied with the training of longbowman, because they needed a lot of longbowman, people could learn that fast and be introduced into the fray fast, but they needed more training to master, the best solution? Make it a common sport!"

Lowest Rank had nothing to do with how hard or easy training was with a bow. It was entirely a prestige thing... to be a bowman wasn't as chivalrous or prestigious and didn't require any family pedigree to be one which translates to more people being able to become bowmen because there were not societal role restrictions surrounding it. It has everything to do how easy or hard the training would be... Lowest Rank means that they needed a bunch of people in that position right? So to have a bunch of people in that position it required less time of training, so they needed to give those soldiers a simple weapon to use, hence the longbow. Foot soldier weren't prestigious position and they weren't the lowest rank, why? Because they needed more training, or you think that using a shield and sword is easier than using a bow? "Longbows were very difficult to master because the force required to deliver an arrow through the improving armour of medieval Europe was very high by modern standards. Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 360 newtons (81 pounds-force) and possibly more than 600 N (130 lbf), with some estimates as high as 900 N (200 lbf).[citation needed] Considerable practice was required to produce the swift and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers are recognizably adapted, with enlarged left arms and often osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers.[24] It was the difficulty in using the longbow that led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the Assize of Arms of 1252 and Edward III of England's declaration of 1363: "Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery." If the people practiced archery, it would be that much easier for the King to recruit the proficient longbowmen he needed for his wars. Along with the improving ability of gunfire to penetrate plate armour, it was the long training needed by longbowmen that eventually led to their being replaced by musketeers." From wikipedia on longbows. You forgot one thing, it says "Longbows were difficult to master" and I totally agree with that, but my argument is that it was an easy weapon to use, and it is, just like a gun in real life, if you get one right now I'm sure you know how to use it, but will you hit the target? Archers didn't shoot like you see in movies "1, 2... 3... FIRE!" They did that non stop, their job was to shoot a good amount of arrows into the enemy lines, it was a basic job that didn't require years of training - you had 15.000 targets... you don't have to be Legolas to hit one-, different from foot soldiers and knights, that had to learn about stances, formations, weapons types, martial arts, etc. My point is: The King of England was so preoccupied with the training of longbowman, because they needed a lot of longbowman, people could learn that fast and be introduced into the fray fast, but they needed more training to master, the best solution? Make it a common sport! But the text is towards the longbow right? Something that England was famous, because of their culture towards longbows, people practiced that like they practice football nowadays, try to get a text about crossbows and bows. My argument is for all of them not just the longbow, I used the longbow because it was the strongest, thus a good example.

Lowest Rank had nothing to do with how hard or easy training was with a bow. It was entirely a prestige thing... to be a bowman wasn't as chivalrous or prestigious and didn't require any family pedigree to be one which translates to more people being able to become bowmen because there were not societal role restrictions surrounding it. It has everything to do how easy or hard the training would be... Lowest Rank means that they needed a bunch of people in that position right? So to have a bunch of people in that position it required less time of training, so they needed to give those soldiers a simple weapon to use, hence the longbow. Foot soldier wasn't a prestigious position and they weren't the lowest rank, why? Because they needed more training, or you think that using a shield and sword is easier than using a bow?

The acc of 16th century guns were pretty good. I think you are mistaken 16th century guns to 15th century guns, there was a huge difference in technology. You can see that in the first video.

Now I see your point and agree with it, the more cool stuff we have, the better.

That is a good argument, and it seems that the creation of guns were directioned to counter magic, hence why guns go through spell shields without any problem.

But the game is not situated in the 15th century.Their game isn't situated in *any* historical era directly analogous to *any* Earth period. Middle 15th to early 16th is the technological range shown, that's all. Your thread is "Things you want PoE 2 to specifically avoid if possible" I said that I wanted them to avoid being unrealistic with guns, some people tried to debunk this by saying that bows were better than guns in that time period 16th century in the real world, the period that the game is based, and using real life examples so I debunked their argument with an argument adressing the real world 16th century, that's all. So I should have just said to them "hey it's just a fantasy" or "hey it's my opinion" instead of making a little research and proving my point? So discussing anything in the forum is pointless? Everyone can just say "hey it's fantasy"?

It's not a bias. Guns did supplant bows, but only after their accuracy and rate of fire improved. The historical period is relevant here. If you are making a response, please, adress my entire post and not just one line, thank you.Now my post is fully edited. That's silly. If he has exactly one thing to say, quoting your entire post is stupid and labor intensive, especially if they're on a mobile device. How about this: If you have a response, give it instead of batching about the post format. Adress my entire post = adress the entire argument that I made. You don't need to quote the entire post, lol, I thought it was obvious but I will edit it. Hist argument, "it's not a bias. Guns did supplant bows, but only after their accuracy and rate of fire improved. The historical period is relevant here." I already debunked his argument in my post, he clearly didn't read the entire thing.

But the game is not situated in the 15th century.

It's not a bias. Guns did supplant bows, but only after their accuracy and rate of fire improved. The historical period is relevant here. If you are making a response, please, adress my ENTIRE ARGUMENT and not just one line, thank you. That don't mean you need to quote my entire post, just get the general idea.

You guys are forgetting the biggest reason to why guns were better than bows in the 16 century, metallurgy. Plate armours and better chainmails were more cheap and mass produced in the 16 century. You can even see a decline on the production of plate armour after the introduction of guns, because guns were much better at dealing with armour than bows. "Longbow could penetrate plate armor, so muskets didn't have an advantage there." Longbows can't penetrate plate armour, I don't know where you got that from. "The main advantage of muskets was that it didn't need anywhere near the same amount of training. Hence you could train a bunch of peasants to shoot in a few weeks, and group them into large formations. Longbows took years of training." Archers were the lowest rank of the british army, so no, they didn't needed years of training. An example to why bows and longbows couldn't do nothing against plate armour: A steel helmet vs crossbow: Azteks had so much trouble with the spanish army that used this type of armour: A simple plate armour adapeted for the usage of guns - yes guns were so important that they changed the design of armour -, the azteks arrows and Atlatl couldn't penetrate the spanish armour, it was like trying to kill a person wearing a bullet proff vest with a .22. The armies started to use guns because the armours could handle any type of bows and longbows, but they couldn't handle guns. That is the same reson to why we see a lot of blunt weapons in the 16 century, because swords couldn't penetrate plate armour. To beat plate armour they needed something that could cause some sort of damage to the wearer, hence the creation of the blunt weapons. The Macuahuitl - a mix of blunt and sharp weapon used by the Azteks - were the only weapon that could cause a serious damage towards the spanish soldiers, that is why we can even encounter some accounts of the weapon effectiveness: "Pedro de Morón was a very good horseman, and as he charged with three other horsemen into the ranks of the enemy the Indians seized hold of his lance and he was not able to drag it away, and others gave him cuts with their broadswords, and wounded him badly, and then they slashed at the mare, and cut her head off at the neck so that it hung by the skin, and she fell dead." But they didn't had any accounts towards the effectiveness of Azteks bows... "I agree that in the sorts of encounters that are represented in Pillars of Eternity (small skirmishes between no more than thirty combatants, usually fewer) bows would be more useful than guns." In PoE, usually, the enemy party and the player party are really well equipped, bows and crossbows wouldn't penetrate any of the plate, brigandines and mail armours, and they would have a hard time penetrating the scale and leather armour, so I don't believe that it would work. "In particular someone wielding an arquebus is simply less manoeuvrable since at some point they have to stand still for a not insignificant amount of time to reload, and this is a serious liability in a small skirmish." So why pirates used guns? It would be better to use bows right? They were always facing small numbers, and you are ignoring the fact that they could carry more than 2 guns. I think you guys are biased towards bows, longbows and crossbows and I can understand that, but guns were simply better that is why we don't use bows anymore... but the game is set in a strange world, it appears that Josh choose the 16th century, because of all the social impact it brought but he is divided towards fantasy and realism, you can even see big shields in the game! Big shields were RARELY used back in the 16th century, bucklers and plate armour did their job quite well, that is why you see a lot of two handed weapons being used in the 16th century illustrations. But I think it's difficult to create a tank character without a big shield in mind... but PoE 1 did a good job, my semi tank warrior can handle a bunch of hits with his buckler. BUT! If the discussion is longbows vs crossbows my vote goes towards longbows, without a second thought.

There are no Mages in Pillars of Eternity only wizards and they are not the same thing Wizards have to, at least, think about the number of spells they can do in one day, giving a little of tactical depth towards the role, mage is just a dumbed-down class, made for the public that can't handle the minimal of tactical thinking. "...and was restricted to a fireworks cannon" "...or is it just about spamming fire/ice/sparks/stinky balls?" what? You have to elaborate more, give us some example of that happening. The combat was Aloth easier with a mage and priest in your party, but I never spammed fire/ice/sparks/stinky balls like you said. I was using a really cool build on Aloth, I focused on crowd control and basic attacks, I, generally speaking, started the fight with a good petrified or slicken and then used a plethora of self buffs, Eldritch Aim, Merciless Gaze, Deleterious Alacrity of Motion, Kalakoth's Minor Blights and then I procceded to watch the enemy front line melting. "But will mages have invocations?" What? In PoE 1 there are tons of builds focused on summoning weapons, and if you are talking about an actual summon like a elemental or something like that, the wizard can summon his phatom and some really strong tentacles to help in the fight. "Can they transform themselves in pink rabbits? Others?" I don't think that they can do that to themselves but yes, you can transform others in PoE1, Form of the Helpless Beast, I just don't know why would you use this spell if you could just petrify the entire enemy team... well for some laughter perhaps? I think that you just have to learn how to be a little more creative with your builds. BUT I have to agree that it was difficult to not fall for the temptation of just spamming petrified, confusion and slicken for the entire fight... but that is a problem with the Wizard class in every game ever created...

It has been confirmed by Josh that taking the baby will have consequences, and a big one. He mentioned it in one his Dev Stream, I think it was Deadfire Q&A with Josh Sawyer and Bobby Null, but I'm not quite sure.

Boring companions - Sagani and GV... -, bows being extremely better than guns - for the 16th century that don't make any sense -, simplified combat, few portraits - PoE 1 had a huge problem with portraits -, big shields and trash mobs being stronger than bosses - it was just me or those monks on WM II were stronger than the Kraken?

Sink the ship? Do you know how much sugar, coffee and tobacco were transported by those very ships back in the 16 century? Those ships could hold at least 10 Korgraks - but I don't think that would be a great idea -, or are you talking about his... emotional behaviors?

Let's demand Korgrak! If he is not add in the game we riot!

"Slacker Backer Pledge total on Fig is up to $64,957 (as of now)" "Our Backer Portal is at $51,919 as fo this morning. :)" Total of: $116,876. Information taken from the FIG comment section.

"""Better""" looking. Anyway... the only criticism that I have towards the game is that shield are indispensable for tanks. Armour need to have more impact in the deflection, in the 16 century the metallurgy was so good that the usage of big shields were rare amoungst knights, bucklers and two handed weapons were more widely used by knights because the plate armour deflected pretty much anything, that is why maces and other types of blunt weapons started to be more used. I'll make a thread about this...