Jump to content
  • Sign Up

blotter

Members
  • Content Count

    400
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by blotter

  1. I'd welcome unique class-based developments for the stronghold based on class, but it could get complicated with all the multiclassing options. It doesn't seem like there'll be different strongholds, so I don't think that BG 2's way of handling this would apply. It might be better to tie stronghold customization to faction relationships and dispositions.
  2. 1. Will we have the ability to customize multiclass titles? 2. Are there any notable monastic orders that we'll have opportunities to interact with while we visit the Deadfire Archipelago? 3. Will disposition ranks from imported saves affect returning NPCs' attitudes toward the watcher? 4. Are we going to have more options for dealing with prisoners (assuming we still have the option to take them?) 5. Will we see any examples of NPCs pushing the limits of their classes in ways akin to Concelhaut's magical research and Llengrath's transference of knowledge? Will we encounter or hear about Cipher or Chanter equivalents to archmages, for example? 6. Can hostile factions put bounties out on the Watcher? 7. Will there be any Watcher talents that are selectable at level up as opposed to being awarded through story events alone? 8. Will the racial talents of Godlike be revised to be more proportional to the loss of helmets?
  3. Sounds good. With poison in the game, maybe the Nalpazca can experiment with mithridatism until they ooze poison from their wounds. Probably not, but I might actually get interested in them if they could.
  4. PoE doesn't share D&D's conceit of objective moral forces, but people in-game certainly do think that things can be evil and wrong. Holy has more to do with religious veneration anyway, and zealous fanaticism is the paladin's theme so it fits.
  5. Sure you can. You can carve him up the same way you would any commoner or backer character when you meet him outside Caed Nua or later on in Brighthollow. I haven't tried it while he's an active member in your current party as opposed to just hanging around the keep, but it probably just takes longer since you'd have to work your way through Endurance and Health.
  6. A bit of both actually, with theme emerging through function. Recklessly tossing around dangerously unstable pyrotechnics becomes a practice that has implications about the set of characters who elect to do so to do so not from time to time, but as a career choice more generally. Though as Boeroer already mentioned, function-focused subclasses are already a thing. Aside from the berserker subclass Fardaragon mentioned, a headhunter-type barbarian whose base rage benefits might be diminished normally but spike following crits and kills might work. A firebrand who infects enemies with their rage might allow for more exploration of taunt mechanics (I can't really recall them being present much elsewhere, but that could be because I just didn't use them myself). A foeslayer with an anti-creature focus like I described earlier in the thread could be an option (hate feeds well into rage and vice versa), though I'd tend to prefer it as a rogue or paladin thing (ability/abilities or subclass) at this point. Maybe a barbarian focusing on heavy armor and brutishly leveraging their mass across the battlefield as a form of wrecking ball mobility could fit into the list somewhere as well. I'd wouldn't be adverse to a totemist subclass either, but it shouldn't engulf the entire set. Edit: Can someone tell me why my quotes keep creeping out of the boxes? It's a bit disturbing.
  7. Thematically, it'd be more about the destructiveness and volatility of their weapons of choice rather than being low-tech per se. In the absence of any throwing weapons from the game, fiddling with explosives seems like the only thematic form of ranged offense available to barbarians, low-tech or not, if you take raging to be iconic to the class experience. There's an amount of preparation and deliberateness in timing with regard to archery (carefully aiming, keeping the arrow drawn back for the right moment, etc.) that seems foreign to a barbarian's rage, for example, while stopping to reload your pistols or arquebus between shots seems like an out-and-out break from the violent urgency that their rage would engender.
  8. No, I think it's better this way, as it suggests that rather than necessarily being the godlike's corresponding parent race (which it still could be, but not necessarily), it was a more generalized matter of physique. So a godlike born from a pale elf, for example, could grow excessively, ending up auamua-sized or have their growth stunted and end up eye-to-eye with an orlan in terms of height.
  9. I believe there's supposed to be another developer Q&A this week, so you could always try asking them what their plans are for keeping paladins relevant in the wake of multiclassing.
  10. A priest/fighter multiclass wouldn't necessarily make paladins redundant so long as the latter continue to have abilities and features that are both uniquely theirs and competitive with alternatives such as priest spells. It also stands to reason that any single or multiclass builds that fill a similar role, however imperfectly, would necessarily be doing so at the expense of other options, in which case I don't really see the harm as long as they don't do the paladin's job better. Technically, there's no such thing as a vanilla paladin in PoE since they are all required to select an Order as their subclass. Assuming that you mean what's to keep people from having others stand in for a paladin or never bothering with a single classed paladin, that's something that would necessarily boil down to the abilities that the class gains and how well they scale based on power source.
  11. Where paladins are concerned, I'd like to see more differentiation based on their orders. Bleak Walkers might specialize in bolstering offensive capabilities or weakening enemy defenses, Shieldbearers might take a portion of nearby allies' suffering upon themselves or improve allies' ability to protect each other via engagement, Goldpact Knights affinities would be more towards bolstering allies' defenses and increasing consistency (fewer grazes, etc.), Kind Wayfarers could focus more on healing or increasing mobility, and the Darcozzi could focus on intensifying or prolonging inspiration among their allies. This could also involve areas in which they are comparatively mediocre, such as Bleak Walkers being bad at healing/directly assisting allies in nondestructive ways or Shieldbearers having less skill in directly improving accuracy or damage through their auras. Alternatively, a more simple way to approach this could be to have orders influence starting stats and skills to an extent. In either case, more order-specific abilities would be welcome. Similar variation for priests would be fitting as well. We know that spells have associated descriptors now, and if there's enough variation in priest spells to prevent certain spell affinities and antipathies from being plainly better or worse than each other, then assigning strengths and weaknesses for various priesthoods based on spell types could be interesting. This is another class for which skill bonuses should vary with subclasses to an extent. All priesthoods will emphasize lore to an extent given their role in guiding/instructing the faithful, but beyond that, they would obviously have different concerns and values. Streetwise might make sense for a priest of Skaen, for example, while Athletics may better fit a priest of Magran, etc. For monks, I'd like them to have access to scarification rites as an alternative to armor - reducing maximum health or imposing other permanent penalties as appropriate in exchange for increased innate DT and other benefits. Things like body paint and oils might be a more reversible alternative to that. I'd also be interested in some minor passive benefits from the accumulation of Wounds unrelated to the active use of monk abilities could also be interesting. More versatility for unarmed attacks seems worthwhile to me as well: perhaps giving them different stances/modals to select from to shift or expand the features of such attacks, or even allowing them to simply purchase equipment like spiked knuckles to allow for more variation in unarmed damage type. Ganrich and others have had plenty of good ideas for chanters, as can be seen here: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/91542-chanters-need-a-redesign/.
  12. There's that, but ancestral ties don't translate to an insider's experience of the culture and her need to adapt to her present situation seems to emphasize this. I would expect her expectations and beliefs to to contrast significantly with the other aumaua even if they get along. I could be wrong, of course. ‚Äč That's probably the Moon dude? The Ranga Nui are the leaders (or is the leader - singular. I don't remember which) of the Rauatai and the moon aumaua appears to be Huana, so I doubt it.
  13. You have a point. Maybe we'll see it on Rods since they're the most heavy-duty of the implements and something more distinct for the other types. Given the number of different weapons available, though, I wouldn't be surprised if modals were repeated for some of them. In some cases it could even be desirable; AFAIR, they mentioned having a DT Penetration modal for estocs, for example, and it doesn't particularly make sense for them to be the only weapons that can be used this way.
  14. Maybe, maybe not, but their huntresses are given tools to identify the latest incarnations of their elders, so mistaken identity's probably not the most likely explanation. Ah. Yes, I suppose that is a more extensive form of ranged AoE through basic attacks. For my part, I care a lot less about stepping on the wizard's toes in this regard, assuming that Blast and Penetrating Blast don't get bundled up in implement proficiencies and opened up to anyone who takes them anyway.
  15. I don't know about that. They're already competing with druids where AoE magic's concerned.
  16. It probably has to do with incorporating a native perspective into the potential party roster in the form of someone who has ties to the Huana, which is something that a Naasitaq dwarf wouldn't be able to offer.
  17. Carnage with ranged weapons seems like it'd step on the ranger's toes and risk overshadowing Driving Flight and Powder Burns. If not for the latter, I could see a Demolitionist subclass as being an interesting way to explore - fun with explosives is one the few ways that I can think of in which ranged combat fits in with the barbarian class theme of reckless, flailing violence. Maybe Serafen's pistols will have reinforced barrels and grips, allowing them to double as clubs at close range. I can't really see the whole frenzying barbarian thing working well at a thematic level with the relatively cumbersome reload process for primitive firearms, but a frothing orlan berserker pistol whipping his enemies when the bullets run out sounds like a hoot. Edit: Either way, unique subclasses for NPCs sounds like a great idea to me.
  18. That's a good point. Since the NPCs are supposed to be more significant to the central quest then tying them to the key players/factions involved seems like a worthwhile exercise. So my short non-dwarf meadow folk rogue could be Onekaza II's court jester. If the unnamed Moon/Sea Godlike is an Aruihi sympathizer, the rogue could've been sent to keep tabs on him. Or maybe just chuck that idea altogether and add a boreal dwarf rogue/priest of Berath instead; we already know that Berath's supposed to play an important role in the plot and Naasitaq's supposed to be the largest nation in the deadfire. Given the one big city limit, having a representative from that area may be a way in which to get some perspective from that region if we're unlikely to explore it in depth.
  19. Yeah, if anything, it should be tied to skills and equipment, given its dependence on machines. In any case, its practitioners have already been shown to vary outside of rigid class lines. We've had Cipher animancers (Galvino), Priest animancers (Wymund), and Wizard animancers (Osrya) so far that I can think of, and I could be missing a few other types for all I know. As for an additional companion, I'll cast my vote for a wicht again. Failing either of those, how about a vertically-challenged meadow folk rogue that everyone assumes is a dwarf before being harshly disabused of the notion in-game. Machines, actually. What you've described is just how wizardry works in the game already.
  20. The creation of wicht implies that an animal soul is not suitable for powering a human body and mind. The same would appear to be true for Persoq, as he was not a regular normal animal. It would seem like his soul became lost somehow, and found its way into an inappropriate body - perhaps a natural version of how animancers created wichts. If it were necessarily the case that rebirth as an animal, or an animal's rebirth, as a person would result in crippling aberrations, then the prospect of such rebirths would be discussed very differently in-game. Sagani's people have been at this for centuries, yet her story about the prior huntress visiting the bear-elder is played for laughs, not filled with horror at the prospect of the atavistic degeneration, madness, and confusion that a once-revered member of their community was now forced to endure. It also doesn't hold that the consequences of creating wichts have any broader implications toward natural cycles of rebirth to begin with; there are any number of things that could have gone wrong with the procedure, The creation of wichts also notably takes place after birth as opposed to prior to or during birth as seems to be more customary for the transmigration process. Souls may only have the flexibility to adapt to different types of existence at certain points in the continuum of life and death. Then again, even if all humans who were reborn as animals would end up warped or lost in some way as a result, this is hardly sufficient reason to assert that godlike would never arise among wilder per your divine soul exuviae theory of their creation (which I actually like quite a bit, btw). It might be incredibly rare and prone to resulting deformity and/or crippling insanity for the offspring, sure, but that's a far cry from their existence being impossible in the first place. However, it would potentially suggest that godlike are purged with even greater frequency from wilder populations than they are from kith populations, given the greater brutality of the former and the more unforgiving lives they lead in terms of environmental hazards, predation, and so forth. The Vithraak would be an except in regards to civilization, but even then, they seem ruthless enough to kill any godlike that might surface among their offspring without question if they were a liability. Given the nature of the hollowborn phenomena, though, the way it progressed is not really evidence in favor of this theory.
  21. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but if the souls of kith and animals were truly distinct, it would seem to imply that no kith would ever be reborn as an animal or vice versa. Events in the first game (via Sagani) plainly contradict this, however. If you discuss the Naasitaq ritual she's engaged in when you meet her, I believe she specifically mentions a past huntress being forced to a recite an elder's past deeds and contributions to the tribe while running for her life from the bear that this elder had been reborn as. And of course, there were later developments in her NPC quest line itself that I won't spoil here. Edit: I reread that and didn't overlook the parenthetical this time. Bearing that in mind, it doesn't seem to follow that because the humans would rarely (but not never) be reborn as animals and/or animals would rarely be reborn as humans, the castoffs of gods' souls that you theorize end up in kith soul pools would never stray into the similarly distant pools of wilder. On the other hand, if you mean that there is no cross-contamination between these pools except in cases of direct interference, as in the case of the Wicht, then this returns us to the contradictory precedents mentioned above.
  22. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63395-update-43-pretty-and-technical/ just says humanoid, with humans being the race that gives birth to them most often. Most if not all wilder are (roughly) humanoid, though, so why not? Godlike born in the Dyrwood 'til recently would be hollowborn too, so maybe there're a bunch of wicht godlike shambling around out there as well. Doubt we'll see any death godlike vithrak, moon godlike wicht, fire godlike ogres, or nature godlike trolls in the near future, though. That sort of pileup and cross-breed excess seems best left for d&d, really. Except for death godlike vithrak. Anything as ugly as those must be absolutely has to make it into a Pillars game. Edit: I feel sorry for the subclasses, though, getting gobbled up by the godlike this way in their own thread.
  23. Oh well. I think it's kind of boring to remove all doubt, but c'est la vie. It's possible they've changed their minds since then, but until they state otherwise...
  24. Maybe, but it could just as easily be the case that they didn't want the hassle of creating unique helmet models for the various godlike heads. If memory serves, there're three different head models per gender for each godlike type and many, if not all, of them seem to differ enough that they might each require distinct helmet models.
×
×
  • Create New...