MortyTheGobbo

Like I've said before, Deadfire is going to have more moving parts than Pillars, by all accounts. Five classes (fighters, paladins, barbarians, rogues and rangers) will have more abilities to work with. Three of them (wizards, priests and druids) will be encouraged to use them every combat, rather than sit on them until the right time. So in most encounters, more abilities will go off than in Pillars. So I can see why they reduced the party size.

Josh answered someone's question on Tumblr about why they won't split Might into physical and non-physical strength, so I'm assuming the spread will remain overall the same. Their exact effects might change. In fact, I certainly hope they do, since in Pillars they're not quite balanced with one another.

Yeah, the "recruit everyone and have them chill out at your home base" setup as been common for a while. I think Numenera breaks away from it?

There will be only five party members at atime in Deadfire, unless something has changed.

Why, though? Pillars is niche. It's a game with a comparatively narrow appeal and doesn't really hide it.

I suspect the Conjuration school might be more about clouds, tentacles, grease and other "solid" objects the wizard can plop onto a battlefield. I also hope they don't get new summon spells. Summoning creatures is the chanters' gimmick, and druids' to a lesser degree. Wizards shouldn't get to do everything.

It seems all or at least most classes have more consistent keywords to their powers now. Shred is one of them.

In PoE, priests had a motley assortment of spells, but there was a few must-haves that they cast regularly. That was honestly pretty boring. We know buffs and debuffs are going to work differently in Deadfire, so hopefully priest spells are rebalanced to make more wriggle room in how you build a priest.

I like it. Priests and druids getting all of their spells was a D&D-ism without any real purpose. It does mean that their spells will have to be less of a haphazard grab-bag of situational effects, though.

That's great. Priests and druids getting their full spell set was a fossil. That said, it will change the dynamic a lot. Part of the druid's appeal was that they had a versatile spell set available all the time, including AoE elemental damage spells. Wizards get grimoires with extra spells. Maybe priests and druids will get something similar.

Well at the very least there's no sign of the Play Dead icon on the Rogue skill tree, so fingers crossed that's gone. That was a stark reminder of Pillars' D&D roots. Wizards get to stun-lock a whole group of enemies and the rogue... gets to pretend they're dead.

That's currently my plan too, although I could see having both a Wizard and a Fighter/Wizard say, since I'll get my max level spells from the pure Wizard anyway. I plan to run a Fighter/Rogue, but I do hope that those classes get something a bit more impressive on the highest levels this time around.

Devoted are the ones that are devoted to one weapon (Which I presume is, One weapon, and not a Weapon Category). I think? Did we get an answer on that on Tumblr? Anyways, restricted to Single-Handed. One weapon, yes. I think weapon categories are no longer a thing. Not being proficient in a weapon only means that you can't use its modal. Devoted takes it a step further with accuracy penalties. What I mean is.... Short Swords is a "Category", is the Devoted devoted to all Short Swords? Or just one specific Short Sword in your inventory? Will it be impossible to sell it? If not, it should be, so no accidents occur. Like Boo, you couldn't pick him up from the inventory, *squeak!* I'm fairly sure you're "bound" to all weapons in a particular category, like all greatswords or pikes. It wouldn't make a lot of sense otherwise.

Devoted are the ones that are devoted to one weapon (Which I presume is, One weapon, and not a Weapon Category). I think? Did we get an answer on that on Tumblr? Anyways, restricted to Single-Handed. One weapon, yes. I think weapon categories are no longer a thing. Not being proficient in a weapon only means that you can't use its modal. Devoted takes it a step further with accuracy penalties.

Haven't we known that we'd get AD&D-style multiclassing for a while? I really can't see the buffet-style kind would ever work. It's like the outline says - it opens up too many ways to create a weak character and make strategic choices. That's exactly what happened in 3e D&D. Picking class levels that you think fit your character will leave you with an inconsistent mess, while strategically dipping into a particular class can be pretty powerful (sorcerers grabbing a Paladin level for Charisma to saves). So I'm glad we won't get that in Deadfire.

I'm thinking about a Devoted/Streetfighter myself, depending on how valuable it'll be to use multiple weapons. In Pillars, I only ever swapped away from a greatsword to open a combat with an arbalest.

Interesting that some subclasses get access to features from other classes. That's a bit of an overlap between multiclasing and subclasses. An Illusionist/Trickster multiclass would probably be overkill.

The first Divinity: Original Sin did little to draw me in. The character generation, though classless, felt more stifling and less inventive than Pillars', even though Pillars has classes. I have little interest in the warrior/rogue/mage division, even if it's not technically enforced by classes. So I skipped it. Maybe I wasn't fair and would have loved it, but that's my impression.

It's entirely fair to be concerned over multiclassing, I feel. It's a big minefield of balancing problems. Particularly if you add subclasses to the mix. We can hope and trust Obsidian to navigate it, but people with beta access need to be ready to try and break it in ungodly ways. In 3e D&D, multiclassing is mostly an optimizer's thing. It can be very strong, but you need to optimize it. A casual player is more likely than not to create a weaksauce character who can't do anything particularly well. 4e has its hybrid thing, that I think has its own host of problems, and multiclass feats. Not sure about 5e. It has buffet-style multiclassing, but I think it also uses some scaling of key features, like in the last years of 3e.

Well, I guess OP's facade of "not actually agreeing" with the writer's ideology didn't last long. Is this thread just going to be an argument about immigration and race? And, as always, I find it endlessly amusing that feminists are accused of being oversensitive and seeking things to be outraged about... but then you've got threads like these, furiously trying to stir up a big storm in a tiny teacup.

But it does not have to. "Having to" doesn't enter into it. It just does, whether we want to make a particular point or not.

i wanted to discuss what this could mean moving forward, It can mean Obsidian will be working very hard to avoid anything controversial, Tiptoing around and that could impact the quality of the writing and story, For example the Raedric hold in PoE 1. Hell the whole Religion thing in PoE 1. Seeing how Deadfire begins with a god literally eating our protagonist's soul, I'd say your concerns are entirely groundless. A single person distancing themselves from the company because they said stupid **** on the Internet does not indicate anything. You're just trying to drum up outrage. I never said that obsidian Will suddenly become EA because of this. Small steps. Im worrying about this being start of the slippery slope I don't think Obsidian releasing unfinished games and screwing us over with microtransactions is likely, no.

i wanted to discuss what this could mean moving forward, It can mean Obsidian will be working very hard to avoid anything controversial, Tiptoing around and that could impact the quality of the writing and story, For example the Raedric hold in PoE 1. Hell the whole Religion thing in PoE 1. Seeing how Deadfire begins with a god literally eating our protagonist's soul, I'd say your concerns are entirely groundless. A single person distancing themselves from the company because they said stupid **** on the Internet does not indicate anything. You're just trying to drum up outrage.

it may reflect it but doesn't define it. May you point me to where I suggested it does? Also, while you're at it, explain how it's relevant.

Fiction reflects the real world, whether we like it or not. Even if it's fantasy, it's written by real people for real people.