mostundesired

Leaning towards agreeing. Not fully, but leaning. Survivability is still a problem, which I blame entirely on the relative cost of abilities to how useful and/or critical they are. Say I want burst damage at level 7. Sneak up, attack with an ability for big damage and (likely) status effect, that's 1-2 guile. Shadow veil to do it again, that's another 3-4 guile. At best, I'm down to 2 guile. Could possibly burst again, could apply status, could save it for escape if I need it. If that works, great! But my experience with it has been 50/50. Would be fine, except for with every failed attempt I'm doing less damage and spending more time risking death. No big deal, I have a party (presumably), but I'm investing a lot of micromanagement into something that MIGHT work, at the cost of being horrifically less potent for the rest of the fight. Sustained DPS, then? Rely on guile more for defense, focus on flanking. Not terrible, but melee targets like hitting me more than the other guy. Eventually, I run out of escapes, gonna have to risk dying again. Ranged sustained, then? Spending all my guile to MAYBE get sneak attack. Otherwise, just pewing away from a distance. Effective enough, but lacking in that special rogue flavor. Also, enemies might still like me more. Mind you, this assumes classic idea of rogue. Overall, not terrible, but those unreliable-yet-not-quite-gamechanging abilities hurt to the point of urging one to make a character who focuses just on auto attacks even if that excludes actively trying to use the signature sneak attack. Effective. Squishy. Disappointing.

My fault, you are correct. Paladin has a lot of similar passives, I got confused.

Opened the beta just now to make sure, they're resistances, not immunities. It means that the affliction (e.g., terrified, frightened, shaken for resolve) will be ranked down when affecting the character (Terrified to frightened, frightened to shaken). I don't know if that means they can never be terrified, though. Also, about a third to half of the things listed in OP as making Fighters so amazing are available to every/some other classes. Not to say Fighters aren't amazing now, I just don't think they're that amazing compared to other classes.

Hesitate to suggest this, higher base accuracy might do the trick? Better chance with affliction, better chance to crit, won't be as big a bonus when multiclassed. I'm aware the devs originally leveled out accuracy because there were already a lot of bonuses, but this is less worried about missing and more thinking of where we can boost Rogues without overpowering their multiclasses. Hey, they brought back graze, didn't they? I don't know, I'd just rather throw out a stupid idea than stay quiet. Which reminds me of that passive that converts 10% of hits into crits, that I avoided entirely because it didn't seem worth it. Would have to see how much accuracy increases the chance of criting, I think someone's done the math but I can't find it.

Some thoughts on the state of rogues right now. Currently I can single class one who wears cloth armor and uses stilettos and have relative and sometimes unexpected success in an undersized party, so long as they have another character supporting them. To me, this illustrates two things: rogues are really good when they have support in addition to their own abilities, and by extension something we already knew but may not have acknowledged all the reasons for, that multiclassing makes rogues REALLY good. Of course one of the reasons why multiclassing makes rogues so good is because they can stack damage multipliers and whatnot, but another reason is because they have greater survivability. So then I see rogue's dilemma as a single class is that they were squishy, but could dish out a lot of damage. Fine in and of itself. When combined with multiclassing, they can opt to lose the squishiness or stack the damage to be disproportionately high. If they want to balance multiclass rogues against that, one way is to make their damage lower, but if they do that, rogues have to be even less squishy, which they are not when single classed. Personally, I echo others' sentiments in that I'd rather they leave rogues as the high damage squishy class and find a way to reduce the stacking damage numbers from multiclassing instead. Maybe reduce sneak attack and assassinate damage when combined with abilities from other classes, but not auto attacks and rogue abilities. Say if barbarians have a modal to do extra damage with auto attacks for whatever reason, then sneak attack and assinate get weaker. But if the modal is turned off, sneak attack and assinate do full damage. Fireball doesn't get full damage from sneak attack/assassinate, but mortal blow does.

In additon, Wizards can switch grimoires to access different spells and IIRC Priests get bonus spells per power level, for whatever that's worth. I'm guessing it's not a lot, but better than nothing.

Good question. I was just spitballing. Less Zeal is hard to build off of, so it'd probably have to be something brand new. Can't think of anything off the top of my head, but my instincts tell me lowering Deflection while active? More damage, sure, but more chances for the shield to go off. For argument's sake, I'd say that a Paladin order would be probably one of the few cases were combat abilities should be tied to character's personality, since it has to do with loyalty to a way of life or code of conduct or whatever. (Personally, I don't care that much) I like giving Paladins other class's abilities on paper, but if I had to object to it (which I don't), it would be that firstly, Priests already get that, and secondly, Paladins are already good at doing just about anything you need in a party (tank, heal, dps, buff/support, even some CC). Giving them MORE OF THING just seems unnecessary, and judging by the response of others, would fall into the same problem that the current build has: More Better At ThingTM isn't an interesting choice, and potentially game breaking. Truthfully, I'm more bothered by the overlap with Priest.

Well, the big flaw with that is that it eliminates specialization. Bleakwalker specializes towards damage, and in doing so gives up... damage. Kind Wayfarer specializes towards healing at the cost of... healing. There's a problem with Paladins (in the point of view of devs) that the maluses were out of place because there is no base Paladin class. In other words, your only option is to specialize, and there's no option to be a generalist. How true that is is debatable, according to other forumites. But suggesting that every bonus come with a malus that affects the same exact thing is making it so that none of the options are specializing; they're all equally as viable at doing all the same jobs. They're all base class paladins, but with a different shade of devotion. In which case, what's the point of having subclasses? Thinking about it, getting rid of maluses might have been a good move for Paladins, but the way it was done didn't change the playstyle of the subclass. Instead of boosting the base Paladin abilities, they could've given them an extra one that comes with a malus. Something like Gold Pact get their bonus to armor when using their special Sworn Enemy, but can't have auras active when doing so. Shieldbearers get extra engagements and deflection bonus on Lay on Hands when using large shields, but can't cast lay on hands on themselves while equipped. Bleakwalkers get their special Flames of Devotion along with the option of the regular version, but if used, their healing given and received drops while the afflictions last. Situational maluses that are active only when bonuses are active. You can choose to be a specialist within your Paladin order, but otherwise you can choose to be a generalist Paladin.

Been following this thread somewhat, I originally wasn't going to chime in, but I might as well. My favorite game of all time, Dragon's Dogma, has casters with very slow cast times relative to other classes. And I loved it. Casters would rev up their biggest spells, party members would keep enemies away from them, and the cast spell would make or break the encounter. The major difference I'm seeing between that and Deadfire is that A) most spells in Dragon's Dogma were definitely strong enough for it to be worth the cast time and B) that game is stamina based for everything, which recovers over time, so even if you had to cancel the spell/were interrupted, it didn't make too much of a difference. To that end, I can see Deadfire matching up with Dragon's Dogma in making slow spell casting feel good. A) Spells have to be strong enough that the cast time is worth it. We're talking complete game changers. Also, probably better if the recovery time is notably shorter than the effect time B) Harder to match up here. Things like concentration, of course, but the big question to me is whether an interrupted spell should use up resources. If not, casters have way more opportunities to change the fight, and I honestly don't know if that's enough to break the game or not. I like the idea of shortening cast and recovery times, too. Small, reliable magic as opposed to big, risky magic. But personally, I'm more satisfied by big spells that take effort and team coordination to successfully pull off. Both being viable options would be ideal.

Pretty sure it's only supposed to be +100%. May I ask where you're getting +200% from? It could be typo or some such.

If I'm picturing this right, you're saying that if, using my right hand, I swing from right to left, I then have to wind back up to swing right to left again. If, instead, I use the fact that my right hand is to my left to swing left to right, then I'm not really losing any speed compared to using one in each hand. No time is wasted bringing my arm back to the right, I can just swing again immediately. But I'm not an expert in melee combat, so I don't know if that actually works.

This is very strange to me, and especially in the case of using the pistol at range as it just doesn't make any sense why someone should be able to aim and shoot a pistol faster when holding a sword in their other hand than when they are just holding a single pistol. I think this bonus should only apply to weapons of the same type (i.e 2 melee or 2 ranged weapons). Playing devil's advocate, nothing about wielding two weapons, both melee or both ranged, logically makes you attack faster than a single weapon, either.

Another annoyance. Especially with enemies that can teleport away. The character switches to pistol when I want them chase with melee instead.

One thing that's minorly annoying, if we're going to talk about this, is measuring the distance I need to be for my character to decide to attack from melee or from range.

In the case of the former, we're getting into psychic enemy territory, which is bad imo. They're responding to things that haven't happened and planning for things that they logically can't know. Also, the Unbroken subclass, clearly the designated tank subclass, can't properly utilize GUARDIAN Stance, what? That seems so backwards. I agree, AI targeting more vulnerable of the two is good. I'd say I'm arguing for more of that. Chase after 'em when they run away! Come on, take the bait, just once!

I do this. I do this too. Only problem is when I run out of Guile. Not only do I want the option of other weapons, even when I tried this, it didn't work. They stuck to the Fighter. No point in Guardian Stance, no nuance to it. Stand and whack. Actually haven't tried that. I think it has the same problem as other active abilities, which is admittedly minor. Apologies, I made it seem like there were none, didn't I? But anyway, then clearly the problem isn't whether or not they can take a hit. Even minmaxed to 3 con, I've had no problems taking a hit (I found 10 con more reasonable, before anyone says anything). The problem is, as I've been saying, the stance does functionally nothing, so when one has used up all the options listed above, the options are to be at range/use a reach weapon or be tanky. And maybe I'm in the wrong on this, but I tend to burn through these options quickly when enemies turn around to attack my Rogue within seconds... And then don't chase. Did I imply otherwise? Sorry if I did, its not what I meant. My problem is that one of the ways to manage that risk, which should be one of the more reliable ones, has been useless to me (I'm desperately trying to get someone to tell me what I'm doing wrong). Without it, the options dwindle over the course of the fight to be tanky or be range. I think that needs fixing.

That sounds incredibly boring. It would limit build variety and throws away an opportunity to add an interesting tactic to gameplay (i.e., What do I do when my melee squishy gets attacked?). Can't have squishy melees, they go down too fast. No point in having dedicated tanks without melee squishies, enemy AI already doesn't want to disengage. The only viable option for melee, then is somewhat tanky damage dealers. "Want to play a Rogue with two daggers and robes? Too bad! Your options are (semi)tanky melee or ranged squishy!" Boring. I think your dismissal of minor discouragements like decreased accuracy towards attacking other party members as equivalent to taunts is flawed; Nothing's actually forcing characters to attack the Fighter, and there are still buffs and immunities to counteract these discouragements. It's just a nudge towards protecting those vulnerable characters that adds some nuance and let's one more type of build be more viable. A moot point for me, though. The real solution I want is to be able to rely on Guardian Stance. My melee squishy is being attacked? Perfect, I can spin that negative into a positive (melee squishy targeted -> retreat -> get chased -> enemy goes prone -> attack). Non-tanky melee is viable. Still at risk of being creamed in melee, but it's not a deal breaker. Dedicated tanks exist for a reason, and get a neat new role of doing more than just standing still: they're now a set up machine. Tanky damage dealers are still viable and worth using, and way more reliable. Bam, everyone's happy, and the whole problem of whether or not to include these discouragements to attacking melee squishies would be unnecessary. I'm more than willing as a player to eat disengagement attacks given proper context, and if Aramintai is to be believed, eating a disengagement attack isn't a tremendous detriment on enemies, either. So why oh why can't I get enemies to chase after my retreating or ranged squishy more often? Someone please clue me in here. (Or tell me that it's going to be changed. That'd make me happy).

I don't believe they do. Fighter's have Defender Stance that decreases damage? for every enemy engaged. There was also an ability in the first game (also named Guardian stance, but totally different) that lowered the Fighter's accuracy for increased ally deflection within a certain range. I'd be okay with this. In 5E, there's a Fighter archetype that can mark a number of enemies and gets a free attack every time they attack an ally, if we're throwing PnP RPGs in the mix.

Both of these are true, frankly. Locking the passive to Fighters (amongst others) was denying them of actually unique abilities, passive or otherwise. But it wasn't viewed that way, because at least they had a unique advantage. Now they don't have that unique advantage, but everyone else can have their cake and eat it too. I think what's really the problem is putting these on the weapon proficiency page, because then it's nearly always the better choice, and you would use your ability point on something else. Except when there's not something else that you didn't already pass up on... I think I like KDubya's suggestion of rearranging trees is a good idea. For example, there's a Fighter passive that gives accuracy when using a proficient weapon. Move that up to replace weapon passives (and/or whatever else) and suddenly there's options again.

For me, what you're describing as happening occasionally (enemies trying to disengage to go whack a ranged ally or chasing after a melee rogue using escape) is the ideal situation. If I could get that to work about half of the time, I'd be happy. At least then, I could semi-reliably get Guardian Stance to go off. I can't get it to happen at all, though. The R in RNG is too emphasized here.

Would you mind telling me how often enemies disengage to go after your Ranger? I tend to have my Scout in melee for flank, then try to keep their distance when enemies notice her and take popshots with pistol, but enemies don't seem interested in chasing. If they disengage at all, then they're already making Guardian Stance useful (assuming the attack hits).

I'm back with more results. Firstly, I couldn't recreate the event on purpose. More often than not, the Titan, once reengaged by my Crusader, would give up on chasing my Scout, and I wouldn't be able to get a disengagement attack off. I did get the Scarab beetle to disengage of its own volition to chase after my Scout... and then the disengagement attack missed. When I tried to recreate that, the beetle was uninterested in chasing, just like every other enemy. So it seems the only reliable way to get Guardian Stance to work as is is to use a slightly meta strategy that goes against the fluff of the ability. Not that that's such a bad thing, but it's very disappointing to me. (Unless, of course, there are going to be enemies that are more willing to disengage in other parts of the game).

That's good. In hindsight, that kind of conflicts with the stated purpose of the ability, but at least it's useful. Kind of bad that you have to multiclass to do that, though. On a related note, do you remember that weird situation where an enemy that was chasing my Scout around my Crusader got hit by a disengagement attack? I recreated it fighting the Titan. My Crusader got knocked back, so the Titan started chasing after my Scout. Brought the Titan back to my Crusader, the Titan was still going after my Scout for a second, then got hit by a disengagement attack, turned around and started attacking him instead. Still not sure if that's intended, but if it is, you could lure an enemy in to a Fighter's engagement for a quick high damage knock down. I'll have to see if I can do it again on purpose.

I'm still just trying to make Guardian Stance actually do something, not keeping allies from getting hit. The intention was that enemies could still hit allies, but are discouraged from doing so. A scenario being that if an enemy has two stacks of concentration, then turns to target an ally, they lose one stack of concentration, but still can hit the ally. So far, I've noticed most enemies don't turn around to hit a flanking ally unless that ally's been wailing on them for a while, so it's not like the enemy wouldn't have a chance to stack up concentration (once again assuming that concentration will grow over time). If not that, though, would it be fair to change the condition for the interrupt, then? If engaging three or more enemies, regular attacks from the Fighter interrupt, for instance. Or maybe another trigger, I'm not feeling very creative right now.

This is a pretty bad solution. Weapon modals were already a limited idea, since most will only need or want 3 proficiencies, if any. I know I stopped paying attention after two. Likely, people are going to stick with the passives in class and pick random proficiencies, while sticking to only a fraction of those weapons. They've gained something they don't want. Or they'll take actives they've no intention of using because the screen doesn't let you press next until you pick something. They've gained something they don't want. In both cases, they've been forced to take something they had no interest in. It's the same exact problem as being forced to multiclass, but focused on single class abilities.