[The problem with binary Melee Engagement in a real-time game - it's not just about the visual feedback]

@Infinitron

Yeah, that's why I put "possible" in my post since I doubted you were talking of such extreme.  I didn't know the jargon Rogue Shuffle (probably, from Ali Shuffle, which is considered as a useless but showy movement) or I am not familiar with NWN or Dragon Ages, though.  Again, I wouldn't argue against making the engagement process clear although, personally, I'd use pause or trigger the slow-mo mode when I see hostiles nearing a non-melee character.  For me, the main issue is the stubborn bug, where hostiles "teleport" while it became rarer but still exists.

 

@gkathellar

I guess it's now in relatively subjective area since, in NWN2, I used Rogue in a heavily micromanagement way even compared with PoE BB, where I need to be careful about timing about when to use each ability, switching characters as well as positioning.  PoE BB feels still quite micro-management-heavy but I think it falls in the middle-ground of tactical usage of each ability and careful positioning, which suites the format.  That said, at the end of the day, this might be related with how often we use pause/slow-mo or the party compositions (maintenance-heavy party members require more attention).  In the old days, there were even comments on the net about "IE games play themselves" but, as a player like me, who heavily use the auto-pause and manual pause, I couldn't but wonder why such players didn't take over the AI.

[The problem with binary Melee Engagement in a real-time game - it's not just about the visual feedback]

You could also add an animation to the circles showing a small "locked to each other" icon. This would be really useful for when your Fighter is getting swarmed by 5 spiders so you dont know how which ones would suffer a disengagement penalty whould thye leave. Actually, Im not certain at all how engagement and disengagement mechanics work when you are engaged with more enemies than your engagement threshold allows.

Actually, after the update (v301 bb), if you hover the cursor on the circles of engaged characters, there appear arrows which show who is attacking and who is being attacked.  However, what the OP wants seems to have a window of time for the players to decide about the engagement before automatically locked into it.

 

While I don't argue against that any tactically important factor including the engagement process should be clear, I'm not sure of the possible total control over engagement such as the players being able to avoid engagement totally without any cost since it's a part of the system.  As far as I know, there are two classes which have the ability to disengage with a cost.  The one is the rogue with its Escape ability (now it's much less buggy, it gets quite practical) and the other is the wizard with its Grimoire Slam, which is yet to be implemented.  In fact, it's quite fan to let the Rogue bail out after having let him attract an enemy for the melee characters to surround it and beat it down with concentrated attacks (Somehow feels Commandos and IE game hybrid).  Alternatively, Withdraw ability from Priest and Arcane Veil of Wizard can be of help in unwanted engagement.  In any case, these abilities give nice tactical options around engagement and works pretty well in RtwP format, IMO, although I wasn't sure of their usefulness when the beta was filled with so many bugs.  There are still bugs but, again, generally speaking, things appear to be getting better (Also, waiting till the traps work fine).

 

That said, as far as the new Interface implementation goes, generally speaking, I think things are getting better with more intuitive feedbacks from the enemy AI pie-chart on stealth mode to the icon showing the actions of each party member.  Great job so far, the team.

[How to Fix the Attribute Design in Pillars of Eternity]

@MC

Hmmm…maybe, not as much as old days but, personally, I don't feel like that.  Young Sawyer posted pretty quickly but some of the posts were more impulsive at times.  Nowadays, when he posts something, they are almost always well-thought.  Post counts do not necessarily mean efficient communication, IMO.  Just my subjective opinion, of course.

 

 

Also design by committee rarely generates good results, and a committee made up of fanatical fans in a forum would be crazy...

 

A few more replies in the forums would be nice, but they have been replying across at least 3 different forums so it really is hard to tell overall how much they communicating and they're probably spending more time on it than we think.

Yeah, I made my share of mistake by suggesting limited inventory, which, however, turned out not fitting to PoE where the best equipment depend on the situations.

 

I've gotten an impression that they probably want more all-round feedback than same bunch of people since they are not necessarily representative the majority of the backers.

[How to Fix the Attribute Design in Pillars of Eternity]

Actually, Sawyer was here earlier but likely to have left the office while ago and is probably sleeping atm.  Also, I have seen some cases that there are demerits when the devs talk about things prematurely.  There is huge info on the paper (and quite surprisingly, all the possible counterarguments I could come up with has been already covered.) and I don't blame them if they take time, carefully examining what they could do.

[How to Fix the Attribute Design in Pillars of Eternity]

I also think that if we can get the attribute system locked down, it will FLING the door wide open for Talent discussion.

 

Our paper has likely given a lot of backers a deeper understanding of how the attributes interact, so I can see people coming away with stuff like - I want to make an Intellect Fighter, but currently the Fighter doesn't have enough duration based abilities - no brainer there is to add some optional duration based abilities into the talent system to make that build more viable.

Yeah, it's one of the reasons why I'd like to see more active ability options for these traditionally passive classes.  Of course, those who'd like to stick to the low-maintenance build should have such options by choosing more passive abilities.

 

[Relatively off topic]

Speaking of pacing during combat, is there going to be more detailed adjustment such as a slider to customize the pace of combat, further?  I mean, currently, we have only slo-mo and double speed besides the normal speed, of course.

[How to Fix the Attribute Design in Pillars of Eternity]

We have a bunch of people saying "yeah, AoE increase doesn't really seem that valuable", mostly because the marginal increase can be a liability.  Allowing you to scale it down solves the liability problem, but also means that in those circumstances, you get literally no benefit from it at all.  I still really don't get why this is such a spot of resistance when making the margins safe doesn't remove friendly fire, it makes INT valuable all the time instead of sometimes being a liability, and it doesn't require adding a UI layer on top of the system just to regulate AoE sizes.

To be absolutely honest, I find myself glad when I need not hesitate to throw AoE of BB Priest's spells, which discern enemies and allies, while I find much more problem in throwing the spells of BB Wizard.  In terms of pure balancing, it doesn't feel right.  I understand friendly fire made more sense in DnD/IE games, where AoE spells are extremely strong and can be used just in limited circumstances but, at the end of the day, I can adapt myself to new systems as long as they are well-thought and balanced.  I'll be more likely to end up giving up "broken" systems, sooner or later.

[How to Fix the Attribute Design in Pillars of Eternity]

Here's where I've really got to disagree with you. 2 things:

 

Regarding not putting Deflection on a stat:

For one, there is already one "purely defensive" stat - Constitution. Additionally, stating that purely defensive stats don't "feel" great seems like a bit of a subjective thing. It might not feel great for you and for a majority of the playtesting team (which is where I assume you're drawing that info from), but you really need a larger sample size as this is basically a matter of personal preference. For me (and many others), having the ability to choose a purely defensive stat to augment a character concept "feels" fantastic! Also, Concentration is not a defensive stat, at least not from a mechanical standpoint. It does absolutely nothing to improve survivability - it prevents you from having your own attacks interrupted. At best, this is a hybrid (utility) stat, though I'd honestly even call it slightly offensive. Even if Deflection was added to Resolve, Constitution would still be more of a "purely defensive" stat.

 

Regarding taking healing from Might or splitting up Health/Stamina:

This is a bad idea, in my opinion. The current problems with the attribute system stem from Resolve and Perception. Those are the broken stats. Might and Constitution are just fine how they are. Removing healing from Might or removing health from Constitution would make them weaker, requiring other balance changes to compensate, and in general causing your team to spend much more time than necessary iterating through attribute design systems. From both an RP and a mechanical perspective, you've already gotten Might and Constitution right - they are attributes with very clear benefits that "feel" really good to put points into. Nerfing either one of them would be a mistake, and would cause a balancing chain reaction that would potentially eat up development time that could be better used for other things. Why waste time trying to find a good attribute system that requires major changes to the one already in place when you could have a good attribute system while making only minor changes?

Yeah, you seem to agree on the needs of changing Resolve but it doesn't actually makes sense at all to involve attribute scores where no obvious problems found in the process.  "If not broken, don't fix it." attitude feels quite engineer-like but it also practical.

 

A very competent argument on concentration, too.  I thought of something similar but you put it much better than I could.  Generally speaking, I found your arguments quite fair.  I also hope your efforts will lead to constructive conclusions in the right direction.

[Josh says: PoE's Fighters and Rogues aren't boring]

@Hiro Protagonist II

"It was you who reduced the count of the other rogues:"

It's misunderstanding.  I only made the other Rogues unstealthed.

 

"So the second rogue wouldn't be able to go invisible as well? Either all rogues in a party can go invisible at the start of combat or only one can and the others can't at the start of combat. Or does this just boil down to a special super duper invisibility scouting sneak attack for one rogue to initiate combat."

Any Rogue can attack during the Stealth Mode (and score Sneak Attack) but it's only the Rogue who hits the enemy first (and started the combat) can trigger the invisibility.  The "magical" invisibility is only possible during the combat since it's an Special Ability of the Rogues.  Before initiating the combat, even Rogues should rely on their Stealth skills.  This can upset some simulationist people but how much of this game is so simulationist in the first place?

[Josh says: PoE's Fighters and Rogues aren't boring]

@Hiro Protagonist II

"It is complicated and doesn't make sense."

 Then, so be it in your eyes.  I obviously disagree, though.  So, feel free to disagree with me.  Also, of course, it shouldn't make sense in simulationist point of view-at very least, that much I understand.

 

"The player who has a party of Fighter, 2 Rogues, Mage, Priest and Cipher has one rogue that can go invisible at the start of combat but the other rogue can't because of what seems to be trying to stop exploits. And you also proposed that Rogues could go invisible during combat with an encounter/daily power. So now that power is lost for the second rogue because the first rogue used it? Sounds more like a PARTY encounter/daily power instead of an individual power. And that comes across as completely absurd when you have 2 rogues in your party."

You are mixing two things here.  The one is about possible implementation by the devs which seems to make  the "opening" Sneak Attack less risky while the other is just my suggestion as a mere board lurker.  Then, if I were to implement the additional invisibility and if I needed to integrate it with the first ability (I don't think it's necessarily IMO), I'd simply reduce one count from the Rogue who triggered the invisibility-in fact, I have absolutely no idea on why you came up with an idea of reducing the count from the other Rogues.  That said, of course, I wonder how much my suggestion matters.

 

In any case, I'd rather wait for the devs moves rather than continuing this discussion based on quite a few of conjectures.  I don't have infinite time, either.

[Josh says: PoE's Fighters and Rogues aren't boring]

 

Technically, it can be avoided by a Rogue who can get invisible is only the one that initiated the combat or that hits first, making the other rogues out of Scouting Mode.  The solo scenario can be trickier but, off the top of my head, time or movement limit on the ability may help.  For example, if the Rogue moves or attacks, it makes him/her visible.  In any case, I'd rather wait till the devs work out Kaz's idea, which I'm personally looking forward to, at the moment.

 

With a party of 6 rogues. The rogue who initiates combat can go into stealth at the start of combat, but the other 5 can't go into stealth mode as well. Sounds complicated. And a rogue can go invisible but when they move they become visible? Uh, no thanks.

 

Complicated?  Not really.  Actually, it shouldn't take a second to notice that there is no difference in the case of having a single Rogue in the party with just a simple rule-only the first hit matters to activate the invisibility ability.

 

The strictest limit would be that any action cancels the invisibility while this can be softened into something like a certain distance of movement or time.  Also, personally, I found it a useful ability since it saves the Rogue from agro at the start of the combat and gives him/her time to prepare for the combat, even offering a chance of another Sneak Attack.

 

In any case, it's just a suggestion and nothing else.  I'd rather wait for the devs to give more feedback, either by releasing newer version of the beta or just keeping us updated.

[Josh says: PoE's Fighters and Rogues aren't boring]

 

 

Yep, it's your misunderstanding since I've made it very clear to you.

 

And as I said, if you have a party of 6 rogues which you can have in the game and they all go into stealth at the same time, even in combat, they all turn into ninjas. So yes, it's a critical misunderstanding on your part. Trying to make out that it's me is just poor form and a very weak tactic. But nice try trying to deflect this onto me instead of debating the points.

 

 

Well, yes, then, it's my misunderstanding but it's not intentional at all.  I haven't imagined the possibility of building a party exclusively composed of Rogues, so, I failed to understand your words "a rogue only party" till I read your following posts.  I'd say, it's just another case of the simplicity of English language vs me.

 

Yep, it's your misunderstanding since I've made it very clear to you.

 

And as I said, if you have a party of 6 rogues which you can have in the game and they all go into stealth at the same time, even in combat, they all turn into ninjas. So yes, it's a critical misunderstanding on your part. Trying to make out that it's me is just poor form and a very weak tactic. But nice try trying to deflect this onto me instead of debating the points.

 

Technically, it can be avoided by a Rogue who can get invisible is only the one that initiated the combat or that hits first, making the other rogues out of Scouting Mode.  The solo scenario can be trickier but, off the top of my head, time or movement limit on the ability may help.  For example, if the Rogue moves or attacks, it makes him/her visible.  In any case, I'd rather wait till the devs work out Kaz's idea, which I'm personally looking forward to, at the moment.

 

 

 

Kaz has done most of our UI art and he grew up on the IE games, so he (and many other people on the team, honestly) has a lot of feedback for UI and general gameplay issues.  Obsidian encourages everyone on the team to give feedback.  Designers still give the majority of feedback but we get it from everyone.

Somehow, I wonder this is why you supported German football in the previous World Cup-it's nice to see how they work in unison while bringing up different ideas contrasting themselves against what they were in the age of Beckenbauer "der Kaiser."

 

 

As for Health/Stamina, I feel it might again have opened the Pandora's Box of classless system with choice of different abilities/talents, which was, IIRC, once D&D 4ed. was rumored to be.  Personally, I like class less system but, again, I'd rather wait till I see how the new implementation will play out.

[Suggestions On how to make Melee (rogue/fight/pal/barb) More Compelling]

We all have our own preferences but, judging from the latest info about Health/Stamina implementation, the devs seem to differentiate front-liners from ranged characters despite of what they wrote in the past. Like it or not, the change will be most likely to make it more difficult to swap these roles just relying on how you build them.

[Josh says: PoE's Fighters and Rogues aren't boring]

The detection circles are programmer art, though tonight Kaz came up with a great idea how to better represent stealth/detection that a) doesn't involve visible circles at all b) is still fully deterministic c) can scale infinitely with character level d) brings back some ambiguity and "play" to the system.  I still need to talk with Tim and BMac about it, but I think it will work much better than what's in the game currently.

And I somehow thought that he was an illustrator (I mean, a good one) while, reading what he wrote tells me he is not just that.  Thanks for the heads-up, Sawyer, anyway.

 

@Hiro Protagonist II

?  Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here.

 

[Edit]"It's pretty obvious. Read my posts again."

It's funny since these are the words I was going to tell you here.  I read but I still don't understand.  - I've gotten an impression that there is a misunderstanding but I cannot point my finger at it.  My point has been being, since the invisibility is Rogue's special ability which supplements Sneak Attack, he/she is benefited by it in combat while he still needs to rely on conventional Stealth Skill as well as other classes.  Since there seems to be a critical misunderstanding, I doubt it would help if I repeat myself, though.  In any case, I'd rather like to enjoy the new info offered by busy Sawyer here.[/Edit]

[Josh says: PoE's Fighters and Rogues aren't boring]

 

I find that implementation quite odd. The rogue scouts ahead, shoots an enemy and turns invisible? Shouldn't it be the Rogue is already invisible, shoots an enemy and breaks stealth? Going to its absurd conclusion, this could apply to all party members who have high stealth. They all scout ahead, shoot an enemy and all turn invisible? Like a party of rogues? But why limit it to rogues with high stealth? Why not the fighter or Mage who has high stealth? Vanishing parties.

 

Also, the at will encounter power would have to be a free encounter power (with possible number of times in encounters). As soon as you start putting points in stealth, you're automatically awarded an at will encounter power. Why not just call it a utility power instead of an at will or daily like it is in 4th ed? And this should apply to all classes. And why would the rogue get a stealth at will and not the Fighter who may have a higher stealth? Again, taking it to it's absurd conclusion, have a party of rogues in combat, all hit stealth and vanish. You now have a party of ninjas.

No, the suggested implementation seems like Rogue Soul-based ability, at least, that is, if I'm not mistaken.  Meaning, it's not natural in our eyes since it's magical.  I don't think I need to remind you that we are talking of an imaginary magic-based setting.  At least, it contributes to the gameplay.

 

Also, Fighters with high stealth skill will be benefitted as well as Rogue with it.  If I have to repeat, when combat starts what counts is abilities-Rogues have got the special ability while Fighters don't.  The skill of Rogue can be supplemented by the ability but Fighters are not since they are, as you wrote, defender units-while Rogues can be ninjas to some extent.

[Suggestions On how to make Melee (rogue/fight/pal/barb) More Compelling]

Yeah, I'm torn between the fixated but solid role and possible flexibility.  So, let's say, we'd better forget about 1) defensive/offensive build options.  After all, what the devs could appears to end up with giving as many as valid options through Talents and Abilities as Sawyer wrote-hopefully, there will be some rooms left for interesting active abilities/talents which make these "passive"* classes into more high maintenance ones if the devs use the resources well.

 

* At least, the word sounds less subjective than something like "boring" to my ears.

[Josh says: PoE's Fighters and Rogues aren't boring]

Stealth shouldn't be an encounter/daily power. You already have stealth for individual members of your party through your skills. They're individual skills and you should be able to select your character with high stealth like your rogue and stay hidden while your party is out of stealth mode. If my rogue has a high stealth and my fighter doesn't, I expect to be able to send my rogue as an individual ahead with stealth. The party stealth confuses me more if I have a Fighter with 0 stealth and clanking down a dungeon in plate armour but my rogue has high stealth and this helps with the overall party stealth? I don't know. I'm also for party stealth, I just don't know how it's worked out.

Did we begin to talk in circles?  Correct me if I took it wrong but what Sawyer wrote in this thread as a possible implementation seems to me like a common scenario below.

 

While in Scout Mode, Rogue positions him/herself within the range of his/her ranged weapon and hits his/her target with Sneak Attack and probably with an active ability such as Crippling Strike.  Of course, all the enemies near the target suddenly aware of the attacker and rush into the poor Rogue, which is the current scenario.  With the implementation suggested here, the Rogue automatically turns into invisible state through his/her new ability and the enemies rush into other party members who are chosen by their AIs.  So, Stealth skill plays its role before the combat starts as usual while the Rogue doesn't need to waste Escape here.

 

Additionally, what I asked for was letting the ability of getting into Invisible State as an active ability which can be used at will-Of course, in combat and with a limited number of usage.

 

Well, at least, this is about invisibility as a special ability for Rogue while some other people legitimately talk about the selective scouting.

[Josh says: PoE's Fighters and Rogues aren't boring]

As a party chemistry, the system makes sense and feels solid.  While I wouldn't like to put them into chaos, I understand some people are complaining of the classes they choose for the protagonist have fewer meaningful commands than some other party members.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about melee first while I see quite many people who claims that melee is weaker when it comes to damaging.  Personally, I found guns and arbalest are powerful but, when it comes to comparison between melee and ranged classes, I'm yet to be able to compare them properly since the ranger class implementation is somehow confusing.

[Josh says: PoE's Fighters and Rogues aren't boring]

 

  This was exactly the point of my suggestion. If the rogue (or any character really, but rogues are probably the most interesting) can stay in stealth when combat starts, then you would have a new set of tactics that are similar to the IE games backstabbing mechanic, but better.  

 

 The part that I want to change is that, currently, stealth mode always applies to the whole party at once (whether you have selected a single character or not). So, as soon as a fight starts, everyone pops out of stealth at the same time. I would like the option of keeping some characters in stealth mode to allow better tactical positioning.

 

I see.  Then, I guess the difference in our points are just either providing it as a Rogue class ability or a skill.  IMO, making a single skill too useful in combat won't play well with PoE formula.

 

I believe Sneak Attack is an updated version of Backstabbing, making it meaningful in tactical context rather than just save rolls.  Personally, I was wondering if there will be an ability/abilities per encounter like Escape or per rest, which support Rogues to spare their asses from dangers, defense-wise and/or give opportunities to score Sneak Attacks, offense-wise.  Maybe, there will be added game balance issues but I believe such ability can be implemented without requiring much resources such as special animations.

 

[Edit]Sawyer beat me on this but I guess they are thinking about an implementation near to what I imagined

 

 

Selective invisibility in combat usually leads to a huge number of bugs, but I'll talk to Tim about it.  The more likely outcome would be an ability for rogues that allows them, specifically, to turn invisible once combat starts.

 

I think I'm happier even if it's just for protecting rogue from enemies rushing to him/her but could you also think of making the ability to become invisible can be used during the course of combat?  It won't be overly powerful as long as it has a limit on its usage, I think.[/Edit]

 

 

 

[The combat encounters (not just the bloody beetles)]

IIRC, there was indeed a delay the initial build if not animation.  So, even if it may be a conjecture, the possible explanation of it being related with the renewed path-finding system sound to be reasonable.

[The combat encounters (not just the bloody beetles)]

I used to think it's a feature-in fact, there are enemies who go underground even in BG1 but I began to think it's a bug (no pun intended).  For, it's not a good presentation of how combat works since it negates the formation.  Even if there are going to be burrowing creatures, they should have a decent time for moving and animation before appearing again.

 

As for the absurd poison, check out BB Priest spell list-at the second tier, there is a big AoE spell which slows down the effect of the poison.

[Suggestions On how to make Melee (rogue/fight/pal/barb) More Compelling]

Coincidentally, I just suggested possible high/low maintenance and offensive/defensive builds for every single class, too, in the thread mentioned here.

 

Not sure about ranged, though.  I'm yet to figure out how ranged classes actually work.  In PoE, Rangers are considered as the best ranged class who rely on physical attacks but they have melee animal companion and share their stamina with them.  I tried to keep the companion behind while letting the ranger just shoot enemies but, due to the teleporting enemy bug, I gave up my little experiment.  I think Rogues can be a decent ranged with the Reckless Assault mode and Sneak Attack, then again, it needs more testing.

[Josh says: PoE's Fighters and Rogues aren't boring]

I haven't created any of the basic classes since they are covered by the BB NPCs.  Indeed, I found the game play for them is solid as a party chemistry.  However, when the players choose to play one of them as the main character, they tend to expect him/her to be a combat unit which they most frequently use.  Here, I think there was an area which was underused in the soul setting.  I mean, at the moment, whether a unit requires high maintenance or not is largely decided by the choice of its class.  Indeed, the players can build a fighter or a rogue as a more high maintenance unit when compared with those in BG1, but, even in that case, they end up with low maintenance units when compared with more "magical" classes in PoE.  Furthermore, speaking of Rogues, the fun of playing them as more utility class is dampened due to the universal skill/ability score implementation, too.  I think more desirable way in PoE formula is allowing the players to build both high and low maintenance units through all the classes, which should be possible in terms of the setting around soul.  However, at this stage of the development and judging from what Sawyer wrote about the logistics, I guess it can already be a missed opportunity.

 

Also, due to the distinctive class roles, the devs nailed each class to too specific role.  Basically, it would be desirable if the players are allowed to build both defensive (support) type and offensive one for each class.  For example, I'd like Rogues to be sneakier in combat and I wonder if Escape or any other ability allows them to "disappear" time to time even after combat starts, which would let Rogues play the role of tricky manipulators who distract enemies while other party members are doing damage or assassin-like attackers who pile damages through sneak attacks.

 

 

 

 

I don't think it's particularly useful to argue about whether or not fighters and rogues are subjectively "boring", but we can productively talk about whether or not they have a varied list of abilities and, just as important, if they are tactically interesting to use in the context of PoE's combat. 

 

 

 Currently, stealth applies to the whole party. Rogues would get a lot more interesting if stealth was individual and could be used during a fight for better tactical positioning.

 

You don't have any problem with selecting a single character with high stealth skill, who must have a small circle.  If he/she has Mechanic skill, he can set traps before the combat starts although somehow, traps seem to have been slipped from the BB.  This is common to any character although Rogues have skill bonuses for Stealth and Mechanic and that Rogues' Escape ability (although it triggers a bug at the moment) can be beneficial when the enemies found them.  However, at the moment, it just allows Rogues to score just a single sneak attack on an enemy and, considering it ends up with rushing all the enemies to them, I wonder if it deserves the risk.  Rather, I found luring a lone enemy from a group of enemies to beat it with other party members is more practical tactics but it can be done with any other classes as long as they have invested on stealth skill except that Rogues can reduce the risk with aforementioned Escape ability.  I tried BB Priest's Withdraw ability to save BB Rogue but it tends to cost too much time whilist it is considered as an ability for emergency.

[KEEP PIRATE STYLE PISTOL PLZ]

That being said of course I want it in...I played a Swashbuckler in BG2 !

Maybe, it's already in, too, as a common talent called Weapon Focus Ruffian.  Now, this sounds like a wild goose chase of guessing what the OP and some other people want.

[KEEP PIRATE STYLE PISTOL PLZ]

What is this thread about?  They are going to keep pistol but 2H exclusive weapon.  Indeed, frintlock pistols can be fired with 1H while it is impossible to reload them with just one hand.  Since it's true that you cannot keep shooting with frintlock pistols with one hand, I think keeping it 2H makes sense in this kind of game with abstract rule sets.

 

Currently you can use a pistol with a melee weapon.
 
At the start of combat you fire the pistol, then attack with your melee weapon in the other hand.

At least, what the OP is suggesting sounds reasonable in terms of likelihood (realism sounds rather silly in this kind of game).  I don't know much about the development but the implementation and the ensuing costs could be an issue, though.

 

[Edit]On second thoughts, shouldn't this be possible even if the pistols become exclusively 2H?  I mean, just shoot the pistol with 2H till engagement and switch to a melee weapon of your liking.  Shield + pistol combination will become impossible but it's kind of silly due to the reason I wrote, anyway.  So, is it now about only the fashion?[/Edit]

 

 

FIGHT FOR PIRATE STYLE PISTOL OPENERS EVERYONE

FUN > BANALCE

Except I don't agree on this.  We have our own fantasy and, in fact, I personally asked for a possible defensive build for a rogue but, not with the cost of balancing.  In fact, after I put my hands on the beta, I found myself reluctant to build a defensive rogue just for fashion or style.  That said, the devs might come up with some ideas which can satisfy both balance and your fantasy.

[No experience from combat]

Partially, it's also depending on how the quest system will be implemented.  In quite many of Obsidian games, even if you haven't made a contact with some quest givers, sometimes, notifications pop up telling the players that quests are solved-this can be anything...maybe, you've gotten a certain item or just cleared a certain areas.  These are abrupt indeed but it can be just clearing a certain area or even just passed an area.  Basically, their games tend to be story-focused game with clear design goals rather than loot'n EXP CRPGs but let's see how the quests are designed.