Longknife

"Article by Anita Singh" Is the name Anita like a thing for the SJW crowd?

Well....that's embarassing. Back to the drawing board for Paladins. :/

Just an FYI, even if it fails to pull the target towards you, it will successfully pull their attention towards the Fighter, at the very least giving the spellcaster a window to back away with if you fear the target might soon redirect attention back.

I wish there was more roleplaying tied into this. It'd be nice to see the method work and encounter multiple scenarios where people recognize you as a Bleak Walker and thus they resort to diplomacy with you rather than trying to fight you.

Iunno I kinda thought Grieving Mother was a bitch.

The statue has a marble cell phone she uses to hire workers and call them over to handle all possible tasks. /thread

This I can agree with, but surely you can agree better character diversity would also increase the fun of building a party.

Yeah I'm moreso interested in Paladin vs. Fighter for that reason. The big thing about the video we saw was that the Paladin could tank. Fighter is an equal in that regard, so I think Fighter vs. Paladin would highlight just how nice the ability to tank can be in solo play.

I actually wouldn't be too surprised if Paladin does well solo simply because it has a little of everything. A matchup I'd be curious about solo would be Fighter vs. Paladin or maybe Priest vs. Paladin, as those two would highlight if it's the tankiness or the support of the Paladin that you're appreciating.

As I said, reread and view it with this context: The ability for Cipher's paralyze to hit multiple targets is unreliable. This is 100% true. It'll reliably hit the target itself, but not those near the target, which may or may not get paralyzed. And no, you named a class that I also named. Wizard's paralyze is absolute end-game and not something reliable. Druid and Priest are alternatives. A knockdown =/= paralyze. Paralyze tanks the enemy's deflection and reflexes by 40, knock down does not. Paralyze will make everyone crit happy vs those targets, knock down will not. As for Lay on Hands, don't you think perhaps it's possible I missed the post? SEE HOW I CAN SAY "OH I WAS WRONG" and not have it be this big deal, like I've got some grudge against Paladins and thus I'll refuse to admit any perks Paladins have? But again, I do not feel as though that's enough to validate a Paladin over a Priest. It's, as I've repeatedly stated, a single target once-per-encounter ability, which is what Paladin repeatedly suffers from. Everything a Paladin does, save for auras, is single target and per rest/per encounter. If there's a fight where the team suffers from an AOE, a Priest will save the squad, not a Paladin. It's actually a pretty good heal Paladin has, if only it could be used more. Bumping the per encounter amount up to 2 or 3 would fix this and help make Paladin a viable alternative, able to heal more in the short term but less in the long term. As things stand now, Paladin will quickly be outpaced by Priest the MOMENT more than one target ever needs heals. Again, that's the problem. Paladin is inflexible and doesn't seem prepared for some of the more realistic problems you might encounter. Any Druid for example that casts plague of insects on your squad is going to demand a quick end to the battle or a Priest to heal that status off of the party. The issue quite simply is this: name a battle scenario where you think a Paladin and his abilities can save the party from a wipe. If you do, someone can no doubtedly propose another class filling the Paladin's shoes that would remedy the problem the exact same way. (AKA "The paladin temporarily removed Plague of Insects off the Chanter, allowing him to AOE res the party and turn the battle around" could be met with "The priest could both remove the plague of insects and res multiple targets himself;" not talking about countering it with "Wiz would DD enough to avoid that problem") We lack an example where Paladin's abilities combine into something truly unique to help keep the squad together and alive. At best it's doing what a Priest does to a lesser degree or being a buffer for the absolute end-game scenario (Level 10+). I for one would love to hear some sources on a lot of this. That wasn't my point; go through and read, someone else names that one. I've repeatedly argued that a Priest simply provides superior accuracy benefits in every way, dwarfing the 6 accuracy a Paladin gives.

Please quote me where I stated the Cipher's Paralyze is more unreliable. I think you'll find I stated Cipher's Paralyze can sometimes paralyze multiple targets, but unreliably so. How is this not reasonable and accurate? Perhaps you misunderstood. And if you're also implying I at some point stated Chanters get an accuracy bonus for casting their AOE paralyze, please quote that as well. As for the only other example, please cite where Lay On Hands heals for more than 30 endurance. The only pool of knowledge about the game that we have lists the basic Lay On Hands as healing for 30 endurance. Might can increase that amount, but the base amount is 30, at least according to the wiki. If you've got some other source that shows otherwise, by all means. If you're claiming my thread is "misinformation," again this sounds absurd and I'd like to hear concrete examples. To imply I am "blatantly spreading misinformation" is nothing short of absurd. You've cited two examples that I'd love to see a quote on and a third where I simply want to hear a source or reason as to why you're so sure. If you want to know why I'm accusing you of having some emotional investment in Paladins for some reason, this is it. You're accusing me of having some agenda against Paladins for some reason, to the degree to which I'm running around purposefully lying about them in some strange scheme to...what? Keep people from playing them? Ask yourself how absurd that sounds. Furthermore I'm familiar with this tactic: it's called an ad hominem. Where you attack the person behind the argument when you find difficulty attacking the argument itself. Listen, I don't sit here accusing you of lying about things to further some strange agenda. All I said was I'm getting the sense you're a bit too emotionally invested in Paladin....which still seems to be the case for me. All that was meant is just look at the numbers, compare them by classes, and focus purely on the numbers and I think you'll find Paladin difficult to defend. So I'll ask again: 1) Please name a class that has such amazingly superior paralyze/petrify ability to Chanter. Please do not name Cipher as I already addressed that and how the two synergize quite well together. 2) Please quote me where I've "spread misinformation" in regards to Ciphers or anything really.

Since when is it less damage? If we're talking vs. a large group and vs. Barb? Perhaps, but I think that's balanced that Barb is ideal for the groups and Monk vs. the fewer, singular targets. As for less damage than Rogue? Torment's Reach = Guarenteed crit. A crit is 50% additional damage, Torment's Reach is 50% crush damage. If you get a Monk with multiple wounds, you can "crit" every half second. It's very hard to outdo that. Rogue matches that damage for as long as an ailment like Blinding Strike is up, but loses out once that advantage is gone. Monk on the other hand can save up and utilize it's extra damage whenever it pleases.

Which class does this? Exactly. Whereas I've named examples of things Paladins do and things other classes do better, you're just saying "why isn't Chanter even better than it already is" without naming examples of superior performance. The only classes that provide a paralyze like Chanter are Cipher and Wizard. Cipher's is more single-target with a small chance of hitting more targets, but it's unreliable in that regard. I have no idea where you're getting that Chanter's invocation is unreliable. Show me where it says "this has low accuracy" or the like on that skill, because it doesn't; it can be expected to work as frequently as any other ailment attempt. It may miss some, but it's a freaking AOE. You can expect it to hit AT LEAST 60% of it's targets, usually 80%, which would be far too many for a Cipher to keep under control. Coincidentally, a Cipher's paralyze ability will dwindle as the battle carries on and his focus lowers, making it so Chanter and Cipher synergize perfectly in this regard, with both buying time for the other to get their paralyze off. Wizard? His is legit learned at level 10 or 11. Hardly something to rely on for the full game, though very very strong once you get it, though by that same time you'll have replaced the Cipher's paralyze (or rather found something better to focus on) as well. And what "misinformation" have I spread? That you even suspect I have some irrational hatred of Paladins? That kinda just reinforces my point you love them. I posted constructive criticism about clear flaws I see. Unless you can cite a list of me providing misinformation or something, then I don't think your claim carries much weight. My first class I went to make when I got the game was actually Paladin, but I quickly rerolled into another class because it felt underwhelming. As time went on, it not only felt underwhelming, but it became clear that Paladin had underperfomed compared to every other class I'd tried, and the forums were ripe with threads pointing out said fact. All I did was take common knowledge about the Paladin class and attempt a concise list of problems the class had that made it weaker than others, while suggesting ways to fix it. I'd also be curious how a Darcozzi Paladin would be tweaked for defenses vs. PoTD. Darcozzi gives a flame shield. That's it. 5 DT vs. Freeze is the difference between a Paladin being pro for PotD and Chanter (and presumably several others) being a no-go...?

Are there any plans to do some balance tweaking for the classes? Cipher's Mental Binding seems a tad strong (just a tad), Paladin and Ranger could use a bit of love, and people are unsure if Barb's One Stands Alone is working as intended.

Then don't get it? That's the beauty of it. Chanter has like 20-30 buffs and you can choose the ones your squad needs the most. On the other hand, you can legitimately build a squad around a Chanter and make a pure firearms team thanks to that chant. The same cannot be said for Paladin. Do you realize Paralyze means -40 deflection and -40 reflex? That's why you would bring a Chanter: because in the same way a Priest can reliably provide +20 accuracy to a Wizard for help with critting, a Chanter indirectly provides +40% chance of critting for the whole team. 8 Seconds of -40 deflection and -40 reflex is huge. Stupidly so. That's more than enough time to wipe out the entire enemy team. I've also had multiple fights where my Chanter was responsible for a successful getaway, either via distracting the enemy with a summon or stunning so everyone could bail out. Neither the Priest nor the Chanter checkmate one another because they provide similar benefits via seperate methods. For example, a squad that can provide Chanter time to get invocations has little reason not to bring one. Likewise, a Rogue will prefer the Chanter's Paralyze to a Priest's direct accuracy buff because he also gets Sneak attack from Paralyze. The Chanter is also more durable, able to continue casting invocations infinitely without a need to rest. The Priest on the other hand can use his spells more directly and urgently when neccesary, even if they are limited and not always as strong. Same for resurrection: both classes can do it, but the Chanter's is infinite whereas the Priest's is finite. Having both of them side by side is nice because it means the Priest can save some casts for his most powerful spells for something else, OR vice versa (the Chanter can save his invocations for a summon or the like, which btw, the summons definitely live long enough to survive until another invocation is ready, basically making a summon a permanent ally for the battle so long as you protect the Chanter). The same can only minimally be said for Paladin, who gets ONE resurrect to cover for the Priest, and then he cannot do it again and the Priest is going to need to immediately heal the res'ed person because Paladin's res sucks **** and almost kills them again if they don't heal back up. The "why take a Chanter instead of a ____" argument doesn't work the same way it does with Paladin. Whereas Paladin is providing 6 accuracy while the other two provide 20+, the other classes all have numbers that can compete. Whereas Paladin has his two +50% Fire attacks per fight, Chanter can provide the entire team with a semi-permanent +25% as long as he's up. He can also provide a Frighten effect without specific conditions needing the be met. You can directly spec a Chanter however you like. Personally, if I were to make my ideal squad, it would be Fighter, Monk, Cipher, Chanter, Priest and Wizard. Druid could possibly replace Wizard but I'm far more familiar and experienced with Wizards, nor would I cry a river if Rogue came in place of Cipher or Chanter; I simply prefer Cipher and Chanter because they have more control skills to help keep the battle in order, whereas a Rogue merely brings solid damage. I would never even contemplate replacing any class with a Paladin. Paladin would be the very last pick, for a multitude of reasons. I gotta be blunt, I'm getting rather sick of this. Why? Because if I'm blunt, you seem to have some irrational love of Paladins that's driving you to be hostile towards me simply for suggesting they're not God's gift to man in Pillars of Eternity. They're not. Just look at the numbers, look at what they're capable of, look at how other classes have their exact same skills, except more powerful, with more range and with more variety amongst the other classes in general. A Paladin gets a +50% burn damage skill twice a fight? A Monk has a +50% crush damage skill that can be spammed twice a second. A Paladin has a single target heal spell? A Priest and Druid both have multiple AOE heals. A Paladin can temporarily disable status ailments that eventually come back? A Priest can permanently remove them with an AOE that hits multiple people. A Paladin can provide the team with accuracy or defense buffs with limited range? A Priest can do this without the range problems, as can a Chanter. A Paladin can resurrect singular targets that'll quickly die again if not healed soon after? A Priest and Chanter can AOE res with no problems whatsoever. A Paladin can, under very specific circumstances, Frighten enemies? A Wizard, Chanter, Priest or Cipher can do this on command, while a Barbarian can provide Sickened just by....existing. A Paladin can increase his damage and attack speed vs. a specific foe 3 times per rest? A Barb can do this universally for every fight and every enemy, a Priest can buff a specific target to up it's damage. The list goes on. Hell, I challenge you to find something Paladin has that's universally superior to anything any other class has. Aside from it's superior defenses which fall flat due to it's inferior control skills to Fighter (and Fighter being able to temporarily get superior defenses aswell, plus the passive regen which definitely helps) so allow those defenses to be best utilized, there's nothing.

Ranger is more or less fine, it's merely a matter of people arguing that whatever a Ranger can do, a Rogue can arguably do just as well and has more flexibility. Ranger carries it's weight, it's just in comparison to Rogue it's sort of a "why use this" question. Paladin is just not going to pull it's weight at all if it's an NPC, and even then it's pretty lackluster. Take your Paladin spot, replace it with anything else (try Monk or Barb) and see what happens.

???

http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/At_the_Sound_of_His_Voice,_the_Killers_Froze_Stiff AOE paralyze, but whatever you get the point.

I've honestly never understood complaints about her cause she crits for me constantly. Her pet sucks, but otherwise she's always done well for me.

Just get Torment's Reach as your first skill. Any time you have Wounds? Spam it. Monk punches fast so be ready to pause a lot, but spam that thing and ANYONE will die.

This right here sums up an absolute blind bias you're showing: You are comparing a single target, per rest ability that Paladin gets at level 11 to an AOE ability Chanter gets at level 5 or so that does the exact same thing with any ranged weapons, with demand for guns being especially high. You cannot possibly be this blind so as to think these two are even remotely similar or that the Paladin wins that out. It's the same all over, such as with here: And here: The difference is the same thing I've been talking about to the point that I'm becoming a broken record: Paladin is too specialized. Everything it does or procs demands a very specific setup, whereas Chanters and Priests can just effect everyone with no hassle whatsoever and they can do so on command. A Paladin meanwhile only hits one target at a time and/or their skills demand a death at the right moment or the like to proc. Why would I micromanage a Paladin to death in order to achieve the exact same thing I can achieve with a Chanter with minimal effort on my part? And to call Chanter invocations "niche" is absurd. Chanter is there to catch you if **** is hitting the fan. If something's going terribly wrong (big battle where some ranged guys picked off your wiz immediately, or maybe you approached a battle out of formation) and the battle isn't ending quickly as you would like, Chanter can single-handedly turn that around. The summons it gets aswell as some of the spells it gets (AOE Petrify) can singlehandedly turn a battle around.

How would it be overpowered to provide an ability that already exists within the game as a talent? Granted it was merely an example, but if you're limited to 6 talents, then I think if you can provide the player with 20 good options on where to spend those, then there's plenty of room for diversity. More diversity = better. By all means balance it out, but from what we've seen of Pillars so far, it feels as though the game is so obsessed with controlling it's own capabilities that absolutely zero risks were taken. At this point, I'd actually prefer seeing weaker forms of Retaliation and Second Chance being talents (weaker being lower % chance of proc'ing) and see these retroactively be nerfed if neccesary, rather than just see more petty "+ 5 concentration1!!" bonuses.

You serious here? This is exactly the problem: you can quicker justify any class besides Paladin. Paladin can res, Chanter can AOE res ad infinium, or use the chant points to do something else amazing. While Paladin gets the one res that provides that weird endurance debuff, Chanter can continue to res with enough time and can res AOE multiple people. Chanter constantly provides buffs that other classes cannot, such as faster reload speed and a burning weapon effect similar to Flames of Devotion, except for the whole squad. Why bring a Paladin over a Chanter is the real question. Ask around dude, Chanter is going to be in most people's top three or top four favorite classes. Please, seriously, go look at the list of all the buffs a Chanter can provide and then come here and tell me with a straight face that a Paladin's buffs are better. And Devotions of the Faithful definitely does buff spell accuracy. Saw a guy whose entire strategy for PoTD was to buff the hell out of his Wizard's accuracy, specifically by combining Eldrich Aim and Devotions of the Faithful alongside one more buff iirc (probably the Priest's crit buff). Just AOE crit everything that way thanks to the +35 accuracy total, alongside the Might bonus for extra damage. Even if, for the sake of argument, this were not the case, that would not change that the range on Paladin buff zones is horrendous and you can hardly guarentee to be within range of the Wiz all the time.

Because they suck balls. Zealous Focus and it's Critical Focus do not stack with Priest buffs, and I'll be damned if I'd replace a Priest with a Paladin. Likewise, the range on those sucks, to the point where a paladin in the front lines cannot expect to reliably hit the spellcasters in the back with the buff. You could argue "but then you don't have to bother with those buffs from Priest!" Well one, the accuracy one is a split second considering you can get it on their insta-cast heal. Two, while that's nice, it hardly carries the Paladin's weight. It's a luxury convenience, not a huge help to the team. Reinforcing and Hastening Exortation are good, but these are end-game. EVERY endgame skill is good. My Fighter can insta-revive endgame. My Monk can teleport around the room like a ninja. My Wizard can AOE stun like it's nothing. Comparatively, these are still kind meh. Hastening is per rest, and both are single target. No idea why Paladin suffers from an inability to AOE with it's buffs, cause a lot of them could be much better if they were AOE. The answer to all of the abilities you named is "why not bring a Priest instead?" Typically the issue with Paladin's abilities is they're too specific. Example? I can name two battle types where I would love to have a Paladin for Liberating Exortation. (....if it were an AOE. I mean still good but AOE would be much better) But these are two out of all of the dozens of battle types you encounter within the game. I'm not bringing a Paladin along for a skill that's useful .05% of the time. That's exactly the category Flames of Devotion falls into. Bringing a Paladin with an Arquebus along for taking out boss enemies? Sounds like a solid idea....but by no means a neccesity, nor is it a regularity. And all of the accuracy bonuses provided by a Paladin? Devotions of the Faithful. Priest absolutely curbstomps Paladin. Yes, Paladin is consistent and provides it's bonuses every battle, but sometimes I simply do not need the bonus every battle. So if I have a choice between a constant +6 accuracy bonus from a Paladin for when I fight a wolf, when I fight a sick xaurip, and when I fight 20 ogres simultaneously, or instead I could get a Priest's +20 accuracy and + 4 Might bonus for only one out of three of those fights, but have it for the toughest one? You better believe I'm taking the Priest. Providing a small bonus is simply not superior to providing a large bonus when it's absolutely vital. That's kind of the issue with Paladin. Paladin's 2 per encounter Liberating Exortations feel like a freaking joke compared to the AOE version the Priest gets, even if the Priest's is only 4 per rest. I don't need to remove a prone effect every time it happens in every encounter, I DO desperately need to remove that bull**** fly swarm spell that slowly eats the squad's endurance away and I do need to remove that ASAP, meaning with an AOE. As I said in my thread, the problem is Paladin is too lackluster in every category currently. It needs some overhauls in practically every area. Offensively....? I'm just one person, so I cannot decide if the community would be satisfied with Flames of Devotion being undeniably useful with an Arquebus but not neccesarily with a Mace or Sword. That's just kind of territory where some people might mind feeling "required" to stick to a weapon type since I know some dislike the guns, but personally I got no beef with it.