Michael_Galt

This is true. I don't think that the interparty banter was perfect, but it was very much an improvement over the 1st and made me think of BG2 or KOTOR 2... though it DID lack the same depth and complexity.

Yeah, that is really where I felt they dropped the ball. I mean, I get that they had to factor in TONS of variables up until that point, and tons for the end-credits slides. But... I really wanted to get the two related by race groups to just... work amicably together. And, I don't see why that shouldn't have been possible. What I had done for each, didn't really endanger the interests of either. But, no.

Alright, so, here goes. I'm going to preface this review with some background information. I ONLY play RPGs, and cRPGs at that. You can feel free to skip the part between the lines right below this, unless you want more context. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I got into RPGs with Baldur's Gate, and still consider the BG series to be the overall best RPG series there is. There are lots of reasons for that. Short version: TONS of party configuration options, HUGE number of spells to chose from, EPIC journey, interesting villains, Forgotten Realms. I grew up reading fantasy, and l loved Conan, the Forgotten Realms and a variety of other fantasy settings as well. Getting to play a game where you literally go from fighting goblins and kobolds to fighting demi-gods... was just so satisfying. I remember when I first played BG2 and got sent to that subterranean place... and just thought, "Man, this is awesome! I read I don't know how many books about the drow, and now here I am." Not only that, but just imagining how the characters in my party would feel. My first playthrough was as a paladin, and I knew that everyone would have to be borderline petrified with terror, because it was such a dangerous place to be. The stakes were HIGH. The companions. They weren't great in BG 1, but they really stepped up in BG 2. I honestly CARED about them. Minsc as the guy who isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but is really nice, generous guy who needs to have a restraining force so he doesn't go off and do something dumb and reckless that will get himself killed and possibly make the situation worse. Viconia, who I took in various times because while I didn't trust her, I felt sympathy for the fact that she was stuck in a world that was naturally (and for good reason) inclined to hate her, while being unable to return to where she came from, where she also didn't fit in. I always ended up making her a true neutral. Aerie, who I worked hard to help her find her confidence and to overcome her fears and doubts and traumas. Anomen. Well, I actually didn't care much for him. But, I saw him as being essentially a good person, and I tried to just get him to lose his arrogance and think a bit more broadly. Imoen. I tried to be the brother she needed. I won't go into more detail with that, but Imoen was that wounded dove which I tried to nurse back to health. The party banter could be hilarious at times, and I had to play mediator a lot, with Viconia there. In the end, I was very happy to have chosen to adventure with those individuals. BG had some serious themes, but it also made you feel like a hero, if that is how you decided to play- disclaimer, that is the only way I play (besides occassionally trying for a true neutral or neutral evil style, where I am basically avoiding taking sides, or largely pursuing my own self interest, provided it doesn't cause too much harm to others). So, loved BG. I love Arcanum for it's steampunk world, and the interesting issues it deals with in the game. I love how many options it has to replay it, where you can play an idiot brawler, a genius engineer that builds killer robots, a mage who can disintegrate people and teleport across continents, or Doc Holliday, gambling your way into wealth and dueling people with pistols. There STILL isn't any other RPG that gives you that much range of options. It's the only RPG I am aware of to actually have a BEAUTY stat, where if you were really ugly, people would initially react in a negative manner to you, and if you were really pretty, people would react favorably. Go ahead and play an ugly half-ogre and see what the difference is between that and a pretty half-elf. I loved the KOTOR games for further fleshing out the Star Wars universe and exploring the Jedi and Sith philosophies. I loved that I could actually MAKE Jedi- that was epic. Kreia was brilliant. Revan was incredibly interesting. Going to the famous planets in the Star Wars universe was awesome. I loved Fallout: New Vegas. So many options for how to play, for how to build your character. The factions. VATS. But... none of the companions were that memorable, and only being able to have 1... boo. Also, by nature, kind of a depressing world- understandably. NWN 2... great use of all the D&D rules and options. A little too linear, didn't really care for the companions. But, a really fun game. Loved the twist. Interesting concept. So, let's get to POE. I backed that game as soon as I heard about it. Loved Black Isle games, loved what I had seen of Obsidian at that point, wanted POE badly. Except... I didn't really like POE 1. It was too dark and depressing for me. It seemed no matter what you did, the DEVs/writers wanted to then answer that with, "Well, while you tried to do what was the right thing, some unintended and unexpected bad things happened because you did that- sometimes WORSE than what you thought you were fixing." I am all about games that don't play like Disney fairy tales, but I don't want Requiem for a Dream, the game. That isn't how things are in real life, either. Sometimes that might happen, but by and large, if you do good things in the world, good things come of that. I didn't really like any of the companions. In real life, I probably would have killed Durance because he was crazy, vulgar, mean, and possibly a pscyhopath. Pallegina was ok... but not a pleasant person to have around. Aloth? Whiny. Also, split personalities (not going into spoiler stuff). Kana? Ok, kinda annoying, too loud, just didn't care for him. Don't even remember who else I typically had with me. Unlike in BG, I really DIDN'T care if any of those companions died. I also didn't feel like I had much of an impact on their characters. Durance didn't become a reasonable human being. I did help Aloth, but I still found him to be a chore to have around. Pallegina was still not pleasant. Kana... just sort of ignored. Gameplay? Much less dynamic than D&D. I get it- they made an entirely new system from scratch. They needed their own IP. But... I found it extremely confusing for a long time. Didn't understand where to allocate my attribute points. Didn't really understand the dynamics of how all the abilities functioned. Just found it to be somewhat frustrating. Story/villain. It was ok. I feel like the whole Watcher thing could have been better developed. Theos... ehhhh. I feel like there should have been an option that didn't involve fighting him. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So... now to POE 2! I really liked it. I enjoyed it MUCH more than POE 1. It wasn't grimdark. It was an adventure. I hadn't been particularly invested in the whole pirate and ship thing, but once I actually found out HOW to play that minigame... I came to enjoy it (though it still needs refinement- being unable to go to the other side of a ship which is dead in the water is just silly). I LIKED exploring the whole map and finding new islands and dungeons and groups of potential enemies. I LOVED how many scripted events there were, and how you could use your companions to pass those events in some times ways which are not possible without those companions. I felt like the combat was more intuitive and interesting. I love the different options you can get from multiclassing- I played multiclassed characters for both playthroughs (a cipher/ranger and a druid/monk). What didn't I like? Well, kinda goes back to the companions. Still wasn't invested in any of them. Saw them more as tools than as "friends". Didn't have anyone I HATED, so that is a plus... but also didn't have anyone who I truly cared about. Romance... yeah. So, I'm all about romance options in RPGs... when it's done well. In BG 2, I worked HARD to romance Aerie and Viconia (different playthroughs). I felt that their romances were RIGHT. It took time, and it was about building trust and rapport, and helping them with their problems and helping them recognize their strengths... which is what real romance is based off of. This? No. Just silly that every one of my companions was trying to see if I wanted to have sex with them... and I actually didn't want any of them. I wanted Pallegina. She was who I respected and liked, and had adventured with previously, and was no longer so damn negative. But... Pallegina had no interest. Then I have Maia, who starts talking about me getting with her bird... and I was like, "No." I played 2 characters with an affinity to and connection with nature. I ALSO was a ranger. I wasn't going to tell her she had to get with my wolf... I don't know what the hell that was, it was just dumb. I mean, the inter-party banter was generally good, I give Obsidian credit for that. But it really seems that "romance options" translated to, "We promised this, and are running out of time, let's toss it in quick." Boo. The factions. Everyone seemed fine with me working for everyone else up until that specific point. That is fine, given the context of the scenario, that seems reasonable. But... after you get to that point, I found it to be very unsatisfying. There was only 1 option given to you for each faction. There was no alternate way to get the support of that faction. And pretty much all of them required you do heinous things to the other factions. There was no way to get several factions to work together, no matter what you did for those factions prior to that. That just seems unlikely. I felt I should have been able to say, "Hey, but I did this and this for you, and this and this for you. Why don't you 2 work together towards x, y, or z?" Nope, got to do something bad to the other faction, no ifs ands or buts. I even tried to take a path that seemed like maybe I could use to FORCE 2 factions to work together... and it wouldn't let me. One playthrough, I went with the only faction which DIDN'T require I do bad things to the others, because I had no desire to do that. The 2nd time, I DID chose a faction because I ultimately thought they would be "better" in the long term. I feel that could have been done better, to give more options at that point. So, short version? I vastly preferred POE 2 to POE 1 (much like I vastly prefer BG2 to BG1 or KOTOR 2 to KOTOR or NWN 2 to NWN). So, good job, Obsidian. I will DEFINITELY buy or back a future POE game if it is put out there. Please give us more companions and better romance progressions. I understand that reactivity and scripting can be SUPER complicated. But please don't give us tons of options, only to reduce us to no options at the most crucial part of the game. I think that is pretty much it. Look forward to seeing what some of the expansions look like.

I'm not going to lie, I very much enjoyed playing as my ranger. That being said, I do agree that most of those "Pet Companion Abilities" should just be given to you automatically at certain levels. There should be better abilities, like paladin/barbarian/fighter abilities which you could give your pet. Like the barbarian leap, blinding attacks, etc. I mean, master's call and takedown are perfect examples. Those should be abilities you pay for, but there should be options which allow your pet to be much more effective (constant recovery, immunity to engagement, defensive mode, etc.). It would be great if rangers could select "racial enemies" like in D&D. Pick xuarips, undead, langear... etc. Paladins get auras and exaltations, barbarians get massive damage bonuses, fighters get constant recovery and stances and engagement, rogues get backstab, rangers should get "tactical targeting", where they get bonuses and give bonuses if they are attacking the same enemy as another ally. I understand that happens to some extent with their animal companion abilities, I mean that it should also apply to their kith companions. Maybe make the bonuses lower if it isn't the animal companion. But it does seem like their ability to cause damage is generically lower. Why can't rangers get an ability to apply poison to their weapons, or for their ranged attacks to cause knockdown or stagger or something like that?

I'm literally copy and pasting what I wrote in another thread, trying to get some ideas as to whether to play a ranger/chanter or ranger/cipher. I very much enjoyed the beguiler/ranger I made and played. "Well, I just beat it last night playing as a beguiler/ranger(no subclass). I ended up going that way, since many of the recruitable companions can multiclass to chanter, and I didn't want the cipher companion on my first playthrough. I ended up making Pallegina a paladin/chanter, and that worked out really well- tons of passive party buffs, plus summoning to help out the odds. So, how did I play my beguiler/ranger? Well, I stuck with bows and rapier and stilettos. I was actually more dangerous in melee, but principally stuck to ranged attacks. I worked with Maia, and we would scout out the territory together. When we found enemies, I would look for the ones with the lowest will saves, and use Whispers of Treason... as soon as we had our impromptu traitor, Maia would then hobble the next melee type to slow them down. We would each use our animal companions to knockdown approaching enemies, with Pallegina running in to support. I got lucky and found a bow that delivers several extra shots in a single attack, and when I eventually got Driving Shot, I literally would end up with more Focus than I could actually use. I would use my Watcher to blind enemies, give them flanked, dominate them, and terrify them. Pallegina and our animal companions would go in and beat them down. Worked pretty excellently. A note, that while it is a very high level ability, ciphers can give Empower to their companions. When I was getting close to end game, I would use that continuously, allowing Aloth or whoever to use empowered skills without losing any points, requiring us to sleep. It was pretty great. I personally think that a ranger/cipher is BETTER than a ranger/chanter, in the sense that they can be slightly more versatile. Now, if you were to play a stalker/chanter, that might make for a really cool build. Stay with your animal companion, use chants to make the frontline more effective."

I was wondering this as well. If it doesn't improve with level, it is downright worthless.

Honestly, I found that just closing to board was ultimately the best tactic. I would just keep on moving directly at them until I got to closing distance and then board. Mind you, I did spend most of my time just sailing around exploring and getting sailing experience doing that (and finding stuff) and also building up my party before I ever started engaging in the ship combat. Just getting to them and boarding always resulted in pretty minimal damage, since they would only have a couple of opportunities to fire their cannons before I got to them. That meant less damage to my ship and fewer injuries to my crew. I MANUALLY closed that distance, didn't do the automatic closing. I got plenty of treasure from boarding and defeating them, and decent experience for the crew. Might have got more had I tried ship battles... but did that a few times and it was just too long and drawn out. And even if you win that, you just used lots of ammunition, and probably have to do repairs. When you just get close and board them, you usually end up getting more naval supplies than you actually used to attack them, as opposed to vice versa. Plus, why would you want to risk losing all that loot??

Well, I just beat it last night playing as a beguiler/ranger(no subclass). I ended up going that way, since many of the recruitable companions can multiclass to chanter, and I didn't want the cipher companion on my first playthrough. I ended up making Pallegina a paladin/chanter, and that worked out really well- tons of passive party buffs, plus summoning to help out the odds. So, how did I play my beguiler/ranger? Well, I stuck with bows and rapier and stilettos. I was actually more dangerous in melee, but principally stuck to ranged attacks. I worked with Maia, and we would scout out the territory together. When we found enemies, I would look for the ones with the lowest will saves, and use Whispers of Treason... as soon as we had our impromptu traitor, Maia would then hobble the next melee type to slow them down. We would each use our animal companions to knockdown approaching enemies, with Pallegina running in to support. I got lucky and found a bow that delivers several extra shots in a single attack, and when I eventually got Driving Shot, I literally would end up with more Focus than I could actually use. I would use my Watcher to blind enemies, give them flanked, dominate them, and terrify them. Pallegina and our animal companions would go in and beat them down. Worked pretty excellently. A note, that while it is a very high level ability, ciphers can give Empower to their companions. When I was getting close to end game, I would use that continuously, allowing Aloth or whoever to use empowered skills without losing any points, requiring us to sleep. It was pretty great. I personally think that a ranger/cipher is BETTER than a ranger/chanter, in the sense that they can be slightly more versatile. Now, if you were to play a stalker/chanter, that might make for a really cool build. Stay with your animal companion, use chants to make the frontline more effective.

I am now regretting checking the "DLC" box... still waiting... :l

So, does this mean that you have tested this? Or is this supposition? And no idea what "QQing" is.

I would say so, given the fact that you have abilities which literally upgrade how much damage your animal companion does, and what types of attacks it has. Considering a weapon is simply a tool to cause damage to someone else... and your animal companion can do that, it IS a weapon. You don't have to hold a weapon in your hand... like a grenade, or missile you have fired by pushing buttons. Given you can specifically tell your animal companion WHO or WHAT to attack, that makes it a SENTIENT weapon. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/weapon weapon noun1A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage. so according to you, chanters summons are also weapons, and so are wizard spells? Of course they are. If they didn't have spells or summons, would either have any weapons to speak of? They would be useless, or close to it. That doesn't change the fact that neither of those classes have a physical or psychic connection with those things. Rangers do. They spend years with their animal companions. They raise them, they care for them, they communicate telepathically with them. They have a SOUL BOND with them. Chanters do not have soul bonds with their summons. Wizards don't have a close, personal relationship with their magical attacks. Again, failing to understand how these things work in the context of the Pillars of Eternity universe, based on the lore which has been presented to us. That isn't according to me, that is according to everything which was presented to us in PoE 1.

This makes me happy. I built my ranger in PoE 1 to be just that- an interrupt king. His interrupt was at nearly 40. My plan is to make him a ranger/cipher this time, and focus (pun intended on making him an even bigger interrupt king. Primary role is to remove those squishy targets in the backline (starting with physical attacks and then moving to psychic attacks as he builds up focus), and once those are neutralized, to then end the remaining enemy fighters. If there are no squishies?? Then he is going to hobble and flank the %$&@ out of the strongest enemy frontline fighter and make sure that they can't get to our backlines and/or launch any effective attacks.

I would say so, given the fact that you have abilities which literally upgrade how much damage your animal companion does, and what types of attacks it has. Considering a weapon is simply a tool to cause damage to someone else... and your animal companion can do that, it IS a weapon. You don't have to hold a weapon in your hand... like a grenade, or missile you have fired by pushing buttons. Given you can specifically tell your animal companion WHO or WHAT to attack, that makes it a SENTIENT weapon. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/weapon weapon noun1A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.

I don't see why this would matter. The drawbacks to multiclassing are that you don't get those last 2 tiers of abilities for either class. You also get reduced power levels in both. So even if your ranger/cipher generates focus more quickly than even a single class cipher, it isn't like his abilities are as powerful or effective. A fighter/cipher or barbarian/cipher is probably going to be generating their focus at an even higher rate. Should they arbitrarily throttle their ability to generate focus because they are more effective classes at striking opponents and forcing engagement? (which, when combined with attacks which strike multiple opponents at once, will generate a TON of focus) If you compare the number of successful attacks by a ranger + animal companion, I doubt that it is greater than a fighter/cipher or barbarian/cipher. Not only that, but from the LORE perspective, there seems to be nearly no justification for NOT having the attacks of the animal companion generate focus. I don't even think it should be 100% focus gain (from each animal companion attack), but something like 10-25% of what the ranger would gain from their own attacks. It's like sending electricity over a wire- you are going to lose some, even if it is well insulated. The ranger isn't physically touching his animal companion, but they ARE linked by their souls. So some of that focus gain SHOULD happen. My problem wasn’t them generating it faster. It was them potentially generating focus without doing anything. (Meaning while stunned or disabled they’re still just generating focus because of a pet) At least other class have to hit a dude before they are rewarded. If anything, this makes MORE sense. That is the entire point of a ranger having an animal companion. They work as a team. If the animal companion is in trouble, a good ranger comes to the rescue, and vice versa. Neither wants to see the other get hurt or die. If the ranger is generating focus while incapacitated because the animal companion is busy trying to make sure it's master doesn't die... that just means that if it is successful, by the time the ranger is revived, they will be able to deliver a dangerous psychic attack. I don't see the problem with this. A barbarian/cipher or fighter/cipher will have a greater chance to hit, and be generally more robust, than a ranger/cipher. Rangers are typically more vulnerable than fighters or barbarians, which means that they will go down more often. If they have a means of generating focus while incapacitated, this just makes up for the fact that they spent who knows how much time not being able to contribute to the fight because they aren't as robust. This would again favor a fighter/cipher or barbarian/cipher multiclass if the animal companion DOESN'T generate focus, because a fighter/cipher or barbarian/cipher will go down less often than a ranger/cipher, which means they will have more opportunities to generate focus and use their abilities. My last playthrough was as a ranger, and while he wasn't a "glass cannon", I nonetheless ended up with him being knocked out 14 times throughout the entire game. I don't know how many times Eder was knocked out, but I know it was MAYBE a handful, and he was literally always in the front lines. I played my ranger PRINCIPALLY as a backrow sniper, but he was effective in melee as well. His interrupt rate was off the chart, so if he needed to melee, he was typically fine, if it was a single or even 2 opponents. But Eder could sit there with 4 engagements and just keep on going at it.

I don't see why this would matter. The drawbacks to multiclassing are that you don't get those last 2 tiers of abilities for either class. You also get reduced power levels in both. So even if your ranger/cipher generates focus more quickly than even a single class cipher, it isn't like his abilities are as powerful or effective. A fighter/cipher or barbarian/cipher is probably going to be generating their focus at an even higher rate. Should they arbitrarily throttle their ability to generate focus because they are more effective classes at striking opponents and forcing engagement? (which, when combined with attacks which strike multiple opponents at once, will generate a TON of focus) If you compare the number of successful attacks by a ranger + animal companion, I doubt that it is greater than a fighter/cipher or barbarian/cipher. Not only that, but from the LORE perspective, there seems to be nearly no justification for NOT having the attacks of the animal companion generate focus. I don't even think it should be 100% focus gain (from each animal companion attack), but something like 10-25% of what the ranger would gain from their own attacks. It's like sending electricity over a wire- you are going to lose some, even if it is well insulated. The ranger isn't physically touching his animal companion, but they ARE linked by their souls. So some of that focus gain SHOULD happen.

This isn't accurate at all. The ranger literally has a PSYCHIC connection to his BONDED animal companion. That means he is aware of when it is experiencing pain, and that is why he suffers from bonded grief if it is killed or incapacitated. That is why you can SEE around your animal companion if you send it into the fog of war, but you CAN'T see around your summons if you do the same thing. There is no psychic connection with summons. Furthermore, the ciphers gains their focus because they are interacting with something in a physical manner. They touch things, they can get a "feel" for the soul remnants on it. They are in combat with someone, everytime they deliver a blow, they can begin to better understand the makeup of the soul of their opponent. They still get it when they are using ranged weapons because they PHYSICALLY touched the ball(firearm) or the arrow/bolt(bow/crossbow). That then hits the opponent, which allows them to quickly gather focus. From a lore perspective, it makes 100% sense that if a cipher is ALSO a ranger, and has a BONDED animal companion, with which they share a PSYCHIC[soul] link, that if that animal companion strikes an opponent, the cipher would gain focus. The animal companion is LITERALLY an EXTENSION of the cipher/ranger's soul. Why does that not apply to a wizard/cipher or chanter/cipher or priest/cipher or druid/cipher? The wizard isn't physically making a fireball. That is magic, drawing from the power of the caster's soul(s). The caster has no PHYSICAL or PSYCHIC connection to that fireball... unlike a ranger/cipher, who DOES have those connections to and with their animal companion. None of those other casting classes have a psychic or physical connection to those attacks either... unlike the ranger/cipher.

The title says it all. I was wondering if anyone who has played the beta can answer this question. Also, if the answer is "No", then it seems to me it should be "Yes". Since animal companions are BONDED to the ranger (unless the ranger is a ghostheart), they are essentially an EXTENSION of the ranger. I mean, the ranger will suffer penalties if the animal companion is killed (incapacitated?), which is more than would happen if say, the ranger were to "break" one of their weapons. If a ranger broke a weapon, that would be bad, but it wouldn't physically and psychically damage the ranger. So... since ciphers gain focus through interacting with other things which have souls, it seems to me, that they should gain focus if their animal companion is doing the same thing, since the cipher/ranger has a special bond with their animal companion. This WOULDN'T apply to other cipher multiclasses, say a chanter, because they don't have any special BONDS with the creatures or things they summon... unlike the ranger animal companion.

I appreciate it, but am going to be playing a ranger since that is what I last beat the game with. So, I want the continuity of a ranger multiclass. Just trying to decide between ranger/cipher and ranger/chanter, but I think that the list of possible companion subclasses already decided me, since lots of companions have the ability to multiclass with chanter (meaning, I might as well go cipher to have a well-varied set of skills and abilities). This is related to my original question, but do animal companions help build focus for a multiclass cipher/ranger? I feel like they technically SHOULD, because while they aren't a weapon, they are connected to and bonded to the ranger... which should mean that their attacks also build focus (even if it is at a reduced rate).

What I find interesting are those companions which can effectively dual class. That is pretty interesting, in that it suggests there are some points in the story and/or their relationship with the Watcher that they decide to follow an entirely different life path. This definitely gives way more versatility. I am planning on playing as either a cipher/ranger or chanter/ranger (still haven't decided yet- am awaiting some advice in the builds section, or will just have to do some experimenting tomorrow . Now that I know the companion subclasses, I think it will go something like this: Watcher (cipher/ranger or chanter/ranger- I will most likely go cipher/ranger now, since it will be quite easy to get a pure or multiclass chanter in the party) Maia Rua (ranger/rogue) Aloth (wizard) Pallegina (chanter/paladin) Tekehu/Xoti (single class, initial class, depending on how they rub off on me/how useful they are) Between my 2 rangers, I should be well-enough covered with the stealth and mechanics aspects, and will automatically have two really good snipers plus their 2 animal companions. I make my Watcher a Beguiler/Ghostheart or Beguiler/Sharpshooter and he can pin down the enemy while Maia goes in and uses our 2 animal companions plus Pallegina to deliver endless flanking and sneak attacks. Plus, that makes Maia the scout, while I probably focus my Watcher more heavily on mechanics to disarm the traps which Maia finds. Given Maia has a bird, that makes more sense anyway. Aloth stays a wizard, because I want the maximum magical firepower possible. Pallegina will become a chanter/paladin so she can have all the party buffs, and then deliver the appropriate chanter attacks in the front lines (whether that is to incapacitate the enemy, finish them off, or bring in summons as reinforcements as necessary). Just got to figure out the Tekehu vs Xoti bit. I really wanted a priest of Eothas in the party... but having a druid from the islands who can help us not die on the seas... also pretty important. And I've heard that priests have been nerfed a bit, and don't want a monk/priest... so maybe it will be the druid.

So, I asked this question in a different thread, but maybe it is better to see if it gets more replies in thread devoted 100% to the question. As the title says, which one is "better"? Or, more appropriately, what are some of the plusses and minuses that people who have played the beta (or, at this point, those rare few who have had access to the full release) between those 2 different sets of multiclass options? If I were to make a cipher/ranger, am thinking that beguiler/basic ranger (or Ghost Heart) would be the way to go. For chanter/ranger, I think that Beckoner/Sharpshooter would be really fun and make sense from an RP perspective. Has anyone played as either or both of those multiclasses? Thanks in advance for your input!

So, revisiting a question which I asked earlier, but have been thinking about further, since we are just around the corner from the release... My concept is that he is a bounty hunter. As either a chanter or cipher, I see that working quite well. As the cipher, he uses his cipher abilities to help him track down and incapacitate his prey. As a chanter, he uses his abilities to enhance his takedown of his prey, by calling forth allies to assist and neutralize them. While he didn't plan on being a pirate, both of these builds work well for his life at sea. As a cipher, he can better avoid ambushes and more easily track prey across vast distances. As a chanter, he literally brings more to the fight, in the event that there is a ship to ship battle, since he can materialize allies out of thin air to better defend his ship. I'm not concerned about how to make the most gish build ever, but my basic question is: chanter(beckoner?)/ranger(sharpshooter), cipher(beguiler)/ranger, or just single class ranger? For those who have had access to the beta, I understand that you still don't know what the high tier abilities are, but do you think that either of those multiclasses would ultimately be more flexible and "effective" than a single class ranger or not?

Well, officially preloaded- so it did become available today... if only it was playable today...

Yeah, I know that another thread claimed that preloading would start today, but that appears to be incorrect. I am not concerned about my download speed... but damn it, guess it might be necessary to wait for everything on the 8th :l

Ach dammit! Why that second part? I already typed half of my reply in my head! :hairpull: Lol, he is right, no gamer (well normal ones) plays only one genre. That said, everyone does have a favorite genre. And if your favorite genre is traditional party based single player RPG's you really don't have much happening in the month of May outside Deadfire. Well there is Hyper Dimension Neptunia, but do I really need to explain how Deadfire and it are aimed at two wildly different groups of people? This is not true. I only play RPGs. Literally, no other genre interests me. I'm playing Battletech right now... which is basically an RPGlite with mechs instead of swords and magic. I guess we're going off topic now, but the OP has been answered... How is Battletech? I've seen some real iffy reviews. Well, I WOULD have liked to be playing PoE 2 today... but, in regards to Battletech, I really like it! I backed it because I really enjoyed the Shadowrun games that Harebrained did, and so thought that even though this isn't a genre that typically piques my interest... they just might do it well enough to make it worthwhile (plus, I want more Shadowrun games, so backing them now might get me that in the future It can be pretty tough. There really are many permutations on how you can assemble your "lance" (team), from how heavy their weapons are, to how fast and far they move, and a whole variety of other variables. My advice is that if you do play it, definitely do some grinding. Look for those missions that aren't that hard to get your pilots more experienced and take less damage to your mechs, and try out different combat strategies. it's good to have a mix of weapons types, because each has it's own plusses or minuses, and if you only have one... you might regret it, depending on the situation. You definitely want to do as much stability damage as possible. A knocked down mech can't shoot you. They are also easier to shoot. And, once you can, get ****pit mods. They prevent your pilots from taking damage. Dead or injured pilots = bad. The story is pretty good. A little too linear for my liking... but given the size of the studio, probably unavoidable. On a separate note... has anyone confirmed that preloading is now possible on Steam???

Ach dammit! Why that second part? I already typed half of my reply in my head! :hairpull: Lol, he is right, no gamer (well normal ones) plays only one genre. That said, everyone does have a favorite genre. And if your favorite genre is traditional party based single player RPG's you really don't have much happening in the month of May outside Deadfire. Well there is Hyper Dimension Neptunia, but do I really need to explain how Deadfire and it are aimed at two wildly different groups of people? This is not true. I only play RPGs. Literally, no other genre interests me. I'm playing Battletech right now... which is basically an RPGlite with mechs instead of swords and magic.