Odd Hermit

I was considering trying to pass most Resolve checks with a base Resolve of 10. Resolve isn't a very good attribute for any of the builds I like to use, but with some knowledge and the right consumables and resting bonuses I should be able to make most checks with temporary boosts if I'm correct. Then I could make my sorta optimal build(I could drop resolve further) but have my dialogue checks too. Brighthollow Chapel +3 Dragon's Egg/Meat Dish +3 Iqali/Big Durmsey Prostitute +1 or +2 Gear +2 to +3 +8 is easy enough, and later in the game I'd have access to +11 though I assume I only need +10. Before I make a protagonist with 10 resolve though, I'm wondering how good the rewards for high resolve really are, and whether it's worth the trouble to buff it for dialogue(are there plenty of Dragon foods that I can just buy?). And how save scummy I'd have to be about it - some checks you can return to the conversation, others not so much. Basically, if anyone has done this, how much of a PITA was it? I'm also wondering if there's a list of all Resolve checks in the game. I'd have max Int and Perception where those are an alternative to Resolve.

Wizard, which I used to have issues with but aside from ranger it's probably the most improved class over the course of the game. Their self buffs used to be total garbage but now they can actually be potent in off-tanking/melee roles and are very versatile and fun to use. Wizard is usually my MVP for tough fights. Priest would be second place. Pretty much all of my parties have at least one wizard and priest. I would say Cipher is least favorite since focus mechanic leads to pretty dull spammy playstyle and very limited attribute/talent build options - they are the most convenient to have in a party for clearing "trash" and quite powerful late game, but design wise I don't like them.

They're more about knowledge of things you'd learn in that life than a personality thing. It's not going to make you mean or nice, that's what Cruel/Benevolent are for. Haven't tried raider but Scholar and Philosopher are also among the ones with more checks, but many of them aren't much more than extra lore-ish stuff. Aristocrat is still my favorite.

It's hard to take Might and max Per/Int/Res for dialogue for the player character. Could work with items/rest bonuses picking up the slack though depending on how much you want to metagame dialogue. I wish the attributes were more balanced for dialogue options but Resolve is both the best stat for dialogue and the worst stat for most classes for power-gaming sadly. Silver Tide does benefit from might. To stay optimal, it's either high-mig Moon Godlike, or dumped-might pale elf / wild orlan. It's a decent heal even without high might. Wild Orlan is also a good choice though.

A front line tanky chanter focused on short chants and using control/summon invocations and just ignoring damage abilities entirely IMO is the way to go for the player character. You benefit from all 3 mental attributes which are checked most for dialogue, and have no particular need for 2/3 of the physical stats so you can max the mental ones out easily. Personally I build - M.3 C.15 D.4 P.19 I.19 R.18 (Pale Elf or Moon Godlike) Invocations requiring Phrases which require time in combat makes Chanters very limited. If you use high level chants, you won't often get to use high level invocations, even lower level ones will take awhile. So, trying to get an efficient Chant / Invocation strategy is important, and mine is simply to use level 1 Chants and spend my phrases on CC and summons. +10 to all defenses and +1.2 Move Speed for the whole party is pretty solid at all levels. You can vary it a bit depending on situation. Then use the Stun / Paralyze Invocations(keep in mind one targets fort, the other will) or Summon stuff with your phrases. You won't be able to punish disengagement much, but the buffs, crowd control, summons, etc. along with being tank/off-tank material make for a character who doesn't need to contribute damage to be worth a spot. It is a very boring class/build, to be honest, but I take a Wizard, Druid and two Priests, so having 4/6 of my party as casters makes up for it. Can also use items and/or active talents - Aspirant's Mark is a good one to take. It's per encounter, long duration fairly strong debuff, no healing/damage so low might isn't an issue. Since Lore is nice to have for some extra dialogue on the player character, it's also a good character to use some scrolls.

IMO the biggest issue is how pulling works. You either pull enemies away in manageable numbers, pull them back to a chokepoint, or if you want a "challenge" abandon tactics and let them mob you but pop CDs/spells per rest/etc. far more often. Some fights are more fun that way though. Generally if an enemy can't outrun you, they almost auto-lose. Some of the more tedious mobs in the game are the lumbering high HP/DR trolls and lurker types in the early game - you can't really get killed by them alone but it's boring kiting and whittling them down.

Basically Moon Godlike for melee and Wood Elf for ranged, and you can't go wrong. But more specifically - High might melee: Moon Godlike Casters/Ranged damagers: Wood Elf, no contest, though Moon Godlike are still good here too and a dangerous implement Wizard could go that route. Crit based melee(someone you want to use prone/stun on crit weapons): Hearth Orlan Low might tanky melee: Pale Elf or Wild Orlan. Or Moon Godlike, even with low might the heals are decent enough - there's no DR to worry about with heals and you can take 2 survival to boost it even. There are few other races that are alright if you build to take advantage of them but the above are the no-brainer generalist choices. Nature Godlike and Mountain Dwarf are the worst and have almost no value gameplay wise. Coastal Aumaua and Humans are decent for melee but just not as good as Moon or Orlan. Island Aumaua are alright for gun swappers, but guns aren't as good as they used to be. It's too bad the moon godlike sprites are kinda hideous and there are few portrait options.

Druid make better "tanks" than wizards. Tanking + Returning & Relentless Storm just add up nicely. I had a lot of fun with such a druid tank. One of my favourite builds - and very simple, too. Wizards are probably better tanks if they self buff. It's just more resource intensive. Arcane Veil is +50 deflection(and Instant) and Wizard's Double is +40 deflection(until hit, but most things can't you at this stage of the game w/that deflection) at level 2. +100 Endurance @ level 3 from Infuse with Vital Essence. +20 more deflection from Mirror Image. +15 to all elemental DRs with Bulwark, if you need it. +25 more deflection from hardened veil @ level 4 if you like. +20 from Llengrath's at 5 Most of Wizard's defensive self buffs are fast cast too. With high int you get duration enough for most encounters or at least enough to get rid of enough enemies to have things under control. Taking just regular Arcane Veil lets you off tank in a pinch as well as letting you avoid getting wrecked by archers if they decide to target your Wizard. Concelhaut's Staff can also do solid damage and heal you. You don't have to sacrifice offensive attributes and can still afford to take Blast and use Kalakoths as well, when you're not needing an extra meat shield. Druids OTOH, have... +10 base deflection. Meh. My "main" tank choice at the moment is Monk though(+a support/utility chanter). Wizards can go crazy lich mode self buffery on bossy fights, but for your average encounter having a tank that doesn't need to spend a bunch of per rest stuff and also does great damage is nice.

The best druid spells are raw damage/pierce over time, and shock(returning/relentless storm) and/or fire(sunbeam and firebug). Choosing frost isn't a great idea right now IMO. Wizard has some staple frost spells starting of course with Chill Fog at level 1. I personally don't think Wizard excels at dealing spell damage though, alacrity+their spell weapons are seemingly more efficient. They have ~okay frost nukes though, and Secrets of Rime would buff your Kalakoth's a bit.

Too easy/obvious to just make a character with minimized attributes and isn't really in the spirit of the challenge.

It is somewhat a challenge to that design goal, though the talent selection part is a little unfair since talents are better off with good variety and you can't have every talent be useful to all builds without dramatically limiting our options. If I were to make a "worst character build challenge" I'd probably try to make some sort of rule about talent choices. Race, Class, Abilities, Skills, etc. all fair game though. I don't think he would make a good tank, and the role of tank has gotten more demanding. This character doesn't have bonus engagements, poor reflex save, and has no additional utility like Paladins/Chanters, and can't hard CC targets like a fighter or monk tank might. Making an ineffective and fragile class seems more difficult, because the build is supposed to bad, I don't think it's fair to assume the player using it will also use it poorly. It's meant to be a build that even an experienced player would have trouble making good use of. To make a very fragile character you will end up with more offensive power and in the right hands that is more useful than a durable character right now IMO. But I'd like to see someone try going for both a fragile and terrible damage character - I still find that even a terribly built caster will have some use. It'd have to be rogue, but rogues get 2 mechanics, high base accuracy, a significant damage boost, and don't have so many poor ability choices to pick from.

For fun I wanted to try making the worst build I could think of. I may actually try soloing PotD with it for a little while just to see how painful it is. Role: Be as useless as possible to a party and reasonably inept on his own. Race: Nature Godlike (I debated Mountain Dwarf, but they get to wear helmets) Class: Barbarian Attributes: Mig 3 Con 18 Dex 16 Per 3 Int 19 Res 19(+1 Culture) Culture: Aedyr - Slave (+Athletics, Survival) Skills: Everything into Athletics, @ level 16 put remaining into a bit of stealth(3) and survival(5). Abilities: 1 Barbaric Yell 3 Savage Defiance 5 Bloodlust 7 Blood Thirst 9 Vengeful Defeat 11 Thick Skinned 13 Heart of Fury 15 Brute Force Talents: 2 Novice's Suffering 4 Arms Bearer 6 Quick Switch 8 Gunner 10 Wound Binding 12 Shot on the Run 14 Bloody Slaughter 16 Bear's Fortitude ___ So, to explain some of these choices: Barbarian is chosen because they have a fair number of abilities that are limited to purely damage output/weapon based attacks. They have no spells, which is super important for making a useless character since we don't want useful buffs, debuffs, summons, anything. They also don't have Lore, Mechanics, or Stealth. This character can't use a Scroll or Trap, or even scout things. He can heal himself for a lot with the Second Wind but it's pretty redundant with Barbarian's existing self healing. Nature Godlike was chosen because it has a nice anti-synergy with a high con, high-ish res character. And they can't wear helms, as I mentioned, making them kind of like a worse Human. Attributes were chosen pretty much to make damage output as bad as possible. Has high Int, but his Carnage will do so little it's not a big deal and of course with 3 perception and no +accuracy talents/abilities he can't hit the broadside of a barn anyway and is unlikely to even interrupt when he does. I stayed away from movement increasing stuff for the most part, just to avoid making the character good for kiting tactics like dragging one group of enemies to another. I grabbed some ranged weapon talents but this character can't do much with them. He could do some quick gun swapping, but guns with 3 might and perception aren't going to do much. He can punch people a bit harder, but he's no monk and that forgoes any enchantment help. The result of minimizing offensive capability has resulted in more durability than I'd like, Still, defenses are mediocre, Barbarians have low base resolve and I didn't take enough deflection talents to make this character a great avoidance tank. HP is high and he can self heal, but shouldn't be particularly good at tanking and of course has very limited ability to punish disengagement.

Way back in the beta I suggested Resolve be the +duration stat, for both gameplay and RP reasons(will to keep an effect going under pressure or whatever). I'm not sure what you'd do with Intelligence at that point, but Resolve would then have a purpose for far more builds. Probably too late for that though.

I don't think they really succeeded at making dumping sting or making all attributes unnecessary. Intellect for every caster(especially Priest and Wizard) feels close to mandatory because duration is such a dramatic benefit for all buff/debuffs/control spells and the way AoEs work strongly encourages going for larger ones just for more comfortable no-friendly fire edges. I would never make the "muscle wizard" they discuss because the buffs to make a melee wizard shine still need int to last long enough in combat. There are also some no-brainer dump stats - fighter-ish classes have several builds that gain so little from Int you can drop it to 3 without a second thought. Basically, you can still almost completely ruin some classes, they'd be "viable" if only because with meta-knowledge anything can use the right items and tactics(pulling, kiting, stealth, speed, figurines, traps, scrolls, etc.) to pull through regardless of how poorly built the character is. The Might damage adjustment graph is also overly simplistic and doesn't reflect the actual benefit of might in practice. Different abilities and classes gain substantially more from might, and enemy DR also means higher might can lead to up to and beyond double your actual damage on some targets particularly in the early game. Which is why early game it's best to just wear plate armor on everybody regardless of recovery penalty(especially with the new enemy AI, I put my more fragile character in slightly more DR than my tankier ones). It's not as bad as in DnD perhaps, but it's not as balanced and smooth a progression as the chart would imply. Also I really wished personality hadn't been tied up with combat statistics - especially if realism isn't a priority. Trying to work my PC around a high Per/Int/Res build is a no brainer for dialogue options, but also they've been very opposed to allowing us to customize NPCs presumably due to something like "resolve might not be desirable for your preferred priest build but Durance's character requires it" while in game resolve doesn't actually allow Durance to do anything for your party in conversations. I do think however, that they're better than DnD and have allowed for a nice variety of builds for some classes, and more importantly that the different builds play substantially differently. There are still some classes where I'll almost automatically min-max certain attributes. The way deflection works means that low amounts don't do a whole lot for an already low deflection class, same for constitution for lower endurance classes. So maximizing their offensive capabilities becomes a no brainer. Especially because dexterity almost doubles as extra interrupt resist because attacking/acting/casting faster = less chance to get interrupted. The buff to con made dumping it more undesirable at least, but I'm still comfortable knocking it down a bit even on PotD. Resolve at the moment I'd say is the weakest/hardest to justify attribute overall. There are some classes you might not dump it on, but I could build a full "power gamed" party without going above 10 in it on any character - same can't be said for anything else. I have a reason to stack Might, Dex, Per, Int, and even Con for some melee. I only take high resolve on my PC character(chanter tank) for dialogue options. To be fair though, the more progression a game has the harder it is to balance things for both bigger and smaller numbers. Scaling causes tons of issues and some things end up nigh obsolete earlier on or later on. For example I don't care for high dex on a caster with only 5 spells or whatever to cast in combat, might and perception are way more important for making those few spells hit and hit harder. But later on when I want to cast 5-10 buffs just at the start of any difficult combat dex becomes dramatically more beneficial. I'd really like to see what an IE style game with much less dramatic progression throughout would be like.

Monks gain their resource via taking damage, so if you're solo and PotD you're getting more wounds than a monk would in a party situation much of the time. They're also just a sturdier class because they need to take damage to use their abilities. I'm not sure they're well balanced overall, but that they're easier or better for solo than rogues doesn't mean much on its own and isn't too surprising.

The companions play a vital role in the story and setting of the game and thus they don't "comprehend" your power gaming stat expectations. They are simply a virtual versions of would-be characters of that specific time and space, having flaws just as everyone else in real life. Build your own adventurer party if this makes you dissatisfied. Their attributes do not play a vital role. Also it's arguable whether or not they are vital, but I do like having the extra dialogue and there are no compelling reasons to disallow respec of their attributes. If you can fundamentally change your player character in the same way, especially to have better early game build without being penalized later, I don't see how that's any better or worse than doing the same for the story companions. There's nothing wrong with having combat stats just be combat stats and keeping the whole personality aspect as separate thing. I wish they would've gone that route in the first place.

Here's what I'm planning on taking - PC Chanter - tank/support/control oriented, max per/int/res and high lore for dialogue Wizard - Implement/Blight interrupt build Cipher - Standard ranged version, nothing crazy Priest - Standard So I need a couple of serious front liners since I've got 3 squishies and an off-tank. What I'm considering - ___ Monk - I have yet to actually use a monk through the campaign. I'd probably go with a hybrid tank/damage situation, max might/con/dex and torment's reach, turning wheel, swift/lightning strikes. Drop int to 3, keep per/res at 10. Ranger - I've read that the pet is an extra serious melee unit now and rangers are much more useful in general. Since pet damage isn't determined by the ranger's offensive stats, maybe there's an argument for making the ranger tanky as well? Unsure, never used rangers 'cause they were so bad for so long. Paladin - I could just take Pallegina, mold her into as decent a tank as possible, and use Vielo Vidorio to buff everyone else. It's nice to have a paladin for the aura, exhortation, etc. Wizard - Yes, I have a Wizard already but... why not two? Instead of implements, this one would use Staff/Pike including Concelhaut's and Citzal's, and use hardened veil to be tanky when it needs to be. Barbarian - Never used one, I've never been one to build around specific cheesy items and that always seemed to be the only reason to bring a barb(carnage retaliation and so on). While melee AoE is great for doorway fights, those are easily managed regardless because they're doorway fights. And needing high int for carnage means they're a bit attribute starved relative to melee builds you can comfortably dump int with. But I haven't played since pre White March, and maybe like Rangers they've been improved?

Attributes - 19 might (+1 from Human) 10 constitution 8 dexterity 18 perception 19 intelligence (Old Vailia Culture, it has Mercenary background) 4 resolve (can't drop it lower 'cause Human) ---Wood Elf is way better than Human, but if you're set on human so be it. Swords aren't great and Skaen would be better for melee(stiletto dual wielding w/minor sneak attacks), but if you're set on doing some sword and boarding I'd use Shame or Glory just as a support weapon(allies get bonus accuracy if attacking your target). Have to side with Knights of the Crucible along the main quest line to get it. Having high perception early on means your very limited spells and opening gunshot don't miss/graze too often, and high might means your damage punches through DR better and you have better heals. Intellect is a no brainer for most caster builds, for AoE/duration. Low resolve won't be a major issue, wear plate and know when to put on a hatchet(or sword) and small shield. If you dislike minimizing it though, just lower might however much you're comfortable with. Later on in the game you can respec to move some might and perception into dexterity when you really want to be spell slinging, but for the earlier parts of the game you're rarely going to reload an arquebus in combat so attack speed isn't major, and you'll have much fewer spells per rest so casting them slower isn't a big deal then. Talents - Enigma's Charm is a great choice early on, as it gives you something very useful per-encounter while you have few spells. Inspiring Radiance is a no brainer, +10 accuracy on a per encounter ability for your party. Inspired Flame seems to be your RP choice, this is a very inspirational priest. Weapon and Shield style is a good idea, Sword and Board when you're in "caster mode" or being attacked for higher deflection and reflex saves. Scion of Flame, because priest nukes are mostly fire. I'd say that covers the obvious important choices for the early-mid game, the rest are icing - you can boost defenses, get a weapon focus and apprentice sneak attack for more damage, whatever you like.

We can already respec the player character's attributes, it can't be that difficult to allow us to change companion's as well. As for the dev's vision, I respect the effort made in balancing attributes, but having combat stats dictated by personality didn't turn out that well and there's nothing that really makes the connection interesting or relevant to the gameplay. It just means the story companions have poor attributes that can't be changed for fairly arbitrary feeling reasons.

The argument is that being stuck with their all over the place attribute spreads reduces replay value since you can't make fun builds with them. Attributes are a substantial part of making some builds work well. It's just a shame that you have to miss out on their commentary if you want custom builds in later playthroughs. That they also happen to suck even for cookie cutter class builds isn't a completely trivial thing either but it's not the main point here. I've already gone through Hard and PotD playthroughs with the "roleplay" attribute spreads, and I just don't want to do it again for The White March. It's boring.

It's not about easier, it's about having builds that are interesting to play and being able to shape them into a cohesive party. Having mediocre stats in all attributes prevents companions from shining in any particular role in a party with any actual synergy.

The problem is that the benefits of different attributes is not even close to equal use for different class/builds. In general, you tend to see much more benefit from maximizing 2-3 important attributes than you feel the penalties for minimizing less important ones. Durance is going to use his 18 resolve probably less than 10% of the time because he's not going to be in melee or even taking ranged damage if I'm playing my cards right. He will be penalized by his 9 Perception probably a good 60% of the time in combat or more. Higher con scores for low base endurance classes are also a bit of a waste. ___ For me, this all means that fun parties are out if I play with companions. You cannot build interesting+effective companion builds because they're held back dramatically by poor attribute spread. In some cases no matter which direction you take them, they're gonna be mediocre at best. I can't think of any good reasons, OTOH, not to let players alter the companion attributes. Maybe for a price if needed, but I'd gladly play that to have the best of both worlds - an enjoyable and capable party synergy in combat, and the extra dialogue that companions offer outside of it. If forced to choose between one or the other, I find myself just kind of not wanting to replay the game at all. ___ I know you can get through the game on PotD without mix-maxing(my first playthrough was PotD with 4 companions and just 1 hired), my point is just that it's not very fun that way and makes the party composition aspect of the game dull.

Haven't played White March yet, back when pt 1 came out I decided to wait for pt 2. Came back to the game recently, with intent of going through the game with an Off-tank Chanter and all pre-made companions. So far, I am not enjoying this approach. It feels Aloth/Eder/Durance all suck dramatically at any role you attempt to mold them towards. Since I made my PC an off-tank support character, I had no solid damage output or reliable control to carry them. ___ The changes to perception(giving it +accuracy) were probably good. But NPC attributes weren't tweaked along with them. Aloth has 12. A wizard's primary role is crowd control. Landing limited per rest spells is of utmost importance. He should really have 19. Instead he has 12. At least he's a Wood Elf but still I found him lacking. Eder has 12 as well, and 16 might. 16 con, 13 res. Doesn't know whether to be tank or damage output, but of the NPCs he's probably the best suited for tanking. Which means that 16 might is wasted. He also misses his knockdowns fairly regularly. I'd love to give him at least 15 perception and resolve. Durance...oh my. 9 perception, 18 resolve. What is going on here? Basically half his arsenal feels missing. I have a hard time even allowing him to take any offensive talents. ___ I'm leaning toward making a full custom party at this point. I really would like to take the pre-made companions, but they are too awful. I'm sure I could still get through the game with them, but looking at their attributes is just too cringey for me. If I were rolling with a DPS PC, sure maybe it'd be bearable, but my chanter tank feels like he's supporting a group of storm troopers right now. Missed shots all over the place. This is just one player's experience and possible in the nitpick territory for other players, but it's definitely making it harder to replay the game for me.

Druid has larger AoEs and a larger variety of damage options along with some healing. Wizard can still deal damage, but are more narrowly focused on controlling spells. Last but not least, I'd say difficulty factors in. If you're on Path of the Damned, I'd say Wizards are better for their control/debuffing options. If you're on any difficulty below that, Druids are because you don't need to crowd control/debuff so much and can straight nuke most things. Druid shapeshift is also pretty useful at lower levels. Worth noting is that you get the Wizard NPC earlier than the Druid one. Though you may like one or the other's personality better, you don't know until your first playthrough. So I'd just go Druid.

VTMB2 and Fallout: New New Orleans are possibly/hopefully going to come before PoE2. And the stuff they're working on now - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian_Entertainment#Future I like PoE but I would love a VTMB sequel since first one was great but super flawed and didn't age well, and another Obsidian style Fallout game would of course be amazing.