Katarack21

Rogues should have access to Two-Weapon fighting, no? O don't necessarly see why? They can pack a pair of daggers, they can pack a single dagger, they can pack a firearm or a mace. With current system there is no need for two-weapon fighting talent, rather they have abilities to make most of their two-weapon fighting style. Two-weapon fighting rogue will work differently than two-weapon fighting fighter. I don't think there is a requirement of "rogues have to be equal in direct combat with fighers." Oh, no, rogues shouldn't be "equal in direct combat" with fighters. Rogues should deal far more damage in shorter time periods than fighters but be much less capable of taking in a hit, instead relying on moving around the battlefield and inflicting short-term afflictions with their high-damage bursts. But of all the classes described in the guidebook, rogues are the *only* ones explicitly stated to commonly use two weapons simultaneously. Fighters aren't stated to use two weapons at once. Rangers aren't stated to use two weapons at once. Rogues, however, have the use of double daggers so tightly bound to their concept that Obsidian felt the need to explicitly point it out when describing Rogues. I feel that should be reflected with access to the two-weapon fighting talent.

Nope. In BG2 you could pick spells for sorc and mage from the same list. Sorcerers lend themselves more towards nuke than battlefield manipulation? It's individual player's choice. It was D&D 4th edition which changed roles of sorcerers and wizards. 4th ed changed them because of the way most people played them in 3.5. Same list, yes, but Sorcs pick fewer from that list and end up with a noticeably smaller spell selection that is capable more often. Consequently, wizards tend to have much larger and more variable spell lists while sorcs tend to be narrowly focused. For a lot of 3.5 gamers, that focus was often nukes, especially if there is already a wizard in the party.

Rogues should have access to Two-Weapon fighting, no?

Hey, there, Gromnir. Nice to hear so much from you! No, but what it *did* have is the ability to select weapon talents and styles to reflect that your character had advanced training in weapons. It allowed you to *play* as a highly martially trained warrior-zealot, and to reflect your weapon training being equal to any fighters, which is something you can't currently do in Deadfire without *being* a fighter. Yes, but none of them are *weapon skill* related. And the paladin was only an example; I'm actually *way* more concerned about the lack of ranged cipher capability in PoE 2. I'd also like to point out that I have so far only played two single-class characters in the beta; I've mostly been playing mutliclass characters. I just don't want to *HAVE* to change everything about my character--and multiclassing *does* change literally every aspect of your character--just to make my Paladin good with a shield or make my cipher specialize in ranged weapons. Multiclassing is *great*, but it's *not* a solution to nuanced character builds. Overall total options in the game≠single-class diversity. That has to be the most convoluted and roundabout way of calling me crazy I've ever seen. Not *my* concept of a paladin, my concept of a paladin comes mostly from D&D where they were in fact designed as front-line support class. With maybe a little from WoW, where they are *also* front-line support classes. When I think of "paladin" I think of a hybrid class that combines aspects of a buff-focused priest with a tank-focused fighter. The major difference between PoE and PoE 2 is that in PoE *everybody has that option*. In PoE 2, *only fighters have that option*. The gap in weapon capabilities between Paladins and Fighters is much larger in PoE 2 than in PoE, and for no real reason other than "make people who play fighters feel better". Like weapon styles being exclusive makes up for a lack of interesting abilities. Dude. I was here. I wasn't in the beta in PoE, but I was on the forums and remember the debates. Fortunately for me, the addition of Flames of Devotion as a Paladin power and the debate surrounding it has nothing to do with anything we're talking about here, so...yay? Personally I'm glad they gave the Paladin a strike ability. It would feel lacking without it, but it doesn't effect this. The abilities, like knockdown and flames of devotion and shadowing beyond, are all soul power--bursts of superhuman strength, speed, etc. The passives I'm not so sure about. The class stats, like accuracy and deflection bonus and whatnot, I think just reflect training, not anything to do with soul power. Don't quote me on that though. Oh, I totally agree. Paladins have no need of any specific talent being given to them specifically. However, the game as a whole would I feel benefit from some general talents available to all classes. Thank goodness fighters were conceived and designed from the original stages of PoE development to be the most reliable damage dealers over time and there was never a problem with them being "unable to fight", simple with feeling boring.

I'm actually pretty sure they're adding weapon styles *in addition to* weapon proficiencies, so that at each level up that you used to get weapon proficiences you can now pick that *or* a weapon style. It creates additional choice and prevents the last two or three of those selections feeling entirely unimportant. That's entirely meaningless. It literally has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand. I'll just give you the point that PoE 2 Paladins are entirely capable of being tanky and are not underpowered, because it's not even at issue. If you took away weapon and shield from Fighters wouldn't they still be capable of being strong tanks? And if you removed it entirely from PoE, both paladins and fighters would still be decent tanks. Weapon and shield itself doesn't make or break a tank. It's effectiveness as a talent isn't the question, nor is the power capability of either paladins or fighters. No, it's different from how grandmastery was different. Multiclassing changes your character; it changes their progression path, it changes their endurance, their accuracy, their deflection, etc. Multiclassing isn't *just* about access to talents; it's a much broader alteration of the character that causes that character to play very differently. Changes to grandmastery were ultimately just about different number progressions and names with differing damage amounts; it didn't actually change the fundamental nature of your character as a whole, while multiclassing *does*. A ranger/cipher is an entirely different character from a cipher with marksman, from their endurance to their accuracy to one of them having a pet. It's a *much* larger change that creates an inherently different character, and it's not the character that I want to play. That's the whole point. You say "just multiclass" as if that answers all questions about options, but it doesn't. Making great options via multiclassing is excellent, but it *doesn't answer the problem* of narrowly specialized single-class characters. A ranged cipher and a ranger/cipher are different characters in every single way, and I should be able to play *either one*. It provides more *total* options overall than PoE, but *fewer options within each class*. If you were to add the general talents back in, you'd have all the nuanced builds available within PoE+all the multiclass options within PoE 2. You could build a ranged cipher, or a ranger/cipher, or a ranged cipher/melee ranger. Right now you could only build the ranger/cipher, you could *not* build the ranged cipher.

That would be awesome!

Please, please, *please* make weapon summons fast cast! I long to play a Devoted/Conjurer who uses summoned weapons!

The thing is that you don't need weapon styles to be good with weapons as a Paladin. Its not as if they somehow suck without them. You just aren't the Best without multiclassing with a Fighter. I have no problem roleplaying that. You do, however, need to have weapon styles to differentiate yourself as having more weapon skill than a priest, or a frickin' wizard. "I've spent my entire life training in drills over and over as a career solidier in a dedicated fighting force of frontline infantry. I'm as good with a sword as any jackass in a robe." The Wizard can also take Weapon styles in the proposed system and will be just as good as your Paladin so i'm not sure what you are gaining in the new system other than a general power creep for everyone. Yes, to indicate that *THAT* wizard has had martial training. Without those general proficiences, all non-fighters are essentially shown to be identically capable with all weapons. Every barbarian and every wizard have identical capabilities with a two-handed sword, without those general proficiencies. It's ridiculous.

The thing is that you don't need weapon styles to be good with weapons as a Paladin. Its not as if they somehow suck without them. You just aren't the Best without multiclassing with a Fighter. I have no problem roleplaying that. You do, however, need to have weapon styles to differentiate yourself as having more weapon skill than a priest, or a frickin' wizard. "I've spent my entire life training in drills over and over as a career solidier in a dedicated fighting force of frontline infantry. I'm as good with a sword as any jackass in a robe."

The reason to debate the possible unintended consequences now is that if we can identify trouble areas then the dev team can think about how to overcome them before they do all the work of adding them. Plus what else is this forum for besides arguing about wild conjecture? So your reason is for roleplaying purposes. Great, that's what the game is about. Roleplaying can justify pretty much anything with enough thought and effort. Again not a problem. In my roleplay I'd see the situation as my paladin served in a knightly organization (multi class with Fighter) and now he is both a martial master and a member of his Order. See roleplay just showed that you need to multi to get weapon styles. "Paladins are martial zealots, devoted to a god, a ruler, or even a way of life. They can be found in any culture where a fanatical group of like-minded individuals have formed a warrior society dedicated to advancing their cause. Among those aligned to their worldview, paladins are viewed with respect and admiration, if a bit of fear. Many paladins hold leadership positions in armies and mercenary companies, but in the heat of battle their fanaticism often overrules the chain of command - and common sense." "Paladins are extremely devoted, often fanatical, soldiers who have pledged themselves to a chosen cause. They have founded many elite fighting forces." "The Darcozzi Paladin, the oldest known paladin order in the world, was founded as the guards of the Darcozzi Palace in Grand Vailia." Paladins shouldn't *need* to multiclass to have martial training. The whole character archetype of *PALADIN* is "knight". The word "paladin", in *real* life, means "The twelve foremost warriors of Charlemagne's court." Paladins, according to the lore, background, and history of Pillars of Eternity, are *trained, organized warriors*. There is no lore-friendly reason why you should have to train as a fighter to be good with weapons as a Paladin; *PALADINS ARE TRAINED WITH WEAPONS AS THEY ARE FRONTLINE SOLDIERS IN MOST ARMED CONFLICTS IN EORA*.

Sorcerers lend themselves more towards nukes than battlefield manipulation, which is where wizards really shine. In that sense I suspect my magic-user experiences were very different from many.

I played BG2, and my first complete playthrough was as a pure sorc. However, I never bothered with that except for the liches. Mostly I just nuked the melee then dogpiled the casters. Inelegant and inefficient, but successful.

I want to keep the restriction. It makes the choice of playing the special snowflake character more meaningful.

Note that my desire to have Two Weapon Fighting on my Barbarian is *independent* of what it provides. Of course, I'd prefer it to be nice, but it could be +3 accuracy with two handers and I'd still take it to reflect my character.

"Again someone please give an explanation as to why a character needs access to a weapon style or a defensive boost other than for increased power?" Because it makes my Paladin feel more real to represent his regimented knight-like training in a semi-military order tjrough the use of talents that show and indicate that. It's not bs and it's not made up. It's not a justification nor rationalization. Just because *you* don't feel that way doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

That's just a load of bitter crap. If you are on story mode it doesn't matter while on PotD being efficient in your choices and character design are key along with understanding the game mechanics.. And less than 4% of people played PotD. While we're on the subject, I like how you throw in Story Mode there as an implied insult at my skill. Most people play on Normal, and the game was *designed* so that any build can complete the game. Designing a character for most optimal capability may be how *you* play, but it's not how *most people* play. Most people just pick what looks cool and sounds like it might be effective, and are happy if it plays well and can kill ****--without worrying about whether is 20% less effective than some other build. Wow. That's some pretty extreme arrogance right there. What you're really saying is "I can't possibly conceive of any way or reason to build a character that doesn't revolve around efficiency and numbers, and therefore I don't believe anybody else can, either."

You do realize that most people don't design their character from the ground up for efficient leveling into the most optimal character, right? Also this line, here? That's just a load of bitter crap.

I would enjoy a single-player arena.

Should it though? Dark Souls works but death is part of Dark Souls. Same in XCOM, Darkest Dungeon etc. Problem with IE games is that you don’t really want companions to die. Because they are written companions. They are kinda important. So since KOTOR2 RPGs move away from it because perma death in the kind of RPG is kinda stupid. In BG if your companion was torn to shreds and unfit for resurrection you would reload. You just would. So you were given Health/endurance which made dying possible but easily avoidable. He same is with current health system. Once you add that kind of resource management, tangible risk/reward it becomes different game entirely. A game I still like, but a game where putting lots of resources into creating and writing companions, developing relationship system is just misguided. I played BG without reloading when my companion died. It was way more fun than reloading. The thrill you get in combat is awesome especially when fighting hard hitting enemy like dragon. Perhaps you did. Most people did not, because the companions were so important to the game that the loss of one made the game much less fun for most.

Again, the party is undergeared. Console some plate armor onto your tanks and that problems solved.

Brilliant news. I might return to my idea of importing a Priest again with this change. To bad my priest in POE lost their faith so.... not sure where they land yet. You'll be able to change the class when you import into POE2, so you can switch them to another god. Although, the game is unlike to follow that change (from Eothas to another god). Also, priest's spells aren't granted by gods in Eora so, it can keep the Priest of Eothas and just tell him you don't like him anymore. Ye i did know that you could change class, i am actually planning on change out of priest altogether. Just dont know what to go to yet. Think druid (kind of nature priest) or paladin (since my priest was basically priest of berath played like judge dredd so bleak walker?). maybe monk (basically roleplaying my priest goes into seclusion, i do like the drug addict monk lore wise, could work on a my priest went insane and into drugs or something) - but i dont like monks so no. ye maybe just another priest like you mention. Maybe dual berath and one of these well except bleak walker Druid makes sense. Give up on the gods and go worship nature.

Shadow Dancer was a prestige class. Thanks to the skill cap you mentioned, it can be taken no sooner than level 6, making Hide in Plain Sight a level six ability. That's still broken, but not as broken as "level 1 ability" implies.

I really liked the combo abilities with party members from Tyranny.

Personally, I love 3.5. It's my favorite system, unbalance and all.

I play on fast. I turn to normal on boss battles and big arena fights. In the beta, normal feels like slow, so I'm playing on fast all the time, period. Much pausing ensues.