dam

As a matter of fact, wizards were vastly underpowered in Baldur's Gate 2, in comparison with : - themselves in BG1 (lower hp pools, resistances, and save rolls) - the Forgotten Realms lore (as in, the books) Read yourself some War of the Spider Queen trilogy and see how Pharaun Mizzrym, Gromph Baenre or Lord Dyrr are instrumental in major battles. And we're not talking only brute damage either, we're talking control, we're talking divination (if I remember correctly, Gromph is an especially skilled diviner), we're talking utility such as flying or leaping. Even wands were instruments of devastation in the books; wands, not rods or scepters, mere wands...

On topic, is it me or is might absolutely useless for a support/buff caster ? I mean, most effects give This or That inspiration, which has flat +5 to whatever attribute, and no scaling whatsoever with might.

Same problem also existed in POE1 with talents and items if I remember correctly. Steadfast (or was it the dragon's maw shield) granting immunity to fear vs fighter talent to have immunity to fear. Just means we'll have to plan accordingly.

The thing is, engagement is not a lock-on. It is merely a mechanic where, if one is considered engaged and tries to move away, they suffer an attack. Bit like attacks of opportunity really. Unless you're running an absolute powerhouse of a character with incredible might and perception, all you're threatening is to land a basic attack for 7-10 damage. If the situation were reversed and I as a player had to deal with this, I'd simple take the 10 damage and ignore the tank entirely. In order for your engagement to be threatening, you need to lower your tankiness. If you lower your tankiness, then again I as a player will simply nuke your character and then focus on the backline.

Does the wizard side bring anything of note other than Deleterious Alacrity of Motion ? Because if not, one might be better served using potions (or boots !) or speed...

I think wizard is a god in PoE I... Rogue is in the same spot, but I like wizard a bit more. Nevertheless, all games before PoE I hated wizards and played only fighters Really ? I could never play a fighter, waaaay too boring. The only game in which I voluntarily rolled fighters was Dragon Age Origins, because you could shield bash, shield slam and shield-whatever-else-it-was and it looked friggin' awesome.

Eeeeeewwwwww, absolutely hate this style. Guess there won't be pleasing everyone here -.-

I have full confidence Obsidian will be able to fine tune this. Indeed offensive spells are exceedingly lackluster at the current time, in part because of penetration (which is being rebalanced right now) and cast times. That's why (amongst other things) we have a beta. Things will work out in the end. Congrats on your thousandth post by the way.

Was your squirrel in BG1 or BG2 ? Was it named "squirrel" ? 'cause if it was, it's child's play to find the creature with NearInfinity, and confirm or debunk the rumour BG 1 Just an ordinary squirrel, you know, running around forests.... Aw, I recall BG 2 that moment you push that door on bridge with rogue stone... Do you mean that moment your live stream Let's Play ends abruptly to general laugther, or that moment you reload a quicksave because, let's face it, level 10 to confront the Rune was a bit optimistic ?

Just tested it. That is indeed a very sweet build. Not quite getting as high numbers as you, but still pretty sweet. The problem is indeed the frailty. Also, the martial aspect of the class makes the magic aspect laughable. I mean, it can crit almost every time with a weapon, but somehow the spells can't hit the broad side of a barn. You're over exaggerating, it was a rather small barn...

Further to the point, it makes as much sense to give a fighter an extra dual wield ability, as it does a rogue or a ranger. Yet, they do not have it available. There is, obviously, a middle ground to be found. In the end, we ought to wait and see what implementation we get, and what abilities it makes available. Only then will we be able to discuss facts as opposed to mere speculation, voodoo and mysticism. The current debate is devoid of base making it sterile, and, in my opinion, irrelevant at this point. I would offer we postpone further arguments and comments on the topic until we know what we are actually discussing. Right now, this is leading us nowhere.

Was your squirrel in BG1 or BG2 ? Was it named "squirrel" ? 'cause if it was, it's child's play to find the creature with NearInfinity, and confirm or debunk the rumour

Hmmm, I seem to recall different 2h weapons had different speeds in POE1 as a matter of fact ? I'm not quite sure, but it does ring a bell. Like, some were average, some were slow... Will double check during lunch.

Your reasoning is skewed towards what behaviour you would adopt. There is no empirical evidence supporting your claim, which leads us back to the topic of speculation. Furthermore and yet again, balance changes happen over the whole life cycle of a game, from alpha to post-release. You are working yourself up over mere speculation on an issue which will assuredly be tuned over the time. You need to enhance your calm.

Indeed the same situation existed in POE1. Example with Rogues : - Savage attack (general talent) - Reckless Assault (rogue class) The +20% damage from one suppressed the other, despite the fact that the 2 modals were in different action groups and could be activated at the same time. Not sure if intended or bug.

Either : 1/ the added penetration is deemed more powerful than mixed damage types or 2/ the weapons have different speeds (or are meant to) ? or 3/ possible oversight, possible future tuning

In my opinion you're over reacting. Lose your precious fighter-exclusive Aware ? Priests can bestow it as well, on the full party. Lose your precious fighter-exclusive better defenses ? Monks get some as well you know (and then some more, actually) If I read them correctly, in your own words, fighters are in a very good position right now thanks to these exclusives. It then follows that one should, to maximize their effectiveness (your words here), pick a fighter class ? Fighter coupled with whatever, but fighter nonetheless ? That may be too much of a pigeonhole to be left as is, which is why a change is required. That this change has a positive effect, and its ramifications and subsequent adjustments remain to be seen.

Thing is, RP-wise, you're going to do that for almost every weapon, the "aim more carefully" bit. And if every weapon offers the same modal, may as well remove them in the first place...

This is complete bull****. One can roleplay PotD just fine. No needs for efficient choice in character design. So PotD is easy when you don't understand the game mechanics and pick abilities wily nily? He's never said it was easy, he said it was fine (which is, by the way, a subjective statement). To be honest, you do seem to have a tendency for twisting others' words to whatever suits you at any given time, really...

That is assuming you're not getting dispelled or suppressed ! I seem to remember a spell or ability that can temporarily disable buffs on enemies. I would think it to be an absolute direct counter to your bunkering-up strategy

If this does happen, they can easily crank up the power of the discipline stat, or the active fighter abilities, to make single class fighters competitive. If the answer to avoiding the autopick of weapon focus is to remove it that sounds like a kick to the balls for Barbarians. That requires additional changes to the Fighter class which no one has said will occur. If it does get changed then that will need to be a further discussion. Active abilities are all limited by drawing on the same power pool. I find that as a multi-class I'm better served to focus and spend my fighter resource on keeping Disciplined Strikes up at all times and skip any use of knockdown and Into the Fray. Also additional power creep for Fighters is not necessarily the answer or a good thing in general. No place in the discussion ? I'm afraid you're very sorely mistaken. This thread is either your personal view of what things should be, and you have no wish to discuss them with anyone, just to get them out here. If that's the case, you should state so and let this thread die of natural causes when it slips from the front page. Or, it is an actual discussion, a debate, in which case it is not for you to set the terms of what are valid or acceptable points of view and arguments. That, my fellow backer, would be a very arrogant (and mistaken indeed) stance. POE1 was not, is not, and will not be balanced around PotD. POE2 is not, and very likely will not be balanced around PotD. Obsidian have made it clear on several occasions (including in the description for PotD ingame really) that this is a special mode intended for the more hardcore of us. PotD is the exception, not the rule. Neither do fighters and barbarians. There is no vanilla, out of the box penalty for using a weapon you're not proficient in. Those come from choices you've made at character level-up when choosing your skills. If you want an example of a character which does get an out-of-the-box disadvantage, refer Rogues. Rogues lose their passive (sneak attack) for attacking an unflanked, unafflicted target. Should sneak attacks be changed to always proc, that they not get a penalty ? Edit: rogue example Not sure how Rogues needing to backstab is relevant to a discussion on power creep caused by giving everyone Weapon Focus? Fighters who have graze on hit with proficient weapons lose that when they use something else. This is the penalty to which I am referring. Just because something was in PoE does not mean it needs to be in Deadfire. Arguing for inclusion based on past inclusion does not further the discussion on whether something should be in the game. You're using an example, I'm giving you another. You're saying fighters get a penalty in a very specific case, I'm giving you another penalty in another very specific case. If you dismiss the one as irrelevant, then the other is irrelevant as well. As for "just because it was in POE1 [...] does not further the discussion", as a matter of fact it does. If it was -and remained- in POE1, it was deemed sufficiently well implemented, balanced, and interesting. That gives said mechanic or feature an edge for inclusion in the new game. Besides, people need to make up their mind. Some are asking for "health/endurance" split back solely on the grounds that it was in POE1 and they've gotten used to it. And now here you are stating the exact opposite. As you can see, there never will be pleasing everyone, so some kind of middle ground will have to be found. Yeah no you are, in my opinion, mistaken here as well. Rooting Pain is a passive. Rooting Pain is hilarious when it procs all around you and interrupts every single enemy. Three times. Per second. Backstab is a passive. Backstab is hilarious when you crit that unaware priest for 130 pierce damage. And even more so when you get to repeat the process 2 more times during the fight, with Shadowing Beyond's upgrade. I thought it was clear that the reference to passives was in regards to the fighter passives for weapon styles and the defensive boosting passives. 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? Nope, I'm afraid that wasn't clear, at least not to me, sorry. You are working under the very misguided assumption that Obsidian wish to implement every single ability and passive as generally available. That is simply pure speculation at this point my friend, there is no supporting evidence. Now, I'm going to be a bit aggressive, I apologize in advance. You keep going on about fighter this, fighter that. Let's be honest here, this is all this is about. Fighter this, fighter that. There is no concern for any other class whatsoever, all you seem to care about are your precious fighters. This is not speculation, this is fact, you've written it yourself : "the reference to passives was in regards to the fighter passives" You're bitching like a crybaby for something that is not even implemented yet. You're bitching over the possibility that things might not turn out how you'd like. Perhaps you would better be served by "wait[ing] and see[ing]", as opposed to dismissing the possible change outright.

What gameplay option you've uncovered is bound to get boring and tedious very quickly though. It's like playing a sorcerer in NWN2, you'd have to re-buff every time you rested, which quickly became a terrible chore. Eagle's splendor, check Ghostly visage, check Stoneskin, check.. [...] [...] Permanent Haste, check Major Cheeseburger Banishment, check... Booooring...

+1 , had it occur yesterday evening.

Personally I've just been using empower with the rest bonus that causes it to graze so if I really need an effect it won't miss, otherwise I can't see what difference a small boost in powerlevel is really going to do. I don't know about you guys, but personally, I feel like Empower is more of a gimmick which was put in place so not every ability is per-encounter. Some kind of safeguard or fallback you have available should things go massively tlts up. Edit: idk, censorship decided a male anatomical part was inappropriate, for no clear reason.

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." That my friend would be the definition of closed-mindedness, not arrogance