Abel

My melee prietess fought with a bow in the backlines until lvl 6, although all her talents were melee oriented. Priests won't last in melee during the first levels. Lvl 1 they have a crappy accuracy and won't hit, they have a crappy deflection and will be hit a lot, and they have a crappy endurance and health, which means that they will die fast. Boeroer said it. You will need several level for them to be potent, unlike monks, fighters and such. But their "power curve" is steeper. This basically means: any priest you will try will be squishie at first. But depending on how you build them, they can become a machine later on. Be it melee 2 handers, Squishies spell casters which change the tide of any fight almost alone thanks to their spells, or versatile solution that can do everything everytime, like mine. Conclusion: with your priest, at first, don't go to melee. You have to be patient. Pick Eder and aloth, and durance, and kana fast. Use weapon + shield when you have them, or a bow. Start the prologue with a bow as soon as you find one. Switch to 2 handers lvl 6 (probably). If you use 2 handers, expect to be hit quite a lot, don't be surprised. You will need the boots shod in faith or items like that, or you will spend your time casting healing spells.

Probably because, like you said, unrealistic damage is a given for the simple reason that there would be no game otherwise. Some FPS do it quite properly actually. You're hit once, you're dead. But, i agreee with you that it would be no fun in a RPG with strategic combat. But the thing is... There is an acceptable way to me to limit the unbelievability of the healing part, and it's divine magic. My whole point is: "It's not because one thing is unbelievable in a RPG that it's fine to make everything else wacky". Granted that when i use "believable" and "unbelievable" i use the standpoint of the related fantasy universe, where magic do exists. I don't talk about "better mechanics", but about "mechanics that suit better my idea of a Roleplaying Game (RPG in short)". That's a whole lot different. As for the dispel vs suppress affliction. It's a matter of taste. It's the same thing as the healing. I like when i cast a dispel magic that "dispel" and not "postpone". like i like healing spells that "heal". There is no absolute reason to say my own preference is more legitimate. And in the case of Dispel vs Suppress affliction, it's even only a matter of taste. I have a better sense of satisfaction when i "dispel" a spell than when i "postpone" its effects, and i doubt i'm the only one in the world, which doesn't make my point of view any worse than another. There is nothing more to it. I will agree that even if it seems that the "grazes" thing is here more to limit the frustration of "oh, **** i missed 10 times in a row!", i quite like the idea. Sometimes you land a great hit, sometimes, you graze the tight of your opponent. I think this is one of the thing Pillars did better than BG. And indeed, it only makes sense that spells use the same mechanic too. I did not check the spell list. But i guess there is minoletta missile, the staff and 2 defensive spells. But maybe the fact there were actually more spells in BG adds to my feeling. Because if you look at it as a percentage, it's not this obvious. But it's still twice as much (4 vs 8 ). The problem is that i barely ever use any of the 4 in pillars. Since i can only have 4 spells in my grimoire, i use to have slicken, Chill Fog, Eldritch Aim and either Fan of Flames or the one with arrows that hobble (forgot the name). Once more, it may be that i play poorly. But in BG, at first, magic missile was lame and i tended not to use it at all until i leveled up 4 times: i did have the leisure to play with the others before they become outdated. I played BG for several tens of thousand of hours through more than 15 years. I can say that i have a deep feeling that i use way more AoE in Pillars. Like in way, way more. Actually, i barely have any single target spell in Aloth's grimoire. Either it's because i can't grasp the usefulness of some single target ones (like thrust of tattered veil), either because i can't use them wisely, or because there are really less of them. And if i have to speak about the tiny AoE spells, for some stupid reason, since there is an Aoe, i tend to try to hit more than just one target with them. I can't consider them other than pure AoE. You asks about the why. I answered this already. Because i feel it's more fun. Because it's more diversified. When i say that i really prefer the familiar you had in BG2 than the useless pets you can have in Pillars, i stated the reason. You're all about "effectiveness". "This is a more effective mechanic". "This sort of spell i never used in BG, so it's fine it's not in PoE", and so on. It's fine by me. But what i want you to understand is that it's not all about optimization. As an example, i spent countless time petting my familiar in BG2. It's useless. But i felt it was fun. I liked to take it into my bag when it was dangerous, and free him once in town, all through dialogue. I liked to use these useless divination spells, partly because after 80 playthroughs, i liked how they could limit the metagaming knowledge i had for my character. You ask why, you seek "objective" reasons. The only one i have is "i had way more fun with them". i could use this invisibility spell to sneak around these guys. I could see what this dark room was hidding with the eye of the magician, even though i already knew it thanks to my countless playthroughs. I used all these "useless" spells because there were different, be it for roleplay purpose or just for fun. At time i decided that this wizard will definitely use all the touch spells in one single combat... just because. Is there any need for a logical reason for anything? Is fun always dependent of mathematical recipes about "what is usefull or not" or "what has to be or not"? Is wanting to limit as much as possible the "wacky" mechanics while trying to roleplay a playthrough less legitimate than wanting the health to replenish easily? I said it in another thread, but while i barely went though half the game, i'm already at 200H in my playthrough. One of the reason is that i write the diary of my character in the notes, and i have a ****ing whole lot of fun doing so, since everything in the game, each detail become something whith somewhat a deep purpose. Her feelings, her fears, her hopes, what she plans to do, what she thinks about one character or one faction, or one city. There is moral questions, some religious questions. She will detail how she is terrified after she saw what happened to Maerwald. She will detail how Sagani got badly injured in this last fight. And... She will detail that Sagani is completely healed after just a nap beneath a damn tree! And pray Eothas or whoever for this unbelievable miracle! (grrr). This kind of thing really spoil my game and get on my nerves. I have a problem with this. Definitely. And i don't think that one's own preference is a weaker argument than another's. And one last thing "i'm not "against" PoE, like you suggest. As i said several times already, i agree that Pillars did some things better than BG. And i still don't understand why thinking that BG did some things better than PoE is an invalid argument since BG is older and it has to do with some so-called nostalgia. It's the same kind of thing than saying: "You feel this better only because it's new and trendy, are you a fashion victim?" If this disccussion is about "how should PoE 2 mechanics be designed in order to craft the best game possible?", then, i would say... There are times when balance of a game is not this important, unless it breaks it like in Fallout 2. Mathematical formulae are useful but should not take the first place before fun. And a RPG should still be a RPG. Reactivity and non linearity are means, not goals, like character sheets are a reference for the player, not something which only existence suffice to classify any game as a RPG. They are means to allow the player to craft his own story, his own adventure, and the deep identity of the character he plays. This is the purpose of a RolePlaying Game.

I guess that if you play in normal, optimization to this point is not necessary. I guess that these are better for you to choose depending of the roleplay you planned. Is your character a traveler? An exiled aristocrat? Or a wanderer who made the oath to preach his God's virtues all over the world? The game will react in dialogue to the background you chose. So, i guess that it may be better for you to choose them without worrying much about the bonuses, but more about your character's background. As for the stats... if it's a 2 hander build... Might, because might increases the base damage of your weapon by a pecentage. and 10% of 20 is way better than 10% of 10 (which is the base damage of a flail). Furthermore, priests have several powerful damaging spells, like the seals (sorts of traps) and spells like Shining beacon and Cleansing Flames. Might will boost these damages too, and make your Holy Radiance and healings more powerful. INT may be a good idea too, at an average level, in order to have good spell duration and better AoE. But i guess that 14 should be enough in most cases. I like dexterity, because a priest like this will have to hit in melee and find some time to cast some spells. DEX increases your action speed. And i like perception, too, because it allows you to improve your accuracy which is important for melee and damaging spells. CON is not the most important to me, once more because it's a bonus percentage, and because priests have low health. CON is better used with a high health class like barbarians. But i would not drop it. Resolve is important for intimidation in conversation, you would usually need 13/17 in most cases, and that incrases your deflection a bit too. I'm no good at min maxing. And i can't come up with optimal attributes. But if your character is a male, i would go with 18 MIG, 10 CON, 13 DEX, 12 PER, 14 INT, 11 RES. Or something along these lines. Boeroer should have better ideas though. EDIT: though, in conversation, where only your character can talk, PER, INT and RES are the most usefull. MIG, CONS and DEX are better used in scripted interactions. But in these interactions, any character can do the job, which is not the case in conversations.

Yep, i guess too. But i was careful because of his huge interest for roleplay. Probably that we all have our own roleplay tendencies. One of mine is that i won't rest just anywhere, which is why my party needs to completely clean a dungeon without resting. And in this case, the number of camping supplies you have is irrelevant. But if this kind of thing is of no concern for his own way to consider roleplay in Pillars, then, maybe he would be better off specializing in 2 handers and start off with a shield until he get sturdy enough to handle Tidefall.

If health depletation is the problem (which it shouldn't be until later in the game, unless you are playing solo), the Wound Binding talent is affected by MIG, INT and Healing Received multipliers, so you can completely refill your health with it. Still, it is not a talent that I would advice taking until at least level 8, because earlier you just can't self-heal yourself to the point of running out of health most of the time. And on shields, while they may be useful it still makes sense to specialize in two-handers depending on your playstyle, since dead people are generally worse at killing you. Plus, you can have a shield+mace on your secondary weapon set. LOL! It's right, dead people are pretty lame killers :D. Still i never tried a 2 handers priest. Considering their starting deflection and low health, i figured since the start that i should use a shield. But my inexperience in this matter is the reason why i will trust you when you say that he can fare well without his health depleting too fast. After all it's true that dead thugs are not much of a threat I did not know about the INT and MIGHT and healing multipliers applying to Wound Binding. I guess it's the same with Field Triage. It's a really good thing to know. Thanks for the tip.

How about a Pale Elf Priest of Berath with a greatsword, going with the Pale Knight theme? The favored and disfavored dispositions tend to not be very restraining, the lore is very cool, and there are many cool greatswords, like Tidefall, which drains health from your foes. Invest into Survival for the bonus healing received so you aren't so squishy, take the Inspiring and Agrandizing(sp?) Radiance Talents (as they stack with everything), as well as The Pallid Hand to compensate your lacking base stats and invest into MIG, INT and either PER, RES or DEX, never dumping any stat below 8 (except maybe RES, because you have a spell that increases Concentration and lots of healing). For armors, anything between a breastplate and full plate can suit you, depending on your stats and playstyle. I like the idea of the Pale knight. 2 handers is certainly better for damages. And all what explains Boeroer seems to make sense. He's a real good specialist about many things in the game (way more than me). The only thing is that while it's true the survivability of the priest is good using Boeroer's tips, i guess that, probably, it's hard to clean a 3 lvl dungeon without resting, because the health pool will tend to be depleted before the end (priests have low health and endurance). But i guess it's no problem if you don't mind your party resting once in a while. Otherwise, i guess that the shield is stil the best.

LOL. I laughed.

You want me to be really specific, hu? I just did not want to write a novella. Writting english is a bit time consuming for me, and a novella like this is probably boring to read anyway. But let's say this post is just for you. I guess the first cRPG i played was Fallout 1. This great game featured a dark post apocalyptic universe. Because of the music, the graphics, the lore and all these things, it felt creepy and enthralling. Afterwards i played Fallout 2, BG1 and 2, and the best cRPG ever to me, Planescape Torment. Why do i say that? Probably because all these cRPGs had several things in common. The fact that the character would be stabbed, burned and so, without suffering much downsides aside from death when health reached 0. And the fact, too, that most of the other gameplay mechanics, in my opinion, set the stage for the immersion (at least, way more than Pillars, though you will certainly find some excellent reason why it's not a problem to start the game with the stash, which is fine by me). Actually, i was a bit uneasy since the start with this "be stabbed and not bother much about it" thing. But probably, i'm used to it by now, and it became "acceptable". Though, i would like to see a system where there is consequences to injuries. I wonder if there is a way to craft a system that could reinforce immersion based on this, without it being a total hindrance. There is a Skyrim mod called Frostfall that could actuallly integrate some "hindering" mechanics in the game, but that made it really more immersion friendly without it being a chore... It was a great success, and one of the only reason why Skyrim can become interesting with something like 60 mods installed. And it never occured to me to play New Vegas without the hardcore mod, which was nothing more than obvious basic feeatures to me. One of the basic thing needed to have fun. it was not in Fallout 1 and 2, but maybe beause New Vegas was 1st person 3D, using it only made sense since the way to immerse oneself in the game is not the same. It's not to prompt a debate, it's my own personal way to look at it. But considering healing, it's quite the same idea as what Frostfall did. I had examples in the past (as i said) that told me that cheesy mechanics like "take a nap, you will recover your cut limb" are unecessary to me, because a system like the one in BG was not an hindrance to me. Please, understand that while YOU felt like managing healing spells in BG was a bother, all people don't feel the same way. I beg you not to be this categoric You felt it was a bother. Not me. You basically say "since there is already the fact that you can be stabbed without much hindrance in IE games, then why bother when Pillars adds some more mechanics in the same trend?" Which is why i brought this ridicule example about the film and the prop. Believe it or not, it makes sense to me. And maybe we will have the luck to have a PoE 3 crafted with the same convenient mechanics as the overly praised Fallout 4, or Dragon Age 2. \o/. It is a slippery steep to me. The reason why i prefer "Dispel Magic" to "Suppress Affliction" is easy to understand. I suppose at least. Suppress Affliction just delay the application of afflictions for 5 seconds or so, and it's automatic. Dispel magic needed to roll against active spell effects to dispel them, if i remember correctly. This would not be efficient all the time, but once it is, the effect is properly dispeled. That is why. I can't be more specific than that. As for chromatic orb, it's true that slicken was a bad comparison. I should have compared slicken to grease, obviously. But the reason i used this bad comparison is because these two spells are polar opposites. Browse once again lvl 1 BG spells. There are more than one or two single target CC or damaging spell. I don't know the english name for all of them, but i guess you will see for yourself. Pillars do some things right. As an example, a spell like slicken depends on the wizard accuracy, which is not lame just because he is a wizard. While, in BG, most first lvl spell became lame in BG2. like the "touch" spells.... which need to roll in melee... with a TAC0 lame enough to miss a gobelin. Chromatic Orb was a very fun spell. There was the damage part, and the sub effect part, which changed with level. But the bad part was it was lame in BG2 nonetheless, because of the +6 to save throw for the target. In Pillars, accuracy evolve, and lvl 1 spells will probably never be this useless. But my point was not there. My point was... when i first played Pillars, i felt like these very limited in time effects were not even worth the chore to cast the spell. When you're used to effects in BG or IWD lasting for 1 minute, the first level Arkemyr spell feel... useless. And you need experience to learn it's actually useful. In the end, it's the same as Grom said. I felt my wizard was a lame dumb****. But i understand why low level AoE spells had to have lower durations than spells in BG. It's a question of balancing the game. My point was not I LOVE single target spells and i HATE AoE spells. This was not it. I just thought, that for balacing reasons, if i want a lvl 1 spell that lasts for 1 minute... i can't have it be an AoE spell. This would be way too powerful. And i throwed the idea that maybe it was because they chose to design many AoE spells in Pillars that i have not my 1st lvl spell lasting 1 minute (i did not check all spells durations in BG. It's just a rough number, don't go and tell me "actually it's 50 or 30 sec" please. You should have the gist of what i say, and it's enough). Hum... Am i clear? I'm not even sure. And in the end, i concluded saying "maybe, if there have been more one target spells in Pillars, i could have the same kind of sense than in Baldur's Gate, which was a sense i prefered." And probably that switching from single target to AoE more often in Pillars would not be a bad thing for me. I tend to use too much AoE in my own taste. It lacks variation, and some pinpoint strategy sometimes. But maybe it's just that i play poorly. And by the way, i spoke about priests spells too, not only wizards'. Which is one reason why i miss the self buff priests spells and the protection/anti magic battles between wizards. There are some things you could do with magic in BG that you can't in Pillars. And these are things i liked quite a lot actually: the summon familiar spell was cool. You "pet" had some purpose at least. There were divinations spells, to explore areas, and to explore people hearts. There were all the "stacking" spells too, which allowed you to cast 2 or 3 of them at the same time once prepared. There were the self transformation spells, the spell to unlock things, and so on. This too, added some variations in the wizards' gameplay that Pillars lacks imho. Baldur's Gate, Fallout 1, or Planescape Torment had their own flaws. There are still things i don't like about them. The uselesness of low lvl spells in BG2 is one of them. The lack of pieces of equipement and character classes is one in Planescape. The balancing issues that made the game trivial in Fallout 1 and 2 is another one thing i really dislike. Pillars do some things better than BG. But is saying that BG did some things better than Pillars (at least to me and to some others) is just bland nostalgia? Isn't saying this just an easy way to just dismiss whatever people taking BG as a comparison point say? It looks like it sometimes. I don't know if i answered everything, but i tried my best. If you bring once more the same things saying you don't see the point, i'm afraid i will have to let things here. I don't see how i could explain it better and how i can be more specific than that. If you don't see my point, maybe it's just because your way of thinking is the exact opposite of mine. And as such, it's probably normal for you to fail to see my point. No hard feelings, of course.

​I'd have to play it to get a feel for it, I guess. I often tend to think that fixed pools of resources you have to manage over a long time (a whole dungeon, say) leads to more fun play than being able to recharge resources after each fight. ​ ​For example, some of the WM areas did not permit resting or leaving the area. You had to make it through on a fixed amount of health and spells, which I found more fun than the areas where resting was allowed. (So like Abel was talking about above, I sometimes also played that way even when it wasn't enforced). Endurance would recharge after fights, except when you got low on health, your max endurance started to decline too, so there was some coupling between them. ​ ​ Glad you see my point lol. I think, too, that it's more fun that way. But i did not even knew that there were such areas where you could not rest or go back in WM... Well, it's no difference for me lol. When one character is low on health and only has 30% endurance left and you still have the last big fight to beat... it's pretty tense. In such occasions, i would have liked to use a few of my remaining priests spells to heal some health. This need to manage your pool of health and spells very carefully all along the dungeon crawl. And thus, this means that even "trash encounters" like people say, have a huge impact on the gameplay. I never found any encounter to be trash actually. All of them had a huge importance to me.

Well, i articulated them quite well, in my own opinion, granted that english is not my first language. The fact that it can't be understood by some people is another matter. Whether it is because they have a complete opposite way of thinking (which is fine by me), or because they would just try to ridicule what i explain using worn out and warped arguments. Your example is like if i said "hey, why is there a washing machine in this scene of this historic reconstitution of the 100 years war?" And then you would answer me: "Why bother? It's a film, this castle don't even exists! it's some cardboards!" It's not even a big exaggeration lol. This is how i see it, at least, even if it wasn't your intent. In short, while a game needs mechanics, what i don't like is when mechanics takes the upper hand. When you see a play, you see the stage props. But all of them are done in order to set the stage of some drama. They are not fancy things that would break the whole stage. I can't tell if i'm clear though. other points: i misread you, i thought all were useless spells :D. Actually i quite liked minor drain, even in BG2. was some fun. But not very usefull, you're right. I kind of miss all the magic protection/antimagic spells, too. I loved the magic battles between wizards. But it was really hard to grasp all this crap. Would need a simpler system. I used a lot of healing spells and healing potions in BG. I said it just before. But it's true i barely ever used them in combat. Don't know if the need of a priest in a party is a good or bad thing. Maybe some kind of mutliclassing options would limit the problem. But it's pretty rare in RPGs. EDIT: i just browsed a bit in BG wizards and priests spells, and i found plenty more single targeted one. Anyway, my point was that BG allowed both options: AoE and single target. I never spoke of "many many".

This. Consider i think the exact opposite. Gameplay mechanics taking the upper hand everywhere in a RPG. I have a huge problem with this since... ever The spells you list... are ones i used a lot in BG . But i would agree that fireball was really convenient :D

Actually, i can't remember the last time i used an healing spell in Pillars. Not in the last 100 hours of my current playthrough, at least. It's because of my own playstyle. Just an example so that you understand why. I play on hard. Now, imagine i go, at lvl 9, in Durgan's Battery, and that for some roleplay reasons i refuse to sleep and camp inside the Battery, and that i won't go back to town before the dungeon is cleaned either. For the same kind of reason. In short, that means i will have to clean all 3 lvl of the dungeon without any rest. I barely ever use camping supllies, aside from roleplay reasons: "Oh, it's night, we don't see anything in this forest". Now, imagine that one of my character lose enough health to be knocked out. Basically, that means that he won't last until the end. And now, to the point. Actually, if i HAVE to use healing spells (for endurance) in combat, this means i lost. Because i have to endure the whole dungeon without resting, i have to get over every fight before any of my party member lose too much endurance. And the obvious consequence: i never use healing spells or healing potions. And barely use second wind. As for the AoE. I will agree that it's convenient, and that the system avoid the spam. I agree about the encounters too, where you often see large groups of the same kind of creature. And i will even agree about the fact that considering all this, the AoE thing could make sense. Still, even while comparing "dispel magic" in BG and "suppress affliction" in Pillars, for some reason, i feel that one is fulfilling, the other is frustrating. I much prefer "liberating exhortation. And i love the secondary effects of first level spell "chromatic orb", even if it's not as convenient or powerful as "slicken".

I guess that probably you missed both points here. I can't be totally sure about what meant Grom. But if he dislikes healing spells, it's maybe because of the same reasons as me: The thing i would have liked is a system like in Baldur's Gate (not because of nostalgia, spare me this, please). Since resting could only cure between 1 and 4 hp, having a priest or two and healing spells (and healing potions) meant a lot. You could not restore all you life, cure broken limbs, impalements or other lethal injuries just by taking a nap in the forest (dumbest thing ever). because your "immediate health" (endurance) is healed completely at the end of combat, because of this utterly dumb "combat only" thing, because healing spells don't actually heal anything, and because any rest will cure all your party completely, healing spells are... well, utter dumb ****. I hate this. I used to have 2 priests in my parties in Baldur's Gate so that i could venture in a dungeon without resting. My priests were my "long term health pool". And i loved them. My favorite class... in BG at least. As for the wizards. I don't think the point is about being powerful or not. It's about feeling a sense of purpose when you cast a spell. As said, incanting to daze 10 ennemies with an AoE spell for 3 seconds looks lame at first, and lacks purpose (and needs experience to understand it's actually useful). But, like in BG, paralyzing 1 and only 1 foe for 40 seconds sounded more satisfying. Because you knew why you targeted this one foe in particular and the purpose behind it. And while the mass 3 sec daze could be powerful if you take the fight in its globality, the sense of purpose is at best, vague. And it's probably because they made mostly AoE spells. That struck me the first time i played. I was like "Why? Why is that?" I never liked this. Since they are AoE, they had to limit the power and duration of the effects. With more single target buffs, debuffs and spells, the story is different. We swiched from varied strategy (CC and individuals) to global strategy (short durations, mass effects). Sometimes, i would like more pinpoint alternatives.

I confirm that i saw the exact same thing with the flail Starcaller. Hit, crit, or graze on the roll vs fortitude will always proc a 3 sec stun effect. I was not sure if it was a bug though.

Yeah, that is what i thought. I'm playing 3.03 since i while. I did not become nuts lol. But reading about this bug about NPC turning hostile reminds me of a huge problem NWN2 had... Faction problems on persistant servers implying the exact same thing: player characters bloodily slaughtered several times during Roleplay events that was supposed to be some kind of garden party . NPC would turn hostile at random for no particular reason.

Check the spell description. Some damaging spells do not interrupt. Some non damaging spells do. Oh, thanks. I will be more careful. I tend to consider some rules iron rules. But i guess there are not so many of them

Tanglefoot is not a damaging spell. Did not know this kind of spell could interrupt too. Though, sometimes, i'm surprised. The apprentice nature's mark i gave to Sagani seems to interrupt foes. But it's not a damaging ability either.

Aha! like this post for some reason. Actually turn undeads exists. It's the one/encounter spell: Holy radiance. It's basically a turn undead that heals teamates. That will do huge damages on every vessel in the AoE (skeletons, guls, wichts, zombies, constructs and such are vessels). I understood this quite recently actually . It's really a turn undead, and it will automatically proc several times in a row once the spell is cast. And the good thing is once it's cast, your priest can do something else while the vessels continue to take damages. As for Defiance Bay, i'm not sure to understand the problem. I don't think it's more complicated than Baldur's Gate or Atkhatla. But if you're struggling with the quests there, try using the wiki or some sites like gamepressure (though their "walkthrough" is really weak for not hinting many possible outcomes of many quests. The wiki at gamepedia is better, but not complete). Agree about the magic system. I would rather more "one target spells", but with more impact. At first, i had the exact same feeling than you. It took me some time to figure out that 6 seconds in Pillars is actually much more important than in Baldur's Gate. But it's true that the simple idea of incanting a spell in order to have a chance to daze 4 opponents for 3 seconds seems pretty lame at first lol. Many spells have areas of effect, and it's not something i like this much. This defeats some purpose of strategy to me. Like "i have this one powerful spell that can petrify one opponent for 50 seconds, but i only got one in my spell book. Which opponent is worth to use it?" And it's the same for priests. They lack self buffs. It's the same idea that the paladin's exhortation that can only profit to allies, not themselves. I would like more egotist options for them. Almost all spells being Aoe spells seems too systematic. More powerful, one targeted ones would add some interesting variations to the all-AoE thing. And would make the battle priest more reliable.

I don't expect it before 2018 either. For all the reasons that were given in this thread. And i may say bull****, but i have the vague idea that they have to do something about the engine, too. They said that while crafting pillars, they had to learn about unity. I think that, maybe, many bugs that have poisoned Pillars of Eternity 1 are somehow the result of this. Pillars 1 is extremely complex. With all the effects, bonuses, rules about stacking, suppressing and so on... It's a mess. I'm surprised that there are no more bugs as of today. But at the same time, maybe reworking some parts of the engine they made with Unity could help making things smoother with Pillars 2, now that developing Pillars 1 gave them some more clues about how to do things with Unity. And i don't think this is something to rush. This would spare a lot of work later on. But i'm not a programmer, and maybe i just say nonsenses.

Ok, good luck then

Useful, i don't know. It's not this often that i'm struck by cold spells or fire. But since i wear a breastplate which is weak against fire and cold... it helps me having balanced damage resistance in every damage type (currently around 16 with exceptional breastplate. It's because i have bilestompers boots that give corrode resistance, and because i shock proofed the armor). But i like passive bonuses like this because they are reliable. Much better in my own taste that bonuses like "when conditions X and Y are completed, then you get bonus Z". Matter of taste. Concerning skills... well she is a priest, and an aristocrat, and according to the backstory i wrote for her it only made sense that i focus on the lore, like i focus Sagani on survival. lvl 10, she has 10 lore, 3 stealth, 4 athletics, 6 survival (well, because white that wends) and 0 mechanics i guess. This allows her to cast average level mage or druid spells with scrolls. Fireball scrolls are not this expensive to craft and it adds to her versatility. But once again, Pallegina, Eder and Aloth have priest scrolls in their quick slots (the prayers against all afflictions), in order to not be in a pinch if my priestess is incapacitated in combat by some status effect like paralyzed.

The first thing i chose was the roleplay aspect of my character (backstory, which i wanted linked to Eothas. I scribbled her story on a paper beforehand, and then started writting her diary in the journal in game (in the notes). And it's starting to be quite long ), and after that i wanted to play a classical warrior/priest in Baldur's gate style. I spent many hours brainstorming about my build and items in order to make it enjoyable and efficient. I read these forums, but i built it myself. Though it's not optimal attribute wise (not min/max in the slightest) I will recognize that it's not always easy to play in combat. Actually because you have many options, and at the end of the combat, i use to think "hum... i did not have the time to do everything i wanted". That's pretty much part of the fun actually. I have many solutions for each problem, and many ways to handle encounters. If you feel at ease with a monk, play a monk. I know i never liked monks. And in Pillars, i don't like the idea to play a masochist ^^. I can't imagine my pale elf scarring herself with a knife for whatever reason.

Pale Elf, female, aristocrat, White that Wends.

That's exactly why i did this

It's normal, even more at the start of the game. Priests become powerful in a group. That's why i suggested you to take weapon + shield + weapon/shield style If you are to do a melee priest, since in this case, you definitely need the deflection of a good shield. Or you won't survive unless you have a group with you to take care of the foes that come after you. If you prefer the squishie type with a bow of priest, then you will have to gather a group as soon as possible, like said Climhazzard. It seems that the IA use to focus the character of your party that has the less Health/endurance/Damage Resistance/ Deflection. Which means that if you don't want a squishie to be targeted, then make him tanky . And yeah, the temple of Eothas is really, really hard. Don't go alone. In hard, i struggled in it with Eder, Aloth, Durance, and my PC as a lvl 3 party. EDIT: more precision, i'll tell about my own experience. My melee priest was actually fighting with a bow until lvl 4/5, because she was not sturdy enough before this point. But at level 6, while fighting the giant drake Cail the silent, after she cast several spells, she tanked the giant drake with Eder in melee, and survived. That's it. I gradually took melee oriented talents at level up and she became more and more potent as time passed. Monks are great since the start. But they are great in their own thing. They won't ever be able to do anything else than their own thing: give punches. In the end, once more, it's a matter of choice and play style.