Yenkaz

I'm confused as to the reason to use them as anything but crew members. I always run with NPC companions in POE, but why would I want a mixture of the worst of both (no interactiveness + no control over character creation)? Granted, I don't care that much since I didn't know much about them to begin with. They're on deck scrubbin' duty once their quest is over. Vela can order them around as scrubbin' XO.

Is this in response to me? I don't think it violates any rules, but isn't it allowed to reply with opinions critical of a poster constantly reposting the same, rebranded, negative spiral?

Yes, we get that you're very concerned since you're constantly making threads explaining so. This is, as the other threads, unsubstantiated and overly negative.

Fighter, Paladin, Monk, Barbarian, Rogue and Ranger. Characters whose main weapon is their actual weapon.

Having played the first game: No, and they're jerks about it.

Even for caster/wizard warrior, you have to consider: Would a high level cipher not excel just as well, if not better at the magic warrior gimmick? I wonder how good the high level warrior abilities are. They have to have something quite powerful up there to justify not multiclassing.

I really don't agree with this statement. People on this forum have a hard on for comparing Divinity Original Sin to Eternity, but I never saw any decent reviewer compare them in anything more than the most basic way. Statements like, "And Divinity Original Sin is another entry in this new resurgence of isometric tactical RPG's, like Baldur's Gate, and the newer crowdfunded titles Pillars of Eternity and Torment Tides of Numenera." That's about as far as any good writer took it. Real reviewers, review games based on that game. Not on what that game did or did not do, that some other game did or did not do differently. Obsidian put in full VO because they had the budget for it, they knew a large amount of their player base would like it, and they felt it would be a strong enough selling point to justify the cost. Don't kid yourself thinking there was any other reasons. Agreed, besides wouldn't Bioware have used full VO if they had had the budget?

Companions in POE already had way more interactions and dialogue than they did in BG2.

Don't have the beta but just looking at it makes me go 'meh'. I play a wizard to be versatile, losing two schools and being bad at everything but one thing is the exact opposite. I guess that just means that vanilla wizard is the best for me, but I can't really see any point to a single class wizard unless you cast the same thing over and over or if you want a special multiclass?

Well, just because you have emotions doesn't mean you have to blurt out the first thing that comes into your mind. You could have said you were disappointed perhaps. Calling them lazy is insulting. But to adress your point, my suggestion is that you calm down and play the actual game first before going all bananas about it. It could be just as bad as you imagine but it could also be a lot better. Make a fair judgement when you have the game in your hands. 250.000 for 4 portraits and some cosmetics are a insult to me aswell. Why? Josh already said "they have little to no banter", he said it not me you can check the stream if you need any further proof. And I have to say that the V.O. for the NPCs were bad to regular. You donated 250.000$ personally? Clearly you have money to burn. Seriously though, the amount of sour complaints on this forum before the game is even released is a bit much.

Agreed. I really think new DLC should make sense *after* the main game, otherwise they feel like an interruption. I WM2 you could've confronted some gods with your discoveries and the story still would've made sense. They could've had sove commentary on your pervious actions, but it would not have broken the story.

KOTOR2 is a good example of a game that suffered badly from a game with too much cut content made by Obsidian. I do not, however, think POE was one - I mainly know of one cut NPC and changes to some characters. It's kind of pointless to discuss now anyway. Without the released game on hand, how are we to know if there's a sense of cut content as with KOTOR2? I only think release day DLC with plots are malignant since, in this day of downloaded releases, they could have been included in the main release. Going by their description they are also of the WM 'and now for something completely different as the Watcher goes on an unrelated adventure!' variety

Funny way to spell "Konstanten". You misspelled Cosmo the Space Pig. As a rule of thumb, I try not to romance my bacon. How often do you fail?

Not buying the latter to its logical conclusion. Yes, they want to create revenue, but taken to its extreme you get the most malignant practices of EA and Ubisoft with day 1 DLC, "pay to excel" and paywalls. One of the reasons people stick with Obsidian is that they have held themselves to a higher... I don't want to say "moral standard", but that is what it boils down to. That all said, the fact that they're not day 1 DLC means that I'm not that upset. As you note, content (as in areas and story) largely stops before other facets of game development, so quick-release DLC do not mean that content in the game itself was cut short.

I'm not really sure Eora would go through an outright enlightenment. They already have less restrictions on heresy and there is already a pretty significant number of scholars that seem to use a tangible scientific method (though it is a tad... flawed, so was a lot of the early scientific revolution). Frankly I think they're just a working internal combustion engine away from an industrialization. However, that could take anywhere from 50 to 500 years depending on what amounts to luck. Anyway, in a fantasy universe, a culture doesn't really *have* follow the normal cultural changes which happened in reality. Say, instead of an enlightenment, a culture could turn into some sort of theocracy which declared machines holy instruments of the divine and only allowed priests to learn about and operate them. Likewise, steps in the real technological development could in theory be bypassed (electricity discovered and utilized before internal combustion engines by some sort of soul-powered technology).

To be honest I usually have *the team* consisting of either the full party limit or the limit-1 with a constantly rotating spot. I don't use anyone else than the core team much and sometimes refuse done members to avoid overcrowding.

If this spell doesn't teleport my Wizard to a small room where he can pick out a full bespoke set of summoned weapons and armour before teleporting back to the battlefield I will be very disappointed! In picturing a summoned armourie that opens up and hurls dozens of magical weapons on your enemies.

I'll be a single class wizard. I'll also keep Xoti a priest. All in all I really want to see the higher level casting abilities, and I want access to them faster. To me, wizards/priests/druids have enough abilities to cast damage spells, buffs, debuffs and heals that I don't see much reason to multiclass them. I'd rather do a cipher than a fighter/wizard. Meanwhile, I don't mind mixing up warriors for some fun. Edér as a Swashbuckler and Maia as a Scout are my plans. I haven't quite decided on the hybrid classes. Serafen as a cipher/barbarian would probably gain focus very effectively and boost his combat abilities, Pallegina as a pure Paladin would mean access to high level abilities, but I also really want to see some chanter stuff and she'd be a one stop passive buff monster...

Some of the classes are a little strange. Won't it cause some weirdness if Serafen might or might not have cipher powers? If Xoti might not be a priest? Some of these classes seem intrinsic to their character's... Well, characterization?

But for something to be "obviously worse" there have to be some common metric to compare classes against. But so far, everyone here has stated that such thing either doesn't exist (it's more than just damage output) or is not applicable (the priests priest and the rogues rogue). And this is the Internet. You can be very sure you will never reach a point where everyone agrees on something. It's very much a qualitative judgement rather than quantitative thing. If you can look at a character and not mention a *useful* addition they add to the party by the grace of their abilities, then that needs to be addressed. Balance between each class isn't so important, unless it's extreme skewed. If you can point to your cleric and go "they buff and heal my party which increases outcomes directly" or "my Herald does significantly less damage than my fighter/rogue, but they buff the entire party with passive AOEs and provide meatshield summons in difficult battles, so they're still really useful" - then there isn't a problem. If you you have a pure rogue and it isn't at the very least *situationally* more damaging than a fighter even if you do positioning and status debuffing well, and it has no other additions like the Herald, then the devs will notice players noticing that their characters are basically glass pea shooters, not that most players notice a specific DPS. This is role playing, and people want their characters able to fulfil a palpable role in combat.

The trouble with this obviously being that by making every single class mixable with any other class makes it near impossible to make unique mechanics for each mix. I do personally prefer a more pure class system with more flavourful subclasses. That all said, multiclassing in BG2 was pretty much just straight up leveling two distinct classes and then gluing them together...

> I’m a back beta tester what does that mean? I mean we play the backer beta and we all help test the game right? but I just mean I have access to backer beta and I don’t agree the comment he made about multclass a. It would be nice if you disagreed by actually facing the opposing arguments with some numbers, facts etc. The guy you disagreed with was just summarizing video by Nerd Commando which was quite in-depth review of the current state of the beta. So what are you precisely disagreeing with? or rather what argument would you bring to the table to face some facts that were shown in the video. I watched that thing in full and he actually show in game, as a fact, the things you disagree with... I would be delighted if you were right, Yosharian, and I also know from long experiencce that Nerd Commando has his own partuclalr slant on all things RPG, but nevertheless, what he deomostrated was concerning and I too would like to hear more detail. Don't we all? I mean, "most" here are fans of IE games, still covet them as the top rpg's and best written games of all time (debatable... VERY debatable). There are a few hardcore Jrpg fans but classic IE fanbase is the oveewhelming majority here. Everyone has their likes/dislikes which somehow taints their opinion or experience in one way or another. I really hope the writing part is nostalgia talking, I recently replayed BG2 and while SoA is *okay* (salvaged by a good villain and some good side quests and areas) the writing in ToB gets really toe-curling bad. The mixture of defensive spells and their counters (mostly breach), the inability of the UI to give much timely information and the underlying mechanics that weren't designed for a non-turnbased system and with silly balance issues (high AC is useless from mid-game)... They were awesome, they had elements worth importing, but they really wouldn't do too well if released today with modern graphics.

> I’m a back beta tester what does that mean? I mean we play the backer beta and we all help test the game right? but I just mean I have access to backer beta and I don’t agree the comment he made about multclass a. It would be nice if you disagreed by actually facing the opposing arguments with some numbers, facts etc. The guy you disagreed with was just summarizing video by Nerd Commando which was quite in-depth review of the current state of the beta. So what are you precisely disagreeing with? or rather what argument would you bring to the table to face some facts that were shown in the video. I watched that thing in full and he actually show in game, as a fact, the things you disagree with... I would be delighted if you were right, Yosharian, and I also know from long experiencce that Nerd Commando has his own partuclalr slant on all things RPG, but nevertheless, what he deomostrated was concerning and I too would like to hear more detail. As I explained my issue is I plan to play PotD and I need to know how far I should dip into this multi-class thing. I'm not an uber power player by any means, I am roleplayer that has come to enjoy playing on max difficulty in these games and am therefore mixing a bit of judicious min-maxing to expedite that. I don't want to find out mid-game that one or more of my builds sucks big time and have to restart. To put this another way, woth PoE's very traditional and single class approach I knew where I was from long experience with cRPGs. With this I feel completely at sea and riven by indecision, fear, uncertainlty and doubt. I'm getting conflicting messages and have no means to evaluate them since this is such a new system. The game isn't even released yet, how can you expect any lasting advice on builds to exist?

That Hearth Orlan seems to be making a slow transformation into a Wild one.

To answer the top question, not really. Is this really extremely critical? I get the sense that multiclassing *can* be used to make some overpoweringly potent combinations, if a lot of effort is put into them, while single classes are more surefire to do well, but not necessarily have some esoteric combination of skills that make them annihilation personified. Even then, as others have noted, min-maxers are more likely to pick harder difficulties where the forethought is actually needed. With the sheer number of classes, balancing every combination will be utterly impossible. As long as the single classes are individually balanced, so that a normal game is challenging, but manageable for the average player, while providing for the sense of a "role" for each member of the party without each needing to be precisely as dangerous. Meanwhile, more strategic builds can be, if not 100% required, then extremely helpful on the path of the dammed for the crazy people out there and more 'fun concept' multiclasses are unlikely to be that internally disruptive to the game. The worst outcome for a multiclass is that you become a slightly more gimped version of each class, but isn't that worth it if a player wants to become a muscle wizard who starts casting the all-purpose fist spell on the stupid faces of their enemies when they run out of other spells?