llafnwod

Huh! I don't think I've ever heard of someone soloing with a pally. What's your build?

Hey bud. I like Monks, because they're flashy and punching things is cool. I used Pallegina and Sagani all the time, because I think they're great characters. I'm not having any trouble having fun with PoE; this thread is for discussing mechanical choices the developers made that I didn't get. I use "geeky gamer terms" because most people who talk about RPG mechanics know 'em, and they make it easy to efficiently discuss character builds, which is what this thread is about. Thanks for your other reply, though! Monk: I'll have to try them this way. The main thing that kept me from using them as Rogue-supplements was that I had a bunch of casters doing just that, but I suppose having a quick guy up front dishing out status ailments would free them up for AoE murder. Pally: Yup. That's sort of my point. Picking between a tank that knocks things over twice per combat and one that provides slight passive buffs and hits things with a flaming sword twice per combat just isn't a very exciting choice. Ranger: It seemed like 90% of the time, the way I used Rangers was that the pet stays out of the way and knocks people over, and the Ranger snipes stragglers. My problem with them was that their ability pool seemed pretty situational, and their micro-to-benefit ratio generally wasn't to my liking. They might shine in a different party, though, so I'll keep trying. Casters: I know, and this is the way casters are in pretty much every cRPG. It's just that OEI did such a good job at giving the melee classes manifestly different playstyles, and giving Ciphers and Chanters unique casting mechanics, that the other casters just stuck out in their blandness. What I was going for was a way to make Druids and Priests fun and unique, in the way Barbarians and Ciphers are fun and unique.

Hi folks! Just finished a run of PoE (cipher main) and enjoyed the hell out of it, but a few classes have me confused as to why they exist and what roles they play. Lots of individual threads have been made along these lines, but most of them are a couple patches old at this point, so things may have changed. Note that this a feedback thread. I'm not looking to complain, but to be educated. If you've got a different view on a class and what it's good at, that's exactly what I'm here for. Here comes the wall of text: Monk Role: Melee DPS, fun attacks powered by Wounds. What's the point? Fighters are a more defensively-oriented class, and serve the classic tank role. Barbs can clear a room full of squishies by flexing. But Monks are basically melee DPS, a role the Rogue fills as well. Our choice seems to come down to...: 1) do more damage by taking hits 2) do more damage by weakening enemy ... which doesn't seem like much of a choice. Paladin Role: Melee support, buffs. What's the point? Most of what Paladins do, Priests do better. They don't matter much more than a Priest in a melee either (Flames of Devotion just doesn't cut it). Their auras are supposed to make them unique; if they had a greater radius and variety, they might be useful, but that'd still just make them Chanters. Ranger Role: Ranged DPS, melee interdiction with pets. What's the point? Rangers I almost get; there were points when things were getting too cramped for another melee guy to be useful that I was glad to have ranged DPS rather than another Rogue. But when that's *not* the case (i.e. most of the time), why use a ranger? Animal companions are a liability, immediately going down in a heavy melee, and rendering the Ranger almost useless. Their knockdown would make them decent bodyguards, but most of the Ranger bonuses come from attacking the same target as their pet. Priest/Driud Role: Spellcasters. What's the point? Priests and druids are both extremely useful classes, but I don't get what makes them different other than spell pools. Ciphers get casting points from auto-attacks, and chanters cast based on real passed time. But wizards, priests, and druids all have the same casting mechanic (uses/rest, /encounter at higher levels). What's the difference? 1) Wizards: Have a slightly larger spell pool, but cast from the limited selection in their grimoires. This is a rad mechanic and I totally approve. 2) Priests: Have Holy Radiance and Sacred Circle, neither of which have a huge effect. Have a roleplay element that (like the Paladin's) is totally irrelevant if they're not the main character. 3) Druids: Can spiritshift, which is currently useless. What hurts about this is that it doesn't seem like a tough thing to change. If the spiritshifted form scaled, like the Monk's unarmed attacks, and some of the Druid's abilities were locked to it, that'd immediately make them unique and interesting to play. Anyway, we're long out of beta and it's too late to make serious mechanical changes. But if any of you have advice on making these classes more interesting to play, I'd love to hear it!