pi2repsion

The max INT, DEX, MIG, high PER, dump CON & RES singleclass Wizard (race/culture chosen to taste, but ideally boosting INT, DEX, or MIG) with focus on damage spells and equipped and specced solely to support blasting was an exceptionally good nuker in POE1, though one that as a glass cannon required the player be on the ball with good use of positioning and a few defensive spells to survive. I'm holding off on getting deep into Deadfire until the first patch or two so I cannot vouch for it performing throughout POE2, but I'd be deeply surprised if it didn't work well here too, especially when hyperspecializing it as an Evoker. (Giving up two spell schools, even ones as good as Transmutation and Conjuration, is not a big loss when you are supposed to be blasting with every spell except a few enchants for survival) The only real question is whether PER is now so important that it should instead be "high INT, DEX, MIG, PER" rather than maxing the other three and whether going for a modest 6 CON instead of 3 is so huge a QOL upgrade it makes up for costing MIG, INT, DEX. These things of course needs testing before making it an official (and obvious) build.

Single class get to use low-tier abilities at low levels, access to mid-tier abilities at mid character levels and high-tier abilities at high character levels. And while multiclass may start with more, they get more abilities as they progress in levels than multiclass so they end up with a bit more. In the end their abilities operate at power level 9 - 10 with if they pick Prestige - before other modifiers. Multi class get to use low-tier abilities for most of the game and mid-tier abilities at high character levels. They reach power level 7. So, no, single class has not been nerfed. Nor is it in a bad position compared to multiclassing in general. There are a few - a very few - multiclass combinations (using specific subclasses) that are very powerful due to combinations of passives and active skills from two classes and subclasses that are very, very, strong (and might be subject to balancing ), and there are some that are competitive with single classing, and certainly the element of fun in multiclassing two classes that don't work that well together but play differently shouldn't be ignored as an option, but in general single class is considerably more powerful than multi classing at medium and high levels due to the way the system is designed. The advice at the start of the game to go with single classes as a new player is good. So many traps avoided.

Thormind - the point with Troubadour is one that is well worth remembering with all multiclassing: having two classes may give you more options, but it doesn't affect how many actions you can take in the same time. This is one of the things that makes 2xMartial multiclassing very powerful in this game: passive abilities from one class that work well with passives or actives from another, while something that requires the use of active abilities from both classes has a much harder time being competitive with a single class. And most of the martial classes have some very good passive abilities. (There are also some really good active ability martial class combos, but in general passives are where it is at.) Troubadour gives you the best of both worlds. A Chanter's phrases apply no matter what else you are doing. Attack, cast a spell or use an ability from the other class, you are still benefiting from the buffs, debuffs, or damage applied by the phrases at all times. And Troubadour makes this even better by extending the lingering time significantly. Just like in POE1 a Chanter can be played either with a focus on his phrases or his invocations - usually as a mix of both. But the multiclass chanter is simply ideal for a focus on phrases via Troubadour with invocations thrown in as necessary. Even better, with the other part of the class providing an alternate source to use the other class' abilities, the Troubadour requiring more phrases to use an incantation matters a lot less for the multiclass than for the single class Troubadour. And for when you DO want invocations swiftly rather than relying mainly on your phrases and the other side of your multiclass and are willing to give up the linger effect for the short duration you need this, you have the Brisk Recitation modal available, which makes you swifter than anything but a Skald on crit steroids. The Chanter/Troubadour and the Paladin/anything are the best general-purpose multiclass options in the game by far. Others may make better specific combos, but these work well with everything.

Most popular: Two classes with with good passive abilities that support each other or get an extremely powerful active abilities as part of a subclass, i.e. available throughout the game. In other words: 2xMartial. Next most populst: One class with with good passive abilities and one class that benefits from it, while having active abilities that can improve the performance of the first class but doesn't bring anything powerful passively: In other words Martial+Caster. Least popular: Two classes without good passive abilities, whose active abilities provide few synergies. In other words: 2xCaster. Or perhaps I'm thinking powerful here, not popular, though the two are often the same when considering a large group of players. Fortunately Chanter and Paladin are so generically good with strong passives buffs (and for Chanter, debuffs and damage via phrases), that they combo well with everything including Casters.

As a general rule, Paladins like having high INT for their buffs for AOE purposes and Chanters love having max INT for their buffs and debuffs for both duration and AOE purposes, so you should go max INT on a Herald unless for roleplaying purposes. (You might even want to choose Godlike or Old Vailia to boost it even further for that purpose.) CON is (sadly enough) usually safe enough to use as a dump stat also on front line characters if they have superior defenses, and a paladin certainly does, and with the chanter subclass you'll end up with even better defenses. Dumping it to 3 would be taking it too far, but 6-7 should be no problem. As for subclasses, Paladin/Chanter is already a really strong combination as a tank if you want it to be, probably only beaten by a Paladin/Fighter(unbowed) supported by another party member that is the Chanter, but subclasses makes it even more powerful. Beckoner is tempting, but the greatest power of Beckoner comes with the high level summons that you will not get as a multiclass. Furthermore, since you'll be behind the power curve as a multiclass, for most of the game you'll be using the low tier summons. Getting double amounts, but smaller and of lesser duration, will still be useful in fielding bodies on the field and is definitely better than a non-subclass Chanter, but it is a hard sell given the subclasses that compete for attention. Skald is great for a more offensive herald that focuses on crits and offensive invocations. Since you want to play the herald more as tank, this otherwise powerful combination is not for you. Troubadour is where it is at. Longer linger allows better stacking of buffs and debuffs from phrases at the cost of requiring an extra phrase to invoke - which multiclasses perfectly with just about everything so long as one focuses on using that active abilities on the other class with only occasional invocations thrown in. And if in need of swift invocations, the modal ability allows that at the price of eliminating lingering while active. So for a tanky Herald go Paladin(Shieldbearer of St. Elga or Kind Wayfarer)/Chanter(Troubadour). Max INT is non-negotiable unless for roleplaying reasons, and both benefit really well from max STR as well if you are going to have them healing or doing damage with abilities while tanking (which you almost certainly will). Other stats distributed as you see fit - all of them are nice to have (in particular, if you are going to be using more offensive phrases and invocations you might want to focus on perception, if not, not), but none of them are as important as these two since between Paladin and Chanter you are practically guaranteed sky-high defenses regardless of which other stats you choose.

That looks like a fun combo. You gain access to a nice mix of damage spells (Evoker), buffs (Avatar, Crowns of the Faithful), healing (Eothas spells), and summons (Priest). The cast times would be long, but you could combine Avatar (might, perception, intellect buff) and Meteor Shower and/or high pen spells. As a backup, you could reinforce the party with the Eothas defensive spells and summons. How exactly would you gain access to power level 8 and 9 spells as multiclass, Nixl? No Meteor Shower or Crowns for the Faithful for you as far as I can see. In addition you'd only have access to lowlevel spells of both classes for the majority of the campaign. As for the minor Avatar, a 7th power level spell, it only becomes available to you at character level 19. Perhaps the Priest/Wizard(evoker) is a useful multiclass, but if it is it won't be because of highlevel spells,

Even in fantasy I do prefer ships to look seaworthy and we've got a thousand years of experience designing ships that are capable of traversing the oceans, and some two thousand more of sailing near the shorelines in ships made of wood, learning about which shapes are seaworthy and which are not. And the OP has got a point in that respect. Ignoring aesthetics or whether one would prefer a sloop or a cog, making the ship a curious hybrid that appears to ignore hard-won experience in ship design is a curious choice given that the backstory has nations with long maritime traditions. Unless there's a deliberate story point to it, so to speak. I mean, it could be that the backstory is something along the lines of: The Steward procured the last ship designed by the famous shipwright B.S. Johnson at a remarkable discount. Allegations that he was killed by previous customers due to his ships being neither swift nor safe are clearly nothing but slander spread by jealous competitors. And I'd love that. If nothing else, then for the homage to Terry Pratchett. But barring that, I'd guess this is a bit of an oversight and whether anything can change or not depends on how much effort has already been put into the graphics for this ship.

No, there is no way to roleplay a completely average Joe without ending your story in a tavern. But an average Joe seldom ends up with recurring mystical nightmares and the ability to read and speak to souls, something that might unhinge even the best of us slightly or drive us to investigate what is going on. As I stated in my blob of text, whatever you choose you need to create a personality that is fine with "mass murder/killing or people, animals, other threats, and anything that even looks like it might be a treat on a regular basis because they happen to be in the way and have a red circle, which is either insane or a survival trait depending on how you look at it". But that doesn't need to be because the person like it - it might be out of necessity. You will note that it is entirely possible to turn down a lot of quest opportunities in Pillars and that, indeed, the game is not balanced around your character being the result of a compulsive completionist player. You don't need to help Calisca's sister. You don't need to help the blacksmith. And as for Raedric and his little keep - if you don't care or think it too dangerous, why not leave that situation alone? There's tons of completely optional content you can ignore if you choose to roleplay somebody who wants to resolve the central mystery for his own sake but wants as few risks as possible otherwise. So if you want to play the Joe, who would be average if not for that whole soul-thing ruining it, but is willing to take what steps are necessary to save himself, you can do it. Joe won't experience as much of the content as Othar, Gentleman Adventurer, would but then perhaps another character with a different personality will on his playthrough. Generally, if you are not used to actually role playing your characters, I'd suggest you choose a character who is somewhat in-between. Somebody who is likely to accept most quests/tasks offered but not all. Somebody who is willing to do most things to get ahead but who has limits. As the joke goes, "even evil has standards". Not that I'm recommending you play evil (beyond the I am innocent of the indiscriminately slaughter of everybody with a red circle, because the red circle made me do it issue anyway...) If you are a completionist by nature and want to play that way, don't make your character's personality that of an average Joe, but that of a person who is also a completionist by nature. :D

First, OP, I understand you completely. I am you in this respect, or rather, I was so 30 years back. Even 20 years ago I was so at times. Because mathematics and mechanical optimization is easy and I always fall back on it when I don't think about what I'm doing. The obvious way to fix this is to start role playing, which I admit is a rather radical approach to take in a game belonging to a category that while known as roleplaying games is to a large degree populated by players who prefer optimizing stats to role playing, which is why the wise designer caters to both tastes, but it is an option. This isn't as easy as it might sound, but it can be an immensely rewarding experience to feel that you are acting as the person would and reaping the consequences for good and ill thereof. At the very start of the game, don't make a bunch of stats: Make a person. Invent some sort of background story if you feel like it, or imagine some common dilemmas and how this new person you are going to play would react to them. He is obviously going to be fine with the mass murder/killing or people, animals, other threats, and anything that even looks like it might be a treat on a regular basis because they happen to be in the way and have a red circle, which is either insane or a survival trait depending on how you look at it, but apart from that? Is there anything he will not do? Is there anything he will definitely do? Does he like being questioned? How does he react to adversity? Does he always try to get in the last word? Does he form friendships or are relationships more utilitarian? Is he in it for the money? For love? For religion? Does he go along to get along? What are his ethics - or lack of same? And so on and so forth. And try, for the love of God, to go beyond mere caricature and archetype. Always remember that few people are consistently one way or the other towards everybody - situations and context matter. A few paragraphs should be enough to sketch a person with enough personality to guide your way through a game, you can always add to it as the situation demands. If you need help you can always choose either yourself or somebody else you know well as a template, asking "how would X react to this situation?" when faced with a situation. I don't recommend this in general, but if you are having trouble role playing it might help break you into the mode. And yes... make up a bunch of stats that fit your vision of the main character. Role playing: You should try it. It makes for a very different game and not, I am pleased to say with these three decades of CRPG roleplaying behind me, one that is less tactically interesting or providing less complexity for optimization; you just exchange the optimization of action to get reward with the optimization of reward based on action.

To be fair, that's not really how mini-adventures worked - they functioned off the stronghold's 'turns' rather than the timer (yes, having the two time units is pretty bizarre by itself), and stronghold turns moved by player completing quests as opposed to by spending time idly. It's just a technicality, yes, but it essentially meant that doing side-stuff in the game was incentivized even further. Anyway, most of what you're saying regarding the adventures would be nice to see. However, it would also cost a considerable amount of development effort and if you'd give me a choice of whether I want adventures from Pillars of Eternity 1 to return or to just have my companions waiting around until I recall them, well, I'll choose the adventures every single time as even that's better than what most SP RPG games have, yet it should be relatively simple to implement. As for communicating with stronghold over distance being 'too much communication' - it's important to realize just what kind of game Pillars of Eternity is. If time management was of the essence, cutting this communication channel entirely would make sense. It's not tho, and all that stands between you and the keep management is either a button you can click or a bunch of irritating loading screens. [EDIT]To be fair, working off keep turns is exactly "every n time units" as I said, the game having two different timers using different time units neither detracting from my point nor description.[/EDIT] Speaking of "what kind of game Pillars of Eternity is", I can't help thinking that it was primarily intended to be roleplaying game where a party of people go on adventures, quests, missions, or whatnot together, not a "keep simulator where it is important to micromanage building 25 distinct buildings that have mostly cosmetic impact and only minor gameplay impact, serving as a convenient money sink for the loot we award during the game, complete with a separate button to generate loot every n keep-turns so it is important to allow you to micromanage it from afar rather than require you to return to the keep frequently to issue orders" game. But of course, you are right that the latter is how it ended, and that if something like that is done for Deadfire, then the remote control makes sense. Which of course is one of my major objections to the entire keep building minigame in the first place, as I stated on my first post in this thread earlier on in our conversation. After all, Obsidian managed to include a much superior keep in functionality, interaction, and feel in Neverwinter Nights 2 without such remote control, by the simple expedient of giving the player fewer but more meaningful keep interactions. More communication and more interactions is not always better, and in particular not when it detracts from the main story. So I can only hope that the development team isn't satisfied with how the stronghold mechanics worked in Pillars, because they frankly came across as something bolted on out of duty to check off points from the stretch goals and early public discussion rather than the result of deep deliberation during development where you kill off ideas you are not sure are working well enough in order to spend your time more profitably elsewhere.

First, I am against renaming classes in general whether base classes or combinations- seems a bit silly, but no big skin of my notice if it is possible. Second, I'm not sure the world can see the difference between a Paladin 20 and and a Paladin 19/Fighter 1. Insofar as it is possible for anybody in the world to recognize such characters by their deeds, one is clearly a Paladin... and so is the other. If we assume it makes sense for the world to recognize a person by class in the first place, it makes absolutely no sense to me that the world would start to recognize a character as something different merely by the smallest of changes. Which is why I am against composite class names in the first place, unless they are allocated more restrictively for people where one class doesn't clearly dominate. As an example, one could choose as a rule than none of the classes be at least twice as high level as the other, which would come to: A player with class A is known to the world as class A. A player with classes A and B is known as class A if A >= 2*B, and as class B if B >= 2*A A player with classes A and B is known as composite class C if none of the above apply, i.e. A < 2*B and B < 2*A. Example, total class 10 10, 9/1, 8/2, 7/3 are known as A 6/4, 5/5, 4/6 are known as C 3/7, 2/8,/1/9 are known as B Example, total class 20 20, 19/1, 18/2, 17/3, 16/4, 15/5, 14/6 are known as A 13/7, 12/8, 11/9, 10/10, 9/11, 8/12, 7/13 are known as C 6/14, 5/15, 4/16, 3/17, 2/18, 1/19 are known as B That said, I'm not sure it makes sense for the world to recognize the player by class rather than deeds, looks, or renown in the first place in the vast majority of cases, but it does seem to be the convention.

I quite liked the miniadventures after actual writing got associated with them in 3.0. It gave the rest of my party, even the headcanoned adventurers I created, an actual back story of things they were doing as opposed to infinitely hang out in the stronghold. The idea could be improved a bit, like some missions getting different results on what kind of party member does them, but all in all it was a nice bit of flavour giving you a feeling like something else than what you saw was actually happening in the world. To each his own, I guess. To me, the miniadventures never got beyond "every n time units, click button for reward", same as you see in any other game that wants to reward time served rather than effort. All 3.0 added was the reward consisting of more fixed loot with a fixed story attached with the name of the adventurer substituted where appropriate - it didn't make me feel any more engaged with the companions as characters. No, if my "companions" are to have miniadventures when I am not with them rather than having them hang out in the stronghold, let that happen because they have a life of their own, not because I click a button every n time units to receive a reward, whether that reward is loot or a story. Let them choose of their own when to be in the keep and when to be adventuring when not in my party. Let them decide which adventures they go on and which they do not. Let me hear of their adventures when I return to my keep and find them present, nursing their wounds and telling tales of their exploits- or possibly find a "gone adventuring, see you when I see you" sign posted by their bed, making me have to do without them. (Or a "gone fishing", if they are sane and prefer not risking their lives for little reason). Let them sometimes fail, depending on their level and equipment rather than always succeeding. In THIS imagination of companion adventures they are risking life and limb when they go fighting, not merely a "click for reward" timed mechanic. (Yeah, yeah, some people would be against companions dying when you are not with them, so let them always survive miraculously but wounded as the worst case, but still... Let their adventures carry an opportunity cost.) Don't give me any more fine control of their actions when not in the party than being able to tell them, while in my stronghold where they cool their feet between adventuring with me, that I'd prefer them to stay put and available rather than going on adventures. And don't give me the ability to check on their status at all times. What happens in the stronghold stays in the stronghold. Just like I don't want the ability to know what is going on in my stronghold at all times and most certainly don't want the ability to issue orders in the stronghold at all times when my main character is off adventuring and concentrating on the exciting locales and people he meets there. But of course, since Obsidian says we bring the Steward along, we'll be bringing her mental link along as well, which means that in Deadfire, as in Pillars, we'll probably never be out of contact, always be able to make touch with base on a moment's notice. Which is a crying shame. There is such a thing as way too much communication.

"Ding! Building upgrade X has been completed. Please call in and select a new upgrade Y. Steward out." "Dong! Your companion X has completed a miniadventure. I rolled on the random loot table for the adventure and he gained Y. Please call in and select a new miniadventure. Steward out." "Dang! Random encounter. Remember those walls you built for security? They are just for looks and reducing gold lost to bandits outside the walls, not for protection. Either return for a brief fight inside the fortifications against trivial foes X whenever you feel like it within the next Y days or your defenders will handle it and a few buildings will be damaged. Steward out." ...It is not the fault of her personality. She is tainted in my memory, and I daresay in that of many others as well, not by her immortal/animancy exposition nature, but by being inextricably linked to the subgame that was the player stronghold in Pillars of Eternity, serving as the remote control for something that felt very much like a cheap webgame approaching cowclicker status. That's perhaps a harsh verdict on the stronghold functionality, but the execution fell far short of this player's expectations, which to a large degree were based on Obsidian's prior and superior work with the player interactions and stronghold functionality of the Crossroads Keep for Neverwinter Nights 2 a decade before. It'll take a hell of a lot of good writing on the development team's part to overcome the animosity following her due to her functionality in stronghold upgrading & alerting to minor and not remotely interesting battles. (Speaking of which I dearly and sincerely hope that Deadfire has neither miniadventure, upgrading minigames, nor random encounters-return to base, like Pillars of Eternity; Given how poorly that worked out in Pillars I'd love to see those aspects scrapped entirely rather than attempted saved and improved.)

Given that nobody likes to maintain two distinctly different user interfaces and given that gamepads and keyboard/mouse setups lends themselves to radically different user interface patterns, and furthermore given that the visual presentation in a user interface that is designed to be watched not only closeup on a monitor as is the typical desktop use but also at a distance on a television requires a much lesser information density than in a user interface designed only to be watched closely, it always ends up interfering even with the best of intentions as designers make compromises to get identical basic interaction that works reasonably well on both. That's just how it goes. The typical result is large fonts, low information density on screen, and extra clicks to access information. And if one is reallly unlucky, a case of listitis, where large amounts of information that - on PC - should have been shown in a grid or in different tabs or with different filters one can click on-off with the mouse, nicely using the user interface patterns that were painstakingly established and improved upon over three decades of keyboard & mouse experience - are instead presented as long lists. The only hope one can have as a PC user is that it is designed for PC first and only adapted to console later in the process, where a redesign of fundamental interactions and interface is very expensive - and even then one risks a situation like with inExile's Wasteland 2 where its director's cut version for PC and console despite many improvements is a step back in some areas of the interface due to having to accommodate reasonable console user interface patterns.

A stretch goal for dwarfs sounds interesting, but, realistically, how would they reach it?

I'd like to see crafting in CRPGs die and never come back, but I'm afraid it is a lost cause. With regards to game mechanics I like the optimization game of having to make do with what I can find or buy in-game and then having to mix and match based on that rather than being able to tailor make equipment to my requirements, and with regards to the roleplaying experience I like the thrill of finding magic items that aren't just something that I can create with a click of the mouse and some basic resources and find it much more rewarding when in-universe creating something that is the work of a master craftsman actually requires a master craftsman and a long time. It sounds ridiculous, but I can completely understand people who'd be willing to pay more towards a stretch goal that removed crafting and I would even be tempted to join in funding that myself as it is utterly detrimental to my own enjoyment of CRPGs, since whenever a CRPG includes crafting it is balanced around it, which means that even those who dislike it have a hard time ignoring it. But there are a lot of people who, for whatever reasons of their own and I'm not going to reject them out of hand, find crafting fun - heck, some of them probably even like collecting dozens of different ingredients in as large quantities as they find just in case they become useful for crafting something along the road to be fun, where I consider that to be thoroughly detrimental to immersion. That's just how it goes: different strokes for different folks. At least Pillars 1 kept crafting/enchanting at a fairly low level even if it reduced every magic weapon or armour to "what basic enchants does it have, and is it one of the 'good' ones that doesn't 'waste' enchantment limit on something suboptimal when I start enchanting it myself" rather than "this is something special that I like as it is" or "this is something I'll only use until I get something better", though I consider it telling that the only things that couldn't be crafted, the soulbound items, were some of the most talked about items even if they were in many cases poorer than optimally enchanted items that people preferred using. Though as regards the mass production of Potions of DAoM and scrolls that could trivialize any encounter, the less said the better. ...But yes, I'd much rather kill it with fire, returning to the items I find actually being worthwhile in and of themselves rather than for how they can be modified to something useful. I can still remember the names of some of the better weapons from the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale series nearly two decades on and roughly what they did, and I still recall faintly where I found some of the better magic items in games such as Pools of Radiance going back three decades, but I doubt I'll remember the weapons of Pillars of Eternity for anything like that long because they were, in the end, just something to check for "does it have the speed enchant? Does it have room for superb enchanting? And a lash? is there anything that is actually special about it to distinguish it from how I can put quality/lash/slayer on everything to my taste?" etc... Once my party had weapons and armour with the best basic enchants, and some of those came very early in the game, almost all armour and weapons looted or found in shops after that were irrelevant and never used as the only thing that could improve on what I was already using was killing dragons to acquire ingredients to upgrade the quality. Since killing crafting with fire is unlikely to happen, the only thing I can hope for is that Obsidian at least won't enlarge the crafting aspect for Deadfire.

Continuing my POE adventures, I go for a 3/2 front/rear split or a 2/2 split with the final character equally useful in front and rear. With the way multiclassing is described it will likely frequently be desirable to pick up 1 level of something that has complementary class talents at low to medium levels, such that you can get it from the 1 level investment plus secondary bonuses from the primary class, so I expect a great deal of major/minor multiclassing but little moderate/moderate multiclassing and singleclassing. But let's see how that works and, regardless, I don't want to multiclass anybody in a way that doesn't seem compatible with their personality. Blaster party: This party is based around my mighty genius elf blaster wizard superstar who is as nimble as a cat and has roughly the same attention span (maximized str, dex, and int, rest in per... 3 con and res) who can really lay down the smack with evocations, so it is important that the rest of the party is low-upkeep and durable since any use of defensive abilities will be used on keeping the wizard alive while he does so. Possessed of a rather amoral worldview, though harbouring some loyalty to friends and allies, this wizard gained the power of the machine in Heritage Hill but refused to sacrifice any companion to the pool of blood. Main (wizard) - doubt I'll multiclass unless one of the other classes has something very, very, tempting to pick up with only a single class level or two + secondary boosting (e.g. talents that synergize well with the blasting role by increasing damage or providing substantial defenses). You can only do one thing at a time, after all, so gaining higher level spells and as many of them as possible will always be a high priority. Eder (fighter or fighter/rogue) - probably straight-forward fighter here, but let's see what rogue might provide. Pallegina (paladin or paladin/fighter) - She rewrote the trade treaty on my wizard's suggestion, but what with him using the souls to strengthen the Dyrwood it ended up a wash - sure, she was banished and had to suffer in exile, but they ended up seeing the wisdom of her actions and how it all worked out for the best so she was recalled. As a paladin of the five suns with a rogue streak, who got over doubting her own purpose or judgement, I doubt she'll multiclass unless it is to take a few levels of fighter to pick up complementary talents. Xoti (priest, priest/monk, or monk/priest) - assuming that once again the most important defensive spells will be low to mid-level, multiclassing away from priest for more durability and damage may work, and as the character concept has Xoti start as priest or monk combining the two should work well while being in character, perhaps even as balanced classes. Moreover, as the supreme focus for this group will be on the wizard-mains spells, the priest will be hitting stuff more often than spellcasting. Mr. Unknown (chanter or chanter/ranger) - since the only classes missing from the companion lineup right now are chanter and druid, I am assuming that mr. Unknown starts as chanter/druid, and I'll take him as a ranged chanter with a focus on passive buffing, who'll stay pure chanter or pick up a bit of ranger for enhanced archery abilities. Front: Pallegina, Eder, Xoti Rear: Wizard main, Mr. Unknown Faith keeper party: This party is based around a passionate priestess of Eothas that stayed faithful and went through Pillars 1 wondering at just how unresponsive the game was to the many, many, situations where being a priestess of Eothas ought to have resulted in some sort of interaction with those who knew of it. A genunine do-gooder, who is benevolent, honest, and passionate, she obviously neither sacrificed innocents at Heritage Hill nor companions at the pool of blood. Main (priest of Eothas or priest of Eothas/kind wayfarer paladin) - like my blaster wizard above, unlikely to multiclass as I'll want to focus on her spells, but if I do then given her experiences and having her keep blown up I could see her multiclassing into kind wayfarer if that is allowed. Eothas is Benevolent/Honest and kind warfarer is Benevolent/Passionate so it should be compatible. Eder (fighter or fighter/rogue) - hopefully this time around there will be a bit of interaction based on me being a frigging priest of Eothas; The way he almost completely ignored that in Pillars 1 was rather jarring. If the main picks up a fair number of paladin levels and thus becomes a strong front line presence, Eder could pick up more rogue levels - perhaps even a balanced split. Aloth (wizard or wizard/cipher) - to differentiate from my blaster party, he plays dedicated support, debuffing, and control. With Aloth and Isilmyr working together after their resolution in Pillars 1, I could see his mind doing strange things making him a wizard/cipher. But only if that would work somehow. If there's no way for either of the classes to boost the other this would be silly. But perhaps something like rolling with minor blights would generate focus? and make Aloth focus on the cipher aspect? Or perhaps just picking one or two levels of cipher would ultimately (with secondary boosts from the wizard levels) end up providing something nice to use as an additional option based on focus granted automatically at the start of encounters, i.e. letting Aloth focus on spells but having enough focus for 2-3 useful lowlevel cipher abilities (which if they are anything like Pillars 1 will still be very useful). Serafen (barbarian, barbarian/fighter, or barbarian/rogue) - need somebody on the frontline, and a raging orlan barbarian is as good a choice as any. Singleclass unless the personality would fit either multiclass, in which case fighter or rogue would be picked up for a level or two for lowlevel talents/abilities. Maia Rua (ranger, ranger/fighter, or ranger/rogue) -Kana Rua was a good friend, so having her along as a ranged ranger seems appropriate. Since she's likely to have a "I'm definitely not a chanter like my brother" personality, the most obvious ranged ranger multiclass is right out but perhaps a bit of fighter or rogue might fit with her character and be useful; who knows. Front: Serafen, Eder Rear: Aloth, Maia Roving: Priestess main, Maia's pet ---- Special case. If it is possible to multiclass priest/paladin the way I think in continuing my Faith Keeper party, it might be fun to roleplay some of the other combinations, such as: The ultimate mercenary: Gold Pact Knight (Stoic/Rational)/Priest of Berath (Stoic/Rational). Preferred: 2xStoic, 2xRational. Condemned: 2xPassionate, Aggressive, Cruel. Use a great sword and balance the scales. Or for a truly underhanded scoundrel who is too smart for his own good, how about a Darcozzi Paladin/Priest of Wael, old Valian for preference to be in keeping with the character. Preferred: 2xClever, Passionate, Dishonest. Condemned: Rational, Honest, Cruel, Stoic. With a light step and quarterstaff or rod in hand, you do what is necessary even if few people understand your motives. But let's see how the priests and paladins end up. Talking about premature concusions.

Going by the assumption that this is, indeed, a picture of all companions, Mr. Unknown is probably going to be Chanter/Druid, such that all possible classes are represented with companions.

Err, I think Paladins with the White March overhauls were very good characters in Pillars with a strong niche of their own in combat: the one of being incredibly durable while passively buffing the party with a useful AOE effect chosen by the player to compensate for party weaknesses or to enhance its strengths, having a large raft of helpful active abilities you could choose between to fill in holes left by your other party choices or to create redundancy, whether it was curing, buffing, debuffing, or, at high levels, dishing out AOE damage, all the while being able to deal quite nice damage on their own chopping up enemies. Outside of combat, due to their orders and impact of faith they, like priests, lent themselves well to roleplaying. If you consider this to be a mediocre role compared to others that are more dedicated to specialization.... I'll just have to disagree with you. I consider Paladins in PoE to be just so darn useful throughout the game. That's not an argument against given them even more tools that they can choose as alternatives to the ones already available, mind you, I just don't think they need them to be attractive. Some people prefer parties of specialists, some generalists, some a mix. So long as the people who prefer the latter two categories think paladins are good enough to warrant inclusion in a party, then, everything else being equal, they work well enough. As for your "even a party of five have enough skills to not require" comment, I'd say that is good! With 11 classes to choose between, it would be terrible design if ANY classes were required. Not being required is the alpha and omega of what party choice is about. Now, what I would love to see would be more differentiation between the orders where abilities are concerned so they aren't essentially the same with tiny modifications to a common set of abilities as is the case in Pillars 1.

White March encounters were a small step up in tactical challenge from the main game, and they weren't that challenging unless you brought an underleveled party by e.g. going to WM as soon as the zone opened up. So I must disagree with the OP. I found it refreshing to find content that when approached on-level put at least a bit of emphasis on tactical positioning and the use of defensive abilities as well as offensive as opposed to the rest of the game that for the most part was trivial to breeze through focusing solely on offensive abilities while mostly ignoring tactical positioning. WM encounters were a lot more like what I'd hoped to find when I backed Project Eternity in the first place that the main game was. Regarding engagement, it is my fervent hope that the engagement mechanic remains an attack of opportunity style mechanic with minimal glue functionality in PoE2 rather than turning into a magic glue variation. Personal survival should always be a consideration in combat. Glass cannons belong in MMORPGs and the graveyard. Also, I'd love to see more enemies in general in encounters that are supposed to be dangerous such that flanking becomes a real threat and controlling all enemies with a single locational AOE control spells isn't an option, likewise with debuffing. And more enemy abilities rather than giving each enemy 1 or 2 different ones. And so on and so forth. After all, for players who do not like to be challenged tactically or at least not tactically in the way that used to be common in party-based CRPG combat in the 80s and 90s, there is always the option of choosing to play on a lower difficulty level to reduce challenge to something they are comfortable with. The reverse is unfortunately not an option.

What one earth does entitlement have to do with it? :D If you continue from a saved game, you are continuing the story of the world as it developed in that save game. If Eder died, then he is gone. That has nothing whatsoever to do with entitlement or lack thereof and everything to do with consequence and consistency. Without getting too far off topic. 1) Someone who buys/funds the game is I think about as entitled as one really is to anything in life to have access to a rich and intrinsically rewarding experience as anyone else who buys/funds with or without Eder. I would posit that this is only fair.. 2) I was mostly responding to the comment suggesting that since only a minority of players off'ed the dude, it didn't matter - which I think is contrary to the above point. So yea... if Eder died, I wasn't suggesting that he be resurrected or zombified or whathaveyou. Just that a player have equally "good" NPC choices without him, or have the ability to start a new game (ie not from the save state) without him being pre-dead at game start. I'm pretty sure that the team has this issue covered, but this may not have been immediately clear to the OP, hence the response rebuking the comment saying that (s)he's SOL, in so many words. If as your "pretty sure" comment suggests you are somehow under the impression that Obsidian might, just might, unlikely, but might, be such utter morons that they would design PoE2 such that you could only start up a new game by importing a PoE1 save game, thus cutting them off from selling the game to anybody who had not bought PoE1, or alternatively that they'd design PoE2 such that you would be unable to get one of the fully fleshed out companions unless you imported from a PoE1 game where they were alive, resulting in everybody not importing having access to a smaller number of companions and thus deriving no benefit from what is the major investment of resources that goes into each companion, let me reassure you that Obsidian are not such morons. :D The plan is to let you start based on a PoE1 save game, based on a default PoE2 state for those who don't want to import a save game or fiddle with anything(and yes, the returning companions are alive in the default state), and based on a setup you tweak. So nobody is being cut off from a "rich and rewarding Eder experience" in PoE2 save those who for whatever reason (importing, setting it up) use a backstory that has him dead as a doornail.

Same way as everybody else in the business handles it, presumably; I.e. defining each companion's presence or behaviour in the sequel by a set of possible states such as met/never met, survived/died, did this or that with so and so outcome, did that, and so on and so forth where most of them have minimal impact on gameplay beyond differentiating text at some points to remind you of your shared continuity and some have material impact, so the first time you meet a returning companion you never encountered in PoE1 you'll be introduced as strangers and then, in no time at all, they'll be best friends. Just like every other new companion in just about any CRPG, ever, joins up.

Well, just because someone decides to kill off one NPC over another doesn't mean that that player is any less entitled to rewarding NPC's in the sequel, IMHO. I think the OP has a totally valid point. What on earth does entitlement have to do with it? :D If you continue from a saved game, you are continuing the story of the world as it developed in that save game. If Eder died, then he is gone. That has nothing whatsoever to do with entitlement or lack thereof and everything to do with consequence and consistency. If you want to play with Eder in the sequel, play with a start where he isn't dead. Do that using a new default start, importing a PoE1 save where he is alive, or by editing/creating a starting template where he is alive. I really don't get the problem, unless it is a truly bizarre case of wanting to have your cake and eat it where you want to import a PoE1 save where he is dead, stubbornly refuse to change the starting condition for PoE2 so he survived instead because you for some reason want to maintain the consequences of him being dead in PoE1, and somehow desire, at the same time, that he be alive in PoE2, believing you if you can't play a live Eder with a dead backstory, you are being denied something you are entitled to. Truly a weird thought.

Yeah, this confuses me. Okay, you've got more choices to make but they're less meaningful. Redundancies are safety nets to protect you from your own screwups. This threads got a weird tendency sometimes of asking for more protection because they're not 'casuals'. I like complexity in my games, but I do want it to be meaningful complexity, not just for the sake of it. Strategical and tactical complexity aren't the same thing, that's all. The thing the two of you like sounds a heck of a lot like strategically complex combat encounters with low tactical complexity where you are almost always considerably more powerful than the opposition, have good knowledge, prepare, plan, and execute your plan without casualties, much like in a special forces operation gone right (which is the usual outcome of designing encounters for small groups of actors) as opposed to tactically complex encounters with low strategic complexity where you are typically closer in power to the opposition, have to think on your feet, and casualties are part of the cost of doing business because when not every character is a point failure the developers can allow encounters to be more dangerous like in every realistic encounter that isn't a special forces hit job (which is the usual outcome of designing encounters for large groups of actors). If design focuses on strategic complexity you usually end up with tight encounters with low numbers of enemies, that are, for the most part, easy for the average character to breeze through without casualties because the first mistake is usually the last so he'd better be able to easily make a plan to deal with any problems that arise. If design focuses on tactical complexity you usually end up with loose encounters, higher numbers of enemies, and encounter difficulty that varies greatly depending on group composition, but also encounters that are in general tougher because you can throw things at players that would with smaller groups result in reloading rather than trying to cope when things go wrong. Any CRPG with tactical combat chooses its own balance between tactical and strategic complexity, but that does not make one type of complexity more meaningful than the other, nor more inherently challenging. They are just different types of challenge. I happen to feel that a focus on tactical complexity is the most appropriate for most CRPGs due to the world setting and the encounters parties experience, where it often makes absolutely no sense that a group of people should be able to address fights as strategic exercises, and overall in games I prefer tactical challenges and thinking on my feet to strategic ones since I find strategic planning easy, but that's just preference.

I completely agree. PoE using engagement as an attack of opportunity mechanic without magic glue worked pretty well.