JerekKruger

Plov's great! I also actually really like Mongolian throat singing.

So full attacks are beneficial for two-handers and single one-handers as well as dual wielding? Sounds good to me.

Here is my post, quoted in full: Notice that I said "with their grand strategy games": that means I am referring to their grand strategy games i.e. Crusader Kings 2, Europa Universalis 4 and Hearts of Iron 4. I am not referring to Tyranny, since it is not a grand strategy game, nor indeed any other games that Paradox has developed or published*. Europa Universalis 4 is their most successful grand strategy game, and has the largest amount of DLC, hence why I used it as an example. It is, however, entirely representative of their DLC policy for all their current grand strategy games. You could switch anything I said about EU4 with CK2 or HoI4 and the statements would remain true. No I didn't. You'll notice the first line of my post, and the fact that the main contents of the post followed "@Wormerine": I wasn't addressing you at all. I have zero interest in making you look like an idiot. As I stated above, I was specifically talking about their grand strategy games, of which EU4 is the biggest. You then claimed that my language was inaccurate and reflected marketing lies, which is demonstrably false when it comes to Paradox's grand strategy games. I pointed this out to you, with the example of EU4 (but both CK2 and HoI4 have similar examples) and you claimed you were talking about a Tyranny DLC, which might very well be the case but you were replying to my post which was about their grand strategy games. Yes, I know. I wasn't saying their policy was good. However these features are new features. They are present in the base game after the patch that goes with the DLC is released. They aren't features that were cut from the original product during development. Anyway, feel free to reply, but don't expect a response. I don't see any purpose to further conversation with you on this topic. *Technically I could be referring to their older grand strategy games, but those all came out before the age of DLC.

You replied to my post which was specifically talking about DLC for Paradox's grand strategy games. It is not my fault if I imagined you were talking about the DLCs for those games. If you know nothing about those games, then don't reply to a post about DLC for them saying that my "language is inaccurate and reflects marketing lies, not reality."

His special ability would be "overly brisk recitation"

Also remember that you can always respec, so you can build one way then change when you reach, say, level 9.

Since you're not planning on playing on PotD (which, given this is basically your first playthrough I think I'd a wide decision) if definitely agree with Gromnir's advice to not worry too much and go with what appeals to you. Hens entirely right about attributes not being anywhere near as important in PoE as they are in other CRPGs (which I view as a great thing as I hate min-maxing). That said, I do think Boeroer's Dragon Thrashed build is fairly new player friendly. Just treat yourself as an off tank in the early game and enjoy the wonder that is Dragon Thrashed when you get it. You'll still do good work with Winds of Death and the phantom summon before that.

@Katarack Europa Universalis 4 was released in 2013 and has had at least two non-cosmetic expansions this year so no, my language isn't inaccurate at all: these are features. I am sure you'll claim that these features were secretly in the game all along, but if you do so you'd simply be demonstrating your ignorance of their games. Is Paradox's DLC policy good? Not particularly. But they aren't as bad as the worst offenders in the industry and you do your cause* no good by acting like they do. *A cause I share I might add.

Oh I totally agree. I never even considered the problem of Baldur's Gate 2's motivation until I read about it online years after finishing the game several times. I simply accepted that I was expected to want to rescue Imoen/unlock my powers and rolled with it. I also thoroughly enjoyed the White March despite the feeling that the Leaden Key hook was pretty weak. That said, the writers should endeavour to make such hooks as strong as they can. This isn't meant as a criticism of the writers for the White March, I thought it was full of excellently written content, I'm just saying that if it were possible to tie the expansion content in better that would be good.

First question: what difficulty are you playing on? If you're not playing on Paths of the Damned, then the game is a lot more forgiving to non-optimised builds*. That said, here are a few thoughts: You really don't want to build pure tanks in Pillars as the enemy will simply ignore them. For your Paladin I'd drop Constitution and Resolve down significantly and bring Dexterity and Perception up to more reasonable levels. If I were building a generic tanky Paladin I'd probably go with something like 18/10/8/14/18/10. Similarly, you don't want to build glass cannons unless you are very confident in your ability to control the battlefield. The enemy are going to beeline for your Ranger because he'll have very low deflection and endurance and will be doing a lot of damage. I'd go with something like 18/8/18/14/10/8. *Honestly, even on PotD you don't need to optimise unless you're also playing solo.

I can see there's no convincing you Katarack, so I won't bother trying. @Wormerine: with their grand strategy games Paradox has, I think, gone too far with their non-cosmetic DLC. Often these DLCs add new features to the game which, if you don't buy them, you don't have access to. This in itself isn't a problem per se, after all I don't think anyone would complain about the fact that people who didn't buy the White March expansions didn't get the extra content. The problem is that many of these extra features are still present in the game even if you don't buy the DLC but the player can't interact with them, and given these features often change the way the game plays this essentially means that a player who doesn't buy them is playing a now incomplete product. I think this is going too far. I don't, however, see this as an issue if Paradox publish Deadfire, since Obsidian would be in charge of their own DLC policy. As far as I can tell, the only issue with Paradox publishing Deadfire is if they pull another price hike pre-sales.

You know, it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. I am sure that cosmetic DLCs do indeed increase profits for the companies that use them, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do help ensure artists stay employed. The world isn't black and white: it would be a lot easier if it were, but it's not.

Honestly, the whole thing about the White March being a Leaden Key lead is fairly weakly done to my mind. It felt tacked on after the content was written in order to give the player a reason to go, but it didn't feel well integrated to the main story. Luckily the White March itself is great so I can forgive this. I'd definitely prefer a sequential expansion in Deadfire though.

Aedyr might be less interested in unique form of Adra found in the Deadfire given their ban on animancy. Also the feeling I got from Pillars about Aedyr is that it's something of an Empire in decline after the loss of Readceras and the Dyrwood, so perhaps it can't afford the same presence as the Vailian Republics and Ruatai.

In which case I really don't see it as a problem.

Paradox's pseudo-microtransaction cosmetic dlc doesn't really bother me when used in their grand strategy games. It's a way to allow them to fund development which isn't a required purchase. I don't know how it was implemented for Tyranny (could you still as custom portraits yourself?) But it bothers me a little more since it's probably not funding development in the same way as with EU4, say, and aesthetics are more important in a role-playing game than a grand strategy game. That said it's still a fairly minor issue. The rise in prices before the sale is bull**** though. I hope they don't repeat that again. That said, the negative reviews for PoE about me: the game doesn't become bad as a result of the price rise, and your hurting obsidian more than paradox. In any case I hope obsidian go with whichever publisher works best for them. If that's paradox then it's paradox and I'll still support them. Of course, as a backer I'll get the game and expansion separately of the publisher but still.

One of the druid subclasses is focused on shapeshifting and I can see this going one of two ways: making their spiritshift more powerful and (hopefully) modal, or providing them with more spiritshift options. If obsidian go with the latter then I would expect more and varied forms are a given. If definitely like to see some non-mammalian forms, and perhaps some with abilities focused on things or than combat (bird forms day). Aquatic forms find cool but they'll have to be careful how they implement then and/or combat in water. On any case, more shapeshifting variety would be greatly appreciated by me.

I'd be happy for Obsidian to broaden the span of history they're roughly basing Pillars on when it comes to ship types if it means we get more and cooler ships. There's no reason for the setting to exactly follow real world history, and we can explain the disparity by different cultures having different aptitudes for ship building (Vailians and Ruatai are more advanced than Adeyr and Dyrwood for example).

If it's any consolation, my post wasn't trying to convince you of how awesome daggers are and why every priest and paladin should wield nothing else. I just can't help jumping in on these historical arms and armour conversations. I have no desire to change your mind regarding daggers.

Indeed. A lot of historical fencing manuals depict two armoured fighters, armed with daggers, grappling with each other whilst standing up. The manuals describe various methods of locking down your opponent's weapon and bringing yours to bear against their weak points (usually the face). That said, the daggers used for this sort of fighting are really better represented by stilettos than daggers in Pillars (things like rondel daggers). Crossbows really couldn't punch right through plate, particularly not the case hardened plate that was used in the period that is equivalent to Pillars setting. Yes, they had enormous draw weights (as high as 1200lbs) but they had tiny draw lengths compared to longbows, and crossbow bolts were a lot lighter than longbow arrows (they lose velocity to wind resistance faster). These differences lead to surprisingly a similar performance from the two weapons at normal ranges. This doesn't mean that crossbows couldn't put men-at-arms out of action, they certainly could, but much like longbows they relied on hitting weak points in the armour (most often an exposed face, but also some gaps in joints or thinner pieces of armour) to do so, together with a very high volume of fire to make this likely. Also, obviously against mounted men-at-arms horses were generally more vulnerable. By the way, the sabres and rapiers that were used in battle weighed about the same (sometimes more) than a typical arming sword. Their modern day fencing namesakes are far lighter. Indeed. There's this idea that armour was useless against the weapons of the time, but it's demonstrably false. Tests done with good quality reproduction plate show longbow arrows could, at best, penetrate to about an inch depth i.e. not enough to injure (there's a thick gambeson on underneath that plate). Breastplates from the seventeenth century were tested against musket shots to prove to their buyer that they'd provide protection. People in the past weren't idiots, they wouldn't have loaded themselves up with a heavy suit of armour if it didn't work. Armour worked.

This would make sense of course, but Doppelschwert's right that the Josh said something about there being an option when you start the game to disable or enable multiclassing.

The way I understood it was that, at the start of the game, you'll be presented with the choice between allowing multiclassing or having it disabled (I assume to keep the levelling up process simpler and quicker). I might be wrong of course.

Indeed, and as Karakov said these policies wouldn't really apply with Deadfire since Deadfire's likely to go the same way as Pillars and only have one or two major expansions.

Agreed! I may only use it rarely, but I'm still glad it's been added.

Oh man, I just realised how much this will help summoned weapon wizards. A Citzal's Spirit Lance and Martial Prowess every fight? Yes please.