JerekKruger

I played a two-hander Paladin a while ago (on PotD). I went Kind Wayfarer with Strange Mercy and Inspiring Triumph and, wielding Tidefall and an aquebus for starting fights, I did pretty well. I can't remember exactly what my attributes were but they were something like: Mig 18 Con 8 Dex 10 Per 14 Int 18 Res 10 He did a good job of off tanking, doing not terrible damage and supporting the party. Long story short: it's definitely a build that can work.

I'm not playing at the moment, but I am mulling ideas for another play through in my head and when one catches my imagination I'll start a new game. I'd say I tend to start a new play through every two or three months, though not all of them go the full distance. Regarding Edér's recovery, if you follow the build I linked then at higher levels you can reach very low recoveries even whilst wearing plate, and with buffs you can reach zero recovery. Of course this relies on items, enchantments and talents so he'll be slower than that early on, but hopefully not painfully so. If you dual wield it's even easy to get low recovery. As Boeroer says, there's no problem with killing Maerwald. He's sort of independent to the rest of the Endless Paths.

Boeroer's Counselor Ploi build is my favourite Paladin build. It does everything you'd want from a tank/support Paladin and quite a lot more (Paladin's aren't normally a class with charm, but Boeroer made his one with items). It's a Wood Elf, but you could easily make it a human without much trouble (you'll lose some Accuracy with your charms, but if you're playing on Hard mode or easier, you'll basically be getting +15 Accuracy compared to Boeroer's game anyway). For something a little simpler Sh!t's on Fire is basically the standard Paladin build. Again the stated race is Wood Elf but you could go Human without any problems. Beyond that, all the Paladin builds in the Build List are excellent so you can't go all that wrong picking one.

I usually build Edér as an off-tank/single target damage dealer using Andrea Colombo's Lady of Pain build (or one of the variants thereof). He'll still be tough enough to tank most enemies without any real difficulty, but also does pretty good single target damage as well. He won't compete with a Rogue for single target damage, but he also won't die as often, and he will struggle to tank the really big enemies like dragons, but he's still a very useful party member in this role. I usually use a Chanter or a Paladin as my main tank. If I'm not playing one of those two classes, I'll usually use Pallegina in this role.

You don't need to reset your companions attribute points to play PotD efficiently. In fact, without using a mod and/or console commands you can't (respeccing works differently for the main character and for companions). I would, however, not have them auto-level*, but if you've been auto-levelling them so far you can fix that with a respec (gold should stop being an obstacle somewhere around mid-late act II). Personally I tend to leave Durance using his staff, even though Priests of Magran aren't really suited to wielding staves, because it's so integral to his character. Given his low Dexterity, and the importance of buffing, he probably won't spend much time swinging his weapon in difficult fights anyway so it hardly matters. I guess that a sword and shield would be more optimal since Magran's talent gives an Accuracy buff for swords and the shield will make him less of an obvious target, but I never really had any problems using his staff on PotD. Chanters tend to come into their own at higher levels, when they've got a bit more endurance, got all their regeneration talents and, most importantly, have the Dragon Thrashed chant (level 9). Before then you might want to act more as an off-tank than a main-tank role. I like Sagani, and I find the addition of Ituumak very handy when it comes to controlling the battlefield. Not sure when you last played Pillars, but rangers received a fair amount of love with the White March part I with Twinned Arrow and Stormcaller (which can be obtained very early into act II if you rush it). Pallegina might also have been improved if you last played before she got her unique talents (Vielo Vidòrio and Wrath of the Five Suns). Personally I like to switch out companions periodically so they all get taken some of the time. In general though, most parties are viable for PotD. You'll probably want at least two sturdy frontliners, but since your main character is one already that's almost a given. After that you can't go all that wrong. *The game is almost certainly still completable if you do, I just don't like the choices the game makes for my companions.

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.