Jump to content

Character Creation Dilemmas


Recommended Posts

So while impatiently waiting for the release I am trying to exactly plan out my character so I don't take 4 hours deciding when the game comes out.

 

Paladin.  As soon as the class was announced during the kickstarted I knew that was going to be what I run with first.  I did in all the Infinity Engine games and my first character in non class games ends up looking like a paladin (Skyrim: Heavy Armor, Sword/Shield and Restoration focus).

 

The problem is that even though I relate most to a Paladin their gameplay is usually pretty dull.  The idea of building one with non traditional stats like Josh keeps mentioning is appealing but I don't see how it would work on a Paladin.  For example I always disliked that I had to have a lower INT in the IE games because I am no dumby.  Looking at the lack of Paladin active abilities it doesn't seem very viable. How would increased aoe help a Pally with so few options. It works for a Barbarian but not a Paladin?

 

Ideally I'd make a Valian Darcozzi Paladin who could focus on being clever and witty instead of cliche close minded Paladin.  The character just looks bad compared to Kind Wayfarer who gets much better talents (I like the healing after kills).

 

So what should I do?  Make a boring but effect Paladin so I can do well at a higher difficulty, or is there something I'm missing in how you can build a Pally that makes him more active/versatile?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it stands in the current beta, Intelligence is easily more important than the overall useless Resolve. It is very odd, conceptually, for Paladins to not really benefit from the "charisma" or "force of personality" attribute, but as much as I think that it's pretty terrible, that is how it is right now.

Previously, +AoE and +Duration was split between Resolve and Intelligence (in the wrong order, imo, but that's just me), and as a Paladin, you would've probably benefit about the same, depending on how you build it, meaning that you could've built the intelligent general type and the charismatic crusader, but right now, you're pretty much bound to be high-Int low-Res if you're a Paladin (unless you're specifically building tanky, in which case you'll take Resolve.. for some reason).

 

But the overall issue for paladins isn't actually the Attributes, because even with the current Attribute system in place (which will probably change at least a little... hopefully a lot) you should be fine with most combinations. The problem is that Paladins are pretty unengaging, as you've noticed, and (as so often unfortunately is the case) they don't seem to have a clear concept or conceptual "niche".

 

But as it stands, you will benefit a lot from Intelligence, and it's easily one of the best Attributes for Paladins, so from that standpoint, I wouldn't worry at the moment. At the end, do what you want.

My first character is also going to be a Paladin (Deathlike Bleak Walker). He was originally going to be High-Resolve, but I'll probably have to refluff him to be High-Intelligence instead, dumping Resolve somewhere south of Sahara, if things don't change considerably. I'm already gimping myself by being High(ish)-Dexterity and going Duelist (One-Handing with no Off-hand... Rapier, no less). From a min-maxing perspective, I probably couldn't do much worse.

But let's give all High-Intelligence Barbarians that dual-wield Sabres a hand. :lol:

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh right, Buff duration is on INT as well.  Good info thanks.  Bleak Walkers seem fun but I can't play an "evil" type my first play-through, have to stay a goodie two shoes.

 

I think a solution would to have an option to pick an active instead of forcing us to pick passive auras.  It's almost tempting to just make a beefy Priest if RP and the knight orders weren't important to me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh right, Buff duration is on INT as well.  Good info thanks.  Bleak Walkers seem fun but I can't play an "evil" type my first play-through, have to stay a goodie two shoes.

 

I think a solution would to have an option to pick an active instead of forcing us to pick passive auras.  It's almost tempting to just make a beefy Priest if RP and the knight orders weren't important to me.  

 

You are not forced to take Auras. It is possible to fully avoid taking auras. Your first choice on creation is Flames of Devotion or Lay on Hands. Your next choice is between whatever you didn't pick, and three different Auras. So if you pick Flames of Devotion first, then Lay on Hands, you can go aura-less.

 

Currently, you are probably pretty well off not taking Auras, anyway, because Auras are "Combat Only" modals that automatically activate whenever combat starts, forcing your character to do the activation animation, making sure you're not getting into position properly or is capable of using your power(s) when combat initiates.

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Oh right, Buff duration is on INT as well.  Good info thanks.  Bleak Walkers seem fun but I can't play an "evil" type my first play-through, have to stay a goodie two shoes.

 

I think a solution would to have an option to pick an active instead of forcing us to pick passive auras.  It's almost tempting to just make a beefy Priest if RP and the knight orders weren't important to me.  

 

You are not forced to take Auras. It is possible to fully avoid taking auras. Your first choice on creation is Flames of Devotion or Lay on Hands. Your next choice is between whatever you didn't pick, and three different Auras. So if you pick Flames of Devotion first, then Lay on Hands, you can go aura-less.

 

Currently, you are probably pretty well off not taking Auras, anyway, because Auras are "Combat Only" modals that automatically activate whenever combat starts, forcing your character to do the activation animation, making sure you're not getting into position properly or is capable of using your power(s) when combat initiates.

 

o.O I didn't know that - i hope they'll work on it ... Though i think in a longer fights (bosses, large groups of enemies) its still more beneficial - esp when you have many party members who can benefit from this aura (mostly melee party).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to roleplay a "clever" character, better level Perception. Most checks concerning quick wit and recognizing someone is lying to you, is tied to Perception. Not sure how important Perception is for paladins, though.

 

Clever correlates mostly with perception?  This makes it even more complicated.  Can anyone else confirm this? 

 

 

 

You are not forced to take Auras. It is possible to fully avoid taking auras. Your first choice on creation is Flames of Devotion or Lay on Hands. Your next choice is between whatever you didn't pick, and three different Auras. So if you pick Flames of Devotion first, then Lay on Hands, you can go aura-less.

 

 

I read that Lay on Hands is pretty bad so far, so taking the lower level ability instead of an aura doesn't seem very practical.  Maybe I'll do it anyway though, a weak heal seems better than no heal.... but the aura would work better with high intelligence... ahh more dilemma.

 

So now I'm stuck between a perceptive and intelligent Darcozzi Paladin, or a Standard Might/resolve Kind Wayfarer.....  Why can't I just be good at everything by spamming stat rolls for hours like in BG?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you want to roleplay a "clever" character, better level Perception. Most checks concerning quick wit and recognizing someone is lying to you, is tied to Perception. Not sure how important Perception is for paladins, though.

 

Clever correlates mostly with perception?  This makes it even more complicated.  Can anyone else confirm this? 

 

 

 

You are not forced to take Auras. It is possible to fully avoid taking auras. Your first choice on creation is Flames of Devotion or Lay on Hands. Your next choice is between whatever you didn't pick, and three different Auras. So if you pick Flames of Devotion first, then Lay on Hands, you can go aura-less.

 

 

I read that Lay on Hands is pretty bad so far, so taking the lower level ability instead of an aura doesn't seem very practical.  Maybe I'll do it anyway though, a weak heal seems better than no heal.... but the aura would work better with high intelligence... ahh more dilemma.

 

So now I'm stuck between a perceptive and intelligent Darcozzi Paladin, or a Standard Might/resolve Kind Wayfarer.....  Why can't I just be good at everything by spamming stat rolls for hours like in BG?!?

 

Well if you already know that you'll play several times in this game - maybe start by making class that is not such problematic to create. After one playthrough you should know the game well enough to figure out how you want to customize your future heroes ;) 

Or - you can always start by making few test heroes - and quickly cheat to test out some attributes settings and talents -when you will familiarize yourself with the game mechanics and class - the process of creating your real HERO shouldn't be a problem xP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not forced to take Auras. It is possible to fully avoid taking auras. Your first choice on creation is Flames of Devotion or Lay on Hands. Your next choice is between whatever you didn't pick, and three different Auras. So if you pick Flames of Devotion first, then Lay on Hands, you can go aura-less.

I didn't realize that. That's... pretty strange, conceptually. That's like being a Monk, and being able to go without abilities that use Wounds. Or being a Wizard and going Grimoire-less.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd also be a madman to go aura-less. As a fan of lay on hands, I find it hard to justify taking it. Flames of devotion and aura-of-preference are the way to go.

 

Coming from a Pally-lover (and lover in general- ladies) I also find myself tempted by the monk. I had a LOT of fun with the monk to the point where I may not play as a pally until much later (after cipher and maybe ranger). It the latest beta I've been relatively unimpressed by the paladin. They work well as off-tanks, but have been nerfed a bit much for my liking.

 

My suggestion, Mr Steadfast, would also be to check out the monk just in case the paladin isn't up to snuff. There are also dialogue options that are tied to use instead of skills (honest, passionate, aggressive, etc) and you get a "reputation" for that usage. I've been using rational and honest for when I play Paladin (or monk) and it's been a good time for the small slice of the game I've used it for.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Yeah, I'm usually VERY interested in Wizard, and then significantly less interested in all the other classes, but still somewhat interested to varying degrees. But, with PoE, I must say that I could see myself maybe replaying the game as each and every class. MAYBE minus a couple. Not sure really.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd also be a madman to go aura-less. As a fan of lay on hands, I find it hard to justify taking it. Flames of devotion and aura-of-preference are the way to go.

 

Coming from a Pally-lover (and lover in general- ladies) I also find myself tempted by the monk. I had a LOT of fun with the monk to the point where I may not play as a pally until much later (after cipher and maybe ranger). It the latest beta I've been relatively unimpressed by the paladin. They work well as off-tanks, but have been nerfed a bit much for my liking.

 

My suggestion, Mr Steadfast, would also be to check out the monk just in case the paladin isn't up to snuff. There are also dialogue options that are tied to use instead of skills (honest, passionate, aggressive, etc) and you get a "reputation" for that usage. I've been using rational and honest for when I play Paladin (or monk) and it's been a good time for the small slice of the game I've used it for.

 

If Monks had some interesting orders or something like that, I would probably have gone for a Monk, too.

 

I find it funny that Paladins so often seem to get stuck in the "What's it's concept? What do we do with it? Let's nerf it." cycle by so many developers, like no-one has an idea what to do with a Paladin these days, and they remain comparatively useless until at least the second or third expansion or something, and then it's powerful but conceptually shoddy, like a carnifex looted by orks.

  • Like 1

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well - monks are OP (or at least were) xP

 

They should actually make some "orders" for all classes ... For wizards - schools of magic (or somethink similar like Dragon Desciple, Wild Mage etc) - with different philosophy of magic. For barbarians - clans. For rogues - guilds. For rangers - tribe. For druids ... circle (?).  Etc. There are a lot of names - federations, unions and so on. Each can propagate different philosophies of life, nature, magic, fighting, state of mind and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

... it's powerful but conceptually AWESOME, like a carnifex looted by orks.

 

 

Fixed that for you... ;)

  • Like 1

"Wizards do not need to be The Dudes Who Can AoE Nuke You and Gish and Take as Many Hits as a Fighter and Make all Skills Irrelevant Because Magic."

-Josh Sawyer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

But the overall issue for paladins isn't actually the Attributes, because even with the current Attribute system in place (which will probably change at least a little... hopefully a lot) you should be fine with most combinations. The problem is that Paladins are pretty unengaging, as you've noticed, and (as so often unfortunately is the case) they don't seem to have a clear concept or conceptual "niche".

 

 

disagree. the problem for some folks is not so much that there is no paladin concept, but rather that the poe paladin concept is too different from the d&d/ie game paladin concept. for folks who play pathfinder, the poe paladin has more in common with the pathfinder cavalier than it does with keldorn from bg2.  the pathfinder cavalier has a clear concept: a martial character whose "true power comes from the conviction of his ideals." the cavalier gets extra teamwork feats and can buff his party members who is within range o' his banner.  the pathfinder cavalier joins an order and the order chosen may have less than honorable ideals.  etc.  pathfinder cavalier is having a clear concept, and it kinda sounds familiar, no?

 

unfortunately, the paladin label appears to be the insurmountable obstacle for folks rather than the class concept. for example, because o' the paladin name, folks demanded a silly 'smite' ability to make the poe play more like a d&d paladin.  so, developers tacked on a smite ability to poe paladin in spite o' the fact that such a thing is a bit incongruous.  instead o' embracing the poe paladin concept, some folks is trying to makes the poe paladin play more like a d&d paladin.

 

is funny and sad, but many o' the complaints we has seen for poe paladins, rogues, fighters and barbarians would disappear if those classes did not share a name with a d&d class.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited by Gromnir
  • Like 4

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

... it's powerful but conceptually AWESOME, like a carnifex looted by orks.

 

Fixed that for you... wink.png

 

I'll believe it when I see it. :p

 

 

 

m1400491a_Cat4_0427SILVER_XL_zps11f718ba

 

 

:p

 

On topic, I like the Paladin's concept in PoE. Although, I do think they could use a few more active abilities. My main will be a paladin, I'm trying to decide between the Shieldbearers and the Wayfarers. I'm thinking Shieldbearers, but I don't want have shield and that seems wrong to me. :D

  • Like 1

"Wizards do not need to be The Dudes Who Can AoE Nuke You and Gish and Take as Many Hits as a Fighter and Make all Skills Irrelevant Because Magic."

-Josh Sawyer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

... it's powerful but conceptually AWESOME, like a carnifex looted by orks.

 

Fixed that for you... wink.png

 

I'll believe it when I see it. tongue.png

 

 

 

m1400491a_Cat4_0427SILVER_XL_zps11f718ba

 

 

tongue.png

 

On topic, I like the Paladin's concept in PoE. Although, I do think they could use a few more active abilities. My main will be a paladin, I'm trying to decide between the Shieldbearers and the Wayfarers. I'm thinking Shieldbearers, but I don't want have shield and that seems wrong to me. :D

 

Oh, sorry, I wasn't actually thinking of the Carnifex being awesome - because it is - I just meant that while awesome/powerful (just like a looted carnifex) it's shoddy (as all things orky). tongue.png

 

As for the shieldless Shieldbearer, just fluff it as carrying the figurative, metaphysical shield of St. Elcga, and carrying another shield would be to dishonour your charge. :p

Edited by Luckmann

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of like "I have 3 swords with me - 2 on my back and 1 in my soul - and i need just one to kill you" xP Somethink similar was in some movie - can't remember what was it though xP

 

But yea - "shield" should be taken symbolically in this case - i doubt that every single member of this order in game will be using shield, and i wouldnt also as i'm not a big fan of shields myself ;] You can always put a shield as your alternative weapon - so you will theoretically "bear" this shield on your back while you will fight with your weapon of choosing ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

... it's powerful but conceptually AWESOME, like a carnifex looted by orks.

 

Fixed that for you... wink.png

 

I'll believe it when I see it. tongue.png

 

 

 

m1400491a_Cat4_0427SILVER_XL_zps11f718ba

 

 

tongue.png

 

On topic, I like the Paladin's concept in PoE. Although, I do think they could use a few more active abilities. My main will be a paladin, I'm trying to decide between the Shieldbearers and the Wayfarers. I'm thinking Shieldbearers, but I don't want have shield and that seems wrong to me. :D

 

Oh, sorry, I wasn't actually thinking of the Carnifex being awesome - because it is - I just meant that while awesome/powerful (just like a looted carnifex) it's shoddy (as all things orky). tongue.png

 

As for the shieldless Shieldbearer, just fluff it as carrying the figurative, metaphysical shield of St. Elcga, and carrying another shield would be to dishonour your charge. :p

 

 

I thought you meant the concept of a looted carnifex was shoddy, not the construction. No problems.

 

And yeah, that's what I'll probably end up doing. 

 

Kind of like "I have 3 swords with me - 2 on my back and 1 in my soul - and i need just one to kill you" xP Somethink similar was in some movie - can't remember what was it though xP

 

But yea - "shield" should be taken symbolically in this case - i doubt that every single member of this order in game will be using shield, and i wouldnt also as i'm not a big fan of shields myself ;] You can always put a shield as your alternative weapon - so you will theoretically "bear" this shield on your back while you will fight with your weapon of choosing ;)

 

I'll have to check that in the beta. A shield on my back does sound pretty cool.

"Wizards do not need to be The Dudes Who Can AoE Nuke You and Gish and Take as Many Hits as a Fighter and Make all Skills Irrelevant Because Magic."

-Josh Sawyer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A monk? never!  Don't like them stylistically or their playstyle in the IE games.  Maybe I'll give them a chance after a tenth playthrough or through a future companion. 

 

My problem is always that I have an ongoing struggle between caring about min/max and caring about roleplaying.  I want to be a knight with a sword, righting wrongs and other do goodery!  But I also want to be the best and have the most effective characters.  Maybe they will surprise us with some more stuff for

 

If I were going to not play a pally I would just try to make a beefy priest.  However, the orders are a big selling point that is hard to pass up.  None of the deities priests get to choose from seem that compelling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a dillema as well. Originally I planned to go as a warrior, because I love characters cladded in heavy armor, with a big shield. But from what  you're saying it seems that there is no restriction to armor and weapon of choice in Pillars of Eternity, so I think about paladin, chanter and priest as well. In wikia all three are summed up as "leader". What does it mean? They are benefiting the team as a whole with their abilities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...