Reasons for (dis)liking a class

[hrwd]

This is an addendum to my previous poll. It's basically to add context to that poll. Please state what you picked earlier and elaborate why you picked what you picked here. These are the reasons for (dis)liking a class:

 

Lore / Background / RP: If you like a class based on this, it means you like what it stands for, not necessarily its mechanics or its spot within a group. If you dislike it on this basis, it could mean either a mechanic is off(RP-wise) or the whole flavour of class is off.

 

Gameplay / Mechanics: If you like a class based on this, it could mean that you like how it plays, you like its numbers and efficacy etc without necessarily fancying its RP or Tactical elements. If you dislike it on these elements, it could mean that the numbers are off(in either direction) or that the whole class is too convoluted. More effort than its worth, yeah.

 

Party Makeup / Tactics: If you like a class based on this, it means you can always find a spot for that class and, often than not, fit yet another without really gimping your party makeup. The tactical options of a class also fall here. If you don't like it, more often than not a class can't fit tactically within a group(say, your favourite companion is that class and that class is a ballast when in doubles or more) or it "just auto attacks"(limited tactical worth).

 

Early / Late game class: To like an early game class is an often seen phenomenon. Just as it is to dislike a late game class. For obvious reasons.

 

Other: Various other reasons

 

Thank you for your participation!

[SkySlam]

Very insightful poll! I'll keep the tradition of being the first to answer.

 

My favorite class is the Chanter, and I chose the Lore/Background/RP option, and I would add the "Customizability", since it's possible (and very easy even for a non-tech-savvy like me) to swap in your personal favorite tunes and make him/her sing them all game long. What a cool feature, it really changed the game for me and I strongly hope it stays for PoE2!

Apart from this, I find chanters extremely well crafted in many aspects, I especially like the names of their phrases and invocations: I find them poetic and charming. They really got that extra magic for me.

 

My least favorite class is the Rogue, and I've chosen Mechanics/Gameplay. I find it especially aggravating to play a (melee) rogue with efficiency. In particular, I see the Rogue as a melee-only character. I'm not claiming this is correct or universally reasonable, it's just my personal view of the class, and since I can't make the melee variant work AT ALL, I tend to never include them in my party composition, much to my regret.

[evilcat]

Favorite classes:

• Cipher: mix of sword and magic which i like, interesting lore (psionic jedi, fair enought), can bring CC which helps party comp. Somehow fresh. Active.
• Ranger: i like archers, have mechanic of combining doggy and arrow target or lining up victims

Druid is close, since it is like sturdy wizard, but shapeshift never worked for me. Spells are more fun and you dont need shapeshift. Chanter is cool in design, but it is derped Priest so no.

I dont have unliked classes since why should i? The main reason to dislike class is that it makes game harder for no reason. Like brings very little to party, or does same as some other, but worse.

Reasons to like class:

• Personal favorite, like ranged or sword and magic
• Powerful enought
• Being integrated with the world somehow
• Different builds possible (replay) many many talents
• Appealing companion from that class
• Active, clickable abilities or pick your enemy wise. (random spawn summons would suck)
• Being less used in games. Rogues are everywhere but do you have Shadowpuncher?

Edited September 12, 2016 by evilcat

[higo]

I don't really have a least favorite class, but if I did I suppose the combat/mechanics would be a reason that I don't like the class. (Boring combat)

 

Combat and mechanics are also the reason I enjoy my favorite class so much - the wizard/sorcerer type. It's always rough at first but mid-late game wizard on this style game is so fun for me. The pretty colors and lights also make it fun   

 

When it comes to lore, I don't mind pretending to be any class. It's about how you RP as that class... It's about being creative and not sticking to the same thing over and over! Like playing the same class every time but having a different background. And the best part about Pillars is that your stats don't restrict you. No longer do I have to RP as the weak and frail wizard because which wizard wants to waste points in strength? Now I can invest in might and not feel like I'm wasting stats. (This is just one example of PoE's flexible stat system) I like that all the stats benefit all the classes one way or another   It opens up a lot of RP options and you can still kick ass in combat.

[Pus-in-Boots]

I picked lore/RP for my favourite - the paladin. I really like what they've done with the class. The conventional paladin is stiff, boring and bland. In PoE there is so much variety to the class. You can be empathetic and good or cruel and ruthless, or dispassionate and professional. And each of your RP choices is reinforced with a bonus to your defenses. Really nice touch. I personally enjoy playing cold, rational Goldpact paladin who takes nobody's bull**** and shrugs at madness that surronds him.

 

My secont choice would be the monk. I really like the gameplay AND lore. Power through pain is an interesting concept and I appreciate it that monks in this game originate from some other place than usual and have somewhat different vibe to them.

 

As of my least favourite class, that would be the ranger. And the reason is pretty simple - I didn't find anything interesting gameplay-wise in the class. Maybe I'm just a noob, but I don't find shooting arrows while your animal companion distracts enemies very appealing.

 

The next in the least favourite row would be the barbarian. I never liked the class wherever I encountered it because of the lore attached. In consequence, I didn't care to learn how to use them effectively in PoE.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Pus-in-Boots

[Ben No.3]

I like the religious approach to barbarians (some at least...), but the monks really kill it. Such awesome lore (as already stated before, so I won't go into it).

Least favourite is kind wayfarer paladin or Eothas priest. I hate to be pure-good in such a deep game... Very boring character. Seems so odly one dimensional and out of place to always be the good guy in that way... If you always want to be the good guy a shieldbarer would be the better choice. Same goes for an awful bleak walker who isn't evil but just an awful person. Skaen is very interesting though.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Ben No.3

[hrwd]

I like the religious approach to barbarians (some at least...), but the monks really kill it. Such awesome lore (as already stated before, so I won't go into it).

Least favourite is kind wayfarer paladin or Eothas priest. I hate to be pure-good in such a deep game... Very boring character. Seems so odly one dimensional and out of place to always be the good guy in that way... If you always want to be the good guy a shieldbarer would be the better choice. Same goes for an awful bleak walker who isn't evil but just an awful person. Skaen is very interesting though.

 

Yeah I agree. Bleak Walkers should've been something like Batman: Aggressive + Rational, not Aggressive + Cruel...that's just pure, boring Blackguard territory. Maybe Aggressive + Stoic? I think that Aggro + Ratio is better. Imagine the cool factor of a BW with Aggro Ratio...off the charts, eh?

 

But Eothas, Kind Wayfarer and such on the one end and Skaen(Loki really), Bleak Walkers and Woedica on the other end...is what makes a game world varied. To me, a Shieldbearer is much, much more acceptable than a Wayfarer. The difference? A Shieldbearer's task is to preserve peace, not necessarily help someone. Wayfarer's task, otoh, is to help someone even at the cost of peace. That's why I felt let down when I played my Shieldbearer: I couldn't resolve Gilded Vale diplomatically(which is a nonsense-every SB even novitiate would strive towards that and most likely make it happen). A Wayfarer would just help the rebel because...HELP THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH TYRANNY!(/blergh)...meanwhile a SB would try its darndest to keep that fragile peace alive, even if it means helping the Lord.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

I like the religious approach to barbarians (some at least...), but the monks really kill it. Such awesome lore (as already stated before, so I won't go into it).

Least favourite is kind wayfarer paladin or Eothas priest. I hate to be pure-good in such a deep game... Very boring character. Seems so odly one dimensional and out of place to always be the good guy in that way... If you always want to be the good guy a shieldbarer would be the better choice. Same goes for an awful bleak walker who isn't evil but just an awful person. Skaen is very interesting though.

Yeah I agree. Bleak Walkers should've been something like Batman: Aggressive + Rational, not Aggressive + Cruel...that's just pure, boring Blackguard territory. Maybe Aggressive + Stoic? I think that Aggro + Ratio is better. Imagine the cool factor of a BW with Aggro Ratio...off the charts, eh?

 

But Eothas, Kind Wayfarer and such on the one end and Skaen(Loki really), Bleak Walkers and Woedica on the other end...is what makes a game world varied. To me, a Shieldbearer is much, much more acceptable than a Wayfarer. The difference? A Shieldbearer's task is to preserve peace, not necessarily help someone. Wayfarer's task, otoh, is to help someone even at the cost of peace. That's why I felt let down when I played my Shieldbearer: I couldn't resolve Gilded Vale diplomatically(which is a nonsense-every SB even novitiate would strive towards that and most likely make it happen). A Wayfarer would just help the rebel because...HELP THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH TYRANNY!(/blergh)...meanwhile a SB would try its darndest to keep that fragile peace alive, even if it means helping the Lord.

Yes, the wayfarer's morals seem indeed very doubtful, as if designed by idealistic idiots. SB are the true heroes here

[Loren Tyr]

That's why I felt let down when I played my Shieldbearer: I couldn't resolve Gilded Vale diplomatically(which is a nonsense-every SB even novitiate would strive towards that and most likely make it happen). A Wayfarer would just help the rebel because...HELP THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH TYRANNY!(/blergh)...meanwhile a SB would try its darndest to keep that fragile peace alive, even if it means helping the Lord.

 

Just because a character would strive towards a diplomatic resolution doesn't mean he can make it happen though (see: the real world). So while it would have been a nice addition to be able to try a more peaceful solution, in my view it wouldn't have been very fitting to the situation to be able to actually reach one. 

[Pus-in-Boots]

Don't be so harsh, gentlemen. It is perfectly understandable that designers give players an option to play a classic goody-two-shoes paladin. Sure, it is a worn cliche, but some people enjoy it and expect it to be available. I'm personally repulsed by it as well. I really see something fresh and interesting in Gold pact paladins. No judging, no self-righteousness, just calm reason. And I agree with you that Bleak Walkers are unnecessarily cruel. They are said to be efficient and brutal, sure, but it has nothing to do with kicking puppies that you are forced to do if you want to stick to the guidelines of the subclass.

[Buzzskull]

I voted "Other" for my favorite: Paladin [bleak Walkers]. My main reason for picking Paladin is because I always pick Paladin, or its alternative, by default in every game I play. Secondary reason would be I like being [Aggressive] and unyielding -- something everyone should watch out for just by being there, but the [Cruel] bit... heh! I convince myself that even though I'm a Bleak Walker, I'm STILL a Paladin, thus I have an excuse for more points to honesty, stoic, rational, and some benevolence than cruelty.

 

I voted "Party Makeup/Tactics" for my least-liked: Rogue. I simply can't find a purpose for a Rogue in my party setup. But then I also don't have any use for a Ranger...

[MaxQuest]

In context of Pillars, my favorite class would be Cipher. Reasons being:

+ nice concept. I like character having various mental powers and stuff.

+ is mechanically comfortable

+ easy to incorporate in party; and has nice tactical utility in addition to dps

+ powerful enough on all stages of the game

+ nicely integrates into the game world

 

Least favorite / reasons:

Paladin:

- RP. I have a feeling that going a paladin main will make me feel conflicted when it will come to chaotic options (which I usually prefer over the lawful ones)

- Stereotype. Many years of wow (vanilla + BC), made me believe that it is quite hard if even possible to balance such a hybrid like a paladin. And unless he is outright OP, he will lack something that a specialist class has, something that will let a player with enough game knowledge win against him in 99% of cases.

+ But yeah, they are almost always welcome in a party.

 

Barbarian:

- RP. I can't play a character who has supposedly has low intellect and mindlessly charges into the fray. 

- Party: he shines most in encounters vs many easier mobs; encounters which by definition are easier than boss fights. When you add one in a party you have to think how to complement/support them, and if you don't weaken your party in harder encounters.

 

Warrior:

- Party: unless the warrior is your main; you have to think what does warrior adds to your party. Any buffs? Tactical Auras? Maybe some unrivaled boss tanking? But unfortunately it's not that much.

 

Rogue:

- Party: requires much babysitting. Doesn't have hard cc.

 

Druid:

- Party: opportunity cost. If I put one in backline, I would have to kick cipher, wizard or priest. I always want to keep first two. As for priest, he has potential to both out-dps and out-support a druid. As for frontline, he is squishy, and it comes to matter of convenience where something like barb will just help clear easy and medium encounters faster; while for harder fights I have enough of answers already.

 

 

Basically I avoid taking warrior/rogue party members, although I could main them.

And I avoid maining paladin and barbarian, although I am ok with having them in the party.

As for druid I just struggle to find a free spot for him, so he could complement the party better than other alternative classes.

Edited September 16, 2016 by MaxQuest

[K-Slash]

I voted on Rogue. I don't have a dislike, you just have to keep them from throwing up, getting sick, run over, pushed down the hill, mugged and all the other things that could happen to a PoE Rogue. They're my favourite. If they could be made less Diablo 2 Rogue and more Thief Rogue (Is that even possible?), that would be wonderful.

[hrwd]

 

That's why I felt let down when I played my Shieldbearer: I couldn't resolve Gilded Vale diplomatically(which is a nonsense-every SB even novitiate would strive towards that and most likely make it happen). A Wayfarer would just help the rebel because...HELP THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH TYRANNY!(/blergh)...meanwhile a SB would try its darndest to keep that fragile peace alive, even if it means helping the Lord.

 

Just because a character would strive towards a diplomatic resolution doesn't mean he can make it happen though (see: the real world). So while it would have been a nice addition to be able to try a more peaceful solution, in my view it wouldn't have been very fitting to the situation to be able to actually reach one. 

 

 

But you aren't even given a choice or chance to do it. You'd be surprised at the marvels skilled diplomats can pull off. This is a role I often like to play(see: Jedi Consular in SWTOR :D ).

 

Don't be so harsh, gentlemen. It is perfectly understandable that designers give players an option to play a classic goody-two-shoes paladin. Sure, it is a worn cliche, but some people enjoy it and expect it to be available. I'm personally repulsed by it as well. I really see something fresh and interesting in Gold pact paladins. No judging, no self-righteousness, just calm reason. And I agree with you that Bleak Walkers are unnecessarily cruel. They are said to be efficient and brutal, sure, but it has nothing to do with kicking puppies that you are forced to do if you want to stick to the guidelines of the subclass.

 

What do you think of Shieldbearers? To be completely honest, Diplo + Honest is kind of an odd mixture. I think that Diplo + Rational is the best SB. note: it seems I like the Rational option for whatever reason.

[Pus-in-Boots]

Yes, I think that mixture is somewhat contradictory. The honest options usually offer you a blunt truth, not coated with soft words. I would rather opt for diplomatic + benevolent. You are careful not to offend anyone and are genuinely interested in the well-being of others. On the other hand, you might consider the effect that the honest reputation has on people you encounter. It is really useful for someone who wants to resolve a situation peacefully to have other people trust your word. So the combination of diplomatic + honest might not be so bizzare after all.

[DreamWayfarer]

I almost always go Honest + Rational, so I am kinda disappointed there isn't an order or god focused on those attributes for players to choose (Abydon would be a very good fit, IMO).

 

IMO Bleak Walkers should be Honest + either Cruel or Aggressive, so they could still be the most "evil" order, but at the same time they are direct and straightforward about their goals, and will bever abandon a mission unless double-crossed by their employers.

 

It would also raise the interesting possibility of them becoming Cruel or Aggressive because their direct and unrelenting ways stop them from making the small distortions and concessions diplomacy requires, so they decided to be so feared they would never need diplomacy.

 

I agree that Shieldbearers shouldn't be 100% honest. Diplomats need to know when to cloud things a bit, even if sweetening the truth is generally preferable to actually lying.

[Ben No.3]

But Boots is probably right... While honest might be a bit weird on first inspection, it fits for an diplomat as a reputation. Honest and Rational might be ideal for a politician though... Although o don't really see an option of background being a non-noble-politican in this game

 

Also, maxquest, barbarians (especially pillars) aren't necessarily of low intelligence. They'd rather untrained warriors relying on their strength, like rouges are untrained warriors relying on swiftness/dirty fighting.

[Rosbjerg]

IMO Bleak Walkers should be Honest + either Cruel or Aggressive, so they could still be the most "evil" order, but at the same time they are direct and straightforward about their goals, and will bever abandon a mission unless double-crossed by their employers.

 

Nothing prevents you from being Honest and Rational as well with a Bleak Walkers, I had a playthrough doing exactly that - and it went perfectly well with Cruel and Aggressive.

 

Dispositions are also more reputation markers than personality indicators any way.

[hrwd]

But Boots is probably right... While honest might be a bit weird on first inspection, it fits for an diplomat as a reputation. Honest and Rational might be ideal for a politician though... Although o don't really see an option of background being a non-noble-politican in this game

 

Also, maxquest, barbarians (especially pillars) aren't necessarily of low intelligence. They'd rather untrained warriors relying on their strength, like rouges are untrained warriors relying on swiftness/dirty fighting.

 

Politicians honest? Excuse me...? You get squished in that vocation if you have any semblance of morale. I mean, just look what happened to Ned Stark in GoT...that happens to honest politicians(ok, their career).

 

Deceitful / Rational is more like it, sprinkled with some Diplo(though, not always).

Honest / Cruel would be disfavoured I think.

[ArnoldRimmer]

My favourite class is a kind wayfarer paladin, wizard or fighter.

 

Not keen on monks, chanters or ciphers. Could do without these.

 

Never liked theives much and now anyone can pick locks you don't need a thief like in BG2 which is agreat improvement.

 

Don't like bad characters which is why I won't be playing the tranny game.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

But Boots is probably right... While honest might be a bit weird on first inspection, it fits for an diplomat as a reputation. Honest and Rational might be ideal for a politician though... Although o don't really see an option of background being a non-noble-politican in this game

 

Also, maxquest, barbarians (especially pillars) aren't necessarily of low intelligence. They'd rather untrained warriors relying on their strength, like rouges are untrained warriors relying on swiftness/dirty fighting.

Politicians honest? Excuse me...? You get squished in that vocation if you have any semblance of morale. I mean, just look what happened to Ned Stark in GoT...that happens to honest politicians(ok, their career).

 

Deceitful / Rational is more like it, sprinkled with some Diplo(though, not always).

Honest / Cruel would be disfavoured I think.

It's reputation, not character. A good politician should have a honest reputation, even if (and especially if) he is actually a very deceitful character. A good liar shouldn't be known as a such.

[migelo]

I like priests because they can be courageous and inspiring

 

I hate ciphers because they are pretentious OP snowflakes that no one had ever heard of before, and because it's almost impossible to get through certain areas of the game without one in PotD