List of Subclasses as we learn about them.

[Ganrich]

I felt the same.  I am still waiting for a bit before making any snap judgements.  I wish we knew more.  I am ready to hear about the subclasses.

[SaruNi]

Why make the drug-using character a Monk?

 

1. Why let the Ghost Heart Ranger be the one with undead animal pet (rather than the more stereotypical wizard/necromancer familiar)? Sure, these are unconventional---that's what makes them fresh and interesting. And they have lore / substantive narrative to go along with them. (Incidentally,  blotter, props for that user pic of lingchi---the guy dying from the death of a thousand cuts is actually an excellent example of ecstasy through flagellation/wounding in East Asian cultures. He was also given opium.) 

 

(Same holds, to a lesser extent, for the Black Jacket---it's unconventional, the matching weapons to target / switching weapons in the middle of combat could just as easily be a Rogue (or Assassin) ability, and the name implies there may be special PoE-specific lore to go along with it.)

 

2. The PoE Monk purposefully takes injuries (and injures himself) in order to gain power. So those who are opposed to drugs because they can be harmful (a form of self-wounding) should agree that Monk is actually the most appropriate class---even moreso than Rogue or Barbarian. (Though multiclassing Monk - evasion Rogue or Monk - leaping Barbarian will probably be great options for more of a "conventional" unarmed martial arts master type.)

 

3. I agree that it could be boring if the drugs, their side effects, and their combinations aren't especially interesting. Some of the drugs from PoE 1 had negative side effects (boosting one stat will diminishing another, or negative effects kicking in after the drug wears off) or potentially interesting effects on gameplay (+speed, immunity to affliction, etc.). But as Boeroer pointed out it depends on what the drugs end up being (and how much of an effect they have on this Monk).

Edited February 7, 2017 by SaruNi

[blotter]

Sure, these are unconventional---that's what makes them fresh and interesting. And they have lore / substantive narrative to go along with them.

 

The Ghost Heart Ranger's setup isn't all that unconventional. It's actually pretty evocative of rather well-established themes like spirit guides and totems, to say nothing of the fact that spirit animal companions specifically are well-tread ground by Obsidian itself via Mask of the Betrayer.

 

I'll grant that it's not as bog-standard as the sort of hyper-focused archer they could have introduced in its place, but let's be realistic here: we're probably not going to get much in the way of unique dialogue options and NPC reactions based on subclasses. Hell, if Pillars 1 is any indication, we probably shouldn't even expect too many unique options based on broader class categories either (how many times were monk-specific dialogues available, for example? I can think of maybe two or three.) With that in mind, I wouldn't expect much on the lore front beyond the name itself and the descriptions we read during character generation, and if I'm right, it seems more appropriate to judge how interesting a subclass ends up being based on how it actually plays.

 

(Incidentally,  blotter, props for that user pic of lingchi---the guy dying from the death of a thousand cuts is actually an excellent example of ecstasy through flagellation/wounding in East Asian cultures. He was also given opium.)

 

Thanks. I definitely agree that it's a pretty striking representation of ritualized suffering and the altered states of mind that can be produced alongside it; I'm a fan of the direction that Pillars took with monks and personally find it to be far more interesting than its counterparts in games/franchises like D&D. Like I said earlier, I don't find the Nalpazca subclass to be morally objectionable and insofar as I'm concerned with it being too niche to merit occupying one of the very few subclass spots available, I base that position more on excessively narrow cultural associations that come with it - ideally, I'd like subclass options to be unique in applications and broader in terms of the areas and backgrounds that they can encompass. If they renamed the subclass the Lotus-Eater, Ecstatic, or what have you, and then mentioned the Nalpazca in the description as a regional example of a broader set of practices that the subclass represents my issues with it in this regard would mostly disappear.

 

Beyond that, though, this sort of subclass seems like the sort that would negatively stand out more than others if it suffered from a dearth of unique dialogue options and NPC interactions. Assassins, for example, have a comparatively broad range of motivations and presentations in media where they're present and the stereotypes surrounding them are pretty easily represented by Dispositions that are already in the game (e.g., cold and pragmatic as Rational and Stoic, treacherous and vile as Cruel and Deceptive/Shady, etc.) By contrast, nothing from the first game or from what I know of the second leads me to believe that there will be much opportunity to characterize the Watcher in terms of the subclass' philosophy or associated tropes/stereotypes (for better or worse). From what little we know of the other subclasses, their themes and skill sets either don't seem to map as closely to expectations in terms of character beliefs or behavior, or the expectations that come with them are more easily accommodated within the scope of conventional options. In either case, no other subclass that's been introduced thus far seems to be quite as keenly at risk of falling flat due to the gap between gameplay options and options available through interactions with NPCs.

Edited February 8, 2017 by blotter

[limaxophobiacq]

 

 

Paladin - (they will be the choice of an Order, but we don't have details)

1)

2)

 

Priest - (they will be the choice of a deity, but we don't have details)

1)

2)

 

Is this explicitly confirmed? It seems like if only two Paladin orders, and only two gods, both out of several available, got subclasses, that'd be a little messed-up.

 

Wouldn't it make more sense for the subclasses to be role-based, rather than order/diety-specific? I mean, that's how AD&D did it with kits.

 

Josh has said on SomethingAwful, I believe,(Ropekid is his handle) that the Orders and Deity's will be Subclasses.  Whether they are consolidating a few Gods under 1 subclass and the rest into the other, or like PoE1 they are retaining a handful of choices... I am unsure.  That is why I haven't put more than I have.  

 

Since the Subclass goal said 2 subclasses per Core Class I tend to lean that the Deity/Order system will change.  YMMV, on that assumption.

 

 

I hope we at least get some more spells that act differently for priests for different deities. A weapon-summoning (like Parasitic Staff or Spirit Lance) for Priests that summons a weapon based on your choice of deity (so a Greatsword for Berath, a Stiletto for Skaen, a flail for Eothas) would be really neat, as would Minor Avatar giving you different bonuses depending on which deity you become an avatar for (f.ex. more weapon damage and might bonus for Magran, sneak attack damage and a higher dex bonus for Skaen, higher Int bonus for Wael).

 

Edit: Just as long as they don't balance it as horribly as the symbol of (GOD) spells; +30 against charm/confusion/domination vs. +20 to all defenses, seriously?

Edited February 8, 2017 by limaxophobiacq

[Ganrich]

Yeah, spell differences via deity would be cool.

 

You know they could have two subclasses of Paladin. One being defensive and another offensive as an example. You select the subclass and it gives you a smaller subset of the Orders to select from. Then they could further flavor your Order via talents like in PoE. So, the subclass dictates certain things, and the deity gives talents to further flavor it.

 

EG. Select the defensive Subclass and you can select from Shieldbearer, Wayfarer, and Darcozzi. Select offensive and you can select from Bleak Walkers, Goldpact, and they could give us access to Pallegina's order or create another.

 

The same could be done with Priests and their deity. Although, you probably wouldn't split their two subclasses by defense and offense.

 

It doesn't sound like they are doing this, but a guy can dream.

[JerekKruger]

That's the system I'd prefer to see Gangich, but as you say it's unlikely to be the system Obsidian are going with.

[injurai]

Drugs are bad mmkay

[Doppelschwert]

Why make the drug-using character a Monk?

 

1. Why let the Ghost Heart Ranger be the one with undead animal pet (rather than the more stereotypical wizard/necromancer familiar)? Sure, these are unconventional---that's what makes them fresh and interesting. And they have lore / substantive narrative to go along with them. (Incidentally,  blotter, props for that user pic of lingchi---the guy dying from the death of a thousand cuts is actually an excellent example of ecstasy through flagellation/wounding in East Asian cultures. He was also given opium.) 

 

(Same holds, to a lesser extent, for the Black Jacket---it's unconventional, the matching weapons to target / switching weapons in the middle of combat could just as easily be a Rogue (or Assassin) ability, and the name implies there may be special PoE-specific lore to go along with it.)

 

2. The PoE Monk purposefully takes injuries (and injures himself) in order to gain power. So those who are opposed to drugs because they can be harmful (a form of self-wounding) should agree that Monk is actually the most appropriate class---even moreso than Rogue or Barbarian. (Though multiclassing Monk - evasion Rogue or Monk - leaping Barbarian will probably be great options for more of a "conventional" unarmed martial arts master type.)

 

3. I agree that it could be boring if the drugs, their side effects, and their combinations aren't especially interesting. Some of the drugs from PoE 1 had negative side effects (boosting one stat will diminishing another, or negative effects kicking in after the drug wears off) or potentially interesting effects on gameplay (+speed, immunity to affliction, etc.). But as Boeroer pointed out it depends on what the drugs end up being (and how much of an effect they have on this Monk).

 

In my opinion, a subclass should work like the archetypes in pathfinder:

Some class features are changed, or some class features are improved at the cost of other class features. Mechanically, they work on the class specific things, and necessarily change how you play a class.

 

The Ghost Heart Ranger makes sense in this context, since you modify one of the main class features, the pet.

The Black Jacket Fighter makes sense in this context, since most class features rely on weapons, and that is what is modified.

Not much is known about the Assassin mechanically, but from the sound of it, the risk-reward is increased, which is also a concept of the rogue in PoE.

 

Lets look at the monk:

Drugs are not part of the class mechanics, everyone can use them. You get a bonus for using them at the cost of a class ability, e.g. gaining wounds. The rest does not seem effected.

 

This doesn't fit either criteria - no necessary change in gameplay, and no modification of anything you could do anyway.

If you can play a subclass just the same as the main class, whats the point?

 

This would be the same as introducing the Trapper Rogue, which gets a bonus to traps at the cost of reduced sneak attack while a trap is lying around. You trade unique stuff from your class for something generic that everyone can do, and you could ignore it completely. I think thats super lame.

 

I thought PoE was progressive by making all consumables and traps available to everyone, compared to DnD where there was class-skill gated proficiency with these things. In DnD2, mostly rogues were able to deal with traps or lay them, while in PoE, everyone could. With these specializations, they are making a 180 degree turn on this paradigm, by reintroducing classes that are strictly better at those things than others.

 

Lore and personal disposition towards drugs aside, I hope we can agree that this does not sound like a compelling specialization from a mechanical point of view?

 

In particular, compare these to the deities / orders of clerics / paladins. Each cleric gets a unique weapon specialization and a unique spell. Each paladin modifies either his Flame of Devotion or his Lay on Hands. That is what I would like to see for monks as well. Something that will differentiate them and I need to take into consideration when building the character.

 

Regardless, I'll wait for further information. I fear I won't like either monk subclass at this point, and if it turns out like that, I'll likely multiclass to somehow get a martial artist or just scrap the concept alltogether for this game and play a magical swordsman instead.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Doppelschwert

[SkySlam]

 

Lore and personal disposition towards drugs aside, I hope we can agree that this does not sound like a compelling specialization from a mechanical point of view?

 

 

I agree, I hope there will be more to it than the simple "drugs will last longer and/or give extra stats to this subclass".

 

Special powers, visions, hallucination attacks... any strange idea would be interesting to see and totally fitting the Nazpalca theme! I hope the devs won't waste this chance by doing something banal or purely stats-related.

 

By the way, if you want to play the traditional martial artist, remember that you are free to pick the generic class Monk, without any specialization. Of course it would be a pity, I agree.

Edited February 8, 2017 by SkySlam

[Leeuwenhart]

Arent traps skill related and drugs combat related?

 

I get where you coming from. But drugs are combat only. And since they will damage and boost you (probably) a fit for the monk. (Only other character who needs dmg is barbarian i think. And hes got frenzy as a mechanic.)

Weapons can also be used by anybody. And so can their foci. But the fighter still has the specialisations no?

[Leeuwenhart]

Arent traps skill related and drugs combat related?

 

I get where you coming from. But drugs are combat only. And since they will damage and boost you (probably) a fit for the monk. (Only other character who needs dmg is barbarian i think. And hes got frenzy as a mechanic.)

Weapons can also be used by anybody. And so can their foci. But the fighter still has the specialisations no?

[grumpymoose]

I think a shapeshifting focused druid subclass was mentioned somewhere (as obvious as it gets), but no name public yet.

 

I personally hope for:

-a ranged paladin, or one choosing arch enemies

 

-summon focused chanter

 

-illusionist wizard

 

-cipher getting additional focus for being hit, but weaker soul whip

 

So many possibilities    

 

Interesting. While I wouldn't mind one sub-class build on the weapon based side of the class, for generating their resource . . . I'd really like a sub-class that went full psionic. I rather like the cypher, but the reliance on a weapon for generation of the resource is one of my least liked portions of the class (least liked in the context of something I like being what it is). If anything I'd like to see the sub-classes split, one focusing more on the weapon, and the other focusing more on psychokinetic/psionic fantasy of the class. How? That I couldn't say, as, obviously, if you get rid of the weapon generation of focus you need to replace it with something else that is also still balanced.

 

Personal taste on the psionics stuff, of course, I realize, but my tastes are what they are regardless.

Edited February 8, 2017 by grumpymoose

[MaxQuest]

Cipher could have many subclasses...

 

- tempter - cipher focused on cc

- psi-storm - cipher focused on aoe damage

- torment - cipher getting focus for being hit; masochist (as already mentioned)

- psion - cipher focused on premeditation and summoning of short-lasting psionic barriers, (e.g. which could grant 90% damage reduction at the moment they are evoked, and will dissipate to 0 over x seconds)

- soulknife - cipher focused on summoning sharp razors of energy, dealing raw damage with unarmed attacks.

[Lamppost in Winter]

JS said in the stream that Orders and Deities are going to be similar in scope of change to Pillars, and all previous Orders and Deities are supported. No plans for new ones, at this point.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Lamppost in Winter

[Ganrich]

JS said in the stream that Orders and Deities are going to be similar in scope of change to Pillars, and all previous Orders and Deities are supported. No plans for new ones, at this point.

Yup, I just want something more detailed before I update the OP. I'm a bit disappointed by it, but oh well. What can you do?

[Sonntam]

Wrong thread.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Sonntam

[blotter]

Yup, I just want something more detailed before I update the OP. I'm a bit disappointed by it, but oh well. What can you do?

 

I don't see this as particularly likely to happen, but one simple way to diversify deity subclasses without necessarily requiring a lot of work would be to introduce thematically appropriate multiclass affinities. Perhaps a Priest of Skaen would advance Cunning a bit more quickly if they took Rogue levels, for example. Magran's priesthood could similarly have affinities with the Discipline power source and Wizard/Arcane or Cipher/Psionics could work for Wael. Paladin/Zeal might work for an Eothasian multiclass affinity, but I'm drawing a blank for Berath (actually, Monk/Mortification might fit).

Edited February 9, 2017 by blotter

[AndreaColombo]

EDIT: wrong thread.

Edited February 9, 2017 by AndreaColombo

[Faerunner]

Ghost Heart sounds pretty cool, though did they say whether you just summon it for battle, or summon it when you enter a new area and have it wander around with you? The reason I like playing a ranger is having an animal companion; a little buddy to go everywhere with. If we just summon the companion at the beginning of every battle and it leaves at the end of said battle, I'll pass.

[Silent Winter]

Ghost Heart sounds pretty cool, though did they say whether you just summon it for battle, or summon it when you enter a new area and have it wander around with you? The reason I like playing a ranger is having an animal companion; a little buddy to go everywhere with. If we just summon the companion at the beginning of every battle and it leaves at the end of said battle, I'll pass.

Though not certain, I'm pretty sure it's a limited-time summon for combat only (not even a whole combat necessarily - just like other summons, it'd be 100-seconds or something).  The point of the Ghost Heart is that the companion has died and isn't around all the time.  If you could summon it indefinitely for a whole area, it'd be the same as a regular ranger.  Having said that, it'd be cool if you could choose to summon it outside of combat if it had trap-detection/find-hidden-object abilities.

[Bill Gates' Son]

Ghost Heart sounds pretty cool, though did they say whether you just summon it for battle, or summon it when you enter a new area and have it wander around with you? The reason I like playing a ranger is having an animal companion; a little buddy to go everywhere with. If we just summon the companion at the beginning of every battle and it leaves at the end of said battle, I'll pass.

 

I think the former instead of the later.  I think it's just a way of giving people a petless ranger option.

[Boeroer]

Right. I like a petless ranger IF he/she gets other talents/abilites to make up for the loss of the permanent companion and its abilites.

[jones092201]

Right. I like a petless ranger IF he/she gets other talents/abilites to make up for the loss of the permanent companion and its abilites.

 

agreed. Ranger is my go to class in RPGs, though in recent years I've been stuck with a pet and can't recreate my Stalker from BGII, or ranger-centric NWN 1/2 character.

 

hopefully, this will be an option more in line with older iterations of ranger...

could be pretty powerful if I could just take the pet perks and apply them to myself....

[Boeroer]

Haha - that would be great. Imagine Predator's Sense + Merciless + Vicious +  then Takedown + Brutal Takedown and add something like Tidefall. Go home rogue... just... go...

[draego]

Right. I like a petless ranger IF he/she gets other talents/abilites to make up for the loss of the permanent companion and its abilites.

 

Boooo petless ranger  . I am sure this will become the default ranger build for most but i just cant. Maybe the other ranger sub has even better pet ability probably more likely double down on ranged attack. I actually have been running my ranger in melee recently in POE1 and i like that better. Here's to hoping the sub has some ability that is not ranged specific only.

Edited February 10, 2017 by jnb0364