I haven't seen a thread like this one, and I reckon we have use for one.

(Sorry for the wall of text, but most of it's just copied class info.)

It is entirely inspired by Katarack21's passionate posts in another thread, arguing the case that the lore on paladins in PoE doesn't fit their options as you build paladin characters in the game, here are some excerpts from him:

"Paladins are martial zealots, devoted to a god, a ruler, or even a way of life. They can be found in any culture where a fanatical group of like-minded individuals have formed a warrior society dedicated to advancing their cause. Among those aligned to their worldview, paladins are viewed with respect and admiration, if a bit of fear. Many paladins hold leadership positions in armies and mercenary companies, but in the heat of battle their fanaticism often overrules the chain of command - and common sense."

"Paladins shouldn't need to multiclass to have martial training. There is no lore-friendly reason why you should have to train as a fighter to be good with weapons as a Paladin; Paladins are trained with weapons as they are frontline soldiers in most armed conflicts in Eora."

 

The more I've thought about the classes and the lore surrounding them, and lots of weird discrepancies here, the more I think this needs to be shed light on.

At the moment, things feel a bit arbitrary, especially with all the changes, going from PoE1 to PoE2.

I'm not saying that everything must fit like with nano-precision, but I am saying that the lore of the classes at least fit their respective class like a glove.

And you all know: "If it doesn't fit, acquit!" Which in this case means the class needs to acquit itself of its role, making it complete and reasonable.

 

So, without further ado, let's start with the paladin:

"Paladins are extremely devoted, often fanatical, soldiers who have pledged themselves to a chosen cause, combining the zeal of a priest with the ascetic discipline of a monk. They have founded many elite fighting forces, from the original Darcozzi Paladini, a two thousand year-old order of palace guards, to the fledgling Fellows of St. Waidwen Martyr, zealous defenders of the Godhammer pilgrim trail. Often found at the vanguard of many conflicts, paladins are natural leaders and have the ability to quickly assist their allies with targeted commands. A paladin's commands can stave off impending death, overcome fatigue, or hasten the charge to close breached defenses. And though they are not always pledged to the service of a god or gods, paladins are so singularly focused on their chosen cause that their souls are continually creating a wellspring of spiritual energy from which they can blast groups of foes in their immediate vicinity. Despite their often stoic presence and explosive combat style, paladins work best alongside allies. When isolated, they can be vulnerable, especially against singular powerful foes."

 

We immediately garner interesting cross-class similarities. Paladins are stoic and devoted, often fanatical elite warriors, with the zeal of a priest and the ascetic discipline of a monk, and with an explosive combat style. We can see that Katarack21 has a very important point: Paladins should never need to multiclass to become good at most combat tactics and fighting with weapons. All that stuff should be part and parcel of the class. Ironically, their fanatical zeal and explosive combat style, should actually mean that they have something like Barbarian's Frenzy going for them. So, friends, where are paladins' extreme and explosive weapon styles? Where are their commands that stave off death or fatigue, and those that "hasten the charge"? How can we blast enemies with our souls, playing as paladins? Personally, I feel like the only class deserving of a devoted weapon specialisation would be paladins, some priests, and monks (only their fists, and perhaps some kama or something). Or what about a cool Zealous Strike?

 

Monks:

"Monks belong to a variety of fighting orders that have sprung up in Ixamitl and the Eastern Reach over the past few centuries. While many monastic orders can trace their teachings to the Enduring Founder, Tletac, individual orders vary greatly in their focus, morality, and ethics. Common folk respect the incredible discipline of monks but see them as an odd, unpredictable bunch who may not be entirely sane. Even mercenaries and other adventurers aren't sure what to make of them. Centuries ago, one man founded the fighting monastic disciplines. He was an old warrior who had knocked on death's door many times and had endured numerous periods of captivity and torture. He discovered a method of mentally focusing on his pain to invoke power from his soul. When he left the service of his lord, he devoted his time to developing these techniques and teaching them to other warriors. He believed that mortification of the flesh not only made warriors more powerful, but that it strengthened the souls of its practitioners, making it more likely that their souls would remain intact when they died, rather than fragment. He advocated fighting with bare fists and without armor to emphasize a fighting monk's personal suffering. Because the founder of these disciplines was old when he began teaching and died only a few decades later, there are now many different monastic orders. Some are more secluded, some are mendicant travelers, some are mercenaries. They all tend to believe, like their founder, that combat is the ideal path for pursuing their particular brand of mortification of the flesh. Some choose to pursue this in dedicated service, some become mercenaries or assassins, and others devote their lives to dangerous wandering and exploration."

 

Alright, individual orders of monks vary greatly? Do our choices levelling up, subclasses and all, reflect that? They are fighting and they have extreme discipline and are not entirely sane, and gets off on pain (sounds like Rambo in First Blood). In many ways, monks would be ideal to multiclass, just to give them the varied flavour they need, but on the other hand, single-classing them should accommodate for that as well.

 

Priests:

"They are devoted followers of one or more deities, though almost all have a primary dedication to a single god above all others.^[1] They are capable in combat, but their true power comes from their prayers. These prayers form the common spells priests use in battle, ranging from healing magic and divine attacks to a variety of blessings and curses. The priests' power is actually derived from their personal beliefs. In contrast to most paladins, priests tend to focus on philosophy, teaching, and the relationship of religious organizations with common folk. The reception of priests in any given part of the world depends largely on how their god is revered - or reviled - by the people who live there. Dedicated to spreading the news of their gods' dominions in the realms of mortals through their own deeds, adventuring priests thrust themselves into lethal conflict to prove their worth. Often trained to fight alongside soldiers of their respective churches, priests are capable in the fray (and near the fray, for those who follow less melee-oriented faiths)."

I'm surprised to see that Deadfire priests do fit their role pretty well (despite their shortcomings as a class right now). It is clear that they need more prayers to choose from, and at least one subclass needs to be priests devoted to combat and even certain weapons.

 

Druids:

"They are animists, drawing power through the webs they believe connect all living souls in the world. When not casting spells and transforming into mythical beasts, druids spend a great deal of time in nature, giving them skill foci in Athletics and Survival. Much like priests, druids draw ambient fragments of soul energy toward them and shape their effects through practiced concentration. While druids do not have the diverse spell repertoire of wizards, they have more than enough to handle most problems that come their way. Druids' spells often take the form of natural phenomena—storms, coiling plants, rapid decay—to reflect their primal connection to the world. Despite their heavily offensive nature, they do have a few defensive and healing spells to aid their allies. Animists at heart, druids tap into the spiritual power that flows through the simple living things of Eora: plants, animals, and sometimes even living stone. While not necessarily religious, druids do have a reverence for the natural world and a keen interest in understanding its mysteries. In most cultures, druids are understood as a sort of primal magician, but among the Glanfathans, Naasitaqi, and many rural cultures, they may have high positions of influence and authority."

Interestingly, they are supposed to be heavily on the offensive (aggressive like animals). Does the class in Deadfire reflect this? And do druids have much less spells than wizards?

 

Fighters:

"Fighters form the front line of disciplined armies across the Eastern Reach. Though they are most commonly found in cultures with an organized martial structure, fighters can also be encountered as wandering mercenaries, bodyguards, and other types of sell-swords. The common element that unifies fighters is their heavy focus on endurance and melee defense. Fighters are men and women trained to use a wide variety of traditional weapons in brutal combat. They are often put in—or put themselves in—harm's way and are built to take an extraordinary amount of punishment. They are known for their discipline, skill, and durability. In the Eastern Reach, they are often employed as caravan guards, soldiers, and personal bodyguards. Accustomed as they are to long marches, strange places, and life on the road, all fighters gain a minor skill bonus to Athletics, Lore, and Survival.

In combat, fighters are steadfast and stalwart. Even novice fighters enjoy the highest base Deflection defense of any class and the ability to passively recover a small amount of Endurance every second. Though not traditionally as mobile as the monk nor as likely to dish out individually withering attacks as a rogue, fighters are dependable and flexible, able to shift between a variety of attack modes that alternate between high damage, maintaining a strong defense, weakening opponents, and dealing harsh retribution to those who attack his or her allies. Some fighters build up arsenals of feints, knockdowns, and special attacks rather than rely on the “slow and steady” approach.

And while fighters are often thought of as being primarily melee-based, they can specialize in a variety of weapons, including bows, crossbows, and even firearms. They're unlikely to outclass rangers at their own game, but fighters can be almost as dangerous at a distance as they are up close. Though it may not look like it to see them in battle next to wizards and priests, fighters are just as able to tap into the power of their souls to devastating effect: accelerating their attacks to a superhuman speed, striking foes with such power that nearby opponents are knocked off their feet, and maintaining a phenomenal endurance that allows them to rapidly bounce back from even terrible wounds, to protect nearby allies from incoming attacks, to knock down groups of enemies, and even to yank enemy passers-by into the fray."

 

Here, we learn that fighters have a heavy focus on endurance and melee defense. This seems to indicate that fighters shouldn't have a devoted weapon, no?

They can specialize in a variety of weapons - which would mean slight Accuracy bonuses on entire weapon groups, but not some devoted special weapon? They need a number of endurance-enhancing talents and in fact lots of defense and armour talents as well. The keyword is durability. The offensive stuff should be the left to paladins, rogues, druids (yep), rangers with ranged weapons, and barbarians, for instance.

 

Barbarians:

"They are the wild, unconventional counterparts to fighters – distinguished by their recklessness, ferocity, and their predilection to substitute raw aggression for discipline. Lacking the accuracy and strong Deflection of the fighter, the barbarian makes up for his lack of discipline through sheer speed, savagery, and abilities tailored for fighting groups of enemies. Barbarians are a challenge to deal with on a battlefield, though they are vulnerable to exhaustion if they don't pace themselves. Barbarians come from many of the more remote cultures found across the world. In the Eastern Reach, barbarians most often come from Eir Glanfath, though some can be found in rural Dyrwoodan communities or drifting in from abroad through port cities like Defiance Bay and New Heomar. Barbarians are often used as shock troops for dealing with mobs or simply to intimidate the easily-cowed with their ferocity. As the Dyrwood has settled down over time, the regular employment of foreign barbarians has slowed significantly, but they still make up the majority of Glanfathan front-line forces. Barbarians all have a strong skill focus in Athletics and lesser focus in Survival."

Clearly, these are fighters as well, but on the other end of the spectrum, raw aggression and powerful and fast attacks, less defence and armour. They having Frenzy is good and all, but how diverse is this class getting, as we level up? How many styles of barbarian do we have at our disposal?

 

Rogues:

"Rogues are vicious killers, feared for the brutality of their attacks. They can be found as often in dark back alleys as the heart of battlefield skirmishes. Though unpredictable and undisciplined, rogues are commonly used as shock troops or as part of a surprise assault, their withering attacks breaking enemy ranks and morale. Rogues tend to congregate in larger numbers in cities where they can be steadily employed as mercenaries or hired muscle. Contrary to what their name might imply, rogues come from many walks of life. They are cutpurses, thugs, and courtesans but also aristocrats, diplomats, and personal guards. Often separated by station in life, they are united by their reliance on wits, speed, and subterfuge to achieve their goals. The way of the rogue is not to stand toe-to-toe with the biggest brute in the room and exchange body blows, but to glance away in feigned confusion and slip an unseen blade between the brute's ribs as he turns his attention. When a room explodes in a storm of fire, the fighters grit their teeth, the priests pray for salvation, and the wizards fumble to find a spell to protect them, but the rogues just... disappear. They excel at being in the one place where no one's looking, at kicking people when they're down, at taunting a foe into turning its back on the rogue's ally while he or she nimbly skips away, and at being just too damned slippery to pin down.

Whether they pack a pair of daggers, a fine rapier, a slim bow, a stubby pistol, or a brutish club, rogues haul a carnival of pain with them wherever they go. If their natural tendencies weren't dangerous enough, their affinity for skullduggery allows some talented rogues to tap into their souls to perform amazing stunts: fading from view in plain sight, briefly cloaking their allies in a veil of shadow, imbuing their weapons with a soul-eating venom, or even becoming so insubstantial that blades barely hurt them. While rogues are known for their stealthy nature both in and out of battle, many of them are quite talented with machines and contraptions of all sorts. High-born rogues are often very knowledgeable about esoteric matters, while many low-born rogues are well-equipped to survive in the wild. Rogues have the highest single target damage and they have abilities that can dramatically increase their damage for a short duration. The rogue can use most of his abilities with ranged weapons, but he needs to be relatively close to the target to use them."

This class is surprisingly versatile, almost contrived and superfluous (since most classes described above plus ranger could replace it).

Overall, backstabbing and throwing a bomb or two, smearing poison on weapons, seem to be part of something of their general identity here. They should be able to deal the highest single target damage, though. Is this really true right now in Deadfire?

 

Rangers:

"Rangers are expert sharpshooters with any ranged weapon. Though they traditionally rely on bows and crossbows, some use firearms or even magical implements. Regardless of their choice of armament, even novice rangers can strike swiftly and leave severe wounds that quickly wear down an enemy's endurance and movement. They are assisted in their efforts by their animal Companions, incredibly tough and loyal creatures with whom rangers form lifelong bonds, who share their lives (literally) with their masters. Rangers are warriors of the woodlands and masters of the hunt. Always partnered with soul-bonded animal companions, they can be found in wild spaces all over the world. As their lifestyles often tend toward independence and isolation, it is rare for rangers to become an integral part of a large fighting force, though they are often employed as scouts and guides."

The description of them makes them very specialized on ranged weapons and having superb animal companions. In Deadfire, they can sneak up solo on stuff and start shooting, and then kite, I guess? If it was up to me, I'd give rangers some important non-ranged melee role as well.

 

As for chanters, ciphers, and wizards, I'll stick my head out and claim that they are indeed pretty distinct classes with lots of variety to them already in Deadfire.

 

What do you guys think?
 

Edited November 26, 20178 yr by IndiraLightfoot

people can read into the lore what they want to see, and ignore what they do not wish to see.  keep in mind kat21 is demanding a return to poe status which did not have individual weapon specialization inherent to the paladin class any more than deadfire.  regardless, martial training don't by necessity make a person a killing machine with a weapon, particular with the weapons tech available in deadfire.  anecdotal but funny: a good friend o' ours, just turned 80, were in the US military at the time 'tween korea and vietnam.  air force. technical a radio operator, he were in actuality a lifeguard who also played for the base football team while he served in morocco.  whatever weapons training he received in basic were the extent o' his weapon training. 

 

the poe and deadfire paladins clear have martial powhaz.  their heightened defenses, including deflection, is highly useful in combat.  flames o' devotion, and other skills, is clear meant to enhance martial powha.  actual, pretty much all the paladin talents, deadfire or poe, is combat related.  at the moment, the martial training o' the deadfire paladin is denied by kat21 'cause there is no specific talent for a weapon focus available w/o multiclassing (the use o' multi-class which is an inexplicable mind numbing hurdle for some) in spite o' the paladin's clear efficacy with weapons in actual deadfire combat.  the paladin starts deadfire with two weapon proficiencies and is able to stand toe-to-toe with genuine monsters wielding a mace and a stout shield... or whatever.  our friend the lifeguard would never have been able to do so  with his martial training.  try and imagine away the current deadfire paladin martial prowess must needs depend on some kinda bizarre relative analysis with the poe paladin, but only in the situation wherein such a poe paladin has chosen to take an Optional weapon feat.

 

from almost the start o' poe development, the paladin were described by the developers as a resilient support class which could utilize party buffing auras and powerful individual target buffs and debuffs. from the pov o' the developers, the lore were meant to support such a concept. kat21's notion o' a paladin is obvious more limited than were obsidian's.  the developers never saw the poe paladin as a direct analog to ie game paladins.  the notion o' a support class resulting from a martial tradition, while meshing perfect fine for Gromnir and the obsidians, don't work for kat21... though the timing o' his complaint makes it transparent.  this non-problem were as much a problem in poe as it is in deadfire.  the player need make use o' optional customization features to acquire the weapon-specific talents kat21 wishes.

 

and btw, kat21 complaint, while new for him, is not new.  the reason why we got flames o' devotion added to the poe paladin (were not an original poe paladin feature) were 'cause folks complained how the poe paladin weren't enough like their notions o' roland and the peers or bg2 paladins or whatever.  "why call it a paladin?" the need for some kinda paladin weapon powha were addressed with flames o' devotion and sworn enemy.  so, kat21 actual already got what he wants w/o realizing or appreciating.  reread lore to fit such powhaz. the paladin martial training, which is as much physical as spiritual, allows the paladin to channel their chi (or whatever) to achieve unparallelled combat prowess by means o' imbuing their weapons, and the arms which wield them, with transcendent energies capable of smiting the most powerful of foes. the paladin's martial training grants bestest possible deflection and defense in the game, and defense is as much an aspect o' martial training as is offense, no? in addition, the paladin has access to unique offensive powers which grant their weapon usage increased accuracy and damage potential.  sure, 'cause is the poe universe even the martial training is based 'pon soul power, but why should such unhinge kat21 and others?

 

no need to change lore.  make adjustments to penetration and clean up all the ui bugs is needed.  also needed is the addition o'  specific talents to a few o' the classes with more paltry customization options... though current deadfire paladins is one o' the classes which need such tlc least.  is all kinda stuff which needs attention.  a lore reboot?  if such is needed, might wanna look inward rather than to obsidian.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps so many silly issues resulting from class naming choices and fan's inability to free themselves from expectations based 'pon nothing more than the names.  similar problems kat21 suffers were particular evident during poe development regarding fighters and rogues as well.  "don't call it a fighter if it can't fight!"  

Does Deadfire fail to match classes with their lore? If so, how to fix it?

This class (Rogue) is surprisingly versatile, almost contrived and superfluous (since most classes described above plus ranger could replace it).

> It seems that rogue class fails to match the lore description when it comes to versatility.

> How to fix? By making them more versatile and allow them to easier evade incoming damage, without making them tanky:

- give them some ability to temporary trade their damage output for a really big boost to evasion, deflection and disengagement.

- some kind of AoE smoke bomb, that confuses everyone in area, and gives invisibility to any affected rogue (including enemies) for a number of seconds equal to their power level.

 

Rangers are expert sharpshooters with any ranged weapon

> In the current iteration of beta, they are probably worse at ranged physical damage dealing than monks, black jackets and berserkers.

> How to fix: by giving them some expert ranged specialization and some perception inspiration.

Edited November 26, 20178 yr by MaxQuest

Hey, there, Gromnir. Nice to hear so much from you!

 

 

 

 

keep in mind kat21 is demanding a return to poe status which did not have individual weapon specialization inherent to the paladin class any more than deadfire.

No, but what it *did* have is the ability to select weapon talents and styles to reflect that your character had advanced training in weapons. It allowed you to *play* as a highly martially trained warrior-zealot, and to reflect your weapon training being equal to any fighters, which is something you can't currently do in Deadfire without *being* a fighter.

 

 

actual, pretty much all the paladin talents, deadfire or poe, is combat related.  at the moment, the martial training o' the deadfire paladin is denied by kat21 'cause there is no specific talent for a weapon focus available w/o multiclassing (the use o' multi-class which is an inexplicable mind numbing hurdle for some)

Yes, but none of them are *weapon skill* related. And the paladin was only an example; I'm actually *way* more concerned about the lack of ranged cipher capability in PoE 2. I'd also like to point out that I have so far only played two single-class characters in the beta; I've mostly been playing mutliclass characters. I just don't want to *HAVE* to change everything about my character--and multiclassing *does* change literally every aspect of your character--just to make my Paladin good with a shield or make my cipher specialize in ranged weapons. Multiclassing is *great*, but it's *not* a solution to nuanced character builds. Overall total options in the game≠single-class diversity.

 

 

  try and imagine away the current deadfire paladin martial prowess must needs depend on some kinda bizarre relative analysis with the poe paladin, but only in the situation wherein such a poe paladin has chosen to take an Optional weapon feat.

That has to be the most convoluted and roundabout way of calling me crazy I've ever seen.

 

 

from almost the start o' poe development, the paladin were described by the developers as a resilient support class which could utilize party buffing auras and powerful individual target buffs and debuffs. from the pov o' the developers, the lore were meant to support such a concept. kat21's notion o' a paladin is obvious more limited than were obsidian's.  the developers never saw the poe paladin as a direct analog to ie game paladins.  the notion o' a support class resulting from a martial tradition, while meshing perfect fine for Gromnir and the obsidians, don't work for kat21... though the timing o' his complaint makes it transparent.  this non-problem were as much a problem in poe as it is in deadfire.  the player need make use o' optional customization features to acquire the weapon-specific talents kat21 wishes.

Not *my* concept of a paladin, my concept of a paladin comes mostly from D&D where they were in fact designed as front-line support class. With maybe a little from WoW, where they are *also* front-line support classes. When I think of "paladin" I think of a hybrid class that combines aspects of a buff-focused priest with a tank-focused fighter. The major difference between PoE and PoE 2 is that in PoE *everybody has that option*. In PoE 2, *only fighters have that option*. The gap in weapon capabilities between Paladins and Fighters is much larger in PoE 2 than in PoE, and for no real reason other than "make people who play fighters feel better". Like weapon styles being exclusive makes up for a lack of interesting abilities.

 

 

and btw, kat21 complaint, while new for him, is not new.  the reason why we got flames o' devotion added to the poe paladin (were not an original poe paladin feature) were 'cause folks complained how the poe paladin weren't enough like their notions o' roland and the peers or bg2 paladins or whatever.  "why call it a paladin?" the need for some kinda paladin weapon powha were addressed with flames o' devotion and sworn enemy.  so, kat21 actual already got what he wants w/o realizing or appreciating.

Dude. I was here. I wasn't in the beta in PoE, but I was on the forums and remember the debates. Fortunately for me, the addition of Flames of Devotion as a Paladin power and the debate surrounding it has nothing to do with anything we're talking about here, so...yay? Personally I'm glad they gave the Paladin a strike ability. It would feel lacking without it, but it doesn't effect this.

 

 

in addition, the paladin has access to unique offensive powers which grant their weapon usage increased accuracy and damage potential.  sure, 'cause is the poe universe even the martial training is based 'pon soul power, but why should such unhinge kat21 and others?

The abilities, like knockdown and flames of devotion and shadowing beyond, are all soul power--bursts of superhuman strength, speed, etc. The passives I'm not so sure about. The class stats, like accuracy and deflection bonus and whatnot, I think just reflect training, not anything to do with soul power. Don't quote me on that though.

 

 

no need to change lore.  make adjustments to penetration and clean up all the ui bugs is needed.  also needed is the addition o'  specific talents to a few o' the classes with more paltry customization options... though current deadfire paladins is one o' the classes which need such tlc least.

Oh, I totally agree. Paladins have no need of any specific talent being given to them specifically. However, the game as a whole would I feel benefit from some general talents available to all classes.

 

 

ps so many silly issues resulting from class naming choices and fan's inability to free themselves from expectations based 'pon nothing more than the names.  similar problems kat21 suffers were particular evident during poe development regarding fighters and rogues as well.  "don't call it a fighter if it can't fight!"

Thank goodness fighters were conceived and designed from the original stages of PoE development to be the most reliable damage dealers over time and there was never a problem with them being "unable to fight", simple with feeling boring.

I

 

Rogues:

"Whether they pack a pair of daggers..."

 

Rogues should have access to Two-Weapon fighting, no?

I don't want to see any lore changed in order to accommodate the classes - just classes fitting the lore.

 

I'm mainly concerned seeing some descriptions not really fitting some of the classes as they stand right now in the Backfire beta:

-Paladins aren't explosive martial beasts, hastening charges and staving off fatigue.

-Fighters have become too offensive and bland.

-Rogues versatility is down the drain.

-Rangers ranged attacks certainly need upgrading and branching specialization.

-I reckon priests can be improved by making the choice of deity even more impactful when you chose talents and proficiences when you create your priest and level up.

Edited November 26, 20178 yr by IndiraLightfoot

 

Rogues:

"Whether they pack a pair of daggers..."

Rogues should have access to Two-Weapon fighting, no?

O don't necessarly see why? They can pack a pair of daggers, they can pack a single dagger, they can pack a firearm or a mace. With current system there is no need for two-weapon fighting talent, rather they have abilities to make most of their two-weapon fighting style. Two-weapon fighting rogue will work differently than two-weapon fighting fighter. I don't think there is a requirement of "rogues have to be equal in direct combat with fighers."

 

 

 

As a reply to OP. I did find Katarack21's argument regarding Palladins compelling, even though I don't 100% agree. As of now, I am not really fond of giving ALL classes access to those enhanced weapon skills. However, yesterday I had an idea - what if we have multiple sets of shared, passive talent trees?

 

WARRIOR TALENTS - talents designed to boost efficiency with weapons, representing people who spent their lives as warriors, mastering their craft and deadliness

Barbarians

Fighter

Monk

Paladin

 

DISTRUPTOR TALENTS - Yhhh, you know, those classes I don't know how to categorize. I can't really think of a set of abilities which would be useful for all of them.

Chanter

Rogue

Cipher

Ranger

 

SPELLCASTER TALENTS - talents for classes focused around spellcasting. 

Druid

Priest

Wizard

 

Those talent trees would also be a subject to "power level". If you multiclass Fighter with Paladin you still stay within "warrior talent tree" which means you will have faster access to higher ability tiers and be able to access highest level of boosts.

 

If you decide to multiclass between those categories you get access to a wider range of talents but will gain them slower and won't be able to access the highest tiers of those trees.

 

 

Edited November 26, 20178 yr by Wormerine

 

 

Rogues:

"Whether they pack a pair of daggers..."

Rogues should have access to Two-Weapon fighting, no?

O don't necessarly see why? They can pack a pair of daggers, they can pack a single dagger, they can pack a firearm or a mace. With current system there is no need for two-weapon fighting talent, rather they have abilities to make most of their two-weapon fighting style. Two-weapon fighting rogue will work differently than two-weapon fighting fighter. I don't think there is a requirement of "rogues have to be equal in direct combat with fighers."

 

Oh, no, rogues shouldn't be "equal in direct combat" with fighters. Rogues should deal far more damage in shorter time periods than fighters but be much less capable of taking in a hit, instead relying on moving around the battlefield and inflicting short-term afflictions with their high-damage bursts.

 

But of all the classes described in the guidebook, rogues are the *only* ones explicitly stated to commonly use two weapons simultaneously. Fighters aren't stated to use two weapons at once. Rangers aren't stated to use two weapons at once. Rogues, however, have the use of double daggers so tightly bound to their concept that Obsidian felt the need to explicitly point it out when describing Rogues.

 

I feel that should be reflected with access to the two-weapon fighting talent.

 

 

Rogues:

"Whether they pack a pair of daggers..."

Rogues should have access to Two-Weapon fighting, no?

O don't necessarly see why?

 

 

 

 

I think Katarack21's is making the same point as I do: 

We have established lore for the classes, and if the very canonical description of them says something about how they behave themselves in combat, such options should be readily available to them. It makes the most sense. Otherwise, we'll get stuck explaining bits of the lore description away as inaccurate mood delineators. 

 

EDIT: Yeah:

 

 

 

 But of all the classes described in the guidebook, rogues are the *only* ones explicitly stated to commonly use two weapons simultaneously. Fighters aren't stated to use two weapons at once. Rangers aren't stated to use two weapons at once. Rogues, however, have the use of double daggers so tightly bound to their concept that Obsidian felt the need to explicitly point it out when describing Rogues.

 

I feel that should be reflected with access to the two-weapon fighting talent.

 

Edited November 26, 20178 yr by IndiraLightfoot

*Sorry, double post.*

Edited November 26, 20178 yr by IndiraLightfoot

 

 

 

Rogues:

"Whether they pack a pair of daggers..."

Rogues should have access to Two-Weapon fighting, no?

O don't necessarly see why?

 

 

 

 

I think Katarack21's is making the same point as I do: 

We have established lore for the classes, and if the very canonical description of them says something about how they behave themselves in combat, such options should be readily available to them. It makes the most sense. Otherwise, we'll get stuck explaining bits of the lore description away as inaccurate mood delineators. 

 

Exactly. I feel it's best if there are at least talents and abilities *available* to reflect the lore description. That way you can build a direct stereotype-from-the-lore class archetype *or* make a member of that class that's a little distinct from the run-of-the-mill.

I absolutely love the lore in PoE. Having made all this incredible stuff, only to have it crumble a bit already at character creation and level ups with single classes would be quite a waste.

If it says "in the heat of battle their fanaticism often overrules the chain of command - and common sense", then I expect at least some recklessness and zealous risk-taking on behalf of paladins in PoE.

Edited November 26, 20178 yr by IndiraLightfoot

I absolutely love the lore in PoE. Having made all this incredible stuff, only to have it crumble a bit already at character creation and level ups with single classes would be quite a waste.

If it says "in the heat of battle their fanaticism often overrules the chain of command - and common sense", then I expect at least some recklessness and zealous risk-taking on behalf of paladins in PoE.

Which, in fairness, we do see with the paladin NPC companion at least.

We immediately garner interesting cross-class similarities. Paladins are stoic and devoted, often fanatical elite warriors, with the zeal of a priest and the ascetic discipline of a monk, and with an explosive combat style. We can see that Katarack21 has a very important point: Paladins should never need to multiclass to become good at most combat tactics and fighting with weapons. All that stuff should be part and parcel of the class. Ironically, their fanatical zeal and explosive combat style, should actually mean that they have something like Barbarian's Frenzy going for them. So, friends, where are paladins' extreme and explosive weapon styles? Where are their commands that stave off death or fatigue, and those that "hasten the charge"? How can we blast enemies with our souls, playing as paladins? Personally, I feel like the only class deserving of a devoted weapon specialisation would be paladins, some priests, and monks (only their fists, and perhaps some kama or something). Or what about a cool Zealous Strike?

 

I'd say that the paladin's actually a good example of why class capabilities shouldn't be overly dictated by generic class descriptions. There doubtless are paladin orders, like the Darcozzi Paladani and the Bleakwalkers, that are characterized by and are infamous for their ardent passions or relentless ferocity which drown out the petty dictates of reason, but it's the exact opposite for the Goldpact Knights, who eschew passion and aggression for pragmatism and restraint, and the Shieldbearers of St. Elcga, who are peacekeepers and guardians first and foremost rather than crusaders. The common thread between all orders is a zealous dedication to their chosen causes, but that can take any number of different forms in practice. Making abilities or talents to reflect paladins' "extreme" or "explosive" fighting styles and distributing them universally overlooks this and arguably does a disservice to the class' potential for extensive variation based on the particulars of the orders' beliefs.

 

Alright, individual orders of monks vary greatly? Do our choices levelling up, subclasses and all, reflect that? They are fighting and they have extreme discipline and are not entirely sane, and gets off on pain (sounds like Rambo in First Blood). In many ways, monks would be ideal to multiclass, just to give them the varied flavour they need, but on the other hand, single-classing them should accommodate for that as well.

 

They vary greatly "in their focus, morality, and ethics" according to the description, and I think the monk's available subclasses are fairly illustrative of this: we've got Helwalkers who walk the razor's edge between empowerment and death in their embrace of personal suffering, the Nalpazca who use both drugs and the experience of pain as ways to explore the mutability of their senses and grasp the underlying nature of material existence, and the Shattered Pillars who radically depart from both of the others by approaching suffering as something to be wielded as a weapon against others rather than endured or experienced themselves.

 

As far as being not entirely sane is concerned, suggesting that this is a box that needs to be checked off for the class to live up to its lore is ludicrous, even in the context of that class description: how others see them is not how they have to be, after all. That said, the little blurbs about general characteristics for the Nalzpaca (in particular, the part where it is stated that "(t)heir extensive dabbling in with the boundaries of reality can give others the impression that they are addled or simply insane") may indicate what we can expect from its subclass-specific dialogue options, however many of those are present throughout the game.

 

Their discipline is reflected in several ways already: Clarity of Agony represents their mastery of pain by enabling them to draw upon it to subdue afflictions, Bull's Will reflects heightened mental discipline, Bear's Fortitude does the same for physical discipline/conditioning, and Duality of Mortal Presence basically combines the preceding themes I've mentioned here, further emphasizing them in the process. And then there's the iconic ability, Transcendent Suffering, which speaks towards the rigorous training that allows them to treat their very bodies as weapons.

 

Interestingly, they are supposed to be heavily on the offensive (aggressive like animals). Does the class in Deadfire reflect this? And do druids have much less spells than wizards?

 

The majority of the available spells for druids favor damage, crowd control, afflictions, and/or damage over time. This is overwhelmingly true of their 1st level spells but it balances out more or more over subsequent spell levels. Also, their Spiritshift abilities and customization options are largely defined in-game by their ability to wreck things.

 

The druid spell list offers consistently fewer spells per level than the wizard's, and that's even before considering spells that are unique to grimoires which we'll find throughout the game or the wizard class' ability to change which spells they have access to during combat or exploration by swapping grimoires.

 

Here, we learn that fighters have a heavy focus on endurance and melee defense. This seems to indicate that fighters shouldn't have a devoted weapon, no?

 

Even if your conclusion necessarily followed from the descriptions for the class, and I think that's highly questionable, part of the point of subclasses is to allow for unconventional characterizations and build options for the classes that they're tied to. The Ghost Heart ranger, for example, was a clear demonstration of this early on in Deadfire's initial campaign.

 

On a more personal note, I think that limiting fighters to defensive abilities only would make them incredibly boring.

 

They can specialize in a variety of weapons - which would mean slight Accuracy bonuses on entire weapon groups, but not some devoted special weapon? They need a number of endurance-enhancing talents and in fact lots of defense and armour talents as well. The keyword is durability. The offensive stuff should be the left to paladins, rogues, druids (yep), rangers with ranged weapons, and barbarians, for instance.

 

The fighter's class description establishes them as front-line combatants, which suggests some degree of offensive capability. They already have defensive and armor talents: Vigorous Defense and Armored Grace being examples alongside others like Guardian Stance and Determination. Into the Fray (one of their more distinctive offensive abilities) is also notable in that its applications are likely to frequently be as protective in nature as they are aggressive, given the fighter is likely to use it to drag enemies away from more vulnerable targets.

Edited November 26, 20178 yr by blotter

@Katarack21: Indeed. Now, just let me roll up my own fanatic paladin, complete with a nasty flail and shieldbashing.

 

@blotter: Your arguments are sound and correct. However, I still feel that at its very core, any class lore should be naturally represented in what we get to pick when we create a character from such a class. We shouldn't have to do the kind of quality analysis you just did in order to justify stuff that at first glance seems odd, out of place or even wrong.

Reading about the class, and then playing it, should for the most part be a smooth transition, no?

Edited November 26, 20178 yr by IndiraLightfoot

@blotter: Your arguments are sound and correct. However, I still feel that at its very core, any class lore should be naturally represented in what we get to pick when create such a class. We shouldn't have to do the kind of quality analysis you just did in order to justify stuff that at first glance seems odd, out of place or even wrong.

Reading about the class, and then playing it, should for the most part be a smooth transition, no?

 

I'd say that we're in agreement that there's room for improvement in terms of class abilities and talents, but I think that the developers should generally treat the basic class descriptions as broad-strokes representations of the classes/subclasses rather than strict prescriptions of what should or should not be possible for them. If anything, I believe there's a case to be made that some of the more exciting possibilities for developing the classes pertain to options that diverge from or even subvert the basic expectations set forth by the descriptions of the classes they apply to.

Edited November 26, 20178 yr by blotter

 

@blotter: Your arguments are sound and correct. However, I still feel that at its very core, any class lore should be naturally represented in what we get to pick when create such a class. We shouldn't have to do the kind of quality analysis you just did in order to justify stuff that at first glance seems odd, out of place or even wrong.

Reading about the class, and then playing it, should for the most part be a smooth transition, no?

 

I'd say that we're in agreement that there's room for improvement in terms of class abilities and talents, but I think that the developers should generally treat the basic class descriptions as broad-strokes representations of the classes/subclasses rather than strict prescriptions of what should or should not be possible for them. If anything, I believe there's a case to be made that some of the more exciting possibilities for developing the classes lie pertain to options that diverge from or even subvert the basic expectations set forth by the descriptions of the classes they apply to.

 

I'd say that's more than fair. When I said fit like a glove, I really meant a loose-fitting glove several sizes too large.

The proposed Resolve changes probably bring ciphers in closer correspondence with their lore, actually. Mechanically it's a huge problem but lorewise it seems to line up better.

 

Only issue I can think of re: Cipher lore is that Soul Whip isn't coded as a lash, but rather as a straight weapon damage bonus.

The proposed Resolve changes probably bring ciphers in closer correspondence with their lore, actually. Mechanically it's a huge problem but lorewise it seems to line up better.

 

Only issue I can think of re: Cipher lore is that Soul Whip isn't coded as a lash, but rather as a straight weapon damage bonus.

 

Should it be a raw lash or what type of element should it be

Whether they pack a pair of daggers, 

Rogues can't have a pair of daggers now unless they're a fighter too.

 with a soul-eating venom, 

Where is this now? Weapons poisoning was one of the general abilities in POE1 now gone in POE2.

While rogues are known for their stealthy nature both in and out of battle, many of them are quite talented with machines and contraptions of all sorts. High-born rogues are often very knowledgeable about esoteric matters, while many low-born rogues are well-equipped to survive in the wild.

 

Can't do all of that because of a very stingy distribution of skill points. Mechanics, stealth, sleight of hand, explosives, athletics, survival, streetwise - all are rogue's staple skills but there's just not enough skill points for so many skills. Why can't classes have varying amount of skill points for varying classes like it was in AD&D? Why? 

Edited November 29, 20178 yr by Aramintai

Oh, no, rogues shouldn't be "equal in direct combat" with fighters. Rogues should deal far more damage in shorter time periods than fighters but be much less capable of taking in a hit, instead relying on moving around the battlefield and inflicting short-term afflictions with their high-damage bursts.

 

But of all the classes described in the guidebook, rogues are the *only* ones explicitly stated to commonly use two weapons simultaneously. Fighters aren't stated to use two weapons at once. Rangers aren't stated to use two weapons at once. Rogues, however, have the use of double daggers so tightly bound to their concept that Obsidian felt the need to explicitly point it out when describing Rogues.

 

I feel that should be reflected with access to the two-weapon fighting talent.

Exactly, rogues are agile, tricky Strikers.

 

I want to focus on this for one second in the whole context of this thread. I'm pretty sure Obsidian labeled the classes by role leading up to Pillars 1 as well, but it's not in the character creator there and I can't find it online right now.

 

But roles are listed in the Backer Beta, and rogues and rangers and the only classes listed as pure Strikers. Monks are Striker/Defender, but nobody else even has Striker as primary, although IMO Barbarians probably should, or at least as secondary.

 

I bring this up because it should inform us (and even moreso, new players) how Obsidian views the classes, how good they should be at different aspects of combat (in combination with the descriptions that Indira listed), and generally answer questions like:

​"Should a Fighter be a better damage-dealer (Striker) than a Rogue, when it's primary role is Defender and secondary is Striker, and when it can choose to be a great Defender while a Rogue really can't?"

 

​My answer is, of course not, although I'm fine with them being equally good, albeit with a different playstyle (much more defensive and reliable, much less mobile and bursty).

Edited November 30, 20178 yr by Answermancer

At creation a rogue gets 'Sneak Attack' which adds +50% damage to attacks.

 

Fighters can spend an ability point to take a style and later another ability point on specialization for +15% damage.

 

So a Rogue with a Great Sword sneak attacks for +50% and a Fighter with two abilities gets +30%. Advantage Rogue

 

A Rogue dual wielding stilettos in light armor with a 10 dex  attacks 0.5 sec with a 0.6 sec recovery with a +50% damage boost. A Fighter with two weapon style in light armor and 10 dex  attacks 0.5 and 0.4 recovery. So in 9.9 seconds the Rogue gets nine attacks at +50% damage and the Fighter gets eleven attacks. Advantage Rogue

 

Rogues who attack a sneak attackable target will out damage a Fighter. So how are Rogues gimped in this?

 

If you want Rogues to outdamage Fighters when Sneak attacking (which they do) AND out damage a Fighter in a straight up fight I'd have to call foul on that.

 

The lore sounds like the army books in Warhammer. Over at Total War Warhammer there's always someone quoting an army book as to why <insert race> should have the baddest and bestest regardless of game balance.

At creation a rogue gets 'Sneak Attack' which adds +50% damage to attacks.

 

Fighters can spend an ability point to take a style and later another ability point on specialization for +15% damage.

 

So a Rogue with a Great Sword sneak attacks for +50% and a Fighter with two abilities gets +30%. Advantage Rogue

 

A Rogue dual wielding stilettos in light armor with a 10 dex  attacks 0.5 sec with a 0.6 sec recovery with a +50% damage boost. A Fighter with two weapon style in light armor and 10 dex  attacks 0.5 and 0.4 recovery. So in 9.9 seconds the Rogue gets nine attacks at +50% damage and the Fighter gets eleven attacks. Advantage Rogue

 

Rogues who attack a sneak attackable target will out damage a Fighter. So how are Rogues gimped in this?

 

If you want Rogues to outdamage Fighters when Sneak attacking (which they do) AND out damage a Fighter in a straight up fight I'd have to call foul on that.

 

The lore sounds like the army books in Warhammer. Over at Total War Warhammer there's always someone quoting an army book as to why <insert race> should have the baddest and bestest regardless of game balance.

 

Hey did you forget something ? For example Disciplined Strike and Confident Aim? And don't forget Sneak Attack is a conditional bonus.

 

Your comparison is unfair because you ignored accuracy, a fighter with Disciplined Strike will outdamage rogue for sure.

 

At creation a rogue gets 'Sneak Attack' which adds +50% damage to attacks.

 

Fighters can spend an ability point to take a style and later another ability point on specialization for +15% damage.

 

So a Rogue with a Great Sword sneak attacks for +50% and a Fighter with two abilities gets +30%. Advantage Rogue

 

A Rogue dual wielding stilettos in light armor with a 10 dex  attacks 0.5 sec with a 0.6 sec recovery with a +50% damage boost. A Fighter with two weapon style in light armor and 10 dex  attacks 0.5 and 0.4 recovery. So in 9.9 seconds the Rogue gets nine attacks at +50% damage and the Fighter gets eleven attacks. Advantage Rogue

 

Rogues who attack a sneak attackable target will out damage a Fighter. So how are Rogues gimped in this?

 

If you want Rogues to outdamage Fighters when Sneak attacking (which they do) AND out damage a Fighter in a straight up fight I'd have to call foul on that.

 

The lore sounds like the army books in Warhammer. Over at Total War Warhammer there's always someone quoting an army book as to why <insert race> should have the baddest and bestest regardless of game balance.

 

Hey did you forget something ? For example Disciplined Strike and Confident Aim? And don't forget Sneak Attack is a conditional bonus.

 

Your comparison is unfair because you ignored accuracy, a fighter with Disciplined Strike will outdamage rogue for sure.

 

 

The Fighter spent two ability points the Rogue spent none.

 

I also did not include backstab or deep wounds or crippling strike or ....

 

Sneak attack is pretty damn easy to keep up at all times by flanking or have your cipher cast Phantom Foes. If you are using a Rogue and not keeping sneak attack up at all times then perhaps you should use a different class. Or just roll up a Rogue/Cipher and also get Biting Whip in on the action and cast your own Phantom Foes at start.

 

 

At creation a rogue gets 'Sneak Attack' which adds +50% damage to attacks.

 

Fighters can spend an ability point to take a style and later another ability point on specialization for +15% damage.

 

So a Rogue with a Great Sword sneak attacks for +50% and a Fighter with two abilities gets +30%. Advantage Rogue

 

A Rogue dual wielding stilettos in light armor with a 10 dex  attacks 0.5 sec with a 0.6 sec recovery with a +50% damage boost. A Fighter with two weapon style in light armor and 10 dex  attacks 0.5 and 0.4 recovery. So in 9.9 seconds the Rogue gets nine attacks at +50% damage and the Fighter gets eleven attacks. Advantage Rogue

 

Rogues who attack a sneak attackable target will out damage a Fighter. So how are Rogues gimped in this?

 

If you want Rogues to outdamage Fighters when Sneak attacking (which they do) AND out damage a Fighter in a straight up fight I'd have to call foul on that.

 

The lore sounds like the army books in Warhammer. Over at Total War Warhammer there's always someone quoting an army book as to why <insert race> should have the baddest and bestest regardless of game balance.

 

Hey did you forget something ? For example Disciplined Strike and Confident Aim? And don't forget Sneak Attack is a conditional bonus.

 

Your comparison is unfair because you ignored accuracy, a fighter with Disciplined Strike will outdamage rogue for sure.

 

 

The Fighter spent two ability points the Rogue spent none.

 

I also did not include backstab or deep wounds or crippling strike or ....

 

Sneak attack is pretty damn easy to keep up at all times by flanking or have your cipher cast Phantom Foes. If you are using a Rogue and not keeping sneak attack up at all times then perhaps you should use a different class. Or just roll up a Rogue/Cipher and also get Biting Whip in on the action and cast your own Phantom Foes at start.

 

 

I wouldn't make this post if Rogue can spend two point to get Graze and Disciplined Strike, and most of Rogue active abilities is used to make him able to do sneak attack.

Edited November 30, 20178 yr by dunehunter