Eternity Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire Pre-Release Thread [BETA RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Lacrymas]

There are a lot of assumptions being made here which (sub)class is "exotic" and which isn't - we don't know. It's quite plausible for us to chance upon an island in the Deadfire which is filled with wizards and ruled by a rogue chieftain, because why the fuck not? The setting isn't FR - in PoE all classes are made equal, it's the strength of the one's soul that counts.

There are no assumptions though, it should be based on the lore. As far as I remember wizards are trained in magic in universities (or some other school), i.e. it's scholarly knowledge. Something primal tribes won't have access to. That's why it's weird to have oonga-boonga wizards, they can be mystics or some other kind of primitive arcanist (which still uses the wizard spells, although I'd refrain from having wizard-likes at all), but not wizards. I think it's an important detail which fleshes out the world and makes the lore meaningful.

 

[Sizzle]

There are a lot of assumptions being made here which (sub)class is "exotic" and which isn't - we don't know. It's quite plausible for us to chance upon an island in the Deadfire which is filled with wizards and ruled by a rogue chieftain, because why the fuck not? The setting isn't FR - in PoE all classes are made equal, it's the strength of the one's soul that counts.

There are no assumptions though, it should be based on the lore. As far as I remember wizards are trained in magic in universities (or some other school), i.e. it's scholarly knowledge. Something primal tribes won't have access to. That's why it's weird to have oonga-boonga wizards, they can be mystics or some other kind of primitive arcanist (which still uses the wizard spells, although I'd refrain from having wizard-likes at all), but not wizards. I think it's an important detail which fleshes out the world and makes the lore meaningful.

Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong on this - wasn't that "strength of the character, regardless of class, comes from the power of their soul" concept abandoned?

In the PoE1 early KS, the idea was that your companions would be powerful because they are like you - their souls didn't fracture with entropy over several incarnations like usual, which is very rare.

 

[Parabalus]

There are no assumptions though, it should be based on the lore. As far as I remember wizards are trained in magic in universities (or some other school), i.e. it's scholarly knowledge. Something primal tribes won't have access to. That's why it's weird to have oonga-boonga wizards, they can be mystics or some other kind of primitive arcanist (which still uses the wizard spells, although I'd refrain from having wizard-likes at all), but not wizards. I think it's an important detail which fleshes out the world and makes the lore meaningful.

PoE doesn't discriminate against savages in that regard (like DnD).

IIRC, the defining part of a wizard is that he uses his own soul (through rigorous ritual and study, even as a primitive "shaman"). Druids leech soul energy from nature, priest "steal" from their god , ciphers manipulate the souls of others.

It's all a bit wishy washy since all of them in the end use their own "soul power" to manifest their spells , the difference between the classes ends up amounting to whatever lies you tell yourself to help you do it.

Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong on this - wasn't that "strength of the character, regardless of class, comes from the power of their soul" concept abandoned?

In the PoE1 early KS, the idea was that your companions would be powerful because they are like you - their souls didn't fracture with entropy over several incarnations like usual, which is very rare.

I think the wiki is current cannon since it doesn't mention any of those.

 

[Delterius]

IIRC, the defining part of a wizard is that he uses his own soul (through rigorous ritual and study, even as a primitive "shaman").

Actually, no.

Wizards use grimoires, arcane books made with rare materials that can absorb and temporarily hold fragments of ambient soul energy that are in the world all around them and gather them into their grimoires, like a magical capacitor and then redirect that energy.[2][3] Unlike priests and druids, wizards do not personally shape the magic that is released. Instead, their grimoires' spell pages do most of the work. The wizard's specialty is in understanding how to help the magic flow in and out of the grimoire without going haywire.

The problem isn't tribals characters practicing a similar kind of magic, the problem, in theory, is them dropping grimoires.

But I don't see why multi classes would be in any greater risk of not matching the environment's lore than any other part of the beastiary. The point is moot. If someone sees a battle against tribals and adds wizards without justification, that is the same mistake as adding dryads to an urban environment without reasoning. Multi classes are just hybrids of fairly common character tropes (classes) that exist in Eora.

 

[Lacrymas]

But I don't see why multi classes would be in any greater risk of not matching the environment's lore than any other part of the beastiary. The point is moot. If someone sees a battle against tribals and adds wizards without justification, that is the same mistake as adding dryads to an urban environment without reasoning. Multi classes are just hybrids of fairly common character tropes (classes) that exist in Eora.

That's not the issue at all. My original point and question was whether these multi-class and subclass ...professions, I guess, exist in the world of Eora or are just a UI element which makes no sense. Can you be an actual Hierophant (or whatever) in this universe? Is this an occupation people have? What is the reasoning behind the names? The differences of the subclasses could've been feats you pick up at level up (and it would've been better and would've given much more character building options which PoE1 lacked), otherwise the mechanical side of the game doesn't correspond to the world building and you can literally be anything (like a Skin Walker Ulfhednar wants so much) and it wouldn't matter. What is the purpose of lore then?

This naturally evolved into discussion of naming enemies and whether it's appropriate to have aboriginal wizards or other highly educated class/profession. It's just an analogy for all the different nonsensical combinations (like Thug Priest).

 

[Parabalus]

Actually, no.

Two paragraphs above what you quoted

And what do the tomes contain? Instructions on ways to use one's soul to alter reality, to warp time around enemies, to make skin as tough as stone, to counter even the most powerful magic, to invoke balls of flame, bolts of lightning, gouts of acid, to conjure nightmares out of thin air. Truly, the possibilities open to wizards seem to exceed even those of what priests can call upon through their faith. And though any wizard may prepare several tomes, an inexperienced caster is not capable of channeling power through the log-thick, anvil-heavy, dog-eared grimoires of wizened archmagi. Such novices must alternate between more modest selections, relying on their less demanding spells and talents when they are unable to call upon their tomes.

My point stands.

The problem isn't tribals characters practicing a similar kind of magic, the problem, in theory, is them dropping grimoires.

Why would that be a problem?

They could be scraps of flesh held together by bone and sinew, written upon by sacrificial blood, there is no need for a fancy book.

But I don't see why multi classes would be in any greater risk of not matching the environment's lore than any other part of the beastiary. The point is moot. If someone sees a battle against tribals and adds wizards without justification, that is the same mistake as adding dryads to an urban environment without reasoning. Multi classes are just hybrids of fairly common character tropes (classes) that exist in Eora.

I agree, if anything multi classes would arguably be more common among the non-pro populace since they are more likely to dabble around.

That's not the issue at all. My original point and question was whether these multi-class and subclass ...professions, I guess, exist in the world of Eora or are just a UI element which makes no sense. Can you be an actual Hierophant (or whatever) in this universe? Is this an occupation people have? What is the reasoning behind the names? The differences of the subclasses could've been feats you pick up at level up (and it would've been better and would've given much more character building options which PoE1 lacked), otherwise the mechanical side of the game doesn't correspond to the world building and you can literally be anything (like a Skin Walker Ulfhednar wants so much) and it wouldn't matter. What is the purpose of lore then?

This naturally evolved into discussion of naming enemies and whether it's appropriate to have aboriginal wizards or other highly educated class/profession. It's just an analogy for all the different nonsensical combinations (like Thug Priest).

I think that since several NPCs are multi classes we'll see that explored in detail, the same should happen with sub-classes too. They'll have to splash other non-NPC combos around the world too or it'll be too jarring otherwise.

Dunno though how you can complain about character building in PoE when it is it astronomically more varied than IE games DnD.

 

[Lacrymas]

I was mostly comparing it to 3/3.5E because PoE's system more closely resembles those rather than 2E. In PoE I was struggling to find the least shit option to choose from. At least when I played it at release, no idea if that has changed in the later patches, good if it did.

 

[Delterius]

Can you be an actual Hierophant (or whatever) in this universe? Is this an occupation people have? What is the reasoning behind the names?

Lore and gameplay do not exist in a vacuum. The mechanical side of the game is in itself world building. The game's lore isn't just an added layer of understanding that you get from the plot. Its an entire world that arises from the story of the games, as told through mechanics, environment, dialogue and so on. The trouble is in understanding that none of these elements exist in absolute, even within their own niche.

Here's a thought. Are all Wizards the same? The class has a description that you can find in-game and in the wiki. And every Wizard you meet should more or less act in the same fashion. But then you look at the story and context, you may sometimes notice a pattern, a theme that dogs many a Wizard. Be it something as simple as the ice elf who casts ice evocation or the animancer who favors curses and the sort. The word Wizard is indeed an universal description, but it isn't a cookie cutter generalization. Each Wizard's grimoire can be customized according its provenance. This was the same as back in DnD. Roleplayers would often choose Sorcerer and Mage spells according to a theme. That is harder in PoE because the Wizard has many fewer spells. However, multi classing only helps us in this regard.

Assuming that Hierophant means a combination of Wizard and Priest (I'm not up to date with the name-o-rama), there doesn't have to be an Order of the Hierophants for that to be a 'profession' within that world. Something like that would fit Prestige Classes more than Multis. The ''title'' itself just denotes practicioners of both branches of power. Most likely a Priest of Wael who learned to use Grimoire magic as well. With just a little bit of care you can give their own Grimoire a bunch of illusionary spells and there you go. The lore is upheld and strengthened through this new mechanic.

My point stands.

Your point is that every class uses different methods to achieve the same thing. That is true. Everyone uses their own souls. What sets Wizards apart however is what I quoted. That implies a particularity that should be addressed, as you yourself can see:

Why would that be a problem?

They could be scraps of flesh held together by bone and sinew, written upon by sacrificial blood, there is no need for a fancy book.

Book or not, the name Wizard does imply some sort of literacy which in fact is linked to the wider world, since spells are shared and become universal. The point is that the extra care isn't likely to be necessary.

I too can imagine many other implements that mimick the use and purposes of a grimoire. Runes in seashells, especially if you're into piratey adventures. Or at least to say a simple justification as 'a wizard once crashed into our shores, some of our cleverest kids learned from him and passed art onwards ever since'. Either way, what's more likely to happen is that combat design is going to be much more intuitive than that. If you want a scholarly type character assisting the enemy band, add a Chanter instead. At least then some sort of oral tradition wouldn't necessarily conflict with the character, mechanically. Or don't make the clans you meet illiterate.

 

[Lacrymas]

Delterius, we do need some feedback outside of the UI for the lore to work though. The UI is not a vehicle for in-universe justification or plot insulation. Otherwise it's, like I said, a recited list of words Sawyer came up with or looked up in the dictionary. It's just a lazy approach and I won't be satisfied with that. Most people won't care, hell, even I won't care that much, but it starts to show its stitches and paves the way to more plot/lore holes and nit-pickiness.

 

[Delterius]

Delterius, we do need some feedback outside of the UI for the lore to work though.

And we potentially have it, without even a lot of extra work. Refer to my previous example. If you trigger an encounter in a temple of Wael and one of the enemies just happens to be a Hierophant, then you can work with a lot more than just his subclass title. You've got the context, the story, the environment you're in, whatever characterization the surrounds this subplot or sidequest and even what spells are placed in his grimoire.

The UI is not a vehicle for in-universe justification or plot insulation.

Actually it is. The UI is how you interact with this world. There's nothing wrong with using it as a storytelling mechanism. Arcanum could have cut all explanations of the duality between Magic and Technology as though the people of this world already expect you to understand something so fundamental and, yet, most players already intuited that from the moment they gazed upon their character creation screens.

In fact, a lot of games tell their stories almost exclusively through the UI. The Souls series for an example do it through item descriptions. Cutscenes and dialogue are rare by themselves and most of those are actually an attempt to fool you. If you want to know what is really happening around you, you'll want to poke around and read the item descriptions. Most of that information won't be referred to in the 3D world. But its important for your understanding of the plot.

it's, like I said, a recited list of words Sawyer came up with or looked up in the dictionary.

He didn't do so haphazardly now, did he? Each of the game's classes have been previously defined. Each of these character archetypes have a specific niche in the world of Eora, according to its lore. Especially the spellcasters. Even if their subclasses don't refer to actual organizations, they are still composite meanings that refer to that lore.

And they won't in turn appear throught Deadfire in a haphazard manner either. No encounter designer is going to go out of his way to include characters that clash with the environment without proper justification. On the contrary, they'll probably build upon them.

In short, if a Hierophant = Wizard + Priest, then Hierophant probably won't appear in Xauripland. He'll appear in a more suitable place that makes sense. That in itself is already world building.

 

[Lacrymas]

Let's say that I agree for now, I still have issues with the UI conveying in-universe information that your character has no way of knowing about, but I want to figure out how to articulate it.

 

[santino27]

Let's say that I agree for now, I still have issues with the UI conveying in-universe information that your character has no way of knowing about, but I want to figure out how to articulate it.

I think that's a bigger topic than just subclass and cross-class naming labels. Just look at all the #s and calculations and such in the UI. Look at the way killing one or two of a type of monster doesn't just tell you're they're resistant to piercing--evenif you never actually used a piercing weapon on them--but that they have an 18 damage reduction to it. None of that makes any real sense (not to that level of detail and specificity anyway) in the context of the world; it's just part of the game/feedback layer.

Honestly, I see the subclasses and class combinations the same way. The names and what-not are just for us as a player (and an excuse for JES to dig through old books, no doubt), and I don't think they matter or should matter in terms of actual in-game lore, especially in a world with multiple languages and cultures and kingdoms who would probably all have different names for the same thing anyway. ("Oh, you call a bare-handed fighter who happens to also have a wolf pet a Snarfle? Weird. We call it a Shaggle. If that was a stag instead of a wolf, we'd call it a Staggle, because we're precious. Anyway, let's just kill the wolf, shoot the unarmed weirdo, and go about our way.")

 

[Ulfhednar]

I was mostly comparing it to 3/3.5E because PoE's system more closely resembles those rather than 2E.

The multiclassing in PoE 2 strikes me as more grounded than 3/3.5E, and at least in spirit it works similarly to 2E. 2E multiclassing was always a 50/50 mix of two standard classes (stupid triple classes...). PoE multiclassing removes all the restricted combinations that 2E had, and lets you place the percentage anywhere on the continuum that you want, but you never get outside of the boundaries of those two standard classes.

you can literally be anything (like a Skin Walker Ulfhednar wants so much) and it wouldn't matter.

Not quite literally anything... Anything between a pure fighter and a pure druid - and what I was trying to say earlier is that there is far too much ground in that mix to be covered by any single name you try to throw at that combination.

But to its credit, the system does exclude nonsense like this:

• 
  

  [*]Race: Drow
  [*]Classes: Cleric 9, Bard 1, Red Dragon Disciple 10, Stormlord 10
  [*]Cleric Domains: Earth,War
  [*]Build Nature: (playable from 2-30, exp penalty (20%) from 4-30)
  [*]Alignment: Chaotic Neutral, Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil
  [*]Deity: Talos

(What is it? Seriously, WTF is it?!)

 

[Quillon]

• [*]Race: Drow
  [*]Classes: Cleric 9, Bard 1, Red Dragon Disciple 10, Stormlord 10
  [*]Cleric Domains: Earth,War
  [*]Build Nature: (playable from 2-30, exp penalty (20%) from 4-30)
  [*]Alignment: Chaotic Neutral, Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil
  [*]Deity: Talos

(What is it? Seriously, WTF is it?!)

You don't know about Clebar Redstorm?

 

[Sizzle]

In short, if a Hierophant = Wizard + Priest, then Hierophant probably won't appear in Xauripland. He'll appear in a more suitable place that makes sense. That in itself is already world building.

I can't remember whether or not Xaurips had Wizards in their ranks, but Priests were pretty common. And the Hylea quest showed us that monsters (i.e. - non-kith races) can and do worship gods and that the gods care about them.

What I would like to see happen, in some form or another, is to have monsters such as them have some classes (and assorted multi-classes) that are common and would make sense: Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Priest, Druid, maybe Ranger (having a drake animal companion, or something).

And others: Wizard (how would a Xaurip learn spells the way it's been established that Wizards do?), Monk (seems too an esoteric and complicated class for a monster to understand), Cipher (only non-kith monsters such as Vithracks, Dragons and other really intelligent creatures should be able to be those), Chanters (can't really speak, let alone sing properly), Paladin (same as the Monk).

If a Xaurip that is one of these classes should appear, there should a proper (story/design/lore) reason for it. Say, a Paladin Xaurip - he could be a highly charismatic resolved individual, who's so extremely devoted to the protection of his tribe, he started manifesting Paladin abilities. Or something like that, again, I'm only making shit up on the spot.

 

[Lacrymas]

I think that's a bigger topic than just subclass and cross-class naming labels. Just look at all the #s and calculations and such in the UI. Look at the way killing one or two of a type of monster doesn't just tell you're they're resistant to piercing--evenif you never actually used a piercing weapon on them--but that they have an 18 damage reduction to it. None of that makes any real sense (not to that level of detail and specificity anyway) in the context of the world; it's just part of the game/feedback layer.

Honestly, I see the subclasses and class combinations the same way. The names and what-not are just for us as a player (and an excuse for JES to dig through old books, no doubt), and I don't think they matter or should matter in terms of actual in-game lore, especially in a world with multiple languages and cultures and kingdoms who would probably all have different names for the same thing anyway. ("Oh, you call a bare-handed fighter who happens to also have a wolf pet a Snarfle? Weird. We call it a Shaggle. If that was a stag instead of a wolf, we'd call it a Staggle, because we're precious. Anyway, let's just kill the wolf, shoot the unarmed weirdo, and go about our way.")

Showing us gameplay/mechanical info is unavoidable and is an abstraction, exactly how it shows you your hp. Lore (which classes are a part of), however, is not part of this mechanical aspect of the game and the UI shouldn't be omniscient in that regard. Exactly how it shouldn't show you your standing with different factions, that's ridiculous. Morality meters and dispositions as well, those are extra ridiculous because the UI dispenses objective judgement on your actions.

 

[Background Character]

Fuck yeah spellblade

 

[Haplo]

• 
  

  [*]Race: Drow
  [*]Classes: Cleric 9, Bard 1, Red Dragon Disciple 10, Stormlord 10
  [*]Cleric Domains: Earth,War
  [*]Build Nature: (playable from 2-30, exp penalty (20%) from 4-30)
  [*]Alignment: Chaotic Neutral, Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil
  [*]Deity: Talos

(What is it? Seriously, WTF is it?!)

Ah, this brings really fond memories. Character building was truly a beautiful art in the NWN games.
Often more entertaining then the games themselves.

 

[Grotesque]

so we'll have hammerhead shark people
how original...

 

[Delterius]

Often more entertaining then the games themselves.

No qualifier required. The fun ends at character creation.

 

[Sentinel]

so we'll have hammerhead shark people
how original...

That's PoE setting for you.

 

[FreeKaner]

Can you be an actual Hierophant (or whatever) in this universe? Is this an occupation people have?

I know this name choice was at random and it doesn't deduct from your argument but that example in particular is easiest one to make into a profession. Hierophants were basically theological chroniclers of ancient Greece, concerning themselves with texts relating to the Gods.

. It's just a lazy approach and I won't be satisfied with that. Most people won't care, hell, even I won't care that much, but it starts to show its stitches and paves the way to more plot/lore holes and nit-pickiness.

I would also care if it looked like recycled class names, I enjoyed PoE's worldbuilding and setting, these type of shortcomings damage it greatly.

Perhaps someone should ask Sawyer whether these multiclasses will be represented in the game lore as distinct parts of it.? Not all of them require that, I doubt we need to some sort of lore justification for a fighter/cipher or rogue/cipher, it can be some random mercenary or assassin that specialised in close combat as well, it's rather self-explanatory. However some, especially ones relating to priest, would need in-universe justification.

 

[santino27]

I think that's a bigger topic than just subclass and cross-class naming labels. Just look at all the #s and calculations and such in the UI. Look at the way killing one or two of a type of monster doesn't just tell you're they're resistant to piercing--evenif you never actually used a piercing weapon on them--but that they have an 18 damage reduction to it. None of that makes any real sense (not to that level of detail and specificity anyway) in the context of the world; it's just part of the game/feedback layer.

Honestly, I see the subclasses and class combinations the same way. The names and what-not are just for us as a player (and an excuse for JES to dig through old books, no doubt), and I don't think they matter or should matter in terms of actual in-game lore, especially in a world with multiple languages and cultures and kingdoms who would probably all have different names for the same thing anyway. ("Oh, you call a bare-handed fighter who happens to also have a wolf pet a Snarfle? Weird. We call it a Shaggle. If that was a stag instead of a wolf, we'd call it a Staggle, because we're precious. Anyway, let's just kill the wolf, shoot the unarmed weirdo, and go about our way.")

Showing us gameplay/mechanical info is unavoidable and is an abstraction, exactly how it shows you your hp. Lore (which classes are a part of), however, is not part of this mechanical aspect of the game and the UI shouldn't be omniscient in that regard. Exactly how it shouldn't show you your standing with different factions, that's ridiculous. Morality meters and dispositions as well, those are extra ridiculous because the UI dispenses objective judgement on your actions.

I guess my point is that 'random name for x mixture of two classes' isn't really part of the lore unless the content actually references it... until then, it's just part of the gameplay layer like so much else. If dialogues start recognizing people by more than base archetype (and not in a 'you get to choose this dialogue option because you are X' but in terms of other people referring to you as X) than yeah, it would seem to be ridiculous. Then again, I'm not sure what in-game lore justification there is already for someone being able to, for example, distinguish between a fighter and a rogue, given that visually both could look pretty much exactly the same. That's why most of the reactions to your party in POE 1 (from what I remember) were either race-based or reputation-based. It was more YOUR reactions (potential dialogue options) that were driven by your class choice.

 

[Lacrymas]

It was more YOUR reactions (potential dialogue options) that were driven by your class choice.

Of course. Your class choice (i.e. your area of expertise) should give you different options in certain situations. That's obvious. Some classes just can't be recognized at a first glance. You can usually tell a rogue from a fighter in a fight though, completely different fighting techniques, but that doesn't really matter, it's what you can do that matters. Anyway, I very much doubt they are going to go all out with your choices like AoD, or even Fallout, does. Some differences based on your choices would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. I just have an issue when they starting naming shit as if it matters, fighter/druid is enough, there really is no reason to boggle down the lore with that, but when you start making up shit like Black Jacket, Nalpazca, Evoker and all manner of stuff I expect some kind of point to it.

 

[Sizzle]

Then again, I'm not sure what in-game lore justification there is already for someone being able to, for example, distinguish between a fighter and a rogue, given that visually both could look pretty much exactly the same.

Well, in many cases, you could tell at first glance by the equipment they were wearing. When you see a heavily armored foe, you usually rightly assumed that they were either a Fighter or a Paladin. I mean, sure, you can make a brigandine wearing Rogue, but even with all the different playstyle and character building options PoE gives you - this would be a pretty "wrong" way to play a rogue.

Besides that, you can also put in a lot of other visual clues that would indicate what class the character probably is - if he's a bare-chested, wild looking person, it's probably a Barbarian. Robe (and depending on what kind) - Priest, Monk or Wizard.

But this probably wouldn't work with every class (chanters and ciphers could prove difficult).