Eternity Pillars of Eternity II Beta Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[FreeKaner]

Because they play the same either way? They also don't bring enough distinctiveness that couldn't have been feats or spells for other classes or blatantly break the rules like Ciphers. I thought that was what I was explaining.

Chanters and ciphers definitely do not play the same way. I agree only and only Barbarian was a bloat, it could have been made into fighter (fighter already fleets a bit of bloated because they tried to stretch the same concept too much). Everything else feels distinct both gameplay and concept-wise (and this second part is important).

 

[Lacrymas]

They don't play the same, but their abilities overlap a lot, making the Chanters weaker Ciphers. Focus shouldn't have been introduced at all. Rogue's Sneak Attack and invisibility could've easily been a Ranger feat. There is no reason for Monk and Paladin to exist at the same time, their abilities could've been slimmed down and created a hybrid. They really, really don't play differently, the party I have on my Triple Crown run plays extremely similarly to my first one, the main difference being the lack of Priest, like I said. I thought that my initial party was a fluke and that I was the one who created them very similarly, but that wasn't the case, I picked the complete opposite party and it's the same thing.

Saying differently is either lack of experience with all the classes, ideological bias, wanting PoE to be something that it isn't or low standards for differentiation.

 

[FreeKaner]

They don't play the same, but their abilities overlap a lot, making the Chanters weaker Ciphers. Focus shouldn't have been introduced at all. Rogue's Sneak Attack and invisibility could've easily been a Ranger feat. There is no reason for Monk and Paladin to exist at the same time, their abilities could've been slimmed down and created a hybrid. They really, really don't play differently, the party I have on my Triple Crown run plays extremely similarly to my first one, the main difference being the lack of Priest, like I said. I thought that my initial party was a fluke and that I was the one who created them very similarly, but that wasn't the case, I picked the complete opposite party and it's the same thing.

Saying differently is either lack of experience with all the classes, ideological bias, wanting PoE to be something that it isn't or low standards for differentiation.

Chanters have summons which make them p. unique in the first place, ogre summons are especially well. Chanters also have ability to apply buffs and debuffs without interrupting their own actions. The "build-up then release" part is similar, but at that point you might as well just make all casters a single class. The distinction is significant enough that you think they play similarly, despite the fact in most class-based systems casters do not play this differently.

I hated how all classes were fit into 4 arbitrary categories in AD&D, and thank God that this wasn't the case in PoE. That's best part of PoE's class-system if anything. You are also being disingenuous when you say shit like "chanters and ciphers are same", what the fuck?

You are the one that's ideologically concerned and trying to project that. There is no reason to bloat any of the classes by arbitrarily fitting them into each other. There is no reason for monk and paladin to be same classes except your feelings on the matter, monks and paladins play nothing like each other whatsoever, they aren't even remotely similar and fact of the matter is the game would be diminished by removal of either monk or paladin and make it into a single class, this is borderline autistic categorisation and reductionist nonsense.

 

[Lacrymas]

And I have already said that Chanter is the one truly unique class, even for RPGs in general. Their build-up is much more in line with the other mechanics, they can't spam their spells one after another like Ciphers and their build-up doesn't depend on how much damage they do (which is the most ridiculous Cipher thing). Which means what I said it means, that they should've taken the most useful Cipher abilities and put them in the Chanter list, they wouldn't have to take much because their abilities already overlap quite a lot.

 

[FreeKaner]

And I have already said that Chanter is the one truly unique class, even for RPGs in general. Their build-up is much more in line with the other mechanics, they can't spam their spells one after another like Ciphers and their build-up doesn't depend on how much damage they do (which is the most ridiculous Cipher thing). Which means what I said it means, that they should've taken the most useful Cipher abilities and put them in the Chanter list.

No, cipher is unique in that they have to do weapon damage to cast their spells and can only cast on other people. They are also unique in their concept and what their spells revolve around.

There is absolutely no reason either conceptually or mechanically for paladin and monk to be same class except for autistic reductionist obsession. FACT.

Barbarian could have been a fighter archetype I agree with that, both of them feel like they stretched a specific concept in terms of number of abilities, passives etc. Especially Barbarian.

I mean for fucks sake, Paladin is the lowest damage output highest survivability class in the game with support spells and auras. Monk is the opposite. Rangers are distinguished by their animal companions, rogues maybe could have not existed but it would be a sacrifice not a positive.

 

[Lacrymas]

Stating that it's fact doesn't make it so. Taking the auras, Lay on Hands/Healing Chain and maybe Sacred Immolation and transferring them as feats to the Monk and making them use Wounds would've been a good start. It would've been a pretty interesting tank/healer combo, but now we have two tanky classes with similar abilities (Torment's Reach is a better Flames of Devotion, Faith and Conviction is a better Duality of Mortal Presence etc.) that play extremely similarly to one another for no reason whatsoever. Just use your imagination, I already said that it won't work just by slapping them together like they are. Combine them, slim them down, make them much more distinct.

 

[Haplo]

Because they play the same either way? They also don't bring enough distinctiveness that couldn't have been feats or spells for other classes or blatantly break the rules like Ciphers. I thought that was what I was explaining.

Chanters and ciphers definitely do not play the same way. I agree only and only Barbarian was a bloat, it could have been made into fighter (fighter already fleets a bit of bloated because they tried to stretch the same concept too much). Everything else feels distinct both gameplay and concept-wise (and this second part is important).

I don't even agree with Fighter / Barbarian similarity. Sure, you can BUILD them to play similar, but if you go with their class specialty (well, Fighter has more then one), they play vastly differently.

Fighter is a tank archetype, that can be built as a sustained (but rather unimpressive) DPS, Barbarian is an aoe beast with heavy burst DPS, that can be built to be a battlefield controller or a tank.
You can make the Barbarian a tank and play him similar to a Fighter... but that does not mean they should be the same class, since its more of a margin, then the core of the class.

 

[Quillon]

Dunno if anyone has already posted this, but I've found full subclasses list in beta source code including companion subclasses:

Spoiler

public enum CharacterSubClassEnum
{
[Description("Barbarian - Berserker")] Barbarian_Berserker,
[Description("Barbarian - Corpse Eater")] Barbarian_CorpseEater,
[Description("Barbarian - Mage Slayer")] Barbarian_MageSlayer,
[Description("Chanter - Beckoner")] Chanter_Beckoner,
[Description("Chanter - Skald")] Chanter_Skald,
[Description("Chanter - Troubadour")] Chanter_Troubadour,
[Description("Cipher - Ascendant")] Cipher_Ascendant,
[Description("Cipher - Beguiler")] Cipher_Beguiler,
[Description("Cipher - Soul Blade")] Cipher_SoulBlade,
[Description("Cipher - Wild Mind")] Cipher_WildMind,
[Description("Druid - Fury")] Druid_Fury,
[Description("Druid - Lifegiver")] Druid_Lifegiver,
[Description("Druid - Shifter")] Druid_Shifter,
[Description("Druid - Water Shaper")] Druid_WaterShaper,
[Description("Fighter - Black Jacket")] Fighter_BlackJacket,
[Description("Fighter - Devoted")] Fighter_Devoted,
[Description("Fighter - Unbroken")] Fighter_Unbroken,
[Description("Monk - Helwawlker")] Monk_Helwawlker,
[Description("Monk - Napazca")] Monk_Napazca,
[Description("Monk - Shattered Pillar")] Monk_ShatteredPillar,
[Description("Monk - Sister Of The Reaping Moon")] Monk_SisterOfTheReapingMoon,
[Description("Paladin - Bleak Walkers")] Paladin_BleakWalkers,
[Description("Paladin - Darcozzi Paladini")] Paladin_DarcozziPaladini,
[Description("Paladin - Frermas Mes Canc Suolias")] Paladin_FrermasMesCancSuolias,
[Description("Paladin - Goldpact Knights")] Paladin_GoldpactKnights,
[Description("Paladin - Kind Wayfarers")] Paladin_KindWayfarers,
[Description("Paladin - The Shield Bearers Of St Elcga")] Paladin_TheShieldBearersOfStElcga,
[Description("Paladin - The Steel Garrote")] Paladin_TheSteelGarrote,
[Description("Priest - Berath")] Priest_Berath,
[Description("Priest - Eothas")] Priest_Eothas,
[Description("Priest - Harvester Of Guan")] Priest_HarvesterOfGuan,
[Description("Priest - Magran")] Priest_Magran,
[Description("Priest - Skaen")] Priest_Skaen,
[Description("Priest - Wael")] Priest_Wael,
[Description("Priest - Woedica")] Priest_Woedica,
[Description("Ranger - Ghost Heart ")] Ranger_GhostHeart,
[Description("Ranger - Gunhawk")] Ranger_Gunhawk,
[Description("Ranger - Sharpshooter Lodge")] Ranger_SharpshooterLodge,
[Description("Ranger - Stalker")] Ranger_Stalker,
[Description("Rogue - Assassin")] Rogue_Assassin,
[Description("Rogue - Streetfighter")] Rogue_Streetfighter,
[Description("Rogue - Trickster")] Rogue_Trickster,
[Description("Wizard - Conjurer")] Wizard_Conjurer,
[Description("Wizard - Enchanter")] Wizard_Enchanter,
[Description("Wizard - Evoker")] Wizard_Evoker,
[Description("Wizard - Illusionist")] Wizard_Illusionist,
[Description("Wizard - Transmuter")] Wizard_Transmuter,
Invalid,
}

https://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/165191293231/hi-josh-i-was-wodnering-if-all-companions-will

Ropekid already told us most of the subclasses before. So none of this is really new except for Woedica. There are suppose to be 2 other subclasses for the sidekicks, but I can't find any information about them in the files.

Didn't he say it'd be cool but they are not making the Priest of Woedica? Also The Steal Garrote is Paladin of Woedica it seems.

 

[FreeKaner]

Stating that it's fact doesn't make it so. Taking the auras, Lay on Hands/Healing Chain and maybe Sacred Immolation and transferring them as feats to the Monk and making them use Wounds would've been a good start. It would've been a pretty interesting tank/healer combo, but now we have two tanky classes with similar abilities (Torment's Reach is a better Flames of Devotion, Faith and Conviction is a better Duality of Mortal Presence etc.) that play extremely similarly to one another for no reason whatsoever. Just use your imagination, I already said that it won't work just by slapping them together like they are. Combine them, slim them down, make them much more distinct.

Just no, what? No. They play nothing alike at all, Paladin is a durable support that fills the rule of frontliner/utility that can do some burst in a fight (although just a moon godlike shieldbearer paladin without flames of devotion is probably best at its role). Monk is a single-target sustained damage-dealer that has some defensive spells to not die instantly, which they still can by the way if not protected by casters. While Paladin will p. much hold on their own and require no support due their absurd defences.

HELL it would make a better argument to join fucking rogue and monk, you are quite literally ideologically projecting here on your need to reduce amount of classes for NO REASON AT ALL. In a class-based game amount of classes adds to game as long as long as they are distinct, it's NOT a shortcoming. The fact that you made two different parties and then used a monk and a paladin in same role of offtank is your own concern not the classes'. AND IT'S A GOOD THINK WE HAVE DISTINCT YET FLEXIBLE CLASSES LIKE THIS IN THE GAME.

The only class that is out of place is Barbarian, and that one could be joint into fighter.

 

[badler]

badler, can you talk about whether the DLC will be mid-game (White March), post-game (Mask of the Betrayer), or standalone (Storm of Zehir)?

Not really. My hands are tied until we do official announcements of everything.

 

[Once more unto the Codex]

What if Lacrymas’ just sucks at PoE/Deadfire?

 

[Lacrymas]

HELL it would make a better argument to join fucking rogue and monk

Sure, whatever, combine Rogue and Monk. What is combined with what doesn't really matter much, as long as it makes sense and creates something that doesn't play like anything else. I was just giving some examples of how to make a more distinct class by taking existing abilities. A Monk-based tank/healer would've been one idea, you'd still have your Wounds, but those can fuel both healing and offensive capabilities.

What if Lacrymas’ just sucks at PoE/Deadfire?

I wouldn't be able to play a Triple Crown run and get anywhere if that's the case or even just PotD.

I don't even agree with Fighter / Barbarian similarity. Sure, you can BUILD them to play similar, but if you go with their class specialty (well, Fighter has more then one), they play vastly differently.

Fighter is a tank archetype, that can be built as a sustained (but rather unimpressive) DPS, Barbarian is an aoe beast with heavy burst DPS, that can be built to be a battlefield controller or a tank.
You can make the Barbarian a tank and play him similar to a Fighter... but that does not mean they should be the same class, since its more of a margin, then the core of the class.

These examples could've been all Fighter builds. You could've built a Fighter tank or Fighter Carnage DPS, or a sustained DPS or a battlefield controller. Much more options for a single class than breaking them apart and having to excuse them for how similarly they can be built, which is actually the default. You have to consciously build them vastly differently to notice even the slightest change.

 

[FreeKaner]

HELL it would make a better argument to join fucking rogue and monk

Sure, whatever, combine Rogue and Monk. What is combined with what doesn't really matter much, as long as it makes sense and creates something that doesn't play like anything else. I was just giving some examples of how to make a more distinct class by taking existing abilities. A Monk-based tank/healer would've been one idea, you'd still have your Wounds, but those can fuel both healing and offensive capabilities.

We already have a tank/support(inc. healer), it's called Paladin.

Monk and rogue could be joined perhaps, I always found rogue as a class in RPGs stupid though and when you remove from them the ability to do rogue stuff (lockpick, traps etc.) they feel really weird. Join monk and rogue and call it disciple or whatever, that would be fine and adding barbarian to fighter would be fine. Although with the subclasses in PoE2 that give distinct routes for either at this point it would be unnecessary to remove them.

 

[Lacrymas]

Monk would've been able to be built like a tank/healer or only tank, or whatever it is they are now. Paladins atm are always forced to be tanky/melee support characters and you can't deviate because there aren't enough diverse class-based feats to choose from. Even a dual-wielding Bleak Walker is recommended by the builder to be a tank of some sort. Chanters can also be built to be tanky support characters. As well as Priests. You can, of course, not have him tank, but that will waste his tanky potential for no gain. Redistributing abilities and cutting down on classes like this would've made for much more diversity potential within the same class, while still keeping their niche.

The subclasses are a different issue entirely and another thing that bloats an already bloated character system. Their effects should've been feats maybe.

 

[FreeKaner]

Monk would've been able to be built like a tank/healer or only tank, or whatever it is they are now. Paladins atm are always forced to be tanky support characters and you can't deviate because there aren't enough diverse class-based feats to choose from. Chanters can also be built to be tanky support characters. As well as Priests. Redistributing abilities and cutting down on classes like this would've made for much more diversity potential within the same class, while still keeping their niche.

The subclasses are a different issue entirely and another thing that bloats an already bloated character system. Their effects should've been feats maybe.

You can do few unique things with Paladins, I agree they are mostly supports but there are few nuke builds as well where they can oneshot characters right from start, they can also built as defensive/offensive/healer supports which is nice too. One fun combination I had was to use form of helpless beast on any humanoid target then hit them with blunderbuss silver flash with Paladin's flames of devotion, straight up removes a target from the start with 100+ burst from range.

Class system is not bloated in itself, just barbarian and rogue archetypes are p. silly and were forced. It has nothing to do with amount of classes but rather an adherence to established archetypes as classes.

 

[Haplo]

You have to consciously build them vastly differently to notice even the slightest change.

Really? Well that is not anywhere near my experience. Were we playing the same game?

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Reading the last few pages it's like being exposed to atomic bomb level of autism.

 

[Lacrymas]

I agree that it's not the number of classes per se, just too few and indistinct ideas spread around too much. Funnily enough, the roles subclasses force you into play much more differently from one another. A Lifegiver Druid has nothing to do with a Shifter Druid, and that's why I think the effects should've been feats, as opposed to subclasses, to give the potential to focus different aspects of a class or make a jack of all trades, or whatever. The subclasses now act like classes in AD&D, you choose your path at the start and gg.

I like how IHaveHugeNick always barges in discussions he has no place being in and substitutes arguments with button warrior-ing

 

[santino27]

Saying differently is either lack of experience with all the classes, ideological bias, wanting PoE to be something that it isn't or low standards for differentiation.

Sometimes, I think you and Lilura should get married, and have (or raise, depending on sexual preference) lots of arrogant, forum-posting children who are never wrong about anything. :D Codex generation v. 2.0!

 

[Lacrymas]

Sometimes, I think you and Lilura should get married, and have (or raise, depending on sexual preference) lots of arrogant, forum-posting children who are never wrong about anything. :D Codex generation v. 2.0!

Ah, yes, Lilura is a woman after my own heart. While she is too quick to judge and doesn't always recognize who her allies are because of that, her aggressiveness and opinionated demeanor appeal to me a lot, especially her refusal to adhere to popular narratives.

 

[Maculo]

Reading the last few pages it's like being exposed to atomic bomb level of autism.

With the amount of concentrated autism spread across various PoE threads (mine included), I think there would be a good chance of a 40k-esque warp entity being born - a dark god of autism (and fidget spinners).

 

[Grunker]

It's funny that you like the Chanter so much. It was a neat idea system-wise but in practice it was hella boring to play.

 

[Sizzle]

Sometimes, I think you and Lilura should get married, and have (or raise, depending on sexual preference) lots of arrogant, forum-posting children who are never wrong about anything. :D Codex generation v. 2.0!

Ah, yes, Lilura is a woman after my own heart. While she is too quick to judge and doesn't always recognize who her allies are because of that, her aggressiveness and opinionated demeanor appeal to me a lot, especially her refusal to adhere to popular narratives.

Summoning Lilura.

Will you take Lacrymas to be your blog-wedded husband to be?

To share across social platforms, and to hold,

from this forum post forward,

for more clicks, for less,

in prestigious, or grognard,

in diseased gibberlings, and potions of health,

until total party wipeout claim you both?

 

[santino27]

It's funny that you like the Chanter so much. It was a neat idea system-wise but in practice it was hella boring to play.

On the other hand, it makes a very nice MC in POE 2, when mixed with a fighter class. Feels a bit like it was always intended as a 3.x AD&D style 'splash' class to me.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Sometimes, I think you and Lilura should get married, and have (or raise, depending on sexual preference) lots of arrogant, forum-posting children who are never wrong about anything. :D Codex generation v. 2.0!

Ah, yes, Lilura is a woman after my own heart. While she is too quick to judge and doesn't always recognize who her allies are because of that, her aggressiveness and opinionated demeanor appeal to me a lot, especially her refusal to adhere to popular narratives.

Lilura, the young Tim Cain, C-list fetish porn star Mandy Flores... you have omnivorous tastes.