Eternity Pillars of Eternity + The White March Expansion Thread

[Gangrelrumbler]

Yeah, plus the two classes that are original designs, ended up being the most interesting of the whole bunch and in Deadfire they typically make some the best multi-classaing options as well.

I get it that it's a stretch to call Cipher a Psion ripoff, but what's the second original class?

Chanter.

Yeah, what Cat Headed Eagle said, Chanters are bards.

 

[Nikanuur]

The Anger Management classes were a success: the subject is now able to rage for longer!

Cool joke there.
Now, to nicely spoil it: Yeah, for a Barbarian in a brutal fantasy world, it is better to rage longer, and it is definitely something an intelligent Barbarian would've wanted. Along with better utilizing even more rage aspects through knowledge of oneself, all the while lessening its unwanted features, such as figurative blindness, disregard for defense, etc.

Fyi, Conan the Barbarian was not only properly educated, but had the finest teachers at that. It's said in the books that it was one of the reasons he was so profoundly successful in his world, combat included.

EDIT: Conan wasn't "properly" educated in the books. Only in the movie. I misspoke there. Then again, in the books he came to learn many trades during his travels, was multi-lingual, became deeply acquainted with politics, strategy, various philosophies, was naturally chivalrous, etc., and still was able to RAGE HAAAAARD. Omitting that it's all just a fiction of an author, I'd say he raged even better for it, because he would've used his vast intelligence to hone his decision-making of when and how to rage.

 

[Haplo]

Isn't chanter basically a bard tho

Their magic is quite different, doesn't really focus on buffing (though they are strong in this role as well). For example, they are the most summon focused class.

 

[The Limper]

Except that in the DnD Conan module, his class in not Barbarian at all you noob...

Barbarians didn't exist as a class in Gygax's D&D, this is why Minsc is a ranger.

The Barbarian first appeared in Dragon Magazine, written by Gygax as a Fighter subclass and then added via Unearthed Arcana.

 

[Roguey]

The Barbarian first appeared in Dragon Magazine, written by Gygax as a Fighter subclass and then added via Unearthed Arcana.

That magazine was published in 1982. Again, the character sheet was made in 1980.

Editing the post to hopefully nip all this in the bud.

 

[luj1]

Yeah lets get back to how Pillars sucked ass

 

[NaturallyCarnivorousSheep]

It's pretty great if you accept some abstraction in it.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Except that in the DnD Conan module, his class in not Barbarian at all you noob...

Barbarians didn't exist as a class in Gygax's D&D, this is why Minsc is a ranger.

It did, it started in Unearthed Arcana in 1E AD&D. Unearthed Arcana was written by... Gary Gygax.

2E AD&D didn't include Barbarians until later and wasn't technically "Gygax's D&D".

Zed Duke of Banville

Forcing me to post in a Pillars of Eternity thread.

But, yes, a barbarian class did not exist in the AD&D 1st edition core rulebooks, which is why Gary Gygax proposed one in a Dragon Magazine article "The Big, Bad Barbarian" (issue #63, July 1982) and then incorporated a revised version into the new rules provided by the Unearthed Arcana hardcover book in 1985. See also "The Barbarian Cleric" by Thomas Kane (Dragon Magazine #109, May 1986) and "Tracking down the Barbarian: Creating Better Barbarians for AD&D 1st Edition Games" by David Howery (Dragon Magazine #148, August 1989).

AD&D 2nd edition did not include Gygax's barbarian class, though the very first book in the long-running Player's Handbook Rules Supplement series (PHBR), the Complete Fighter's Handbook, introduced the concept of class-based "kits" that provided a bit of customization relative to a base class, and those kits for fighters included barbarian, amazon, berserker, savage, and wilderness warrior entries.

The 14th book in the PHBR series, The Complete Barbarian's Handbook, introduced a barbarian fighter class and a shaman class, with new kits and other information. That was released in 1995, six years after the core rulebooks for AD&D 2nd edition in 1989, with the Complete Fighter's Handbook having been published later that same year.

Gary Gygax's article "Conan!" appeared in Dragon Magazine #36, April 1980, predating all of this.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Blah Blah blah go ahead and not bother too much with int on Barbarians Lyric Suite. Didn't hamper my playthrough much, though dumped the game because it was booooooring.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Is there any character that benefits from the same stats used for dialog? On my first try, i remember there were a lot of checks i couldn't pass. Maybe i can go that way instead.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

Is there any character that benefits from the same stats used for dialog? On my first try, i remember there were a lot of checks i couldn't pass. Maybe i can go that way instead.

Resolve is the most used stat in dialog, so any character that wants to tank would benefit the most.

 

[Lacrymas]

Theoretically yes, but Resolve is very easy to dump even for "tanks".

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Yeah well, Soyer failed to implement his own principles of not having dump stats. Although in fairness they fixed Resolve in Deafire.

 

[Decado]

Barbs are a great class to play, I have a bunch of effort-posts in this thread about playing a barb. But linking the radius of their damage circle to intelligence was just fucking dumb, I can't believe Sawyer went through with that. I mean, I guess I respect the commitment. But still. "I am very smart, therefore my sword swing arc is bigger" is a galaxy-brain take, just pure autistic commitment to the bit.

 

[Haplo]

Barbs are a great class to play, I have a bunch of effort-posts in this thread about playing a barb. But linking the radius of their damage circle to intelligence was just fucking dumb, I can't believe Sawyer went through with that. I mean, I guess I respect the commitment. But still. "I am very smart, therefore my sword swing arc is bigger" is a galaxy-brain take, just pure autistic commitment to the bit.

On the upside, you can achieve a really impressive aoe damage radius with a smart Barb...

...and attach CC effects there as well.

 

[Butter]

Barbs are a great class to play, I have a bunch of effort-posts in this thread about playing a barb. But linking the radius of their damage circle to intelligence was just fucking dumb, I can't believe Sawyer went through with that. I mean, I guess I respect the commitment. But still. "I am very smart, therefore my sword swing arc is bigger" is a galaxy-brain take, just pure autistic commitment to the bit.

Do different melee weapons even have different attack ranges? Seems like an obvious thing to have, but maybe Soyer realized he'd run into trouble if being a genius turns daggers into extended reach weapons.

 

[Haplo]

Generally there are only normal range weapons and Reach weapons.
Where reach weapons have the same Carnage aoe size (but you can attack a primary target further away from your character - therefore also place the aoe center further away).

 

[mediocrepoet]

Barbs are a great class to play, I have a bunch of effort-posts in this thread about playing a barb. But linking the radius of their damage circle to intelligence was just fucking dumb, I can't believe Sawyer went through with that. I mean, I guess I respect the commitment. But still. "I am very smart, therefore my sword swing arc is bigger" is a galaxy-brain take, just pure autistic commitment to the bit.

IIRC, the rationale was something along the lines of the barb's attacks hitting with such force that it created something of a damaging shockwave that affected other nearby enemies. Because it's basically a psychic effect related to soul energy, it's intelligence just like other similar effects. All the Pillars stuff comes back to souls.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Anyway, it's not like the only good builds are Int Barb and Might Wizard. There's plenty of viable builds that use more traditional attribute distribution.

 

[Decado]

Anyway, it's not like the only good builds are Int Barb and Might Wizard. There's plenty of viable builds that use more traditional attribute distribution.

I agree. Dual wield warriors, pistol rogues, monks, and 2-hand paladins are all good classes that hew closely to more established archetypes and play how you would expect.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Anyway, it's not like the only good builds are Int Barb and Might Wizard. There's plenty of viable builds that use more traditional attribute distribution.

I agree. Dual wield warriors, pistol rogues, monks, and 2-hand paladins are all good classes that hew closely to more established archetypes and play how you would expect.

Proper spec ranger archer is underrated.

 

[Kruyurk]

Anyway, it's not like the only good builds are Int Barb and Might Wizard. There's plenty of viable builds that use more traditional attribute distribution.

I agree. Dual wield warriors, pistol rogues, monks, and 2-hand paladins are all good classes that hew closely to more established archetypes and play how you would expect.

Proper spec ranger archer is underrated.

My char was a melee ranger archer with an arrow in each hand, with max Int to poke enemies directly in the soul.

 

[Decado]

Anyway, it's not like the only good builds are Int Barb and Might Wizard. There's plenty of viable builds that use more traditional attribute distribution.

I agree. Dual wield warriors, pistol rogues, monks, and 2-hand paladins are all good classes that hew closely to more established archetypes and play how you would expect.

Proper spec ranger archer is underrated.

I started a Ranger play through with a bear companion (I think?) but I rage quit because Mr. Bear kept dying. I could be persuaded to give it another whirl.

 

[Haplo]

Don't send the pet first. Instead keep it in the back to protect your backline and flank enemies.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Wait, there's a patch coming for this? How?