blotter

Keep her in inventory as a pet but have her get acknowledged during appropriate interactions/dialogue ala Concelhaut's skull with Llengrath. I'd also like them to allow you to do something with the essence potion if you actually did have the Ethik Nol sacrifice her but fed Simoc the poison anyway. On a somewhat unrelated note, how are the orlan baby and Gordy not Hollowborn anyway? I don't recall this coming up in conversation about the orlan baby, and Gordy didn't strike me as a teenager or someone born outside the Dyrwood.

The devs also stated that this didn't mean it would be turning into Baldur's Gate in terms of tone. Their emphasis on greater narrative range in Pillars 2 would seem to seem to suggest that they'll still hit the same lows at times, but there will be more highs between them for contrast.

Possibly the Principi sen Patrena, depending on the extent of their present ties to Old Vailia (which may be trying to reassert its traditional hold over what has become the Republics). Aruihi sounds like he's probably the best fit for my Dissident Watcher, but as a member of the native aristocracy Aruihi'll probably end up in the fire too. My first playthrough will most likely involve playing along with one or more of them for a time but ultimately going renegade.

Likewise with Sneak Attack, Soul Whip, and other class staples for the most part. The abilities are tied to a particular class' power source, and the rate at which that scales is based on whether you're actively advancing in the associated class or not. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpKyazh8mUI for details.

The perversity of using a nature-focused class to represent a bond with an unnatural vessel is part of the appeal for me, but I can see how it might not work for others. I'd prefer that they keep animancy to skills and talents if they make it mechanically accessible to us at all. The lore emphasis on it being more of a technological discipline doesn't fit so well with the classes tapping into the power of the soul through themes like Zeal, Faith, Discipline, etc. (though I guess you could argue that their source would just be Technology) and having animancy tied to skills/talents rather than class abilities allows animancers themselves to differ from each other in potentially interesting ways.

And wichts have animal souls, but I just considered the class arrangement as more a mechanical arrangement to express possible animancy experiments she might engage in.

I expect Serafen to be the easiest to get along with and I'm interested in the philosophical/theological tensions that I vaguely recall the developers discussing in regards to Eder and Xoti (even if it's a bit of moot point for my Watchers who fed him to the pool or strung up his carcass in Gilded Vale). In terms of first impressions, I'm leaning towards Ydwin, though I'd have liked her more if she was a ranger with a wicht companion (I couldn't afford a super-pet and apparently I just can't let this go). Wicht or no witcht, though, I particularly like the availability of rogue as a base class for her since it emphasizes the distinction between animancers (who have been described as being more based around the use of tools and machinery) and spellcasters while also somewhat calling back to her academic background by suggesting that she relies more on knowledge of anatomy while fighting than formal martial training.

Yeah, there are definitely some intriguing Chinese weapons out there too. Deer Horn Knives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_Horn_Knives), along with the Indian Katar, both seem like good candidates for monk weapons while still having some appeal for fighters, rogues, and barbarians with more exotic tastes in weaponry. Maybe toss in a few Ulu (http://www.caribooblades.com/Zach_ulu_500.jpg) while we're at it, since Naasitaq is nearby in the same general area. ...Not that I actually expect them to create new models and animations for all these. If there was a DLC introducing these as new weapon types, I'd definitely buy it though. Good point, though "gul" is pretty damned close to the Arabic "ghul"/Ghoul.

If by oriental weapons you also mean Indian weapons, then I'm game. Weapons like the katar, bagh nakh, urumi, bichwa, trishula, and pata are much more interesting to me than katanas and ninja-to (the inclusion of kusari gama might get my attention though).

A fishing type of minigame doesn't particularly thrill me either, but maybe it's more along the lines of setting lures and traps to trigger encounters. Basically bounties for sea monsters.

They confirmed that we'll encounter sea monsters before they introduced this stretch goal, so I doubt their inclusion will be dependent on reaching it. From what I read, this stretch goal seems to have more to do with using your ship to fish for these monsters and getting associated loot/benefits from doing so.

In addition to Durance's example, priests are explicitly stated to draw their powers from their beliefs rather than receiving them from the gods. As long as they have faith in something other than the gods, the lore should accommodate the idea of a godless priest.

I'll cast another vote for a morphing weapon. Maybe even something that could turn into gauntlets like Planescape Torment's Entropic Blade so even unarmed-focused monks could get some use out of it. I'm not really one for slapstick sidekicks/talking equipment so I'd pass on another Lilarcor. I like the idea of the weapon having an empathic link with the wielder which would cause its personality to be partially influenced by the Watcher's highest ranked disposition (player choice in the case of a tie), allowing a bit more variability in accordance with different playstyles, but that also seems like it'd require a ridiculous amount of work to do well.

String up a few mummified corpses of particularly obnoxious enemies and have Tekehu sing them into service whenever the ship gets too grody. Otherwise, maybe now that Aloth gets per-encounter spells he can devote a couple of them to animate object spells for a more Fantasia-based approach to the same general process.

I'd be interested in having whips in the game if you could damage yourself or adjacent allies with the equivalent of critical failures and there were special animations and character barks tied to that. Otherwise, I'd be more interested in greater variation in flail models since they're a more credible threat against armor, but by that same token, maybe they can make a soulbound whip that's effectively a flail mechanics-wise. They've apparently done something similar with Xoti by treating her sickle as a hatchet.

A few of these have been answered in this week's Q&A and/or the ones before it; for full transcripts or links to videos, check the Deadfire Announcements and News area and click on the threads pertaining to the past Q&As. I wish you luck getting answers on the rest. Sawyer stated that the player's animal companion options won't be changed from Pillars 1. The bird animal companion is a custom one available only to Maia. religion and inclination? For example a priest of Magran would have a better knowledge of war and firearms than say a priest of Eothas. One of the goals for Pillars 2 is enhanced overall reactivity. Specific examples of this that have been discussed include additional dialogue options based on paladin order and more skill-based dialogue options. They've also mentioned priest of particular deities as examples of characters who should have unique dialogue options in certain situations. This hasn't been directly answered, but the implementation of weapon proficiencies as a separate resource from talents and abilities is worth mentioning here, particularly in relation to your estoc-wielding priest. The way in which deity-specific priest abilities or talents will interact with these proficiencies, if at all, has not been discussed during any Q&A that I'm aware of, but it's definitely possible that I missed something. Invocations are the chanter equivalent to spells. They are limited to per-day or per-encounter uses, but the chanter needs to build up the requisite number of phrases to use them in combat, with more phrases being required to use more powerful invocations. This perhaps a stretch on my part, but are you referring to empowerment? If so, the general idea appears to be drawing more heavily on one's reserves to strengthen a particular spell or ability, increasing the effective power level that's tied to it (e.g., Arcane for wizards, Guile for rogues, etc.) by +3 during that particular use of the ability. All classes can empower their abilities but only a certain number of times before needing to rest to regain access to this option. The developers are not currently planning to add more paladin orders or priest deities to the game, but you might be able to develop this concept by multiclassing as a druid/paladin or a paladin/ranger. The Black Jacket fighter subclass may be something that would attract your interest. Its emphasis is more on diversity in weaponry than specialization and its ability to switch between weapons more quickly and effectively may allow for a more dynamic playstyle. Rogues are awesome! Due to inclusion of thrown weapons will it be possible to have a knife thrower subclass which was often aligned with the rogue classes in classic TT Rpgs? Last I heard, there are currently no plans to include thrown weapons in the game. Grimoires are changing from Pillars 1 in that they're moving away from allowing the transcription of spells from one grimoire to another. The spells that are in a particular grimoire will not change (presumably with the exception of a given wizard's personal grimoire as they add more when leveling up). Along with benefits tied to the use of specific grimoires (one example that was mentioned is a grimoire that boosts fire spells, if memory serves) this may provide stronger incentives for actually switching from one grimoire to another as they will be more strongly differentiated from each other. There's plenty more to be said on this subject, of course, and I'd be interested in further elaboration as well. Based on the last Q&A, it appears that we can expect to encounter more paladin orders throughout the game. During preceding Q&As they also mentioned that there would be more concerning the gods in the narrative of Pillars 2, so that likely means we can expect to see more of their associated priesthoods. In this recent Q&A, Sawyer mentioned that the cut-off point for factions would likely be extended in comparison to Pillars 1, allowing you to interact with them more before committing to them irreversibly. Whether this actually translates to opportunities to betray a given faction will likely depend on the specifics of how their quests interact with those of other factions and we probably can't expect developers to get into those specifics this early on.

At what point does this particular subject become over-discussed, though? This is the first poll I've seen addressing this particular issue, so your assertion here seems to be that this topic is over-discussed when it gets mentioned at all because you personally find it to be trivial. If anything, that seems selfish to me, but it's probably more productive to frame this response in terms of the developers' stated intentions in two regards: a) multiclassing itself and b) the goals in developing multiclass titles specifically. In regards to the first, the developers have mentioned on numerous occasions that they consider multiclassing to a way for players to fine-tune character concepts beyond the constraints imposed by the choice of a single class: this obviously includes the pursuit of mechanical synergies between the chosen classes, but can easily extend to more thematic considerations of what it means to be a bit of one class and a bit of another as well. These thematic elements of the blending between classes can tie in with the naming of the combinations themselves, and during the aforementioned CalloftheCthulhu interview (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/124100834 - starting around 32 minutes in) Sawyer acknowledges this as something they're aiming for with multiclass titles to begin with. With these things in mind, I'm not really sure how this discussion is incidental or tangential to either of these goals; on the contrary, the option seems only to facilitate the goal of producing multiclass identities that players can favorably identify with. Is it a ribbon? Sure. But it's no further beneath Obsidian's concern than other things that they've willingly taken upon themselves and deemed significant enough to implement already, like adding new mustaches or expanding the range of selectable palettes for determining the color a character's outfit. Actually, this seems like it might potentially entail considerably less effort than either of those examples. I'll agree with pi2repsion in regards to class-based characterization in dialogue being something that the developers should employ sparingly if at all. Making Swashbuckler-centric dialogue, for example, could easily devolve into a slew of tropes and conceits that simply wouldn't apply to a range of ways in which characters with this multiclass combination can be played (e.g., Stoic and Honest or Shady and Rational fighter/rogues who have no use for the swaggering flair that's associated with swashbucklers, or even Passionate and Aggressive ones who would similarly dispense with the posturing and leap straight into battle). Further, these sorts of options would likely be better represented by skills and dispositions to begin with. Lore-wise there's more room for this sort of thing, but that's more in relation to particular groups which are more likely to have names that differ from generic multiclass titles anyway (consider the aforementioned examples of class names differing in accordance with religious order, and also cases with monsters such as Xaurip champions and skirmishers).

It seemed like they answered more forum questions this time, but maybe that's just because they addressed 2/10 of mine instead of 0/8 like before.

It's interesting that you bring this up, actually, given that during Sawyer's CalloftheCthulu interview, he actually mentioned a user complaining about having to be called a wizard instead of a sorcerer and identified the significance of class/multiclass names in developing a character concept (or the perception thereof). Given that providing further options for characterization is one the main ideas for multiclassing, and multiclass titles in particular, I don't see how the customization we're talking about here is out of line with that regardless of the standards for base classes. It doesn't necessarily follow that customizing a character's multiclass title would obscure the identity of any multiclass enemies. Beyond that, though, Pillars has already shown an inclination to provide unique class-based identifiers for enemies that don't line up with those used by your own characters: Skaenite ciphers were called soul reavers or something, for example, and the temple of Ondra similarly had class-based enemies under faith-specific names. If we could figure those out then, I don't seem why it would be any different in this case.

Fair enough. They've been pretty hit or miss for me, and I agree that it seems like a relatively simple feature to implement, but I definitely wouldn't claim it's the most pressing issue out there either. Still, I figure I'll be spending enough time looking at character sheets in-game that having a bit more control over what I see there would be most welcome.

The question came up during this Q&A Josh Sawyer and Bobby Null and they mentioned that they aren't currently planning to enable customization for multiclass titles. However, they did mention that they welcome further suggestions (which can be added to Heijoushin's existing thread - http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/91412-care-to-guess-the-names-of-the-other-multiclasses/ - if you're so inclined) and that they might reconsider if there's enough of an outcry against the titles that Obsidian comes up with. I assume that they might also reconsider if forum-goers express enough interest in the feature, so I've decided to dump another poll into these boards and see where that takes us.

Q&A's over. AFAIK neither of those questions were addressed.

Yeah, the Orders/Deities being mandatory subclasses for paladins and priests had been confirmed during the second Q&A (https://www.reddit.com/r/projecteternity/comments/5szojj/link_deadfire_qa_session_2_with_josh_sawyer_8th/ddjr97z/?st=iyzu9ena&sh=a765305e). The mutual exclusivity of certain orders and deities is news, though. Basing the bans on favored/condemned dispositions sounds like a clean way to approach it, but it does eliminate some combinations that could actually make sense. To reuse an old example of mine, an Eothasian priest multiclassing as a Bleakwalker paladin could easily reflect the priest's growing bitterness and hostility towards a world that persecutes his faith. Granted, a Shieldbearer multiclassing as a Magranite priest doesn't really work conceptually as far as I can see (unless they've abandoned the Shieldbearers altogether) and I can't think of a way in which a Skaenite priest becoming a Kind Wayfarer makes sense either without a similar crisis of faith. If their concern truly lies with people sabotaging their builds with these choices, though, I don't see why that's a big deal unless they're dumping Untroubled Faith - just have it apply to both classes so they don't need to take it twice.

The person you're quoting was wrong. Sidekicks are an option in addition to hirelings/recruits, not in place of them.

1. Are there any notable monastic orders that we'll have opportunities to interact with while we visit the Deadfire Archipelago? 2. Are we going to have more options for dealing with prisoners (assuming we still have the option to take them?) 3. Will we see any examples of NPCs pushing the limits of their classes' abilities in ways akin to Concelhaut's magical research and Llengrath's transference of knowledge? Will we encounter or hear about Cipher or Chanter equivalents to archmages, for example? 4. Will there be any Watcher talents that are selectable at level up or gained through optional quests as opposed to those which are awarded through the events of the main quest alone? 5. Will the racial talents of Godlike be revised so that the benefits they provide are more proportional to the loss of helmets? 6. Will we have the opportunity to learn more about the Watcher's past lives? 7. Will soulbound items in this game have greater variability in features based on the wielder's class than they did in the first Pillars of Eternity? 8. Are there any plans for multiclass talents along the lines of the Practiced Spell Caster feats in D&D 3e/NWN2? 9. Will the deaths of companions in this game potentially trigger interactions or attitude changes among surviving party members based on the nature of the relationships between them? 10. Will there be opportunities to use class abilities, spells, powers, and so forth (such as Whispers of Treason, for example) during dialogues or will such opportunities remain limited to combat and scripted interactions?