blotter

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?

I'd be interested in a tattooed/scarred mage subclass for wizards that foregoes access to grimoires in favor of internalizing arcane formulae within their own flesh. It'd be able to cast the spells it knows more quickly and finds them easier to concentrate on, but it would lack the versatility of grimoire-based wizards. Granted, wizard animations seem to extensively feature grimoires from what we've seen, but perhaps the developers could use the casting animation from other classes like priests or druids instead for this subclass.

Maybe not a Vithrack cipher, although having them wonder around in a heavily hooded robe that they shed in combat ala Goris from Fallout 2 might work, but maybe a Vithrack druid that could shapeshift into a large spider wouldn't be too much of a stretch. From there you might be able to bluff people that one of your companions is a ranger and the Vithrack in spider form was their animal companion.

The line you may be thinking of is: "Far from being occult or protected knowledge, most wizards' spells are just so incredibly complex and physically demanding that even practiced wizards cannot invoke them without the use of expensive, specially-enchanted tomes." (http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Wizard)

I agree that it's not a particularly big deal as long as they properly differentiate between sources of Might for different classes. As far as making attributes harder to dump goes, I think folding physical strength in with Constitution and calling it Vigor makes more sense conceptually. And what about multiclassed fighters/wizards, my poor bruiser priest of Magran, and/or dwarven boar druids who actually want to physically plow through obstacles rather than blast them? With Strength/Constitution as Vigor, magical potency could emerge from Resolve or Intellect, and the choice between options would exist for anyone with sufficiently high scores in them. If there were still worries about caster types plunging Vigor down to the point where they can barely breathe or something, then they could've also tied the attribute to how much a character could heal from spells or potions used on them or just made effects tied to Fortitude nastier if necessary. Granted, I don't think that this would truly result in undumpable stats, but I don't think any game in the Pillars series will either.

Less logical and more convenient, I'd say. Neither priest deities nor paladin orders come close to exhausting the range of things that one can believe in: Orderless paladins and godless priests (whose faith, the actual source of their power, lies in something else - like their own life's purpose, the will of a nation, the cycle of life and death beyond the gods' interference, etc.) could constitute more miscellaneous/individualistic categories with an emphasis on customization, but that could require undue focus on developing priest/paladins options in comparison to other classes. If you're referring to their belief that mortification of the flesh allows them to strengthen their souls, sure, but that's already covered by the features of the base class. Even though we've seen monks with religious affiliations in Pillars 1, monks as a whole are not required to bow to deities or cling to established institutions in this setting.

Good ideas. As you've already touched upon, I'd like to see more opportunities through the taking of prisoners, whether in the form of additional interactions, quests (party or stronghold), judgments, or even repurposing some of them as unique hirelings. The ransom/slave trade/animancer experiment fodder options in the first game were alright as far as they go (which wasn't far), but I'd to see even those "exchange and forget" type options have significance toward things like faction/NPC relations, potentially contributing to further quests and developments along those lines as well. In regards to upgrades, I'd like to see more outside of the base stronghold window and tied to the Watcher's activities in the world. Seizing enemy hirelings and territory as your own throughout the game sounds like fun to me. On the subject of hirelings, it'd be nice if some of the unique ones from Caeda Nua could be recruited again. Maybe instead of just chasing bounties/responding to stronghold quests, you could even invest gold and resources through the stronghold into creating bounties and quests of your own for hirelings/adventurers to carry out. You're a busy Watcher, after all, and an arrangement like this could allow you to pursue your interests with some level of plausible deniability depending on how you get the word out. If doing so allowed you to screw over one or more factions while appearing to be their ally until the bitter end, so much the better.

More contracts than money in this case, or their loyalties would be more flexible than the lore suggests. Further, the people and organizations you refer to are most likely committed to contracts less for their own sake than for the benefits of adhering to them or for fear of the consequences of breaching them. With the Goldpact Knights, it struck me at the time of my earlier post as a more generic adherence to the idea of contracts. That said, the flavor text in-game, which I've since re-read, states that the order is several centuries old and survived the death of the nation that created it. With that in mind, I'll retract my earlier claim that there's no particular agenda evident to provide direction or incentive for their professionalism: it's no stretch at all that people will go to extremes for the sake of an organization's tradition and prestige if they're invested in it strongly enough. How interesting that is really depends on the history and culture of the order itself in my opinion, but now I find myself hoping for Bleak Oath-type quest for Goldpact Knights that demonstrates a bit more of their background and practices. There are at least two religious orders that we know of (the Order of the Steel Garrotte and the Fellows of St. Waidwen Martyr), and it seems reasonable to expect more to be out there. As a matter of fact, we've also had chances to fight Skaenite, Rymrgandan, and Ondran paladins, regardless of whether they've been written up as named orders or not. Even so, I think the idea of a templar order as a source of outsourced security and inter-faith mediation has potential. It probably shouldn't extend to all the faiths though: Woedica, Rymrgand, and possibly Magran's faiths seem rather unlikely to entrust their security to a third party or to cooperate with their mediation efforts. Skaenites seem more likely to ostensibly play along with this sort of arrangement while doing whatever they want until caught at it.

While I don't have a problem with the Goldpact Knights myself and like the idea of a paladin order that isn't concerned with heroics or brutality, the Goldpact Knights can be seen as occupying an odd space between the other orders. We know that paladins draw their power from a zealous commitment to their beliefs, but, put simply, the Goldpact Knights' beliefs seem to amount to killing and dying for the sake of paying customers' beliefs. That lifestyle almost seems to demand that they be fanatically non-fanatical about everything except paid contracts, which is rather flat. Even if I don't want all traces of them purged from Eothas Eora, I can at least agree that there are no shortage of more interesting directions to take with a morally indifferent sort of paladin order. As far as I know, the lore hasn't specified whether the Goldpact Knights are actually building towards something, so their fixation with maintaining professional standards at all times seems to lack any real purpose. I guess this could be a collective of people who feel they have no place outside of the battlefield, believing that there is a particular code which all men-at-arms should follow regardless of who or what they fight for, but I'd basically have to build their background from scratch myself to arrive at that conclusion (again, unless I've missed a bit of lore somewhere).

I agree. This also happens to be why I said "Depends whether development of each version occurs alongside each other or not" and proceeded to explain why this seems unlikely for Pillars 2 in the post just above yours. It may bode ill for the series going forward, but Pillars 2 seems safe from the ravages of consolization for the time being.

Depends whether development of each version occurs alongside each other or not. Given that Pillars 2 has already been in development for a while, has a release estimate of around 13 months from now, and they're only "considering" a console port right now without any in-depth planning or discussion per the above quote, the PC/Mac version of Pillars 2 seems well insulated from console-related simplification. If they ever decide to do it, and I'd be surprised if there's much demand for console RPGs harkening back isometric party-based RPGs of old, then maybe I'll worry about Pillars 3. Until then...

One way to go with it is lower damage output in exchange for attacks causing targets to suffer afflictions/penalties. Alternatively, it could be more about mobility/versatility - the druid might be able to split themselves up into separate collectives as they advance, for example. I'm not really sure that a swarm of flies/horde of hamsters/murder of crows/whatever else casting spells makes any sense, so maybe that should the tradeoff. Edit: Actually, I thought of Many-as-One just after I posted that. I say leave spells in so that we too can play the part of a supernatural hivemind.

Wow. That didn't come up during the Q&A. Not that I particularly care as long as it doesn't interfere with the features of the desktop version.

Not for Pillars 2. Sawyer said that he likes the idea of doing something a bit more console or tablet-friendly in response to a question about the possibility of an Icewind Dale-type spinoff for the Pillars franchise.

I certainly wouldn't object to more diverse kill animations, ideally one for each of the physical and elemental damage types. Raw could probably just borrow Corrosion's. That said, I agree with Heijoushin that the animations and audio during combat itself would add a lot more to the experience than specialized death scenes.

Among other things, the value of sidekicks depends on how much input and banter these characters provide throughout the game. If they're comparable to Pillars 1 NPCs (I wouldn't get my hopes up there, but the fact that they're only considering four of them suggests some interest in making more than a token effort to develop them), then there may indeed be a space for them: consider that various posters have already expressed reservations about the relationship system in regards to feeling forced to pander to NPCs or exclude them artificially for fear of their reactions to the Watcher's decisions or even other NPCs. These sidekicks wouldn't have the same level of reactivity and would thus require less of a balancing act to minimize disruptions and inter-party conflicts while they're around. Granted, the same applies to recruits, but this option wouldn't require that party interaction be completely sacrificed. I also agree with anameforobsidian that it may allow for a more organic development of particular character concepts since they won't be forced to strongly tie in with the main quest line or the factions' agendas. Not really. There isn't a single sidekick mentioned in the update that has access to a class that one of the main NPCs can't start as. The developers' intentions here may partially concern allowing options for those who won't have one or more of the original companions returning (I'd guess that NPC murderers and people who don't reload after losing an NPC in combat are fairly rare, though). I'm a little concerned that the sidekicks' possible inclusion may mean that the developers aren't confident that the core NPCs will be able to accommodate a wide range of playstyles, but it's probably worth waiting to learn more about them before making that accusation.

It's in the CallOfCthulu interview (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/122300066), not the Obsidian developer Q&A on twitch that was on a bit later. I couldn't tell you exactly where and it's way too long for me to sit through a second time in order to check. Basically, Sawyer stated that it's something that could be done and it wouldn't be that hard to do, but pretty low on the current list of priorities so it may or may not end up getting implemented. Part of the reasoning was that it would see limited use, so starting a thread to illustrate the level of interest in the feature actually seems like a reasonable way to go about trying to skew things in favor of its implementation.

Maybe, maybe not. It's hardly a stretch to imagine Eothas' godlike appearing that way, but you're right about him being a possible source for nature godlike as well. If Boeroer's theory regarding godlike features varying with cultural/regional emphasis of divine aspects is true, then the fertility linked aspects of nature godlike (horns of often symbolic of fertility and like you said, blossoming flora speaks for itself) that we've seen so far may point to a closer link to Eothas than Galawain. Maybe Eothas godlike who emphasize aspects of light/dawn instead of bounty in nature are extremely rare.

You raise a good point in regards to Eothas/Gaun here. Plus Eothas is also god of spring, which has clear ties to abundance in nature. In the same way that death godlike might be "shared" between Berath and Rymrgrand, perhaps there are some touched by Gaun. It would be an opportunity to explore less diseased/horrific manifestations among them. St Waedwen was a shining head guy and nobody said he was godlike. Eders brother even converted bz of how he looked. If he was just a "dawn godlike" then nobody wouldve believed him he claimed he was eothas. Saint Waidwen's appearance doesn't preclude Dawn/Light/Sun godlike from having glowing heads. For one thing, there could be a substantial difference in degree or in the "presence" of Eothas as housed in Waidwen. As Varana mentioned, Waidwen wasn't a godlike; he was transformed from his rather ordinary human form when Eothas fused with him. As for nobody believing him because they'd dismiss him as a "mere" Eothasian godlike, people did doubt and challenge Waidwen in the beginning. His following really started to grow after he demonstrated his power. It wasn't just a matter of showing off his new glowing face, he was shunned as a blasphemer and fraud until he restored life to withered farmlands and deposed an Aedyrian colonial governor. See http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/St._Waidwen:_Farmer_Become_God for details.

Given his focus on hunting and beasts, one might expect his godlike to be more predatory in nature, but he is the closest fit in terms of portfolios. It really is hard to see flowers growing out of one's hair/scalp as being the mark of the god of hunters and assassins, but as for the nature godlikes' prey animal aspect, he did create the Great Western Stag.

I think a better stretch goal would be further expanding player customization based on race, including things such as godlike models and racial talents. There are enough people that have interests outside of the godlike that they should avoid such a limited focus for a stretch goal, especially so close to the end. That said, I'll play along a bit since I'm a godlike fan myself. Shadows are more fitting for Wael, who's also the god of obfuscation. Nothing in Skaen's portfolio really lends itself to straightforward representation through godlike, but blood godlike could fit given his propensity for murder, mutilation, and sacrifice. The first guidebook mentions blood drinking as part of the ritual to transform into the Effigy, so there's that as well to emphasize the ties to blood. Skaen's godlike might exhibit stigmata that are tied to the god's own scars and the faith's ritual mutilations: castration/masectomy, oozing scars in the place of ears and noses, a flayed scalp, jagged black stones in place of eyes, shifting welts and gashes as though continually lashed, etc. In keeping with the "blessings" of a god of envy and covert plots, their power could relate to the temporary usurpation of features from those they maim/kill, making them better moles and spies than their gruesome appearances should allow, or allowing them to prey on the sentiments or fears of allies who have watched the godlike steal the face of one of their own. In the actual game, this could probably just be represented by a hazy red aura or something, though. I'm still more interested in seeing an actual Effigy; a questline where a Skaenite Watcher could undergo the ritual to become the Effigy in order to claim their vengeance against Eothas might be fun but it might make the epilogue more dull since being an Effigy means dying once you've killed your oppressor. Wael's godlike could hard to do right. Not so much because they're hard to conceptualize, but an emphasis on hazy, shifting features could compromise a character's sense of identity. Their power could follow the same activation pattern as the moon godlike racial talent, resulting in a stacking miss/graze chance for enemies in range as the mists and shadows wreathing the damaged godlike's form expand to cover a broader area.

Q&A's over for this week. In regards to question #1, the Sawyer's interview at https://www.twitch.tv/videos/122300066 does get into customization options a bit. It sounds like it'll be on par with Pillars 1 with a larger color palette to select from. Sawyer mentioned in the previous Q&A (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/120695299?t=47m54s) that people would react more to godlike but they were trying to avoid pointing it out so often that it became tedious. Good luck getting #3 answered.

I think that godlike in general are supposed to have more variation in their features than the games will represent, so his particular characteristics might not rule him out. Fins don't seem particularly evocative of the moon to me either, even considering associations between it and the sea, but Ondra to having two breeds of godlike tied to her invites all sorts of conceptual inflation here. If she does have two, should we expect portal and song godlike next? There are a lot of portfolios to work through after all. My initial party will consist of: A monk/cipher Watcher, favoring monk Possibly Xoti, favoring priest Serafen as a cipher/rogue, favoring cipher Maia Rua as a ranger The Huana predominantly as a chanter, possibly with some levels of wizard mixed in Eder's a bit too inanimate to make a reappearance and with Pallegina becoming more reactive, I expect that her complaints about cruelty will make her a bit short-lived as a party member.

It sounds like pickpocketing is in as a general skill, so between that and stealth I wouldn't expect much in dialogue that's rogue-specific. There's still backstabbing, eye-gouging, and hamstringing to sort through in their kit, but that's stepping into [Cruel] territory rather than class dialogue options, I'd think. As far as stronghold customization is concerned, I'd definitely agree that tying it in with class shouldn't be obligatory but having optional features based on class would be fine in my opinion. I wouldn't mind background-based stronghold options either, but there are even more of those than classes. Perhaps in both cases it the options should be geared more towards things like optional hirees, stronghold quests (which I now wish I had asked about during the Q&A), and gear that merchants sell to you. I'd suggest that tying customization to skills might be an option that would touch more closely upon background, but it sounds like there will be around as many skills as backgrounds. One way to bring a lot of this together would be through quests related to claiming, developing, and/or defending the strongholds. Such quests could potentially integrate options based on class, skills, and/or backgrounds (e.g., a mercenary of any class might have an option that you'd otherwise have to be a fighter or barbarian to unlock) and stronghold customization options could be partially based on the ways in which you resolved these quests. I've heard Sawyer state on more than one occasion that we wouldn't be getting another keep, per se, but I don't recall him or any other developers stating what we'd gain in its place. I think that what we've been hearing about the ship is mostly assumption (though I could be wrong - I haven't read, watched, or listened to everything out there), but it's a very reasonable one given the setting and travel requirements.

Yeah, the lack of unarmed proficiency doesn't particularly bode well for greater versatility for unarmed attacks (though those options could still be bundled up with monks/equipment), but I'm glad to hear that priest spell lists are tied more closely to deities now. I always thought it was rather absurd that growing in power as a priest of Wael suddenly meant you could drop pillars on people, for example.