blotter

See https://www.reddit.com/r/projecteternity/comments/5szojj/link_deadfire_qa_session_2_with_josh_sawyer_8th/ddjr97z/?st=iyzu9ena&sh=a765305e and search for skills 17, result 3 of 4.

You'll get no argument from me here; I actually think attribute modifiers should be at least partially tied to backgrounds at chargen, whether by scaling back the importance of race to make room for it or taking the place of culture as a source of modifiers.

Skills are being expanded, though. We're currently looking at around ~17, subject to adjustment if some prove more niche or obscure in times terms of in-game options/representation.

That's one way to address godlike headgear situation. For my part, I'd prefer more of an elaboration of godlike features so that the tradeoff was more proportional. That'd be hard to pull off with starting racial talents without being grossly overpowered, but there could be a scaling mechanism involved. Maybe instead of allowing partial access to headgear or closing off the slot entirely, all godlike could have "built-in" headgear in much the same way that the Devil of Caroc had intrinsic armor. Even if this allowed for enchantment (though maybe talent acquisition or having new features unlock for it as part of gaining more general talents like Bull's Will, Snake's Reflexes, and so forth would be an alternative to that), it'd still be less versatile than the options available to races that can freely swap helmets and it'd bar access to unique features tied to such equipment.

As much as I welcome the opportunity to murder Eder again, the lore's been very adamant about no one having the power to truly bring the dead back to life and spawning undead doesn't really seem like something that'd be in Eothas' bag of tricks. That being said, having dead/murdered companions (briefly) revisit the Watcher at some point as Shades or spirits of other varieties would be one way in which to allow some interaction with them going forward while also introducing unique content tied to such circumstances.

It's true that it cannot be definitively confirmed that the godlike are truly products of the gods' influence. The confrontation that can occur between Pallegina and Hylea in the Council of the Stars implicitly reinforces the idea of a connection between them, but it's possible even then that Hylea was simply perpetuating the myth for whatever reason. Even if there is no actual connection between the gods and the godlike, though, there still seem to be strong enough ties between the godlike and forces that the gods represent to make consulting their various portfolios relevant to exercises in theorizing about as yet unrevealed forms of godlike that may exist. And so this isn't completely off-topic, maybe one or more of the remaining druid subclasses will be related to the Ethik Nol and/or Ovates of the Golden Grove (though I don't really remember enough about the latter to really say whether they're different enough from default druids to justify that treatment). For cipher subclasses, one emphasizing powers tied to draining and establishing parasitic connections with others could be interesting. This could even be a somewhat novel take on the anti-class theme, as part of this specialization could deal with corrupting or subverting the abilities of those they infect, potentially resulting in a dangerous loss of control over said abilities or diminishing their power. One possible tradeoff could be an increased dependence on parasitic connections with others to fuel their powers, resulting in focus increasing at a diminished rate when they aren't actively feeding on others through their powers.

There are no half-godlike; they're incapable of reproduction (see http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Godlike for details) and they're also legally genderless in areas, like the Vailian Republics, where that is the basis by which sex/gender is determined. Pallegina talks a bit about this in the game. Humans can't interbreed with elves (this tidbit comes up if you choose certain dialogue options during the Blood Legacy quest line) and I'd assume that elves can't breed with dwarves, orlans, etc. either.

With the expanded range of skills that are going to be available, perhaps the amount of starting information you have about monsters could be tied to your ranks in various corresponding types of Lore. Edit: Though bestiary progress through different lore types would likely have to be staggered based on how rare/powerful the monsters are (harder for their weaknesses to become common knowledge when fewer people survive encounters with them, after all).

Some paladin/priest combinations might be a bit a stretch all the same. Like a Bleak Walker of Eothas. Even that's not inconceivable, though, taking into account the persecution his followers face and the sort of ruthlessness it could breed among the more vengeful of them. I'm not sure really why a priest couldn't worship two gods anyway in a polytheistic setting, especially if those gods were allied. Also, remember that in Pillars, priests get their power from their faith. It's not given to them by whatever god they worship and the gods can't take it away either.

No problem, thank you for the thought of slaver rangers. Now we just need a proper whipping/caning idle animation for them and it'll be a true work of art.

Peaceful contact isn't the same as worship and ordering around a fiendish thrall is pretty much the opposite. I'm not sure why sneak attack matters in this conversation unless you've decided that you were basing the multiclass title on the D&D class after all. As for the point about definitions, I think that if you do look into it, you'll find that rogue has a far greater range than blackguard in regards to its moral characterizations, from ruthless criminal to lovable scamp. Regardless, I think I've spent enough time harping on this particular subject. You'll agree with me or you won't.

Blackguard means "low, contemptable person". That's not a lovable rogue we're talkable about. Even if it doesn't go into specifics like demon worship (which isn't required for D&D blackguards either) it clearly indicates a person who'll do just about anything if they see an advantage to it. Or they're just pragmatic tactics in combat. Trickster has implications that go well beyond that.

Except you can easily be a Kind Wayfarer/Rogue who's neither treacherous nor cruel. Or a wizard/rogue doesn't play tricks. There aren't many real no-brainers for multiclass names if you truly want to make them non-committal in regards to meaning. It doesn't make a difference. The meanings aren't all that far apart.

All of the examples you gave come with associated meanings and characterizations, and it's hard to avoid committing to particular characterizations with naming schemes regardless of how basic they (I'm looking at you, "Brute"). They do seem to be favoring the low-hanging fruit where it's available, but not all combinations are that simple to distill into straightforward one to two-word titles. We've already seen them get more abstract in their reasoning with Avenger, which combines no obvious traits from either the Rogue or Druid, and we're likely to see more of that as they work their way through less obvious combinations. Whatever they end up with, though, I really hope that they provide with the ability to rename them. It seems likely to spare them a lot of griping from people who think the names are too overwrought, too simple, or just nonsensical for whatever reason. That's definitely not a non-commital one by any stretch, and actually does a pretty good job of demonstrating how even simple titles can easily lock things into a particular direction where multiclass characterization is concerned.

I think both of these are fantastic names for Ch/Pr. Thanks. Another route that occurs to me is focusing on speaking in tongues, but "Glossolalist" sounds a bit awkward to me. I like these.. Glad to hear it, though I still consider "Transcendalist" to be overly cumbersome as a title. To be honest, I simply forgot to edit it out from my cut/paste when I posted. Still, it is a combination that seems likely to merge mortification of the flesh with the cultivation mental powers as part of a shared assertion of the mind/will's supremacy over the body; I just couldn't think of a more elegant way to express that.

There are actually are some dialogue options based on paladin order in the first game. I've only seen the Bleak Walker dialogue for when you confront Lord Raedric (and it wasn't worth selecting over the others in my opinion) but presumably, there would be similar options for the other orders scattered throughout the game. I do agree that there's ample room to build upon this, though.

A cultist background, differentiated from clergy through adherence to a more fringe or persecuted belief set, could be fun. Smuggler, slaver, and assassin backgrounds could be fun too. There's already a pretty good spread, though, especially if they could somehow account for the elaborations for each background that the Watcher can provide during the prologue of the first game. I'd be more interested in seeing options arising through interactions between these existing backgrounds and disposition/faction reputations in dialogues than getting a dozen new backgrounds that still wouldn't be likely to turn up in options more than two or three times throughout the game.

Sawyer mentioned that one of their goals in Pillars 2 was providing more freedom to explore the region and allowing players to do so earlier on. I'd agree that allowing for more exploration than the first game is by no means the same as Pillars 2 being an open-world type game, though.

Where attribute modifiers are concerned, I'd like to see racial bonuses/penalties reduced and the character's background lifestyles/professions added to the mix to make up the difference. Slaves could get a bonus to Constitution, for example, while Artists might get a bonus to Perception, Soldiers/Raiders would increase Might, and so forth.

In the form of a damage boost, sure, but that's hardly the only way to approach it. Treating their DR as being lower, having a greater chance of interrupting them, increasing the severity or duration of afflictions against them, being better at detecting them or anticipating their tactics, pointing out their weaknesses to other party members, or having a chance to incite panic among them through greater insight into their weaknesses and fears are all ways in which this idea can be developed. The Black Jacket for enemy types thing also could work, though, and I like the idea of tying a talent like this or abilities similar those I mentioned above to Bestiary progress. Hell, rather than introduce something distinct from the X Bane-type abilities at all, they could be expanded in their applications through Bestiary progress if this sort of specialist took them.

I wouldn't be opposed to the introduction of more godlike myself (PC accessible or otherwise), but I don't think there necessarily needs to be a distinct type of godlike to match up with every god. For example, Skaen's rituals that allow his priests/cultist to become the Effigy may be sufficient where he's concerned, and I'd rather see the Effigy manifest before they add any other Skaen-themed critters to the mixed. Rymrgand's also a god of death, so variation in available Death godlike talents and models could cover him pretty well. The same might apply towards Fire godlike and Sun godlike (or whatever Eothas' breed might be called). Abydon's children could be people who remade themselves into half-golems that are somewhat akin to the Eyeless; maybe with heavy ties to a monk order given the willingness to embrace pain that such a process would involve during and after. Overall I'd be more interested in them creating a range of selectable talents for the existing godlike subraces to better explore their variations. But on the subject of subclasses, I wouldn't mind seeing a Rogue or Ranger one that isn't so much anti-class as anti-creature type. It seems like that sort of specialization could work well for the Assassin.

Godlikes who have orlan or dwarf bodies were definitely in Pillars 1 already. I could be wrong, but Leeuwenhart may have been referring to Godlike breeds that are tied to other gods. So far we have Magran (fire), Berath (death), Ondara (Moon), Hylea (Avian), and possibly Galawain via Nature. That still leaves possibilities for Godlike subraces tied to Eothas, Abydon (though I think those should be made and not born), Rymrgrand, Skaen, Wael, and Woedica.

Yeah, it definitely is a thematically appropriate alternative, but I'm not sure it would've been less controversial, necessarily. Doing this would introduce other complications and concerns that could be fairly polarizing: How long did the Watcher manage to live after the events of Pillars 1, for example? If generations passed before they die, then it may introduce pressures to change cultural dynamics and things like technology in ways that a) may run counter to the developers' intentions or b) strike various subsets of the audience as unacceptable. On the other hand, if they kill the Watcher off early enough to avoid that, then that's likely to spark a fair bit of outrage as well. There's also the matter of integrating the whole Awakening angle into the narrative. I suspect that'd be a less contentious issue, but it still runs the risk of being swept under the rug too quickly or aggravating the audience by belaboring things that they already know.

Yeah, it'd be great if regional/faction reputations also included room for variations in disposition and allowed those to take precedence over more reputations. Another thing that's problematic in regards to the dispositions is that at times they awkwardly straddle the space between representing your personality/beliefs and what you are simply known for. For example, if dispositions were simply what you were known for, then there's no reason for, say, Skaen to punish your priest for developing a reputation for benevolence; hell, he favors hidden agendas, so he should applaud that if anything. That priest's "benevolence" would be only be opposed to his god's dogma if he actually felt an obligation to help others rather than merely seeing an opportunity to benefit from providing such aid, but the game doesn't provide any room for distinction here. Someone else proposed a split between the dispositions your character is known for and the values that they actually hold, and I think it's a good idea that may help in clearing some of these issues up. Of course, I could also see it requiring a lot of reproduced dialogue options with something like a "[Lie]" descriptor shoved in front of them.

You have a point, but even this could be less cut and dry than you suggest. If you are consistently benevolent to certain groups and consistently cruel to others, the former group may well consider you to be a beloved and heroic figure regardless of how you treated the other group or even partially because of it depending on the relations between them. History is full of examples of people celebrating various groups and individuals for their accomplishments while turning a blind eye to the suffering and degradation that these groups/individuals inflicted upon others in the process. You can make a similar point in regards to Honesty and Deception, given the extent to which people selectively favor particular narratives. Of course, this only applies to consistent but discriminatory practices. The fact that there is no differentiation within the Disposition system itself between practices of this sort and just a purely whimsical alternation of compassion and brutality (or candor and duplicity) is problematic, but perhaps can be mitigated somewhat through other existing reputation sources such as faction attitudes. If you favor a certain group while brutalizing or exploiting others, the resulting sorts of differences in trust and respect that various faction attitudes can potentially account for are not only reasonable but to be expected. That being said, I think that the developers touched upon the possibility of greater reactivity in terms of Disposition checks among other things, and that could potentially encompass checking against multiple Dispositions. More specifically, I think they mentioned something about how contrasting Dispositions for Honesty and Shadiness (Shady's replacing Deceptive for Pillars 2) might make it more difficult to win the trust of others, but I couldn't find a mention of it in my cursory search of the second Q&A's transcript. It's something that may be worth following up on to see if the developers can provide further details during next week's Q&A.