[Killing Eothas speculation.]

It's the first one. The gods being AIs is an amazing idea... And since they were brought into existence by men, they can certainly be unmade by men. My point was more related to the nature of the gods: The Engwithans sacrificed themselves en masse (one could say ascended) to create the gods as Eora knows, so one soul, no matter how powerful it is, couldn't quite put a dent in them. Even Thaos  bargained with Woedica, rather than controlling her, as far as I remember. 

Fair enough. What you're saying makes sense and I agree to a point that it should be virtually, if not absolutely, impossible for one mortal alone to harm a god in this setting given nature of said gods' construction/existence. Still, even setting aside the particulars of what makes the case of Eothas a possible exception to this general rule, it is worth mentioning that the Watcher has proven capable of shredding thousands, or perhaps even tens of thousands, of souls into nonexistence before:

both in the case of Sun in Shadow with the Hollowborn and without the help of Engwithan machinery at Cayron's Scar depending on how you deal with the souls of the Eyeless at the end of the second White March expansion.

With that in mind, Watchers of sufficiently absurd power may be exceptions to this decisive gulf between gods and mortals, at least as far as significantly harming the former is concerned.

 

Though to reiterate, I wouldn't want a confrontation with Eothas to be a simple matter of walking up to him and hacking away at his adra ankles until he tips over: a lot should go into setting the stage for an in-game battle and stacking the odds in your favor enough for the prospect of fighting Eothas, however weakened he may be at this point, to be less than totally insane. Further, the preparation for such an event might quite reasonably require the Watcher to kill, enslave, or imprison both Xoti and/or Eder if either of them has been recruited (though perhaps not, depending on character development opportunities that may be available for them).

 

I wouldn't want the choice of killing Eothas to necessarily be limited to 'evil' characters, but taking steps to do so should force a Watcher to consider how far they're willing to go for revenge (or justice, if this is about punishing Eothas for thousands of other souls he consumed when he awakened under your keep) and it's also hard to ignore the likelihood/inevitability of conflict between faithful Eothasian companions and a Watcher who has persistently demonstrated that they are set on killing the god that these companions worship.

 

I like your points, even if the prospect of a special ending for the Effigy freaks me the hell out (yeah, I have a vivid imagiantion).

 

Thanks, and yeah, going Effigy on Eothas probably would have to take the form of an extended scripted encounter, alternate epilogue, or non-standard game over rather than anything along the lines of an in-game fight - or maybe they could sidestep the need for multiple new Effigy models and animations for different races/sexes by simply shrouding your Watcher in a bloody aura or making a single shared model on the basis that an Effigy which would be up to the task of threatening another god is something that the Watcher might have to transfer their soul into rather than being transformed into themselves.

[Killing Eothas speculation.]

The Beyond seems like a great location for a battle. Good catch.

Thanks; I think it'd also be a good chance to show off how a god's territory might appear to mortal eyes (if the gods actually stake claims to particular sections of the metaphysical landscape in Pillars) in this setting if the location of such a fight happened to be within or near Eothas' slice of the Beyond.

[Cure for baldness]

There's been some discussion about this before, and currently, the official response is that it might happen but it requires a lot of work to do right. To quote Q&A 6:

 

 

Speaking of hair, if I recall correctly, you were looking into making long hair show when wearing helmets, as opposed to a character suddenly balding up when wearing one in Pillars. Did you succeed? What's the main challenge in this process?

 

DB: So, it has not been implemented yet. We're still going to try. It's at this point probably a "B" feature...unless Josh says it's not. There's all kinds of programming issues with it, and stuff clipping with different helms, different armor outfits. It's a good challenge. But it's not something we cannot do. We wanted to do it for Eternity 1 also, but...

 

JS: I will say, 'cause we've done it in other games, like we did it in Neverwinter 2, and the challenge really—outside of the programming stuff—is that there are lots of different shapes of hairs, and there are lots of different shapes of hats and helmets. The way in which those things interact can vary a huge amount. It's very hard to make one, like, "Oh, just this way, we'll cut the hair here and it will work on all these helms or hats". That's not...usually we need to do some sort of piecemeal, different sections turn off for different hats, and the different hats have to be marked to turn those things off, and that's —

 

DB: It kind of opens up a lot of opportunities for bugs, which we try and avoid, and if we have bugs we have to fix them. So, it's not simple, but it's not not doable.

 

JS: We've done it before. It's just a lot of work.

 

[Killing Eothas speculation.]

One thing to remember is that we're talking about a god, not your average Admeth from Whogivesa****ford, Nowherewood. The Godhammer, a purpose-built god-killing bomb failed to kill him, so I doubt a straight-up fight is in the cards.

 

If you're saying that there likely won't and shouldn't be a simple linear progression where you just make your way through the game, leveling up along the way until you're a bad enough dude to carve up Eothas with awesome loot you're decked out in, then I agree. But if you're saying that, as a god, Eothas should be beyond any meaningful confrontation with mortals or risk of permanent harm through such confrontations regardless of the resources the player gathers, the factions they rally, the favor they curry with other gods, etc., then I think you've mistaken this for a setting where the gods actually are untouchable as opposed to fallible constructs.

 

There are a few things to consider here:

• We do not know the full extent of Eothas' recovery from his previous defeat: even with the souls he's drained, he could be severely weakened from his previous brush with death and perhaps even undergoing steady decline within the game itself.
• The implications of Eothas' choice of destination: the Deadfire's attracted as much attention as it has through luminous adra - if Eothas is trying to tap into that as well then that not only potentially sets him at odds with other factions, one of which (Rauatai) assisted in the construction of the Godhammer if memory serves, but it also relates back to potential vulnerability to backlash from the destruction of luminous adra he has attuned himself to (and the beta demonstrates that the Watcher can destroy luminous adra under the right conditions).
• The feelings of the other gods about Eothas' return: Woedica and Magran probably aren't happy about it, Rymrgand might have an interest in the annihilation of other gods in general (and perhaps especially the annihilation of the god of rebirth), Skaen might be game (I've mentioned in other threads the possibility of becoming the Effigy in an attempt to bring Eothas low as one example, but more generally, his relationship with Woedica along with the fact that Eothas is both a strictly authoritarian god and the foundation by which all power in the nation of Readceras is organized might provide further incentive for him to plot Eothas' return to death), Berath is said to play an important part in this (perhaps specifically as the Pale Knight, given that they refer to Berath with a feminine pronoun in an earlier update, and this manifestation confronts those who have "escaped or cheated death", which may not bode too well for the Watcher or Eothas).
• The stability/integrity of Eothas' form: the Engwithan statue that he's walking around in, while obviously at least partially restored by Eothas in some way, is something that the adra dragon had latched on to and fed off of for centuries. It might inherently have weaknesses as a result of such continual depletion, to say nothing of any potential damage to it from the strain of housing the soul of a god.
• The Watcher's connection to Eothas: the Watcher must seek out Eothas to obtain knowledge on how to preserve the remnants of their soul, according to the fig page, and this knowledge is apparently capable of "throw[ing] mortals and the gods themselves into chaos".

At the end of the day, though, I'm not blind to the possibility that the return of Eothas may indicate the developers' intentions to reintroduce him to the setting as an active character who can become involved in future games/developments. Even so, this isn't necessarily incompatible with killing Eothas: for example, if the Dawnstars function similarly to the Eyeless, they might have some existence independent of Eothas himself, allowing them to take on his name/mantle if he is slain/destroyed. Perhaps even more audaciously, a facsimile of Eothas might be constructed from luminous adra throughout the Deadfire through a feat similar to the one by which the Engwithans forged the gods (likely causing massive upheaval and untold loss of life throughout the region in the process) in order to "balance out" the pantheon in the wake of the original's death. 

 

To be honest, though, I'd personally be satisfied with only "sort of" killing Eothas again so long as it scars him and his faith in some lasting way despite his possibly inevitable return.

[Dialogue in Obsidian Games]

I personally do like partially recorded audio. It gives a taste of someones voice and personality without being too much.

 

Deadfire will have much more voiceacting. In one of recent streams Josh suggested it really will be much more. The impression I got (and full disclaimer it is my impression) is that he was hinting at a possible full voice acting without commiting to it. Divinity did that, so Obsidian might feel like they should reach for that as well.

 

Sawyer's exact words were:

 

We're going to have a lot more voice acting than Pillars 1. Can't say right now that it's going to be fully voiced, but we are committing to doing much, much, much more voice acting; far more characters voiced, far more lines of dialogue. That is something we are absolutely committing to.

 

Before they were pretty specific about the VO being doubled, so this may indicate some expansion beyond that (though I personally would prefer that not all dialogue is voiced). Then again, I've been guilty of reading more/less into Sawyer's words than was actually there in the past, so I'm not particularly sure of anything here.

[Killing Eothas speculation.]

If we are given the option of killing him (or at least fighting him) I wonder how it would be done. I can't imagine him being present on a normal map as the statue is just too big. It could be done in a dialogue perhaps, but I imagine a lot of people would find that unsatisfying.

The simplest way to address the issue is to force Eothas into a more manageable form. Eothas himself/itself may ultimately discard the statue to avoid the attention it attracts or to gave access to something that it cannot reach, for example, or the Watcher may employ some means (possibly via an extended questline) of wrecking the statue which requires Eothas to relocate to something or someone else. Or the fight might take place in the Beyond, where the forms that Eothas and the Watcher take may be more compatible for the purpose of confrontation.

[Killing Eothas speculation.]

 

 

I'd be somewhat disappointed if it were so simple as finding a way to kill Eothas.

 

Sawyer has hinted that things may not boil down to hostilities between the Watcher and Eothas, but I'd be pretty disappointed if there wasn't any option to kill the bastard after having wrecked the keep and gobbled up most of the Watcher's soul. It doesn't have to be done through combat, necessarily, and if the process functions anything like the initial confrontation between St. Waidwen and the Dozen at Halgot Citadel it probably wouldn't, but between the precedent that's already been set and the abundance of motivation that the storyline gives us to off him again, the "let's kill Eothas" route would be really noticeable through its absence (and I don't mean in a good way).

 

It doesn't have to be the default route or even portrayed as a positive/sane choice by any means once we get more information on what's going on, but it should be there in some form.

[Black jacket in the Spotlights]

One way to make the subclass more appealing would be to extend its focus on martial flexibility/improvisation past weapons themselves and on to weapon proficiency modal abilities as well.

 

For example, black jackets might be able to apply weapon-specific modal abilities to other weapons that are of the same type (i.e., fast one-handed, large one-handed, two-handed, bows, implements, or firearms) and/or characters with the subclass might gain temporary benefits when they switch from one weapon modal to another; I'm considering this shifting modal incentive mostly in terms of some sort of battlefield rhythm/cadence, in which case lowered recovery time might work, but there are other ways to go with it, like making engaged enemies suffer penalties to deflection due to the black jacket's comparatively unpredictable fighting style.

[Proficiency Expectations : Quite Disappointed...]

I also like the idea of multiple levels of proficiency in various weapons, but I also find the idea of proficiency-based modals more interesting than the typical progression of proficiencies in, say, 2e D&D (i.e., straight up damage bonuses, attack bonuses, and/or attack speed bonuses) and I can understand how making a bunch of weapon-specific modals based on proficiency level would introduce a lot more work that increasingly large subsets of the player population would be unlikely to ever see the higher up you go in terms of proficiency levels.

 

Perhaps another option to reflect increasing proficiency would be to have multiple proficiency points spent on the same weapon adjust the bonuses/penalties associated with its modal ability, but this introduces new balance concerns, exacerbates existing ones in regards to the power disparities between specific weapon modals, and also runs counter to the developers' intent to make sure that the weapon modals weren't no-brainer options in combat.

[Multiclassing a paladin tank (and party composition in general)]

My apologies: I didn't notice the date jump from late October to late November and also forgot that this subforum isn't part of the beta subforums.

 

No problem. I suppose it also brings anyone reading this thread up to date if they haven't checked out the other threads or the q&as themselves.

[Multiclassing a paladin tank (and party composition in general)]

 

To summarize, multiple past updates and Q&A responses explicitly state that relatively open multiclassing is intended to be an option even for characters, like Pallegina and Aloth, who have only one choice in regards to their single class progression; for example, Aloth would have to be a Wizard, but he could be a Wizard/Barbarian, Wizard/Cipher, or whatever else.

 

Sawyer's answer to a question of the latest Q&A stream make it pretty clear that currently this is not how it works:

 

Right. And the reason you're expecting something posted nearly over a month before to conform to this information is... because? I already updated the Known Information thread to reflect this information based on the information from Q&A 7 that preceded this response, which was just one of many cases of them repeating themselves across Q&A sessions. It doesn't change the fact that it wasn't clear at the time.

 

Edit: derped.

[Josh Sawyer's tweets and teasers]

Pallegina sassed (there really isn't anything else to see there unless you like twitter comments).

[A case for not adding general abilities to Proficiencies]

I'm in agreement with those who have said that making the weapon styles fighter-exclusive neither succeeded in making those talents less generic nor in making fighters themselve more interesting, but I can also appreciate the points that have been made about how opening up the styles as proficiency options may have unfortunate implications in terms of net gains/losses overall and how combat will need to be rebalanced as a result.

 

I’m not necessarily against moving weapon styles to a general talent tree, but what would the Fighter’s shtick be, if those were taken away? 

 

Fighters have a few themes that apply to them more heavily than barbarians, paladins, and the like. They're disciplined, resilient, and typically organized. If something needs to take the place of the weapon styles, then these themes seem like they can provide options for building talents around:

 

Emphasizing organization can be done through talents that benefit from coordination:

• For example, enemies who are flanked by fighters might suffer increased penalties to deflection along with penalties to reflexes, as the fighter's training allows them to more effectively leverage their position to make targets more vulnerable. Sort of like an inverted version of the Weapon & Shield style.
• Turning this around, fighters might actually gain benefits against enemies who flank them by using their experience to undermine others' efforts to coordinate. For example, if one flanking enemies missing the fighter, the next one might suffer a penalty to accuracy on their attack to reflect the fighter's ability to use their enemies' mistakes to make them get in each other's way (though this sort of thing might come off as kind of weird with static/recurring combat animations).

Emphasizing resilience is even simpler:

• A possible fighter passive would involve enemies suffering increased recovery time following melee attacks that fail to penetrate the fighter's armor, as the fighter's familiarity with said armor and effective positioning techniques may throw off their balance.
• Once per encounter each, the fighter could recover a few Discipline points when they're left Bloodied or Near Death. Granted, it's close to the monk's schtick, but not inconsistent with other fighter abilities like Unending, Unbroken, and Triggered Immunity.
• Another (not particularly exciting) idea is to make something along the lines of the rogue's Adept Evasion but having it apply to attacks/effects that target Fortitude.

For discipline/training, a few come to mind:

• I'd assume that a key aspect of martial discipline is being able to hold out for opportunities in combat, so one option might be to allow fighters to be able to gain the ability to dole out disengagement attacks more reliably under the right conditions (e.g., when a target is interrupted or knocked prone). (Edit: Actually, with the boost to disengage attacks, this would probably have to be just a free basic attack to avoid becoming excessive).
• Similarly, they could introduce a passive that reflects fighters' training in making the most of such opportunities; maybe when they land attacks that are criticals or which greatly exceed the target's AR, that target's AR is reduced by a small amount (probably -1 or -2 at most if we're talking about a level one passive to replace one of the weapon styles) for a brief window of time that nearby allies could exploit, though it'd have to be cumulative with the mace modal to avoid being redundant.

[What Abilities or Passive would you like to see from other games?]

From Dragon Age Origins, I'd like to see something along the lines of Walking Bomb/Virulent Walking Bomb.

 

Spirit Mark from Dragon Age Inquisition would also be fun. 

 

I like the idea of Spirit Blade being repurposed as a volatile Soul Whip for ciphers (edit: minus the oversized energy sword VFX), but in practice, it probably wouldn't differ much from Mind Blades or Soul Annihilation unless it was set up as a modal that drained Focus with every attack or something.

 

Abyssal Blade and Unholy Sacrifice would fit the Bleakwalkers fairly well.

 

Shield Other would similarly be fitting for the Shieldbearers of St. Elcga and The Last Sacrifice might be appropriate for them or the Kind Wayfarers, though I personally dislike abilities that only work when you've screwed up enough to get killed/disabled.

 

Turning/Controlling undead ala d&d could be fun; probably as split and mutually exclusive passive options for Divine Radiance even though I have mixed feelings about setting up priests as the anti-undead experts in the Pillars setting. 

[Does Deadfire fail to match classes with their lore? If so, how to fix it?]

@blotter: Your arguments are sound and correct. However, I still feel that at its very core, any class lore should be naturally represented in what we get to pick when create such a class. We shouldn't have to do the kind of quality analysis you just did in order to justify stuff that at first glance seems odd, out of place or even wrong.

Reading about the class, and then playing it, should for the most part be a smooth transition, no?

 

I'd say that we're in agreement that there's room for improvement in terms of class abilities and talents, but I think that the developers should generally treat the basic class descriptions as broad-strokes representations of the classes/subclasses rather than strict prescriptions of what should or should not be possible for them. If anything, I believe there's a case to be made that some of the more exciting possibilities for developing the classes pertain to options that diverge from or even subvert the basic expectations set forth by the descriptions of the classes they apply to.

[Does Deadfire fail to match classes with their lore? If so, how to fix it?]

We immediately garner interesting cross-class similarities. Paladins are stoic and devoted, often fanatical elite warriors, with the zeal of a priest and the ascetic discipline of a monk, and with an explosive combat style. We can see that Katarack21 has a very important point: Paladins should never need to multiclass to become good at most combat tactics and fighting with weapons. All that stuff should be part and parcel of the class. Ironically, their fanatical zeal and explosive combat style, should actually mean that they have something like Barbarian's Frenzy going for them. So, friends, where are paladins' extreme and explosive weapon styles? Where are their commands that stave off death or fatigue, and those that "hasten the charge"? How can we blast enemies with our souls, playing as paladins? Personally, I feel like the only class deserving of a devoted weapon specialisation would be paladins, some priests, and monks (only their fists, and perhaps some kama or something). Or what about a cool Zealous Strike?

 

I'd say that the paladin's actually a good example of why class capabilities shouldn't be overly dictated by generic class descriptions. There doubtless are paladin orders, like the Darcozzi Paladani and the Bleakwalkers, that are characterized by and are infamous for their ardent passions or relentless ferocity which drown out the petty dictates of reason, but it's the exact opposite for the Goldpact Knights, who eschew passion and aggression for pragmatism and restraint, and the Shieldbearers of St. Elcga, who are peacekeepers and guardians first and foremost rather than crusaders. The common thread between all orders is a zealous dedication to their chosen causes, but that can take any number of different forms in practice. Making abilities or talents to reflect paladins' "extreme" or "explosive" fighting styles and distributing them universally overlooks this and arguably does a disservice to the class' potential for extensive variation based on the particulars of the orders' beliefs.

 

Alright, individual orders of monks vary greatly? Do our choices levelling up, subclasses and all, reflect that? They are fighting and they have extreme discipline and are not entirely sane, and gets off on pain (sounds like Rambo in First Blood). In many ways, monks would be ideal to multiclass, just to give them the varied flavour they need, but on the other hand, single-classing them should accommodate for that as well.

 

They vary greatly "in their focus, morality, and ethics" according to the description, and I think the monk's available subclasses are fairly illustrative of this: we've got Helwalkers who walk the razor's edge between empowerment and death in their embrace of personal suffering, the Nalpazca who use both drugs and the experience of pain as ways to explore the mutability of their senses and grasp the underlying nature of material existence, and the Shattered Pillars who radically depart from both of the others by approaching suffering as something to be wielded as a weapon against others rather than endured or experienced themselves.

 

As far as being not entirely sane is concerned, suggesting that this is a box that needs to be checked off for the class to live up to its lore is ludicrous, even in the context of that class description: how others see them is not how they have to be, after all. That said, the little blurbs about general characteristics for the Nalzpaca (in particular, the part where it is stated that "(t)heir extensive dabbling in with the boundaries of reality can give others the impression that they are addled or simply insane") may indicate what we can expect from its subclass-specific dialogue options, however many of those are present throughout the game.

 

Their discipline is reflected in several ways already: Clarity of Agony represents their mastery of pain by enabling them to draw upon it to subdue afflictions, Bull's Will reflects heightened mental discipline, Bear's Fortitude does the same for physical discipline/conditioning, and Duality of Mortal Presence basically combines the preceding themes I've mentioned here, further emphasizing them in the process. And then there's the iconic ability, Transcendent Suffering, which speaks towards the rigorous training that allows them to treat their very bodies as weapons.

 

Interestingly, they are supposed to be heavily on the offensive (aggressive like animals). Does the class in Deadfire reflect this? And do druids have much less spells than wizards?

 

The majority of the available spells for druids favor damage, crowd control, afflictions, and/or damage over time. This is overwhelmingly true of their 1st level spells but it balances out more or more over subsequent spell levels. Also, their Spiritshift abilities and customization options are largely defined in-game by their ability to wreck things.

 

The druid spell list offers consistently fewer spells per level than the wizard's, and that's even before considering spells that are unique to grimoires which we'll find throughout the game or the wizard class' ability to change which spells they have access to during combat or exploration by swapping grimoires.

 

Here, we learn that fighters have a heavy focus on endurance and melee defense. This seems to indicate that fighters shouldn't have a devoted weapon, no?

 

Even if your conclusion necessarily followed from the descriptions for the class, and I think that's highly questionable, part of the point of subclasses is to allow for unconventional characterizations and build options for the classes that they're tied to. The Ghost Heart ranger, for example, was a clear demonstration of this early on in Deadfire's initial campaign.

 

On a more personal note, I think that limiting fighters to defensive abilities only would make them incredibly boring.

 

They can specialize in a variety of weapons - which would mean slight Accuracy bonuses on entire weapon groups, but not some devoted special weapon? They need a number of endurance-enhancing talents and in fact lots of defense and armour talents as well. The keyword is durability. The offensive stuff should be the left to paladins, rogues, druids (yep), rangers with ranged weapons, and barbarians, for instance.

 

The fighter's class description establishes them as front-line combatants, which suggests some degree of offensive capability. They already have defensive and armor talents: Vigorous Defense and Armored Grace being examples alongside others like Guardian Stance and Determination. Into the Fray (one of their more distinctive offensive abilities) is also notable in that its applications are likely to frequently be as protective in nature as they are aggressive, given the fighter is likely to use it to drag enemies away from more vulnerable targets.

[Portraits]

Well, dayym, this is the toughest one yet. So many...edges 

 

 

I've done what I could but it may have proven itself to be too...edgy for me  :

 

 

 

If anything, I think you managed to make it look more seamless and well-executed than the original. Much obliged.

[Frowning upon proficiency page as a monk]

I get your point, I just do not agree with it.

 

 

If what you're saying is :

Any class can pick wands, even if it's suboptimal

 

Then I raise you :

Any class can pick fists, even if it's suboptimal

 

Maybe I'm missing something here, but your contention was that no one but wizards would have any reason to select implements. My understanding is that wizards have no particular advantage in using implements anymore (though I could be wrong since I haven't delved into this thoroughly). If my understanding is correct, then if implements are suboptimal, then it's a problem with general weapon balance/design that should be addressed rather than passively accepted (and to be honest, I can't really comment on how well the implements perform in comparison to other ranged weapons since my beta run-throughs haven't focused on that - there may not be a problem at all for all I know).

 

Your attempt to draw a parallel between fists and implements fails because they have different design goals and executions: the fact that fists are suboptimal without Transcendent Suffering is a function of current design goals, by which monks are supposed to be uniquely capable of posing threats as unarmed combatants.

 

Edit: And I'd like to emphasize that this isn't a position that I personally advocate; it's simply the rationale I suspect for the decision. They could probably make an unarmed proficiency relatively feasible by using it to reintroduce Novice's Suffering or by giving it a modal that has benefits that significantly outweigh the drawbacks. One problem that might then arise is that in making unarmed combat more viable for everyone else, Transcendent Suffering could push it over the edge for monks, but I don't think it's impossible to strike a balance here.

[Frowning upon proficiency page as a monk]

Em... arcane implements proficiency much ?

 

 

 

Like, who other than your wizard is going to use a wand...

 

 

Those proficiencies aren't functionally bound to wizards in any way; the only thing that ever tied the weapons uniquely to them was Blast, and that's been opened up to anyone who spends a proficiency point on rods now. Whether implements are worth using in relation to other weapons is simply a question of balance, which can be adjusted.

[Frowning upon proficiency page as a monk]

While I like the idea of an unarmed proficiency and was disappointed to learn that there were no plans to include one, I'd imagine the reasoning for not including one is that without the monk's Transcendent Suffering or the Novice's Suffering talent, fists really aren't going to cut it for anyone else. Since Novice's Suffering doesn't exist anymore, that limits the use of this proficiency to monks and monk multiclass combinations, something that seems to run counter to the design goals of the proficiency system overall insofar as they're supposed to be useful and accessible to a wide range of classes/builds.

 

If it's about getting access to a modal reflecting exceptional dedication to unarmed fighting techniques, that could be added as a monk talent without running into the balance issues that it might face if it was a proficiency (e.g., Transcendent Suffering stacking with the devoted's subclass bonuses, though perhaps the talent should exempt unarmed attacks from the subclass' drawbacks to at least allow the player to make an unarmed devoted/monk who isn't penalized outright for that choice, or the barbarian's Weapon Focus). Obviously, this has the disadvantage of doing nothing to address the initial criticism of having nothing worthwhile to sink proficiency points into if you're planning to focus on unarmed attacks, but this concern will be somewhat mitigated by the introduction of weapon styles (Two-Weapon Style worked for unarmed attacks in Pillars 1, for example) and save boosts as proficiency options anyway.

[Portraits]

I have to agree with the others, I'm seeing wonderful work here.

 

If you don't mind me tossing another on the pile, I have a request of my own.

 

 

It's fairly crude since I cobbled it together from bits of other images and I'm obviously no expert on blending them, but having gone to the trouble in the first place, I'm somewhat attached to it.

[Deadfire: Known Information]

[Definitive Guide to Multiclassing Video]

 

That's a pretty good summation of the benefits/drawbacks of multiclassing. Thanks for posting it here, I'll link to it in the original post as well.

[Master Thread of Typos and Text Errors]

[Removing non class specific talents was a bad idea]

I ask a very simple question: How come casting wizard spells can be unique to the wizard class, but being (significantly) more skilled at fighting with dual weapons cannot be unique to the fighter class?

 

I haven't fiddled around with Arcana in the beta myself, but if it's like it was in Pillars 1, then everyone actually can cast some wizard spells without multiclassing already. Not all of them, granted, but then again it's not like everyone has access to all of the fighter's talents either.

[Suggestion - adjusted helmets]

Or maybe the talent cost is intended to reflect the godlike's brutal regimen of horn sawing, flame dousing, feather plucking, and/or cranial binding to make normal helmets fit them.