blotter

I spent a while looking into this and you're actually more right than I had expected. I guess it's good for me to reread things from time to time. Helig notes the distinction when he discusses his research into necromancy and animancy as separate fields, which wouldn't make much sense if they were identical. There's also a dialogue in which the distinction in how they operate is very briefly discussed (the use of magic vs the use of artifacts/technology). In the latter case, they are indeed two sides of the same coin in that both share similar purposes that are pursued in different ways. However, the difference in means employed is treated as significant within the setting and it most likely has implications in terms of the specialties of each discipline and what they can accomplish. The guidebook also mentions necromancy in passing, stating that it originated in ancient Ixamitl. Therefore, it most likely predates Pandgram's unintentional creation of undead via animancy. Still, the guidebook doesn't actually note magic use vs artifact use as a criterion for distinguishing necromancy from animancy, so you could argue that the distinction's support lies mostly in the preconceptions of npcs, which can obviously be mistaken. The closest the guidebook actually comes to reinforcing magic vs technology distinction is in its description of the Ethik Nol's blood rites and how they facilitate the transfer of soul essence through those present, working in contrast to the methods that are generally associated with animancy. There's no real basis to claim that the ways in which necromancy is performed are similar to Ethik Nol rituals, though. Having necromancy appear as a subcategory for spells could work, but I'm not sure why it'd have to be tied to Transmuters. If evocation is about the manipulation of energy in Pillars, then using it to break down souls, force them into bodies, and so forth might make sense under the assumption that souls are collections of energy. Alternatively, if conjuration involves gaining or barring access to the Beyond, then it might be the best fit for necromancy that deals with summoning/binding spirits.

Momentum, maybe?

Pillars 1 established that necromancers and animancers are distinct from each other, so I'd expect that to remain the same case unless they're planning to retcon that bit of lore. Maybe the schools that we're seeing here were selected because they provide a more consistent basis for the separation and organization of spells, whereas a necromancy school might not. For example, is Concelhaut's Parasitic Staff a necromancy spell because it drains life energy, or a conjuration spell because it allows you to materialize an object? Similar questions can be asked regarding Concelhaut's Draining Bolts re: necromancy vs evocation or Ryngrim's Enervation re: necromancy vs illusion. Mind you, that's just an off-the-cuff explanation on my part. I haven't actually read through all the spells to see if this applies to all or most of the more necromancy-oriented spells in Pillars 1, or if likely examples of Pillars 1 spells that may fit into the various schools that did make the cut are comparatively free of such ambiguity in terms of where they fit. I wouldn't be surprised if it was used primarily in the contexts of animancy, but it may extend beyond that somewhat. Making sense of what you encounter in the Beyond seems like it'd be an appropriate application for the skill, for example, and studies into the Beyond most likely to be of interest to both animancers and non-animancers.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but they've explicitly stated that Paladin/Priest multiclass combos will be restricted in terms of the subclasses that be can chosen and further listed exactly which ones you won't be able to select if you take a particular subclass. Do you mean that you don't like the way they've set it up? Rymrgand's the god of entropy rather than decay per se. Berath is the god of death, mortality, and cycles, among other things. Even the decay-based magic of druids probably emphasizes ties to the natural order, wherein the remains of the fallen fuel the emergence of new life, so it would likely be a closer match for the process of life in death and death in life that Berath represents as opposed to the final collapse that Rymrgand brings. Agreed. This seems like a loose fit at best.

Yeah, it's possible that Hobbled is more debilitating in Deadfire. Also, the language used ("a Hobble type Affliction") makes me wonder if there might be more than one affliction that falls within this category: for example, stunned and paralyzed might be hobble-type afflictions of greater severity. The comparative strength of the ability would also depend on just how small the Evoker's chance of "echoing" evocation spells is, and the Transmuter can't cast spells at all while using Form of the Fearsome Brute, which may help balance it compared to the others.

A Stalker/Streetfighter might be another interesting combination. I also think that a Shifter/Transmuter works pretty well conceptually but may be one of those cases where each side of the combo works against the other given that the Shifter loses access to spellcasting to benefit from its abilities. A Fury/Evoker seems similarly fitting for an obsessively dedicated elementalist type of character, though as with the Beguiler/Trickster combo, the first subclass' benefits probably don't apply to the spells gained by the second. I do find myself wondering about the subclasses that gain access to other class spells/abilities, though. Even if all abilities are per encounter to varying degrees (except for Wounds, Focus, and Phrases), these varying degrees of per encounter use seem pretty important in terms of balancing the power of such abilities per individual use. For example, a Rogue has much more flexibility in how often they can use their abilities since they're all tied to the same general resource pool (see https://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/162919329066/wizards-priests-and-druids-still-have-some for details), and thus rogue abilities may be less powerful than a spell of an equivalent level, which can't be used as often during an encounter barring the use of Empower charges. If this is true, then a Priest of Skaen, for example, might end up with the worst of both worlds since the Rogue abilities it can choose in place of spells would not only be weaker than the base spells it could choose from/the alternatives available to the other Priest subclasses but they'd also be subject to stricter limits in terms of per encounter usage. The reverse may apply in the case of a Trickster, assuming that Illusion spells don't underperform relative to other Wizard spell types.

Yeah, I had to change my avatar and the new one's from the Wicht's concept art. I've always had a fondness for those critters.

I voted for 3e style multiclassing back in the old poll, but I don't particularly mind the change. I like how throwing certain subclasses into the mix allows for something fairly close to three class combinations, though I'm not sure when I'll get around to trying that out. Beguiler/Trickster stands out to me as a somewhat hyperfocused example of this, though the wording for Beguiler's subclass benefits suggests that the Trickster's illusion spells wouldn't be boosted as well. They also mention Condemnation priest spells, and I could see Condemnation or Punishment being the damage-dealing category for priest spells. Or maybe damaging spells are somewhat split across multiple spell types; it's not hard to imagine Protection spells that also deal damage, for example, or possibly even Restoration spells that simultaneously damage targets.

Given the plans for expanded companion relationships and interactions, the fact that they're looking at racism as an aspect of Eder's character does suggest that we may encounter race-based views and dialogues during the game. Sawyer even posted an example several weeks back: https://www.instagram.com/p/BYPQWuilDRF/?taken-by=jesawyer1975

It's also defined as determination and inner drive, which seem like they'd play a crucial role in determining whether someone had what it takes to hang in there through the rigors of arcane research, and there's also its contribution to the character's capacity for concentration to consider. Mind you, I wouldn't be disappointed to be wrong here since I can also see how attributes that also dictate a character's behavioral tendencies might become somewhat problematic (though limiting Resolve's connotations to stubbornness doesn't particularly eliminate the problem in this regard either). A character with high Resolve wouldn't necessarily have to be assertive or decisive regarding matters that they don't know or care enough about, and for a sheltered scholar type of character, the number of things they dismiss as trivial or outside of their range of expertise could extend to cover quite a bit. Her sidekick description has her claiming that she functions better after a few drinks to "take the edge off", though at the same time she claims that she never drinks at sea, which would prevent her, as a captain, from receiving the supposed benefits of her drinking professionally under most conditions. Then again, the fact she's had trouble staying as a captain in any one place could also suggest that she might be exaggerating when she says she "never" drinks at sea. To me, her attitudes toward alcohol sound like they differ from those of someone who goes too far in letting loose during her downtime. Then again my impression is based on the assumption that "at her best" refers to skills and performance; thinking on it further, it could as easily apply to social contexts and emotional well-being, which might work pretty well with the possibility you raised.

Maybe her arcane knowledge comes from a remembered past life rather than her own rigorous study in this one, and the memories of what she had to go through to obtain it are so traumatic/her past personality is so maddened and grotesque that she turns to alcohol to suppress them. Or maybe she's just burned out from failure after years of diligent work. Then again, mental discipline is probably most closely represented within the game by Resolve, and it's not like it's impossible to make a wizard with an absolutely abysmal Resolve score to begin with.

A few things: Dyrwood has no shortage of wood elves within it (~30% of its population, actually, according to the guidebook), Glanfathan meadow folk are a minority but they do exist, and the early premise for coming to Gilded Vale in the first place was the invitation that lord Raedric sent out for outside settlers (and Tuatanu could be one himself), which may make it a bit more inured to unusual residents. I'm not even going to try to account for godlike backer characters, but yeah, maybe the game should have. Within Pillars 1 and the setting details in the guidebook, the general emphasis is on national identities, divisions, and conflicts rather than racial ones, the details of Aedyran traditions of human-elf coexistence notwithstanding. The feuds and prejudices that they talk about in the update you quoted are actually rather prominent in the game, but they are directed towards cultures for the most part rather than races. This is intentional and explicitly referenced in the guidebook, which states: With that in mind, could they have just made all the races different types of humans without changing much regarding how things actually work in the game? For the most part, yes. Orlans could easily have been swapped for human tribes that were pressed into slavery. The Haemneg setup is explicitly based on the inability of humans and elves to interbreed, so that doesn't collapse into intrahuman relations quite so easily, and Pallegina's story wouldn't work at all if godlike weren't in the picture, but aside from that I don't think that much would have meaningfully changed if they had decided that only humans existed in Eora. I don't necessarily think that focusing on cultural identity before racial identity is a bad way to go, and I can appreciate an interest in avoiding more cliched Elfland and Dwarfhome-type setups in terms of developing cultures for the setting. But at the same time, there are certain fundamental differences between races that would likely provoke envy, disgust, and/or hostility and would, therefore, seem worthy of being addressed. The fact that elves live 2-3 times as long as humans in Eora comes to mind, and who knows, maybe a less advertised implication of mountain dwarves' superior immune systems is that they risk spreading diseases that could potentially lay waste to less hardy races (which doesn't really seem to be the case at all, but I find it interesting to consider). The towering, shark-toothed visages of the aumaua that you mention do seem like another such difference that could create conflict or tension, but it's also worth noting that the main factions in the game aside from the Huana consist of the rather cosmopolitan Vailian Trading Company, the Principi (who have been pillaging the Huana for generations and likely have more pressing reasons to hate and be hated by them), and the Royal Deadfire Company, which largely consists of Aumaua as well. With that in mind, conflict at the level of "Ew, Aumaua" might seem more tacked on in the context of this game than it would have in Pillars 1. Huana aversion to non-Aumaua would perhaps be more appropriately emphasized, but it would probably be less blatant for the most part since they don't really seem to be in a position to engage in much open resistance (aside from the die-hards in Prince Aruihi's camp, anyway).

I didn't catch this edit before. Active-use engagement as the norm does seem like it'd offer a more dynamic combat experience. I haven't heard anything that suggests that it'll be in the game (and I understand that this is your preference and not necessarily your expectation), but we're probably going to see a few things that may be functionally similar in that they involve impeding enemy mobility or making movement risky; things like traps, walls of fire, and the rogues' Crippling Strike ability come to mind. As far as fighters are concerned, aside from being one of the most likely classes to specialize in passive engagement, Sawyer also mentions (https://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/161296989761/hey-josh-how-do-you-guys-plan-to-make-the-fighter and https://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/162046603176/im-curious-about-the-role-of-a-tank-in-the-party) that the fighter's capacity to yank enemies towards them via Into the Fray and possibly similar abilities will be getting a boost in Deadfire; this is obviously quite a bit different from engagement, but it does provide a more active method to force confrontations between particular allies and foes while likely synergizing with engagement itself.

You're welcome. Given the changes to engagement, I wonder if it will be necessary to revise talents, items, and abilities that deal with negating or impeding engagement-based attacks since they'll be less likely to occur and easier to avoid once you know which enemies/classes/items to watch out for.

I'd like to see Binding Rope, Bittercut, Pretty Pretty's Rib, Spelltongue, The Golden Scales, Twin Sting, and Vengetta Rugia turn up in Deadfire. I found Cladhalíath to be pretty underwhelming and reloaded my game after building it once out of curiosity, but for those who actually stuck with the decision to have their Watcher tear off a bit of their soul and bundle it up within the weapon, having it just disappear is a bit unfortunate.

Sawyer goes into the difference in Deadfire's engagement mechanics here: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/119024818?t=43m17s

Like DexGames said before me while I was fiddling with this post, the Barbarian/Priest multiclass title is Shaman, so if there is Druid subclass along those lines it'll probably have a different name (Witch Doctor, maybe?) unless they swap out the multiclass title for something else later. A druid subclass along the lines of the skin-changers/wargs from A Song of Ice and Fire, which exchanged spiritshift for the ability to possess beasts and maybe primordials might be interesting, and I wouldn't object to a druid subclass based on the practices and philosophies of the Ethik Nol (https://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Ethik_N%C3%B4l); I'm sure a Corpse-Eater Barbarian/Ethik Nol Druid watcher would make friends all over.

They might be, though nothing that the devs have actually said up to this point indicates that and it's hardly a requirement for making these subclass selection choice matter for priests/paladins given their plans to further differentiate paladin orders and priest deity choices in other ways. A priest's choice in deities is already planned to dictate what spells they have access to and Paladin order is similarly planned to determine what abilities that they can select. Both of these things seem more salient to the matter of meaningful subclass-based consequences given that the dispositional requirements are likely to be a non-issue to players who plan to play their characters along those lines (which would likely account for the majority of people who are considering a particular order/deity for their character) anyway. I was going to say that something like that might already exist in the form of Pallid Hand, Hope Eternal, and so forth (albeit not as Fighter talents), but those are likely to veer away from accuracy bonuses for deities' favored weapons given that all the classes will have the same Accuracy scores in Deadfire. To be honest, though, buying off the penalties for using other weapons probably wouldn't particularly undermine the decision to make subclass choices significant since you'd still be sacrificing a talent to operate with other levels at the baseline level while other fighters would be using talents to gain benefits rather than mitigate penalties exactly the same way a priest choosing Untroubled Faith would be.

Priests already have their own version of the Untroubled Faith talent, so there's no real need to introduce anything else unless they're removing those talents. This topic has come up before so I don't really feel like getting into it as much as I did in the last thread, but there are paladin orders that conceptually seem like they'd work alongside particular faiths in terms of roleplaying/character concepts, despite clashing dispositions. Some of the explanations for these combinations might not meet with everyone's approval, but given Sawyer and other developers' stated interest in leaving it up to individual players to make sense of their decisions, I don't see why they should need to. It's not just stuff like Bleakwalkers of Eothas that gets ruled out (not that the setting's lore really makes that so unbelievable either); this also precludes a Goldpact paladin/priest of Magran, which seems like one of the more natural fits. It's not a huge deal for me, but the insistence that these combinations mustn't be allowed to protect players does seem strange. Though I'm sure they're trying to fine-tune balance to avoid this, chances are multiclassing choices in talent/ability selection will probably have the potential to screw players about as hard and there's no indication that they plan to prohibit our choices there; indeed, the fact that they're planning a multiclass disclaimer may suggest that they consider the possibility of unfavorable choices in that regard a consequence of the complexity that it introduces to some extent. By the same token, I don't see why a warning wouldn't suffice for paladin/priest combos as well. Another consideration might be that it would be strange to allow such combos without introducing reactivity based upon them, but the same could be said for Cruel priests of Eothas who don't multiclass as Bleakwalkers or Benevolent priests of Skaen who don't multiclass as Kind Wayfarers, for example.

All things being equal, I don't necessarily favor one over the other, but more mundane events are so rarely the focus of fantasy RPGs (at least past a certain point when it lapses back into the struggle to thwart a dark god's conquest, slay or banish an ancient evil, or whatever else) that I think it'd be a nice change of pace. Also, I often find that delving deeper into more mundane scenarios lends greater impact to extraordinary events and revelations when they do occur within settings. Also, in Eora, where people basically weaponize their souls and traumatic events can seed locations with the memories of the dead, I'd still expect there to be a great deal of room for the unearthly/metaphysical in the midst of wars or other man-made forms of upheaval. (Edit: Throw in differing conceptions of gods that are worshipped in all these nations, as well as questions of how intra-faith conflicts between distinct cultures play out when the faithful can actually commune with their gods, and there's even more room for the metaphysical even when it's the not be-all and end-all for the plot.) I agree that massive wars and intrigues that can steer the fate of nations can have widespread and long-lasting changes of these nations by definition, but at the same time, they also reflect more of an organic progression of events and conflict for the nations affected insofar as they involve less disruption from sudden and overriding external factors like colossal adra statues animated by gods. These more mundane events emerge wholly from the histories of the nations involved and their contribution to present-day dynamics between them, which I think reveals more about the nations in question than when changes are driven by more supernatural/otherworldly/deific upheaval. Perhaps not necessarily, but it does tend to work out that way. Especially when the less earthly conflict in question is the driving focus or ultimate narrative destination point for the game. I'd argue that in all likelihood, a Pillars game for which the focus is on the growing threat of war between nations would almost certainly feature more detail on the nations involved, their histories, and their conflicts than a Pillars game where these nations were significant but we ultimately leave them behind to fulfill our destiny in the Beyond or whatever. This is because a larger number of key figures in the game would be tied to these nations and the developments between them wouldn't be a focus for only an act or two, but rather throughout the game as a whole. It's also not simply a matter of what information is presented but also how it's presented: a Pillars game that had war or intrigue between nations as its driving focus would also be more likely to invest extensively into in-game reactivity as it pertains to shifts in the power dynamics and allegiances between nations and the nations' internal stability (or lack thereof) since the narrative would be more firmly and persistently linked to such developments. In a Pillars game where things ultimately progress to a journey into the depths of the Beyond, a confrontation with one or more gods, or some other similarly otherworldly climax, city or nation-based developments and outcomes are more likely to be relegated to end slides or passing comments in dialogue as opposed to culminating in scenarios that we can more actively witness or participate in. The Engwithans are a definite exception to this since any story that digs more deeply into them is almost certain to be complimentary to further delving into the nature of the gods and the Beyond. To be honest, however, in light of what's already been revealed about the Engwithans, I wonder if any further revelations would seem like trivia by comparison. In any case, I'm personally more interested in the nations that are currently active and have more potential to change for better or worse, but to each their own.

I also have confidence in Obsidian's ability to handle stories and scenarios of more mythic proportions, but even if it doesn't compromise the themes they wish to explore for this game, it has potential disadvantages in the way it allows us to experience the world. The cultures that we're exposed to are more prone to be caught up in the momentous nature of whatever earth-shattering crisis we have to contend with this time around. This can also affect the sorts of events we can expect to be involved with and/or their pace and scope in accordance with the narrative requirements of a game that ultimately needs to draw things back to an epic endgame scenario. Conversely, I think a storyline with a more terrestrial focus on cities or even empires allows for a more thorough and nuanced representation of the cultures involved and their dealings with each other since there isn't the competing presence of an impending apocalypse (or celestial upheaval, or whatever else) to contend with throughout the game. In a setting like Eora where souls and spirits pervade everyday life, I think this not only has the advantage of providing more options and opportunities for getting to know cultures in the world on their own terms but also grants more opportunities to emphasize the strangeness and possibilities of what is "normal" for the setting without having these things become overshadowed by the presence of more extraordinary phenomena. In the worst case, I'd worry that following up Deadfire with a third game that deals with something even more out there would effectively cement expectations for anything that could come after, making any more "down to earth" looks at the setting unlikely for other Pillars games. Then again, it's also possible that Sawyer's interest in building on the scope of the games doesn't have to entail things like the birth and death of gods, the Beyond spilling into the living world, the vengeful spirits of Engwithans rising up to tear down modern civilization, or other such scenarios. For example, a budding world war could still provide a fairly strong foundation for developing some of the aspects of the setting I was referring to above while still outdoing preceding games in scope by emphasizing travel to or dealings with multiple countries (though it'd be necessary to determine how something like that could work out given disparities in naval power and technological development between these countries).

I'd favor the focus on multiclass options for pre-existing classes over the introduction of new ones and hope that any new Pillars games focus more on unique multiclass options (like talents/abilities that require talents or abilities from two different classes) or even progression towards a classless system as Gromnir mentioned, especially if the classless system envisioned for the pnp game turns out well. I hope that if there is a third Pillars game and it doesn't involve the Watcher (which it hopefully wouldn't), it wouldn't be beholden to this trend of escalating to increasingly out of this world and epic events or that it would build up to such escalation more slowly over the course of multiple games to allow for more of a focus on more "mundane" events, like the threat of war between nations and the various tensions and intrigues that arise in trying to ensure that such a war doesn't (or does) come to pass during the earlier stages (e.g., the first and second games in a possible trilogy or something). That said, given the extent of progression in Pillars 1 and the understandable need to drop the Watcher back down to level 1 in Pillars 2, I'm not sure that they consider it a feasible design choice to limit level progression to the extent necessary to allow a character to pick up where they left off from one game to another (which seems like it'd be more important for a trilogy; pulling the level drain card more than once makes it all the more clumsy and aggravating in my opinion, but I suppose passing the torch to an heir or protege could also work depending on the span of time involved).

They're an order of Natlan monks who use hallucinogens in pursuit of enlightenment. Zahua's one of them (basically the last one other than the Watcher if he's right about the fate of his people - barring epilogue developments). I think the basic idea is that the material world is transient/illusory and that the experience of pain and the muddling of the senses allows them to better grasp the deeper truths of the soul or something. Edit: see https://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Zahua for details.

They've also mentioned the Shattered Pillar monk subclass in the last Q&A. For it, wound generation is tied to damage that they inflict on enemies, but the threshold for wound generation is higher and the maximum number of wounds that they can sustain is lower. It seems like it might blend well with cipher since they'd be able to double dip on resource generation through the same actions.

As funny as that would be, Chanters aren't summoning actual living creatures but rather approximating their forms by channeling the energies of spirits and tapping ambient soul fragments. Or I think it's something like that. Something along those lines might make for an interesting premise for a protagonist in a new Pillars game: a Chanter tries to summon the spirit of a dead hero, or one who never actually existed or was a composite figure abstracted from various people, to assist with some battle or task and ends up bringing you into the world. Varied accounts of the hero could allow for the normal range of customization options and an inborn attunement to the events the hero is known for could enable you "relive" similar experiences if they wanted to integrate the unearthly visions angle here as well without resorting to the use of another Watcher for a lead.