blotter

Ah. Yeah, Avenger works pretty well for a Druid/Rogue; better than Liberator does for a Druid/Paladin anyway. Thanks for the chart. It's pretty handy.

Avenger could work along similar lines, and I know I've seen that one here for sure, but I like it better for a Paladin/Rogue for some reason. Edit: You could also toss Vindicator into the mix. Its modern definition doesn't have much to do with rage per se, but I think it's etymologically related to 'vindictive' and there are connotations of struggle and triumph to the idea of vindication that might fit the concept of aggression paired with zeal.

It's been a while, but I think I'll drop a few more in here for old time's sake. There could very well be repetitions of names people have already come up with before in this thread. I'd actually be much more surprised if there weren't any repeats here, but I just can't bring myself to slog back through all 11 pages of this thread and check. So I apologize to anyone I've inadvertently copied/plagiarized in advance. -Barbarian/Druid - Totemist. -Barbarian/Monk - Dervish, Mauler. I seem to recall know that they've already settled on Brawler, but I think either of those names or any number of others would be better. YMMV. -Barbarian/Priest - Fury, but only if Nemesis (see below) isn't used. -Chanter/Cipher - Muse. -Chanter/Fighter - I'd say Warrior-Poet's too on the nose, but even so, I think it's less tacky and derivative than Bladesinger. I'm sure there's something better out there either way. -Chanter/Priest - Syncretist. -Chanter/Ranger - Trailblazer. -Chanter/Rogue - Charlatan, Mocker. -Chanter/Wizard - Archivist. -Cipher/Monk or Cipher/Paladin - Incarnate. -Cipher/Priest - Contemplative. -Cipher/Ranger - Nemesis; they can track you anywhere while using their powers to drive you mad and kill you, so I think it works thematically. Then again, maybe it's better suited for a Priest/Rogue, since that does a better job of matching the religious associations. -Cipher/Rogue - Haunt (with the dialectical meaning of ghost; not the standard meaning of a place people hang out), Mirage, Nightmare. Eidolon, used in the sense of a vague or spectral existence might also work in the same way, but if you used its other meaning as an idealized representation, it could fit a Cipher/Paladin just as well. Basically, I'm just twisting around grasping for terms like Phantom or Spectre since we already have monsters that go by those names. -Cipher/Wizard - Channeller, Conduit, Savant. -Druid/Ranger - Sylvan. -Fighter/Rogue - Executioner. -Monk/Ranger - Hermit. Or Eremite, if you want to use a more archaic term.

Actually, the precedent from Pillars 1 leans far more toward diversity in class naming conventions than consistency, as has been noted multiple times within this thread. Rogues, for example, appear among enemies by various titles: Scouts, Sentries, Skirmishers, Thieves, Backstabbers, Assassins, etc. Chanters from different groups/faiths go by names as well: Preachers, Galesingers, Shanty-singers, etc. By the same token, there are monks with titles ranging from the generic/uninformative (e.g., Acolyte) to the highly group/faith specific (three guesses where Tidalfists show up, example). Indeed, group/culturally based variation in terminology has plenty to do with making settings immersive. Though it's a fairly moot point in this context given the relative lack of interest in this idea. Maybe; I'm not terribly interested in going that far myself, but given differences in characters' cultural origins, fighting styles, and so forth, it's not as though the idea is absurd on its face. In particular, people name/rename items all the time in real life and fantasy alike. Things could get confusing with talents, but that's a different situation since it's much more important to have clear expectations of their specific mechanics. Multiclass combinations by their sheer number of options are bound to vary in execution to a far greater extent, so the idea of sticking them under singular designations isn't a strict requirement by any means.

This interview (https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/06/15/cannibals-slaves-dead-children-catching-pillars-eternity-ii-e3/) goes into a bit more detail on the subclass mechanics for corpse-eater: Nothing too surprising, but confirmation of literal corpse-eating action in the game, as opposed to passive boosts triggered by kills, may be illustrative in terms of what subclass abilities may entail overall (e.g., new animations as opposed to new mechanics only, etc.)

I'm pretty sure it doesn't require you to be a multiclass paladin/priest. Soulbound weapons in Pillars 1 had classes listed the same way (https://img.fireden.net/v/image/1457/62/1457621166462.jpg) and they obviously didn't require multiclass users. I'll grant that a dagger seems like a pretty unlikely weapon of choice for any paladin (who doesn't multiclass into rogue or something), but it suits priests of Skaen, Wael, and possibly Berath well enough thematically even if none of their gods actually favor the weapon type (which is a moot point bonus-wise for soulbound weapons anyway).

Whether or not you can actually design your party in such a way that it becomes impossible to fail any skill checks may depend on a number of things, chiefly the exact number of skills, the availability of skills in relation to background/class, the requisite number of ranks to gain options/pass checks, and the limitations to contribution, if any. In regards to the latter, it may be that there is a maximum contribution bonus; it's also possible that party members only contribute skill bonuses to skills you actually have in dialogue or that the contribution bonus is lowered in cases where you lack any knowledge of the skill. Also bear in mind that Sawyer has confirmed that attributes still influence dialogue options, and there's no indication that companions can contribute to checks of that nature. Even if limitations along the lines of what I described above do apply, companions would probably be able to apply their skills a lot more freely through scripted interactions, which seems appropriate enough. However, if the White March is any indication, skills aren't the only things that may factor into scripted event options: spells and other class abilities are likely to turn up, as are options involving items (e.g., ropes, crowbars, hammers and chisels, water-breathing devices, and so forth). There may also be situations where scripted event options and developments change based on prior quest decisions and your relationships with other groups in the vein of the Battle of Yenwood Field quest from Pillars 1, in which case there may be situations where there are specific outcomes that are beyond reach for you no matter how high your skill ranks are. Also keep in mind that the maximum party size is five here, which may somewhat limit the party's ability to branch out into various skills as well. The way Sawyer described it, I'd agree that the contribution system in place doesn't really seem to reflect this sort of shifting speaker dynamic, but this is another place where it comes down to user interpretation. The companions are adding to your character's chances of success on a check based on their ranks (which probably don't apply on a one-for-one basis), so for dialogue skills it's probably more like they're chiming in at strategic points or, like the interviewer said, "whispering hints in your ear". Of course, one could argue that's just as weird given the way dialogue usually works, though this may depend on the prevalence of dialogue checks. If there are a lot of them, then this sort of party collaboration becomes less a jarring divergence from standard dialogue practices and more of a common occurrence itself, for example. Then again, I don't really see what's so strange about a party member who specializes in negotiations, for example, interjecting during a conversation to help defuse a situation. It seems like exactly the kind of thing you'd keep them around for in the first place. Sure, you might expect someone with that type of skill set to have more of a presence throughout dialogues overall, but the fact that they don't has more to do with the constraints and necessities of the dialogue system. In a roleplaying game, we generally expect it to be our actions and decisions that drive changes and responses during interactions, and setting aside the amount of extra writing involved, a companion who consistently seized the reins in conversations would be pretty annoying/disruptive if we lacked control over their ability to do so. Whether being able to 'win' conversations through skills diminishes roleplaying or not has a lot more to do with the player than the existence of the dialogue skills themselves. If your character would never say something, then don't say it when the option comes up. I can see how the temptation would be there, I guess, but it's generally a good thing for options in a roleplaying game to be tempting. Another thing to consider is whether 'winning' a conversation is really the be-all and end-all given the greater focus on faction relationships that they're going for in Deadfire. Compulsively striving to curry favor with others, for example, may actually diminish your standing in your faction of choice if enough of the people you're pandering to are involved with other factions themselves or cost you opportunities that might arise if your loyalties were less divided. Or so I'd hope, anyway.

That's an old screenshot that was recycled from a previous interview article (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-01-26-pillars-of-eternity-2-deadfire-announced). If memory serves, it's a statue of Ngati (Ondra as she is known by the Huana). And those are boobs, not bowls. Per https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3807509&pagenumber=82&perpage=40 (search for "Rope Kid" - Sawyer's SA handle), the Huana associate Ondra/Ngati more heavily with fertility, and the statue is even identified as "their angler fish-headed take on the Venus of Willendorf".

Most of what I've seen on the promotional end of things seems fairly competent. The dialogue/narration presented in the intro and gnome seems fairly well written, though it markedly slips in the wizard gameplay video. I found this to be case especially where Amiri's dialogue is concerned; it might have something to do with the gruff informality of her speech not translating as smoothly, but the Facebook interview with Avellone (https://www.facebook.com/notes/pathfinder-kingmaker/interview-with-narrative-designer-chris-avellone/705297732990609/) made it sound like he might be involved in writing for her to some extent and I'd expect him to come up with something better than "coo-coo" or "wussin' out". However they go about specific phrasing for dialogue, both Amiri and Octavia seem like pretty flat, one-note characters so far. Hopefully, that'll change with future updates. Having frequently occurring alignment shifts tied to specific combinations (e.g., Lawful Neutral, Neutral Good, etc.) based on dialogue options would have seemed like a pretty questionable decision even if there weren't any examples of it. Based on the ones they've provided to demonstrate the way it works, it looks like it's every bit as arbitrary as I'd have feared it would be. This sort of thing isn't novel, of course, but treating particular options as being uniquely and exclusively representative of a particular alignment promises to make the whole thing even more annoying and nonsensical than other examples of this that only push for changes along a single alignment axis. They've said that they're running multiple Pathfinder campaigns while developing the game, so maybe they should try vocally tracking how their character's miscellaneous responses prompt faint shifts in alignment. The way it was going in the videos, I wouldn't be surprised to see a "You're welcome" dialogue option result in a shift towards lawful good, and I'd hope that no one would think that's a good idea after having a DM report that to them in a live game.

One of the belt slots is actually the trinket slot. They haven't made a proper icon for it yet.

And here's a screen shot of scale mail with a frog helm: https://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/872927667661582336/photo/1

If you're going for consistency, then they've already made the decision. Helig of Thein was identified as a necromancer in addition to being an animancer, and he is (or was, if you killed him) a wizard. Granted, it could also be the case that necromancy refers to any magical/supernatural means of tampering with life and death aside from the use of artifacts, technology, and/or environmental phenomena such as biawacs (which is where animancy comes in), making it possible for necromancers to be druids, chanters, ciphers, priests, or whatever else. If so, it's probably best represented by particular spells/talents rather than a subclass.

I was hoping for a necromancer, since we've already heard about them in-game a few times and it'd be a chance to further differentiate them from animancers. But there's still the third wizard subclass to go, I guess.

Possibly, but not necessarily. If you're referring to their companions, I suspect they'll just be using ghostly forms of standard animals and the animation for calling them wouldn't really have to differ from the standard animation for using summoning invocations or items. I'm pretty sure he brought them up in relation to other subclass animation requirements. (Edit: Thinking about it further, though, I'm probably overemphasizing the deterrent effect of subclass-specific animation requirements. We know that priests will have certain spells available/prohibited based on their god, and if those spells are unique, then it follows that they may well have their own unique animations and effects associated with them.)

The cannibalistic mutiny comment was from Emolio G, not Sawyer, and it was about rations and underfed (cannibalistic) ship crew members, not the Corpse Eater subclass. It's probably not worth factoring into the Corpse Eater's theoretical mechanics until we hear anything from developers that actually stresses the volatile appetites angle for the subclass itself. For my part, I doubt that the subclass will involve much by way of literal corpse eating since it could require unique animations (which none of the other subclasses particularly seem to entail at this point) and corpse eating itself sounds a bit too time-consuming to effectively blend in with combat. I'd also wonder if they'd get into whether particular enemies were safe to eat or not (such as undead, trolls, oozes, fungi and other sufficiently infectious and/or squalid critters) but they could probably get away with shrugging off such concerns pretty easily or just limit viable targets to beasts and kith. The simplest way to implement something thematically appropriate for such a subclass that comes to mind is to have frenzy benefits start off lower but receive a temporary, possibly stacking, bonus with each kill, similar to the headhunter subclass idea I tossed out on page 8 of this thread. A bite attack would be cool, but that's far worse in terms of animation requirements than merely eating bodies.

I think the use of "beckon" is intended to capture a specific flavor for the summoning process: namely that of drawing the attention of something from the Beyond (or wherever else) and enticing it to cross over into this world. Or at least, the name Beckoner is evocative of that to me, even if there are arguably better names to represent the same concept. I personally find approaches to summoning that emphasize the importance of luring and bargaining with otherworldly forces to be more interesting and opportunity-rich than the more customary dynamic of tossing around pliable cannon fodder (though I don't particularly expect the mechanics of summoning to change much in Pillars 2).

For a voice set that's generic enough to work for a wide range of character types (or at least to not be out of place for them), there's probably not a whole lot of personality to picture though. Making seven or more at least fourteen voice sets like that, accounting for male and female variations that would differ primarily by accent and regional colloquialisms, seems kind of wasteful to me, but to each their own. More conceptually, I wonder if the idea of an archetypal "voice" does justice to less unified cultures like those in the Ixamitl Plains, Living Lands, and The White That Wends.

The main problem I see with developing voice sets based on region is that they'd either have to be generic enough to more or less apply to a broad range of character types (since it most likely wouldn't be feasible to create multiple regional voice sets for differing personalities) or they'd have to base the voice sets' personalities on traits and values that are commonly associated with the culture. In the former case, they'd risk becoming rather bland, while in the latter case it runs the risk of being as exaggerated as the current method, simply along the lines of cultural stereotypes that might be even more annoying (e.g., the stern Aedyran, the flamboyant Vailian, the wise man/woman from Ixamitl, etc.) Organizing voice sets along the lines of culture might also make unrepresented (or underrepresented) options more frustrating too, since people may feel more obliged to choose a voice set that's linked to their character's culture.

You can, it's been confirmed along with dual wielding wands, scepters, and so forth (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/119024818?t=44m45s).

I don't really see how what we've seen of Ydwin's character background/description screams "fun" to a greater extent than, say, Eder or Serafen (or even possibly Aloth during Iselmyr-related hijinks). Also, her being expanded as a full companion rather than simply a sidekick would make her all the more at risk of transforming to accommodate the sort of depth and nuance that you seem to take as indications of the game's disinterest in all things "fun". To address this concern itself a bit more specifically, Sawyer has previously stated (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/119024818?t=45m34s) that one thing they are trying to change from Pillars 1 is to include greater emotional range throughout the game, including the use of humor. I'm not too concerned since I didn't find Pillars 1 painfully bleak to begin with (and I don't see Obsidian as likely to overshoot in the opposite direction in their efforts to balance things out a bit in terms of mood throughout the story), but I figured it was worth pointing out that Obsidian has demonstrated awareness of this concern as well as an interest in addressing it.

This statement seems straightforward enough, but the implications are so absurd that I'd like to confirm: are you suggesting that the power and scope of abilities of the various denizens of the Deadfire region will reach such stratospheric extremes that the capabilities of a level 16 character from Pillars 1 would appropriately be depicted as the least of them are capable of? That is to say, that any level 1 guard or critter we come across in the new game would be capable of punting around Eyeless, kraken, and radiant spores the way we did in the previous game? The idea kind of reminds me of the city of Union from the d20 Epic Level Handbook, with its routine patrols consisting of level 20+ guards. Suffice to say I don't think we'll be seeing any of that in Deadfire. If the Huana and the forces colonizing them were that badass, it's hard to imagine how the Dyrwood could have won, let alone maintained, its independence.

While I agree that levels are predominantly a matter of gameplay contrivance, the broader strokes of what it represents also seem to map into the narrative readily. Regardless of whether the difference between level 14 and level 16, or even level 11 and level 16, is meaningful in narrative terms, the fact that a party which once was a credible threat to ancient dragons (as the Watcher and his/her companions were in Pillars 1) is now suddenly finding an encounter with a stray band of xaurips to be potentially life-threatening to them in turn does seem like something would be considered and addressed within a coherent narrative. And that's without getting into why all those other former companions would have traded out their epic weapons and armor for the starter gear they'll inevitably have when we meet them again. It happens often enough in games that I can overlook it without much trouble, but that only means that I've grown accustomed to shrugging off absurdity at both narrative and gameplay levels for the sake of convenience.

That's before Eothas wrecked the place, though, and who knows how long the Watcher was out of commission after that happened. I suspect the reasoning's along those lines, at least, since it's a convenient excuse for why the Watcher won't be decked out top of the line equipment from the start. I'm not really an advocate for the explanation myself, but it does allow for the possibility of regaining said equipment later on (as opposed to the backlash from Eothas' awakening destroying all magical equipment/devices within the keep's radius or something).

I thought the rationale was that you start off owning a ship that you bought by pawning off all the treasure from Caed Nua that survived Eothas' awakening.

It's most likely undead (and probably a drowned variant of a gul or dargul; it's hard to imagine a fampyr letting itself go like that and revenants/lower forms of undead don't really have enough flesh to bloat like that), but they could be mixing it with spore-infested corpses or something like that I guess. Whatever it is, I hope it bursts or deflates satisfyingly when we kill it.