Sedrefilos

Obs said it'll have the same requirements as Pillars 1 did. Pillars 1 run great at my machine which is like 10-11 years old.

As I do in every rpg, I don't usually stick with specific classes. I'll just keep swapping companions and most probably I'll give them equal time with me, unless I really don't like someone or I like someone too much I never drop him/her form the party. As for my main, she's a barbarian that I most probably multiclass with cipher or druid.

The companions are seven: Eder, Aloth, Palegina, Xoti, Serafen, Takehu, Maia. Everyone else is a sidekick. What exactly is gonna be the case with them we don't know for sure. But they're not companions.

From what we know so far, we'll reach level 20 in the base game. We don't know how the dlcs will work at the moment

For a backer you know surpringly little! Check the Fig updates, there is enough information there. In short, sidekicks are watered down companions.

Minor point, it depends on the language of the speaker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator#Examples_of_use As a side note, I've never seen apostrophes used to separate thousands in large numbers. Comma, apostrophe, whatever. Any country that uses periods to separate thousands is a backwards and savage place! W.ho di.d you ca.ll s.av.ag.e/ y.ou b.rut.e>

Btw that's what my mom kept telling my dad after my birth. Lol. I see you lightened up. Your previous avatar was way more darker

They said they're gonna be something like Minsk was in BG2. Now I didn't travel with Minsk much because I didn't like him, but I think he wasn't just a decoration. The big difference between sidekicks and companions, they said, is that the former don't have a quest related to the main plot and don't participate in the relationship mechanic. This implies they have unique character, dialogues and banters. I think both Josh and Carrie spoke about this in the past and confirmed it. If this has changed I don't see the point of including them at all, since you can get the same outcome by hirelings, unless Josh refers to banters specifically.

For me trhe definition of an rpg is clear and simple: there has to be some extent of roleplaying involved. What @Madscientist describes can be features in any game. If there is no roleplay involved, I just count it as an adventure game or whatever game with some rpg features, but not a roleplaying game. Far Cry has inventory, is it a roleplaying game? no. Monkey Island has tons of dialogue, is it a roleplaying game? no. Heroes of Might and Magic has fights and leveling, is it a roleplaying game? no. Diablo has all the above, is it a roleplaying game? no. Mass Effect 2 has no inventory but it lets you decide the character of Shepperd to an extent as you progress through the game. Is it a roleplaying game? wel... yeas, it just is of narrower scope. In Pillars of Eternity you create a character and the features you chose for your character lets you play as that character in a world that recognizes him or her as that character. Is it a roleplaying game? yup!

Well Skyrim IS a rpg, it just is better as a game in general than as a roleplaying game

From what I get Josh wanted to try new things for Deadfire or even Pillars. Old-school fans and Obsidian head were against it because they wanted the game to be successful. Now that Deadfire is done Josh can work on his take on pnp rpgs and talk about whatever he thinks about crpgs freely. I'm all in for experimentation in rpgs but not for the sake of it. Most games that tried weird stuff (like Undertale or Stick of Truth that Josh refers, for instance) I wouldn't categorizing them as rpgs even, since there is no roleplay involved - just interesting ideas in general. Funny enough, though, as far as roleplay is concerned, I believe Pillars and New Vegas have done the best in the entire crpg history up to now. Pillars is a traditional game, by Sawyer terms.

There is no necromancer as a class. You can maybe combine wizard and chanter and get the necromantic themed abilities of those classes. A beta tester (most likely Boeroer ) will be more suitable to answer this though.

Although you can make decisions by talking this questionary, if it was anything like the one we tried for fun a couple of months ago, it could make little sense to new players. Finishing the 1st game is storngly recommended IF you want to know what happened and make connections. Besides that, the main story stands as its own as it seems so you'll get a complete experience if you only play Deadfire.

The question goes to Obsidian btw.

They all sound exciting. One question though: Are they meant to be played after we finish Deadfire, while playing Deadfire or both? Thanks in advance for the answer. Edit: I thought the Beyond was something we're dealing with in the main campaign...

What's a manual??

Same thing WoW has. It's a nice feature for those who want it. Personally I never use it; it breaks immersion for me

Well, in DA:O you can voluntarily die at the end (that's what I did) and still be alive in the expansion :D It felt weird at start and I laughed hard, but, at the end, who cares? Maybe they do the same here

Josh Sawyer knows

Yeah sitting there with Julian Gollop. Phoenix Point is the game Imost looking forward to after Deadfire.

Josh already talked about that some time ago. It's drawn images of monsters just like Pillars1 and won't include 3D models in bestiary.

I think there are lots of interviews, recent onces so, throught the intenet since Obsidian participated in most if not all conventions this year. There are numerous beta let's plays in youtube too. I don't think they're gonna show much else about the game since they want to keep it as spoiler-free as possible. Maybe just before release date a video of the introduction? who knows. I'm k with that. I'd rather see it first time on my own.

I don't enjoy playing games if not sober.

So, what is a paladin?

Who decides what's cool though? Gameplay