Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Danse Macabre

Blaeringr's page

1,483 posts. Alias of Ghoste.


1 to 50 of 1,483 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

albadeon wrote:
Think of it this way:
Think of it this way: not playing is not a playstyle, and customers aren't going to pay to not play.
If you think it's okay to pay to play a style that only works at the expense of someone else (who then gets to pay to NOT play his own style), with no danger for yourself, maybe it's your priorities that need adjusting?

If you were saying that to someone suggesting no consequences, you might have a point. But the person you're talking to is merely disagreeing with your particular suggested consequences. As he pointed out, your suggestion can not possibly accomplish what you want it to.

Here's point A.

Here's point B.

The directions you're giving don't lead from one point A to B, you only think they do because you continue to miss the point that not playing at all is not a playstyle, and you can't make money off it.

Goblin Squad Member

albadeon wrote:

This proposed mechanic does not allow players to randomly stop others from playing. It always requires a certain "evil" action from the prisoner first.

I know, I read that part. You're essentially connecting making someone's character respawn (which is what death is) to making someone not be able to play at all. And despite what's been said to you, you're still not grasping what a huge problem that is for a company whose success depends on getting people to play more, not less?

Fair enough. I've offered my critique. You're not getting it. I'm ok with that. Good day, sir.

Goblin Squad Member

albadeon wrote:
First of all, this is meant to be some kind of punishment to serve as a deterrent from extensive, ad-hoc crime (to make up for the fact that there is no other serious deterrent). It should primarily be a time out (similar to the time-out necessary for rebuilding that the victim requires). You should go to prison immediatly after you are "caught" and stay there for the necessary time. No coloseum, no waiting till the time is right. You're caught and you serve time. Otherwise, it turns into some perversion of the concept of punishment and becomes more of a reward.

So essentially "we want you to play this game as much as possible" and "when we don't like how you play, we'll make you play less and even give you strong negative associations with playing our game at all"?

Again, if somebody could actually make those two concepts mix without the end result looking like a sad joke, then they will have pulled off a miracle.

Goblin Squad Member

Design a game, one that you want people to spend as much time playing as you can get them to, and then introduce a mechanic where players can stop other players from playing the game for extended periods of time.

That's the challenge. Do it and make it not suck. If you can pull it off, (and you won't and nobody else will) then come back and talk about it.

Goblin Squad Member

KestrelZ wrote:

So long as the CR is adjusted for a smaller group, and resources are spent in healing (Cure potions, or wands if UMD skill is used), almost any class can solo with mixed results.

At low levels, martials tend to fare better.

At high levels, full casters tend to fare better.

The advantages to solo campaigns is that the GM can predict the capability of a lone character rather than a group. With groups, there's always the question of how well the individual PCs work together (are they greater than the sum of their parts, or do they actually impede each other?).

The biggest disadvantage with a solo campaign - one death is a TPK.

Still, classes that I find easiest to solo - Summoner, Cleric, Oracle, Ranger, Bard, Druid, Witch - in about that order.

You just took all the fun and pride out of soloing. Even in tabletop, if the GM is adjusting the CR for a small groups/soloers, that is the GM basically admitting you're weak little kittens.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Welcome back, Blaeringr. One difficulty: when have you ever known something small and reasonable to keep lawyers quiet?

Back? I got a PM recently from someone saying I'd be sorely missed. It made me chuckle.

When have I ever known something small and reasonable to keep lawyers quiet? Every one of the billion times someone has made an elf-like character in an MMO and named him Drizzt.

This topic is as engaging as the time in grade 4 I heard one kid tell another he was going to sue him for drawing stickmen the same way he did. The first had come up with a silly little variation in the way he drew them, and when his friend copied his style he began ranting about copyright infringement.

Please, do tell me more.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Cheatle wrote:
House Karnath - I just wanted to point out you might want to change your names. House Karnath is property of WotC through the Eberron series, rather Karnath is.

Which would be an issue if they were trying to make profit off the name. Otherwise, they might want to not give a s*@#.

Goblin Squad Member

Fair enough. I have no problem making up a nonsense name for the new forums. As far as most people will know, Blaeringr will not be playing PFO anymore.

Goblin Squad Member

Lee Hammock wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:

Here's another question: do we have to belong to a registered guild to vote?

Plenty of us wont be trying to own land, but will still clearly have a vested stake in those who do.

If you have an EE account you can apply to join any guild you want and help them get a settlement. Maybe trade your vote for promise of future favors in game? You won't get to choose settlements directly, the guild administrator does that, but you can affect what guilds get to choose. You don't have to join that settlement once the game starts; this isn't a binding contract.

If I "join a guild" will that be visible to others on the forums? Some people, and my group's not the only one, have arrangements to support other guilds and said arrangements are only known to the officers/leadership. Can I do this in the landrush without making it public knowledge?

Goblin Squad Member

Here's another question: do we have to belong to a registered guild to vote?

Plenty of us wont be trying to own land, but will still clearly have a vested stake in those who do.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
I would really like to see active mount breeding...

Would linking a video of this get me banned?

Goblin Squad Member

The way I read this, it seems clear you must be in an official guild in order to back someone in the land rush. If that's so, that's fine. I'm just pointing out that it is a clear change from what was originally proposed and will definitely exclude some of us.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
Historically spears were a far more popular weapon than swords.
Despite the numerous benefits, I think one thing that is forgotten is how much cheaper it was to build and outfit an army with spears. For most of history, metals were still relatively rare and expensive. Building a good sword took a good deal of time from very skilled people. A spear was a bit easier. You still needed skilled people, but a pole-turner was easier to find than a blacksmith, and casting spearheads (if metal was used for them at all) is much easier than pounding out an actual blade.

That's interesting, but overshadowed by that fact that there are so many examples of soldiers who were equipped with both polearms AND swords, and primarily used the polearm with the sword as a backup.

One example that really drives home the point is the very large two hander (aka zweihander or bidenhander) that was used to combat pike formations: as soon as the knight was able to form a gap in the pike formation (by swinging the swords great mass around in figure eights) he would generally then switch his grip moving one hand above the guard onto the blunted section of the blade and then proceed to hold and thrust with it like a polearm to attack into the formation. This one example is a very rare case of favoring a sword vs polearm, and only worked for two reasons: 1) the polearms it was targeting were much longer than the average polearm and thus the wielders had poor leverage (although I suppose the momentum really helped too, but didn't work as well against multiple shorter polearms because the momentum was still not enough for that many targets with good leverage), and 2) its attacks were mostly made using it as if it were a polearm.

And yes, good swords were expensive. At the height of the middle ages, a knight was generally expected to pay the price of 10 slaves for one good longsword (not quite the same as "longsword" in Pathfinder)

Goblin Squad Member

A very well articulated video on the topic:

Goblin Squad Member

Historically spears were a far more popular weapon than swords. In most cases the sword was a "side arm" - meaning the back up weapon, not the primary. There are very few historical examples of soldiers using swords as their primary weapon.

Contrary to how PF rules portray spears and reach, there was no "inside" a spearman's reach. A spear's reach can be shortened very quickly and very easily, to shorter than even a sword's reach, so it's far more likely to see a spearman slipping inside the reach of a swordsman. Combine that with how the wider grip used to hold a spear gives it far greater leverage, and it's easy to understand why the spear was almost always preferred to the sword.

If anyone is curious about this, try looking a spear vs sword "HEMA" duel (HEMA = Historical European Martial Arts).

Shield and spear was a lot more effective in formation combat. One on one, holding a spear one handed gives up a lot of leverage making it easy to swat aside, and slow to recover. Holding it two handed does the opposite though, gives you more leverage and able to bring it back more quickly than a sword - so definitely the way to go in a 1v1 fight.

Holding the spear under the armpit helps regain that lost leverage caused by holding it one handed, but it's still more sluggish to aim even if you could still thrust fairly quickly. But you don't really have to aim well when poking at a formation.

Goblin Squad Member

Naw, this is more our style:

Goblin Squad Member

The Moonberry Goddess Travelling Perfroming Arts Company will bring joy and refinement right to the doorstep of the goblins of the River Kingdoms. Just because you're short and ugly with bad teeth, doesn't mean you don't want to be left out in the cold. Goblins, we understand your frustration, and our humble little group will do what it can to bring that touch of class to your otherwise dull and pointless lives.

Goblin Squad Member

The apostrophe as used for glottal stops is essentially a foreign letter. If there is really a case to be made for the glottal stop, then there is even more of case to be made for all the many diacritics and foreign letters.

I'd like to hear a case made why the obscure glottal stop deserves special treatment over the many many other symbols that also have a clear meaning in their own contexts. If you actually have a case for glottal stops, then make a long list of all the other characters deserving the same treatment.

Are we going to insist on Russian names being allowed in Cyrillic text? Of course not. Just like for glottal stops, there are conventions for transliterating the weird sounds from many other languages. Gatachta may not result in a perfect pronunciation most of the time, but that's an authentic experience living in a foreign culture that doesn't share your precise verbal palette.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hate apostrophes in names. In some languages they actually mean something, but most people have no clue what they mean or how to use them and they just end up looking like a bunch of gaudy, tasteless rings decorating their hairy nipple of a name.

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:

xD Shouldn't it be more along the lines of:

"Gefällt mir wie Sie können sich mit zusammengesetzten Wörtern für alles Gelegenheiten"? Or am I speaking crazy here.

"Gefällt mir" vs "mir gefällt" is just a small shift in emphasis. The first is on the verb, the second (how I phrased it) emphasizes myself in the sentence.

Sie is capitalized only when at the beginning of a sentence or when referring to the formal you. The rest of the pronouns are not by default capitalized.

"können sich mit..." that works too. Slightly different meaning. The way I said it emphasizes their creativity in coming up with compound words, the way you rephrased it emphasizes their knack for using them.

Wörtern...yes. Wörter and Wörte... I easily forget when which is appropriate.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Know much German?

Natürlich. Es gibt aber schon lange Zeit seit ich die Möglichkeit mit jemand zu sprechen gehabt habe.

Mir gefält wie die so gut zusammengesetzte Wörte für alle Gelegenheiten ausdenken können.

Goblin Squad Member

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Stealth? Invisibility? See invisibility? Summoning? Crowd Control?

Will wizards be pigeon holed into AoE damage and buffing like every other MMO, or will they have access to a variety of spells that do more than just go "boom"?

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
And people proudly posting results of a binary, easy to manipulate test? Congratulations.

Yeah. It wasn't meant to be presented as an epeen contest so much as something that presents a lot of the ideas and elements of narcissism in a way the people can understand.

I find such tests only give vague ideas. They are highly dependent on how honest you are being with yourself, and for some of those question answers both or neither are true for me at least. That's why I didn't post my results or intend for anyone else to. I meant this as an introspective exercise.

For those freaking out now self assured they were over 20 though, I will say they were a bit below average, though I am skeptical of their accuracy because I gave non-narcissist answers on a lot of questions I was halfway on.

PS. I understand that some of you are probably using it in the way I intended and expecting people to take the results with a grain of salt.

PFO community loves itself sum epeen contests. That combined with the Dunning-Kruger effect sum up this thread nicely.

A majority scoring on self tests below average for narcissism and then posting the results, and the results creeping lower and lower with each post: this is narcissism in in action, patting itself on the back for its own modesty.

Goblin Squad Member

What’s more, it also found a relationship between all Dark Tetrad traits (except for narcissism) and the overall time that an individual spent, per day, commenting on the Internet.

Seems it's not just explicit trolling to watch out for.

And people proudly posting results of a binary, easy to manipulate test? Congratulations.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Even with the criminal flag, you'll find most people won't shoot you on sight, unless you have directly harmed that individual or someone in their social group.

If I see someone Flagged, the most important thing to me is going to be their Reputation. If it's Low, I'll almost certainly try to kill them if I think I can. I would hope this becomes a common stance for most "positive game play" folks to take.

I think you're right that folks who are trying to specialize as Resource Gatherers probably won't attack in this situation, but I think the differences between EVE and PFO will mean that there are a lot more jerk-hunters nearby.

A bit immersion breaking to think that with thousands of people running around, each will have a rep meter over their head to tell you what to expect of them.

Goblin Squad Member

Papaver wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
If people were genuinely worried about triggering traumatic memories in others, posting a video like this and making it the number one topic of discussion on these forums for the past few days is not the way to accomplish that - you're kind of working backwards there, m'kay?
I think that rasing awareness of an action to censure the actor and rasing awareness of an action to derive enjoyment out of the reciever of the action are two very different things that have two very different effects.

Two different intended effects. The intent of this thread is not being achieved.

Different people will want different kinds of fun, and people of differing points of view on this don't need each other's uptight approval before they go seeking it. It will happen, and drama like this will only inflate and feed into itself.

It's like you guys just discovered the internet yesterday. All this thread has accomplished is to reinforce the disgust of one group of people, a disgust and opinion that was already there, and to another group of people it has planted ideas and plans. Rant and plead about the intended purpose of this thread, the actual purpose is what it is whether you like it or not.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vwoom wrote:
Just waiting for this thread to die. PFO will never be anything like that video. It was disturbing, and its just a game doesn't cut it. If you can't see that try putting yourself in the shoes of those people being told "take your pants off and you can live" for about a second. That's all I got.

I get that something like that can possibly be traumatic for someone who's lived through something like that, but if it's traumatic for anyone else then they need professional help. So when you tell me to put myself in those shoes for "just s second"...I spent a lot longer than a second thinking about it, and all I could muster up in personal response was "meh".

If people were genuinely worried about triggering traumatic memories in others, posting a video like this and making it the number one topic of discussion on these forums for the past few days is not the way to accomplish that - you're kind of working backwards there, m'kay?

People are going to try to play the game and get involved in the dev made stories as well as the player made stories. Some of these people will get bored from time to time and attempt to come up with ways of having juvenile fun. They won't be looking for or expecting approval from people with a different idea of fun, and now matter how the game is designed, it won't stop people from occasionally finding some way to do something stupid. For that reason, this whole thread really just amounts to this week's PFO forum drama. Nothing more.

Goblin Squad Member

Fun video.

Goblin Squad Member

Your own definition that you first cited provided the very example you ask for:

prohibitive prices

Those are prices meant to deter, but not outright prohibit purchase.

Like I already told you, you undermined your own argument from the beginning.




prohibiting or tending to prohibit
(esp of prices) tending or designed to discourage sale or purchase




If the cost of something is prohibitive, it is so high that many people cannot afford it.
The cost of private treatment can be prohibitive.
♦ prohibitively adv ADV adj
Meat and butter were prohibitively expensive.


Prohibitive costs are quite common. Take taxes on tobacco and alcohol: they're both prohibitive but still allow actual purchase. But their purpose is still achieved - to reduce overall consumption.

And that is the case with what the devs have described here: the expressed aim is to reduce the overall number of characters with the discussed capabilities, not to outright eliminate it.

So I've cited two reputable and "professional" dictionaries for you, not to mention the points you missed in your very own citations, and rather than I scour the internet for you, I'm sure you can recall having heard yourself many times the phrase "the prohibitive cost of having children". And yet surprise of surprises, it's not actually impossible to have children.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Actually, it is.
No, it's not.

It is, indeed, difficult to defend absolute statements. My apologies for descending into a petty argument about semantics.

Don't apologize to me for arguing semantics, I love semantic details. If you want to apologize, then do so for mucking it up.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Locking an opponent in place is not the same as stunlocking I should point out. All I am referring to is stopping a character from running away.

I understand the distinction. I strongly disagree that being able to stop a character from running away is a good thing. I believe my thoughts on this are congruent with Ryan's.

Too many games with PvP end up with a situation where "running away" is never a viable option which breeds fatalism and defeatism.
Relatively unskilled characters will not beat relatively well equipped high skilled characters in fights. But they should be able to try to run away without always being killed no matter what.

"Never a viable option" =/= "sometimes not an option". Same distinction with "no matter what". He says they shouldn't always get killed running away, which does not equate to never get killed, only that it might be possible to run away. How great that possibility will be is not explicit or implicit in his statement, and we can't just assume like that.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Contemplate the words "prohibit", "forbid", and "prevent".

Contemplate the words "prohibitive", "forbidding", and "preventative", and how the suffixes negate their absolute nature.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Prohibitively hard is not the same as impossible.

Actually, it is.

1. serving or tending to prohibit or forbid something.

2. sufficing to prevent the use, purchase, etc., of something: prohibitive prices.

No, it's not.

Neither definitions here equate to impossible. The first one uses the words "serving or tending" which implies a situation that is not universally so, or that it does have exceptions. The second gives and example, "prohibitive prices" which is again not an impossibility but discouragement.

A quick search of other sources for definitions of "prohibitive" and "prohibitively" turns up the same thing: definitions that do not equate to impossibility, only somewhat approaching impossibility with exceptions clearly implied.

Zombie Ninja wrote:
I might be wrong, but it looks like the chain mail is attracting the electricity, and his rubber boots are grounding him.

Short answer

Faraday suits need to have metal going head to toe. While there may be a lot of rubber on the boots, there must be significant metal in them else you'd see the electricity arcing around them to get to the ground. If not, let me ask: where do you think the current is flowing to?

The metal does no attracting. Electricity works on a quantum level to determine the path of least resistance, and chooses what would be the best path before actually going down it. That's what makes evasion vs lightning bolts make no sense: wherever you dodge, the electricity is already there with you.

Another misunderstanding posted earlier in this thread is that a Faraday suit insulates. This is a half truth. A Faraday suit causes electricity to create an electro magnetic field that creates insulation. Without the electricity flowing through the suit, there is no actual insulation though.

A typical Faraday suit will have metal pieces resting right against skin, and as the electricity flows along the surface of the metal, it is actually flowing right next to the wearer's skin. But electricity conducts along surfaces, and creates fields as it does so to guide it along the best path, and in a Faraday suit, or a suit of armor, that best path is definitely not your skin or nerves.

P.S. Armored knights laugh at lightning bolts.

The armor as DR system I envision takes away armor bonus to defense (formerly known as AC) but will add weapon bonuses to defense. So players should not actually get hit more often by attacks that do extra stuff on hit, like ability/level drain attacks. Not to mention I've also written in this very thread about armor mitigating magical/spell effects, not jsut straight weapon damage.

And like Orich points out, it's a slow witted DM who doesn't modify the encounters to fit the new system.

DragGon7601 wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
... Spears, for example, were phenomenally good defensively. Having seen spear vs sword demonstrations, I'm thinking it would make sense that weapon length be tied to active defense bonus (ie. not count when flat footed or flanked)...

I believe that the defensive bonus of spears is intended to be taken into account by that fact that they have reach. Can't hit someone who is using stand still to keep you from getting in range.

A defensive bonus that completely vanishes as soon as someone closes in.

Just look at the results: the majority of players favor swords of one form or another over spears. Historically the sword was a backup weapon for just about every unit in history, not the primary weapon. The spear was FAR more common a primary weapon because it worked well to hold back enemies, and not just for the first "round" of engagement.

Here's a little more information on the topic from a guy who teaches Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA): Historical fencing (HEMA) Swords vs. Spears - thoughts and experience

A system that reflects reality a little better will lead to players more often making characters that favors weapons that worked well in reality.

Now I know this isn't everyone's cup of tea; some people like a lot more fantasy in their fantasy. I personally find reasonable authenticity and a slightly higher level of complexity to be more satisfying.

Mortagon wrote:

I've played with a homebrewed armor as dr system in a couple of Campaigns. Basically all armor had dr equal to half its armor value +1 plus any magical modifiers, and all creatures had a defense value equal to half its bab. Critical hits ignored armor dr. I also allowed a fighting offensively combat action which gave a -4 to defense but adds 2 damage (or 3 damage with a 2 handed weapon). Furthermore the defense score was reduced by an amount equal to the armor check penalty. I started to work on system where different armor had modifiers to dr depending on its type, but i never got around to finish it. I personally think the system worked great and most of my players loved it.

What I want incorporated into my homebrew system are mechanics that treat different weapons and spells appropriately, not a blanket level for all armor that responds identically to all kinds of attacks. As I fine tune it more, I want the system to acknowledge the different strengths and weakness of specific designs of armor too.

The more I learn about how armor and weapons actually worked, the more I view the current system in this kind of light: video about historical adviser for big Hollywood film.

Essentially the current system manages to entertain well enough, but those who want a little more authenticity can quickly see how superficial the design is.

Auxmaulous wrote:

I will give your docs a go when I'm out of the office and can access the files.

I'm a big advocate of armor as DR, just haven't used it heavily in my D&D/PF games but it is a staple for my Gamma World game (and old TSR Post Apocalyptic rpg).

I utilize secondary and tertiary DR (based on value of hit), increased or decreased DR based on weapon used vs. material composition and overall protection based on type of armor coverage and if armor comes into play at all (ex: bulletproof vest vs. a full suit of leather) and all done in one attack roll.

It isn't an easy system, but some of the slowdown is mitigated by combining many of the features into the attack roll which does help on overall speed and use of the system. If an attack hits the same roll is also used to determine how well it hit and if armor blocked some/part/none of the attack. The type of attack/weapon used vs. armor composition also determines the baseline DR. Some DRs go up when faced with certain weapon types (rigid is better vs. slashing for example) while other armors are less effective.

Anyway - I'll comment more when I read the file.

Don't be discouraged by the detractors - this is a common occurrence in the suggestion threads were doomspeakers come in and try to dissuade innovation or variance from the standard - in a home rules section of the game.

I haven't put together specifics yet on this thought, but what you said reminds me of an idea that crits vs armor should not just depend on the weapon used and crit feats, but also the type of armor. Some armor has more weak points than others. For example, it's a lot easier to make chain mail that is uniform all over (except for the eyes, but magic could solve that), because it's flexible, but platemail simply must have gaps, overlaps and openings to work.

@Captain Wacky

I'll need to take a look at 2nd ed DnD. Thanks for the idea.

The tuck, aka estoc: yes, exactly. That is a longsword modified precisely with armor in mind. The mace and morningstar were all about fighting armored opponents, but at the cost of reach. The flail also, but at the cost of defense.

As far as parrying not being a thing until fencing, I have read and seen enough historical information to know that is completely false. There are many clubs that teach historical european martial arts (HEMA) using lessons based off of teachings of historical masters, and they demonstrate parrying and defense with all manner of weapons, not just swords and shields. Spears, for example, were phenomenally good defensively. Having seen spear vs sword demonstrations, I'm thinking it would make sense that weapon length be tied to active defense bonus (ie. not count when flat footed or flanked).

Even with the insulation from flames, it would make sense to add a crit system for spells where they happen to hit or go through a weak spot.

Tesla cages (should have said Faraday) do insulate in a weird physicky way, but my understanding about armor is that it is the path of least resistance for a current. Normally when a person is electrocuted, most of the current goes through their nervous system because that is the path of least resistance. For example heart attack often occurs because of the disruption to the normal pattern of currents travelling through the nerves to the heart and damage to those nerves, not because of electrical damage to the rest of the heart. But in a full suit of armor, the armor itself offers even less resistance, so the current chooses that path to the ground, leaving the occupant relatively unharmed.

I'm not familiar with the Stormbringer system. Got any good links?

Eltacolibre wrote:
It's already talked about in ultimate combat p. 191 to 192 as a variant rule. Now if you really insist on making it from scratch, good luck.

It is indeed talked about in ultimate combat. That would be exactly and precisely what I was talking about when I said "I've looked at the variant rules: armor as damage reduction, but I feel that still somewhat misses the mark in some aspects, and completely misses it in others."

Scythia wrote:
There were rules for increasing or decreasing the effectiveness of specific armours against types of damage in editions before 3rd. Few people used them. It slows down combat even more when with each attack you need to stop and ask "Is that B, P, S, or a combo?".

Thank you, I'll look into that. I appreciate your concern, but I think I wont be in too terribly much over my head with keeping track of B, P, and S, as it already comes into play with some monsters and existing types of damage reduction.

tsuruki wrote:

Re-writing the AC system is bad. This is a game, not a war enthusiast re-enactment manager.

While that may not be how you choose to use the game, I do enjoy the extra authenticity. I understand it's not what everyone looks for, so I'll clarify for you that this thread is not an attempt to persuade the community to adopt it; I am developing a revision of the armor as DR system that I will try out. Maybe I'll like it, maybe I won't. Please try not to loose any sleep over it.

The system assumes monsters hit you an X amount of the time, and DR exists to modify the end damage result by Y. Z is the damage per attack.
The system also assumes that different weapons can be treated exactly the same as the target changes. That assumption is incredibly wrong, but it works for simplicity's sake. What I am attempting here is to add a little bit, and if it ends up being too complicated then I will move on and let it go.

But this is not a matter of X=ZY.

If you modify the To-hit numbers (X) and give extra DR (Y) to everyone who wears armor, that leaves Z (Damage dealt) unmodified which means Z will always invariably skew whatever AC->DR system you may try to write. This is also the reason why the old Armor=Dr system is an optional secondary system to the 3.x To-hit vs AC system.

If you re-write Ac, you also need to re-write the manner of how DR actually works and how damage is dealt. All from scratch.
Also you need to create a DR erosion system, which is a lot of bookkeeping for everyone involved.

Just as the current variant rules have, I intend to provide for ways to bypass DR. Like I said, going for history authenticity. In history, as swords became more and more useless against armor, swords were either modified, or new weapons invented that managed to make more of a dent. I believe I have been very clear so far that I am not talking about a system of blanket DR, have I not?

Example of skewed Armor0Dr mechanics:
Fighter fights Dragon. Dragon has +12 to hit. Fighter has 26 armor. Dragon deals 16 damage on hits. Hits only 30% of the time. Damage per round is roughly 5.
Under Armor=Dr rules, Fighters Ac is 17, but his DR is 10. Dragon deals 6 damage on hits. Hits roughly 75% of the time. Damage per round is roughly 5. Looking good so far?

Fighter fights Goblin. Goblin has +4 to hit. Fighter has 26 armor. Goblin deals 4 damage on hits. Hits only 5% of the time. Damage per round is roughly 0.25 (Remember to multiply by the amount of goblins :) )
Under Armor=Dr rules, Fighters Ac is 17, but his DR is 10. Goblin deals 0 damage on hits. Too bad for the goblin.
This last example isn't too far off from historic examples of how armor worked. Putting armor in its historical context, one would not be terribly surprised at a goblin sized creature with small weapons being utterly ineffective against a fully armored knight. There are cases of a few dozen knights standing against several hundred opponents (twice the height of goblins) with virtually no casualties among the knights. Because good armor actually worked really well. Goblins in that scenario would have to land lucky shots in weak spots (critical hits) or overwhelm the armored opponent and peel his armor off. Or of course they could use weapons designed to attack armored opponents (not a new concept in this thread though). To me that is dramatically more authentic than the current system or the variant system in Ultimate Combat of which Etacolibre so kindly reminded me.

Theres other stuff behind the issue too, but iv´e got class to attend. Please give the armor=Dr system a try before you make a final decision about it, you never truly understand things till you try them out. To repeat what I said in the OP, and then repeated to Etacolibre, I have given the armor as DR system a try. I liked it somewhat, but feel I want to play with it some more.

Replies inserted in bold.

I'm somewhat puzzled by the replies I've received so far. Despite stating my familiarity with the existing armor as DR variant rules in the OP, it's been repeatedly suggested I check out that system first. I'm being told what I'm trying to do is complicated. I'm being told it will slow down combat.

That last concern: it will slow down combat, seems like a legitimate concern, so I'll address that. If I work the defense and DR values into the character sheets, I believe that will resolve most of this concern. I have a fairly good grasp of which weapons do piercing/slashing/bludgeoning damage, so I honestly can't see that adding any time to combat. But as I get more complicated than that with how types of spells will be affected and calculating differences between enchantments on weapons vs armor, it may indeed slow things down.

Ultimately, I'm not saying it's a perfect idea though. I'm saying I like the extra authenticity, and I want to see if it's worth it to add the extra bit to my game sessions. And what's the worst that will happen? I'll either decide it's too much trouble, or I, and my players, may end up really liking it. It doesn't hurt to try, and I had posted here in hopes of getting any insights into bettering the ideas I've presented.

But if your intention is to just post here to tell me "why bother?", then I ask you the same thing. If you don't want a system like this in your game, then relax, I'm not changing your game.

But if any of you have some helpful advice, I am curious.

I've been researching historical weapons and armor recently, and the more I learn the more I feel the rules systems for most RPGs just don't grasp the concept.

I've looked at the variant rules: armor as damage reduction, but I feel that still somewhat misses the mark in some aspects, and completely misses it in others.

I'm determined to write up my own variant rules, and would like to toss out my rough ideas so far to see if I can gain more insights through this community.

Here's a link to the google document where I'm drafting this up: Revision: Armor as DR

And here's what I've written up so far:
Assumptions Behind Revision

1) Different armors and shields were more or less effective against different types of weapons. Just as an example, any metal armor tended to be extremely effective against any kind of slashing attack.
2) Many weapons were designed and used specifically with the purpose in mind of doing more damage to armored opponents
3) Weapons were regularly used both defensively and offensively, not either/or. Bonuses to defensive and offensive capabilities depended on several factors, including:

  • user’s skill (BAB or ½ BAB added to Defense value? Weapon training?)
  • weapon length (longer weapons have slight? moderate? large? advantage over shorter ones?)
  • other design considerations (some weapons, like flails, just weren’t designed to parry well at all)
    sundering weapons

4) Armor should provide protection against many non-weapon based attacks:
  • a blast of fire to bare flesh should obviously hurt more than flesh encased in metal
  • being encased in metal should make electricity hurt a lot less (eg. a tesla cage)

5) Just as there should be measures to bypass armor DR, there should also be counter measures (which can get expensive and require you to anticipate specific dangers):
  • ghost touch armor
  • radiant energy armor
  • bug repellent :D

And GMs should come up with creative new ways to bypass DR.
6) There are weak spots in armor. But weak spot does not mean no armor. A critical hit should treat damage as being dealt against armor of a lesser category (heavy becomes medium, medium becomes light, and light armor ignored on a crit), and a confirmed vorpal hit (or double vorpal?) should ignore armor DR altogether.
7) While many damage based spells should be less effective against armored opponents, not all should, and spell selection should become more of a priority.

Some of the Questions to Work Out

1) Magic weapon vs magic armor: how much DR is ignored per difference in weapon enhancement number above armor enhancement number?
2) Does the critical defense check really make sense? The target’s ability to defend their self is already taken into account in their defense total, why are they defending their self a second time just because the attack is worse?
3) Why does adamantine completely ignore armor DR? Does a little more hardness really make that kind of difference?
4) Additional bonuses to either DR or Defense that scale with BAB?
5) Should force spells ignore armor? Magic armor?

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Charlie George wrote:
That in essence is the rub. I could agree with your perspective on good, but I am lost as to how mechanics can measure that with any degree of accuracy.

That is a critical distinction. Goblinworks already thinks they can develop meaningful game mechanics that will determine good vs evil. It's not really up to us as players to agree or disagree with what they say good and evil is in Golarion, but to help them troubleshoot when their system misses the mark.

This thread is based on the assumption that there will be a good/evil system in place. If that's the essence of your questions, then back it all the way up and address it to every post in here so far. Or better yet, start a thread discussing what you see to be the major obstacles to designing game mechanics around alignment.

Goblin Squad Member

Sensible suggestions, Bluddwolf.

From the trespasser flag, a system can be designed that responds to how settlements respond to that flag. Settlements who respond by driving out trespassers might experience a shift towards law. And depending on how harshly they deal with trespassers, and whether they discriminate on alignment of trespassers, could easily lead to a system that shifts them towards good or evil based off those responses.

The mercenary flag I think would make most sense if it were applied to entire companies, rather than just individuals.

Merchant...I'm curious to hear how you think that flag would interact with other characters in PvP situations.

Goblin Squad Member

Are you asking me?

I have proposed no new flags. I have proposed only two alternatives to dealing with criminal flags, and I personally lean towards the latter of the two alternatives: fines.

Should I propose a new flag though, it would be one for settlement specific crimes. Settlement leaders would have the ability to declare specific individuals criminal within their borders. If a fines system were also implemented, then said "settlement" criminal could only be fined within that settlement's borders, only for smaller amounts, and fines could only be taken from pools accessible from within the grieving settlement. That would mean NPC banks, so that would create a market for PC run banks, or of course you could just keep all your money on alt characters.

But that's only if I did propose any new flags. So purely hypothetical.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alright, that's progress.

I'm of the opinion that "individual" viewpoints on morality are like "individual" viewpoints on health: just because over one million Americans believe that the only actual cause of cancer is suppressed negative emotions, and just because there are many other very popular and very crackpot theories out there, it doesn't in the least tempt us to believe there isn't a very correct and true answer (whether we yet know said answer or even how to get to it, just that it is there), and that these crackpots are just noise.

But that's reality, and we're discussing video game mechanics.

And we agree that the devs will have a morality system, and that it will be applied to individuals, and that it won't apply differently based off of the individual interpretations each may have of morality.

Killing characters free of justifying tags will be evil, and there will be tags that will justify killing, and I would argue that such situations should not be considered evil by default, and I don't think it will be a challenge to code a game thus.

So I'm saying it should be based off of tags triggered by specific behaviors, and you reply that the devs aren't taking people's individual concepts of morality into consideration, and I don't understand why that's the emphasis of your reply, or even how it matters.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
just that I have not observed them taking individual viewpoints on morality into consideration.

and in response:

A good/evil alignment system is, by definition, a morality system.

Since the developers ARE going to implement an alignment system, and since they HAVE given examples of what will be good and evil, then you have indeed seen them taking morality into consideration.

You can leave the conversation if you wish; what I said was for clarification for all.

I also think we're making plenty progress with the conversation. Maybe time will help to see it that way.

Goblin Squad Member

A good/evil alignment system is, by definition, a morality system.

Good v evil is morality. Law v chaos is how we respond to it. Alignment is where our personal tendencies lie.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax Charlie George wrote:

Evil is only fairly judged by the context of the game environment. The developers have been clear that alignment is not a subjective matter in Golarion, but a god(dess) overseen set of behaviors.

So far we have been led to believe killing outside of feuds, war, crime, and factions is an evil act. I would argue it has been presented as a chaotic act as well, and therefore a possible chain on those wishing to remain lawful as well.

Given what we have, I don't know if the realism or personal morality argument will be persuasive.

It doesn't have to be subjective. A career criminal will have plenty of flags related to good/evil, law/chaos, reputation, and criminal actions vs settlements and individuals to make it extremely straight forward to ascertain whether a kill is good, evil, or neutral (as in wars or self defense).

If the programmers can't sort out something that simple, then there's no reason to believe they're even going to attempt an alignment system at all.

If that truly is your belief, then that is a completely separate discussion. This thread is built on the assumption, including the original post, that alignment and morality will matter to players and game designers, and that there will be ways to flag it. If they're all wrong about it, as you claim, that's a big discussion. Likely one for it's own thread.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I strongly disagree with one of the foundational assertions off of which this is based: "killing is an evil act".

Disclaimer: I intend to play an evil character who will do my fair share of evil killing.

Evil is acting contrary to compassion. Is it more evil to kill one murderer or to allow the murderer to walk free and kill many others? To truly act on compassion, you must choose to take some kind of action against murderers that will result in less killing overall.

This thread proposes that not only do law enforcers do less to stop the killing, but that law enforcement now give criminals a heads up that they're coming for them. So it penalizes stealth and surprise among bounty hunters.

The only argument for bounty hunters or other forms of law enforcement not needing to kill a criminal should be imprisonment or fines.

Imprisonment: character locked away for several days. Not popular from a developer point of view: you want players playing more, not less.

Fines: Lawgiver takes what's on the corpse - that's nothing new - but the system also siphons extra cash out of the fallen criminal's secret stores, be they in hideouts or in lawful banks.

1 to 50 of 1,483 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.