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

DendasGarrett's page

Goblin Squad Member. 68 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Was this ever answered? Looking at this build and curious for some clarification.

Goblin Squad Member

Real Quick...

As a bonus for writing background stories I always grant my players (in my PnP games) traits. These traits are never game-changing, but they add flavor and make each character a little more unique. I dont see why GW cant offer something similar with PFO, having a list of traits that can be selected depending on which region you are from.

From Cheliax? You can start with a better relation to Azmodeus Cult, or have improved demon summoning.

From Varisia? You get a slight bump to your trade skill, or your perform skill.

Raised in Lastwall? Bonus fighting orcs and undead, or a bonus to the temple of Iomedae.

I am also partially available to DM an online game. I say partially because my schedule is pretty full, but I might be able to make some time if anyone wants to run a few sessions, or is interested in learning the system. (PM me)

Goblin Squad Member

gbonehead wrote:
I have to say, the amount that PVP is getting highlighted in all these discussions is not giving me high hopes; I was hoping for something more in the spirit of how our group likes to play Pathfinder (PCs as a team, GM as the one enabling the game), but this looks like it's going to very much evolve into an "us vs. them" scenario.

I cannot say as to how the game will look when it is finished, but what has been described so far is the spirit of a sand-box MMO. To get a MMO that feels more like a tabletop game (a DM walking you through challenges with the hope that you will win) you would need to play a theme-park style MMO.

So in that manner, yes, PFO breaks from PFRPG. However, Goblin Works has decided not to focus on the "a DM walking you through challenges with the hope that you will win" portion of PFRPG, but rather on the "open world, you can go anywhere, do anything, live a fantasy life" aspect of PFRPG.

I know that does not appeal to everyone, its just up to you as to what you like. There are plenty of (relatively) good theme-park MMO's out there, I'm just glad we are getting a (hopefully) good sand-box MMO.

Nihimon wrote:

If you can separate the character you're playing as a GM from "you", then why can't you separate the character you're playing as a player from "you"?

If you're the GM, playing a character in a duel with a player, and you're trying to succeed, and you fail, how is that not "you" failing?

I understand that you're not emotionally invested in the character the same way you would be if you thought of it as "yours", and that may be all the explanation needed to answer my question, but I'm trying to point out that it's really just a viewpoint change.

As a player you want to win, as a GM you want the player to win. In either role way you can separate character from player, but it has nothing to do with that, it is about each participants wants.

Goblin Squad Member

Nostrus wrote:
While it might break immersion, I'd rather have the ability to 'quickly' navigate the world to see the things I want to see and do over spending one or more nights traversing the world.

I both agree, and heavily disagree with this statement. I agree that fast traveling does make it easier and allow players more time to experience what they want, however the thought of "I would like to see X, so I am going to spend a few days traveling to X" makes me cringe with excitement. (Yes, I said cringe with excitement.)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

I'm not sure how much of your post is tongue-in-cheek, but I've often wondered how the map for PFO will expand...

Will the original starting area forever be the north-west limit of the map? Will it be the center?

I wonder how much the answer would impact how players choose where to try to build their Settlements/Kingdoms...

Ryan did say that they were not going to allow player settlements and kingdoms at launch, and not for awhile after. Hopefully we/they get a good picture of what the expansion route for the map will be before they come available. Otherwise, this is a very good point. Major suckage would ensure if you built your mighty kingdom on the edge of the map that never expanded, and your rival kept getting expanded land next to theirs.

Goblin Squad Member

Kradlum wrote:
What do clerics taste like?

They taste like griffon. Everything taste like griffon though.

Goblin Squad Member

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
It was nice having a game about being just a citizen in the universe, not "teh one last greatest bestest hope for freedom and justice evar". Ran a small hunting business on talus, worked on taking down the empire (tho they did fail in that world PvP was just cosmetic), paid off the cost of my ship, and lived the life. It worked for me!

+1(00 if I could). This is the exact theory that many (300k, not 15mil) want in their MMO. Lets hope that GW isn't scared away by the prospect of only 300k (fervent) subscribers.

Goblin Squad Member

Sebastian wrote:
Nihimon wrote:

Why is this any different than trying to start up a guild of people who live in Texas?

Because no one would ever be impressed by someone living in Texas.

Zinger! and unfortunately true...

Goblin Squad Member

"Regular"? Im just highly irregular :P Hopefully I can get more involved as the game approaches. *mumble mumble family mumble*

Goblin Squad Member

Carindel wrote:
Goblin filth! With my twin blades, I shall strike thee down in the name of Abadar the Law Giver. You shall not crush civilization. For where there is a wrong done unto the least of man, there I shall be, to exact revenge. May Pharasma reject my soul if I depart this vow!

Take the pally's shiny armor!

Goblin Squad Member

Fighter. Guard for those who need it.

Goblin Squad Member


I wish....

Goblin Squad Member

Breezly wrote:

You naysayers out there can twist my intentions to make it seem like I am an elitist, out to take advantage of the gifts that were presented. But that is not the intention, despite the greater wisdom that the 'internet' knows about me.



Hey Bart,

Dont take my words for more then they are. I fully realize that your intentions were nothing more than to have fun with others, but take it from someone who has had trouble feeding his kid in the past, money can be a touchy subject, specially when some people are kept out of organizations for not having it.

But that doesn't matter, you just wanted to have fun, we all support the game, so I apologize if Ive made the experience worse for you.

Just so you know, I'm 100% cool with any sort of guilds being created, and I don't think you did anything wrong here.

So 250ers, get organized, find a good name, and prepare for battle, cause us 75ers are gonna be controlling most the map. :P

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

Why is this any different than trying to start up a guild of people who live in Texas?

You're complaining about him unintentionally making you feel bad because you have less spending money than he does, but then turn around and intentionally try to make him feel bad for having more? Sorry, that doesn't seem right to me.

A guild of people who live in Texas, now that's a good idea! :P

The difference is that most people are not ashamed of which state they live in, but many are of how much money they make.

Yes, you could say that I was trying to make him feel bad (which ironically you just did the same to everyone else who made a similar comment in this thread), but I just honestly found it strange that someone could not see how this could be offensive to others.

Stormrazor2000 wrote:
I see your point, but then I honestly think it is being a bit overly sensitive. I mean if this is insulting, then Paizo better not create those special founder icons that are part of the level. Are folks going to feel insulted every time they see that icon on the messageboard, or when they aren't considered a Goblinworks "Founder"? For that matter would the guild name be less insulting if it was called the "Founders?"

Very good points. However these is a difference between a third party saying "hey, thanks for giving us X much money", and a first party saying "hey, I gave X much money."

I know that was not the intention of this thread, and I apologize if we have hijacked it (then drove it into a ditch). Money is always a touchy subject, same as race and religion. Thats my point.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm sorry, but you really didn't think that this would be marginally insulting to people? There are lots of ways to join up with other gamers without making people feel bad about not having as much spending money as you.

How about this, a guild for people who like the color blue. There, now if someone wants to join all they have to do is change their viewpoints about the color blue, its a choice to them you see. It is not something that is completely out of their control and can be (historically)considered embarrassing.

Goblin Squad Member

Dang-it, were did I put my rusty cleaver?!

Goblin Squad Member

100% agree. I never imagined that I would spend hours upon hours of gaming sitting (standing) in a cantina, playing music with other musicians and dancers, but SWG made it fun to do and worthwhile. That game should be an inspiration for any sand-box MMO.

Also, check out SWGEMU to relive the old times.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm guessing they will at least keep the PDF for sell since very little overhead is needed to do so.

If a PDF works for you.

Goblin Squad Member

JakBlitz wrote:
I am sure they will figure out reason enough for people to be able to survive there at low levels. Might be having to join up with a faction for protection. It can be done without messing up the Lawless feel of the city.

I had the same idea, he mentioned a thieves guild that was "offering protection" (I think the exact word was extorting). Would be interesting to pay for protection.

Goblin Squad Member

Did anyone ever play LOTRO? I never did much, but as I understand it they had a system were players could play orc/goblins etc... but only as opposition to other players in PVP.

I have seen some stuff on LARPing systems, where new people can play for free as long as they play the random monsters, while others have to pay to play persistent heroes.

The point being, I wonder if GW could implement a similar but slightly more in-depth system where a player could choose to play 'monster' races, but they would spawn at monster camp locations and would be opposed to all other players. Possibly even give those players more control over what the monster camps would do.

I know it would be very hard to balance, and comes with its own slew of problems (greifing galore, using monsters to attack your enemies without consequences), but it could satisfy some player's desire to play monster races and produce more/higher quality random sandbox material.

Besides that I am not too sure how you would balance having powerful races mixed in with the 'normal' ones, though the ideas above are good. Just like in a certain tabletop game that is similar to pathfinder, some races are more powerful so choosing ones causes you to level slower.

Goblin Squad Member

I do like this idea for many reason in addition to those mentioned by Doctor Carrion.

1. The more 'regular' NPCs there are, the more the players get to feel like heroes. (Without 2/3rds of the worlds population being a 'hero', like WOW where 75% of the worlds population (pc and npcs included) run around in uberepicteir17 armor.)

2. Allows player settlements to use NPCs as guards (cause lets face it, most PCs aint gonna do it.)

3. Large scale battles become more tactical and less slug-fests.

4. This-

Nihimon wrote:
The nice thing about having NPC armies is that you then have to move them around the map, which opens up opportunities for strategic-level feints.

5. Opens up many viable options for players to play 'commander/leader' classes, who can enhance or control NPC combatants.

6. Battlefront is great. My wife loves to play that game with me because she feels like she can actually do something, but she will not touch Halo or many other FPSs. The point being, a system like this widens the market to people who don't like ultra-competitive games.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:

Then you still don't agree with me. I agree with them being more or less evil. It can get complicated, but painting it with the broad stroke of evil, fine.

Where I take issue is in automatically attaching the "criminal" tag which has serious implications in the game and was originally designed to prevent people from running around in lawful areas griefing people.

DendasGarrett wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
I will be sorely disappointed if we can't use at least two of the classifications described by the CIA: The target knows that someone is trying to kill him, and you must make it appear that he died of something other than assassination.
For the sake of assassins in the game I hope they make it possible to perform an assassination without getting tagged as a criminal. That way people can have fun using their skills to get away with it. Still evil though...

I agree with that as well, and I never said anything to the contrary... I think in lawless areas assassinations should not be considered criminal, and it lawful areas a skilled assassin can kill without getting hit with the criminal tag.

Blaeringr wrote:
And you didn't need to memorize the blog - I repeatedly made the same point over and over and over and over to you. I've quoted form the blog, explained it to you, as well as to others, and you continued and persisted and plodded along and endured and abided and lingered and persevered in ignoring the point over and over.

My deepest and most sincere apologies for not catching on earlier. It must be very frustrating for you to have to talk with such unintelligent people like me....

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
DendasGarrett wrote:

Remember, assassination contract will be taken out against people who did not kill the person offering the contract, otherwise the person would be offering a bounty.

This, I think is where the disconnect lies. Accourding to the initial Blog post about Bounties. A Bounty is ONLY available if the killing occurs within the LEGAL JURISDICTION of a settlement that has laws against murder.

Not just in the blog. I have stated the same repeatedly in this and the other thread on the topic. I'm getting really close to violating forum rules about personal attacks.

I'm going to take a breather. Too much illiteracy in the air.

Oops! I just did it. Oh well, time to go cool my head off.

Sorry, I have read the blog, but not had time to memorize it. Then yes, I agree with you that forcing assassinations to be evil while not offering a non-evil alternative to them doesn't seem like a good idea.

But despite my limited free time and therefore inability to memorize everything Mr. Dancy says, my previous post still make a valid point about the way I think things should be. Assassinations as a tool for greed and gain, bounties as a tool of defense and safety.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:

You don't see that your scope is not fine because you continue to miss the difference between lawful and non lawful areas as described in the blogs.

You can't arrest people who commit attack others as bandits outside of lawful areas. So just as you justify the need for a bounty hunter to kill, so the same justification fits an assassination contract.

Blaeringr wrote:
Just got jumped by a bunch of bandits?

Well they probably killed you, so you can use a bounty...

Blaeringr wrote:
They're plaguing your trade routes?

Contract for guards...

Blaeringr wrote:
Want to hire a bounty hunter to punish those bandits?

Yes, I would rather GW widen the parameters for hiring bounty hunter than make assassination the one-stop-fix-it-shop. Allow bounties to be put on people who steal your shipments, or on people who even only attacked you and didnt kill you. That way the line between protection, defense, and safety, is not blurred with greed, murder, and attacking.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
I will be sorely disappointed if we can't use at least two of the classifications described by the CIA: The target knows that someone is trying to kill him, and you must make it appear that he died of something other than assassination.

For the sake of assassins in the game I hope they make it possible to perform an assassination without getting tagged as a criminal. That way people can have fun using their skills to get away with it. Still evil though...

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:

But you discuss the difference between bounty hunting and assassination. And given the parameters they have given us, the only solid difference that always applies is law, not morality.

Your approach makes sense in a world where law is omni present, but that is not the case for PFO. And "killing for money", in lawful or lawless areas is what bounty hunters, law enforcement guards, and mercenaries all do. So you need to find a different scope in which to discuss the points you're trying to make.

Bounty hunters arrest people, as do law enforcement, if at all possible. Now in this game were arrest are non-existent then it is understandable that Bounty Hunting would not be an evil act since it is the only form of retribution against someone who has already committed a crime. Remember, assassination contract will be taken out against people who did not kill the person offering the contract, otherwise the person would be offering a bounty.

As far as mercenaries go... as I stated in my first post, killing during wartime is a less-evil act, since there is a good chance you are killing in defense of something. Therefore most mercenaries are not considered evil. If they are hired to take out a defenseless village however, then yes, they would be.

So no, my scope is fine. The only reason bounty hunters and law enforcers fall into the same category as assassins in this game is because of the lack of the ability to arrest people.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:

Assassination is frequently a means of upholding law. It historically has more to do with law than otherwise. And your brush is broader than you think.

In the game setting being discussed in particular, assassination will play a role of enforcing law in lawless areas where bounties are irrelevant. GW has made it clear bounty hunting only works for the people killing others in lawful areas. The killers will quickly learn to just wait for them to leave those small regions into the other 99% of the game. Who's going to uphold law there? Someone kills you in the wilds, bounties won't be an option. The only way to punish them is assassination.

Again, I stand by my comment that you still hold to some misconceptions.

Ok, now that you explain yourself I understand what misconception you were talking about. But once again, my argument was never for or against lawfulness. I was arguing morality.

(To me) It doesn't matter where the assassination occurs; whether in a lawful or lawless area, killing for money is still evil. Now if you want to say that the assassination was not done for money, but just as a means to uphold the "law" (even in a lawless area were assassination is the only means of law), then I would argue that it is then not an assassination, at least not in this game's terms.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
And the soldiers who assassinated Bin Laden? They didn't get the 25 mil reward because it was their job, but it was technically an assassination. You are painting the word "assassination" with far too broad a brush... ...Can we please have an end to all this mis-information about assassination. Clear up the distinction between assassination and banditry in your minds, people. It's a frackin epidemic of misconception here today...

Im sorry, what is the misconception?

Im painting the word assassination with a fairly thin brush, you must have misconceived what I was saying. Law has little to do with assassination, and I agree with your latter comments that this discussion should have little to do with law, and more to do with morals.

But I fail to see how what I said is a misconception? All I said was that when you kill another sentient being for profit, then it is an evil act. GW wants to make 'bounty hunting' non-evil because the bounty is on someone who has already committed murder. That still doesn't make killing someone alright, and the only reason GW does not make 'bounty hunting' illegal as well is because there is no other options for punishing players (currently) besides killing them.

Goblin Squad Member

The reason assassination is considered evil is because of the money. You are taking a life for no other reason than the fact that you are getting paid. Yes, Leon the Professional was evil (imo) if he killed people he did not know just to receive money.

Now, if it is wartime and you kill someone of the opposing force, and just happen to get paid for it, then I do not see a reason why that would be inherently evil. GW could put parameters into the game so that fulfilling assassination contracts again war-time opposing forces is not evil.

However I fully support the idea that killing another human(dwarf, elf, halfling, etc..) for nothing more than money, despite whether that human is good or evil, is an evil act.

If you are a Paladin killing an evil Wizard for the good of man-kind, then that is not evil, but you don't get paid for it.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancy wrote:
Completing this contract is a criminal, evil act that will result in an alignment shift.

If you want to make this game really fun for assassins, make parameters so that the contract can be completed without becoming criminal. Meaning if they do it without being seen and without leaving any trace, then they only receive an alignment shift but do not become a criminal.

I realize this would be extremely hard if not impossible to program into the game, but still.... ffffuuunnnn....

Goblin Squad Member

Elth wrote:
I would love for there to be a UI interface that allowed me to place an item into a reward box, select what is required to be eligible for said reward and then set my character to NPC mode while I go afk for five or ten minutes or even go offline. A player could walk upto my PC read what task I need done and decide whether the reward is worth the effort. If they choose to do the task, my character would cease to offer the task/contract to anyone else or I might be able to set a limit to how much reward and I cease to offer the quest once that limit is reached.
Ryan Dancy wrote:
Other contracts may be posted on centralized notice boards, and will be visible when a character visits the location of that board.

I think that is the point of notice boards. Put something up, return a day later to find a hoard of goods waiting for you.

Valkenr wrote:
One Concern, I don't like the guard contract. I would not like to see any mechanic in the game that suggests or requires a player to be in-game for a specific time-frame.

I think most of these will occur in real time, meaning you will be offered this contract while you are online, and it will just require that you stay online for X amount of time until the job is completed. If you can only stay online for Y amount of time, the player offering the contract can either rework the contract to suite you, or try to find someone else.

Goblin Squad Member

Keep the crossbow effective for what it was... a ranged weapon for non-ranged-specialist. The easiest way to so this is to make the crossbow a pick-up-and-shoot sort of weapon, and require training to (properly) use a bow.

In other words, it would be a weapon for that Cleric or Fighter who doesn't want to sink skills into archery, but occasionally needs a ranged weapon for sieges or ambushes or what-not. It does decent damage, is easy to use, and is good for 1 shot of an ambush, or multiple shots for prolonged missile exchanges.

If you want crossbows to be an alternative to bows for ranged-specialist... I don't think that is realistic (or cool).

Now, where is the thread on making thrown weapons more viable? :)

Goblin Squad Member

"Mbando wrote:
I'm trying to get at what Onishi is getting at--if you lump common actions in with class abilities, than the body/melee types are drawing from the same pool more often than caster and range types, which is an imbalance.

Why would the body/melee type be drawing more from this pool than a caster or ranged? Casting a spell or firing at ranged takes effort too. Go swing a sword at a tree, then go fire a bow at a tree and see if they dont take the same effort for the same amount of hits. (I would also say to go cast some spells at a tree, but...)

The point being; every action takes effort; melee, ranged, casting, dodging, blocking, running. Therefore all classes rely on the same limited 'fatigue' pool to be able to do whatever their class has the ability to do.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

I would rather see them give the player the option of either:

1. Casting very powerful spells only rarely; or
2. Casting weaker spells more often.

Not to drown you in Elder Scroll references, but in Skyrim you have the ability to charge your spells to higher degrees. So you can quickly cast a spell (lets say fireball) to do small amount of damage, or you can charge the spell for a few seconds and cast a massive fireball that does high damage.

This could also work with the Fatigue system you had suggested, with the higher charges draining more fatigue, to help with balance.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

I can easily play a Wizard who doesn't really do much damage at all. In fact, I was quite inspired when I sat down with Pathfinder_OGC to try to create a Wizard, and I simply fell in love with the idea of an Elven Wizard, Divination specialist with Necromancy and Evocation as opposition schools, and the Scroll Scholar alternate archetype.

I agree. Hopefully GW will build magic schools into their skill system, so that when you take the Wizard route, you have the option to specialize in the different schools of magic. Enchantment can be just as big an advantage on the battlefield as Evocation.

MBando wrote:
The "useless until they recharge/rest" part of your post only makes sense in tabletop, where time is notional.

The problem here is that in PFRPG or D&D, wizards rule the game. They can deal more damage than a barbarian on steroids (specially to large groups of foes), can sneak as good as a rogue (invisibility and silence anyone?), and can take damage like a fighter (stoneskin, nuff' said.)

They balance this awesomeness with 3 things; limited spells per day, pre-selection of daily spells, and spell component cost. So either PFO needs to keep a similar system of balance, or they need to seriously decrease the power of the spells.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:

Lets say there is a major fight, that takes the party to the brink. The cleric and wizard are mentally exhausted but physically fine, the fighter and rogue are physically exhausted. They collect the goods from the battle, and low and behold another strong monster comes, or a group of bandits pop out of the bushes. The cleric and wizard can sprint away just not fight. The fighter and rogue are sitting ducks, as not only can't they fight in this exhuastion, but they can't run either.

I believe the original idea is to have all abilities drain from the stamina bar. Therefor casting also drains the stamina bar, and in the situation above the wizard is just as much a sitting duck as the fighter.

I believe Nihimon was suggesting one stamina bar and all physical actions drain from this resource. (Casting a spell is also considered a physical action.) However the type of action changes how much is drained depending on your Con Dex and Wis (or some other factor, but we will go with those 3 for now.)

So for instance...

A) Wizard- Con(10), Dex(12), Wis(15). Casting drains 5 stamina, dodging drains 11 stamina, Melee fighting drains 16 stamina.

B) Rogue- Con(12), Dex(18), Wis (12). Casting (if multi-classed)drains 11 stamina, dodging drains 4 stamina, melee fighting drains 11 stamina.

C) Fighter- Con(17), Dex(14), Wis(9). Casting (if multi-classed)drains 18 stamina, dodging drains 8 stamina, melee fighting drains 4 stamina.

Now this is not to say that there could not also be a mana bar, or a 'rage' bar as well to help limit the use of other powerful abilities.

Skyrim has a system like this, as will the new Elder Scrolls Online. I like the idea as it both realistic and adds another level of strategy to combat.

EDIT: Also keep in mind that things like heavy armor, heavy weapons, and more powerful magic will be a modifier for stamina usage. So despite a fighter's higher Con score, if he is wearing heavy armor and a wizard is wearing robes, sprinting may take the same stamina from both of them.

Goblin Squad Member

The refresh time for spells would have to be either very short or under the player's control. Very few people are going to play spell-caster heavy characters if they can only play the game (effectively) for 30 minutes before running out of spells and then have to wait hours to get them back.

In the table top its "oh, I'm out of spells, we need to rest for the night guys," 8 actual seconds later, "Ok, I'm good to go!"

In PFO it would be "oh, I'm out of spells, you guys have fun, I will be back online in 2 hours when my spells are back."

Something with a rest button (with the "reuse" timer that I thought was a good idea) may work. Possibly their could just be much longer cooldowns on higher level spells (30 sec for 3rd level spells, 10 minutes for 9th level spells, etc..) Otherwise they could always go with the traditional mana bar...

If the purpose of limited spells is to keep people from spamming their most powerful magic (which of course it is), then as an addition to forcing them to rest they could always implement spell component cost, just like in the table top. Not 100% sure how to balance it, but it could be used to make player's think twice before casting that 9th level spell at a group of gnolls...

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
AvenaOats wrote:

I don't mean Pathfinder Online should be literally EvE: That is not possible. But if you are designing combat, you have:

1. Fast twitch actiony: Standard-bearer for MMOs: Tera (let's say)
2. Tab-Target: WoW standard-bearer
3. Slower tactical category [...?]
4. Full turn-based: eg Dofus flies the flag...

...I might be more open if someone could site a game with combat paced slower than WoW, but not turn based, that is fun. The games I know of with such combat are Runescape, Wurm, and EVE. That is not a very good list when it comes to engaging/fun combat....

The only game I can think of it the original, single player Star Wars Knight of the Old Republic. It was built off of the d20 system and could be played in real-time, although the combat happened in a turn-based system. I am not sure that this could, or should, be carried over to an MMO, but if they wanted to stick closer to d20 it is a semi-viable option.

Andius wrote:
Just like someone who only plays a game to fight, doesn't care if the crafting is mediocre or sub par. Of course you don't, that is not your preferred content.

It would be great if both systems (combat/crafting) could be polished into perfection, but the reality of it is that GW only has so much time and resources. As far as I am concerned, the combat will be good enough as long as it is not frustrating.

The reason being, I would rather GW spend their limited time working on systems that make combat worthwhile in a grander sense. Work on the crafting system and the resource system, work on the player settlements and the political system, work on things that make me want to win combat not simply because combat is fun, but because there is something at stake.

As a comparison, look at the Total War line of games (I am a huge Rome: Total War fan.) There are two aspect to those games; the empire building, and the combats. The combats are fun by themselves, and very occasionally I will play a random battle with a randomly built army against another randomly built army were nothing is at stake besides the combat. However, during those combat I am unmotivated to win because I gain nothing if I do so.

However, when I play a combat during a gran campaign, were my Roman Legions are fighting off the invading Germanic tribes bent on destroying my cities, then there is a real purpose to the combat, and because of that the combat just became 1000% more intense and engaging.

I want the same thing for combat here. I want them to make it fun, but I do not want them to spend unneeded time polishing it when they could make it more engaging and intense by working on other aspects of the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Hudax wrote:
DendasGarrett wrote:
The point being, an item degradation system, whether by item use or by death penalty, would give crafting characters much more to do, as would loosing more items on death. It is systems like this and those implemented in SWG that create fun to play non-combat roles within the games economy.
That is the intention. However, compared to the loss of a caravan transporting materials or dungeon loot, the loss of incidentals in your backpack like bread or bandages seems meaningless, which makes the loss seem pointless.

Unless those items are created by crafting professions as well. Even WOW has players who can create food and bandages, so it is not out of the realm of possibilities. Now, losing bread and bandages (5gp) is nothing compared to a cart full of mithral (4kgp), but having to replace those items would give low-level crafting characters something to do (you don't start by making mithral breastplates after all.)

I would prefer item degradation, possibly even tying in to the RPG by giving items the "broken" condition that can only be removed by getting it repaired by a sufficiently advanced smithy.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Mbando wrote:
Anyways, I'd be interested to hear what GW's rationale for the A system is.
...He also mentions that PvP content is driving the PvE economy. When items are lost, that means crafters have work to replace those items. I think that means there might not be any item wear - that part of a normal game economy will be covered by the loss of items through PvP and other deaths where we don't recover our bodies...

One of my favorite parts of Star Wars Galaxies was the permanent damage that could only be healed by seeing a doctor (in a hospital) or by recuperating in a bar by watching entertainment (dancers/musicians). This created an entire economy for doctors and entertainers; characters that could spend their entire gaming lifetime never entering battle but still have fun mastering their crafts.

The point being, an item degradation system, whether by item use or by death penalty, would give crafting characters much more to do, as would loosing more items on death. It is systems like this and those implemented in SWG that create fun to play non-combat roles within the games economy.

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:

Fast Travel:...

...Sometimes all the horses are in high demand and you have to wait for a new one to come in ...

Death Penalty:...
If you lose your corpse too much you are reincarnated as a dog or cat or "lower animal for a time" and need to perform karma actions such as chases rats or helping as a dog...

HAHA, great ideas, if not only for the humor/humiliation of being turned into a dog for awhile. Immersion and humor!

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
DendasGarrett wrote:
Hrm, maybe we can coin a new word: Greavers! (Meant to evoke images of Griefers and Reavers)

And best idea of the day goes to Nihimon. Now if only GW could develop a system where greifers are turned into greavers, and other players can hunt them down for the animals they are.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Andius wrote:
... you can then give them your stuff and die. Free teleport.
Is it reasonable to propose that, instead of "reviv[ing] at a specific location", we become incorporeal spirits at the place of our death instead? Then, we would have to get back to a reasonable revive point the same way we would have to if we were alive. It might be a little weird if the only way to initiate Fast Travel requires communicating with an NPC, but it would certainly remove the temptation to use death as a free teleport.
Yes. In-fact that might be better as it would allow you to avoid soulstones you know are being camped.

I agree with your original idea Andius, force re-spawn the closest location, for protection those re-spawn points just need to be inside temples :)

However, Nihimon's idea one does have merit as well; I guess being forces to run a decent distance is a form of death penalty.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Gruffling

Gruffling wrote:

as for fast travel, it may bend immersion, but its so standard a feature in MMOs already, and as long as there is risk involved (as its been described, there is), i really see that as an essential feature, and also as described, if you're not interested in using it, you have some significant advantages available to you if you stay off the horse.

my 2 cents

One more cent and we got a nickle! :)

I dont fully buy the "if you dont like it, dont use it" explanation for fast travel. In a single player game it makes some sense, but in a multilayer game it just significantly slows down your character progression (depending on how often traveling across the map is necessary to said development...)

As far as a comparison of risks; I doubt that the random hideout will be more trouble than walking across vast distances populated by who know what mobs, pvp junkies, and grievers. Not to mention, if bandits are in the area of a road and their hideout spots you fast traveling, then it is likely they those same bandits will spot you 'slow' traveling as well.

Of course, we dont know the specifics of fast traveling anyway; does it remove you from the world except for ambush encounters? or do you simply move much faster but are still susceptible to attacks from mobs and the like.

As far as death penalties go, I agree for more is better (for multiple reasons), just not sure the exact formula. The problem there is that many players think the opposite way, and having too steep a penalty could hurt game subscriptions, and we all want this game to grow to its full potential.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
The lack of a meaningful death penalty, not to mention the proposal of being relatively able to flee most conflicts, is sided in a way as to strongly favor banditry.

What we are proposing would be a heavy death penalty coupled with the ability escape or otherwise avoid death. Therefore (sane) players would only ever stick around in combat when something is at stake, such as IRL.

Goblin Squad Member

There are a few games with well developed tools. Bethesda does a good job of these, just look at the extensive player-made content available for Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim. I do not think it out of the realm of possibility for the developers to be able to create the toolset.

The system could have checks and balances against exploitation; limited loot, developer approval before release, etc...

However, all of that takes alot of time and resources, and I would prefer they concentrate more on the core game; because if the core game is not fun, no one will even want to use the toolset.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
DendasGarrett wrote:
... does anyone think a "ransom" system would work, where, within X minutes from when you die, you can choose to pay the listed coin price for any items looted from your corpse to get them back? The coin would obviously go to whoever looted you.
I would be extremely reluctant to endorse any system which could take an item that had already been looted from a corpse, and take it out of the looter's inventory without their consent.

I see your point, but the exact opposite just happened to the person who died. Also, I expect it is possible to program it so that the items can only be looted, and not sold or traded, until the ransom period is over (which would be less than a minute.) Anyway, just a wild idea, nothing I would heavily promote.

Nihimon wrote:
If the goal is to encourage proper planning, and a modicum of caution when exploring, what mechanics would achieve that goal, even if those mechanics don't directly relate to how death is handled?

That is a good question, and the right one to ask. It could be handled with the development team focusing on giving players more options to avoid death using skilled play or teamwork; such as defensive or escape abilities, negative hitpoint ranges. I am sure there are better options that others can think of as well. That goal being that death never feels completely out of the player's control.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
On the other hand, the deathdodger fighter with more hit points is a better choice for being the tank, but at the risk of not getting the deathdodger bonus this level. A tough choice. :)

Exactly the issue. I am ok with vanity merit badges, but its hard enough to find a good tank as is without giving bonuses to everyone else. You also have to consider characters that never enter combat such as crafters and merchants... should they really have better bonuses than characters who dare to explore and fight?

On the other hand, as I said above, another option is to have a negative hitpoint system, so when the tank goes down the mobs move on to other people, and anyone can stabilize him(or her) and heal him(or her) later, or he(or she) may be able to stabilize himself(or herself). That way it is a nobody dies or everybody dies sort of thing.

A quick thought on item loots... does anyone think a "ransom" system would work, where, within X minutes from when you die, you can choose to pay the listed coin price for any items looted from your corpse to get them back? The coin would obviously go to whoever looted you. Or possibly if mixed with the negative hitpoint system above, when you are knocked into negative hitpoints, you can ransom your life from whoever is about to kill you; be they intelligent mobs/npcs, or other player characters.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
That may well be true, but that's not what Goblinworks wants to build.

Amen. I think that is the answer for this entire thread.

Goblin Squad Member


Good points!

Mbando wrote:

a) Losing gold vice inventory

b) Option to trade penalty off for inconvenience

a) You are 100% correct here, and it is simply a choice for players. As I said above, some people will be ok with paying to keep their inventory if not only to not have the hassle of having to re-obtain everything, even if it is cheaper to just loose some items. I think the key point here is the randomness of the items than are turned into loot. Of course, all equipped items are never lost, however, lets say you have a nice 3k gp gem that you found, and oopsie you die, there is a 10% chance it is gone, or a 10% chance that you are only missing some worthless wolf fangs you picked up. So essentially its a bit of gambling. Also, you may have a really nice pair of magical gloves that you cannot equip until next level (not sure how that system will work), they might be lost, and those things were unique cannot be replaced with money. (Once again let me reiterate that I am ok with the /ragequiters leaving the game, but I would like for Goblinworks to make a hefty profit from this product.)

b)For this I would say that any penalties apply to more than just combat. Trading, crafting, gaining skills, etc...; make the penalty universal so that it is truly something players will want to avoid.

urman wrote:
Deathdodger Merit Badges. When a character gains a class level badge without dying, the character gains a point in the "Deathdodging" attribute. Merit badges are awarded when the character gains sufficient deathdodging points.

I thought about this as well, but it was have to be done with a deft hand. You would not want some players to feel like they have fallen significantly behind because they like to explore solo, or are playing the tank role for the groups. Maybe if it was balanced with something that gave "honorable deaths" bonuses as well (death from fighting 3 dire bears alone while exploring uncharted territory, death from using a taunt ability to protect the group and allowing them to kill the mob, etc...) Would be hard to implement and probably easy to exploit (would have to be capped), but it would be fun!

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.