Lictor Fedryn Mannorac wrote:
Having fewer settlements at the extremes makes sense though. I'd venture that LG/LE would be the two extremes most likely to have their own settlements. CG might not wish to put down roots, instead seeking to right wrongs wherever they are. CE just wouldn't work with one another long enough to establish a settlement.
I gleefully disagree.
I see the potential of CE settlements, their lands spreading like a cancer- supported by gibbering hordes of undead monstrosities.
I have a *potential* problem with the alignment requirements for groups.
Let's say an evil rogue wants to pretend to be a cleric and join a good aligned religion. Said rogue is actually an assassin with a high UMD skill. He uses scrolls and the like to impersonate one of the good guys, gets close to his desired target and slits his throat.
This kind of trickery is extremely fun, as I had a great deal of fun playing a blackguard (antipaladin) in neverwinter nights servers. I bought the shiniest most holy looking set of plate armor I could find, lured my new "friends" to the bottom of a cave and killed them.
An alignment requirement might make this kind of play difficult or impossible. Maybe there could be some kind of fix: Perhaps an item that could effectively hide your alignment, or make it look like a different alignment.
I see the charisma argument, I really do. I always saw CHAR as more of a measure of your force of personality- Something orcs have at least as much as humans.
But cognition? You KNOW that if you breed a human with an orc, odds are the offspring will be dumber than a full human. But these numbers vary and that's why the -2 int modifier works well. Given their human traits, some will become smarter than most full humans- but not many.
I recently learned that in the BETA for pathfinder, Half-Orcs had the following ability scores: +2 STR, +2 Wis, -2 Int. For me, that was much much more true to the nature of what an Half-Orc is than The CRB will ever be. Abnormal Strength, bestial senses and a dim wit. Because PFO won't be a direct translation of rules, I'm really hoping to get my beloved orcs back.
I want to see Half-Orcs portrayed as strong and stupid with generous helpings of ugly. I'd like to get a discussion going to see where the community stands on this.
I'd like to see a bit more speculation and discussion on the archetypes, because blogs about the middleware drama and the nature of in game time and the like ARE informative, but I personally care more about the meat and potatoes of combat and archetypes.
If there were to be a blog entry entitled "Archetype Spotlight: X" where the devs talked about how say, fighters or paladins or sorcerers would play out, I would be on the edge of my seat.
Forgive me, but I was recently inspired by warhammer 40,000.
In 40k there are certain troops that teleport or are summoned into battle. Different armies address this in different ways, but it is often delt with in a manner like this:
-You have your guy who has the power of teleportation. He can let a bunch of men onto the field.
-You take this guy, and others like him (in case he gets killed en route), you put him in a vehicle (or in PFO maybe a horse!) and you RUN him up the field as quickly as possible
-This guy drops his payload and teleports summoned creatures or teleported allies onto the field.
I think that teleportation ought to be relevent in PFO. There are just too many cool tactical uses for it.
Different player organizations should have the right to ban certain archetypes and races as they see fit: After all, a clan of elf hunters should be free of elves. A clan of evil Necromancers should be free of paladins and positive energy clerics. A tree hugger faction should be able to function by using druids in favor of other casters and primitive barbarians in place of their cosmopolitan and well armored fighter counterparts.
I don't think anyone will disagree with me that this type of selection may happen, but I'm here to argue that it shouldn't be penalized in game- In other words, this sort of "selective" clan style shouldn't be inherently weaker than a clan where everyone's invited.
My fear is that every (or virtually every) class will be NEEDED by a clan: Good clerics and paladins for healing, paladins for killing evil opponents, wizards and sorcerers for save or suck spells.
This kind of system reminds me of world of warcraft, and I really don't like it. I believe a clan should be able to function without every class role covered.
In short, I guess I'm issuing a plea to goblinworks: Please keep any one class from monopolizing any ubiquitous and oft needed role. A druid should be able to heal fairly well in a village that has banned traditional clerics. A heavily armored company that bans squishy cloth casters and monks should be able to overcome their weakness with potent cleric magic and good old fashioned sword fighting. A game where all 11 classes are needed by every company is a game that misses the point: Heroes and villains, city dwellers and country folk, skirmishers and heavy infantry, these different peoples look differently and fight differently from each other.
The extra d6 in damage from sneak attack is good under two circumstances:
A: You're not giving up a lot to get it, such as a fighter, barbarian, ranger, etc. who will still have a great BaB and will miss no (or almost no) spells.
B: You get that d6 again, many times. This is automatically a waste of a magus because you've given up so many spells, arcana, etc. by the time you have respectable sneak damage.
I agree on both counts. I thought I was the only one!
I really have a "Medieval Europish" comfort zone with my fantasy games- I never budge from that. I usually throw elves in the east (there is no asia, only elves!) and dwarves in the north. The "barbarians" that live far from civilization are orcs and the like.
Take a look back at the lord of the rings films:
Were there any black people? Asians? Hispanics? No. It's a eurocentric fantasy story. There is no martial artist. There is no ninja. There is no mayan warrior, etc. And that's the way I like it.
For as long as I can remember, there's been a strong link between the furry fandom and computer/tabletop RPG's. I'm not surprised that the furry culture has gravitated towards these things- I AM surprised that they are almost universally catered to by games and their worlds: For example, Galorion includes the cannon races of cat, rat, monkey, fox people, etc.
I simply want to know if I'm the only one who is annoyed by this.
One thing I find fun is building a magus around combat maneuvers: I don't know if it's what you'd call optimized, but between spell combat, the maneuver magus arcana (spend a point of your pool to get BaB = Lvl for one combat maneuver check) and the general ability to cast spells, you get a devastating melee controller truly unlike any other.
I had some fun with this, man.
1) Cast Slow
2) Trip slowed target. His attempt to get up is a move action, and all he can do because he is slowed. This provokes several attacks of opportunity.
3) Repeat Step 2.
4) Sprinkle in spell combat attack actions and magus pool buffed attack actions as needed.
If you play like this you won't be a particularly high damage character but by god you'll be a team player.
So I have a couple of friends, and together the three of us have been playing pathfinder on and off for about two years. The sessions have always been impeded because my friend's clingy girlfriend calls constantly (average once every 5 minutes: She is actually clingy to the point of it being a disease). Sometimes, he just ditches us for her.
All those problems paled in comparison to what happened next: She wanted to play!
So her boyfriend was DMing (You can't DM for your girlfriend ever)and as she started playing, the vibe was absolutely devastated. It went from three dudes telling foul jokes and being cruel/funny to two of us watching as the now censored dm coddled his girlfriend in and out of game. She knew nothing about the rules. Her barbarians rage rounds per day were never kept track of. And at one point she requested "a cute baby kitty my character can have around."
I wanted to kill myself.
Has anyone here ever had a woman or S/O in general destroy a game?
That is probably because they don't know exactly what combat will look like yet. They have a few ideas, but are working on implementing them and finding all the bugs in their plans. Since combat is such a core part of the game, it is also the most complex, thus requiring more time to plan, and then announce.
True, but there are some areas where speculation is a little more clear: For example, Ryan Dancy has stated that stealth will probably just be an invisibility buff. They could probably put out a rogue sneak peak to explain just what this means for a rogue in game, and how stealth could work. Like any other blog, they wouldn't have to write anything that couldn't be subject to change.
A druid sneak peak would also be awesome, clarifying some questions about animal companions and wild shape: Two wild cards that could go anywhere. Will animal companions exist in PFO? Will wild shape be limited to one or a few pre-arranged animals, or can you turn into anything you've seen? Will animal companion choices be climate sensitive?
So I do think there are ideas to riff on.
So far we know that there will be 11 archetypes to correspond with the 11 core classes, as well as other archetypes to fill other roles, such as crafting.
I want to know how many of these "other" archetypes there will be and how they will function
I want to see what the developers have in store for the 11 core archetypes- even just a few cool ideas or sneak peaks.
By now we know how time works, we know how contracts work, we've been following the middle ware drama, we know kickstarter is over. I'd like to see more big picture blogs and less small detail stuff- which is also great, but I feel like the fans are totally in the dark about such important things as what combat will be like.
Gray Elf warlord, founding an organization of elven warriors and industrialists that pursues the following:
I am a guy who didn't follow the financial side of things too well, and didn't donate! I just posited this idea to get the discussion going, because of course there are people who know more than I.
I didn't assert a demand, I posed an idea. The bulk of you, most of you less ignorant on the dev process than I, disagreed with me. After reading your posts, I'm seeing that I was likely wrong.
But the personal attacks got me all :-/
I dislike the idea for two reasons:
1) In a game that wants to focus on role playing, you're creating an allegiance of people who's only common thread is an out of game, out of character link. It strikes me as something akin to a black guild, a white guild, a christian guild, a US army guild, a FedEx guild. It's a sort of nonsensical immersion breaker.
2) There is a level of elitism in what you're trying to do. For all I know you could be a cool, humble dude but in practice this is self exaltation. On a related note, you're creating a guild that the DM's, moderators, developers, etc. will likely favor because of your generosity. Sure, in PFO everyone will have to "pay for status" in the sense that it will be easier to level as a paying player, but you're taking the concept to a whole new level.
Dear Goblinworks & Paizo,
You asked for 50,000 dollars. Tall order. We gave you something closer to 300,000 dollars. The fans were VERY good to you. And as a fan, I don't think we should have to "pay to play" as they say.
I'll buy the game. I'll buy expansions. Game companies did business like this for a long time, even with the costs of maintaining the game- And they profited.
I think in the wake of such generosity you should lay off our wallets, we have enough bills to pay. Charge whatever you want for the game, but after this I don't think we should pay a cent more.
My two cents.
I greatly enjoyed playing an arrogant, elitist elven alchemist by the name of Verrun. He was constantly condescending, and squealed like a drama queen when he was under attack. "Save me, peasants! Spring forth and come to my aid!" was a common plea.
In the end he was beloved, usually because the players loved to hate him. The trick for me was to paint him as an entitled narcissist who was obviously flawed.
I'm deeply confused. I thought the tentacle discovery was used to get more attacks, but here in the SRD description it states that "the tentacle does not give the alchemist extra attacks."
Benefit: The alchemist gains a prehensile, arm-length tentacle on his body. The tentacle is fully under his control and cannot be concealed except with magic or bulky clothing. The tentacle does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though he can use it to make a tentacle attack (1d4 damage for a Medium alchemist, 1d3 damage for a Small one) with the grab ability. The tentacle can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist’s original arms can (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, the tentacle to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb). Unlike an arm, the tentacle has no magic item slots.
If this turns into Harry Potter of Galorion I now know who to blame. Stop it, that franchise isn't cool.
I was pondering about PFO battles just now, and one thing that frightened me was the thought of a hectic, ugly mesh of men jumping in circles around each other like in WoW. One thing that I realized would ensure large, intellectually stimulating battles is NPC warriors. Let me explain:
Years ago I used to play the Star Wars: Battlefront games. What was fun about those was that while NPC troops, vehicles, etc. flooded the battlefield and acquired the bulk of kills, it was the actual players that made all the difference. For example, as a sniper you could sit back and let the NPC's try to take a fort. By hiding and taking out key targets (guys on turrets, heavy weapons platforms, etc.), you could drastically influence the outcome of the battle.
Battles like this would be even more orderly in a medieval fantasy setting, because of the regimental, slow motion of foot troops who will make up the bulk of most battlefields- as opposed to the speedy, vehicle centric model of scifi combat.
This way of doing things will provide for much more cohesive, believable armies. The heroic player characters can do their part in various ways, by buffing/debuffing troops, healing them, or just rampaging through them.
These soldiers could potentially be very customizable, especially if there is some sort of point system used to regulate troop power. There could be archers/missile troops, pikemen, cavalry, siege crews, etc. and elite versus swarmy versions of all of them.
Human Peasant Pikemen: 4 points each
Light armor proficiency: 1 point per man
Elite Elven Archers: 7 points each
Light armor proficiency: 1 point per man
Each point could represent 1 gold or something similar: Leaders of kingdoms could pump out troops to their specifications, raising and training them on base and paying for them based off their numbers and skill. This would make large scale battles very RTS like, which I think would be a fun dimension to add to the game.
My two cents on battle.
Am I the only one?
I was extremely disappointed when I heard that this game was going to try for a kid friendly angle and avoid a mature rating like it was the f$!$ing plague. I have a whole heap of issues with this, and I'd like to make them clear, in the hopes that others will agree and push for a more mature game.
Problem #1: I don't want to pay PFO only for them to tell me what I can and can't say. I want to be part of a game based on free expression. Sure, words like F~$* and S!&+ take me out of the fantasy world a little bit, but there will surely be Out of Character chat channels and the like. The age written on my state issued ID suggests that I'm a grown man, and I don't want to be treated like a child.
Problem #2: Young children have little to offer in terms of storytelling. I think if you want people to set up kingdoms and forge epic dramas and the like, you should have a game full of mature, creative people.
Problem #3: Young children are not the target demographic of PFO. Old timers who know about eve want in on this game. Tabletop RPG enthusiasts (who are usually at least in their teens) want in on this game. I'm sure there are plenty of kids who want in, but this isn't their game. This isn't WoW or TOR. Sure, I have no problem with them playing, but Goblinworks shouldn't sacrifice the freedoms of mature players to allow for more immature players.
Maybe a ranger can only activate stealth on one of his favored terrains. This seems like a good common sense balance solution that will expand in power as the ranger acquires more FT's.
There is one other problem to consider, while we're talking about the stealth thing. In the neverwinter games, the only computer adaptations of DnD I've ever played, the animal companion could never successfully be made to hide, even if it was something like a jaguar or a dire rat with a stealth score through the roof. I hope this doesn't become an issue in PFO.
By the way, I mostly agree with cranewings. When I play, I usually play in all male groups who make all male characters. To me, a player character's voice is very important to the story and the group dynamic. When we do have women play, they've always used female characters.
I have found one exception to the "rule" however. If a male player can pull it off, playing a deeply uncharismatic and unfeminine woman is sometimes fun and funny- Especially when you're using one of the uglier races like a dwarf or an orc.
I wholeheartedly agree. I'd go as far as to say that sniping in stealth should be far more efficient in PFO than it is in the pen and paper version. That -20 to your stealth role to remain hidden is one of the most blatantly unfair rules I've seen.