|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'll retract my question, because it doesn't look like it's getting answered. Best of luck on getting traction for your idea. Even if I dislike it, and will fight against it, maybe GW will see things differently.
PS: You'd make a fantastic politician.
And failing to break the rules is still insufficient to demonstrate a commitment to positive gameplay, because supporting positive gameplay means taking positive action in support of a goal, not just abstaining from a subset of actions, most of which are contrary to that goal.
Just for clarity: The ONLY way one can support positive gameplay is by actively doing something about positive gameplay? So if you're not ACTIVELY making the game better for others, then you're no longer supporting positive gameplay?
I'm really confused here. My question didn't need any more clarity. It was about as straightforward as I could make it. Still kinda hoping to hear an answer.
I've been wanting to try out a house rule that allows for sneak attack to basically turn into a precision type attack. Usable so many times per day based on X + Int and giving them class level as BAB for it. Or giving them a built in feint that can possibly last multiple rounds. Also giving them some of the ranger traps as per the trapper archetype every 3 or 4 levels.
There's no hint of P2W
I'm going to stop you right there. You used Werewolves as an example. But also referred to vampires and liches. These are things that, yes, come with drawbacks. However they also (straight up looking at Pathfinder lore and mechanics themselves) are far more powerful than their normal Human/Elf/Dwarf/short people counterparts. Far more powerful. If you want a simple reskinning of characters into these various monsters, that's one thing. But what you're talking about is an entire mechanical change into these creatures. These more POWERFUL creatures. That people PAY to have. And that's where I draw the line. That is 100% P2W.
Star Citizen is a bad example to bring up, because that is in fact paying for advantage. The more you pay, the bigger advantage you have. P2W. If I'm getting this all right, the grand idea behind all of this is that you want people to be able to pay money to be able to decide what PFO adds to their game next. Which I can't see happening without being a huge financial investment. I'm sure if go you go GW with a million dollars and ask them to make playable vampires, they might humor you. But letting an incredibly small portion of their market make those decisions without huge financial backing? Probably not. But that's why the subscription model exists. It allows for steady revenue and the ability to continue to add content to the game.
It was already said several times in this thread what the UNC policy would be. You have a bad habit of selective reading. Do a re-read for some clarity, reading everything.
If what you want is mechanically no better than what is available to subscribers, then fine. But the minute you introduce mechanical advantage for money, you enter into a flawed system. You'll end up with a game where the only people who are left are the ones that can pay to win. That is not the equivalent of a subscription model.
I disagree. Attacking a player because you dislike them is perfectly healthy. Sure, you might take a rep hit, but that's part of the game. People need to be held accountable for how they act in or out of the game. If someone acts douchey on the forums then he needs to be ready to have it taken out on him in game.
Assertions to keep the in game and out of game separate are a bit naive. Can't expect to act like a total ass on the forums and be treated like a saint in game because that's your rp story.
And let's be honest. If you kill someone in game that you dislike, you're going to take a bit more satisfaction out of it than killing random bob.
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
These remind me of Wheel of Time intro pages.
All of that is standard fare for schlock fantasy. I can visualize all of that, easy. A musketeer lowering his gun, cleaning out the barrel, drawing a paper cartridge, tearing it open and pouring in the contents, tamping it down, raising his gun and firing...in 1.5 seconds or less? Not so much.
So, for a heavy crossbow you'd have no problem visualizing a crossbowman dropping down the crossbow, mounting his foot into the stirrup, cranking the string back into a cocked position, bringing the crossbow back to level, drawing a crossbow bolt, sliding it back into the catch, aiming and firing in 1.5 seconds or less? Because both are pretty absurd. But absurdity is standard fare for schlock fantasy.
Yes, it's fantasy. But a small compromise towards realism (eg taking a standard action, minimum, to reload) doesn't seem too extreme a move to make, and doesn't seem to invalidate the gunslinger class. A gunslinger can have multiple guns, and non-gun backup weapons, after all.
As soon as you start wanting to make compromise towards realism, you're stepping out of fantasy. If it's too unrealistic for a Gunslinger to reload a musket as a free action, then it should also be far too unrealistic for Wizards to throw around reality altering power, for clerics to bring back the dead, for monks to do cartwheels down a cliff face, for barbarians to turn into the hulk... Need I go on?
If you can't handle guns and black powder in your fantasy...fine. No big deal. But please, don't try to preach their lack of realism as the reason why. That's simply flawed logic.
So, winding up and shooting a heavy crossbow multiple times in 6 seconds is totally reasonable. But reloading a musket style firearm to do the same is massively breaking realism. Makes sense.
Honestly, I've found that most people's problem with gunslingers are either from them attacking touch AC (go check some dpr olympics threads to see how that pans out compared to your average bow user, friends) or because people are stuck with this static idea of fantasy where guns are badwrongfun in your world of magic, dragons, golems, alchemy, etc.
There's massive amounts of realism breaking in the game already. Is a fast loading musket style weapon really that big a deal?
You're comparing 2 systems that are vastly different. 2nd Edition didn't have the combat mechanics that PF does. It was a lot more hand waving and DM says than actual rules. Any time you add rules and mechanics, things are going to take a little longer. However, I've had plenty of fights in 2E take longer than 10 minutes, or a half hour. Many of them weren't challenging so much as being bogged down.
Your problem honestly sounds more like a group/DM issue. If your combats are taking that long, it sounds like people are taking too long to have their turn in combat. If everyone knows what their character can do, what their spells can do, what actions they plan on taking in combat. If you want to get through it quickly, people need to pay attention and act quickly. Dither, and it goes slow. At my table, I use 30 second sand timers for each player. That's how long they have for their turn. Sand timer runs out without you doing anything? You just lost your turn.
Also, you talk of rail roading in an Adventure Path. This confuses me. You're playing an Adventure PATH. The whole point of an AP is to travel along the PATH of the adventure, and complete it. And sometimes along that path, you're going to have multiple combats in a row. It happens. From the APs I've read through, there's also ample time for roleplay and other things. All of this is trumped by the fact that, as people sitting around a table, you ultimately decide what you want to do. If your group wants more RP time then let your DM know that.
Pathfinder is what you make of it. Yes, there's lots of mechanics involved in the game. But rule 0 trumps all. The DM can use or ignore as much as he chooses to run a game. Have a talk with your DM, air your grievances, maybe even swap out DMs for a while. But storming out of a game in a huff isn't any decent sort of solution. Maybe you should give running a game a shot? If you want a game run your way, the best thing you can do is run it and show everyone else how its done.
I played something very similar to this. I went Human though, and just used a shortbow for the ranged portion. My feat progression looked like this:
1 Archetype: Dervish Dance
I lacked more to damage than I ever lacked a to-hit bonus. I was sitting on a 14 strength, so without a high composite bonus I found Deadly Aim really useful. More useful than precise shot. If everything was already in melee with the party, I'd just wade in with melee. Feet starvation is an annoyance in this situation, because there's a couple more feats that would certainly be nice. Opening Volley would assure that you'd almost never miss.
<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves wrote:
Any specific numbers I should be looking for when looking at CPU-Z. Never mind, that thing was loaded with malware, delete!!!!
I've been using CPU-Z for nearly a decade. I've never had any malware from it. I also, just to make sure, downloaded CPU-Z a few moments ago to test and make sure. There's definitely not any malware attached to it.
Because logicalincrements has a much slower update time. The one I linked was updated a few days ago. LI was last updated closer to a month ago. Plus, the image is more mobile friendly. Not taking away anything from LI. They're even linked to in the guide.
For those with questions about what to buy at what price range, there's a pretty handy guide that's assembled and updated pretty frequently here: http://tinyurl.com/falconguide
You have to actually create a bookmark for the tinyurl link itself if you want to save it. But that's a good starting point. As it says in the disclaimer, all of the prices are from Newegg, and you can sometimes get better deals by shopping around. This is in no way an end all, be all list of components. But this sets a very good standard. I strongly suggest doing your own research, regardless of any advice given.
It's a well thought idea Andius. Kudos for that. But I really hope it's something we don't see in PFO. Some of the systems behind your ideas seem overly complex, and not overly beneficial to gameplay. Werewolves in particular here. Werewolves are strictly CE, and their whole design in PF is for it to be an affliction, not a benefit. Loss of control is a check on the power gained from becoming a werewolf. Not to mention the fact that they're far more rare than any of the races/classes that are already slated for release. They make far better NPCs/monsters than anything else. Same goes for vampires, really.
I understand wanting to add dark fantasy into PFO. I love the lore behind weres/vampires, and the work white wolf did to create games for them. But I don't think they fit at all as player options in PFO. There will be enough people running around already who will be evil, chaotic and heinous. Along with the white knights hunting them.
You're correct. That won't stop us, however, from dropping into those hexes with open PvP windows simply for the sake of PvP, loot, and good times.
I don't think it's reasonable to ask any outside party, save alliance members, to steer clear of tower areas open for capture. Make what allies you can. But expect PvP to happen in PvP focused areas.
Sorry but not sorry, Proxima. Meta safety agreements be damned.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
So what happens when a company comprised of members that belong to 2 different settlements capture a tower?
Tork Shaw wrote:
I certainly hope so too. And I'm glad to hear there's actually something complex that has been in the works for some time. The system that was just announced didn't do much to reassure me about PvP and Settlement Warfare in any way, so I guess I'll just have to hold out until more info is released regarding this "kookoobananas" system you've got planned.
Right. I appreciate that you're heaping your frustration on me. It's super helpful to the thread. Thanks.
You following me around calling me a liar or a failure is nothing like anything I've said. If you want to make a comparison, do it better. At no point did I say anything like "that will never work you idiots". I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. I voiced that I had a concern. Stated what that concern was.
Could I have worded my concerns a little better? Sure. So here goes:
I have major concerns about using the character zerg method as a capture mechanic. It leads to mindless wave-style PvP. I also have concerns that this system may stay in place. Not because GW is a bunch of liars, or anything blown out of proportion like that. Simply because during development cycles of games, plans tend to change. A lot. I don't want there to be a change of plans where this system stays in place long term.
Also, check your PMs please.
KotC Carbon D. Metric wrote:
Over the years I've come to a point where I have zero faith in game developers. I find it easier to be pessimistic beforehand instead of disappointed after.
See above. Your faith is commendable. But mine left a long time ago.
Right, I know that this system is supposed to get more complex later on. I just worry that it... won't.
And while people start thinking about and discussing these and other new issues... I'll say again that we still don't know how a lot of things are going to work and it won't help to get ahead of ourselves and 'debate' how we think things will be implemented and what that 'means' for the NAP, because we won't know for sure until we are actually playing the game.
It also doesn't hurt to discuss these things with the information we have at hand. We need something to do more than sit around with thumbs in our rears. Discussing plans based on what we know fills some of that time. Not that real life comparisons are ever truly accurate or valid, but still: You don't know that you'll still be alive this weekend. But that doesn't stop you from planning stuff. We don't know if things will change in game, but we can plan with what we've got.
KotC Carbon D. Metric wrote:
Besides doesn't anyone remember the wipe they are going to do? I'm sure something much better will be built by then.
That's really not something to bank on, and why it's always good to throw out thoughts on the matter rather than just sit back and hope they'll have something better.
That being said: Not sure how I feel about the system. The fact that it's basically just a numbers game makes me worry. What happens when people throw 50 free-to-play level 1 characters into a tower just to bolster their cap number? Or bum rush a tower with a few hundred of the same along with the normal forces. At that point you're no longer PvPing as much as you're just zerging as many people in as possible. Siege and capture mechanics are important.
1: Bard - Definitely the most important of the bunch. For RP and mechanics purposes.
TEO Cheatle wrote:
I'm trying to come up with something to say about this idea without adding in massive amounts of derision. The first couple times I started typing, it didn't work. All I can say is that I think this is in NO WAY a good idea. A settlement is a big investment. There should be equally big risk along with it. Don't want to lose stuff? Stay in the NPC controlled zones. And leave it at that.
That's....a bit of an overstatement. Overreaction. Etc. Sure, Druid is a high tier class. But all of the full progression prepared casters are. Wild shape is not the most powerful part of a druid. Not by far. Make sure your players are actually using it properly.
Proxima Sin of Brighthaven wrote:
Nope, not saying that. Just saying that if you do put some effort into that sort of gameplay, don't be disappointed if it has no impact on the greater playerbase.
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Doggan, you now sound exactly as Ryan does. The mis-behavers won't go away, but they will learn what the consequences of their actions are, and they'll decide what to do in the face of those consequences.
Ugh. But yeah, if Ryan said it first then I'll just agree with him. That's what my gaming experience tells me will happen.
Proxima Sin of Brighthaven wrote:
So are you already resigned to the inevitability after OE of it turning into another form of Murderball with different terrain?
I'm guessing about as much as you're expecting it to be a utopia where every person that murders someone can be spanked and taught the proper way to behave.
Reality will likely fall somewhere in the middle. RPK will happen. Mechanics will cause consequences for it. Said consequences will limit it. Much like reds in UO (the murderers) those types will be around. But how many or how few will likely be determined by the penalties associated with it.
Right. Yes, I get your point. That's why I said: When we become the minority. Because we will. It doesn't matter if we're in key places, or key settlement leaders. Look, the largest group right now has what? 200ish people? There's way more people out there that belong to larger groups. And even the unorganized mass (the zerg) will make those numbers look small. I do understand what you're saying. But I've played way too many games to truly believe that the people we have here, now, on these forums will really create that much of an impact going forward. Sure, a few groups might retain their land, their numbers. But the smaller groups will be picked off by larger ones who will wait for the game to be in full release before picking it up.
Proxima Sin of Brighthaven wrote:
I wasn't talking about them being required to read the forums. This idea you want to put into play is only going to be put into play by those who read the forums. That's what I meant.
Proxima Sin of Brighthaven wrote:
Here is the main thing I want to touch on. For all of your rolling in wealth, and militaries that you're commanding. The bandit empires, viking hordes, knightly orders, etc. Those are all options. But plenty of people won't choose any of those. They'll choose to start off in the woods. They'll play with their friends, their buddies, their guilds that are coming into the game from elsewhere. They'll ignore us, and advance on their own. They'll pick off the smaller groups and steadily get larger. It wouldn't take me more than a few seconds to find another guild that, if they shifted their focus to this game, would easily crush any group or alliance that currently exists. I've been a part of that several times.
Groups that like, and much of the zerg mass that comes into the game, will likely end up ignoring whatever you try to teach them. I'll wish you the best of luck with trying to implement this strategy. Hey, I may even kill a few of the people who need killing. But I don't think it's going to work. I think the total population of the game would have to stay incredibly small for it to succeed. I think distancing the murder hobos instead of trying to bring them over to your side is a mistake. But honestly, no passive aggressive anything behind it: Good luck. If you succeed, I'll happily eat my words.
No fear. No wrong impression at all. The opening post has an alliance entry with Roseblood listed there. All is well :)