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

Doggan's page

Goblin Squad Member. 458 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 458 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

CommandoDude wrote:
Doggan wrote:
I've toyed with the idea of allowing martials to move an extra 5' and full attack per iterative attack. So at 6th level you could move 10', 11th 15', 16th 20'. I know it won't fix everything, but still curious to see how it works out.

That just penalizes TWF classes (as if TWF needed to suck even less) especially 3/4 BAB ones that get fewer iteratives.

I would say half your move speed is fair - and maybe allow up to one full move at high level

What? How does that penalize TWF classes? I mean, yeah, 3/4 BAB classes don't get it at the same time as the full BAB classes. But aside from Rogue and Monk all of the 3/4 BAB classes have tools (spells mainly) that make up for it.

What I outlined just means that you get another 5' of move the same level that you get another iterative attack. TWF has no bearing on that at all.


I've toyed with the idea of allowing martials to move an extra 5' and full attack per iterative attack. So at 6th level you could move 10', 11th 15', 16th 20'. I know it won't fix everything, but still curious to see how it works out.


The latest gem from one of the games I'm playing in: All heals have a gold requirement cost. You -MUST- have a focus worth 25g that essentially has charges built into it. It erodes 1g in value per heal. These focuses are extremely rare, and can often only be found in large cities (which there only seems to be 2 of in this persons homebrew world, and they're over a months travel apart.)

In most games this wouldn't really be a problem. But in this game, loot is something that is rarely to be had.

Then again this was also the game where we had 6 players, all floating around level 2-3 with a single 4 fight 8 Worgs. So a roughly APL 4 party had a CR10 fight. It was exciting, except for the whole multiple death thing.


Yeah, pretty nutty feat. Makes me glad that no one at my table will ever take it, as I put a hard limit on the amount of time someone has to take their turn, which is usually no more than a minute.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd love to see Week 10 ended a few days early, without any warning.

Goblin Squad Member

Welcome to the Northern Coalition, friends.

Goblin Squad Member

Congrats! Hope you enjoy your new home. Though my sentiments follow Budd's.

Goblin Squad Member

Congrats Kemedo! Enjoy your adventures in Alpha.

Goblin Squad Member

The Random Thread bumper wrote:
I bet Aragon throws some great parties at night

Our parties are great any time of day, sir.

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:
Doggan wrote:
AvenaOats wrote:


Doggan wrote:
If you want lycanthrope for strictly RP reasons, would you be okay with the fact that it was just a change in model without any sort of mechanical difference?

To elaborate further for Doggan's question's clarity, the RP is one tool out of a set that we would hope to use, but it's a powerful tool that will provide a lot of gameplay possibilities both at A and at D. To reveal more might be to unmask too many mysteries too soon. /amateur dramatics!

To be clear, there are bigger (and wider) objectives, but initially it would a positive addition to even have the model transformation. Let's call that B.

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.

My apologies, I'm suffering some flu since the w/e atm, so a bit foggy-brained.

The way I'm trying to work out what a Lycanthrope would be like in the River Kingdoms is the basis for the concept. I tagged them as support cast and apart from the main cast of main races who exist in civilizations that war with each other. So in that sense it will be RP led, again to create some theatre of the mind additions: If you like an amusing on the side player initiative that is not antagonistic with the politics of the different groups but "diversionary": A welcome exploration of more of the River Kingdoms world. But the objectives are both bigger, to crowdforge this role into the game more and wider, to create a genuine cooperative around this character concept that works on the concept, works on a possible implementation of how Lycanthropes could be added and what feats could be developed for them, that grows this membership and possibly invests into it. It's also important to understand that such a group will require different formalization on different criteria to succeed and that too is perhaps the most important objective of all to succeed even if we fail to reach our final...

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.


For ranged? There's no real good way other than picking up some chakram.

Though depending on your level... favored enemy plus deadly aim should get you through DR on anything but minimum damage rolls.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
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?

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:


Doggan wrote:
If you want lycanthrope for strictly RP reasons, would you be okay with the fact that it was just a change in model without any sort of mechanical difference?

To elaborate further for Doggan's question's clarity, the RP is one tool out of a set that we would hope to use, but it's a powerful tool that will provide a lot of gameplay possibilities both at A and at D. To reveal more might be to unmask too many mysteries too soon. /amateur dramatics!

To be clear, there are bigger (and wider) objectives, but initially it would a positive addition to even have the model transformation. Let's call that B.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

If you want lycanthrope for strictly RP reasons, would you be okay with the fact that it was just a change in model without any sort of mechanical difference?


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.

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:
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.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

Obviously behavior that we deem to be inappropriate would be met by our own internal sanctions. To say that a lack of understanding was created by not stating the obvious is absurd.

Right. You have now explicitly said that behavior which does not merit a sanction from Goblinworks is not deemed inappropriate by you.

I still insist that a commitment to positive gameplay involves much more than refraining from breaking the rules.

If you want to say that you will have standards that are more stringent than "Don't break the rules", then do so. If you want to actually have standards that are more stringent than the bare minimum, then having a feedback form that doesn't actively mock complainants is... not quite a good start, but at least it isn't a giant leap backwards.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

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.

Goblin Squad Member

Pay to win is a losing idea that destroys games. And that's what this reeks of to me.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:


However, keep it about the game not the players. If you are attacking someone because you don't like the player then it is generaly unhealthy for both you and the game... and ultimately unsatisfying because slashing a bunch of pixels doesn't really resolve anything or change anything about the situation and after the 10th time or so you've done that you'll come to that epiphany. YMMV.

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.


Lord Snow wrote:
Is this for real? 'cause if it is, I'm pissed off.

Huh. Thought it was an April Fool's joke at first because the story was posted on March 31st. Looks like it's real though.

Goblin Squad Member

Akron area, Ohio

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:

It's Sunday night in the river Kingdoms, and the cold wind of fate rustles across the forest floor. The moving finger of the gods will write once more upon the land in broad strokes tonight. Friends and neighbours will sleep restlessly, wondering whether their place is secure, or if yet another earthquake will shake the foundations of our land.

A half-elf, young for his father's people, yet ancient for those of his mother, ponders the stars, looking for a sign; seeking understanding of the deep complexity of a world where he is forced to resort to such subterfuge, just to get people to pay attention for a few seconds while he tries to convince them of the merits of joining a NG settlement that welcomes other companies to work together in the spirit of harmony to build a settlment in the Landrush.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

It's near Moonday in the River Kingdoms, and a thick, damp fog blankets an empty riverbed, muffling the footfalls of a cloaked man in patchy leather armor. The mists of uncertainty roil throughout the Kingdoms, pushed and pulled by the winds of fate to touch all but the highest peaks.

The cloaked man scratches his stubble and looks up at the sky. Castrovel has been drifting closer of late. He gives an odd laugh that comes out as a little cloud of vapor. It's cold, but he knows that the nearby town of Freevale has warm beds, hot meals, and plenty of fire. Even he, a free agent, is always welcome, as long as he keeps the fires from spreading too often. Truly, if ever there was a settlement perfect for free spirits, it is Freevale. Which is still recruiting. Just by the way.

These remind me of Wheel of Time intro pages.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm still of the opinion that everyone should get a hunker down bonus. The way it works right now is a bit silly.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pupsocket wrote:
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.

Wheldrake wrote:
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?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:

Ok so for a good chuck of the adventure, I partially enjoyed it. It began dragging and tonight was the last straw. It took us about three hours to walk through two rooms in a building because they had a couple monsters in them. I had plans for things I was going to do today to get things interesting, but we got railroaded into a quest. We teleport into a room to try to get the jump on someone. This was around 9PM real time. The room had two enemies and a summon. That fight took over an hour at least for some reason. We take a couple steps out of the room to the one across the hall. Three monsters were in there that we had to fight and before I knew it the time was 11:08 PM and I am nodding off due to being bored. I stood up, declared I was too bored to continue and went home.

Back when I played AD&D 2nd, we never had a fight take more than around ten minutes. They were challenging but not just busywork so we would gain experience and gold. Even boss fights took maybe half an hour at the most. Now, they take the majority of the session and we play from about 7PM to Midnight on Saturdays.

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
1 Human: Point Blank Shot
1: Arcane Strike
3: Power Attack
5: Rapid Shot
7: Deadly Aim
9: Manyshot

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.

Goblin Squad Member

<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.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
Doggan wrote:
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
That link just republishes the info from www.logicalincrements.com. It's an excellent site but I'm not sure why you don't just go straight to the source.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

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.

Goblin Squad Member

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.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Banesama wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:
You get PMs to not be expansionist?!
You mean you don't? Bugger me!! The UNC is always the "special case" I guess. I can't complain, that is btw, working as intended.
I think some are overworried about UNC. If UNC was to spread to the four corners of the map to try to acquire Towers for themselves or others, they would be spread too thin and be easy pickings at their home.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:

As a compromise position, I suggest that companies might enter an agreement to remain clear of tower areas open for capture unless they are engaged in the battle, and also agree not to attack certain towers held by certain other companies.

I don't think it reasonable to expect any company that wants to take a particular tower to refrain from doing so out of respect for an agreement with third parties.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Just to clarify a thing that seems obvious to us but may not be obvious to you.

Settlements are not Companies and Companies are not Settlements.

Lets say we have the Settlement of Ryanhome.

The members of Ryanhome are potentially also members of Companies. They need not be members of the same Company. They may be in Companies with characters who are not members of Ryanhome.

Ryanhome may be indirectly controlling Towers via Companies that are comprised of characters who are not members of Ryanhome. Characters who are members of Ryanhome may be in Companies that are controlling Towers that are indirectly supported by a Settlement other than Ryanhome.

Companies are not Settlements. Settlements are not Companies.

So what happens when a company comprised of members that belong to 2 different settlements capture a tower?

Goblin Squad Member

Tork Shaw wrote:
Doggan wrote:
Tyncale wrote:

@Doggan

I feel that characterslots will be scarce at the start of EE, or that there is some cost attached to using more then 1. Also, there are no FTP accounts yet, each account that can participate in EE will cost someone a hunderd dollars.

Right, I know that this system is supposed to get more complex later on. I just worry that it... won't.
Oh heavens I hope it does. I've been working for 12 months on a kookoobananas complex settlement warfare system. I'd be very put out if it doenst make it in ;)

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.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Duffy wrote:
Doggan 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.

That's fine if it keeps you emotionally balanced, but projecting onto other people and devs via the forum is not a good way to express that. Would you like it if I walked around behind you all day implying you're a liar or a failure in everything you do? That's kinda what the forums are like to Devs. Criticizing is fine, but offer up an alternative or extrapolate on why and what. Implying that they are copping out and will never follow through doesn't really accomplish anything.

Sorry if this is a little targeted, I've been frustrated a bit by the amount of people who combat every idea by just saying 'No' or 'That will never work you idiots' around here.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KotC Carbon D. Metric wrote:
Doggan wrote:
Right, I know that this system is supposed to get more complex later on. I just worry that it... won't.
Valid concern, but I don't think its warranted yet.

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.

Guurzak wrote:

...Neither the players nor the developers would be satisfied with this as the long term solution.

If the game never get past War of the Towers, it'll be because the game never made it to release status. Regardless, you don't need to worry about Towers being any part of the OE experience.

See above. Your faith is commendable. But mine left a long time ago.

Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:

@Doggan

I feel that characterslots will be scarce at the start of EE, or that there is some cost attached to using more then 1. Also, there are no FTP accounts yet, each account that can participate in EE will cost someone a hunderd dollars.

Right, I know that this system is supposed to get more complex later on. I just worry that it... won't.

Goblin Squad Member

CBDunkerson wrote:
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.

Goblin Squad Member

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.

Goblin Squad Member

1: Bard - Definitely the most important of the bunch. For RP and mechanics purposes.
2: Paladin - Considering the area being crusader road, having paladins traveling the area on their way to/from the Worldwound seems fairly appropriate
3&4: Barbarian/Sorcerer - Barbarian is angry fighter, Sorcerer is natural wizard. Is that a bit of an oversimplification? Sure. But I don't feel either are as important to the game as anything else. I'd rather see Druid/Ranger/Monk before either of these classes.


Trap breaker alchemist, animal domain cleric with companion, conjuration wizard, and then either a fighter, barbarian, or battle/metal oracle for the meat shield/melee person.

Goblin Squad Member

Just recently started playing the Alpha for the next Blizzard game. Other than that, I spend a ton of time reading, planning for my tabletop games, and messing around in Saints Row IV.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Cheatle wrote:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In another thread I had an idea about a secondary type settlement, which Nihimon pointed out could be a Zero PvP windowed Settlement. I wanted to expound a bit on that idea, and wanted your thoughts as a community about said idea.

The Zero PvP Windowed Settlement would be an option through the same system GW is using for opening and closing said window. Once enacted it would freeze the window longer than when making a normal choice on increasing or decreasing the window.

At Zero PvP Windowed mode you would be limited in not only your DI, but also the ability to join a kingdom. Further more, you would be limited to the 6 hexes around you for expansion. For these limitations, however, there are some bonuses, such as not losing your settlement, PoIs or Outposts to PCs, but they can still be attacked by PvE events (GW wanted to add these at some point). You would also gain support from either Thornekeep, For Inevitable, or Riverwatch in the form of NPC guards/Marshals.

So essentially, these would be VERY small settlements that are supported by Starter Settlements, and allow for the more casual gamers to partake in the Settlement part of the game.

Thoughts?

Also, this idea stemmed from the Disappointment Among the Silent thread. This idea is just in support of alternative game play methods for those that consider themselves casual gamers.

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.


Azmyth wrote:


The Druid class experienced a complete metamorphosis from 3.5 to PF.
In DnD it was primarily a flavor class. In PF it has become an unparalleled power house of imbalance!

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.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin of Brighthaven wrote:

Is anyone here saying,

"Because things are bound to go in the wrong direction part of the time, directing our favor towards appropriate gameplay will have no measurable affect on making the game more enjoyable so therefore we shouldn't do it and completely ignore half the game environment in our multi-layered approach to the issue."?

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.

Goblin Squad Member

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.

Goblin Squad Member

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.

Goblin Squad Member

Dakcenturi wrote:


The thing is going into Alpha and the start of EE the minority that post on the forums are the majority that will be playing the game. Further, the minority on the forum are also a number of the key players in the majority of chartered companies, settlements, nations etc.

I think there are very sound points addressed here.

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:


Yes. Because it requires exactly zero of the newcomers to read any forums.

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:


It stands a chance of carrying force because we're going to be the ones recruiting and promoting in companys and settlements, the ones in charge of trade conglomerates and rolling in wealth, the ones commanding militarys and bandit empires. When newcomers begin they can either try to start from scratch alone out in the woods, or they're going to come work for us.

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.

1 to 50 of 458 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.