Gayel Nord's page

(Sorry for the vocabulary, English is not my first language.)

I am playing a varisian pilgrim of Desna with travel and fate domain.
My DM and I have an argument about one of the feature of the archetype. I know that DM has every calls but he is the one who has guide me here.

A Varisian pilgrim has the following class features.
Fortunate Road
: At 1st level, a Varisian pilgrim must
select the Chaos, Community, Liberation, Luck, Travel,
or Weather domain (or the Exploration, Fate, Freedom,
Trade, or Seasons subdomains from the
Advanced Player’s
Guide
, if available in the campaign) as one of her domains.
If the cleric worships a deity that doesn’t normally grant
one of these domains, she gains access to this domain
but can only pick this one domain—she effectively loses
the option to pick a second domain. As a result, very few
clerics who worship deities who don’t grant access to one
of the domains or subdomains listed above opt to become
Varisian pilgrims. In all other respects, this works like
and replaces the standard cleric’s domain ability.

It said that you need one of your domains to be that and the other one could be anything. I wonder if the first is really important for the next ability.

Caravan Bond (Su)
: At 1st level, by leading a group
prayer for 1 minute, a Varisian pilgrim can select a
number of traveling companions equal to her cleric level
+ her Wisdom bonus. She may use her domain-granted
powers on any of these traveling companions as if they
were her. She can use these abilities on her traveling
companions at a range of up to 30 feet, even if the ability
normally requires her touch. This ability replaces the
cleric’s prof iciency with medium armor and shields—
she retains prof iciency with light armor only.

That is the center of my problem. By how this power is spelled, it seem that it's could all of the domains granted power. (so in my case fate and travel) But my DM argue that it could be only for the first domain I chose. So which one is the good version?

Also does that also mean that my companions will also +10 foot? or that I could ''cast'' agile foot on all my companions in my turn?

Me too.

Tavern have become more useful. I also expect that they will have messageboard for quest.
NPC Implement really? I was thinking it will be related to the economy and settlement. Not war. But it is a exemple.

Question: does some until the end of combat spells could be use to initiate a combat?

At the end, twenty actions? It will take a lot of mastery to use all of them.

Fun: Being in The Empyrean should be fun!

Je serais intéressé en faire partir. Malheurseusement, je fais déjà parti d'une guilde. Par contre, j'ai l'intention de vous visiter le plus souvent possible. (Il est vrai que la distance peut changer beaucoup de choses.) Québecois, je suis. Mais, loyal je resterais.

I think it the first thread I start that keep going on. Yeah!

@ Gaskon I want that too.

It seem to me that the solution, it's not an another big town. It is a another big town and their allies. Because differents factions will a have different aligment, number and specialisation, the balance of power will shift to them.

From the blog 02/13

Commoners, Experts, and Aristocrats

We've talked a lot about the roles of the game that are derived from Pathfinder's adventuring classes, but we haven't yet mentioned that the same idea also extends to reusing some of the NPC classes from the tabletop game. Specifically, players may pursue three additional roles:

Commoners focus on gathering and harvesting skills.
Experts focus on refining and crafting skills.
Aristocrats focus on leadership and social skills.

3 step from raw to the item is enough. no enchentment. Wizard could have some crafting skill requiring for the role. But the expert should be the expert and anyone should could do item without magic. Execpt for spell completion or spell charged item. Like wizard. But high level in spellcasting should not be requiring.

We want a badass adventure! The best you can offer!

Can we be affialated to a guild and doing the extra?

So the ressources will also be finite? You need to use them to others appear?

I am saying that because in Eve in each day the astroids fields restart, so i was thinking about something very common like scordite use as a monetary value.

I was thinking about more than power. Like punish a resident in term of rules like law or aptitude being relied to the settlement only. If he quit and still used, he should have a flag or something.

This spark the subject.

There's an interesting assumption I've seen in this thread that I wanted to mention.

The assumption is that a character can gain X ability while a member of one Settlement, and then keep using it when they change Settlements to one that doesn't have the necessary perquisites to provide and/or sustain that ability so that a character's total available abilities are disassociated from thier Settlement affiliation.

That's an assumption, not a fact.

How powerful you would be the link character-settlement?

Just a training center and a market?

Or they will be benefits and disadvantages with affiliation (something more close)?

Maybe we should calm down a little. Hey, we break 1000 post. this is the longer thread i seen here.

There an another con that you forgot for the barter system (also call troc).

Inflation.

Because ressouces are infinite (more than one person could stach lot of good) The price for a rarer item will be more and more high. Because the common ressources will be more and more available. This is the reason why GW will have a control currency.

I have look in the official map... in term of... i don't what name to give, the mosswater region shouldn't have more monster hexes? I mean they have a invasion of mutant morrow and this is why the crusader road is no longer pratical. I would expect a lot more monster. Because it is more easier just recreate the crusader road than going to thornkeep.

Love the colors!

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

There should be one per settlement hex.

Exercise for the readers: Why is is a terrible idea?

First, I should say I'm quite sure I don't see the nuances Ryan does with why this is a bad idea.

That said, my guess is that the problem with it is related to this golden oldie:

Ryan Dancey ("X" would be Cool ... becomes Nobody does "X") wrote:

A thing you should consider before posting your ideas is "what happens in a world where tens of thousands of people can react to the idea all at once"?

Simple, it doesnt encourage confrontation. If there a rule of one artifact by settlement They will be:

A) a augmentation of little settlement inside a player nation. (because more power)This will decrease interaction between settlement because all will know it a trick for bypass the system.

B) A battle for only the most ''powerful artifacts'' The other will be cast off and their value will decrease to a price that isn't consider a artifact, just a 'maybe good item'. If GW want to introduce a new artifact, it should be more ''powerful'' or it will be cast off and if it is. We will have the same war for item who will be more game-breaking for those who don't have a artifact.

This two effects should devaluate the immersion to pathfinder online and have a pressure by players to devlopper to have more ''powerful' artifact to counter balance the power they have. becoming just a item.

P.s don't hate me for my bad english.

So new discussion topic. What kind of NPC would you like me to voice. ;)

Why do you say that?

I thought CPE was 'continuing professional education'.

For me, it is "Centre de la petite enfance" a gouvernement paid day nursery.

I have already a little problem. I was seen that I can also change my drive from the demo. Curious I change my 30 for a 50. Even if they said you can change until 30 jun, I can't return to 30. What should have do?

Great blog..

They haven't talk about the universalist wizard. I wonder...

Now i can log on. But i can't reach thread without the same error. (i have also used an another brower just to be sure.

The error persists....

Hey, i was trying to post in the empyrean forum. but i always has this message.

Erreur 324 (net::ERR_EMPTY_RESPONSE)

I will try later if the error repeat.

I don't like the idea of monster hexe if they are random. It will be easy at long term to just know where they are and always throw adventurers at them.

What i will like it is the monster hexe to be have extreme rate of spawning high level monster and spreading easy to the closest hex but more difficult the more it is far from the monster hex. I wish that they will be lore known.

I love it. But I don't know what I love in that. It just... follow the same thinking from the last time combat was talked.

4!

Simple weapon

Martial wepon

Exotic weapon (only one)

Weapon groups (blade heavy, light, bow, etc.)

light armor profeciency

medium armor profenciency

heavy armor profencienccy

Armor mastery

Weapon master

Armor master

I'd like to have a Neutral-restricted "Nature's Champion" flag that lets druids and like minded tree-huggers to attack harvesters that are engaged in destruction harvesting like clear cutting forest for lumber, strip mining hills for minerals, and so forth.

I dont think it his a good Idea. It seem that you want to justify killing people for harvesting. Also we don't know how destructive the camps are.

Being wrote:

Psyblade wrote:

*goes to be lawful evil*

I know, Right?

Some of us are just going to have to.

I would be fine with that if I actually felt this had any resemblance to the game's take on good and evil and not just having a pacifistic world view shoved down our throats.

I know how good works in the P&P. And it uses violence to solve problems all the time. If they provide us with functional ways to resolve things without violence and allow us violence without penalty only if those fail than that is fine.

But lets do a quick poll.

How many of you have played good aligned characters in Pathfinder?

How many of you who said yes to that never killed an intelligent being with any of those characters?

How many of you killed many of them, and frequently?

I rest my case.

They were (most of time) always attacking first. This is very annoying when you are a rogue. :)

But don't return to the alignement discussion. The description of alignement are vague to the subject of the DM. In my sense, GW respect the alignement description.

Imbicatus wrote:

1. You don't lose anything for killing someone if you don't have the Attacker Flag. All the alingmnet/Reputation hits are applied for killing someone while you have the Attacker flag. Don't start the fight, but end it.

2. You don't loose Law-Chaos if you kill someone while you have the Attacker Flag if you are on a bounty. You will lose on the good-evil axis and reputation, but those are minimized if your target is evil and has low reputation. You should be able to see the targets reputation and/or alignment when you take a bounty. And we havent gone into anything on how you might gain alignment or rep. It whould be possible for a paladin to maintain a LG alignment while taking bounties on evil players.

3. It's more likely that a LG person may be a pacifist crafter than an evil one. But it certianly isn't a synonym for being a care-bear.

I am clear on all 3 points except how 3 is relevant. It doesn't make the problem any better.

Evil Murderdude rides through town, kills five people and burns down an orphanage. The next day we catch Evil Murderdude out stomping on flowers and singing praises to Rovagug, attack him and kill him. Because his flag wore off that was chaotic evil even though he has an evil rating if 98/100 a chaos rating of 96/100 and a reputation of 2/100. Sure we don't take a big hit but we shouldn't take one at all.

We are out riding the roads all day. Several times we come along chaotic evil groups sitting along roadways waiting for traders. We run them all off and kill many in the process to keep the roads safe for neutral traders. At the end of the day we come home more chaotic, more evil, and with a lower reputation.

This is unacceptable to me. Good aligned doesn't mean pacifist. Paladins wield swords for a reason. You don't take alignment hits for killing goblins and bandits in the P&P for a reason. Even when you fire the first shot.

Maybe we need to know the actions that make us good and lawful before anything.

also, Bounty became more an assasinate contact now.

Andius... You need to wait that they attack first. it his all.

I'm starting to think that to this alignment system make sense people should all start as true neutral...

But people who want their first acheviement in paladin or monk will have to work a certain amount of time before they got it.

Maybe the starting alignement should be lawful good because you won't have any flag yet.

I like that.

I imagine the scene. You are transporting good. You have been ambushed. The bandit say: ''Give me your or die!'' You think you can beat him. You wait that he attack. Surprise there more than one and they are powerful. You try your best, But the hp jauge is becoming too low. The bandit repeat : ''give me your gold or die!''

On the losing side. You accept.

The bandit have your money and he just have a shift to chaotic and not evil. It will have the possibility to have access to better equipement if he was evil. He is just chaotic.

Is it just me, or did the forums take a header?

Header?

GrumpyMel, good observation there! It has got me thinking - as a Wizard, I will likely have a number of non-damaging spells available to me, like sleep or web. I wonder how the flag mechanism would handle that? It's a defensive move, as I am doing no damage - heck, it could give me time to flee if I wanted to, so would it be seen as an attack, thus giving the attacker flag, or would that only occur if I damage another PC?

Even if you don't do dommage, You should have an attacker flag. (I think.) You have use a done something against an another player.

The grey about that is this situation: You use not web to attack the player but for giving you cover. The web don't touch the other player.

If the other player or anybody else who come by touch (don't attack it ) it, does the player who had cast the spell will have the attacker flag?

The other player could have just touch it because he want the first player having the flag and not him.

The same question goes in reverse. Do you have a flag if you attack the web that bloking you?

@ uthreth

You are right. It could be a inventive to being attack. It all to take the risk. But the aspect of taking the gear should follow the idea for looting. (Less than they actually have and threading)

For your other idea. I think that they don't have confirmed the presence of physical Npc (maybe in the starter idea) and attack a settlement is more a mass combat.

But those who will protect camp or some house. It maybe a good idea.

It a point system.

"We're working on a Stamina system that somewhat mimics the rounds of the Pathfinder RPG. Every six seconds, players will receive a pool of points they'll be able to spend taking various actions, breaking down combat into a number of tactical decisions.

Players who plan out their attacks to maximize their abilities in terms of Stamina will be better off than those who rely on straight speed to spam abilities as quickly as possible. The "planning player" will end each six second interval with no excess Stamina, while the "spamming player" will end up with unused points in their pool."

https://goblinworks.com/blog/index.html#20121024

With that, I don't think that a fatigue system will be necessary.

I just have a idea.

Miner with adamatium pick.

The production will double!!!!!!

This CAN be a Way to invest money in your job. Tavern with a heroes's feast permanent .

All those thing that item who are more not combat focused and more ecnomic driven could be give the NPc. Of course the deterioration would continue but the gain will surpast the cost.

I want a feel of pathfinder. Food is important. Lacking food also important. The debuff is acceptable sure this is a pain. It is like the pnp. This why the ring of substenance will the more popular item in the mmo like the pnp.

I need more money.

In the goblinworks blog «The action bar also corresponds to hotkeys. The first 10 slots correspond to the number keys 1–10. The second 10 slots correspond to the function keys F1–F10. Of course, we anticipate that you'll be able to customize these keybindings if you don't want to use these defaults. And you'll also be able to activate these actions by clicking the action bar with your mouse pointer.»

https://goblinworks.com/blog/index.html#20121024

I don't understand. what is auto-follow?

I just wondering. What will be the difference between a plain and a forest hexes? Does will have a bonus on certain activity like agriculture or forestry or maybe it will a change in the proportion of the type of camps.

I writting that because of the guild land rush.

Opinion

Scénario A Yes You can be part of 1-aligement step settlement. ( It will influence the settlement toward good not the contrary.)

B. If it is a contract. you will lose some loyal points and reputation if you don't respect it. If not. Those who attack will have the attacker flag. (So you will know who is) Even if those who call help and being are some low reputation chaotic evil character. Initiate a combat is chotic at best and evil at worst. So if you aid the chaotic evil team, it will stil be a good action.

Scenario C. I don't think that creating poison will be an ingredient to create antidote. (maybe some ingredients of poison and antidote have the some in common)

Now there the catch the B could be the result of C. Those attackers could be doing it because the chaotic evil have the poison...

Mostly the attackers are neutral good or someting lower. If the ng tell the problem. The lg could help (kill a chaotic evil a much lesser impact in alignement and reputation)or help the ce or doing nothing. Those three options should not change the alignement of the nettles. (lg could call ally who don't have the restriction of law)

You can run. You can be good and loyal and be a chicken.

Thank you tetrix for this occasion.

Humble, kind and benevolent. I dream about saving town of bandits, finding a special ingredient to save a little ill girl. I wish to be the NPC who help the hero because he know the terrain. The boy who without his help evil would have won. I dream myself of finding donjons, keeps and ressources. I am the one who say let's talk first and than we will fight.

In the midst of battle of good and evil, he will just want to live his life. His flaw: too gullible.

As long you follow the philosophy. I doesn't matter. I think.

I just wonder if the thief tag will have a mecanical effet...

I don't think so. The thief should have a time limit. It will be very boring if you being attack, kill the bandit and loot the chaotic evil. Three year later you always the thief tag.

I understand that a lawful player will not loot. (it will be very difficult to be lawful. I like it!)

Does some items won't be threadable? Like components? Because I imagine that the kill teleport will be very interesting.

Keep in mind that players don't have aggro mechanics, so you'd have to have very good positioning to convince them to keep attacking a "tank" that was being healed faster than they could do damage rather than just greasing the healer. We'll likely do our best to get AI enemies to behave similarly so there's not a huge disconnect between PvP and PvE fights.

The Pathfinder tabletop roles with the easiest access to healing also tend to be capable combatants, rather than their main job being hanging in the back refilling health bars like in some games, and we're very likely to maintain that in PFO. That is, you'll probably have a hard time setting up as a "dedicated healer" in the first place, and you'd be giving up a lot of useful non-healing contributions if you do.

So with those elements in mind, how would people like to see healing work?

The same feeling in the roleplaying games. I do not think that the cleric can just do healing. But it is the best group healer with his ability to channel positive energy. This power heal a average of the quarter of all hitpoint and a cure wound is useful after the fight, because everyone is attacked. If the warrior is not the least injured, the thief has little left so he treats everyone in the vicinity, He should only use cure wound in an emergency and even it may have already used his most powerful spell. So, there are only the lower level spells left.

I'll make an example of our cleric in the campaign where I play.
Our cleric is a para-medic warrier. It is in the heat of the action. His feats are just focused on concentration. His first spells he throws are his fire domain and then it protects and heals the group after. The group members can collect a number of stroke before seeking help.

Spells of protection, he is the first to use them. To date, our cleric is the one who has been killed the most. They tried to steal his soul, and he was poisoned numerous times and half the fight he is under zero. During a surprise attack, He is the target. There have even been times when he cast freedom of movement on himself and it was me who was grapple. He was right, because we would have missed the talents of our best group healer (and I say group) and a good fire power.

I would like the healing being done by level. I mean that the spell of remove disease would not have always the same power. A Disease level 5 should not be treated with a remove of level three. It could, slowing or canceling this effect for a while, but that could not be remove.

For example, I am suffering from leprosy, a disease level 5. Every 15 minutes I lose skill levels achieved on the attribute affected (attribute also down). After one hour. If I did not care, I may have lose a significants levels of competence. I would than need of restoration. If I have resistance to the disease, if I got treated by a lot of lower level or in a non-magical way. I have some time where the disease, although present and infectious, does not affect me. The remove diesease level 4 can have no effect on me for 30 minutes, but I could not have the same spell cast on me after 30 minutes because it takes a lot more powerful to work) Same for curses.

The problem with this idea is that it is perhaps better and faster to kill myself than be treated.

non-magical heals should never have the same effect as magic. Except for the points, everything non-mechanical heal could do is to prevent the symptoms of the disease to come after some time.

Cure wound or channel positive energy (or mercy. I have forgot about them) should not be very powerful. Only to make last the combat a little longer, but with equal force, the monster will do more damage than healing.

(Version orignale)

Le même sentiment que dans le jeu de rôle. Je ne pensait pas que le cleric n'avait que le but de soigner. Mais qu'il soit le meilleur soigneur de groupe avec sa faculté de channel positive energy. Cette faculté remonte en moyenne le quart de tous nos points de vie et les sort de soins direct sont utile après le combat, car tout le monde se fait attaqué. Si le guerrier n'est pas pour le moins du monde blessé, le voleur lui reste que peu de points de vie alors il soigne tout le monde au alentours. Il n'utilise que les soins de sort direct en cas d'urgence et même il peut déjà avoir utilisé ses sorts le plus puissant . Alors il ne reste que des sorts de niveau inférieurs.

Je vais faire l'exemple de notre cleric dans la campagne où je joue.
Notre cleric est un para-médic combatant. Il est dans le feu de l'action. Ses feats sont juste axé sur la concentration. Ses premiers sorts qu'il lance sont de son domaine du feu et ensuite il protège et après ils soigne le groupe. Les membre du groupe peuvent encaisser un certain nombre de coup avant de demander de l'aide.

Les sorts de protection, c'est sur lui qui les lance. À ce jour, notre cleric a été celui qui a été tué le plus souvent. On a essayé de lui voler son âme, empoisonné et a été de nombreuse fois sous la barre des zéros. Durant un attaque surprise, c'est lui qu'on vise. Il est même arrivé des moments où il lançait le sort de freedom of mouvement sur lui alors, que c'était moi que était grapplé. Il avait bien raison, car nous aurions manqué les talents de notre meilleur soigneur de groupe (et je dit bien groupe)et d'un bonne puissance de feu.

Je voudrais que le healing se fasse par niveau. Je veux dire que le sort de soins des maladies bien qu'un sort de niveau 3 dans le jeu de rôle n'aurait pas toujours la même puissance. Une maladie de niveau 5 ne devrais pas être soignée par soin de niveau trois. Elle pourrait par contre le ralentir ou annuler c'est effet pendant une certain temps, mais que ne pourrais pas être renouveler.

Par exemple, je suis atteint de la lèpre, un maladie de niveau 5. Elle dure 1 heure de jeu. À chaque 15 minutes je perd des niveaux de compétence sur l'attribut atteint (L'attribut aussi descente). Après une heure. Si je n'ai pas de soins, je risque d'avoir perdu un niveau important de compétence pour avoir besoin du sort de restauration. Si je suis entraîné à la résistance à la maladie, si je me suis fait soigner par un sort de niveau inférieur ou de façon non magique. J'ai un certain temps où la maladie, bien que présente et infectieuse, ne m'affecte pas. Le sort de guérison des maladies niveau 4 permet de ne pas avoir d'effet pendant 30 minutes, mais je ne pourrais pas avoir le même sort ou inférieur après 30 minutes car il faut un sort plus puissant pour que cela fonctionne) Même chose pour les curses.

Le problème avec cette idée,c'est qu'il convient peut-être mieux de se tuer avec presque rien pour se faire se soigner sois-même.

Un soin non-magical ne pourra jamais avoir le même effet que la magie. À part pour les points de vie, tout ce que le non-mécanique pourrais faire c'est empêcher les symptômes de la maladie pendant un certain temps.

Un soin de point de vie ne devrait pas être très puissant. Seulement pour faire durer le combat un peu plus longtemps, mais à force égale, le monstre va faire plus de dégâts que les soins.