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

Robb Smith's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 349 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 4 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 349 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
I don't think they've expressed a position publicly, but a number of guides do contain discussion of setting-specific material -- i.e., "this works particularly great if you're a mystery cultist of Desna", etc.

Yeah that's cool. I doubt his would really step on it badly.


I would agree that it's a good idea to highlight 3PP content, because a lot of people are fussy about that -- some because 3PP can't be used in organized play, others because they just want a bright line around what's canon and what isn't.

Doug M.

Yup. My group in particular has a really fond appreciation of the work that Paizo has put in making sure that the vast bulk of options are, well, "Different, but not necessarily better." We don't allow 3PP material at all because of what we all observed with 3.0 and 3.5, where publishers determined the fastest way to sell books was to just make them more powerful!

A guide that includes 3PP and doesn't go to extra lengths to point it out is really of limited usefulness to me personally, but YMMV.

Can you provide more detail as to specifically what you're looking for? From my side it actually looks like an exceptionally solid encounter already, and I would be concerned that adding anything more to it would probably detract from the story you're already trying to tell...

I just had a few things to proffer on the more "General Housekeeping" side.. Now, just to begin, I want to of course stress that IANAL, but even given this some of the things I saw made me tweak a little in terms of the "concern" list.

1) If you are going to include information from 3rd Party sources, I would make sure specifically to call out that they are 3rd Party.

2) Your guide includes word-for-word verbatim printings of the mechanics. This is verboten without following the rules of the OGL. Additionally, I would also advise you to check and verify if you are going to include 3rd party materials that you verify that this information is considered Open Gaming Content, and if so you need to include a copy of the OGL at the end of your guide.

The reason you don't see an OGL insert on guides in because, in general , they do not include the word-for-word mechanics, just a review on them. Compare and contrast your guide with the others. Synopsis good, word-for-word printing of rules without OGL data bad.

In your present state, I suspect that you are in violation of the OGL and should remedy ASAP. Citations are good, but not sufficient.

3) Diety names, descriptions and fluff are generally not OGL content... But I don't know what Paizo's stance on stuff like this is for guides. You'll note that all of this fluff is stripped on open gaming sites like the PF SRD, etc.

Gilarius wrote:

Knowledge skills.

If your GM won't allow you to work it out in character, maybe he should offer you the chance to rebuild your character into a non - necromancer?

I would frankly have to agree with this sentiment. This sort of question is not even a question in every game I have ever played in. You either do a little bit of research (off-camera) and get the answer or it's just hand-waived anyway because it's not worth wasting play time on.

If your GM is asking questions like this, or even hinting at the concept that you don't know how close to your controlled limit you are, it's pretty obvious they don't want you playing a necromancer character (and frankly, I don't really blame them for it.)

I am, however, a proud member of both the "Class features are meant to be boons, not banes." and "Class features should not inadvertently kill the party" camps.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What in the name of creation are you talking about? The feat or class ability is the source of the bonus. You are confusing "type" with "source".

Wraith is correct. You are 100% wrong, and just posted the rules citation illustrating exactly why.


I think theoretically, you could just keep casting Magic Jar spells indefinitely

I don't believe this works like that. Casting another magic jar is just casting another copy of the spell, not extending the one you already have present. Magic Jar #1 will still expire as normal, forcing you back to your body. I'm not seeing anything in here that allows you to extend a spell by casting it again.


If I am already dead, then resurrection magic should work on my corpse, no?

No, because you're missing a vital component - the soul must be free and willing to return. Yours is not free (being stuffed in a gem is not exactly "free")

Since the communication is mostly effectively verbal, the time required is contingent on the complexity of the action you are requesting it take. I would say most would fall into the category of "free action", but at DM discretion exceptionally complicated commands (i.e, the sort that could only be given to intelligent undead) could possibly require longer.

Specific > General, and Cannot > Can.

You are truly and utterly destroyed, and cannot be restored to life. Not even by your racial reincarnation fluff.

I share the opinion that you cannot address an out-of-game mentality problem with an in-game solution. Have a chat with your players and tell them that you're feeling a bit stifled in creating interesting and engaging locations for them to visit because of the "take everything that isn't nailed down and half the stuff that is" mentality increasing their wealth beyond reasonable level.

When you get into this space, your own personal universe is the answer. It gets you a large number of permanent castings of create demiplane (lesser, greater, vanilla) with permanency and then plenty of money for structures, etc.

alchemicGenius wrote:
from another thread in which someone was arguing that those two spells are game breaking, so I must have just carried over the sentiments over here

Oh wow. They're definitely not game-breaking, but they are paradigm-shifting. Combat moving into 3D space and players being effectively able to completely bypass chunks of the adventure really change the "normal", but in no way do they break the game o.o

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:

General PF rules? Sure a player can know more. But no one plays general PF, they play their GMs game which only resembles General PF because they want it too.

This is even true for things such as PFS. There just happen to be quasi-over-GMs that create some rules for GMs to play by. But that doesn't eliminate table-variation, try using illusions at several PFS tables if you don't believe me. Even in the most structured, the players are still playing in the GMs world.

I am going to fundamentally disagree with you on this one. I believe that most players AND GMs both strive to adhere to the RAW as printed. Mistakes are made, and often corrected, But saying "a player can't know more rules then the GM" because one GM might arbitrarily decide that falling is 1d6 per 20 feet instead of per 10 feet does not mean the GM "knows more rules" then the player. It means they created a variance to the rules of which the player may be unaware. It means they have arbitrarily decided to change a rule of the game.

Bluntly, if these changes are not communicated to the players in advance, therefore maintaining the status quo of "it is possible for a player to know more rules then the GM", that GM is, simply put, a bad GM. House rules or rule changes should be known, by everyone at the table, well in advance of that situation coming into play. Any situation in which the GM does not like the outcome should be run RAW and a discussion should be had after the fact, not a sudden "this is how it works". Anything else is unfair to the players.

Table variation does not excuse poor adherence to the RAW, and one of my understandings about the current state of PFS is that things like table variation and GMs not staying up to date with corrections and errata is viewed as an "elephant in the room" that needs to be addressed more harshly. It is also one of the few reasons I don't play PFS - The venture captains I've met have been unwilling to have the stones to step in and overrule a blown GM call and put things back how they're supposed to be, as opposed to other living campaign systems I've played in.

Are casters overpowered? Yes. But not in the typical way. Flexibility is the ultimate power. Casters are, and always will be, more flexible then martial characters once an arbitrary level line (generally, I place it at 3rd level spells). Their spells allow them to "break the rules". Not the rules of the game, but the rules of the world - things like gravity, time, and space.

Where I've personally observed the rift starting to become a problem is right around the 10-12 level space. Where the offensive and encounter-ending spells start getting shifted into the higher level spots, which frees up a huge chunk of those low level slots for utility and buffs. I've seen arguments for as low as 7th, once Black Tentacles comes into play.

But, the biggest thing though that causes the rift is pretty simple, and I can sum it up in two words: System Mastery. The players who know more about the rules are generally called on to make the casters because the people playing martial classes are often times new to the game, and thus still learning; that or they are the players who are simply unwilling or unable to put in the time to read through hundreds of spells.

All and all though, I think you see less of disparity today because after 15 years of playing d20 based games, players have learned that the fastest and easiest path to victory is not "just let the wizard/cleric handle everything". People have instead learned that voltron-mode on the fighter allows them to just wreck face. Martial classes have also gotten better - more options that they didn't have previously to break the rules, even if not to the same level as the casters. But Fighter+crazy buffs who is constantly getting Dim-Doored around to make full attacks on whatever target people want dead is king of our tables.

Duncan888 wrote:
Could someone who was say a lvl 11 bard with eld heritage and improved eld heritage non draconic go into dd and then get draconic bloodline too?

Spellcasting: Ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells without preparation. If the character has sorcerer levels, he must have the draconic bloodline. If the character gains levels of sorcerer after taking this class, he must take the draconic bloodline.

Please read the bolded sections. While a bard casts spells like a sorcerer, it is not a sorcerer. Nor does eldritch heritage actually give you a bloodline, it just gives you bloodline powers from one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:

Unlike you I didn't decide to champion a joke argument.

Step back a bit and look at the title of both our arguments

"Invisibility doesn't make you quieter"

Whether or not invisibility makes you quieter is completely irrelevant. The spell provides a +40/+20 bonus to stealth checks. It doesn't matter if the monster can hear you or not. Pathfinder has no specific mechanism for distinguishing perception checks based on hearing versus perception based on vision, it's all part and parcel of the same check.

You can walk around invisible, banging cymbals together and blowing into a tuba. You still get a +20 bonus to your stealth, opposed by your opponent's perception.

For the above example, however, a circumstance penalty may be warranted.

Gaberlunzie - Here's a secret for these forums. When one person tells you that you're wrong, you may still be right and that person doesn't know what they're talking about. When 3 people tell you that you're wrong, There's a small chance that you're still right, and people can't recognize the failings of the English language and the limitations of printed media.

When EVERYONE tells you that you're wrong, you're probably just wrong, and it's time to move on and let it go.

You are wrong.

Oh, and to the OP: Yes, Casters are broken after about level 9.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaberlunzie wrote:

Instead of claiming the argument is desperate or stupid, could you people put forth counterarguments?

I mean, by my reading all of the rules makes sense in regard to this. Spells in an actual list of spells for the sor/wiz are on the sor/wiz spell list. Spells that have a sor/wiz spell designation but are not published on any list (such as blood money) are "unusual spells" that the sorcerer can gain "understanding of through study".

How does that not make sense?

While I understand your logic, you are just incorrect. The "Sorcerer/Wizard" spell list is comprised of every spell contained in the universe of content that has been created for the game. The fact that one "snapshot" of this list, included in the CRB, comprises the "sorcerer/wizard spell list", is easily countered with the fact that Ultimate Magic and the Advanced Player's Guide both also have "Spell Lists" that are all separate and distinct from one another. "Spell List" is used singularly. Which "spell list" are you limited to, when dozens exist?

If your class is capable of casting the spell, it is on your class's "spell list" as a spell of the appropriate level.

BigDTBone wrote:
PRD wrote:
Entertainer's Outfit: This set of flashy—perhaps even gaudy—clothes is for entertaining. While the outfit looks whimsical, its practical design lets you tumble, dance, walk a tightrope, or just run (if the audience turns ugly).
I'm prepared to argue that clown pants are on the table under "Clothing."

I could easily come up with a thousand instances of things that aren't, but I'm trying to keep it family friendly here. Use your imagination, pretend I said something outlandish or crude instead.

BigDTBone wrote:
No, because armors are listed on the equipment table under "armor," that's how we know they are armor. If it isn't on the table under "armor" then in order to count as armor it needs to explicitly state, "this effect counts as armor."


Clown pants aren't listed on the clothing table as clothing, either. Are you prepared to argue that wearing clown pants doesn't count as wearing clothing for purposes of the spell?

My reading is that you would survive, inhabiting the host body, until the spell's duration expires (or the host is slain). At that point, you would be forced back into the jar (or instantly slain, if out of range). Given there are no rules provided to extend the current iteration of the spell by simply casting it again, I don't see a functional way to prevent the spell from eventually expiring - Casting it again would not prevent the original casting from expiring and forcing you back to your body.

As for the resurrection or raise dead, it seems pretty self-explanatory. The spell fails because you are not technically dead (yet.) Just your body is.


Raise Dead:

You restore life to a deceased creature. You can raise a creature that has been dead for no longer than 1 day per caster level. In addition, the subject's soul must be free and willing to return. If the subject's soul is not willing to return, the spell does not work; therefore, a subject that wants to return receives no saving throw.

Your soul is not free. It is bound to a magic jar or inhabiting a host body.

Hey, it at least gives you a chance to plan your own funeral.

LazarX wrote:

And you're doing the usual mistake of trying to argue the rules backwards.

It's irrelevant as to what else doesn't "count as a suit of armor" by your convoluted argument.

No, it's entirely relevant. It's called precedent. It's an important tool in language. Our language, and even our legal systems - undeniably the pinnacle of where the specifics of wording matters - all operate under the concept of precedent.

He has pointed out that less than half of the armor listed in the core rules are specifically referred to as "suits of armor". This establishes a precedent - not everything that is "armor" is going to be called out specifically as a "suit of armor".

You are attempting to hold Mage Armor to a higher standard than the armor entries in the CRB simply because you do not want it to work that way.

I'll add, by using your standard then, it does apply to the shield spell, correct? That is specifically called out as being a "shield of force".

As was stated initially, it works fine RAW. My contention is that it is unnecessarily punitive to interpret it in this manner.

Look. One of the most important abilities of a GM is to be able to take and separate the "flavor" from the "actual crunch". What we have is a contention between an ambiguous rule and an non-relevant class ability flavor description. Failing to take this simple limitation of all human language into account would lead to the Core Rulebook being a mathematical textbook of several hundred thousand pages, attempting to describe and codify all the properties of the known universe. Then, you would add probably another several hundreds of thousands of pages describing how imaginary things modify those properties. It would require doctorate degrees in all the natural science disiplines to understand and use.

Instead, we get something practical. Something that occasionally has vagueries, inconsistencies, and odd interactions. The GM's job is to learn to interpret these in a fair way to the players.

So yes, by RAW Corrupt Water can absolutely ruin an alchemist's bombs. And every single Fireball that is cast reduces the planet to a charred, lifeless husk floating in space, because it ignites all combustible objects in the area and you can make the argument that the atmosphere is combustible when exposed to enough heat.

blahpers wrote:
If the alchemist's alchemy lab/supplies fails its save, they'd be spoiled too, same as if a caster's spell component pouch caught fire. The catalysts that the alchemist is presumed by the text to have mixed that morning should get their own saves. No biggie, go buy or craft a new lab. Would you say that a wizard's spell component pouch is off-limits when they roll a 1 on their fireball save?

On the first point, I see nothing in the alchemy lab description that makes mention of any liquids or chemicals. The caster's spell component pouch is not off limits, but protected by a nearly impervious shield of "statistical improbability." The wizard first needs to roll a one. The wizard then needs to have only 3 total possessions that fall into the 9 categories of items above "anything else". They then need to randomize between that and every other item they possess on their person. After all of those the attack still needs to deal sufficient damage to bypass object hardness and hit points (at this point it's probably almost a sure thing, but still a possibility it fails). That's quite a far cry from "Make a DC <x> save or you can't use bombs today. Or extracts. Or mutagens. Or poisons. Or anything else you may have crafted. You can probably poke it with a dagger though... well, as long as it's magic I suppose."

As for normally untracked resources suddenly mattering, well, yeah, that happens. I don't require my players to track how much food or water they carry or consume when in town, leaving that to cost of living, but if they get teleported to a desert or another plane then it sure as salamanders matters then.

Substantial difference. We are talking about an untracked resource used by a class to fuel a class ability that they can create an undefinied number of, that the very rules themselves "hand waive" within the description. The very rules that define how the ability functions basically say, in more flowery language, "ignore how this actually works."

Your comparison between an "untracked" resource that the players should be cognizent of - their need to eat and drink to live - to a tiny subsection of ability description that describes the valueless, meaningless material component of "liquid catalyst" required to use a class feature, is not a valid counterpoint to me. If your players aren't writing rations on their character sheet, especially player characters who should always be living under the assumption they may get called to action on the drop of a hat, they are willingly (and foolishly) making a decision to not carry around any spare resources that they have a reasonable expectation may come into play in a game. Stripping an alchemist of untracked bomb catalyst when it has never, ever been called into play by the DM, player, or the rules themselves is something that is an unrealistic expectation.

That is why it is an unfair GM call. Bomb catalyst is something that would never be discussed in an actual game in any meaningful capacity. It's something that only gets discussed here, on these forums, as something to turn into a weapon to blindside players who have never been given any reason to think it is something they should have any consideration for whatsoever.

Do the BT’s ‘fall’ into the pit? Or do they stay level with the original height of the ground. Note that the description of create pit includes: “the pit has no weight and does not otherwise displace the original underlying material.”

In the example provided, the tentacles remain in place at the casted height. The rules for spread make no mention of the affected area being recalculated if the environment it is cast into changes. This is later reinforced with the sentence If the spell affects an area, then the spell stays with that area for its duration. The tentacles are anchored into the ground underneath the plane of the created extradimensional space.

If BT’s stay level with the original ground height, do they ‘extend’ downwards into the pit per the spell effect radius?

GM's interpretation. I would rule since the tentacles emerge from underneath the extradimensional space, which is a one way portal, the answer is "no". It would be a GM call if they could bend down and reach into the pit.

Will A (grappled) actually need to make a reflex save to fall, since he is grappled by BT? Or does he stay stuck above the pit?

My reading of the RAW leads me to this conclusion: The rules for grapple state that you cannot move. However, falling is not moving, it is involuntary movement being effected on your character.

Since the tentacles cannot move (as established above), the character falls into the pit through involuntary movement. The tentacles are unable to remain adjacent, and as such the grapple immediately fails.

If party member B fails his reflex save, does he need to immediately save against BT, as he is ‘shunted’ to edge of the pit (where BT is?)

Yes. He enters the area of effect (albeit unwillingly) and is immediately attacked. "Entering" is a harsher form of "moves into".

If B fails his save and is knocked prone at the bottom, is he immediately grappled by BT?

In my interpretation, no, as the tentacles do not extend into the pit.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure, by RAW you can absolutely use this sentence to strip your alchemist player of every single class feature that they have.

However -

There is no limit to how much catalyst an alchemist can create or have available, only to how much they can infuse with magic and use in a day. If you don't make your alchemist write down how much catalyst they are preparing and have available, you are very much taking RAW vs. Ability descriptions too far.

It is an unfair GM call to take a normally untracked resource like bomb catalyst and suddenly change it into something that matters in the game. This would be just like suddenly asking your spellcasters if they have bat guano written on their character sheet after years of using the "spell component pouches count as having everything" rule.


Can you please cancel the subscriptions and if possible, the pending June order. No issues, just some cash flow problems at the moment.

Combat expertise is as it has always been, a feat and stat tax to block access to higher tier, more useful feats. The stat req of 13 INT is no different than 13 DEX for the dodge tree or 13 STR for the power attack tree. It is of marginal use, but is by no means devoid of value nor is it in need of "fixing".

Cause fighters need another dump stat, amirite?

3 people marked this as a favorite.


Well Ryan, I must say that I honestly wish you the best of luck in your endeavor. Unfortunately however, as I've stated earlier in this thread, "Some scars never fade", and the entire concept of PVP looting is anathema to me.

Regardless of what's lootable, how small of a value it may be, or how easily replaceable it is, it is still my time being wasted. I'll agree with you that it adds value to PVP, but the problem is that it adds value to meaningless PVP. It creates an entire culture of "I'm going to kill you for your stuff." It reduces heroes to the same status as mobs - Kill them to see what drops off the random loot chart.

There is no such thing as "high value items" with these sort of systems, because the highest value items become the ones that people aren't afraid to lose. Anything higher then that becomes relegated to the status of stash-bait or "look at my sweet collection of magic items I'll never use because I might drop them if someone ganks me or I die'.

I also think that your policy regarding Chaotic Evil players is interesting, but I am relatively sure that the policy of crippling their character development is going to either have to be toned back to the point of meaninglessness or you will find no one for your Lawful Good players to wage war against.

Unfortunately, I am a man of my word. As expressed earlier in the thread, PVP looting is a subject on which I have no room for negotiation or compromise. It is a shame, because while I'm sure that while you probably consider me a royal pain in the behind, I appear to have been one of the few people here that isn't just a yes man, and wasn't afraid to step up and challenge you. I wish I could have remained here to do so, personally I feel a stronger and better game is forged from the fires of contention, argument, and debate then a dozen people telling you that every single decision is the best one ever - for that small subset of people.

While I fully understand that on a whole it is a meaningless and token gesture, I also cannot in good conscience spend my hard earned money on something that I do not fully support. So it is with a heavy heart that I have just completed cancelling my pledge.

I wish you and your team the best of luck, and I hope the game is successful for what you envision it to be. But for me, it seems that you are making a PVP game with some Pathfinder, and not a Pathfinder game with some PVP. And, as you stated "Not everyone is going to like the game." Trust me, I wanted to like it.


Jameow wrote:
Robb Smith wrote:

So now what I'm hearing, in addition to my long list of other things to put me on the fence, is that victory in PVP will be based on gear/training, and not skill?

It will be based on player skill still, as the gap between newbie and veteran is not that great. A group of newbies is supposed to he able to take on a more advanced character. Or at least survive the encounter.

Right, that's what I'm saying. With Shephen and Lee's video talking about the diminished power curve, but then Ryan's statements that "if your settlement sucks, you suck"... well, if your settlement sucking means you don't get access to gear/training?

A Chaotic Evil player is probably going to be PVPing a large portion of the time. If the skill they develop by doing so doesn't allow them to easily outclass Lawful Good characters, I am coming to the natural conclusion that this must be because of what they lack: Training and Gear.

So now what I'm hearing, in addition to my long list of other things to put me on the fence, is that victory in PVP will be based on gear/training, and not skill? And the main reason Chaotic Evil characters will start to "suck" is because they won't have access to these things as readily, or at all?

That's not risk and reward, that's adding a grind curve to being a jerk.

"Finally got that last training I think I need, time to go start butchering some newbs!"

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the support Morgen, Berik, Vjek, and others. I do appreciate others being willing to step up and toe the line with me on this one. I do feel that those of us with this mindset are heavily underrepresented here, probably due to having been driven off in the past.

And to Jameow, I know that we don't agree 100% on this, but I appreciate you being at least able to step over the line here with us for a little bit and say "you know. From this side of the line, it doesn't really make sense."

To those of you out there lurking who here who are perhaps shy, don't want the exposure, or don't enjoy confrontation, you're welcome to send me private messages and I'll be happy to represent you as well. Or, as an alternative, you can just favorite this post.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just want to confirm that you were talking CCP, the company who, just last year, had their CEO come out and apologize for not listening to their fans telling them that things that were put into or taken out of the game were horrible ideas?

The company whose CEO made this statement?

Hilmar Veigar Pétursson, CEO wrote:

Somewhere along the way, I began taking success for granted. As hubris set in, I became less inclined to listen to pleas for caution. Red flags raised by very smart people both at CCP and in the community went unheeded because of my stubborn refusal to allow adversity to gain purchase on our plans. Mistakes, even when they were acknowledged, often went unanalyzed, leaving the door open for them to be repeated.

Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Psyblade wrote:
yes, but that means they have to pay for 2 accounts. But I am getting to a point where i am going to try and give up with this whole argument. There will always people who will want no risk and all the rewards (like in a themepark) and don't want to work for it.

You're missing the entire POINT. The point is that you say there's risk and reward. What I am demonstrating to you is with either minimal effort or a tiny amount of additional resource expenditure, practically every punishment that has been extoled is MEANINGLESS.


It is a pointless discussion and as said before, you will lose loot when you die in this game. So either suck it up and sign up for the kickstarter to see how it is, find friends to play with or just leave.

No company has ever gained any useful data during the design process by having a select group of fanboys tell them how awesome all their ideas are and how this is gonna be the "best game ever!". They learn valuable information by people like me coming here and telling them why certain ideas are trash and why they will not be appealing to large subsections of the market. There are ENTIRELY TOO MANY Eve supporters on this board and not enough contradicting voices that will give this game any sort of chance to evolve beyond anything but Eve 2: Now With Swords.

And, in case you haven't read numerous posts, I've been signed up since the first hour it went up. I'm determining if I'm staying pledged or not.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Psyblade wrote:
As an example with eve. you have the pirates, they are people who gank in lowsec where they prey on the miners, unaware rat-ers etc. If lucky they get the gank, they get some items. The result after a while will be they can no longer enter the hi-sec areas anymore. If you have -3 you will be attacked by patrols (and they will slow/stun (web) you so you cannot get away and proceed to kill you. The result after a while will be that they are limited to the low sec or nul sec areas. They cannot have access to the items that are being sold in the hi-sec locations, and those prices are most of the times half of what they are in low-sec and sometimes even more expensive in nul-sec. So they will have to work harder to get their money to buy the...

Or you just do what the smart eve players do and get a second account. That solves that problem pretty quick, doesn't it?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Psyblade wrote:
in a sandbox game you, the player and all the other players around, are the storyteller and the characters in the game and thus you can make your own story and actions that will impact the game. So if there are people that want to go out and play bandit, it is their right. In regards of that they should get a reward for their actions. And they will get punishment as well. Same goes for good players, they won't be able to go out and pk right away and will have to wait till they get attacked.

So, what is the risk/reward to the party? Losing everything they have and everything they've gained over the past 3 hours, and their reward is getting to keep everything they've already earned by exposing themselves to a ton of risk.

And the risk/reward to the PK? They either get free stuff, some of it likely to be good since they did just come out of a dungeon. The risk is one dagger.

Yeah, seems fair.

Elorebaen wrote:

- Another way, would be to heal up before leaving.
- Another way, would be to scout ahead before leaving.
- Another way, would be to consider the potential for danger after leaving the dungeon as part of the adventure.
- Another way, would be to...

Not enough of the game mechanics are known, so I somewhat have to fall back on unrealistic PNP rules to illustrate the point.

~XxX~SephirothPKMaster~XxX~ was more satire than anything.

Psyblade wrote:

*sighs* It feels like beating against a wall over and over... no matter what is being said and done or offered as an olive branch people will always complain about pvp, loot drops etc.

But if you feel like you want to play pvp, risk free and without the loss of items, a themepark MMO is for you. Not a sandbox MMO.

If it feels like you're beating your head against a wall, it's because you are. I've stopped listening to people telling me I want a theme park instead of a sandbox MMO a long time ago, because you have no idea what I want in a game, and no one has even taken 5 seconds to bother asking.

Elorebaen wrote:
*grins at Robb* or an epic story that was not complete upon leaving cave, but also involved the exciting and dangerous journey back to town. Why should the epic adventure end at the cave mouth?!

My point, Elorebaen, was to demonstrate the kind of unfun behavior that occurs when PVP looting is a factor. All of your examples provided, in a PnP game, would be a pretty clear violation of the Social Contract I was referring to.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valkenr wrote:

Yet another example of poor planning by the party/person. You shouldn't be seeking encounters that leave you battered with no way to heal, and if you see one your choices are to run or gamble.

There is a play style change that has to happen to swap from PvE heavy themeparks to body looting sandboxes. You have to plan ahead, and just because you can do something, or can buy something, doesn't mean you should do it or buy it.

You're absolutely right. Dungeons are never perhaps a little tougher then what you planned on. As a contingency, what I should have done is hired a guard to sit outside the dungeon and wait while the rest of us went down through the dungeon and had fun for 3 hours or so, so we could come back up loaded with treasure and tell them how awesome it was. Then they could tell us about all the fun they had standing there, doing some more standing, doing a little more standing, and then telling us that they think they saw an eagle.

Then, in case the guard got jumped, I should have hired a a guard for my guard, to be engaged only if the guard got attacked.

Or I could camp in the dungeon, neglecting the fact that to be an MMO, the game would need things like respawn mechanics.

So, let's sit down and map out the 50 people you think should need to be involved for 4 of us to explore a dungeon and not get murdered, and see how much of a chore we can make the game into instead of fun.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yup. There's nothing a GM can truly do to prevent players from making absolutely stupid decisions and getting thrashed/killed accordingly. There are limits to plausibility involved. The best GMs have you limping out of the cave after hours of adventure with everyone at like, 4 hitpoints, no spells remaining, with a fair amount of treasure, and stories to share back in town.

And then ~XxX~SephirothPKMaster~XxX~ jumps you naked wearing nothing but a dagger, murders you, and takes your stuff and leaves the rest to rot in the wilderness. EPIC ADVENTURE HAD BY ALL!

avari3 wrote:
Jameow wrote:
The main reason I brought the topic up was for training purposes, not duels for sport.
I'm with you. There must be a mechanic for practicing PvP.

Agree completely. Adding wholescale, open PVP with no mechanic to even learn to defend yourself is a recipe for disaster.

And hey, I think we all agreed with each other for once! First time for everything.

And how would that be radically different if the goblins picked the fight with the PCs?

I want to take a moment as a brief aside to talk about the "Social Contract" between Players and GMs in Pencil and Paper games for a moment, because people don't seem to understand it.

There is a social contract in P&P games between the GM and the players, and that contract states that ultimately, the players are supposed to win. This social contract exists for many reasons, first and foremost is because the GM has unlimited access to money, resources, and monsters that they can will into existence by saying "There's an <X> in the room", where <x> is anything.

There aren't any rules for this really, so all that exists is this said social contract. The GM's job is to *challenge* the players without killing them. Yes, sometimes the players make bad decisions and die, but the GM does not go out of their way to kill the players.

So the answer to your question, Decius, is "That wouldn't happen", because it's a violation of the Social Contract. If the players were getting their collective butts kicked by the goblins because they were attacked instead of being the attackers, then that Head Goblin druid just wouldn't show up, and the players would never know.

I know that probably doesn't make a lot of sense if you don't play a lot of P&P games, but it's also one of the reasons why it's nearly impossible to compare P&P gaming to MMO gaming. In an MMO, if that monster is there and you aggro it, you're going to get stomped. In P&P, it's a Shroedinger's Goblin, and it simultaneously exists and doesn't exist based on whether or not it will murder the PCs.

Drakahn wrote:

Well, if the kickstarter succeeds we're supposed to see the beta early-mid 2014 and the release early 2015. Without the million, they still plan to release to the general public in 2016. That means 4 years at the most. Obviously delays can happen, but to claim the game isn't even going to be developed for 4-5 years is WAY off target.

Sorry, meant to say "released" - The forums here are *REALLY* PVP centric, so I have to move quickly between posts to keep up with all the different attacks to my viewpoints.

Ravening wrote:
A bunch of stuff that details a beautiful vision of a fully produced game assuming everything that has ever been said in a blog post ends up being implementable, functional, and viable in the game.

Look, Raven. I get what you're trying to say, and that's a beautiful vision of what things *could be* like.

But we're talking about a game that is what, in current plans, 4 or 5 years away from being developed?

You cannot take blog posts as being gospel. I can't think of a single game that didn't have features dropped because they just ended up being unworkable, unfun, or didn't work as planned.

I can't debate against an idealized vision of the future viewed through rose-colored glasses. It might be like what you're saying, or it might turn out to be completely different. Lots of things change in 4 years.

About the only thing I can say about what you've described is it sounds a lot like a sitting duck scenario.

Drakhan Valane wrote:
One of my favorite PnP sessions recently was one where the DM had a staged encounter. We picked a fight with a group of goblins. Easy enough. A few rounds in, the goblin hounds that heard the cries and din of battle ran in. Shortly after that, the head goblin druid came in from the brush as he was investigating the noise himself. That was a tough battle and nearly got us killed. I don't see how my story is that different from the PvP scenario you describe.
Robb Smith wrote:
In PVE, I control some of the risk.

You chose to fight the goblins. Not the other way around.

Valkenr wrote:

In your miner example. Those miners deserve to lose all their stuff, because they should have had guards with them.

Yes, I am certain there will be a sizable portion of the player base who wants to stand around in case something happens while people mine.

At least there's one thing that's becoming rather clear from these discussions, and that is that I think GoblinWorks needs to be very clear, blunt, and direct about whether they are making a PVP Game that involves some Pathfinder, or a Pathfinder game that involves some PVP. If the entire point of this game is to create "meaningful human interactions" by constant exposure to PVP, then I fail to see what the game has to do with pathfinder outside of vague ties to the setting.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Psyblade wrote:

With the risk of being blunt, insulting and god knows what else, I am going to post this.

What you want is basically the following:

A sandbox MMO, where you have your themepark mixed into it, with your raiding and no loss of items if you mess up.

No, being equally blunt in return, what I want is Pathfinder Online, not Eve 2: Now with swords.

You'll also notice that I haven't commented at all on the PVE portion, have I?

That's because I don't mind it as much.

In PVE, I control some of the risk. In PVE, I can pretty much run away from situations out of my control (if you run in PVP, the ganker just assumes it's because you have a real reason to run and will pursue you till the ends of the earth.) In PVE, I'm usually the one initiating the combat on my terms, not getting jumped while I'm at half health fighting 2 or 3 monsters. I have access to at least SOME FORM of risk-mitigation.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valkenr wrote:

The only people losing anything substantial will be those that aren't thinking and playing with more expensive stuff than they can afford to replace.


Does your frustration come from losing your stuff, or somebody getting a reward for besting you in combat?

The frustration of losing stuff, and in addition, losing even MORE TIME replacing said stuff, from someone who is required to put nothing of significance on the line for the chance to take said stuff.

MicMan wrote:

@Robb: And here is where you are wrong.

It adds risk to PvP where else there would be none.

If you go and mine some precious ore for your guild and you run the risk of being killed and loose this forces you to bring protection or face the risk. It gives bodyguards something to do it forces you to be part of the community while in the other way you would only shrug and run again, hoping to get through this time.

World of a difference.

Yes, and again, it forces an undue burden of the risk onto the party that *doesn't even want to participate*. The person who wants to PVP puts all their stuff in a stash, grabs some throwaway gear, and goes out and initiates combat. The other person has no recourse but to have the high value item on them. It is win/win for the PVP initiator and lose/lose for the victim.

I know very well how this works. You grab your throwaway gear, minimalist reagents, and go murder some miners to get their ore. When you get it, you go stash it so they can't ever get it it back, and repeat the process. If you die, who cares, you grab another set of throwaway gear and go repeat the process. If PK hunters come, you just move somewhere else.

It's a dog/cat/mouse game that has zero positive benefit for the mouse. No one wants to be the mouse.

MicMan, what point are you trying to make? I have already said numerous times, heck, I've even said it on *THIS PAGE OF THIS THREAD*, that I am not that opposed to PVP being in the game. I will not, however, play a game with PVP looting. That's off the table for me. It adds nothing to the game but frustration.

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Why does the decision to allow looting require that the expected value of random killing and looting be positive? UO balanced that poorly, both in low costs and high rewards.

If the expected value of random looting as a behavior is negative, random looters will go bankrupt no matter how effective they are.

Decius: If the expected value of random looting as a behavior is negative, then why bother even having it in the game? At that point there is no value added to the game by having that as a feature.

AvenaOats wrote:
That's a shame Robb, I was hoping my bandit would draw swords with you in game: "He MUST be carrying something valuable to fear being robbed so much!" I joke, in poor taste perhaps. :)

Sorry Avena. UO left this scar on me, and this one is never gonna fade. There's tons of things, absolutely *tons* of things, I'm willing to give a second chance, but this one's absolutely off the table for me. And out there in somewhere, I have dozens of scar-brothers who are silently nodding and thinking "Amen, brother. Preach it." PVP looting is the reason why I won't play Eve, and it is pretty much sounding like it's going to be the reason I won't play PFO.

1 to 50 of 349 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.