I saw these photos (my fav is #5 of the fish coming right at the viewer) and I got inspired thinking if this was ever used in a product?
I know Paizo's adventures have included a fair number of maritime aspects; was wondering if any ever included a Swarm creature of fish??
Calhoun Farstrider wrote:
This is Frostrazor!
Interesting - this character is fashioned after my all-time favorite pen&paper character that I played for a few years in 3.5. He was a barbarian/rogue.
But what's interesting is his backstory was that he was of the "Frostwolf" clan. And he wore the pelt of a Winter Wolf that he killed as a Right of Passage and wore the head over his chest piece.
Then reading about the wolves - it seems it was meant to be.
Thanks for the nudge. Other than Doom Crow I have already told 5 other people who are interested in PF MMO about KotC. I'm hoping to entice them all to join. They are all dear friends (one is actually my aunt).
Well met! I am the comrade of Doomcrow who spoke highly of the Keepers of the Circle - merely from the literature I have seen here. Apparently he took me so seriously and beat me to the act of offering my sword and loyalty.
I have already pledged a fair amount at the Crowdforger + add-ons, and was looking to be part of a guild that had similar outlooks as my own towards good and community.
I have interests in two character - which thanks to pledge will skill-up concurrently
1) Sir Kicley - a warden protector paladin of sorts (though I know the system will be class-less) devoted to defending the weak and innocent.
2) Frostrazor - an Ulfen nomadic wilderness warrior sell-sword type, without a clan looking a for a home and community worthy of calling home; designed for exploration and slaying monsters.
Okay - so I've decided to go Andoran - which was my first choice in the first place.
After re-reading the description of Sczarni in the new PFS guide, I realize that fighting for a cause to control Absalom and limitless wealth.
So with the personality/story changes to my previously played homebrew character, I intend to still give him that same brute ruthless inyourface personality - but rediscovered as a strong-arm tactic justifier-type for the Andoran cause - someone who is just as concerned with slaying slavers as freeing the captives. Someone who is probably considered a maverick among the normal Andoran ranks - certainly no Eagle Knight, someone who is unethical and questionable in his means, but still admired as someone who gets stuff done.
Basically: The Punisher.
Thanks for everyone's help.
Mike Lindner wrote:
That's a good point.
Sadly there is no answer to that. It's merely a means to an end. By that - I mean I (as a player) am forced to select one in order to really be a part of the game.
So then I'm stuck with the lesser of 10 evils.
So he (as a character) is joining the one that will be the least intrusive or obstructive I guess.
This is probably a case of trying to fit a square earth element into into a round hobbit hole because as I'm basing the character after an older home-brew campaign character that I played for a couple years back in 3.5 about 8 years ago. But I'm going to do it anyways.
So I have to come up with a good reason for him.....and at this point I'm been able to discount at least 6 of them - based on what I do know he was like in his previous incarnation.
Now I just have to decide in what way I want to change his loyalties and perspectives. He was always a lone-wolf loyal only to himself and his dog and threw off the desire to work for anyone long ago after he was betrayed by those he trusted and worked for, and as he entered civilized society, every "leader" he encountered throughout the campaign wound up betraying, using him, being corrupt, or having shady personal agenda's for his power. So he learned to hate leaders and organizations.
So due to that - I have to redesign his personality a bit to fit into the campaign paradigm of PFS. So then I just needed to figure out what direction to take him and how to go about doing that. Knowing the types of missions and goals that the factions would have - would help me forge that personality, backstory and wants for the character. Cuz I have to also be eager as a player to do them. For instance I as a player couldn't conceive playing a Cheliax member cuz I'm uncomfortable with a lot of what their group stands for.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Thank you for the head's up. I won't let that make too much of a weight-bearing on my decision; I may play some earlier ones - may not. I don't know - not enough to make that weigh on the decision.
I'm an old-school roleplayer type and just want to make sure the faction I hitch on to is my aleskin of mead! And to that end, I want to make sure the character's type build that I wind up with is capable of doing the missions that are asked of me or that I don't wind up with one that has missions counter to my type of character and I find they're just impossible to perform.
Your guidance will prove invaluable. Most of the diplomacy / knowledge type stuff is certainly not going to be a strongsuit of a loudmouth barbarian and sense motive should be laughable for such a character.
I'm pretty sure I'll now go with either Andoran or Sczarni. It'll depend if I want to portray him more sympathetic to causes perhaps an ex-slave that demands revenge, or a dead-inside apathetic ruthless sort.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
I think you're saying IF I take Shadow Lodge, and IF I play a season 2, I will also have to do a Cheliax Faction as well? (I'm guessing since Shadow Lodge didn't exist in Season 2).
I've only ever run an Osirion Faction character (as a player). I ran a bunch of sessions for early levels over the past two weeks to start to get accustomed to running them, and I decided to make a new PFS character and give him my GM credit.
What I came up with is a Chaotic-Good Ulfen skald-like viking - a Barbarian/Rogue combo with a fairly bad temper and a bad in-your-face, cocky attitude (think George Clooney's character in Dusk till Dawn, Emilio Estevez' Billy the Kid and especially Kurt Russel's Wyatt Earp in Tombstone) one that favors guile and tact over just brutal savagery. Probably worshipping Gorum. He's come down from the Linnorn Lands - a fish out of water kinda representation.
I'll probably use the Spring Attack tree for feats and/or the mage-slaying ones.
What I don't yet know is which faction is most appropriate for such a character.
I was thinking Andoran has a lot of the same principles as I can envision for this character. But so too does the Shadow Lodge. Both appear to have a strong bias towards being controlled or others being controlled by tyranical powers. So they would be my obvious first and second choice - at least from a flavor standpoint. Both seems to have a great deal of "stealth" needs for their assignments based on the descriptions I've read in the Society Guide.
Osirion, Qadira, and Lantern Lodge just don't make sense for the character's cultural background. Silver Crusade sounds too paladinish and clerical nurturing that my character wouldn't really fit into. Cheliax is obviously too lawful and rigid for a good fit. Taldor too aristocratic and artsy for a scruffy looking nerf-herder like my character.
I can see him as a scoundrel - so Sczari isn't out of the question but I don't think it's the most intuitive to select either. It would have even more needs of stealth and I'm sure a great deal of sleight-of-hand needs. That only leaves Grand Lodge, and I simply don't know enough to form an opinion yet on that one - though it does seem to be more "bard" like with a lean towards knowledge.
So of the four that are possibly most appropriate: Andoran, Shadow Lodge, Sczarni, and Grand Lodge:
Can I get a few examples of some of the expectations of the mission awards so that I can find the most appropriate faction for this character, and of course when I go to "build" him, I cater to that faction in the way of skill points, etc.
As I said I've only ever "played" one faction, and since I ran 6 1st level games (three of which were the Intro mods) I didn't get the luxury of advancing my character by playing so I don't yet know where I need to be focusing my talents and skills etc.
(Due to my experiences as a player, I know Osirion for instance uses a lot of puzzles, history, lore, knowledge, and languages, in their mission needs; and I have a divination specialist wizard who is a perfect fit; I don't know what the bulk of assignments require for these other four - and that's what I'm after).
Any help or direction would be helpful. Thanks
AH how splendid - you and I have already had many discussions on there in hashing out ideas for the game.
Nice to see a familiar....err.....avatar!
I found the game a month ago and fallen in love with it; it's exaclty what i've been looking for as an alterntive to D&D which has been my biggest love for nearly 30 years.
Cubicle 7 has solidly found the sweetspot for rules and Tolkien feel mix; far more so than the previous Middle earth ventures for roleplaying game systems.
Love the way "fellowship" groups actually have in-game dynamics - not just a group of loosely organized PCs but an actual game-mechanic
Love the Fellowship phase - a way for the downtime to actually have a role in the development of a character and his/her group of companions as they too grow - and as they become more important to the world around them.
Love the themes of Hope, Shadow, Corruption, as stratified dynamic aspects of a campaign.
Many of the things that people have long complained about in D&D 3rd edition and beyond are absent and not a problem in The One Ring (while I still love Pathfinder and D&D 3rd edition - it's still not always perfect).
Here are some things (oft-contended) issues that do not appear in The One Ring
Powerful Spellcasters ruining the game: There really is no PC spellcasters
Min/maxing character creation: Character creation is somewhat channeled down a path with most of the abilities and scores already allocated to a character's choice of cultural background, and roleplaying/story-based calling to become a hero/adventurer.
Magic Item Dependency: There is very little use of "magical items" and the system is not designed around a character having to have thousands of gp invested in magical gear in order to survive; the game instead focuses on the character's own abililities - though some materialistic rewards are earned via game-play - they are usualy much more subtle in effect.
Power creep/curve: Characters advanced slowly and evenly. There are no "levels" in which all aspects of the character advance - compare to many "level-based" rpgs where stats, hps, abilities, #of attacks, damage output, spell-power etc all increase simultaneously, The One Ring subtely advances a characters individual skills or attack ability based on the player's own choices of where to allocate their advancenet points - which exponentially become harder to increase the higher one does.
Complex rules / combat: Combat is quick, streamlined, easy to understand, you don't have to worry about a lot of rules governing every 5' of movement - can I go this way, does this square cost double, do I provoke AoOs, can i reach him, does he threaten me, can i squeeze here, can i stand in this square, does the area of effect hit here" etc. Instead initiative always falls into 4 categories based on how agressive/defensive your "stance" is; the rest is basically narrated and roleplayed - rules do not get in the way of a good narrated sequence of actions.
#of attacks/dice rolls bogging down combat: As far as I can see - the creatures, and characters only get one attack regardless of how much they're advanced; this drastically speeeds up play. The better one is at what they do the more D6s they add to their total - as opposed to more D20s to modify with a bunch of situational modifiers each round that must be adjudicated seperately.
All in all - yes this isn't for the groups that prefer minis and scaled combat with a bunch of regimented structure - but it is perfect for us old schooler roleplayers that enjoy a more free-form narrated and storytold and roleplayed action. Furthermore it's not going to be the right fit for DMs that have to have an "adventure path" all published and written for them; as most of the games adventure will have to be "written" or adlibbed by the Loremaster (GM). I used to be the latter of a DM, then 3rd edition kinda steered me away and Paizo's wonderful adventure paths evolved me into someone who loves their imagination and well-written adventure paths; but Kingmaker has reminded me of my love and flair for sandbox style of running a game and how it's so much more rewarding aesthetically for a GM to come up with so much material and options for the players than a railroaded storyline. And so i found myself not interested in going back to such overwritten adventures and looking for a way to branch out and find a more free-form game - and admittedly getting tired of the complexities of play with PCs at double-digit levels that all the APs go into. The One Ring allows for all of this freeform play, without the complexities or power creep, and is beautifully written and set within the greatest fantasy realms of all time.
My wife who has been a player in my own campaigns of D&D sinc 94 played her first game of TOR last week and she said afterwards "I really liked that I could just play and roleplay my character without having to worry about all the rules - it just was more natural and flowing".
My players are all hooked too now. Cant wait till Friday to play again.
I post on that message forum as SirKicley
Ask and ye shall receive
This link leads to a messageboard that I was grateful to have found. The community there is coming up with some wonderful customer-based content including
Use of Mounted Combat
Due to the recent revelation of the December AP issue being postponed to Jan 2012, can I please just have all Dec subscribed products moved to ship along with it in Jan; even if this combines both Dec and Jan subscription products.
That would be ideal
It does not translate well to real-time play. The rules are for turn-by-turn play, with each character taking their turn one after another. It's so different than what an MMO has to be that it simply couldn't be feasibly done.
If its impossible to translate class/level based D20 into an MMO, how did DDO pull it off?
Not that this is the best system either; but it WAS accomplished; and for what it is - it's quite well done. Perhaps it's not compatible with the style of game that Goblinworks is wanting to develop, but it certain proved that you can have an MMO based on OGL D20 class/level based system.
Though I lost interest in DDO quickly early on when Free to Play wasn't even an option - but I lost interest not because of mechanics, but because there was no sandboxy flavor at all - I hated doing nothing but the same repetitive instance dungeons over and over.
But the graphics are great, the game plays well, the animation is good, and two things that I love about combat more than my favorite MMO (LotRO) is that you can raise up your shield to block incoming attacks, and you can tumble away. I wish LotRO had those options instead of just duking it out toe to toe.
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Some people want a game where you can attack anybody and everyone is in competition. Others want a game where they can team up and fight NPCs, not other players.
Indeed. And I am one of the latter; but to be fair - that kind of game already exists in ready supplies.
True, it wouldn't be Paizo or Golarion, but if we DO want a game like that, we do have options.
The real point is not that "if we want a game like that" because they do exists, but does Paizo/Goblinworks "want our money for a game?"
It's not even going to follow the Pathfinder class-based D20 system mechanics that they've rescued and championed; so really the only Paizo-ish thing about it is the River Kingdom territory.
The way I am looking at it is - if it winds up being a type of game that....whatever it is that I don't like....I do have other options of games I do like, some that are done quite well, and I'm not REALLY losing out on a lot of "Paizo" or "Golarion" material, should I choose to play a different game more to my liking; I'll only lose out on the River Kingdoms.
If on the other hand the game was significantly more robust in the way of areas explorable in Golarian, (Cheliax, Varisia, Andoran, Taldor to name a few of the big ones) and included the amazing mechanics of D20 3.5 OGL that they polished up nicely as well as added some great ideas for other classes, and Archtypes - THEN I would probably feel real jaded if it was designed only to cater to a smaller sect of MMO gamer philosophies.
Chubbs McGee wrote:
I believe a valid answer to your question is:
Why a company would potentially alienate that group of potential players is because they realize they are not going to be able to compete - either because they can't do it better, or that the other options in the market already have too many die-hard fan-boys that won't switch regardless.
In other words, if they create the same product and put it on the market advertising it as just another MMO that does the exact same thing of so many others - and you're not confident that it won't WOW (pun intended) the audience and attract away from what they're spent their time/money on developing of their characters/accounts, then it's bound to fail or squander in mediocrity at best.
I see the developers' point that this is an area/market that is far less saturated and would prove to be much easier to "corner" on.
It would attract die-hard Pathfinder players, and it would attract die-hard MMOers that are looking for something 'different' or something better than what is already out there that does this.
On the other hand, like many others, I love the idea of being able to virutually tour and adventure in Golarion - a world that I have spent countless hours imagining, playing in w/ tabletop RPGing, and reading about and investing lots of money on supplements of it; and has the potential of being disappointing if we cant take the virtual tour if the game is designed to be too competitive for the average casual gamer (such as myself.)
Luckily I and others have Lord of the Rings online that is safe to do the casual gaming, and it's amazing virtually touring the imagination brain-child of the greatest fantasy author of all time.
I completely agree that NPCs are "real" in the terms of imagining and roleplaying. and Most of us who are against non-consensual PVP are not missing the point you were making.
And I doubt very much Kae Yoss sees any NPC challenge as ONLY a piece of paper w/ numbers on it - I know I don't.
But what I think you're missing is that in a Table Top version of D&D or other RPG, USUALLY it's not a GM vs Players mentality. Sure those NPCs are against the PCs, but:
In 3rd edition (which is what Pathfinder RPG is ultimately designed around), the foundation for encounters is based off a Challenge Rating and a core understanding that an Equal CR to APL of the PCs means a use of 25% of resources and by the 4th such encounter you should exhausted most to all of your resources for the day.
By the very nature of this system, it implies that the PCs are suppose to 'win' albeit using some of their daily resources.
A GM vs players mentality (In D&D/PFRPG) is asinine concept because the GM will always win - he has unlimited resources.
Thus the "Other guys" that you mention are there to be interacted with, be challenged by, but in most conventional games, the Players are suppose to win or at least survive. This it he basis of D&D since its inception. Its good vs evil, fellowships are suppose to be heroes against villains and ultimately be triumphant.
A GM whose goal is to kill players whenever he wants to, usually finds himself with an ever decreasing player base. It's a stacked conflict and most people aren't interested in taking part with a GM who is out to kill player characters.
Yes the role of GM is narrator and arbiter and to roleplay the NPCs according to their true personalities etc, but the game design is there to help ensure players succeed most of the time (provided the players are playing and behaving in accordance with societal norms - and not say - hunting a Tarrasque at 1st level or deciding to attack the king while at a royal ball and not expect to get overpowered by all the guards etc).
In an MMO w/o such neutral arbitration and mentality of players being meant to win, and the "other guys" are other players, this balance, and any semblance of what the core concept of most RPGs goes out the window. So yes I get it and Kae Yoss gets it and the other person you addressed gets it.
Player vs Player in an MMO is NOT the same thing as a DM neutrally playing NPCs that are written into a module to challenge the PCs - even if you roleplay them to the T with accents, made-up language gibberish, wearing funny hats to portray them, playing mood music, mood lighting, or whatever other gimmicks GMs use to really make the NPC feel alive; they're still just meant as 1 of 4 challenges meant to overcome on this adventuring day.
And saying you don't play PF this way (4 daily encounter model) does not change the fact that the very design is based on that concept.
Scott Betts wrote:
probably feel as though the dedication put into the game by the 20-hours-a-week players don't entitle them to enjoy a much more powerful character than the person who plays for two hours per week.
I am in the 2 hour a week camp; but don't get me wrong - I in no way assume I'm entitled to a character as powerful as someone who puts in 20 hours a week.
However where most of those in my camp draw the line, is having those two hours a week spoiled by those who CAN afford to put in 20, 30, 40+ hours a week of gaming.
And to be frank - those that can are typically not those that have a lot of other responsibilities such as family, career, etc.
To be in the camp as myself as having those types of responsibilities, and prioritizing them as we do (coming before recreational online gaming), and to have the couple hours of fun we can and do allocate to ourselves be spoiled by the others in that camp is what creates the animosity between the two camps, and thus fosters and generates the oft mentioned insulting monikers that you've addressed. I personally do not employ them at others, but I can empathize with those who have.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Thanks for the insight. I too have experienced this type of setting in other MMOs. It's why I didn't continue to play them.
If I have to work that hard, and worry and stress over a game, it's no longer a game. I'd rather be at work getting paid for working hard, worrying and stressing so much.
So thank you but no thank you - I'll spend my dollars elsewhere.
My good friend and fellow PF-RPGer Brian had a group that did this very thing - I think it was EQ that he played but can't say for sure.
He was "feared" by most on that server and people sought him out out to take vengeance on people who preyed on others in that way. Repeat offenders, he would literally hound over and over again.
I know he's looking forward to this being similar to that and I'll be lucky to have him as an ally IF I decide to play - which at this point is looking more and more only a maybe - a significant drop from when I first heard there would be a PF MMO. But that being said - I don't feel like I'd be missing out - because i'm quite happy with LotRO and paying them monthly subscription for me, my wife, and two children all with paid accounts, and I buy additional add-ons to boot. If a game is to my liking, I spare no expense - as you may have guessed from the number of subscriptions to Paizo products in my name title.
AH! I didn't realize it wouldn't be level based - I hadn't read that yet. So if it's to be D20 mechanics still, I'm guessing it'll mirror that of Mutants and Masterminds RPG....????
FWIW, that's exactly the way I anticipated D&D 4th E looking like, and would have preferred as much. I do believe future incarnations of D&D or PF will look more like M&M - but that's for another thread.
As it stands, I would have to agree that your assessment of ganking the ganker mentality is the only way to police this, unless the game gave the victim the option to decline to "spar" - which would work - except that it doesn't allow the full free range of PVP and the feeling of a true "realworld" experience that many or crying for.
Like I said before - I and I know I'm not alone - would hope that I can just play against the environment at my own leisurely pace, and not have to worry each time I go somewhere that there's "bandits hiding waiting for me to barely finish off a boss-monster" so that he can have his way with me. This is exactly why I'm happy to pay to play LOTRO instead of some of the other games.
A Man In Black wrote:
Thats some of the worst kind of PVPers IMO. Thats why i previously suggested the ability only "gank" a character 1 level better than you (or color coding or whatever); anyone else you try to "gank" gets a prompted question appear that "IGankYou331 wishes to spar - do you accept: NO, Yes-to the death, Yes-to the disabled"
So in regards to limiting the amount of greifing - would a system that
a_) only allows you to attack a player who is at least 1 level (or challenge rating or color coding - or whatever quantifiable stratification is employed) BETTER than you. This should mitigate that amount of "punking" or "bullying" if you will to people of lower level.
This would allow PVP and not allow it to run-amok.
I play LOTRO and love it - it allows for sparring requests which definitely prevents "griefing". I personally play to enjoy some free exploration of the world, enjoy the story of it, earning reputation in the goodly factions, and crafting. I am not a diehard gamer by any stretch, I have poor control over game interfaces (slow to react on the keyboard etc), and not inclined or driven enough to read/learn/know all the "best optimized builds" - I just want to immerse myself and escape the real world for a time so that I can "roleplay the part of a hero" for a couple hours. This is to the point that if there WERE griefers in the game, it would directly interfere in my fun - and I would probably not pay for an ongoing subscription that I currently do. I know I'm not alone - probably close to a majority in this mindset, and thus Paizo's business practice has always been to never disinclude a particular type/style/preference of gamer; I'm sure it will hold true in an MMO with their name on it also - which means it will have to cater to all sorts. Any one type that is disenfranchised directly affects their profit margin negatively.
However there is an area within that LotRO game that allows you to be part of the opposition: in the Ettenmoors, you can play the part of an orc or Warg or other servant of the Shadow and go about with others and kill PCs. Players who go there know that this is a hostile area and risk being punked by a group of the Shadow's forces. But there are rewards there too, and places to seek respite. This area is in addition to the ability to request a spar.
Some other notes:
What is a "greycon"? I keep seeing this term used.
I play on LotRO with 7 different characters. Each one has a unique name and identity, and serves a different style of play; five of them are adventuring types, and 2 are simply crafters. The five different adventuring characters give me a varied level spectrum to allow me to play in an area, or with a group, or with certain friends and family of a given level so as to be appropriate for the group. Other times I just feel like casting spells, and other times shooting ranged weapons, and other times healing, and other times crushing; so it just depends on my mood. But I wouldn't dream of making a main character and then a bunch of ALTS with similar names etc - that would be boring. None of my friends or family that also play the game do so either. Then again, perhaps that game specifically attracts that type of player that wouldn't. I don't know
Finally - I really like the "reputation" idea that "killers, and thieves" will eventually get a bad rep and among others; not sure if it's achievable without obvious abuse, but the notion is pretty darn cool. Just like in Real Life there are companies that get a bad rep for their business practices: Real estate agencies, lawyer offices, banks, and even some certain Fantasy RPG publishers for instance all obtain bad rep and people then choose whether or not they wish to do business with them; in the case of an MMO - perhaps people will hesitate to let them into their fellowship for adventuring, or what have you.
Neverwinter Nights game had an alignment system that had an numeric value - as you did quests the alignment shifted based on how you responded to NPCs, and what you demanded as compensation for your heroisms. This is something worth exploring, too. My playstyle would always wind up with "good" characters because that's just the type of player I am - I believe Fantasy RPGs are meant to be for hero players - the good vs the bad-guys. I respect that my preference isnt the way all people view it or prefer it - but definitely my style is to play the good guys for sure. As DM - I never allow "evil" characters because someone on here said it best - when afforded the opportunity MOST players allowed to play evil characters DO play them sociopathically and it winds up destroying the campaign.
Cheescake skin-showing clothing for both male and female is a must; if one is going to play a game starting a artistic image for hours on end, most prefer to do so with something that is visually appealing.
I agree that "fullPlate" should not cover only a few inches of flesh just for the sake of cheesecake; but following a trend in Lord of the Rings online - what you wear that actually gives your character it's in game bonuses is not necessarily how you appear.
You have several "outfit" slots to choose from and in them you can put cosmetic clothing or other more evocative styles of armor so that you can customize your appearance while still maintain the armor type and magical bonuses that you want for your character at a given level.
You pay to unlock additional outfit slots - of which I have done - in fact I've unlocked the maximum possible. (paying to unlock an outfit slot unlocks it for all PCs on that account and server).
Derek Vande Brake wrote:
I think if you make it time consuming, AND there are alternatives, nobody will do it. But if you make it so the best stuff requires crafting, there will be some willing to put the time into it. And like any free market, if they make huge sums of money doing it, others will join in until an equilibrium price is reached. (Unless, of course, there are high barriers to entry, but we won't go there.)
I agree with this assessment. In Lord of the Rings Online, usually the best things you can craft at a given level is better than most or all of the rewards for quests at that level.
So it's a worthwhile cause to learn to craft - or at the very least gather resources to barter it to a craftsman to make something for you.
Furthermore, the way it's set up is that you need multiple "craftsman" to make things. The concept is based on Tolkien's prevalence of "fellowships" and community. Some can "mine" the resources, while others can "craft" the mined resources. Rarely can any one character do it all. Thus a prospector can gather the resources and use it as trade to a craftsman to make something for him. While a weaponsmith for instance can make wood-based weapons, but can't properly gather and treat the wood. So he relies on a woodsman to do this for him. In the end, it makes up the basis for the economy and infrastructure of trade and commerce.
But as was discussed, the ends justify the means, because it provides a more customizable and better range of rewards/items than is typically available via purchase or reward.
W E Ray wrote:
Ultimately, this is my greatest concern - it is exactly what I've been discussing with my Pen and Paper PFRPG group of players. We all love the idea of a PFRPG MMO, and we all play Lord of the Rings Online currently.
But we are all family guys - full time careers, with wife and kids, etc, and we all play pen and paper versions of Pathfinder (among other games) each week.
Thus our LotRO gaming is very sparse - typically when a table-top game is cancelled due to schedule SNAFUs or one of us has a bonus day off and has nothing else to do.
We have a Kinship that I lead, I have a kin-house etc, but I play less than once a month - but it IS there when we want to play, and though I have a few rather robust characters in regards to their power, I just don't play enough to run with the pack so to speak.
However, in my week or so between gaming, I never have to worry about the kinhouse being taken over, or my character's wealth/possessions raided, etc.
I don't know this could be avoided unless you truly live 24 hours in a game since everyone has different schedules in life some are always awakes when other players are sleeping. How do you protect your assets when you've not "online" and how do you have a chance to succeed or survive if you only have time to play once a week or even less??
Other than this concern - it sounds amazing so far what Goblinworks and Paizo is doing here.
I prefer LotRO MMO vs say WoW or others because LotRO is more geared on characters and journeys/exploration of the world. I prefer that more sandboxy style. But the art is also more believable. WoW to me, looks too cartoony. I would hope PFRPG goes with a bit more realistic appearance.
Rendar Thalidor wrote:
"raiding the treasury" for personal gain could be seen as a decidedly evil act. If the PC group wishes to run an evil kingdom and become powerful warlord dictators then that could certainly be a possibility but the ramifications of turning the entire civilized world against you would have to be a factor.
While Im not a fan of this action in my campaign - I would not classify it as evil.
I don't find it evil that our government use our taxes to develop our defenses militarily. The PCs withdrawing funds to outfit themselves with better gear - only leads towards them becoming more advanced and capable heroes - which in turn their successes equate to being better able to providing, expanding their kingdom and destroying their people's enemies.
The ends justify the means completely. Not evil at all.
(obviously if they're withdrawing from the kingdom for other reasons, this would not apply - but I think what I describe is the rule - not the exception for most campaigns).
Removing the allowance to "withdraw" BP is probably the easiest way to assure some semblance of ballooning the campaign out of control.
This helps keep the PCs in line in regards to the "wealth by level" concept.
Raising the DCs +1 for every five hexes I don't think is really going to make an affect one way or the other. The number of hexes in a kingdom is not what increases the ability for kingdom checks to succeed; it's the building that are constructed in cities that make up most of the applied bonuses to kingdom rolls. A kingdom of just 4 hexes could easily have super high capabilities in making their rolls if they have several of the right buildings - thus that little arbitrary rule never really makes a difference.
Eventually auto success is fairly expected; well-run kingdoms should have some invulnerability to every little issue that comes up. Most of the complaints come from DMs who allow their players to withdraw a bunch of money, because they know their kingdom modifiers are so high the Unrest caused by this still only results in a failure by rolling a 1 (only).
One thing you can do to make events still have some effect despite auto-success:
I have made several of the worst events cause 1 unrest even if/when they succeed in their kingdom roll. Essentially instead of "Save: negates" its more of a "Save: Partial"
I've also implemented a +5 to the DC for each subsequent magic item sold in a turn. so if the kingdom has 5 districts and can theoretically sell 5 items in a turn during that phase, the DCs increase +5 for each subsequent - meaning the fifth item to sell that turn is a +20 to the normal DC. (you could reduce the increase to multiples of +3 or +2 if that DC balloons too quickly for an individual's taste).
This has impacted how fast the kingdom balloons w/ earning/spending power. This is more to our pace - but I recognize this isn't for everyone's pace who prefer the faster growing and faster paced campaign. (In my campaign they're on year 8 of the kingdom and only have 12 hexes. and we're just finishing book 2; but we focus more on the story and character personality and kingdom political relationships - so it's more about stopping to smell the roses than charging through the books and adventures.)
You can take this one step further - the citizens of the PCs kingdom that disappeared w/ the land have no memory of having been part of the normal material world.
When the new campaign puts the new PCs into contact w/ the old citizens of the old kingdom, as far as they knew they were ALWAYS part of that world, w/ Nyrissa, and are 'strangers in a strange land' in Golarion.
The new PCs find it hard to convince them that they were absconded 100 years ago - the old citizens just find this preposterous and crazy-talk.
From my experiences: Curse of Crimson Throne (especially @ Scarwall) is specifically robust in combat, along w/ Runelords, and Second Darkness.
Kingmaker and Council of Thieves seem to be far more plentiful in non-combat encounters/adventuring
but all APs have a fair-share of combat.
Excellent! Thanks. Looking forward to getting my hands on it!
Thanks to your prompt response.
In my email I recd notification of this being ready to ship soon; however the total does not seem to reflect the Tome of Horrors book I ordered.
Or was that charged but not shipped on my previous order?
Or is it being delayed to another month?
I would like to be sure to ship it along with my usual monthly subscriptions shipment.
I think this is a FANTASTIC idea!!!
Kinda like the Lord of the Rings are always exploring amongst ruins/civilizations of old - seeing remnants of the kings of old before them.
This will give players a chance to see the ruins of their very own past civilization and give them a chance to explore it all - post first world corruption/taint.
"Oh look, theres the old famous Monument of _________" (insert monument from PC's kingdom that commemorated their old heroes).
"Here are the ruins of the town of ______ - the site of the legendary battle against Armag the Destroyer!"
That is something that I would LOVE to take part in.
The key of course is "why is it back?" as someone mentioned. Perhaps Erastil played a role in that.....
Erik Keith wrote:
Done. Thank you.
Hey crew, I recently chose to unsubscribe solely to avoid having the Beginner Boxed set delivered.
I would like to re-instate my subscription to the Roleplaying Game Line beginning with the next item Bestiary 3.
Thank you very much
So I know you're not officially a rep of Paizo or a Sage Advice column but let me ask you this, too:
Does the above quote text ALSO apply to wielding a two-handed weapon such as a great sword?
Or does the text in the buckler description that said this NOT apply to greatsword wielders?
"If you use weapon in your off-hand you lose all AC bonuses from the buckler until your next turn"
In other words, is using a two handed weapon considered to be "using a weapon in your off-hand?"
Or is "using a weapon in your off-hand" only in cases where you're clearly wielding a weapon completely in that hand as is the case w/ two-weapon wielders? and two-handed style is merely "helping wield a weapon" and thus not applicable to this AC loss????
Forgive me for wanting to be specific: I'm not intentionally being obtuse; I have a rules lawyer....and when i say lawyer, I literally mean hes a couple months from taking the Barr exam.....whom I need to ensure we're both 100% clear on the facets of this rule as we currently disagree with the rules as intended.
And I agree it SHOULD be that way - you SHOULD be penalized a -1 to attacks (with a bow).
But I can't see that the wording in the buckler descriptions supports this.
To me - it clearly says you can use bow w/o penalty.
Unless "carrying" really means literally carrying in a non-functional capacity - like stowed in a back pack or around your belt or something
So Jiggy - is it your position that 'no penalty while carrying buckler' is literally "carrying" and not intended to mean "while wielding a buckler for its intended purpose" - engaged in combat?
So you're saying that so long as he's carrying it, no penalty, but as soon as an archer uses a bow, he's no longer "carrying" said buckler he's now engaged in activity where the buckler would be "used". AND if said archer fires his bow, he IS penalized in both of the following ways:
Is this what you're understanding is?
I ask because to my eyes, the second sentence is pretty clear:
Provided "carrying" means wearing it for its intended purposes - then you don't have the -1 to attacks, but later the "In any case you lose the AC if you attack" seems to apply to all previously discussed scenarios: bows, Two-Weapon, Two-Handed styles, off-handed, spellcasting etc..
Pg 150 of Core Rules states no penalty to bows when buckler is being "carried".
Can I assume Rules As Intended (RAI) that "Carried" means - "using the buckler for it's intended purpose" and not a literal translation of "carrying it somewhere somehow among your person?"
That being said - why is it that you can use a bow w/o penalty that clearly requires both hands/arms when using a bow, but when wielding a off-hand dirk or two handed claymore, it suddenly gets in the way - not only penalizing your attack roll, but robbing your AC bonus for the remainder of the round.
I'm not against penalizing the melee person in this case - I'm more concerned with NOT penalizing the archer who is already protected from most harm (usually) by choosing ranged combat.
Thanks, that's what I have resorted to. However I did find Paueliel trees listed specifically in Golarion with a special write-up about them.
As for the number - it would be 5; to span magical enchantments ranging from +1 to +5
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Well first of all thanks for the great advice, though truthfully I do not wish to make it at all that much work.
Relying on strict historical accuracy is not my main goal. Just having some flavorful names of Golarion based trees/wood to describe crafted goods would suit my needs quite adequately.
I've started to look at the wiki as someone has suggested and it appears I may have to resort to stating "wood from specific regions/forests" like the Lurkwood Forest Trees or Arthell Forest as opposed to specific renown trees such as to the tune of coming up with names of tree varieties like "SpearKnuckle trees" or "Honeysilver Trees".
Darkwood often grows in darkmoon vale in Andoran. Search for trees at http://www.pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Pathfinder_Wiki You will find some things without looking through every book. I think most of the trees are the kind that exist on earth though. So there uses would be similar to those kind of trees.
Thank you - that's a start.
Obviously I wouldn't want to use Darkwood for this purpose as it already does have some in-game mechanic for it's use.
Uh, Darkwood is wood, not metal.
I know this.Poor wording on my part - but i was just using it as analogous to what I am looking for for wood, and gave examples of certain generic special metal materials too.
I edited and corrected the OP with better verbiage.
Regardless - your response although correcting, wasn't really contributory. If you know of Golarion specific trees/wood, I would love to hear about it and where I can find it or read about it.
Now that I have your attention, I have been contemplating a "tiered" based system for weapons/armor etc to provide some measure of flavor descriptiveness to craftsmanship of weapons/armor etc.
For wood-based weapons I need to come up with types of wood/branches that can be processed into weapons and would prefer those that are notable in Golarion.
Those who play Lord of the Rings Online can relate this mentality to that of the "rowan branches" Tier 1, "ash branches" Tier 2, "Yew branches" Tier 3, "Lebethron Branches" Tier 4, "Black Ash branches" Tier 5.
Each higher tier would be harder to come by - in more remote or dangerous regions and considered more valuable.....
In short are there known "tree" types in Golarion (specific to Golarion) that I could tie this idea to, (Kinda like Darkwood is special wood and Mithril or Adamantite is special metal - but those are game-generic and not setting specific); or if not should I just invent names for rare/exotic woods in areas.
Sara Marie wrote:
Thank you -- I got the email confirmation already.
Sara Marie wrote:
Cancel (now) and restart w/ Bestiary 3 please.
Paizo Order # 1817405
Could you please remove the BEGINNER BOX item of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subcription from my next order.
I DO Still want all of the other items and to continue to subscribe to the Roleplaying Game line - it is ONLY this product I wish to cancel.
I have been involved in RPGs since 1982 and was fully invested in Pathfinder since the Alpha rules were released - I really don't need beginner help.
Regardless I continue to support Paizo and will still subscribe and purchase their various lines of business; but this item I do not wish to pay for.
I must agree. Doing so greatly aids the DM in how to portray and describe an individual NPC.