|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Hey, my name is Brooks aka Sepherum and I lost my wallet w/everything in it. I have an eticket for paizocon and I'll be there on Friday morning. I do have an expired passport in good condition that the airline is going to accept for the domestic flight(I called to make sure). Is that cool to pick up my badge or should I copy the webpage or something from my home computer?
I'd like to thank Goblinworks for the attempt; the vision and the hard work. If a buyer is found there is no guarantee what direction they will go-if not,well there it is. The next obvious step for Paizo is a Pathfinder game along the lines of The Witcher, Dragon Age Origins, and especially Pillars of Eternity. There's no need to rush anything and there is a built-in market for the game and a rich world to exploit. A game whose mechanics are intuitively easy to follow for TT fans is still very possible without violating the OGL. A world building machine, cooperative online play, pvp, etc. I look forward to it. Game companies will be lining up for a shot at this opportunity.
I really love Pathfinder. I actually liked the ideas and options of the Advanced Class Guide-the execution, not so much. I wouldn't touch Mythic with a ten foot pole. My question is-are the rigors of a production schedule having a serious effect on the quality of Pathfinder products? I think that Mythic, the ACG and the Vigilante playtest (I know it's a playtest but it needed more work) were in such questionable shape they shouldn't have been released. People out there would add other things to this list I'm sure. Should Paizo rush out additions to the volume of new, untested rules instead of new content? I admit to having an axe to grind; I'd like to see a hardcover city book once a year along the lines of Bard's Gate or the Shackled City. Occult Adventures looks good to me but now I know Pathfinder fans who just aren't going to buy it.
Having read the playtest pdf a dozen times or more and played a pretty long session of dungeon crawl combat with an Avenger, I have a few ideas for the new class:
10th L Avenger 25 point buy for dungeon crawl (Way of the Wicked) combat only. Three long combats total. Gear from Core RulebooK. Shield of Fury, Armor Silence, Signature Weaponx2 (longsword & H. steelshield w/spike) +3 longsword-+3 shield; nat AC amulet +2. Str 20 (24 w/Bull's Strength potion), Con 16, Dex 14, 10s... 3 combats, none especially suited to my character. +2 init., 28 AC. Blink, multiple creatures w/ scent, multiple constant Detect Evils, AoES going off (Holy Smite [evil campaign; Syphilis the Bloody Shield of Asmodeus was lawful evil]). Although I got lucky with my 50% miss chance on the small army of Blink dogs (with a Shaman Blink dog leading them) and two of those hits were criticals, I thought overall I hit pretty well and did decent damage. I stealthed ahead invisible to test Startling Appearance and it was useful, I found, and would be a great combo with a friendly rogue or two. I was caught ahead of the party attempting this and hit by 8 (yes EIGHT) Holy Smites and obliterated. The party didn't want to pay to raise Syphilis and the DM didn't want me coming back with a fully geared char. So, I think from the standpoint that nobody cared about the health of a playtest character at the table and I didn't really get any help, the Avenger can certainly be an off-tank at least and contribute in pure combat. Startling Appearance is a good power in it's own right. I think the Avenger can certainly use more-better-synergistic talents to choose from but I expect that from the coming book. Choosing from a list of bonus feats for each specialization @ levels 4, 8, 12 and 16 might help- hell, I could really have used Skill Focus [Perception] there at the end. Peace, Sepherum
One problem that the Vigilante class has is the lack of a suitable milieu to exist in. I mean what every major gaming system has always had at some point: a fully detailed city. Not a gazetteer but a complete volume including a sand box adventure, tie-ins to other adventures, a website to submit home brewed modules, memorable npcs, a spin-off adventure path (not included of course) and appendices with urban specific spells, feats, new skill usages, a few monsters and a prestige class or two. Yep. A 120$ book. Here's where a Paizo staff member says, "Well, that's just not in our plans." It should be. Don't need a Bestiary 6. Definitely don't need a Pathfinder 2 (are you bozos insane?). You need Absalom: City of Ultimate Adventure.
Hello, I'm Sepherum and I was once very active on these boards. In fact mine was the first question answered on the video blog long ago. I don't think my comments belong on the official Goblinworks site. For about a year I've been a frequent lurker here, on the Goblinworks forums, Ideascale and other MMO websites. I'm very worried about the future of this game.
Looking at the map, I think that the introductory factions to precipitate pvp in EE are The Knights of Iomedae in the northwest, The Brotherhood of Silence in the center/east and the Hellknights in the south. Obviously the level requirement for faction membership will come later, as will the alignment system. Myself, I don't see a need for an advancement requirement for faction membership when it should be the new players entry into sanctioned player conflict. If players begin with 1000 rep then the only mechanical effect need be that npcs ignore players at -2000, as I believe has been stated. Fort Riverwatch, Thornkeep and Fort Inevitable will each have four trainers representing the mvp roles plus a faction npc. This opens up roughly two-thirds of players as potential targets but will discourage ganking close to one's homebase. I assume looting, grouping in parties, the attacker flag and the normal rep hit for killing someone in your own faction will be in place.
Oh, you can also discuss various aspects Pathfinder Online if you feel like it.
The problem is this: The whole structure of the game is reliant on player vs. player conflict to generate content because lots of themepark content is prohibitively expensive in time and money. Goblinworks needs player competition to have a game at all but wants to fine tune exactly how characters interact. That's a tall order.
Never thought I'd say this but trying to slog thru the SAD thread for a workable solution has convinced me that consequence-free pvp hexes are in our future, perhaps containing Tier 3 resources and treasure hoards. The idea of different types of hexes is already present.
I suppose caravans will be craftable objects that provide massive mobile storage and npc guards? With keywords that interact with player skills to gain speed, cover and bonuses?
I hope player-built training halls are responsible for all Tier 2 and higher skills and that the store never offers anything approaching the power of the best player-crafted items.
Hey I just wanted to throw out a few ideas and was afraid that they would get lost because of the recent toxicity of the forums (one locked and another in danger of being locked). Please don't use this thread to start blaming who got toxic first. Many of the people arguing have, in the past, actually agreed, debated in a non-insulting manner, apologized to each other, and apparently PM'd and spoken amiably on TeamSpeak. Ok, so, here they are.
...like constantly comparing Pathfinder Online to EVE and WOW. I realize Ryan Dancey is closely associated with EVE, I also know he has expressly stated PFO will not be 'fantasy EVE Online', just that Goblinworks will learn from the mistakes made by that game. Battle is going to be different. Hell, movement is going to be different. PFO will not have flight, it may not even have mounts. Do you realize how different having your army trudge across hexes towards where you suppose the fight is going to be is compared to a spaceship battle? A Dreadnought or whatever you call it in EVE can be permanently blown up; a 20 Merit Badge character in PFO rezzes and keeps fighting. I realize a POI or Outpost can be razed, but destroying a settlement is involved enough that it has been suggested that cutting it off from supply and excepting it's surrender is probably preferable. I thought maybe assasinating a general or settlement official at a crucial time might be similiar to destroying a command ship or something but then again, no it's not. However, at least EVE shows examples of organizational and leadership skill, which is very relevant.
Name: Inquisition of the Midnight Lord
I hope we get a lot of EVE transplants-clandestine or otherwise-in EE. We need the content. A lot of people who supported the Kickstarter are going to try the the game and quit 'cause there's nothing to do. Not enough 'adventure'(read: themepark content). There's going to be a lot more solo players trying the game at first than we think. Two things will happen to them, a lot. 1) They'll die. 2) They'll get numerous offers to join organizations they don't understand. It might be useful for npc factions to make some detailed options available from the get-go. Pvpers are going to camp escalation zones. Why wouldn't they? It may be beneficial to have a couple further out from the starter areas. I perceive-and I could be wrong here-that based on the latest blog that GW has given up the idea of allowing players to 'gift' rep which will halt a lot of abuse. And finally, I don't see how a zerg strategy could work as effectively in PFO as in EVE-one account can't manufacture the equivalent of a ton of disposable ships, no? Anyone else care to peer into the Orb with me? Any premonitions are welcome.
I would like to humbly submit my nominations for the Players' Council. I think it should be an odd number. I think it should represent different views, perhaps drastically so. I think nominees should show high character, mental acuity, a devotion to the success of PFO and the ability to express themselves nicely via the written word. Lots of gaming experience is crucial. Obviously, no disrespect to anyone not included; witness the calibre of these nominees (in no particular order): AvenaOats; Being; Hobs the Short; Nihimon; Bluddwolf; Harad Navar; Hardin Steele; KitNyx; Jazzlvraz. I'm sure Goblin Works will have their own people in mind from an outside-of-these-boards perspective; that's cool. I welcome any input. Don't be afraid to nominate yourself!
A few walls of text by Mr. Dancey have shocked many on these boards regarding how Pathfinder Online will be played. I'm not understanding the level of surprise. From the beginning the content has been portrayed as character generated; not a WOW pvp server fight over fields of enchanted tulips (tho, of course this will happen) but the struggle of player organizations, settlements and kingdoms for resources, power and domination. The diplomat, travelling merchant, solo monster hunter, etc. will have little to do until this metaconflict is on the path to development. When EE begins, it seems to me wise to build characters towards the end of creating strong, survivable settlements. This opens the door for other playstyles and serves to augment any strategy to deal with the Open Enrollment barbarian invasion.
Reading over all the posts and all the ideas regarding pvp, SAD, Bounties, etc., I thought about the maybe overlooked role that NPC guards will play in PFO. Not the powerful Marshalls that will guard the safer areas, but the npc guard upgrades we read about. Can you upgrade a caravan to have guards included? How many and how strong? How about guards for a carriage transporting a non-combat orientated crafter PC? NPC guards for a construction site? With lootable goods and destroyable structures, even a large CC will need auxilliares considering RL responsibilities, IMHO. Perhaps a menu of different tiers/classes could be offered with an upkeep and/or equipment level cost associated with them. I recall that the guards in Stormwind were good enough to protect the king if a couple of us showed up to support them. This would be Horde attacking at 3am of course.
...if the skill paths/archetypes/'classes' are going to mirror Pathfinder. Bear with me. I'll try whatever game the devs come up with. The alignment component seems essential to the game already-as it is in pnp Pathfinder. Thus the only true healers are good-with access to positive energy channeling, spontaneous casting of heal spells and many ameliorating domain powers. Evil clerics can only heal...undead. Neutral clerics do the alignment tap dance. To compete on the battlefield evil orgs must use undead, enslaved divine casters and lots of neutral buddies. Ever tried to DM a campaign and the players didn't have a dedicated healer?
I read the last three blogs with great interest. It seems to me the system(s) of flags and the scores based upon the two alignment axes are a solid foundation for meaningful player interaction and the goal of pvp w/o frequent griefing. I realize the devs and many in these forums have already invested some time and thought to the mechanic, but why a separate reputation score in addition to alignment and flagging? The Rep system would be ripe for abuse and metagaming in ways that have already been discussed. It also adds to the complexity of an already complex game. What about adding an 'Oathbreaker' long term flag for not honoring contracts? This along with the Betrayer and Murderer flags which I think are being considered but not yet fleshed out. Doing away with Rep would also negate the idea (which I believe to be nonsensical) that a Lawful Evil settlement cannot build certain prestigious and useful structures. I don't see why the default character setting should be moving towards lawful; PCs could choose to slowly raise their scores along the law/chaos axis by logging out at lawful or chaotic inns/hideouts/forts/settlements with which they have good standing (no criminal, betrayer, etc., flags). At least tie the proposed Rep gain to such a mechanic. A PC could start at Neutral and would immediately have a reason to interact in order to shift her/his alignment to whatever desired. This, I believe, would augment the player-driven storyline from the get-go. Thanks for reading my post this far.
I think the question of how the alignment system will work in PFO is important enough to warrant it's own thread. It will effect every aspect of gameplay from pvp, contracts, chartered companies, transactions, settlements, npc relations and declaring war. I could go on. I've always believed the alignment system in tabletop Pathfinder (or D&D, for that matter) was /is broken and subject mostly to the tastes of individual DMs. Yet the developers have stated that in this way perhaps most of all PFO will mirror the tabletop version. Exactly how this is implemented may be the most important factor in determining whether PFO ultimately succeeds or fails. I'd like to submit two observations. First, a true neutral settlement would not have to admit all members regardless of alignment. According to the table on p.166 of the Core Rulebook, diagonally situated alignments on the chart are two steps from neutral not one. This would exclude lawful good, chaotic evil, etc., yes? Secondly I've never seen chaotic evil played successfully. In the online version it could be an npc alignment for individuals and brutal, disorganized groups or a 'warning' to a pc who is about to receive sanctions of some sort.
So we know generally where we're gonna live, how we're gonna live and how we're gonna die. We've discussed, we've argued. So, what excites you about the prospects so far? Exploring content? Starting a settlement? Opening a business? Running around robbin' fools? Whatever? I'm most excited about being able to really specialize my character. I'm not talking about the 'holy trinity'-I mean really make my guy exactly how I want him. It always bothered me walking around Shattrath City in WOW with my raid gear, a set from the arena, and the highest dps cloth a player could make himself and then see, well, the exact same guy, different race maybe. Over and over. So, more arena and join bigger raids? God it got boring, for my friends too. In PFO, they will start with 11 archetypes with all the requisite options and then skills anyone can learn, it seems. With multiclassing, you can be pretty unique, suited to the role you want to play. Relatively speaking, of course. I'm thinking Monk/Sorcerer or Monk/Cleric. Start a family guild or join one. Maybe be a bounty hunter or hired guard. What do you say?
Just recently I discussed how excited I was to try Pathfinder Online with my gaming group. Two rather salient points came up. 1)When the server population expands, new players will be in competition with powerful, established players and player-run organizations for resources and land. 2)When the game itself expands, these powerful entities will be perfectly placed to quickly dominate the new content. Both of these concerns are heightened by the apparent fact that there will not be large'theme park' areas safe from pvp in which to skill up or level or whatever it's going to be called. So, two things. Soloers, a large portion of potential players, (including me) will be hedged out. New players will be compelled to join an already established corporation to survive, which is the main complaint I've always heard about EVE online. To put it succintly, my buddy said, "Sounds to me that the Power Gamers will eat that one up from the start. I'd rather just buy the next Adventure Path and run that." Comments/suggestions/mechanics to avoid? Or is this game limited to players with a certain playstyle?