Most mountains look like hills anyway because you have to stand on them to get close. Some hills are as steep and picturesque as mountains anyway.
'Mountain' is about altitude, not shape or steepness. Peaks can be defined by primary factor, but old mountains have gentle slopes.
I should probably add that in Norway, "the mountains" (unspecified) typically refers to any part of the country above the tree line.
Proxima Sin wrote:
Boundaries between Mage/druid and mage/demonologist are blurred.
Alchemy is "scientific" magic though and could be placed around 300 BC in egypt/hellenic world.
A piano is a single keyboard row.
You just made we wish for a MIDI interface so I could remap keys to my old Roland. Sprint on the sustain pedal, crouch on the sostenuto and about 3 octaves of abilities. Literally playing it by ear in combat.
worst part is that it should be a fairly simple thing to code...
"if you do not help defend"...
When besieging a settlement, I expect most pvp'ers will be grateful if the crafters spend their time and resources making siege engines instead of prancing around the battlefield waving swords.
When the settlement is besieged, they should be equally grateful to the people who built the walls and watchtowers - and the people who helped finance them.
"300 crafting skill doesn't help when the house is burning", but it helps build stronger houses in the first place and high DI settlements will be harder to siege.
if 'crafters and pvers' refuse to contribute to economic growth and protection of the settlement, then it sounds like something seriously wrong with the settlement management.
"OMG in our settlement we plan to give kisses and backrubs to all crafters!" pitches :)
show us the money (and some respect), and offer the /kisses and /backrubs to RP-ers.
Crafters are generally capitalists (or communists in some guilds), while PvP'ers often want to impose good old feudalism.
(mbando, I was tempted to say the haft will beat the spearhead any time, but you'd probably beat me without any weapon...)
I think once you go past about 12-14 active buttons on top of the movement keys and target tab is like asking us to play Mozart.
I never liked playing Mozart. I hope they can make it like playing Bach instead?
Seriously: yes, most of us will play with one hand on the mouse (2 buttons and a wheel) and one hand on the keyboard. 3 rows of 5 keys plus tab and spacebar are ok. Anything beyond that and dedicated gaming/mmo controllers will make a noticeable difference.
I thought one of the goals of the slotting mechanism was to reduce the number of active key in combat.
Shane Gifford wrote:
i guess smokebombs, snares and traps
I have this one tiny worry:
The expendable system seems to give all classes "spellbook equivalents", which easily can turn into "everyone has their own special magic abilities", which eventually can turn into all characters feeling similar to play (ie feeling like casters).
Please someone reassure me that different roles will feel different.
1) I firmly believe every player in PFO will have a character with combat skills!However, there will also be a large number of different ways to damage your opponents (and defending yourself). If one combat skill turns out to be superior to all others, that would be bad.
If climbing skill gives a huge additional advantage in siege it becomes a 'required' skill for those aiming to win sieges. (And I'd prefer the 'required' skill for sieges to be siege engineering).
2) It is a valid point that if there are enough "required" skills (say: perception, stealth, jumping, climbing, swimming, riding, UMD and spellcraft) then it is a very meaningful choice again.
However, I'm not worried about the "first vertical progression" (to borrow a term from TSW), but about the point where the first players have reached their highest tier abilities.
Training a second role should not make you flat out stronger, just give access to more options - training specific skills should do the same. From the stealth debate, it seems that maxing stealth does not make you max stealth unless you also slot the right passives. Hence my suggestion that climb/jump also should work as slottable feats.
3) Your assumptions of ropes, fly spells etc as so far unfounded assumptions. I'd love the rope. Fly spells however require careful consideration.
4) If a city wall is so hard to climb that you need to slot 30% of your abilities for climbing, then it's balanced.
perfect agreement with Being!
additional thoughts (EDIT: now talking about hexes as islands, not the Shackles)
2) what about fast travel and bandit hideouts? (Initially, that seems simpler with islands).
re: proposed solution to 'green hat tuesday':
Give Hobs a recipe for a hat that flags you as [sanctioned target] while wearing it. Noone will wear it by mistake (for long). Make it lootable but not necessarily threadable.
With even a single one of these hats, we would see emergence of "capture the hat" contests or something close to Blood bowl. Lore-breaking, yes, but only until the lore catches up ;-) Lore-wise, it could easily be implemented as the trademark of some outlaw/heinous organization.
Climbing and jumping? Pretty please yes.
Should climbing and jumping be trainable skills, with armor penalties etc? maybe not.
conceptually I'd love that, but there are some alarm bells. Having rogues scale the settlement walls in a siege is awesome. Having everyone scale the walls (since climbing would become a required 'siege skill') is not good. Dungeons 'jumping puzzles' and treetop archery sounds awesome, but could make jumping a 'required' skill. Jump puzzles would anyway have to be handcrafted and designed for specific jumping skills.
maybe.. make climb and jump slottable passive feats with armor and encumbrance penalties?
Do we know anything about how to get rep in general?
If there are carrots, just not where you want them, there could be a reason for that...
In general, I think rep should be awarded for "generating good content for fellow players". That's a bit vague, yes. Building, conquering and defending settlements certainly is good content, though (makes the game exciting even for the innocent bystanders).
Nihimons spellbook should absolutely contain grease and obscuting mist. Grease has a million uses, and some of them might make it into PFO as well. Obscuring mist can confuse sentries, draw out ambushes, blind snipers, conceal pits/traps, make dramatic entries/exits, get flankers in position, possibly pass for cloudkill, and more.
After rogue, my second favourite DnD class was abjurer. Playing defense was a very different feel, but rewarding.
My favourite combo was reverse gravity on a group of monsters and using a wand of force bolt to push them out of the area (falling down into melee) one by one - typically starting with the party barbarian until he finally learned not to charge in the first round.
It's koine greek, not modern greek. Still, for a book that has been translated to almost every written language it's a bit disappointing Google translate doesn't recognize it.
(if you google the full phrase though...)
Maybe. It will certainly be a dance. Relative strength of charge vs opportunity will decide whether the two fighters are simply holding ground (and focusing on the fighter) or chasing the rogue.
My first thought was that coordinating the fighter team will be easier, but since the rogue buddy will almost certainly stand still and focus on the weakest foe, a good rogue player can lead the dance alone.
It may also be easier for the ftr+rog to focus fire since the two fighters will be vulnerable if they focus on the fighter, but focusing on the rogue may be hard. On the other hand, a rogue pulling back a little too far leaves his buddy outnumbered for an attack or two.
Revised hypothesis: a good rogue and a bad fighter will beat two average fighters but a good fighter and bad rogue will not.
I'll take that bet. If both fighters target the rogue he will struggle. Fighters (and barbarians!) may be one of the best classes to fight rogues: max physical protection and max power in melee range.
The rogue seems more designed to take out AoE casters: get into range, disrupt targeting (or sneak attack), physical damage vs cloth, superior defense against AoE (evasion/reflex).
but future blogs on casters (not to mention combat simulator) will show who is more right.
I may wear a green hat on tuesdays. Just to spite.. I mean generate content. Bands of green-hatters squatting on UNC territory just to show defiance...
I actually agree with Bluddwolf that this could transcend into a in-game cultural event. ("Here's your green hat, wear it on tuesdays as a symbol that the killers will never defeat us. Expect to be jumped, though").
Eventually, GW could sanction it by allowing settlements to make laws against certain apparel. But until that imaginary tuesday, learn to live with the rep (and other) consequences.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Being unseen or concealed is not the same as being invisible. If it were, the Stealth skill would say that you were invisible, and the concealment rules would say you were invisible...
yikes, I'm going to question Ryan Danceys call! /cower
In the stealth errata thread of march 31st 2013
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
which seemed to indicate that attacking from stealth generally -does- negate AC bonus. Which is not the same as being invisible, but hurts equally much for the target.
But now this is turning into a PnP FAQ thread rather than a PFO one. If it becomes important, you can probably send a goblin runner over to Paizo and ask.
In PFO he 'loss of dex bonus' is anyway not required for sneak attacking in this situation (if you are targeted this is moot). The only thing on the line here seems to be a few points of evasion defense.
Thanks again to Stephen (and Ryan). Great response time and very clear answers (to the extent that things in flux can be)!
In the "End-game", not only will non-rogues have 200 perception, but Rogues will have access to dimension door, charge, invisibility (if in the game) etc. Even 1st level spells like silent image or obscuring mist can confuse sentries for that precious second. Not being able to get into range might be a question fo "L2P" rather than balance.
That said, has there been any indication on how stealth vs perception is compared? (Nightdrifter? Decius?)
If inspired by the d20 system, it should be linear and based on the difference in skill (with differences above 200 redundant). However, based on the blog on combat mechanics, I do not necessarily expect a linear model. Rather I would expect a system of diminishing returns.
I would not mind something like a 'logarithmic' model where a difference of 10-30-100-300 points gets you to 40-30-20-10% range (or 60-70-80-90 if you are the spotter).
It strips the event of meaningfulness for the other player.
Do you expect people to go: "Oh, some guy I don't know killed me - but he probably had his own reasons, so that's ok then" ??
Compare this to the scenario where I've been warned that "on Tuesdays Bluddwolf will kill players wearing green hats" (and I love my green hat). Do I submit? Heck no! Then I meet Bludd in the woods and go down proudly flying the green.
Still not understanding or agreeing with the motivation, my death is now meaningful and personal: I died because I chose pride (or vanity) over cowardice. And I may just run straight back flaunting an even bigger green hat just to show him he didn't break me.
I would even settle for "sometimes Bluddwolf randomly attacks people not wearing the same colour hat as he does".
But "killing for no apparent reason" (and the keyword is 'apparent') is functionally equivalent to "random killing".
Princess Of Canada wrote:
Definitely not hairless in every way: almost all of them have head hair.
Elves with facial hair are most likely half-elves though.
New subtopic: appearance and visibility of 'detected' stealthers
1. Based on Stephens answers and comments, it sounds like 'typical viewing distances' are limited by foilage and natural cover. I did not interpret is like foilage will give mechanical bonuses to stealth, but that actual on-screen visibility will be limited because trees are rendered in front.
2. If that's the case, then foilage hides non-stealthers just as well as stealthers, and when they pop out from behind the tree they will be as (in)visible as if the tree wasn't there.
3. i.e. foilage does not increase the chances to sneak up on someone unless they happen to pass just next to said tree. In the worst case, visible name tags could even extend past the tree trunk and give away the position.
4. Do I have this right? Devs, could you adress the following to help clear this up:
a) How will 'detectable' but stealthy characters appear? Will nametags etc be hidden? Will appearances be standardized/anonymized? Will avatars be transparent to the point that quick sweeps may overlook a stationary stealther?
b) Will there be varying degrees of detection so that you could f.ex. detect *someone* at 50% range but not ID them until 20% ??
c) Targeting. Will tab-targeting cycle through only on-screen targets, on-screen + off-screen unstealthed targets, or all targets?
d) Cover. Will it be implemented (no need to go into how)? Will characters in cover be untargetable?
e) Concealment. Will it be implemented so that certain areas give stealth bonuses? Will there be /hide commands or similar?
Sounds to me about the time you are going to jump, they target you and thus foil sneak attack.
If you also saw the post about Flatfooted and know the PnP rules, you'd know that sneak attack could still work in this situation.
For the record, I plan to play a rogue, and the current design seems very good for my (PnP influenced) view of the rogue role. While the heavies charge, I'll pounce on the AoE caster and force him to stop targeting my mates (or maybe on the healer to stop him targeting his own buddies).
Stealth-as-invisibility would make it way too easy for traders/smugglers, for moving troops in position or reinforcing besieged settlements.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
lots of answers in response to:
It seems Stephen Cheney replies can be summoned by putting questions in a structured format. Who'd have thought? (except Mbando, obviously)
1.So, based on the blog it sounds like even at max stealth skill, opponents will still be able to see us at at significant distances.
2.If that's the case, stealthers will never be able to sneak into melee range of anyone with basic perception training
3. That would be a problem because many players expect and want rogues and particularly assassins to work like in other MMOs, ie melee burst attacking from invisibility.
4. Do I have this right? Devs, could you adress typical expected viewing distances to help clear this up? Alternatively, could you adress your vision for what should be achievable by stealth in PFO?
(could you also possibly give an indication on whether maxing stealth and maxing perception will require roughly comparable effort?)
EDIT: in either this or the other thread, either works.
ok... there it seems that "stealth" in addition to making you invisible also includes:-turning mobs around
-safe fall and wall climbing
-teleporting burst attack (except through locked doors)
-i'm also assuming there are very powerful attacks that require stealth.
all of these will be covered by different mechanics in PFO. What remains sounds very much like WoW stealth to me. What's the great thing I'm missing?
googling a bit more, I find that there is a stealth detection 'ticker' of 1-2 seconds so that assassins can move from detection range to melee between ticks. Well.. PFO could easily go with a 3 sec ticker here (1 'move action'), is that what you want?
The only thing I understand you are dissatisfied with is the 10% and 50% numbers. Would you think the system much better if they changed those to 3% and 15%, or 5' and 30' ?
Assuming there will be poison in the game, the rogue will become an insanely powerful single target damage dealer
If poisons are powerful, poison user will be powerful. I'd think that would favor fighters and rangers more than rogues, actually.
But the ability to pile it on without regard for actual positioning or tactics as long as someone doesn't drop everything to deal with you will be too powerful.
umm... you might pile it on if the foe has no "regards for positioning and tactics", but vs normal people a rogue just standing there will go down pretty quickly. Light armor, low hp and targeted by everyone means only positioning and tactics will keep you alive.
Golnor: I doubt a fighter can hold off two rogues, as he can only target one at a time. Then again, 2 vs 1 is always crap odds.
so.. Qallz (got it right this time): is perception useful or useless then?
Stealth sux -> no stealthers -> ppl stop training perception -> stealth useful??
Stealth is (only) about being noticable and targetable at a distance, and has nothing to do with sneak attacking (this sure isn't WoW stealth!). Is that enough to make it suck?
Areks: simply shoot (thus breaking stealth) and re-stealth. Unless they respond quickly (global cooldown) you may have time to restealth - but expect them to pay more attention next time. Will sneak attack work with archery: no idea.
Seems like this would be a good time to mention any potential 'withdraw' manuever or feature? Or will the finer points of combat be covered in more detail later on?
See under "Mobility". Presumably these are rogue feats that anyone can slot (at the cost of losing dedication bonus).
blog post wrote:
In order to facilitate getting away, Rogues gain easy access to feats that grant Evades: extremely fast runs or jumps backwards that do not provoke Opportunity. These make it very easy for a Rogue to extricate himself from melee
Stephen Cheney wrote:
Fantastic! Clear answers and excellent response time.
Interesting stuff, particularly for ranged combat or for simply trying to escape (from police, bandits, witnesses or a battlefield).
Quallz, I agree that is a vital question, but that value can be balanced as we go. But a smuggler just wants to see the bandits before they see him.
* Not released, not beta, still in design phase. But the devs are giving out info and listening to ideas ("crowdforging").
* Buying the product before it is made is typical for kickstarter. The guilds you see are generally pre-existing ones. Screen names are so far only for forums. Discussions on production, bounties etc are all on the game design level. For many of us, having input in the game design is much more exciting that picking up a finished product (we're old enough that a year of waiting passes quickly).
* RPK = Random Player Killing (or Killer). ie killing people for no obvious reasons. What that includes is heavily debated.
* PvP vs stories: this is a very hot topic. There is general agreement that some conflict is needed to drive the game, but that large-scale cooperation will be critical to achieve big things. There is also agreement that when picked up by the mass market it will be flooded by mmo gamers (outnumbering the pathfinder fans).
The 'I wanna be evil' crowd is visible and loud, but not very big. In the correct amount they will be a great asset to the game - but in overdose they will kill it. What the correct amount is, is also heavily debated.
EDIT: flat-footed by Imbicatus. Gotta get higher init bonus.
Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:
I agree it seems contradictory (or at least redundant) to state "cannot mix two types" when you can only have a single one active. My reading is that there is only one active 'feature' and two passive reactive 'feats' but those can be mixed as you wish:
Since they're reactive feats, players that are primarily focused on another role could purchase and slot them, but would give up their main role's Dedication bonus
Categorizing roles then has to do with dedication bonus, as you thought (and probably also categorizing trainers etc).
p.s. devs: I put up a separate post with specific questions about stealth mechanics
As I understand it:
-I further assume "maximum stealth" and "maximum perception" are comparable scales so that specialized characters of same power level will have roughly 50% distance.
stealth section of the blog:
One way to get Sneak Attack is to keep targets unaware of you, and the Stealth skill can help with this. Whenever you're in Stealth stance (your typical crouched, sneaky walk), the distance at which other players can see and target you is based on a comparison of your Stealth total and their Perception total. This ratio scales from 90% of the normal distances (for minimum Stealth vs. maximum Perception) to 10% of the normal distances (for maximum Stealth vs. minimum Perception), with equally matched characters resulting in a 50% reduction of sighting and targeting distances.
We expect these distances to be moderated by the server: the system doesn't even inform your client that there's someone around until you can see them, and attacks won't work if the server knows they're too far away for you to target. This means that the system should be resistant to client hacking. On the client side, we do expect to apply a translucency effect to a stealthed character when they're between their visible and targetable ranges, so if you're paying attention you might see the Rogue before flipping through targets happens to select him but it won't be an automatic thing.
Stealth breaks when you begin attacking, and then individuals further away might understand why your target was suddenly freaking out. But by that point, you've likely gotten off a few solid hits and can run away and enter stealth mode again, should you so desire
I see potential lawsuits if it were done...
That's largely based on my prejudice of US mentality and legal system, but reactions like Alexander's tend to reinforce that prejudice.
Only the lucky countries had vehicles. When my parents were young the land was covered by glacier. No vehicles and barefoot running was a sure way to die, the only way to commute to work was using mammoth tusks for skis. Unfortunately with the increase in traffic mammoths became extinct and they had to turn on the global warming.
They better put mammoth tusk skis in the game or it will only appeal to younger generations!
Harad Navar wrote:
Making settlements look different according to DI/size/wealth/development
Which is exactly why the rep system shouldn't be automated, catch-all and easily gamed. But making that good system is hard. Hopefully threads like this can help a little.
I suppose GW can't and shouldn't completely close the door.
If, in two years time, GW could make good business selling 'starting packages' allowing us to start new characters with a few months of xp, - would that really be so bad? (for example if the game is seen as great for veterans but hard for new players to get into)
Selling option to jump ahead of the crowd should be a no-no. The option to start out slightly less long behind might not be an abomination unto mankind, but is in any case not relevant in the next 12 months or so.
but xp potions in the cash shop: no thanks!
Perchance to Dream wrote:
I'm a long time lurker but have decided to join the debate now that cooler heads prevail.
Welcome! Crafting discussions are generally safer to enter as they tend to stay away from alignment and pvp topics :-)
Since this was already answered above, I will repeat it...You don't skill up by making items. You make items only because you think someone needs them. The "No grinding" mantra extends to crafting.
A possible exception may be qualifying for 'merit badges' (what are they called now?): you don't get the title 'master swordsmith' without actually making a masterwork sword. But it may well be enough to make a single one.
Shane Gifford wrote:
@randomwalker, the specific way you described bladesmithing wasn't how I saw it, but that could certainly be a way to do it.
Yes, sorry, I was suggesting a variation. There are many ways of doing it right I think, and until devs come with tangible info we should explore different ideas.
It might be interesting to list what exactly we want the system to achieve before wading into details on how to best achieve that. (ex: 'we want top crafters to specialize', 'mastering a craft should require [x]% as much effort as mastering a class').
If there is agreement on what to achieve, the rest is just an optimization problem.