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

randomwalker's page

Goblin Squad Member. 638 posts (803 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sadurian wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
I'm just glad that when I kill a bear in the woods, it won't drop a +1 battle ax!
This bear wants to know why he can't keep his axe.
Because there are laws restricting people running about the place with a bear chopper.

You don't have the right to arm bears?

EDIT: we are talking bearded axes here, no?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A high-pitched scream comes from somewhere on the 2nd floor. It is unclear if it is of terror, pain or pleasure.

Could it be connected to the comatosis epidemic? Is it the handler of goblin cutpurses discovering his loss? Is it a fan of Jordon? A would-be assassin who accidentally poisoned herself? Has the growing number of dark corners collapsed the geometry of space and shifted the tavern to the nine hells? Has Grickin, unnoticed, snuck upstairs to try to charm a lady? Or is it just a random scream for ambience (or foreshadowing)?

In any case, the barkeep doesn't even raise an eyebrow at the sound.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sadurian wrote:

The Pathfinder Wiki is a good place to read up on background material for the Golarion setting.

Pathfinder Wiki list of deities.

Just remember that the Online version might be slightly different in approach.

the quick reference there is particularly useful IMO.

For the PFO, at least for early days, we should expect one deity per alignment. This suggests that alignment (and not domains) is the main characteristic for PFO religions. It also suggests that there will be artwork (buildings, clothing) for each religion in non-trivial amounts.
Of course, RP'ers will choose any deity regardless of what's implemented in the game.

The list of "starting deities" hasn't been discussed (?) in a long time, and presumably a sufficient documented interest for a particular deity might influence the list. Iomedae, Gorum and Asmodeus are pretty obvious as the game will be much about territory warfare. Norgober (assassins) is also near certain. Gozreh is likely to push out Nethys (and Pharasma). Irori vs Adabar, Saerenrae vs Shelyn and Desna vs Cayden are less obvious.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

From a mechanics/coding point of view, the simplest way to deal with religious doctrine may be to code it as faction standing.

Ie. if you join a religious (or any other) faction, you get a standing. Doing 'good stuff' increases it, while 'bad stuff' decreases it.
Higher tiers of membership may have stricter codes of behaviour.

For example the church of Adabar may reward you for making money and building settlements, but punish you for criminal acts. The church of Gorum may reward you for winning feuds and wars, but your standing may decay with time forcing you to seek battle regularly.
For druids, in the absence of defined 'neutral' actions I could suggest that any action that shifts your alignment rating too fast or too far in the wrong direction may decrease your standing, while simply maintaining a TN active alignment may give a increase over time (ie alternating between great good and great evil won't work, but being a pacifist loner will).

The nice thing about such a system is that each faction can have different rules, factions are easily added and rules/rewards can easily be tuned.

(Though I dread the thought of ads like "crusade month: in all of april, slaying evil escalation bosses will earn double Iomedae influence")

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BrotherZael wrote:

@Nightdrifter

You are a boon to the community friend

I love how we can tell which one is the liberal sciences theory crafter type and which is the applied sciences theory tester. (....)

+1

Nightdrifter wrote:
Pretty much all the info I have ultimately comes from Stephen Cheney (a dev) in some way, so only fair he gets credit!

That's a very well formulated disclaimer!

Nightdrifter's conclusions are obviously only as good as his information (ie assumptions and hard data), and are strictly limited to the cases he models. However the underlying methods appear very sound (robust, even) and can easily accommodate new assumptions and data.
In short: Nightdrifter knows what he's doing and has given us a very good vantage point for discussing certain game aspects.

However (over)interpreting his data should be done with a bit of caution as there are plenty of explicit and implicit assumptions that affect the answers, the corner cases are often far apart, and it is not always clear if we are discussing potential outcomes, likely outcomes, the validity of model or assumptions, etc. etc.

The "10 v 1" discussion is a prime example here. If you ask Nightdrifter "in a duel, would you rather have higher tier equipment or a friend to help you?", you may get a different picture than with the current default question which is "will normally a T3 fighter beat two T2 fighters if they stand still and autoattack each other?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alternate scenario:
A Neutral Good bard is suspected of theft. A paladin and 10 guards confront him, but before he kills them all with a surprise meteor strike scroll "because they threathened me". Evil act or not?

The OP main argument seems to be "because i'm stupid and violent, you should expect me to behave bad and therefore it's not evil".
Alternatively "if the murderer is a barbarian, then murder is not evil".

sorry, but no.

He was maybe brought up in a CE society and never learned right from wrong, but that doesn't make him 'neutral'. It does however mean that he doesn't care what the last letter of his alignment is. The only problem I see here is that the player for some reason doesn't want the character to be characterized as evil, and launches this discussion to absolve himself and blame the DM.

For the record, killing evil soldiers from an evil empire attacking innocents is evil. Arguably less evil than allowing them to continue, and the morally right to do. Saving the innocents is good, killing the attackers is evil, and the good act outweighs the evil one in this example - but it is still evil.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
...And we love square roots over here, so they're pretty sharply curved.

The nice thing about square roots is that once you start thinking of them as exponents, it becomes easy to fine-tune them.

ie. if [x^(0.5)] is just a little bit too steep, try [x^(0.45)]

The general mechanics sound fair: in TT the crit confirmation chance = hit chance, but you only crit on the very highest attack rolls, so linking it to margin of success is good.

QUESTION: Will there be rogue talents allowing inflicting 'injury damage' on sneak attacks? What about assassins?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lifedragn wrote:
...The idea that our immortality could come with a karmic learning block...

simply: Karma?

Basically you are sacrificing to the creators of the world in order to improve your fate. Proper sacrifice will let you live long and prosper, but vile transgressions will earn smiting by the banhammer.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

On the issue of bringing our real world moal conventions / beliefs to an MMO, that I completely disagree with. I intentionally separate my character's actions from what I would do in real life. I separate your character from the person on the other side of the computer monitor.

If someone can not separate themselves from their characters, I'd venture the suggestion that they mat not be emotionally secure enough to play an MMORPG. I'm in no way directing this at any specific person, just making a general suggestion.

The only disagreement we have is where the boundary between game and player lies.

I prefer to err on the 'silk glove' side as I regard all interaction between characters simultaneously as a meta-interaction between players. (In tabletop gaming this is very clear and the meta-game is always more important than the game, in MMO I still tend to regard it as the same - the objective is for the players to have fun, character achievements is just a tool to achieve that).

I suppose, though, that in reality I will treat newbs and strangers with silk gloves but assume that members of certain settlement are 'emotionally secure' enough to enjoy being sabotaged.

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluffing in poker is not lying at all. It is making the statement "I wager this amount."

Bluffing in poker is done with the express intent to deceive and mislead others to your benefit. How is that conceptually different from lying? If your reply is to defining 'lie' as meaning strictly counter-factual statements, then you should possibly consider a career in politics or law.

EDIT: or marketing...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tyncale wrote:


(description of regional trait pack)
Quote:
You can choose a homeland somewhere in Golarion for your character. A Region Trait Pack provides one character with an achievement stating the country they hail from, a title, and a small bonus or special effect based on the country of origin selected when the pack is used. Select one region: Absalom, Andoran, Cheliax, Five King’s Mountain, Galt, Katapesh, Kyonin, Lands of the Linnorm Kings, Mwangi Expanse, Osirion, Qadira, Rahadoum, The Shackles, Taldor, Ustalav, and

now, I understand why Geb, Nex, Alkenstar, Numeria, Mammoth Lords, Medioganti etc. etc. are not on that list.

but.. Brevoy or Nirmathas please?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Boojumbunn wrote:
What would people think if, when you hit the door to go into a shop, if your mount was put at a hitching post until you emerged?

Two simple mechanisms that could solve the issues:

1) prevent (tall) mounts to go through doors (or tight cave entrances, into deep water, up ladders, etc)

2) have stables give the mounts some sort of 'rested' buff (scaling with time stabled and quality of stables).

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:

I am sure it is merely coincidence but I cannot help noticing that there is a strong correlation between those "sheepdogs" arguing that low rep people should be consequence free pvp targets and those arguing that low rep people should be made to suck skills and gear wise by the mechanics. If I was a cynical man, which of course I am not, I might infer a thing or two from such a coincidence.

Indeed, you are not cynical but sarctastic.

'Coincidence' is strictly speaking a correct mathematical term, but this is not 'merely' coincidence but correlation. There are a lot of players who simply think low-rep behaviour should be a losing tactic in the long term. And we are willing to have asymmetric rules to make that happen.

Similarly, the people who think low-rep behaviour should be a viable/competitive playstyle have a similarly strong correlation in their arguments.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The simplest form of black market is simply evading settlement tax by trading privately just outside the trading hall.

Smuggling will de facto be in the game, but trying to avoid bandits rather than customs officials.

The idea of goods to sabotage settlements is nice, and should be considered when they get around to implementing espionage/sabotage.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Drakhan Valane wrote:


Actually, he said, "Also any crime committed to an exiled player in your territory does not generate corruption / unrest." I interpret that as being crimes AGAINST the trespasser, not crimes BY the trespasser.

The wording seems inaccurate. I believe his intention is that you can legally take actions against trespassers that would be crimes if done against anyone else. Murder would still raise unrest, but killing trespassers would not be murder.

@Steelwing

Quote:
The very first one I pointed out that NRDS is perfectly viable without these mechanics.

This is what I still don't see. You point out that other groups intend to go NRDS and jump to the conclusion that it therefore must be viable. Arguing that you can play NRDS regardless of mechanics is trivial, you may as well claim that pacifism is a viable choice.

Andius' implicit argumentation is that NBSI (in an isolated perspective) has intrinsic security benefit and every (rational) settlement would go NBSI unless NRDS offers rewards to balance the risks.

Another unspoken assumption is that NBSI/NRDS should be balanced because it would make the game more interesting for a wider range of players than an all-NBSI world. If meaningful interaction is the goal, making it rational to kill strangers by default seems like the poor game design.

Your argument comes across to me as wanting minimal rewards for NRDS because you already made your choice to play NBSI.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
AvenaOats wrote:
So, a Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, and Fighter walk into a bar...

Almost :)

LFG! (Looking for Group!) - A Fighter, a Wizard, a Rogue and a Cleric Walk into a Bar...

Yeah, what party would put the squishies first in the marching order and the tank last?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow. Our vision of hideouts certainly differ.
Intially I understood hideouts as an object that you could use to disappear from the map (ie perceptive characters will find the hideout, but not you) and that gave you the ability to disrupt fast travel. Effectively like a sniper post.
The hideout should be cheap to build, easy to destroy but hard to find. My assumption was that hideouts would be anonymous and that anti-bandit patrols would almost always destroy hideouts immediately.

Then there were discussion whether hideouts should have inventory, which opened the possibility of hidden equipment caches. I still assumed these would be hidden and anonymous, so that anyone stumbling over a hidden cache could simply loot it. (The owner should have some right to defend it, but that's a different discussion).

Now people seem to be discussing upgradable secret underground complexes. Did I miss some dev information on this, or is it just speculation?

I just don't think hideouts should be the new player housing!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Magically influenced weather obviously allows for all kinds of extreme conditions.
I'd love to see 'winter escalations' with yetis and white dragons where the entire hex gets a modifier (reduced movement, fire spells weaker, cold damage dot, etc), and where the arctic conditions spread to adjacent hexes unless stopped.

(I would not love to see santa as the final boss of the winter escalation cycle, though).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Female Human Rogue 4

She amuses herself by making a little poem that she quitely mutters to herself

"There once was a wizard named Alk,
I thought he was just books and talk,
But give him a shovel
in dark spider-hovel:
at hard work he sure doesn't balk!
"

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:

Your delirious posts have made me see a different view. Thanks :)

Agree with this statement. While I tend not to agree with those views (at least not initially), it certainly does me good to try to understand them.

Short story: You've severely increased my expectation of being ganked, but somehow decreased my worry of being ganked.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

this post by Ryan Dancey is the best info I can recall on the topic.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:


My only question is why would a settlement go CE over NE or CN. I'm sure there will be an answer for that though.

The obvious first answer is that they want to have both CN and NE member.

On a separate note, I chuckled at the idea of stealth-necromancers sneaking into NG territory and raising dead to cause unrest. (There should have been a pun here about un-restless dead, but it fizzled).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rogues do it in groups
Wizards do it by the book
Rangers do it outside
Shadowdancers do it in plain sight
Barbarians do it if they are in the mood

Necromancers do it... whoa, there's that line again.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lifedragn wrote:
...And while I believe chair sitting would be more favorable to my gameplay than darkland adventures or kenku characters (though less important than adding the additional core races)...

That makes two of us. Though sitting around a bonfire would rank much higher than in a chair for me.

Ryan etc:
The thing about sitting is versimillitude and being reminded of limitations. Chairs in the inns will constantly remind me of something obvious I cannot do. On the annoyance scale it is almost up with gentle slopes being impassable because the steepness hit the magic number.
The sandbox promise "you can do anything!" then becomes "...except a bunch of obvious things, infact you can only do the things the devs want you to".
A possible workaround might actually be not to put chairs in inns at all, but let us hang in bars instead of sitting in chairs. Having all those chairs for not sitting in is the annoying bit.

The thing about writing is all about putting your persistent mark on the world. Not everyone expects to build a settlement or be infamous on the server, but many want to contribute to the story of PFO and put their persistent mark on -something-. Doing that on blogs and forums isn't quite the same.

Social/custom clothing, biographies and furnished homes is about feeling unique. Slightly different motivation, and I feel more in line with Ryan's comment about themepark starving us of everything else.

The thing about pointless waste of time is that the whole game could be seen as such (certainly by my mother) - unless there is meaningful interaction. For social players, having a good talk with someone is a lot more memorable and meaningful than killing or being killed. In every MMO i've played, the mechanics and setting is what gets me in, but the people are what holds me. Although this is not the adrenaline-pumping interaction GW strives for, mechanics that promote social interactions must surely be a good thing for community building?

Also, guard and sentry duty -will- often be boring and tools to help pass the time would be great. (And stealthers would use the emote density as an indication of how distracted the guards are)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gedichtewicht wrote:
NineMoons wrote:
I'm so hungry, I could eat a Pegasus.
You really do look hungry, let me get you a full plate.

and thus the dinner party turned into an all-knighter.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tork Shaw wrote:

Just to chime in a little : the distinction between wizard/rogue/fighter/etc abilities is something we are being extremely careful with. (....)

Very reassuring.

The reminder/re-clarification on cantrips was also appreciated. You've persuaded me fighter won't feel like re-skinned wizard and that fighter/wizard will feel different from both of them.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Basic emotes and sitting (preferably also in chairs) would be welcome.

Ability for settlements and guilds to design (or at least select) their own banners and coat of arms.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
But when did the thief--I mean, rogue--come?

after sunset on the day gatherers built the first food storage.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deianira wrote:

I actually do play Mozart - I'm a pianist (amateur, not pro) - but I do tend to prefer a maximum of about one keyboard row of buttons to worry about in combat. That said, it sounds like a lot of these are situational or long-cooldown and won't be used often, if at all, in a single combat. As long as I'm able to do some remapping into a keyboard configuration that makes intuitive sense to me, I'll be happy.

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...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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).

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
randomwalker wrote:
If both fighters target the rogue he will struggle.
If both fighters are targeting - and chasing - the rogue, then won't the rogue's buddy fighter rip them up with Opportunity attacks?

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.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

If I decide that on Tuesdays I will kill anyone wearing a "Green Hat", my killing has meaning to me. My victim does not have to know my motivation, understand it or agree with it. The victim's ignorance of my motivation does not strip the event of its meaningfulness.

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".

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
lots of answers in response to:
randomwalker wrote:
reformulated questions into mbando's suggested 1-2-3-4 format

It seems Stephen Cheney replies can be summoned by putting questions in a structured format. Who'd have thought? (except Mbando, obviously)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mbando wrote:


1. Articulate your concept. "So, based on the blog and comments, it sounds like..."
2. Draw out implications. "If that's the case, then X..."
3. Problematize it. "That would be a problem because Y..."
4. Solicit discussion. "Do I have this right? Devs, could you address Z to help clear this up?"

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.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qallz wrote:
Andius wrote:


Back in those days people were faster too. The slow all got eaten by velociraptors.
Yea, but they got most of their exercise in those Fred Flinstone-style vehicles. That must've been tough.

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!

[/tangent]

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashgan wrote:
Definately would love this amount of customization. Normally I don't have too many problems with HUDS in games, but MMO's tend to always create one that has you looking everywhere but at the game... well that is my experience anyways.

Give us also customization for the complete opposite reason: refining, crafting, trading and settlement management.

I'd love to have a minimal GUI for exploring, a bit more for fighting and option to go full clutter for hanging around and making money.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
At the bare minimum, I would say that a wood, metal, stone, leather, and food cycle are required, with all of those resources being required to construct even basic buildings.

+1

In the MVP, scrolls and spellbooks could be parchment (ie. leather), all clothing leather and potions be 'food'.
In the next tier: herbs, paper, gems, cloth and jewelry.

+1 also to Decius inverted skill pyramid. Something very similar is used in Ryzom and I liked it for all kinds of reasons.

I typically end up as leatherworker and like crafting utility items.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lhan wrote:


I hope that settlements will be able to start out with much shorter walls and then add more outside and contiguous to them so we end up with what are effectively walled quarters in a city, much like many mediaeval towns. Not a massive priority, but it'd be nice...

Agree fully. But this is fine for the Minimum Viable Product.

My comment on scale: Those houses look huge and well constructed, perfect for rich and powerful city dwellers. But where do normal people live? I'd love to see smaller thatched-roof cottages, log cabins or other small faster-to-build houses as the first level of housing. (But not in the MVP).

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Urman wrote:


A world filled with unkillable jerks is just as bad as a world populated (or depopulated) by nothing but killers. Not a recipe for "thriving".

The problem there isn't the rules but the jerks.

Making a game that doesn't appeal to jerks means a lousy game. Trying to force jerks to behave leads to gaming the system. Trying to make them into content for non-jerks sounds difficult but if GW say they know how I'm willing to try.

To Nihimon's questions: I believe yes (but I'm not a killer), as long as there are enough varied sanctioned pvp options. Wars, feuds, raids and the ever present risk of robbery would make life and economy interesting enough for most players.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
I would argue that 4 is not gaming the a reputation system but a product of it working as intended. Any time you are using an average to represent anything, you have to accept that the larger the population the less each individual affects the average.

And any time you are using statistics, you can manipulate it to prove whatever point you have.

My opinion:
* It is not gaming it if you fill the settlement with players.
* It is gaming it if you fill the settlement with hordes of 'saintly strawmen' alts made for the purpose of manipulating the average.

But I expect there will be mechanisms in place so that inflating a settlement population with zero-xp alts isn't a good business model (but filling it with new players is). The influence system seems to be a good beginning.

7. Bounty club (potentially). If fulfilling bounties gains more rep than the cost of creating them, there's a rep grinding business right there (at the cost of a few heinous strawmen). No idea if this will be the case. Potentially this could also grind lawful alignment.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qallz wrote:


OK, But if there's any girls there I WANNA DO THEM

But you're not even there, you're getting drunk!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qallz wrote:
Are there any girls there?

She saunters across the room and sits down right next to Harad Navar, facing him."I'll have whatever you're buying me - well, except Pumpkin ale".

She leans in a bit more, flashes a smile, and in a lower voice purrs "You intrigue me, I can't wait to hear all about you".

Deianira notices the redhead has placed herself in a way that draws the men's attention away from Deianira.

Harad realizes he didn't actually notice her come in the door. Just before she locks her eyes on his he briefly glimpses a stiletto concealed in her bodice.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lam wrote:

@DeciusBrutus

Choose A:
get 1X
Choose B:
get 10x and deminsh the "enemy".

Pick 1 (A or B). ( when would anyone pick A. Okay one case but that is inside job and testifies to such).

The alternative to strip mining isn't holding the post permanently.

The alternative is taking the loot and running, which does not require 10 minutes, pvp superiority or gathering skills.

Not sure if this was implied, but I got the idea that resources accumulate in the outpost until collected. For an early morning raid, option A may then net you '8X' (if you can carry it), and in 20 minutes you may be raiding the next outpost for another '8x'.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
throwback wrote:
i will not play if there is no armor or weapon or jewlery loot

oh, but there is. Just maybe not from NPCs...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The church (organizational structure) and the religion are not the same thing. Being a cleric should never require joining a faction, but I still think the different churches should be designed as factions. In fact I can't think of any better way of doing it.

If I want to play a devoted religious character, I should have the choice of working within the organization (like a priest, cloistered monk or ordered knight) or independently (like a friar).

I should also have a way for my smith to devote himself to Torag, rogue to Adabar and barbarian to Gorum - all without taking cleric skills. Factions seem to be an obvious way.

The inconsistency is that if have the church of Gorum as my sworn enemies, a Gorumite cleric outside the faction is not considered an enemy. However this seems to agree very much with the current pvp design: religious wars (like other faction wars) should be optional.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Proud gamer dad with 3 kids: 6+6 (boy+girl twins) and 4 1/2 (girl):

1) Two days ago they were playing their Lego Heroica game and the boy spontaneously started GM'ing: he told the girls he'd rebuild the 'level' and play the baddies. He made up some house rules, fudged the rules to let them beat his pile of goblins, and showered them with extra loot (including the One ring).

2) yesterday I let them discover my old DnD minis. The girls instantly asked if they could have one each, then one more, and immediately started spinning stories. Not the usual Barbie dramas...

3) Today I invented a little wargame with them: single d6 to move, hit and damage, 3+/4+/5+ to hit and 6-12 hit points (yes, it was also a cunning 1st grader math exercise). Things that made me smile the most:

* the 4 1/2 yr old moves her princess into a flanking position, saying "we are cooperating, now it's two against one". The brother responds by adding her roll of 3 to his 4 saying "we got 7, we hit!"

* little sister suddenly declares that her princess is a spellcaster, "but if I roll 6 I can cast a magic that shatters the rock monster [earth elemental] into little pebbles"

* the look on their face (and the jumping up and down) when they first got down to 50% health, then managed to kill the baddies.

* "Daddy, can we play again? pleeeeease?" (Followed by claims that the hyena should be on the good team, be hit only on 6+ and have 20 hit points...)

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:
Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:
Druid would be a class. Why base an entire mechanic around a single class. It would make more sense that the flag would allow the owners of the hex to take advantage of the situation rather than an independent druid.

Well given the break from the classes our perception of what a "druid" is, has to change a bit.

Having Druids implemented as a faction is the simple solution.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If we are talking about cosmetic racial/regional styles: absolutely! (When the art team has spare capacity). Vanguard system comes to mind.

If we are talking systematic mechanical differences, making the recipes trainable by anyone becomes a must. Being apprenticed to a dwarven master smith may be harder for a human, but once he has learned the secrets he knows them.

1 to 50 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.