|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
You don't have the right to arm bears?
EDIT: we are talking bearded axes here, no?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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")
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.
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?"
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".
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.
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?
...The idea that our immortality could come with a karmic learning block...
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.
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.
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...
now, I understand why Geb, Nex, Alkenstar, Numeria, Mammoth Lords, Medioganti etc. etc. are not on that list.
but.. Brevoy or Nirmathas please?
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).
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.
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.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
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.
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.
Yeah, what party would put the squishies first in the marching order and the tank last?
Wow. Our vision of hideouts certainly differ.
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!
Magically influenced weather obviously allows for all kinds of extreme conditions.
(I would not love to see santa as the final boss of the winter escalation cycle, though).
Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:
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.
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).
...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.
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)
Tork Shaw wrote:
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.
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...
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.
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).
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.
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".
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
In the MVP, scrolls and spellbooks could be parchment (ie. leather), all clothing leather and potions be 'food'.
+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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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...)
Having Druids implemented as a faction is the simple solution.
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.