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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Looting, and Salvaging, Intelligent and Yes, size should matter.


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

@Ryan
On the subject of EVE, will we be seeing some sort of insurance system? on 'disposable' items? Or will we have to wait for insurance companies to start up?

Goblin Squad Member

Nipin wrote:


This sounds like I am encouraging massive PVP warfare or lone griefers or worse groups which only prey on other players, but this will also encourage players to not just wander about alone with all of their wealth with them and to take care when transporting valuables. This will introduce more cooperation with players wanting to travel in...

If it sounds like it, its because you are encouraging that type of warfare. Along with everyone else who understands that the other players are the core of the content. This will absolutely be a PvP game, although only limited looting of other players (no equipped items, only partial inventory looting) will not really be a reliable source of equipment gains. Additionally this limited loot system, and the expectation of PvP should really prevent people from thinking about combat as griefing. If you're nuked by a roving army because you're solo... well, you probably should have avoided that army. Finding out the movements of large forces and locations of wars, how to slip by such forces, and how to make swift silent profit from such events are all going to be pretty useful skills for solo players.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

In EVE, since everything is disposable, you are warned to "only fly what you can afford to lose". This is a very tough rule to learn for people who are used to MMOs where dying is a time-sink, not a resource-sink. It takes some people quite a while to figure out that if they have 1,000 dollars, buying a 1,000 dollar ship is a huge mistake. They should buy ten 100 dollar ships instead, and expect to lose all of them - which is OK, as long as while losing them they make the equivalent of at least 1,000 dollars.

Thus it's OK that there is a continuum of quality in very fine-grained increments for most things. Because you don't just buy "the best" thing when you can - that's foolish. Instead you have to constantly make a calculation about risk - how much can I afford to risk on this ship/ship fitting, vs. how much reward do I expect to gain while I use it?

Once you figure out how to calculate "afford to lose", EVE becomes a game that makes a lot more sense.

However in EVE you rarely if ever have to worry about monsters (NPCs) interfering with your attempts to recover what you can from a wreck. Getting blown up is bad, but you can usually salvage something from the wreckage. And the monsters (NPCs) don't gate content - they don't block your ability to travel from one place to another, or to catch up with friends at another location.

[All the above with the caveats that other players do of course do all those things, but the conditions where other players CAN do those things are well defined and not universal]

In Pathfinder Online we expect there to be a much higher danger factor from monsters, and we expect there to be many times where you'll be trying to return to your party but there will be monsters between you and them.

If we stripped you nude when you respawned, we'd be making it very hard for you to recover anything from your husk, or to fight through to reach your buddies.

EVE addresses this problem somewhat by assuming that you'll have ships and ship fittings cached near where you're operating, and even if you don't you can usually go to where your supplies are, and return to where your friends are reasonably quickly and with reasonably low risk so all you really lose is time.

Since we expect to have a higher risk factor and more active monsters, we think we need to ensure that you respawn with armor and a weapon. You could find yourself unable to get back into an adventure without a lengthy and costly series of actions, by which time your buddies may have logged out or finished doing whatever they were doing when you got killed. Not fun.

The upside of letting you keep a weapon and armor is you'll be able (likely) to have some chance to kill off whatever is near your husk so you can loot it and get some of your stuff back, and you can fight your way through to your buddies if there's not too many monsters between you and them.

The downside is that it means that weapons and armor won't be meaningful items to craft in large quantities. In EVE, ships and ship fittings are crafted in huge quantities because they're being destroyed all the time. But under our current plan that won't happen to arms and armor. With less loss there will be less demand, and with less demand there will be less value in crafting those things.

["Less loss" is not none. And "less value" is not none. People will still make and sell arms and armor, but they won't do it in high volumes like people do with ships and ship fittings in EVE.]

Instead what I anticipate we will create is a system where you need to combine a consumable resource with your weapons and armor to get maximum effect from them, and those resources won't survive the trip to the grave. So crafters will make lots of those resources instead of making lots of swords and armor sets. It's unlikely that someone will be just a guy who makes swords. It's much more likely that guy will make sword consumables, and the occasional sword on commission.

Those consumables will come in a variety of quality levels, so your decision about what to go adventuring with will be "don't adventure with resources you can't afford to lose", but normally you'll have the best weapon and the best armor you can afford.

Therefore actually losing a primary weapon and a good set of armor will be catastrophic, since replacement prices will be high and you may have to wait for someone to craft what you want on commission. I'm sure there will be all sorts of strategies for dealing with THAT issue, and it will be pretty interesting to see what develops.

Also there will be interesting choices to make about what you keep in hand. You may be loathe to swap from your awesome sword to a ranged weapon because if you die, the ranged weapon will cycle with you through death but you might lose that sword...

Now, everything else - that will be EVE territory. Rings, cloaks, belts, gloves, headgear, boots, potions, scrolls, wondrous items, etc; all that stuff will have a massive market and you'll live in an "EVE-style" economy with regard to that stuff. You'll buy it in large quantities, shrug when you lose it, and replace it continuously. And if you spend too much on it, and you lose it, you'll have to spend time re-earning the wealth you sunk into those lost goods and probably learn a good lesson along the way.

Goblin Squad Member

@Ryan - another very well reasoned approach, I like it a lot. It makes me curious about the potential of "Best Arms/Armor" decaying over time, due to use and abuse, a death = repair penalty, or any of the other typical tropes we see in MMOs (remarkably absent from the table top as well). I've always felt the BA/A durability should decay at a predictable and inexorable rate; That steel longsword will be replaced someday, no matter what. Maybe repair delays this, or consumables, or whatever. Any (further) thoughts on the matter?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes I think decay needs to be a factor bit it's tricky to balance.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
In Pathfinder Online we expect there to be a much higher danger factor from monsters

This is very good to hear.

Monsters should be a real event for players (not grind 10 rats) to enter combat with: Weighing the risks vs the rewards to the decision to initiate and chances of success and the hopefully interesting decisions of combat itself with the particular mob.

(above post explains the situation nicely. I almost take the idea that players are a bit like ships - fitted with different types of equipment. Sounds good to me).

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Those consumables will come in a variety of quality levels, so your decision about what to go adventuring with will be "don't adventure with resources you can't afford to lose", but normally you'll have the best weapon and the best armor you can afford.

Therefore actually losing a primary weapon and a good set of armor will be catastrophic, since replacement prices will be high and you may have to wait for someone to craft what you want on commission. I'm sure there will be all sorts of strategies for dealing with THAT issue, and it will be pretty interesting to see what develops.

Also there will be interesting choices to make about what you keep in hand. You may be loathe to swap from your awesome sword to a ranged weapon because if you die, the ranged weapon will cycle with you through death but you might lose that sword...

Have you considered a system where a character has 'equipped' more than one weapon? I don't think It is unreasonable for an adventurer to have equipped a sword, small dagger(2), bow and quiver, along with a few thrown weapons. Switching between these equipped weapons could be fast, but getting something out of your bag would take longer. Though I am opposed to people carrying a bag full of weapons and armor around, I would like to see only small things and small quantities of things held in a bag. And the capacity of the bag is reflected by the size of a bag on the character, that would make sense in a real world. Extra weapons and such should be stored away in facilities, not carried around all the time. That is not saying that small weapons couldn't be carried in a bag, but there should not be a person walking around with 10 long swords unless they are being carried and occupying the ability for the character to use their arms, and also able to be dropped and looted by anyone if the character needs to use their arms.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

The upside of letting you keep a weapon and armor...

... weapons and armor won't be meaningful items to craft in large quantities.

Rings, cloaks, belts, gloves, headgear, boots, potions, scrolls, wondrous items, etc; all that stuff will have a massive market...

Am I reading this correctly that it's not "equipped gear" that you get to keep, but rather just a weapon and your armor?

That seems a departure from the blog To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms:

Quote:
Your character will re-enter play at the soulbinding point holding and wearing whatever gear they had equipped when they died, so you won't have to start without your armor, or the weapons, wands, or staves you were using.

Not that I'm objecting at all. I think it's cool, I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding.

Goblin Squad Member

I have a suggestion. Monk should the only archetype that don't need decaying equipement to be able to play. He is the weapon and the armor. That be respecful of the core rulebook. (Monk weapons will decay like every other). However, he will be a big eater. He consume more energy than other archetype. (I can imagine a monk farmer or a monk cook)

Wizard will have a component pouch for each level of spell with limited use. Il will easy to craft but difficult to harvest. You will need herbs, monster's parts and even craft objects.

Sorcerer will not need a pouch to cast spell, but spells will be less powerful.

Cleric will have their divine focus. And Druid also.

Goblin Squad Member

The nature of the game can't have archetype specific loadouts, it needs to be a universal system.

I would rather see non-specific loadouts you can select for your character, that are all balanced. So if a loadout has a slot for a large sword, you don't get as many slots for small daggers, or if you have a slot for a polearm/staff, you don't have room from additional larger weapons.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
Ravening wrote:

Another thought. Deteriorating item durability is going to particularly affect melee based characters, and least affect spellcasters who don’t wear armour or use traditional weapons.

Also should ranged weapons deteriorate at the same rate as melee weapons? While there is wear and tear involved in using a crossbow or bow, I would imagine it is much less when compared to a sword that is cleaving through armour and bounding against other melee weapons. Perhaps ranged weapons do deteriorate slower than melee weapons. However, you have the added expense of having to buy ammo.

When it comes to missile weapons, they just have to calculate and make ammunition costs + wear, close to equal to the costs of wear of a normal weapon.

Now magic... why is that any less likely to wear out... IMO with PFO's direction on production, manufacturing etc... All classes will most likely need to be comparably gear dependent. Now I know that many people don't like the thought of a wizard, a fighter a monk and a paladin, having comperable need for, and cost of gear. Maybe make special handwraps for the monks and special daggers/staffs etc... for the wizards etc...

The need for this was largely shown in DaoC, where PK parties were generally made of naked wizards killing poeple with nothing to lose.

It makes sense for swords and other melee weapons to wear down, because of the force and resistance (armour) they are being subjected to. Most other magical items that would be used in combat are charged based (wands, staffs, & potions) so there will be a cost to either replace or recharge them.

Other magical items (boots, rings, cloaks, gloves, belts, helms etc) won't necessarily be subjects to the same extremes as weapons (i.e they’re not hitting things), so perhaps shouldn't have the same level of reducing durability. However, they could be subject to wear and tear if the character is repeated involved in the receiving end of combat.

Goblin Squad Member

Ravening wrote:


It makes sense for swords and other melee weapons to wear down, because of the force and resistance (armour) they are being subjected to. Most other magical items that would be used in combat are charged based (wands, staffs, & potions) so there will be a cost to either replace or recharge them.

Other magical items (boots, rings, cloaks, gloves, belts, helms etc) won't necessarily be subjects to the same extremes as weapons (i.e they’re not hitting things), so perhaps shouldn't have the same level of reducing durability. However, they could be subject to wear and tear if the character is repeated involved in the receiving end of combat.

Careuful, your adapting a DnD mechanic to PFO. I personally don't like the charge system, I think there should be a similar system that wears down based on magnitude and rate, of usage.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
Careuful, your adapting a DnD mechanic to PFO. I personally don't like the charge system, I think there should be a similar system that wears down based on magnitude and rate, of usage.

True, but that's because we haven't got all the details yet. The principle is the same though.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:


Am I reading this correctly that it's not "equipped gear" that you get to keep, but rather just a weapon and your armor?

That seems a departure from the blog To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms:

No change. You'll keep your armor, and whatever you've got in hand at the moment you die.

RyanD

Goblin Squad Member

I'd also like to point out that saying cloaks, helms and the like aren't subject to the same rigors as arms/armor isn't really accurate. If one gets fireballed or backstabbed, its not like the fire or the dagger ignores the worn items.... cloaks burn, metal rings/amulets melt or are chipped by an errant blade, etc. And that's just looking at it from a purely simulationist point of view, to speak nothing of the inherent choice to make these items less durable or consumables as a method of applying economic pressure.

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:
I'd also like to point out that saying cloaks, helms and the like aren't subject to the same rigors as arms/armor isn't really accurate. If one gets fireballed or backstabbed, its not like the fire or the dagger ignores the worn items.... cloaks burn, metal rings/amulets melt or are chipped by an errant blade, etc. And that's just looking at it from a purely simulationist point of view, to speak nothing of the inherent choice to make these items less durable or consumables as a method of applying economic pressure.

Well I believe it is more based on sheer probability. Lets say a soldier somehow has taken 200 glancing blows and lived. I would expect probably at least 100 of them to have hit his shield, maybe 25 hit his full plate armor, 50 hit his sword, 24 grazed his helmet and leg guards... the probability of one having hit his ring, earring etc... are pretty darn insubstantial.

Of course one could rule magic like an electric circuit, Simply running it causes wear and tear, sooner or later minor surges, excess energy etc... will burn it out, assuming it dosn't just drain like a battery

Andoran

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Nipin wrote:


This will encourage "griefing" in that a viable option will be to hide in the bushes and ambush players transporting goods or just carrying nice stuff as they travel from one city to the next, but this will encourage a sense of realism.

This is not griefing. This is good emergent gameplay.

Griefing is doing something to another player with the intention and primary outcome of ruining that player's experience.

Killing someone and taking their stuff isn't griefing, if you take their stuff because you want/need it (even if you just want to sell it) for a reasonable in-game purpose. And it's not "ok" to want or need it because you want that person to feel bad.

RyanD

I was trying to convey that some may feel it is griefing, but it is actually just PVP in a natural way. I am not a big fan of PVP play personally, as I prefer to cooperate with my fellow players, but I would consider this sort of behavior as natural and acceptable an action as killing an enemy in a battleground in WoW.

The intent of my post was to convey that allowing players to be looted upon death adds a level of cost vs profit for these world PVP scenarios that might lead to interesting in-game dynamics (e.g. a pirating band which preys on travelers).

Andoran

Onishi wrote:
Ravening wrote:

Another thought. Deteriorating item durability is going to particularly affect melee based characters, and least affect spellcasters who don’t wear armour or use traditional weapons.

Also should ranged weapons deteriorate at the same rate as melee weapons? While there is wear and tear involved in using a crossbow or bow, I would imagine it is much less when compared to a sword that is cleaving through armour and bounding against other melee weapons. Perhaps ranged weapons do deteriorate slower than melee weapons. However, you have the added expense of having to buy ammo.

When it comes to missile weapons, they just have to calculate and make ammunition costs + wear, close to equal to the costs of wear of a normal weapon.

Now magic... why is that any less likely to wear out... IMO with PFO's direction on production, manufacturing etc... All classes will most likely need to be comparably gear dependent...special daggers/staffs etc... for the wizards etc...

I would suggest sticking with the bonded item which is currently used with Wizards in PFRPG, but expand it to be a required item for all spellcasters and then a natural extension is special magical enhancements which can affect your spells or just simply requiring a more powerful bonded item to cast more powerful spells (wood lets you cast scorching ray, silver gets you fireball, unobtanium gets you delayed blast fireball).

Andoran

Ryan Dancey wrote:


...
Instead what I anticipate we will create is a system where you need to combine a consumable resource with your weapons and armor to get maximum effect from them, and those resources won't survive the trip to the grave. So crafters will make lots of those resources instead of making lots of swords and armor sets. It's unlikely that someone will be just a guy who makes swords. It's much more likely that guy will make sword consumables, and the occasional sword on commission.

Those consumables will come in a variety of quality levels, so your decision about what to go adventuring with will be "don't adventure with resources you can't afford to lose", but normally you'll have the best weapon and the best armor you can afford.

Therefore actually losing a primary weapon and a good set of armor will be catastrophic, since replacement prices will be high and you may have to wait for someone to craft what you want on commission. I'm sure there will be all sorts of strategies for dealing with THAT issue, and it will be pretty interesting to see what develops.

Also there will be interesting choices to make about what you keep in hand. You may be loathe to swap from your awesome sword to a ranged weapon because if you die, the ranged weapon will cycle with you through death but you might lose that sword...

Now, everything else - that will be EVE territory. Rings, cloaks, belts, gloves, headgear, boots, potions, scrolls, wondrous items, etc; all that stuff will have a massive market and you'll live in an "EVE-style" economy with regard to that stuff. You'll buy it in large quantities, shrug when you lose it, and replace it continuously. And if you spend too much on it, and you lose it, you'll have to spend time re-earning the wealth you sunk into those lost goods and probably learn a good lesson along the way.

I really like the sound of this system. Originally, I was envisioning the plan to be that players weren't lootable at all, but the system you just described is quite the opposite. The system will keep players from getting completely sent back to the beginning in case of death, but will still offer a strong reward/cost for world PVP.

I continue to grow more excited about this game. Just need to find more time to finish reading all of the disparate information in the forums/blogs, unless someone has started a wiki or similar endeavor I could get a link to!

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
No change. You'll keep your armor, and whatever you've got in hand at the moment you die.

Can you elaborate on what you meant by this, then?

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Rings, cloaks, belts, gloves, headgear, boots, potions, scrolls, wondrous items, etc; all that stuff will have a massive market... You'll buy it in large quantities, shrug when you lose it, and replace it continuously.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:


Can you elaborate on what you meant by this, then?

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Rings, cloaks, belts, gloves, headgear, boots, potions, scrolls, wondrous items, etc; all that stuff will have a massive market... You'll buy it in large quantities, shrug when you lose it, and replace it continuously.

None of that is armor and you don't have those things in your hand when you die.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Nihimon wrote:


Can you elaborate on what you meant by this, then?

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Rings, cloaks, belts, gloves, headgear, boots, potions, scrolls, wondrous items, etc; all that stuff will have a massive market... You'll buy it in large quantities, shrug when you lose it, and replace it continuously.
None of that is armor and you don't have those things in your hand when you die.

I think what he is trying to say is that if we are getting back out armor, which we are wearing. How is it that we wont get the ring on our finger, gloves on our hand, boots we are wearing, etc.? The things we would have actively equipped and wearing.

Nihimon, if I am misquoting you please say so.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Nihimon wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

The upside of letting you keep a weapon and armor...

... weapons and armor won't be meaningful items to craft in large quantities.

Rings, cloaks, belts, gloves, headgear, boots, potions, scrolls, wondrous items, etc; all that stuff will have a massive market...

Am I reading this correctly that it's not "equipped gear" that you get to keep, but rather just a weapon and your armor?

That seems a departure from the blog To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms:

Quote:
Your character will re-enter play at the soulbinding point holding and wearing whatever gear they had equipped when they died, so you won't have to start without your armor, or the weapons, wands, or staves you were using.
Not that I'm objecting at all. I think it's cool, I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding.

I think he's saying that ONLY equipped weapons and worn armor are part of the 'really expensive and you don't often carry what isn't equipped' paradigm.

In other words, rings and belts will be things that you carry a few of, and wear the appropriate one for each task, balancing versatility (of having the perfect belt for many jobs) with downside risk (you can lose all of the belts you have). That also implies that wondrous items have a cost somewhere below the order of magnitude of weapons and armor.

I think the confusion comes from everybody (myself included) considering that we would respawn with all the 'slotted items', not just weapon and armor.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's magic.

Goblin Squad Member

Losing a spare pair of boots from your pack when you die makes sense. Losing the boots you're wearing (equipped) doesn't.

I'm sure were all appreciative of the fact that once our character dies they get to respawn at the soul binding point, and not be totally naked and helpless.

Can we please get clarification if when our character dies what will repawn with them. Only their armour/clothing and or equipped weapon? Or will other items that are equipped (in the various item slots) also respawn.

I also take it from the blog on money that gold will also respawn with our characters?

Thanks

Ravening

Goblin Squad Member

There's no need for clarification, the clear answer is already in this thread. You keep your armor and the weapon you had in your hand when you died.

(Weapon could be a staff or wand).

Goblin Squad Member

@Ryan, can you be clear-er and say directly that we might lose the ring we're wearing if our husk is looted?

Goblin Squad Member

Ravening wrote:

Losing a spare pair of boots from your pack when you die makes sense. Losing the boots you're wearing (equipped) doesn't.

I'm sure were all appreciative of the fact that once our character dies they get to respawn at the soul binding point, and not be totally naked and helpless.

Can we please get clarification if when our character dies what will repawn with them. Only their armour/clothing and or equipped weapon? Or will other items that are equipped (in the various item slots) also respawn.

I also take it from the blog on money that gold will also respawn with our characters?

Thanks

Ravening

I believe gold, or coin, is specifically stated to be a non-physical entity. IE bankers know and keep track of what you have and magically send that information to every other banker in the world. So yeah it is exempt from looting.

as far as boots etc... it looks like the intent is for it to be the bare minimum necessary to keep your character competent.

Though I do have to ask one other thing then.. Because Ryan more or less stated that they are considering essentially a craftable multiple graded consumable necessary to make a weapon recieve "maximum effect". What sort of effect are we looking at prior, as from the sounds of it the corpse run will be without those consumables.

Goblin Squad Member

It sounds to me like anything you have equiped you'll start with, weapons, armor, necklace, rings, etc. Everything in pouches and packs is up for grabs. That's my understanding from this anyhow.

Goblin Squad Member

Kard Warstein wrote:
It sounds to me like anything you have equiped you'll start with, weapons, armor, necklace, rings, etc. Everything in pouches and packs is up for grabs. That's my understanding from this anyhow.

Not judging by Ryan just a few posts ago in the same thread

Ryan Dancey wrote:


Rings, cloaks, belts, gloves, headgear, boots, potions, scrolls, wondrous items, etc; all that stuff will have a massive market... You'll buy it in large quantities, shrug when you lose it, and replace it continuously.
"Ryan Dancey wrote:


None of that is armor and you don't have those things in your hand when you die.

Unless I am majorly misinterpreting him, he's basically been repeating "Only your weapon and armor return with you when you die", then saying "rings, cloaks, belts, gloves, headgear, wonderous items and boots", are not armor or weapons, and thus subject to either be destroyed or stolen if your corpse is looted.

Goblin Squad Member

Hmm, well that don't make much logical sense to me, but that's ok. I think it makes balance sense, and that's more important.

Goblin Squad Member

@Onishi - yes, exactly.

Goblin Squad Member

I get that for some people this either isn't what they want to hear, or sounds "unrealistic," but it's not meant to be a sim. It's an abstraction that's meant to fun to play--dying and then being utterly screwed for the next two hours sounds like no fun, so through the "magic" of game design, PFO is going to let you keep the armor you are wearing, and the weapon you have in hand, while everything else you had equipped stays on your husk, at risk.

It's really that simple, and has to everything to do with an attempt to make gameplay fun/rewarding, and nothing to do with realism, or genre expectations from prior games.

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks, Ryan. As I said, I wasn't raising any objections to it - in fact I like it. It's just that it this was different from what I had previously (mis-)understood. It looks like I wasn't alone.

My reason for asking was so that other people who might have had the same misunderstanding I had would see that the reality is different than we had thought.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So one of the interesting things that could be done is make weapons and armor require UPKEEP to perform at peak efficiency and have that upkeep wear off in combat.

For example... a sword might require a whetstone and honing oil to keep it keen for battle. The Warrior, as part of his preperations applies the whetstone and honing oil (consumables) to the sword which gives it a usage factor of 1000, this translates to a few additional points of damage on each swing. As the Warrior is fighting and delivering and blocking blows with the sword it's usage factor starts to get reduced, meaning that it does gradualy less damage (it's getting blunter) until it's reduced back to it's base damage.

In practical terms this means that the Warrior, if he wants to perform at peak efficiency, is not only going to apply whetstone and oil to his sword before he sets out into the field for an expedition, he's going to want to carry EXTRA of those consumables with him into the field, so he can stay out for an extended time and he can keep his weapon at peak operating efficiency between fights by applying the whetstone and oil to them.

So what happens when he dies, is that his sword loses all existing usage factors AND he loses the oils and whetstones (consumables) that were in his inventory. He still has his sword, so he can fight, just not at peak efficiency. If he gets back to his corpse, he can recover the oil and whetsones he had in inventory and thus get his weapon back to peak efficiency. If he can't get back to his corpse before it's looted but can meet up with one of his fellow party members, they can give him a whetstone and oil from thier inventory to get his weapon upto peak efficiency.

I think this is inline with what Ryan intended for the system.

Now the interesting thing about such a system, is Golarion being a magical world, you could have whetstones and oils with unusual properties that effect the sword in different ways then normal.

For example you could have ones that give the sword the "Silver" property in exchange for fewer points of damage and usage or "Demon Bane" or "Flaming", etc.

So a weapons qualties would be a combination of it's base properties and the oil that was applied to it. So you could have a "Silver" sword (that had different base properties then a normal sword) and choose to apply "Flaming" oil to it and end up with a weapon that was both "Silver" and "Flaming".

You could only have 1 oil applied to a weapon at a time, so the player would be making a tactical choice of what base weapon he wanted and what oils to carry to combine it with. Having oils with different properties might even encourage the player to carry more consumables (of different types) out into the field with him to be able to adapt and deal with different situations in the field as they occured.

Another thing that you could do to encourage attrition of weapons (and thus a reason to want to craft them) is to make thier base damage type really matter. For example swords do "Slashing" type damage. Certain creatures (e.g. Skeletons) might be resistant to that damage type. This would encourage the character to carry an extra weapon of a different type (e.g. a mace) to get the best results when fighting them. Since the second weapon was in INVENTORY not equiped when the character died...it COULD be lost when he dies (and therefore provide a sink for crafters to replace). The Warrior would still have his sword when he died, meaning he could still fight...he would just be less efficient against certain monster (or armor) types. Thoughts?

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Another thing that you could do to encourage attrition of weapons (and thus a reason to want to craft them) is to make thier base damage type really matter. For example swords do "Slashing" type damage. Certain creatures (e.g. Skeletons) might be resistant to that damage type. This would encourage the character to carry an extra weapon of a different type (e.g. a mace) to get the best results when fighting them. Since the second weapon was in INVENTORY not equiped when the character died...it COULD be lost when he dies (and therefore provide a sink for crafters to replace). The Warrior would still have his sword when he died, meaning he could still fight...he would just be less efficient against certain monster (or armor) types. Thoughts?

Pretty much my thoughts as well, it is also fully plausible that oils can be mixed, at creation, IE flaming/keen/silver oils/stones etc... could be crafted, but just like the weapons themselves, they could go up in price exponentially for every trick they have. Now as far as whether it will be something applied manually, or some sort of magic stone that drains from a certain number with every hit etc... is all up to the development team.

These oils or stones or whatever they are, could completely replace the magic weapons concepts altogether, as well they basically create an ammunition equivalent for melee combat. Overall I would say I am really loving the possibilities and what such a system would accomplish.


My misunderstanding (and that of others, I think) came from the meaning of "gear" and "armor" - under many (most?) video game RPG circumstances, boots, gloves, and headgear are classified as pieces of armor. There is a big difference between "you keep your gear" and "you keep your main body armor", and this should be reflected in relevant places, because the blog post is presently misleading.

Body Armor and Weapons being kept through death and everything else dropped/destroyed, would be about the EVE equivalent of "You keep your ship's hull and one weapon, but lose all your modules/cargo (everything that isn't your hull/that weapon)." I'm wary of making death hurt that much, but I trust the dev's judgement more than my own.

I do very much like the "consumables power up your items and their effects are lost upon death" as a way to make death relevant and allow characters to manage the cost of death while still enjoying benefits of the gear they have acquired=.

Goblin Squad Member

One thing to remember (If I understand the design intent correctly) is that most "gear" in this game is going to be alot less like World of Warcraft +57 Sword of Uberness that you spent 500 hours grinding to obtain and alot more like the Battlefield 1942 M1 Garand Rifle that you get when you spawn.

I expect better quality gear will provide some incremental enhancements/improvements over standard stuff...but it's not going to be insane in terms of power increase.

You definately want having the right equipment for the job to have a meaningfull benefit. However, I seriously don't expect upgrading your sword from a plain iron weapon...to high quality sword x suddenly turns you into a god on the battle-field.

In other words, people should feel comfortable with replacing most of thier gear on a fairly regular basis. The time to replace a piece of gear won't be a huge investment of time.....and it's probably not that huge of a loss if you have to go into a fight with some generic stuff....obviously you'll want every advantage you can AFFORD....but you should be prepaired to pretty much lose/replace everything you are going out into the field with.

Goblin Squad Member

Waffleyone wrote:
My misunderstanding (and that of others, I think) came from the meaning of "gear" and "armor" - under many (most?) video game RPG circumstances, boots, gloves, and headgear are classified as pieces of armor.

I'll agree that World of Warcraft does that. But it's the exception to the rule, and it's not the rule in Pathfinder.

It's also not how it works in Dragon Age, Skyrim, Baldur's Gate, or any other mainstream fantasy RPG.

Armor is armor, not hats or shoes.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

I'll agree that World of Warcraft does that. But it's the exception to the rule, and it's not the rule in Pathfinder.

It's also not how it works in Dragon Age, Skyrim, Baldur's Gate, or any other mainstream fantasy RPG.

Armor is armor, not hats or shoes.

As WoW, LOTRO, and SWTOR are the only MMOs I have really played I have always called any piece of gear you equip to your character's body 'armor'.

This is good that this discussion has been happening. The more we, as a community and developers, can suss out these kinds of details the more we are able to help people who show up here for the first time and have questions.

Andoran Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Waffleyone wrote:
My misunderstanding (and that of others, I think) came from the meaning of "gear" and "armor" - under many (most?) video game RPG circumstances, boots, gloves, and headgear are classified as pieces of armor.

I'll agree that World of Warcraft does that. But it's the exception to the rule, and it's not the rule in Pathfinder.

It's also not how it works in Dragon Age, Skyrim, Baldur's Gate, or any other mainstream fantasy RPG.

Armor is armor, not hats or shoes.

I will have to disagree with this point. Many fantasy RPGs (EQ, DAoC, WAR, SWTOR, Dragon Age, Diablo to name a few) use multiple armor pieces that all contribute to a character's overall armor rating much the same as WoW. Most games even have matching sets that even further increase the rating/stats for the armor set as a whole. If PFO is going a different route that is fine, but saying that WoW is the exception is a bit disingenuous.

Goblin Squad Member

D'Syndri wrote:


I will have to disagree with this point. Many fantasy RPGs (EQ, DAoC, WAR, SWTOR, Dragon Age, Diablo to name a few) use multiple armor pieces that all contribute to a character's overall armor rating much the same as WoW. Most games even have matching sets that even further increase the rating/stats for the armor set as a whole. If PFO is going a different route that is fine, but saying that WoW is the exception is a bit disingenuous.

True, and I admit this was my assumption until yesterday, though from the tabletop, armor was it's own category, multiple pieces did not cummulatively add to armor except for pieces that granted different types of bonuses. (IE reflection, natural etc...), you can't for instance wear a chain shirt and a padded skirt and expect them to stack.

But yeah in the fantasy MMO industry, I would say armor is almost universally defined as anything you can wear. Either way the new clarifications certainly give me a new perspective, and I'm very happy to have them.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Waffleyone wrote:
My misunderstanding (and that of others, I think) came from the meaning of "gear" and "armor" - under many (most?) video game RPG circumstances, boots, gloves, and headgear are classified as pieces of armor.

I'll agree that World of Warcraft does that. But it's the exception to the rule, and it's not the rule in Pathfinder.

It's also not how it works in Dragon Age, Skyrim, Baldur's Gate, or any other mainstream fantasy RPG.

Armor is armor, not hats or shoes.

That's IS how it works in Morrowind, if you're going to bring 'mainstream fantasy RPG' into it. I suppose that's largely for appearance, but mixed suits of armor clip and look bad, and pretty much everyone wears a robe over it all anyway...

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah, different systems handle it in different ways...each trying to model it best they can. None of them accurately reflect the real world, as armor can easly consist of a dozen or more pieces and really varies with suit, style, type, date and individual.

A typical 11th/12th century model for a well armored warrior might include a helm to protect the head under which might be worn a chain coif, protecting the head, neck and shoulders. The individual might choose to wear a leather gorget underneath at the neck for extra protection. Then a chain hauberk over the body protecting the arms down to the elbow and the legs down to the knee. This would be split in the legs at the center for horsemen or the sides for footmen. Underneath the hauberk would typicaly be worn a padded gimbeson to cushion blows and keep the chain from being driven into the body. There would be no "pants" armor to speak of, the individual wearing whatever they normaly would for cotton/wool/leather pants. The lower legs would be protected with greaves which might be of reinforced leather or metal. The lower arms would likewise be protected with leather or metal vambraces. Hands might be protected with leather gloves or chain mittens. Feet would probably be unprotected and normal shoes or boots worn, although armored boots would come along not much later.

The above is just one varient of a historical example from one period. Kinda tough to model all that in a game system. Although, I generaly do prefer Pathfinder/D&D's way of dealing with it of just bundling it all into an "Armor Type" that represents the overall style and level of protection the individual has without worrying about getting too bogged down in the individual pieces. Much easier to to that when modeling it in a game system. YMMV.


Ooh, just thought of another relevant question:
So far the understanding is really clear when holding 1 weapon in hand. What about when holding a weapon and a shield? Do you lose the shield? What about a mainhand and offhand weapon? Does the offhand weapon drop? Is it a matter of "Items wielded in hands along with armor (not gear! armor!) stays with you." or does it work a little differently?

Goblin Squad Member

Waffleyone wrote:

Ooh, just thought of another relevant question:

So far the understanding is really clear when holding 1 weapon in hand. What about when holding a weapon and a shield? Do you lose the shield? What about a mainhand and offhand weapon? Does the offhand weapon drop? Is it a matter of "Items wielded in hands along with armor (not gear! armor!) stays with you." or does it work a little differently?

My opinion is that shields should definitely drop on death. They would be taking a lot of abuse in combat to begin with and should be considered part of any army's list of expendable supplies. Offhand weapons? Dunno.

Goblin Squad Member

Why don't you just drop everything but your armor? Just about everyone knows how to use simple weapons, and clubs are free, you just grab one off the ground.

If your a cleric/wizard, your symbol/bonded item/spellbook should also go with you so you have access to your spells. Other then that though, let people loose all their stuff. It's how we learn.

In my mind it makes no sense that something your wearing (ring/boots) wouldn't go with you when something you were just holding but drop upon death (can't hold a weapon when yer dead) does.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

The arguments based around reasonableness aren't valid against a decision based on game balance.

If shields are lost on death, it means that shields have some maximum value; if shields are as valuable as weapons or armor, they can't be lost on death without crippling the builds that need shields.

Goblin Squad Member

The point of death is that it's crippling, I guess I don't see that as a down side.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

The arguments based around reasonableness aren't valid against a decision based on game balance.

If shields are lost on death, it means that shields have some maximum value; if shields are as valuable as weapons or armor, they can't be lost on death without crippling the builds that need shields.

Well IMO all builds are going to be crippled pretty badly. Considering the consumable portion of the weapon, at least from my interpretation, is like the entire magic enhancement portion.

IE someone with hypothetical +2 keen shocking greatsword, amulet of natural armor, full plate, etc... will basically respawn with a non-magical greatsword and normal full plate, no amulet etc...

Though, I do actually see a case for the shield. From what I am gathering they are saying you more or less respawn with the minimal requirements to use your archtype combat skills. IE a rogue obviously will need a knife if he's going to backstab, clerics obviously will need their focus etc...

With that definition, I am thinking assuming skills such as, shield bash etc... exist, then a shield would fall into the protected quadrant of items. If a shield matches many MMO's where it is simply a slight boost to AC... then it would not fall into the protected category.

Ryan: I do have one added question off that line of reasoning. I really like the idea of the consumable portions for weapons, assuming I am even interpreting it correctly. I do have to ask in that line, is armor also going to work similarly?

51 to 100 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / Looting, and Salvaging, Intelligent and Yes, size should matter. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.