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

RPG Superstar 2015

Goblinworks Blog: Begin the Beguine


Pathfinder Online

101 to 150 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Why select roles? Let your skill and badge selections implicitly add role "levels" when the prerequisites are met.

I.E. You pick a combat feat at character generation, and your first badges are a martial weapon badge and an armor badge. The game the goes "Ding! You are now a first level fighter!." (or say you have unlocked the fighter badge and can do X to earn and activate the badge)

Edit: This also makes the most seemless method for adding new skills, badges, and roles. As they simply update and tag the new items for what they require and what requirements they need. You could start out learning various weapon skills and then when they add the fighter role, you log in after patching and suddenly get a "grats for acheiveing the fighter role!" though they might require additional tasks to activat badges once they are unlocked.

Actually.... I think you may be on to something.

You could make class levels work a lot like the EVE Certification system. I don't need to explain this to Ryan but for the rest of you:

The EVE Certification system is basically a system where once you have reached certain levels in various skills you can claim a certification. Some certifications also require you to have other certifications.

I would consider making it work somewhat like a college degree though, where rather than a list of exact requirements, It may require you train one or more skills on a list.

So say in order to get to Bard Level 1, one of the requirements would be to take a level in at least one of the following:

Perform Oratory
Perform Wind
Perform String
Perform Song
Perform Dance

etc.

One of the HUGE benefits I could see to this system is that is that it doesn't force the player to advance faster than they want to. While someone racing to reach their capstone will take one perform, another bard might say "I think I want my character to be able to dance and play a flute at the same time." And that character can take both wind and dance.

While that does seem to have the potential to be overpowered Ryan has stated that our equipment will impose limitations as to what actions we can perform. Obviously someone will be incapable of using wind and string at the same time... unless they have one of those funky things that holds the harmonica for you... which... no... just no...


Kazz Squil wrote:

Question about the in game player economy:

Would prices for player made goods (or even player gathered raw materials) inflated over time?

Blog Post: Money Changes Everything. It's something that the team is definitely aware of, and will be managing. I'm guessing the plan is for common, widely available goods to cost about the same 3 months in as 3 years in.

Goblin Squad Member

martryn wrote:


1. Confirmation yet that we'll have a robust character model creation system.

In the immediate term it's a "want to have, low priority". In the medium term I think it starts moving to a higher priority. In the long term it's probably a "must have".

Quote:
2. In-game voice chat? So much more convenient than using a free third party system. Really loved that feature in DDO, and hating that it's not around in most other MMOs.

Possible but there are very good reasons not to do it, most importantly if the client/server crashes you may wish to retain voice comms via an independent system.

Plus all the good systems (Vivox) are royalty based and we may not have room in the budget.

Goblin Squad Member

In every major clan I have ever been a part of that played a game with built in voice chat... we still used Teamspeak or Ven.

I know GL, will be using Teamspeak regardless of what is included in this game. So personally, I say it's a waste of resources. But I'm sure others might disagree.

Goblin Squad Member

@Andius, very disappointed that I can't complete my life long dream of a bard modeled after Bob Dylan.

Seriously though, whether choosing a class that leans towards some abilities or choosing abilities that lean towards a class, I'm not sure I really care. I'll give the designers the benefit of the doubt on that one. My main concerns are that

a: I'll be able to identify myself as a certain class (Dwarven Fighter, not a Dwarf who is proficient in one handed axes, heavy armor, tower shields, grappling, charging...) I think some sort of baseline standard for identifying everybody is a good idea.

b: I'll have at least a decent number of options if I want to alter the course of my character's evolution. I want my character's class to be a reflection of his actions and experiences, both literally in terms of skill usage, and more esoterically in terms of his perspective on the world. If he fell in with a group of travelling minstrels for a few months, I'd like him to dabble in singing as a result. He doesn't have to become a world renown bard, but it'd be nice to bust out a drinking song or two at the occasional tavern.

My main plan will be to shoot for capstone initially and then after a couple years branch out into whatever strikes my fancy (though I may give in to temptation and explore other options earlier).

Lantern Lodge

Why does this class identification matter? If you can fight well, you are a fighter, regardless of some abstract text somewhere claiming such.

Do you identify yourself as some such class in RL? If not then why does it matter in game? If so, why?

What does class have to do with perspective on the world?

Identifying everybody isn't gonna happen, the multiclass ability alone destroys any ability or reason to discern such.

The idea of identifying classes, to me anyway, only makes sense from a strategic standpoint, which only applies when everyone is strictly limited by their class.

Goblin Squad Member

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Why does this class identification matter? If you can fight well, you are a fighter, regardless of some abstract text somewhere claiming such.

Do you identify yourself as some such class in RL? If not then why does it matter in game? If so, why?

What does class have to do with perspective on the world?

Identifying everybody isn't gonna happen, the multiclass ability alone destroys any ability or reason to discern such.

The idea of identifying classes, to me anyway, only makes sense from a strategic standpoint, which only applies when everyone is strictly limited by their class.

It's probably just a fall-back for lack of more information on skill trees; a kind of short-hand at the general direction preferred?

Eg Bandit work sounds like a good fit with "ranger" skills, given where it takes place.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Why does this class identification matter?

Because being able to categorize things and make sense of the world matters. There are primarily two ways that labels work: To describe and to constrain. In many games classes constrain players - in this game it will describe. It doesn't limit you, or anyone else. I understand that to some it is pointless. To others, it helps them identify others and identify their own characters - it conveys a lot of information concisely. Clearly you don't like classes as constraints, and we can see why, I just don't see why you're railing against them so hard when they're descriptive. [Edit: Didn't mean to falsely attribute something to you, I'm sorry.]

Lantern Lodge

It wasn't meant as a "rail against them" thing it just doesn't make sense from a non-strategic POV. they were honest questions. I have Ausperger's, people do things that seem utterly ridiculous from my overly-logical POV.

Understanding people and how or why they do things, can only come from understanding their POV.

I generally make sense of the world on an "elemental" level compared to others. To me a house is not a box with a chimney and a door, it's a construction of timbers, pipes, sheetrock, wires, etc. I don't ever see things so simply. Therefore it is hard for me to tell what others see in things.

Do they see a box? a polygon? an object with no defined shape or form only a function?

I could say that I am building something with an engine, a cabin, and rails. You might think I am talking about a train while I might be talking about a boat. Sometimes more info is just meaningless.

Also, how would the system state me if I have a dozen differing abilities from different classes? If I became "Senor Vorpal Kickass'o" (A character that is 1/11 of every base class. Comes from the Goblins comic.) Wouldn't trying to fit me to a description be meaningless? then how does that change your view on everyone else? What class is your skyrim character? These are the things things that are common sense to me, instantly seen and thought of and throw a light on everthing else. How do I know how much these questions affect you or what you think? By asking.

Goblin Squad Member

@DLH: There's also probably a bigger context to the roles/archetypes or as we are incorrectly calling them "classes", that we're not aware of yet. Suffice to say, slap-dash labels are simply convenient. I think "roles" is better word: IE a ranger will spend time out in the bush, which is a role, but might take the career of bandit and might therefore need to beef up their Fighter Role more by taking on some of those skills (blade weapons and armour as opposed to traps/arrows/evasion? eg) etc. if they are taking on other players. Or perhaps magic to support fellow bandits and so on. That would be a role within a group dictating magic skill acquisition and use.

Unfortunately even theoretical egs are in short supply atm without the raw material to draw on. For eg, a ranger role might go passive/peaceful and have a career as a "woodsman" collecting wood resource, as was a recently mentioned eg of forest regeneration and graphical display of.

Goblin Squad Member

Kazz Squil wrote:

Question about the in game player economy:

Would prices for player made goods (or even player gathered raw materials) inflated over time?
I ask this because I see time between skill increase growing larger over time, therefore playersmay spend more time grinding for money and loots, upping the amount of disposable income quite a bit; so my fear is that asking prices may go up dramatically, even for low level goods.

It's not really something that can be easily regulated by GW, but I see out as a possibility, and it could discourage new players later into the release of the game.

Laws of supply/demand should take care of the problem so long as GW avoids a few traps.

Possible traps:

1. Goods low level players need, can only be gathered by high level players.

2. Goods can be bottlenecked/monopolized, IE too few resource nodes to which a handful of groups can easily hold a monopoly and prevent other groups from attempting to harvest.

In general if say the price of iron is extremely high, more people will want to mine iron hoping to get in on the action and the high prices it sells for, as more iron is mined, supply begins to exceed demand, merchants wind up overloaded with it, and start dropping their prices to get rid of it.

Goblin Squad Member

Kazz Squil wrote:
Would prices for player made goods (or even player gathered raw materials) inflated over time?

Usually, the kind of inflation you see in most games is at least partially due to the fact that goods and services that can be crafted or provided by low-level characters have no value to high level characters. I'm fairly confident this will not be the case in PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah,

I think the important thing for any game proposing the type of skill/ability system that GW proposes for PFO is just really good and easly understandable documentation. For players actualy there as the iterative process unfolds...it won't be that important as you'll just learn "on the job" so to speak...but for new players coming in at a later point, they'll be completely lost if they don't have a clear reference explaining things.

Even with documentation, it can be tricky. Too detailed and "wonky" and it'll cause the "eyes glaze over" effect...Too abstract and it won't really be helpfull. I'd suggest something that provides a broad outline but lets the player drill down as deeply into details as they want.

You also might want to come up with suggested "templates" for a couple of build types for each arch-type. Something that lays out the skills/merit badges they should pursue to get a workable build of that arch-type. That way player who aren't as much into the grognard aspects of the game as the rest of us can just concentrate on playing and don't need to stress over skill/merit badge choices initialy...and they can branch out, substitute or go off plan when they are ready/feel comfortable with it...of course, those who actualy want to can always ignore all that and play with thier own build to thier hearts content (e.g. the "Templates" are just suggestions within the documentation, nothing actualy enforced mechanicaly within the game). YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

I think it would be a really good thing to support skill-training templates that automatically select the next skill to train.

The reality is that a lot of players will want to follow a template that someone they trust has already made for building a "good rogue". Having a number of GW-created templates for each role, and the ability to import new templates that you might download from a website, would empower the players who want to play but don't really want to spend a lot of effort learning the intricacies of the skill system. It would also alleviate their concern that their making a "bad build".

Goblin Squad Member

I guess for me it's a combination of convenience and just personal preference. If I'm heading out into a dangerous area with a pug, I'd like to be able to take a quick glance and have some sort of idea where our strengths and weaknesses lie. Whether we have specific classes, or maybe some type of pie chart with different percentage slices based on how much you've invested in a certain role (23%rogue, 10%barbarian, 67%Sorcerer). Just something to help keep track of everyone without having to scan through twenty pages of text.

I guess I could also argue that classes, roles, or archetypes are also a fundamental element of the Pen and Paper game, but PO has already deviated in multiple ways so that seems kind of pointless. I recognize that not every element will perfectly translate from the roleplaying game to the online game, but unless there is a strong, mechanical or social reason why it doesn't, I still feel the game itself should be the starting point. And I guess I just don't see any huge problems with being able to identify as mostly one class or another.

Finally, if I'm being completely honest with myself, there's an issue of personal pride. I want to run a dwarven fighter. I want to be known as a dwarven fighter. I want to laugh at spellcasters and rogues before challenging them to an arm wrestling contest. I want to be the guy sitting in the back of the bar that everybody knows not to mess with. For me, there's something cool about taking a role and owning it. It's a big motivation for how I roleplay, and a constant reminder of who my guy is and what he wants. I understand that not everyone plays the same way, and if they do away with classes tomorrow, I'll still play the game. This is just my perspective.

EDIT: also in favor of having some predetermined class templates. I think it would be a step in the right direction to keep from alienating newcomers. You could essentially follow it as long as you want/need to. Either for a few months till you get your bearings and want to customize, or all the way to capstone.

Goblin Squad Member

Mcduff wrote:
If I'm heading out into a dangerous area with a pug, I'd like to be able to take a quick glance and have some sort of idea where our strengths and weaknesses lie.

I actually want the opposite. I think having "obvious" expectations like that is really bad for player interaction. It creates a situation where, if a player doesn't behave according to those expectations, he gets shunned or mistreated, and that creates a lot of pressure to use "standard" builds.

Mcduff wrote:
I want to be the guy sitting in the back of the bar that everybody knows not to mess with.

I think this is a very good thing, and is probably at least part of the reason that Ryan is interested in having Merit Badges unlock physical characteristics that allow you to advertise the fact that you're tough and not to be trifled with.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon, fair enough. I certainly wouldn't want to be shunned for not choosing a popular, optimized build. I ran a lightly armored, crit heavy sith juggernaut in TOR. Really effective build and lots of fun, but it got old when everyone threw me the huttball because they figured I was the tank.

I would point out that there are always going to be some expectations (valid or not) even without traditional classes. A seven foot tall half orc with a battle axe and heavy plate might be trained as a jester, but that's not what most people will be assuming.

Goblin Squad Member

@Mcduff, I'm not sure if you've seen the thread Get rid of the Trinity roles in PFO, but Ryan makes some pretty profound points fairly early.

I think that even dungeon-based PvE combat will be significantly different in PFO than what we've seen elsewhere.

Goblin Squad Member

I would actual like to see a skill/ability based method for looking at another player and seeing what thier currently available abilities (given that per GW's proposed design players are going to only have immediate access to a certain subset of abilities at any one time) are. Effectively it's an "Appraise Person" skill check. In a PvP based game it actualy gives some real effectiveness to stealthy/perceptive character types in terms of combat intelligence.

We've already learned that it's going to be impractical for GW to impliment the kind of nuanced stealth/perception mechanics that some of us would like to see due to hacks. However this is another way to add some of that functionality back into the game that wouldn't be subject to the same sorts of problems.

It's one thing, and a very important one, to know where an enemy is it's another to know exactly what that enemies current capabilties are. So a perceptive character could evaluate an opponent in combat or in the approach to combat and see something like "Here is McDuff, he's currently got his Fighter role enabled and from the list of accessable abilities that he has within that build he looks like he's optimized for melee combat, not ranged. Oh and he's currently got a Protection from Fire Buff on." While looking at a stealthy character might get you "Here is McDuff, you aren't quite sure what to make of him right now." The same could be done for Formations in the proposed Mass Combat system. The UI could give some basic information for hostile informations that anyone could see...but evaluating them could provide greater detail about them.

It's a way to make perception and stealth more important in the game without running into the sort of client information brick wall that has been described before. My client needs to know where you are on the map and how you look visualy in order to render you, maybe a few other things. It doesn't need detailed information about your character sheet, but that information IS valuable to someone who wants to be effective in figuring out how to fight you best. Of course once the engagement starts, I might figure some of that stuff out by trial and error..but I'm alot better of if I know it before the first blow is struck or even whether I'm deciding to engage or not.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
I would actual like to see a skill/ability based method for looking at another player and seeing what thier currently available abilities are.

Yes, please. Maybe some Divination spells, too.

Goblin Squad Member

This would be cool. It'd also allow for scouts being a viable role in large combat scenarios. Knowing there is a large force over the next hill is not nearly as valuable as knowing what it's comprised of.

I think it also lends itself to the "apples and oranges" method of avoiding powercreep in the long run. Being able to quickly identify and summarize enemy units is a unique skill that is incomparable to nearly any other.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/power-creep

Goblin Squad Member

Mcduff wrote:

This would be cool. It'd also allow for scouts being a viable role in large combat scenarios. Knowing there is a large force over the next hill is not nearly as valuable as knowing what it's comprised of.

I think it also lends itself to the "apples and oranges" method of avoiding powercreep in the long run. Being able to quickly identify and summarize enemy units is a unique skill that is incomparable to nearly any other.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/power-creep

Well to some extent, even without that at a glance we probably will have a gist of what a character is. Ryan has more or less already confirmed that many abilities will be tied or limited by equipment. So more or less even without abilities to determine it.


A decent bit of being useful as a scout will be based on actual player skill as well - a great battle scout would be able to identify, by means of extra information provided, training, and personal experience, formations, troop purposes, etc. This gathered quickly and relayed intelligently to a savvy general could lead to some real tactics.

Goblin Squad Member

So actual tactics and strategies of traditional skirmish/formal/open warfare evolving in the pvp is a distinct possibility...

AWSOME!!! Holding formation and placment of troops becomes ubber important.
And allows for full merc factions! And recruitment of lower level players to fill the ranks is highly likely. (though probably, they'd mostly be used as fodder...)

City incomes become even more important!....
economic warfare, spies, scouts, political maneuvering...

I think I'm beginning to see the full scope of GW's plans.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Kazz Squil wrote:

Question about the in game player economy:

Would prices for player made goods (or even player gathered raw materials) inflated over time?
I ask this because I see time between skill increase growing larger over time, therefore playersmay spend more time grinding for money and loots, upping the amount of disposable income quite a bit; so my fear is that asking prices may go up dramatically, even for low level goods.

It's not really something that can be easily regulated by GW, but I see out as a possibility, and it could discourage new players later into the release of the game.

Goblinworks is aware of such a danger, and is planning on keeping an eye on the faucets and drains of in game wealth.

Faucets will be things like looted gold, selling items to NPC vendors, and perhaps the odd quest reward (NPC quests are not currently confirmed).

Drains will be things such as items purchased from NPCs (fast travel costs etc), the cost of running mines, etc.

If the game is getting too rich at high ends of play, the costs of running a mithril mine might increase, thus reducing the gold from the top end. If low level players are getting too rich too quick, vendors might buy prices for less. If the whole market gets rich (people find an exploit and run with it), they can up all the drains so that the cash flow evens out.

Long story short: Goblinworks is on the job!

Goblin Squad Member

@Onishi

Yes, I assume that there will be some basic information will be availble by just looking at a hostile character (or formation) but I wouldn't expect it to be as detailed as a full list of the abilities they've trained in thier currently active role (and thus have available for use), nor a look at thier current inventory, including weapons carried but not readied/equiped.

Both of which would be extremely usefull in conflict or even deciding whether to engage in conflict and certainly something that COULD be implimented as a perception/stealth thing.

This makes 3 assumptions....

1) GW wants to make combat and the decisions that lead upto combat a little more interesting then the plain vanilla Deal Damage, Block Damage, Heal Damage model that most MMO's impliment. I get the sense they do...and combat assesment/intelligence is one VERY important aspect of combat that most MMO's have completely ignored. It could actualy open up it's own sub-role in combat...that of tactical intel.

2) This also assumes that 2 characters that are filling the same basic role (e.g. "Fighter") can have very divergent builds and sets of abilities that they learned within that same basic role. From everything I've read so far I think that's going to be a fairly safe bet.

3) That while the basic role (e.g. "Fighter", "Mage") you currently have activated is not a hot-bar switch-out, the individual weapons you are using pretty much are. Example... I'm a fighter and I'm walking around with a sword and shield equiped as my party is passing through a dangerous area. We spot an enemy scout, he spots us and rapidly drops back. We figure combat is imminent so we setup in an open field to await the attack. I switch from my sword and shield to my longbow (not switching roles here, just equiped weapons) as I want to be able to get off a shot or two as the enemy approaches. 20 seconds later the enemy returns in force. I fire off a volley of arrows as they move in and switch back to my sword and shield for melee. The fight goes on for a short while and I drop my opponent. I notice my comrade is still fighting his. Figuring I don't need to worry much about defence now, I take a few seconds to switch to my Great Axe which I have in my inventory in order to help my comrade finnish off his opponent. All that SHOULD be possible within the combat system without switching active roles. If it isn't GW has ALOT more basic problems to deal with.

Now given the above assumptions here is a practical example of how the perception thing COULD work....

No Perception - "You see 3 Dwarven Fighters in chainmail, carrying greataxes. You don't know what thier abilities are. You don't know what they have in inventory."

Perception - "You see 3 Dwarven Fighters in chainmail, carrying greataxes. They have heavy crossbows in thier inventory. They have highly specialized abilities in ranged combat. Thier melee combat abilities are fairly basic for thier level."

How a party attempts to approach that combat situation on how successfull they are is going to vary greatly based upon thier access to that detailed information. Acting only on surface impressions a party may plan and setup to engage the Dwarves at range with the Mages opening up with spells intended to slow the Dwarves approach. That party wouldn't learn about it's mistake until AFTER it started getting cut to ribbons by the Dwarves. The party with more detailed intel about the enemy might plan to close the distance from the outset or even setup/approach so as to encounter the Dwarves at close range. They would likely be far more successfull.

The only real problem I forsee with this is the Players ability to process all the information they might get in a TIMELY fashion and pick out the relevant bits to act on...but that's where PLAYER skill gets involved. Also remember that this is just as usefull in the decisioning process about WHETHER to go hostile in the first place. Example bandit spy in town gets to evaluate the merchant caravan as it gets ready to leave. Knowing what that caravan is carrying and how capable it's guards are is ALOT more valuable then just knowing how many wagons and guards it has. YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
... combat assesment/intelligence is one VERY important aspect of combat that most MMO's have completely ignored.

This is actually one of the areas where Vanguard had plans to innovate - having skill checks to determine whether or not you noticed something that one of your opponents was doing. They ended up scaling it back quite a bit; I'm not sure why.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

(and thus have available for use), nor a look at thier current inventory, including weapons carried but not readied/equiped.

It's quite possible that that one, won't be a factor in general.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Gear is absolutely the limiting factor on how you use character abilities. And swapping Gear will be something requiring more than just clicking an inventory button while wandering across the landscape.

Ideally all archetypes should have pre-requisite Gear to use the linked abilities which conflict with the Gear required for other archetypes. So if you want to cast arcane spells like a Wizard, you'll find that you have a Gear conflict with what you need to do melee damage like a Fighter. By "conflict" I don't mean "either/or", but penalties and failure chances, and speed reductions and such.

In other words at least the way I read that, it is unlikely that a character fishing into his backpack mid battle to pull out his unequiped weapon will be viable. Might be useful information for a longterm war that the rogue may be a wizard the next fight, but it is unlikely from the sounds of it, that that rogue is going to change into a wizard half way into the battle. And of course that is also ignoring the detail that obviously an extra carried weapon is subject to be lost that otherwise wouldn't be.

Yes it's true though I do agree, the difference between an evoker wizard and a necromancer, a bard with a high focus on mellee combat and one who has a high focus on spells, variations within a class etc... IMO are worth having the time to investigate etc... I don't want a "Role" (for those who missed it I believe role is the term replacing what was formerly archtype in relation to PFO, added so that it isn't confused with archtypes as Pathfinder tabletop) to be a 100% self identification and I do absolutely hope for variations within each role.

Goblin Squad Member

Is there any equivalent to these perceptions checks in eve? I haven't played enough to be familiar, but, given that the pvp is similar in many ways, I was wondering if they had anything like this.

Or do you just recognize the type of ship someone is flying and make your best guess?

Goblin Squad Member

Mcduff wrote:

Is there any equivalent to these perceptions checks in eve? I haven't played enough to be familiar, but, given that the pvp is similar in many ways, I was wondering if they had anything like this.

Or do you just recognize the type of ship someone is flying and make your best guess?

From what I've heard, ships pretty much are dead givaways of what you are against. What ship someone is flying, pretty much sets in what type of modules etc... they can have on that ship, and which trainable skills even have the possibility of being applicable. From what I've gathered, there are scanning and probing devices and skills but in general the purpose of them is to figure out what category of ship you are facing before they are in visible/sight range. I haven't heard of anything that gets deeper information than you would on sight (but I could be wrong on that, I remember my friend who plays eve, specifically mentioning that he goes out of his way to podkill people who have expensive implants, which is extremely detailed information, how he determines or if he just uses hunches I don't know

There's no such thing as a quick and nimble battleship, and just knowing the tier and estimated price of that ship can narrow down to you how serious they were of taking said role (someone in a very expensive warship, probably has invested time in training the skills, unless he's just so rich that he feels he can throw away lots of money.

Goblin Squad Member

It's unlikely that there will be much benefit to "scouting" adventuring parties. The character in the robes will be a wizard, the character with the holy symbol will be the cleric, etc.

In a military engagement there will be value in scouting formations - figuring out where the skirmishers are vs the infantry and cavalry, etc.

Remember that metagame information exchange means that anything one person knows, everyone could know.

Lantern Lodge

I find it sad that I can't be a battle sorcerer, wading into battle with my armor, sword and spells. But doing that would certainly mean that you couldn't tell what I am. Of course I have played DnD casting spells in armor and a 10% SFC was not really that bad for me and a perfectly acceptable cost to wearing armor.

To say that what you see will be fairly reliable in telling you what I am playing is extremely sad and precludes anything like the above.

I was hoping for something better then modern MMOs but it seems that many unpleasent things about MMOs are being kept even though single player games have shown those aspects aren't needed.

Goblin Squad Member

@DLH: I'm not sure that's what Ryan is saying? The way I understand the game is that you can skill train different things. But in combat the degree of effectiveness will have limitations and your moment-to-moment options will have limitations. I think it's brought up that that is a part of the concept eg wearing armor YOU CAN use spells or in a formation of Fighters the ""wizard"" CAN use spells - just not as effectively. Again, it's been mentioned that "swapping equipment" is not expected to work the same way as other mmos. Whether that means you have a weapon to hand that can be switched rapidly with another weapon (strapped to your back), that's another more specific question we're unaware of atm, at least to my limited information.

In context, SCOUTING will be useful for armies. As to INSPECTION, of characters in parties, hopefully there will be this component. I'm certainly swayed by GrumpMel's point that this dimension seems underutilized in mmorpgs? What sort of "scanners" will characters have the equivalent of? Eg magical "reveal items/identity"??

I would not be so quick to catastrophe conclusion thinking! As said, I'm not sure what framwork to think around this, so connection between armor (types?) and magic (types?) is still unclear, isn't it?

Goblin Squad Member

Some what unrelated question. More of an "end-game," or higher lvl thing.

Well players be able to spirit bind other players to locations?

Say a cleric gets to a high enough level to justify such a thing. If a location in a settlement or even an inn/watchtower/fort can be a spawn point, would that be an NPC mechanic innately built into such structures? Or would the connivance of resurrecting at a base of operations be an added cost to be payed to an NPC or player run?

I assume that settlements well have NPC spirit binders, but will the first tier player buildings have then also?

Say me and my fellows are fighting to defend our inn/tavern/mead-hall, if we die can we revive inside the booze-house? Well it be an NPC also, or is higher level divine magic required?

[even more unrelated...] (aside: I would like to take this time to mention I only heard of this project from a friend while visiting in the end of august, so I'm a tad behind the grade on this. As such, would like to apologies for any questions from me that already have an answer in the blogs.)

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
The character in the robes will be a wizard, the character with the holy symbol will be the cleric, etc.

Ryan, does this mean that we'll choose our primary Role and generally not have full access to the abilities from our other Roles? For example, if I'm a 20/20/20/20 Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric, will I generally have to wield my Holy Symbol in order to be effective as a Cleric, and will I generally not be effective in my other Roles while I'm wielding my Holy Symbol?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
The character in the robes will be a wizard, the character with the holy symbol will be the cleric, etc.

Ryan, does this mean that we'll choose our primary Role and generally not have full access to the abilities from our other Roles? For example, if I'm a 20/20/20/20 Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric, will I generally have to wield my Holy Symbol in order to be effective as a Cleric, and will I generally not be effective in my other Roles while I'm wielding my Holy Symbol?

Is there another way to interpret

Ryan Dancey wrote:


Ideally all archetypes should have pre-requisite Gear to use the linked abilities which conflict with the Gear required for other archetypes. So if you want to cast arcane spells like a Wizard, you'll find that you have a Gear conflict with what you need to do melee damage like a Fighter. By "conflict" I don't mean "either/or", but penalties and failure chances, and speed reductions and such.

I overall couldn't come up with a different interpretation for that back when that was posted.

Goblin Squad Member

You're right, Onishi. For some reason, I'd forgotten about that other post where he says it outright.

For those who might be interested, the statement from Ryan that Onishi quotes above came from this post.

Goblin Squad Member

@Onishi,

If PFO's combat model doesn't allow for a character switching from a ranged weapon to a melee weapon or even from one melee weapon to the next then it's simply going to be a game that most people interested in meaningfull tactical combat (including myself) just aren't going to want to play. That would be about the most limiting and unworkable combat system that I have seen in any MMO todate. This is not EvE and a broadsword isn't a ship nor some laser attached to a weapons hardpoint. There is no reason, either from a logical basis or game balance to dissallow the swapping out of weapons during combat.

Swapping ROLES, I understand and get that but swapping weapons (or wands or whatever) WITHIN THE SAME ROLE, why on earth would you ever want to limit that?

@Ryan,

I was assuming that someones basic role would be obivious. Are you saying there would be no value in looking at Fighter #1 and seeing that they had only 4 abilities related to thier role while Fighter #2 had 20...or seeing that they were focused on training in ranged weapons rather then melee?.... or (for those playing bandit) seeing what a merchant was carrying before you decided to go hostile toward them?

I've been assuming that there is room for some variation in the types of abilities one learns within a role so that Fighter #1 is not identical to Fighter #2 is that a false assumption?

I also understand that meta-game information gets exchanged between willing parties but I'm also assuming that SOME portions of a persons character sheet (exact skills/abilities learned aside from basic role, inventory of things carried but not currently equiped, etc) are private to that character unless they choose to reveal it to someone else. Is that assumption wrong?

I also get that infiltration will be one important avenue for information gathering in a metagame sense. I'm trying to see if there is some viable in-game venue to allow a role for perception in terms of getting information about characters/parties that wouldn't be available to ANYONE besides the character/party. It's kinda irrelevent whether the player who has obtained said information chooses to share it with the world or keep it to themselves.


@GrumpyMel

I would suspect that players could have a small kit of items accessible to them in the heat of battle that doesn't require digging through their backpacks. For example, a bandit might have a sword/shield, a crossbow strapped to his back, and throwing daggers and a few potions on his belt.

Allowing that sort of thing WOULD allow someone who decked out in plate armor with a greatsword to sheath it and pull out a staff and cast spells.

It'd be great to get some dev confirmation on how this will work, or a "still determining."

Goblin Squad Member

Waffleyone wrote:

@GrumpyMel

I would suspect that players could have a small kit of items accessible to them in the heat of battle that doesn't require digging through their backpacks. For example, a bandit might have a sword/shield, a crossbow strapped to his back, and throwing daggers and a few potions on his belt.

Allowing that sort of thing WOULD allow someone who decked out in plate armor with a greatsword to sheath it and pull out a staff and cast spells.

It'd be great to get some dev confirmation on how this will work, or a "still determining."

Pretty much exactly what I was going to say. A secondary weapon slot wouldn't contradict anything Ryan has said, just that the secondary slot isn't necessarally invisible (so my points on scouts needing to detect skills or inventory are still valid).

Now as to whether there are any limits on what can be equiped together (IE will a wizards staff and a holy symobol secondary be a valid combination etc...

Of course IMO being restricted to one weapon would not hurt the game as a whole, it only really hurts badly in the event of soloing, which isn't the focus of the game, and as a side effect it boosts the need for teamwork tactics. I'm not saying that absolutely restricting people to one weapon per fight is the best idea, but I'm pointing out that some good, does come from it.

Goblin Squad Member

At the very least, I would hope for different range and melee options. A fighter should be able to switch to a crossbow if he's chasing someone, and a ranger should have access to a dagger or handaxe if he gets pinned down.

While I'd love to see something more robust (half the fun of guild wars 2 is building a character with two weapon sets which complement each other) I'd be satisfied by a simpler system, at least to begin with.

Goblin Squad Member

Mcduff wrote:

At the very least, I would hope for different range and melee options. A fighter should be able to switch to a crossbow if he's chasing someone, and a ranger should have access to a dagger or handaxe if he gets pinned down.

While I'd love to see something more robust (half the fun of guild wars 2 is building a character with two weapon sets which complement each other) I'd be satisfied by a simpler system, at least to begin with.

I think it would be absurd not to have the option of bow (range offense) and switch to sword (close-combat offense) for eg. However, the switch might not be so "easy" if a certain range were achieved by an enemy if there is a relevance to the "area of combat" engaged. Also as mentioned there will lots of little items on players with effects, I'm wondering if offense will possible be a choice to disable some of these effects. For eg, legs might be an option to "damage" so the other player has a minus to chance to dodge, evade and movement rate etc? There is this tactical combat in ship vs ship combat in space games, what you target, so I'd be interested if this analogy transfers to combat in PfO?

Goblin Squad Member

If I recall the table top rules correctly, changing a weapon provokes an attack of opportunity from each enemy within 5 feet. It's also a standard action...

So, in the MMO swapping weapons would be a 4-6sec window of ouch time.
Ddo did have an option to assign weapon sets to hot keys, but the way that game was set up it was needed when fighting zombies and skeletons at higher difficulty. Or for thinning out the hoard of kobalts before switching to melee.

But the nature of the game was still vary equipment oriented. So you'd have monsters with Dr to slashing and bluggening in the same dungeon. Not a big deal, until you have to swap sets or not do any damage to that skeleton boss on hard or epic.

For ddo's combat system it worked. It was convenient, but rarely deathly necessary.

I doubt the combat well work the same, though a secondary and/or ranged weapon set slots in the equipment tab might make combat life in pfo a bit nicer. Seeing as right in it's core mechanics pathfinder is a better rpg then d&d 4.0 & 3.5 or the hybrid that ddo is based on; PFO prob won't have need of weapon swapping at low level, but might add it latter to improve the gameplay experience.

Goblin Squad Member

@Onishi,

The way I had anticipated things...or advocate would be best workable would be that each Archtype had one signature item that wasn't really used for other things and having that item equiped determined what ROLE you were in and what abilities you had access to... so it's basicaly pretty much divorced from the equipment system...and it's changing out that slot which can't be done easly. Anything else is messy, overly complex and overly restrictive and I don't think very workable.

My proposal...

Player has his "Fighter Belt" equiped in his class slot area, he's now acting as a Fighter and has access to those abilities. He goes to an Inn and spends 5 minutes putting his "Holy Symbol" in his class slot area, he's now acting as a Cleric....

As opposed to....

Player has a "Mace" equiped in his weapon hand. Is he a "Fighter", Fighters can use Maces or is he a Cleric...they can use Maces...or a Paladin... they can use Maces... or a Thief...they can use Maces.... or a Ranger? Does he have access to all those roles at once, just because he is using a Mace? That's a little OP isn't it? Or do you end up having to make "Fighter Mace's" and "Cleric Maces"...way to stuff up your equipment system...or do you make a system where only "Clerics" can use "Mace's" talk about limiting player choice. What role does he become when he wants to use a "throwing hammer" or a "dagger"....or is he stuck never being able to switch to a ranged weapon...even when he's engaged by something he can't really close to melee with?

That sort of combat/class system seems like an absolute mess...and I think you'll get all of about 5 people that maybe want to play it...and I'm not one of them. If that's really going to be PFO then goodbye, good luck, God Bless....because the game won't survive 3 months with that even with scaled invites.

You guys have got to get EvE out of your heads in order to make a workable combat system here. EvE was a game about ships in space, this is a game about individual characters in a Fantasy Medieval Setting. It's an entirely different dynamic...EvE's tactical combat system WON'T translate well here (and frankly it's often cited as one of EvE's weakest features even there).

The high level concept of WIDE progression rather then DEEP which EvE embraces is good and workable here...and it's not the only game to embrace that concept. The concept of being able to use only a certain subset of abilities at one time to prevent OP and not have to worry as much about stacking abilities that EvE (and other games) embrace as a high level concept is good and workable in this setting. But when you actualy get down to the details of implimentation...you've got to throw EvE out the window...because it's NOT going to translate well into this setting. Characters AREN'T ships, thier hands AREN'T hard points and the idea of having to go back to "base" to change out a weapon you are holding at ready is absurd....and it's something that almost noone who is interested in this sort of setting is going to be interested in playing. YMMV.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

The way I saw it was that wands or staves in the main hand would provide benefits to spellcasting for their respective roles- and in general the better a staff was at casting spells, the worse it would be at hitting people. Likewise for weapons among classes- weapons could be fast, precise, or strong in different amounts, and barbarians would use strong weapons (greatax) better, fighters would use fast weapons (longsword) better, and rogues would use precise weapons (dagger) better. Any one of those could be modified to perform better for a different type, but a Mystic Greatax (made to be usable as a sorcerer's implement) would not be as good as chopping as a Fierce Greatax (made to be better at rage powers) nor as good at spellcasting as a Mystic Staff.

I seriously doubt that swapping weapons out of your backpack is a standard action in PnP. Maybe 3- one to get the weapon out, one to ready it, and one to put the prior weapon back in the backpack. I could see the argument for having a couple of different 'equipped' weapon configurations available, and swapping between those would only require clearing the fight for a few seconds, while changing what they were might take 15-30 seconds of non-participation.

Goblin Squad Member

@GrumpyMel, I see the beauty of the simplicity of having a "Class Slot" and having the item equipped there determine your primary Role. However, I honestly hope they create a more complex system that allows certain Role combinations to function almost without penalty.

I would prefer a system where certain Abilities required certain types of equipped gear. This allows a player to make decisions about which gear he's going to equip, and which Abilities he's going to try to set himself up to use.

One example is a Wizard/Rogue being able to Sneak at full effectiveness regardless of which Role is currently primary.

Grand Lodge Goblinworks Founder

martryn wrote:
In-game voice chat? So much more convenient than using a free third party system. Really loved that feature in DDO, and hating that it's not around in most other MMOs.
Ryan Dancey wrote:

Possible but there are very good reasons not to do it, most importantly if the client/server crashes you may wish to retain voice comms via an independent system.

Plus all the good systems (Vivox) are royalty based and we may not have room in the budget.

In my experience with other games that feature built-in voice chat, the majority of the experienced players tend not to use the built-in voice in favor of using better out-of-game voice systems that provide more robust features.

As a player, I prefer not to encounter the human voice of other players until I've become familiar with them or their group (guild, raid, corp, alliance, fleet, charter company, etc.)

Because of both of these reasons, I tend to turn off the built-in voice chat when it comes out-of-the-box with a game.

Goblin Squad Member

I agree with Nihimon. The whole point in multi classing is being able to combine the abilities of two classes, not simply switch between them. Otherwise, why bother with it in the first place? If my fighter/cleric can only do one or the other and needs a five minute cooldown to switch, I'd be better off creating a cleric as an alt and simply switching to him when I need to. Especially if multi classing often means I'll forgo my capstone ability. It should be appealing enough to make it worth my while.

Goblin Squad Member

The tabletop rules are a bit of storytelling. A round in Pathfinder is 6 seconds long. You could drop a sword and draw a convenient dagger in 6 seconds but that's about it. Unless you imagine riding around with a cocked and loaded crossbow hanging from your belt (which would be crazy dangerous). Readying a bow is a much more complex action and not really doable in that short period of time without staging the swap (bow is strung, quiver is open and arrows free, you don't care where your dropped weapon lands, etc.

The idea pf quick-changing weapons in the middle of a fight is movie magic not "realism". But nobody really wants "realism" in this aspec of the game anyway.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon & Mcduff

That turns back into the unlimited advancement = "uberness" problem.

In PnP Multi-Class isn't really much of a problem because the game has a level cap....and even if there weren't everyone that's playing in the same group is pretty close to the same level anyway.

So it really doesn't matter if you are a Level 6/3 Monk/Wizard and your abilities stack together and your pal is a level 9 Fighter. You are both (roughly) equivalent in terms of power. You both have 9 levels worth of advancement. You've chosen to split up those levels in different ways. You have significant capabilties because of the SYNERGY created by your 2 classes...and your pal has significant capabilties because he's gone deeper down his one classes ability tree and has access to more advanced abilities within his chosen role. Even if there is a bit of disparity between you two in terms of raw power...it doesn't matter that much because you both are working together to defeat the Environment (controlled by the GM).

PFO is an entirely different kettle of fish. It's a PvP focused game...so how players stack up against each others is significantly more inportant then in your PnP campaign. It's also got 2 rather contradictory design goals...it wants to allow for UNLIMITED advancement (i.e. you could theoriticaly learn upto level 20 in each of the 11 archtypes...meaning 220 levels worth of advancement...or more if they introduce more archtypes) AND they want the SCALE of combat power between a guy playing for 1 year and a guy playing for 5 to not be so huge that the guy playing for 1 is a complete speed bump.

In other words, they want it so that the guy who is fighter level 18 can actualy fight the guy who is Fighter 20/Wizard 20/Monk 20/Cleric 20
(80 levels of advancement) and actualy have SOME chance of winning...even if they are at a disadvantage. The ONLY way that's achievable is if they significantly limit how the abilities from the different classes stack together. They can't allow the same sorts of synergies that the tabletop game would because they want your 20/20/20/20 to actualy be maybe the equivalent of a level 24 in terms of raw power rather then a level 80 who can crush a levl 18 like an ant.

Personaly, I'd have prefered if they had gone limited progression and a hard cap on levels like the PnP game has...that would allow the sort of full benefits that multi-class characters get in PnP. However, that's not the design goal they want. The only way to meet thier stated design goals is to pretty significantly limit how the abilities from different classes stack together. Personaly, I think that leaves a little room for SOME stacking together...but they've got to be REALLY, REALLY carefull about it.

101 to 150 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: Begin the Beguine 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.