Goblin Squad Member
|
Having thought about this for some weeks now, I have started to see two separate issues:
1: incentive to keep a 'pure' build.
My current thought here is: why wait 2 years for the reward? Why not multiple "milestones" along the way? Especially if these are not mechanical advantages. If my 4-badge rogue gets a bonus treat if his next badge is rogue #5, then would probably be enough to make me decide to postpone multiclassing at least one level.
*Suggestion A: bonus for consecutive badges for same class (5-10-15-20 in a row, "specialization meter" resets every time you take a new type of class badge).
*Suggestion B: milestones for pure builds instead of capstone (smaller but more frequent rewards).
2: incentive to follow the build to the end (reach the last merit badge)
This is what I think of as capstone: that last merit badge being good enough to bother taking. This is not about multiclassing early on but about reaching some point where diminishing returns of proceeding along the same path just isn't worth it.
Why should a 18-badge fighter spend another 3-4 months (and $$) getting to badge #20 unless that last ability clearly makes him significantly better or significantly cooler?
|
Why are we trying to encourage pure builds anyway? Seems rather ridiculous to me (though I admit classes in general seem ridiculous to me)
Besides the general roles one would fill in a party can be done with most of "classes" except that healing has to be a divine caster, otherwise a frontline fighter can be an effective frontline fighter as a pure melee weapon guy or as a touch spell and shield guy or a sword and spell guy, picking a role such as fighter, ranged dps, tracker, stealth scout, etc each can be done with or without magic and with many classes, and each possibility can still work for the chosen function,
so why are we encouraging pure role characters?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sounds intuitive also.-snip-I actualy favor something similar to what DLH mentioned in the other thread... you get a degree of bonus toward your core class ability (whatever that is) relevant to the number of abilities you've slotted that are tied to that class
. That way slotting things outside your class has both direct and indirect costs toward performance in a specific role....In other words Wizard Ability #127 might be more attractive in itself then any of your other unslotted fighter abilities when putting together a build for fighter...but when you factor in that it costs you a certain percentage of your potential "fighter bonus" as well...that could change the equation.
I think that would be an interesting way to deal with the issue of cherry picking...make going "outside of role" have a direct cost to effectiveness of that role... but it would still allow you to fulfill a diversity of roles.
I suppose this could be extended towards bonuses of "same roles" combining in some way for additional benefits? Eg x2 Fighters use a shield skill, that reinforces the other when used in conjunction but again requires relevance to the above^.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually it was stated that balance wasn't the point (with good design that becomes moot anyway regardless of capstones) but rather it is somehow supposed to be a homage to PnP PF (which how this has anything to do with the PnP escapes me but oh well) and a reward for "dedication."
I know you like to respond to a lot of posts DLH, but it would be really helpful to discussion if you took the time to find quotes that support your statements.
Actually, I based my statement on what Stephen Cheney stated:
While we'd love to somehow balance every feat against every other feat, there are very likely to be synergies between different role feats. This is intentional to allow players in a group to set one another up for success. When you multiclass, you may be able to claim some of this synergy on your own (with gear and number of available feats at once obviously making one multiclass character not as good as two characters with a single role each). Even without this synergy, a multiclass character will have the ability to select from many more options when preparing for a known confrontation, making it easier to use the right tool for the job (and get invited to a wider array of groups).Additionally, limitations to your core combat stats are more likely to reflect your overall time played* than your highest role level. So two characters of similar play time are likely to have access to similar HP, attack, defense, etc. (should they have chosen to purchase those upgrades) even if one is working toward a capstone and the other has evenly distributed role levels. It's likely that the opportunity cost of training all the necessary feats for two or more roles will leave the single role character more time to dedicate to directly relevant combat upgrades, but it's unlikely to be an overwhelming advantage.
So, for all these reasons, we're currently suspecting it will make your life easier to diversify earlier rather than after you've gotten one role to 20. And the capstone is a reward for sticking it out with a single role before diversifying. But we're completely open to discussion on how big that reward should be and whether that's even the best way to incentivize such behavior.
Later, Ryan contradicted this by posting that he hoped capstones are not mechanically powerful. Then, Ryan started the very thread you are posting in with a post walking back his statements in the other thread.
As he states in the OP, the idea of capstones is still fuzzy. They want them to be in the game to 'pay homage' to the PnP. All of the devs believe they should be a reward for sticking to a single archetypal role, as multiclassing will have advantages. The devs specifically designing the system were designing it such that they would have a mechanical benefit to somewhat offset benefit of multiclassing.
It would be nearly impossible to balance a specific set of skills against a set of an equal number of skills chosen from a set of all skills. This is why I and others, as well as the dev in the quote above, believe multiclassing will have a benefit over sticking to one archetype. I have gone to some length about this in previous posts in this thread.
Assuming that players generally choose to use skills that will be of the highest benefit to them/their party, having more choices available means the player will likely find one of higher benefit for situations/party make-ups than somebody with few choices available.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having thought about this for some weeks now, I have started to see two separate issues:
[snip]
2: incentive to follow the build to the end (reach the last merit badge)
This is what I think of as capstone: that last merit badge being good enough to bother taking. This is not about multiclassing early on but about reaching some point where diminishing returns of proceeding along the same path just isn't worth it.Why should a 18-badge fighter spend another 3-4 months (and $$) getting to badge #20 unless that last ability clearly makes him significantly better or significantly cooler?
Well of course there must be a reason to get the final badge, or nobody would. It could be an ability, some stat increase, etc. The capstone, on the other hand, is the reward for getting that 20th badge to the exclusion of other class badges.
A lot of the suggestions in these threads seem to be concerned with making the final badge very powerful. I think that would be cool and would encourage single-classing, but then they run the risk of making the 2.5 year single-classer much more powerful than the 6 month noob.
I like GrumpyMel's suggestion because it could make capstones more than a superficial reward, allow most character builds to get them, and still keep them as a reward for single-classers, since they will get them sooner and with less invested than a multiclasser.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kakafika,
From Capstones... Why?:
@Nihimon - I've never been a fan of capstones balancing anything. The less "good" they are mechanically the happier I'll be.
And, although Ryan did start this thread by saying he was walking back some of his comments, he ended that post by saying:
So for now, you can assume that we're still envisioning a capstone system of some kind, but it's precise nature, and power (if any) is still very very fuzzy.
Ultimately, basing your stance on Stephen's quote isn't any more or less reasonable than DLH basing his on Ryan's.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon,
I explained all of that in my post.
Later, Ryan contradicted this by posting that he hoped capstones are not mechanically powerful...
[snip]
...As he states in the OP, the idea of capstones is still fuzzy.
Besides the fact that one of two conflicting statements was retracted, I gave another reason I believe they are going to use capstones for balancing:
All of the devs believe they should be a reward for sticking to a single archetypal role, as multiclassing will have advantages. The devs specifically designing the system were designing it such that they would have a mechanical benefit to somewhat offset benefit of multiclassing.
I never said that balancing was the point, I said it could be. DLH said it wasn't the point. If he had looked for quotes about it, he likely would have seen the OP and the Stephen Cheney quote.
Remember we are having two arguments about capstones.
1: Should capstones have mechanical benefits?
2: Should you be forced to make a choice 1-3 months into the game that excludes you from something you could get in 2.5 years time.
The second can be discussed. Any suggestion including the first necessarily includes some opinion and assumption. My post in support of GrumpyMel's idea includes both.
|
|
@ Kakafica
All I have to use right now is a psp, it takes literally 5 minutes to open a page depending on length, it is no longer practical to dig through threads until I get a real computer again and even if I knew where to get the quote, I can't C&P anyway. I apologize for this particular inconvenience, but generally the point isn't to just repeat, it's to bring focus and remind people or to make a suggestion.
---
1. I don't care either way
2. You shouldn't make such exclusive choices in such a longterm game. Need to remember that the extreme length changes things a bit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. if there's no significant benefit (the significance of non-mechanical benefits being not obvious), then the exclusivity is not really important.
2. most games force you to make that exclusive choice before even starting. I guess I see it more as "at the cost of forfeiting your capstone ability, you can break free of your archetype and combine any abilities you want". I would likely accept that price to be paid immediately and not just at some future point.
I guess it boils down to whether you see the default as being single archetype characters or full sandbox characters.
GW devs, would it be feasible to simply have a system where multiclassers need to qualify for class badge "n+1" to get the benefits of class badge "n"?
|
|
Not sure I understand what you are suggesting.
They should design the abilities all together as a single set then split the abilities up into groups. If they do this then multiclass vs single becomes an issue purely of fluff. So until we find out they are doing otherwise, I don't see any reason to bother worrying about multi vs single balance issues.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2. most games force you to make that exclusive choice before even starting. I guess I see it more as "at the cost of forfeiting your capstone ability, you can break free of your archetype and combine any abilities you want". I would likely accept that price to be paid immediately and not just at some future point.
I was thinking about that earlier, and I think that's a good point.
Being put in that situation isn't really something we aren't used to. I think that people don't want it in PFO because:
1. The time it takes to 'fully realize' your build for a class is 2.5 years. If you decide you don't like it somewhere along the way, it would be frustrating to start over again; even if you just wanted to try something different for awhile.
2. The idea of the freedom to develop a single character as you wish, infinitely, is very pleasing to some on this forum. I'm not sure how much the blogs/dev posts have fed into this idea, but it does seem to be an idea popular with many people.
|
|
Just like tames can be sandbox or themepark, so can characters, limited choices that require careful planning and exclusive choices are themepark characters, they are more common because themepark games are more common, most sandbox games don't have such limits because sandbox and themepark are difficult to mix in a way that works.
I vote they keep sandbox characters because it's a sandbox game and because the time span for a fully developed character is over 30 years and only going to get longer, and the game may not last that long if only because computer ability will make the game look painfully old by then, and most will have moved on to other more modern games.
It's not likely anyone will have a character maxed out before the end of either the game's, or the player's, lifespan ends.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Ultima Online is still running, despite being horribly dated. SWG is still popular enough for private servers to exist, despite the nontrivial obstacles involved. I don't see any reason why PFO couldn't expand and add base classes fast enough that it is never possible to run out of things to train.
|
|
@ Decius
True but what about MUDs? How many of those still exist? Findable sure but not enough to make a business of, in 30-40 years Goblinworks will either not exist or will have expanded into something else, possibly minor support for PFO but that's not likely.
Besides when you have a few full VR RPG games, how much time will spend on PFO?
@ Kakafica
That is a better stated concept of what I have been advocating. +1
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as my 2nd point above, I also mean infinite in the sense of not having any possibilities barred from you, avoiding the case in which you must start a new character to experience some aspect of character development.
At least I think those are the arguments I've seen.
Exactly. The only permanent choices I am pretty happy to accept is name, race, and gender.
Two common features of theme-park games are multiple characters for free on one account, and a character cap in terms of progression that can be reached by a casual player within a few months.
Pathfinder Online is likely to require you to pay for each character and absolutely will not have a progression cap.
Because of this:
1. I am support mechanically viable capstones that are only useable if all of your slotted abilities are available to the class it's in.
2. I support similar abilities gained progressively as you take levels in a class.
3. I am ABSOLUTELY opposed to mechanically viable capstones every being permanently locked from any character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Training will be time based, and (most probably) only one character per account will be able to train. So even if you had a second character on that account, he would either stall or steal precious training time from your main. So what's the use of having a second character then, except maybe abuse it for cheap scouting?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The main thing with mmorpgs or way to measure their success (to which financial success is a corollary) is social success, to which the game could continue in one form or another for a long time (mmo is just one facet of pathfinder eg). I think EvE is another example albeit they manage to graphically update periodically and Runescape similarly just did a graphical update also, in respect to tech and mmorpgs. Just adding that angle in there. :)
Yeah, slamming the door shut seems less workable the more I think about it, given time works it's magic if the skill-training is long and the choices many.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Training will be time based, and (most probably) only one character per account will be able to train. So even if you had a second character on that account, he would either stall or steal precious training time from your main. So what's the use of having a second character then, except maybe abuse it for cheap scouting?
Um...because when you play the same game for months or years straight you at least like to switch the character and roles you play? I'd think in a game like this multiple characters would be even more important.
I have always split my time between 2 or 3 characters. They level slower but I don't get bored. I understand that's how EVE does it, but this isn't EVE in one VERY important area, Pathfinder is a ROLE PLAYING game, in EVE it's basically an avatar of YOU. In role playing games I would say most players like to try different roles. we arent just talking about skill sets they can all have we are talking builds/races/alignments etc.
I have to say I don't like the whole train offline deal. That kind of system should stay in crafting where it belongs.
If we do have to pay for multiple characters any idea how much? A monthly would be a major turn off, I know I'm not the only person who loves to alt.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I also mean infinite in the sense of not having any possibilities barred from you, avoiding the case in which you must start a new character to experience some aspect of character development.
Hit the nail on the head. +1
3. I am ABSOLUTELY opposed to mechanically viable capstones every being permanently locked from any character.
Generally, I agree, with a few exceptions.
I'm going to try the same exercise I just did in another thread, and see if I can state the problem clearly enough that solutions come into focus.
The Problem is when a character could have gotten the Capstone, but for having made the "wrong" choice earlier, where that prior choice resulted in something significantly less useful than the Capstone.
Stated that way, the main thing that jumps out at me is that I'm actually okay with not having access to additional Capstones, as long the choice I'm making is, for example, between Capstone A and Capstone B, rather than between Minor Ability A and Capstone B.
There are several ways to accomplish this:
1. Make Capstone B no more significant than Minor Ability A.
2. Always allow Capstone B, regardless of prior choices.
3. Always allow Capstone B, but with a higher cost if the "wrong" choice is made earlier.
4. Disallow Capstone B only when the player chooses Capstone A first, rather than when the player chooses Minor Ability A.
I think Ryan's vision was always something like #1.
I'd be fine with any of these solutions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I highly favor GrumpyMel's suggestion, which is #3, but you could lock yourself out of a capstone if you made many choices against the goal of getting a capstone. The devs could also set it up such that you could reach the capstone even if you had 19 badges in each class,as long as you were willing to train every skill in the archetype. Or, they could make it a melding of #3 and #4 in that some (or many/all) capstones would be mutually exclusive.
I prefer his original idea, personally. I player could lock their character out of a capstone if they repeatedly ignored warnings about 'deviating from archetype.'
I wouldn't mind if some capstones were mutually exclusive... you could be a capstoned barbarian or a capstoned wizard, but not both, for instance.
It is a complex system, and I could imagine myself and others poring over the details for hours to determine our short- and long- term goals for our characters' developments, adjusting them as the devs balance/change the skills.
Due to the inherently long-term nature of character development (at least 2.5 years to first capstone), I expect there would be an even greater diversity of character builds than the PnP.
EDIT: Clarification.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have always split my time between 2 or 3 characters. They level slower but I don't get bored. I understand that's how EVE does it, but this isn't EVE in one VERY important area, Pathfinder is a ROLE PLAYING game, in EVE it's basically an avatar of YOU. In role playing games I would say most players like to try different roles. we arent just talking about skill sets they can all have we are talking builds/races/alignments etc.
Eve characters are basically an avitar of you? Wow... I might need to watch my back, one of my close friends who is an extremely nice guy, in eve plays a backstabbing murderous psychopath.
Every MMORPG, is an RPG, and in general the game will try to have mechanics, but beyond extreme lessons and heavy screening processes, people will metagame, they will have their general personalities show.
Um...because when you play the same game for months or years straight you at least like to switch the character and roles you play? I'd think in a game like this multiple characters would be even more important.
Well 2 things there, 1. you will be able to have multiple characters, just simply they cannot be training at the same time, or one character can have multiple roles as there is no cap
I have to say I don't like the whole train offline deal. That kind of system should stay in crafting where it belongs.If we do have to pay for multiple characters any idea how much? A monthly would be a major turn off, I know I'm not the only person who loves to alt.
There are pro's and cons to the train offline system. The biggest pro is the removal of the tedium that hits other MMO's. Skill based games where you repeatedly spam the skill over and over again, or other games where you just have to spend the majority of your time massively genociding whatever gives you the most XP or skills for the time. The train offline more or less frees you up to focus on what you want to do. If you enjoy running harvesting opperations, go harvest, if you enjoy adventuring, slaying great dragons etc... Go slay them. If you enjoy banditry/PVP etc... spend your time there.
The second thing it solves is people with alternating schedules in real life. My fiance and I have left numerous games from the same thing happening.
I work, she's at home most of the day... we start out the game together, she likes the game and tries to do a few things in it while I work... all of a sudden, she's too far above me for us to play together. This time based system where one of us can go out, find a group and slay a dragon while the other is offline, and all that can happen wrong is one of us wind up with more money (which we can split if we chose). Is a huge advantage for us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Did you say pay for each character? Yikes that is a turn off. Why would they do that?
You will pay for training on each character separately.
If you create a single character and pay for three months of skill training, I don't think that will cost you any more than creating three characters and getting one month of skill training on each of them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Did you say pay for each character? Yikes that is a turn off. Why would they do that?You will pay for training on each character separately.
If you create a single character and pay for three months of skill training, I don't think that will cost you any more than creating three characters and getting one month of skill training on each of them.
So I could have 3 character slots and choose who is training? And if I want extra training I can buy it extra?
That's cool. It's the same as dividing your online time between X amount of chars.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Been away from this thread for a bit, but here is an idea I had.
The initial argument against capstones(not in this thread) was about a 20/20 that trained one then another and got two capstones, and the 20/20 who trained both at the same time got none.
Here's the idea:
You must reach the 20th badge in EVERY archetype you have taken skills in before you can get the capstone. So taking a single skill in another archetype adds another to get to 20.
I do feel archetype badges should give a global boost to all skills under that archetype, and the goal of any build should be to maximize all skills you use.
I don't want to see anything where you have to balance points, or are limited in access, and I would like to see capstones be usable with other archetype abilities. In this idea the person who sticks to one class will still come out the fastest, no doors are shut, but there is a consequence to training under multiple archetypes. Spending 3 months on another archetype doesn't add 3 months to your capstone time, it adds another 30.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd be fine with that solution. The only problem is that if somebody takes a few badges in a 3-5 different classes to see what they like, they've effectively locked themselves out of capstones (can get them in 7.5-12.5 years). This is where I think the point system has an advantage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Kakafika
I would like to see the capstone path not start until the 2nd Archetype badge, this way people can dabble in the basic stuff before they decide what they want to focus.
Everyone should not be able to do anything they want quickly, that would lead to a boring game. I want people to be able to test the waters, but I don't want someone to be able to make a substantial profit without some serious focus. If you want to do what you want, when you want, you will have to live with probably never getting a capstone and seeing slow character development. Keep in mind this is only talking about archetypes, you can train all the feats and professions without affecting your capstone, which will be a huge portion of the skills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, I guess it really depends on what '1 badge' really means. I would just like to avoid the situation in which you can assume 9 out of 10 people has Rogue ability A, regardless of what class they are.
It all really depends on the skill setup. Is the skill tree broad at the bottom? etc.
I think either solution addresses the main, and to me the most legitimate, concern with capstones and what we know about them. I prefer the point system just due to the fun of playing with the complexity and coming up with a build for my character. Though I do admit, it would take a lot more time to develop and balance.
Can I ask why you specifically mentioned not wanting a point system?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't want to see anything where you have to balance points, or are limited in access, and I would like to see capstones be usable with other archetype abilities. In this idea the person who sticks to one class will still come out the fastest, no doors are shut, but there is a consequence to training under multiple archetypes. Spending 3 months on another archetype doesn't add 3 months to your capstone time, it adds another 30.
I personally think mixing capstone abilities with other archetypes defeats the point of capstones. It's a reward for focusing on a single class.
There are a couple good reasons not to allow it as well:
1. Non-mixable capstones give people a reason not to mix abilities once they have multiple capstones. Otherwise those people who say "I want to stay single class" will not be able to do so effectively after 2.5 years if synergy is even a fraction of what it is being hyped up to be. And if it's not what it's hyped up to be then there is no reason for capstones.
2. Because then you don't have to balance capstones with all the abilities of every other class. This gives room for capstones to be more powerful, and more purely centered around the class they are made for.
To me it seems obvious to make the system work this way. Capstones are supposed to preserve and protect the identity of the roles found in Pathfinder tabletop. Not breed unstoppable multi-capstone hybrids.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kakafika
I would like to see the capstone path not start until the 2nd Archetype badge, this way people can dabble in the basic stuff before they decide what they want to focus.Everyone should not be able to do anything they want quickly, that would lead to a boring game. I want people to be able to test the waters, but I don't want someone to be able to make a substantial profit without some serious focus. If you want to do what you want, when you want, you will have to live with probably never getting a capstone and seeing slow character development. Keep in mind this is only talking about archetypes, you can train all the feats and professions without affecting your capstone, which will be a huge portion of the skills.
You must reach the 20th badge in EVERY archetype you have taken skills in before you can get the capstone. So taking a single skill in another archetype adds another to get to 20.
I do feel archetype badges should give a global boost to all skills under that archetype, and the goal of any build should be to maximize all skills you use.
I don't want to see anything where you have to balance points, or are limited in access, and I would like to see capstones be usable with other archetype abilities. In this idea the person who sticks to one class will still come out the fastest, no doors are shut, but there is a consequence to training under multiple archetypes. Spending 3 months on another archetype doesn't add 3 months to your capstone time, it adds another 30.
Two absolutely sterling suggestions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sandbox games to me are all about making meaningfull choices that have permanent consequences...including ones that permanently wall off some meaningfull opportunity to a character.
If I publicaly murder a captain if the Order of the Monkey Butt, then the Order of the Monkey Butt is unlikely to ever accept me as a member (unless they are the kind of Order that is into murder). If there is some meaningfull benefit to being a member of the Order of the Monkey Butt (which I hope there would in a sandbox game) then that character should be SOL in terms of ever obtaining it.
I think the issue here is really one of skill based vs class based games, which to me is kinda divorced from the whole "sandbox" arguement.
I mean a PnP Pathfinder Campaign if you have a really good GM is what I would see as a very "sandbox" experience. Yet the PnP rulset is most definately a class based ruleset at it's core.
I'm ok with talking about the relative merits of different ways to impliment Capstones and even skill based vs role/class based aspects in general but I'm going to take issue with conflating that discussion with a "sandbox" vs "themepark" one.
Though many of the more "sandboxy" computer games have historicaly implimented skill based systems....there would be absolutely nothing preventing a skill based progression system in a completely linear point A to point B, no changes to the game environment "themepark" game....and I think Pathfinder the PnP illustrates that class based progression systems don't prevent a game from allowing players to creatively shape the game environment around them or how they interact with that environment. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sandbox games to me are all about making meaningfull choices that have permanent consequences...including ones that permanently wall off some meaningfull opportunity to a character.
I agree. What I hope we avoid is having a trivial choice that permanently walls off a meaningful opportunity.
The choice between progressing Rogue 1, Fighter 1, Rogue 2-20, or progressing Fighter 1, Rogue 1-20, is not a "meaningful" choice except in the context of this particular game system where the result makes it meaningful.
Although I like the spirit of Valkenr's suggestion, it worries me that a character that takes Fighter 1, then Rogue 1-20, would then be required to take Fighter 2-20 before they could get their Rogue Capstone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Although I like the spirit of Valkenr's suggestion, it worries me that a character that takes Fighter 1, then Rogue 1-20, would then be required to take Fighter 2-20 before they could get their Rogue Capstone.
This is why I want to see a threshold for when the capstone journey starts, so players can dip into different areas of game-play before locking into a capstone. But the dip shouldn't be large enough that you can use it to improve your main archetype(s).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sandbox games to me are all about making meaningfull choices that have permanent consequences...including ones that permanently wall off some meaningfull opportunity to a character.I agree. What I hope we avoid is having a trivial choice that permanently walls off a meaningful opportunity.
The choice between progressing Rogue 1, Fighter 1, Rogue 2-20, or progressing Fighter 1, Rogue 1-20, is not a "meaningful" choice except in the context of this particular game system where the result makes it meaningful.
Although I like the spirit of Valkenr's suggestion, it worries me that a character that takes Fighter 1, then Rogue 1-20, would then be required to take Fighter 2-20 before they could get their Rogue Capstone.
Yeah, I kinda agree which is why I tried to suggest a gaining points and loosing points toward individual capstones.
This is kinda one of the downsides to the "permanent progression" systems that I don't like. In games with hard progression (level or some other mechanism) caps it's not so much of an issue because pretty much every training choice you make comes with a very significant opportunity coast (you train one thing it means ultimately you wont be able to train something else because there are only so many training opportunities you can fit in before you reach cap). It's one effective way to deal with players desire for rapidly fast advancement (i.e. become a master of your craft in a few months) and the fact that there are some real upper plateues to what's achievable (i.e. no matter how good you are at high jumping, you are never going to progress to the point where you can high jump to the moon) without the game ultimately devolving into cartoonishly unbelievable characters (even for a Fantasy RPG).... I mean people can learn to do alot in thier lifetimes but once a character gets to the point where they are an elite seal team member, a noble laureate poet, a platnum record selling singer, a mayo clinic neuro-surgeon, a gold medal skiier, and the scientest who learned how to make cold fusion work...most players are going to be laughing behind thier sleeves with a "Yeah lets just give him a red cape with a big red S on it" comment. Maybe PFO with it's slower (2.5 years to master a role) progression won't have as much of an issue with that....at least it won't have it for quite some time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... which is why I tried to suggest... points...
I liked the point system.
I also liked the system where you had to spend training time removing a Skill that you didn't want - with the cost scaling somewhat based on how much Skill Training you'd done since. It even makes sense (to me, at least) in that sometimes you have to unlearn bad (or counterproductive) habits you'd learned before in order to master something new.
|
|
@Grumpymel
Choosing an action will have consequences, most will be unforeseen, but learning never stops, the inability to learn something doesn't make sense in or out of character.
Besides killing the captain only stops me from getting in if they know the person asking in, is the same as the one who killed the captain.
Choices of action give obstacles, not absolutes (computers have trouble simulating this but that's not the point), learning is the same.
Meaningful choices to me isn't about choosing can vs can't, it's about choosing what problems to accept, what obstacles to fight, and what goals to strive for.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I personally can't stand the idea of a Capstone ability that I can't access if I multi-classed. Maybe if we could max out characters in a week like with WoW, but with Pathfinder we are talking about spending a significant percentage of our lives building this character, and to be told because my wizard got bored and dabbled in fighter for a while I can't get the last ability is pretty close to offensive.
Not that there isn't merit to encouraging single class advancement, you need a softer way to encourage this.
I propose that at certain benchmark levels characters be able to access a class ability a level early if they have not multi-classed. For the argument lets assume at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20 you can access a level 6, level 11, level 16, and the capstone ability if you are single class. If you are multi-class and really want the capstone you would need to devote what is effectively 21 levels of training and all you would really get out of it is the Capstone ability.
This not only encourages single class behavior for the long term by with the Capstone, but for the short term to keep the player focused by providing incentive to single class continuously as you progress.
It does all of this while avoiding the problem of alienating multi-class players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hark
I feel your suggestion is to close to the advancement in the Pnp/TT
A badge is not how you get your abilities, it is described as a milestone marker, with some other bonuses to archetype related actions. A rogue will not get a new level of sneak attack each merit badge, sneak attack will be a skill you train, you will likely be able to max out sneak attack training before you get all the rogue merit badges.
I'm not sure how it is offensive, you aren't being told you can't get a capstone after you have dabbled in fighter, you are being told you will disqualify your self from a capstone with big flashing lights and popups when you try to take any fighter skills. It's not an 'after the fact' message, in which case it would be mean, not sure 'offensive' is the best word to use.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally I don't think killing the king of the Frog People should disqualify you from ever joining the Frog People even. On Darkfall GL actually recruited some well known Random Player Killers. One being the first RPKer I ever killed in that game. They agreed to leave their RPKing ways behind and abide by our rules so I let them in on a trial basis and they both made valuable members.
Should it be hard to earn the Frog People's trust? Yes. It should take you consistently proving you are no longer their enemy and that you will be an asset to them if they let you join. But not impossible.
|
|
@ Andius
Exactly! So why not do the same with advancement, make it harder rather than impossible?
@ Valkner
I can see how people can be offended by the idea regardless of warnings, there is no going back with a new character to see what you missed. That is the key difference.
In wow you can make a new character and very quickly see all the things you missed on your first run through, so that makes it alright to a point (though it's still the main reason why I don't play) If they give us skill based characters then they need to be skill based characters.
Even PF, while using classes, does not forever bar our ability to gain something from another class, that makes the idea of locking out capstones a really bad joke and is certainly not a homage to PF, thus it is offensive particularly because it being a homage was the excuse to do it (I sometimes wonder if someone had a really horribly strict GM and confused a terrible houserule with the actual rules).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Valkenr
I'm aware of how badges work, I put it in PnP terms because it serves as a common ground by which everyone can understand and the idea be put into perspective. My point remains the same, incentivise Single class behavior by making certain significant abilities easier to access if you are a single class character when you get to that point, and require the Capstone to require additional training for multi-class characters to access.
It's offensive because I feel offended when I think about it. Just because I had a whim one day and decided to ignore the warning, or I was drunk while playing, or my little brother decided to mess with me and advance me as a fighter while I was in the bathroom, is not a good reason to deny an ability, any ability, even a cosmetic one.
This is only compounded by the fact that after two and a half years I will have devoted a significant percentage of my life to this character. If I am going to devote 2.5 years of my life to a video Game character I sure as heck want to be able to do anything I was with the character. 2.5 years is a very long time, and it just gets worse when you start talking about maxing out multiple classes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or if I have a seizure and click the ignore warning button as a result of that. There are a lot more reasons to not lock out the cap stone ability to multi-classers than there are to lock it out, and there are a lot more mechanically interesting ways to encourage single class behavior than an exclusive capstone ability.
Locking out cap stone abilities will not only upset people, it is also boring.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Hark actually makes a very good point with respect to all the ways the warning can be accidentally bypassed, whether it's a spiteful little brother, or an overly affectionate cat, or a seizure, or the mouse jumped, etc.
I understand all the arguments people have made about "choices have consequences", but I think those consequences should manifest in additional costs to overcome rather than outright permanent bans.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To be fair to the other side, I think "We might still do it by accident" is a weak argument that can be solved by 1-2 more layers of red tape.
My argument would simply be. The negatives outweigh the positives. Something the other side disagrees with. I don't think we'll be resolving this argument any more than two people who say "fetuses are part of a woman's body" and "unborn children are just as precious as newborns" will resolve abortion. We have two incompatible ideas and there is no sense beating it to death.