APersonOnAComp's page

I'm in the "backed the game despite my previous unpleasant experiences with PvP" because the PvP I have enjoyed has been the large-scale sort - and I did enough reading before backing the Kickstarter to understand that settlements are at the heart of PfO's system. "Open world PvP" by itself doesn't really capture the settlement focus, and players like me who might otherwise be great additions to the social game are more likely to hit that phrase and think "Nope! Tired of being ganked every time I log in!"

It also has the effect of playing up the social nature of the game.

I really think Deianira's comment should be given some attention since I'm pretty sure there are quite a few people like this out there. I know I was like this, for one. Conventional Open World PvP has left a lot of us who happen to be on the fringe with bad tastes in our mouths. I'm not against what PFO is going for by any means, but I kind of wish that there had been more stress on the settlement aspect of it. It feels more constructive, and as a person that prefers to create things that attempt to withstand the test of time (and all you people that will constantly try to topple my walls!), it feels like I can be the person in the sandbox making the sandcastles and won't get them constantly smashed before I even finish one. If it gets kicked over when it's done, I don't mind so much. Nothing lasts forever. I just mind the login-gank-beatdown that tends to happen. If not for the extensive reading I did before the Kickstarter now years past, I may not have backed this.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I understand Ryan's perspective. Focusing on a market segment is a good thing, and it will lead to better things for the game as a whole. I just wonder if the message he is sending is clear enough if people like me had to dig quite a bit to have our fears assuaged.

Hey there, Darcnes. I'm here to toss my hat into the ring. Excellence and all that.

Now, where are my supplies so I can start making your gear?!

*walks off, grumbling about being a Quartermaster for unappreciative non-Elves*

Hey there, Darcnes! I've decided to throw my hat into the ring! I'll be working on crafting and trading as well as our resident "Elves make everything better" Elven craftsman! Looking forward to working with you all!

APersonOnAComp wrote:

I'm a little iffy about them putting recipes on monsters and the like. I was wanting to go pure crafting and become a kind of merchant since I remember they do reward players more for specializing in one area over spreading their skills around in multiple classes. So, wouldn't that really restrict the kinds of skills I could really work at improving without having to hire on a group of people for a chance drop?

I imagine recipes will be saleable on the markets, so your pure crafter could simply buy the recipes. Whether or not the better recipes will be readily available in the manner, or whether they'll be so rare that it'll be extremely difficult to find them on the open market, I guess we'll see.

If *every* recipe were discoverable purely through skill unlocks and never-leave-town crafting, everybody could learn everything given enough time which wouldn't be that interesting, so it does seem appropriate to put them out in the world.

I suppose my main issue there is that if you're a crafter you need refined materials from the people who have refining as their class and recipes from the PvE people out there. There's less of a means to generate wealth to start with. Seems like it requires quite a bit of an initial investment of some kind. Whereas if you are of the class that harvests quite a bit, you can sell stuff. If you PvE, you can sell stuff. There's a way to create some sort of starting wealth to work with from those avenues. Does that make sense?

I'm a little iffy about them putting recipes on monsters and the like. I was wanting to go pure crafting and become a kind of merchant since I remember they do reward players more for specializing in one area over spreading their skills around in multiple classes. So, wouldn't that really restrict the kinds of skills I could really work at improving without having to hire on a group of people for a chance drop? It seems that it would be easier for a combat character to increase the effectiveness of their combat skills comparatively.

I do realize that fantasy games tend to cater a bit more to the people that like to run people through or burn them, but I really just like the idea of being that elf off in the corner working on fletching or setting an edge to a blade. Elven steel from skilled craftsmen (and women)!

Yeah, I actually wanted to get some information about changing my pledge from Pathfinder. I e-mailed them a week or so ago, but never got a response back. Now, the tool's closed, so I'm a little upset, but nothing I can really do about it now, I suppose.

Call me a bit strange, but I'm one of those players far more interested in making a craftsman or gatherer than an actual battle-hardened character. That side of things always fascinated me. What concerns me a little is this portion I read from the blog:

"A portion of this minimum fee proportional to the character's contribution is paid for any PC involvement in construction, even if construction is cancelled before completion. The minimum payment is modified by the percentage of construction time a player was involved in production, so players who join the project later will receive a reduced minimum payment, and are notified of this. It is always beneficial to get onto a project as early as possible."

My main question here would be something along the lines of "shouldn't a character's relevant skill level also contribute to the payout they receive from a job?" After all, a more skilled craftsman is contributing to the job being completed more quickly. If they really aren't receiving more reimbursement for doing so, what is the incentive there really? I assume more skilled fighters would be getting more lucrative rewards from being more skilled in that particular fields, so should the same not be true for craftsmen?

Perhaps I am chomping a little at the bit since information on how crafting and gathering in this game is rather sparse, but I want to make sure that some of these concerns are at least voiced. Otherwise, it is possible it may fall to the wayside.

James Jacobs wrote:

Nathanial321 wrote:

I have two questions. First, it was suggested to me to ask the second question in this thread; however, it isn't an off-topic question, unless you consider it as an off-topic discussion compared to the fact we are in an off-topic discussion thread. So is it okay to ask a question like my second question in this thread if I need an official answer and if I can't get the answer in another thread OR is there a better thread to post it under such as an Ask James Jacobs gaming-related thread? Whew, that was a long question.

The second question is this: I am making my first society character: a halfling ninja. Can my ninja take the "Blade of the Society" trait? My GM says I need an official answer before he will accept it since I am creating it for the Pathfinder Society.

It's absolutely okay!

For the Pathfinder Society, we maintain a list of all the approved products and options. I'm not sure where "Blade of the Society" is from off the top of my head... but the way to find out would be to look at the list of approved resources for character creation for PFS.

James Jacobs wrote:

Nathanial321 wrote:

The question everyone has been wondering is whether or not alternate classes are like archetypes in that they can use the feats, traits, etc. as the primary class even when the requirement has the primary class as a requirement as long as archetype/alternate class has the ability to utilize the feat, trait, etc? For example using the second question in my last post as an example.

Alternate classes like the antipaladin, ninja, and samurai ARE essentially archetypes. They're just archetypes for which we went through and gave you the full level advancement chart for. And artwork too! So as long as they didn't give up a class feature that is a requirement for a feat or whatever... yup... they still can take that feat/trait/thing.

I was able to get an official answer! I got it at the "Ask James Jacobs All your Qestions...

I hope no one minds me partially necro-ing this thread, but I do have to ask, even if the Ninja may qualify as an archetype, Pathfinder does allow for the stacking of Archetypes as long as they do not replace the same abilities from the class. So, by that train of logic, wouldn't it be legal to do something like replace the Uncanny Dodge from Ninja with Scout? It equates to a very similar thing to (if Ninja was truly just like an Archetype of Rogue) putting the "Ninja Archetype" (which I am aware does not actually exist as a standalone archetype. I am just referring to it this way) and the Scout Archetype as layers over the Rogue.

This does in no way counter the point made by James Jacobs that you wrote since all he did was clarify that Ninjas were like Archetypes.