Absolutely agree that we need to go by 2E > 1E, but in the absence of any 2E definition, for the playtest I would rule toward the previous edition. It seems like there are a few things in 2E that rely on definitions from 1E, like the "line of sight" discussion.
Precedence from 1E would lean toward yes, you are considered your own ally.
BUMP with more questions. Here's the rest of the rules text:
Shadow doubles provide flanking for the ankou’s shadow and his allies, but they do not possess teamwork feats or special abilities that alter the effects of flanking or aiding another. As a swift action, the ankou’s shadow can direct his shadow doubles to use the aid another action, using his own base attack bonus plus his Intelligence modifier for the roll. Although a shadow double appears to duplicate the ankou’s shadow’s gear, this gear is part of its form; a shadow double’s gear cannot be destroyed, dropped, or stolen. A shadow double disappears if it ventures more than 50 feet from the ankou’s shadow or if it leaves his line of sight or effect. A shadow double that is hit by an attack roll or takes any damage is destroyed. The AC of a shadow double is equal to the ankou’s shadow’s touch AC, and it has the same CMD and saving throw bonuses as the ankou’s shadow. Shadow doubles possess evasion if the ankou’s shadow does. Mind-affecting effects targeting a shadow double affect the ankou’s shadow instead, though he isn’t affected twice by effects that target both him and a shadow double.
1.) Does each individual shadow use the Aid Another action, or is it only ever a +2 bonus from a single collective Aid Another action even with 2-4 shadows?
2.) Is the aid another action limited to granting a bonus to AC/attacks, or can it be used on skill checks as well?
At 10th level, an ankou’s shadow gains a third shadow double. He can divide his actions between his actual body and his shadow doubles, using them as the origin point for attacks or abilities. For example, an ankou’s shadow making three attacks as a part of a full attack could make his primary attack from his own body and his other two attacks from two of his shadow doubles.
3.) Does this allow the shadows to threaten and make attacks of opportunity on their own? I assume they already threaten before lv10 since they can flank and use aid another, but just couldn't make attacks.
So it's a grey area where we're not sure of the spell level or caster level? Though it seems odd to me if the intent is for the effective caster level to stay 1 and not scale. The DC to dispel would never rise above 12.
Makes me wonder why it's a SLA and not just supernatural. Even the shadow clone ninja trick is supernatural.
I have some questions about how the Shadow Double functions. Here's the rules text:
1.) Can I use any form of movement for the shadows, or ONLY a move action?
Can I split a run/withdrawal?
2.) Can I leave a shadow in my square as I move (dividing the movement as 30/0)?
3.) If so, can I do it only as part of a move action or can I 5-foot step, run, withdrawal, etc. and leave a shadow in my original square?
4.) Can two shadows share the same square without me, and can they mimic each other's movements?
5.) Can this ability be used with the Quicken Spell-Like Ability feat?
Yeah, I'm wrong. The "touch" part is a free action and not part of the standard, so it does require a separate standard action.
You ignored the part of the rule where it says "fighting defensively as a standard action" its the part before the text you listed.
Casting a spell with the range "touch" and making the attack roll is a standard action.
The rule never says that you need to take the attack action. It just says that if you want to use Fighting Defensively during a standard action you must make an attack. There are many standard actions that make an attack.
I'm actually talking about fighting defensively on the same turn you cast the spell with the free attack roll, not waiting until the next turn to use a standard action.
Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action
"You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 to AC until the start of your next turn."
From what I've read so far, many people believe that any action beyond the "attack action" can't use Fighting Defensively. I'm challenging this. Compare this to Vital Strike and Combat Expertise:
"When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total."
Vital Strike and Combat Expertise specifically designate the attack action unlike the rules for Fighting Defensively: "when attacking" vs "when you use the attack action/when making an attack action". This wording is what prevents Vital Strike from being used along with things such as Cleave. Likewise:
Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action
You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round.
It specifically differentiates between a full-round action and a full-attack action. This is the important part. In the section title it says "full-round action". It is clarifying that if you want to use fighting defensively while doing a full-round action, you have to use a full-attack. The rules for using it as a standard action do not do this. They only state that you must attack, not that you must specifically use the attack action.
Keep this errata in mind: "Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action." Attacking != Attack Action. There are many actions that lead to an attack, such as Alchemist Bombs, Cleave, and Touch Spells. These WOULD work with Vital Strike and Combat Expertise, except their wording specifically states you must be doing the attack action. The rules for Fighting Defensively as a standard action do not. Hence touch spells, which result in an attack, should work.
If I'm wrong I'd like to hear why. I just want to understand these rules properly.
My Eidolon utilizes the same tactics, and I've gone through the same thing you are now about two months ago. I'll see if I can help...
1.) Nope. Eidolon's grab is considered its own thing with the Universal Monster Rules as a reference, just as Eidolon pounce is considered its own thing even though it shares the same name with something from the Universal Monster Rules.
4.) You need Improved Unarmed Strike
5.) There's a flowchart here. It is what my group and I use pretty much every session to make sure we don't screw up.
There's also this handy guide someone made that explains it all nicely: http://www.dorkistan.com/dorkistan/PFRPG/misc/grapple.htm
Edit: As an aside, a full-attack isn't as good as rake attacks plus attack action (if your Eidolon has the capacity to get them).
Let's say you can roll 7 attacks on a full-attack. That's seven to roll your attack against an enemy's (usually high) AC.
Conversely, imagine rolling only two times against something's CMD with three attacks off of each?
-> Grapple Check -> Attack action -> 2 additional rakes -> repeat
You have +8 from Grab and the feats, plus +5 from the initial check, so +13 + CMB vs enemy's CMD. Pretty good. Potentially too good, but it's great against anything as long as you can get the initial grapple.
I noticed you referenced GW2. The system seems like an expanded version of their system IMO. However, either of us could be right. I'll explain:
At one time in PFO we have 12 potentially actively used skills, then 8 more situational ones. 6 of the first 12 are tied to a daily resource pool. Guild Wars 2 had 10 (plus other skills depending on the profession obviously) skills, but they seemed mostly spammable with short cooldowns besides the elite skill or occasional utility. (I recognize you understand all of this, just putting it out there for comparison and emphasis).
If most of the 20 skills are like those spammable ones in Guild Wars 2... then I agree with your point of view. It shouldn't be spammy and the system will be flawed in that respect. However...
It may be more of wishful thinking, but here's how I imagine the skills on a scale from spammy to situational to long-cooldown:
Conversely Guild Wars 2 was:
So, at least to me, this system sounds like Guild Wars 2 except with more situational abilities to mimic a tabletop character and give you the tools to survive in a sandbox MMO.
Then there was the Elementalist and the Engineer which are exceptions. An Elementalist had 25+ abilities, and my Engineer had about 20+ as well (except no real limitations between switching so it was pretty hectic). I don't think PFO would be as spammy as those could be.
In any case, I don't think we'll actually know how it will turn out until the game is further developed. It would be nice to get some developer responses on this particular topic for clarification though.
So I have two weapons (sets of specific combat skills), two implements (sets of specific utility/combat skills), two designated utility skills, two situational emergency abilities, a boot and glove action, and two item slots. I. Am. Excited.
What I love about this kind of system is how the player has freedom to customize and experiment far more than a traditional MMO would allow, while simultaneously allowing the developers to create interesting and balanced abilities. Instead of trying to balance based on a number of individual abilities, you have them all grouped with other specific abilities (like weapons) or in a specific category that all builds will have (situationals).
So for example...
Weapons: Sword/Shield + Bow
Theorycrafting should be lots of fun if such a system is to be implemented, as should PvP.
I like the idea of a continuous world of hexes (for the most part, minus areas that are simply untraversable). Having different "sections" of the world entirely closed off from one another except through portals sounds contradictory to how the rest of the game is being built.
Surely I can't be the only one who favors a continuous world? I like the idea of having a large world that you can walk from one side of to another; one that really does feel like another world rather than a set of large instances with little to no real connection. I don't see why there can't be portals, but I also don't see why we can't have everything connected via hexes or waterways as well.
Edit: I think this is the problem I have with the island-only approach. That is a simulation of another world, whereas most of the game seems to be attempting to put as much in the hands of the players as possible and, rather than simulate, literally do what most games pretend to do.
I very much like your train of thought here. I can see such a thing being done (initial separation, then unification for reasons you listed and others).
If portals would be added as well as hex connections, then there would need to be a reason to use physical travel rather than portals. Two things come to mind.
1.) Have only a few portals evenly spaced, such that traveling would still be necessary.
2.) Have portals use a cooldown timer, or require a resource/gold to be used, so physically traveling could be cheaper or simply required.
I would prefer something in between the original Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2. The overall system of Guild Wars seems similar to that of the impression I get so far for Pathfinder Online, and Guild Wars 2 has the aspects to combat that I see as the natural evolution for MMO combat. The three things I want from Guild Wars 2 are pretty simple.
1.) A focus on movement and positioning. Not necessarily twitch, but instead how you would imagine combat as actually being. You don't just sit there and take shots while dealing them out; you actively avoid stepping in AoE and actively try to dodge and block attacks. In addition, having most abilities allowing movement instead of locking you into one place. Its fine to use that as a balance mechanic for certain abilities though.
2.) Abilities being significant.
I should elaborate on this. Here's an example from Guild Wars 2. If you're playing as a Guardian (like a Paladin) with a Hammer, you get these 5 weapon abilities:
#1.) A basic chain attack that ends in a persistent AoE. The AoE damage enemies and grants you and allies a buff that reduces damage taken by 33% while they are in the circle. This basically takes the place of what most games would use 4-6 abilities for; the ones you sit there and spam for your rotation.
#2.) A melee AoE attack. However, it also creates additional effects if used in a persistent AoE circle (like the first ability gives). The additional effect for the first ability is a buff that sends damage back to the attacker when hit. So you use ability #1 and give allies the damage resistance buff, then use #2 and make it so that hitting your allies deals damage back.
#3.) A projectile that travels on the ground hitting multiple enemies and snaring them for 2 seconds.
#4.) A melee swing that sends a single enemy flying backward.
#5.) A Ring of Warding that prevents enemies from crossing over it, either trapping them outside or inside of it.
So each ability here generally has multiple uses and significant effects. The only ability you would "spam" is #1 and maybe #2 when it is off cooldown if you want the extra buff or more damage. Each one (in this case) has a focus on area control. You don't lay out debuffs to simulate area denial. Instead you, quite literally, lock enemies out of an area, and if they manage to get in said area you punish them with AoEs. There's no flimsy abilities. Each one is effective, even if situational.
3.) Instead of everything being a "random chance" have abilities that literally DO that. If you want to make a tank, then give them abilities that literally block attacks rather than buffs that give a chance to do it. Same thing with dodging, and even critical hits to some extent.
I've seen two real systems of stuns.
1.) One where stuns are relatively common but with long cooldowns and powerful effects. Developers usually give the victim resistance or immunity to subsequent stuns.
2.) Stun effects that last for a short period of time and have long cooldowns. No resistance or immunity needed since they're made to be situational tools, not something you spam for a quick kill.
I prefer #2. Make stuns situational tools with longer cooldowns that you use to set-up other abilities.
@Alarox, I'm actually on the complete other end of the spectrum. I believe the real growth in these kinds of games will be an ever-increasing ability for the game systems to understand what we're doing - and more specifically what our motivations and goals are - and responds in ways that make sense to people. I'm especially hopeful that these kinds of systems (even if they're not in PFO) will make Divination magic meaningful because it will actually be able to reveal other players' true motivations and goals since those players won't be able to accomplish those goals without explicitly defining them.
That certainly is a valid point, and I understand your stance. I actually do agree to a certain extent, but I think a solid middle-ground can be achieved where neither are compromised.
My main concern is that the simple act of doing 'X' will no longer be an organic action and will instead consist of trying to objectify your action to the game. In particular cases such a system really breaks my suspension of disbelief.
I find the capacity of a game to represent something so clearly that you don't have to imagine it, or explain it, and instead simply DO it, to be of extremely high value. It feels like adding more and more complications to certain actions to be a step backwards in progress rather than forward.
I'm no so much as against this particular idea or the systems you are fond of as I am against the tendency to break the game down from a simulation into a series of command prompts (the implementation, not the idea itself).
For example, instead of using keybindings to activiate an ability, and/or going through a window to indicate that you're going to "ambush" this caravan, it should be possible for the game to determine the meaning behind your actions from behind the scenes, and accept that you're ambushing and take the appropriate actions necessary.
I wouldn't be comfortable with increased bag/bank slots either unless you could gain them in-game at a reasonable rate and if the increases weren't seemingly exponential like in many MMOs. I believe that increased bank and bag slots are an in-game advantage rather than just convenience.
Although, most convenience items have a similar conflict between just convenience and objective in-game advantage.
Things I would like to see/wouldn't mind seeing:
1.) Anything purely cosmetic/flavor
#1: Lots of people like it, nobody has a problem with it. I could be willing to buy, but usually I MUCH prefer anything I can get in-game as it feels much more rewarding to wear what I've earned, even if visually inferior.
Things I wouldn't like to see:
1.) Anything that gives a noticeable in-game advantage or is a necessity for enjoying the game, or takes away from the core game
However, if I'm paying a 15$ subscription I'll expect all of #3.
Yeah, "sanctioned" doesn't mean you've agreed to it. It means the game systems have determined there won't be any Reputation or Alignment hits for it.
Oh, in which case nevermind. I don't follow the forums regularly enough to know the exact meaning of the lingo used. It certainly confused me while typing it up, but sometimes the only way to learn is to fail once...
IGNORE EVERYTHING IN THE PREVIOUS POSTS BY ME
I feel as though the more and more built in mechanisms, skill requirements, UI panels, et cetera, the less organic the entire act of doing something becomes. Ambushing a caravan should be as simple as seeing a caravan and attacking it rather than needing to utilize and manage influence and training skills to reap the benefits without penalties.
If I want to ambush a caravan, I should be able to do so through my own actions alone without going through systems in the game for it to tell me that I am.
I do like the idea you present; how accomplishing praisworthy acts of banditry and the like will reward you in such a way. However, I'm always a bit skeptical of the implementations of ideas that involve more systems for the player to navigate through when they cover things that players can already "do". I believe the idea has merit but I believe that such a mechanism should be automatic when you attack a caravan.
I think this is an important point to make. A well developed sandbox not only gives other players the ability to affect you... it gives you the control over how you are affected. If you don't want players doing certain things, you have the tools to prevent it in the first place. You don't need the game to physically limit others in order to protect yourself and those of a similar view. This works in the game for the same reason that lawful societies function in reality. Those who want peace and order are the majority and they develop the tools to maintain this.
I believe that it is THE question to be answered, in fact. All of these discussions revolve around that very question.
There isn't anything wrong with it unless you're trying to accomplish something that requires more than what it supplies. A dynamic and "living" sandbox is one of those things, whether PvE or PvP related. I don't have any problems with sanctioned gameplay, I just think you can't build the kind of sandbox PFO is trying to be unless you have unsanctioned and seemingly unpredictable elements. Because it is a PvP game I believe you therefore need unsanctioned PvP elements as well. Same with PvE. Things like monster hexes are an integral part of the game.
No, because unsanctioned PvP supplies a type of risk that sanctioned PvP does not supply, and it is risk that I believe any sandbox MMO requires.
When you agree to sanctioned PvP it is either because there is little to no risk or because you believe the potential reward is worth the risk. Unsanctioned PvP supplies the risk of randomness. It means that PvP can come to you, not just you to PvP.
Obviously, unsanctioned PvP shouldn't be shoved at you by default, but you should be aware that it is a possibility. You ought to be aware that if you take your caravan through this forest you may get robbed and murdered. You ought to be aware that if another settlement doesn't stand to gain anything from you, and they have the capacity, they might suddenly declare war and attack you without your consent.
If sanctioned PvP were the only form of PvP then the world would become static and feel shallow. If there is little risk then the PvP is relatively meaningless. If there is high risk then nobody but fools or those who believe the odds are heavily in their favor will partake in it. Player interaction would be significantly limited in comparison.
The real question I have is: what is wrong with unsanctioned PvP? Here's a better way to put this: what is wrong with unsanctioned PvE? If you're playing a sandbox then the idea of unsanctioned PvE is NECESSARY. PvE is the player versus the environment; if the environment doesn't affect you by its own accord then it isn't much of a virtual world.
What's the difference between this and unsanctioned PvP? The only difference I can see on a fundamental level is that it is even more dynamic and is generated by players. That is it.
Griefing or the like is unsanctioned PvP, but unsanctioned PvP is not griefing. There isn't anything malicious about unsanctioned PvP. I really don't understand why such a discussion is needed in the first place (not to take anything away from the thread topic or the posters).
FFA PvP in Wilderness and Monster hexes. PvP safety in NPC hexes. At the discretion of each settlement in settlement hexes. Problem solved.
I agree with this except for two things:
1.) Settlements shouldn't have control over PvP being enabled/disabled otherwise every single one will prevent it and, honestly, it seems ridiculous that they could magically prevent someone from fighting without force. They should be able to make laws restricting it, have guards that automatically engage the attacker, and put into place any and all restrictions they deem necessary to prevent people who WILL PvP from gaining access to their settlement. But they shouldn't be able to say "you can't attack us no matter what because we say so".
Unless... you just mean "PvP safety" as in the laws are against it and there are guards instead of "PvP is disabled".
2.) It should depend on the NPC hex in question. The starter ones should be PvP protected obviously. Other NPC hexes are potentially based on faction warfare and should allow the players to be attacked IMO.
Unless, once again, you just mean laws/NPCs protecting players from being attacked instead of disabling PvP.
Shane Gifford wrote:
I think the idea behind many of their systems is good. I think making griefing difficult and dangerous with downsides for obvious griefing is good. Mainly though, the thing they've done the best is that it is clearly better to spend your CE murdering days to your own advantage through other means than random player killing. That's all good, but...
They're trying to take the stance of not defining griefing with words, but defining them through reputation loss. I don't think they should do either.
They already have a system where any person who is drawn to griefing will find an outlet for themselves via productive means. It is a clear choice for them. For anyone else you have the GMs ready to listen to things on a case by case basis.
They can't foresee every scenario with reputation, nor can they always determine if player actions are driven by malice or not. If you try, you just limit genuine players and tell them to play a specific way. If they don't comply, they they will be labeled through the same system originally intended to target griefers.
Things like Roleplaying or preemptively defending yourself can easily reduce reputation because GW didn't specifically put systems into place to determine whether or not it is griefing, and they won't because they can't. I don't believe it helps, and I don't think they should keep such a restriction in the game.
The reputation system is designed to punish griefers for engaging in "negative gameplay aspects" but it is not perfect and it is impossible to be. I don't believe reputation should have anything to do with PvP.
I think the idea of reputation should be entirely focused on what other people literally think of you and how reliable you are in your agreements. That aside...
Imagine, if you will, two different kinds of griefers:
1.) Someone who does it out of boredom or because they are truly RPKing
#1 Is already taken care of by giving them plenty of productive outlets for their PvP desires. And, let's be honest, losing a bit of reputation will never prevent their random desire to kill someone once in a while if they find someone standing there alone and AFK in the middle of a forest.
#2 Will not be affected by reputation loss. They play the game to grief. For them, you can only stop them with a GM or by physically preventing them from fighting. Obviously, GM intervention needed.
So I don't believe you need reputation at all.
However, I can deal with the system they have in place. Although I still think people should realize even anti-griefers who like PvP can have low reputation. Chances are, as a CG player I probably will. Killing bandits as I find them (not like a moron waiting to be robbed before I attack), fighting LE settlements, ambushing ambushers, randomly helping people who are being robbed or attacked, helping friends who are in faction battles with another group, etc. All of which will involve lost reputation at certain points, none of which will be done for a ridiculous reason like griefing.
Shane Gifford wrote:
I agree with everything you said except whether or not its the way it should be. Regardless, my point is that many people will not have the intention of griefing, but not comply with the game when it says that it IS griefing.
Personally, I don't like the idea of griefing. However, I do not mind the idea of preemptively defending myself. I do not mind the idea of roleplaying and fighting for more reasons than "I really want that +2 Greatsword you got there, bro". I also don't mind the idea of killing based on alignment and actions. I find it strange that people see that as "negative gameplay" and yet killing indiscriminately based on faction isn't? They're basically the same thing, neither would be done by me for griefing reasons. However, that's not to say that the game won't label me one via low reputation.
In which case, low reputation should easily be a reason for a ban from the game since you assert it is a definitive fact that they are taking part in ban worthy activities.
BUT IF THEY ARE NOT then why do you believe it is the player's duty to literally punish them? You're advocating the idea that if someone does something bad, the same thing should be done to them. An eye for an eye, a grief for a grief?
That ignores the examples I gave before where this doesn't even make any sense in-game, let alone the moral implications.
Note: Fill in "griefer" with "those who take part in and promote negative gameplay aspects as determined by GW".
I'm using the word because reputation is more specifically tied to PvP, and loss of it is tied to the act of griefing, however it may be described. In general I'm using this word in place of that longer and more specific phrase for efficiency and convenience.
Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:
Exactly. In addition, if at any point when you are playing you lose reputation for any reason, it would mean you are most certainly a griefer.
Unless you (Kitnyx) are saying that it is a statistical impossibility that someone could have low reputation while not being a grifer due to how often you would need to do things on the line between griefing and not griefing. To which I would argue is more probably that it would seem for any non-griefing character who routinely engages in any sort of PvP.
Which is perfectly logical, acceptable, and should be obvious from the beginning. The only way you can ever identify someone as a griefer is if you see them do it and know why they did it. If indentifying when someone is griefing was always so easy and objective then it wouldn't ever be a problem.
What I get out of that comparison is "choosing to be Chaotic Evil and disregarding reputation protects you from being forced to be a Chaotic Evil character who disregards reputation."
Well... why does that matter? If I choose to do X why do I care about being forced to be X since I want to be X? And why is that somehow a major problem that you see as them being "protected"?
It seems you're saying that the very act of not caring about being Lawful Good is the problem, and that in the very act of not caring, you are protected from caring about not being able to be Lawful Good. Am I understanding this?
The problem with that assertion is that they are still unprotected from the downsides that not being Lawful Good with good reputation brings.
There are ways to minimize and even nullify reputation hits for various actions...in effect either making the behaviour "less negative" or "not negative"...why not utilize them?
Again, this would only be true if your reputation "sucked"...which would only occur if you spent time partaking in what GW has determined to be negative gameplay.
Either the system should guarantee I never lose reputation when I'm not griefing, or people should not assume that everyone with low reputation is a griefer.
Otherwise, people WILL end up with low reputation when they are not griefers while the entire system assumes they are.
Note: Fill in "griefer" with "those who take part in and promote negative gameplay aspects as determined by GW".
If a LE settlement decided that murder was not legal and then I killed those who were Lawful Evil in their territory (as a good character), would I not then lose reputation? If I were wandering through the forests and I spotted someone I know to be part of a CN bandit company, and decided to preemptively attack first, would I not then lose reputation?
If the reputation system can punish me when I'm not griefing, then how will someone's reputation only "suck" when they're a griefer? And if they ARE a griefer, is the GM supposed to intervene?
Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:
That would be nice, but treating everyone without a high reputation as being on the same level as a griefer isn't going to help with that. The suggestion in question does just this (in addition to using the mentality that griefing justifies more griefing in return).
Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:
Why does everyone assume that all low reputation characters are deserving of punishment and bounties? Yes, griefing and being a jerk will lower reputation, but so will things that are nothing of the sort.
If I recall correctly, a certain reputation level is a requirement for entry into factions and settlements (should they choose to enforce such a rule). In addition, if someone is going to make a deal/contract with you and you have a low reputation they will deem you untrustworthy and choose someone else. These are the downsides.
A player that embraces a Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation play style already suffers no ill effects for killing other players. Why should they be protected by the very systems they ignore?
How does being Chaotic Evil and having low reputation protect them?
When you choose to be Chaotic Evil and to not care about reputation, you limit yourself by being incapable of reaping the benefits of being Lawful and/or Good and having High Reputation.
When you choose to be Lawful Good and to care about reputation, you limit yourself by being incapable of reaping the benefits of being Chaotic and/or Evil and disregarding reputation.
In both, there are benefits and downsides. However, there are more downsides to being evil. When you choose to be good, you're likely surrounding yourself with other good people and get protection from other good people. When you choose to be evil, you don't get extra protection. In fact, it just means you can't get protection from good characters, and so you have to stick with Neutral or other Evil characters who don't care about you.
Good can be content for the Evil (and the reverse), this faction for that faction, this settlement for that settlement, etc. But reputation is a much different thing than alignment or allegiance for this purpose.
It seems like a combination of an in-game credit score and a way to measure your social stature.
Saying that you want low-reputation characters to be your "content"...
The parallel to this idea is a church bishop being allowed to beat the hell out of a hobo because one has high reputation and another has low reputation. It doesn't make any sense. It's like someone with a good credit score being able to horribly murder someone with a low credit score in the middle of the streets.
It just means you can beat the hell out of Chaotic players at will as a Lawful player and make them your content since Chaotic players will have much lower reputation than a Lawful player. (Reputation seems to be measured by the same things that the Lawful/Chaotic index will often be measured by.)
Ex: I'm CG, you're LN. I spent the last three weeks in the territory of a LE nation whilst freeing slaves and aiding rebellion, then fighting for survival in the wilderness against bandits to get here. My reputation sucks. Oh look, you walk down the road that leads a few miles back to the town. I walk up to greet you, and suddenly you pull out a sword and jam it through my skull. You take no reputation penalty as you loot my body, then walk back to the city. This is what you're asking for in a nutshell.
Actually, that example is somewhat muddled with other variables. Here's a better one.
Ex: I'm NN and you're NN. I just walked into your store to buy a Mighty Steel Greatsword of Fire +2. I'm about to pay and you see my "credit score" (aka reputation) isn't that high. You immediately take that Mighty Steel Greatsword of Fire +2 and rip my eyes out of their sockets, then decapitate me. You take the money I was about to buy that sword with and begin dragging my dead body to the back. Another customer walks in during and screams "By Desna! What are you doing to that poor man?" to which you reply, "Oh, low credit score". The customer sighs in relief and you two proceed to haggle over the greatsword as you clean my blood off the blade.
Achievements (in this sense) only add to a game by making you believe you're accomplishing something when there is nothing else you would feel proud of accomplishing. Really no point in adding them to a sandbox game like this one where you set your own goals, and they come naturally from interacting with the world and other players.
Themepark MMOs lack almost anything besides, well, themepark content, so this is supplemented by giving you more "things to do" via achievements. There I can see it is justified since an achievement is essentially more themepark content.
The only other use of achievements I've seen has been as a way to gauge what you've accomplished and mark your progress through a story. In Pathfinder Online, just have an in-game journal that automatically records certain events. Or let the player freely write in one.
Actions are intended to represent time.
Case 1: If you five foot step off the edge at the end of your turn, after you used your move and standard action, then you (until your next turn) remain in the air at that point.
Don't forget that all actions between characters in a round take place at the same time in reality.
Case 2: If you five foot step off the edge at the start of your turn, before you use your move and standard action, then you have to also use your move action as it counts as a move.
So you have case 1 where you move 5 feet, and case 2 where you move 5 feet and then fall. Case 1 just takes a five foot step while case 2 takes your five foot step and move action.
I understand that whole issue, but that has nothing to do with this.
That FAQ doesn't set precedence for this. That FAQ clarifies what they MEAN when they say "ability to cast X level spells". It does not say "when we make something plural, we don't actually mean plural". It means for those specific words, that is what they meant. For that phrase. An exception to a rule does not negate the rule itself; it makes a clear exception.
Moving on to the main thing:
My argument isn't simply the pluralization in Pathfinder rules in general. It is that every other feat of this type is singular, while this one is specifically plural. It is not a case of a phrase meaning something else, it is this specifically breaks the norm and is plural. There is a clear, distinction in feats of this type. There is no Proficiency (Heavy Crossbows), only (Heavy Crossbow). Singular.
The text of the feat itself declares that you must select one type of firearm when you pick it. However, the Gunslinger archetype clearly says (Muskets) and not (Musket).
Hence, there are TWO different feats.
There is (Musket) if you take it by your choice, and there is (Muskets) if you choose Musket Master. They are different. Does anyone dispute that these both exist? Both are specifically defined, with specific notation. Rapid Reload (Musket) is not Rapid Reload (Muskets).
It works with all types of muskets.
Rapid Reload wrote:
There is no such thing as Rapid Reload (Heavy Crossbows); there is only Rapid Reload (Heavy Crossbow). There are, however, Rapid Reload (Musket) and Rapid Reload (Muskets).
It isn't plural for no reason whatsoever. If a feat references a specific "thing" it is always singular.
In addition, take a look at this language:
"Starting at 5th level, a gunslinger can select one specific type of firearm (such as an axe musket, blunderbuss, musket, or pistol)."
Specific types. If there are specific types, then there are also general types. Otherwise, there is no such thing as a specific type. In the act of saying "specific type" they are saying that certain firearms can be classified into general ones. This is why the firearms are listed like such, in the format:
Musket; Musket, axe; Musket, double-barreled; Pistol; Pistol, cane; etc.
First, they are muskets or pistols. However, they are also their own specific weapon (axe, double-barreled, etc).
Proficiency with (Musket) means the Musket.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
I didn't want mine to be a plain "meat shield" either. Instead...
"An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane. Some creatures start out as some other type and become outsiders when they attain a higher (or lower) state of spiritual existence."
My Eidolon is basically the soul of an ascended and ancient being which no longer has ties to the material plane. Basically, an ancient soul with no form. At a specific point in my character's story his soul resonated with his Eidolon's and they became linked; from then on he gives his Eidolon form and his Eidolon gives him power. His physical form isn't his actual form, as he is truly form-less, hence the Summoner being able to modify this form at will.
The thing you summon doesn't seem to be the creature itself.
"A summoner begins play with the ability to summon to his side a powerful outsider called an eidolon. The eidolon forms a link with the summoner, who, forever after, summons an aspect of the same creature."
Very confusing. Seems like a case where it is completely up to the DM, but I would say this is DEFINITELY NOT RAI and is super-uber-cheese-sauce.
That being said, I think this is something that can be taken in a lot of cool ways with the help of a DM.
Eidolons seem to be unique summons in multiple ways, and I think this is another example of that. A Summoner's bond with an Eidolon seems to be much more than with any other summoned creature. It may be ambiguous so as to give players the freedom to develop any kind of backstory they desire, but I get the impression that they are NOT "creatures" until they are summoned by the specific Summoner and are given form by the Summoner.