Sargogen, Lord of Coils

Alydos's page

Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 79 posts (86 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 5 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Frosty Ace wrote:


I actually think it's better to have more variety for failure and success around everything except attacking. At the end of the day, every martial willattack, and every caster will cast, but there can be ways to make it much spicier. What you suggest, for a magic equivalent, would be a crit fail or succeed for casting an offensive spell. That'd be bad. It's why most fumble rules suck. It removes too much agency.

What the Fighter has by way of reactions and AoOs is what a Wizard has by way of counterspell: a specialty in a "common" field (Spell and steel are mundane in DnD). For a Goblin attacking a Paladin, an attack pinging of the shield rather than the armor is the same, but only a Fighter can make it a two weapon parry. That's the kind of "nice martial/mundane thing" people have wanted. It's a layer only the best can access, and no dice luck or spell can mimic it. It's a design decision I'm seeing with a lot of things.

Offensive spells do have critical success in 2e, they deal double damage like martial attacks. At +10/nat20.

I also don't think it effects player agency, but that's an odd aside so maybe? Many hundreds of critical fails will occur for the enemies in a campaign. Moreso with the proper party now that the -10 rule is here.

Paladins are supposed to be the Defensive class per one of their earlier blogs, so maybe they'll have something more along the lines of what I want.

I still don't think at high levels a single reaction is even close to okay for martials. As has been said much better for 14+ years, if casters can aim for a much stronger Prince of Amber, why does the fighter not aim for Ares?


Frosty Ace wrote:
Do we know if crit fails only occur on a 1? Would he huge if being bad at something meant failing miserably often or not. Same with crits being DC + 10. I think that's how it works. The blog post says every check in a post about crits and fails.

No, it should also occur if they fail your DC by 10. But it doesn't do anything. It's equal to a failure except it might trigger your once per turn reaction, assuming you have taken the class feat to take advantage of it.

That's the part I'm taking issue with. By default it's nothing. With investment it's once per turn. I don't think either is how it should be.


Frosty Ace wrote:
Alydos wrote:
snip

I wonder if what you want isn't already available. You say feat tax, but is it? Remember, a shield is a weapon, and with the new action economy, as a "full round" a Fighter can (I'm assuming eventually) slash, bash, and raise his guard, block his enemy's attack, to the retaliate against the enemy foolish enough to attack a Fighter with his guard up and blade ready. It rewards both offense and defense, rather than pure offense, a huge problem with PF1 I recall, with all its "Rocket tag."

Hell, it being a feat Might be good. An archetype you'd have to wait, but a Fighter could do the above scenario in a few levels if it's all feats (Which makes him a huge threat. Remember, most things can't even react with an attack), only sacrificing the base when on the move.

I don't think it is. Thank you for the shield example, that helps though.

I'm optimistic, but I feel like they are missing a huge opportunity with their new +10/-10 if they are making it primarily for spells and skills. They could be taking inspiration from Tenra Bansho Zero that makes defense a truly viable option by making it dangerous to attack someone who is skilled in defense.


Sorry Cat, I'm not interested in an argument taking some little part of my post wildly out of context with its entirety. I'm sorry the post was so long.


The article is great. The one problem I have is that I was hoping for something that is apparently not going to be the case for the playtest.

Twin Riposte. A feat tax for something I was hoping would be default to the edition. Instead of Strike critical failures having "No effect" I was hoping you would leverage your new Design Space of non-binary outcomes to allow combat to be faster and more thrilling.

A fighter should be able to train to take advantage of opponents openings and should be able to strike them if their attack is so weak compared to his defense. A class feat should then bolster this ability and its versatility like tripping, not give it in its barest form only if dual wielding. It goes hand in hand with a high AC and martial prowess.

I am in love with the idea of a fight of 5 goblins vs a high level combat built martial being a bloody affair lasting only a few turns as each of their critical failures results in him slicing through them. I understand that he can make many attacks a turn now even while moving, but I am hesitant to think highly of this before I see the full playtest.

It's power would still pale in compare to the new Dominate, but for a fight it would bolster his reputation. Moreso if he had multiple reactions as it seems like he should.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leyren wrote:
deuxhero wrote:
I can't foresee spending 1/10th of any resource on something that will only do anything if an enemy critically hits me. That's just way too narrow.
It's in your hands. You just have to keep your armor class low enough and it will happen all the time!

Ohh, it's not a trap option, it's for the naked pagan druid who worships a god of nature and blood.

It's way easier to receive crits now so they'd get way more use from the feat!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Mats Öhrman wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

so, just to understand that, you're saying your group is not trying to control where the fighting tankes place and keep the monsters away from the squishys but stand in line and wait for the monsters to come to them, because the monsters mobilty is to high? they are not blocking the way, they are not slowing the monster down, they just enter the room and wait? (and then also not get buffed but have to watch how those resources go to a summoned monster that's way beyond their power level)

look, I'm not telling you how to run your encounters, because you do your thing and all power to you, but...this looks really like a problem with the party's tactics than with the mechanics of the game

Heh, *our* fighters usually go into battle buffed by Heroism, Tears to Wine, Blessing of Fervor (+30 move or extra attack), Ward of the Season (+30 move *more*), Air Walk, Bear’s Endurance, Owl’s Wisdom, 2xMagic Vestment (armor and shield), some kind of crit enhancer (varies), some kind of extra energy damage on weapon (varies), Protection from Evil, Resist Energy, and Stoneskin (I’ve probably forgotten a bunch of buffs). They only have to ask (Telepathic Bond) to be propelled to any place where they desire to be through a friendly Telekinetic Charge and Dimension Door. As you say, *team* play.

Our monsters go for the fighters, because they *are* the biggest threat, and the fighters are in their face almost immediately.

And the fighter players have picked archetypes that trade in stuff for more skill points and various bonuses for high Int, so they do very well in the out-of-combat skill-monkey game our group spend a lot of time on.

PF1, in this campaign currently at lvl14.

and the first monster with Dispel at will, or hostile caster or..breaks that right off them. Building characters that rely on other characters using up vast resources to be viable? No thanks.

I know you don't want to "lose," but do you know how dispel works? Because it is contrary to what you just said.

This is without talking about said enemy and caster being dead before they can dispel 1 buff, which will not even delay their death by 1 round.

Edit:and also there is a vast difference betwixt viable and optimal, shame on you for your manipulative wording.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
I'm not trying to start a fight, but take the RP out of the RPG and all you have left is a G and that's the point where I start thinking about playing Monopoly instead

Yes, but the problem is that the G gives a lot more RP to some people than others.

A fighter could go on a lengthy legendary quest for an ancient artifact and create his own demiplane Utopia, the wizard could sleep on it and do the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
The fighter do not have the option to, say, lead armies, forge empires, or become a legend.
so role playing is not an option, I see. I'd argue that a good Leadership score might give you an army to lead, that the Kingdom building rules will help you forge empires and that you might become a legend if you actually do something legendary so, the options are there if you are looking for them

I think you're trying to start the wrong fight. I agree with you, but the counter-argument is simple. Those require roleplaying, the comparison for a wizard is hard-coded in the rules.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

Most the time the martial caster disparity issues people have is not about combat or encounters. Fighters do well in combat, with huge damage.

It is about narrative. A high level wizard can create demiplanes, bind angels, speak to Gods and teleport across the world. The fighter do not have the option to, say, lead armies, forge empires, or become a legend.

Well apparently now at level 14(FOURTEEN) they can use a shield to block an AoE attack, or, not block, but give you a small bonus to saves.

I know that some players need a simple class because they don't want to think when they play, but I'd'd be really happy with a 5e Battle Master suite of maneuvers as their class mechanic.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Alydos wrote:

This is a curious obsession, even in PF 1e a fighter can easily solo his CR that is meant to fight an entire party. Meanwhile at high levels the enemies saves and resistances and varied immunities means the most efficient way to win is not direct spells or summons, but buffing the martial. It yields the highest survival chance and least wasted spells.

An intelligent wizard player would know this and use his spells smartly. This assumes equal competence from all players and is a lot more solid than any white void theorycraft.

I don't know how you got trapped into arguing against this when you should be arguing about their narrative power difference.

Also, the shield raise was a one action and done, even before combat, in the podcast, not repeated actions. Did this get changed?

IF the monster is stupid enough to stay still for full attacks, then you are correct (Well maybe some possible summons look like damn good returns on investment), I have yet to encounter a game were high level martials didn't feel like the spare wheel, past about 8th (it varies sometimes as late as 11th) another caster would bring more utility, more power, and more use to the game, especially as summons come into their own, and start being mini fighter/casters all on their own, or casters can flat out turn themselves into decent melee combatants. ON raising shields: in this thread the impression was given it was every round.

Full attacking is nice, but hardly required for any of the best built characters. It's also trivially easy to get with magic items or wizard buffing.

Certainly even the most optimal summons will not end a fight as quickly as the fighter. Their problem is all the out of combat abilities they give.

The level range you give of 8-11 is actually the exact same one I use, but not for combat. Those are the levels when the versatility of exploration and role-play bypasses for casters have incomparably outstripped the spotlight of a martial being only best at combat.

The three different phases of play in disunity.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a curious obsession, even in PF 1e a fighter can easily solo his CR that is meant to fight an entire party. Meanwhile at high levels the enemies saves and resistances and varied immunities means the most efficient way to win is not direct spells or summons, but buffing the martial. It yields the highest survival chance and least wasted spells.

An intelligent wizard player would know this and use his spells smartly. This assumes equal competence from all players and is a lot more solid than any white void theorycraft.

I don't know how you got trapped into arguing against this when you should be arguing about their narrative power difference.

Also, the shield raise was a one action and done, even before combat, in the podcast, not repeated actions. Did this get changed?


There are 500+ posts now, did they ever do official followup and tell us that people at different tiers roll on different tables? So it's not just a +3, it's a +3 on a table with different DCs or somesuch?


Nathanael Love wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Brother Fen wrote:

Bloat is a pejorative term used by gamers to manipulate perceptions.

Pathfinder mechanics are more like battalions of an army moved into position as needed. There is no bloat.

Some of the soldiers in those battalions have broken legs, and they're slowing down the others.

But your bloat is someone else's favorite option.

Is my 11 year old son going to be able to play a Goliath Druid when PF2 launches?

Will he ever be able to?

It's an obscure archetype, buries in a single player companion, and the one thing that gets him genuinely excited about the game.

"BAH, that's just worthless bloat!" Isn't really a good answer.

Does he need to have that option printed in the book for the DM to let him play one? Outside of Society play? It is a roleplaying game after all. That's without discussing the difference in mechanics bloat and options bloat, and I don't really think bloat is ever used except as a pejorative.

I shudder to think what I would do if I could only play Eberron if it was an official supplement.


KitsuneWarlock wrote:
Great podcast. I highly recommend everyone listen to it. It was super enjoyable and the spirit of game has remained the same. It should be noted that Jason Bulmahn GM'd a game made for the Pathfinder we know and love without spending any time prepping the scenario to use in Pathfinder 2!

Thank you so much for this! The action economy is filling me with a lot of hope.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just as intelligent and almost as good-natured as I was then, but so much more worldly and wise.

There is no way I would spend so many hours in the war for truth anymore, for none shall listen.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO ArchAnjel wrote:
Woo hoo! We have exceeded our Land Rush 1 total count! 127 right now and still growing strong.

My lucky number comes up soon!

Goblin Squad Member

Pretos_Teshdale_TEO wrote:
Who are you calling experienced? ;-P

Us, the best and most motivated.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I live again, praise to the Order.


I dug through the threads on the front page looking if anyone else has had this problem.

My subscription is shipping things to a different address than what it was set up for. (One of my prior addresses)

I sent an e-mail but wondered if this will have a better turnaround time.

The order number is #2628845

Screenshot for more detail


Does anyone know when this is being released?


Lou Diamond wrote:

I do not know why Paladins are being talked about here. A Paladin would not have done what the Nina did period. It is only IMO that the Ninja May have commited an alignment infraction namely killing the two inocent guards. The Third guard that struck GMT with a posioned weapon is and was fair game for any of the party to lay waste too. The party clearly saw what the effects of a single strike on Torch worte and they knew thier primary mission was to protect Torch at all costs.

The two things I could see GMT doing is demanding werguild for the Ninja or starting a whispering campain agisnist the Ninja wtih the 10 and the other Venture capatians. This could have drastic and deadly consequences for Torch as the Ninja in question might take offense and whack Torch and he is far deadlier than some Red Mantis Assassi but that is only one GM's oppion.

You were the GM, correct Lou? Actually the majority of my posts point to page 36 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play which should answer all your questions. Though it won't tell you that a Paladin would not have defended someone as you imply.

Lou Diamond wrote:
they knew their primary mission was to protect Torch at all costs.
PFS Organized Play wrote:
Characters who commit potentially evil acts (casting spells with the Evil descriptor, killing or maiming someone, etc.) while following specific orders from their faction or the Pathfinder Society, do not suffer alignment infractions.

Did the party have any reason to KNOW the other two guards were innocent? So far no one has mentioned that. Unless Torch himself knew that only that exact guard was a Red Mantis Assassin... then it gets all kinds of confusing.

We're bringing up Paladins (While staying on topic) because it is fun and adding a lot of mirth to the topic.

Edit: Edit: I can make it better, we have the technology.


MrSin wrote:
I have yet to meet a Richard in a PFS, I think the only time thats come up is when someone threatened to change someones alignment to good so they said they had to start burning orphanages to even things out.

Change their alignment to Good?!?! Was he playing a Blackguard! Because I have been playing for quite a large amount of my natural life, and I'll tell you that only the nastiest, vilest rogues and all Paladins get threatened with alignment shifts.

Not saying people are completely twisted and insane about Paladins, but you'll never, ever see a cleric wearing a Phylactery of Faithfulness

The feeling of pleasure and power people get holding this over a player is utterly disgusting to me.

The human decency guide for Organized Play does say the words "MUST warn any player whose character is deviating from his chosen alignment." So everyone should keep that in mind when deciding the consequences after a scenario or module.


MrSin wrote:

Could you imagine that though? in the same 6 seconds Mr Torch was stabbed a guy in full plate and a greatsword turning to 2 other guys who look affiliated with the guy who just stabbed torch and says "Pardon me sir and madame, but are you going to stab Mr Torch too? I have to ask politely or my god will take away my superpowers."

I think in that situation my first thought would be protecting torch and that the other two guards were obviously about to kill him too. Its not that your going out of your way to kill innocents, its that your trying to protect torch from a trio of assassins. Usually in the middle of combat you can't just call a timeout. I'm not a big fan of punishing the paladin for protecting people.

That made me laugh considerably harder than I expected!

The gist of the entire page in the Guide to PFS is one of leniency and reason. It mentions consistently evil acts (Most would say Disruptive gameplay) that continue AFTER a warning has been issued.

It follows the prime directive of warn first, don't punish for things beyond control. I do like the example of Burning down an orphanage full of children though, because I can imagine players trying to reason it away. "That Orphanage attacked me!"


Bob Jonquet wrote:
MrSin wrote:
When you say people deserve to fall for that kind of thing you sort of open up those debates.
You may have missed my point that there will be table variation. No where did I say that paladins "deserved" anything. I merely pointed out that there are differing opinions on what would/should constitute a violation of code.

We could use the Guide to Society Organized play Page 36 as our guide.

Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play:
"We believe a deity would forgive a one-time bad choice as long as the action wasn’t too egregious (such as burning down an orphanage full of children, killing a peasant for no good reason but sport, etc.)."

:)

Of course, that probably isn't written with Paladins in mind, for the Paladin to have unknowingly slain two innocent guards to defend Grandmaster Torch when both he and the party were assaulted by the third guard is unforgivable by any Deity and I think it should shift his alignment to Neutral if not Evil.

The right thing to do would have been call a time-out to ask both other guards if they were also going to stab Torch.

Edit: Edit: Removed Edit. Edit-ception.


I'm Ryan and I'll be testing the waters with Renkan the Untrusting.

He's a muscular and tall man who tried hard to be a miner for a year before being fired. He lost his family due to work stress and spent a lot of time listening to preachers in the streets about how it's the selfish misuse of magic and devils that's done led to his sorry state of affairs.

He's recently joined the church of Freya in a pathetic and lonely attempt to find a new wife.


Pathfinder/3.5 Dungeon Crawler on Google+ Hangouts with Roll20.

First game will be Saturday, February 23rd at 1700 EST.

Feel fear for the last time as you delve into a sandbox Giga-Dungeon over multiple sessions in search of Evil, Wonder, and Treasure.
The Challenge will be Immense.
Spiritually, this is Dark Souls: Prepare to Roll edition.

Requirements for Characters and Play::

Microphone

-Starting Level: 1
-Point Buy: 25 Points
-Traits: 2 Traits, no restrictions
-Starting Gold: 250g
-At least one sentence of character back-ground, in-depth backgrounds not reccomended
-A Back-up Character.

All Pathfinder and 3.5 material allowed.

Pre-Generated Characters are available.

Semi-Free Form: Accurate Maps, Locations, and Sight-Distance provided, true movement determined through role-playing.

I plan on playing at a high periodicity, at least weekly as I am free to GM nearly every night in the evening.

If enough players express interest I am willing to open a second Game on any day in the evening. (Several Hours inbetween 1730-2200 EST)

I posted this in the Looking For Group portion of Roll20 three hours ago and already have three players, so I expect spots to fill rapidly. Please PM or Post.

Goblin Squad Member

@Dak Thunderkeg, Ah, Dak, I'll address that personally. I was in teamspeak with Waruko and made a very aggressive and rapid post pointing out the logical flaws in a post by a seperate user.

I then saw you had managed to sneak a post in 5 seconds ahead of me, and began editing it for my response to you. Which was requesting that instead of stating that the treaty (AS described by TEO's Bluddwolf and not by me) was rather vague, you instead post suggestions as to what should be contained in it. No offense to you, I was respectfully asked to remove that post due to it's aggression towards a seperate user.

Although I felt it was sincere and reasonable.

(This thread so far has been a blast, it's all fire and brimstone, obfuscation and misdirection, and the baseless assumption of both gameplay and that more than 3%+/-2.27% of the game will role play)

Goblin Squad Member

@Bluddwolf

Andius wrote:

Instead of they have got hung up on debating how they don't like about the details OF A TREATY THAT HAS NOT BEEN WRITTEN!!!

This is why this debate is closed to the public. Too many people wander in, read a fragment of what is said and then offer their opinions without understanding the full situation.

I want to take a group of people of a small size and debate the issue. Not have people on the forum skim the OP and then skip to the last page and start giving their opinions on points that they misunderstood or already were addressed.

Most people posting here simply do not understand the issue. It's not offering incredible power to any group or individual. It doesn't have poorly defined terms on what is and isn't griefing. It doesn't police the every action of every player of PFO.

Do you remember Matthew Peck who kept attacking Pathfinder Online and would only run from a thread insulting it when Ryan Dancey would appear and question his motives? I see someone very similar in this thread.

Someone who skips over every post of actual relevance and seeks only to fuel the people who regurgitate their opinion without reading any of the thread.

All the while claiming it was "Discussion" as he gets off to all of the misdirection. He even got praised for his straw man "clear" arguments and trolling, and does it ever make him feel special.

The only time he concedes a point is when directly called out on it, then he goes back as if he didn't know that point so that new thread readers will be ignorant and make assumptions about what was actually talked about.

The irony of this all is that a thread about initial discussions on an alliance against the games end was hijacked by someone who wanted to spread grief to other people for his own sick pleasure.

Goblin Squad Member

Recapping Key Points of this Text WALL

The Treaty of Rovagug is a pact intended to be signed by the majority of Guilds in PFO, no matter their size or alignment!

It is NOT a set of rules to follow, it is NOT some cheap law to oppress certain play-styles.

It Is a pact to unite all organizations in the event that WHEN a large entity comes to destroy PFO and destroy everything people have spent months or years forging and crafting.. we will work together.

So that we even stand a chance.

Goblin Squad Member

It's a pity, you were being serious and completely reasonable for the first five. For the sixth you assumed this is a law... it is not, this is a document where companies pledge aid against a common and powerful foe in an end of our world scenario.

We do not intend to enforce behavior, or push our own upon others, this is a Pact to exact concerted arms upon an entity who violates the articles we as a group decide upon.

Really, it's not a law, stop changing what you're talking about mid-sentence, it's hard to tell when you're serious!
I wish a pact could ever stop gold farming. :(

Bluddwolf wrote:
Waruko wrote:

OK EVERYONE please look here.

You are not signing a treaty because IT DOES NOT EXIST. You are simply signing a "Hey I am interested in helping you MAKE THE TERMS of the treaty." So you are not committing to "terms" your are committing to a debate and a talk to help create the treaty into something you WOULD sign. That's all people.

Here are my terms....

First,

The discussions for this treaty must be held here, not on some other forum. I have enough passwords and user names to keep in my head, I don't need more.

Furthermore, discussion can be held here in a neutral environment, where posts can not be altered or disappear, except by the hands of GW moderators.

Second,

Article One of any said treaty must detail exactly what "Griefing" means. Any action outside of that definition is not covered by the terms of the treaty.

Third,

Infinite Bounties must be considered griefing.

Fourth,

The charge of "Griefing" must not apply to the proper application of one's profession. Bandits get to steal; Assassins get to kill; Clerics get to pray, etc....

Fifth,

Merchants may not ply their trade with impunity. They must accept the dangers of using caravans or having stores, and expect that they will from time-to-time be robbed.

Sixth,

A caravan or merchant must be granted quarter if he / she voluntarily hands over 30% of his / her current wealth being carried. If the merchant later files a charge of griefing, than we reserve the right to slaughter them, their next of kin, to raise their village and molest and then slaughter their livestock.

Seventh,

Point Six is non negotiable....

(OOC)...

I mean not to mock too much here, but... This is like having stricter gun control laws to stop criminals. If they are already shooting up a bank, they are not going to worry about the gun being illegal. The only people it will impact are those that would follow the law anyway.

Even in this case, it won't impact those that agree to it. They are...

Goblin Squad Member

You know what would be a great mechanic for them to work on instead of darkness? Giving to orphanages, I would make many donations.. maybe some people would give more than me. Mostly orphans.

Goblin Squad Member

Since everyone ignored this:

Andius wrote:

You speak as though the treaty is written and terms are set in stone. Just because you take part in the debates doesn't mean you need to sign the treaty. Why not come and see if it ends up in a form you find acceptable?

Anyway I'm not sneaking in anything. I stated upfront what the goal is.

"The treaty of Rovagug is an RP and meta-game agreement to work together against griefers and organizations that are excessively aggressive/destructive."

If you kill everyone you see just because you can, that is excessively aggressive/destructive. What exactly are you taking issue with here?

Goblin Squad Member

I can see that you are in complete agreement with us and the purpose of the treaty!

I hope you reconsider needing recompense for when the end of the world, including yourselves, bears it's fangs.

Bluddwolf wrote:

It is the intentions of The UnNamed Company not to grief. In my view griefing is the repeated and intentional spoiling of another person's time in game.

Examples:

* Respawn Camping

* Hunting Down Noobs in starter areas for cheap PVP kills.

* Obvious kill stealing (repeatedly)

* Dungeon Raid team kicking (getting kicked from the team just prior to boss being killed).

* Using Names that are not lore appropriate on RP servers

...not Griefing.

Bluddwolf, Founder
The UnNamed Company

Goblin Squad Member

Just remember, this is a game where a large offset-time zone guild could destroy a largely unguarded fortress in the night. If you are looking for the best longevity and largest tracts of land, you will want a guild that has many players and spans the entirety of the time zones.

One that stands vigilant at all hours, full of many time zones and populated at all hours.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eta D'Lore wrote:

Ummm what are u talking about? No where did I say "I want this game to turn out..." a specific way... Are u making stuff up?

Try not to get offended when people speak their minds... It's just not civilized. This thread is called PvP that is what we are ALL talking about. I will speak my mind if u don't like it then don't read it simple as that I will not be bullied by your comments so stop trying.

You should focus more on the subject, Eta, and less on other posters Regeneration 5 (Acid or Fire).

Thar was just violating the most important rule of: Don't be a Jerk. by using blanket statements such as "People like you" with a straw-man attack and then trying to cover it up with a reasonable argument agreeing with you.

I personally want the PVP to be intense and to create a strong group mentality among players. I'm not saying that lone wolves will not be viable, just that Competition is definitely the drive that keeps people playing and paying together.

@Kyn: People read things before throwing several hundred dollars at them? I don't!

Goblin Squad Member

We're going to be the very best, like no one ever was.

Goblin Squad Member

Kyros Deun wrote:
Probably gonna be in as my PFO version of this sucker. Hope to see and not slaughter you there!

Of course, you can sit down at our inn and have some of our personal ale.

Goblin Squad Member

I shall then be Apsu,
for I am the first.
I am the primeval,
who was of Heaven
and of Material
before they had names,
for I created them with Chaos.
I then shall go
and I shall end Death.

Goblin Squad Member

Vroom, I feel like we should make a new alignment thread and use this thread for talking about The Empyrean Order.

I feel like it's great that actions will reflect on players, I just hope that will not be visible at a distance. "He has the CE tags, get him!"

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

In the topics where we discuss cosmetic gear in more detail pretty much everyone agreed light armor should only be able to look like light armor and heavy like heavy. There is still a lot of customization that can be done within those limitations.

Also I would point out armor shouldn't always be identifiable by sight. I the P&P I almost always conceal my armor be beneath a shirt/cloak if possible. Why would I let my enemies know I have a chain shirt or breastplate on?

Yes, but a GM who focused more on realism would make NPC's suspicious of the person whose body looked so awkwardly bulky under their shirt/cloak and have thoughts about whether he's just wearing two or three layers of clothing or armor.

It's not impossible to hide armor but even many-linked chain shirts deform the natural body shape.

Still, it's a world of magic, and many players would be happier being able to shift their armor to look like whatever suits them best.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:

The solution is cosmetic armor. I'm not overly concerned about how much skin my character shows but I hate gaudy, or evil looking armor. Others love it. Why force people to wear armor they don't like for stats?

Whether it be by allowing us to change high stat armor to look like items we prefer visually, or doing a cosmetic equip system like LotRO, don't force us to wear armor we don't like just for stats. Then it doesn't matter if the uber-gear is bikini-mail or a clown suit.

I am a big fan of being able to identify people's armor by looking at it. Not having a cosmetic option for say, someone wearing plate armor and it looks like skin-tight cloth. I understand the magic view that you could make armor look like anything though.

Goblin Squad Member

You want us to move.. beyond the old hot hot shake your stuff kobold seducing sexy times battle equipment?

I mean.. what's beyond? Are we talking moving to naked or Tera Online?

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

NEARLY any means. A little vigilante justice is one thing. Harming innocents to get at the culprit is another.

You will find many TEO have all the tools needed at their disposal to get the job done and you can't tie us up with red-tape like you can a lawful-good group.

Neutral-good / Chaotic-good have immunity to red tape.

You may not be slowed down by red-tape as much, but it's definitely not an immunity as it tries to bog you down. Chaotic Good people just like to try and get rid of the tape. That's what they have in common with Chaotic Evil, y'know, except for the "I'm going to kill this person because it's Tuesday" mentality.

I don't believe that the lawful alignment truly revolves around beauracratic restrictions and more around personal conduct and integrity.

I hope I'm not distracting from the Dresden RPG talk, just putting my posts in the middle as extra thread bumps.

Honestly the bumps are my way of beginning to add my power into TEO's.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
We call the goody-do-something's that can get the job done by nearly any means neutral good and chaotic good.

What do you call all the other alignments that can get the job done by any means? Waait, any means sounds like they have no moral qualms..

I get it, you call the evil members 'Chaotic Good'! Genius!

Goblin Squad Member

Posting here so that I remember to take a look at you Soon.

Goblin Squad Member

This is all awesome and everything! But where do we sign up to do your dirty work on the side. ;D
Everyone needs to inconvenience their enemies, best way to be the best is no competition. Maybe a few Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil sortsa folk, none of the goody do-nothings that have plagued DnD for decades. Know what I'm sayin?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Will your guild be appropriately Evil in order to set the world aflame?

Goblin Squad Member

The very best part of Collision detection is the tanking role.

Being able to block off enemies as a fighter is one of the most satisfying feelings in pvp.

I prefer a system where there is definite collision detection, but if it's pressed upon for a certain amount of time (Maybe a second or two) you can still find your way through that single enemy.


I need to think of something quirky but consistent, whether it's something that shouldn't have survived an apocalypse or that is an iterative idea.

(McDonalds would be too obvious) Make it seem completely normal even when it's extremely out of place, everyone carries around an iPod

1 to 50 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>