Finn The Human's page

Supply caravans are basically the same thing, right? Except these "war wagons" carry actual soldiers.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Merely being present at a Settlement doesn't grant one access to the social organization.

The social organization has shared resources - accounts, storage, information (stuff that appears on maps, for example). Merely being present at a Settlement doesn't give you access to any of that stuff.

Will there be some in-game object equivalent to a "Guild" such that the players running a Settlement can allow all members of that "Guild" to have access to all the Settlement resources, but deny that access to non-member Residents? Or will that simply be a Group/Role defined for the Settlement, and each new Resident would either be placed in the "Member" Group/Role or the "Non-Member" Group/Role?

Asked another way, will there be some in-game named entity that two separate Settlements could reference when granting permissions? Or would that entity have to be named at each Settlement, and membership managed at each Settlement?

Is a "Resident" necessarily a citizen in your example? My understanding of Ryan's post is that residency does not automatically grant citizenship, and it is citizenship that grants access to resources. If you want to further restrict access, I guess you could set up an oligarchy-style voting system or something. In terms of cross-settlement privileges, it sounds to me like you're going to need both settlements to be in the same Nation for that.

I hope not. Like I said, I think the two extra minutes of effort required to print and mail a letter will deter a lot of useless appeals by people who know they deserve to get turned down. It would help prevent a situation where a reviewer is jaded from reading so many false claims of "innocence" by BSers.

If the player involved thinks the change was unwarranted, they can make a single appeal, in writing, which will be reviewed by the supervisory authority of whomever did the name change

The part I bolded means a lot to me. Making an appeal in writing, as opposed to electronically, show that you're serious about the issue. Having a system in place to accept and give due consideration, explicitly for written letters? That's amazing. You hear so many customer service horror stories where the serious people get disregarded along with the chaff, simply because there is no system in place which allows them to clearly distinguish themselves from, say, a whiny cheater making a pity-post on Reddit, or sending an angry email through the form-fill CS front end.

I would propose a new name that encompasses either a settlement being ran as a single settlement, or a much more widespread operation with a single central settlement. I think Fiefdom AKA Fief is perfect, as it correlates with what a settlement really will be as well as kingdom correlates with what a kingdom really will be. Plus they fit a common theme.

This is a great idea! I believe you're absolutely right in saying that much of our community's misunderstandings stem from the connotations of the name Settlement. I'd rather join an official-sounding "fiefdom" than a backwoods village of pilgrims.

GrumpyMel wrote:

What I'm having trouble understanding is what functional role Companies now are intented to play in the game...

The easy answer is that Chartered Companies really are essentially the same as Guilds, but they will be quite limited in size. In essence, they are that group of friends from which you most often draw your group mates.

This is essentially what I was saying in my last post. Companies are sort of like a TTRPG campaign with 10 players, not all of whom always show up to each session. Now, I've never played any MMO games before, since I didn't know about EVE and theme park games bore me. So I recognize that my perspective on the whole "guild" thing is a bit uninformed. However, it seems to me that things like ad hoc party chat are just basic common sense; I am quite certain we can expect to see a functional equivalent in PFO. I don't get the impression that Chartered Companies are intended to replace the ability to form temporary bands of half a dozen explorers or what have you. Rather, they're a way to tie the reputation of a group of PCs to the reputation of a Settlement.

For instance, let's say I post a contract that says I want some hired muscle for a caravan, because I need to move goods from Settlement A to Settlement B. I might get any number of responses, and if I don't already have an established business relationship with some toughs, I'll have my hands full trying to figure out who's right for the job. A sponsored Company is easy to vet: I just ask their sponsor governing body (which I've heard of before) to give me some details. An ad hoc group of single PCs each taking an individual contract is much more of a headache for me. Sure, I could draw up six identical contracts with six unrelated mercenaries; but you know what I'll choose. I don't think anyone has a problem with what I'm describing so far.

What is a big area of concern is the functional details of mercenary groups who exceed the size of a Chartered Company, such as Onishi's Pocket Ace (although I think they actually intend to run a settlement already). I've heard people saying that, for roving mercenaries and nomads, it's realistic to be an organization but not a settlement. I'm personally of the opinion that such nomadic groups would lack the strong centralized organizational structure of groups with an HQ. Conversely, groups with an HQ correspond neatly to Companies sponsored by Settlements, or even the members of Settlements themselves. But what about large groups who don't mind an HQ, but don't want to run it themselves? They're too big for a Company, too small or unmotivated for a Government; this is the biggest concern I've seen that makes sense to me. My thoughts are as follows.

First of all, such a group wouldn't realistically sign a mass contract to wage war, which is probably the most complex and involved mercenary activity available in the game. The reason they would not wage war is that such things, in the real-world-style economy of PFO, will require massive resources and tight supply chains. That level of resource management is clearly on the level of a Settlement, and a group willing to do it is surely a group willing to run their own HQ city themselves. It's just too much of a presumption to expect a sponsor to take on that kind of a logistical nightmare on your behalf.

That being established, we come to my second point. If a large mercenary organization (say 200) gets regular contract work, but not on the scale of warfare, then what kind of jobs might they do? I expect it would range from guarding (sizable) caravans to neutralizing emergent hobgoblin camps, and even perhaps a retributive strike by one Company against another. How many soldiers do those jobs require? Obviously, we can't be sure, but I'm betting it's not the full set (the aforementioned 200) for every job. Thus, we get Job X is handled by Subset X, and Job Y is handled by Subset Y.

Third, given that we'll have the frequent formation of Subsets to handle Jobs, I don't think it's unrealistic to expect that Friend A and Friend B, who are both in the organization, will try to get on the same Subset on any given night. Thus, an ad hoc Subset is likely to contain one or more group of IRL/online Friends.

Finally, given all this, why not just form permanent Subsets, thereby dividing the organization into a hierarchical structure composed of Companies and managed by metagame tools? If the same people want to be in the same Subset most of the time, make it official.

Of course, this leaves the problem of managing pooled money for the organization, etc. But if that concerns you, then you probably want a Settlement anyway--all that good stuff is built right in!

@Andius: If that's the case, then my proposal won't be necessary. I'll have to wait and see for myself, since I don't have any MMO experience to fall back on in my speculations. Still, the idea of belonging to the Kingdom of Calamitous Intent is just so appealing...

I was under the impression that Chartered Companies were intended to function like expanded versions of the TTRPG "Party", and were primarily designed to have utility for casual players who want to focus on adventuring / dungeon exploration. As such, their limited size ensures that they won't grow to be political entities, yet the cap of ~24 ensures that players with similar schedules should expect to be able to go carousing with a handful of their fellows several nights a week or more.

Casual players who want to focus on the social engineering, city-building, crafting, or other aspects of the game should have no problem finding a settlement to join that suits their preferred flavor. I'm a little unclear as to why so many people are so against the idea of their character having a home in a particular settlement. Even adventurers who travel afar must have come from somewhere; most of them probably have a bed waiting for them in their hometown, either with their relatives or friends.

Finally, organizations such as the Seventh Veil, who want to start out large before settlements are introduced, may be able to work around the limitation with metagame tools like messageboards and guild websites. You could even found several chartered companies representing the choruses of your organization, e.g. "7thV Creation" or "Creation Scholars of 7th Veil".

EDIT: Fixed the names in the last paragraph to match the 7V chorus names rather than random crap I made up.

I've been wondering some of the same things. I'd be very interested in a Lawful Evil guild that self-consciously sets out to play villain to the world of PFO.

It would have to be Lawful Evil or True Evil, in my opinion, since Chaotic Evil characters are described in Core as not being willing to accept a middling place in a hierarchy. An organization such as the one I'm suggesting would need its own internal structure to help regulate its members and determine/accomplish its goals, as well as for policing against griefers who might otherwise spoil the group's dramatic reputation. I personally favor Lawful Evil over True Evil, because it fits well with the self-policing Evil settlement/nation structure I'm envisioning.

This internal structure would also be necessary to interface with e.g. The Great Legionnaires publicly and consistently. Some kind of public (perhaps even metagame) dialogue with the group's natural nemeses would go a long way toward establishing its all-important reputation.

That reputation's necessary aspects would include at least the following:
(1) "We are honest RP-folk, not IRL jerks who get our kicks from online trolling, griefing, and other shenanigans."
(2) "We are or will become a legitimate threat to Good nations. We will try to destroy you."
(3) "We want to nurture an ongoing conflict with Good that is both fun to experience and challenging to win. As such, we won't pull our punches, and neither should you."

What do other folks think? Would anyone be interested in throwing together such a group at some point?

Great blog as always, and thanks for all the clarification posts, Ryan! The more I read, the more I'm confident in your vision of the game.

Just wondering would there be NPC Ais that aren't directly related to combats? In one of the Skyrim mod, it has an Ai change which makes animals going to water source each (ingame) day. This kind of similar actions could be applied to NPCs, for example, goblins leave their nest to collect food / drink, and if you hunt them down they might send a search team after a while to see what happens to the first party. It doesn't necessary increase combat difficulty, but may change the atmosphere of the game, and make it more dynamic (?)

I certainly hope this kind of organic behavior will be present, since there has been so much emphasis on how players' actions will be motivated by concrete goals. If player behavior is going to be goal-driven (as opposed to grindy), then the monsters and other NPCs should simulate this as well.

I certainly hope so. I'm also looking forward to trying to keep secret the location of a rare resource my buddy finds, so I can whip up a batch of rare items and scoop the market.

That sounds good to me. I'm most interested in strategically deploying my resources to out-compete other crafters, anyway.

I'm against mini-games. That would get old fast, especially in a game designed to be played over the course of years. I do, however, want to clarify that my above post does not represent my ideal of crafting, just my baseline expectations.

So, "yes" on consumables, "no" on wondrous items?

I've also been wondering a bit about this, as I intend to craft intensively. My guess is that you set the item's properties through dropdowns & radio buttons, input its name (and maybe yours) in text fields, and possibly select color options; thereafter, your PC is engaged in crafting for X minutes/hours and you read a book or something.

Please mark this thread for review by clicking the FAQ button in the upper right corner. The short-form question for the FAQ is this: Does the Summoner class's early spell access lower the price for magic items such as potions of haste & boots of speed?

The rules for item creation in the Core Rulebook state that the price for things such as potions and wands depends on spell level multiplied by item's caster level. The item CL must be at least the minimum level required by the class that casts the spell in question.

Now, summoners get a number of spells at lower level than wizards etc. By lower level, I mean, in most cases, both lower spell level AND lower minimum caster level. For example, the following spells were formerly at a minimum spell level of "wizard 3", and wizards first get such spells at CL 5th:

Here's the rest of the affected spells, with thanks to Ashiel for gathering this info:

Can someone please confirm how this affects (A) consumable magic items and (B) wondrous items? If I'm reading the rules correctly, a number of wondrous items like boots of speed are now incorrectly priced in the Core Rulebook.

Special thanks to Ashiel, whose wonderful Guide to Adventure brought this to my attention, and who did all the work in compiling the above lists of affected spells.

You could use a Build Points system; money doesn't have to be involved.

Alternatively, and I like this idea better, you could have the system track the height distribution in the PC+NPC population, and if most players are extra tall, adjust NPC heights to maintain the bell curve.

Will you be wanting in-house crafters, or will you contract that stuff? That's the end of the game I'm going to be heavily involved in, and CG is my preferred alignment, so... Maybe I'd fit in?

At the very least, I'll look forward to hiring your members as guards on my business trips. Cheers!

They already have established characters (except the monk, but I did help him make his already). We completed part 1 of the Kingmaker AP, and I'm moving us away from that because there are too many extra rules to learn.

Hi folks! I'll get straight to the point.

One of my players has a boyfriend who's played for a long time, so she has a lot of resources to draw on when creating her characters in terms of optimization. My other players are newbies who don't know the ropes well enough to even contemplate optimization. I'm looking for advice on how to design encounters that will be challenging and interesting for the whole party. How do I keep one character with an optimal build from outshining her companions, yet still let that player feel rewarded for her extra effort?

Extra info: I'm a relatively inexperienced GM. To be honest, I'm a relatively inexperienced player too, with only fifteen sessions or so under my belt (including 4E and 3.5E but mostly PFRPG). So don't be afraid to break it down for me :)

Extra extra info: The party makeup is as follows - Ranger 5 (archer with owl companion), Wizard 5 (evocation school), Monk 5 (utterly new player), and Magus 5 (the optimizer). I realize there is no healer, but that was their choice and I'm making custom dungeons so I should be able to work with it.

Ha! Very funny. I don't think it was meant as an attack, so y'all need to chill out.

I'd be down for another Kickstarter, but I'd like to see the Tech Demo before taking any stands. I also hope they can secure some serious funding from investors (the kind of money 4k people can't KickStart).

Definitely. I'd much rather a 2nd kickstarter than a sellout. I'd be willing to front some serious cash to see this thing become a success.

I didn't know about Jennifer Hale before, but I'd definitely put in my vote for her as well!

Wayne Reynolds on Art would be killer. They should also have Wallace Shawn voice a major NPC!

Consider my interest declared.

@Waruko: I'd like that.

If you like I could see about dusting off my creaky old NetLogo skills and building a sample model.

Please do! This sounds amazing, and I'd love all the information I can get.

I have read your rant carefully, sir, and I want to add my voice. I never played EVE, so I can't speak to the comparisons frequently made on these forums, but I have to say that it seems intuitively obvious that hard-restricting capstones to dedicated single-classers is unnecessary. The reasons given above are also my reasons, so I won't enumerate them here.

Furthermore, since I fully intend to get into PFO as early as possible, I'm worried that there won't be sufficient information for me to choose my archetype when I create my first character. Without the experiences of other players to draw on, I'm more likely to mistakenly choose an archetype that, while sounding good on paper, ends up playing rather differently than I had hoped. Let's say I get 10-15 badges into Fighter before realizing that, due to the unforeseeable ways in which the world has evolved since the first months of its existence, I'd really rather play a Barbarian. So I go the next 20 badges all as Barbarian, gaining the much-coveted capstone. What's next? Well, logically, I may wish to finish off the last 5-10 badges of Fighter, since I've already invested so much time into it. Do I really deserve to be denied the Fighter capstone, 5 years after launch? I mean, for the last half decade, I've worked hard to shape the very world I (my character) live in. I don't want fluffy capstones; I want a real reward for my substantial investment of time. For my time, not for sticking it out in an undesirable class (Fighter) because I was afraid to lose my time investment and go for what I really wanted (Barbarian).

I just want to take a moment to clarify what I meant by divine guidance in my previous post. I'm basically thinking of a situation months or more after release, where the developers write a few examples of divine guidance for each deity and then famous, high-level paladins or clerics might get them under special conditions, e.g. while praying at a significant temple/shrine. These instances of divine inspiration would be unique. That character would be the only one in the game-world to receive that particular message. It would relate directly to the goals of their deity, and it would be an interesting way for GW to nudge the community in a desirable direction, sans fiat.

I would agree with you there, ricardopituski. It shouldn't be possible for one assailant to overpower a group of slightly weaker assailants. I certainly hope and believe that GW has thought of this, and I believe there is evidence in the blog to suggest that they have some ideas about it (e.g., the section on griefing in, iirc, this thread's topic blog post).

I think we as players can also generate some solutions. For instance, if the powerful evil character has gear that lets him AOE/CC a group of slightly weaker characters, then how about a merchant who rents powerful equipment out? Maybe your L10 guards can use this stuff as part of the per diem you give them. Since the merchant I postulate will need to rent to newer characters who haven't had time to get their own powerful gear, his target market is by definition not all that wealthy. So, in order to profit, his prices must be reasonable for you and your L10 friends to use on a regular basis.

What do you think about this system? How about an alternative? I bet that an economy driven entirely by players, from harvest to production to consumption, can dream up workarounds to this and a whole host of other potential problems!

EDIT: Rather than make a new post, I just want to acknowledge the post directly below this one as presenting a concise and accurate answer to ricardo's hypothetical scenario. My idea is perhaps viable, but only in the context AvenaOats describes. What can I say? I'm a dreamer.

On most things I won't do this, but I put my Kickstarter Money for Executive Founder where my mouth was to say this.

The current assumption is 2.5 years of game play for mastery of an archetype. If I spend 5 years playing a Fighter/Wizard it should not matter if I spent it bouncing back and forth between the two or focusing one or the other. 5 years of payments (subscription or time-cards) is 5 years of payments.

The reward for focusing on a single archtype is that it gets done faster and the player can enjoy the capstone before a multi-classer does. The artificial stick of locking players out from capstones is not needed and is a huge mistake. Another reason to keep it open is that way capstones can actually be designed that are more then just fluff. It is a win-win for everyone if you don't restrict it.

I think you raise some excellent points. At this stage in the discussion, I support your position. Is there another thread where we can discuss this, to keep this one on topic?

I'll sell you mine for 100 bucks ;)

In all seriousness, though, I doubt they will be available for purchase. I think I read somewhere that the same is true of the Thornkeep book.

This means, as I understand it, you can then "level" to merit badges in another archetype. And if merit badges = level wouldn't this make you a 20+ level character? Making your maximum total "level" 210 assuming you can't reach the 20th capstone in any other archetype? Or 220 assuming you can but you don't get the extra capstone power. Correction from Dev's if I'm reading this wrong would be welcome.

I stand corrected. The issue is not one of level, but of number of badges earned. However, I have to wonder, how many of these badges will give a direct, stackable benefit to combat?

For example: Will having 20 Fighter badges and 9 Barbarian badges make you likely to defeat someone with "only" 20 Fighter badges and no others? How about 10 Barb vs. 9 Barb?

I am not convinced that it will be possible for a single evil bandit of X badges to roflstomp a caravan led by one or more good characters of X-minus-Y badges, where Y is a reasonable number. I certainly do believe that a group of evil bandits attacking as one could overwhelm a caravan, but such a group would surely gain a reputation quickly. This, I believe, would further contribute to the social dynamic I lauded above.

EDIT:
I forgot to add that I hope quality of gear & weapons plays a large role in determining the victor in a fight. Maybe we, the players, could work out a system of renting powerful gear for expeditions into dangerous areas? But I suppose this is a topic for a different thread.

Maybe this is just me, but I hope some brave player will build up his character to the point where he can unveil a mad necromancer to the world of PFO, seated atop a rotten throne in his personal castle of the undead. I hope (s)he will throw down the gauntlet, and offer a contract for a band of daring adventurers to traverse their castle, defeat their minions, and face them in epic battle.

That's right, you heard me. I just said I hope a player hires a team to wreck their own stuff and try and kill them. It's not that I expect this to happen; it's just that it would be so legendary, in the true fantasy-saga sense of the word.

This sounds like a pretty unusual mechanic for an MMO. I have to wonder if there's any middleware out there that can even do this. If not, this whole debate is moot, is it not?

I also like the substitute materials. Does this mean there will be different types of the same base material, like types of wood? Hickory makes the best bows due to it’s flexible properties. You could make a bow from maple, but it would be less effective (perhaps shorter range.) A wooden shield on the other hand would be best made from Maple or Ash. A wand from poplar, a town wall or gate from Oak. A complex commodity would make it easier for a player to set up a small manageable valuable in game business.

Is there going to be in-game consumable commodities? For example: To make iron or steel, you need quantities of coal to generate the heat necessary. Coal itself is not valuable, but is necessary for the process, which adds another commodity to the market. In addition, this commodity would only be to the harvest, and process stage, with no crafting necessary. (Perhaps even no processing.)

Wow! This sounds like it would add great depth to an already exciting system. Very good ideas, sir.

I am somewhat concerned about harvesting caravans. From what I have read, Pathfinder will be an open PvP game. My experience is that some people love to harass lower level players because they are easy targets. A level 30 character hanging out to kill a level 15 party, just because they can. With caravans,...

I'd like to raise a few points. First, 20 is to be the maximum level. Second, it is my understanding that it should be possible to train heavily in fighting skills before reaching level 20; skill and level are more disconnected than in tabletop Pathfinder. Rather, high level characters will have a broader array of skills, instead of reaching god-status at one thing.

Third and most importantly, the dangers you describe are exactly the intended driving force behind an economy that can support mercenary guardsmen, etc. If you want to take a caravan into a dangerous area, you'd better bring some protection! This will not only drive up the price of rare resources that can only be harvested far from civilization, but it will also provide incentive for the establishment of a rich social structure including both respected merchants and feared outlaws. To me, that sounds exactly like the kind of engaging, thrilling world I want to RP in :)

MaverickWolf, that would be lovely. But in the event that they aren't willing to guarantee us 1st or 2nd wave access, wouldn't you like the opportunity to improve your chances?

I'd like to oversee a decently large harvesting or refining operation.

EDIT: Or maybe providing escort for such operations. Or maybe crafting. Or maybe--you know what? Screw it. I have no idea. There are just so many exciting choices!

I find the OP's ideas very interesting. I'd love to see the gods of Golarion play as large a role in PFO as they are implied to play in the lives of its NPC inhabitants. I'm not totally sure about buffs for just anyone--maybe only for more religious classes, or maybe not. However, there should definitely be some kind of incentive for behaving in a manner consistent with your character's deity's goals.

Perhaps high-level holy classes could even receive divine guidance?

I wonder if the Kickstarter has GW and Paizo rethinking some of their math? ... still "locked out" ... ESPECIALLY those that have contributed (I'm in for $200 on just the tech demo, no telling what I'll pledge for the real launch Kickstarter)

I definitely understand your concerns. I, too, would be disappointed not to make it in in the first or second wave. I, too, feel that my contribution to the Kickstarter entitles me to preferential access.

Also remember that this isn't a themepark game. We (the players) are the content as much as we are the customer. With a low-ish amount of players starting out, there is more chance of the social structures needed for a game of this kind being formed ... I hope it will be a game of exploration and community building.

This is exactly the stuff I want to get in early for. I want to be part of this emerging world in its infancy, and I'm looking forward to finding a guild that suits my RP style, which I believe will help to hedge my bets.

I do not disagree with GW's limited enrollment policy. Many good points have already been made in its defense, above this post, so I need not restate them.

The consensus among the posters here seems to be that Goblin Squad members should have nothing to worry about. I long to believe this, but I'd like to hear something more concrete from a developer.

I would be very surprised if the backers got first draw. I know there are questions and answers asking this, and the answer was no. GW would be stupid to do something like that. The first round of players needs to we selected from guilds that will get the world turning, not random people. I wouldn't be surprised if the first round was 4000 guild application invites, and 500 solo application invites.

The first year of gameplay is going to be building the infrastructure of the world. the vast majority of players are not interested in laying down infrastructure. Someone who wants to 'play' will be better off joining a year after launch when the gears are turning and 'builders' have generated enough content to keep 'players' busy.

@Valkenr: I think your argument makes sense to some extent, but high-level backers are almost certainly people who are excited by the very systems you describe as boring-to-typical-players, hence their contributions. At least, I know I would be thrilled to participate in the processes of settling our new world.

What happens if you don't get in? nothing, you wait. The best frame of mind to have at launch is "i'm not going to play until after the second year, and if i get in earlier that would be great."

I would find it absolutely intolerable to wait one year, much less your suggested two. I want to see the history of the land unfold before my eyes and beneath my feet; I *don't* want to have to peruse a ponderous wiki, months or years after launch, to catch up on what others did with the opportunities I coveted.

I'm not asking for the admission of Goblin Squad members en masse. I seek rather the preferential opportunity for us to demonstrate why we're good candidates for early invitation. We proved our loyalty and interest once already, with money; however, I'll be the first to admit that amount of disposable income doesn't necessarily reflect level of interest in PFO. My interest, for instance, far exceeds the contribution I could afford. But I was lucky to be able to spare enough to make a statement of support. Now, I want the opportunity to make an even clearer statement, in writing.

So, I entreat GW thus: Give us Goblin Squad members the first chance to demonstrate, unequivocally and fairly, that we will bring, not merely money, but also passion and industry to your brave new world! To our brave new world.

(Perhaps an essay contest or the like?)

Andius wrote:

No. If I need to use them to get my point across it is just ignorant to object to them at that point.

The question then becomes why do you think you need them to make your point?

Okay, I've been watching this argument among Andius, Orthos, and a few others, and it seems to me you're all talking about slightly different things.

Andius was saying that, when discussing a particular word X, he should be able to use X (e.g., in an example sentence) rather than describe it. He is quite plainly making a distinction between such use and typical conversational use.

Orthos et al. seem to be trying to argue with someone who claims to *need* to be able to use graphic language when talking about a non-language-related topic. I don't know who this someone is, because it sure ain't Andius.