This is where I'm stuck too. What is PF2's value proposition to players who might otherwise be playing PF1, or 5e, or 4e, or 13th Age, or Dungeon World, or Blades in the Dark, or Gloomhaven? What kind of player is PF2 looking to attract who is underserved by the current library of games? What will PF2 do better than any of the other options?
I've played a lot of different kinds of games with a lot of different kinds of gamers, and after reading the rulebook, I can't think of a single person I've played with who would say "yes, I'd rather play this than my current favorite game." If Paizo could state a specific design goal that we're trying to make a game that does X better than any other game does or that appeals specifically to Y kind of players, that would help greatly in the community's ability to provide feedback on reaching that goal.
The range is actually pretty big for a "small" distance >8-]
If a monster is even one step away from the node you can harvest in stealth without aggroing the monster, although you can't if he's literally right on top of it. IOW harvesting range is identical to the range at which mobs can see through stealth.
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:
With the drama going on with the NAP violation, *nobody* was killed. Not one. And yet, threats of blacklisting were floated.
There's an inherent assumption in this statement that a character kill is of greater objective significance than a tower claim.
I don't think that's a safe assumption about everyone's priorities.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Uh...so, is it just me, or is the War of Towers kinda failing?
- There is no scarcity of towers. A settlement who wants more towers can just go get some.
- It's not possible to defend towers. If someone takes away your towers, you just go get different ones. See above.
In the current state of the game, towers are just a way to flag some hexes FFA for some or all of the day.
Nobody is being told that. People are being told "if you don't like the agreement of the NAP then find a way to deal with those who disagree with you." This is a social game; play it on the social level.
You have lots of options. Each of those options has different benefits and also has different costs. If you can't find ANY option that gives you the benefits you need at a cost you're willing to pay, that may be a shortfall of the game or it may simply be a shortfall of your imagination.
If you can't find any better option, then you should consider postponing your participation in the game until it's more nearly feature complete- but I suspect that you'll find a better option if you look for it hard enough.
Everyone actually playing who wants a settlement has one, and if they don't it's either due to lack of trying or hugely antisocial behavior. If you're worried that playing this game like a murder sim might have social consequences which impact your game experience, you're right, and that's by design, so don't do that.
If you can present an actual case of someone being excluded from all settlements solely due to groupthink rather than him actually being a total jerk, we can reopen this conversation then.
Doc || Allegiant Gemstone Co. wrote:
Indeed, and yet we can be negatively affected by those circumstances, right. now. is that OK?
It's up to you to decide if it's OK for you. If not, feel free to postpone your participation until the game reaches a more personally-suitable state of readiness.
I note in passing that you had the same opportunity everyone else did to participate in the Land Rush and win a settlement of your own.
Power system is incomplete. YOU MUST CONSTRUCT MORE PYLONS.
The eventual design will be that power does not regenerate in the field, but does regenerate in structures like taverns, inns, base camps, and smallholdings, or at deployable campsites crafted by engineers. Those systems aren't built yet so for right now it's just "comes back slowly over time".
If we're going to handle this all legal-like:
Ladies and gentleman of the community, I'm just an orc. I was raised eating the weakest of my own littermates and later got conscripted into your army. Your world frightens and confuses me. Sometimes the flashing lights of your wizards make me want to strip off my Soldier's Chain +2 and run off into the hills or whatever. Sometimes when I get a whisper in game, did little demons get inside my screen and type it? I don't know. My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.
But here's what I do know: this is what the NAP says.
Points of interest:
With those points in mind, the text of the document has no language which would prevent Ozem's Vigil, selected to advocate for both the petitioner and accused, from choosing to represent itself at this hearing with multiple real persons and assign them different responsibilities.
The pact text also does not specify what form the Tribunal's "deliberations" should take nor how to resolve any intractable differences among the Tribunal's membership. It seems to assume that the Tribunal will reach a unanimous consensus. It nowhere indicates that two of the Tribunes could make a ruling in the face of the third's dissent. If we trust that a 3-settlement tribunal can reach an equitable and unanimous decision, we should feel equally confident that a 2-settlement tribunal, with one of those settlements represented by multiple real persons with different responsibilities, can do the same.
Lemkii Twins wrote:
Those people are not necessarily antisocial. They just want to be self sufficient.... But I do not want to depend on a company to provide me something that I could not provide myself.
Support for self-sufficient philosophies of gaming is not a design goal of this particular game. PFO is specifically and deliberately being designed to make successful human interaction a necessary part of gameplay. You cannot solo PFO and no effort will be made to support you in trying; the design intention is that you must find a group of fellow players you can get along with in order to play the game successfully.
A player who can successfully alienate the leadership of every active settlement is not someone I need to share my gaming space with anyway.
Make up your mind: either you didn't flee combat and log out (and I made that up), or you did flee combat and log out (but you had good reason to do so.) You can take one stance or the other but not both.
Higher level attacks, including orisons, allow you to activate more keywords- assuming that you have a weapon (focus) which supports the same keywords.
Icicle gains these keywords as it is trained:
Similarly, if you have an Elemental Focus, it will gain these keywords:
Divine (+0), Elemental (+1), Blessed (+2), Planar (+3)
...along with inherent keywords Masterwork for T2 recipes and Avatar for T3.
On the other hand, a Battle Focus has these keywords:
Divine (+0), Battle (+1), Blessed (+2), War (+3)
So: If you only have a +0 focus, there's no point in training your attack past R1. But if you have a better focus you need higher training in order to fully take advantage. A rank 3 icicle matches 3 keywords on a +2 elemental focus, and matches 2 keywords on a +2 battle focus.
Each keyword matched adds 5 base damage to your attack, and all attacks have an original base damage of 40. (Total base damage is then scaled using damage factor.) Major keywords (Masterwork and Avatar) count as 4 keywords. So, if you're fully matching your attacks with appropriate level gear, the damage progression goes like this:
T1+0 45 R1