Honestly, a player who logs his character on daily to queue up crafting tasks is clearly an active player - if he doesn't want to pay for more XP to get better at these crafting tasks, I don't see a problem with that. They still 'bought' this character to develop - are we arguing that if they stop the XP flow to their character, they should not be able to access it at all? It feels that way, in particular if you are stopping a crafter character from accomplishing what he is made to do.
I would say that as long as an account still has at least one active subscription (one character gaining XP) all characters on the account should function normally. This is what seems right and most logical, to me. (Also, I have always had the impression that this is the design intent.)
Ryan Dancey wrote:
I would favorite this 100 times if I could.
Today is the day that I make more than one thread. It's a strange feeling.
I have become convinced that acquiring Feats as the exclusive way to increase Ability Scores is not a good idea. This is certainly a biased opinion, because as a pure crafter I find the notion of training Armor or Attack feats to increase my ability scores somewhere between annoying and and rage-quit inducing.
So I've been thinking of things that I believe could help alleviate this problem. - Before I get a bunch of people jumping on me to make sure I am aware that the current ability score requirements will be tweaked: Yeah, I know. These are ideas I want to talk about. Crowdforging and such.
At first I was thinking perhaps it would be better if we simply had more feats under each role, to at least allow us to feel like we are not having to stretch outside of our discipline to advance. If - for example - we added a few feats to the smeltmill that grant Constitution while also granting a minor bonus (reduced refining time for Ingots of all kinds, perhaps) then at least I wouldn't be spending XP unnecessarily on Shield Bash or something else I will get absolutely no other use out of. Perhaps (for refiners) there could be feats that increase the chances of getting a bonus + on their recipes.
I still like the idea - fleshing out the idea of being a Smelter from a 1-feat progression to one where you can further specialize seems like an idea with value. (Obviously the idea would extend to other refining and true crafting, as well.)
But then it occurred to me that while Spells and Maneuvers cost XP to learn, crafting recipes do not - and perhaps they should. After all, right now there is no reason for a crafter not to learn any recipe they come across and qualify for.
Perhaps recipes should cost XP to learn, and perhaps we should get incremental Ability Score gains from Recipes, Spells, and Maneuvers alike.
Why not gain a little Personality from learning Burning Hands? Why not some Wisdom from learning Aid? Why not some Strength from learning Pot Steel Plate?
I believe this would be good for the game - to make the Ability Score gates more easily handled - and more importantly, because it makes sense that these are the things that advance you.
I'm curious if anyone else has had any similar ideas, or if anyone sees any glaring holes in this. (And 'golly, that would be a lot of work for GW to implement' doesn't count as a hole. Any change will require work from the development team - it's up to them to decide if it's too much.)
Andius the Afflicted wrote:
You could easily die to superior firepower, even spamming cure. - Okay actually that is presumptuous. I have no idea if constantly self-healing could effectively prevent the damage dealt by a player or two, but it seems unlikely to me, considering the rate of healing versus the rate of damage I have seen.
A single player out to kill you would be unlikely to succeed, perhaps, but an organized group is just as much likely to take you down, unless they are not attempting to use Immobilize, Knockdown, or anything else that will slow you. Even with many stacks of Freedom (which generally only last a brief time in any case) someone is going to 'roll' well and stop you from fleeing. (Unless you get lucky - in which case, good for you!)
Honestly, these tactics seem like simply intelligent things to do, as a trader. It's not as if they should be expected to walk around with no survival skills in case they get ambushed.
That said, I do support Focused existing, simply because it seems like it would be the optimal choice for many things that would require Concentration checks in the PnP game.
I am completely fine with the AI as it stands at this stage of production. That said, if we do feel that mobs need to be better at pursuing their attackers, I would suggest:
A) Adding the ability for a mob to regain Threat immediately upon reaching 0. From what I can tell, they are currently unable to register threat until they return to their spawning point. This should prevent the Pull-Leash-Chase tactic from being possible, so the mob stays engaged as long as it receives more than 5 DPS.
B) Share 50% of gained Threat with creatures within 15 meters on each hit. (So, 25% of total damage.) This should make it easier for other players to draw aggro (in comparison to the previous experiences where the mobs focused down the initial player) while preventing a player from focusing on a single mob and having the remainder of the enemies return to camp, ignoring the fight. The remainder of the group should still return if the player is doing low damage, just above 5 DPS, but if they were doing significant damage then the entire group would respond to them as the greatest threat. This seems like it would be more challenging behavior to cope with, especially in reaction to attacks like Whirlwind.
C) Increase the Threat gained from 50% to 60% (for example) to prevent Killing-At-Range by Attrition. I have been able to repeatedly fire Distant Shot at an enemy (Risen Fighter Adventurers are my best example) and have them consistently lose Threat at a greater rate than I can increase it - therefore typically they will move about 5 meters before reaching 0 Threat and returning to their spawn point. As long as I continue attacking I will eventually be able to kill them without them ever coming to me, because (presumably) my DPS is lower than 5, but still great enough to prevent them from regenerating health. This would prevent those situations, if set to the correct percentage.
I do not know how difficult these would be to implement, but this is what comes to mind.
Edit: Also, thank you for giving us something else to talk about while waiting for the patch. (At least, that's what I'm doing...)
We are the people who helped fund it, we are not their managers. We get to help prioritize by telling them about the things we consider important, not by demanding they reveal every step of the creation process.
There is only so much that can be asked of someone trying to get something done, and asking them to sit down and explain to you what they will do and in what order is just too much.
Would you order a custom wooden chair from a furnisher and then walk into his shop all through the work, badgering them?
We agreed on a curve to the back of the chair - I see a lot of straight pieces, which one will be the back?
Are you sure that's going to be strong enough? Looks a little thin.
Wait hold on, can we make it a little taller?
How much longer is that bevel going to take? I really want to see the finished product.
Why haven't you sanded these burrs off yet? Looks pretty uncomfortable...
If you cannot handle people disagreeing about things, absolutely - avoid the forums. Or any forums, ever.
If you think you can handle a group of intelligent, sometimes belligerent adults being open about their opinions - please join in.
I only suggest trying to be open-minded - even the people who inspire violently aggressive reactions around here are working towards the good of the game.
So, I have an example of an interesting situation I was just using to my advantage.
There is a hex which is very high with an undead escalation, and within that hex there are tons of red colored skeletons - Risen Fighter Adventurers are what I am speaking of, in particular.
In my group of four, I had a shortbow, with minimal training (a ranged attack bonus of 9) and another player had the same weapon and attacks, but with a ranged attack bonus of 20. This meant she did significantly more damage than I did using Distant Shot.
I could freely shoot at these skeletons from max range, doing small amounts of damage, and after 3-4 hits, they would begin to consider me a threat (I suppose) and come after me. After about 10 meters, they would head back to their post, because I wasn't enough of a threat. The enemies near them did not respond at all, which was fine with me.
My party member, on the other hand, could shoot one of these skeletons and pull it all the way to our group - along with his half-dozen friends.
So, what we could do - and did many times - was have me engage a single enemy, have him (and him alone) come at me a bit, and then she would only have to shoot him after he got a little bit away from his buddies, drawing his attention seemingly permanently, so that our group could whack him down. These are pretty tough skeletons, for the record.
I consider this result mostly cleverness on the part of our group, and I think that doing things like this is acceptable - in the sense that it seems likely things like this always will be possible, to some extent.
But if those skeletons had been easier to damage, they would have registered the threat sooner and perhaps even realized they need to come all at once or not at all. That is my impression of the system, at least.
So I agree, there are no leashes - only manipulation of the aggro system. Does it need tweaks in the future? Sure. But the fact that it clearly functions as is serves plenty well for me.
I think this is a good sign it is time for me to take a little break from the forums. I'm getting a bit too touchy and reactive. I'll be back in time for EE and the newby question onslaught :)
No offense, but you may want to listen to yourself. You know the kind of reaction you can get from this thread and I doubt it is going to be one that is going to make you or anyone else happy.
Personally, I absolutely understand how people might feel drowned out and excluded around here. I am accustomed to forum communities and honestly feel that this one is more open than most, but that isn't going to be the case for everyone.
I like to think of myself as a player who contributes, though I do not typically end up making posts daily. However, it is easy to feel ignored, particularly when nobody bothers to respond to your post(s). I actually joked about this exact thing in a thread somewhere (I don't recall exactly which one) when I had posted once or twice - rather thoughtfully, in my opinion - and later joked that everyone was ignoring me because I wasn't being aggressive enough. (Amusingly, that post did get a response.)
This doesn't hurt my feelings, but it strikes me as a good example of the kind of thing that leads to people feeling shouted down/drown out.
I am not attempting to make the case that crafting should be easy - I love the depth added by the crafting system. However, if one refining skill grants you one uncommon recipe and one common recipe, all should - otherwise it has an unseemly advantage in the ease of advancement. This is in the interest of balance - I'm not suggesting that things must be 'fair' but the system becomes obtuse and unpredictable without consistent progression throughout.
So while looking into crafting, it seems to me that it is rather difficult to reach the second rank of the refining skills. The bottleneck in this case is because of the Crafting achievements required and their relative difficulty to acquire in comparison to Adventuring or Combat achievement points.
Crafting a Common, +0 item will get you 1 Crafting point - but only one . In order to gain more Crafting points, you must craft either a Common +1 item, or an Uncommon +0 recipe. (More difficult recipes would grant you more achievement points, but it is unlikely you can learn them at rank 1 of your skill.) This means you must either conveniently find the correct recipe as a drop, or have a friend find it and get it to you.
You must have 3 Crafting points in order to move up to the second rank of that Refining Skill. So you must obtain at least 2 recipes within your discipline before you may advance to the second rank. (For reference, you cannot Smelt Steel Plates as a level 1 Smelter, and that is the material required for the most basic armors.)
Another way to handle this problem is to branch out into 2 other Refinement trees - craft 1 Common +0 item with each, and you will then be able to access rank 2 in each of the skills. This is a very XP-expensive way to handle the issue, but it seems like it may be what those without huge support structures will end up needing to do.
Perhaps I am overreacting, but these strike me as rather large hurdles to get over when you are at a level that you cannot even craft simple armor. (I have not yet examined the other crafting areas for similar problems, as the demand for armor is the most particularly high, but I suspect the issue of reaching 'basic' equipment is not limited to the skill.)
So you need either a huge support system to advance with any kind of efficiency, or you need to stretch yourself incredibly thin with XP and generalize in your crafting choices.
I'm not sure if this is the game working as intended or not - it does SEEM like meaningful choice, but to some degree it strikes me as arbitrarily difficult.
Okay, so for the idea of using as few skills as possible in pursuit of maxing out a single feat, this is what I got: (I apologize for the length, let me hide it in a spoiler tag.)
Dowser Level 1 Req 10 Personality
Boosts to 10.092 Personality
Level 2 req 10, adventure 6
boosts to 10.194
level 3 req 10, crafting 9
boosts to 10.301
! level 4 req 11 personality - diverge for personality boosts
Sage is logical - 3 levels of sage will raise Personality to 10.602. 0.398 Personality still needed.
Cantrips are divided between int and personality and are therefore ineffective for increasing personality directly.
Level 4 Dowser increases personality by .112
level 5 dowser req 11, adventure 18
! level 6 dowser req 12 personality
Diverge for personality increase
Bringing Sage up to level 5 increases personality by .227 for 11.366 Personality
Bringing the remaining social skills to level 2 adds .093 * 3, for .279
Increase four social skills to level 3 for .099 each, adding .396
Dowser level 6
!Dowser level 7 req 13
Sage level 6 adds .118 for 12.277 Personality
Increase 4 social skills to level 4 gaining .105 each, .420 total
Increase 3 Social skills to level 5, gaining .109 each, .327 Total
Dowser level 7
! Dowser Level 8 req 14 Personality - Diverge
Increase sage to 7, gain .121
increase remaining social to level 5, gaining .109
increase 4 social skills to level 6, gaining .113 each, .452 total
increase 2 social skills to level 7, gaining .116 each, .232 total
dowser level 8 adds .123
dowser level 9 req 14
!dowser 10 req 15 - diverge
sage levels 8 and 9 add .248 together
lower 2 social skills up to level 7 grants .232
increase 2 social skills to level 8 for .119 each, .238 together
Dowser 10 adds .127
Dowser 11 req 15
!dowser 12 req 16 - diverge
Bringing Sage up to level 11 adds .235
bring lower 2 social skills up to level 8 for .238
bring 4 social skills up to level 9 for .121 each, .484 total
Dowser 12 adds .128
Dowser 13 req 16
!Dowser 14 req 17 - diverge
sage up to level 13 adds .259
4 social skills up to level 10 for .124 each, .496 total
Dowser 14 adds .133
Dowser 15 req 17
!Dowser 16 req 18 - diverge
bring sage up to level 15 adds .267
bringing 4 social skills up to level 11 adds .126 each, .504 total
dowser 16 adds .135
dowser 17 req 18,
! dowser 18 req 19 - diverge
raise sage to level 17, gain .271
raise 4 social skills to level 12 adds .128 each, .512 total
raise 2 social skills to level 13, adding .13 each, .26 total
Dowser 18 adds .137
Dowser 19 req 19
!Dowser 20 req 20 - diverge
raise sage to 19 to gain .275
raise lower 2 social skills to level 13, adding .26
raise 1 social skill to level 14 for .132
Raise Dowser to 20, you win!
Total XP Cost: 1,136,743 (11,367.5 hours, meaning about 473 days.) So, if you take this route exactly, it'll take more than a year to get this done.
XP spent on 'extra' feats: 698,771
Basically if you chose to only increase 6 skills, you'd spend about 61.5% of your XP on your five attribute boosting skills. Obviously there are more efficient ways to do this, XP-cost wise.
Oh and if any of the math is off, I apologize - I did pretty much all of it in my head as I went.
I'm pretty sure the combined PvE and PvP found in a Brokenlands hex is going to guarantee that any Harvester who's been doing the job for more than a day will know that he needs to hire or befriend some big scary buddies before heading out that way. Even if PvP isn't heavy there for some reason, the PvE content will still require it - unless you're the Harvester with the Biggest, Manliest Beard. (Which we all know keeps the mobs at bay.)
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
And if I were playing a Stealth character this is exactly how I would want to play.
Originally, being the biggest, meanest character physically meant just that, but over time it evolved to mean 'the only character that should ever get hit' - which is definitely not the style intended or desired by D&D. The idea of building a meat-shield character certainly existed, but it wasn't 'the only effective way to play' and in fact using the tactic would get you killed as often as it would let you breeze through an encounter, unless your DM lacked any desire/ability to adapt his tactics or challenge you.
Similarly, the idea of a cleric only being valuable because they can heal the fighter and the wizard only being valuable because they can enhance the fighter or rogue were not unique when MMOs essentially cast these ideals in iron, but before that time effective gameplay was defined by being intelligent and varied - meaning while you could say the trinity existed, it certainly was not the be-all end-all tactic it is now.
So sure, it existed, I'll grant you, but at the time, that wasn't a bad thing. The fact that the tactic has become a stand-in for thinking on your feet is the bad thing.
This is absolutely what those characters are designed to do, except generally if you can get away with actually doing it it's a sign that the person running the game doesn't want to make his friends angry by murdering the supports first, even though the intelligent thing to do would be to kill off the guy(s) who are making Mr. Meatstick nigh invulnerable, then take care of him after he is no longer lugging around the benefits of 3/4 of the party.
But an auto-facing mechanic would mean that in order to effectively kite at all you must rapidly disengage the lock so you can turn around, run, stop/reengage the lock, fire, repeat. This quickly becomes a matter of the most dexterous player - rather than the best skilled character - wins. Since I believe most of the community wants to avoid that, it makes sense to consider options that reduce the advantages gained through 'twitchy' gameplay. (Even though some may seem counter-intuitive.)
Personally, I think it would also look badass to have my character turn around shooting at things I can no longer see. So that's something.
Andius the Afflicted wrote:
I think if they made an about-face necessary to fire, they could rig the animation to turn around independent of your camera, and while you are 'backwards' on your own screen you suffer back-pedaling movement penalties. This way continuing to hold the forward move button down keeps you moving through your backward steps and then you immediately turn around after the attack animation finishes moving 'normally' in whatever direction you have chosen to face the camera.
This doesn't require any special learning from the players, reduces kiting ability while using ranged attacks (as you both won't see what your character is firing at and you will suffer a move-speed penalty for the duration of the attack animation) and a macro will not give any special advantage to those who use one because the desired effect is essentially built-in for everyone.
So a week into EE, we will have towers spring from the ground which can be claimed and fought over by companies, who in turn can associate themselves with settlements, and those settlements will be owned by the land rush winners.
This sounds like it should solve a lot of problems that could have cropped up during EE -
PvP dedicates will have something to do other than engage in practice fights and grinding to unlock new skills. Even better, it will actually have meaning and influence the strength of those they fight for - ultimately what is intended to happen anyway.
Ragtag bands of guilds that populate most MMOs with 1 to 10 people will either serve an actual purpose or effectively die off without support. This is logical, even if it bothers those who just want to play with their tabletop game buddies and not get embroiled in large-scale conflicts. A small, well organized group should still be able to ally itself appropriately to survive and swell its ranks as its reputation grows, so even those who didn't win the land rush may end up with their own settlements relatively quickly, if they plan and play well.
I'm not sure I enjoy the 'stand there to claim the tower' mechanic, but I do not want to see a lot of time spent refining it into something else, either. After all, it's a temporary measure and the more energy that can be spent on mastering the settlements so we get a smooth implementation of the system, the better.
All in all, this seems like a good development. I keep expecting GW to let me down somehow, but so far I agree with every decision they've made. (Well, of those I know about, obviously.)
I really enjoy Ryan speaking on a human level with those of us on the forums - and if that means he will end up trading snark with someone, so be it. People do not need to pretend to like one another, whether they are on 'the same level' or not.
I do not like the attitude I generally see in Steelwing's posts, but I understand his point in this thread, and I'm sure it's being considered by the GW team.
Frankly, I enjoyed seeing Ryan post as much as he did , snarky or not. It shows his presence, and how much he cares about this game. Given all of the fantastically wonderful things about this game, and the vision of Ryan and the others making it, I see no reason to suddenly doubt that they will continue working to create this game at its maximum potential. If GW started having people banned who express negative opinions of them, I might start doubting they care about us - but so far, I've only seen caring for the community from every one of the staff.
I'd love it if we could move on from this subject, though.
And more ideas, some a bit inspired by Excaliburproxy.
Imbue Weapon(Su): You have learned to channel your damaging spells into weapons rather than casting them directly upon an enemy. When casting a spell which deals damage with a melee touch attack, you may spend 1 point from your Arcane Reservoir per spell level to transfer it to a touched weapon. The spell remains on the weapon for a number of rounds equal to your Charisma modifier, or until the weapon is used to make a successful attack - at which time it deals damage normally to the creature struck. A weapon may not have multiple spells transferred into it at one time - the spell most recently cast into it removes the one previously cast.
Spell Armor(Su): You have learned to cast spells into your armor, releasing their fury upon those who dare to strike you. When casting a spell which deals damage upon a melee touch attack, you may instead channel it into your armor or clothing by spending 1 point from your Arcane Reservoir per spell level. If you do so, the spell is held in your armor for a number of hours equal to your Charisma modifier or until you are struck by a melee attack, at which time the spell discharges upon the attacker. You do not have to succeed at a melee touch attack to deliver the spell, but they may attempt a Reflex save to halve the damage dealt. You may not store more than a single spell in your armor in this way at one time, the spell most recently cast into it removes any previously cast spells.
Blood Sacrifice(Su): Sustaining damage calls to the magic in your blood, allowing you to cast more powerful spells. When an opponent deals damage to the Arcanist, she may choose to spend a point from her Arcane Reservoir as an immediate action to amplify the spells she casts for a number of round equal to her Charisma modifier. When casting spells during these rounds, if she uses her Arcane Reservoir to increase the Caster Level or Save DC of a spell, she increases both the CL and the save DC of the spell, rather than choosing one or the other to increase.
Chrysalis(Su): Once per day, as a one hour ritual the Arcanist may go into a state of deep meditation, swaddling herself in a cocoon of arcane energy. While in meditation, the Arcanist is treated as if under the effects of a Sanctuary spell, but she is also considered helpless and unaware of her surroundings. By performing the ritual, the Arcanist gains a number of points for her Arcane Reservoir equal to her Charisma modifier. If interrupted, the Arcanist does not gain these points.
I don't see it as any more complicated than many other abilities that currently exist in the game.
Your proposal is very close to what I originally thought of for this - if it costs enough AR, that is enough of a limit because even at level 20 you start your day with a meager 11 points of AR. Frankly, I think spending 3 AR per spell level reduced would be plenty - quickening a spell would essentially bust you for the day, even at high levels. (Unless you're maybe farming your higher level spells for it, but then you might as well be using those slots for the metamagic.)
The reason I think dividing up the levels is a good idea is 1) it requires a heavy investment to be able to use metamagic on spells which you otherwise could never use it on - a Quickened Prismatic Sphere is plainly impossible for anyone else, and I don't want that to come easily. One exploit shouldn't give you access to spells that nobody else can achieve. Three? Well, you earned it by investing in the concept.
I might even lower the AR cost somehow, considering how tight of a resource it is. I just think it should be an option to make Metamagic easier to love - but I don't want it to be TOO accessible.
Consume Magic Items (Su): The arcanist can consume the power of potions, scrolls, staves, and wands, using them to fill her arcane reservoir.
Huge disparity in costs with those items, and money being converted inefficiently into power I lose at the end of the day makes me sad.
Counterspell (Su): By expending one point from her arcane reservoir to attempt to counterspell a spell as it is being cast. The arcanist must identify the spell being cast as normal. If the check is successful, the arcanist can then use an immediate action and expend an available arcanist spell slot of a level equal to or higher than the level of the spell being cast. To counterspell the spell, the arcanist must make dispel check as if using dispel magic. If the spell being countered is one that the arcanist has prepared, she receives a +5 bonus on the dispel check.
Okay, I love this idea, but it's just too potent as-is compared to the rest of the game. It's like wrapping Mythic Improved Counterspell up with Counterspell Mastery from the Counterspell Arcane school, and then letting you do it more than once per day. I'd be more than happy with something that worked like this:
Counterspell (Su): As a swift action, you may spend one point from your arcane reservoir to prepare yourself to counter enemy spells. This preparation lasts for rounds equal to 1/2 your Arcanist level, minimum 1. While this ability is active you automatically attempt to identify spells cast by enemy casters (DC 15 + Spell Level). If you successfully identify the spell, you may then Counterspell it as an immediate action, as if you had used the Counterspell readied action against that target. If you have Dispel Magic prepared, you are not required to identify the spell before countering it. (Though you are still entitled to the roll.)
Dimensional Slide (Su): The arcanist can expend one point from her arcane reservoir to create a dimensional crack that she can step through to reach another location. This ability is used as part of a move action, allowing her to move up to 10 feet per arcanist level to any location she can see; this is in place of 5 feet of movement. She can only use this ability once per round. She does not provoke an attack of opportunity for the movement caused by this ability, but any other movement provokes as normal.
This is more powerful than Shift, but the relatively limited amount of use you get makes it work for me. Too bad that unlike Shift, it is not a get-out-of-grapples free card.
Metamagic Knowledge: The arcanist can select one metamagic feat as a bonus feat. She must meet the prerequisites of this feat.
I'd actually like for this to be available more than once - but probably staggered, say, you may take it once for every 5 Arcanist levels you possess.
Metamixing (Su): The arcanist can expend one point from her arcane reservoir to add a metamagic feat to a spell as she casts it, using a higher-level spell slot as normal, but using the spell’s original casting time. She can use this ability to add a metamagic feat to a spell that she prepared using a metamagic feat, although she cannot the same metamagic feat on a given spell more than once.
Beautiful way to make metamagic useful for a spontaneous caster. Maybe for a more advanced version of this exploit, you could spend points from your arcane reservoir to reduce the level of the spell slot used? Make it cost say, three per spell level. I think 12 points to quicken a spell is reasonable, personally - especially as you're unlikely to pull that off more than once a day.
Spell Tinkerer (Su): The arcanist can alter an existing spell effect by expending one point from her arcane reservoir. She must be adjacent to the spell effect (or the effect’s target) and be aware of the effect to use this ability. She can choose to increase or decrease the remaining duration of the spell by 50% (adding or subtracting 50% from the remaining duration). Alternatively, she can suppress a spell effect for a number of rounds equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 1). If the spell affects multiple creatures, this ability only suppresses the spell for one creature. At the end of this duration, the spell resumes and the suppressed rounds do not count against its total duration. This ability can be used on unwilling targets, but the arcanist must succeed at a melee touch attack, and the target may attempt a Will saving throw to negate the effect. This ability has no effect on spells that are instantaneous or have a duration of permanent.
Limit this to one use per spell and make it require a Spellcraft check similar to counterspelling, maybe? Seems too good to just do it for a point.
Consume Spells (Su): The arcanist can spend a standard action to expend an available arcanist spell slot, making it unavailable for the rest of the day just as if she had used it to cast a spell. In doing so, she adds a number of points to her arcane reservoir equal to the level of the slot consumed. She cannot consume cantrips (0 level spells) in this way. Points added to the arcane reservoir in excess of the limit (see arcane reservoir) are lost.
I do like this, lovely feel to it, nice and unique.
Counter Drain (Su): Whenever the arcanist successfully counterspells a spell, the arcanist regains points to her arcane reservoir depending on the level of the spell countered. Spells of 2nd-level or lower do not restore any points. Spells of 3rd, 4th, and 5th level restore one point. Spells of 6th, 7th, and 8th level restore two points. Spells of 9th level restore three points. The arcanist must have the counterspell exploit before selecting this exploit.
Couldn't make it easier and just say that you restore points equal to one-third of the spell level? Oh well. Personally I think one-half would be nice.
Disrupt Spell (Su): The arcanist can disrupt a spell effect or magic item by expending one point from her arcane reservoir. This acts like a targeted dispel magic with a range of touch. The arcanist can add her Charisma bonus to the dispel check.
I'd like this to have some range - say, 30 feet, as I really don't want to touch that Wall of Fire to dispel it - but otherwise it's lovely.
Siphon Spell (Su): When the arcanist uses the disrupt spell greater exploit, she can siphon some of the power to restore her arcane reservoir. If the caster level of the spell is equal to or higher than the arcanist and she exceeds the DC of the dispel check by 5 or more, she regains 1 point to her arcane reservoir. If she exceeds this check by 10 or more, she instead regains 2 points to her arcane reservoir. This has no effect on magic items. The arcanist must have the disrupt spell greater exploit before selecting this exploit.
I'd like it if this didn't require the spell to be of equal level or higher. It would be nice if it functioned on the same scale as Counter Drain (1/3 the spell level), but only happens when you succeed at the dispel check by 5 or more, rather than every single time you use it. Make it better and let it give you half the spell level in points?
Spell Thief (Su): The arcanist can steal a spell affecting one creature by expending one point from her arcane reservoir. If the creature is unwilling, she must succeed at a melee touch attack to steal the spell; the target must succeed at a Will saving throw to negate the effect. The arcanist can specify a spell affecting the target to steal, but if she’s incorrect or doesn’t know what spells are affecting the target, the spell stolen is determined randomly from all those affecting the target. If successful, the spell effect transfers to the arcanist, affecting her for the remaining duration. This ability doesn’t grant the arcanist a saving throw against the effect, unless it normally allows for a new saving throw during its duration (such as at the end of each round). The arcanist cannot use this ability to steal a spell with a range of personal or a duration of permanent. The arcanist must have the spell tinkerer exploit before selecting this exploit.
I'd rather this worked to copy spell effects rather than steal them. If you want to take a spell off of them, that's what Disrupt Spell should be for - this ability completely negates that, otherwise. How about this?
Spell Shadow (Su): The arcanist can duplicate a spell affecting one creature by expending a number of points from her arcane reservoir equal to the spell level of the effect. She must succeed at a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + Spell Level) and succeed on a melee touch attack. The arcanist can specify a spell affecting the target, but if she's incorrect or does not know what spells are affecting the target, the spell copied is determined randomly from all those affecting the target. If successful, the spell effect transfers to the arcanist (or, for an additional point from the Arcane reservoir, the arcanist may select a new target within 30 feet), affecting her as long as the original spell remains in effect on the original target. This ability doesn't grant the new target a saving throw against the effect, unless it normally allows a new saving throw during its duration (such as at the end of each round). The arcanist cannot use this ability to duplicate a spell with a range of personal or a duration of permanent. The arcanist must have the Spell Tinkerer exploit before selecting this exploit.
Magical Supremacy (Su): At 20th level, the arcanist learns to easily convert her arcane reservoir into spells and back again. She can cast any spell she has prepared directly from her arcane reservoir, instead of expending a spell slot, by expending a number of points from her arcane reservoir equal to the level of the spell to be cast. When she casts a spell in this fashion, she treats her caster level as 2 higher than normal, and the DC of any saving throws associated with the spell increase by 2. She cannot further expend points from her arcane reservoir to enhance a spell cast in this way.
I think this needs something stating that the Arcanist can only cast spells of a given level in this way a number of times per day equal to her normal daily allotment. (So at most, she can cast twice the normal number of spells per day.)
Having access to 20 abilities at a time is not the same as having to spam half the keys on your keyboard. 6 different weapon skills - one more than weapons have in GW2, and then you can swap to a second one. 6 implement actions which are basically one-shots, your buffs and debuffs and emergency abilities - or, if you're a caster, it is spells. You don't spam these, you hit them under special circumstances to give yourself an edge. (And these swap to another set as well, perhaps to something that compliments your secondary weapon.)
That's a lot of options, no argument there. But I'd be surprised if none of those are passive bonuses that you have to put into a slot(even if they did just say these are all activated, I doubt that will be entirely stuck to) - maybe to be triggered like the Signets in GW2 for an extra bonus.
I like options - to me, this doesn't sound like you need to hit keys like a mad-man to operate generally, just that you get to have several options on how to handle various situations.
Actually, from the sounds of things to me, I expect this to play quite a bit like GW2 the majority of the time, but you're less likely to die because every single option you have is suddenly on cooldown.
I do hope that the mode changes in the keys are toggleable, rather than having to press alt+1 simultaneously to access an option. (Though as a short-hand, that could be a useful alternative to completely switching modes.)
If there is no long-distance chat feature (as I hope there isn't) like sending /tells or just a general chat, the social aspect will develop organically. Where do you go to meet people, or to sit and talk with your buddies, strategically or otherwise? A tavern, obviously - it's the easy choice, people know where it is, it's neutral ground, nobody has to be the 'host' - it works.
Yes to this - I'd love not to know a name unless told, and I'd prefer nobody know mine. It kills RP for me when everyone automatically knows each other by name.
The idea of bounties for random murderers would be changed by this, too. Perhaps a photographic (perhaps a stylized portrait made by all characters on creation) bounty poster, with whatever 'mask' name was chosen by the victim upon being assaulted. Those who recognize the face would see the name they know in addition to the one posted by the victim. (And if you know the murderer's real name, perhaps you'll get a reward for revealing it.)
This way, anybody (on the allowed list, obviously) can take on the bounty and with a sufficient 'spot' check will recognize the murderer from the bounty photo and therefore be able to collect the bounty.
Now I'd just want an in-game excuse for picture-perfect bounties... perhaps it's simply 'drawn up' by an NPC sketch-artist when you file the bounty.
If possible I'd like this to reflect the appearance of the murderer at the time of the assault, to include any disguises they might have been using - but I don't know how easy that might be to implement.
If there are not spell components, what is the difference between a Wizard and a Sorcerer?
Sorcerers in the tabletop get Eschew Materials as a baseline ability. Sorcerers gain spells slowly, but innately, and they can cast them a lot. Sorcerers have bloodline abilities.
Wizards in the tabletop get an Arcane Bond as a baseline ability. Wizards gain spells quickly, but they have to keep them copied in a spell book, and they have a somewhat low limit on how many they can prepare for use that day. Wizards have school specializations.
I want these two classes to remain differentiated this way. The flavor and style of needing to carefully prepare your spell components and spells as a Wizard counts for a lot, and refers to the way they have come to learn magic - by being studious, and anticipating the challenges they will face that day.
To take away the need for preparation - of which a spell component pouch is a small and simple part - is to take away a part of what makes a Wizard a Wizard - and it cheapens the innate powers of a Sorcerer, as well.
Of course, there is no reason that a Wizard couldn't earn a Merit Badge granting him the equivalent of Eschew Materials - it could easily be within his class archetype, for that matter. But it should not be automatic - it should require study and focus, just like the rest of their magical abilities.
I hope nobody is talking about removing expensive and specific spell components - because then you are just cheapening all magic.
People requested to have crafting be like an archetype, I don't recall any GW post making it seem like reaching master crafter will be equivalent to master of an archetype.
Actually, I think Goblinworks has implied this pretty heavily:
Ryan Dancey on Wednesday, August 1, 2012 wrote:
We want being a soldier to be as fulfilling and interesting a long-term play experience as being an adventurer or a crafter.
This puts 'adventurer' archetypes and 'crafter' archetypes on the same level, as well as soldiering types, etc.
Ryan Dancey on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 wrote:
These dungeons may spawn quest threads that take you to other dungeons, or be a source of unique resources needed for certain highly specialized crafting jobs.
This implies that there will be very high level, very specialized crafting. Sounds like that requires a full archetype to me.
Ryan Dancey on Wednesday, April 11, 2012 wrote:
As a crafter, you'll need to seek out knowledge to ply your trade. You'll be searching for the training needed to master skills and earn merit badges associated with each type of product you wish to produce. Over time, you'll learn more exotic variations and ways to fine-tune items to meet specific market needs. Good crafters are a combination of scholar and smith; you'll learn by doing, and will constantly seek more knowledge to expand your skill set.
And this sounds exactly like what we are supposed to do in order to advance our more classic archetypes, like Wizard or Fighter.
Overall, I'd say that Goblinworks has made it seem that they do intend to treat crafting to be its own full, fleshed out archetype. Perhaps they will even have more than one.
That said, I believe that the ability to craft enchanted items should work its way into the Crafter archetype around halfway to Mastery, obviously gaining access to higher levels as you progress.
However, crafting a magical item of any kind should also require magical reagents, or the assistance of one who can cast magical spells using their spells to assist you. This would likely depend on the level of the spell and the type of magic being cast. It's good for the economy, it allows Wizards and Crafters both to maintain their specialization (because what about the wizards that don't really care to enchant things, but they need those merit badges to get the bonuses they want?), and it is good for the all-important Meaningful Character Interaction.
The Order for Exploration and Settlement of Golarion: River Kingdoms Chapter
This is not a guild, but a proposed Alliance. Our purpose is simple: to spread civilization throughout Golarion.
With the recent population influx, this new chapter was created in order to assist in organizing and accelerating the deeper exploration of the region, as well as providing assistance to those who would like to settle within.
Members of the Order will be expected to pool their knowledge and resources, working together to improve the region's mining and farming efforts. We will clear dangerous regions as necessary in order to defend the common folk, and we will explore new areas, mapping them as accurately as possible.
In addition, we will be actively supportive of the crafting and trade industries, including creating and upgrading smithies, workshops, stables, warehouses and inns. Our highest priority shall be the construction of a stable infrastructure and the facilitation of expansion in this region.
Any parties who wish to ally themselves with our order are encouraged to respond to this notice directly.
I look forward to seeing this region thrive.
- Keign Maredor, Senior Organizer
Alignment: Neutral Good
Purpose: The exploration and settlement of unpopulated regions
Structure: Rank and title is directly related to the influence and skills an individual can bring to bear to meet the purposes of the Order. We intend to forge new ranks and titles specific to the area.
Recruitment: You are welcome to join the membership of the Order provided you support the advancement of civilization as a whole in this region. While we cannot and will not require you to assist everyone with every construction project, a generous and fair perspective is highly valued.
Roleplay: Greater respect and assistance will always be accorded to those who are properly motivated and deeply invested in the area.
For the purposes of this game, and the open skill-base that it has, I would suggest that one would require:
1) A sufficient crafting level to create the item to be enchanted. You cannot enchant a sword of the highest quality as a novice weaponsmith.
2) A way to cast the spell (perhaps a scroll, or the ability to cast the spell yourself, or a wizard you could hire to cast the spell for you), including any needed material components.
3) A special skill to bind the casted magic to an item (or perhaps specific type of item - seperate abilities for weapons, then armor, then wands, etc.) This skill may easily scale with spell levels, so an enchanter of low level can only bind lower-level spells.
I would say that the spell needs to be cast, yes, absolutely, but I can see plenty of ways you should be able to get around that without actually learning to cast the spell yourself.
This is conjecture, but it makes sense to me.
It actually frightens me a bit that there are so many people who have a distinct problem with a need for in-game nourishment. To me, it is an integral part of roleplay. You eat, you drink, you sleep. The only reason I would bother to filter out defecation is because of cultural pressures that make it either disgusting or silly. The Sims got away with it through silliness, but that's the only game that comes to mind.
To argue that hunger and drink systems do not contribute to the game is to argue that those things do not put pressures on people. In a roleplaying game, your goal is to create and play interesting, believable characters. How do you do that? The simplest way is to imagine someone that you would find interesting - in the case of Pathfinder, an adventurer, a mighty hero and goes about righting wrongs.
This is the basis of childhood play - make-believe. When young, most people tend to make incredibly superior characters, impervious to many types of harm, capable of astounding feats, just because the idea is appealing. As you age, and mature, your make-believe becomes more complex, and more real. You want something you can relate to, but still something incredible. So you start making rules - putting limitations on what you can do. Finding ways to work within these limits is a challenge, and overcoming the challenges makes it fun.
As your rule sets become more complex, and you implement more and more real-life pressures, the deeper your characters become. They also become easier to play, and you discover their motivations within yourself. It is immersive, because it is close to home, and it is something you can relate to.
I say that hunger and thirst system is a basic necessity for roleplay.
At least, for mature, deep, rewarding roleplay. I suppose if I were six again, I would be just fine as the all-powerful wizard who is godlike in every way, with nothing to do but follow my whims.
I vote for a hunger and thirst system, because I want more RPG in my MMORPG. Hunger and thirst are basic motivators. They deserve to be included.
- I apologize if anyone takes this post as insulting. That is not my intent, and I really do not bear anyone any ill will over this debate. But I truly do not comprehend how anyone can see this the other way around.
I agree that the idea of a capture system would add a lot to the game - after all, you don't always simply kill someone.
However, I also agree that locking a player up is simply going to make them log out. This is inconvenient, but particularly if you offer a chance to pay a bail, bribe a guard, talk a guard into getting close to the bars, etc. to get out and you make the jailing times reasonable, I don't think it would be TOO inconvenient and drive players away. (Especially if they know they can call their buddies and get busted out - that's classically fun roleplay.)
Now, if you make the jailing progress in real-time the same way that training does, so that the player can log back on after a few in-game days,(or several real hours) the punishment system kind of kicks in at that point - or at least teaches you not to get caught. If you do, make sure you know how to get out of trouble easily to minimize your punishment.
Make a jail a player-constructed building, give it levels of security, and give criminals a chance to get out depending on their skill-sets. It doesn't sound unreasonable to me - it actually makes me want to play a crook.
Also, seeing Darcnes note on suicide: yes. For the impatient, or for those who think they can get their buddies together fast enough to go raid that jail for their body and equipment, suicide should be a way out of trouble - since it would roughly equate to having been killed in the first place.
Plus, that makes me want to get in jail, play dead, and ambush a guard. Jailbreak!
Oh! And a captured player should have every opportunity to escape from his captors while in transit to a facility. Of course we'd wind up with criminals tied to saddles, but Escape Artists can get out of that and run off. Got a wagon with a mini-jail cell on it? Tough to get out of, but either I'm picking the lock or my friends will come free me from this little caravan.
I'd also like to see some method of turning yourself in / a way to declare intent to capture without combat. "Yes, I'll come along freely. You got me."
Also, no way should you be able to fast travel while transporting a prisoner.