All systems of access (F2P, MTX or sub) are working on the SAME skill training system, just from different angles.
Imagine that Pathfinder Online is a holiday resort. Holidaymaker A buys direct, holidaymaker B buys through a travel agent and holidaymaker C through a website. Regardless of how they purchased their ticket, they all get the same facilities.
On the item game; we already know that Ryan doesn't want equipment to be the defining factor. For that reason, I expect we will see degradation of items (and possibly quick degradation) which can be repaired but ultimately reduces the durability of the item in question. For example, I find a longsword of awesomeness which has 10 durability maximum. I use it for a few hours and it drops to 4 out of a maximum 10. I take it to a blacksmith who repairs it but it reduces the maximum durability to 8.
Now, an expert or master smith could lessen that drop which both a) drives the economy and b) permits me to keep a favourite weapon for longer but eventually I have to give it up because the next time I use it, it'll gain the broken condition.
I wholly expect the 'magical arms race' to be fairly flat. Will a +5 longsword beat a +1 longsword? Sure. But if the +5 is in the hands of an amateur and the +1 in the hands of a master then the master should still win as long as the amateur doesn't get a number of crits in a row.
Pathfinders are not the law. Handing over someone who has broken the law does not make you complicit if they are executed due to their law-breaking and certainly doesn't permit a Pathfinder to slit their throats.
At my table, offhandedly executing a bound prisoner would certainly put you in danger of an alignment shift depending on how your behaviour has been regarding your alignment throughout the rest of the game.
Yes, re-flavour a feat assuming you're not playing a Society character.
I've come across few examples where a DM has not allowed Paizo material without being up-front about it.
I guess the issue is that broadening the scope of region-specific feats makes them wordier. At the very least, you are adding an if clause which then takes up more printing space.
Good point Avena; I'm in the UK so how many hours do we have until the Q&A kicks off?
1. How well do Goblinworks envisage casual players , e.g. those of us with full-time jobs and families, being able to compete in Pathfinder Online? Can we expect to be able to maintain our own settlements along with the big guys?
2. Beyond the initial scope of release, how much of the world of Golarion should we expec to be able to explore within the first two and a half years?
3. There are obvious crossovers between the online game and the tabletop game; the Thornkeep book being the first. Can we expect to see this trend continue? Can we expect to see popular modules working their way into the game and famous events online being referenced in the tabletop game?
4. Are there any plans in the pipeline to offer alternative methods of accessing certain in-game features? Blizzard's Armory app would be a good example of the kind of interaction I'm talking about.
5. It has been mentioned previously that the gods will get involved in the game. What kind of interaction can we expect to see?
Also keep in mind that this model means that while you may have to pay for say, the first six months, if you can establish a reliable revenue stream you can then play the game completely free. This already happens in Eve where once you get past a certain point you can trade in PLEXes (Eve skill training time) which means you don't have to pay a thing!
And for those saying "I don't want to pay extra on top of the box cost", this isn't Call of Duty where server costs are paid for either a) by the game hosting service, e.g. Xbox Live or b) the players in the form of player-run servers. Goblinworks will need to a) maintain the servers, b) employ a creative team that will not diminish in size because they need to be working on the next content update and c) employ a team of administrators to ensure the game runs smoothly. This comes neither free, nor cheap.
No. If you want an MMO like that, then Elder Scrolls Online might be more your scene. The problem with skills-based MMOs like that are macros. I saw it all the time in UO; I'd go out fishing and find someone on a boat using a macro to improve their magic skills. Of course, I then killed them and took their reagents but that's not the point.
Simple repetition of skills means that to be competitive you have to macro, or the designer has to enforce restrictions on skilling up.
The model Eve and PFO follow permits a much more predictable curve which gives the designer breathing space. In UO, you could macro enough skills to kill anything in-game within a week, tops. Here, Ryan and the team can put out a roadmap that means they can concentrate on ensuring that the content we can access is vibrant and fun without having to rush out top tier content that then requires numerous hot fixes to get right *cough* Blizzard *cough*.
PFO's payment model is this:
- Player A chooses 'free to play'. He is able to do what he wants in the game with the exception of train skills unless he gathers enough in-game Coin to purchase said skill training time. This means that a player could play and train for free beyond the initial purchase of the game.
- Player B chooses 'free to play' but chooses to purchase skill training time through the store with real money. This means that he doesn't have to devote in-game time to the generation of resource to purchase skill training but also means that he can purchase skill training time as and when it suits him.
- Player C opts to subscribe. They have no restrictions on skill training time.
Now if players A, B and C all begin to train the same skill at the same time and A and B have sufficient skill training time purchased to cover the completion of the skill, then all players will finish the skill training at the same time.
This is not a 'pay to win' scenario. Purchasing skill training time either through the store or a subscription will not make the skills train any faster. If you are unwilling, or unable, to pay for skill training time then the likelihood is that you'll be a bit behind everyone else in terms of power unless you devote time to gathering resources in order to purchase skill training time in-game. However, I could see successful traders managing to play this game for gratis once their empires are up and running and they have a significant cash flow going.
Absolutely, but as a GM who primarily plays in PbP format I would be reluctant to accept a dhampir unless I was playing an evil-only game due to their drawbacks with regards healing and party cohesion. I suspect a lot of other GMs will be in the same boat.
Way of the Wicked re-flavoured to vampires might be awesome though.
I suspect Wellard is concerned that Paizo is following current popular trends; vampires and werewolves are big at the moment so they may want to cash in on the demand. I suspect a similar motivator came about for Blizzard with the Worgen race.
While I appreciate some people wish to play vampires and the like, I've never really seen them as a staple and I'd have thought that some of the other 'half-breeds' would have seen a Companion book before the dhampir.
Nonetheless, Paizo is a company and they have to make a profit, so of market research tells them vampires are hot property then they need to listen to that, I guess.
I suppose it would depend on your own interpretation. I view Marcus (as he is now called) as not necessarily wholly evil but rather driven by a belief that having so many different people ruling only serves to muddy the waters and that there should be one pilot at the helm to whom all others must report. The problem for everyone else is that he wants to be that person. If that can fall under your purview of Lawful Neutral then I can certainly work with that.
The choice of greatsword is thematic; the character has a goal of pursuing divinity through an divine spirit whose favored weapon is a greatsword.
Although saying that, the character is also pursuing power so it could be feasible to swap weapons if he felt that it subsequently increased his own potential for power. In that case, the falcata seems a decent choice.
I am taken with your description of The Black Throne. I see Lawful Evil as serving your own needs but not necessarily to the point that you can't function in a group.
I'd be looking at an arcanist, likely a wizard. He views undeath as a weak form of immortality for those who do not have the will to grasp divinity. He believes that it is the right of the powerful to rule the weak. However, he also realises that to reach his goal he must first reach a sufficient level of power to make his way to The Black Throne and after all, what god worth his salt doesn't have followers?
Would this be a concept you'd be willing to entertain?
I'm now considering taking Magus with the Soul Forger archetype.
I would likely only be playing online so I'd have a GM who likes the character style. Also, while I primarily want to use the 'taunt' effect, I'm also more than willing to use the Diplomacy effect and act as the party face as well.
I deliberately haven't mandated a class in order to look at all viable builds. However, that doesn't mean I want to be too low on DPR. I'm just not looking at DPR being the be all and end all.
I'm aware of the action issue, and have already reasoned that Antagonize will be used to deals with the biggest threat on the field and then hope the rest follow.
Yes, I have played MMOs (probably far too much) but I fancy trying to build a tank (by which I really mean high AC, high HP) in order to command the battlefield somewhat.
Has anyone tried a build with this feat before?
I'm currently leaning towards Angel-Blooded Aasimar Cavalier, Order of the Blue Rose.