Reliken's page

My character, a rogue, level 9, is generally anti-death., and wants to avoid killing at all costs. All of his attacks are strictly non-lethal.

Here's the problem: he also deals a lot of damage. Sneak attacking a flat-footed opponent deals, on average, 42 damage. If he rolls max, 60 damage, or 120 on a max-crit.

So, if I'm sneaking up on someone that turns out to be a first-level mook, or even a CR 2 3rd level NPC, one good hit and I could very easily kill them. It's even feasible to do on some CR 4, 5th-level NPCs [although the hit would need to be a crit or they'd need to be particularly weak, like a wizard] - and that's all true just if I'm the first one to hit any of them! Put me in a group with my fellow PCs, fighting enemies who have already taken hits, and, well, it's unrealistic to expect I'm *not* going to kill NPCs.

This puts me between a rock-and-a-hard-place, as it seems I only have two choices:

#1) Abandon my character's core identity. End up killing people, unintentionally, and just deal with it. This is a very anti-RP option that I do not want at all.

#2) Neuter my character. Unless I know an enemy I'm fighting is a higher-level NPC, do not sneak attack them, do not flank with my allies, do not take out enemies while sneakily scouting ahead for my party unless I am, somehow, miraculously sure said enemy is at least CR 5 or greater. This threshold requirement will scale up as we continue to advance in the game.

Neither sounds fun. Is there a third option I'm not thinking of here? I could ask my DM about some sort of house rule, such as allowing me to forego some of my sneak attack dice at my discretion, I guess, but even then I'm going to have to severely neuter my character since I will never have any way of knowing with clarity which enemies I'm fighting are low CR and which are high. The only way this could feasibly work is if I had a way of knowing my enemies' CR or maximum HP, and AFAIK there is no way to do that in-game short of being a slayer. Deathwatch exists but is basically useless for this purpose.

Is there maybe some 3.5 peripheral material, or a 3rd-party source or something from Dragon Magazine, that has a spell or equipment item that allows a PC to determine enemy CR/max HP/anything that would be helpful here? I really don't know what to do. =/

Thanks.

First: "Net" is listed under "(exotic) ranged weapons." Okay, so far, so good. The rules at this point don't specify if it is a one-handed or a two-handed weapon. The "Combat" section of the CRB, under "Two Weapon Fighting" and then "Thrown Weapons" specifies that the net is a one-handed weapon, but there's a contradiction we'll discuss later on. For now, we'll leave it at this: the net is a ranged weapon with a MAXIMUM range of 10 feet (meaning, you can't throw it any farther than 10 feet away).

Second: We have the Net Adept feat, from Ultimate Combat. The Net Adapt feat says that, normally, a net is a ranged weapon that imposes a -4 penalty on ranged attack rolls if used unfolded. However, with "Net Adept" feat, a character can treat the net as a one-handed MELEE weapon with 10-foot reach, and there is no melee penalty to using an unfolded net.

Okay, so far, so good.

Then, however, things get tricky. The Net and Trident feat says that a net is normally a TWO-HANDED ranged weapon (this contradicts what the CRB says), but that with this feat you can treat a net as a one-handed RANGED weapon. This portion of the feat is - mostly - pointless. First of all, the CRB claims that you already treat the net as a one-handed ranged weapon, making this part of the feat 100% completely pointless.

If that's wrong, however, and it IS normally a two-handed ranged weapon, given the benefits of the feat "Net Adept," this portion of the feat is STILL mostly pointless.

Why? Because we already know the net has a maximum range of 10 feet, what advantage does using it as a one-handed ranged weapon give you over using it as a one-handed melee reach weapon? Even if your Ranged Attack modifier is higher than your melee attack modifier, the fact that you make touch-attacks with a net makes such a benefit minor at best. Further still, net adept takes away the penalties for MELEE attack rolls on the use of an unfolded net - meaning, they don't apply to RANGED attack rolls on the use of an unfolded net - meaning, even if your dexterity modifier was superior to your strength modifier, it'd still be superior to use the net as a melee weapon rather than a ranged weapon to avoid that unfolded penalty.

Despite all of the above, the feat COULD still be useful IF you could throw the net beyond 10 feet, but the net's description clearly states that 10-feet is a net's maximum range, so that's awash.

Add to all of this, there is an exotic two-handed MELEE weapon, the SNAG net, from the Advanced Race Guide. According to the item description, a "snag net works like a typical net exotic weapon," but again: it's listed as a two-handed melee weapon with 10-foot reach - but a typical net exotic weapon is a ranged weapon (sometimes listed as one-handed, sometimes listed as two-handed)!

Another issue: to take the "net and trident" feat, you have to take the feat Two Weapon Fighting. This is basically a feat tax. First of all, neither a trident or a net are a light weapon, meaning you'll be taking -4 to both attacks when you use them. Okay, that's a minor setback, but I can deal with that. However, with the way net-and-trident would work, you will basically never make use of TWF!

Let's say it's my turn, and I'm making a full attack. I throw my net (at 10-foot reach), entangle the opponent, five-foot step in, and make my second attack with my trident. Okay, that's all good. ... but after that point, you're no longer making any second attacks with your second weapon! You're holding onto the trailing rope, but you're only making one attack with your one weapon, which means you don't take TWF penalties (meaning there's no benefit to taking TWF)!

As a net-and-trident character, 90% of the time you aren't getting *anything* out of TWF, because your off-hand is just sitting there holding onto the net. I *guess* you get uses out of it if you're using a snag net, but that's an addendum to the rules (Advanced Race Guide came out way after Ultimate Combat).

Finally, as far as nitpicking goes, there's a LOT that's unclear about nets. If you control the trailing rope, does the net count as an unattended weapon for the purposes of requiring sunder attempts to attack? If a net is sundered, is it destroyed or does it merely gain the "broken" condition? Can the trailing rope be attacked separately from the net? What happens if you fail your opposed strength check to prevent an enemy from moving beyond the 10-foot reach of your rope?

Most of these issues can all be solved and addressed by DM fiat, but that's a LOT of ambiguity that there really should be official rules about.

TL;DR SUMMARY:
- Various official Paizo sources declare that the net is a one-handed ranged weapon, a two-handed ranged weapon, and a two-handed melee weapon. Different items/feats/documents reflect each of these.
- The first half of the "Net and Trident" feat is largely pointless
- Requiring TWF as a pre-requisite for Net and Trident seems unfair as a net-and-trident character will rarely actually make use of TWF; she'll mostly be making only her normal, iterative attacks with one weapon
- There are numerous important points of net-use that are very unclear and that, at this point in time, all require DM fiat rulings when there should be something official

Not necessarily "rogues," mind you, but... A party that would pull off a heist. It might have need of some rogues, sure, but also perhaps a bard, a wizard, a fighter...

I'd love to run an adventure that focuses on the misadventures of an enterprising group of bandits/thieves/conmen. Pathfinder is ideal, but anything from 3.5 could be easily converted. Heck, even 3.0 something!

Any advice?

Even though I funded the technology demo!

Is there any way for me to help support the game at this point?

Under this system, a player nation can't go out and start conquering the world, even if it excels and is the very best and is undeniably the most powerful player nation... because all of the other nations can just choose to not fight it.

Wars will likely only ever occur between similarly matched/sized forces, never leading to a smaller country going up against long odds and coming out the victor, or a juggernaut force laying waste to small settlements.

I don't know, I get you don't want to force players into PvP wars if they don't want to be in them, but... telling me that my nation can't invade/attack/take over (or lose to) this neighboring country because the other players don't want me to really takes away from the whole immersion "players create the game world and decide what to do and make their own stories" aspect that's supposed to be at the center of the game.

Are there any plans to address this, or... is this just something we'll have to suspend our disbelief about?

I think re-specing is a pretty hot-button issue in the world of online gaming right now.

Games like Pathfinder, many MMOs, and the original Diablo don't allow you to respec; you are who you are. Whatever you've learned and experienced is what you've learned and experienced, and there's no way back.

But some newer MMOs, and Diablo 3, have raised an interesting counterpoint: Not allowing characters to respecialize can carry with it many unfair burdens. When the game is patched or modified or rebalanced, certain characters, built on something that was great, become less useful. Certain builds may end up being "objectively better," and unless the game designers are willing to patch that build to make it less outright superior, any players who chose NOT to pursue that particular build are at a disadvantage.

So, what will the policy be towards Pathfinder: Online? I know it won't have a traditional level-up system like other MMOs, but I imagine this question still has some bearing on the game.

http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/31/secrets-of-mmo-storytelling-exclusive/

This article interviews a couple Runescape developers about storytelling in their MMO and how they engage their players. It's worth noting that 1) their quests are primarily theme park content and 2) while Runescape has never been the massive success other MMOs have been, they have remained remarkably consistent over the last 10 years.

So, take it with a grain of salt, but... I think it's an interesting read and at least some modicum of wisdom can certainly be gleamed from the article.

file
   fa-hyl, noun
1. an orderly line or row
2. Military
a) a line of persons or things arranged one behind another (distinguished from rank).                 b) a person in front of or behind another in a military formation.

Name: The First File
Role: Serve as a professional military for hire
Alignment: Lawful Neutral - Members may also be Lawful Good or Lawful Evil
Patron Deity: Kols, the Oath-Keeper, God of Duty.

Command Structure: The First File will be structured as a military with a clear chain of command. All members of The First File will follow the orders of their superiors without question; hesitation on the battlefield leads to death. Rank and promotion will be determined by two factors. [1]; Accomplishment [2]; Seniority.

The Commander-General of The First File has first and final say on all matters. However, he will always take into account the advice and perspectives of all members of the company, from his highest-ranking officers to the greenest private.

Ideology: The First File aims to function as a peerless and unparalleled military force-for-hire. We hold duty above all else. We do not care about the fight of good versus evil - we simply care about getting the job done. Such distinctions mean nothing to the First File, and only distract from our paramount objective: fulfilling our duty. We will never break a contract - our word is our bond. Duty and honor above all else.

Function: We will primarily charter our services to smaller nations and kingdoms that have need of a powerful military. Our objectives will be as varied as any militaries; sometimes we'll simply escort convoys, and sometimes we'll lay siege to enemy territory. Sometimes we'll face our enemies in open combat, sometimes we shall use stealth and guile to get the better of our opponents.

The name "First File" refers to both our function and our status. As a military unit, we will become the very best; first, foremost, ahead of the competition. Our rank-and-file will be far and above the quality of most any other military.

Who Should Join The First File? The First File will act as an unrivaled and unsurpassed military force. Even the armies of Kings and nations will pale when compared to our army; we shall be the best trained force The River Kingdoms have ever seen.

If you wish to serve as part of something greater than yourself, are willing to follow the orders of your superiors without question, and ultimately join the fiercest fighting force in all the land, you would be openly invited to join The First File.

How do I join?
Submit an application to me, describing yourself, why you want to join The First File, and why you think you would be a good fit for our proud and noble organization.

Feel free to ask any and all questions; I'll answer them to the best of my ability.

Obviously this game is going to include guild wars to various extents.

I'm curious about when two nations go to war with each other - when it's just two parties doing a little PvP, whatever, someone wins, someone loses.

But when a NATION, a settlement; with a castle and a town and civilians - gets invaded by another nation... what can happen? Can that whole nation be utterly wiped out, destroyed? Can their entire territory be consumed by the rival, invading nation?

Or if they "lose" a war will they just be able to respawn or whatever like nothing ever happened?

IF they can lose and be wiped out... would it be possible, in theory, for one player nation to dominate the ENTIRE game world and become a vast, all-reaching Empire?

I hope so! Because then that leads to my idea: Nations should be able to have rebellions. Coupes. In-fighting!

I love the idea of the different types of governments - monarchies, democracies, oligarchies, etc (also: you should consider adding THEOCRACIES! Although I guess those could just function as variations of monarchies/oligarchies, the distinction could be significant), but I also like the idea of people being able to change the status quo. There'd need to be limits on it, but in the event as described above where one nation takes over the world, it'd be quite interesting if PCs could form a rebellion resistance group to fight the nation.

Any input, ideas, feedback, criticism, suggestions, etc. are welcome.

Normally, multi-classing sorcerer/wizard doesn't make any sense at all and, is, in fact, completely pointless. But, based on flavor and concept alone, I think this would be really cool (AND it would add a reason to multi-class sorcerer/wizard!). Think about it.

Sorcerers are inherently magical people; magic runs in their blood. Through their own personal force of will and command of their bodies, they are able to conjure magical effects.

Wizards, on the other hand, have nothing magical about them. They're really just ordinary people. But, they're incredibly intelligent and know a lot about magic, and through their knowledge of the arcane arts are able to conjure magical effects.

Flavor wise, I don't think you can deny it's a really cool concept; a person who is innately gifted with the power of magic, who also is incredibly intelligent and knowledgeable about the arcane arts, who can combine his natural affinity and incredible intellect to devastating levels; a true master of magic.

Thoughts?

I don't know how much talk there has been about the mechanics of your system, but I think there are a couple of things that could be learned from the great experience (and later abysmal failure) that was Star Wars: Galaxies.

Before it got ruined, SW:G The economy was really, truly, 100% player driven. Based on your goals and ideas for this project, I think that is what you want for Pathfinder Online, too.

The clothes you wore, the guns you shot, the speeder you drove, the glasses you wore, the tables you put in your house, the house you built, the armor you lost, the minerals, the gas, the food, the inorganics, every single thing that went into gear, decorations, building, architecture, vehicles, was entirely farmed, cultivated, crafted, and sold by players.

It was honestly amazing.

You could become a server-wide famous gunsmith, or you could be his upstart competition with undercut prices, or you could be the smuggler who sliced the guns people bought from him for a wicked price (because it was "illegal"), you could blanket miles of the landscape with your gas or mineral harvesters.

It's also really important to know that there was no universal auction house, and the presence of one would have ruined and undermined that whole economy. You often had to hop planets and drive/walk yourself for half an hour to some kick-ass armorsmith's house, and sometimes you'd arrive only to find some reseller bought all his gear and was selling it for a jacked up price the next town over. Things like that can't happen with an auction house.

Even just the experience and aesthetic was spectacular and unique and unlike anything I've ever seen since. It was amazing having one of 50 houses in a player city on Tatooine, logging on and seeing lots of people walking around the bustling city, seeing all the players who owned different shops that sold their own or other players' goods, from weapons, armor and vehicles to even houses (there was an architect job). You could even go to the cantina to be entertained by a real person who played a musician character too.

Aside from missions involving NPCs, there were massive pvp faction wars in and between player built cities that sprawled across the landscape. It was EVE online without the mathematic drudgery, with all the PvP of WoW and none of the cartoony and kiddy-grade "style."

It was a phenomenal game. ... then they brought in Jedi in the dumbest way possible, and the integrity of a community that made servers feel like a living thing just fell to crap in a matter of weeks.

DESPITE ALL THIS, I'm not saying Pathfinder: Online should be Star Wars Galaxies but in the Pathfinder universe. For all those amazing qualities and aspects, SW:G had a lot of problems and LucasArts really ruined the whole thing with their updates and patches.

BUT, I do think it is a worthwhile example of what you're going for to keep in mind, I think, and maybe something to draw some inspiration from.

In terms of the nation building, I mean?

Where will settlements/villages/cities/kingdoms lay, geographically, in relation to each other? How will they lay geographically in relation to the rest of the world? How will they interact? How will people pledge allegiance to once city or another? How will management of that city work?

Can merchant PCs hire NPCs to sell their goods for them?

The WORLD will be inspired by Pathfinder - how much will the gameplay?

Will the world be inspired by the Pathfinder Core Rules, or everything (including peripherals, additional books, campaign settings, etc.)?

How can I sign up to beta test?

How will scripted encounters work in randomly generated or player-generated locations?

How much will gameplay be SKILL based? By that I mean... In games like WoW, if you have two equally-built characters, but one character has the superior equipment, that character will win fights 9 times out of 10. Or, if you have one higher level character fighting a lower level character, that character will almost NEVER win. Will it be possible for lower-leveled players to beat higher-leveled players through superior mastery of gameplay? Through strategy and tactics?

SOME MMOs tote how much variety and how many character building options they have, when really most of the different characters are just slightly tweaked versions of the same four options with a modicum of choice in abilities (which again are usually very similar). Can we expect the same level of variety in options in PFO as we have in Pathfinder?

I know many of the answers to my questions aren't available yet, but these are just some things that have been on my mind that I thought I'd post here. Even if answers aren't available, they could still proc interesting discussion or speculation.

I'll post more questions as I think of them.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy8ld1

The Paizo website says it should be released in April of 2012.

Is there any expectation of a playtest of some of the feats, race archetypes, or new races included? If so, does anyone have any idea when such a playtest might be released?

Thanks!