Search Posts
I = 20 WTH? You aren't a libsassin. you're a wizarian. But I suspect you are a drow underneath it all making you a websassin.
The test does have some issues with wording that arguably invalidate it. However, to have a 1 or 2 in some areas is not abnormal - most tests take this into account (it just represents that your answer was at an extreme of the curve). I also took the alignment test and came out at N/N.
Alignment:
Law & Chaos:
Good & Evil:
Race:
Class:
As far as formation skills are concerned, I believe they should be trained separately from the weapon skills. It doesnt matter if my character knows Short Sword V, has he trained in its use with with allies pressed up against me limiting my range of movement? Someone with Polearm I and Spearwall Formation V should (in theory) be better in a team context than someone with Polearm V and Spearwall Formation 0. Interesting - I hadn't thought of formations as being a skill. Mayhap that opens up the ability for groups to be more open and not require lockstep choreography.
I'd like to see skills used as requirements for formation bonuses rather than roles. (And to help determine the effectiveness of the bonus) Just because I know use: short sword II, shield .5 doesn't necessarily make me a great infantryman. But use: short sword IX, shield VII should make me pretty darn good. This could allow a unique mix of archetypes to be used in group formations, provide granularity in formations, and allow for elite or specialized units. For example: if shield skills were required by all chars in a formation to receive the turtle bonus, conceivably a wizard that took the skill "use shield" use could get in the turtle group formation. The group turtles close to the enemy, protected from arrow barrages, allowing the wiz to unleash a fireball farther back in the enemies ranks, avoiding FF issues, and then he could deliver some touch spells to help his mates finish off their opponents. As for skills determining the amount of bonus to be given to a formation - this would help with granularity and not necessarily mean that certain skills would be must haves for certain formations. If the wiz didn't have the shield skill, he could still benefit somewhat from the skills of his mates, or the whole "turtle" could have a bonus that was (slightly) less than what the turtle would have if all had the skill: use shield. I also like the idea of group rituals providing power, range or some other effect. Rituals could be seen as a formation and provide a means for more sustained spellcasting rather than being limited to the number of spells each char had slotted. Hence, a group of druids skipping around an oak staff might be able to cast heat metal over a section of a battlefield and sustain it for several minutes. A group of 5 wizzes might form a pentagram and summon a devil. A cabal of clerics might be able to "magic stone" catapult boulders rather than just make magic pebbles.
My apologies then, I thought you were objecting to feeding your char. When one goes offline they should be in suspended animation and not need to feed themselves, or their pets. Taxes, tithes, or levies could only last as long as the money held out and then they'd lose whatever bennies that belonging to a settlement provided them. I would hate to come back to the game in 10 years and find a char I'd spent 2 years on dead of starvation, but I could cope with needing to find a new settlement.
I really don't think that having to explicitly take care of basic survival necessities is particularly cool or immersive. Should we have a slider for controlling inhaling & exhaling, too? The more strenuous activity you do, the faster you have to move the slider from "inhale" to "exhale" and back, or you pass out.... Grow from your cocoon, little larva. Maybe if you looked at it from a different angle you might see some merit. That is, eating and drinking could consume resources, create markets, provide meaningful interaction, justify NPCs and settlement levies, augment game mechanics, involve chars with the world, and develop storylines? Resources from farming and hunting would be consumed, disappearing from the surplus and creating value for land. Markets could be created to supply grains, meats, vegetables etc. This would give cooks a reason to interact and develop ties to farmers, (and legitimize Tony's Bakery and bring protection money for transport through Bluud's band), creating meaningful interaction. NPCs (and slaves) could have a role and make their being well fed a factor in a strong settlement (if your guards are hungry they might not want to risk their lives). You settlement taxes could provide you with some measure of comfort knowing that while you are out slaying gobbies, your town has at least some measure of defense against the Goons because the watch is well fed. Those who want pets might need to feed them to keep them loyal and healthy, not to mention that it might be a way to tame a beast or cause your pet to grow in power just as you do. Starvation could be a viable mechanic in warfare/siege.Yeah, its an inconvenience to clik a button every game day, but think of all the interaction you are stimulating with just one clik. You have become the butterfly.
[*: I'm guessing it's gonna be really damned unlikely that someone playing Pathfinder Online wouldn't be a fan of the tabletop game and not know about the various deities and what they stand for. Hello :)
Regarding bandits getting + rep for successful SADs - Would the opposite happen (ie bandits get - rep) if the SAD or attack failed? Would the merchant get + rep if he successfully defended his caravan? I would like to think the inverse would hold true, but cannot cite anything.
At this stage I'd only be guessing; so much depends on other factors like friendly fire, collision detection, archetypal breadth/depth, saving throws, in game IC skills, end game design, alignment, and f2p restrictions. Some abilities, spells, and feats seem virtually impossible to code unless it boils down to a few choices on a pop up screen or as percentages. (For ex: someone "clairvoyances" my intentions. Results are 60% chance of attack, 20% leave alone, 20% join group based on my Hx of interaction with other players.)
If you're gonna have crits you need fumbles too.
When I touch my LCD screen they feel flat though. Time to upgrade to a "touch" screen.
@Phyllain It would be griefing if somehow you kept on targetting the same couple guys and constantly harassed them at the exclusion of others. If you are using the cycle to rampage around a hex and indiscriminately attack any adventurers, that's not griefing. Just chaotic. Declaring war on their settlement and using hex-calation cycles to accomplish your goal to wipe them out would be lawful. And evil. And very, very classy.
Noo, I can't. I..won't. Well, maybe just one. Baudelaire's Bathhouse - what happens here stays here
@ Imbicatus - I'm against letting crafters name their items- too much room for folly. In your example, Goblin-slicer might not have anything to do with goblins, it's just a regular longsword with a fancy (and misleading) name. If it were a Goblin bane weapon I see no reason why it couldn't be called a Goblin-slicer or Gobbobane longsword - that would indicate it really did have some attribute that would be useful against Gobbies. I'd be open to seeing the crafter get their name on it tho. Goblin Bane Longsword crafted by Imbicatus. That tells me that the weapon is particularly good against Goblins. (Truth in advertising) And it tells me who made it. This helps the crafter with advertising. When I loot that PIMA pally and get a XX Longsword crafted by Imbicatus my OOC knowledge of who to talk to about buying swords, especially about XX Longswords goes up.
Personally I land on the side of FF being a positive thing. It means folks have to pay attention to what they slot and AoE may not be the spell or feat of choice. It means thinking before spamming, it encourages alternative spell/feat uses. It encourages you to act within certain alignment strategies. It opens up possibilities and improbabilities that add flavour to the game. It takes nothing away, it only adds. Personally I'd like a game where spamming fireball isn't all there is to do. And if that's all I do, or want to do, well there's an alignment for that.
And in the same vein, what happens when the LG pally whacks my heinous necro who is grouped up with a CG barbarian. How do group dynamics interact with alignments when it comes to combat? Will formal grouping even be possible? Maybe someone here can tell me. @Zol - sorry not tryin to derail.
Only the wildshape is dedicated, the other abilities are shared... And that wouldn't be dedicated if shapechange (wiz/sorc) was included.
If it takes five years to achieve #4 I think it would work well. Stephen said "or they can try to do all of these things at the same speed of leveling a full four-role multiclass at the same time" which could also very well be close to 10 years. Would that change your voting? While 4 does sound ideal I continue to stand by my thinking that no class should reach it's "cap" much earlier or much later than others if training towards that "cap" is consistent. And, splitting a class into 4 roles needed to fulfill the class archetype is also wrong. It shouldn't take 2.5 years for 10 classes to reach their archetypal "cap" and 1 class to require 5-10 years. Equality for all archetypes! Even if it means missing the ideal.
#1 and #3 (My destiny's twin is voting too) #4 would take way too long - 10 years possibly. I don't like having a class that takes four times as long to reach it's cap. An archetype's rate of training should be the same as any other archetype. #2 is a bit too bizarre for my tastes and doesn't really fit in with my sense of what a druid is all about. I agree with Imbicatus that druids are more spellcasting focused rather than front row melee types. #1 is a good choice, getting a pet, wild shape and access to some nice spells. Not overpowering but it touches on most of the things folks seem to equate with this class. #3 seems a lot like #1 except stronger magic and lesser wild shape abilities, while retaining the pet option. Both seem viable to me.
There should be no way to take a Settlement with hostile action for all the reasons Bing cited. Capitulation in a negotiated resolution seems legit to me. SAD for cities! Question - If a LG city ceeded their ownership to a CE group, would the CE's get access to the improved training grounds?
Maybe it's time to start a necro thread? "...And then I brought him back again, just to say HI" :P Evil clerics could be candidates for the Heinous flag if they summoned an evil planar creature, right?
Necromancy is a subdiscipline of Wizardry. A wizard who raises the undead as his minions is what is being called necromancer. A Necromancer who does not raise undead is a wizard. From the PFGuide: "The magical field of necromancy is one of the eight schools of magic recognized on Golarion today. It deals with the manipulation of the essential life force which infuses all living things. Its darker aspect is the creation and control of undead creatures. Wizards who specialize in necromantic magic are known as necromancers" Bold is mine I read that to say that creating and controlling undead is just an aspect of the school, not a requirement of the school. If it is not a requirement, if it is not an essential part of being a necro, then a necro wouldn't have to use them to ply his trade. If he choose to bring them out, oh well, suffer the possible arrows. If a pet wasn't required to be viable in the class, then there wouldn't be a need to rely on the pet and voila, then no problem to being a necro.
Agreed, mostly. And this is compounded by the fact that the more pets we raise the more villanous we become until we get the villian flag which is good for 24 hours. This kinda assumes that a pet will be an essential part for playing a necromancer. If it isn't, ie: the class is viable enuff to stand on it's own, then pets become something we only pull out now and then rather than a regular basis. In which case, the system ain't broke, and we are really thumbing our noses at convention and will have to learn how to live with the bullseye on our cloaks.
Kinda depends on systems they employ - will soft skills like sense motive, knowledge (local) be in game and trainable? Will spells like know alignment be in? How long will it take to reset skill slots - If I can only reset skills every hour I might not want to use a slot for more info on my compadres. I think it should cost something to scan someone's alignment. I kinda agree with LordD that getting checked is like being attacked, but it isn't considered such in PF guidebk. Definitely feels like being groped every time I get my credit history checked tho. So maybe it costs a rep point to do a body scan?
-most heinous (champions slain)
The traveller flag might be handy when you're out berry picking - you can pick more berries (^encumbrance) over a greater area (^ travel) and minimize the impact. Just Kidding ;) At some level it depends on how you want to engage in the world. Do you see yourself as a fence sitter, doing nothing, or are you going to take a more militant approach? Are you going to allow attended harvesters free resource depletion or gank 'em occaisionally to allow everyone to have equal opportunity. Are you going to lease rights to an area and provide protection? Are your a protector of wild beasts - many animals/monsters in PFRPG are actually neutral- so will you spare none who come to kill for sport? What is your position towards settling hexes? Mayhap you don't want to see the wilds tamed and will do whatever is possible to protect them and provide a third "axis" in warfare games, aligning with attackers until a settlement is destroyed then fighting the winners in an attempt to reclaim the wilds. If so, some of the flags may be of benefit...maybe? Never stand under a druid on a tightrope - you don't know which way he's going to fall.
I'd think the joining of settlements would be a simple mechanic like going to town hall and talking to an NPC who would ask if you wanted to join. The governor would have given instructions for that NPC mechanic when he set up the settlement. When you said yes the server would check your credentials and say yea or nay. The latter could be hard. I can see one possibility if detect alignment spells are allowed. Or they might have to be a bit tolerant. If guards have some innate abilty to detect alignment and a settlement had set rules about who could enter the settlement, a CC/guild might use the ability to enter the settlement as an indicator of the desired alignment.
Don´t like very much this need to destroy everything to conquer a settlement it look like a "Gengis Khan playstyle", people should be allowed to keep some buildings and repair it. Yeah, what you said. I could see that some skill centers might need to be raised to keep CE from getting access to best tier training, and/or that special upgrades might not be able to be restored though. Could even lead to some great RPing things or quests. YMMV
But that remains to be seen. As you allude to in your post, there could be mechanical bonuses (synergies) that come from training skills together. If this were true, it could make training in 2 or more things at the same time a very positive thing to do. Anyway, I don't think we can make the assumption that train one skill to 100% is the way to go yet. We will need to wait and see on some of these things.
In an open carry state, yes the caller was overreacting. But people are taught to fear guns like they were venomous snakes, who at any moment will strike. It's sadly funny to see people's reactions, they really feel that guns will just stand up and start shooting on their own. Hmmm...Not going to touch this one except to say I think you are posting on the wrong thread. You might try NRA.com. If you'd like to talk to me about this, please send me a PM.
Greetings, good sir!
half - halflings ... they would be quarterlings ?I would think three-quarter-lings... I just call 'em wings...and they taste great.
Are you a politician Snowberad? LOL You have unmasked me, sir. 'Course I could be lying.
If the two can train simultaneously, can they do so with different skill tracts? I'm fairly sure that they will be able to train simultaneously in different skill tracts. Anything else seems like an attempt to pick my pocket. There's no way I am going to pretend I can play anything lawful. My own nature is too chaotic. (There are no moral absolutes, existentialism rules but anarchy and nihilism sux) And sadly, I have never played any mmo for 2.5 years, much less 17. (Hell, I'm damn near 60, no phreakin way will I be playin' this game in 17 years) So, I'm probably gonna go for some crossbreed, play for a couple years, and find something else to do, if history is a fortune teller. As much as they might be gimped in the short run, I'm probably going to try to create some sort of mystic theurge, eldritch knight or arcane archer archetype with my main and my twin. Now you've been warned, 'Ware the 'Beard...
All that written stuff was just early fantasy, like sci-fi rayguns are for us. And those statues, those were abstract art. And those African tribes, heck, they're getting paid by the tourist industry to add flavor. ;P
It may not be quite an all or nothing proposition. We need to know more about what skills will be available and how they interact. In the course of training crafting armor, for example, one might actually be training in armor wearing (light, medium, heavy) at the same timee, just perhaps slower. While a char that spends most of his time training on wearing armor may also get a training bump in armor craftsmanship. New players may indeed be faced with some hard choices. Buying another slot or account for a char might be an option. Those who wish to dedicate themselves to crafting might quickly catch up to those who are only crafting sometimes. Your question raised a strange question for me. Well organized guilds often get access to materials cheaper and rarer than what a new or solo player can. If the new player can't produce goods as cheaply or get access to rarer mats, would this be a form of griefing? (Big business/monopolies vs. mom and pop) Or is joining a guild going to be mandatory for those who wish to survive as a crafter?
Let players choose their alignments and keep them so long as they don't actively violate the ethos greatly. Instead of an alignment hit for a LG character (only an example) who kills one "evil" PC, make it five PC's as then there is a pattern. It will be interesting to watch LGs stumble upon an evil or 2 getting their rumps handed to them by another group of LGs with attacker flags and possibly even criminal flags flying. Sanctity of life vs. elimination of all evil vs doing nothing. (Inaction is still an action, the action of choosing not to make a choice)...Up on the horns as it were. What would happen in your point system if they chose sanctity? would they take a super hit for killing LGs? Uhh, brain hurt..need coffee.
What really worries me about this is how this will be reinforced. Will the accused be given a chance to defend himself? Yes ...Currently I often occupy the outlaws den in SWTOR, claiming it as my own... Camping a location may be a form of griefing, though camping your settlement or protecting something your have rights to won't be. If you are in unsettled areas the rules will be a lot more open. A few months back me and my Mandalorian clan got into open war with another clan...Sense they have been VERY paranoid. Claiming we single them out in warzones and the like to spoil their fun. A declared war between 2 settlements is totally legal and supported by the rules. Constant complaining to GMs about getting griefed/ganked will result in investigation. If their complaints are unfounded they could be penalized by the GMs for griefing you (and the GMs) In all these instances I have acted in character and within the games rules... Acting IC may not be a viable explanation or excuse certain forms of behavior. But I could be wrong - The game is still sorting this stuff out.
I was just thinking, I'd much rather have a human(oid) side-kick rather than a pet. When the game gets going and I am turning a profit I hope to get a slave, err player, to brew my ale, repair my armor, etc. He gets experience in crafting and I live the life due to me. Plus, he's expendable. Baring that, I wouldn't mind something else, but I think Onishi points out some drawbacks that need consideration. Maybe limited to inside a settlement, w/non-combatant status?
No, I think you shortened it. Wed is going to look like KS all over again, constantly refreshing the page.
@Nihimon - Thanks for the clarification.
Ahh, finally found why my goat got roped. Anyways, nuff said. Peace.
Yep, but evil paladin has different skills than a good one. So in a classless system the decision has to be made whether you want to be a good paladin or a bad one because they have different skills. The paladin is a tough nut to crack. They could have different skills, but why would they? Suppose they had the same skills. How would that change anything in an alignment free system? @Mbando "The above goat-rope...". What's a goat rope? It seems that if we enjoy discussing these things, even conceptualizing and theorizing how things might be different even if they are radical departures from what is known about the game then we should be able to. Mayhap someone says wow, what a great idea and in 10 years they put out a concept found here using voxels for total environmental control and 3D realism, and take RPGMMO's to even greater heights. The argument we can profitably have is about how alignment as proposed in the game design will affect play. For example, the devs have decided that killing is inherently evil. I'm concerned about how that would affect paladins because I want to play one, but I'm not going to waste time arguing that they shouldn't do that, or about how killing isn't always evil in RL. You are right, it might be a more profitable arguement is about how game design may affect play. But I feel like you just censured people for discussing ideas. This thread was not about how current game design will affect play, but rather why a classless system is better. A better contribution from you might have been to show why a casteless, err classless, system is bad. Sorry, not trying to flame or be personal. Something you said just got my goat. :P Lucky you. You have chosen a class that has no counterpart to the alignment. (All others do) I would like to have been your evil counterpart, but I can't, so I whine a bit about it on the boards hoping someone will notice. (Shameless plug!) @GrumpyMel - TY nicely said.
Oh but I do like classes, as some way you gain an advantage over other characters in certain skill-sets. But that's the point. If you want to play a pally, then act like a pally, follow pally skill sets, do pally things, and EARN your special pally powers. Some guy who doesn't make an effort to pray, serve his church or cult, for example never earns palladinal abilities. He stays a fighter. @Aeioun - in PnP yes, but in the system suggested in this thread I could be an evil paladin by doing things in line with want I want to be. Eg: I protect a caravan, give a beggar a silver, defend my Lord, build a shrine to my god, pray with my priest. Clearly paladinal traits. But if the caravan was transporting bodies for a necromancer, I kicked the beggar on the way back, my Lord was Vlad the Impaler, the shrine was to/for Asmodeus, and my priest was a vampire I would be, in action, a paladin. And my God would reward me with paladin abilities for acting in line with His wishes.
No, not quite. All the slotted skills must be from one role/class you would receive a dedication bonus. Some skills might be cross class meaning several classes might share that skill in their "skill tree" and that would be OK.
+1 Well said - Trying to get thread back on track. My char is no more or less than the skills I select - the idea imitates RL. This would be ideal. And not unsurmountable.
IIRC there were the possibilities for titles mentioned as part of a upper scale Kickstarter package.
If the same system is used for crafters, (ie they could get a dedication bonus for slotting skills that only apply to their archetype)... As I said, I'm wrong more than I'm rite, so it wouldn't surprise me if your thoughts are correct. Re crossover, exactly my point, there is no need. Re dedication, you might be correct,- it will depend on how much time it takes a smith to skill up. We don't know yet, so it is possible that a pure smith might hit 20 in a year, In which case it might be smart to multicraft. If no one can use his lvl 20 works why make em? As for a pure crafter, he might never need to go outside of his settlement. Plus wouldn't training in "adventuring skills" take time away from his dedication (following, not the bonus) to crafting?
+1 As someone who had hoped to be an "evil" type, just 'cause I like the spells, gear, intrigue and romance, and in no way do I condone griefing or ganking, I have been disturbed by the fact that many wanted open season for my ilk, (though we may not bear any flag) and suffer no penalty for their actions. Unless you talk to me, you do not know my motives, and should you take the time to do so, I might convince you that I am an enigma and a paragon of virtue.
I might be lying tho. @the Devs: Please allow a counter-class to paladins and include anti-paladins in the core. Every other class has an oppositional possibility except them.
Just finished reading the Roles and Capstones thread and I had some nifty capstone ideas in mind for crafters. But the capstone idea is gone and replaced by dedication bonuses. If the same system is used for crafters, (ie they could get a dedication bonus for slotting skills that only apply to their archetype) AIUI, they could be one of the fastest "leveling" classes, (and possibly even when it comes to crafters haveing multiple professions, a "multi-crafter" if you will) since the skills/items they needed to slot might not require ever looseing the dedication bonus. They would always equip the right items slotted and never have a pick slotted when all they needed was a needle. 'Course if it took longer to earn crafting "badges" and skill up I could be way wrong.
My bad. I see how you and Sunwader meant it now. Sunwader just said presets in the first post and I got hung up there and...well anyway. The player makes (purchases) what they want to use for disguises and creates a list of disguises (identities). Player selects what disguise they want to use from the list. Makes sense to me and avoids suspicous behavior of running to the bank to swap outfits. Plus, could be an interesting way to slip into a crowd and make a getaway - Brother J darts around a corner, strips his robe and becomes Bob the butcher. Thanks for clarifying - I like the idea. There is a limit to "where" (pun intended) micromanagement becomes tedious. I promise I'll stop writing in the wee hours of the night.
|
