Trikk's page

I could unburden someone of their alpha invite!

That is what turned me off right from the git-go. I suppose in a way that is shallow of me, the game-play should have been a priority, and player interaction should have been at the top of the list, but visual style immediately suggested a juvenile theme that was about as attractive and interesting as Candy-Land and I never got close enough to find out first hand whether it was just the overwrapping of a good game. I figured I would hear good things about it if it were worth my time, especially since my guild had a sizeable contingent in its beta.

Presentation is actually important to the gameplay experience. I don't follow Epic Games assertion that "eyecandy = gameplay", but the artistic style of a game definitely affects the experience. It's not about texture resolution or fancy lighting effects, but the basic character design, environments, etc.

For example, TF2 would still be playable without the iconic characters, but far less so. I don't think WoW would have exploded as it did without the recognizable setting and notable locations from the strategy game series. If PFO fails to find an enjoyable artistic style and just looks like any old fantasy MMORPG from the 00s, it won't ruin the game but it will be hard to gain mainstream traction.

WildStar had a style that felt like "calculated whackiness". It was hard to feel a connection to your own character, which is so very important in the MMORPG genre. It was hard to make your character stand out and everything was the same flavor of unicorn poop. I'm sure there are some people that enjoy the aesthetic, but those people are probably not in the PC MMORPG subscriber demographic.

I've never seen an unhackable or unexploitable game. The developers who deem their game such are usually the ones that fall the hardest.

The best you can hope for is that there are people dedicated (read: paid) to monitor and police the game. The chief goblin seems to get it so I'm not too worried, honestly.

I wouldn't expect errata until Monday at the very earliest, it's very possible that they haven't discovered this issue until it was mentioned on the forums for a number of reasons and then they have to pull someone off a project for a bit to look into it. It's not like they have someone sitting on "errata duty", able to jump unto any uncertainties at moments notice.

The GM can make it so you never find any weapons higher than +2. There is no rule that says he can't. Your options are to play in a world where weapons never get higher than +2 or just not play the game with that GM.

I don't know about you guys, but I find constructs to be the only playable creature types. Me and the other 25 GMs I've played with for the last 35 years always set our campaigns on planes without a breathable atmosphere, which makes it rough for first level humanoids and native outsiders.

This does not even remotely work...

You cannot create a scroll of a spell you do not know. The rule you are attempting to use does NOT apply to scrolls.

Woah bro, why you hating on wizards?

Those words are just guidelines! Are they even in the CRB (the only real rule book)!?

Ps. Suck it, sorcerers.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

The stuff people often think is meaningful is really just visual effects and has no relationship to the underlying combat mechanic or the heartbeat. It's an illusion.

Would you say that this illusion is important to the player experience?

For some players it's crucial to the experience. Some players still play UO.

The problem with not worrying about facing / positioning can be seen in the combat sequence around 02:04 wear the fighter is killed while his opponent is facing the opposite direction.

It's way easier to code combat if you don't have to worry about facing, but it has to be communicated to the player somehow that an opponent is targeting or able to target you.

This post about combat ?

Is QTE = Quick Time Event (combat)?

Are you saying you'd prefer more actiony, manual aiming combat?

=

I've decided I like actiony combat too but in mmorpgs if I can't get that then I like much slower and thoughtful approach of action counter-action, predict action, force action, make the most of a bad scenario etc type of combat. I think that could be up there with actiony combat but for different reasons.

Not saying the above is anywhere near that, yet, but I like the slower pace the slow strikes - it just needs more reaction to actions as cosmetics to the skills visual cue of success vs failure of your character skill chosen.

The other thing is as with graphics finessing towards a style again for tons of players on screen and for tons of different systems as well as combat, I think I'm happy with combat being abstracted. For games where I'm in the sound and fury of combat, I don't know that mmorpgs are my top option for that experience.

Tbh, I like the sound of what Ryan mentions above there. I have no idea if it's related to QTE however; it does sound related to the 6-second turn that's been described to make your moves to gain condition advantages. I don't think it necessarily falls into the longer you play more uber you...

Yes, that post and yes, Quick Time Events. QTEs don't require facing or positioning, they are simply one keypress during a certain time window to get an effect. It's widely regarded as bad game design, because the player is more immersed and entertained by the experience if they get to directly control their character instead of just making a simple A, B or C choice (where one is wrong, one is sub-optimal and one is optimal).

I personally prefer manual aiming combat, but just making it directly controlled by the player doesn't make it fun and interesting. There's plenty of awful action-oriented MMORPGs out there. I've had fun with auto-aim MMORPGs, but I feel that they've basically been done as well as they can be. In its core, it's a very distant and unexciting way of doing things. Action combat has still not achieved the same level of polish of the potential that exists.

When it comes to truly massive scale combat, it'll never feel responsive and fun when it comes to the combat, those fights are more about politics and large-scale tactics than the individuals enjoyment. At least until we achieve ludicrous computing power and network communications.

The more I hear and see from the game, the more skeptical I become. When I read Ryan Dancey's post on what they're trying to achieve, a nightmare scenario of QTE combat immediately came to mind.

I've no choice but to like this game since I've already pledged to the Kickstarter, but I secretly hope that they realize how boring auto-aim combat is compared to the modern MMO style where controlling your character and thinking on your feet is promoted over gear and statistics.

Hopefully I'm wrong and this turns out to be a deep and rich strategy experience where player agency decides the outcome more than how long you've played.

When I read the discussions about PvP here, a lot of it concerns which rules will make it fair and fun, how it will be organized and so on.

One fundamental question I have when reading these types of discussions is how people will be able to tell if they have any chance of even fighting back.

Given that the game will have progression, we can assume that a player that has played longer not only is likely to hold an advantage in game knowledge, but his character will have progressed further and might simply have better stats for combat.

We know that the game will not promote "twitch" skill and that reaction time and aim will play little if any role in combat, so what chance will a new player have against a veteran?

More importantly, how are we able to tell if we are facing a scrub or a fluent speaker of the 1337?

In other tab-target MMOs (EQ clones), a level advantage is usually enough to determine the outcome of a fight unless there are extreme mistakes being made and capitalized on. It might be enough to simply see that an opponent has a lot of progression on their character.

On the other hand, if weapons and fighting styles follow a sort of rock-paper-scissors balance, then a low-powered rock could still destroy the finest scissors in the land. Or what if the progression was mostly in non-combat stuff?

Seeing a masterful baker rob a paladin would be pretty hilarious.

Is anyone else concerned with this or is it considered a non-issue because people will fight to the death no matter what?

I think putting on pants should take skill, otherwise everyone would be wearing pants.

I find that putting on pants is difficult enough to accomplish and impossible to motivate oneself for in real life. I want this game to have some escapism, please.

This game will be very silly if the maximum rendering distance is 120ft, or even 100 yards.

"Stealth" (aka what any rational person would call invisibility) is extremely powerful in sandbox PvP games.

It's an offensive and a defensive ability. It allows you to pick your fights, to scout, to position yourself, to time your attack, to lure people away from safety, to ambush, to steal, etc, etc.

In DotA and HoN you spend gold that could be used to deal more damage, take less damage, control the enemy heroes, get more mana, etc, only to detect invisible enemy heroes.

Invisibility is literally so powerful that Tolkien wrote a trilogy about a ring that granted it.

In games with invisibility and PvP, people always max out the counter-stealth ability, if there is one. They grab talents, feats or put skill points into detecting invisible players because it's so extremely powerful to become invisible.

Invisibility is the kind of ability that needs severe limitations and a plethora of counters to remain optional rather than mandatory.

A game is about making easy things hard. But simple things should be simple.

Workflow is about making complex tasks easy.

A game is not about a hard task, but it may have complexity.

o R

lam

Yes, putting on a pair of pants should be a simple click while defeating a dragon should require knowledge, tactics and skill.

You should try Call of Duty.

I have played some of them, they have great firearms combat, very fluid and smooth. They usually feature pretty terrible progression systems though, and virtually no story or role-playing features.

It's a game people switch to when they get bored of the horrible MMORPG combat in their MMORPG of choice, but not a game they will stay with for any significant amount of time compared to what we invest in MMORPGs for non-combat reasons.

I think Ultima Online among other MMORPGs have shown that players do not know what they want. Players think they want easy, safe, fast but when games adapt features to make it easier, safer and faster the players get bored and leave.

WoW is another good example. Dungeons and raids are too hard! World PvP is dangerous! Traveling takes too long! Now the players are bored out of their minds because they clear all content in no time, there's never any sense of danger or drama or urgency and the world feels tiny.

Look at Diablo 3 vs Path of Exile. Diablo 3 is a straight up smoother experience than Diablo 2. There's no risk of PvP, there's no permanent choices for your character, anyone can beat the game if they put the time in. Path of Exile instead embraced the difficulties and challenges of D2 and it's been able to maintain and grow their player population continuously.

Games should be considered art. An artist doesn't ask the public what they want to hear, see, smell, taste or touch. They create a work of art and then the players experience it. Crowdforging should be considered critique rather than dictation; we are telling them how we feel but they have the responsibility of turning our thoughts into a great game.

I don't think any MMORPG has had a good combat system. I've never played an MMORPG because of its sweet combat, and most people I've known who played MMORPGs with me have had other games they switch to for actual entertaining fighting mechanics.

Tab-targeting and homing attacks don't make for very exciting combat. A few games have tried getting away from that, but have never had as polished systems as you find in non-MMORPGs or have simply failed in being good at the actual MMORPG part.

For good combat I would look at games like War of the Roses, Pirates, Vikings and Knights 2, Chivalry, and any other titles that rely solely on combat to draw players in and maintain their interest. People don't play WoW for 5 years because it's amazingly fun to press [TAB][1][1][1][2][1][3].

Oh, I dunno... it seems like there might be some RP value in the poison made by a master alchemist and applied by a master villain that very gradually reduces the HP potential toward/to/beyond zero while the victim tries to identify the poison and locate an antidote...

This is a video game and not a novel though, so I'd expect people would be getting pretty tired of logging in every day, getting poisoned and then having to spam the chat with "NEED ANTIDOTE #34225 PLZ HALP".

@Trikk

How do you propose to keep player written guides, etc. off of the internet?

What is worth pointing out, is what is told/not told, is irrelevant in the context of an MMO. You mention the preference of Nethack, because it doesn't tell you everything. Guess what though, if you look up net-hack guides, every object, every item etc.... is fully detailed and accounted for. Now admitted nethack certainly has the advantage of "well you can't chose what items you get". Quite true, but well without permadeath, there's no way that can be accomplished.

Player written guides and forum discussions are far, far from information revealed by the developer. People will always try to study a game and invent new play methods. If the information is black on white, this is a much faster and accurate process, but eventually people will have studied it enough to be fairly confident about how the game works. This is not something I consider bad, but something that is good and doesn't really exist if you can just see a DPS value on each weapon for example.

Nethack is open source last time I checked, which makes it kind of silly to say that the information there is available. This game won't be open source, so comparing it to say, a MUD that doesn't allow damage numbers is better. Those eventually get deconstructed too, of course, but it's a better journey. Also, behind each guide and website there is a human being who derived enjoyment from finding stuff out and sharing it.

Likely, if there are such things as traps and they can kill or finish the job, there will have to be someone that the system can give credit/debit to. Assassins killing with traps! Yah!!!

If traps can kill people (one-shot?) by themselves then they will become mandatory pretty quickly, if other multiplayer games are anything to go by. Even if they are completely obvious, having something lay about that can kill someone is a huge tactical advantage.

Maybe it's just me, but I like when games are a bit mysterious and everything isn't delivered on a platter for you. I prefer an RPG like Nethack over an RPG like Diablo 3, and an FPS like Quake over an FPS like Borderlands 2. Games that don't show you exact, scientific data over every possible equipment choice makes it much more fun to try different things.

Eve Online is called Spreadsheets in Space by many, because that's mostly how you play it. You look at spreadsheets, determine dps and there's very little mystique to playing it. There's an optimal way to play and very many bad ways of playing. If you come to a fleet with a ship that has a unique fitting, people will mostly ridicule you because it's not the mathematically most efficient way of doing what you are doing.

I think this is unavoidable if you add all the stats easily accessible to the player. It's like allowing your players to read the Bestiary and Gamemaster Guide in pen and paper. If someone decides to use sub-optimal weaponry and such, everyone will immediately trash him and there will be no point in making characters that are not optimized. This issue is only exacerbated in a hardcore PvP ruleset MMO like this will be.

So if I understand it correctly: you can Shieldmate anyone, even those outside the Kickstarter, and you both get the mark?

Additional Traits is by far my favorite. Traits feel more flavorful than feats and some even give you abilities that feats can't. Especially useful for those campaigns where the GM doesn't allow you traits at level 1. I don't know if it's necessarily the "best", but it's definitely usable for every character that isn't desperate for feat slots to make their build work.

Terms, Trikk. My entire post (of which you quoted only a snippet) was about avoiding value-laden terms.. No one has objected to the use of the terms skimpy or full-coverage; these seem to be neutral terms to use. Use of value-laden terms beyond that (and I'm not going to list any as that will simply open another can of worms) doesn't move the discussion anywhere and fosters a negative environment.

No need to quote your full post when it's right above mine on the same page.

I don't see how the terms I've used have been more value-laden than:
- Impractical
- hot hot shake your stuff kobold seducing sexy times battle equipment
- good-looking and practical armor
- SEXY
- the frustration of wearing hot pants greaves
- optional corner
- subjected to

This is all very subjective language. I think my language has been far more objective and nuanced, not painting either option as super bad and mean.

I think women should dress as they see fit.

I'm not as comfortable having men pretending to be women and playing dress-up with the representation of a female body as a toy and using it as a sexual fetish in public.

I would think that women by now would be a little weary of males who think real women are sex toys, but since I am male who am I to say?

You just nailed every male who plays a female character. Good job and I completely agree. If you play a female character, you are pretending to be a woman and using the female body as a toy for your sexual fetish. Spot on post! Bravo!

Because it has nothing to do with "allowing" women to choose how to dress? It's about telling everybody that if you are not wearing heavy armour then, surprise surprise, you are not wearing heavy armour.

Why that is such a difficult concept to grasp is beyond me.

So you agree with me that this should not only apply to the armor worn by female characters but in fact every aspect of the game. You know, to be consistent and not singling out a gender for restrictions based on arbitrary limitations in a fantasy game.

I think the OP was making a case for the primary purpose of armor in the game to provide mobility and a barrier for the arteries and vital organs of the body part it's worn on and for that purpose to show through visually; rather than a primary purpose to sexualize the wearer.

No individual's fashion preference is behind it. There are other things to wear when one wants to look sexy than than the fundamental armor that's integral to the game. As a fundamental everyone is subjected to it to play the game. Elective choices should be the realm of customization.

But there's no purpose for specific designs of armor in a video game except to please the viewer. Armor doesn't actually protect you: code does. Again, why are we limiting this to armor worn by women? I think that's the interesting point here. Why no outcry against impractical swords, impractical mounts or illogical inventory?

It is very clearly a preference being manifested here, otherwise all points would be equally addressed. There is some agenda against skimpy armors for women here, quite clearly.

I'd add a caveat to (2), (3) and (4): Skimpy armor should be equally skimpy on both genders, and full-coverage armor should be equally full-coverage on both genders. Armor should not be skimpy on females/full-coverage on males or vice versa.

Pointless caveat when that's all that's been suggested. Nobody is suggesting that only women should get skimpy outfits. I am pretty sure I've read every post in this thread and I've not seen anyone suggesting what you imply.

The sohei weap/ arm prof replaces the monks which says you cannot flurry in armor. The AC bonus entry is separate and states you don't get the AC bonus in armor, but you can still flurry with a monk weapon as long as it is simple or martial. That is the RaW fact of the matter. When you hit lvl 6 you can flurry with a non monk weapon as long as it falls in the fighters weapon group that you select.

It doesn't say anywhere that it replaces the proficiency entry unlike with other archetypes. Look at the fighter archetype Cad. Is he not proficient with any weapon or armor? This is where your RAW argument is destroyed.

You can find RAI here.

Neither RAW nor RAI supports that it is "instead of" (like how other archetypes have worded it) rather than simply adding to the proficiency of the base class.

The drawbacks of rogues are not only mechanical but the style of character and play that the class inspires. If we are talking a straight rogue and not just dipping for some other purpose, it's very often in my experience a lone wolf type character that sneaks ahead in advance. Sounds cool with a recon in the group, right?

The problem is that the rogue has no knowledge. Unless metagaming, he doesn't know that the troll has 30' of scent. He doesn't know when enemies can detect him and worse yet, he can't detect anyone that's hiding in some non-mundane way. Going off solo as a non-magic user in Pathfinder usually ends in pain.

Many of the traps seem to be off the charts in terms of DC to find, which is why you'd rather have a full party of players all searching than just a single die roll, even if it has higher bonus. If a trap is triggered and the rogue is alone there might be a problem once again.

Once there's combat, the rogue will often actively put himself in horrific danger "because I get to sneak attack". A rogue also needs the flank to have a fair shot at hitting anything. Rogues don't get particularly high AC unless they want to deal no damage at all, once again a weakness compared to the medium or heavy armor wearing melee combatants.

Rogues simply don't have the defenses, senses or offensive capability to back up the kind of character people who pick the class are inspired to play. To be an effective rogue you need to stay with the party and you are much more reliant on your comrades than other classes. This is clearly in direct conflict with the literary archetype of the rogue/thief/assassin/sneaky boy that people see before themselves when they roll up their character.

I'm sure you can be an effective rogue, winning the DPR olympics is hardly relevant in most campaigns, but I don't think you'll be effective in the role that most people seem to attribute to the class. Don't stop thinking tactically just because you can get a couple of d6s worth of extra damage from a certain position.

Sohei monk 6/ rogue whatever else. Wis should be low so you can wear chain shirt, and still flurry with daggers as a full bab class. Plenty sneaky, and the original character is kind of monastic anyway.

This relies on his GM allowing him to flurry in light armor which Sohei doesn't expressly allow. It's definitely not RAI and there's a very weak RAW argument for it.

Which I agree, but if you already know then all I'm saying is that you are allowed to skip the survey. I still agree that it is a good idea, just that you needn't be forced to do it if you already know how to play your alignment.

And now we are back to my original reply: allowing players who by their own definition "already know" to skip this information will just cause headaches.

An example from PnP would be when someone jumps into a campaign mid-way with a character that acts completely opposite to what others with the same alignment has acted throughout the whole game. "But this is how I play all my Chaotic Neutrals!"

Another example is when a game changes how a feature works that is common in the genre but specifically different for this particular games. You'll get endless crying about how people "survive three headshots" when there are no headshot hitboxes in the game.

Whether or not there is a survey will not affect the game itself, of course, but it will definitely reduce how much crap the forum will get filled by, either by people who skipped it "because they don't care" or because "they already knew". I suspect the most common complaint will be that people turn neutral rather than stay in one of the four corners (LGCGLECE).

You simply cannot "know" how something is designed without looking at the design itself or reading about it. The fact that the pen and paper game also has an alignment system means nothing.

No one has objected to "skimpy"

Actually, a lot of people are objecting to skimpy armor, either wanting them completely left out of the game or at least giving a harsh penalty to whoever chooses to wear it.

From the OP:

"IF YOU WANT YOUR MALE OR FEMALE CHARACTER TO LOOK SEXY THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THAT -IT'S A SANDBOX- JUST NOT WITH THE COMBAT PROTECTION."

So no combat protection if you wish to be less than fully covered. Skimpy armor should be in a "corner", with the OP's taste as the "norm".

Same poster:

"Sexier armor and other types of wardrobe can be electives in the realm of specialized crafting or cash shop."

All women (and of course men playing female characters) can enjoy spending real money to dress up their character in the style they like because we need to incentives for people to wear the gear that the OP prefers.

Then of course there are other posters flat out saying that there should be no skimpy armors at all. How this counts as "no one has objected" is a mystery to me.

Actually, this would fit under philosophical. Does choosing your alignment affect your actions or do your actions affect your alignment. Either case could be argued.

If I play a follower of Serenae and my power comes from appeasing her then my actions will be within her alignment. I don't need a survey to tell me that I'm going to play someone who is NG. I will choose NG, skip the survey, and play my character as to follow my NG god.

As I envision this survey (or tutorial or video or interpretative dance - whatever medium it is in), it will communicate to you how different actions will cause your alignment to shift depending on circumstances. I.e. it will be a briefing or intro to how the game determines your alignment. If you skip it and think "I'm NG", the game doesn't care. The game doesn't care if you know which results your actions will have or not. It only hurts you to not know how the game defines alignment.

I like when visuals corresponds to stats. It gives more meaning to graphics.

Character models based on physical stats. Elaborate weapon designs giving penalties to attack rolls. Only species bred for riding can be turned into mounts. First person view only. Helmets limit vision. No grid inventory or perfectly arranged bags.

Let's be consequential about this, if we're not just saying "no bikinis for women". If we're not just arguing taste and arbitrary lines of what is acceptable graphics in a fantasy MMORPG, these are features we should all demand. Don't stop at restricting women's bodies and clothing options or punishing them for their choices.

Do we want everything to be logical, practical and reflect reality or do we want to cherry-pick who has to abide by those rules and who can ignore them for fun? I see no difference between a chainmail bikini and a sword from the manga Berserk. Neither would exist on a real battlefield and both are popular in character portraits.

I think you need to check yourself. No one is saying that your actions post character creation won't affect your alignment. This topic is about adding a questionnaire during character creation to help determine your character's alignment.

How does that invalidate anything of what I've said? That's the assumption of every post I've made in this thread. If players skip the survey, then they will get upset when their alignment changes based on their actions. We see it in PnP all the time and I don't think a video game will be better able to judge actions than a human GM.

If your character's alignment is affected by actions post-character creation then the best help you can give a player is advice during character creation.

Just like in PnP when the GM will tell you what he considers lawful, chaotic, good and evil. The game has to do the same or there will be endless controversy and rage on the forums. It's inevitable. Especially by people who assume that they already know how the game will determine alignment.

Very simple logic.

I think actually a mix of combat between (original) Fallout (specifically the action points pool) and Neverwinter Nights (where you only actually perform an action every 6 seconds and can queue up and change the actions occurring next) would be great. This would take out most of the twitch aspect and really focus more on tactics and strategy.

It would also cement the status quo, just like in those games. Opponent does more dps than you? Well, try running then. Oh, he moves faster? Then there's no way of beating him.

In other words, a system like that would guarantee that those who play the most and have built the strongest characters will dominate and bully everyone else.

If you plan on sitting at the top with the best character possible, I can definitely understand why you'd prefer a system like that. For the casual player it would be a complete nightmare as you could never go out in the countryside alone because of the super-strong PK bandits with superior characters and gear.

Much like in EVE, where your only hope is that the veterans you meet are too busy to bother killing you.

And there are still going to be players who (a) don't want to have to fill out a survey before they play the game and (b) if forced to, will simply force the system to give them the answer they want. Stupid or not, that's human nature. Forcing a one-size-fits-all approach, be it survey, tutorial, or sidebar, is going to anger people unnecessarily. (As is "instruct(ing) you how to act", so you may want to reword that.)

If you are angered by the alignment system or your actions being rated independently of your opinion then you should not play the game. You have to act a certain way to stay a certain alignment if the alignment system is based on your actions. Otherwise the alignment system is pure fluff. This is simple logic and shouldn't be hard to understand.

So, again, if you force the survey to give you the answer you want then it's the same as forcing a tailor to give you a suit in a specific size, even after he measured you and told you what size you are. Nobody is going to be negatively affected by it except you, the stubborn player who refuses to cooperate with the alignment system.

I remember the gypsy lady in Ultima IV (yeah... I'm old...) that basically did what the OP is asking for. I think that would be a great option for players that chose it. However, I am very much opposed to forcing players to go through any particular method of creating their character. If this kind of thing is forced on players, they will simply repeat the process with different answers until they get the alignment they wanted - but they'll be getting frustrated with the game the whole time.

I don't think you understand the proposition. Gaming the answers to get your preferred alignment as a result would be incredibly stupid, as you would then turn to whichever alignment your actions take you eventually anyway. All you would be doing then would be cheating your self. The whole point of this is to instruct you how to act while revealing who you will become by your actions.

Combat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpTjwpFh0a4

EVE Online had methodical paced combat that allowed for alot of strategy. What I would like to see Pathfinder Online do is quick round-based combat, have everything move on a slightly slower pace and let tactical decisions carry more weight by giving your fewer, and more important choices than which instant cast to spam next.

The single feature cited by people as being the worst part of EVE is what you'd like this game to adapt? Interesting. Even by many long-time players of EVE, that game is called "Spreadsheets in Space" for a reason. You press a couple of keys and then watch the combat happen. Before combat starts, either you or your opponent will have tried fleeing because you usually know the outcome beforehand. Once you are actually fighting, the winner is determined long before the fight is over.

I think the single biggest mistake in design for this game would to make the combat boring, slow and not engaging. As for people who think this would be great because it doesn't require reaction time or player skill, see EVE if you think this is a casual-friendly combat system.

I always wished I could skip the questions when playing Fallout: NV because I already knew what I wanted my character to be. I think it is a good idea, it will help new players get their bearings and help role-players to help define their characters. However, leave the option to skip it for those of us who know exactly what we want.

And then we'll have endless of "bawwww my character's alignment is bugged" threads because everyone knows exactly how alignment works and obviously if their actions make their character stray from their alignment, there's something wrong with the game (or GM if we are talking PnP).

I could maybe give in so that the breastplate armor type could include some kind of metal bikinis for women as the name suggests. But then you would have to have some metal in the thighs to make up for the belly.

But if metal bikinis without magic give the same armor bonus as a full heavy plate metal suit covering all the body parts, I rage quit. :'(

But I'll be back after having some hot chocolate.

Why is it so scary to allow women to choose how to dress? This seems like what it all boils down to. We're not discussing whether men should be afforded the choice, because that's obviously a given. However, women should cover themselves up because gosh darn it we can't have gear designed with unrealistic attributes! *puts away 2' wide greatsword and rides away on giant bat*

The conditions are given in the description: "When dealing with creatures native to that terrain" so if you encounter them outside their native habitat, yes even then but not against creatures you encounter in that terrain but are not native to it.

1) Does "dealing with" mean fighting or can it be a party member or ally?

2) Some abilities seem pretty pointless then, like:

Ethereal Plane: The walker gains ethereal jaunt as a spell-like ability once per day (caster level equal to the character’s level). He must be at least 7th level before selecting this power.

Also it becomes very dangerous in certain situations, like if you use the Plane of Water ability and the creature native to that plane die... you're stuck at the bottom of the ocean!

Simple question here.

Mastery of each terrain has additional benefits, outlined below; these benefits apply to the horizon walker at all times whether or not he is in the relevant terrain.

There's no text like the above for Terrain Dominance, so should the additional benefits you get from TD work even while outside the relevant terrain or not?

Immunity to fatigue for a 3 level dip is pretty nice for Barbarians.

Trikk wrote:

Yep, you definitely read my post.

I admit I actually did, but then I have also read the PF rules stating that armor gives armor bonus and not dodge bonus. A "full plate thong" would actually restrict your ability to dodge since there is a max dex bonus.

If you are talking about enchanted thongs (mechanically working like bracers, amulets or rings), then we are not disagreeing. I'm only discussing standard non-magical armor, where I fail to understand how that protects what it doesn't cover, just as a fail to see how a plate thong would make it easier to dodge than a leather thong (unless again it is enchanted).

There is absolutely nothing in the rules that states how much of your body has to be covered for a particular AC. Dodge is a type of bonus with associated rules, but DEX doesn't give you a dodge bonus to AC so you can clearly dodge with AC without having a dodge type bonus. Armors can look any way you like; the system isn't that specific. It is never specified if your armor fully absorbed a blow, deflected it or if you moved out of the way.

The main issue with trying to stop humans with a system is that the humans you want to stop will be the ones hardest trying to circumvent the system. A player not interested in PKing won't be motivated to study the ins and outs of the system, while someone interested in that activity will have the information advantage.

1) Either through manipulation or just by gathering a large amount of players in a similar situation, they could get their reputation to the positives. Hell, maybe more positive than most average players.

2) Full protection for gankers. Been tried in a ton of different games and that is always the outcome. Also makes it useless to craft or do any non-combat activity outside these places.

3) This works decently in EVE but can still be used to scam newer or just less aware players. Not a deterrent to ganking at all as people just put on their "suicide suits" and kill you or find some way for you to become the aggressor.

4) Gankers have alts that aren't criminals standing next to them so any AoE or unintentional hit will cause you to be flagged. Congratulations now you can be looted by the "innocent" alts.

5) This is a more player-driven system which is why it is one of the better ideas they've come up with. Of course, it doesn't protect anyone either.

6) This is detailed, which makes it more likely to hit the "right" players, but at the same time the details cause it to be less newbie-friendly and usable against players who haven't taken the time to study ganking deterrents.

7) Not really an anti-ganking measure (and I would not call it anti-griefing either since they've stated that actions considered griefing are bannable).

I think the best choice is to leave the "law" up to the players as much as possible. The safest I've ever been in any of these kinds of games has been in the base of my clan or guild. Yes, solo players are more at risk than others. That's simply something you have to consider when you choose to play solo.

Trikk wrote:

allows the wearer easier dodges.

GM: She appears to be wearing only a metal thong.

BRB: huh? umm.. anyway she's still a drow and I split her skull with a full power attack, i got 24 for 19 damage.
GM: Sorry, your overhead chop hits her thong with a big clank but fails to do any damage.
BRB: nono, I wasn't trying to sunder the thong, just hit her exposed flesh.
GM: yeah, but she has high AC due to full plate. Didn't you listen?
BRB: doh! Damn girlie armor rules.

Yep, you definitely read my post.

Well, this is sure to end the random PKs. Everyone who wanted to make random people upset will instead focus on the guilds that signed this treaty.

I fear that the OP has a legitimate point in that players should not be forced to dress their characters in gear that they hate the looks of or is afraid to get aroused by, but isn't willing to let other players get the same treatment and thus risks everything by trying to get it 100% their way.

Do you want people to have a choice or are you happy with the designers making all choices for you as long as they choose what you would have chosen? Or in other words: are you looking for everyone to be happy or just yourself?

Also, I hope the people suggesting that the looks of armor defines its AC are not PnPers - it's quite clear that AC is completely abstract just like hit points are. You can say that a chainmail bikini or fullplate thong allows less mass to aim at or simply allows the wearer easier dodges. That's fine in the tabletop so I don't see how it would be a huge deal in a video game.

Just look at character art for the pen and paper game. Not just official art but fan art people have made of their own characters. It's not all "practical and logical armors", but very varied and more dependent on who the character is in their story than which particular AC their armor allows. No GM will say "I can clearly see part of your belly in this picture you drew, so I'm lowering your AC by 5".

Bears and tigers are much more powerful animals than wolves.

I'd rather have a bunch of extra keys for abilities than for micromanaging my stride.

Games that try to simulate realistic movement always feel less responsive and annoying.

Some of these sugestions are getting silly, either by taking away all choice or by making things overly complicated. Look at many of the female iconics and several of the males, they are showing skin. It's fantasy not a historically accurate simulator. We females will complain if all our armor looks like some formless potatoe sack with no style.

I am actually not that worried about these suggestions being taken too seriously because just by looking at Pathfinder's artwork that doesn't seem likely.

I hope nobody here was under the impression that skimpy clothing is put into MMORPGs for the sake of the male population alone. Some of the games I've played allow you to dress however you like, even design your own clothes, with no impact on stats at all. It's definitely true that women do not exclusively prefer to dress in practical and logical outfits when they're firing bazookas at minivans or whirlwinding through a swarm of kobolds. I would dare say that it's not even the norm to dress as a heavily armored character if there's no mechanical bias for it.

Just add a few options for how you see other players:

Puritanical - covers all bare skin
PvP - clearly defined armor types
Fantasy - show everything as the PC has designed it (within reason of course)

There are many games that have had grand promises, delivered, but still had a disappointed fanbase. It comes down to how you set your expectations and what you imagine when you hear someone talk about a game.

I think a lot of people here need to realize that in an MMORPG, you cannot become the god that you can be in a pen and paper campaign. You are one player in a game with at least thousands of others.

One thing I'm definitely sure about is that this game will be a social game more than anything. Friends and connections will let you experience everything, while a secluded player will not be able to wage war on kingdoms or kill the grandest dragons.

You must gather your party before venturing forth.

Fine, sorry. I just don't want people to think that it was an unclear issue to begin with, because it wasn't.

It is frustrating to me that I answered the question correctly within 7 minutes, even clarifying further right away. Then, despite that, this thread dragged on until SKR gave the exact same answer I gave at the beginning and suddenly it was "oh, thank you for clarifying the unclear text," even though the text is perfectly clear.

I'm not trying to criticize the original poster for misunderstanding it--misunderstandings happen and that's fine.

But for certain folk to act as if this was anything more than that--that the text was actually problematic and unclear because it took SKR before those asking were satisfied--is disingenuous at best. It's ok to be mistaken. It's not ok to be obstinate about it.

It was an unclear issue until Jiggy took the time to actually quote some relevant rules. You simply stated the rules without any explanation. That's not helpful at all in making people understand.

The measuring stick that I mentioned earlier. In Pathfinder we always count each full square instead of border to border (as I learned from this thread) but in real life we always count distances from edge to edge:

IRL: I'm 5' away from a wall if there's room for a 5' stick between me and the wall. I'm not 5' away from a wall if I'm leaning on it.

Pathfinder: I'm 5' away from a wall if I bump into it. I'm more than 5' away from a wall if I can't lean on it.

To say that this isn't problematic is just ignorant. Any rules that are written for those that know the rules will always be unclear. This could easily be reworded to be much clearer:

"If your target is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character"

to

"If your target is not adjacent to any friendly character"

or

"If your target is not within 5 feet of any friendly character"