Uleaum's page

I see similarities to the shaman, but with +bard stuff, I like it, I have thought previously, I wish I could inspire via bard stuff. I like it, reminds me of a Dr. Who episode.

Question on playtest info: Table 1: Cantors have verse at level 1, and at level 2? is this correct or a miss print?

Also, this seems like a support class, but missing lesser restoration, restoration, remove disease, and a few bard must haves, haste for one.

Under Dusk Hymn the Greater Verse (8th level) lets the Cantor give allies Haste without having to cast the spell for the duration of the divine performance.

The voice of purity verse can get rid of disease and poison, but it is worded oddly. I read it to say the effect of the disease is negated only for the duration of the divine performance. After the song it would return.

Voice of Purity (Su): Diseases, inhaled poisons, and noxious gaseous effects (such as stinking cloud) are negated in a 10-foot radius around the cantor AS LONG AS the cantor maintains any divine song.

Maybe it should read:

Voice of Purity (Su): Diseases, inhaled poisons, and noxious gaseous effects (such as stinking cloud) are negated in a 10-foot radius around the cantor WHEN the cantor maintains any divine song.

changing "as long as" to "when" would make it read as permanent.

Under Dusk Hymn, I believe the second spell should be Time Shudder, not temporal stutter.

The Enter Image spell is missing for the Spellsong feat projection and remote casting. Given that Cantors are vocal, it seems to make sense they would have this over other bards. Given that they are wisdom based, remote sensing from Enter Image would also be appropriate.

EDIT: adding arcane mark might be neat so you don't have to take two world magic to get it would be nice.

That's the reasoning I was using, but he traits and spells associated with each society are limited to that society by the rules in the Primer, so they do that at least, because the all the rules of the Primer apply.

So I am rebuilding my character before I level to 2. I want to take Clever Word Play trait from the Pathfinder Society Primer, which requires membership in the Scrolls, a group listed in the Pathfinder Society Primer. The Primer indicates that you have to choose between training (which culminates in the Confirmation Scenario). I did not realize this and played Confirmation as my first Scenario for this character. Can I just declare that I am field commissioned and take the trait, even though I played the Confirmation?

Sure. There are quite a few Feats you can take multiple times.

Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Extra Discovery, etc. etc.

They're all the same Feat. Exactly the same Feat. Nothing in the wording of the Feat changes any time you take it.

However, each Feat that can apply more than one time, specifically notes that it doesn't apply to the same thing more than once. In fact, there isn't a single Feat I can think of in... ten, fifteen years? that works like you want it to, with the noted exceptions of the various Extra (X) Feats. You get ONE Racial Heritage Feat.

Any table you take this to in Society play will disqualify your character on the spot.

I am curious as to why you think a character doing what I have describe would be disqualified. Assuming my logic is incorrect, I understand if you might think the paragon surge would fizzle. Assuming my logic is incorrect, I understand if you think the second racial heritage would have no affect. A half-elf can achieve the floating racial heritage I am seeking, so the play is allowed. The only question is can a human pull it off too.

For me, gaming is as much about the exploration and expression of rule combinations in unusual ways as it is about roleplay. Not everyone enjoys a rules lawyer, but I happen to be one. I try to simply what I do so it doesn't take a 20 minute lecture to explain it at a session.

So what about what I have describe should disqualify the character's I have, or did you mean to say disqualify the action?

What are trying to do?

Pure unadulterated cheese. This is paragon surge build. I want to be able to use all the racial bonuses features of spells, like half-orc for boiling blood. If your going to cheese you might as well do it with style.

I can accomplish this by half/elf->paragon surge->racial heritage. Every day I can pick a new race and get a new set of features. I prefer to play humans, so I pick half-elf racial heritage to get the paragon surge, and then pick it again for the extra benefits.

Uleaum wrote:

Can you take multiple racial heritage feats? There is no rule against taking multiple feats and stacking refers to conferring a numerical bonus.

If you want multiple heritages, the only viable way is to use the rules in the Bastards of Golarion book. You can make a human and multiple other races character that way.

This is for society play so the custom races in Bastards of Golarion don't apply. Also it doesn't achieve what I want to do.

Looking at the explanation of feats it says this "Special: Additional unusual facts about the feat." Then you see feats that have the line "Special: You can take this feat multiple times." It kind of points to being able to take feats multiple times unusual doesn't it?

Feats NEED the special line to be takes more than once.

Writing can be redundant, simply for clarity. Just because one feat statement is redundant, doesn't mean that all other feat statements must be redundant. Usually the "this feat can be taken several times" statement has special instruction for taking it several times that might not be obvious.

Read core P 113 again.

If a character has the same feat
more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated
otherwise in the description.

"NEED" means you can't take the feat without the special line. The way that sentence is written you can take the feat even if it doesn't do anything. I don't know of anyway to neutralize a single feat of another, but if that ability is ever introduced you could take a feat twice so that you could fight someone who takes away a single feat and keep your ability. I don't know if the dev's intended this, but it does serve as a rational basis for writing it this way.

Pathfinder dramatically increased the role of feats in character construction. Maybe they intended this so that there would be flexibility with feat choice. The only other mechanic that I know of that fundamentally changed from 3.5 was allowing intelligence changes to add or drop skills points. Maybe this was a mechanical change no one noticed, maybe the dev's didn't realize what they were writing.

Either way it's rules as written, and I want to make sure I'm reading it that way. I've run into several incorrect assumptions about how people think rules work (like you can't take a swift and immediate action in the same round because they are basically the same type of action, even though the rules specifically allow for it you read them properly). Just because you always played it that way doesn't mean it is rules as written. If the devs want to errata it go ahead. But until then don't expect me conform your ideal of how the system works. Show me how my logic is flawed if you want me to agree with you.

Feat Descriptions, Pg 113, CRB under Benefits. The very passage you note, says that you can't benefit from the same Feat more than once unless it specifically says you can. There is no Special Notice on Racial Heritage, meaning that you can't benefit from it twice. Attempting to get around that by going "But I'm not taking the same benefit twice," doesn't fly.

It doesn't say you can't "benefit" it says you can't "stack" and stacking refers to numerical bonuses. Sorry I posted page 11 on bonuses and meant to post page 13 on stacking:

Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together
bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or
statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same
type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies.
Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are
added together.

If there is another place that says you can't take feat twice unless it says so, I would like to know.

The exploiter wizard (Advanced Class Guide p 133) gets Arcanist exploits. The arcanist exploit metamixing (Advanced Class Guide p11) allows the caster to add a meta magic feat by spending a point out the arcanist reservoir. This uses up a higher level slot as normal for an arcanist, but Exploiter wizards are not spontaneous casters.

Does this mean
A) the spell is expended by the wizard as normal with the metamagic feat attached.
B) the spell is not expended by the wizard but a higher level spell slot is expended.
C) this exploit cannot be taken by an exploiter wizard because the mechanics do not agree between the classes?

There is a rule against taking a feat multiple times though. You are not allowed to pick a single feat more than once.

Some feats can be taken more than once though, but they indicate it.

Where is it. Everything I have read says if you take the same feat more than once it doesn't stack (core p 113). This implies you can take a feat more than once. Stacking says that numerical bonuses (p 11 core)((EDIT: SEE PAGE 13 ON STACKING NOT PAGE 11 ON BONUSES)) don't add, unless the feat specifically says so. Taking racial heritage for two different races doesn't count as stacking because it provides two different non-numerical advantages. If a feat would allow you to choose a stat bonus to any stat, then you could take it twice as long as you chose a different stat. I think some feats say you only take that feat once.

What source book or errata says you can't take the same feat twice unless the feat says you can?

I have a event coming up and I would appreciate a mod to answer this quickly.

Can you take multiple racial heritage feats? There is no rule against taking multiple feats and stacking refers to conferring a numerical bonus.

Why were the secret societies printed in Occult Mysteries with fame and prestige requirements if they are not going to be eligible for Society play?

We have updated the Goblinworks privacy policy. You can see the policy here.

We have updated the Terms of Service. Right now this only applies to Alpha testers.

We added the following to the Terms of Service (you can't see these unless you have Alpha access, so I'm posting the new Terms here):

So how are we supposed buy alpha or early enrollment access if we can't know the terms of service?

I want to run Sanctum of a lost age, one part of Thornkeep for Pathfinder Society. Is the xp for Sanctum 1 xp (for a scenario) or 3XP for module? The chronicle sheet says Scenario.

Paladins eventually get imnunities to compulsion and charm spells. Does this mean that spells like bless and heroism cease to work on them, or can the paladin trick himself into being convinced the bless or heroism spell works on him (i.e. allow himself to be susceptible)?

I think long term consequences and the relationship between the killer, the killed, and the community is missing from this discussion.

Will it be possible to hunt a killer? To track them? To evade identification as a killer? Will there be counter measures to evasion of identification? Will we be able recover stolen loot? Will killing a low level character in well lit portion of the city reflect badly on the player running that district and require an in game response for the maintenance of status and power? Will there be in game reasons for targeted assassinations of high level leaders? Will a murder in the forest be the end of the story, or the beginning as justice attempts to manifest?

If you haven't died at least once in an MMO you haven't played hard enough or long enough. I usually lose PvP matches because of how I build my toons, but the interaction can still be fun. An artful murder might be fun to watch even if I was the victim in a virtual world. What if you die 100 times over the life of a toon and 1or 2 are from PvP non-consentual kills that makes in game sense? Are you willing to pay that for a richer world? I am, especially of the consequences of that murder can be potentially be undone by my efforts. I think this would have to mean that when you logout your toon stays persistent so the gear and person can be reached. I would like Goblinworks to comment on that if they would, Please.

Consequences require a loss of something, and in virtual world that means time, cash, or both. Mr. Dancey has identified an intent to keep up with griefers, but I believe limiting PvP to people with an investment is an easy thing to do. Maybe free players shouldn't be allowed to initiate PvP until they have a lot of play time into a toon. Maybe no one should.

If death had the consequence of a loss of something associated with play time (level/skill points), then mass retaliation would be a good way to prevent ganking. You might literally be able to delevel a ganker out of existence as sport or even an in game profession.

The OGL does not extend to electronic entertainment. Pathfinder is based on the OGL. thus...

from OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a on page 569 of my PATHFINDER ROLEPLAYING GAME CORE RULEBOOK:

section 1(b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations(including translations into other computer languages)...

section 1(c)"Open Game Content"...and means any work covered by this License, including derivative works and translations...

OGL does not prohibit use for video games.

Well, you may want to consider the higher power, because the road you want to take isn't on anyone's map and the bridge is out.

But I think I do it with style! Game play is a performance art. Thanks for noticing!

I'm with JMecha. Doesn't matter--I might prefer that they use the PFRPG rules, but Mr Wertz has already said that the legality of using the OGL, and thus the OGL-derivative PFRPG rules, is murky. Rather than have the project work on an adaptation of the PFRPG rules for an MMO and then get sued by WotC, then folding because they don't have the money to fend off the lawsuit, or having to start over from scratch if it's determined that they can't use the OGL-derived PFRPG rules, I'd rather they do something different and minimize the risk.

There's nothing murky about the OGL. It specifically considers translation into computer languages. The question is whether the code that controls the game constitutes a game mechanic that can be openly distributed. There are two ways to qualify for being a game mechanic. The first is for the content to be openly declared buy the Gamemaker as OGL content. Answer: don't claim the control code is OGL. The second way is to be an enhancement over the prior art of the OGL and not part of the “Product Identity”.

Pretty much everything you could imagine about a video game is protected by the OGL. Characters, spells, plots, storylines, themes, equipment, and even supernatural abilities are protected. The question arises what to call the control code that handles the logic of the game so it is identified as Product Identity. Since descriptions of characters, personas, creatures, and equipment are protected, the existence in computer memory and in data packets of any character at any particular time is protected as product identity.

The best exception is the first one in Product Identity “trade dress.” Trade dress is basically anything that lets a customer know that a product belongs to specific seller. If the code on the computer is used arrange the data in a way so that you know the game your are playing is Pathfinder Online and not World of Warcraft, it's trade dress. If you were to change the game mechanic of the OGL or add to it, the description of that mechanic would be part of the OGL, but exact method you used to present it would not be.

The only person who can have standing to sue over this is Wizards of the Coast. Piazo sold the rights to Goblinworks. Either Piazo, Goblinworks or both should write a letter to WotC saying we think we can make a video game, you have 30 days to give your reasons why you disagree or give up the right to sue us. That's totally unmurkified! Not knowing should never be a permanent excuse for anything.

No person should consider this legal advice and should consult appropriate counsel concerning their own situation.

I still think not having the Pathfinder rules would be disappointing. There are reasons it sells in hardback.

So much better than what? Nothing? Because that's what PFO there is right now.

Maybe after, ya know, they've actually made a game you can compare it to NWN?

Fair Question. The OGL and other source material by Piazo form a comprehensive, play tested, and fairly balanced system. Instead of reinventing and balancing a new mechanic for player interaction, Goblinworks could be spending resources on figuring out how to put that material into an online game. We know its basically been done before in Neverwinter Nights. Where the OGL falls short is economic and social game play, but if Goblinworks is going to invent an arbitrary mechanism for skills they might as well use the skill system from the OGL. The variety of Crafting(Int) and Professional(Wis) skills could form the backbone of economic and social interaction. How could it be so much better? More resources on implementation, less on resources on R&D.

It's the idea here that your 15 bucks a month is somehow better than mine, and that you not playing and spending yours is going to hurt them, and somehow that totally invalidates what anyone else may want, which could simply be "not a NWN clone".

Actually I was hoping my cash would be just as good as yours. There are plenty of companies that ignore me, I'm just trying to keep myself from getting disappointed. Every endurance bar game out there is “not a nwn clone.” If you want “not a nwn clone” you have options. If you want a large scale MMO nwn clone you don't have options. So if you don't want a nwn clone you can play another game, I can't. Since WotC doesnt' do 3.5 anymore, Piazo is the best company approach for getting a video game based on the OGL, so I thought I'd try.

That and the "scew your vision Goblinworks, we want an updated NWN" thing kinda bothers me to.

I totally want the open ended sandbox stuff that Goblinworks is putting forward, but I also want the OGL mechanics. You seem to be ok with Goblinworks announcing to the Pathfinder culture that the Pathfinder rules are not good enough for them, but you have a problem with people objecting to not using the Pathfinder rule set on the Pathfinder forums?

But, discuss away. My snarkiness in no way is meant to say you can't have your opinion, that it sucks, per se, or not discuss it. I can say, though, I hope to God they don't go that route, and stay with their vision.

Peace!

As you are invoking a higher power, you are clearly more attached to these issues than me. The vision of Goblinworks is like a beautiful shining city up on a hill. My focus isn't so lofty. I just want to talk about which road to take.

Anderlorn wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

Haven't they already decided this will in no way use the PF ruleset?

Which means it will in now way use a 3.5 framework?
So there won't be any similarites, at all, to NWN?

Carry on the discussion, by all means. I'm just sayin'.

Yes, they already stated this but that does not mean the masses can not change the few.

If they do not listen to us, then we will know PFO will fail or will not be unique, or will not live up to its potential.

If you want it similar to current game mechanics, by all means state it.

Wow, ok. So.

If they don't make the game the way you want it, it will fail, or not be unique. NWN is not an MMO so it fails as one, and making an MMO like it will somehow be unique?

I don't want similar mechanics. I want what they've promised: a sandbox MMO based in Golarion. How would that not be unique?
How many MMOs out there are based in Golarion?

I want the same thing, but I also want the OGL mechanics. I don't want a 8 power click cycle based on DPS balancing. I want complex options to affect the world. I don't want a character based on how many months I've paid a subscription to train in certain skills. I want my character build choices and ability to play (or grind) to mean I access those skills with strategy and effort of play, not time in service.

NWN is an MMO. 40 players on a server at once is bigger than some end game instances have been. I played on nwn servers with more game options than pay to play servers.

I can't say they will fail at what their doing, but I haven't seen anything yet that gives me hope they will succeed. It could be so much better.

I see it just as a poor example of "how we are trying to get away from grinding".

It seems to common belief today that you can get/achieve something without working for it.

I have played EVE a little bit and I can tell you that it is probably more grindy than anything else (although not saying it is bad).

So...to get back to my point...why not stick to the level system which is indeed more D&D like and as any kind of other system will still require some form of grinding/time consumption...

The reason is resources. A MMO based on Neverwinter Nights clone, would be a better game. To make nwn clone MMO (or any MMO setting) requires at a minimum: a play balanced individual combat system, balance group combat system, an interactive environment, social and economic interaction mechanisms, and the people and funds to make the game.

PLAY BALANCED INDIVIDUAL COMBAT SYSTEM

Neverwinter Nights demonstrated that an OGL compatible system could be coded for multiplayer. It did not implement all the features of 3.5. What game features that would be traded for full (or near full) compatibility with OGL is an economic decision. The complexity of the Pathfinder system means that abuse by player design could be rampant. Developers tend to like to keep the math in front of them. Nonlinear events like status attacks(hold, disoreint, sleep) give devs a real hard time. The more complex something is the harder it is to design. Cryptic devs even made comments that “no one likes statue fighting” in the City of Heroes forums when they have a whole archetype dedicated to that type of fighting. It would be more appropriate to say no one likes to be the helpless victim of an attack when a player cannot make an individual choice to have a defense against that attack.

Identifying abuse of the OGL could be crowd sourced since so may people are familiar with the system, but submissions from outside sources have been identified as not part of the business model of Goblinworks right now. Goblinworks needs a knowledge power up or cash infusion to pull off an OGL based game.

BALANCED GROUP PLAY

If balanced individual play can be achieved with OGL, the raw computation power of a server farm would make it fairly easy step to mass simulation of complex battles not possible under PnP models. Coding for coordination of this type of battle would be an extra design event and require the extra constraints of the individual combat system be developed first. The probability of success of the sequential development means the risk of failure and/or poor quality of the main game mechanic of group play is higher than starting with group mechanic and working your way down.

A business decision to begin with balanced group play and shoe horn an individual combat system into it, is apparently the decision of the current business model. Cheaper, in every sense of the word.

INTERACTIVE ENVIRONMENT

EVE online has a limited PvE environment, but the main focus is on PvP. The Bartle Types for this the Killer. The Killer is small part the of gaming population. The craft economy of EVE puts the Bartle Type of Achiever into a secondary role. In a theme park MMO, the Achiever (as grinder) solves each monsters as puzzle being rewarded with xp, loot, faction points, and real life fame(within a small community). Theme parks are popular because of this mechanic, but require lots of developers to keep building new content. True sandbox MMOs, like EVE, have a relatively nondescript environments and rely on players to create the content.

With the apparent lack of investment funds, the sandbox model appears to be as least as much a business decision as style of play decision.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INTERACTION MECHANISMS

The quality of economic management of any game is directly correlated to how complicated a game is. With a top down redesign approach, the economics become more controllable. Another business decision.

Social interaction is something that is difficult to comment on, because the devs haven't committed to anything yet. This could be something wonderful, but if it's too much like EVE, it will be a catastrophe. The only thing the devs seem to keeping is the world of Golarion. So first they have to spend the resources to create Golarion, then let the players take control of the world, destroying much of what they just built. If PFO is truly sandbox there will be race to see who can kill the listed rulers, even if the rulers were players who won the Alpha test. The culture and world of Golarian will probably be destroyed in short order. This is the part I don't think the devs thought all the way though on. This part of the game is not going to save any money in initial development and may actually cost more.

Science Fiction is about what could be, and fantasy is about what should be. The anarcho capitalistic world of EVE is sterile compared to the vivid and rich culture of Pathfinder or even games like WoW. Each idiosyncrasy adds to the value and the complexity, which is both the goal of game design and the problem of play balance. It's a mistake to go down this design path simply because of genre, but Wizards of the Coast threw away 3.5 in favor of a DPS balanced system suitable for console play(think Xbox not PC). Goblinworks is also making the Fourth Edition Mistake, but it's going to happen unless we keep pointing it out. It is possible to independently develop a game system as comprehensive as the OGL, but it certainly doesn't make good business sense redevelop a system when you already have one.

PEOPLE, FUNDS, AND IDEAS

Goblinworks is following business model where each independent decision makes business sense. Goblinworks has a license but few human resources or funds. Raising funds requires attracting investors. Investors want to see past results and future plans. Past results come from successful MMO's like EVE. Future plans require a game system, and developing in the OGL to an MMO is beyond the current resources of Goblinworks, so a new, simpler system has to be invented. The new system is like EVE and the world is like WoW, so a distinct brand identity can be made. The player on player action cuts down on some development cost. The Goblinworks team has experience with this type of model so that's what their using, but I think they need another way. They are headed for developing a game for the small niche of unrestricted PvP in a genre that is not very compatible with it.

The reason is why a Neverwinter Nights clone is not being made is resources, human and financial.

I played both nwn and nwn2 great games .

but a excess of options and realistic elements subtract from what makes a good mmo.

a rpg needs to have character development and a wide breath of choices and direction nwn is faithfull to the tabletop and gives that feeling.

however a mmo needs structure it needs to focus less on character development and more on the content of the game be it pve or pvp.

and most certainly a excess of choice simply means a greater selection of bad choices that can hurt your character and experience .

you may like being a special snowflake with a detailed backstory and interesting ability choices .

but no one else is going to give a damn they will only care about what you contribute to the party and other players who play the game like a mmo will crush you under the weight of their snow boots with all the other special flakes.

structure and direction is needed in mmos there is no such thing as a gms fiat in a 40 man dungeon or a battlefield .

mmos need to have a character creation process that is idiot proof and a learning curve that progresses .

its better to teach the players the mechanics and interactions of the game than set them loose and give them the impression that they can make it work their own way only to hit a wall .

Your right, that's the way every other MMO is played today. If things keep going like this PFO will be just like every other MMO out there. Now tell me again why I should play this one.

I write here http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/licensees/pathfinderOn line/examplesOfYourMistakesAndOpportunitiesForInnovation about how overly complex systems based on total player choice can overwhelm the player base, but with a 3.5 based system even if you make alot mistakes with your feats, you can still have a decent AB, AC, and hit points based on your level. If you make an error with spell selection you just change them. This lets you have a strongly guided character progression AND have customizablity, that everyone already knows how to use.

Uleaum wrote:

REALISTIC games like Neverwinter Nights 1 you have have ammo. Spells and special abilities are charges per day. You go into battle with limited resources and must REST out of combat to get them back. In NWN 1 you can MULTICLASS. In most of the SUPERS games you break off into talent trees (Wow) or advanced classes (SW:toR). Characters in SUPERS do not get to be Arcane healers unless the GM's allow it. In a SUPERS game you are generally a cog, basically a role assigned character, not a role playing character.

The REALISTIC type of games are way harder play balance, because there more options for players to choose from. This is doable, but it requires thought and consistency on the part a game developer. It hasn't really happened yet in MMO.

REALISTIC games where wizards cast spells and there are elves and...

You do realize that it's silly to use the word 'realistic' like that when you're not denoting realism, you're denoting preference?

It's a relative term. I could have used granular. When I'm making this comparison I'm usually talking about GURPS, where a single gun shot can kill you no matter how much experience you have. In Champions you don't pick up gun on regular basis unless you spent the points for the damage class of gun. It's fantasy to say that superman can't fire a gun because he hasn't spent the points to use it. In D&D a wizard can use sword at big penalties but he can still use it.

edit: and I like to play both, I just hate for the wrong system to be used for the wrong style. Gurps Sucks at supers.

It's just not this game at all.

1) This game isn't even "3.5ish". No classes? It's got nothing to do with D&D rules, just whatever generic flavor they were able to appropriate into Golarion. D&D rules would frankly get in the way of the kind of game they are trying to make anyway...

2) It's a fundamentally competitive game, whether that's direct player killing, acquiring space to build kingdoms, amassing gold as a merchant, climbing the guild hierarchy, etc. That is how the majority of content is generated in this game - the players create the conflict, rather than the game designers or DMs doing the job.

Neverwinter Online being developed by Cryptic is the closest thing to what you are looking for. Focus on 5 player parties, a tool for customers to building adventures, and a system for publishing those adventures to many players. And yeah it's 4th edition, but that's going to be closer to 3.5 than whatever Pathfinder Online is making.

This mistake hasn't been made yet, and if this game gets made as copy of EVE it will be a mistake. EVE is an economy based resource grinding game with culture game that includes combat tacked on top. You grind to buy extension for your spaceships for combat. Money = Gear. Social Groups = Fleets. A game built around a body is suppose to have some limits and unique CHARACTER. Using skills to make each Wizard = to ever other Wizard takes away the performance art of Game play and makes it just Grinding. Making the end game a grinding resource game will just not work. We need to show the devs a better way.

I think this may conflict with the upcoming MMO by cryptic called Neverwinter Online.

We're talking about the style of NWN 1. Cryptic has already said there going to basically copy every other MMO like City of Heroes, DandD online, and WoW. I describe this above as a SUPERS game.

superfly2000 in this thread http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/licensees/pathfinderOn line/theOnlyRealCompetitorICanThinkOf is being accused of calling everything a WoW clone in comparison to NWN 1. There are a lot of ways to classify a game system, but lets divide them into SUPERS vs. REALISTIC. WoW and the other health/endurance bar games usually fall into the SUPERS category. You have ablitites and you keep using them. Endurance limits you in time to how much you can use at one time, but it comes back (slow or fast based on abilities, potions, or rests), but you just keep using the same 6 or 8 abilities over and over in cycle. You usually don't have ammo in these types of games.

REALISTIC games like Neverwinter Nights 1 you have have ammo. Spells and special abilities are charges per day. You go into battle with limited resources and must REST out of combat to get them back. In NWN 1 you can MULTICLASS. In most of the SUPERS games you break off into talent trees (Wow) or advanced classes (SW:toR). Characters in SUPERS do not get to be Arcane healers unless the GM's allow it. In a SUPERS game you are generally a cog, basically a role assigned character, not a role playing character.

The REALISTIC type of games are way harder play balance, because there more options for players to choose from. This is doable, but it requires thought and consistency on the part a game developer. It hasn't really happened yet in MMO. I talk more about this here http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/licensees/pathfinderOn line/examplesOfYourMistakesAndOpportunitiesForInnovation

Chuck Wright asked if a game like NWW1 lends itself to an Massive Multiplay. 40 plus players per server, 10 or more on 10 or more PvP base raids, basic crafting for everyone, epic custom crafting from raid looting, epic gear at the end of a PvE raid lasting from 2 to 6 hours, 5 character remorts (where you can get better stats, extra feats, and custom skins), and more has been going at ONE SERVER for years. All that (except remorts which can be automated) runs without GM supervision. In addition they have GM events and story arcs (its an in character Role Play server) I haven't played at stormnexus (http://www.stormnexus.org ) in a while but it's certainly possible to do. Stormnexus world rules limit the Wizard class, but I didn't say it would be easy.

I have always wanted to play on online version of a points based game like GURPS or the old Champions based system from Hero Games. I will assume by “skills based” game system you mean something like those. The alternative would be system where the click fest of a weapon maxes you out in ability and everyone ends up the same. The points form the basis for the choice of your advantages and limitations, so I will refer to a points based system for clarity.

The problem with a points based system is a Gamemaster has no way to identify the weakness of any character without examining the build of that character. Level based systems reduce the effort of the Gamemaster by assigning strengths and weaknesses based on class. In an online world the Gamemaster is a machine, so a points based system must be an algorithm. If you are lucky and use lots of points to smooth out the relationships between advantages and disadvantages, you will be able to balance your system just using Calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra. You should probably expect to use Tensor mechanics and Graph Theory to get good results. If you don't use enough points, and the system is chunky instead of smooth, you will need Combinatorics and other discrete mathematical methods to balance the system.

The points based system ideal of pen and paper RPG's has never been realized online because it's almost an artificial intelligence problem. I was in the Champions Online beta just long enough to realize Cryptic Studios got one of the most advanced point based system ever designed and discarded it for a City of Heroes part 2, A la cart system. I gave up when having a very high CON could determine how hard you hit, so players wouldn't be penalized for designing bad characters. They're still running into the problem of a point based system being so complex that players also need a more structured advancement system because they can't figure out the min/max of the builds Cryptic offered.

I really hope someone succeeds in developing a good points based system for online play, and it would be wrong to mock you for trying such bold and inspiring goal, even though you are small start up developer and no one has ever really pulled it off. On the other I find it ironic that the Piazo business model is based on Wizards of the Coast discarding one of the most advanced and play tested level based systems on the bet that they could invent a better system, so HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! (It was going to happen, I just wanted to be first.) I believe the technical term for this is the Fourth Edition Mistake.

The feat based system of the 3.5 variants gives the ability to minimize class weaknesses but still remains balanced. It's a system many people are familiar with. Once you build and balance a new combat system and figure out to train players to use it, then try and figure out how to implement in an online game the parts of 3.5 no one has yet, the nontraditional combat and conflict system. If you're going to do stuff like making sneaking, stealing, fasting talking around some boss combats, and professional crafting skills, you might as well do the one thing that no one else has done-the Wizard.

The Wizard's special advantage is the ability to change advantages and disadvantages. The class weakness are large numbers of opponents (cavalier followers), immunities (monks and paladins), and prepared opponents(special gear). Immunities should be confined to 1 or 2 types of gear, like a helmet so a Wizard can win so long as they have the right spells. Some people just can't get past the fact that a prepared Wizard should always win. The time of preparation is really not a lot different from a warrior grinding out for superior gear or a thief taking extra time to sneak. Catching the Wizard unprepared means tracking him to his lair or sending large group after him. If you can play balance this you will have a new innovation in online gaming. You would need to add all the spells in the book, not just the combat ones, like divination (to figure out where a wizard is or who a murder is) If you can play balance a Wizard, you can play balance anything. That could be the core of your game.

With the sandbox idea, players would be responsible for developing your content. If you had an algorithm for play balance, then the design of quests and dungeons could be relatively automatic. Instead of having to craft every item a player could design a piece of gear they wanted and then build a instance related to the gear. Area knowledge or Archeology might be used to hunt down relevant items. Sorcerer based gear might require going through a series of monsters that each had one or two of the elemental immunities. Under OGL you get to keep plots and creatures. A plot generation mechanic should fall under this, so there really is no absolute reason to abandon the OGL system. If you don't do this, someone else will.

Flight, water, mount, and vehicle(ships and wagons) based combat should be allowable. Use engineering and architecture skills to develop fortification and bridges for trade and mass combat situations. Make languages relevant. Find a specific way to use every skill in the Pathfinder Rulebooks. Use in game social constructs like bounty hunters to regulate economics and player behavior. Make noble titles and social institutions for players, and part of the game is to attack, topple and assume the powers of the realms, through force, deception, technologies, logistics, and inspiration, while having a mechanism to keep the realm borders stable.

If your end game is the social game, then total free play is possible in end game content. Being a noble, or playing an advanced class might still require some type of payment, but a fighter could play as the member of an order without ever having to pay anything. Make sure that in game gold can be used buy good things, especially for premium players, but the subscription fee is always cheaper than the cost of gold for V.I.P. Subscribers Two premium maxed out character slots should cost the same to maintain for a year as a subscriber pays to maintain all characters in year. Subscribers should have their own server and be able to transfer characters easily. Top level leaders should be Subscribers. There should be some form of player elected goverments.

If you're going to create a gamified social experience you should practice with your development model. Crowd source your research. Ask players to compete for providing the most or best information about a topic. Raise money by running adds on your forums and give away prizes for finding the best exploits in your game ideas.

You should consider designing every visual aspect for multiple resolution levels. Players with high video cards should be able to have photo realistic experience, but lower end cards should be allowed for play. If you're going to do mass combat, at some point past a clip plane, the video rendering might even be just 2D sprites so you can do mass combats for everyone.

That's my 2 cents.