Valandur's page

Greetings and Salutations!

I would be honoured to join your circles of Wood and Shadow as I step into this world that is Golarion!
My lady will almost certainly be joining me within your circles. We are faithful guardians of flora, fauna and freedom and love playing characters that epitomize Neutral Goodness.

Despite this very early hour I still feel like a latecomer! Tragically, I missed the Kickstarter, so if anyone knows of any open windows by which I could make a late contribution I would be delighted to trade cash for benefits!
For now I have registered an account on your site and look forward to contributing in any way I am able from here forward!

Don't feel bad about missing the KS. I had no money when the KS ended, 2 weeks later I finally got paid, but it was too late. Lisa Stevens said that they would allow those like us the chance to get into EE and that once they got the KS settled they would post a page with info on how people like us can pledge. Hopefully we will get some information on that fairly soon.

The Circle will be glad to have you. Mostly they are gathering at the pro boards link, so head over there and create an account and introduce yourself :)

I think it's mostly because they've been so slow to get the KS rewards fulfillment system going, and the presented crowdforging topics have consisted of two polls, one of which ended up getting deleted because it was poorly worded. Outside of that, there was the change from all-or-nothing capstone powers to a more gradual dedication power, but if GW wants people to stay more highly engaged they'll need to keep some kind of list of game design elements that were chosen or changed via community response..

I think a lot of people are waiting for this actually. Things should liven up again once the Devs get a plan in place that brings the players into the process a bit more.

Valandur wrote:

Xaer wrote:

I know there are lots of aspiring writers out there who would work for peanuts to craft unique stories or quests in a mmorpg that disappear from the game once they have been completed.

I know it's not in the design plan, but one off quests especially if they had a unique reward would be so cool! Couldn't have a unique reward for the "go kill 10 bunnys" quest, but a detailed quest that gets triggered when someone solves a puzzle, or finds the map that leads to a location that begins it, but is NOT repeatable just sounds wicked.

I'm under no illusions that anything like this will be added, just had to comment on how cool the idea is.

The Laws of Online World Design wrote:

J. C. Lawrence's "do it everywhere" law

If you do it one place, you have to do it everywhere. Players like clever things and will search them out. Once they find a clever thing they will search for other similar or related clever things that seem to be implied by what they found and will get pissed off if they don't find them.

Worth checking against. ;) Though I agree, a few uber "A Riddle Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma" perhaps?!

Fruben wrote:

Great blog, some thoughts:

* I would like to see escalations move even further away from scripted event chains towards algorithm created unpredictable creatures (the more they would resemble mutating viruses, which could only be contained until the players find the right antidote to stomp them, the better)

* it will be interesting to see how GW is able to solve the challenge of the time scale of the escalations: the shorter the escalation/each cycle, the sooner they become repetitive and the less players will have the chance to participate in each escalation, while a longer escalation may fail to create the sense of urgency (personally I do hope for

...

I think Mr. Lawrence's advice is good, if your making a Wow clone :P seriously though, it's the fact that its not done in other games that makes something like this novel. It's something I've come to hate in MMOs, if you find something really cool, a quest that gives you some cool reward. Every googan that wanders by can have that same item. It's like buying a cool car and soon you see the same type of car all over the place.

Why am I going to bat for an idea that'll never see daylight? LoL I'd stand a better chance arguing for them to add full night to PFO,

I know there are lots of aspiring writers out there who would work for peanuts to craft unique stories or quests in a mmorpg that disappear from the game once they have been completed.

I know it's not in the design plan, but one off quests especially if they had a unique reward would be so cool! Couldn't have a unique reward for the "go kill 10 bunnys" quest, but a detailed quest that gets triggered when someone solves a puzzle, or finds the map that leads to a location that begins it, but is NOT repeatable just sounds wicked.

I'm under no illusions that anything like this will be added, just had to comment on how cool the idea is.

Valandur wrote:

According to the latest information NPC mobs will only drop coin.

I'm pretty certain that it's been explicitly mentioned that monsters/NPCs will have other types of lootable resources/manufactured items (in fact, i'm not sure it's been explicitly mentioned that they will 'drop coin'). It's also been mentioned that fighting monsters/NPCs will be a path towards gaining 'merit badges' which is what is needed to advance/gain new 'class abilities', as skill progression happens automatically regardless of what you do in-game.

The recent post about an interview Ryan did is where I got my information on the coin only drops. Bluddwolf posted a rife list of things that were said.

In most MMOs I don't PvP because instanced PvP is pretty bogus, so I normally am a PvE player. But in games like War and DAOC I loved RvR. I will likely do a lot of PvP in PFO, but being as I will be crafting as well, I will end up doing a good bit of PvE. As I was considering the blog, the system looks pretty cool, but the rewards seemed subpar. Obviously being in the game could change how I feel about it though.

This would be a lot cooler if there were some benefit to battling PvE mobs other then the obvious, getting them out of your territory. According to the latest information NPC mobs will only drop coin. We won't get exp or any skill gain for killing these mobs, it seems kind of, well anticlimactic. I guess everyone will just let the mobs escalate until the leader spawns that drops the artifact just to make the fight worthwhile.

By the looks of things CU is going to blow any limitations prior to now out of the water. They recently featured a video showing 10K characters in a confined area with no performance degradation. That vid didn't include spells and such so realistic numbers will likely be lower, but its an impressive display of what's possible.

I know they are using Unity, but I've no idea what other combination of software they might be using to achieve those numbers. Their Minecraft like building system is just amazing btw..

I'm not in favor of portals. Not in the sense that they dot the land going here and there. I would much rather see the map grow from its edges. If portals are to be added, I'd rather see one portal leading to one destination situated in an NPC controlled hex. That way people would still have to journey to the portal.

Well given the hints that the art will be limited that have been said a few times, I wonder how many races will be in when the game releases, not when EE starts. Hopefully as time moves on more races will be added.

@Sintaqx:

Well, my post there was mostly concerned with 'non-meaningful' darkness/light variation, just to change up the lighting conditions a bit from 'always sharply lit' to 'greyish' to 'dusk' and so forth. This does not even require having 'total darkness' that blocks vision. Basically, just to establish a more rich, flavorful visual environment. There could even be an in-game fluff reason for never having full pitch-dark night, such as multiple moons, planets, suns (or just a large amount of stars, although clouds would block those), or even dimly bioluminescent plants/fungus to bypass the cloud cover issue.

Although I don't see why any cheating issue to bypass 'mechanically relevant darkness (blocking vision)' couldn't be addressed by having the server mediate it, and only send each client updates on creatures/buildings/etc that they are allowed to see... The only thing that needs to be checked is distance vs. you (which needs to be checked for lots of things like limited range attacks, auras, etc) and cull the list before sending it to you [and similar culls should likely happen to not show characters hiding behind solid objects]. This doesn't need to be a high accuracy distant change, rounding to integers is completely do-able. So you could hack your client to look like broad daylight, or look like everything is underwater or anything else you want it to look like, but it wouldn't provide any mechanical advantage because the information sent to your client is only the information you are allowed to see. All the discussion I saw in that thread seemed fixated on this distance check happening on the local client computer, which is obviously prone to abuse.

But whether or not it is 'mechanically' relevant, i.e. determining whether you can see or target other characters, I think changing light levels add to the game all on their own.

Several people have made suggestions on how to have darkness and foil the cheaters, but we've heard nothing from the Devs about it. Only thing I can figure is they don't see the benefit to having a day/night cycle. Personally I do think it would add to the game to have day and night, but often my ideas are quite fringe so....

I'm thinking that what we are seeing isn't a settlement, but a temporary backdrop for the screenshots.

Perhaps they should rename SS#4, "Welcome to the Blue Iguana"? :P

Coin enters the economy primarily from PvE sources: creature loot and NPC rewards.

We have discussed the possibility of turning precious metals into coin via a mint, but we need to get a better idea of how that would affect the economy before saying for sure. If we did that, it would mean creating general coin; it'd be really confusing to try to treat it as regional currency that might be debased.

Stephen, I just wanted to thank you for answering questions on the forums. It's cool to get clarification and information! :)

Btw.. I wonder if you guys would consider starting some form of Q&A, whether just a post, or restarting the video Q&A's, either would be really cool. Just thought I would ask.

Maybe they forgot? 0 o

A nondescript swamp in Louisiana

Vanguard is arguably the buggiest and least successful "tripla A" MMOs ever put out, and yet I (and a few others) still enjoy playing it. I truly believe that's largely due to the fact that their Class design was extremely well done.

I agree. Laggy, buggy with all kinds of problems but several things about the game just make it more fun then many games being put out nowdays.

As far as Monks go, so long as they have the ability to train lots of attacks and special abilities, I would be fine with them starting out with a few animations and adding more as they go along replacing duplicates.

FYI, this thread is 18 months old.

Woohoo! We discovered time travel, quick set the dial for 1990, we've got a TON of Microsoft shares to buy!! :P

Starting a war isn't as easy as just going there and attacking people, although that can be a tactic to try and make a settlement declare war. According to some rather dated blog posts, a sell teeming would need to set up a siege camp and protect it as its being built before actual "War" can be declared. Perhaps this has changed, I'm not sure. I think there are more ways to declare war, but I've not found the posts that talk about them.

I bow, as always, to the librarian-assassin.

Hmmm, wouldn't that be a Librassin? :P

Bunny hopping annoys me too. Having a Stamina drain when jumping solves the problem neatly.

Valandur wrote:

Remember Ryan said that there are ways to take a settlement without destroying every structure. He didn't go into detail, but did confirm that they will make it possible.

Wasn't that in context of taking over a settlement by infiltration into the populace to change its alignment? Where an NG settlement is established which accepts NN settlers, and so many NN settlers join the average alignment changes to NN allowing NE settlers, who then also shift the alignment balance to NE forcing the original NG settlers to be banished?

I "thought" that his wording indicated that settlements could surrender their control of the settlement in situations other then takeover by infiltration. But perhaps I misread his wording? I'll try and dig around and locate the thread so I can check.

@Drakhan,

My alt character is not a bandit at all. He will be a Monk, LN or perhaps even LG. I'm hoping to be a Flowing Monk archtype, and use primarily dodged, and trips to frustrate my opponents and if I have to to turn their attacks back at them.

I would much prefer to have non lethal atacks, or an incapacitation mechanic where my opponent will slowly bleed to death (0 - -9). At that point I could heal the character, and give him / her a chance to see the true path.

I know several people looking to play a monk have expressed the desire to have non lethal and unarmed combat. I hope that we can work together to convince the Devs that there is enough support for them, that these things might find their way into the game.

I too hope we can get unarmed combat added. I think it would bring great flavor to the Monk role. More and more I'm leaning toward having a Monk.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Alignments do not 'even out'. Grickin is willing to act Chaotic, so he's Chaotic. That he rarely does act Chaotic doesn't mean it's not a part of who he is.

I've never seen alignment treated that way. It sounds a lot like "I'm totally Chaotic." When the last time you actually ACTED chaotic was 5 years ago.

Plus the game will assign alignments based on your actions within the game world, not on what you might think of yourself as. So you could feel your CN, but act NE, the game will rate your actions and you'll be NE according to the game, and those players who can see your alignment.

Remember Ryan said that there are ways to take a settlement without destroying every structure. He didn't go into detail, but did confirm that they will make it possible.

Only thing that bothers me in this blog is this bit...

You're going to have a harder time recognizing a guy you've seen before as an inch-tall face on your screen using a limited pool of art assets than you would a person in real life

I've got visions of Wyrm's character selection system running through my mind :P While I know the character creation program will be better then this, I wonder how limited it will be?

Would love to see moods worked into unit combat, similar to how they did it in Warhammer Mark of Chaos the RPG. Has a lot of potential.

Was just checking out the Oculus VR Goggles and Wow I'm amazed! Talk about taking games to the next level. I thought it very cool n that Unity will integrate Oculus into their program as well!

Well if Monks have anywhere near the cool abilities discussed in this thread then I'm going to have to check them out! Normally Monks are just lightly armored fighters who might get an extra attack with their fist or a kick. I'd love to see the Monk role handled the way it was intended to be (as its written of in PnP lore).

Well, since it appears we have merged the two issues pertaining to Bounty Hunters and Aassassins, I'd like to suggest the two best ideas I have seen (neither of which were entirely my own, which is even better).

Bounty Hunters:

When a Bounty Hunter kills his/her target, that target can not enable any type of long term PVP flag, for one full cycle (10 hours).

What does this do? It effecively punishes the target in a way that is associated with his or her activities. It gives the original victim so reassurance that, at least the person who harmed them, can not for a brief time do the same to someone else.

If a Bandit kills, he can not reflag himself with the Outlaw flag for 10 hours. Without that flag he can not issue a SAD; and he may not even be able to use a hideout.

It won't mean he can't just use the attacker flag, or certainly the involved flag. These two can still be initiated.

Note: a 10 hour ban, amounts to 20 hours without that flag's full benefits being reached.

I like this idea, because the punishment actually matches the crime.

Assassins:

When an assassin kills a leader of a raid group; charter company; settlelemt; kingdom etc...

The victim can not enact any leadership buffs to their repective grouping for 10 hours. This debuff is placed against all leadership based skills associated with any mass activity (governance or even leadership of merchant, gathering, or crafting operations).

This would give the act of assassination the preemptive value that I think many hope for. It would be a valuable precursor for a war (military or trade). It would also become an activitiy almost exclusively directed at the leadership structure of any player grouping.

Exclusionary Example: Joe the cup cake merchant, will likley not be the target of an assassination. If Johnny the breadmaker up the block wants him dead, he can just kill him with any normal PVP flag.

In this way I think both professions become what they are desiogned to do. Bounty Hunters punish...

I like these ideas. I think your definitely onto something here. One thing though, both the bounty hunter and the bandit get 10 hour penalties for making a kill, but where the assassin is concerned you have the victim receiving a penalty. Should the assassin also get one?

I would like to suggest that the 10 hour penalties be in game time, and that the players need not remain logged in while they are in effect.

PFO is a business venture. It's in their interest, and it's in the players' interest, for PFO to be successful.

To do that, they need to avoid pissing people off.

Well then they failed before the game is even made. Just by having PvP in the game will, and has, pissed lots of people off. Allowing looting of players in PvP will, and has pissed lots of people off.

They have said over and over that PFO isn't designed to appeal to everyone, that its designed to draw a certain type of gamer. Many of your ideas and suggestions here seem better fitted to the forums of Wow or SWTOR then PFO.

Every PvP battle will end in someone losing. There's no way everyone can win and avoid frustration within the game setup in PFO. But despite that, it won't drive those of us who understand what the game is about, to quit the game just because we lost a battle. Those of us to whom theme parks hold no interest look forward to the struggle, the frustration and the challenge that PFO will bring.

We don't want PFO turned into yet another hand holding theme park. So you can push for such changes you wish to see, but we will oppose those that take the game into unwanted areas.

I vote Nothing :)

Nihimon wrote:

@Harad Navar, it's not clear to me what point you're making in response to what you quoted from me

Your right, I failed to take your comment in context. Darned oak pollen.

Is that like green corn? :p

D&D's Vancian Casting is rightly shunned by modern game design in the video game format (and, in all seriousness, Paizo's decision to carry on Vancian Casting into Pathfinder infuriates me NO END).

What is Vancian casting? I'm not familiar with that term?

Also, can't remember what it is called but: Will the game have good "personal space" coding? You know, so you can't walk right though other toons in combat like we are all ghosts?

Would be nice if combat had it but it was suspended in doorways, indoors, and other tight spaces.

Player collision is what your talking about. It's been brought up a few times and I've not heard anything from the Devs suggesting that they won't implement it. I think it's important, especially in large scale (unit) combat.

Valandur wrote:

I mean take the keyword "sharp" is it variable, or constant? Meaning does it equate to say +2, or does its bonus depend on some other factor?

A large part of why the whole keyword thing is so brilliant is that the actual mechanical effect can be balanced over time, at various levels of granularity. That is, they can analyze the keyword independently, or in combination with any number of other keywords, to determine the final result, allowing them to improve the damage of a specific attack, an entire category of attacks, specific weapons, specific categories of weapons, and specific combinations of any of the above.

.

I thought that might be the case. It lets them put off defining what the keywords do until they have combat fleshed out.

I really didn't understand Ryan's ideas about "keywords" for the longest time, but now that I'm starting to get a better feel for it, I am in awe.

The whole keyword thing mystifies me. I sort of figured they used them in PFTT but don't know for sure.

I mean take the keyword "sharp" is it variable, or constant? Meaning does it equate to say +2, or does its bonus depend on some other factor?

Do you suppose that foundry will be significantly different from NWN2's Aurora construction kit?

It's near enough like it to where you'll be fairly familiar with the basic system, but it's added functionality and new stuff they have put in are really worth checking out. The dialog system on its own is really sweet.

I know the devs have made references to wanting some sort of attrition mechanic in warfare, so that we don't end up with eternal conflicts of people running back from bind points. Though I think it was in the line of a reduced effectiveness, rather than time padding.

Are you talking about the fatigue system Ryan mentioned? All I really remember from that was that troops engaged in prolonged battle would, over time, become fatigued and need to rest in order to maintain full fighting strength.

If they can find a way to make player generated PvE content such as dungeons and encounters I will certainly commit to producing same as quickly as I can while assuring high quality entertainment.

If, together with GW, we can reach good understanding of whatever tools they are able to provide enough to set in place a robust quality assurance testing system then the community should be able to produce enough PvE content to satisfy even the dedicated PvE enthusiasts.

I look upon this prospect as the next evolution in the DM avocation.

Being, might I suggest that you sign up for NWOs beta? They should be very near the normal beta test phase, when the servers will be live all the time as opposed to just a few hours a day like they are now. I mention it because of their Foundry UGC tool. I think it would give you a lot of data to use when GW goes to create their own tool for UGC.

Figured I would mention it in case you haven't signed up yet. I think you will enjoy the Foundry.

Well if they are going to have slavery and prostitution in PFO then I want some edible mushrooms ala Gothic! :p the graphic effects of those were cool.

Valandur wrote:

Keovar wrote:

Valandur wrote:

Keovar wrote:

As long as that applies to all forms of offense, that's fine. Sure, a greatsword has less range than a fireball, but if a rogue can be stealthed in the fireball in order to flag the caster, then they should also be able to stealth into the paladin's backswing to flag them too. Of course, you could also absolve both the spellcaster and paladin of their responsibility for targets they couldn't see.

I [will pretend to] get why you bring up this example over and over again [even though this is more my perception than a reality]. But it's a lost cause [or I want you to think so because I don't agree]. No one else comes out supporting it [and by that I mean I don't, and since mine is the only opinion I care about...], it would require a lot more coding [though I can't back up this claim] for the Devs and none of them have come out in favor of it either [and they've repeatedly told us to sit down and shut up].

No reason you can't continue to flog the dead beastie [for a second time] though. It's your party [but your opinion is invalid so shut up].

As long as it's clear that using AoE spells will inevitably make you evil, no problem. I'll just play that way to start with, just as so many others are apparently going to do. It's just Eve with swords, after all.

I guess there's a reason why you added all the bracketed stuff into my post? Wry humor maybe? Covert sarcasm? Demon possession?

Just letting you know how it came off. I recall saying something similar in one other thread, months ago, and you're presenting it as if it were a daily thing. Since we're not even in alpha yet, a request for equal treatment between weapon types (swords, arrows, spells, etc.) is not a lost cause, but the 'flogging a dead [horse]' phrase implies 'shut up'.

I'm not asking for them to prevent friendly fire, I just want things treated equally, and that could be as simple as having invisible/stealthed targets not apply flags.

Ah ok. To be honest I don't remember saying something about this before, had I remembered I wouldn't have posted. We have different interpretations on what "beating a dead horse" means. I see it as pursuing something that can't be attained, or a futile action.

Btw, I totally think arrows and crossbow bolts, thrown weapons, spears should all be included in FF. yes it would make those players jobs harder, but I am all for putting thought back into gameplay rather then removing it as most MMOs have done.

This is off topic, but geeze Tides of Numenera and Project Eternity both raised a LOT more then their initial goals in KS! I'm surprised that SotA haven't raised more then it has so far considering how well known RG is to the community.

Tides looks pretty cool though. Looks like it will have a good storyline.

Valandur wrote:

Keovar wrote:

As long as that applies to all forms of offense, that's fine. Sure, a greatsword has less range than a fireball, but if a rogue can be stealthed in the fireball in order to flag the caster, then they should also be able to stealth into the paladin's backswing to flag them too. Of course, you could also absolve both the spellcaster and paladin of their responsibility for targets they couldn't see.

I [will pretend to] get why you bring up this example over and over again [even though this is more my perception than a reality]. But it's a lost cause [or I want you to think so because I don't agree]. No one else comes out supporting it [and by that I mean I don't, and since mine is the only opinion I care about...], it would require a lot more coding [though I can't back up this claim] for the Devs and none of them have come out in favor of it either [and they've repeatedly told us to sit down and shut up].

No reason you can't continue to flog the dead beastie [for a second time] though. It's your party [but your opinion is invalid so shut up].

As long as it's clear that using AoE spells will inevitably make you evil, no problem. I'll just play that way to start with, just as so many others are apparently going to do. It's just Eve with swords, after all.

I guess there's a reason why you added all the bracketed stuff into my post? Wry humor maybe? Covert sarcasm? Demon possession?

Bringing a post over from another thread that illustrates why I want death to be something players shouldn't want to do..

Finally got around to reading the blog I like it. I think that the refreash system also bring some tactical choices to larger forces.

If i read it correctly spells on refreash are big spells that will make large impacts. The down side is that during any given period of combat they are a limited resource.

This brings something interesting for larger scale battles and thats effective control of casters. In a larger scale battle a caster might be able to go into combat, cast their spells quickly, leave the immediate battle area, go out of combat, refreash, then go back in to alpha again. Honestly I dont see the issue with this. However for the other side this brings up a point of having scouts/skirmishers whose main purpose could be preventing those casters from leaving combat. A caster who is leaving to refreash probably has cast most if not all of their spells, leaving them open to attack. Not only that but if a caster does that you can take out a heavy hitter by not allowing them to get their spells back.

The caster's side has a couple of options, accept the caster as a lose and have him die and run back, or use some resources (other people) protect them while they run out of combat to refreash.

Looks fun. Im glad that GW is thinking about the balance issues between casters and non casters.

I left the whole post in for context, but the part I bolded is the important part. When death is just a quick run back to the battle, that seems to be taking a lot away from the whole aspect of players should want to live. Maybe I'm just sick of "those" games where death has no meaning, but I hope PFO is different.

I'm NOT wanting some harsh penalty, or something that takes a lot of time to recover from. Just something that players would rather not have to do unless there's no choice. Obviously we will all be dining a lot, so no one wants to have some drawn out penalty to deal with. I'm sure there's a balance here that can be worked out.

Well it seems that GW decision to adopt the Crowdforging system of making a MMO is being picked up by several developers to use in making their games.

In a Dev hangout (chat) done Wed, Richard Garriot, who is creating Shroud of the Avatar came right out and said that they were definitely going to have the same level of community involvement as GW in creating SotA.

Mark Jacobs has been saying for some time how he plans to bring the community into the creation of Camelot Unchained, the successor to DAOC.

I'm really excited to see these companies take this approach. Both companies are also using Kickstarter so they won't be as "under the thumb" of a publisher as usual. Honestly I'm unsure if a studio could use Crowdforging to create a game while a big name publisher like EA is involved.

I thought it was interesting that we now have 3 games being made with input from the players.

I would rather see a death penalty that's enough of a pain so that players don't want to die, but not so harsh that they whine incessantly about it.

Death in MMOs has become so trivial that its meaningless. I don't believe this is the right way to go.

But even with that, I don't think we can really rule out the possibility of scripted encounters, and recurring bosses (even if they have different names).

Ah man I hope not. What sorts of things were you thinking might be repeated? Like escalation bosses? I "hope" that with the huge variety of possible creatures and NPCs to choose from that dungeon bosses wouldn't be encountered more then once in a looooong time. I'm curious as to what repetitive content your seeing.

Well and convincingly stated, Jason Mayberry. Smart tactics should be rewarded, dumb moves should not be rewarded.

Stealthing into an area under high threat of fireball seems pretty dumb to me, but okay. Even though the caster can't see the thief there he should have, I dunno, swept the area or tossed glitterdust before lobbing a fireball if he wanted to be sure he didn't hit an innocent.

Just pardon my rolling eyes it is a congenital condition.

Well a responsible spell caster would place markers around the fireball area Before they cast the spell. /chuckle

There are a large number of buffs that can/should be used on a non-self target. Would those take up a defensive/passive slot? Could multiple casters buff the hell out of the fighter? Or could a bunch of spellcasters under the effects of invisibility buff the hell out of the kobold that the other group is fighting, turning it into a killing machine the likes of which would make a stone giant cry?

Well depending on the number of casters, the quantity of spells cast and the time which they are cast, they might fall within the "magical turbulence" mechanic that's being discussed in the "ring of fire" blog thread.

We need more info to fully understand that mechanic and how it will play out though.

Another thing the magical turbulence will do is cut down on the furious spell casting that comes in the midst of battles. What I mean is often during battles you'll have many casters all casting various spells, buffs, shields, protections etc.. On their group. Well these will suffer from the turbulence as well if the casters are casting on targets grouped together.

So much thought will have to go into who casts what and when or you'll end up with say a shield spell that should offer +30 to say fire only giving +10 and other lessened effects. We don't know if different disciplines are all considered one for purposes of turbulence, if they are then the heal spell that should have been +150 might only be +20.

A lot to consider.

I have no problem with bounty hunters compiling a list of known associates, ie. Charter Company members list; Settlement Associations; Settement Visitor Logs; Public Contracts Taken by or Against the target; Home deeds; Bank accounts, etc...

Woah, some Scribe is going to retire once he finishes doing all your jobs!

j/k