Cleric of Iomedae

albadeon's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber. Organized Play Member. 303 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.




Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

If you made a character with playtest credit to start at a higher level, you may have already out-leveled the currently published adventures. And even if you started as a brand-new level 1 character, if you've used that one character to successfully complete all the currently published scenarios and quests, you're 1 XP / one quest shy of fourth level, and at that rate will have "out-grown" level 1-4 adventures by January.

Since some of the boons acquired state that they'll have an effect in future adventures, could we get some idea of what levels the upcoming scenarios and quests are intended to be? It would be unfortunate to acquire such a boon on one character only to have him out of level range for the intended continuation by the time that is published. Since the adventures for the first season have likely all been assigned to authors already, I'd assume that levels for these have probably been planned out (barring unforeseen circumstances, of course). Or maybe if not for the entire rest of the season then at least for the next months.

I totally understand that we're not going to have one continouus career playing all published material with just one character and that there need to be plenty more low-level adventures. But some idea to allow for some planning ahead while the total number of available adventures is still low would be nice.

Thx! :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The above order from September has not arrived yet. Normally, it can take quite a while for orders to reach me here in Europe, so I wasn't overly concerned, but my October order (#8181831) has just arrived today and there's no sign of the previous one yet.

Do you have a way of tracking the delivery and could you see where the hold-up is?

Thank you!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It seems like this should be obvious but I have not been able to find this stated outright in the CRB, other than refering to bulk:

The listed stats for weapons and other equipment are the same for bothe medium and small creatures, right? So the 3' halfling can use the same rapier as his 7' half-orc buddy, doing the same basic weapon damage die, etc.? Or do I have to modify the weapons for small creatures?

I always assumed they would be using the same size weapons, but I have to admit, the picture of a 3' halfling wielding a normal sized rapier ("normal" for a human irl being on average 3'6'', with ideal size for an individual often quoted as "ground to navel") is kind of odd...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Here are the relevant bits of the spell descriptions from the CRB:
Guidance:
"[...], granting the target a +1 status bonus to one attack roll, Perception check, saving throw, or skill check the target attempts before the duration ends. The target chooses which roll to use the bonus on before rolling."

True strike:
"The next time you make an attack roll before the end of your turn, roll the attack twice and use the better result."

Now, how do these two interact?
Do I roll twice, adding a +1 to one of the rolls, and then use the better result as my attack roll?
OR
Do I roll twice, using the better result as my attack roll and then add +1?

The way the rules are written, a case could be made for either, it seems.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wall of text ahead...

I've been going over the numbers for the WotT in my head, and they just don't seem to add up. The way it's currently set up, I somewhat doubt that there is going to be any actual fighting over any towers just because there's going to be more than enough for all of us...

Here's what we know (based on today's numbers):
- Total number of (player) settlements in EE: 33
- Total number of towers on map: 320 (approx.?)
- Total EE accounts sold (kickstarter, gw store, etc.): some 6500 (?)
- Total number of players participating in land rush so far: 1507
- Of these, 1279 are currently in a "land rush guild" set for a settlement spot
- Only one PC per player initially
- Each PC can only be in one company
- Each company can only hold one tower

Of the 33 settlements, the bottom 14(!) settlements have less than 18 members (and going all the way down to 7), i.e. even if they divide up into companies evenly, they have less than 3 players holding each of the "primary towers" directly adjacent to their settlement, much less expand their territory outwards. A full half have 30 or less, so just 6 companies of 5 PCs max. And let's not even start with the "expected company size" of 20-50 that was mentioned somewhere.

Even Talonguard and Golgotha as two of the "big shots" currently have less than 100 members, i.e. less than 10 companies of 10 players each. And with 320 towers for 33 settlements, 10 towers would be just above average. And that's for #2 and #3 of the settlements!

Unless we are going to be seeing a huge influx of new players very soon (which we can only hope for with these numbers), I don't expect the WotT to be an actual fighting war. Even if all the settlements grab as many as they reasonably can (and additinal benefits from more towers surely will hit some sort of soft ceiling), there will barely be any need for conflict. There's just enough there for all...

Even if we suddenly double the number of actual players in EE (i.e. say 3000 instead of the current 1500 land rush participants), there'd barely be 10 players per tower over all! And imho even that number would be highly optimistic to expect, at least in WotT/early EE! Quite a few who bought an account through kickstarter will not be interested in playing the game anymore, for any number of reasons...

Am I the only one concerned by this? Am I mistaken somewhere? Have the devs somehow seriously miscalculated the expected number of players? Or are we just expected to split up into *very* small companies for the purpose of the WotT?

What could be done to alleviate this? It's probably to late for changes to the system without a lot of outcry, but I would consider seriously reducing the number of settlement spots and the number of towers at least by the same percentage (preferably more). Force the players to form bigger settlements, with bigger companies competing over fewer towers. Even if these are further apart than originally planed. Or just make only a smaller part of the current land rush map initially available.

It has been repeatedly said that small settlements will be untenable and will also not be able to offer anything better than the starter settlements during EE, i.e. will not easily be able to effectively attract new members. I would actually expect quite a few of the settlements at the bottom of the list to effectivly become abandoned husks, yet indestrucible due to game mechanics of EE. So, why not require a minimum number of players to effectively claim a settlement? Say, 50 or so. Or just cut the number of settlement spots in half? Sure, some small groups will have to give up the dream of their own home. But then again, they could just grow during EE in a community with others and later set out during OE to find their own place with the numbers to support it...

Opinions?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just some ideas regarding "meaningful interaction", especially with regards to "criminal behaviour" (I'm thinking raiding, waylaying, killing, etc.).
One of the big problems I see in the game is the relatively minor consequences a criminal is facing compared to his victim.

Let's take outpost rading as an example:
In real life, something similar might be robbing a liquor store. Here, both sides face serious consequences: the owner faces both potential loss of property and life, if the robber is armed.
But the owner might also be armed, so the robber also faces possible loss of life and there is of course the risk of being caught and serving time in prison. Fairly serious for both, but also fairly even with a bit of a disadvantage for the bad guy (property can be restored over time, time spent behind bars is mostly wasted).

Compare that to PFO: Loss of life is no real issue, as every PC gets an easy respawn and permanent character deaths don't happen. Loss of property is a serious risk for the victim(s), both in terms of resources invested in building and running the outpost (which can be completely destroyed by the raider), resources harvested and stored there, as well as stuff carried around in their inventory (as they don't know they are going to be robbed). But what risk does the raider run? He knows he's out to raid, so he will only carry the necessary items and those he can afford to lose. He does not face permanent death and there is no prison.

So the worst possible outcome for the raider here is a respawn some distance away (i.e. really nothing serious). The worst possible outcome for the owner of the outpost is a respawn some distance away AND serious loss of resources/property. This lopsided distribution of consequences tilts the system here quite a bit in favor of the "bad guy", making evil (or at least banditry) play much more attractive for those so inclined. It seems highly unfair to disadvantage the "constructive" player in that way.

Is the reputation system going to be enough to alleviate this difference? I doubt it, with "PvP windows" and "feuds" still allowing for repution-safe raiding.

Instead, I believe that PFO might need a prison system :-).

Actually, that should be fairly easy to implement. Let's say, raiding, robbing, murdering gets you a "wanted" flag for a limited amount of time (say, a week). If during that time you are caught(i.e. killed) by someone who would be expected to turn a criminal in (i.e. PCs with LG, NG, LN alignments, possibly others?), your wanted flag is exchanged for a "prisoner" flag, for starters, let's say for one week. While you are marked as a prisoner your respawn point (including the spawn point when you initially log in to the game) is fixed to a completely enclosed area somewhere (aka the prison) that you cannot leave. Effectively, the character is taken out of the game for a limited time. To me that seems a much better way to handle meaningful PvP-interaction, that does actually carry meaningful consequences for BOTH sides!

That very basic system should be easy to implement, yet also could in the future be expanded:
- bounty hunters could play a role, the robbed company/PC could post a bounty; in order to collect, the robber must be turned in
- time served could be dependend on the actual crime (theft 1 week, murder 3 months)
- interactions between prisoners might still be possible, maybe even intra-prison-play could be a way to pass the time (or find future partners in crime)
- the prison could be placed, say, below the keep in the good aligned starter city, with well executed jail breaks from the outside a (remote) possibility
- for even more serious consequences, make a character undeletable while imprisoned and limit the amount of characters an account can have

Really consequential meaningful interaction - the PvPers should be delighted! Opinions? :-)