exil3dbyrd's page

My apologies if this is considered necromancy (I hope it isnt), but there is a flaw in the last post that I wanted to point out. I have the same question as the OP, so I am really interested in why not.

For any spellcasting class to cast a spell from the class spell list, he must use his class spell slots to prepare/know those spells. Magus spells are any spell cast from the magus spell list.

Oracles cast spells from the cleric spell list, but any spell the oracle knows becomes an oracle spell, cast from the oracle's spell list of spells known.

...

Even though the magus spell list and the wizard spell list have overlap, a spell is still considered a "magus spell" or "wizard spell" depending on which class spell slot was used to prepare the spell. Shocking Grasp is both on the magus spell list and the wizard spell list, but if you use your magus spell slots to prepare Shocking Grasp, it becomes a magus spell.

If you prepare Shocking Grasp using both a magus spell slot and a wizard spell slot, Shocking Grasp is both a magus spell and a wizard spell at that time, but is only a magus spell when cast from the magus spell slot.

Spell Combat and Spellstrike specifically say "spells from the magus spell list." Since spells from the magus spell list are derived from the magus class, magus spells are from the magus class. Anything under a class header, such as "MAGUS", comes from that class. Therefore, it is a MAGUS-class ability or MAGUS-class feature.

Magus spells are any spells cast in a Magus spell slot, I do agree with you there. Using your Oracle example, Oracle spells are from the Cleric spell list, and they become Oracle spells, cast from the oracle's spell list. The difference is oracle's spell list =/= Oracle Spell List. Using scrolls as an example, if a wizard scribes a scroll of Shocking Grasp, a Magus could still cast it even if it was not a spell on the magus's spell list(personal), because it is a spell on the Magus Spell list.

I agree that it is only a Magus spell when cast from a magus spell slot, however spell combat does not state that it only works with Magus spells, but with any spell from the Magus Spell list. An example that I have never heard of anyone denying is a wizard made wand of Shocking Grasp used with the Wand Wielder Arcana. It works even it is not a learned Magus spell. If wands and scrolls work with spellstrike, then I see no reason why a wizard spell, on the Magus spell list, could not be used.

To be honest I am not even sure of RAI as by RAW it works and would be so simple make sure that it doesnt. For example the Armor casting abilities, Knowledge Pool, and Spell Recall all have wording that prevents it from working with multiclassing, the fact that Spell Combat and Spellstrike are worded differently makes me think it is RAW and RAI for it to work with multiclassing.

Human hunter, spends most of the time stealthing through the wilderness alone. Bandits, monsters and gankers will all be my prey. One day be renowned for my solo feats in a game that does not reward them, and be feared as a PKK.

Or just be a hermit.

You know, this is tiring. If people want to play games with no negatives, that's fine. Tiddlywinks comes to mind. No risk, other than losing. Although some people can't handle that much ego abuse.

...
I'd rather play a game with other adults in it who can handle real risk/reward, not some lopsided 'Here you go little Jimmy, this is what you win for playing a game you can't lose'.

This is such a condenscending post I had to reply. Somehow, because we want a game where certain classes don't have an I win button, it's childish? We want a game with more depth than I spammed my button faster than you so I win, you want slapjack and we want Go. They can both be fun games but Go is in no way childish, there are layers and layers of strategy and is considered one of the hardest games in the world to master, yet there are no insta-death moves. Feel free to edit your post and argue our points or just say that you agree to disagree, but don't be so insulting to the other members of the forum please.

Additionally, I would argue that having Friendly Fire would not make the game more difficult (or rather, the lack of Friendly Fire would not make the game easier). Difficulty of a game is determined by the encounter design, which is something determined by both the players and the devs. Just as an example, most modern MMO's do not have friendly fire, but there are definitely scenarios that are extremely difficult.

Really? I agree with the second part of your statement, that encounter design is what makes something difficult, but the elements of the encounter design is basically a list of things you can and cant do. You can't take a large charged up hit, you cant use fire element weapons, you cant stand in the green stuff, you have to deal with this ability, are all pieces that make up the difficulty of the encounter. If something is only hurt by cold iron weapons but is exactly the same as another creature without that restriction would generally be considered tougher. The more elements you add, the more difficult the encounter is. Adding you cant use AoEs while your allies are close to your adversaries may not make a fight much more difficult, but it is one more piece that has to fit into the puzzle. If the fight was against a large number of weaker creatures swarming around your party, the encounter would be much easier if you could just AoE them down with killing everyone else too.

On your other point, I was debating whether or not to add the increased tactics or not. I just got ideas for large scale battles where you may seperate your evasive melee from the rest of your melee and focus AoE damage on them while in melee with another group. Or possibly casting protection from elements on a fighter or cleric and using him as bait, with the AoE being a trap. You can of course do these things without FF, however it requires less planning and thus in my mind less tactics. But I can see where you are coming from as well.

What is the benefit of FF?

1. More realistic
2. Weakens AoE in large melees
3. Increases potential group tactics

What is the benefit of not having FF?

1. Makes the game easier
2. Makes characters with AoEs stronger
3. Reduces potential griefing

I personally lean towards FF. Hopefully the game has some large battles and if the melee is determined by which side casts the most fireballs. The main benefit I can see for not having FF is number 3. If the devs can find a way to stop griefers or at least reduce the opportunity, then I see no reason to not have it.

I disagree that, if you have death by falling and death by trap, you need to have death by spell. It is much easier to be aware that the dangers of being high up on a cliff or walking around in an unexplored dungeon, than the danger of being near a PC in robes. If you are going for realism with people with hammers one shotting mages then striking that person with a bolt of lightning would be just as deadly.

IF it is like most games where it takes more than one hit to kill someone, than allowing a few classes to ignore that and randomly kill people, seems like poor design/ simply unfun to me. A few classes have will have spells and some will have items to combat it, then if mages are balanced around having these save-or-dies they are a auto lose if they go against an opponent who has the proper defenses or if they are balanced against a foe who is properly prepared they are OP versus someone who cant cast those spells/havent found the proper items yet.

IF the game is more realistic and a properly placed arrow can fell a high level character, then I see no reason to not have save or dies as they are simply powerful gambles.

As far as raising armies/hordes, the point being that a person spending all of his resources on raising the hordes would still not be that much more powerful (if at all) than someone spending all of his resources on combat. The raising hordes of zombies and marching on a town was something that was mention when talking about the most powerful necromancers in the game, and would likely be able to be stopped by equally epic heroes. To most of the non-epic characters they would appear to be rediculously powerful though. I don't really think that this has a place in this thread though as it is something that is completely irrelevant to the conversation. If I get attacked by a horde of undead as a ranger(what I plan on playing), there are still many options left to me. I can kite them and kill them one by one, I can try to hide from them and take out the necromancer controlling all of them, retreat back to town and get help from gaurds, etc... What plan I choose and how well I execute these plans is what determines my skill as a player. If I am hit by a save or die I only have two options, save or die, and neither of those have anything to do with my skill.

I think that the problem most of us have with save or dies isnt the RNG, it's the lack of actions we can take to combat the death. If someone roots us there are still actions we can take and the decisions we make determine our skill, if someone gets lucky on the one shot kill then there is nothing we can do, our individual skills do not matter. It actually gets worse if the RNG doesnt matter, if someone can kill someone else of equal level every time, either through impossible saves or massive damage thats gauranteed to hit it becomes a twitch game where the first person who acts wins (Kinda like high level d20). Most of us prefer the sweet spot where our fates aren't determined by our initiative roll. The RNG isn't the problem as much as the possiblity of skill mattering less than luck.

I think Valkenr hit it right on. New players will have to specialize to compete with older players. To use an anolgy that is probably wildly over simplified and probably off, in a game of rock, paper, scizzors a new player can only select one and has to always use that one. While a veteran will have two or three to use. The new player's scizzor is perfectly capable of winning but the odds are greater for the more rounded player and gets better as he realizes that his opponent uses scizzors everytime.

A thief should have a slight chance to successfully rob a players house of around the same level. By giving the defender the advantage it would reduce the likelyhood of all thieves spending the entire game walking/sneaking into houses robbing everyone who is not a thief. It would also be nice if it flagged the person as killable in the city so if you catch him you are not charged with murder by the town guards. The interesting part would be having your house in a settlement robbed by another thief from the same settlement, would you be able to kill him or would he have to be kicked out of the settlement first? I would also like to be able to pay for a secure vault that even the highest level thieves would find improbable to break into. Maybe charge 10-25% of the total wealth in the vault per month or something like that. That way while you could keep your stuff in the vault the price you would pay would make it the equivelent of having your stuff stolen every 4-10 months, so securing your own stuff may be cheaper in the long run.

It's risky and hard to keep something like that secret. You can only depend on internal testing and if the ability is strong or weak the players will whine. That said I hope that they can pull off keeping it a secret and just the right power. I love the feeling of discovery and uncertainty that comes with a new game.

I enjoyed the multitude of abilities 4e brought to the martial characters, much like the powers from ToB, much better than spending each round rolling a 20 and done. The biggest problem from my group wasnt the powers, it was the fact that some of them were dailies and encounters. There is flavor for the wizard and cleric, but fighters? Did they forget how to swing thier sword? A system that fatigued the player for using a powerful strike would be much better than the daily system. But I still hope that PFO is like 4e in the fact that there is more to do than target something, go AFK, come back and repeat. Some people like the dancer and want to play a mobile dexterious character and others want to play a brick house. I hope that there are options for both.

In the worst case scenario, it will probably be like the pre-LFG wow, which should work just fine for most people. People will congregate in certain areas for certain things and if you want something that is a bit more secure, you are going to have to work at getting a group together. Once again finding a good guild/charter will be a key to successful multiplayer action.

Is the intention to put all the guild ideas into this one thread? If so here is a counterbalance to all that snooty Lawful happening up there. ;)

Name: Sons of Cayden (SoC)
Alignment Axis: Upper right corner. Lots of CG and CN. A little bit of N and maybe NG.
OOC Structure: A group of guild officers make day to day decisions and are ultimately responsible for the well being of the guild and its members. Periodically there is a turnover of the people in charge. This concession is only because Athenian Democracy is probably a bit too messy but we can try it first.
RP Level: We can take a vote on that once there are people to vote
IC Structure:Republic. A Council (the above mentioned officers) votes with the ability and expectation for members to weigh in on matters which interest them.
Purpose: To make a place in the world.

Sounds like a good time to me, most definately interested. I'm not against roleplaying from time to time, but I would prefer it if a certain amount wasn't required whether 0% or 100% or anywhere in between.

Probitas wrote:

Now a human would say if joe continues, that is a justified attack, but any computer would consider the paladin taking any action before the first newbie dies, unprovoked.

Hopefully the friends from village X would put a bounty on Joe that the Paladin could collect (collect as in kill him, the money is unimportant). If not it would be really hard to enforce what his allignment should be.

I am generally against followers, especially in PnP where actions are the most important thing, but that is not as big of a deal in a MMO. If it is balanced with not having followers I see no reason not to allow them. It would be pretty amazing to watch the worlds most powerful necromancer or group of necromancers raise an army of undead to march on some poorly defended settlements. As long as they can make 2=1 I am all for it.

(yes, I would include meaningless duels and pvp as against LG in that regard. LG people do not go around fighting other people all the time for kicks.)

Sorry I have to disagree with you on this one, Lawful Good people are as likely to spar against other people, including thier friends and cohorts, as anyone else. Real world example, police and certain members of the military have sparring as a regular work out routine. Now they aren't to the death, but I assume that a casual duel allowed by law (no ingame penalties) would also not be to death. As far as structured PVP to the death, there can be multiple reasons for a Lawful good player to join, you just have to be able to justify it (Good) and it has to be allowed by whatever ethos you follow (Lawful). Let's face it, Paladins aren't usually pacifists.

Save or dies are generally unfun in my opinion. When the only options are accomplish nothing or win, based off of a random number generater, it steals the sense of accomplishment that I get from succeeding in the challenge. One shotting mooks and much lower level PCs is different as you expect to be able to take care of something weak with minimal effort, either through spells or an axe to the head. However, you don't need save or dies to do that, any significant amount of damage accomplishes the same result.

Basically I agree Grumpy above me. Auto kill spells just aren't satisfying even if I am the one using them.