|
*******************************************************
Friendly-fire in the way I meant it was from effects in the PF RPG that would affect others, e.g. fireball. Nowhere in the PF RPG does it say you can fumble and cut yourself or shoot a friend engaged in melee.
All it would mean is throwing around flasks of oil or ice storms will take a bit of thinking. Perhaps thinking is bad when playing an MMORPG?
********************************************************
At the table, if I attack a party member, I can hit them. If I critically fumble, I can injure myself.
You can't dismiss my examples of friendly fire and expect me not to dismiss yours.
If I make a ranger and discover I'm a bad shot, the game is over for me. I can't play the build I want, so why would I play at all. At the table, my aim is based on a d20 roll. Why would it be based on RL skill in PFO? Are head shots going to one-shot people now? Now the twitchy teen who's played Halo 24-7 for the last 5 years makes a ranger and dominates the game. No thanks, not playing in that environment. That doesn't feel like Pathfinder, that feels like an FPS--and is in direct violation of PFO's design philosophy.
The burden is on you of explaining how friendly fire and aiming could be anything other than sadistic ways to make the game virtually unplayable outside of certain builds and RL video game skills.
You are completely ignoring the PF RPG rules is presented in the Core rulebook.
(1) Yes you CAN attack another PC but NOT by accident during a combat.
(2) Core rules say nothing on critical fumbles.
(3) Core rules say nothing about hitting friends engaged in melee with a bow shot - full stop, noway, ever, etc...
I think you are confusing targeting mechanics (which indeed will be an interesting topic, but isn't this one) with friendly-fire of effects in the PF RPG that could, according to the rules, effect everyone in an area - thus requiring a bit of thinking before spamming the keys.
S.
|
|
I'll leave any attempts at TES:Online to Bethesda.
I would hate that to, I dislike the need to 'track targets'. Still I do like the Skyrim game as a feeling and a place.
One thing I do like about WoW is the targeting/combat system, IF, we add in that AoE effects, unless specifically and logically (using PF RPG rules) can't, hit everyone in the radius then I would be happy with such a system. Being able to cast a ground zero fireball because you are surrounded would fail to replicate what I know of the world my PF PnP character inhabits.
Would that really break the game?
(1) Yes you CAN attack another PC but NOT by accident during a combat.
(2) Core rules say nothing on critical fumbles.
(3) Core rules say nothing about hitting friends engaged in melee with a bow shot - full stop, noway, ever, etc...
You are right.
Old habits die hard.
I think you are confusing targeting mechanics (which indeed will be an interesting topic, but isn't this one) with friendly-fire of effects in the PF RPG that could, according to the rules, effect everyone in an area - thus requiring a bit of thinking before spamming the keys.
If you're not discussing targeting, I will bow out of that argument here.
I have very different ideas on how to make fights non-mindless. But I guess if you're restricting friendly fire to certain AoE spells, I'm on the fence. I don't like it, and I think it's a quality of life issue, but I see your point now.
|
|
If you're not discussing targeting, I will bow out of that argument here.
Not really. Targeting to me is a WHOLE other can'o'worms that EVERYONE will have an opinion on. I was just thinking about AoE effects that in the PF PnP game would clobber all in the radius being translated into the online game - because I think they should.
Should we start a targeting thread? It is a vital aspect of the game - for example, I liked Dragon Age but disliked Dragon Age II because of the combat system changes.
I would not want to be Goblinworks... I wish them all the luck in the world however and will have a peek when it comes out - convincing me to stay post-peek now that's something we will have to see.
Cheers,
S.
Goblin Squad Member
|
Firely-fire in the way I meant it was from effects in the PF RPG that would affect others, e.g. fireball. Nowhere in the PF RPG does it say you can fumble and ... shoot a friend engaged in melee.
Because it was removed in the passage from 3.5 to Pathfinder. Now you can attack a grabbed target without endangering your friend of fire a bow into a melee without the risk of hitting a friend, but those are changes of the previous mechanics.
3e/3.5e had zero chance of hitting friendlies meleeing with a bow - only 1e and 2e (more codified) had this 'feature'. d20 mechanics gave you an option of no shooting or -4 to hit (mitigated with a feat).
S.
3.0 PH page 133 Striking cover instead of a missed target
3.0 DMG page 65 Firing into a crowd3.5 DMG p. 24 Striking the cover instead of a missed target
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All it would mean is throwing around flasks of oil or ice storms will take a bit of thinking. Perhaps thinking is bad when playing an MMORPG?
No, not really, but if it will make people stop talking about friendly fire then I'm fine with pretending that thinking is bad, or that the problem with friendly fire is that it requires too much brainpower (which, presumably, the people pushing for friendly fire must have, while those of us against friendly fire hate using our brains).
All snark aside, we've already explained countless times that the problem with friendly fire isn't that it requires too much thought. The problems with friendly fire are as follows:
1. It would make grouping with AoE characters more hazardous than grouping with non-AoE characters, marginalizing AoE characters.
2. It would make AoE characters reluctant to make use of their abilities in group situations.
3. It will lead to group strife due to mistargeted abilities.
4. The "behind-the-head" nature of MMORPG camera controls makes it difficult to quickly and accurately target AoEs in hectic combat situations.
5. AoE characters will be more prone to receive blame for party failures, because mistargeted AoEs are very convenient scapegoats.
6. It enables a whole slew of new griefing possibilities.
7. The above factors will contribute to a scarcity of AoE-capable characters in the game, which will in turn necessitate avoiding the creation of encounters that depend on having an AoE-capable party member.
Oh, and
8. It means we have to think and we hate thinking so much!
|
I'm fine with friendly fire being an option in tabletop games, where I totally control who I am gaming with, and they are within reach of my thrown dice when they screw up and fireball my barbarian, and the GM can stop and say, 'uh, did you really mean to throw sleep and TPK the party because they were lower HD than the gnolls?'
In an online multiplayer game with faceless strangers (some of whom are egregious dicks who 'love the taste of your tears'), and no GM able to adjudicate the occasional bone-headed action? No thanks.
|
|
My only reply to Scott is; use the right tool for the right job. No consequence of damage AoEing means the possibility of one tool fits all. That is what I mean by reduced thinking.
Perhaps you may need to consider a lightning bolt rather than a fireball for example? Warcraft as a Mage I have 2 or 3 spells I spam, that's it - and that is only due to cooldown cycles. Doesn't matter on the situation unless resistances come into play. I'm bored of that. By forcing me to consider my friends about me, my positioning and choice of spell becomes important.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would make characters with AoEs more reluctant to use those AoEs in dangerous situations. But that doesn't mean you can't pull that group of kobolds with your splody spells before sending in the fighters and rogues.
Not just more reluctant, so far you just mentioned the only hypothetically plausible time one could ever use aoes with a total friendly fire situation. Pulling a group of unaware enemies... In a game that is going to be more focused on PVP, and very little if any instances... (Theme park elements, does not always mean full fledge rides). With full on friendly fire, you may as well flat out remove aoe's from the game, because if the enemy is aware of your presence, then you can forget about using them...
and yes in WoW you can get multiple viewing angles... all of which of the side of the enemy that you and your party are on, not the side farther away in which you would have to actually target an aoe...
Again eve is not a good example because your enemies and friends are distant from each-other, unless you can tell me that a a good percentage of ship combat strategies involve ramming other ships... it is not a good example.
We aren't even saying it's bad because in low sec you will be attacked, we are pointing out that AoEs can't be used after combat has started period in the way you are proposing. Making aoes unusable won't prevent specialism, it will just bar all AoEs from ever being used for anything other then pulling, and even that is suicidal unless tanks get a massive taunt everything within 30' that automatically outweighs any spells that have just been cast.
Eliminating 1/4th of the spells from being usable certainly is not going to encourage variety in spells, it will just make single target spells the only option.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would make grouping with character who did nothing but toss around AoEs more hazardous then grouping with characters capable of selecting from a variety of spells, marginalizing over-specialized characters to a very specialized role.
Players are not going to have the time or patience to run competency tests on their temporary party members. You're putting a system in place that is very debilitating to the playability of classes with heavy AoE capability - not simply in terms of how difficult their play experience will be, but also in terms of how readily they will find themselves solicited for grouping.
It would make characters with AoEs more reluctant to use those AoEs in dangerous situations.
Praytell - what sort of situation do you imagine characters needing AoE attacks for that aren't dangerous? Midsummer hog roasts?
But that doesn't mean you can't pull that group of kobolds with your splody spells before sending in the fighters and rogues.
Reducing AoE spells to pulling tools is a pretty poor solution, if you ask me.
No more so then the healer healing someone who's already fully healed with his mistargeting.
Yes, more so.
First, overhealing is only harmful to the group if another character is in need of healing and doesn't receive it as a result. Getting hit by an errant AoE is always going to be harmful.
Additionally, only the most capable and attentive players pay attention to the overheals of their party members. But drop a fireball on your party and everyone will notice immediately.
You're minimizing the problems it will cause because you really want to see friendly fire in an MMORPG.
Or the Ranger that Accidentally pulls another group of mods.
Okay, two things.
First: Dropping an AoE slightly off-target because targeting an area on the ground in the middle of combat is hard is quite different from both targeting an entirely different group of mobs and subsequently hitting an attack button.
Second: You acknowledge that you're introducing something that will be at least as problematic as the bad pull? Everyone hates bad pulls, and you want to pile on another thing for people to hate even worse?
Or, etc. OK, fine, I'll admit it may be more, but only because it's more likely everyone is going to be pissed at the mage, rather then just the guy that didn't get the heals.
That's my entire point. Everyone is going to get pissed at the mage, even worse than they get pissed at bad healers. Healer rage is already a huge problem in MMORPG socialization that directly contributes to people being unwilling to play healers at the end-game. And you're pushing for a situation worse than that.
This is a significant potential problem. It is fixable with a good camera control system.
Short of a fixed-angle overhead (isometric-style) camera, no, I don't think it is.
This is true, it is possible that guy in your pickup party will blow you all up with a fireball. But he's probably going to be subject to the penalties for making an unprovoked attack another player.
Great. Now you have to come up with a way to separate unprovoked attacks from attacking your allies in the middle of combat. Not that your griefer will care. He'll just wait until everyone's in combat, if you penalize for out-of-combat attacks.
For the people that try and run into AoEs to get the AoEer killed, well maybe you just won't use them in any sort of pickup group in "safe" areas (see also #1).
Your solution to avoiding griefing is to ask all AoE characters to avoid doing anything that a griefer might take advantage of, including using their abilities?
In less restricted PvP type areas you shouldn't be grouping up with people you don't know and trust.
"Don't group with strangers - even though the point of this game is to play with people all over the world - because they might take advantage of our terrible friendly fire problem!"
Yeah the new guy in the guild might just be there to grief you, but in return his character is going to be completely unemployable afterwards. He's choices will boil down to re-roll, or find a bandit faction to join.
Ah, yes, the permanent ostracization problem. So when you accidentally nuke your party, the mistake ruins your ability to participate in any of the social aspects of the game from there on out.
I disagree on several grounds. First, as was stated in #1 having AoEs doesn't mean you can't have non-AoEs.
Absolutely! But it does mean that I'd rather bring a character along who never uses AoEs, because I don't run the risk of getting blown up by my own teammates. And I won't be the only one who uses that calculus when deciding on group members.
Second, not all AoEs are created equal. I'm more then happy to drop a Horrid Wilting in the middle of the party on the tabletop, but I won't do the same with an Ice Storm.
Again, I won't chance it if I can avoid it. I'll just run with a group of players who stand a significantly smaller chance of screwing everything up.
Third there is nothing to say that you can't have an encounter that doesn't put AoEs and Melee at undue odds. For instance a group unreachable (or reaching them in melee requires going a long way around) group of goblin archers shooting down at party, while the melee characters deals with an Ogre.
Again, the points mentioned above will mean people will be less likely to want to bring AoE characters along. In turn, fewer people will play AoE characters. As a result, AoE characters will become rare. And it then follows that finding an AoE character for encounters that necessitate them will become difficult. Unchecked, this will lead to groups finding it hard to complete certain encounters, which will cause them to give up. Eventually, you'll have a situation where no one wants to deal with AoE encounters because it's too much work, and the designers will discover that if they want lots of people to participate in their content, they need to stop including encounters that no one likes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My only reply to Scott is; use the right tool for the right job. No consequence of damage AoEing means the possibility of one tool fits all. That is what I mean by reduced thinking.
Nonsense. The typical ways that AoEs are balanced away from one-tool-fits-all include high cooldown times, high mana cost, and lower per-target damage per second.
If you were right, we'd see nothing but AoEs from Mages and Warlocks in WoW.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My only reply to Scott is; use the right tool for the right job. No consequence of damage AoEing means the possibility of one tool fits all. That is what I mean by reduced thinking.Nonsense. The typical ways that AoEs are balanced away from one-tool-fits-all include high cooldown times, high mana cost, and lower per-target damage per second.
If you were right, we'd see nothing but AoEs from Mages and Warlocks in WoW.
Indeed, I am all for the right tool for the right job, but I must say, uncontrolled AoEs will quickly turn AoE's into a tool that looks like this
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My only reply to Scott is; use the right tool for the right job. No consequence of damage AoEing means the possibility of one tool fits all. That is what I mean by reduced thinking.
Yup. Use AoE's for griefing! Friendly Fire always on is like PVP always on. A few well timed fireball can ruin an entire groups day.
I can see all sorts of drawbacks, and no meaningful improvements to the game. That sounds like a bad idea to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Firely-fire in the way I meant it was from effects in the PF RPG that would affect others, e.g. fireball. Nowhere in the PF RPG does it say you can fumble and ... shoot a friend engaged in melee.
Because it was removed in the passage from 3.5 to Pathfinder. Now you can attack a grabbed target without endangering your friend of fire a bow into a melee without the risk of hitting a friend, but those are changes of the previous mechanics.
3e/3.5e had zero chance of hitting friendlies meleeing with a bow - only 1e and 2e (more codified) had this 'feature'. d20 mechanics gave you an option of no shooting or -4 to hit (mitigated with a feat).
S.
3.0 PH page 133 Striking cover instead of a missed target
3.0 DMG page 65 Firing into a crowd3.5 DMG p. 24 Striking the cover instead of a missed target
Oh yeah I remember the striking cover rules. We threw them out after a series of problems with them. It started with couple of encounters where we found it easier to hit the enemy as cover for something else then actually shooting directly at them. After that we figured you should actually have to make a second roll to hit the cover. Then we weren't sure what happens when the cover dodges (actually I think it was an issue with a wraith, and it's not really being maybe there?), I mean at that point shouldn't it just go on to hit the original target?
In any case it was removed in pathfinder as far as I could find in my brief search.
As you can see from the nested quotes I pointed out that.
This set of rules changes from 3.0 -> 3.5 -> Pathfinder is interesting as it show a trend in reducing the chances of friendly fire during combat.Personally I think that "firing into a crowd" was a good rules, but I see why it was removed for simplicity sake.
Same thing for "striking cover". Plenty of scenarios that now can't be played by the RAW of the rules (hostage situations).
On the other hand, for the reasons explained in several of the previous posts, applying them in a on line game will be problematic.
|
|
I don't think AoE/multitarget damage should just be handed to you on a silver platter. I think you should have to choose between safe, but lower damage, multi-target spells, like scorching ray or magic missile, and risking your allies with the higher damage fireball or Ice Storm. Or you can even choose to burn through your mp with high damage, high cost, enemy only spells like horrid wilting and chain lightning. The players that can manage the risks of the fireball, will tend to have better damage:MP ratios, but there are still AoEs for use by the unlearned masses (that's arrogant wizard talk btw).
This I think is well said and covers what I would like to see having to pass through my mind during an encounter. When I played 1e/2e AD&D without maps and the DM saying "it'll be close" I had to make a snap choice on fireball verses say magic missile or other unity spell. I would say the 3e/4e players are a lot more use to pin-point targeting of every spell and they perhaps see the biggest issues with AoE friendly fire - subjective I know, but it's my hypothesis.
Open PvP no matter what you do will result in morons annoying people with whatever mechanics they put in the game. I would rather the game be built around the Pathfinder RPG concepts (i.e. Dungeon & Dragons core) and work as the game works (even if the actual mechanics aren't the same - I don't need a d20 result flashing across my screen) than try to pamper to the minority (i.e. griefers).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a significant potential problem. It is fixable with a good camera control system. Heck I moved the camera around all the time in WoW to keep an eye on different things, and while it was a bit of a pain, it was certainly possible to get a decent number of different angles of view. Also, as I said previously, we managed to deploy bombs in EVE with no more information then "It's going to go 30km straight ahead, over the course of ten seconds, then blow up in a 15km radius + 2.5k of falloff". t4. The "behind-the-head" nature of MMORPG camera controls makes it difficult to quickly and accurately target AoEs in hectic combat situations.
And how many tears in the forum about whole groups of bombers self destructing, destroying their friends, the bombs they deploy, ecc., ecc.?
You trained your RL skills to do that and do that in what is generally a first strike against grouped targets.
And EVE has ranged combat only.
Not melee.
I don't want PFO to depend on how good is my hand/eye coordination and the speed of my connection.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think AoE/multitarget damage should just be handed to you on a silver platter. I think you should have to choose between safe, but lower damage, multi-target spells, like scorching ray or magic missile, and risking your allies with the higher damage fireball or Ice Storm. Or you can even choose to burn through your mp with high damage, high cost, enemy only spells like horrid wilting and chain lightning. The players that can manage the risks of the fireball, will tend to have better damage:MP ratios, but there are still AoEs for use by the unlearned masses (that's arrogant wizard talk btw).This I think is well said and covers what I would like to see having to pass through my mind during an encounter. When I played 1e/2e AD&D without maps and the DM saying "it'll be close" I had to make a snap choice on fireball verses say magic missile or other unity spell. I would say the 3e/4e players are a lot more use to pin-point targeting of every spell and they perhaps see the biggest issues with AoE friendly fire - subjective I know, but it's my hypothesis.
Open PvP no matter what you do will result in morons annoying people with whatever mechanics they put in the game. I would rather the game be built around the Pathfinder RPG concepts (i.e. Dungeon & Dragons core) and work as the game works (even if the actual mechanics aren't the same - I don't need a d20 result flashing across my screen) than try to pamper to the minority (i.e. griefers).
Again, how much time you have in your tabletop game to take your "snap decision"?
And as long as you don't decide it is a static environment. In a on line game the targets are constantly moving. A better depiction of reality, but not a good situation to play with AoE spells.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would make grouping with character who did nothing but toss around AoEs more hazardous then grouping with characters capable of selecting from a variety of spells, marginalizing over-specialized characters to a very specialized role.Players are not going to have the time or patience to run competency tests on their temporary party members. You're putting a system in place that is very debilitating to the playability of classes with heavy AoE capability - not simply in terms of how difficult their play experience will be, but also in terms of how readily they will find themselves solicited for grouping.
He come from EVE. Pick Up Groups were not existent till very recently there. And the rules of the game had to be changed to make them feasible.
Specifically, the rules about healing and buffing people that used friendly fire had to be changed.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
how about a compromise:
if player is in party, their aoe does half damage to party members.
in addition, there is skill that reduces damage done to party members, and possibly a skill that reduces damage taken from party members (it could be same skill or it could be feat). it might even include friends, guild members, etc (think of it as "common combat procedures to reduce friendly fire"). but still there should be some minimum friendly fire that is unavoidable.
i believe that friendly fire is important tactical element in combat, but also recognize that it may be dependent on player's twitch skill (especially with area effects), and nobody is getting younger.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How about being hit by a 'friendly' AoE meaning you are staggered, ie you lose the ability to attack or defend, stagger back a half-step, for a second or two.
Is that Fireball worth interrupting everyone else? Yes it will kill all the Kobolds Cohorts but it will also leave your party-members open to the Hobgoblin Leader for a precious few seconds.
I would love to see Friendly Fire from big attacks (cleave for us melee types, fireballs and Arrow Volleys from the ranged types) but there are many methods such things can be abused in an open-world PvP setting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let's just ignore the logic behind complaining that my high efficiency (3rd level), good damage (10d6), huge area (20' radius) spell can only be used at the opening of every fight! Woe is me . . . I guess I'll have to use Chain lightning (1 target, +1 target per level, you get to pick targets you know) the rest of the time, it will just cost more <insert magic resource here>.
Do you play Pathfinder/DnD? Heck, any tabletop game with AoEs. So you are saying it will never be possible to use them without hitting friends based on reasons that are equally applicable in those games too. Yes I know that's different, I know it's turn based, but that's only a small fraction of the picture. Once combat is joined your fighter is going to be smashing faces, and your rogue is going to be getting his flank on, and most of the enemies will be trying to returning the favor. You really don't get that many more clear shots then you should be able to achieve online.
Again the targetting is a huge factor here. actually you mentioned chain lightning, that is yet another example of why. In a real time game there is no way you will sanely be able to manually pick targets for something like chain lightning. Even in P&P with perfect viewing angle, how often is a player able to select the targets for chain lightning in under 4 seconds... Now imagine if the actual things you are targeting are actually moving as you are trying to click them, but the turn based system allows for that to be done while the clock is not ticking. Also the same has to be pointed out on real time vs turn based. In turn based the fighter can easily move into range of 3 guys so that he provokes an AoO. In real time PVP, those 3 enemies will be splitting up simultaneously and moving at the same time the fighter is. Again you are bringing up the timing that the AoEs to be useful as the surprise round in P&P basically, There is no guarantee that the equivalent of surprise rounds will be common if even possible at all.
Everything you are suggesting requires near perfect precision in a near insignificant quantity of time, simultaneously with a camera that is apparently rapidly changing angle depending on what you are doing. The overhead camera angel is in general not a comfortable angle for moving, walking or positioning, but is the only angle that can allow targeting behind an enemy with anything resembling precision, and if there is one thing that possibly can be worse for precision besides an angle that is actually comfortable, it would be a camera angle that is constantly changing mid fight.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm forced to consider existing MMOs and how this would impact them, were such an idea were implemented.
I play a DK in WoW, Unholy spec. Most of his damage is aoe, and is spread with other aoe abilites. After a few seconds of combat, his entire party would be dead. He is not a mage dropping fireballs, he is using AoE melee attacks for the most part, the caveat being death and decay...
This would be horrible. Everything Scott has said on this matter is spot on. The Death Knight would never be played if a rule like this existed, and if it was, it would only be played by people you wouldn't want to group with in the first place.
I was top raid DPS consistently in my guild, often beating the others by 10-20k dps per encounter, even boss fights. All of that contribution to raids, work and time spent earning the gear, opening instances, all for nothing if a rule like that existed.
I know the immediate response will be "but PFO will not be WoW"...
True, but it will be an MMO, and the way some things work in a massively multiplayer environment are universal. I love to play AoE plate DPS/Tanks in MMOs, but I do not like to play them in Pathfinder TTRPG, becasue it just isn't the same.
And this will not be the same, allowing firendly fire will not have a positive effect on an MMO, and will greatly limit the number of people even willing to give it a try.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No classes
Unimportant. Any character who wants to specialize (or even dabble!) in AoE spells will feel the same burn.
No raids
At least not the kind of raids you are talking about. They might exist eventually, but really a raid is going to amount to attacking your neighbors.
You're just sort of guessing at this, right? I mean, I haven't seen Goblinworks say anywhere that the game won't have raids, or whatever their equivalent activity is. They've stated multiple times that there will be theme park elements to the game. I'd frankly be surprised if there weren't any large-group PvE encounters.
A lot of people are acting like this is going to be EVE in Middle Earth. I very much doubt that will be the case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I still maintain that there really aren't that many fireball-type AoEs that get to be cast after combat is joined in tabletop D&D, unless there are ranged enemies or some other method is used to mechanically separate a portion of the combatants from the front lines.
In D&D you can drop the fireball exactly where it needs to go. If there is a front line, you can drop the fireball so that it ends at your companions' feet, and only strikes the enemies' side of that line. Happens all the time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
stuff2 things
No classes
No raidsAt least not the kind of raids you are talking about. They might exist eventually, but really a raid is going to amount to attacking your neighbors.
There is no good reason why you should be more likely to Cleave your melee attack into your party mate in PFO then there is in the tabletop game. As for Death and Decay, it's not going to exist, that doesn't mean melee fighter can't/won't use any multi-target abilities, just that lore-wise spewing forth a constant stream of necrotic negative energy is going to make no one want to stand next to you.
Except the Zombies of course, the zombies will be your pals.
No classes, but with skills, melee and magical I should be able to make a character has has similar features.
Really, though, PFO will not contain TT mechanics. Ryan has said as much. He's said they will only be taking the feel and flavor of Pathfinder into the MMO. This implies to me, mechanicly, it will be favoring MMO players and enviroments, most benefit to most people (players).
This will very likely mean there will be no "friendly fire" mechanic.
So, I'm not going to worry about it being implemented. Every argument that can be used to show that it's inclusion is a bad idea has been used. I'm still going to play if it's included, but it will greatly limit the kind of characters I'll enjoy playing.
|
|
I still maintain that there really aren't that many fireball-type AoEs that get to be cast after combat is joined in tabletop D&D, unless there are ranged enemies or some other method is used to mechanically separate a portion of the combatants from the front lines.In D&D you can drop the fireball exactly where it needs to go. If there is a front line, you can drop the fireball so that it ends at your companions' feet, and only strikes the enemies' side of that line. Happens all the time.
Now, previously not so much. That aside, and without any more information regarding the actual game play, too much deviation from "effects as expected" (i.e. as in the PF rules) will make this game nothing more than 'another game (TM)' with a PF campaign setting paint job.
I can see it now. "My Wookie Alchemist/Geologist runs across the <insert PF campaign setting location> and opens the door with his sonic screwdriver"
But it's Pathfinder right? It has <insert PF campaign setting location> in it so it must be.
No AoE damage within the AoE range because I just happen to know the person, at least for me, reduces the living breathing Pathfinder world for me.
I have no intention of playing PF Online if the PF part is nothing more than window dressing.
S.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No AoE damage within the AoE range because I just happen to know the person, at least for me, reduces the living breathing Pathfinder world for me.
Maybe I missed it, but have you addressed the potential for abuse with this? Because you are still arguing from the perspective that the players will be on the "same side" when the accidental fireball occurs. What about the guy who is a jerk and just "oops" fireballs at the wrong time during a big fight, just to ruin other people's day? Because it will happen. A lot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I still maintain that there really aren't that many fireball-type AoEs that get to be cast after combat is joined in tabletop D&D, unless there are ranged enemies or some other method is used to mechanically separate a portion of the combatants from the front lines.In D&D you can drop the fireball exactly where it needs to go. If there is a front line, you can drop the fireball so that it ends at your companions' feet, and only strikes the enemies' side of that line. Happens all the time.Now, previously not so much. That aside, and without any more information regarding the actual game play, too much deviation from "effects as expected" (i.e. as in the PF rules) will make this game nothing more than 'another game (TM)' with a PF campaign setting paint job.
I can see it now. "My Wookie Alchemist/Geologist runs across the <insert PF campaign setting location> and opens the door with his sonic screwdriver"
But it's Pathfinder right? It has <insert PF campaign setting location> in it so it must be.
No AoE damage within the AoE range because I just happen to know the person, at least for me, reduces the living breathing Pathfinder world for me.
I have no intention of playing PF Online if the PF part is nothing more than window dressing.
S.
I think you're crossing your wires, here.
This isn't the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game on the internet. This is Pathfinder Online, an MMORPG set in the Pathfinder campaign setting. Friendly fire is a purely mechanical issue. It doesn't make the game any more or any less Pathfinder to leave it out.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I missed it, but have you addressed the potential for abuse with this? Because you are still arguing from the perspective that the players will be on the "same side" when the accidental fireball occurs. What about the guy who is a jerk and just "oops" fireballs at the wrong time during a big fight, just to ruin other people's day? Because it will happen. A lot.No AoE damage within the AoE range because I just happen to know the person, at least for me, reduces the living breathing Pathfinder world for me.
For me that's about in line with making life easier by having only one party member who can pull mobs to eliminate the chance of some jerk standing to close pulling more than the group can handle. Because that does happen a lot and ruins a raid real fast.
If you have mechanics (no matter what) in play then peoples play style adapts to these. If we think PF Online should be WoW-like then we'll play it like that - but it does not have to be (I'm talking combat here). It is a fact that in any MMORPG that players that can't manage their characters do not get invites. A friendly fire mechanism will not increase or decrease a players skill.
I think many are selling people short by saying that people will either constantly be griefing or constantly nuking the party with what, in the case of spells, is a minor sub-set of spells. I have a little more faith in humans and their abilities to learn.
So in short don't address the 'oops' - it'll happen for sure, but the good players/groups won't have this as a large feature and noobs, well noobs will do what they always do.
Does this mean some classes will not suit some players, yes. But WoW is like that, I can't tank to save myself (or the party). The guild decked my Pally out in all the tanking kit you could want and I still sucked. Healing was my thing, and I'm not to to b-arch to the WoW game designers that there stupid program won't let me be an uber-tank and they need to re-code to alleviate MY failings.
You can't hit with a fireball, use scorching ray, or play a Ranger...
S.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't make the game any more or any less Pathfinder to leave it out.
Now here's the philosophical bit that you fail to address from your soap box.
What is Pathfinder? I have Pathfinder setting books, they have numbers and things in them to relate to the Pathfinder rule books. So what is Pathfinder? A setting? In which case what are these numbers for? A rule-set? In which case what are these maps for?
My long winded point being your view is too simplistic of what Pathfinder is.
S.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is Pathfinder?
"Pathfinder" can refer to either the original Pathfinder Campaign Setting, or to the newer Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
In the context of this game, it is I think more worthwhile to consider the campaign setting and its associated supplements when discussing what Pathfinder is. The roleplaying game (by which I mean the ruleset) is just a framework, and more a product of convenience than anything else. And, as we've already noted, it's silly to keep tabletop rules in an online game just for the hell of it.
You cannot put the tabletop rules up on a pedestal. That way lies madness.
In this case, the only real argument for friendly fire is "The tabletop game has friendly fire, so the online game should have friendly fire too!" You can't use that argument. It no longer works. You need to have a compelling reason to include it in the game, and on top of that you need to have persuasive arguments for why the myriad concerns raised by those of us who oppose the idea of friendly fire are not going to cause serious problems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It doesn't make the game any more or any less Pathfinder to leave it out.Now here's the philosophical bit that you fail to address from your soap box.
What is Pathfinder? I have Pathfinder setting books, they have numbers and things in them to relate to the Pathfinder rule books. So what is Pathfinder? A setting? In which case what are these numbers for? A rule-set? In which case what are these maps for?
My long winded point being your view is too simplistic of what Pathfinder is.
S.
So the Pathfinder Tales novels aren't Pathfinder because the mechanics are missing?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It doesn't make the game any more or any less Pathfinder to leave it out.Now here's the philosophical bit that you fail to address from your soap box.
What is Pathfinder? I have Pathfinder setting books, they have numbers and things in them to relate to the Pathfinder rule books. So what is Pathfinder? A setting? In which case what are these numbers for? A rule-set? In which case what are these maps for?
My long winded point being your view is too simplistic of what Pathfinder is.
S.
In pathfinder though, it is often the case that players use fireballs for more than just pulling mobs. They use it aggressively and often very close to the center of combat. Spells like burning hands often come very close to including allies in the area or barely including the enemy you want to hit, but that is fine because you have time to look and place your spell location before unleashing it.
For a online game, not only do you have to deal with people being able to move around as you are casting the spell, there is also network latency that might mean that you will cast the spell correctly, but have it take so long to get to the game server that you include your allies within it. Worrying about spells accidentally hitting allies is not a part of the Pathfinder game to me.
|
|
What is Pathfinder?In the context of this game, it is I think more worthwhile to consider the campaign setting and its associated supplements when discussing what Pathfinder is. The roleplaying game (by which I mean the ruleset) is just a framework, and more a product of convenience than anything else. And, as we've already noted, it's silly to keep tabletop rules in an online game just for the hell of it.
You cannot put the tabletop rules up on a pedestal. That way lies madness.
In this case, the only real argument for friendly fire is "The tabletop game has friendly fire, so the online game should have friendly fire too!" You can't use that argument. It no longer works. You need to have a compelling reason to include it in the game, and on top of that you need to have persuasive arguments for why the myriad concerns raised by those of us who oppose the idea of friendly fire are not going to cause serious problems.
Why in this context? You have decided the context, not a good way to start a discussion.
The rule-set is a framework in the same way physics dictates RL. I say, "My character flies", my GM says "How?", I say "Because I want to so I'm flying". My GM says lets look in the rules, "Nope you can't without magical help". "Ok, I say.". So this frame work is important for a shared experience, belittling it's importance lies the way to insanity.
Throwing out rules because it's an online game just for the hell it is silly.
The general theme on why not, seems to be, "it'll make it harder to do AoE's without thinking first" and "mistakes will happen". Those are the persuasive arguments?
Er, I not sure what to add. Some people have said that from a programming point of view, i.e. camera angles, lag correction, this would cause issues. Those I agree with and see as hurdles.
WoW, as you have stated, takes a degree of skill, those with those skills float to the top, the rest don't. I have a friend who does less DPS in WoW with his Hunter than possible even just clicking auto-attack! He does not raid, but I still have fun mucking around do quests and dailies etc. PF Online will be no different.
I also don't see AoE damage spells as being the ONLY thing that a caster can do. They will be situational, and yes you may have to engage the grey matter to determine when that situation is if FF is on for AoE. It would be disappointing if Fireball, Fireball, Ice Storm, Meteor Swarm, are my only possible responses to a combat encounter.
In a years time we will know, so don't get too upset by my stance, I have no financial interest in the game and it's unlikely they will ring me personally when they get to making their mind up about this.
S.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
In this case, the only real argument for friendly fire is "The tabletop game has friendly fire, so the online game should have friendly fire too!" You can't use that argument. It no longer works. You need to have a compelling reason to include it in the game, and on top of that you need to have persuasive arguments for why the myriad concerns raised by those of us who oppose the idea of friendly fire are not going to cause serious problems.
hardly the only argument. friendly fire can have significant implications on combat and creates situations that are interesting from tactical viewpoint.
if you have magic missile and fireball: would you shoot magic missiles into bunch of enemies? would you drop fireball on single target?
if your friend is surrounded by six enemies, isn't fireball the right answer? he might die, but then again, he may be bracing for impact anyway, while enemies might be distracted by "easy target".
if your friends have surrounded single enemy, isn't fireball wrong answer? even if they know it's coming, it's still more hurt on your side.
on the other hand, if accessibility is only reason to not have friendly fire, then we are on slippery slope, and it hardly ends in player-driven sandbox.
|
|
So the Pathfinder Tales novels aren't Pathfinder because the mechanics are missing?It doesn't make the game any more or any less Pathfinder to leave it out.Now here's the philosophical bit that you fail to address from your soap box.
What is Pathfinder? I have Pathfinder setting books, they have numbers and things in them to relate to the Pathfinder rule books. So what is Pathfinder? A setting? In which case what are these numbers for? A rule-set? In which case what are these maps for?
My long winded point being your view is too simplistic of what Pathfinder is.
S.
Taking a persons comment ad nauseam isn't a strong position to refute from.
Ok then, what is Pathfinder? Not to you personally, but the actual definition.
Seems my idea that Pathfinder is a complex interaction of setting (which would include novels) and rule-set is in error.
S.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why in this context? You have decided the context, not a good way to start a discussion.
I literally said, "In the context of this game."
Is that not the sort of context you want for this discussion? We're in the Pathfinder Online sub-forum. I'm here to talk about Pathfinder Online. If you'd like to discuss something in a different contextual framework, you can probably find it elsewhere.
The rule-set is a framework in the same way physics dictates RL. I say, "My character flies", my GM says "How?", I say "Because I want to so I'm flying". My GM says lets look in the rules, "Nope you can't without magical help". "Ok, I say.". So this frame work is important for a shared experience, belittling it's importance lies the way to insanity.
And that's why everyone will enjoy the same basic framework. But fortunately we don't have to obey reality in a video game. You can develop a ruleset that suits what you want your game to do.
Throwing out rules because it's an online game just for the hell it is silly.
If that was what we were doing, you'd have a point. But we're not. We're dismissing ideas that have multiple, huge, fundamental flaws and obstacles when ported over to the MMORPG space.
The general theme on why not, seems to be, "it'll make it harder to do AoE's without thinking first" and "mistakes will happen". Those are the persuasive arguments?
It will make playing an AoE character suck, and it will make teaming up with an AoE character suck, and frankly the tiny bit of enjoyment that you and those who think like you will derive from its inclusion is not worth the headache it will cause everyone else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
hardly the only argument. friendly fire can have significant implications on combat and creates situations that are interesting from tactical viewpoint.
No more than similar games already create. Games already balance the strength of AoE spells against targeted spells without needing to resort to turning on friendly fire. You're not really making the game more tactically rich. Just frustrating.
on the other hand, if accessibility is only reason to not have friendly fire, then we are on slippery slope, and it hardly ends in player-driven sandbox.
There is a difference between giving things away for free and avoiding putting things in your game that will result in no one wanting to play it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why in this context? You have decided the context, not a good way to start a discussion.
Scott didn't decide the context, the game designers did. Maybe you missed the part in the announcement where they explicitly say that this is an MMO of the Pathfinder (IE Golarion) setting and will not be based on the Pathfinder RPG rules.
Pathfinder is a brand that encompasses many things. The part of the Pathfinder brand that is being used for this video game is the setting. The setting existed before the rules. The setting will still exist when they make new rules. The setting is still the setting when Scott and others play it using different rules.
But they are calling it Pathfinder Online instead of Golarion Online because Pathfinder is the more well known label.
|
|
(1) Is that not the sort of context you want for this discussion? We're in the Pathfinder Online sub-forum. I'm here to talk about Pathfinder Online. If you'd like to discuss something in a different contextual framework, you can probably find it elsewhere.(2) And that's why everyone will enjoy the same basic framework. But fortunately we don't have to obey reality in a video game. You can develop a ruleset that suits what you want your game to do.
(3) If that was what we were doing, you'd have a point. But we're not. We're dismissing ideas that have multiple, huge, fundamental flaws and obstacles when ported over to the MMORPG space.
(4) It will make playing an AoE character suck, and it will make teaming up with an AoE character suck, and frankly the tiny bit of enjoyment that you and those who think like you will derive from its inclusion is not worth the headache it will cause everyone else.
(1) If you read what you said it was "more worthwhile to consider...". I was wondering why it was more important than the rules? I believe rather than having blinders on, it is more worthwhile to discuss the Pathfinder Line as a whole. I believe BOTH are important to encompass the Pathfinder 'feel'. If not then Paizo could have just used 4e D&D as the rules and still developed the Pathfinder setting. Are you saying that if no spell in the rulebook appeared in the online game or if you cast Magic Missile and it polymorphs a tiger into a rabbit you won't be a little confused?
(2) Er, in a PnP RPG we don't have to obey reality either. That statement applies to both video and PnP games.
(3) I think your emotive language fails to live up to the actual arguments you have used to date.
(4) So in PF Online you think you will only be able to do one thing? That again would be disapponting. You really think there will be a button that says 'AoE Mage: create'?
S.