Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This was a question asked in several places and I only answered it in the thread about the most recent blog post, and that answer was buried in the middle of several other responses so I'm sure some missed it.
Pathfinder Online is unlikely to have a standard mechanism for non-lethal duels. There is a place in the River Kingdoms that has a gladiatorial arena and I could see some development of that concept in the future (not promising, just saying I can see the potential).
Here's why dueling won't be in the game:
1: It's immersion breaking. How does a mage cast a non-lethal fireball or lightning bolt? Aren't "barbarian rage" and "non-lethal" mutually incompatible? How does one inflict "non-lethal" sneak attacks? What do crafters, harvesters, transporters or diplomats do in a duel that reflects their characters? In short, it's a system that really only appeals to a narrow selection of character types and that's a bad investment of design time & resources.
2: It sucks to be bothered about it. Sir Awesome is world-renowned. As he travels from place to place he's constantly asked to participate in duels. Since his player's idea of this character is "never runs from a fight", poor Sir Awesome is therefore compelled to accept these constant and disrupting challenges, or break his player's character concept.
3: It is a resource-drain with no reward. Combat depletes resources. Combat in PvE and PvP can produce a net positive resource reward. In a duel, all that happens is stuff gets consumed with no offsetting reward. Therefore only super-rich characters who just don't care anymore about money will do it. Don't talk about "honor". If you want honor, go out into the world and earn it the old fashioned way by slaying monsters, building kingdoms, leading armies or any of the other numerous options available in the game.
4: It devalues "real" combat. If people want to fight, take the risks that entails. Riskless combat means that "real" combat is less interesting. If the only way to test yourself against a live human opponent is to mix it up with death on the line, you'll care a lot more about the encounter than if it's just some theatrical performance without consequence.
5: It's likely to be one of those things that "Sounds Cool", but then "Nobody Does". Obviously mis-matched opponents won't do it. Anyone who is worried that others are tying to figure out how to beat them won't do it (why give your potential enemies a free tutorial on how you fight?). Players with character concepts that would otherwise avoid such confrontations won't do it (why are the two paladins fighting again?) Enemies won't do it (just getting into the same space is likely to lead to a "real" fight - that's the whole point of having enemies!)
6: The only people who are likely to really want do it are the same people who you probably find annoying elsewhere in the game system. Giving those kinds of people fewer things to keep them interested in the game may get them to quit sooner and go to some other venue that better caters to their little miserable hearts full of sociopathy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1- non-lethal damage can be done with a -4 penalty to hit. Also casters can prepare spells as "merciful" with a metamagic feat +0 caster level.
But what of non-lethal duels for stakes.
Example: Sir Gawain and The Wizard Whitebeard decide who is better upon the battlefield. Sir Gawain bets a rare sapphire, Whitebeard then stakes a headband of mental prowess. Both accept: battle ensues. Now here's the trick: characters have a "dueling price" characters can not duel someone if they a) can't meet the minimum stake, or b) have accrued too much wealth for his opponent's stake to matter.
Just some ideas.
1: It's immersion breaking. How does a mage cast a non-lethal fireball or lightning bolt? Aren't "barbarian rage" and "non-lethal" mutually incompatible? How does one inflict "non-lethal" sneak attacks? What do crafters, harvesters, transporters or diplomats do in a duel that reflects their characters? In short, it's a system that really only appeals to a narrow selection of character types and that's a bad investment of design time & resources.
I absolutely love your reason number one because it reflects a devotion to the game as a logical, internally consistent simulation. How and why would two people battle nearly until death in a "friendly" duel with no risk of dying?
When I read this the first thing that came to my mind was the friendly fire problem. You've already established that allowing weapons and spells to be inexplicably rendered "safe" versus allies is an immersion breaker, so if Gorrus the sorcerer can't cast a "safe" fireball in a duel with his buddy, why on earth should one exist in a battle?! That would be the ultimate immersion killer.
|
Of course snk atk can be non-lethel only with special weapons like the sap but also who says a non-lethal duel is going to use lethel abilities? If they use those then the duel is immedietly forfiet and any continued attack is a crime. But by allowing non-lethal I can knock out a guy in some alley and take his stuff while he is napping and be long gone when he awakes.
Or it could be a duel to first to lose 10% hp. Either way, I agree a formal duel would have a reward put up by each participant.
Or it could be a duel to first to lose 10% hp. Either way, I agree a formal duel would have a reward put up by each participant.
Let's think about this in character for a second by talking about it out of character. Do you think you've ever been 10% away from dying? I've never come nearly that close, and honestly I think it would be an unpleasant experience. To say that characters in the game should fight each other to that point regularly for sport doesn't hold up to common sense.
I meant till 10% dmg to ones hp(90% remaining) which is like having a duel to first blood in RL.
I missed that, thanks for the correction. I still disagree with you on principle, but this does make a little more sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, if friendly fire is in game...friends will be able to duel all they want. If they want to stop the fight as soon as one of them is injured, that is exactly what you are asking for and well within the realm of possibility for the players to initiate and control on their own...just hope you don't "roll a 20".
If you start tossing fireballs around in public, don't be surprised when the marshals react.
Well, if friendly fire is in game...friends will be able to duel all they want. If they want to stop the fight as soon as one of them is injured, that is exactly what you are asking for and well within the realm of possibility for the players to initiate and control on their own...just hope you don't "roll a 20".
If you start tossing fireballs around in public, don't be surprised when the marshals react.
This "dueling" would be risky. Of course anyone could do it if they wanted to but this could result in death.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
it's not uncommon in EVE for corps to practice fleet combat in high-sec. corp members can shoot each other without police responding. people get split into two fleets, meet and fight it out.
even non-corp members can have duel by using aggression mechanic: first pilot drops trivial item in a can, other pilot loots the can giving first pilot right to shoot without police responding.
it's obviously that the demand is there. people have been asking for "official" dueling arena for a long time in EVE. closest to official "arena" is Alliance tournaments, but that's closed to majority of population and happens only once per year. another option is testing server where everything costs trivial amount of in-game currency, so people go there to practice.
so, if there would not be "official" dueling mechanic, maybe there could be un-official?
Immersion breaking? depends who you ask. duel could be to first blood, half health or death. and we are talking about combat duels, so, crafters, merchants and diplomats should do the same they would do in actual combat: delegate secondary.
It sucks to be bothered? flag "refuse all duels". done. as for SirAwesome, he'll have to do some fighting (duels or not) or nobody is going to care about his character concept. or if he doesn't care what others think, then he should just as well ignore duels too.
It is a resource-drain with no reward? it's player's created content. there doesn't have to be reward beyond winning, or players can build their own leagues, rankings and rewards.
It devalues "real" combat? it doesn't. real combat has real consequences. duel has no consequence, unless players want to have them (see previous).
It's likely to be one of those things that "Sounds Cool", but then "Nobody Does"? any game i played, there were people interested in dueling. there will most certainly be such players in PFO.
The only people who are likely to really want do it are the same people who you probably find annoying elsewhere in the game system? i'll be surprised to find NO annoying people in PFO, dueling or not. also, i'd rather have dueling regulated than happening through some unofficial loop.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would say I about 95% agree with Ryan here, on why it should not be done, I do get pretty sick of duel spam in games, and especially hate the background of people slashing swords about in the background.
I do think that a specific arena for them in one off the beaten path area could technically satisfy those who want them, but keep it far enough away that it would not be an issue. Sir awesome who never backs down from a challenge can have the excuse that it is an hour away to the arena, but he would gladly fight to the death outside the city limits.
As far as lore etc... actually in ultimate magic, they do have an excuse for why fireball would be non-lethal
"In some places, magical duels of this kind are so common that special areas are constructed specifically for duels. Such dueling yards are sometimes made with special magic that can be activated for dueling competitions, converting all damage to non-lethal damage and preventing or reversing magic that instantly slays a foe or does permanent harm. That is not to say that accidents don’t happen, and more than one student has lost a limb or even her life while on such “safe” fields."
Resource consumption can also be negated, by arena weaponry and armory. Basically the characters can all get generic basic weaponry and armor that replaces their gear on the arena, and potions could be not permitted. Taking gear out of the equasion, would both make a fairer duel, and negate the issues of equipment damage (arena gear can be determined to all be unbreakable non-lethal weaponry that never leaves the arena). As such there also could be an entry fee, and a way to place bets on such a duel. say 100g to enter, winner receives 175. (house takes 25), and then some similar equasion for the betting pool.
That being said, it is about development time vs benefit, and IMO at least for me, this would be a rock bottom priority addition.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1- non-lethal damage can be done with a -4 penalty to hit. Also casters can prepare spells as "merciful" with a metamagic feat +0 caster level.
I'd be glad to have both those concepts removed from the tabletop game, and sent to the Island of Stupid Rules.
The idea that someone can swing a sharp blade around, and never accidentally hit with the edge or point, is ludicrous, even with a self-imposed -4 penalty.
And even if you did, congratulations, all you've done is wield your finely-crafted heirloom longsword as if it were an iron bar.
An iron bar, where all the weight is balanced nearer the grip than the middle.
So, it's not even as good as a real iron bar.
Great, you can gimp your attack roll, and do 1d4 damage.
Oh, but you think that's weak? You want to do the 'proper' damage, as listed in the book? Well, maybe you should start wielding your weapon 'properly', then?
And, no, you do not get to benefit from the keen weapon property. The 'flat' of your blade isn't razor-sharp, is it?
And as for the 'merciful' fireball?
"Ow, ow, I'm burnt, ...oh, except I'm not...seems like I'm OK after all. So why do I still have a compulsion to lie down on the floor as if I'm unconscious?"
A fireball deals damage because it creates flames. A spell that doesn't produce flames, just produces pretty pictures of flames, that aren't hot, is just a silent image.
|
|
Frankly I've never heard of turning a lethel dmg spell non-lethal, and I don't think I should be done that's what a sleep spell is for.
However a sonic spell would realistically be able to be non-lethal since that type of dmg is anyway in rl, ever hear of soldiers using flashbangs to kill mobs, no because they are non-lethel.
ON the other hand i like the rules for duelling in the... ultimate magic? or combat...
is a interesting concept, and maybe you can choose a percentage of damage received
like: 95% . first blood
40% . ... not sure wich term is good here
0% ... well, self explanatory.
and when you are with this percentage of HP, you lose the duel. of course if after one is reduced at 20% and the enemy wizard *casually* casts a last fireball...
Maybe this is can be only a more legal way to deal with another member of the same guild, too.
if someone can read this, can he translated it for the others?
I would say I about 95% agree with Ryan here, on why it should not be done....
I see your 95% and raise you 100%.
Ryan, I didn't think you be able to do it but you changed my mind completely.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1- non-lethal damage can be done with a -4 penalty to hit. Also casters can prepare spells as "merciful" with a metamagic feat +0 caster level.I'd be glad to have both those concepts removed from the tabletop game, and sent to the Island of Stupid Rules.
The idea that someone can swing a sharp blade around, and never accidentally hit with the edge or point, is ludicrous, even with a self-imposed -4 penalty.
And even if you did, congratulations, all you've done is wield your finely-crafted heirloom longsword as if it were an iron bar.
An iron bar, where all the weight is balanced nearer the grip than the middle.
So, it's not even as good as a real iron bar.
Great, you can gimp your attack roll, and do 1d4 damage.
Oh, but you think that's weak? You want to do the 'proper' damage, as listed in the book? Well, maybe you should start wielding your weapon 'properly', then?
And, no, you do not get to benefit from the keen weapon property. The 'flat' of your blade isn't razor-sharp, is it?And as for the 'merciful' fireball?
"Ow, ow, I'm burnt, ...oh, except I'm not...seems like I'm OK after all. So why do I still have a compulsion to lie down on the floor as if I'm unconscious?"A fireball deals damage because it creates flames. A spell that doesn't produce flames, just produces pretty pictures of flames, that aren't hot, is just a silent image.
Yeah, it's a game not a medieval physics simulator. Those rules are very useful for good characters who don't want to murder everything in their path.
Hitting with the flat of the blade or slamming with the pommel are good enough explanations. As to the spell: It's magic. Don't let it break your brain. A non lethal fireball can be flavoured as sudden heatstroke etc.
Those rules aren't stupid they're fun. Remember when games used to be about fun first?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think a gladiatorial arena makes the most sense for this kind of a duel. I think the way you keep it less immersion breaking is by making ti that you do technically die in the arena. But say the places pays for healing services using the money gained from the large colosseum of an audience lol
I was in a campaign once, where the DM had a bunch of vampire nobles having players/ other characters fight to the death, but raise them to full so there were no real worries (this was so our party could fight a party from a different group, was fun)
I could see some kind of risk put in by forcing an entrant fee, that only the winner wins anything from as well.
Perhaps it costs x gold to enter and you regain 1.5 if you win, nothing if you don't. I do see how no risk would make it less interesting.
May be betting items would work too.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
1- non-lethal damage can be done with a -4 penalty to hit. Also casters can prepare spells as "merciful" with a metamagic feat +0 caster level.Pathfinder Online is not a direct translation of the Pathfinder RPG rule set.
Nor should it be. If I want a Pathfinder CRPG, I'll mod ToEE a little bit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO if duel is not allowed an (or many) arena(s) is a must. I would like to be able to train for combat with my friends and/or guildmates without being flagged, cursed or even dead. Inside an arena the effect of spells and attacks being nonlethal could be explained by some sort of magical effect preventing people to get really hurt.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I concur. We need to be able to actually train as players. Not just skill training over time, but blue on blue training without setting off all the flags and having our own NPCs rush us because we are working on our force coordination and battlespace management.
Too bad the cant do a unit combat training area. A place your guild group, or alliance could go and practice formation combat. As opposed to a FFA arena type battleground, have an area that lets you practice mass combat without worrying about dieing and having to reform units and such.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Too bad the cant do a unit combat training area. A place your guild group, or alliance could go and practice formation combat. As opposed to a FFA arena type battleground, have an area that lets you practice mass combat without worrying about dieing and having to reform units and such.
Maybe they could allow it in the game as a building-linked area. As, for example, a fortress could have an underground mass training area used only by the owners and their allys.
That would be very cool and would be a major reason for guilds aim to build a fortress as ASAP!
Guild halls could include an area like that after some upgrade as well. That would also be a solution.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My response would be that it depends about what one means when talking about "non-lethal" duels. If the defintion is "Exactly the same as regular combat but all the damage is "fake".... then I agree that's probably not a great idea.
However I'd like to see something along the lines of....
- Players having a way to indicate that they are fighting "voluntarly"..so no flags get placed, no guards get called, no alignment shifts occur, no one gets labeled a criminal.
- Players have a means of purchasing "practice weapons" that are suitably blunted...so that while they can still deliver real damage, they aren't designed to easly deliver lethal damage on a single (un)lucky blow.
- Settlements have specific areas (e.g. tourney fields) where the regular laws of the settlement can be suspended for such activities.
With all due respect, the idea that the latter definition would be "immersion breaking" or "unusefull" is just plain silly....since it happaned ALL the time in real history...from training to duels of honor to tournies, to jousts. Frankly there was probably more non-lethal (at least not purposefully so) contests going on in the middle ages then real live to the death battles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would add one thing to GrumpyMel's suggestion:
Make it possible to automatically stop fighting when someone issues a /yield command. And make it possible to automatically issue a /yield command when you reach a certain percentage of your max health.
I know people are really wary of bots, but there's a lot of very cool stuff that can be done with client-side triggers, and most of it's not remotely bad for the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How about spellcasters?al.
- Players have a means of purchasing "practice weapons" that are suitably blunted...so that while they can still deliver real damage, they aren't designed to easly deliver lethal damage on a single (un)lucky blow.
I've got to imagine there are some non-lethal spells or spells that don't do very much damage....or maybe you could under power regular spells so they have reduced effects? It would pretty much perform the same function as blunted weapons.
P.S. I imagine even Paladins would square off against each other upon occasion. It's not like they would learn how to actualy use those sharp pointy things by reading a yellow jacketed scroll entitled "Sword Combat for Dummies" ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If done gladiator/arena themed, I don't see how it can be immersion breaking. I'll be rather sad if there is no way to compete/participate in PVP that ISN'T hostile.
On the plus side, you could have arenas be something players could both watch and participate in. That would be awesome :)
Goblinworks Founder
|
Is it possible to add a mechanic similar to GW2s downed state? You could the. theoretically have duelling work like any other combat but give you the choice to spare their life when they yield or perform a cool coup de gras. I'm not particularly a fan of WoW style duelling(I would consider that to be sparring), but if duelling were done in the same manner as that of the renaissance period (pistols at ten paces for example), then many duels were to the death or to first blood.
Why not add in a feature that when in the training/practice area, fatal damage, instead of killing a player, renders them unconscious. A state that they will awaken from after say two 'rounds' (12 seconds)? That way no adjustment need be made to any spell or attack ability.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In my mind there only needs to be two things implemented to allow dueling/sparring. First is a method to not get a criminal flag, except maybe if you kill your opponent, and two an obvious yield emote. When someone yields is completely up to the player. Although this does assume there is a way to stop any commands you have queued. Assuming you can queue commands. I personally almost never duel, but from a RP perspective I can see multiple reason to. From a sword master teaching his student to a couple of gentlemen having a friendly duel over some trivial matter. Or even just a friendly bar room brawl, which would probably use improvised weapons, so they would do less damage unless you trained in them. As far as weapons go, that is up to the participants. If they want to use their +50 sword of god slaying or the cheapest piece of junk sword they can find, is completely up to them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why not add in a feature that when in the training/practice area, fatal damage, instead of killing a player, renders them unconscious. A state that they will awaken from after say two 'rounds' (12 seconds)? That way no adjustment need be made to any spell or attack ability.
Maybe allowing some practice weapons that would do just subdual damage too?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Theres plenty of mechanics in pathfinder that allow for non lethal damage. Half orc paladins can be a "redeemer" which changes their smite evil to do non lethal damage. Theres a spell that specifically does only non lethal damage, and a fair amount of it at that. Feats that take away the -4 for rolling to do non lethal, metamagic feats to make it non lethal. Its not like there aren't mechanics floating around that could be incorporated in to make this happen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Theres plenty of mechanics in pathfinder that allow for non lethal damage. Half orc paladins can be a "redeemer" which changes their smite evil to do non lethal damage. Theres a spell that specifically does only non lethal damage, and a fair amount of it at that. Feats that take away the -4 for rolling to do non lethal, metamagic feats to make it non lethal. Its not like there aren't mechanics floating around that could be incorporated in to make this happen.
Well said.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
bah, I'm sure there will be "non-lethal" duels.
they are commonly referred to as "tavern brawls"
done with fists and other non-leathal weaponry.
just please add some weapons that can deal non leathal damage without penalty
like, for example, improvised weapons.
Improvised weapons come at a -4 penalty.
How about changing that to a -4 penalty to inflict leathal damage?
complementary to the -4 penalty to inflict non-leathal damage with a leathal weapon?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Jousting tournaments, the Melee, wrestling, martial arts competitions.
The Chaotic way of combat is to just walk up to the fellow and slug him.
The Lawful way is to throw your glove in his face.
The Evil way is leave a corpse at the end (maybe two).
The Good (or at least Neutral) way is to leave an unconscious body. I guess Good would stopping at first blood or some other rather lenient 'scoring' system, like in boxing, wresting, or various martial arts.
I take issue with point #4. Without a 'dual/tournament/contest' system you can't have Lawful combat (outside the War system). If you don't have a non-lethal option you can't have Neutral combat. This means the only "meaningful" combat is to the death, and that cheapens all other kinds or makes them absolutely meaningless (which means no one is going to really do them).
=====
I will argue point #3, PvP is It is a resource-drain with no reward (to the game economy as a whole). PvP invariably means the loss of resources in the whole system. Items are destroyed or damage, consumables expended, and so on. One side or the other may come out head in the resource loss (by taking whats left of the other side stuff), they may even 'personally' profit, but at the end the totality is a loss.
That is a money-sink. You can't put Coin into PFO by PvP. You can only shift it and remove it. It is also high risk (lose most of your stuff) high reward (get most of theirs, less damage/expendables). It is entirely possible to scale this back just like there are gradients to the 'openness' of PvP. The less risk, the less reward.
Resource loss is a side issue, much like gambling. If you sit down to play cards you can play for different stakes, high (like world tournament of poker), low (hundreds of dollars instead of thousands), virtually none ( a few bucks between friends). Unless you're the winner, you lose all. How much you win and how much you lose depends on the initial stakes.
Now to the cards analogy throw in that every game played X% of the total pot is taken by... lets call it the house, and removed forever from play. It's a bit better in a game like PFO because resource loss in low/no stakes combat can be lessened as well, for example not expending healing potions, buff items, or expensive spell components.
Risk/Reward & Cost/Profit
It doesn't have to a one size fits all number when it comes to PvP. It sure isn't one size when it comes to PvE (mining, dungeons, etc.) risk/reward. Why are the best resources out in free for all PvP lands and not in the 'safer' starting areas? Because the risk is higher there, both from better Players and from more powerful AI-monsters.