This is a PvE question. What do folks think about "conning" monsters? Should we see their stats relative to us or not? Should their names give their rank and class away? And in a slightly different vein, should monsters with sympathetic alignments be able to engage in reason and perhaps even trade or be hired?
Personally I don't think I should be able to con a monster and tell if I can take it out or not. Experience should teach me and there should be some cues that I should be able to pick up on but I shouldn't be able to scope them out. Perhaps as I developed knowledge I might get better IF it was a skill I was focusing on and then I might be able to "con" some types that I have had extensive experiences with. I also dislike seeing monster names like gobbo shaman. If I see a gobbo with a skull topped stick I might infer its a shaman, but it might just be a gobbo monk with a staff or a fighter with a warclub. But why should the game tell me what that gobbo is? It'sa bit "immersion breaking".
I'd like to see a system that wasn't always hack and slash for mobs, especially if their alignment was compatible or close to mine. I'd like to have opportunities for bluff and diplomacy. Resolving conflict without bloodshed may even appeal to some religous types. Do we have to kill off the CN, NG, CG centaurs to claim a hex - maybe we could offer them relocation to a reservation, err, unclaimed hex? Perhaps even sell goods to them. Or contract with them for protection or to provide them with protection? Would a pally really KOS when they hadn't tried reason first? Maybe I could generate content by gaining their trust then apprenticing with their master druid to learn something special, a spell or ability perhaps, or work with their blacksmith to learn how to make spears, or study nets and tridents with their warriors? Befriending such might open avenues to new or special skills thereby differentiating myself from other PCs and making my story more unique.
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good question Snowbeard, and I agree with you that we should all get to know the PvE opposition using visual cues.
In reading my comments please recognize I am only a fellow prospective player and cannot presume to speak for the developers, however convincing I may try to be.
We should know that goblins are low level creatures except where there is something exceptional about them. A caster, as an example, is probably more powerful and dangerous than a regular skirmisher.
We should also have to pay attention to clues. If a goblin walks into a camp of orcs and the orcs behave deferentially, then that goblin is one to keep an eye on.
I'm all for keeping the nametags to a minimum. Only show the tags of people you have actually met, or who have initiated an attack on you.
Good question Snowbeard, and I agree with you that we should all get to know the PvE opposition using visual cues.
TY Being for taking the time to read my first ever thread start. After 13 hours I was beginning to feel unloved.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TY Being for taking the time to read my first ever thread start. After 13 hours I was beginning to feel unloved.Good question Snowbeard, and I agree with you that we should all get to know the PvE opposition using visual cues.
I fear we have been rather busy speculating and theorizing in a couple of the larger active threads on alignment.
Welcome!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The big problem with using Diplomacy type skills on npcs is it can easily be abused to bypass any PvE content. Secondly, if you can hire/charm them, sending countless NPS waves at a city can be a type of griefing.
Maybe it should be allowed in a limited way. To hire some proficient npcs to help you build/manage your settlement could be a nice thing, for example. Some PvE missions could recquire diplomacy as well. But I agree that allowing it to be used widelly can lead to abuse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm definitely hoping diplomacy has some use, as I'm aiming to play a bard-like diplo-merchant! I definitely would like to see diplomacy playing a role in working with NPCs as a hex is claimed. Convincing the natives to stay/hhelp out rahter than driving them off would be great, and could be a goal for different archetypes (druid/ranger/bard probably being primary).
As for knowing about monsters, I hope that will be a function of knowledge-type skills. Bards, as aPnP example, have a greater advantage at knowing about diverse races and a carry-over to PFO would be nice. Rangers might know more about favored enemies as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would love to see druids and rangers being able to lure some animals to become their animal companions. So that angry wolf or bear that was attacking you just becomes your friend trough lure mechanisms, and not just getting companions instantly just after earning some badge or something like that.
Rangers might know more about favored enemies as well.
Good point - I forgot about favored enemies. But that could just boil down to an adjustment on hits/damage. The player would still need to determine if its a shaman, monk, warrior or a very large baby holding a rattle. I'm hopin' the computer doesn't think for me and that it's me that actually has to pay attention.
On a side note, I've always been a bit of a lone wolf in MMO's and conning the mobs has been essential to stay healthy. If you took that capability out of the equation I would probably be much more team spirited or reduced to shooting bunnies from a safe distance. If PFO really wants to encourage grouping, not being able to con mobs might be an incentive for folks like me to seek companionship more actively.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a PvE question. What do folks think about "conning" monsters? Should we see their stats relative to us or not? Should their names give their rank and class away? And in a slightly different vein, should monsters with sympathetic alignments be able to engage in reason and perhaps even trade or be hired?
Personally I don't think I should be able to con a monster and tell if I can take it out or not. Experience should teach me and there should be some cues that I should be able to pick up on but I shouldn't be able to scope them out. Perhaps as I developed knowledge I might get better IF it was a skill I was focusing on and then I might be able to "con" some types that I have had extensive experiences with. I also dislike seeing monster names like gobbo shaman. If I see a gobbo with a skull topped stick I might infer its a shaman, but it might just be a gobbo monk with a staff or a fighter with a warclub. But why should the game tell me what that gobbo is? It'sa bit "immersion breaking".
I'd like to see a system that wasn't always hack and slash for mobs, especially if their alignment was compatible or close to mine. I'd like to have opportunities for bluff and diplomacy. Resolving conflict without bloodshed may even appeal to some religous types. Do we have to kill off the CN, NG, CG centaurs to claim a hex - maybe we could offer them relocation to a reservation, err, unclaimed hex? Perhaps even sell goods to them. Or contract with them for protection or to provide them with protection? Would a pally really KOS when they hadn't tried reason first? Maybe I could generate content by gaining their trust then apprenticing with their master druid to learn something special, a spell or ability perhaps, or work with their blacksmith to learn how to make spears, or study nets and tridents with their warriors? Befriending such might open avenues to new or special skills thereby differentiating myself from other PCs and making my story more unique.
I asked this question in the live session to Ryan.
What about having a con system that slowly gives you more detail about a mob type the more you encounter,fight,converse with them? That way I may know a good bit about say Orcs, while you may know more about Goblins because we have encountered them at times. In say a group situation we could differ to whoever has the most knowledge.
Some roles, like Bards and Druids/Rangers may know more across the board in some areas.
Does that sound logical?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about having a con system that slowly gives you more detail about a mob type the more you encounter,fight,converse with them?
Personally, I'd love to see the ability to train Knowledge Skills along these lines, with Merit Badges to go out and do something related to that monster type.
However, Ryan has pointed out that Knowledge Skills are problematic when the players have all the tools of the Information Age to share the actual knowledge.
That might get you more to know about orcs, but not about this orc, that actually also has enough skills to be a level 3 fighter, level 2 rogue. Sort of like having a monster lore journal with entries on each type.
It could always be split off into two entries, one being like Warhammers tome of knowledge (or whatever they called it) which contains general information on each race. And the other entry could be a more traditional /con system aimed at the individual creature your targeting. Might that solve the problem?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I concur with that--knowledge should cover general information about races (and perhaps common types within the race). It should not give specific information about an individual monster that is modified beyond his peers (well, unless perhaps there's some way to gain that lore).
Yes but we should be able to know the level of dificulty of that encounter, to decide if we will or not engage it. Some sort of monster ranking should be allowed. No need to be a detailed one just a graduation to help us to decide if the confrontation is most certainly going to be a disaster or if it is possible to win the combat.
Some people in earlier posts were suggesting if you observed that specific creature, your knowledge of that individual would increase, letting you gauge the chances of a fight with that creature, while also slowly adding to your general knowledge of the race the creature belongs to. I think it's viable, worth looking at anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd like to see judging relative strength as a combination of knowledge (skills) and experience. If I encounter some creature I've never seen before, and of which I have no knowledge, I won't expect any game mechanic to tell me whether I can beat it in a fight or not. That puts far more risk into engaging in combat, which is something I favor. Knowing that "green bar" enemies are easy kills, "yellow" are moderate, and "red" are tough for things I've never encountered is not appealing to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd like to see judging relative strength as a combination of knowledge (skills) and experience. If I encounter some creature I've never seen before, and of which I have no knowledge, I won't expect any game mechanic to tell me whether I can beat it in a fight or not. That puts far more risk into engaging in combat, which is something I favor. Knowing that "green bar" enemies are easy kills, "yellow" are moderate, and "red" are tough for things I've never encountered is not appealing to me.
Yes you have a point.
But I would like to see some skills implemented that will help we with that.
Also, rangers and druids for example should be able to recognize most animals, plants and magical beast that are common to the region environment. Arcane chars should be able to know stuff about magically created creatures and spellcasting creatures, based in their knowledge arcana etc.
Bards should know better about urban organization and known NPCs too. Actually bards would be a good class to recognize moster as well as they know the lore and may be able to remmember "what the stories tell about how that ancient hero killed that evil beholder", or things like that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Absolutely, that's the system I'm hoping for. IF a character is to know general information about monsters/NPCs, that character needs to have the relevant skills. The character then has an advantage over characters without the skill(s) which, when combined with actual game play experience, allows the player to make informed estimations of encountered creatures.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Absolutely, that's the system I'm hoping for. IF a character is to know general information about monsters/NPCs, that character needs to have the relevant skills. The character then has an advantage over characters without the skill(s) which, when combined with actual game play experience, allows the player to make informed estimations of encountered creatures.
Maybe just being in party with a char with such knowledge can allow people to have temporary access to that information, as we can assume the player would share that info with his fellows during the combat, just as in PnP game.
Edit: That would actually be a good source of player interaction as people will like to have chars with such knowledge in their parties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hey there Snowbeard.
I'm pretty sure someone else has helped to answer your question or added to the conversation about it, but I had an interview with Ryan Dancey on the 9th of January for our show, The Real Basement Dwellers, in regards to Pathfinder Online in general. My co-host had asked the a question along the same line of being able to use diplomatic skills (or even Intimidate) NPC's instead of fighting.
Basically long and short was that it is something to be considered in the future (more then likely after full release if you were to read between the lines), but as of the moment it is not slated on the immediate "Must Do" list. So it is possible that it will happen in the future, but I wouldn't start holding my breath as of yet.
Below is the link to the episode that we did to see if Dancey's full answer helps:
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe just being in party with a char with such knowledge can allow people to have temporary access to that information, as we can assume the player would share that info with his fellows during the combat, just as in PnP game.
Edit: That would actually be a good source of player interaction as people will like to have chars with such knowledge in their parties.
I'd actually set that as an on/off or some such--some characters might indeed choose not to share insight for whatever reason (say, a rogue that's conned his way into a group and is not actually trying to help them).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd actually set that as an on/off or some such--some characters might indeed choose not to share insight for whatever reason (say, a rogue that's conned his way into a group and is not actually trying to help them).Maybe just being in party with a char with such knowledge can allow people to have temporary access to that information, as we can assume the player would share that info with his fellows during the combat, just as in PnP game.
Edit: That would actually be a good source of player interaction as people will like to have chars with such knowledge in their parties.
Yes I agree with you, good point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd actually set that as an on/off or some such--some characters might indeed choose not to share insight for whatever reason (say, a rogue that's conned his way into a group and is not actually trying to help them).Maybe just being in party with a char with such knowledge can allow people to have temporary access to that information, as we can assume the player would share that info with his fellows during the combat, just as in PnP game.
Edit: That would actually be a good source of player interaction as people will like to have chars with such knowledge in their parties.
Of course, the simple act of not sharing information should be a major clue that something isn't right with the guy that joined you... Especially if group members can see information about their party members skills using an examine command.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd rather not see it auto-share with the group. I'm not a big fan of "magic brain dumps" in gaming, and don't usually allow it at my tables. How you choose to share information is as important as what you choose to share.
I actually used spell research in a game once to create a druid spell that would allow the party to function as if they had Hive Mind abilities of a Fomorian or other inscect. It really allowed us to dominate tactics because we could be silent, sneaky, and immune to flanking while in constant communication.
IF a character is to know general information about monsters/NPCs, that character needs to have the relevant skills. The character then has an advantage over characters without the skill(s) which, when combined with actual game play experience, allows the player to make informed estimations of encountered creatures.
OK, I'll buy that. Conceivably if I was a dumb warrior (no skills in knowledge: monsters) I wouldn't know the if a gobbo is a shaman, monk, etc. Visually I (RL me) might be able to pick up on some of the ques, especially if I had encountered them before, but my GUI wouldn't be giving me any info (green, blue,red or goobo shammy, gobbo warrior, etc)
This would mesh with my current understanding of how skills work. If I wanted to know about humanoid monsters I would need to set it as a skill (knowledge: humanoid) to train in and then when the timer expired I would know about humanoid monsters, but not say Knowledge: woodland creatures. If I wanted to use this skill I would slot it in a utility slot and when I wanted to know about a humanoid I would press the corresponding key and I'd have access to the info. Or it might not even require a slot, more of an always on thing, but thats up to the devs.
Once I'd earned the merit badge for knowledge:humanoids then my list of knowledge skills I could train in would update and maybe woodland creatures would be on that list. If I wanted to learn that skill, I'd repeat the process.
@Dario Agreed, after all it was me that used my limited training time to learn the skill while you were training in some other skill that will be handy no doubt.
@Pseudonym and Tasarak Thanks for the links will check them out
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Dario Agreed, after all it was me that used my limited training time to learn the skill while you were training in some other skill that will be handy no doubt.
Not only that, but if it auto-spreads, then it just encourages someone to train an alt just enough to get the important knowledge skills and then set it to auto-follow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Snowbeard
Some skills could replace specific knowledge or stack sometimes in relation to recognizing and knowing stuff about monsters. For example, knowledge forests could give me clues of the creatures in the forest, knowledge arcana can give us knowledge on magic creatures, knowledge the planes could help you to identify an extraplanar demon, knowledge history could help you to recognize an old lich that is reffered in the history of an ancient realm etc.