Goblin Squad Member
|
Too many have been using the term "pet" when discussing various, integral animal or supernatural "animals" that are part of a fully skilled class. Druids start with an animal companion (not a pet), Wizards can accept a familiar (not a pet). Rangers, at the equivalent of Fourth level gain a hunting companion. Some Arcane and Divine casters can summon animals, undead and outsiders. These define and describe the classes mentioned in many cases. Without them, they are not fully rounded Pathfinder classes.
Ryan has noted in the past that GW hopes to add in other classes from the APG and Ultimate books. Without a familiar a Witch cannot have access to spells at all, and a Summoner isn't summoning much beyond what any other arcane spell caster without his/her Eidolon. These are NOT pets.
Now a Wizard can bond with an object rather than a familiar, but the choice should be there for the player to make. Druids, Rangers with enough skills trained, and both Clerical and Wizard Necromancers need the ability to summon companions and undead, respectively. Later when introduced, the Witch and Summoner classes must absolutely have their familiar and eidolon , respectively.
Right now, though, based upon Ryan's post in the current Blog thread, it will seem no one will get these important integral parts of their "classes", except, and this is a maybe, Druids. I am putting my crowdforging vote here for having familiars, animal companions and summoned creatures. I hope others will add their voices to keep as much of Pathfinder in PFO as possible.
Also, as noted, while the general term in MMO's is to use "Pets" to describe these, they aren't pets - pets are more fluff. Familiars, animal companions, hunting companions and eidolons are part of defining the Pathfinder classes that have access to them, so I would ask we stop calling them pets. Class components sounds more accurate, and can include summoned animals (Summoning spells), Undead and Outsiders fall neatly under this as well. A guard dog is a pet, or some fluff animal for a home is a pet. These creatures are part and parcel of going all the correct skill trees to be a Class. Let's respect them as such.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gloreindl, the term 'pet' is used in many MMOs for any separate entity which travels along with a player. You summon a bear to protect you in LOTRO... that's a pet. You hire an NPC healer in D&D Online... that's a pet. Et cetera.
I'm sure this is the meaning of the term that most people have been using. In those terms a Pathfinder Summoner is a 'pet class', because it is a class which has lots of pet options and depends on the pet(s) to survive. So yes, bonded critters can be important to a character, but they're still called 'pets' in MMO speak.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they are kept to a one per char base I'm ok with companions, familiars etc. Would't like to see people walking around surrounded by animals or undeads, though. Instead of increasing numbers of "pets" increasing power should be worked.
Except in case of summoned creatures, as they have a time set to be unsummoned, so a lot of them would'nt hurt.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First off I would like to point out again, Having 100% of the core classes at launch, isn't even a certainty, Having the APG classes will likely be YEARS down the road in the game. Making witches and summoners very very far from even worth discussing.
Now famillairs themselves, they don't contradict ryan at all. Ryan said pets that meaningfully interact with the world will likely be exclusive to druid. A wizard's raven/rabbit/squirel in P&P, while an interesting part of RP for the wizard/sorc, it isn't exactly something that is noteworthy in combat, it rarely has any reason to leave the wizards shoulder or bag. That isn't what I think would fall into Ryan's definition of meaningfully interacting with the world, so it is far from off the table. As well when Ryan made that quote, he was saying that was his personal opinion, meaning it may not be the direction the team as a whole is headed as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Too many have been using the term "pet" when discussing various, integral animal or supernatural "animals" that are part of a fully skilled class. Druids start with an animal companion (not a pet), Wizards can accept a familiar (not a pet). Rangers, at the equivalent of Fourth level gain a hunting companion. Some Arcane and Divine casters can summon animals, undead and outsiders. These define and describe the classes mentioned in many cases. Without them, they are not fully rounded Pathfinder classes.
I think you are attaching too much meaning to the term "Pet". In the game (MMO) design context, it's purely a technical term, and includes ALL of the above-mentioned entities. You can't really ask that specialists (i.e. game designers) stop using a technical term just because your non-technical usage of that term doesn't jive with the technical definition.
I am 100% positive that any game design decisions made regarding the inclusion of Pets (as a technical term) have NOTHING to do with interpreting "pets" as minor role-playing fluff. Redefining/renaming the term Pets will have no impact on whether or not the mechanic is included.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe in wizard/sorcerer case they could allow just the object binding and not the familiars. When (and if) witchs come in play they will need to allow it, though.
Companions for druids are very important and for rangers too in a lesser extent, I believe they shoud be implemented, unless they compensate the absence of them somehow to keep balance.
But, as I said before, not a lot of them, maybe just one with increasing power.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Pet" is a term of art. It just means an AI controlled entity that you have some authority over.
A One PC : One Pet thing is not what we're worried about, which is why Druids will have animal companions. What we're worried about is the potential per the RAW for a single character to control a large force of AI entities, which would reduce the need for that PC (and thus all PCs) to seek out meaningful human interaction.
It's easy to construct a character using the RAW that summons and directs an undead host of diverse power and capability. We don't want that. We want you to have to organize a host of diverse power and capabilities by organizing real humans on your behalf.
Pets, as a whole, will require a substantial amount of investment in programming resources, which just means that the introduction of pets will need to be crowdforged, and it's likely that the community will decide that other game systems should be prioritized ahead of pet systems.
I wouldn't even call a familiar a pet, in this sense. They may not even be in-game objects, just character sheet chrome, at least for a long while. There's a lot of stuff I think we'll need in the game before we need to be able to show you a model of a tiny snake or toad or bird or whatever moving around the gamespace.
I am in favor of druids receiving animal companions, of wizards/clerics gaining the option to animate/summon undead, and perhaps of rangers and paladins receiving them later on, but I'm only really sure of druids and necromancers. Druids are iconic and necromancers have the heavy drawback of not being able to use their eviler spells nearby untrustworthy players without fearing for their life.
If you go past that, though, the game does start to have too many "pets".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not even counting undead, animal companions, or familiars, Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers, and Bard all get access to Summon Monster or Summon Nature's Ally spells for each spell level.
It's trivial to use all of your spell power to create an army of NPCs to fight your battles for you in pnp after a few levels.
Even if we get pets, I hope those spells are not in the game, as they are against the stated design goals of encouraging human interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Pet" is a term of art. It just means an AI controlled entity that you have some authority over.
A One PC : One Pet thing is not what we're worried about, which is why Druids will have animal companions. What we're worried about is the potential per the RAW for a single character to control a large force of AI entities, which would reduce the need for that PC (and thus all PCs) to seek out meaningful human interaction.
It's easy to construct a character using the RAW that summons and directs an undead host of diverse power and capability. We don't want that. We want you to have to organize a host of diverse power and capabilities by organizing real humans on your behalf.
Pets, as a whole, will require a substantial amount of investment in programming resources, which just means that the introduction of pets will need to be crowdforged, and it's likely that the community will decide that other game systems should be prioritized ahead of pet systems.
I wouldn't even call a familiar a pet, in this sense. They may not even be in-game objects, just character sheet chrome, at least for a long while. There's a lot of stuff I think we'll need in the game before we need to be able to show you a model of a tiny snake or toad or bird or whatever moving around the gamespace.
Y'know, a good solution for those would be Necromancer armies would be to treat 'graveyards' or other mass places and an undead host as any other NPC faction - Players can gain Reputation faction with that 'alliance', and you can balance an undead NPC horde along the lines of any other monstours horde.
You can keep the one pet: one PC rule for combat, and this solution (flavored accordingly) allows you to keep the 'raised undead' army feel without introducing a new complex balancing act.
Even better since the alliance system already has in place rivalries (obviously, people who ally with the 'undead' won't exactly spend their time elsewhere), and various necromancers can gain rep in the alliance by doing 'deed's, themed around necromantic stuff.
Thoughts?
Not even counting undead, animal companions, or familiars, Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers, and Bard all get access to Summon Monster or Summon Nature's Ally spells for each spell level.
It's trivial to use all of your spell power to create an army of NPCs to fight your battles for you in pnp after a few levels.
Even if we get pets, I hope those spells are not in the game, as they are against the stated design goals of encouraging human interaction.
Those are optional spells, not really class features. I wouldn't be surprised if Summon Monster just gets left out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Pet" is a term of art. It just means an AI controlled entity that you have some authority over.
A One PC : One Pet thing is not what we're worried about, which is why Druids will have animal companions. What we're worried about is the potential per the RAW for a single character to control a large force of AI entities, which would reduce the need for that PC (and thus all PCs) to seek out meaningful human interaction.
It's easy to construct a character using the RAW that summons and directs an undead host of diverse power and capability. We don't want that. We want you to have to organize a host of diverse power and capabilities by organizing real humans on your behalf.
Pets, as a whole, will require a substantial amount of investment in programming resources, which just means that the introduction of pets will need to be crowdforged, and it's likely that the community will decide that other game systems should be prioritized ahead of pet systems.
I wouldn't even call a familiar a pet, in this sense. They may not even be in-game objects, just character sheet chrome, at least for a long while. There's a lot of stuff I think we'll need in the game before we need to be able to show you a model of a tiny snake or toad or bird or whatever moving around the gamespace.
Thank you for the reply Ryan. I was trying to point out that familiars and animal companions are, as you note, more meaningful than a spell summoned creature, though they are not unimportant to Pathfinder Classes. I am happy to see that these things are being spoken of in side GW and between Paizo and GW. Thanks again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A pet is not a pet when it's AC is higher than yours :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wouldn't even call a familiar a pet, in this sense. They may not even be in-game objects, just character sheet chrome, at least for a long while. There's a lot of stuff I think we'll need in the game before we need to be able to show you a model of a tiny snake or toad or bird or whatever moving around the gamespace.
By this I'm guessing the extremely useful ability of having your familiar cast touch spells for you is not going to be part of the game? Pathfinder buffed up familiars, increasing their survivability and usefulness in the game that no other game has before or since. I'd hate to see such an iconic part of the Wizard class drop to the wayside.
There's a lot of old-school gamers I think would agree they'd rather have a familiar than a bonded object.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Many games prevent the 'horde of pets' problem by simply limiting the player to one at a time. If that were adopted for PFO you might have a Druid that always has a companion available, but whenever they cast 'Summon Nature's Ally' the companion goes off for a stroll until the new critter leaves.
If something like that were implemented for PFO and the pets balanced such that 'caster character + pet' were roughly equal to 'melee character' in combat ability then pets could serve their game setting 'flavor' and versatility purposes without allowing 'pet classes' to solo through things that everyone else needs to group up for.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe something very simple. A character is capable of one special pet (and only usable if character has ability to have one, ie druid), plus 1 or 2 summons (they separate entity to special pet, and have a short life on server), and maybe one normal pet (such as a mount to faster travel, larger capacity transport). The special pet and normal pet slots don't have time limit for existence. For non-spell casters, they only ever have the opportunity of owning a normal pet. For the wizards, I still be happy if the only the arcane bonded object is available, still fulfils roll of the familiar.
As for the far future summoners, they could get an extra summon slot to the standard summon slots for they special at summoning, or increase the summon's hardiness instead).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not want to play solo but I want to be able to put a contribution into fighting. Necromancer have lots of cool spells yes but are hard pressed to find groups that will take them and even then are one step down from debuff specialist without a undead to help them fight.
My vision of necromancers is quantity of very simple animated corpses or skeletons (depending on level of decay of the body). So if necromancers main "raise dead" skills were angled along this, then potential pet-system could be:
1. Stealing npc workers to use for "labour"
2. In WAR slain pc bodies could be used to increase a horde of undead as a specific area where a horde could be used within the game's combat system: Perhaps creating an undead unit if enough necromancers pool their 'undead count' together?
3. Or again another variant in general pvp "raise dead" with a max of say 2-3 but slightly more "animated"/proactive undead for the fewer raised?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@AvenaOats
2. I would make it only npc guards bodies. It is pretty weird to see your own body among npc undeads when you respawn and come back to fight :P
Hehe, it would be funny seeing your "husk", but maybe simpler if the animation spell soured the husk to a familiar green, putrefying zombie look or polished skeleton bone hue?! ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I love the idea of just having 1 or 2 undead as long as I can play a necromancer. taking away control undead is like telling a evocation expert you cannot use offensive spells cause you might hit someone, or telling a barbarion hey you cannot rage cause someone might not like you yelling to loudly. I do not want to split hairs but you need to give some breathing room to the evil side of this game other wise I can tell you it will dissolve into a hey lets all be LG and take on the creepy looking tower dungeon over yonder and it will quickly go to a Co-op PVE.
There's LOTS of room in "Evil" for all kinds of character concepts besides Necromancers accompanied by undead minions. Saying the sky is falling because one particular concept out of hundreds is being effectively veto'd up front is ridiculous.
It's especially silly since animate dead is just one spell. Necromancers are wizards or clerics, and they are not limited to a single piece of magic. When they're near settlements, they can just use their less controversial spells. It's not like all necromancers have to raise the dead.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tuoweit
Unless they were planning to play this very concept..
I'm not going to play necro, actually any kind of arcane mage is in my focus now. However I understand some people who had this concept in mind to be a bit frustrated.
Can they change their concept to play another kind of mage and have fun? Indeed, but that doesn't mean they should be happy for abandoning their initial concept.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tuoweit
Unless they were planning to play this very concept..
I'm not going to play necro, actually any kind of arcane mage is in my focus now. However I understand some people who had this concept in mind to be a bit frustrated.
Can they change their concept to play another kind of mage and have fun? Indeed, but that doesn't mean they should be happy for abandoning their initial concept.
Even if their concept was "Necromancer" and Undead Pets via animate dead do end up in game, it will take a LONG time for anyone to gain enough casting ability to cast it if spell progression is anything like PnP, which while the levels may not be the same, the feel of them should be.
I just don't understand the level of frustration over a concept that would be indistinguishable from any other specialty of wizard or cleric for months if not years of game-time before they would even be able to cast the spell they are so frustrated about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You know I'm surprised that no one has actually noted that animal companions for druids are ENTIRELY optional. You can opt out of a AC and instead get better spellcasting. Druids don't need animal companions to function, it's just an option.
In Pathfinder you have the CHOICE to opt out.
If this is truely going to be PATHFINDER online and not FantasyEve Online you should ALSO have the CHOICE to opt out, not be FORCED to opt out because the programmers have decided it would be too hard for them to handle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You know I'm surprised that no one has actually noted that animal companions for druids are ENTIRELY optional. You can opt out of a AC and instead get better spellcasting. Druids don't need animal companions to function, it's just an option.In Pathfinder you have the CHOICE to opt out.
If this is truely going to be PATHFINDER online and not FantasyEve Online you should ALSO have the CHOICE to opt out, not be FORCED to opt out because the programmers have decided it would be too hard for them to handle.
You will have the choice to opt out. The pet system will be in the game and Druids will be able to get Animal Companions. It will require a significant amount of resources though so the timeframe of WHEN it will be in the game will be crowd-forged i.e. decided by a community vote. Based on the the general priorities of the community i.e. non Druids/Wizards/Rangers, it probably won't be until well after Early Enrollment begins. That's fine. It will be there eventually, and in the meantime you can gain a domain and swap it out for your companion when the system is ready.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You know I'm surprised that no one has actually noted that animal companions for druids are ENTIRELY optional. You can opt out of a AC and instead get better spellcasting. Druids don't need animal companions to function, it's just an option.In Pathfinder you have the CHOICE to opt out.
If this is truely going to be PATHFINDER online and not FantasyEve Online you should ALSO have the CHOICE to opt out, not be FORCED to opt out because the programmers have decided it would be too hard for them to handle.
Oh, I agree everyone should have a choice, just as a "Wizard" skill tree should allow for either a familiar or a bonded item. Having the choice is what matters. Leaving out "pets" takes choice away, which IMHO is bad for both players and the game as a whole.
However, in the 7 campaigns I have played in since PFRPG came out, I've yet to meet any Druid not take a companion. I guess there will be some, but having something add to the party's attacks usually wins out in PnP games. PFO will be an interesting place to experiment with doing things differently, even if it isn't PFRPG. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
True, Being. However, I love RP and am not big on caring if my character is of optimal power. It always struck me as counter to having fun, which is why I play. So long as people get the choice to picking which way to go, I am happy. Choice is what will make or break PFO. The fewer choices, the more theme park the game will seem rather than sandbox. Others may disagree with me, but I want as many options as possible so it truly is a sand box. The box is the rules governing those options and the sand is what we do with them. Then PFO will not only be more fun, but a true immersive game, as we, the players are able to shape so many things w/o cookie-cutter characters. Again, just MHO, but I hope a valid one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A lone necromancer in command of a host of lesser undead would be the kind of 'PC badguy' you'd be looking for. Being capable of such a feat would make the penalties for playing your alignment bearable.
This is the kind of payoff there should be, if you're going to make it difficult for players to be the 'content' by playing evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I should state, that this is not the kind of character I wish to play. The character concept I have in mind is being well catered to with all of the various flags and concepts.
This necromancer is the kind of character I want to have to go hunt down and out smart. Perhaps even become a nemesis or eventual ally.
There is no good reason so far why it can't or shouldn't exist, or why others like my self should be robbed of the experience of matching wits with such a player.
Just thought I'd clarify my position before I came accross as too much of a naysayer.
Kryzbyn, while I liked your post, I'm not sure it's what Goblinworks has in mind. There should not generally be lone player villains, because that defeats the whole point of organizations. Perhaps an organization of rogue necromancers, however...