Goblin Squad Member
|
GW Staff,
The commoner roles have been implemented only in part, and as we approach the begginings of Tier 2, what is the plan for these classes?
As it currently stands, one cannot progress further than skill rank 7 without dabbling into other classes for attribute points. Fighters can learn more attacks, clerics can learn more spells, but if gatherers pick up other gathering skills, the attribute points are scattered. You can take the armor feat and strongback, but those are largely the only related features. So, my question is, what is the vision of the Developers in regards to what gatherers should be doing with their experience in Tier 2?
Note that this isn't just a gatherer problem, they're just the first to reach it. In another 7 weeks, refiners and crafters will be trying to piece together ability score bonus, as well. The absence of Freeholder and Expert features is noticeable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think GW envisions gathering as a dedicated career, but more of a sideline. You can get one gathering skill to T2 with just over a week of xp- that's not a big investment for a combat character with a couple of months of training.
I suspect that as the pvp system becomes more nuanced and the gusher system comes online, it'll become impractical to gather without combat skills backing you up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think GW envisions gathering as a dedicated career, but more of a sideline. You can get one gathering skill to T2 with just over a week of xp- that's not a big investment for a combat character with a couple of months of training.
I suspect that as the pvp system becomes more nuanced and the gusher system comes online, it'll become impractical to gather without combat skills backing you up.
I'd have to disagree, they billed the ACE roles as full classes: Aristocrat, Commoner, and Expert. Aristocrat hasn't been deployed yet, Commoner and Expert are currently in very partially, and are hitting the exp wall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My gatherer is still further along in her career than my Necromancer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
ACE roles are full classes. Gatherer is not synonymous with commoner. The fact that refiners are better gatherers than anyone else doesn't mean that gathering itself is a standalone job.
I think this is the intent, that Freeholders can work within their role. There are two gathering skills, Miner and Dowser that have corresponding refining skills, Smelter and Sage. I think that Forest and Scavenger might be more problematic. Even leveling these skills in parallel to Rank 7, the character will not have enough Wis to advance to rank 8. And there are no refining skills that advance Wis.
(There are crafting skills that advance Wis, but that's expecting a character to multi-class Freeholder/Expert. It's like expecting Rogues to multi-class Rogue/Crafter.) (Imho, after rank 7, characters should just expect to dip into roles outside their class - and that goes for ACE roles *and* Adventure roles.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
there are no refining skills that advance Wis.Except apothecary.
Yep and if you have a use for some T2 Ink and Varnish, training to level 7 Apothecary will get you a WISDOM of 11.2 without any other Wisdom feats trained at all.
The issue is if you want to only gather or perhaps have a cleric character that only has fighting skills and no need to craft. Then it gets tricky.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
IMO, All ability point gating seems poorly implemented. Abilities have no other purpose than to limit growth.
Yes. Ability scores, timed XP delivery and Achievements are a three-part growth-limiting system. We're not supposed to be able to power-level our way to the end game. Right now they may be too restrictive, but if they were too loose, some of us would outgrow the challenges available before GW could develop new challenges.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The poor implementation of Abilities is a combination of the following factors.
- Transparency -- Unless you reach into the underlying spreadsheets you have no idea how much progression you have made or what feats will increase which ability. This can be addressed with UI tweaks in the character sheet and tool tips.
- Redundancy -- Because abilities provide no other benefit, they are just like the other achievements. I don't have a problem with the achievement system, you should show some use/mastery of activity in order to progress in skill in that activity.
- Discouraging Specialization -- As brought up by the OP and by others, there are issues with being a pure crafter and/or gatherer since you will not get enough points in your attribute unless you spend XP on other feats, which may not be beneficial to your chosen profession.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Discouraging total focus on a single skill is ok. But the other skills you learn should be complementary. The Freeholder armor skills offer bonuses to crafting. Gathering skills help with your supply.
However:
- Forestry grants/requires WIS
- Sawyer grants/requires CON
- Pioneer (bonus to Forestry) grants/requires CON
- Wright (bonus to Sawyer) grants/requires STR
So there is not a good overlap if I want to focus on Sawyer as my primary craft, supporting skills don't help.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Discouraging total focus on a single skill is ok. But the other skills you learn should be complementary...
So there is not a good overlap if I want to focus on Sawyer as my primary craft, supporting skills don't help.
I think that wanting to focus on Sawyer as a Freeholder is analogous to wanting to focus on Evoker as a Wizard. The devs have told us we should be able to advance as a Wizard without having to diversify into other Roles, but they've always led us to believe we would not be able to reach the highest levels of Evoker with diversifying into other Wizard Feats. Likewise, I don't think we should expect to be able to reach the highest levels of Sawyer without diversifying into other Freeholder Feats.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
True, but what *are* freeholder feats? Are we supposed to be dabbling in refining and crafting? Then what are expert feats?
Right now, its not entirely clear what the Freeholder and Expert classes are meant to do, and I'm hoping that the devs can chime in so we can at least know the vision going forward.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If Feature Feats for Freeholder and Expert are put in, then that could address my "Discourage Specialization" issue.
The Transparency can be fixed with better UI and tool tips.
But I still don't see why attributes are needed when you can get the same results with just the Achievement system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If Feature Feats for Freeholder and Expert are put in, then that could address my "Discourage Specialization" issue.
The Transparency can be fixed with better UI and tool tips.
But I still don't see why attributes are needed when you can get the same results with just the Achievement system.
PFO has ability scores at least in part because the tabletop game has ability scores, and it gives players a familiar touchstone with regard to character capabilities. We know that a character with Dexterity 16 is better at Dex-based stuff than a character with Dex 9.
In this game, the progression is actually backwards (getting better at Dex stuff gives you a higher Dex score), but the basic association of 'high ability score = good at stuff associated with that score' is still true.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Feature Feats for Freeholder and Expert are put in, then that could address my "Discourage Specialization" issue.
The Transparency can be fixed with better UI and tool tips.
But I still don't see why attributes are needed when you can get the same results with just the Achievement system.
PFO has ability scores at least in part because the tabletop game has ability scores, and it gives players a familiar touchstone with regard to character capabilities. We know that a character with Dexterity 16 is better at Dex-based stuff than a character with Dex 9.
In this game, the progression is actually backwards (getting better at Dex stuff gives you a higher Dex score), but the basic association of 'high ability score = good at stuff associated with that score' is still true.
Well maybe backwards compared to TT but in a very real sense its more natural. You do not in real life take a "strength pill" and then magically gain the ability to lift heavy weights. You lift weights and eventually get stronger.
The PFO system is only counter-intuitive to people brought up on traditional MMOs and D&D based TT games.
The old-school D&D idea that you can for example run around gaining experience as say a wizard and then "level up" and decide to invest all that experience into more strength is, if you give it any thought at all, plain stupid.
In PFO your ability scores naturally increase as a result of doing (to get achievements) and training (by investing in feats) things related to that particular ability and as the ability increases your capability to take on more advanced training improves.
It is also realistic that you cannot just focus on a single thing and advance. Real life Football players also run and swim and do other related training they do not spend all day everyday on a pitch just kicking a ball.
This is actually MUCH more logical than the traditional old-school gaming level up method. People just need to let go of bad habits from older games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The means that Attributes increase as a result of training in feats and skills is not my concern. Nor is some amount of "cross-training."
It is the fact that from an RPG design element, as it is right now, Attributes are a more a reflection of what the character has trained, and does not have any impact on what a character can do.
If instead of the attributes listed each character had ratings for each
- Martial Training
- Subterfuge Training
- Arcane Training
- Divine Training
- Freeholder Training
- Expert Training
This would then match with the various achievements. So this way your advancement can be gated between what you have done and what you have learned.
Right now, the Attribute system sort of does this but decided to utilize d20-ish names which carry certain expectations. IMO, Attributes should have direct game mechanic impacts and not be a passive reflection of training/experience. The current system is a needless confusion of established RPG design paradigms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, Attributes should have direct game mechanic impacts and not be a passive reflection of training/experience. The current system is a needless confusion of established RPG design paradigms.
The developers have expressed a different opinion, and this is a design decision as fixed as any ever is. Your options on this subject are to make your peace with it, or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
IMO, Attributes should have direct game mechanic impacts and not be a passive reflection of training/experience. The current system is a needless confusion of established RPG design paradigms.The developers have expressed a different opinion, and this is a design decision as fixed as any ever is. Your options on this subject are to make your peace with it, or not.
Making peace with the decision is easy. I voiced my opinion of the matter. This is not the first time I have had issue with game mechanics in any RPG (in any medium.) And I still have enjoyed them.
In this particular case it isn't game/fun breaking. I have offered my suggestion for an improvement, which the Devs can implement or ignore. The game is still very much in flux and things will change.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The means that Attributes increase as a result of training in feats and skills is not my concern. Nor is some amount of "cross-training."
It is the fact that from an RPG design element, as it is right now, Attributes are a more a reflection of what the character has trained, and does not have any impact on what a character can do.
Well they do effect what you can train next but they are not an attribute in the sense that they directly effect any math in game, point taken.
If instead of the attributes listed each character had ratings for each
- Martial Training
- Subterfuge Training
- Arcane Training
- Divine Training
- Freeholder Training
- Expert Training
This would then match with the various achievements. So this way your advancement can be gated between what you have done and what you have learned.
To do it this way you would need to add separate types of craft training, refine training and gather to the list (because the various crafts all uses a different ability)and all the various settlement management skills and most will double up. you would end up with the confusing 20 or 30 training categories you get in EVE, except in EVE its just a way of grouping the skills. This way there are a limited number of ability to keep track of.
Right now, the Attribute system sort of does this but decided to utilize d20-ish names which carry certain expectations. IMO, Attributes should have direct game mechanic impacts and not be a passive reflection of training/experience. The current system is a needless confusion of established RPG design paradigms.
Yeah I agree we really should have separated from D20 a bit more. For legal reasons GW cannot use a lot of the D20 rules and systems (nor do TT rules suit a MMO). Calling the game "Golarion Online" may have been a better call.
That said, even if the legal issues were surmounted, I personally would have no interest in yet another TT clone like the dozens of others around ranging from Baldurs Gate and Icewind Dale onwards. For me NWN tweaked to use a few of the Pathfinder rules changes and new classes would be just reinventing the wheel. I am not sure if sticking to "established RPG design paradigms" is necessarily a good thing if it leads to stagnation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think GW envisions gathering as a dedicated career, but more of a sideline. You can get one gathering skill to T2 with just over a week of xp- that's not a big investment for a combat character with a couple of months of training.
You're right: reaching gatherer level 7 is fast, so gathering could indeed be done as a sideline. Gatherers need survivability anyway, so requiring them to buy non-gathering skills isn't a waste of xp.
You're wrong: reaching gatherer level 14 takes the same amount of xp as reaching refiner/crafter level 14 - but you additionally need to buy way more stats on the way. There will never be a T3 economy without highly dedicated gatherers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're wrong: reaching gatherer level 14 takes the same amount of xp as reaching refiner/crafter level 14 - but you additionally need to buy way more stats on the way. There will never be a T3 economy without highly dedicated gatherers.
Actually ...
... level 14 gather and level 14 craft/refine have identical ability requirements (Ability 16) however the crafting tree gives you almost 14.595 Ability just from training the craft (a shortfall of 1.4) whereas the gather tree only gives you 12.8 (a shortfall of 3.2 ).
On the other hand getting a craft to level 14 does require 110,000 more XP than taking a gather to level 14.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it takes 3.5 months of XP to train a gathering skill to 14, and that's aside from the side training needed for attribute gains. That's part of the reason the T3 economy is not even a small concern on my radar at this point. Everything I've seen so far indicates to me that for a very long time T3 gear will be rare, overpriced vanity equipment rather than a significant strategic resource.
All of my strategic thinking assumes T2+3 as the standard top end equipment level for the forseeable future. If my enemies show up at a fight wearing T3, I'll be thinking "awesome, that's 10 sets of T2 they didn't produce."