Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

archers ammo and ranged attacks

Decius
Bob
Bundling items is a possibility if we have too many single items that have trouble selling at 1c each. Our actual hope is that prices will eventually rise enough that anything selling for 1c will be quickly purchased, if only to resell at a profit.
+0 disciple's simple charge takes 3 sepia crystal and 3 azure crystal to make 250. If raw t1 materials are 8-10 each, the math works out to about 1c cost to produce a +0 charge after giving the refiners a cut. Make the batch size 50 instead of 250 and the charges do 20 attacks instead of 1 and the cost per charge goes to 5c (enough to vary by a couple with market change), and the cost per attack drops to .25 copper, meaning a focus weapon user might possibly be able to profit from an outing.
You are a Troll
Gross
Bob
Looking a bit more carefully, it appears that aren't orisons (focus attacks) that don't use ammo, but I think that's because clerics are generally expected to carry another weapon. May need to rethink that for clerics with a bow.

Indeed, would be good if you did, or if the number of charges is made much larger. From a balance perspective I can't see why there are wizard attacks not needing materials or power and no cleric ones.

Because Cleric's are designed to use a melee weapon as well (as Bob said), with zero armor check penalty for casting while wizards are not? Though there is the whole Abadar-Crossbow dilemma. Maybe there should be a sanctified bow attack for Abadar clerics that uses no ammo?
Duffy Swiftshadow
Do we have any idea how much a quiver is able to hold?

A possible concern is that due to how PvP deaths work you can't realistically carry spare ammo in your inventory as you will inevitably lose it on some death, thus any ammo based character needs secure accessible stockpiles if the amount a quiver can hold isn't 'high' enough. Which significantly weakens dedicated ranged characters compared to melee under a bunch of different conditions. Was the intention to make primarily ranged characters weaker outside of carefully planned (mainly defensive) PvP? Or was the assumption that characters wouldn't stick to a particular combat style?

On the one hand ammo could do interesting things like curb everyone running a cleric focus, or at least reduce how much we do now. On the other hand it seems to cause all sorts of concerns with just playing a ranged character logistically that just doesn't exist for a melee character. I'm not hating on the idea of ammo but I am concerned we're missing some things to make it fun and playable. My thought is that with the coming settlement/holding access changes and the required ammo any attack on territory you don't control requires some sort of staging area, which today means Smallholdings or Base Camps. However that has some restrictions that makes it awkward to use like that. I feel like ultimately their needs to be some class of deployable structure to fill this gap that can have 'alliance' level permissions.
Flari-Merchant
Duffy Swiftshadow
Do we have any idea how much a quiver is able to hold?

A possible concern is that due to how PvP deaths work you can't realistically carry spare ammo in your inventory as you will inevitably lose it on some death, thus any ammo based character needs secure accessible stockpiles if the amount a quiver can hold isn't 'high' enough. Which significantly weakens dedicated ranged characters compared to melee under a bunch of different conditions. Was the intention to make primarily ranged characters weaker outside of carefully planned (mainly defensive) PvP? Or was the assumption that characters wouldn't stick to a particular combat style?

On the one hand ammo could do interesting things like curb everyone running a cleric focus, or at least reduce how much we do now. On the other hand it seems to cause all sorts of concerns with just playing a ranged character logistically that just doesn't exist for a melee character. I'm not hating on the idea of ammo but I am concerned we're missing some things to make it fun and playable. My thought is that with the coming settlement/holding access changes and the required ammo any attack on territory you don't control requires some sort of staging area, which today means Smallholdings or Base Camps. However that has some restrictions that makes it awkward to use like that. I feel like ultimately their needs to be some class of deployable structure to fill this gap that can have 'alliance' level permissions.
I can see that as valuable(probably needed) for attackers when attackers are assaulting a hex that is not bordered on a hex they own or is allied to them. How about a "supply camp"? A "camp" level, relatively cheap temporary structure that already gives back power but also has storage? Weren't some placeable camps supposed to have storage anyway?
Harad Navar
It would appear that the Star Slinger feat would be included in the need for ammo. Would Channel Force and Channel Smite also be included?
Knowledge can explain the darkness, but it is not a light.
Stilachio Thrax
Harad Navar
It would appear that the Star Slinger feat would be included in the need for ammo. Would Channel Force and Channel Smite also be included?

If applied to a range weapon/focus, I would say yes. Not to a melee version of the attacks, though.
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
Bob
Stilachio Thrax
Harad Navar
It would appear that the Star Slinger feat would be included in the need for ammo. Would Channel Force and Channel Smite also be included?

If applied to a range weapon/focus, I would say yes. Not to a melee version of the attacks, though.

Technically, ammo can be required on any feat for an ammo-using weapon that we want to make a little overpowered, whether it's melee or ranged. As examples, there are some melee cantrips that require ammo. We particularly like it for ranged attacks because overpowering them as a result of the ammo requirement balances out the need to underpower them due to the advantages of attacking at range.

Of course, some of the ammo requirement choices are also made for the sake of believability. We're almost always going to require an arrow for ranged bow attacks because it just makes sense. On the other hand, some kind of spiritual arrow for clerics could be believable and could bypass the need for ammo. As long as the attack is appropriately underpowered there aren't any resulting balance problems. This also works well for area-of-effect attacks, where we usually have to underpower them to balance out the fact that they damage multiple targets. With an ammo requirement, we can give them back some of their power and let them hurt each individual a bit more.

For most cantrips and orisons, it's pretty easy to believe that sometimes they use ammo and sometimes they don't. It's easy to create a believable rule that high-powered magical/divine attacks require ammo and low-powered ones don't without problematically defying our natural expectations of how things work, since after all they work "like magic," which is to say they inherently work in defiance of our natural expectations.

Star Slinger is a special problem, because starknives aren't ammo-using weapons and don't have an ammo container associated with them. As such, it would be difficult to require ammo usage without special-casing them somehow. My general take would be to say that since that feat is clerical in nature, either the thrown item is more a spiritual representation of the knife, or that Desna simply wills the starknife back into the thrower's hand after the attack completes. Channel Force and Channel Smite would be similar, since most of the weapons they can be used with don't use ammo, except for the focus version, and that one does use ammo.
Bob
Duffy Swiftshadow
Do we have any idea how much a quiver is able to hold?

A possible concern is that due to how PvP deaths work you can't realistically carry spare ammo in your inventory as you will inevitably lose it on some death, thus any ammo based character needs secure accessible stockpiles if the amount a quiver can hold isn't 'high' enough. Which significantly weakens dedicated ranged characters compared to melee under a bunch of different conditions. Was the intention to make primarily ranged characters weaker outside of carefully planned (mainly defensive) PvP? Or was the assumption that characters wouldn't stick to a particular combat style?

On the one hand ammo could do interesting things like curb everyone running a cleric focus, or at least reduce how much we do now. On the other hand it seems to cause all sorts of concerns with just playing a ranged character logistically that just doesn't exist for a melee character. I'm not hating on the idea of ammo but I am concerned we're missing some things to make it fun and playable. My thought is that with the coming settlement/holding access changes and the required ammo any attack on territory you don't control requires some sort of staging area, which today means Smallholdings or Base Camps. However that has some restrictions that makes it awkward to use like that. I feel like ultimately their needs to be some class of deployable structure to fill this gap that can have 'alliance' level permissions.

We're planning to take a closer look at exactly how quivers and such work when we get to that part, specifically because we have concerns about making sure ammo doesn't get in the way of having fun as a ranged character. It's still supposed to be a really good idea for ranged characters to have some melee and non-ammo backup available, particularly if out soloing, but we want to make sure that focusing primarily on ranged attacks is a valid and fun playstyle.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bob
It's still supposed to be a really good idea for ranged characters to have some melee and non-ammo backup available, particularly if out soloing, but we want to make sure that focusing primarily on ranged attacks is a valid and fun playstyle.

I think we can all agree as a pinch type thing, yes melee is handy to have to help disengage or finish off a weakened foe, but not as a 'now I'm in melee for the rest of this fight' choice. However, the game design strongly encourages specializing via what bonuses your Feature, Armor, and passive training choices grant. The farther you get up the difficulty tree the more problematic this specialization can become. A year old or so primary ranged character will be fine in T2/T3 PvE and PvP if they use a bow, but have such horrible melee stats (despite having Rank 6 dagger attacks) that they are barely more useful than a T1 or low T2 character. At least until they sink a bunch of XP into that other attack type and hot swap feats/armor. So if ammo 'costs' (whether literal coin/resource cost or opportunity cost) create a strong incentive to be overly conservative with ranged attacks we're vaguely implying that ranged attacks are really a power boost for characters that have already mastered melee, unless you want to be a glass cannon for the first year of your character's life.

I'm both intrigued and nervous about ammo's effect on the game. I've played many MMOs with it as a feature, most have in the end marginalized it one way or another due to balance or to remove the 'tax' it was seen as for some types of characters. None of them have really been setup quite like PFO which makes it hard to judge what could happen (plus we don't know the exact mechanics of it all yet), but I'm hesitant to be too excited about it 'fixing' ranged characters at the moment.
Maxen
Duffy Swiftshadow
A year old or so primary ranged character will be fine in T2/T3 PvE and PvP if they use a bow, but have such horrible melee stats (despite having Rank 6 dagger attacks) that they are barely more useful than a T1 or low T2 character. At least until they sink a bunch of XP into that other attack type and hot swap feats/armor. So if ammo 'costs' (whether literal coin/resource cost or opportunity cost) create a strong incentive to be overly conservative with ranged attacks we're vaguely implying that ranged attacks are really a power boost for characters that have already mastered melee, unless you want to be a glass cannon for the first year of your character's life.

This is one thing I've never understood. You give me two weapon slots, but I can only slot one weapon feat at a time as if I've 'forgotten' how to attack effectively with the other weapon. I have always enjoyed playing my 'rangers' even post-nerf. I attack from range until the monster closes and then I switch to melee, as this seems logical. I feel like I should be able to slot two weapon feats, paying the appropriate XP to level them individually, and benefit from the different attack bonuses when I switch weapons.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post