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.

EE 14

Flari-Merchant
@ Bob

In the wayback, you were considering letting ammo be universal(Tier wise) so long as it was the right type for the weapon. Has that changed in your more updated plans? Will we be able to use weapon appropriate ammo despite Tier, either up or down the spectrum?

Looking for how specific or flexible the system will be.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Bob
Bringslite-Dominion Soldier
In the wayback, you were considering letting ammo be universal(Tier wise) so long as it was the right type for the weapon. Has that changed in your more updated plans? Will we be able to use weapon appropriate ammo despite Tier, either up or down the spectrum?

You won't be able to equip a higher-tiered ammo container than your weapon, and you won't be able to store higher-tiered ammo than the container, so the ammo you use will have to be from the same tier or lower than your weapon. My current thinking is to make using ammo that roughly matches the tier/upgrade of the weapon provide damage/effects similar to melee attacks that don't require ammo, but using lesser ammo still reasonably effective.
MidknightDiamond
I'm willing to give it a try but I have to admit this is looking worse and worse - and I even still use my archer.
Aurora Silverstar, Pathfinder University Quartermaster & Explorer
Kiernan Silverstar, Aurora's lazy & good-for-nothing younger brother who just likes to blow things up.

PM MidknightDiamond on Paizo Forum
Flari-Merchant
I was a lil worked up about the stuff from the last Update, but it seemed to add to play more than harm things. The economy is already whacked so bad I doubt that the extra materials flooding it will harm anything, as an example.

I'm with MidKnightDiamond and will give things a try. We are all leery of change because there has been so little for so long. At the same time, we want change but we mostly have different opinions about what and where and when.

Hang in there Guys! This is just the Beginning. smile
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Giorgio
MidknightDiamond
I'm willing to give it a try but I have to admit this is looking worse and worse - and I even still use my archer.

Midknight,

What changes/recommendations would you make in order to make archery more attractive/competitive/useful?

First Elder Durin Steelforge; Leader of Forgeholm; Founder of Steelforge Engineering Company

PM Giorgo on Paizo Forums
PM Admin George on Commonwealth of the Free Highlands
MidknightDiamond
Giorgio
MidknightDiamond
I'm willing to give it a try but I have to admit this is looking worse and worse - and I even still use my archer.

Midknight,

What changes/recommendations would you make in order to make archery more attractive/competitive/useful?

So… as I'm reading it… with the introduction of ammunition archers will have their damage returned to where it was before. Okay, good. However, we will have to have ammunition for every shot and as it'd been said, if you're using near Tier ammo then your attacks will be on par with melee attacks. So… while being at range is a definite benefit, archers, clerics, and wizards will now have to forever spend resources just to be "As Good" as melee. It's a tax to be ranged, and a high one. I'm not really in favor of that. I will see how things play out and the only way to see if the ranged/magic tax is worth it is to play it and experience it, but on the whole it just doesn't sound viable. We're talking about four classes here having to do this JUST to be AS GOOD as melee… that just doesn't sound very exciting or balanced on paper. I hope it works out better in practice.

Edit: I realize this doesn't fully answer your questions but the real answer is that I don't yet have any suggestions and cannot reasonably provide them until I've tried and tested it to see how it really plays out. I may be worrying over nothing. I may not be worrying enough.
Aurora Silverstar, Pathfinder University Quartermaster & Explorer
Kiernan Silverstar, Aurora's lazy & good-for-nothing younger brother who just likes to blow things up.

PM MidknightDiamond on Paizo Forum
Bob
The goal is that paying the ammo "tax" makes you a bit better than melee, in that you're doing roughly the same amount of damage, but at greater range. You can also largely avoid paying the tax by making judicious use of the low-quality ammunition that mobs will drop, but then you pay for your range advantage with a corresponding drop in damage.
MidknightDiamond
Bob
The goal is that paying the ammo "tax" makes you a bit better than melee, in that you're doing roughly the same amount of damage, but at greater range. You can also largely avoid paying the tax by making judicious use of the low-quality ammunition that mobs will drop, but then you pay for your range advantage with a corresponding drop in damage.

Given that melee only has to pay (via mats and creation or gold for someone else to do it) once for their weapon… and ranged would have to pay with every single hit… the singular advantage of range is really not that much. As I've said, I'll try it, but it really seems like more of a penalty (ammo, the container, and the added weight) than an advantage at this point. We shall see how it plays out.

Edit: I'll be interested to see the spreadsheet warriors come up with the actual cost of doing an escalation with ammo once it's in for those classes. Not to mention that many Cleric and Wizard cantrips and orisons have a range of "melee" so they'll be paying a "tax" to do what they're already doing with seemingly no increase in damage and no benefit of doing it from a distance away - thus definitely a penalty for them. Although I will admit that Devourer's Caress really does just need ammo, it's already pretty ridiculous.
Aurora Silverstar, Pathfinder University Quartermaster & Explorer
Kiernan Silverstar, Aurora's lazy & good-for-nothing younger brother who just likes to blow things up.

PM MidknightDiamond on Paizo Forum
Auriga
Wait…What?

Okay, so let me see if I get this right. Not only will I have to worry about Ammo which will cause further encumbrance to me, but I will have to juggle that with Mana for spell casting? So a double hit to use my spells and a double limiter? The Ammo which I will have to have made and the mana which I will have to continually rest to recharge?

I can understand it if I was to say take a hit to my effectiveness if I used some spells such as Earthquake and some of the other high ones may require components, but in effect I am penalized for even healing as a cleric because of this idea.

Bob, I love you guys but this seems a big hit to anyone other than a Melee fighter and a REALLY big hit to spell casters.
Bob
Since ammo will add to the damage an attack does, using ammo for melee-range cantrips and orisons will actually boost the damage those attacks do from what they're doing now. The ammo portion of the balancing equations is separate from range or any other advantages/disadvantages, so all ammo-using attacks will be affected pretty similarly, regardless of range.

Enforcing the ammo requirement for Devourer's Caress will likely help limit the ability to just keep firing it off repeatedly, particularly with the occasional need to reload, but the added damage based on ammo quality will probably make up for that. I'm not 100% certain yet exactly how imbalanced that specific attack is, or if it's perhaps more that it's just getting used particularly well, but I've got it on the list to take a closer look at when I can. The deeper question with it is whether our balance formulas aren't giving proper weight to some of its effects, or possibly even if there's something about the magnitude of its effects or the particular combination of effects that make the balance formulas just plain not apply properly.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post