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.

Pathfinder Online will be ending operations on November 28, 2021. For more details please visit our FAQ.

All posts created by Bob

EPow/EPro's job is really just to to make the secondary effects on an attack have roughly the same progression ramp as damage does. Where it doesn't quite pull that job off, we'll certainly look at making adjustments to that. For Beneficial attacks, that largely means ignoring EPro for much the same reasons that Beneficial attacks don't generally get affected by resistances and don't check for partial success or crits. For non-Beneficial attacks, that will eventually mean changes that make it look more specifically at the the nature of the attack and defenses involved, rather than just using generalized levels of power and protection, to better match the way damage types and resistances affect the damage progression.

For issues that are more about the way the progression ramp looks, particularly as characters jump from T2 to T3, we'd want to look at the progression ramp overall, for damage, resistance, effects and everything, then adjust EPow/EPro in line with changes to the rest of the system.
Bringslite of Staalgard
How difficult would it be to code in a feature that crafters could use to swap out a keyword or two of choice into items? Not exceeding total keywords allowed, just to customize a bit.

That would be reasonably tricky from a coding perspective, and I'm also pretty sure that we partially use the limited keyword combinations to prevent multi-classing from having too many advantages, so there'd have to be a lot of design research to know what we could allow and what we could. Probably safer to think in terms of adding more item variants that just have slightly different recipes, with each added keyword combination checked for balance. That doesn't involve any code work, though it would still require a fair amount of design work depending on how many variants were created.
Wolf of Rathglen
Question 1- As for the intended proportions of where we gather from, are EE13 gushers (or their progeny soon after) intended to replace serial node harvesting as the majority source for raw materials? (So in the age of gushers serial node harvesting yields noticeably less than it does today).

We're not currently planning on changing the standard gathering rates anytime soon, but we'll see what happens once gushers are active. What's important is that gushers produce significantly more resources over the same amount of time compared to standard gathering, and are easier on a hex's total resources, at least assuming you manage to extract the full value of the gusher.

Wolf of Rathglen
Question 2- What does the gusher look at on a character for variables? Rank 7 and 14 for T2 and T3 materials I'm sure, does 200 total skill get a noticeably higher or faster T3 yield from placing the harvesting kit than 150 skill

Your total skill primarily effects the chances that any given node you try to gather from reveals a gusher. It doesn't currently affect the rate the gusher delivers materials, but it is supposed to do so once we create an ability to sign into a harvesting kit to contribute to its Effort, just as we intend to do something similar for Outposts. For now, Effort is based on the quality of the kit and its upgrade.

Your rank affects what materials you can find at gushers, just as expected.
With regard to focus based minor cures and channel positive I am not sure how that will work as the feat is levelled up. If your focus minor cure has fixed hitpoints heals that do not increase with level and there is no longer any epro/epow to reduce your effect per level why not just run around with a T1 focus and level 1 minor cure ? Same issue with channel positive why level it up and equip gear for keywords if level 1 channel with no gear does the same job for you.

Effect Power would still be taken into consideration, just not Effect Protection, so you'd still want to rank up and match keywords as much as possible.
Additional armors were definitely planned for the later roles like Bard, and some of those would have filled in these kinds of gaps. I've filed a bug to take a closer look and consider either adding some of those armors in advance by reusing existing art assets or to possibly change the rank 14 keyword to something more useful if it's clearly the result of an oversight rather than something intended to be useful to a future role.

For bards, the light armor arcane casting ability is pretty unlikely to arrive without a pretty thorough consideration of exactly how to implement bards, and that's not likely to happen until we're feeling ready to introduce them in some form.
Bringslite of Staalgard
Why are "beneficials" an attack roll vs armor anyway?

With the original armor feats, this actually helped balance things a bit because increasing armor gave far more resistance bonuses that hit point bonuses. As a result, high-level characters didn't actually have all that many hit points and flat heals would give them back ridiculous percentages of their hit points. It looked a little weird, but heals would still cure high-level characters roughly in proportion to the amount of damage those characters were taking, which was very small due to the resistances.

When armor feats switched to giving lots of hit points, that pretty well broke the intended effectiveness of point-based heals, though percentage-based heals shouldn't have been harmed as much. That's a large part of why we decided to ignore effect protection for Beneficials, though again, that change would require some rebalancing and perhaps eventually some specific coded features to give us a little more flexibility on how secondary effects ramp up.
Lisa Stevens
Duffy Swiftshadow
I think it's a far bigger problem and way more confusing that beneficial effects get weaker for better geared characters

I will let Bob chime in tomorrow, but we have talked about this and he is planning on changing the way that beneficials get less effective as you go up in tiers of gear.

Stephen had long intended to ignore Effect Protection on beneficial effects (while still incorporating Effect Power), and it's one of the feature requests in our database that we've been intending to get to as part of the polish phase because beneficial feats just don't feel right when their power drops off so dramatically, to the point that they kind of feel unfinished. Making that change will require revisiting the beneficial feats to rebalance any that become too powerful, and the percentage-base cures are one of the most likely ones to need rebalancing. My temptation there is to give those a base-line heal with a smaller-percentage cure. That way they'd still ramp up as the target's hit points ramp up, just not as quickly.

There are lots of other tweaks to the EPow/EPro system written up in various design docs and feature requests, and it's certainly a part of the system we'll revisit regularly. For the most part, it's just intended to mirror the way that damage increases as the attacker's attack abilities rise (call it Damage Power) and decreases as the target's resistances rise (call it Damage Protection), but it has to work for a much more complicated set of secondary effects (e.g. stacks, durations, states). It's a very generalized system right now, which clearly causes some problems in the short-run, but it's intended to steadily gain features that make it work more appropriately for specific effects and specific defenses.
Would it be easy to have mobs also hate mules? If it's easy to unload the harvester and load a mule right next to it,
then there's an easy workaround to an important part of the system. Also I bet it would make transportation slightly more interesting.

Mules are tricky right now because they don't really die, they just sit down. Getting them properly involved in combat would mean making a lot of exceptions for them. That said, I believe they will take AoE damage from the mobs, and of course they'll disconnect from any owners who die, so that would add a bit to the mule management during combat.

But yes, your basic strategy during a gusher would be to transfer everything from the harvesting kit to your mule between mob waves. Then even if you lose the harvesting kit and die from the last wave, you can return, kill the remaining mobs and reclaim your mule, assuming nobody else has done so. It gets around losing all of the raw material as a result of the harvesting kit's destruction, but the most important consequence there is that the harvesting kit stops operating. If we wanted to guarantee a full loss from destruction, we just wouldn't let you take anything out until the harvesting kit is finished. The intention was always that people would be taking stuff out along the way, and putting it on a mule is a valid option, though perhaps someday will let the mobs try to claim the mule and drag it away.
That aspect of guard behavior didn't change for EE 12. When you're in a settlement, guards won't attack members of that settlement just for being low rep or aggressors against other players, but they don't make any special allowances for members of allied settlements. Ideally we'd do something similar to the Settlement Access settings that let settlement leaders decide which rules the guards enforced and which groups were exempted from each kind of enforcement, essentially adding a system for creating laws. Definitely something we'd like to do, but outside the scope of what we were shooting for on EE 12. I've thrown a feature request into our database to look into it when we have a chance. If it turned into a really big issue for a lot of people, we might be able to do a short-term fix of just automatically giving allies the same exemption as settlement members, but that would make alliances a lot more risky if you don't absolutely trust your allies.
We just learned about a bug affecting what we hope is a small number of holdings and their bonus resources. You're supposed to get the bonus output as long as at least one of your outposts is producing any matching resources, but it turns out that we're actually checking to see if at least one outpost is producing at least as much of that resource as the bonus would provide. If neither outpost produces that much on its own, then no bonus resources will be produced.

We're working on a server-side fix for this and hope to roll it out next week.