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

Bob
NightmareSr
would the company vault be accessible if the new owners of the settlement blacklisted the old owners or something similar? Just wondering if someone came back after a long absence if it is possible they might be cutoff from their stuff.

Yes, the company and personal vaults in the settlement are all still accessible, but you'd be reduced to Withdrawal Only access. In addition, any crafting projects and auction offers/bids will still finish up in the background and get delivered to the appropriate vaults. Of course, that doesn't mean the new owners are going to make it easy for you to get to the bank, but you can probably sneak in and get your stuff. Or show up in force to steal back your stuff.
Bob
Made a quick edit to the Settlement Warfare rules in the section on abandoning settlements to clarify that the "settlement vaults" that will be emptied and moved to the founding company's vaults are specifically the Settlement and Settlement Upkeep vaults. All other vaults will be left intact.

Also added a note to the original post saying that updates are now being handled on the Settlement Warfare page.
Bob
Cauchemar
This is very interesting, but I am curious if the trainer and building changes will be decided and announced before the combat alchemist is ready for testing on zog, or if it will be a later decision with some temporary add when the alchemist is first launched?
Mainly I am waiting to build/place any combat buildings in Cauchemar until the new Alchemist changes are decided.

Any structures needed for the combat alchemists probably won't be ready before they launch, but shouldn't take too long to put together afterward. We'll try to at least make a decision on which new structures will be created soon, but it's a complicated choice, and will likely require a bit more research and thought. Waiting is a good plan for now, and we'll try to keep the wait short.
Bob
NightmareSr
"all in tab" or "all in window" for the sub-tabs would be wonderful also, then we could finally grab all recipes, or all melee weapons with one click.

Yeah, "all in tab" probably wasn't the right term for me to use, the idea was more that everything in the currently displayed list would be taken and everything else would be left behind. Maybe "Take All Listed" would be more appropriate.
Bob
Edam
Currently you can forgo just the AH, Dreadnought and fighter and still cover all crafting, all refining, all wizard, all rogue, all cleric and all freehold with just one settlement (or pickup the dread and fighter and lose the cleric training).

Yeah, I think we can safely add a few new structures and force some more difficult choices.
Bob
NightmareSr
I didn't think about the other future roles at all. That makes more sense then, but does leave a hard decision for where to but the crazy alchemist. So sorcerers and bards for university, but are there already plans for the other roles/classes to go to current large buildings, whenever they get added to the game?

Nothing's locked down, and some roles may shift around a bit due to second edition, but here's some of the thoughts from when the structures were initially designed:

  • Barracks: Fighter, Aristocrat, Ranger
  • Cathedral: Cleric, Paladin
  • Guild House: Expert, Freeholder, Rogue
  • Training Field: Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger
  • University: Wizard, Bard, Sorcerer

NightmareSr
I like standards and matching things so only crafting/refining in the smalls, 2 crafts in mediums with then the combats all being multiples in the larges and single combat trainer in the mediums would mean the new combat Alchemist should be added to a large building and have a single trainer medium.

Standards do make things easier to understand. In general it's true that each role gets one dedicated medium, but there's also at least one medium covering their favored weapons, and the alchemists's tools feel different enough from other weapons that it feels like it deserves a new medium as well.

NightmareSr
Is the new combat alchemist getting just one trainer like the rogue, 2 trainers like current clerics, or 3 trainers like the wizard and fighter?

I'm thinking just one trainer for the non-attack alchemist feats and 1 trainer for the attack (alchemist's tools) feats.

NightmareSr
If the new Alchemist has any required proficiency that has to be trained from existing trainers then the new trainer should really be added to a large building that has that trainer. Otherwise maybe it needs a new large building that is like the guild but has the combat alchemist instead of rogue with expert, freeholder and then have the crafting alchemist or whatever else fits/needed instead of the skirmisher.

Alchemists have their own proficiencies that should be on their own trainer.
Bob
Azure_Zero
I'd like it if the Library actually functioned like a Library and could store all those papers we find.

Agreed, but that's probably a ways down the line.
Bob
Edam
I personally do not think mixing craft and combat buildings willy nilly is a good plan.

They are currently separated and settlement owners must make a meaningful choice, where having all refining and crafting means less combat training. "I want it all and want it now" people are guaranteed to be disappointed smile

That, I believe, is a good thing.

Simplicity is certainly a good thing, but interesting exceptions can work too. The really important thing would be that any crafting added to a building should reduce the amount of combat at that building by a comparable amount. If typical large buildings each covered 2 combat roles, then a large building that covered 1 combat role and 1-2 crafting roles would still force choices in what's covered and what's not.
Bob
Bob
Any settlement can be forced to shut down by destroying enough of their holdings to knock their DI down below the minimum requirement.

I rechecked my math and realized there's an exception to this. A settlement could potentially keep meeting its DI needs through infrastructure buildings alone if it had just a keep and maybe a couple other structures. We may want to change the DI generation rules to say something like "On any day the settlement has no holdings, no DI is generated, not even from Infrastructure."

For the moment, I don't think this is a huge issue, as I doubt many settlements have a ton of infrastructure and few other structures. Most settlements would have to tear down some structures to make this work, which doesn't seem like a great tradeoff.
Bob
Edam
Currently you can go to a tab and just keep clicking till its all in inventory (some people even use autoclickers) and then trade or deposit it where it needs to go, if it brought up a quantity window with every double click it would make moving entire tabs around very tricky. I suppose an autoclicker set to click slow enough to never double click would still work.

Good point. We might want to implement another long-requested feature, Deposit/Transfer All In Tab, before making a change like this.