|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I have had the same experience on the boards. Thankfully few people I have actually played with in person have had that extreme of an attitude.
However, I wouldn't suggest giving up on the game because of that (assuming you like it otherwise). Just try to ignore the jerks online.
It seemed to be a pretty good way to build or find a gaming group. It has worked for me a couple of times anyway.
Too simplistic. You are conflating % added to the die roll with chance to hit.
Say with a 16 you must roll a 16 to hit. That is 5 chances out of 20 to hit. With a 20 you only need a 14 to hit. This 7 chances out of 20 to hit. That is a 20% increase in chance to hit. I consider that significant.
For the same AC opponent your second example (with the 10 ability score) would need 18 to hit. That is only 3 chances out of 20 to hit. The 20 ability score is now a 133% increase in chance to hit. That is huge.
Edit: I hope that did not come out as sounding condescending. That was not my intention. I was just trying to explain the probabilities in simple terms since few schools teach much probability theory any more.
But it is more than that. With a high point buy you don't have just 1 good ability. They all are. So everyone almost always succeeds at everything. They make nearly all the saves. They are rarely hit and if they are, they survive it over and over. Everyone makes the perception check. Everyone makes the climb check. Everyone makes the ride check. Etc...
Yes, I know that is an exaggeration. But that's what it can feel like. I have been in campaigns where the only noteworthy memorable events were when someone actually failed at something even if it was minor. "Holy carp Gunder missed twice in a row!" "I can't believe Rance failed a will save!"
The GM adjusts everything. The NPC's also have 25 point buy. The creatures all have the advanced template (or better). The poisons are more difficult to resist, the traps are more fiendish, the shop keeper has a higher sense motive and appraise to detect that you are scamming him, the regent has a higher bluff to out lie your truth, etc... Ok, that works. But it is a lot of work for the GM. And it puts you [I]right where you were before all the changes![I] Why not just use a low point buy and keep everything where it was to begin with?
I will also mention that almost all the people urging me to take quicken spell always mention it in relation to attack spells. Which almost none of the above suggestions are for attacks.
Now that it has been brought up, I can clearly see the use for the buffs and get away spells. Some of the first and second level buffs ARE useful at all levels.
It is very difficult to get a sorc AC up to a useful point. I prefer miss chance or other defensive options. Mirror Image, invisibility, flight, dimension door, displacement, protection from X, stone skin, ablative armor, false life, etc...
My 11th level sorc usually runs around with his AC only at 15. Yet he is still rarely hit.
This probably my most complicated build, and is actually for PFS PbP where a lot of the complicated builds don't work out.
Often in PFS we don't have either a face pc or a scout pc. Summoners in PFS are often considered OP and not appreciated at the table. This one gives up most of his feats for a familiar and his Eidolon doesn't fight. (I don't think many people could legitimately call him OP.)
If the table doesn't have a scout, I bring the demon and behave moderately nasty. When my demon scouts out a fight coming up, I dismiss the Eidolon, summon a fiendish monster, and wade in with my earthbreaker.
If the table doesn't have a face pc, I bring the angel and behave like a dumb nice guy. The angel will try to talk us past fights. When that fails, I summon a celestial monster and wade in with my earthbreaker.
1/2E Sorc, HP:68 of 74, AC:15, Touch:15, Flat Footed:14, with mage armor 12hrs F:+11, R:+10, W:+15, Init:+1, Perc:+18
Ok, I always like to 'poll the table' before I try some types of tactics.
Also feel free to call out in character if you want a certain type of creature or buff from me. Lavode is really ok with suggestions. (Some of my other PC's don't take so kindly to others telling them what to do.)
I think I was addressing most of those points.
I really doubt your wizard is 'sub-optimal' to the point of not being able to contribute. It sounds like you are trying to do the wrong things with him and that is why he feels sub-optimal.
Totally different possibility, some people just don't like playing wizards. I happen to be one of them. I really dislike the prepared book caster. You will never get a wizard to play like a druid or barbarian, if that is what you really like playing.
Martial builds shine the most in levels 1-6. Especially if they are really optimized for just one thing and one type of combat. At higher levels some of the wierd environments and odd capabilities of the opponents start giving them troubles. Those are often things that a martial character will always find difficult if not impossible to deal with, but may be quite easy for a versatile caster.
Most (but not all) PFS scenarios are relatively easy combat wise. In an area with a larger pool of players you never know what 4-6 players will be sitting at the table. So they are designed to be possible with pretty lopsided groups. I've been at table with no skills, no face, no casters, or no melee characters. We still usually managed to get a win.
There are some that are extremely difficult even for a highly optimized and experienced group.
I don't know, maybe they are deliberately picking the scenarios that are combat heavy. There are some that are extremely social and/or skill heavy. There are some combat scenarios that a bunch of melee martials would find difficult in the extreme. Maybe read through some of the reviews (skipping the spoilers) and suggest/request some of the scenarios that have more skill, social, or otherwise non-standard challenges.
Most of this has already been said, but I will reiterate and clarify a few.
1) Wizard is tough at low levels. You are just getting to the point where it really begins to shine. At 1st and 2nd level the infinite ray of frost is almost as good as anything else for mooks. And you can still have a few decent spells for the bosses. As the levels start to go up, you will rapidly get much more powerful.
2) The range touch build can be pretty decent. There are some nice debuff spells that are range touch. Might consider reach spell to make some touch into range touch. Some that don't have any save.
3) Unless you really build for it, it is really tough for a wizard to out damage (or even come close) to the damage of a martial class. It isn't impossible, but it is difficult. So don't try. I wouldn't bother with the fireball unless you have some reason to expect a large number of mooks that you will be able to hit at once.
4) Most of my caster combat spells are buff spells to make my allies fight better or debuff spells to make the enemy fight worse. Then I add a few SoS and damage spells into the mix.
5) Very often, the wizard is most able contribute by the non-combat spells. Especially as a wizard, you can leave a few spell slots open for the 'oh crap how do we get over there' moments. Detect secret doors, fly, dimension door, summon monster (that you can speak with) for special tasks, seek thoughts, spider climb, and things like that have literally changed a mission fail into an easy success.
6) Do NOT discount the value of the monster knowledge skills. Being able to tell that it has hardness 20/adamantine, is immune to mind effects, or has a horrible fort save can be incredibly valuable. Especially in the higher level scenarios with some of the really wierd opponents.
7) There are some scenarios (I couldn't even begin to guess the ratio) where being able to fight well is relatively unimportant. There are ones where you can't easily walk around with visible armor and weapons. What will those guys do in those situations?
8) Some of the high level scenarios I've played in recently, the martials had a really hard time even getting close to the bad guys to swing weapons. A flying, dimensional step, invisible caster was completely murderizing the party. My caster actually died, but he was also critical to the success.
Sometimes I get more than just a bit irritated with all the players that absolutely refuse to contribute if it isn't their specialty.
It's immune to sneak attack, so I just hide...
I didn't have any room for the feats, so I don't have a ranged weapon...
I got a boon for an Ifrit, so I only take fire spells...
mutters under breath for a few more minutes
Those daggers can still do some damage or maybe you could at least aid someone else.
With your 26 str, you could probably carry a few javelins or at least a free sling. I agree it won't be huge damage, but better than 'I ready my sword for an attack in case something happens to come within range' (for the entire fight). Heck pick up a rock and throw it. If you really are stuck on your 'melee' concept, maybe - just maybe, you should buy a few potions of fly so you can get to melee range. At 7th level, I think you can afford it.
Yes your Ifrit has a theme and doesn't want any ice spells, I get it. How about a haste or communal pro evil?
Matt Lewis wrote:
I've always been amazed at the number of melee PC's who refuse to get any sort of ranged option since it isn't their specialty.
Some of all 4 reasons in my opinion.
Book 1 of CC was intentionally fairly poor loot wise.
Most of my PFS characters are quickly accumulating more prestige than they have any real use for.
Since 2 prestige will buy a wand with a level 1 spell, I think I'm going to start buying lots of wands. My reasoning is:
1) Even if I can't use them, there should be someone in the group who can active some of them. Most of my characters have UMD anyway.
So, I would like you folks to help me with a list.
The ones that immediately come to mind are things like:
What would you add to the list as possibly worth while?
Sorry sorry, typo. That is only 4.1k gps.
I'm not to worried about the weapon bonus. Arcane pool is almost always giving him another +2 to the weapon.
His AC is lousy, but he usually is at 15' reach and trips/disarms anything close.
Don't have the mage armor trick, so been considering a wand of mage armor and/or shield.
Forgot about the jingasa, thanks for the reminder
A couple of us were talking about trying to do something at least kinda unexpected. He almost always plays wierd things. A suli fire elementalist druid multi-classed with monk and crossblooded sorc. Things like that.
So he's thinking of making a single class human fighter (which most say is the most boring class) just to shock the group. Then spice it up with wierd powers and abilities as much as possible.
This might just be a thought experiment, but one of us also might actually try to run it and see how it goes.
So what were thinking is use the regular feats for some wierdness and the even the combat feats to be as wierd as we can make it. It still has to be at least decently effective, but not optimal. The group doesn't really optimize that much, but he won't want to be an anchor for the group.
So what are the wierdest powers we can get into a fighter?
Skill Focus and the Eldritch Heritage line - Some of the bloodlines like undead and storm give some pretty wierd powers that you wouldn't expect from a fighter.
Iron Will and the Familiar feat from the Familiar Folio - That book's options can give you a great scout, diplomat, or even flank combat buddy. Can you still take Improved Familiar without caster levels?
Seems like there were even some feats to give an animal companion, but now I can't find it. Am I mistaken?
For combat feats, the only fighting style that seems to never be used is throwing weapons. But I'm not sure that can be made even halfway decent. So I was thinking going for some of the really rarely seen weapons like scizore, terbutje, mancatcher, tepoztipilli, or urumi.
What do you folks think? Any other ideas for us?
I actually like Joe Holmes post more than I thought I would when I started reading it.
Yes if you 'puzzle' is a complex situation that might have several potential solutions, it would be more likely to be accepted. I can remember one where solving the puzzle was the safest way to pass the room, but certainly not the only way. You could just run through. Fight your way through the golems. You could try to figure out a way to drag the statues out of the room so they didn't animate into golems. Etc...
I will disagree with Orfamay a little bit. People that like the puzzle infused adventures are not, in my experience, vanishingly rare. Though I would say they are definitely in the minority.
As I said before. I agree that some players really are jack-holes trying to disrupt the game. But I think (in my experience) more often it has just been players that just don't know any better. They really think they are supposed to play that way with those alignments..
Lately I have been putting the following 2 statements in my campaign intro.
My current gear list for my level 11 sorc is as follows:
oil of daylight
From the player perspective:I would think most of it is because the player is NOT like that and actually has a hard time imagining what that would be like. Since he can't envision it, he falls back on some extreme stereotype as "that must be what it is."
From the GM side:
I personally try not to ban things from my games, but I can certainly understand the temptation. And I certainly have done it with some groups that just plain can't seem to handle it.
Uhmm. No that isn't an oxymoron. Yes, something can have a flaw from my point of view and not from another's.There are certain things I would look for in a RPG game. In engineering/design terms that would probably be called the system requirements. If it doesn't meet all those system requirements, then it is flawed with respect to me and my requirements.
A different person will most likely have a different list of things he looks for in a game. A different set of system requirements. If it meets all of his requirements, it is not flawed with respect to him and his requirements.
But that's really kinda beside the point. I don't think it is possible to make any system that is absolutely perfect with respect to anyone. Every system has flaws, it is a matter of which set of flaws bother you the least in conjunction with which set of positive features are you most satisfied.
For the most part, I am rather well satisfied with PF and with the way it is played by the majority of people that I have met. Doesn't mean I think it is perfect.
I don't have a problem with 'fantastical' things EXCEPT when it is so bizarre it interrupts my suspension of disbelief.
If you insist that something is non-magical, yet it is clearly not possible... Well let's just say that it is jarring to my OCD Engineering Mind.
There was some build a while back that had a gunslinger firing-reloading-firing 10 shots (I think) round after round. With no magic involved. Ok, that jumps out at me.
I once was in a group that all jumped off a cliff (several hundred foot high). One was in in full plate armor. They reasoned that the falling damage and resources expended would be less than what they would need to get down the possibly trapped/guarded path. Plus they were in a hurry to accomplish more that session. No magic involved.
Yes, I know there are people that are not bothered by that kind of thing. Their suspension of disbelief is nearly infinite. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or is logically inconsistent.
I've also seen a few. It was me once. (A particular specialized build just didn't work as well as I expected.)
An incidentally unoptimized character or two in the group doesn't bother me all that much. If it contributes halfway decently both in and out of combat, that is enough for me.
However, it annoys me just as much when someone intentionally and knowingly optimizes for combat to a significantly greater extent than the rest of the group. If the GM tries to challenge that PC, Everyone else is unlikely to survive.
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
You ever played a team sport with a much better athelete who didn't really try and just putzed around, just waiting for you to be losing so he could 'save the day' and be the only hero? Did you enjoy that game? Most people don't. It is insulting and belittling.
But a powerful character that does work hard, puts extreme effort into helping the others, and that helps make it a team victory? That is greatly appreciated.
Only if you are going to go the other way also.
The inquisitor healed the necromancer. The 3 survivors head back and report to the VC.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Part of this was possibly a mentality state at many union shops held by many union stewards. No one at any level in any job was supposed to do anything better than the worst person in a similar position. In fact if you could keep your job and perform worse, that was what you were supposed to do so everyone could get away with doing less.
Teamsters and UAW were particularly vehement on this. I was threatened with physical violence and ultimately lost my job because I actually did the job the way I was told by the folks that hired me. Turned out 25 pieces an hour was easily doable by anyone walking in off the street with zero experience, even though the union had been claiming 18 an hour was the best possible my experienced workers.
Luckily, I don't think many unions have that much power in recent years.
No, I am not an anti-union crusader. Unions (or at least the realistic threat of unions) are very much necessary. If they didn't exist, management very clearly would revert right back to the abusive bad old days of doing whatever they could get away with.
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
Exactly! They saw those precise pregens and were instantly set on running them. Even wanting to build their first actual character that way. But they just didn't understand the rules for those choices.
And this way of thinking (disagreement=oppression) seems to be becoming more prevalent. Its troubling, to say the least.
In my opinion, at least some of that is the way it is handled. Especially on the internet.
In person I can have a discussion, even a heated discussion, on a topic such as E vs C and can expect it to be civilized and at least semi-rational.
On the internet, I can almost guarantee it won't be civilized and won't be rational (by either side). It will be full of viscous personal attacks as well as multiple people jumping in with walls of text to try and drown out anyone that disagrees with them. (I've seen at least a few cases on these boards where someone was posting with multiple aliases just to make it look like it was a bunch of people.)
While agree that it is not, at times, that can certainly feel like oppression to some.
So now, even if I have a well thought out, reasonable, and supported decision; I won't get involved because it won't make any difference and I will at best be ignored. But most likely I will be vilified for disagreeing with some 'obviously' perfect point of view.
Speaking of betrayal - I will also mention. One time as GM over the course of a couple weeks I gave every single PC a secret contact that was trying to bribe them to sell-out, betray, or swindle the party. I tried real hard to make the offer good enough and the action not too horribly awful, so that it would be very tempting. To the point I wasn't really sure which way the player/PC would choose.
I was surprised that not one single PC accepted the offer. But what I thought was really hilarious, none of them flat refused either and none of them told any of the others about it, because they didn't want it known in case they changed their mind (even the LG cleric).
They were trying to keep the option open incase they changed their mind or the situation changed and they needed it. They were all astonished at the end of the campaign when they started talking about it found they had all been approached and none of them told any of the others.
I've heard that sorcerers are better casters than wizards, but from what I've seen it's almost the opposite in every way possible. ... Is there any reason to pick sorcerer over wizard? ...
It is very group, campaign, and GM dependant.
In my previous gaming group we had who almost never let me find out very much of what was going to be happening or who I would be fighting. The group never wanted to wait around while I filled an empty slot. Even if I talked them into waiting, the GM would rarely give enough uninterrupted time to do so. The campaign was a constant race against time so very nearly zero time to craft any magic items (I was only able to make a few low level scrolls over several levels). The group would get irritated when I was using game time to change my daily list of spells.
The group before that was almost exactly the opposite in all respects. Detailed info was fairly easy to come by, the group had no problem taking time for preparation and detailed plans, and the campaign had plenty of down time for whatever we needed/wanted to do getting ready. So the prepared caster was almost always able to be ready with the very nearly perfect spell for each situation to really significant effect. Could make whatever magic items we wanted.
Most groups (including my current one) are somewhere in between. Both are effective. Both have strengths and weaknesses. I think it is actually best to have one of each in a group. A prepared caster to try and have the perfect spell when you know what to expect AND spontaneous caster that can spam pretty good spells like crazy when the smelly-stuff-hits-the-rotary-impeller! So maybe a druid and sorc or a wizard and oracle.
Then of course you get into all the issues of the spell book caster. Which spells do I have in my spell book? Which spells should I pay to get added to my spell book? How many / which ones of my spell books is my 5 str wizard trying to carry around? How many slots do I leave open today? I need to read/learn/ready about 6 times as many spells. Etc… Many players simply hate trying to deal with all that crap.
Additionally there are some (like me) that are just bugged by the whole Vancian prepared caster concept. I just have a hard time getting it to make sense in my head. The spontaneous caster (or even more so the arcanist) makes more sense and 'fits' with what I think a caster should be like.
Really, it is almost impossible with the PF rule set and the way most players behave (some degree of murderhobo-ish-ness). There’s only a few ways I’ve seen it work even slightly.
The other group is (also) working for a noble. There will be lots of problems if the party just kills them with any witnesses about. This also means the GM can’t have the opposition group go all out or the PC’s will think they have no choice but to kill them, regardless of consequences. Think Three Musketeers and the other groups working for the Cardinal.
Opposition group is very cowardly/careful about how they do things. They fire a few spells and poisoned arrows from the top of the hill then duck down. By the time the PC’s get there they have mounted their horses (with expeditious retreat) and are already racing to the horizon. Or the outfit and buff some brigands that they have do most of the attacking and dying. The of course run away long before they can get trapped.
I tend to vary wildly.
Every once in a while everything just sort of comes together for me. Concept, mechanics, backstory, gear, plans, etc... Everything comes into may head about as fast as I can make the herolab selections and type. In those cases about 20 minutes. But that isn't my norm.
Usually, I take days to weeks. In odd moments I think about various concepts/roles. The different ways I can fulfill those. Then I start making a really rough concept. Check a guide or two. Make some changes. Post a half-ashed concept for critique. Refine it further with the feedback I get. Then spend a couple more days making minor tweeks and changes to get it 'just' right.
However, I do the above for way more character concepts than I have any opportunity to run. And I save most of them. So usually when someone wants me to make a new character I usually have something pretty close already built. So it seems like I come up with this really complex and fully developed character quite quickly.
Having said that, if a GM wants a character for a one shot and any of my 'stable' ideas don't fit, I can almost always come up with something in as quickly as 10 minutes. But it wouldn't be as 'rich and varied' of a concept as I usually like for something long running.
Since it is on these forums I will try to keep my examples within the realm of gaming, but it bugs me all the time.
B) Players are upset the campaign is a linear series of combats, yet they ignore every potential side trek and don't bother with anything except charging to the next fight.
C) Player is upset that his PC's constantly fails will saves, his builds always dump wisdom, 2-3 classes with poor will saves, and never spends the money for anything to protect his mind.
D) Player/GM says combat takes too long, however never has anything ready and every time have to wait on their turn while they figure out what to do.
Grr!!! If you don't like it, stop doing it!
Sorry, had to get that off my chest before I said something inappropriate to several in-duh-viduals I interact with on a regular basis.
I'm sure you have more examples you can give.
Ever had the contingency spell end up being a really bad choice? A friend and I were talking about some old games. The subject came up from some things that had happened to one of my characters.
Long time ago I had a character that was mostly just very hard to kill tank. Throughout most of his adventuring campaign he was rarely all that close to dead even when many the other were unconscious. At some point we found one of the old staves that would explode on breaking, but we didn't have anyone that could use it. At some later point someone offered to cast a few high level spells for each of us as a reward. I got a contingency to cast some powerful AoE spells on staff when my character died. We all figured everyone else would be dead or at least smart enough to move away from him in that circumstance and I would have a decent chance to take some powerful bad guys down with me. This was back when it was permanent until activated and could hold several spells. Then I promptly for got about it.
More recently, had a character going into a very lethal situation. We certainly did not expect very many of the party to survive. Campaign BBEG, super secret stronghold, annex of Hades in our world, yadda yadda...
The group all threatened to immediately kill any of my characters that tried to use contingency after the second time.
You have any stories of contingency gone wrong?
Gars DarkLover wrote:
Speaking of Players expectations and the like...
Lately I have seen some other recruitment threads giving more details on what they want from the group. I really like that! Thank you.
One said the GM was looking for the "5 man band" troupe. Not my thing. So I didn't have to waste a bunch of time (for both of us) on it with bad feelings on both sides.
Over the years I've accidentally gotten into some that had 'unadvertised' expectations.
Didn't say anything remotely close to 'hoping defense will let you weather the storm' in my post. I certainly didn't suggest ignoring good tactics.
However, let's assume we have a bunch of bad guys that do not have +367 to hit and 9132 hit points and are instead individually substantially less powerful than the PC's.
If you are say a 8th-10th level character (focused entirely on offense) wearing a mwk chain shirt and have a dex of 12, your AC is 15. Most of even the crappy opposition at mid levels will hit you almost every time.
I did not say focus entirely on defense, but at those levels it is relatively cheap to have AC of ~25 and say a 20% miss chance (or some other non-AC defense). Now a noticeable number of attacks will not be doing damage to your PC and your reduction in offensive power is probably negligible against those opponents.
It is a few things working together.
1) Preference: Think about a soccer team. How many people want to be the striker scoring goals and how many want to be the goalie stopping the other team from scoring goals?
2) Mechanics: The system as a whole tends to reward offense more than defense. There are more feats that effectively boost offense. There are more stacking buffs for offense. Offense is easier in this system than defense. You have to work pretty hard to get enough defense to make a significant difference.
3) RL Time: If you have very many PC's with a bunch of defense (which means less focus on offense), often the fights will tend to drag on forever. Some people don't like that. They want it over in 2-3 rounds whatever the results.
4) No Significant Consequences: Early campaign, it doesn't really matter how much you got hurt as long as you don't quite get killed. Wands of CLW are stupidly cheap and easy to procure. Mid campaign you don't even have to worry too much about death since raise dead becomes available. Late campaign the PC's are so rich that even the resurrections are a meaningless cost.
Taken together, these things push a lot of people to focus almost exclusively on offense.
I would like to emphasize the bolded portion from BNW.Not all, but some home groups are perfectly ok with completely dividing things up. This PC only fights in melee. That PC does all the talking. This other PC does all the sneaking. At he just blows carp to pieces with magic. Etc... The PC's are all very specialized.
That level of specialization is not only not necessary in PFS, it can actually be very severe hindrance. A PFS table is usually a random collection of individuals who then need to learn to work together very quickly.
You might not have a super optimized combat machine that can handle all the fighting for you, so you need to be able to do something in a fight. Might be that, none of the guys at the table have a super diplomat bard with +467 in all the social skills, so you might have to help out when talking to others is necessary.
I try and get people to have an answer 4 for questions.
I personally, usually also have a tertiary role in and out of combat. But a primary and secondary is usually good enough for a successful career.
Also consider, it is unlikely the person that made that picture is a structural engineer. So I wouldn't rely all that heavily on analysis of the picture anyhow.
If collapse would inhibit the story, give it a high DC knowledge engineering check.
Stone to flesh on some load bearing walls would make quick work. ...
I once had a group that used stone to flesh on a wall. Then set down to luch. Ewww.....
Hmm... That is probably stating it to strong.
I would prefer fore knowledge of chronicle sheet rewards to not be a thing that is addressed at all.
But particularly, I would like for someone to be able to say something like "Hey I heard there was spear that gives a shield bonus. Which scenario is that?" and get an actual answer rather than being verbally flayed alive.
I see nothing wrong with the lists that some people have started with items/boons that can be found in scenario whatever.
I would like for people to not be looked down on and accused of cheating (at least in spirit), because they want to get something with the character that can use it.
I've been rereading a few of my posts and I want to clarify a potential mistaken impression I may be giving.
I do understand that there is a policy against 'chronicle fishing.' I have not been so verbose in this thread to excuse my own 'chronicle fishing' activities. Ever since I learned of it, I have been trying to abide by it as best I can, given my current understanding of this rather nebulous 'bad' thing. Personally, I think I abide by it better than some of the most vocal people in my local area have done. I will continue to follow the policy as long as it is the policy.
I have been verbose, because I would prefer the policy to change. It at least slightly hampers my enjoyment of the hobby. I personally, would prefer to have my character win the XYZ of Koolness that he can make use of by his own actions.
Yes, I can GM the scenario to get the XYZ of Koolness. But to me, that doesn't have the same ring.
I will say that I don't know what the best solution is, but I will say that some of the ones proposed seem like poor ideas.
I think the hints will not work, unless you make it so obvious that you might as well have just said it. I have 7 PC's so far with dozens of chronicle sheets. I usually only get a few minutes at best to decide which table I will play at and which PC will be used. The odds of a subtle hint reminding me that this one PC has a sheet with something that sound similar seems remote.
I would be careful about making this another convention only boon. Those are starting to really aggravate some/many players. At least in my area, most of the players even very active players simply do not attend conventions.
I would rather just see it as something added to the guide. use the cost as suggested by another poster. Spend 2 prestige on the giving and receiving character to transfer a boon from one to another. The receiving character must also pay any associated gold or other costs directly associated with the boon. The boon can not be used until the receiving character is at least as high of level as the character that one the sheet.
I think that would make the cost high enough that it won't be done for just everything, but it is still possible to get the special X with an appropriate character.
Rarely for actual power reasons, but abit for theme reasons. Also there are a few that are very nice and/or have something that you just can't spend gold to get.
certain types of animal companions/familiars and unique items come to mind
Try reading the conversation. I said I am now inclined to agree that take 10 is allowed if the danger is only on a failed result. I will try to remember to use that in the future.
However, I am offended by the attitude that I am a rotten person for reading it and getting the exact same understanding that the vast majority of people I have met got when they read it.
Read the last couple of pages. Even people that agree on the fact that immediate danger does not include results of a failed check are still arguing about how to apply the rules to a fairly simple and common situation.
That attitude really bugs me.
I will point out a conversation I heard at the game shop yesterday on this very exact subject. I will not quote so as not to embarrass anyone. The 3 individuals involved had very obviously read this exact thread.
It basically boiled down to:
(Incidentally 2 of those 3 guys are absolutely horrible as GM's. They don't enjoy it and are pretty obviously just cranking through it as quick as they can. They brag about their multiple stars, but I would much rather not play than have them as my GM. I personally don't want more things encouraging them to GM.)
In my opinion, this behavior is much worse for the community than letting people know 'chronicle sheet X-X has the Halberd of Doom on it'
... I like seeing people get excited when something especially useful or fun pops up. ...
I absolutely agree with everything you said in that post except this bit. Because it almost never happens.It has never happened to me or as far as I've heard to anyone that I know that they just happened to have a character play a scenario with a character that can use the reward bangle. Not once. Every single one has been GM'd to get on the right sheet or they knew about it before hand and played the right character.
Yes, I'm sure across the world the odds have played out so that it has happened a few times. But the chances are astonishingly small.
The are umpteen bajillion possible combinations of builds and character concepts. It is pretty unlikely that you just happened to have a character with an animal companion for whom an Axebeak is thematically appropriate when you played that campaign for the first time.
Everyone was talking about it when that came out, so I did hear about it. So I said I was going to make a tengu cavalier specifically to get it. Everyone acted like I had the plague for saying that. Everyone knows that is 'wrong' to play for a specific reward. Building for it is even worse. So now there is this kool reward that I am unlikely to ever be able to make use of because it would be somehow nebulously wrong to do so.
The system we have is just promoting being stealthy about chronicle fishing, not actually dissuading it at all.
This may be lack of sleep talking, but I think I just had an idea for what may just become my favorite character ever.
Fighter 1 / Summoner X
He will literally have an eidolon, familiar, shield, and weapon that are all smarter than him and constantly telling him what to do.
It should be epically hilarious!
Any more ideas on what I should do to make this better?
Andrew Christian wrote:
Almost everyone I have talked to agreed with the interpretation we have all been using.
Until this thread, I had never seen or even heard of this post from SKR. Even then, that thread doesn't really say that is what the rule means. It sounds more like he is saying "I do it this way because it seems to work better." Actually I'm fine with that. But if that was really what they wanted the rule to say, put it in the errata / faq / or multiple re-printings of the book.
A lot of these posts are sounding like we are obviously horrible, mean, vindictive GM's. There is apparently no reasonable way anyone could think take 10 isn't allowed for almost anything. Because obviously we all should magically know SKR suggests handling it like this.