nosig's page

I am moving on now...
as Dorian Grey says: "We'll be at this all day".
Nothing will be gained by continueing this thread derail. (again, just my opinion).

(Edit: Corrected quote).

nosig wrote:

"First the odds aren't opinion they're just math" huh? what odds? did I miss part of your statement qouting odds? I'll go back and re-read it after this...

AHem... the parts where

-why a druid doesn't need cha to handle animal
-why average party charisma is meaningless. Snow white has the same +Diplomacy with seven dwarves as with seven bards.
-that if you insist on needing a wide variety of social skills, +int will make most builds better at it than +charisma

Now #3

"-that if you insist on needing a wide variety of social skills, +int will make most builds better at it than +charisma"

Please do not put words into mouth. I did not "insist on needing a wide variety of social skills," ever. No where did I state that a PC has to have a minimum of anything in any Stat or skill. I objected to the statement that one STAT is the logical dump stat, more than any other. I in fact pointed out that each STAT could be used as a dump stat for each build. In fact, I beleave I clearified my earlier statements with:
"Are you getting the idea that I think you have to NOT dump CHA? no way. Dump any stat. All of them (except maybe CON...but that's just my opinion) have perfictly fine PCs - and one of the EASIEST to play is a PC that dumps CHA."

so I did not "insist on needing a wide variety of social skills," - please do not say that I did.
I, in fact, said the exact opposite. You can dump ANY stat. CHA included. In fact I said. "one of the EASIEST to play is a PC that dumps CHA."

You appear to be argueing with someone other than me...

Back to the math - your statement "...+int will make most builds better at it than +charisma" is true only for characters above level 7. There are 7 CHA skills. a +1 in INT will give only one extra skill point per level, and the -1 CHA will loose -7. That's the math... (again, in my opinion). So... I guess your statement is true, for PCs greater than 7th level. (I play my PCs thru the lower levels first, which means I am more likely to play my PCs in those first 6 levels.)

Quote:

I believe I stated as much for CON, though I did point out that a large number of PCs I have seen have 10 CONs (I would say the majority of non-frontline fighter types I have seen have CONs of 10 or maybe 12).

Yeah that's not a dump. You don't see a lot of Lucky 7 cons, or elves with a con score of 5 because it will cost you something.

Quote:

Please support this statement:"Charisma is the stat dump that hurts the most people the least: thats why its so common, not because of some misconception about its usefulness." I do not find it to be true.

A fighter archer or any non charisma based build has little chance of 1) Being the one to have to make the diplomacy/bluff check in the first place or 2) succeeding based on raw charisma if they do have to make the check. The difference between a 7 charisma fighter and a 12 charisma fighter making a dc 20 check isn't much, but for making a dc 25 check its exactly the same.

Try to show me what charisma does for a typical fighter build. Give me a 20 point buy character.

nosig wrote:

"First the odds aren't opinion they're just math" huh? what odds? did I miss part of your statement qouting odds? I'll go back and re-read it after this...

AHem... the parts where

-why a druid doesn't need cha to handle animal
-why average party charisma is meaningless. Snow white has the same +Diplomacy with seven dwarves as with seven bards.
-that if you insist on needing a wide variety of social skills, +int will make most builds better at it than +charisma

Continuing to derail this thread

Now #2
"-why average party charisma is meaningless. Snow white has the same +Diplomacy with seven dwarves as with seven bards. "
I saw no math on this point (which I still feel is opinion) no "odds".
You seem to be assuming that only one PC is ever involved in CHA checks. Being the person who normally runs the "Party Face" I can say that in many cases this is not true. Often I am told by the Judge "your PC is not involved in this case. So you don't get a roll." I know of at least one scenario where the number of monsters encountered is directly related to how well each PC did on a CHA skill check. Your "Snow White" example above will get a more monsters than a party of average joes (with no one having above average CHA). Makeing the statement "average party charisma is meaningless" does not make it true. Please show the math - the "odds".

(my attempt at "doing the math" - again, just an opinion): If even one in 10 adventures requires a second PC to make a CHA skill check (and there are 7 CHA skills), then the "Snow White" example brakes down. If that skill check is as simple as a DC 10, then characters who have dumped CHA will fail it... even when they take 10. Aid another is a simple DC10... and a PC with a 0 in Diplomacy can aid on a Gather Info check 55% of the time, where a PC with a -2 can only do it 45%. That's the math. Those are the odds. (11 in 20) verses (9 in 20). One has better than even chance, the other less than
even. A>B That's the math.

Quote:

I believe I stated as much for CON, though I did point out that a large number of PCs I have seen have 10 CONs (I would say the majority of non-frontline fighter types I have seen have CONs of 10 or maybe 12).

Yeah that's not a dump. You don't see a lot of Lucky 7 cons, or elves with a con score of 5 because it will cost you something.

Quote:

Please support this statement:"Charisma is the stat dump that hurts the most people the least: thats why its so common, not because of some misconception about its usefulness." I do not find it to be true.

A fighter archer or any non charisma based build has little chance of 1) Being the one to have to make the diplomacy/bluff check in the first place or 2) succeeding based on raw charisma if they do have to make the check. The difference between a 7 charisma fighter and a 12 charisma fighter making a dc 20 check isn't much, but for making a dc 25 check its exactly the same.

Try to show me what charisma does for a typical fighter build. Give me a 20 point buy character.

nosig wrote:

"First the odds aren't opinion they're just math" huh? what odds? did I miss part of your statement qouting odds? I'll go back and re-read it after this...

AHem... the parts where

-why a druid doesn't need cha to handle animal
-why average party charisma is meaningless. Snow white has the same +Diplomacy with seven dwarves as with seven bards.
-that if you insist on needing a wide variety of social skills, +int will make most builds better at it than +charisma

Well, I guess we can start addressing each of these - which I still feel are opinions, and not "odds" or "math".

for the first one.
You stated "Dwarven druid with a 5 charisma has 1 Rank +3 class -3 Cha +4 Link +2 training harness= needs a 3 at first level to get the critter attacking. " which I thought was supporting my statement that CHA is improtant to a druid. You have presented a druid that has at best a 10% failure rate whenever he gives a command to his companion. I do not consider (again, just my opinion) a 10% failure rate to be as good as a 0% failure rate, do you? This would be like a wizard wearing armor - after all, there is only a 10% spell failure chance in leather armor. These are not good odds. 1 in 10 times the Companion - the one animal the druid can trust the most, doesn't understand a normal command. (The Training Harness also requires that the Player own the ARG in order to use, and then only applies to the animal wearing it. I have also encountered a judge that would not allow it to be worn with barding). If he is trying to control any other animal, this failure chance raises to 20% for a command the animal is trained in. And his chance to train the animal is reduced. Until he gets at least 2 more ranks (levels), he has to roll a 13 to teach his companion the tricks Attack, Defend, Guard, or Track... effectively preventing him from adding these to his companion until his is 3rd level. SO ... your example druid is likely to have an undertrained animal that he can only control part of the time... because he dumped CHA.
I'll have to address the rest after I check in at work....

Quote:

I believe I stated as much for CON, though I did point out that a large number of PCs I have seen have 10 CONs (I would say the majority of non-frontline fighter types I have seen have CONs of 10 or maybe 12).

Yeah that's not a dump. You don't see a lot of Lucky 7 cons, or elves with a con score of 5 because it will cost you something.

Quote:

Please support this statement:"Charisma is the stat dump that hurts the most people the least: thats why its so common, not because of some misconception about its usefulness." I do not find it to be true.

A fighter archer or any non charisma based build has little chance of 1) Being the one to have to make the diplomacy/bluff check in the first place or 2) succeeding based on raw charisma if they do have to make the check. The difference between a 7 charisma fighter and a 12 charisma fighter making a dc 20 check isn't much, but for making a dc 25 check its exactly the same.

Try to show me what charisma does for a typical fighter build. Give me a 20 point buy character.

David Bowles wrote:

nosig wrote:

Howie23 wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

And charisma.... if you're not a party face you only don't need it, you don't need ANY Of it.

Many ghosts agree.

I do not understand this reply.

Are you saying many PCs who dump CHA die? or many dead PCs wish they had dumped CHA?

I think ghosts do CHA damage.

Indeed.

ah! thank you Howie (and david)

Nosig wrote:

BNW - everything you say is true, and everything has a counter arguement. It's all opinion, subject to Judges calls and table veriation. You say: "Its not an assumption its a conclusion." and I say, it's a faulty conclusion then. Perhaps gained from a limited test sample?

First the odds aren't opinion they're just math. Secondly no, you can't pull an accusation of a limited sample size when you yourself are running into a large number of people who've reached the exact same conclusion.

Secondly reversing the word play but winding up with something that is completely false doesn't make your point. many characters Can dump cha with minimal side effects. The same can go for strength, but its absolutely false for wisdom and especially con. Charisma is the stat dump that hurts the most people the least: thats why its so common, not because of some misconception about its usefulness.

"First the odds aren't opinion they're just math" huh? what odds? did I miss part of your statement qouting odds? I'll go back and re-read it after this...

I regularly play with fighter types that dump WIS. I myself regularly dump it to 8 or even 7 for Bards, Sorcerers, Wizards, and some Rogues (and would for Barbarians, Paladins, ... heck any PC class that doesn't use it as a casting stat).

I beleave I stated as much for CON, though I did point out that a large number of PCs I have seen have 10 CONs (I would say the majority of non-frontline fighter types I have seen have CONs of 10 or maybe 12).

Please support this statement:"Charisma is the stat dump that hurts the most people the least: thats why its so common, not because of some misconception about its usefulness." I do not find it to be true.

EDIT: I just reviewed all your posts in this thread, and can find nothing that seems to list odds, or in fact any math at all. The closest I can find to math would be my listing of how many skills were for each Stat... where INT won it, followed by DEX and CHA tied at 7 each. so... "First the odds aren't opinion they're just math" - what math? what odds? So far every post I have read here (including mine) was just opinion.... and plainly mine differs from yours. (not better, just different)

nosig wrote:

sigh... and anytime the party needs a little help talking, or your PC has to do something CHA based, you need to turn to the "Party Face". DO you make sure to have one at every table? Kind of like making sure to have someone with Disable Device?

Yup

My druid finds traps, disarms traps, knows the local fauna and flora, tracks, gets people through the wilderness, knows the denizens of the dungeon, speaks 8 languages, and has willingly volunteered to be lowered into swamps, mud puddles, cesspools, pits, and the still warm innards of a number of creatures because someone thought that a part of it would make excellent scrimshaw on their mantel, can buff the party and tags along with the living incarnation of why dinosaurs went extinct from their own awesomeness.

Is it really too much to ask if he has someone go talk to girls for him because he's from a communist dys/utopia and isn't sure how to go about it without filling out form 49574-B: permission to begin courtship?

Quote:

Low INT? this is so overdone, I expect to see at least one Forest Gump at most tables.

He's gump, he's gump, whats in his head...

He's gump, he's gump, he slays undead....

OH NO! Are you getting the idea that I think you have to NOT dump CHA? no way. Dump any stat. All of them (except maybe CON...but that's just my opinion) have perfictly fine PCs - and one of the EASIEST to play is a PC that dumps CHA. Though do try to make it something that isn't offensive to the PLAYERs, just the other PCs. Maybe your guy smells bad, or talks to much, or is shy, or way to out going, or... whatever. It's just the statement "And charisma.... if you're not a party face you only don't need it, you don't need ANY Of it. " that I was objecting to. And I did this by pointing out that you could have said it about ANY stat... and every one of those statements is not correct.

The penalty for blowing CHA based rolls are usually loss of prestige or not skating past a fight. Most of the penalties for blowing other rolls is considerably worse.

Frankly, in PFS, I don't care if I don't have a face in the group. The scenarios are written so they can be completed without them. It's not like roleplaying can somehow change the choo-choo track nature of the scenarios.

My first character was an INT 10 human cleric. I can tell you that not having skills has driven me batty to the point where there is no way I'm dumping INT on a PFS toon. Ever. If that's not valid enough for not "branching out", I'm sorry.

LOL!

ok, for you then INT is not a dump stat. I have several PCs that dump INT (including a rogue, a skill monkey).

In PFS, as in all RP games, I try to have a Face at every table. Even if that face is a barbarian with a 7 CHA and a rank in Intimidate (Gather information with an Intimidate check - "Where do you keep your dead!"). Several times I have been in RP heavy scenarios, where the fact that we have one PC who dumped CHA has to be made up for by several other PCs covering for him. I can recall one scenario in PFS where your CHA skills directly relate to how many monsters your party faces in a later scenario.

As to your statement "The scenarios are written so they can be completed without them."? I don't think so. Some, yes. Most? no. Not in my experience. Can you make do and bull thru? Well sure! and I have played many scenarios where we only had one "Combat Machine" in the party. If we hit a challange we couldn't overcome with Face skills - we just turned Mongo loose on it. 3 rounds later we continue with the mission, interigating the BBE dudes so that they tell us who/what/etc. our next challange is about.

"The scenarios are written so they can be completed without them."? "...when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Try some of the other tools for a change. Just a suggestion.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

BNW - everything you say is true, and everything has a counter arguement. It's all opinion, subject to Judges calls and table veriation. You say: "Its not an assumption its a conclusion." and I say, it's a faulty conclusion then. Perhaps gained from a limited test sample?

Do you want me to offer counters for your points above? as Dorian Grey says: "We could be at this all night".

Can you dump CHA? SURE!
Can you dump any other stat? Sure!
Singleing out CHA as the default dump stat is a mistake. It limits the players creativity. And limits PCs options during play.

and that's my point.

There are viable builds with any stat being a dump stat. Some Players consider a 10 to be dumping a stat.

Let the players inforce this. Just like we always have.
.
If you spoil a game I'm in, I remember it. If you make it a habit, I don't sit with you. If you do it enough, to enough people, no one sits with you, or we just "cold shoulder" you. That's the way the hobby has always worked. It's slow sometimes, but you know what? It works sometimes too.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

And charisma.... if you're not a party face you only don't need it, you don't need ANY Of it.

Many ghosts agree.

I do not understand this reply.

Are you saying many PCs who dump CHA die? or many dead PCs wish they had dumped CHA?

I know it seems like BNW and I butt heads often on here, but in this case, I agree 100%. None of my characters have dumped more than one stat, and even at that not below 8. But in every case, it's been CHA for the *exact* reasons BNW outlined.

sigh... and anytime the party needs a little help talking, or your PC has to do something CHA based, you need to turn to the "Party Face". DO you make sure to have one at every table? Kind of like making sure to have someone with Disable Device?

Try branching out some. Pick another stat and build a PC around a flaw. Low WIS? so you have a very guilable and trusting PC.
Low DEX? My wife built a PC with a low DEX and explained she's pregnant. Talk about the RP! Her Pregnant Beermaid is 11th level now.
Low INT? this is so overdone, I expect to see at least one Forest Gump at most tables.
Low STR? Run the OLD wizard... try it, it might fun. It will clearly be different from what you normally run.

Or even combine two of the above. Start your next PC with a built in dump stat (or two) and play it up big. A Low CHA is the easiest to RP. Try it with a Low Dex - why's your guy got a low dex anyway? Ask the judge when he catchs you flatfooted if you don't count your dex - then be sure to tell him you have to 'cause you "dodge into the blows".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

nosig wrote:

why the comment "(especially CHA)"?

Everyone needs enough strength to carry their armor and bag of holding.

very few people like taking a penalty to ac from dex

Everybody needs con at some point

Dumping int costs skill points (but once you drop to 9 on a 2 point per level class you may as well go for broke)

Wisdom controls will saves, which are a lot of SODs

And charisma.... if you're not a party face you only don't need it, you don't need ANY Of it. The difference between making a diplomacy check with a 10 charisma and a 7 is pretty negligable, especially when you factor in the odds of you having to be the one to make the check.

Gather information - everyone aids the check.

Clerics are not often the "Party Face" (short on skill points) and yet need CHA (Channel anyone?).

Druids handle animal.

"So kid, whatcha doin' here?" Roll your bluff... wait, what do you mean you're swinging on a city guard?!

Skills? there are:
2 Str skills,
7 Dex skills,
0 Con skills,
4 Int skills (not counting the 10 Knowledge skills),
4 Wis skills,
7 Cha skills.

CHA is as improtant as any other stat.

I've seen a melee PC with a 7 strength (maybe it was a 5?). Halfling Dawnflower Dervish. A real terror in melee (Bonus to hit & damage is DEX based). He planned to get Muleback cords as his first magic item (I think).

It is rather that many people assume that CHA is the logical dump stat - and so you end up with parties of adventurers where the AVERAGE CHA at the table is 7. Out of 6 PCs.

The statement "And charisma.... if you're not a party face you only don't need it, you don't need ANY Of it. " could easily be one of the following....

"And strength.... if you're not a melee fighter type you not only don't need it, you don't need ANY Of it. Replace it with magic."
or
"And wisdom.... if you're not a perception monkey, or a ranger you not only don't need it, you don't need ANY Of it. "
or
"And Dexterity.... if you're not the party scout you not only don't need it, you don't need ANY Of it."
or
"And INT.... if you're not a Mr. Professor you not only don't need it, you don't need ANY Of it."
or
"And CON... " wait, even I can't keep a strait face for the CON one. Though I have seen PCs with an 8 CON, even higher level ones... I normally work with a CON of 10. But that's just my opinion.

But I'm sure you see my point by now.

It's all opinion, what is and isn't "optimized"... or as I'd rather say, "specialized". Every one of my PCs are designed to be "optimized". "Optimized" to provide me with fun.

Sam Polak wrote:

Were you doing the math as if buying the wand from a ranger?

The Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play says "All potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are made by clerics, druids, or wizards..." unless the spell isn't on the cleric, druid or wizard spell list. (p 25, under "Potions, Scrolls, and Wands")

If the wand of resist energy was crafted by a cleric, the cost should be 4,500 gp (2nd level spell * CL 3rd * 750), 1/5 of which is 900 gp.

D'oh. I was not intentionally calculating the wand for a Ranger, but for some reason I was thinking resist energy was a first level spell.

Thanks for the correction Sam. Awesome scenario BTW. I just ran it for a group on Saturday. Potentially super-deadly if the party cannot deal effectively with darkness though. Luckily the group had 3 characters with dark vision.

I fear I did not enjoy this one much, but most likely that was due to the judge. We had a well balance party, of very well prepared PCs - but the judge got kind of creative in his ruleings... so even with 3 PCs with darkvision (Dwarf Cleric, Half-orc ftr? and Tiefling Arcane Trickster) and daylight spells we got very badly chewed up.

Of course, if you want to have any job outside of combat you're probably going to want skills. If you want skills, you probably don't want to dump Int. If you ever want to interact with any NPCs, you probably don't want to dump Cha.

Especially at low levels, when stat bonuses/penalties are still significant relative to ranks.

Bolding mine above - I'm glad you said the "probably".

I have a human Rogue with a 8 INT that gets 8 skill points per level.

I have a Social Rogue with a 10 CHA - and makes up for it with Magic items and extra skill points.

A character who wants to be a jack-of-all-trades (non-specialist), someone unwilling to dump stats for extra points (especially int/cha, when applicable), or taking a lot of the weaker kits is "unoptimized". An optimized character, then, is one who specializes in a job and does it very well, is willing to lower stats (especially CHA) when it doesn't help their job, and picks archtypes that help to make them more effective at doing their job.

why the comment "(especially CHA)"?

I have several PCs whose "job" is to be the party face. I could see dumping any OTHER stat than CHA for that.

You speak of "unoptimized" and use the term (non-specialist), which would make me think you mean "specialist" when you say "optimized". Is this the case?

edit: OH! and thank you for the reply.

Agreed but I suspect that there will be some 'choke points' for people wanting to do scenarios. I've done a LOT of gaming in the year since I joined.. well compared to the years before joining PFS.. (heh) but I couldn't imagine the level of gaming to get thru EVERY single scenario.

Would it even be possible I wonder.

Numbers from MB above: "138 active scenarios, 9 retired scenarios, 3 Specials, 1 exclusive, 2 Grand Convocation events, 25 modules, and 13 AP volumes."

just takeing active scenarios for the moment, let's check the numbers.

1 scenario a week, no Conventions, no special events and not playing any except a weekly game... 52 weeks a year, that gives you about 2.6 years or two years, 8 months.

Anyone here been playing more than 2 years and 8 months?

Some things you can do to extend this (running games for example). Some others will shorten this (going to a Con and playing 6 slots burns a month and a half of normal play, let alone playing 9 slots...).

SO... Can you go crazy and play EVERYTHING in a short time? Heck, my VL got his fourth judges star 8 months after he started playing. Now THAT's a bit over the top. Just playing everything available? Nah, that's easy.

KestlerGunner wrote:

I don't know what you mean by 'spiked the door shut'?
It is possible your party failed the DC22 perception check to see the aperture that had been stuffed with cloth?

** spoiler omitted **

Made a 27 perception check, cloth was not mentioned. Nailed in iron spikes to the jammed door so it would be harder for anyone to come through it behind us.

As for the 'not meant to have an Otyugh companion' I'd say that's coming up with a creative solution. However, compared to Nosig's solution I can see us coming up short. Still, I felt the GM was not going to let me do it under any circumstances because it was not covered under specific options mentioned, rather than any realistic roleplaying on my part. If it breaks the next encounter big friggin deal.

From my a purely subjective viewpoint I got a attitude/vibe of 'not allowing anything' from the GM. That made me question that encounter as well as the failed 'spiking' of the door. These things along with not being as prepared as I would like (mapping things out as we go, stopping the action of the game to read ahead) hits on the pet peeves I have. So I was curious as to what else I 'missed'.

I definately want to run it now though.

often the judges in my area end up running things cold. "(mapping things out as we go, stopping the action of the game to read ahead)" perhaps this was the problem with your judge? also, at times players can cast the judge into "defensive mode" where he's been trampled a bit to much by confrontational players and needs to have "nice" players for a while. Often we should all take a deep breath and just go with it... if it's a problem with the judge, avoid him in the future (the same way you'd avoid a "problem player" - that is, one you have a problem playing with).

Maybe the judge is great and you hit him on a bad day. Maybe he's great when he's playing with other people and you just remind him of his #1 enemy. Or maybe your being overly defensive... or not. The best thing to do is just move on (if you can). Smile, say thank you for running, and add his name to your "avoid if possible" list. Be glad he's not your brother-in-law and you get stuck playing at his table each weekend.

OH! and a note on the "feeding the Otyugh" idea. My PC was a dog rider, and normally carries several "Meat, chunk of" from the CRB equipment list. So that gives me 10 or so "Otyugh snacks" - like Scoobie snacks, but 1/2 pound each.

Nosig: I believe that I could run Haunting of Hinojai for you in a fashion that is good, fun storytelling. I think Jim Groves did a bang-up job of doing haunts in a way that uses them to enhance story and flavor for that scenario. The quality of haunt judging is still shaky, as its a much less common type of hazard to adventurers than the other things in the writers' bag of tricks.

And First Steps is being replaced with new content that is intended to be evergreen and related to the season it will be released with, so...

yeah, I usually like Mr. Groves's work. But ... I've decided not to play this one for now. Which leaves me 5 till next month (2 weeks to new scenarios!).

First Steps is fun... and I'll miss them. To bad we can't keep them and get the new ones too! I'm all for more scenarios.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I rarely start with a stat higher than 17 and nearly always start with a 14 CON regardless of class.

The exceptions are my kyton-spawn summoner (16 CON with racial mod) and my elemental fire sorcerer with a 20 CHA but only 7 INT and WIS (Who needs brains or common sense. If anything(anybody) causes a problem, set it on fire.)

just had to chime in with this...

I rarely start without at least one stat higher than 17 and never start with a 14 CON regardless of class/race (most of my PCs have 10 CON).

It's getting more and more required in later year modules; the arms race will always compensate. If you play early, not really.

My characters are:

2 with 16 14 14 12 12 7
1 with 19 14 14 14 7 7
1 with 19 14 12 12 12 7

all at varying levels of power (I do love the front line, so I have a fighter and monk; but I also have a summoner who eats modules alive).

Ultimately you're going to feel best if you are not a burden to the party, so I at least would not make yourself overly weak (be good at what you want to do). Support casters will do far better "unoptimized" than a front-line fighter.

Thalin, how would you define "optimized"?

What makes a PC "unoptimized"?

I have to chime in here and say... I've ALMOST played everything. Been playing sense early season 2... I've judged a lot number too... I've got 5 yet to play - and I expect to get one of them tomorrow (4-19).
(I've got two 1-5s available still, amd three 7-11s available I can play. OH, and 3-15 Haunting of Hinojai that I intend never to play. Yes, I hate Haunts that much, and it says Haunt in the title.)

In St. Louis I know of 3 other persons in the same situation as me...

But there are more adventures released each month, and I can always play the tier 1-2 stuff (though First Steps is going away! Booo!). So I'm kewl with that. And I've started playing/judging the Mods, so I'm slowly working my way thru them.

It can work well if the group meshes well as a team. Recently at a 4 person table 2 guys were pretty sneaky and were always wanting to sneak/scout/spy. However the other 2 were a human sorc that needed a light to not trip over his own feet and an armored hulk (me) with something like a -5 to stealth.

So to of us would have to stay a good 40 to 60 ft behind the others to not give them away. Then a fight would breakout. The characters at the back were surprised since we couldn't see or hear what was going on up front. So we were usually chiming in on the 3rd round of combat.

------------------------------------------------

On the other hand I've also seen it work very well with a round of careful planning, devastating surprise attacks, reverse ambushes, bypassed opponents, etc...

in the above example, my PC hands the armored hulk an elixer of hiding, giving him a +10 to stealth for an hour, and asks him to sling his shield on his back (to be drawn later if we get in combat). Perhaps I add a few more buffs on top of this... (MW tool, Ring of Chameleon Power, etc.).

The sorcerer we just hand a scroll of darkvision (Duration 3 hours) and ask him why he doesn't have one of these already? Or we just have the other caster cast it on him...

My point is, players will have thier PCs prepped for darkness or flying or for 16 kinds of combat (DR, ranged, etc.) but not for sneaking past the guards? Why not? Next time this armored hulk needs to sneak - is he going to be able to?

First, you'll have to define "Optimized".
.
What is "Optimized" to one person is a sub-par build to another, and vice-versa. This is heavily dependant on the player and what he feels is the "standard".

Whatever else I say at this point, somebody will reply pointing out how this statement leads to an overly "Optimized" PC... only to have someone else point out how "sub-par" that build would be. Sometimes these two posters are the same person..., at times in the same post.

There is also the issue of how much playing time in a timed slot players with non-stealth characters will be willing to sit there doing nothing while the stealth characters do their thing.

LOL! I could easily point out the amount of time my PC with no combat skills has to sit there while the melee characters do their thing....

.
Long ago (in LG days) a player commented that someone was "Wasteing his game time chatting up the Barmaid for 15 minutes!", So we pointed out he had spent more than an hour "Wasting game time dancing with the monsters" just before that.
.
If most of the PCs are enjoying the sneak - (and most of my PCs carry an Elixer of Hiding to give to PCs who don't bother with that sort of thing) - why not spend 10 minutes avoiding a hour of unnessassary fighting?

As a player - when we encountered the 'hungry' Otyugh, we talked to it. My PC offered to get it some "good food" and scrambled out of the sewer and bought a barrel of beer, and a mule/donkey to carry it. Rolled the barrel over the man-hole, broached it and poured the beer down. (picture Otyugh under the man-hole, mouth open as beer pours down from above. When the beer stopped, he reached up and yanked down the barrel "like the crunch bits".) Oh! and my PC CdG the mule over the man-hole, so it blead out down into the sewer... then Otugth got a lot to eat, it just reached up and yanked down the dead mule. It was such a fun RP encounter, my PC spent 2 PP getting "foreign contacts" so that I can "look him up" next time I'm in that town!

It'll be great next time I'm in Korvosa, my PC wandering around sewer entrences yelling down them to get a +2 on "gather info" rolls!

Saint Caleth wrote:

Sadly, I wouldn't recommend it in PFS. Save it for a real campaign if you have the opportunit]y to play in one.

You can't work with the DM in PFS so you just get shafted by table variation. Basically the worst potential for this is with stealth if you have a DM of the "selective realism" school of interpreting the rules. (cf. the heinously acrimonious clusterf#*% that is the last three threads on the topic).

This.

Expect table variation at it's worst.

Bolding mine.

I have so many stories I could tell of the times stealth did not work in PFS, even with parties of PCs designed for it.

There have been a few times it has worked... but I'd say less than 5% of the times I've tried it. If the circumstances don't ruin the chances - then one of the players in the party thinks it's taking to long and just charges in. If the players all have PCs with stealth, the circumstances work for it, then the judge doesn't understand how it works and so just ignores it. "Monsters attack" is much easier to run.

BUT - every now and then, in a scenario designed for it, with PCs able to do it (Elixer of Hiding anyone?), with a judge that understands how it works... it works wonderfully. That's the moments I enjoy, that keep me trying.

[bSadly, I wouldn't recommend it in PFS. Save it for a real campaign if you have the opportunit]y to play in one.[/b]

You can't work with the DM in PFS so you just get shafted by table variation. Basically the worst potential for this is with stealth if you have a DM of the "selective realism" school of interpreting the rules. (cf. the heinously acrimonious clusterf#*% that is the last three threads on the topic).

This.

Expect table variation at it's worst.

Bolding mine.

nosig wrote:

ThorGN wrote:

Rather, I would like to see some expanded tactics sections in the scenario. Like, if the party rolled over the first two combats, apply the advanced template to this monster, or if the party is struggling, don't use Glitterdust or Cause Fear, even though the monster knows them.

Those sort of things would allow the GM to tweak the difficulty slightly to match the strength of the party he is running for.

I like it!

ah... why is my name in the qoute above? I voted against this, but my comments were trimmed out, and my name left in. I do NOT agree with the above. I feel that what is being suggested is a bad idea.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I was picturing the decision being made based on past commentary from the players. Maybe *you* liked playing with Jo, but maybe some others at the table were grumbling last time.

Or perhaps you're right and it should all be player-managed, I dunno.

My son plays overpowered combat types sometimes. Last game we played, we got 6 of us together and played a 5-9 scenario with his 9th level grapple specialist... and yeah, he nerfed most of the combat. But we knew that going into the game, and we picked PCs to play around it. We didn't worry about combat, 'cause he had that covered. It would have been an entirely different game if the judge had said. "I decided to bump him from the game...." ... I'm not sure how I would have felt. I know I'd have been a bit put out if my wife's rogue or my friends 5th level Oracle had died in the game after loosing our front-liner due to a decision by the judge to pull him, because the judge had the impression we'd have more fun without him.

The players now control only a few things. This is one of them. Don't take it away from them.

Rather, I would like to see some expanded tactics sections in the scenario. Like, if the party rolled over the first two combats, apply the advanced template to this monster, or if the party is struggling, don't use Glitterdust or Cause Fear, even though the monster knows them.

Those sort of things would allow the GM to tweak the difficulty slightly to match the strength of the party he is running for.

Judge A: "I got to harden this up. I didn't kill even one of them the last two encounters..."

Judge B: "OMG! I rolled a second crit! I could of hurt someone if I'd been using something that did more damage than a dagger! Time to tone down the tactics!"

and that's not even counting the Judges who will play the hard/soft encounter, because that's where their finger is on the page, and they are reading the wrong write-up (how many people have had judges go..."OPPS! Wrong sub-tier!"

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Come to think of it, I almost wonder whether it would solve the stated problem (or a good-sized chunk of it) to simply empower GMs to take a player aside before a scenario and say "Hey, I've had multiple local players comment that your tendency to solo entire scenarios makes them feel like they shouldn't have bothered to show up. I'll give you a chance to be a team player, but if I get the impression that other players are starting to feel sidelined again, we'll be finishing the scenario without you."

What impact might that have, and what would still need to be addressed?

(Could be a terrible idea; I'm just brainstorming here.)

bad idea.

the players police this now the same way we always have. If the guy is a jerk, we don't play with him. Each time we sit at a table, we look around and see... is there anyone here I'd rather not play with?

I do not want the judge to take that ability away from me. Perhaps I like playing with Jo and her over-the-top combat machine... perhaps I don't. I sure as heck don't want to judge to make that decision for me.

Judge before the game: "I've decided to bump Jo from the table... you guys didn't want to play with her."?!!

...

1) Remember that an Encounter does not necessarily mean a Combat. Social encounters, puzzles, and traps are all ways to include more challenges without necessarily making things super difficult. This will also help to address the OP's issue, at least somewhat -- Bond may be fantastic in a straight-up fight, but what about convincing that noble to accept a bribe?
...

Tamago - I would like to comment on your point here if I might.

I regularly run PCs who are optimized for Social encounters, and/or traps.
Many judges seem to get offended at this... some to the point of looking for ways to nerf my PC as I am "spoiling the fun" by locating and disarming all the traps in a scenario. Or by walking into a social encounter with +40 or more on the CHA skills.

Optimized PCs can be Optimized in areas outside of combat. I played Race for the Rune Carved Key with a PC that OWNED the social encounters. As a result, my team "Cake-Walked" the non-combat portions of the game... and nearly died in the combat portions (we didn't have a Max Damage at the table). At one point in the middle of the game, our judge gave us a half hour brake, as we had talked our way past several hard fights and needed to wait for the rest of the tables to finish thier combats.

If the scenarios start to require more and more encounters to be resolved with non-combat abilities - "the optimizers" are just going to start building PCs (like mine) that have Diplomacy and Disable Device skills of 30+. Are these PCs "Bond" PCs? or not? If the PC doesn't kill all the mooks, but gets them to give him the McGuffin, and a horse and help him get back to the Society with it... is he a "Bond" PC?

We are seeing some of that now.

Actually, nosig, those are the <ahem> special cookies, made by the druid with the tie-dye shirt with the peace sign. The 75gp gets you three cookies, but they are fiiiiiiine cookies.

Have you ever really looked at your hand? I mean *really* looked?

Pesh!

said as an exclaimation like pah! or Doh!

Prepared casters can also leave a slot or two open, and spend 15 minutes preparing a spell during the adventure. I forget the details off the top of my head, but it's in the magic chapter of the Core Rulebook.

and the prep time for Alchemist is only 1 minute...

I think the original Poster missed the mark slightly on this. You almost got it "The Red Ninja", but missed it in this way . Some PCs are a perfict fit for some scenarios. The high degree of customization available to characters at this point in the campaign means that some PCs will be a great fit for some challanges... and worse than bad at others. Build a specialist, and he does he's thing better than anyone else every can... and can't do anything else.
.
Got a Max Damage Combat Machine? To bad this encounter means you want to capture the 4 HP guy alive... when you minimum damage is 18 you kill him with one blow with Non-Lethal damage.
Or you need to "make a good impression" on the hostess of the party...
What do you mean, we have to be sure the bandits get away with the treasure? We have to be sure we fail... (anyone recognize the scenario?)
Wait, you mean the bad guy had the information we needed, and would have told us in the "gloating speach"? But I killed him to fast for him to speak?...

I fear I am playing with "Rip/Bond" PCs. Given the scenario, often a PC finds this challange easy, while another challange is very hard. For example, I have a friend that runs a deaf Oracle. We played together in a game where the one of the hardest monsters in the adventure used sound attacks... and he hardly noticed. This encounter was a cake walk for him - and as he then thru silence, it became a cake walk for the rest of the party. Two encounters later, the tables turn. The party needs to get an NPC out of hiding in a safe. No problem! we push our "Face" PC out to talk him out... wait, what do you mean you can't hear him? Your high Diplomacy Oracle is deaf?

This is, and has always been, part of the game. More rule sources allows for a "high degree of customization available to characters", which in turn makes adventures very easy... when you get the right specialist in that game.

One of the advantages of wizard in PFS that everyone seems to be looking past is the knowledge skills. Wizards get a ton of skill points (yeah, 2 plus INT), and all knowledges are class skills. At Tiers "3 to 7" and "5 to 9" they are a real help to the party at monster IDs, or other just odd skills... 1 rank +5 INT +3 class skill gives them a +9 on a knowledge skill, and I regularly see wizards with +11 or more in all. I've seen a wizard PC "help" her teammates do 3 of thier faction missions, just with odd skills, (knowledge - Engineering, Apparise, Knowledge Nature), and then do her own with an extra point she put in Disable Device.
.
Another that many players/judges forget is identification of magic items... I've seen a judge give the PCs the magic items, tell them what they are, and then realize that no one in the party had detect magic, let alone the spellcraft to id the items (something you can't T10 on, IDing magic items while concentrating on a detect magic spell).

nosig wrote:

...

Yeah, I know, but I didn't at the time. Besides, 'twas funny.

oh, beyond a doubt! ;)

that's why I gave the example of ice storm and Resilient Sphere - I want to do a researched spell snow globe that combines the two effects! and some way to shake it!

This brings back painful memories of a sorcerer emergency force shielding himself and my wife's ranger to avoid a fireball, followed by the BBEG summoning a swarm of bats inside the bubble.

I like to think my wife's ranger still wakes up in the middle of the night going "Bubble of Bats! No!"

Still waiting for an intelligently built summon-specced wizard to show up in a PFS scenario. *crosses fingers for 4-26*

sigh... you do realize that the BBEG could not target the area inside the force shield to summon the bats - unless he were inside it as well? He can see it, but cannot target the area inside the bubble. Just like you can't target an ice storm thru a Resilient Sphere, or a Wall of Force.

(it would be cute though... ice storm[i] and [i]Resilient Sphere and you have trapped someone in a giant snow globe!)

(Edit)

David Montgomery wrote:

Relevant Guide text:

Guide to Organized Play, page 22 wrote:

Permanent bonuses from equipment, feats, racial bonuses, and traits effect your Day Job check as they would any check for the rolled skill, but temporary bonuses such as those granted by spell effects do not contribute, as the duration over which the Day Job check is made is undefined and represents a longer amount of time than a spell’s duration would permit the bonus to remain. You may take 10 on a Day Job check, but you may not take 20 nor can you aid another.

Was there a specific item that you had questions about? The basic rule is, if it's a permanent bonus and not a x/day bonus or sometimes bonus, then it most likely counts.

So is this valid:

Human Wiz 1
Craft (snickerdoodles)
1 Rank
Int 20 (+5)
Artistans' Tools, Masterwork (55 gp)
Skill Focus
Trait Meticulous Artisan (Lantern Lodge, +1 trait bonus on Day Job checks using the Craft skill.
Spell: Crafters' Fortune (luck bonus)

Total bonus: 1[rank]+3[class skill trained]+5[int]+2[mw tools, circumstance]+3[feat]+1[trait]+5[luck]=+20

Taking 10 (my rolls suck) = 30 -> 75 gp. An extra potion/scroll per adventure helps at low level.

I suppose one could retrain with free rebuild after your 3rd adventure before you level up if you need the trait/feat/etc... for something else.

looks at mass of cookies spilling from the bakery door, as more of them spill from the windows. Glances back at faction mission note:

"Why is it I always get the silly faction missions?"

shakes head and begins tossing cookies into a handy haversack

"Snickerdoodles - 12 for a CP, 10 CP. to a SP, 10 SP to a GP... and somebody wants 75 gp worth? 90,000 cookies?!!"

here's the advice I give from one wizard to another about how to share spell books.

It often results in a Wizard player who spends the first 10 minutes of the game with his nose in a spell book - giggling to himself. But I figure this is good role play. Every wizard is a little bit crazy..

Witches actually can't "copy" spells from wizards. Alchemists can though.

Might want to invest in a wand of prestidigitation. Kangaroo pouches are pretty sticky.

This would be judge dependant - I have actually hit a judge that ruled that prestidigitation did not work to clean creatures. I was trying to use it to clean up after a sewer trip, and he pointed at the spell text that says... "It can color, clean, or soil items in a 1-foot cube each round.".

It was ... one of those "gotcha" moments.

You can't cast darkness on a creature, but you could cast it on an object a creature is wearing. Buy your bat a velvet collar?

I think your idea is rather brilliant, really, at least when the bat is smart enough to operate independently. I'd need to invest in enough material to make it resistant to being exploded though, and I'm not sure if there are improved familiars with the enviable sensory qualities the bat has.

actually, any flying familiar with 60' of thread and a pebble would likely be able to pull it off... I don't want to even consider the concept of putting it on something held in the familiars mouth. It closes it mouth, moves while it can see, and opens it's mouth... a globe of darkness that winks out whenever it's the wizards turn (or on his familiars turn anyway).

These discussions (of the different opinions on the interaction of light and darkness) have started to really depress me. I see no advancement on coming to an uniformity of opinion from the people here, and I think I need to distance myself from them.

I'll check back in a few days and see what everyone else has come up with, so that I can start enforcing that at PFS tables I judge. Till then, please iron it out guys - I would like to have something that I can work with ... darkness effects are just way to common, and I can see PCs starting to use them more with this new FAQ (I know I will).

Deeper darkness won't "snuff out" daylight, no matter how much it's heightened.

while I agree with you, my judge at a resent game did not agree with us.

(at least, I think it was a heightened DD, as it did put out our daylight spells when they were in the AOE - and they were unable to light the area from outside (though they did light areas outside the AOE))

Just a sign that this entire subject is riddled with YMMV problems.

edit: the root question remains. Does the light from fire beetle glands count as the third catagory of light? Are fire beetle glands of the same type of light source as the sun/moon/etc? I realize that this is a judges call, and will be different from table to table...

"common sense" changes from person to person. I have found it to not be common, and often not to make sense.

No comment on the mount issues - I was here just trying to learn things.

we're all pretty clear on how the spell works at this point, the only thing that needs to be defined is "what constitutes ambient light"

because of the word "natural" in the faq.

I'm defining "Natural Ambient Light sources" as - The Sun, Moon, or something uniquely powerful such as a cave entirely lined with neon glowing crystals.

IE: If no intelligent creatures ever set foot here, if it were completely uninhabited what would the light level be?

To this 90% of the time outside of the sun, I would say "dark or dim" either way, darkness makes it "dark" and deeper darkness makes it "supernaturally dark"

That's how I define "Natural" and the FAQ requires "Natural ambient light" those 3 words are 1 defined term, created by the FAQ.

Therefore I look for 2 steps.
1) Is there natural light? [a] yes [b] no
a) determine it's level, reduce it by 1.
b) it's dark.

The other common interpretation is nosig's which follows a couple simple steps.

1) Are there light source originating in the area of darkness? Yes, they don't count
2) are there light sources originating outside the area of darkness? Yes, they determine the light of the room
3) Lower that determined value by the appropriate number of steps. (1 for darkness, 2 for deeper darkness).

no wonder fire beetles are so popular...

being "natural" the light from a fire beetle would trump darkness effects.

so if you say: "IE: If no intelligent creatures ever set foot here, if it were completely uninhabited what would the light level be?" then whereever there is a fire beetle, the light level would be normal.

Player - "Heightened deeper darkness? no problem, I killed a fire beetle yestorday, and I have darkvision... deeper darkness only drops the 'natural' normal light from the glands by two steps to dark - though it does snuff out the sunrods, and the daylight spell, and light from the bullseye lantern 60' behind us..."

When combined with the common intrepretation that light sources outside of the darkness effect do not raise the light level in the AOE - we have a situation that a creature can stand at the edge of a dark area, and have total concealment, while able to see normally.

I can easily work with this. I have a wizard, who can switch to an bat familiar. My wizard could then cast deeper darkness on his bat familiar, and the familiar could could follow the wizard around, always placing himself where the DD covered the wizard (and perhaps his fellow PCs) and not the enemy... perhaps it could just fly 60' over the wizards head, thus the "globe of darkness" would only touch the ground on the square where the wizard is.

I don't have a problem running magical Darkness that way. Though it is counter-intuitive.

I'm not happy if regular darkness is supposed to work that way.

And if magical Darkness is not supposed to work like regualr Darkness, it should have been made more clear in the rules. [b]Though the FAQ is a step to clear that up.[/i]

bolding mine.

I do not agree with the bolded part of your statement. I beleave that it is better said "...the FAQ is an attempt to clear that up..." and is poorly done. It is a rule change, pretending to be a FAQ. It gives darkness effects an additional property that they do not have in the spell write-ups, and that you only get from the FAQ.