|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Marc Radle wrote:
I'd disagree. It has a meaning, just not a perfectly well defined one.
I've seen multiple tier systems with different definitions. Very definitely, individual classes vary A LITTLE in different attempts to categorize tiers.
But I don't think that I've ever seen a class vary by more than a single tier (assuming same number of tiers and assuming class hasn't changed substantially with new rules).
So, for example, all the full casters are always tier 1 or 2 in any tier system I've seen.
The other possibility is to contact either the Store Coordinator or local Venture Officer. They may not know about the issue and may be able to get some changes to be made.
Also, in PFS you get full XP if you are present for 3 encounters. You get whatever Prestige you've earned (likely not much but sometimes you get lucky) and the cash you've earned (also varies).
Running away and keeping your character alive is a viable tactic that costs less than actually dying.
How about free kittens for GMing?
Ooh. Ooh. The more you GM, the more benefits you can apply to your animal companions and familiars. Increased options, increased ability to override some GMs "interpretations" of the rules, increased tricks.
Perfect. Well, for me anyway. And that is all that counts, right? :-) :-) :-)
It depends on what you mean by "Worth it".
You'll definitely be weaker than a full caster would be.
You'll still be an effective character as you partly make up for that lack of strength with an amazing amount of versatility.
It REALLY hurts at the odd levels and especially at the low odd levels.
At level 8, for example, you're getting 3/3 spells as opposed to 4. Not a huge problem.
But at level 7 you're still getting L2 spells as opposed to L4 which IS a huge deal.
True I was just hoping for something like Stars Wars did where you can make basic modified equipment. Well I guess I strike our again. Thanks everyone.
Quite often you can reflavour existing solutions to get something close to what you want (as long as what you're reflavouring to does not exist)
For example, putting weapon blanche on your adamantine weapon is quite legal.
But some of your creative suggestions above really should be shot down OR cost a substantial amount. A cold iron/Adamantine weapon is a significant benefit over just an adamantine one. If it was as simple as puting cold iron into grooves lots of people would have done it already in world.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
It is run a lot online. I think that I've played it something like 10 times in total (between Core and Regular campaigns).
I don't need the credit, usually I've played it because it was the only game that I could play
One thing that you have to realize is that an Animal Companion with an intelligence of 3 (or higher) and tricks trained out the wazoo is, in a great many ways, far LESS capable than a well trained animal is in the real world.
I've seen sheepdog trials, for example. The trainer just has to point and the dog will go to specific places by specific routes.
Or look what circus animals do.
Or a pride of lionesses bringing down a kill.
From a reality point of view, it makes little to no sense that a well trained animal wouldn't be able to take a nice safe route to a flanking position.
It is also the case that real world animals often have WAY better skills than do animal companions or animals. For example, a Tiger in the real world damn near has a climb speed, dogs have a MUCH better sense of hearing and smell than they do in Pathfinder, etc.
But they also are a VERY powerful class feature and are absolutely LOATHED by some GMs. So, for game balance reasons, they are fairly limited.
And there is a HUGE amount of table variation in how they actually work at a table
Given that this is a thread on GM recruitment, I should probably poibt out tgst "If you GM three times your next character can skip level one" is actually a potent recruitment tool.
But, in practice, many players seem to grab an evergreen or rebuild their character significantly.
The game system severely punishes some characters at very low levels. A simple example would be a dex based unchained rogue. At level 3, he can reasonably dump Str down a fair bit since he'll be using dex to damage. But at level 1 and 2 if he has done this then he is very, very underpowered.
As to 1-5 scenarios at the events I organize I definitely try hard to match the capability/experience of a GM with the difficulty of a scenario. Inexperienced GMs get the fairly simple to run/read scenarios.
But I'm definitely in the group of GMs that just don't like playing level 1 very much with many characters. Oh, I have a level 1 character made in case I need to play at an Evergreen table (I refuse to run a Pregen unless there is absolutely no alternative). But so many characters just SUCK at level 1 that I don't want to play them there. I figure that level 1 is a combination of bad game design and making new players pay their dues. I've paid my dues :-)
Peter Stewart wrote:
I have a PFS Mystic Theurge from the days when SLA qualified for the class. So, only a 1 level cost for the cleric level.
Even with that lower cost at the levels the character played at (2-9) the character was probably weaker than a straight wizard. Even one level as a wizard costs and buying a decent wisdom meant that int was lower.
The big problem is that the game is dominated by action econony. No matter how many spells obe has you're only casting one per round.
The character also just had TOO many options and not enough time to consider them all. I often realized tgat I should have done sonething different when it was too late.
Andrew Christian wrote:
My recollection is that1) It was most definitely NOT promised in the original discussion
2) It was, however, stated to be something that they were very,very seriously considering (the implication was that it was far, far more than 50% likely to occur)
3) The pre-release went out with the language in allowing replays to refresh
The combination of 2 and 3 is certainly enough for many people to get the impression that it was something given and then taken away.
I have no problems with the proposed solution but I don't expect it to have very much effect.
In my experience, the GMs who GM the most have SO many replay credits that getting more just isn't much of an issue for them. Most of them like to play their character through most of the levels (except maybe for a dead level here or there).
And the newer GMs who want the credit just find it trivial to run scenarios that they haven't run before.
It sounds like the player is deliberately trying to make himself the centre of attention. Or is a creep
So, while I'd personally just say "No" or toss him into jail an alternative might be to totally and completely and utterly ignore either the nudity or, possibly better, the character.
Skyclad Player: "My totally nude character walks up to the bartender"
I ran this last night and on the whole it was successful. Man, does this take a lot of prep work though. I'm very, very, very much NOT surprised how much table variation the now closed thread revealed. This was more complicated than it should have been. Do NOT run this warm, let alone cold.
I was quite unsatisfied with one part of it. I'd like advice on how to do better at it.
Note : The Venue I play at is quite busy and noisy. Noise is probably a factor in what follows.
I'd given out various handouts to the players. They had pictures of the NPCs together with their descriptions, they had the rules summary from the pfsprep site, etc
The problem I had was in making the skill checks and discovery checks seem remotely natural. How does one seque from "Skill check to impress host" to "Time for Discovery checks" to "Time for Influence Checks"? And how does one make the Discovery checks the tiniest bit more interesting than "Well, roll Sense Motive" ESPECIALLY as they tended to be done by the non socially interactive players. All the Discovery Checks use the same skills so the same characters were making them and they got really old and stale really really quickly.
Even with the Influence checks there were difficulties, even after they knew what skill to roll. They talked fairly naturally, and were surprised when I had to take what they were telling me and basically go : That is diplomacy you're rolling, right? Not the Knowledge Planes that you know is the best skill? Heavy handed questions like that got them to adjust what they were saying. But asking a player with 0 knowledge planes to improvise a speech involving knowledge planes that the other guy would approve of didn't work well with all players.
As another example, in the Garden Party scene. I lovingly described the gardens, how the plants were huge and had obviously been alchemically influenced. None of the group took the hint and had the conversation go in a direction that could conceivably justify one of the listed skills.
I realized later that I could have had the other NPCs go first and show them how it was done but that also feels a bit contrived. And its not as if they'd have Perform Comedy to describe why they'd picked their costumes, for example.
Cleric with travel domain rocks. +10 ft from domain, longstrider as a domain spell.
I have a dwarf cleric with 50 ft speed in plate mail (1 level barbarian, mithril plate mail). Worth it for the expression on peoples faces when he virtually teleported around the battlefield (feather steps so ignoring difficult terrain when he wanted to).
As long as the people with obscene initiatives, absurd to hit or damage numbers, etc are ALSO punished I'd be fine with that :-).
Actually, as a very occassional thing that didn't lead to permanent negative boons I'd find my bard getting kidnapped by the Dragon as his personal slave or my Painter gettng drafted to make a picture of the Emperor absolutely hilarious. I'd happily pay 5 or so prestige for a "body recovery" under those circumstances.
Heck, half the time my characters end up spending an unspecified number of weeks with some NPC after the adventure is over anyway :-). Let me pay prestige for some silly "Beloved by Kappa" boon and I'd do it a fair bit
Michael Hallet wrote:
It most certainly DOES exist in PFS adventures. It is now utterly routine for a scenario to list something like "Diplomacy check 16. 21 in high tier".
Heck, the 4 player adjustment often changes DCs.
I know that isn't Pathfinder as written but it certainly is PFS as written.
And I (mostly) think it a good thing. My diplomancers are silly good as it is, they need the artificial DCs.
I don't totally share it but I can definitely understand the frustration. With my social characters I spend a LOT of resources so that they'll shine in the moderately rare social encounters. They pay a price for that competence. They are markedly less effective in the combats that mostly dominate most scenarios.
So, I have a character who SHOULD shine. And they don't.
Surely it isn't hard to understand why that would frustrate some people.
I've seen melee fighters similarly frustrated when every combat happens at range. Or healers frustrated when the enemies are so insignificant that their healing abilities aren't needed. Etc.
Personally, I'm ok with my Uber diplomats being rendered only useful. They have such ridiculous diplomacy skills that they'll still rock. But it would bug me if one of my "spent some resources to be at least competent at diplomacy" characters found himself more or less useless.
How exactly do reach and diagonals interact? I know that the FAQ says that a 10ft reach threatens 2 diagonals away (15ft) but I don't see why that lets you hit 2 diagonals away on your turn. I suppose one can essentially reverse the definition of threaten to imply that if you threaten you can strike into a square, despite that being a classic logical fallacy.
Threaten: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack"
I am nearly sure that a 15 ft reach does NOT threaten nor let you attack 20 ft away( 2 diagonals + 1). this makes that pretty clear
Andrew Christian wrote:
Uh, no. You're missing the point that the new mechanics may well be what makes me NOT want to play a scenario.
Lets take Assault on the Wound as a very clear counter example. If I had known up front that most of the scenario was using the mass combat rules and my actual character was irrelevant I'm not at all sure that I'd have played it. If I HAD played it my expectations would at least have been in line with what I got.
That latter bit is important. People don't like what they perceive to be "Bait and Switch". There were lots of negative reviews of Assault when it came out that boiled down "I was expecting a role playing scenario and got a board game". Managing expectations is important.
It's currently legal but i wouldn't count on it staying that way.
And I'd expect a little bit of table variation now. Not a lot but some. People on thus thread think it illegal and a fairly goid case can be made that, by analogy, it "should" be illegal.
Pointing out that that position is wrong (and I agree, it is) really doesn't change the fact that it will exist.
Andrew Christian wrote:
From posts here there seems to have been considerable table variation on how the mechanics were presented. And disagreement as to how they should be presented.
I know that in other similar scenarios I have experienced considerable table variation in how the mechanics were presented.
So I conclude that there is considerable variation in how the mechanics are presented.
And so, I conclude that guidance should be given to reduce this table variation
While I completely agree this shouldn't be allowed, it isn't necessarily true that the characters have nothing in common. Some of my characters have pretty strong relationships with other characters of mine. One are a husband/wife, I have a couple of mentor/mentee relationships, etc.
One very strong impression that I'm getting from this thread is that quite a few GMs seemed to have made mistakes running it. More than usual.
I'll reiterate a point I've made before. When a scenario changes mechanics it should be made VERY clear how explict the GM should be on how the new mechanics work. Otherwise we get more table variation than desired.
I haven't read this one but other, similar, scenarios have NOT been ckear on how explicit the GM should be.
I used to do this in a 3.0 campaign. The problem that I had was that the chance of failure was so low that it was very easy to forget to roll the dice (especially since casters already have so many things to consider during combat) and inadvertently cheat.
I eventually replaced the shirt with mage armor to stop that accidental cheating.
Tony Lindman wrote:
However, I honestly can't imagine ever running a scenario that I spent *less* than 4-6 hours preparing, and I happily spend 10 or more if that is what it takes. I *want* my scenarios to require some work for the GM. That work then shows in the resulting game.
Good for you. Very few local GMs (most certainly including myself) are willing to spend over 4 hours on preparation, let alone 10. If scenarios start to require that level of preparation on a regular basis I'll stop running them.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Uh, how do you propose we do that?
I play a lot of skill rich casters with long lists of scrolls and gear. FAR more prepared and versatile than most. But I am still a long way from bring able to handle everything.
And unless you're proposing we outlaw fighters, paladins, etc there are a lot of characters who are inherently quite limited in what they can handle
<Admittedly the following is just the tiny bit hyperbole. But it is the logical consequence of arguments like the above>
Unless you're a bard or the like, how is one supposed to cover the set of recommended skills for a character who is TRYING to be a good PAthfinder
Shmooze - Apparently this now needs Knowledge local, nobility, diplomacy, bluff , intimidate. All good pathfinders clearly should have all these
Exploration - Clearly you need Know dungeon, perception, disable device,survival All good pathfinders clearly should have all these
Know what you're looking for - Clearly, Appraise, knowledge History, linguistics, knowledge geography. All good pathfinders clearly should have all these
Recognize the things that are trying to kill you. Knowledge planes, religion, Arcana,
Staying alive - Things attack you and you need to survive. Swim, Climb, Acrobatics. All good pathfinders clearly should have all these
Maybe, just maybe, I'm allowed to have no ranks in Handle Animal and Ride and still be considered a good Pathfinder
Jared Thaler wrote:
Uh, you're talking about the (admittedly quite broken) rules as written in the rule book.
But PFS scenarios pretty regularly ignore those rules and just pick arbitrary DCs for the PCs to match.
A 16 is going to succeed more often than not in Tier 1-2 scenarios.
And THIS is my problem. The player consciously chooses to give his character some social interaction skills so that he could participate in that side of the game.
He looks at his previous PFS experience and he looks at the rules. He decides that he can only really afford one social skill and diplomacy fits his character concept.
He manages to scrounge the points to get his Int up to 12 and Cha up to 12. I'll suffer in combat, he thinks, but its a good trade off.
He does all the things that some of you say that he SHOULD do, that he is EXPECTED to do.
And suddenly his proud Diplomacy skill of +6 (+1 Cha, +3 favoured class, +1 rank, +1 trait since it wasn't even a class skill) becomes, at best, meh.
As I said earlier, I LIKE Ultimate Intrigue. For a campaign focused on Intrigue where you don't want everybody to have +20 diplomacy and where you don't want the bard to solve all the problems.
But PFS isn't that campaign. It is a campaign where, in 80+% of scenarios, having ANY points in ANY social skill is more than you actually need.
Andrew Christian wrote:
I don't recall a single season 7 scenario that dictated how to solve the obstacles.
You have a very different recollection than I do, then.
The most egregious example is probably the end of the Bronze House Reprisal, but several other examples of overly scripted encounters spring to mind just glancing at the summaries
This is not at all right.
I LOVE playing skill monkeys. But there is a significant cost to doing so. With anything approximating equal optimization my skill monkey will be less powerful in combat than a comparable less skilled character would be.
Now, that is a tradeoff I am willing to make. But its not one that characters should be EXPECTED to make.
And some of those skill monkeys have next to no knowledge skills. Partly, ironically, because I wanted to focus on skills to allow me to participate in social interaction scenes
Andrew Christian wrote:
Adventurer and explorer I'll grant you. But scholar? Not really.
In the vast majority of published PFS adventures knowledge skills are used to get interesting but fundamentally unimportant background information and to identify monster powers.
Now, I build lots of characters with lots of knowledge skills but I refuse to say people who don't are being bad pathfinders.
And the rules mean that a small investment in knowledge skills is a poor choice for most characters. The DCs scale rapidly and most characters can afford to stay relevant in only 1 or 2.
The spell is very clearly very broken (it is way too powerful for a first level spell and it seems to be an example of a spell intended as a debuff which is actually MUCH better as a buff) but, as written, it trumps darkness and greater darkness.
Up here we seem to have a gentlepersons agreement to not use it. A (fairly weak, admittedly) argument could be made that using it as a buff spell is a jerk move.
pH unbalanced wrote:
I haven't run or played this, but my immediate question for those who have read the scenario is :
How clear is it that, to Run As Written, you are supposed to explicitly tell the players the new rules that they are using?
If it is not CRYSTAL clear then that is a serious problem.
As always, I'm a little nervous or unhappy with Paizo forcing us to use its most recent rules changes. Don't get me wrong, I quite like Ultimate Intrigue, but primarily for a home campaign. For PFS, I have to build my character so that it works in a whole range of scenarios. In almost all of them, if interaction even comes up at all, it is a simple check using a simple skill.
I'd be pretty unhappy if my cleric or druid, who actually have spent some valuable skill and attribute points to have a decent diplomacy couldn't actually diplomatize. They paid a cost to be versatile and then, just when it should matter, it doesn't because Paizo changes the rules (and using the Ultimate Intrigue rules IS changing the rules).
My bard probably has good enough diplomacy to pass the checks anyway. But, instead of rocking he becomes kinda competent? I can see people being upset with that.
EVERY PFS GM occassionally ignores the rules. I'll publicly admit that I don't CARE what the rules are here. If somebody is being made uncomfortable and I can change things to make them comfortable and not materially affect the scenario I'm going to do so.
Within reason. Which is very subjective and ill defined.
I don't mind the tactic. I do mind that the bad guys are so absurdly vulnerable to some tactics.
Just about every character played by a competent, experienced player has backups of important things unless there is a roleplaying reason not to.
Backup spell component pouches, holy symbols, weapons, a dagger, etc.
Sundering a wizards spell component pouch should be a good tactic as it forces him to spend a round getting his backup, it shouldn't completely end the encounter.
Kevin Willis wrote:
One of my flaws as a GM is that I can complain too much about the scenario while running it (not before). Especially at a table where I know all the players well. I try to not do this but sometimes the problem is SO egregious that it is REALLY difficult to restrain myself.
Kevin Willis wrote:
If anything I'd say that creative solutions are more rewarded in scenarios where the listed checks are particularly difficult. However I will say that it can be a struggle for a GM - especially a relatively new one - to allow something. The tendency is to stick to exactly what's written.
One of the areas of greatest table variation is how creative solutions are rewarded. One persons creative is another persons hackneyed or ridiculous. In organized play, creative solutions should really never be REQUIRED.
Don't get me wrong, they should be rewarded. Just not required.