|
Don't get me wrong. I like the iconics being in the book and would not remove them.
I am just saying that if my group didn't have someone with Knowledge:Local or Gather Info then someone would throw a few ranks in there at next level.
Valeros has a ride of +10 at 4th level. He don't own a horse. A couple ranks thrown into, even at Cross-class, something like Knowledge:Local would strike me as more realistic than +10 in ride.
Seoni the sorcerer has the highest charisma in the group and an average intelligence. Why does she have a +10 bluff but no Knowledge:Arcana? Even just a few points into Diplomacy or Gather Info would've covered any interactional sitches.
Merisiel. I understand about the lower intelligence thing and that is fine but to not a single rank into a social skill or into some means of gaining info seems ridiculous and not realistic at all for a "city-born" Rogue.
It just seems like they were developed totally on paper with a couple ideas as a guideline.
I still want the iconics in the books but without some logical skill choices they aren't something I can really use unless I want to play a handicapped PC or offer my group a bunch of unrealistic PCs.
|
Well I wouldn't say the Iconics are unrealistic. I can repair military radio equipment but I know next to nothing about my home town anymore because I left to go "adventure" in the Marines.
Honestly I can think of plenty of reasons why the Iconics have the abilities they do. Valeros? Ride +10 (maybe he rode along with caravans when he was learning his trade. And being an adventurer how does he work knowledge local. Maybe he is from a few hundred miles away sure isn't local now.
Seoni? Why not bluff she might be trying to convince others that she is a wizard instead of sorcerer. If that is the case sure a little knowledge arcana would be great. However I think that with her natural gifts she finds actual study of arcane things boring. There are a few people I know that are almost prodigees yet they put forth so little effort in their fields that they may as well have had a .5 GPA in college.
Merisiel? I also know big city people who can't read a freaking map. Much less get around on their own and gather info about the undercurrents of the city. Not to mention one of them in particular is so incredibly rude that he can start a fight in about .1 seconds. It's not that he couldn't learn better. He just can't be bothered to learn better. People have attitudes were if you don't have to do it then you don't. She could easily just flich things from passerby without any real means of gathering info aside from their state of dress. You know if you got it fault it.
So I guess what I am saying is this, I honestly feel that the Iconics abilities give them a story you just have to think of why they would do this. I have do it with my own characters build them and then sit and ponder what it all means. Once I figure that out, I'm ready to play motivations and ideas already fairly well developed just from that.
Just my II cp
...
Seoni the sorcerer has the highest charisma in the group and an average intelligence. Why does she have a +10 bluff but no Knowledge:Arcana? Even just a few points into Diplomacy or Gather Info would've covered any interactional sitches. ...
I'd say Seoni gets by on her raw magical power and um... "looks" rather than her intellect and studious arcane studies ;-)
|
I'm even for giving them all a full page in which they keep a sort of diary of the previous adventure, gives a nice summary of "on the previous episode of star tre... I mean pathfinder". They could take away a page or 2 from pathfinder journal to give adventurer journals.
Adventurer journals could be cool, but I think the proper place for that would be the Pathfinder journal. But since Paizo just introduced a voice for the journals, I don't see the Iconics getting in on it.
I can understand the reasoning behind the origins of the character's skill choices. I can also understand the reasoning behind the feats (you can always hire on someone). However, I cannot understand why the characters haven't developed with the story.
Are they also going on the Adventure Path? If not, why not? Experience would dictate that you would at least pick up one or two skills if you continue to encounter them.
I'm with FH on this one. I like the iconics, but If they're going to be included, make them grow with the adventure.
On the other hand, don't include these iconics with the GameMastery modules. Or, use the Infinate Worlds (I'm not a comic book reader, so forgive me if this isn't the right term) concept where the Iconics meet at least some of challenges. Or throw in a new temp iconic/NPC (Experts and such) here and there to get them through the adventure.
I ran D0 as an intro game and the players were frustrated when they couldn't do anything. And these were the Iconics for the National Game Day. I feel sorry for a newcomer getting one of these iconics.
In an ideal world, I'd have my players draw up PCs for the game. I offered up the Iconics and they said they would be fine. We played and had fun. I learned from my mistakes and included an Expert into the ranks with Knowledge Nature, Knowledge Local, and Tracking for D1. I even gave them INT checks to cover the Knowledge Local checks for things that weren't too obscure.
|
|
Not having a skill doesn't mean you can't at least try in most cases.
As far as Knoledge: Local checks go:
Untrained
An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).
I would be tempted to drop the Common Knowledge restriction on Local, and probably Dungeoneering too.
So the iconics are never going to know all the gossip, but they might have picked up the odd thing there and there, and can at least try.
|
|
Are they also going on the Adventure Path? If not, why not? Experience would dictate that you would at least pick up one or two skills if you continue to encounter them. I'm with FH on this one. I like the iconics, but If they're going to be included, make them grow with the adventure.
Why take Gather Information or Diplomacy when you have a fighter who can just grab someone by their tunic, wave his mug around threateningly, and make a +10 Intimidation check?
BTW.. the PC can always do what everyone else did in AD&D before these skills existed. Just throw silver and gold at the nearest barkeep and you'll get the information.
Sometimes the answers aren't found in ROLLPLAY, they're found in ROLEPLAY.
|
|
Great way to troll for a fight, Urza.
The iconics are there to be played in a quick pick-up game or for newbs coming into the game. A newb may not be a good roleplayer.....yet. If we want to go back to where the DM parceled out info only through roleplay then we can just eliminate the whole DC checks for any informational skills. While we're at it, I can just roleplay that my PC was a sailor and knows the most intricate of knots and we can eliminate the Use Rope skill, etc. etc.
The mechanic is in place to help provide a hard and fast ruling for choices in character design that become part of a PCs background and, I agree, should be roleplayed. I personally have never tried to find a mob-boss and attempted to gain access to his lair so my roleplay attempts may fall a bit short in certain situations that my PC may be in. Thank the Gods that we have skill checks to help provide a guide for doing things that we as real people haven't any experience in.
Nobody picks on the guy sitting at the table who can't lift a 50lb bag of stuff yet plays a massive barbarian that can throw a horse.
Nobody picks on the guy sitting at the table who can't lift a 50lb bag of stuff yet plays a massive barbarian that can throw a horse.
While I do generally agree with your sentiments, I should note that the fallacy of trying to equate mental skills to physical skills in a game has long since been ground into the dirt.
Nobody likes the results of the above non-argument when they are taken to their logical conclusion.
|
|
Some of this is partly to blame on the existing skill system in 3.x--it doesn't encourage using skills as a tool to customize and flesh out characters. Most classes have too few skill points per level and too few class skills. This causes players to become reluctant to expend their skill points on throwaway, flavor-based or cross-class skills. Especially for skills that, following Craft's example, should be class skills for every class--like Concentration, Knowledge (local), Listen, Profession, Sense Motive, Spot, Swim.
Sometimes the answers aren't found in ROLLPLAY, they're found in ROLEPLAY.
And sometimes the best roleplayers base their roleplaying on the rolls they recieve from dice rolls. I mean if a game has rules for social interactions using dice rolls, it is a pretty poor roleplayer that can't roleplay in accordance with those dice rolls.
Some of this is partly to blame on the existing skill system in 3.x--it doesn't encourage using skills as a tool to customize and flesh out characters. Most classes have too few skill points per level and too few class skills. This causes players to become reluctant to expend their skill points on throwaway, flavor-based or cross-class skills. Especially for skills that, following Craft's example, should be class skills for every class--like Concentration, Knowledge (local), Listen, Profession, Sense Motive, Spot, Swim.
Amen!
|
|
And sometimes the best roleplayers base their roleplaying on the rolls they recieve from dice rolls. I mean if a game has rules for social interactions using dice rolls, it is a pretty poor roleplayer that can't roleplay in accordance with those dice rolls.
The only times I've ever seen a Gather Information roll, and I've played with 5 different DMs, is when the NPCs are reluctant to talk to the PCs. Wait.. correction.. I've seen a few Gather Information rolls without any roleplay to quickly get through the Info gathering.
If it's truly "social" and the other NPC has nothing to hide, a few gold pieces shouldn't require a GI roll if the NPC knows something.
Bards have and will break any campaign that the DM allows ROLLplaying instead of ROLEplaying for "social" encounters.
The only times I've ever seen a Gather Information roll, and I've played with 5 different DMs, is when the NPCs are reluctant to talk to the PCs. Wait.. correction.. I've seen a few Gather Information rolls without any roleplay to quickly get through the Info gathering.
Well considering, if you are correctly using the rules, it takes 2-5 hours for each gather information check, yeah, I can see it used to quickly go over getting information. I mean, maybe some players want to play out 2-5 hours of talking to folks to get the information, but alot don't want to bother. Roleplay the important people that your roll brought you to, don't roleplay out talking to each person, instead have a gathering info montage.
If it's truly "social" and the other NPC has nothing to hide, a few gold pieces shouldn't require a GI roll if the NPC knows something.
Sounds like there may be some confusion between Gather Information and Diplomacy. If you want to talk to a specific individual that is usually a Diplomacy check. If you just want to talk to anyone that might know something, that is a gather information check. Diplomacy takes 1 minute (if not being rushed), gather information takes 2-5 hours. But the rule specificly says that it is only a DC 10 to find out common information for gather information. Unless someone looks unsavory (low charisma), then anyone should be able to take a 10 and get the basic information available. Got a few days, take a 20.
Bards have and will break any campaign that the DM allows ROLLplaying instead of ROLEplaying for "social" encounters.
Yes, bards are quite scary. Beware the bard. Especially the half-elf bard, he might talk you to death. Of course some of the problems is people confuse the diplomacy skill with Dominate Person, and poor DMs allow this confusion. You can diplomacize the smith to sell the magic longsword at a discount, but you aren't going to diplomacize him to just give it to you (unless you are saving the town or something, which he'd probably do anyway).
The pre-gens were the only aspect of Pathfinder that I wasn't totally impressed with. I mean, hell, making up my own PCs (or NPCs when DMing) is my favorite part of the process of gaming. I didn't understand why Paizo thought I would want not one, but four pre-generated characters in my product. What a waste of space.
Yeah. That was until today. My group meets at 2pm every other Tuesday, and at noon today one of my players informed me that he wasn't going to be able to make it anymore due to scheduling problems (we're all cops on the same department but working on three different shifts, so meeting at all has been a nightmare). Can you guess what saved the day? Yep, pre-gens. Looks like this NPC cat named Valeros just happened to be available to lend a hand. The party was already running thin with only three PCs, and two adventurers are more likely to end up in the belly of a determined monster than to save the day.
Thanks for knowing what I need before I know I need it, Paizo.
|
Contributor
|
Yeap.. pretty soon Paizo will have it's own swat team at it's disposal.
*glee*
My girlfriend and I watch a lot of police procedural kind of shows, and I always squee whenever a SWAT team appears on screen. Because you KNOW the bad guys are about to get their asses handed to them. Hells yeah! ^_^
Mike, I wish there was a way for you to see a SWAT team go to work in person. It's freaking awesome. There are few things quite so satisfying as seeing a self-proclaimed "hardcore" meth dealer crying and shaking like a baby after a tactical entry.
Check with your local PD and see what their ride-along policy is. You won't get to see a SWAT entry, but there's plenty of excitement on regular patrol. When I was on patrol I loved taking riders because I enjoyed letting civilians see what real (as opposed to TV) cops do on a daily basis.
And make a lot of donut jokes. We love that ;)
Just thought I'd chime in...I like the iconics, even if they never see actual game play.
Kudos on the upcoming larger format for the Iconics too. It looks really nice. Having a little backround on those folks helps me out too since I am usually quite exhaustive in my writing of backstories. Its the characters motivations, dreams, etc. It needs to be there. Besides, even if you are not running the Iconics, I think of them as premade NPCS that I can throw in and have cameo in my games.
Its one thing to make the PC the center of your campaign, but they can't do everything themselves. Having some other adventurers running around that they might cross paths with from time to time always adds fun to the game.
Are they also going on the Adventure Path? If not, why not? Experience would dictate that you would at least pick up one or two skills if you continue to encounter them. I'm with FH on this one. I like the iconics, but If they're going to be included, make them grow with the adventure.Why take Gather Information or Diplomacy when you have a fighter who can just grab someone by their tunic, wave his mug around threateningly, and make a +10 Intimidation check?
BTW.. the PC can always do what everyone else did in AD&D before these skills existed. Just throw silver and gold at the nearest barkeep and you'll get the information.
Sometimes the answers aren't found in ROLLPLAY, they're found in ROLEPLAY.
Also, Merisiel can ask questions while licking her dagger or pricking her fingers and licking the blood. Or, she could brag about how flexible she is and how much she likes the smell of cheese.
I'm another person who likes the iconics in the back of the book, don't care if its 1 or two pages. Why? Because they can be game savers - last night my weekly game group met and two of my players (husband and wife) had a frazzled day and all their game stuff was in another car. Well, we know he had a rogue, and she was a druid. Rather than bog the game down making them try and re-write everything from memory on a new sheet, he just used Merisiel's stats, and she used Kyra's stats, using druid spells instead of cleric's, pulling out a MM for the wolf's stats, etc. Really saved the day, as they needed all hands on deck to fight the big boss at the end of Burnt Offerings. I understand those who say that we should reserve the space for more adventure or fluff or crunch articles, I do. But for me, I'm glad they're there.
Plus, Wayne Reynolds is one hell of an artist. I mean, c'mon...who couldn't like Seoni? She's so...so...mystical, yeah, that's it. ;)
Oh, and my wife tells me that Valeros is a hunk, too. Just to be fair to all genders on this board :D
If by the 3rd book each of the iconics take up a half page (2 pages total), does that mean by the 6th book they each will have a page (4 pages total)?
|
|
I actually like the idea of a bigger stat block for the iconics. One of the best things about Pathfinder IMHO is that I can have my new players pick an iconic character and all the stuff including backstory is done for them. That way they can start playing the game without a ton of time trying to create a character and think up backstory etc. I've found when I have someone who has never played the game (something I get quite often suprisingly enough), that the sooner I can get them playing, the more likely it is they will come back. If they have to sit for 4 hours making a character and all that, I've found they will get frustrated and often stop playing.
The other great benefit to the larger statblock is the full fram art of the character. All of my players love having a picture of their character during play and these Wayne Reynolds iconics are amazing.
Overall, I love the things you guys are doing with Pathfinder, and you are even picking up on ways to improve it before I even can mention them. The larger iconics stat block is a great example. Keep up the good work!!