|
The anecdotal feedback I hear about chases in PFS are mixed. Some people like them a lot. Some just hate them. I assume Paizo has a lot more of feedback then I have.
I have just played in a chase - and I'm to GM a chase at an upcoming convention. So I took the time to look a little bit more in detail how the chase works - mathematically.
My motivation is to ensure I give my players a good experience - without the need to revert to bending the rules.
I also don't want to take something away from people who like this part of PFS play. So I first tried to analyze the problem - then I come up with a very simple solution that hopefully is able to avoid the worst problems as I see them.
I know Paizo is great in listening. So I might hope this thread leads to some improvements.
Let's start with the problem how I see it.
The chase is a skill check. You are allowed to chose from two different one. To move a square forward you have to successfully make at least one of the skill checks.
To win you need to make 2 successful skill checks as the enemy seldom wais long enough for you to move square by square.
It is a nice an elegant mechanic that adds something different to the game as simple fights. The problem in my view comes if the numbers needed to make the skill check become too high.
Take the attempt to move 1 square forward. Assuming a DC20 it takes you 1 round with a skill of 20 to move into the next square (or 1/3 round doing a triple move). This time doubles to 2 rounds average if your skill is 11. So far so good.
It goes up to 3.3 rounds if your skill is 5 - this is bad but it is still doable. It goes up to 10 rounds if your skill is 1 - now we are completely in the realm of frustration.
Take it another way - the chance to stay in the same square for 5 rounds is
2% if you need a 10+
17% if you need a 15+
59% if you need a 19+
100% if you need a 21+
Being stuck for 5 rounds is frustrating for most players
And to stay 10 rounds in the same square
11% if you need a 17+
35% if you need a 19+
100% if you need a 21+
Being stuck for 10 rounds - well - you sit on the sideline and wait for your comrades to get this over with as quickly as possible as you seem unable to participate in any way.
Roll needed Chance Average rounds Chance to be stuck 5 rounds Chance to be stuck 10 rounds
0 100% 1.0 0% 0%
1 100% 1.0 0% 0%
2 95% 1.1 0% 0%
3 90% 1.1 0% 0%
4 85% 1.2 0% 0%
5 80% 1.3 0% 0%
6 75% 1.3 0% 0%
7 70% 1.4 0% 0%
8 65% 1.5 1% 0%
9 60% 1.7 1% 0%
10 55% 1.8 2% 0%
11 50% 2.0 3% 0%
12 45% 2.2 5% 0%
13 40% 2.5 8% 1%
14 35% 2.9 12% 1%
15 30% 3.3 17% 3%
16 25% 4.0 24% 6%
17 20% 5.0 33% 11%
18 15% 6.7 44% 20%
19 10% 10.0 59% 35%
20 5% 20.0 77% 60%
21 0% NA 100% 100%
If the GM isn't giving a helping hand (aka he cheats) then with a difficult challenge / missing skills a chase can become just frustrating.
I illustrate this when I calculated the numbers for the chase in God Market Gamble for the Pre-Gen characters level 1.
The time to reach the rooftop (the end if the party does loose the chase) is (assuming optimal selection and only single move).
Valeros: 25 rounds
Kyra: 21 rounds
Ezren: 22 rounds
Merisiel: 14 rounds
Triple move can help. But triple move is only faster (statistically) if
a) you need an 11 or less to succeed
b) you skip a more difficult situation in the next two squares
Roll needed Chance Chance go triple Chance go once Chance go zero Chance to be mired Average squares move Average rounds per square
0 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 3.0 0.33
1 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 3.0 0.33
2 95% 90% 10% 0% 0% 2.8 0.36
3 90% 81% 19% 0% 0% 2.6 0.38
4 85% 72% 28% 0% 0% 2.4 0.41
5 80% 64% 36% 0% 0% 2.3 0.44
6 75% 56% 14% 29% 0% 2.1 0.67
7 70% 49% 12% 38% 1% 2.0 0.83
8 65% 42% 11% 45% 2% 1.8 1.05
9 60% 36% 9% 51% 4% 1.7 1.34
10 55% 30% 8% 56% 6% 1.6 1.75
11 50% 25% 6% 60% 9% 1.5 2.33
12 45% 20% 5% 62% 12% 1.4 3.16
13 40% 16% 4% 64% 16% 1.3 4.39
14 35% 12% 3% 64% 20% 1.2 6.31
15 30% 9% 2% 64% 25% 1.2 9.42
16 25% 6% 2% 62% 30% 1.1 14.82
17 20% 4% 1% 59% 36% 1.1 25.19
18 15% 2% 1% 55% 42% 1.0 48.40
19 10% 1% 0% 50% 49% 1.0 116.86
20 5% 0% 0% 43% 56% 1.0 497.51
21 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 1.0 NA
So I hope by detailing the statistics behind the chase mechanic I can show where the problem lies. The problem are if high rolls are the only way to succeed.
Not every player is able to come up with great alternative solutions aka roleplay. Not every GM will allow every alternative solution a player comes up with.
So is there a simple solution?
Having looked at the numbers I would say - yes.
Suggestion for an improved rule:
During a chase - any natural roll of a 15 or higher is an autosuccess.
Implementing this is not taking anything away from someone who has invested in skills. A 15 still only gives a 30% chance to succeed. But it gives at least a minimal chance to move on.
The new numbers for the Pre-Gens would be:
Valeros: 20 rounds
Kyra: 17 rounds
Ezren: 19 rounds
Merisiel: 14 rounds
Merisiel and Barnel are unchanged (Barnel would take 10 rounds). Valeros, Kyra and Ezren still would need a lot of luck to catch up with Barnel or to be faster as Merisiel. But they are no longer sidelined completely. At least with some good dice rolling they have a chance of a suprise.
What I would hope with this suggestion:
a) I'm allowed to use the suggestion at my own table as I feel it removes a lot of frustration with players who are stuck.
b) Maybe this suggestion - or an improved one as an alternative even makes it as a rule for PFS (can be added in the FAQ or even in future chase write ups / the PFS rules.
Alternative improvements:
Once failed you can just automatically move 1 square
Twice failed you can just automatically move 1 square
You get a cummulative +5 for each round you are stuck in a square (only valid for moving a single sqaure)
All of these try to preserve the mechanics for high skills but give a way out to limit the time on low skills to be stuck.
In my view something that is needed.
I'm happy to do the math for any of the above or other suggestions.
Once failed you can just automatically move 1 square is equivalent approx. to a 13+ needed to roll (you max. stay 2 rounds in a square)
Twice failed is approx. a 14+ needed.
A cummulative +5 would more preserve actual skills as they are but is more complex as a rule.
|
Thod, is this advice for PFS GMs to change the rules to make them better or asking Paizo to change the rules for Chase scenes to make them easier? If it is the later isn't the PFS forums the wrong place for this since it is about rules of the game not PFS?
Chase rules are not specific to PFS they are rules set in the GameMastery Guide.
|
|
Dragnmoon
Being allowed to do this - or other PFS GMs being allowed would be great. But I'm not in a position to advice other PFS GMs (if this breaks RAW). Therefore I bring this up here.
Getting this acceptable for PFS would be a first step. It can even be done in each scenario as an allowed modification would be even better.
Off course Paizo is welcome to change the Pathfinder Chase rules. You can dream but lets start small.
So yes - I deliberately have posted it here as I see a need as a PFS GM - expecially as we will run this scenario in a few weeks at PaizoCon UK.
|
|
Does the above math account for becoming mired on two failures in a round?
Yes
I should probably post all the formula I use in case I got something wrong.
The chance to get mired is simple:
It's [5% times roll needed (-5)] squared.
It is the sixth column.
I just need to doublecheck I account for it correctly in transforming all the chances into average rounds needed.
Off course the table assume twice the same chance which in most cases wouldn't be right. So all in all you would have an array of 400 possibilities. But it provides accurately enough the trend.
Edit: And to be honest - it doesn't really matter if it takes on average 48.4 rounds as calculated - or 20 or 80 to move to the next square if you need an 18 to succeed and try a triple move.
In this case you either get really, really lucky, do something different - or it doesn't matter as you are stuck solid.
|
|
For anyone interested / wanting to check out the Math
Chance to succeed 1 sqaure: = 1-(A#-1)/20
A# is the roll needed. The -1 takes into account that you only fail if you are below the number you need. So (A#-1)/20 becomes the chance to fail with 1 - chance to fail - chance of success.
The average round taken: =1/B#
B# is the chance I just calculated. If your chance is 100%, then this is 1 round, 50% becomes 2 rounds, 20% 5 rounds, etc. It is undefinded for chance = 0 as it becomes infinity.
The chance to fail 5 consecutive rounds: =(1-B#)^5
1 - b# is the chance to fail once. This is then raised to the power of 5 to give the chance to fail 5 times in a row.
The chance to fail 10 consecutive rounds: =(1-B#)^10
1 - b# is the chance to fail once. This is then raised to the power of 10 to give the chance to fail 10 times in a row.
Chance to succeed with a single roll: = 1-(A#-1)/20
A# is the roll needed. The -1 takes into account that you only fail if you are below the number you need. So (A#-1)/20 becomes the chance to fail with 1 - chance to fail - chance of success.
This is the same formula as used in table 1 to move 1 square forward.
Chance to go triple: b# * b#
This is just the square of the single chance that gives the chance to do it twice in a row.
Seems I still need to work on the other formula as I just detected some issues.
|
|
You know, the main issue with the way the chases have been implemented and not working well, have more to do with what skills and DCs are set at each area.
Additionally, some character types should just be better than others.
The main issue is when the obstacles are designed, they are often designed with a High DC and then a lower DC on a trained only skill.
The reason chase mechanics were created is to allow for a dynamic chase that isn't bogged down by rules of climbing and jumping and what not, and allows a badguy a chance to get away.
The problem is, that often when the chase mechanics are implemented, things like a locked gate needing to be unlocked by everyone who wants to pass it is ludicrous.
And these things can be solves by simply putting text in the scenario that explains "The rogue can forgoe their turn to unlock the gate and hold it open for everyone else." But without these blurbs, the "creative way around things" vs. "run as written" get in the way of each other.
So the best way to write chase scenes, especially for PFS, is to account for some potential creative (or blatantly obvious--i.e. the locked gate) ideas, and to make sure that there aren't two potentially ridiculously hard to impossible checks at each obstacle.
As for making it fun and interesting, that's the GM's job to describe things dynamically, instead of treating it like a board game.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I think a better format for a chase scene would just to have Paizo make a pseudo board game. You try to advance squares, roll to see how far you get, and what obstacles you draw from the "challenges" deck.
+1 to Thod's idea if it would speed up play. Anything to make it faster.
The current system often becomes mired in itself, and a thirty second chase takes upwards of an hour to complete. And then you have the combat that normally comes afterwards...
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
As for making it fun and interesting, that's the GM's job to describe things dynamically, instead of treating it like a board game.
It's funny, cause I just posted the opposite >.<
I'd be nice it if it was fun and interesting, but every chase I've been involved with has boiled down into a board game style of "how many squares can I advance." I don't think that the current format fosters in the atmosphere that ultimately we'd both like to see.
And because it doesn't, since it does boil down to a complicated board game, we might as well just make it a simple board game.
|
|
Okay when I've run and played chases, we've always had player pull something interesting when they realise they are falling behind. As a player in Midnight Mauler I pulled out potion of flying, and and had to face the mauler alone for four rounds. In Godsmarket we had one character climb to the top of the wall and shoot the competition with his bow. Me, an alchemist, asked if I could blow up the gate lock with a bomb.
To me that is part of the game. I think the main problem with chases is such solutions are not always encouraged by all GMs.
Perhaps a solution would be to explicitly encourage the GM to support such tactics (within reason).
|
|
Thanks for all the replies so far
2Andrew - you are absolutely right - I have treated the analysis as a board game (guess this is back to my roots). I agree with the creative solution.
My issue is - there are people who thrive on creativity. They are fine with a chase as it is.
The problem are people who can't spontaneously come up with creative solutions.
Treating it not like a board game has it's benefits but also it's own problems. We got a description what to do - but not the DC. As such - one of us consitently chose a near impossible (19+ needed) choice that would have been a 21+ if the speed (Gnome) would have been taken into account.
Describing it well is the key to keep people interested and make it memorable - but describing a failure in interesting ways five times in a row can be a difficult task. It is only this part I try to tackle.
--
2Walter - yes - speeding it up is what I like to do. If the average it takes for Valeros level 1 is 25 rounds using best choice, then this is just too long.
--
2Kerney
Again I agree - creative solutions should be encouraged.
Below is an updated version of the math for the triple move. I hope it is useful to get an idea how to balance the numbers. You don't want a chase that only lasts 1 or 2 rounds - but you don't want it to drag on for 10 or more either.
Roll needed Chance Chance go triple Chance go once Chance go zero Chance to be mired Average squares move Average rounds per square Chance to fail twice Chance to fail by 5+ Chance not to move alternative to calculate chance to move 1
0 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 3.0 0.33 0% 100%
1 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 3.0 0.33 0% 100%
2 95% 90% 10% 0% 0% 2.8 0.36 0% 100%
3 90% 81% 18% 1% 0% 2.6 0.39 1% 100%
4 85% 72% 26% 2% 0% 2.4 0.42 2% 100%
5 80% 64% 32% 4% 0% 2.3 0.46 4% 100%
6 75% 56% 30% 14% 0% 2.1 0.55 6% 5% 100% 14% 14%
7 70% 49% 28% 22% 1% 2.0 0.66 9% 10% 100% 23% 22%
8 65% 42% 26% 30% 2% 1.8 0.81 12% 15% 100% 32% 30%
9 60% 36% 24% 36% 4% 1.7 1.01 16% 20% 100% 40% 36%
10 55% 30% 22% 42% 6% 1.6 1.27 20% 25% 100% 48% 42%
11 50% 25% 20% 46% 9% 1.5 1.61 25% 30% 100% 55% 46%
12 45% 20% 18% 50% 12% 1.4 2.09 30% 35% 100% 62% 50%
13 40% 16% 16% 52% 16% 1.3 2.75 36% 40% 100% 68% 52%
14 35% 12% 14% 54% 20% 1.2 3.68 42% 45% 100% 74% 54%
15 30% 9% 12% 54% 25% 1.2 5.04 49% 50% 100% 79% 54%
16 25% 6% 10% 54% 30% 1.1 7.12 56% 55% 100% 84% 54%
17 20% 4% 8% 52% 36% 1.1 10.49 64% 60% 100% 88% 52%
18 15% 2% 6% 50% 42% 1.0 16.50 72% 65% 100% 92% 50%
19 10% 1% 4% 46% 49% 1.0 29.22 81% 70% 100% 95% 46%
20 5% 0% 2% 42% 56% 1.0 69.10 90% 75% 100% 98% 42%
21 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 1.0 NA 100% 80% 100% 100% 0%
|
Thod, I have seen both frustraition and delight when I have run chases.
Sometimes people just roll 1s. Sometimes people have lucky streaks.
And yes, sometimes the skill check is a real challange and some of the players have little chance getting buy an obstacle.
I happen to like the chase deck....it provides a nice guide to narrating a chase, and also, i have fun as a GM, because I don't know myself what obstacles they will face as we flip over the chase cards.
So I agree with everything there is room for improvement, but on the whole, i think the way they have managed chases is enjoyable.
Myles
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Personally I think it's all but impossible to have a chase scene based on skill checks that's going to present a fair and balanced challenge in a PFS setting.
To take a fairly extreme example, it's possible to have an adventuring party ranging from a first-level paladin to a fourth-level rogue. Using Paizo pregens as a baseline the paladin is going to have one skill point to allocate; the rogue will have thirty-two. That pretty much guarantees that the paladin is going to spend a while anywhere there's a high-DC skill check (and will be totally stymied by practically anything trained-only). Meanwhile the rogue will be trained in far more skills, and will probably have several class skills at +5 or better.
Admittedly that's close to a worst-case setup. But even a second-level rogue will have sixteen skill points to the paladin's one; more than enough to make it likely that the rogue will be able to get to the end of the chase many, many rounds ahead of the paladin. That's probably not the optimal outcome if the objective is to involve the fugitive in combat.
|
|
JohnF
The problem isn't a newby paladin - a second level paladin will be worse.
Give him a plate mail and he is -8 on Acrobatics, Climb, Escape Artist, Swim. 75% of skill checks depend on skills that have an Amour Check penalty.
No I didn't mistype: -6 AC penalty and -2 for speed 20.
I'm not counting a shield - that can be 'thrown away'.
Now the 'simple' DC12 becomes a NAT20 only and a DC13 or higher = impossible unless the player had invested enough in that skill / his scores are high enough.
Don't get me wrong - the rogue should be first. The question is - should the level 2 paladin arrive 5, 10, 20 rounds later.
The Natural 15+ automatically moves only makes the gap smaller. It doesn't take anything away from the rogue, a monk or any other skill monkey - nor someone who casts fly etc.
Myles
I'm not trying to take away from the front runner. Have you looked at the numbers?
If you need a 1 to roll you will automatically move forward (it takes you 1 round average to reach the next square).
Having 10 skill points less doubles this - if you need an 11 or higher you take on average 2 rounds.
Another 3 skill points (14 needed) less is another round on top
Then it is 2 skill points less - another round
1 skill point less another round
2 skill points less - 5 extra rounds
1 skill point less - 10 extra rounds
beyond that - stuck - no possible rolling dice
The problem is - once you are on the steep slope there is hardly a way forward. On the other hand - lowering the numbers is counterproductive as there needs to be a challenge for the front runner as well.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Thod - I see you spell 'Armour Check' properly, too :-)
I should know about that - it (and the 20' movement penalty) bit me when I played my dwarf in The Midnight Mauler. Even though he was 3rd level, has more skills/level than a paladin, and only had a -3 Armour Check penalty, that still made it very difficult to progress beyond a square where there are two STR/DEX skill checks.
There have been a lot of good ideas posted in this thread - allow progress on a 15 or better, remove any 'trained only' requirement, etc. But, as you say, the problem is it's too easy to get totally stuck.
One possible way round this would be to change things slightly so that it is always possible to make progress (basically add one to the number of advances in the current system). That means nobody would get frustrated by being stuck for ever on the sidelines, while still allowing the skill monkeys to outpace their slower companions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like chases. I used to run them in 3.5e in much the same way Pathfinder does it. I agree the current rules make for a boring experience for players whose characters can't get past a section of the chase due to a low skill.
I have run a chase twice in Pathfinder. The first time I ran it by the book and some players' characters got stuck at the first section and never advanced. That sucked. The second time I ran it I allowed the players to advance their characters for free in the next round after they failed a simple/single-move skill check. This was better because at least the players' characters didn't get stuck at the beginning, but they still lagged so far behind as to not really be a part of the chase.
The next time I run it I may try something I just found from a chase scene in one of the early adventure paths. In that chase characters can advance one section automatically with a move action. If they want to advance two sections of the chase they must beat one of the two skill checks from that section as a full-round action; and, if they want to advance three sections they must beat both skill checks.
I think Paizo has it right with chases, but I agree some tweaking is in order.
|
|
My rude dwarf wasn't allowed to go around the bathhouse in GMG, so I'm a bit bitter about chases.
At the very least we should put strong emphasis on creative choices being allowed, and even non-creative, if they work. In standardized play, there's a reluctance to deviate, and it's making chases very laborious.
I would vote PFS upgrade the chase mechanics, and it needs to, given the level of discontent.
Some suggestions:
1) Allow progress for all, with quicker progress for the skilled & fast. The all or nothing mechanic now is brutal.
i.e. DC 10 Climb, DC 15+ gains extra step on runner (or has time left to attempt next obstacle too)
2) Keep it 'real'. Put the chases on player friendly maps (scaled to cover large areas) rather than squares. Each of many DCs would be noted alongside the map or within the DMs notes, i.e.
Pond DC 11 Swim (or they could run around it)
Inn wall DC 15 climb, or Per 18 to see ladder tucked away (1 rd to set up ladder)
Door DC 22 Break, DC 15 Disable Device
Crowd DC 18 Diplomacy, CMB 21
pretty standard, but on a map you could also have
Shadowy corridor (PCs with Darkvision or light sources move at full speed)
Long stretch (use run rates)
Etc.
The same skill checks would be there, but there'd be opportunity to go around a building, to clear paths/obstacles for other people, to piton a rope for others to climb, etc.
The runner: "On round 5, he tips boxes in alley, creating a DC 15 Acrobatics hazard" that some people may then have to run around.
If the runner has a scripted path and pace, it should work out better than now. It has as much of a 'chase' feel as teleporting feels like an overland trek.
Ridiculous things about chases now:
1) Flying gives you a bonus. It helps you talk better? You can still fail to get past the pond if you wear heavy armor? What?
2) Carrying friends=faster chase. Switch who carries whom as skill set requires. Can they not carry each other while traveling? How undramatic to do so, yet if it works...
3) Archetypes with abilities that aid in city/crowd movement get no love, i.e. Urban Barbarian.
4) Skipping squares. You're such a smooth talker you leap the upcoming wall with ease?
The GMG framework for plotting out chases doesn't come across as a framework when in PFS (because it's standardized). Some GMs see it as a whole package, not to be deviated from. Meaning, it runs like a board game, a bad board game.
And yes, I am noting modules with un-optional chase scenes so as to avoid running them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have run a chase twice in Pathfinder. The first time I ran it by the book and some players' characters got stuck at the first section and never advanced. That sucked. The second time I ran it I allowed the players to advance their characters for free in the next round after they failed a simple/single-move skill check. This was better because at least the players' characters didn't get stuck at the beginning, but they still lagged so far behind as to not really be a part of the chase.
I just ran the same chase scene for a third time, and this time it was several of the players favorite encounter of the session. This time I made one small change to the chase rules that seems to have fixed the problem of low-skill characters falling out of the chase.
This time I gave them the option of advancing one stage in the chase as a full-round action for free with no skill check necessary.
This gives them three "full-round" options with nice symmetry in the potential risks and benefits:
- Option #1 - Advance one stage as a full-round action
- Option #2 - Advance two stages using two move actions to make one skill check per stage.
- Option #3 - Advance three stages using a full-round action to make both skill checks on your current stage.
The risks increase with each option:
- Option #1 - No risk
- Option #2 - No advance if both skill checks are failed, or advance only one stage if one skill check is failed
- Option #3 - No advance and lose next turn if both skill checks are failed, no advance if one skill check is failed by more than 5, or advance only one stage if one skill check is failed.
Of course, option #4 is to advance one stage using a move action to make a skill check and use your standard action to do something else. But, the point is this small rules change makes the slow and steady option #1 pay off and keeps the low-skill characters "in the chase", meaning they were only 2 or 3 stages behind the head of the pack in my game. Now, when the target is eventually caught the low-skill characters will be able to join the encounter 2 or 3 rounds later instead of getting stuck at the beginning and having no chance of being a part of the encounter.
Longer chases will increase the lead but my chase had 10 stages and the target starts three stages ahead so the chase could only last a maximum of 7 rounds, and that only if the target moved one stage each round using option #1 which would mean the low-skill characters are on their heels the entire time. However, as it plays out the chase only lasts three or four rounds.
In the future I may try and simplify the rules for option #3. They seem overly complicated to me.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To take a fairly extreme example, it's possible to have an adventuring party ranging from a first-level paladin to a fourth-level rogue. Using Paizo pregens as a baseline the paladin is going to have one skill point to allocate; the rogue will have thirty-two. That pretty much guarantees that the paladin is going to spend a while anywhere there's a high-DC skill check (and will be totally stymied by practically anything trained-only). Meanwhile the rogue will be trained in far more skills, and will probably have several class skills at +5 or better.
If a person builds a character that dumps Intelligence and takes a class with 2+INT skill points, that character is going to be seriously challenged when presented with things that require skills. That's a choice the player makes when building their character.
Every encounter in the game is going to favor one play style or another. The majority favor martial characters, but skills, skill challenges and chases are also part of the game. If a player builds a character that sucks at skills, they are going to occasionally bump into situations where their character is marginalized. Presumably whatever bonus they get in combat for making that choice is worth it.
Some people want characters that have lots of skills. They like that they can make a monk that can jump 50 feet or tumble through a giants legs. Sometimes... not all the time, but occasionally, there are encounters that let those characters take the spotlight. Considering combat focused builds get rewarded every single encounter, I think it's entirely fair that on occasion players who choose to focus on skills or at least don't dump them are rewarded.
|
|
I can see both sides of this argument. I've only played one module with a chase scene and I must say that I think my opinions were clouded by the fact that I had the wrong character for one in that particular case. Well that and in that case failure kinda screwed things up for me. While I do like the mechanic as a whole, I do think some of the DCs are a bit higher than they need to be to present the requisite challenge. That was confirmed when I watched a couple tables flounder with the same one I did this weekend. It should be pointed out that in 2 of the 3 cases the table was predominantly veteran players with characters that should do well in skill based situations.
Anywho, I won't argue with the math above as I'm far too tired for that right now. I do think there should be another look at skill DCs and to allow for some amount of practicality for certain circumstances.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
On thing to keep in mind, chase scenes are relatively new, GMs are just getting used to them, authors are just getting learning them, Paizo staff are figuring the ins and outs of them.
There were definitely some rough spots in the chase scenes in both scenarios. Mark and the rest of the Paizo developers are aware of them and future chases will improve. Even so, I doubt chases will ever more than the occasional appearance.
|
|
First, if you're a paladin in plate mail, why should you expect to have an equal chance of succeeding in a chase as a character built for mobility? Chase scenes shouldn't be fair for all characters, any more than melee combat or flying opponents or spell resistance or DR is. Pathfinders who are versatile are better equipped to face the challenges that come their way.
There are some issues with the chase rules (particularly the "do both challenges to run faster" part), but that is a rule issue and not just a PFS issue. I would HATE to see a PFS-only solution here, because it is not the right way to do things for Paizo or for the campaign. I would hate even more for GMs to just make changes in the organized play environment because they don't like a rule... that way madness lies.
Now, if a web-enhancement for the GMG came out with "optional" chase rules that addressed some of these problems, PFS could then say, "We use the optional version instead of the original version". But rules changes is not something PFS does except when the rule is totally unsuitable for PFS play, and then it's generally banned instead of modified. It's the way Mike and Mark have said they will deal with this sort of thing when it is clearly a rules issue and not a campaign issue, and I think that's best.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I rewrote the chase rules into a "short hand" version that simplifies them quite a bit. Thoughts?
Cards and Obstacles
A chase is broken apart into various areas called cards. Each card represents 30 feet (unless specified otherwise) of terrain or movement. To move through the card, characters must face the obstacles in that card. These are things like weaving through a crowd or running along a balcony.
Starting the Chase.
Roll initiative to determine the order of participants as normal.
Speed of a Chase.
Chases are built around the assumption of a 30 foot move speed. For each 10 feet slower than
the chases baseline speed, the participant takes a -2 penalty on any check made to bypass obstacles. Participants with significant mobility advantages (such as flight) grant an additional +10 bonus on such checks. Additionally, extremely powerful effects (such as teleportation) allow a character to move forward a number of cards, using each card’s distance to determine range.
Options in a Chase.
1. Normal speed - you can advance one card a turn. You make a check against one of the obstacles on your card. If you succeed, you move on to the next card and end your turn.
2. Daring speed – you can advance two cards a turn. You make a check against each of the obstacles on your card. If you succeed, move two cards and end your turn.
- Failure by 5 or less indicates that you move only one card and end your turn.
- Failure by more than 5 means that you don’t move and end your turn.
- Failure of both means that you don’t move, your turn ends, and you skip your next turn.
3. Something unexpected – you do something else. This could be firing a bow at the target of your chase, casting a spell, or drinking a potion. If the action would normally be a standard action, the character can spend a move to get to the edge of their current card. If the action would be a full-round action, the character’s turn ends after the action completes.
Looks good to me.
Although, I would like to see the 'cards' of the the chase referred to as 'stages' or 'legs' just to de-game-ify things a bit. I know that's not what your goal was, you just boiled down the rules as they were presented.
Perhaps you could call these rules for "Foot Chases" since it is focused on that. later you could write up rules for vehicle chases or long distance chases.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I know that's not what your goal was, you just boiled down the rules as they were presented.
That was the goal. The rules as presented are pretty dense for what it actually is. And after sifting them down to this, they actually aren't to difficult to wrap your head around.
Overall goal is to make the above post or something like it a hand out for my players at PFS games with chase scenes.
I was focusing on the chases presented in PFS, so I probably wouldn't do rules for vehicles or long distance ones unless they appear in a game besides To Scale the Dragon (which uses other rules anyway). And I called em cards because that's how they're referred to in the GameMastery guide, but they could just as easily become 'squares' or 'stages' since that does sound better.
|
|
The biggest problem with the chase mechanic is that it takes what is to me the best aspect of of a pen and paper roleplaying game, the abilty of players to come up with their own (often creative) solutions, and replaces it with a multiple choce question. What's worse is there are often only to options, no amount of creativity on the players part can help.
Perhaps if all the obstacles in a chase scene were statted out a GM would have the option of applying creative solutions, while still having the option to run it as writen for those players who just wanted to take the more obvious routes.