|
I know this idea goes against the universality of what PFS should be, but I think it would be nice if certain encounters (at a minimum the BBEG) had a "customizing" budget. It would scale per subtier, but would allow a GM to buy a potion/scroll or minor magic item to something to flesh out the creature. He would have to decide on it prior to meeting the PCs or starting the adventure so that he doesn't choose that silver bullet that is effective against the one specific talent (using prior knowledge of the builds).
For the earlier season stuff, this would allow some of the newer abilities to be utilized as the flavor. Also, it would allow for GMs to deal with some of their local "metagame" (to use the other definition of the term meaning the local flavors of the month "overpowered" tactics/builds e.g. scent). I have seen way to many BBEG missing some vital "necessary" item or buff and get destroyed because of it.
I know it's not an "us vs them" when you're GMing, but I know I get frustrated when I have a BBEG get destroyed by some cheesy tactic that should have been avoided had the villain had a more "proper" gear load-out.
I don't really expect this suggestion to ever go into being, but just trying to voice one of my frustrations as a GM. I hate going through hours of prep looking up spells/abilities/tactics for a BBEG encounter only to have the PCs use one of the cheesier tactics (like scent vs invisible) and shut it down completely.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Scent vs. invisible is hardly "cheesy" - it's one of the few valid answers to invisibility. If you have it, use it.
More importantly, as discussed in a lot of threads that are practically identical, this will never happen - we strive for uniformity of difficulty, and this would allow many of the harsher GMs to completely crush their players.
|
...I hate going through hours of prep looking up spells/abilities/tactics for a BBEG encounter only to have the PCs use one of the cheesier tactics (like scent vs invisible) and shut it down completely.
Remember scent only gives direction within 30 feet, and within 5 feet does it give the square they are in. They still have 50% miss chance, etc.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No.
No no no no, and hell to the BLEEPING no.
Some people go for detection the same way other people go for hit and damage. Deciding to say "oh well that doesn't work because I just happen to have the bat shark repelent right here" is no different than arbitrarily making someone's attacks miss.
If the scenario writers are including so much invisibility that see invisibility is every wizards first spell choice, the druid never leaves bat form, and the fighter is taking weapon focus: bag of flour then thats just characters playing smart, not cheesey.
|
|
Deeper Darkness sucks outloud and all day long.I love hearing/reading figures of speech that I've never encountered before. Makes me smile. :D
I try to not type like I speak. I'm a retired sailor, we're a salty bunch that should not be allowed in public without a censor. My niece and nephew thought I stuttered for the first 12 years of their life.
|
|
No.
No no no no, and hell to the BLEEPING no.
Some people go for detection the same way other people go for hit and damage. Deciding to say "oh well that doesn't work because I just happen to have the bat shark repelent right here" is no different than arbitrarily making someone's attacks miss.
If the scenario writers are including so much invisibility that see invisibility is every wizards first spell choice, the druid never leaves bat form, and the fighter is taking weapon focus: bag of flour then thats just characters playing smart, not cheesey.
But this is why I had suggested that the "customizing" needs to be done before the party is determined.
To turn your comment around, if all the Pathfinder's society suddenly begins issuing out bloodhounds to every fledging Pathfinder, then the enemies (especially ones with knowledge of the Lodge, like the Aspis) would be playing "smart" by all carrying Scent Cloaks and Deodorizing Agent. Unfortunately, while the PCs can adapt to the "metagame" behaviors of the scenario creators, the scenarios cannot adapt to the PCs power creep. Particularly the older scenarios before stuff like the Ultimates came out.
I know it is a pipe dream and that this will never happen. But I had to vent out some frustrations as a GM and as I player. I empathize with the GMs who spend time prepping a BBEG battle, constrained by the parameters of the scenario writer, only to see the battle get shut down by a one-off tactic that may not have even existed at the time of writing.
|
|
I know this idea goes against the universality of what PFS should be, but I think it would be nice if certain encounters (at a minimum the BBEG) had a "customizing" budget. It would scale per subtier, but would allow a GM to buy a potion/scroll or minor magic item to something to flesh out the creature. He would have to decide on it prior to meeting the PCs or starting the adventure so that he doesn't choose that silver bullet that is effective against the one specific talent (using prior knowledge of the builds).
For the earlier season stuff, this would allow some of the newer abilities to be utilized as the flavor. Also, it would allow for GMs to deal with some of their local "metagame" (to use the other definition of the term meaning the local flavors of the month "overpowered" tactics/builds e.g. scent). I have seen way to many BBEG missing some vital "necessary" item or buff and get destroyed because of it.
Okay, I'm confused. In the 1st paragraph you ask for customization options but say they would have to be decided before knowing the PCs that would be at the table. Fair enough. But then, in paragraph two, you say it is needed to counter local powerful builds. In order to do that the BBEG (aka the GM) would need to know who is at the table. Contradictory?
|
|
greatest strengths as a GM is encounter design and I'd be up to the task
Unfortunately, time has shown that not everyone is. And this is with no offense intended, but most people THINK they are better at encounter design than they really are. Most would agree that within the limits of a local group that plays together regularly, the chances of matching appropriate encounters to the character's strengths/weaknesses is higher, but the PFS rules are largely universal from small local groups to large convention events. The larger the group is, or the less familiar a GM is with the players/characters, the higher the chance for bad encounter design becomes. There is just too much table variation for that level of customization to remain consistent with our leadership's goal of a shared campaign.
|
|
I seriously doubt we'll ever have specific sub-sets of rules that only apply to certain circumstances. As in one set for local, FLGS play, one for conventions, etc. The goal is to have one set of guidelines that can be applied equally to all environments. Will it be 100% effective? Probably not, but it is much easier to manage than multiple rules.