Discussion thread, for OOC questions, chat, tantrums and cheesy rules lawyering.
|
Do not push yourself. Concussions can be subtle and can develop into something nasty if you do not take care of yourself after one. If you are having issues with bright lights or noises, back off and find a dim quiet place to let your brain recover. My wife had a concussion and wishes she had done so because it messed her up pretty badly for a long time even though she seemed OK at first.
OK, well get well soon. Let's carry on with the Q&A session in the gameplay thread.
|
|
Kitoro acknowledges that she's being selfish and then insults Borax for calling her on it?
I will admit that part of Borax's RP is that he is suppose to be unlikable, but dependable. This is the first time I've had another character openly insult Borax.
@Kitoro, I don't take it personally btw, I'm fine with the RP.
|
Borax looks at Kitoro and snorts, "Go in as individuals? Insane....
Your suggesting, however, was disappointedly selfish...
Perhaps your memberships was a mistake?
I honestly can't understand how you don't see that as antagonistic to other Players. We either ignore you, which doesn't seem immersive, or we all descend into the same level of interaction.
Personally I don't want to spend the next 3 months playing alongside a Character that I'd smile to see catch a crit to the face. But if everyone else is fine with it, then Han will return to Absalom.
I understand that it is not mean personally and is RP, but if other players are finding Borax's RP abrasive, and have said so clearly, then I would ask you to dial it back a bit for the sake of group harmony. It's still your character - but please have him bite his tongue if necessary.
A reminder, from the Pathfinder Society Role Play Guild Guide 8.0:
"When participating in public Pathfinder Society events, be mindful of any controversial or edgy concepts in your character and consider limiting them to bylines or dice rolls. Dysfunctional or uncooperative play will not be tolerated. Behaving in a hateful or disruptive fashion simply because “It’s what your character would do” means you’ve probably lost sight of the purpose of organized play and may be asked to amend your behavior"
|
|
My opinion?
This is an opportunity for some good role-playing. The idea that all the pathfinders get along with each other is patently ridiculous. Borax's abrasiveness, in a way, is refreshing as long as no one takes it personally (by that I mean no player - the characters could and perhaps should take it personally). In Kit's bio her way at striking back at her enemies/opponents is to mock them and perform comedy routines insulting them, although for her more powerful targets she keeps it ambiguous and subtle. No reason to do so with Borax.
On the other hand, it can be uncomfortable to participate in that kind of role-playing. I have to remind myself that this IS role-playing and, like in a book, some abrasiveness can actually be good for the plot. It does make me a bit uncomfortable, I'll admit, to engage in that kind of conflict in a game, but DANG IT, it is interesting and has a lot of neat potential!
I would like to see that the relationship ends up on a good note at the end of the adventure, like any good book would do for two protagonists. But I rather hope we do not stifle the interesting inter-character feud between the two because we cannot separate our player heads from our character heads.
I don't want to stifle anyone's roleplay, and those who wish to take it further are free to do so - use this thread if you wish. Run it as private conversations, asides away from the main group, philosophical discussions on the path down to Bloodcove, as you see fit.
But in the main gameplay thread, please don't take it too far, so that it makes other players feel uncomfortable, and threatens to derail the scenario.
I hope that's a reasonable approach that everyone can agree to. If so, then we can move on.
|
|
Sounds good.
I'll admit that in spite of the attraction of playing Kit's darker side and seeing some very realistic personality conflicts develop, the exchange made me, as a player, feel uncomfortable too. I didn't want it to, but it did. In fact it rather bothered me that I couldn't fully separate the character's issues from real-life in my head. It is a game and there are other folks involved and if they were feeling the awkwardness as I was then it is no wonder they would prefer the dialog went in a lighter direction. So, lets have fun then and I for one will drop the confrontational banter! It wouldn't be the same to role-play it in the discussion thread.
A pity, though the better direction I'm thinking if the goal is to have fun.
|
|
Borax looks at Kitoro and snorts, "Go in as individuals? Insane....
Your suggesting, however, was disappointedly selfish...
Perhaps your memberships was a mistake?
I honestly can't understand how you don't see that as antagonistic to other Players. We either ignore you, which doesn't seem immersive, or we all descend into the same level of interaction.
Personally I don't want to spend the next 3 months playing alongside a Character that I'd smile to see catch a crit to the face. But if everyone else is fine with it, then Han will return to Absalom.
Rude? Abrasive? Unpolite? To some extent yes. But not to "other Players" but to ONE Character. Disproving of actions and for cause. Kitoro, in turn, attacked Borax on a personal level. Yet, you decide to focus on Borax's actions and completely ignore Kitoro's. And yet she admits culpability in this very thread which you've completely ignored and attempt to assign all the blame on Borax. So perhaps you might question your own objectivity.
I completely agree with everything Kitoro said, OOC. I completely agree that the idea that all the characters are going to be pleasant and polite and entertain every single idea no matter how good or bad is unrealistic and boring. I also agree that players should not use the excuse of "my character is rude" as an excuse to be a jerk to other characters, especially in a setting where characters can't attack one another. So that means its a balancing act and less is more.
I have absolutely no problem with Kitoro's IC responses to Borax because I played Borax to be slightly rude. So Borax is complicit. I also have no problem with Han's response. Han most likely felt slighted as his circus suggestion (which I took as partly kidding IC) was rebuffed and now Han is acting out. Great. A little tension. That's all IC. But don't think Borax is just going to let other characters insult him openly or threaten him over trivial stuff without a response.
This is an opportunity for some good role-playing.
As an aside, I've GM'd a couple of Kitsunes. I think there is something about this racial archetype that might bring out a type of narcissism in the role play.
|
|
@Party,
Do want to spend time scouting this establishment? Figure out how many guards?
What if we meet Ichon, then what? Start swinging? We probably want to locate the poison before starting a fight.
What if we get captured? Ichon could have someone watching the Senzer's shop, expecting the Pathfinders to come rescue him.
|
|
We should also revisit the mission plan. I believe our primary goal is to find some dig site. Senzer is a secondary objective. So we might have to be careful about how we go about busting up Ichon. The VC said use a disguise. Maybe if we plan on taking out Ichon, we do it disguised so it doesn't get linked back to the Pathfinders?
It might be time to disguise everyone as Toughs, regardless of bracelet.
Can we make Giggles look like a pot bellied pig?
|
|
Alright, then I suggest we disguise up, go to the back, and try to get admitted as members of the Sanguine Pit group.
Try to find her office and steal the poison, then kill her and her bodyguard.
Jazmine, any chance you are will in to try and disguise Giggles, or leave her behind? I think it will be pretty easy for people to know who took out Ichon if you roll in there with a tiger and then we have to walk around town trying to find this dig site with that same tiger.
Dust of illusion would do the trick, if anyone has access to it.
+2 bonus from both on the second check
This is a small port town, not Absalom. 200gp is a lot here. And yes, the scenarios specifies penalties for anyone splashing money around. You're meant to be avoiding attention.
|
|
This is a small port town, not Absalom. 200gp is a lot here. And yes, the scenarios specifies penalties for anyone splashing money around. You're meant to be avoiding attention.
I think my point is that how does the scenario expect the PCs to know that buying something less costly than mundane weapon is tantamount to "splashing money around". Moot point, but curious, nonetheless.
The eidolon's physical appearance is up to the summoner, but it always appears as some sort of fantastical creature.
So are we to understand that the eidolon clearly appears as a specific creature and not a fantastical one? (I recognize that there could be a scenario based reason for it).
|
|
There are penalties for failure, so you can't take 10 on any of these.
As an FYI, penalties for failure don't stop Take 10, but they do stop Take 20. However, Take 10 and Take 20 are precluded if the GM thinks there is a significant distraction (such as combat). Given the rushing water, the live combatants, and the panicked crowed, I'll assume this counts as a distraction and prevents Take 10.
|
|
@Kit
Yeah, I got the sense from Senzer's demands that we have to take out Ichon. Balomar's challenge has clearly ruled out negotiation.
@GM - as an FYI, there's a PDT FAQ that says spell casting creates manifestations and there's nothing in the invisibility spell that says those manifestations are hidden. So if Ichon does cast, we'll know what square he's in at the time of casting.
got a link?
edit - found it
|
|
I have to give the scenario author some props for that encounter as compared with earlier seasons. While I have only played a few Season 0 and 1 scenarios, I think those routinely required Pathfinders to kill everyone and anyone who got in the way. NPCs had never heard let alone understood the concept of surrender.
So far, we've had mooks who were not trying to kill us and a nice little trick whereby the Pathfinders kill a ghost and an NPC does real dirty work. I hope this change is indicative of more recent scenarios in general. Though I will admit that Fires of Karamos felt very murder hobo-ish at the start.
Unfortunately the encounter as written is exactly like that. It assumes that you will simply waltz in and kill Ichon (in front of all her clients, having warned you to keep a low profile). I had to tweak it a bit - not much, all the elements were there, and Ichon pretty much goes down in one hit anyway.
You are correct - there was far too much "the NPCs fight to the death, the PCs must kill them" in early seasons. I never know whether to blame the authors or the developers. It is possible that Crystal Frazer turned in a finely crafted, complex encounter with multiple solutions, and it all got edited out in order to reduce complexity and fit the scenario into the time limit.
Anyway, you arrived at the 'correct' ending, just through slightly different means.
|
|
Unfortunately the encounter as written is exactly like that. It assumes that you will simply waltz in and kill Ichon (in front of all her clients, having warned you to keep a low profile).
That is so painful to hear (read).
I had to tweak it a bit - not much, all the elements were there, and Ichon pretty much goes down in one hit anyway.
Assuming you within the borders of GM discretion, then the credit goes to you as GM. That was very much an improvement over what I have grown accustom to in PFS.
No
|
|
Definitely do not want the GM to augment the creatures and no need to apologize for the easy pickings. Less emphasis on combat actually suits this particular character.
@Kit - if you want more combat challenge, look for Season 4 scenarios and some Season 5. Two in particular: 4-02 In Shadow's Wrath, (especially upper tier) and 5-07 Port Godless 4-05 Sanos Abduction also has a stupidly difficult combat if you're in the lower tier because of the template that they stick on one of the monsters makes it arguably tougher than the higher tier.
If your GM runs those straight up and you don't have a player who has already GM'd/Read those, you should expect a death or two. Of course if you have the exact right type of classes, you can also get lucky and breeze through it.
|
|
@Borax
I do love a tactical challenge. I just barely made it through a recent encounter where the battle lasted over 15 rounds and the alchemist I player was out of everything except her dagger at the end. It was a rush, but too susceptible to luck swings and mostly the result of an unbalanced party. A lack of a durable front-liner and healing made that one scary. Lost one party member and saw 3 go unconscious.
But I prefer combats where it punishes you for stupidity to the point of death while making success with no deaths achievable and likely with decent tactics. We were stupid and deserved what we got in the game mentioned above for allowing such a poorly balanced party and being lazy and not bringing some more healing potions/sticks along.
I don't really like the ones where if you miss that critical saving throw you are dead. Like a Medusa or the Feeblemind spell. Or that damn 5th level magus that zapped my first level druid and left him in ashes
The Dalsine Affair
|
|
I actually agree with a lot of your sentiment. But Borax, at this level, is wanting in combat and as a result it become almost tedious. Shooting a light crossbow without Precise Shot is a painful way to spend a combat. And I can recall almost resenting a cleric who used to do that in past low level games.
But I prefer combats where it punishes you for stupidity to the point of death while making success with no deaths achievable and likely with decent tactics.
I would totally sign up for those games in PFS except for the fact that not all players are on the same level of either skill mastery or attention to detail. As you know, PbP players run the gamut of focus and investment. Far too often, there are one or two players who don't have the time or possible desire to really pay attention to and optimize their tactics, and not just for their characters, but in a way that maximizes others.
It's been my experience that sizable contingency of players do not want to stress too much about what to do each round, which is understandable. That group may include or be separate from a larger contingency of players whose builds are not optimized for combat (like Borax). Put the two together and you're really rolling the dice in any given scenario as to the combat efficacy of any group. So while I personally would love a much grittier and challenging game, I don't want it if only 1/3 of the party is prepared for it and a different 1/3 actually gets turned off by it.
I've only been in one or two combats that lasted longer than a few rounds. Both of them should have resulted in near TPK's but for the GM softballing. Port Godless...was an exception to that. That gauntlet was so stressful that I stopped playing for about a year. Every night during the combat, I would spend an hour or so thinking of what we could do to stay alive. Myself and at least one other Player were constantly PMing each other on how to coordinate our efforts. And despite us having played together for about 3 levels, it was the first time we had to really do that. It was fun on a tactical level, but I could not enjoy PFS if every scenario was that difficult, given the average party.
Now, if I could find a group of hardcore players, I could see trying to run some scenarios in hard mode.
|
|
I've found that the easy wins often lead to bad tactics. Most fighters run stupidly forward and engage ASAP, even if there is a choke point they could wait behind and running forward will put them in the middle of the enemy. In fact one of the most popular classes is the barbarian (rage and engage). And I can hardly blame them. Everyone wants to get their moment of fame and in many if not most combats the foes are dead in 1-2 rounds with no risk to the players. That makes playing a warpriest or inquisitor less than optimal since they both need a little build up time. I think a lot of those ill-prepared PCs would quickly wise up if they were faced with more challenging combats more often. But you have to weigh that with the bad taste loosing a character gives you. No one wants to drive players away.
I totally understand your point of view with the character you have. And it works both ways. That barbarian is taking a nap during social engagements. The counterpart to your crossbow in combat is their aid another in social. That's why a good chronicle has a mixture.
Note: I remember pissing a player off when my dwarf laid some caltrops down between the PCs and the enemy at a choke point. The other player was playing a cavalier and wanted to do a charge through. My bad. But I was honestly thinking like a dwarf at the time! I had to apologize.
|
|
I think you're spot on about easy combats have been an anathema to learning combat tactics. My first character was a Ranger (with Precise Shot) and I had to repeatedly ask people to recognize that if you attack from a diagonal, that leaves a clear lane for me to fire from many angles. Few players think about that when they charge in.
At one point I started writing a PFS scenario to teach people how to flank, attack with archers, and use things like Ready to dramatically improve combat outcomes. But what's the point when nearly every combat is over in like 3 rounds. I just finished one in a tier 8-9. Three monsters with 100+, 80+, and 80+ hps. I wasted a round using a Gravity Bow wand, and the the combat was over by Round 3. Our party took down 280 hps in three rounds. We didn't even use an AoE's.
The reality is that PFS doesn't really want two minute combats. Combat is the slowest part of the game. Multiple 10 round combat would take too long in real time at a game store. But I completely agree with you that the short combats tend to skew the "balance" of builds. Any class features that revolve around self-buffing or even team buffing, get undervalued. I think scenario writers could address that by providing obvious indicators when combat is about to begin in which PCs can buff.
I also think that the nature of the game makes it difficult to extend the combats in meaningful ways. Hit Point to Damage ratio is so incredibly low, that you can't extend the fight without making it a lot more lethal or constantly introducing environment obstacles which get annoying as a player.
I totally understand your point of view with the character you have. And it works both ways. That barbarian is taking a nap during social engagements. The counterpart to your crossbow in combat is their aid another in social. That's why a good chronicle has a mixture.
Funny you should mention that. I have a level 6 THF barbarian who openly expresses boredom anytime there's a dialogue of more than two sentences. heh