Great thought, thanks!
Search Posts
Artisan Tools give a bonus to crafting checks, but is it just for creating items? For instance, does this bonus apply to Inventor actions like Tamper and Overdrive that use crafting checks?
Artisan Tools give a bonus to crafting checks, but is it just for creating items? For instance, does this bonus apply to Inventor actions like Tamper and Overdrive that use crafting checks?
I do generally like the system as designed. The circus is kind of it's own self-contained little character. The system doesn't provide PC income, but the AP says to give 5g after the first performance. At 1.25g/PC that's 6 days of lvl 1 Trained income from the Earn an Income activity. This seems appropriate. You could give earned income success/failure amounts based on their trick performance for the day. And if they help to promote, give them the same for those promotion days. The performance awards for the circus would be a totally separate pot.
Did you take into account that performers can help each other, and also all the background roles that a PC could take over? Yeah, the last scenario I ran with +8 skill checks and +1 circ bonus modeled that generously, as if every single check was helped by assistance and agile tricks. My model circus failed all 100 tries even so. If you want the players to have a shot (and maybe you don't, idk) you really need to make sure they net that +4 excitement from outside events, or start with 10-11 anticipation.
As written I don't think the AP requires either, but it also doesn't warn the gm that a generous hand is needed to make success possible. I checked it because I think many players (like my group) would be angry if we reached the end of that and realized there was no chance.
I want to emphasize for other GMs, 15 isn't just hard, it's all but impossible for lvl 1 characters to reach with tricks alone. A +2 to +3 net gain from random events is necessary if you think the PCs should have even a small chance to succeed. But as you mentioned, at higher levels it should tune well, especially since the PC's can choose how much anticipation to start with in the first place.
The first circus performance starts with 15 anticipation, but i wonder if this was meant to be 10. I don't think the PCs have any chance to generate 15 excitement (could this be intentional?). If you want to give them approx 50/50 chance in this first performance I suggest lowering starting anticipation to 11, or making a net +4 excitement from random events likely. Here's the math to maximise expected excitement generation: Use trick DC 15 1st trick attempt, Bonus +7
2nd attempt, Bonus +2
3rd attempt is a negative expected value, even with an agile trick, so never attempt. Result:
Notice that you can't even get to 15 if you always skip attempt #3 of your trick (2 attempts x 7 tricks = 14), which we did because it's optimal for expected value. To get 15 you have to accept a lower expected value. I modeled this in excel trying to account for the stuff i didn't include above, and in no case could I turn up a success:
That thread is about critical success/failure thresholds, which isn't what I'm talking about above.
Using 10+modifier for opposed skill checks results in a bias in favor of the rolling party. Shouldn't it be 11 + modifier? Example: a PC hides from a monster. The PC's stealth is +0, and monster's perception is +0. Even-Steven, right? No, the Perception DC is 10+0 = 10, meaning the PC successfully hides on a 10-20 roll (11 permutations, 55%), and is spotted on a 1-9 (9 permutations, 45%). The same is true with opposed skills like deception and perception. The CRB tells a lying PC to roll Deception vs Perception DC, but if the PC is Sensing Motive they roll Perception vs Deception DC. If all modifiers are +0 again the PC has a 55% chance of success, so long as they are the one rolling. It's like the PC has a secret little boost during these NPC interactions. If the rule was 11 + mod then equal modifiers would produce even odds. Wouldn't this have been a better way?
I think Theodorov's scenario #1 is how it would work. But To get the flat-footed strike you could add the Create a Diversion action (Deception skill) to the beginning of scenario #2, which would keep you hidden while using stealth. I think this would even prevent you from having to make a stealth role to approach (so long as you are only Sneaking or Stepping) since the Diversion keeps you hidden. I meant to swap your actions 1 and 2, which would make you hidden all the way through the strike, but i suppose the way you have it written would mechanically work the same.
I think Theodorov's scenario #1 is how it would work. But To get the flat-footed strike you could add the Create a Diversion action (Deception skill) to the beginning of scenario #2, which would keep you hidden while using stealth. I think this would even prevent you from having to make a stealth role to approach (so long as you are only Sneaking or Stepping) since the Diversion keeps you hidden.
This particular ability Disrupts, so they lose the action at the point of trigger. They'd have to take another Move or Step to trigger another Disrupt Prey, if indeed, Step triggers it. Regardless, the crux of my original question is to confirm that Step doesn't protect against free actions with relevant triggers. Sounds like you agree.
That's most likely a mistake and should be a reaction. Otherwise you could keep hitting someone who walks past you. This particular ability Disrupts, so they lose the action at the point of trigger. They'd have to take another Move or Step to trigger another Disrupt Prey, if indeed, Step triggers it.
Step "doesn't trigger reactions", but feats like the Ranger's Disrupt Prey are free actions, so they would still trigger on a Step, right?
A bandolier allows you to retrieve the item as part of the action to use it, so there's that. I think this is only true for a dedicated toolset. All other items retrieved would require an Interact action. |