Search Posts
I've read between 10 and 20 threads looking for some clarity and I've found none. I also haven't seen a single post made by Paizo staff or officials — only slews of posts from peers/consumers like me adding their own personal points of view in the hope that others will like their take. Can someone that actually "knows" how this was actually designed (rather than those that "believe", "feel" or "interpret" the poorly presented language as published) please provide some clarity for the Maneuver Master archetype and especially the Flurry of Maneuvers ability? 1) What exactly is Flurry of Maneuvers suppose to give you? I've seen it handled many different ways and only one can be right! The text seems to indicate that Flurry of Maneuvers is very poorly named. Near as I can tell, it isn't a flurry of maneuvers at all! The ability grants 1-3 'free' maneuvers that you get to tack on to full attacks and only to full attacks. So, unless your full attack action happens to be spent performing one of the few maneuver types that can replace a normal attack (specifically Disarm, Sunder or Trip), "Flurry of Maneuvers" only lets you perform ONE maneuver per round until L8! One of anything does not constitute "a flurry". Perhaps the ability shouldn't have been renamed (or possibly should have abandoned the word "flurry")? Depending on what the design intent was, it might have made things more clear or led us farther astray, but at least it would have removed the vagaries regarding armor/shield use and the spending of Ki points (see below)! Others have interpreted Flurry of Maneuvers more intuitively...and in a way that's contradictory to the text, but perhaps not the spirit or the intent. (Everyone's best guesses are both equal and of little value when trying to determine "intent".) They interpret it to be functionally identical to Flurry of Blows except that unarmed strikes are replaced by combat maneuvers. In other words, they believe a Maneuver Master may attempt ANY 2 combat maneuvers through L7, any 3 maneuvers through L14 and any 4 maneuvers at L15 and higher, but may not mix-and-match maneuvers and attacks. Clearly, that's not what Ultimate Combat's RAW state, but I can totally see how people manage to think it should work this way. It might even be more balanced than the rules as published! Getting bonus maneuvers to a straight-on full attack seems quite a bit more powerful than getting more maneuvers when already only performing maneuvers. For one, many types of maneuvers are considered standard actions, so barring special feats or abilities, are limited to one per round regardless of how many melee attacks you might be able to perform in a full attack action. That limits the number of separate 'actions' to a maximum of 4 (except for Disarm, Trip and Sunder). In contrast, free maneuvers added to actual full attack sequences would mean a maximum of 6 separate 'actions' (3 attacks based on a BAB of +11 or higher + the 4 free maneuvers), and could mean even more under the right circumstances! Please consider the interaction of Two-Weapon Fighting (and its feat tree), Haste, natural attacks, etc. Is 3 combat maneuver attempts on top of 7 melee attacks in one round (Greater Two-Weapon Fighting + Haste/Blessing of Fervor, etc.) really what was intended? Perhaps at levels when you qualify for all of these options it isn't a big deal. If so, then see natural attacks below. Second of all, if you add the bonus maneuver(s) to a melee full attack sequence the only penalties incurred are to the free stuff granted by Flurry of Maneuvers. It sure seems to me that adding the freebies to a normally permitted combat maneuver sequence (which more often than not is just one) incurs a penalty to that/those maneuver(s) as well, so, what appears to be the weaker combat option actually incurs more penalties than the more powerful option! Really? I really think we need some guidance here. 2) Penalties Ultimate Combat wrote: The maneuver master uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus to determine his CMB for the bonus maneuvers, though all combat maneuver checks suffer a –2 penalty when using a flurry. OK. I can see that the penalties should to only apply to maneuvers, and apparently ALL of them, but beyond that everything is unclear! What are one's options and how cumulative are the penalties supposed to be? i) Does the same penalty apply to all the combat maneuvers made in the round, or is the penalty escalating with each maneuver attempted? ii) Are the penalties completely cumulative or partially cumulative? iii) Do the penalties apply to ALL the combat maneuvers attempted (strongly implied) or only the BONUS maneuvers? Using a L15 MM monk as an example is probably best because it considers the totality of the class ability and it is easy to work backwards for lower levels. So, which of the following attack sequences are correct in terms of penalties for making the maximum number of attacks/maneuvers in 1 round? (To keep things simple let's assume that the monk doesn't have access to other game effects that grant additional attacks or maneuvers in a combat round.) Progressive penalties on CMBs
Flat penalties on CMBs
Assuming that the penalties are flat for at least the bonus maneuvers (examples D-I above), can a L15 MM monk declare/choose in advance to perform fewer than their maximum number of available maneuvers in order to reduce the penalties applied? In other words, which of the following combat and penalty sequences are legal options for a L15 Maneuver Master? Declare only 1 maneuver (not using Flurry of Maneuvers at all)...
Declare only 2 maneuvers...
Declare only 3 maneuvers...
Use all available maneuvers...
If a monk cannot choose the number of maneuvers they want to perform in the round AND the penalties are flat, then why would anyone want to progress deeply into the class given the fact that the penalties rise so steeply that the value and effectiveness of Flurry actually declines as one advances in the class? 3) Iterative Attacks vs Natural Attacks It occurs to me that the rate at which bonus maneuvers accrue for Maneuver Masters exactly matches the BAB progression for iterative attacks. (The 2nd bonus maneuver arrives at L8 when a monk's BAB reaches +6, the point when a 2nd iterative attack is earned for all classes. The same is true for the 3rd maneuver when BAB reaches +11.) So, under normal circumstances the monk can make as many bonus maneuvers as they have melee attacks in a full attack action. Should things work exactly as written for races/monsters using their natural attack sequence instead of (or in addition to) their iterative attacks? The RAW imply this (as no exceptions are mentioned), but I have to wonder whether this was design intent or an oversight. Giving a L1 Human monk an extra maneuver on top of their normal single attack or maneuver seems quite different than a giving a L1 Maneuver Master Gargoyle a free maneuver on top of their 4 (all primary!) natural attacks! Further consider the fact that there are races recommended as PC-eligible that have (or can freely access) 3 natural attacks. Thus, a L1 PLAYER CHARACTER Maneuver Master could perform 4 offensive actions, one of which could be a more complex maneuver (Bull Rush, Grapple, etc.) in a single round. Compare that to expectations for virtually all other melee combat PC race/class builds. Also, do we really need to face dragons, hydrae, and the like, with 1 piddly level of Maneuver Master adding a complex combat maneuver to their already impressive/scary array of natural attacks? Is that all design intent? Is it an unforeseen but acceptable consequence of the design? Or is it a problem that needs to be addressed? {It doesn't really matter whether the problem is a design error (unlikely IMHO) or just very poor wording (more likely, especially if the original design experienced substantial editing due to space constraints). Either way, I believe there's too much room for confusion and conflict. 4) Armor use The overwhelming belief/interpretation appears to be that Maneuver Master monks may use Flurry of Maneuvers even when wearing armor or wielding a shield. I have NO idea why this is as it isn't remotely logical! I can guess that it is born from the CRB text used in the monk's Weapon and Armor Proficiency section. Core Rules wrote: When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses his AC bonus, as well as his fast movement and flurry of blows abilities. Since this text specifically calls out "flurry of blows" and not "flurry of maneuvers", and the entire Maneuver Master archetype section in Ultimate Combat makes no reference to armor or shields people assume that the ability is completely independent of armor use. The fact that the Maneuver Master archetype has no Weapon and Armor Proficiency section is likely one of: an oversight/error, an editorial sacrifice for space constraints, or an indication that this is the intended meaning. Likewise, the fact that Flurry of Maneuvers makes no mention of armor or shield could result from any of those 3 reasons. Both being absent is just confusing and seems unlikely to be intentional. If this common interpretation (of taking the RAW as gospel regardless of how illogical) does it mean that Tetori monks can use Graceful Grappler while wearing full plate, too? Tetoris got a FAQ entry and it doesn't address this issue so I guess the RAW should hold here too! Honestly, neither of these interpretations approach anything resembling logical sense or a game balance decision to me. I assume that the only reason that the same conclusion isn't made for Zen Archers is that the commonly used (vernacular) term "Flurry of Bows" is completely unofficial — the Zen Archer ability doesn't actually change name...it is still "Flurry of Blows". When you consider this along with the potentially diminishing value of Flurry of Maneuvers at high level, why would any Manuever Master stop at 7 (or perhaps 8 at most) levels before switching over to some variety of Fighter that augments their combat maneuvers and/or mitigates the effects of armor use? 5. Ki The very first (and arguably most important) option for spending Ki in the CRB "Monk" entry is... CRB wrote: By spending 1 point from his Ki pool, a monk can make one additional attack at his highest attack bonus when making a flurry of blows attack. The Maneuver Master archetype doesn't even mention Ki outside of Reliable Maneuver which is a replacement ability for Slow Fall. Again, we have no idea what the intent of the designer was. Unless you want to engage in guesswork you can only take the RAW as is and conclude that this option is simply lost. That is a pretty big loss! Another interpretation, albeit unsupported by the published language, is for it to be entirely parallel to the core monk, replacing the extra unarmed attack with a combat maneuver. Both interpretations have issues but how much of an issue is completely dependant upon earlier assumptions! If Reliable Maneuver was intended to replace both Slow Fall AND to alter the Ki Pool feature (as a replacement for the foremost usage of Ki points, the Flurry of Blows augmentation), it should really state that clearly. I think either a significant FAQ entry or an errata for the Maneuver Master is more than warranted and quite overdue. Please show us behind the curtain so we can see what was intended in the design. Anything official would be better than the struggle that players and GMs are experiencing with the dog's breakfast of vague language, unofficial interpretations and outright guesswork we have now. In general, I tend to be satisfied with just the RAW no matter how much I might disagree with them and no matter how many wildly different interpretations might exist. RAW are only a problem when players & GMs disagree and that doesn't always happen. When it does, one's options as a player are to defer to the GMs personal interpretation, avoid the contentious rule(s) or leave the game. As a GM one's options are to make a best attempt to salvage the rule construct as something workable and balanced or to ban it completely. I feel this particular case is rather extreme. Here, the language is such that disagreement is almost certain. Further, there are potential balance questions (in both directions depending on the base interpretations/assumptions), some parts are counter-intuitive and/or illogical, little is clear or intuitive and what isn't confusing or confusable doesn't manage to give insight into how to interpret the more troublesome parts. As it is, it is at least as likely to be a source of serious arguments, discord and frustration as it is to be a source of inspiration and fun. My opinion of the base concept is "awesome"! It is more than worthy of keeping (or saving depending on your POV). I have NEVER heard (or read)anyone say that they thought the archetype was a bad idea. I truly believe that all the issues people are having with the Maneuver Master (myself included) stem from the imperfect nature of language and NOT the design! All that needs to be done is to remedy the root problem by improving the wording so it conveys the intended design clearly and without so many gray areas and loopholes. If I'm wrong and it IS a design issue, wouldn't a better implementation be both feasible and affordable given that it has been in the game-space for 2 years now? I will beg if I have to! Many thanks in advance!
I'm wondering how the following rules should interact. 1) Bewildering Koan (Gnomes of Golarion): As a swift action, spend 1 point from your ki pool and make a Bluff check by asking a creature one of the impossible questions you ponder when meditating. If the creature fails its check, you choose whether it loses its next action or you gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make against that creature for 1 round. 2) Flat-Footed (Core Rule Book): At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. Does this mean that a fast-acting wily gnome can ask a silly, answerless question in the first round of combat and, assuming the target of this posed quandary understands the language and fails its opposed check, it remains flat-footed until its initiative comes around in round 2? Distilled down to syntax and semantics, does not being able to act count as "a chance to act"? By extension, could this process be repeated until the wise/idiot gnome monk runs out of ki? Assuming this is how things work, I imagine that making this a viable strategy, meaning one with any reasonable and reliable chance of success, would predetermine nearly ALL a character's choices for 10 or more levels, and quite likely leave them a one-trick pony. TIA
Bounties & Beyond I've been reading lots of opinions on many of the proposed game mechanics, starting with those of GW and moving on to those of the community members. I was glad to see that there seems to be some people thinking about how different mechanics may interact in unexpected ways. As a result, I think that the bounty system might benefit from a re-examination. Everything that GW says seems to be centered on the concept of “meaningful player interaction”. There may be great debate over what constitutes ‘meaningful’ but I’m going to leave that to another time. Other key concepts mentioned over time have been character role specialization, anti-griefing mechanisms, player/PC organizations, PvE elements, and ensuring that alignment has meaning and consequences. There are other key concepts but they may not be directly related to the bounty mechanic — if you can think of others please add them in your replies! This post will be presented element by element, both for clarity to the reader and for portability for game designers should they decide they see something they like. (I have a computing/engineering background and significant experience in writing technical documents so I’m treating this post like a professional document.) 1. Anti-Griefing — Capture vs. Killing In other posts I postulated that sending PvP opportunities, i.e. parties of bounty hunters, to people that love PvP may not be much of a punishment. The punishment in setting bounties lies solely in the death of the ‘criminal’ / ‘aggressive’ character. Death itself inherently has a very limited amount of punishment — a very brief ‘time-out’, and the potential to lose some gear. Please note that this is only a potential, not a guarantee. A mechanic that presents a more meaningful punishment and may lead to more meaningful player interaction would be preferable to all players and game designers, with the sole exception of players who intend to operate with a fast and loose play style, live in the grey-to-black areas of ‘legality’ and/or simply bully / prey upon weaker characters or smaller groups. FWIW, I consider all forms of Banditry griefing. The only possible exception to this would be in times of war, and then the banditry would be state sponsored. State sponsored banditry should have alignment consequences for characters, communities AND kingdoms. Perhaps the Criminal tag is sufficient to make this a less attractive or palatable option, I think it remains to be seen. I’m not even certain that GW considers any form of Banditry worthy of earning the Criminal tag! In the examples that Ryan Dancey gave, it seems to me that his opinion regarding the talkative, logical bandits that are willing to take a significant “road tax” and then let travelers go on their less-than-merry way is that they have committed no crime (of note). Logically, I would guess that Mafia protection rackets aren't crimes either. I contend that capture as a punishment is preferable to killing. It can be argued that lawful and/or good societies may prefer capture over killing in many cases. In an environment where death is transitory this is even more preferable. There has been no mention of capture as a possible game mechanic and I think that is a shame. If anything, it has been implied that the closest to capture that is available in PFO is the ‘Marshal’ ability to immobilize. Given that the Marshal is an NPC role, this seems to mean that PCs will only be capable of killing when push comes to shove. Let’s fix that. 2. Contracts Including Capture as a game concept means a small change in the existing contract system. It can be entirely flavor or it can include an entirely new kind of contract. 2.1 Bounties The PC setting a Bounty can decide whether it is a Dead Or Alive bounty, an Apprehend bounty or a Marked For Death bounty. For Dead Or Alive bounties, the PC opening the contract can offer different reward levels for each outcome depending on their own personal preference and perhaps their alignment’s compatibility with the option. Alternatively, bounty options may be designed to be available only to certain alignment subsets, for example, an Apprehend bounty might be considered too lawful to be an option for a Chaotic PC in a Chaotic community. Similarly, Marked For Death may be considered too Chaotic, or perhaps too Evil, for use by a Lawful (or Good) PC in a Lawful (or Good) community. PCs that have decided to be professional Bounty Hunters will have the option to gain an ability to capture their prey when presented with a Dead Or Alive or Apprehend bounty contract but not a Marked For Death bounty. At GWs discretion they may also employ this ability in taking down known criminals in appropriate areas. What constitutes “Appropriate” is debatable. Perhaps it is only areas controlled by the Bounty Hunter’s employer, or the Bounty Hunter’s home territory. Perhaps it will also include the fringes of control for those areas. Perhaps it may also include uncontrolled areas. Perhaps it will be entirely unrestricted. Let the debate begin. Having the option to capture does not mean they must use it. It is just another tool in their arsenal. 2.2 Retrieval & Recovery If PCs are going to be Captured and Incarcerated, there will be other players/PCs that are inconvenienced or outright enraged by the Lawful society that arranged this ‘insult’. The prisoner’s friends, allies, settlement or kingdom may decide that this insult cannot go without reprisal. Thus a new contract is born, the Retrieval / Recovery contract. This contract is intended to be used for breaking prisoners out of jail, but could be used for the recovery of stolen or looted items as well. It differs from Transportation and Bounty contracts enough that it merits a category of its own. Bounty Hunters that have had their alignment shift away from Law or had their reputations eroded to what amounts to ‘scum’ may not be able to secure bounties anymore. However, chances are pretty good that they’ll be trusted enough to earn R&R contracts, for who else would want them? Fulfilling an R&R would almost assuredly result in gaining a Criminal reputation, so expect that those already considered Criminals will feel that they have nothing to lose and jump all over these! Lawful and/or Good societies will probably never issue these contracts and maybe they shouldn't be allowed to. If a Lawful or Good group felt that one of their own was unjustly imprisoned, they’d be far more likely to try many other ways to secure their ally’s freedom. Negotiation, trade, prisoner exchange, embargoes or outright war are likely all better options for organizations with morals and/or ethics. Does this sound like the kind of meaningful player interaction we want? R&R contracts are probably fairly straight-forward and may or may not be brutally expensive. I don’t think that is something that matters in the slightest as game economics are dynamic and will determine themselves through game-play. They will be straight-forward because they are so outside what is considered acceptable by ‘civilized’ society that nuance is neither necessary nor reasonable. By default, they could be ‘by any means necessary’ types of contracts. If GW wants to make them more complicated and more widely available, I suppose they could include clauses like ‘no collateral damages’, ‘no civilian death’, or other stipulations that one might not expect from this type of contract. Finally, it is up to GW to decide whether specific skills, alignments, reputation-levels or other game mechanics are pertinent in who can qualify to accept an R&R contract and who would be skilled in executing one. (My suggestion that fallen Bounty Hunters would be good candidates is just that – a suggestion.) 3. Death vs. Capture GW has given us lots of information about how Death may/will work. * There is a lock-out / respawn timer;
The way I see it, death is still going to be big business and profitable under the right circumstances. “The right circumstances” coupled with one type of design will essentially be about numbers. If you can say “my gang is bigger than your gang” you’re probably going to find that PvP death is your friend. There will be major, massively chaotic elements to the game: mob rules, last man standing, etc. With a pairing of “the right circumstances” and a different design choice death may benefit no one as it mainly serves to cause items to disappear into cyberspace rather than get plundered and simply change hands. From a design perspective, chasing the right (balanced) formula will be quite the Holy Grail. Worse, it may very well be a dynamic and ever-changing problem that can never be solved for any measurable length of time. I figure that whatever design GW chooses may be less about game balance, economics and other issues and more about ensuring that they don’t accidentally shut down all “meaningful player interaction”. In any case, whatever punishment bounties do present to the hunted is inherently tied to Death. The introduction of Capture doesn't have to change any of those punishments, but maybe it should. Capture will almost certainly mean the hunted is inconvenienced for longer than they would be by transient death. Capture breaks down into a few components: 3.1 Defeat In order to capture an offender you must first defeat him/her and whomever comes to their defense. 3.2 Transport Once you've defeated the offender, and potentially their allies, you have to get them back to your or your employer’s home settlement / kingdom. 3.3 Incarceration If you manage to get the offenders’ bodies back to friendly territory there is still the matter of enforcing the punishment. The offenders get tossed into the big house. It is up to GW as to how long an offender must stay incarcerated. By necessity, it would have to be longer than the ‘time out’ involved in Death, but everything else is open for debate and probably scalable. It won’t be comparable to real life sentences and I don’t think anyone would ever suggest it should. The duration could be related to the offense, the number of offenses, the reputation of the offender, the alignment of the community enforcing the incarceration, or other less ‘fair’ things. Less fair factors could include the reputation or influence of the aggrieved PC that set the bounty. Historically, rich merchants and nobles could expect ‘more justice’ than lesser citizens. Regardless, part of the enforcement of incarceration is not simply watching a clock and saying “OK! Time’s up…you’re free to go.” It can be completely expected that prisoners will try to escape by any means necessary (bribes, murder, lock-picking, wall-smashing, tunnel-digging, etc.) and further, their ‘friends on the outside’ may decide to reward your enlightened and merciful decision to imprison rather than kill by breaking them out along with all the other criminals, and if they’re lucky, destroy some buildings and kill lots and lots of characters in the process. I think this qualifies as “meaningful player interaction” by prevailing definition. Mechanically, I would contend that incarceration be measured in terms of active server time. Players shouldn't be allowed to just log off for the duration of the sentence. Nor should they be allowed to switch to another character while they wait for the sentence to elapse. Similarly, they shouldn't be able to go have a sandwich and come back free. GW says that escaping into real life won’t protect you from death (i.e. logging off to avoid danger) and incarceration shouldn't be avoidable by the same reasoning. So, what can a player do while they are waiting for their sentence to run its course? They can role-play! Role-play options may include: attempting to contact their allies and arrange a jailbreak from the outside; trying to buy/bribe their way out of jail; tongue-wagging to annoy the PC or NPC jailers (within the behavior policy enforced by GW); and interacting with the other prisoners — who knows what plans may be hatched by these unplanned meetings! Handled properly, people may actually WANT to get their PCs captured in order to have meetings with other PCs with whom they wouldn't normally be able to fraternize or even contact. GW could conceivably toss in simple dice or card games for prisoners to while away their time. Another option that could be considered is that the real time clock on skill advancement is suspended (or at least slowed) while they are incarcerated. This would be a significant penalty and would be a real way to dissuade players from ‘bad’ behavior! Since time lost to offenders is more significant in Capture than in Death, GW may want to consider reducing the other potential penalties, i.e. loot potential. On the other hand, the extreme increase in risk involved in transporting captives vs. only having to stay long enough to loot a husk may mean that capture would entitle Bounty Hunters to higher looting potential! This is yet another item open to debate and beta testing. 3.4 Release If you manage to hold your prisoner for the duration of his sentence there is still the matter of safely releasing them back into the game environment. This will be as trivial as the prisoner, or his allies, decide to make it. 3.5 Rehabilitation This concept should probably be kept out of the game entirely! If rehabilitation occurs it will be incidental and experienced by players, not PCs. 4. Character Role Specialization — Bounty Hunters, Sheriffs and Jailers It’s been pretty clear that both GW and the community expect that there will be players who choose to have their characters specialize as Bounty Hunters. It has also been stated that the Game Environment will have ‘marshals’ to enforce certain laws within a certain distance of NPC communities. With the addition of Capture as a game concept, additional specialty roles begin to make sense. 4.1 Bounty Hunters Bounty Hunters should be more than mercenaries that kill killers. They should be specifically empowered to visit grief upon griefers. As mentioned above, one way of doing that is through capturing offenders and their allies / abettors rather than just killing them. Being effective at capturing criminals at large could mean many different things in terms of game mechanics. These would represent player options that enable Bounty Hunter PCs to do what other PCs cannot, but could also have built in costs as well as the standard opportunity-costs involved in all decision making. 4.1.1 Game Mechanic: PC Ability Proposal — Bring ‘Em Back Alive Possible alternative names for this ability: Always Get Our Man,
The Bring ‘Em Back Alive skill allows Bounty Hunters (and perhaps other potential PC roles, such as Sheriff or Slaver) the opportunity to defeat specific targets without killing them. This ability would only be usable on PCs for which the Bounty Hunter has an Active/Open Bounty Contract and PCs that are marked as Criminals. It would be the Bounty Hunter’s option whether or not to invoke this ability since there may be situations where capture is too dangerous or risky and the bounty allows for killing to fulfill the contract. Using this ability in combat might be more difficult than killing. This could make an easy combat more difficult, a fair fight hard, or a difficult battle a no-win situation. At the designers’ discretion, the ability would have to be enabled for the entire encounter, or perhaps only used long enough to prevent a killing blow. Further, if group tactics are used, it is a game design decision as to whether one of the Bounty Hunters using this skill is sufficient or whether all of them must have the skill for it to be effective. Finally, the mindset and skill-set required to beat someone down without killing them may erode a Bounty Hunter’s general ability to kill. Perhaps they will suffer a small regression in combat skills in non-capture situations, making this ability a more difficult option to take. Alternatively, maybe this skill requires the use of weapons suited to the purpose. Since PCs can only own and carry a finite number of items, using up a slot for non-lethal methods may be too high a price to pay in order to gain this capability? 4.1.2 Game Mechanic: PC Ability Proposal — Pharasma's Loom Possible alternative names for this ability: Lost & Found,
This ability is entirely optional and dependent on GW's decision on how looting should be affected by Capture vs. Killing. If the time, risk and expense entailed in Capture is determined to be sufficient to warrant potentially better looting than is available from the husks of the temporarily dead then Pharasma's Loom would be the skill that Bounty Hunters must train to pry items out of the hands of their prey. Pharasma's Loom represents two separate issues — Fate and Bureaucracy. First, as the name suggests, some Bounty Hunters' become adept at loosening the Threads that bind items to characters, even in death. Whether this ability will ever allow a Bounty Hunter to take a protected item is up to GW. Since this is a Fourth Wall issue, it isn't that relevant to the name or the concept. What the ability would certainly do is increase the number or value of items that can be looted from their unconscious bounty and possibly decrease the number or value of items that would evaporate in the normal ‘unclaimed husk’ scenario. At sufficiently high levels of training in Pharasma's Loom, Bounty Hunters just might be able to pluck ONE plum protected item from their prey’s pocket! This is the Fate component of the skill. The second component is the ability to convince the key members of the employer’s society (the Sheriff, the employer, the mayor/king, etc.) that the bounty doesn't deserve to keep the gear when they are ultimately released. Sure, in a completely Lawful society everything that didn't previously belong to the PC that set the Bounty contact (and therefore stolen or ill-gotten goods) should be held in escrow/trust until the prisoner is released at which point it is returned. Sometimes, inexplicably, items go missing. This can either be due to Bounty Hunters not reporting an item in the first place, or convincing the right people that returning the item to the released prisoner is just a disaster waiting to happen as it will once again be used in the commission of crimes. 4.1.3 Game Mechanic: PC Ability Proposal — Break & Exit Possible alternative names for this ability: Bust ‘Em Out So, we've got Capture and Incarceration as an alternative to death, and we've got R&R contracts as a dirty solution for Incarceration. Such a specialized job needs a specialized skill. B&E is a skill that would help a PC deal with the logistics of a jailbreak and the unavoidable chaos that ensues. B&E will augment other skills which the PC may or may not have trained. Stealth, the safe handling and use of explosives, implementing effective diversions, stunning opposition instead of slugging it out to the bitter end, disabling devices (locks), and whatever else it may take to get your man out of the hands of the enemy can all potentially be improved by training B&E. The more chaos you create the easier it may be to get in, get out, get away and claim your reward out of escrow. I’ll leave it to the game designers to decide the specifics of this ability and whether it should be something available in the Bounty Hunter career path or is perhaps more appropriate for another role / profession / archetype. 4.2 Sheriffs Marshals patrol and respond to events in NPC communities. Sheriffs could possibly be an equivalent PC role. They wouldn't be automatically notified of egregious events the way that Marshals are, nor should they be. As such, they would need certain non-combat skills to be effective. Perception would be important. Perception could mean keen sight and hearing but it could also mean having effective networks of contacts. In a fantasy world, not only do the walls have ears figuratively, but travelers, the trees, rocks, animals and even the roads themselves can be credible elements of an information network. GW could decide that Perception and Contacts are separate skill to maintain and upgrade. Either way, both are important for Sheriffs to be effective. 4.2.1 Game Mechanic: PC Ability Proposal — Ears To The Ground Sheriffs need to be in touch with area beyond the reach of their eyes and ears. Ears To The Ground is a trainable skill that incorporates and represents the ability to collect knowledge of semi-remote locations that are within the fringes of a PC Settlement’s are of control. This can either be a completely independent skill or can provide a modifier to the use of other skills in specific ways, such as augmenting the Diplomacy skill for gathering information about crimes taking place in controlled or fringe areas. Mechanically and socially, members of a community will always be trying to communicate with one another. Unless the community is unusually small the amount of noise (or chatter) in the in-game chat channel will be overwhelming. For Sheriff PCs with a well-developed Ears To The Ground skill / ability, the game itself can cut through the chatter with highlighted A/V alerts indicating the presence and location of such events. Just like Marshals, there is no guarantee that Sheriffs will arrive in time to prevent malfeasance, but they might arrive in time to exact justice or at the very least to minimize the damage caused to citizens and allies. 4.3 Jailers (and Spies) If there are jails / prison, there needs to be jailers, guards or wardens — the role’s name isn't that important. The role of jailers can be simple or complex. If the role of jailer is allowed for PCs they could be limited to being alert sentries and excellent at defense / incapacitation. That’s fairly simple. Perhaps they can also have elements of spy-craft in their job description, attempting to learn of the intrigues and schemes being hatched by their charges while under their watch. Perhaps they can be allowed a certain amount of duplicity/corruption and can help prisoners escape…for the right price. With the right skills they may even be able to do that without it being obvious to the leaders of the community and they may be able to line their pockets from time to time without raising too much suspicion. There will almost surely be alignment consequences in the long run even if this activity is masked well. Perhaps this is a role that is, for some bizarre reason, ideally suited for enemy infiltrators! Break out the prisoners and escape with them? If this is true, Sheriffs and their bosses will have to be wary about PCs that volunteer to be jailers, lest they be spies in deep cover. 4.3.1 Game Mechanic: PC Ability Proposal — Hold The Line Jailers need to be able to stop prisoners from escaping. This doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be able to quell riots or jailbreaks on their own. What’s more important is that they hold the line while raising an alarm to ensure that enough allies respond quickly and with enough firepower to prevent escape. Instead of trading damage with prisoners, jailers can simply try to contain them, parrying blows and making combat maneuvers like tripping and grappling to stall for time. Good jails will use the building layout to give the jailers a tactical advantage even if they are outnumbered by the prisoners. Jailers would have to really drop the ball to lose this advantage. In any case, only in the rarest circumstances would all the prisoners be freed at once but it could happen. 4.3.2 Game Mechanic: PC Ability Proposal — Under The Table Jailers with the Under the Table ability would be able to take bribes from prisoners with a smaller chance of being caught. They would still have to play out a believable scenario. A jailbreak while they were sleeping or using the water closet just won’t cut it. They’d probably have to be killed or incapacitated by the prisoners or their outside benefactors for their lack of complicity to be believable, but I never doubt what someone might be capable of doing if offered enough coin or other considerations. Since the prisoners are likely to be Criminals blackmail and other threats could be substituted for coin and similarly, Under The Table would allow jailers to avoid some of the nasty ramifications of giving the bad guys what they want. 4.3.3 Game Mechanic: PC Ability Proposal — Alias If PCs are going to misrepresent themselves anywhere in the game they will have to face consequences. Sure, one way that people have done that in previous more traditional (theme park) MMOs is have a relatively pointless alternate character that they have no emotional attachment to do the scouting and deal making. Nearly all these games had nothing to prevent false newbie PCs from appearing with access to as much wealth as kings and level-capped veterans through a chain of coin trades. Joe Anonymous with a pristine reputation and perfect teeth could arrange all kinds of anarchy and nonsense, sowing the seeds of misery for the real PCs to reap! Since GW has said that this will be much harder in PFO, these fiends — and zealots of all stripes — will have to do their own dirty work. This will mean either being able to temporarily disguise or mask certain details about themselves, such as alignment, reputation and affiliations or the ability to maintain a “deep cover” false identity. Alias is a skill that might allow the suppression of character details that might make completing “a mission” difficult or impossible, or perhaps even replacing these details with a work of complete fiction. Alias could also be a skill that augments other ‘face’ skills like Disguise, Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate but only when utilizing a false persona. These are the bread and butter tools of a Spymaster and what role could be more satisfying to a Spymaster than infiltrating an enemy stronghold and obtaining the release of all you friends without your nation/faction having to give up anything in return? If this ability becomes available every society will have to watch their backs for they’ll never truly be 100% certain who it is they are dealing with when they hand out contracts or assign jobs…like Jailers. 5. Construction and Settlement Development If Capture and Incarceration are going to be concepts in PFO then one of the construction projects that may be undertaken in a settlement must include building prisons. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* All these proposed mechanics, roles and abilities try to decrease the value of ‘undesirable’ behaviors in the final cost-benefit analysis. Further, for those that want to engage in these or even similar behaviors they are simultaneously meant to make them lead to more meaningful and consequential player interactions and hopefully a richer play experience. Comments are heartily encouraged!
I can't seem to find a clear and concise explanation of how L1 retraining and the use of pre-generated characters affects prestige. (My google-fu is not what I wish it was.) If you play a pre-gen and randomly pick a faction to play for (or get assigned one by the GM, generally the Grand Lodge) when you apply that Chronicle Sheet to a *new* PFS PC, what happens to that prestige? Is it hard coded as the faction you played? Do you just assume it to be prestige for the faction you ultimately select? Can you request that the prestige be ported over to the PCs true faction? Does it matter if that selection happens before or after reaching L2 and moving past the retraining threshold? Also, if you play a new PC once or twice as one race/class/faction and retrain it to something completely different, is there a way to make use of that prestige or is it wasted deadweight in spite of the freedom to completely redefine your character? Thanks in advance for clearing this up for me.
(I had a hard time deciding whether this belonged here in customer service or under Paizo products. Customer service won out. If you disagree, feel free to move it to another forum.) I like the idea of subscription services and the discounts they offer. The subscription service that would interest me most is one for just PDFs. Sure I can buy a hard copy and get the PDF for free, but my bookshelves are already bursting at the seems and sagging in the middle. At this stage of my gaming career I'd rather go as paperless as possible. If there was a PDF subscription service I don't know how I could possibly keep myself from buying in. Just something to think about, I guess. Oren Satov |
|
