I'm currently building a Ranger with the Groom archetype for this (so she can talk to the party's horses). Does anyone know if one of the campaign traits will include Knowledge Local as a class skill?
Search Posts
Yes that's true, but with one opponent you *might* get away without the battlemat. We always use it in Pathfinder regardless, just to avoid confusion. The only games I've played of 5e dispensed with it completely and combat went really fast, although how it fares at high level remains to be seen. 4e at low level (1-3) wasn't bad at all, its how it scaled that let it down.
If we're going to compare old v new then we need to compare them RAW. In 3.5/PF/4e the battlemat is essential unless you only fight one enemy. Most of the rules require accurate positioning, distance and movement and would be impossible without it. In that respect 5e is very much a throwback to older versions.
I played a very interesting game of PFS yesterday. It was an unusual scenario that uses 7th level pre-gens only and it started out old-school and ended up new-school. In part 1 the characters all have solo missions and mine was to assassinate someone and assume their identity (I did say it was unusual for PFS). We did this old school and I spent a bit of time scouting areas and looking for an opportunity to quietly take out the target, then stealthed past the guards, used character options to become a grapple specialist and knocked on the targets door. My surprise knockout attack missed so then we went into initiative, but this was still theatre of the mind stuff with no grid. I won initiative and managed to grapple and pin the opponent in the first round (using Greater Grapple). The GM then called the fight, assuming I'd just step into the room, shut the door with my foot and finish the target off. That was fine with me and then it was all about deciding where to hide the body. The only thing that let this part down was my silent wondering what sort of grapple check it was to close a door with my foot whilst maintaining the pin. That's new-school thinking, which the GM thankfully ignored and moved things on. It was fun, briefly worrying when the surprise attack missed and things could have goine pear-shaped very fast, followed by the satisfaction of a plan well done. If it had failed I would have been running for cover and trying to disappear, as I was completely outgunned if the guards turned up. The others completed their solo missions and we regrouped. At this point we were back into new-school combat and proceeded to slug-a-thon our way past DR, hardness, stoneskin, mirror images, invisibility and various other debuffs. At one point I was able to do 6 attacks per round for three rounds, hit on most of them, but did nothing except reduce the enemies defences. Yes, we won and the enemy fled, but there's something frustrating about making 18 attacks and doing no real damage. The other thing was that we played the game in a supposed four hour slot but it took closer to six hours and went well past midnight, by which time the constant grind was getting boring. I like tactical combat, but do we need APL+4 combats? I know they're challenging, but the quick and dirty assassination attempt in part 1 was so much more satisfying. This for me sums up the differences perfectly. Both had risk, both involved tactical decisions, but the first fight took about 5 minutes from when I knocked on the door. The other fights must have averaged an hour or more each and yet the extra time didn't really add anything to the game.
I think one of the subsystems of 3.X/PFRPG that slows down combat the most is the damnable attack of opportunity. It seems like almost any action that anyone would want to take in combat triggers a chain reaction of AoOs. Like feats, it was a good idea that was taken way too far in the initial rules, and then further mutated by the bloat that followed. It's not the AoO itself that slows things down as extra attacks can actually speed things up, it's the indecision that stems from it that causes the problem. Then there's looking up the concentration rules for casting on the defensive and time taken to consider the risk of trying it. Or the time taken to count steps to avoid AoOs, failing to get in one way so trying another and then forgetting where you started from. Followed by indecision. It's a great idea that's simple to implement, but turns the game into a chess-like experience. A six second clock to make a decision (and a gaming culture where mistakes are considered part of combat) would be ideal, but that's a bit brutal for inexperienced players.
...where anything is possible.As long as you have the appropriate feat. :P and are willing to spend 20 minutes working out how to use it.
Part of the difference may also be down to the way Save or Die spells got phased out and the impact those had on combat duration. Lets take Sleep: Rules Compendium (Basic) 40' radius, 2-16 HD, 40-160 minutes, no save
I'm not commenting on the power of Sleep as a spell, just the fact that in Basic it ended the fight and the adventure moved on. From AD&D onwards it still shortened the fight but it became progressively less effective and more of a typical attack spell as the rules changed. By 4e it was just a temporary debuff. I know PCs don't like getting hit with SoD spells, but they sure speed things up. Until going through that in detail I used to laugh at Basic D&D wizards getting their one spell per day, but boy is it powerful. Even the Light spell, which is now a cantrip, used to be able to blind an enemy for a minimum of 70 minutes (albeit with a save).
Old, New, Newer
That's one of the things I find fascinating about the modern forms of the game: the more rules there are the more certain a player is of what their character can do and the better he can plan based on the challenges he faces. But conversely that increases his certainty about what he can't do, and what options are closed off to him. It both empowers and weakens him. Of course a player can select traits, feats, multiclassing and spells to get around most of those restrictions, but then the challenge of CharOp becomes trying to make the character he envisioned using the rigid options available. It looks like he can make a vast array of characters, but at the same time many choices become closed off because he doesn't have the stats, skill points or levels to accomplish that. What the rules give with one hand they take away with the other.
Lastly, OD&D and Pathfinder really approach the game in the same way. Pathfinder's mechanics have a wider breadth to them, but the guiding principle in design is overall the same. Pathfinder just benefits from several decades more publishing history to draw upon in the designing of their game. Overall though, the basic approach to how a story is designed and interacted with is the same. The idea that they're somehow opposed to each other seems silly to me. They share far more in common with each other than they do with Dungeon World or Lady Blackbird. It's only D&D and its successors I'm talking about. It's not the basic principles that changed (they still work for me), it's the evolution of the mechanics and how those have changed the gameplay that's the heart of the old v new discussion - IMHO anyway. There's still a lot to learn from other game systems, but I wouldn't want D&D and its ilk to lose their essential character. I just want it to regain the mystery.
I'm actually okay with there being no blank space on the map, if that's what the GM wants. If he doesn't want the setting to be mutable, that's his call. I just would like some warning about it. A game does need at least some structure. How much is personal preference. I don't need the setting to be mutable, as a player I just don't want to be told 'who done it' before I start reading the detective novel. That's what a complete and accurate map says to me.
That's a good metaphor. I think (hope) the old school revival looks to fill in the obvious blanks (the metropolis over the hill) in the rules, whilst leaving what lies beyond open to possibilities.
World maps impose limits on my imagination and that's a bad thing. I don't mind the GM having a world map, or at least a map of everything relevant to the campaign. A metropolis will obviously have an impact on its locale and should be signposted (literally) in advance, even if the characters never go that way. Adventuring in a small kingdom I would want to know and incorporate the royal family, the system of rule, the royal palaces, the market towns and villages, market days (if applicable) the farms, trade routes and merchants that impact on the kingdom. I would also need to know the adjoining kingdoms (if they exist) and any tension or strife that exists. Likewise any major threats, wars or other activities that bother the rulers and affect the peasants in terms of conscription or taxation are important. But that still leaves the lands far beyond the borders as mysterious, with nothing but rumour and myth defining them. Maybe the characters can speak to an old crusader who returned from those lands. He will only know what he saw and may not have understood why things were the way they were. Again, lots of gaps and places for the imagination to fill in. World maps feel as though a wizard went off with a GPS unit and said 'that's all folks'. It's done, finished, closed. The world doesn't need to be infinite physically, but it needs to have infinite possibilities (so long as it all makes sense with what went before). You can't do that when every country has been defined and populated. Even as a GM I would find that limiting.
I've got the Torchbearer book but I found it a bit formal for my tastes. Official phases, checks, resource tests... For example during the Camp phase "You may also spend a check to initiate a conflict with a fellow adventurer". I'm sure that works in a fun and free-flowing way within the game but it certainly doesn't read that way. I've not had the chance to play the game mind you, so this is just from scanning the rules. The random events tables are great as they'll keep players on their toes and the idea of a tough as nails game where torches actually matter (and you can't just spam a light cantrip) really does appeal. Just so long as it doesn't turn into a Rogue-like game where you die of hunger in the fourth room because you were too busy looking round the next corner.
I've been following this thread with interest and will throw my own hat in the ring by saying the difference between old school and new comes down to how much time is spent in combat vs how much of the session is spent exploring. Looking at my old D&D modules I'd say the maps take up more space than the stat blocks and that seems right to me. I find the modules interesting to read just in themselves and they speak of mystery and danger. The modern game variants have drifted away from that approach and the stats now seem to matter more than the environment. Not only that but the maps are little more than a warehouse here, or a tavern there. They're more colourful now, but too encounter specific. Mazes have become skill challenges; exploration gets glossed over ready for the next fight. A dark corridor leading into the unknown should be something in itself, not just a link section. The other thing that killed the mystery for me was the introduction of world maps available to players, particularly human(ish) dominated worlds where there wasn't any space for the monsters. Looking at the map of Golarion the Mwangi expanse feels a bit like a nature reserve where occasionally adventurers go exploring. Discovering Greyhawk had a world map was just as disappointing. When I first started playing the world seemed huge and exciting because it had no limits. World maps impose limits on my imagination and that's a bad thing. So old school for me is limitless exploration. Modern is bounded, encounter focused challenges. And yes, I know how old the Greyhawk map is, but I found it long after I'd switched to 3.0 - decades later.
Please don't add any books to Core. A revised (and simplified) guide with a few extra player options would work fine though. In terms of name how about PFS Lite? That's what it is. I drifted away from PFS a few years ago for a whole host of reasons but Core has tempted me back again. I don't want the Core campaign to suffer the same old problems: 1. Complexity, bloat and paperwork. One book, a web document and chronicles is perfect. Anything else is superfluous. 2. Rules changes. Every time the campaign rules change the playerbase fractures into those who are using year 1 rules, year 2 rules, year 3 rules etc. Okay, maybe not Year 1 (3.5) rules any more, but you know what I mean. I'd like Core to have one set of campaign rules and then stick to them so there's no confusion. 3. Remembering what I've played. Being able to replay everything is bliss as I don't have to cross-reference lengthy lists of games played - yet. What would really help, in both campaigns, is some sort of colourful quick reference guide to what we've played and what is still available. If that exists already please let me know. 4. Guns, robots and lasers. Whilst those could creep back in with later scenarios I'll just avoid those games where possible. A Core warning sign on scenarios that include technology would be useful so we can easily ignore them. Maybe add it to point 3 as a * against the scenario number. I'd also like all technology to be permanently banned in Core games, just speaking for myself! One other suggestion is to allow Core characters to play non-Core games without losing their Core status. Even if all chronicle items are banned for the Core character and other restrictions are imposed to protect the Core campaign, it would just make organising games easier. Those of us who prefer the challenge and simplicity will still seek out true Core games where we can but they don't come up as often as I'd like. That's my take anyway. :-)
My take is that if you have a subtype, such as from the Scion of Humanity aasimar trait, or the Orc Bloodline for sorcerors, then you count as that creature for accessing feats etc. The racial heritage human feat allows access to the feats of another race and it doesn't even change your subtype, so it would be strange if gaining the subtype didn't.
We're not debating what's lawful, but what's good. They're completely different things. In many ways being lawful is easier, which is probably why there are so many lawful stupid paladins out there. So here's a question: if you capture an evil cultist and the options are: hand him over to the authorities who will torture and kill him, and then his soul will go somewhere really nasty; execute him cleanly but his soul will go somewhere really nasty; or let him go so he can kill other people, what do you do?
Now we all know the player doesn't have an alignment, or a clearly defined moral code for that matter, but trying to kill a subdued, unarmed, bound person is not "good"; no matter how you spin it. What other options are there? Hand them over to the authorities, who will kill them for you? That makes you complicit.
Sometimes executing prisoners is the only reasonable course of action. It happens in almost every game I've played or run, regardless of character alignment, and no-one bats an eyelid. This is a brutal medieval world, not the modern USA. The looks of confusion come from the fact that most GMs are perfectly happy with it and they're surprised you're not.
If you only release 2 scenarios per month then these figures may just represent a bottleneck, in that people who want to play more often simply can't. You won't see the figures for 3 or 4 times per month increase until the opportunities becomes available. That's also compounded by the difficulties of scheduling, tiers, and the inability to replay. My regular local group still play a certain other game, but they're unlikely to switch over to PFS now as the buy-in for system mastery is so high and increasing all the time. Never mind the cost, how long will it take for a newbie to read and digest all the new rules? They don't *have* to buy all the books, but they're the sort of regular gamers who do. It's just a lot easier to do that from the beginning and the more complex the game gets the more new players get left behind. That's perhaps the biggest thing in favour of D&D Next - it's fresh and the buy-in is low; or it will be to start with anyway. Then there's the perception that PFRPG mk 1 may be approaching end of life because of the level of bloat and complexity. That may not be true but if Paizo need to keep selling us books to keep expanding then a reboot is the easiest way to do that. Maybe we're just jaded from past experience? :-) It would also deal with the high buy-in mentioned above. The one thing that might justify a reboot (without looking like a blatant attempt to maximise revenue) is a radically rewritten core rulebook that focuses on simplicity and ease of use. Something that *seriously* simplifies the game without changing the game. Tweaking a few paragraphs won't do it, it needs to be a wholesale restructure and rewrite. Target the ambiguities, disagreements and misunderstandings and bring some clarity and consistency. Make the rulebook so elegant that it's actually worth reading; so intuitive that it allows GMs to look things up mid game in less than a minute. It should be a doddle to reduce it to half its current size, maybe even 25%, without excluding anything. Redesigning the game to reduce stat blocks to a fraction of their current size would also help justify a reboot. I'm buying the reprints of old adventures and the stat blocks are one or two lines, with a brief note below them, often only one sentence in itself. I appreciate that edition required lookup tables to make it complete, but its so much easier to use than the half-page stat blocks we have now. Complexity is fine for characters where the player has spent a few weeks creating them, but for the GM to memorise all the options and intricacies of a dozen NPCs is too much. I'd get rid of alignments too as they just cause arguments, but that's a whole different thing!
This may have been mentioned earlier, but the players have some responsibility in determining how tough the scenarios are. When I started playing my local group wasn't sure what to expect so we created a well rounded group of optimised adventurers and played tactically. When it became obvious we were walking through every encounter our second and third PCs ended up as weird and wonderful 'characters' instead, with some decent capabilities but nowhere near the same level of optimisation. The game became a little more difficult as a result. The only player who went up in power had been playing the least effective character in the first group. In other words we adjusted to suit the game, or our experience of it. The problem I have now is if season 4 is as hard as everyone says then all my weird and wonderful characters are playing the wrong game, because my expectations are wrong. With both the players and Paizo adapting at the same time there's little chance of us finding an equilibrium. So I'd suggest that Paizo find a certain difficulty level, with some variance to mix it up, and then stick with it. Let the players work to that level according to taste. I don't mind what the difficulty is, I just want a rough idea of what to aim at before designing my characters.
If Paizo are having difficulty coping with the level of customer service then that would be a fair counter argument, but I've not heard anything to that effect, have you? For the moment I'm working on the assumption that Paizo want PFS to grow as much as possible and my original post was intended to provide one way in which it can expand. Edited for clarity.
Fairness and 'rights' have nothing to do with it. If players look at what the GM is getting and want the same things then all they have to do is run some games. That's what an incentive is; that's how it works. That's what gets you those extra tables at a gameday or convention. Generic credit (and credit for re-running) is one incentive that will appeal to certain GMs. Likewise, bonus prestige to use on vanities (mentioned above) is a great idea that will appeal to other GMs (with a fair bit of cross-over I suspect). Neither affects the balance of the game in any way and I haven't seeen a decent argument against either of them yet. In fact the only problem that I can think of is the changes required in the database, but it's nothing Paizo can't handle.
I miss the good old days when we played(GM'ed) because it was fun. You mean when a small group of friends with lots of free time played a relatively simple game? I remember those days fondly. :-) What we're talking about here is encouraging people with limited free time (due to work, family, life etc) to spend it travelling long distance to run complex games for groups of complete strangers. Its not quite the same thing. Some people do that because they enjoy it (and all power to them), whereas others need a little encouragement to go that extra mile. It had never occurred to me that people in the latter category would be told to quit because they weren't wanted. I sometimes think these messageboards do more harm than good.
GM credit only encourages more selfishness and GMing just to get credit. GMs like that are useless to me as a coordinator because they are not helping my area grow. On the contrary, GMs like that are absolutely what you need to help your area grow. They increase the number of tables, and so long as they're professional about it and run every table to the best of their ability they're just as valid as a GM motivated by sheer virtuousness. We're not talking about players who refuse to do their bit, meaning they take from the community without giving anything back. We're talking about GMs who've run scenarios before - who've stepped up and done their fair share already. Anyone who's willing to do that already has my thanks, and if we can find a way to encourage them to run even more games then we should consider it.
Ah yes, when I follow written tactics and hit them with an empowered 9th level fireball in the surprise round at tier 6-7. Gotta love those 3rd level characters playing up and thinking "we can do this, we're going to make it!" :-)
Find something else to play that wasn't PFS, just like the other players. Or if that's not an option because it's Paizocon and a GM just got taken out with food poisoning then I'd run the scenario as best I could, understanding that it was an exceptional situation. But the key there is that it was exceptional. If the convention was being run in a way that made this likely or frequent I simply wouldn't bother attending in future, and might well cut my stay short and find something else to do for the rest of the weekend. Extra GM credit wouldn't transform my approach to the situation, but it would make me more likely to run PFS in the first instance; it would be a pleasant reward in the second; and I still wouldn't bother turning up in the third (and I now skip those conventions completely).
Yep, you're a juicy, golden apple!
the time spent actually running the adventure should be enjoyable on its own - otherwise, why would you be GMing in the first place? You must live in one of the seven heavens where GMs grow on trees and you just have to pluck a juicy golden one that's brimming over with the love of the game. :-) I've actually met a GM like that and he was great, but most of us just take our turn and make the most of it. It *can be* enjoyable, and seeing how different players respond *is* interesting, and we *do* run it to the best of our ability every time - but we would always choose to play rather than GM given the choice and therefore providing encouragement of some kind (whether a carrot or a gentle stick) goes a long way.
Stormfriend, while I see your point about the motivation for some GMs, the fact is that there has to be a balance between player and GM. Right now we have that balance and it was a hard fought road for a lot of us to get to that balance. And as GMs is was a hard fought road to just to get the credit we have now coming to us. That is why you see a lot of us naysaying this idea. I'm not asking for anything new or outrageous. I'm just asking that running the same scenario twice provides similar rewards to running two different scenarios, and that the rewards themselves be simplified to cut down on paperwork. If that encourages a few people to run extra games, or makes event coordination easier, then we all benefit. There are no balance issues as GM credit characters will generally have more appropriate WBL than standard player characters; and although they may have slightly higher Prestige they won't get as many boons. In terms of turning and burning scenarios to get credit that's actually more likely if a GM has to run different scenarios to get the credit. If they can just keep running the same scenario as long as they have new players then they'll get to know the story almost by accident as they've invested so much time in running it - and that's more fun for the GM as well as the players. Maybe my suggestion will even reduce the number of GMs providing poor experiences, whilst maintaining the same number of games?
I suggest that a GM motivated by getting another Chronicle sheet may do more harm than good. I'd rather play under a GM who enjoys GMing for the sake of the community, because he or she wants to hone their skills or because they just have more fun that way. What about an event coordinator who desperately needs another GM and asks a player to step forward at the last minute? Or a VC/VL who encourages players to take up the GM mantle in order to expand the game in their area? Or GMs in local groups who'll run a game because it's their turn but prefer to play when possible? Are you saying that all those GMs do more harm than good because they had to be encouraged? People are motivated by different things, but their reasons for running a game have no bearing on the way they run it or their behaviour at the table. In fact it's quite possible that GMs who had to be encouraged to run something end up doing it better than the GMs who never play, as they're better able to see the game from the players point of view.
I will add to this that I actually try not to take GM credit over a certain level. This is because I like playing high level games, so I really would prefer to play my characters through 5-12 as opposed to GM credit them up. I will take the GM credit if I never have the chance to run the scenario again or if there's a boon that's good for one of my characters and I have already played it with a different characters, but otherwise I would prefer to play them through their fun levels. I like creating characters and can burn huge amounts of GM credit on them, even if they only get played once. I just find character creation really interesting and the need to start at 1st level rather boring (as I've been doing the same thing for 20 years). GM credit is a great way to do something unusual. If I'm playing a peasant I don't mind starting at 1st; if I'm playing a character with much backstory then I prefer to start higher. My high level character also died a little while ago and although I raised her I never played her again. I find raise dead detracts from the suspense and fear that any combat should instil, so when a character dies I consider it game over and move on. That's also why I care about GMs running RAW so much, but that's another conversation. :-) I would far rather fast track another character with GM credit until she reaches the same level and then play from there. I tend not to use credit for 7-11 otherwise, and only did that for my current high level character to qualify for the retirment arc at the same time as the rest of the local group. I agree about 5-12 being the fun levels by the way; if the game started at 5th level I wouldn't care about GM credit anywhere near as much.
Don't you have a chronicle for each of the games you have taken GM Credit for? Yes, but that's 28 GM credits and 93 player chronicles (on a rough count) spread across 12 played characters. I then need to keep up to date with the games planned by my local group, which is one spreadsheet (not necessarily up to date) tracking games played by eight people, plus occasionally cross-referencing lists of games provided by other players in a different group to try and find something I can GM for them. I haven't played online for ages, but for a while there was yet another Google sheet I had to consider which tracked a completely different 30+ players. Actually a convention might be easier to organise than our local games as there's less need to accomodate the regulars - just pick a game and wait for sign-ups. It's not that the tracking can't be done, just that the effort required is growing all the time. I've just had to cancel my sign up for a game I was sure I'd never played this morning, and I only discovered it by accident by counting the sessions just now.
To get my two stars I've run 28 different scenarios, with the 29th one coming next weekend. One of those was Godsmouth and I did run that a second time, along with Shades part 3 at the request of a local group. I have no incentive to run any of the others a second time though. Spamming could be a problem if GMs don't want to spend the time preparing something new, but if they get new players every time then why not let them? If they don't get the players then they won't get the credit, so there is a natural limit in there.
Perhaps this is my fault, but I have so many characters and have played and run so many scenarios that keeping track of everything is becoming a bit of a nightmare. At times the planning aspect feels more like a tax return than a game. So if my local VC asks for GMs at a convention and I think it's a great opportunity to refresh or update my character stable with GM credit, I have to spend several hours working out what I can run and what I can't, and then face the prospect of reading and preparing several new scenarios all at the same time. In fact the effort required usually exceeds the desire to volunteer in the first place and I don't bother. Now if I was an angel then doubtless the happy smiling faces of the players would be reward enough (until I TPK them in Dalsine Affair). But I'm not an angel and GM credit does influence my decision to run those extra games from time to time. I already GM for both of my local groups so this is just about mobilising GMs to run a few more. So I'd like to make a request for a generic GM chronicle. It just needs to provide 1xp, 2pp and character-level appropriate gold (1-2,3-4,5-6 etc). I don't think boons or equipment are necessary for this chronicle and we could just use the white space in the middle to summarise what our characters were doing to get that xp (with some very concise fiction). Most importantly the chronicle should be useable any number of times for the same character (even if awarded for running the same scenario repeatedly). I think that will provide two benefits:
I don't want to replace the existing GM credit scheme, just to add this as a simpler opt-in alternative.
A rule could be implemented whereby instead of gaining a scenario credit for GMing you could get a special credit that adds 2PP to any one character but no gold or xp. This could be taken multiple times and be assigned to the same character if desired, though you couldn't exceed a maximum of 2PP per XP (including PP already gained, so you wouldn't regain PP spent on consumables). I can't remember which one is PP and which one is fame, but it should be obvious what I mean.
RPGs are NOT adversarial games, they are cooperative games. Exactly, which is why the GM cheating on my behalf makes me feel like I've cheated too.
True enough, but GMs fudging rolls cheapens the character's life because you're constantly thinking "this character should have died". Whenever that's happened to me I may have played another scenario or two with that character but ultimately I just retire them because it's not the same any more. The spark has gone and I feel like I'm constantly cheating, even through no fault of my own. Following on from that, simply knowing that the GM 'might' fudge rolls cheapens the game as a whole. It makes me want to play it less because my characters' choices have less meaning. It also leads to characters just charging in and assuming the GM won't kill them, when I prefer a more measured (or realistic) approach to a situation. If we constantly charge in then many of the subtle nuances of the game and several non-combat skills get less exposure than if we spend time thinking around a problem instead. Fudging subtracts more than it adds. On the other hand a GM should feel free to advise newbies that certain actions will be unusually risky, or offer tactical suggestions such as flanking that they may not be aware of. So long as its not heavy handed then giving the player clear choices and advising them of the risks helps to put them in control. Let them make their decisions and then roll the dice openly. The biggest issue is with newbies who've played under a GM who constantly fudged, or adjusted encounters to suit their players, so their expectations are very different to those of PFS players. PFS run RAW represents a fixed challenge and the player needs to adjust to that, rather than be lazy and let the GM do the adjusting instead. It can take a while for that to sink in though and for the players to make the mental switch.
A Charisma penalty should count as a bonus to Stealth, as no-one pays any attention to you But if you generate that kind of response then you have Charisma, even if it's through repulsion. People remember you; they notice you.
A Charisma penalty should count as a bonus to Stealth, as no-one pays any attention to you; and a Charisma bonus should be a penalty to stealth as people find you interesting.
Re: shy diplomats. I'm also with the GM on this one. Reducing the social scene to a single roll is akin to reducing combat to a single roll*; there's more to it than that. No-one is asking the player to be diplomatic, and a rude player rolling 36 on a diplomacy check can be fun (I guess it's his rogueish charm and winning smile that comes through even whilst being insulting). What we're asking is for the player to think through the conversation in the same way she might think through tactics in combat. What does she want to know? What is she asking about first? What is she not mentioning in case it causes a problem? Let the other players assist if she can't think of anything, as they can offer up questions she can ask. It's still her roll, but the whole table then gets involved. Just don't expect the GM to hand-wave the encounter because of one player. *I did think about designing a game where it was assumed the characters would always win in combat, but in every fight every character rolls a d20 and on a 1 they died. One die roll, 5% chance of death. "Are you sure you want to start that fight?" For big bosses that could increase to a 1 or 2, or 10%. Fighting style, stats, specialisation were all descriptive, and in the end it just came down to one roll - so there was always a risk no matter how good you thought you were, and no matter how easy the foe appeared. There wasn't much of a game left to design though, rules-wise. :-)
Summon Nature's Ally is in the 1st to 5th errata, but not the 4th to 5th errata because (I assume) it was already updated by the 4th printing. Somewhere in there it should probably also say "and do the same for Summon Monster". It doesn't though, and the lists aren't identical, so a lot of people go with the errata as written and keep using riding dogs (myself included a short while ago).
The latest download documents have changed riding dog to dog, sadly, but the errata for the PHB hasn't (I checked the 1st to 5th, and 4th to 5th). At least not as far as I can see.
Playing up is more common with large parties, not just because the maths works out that way but also because the scenarios become less challenging and playing up means the BBEG is still around when it gets to the 7th character's turn (after the first six and their animal companions, eidolons and familiars have all acted). That may not be true in season 4, but in season 0-3 it was. The more a character plays up the richer they get for their level and the more they need to play up to be challenged, so it's kind of a self-fulfilling requirement. The one thing that brings them down to earth is when the written tactics at tier 6-7 are to hit the party with an empowered 9th level fireball in the surprise round. That will correct the wealth discrepancy for any 3rd and 4th level characters playing up! :-)
Min-maxing is also playing the game in 'easy' mode. A well rounded character not only gives you more to do, but also increases the difficulty level to 'normal'.
Some of the rage powers in the APG grant overrun bonuses or a trip check, so they can certainly use them.
That's part of the fun! Working outside your element, having to adapt and overcome. I disagree, intense missions like that are exactly the kind of fun I want from PFS! I would suggest everyone quietly puts the character they *want* to play face down on the table. When everyone has done so they turn the characters over and see what kind of insane party has come together. No-one gets to change, you have to make it work as best you can; philosophical disagreements are roleplaying opportunities and combat weaknesses will test your ingenuity.
My Mystic Theurge did a deal with Mammon in an LG special and turned evil, so she had to quit the campaign (also at 10th iirc). The upside was that she was allowed to play the remaining mod at the convention despite being evil, and she's now busy working towards world domination so doesn't have time to adventure. It was close to the end of LG, which makes a slight difference, but she left the campaign with her head held high and I wouldn't take anything back.
If you're an elf then the Breadth of Experience feat from APG is worth looking at as it gives you +2 to all knowledge and profession skill checks and lets you make them untrained. Handy for a sage, who likely has an opinion on everthing. :-)
The faster you kill the enemy, the more time you have for roleplaying. :-) Having no social skills is akin to having no combat skills: you could be sitting out large parts of the game. Some degree of balance is required.
|