|
Knowing that a rule change is coming I would like to make a suggestion.
The faction missions being the only item tied to the treasure allowance is becoming a sore point with me. I am seeing more and more players only concerned about faction points than the main quest they are on for the Pathfinder Society.
This is form of play is mostly seen at games where time is an issue such as the various cons or PFS events ran at the local hobby stores. Multiple times I have seen players just disregard the mission if they think things are going slow, dangerous, insert various excuses, etc… and just run for PA points and at times hinder the party or just not help the party in general.
I have talked to players at my local hobby store events about this type of behavior and how is can lead a better chance of a party member death or even a possible TPK. The talks have gone mostly ignored by my younger players and some people just won’t sit at tables with certain players because of these actions.
I will not ban players from my game for play like this because at this time we are playing for free at the store and this does generate sales at the store so more players keeps the store happier in the long run but I can see the effects. Also banning players is against what I think PFS is all about.
So here is my suggestion.
Can we make one PA point tied to successfully accomplishing the main quest and make it a universal faction point? Then each faction can have a mission that can still earn a single point? This would keep the total PA per quest at two. I think it would behoove the PFS to have its players work as a more coherent team and have some game mechanics support this idea.
Can we make one PA point tied to successfully accomplishing the main quest and make it a universal faction point? Then each faction can have a mission that can still earn a single point? This would keep the total PA per quest at two. I think it would behoove the PFS to have its players work as a more coherent team and have some game mechanics support this idea.
When I first got into Pathfinder and PFS, this is how I thought it was supposed to work, since I was being a good player and not looking at any of the scenarios. I was shocked and disappointed when I found out how it really worked and I still do not like the idea that both PA for a scenario are tied to missions separate from the main plot.
|
|
If they fail to complete the mission successfully, all party members stand to lose XP (at worst), gold and item access.
Two unique faction missions seems to be working all right from what I've seen.
I am unaware of a situation where a player play a modules to completion and does not receive credit. A PC still receives XP even if the mission failed but they survived.
|
|
As long as the player completes 3 encounters they would get XP. If a player decided to 'opt out' of the game after only 2 or less encounters they would get zero XP.I am unaware of a situation where a player play a modules to completion and does not receive credit. A PC still receives XP even if the mission failed but they survived.If they fail to complete the mission successfully, all party members stand to lose XP (at worst), gold and item access.
Two unique faction missions seems to be working all right from what I've seen.
Which is why i Stated played to completion. Players that have to leave early happens.
|
If they fail to complete the mission successfully, all party members stand to lose XP (at worst), gold and item access.Two unique faction missions seems to be working all right from what I've seen.
As far as I know, as long as a player completes 3 "Acts" of the adventure, they gain the XP.
The way I understand it:
1. Earning PA is not contingent on completing the quest.
2. Earning XP is not contingent on completing the quest, only completing 3 "Acts".
3. Earning XP is contingent on completing 3 "Acts" within the alloted time. If the group does not complete the adventure within the allotted time, then the adventure never happened, which means that a group that is tanking their adventure (multiple deaths, lost PA points, lost treasure, massive use of resources, etc), can technically waste enough time and have the adventure end with no loss on their part, as long as they don't complete 3 Acts. Then, they can replay it later with all of that "OoC" knowledge.
I may be completely wrong on all of these. If I am, if someone could please point me to the appropriate source, that'd be great. If I am right... well, this is where I have some issues.
I have to agree with Darius. I too have had to deal with PA greedy players. Tying one PA to the main quest would be VERY useful in motivating the players to push forward and complete the main quest. I mean, otherwise, what is the use of the quest? They don't even need to finish it to earn the XP as far as I know. The only thing the players loose is the treasure, and that's only if the GM wants to do the necessary paper work adjustments!
So, tying a PA to the quest completion would be a decent idea, I think.
Good idea.
Either this, or have a PFS faction. It's silly that you can complete dozens of missions for the Society -- but they still won't sell you anything. :P
This might not be a bad idea, but now we'd be keeping track of separate lines of PA points. It is a good point, though.
|
1 and 2 are correct.
However, I believe that a GM can still give a chronicle sheet for an incomplete scenario. Which I would do if a group was gaming the system as you describe.
I think that a change to the way PA are awarded should only happen between seasons, because of the way that it would have to alter already published material. I would prefer to see mission objectives affect gold or XP, which could be mostly done without altering scenarios.
|
I would prefer to see mission objectives affect gold or XP, which could be mostly done without altering scenarios.
Mission objectives should already effect gold. If you complete the first three encounters and skip the last one, knowing you will get the XP, then the gold you would have received from the last encounter should be deducted from the total gold received. This is more paper work for the Gm, but if I remember correctly the amount of gold credited to each encounter is written under the Treasure heading at the end of each encounter.
|
|
I would prefer to see mission objectives affect gold or XP, which could be mostly done without altering scenarios.Mission objectives should already effect gold. If you complete the first three encounters and skip the last one, knowing you will get the XP, then the gold you would have received from the last encounter should be deducted from the total gold received. This is more paper work for the Gm, but if I remember correctly the amount of gold credited to each encounter is written under the Treasure heading at the end of each encounter.
You are absolutely correct.
However, it is sometimes possible to gain all of the gold in a scenario while failing the actual mission objective. Though it more often happens that you can complete the mission and miss gold.
|
|
I would prefer to see mission objectives affect gold or XP, which could be mostly done without altering scenarios.Mission objectives should already effect gold. If you complete the first three encounters and skip the last one, knowing you will get the XP, then the gold you would have received from the last encounter should be deducted from the total gold received. This is more paper work for the Gm, but if I remember correctly the amount of gold credited to each encounter is written under the Treasure heading at the end of each encounter.You are absolutely correct.
However, it is sometimes possible to gain all of the gold in a scenario while failing the actual mission objective. Though it more often happens that you can complete the mission and miss gold.
True and I would prefer to see a change where the actual completion of the mission would earn a PA for all factions because keep the pathfinders happy in beneficial to all factions.
Can we make one PA point tied to successfully accomplishing the main quest and make it a universal faction point?
Or -- dare I say it --
|
|
Granted, we've only been running PFS here in Omaha for the last 6 months or so, but I've only had this come to a head once. Luckily the guy was a good roleplayer and when we showed him the "Pathfinder Society comes first" bit, he straightened up. I can see how this could be a major issue if you are running in an area with a higher percentage of younger players.
I wouldn't want to get rid of it completely as I've seen some amazing roleplay come from some of the faction missions.
|
|
I still believe that a major change like this would be unlikely mid-season.
One other question:
Theoretically, the FMs are currently supposed to be one easy, one hard. Would you suggest making the Faction Mission always be the "hard" one, or the "easy" one, or having 2 PA/session be an assumption?
EDIT: I'm not shooting down the idea, just trying to analyze it.
|
|
Granted, we've only been running PFS here in Omaha for the last 6 months or so, but I've only had this come to a head once. Luckily the guy was a good roleplayer and when we showed him the "Pathfinder Society comes first" bit, he straightened up. I can see how this could be a major issue if you are running in an area with a higher percentage of younger players.
I wouldn't want to get rid of it completely as I've seen some amazing roleplay come from some of the faction missions.
True! I have seen awesome roleplaying due to the faction mission which is why I don't want them gone all the way. I do like the flavor of the factions but my younger players (referring to age) are the more guilty crowd of playing only for PA.
|
|
I still believe that a major change like this would be unlikely mid-season.
One other question:
Theoretically, the FMs are currently supposed to be one easy, one hard. Would you suggest making the Faction Mission always be the "hard" one, or the "easy" one, or having 2 PA/session be an assumption?EDIT: I'm not shooting down the idea, just trying to analyze it.
If I redid it I think you were thinking among my lines. The 1st PA was tide to the successful mission completion then the 2nd PA would be a "harder" faction related point. I am inclined to stick to the two PA point / adventure theme as the balance of the system revloves around it.
|
One other question:
Theoretically, the FMs are currently supposed to be one easy, one hard. Would you suggest making the Faction Mission always be the "hard" one, or the "easy" one, or having 2 PA/session be an assumption?
Personally? I would prefer 2 hard.... if they wanted easy things to be done they would send servants or NPC experts. This would also make it easier for the prizes from the scenarios to be valid when you get them, as most PCs won't have anywhere close to the prestige to buy the items yet.
|
|
Depending on where the scenario takes place, in some cases the main mission is in fact one of the faction missions, so this has already occurred to some extent in PFS.
True this has happened in a handful of modules but for a single faction coicided with the main mission.
I am talking more of a universal PA point that would be earned by completed the objectives the PFS gave you at the beggening of the module.
|
I am seeing more and more players only concerned about faction points than the main quest they are on for the Pathfinder Society.
I've seen this too. Most of the times this can be avoided by reminding the person in or out game what Pathfinder Society is really about. Linking it to PA is also something I thought about. Sometimes the PA missions are steps towards the main mission, so that helps as well.
But next time someone leaves a fight while the outcome is still unsure to complete his faction mission my character will let him finish the encounter he triggers himself! (Or have the triggered encounter finish him...) >:-)
|
Is avoiding the last encounter really such an often occurring issue?
I just checked 10 lower tier adventures from season 1.
Here are the number of faction missions to be done in the last act:
3,2,2,2,1,2,4,3,3
So if you have a decent mix of factions, then they should all do the last encounter. Off course - season 0 will look different, as there are less faction missions overall.
I did notice that Andorans more often as other factions have at least one faction mission as part of the last encounter. So if you are lacking Andorans, you might encounter issues more often.
So far it only has happened once to me in 20 games that the group did not fulfill the overall quest - and that was a CON with 3 1/2 hour slots and a group who hadn't played before. They just ran out of time.
Thod
|
|
Is avoiding the last encounter really such an often occurring issue?
I just checked 10 lower tier adventures from season 1.
Here are the number of faction missions to be done in the last act:
3,2,2,2,1,2,4,3,3So if you have a decent mix of factions, then they should all do the last encounter. Off course - season 0 will look different, as there are less faction missions overall.
I did notice that Andorans more often as other factions have at least one faction mission as part of the last encounter. So if you are lacking Andorans, you might encounter issues more often.
So far it only has happened once to me in 20 games that the group did not fulfill the overall quest - and that was a CON with 3 1/2 hour slots and a group who hadn't played before. They just ran out of time.
Thod
I haven't had whole parties avoid the encounter but party members hold back or explore other rooms during the last fight. Sometimes this causes the bad guys to win or escape. It has yet to cause a TPK in my games but its has been close.
|
|
I haven't had whole parties avoid the encounter but party members hold back or explore other rooms during the last fight. Sometimes this causes the bad guys to win or escape. It has yet to cause a TPK in my games but its has been close.
In this case it is actually more a group issue. I don't think there are any easy options how to fix this. If you tie one PA to the last encounter you will run into issues with non-linear plots. Now characters who have received their full PA AND managed to overall mission will be even more reluctant to go back to the 'unexplored room' which contains the faction mission of two of their members.
And splitting a party is BAD. I just had a group of starters in their very first game the last weekend at a CON. They managed to trigger three !! encounters simultaneously because of splitting the group doing just something like that.
Luckily encounter 1 was contained behind a locked door, encounter two would have been deadly for the fighter (who actually just wanted to surprise encounter 1 from behind) if I wouldn't have let him 'fall through the door while on -1 HP - effectively allowing a 5 foot step - and to bold one more door by a second person just looking where he went. And encounter 3 was a non-combatant one ... Still - the trap there caught one of them and got him down.
They all played the very first time - but they stayed together and worked together for the rest of the adventure.
But a second time around this happens at my table and I would just kill that character - no mercy.
Interestingly my own home group which in 10 years gaming never played together despite all my attempts have learnt that in PFS play they rather co-operate. It is suddenly fun again to GM for them.
Thod
|
I wonder whether the GM could rule that PA is given only if the PFS mission is completed.
[edit]
That way, nobody would get any PA unless the PFS mission were completed. On the other hand, a player who had missed his faction mission might try to sabotage the mission to prevent the others from earning PA.
|
I guess the treasure awarded as part of the last encounter isn't enough?
If part of the group splits off and doesn't participate in the final mission can a judge rule that some players aren't eligible to get that treasure?
I've been pretty fortunate that we haven't encountered any of this sort of bad play.
|
|
I guess the treasure awarded as part of the last encounter isn't enough?
If part of the group splits off and doesn't participate in the final mission can a judge rule that some players aren't eligible to get that treasure?
I've been pretty fortunate that we haven't encountered any of this sort of bad play.
I would go as far as finding out who had what loot up to that point if I had players leave strategically.
I would also consider if they had skipped the optional encounter. Often the optional gets skipped at my table, and often it's directly in the way of the final goal. If I had people pull that crap, I'd likely spring the option encounter on them. :-)
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
The problem with missing treasure is, well, it's not really that big of a deal, thanks to (dun dun dun DUN!) Prestige Awards: they can just buy whatever they want, as opposed to getting access through play.
I would recommend doing what Living Greyhawk did: unique favors/boons/abilities/modifiers/items. If more and more adventures have unique rewards for completing the quest, people will want to finish the quest to recieve them.
|
The problem with missing treasure is, well, it's not really that big of a deal, thanks to (dun dun dun DUN!) Prestige Awards: they can just buy whatever they want, as opposed to getting access through play.
I would recommend doing what Living Greyhawk did: unique favors/boons/abilities/modifiers/items. If more and more adventures have unique rewards for completing the quest, people will want to finish the quest to recieve them.
Note how at the top-right corner of the chronicle it says "Max Gold" next to all of the gold amounts for each tier and how, unlike the box for XP, the DM can write in how much gold the characters get. So, even with all the prestige awards, the players can't really just buy anything they want because they won't necessarily have the gold to do so. The DM is allowed to only give them the actual gold they earned in the adventure; nothing forces him to give the full maximum gold to players who skip out early for strategic reasons.
|
|
Sect makes a valid point though. The PCs can complete the encounters and collect all the XP, PA and gold but still fail the Society mission and there are no consequences. They get exactly the same rewards as a different table that completed the mission. If there was a unique favor/boon/ability/modifier/item only available at the end it would make the consequence for failure relevant. This is nothing that hasn't been said before however.
|
|
The problem with missing treasure is, well, it's not really that big of a deal, thanks to (dun dun dun DUN!) Prestige Awards: they can just buy whatever they want, as opposed to getting access through play.
You can certainly burn prestige points but prestige is worth at best 375gp/ PA and since you can only spend it in 750gp increments you are pretty limited.
I would recommend doing what Living Greyhawk did: unique favors/boons/abilities/modifiers/items. If more and more adventures have unique rewards for completing the quest, people will want to finish the quest to recieve them.
I've been seeing a decent number of boons in adventures. I'm not sure they are incentive enough to push through but there are a fair number in more recent scenarios. Maybe our group just hit a patch of them?
|
|
Sect makes a valid point though. The PCs can complete the encounters and collect all the XP, PA and gold but still fail the Society mission and there are no consequences. They get exactly the same rewards as a different table that completed the mission. If there was a unique favor/boon/ability/modifier/item only available at the end it would make the consequence for failure relevant. This is nothing that hasn't been said before however.
I was under the impression that most scenarios had a decent slug of treasure tied to the final encounter. I haven't been GMing a lot lately and our groups are pretty good about finishing so I can't be certain about that though.
Edit: Flipping through the scenarios I own it looks like a mixed bag, some scenarios it's a good chunk of the treasure and some it's paltry.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
The problem with missing treasure is, well, it's not really that big of a deal, thanks to (dun dun dun DUN!) Prestige Awards: they can just buy whatever they want, as opposed to getting access through play.You can certainly burn prestige points but prestige is worth at best 375gp/ PA and since you can only spend it in 750gp increments you are pretty limited.
I was referring to the part in Chapter 11 of the Player's Guide that explains how the Total Prestige Awards total can be used to determine the gold cap on what items the Pathfinder has access to without needing access.
But yeah, I've been seeing more boons lately, which really pleases me, though I hope writers get more creative with the boons so that we have less "Charisma skill modifiers in a location that the characters rarely visit" boons.
|
|
PA tied to the adventures can be a really frustrating experience!
Depending on your GM and the preparation done, you could have a moderately easy time completing the 2nd PA mission or be at a loss as to what to do for it, pick the wrong thing and lose out - or just fumble around and hope you inadvertently do it. I've even been on adventures where murder-hobos unconsciously sabotage the party's ability to gain PA.
The problems I have with gaining PA are as follows:
Gaining PA can have a lot of factors beyond your character's control, such as being ill-equipped, not skilled enough, or not having access to a situational spell. You just hope you have prepared by purchasing what you think is the right stuff when you go in. Others' characters may not fill the areas you are weak in (especially skills for martial characters and spontaneous casters), or be unhelpful or counter-productive in completing missions. It is entirely possible for a party to be incapable of achieving a mission objective if it requires a skill check that no-one has a rank in. Why would a venture captain assemble a group of pathfinders doomed to failure?
GM willingness to nudge characters in the right direction makes a massive impact. There are some GMs I feel fairly confident of achieving 2 PA from, and others I just hope it isn't too hard to get 2 PA or I will surely fail.
There is no way to make up PA for adventures where potential PA was not realised without also gaining commensurate XP. Some adventures, such as the goblin ones, only offer 1 PA, which is a real downer even though it is a fun module. Similar argument with modules offering only 4 PA with 3 XP - it is like you only succeeded at a single secondary success condition out of 3. I've heard modules give a higher gold amount to compensate, but it just isn't that much more - 15% maybe. Also, as PA dictates the GP limit of items purchasable, early level modules penalise a character's PA at later levels for a trivial gold increase.
As PA is a fundamental metric in developing a character, I don't think PA should be what characters chase when they complete adventures - that's what boons are for!
Characters should gain 5 PA for every 3 XP earned - and PA should be tied to XP, to the point that the PA vs GP Item limit table should just multiply PA required by 3/5 (round down) and use XP instead.
|
I disagree as whole. The system isn't designed for PCs to gain 5 PA per level or even 4 PA; it is designed on the idea they will earn 50% of the PA possible for their level. Having a couple PCs who played from 1-12 before the current arrangement (when gaining full PA was fairly easy to do every scenario), I can assure you this is true in practice. They have purchase access to items and a gold amount that grants them gear well beyond what PC for their level should have by projections in the CRB. If your PC seems "under geared", it is likely because many PCs are still running around with optimal gold/access. This will likely filter out over time as more PCs reach post level 12 play and are playing primarily Season 5 and on scenarios.
PA tied to the adventures can be a really frustrating experience!
Depending on your GM and the preparation done, you could have a moderately easy time completing the 2nd PA mission or be at a loss as to what to do for it, pick the wrong thing and lose out - or just fumble around and hope you inadvertently do it. I've even been on adventures where murder-hobos unconsciously sabotage the party's ability to gain PA.
I do agree a better prepared GM makes this process easier as do companions that do not immediately go murder hobo on everything that lives. If a GM is consistently unprepared (i.e. hasn't read the scenario despite having appropriate time to do so) and/or a player is killing everything that moves without thought, I'd recommend choosing not to play with them. That's a problem with players/GMs, not the scenarios.
On your later mention of helpful GMs: They are being generous beyond expectations. Heck, there's a boon running around that allows you to seek a "helpful/not helpful" response on a course of action related to the secondary objective.
Gaining PA can have a lot of factors beyond your character's control, such as being ill-equipped, not skilled enough, or not having access to a situational spell. You just hope you have prepared by purchasing what you think is the right stuff when you go in. Others' characters may not fill the areas you are weak in (especially skills for martial characters and spontaneous casters), or be unhelpful or counter-productive in completing missions. It is entirely possible for a party to be incapable of achieving a mission objective if it requires a skill check that no-one has a rank in. Why would a venture captain assemble a group of pathfinders doomed to failure?
It can be frustrating to not have the resources you think you might need, especially when these are specific skills. But this setup rewards tables who are playing well prepared PCs with a large variety of skills/resources (as appropriate to their class/character). Every main objective can be completed without requiring a single obscure skill, spell, or piece of gear to do so. Secondary objectives are often "above and beyond" tasks related to the main mission. The PA rewarded to this objective is an incentive to go beyond just completing the mission, which sometimes means having specific resources at hand. It rewards PCs for giving it their all and coming to the table with a variety of resources.
As PA is a fundamental metric in developing a character, I don't think PA should be what characters chase when they complete adventures - that's what boons are for!Characters should gain 5 PA for every 3 XP earned - and PA should be tied to XP, to the point that the PA vs GP Item limit table should just multiply PA required by 3/5 (round down) and use XP instead.
As I stated above, the system assumed that PCs get 50% of the available PA...which means 1 PA per scenario. If you're gaining the 1 XP for the scenario (completed at least 3 encounters) chances are you've completed the main objective, which in turn means you got at least 1 PA. Even if not, this will quickly be averaged out by the scenarios where you do gain 2 PA.
If you really want to tie PA to XP...well, chances are that means you'll actually see your access level go down overall, not up, as they would assume that 50% available PA as the baseline.
|
|
Wow, oldest thread necro I've seen in a long time! <blows dust off of everything>.
Prestige is earned, and is based on your character doing things that impress the people you work for. It is not a right. You get XP just for surviving three encounters, but you can do that just by being a murder hobo or coward or any number of lamer ways. Prestige is now awarded for accomplishing the Society's goals. If you don't want to help the Society, I have to ask: why are you a member?
|
|
I disagree as whole... ****rest of quote omitted****
Thanks for shooting down my rant. I had a bad experience recently when I received 0 PA for a season 5 scenario due to murder-hobos and it coloured my perspective on PA.
As an aside, I really hope the scenario writers don't listen to boasts from people who say the combat is too easy. I have played a couple of scenarios where there have been more character deaths than characters [Elven Entanglement (7 deaths, 5 characters), Seige of the Diamond City (1 table had 5 deaths with 4 characters, and the high table was wiped out too)], and I've heard numerous horror stories too.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Ironically, a lot of the deaths I have heard about in Elven entanglement are due to GMs misunderstanding rules or not reading tactics. On the other hand, a lot of the reports people bring back about scenarios being to easy have a lot to do with GMs misreading tactics and not enforcing rules...
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I disagree as whole. The system isn't designed for PCs to gain 5 PA per level or even 4 PA; it is designed on the idea they will earn 50% of the PA possible for their level.Actually, this is incorrect. The system is designed with the expectation of a PC gaining 4.5 Prestige per level, which is why modules give 4 PP (4.5 rounded down).
So what's up with vanities that cost a lot of PP and give a measly bonus to Day Job rolls? To be cost-effective you'd have to get maybe ten times as much PA..
|
|
So what's up with vanities that cost a lot of PP and give a measly bonus to Day Job rolls? To be cost-effective you'd have to get maybe ten times as much PA..I disagree as whole. The system isn't designed for PCs to gain 5 PA per level or even 4 PA; it is designed on the idea they will earn 50% of the PA possible for their level.Actually, this is incorrect. The system is designed with the expectation of a PC gaining 4.5 Prestige per level, which is why modules give 4 PP (4.5 rounded down).
The dayjob is vastly, VASTLY , overrated as a mechanical option, and PP is horribly underestimated.
|
|
That was my thinking too.
But it made it a bit harder for me to guess at the intent behind how many PP you're supposed to earn on average, if I can see some options that spend PP as if you have loads to spare.
They stated 4.5 per level, but then a few weird things started happening.
1) People noticed that they needed to do faction missions and made characters that were better at doing them.
2) Dms were a little more reluctant to fail people
3) People cooperated. The background story for a shadow war over absolom fel to the fact that the guy you split a pizza with sitting right next to you, that healed up your wounds, needed a disable device check to take the scarab out of the statues forhead and couldn't make the skill without you. You didn't just get your resources to complete the faction missions you got the entire parties.