|
I am guessing over a 12 level / 33 adventure carrier, a PFS society character could at most accumulate 66 prestige points. I noticed the true resurection spell costs 77 prestige, and the 157500 gp magic item level requires 67 prestige.
How could a player pay for a true resurrection spell with prestige? Or purchase a magic item costing 157,500 hp? Perhaps I’m missing something. Thanks.
|
Well in theory you might be able to get some extra PA by participating in an adventure where you get your PA in the first encounter and then go home rather than participating further.
But basically as far as I know those entries aren't going to come in handy, however it does seem like a good idea to make a chart like that go further than you expect in case of future changes to things like PA acquisition or level limit.
Without some of the shenanigans mentioned above I also don't think characters will be getting anywhere near that 157k in gold either.
|
I am guessing over a 12 level / 33 adventure carrier, a PFS society character could at most accumulate 66 prestige points. I noticed the true resurection spell costs 77 prestige, and the 157500 gp magic item level requires 67 prestige.
How could a player pay for a true resurrection spell with prestige? Or purchase a magic item costing 157,500 hp? Perhaps I’m missing something. Thanks.
If they (Mark and Hyram) hold true the idea was there would be a high level arc every year or so the current one has 4 mods each giving prestige. The true res is just a tease
|
|
AxeMurder0 and San-chez, thank you both for your posts.
True res is a tease ha.
Oh by the way San Chez, last wednesday I volunteered to DM a second table of Pathfinder society scenario #51. I had a good time, and i think the players did as well....especially with Tasha's Uncontrolable Hideous Laughter.
I Hope everything went well at Anonyconn. I'm sorry i missed it.
Elyas
|
|
AxeMurder0 and San-chez, thank you both for your posts.
True res is a tease ha.
Oh by the way San Chez, last wednesday I volunteered to DM a second table of Pathfinder society scenario #51. I had a good time, and i think the players did as well....especially with Tasha's Uncontrolable Hideous Laughter.
I Hope everything went well at Anonyconn. I'm sorry i missed it.
Elyas
Myles Anonycon was fun, you missed a good time. I am sure you will make the next CT or NJ con. Dreamation is going to be at the end of February in Morristown NJ.
Nate
NYC
|
Myles Anonycon was fun, you missed a good time. I am sure you will make the next CT or NJ con. Dreamation is going to be at the end of February in Morristown NJ.
Nate
NYC
Yup it was lotsa fun, my first local con. Before this only Con i had made was Gencon. *note to self: do not cough into mountain dew can and have it explode all over yourself and your core rulebook again*
Director of Brand Strategy
|
It takes a PC 33 scenarios to attain 12th level. Then they have four more scenarios as part of whichever "retirement arc" they want to play in, allowing for an additional 8 PA to be earned. That allows a 12th level PC to buy gear from the 157,500 gp tier, and puts them closer to being able to get a free true resurrection. By that point, however, the PC is basically retired except for rare events wherein players can dust off their retired PCs for super, über, ultra high level challenges. Why would you need a true resurrection when you rarely play? We're working on getting more things people can buy with PA other than just sitting on them in case they die, but I can't announce anything official yet, as it's still in the works.
|
|
Heh Tamai, Null Sprouter, dont we all wish we could prestidigitate the mountain dew away.
Mark Moreland, Thank you for taking the time to answer my observation. In spite of my griping here and there, i do like PFS.
Ah ok, so with the 8 additional prestige, one can access more expensive gear and inch closer to a true resurection.
I do appreciat that you James Jacobs, others take the time to answer our questions.
More stuff with PA? sounds intriguing.
I do like the PA system as a means of regulating access to magical items. The Faction Missions add something flaverful to the adventures.
I do have one other thougtht. I have noticed that there are occasions where PCs, need ranks in obscure skills, I think i ran across preform dance, one time, or there are others where they have to be of a particular class in order to complete the task (picking locks, disabling device skill etc) , Is this an oversight on the writers part or is it by design?
Since a character' access to magical items ( and cost thresholds) is crucial, and that access is determined by your PA, I had assumed that, requiring players to have either obscure skills, or extremly class specific skills etc to complete a faction task to be an oversight on the writers behalf.
When i have DMed, and if someone is say playing a fighter, i have required them to make what i Deem is a reasonable attempt to get the task done in order to get the prestige point.
A specific example i can think of was in the Assault on the kingdom of the impossible module. For one faction, a character needed the disable device skill, and for another faction the character needed Preform: dance. (to pick up stances). I felt this unfairly penalized the ranger and fighter in the party. I allowed the ranger to make a perception roll while he stated he was observing the monks in action, and the other I allowed a streangth check to complete his task.
Is the use of these things by design or an oversight? Thanks.
|
|
Dragonmoon, thank you for the clarification. So in the two prestige point modules, the first prestige point is supposed to be relatively easy to get and i have noticed that it sometimes dovetails with the overall objective of the scenario. The other prestige point, sometimes you can get it sometimes you can't, unless someone else is willing to help you. Thank you.
CFalcon, I'm afraid i neither understand the point of what you are asking, nor what you are asking., I do however detect a note of sarcasm.
In this particular instance,
Dragonmoon has thoughtfully answered my question: which was that the second "bonus" prestige point, is by the writer's design, intentionally more difficult, and in some cases impossible to get.
|
|
I think CF was asking if you gave characters who sacrificed combat ability to be better with skills bonuses in combat to be equitable with characters who sacrificed skills to be good at combat. (whom get bonuses to skill or are allowed to use alternate skills rather than the ones listed).
It's a good point actually, those kinds of changes unfairly reward characters for building in certain ways while reducing the already generally diminished value of characters that value skills over attacking.
|
It's a good point actually, those kinds of changes unfairly reward characters for building in certain ways while reducing the already generally diminished value of characters that value skills over attacking.
Please, no.
Not that that is necessarily your point, Axe0, but if there is one concept that needs to be beaten to death within a living campaign, it's the idea of 'fairness'.
I don't believe that 'fairness' needs be everywhere and in everything. I believe that character choices should matter...and if you choose to do something well at the expense of another thing, then that choice should have benefits as well as penalties.
I LIKE that choices matter in this campaign. I like that you get to make character decisions then you have the pleasure to live or die by those choices.
I LIKE that some PAs are hard to get or that they require ridiculous or silly skills to get them.
This game is MUCH more interesting when things aren't fair. The world is more alive when things aren't fair (we have challenges to overcome). Characters have more flavor when they have skills, however randomly or rarely used, that sometimes come into play.
+1 for the idea of keeping PFS 'unfair'.
-Pain
|
|
I LIKE that some PAs [ommitted, because this is the part I disagree with] require ridiculous or silly skills to get them.
I don't.
Why?
Because the faction leaders, or local representative, is asking a specific character (or group of characters) to do something.
Now, I am not asking for the second Faction PA to be easy, but that it be something possible for the character(s) involved.
A difficult Diplomacy check? Fine, anyone can do diplomacy.
A difficult disable device check? Not unless the characters being asked include an actual Rogue or Bard, who at least have the possibility of being able to use the skill.
IMO, no PA request should include a hard requirement for using a trained-only skill. Ever.
Unless, of course, the number of skill points for certain classes is raised to a reasonable number to support learning skills outside the very sharp delineation required by the class itself.
Examples:
Fighters only get a base 2 skill points. And certain skills are almost mandated by being a fighter. Intimidate, for instance. And, in PFSOP, if you use any sort of consumables, you take a hit on your available gold if you don't train a craft or profession skill...
Sorcerors only get a base 2 skill points. And there are significantly more than 2 skills which could be included as de rigeur requirements for members of the class to know. And sorcerors, as much as fighters, are not Intelligence-based, so expecting them to have "extra" skill points is not necessarily reasonable. Knowledge (arcana), spellcraft, UMD, a craft or profession skill, other skills within the scope of a "normal" sorceror...
Should a low Dex/low Int cleric be required to have to train disable device for the rare occasion when a unwisely-written faction mission requires someone to break into a lockbox?
|
Because the faction leaders, or local representative, is asking a specific character (or group of characters) to do something.
You have it wrong, The PFS is asking the group to do something, Which opens an opportunity for a faction to get something done, but the faction does not choose who goes on the mission the PFS does, the faction is stuck with who the PFS picks, even if they don't necessarily meet the requirement for what they need done.
|
|
Should a low Dex/low Int cleric be required to have to train disable device for the rare occasion when a unwisely-written faction mission requires someone to break into a lockbox?
Hey M,
Yes. Absolutely. That cleric should not get it. Not all characters will be able to achieve all faction missions. Some just won't have the skills.
And I think that's good.
However, that doesn't mean that your character might be able to find some help to make it happen...like working with your party, or hiring an NPC. Or if you're really smart, you'll have a utility scroll or potion for just this occasion.
I view faction missions, especially the harder of the two, as something that my characters won't be crying over if they don' get. I know that life ain't fair.
I think the unfairness leads to some interesting opportunities that wouldn't be there otherwise.
-Pain
p.s. No, there are no skills that are mandatory for any class. That's just silly talk. Build your characters the way you want to build them.
p.p.s. I like that a player can choose to build a highly skilled fighter-type (sink some points into Int) or low skilled. I like the trade-offs inherent in that system.
|
|
Other than the rare missions that require secrecy, I tend to follow the "cooperative" rule with faction missions, especially with members of the same faction. If you can convince someone outside your faction to assist you, so be it, as long as it makes sense with role-playing. I'm not a fan of the Cheliax PC helping the Taldor complete his mission just because both players want to earn full rewards.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Examples:
Fighters only get a base 2 skill points. And certain skills are almost mandated by being a fighter. Intimidate, for instance. And, in PFSOP, if you use any sort of consumables, you take a hit on your available gold if you don't train a craft or profession skill...Sorcerors only get a base 2 skill points. And there are significantly more than 2 skills which could be included as de rigeur requirements for members of the class to know. And sorcerors, as much as fighters, are not Intelligence-based, so expecting them to have "extra" skill points is not necessarily reasonable. Knowledge (arcana), spellcraft, UMD, a craft or profession skill, other skills within the scope of a "normal" sorceror...
This fails to take into consideration either traits (which could change the base skill consideration for any class) and taking the skill point option for your favored class. If you choose a trait that adds an obscure Knowledge skill or take the option of an additional skill point, the base for your characters skill points could be raised by one. And if you are human, that changes that again.
I understand how straining it can be to reach the secondary PA award. But a more rounded or "interesting" character can make that happen without true lose. Some of the ideas posted above might lead new players to believe that a character without Knowledge skills is "unoptimized" for PFS play, an observation I've heard espoused by many players of late.
|
|
K Neil Shackleton, I’m sorry I have not yet figured out how to use spoiler tags. I will try to figure out how so I don’t spoil things for others.
AxeMurder0, well I suppose cFalcon brings up a good point, my answer would be no, I haven’t given rogues or bards or wizards combat bonuses if they are without a fighter type. Perhaps in some way I am being inconsistent, because when I have played at tables with all “squishy” characters, we have said, “hmm this will be interesting”. But some character classes more resources to fall back upon. Perhaps I am in the grand scheme being somewhat inconsistent, but then again, my primary concern would be for the players at the table that evening, not everyone else.
Looking up on Paizo’s records, for that game where I deviated from the text of the module to allow for players to come up with alternate skill solutions for their faction missions, I think there was a wizard, a fighter, a ranger, and Hmm, the players name instead of his character is listed. I’m afraid I can’t remember what the final character was, but I am fairly sure the final character was not a rogue. Now if there was a skill-focused character such as a rogue in the group, then they would have had the skills they needed at their disposal. I don’t think my solutions were unreasonable ones, nor do I think they were detrimental to the game or the players at the table that evening.
But Dragon moon has answered my question that the writers’ intention was to make the first point easy to get, but the second prestige point will be difficult, and might not be possible to get.
Painlord and Callarak, thank you both for your opinions. I will admit my opinion lies closer with Calarak.
Again Dragon moon brings up a good point. “The PFS is asking the group to do something, Which opens an opportunity for a faction to get something done, but the faction does not choose who goes on the mission the PFS does, the faction is stuck with who the PFS picks, even if they don't necessarily meet the requirement for what they need done.”
Twilight knight, I think that is a reasonable approach to the factions. However, I have found, as a player, (and of course this depends on the character’s personality), I don’t mind helping other players, or my character helping other characters with their missions. I have found, that down the road, these other characters are willing to help my character. While this hasn’t always been the case, in general, it has panned out.
Arim Thayer, I do like how the traits can allow you add a skill to your set of “class skills” it allows you to make a more customizable character. I also prefer a more well rounded character.
In terms of a character “optimized for PFS” play, as you play you learn. For example, I have found “knowledge Local” to be far more useful then the “gather information” part of “diplomacy”. Also I have found such spells as “see invisibility” and “Darkvision” and Invisibility Purge, to be very useful spells in PFS.
Again thank you all for your thoughts.
|
|
@Dragnmoon: Sorry, got to disagree, here. The faction folk hear that such-and-so member(s) of their faction are going to such-and-so place. They then decide that, since these people are headed in that direction, to ask them to try and do some task there.
So, if the task shouldn't be something the faction members don't have a hope in a hot place to accomplish, why ask? "Jason, I know that you are skilled as a ship captain, and know how to use a longsword and shield, but we need you, when you go to Medea, to sneak over to the old Temple and steal the ruby eye of Grom, without letting anyone there know what you are doing." Nope, not a reasonable faction mission.
Or, to put it another way, will there ever be a faction mission setup that requires a Sorceror to have to participate in single, non-magical combat in an arena with a highly trained gladiator and win? If'n there aren't missions like that, there shouldn't be missions that require trained-only skills that are, reasonably, likely to only be trained by a relatively small proportion of the population.
@Pain: If you play the Faction as the PFSOP Guide says you should, then you are not going to be able to ask anyone outside your faction for help. Playing it secret is supposed to be how it is done. YMMV.
As to building a high-Int Fighter, you wind up severely distorting your Fighter away from being a FIghter. You want a combat-oriented skill monkey? Go Ranger. At least that class gets a few more base skill points. Me? I build a fighter to be a combat monkey, not a skill monkey...
@Arnim: And I would rather use my Traits for what I want to use them for, rather than, again, being constrained by a partly broken system where I cannot be true to my vision of my PC in order to be able to do some rare, oddball faction mission, where I will use the skill once, in 12 levels, and never need it again.
As to the skill point option, I do do that, usually, but there is a serious difference between comparing the high-end skill points available for a fighter with the low-end points available for a Rogue, as an example.
Fighter, human, 20 Int, skill point option = 9
Rogue, non-human, 8 Int, hit point option = 7
So, best case scenario for a fighter who, for some reason, spent most of his build points and his racial stat adjustment on Int is 9 skill points, and most of the skills are likely to be cross-class. And his ability to "be a fighter" will likely be severely impacted.
Likely build for a Rogue, which includes only spending 2 build points on Int (likely low, since Int is used for some of the more important Rogue skills), is going to be 10 skill points (skill point rather than hit point from favored class), with a wider array of class skills, to boot. And he will still be likely to be able to fully perform as a fully functioning Rogue...
So, use my traits and favorite class options to stay true to my vision of my PC, or mess with it to be able to handle the blue-moon, oddball faction mission? I would rather build the character I want to build, rather than burning the very things I need to make him mine in order to make him more similar to every other PC for a faction....
--------------------
Difficult, but remotely pssible? No problem.
Difficult, limited to trained-only skills? Problem.
Again, at the time the faction missions would be assigned to the faction member(s) in the party, the faction leader should have a fair idea of what those faction members are capable of.
Unfortunately, because the faction missions are generic, you get silly missions like the lone fighter having to try and use disable device or UMD to fulfill a faction mission.
Difficult is a challenge. Impossible is just frustrating.
ALso note how badly some of the faction missions are written up in the note given to players. Not only are the tasks difficult to impossible, but so can be figuring out what the faction mission is supposed to be.
"Go to point A, look for item B, perform action C on said item." is fairly clear. Some of the faction missions I have seen have been difficult to understand, even if, somehow, my PC & I have somehow performed the mission successfully.
One faction mission I know of relied on being able to hear a single word in a GM's description of the opponents during a high-stress combat encounter. Add in the background noise going on (this was a game day with 4 other tables going on at the same time, in a library lecture room, so not that big a room), and hearing, in the middle of the description of the opponents ambushing you, that they are xxxx, and you have something a bit ... fiddly.
|
|
Elyas, sorry if I was short before. Lack of time, no slight intended.
When you post, if you look below the window you are typing in, there is a button that says "show" after "BBCode tags you can use". If you click on that button, it will show you how to format things like spoilers and links.
As far as the discussion on difficult/impossible PA. I have no problem with some missions requiring trained-only skill checks, as long as the other mission is attainable. This gives the skill-heavy classes a benefit to balance them out.
That said, I also keep in mind the section of the OP Guide which encourages you to reward clever play. I will not come up with a generic way to bypass a skill, but if a player can come up with a clever way to accomplish a mission that was not accounted for in the scenario, I will give them a shot. Perhaps at a higher DC for not using the listed skill.
For example (made up):
A mission requires the PC to evaluate the defences of a fortress. The scenario calls for a Knowledge (engineering) check. The player tells me their character has Profession (Soldier) and that they would like to make a check using that. But I wouldn't allow someone to make a check based on them saying "but I'm a fighter!"
|
personally, as a player I think that in the scenario that you are the only one in your faction at the table for 10 adventures, you should receive 12 PA. 4 of the missed PA should be for skills that are trained only, and you don't have, and 4 for missed rolls, or missing the rooms in which the PA resides.
each additional player in your faction should take one off each missed PA list, with a max of 19 (1 missed from bad rolls/not going into the room that contained the PA)
|
|
K Neil Shacklton, no offence taken. Thank you for explaining spoiler tags to me. I will try to stick something behind a spoiler tag to see if I can get it to work. [spoiler/If I may ask, I seem to remember there was a Shackleton who was an Antarctic explorer, any relation?]
[spoiler/ I seem to remember, the player, playing a ranger, stated that he wanted to specifically watch the monks in combat for a couple of rounds, and since he was an archer, not directly involved in melee, he could do this without distraction. I felt that called for a perception check. And as for the other, the Figher commented he needed to get the head off of said statue and he produced a crow bar ( I think it was even on his character sheet) .I thought a str check would be required for the task. The players thought of solutions, I simply thought of a way to “make it work”.]
I think your example with the engineering vs profession soldier is a very reasonable one.
Calerak, it is an interesting question between, the factions “needing to get something done” hope that their man in the inside can do the task, even if he isn’t trained to do so,
Vs. a faction tailoring their tasks to their agents.
Calerak, Cpt Kristov, and NeoFax, thank you all for your thoughts.
|
Other than the rare missions that require secrecy, I tend to follow the "cooperative" rule with faction missions, especially with members of the same faction. If you can convince someone outside your faction to assist you, so be it, as long as it makes sense with role-playing. I'm not a fan of the Cheliax PC helping the Taldor complete his mission just because both players want to earn full rewards.
Two adventurers leaving the Society Lodge on their way to a mission...
Cheliax Cleric: "So, what's your assignment?"Taldan Rogue [looking at note]: "I'm supposed to use 'my persuasive nature and charm' to convince this guy to meet with an agent in Absalon a week from Tuesday. How about you?"
Cheliax Cleric: "I'm supposed to use my 'deft hands and natural sneakiness' to plant evidence that your government is behind a kidnapping. Like anyone's going to believe that. Ha!"
Taldan Rogue [chuckling along]: "Do they even look at our personnel files before they ask us to do anything? Gods, I hate home offices bunglers. Half the time they're asking me to find a new poison. Like there aren't enough ways to kill someone without leaving a trace. Oh, no. Do you know how many different spiders, snakes, oozes, and slime's I've milked, squeezed or sponged up just to collect their poison?"
Cheliax Cleric: "I hear you brother. I'm constantly being asked to free someone's slaves, or send some jerk 'the paracountess' dearest thoughts'. Like anyone believes that the paracountess considers them any more than a lite mid-afternoon snack or a speed bump in her efforts to rule hell."
[Both adventurers look at each other. Then at notes. Then at each other.]
Both at same time: "Swap?" [they swap notes]
Taldan Rogue: "Okay, let's go find that generic artifact, journal or specimen that the venture captain was mumbling about."
|
|
@Dragnmoon: Sorry, got to disagree, here. The faction folk hear that such-and-so member(s) of their faction are going to such-and-so place. They then decide that, since these people are headed in that direction, to ask them to try and do some task there.
So, if the task shouldn't be something the faction members don't have a hope in a hot place to accomplish, why ask? "Jason, I know that you are skilled as a ship captain, and know how to use a longsword and shield, but we need you, when you go to Medea, to sneak over to the old Temple and steal the ruby eye of Grom, without letting anyone there know what you are doing." Nope, not a reasonable faction mission.
In that case, I would suggest that, instead of giving that faction mission, they would just inform the faction member that their services are not needed this day. I would think that if the person handing out the messages also had a mission that would have a lot better chance of success, they would have given it instead of the mission that might likely fail due to lack of resources and skills.
In my mind, when a faction tells a warrior that they need do something that obviously requires training in Linguistics despite the warrior knowing only Common, the faction leaders are really just trusting that the warrior will pull at the available resources he has at his disposal. Items, research, and even fellow Pathfinders can provide solutions that the faction member alone could not.
|
|
[/spoiler=Really Im not trying to hide something, i'm just trying to get the *^#*$ spoiler tags to work]
Thank you Mark Gerringer, I will give it another try.
Brother Elias, That was funny. I may send it to some of my friends. Yep I have been there.
I remember in one scenario i played, we were in Andoran, and everyone at the table was chelaxian. It was very funny. We were all first or second level. One player had an alchemsit. He kept ordering his friend who had an Oracle of bones up to the front. I had my cleric of Asmodeus, and the player next to me had an inquisitor of Asmodeus as well. The two Asmodeans hung back, sniped and healed occasionally, while the alchemist blew things up, (if i remember one of his bombs was lobbed into a gas pocket) and the oracle tried not to get eaten by the monsters we faced. Towards the end of the module, ( I had been healing with a wand), the guy playing the alchemist turned to me and asked
" you're wearing a black cloak right"
I replied "yes with red trim".
" what do you have under the cloak?"
" we don't know each other that well",
"no seriously, do you have armor or not?",
I replied, well my character has scale male and a steel shield.
He then said, " what are you doing in the back? you should be up front?"
I replied"acting as rear guard, and providing logistical support and no i'm not getting in front, I have yet to see the oracle cast a healing spell, which leaves me the only healer. if the monsters turn me into lunch, you will be next on the menu.".
All in all we had a good time, and there were occasional moments of bickering.
What was the point of this? oh yeah a bunch of chelaxians doing a Pathfinder mission in Andoran.
All in all i like the faction missions. To be fair, while we might be ribbing the "home office" for sending a mage to do a fighters work, or a cleric to do a rogue's work, These scenarios are written with broad strokes in mind. Often you don't know who is going to show up, nor what characters will be at the table.
|
|
[/spoiler=Really Im not trying to hide something, i'm just trying to get the *^#*$ spoiler tags to work]
No, just no.
The example shows you not only how to do it, but there's this big button to the left of the Cancel button that allows you to *gasp* preview what the post would look like. You have the time to post here, please take 3 minutes to learn how this works.
|
|
Does anyone think it would be unreasonable if a faction mission required the agent to cast magic missile or channel negative energy in a particular location?The former, no. I've never been in an entire party without SOME way to activate a scroll of magic missile. UMD being the absolute last resort, but there's usually no need to even go that far if there's a Sorcerer.
The latter...probably. Channel Negative Energy is a class feature, and one not handed out to legal PFS characters lightly or routinely. Thus the number of parties with access to it might make it prohibitively rare.
I have been in parties without either a Wizard or Sorceror or someone with UMD as a trained skill.
Fighter (tank)
Fighter (archer)
Cleric (Sun & Good, I think)
Alchemist
So, no Wizard or Sorceror, no UMD.
Scroll: Nope
Wand: Nope
Potion: Ouch....
Applies even more strongly for subtier 1-2 games, since there is a chance that you have a whole party of virgin characters, which can mean that, even if they have someone with MM on their list, they have both limited slots to learn it in, and unlikely to be able to afford a scroll, much less a wand of MM.
So, no, I would tend to recommend avoiding requirements for faction missions that are limited, by nature, to only one or two classes; as it is all-too-likely that you won't have anyone from either of those classes in the group.
|
|
I think what is missing here is that the GM has the final say on awarding the PA. This is a role-playing game after all, so how about using your skill as a player to over-come a specific encounter. If there is a mission that requires a skill no one has, then come up with an inventive, and reasonable way to solve the mission anyway. If you put some honest thought into it, I do not know of any GM who will not, at least, give you a fighting chance of success. In my experience, the problem is the player spends the rest of the scenario griping about how it's not fair that their cleric (or whatever) cannot complete the mission because he lacks disable device (or whatever) and there is no rogue (or whatever) in the group.
It is interesting to me that this topic gets sooo much board attention, but if you read the thread from Kyle about how many PA's the GM's are handing out, everyone seems to be WAY ahead of the original curve. The reality is, what is everyone complaining about?!?
|
|
I think what is missing here is that the GM has the final say on awarding the PA. This is a role-playing game after all, so how about using your skill as a player to over-come a specific encounter. If there is a mission that requires a skill no one has, then come up with an inventive, and reasonable way to solve the mission anyway. If you put some honest thought into it, I do not know of any GM who will not, at least, give you a fighting chance of success. In my experience, the problem is the player spends the rest of the scenario griping about how it's not fair that their cleric (or whatever) cannot complete the mission because he lacks disable device (or whatever) and there is no rogue (or whatever) in the group.
It is interesting to me that this topic gets sooo much board attention, but if you read the thread from Kyle about how many PA's the GM's are handing out, everyone seems to be WAY ahead of the original curve. The reality is, what is everyone complaining about?!?
+1
I recently had a faction mission where I needed to convince some people to meet with my faction's agents. Unfortunately, these people attacked us as soon as we entered the room, and were probably on their way to being dead. Also, I was playing a low charisma character, without training in diplomacy.
Not to be deterred, my character took full defense every round of combat, and while being constantly attacked by one of the individuals, proceeded to compliment him on his combat style, and his determination, and how my faction would really love a chance to talk to him and his associates. The DM allowed a diplomacy roll each round of combat (not strictly RAW at all), and eventually around round 4-5 the NPC (without ceasing to attack my character) asked the time and place and agreed to the meeting.
There is something to be said for Circumstance bonuses and DM discretion, as well as player perseverance. Just because a faction mission looks difficult to impossible, doesn't mean it can't be done. It might just require an inventive solution.
|
|
Well, it sounds like, even though JFrost's intention was for PCs to average 1.5 PA per scenario, from the "How Often Do You Award Full PA?" thread, PCs, even 7-Int Fighters, are averaging more than 1.5 PA per scenario.
If I had a complaint, I'd say that the faction missions are too straightforward and too easy to complete. They're most often either gimmes solved by playing the module, or random DC 20 (Always 20!) skill checks that are totally unrelated to the module.
The reality is, based on the real data we're seeing, that a 7-Int 2+Int-skill PC can get by with just Perception, the only skill you really need in PFS anyways.
-Matt
|
|
Good stuff about the role of the DM in all this.
+1
A good example of roleplaying and making stuff happen.
+1
Applies even more strongly for subtier 1-2 games, since there is a chance that you have a whole party of virgin characters, which can mean that, even if they have someone with MM on their list, they have both limited slots to learn it in, and unlikely to be able to afford a scroll, much less a wand of MM.
So, you're saying that it's harder for level 1s and 2s to complete the harder faction missions? I should hope so! That's a feature/bonus to me. It should be more difficult and more rare for raw recruits to complete sometimes sophisticated faction missions.
I don't feel entitled to 2 PA points and so this just isn't a big deal. If I choose to make a character that was more interested in being a strong partisan of my faction, I'd craft him to have more skills. At the same time, I already have characters who don't care much about politics and don't see faction missions as all that important despite all the skills they may or may not have.
I like that when I make a character decision, it has consequences...and benefits.
-Pain
|
|
Applies even more strongly for subtier 1-2 games, since there is a chance that you have a whole party of virgin characters, which can mean that, even if they have someone with MM on their list, they have both limited slots to learn it in, and unlikely to be able to afford a scroll, much less a wand of MM.So, you're saying that it's harder for level 1s and 2s to complete the harder faction missions? I should hope so! That's a feature/bonus to me. It should be more difficult and more rare for raw recruits to complete sometimes sophisticated faction missions.
Difficult <> impossible.
I don't mind harder, as long as there is a chance of the mission being completed.
Chance of it being completed means that it shouldn't be something that can only be completed by hitting a 2" square hole with a mutagen bomb, so you not only have to be an alchemist, but a ranged alchemist with blindsight.
"Use the Force, Luke!" is great for a movie or book, where the main hero is always going to be skilled/competent with the areas required for success.
But, when you are dealing with a random PC of any of the 17 (17!) base classes, you need to make sure that what is being asked is something that could be completed by any of those 17 classes.
Neither faction mission should require that the PC be able to deal Favored Enemy damage or be able to Smite Evil or Channel Positive Energy, those are all too limited in scope.
IMO, a faction mission is a low-urgency request (from the viewpoint of the faction leaders) to fulfill. If the mission is urgent, then they would be sending a special mission team, built around the focus of the mission, not relying on a random group of Pathfinders.
In general, faction missions should be low priority, low secrecy, minor things the faction needs to have done.
Low priority? Sure, if it were of any urgency, they would use their own people, not covert part-timers.
Low secrecy? Definitely, these are agents in contact, daily, with people from other factions.
Minor? Again, if it wasn't minor, they would be using their own, dedicated agents to get the job done.
Again, difficult <> impossible. Difficult can make sense, impossible is just frustrating for players and GM (this one, at least) alike.
Difficult - obtain the Ruby Eye of Gruumsh, located in the temple you are visiting. Method? Anything that works.
Impossible - asking a first level party to plane shift to the lowest level of the Abyss and steal Lolth's sceptre, and return it to their faction leader.
|
|
Difficult <> impossible.
I think you are exaggerating a bit. I do not recall any missions that require a class feature, only skills that not every group may have. Since there are no class specific skills anymore, even disable device can be attempted by anyone with the foresight to take ranks in it. If it is a magical trap, a caster can disable the trap with countering magic.
I look differently at the faction missions. The leaders cannot afford to draw attention to themselves (in most cases) by sending a specialized group to perform the requested actions. They are taking advantage of the PC's being sent on the society mission to provide "cover" for their activities. This may not be the case for every mission, but it's the general theme I tend to use.
|
|
Difficult <> impossible.I think you are exaggerating a bit. I do not recall any missions that require a class feature, only skills that not every group may have. Since there are no class specific skills anymore, even disable device can be attempted by anyone with the foresight to take ranks in it. If it is a magical trap, a caster can disable the trap with countering magic.
I look differently at the faction missions. The leaders cannot afford to draw attention to themselves (in most cases) by sending a specialized group to perform the requested actions. They are taking advantage of the PC's being sent on the society mission to provide "cover" for their activities. This may not be the case for every mission, but it's the general theme I tend to use.
think of it as:
"Yeah, we'd much rather send someone competent, but unfortunately, all we have is you. Good luck. We have complete faith in you."
|
|
TwilightKnight,
You bring a very good point, The award of a faction mission is ultimately up to the GM. Now I am willing to be a little flexible about things, as I have stated elsewhere on other threads.
There are also those that prefer to stick with what is exactly written in the module. Weather you stick with the text exactly or make a modificatin here and there, I think this is a question of GMing style, and while we might prefer one style over another, there isn’t right or wrong answer for this.
I think that we as GMs sometimes have to be a little flexible.