|
I think that hyper-combat-optimization is part of what has led to situations like I have seen twice in recent months, where a role-playing encounter with a non-statted NPC quickly degenerates into a home invasion. Which, honestly, in a home campaign would have led to imprisonment and/or execution of the PC's involved. There is a problem when you have a party of 6 in a PFS game and no one has a rank in Diplomacy.
The stance on rebuilding has been pretty clear. As others have said above, the problem comes in deciding where to draw the line, and give GMs support on enforcing the line. Once the door is opened, it becomes that much harder for a GM to say no.
And as far as the original topic, once again as stated above, it is possible to dismiss the companion and incorporate the changes into a new AC.
|
It's been true of all Dungeons and Dragons / Pathfinder related organized society play. I didn't mean to go beyond that, though certainly the words I used do. You should also remove TwilightKnight's name from that quote. He gets blamed for enough stuff without taking accidental hits for what I say also. :)
In fact, it should be the ONLY chance of a TPK in any organized play adventure and should be treated as such.This isn't true.
While I agree with the assumption that PFS is is a highly combat oriented game, it is not representative of all organized play.
Whoops, sorry TK
|
|
I think that hyper-combat-optimization is part of what has led to situations like I have seen twice in recent months, where a role-playing encounter with a non-statted NPC quickly degenerates into a home invasion. Which, honestly, in a home campaign would have led to imprisonment and/or execution of the PC's involved. There is a problem when you have a party of 6 in a PFS game and no one has a rank in Diplomacy.
This is actually one of the problems in the bigger organized play campaigns.
In the smaller ones, (Heroes of Rokugan for ex) I can penalize the players pretty heavily for these sort of things.
The main issue I've seen with the allowing rebuilds is that with so many players doing it, it would be difficult to manage it correctly. Too many cooks in the kitchen. It's best to give the blanket statement than to allow for some rampant issues on the rebuild. Basically same as the replay rule, better to be have a strict line than to allow errors that could cause unfairness.
|
I'd be quite irritated if I sat down at a table and there were 4 people playing characters like this though :P Nothing beats that sinking feeling you get when you sit down at the table and realize that there are 4 characters and only one of them is designed to actually do damage to enemies. That's when you hope someone brought a backup character.
A witch, a boracle, a healer and a bard went off to the dungeon together...
Irrate? really? I guess I would see it as a "we're screwed if we can't talk our way through this..." but I wouldn't get irrate. That's the very nature of organized play, you never know who you're going to be paired up with. In character, I'd blame my death on the VC who assembled the party. :-)
Did I say Irate? I thought I said irritated... kind of like I'm irritated when I forget my dice, or when the batteries die on my iPad and I don't have a character sheet printed out.
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
I'd be quite irritated if I sat down at a table and there were 4 people playing characters like this though :P Nothing beats that sinking feeling you get when you sit down at the table and realize that there are 4 characters and only one of them is designed to actually do damage to enemies. That's when you hope someone brought a backup character.
Conversely, I think I'd be irritated if I sat down at a table where the only option was combat. My main character has been an "organic build" based off of seeing short comings in the groups he has been sent out with. He has been in a trap-filled dungeon with a rogue who had no ranks in disable device leading him to take level in rogue ("teach me what I need to know about traps"). He has faced so many undead he has taken levels of Ranger ("teach me how to fight them better"). He is a well-rounded character, but not necessarily combat based... though he has Intimidated a whole group of Aspis mercenaries into surrendering without a single attack made ("How about you go get more of you, so you have a chance in this fight and I don't have to just kill you all by myself?").
Can my character do damage? Sure. Do I have to? Not necessarily. Can I pull off some amazing skill checks? Yes! Would I have that chance staying in my first class (Barbarian)? No.
|
|
Conversely, I think I'd be irritated if I sat down at a table where the only option was combat.
You should really have read my whole post instead of snipping it in half. I don't disagree with you at all. Over-specialization in any direction, either uber combat dude, uber Knowledge dude, or uber-locking picking dude means you are going to be lacking somewhere else and are going to be leaning on someone. If there is no-one to lean on you are screwed.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
You should really have read my whole post instead of snipping it in half. I don't disagree with you at all. Over-specialization in any direction, either uber combat dude, uber Knowledge dude, or uber-locking picking dude means you are going to be lacking somewhere else and are going to be leaning on someone. If there is no-one to lean on you are screwed.
Truly, no offense meant. I just wanted to show the other side having seen it over the last two years of play.