Venture-Captain, Oregon—Portland
|
I'll be honest and admit up front that I haven't GM'd very many sessions, but as a player I've always had the attitude that my characters ALWAYS searches every single room they enter. I've noticed though that many of the players I GM for tend not to make perception rolls very often, unless I specifically mention it. My problem with this is that I've seen that a lot of faction missions call for searching for some object, or go "dumpster diving" as I've seen it referred to.
I don't want to cheat players out of PA, but at the same time it's not my job to hold their hand. Another thing that comes up with this is the treasure usually found at the end of encounters; they rarely search and hence don't often find treasure that factors into the gold rewards at the end at the scenario or find those potions that could have really helped out with the BBEG.
Does anyone else have this problem???
|
|
Yes and no.
You have to realize, that this happens.
Many treasures are as mentioned in the scenarios awarded if this or that condition is met. I.e. somthing is found or someone is defeated. Stick to that as far as rewards are concerned.
You don't have to remind players of their faction missions. They have a print of it right by their character sheet. It happens that players forget about the faction missions and walk away with 0 PA. When that has happened a couble of times, and when you have had a few post-game conversations about it with players, they will wise up to the fact that the completion of those missions is THEIR responsability; not the GMs.
|
I just got one new player who falls exactly into that category.
Player 1: I search.
GM: You find x,Y,Z (Z being the faction mission by Player New)
Player New: No reaction
.
.
.
Close to end of play - Player New finally looks at his mission notes.
I have to admit - it irks me a lot. So far that player was lucky as he got his PA as he was items to collect and other people did have it / he was still able to go back after the game as it was obvious that the group stumbled upon it and it was still there - to be picked up.
But it is not automatic and as soon as that player has a faction mission that needs interactions he is likely to miss it.
A good reminder to take him aside. Argh - why is he the same person who tends to be last to show up and I like to get started as soon as he is there ...
Luckily apart of these two issues I have no complains about him.
Thod
|
I just got one new player who falls exactly into that category.
Player 1: I search.
GM: You find x,Y,Z (Z being the faction mission by Player New)Player New: No reaction
.
.
.Close to end of play - Player New finally looks at his mission notes.
I have to admit - it irks me a lot. So far that player was lucky as he got his PA as he was items to collect and other people did have it / he was still able to go back after the game as it was obvious that the group stumbled upon it and it was still there - to be picked up.
But it is not automatic and as soon as that player has a faction mission that needs interactions he is likely to miss it.
A good reminder to take him aside. Argh - why is he the same person who tends to be last to show up and I like to get started as soon as he is there ...
Luckily apart of these two issues I have no complains about him.
Thod
I tend to give new players a little push towards what they should be doing. After a couple games, tho, their on their own.
I have at least one older player that never bothers to look and at the end of the game will ask why he never found it. The judge of that game looked at him and said "You never looked" WAs rather funny actually. He went and did the same thing in the next slot.
|
|
It might also help if you as a GM show them what PA does for them, as they may or may not understand that they can actually buy items they want with X amount of PA(TPA) instead of worrying about what is or is not on any given chronicle sheet.
But I do agree with others in this thread it is not up to you as a DM to hold their hands and make sure they get the PA. For new players only do I help with this but once they understand that it is up to them then they are on their own from that point on. Not being mean about it but letting them know that as a DM might work in your favor and increase your enjoyment here too as it is not just the players that get to have fun in the game.
|
I tend to give new players a little push towards what they should be doing. After a couple games, tho, their on their own.
I tend to do the same. I've run for a lot of kids too (we have 6 that regularly show up for our games and I somehow kept getting them at my tables at Gen Con), and they don't always "get it" or realize some of the more subtle clues. Sometimes, especially for new players (while they wrap their heads around the concept of PA), a little wink and nudge is needed to get them on the right path. Long term though, it's best to wean them off that system and let them do it on their own.
I recently ran a mod for a group that had three kids in it. One could not grasp the concept that he was supposed to perform his faction mission in Spot A and really wanted to do it in unrelated Spot B because it was on the map. Part of it was my fault, as the map was the entire city and he thought he needed to go to the docks, but as they weren't even a part of the adventure, I wound up needing to nudge him in the right direction. Really, it's just a bit of a balancing act that requires use of your best judgement.
|
|
Ive noticed this as well. So far Ive been kinda laid back about it, especially with the younger and newer players. Nudging them along, or looking intently at them if a name that should be important to them pops up.
I think is only adding to the laziness of some of the players in that same regard. Its actually carrying over into my homegame as well, which is extremely frustrating.
I think Im done with asking if people are searching the room though, except maybe in someones first few sessions.
|
|
I think Im done with asking if people are searching the room though, except maybe in someones first few sessions.
It's up to experienced players to complete their faction missions. The only thing I do is make sure I know where they all are and give a good enough description if necessary. If the player isn't paying attention... sorry.
You'll notice from the other thread I'm a bit of a "meany" with PA, only giving out ~85% of possible PA.
|
It's up to experienced players to complete their faction missions. The only thing I do is make sure I know where they all are and give a good enough description if necessary. If the player isn't paying attention... sorry.
Agreed. On the other side of the coin, there are the individuals who care only to complete their faction missions, practically stating them openly and putting that ahead of the main quest.
|
|
I once, without being aware of it, completed both faction missions for another player at the table, just doing something I was doing at the table for the heck of it, as in character actions.
I think it was Citadel of Flame.
Anyway, at the end, the player had felt cheated by the DM, whining about how he didnt get to do his, and when the DM read off the "If they do this, they get a point' things, and explained where they were, I piped in with "I did that"..."and that".
So, he got his PA, lol. In hindsight, I kinda think he shouldnt have gotten the PA for it, but at the same time, its not that different from a player from another faction making a roll in a skill you dont have.
|
|
I once, without being aware of it, completed both faction missions for another player at the table, just doing something I was doing at the table for the heck of it, as in character actions.
I think it was Citadel of Flame.
Anyway, at the end, the player had felt cheated by the DM, whining about how he didnt get to do his, and when the DM read off the "If they do this, they get a point' things, and explained where they were, I piped in with "I did that"..."and that".
So, he got his PA, lol. In hindsight, I kinda think he shouldnt have gotten the PA for it, but at the same time, its not that different from a player from another faction making a roll in a skill you dont have.
I know that if another player of a different faction has the item you need, I won't give you the PA. The goal is for it to be in the hands of your faction, not theirs.
I usually give you til the end of the mod to negotiate getting said item, but you must have it when we end :P
|
|
Does anyone else have this problem???
The player are taking the fun right out of role-playing then. Its always necessary and prudent to search, Death happens quicker if you don't. It should be punishable by trap death rolls or getting trapped, forgetting valuables,losing levels, not finding the secrets (doors,items,passages). DM's need to bring back a (Need) to search and/or pressures to make the PC's search. Always help the newbies for a while then let them learn that Searching Saves Lives! So Go Find It Players! Teach Them Dungeon Master's!
I'll be honest and admit up front that I haven't GM'd very many sessions, but as a player I've always had the attitude that my characters ALWAYS searches every single room they enter. I've noticed though that many of the players I GM for tend not to make perception rolls very often, unless I specifically mention it. My problem with this is that I've seen that a lot of faction missions call for searching for some object, or go "dumpster diving" as I've seen it referred to.
I don't want to cheat players out of PA, but at the same time it's not my job to hold their hand. Another thing that comes up with this is the treasure usually found at the end of encounters; they rarely search and hence don't often find treasure that factors into the gold rewards at the end at the scenario or find those potions that could have really helped out with the BBEG.
Does anyone else have this problem???
I would say that most players prefer not to waste time
on saying, "I search" after every combat etc. encounter.This is assumed to be something that happens organically.
However, if there is some special faction mission or other
treasure requiring a high perception, you might ask those
who are skilled to roll D20 and check if they make the DC.
Regarding new players, you might mention that "you search"
and find whatever, since some other judges might not be as
friendly as you, and thus suggest they mention the searches.
The same would go for checking for traps, etc. in a dungeon.
This frequently turns into assuming "take 10" for search rolls.
No one wants to lose because someone broke Wheaton's Law.
|
|
I'll be honest and admit up front that I haven't GM'd very many sessions, but as a player I've always had the attitude that my characters ALWAYS searches every single room they enter. I've noticed though that many of the players I GM for tend not to make perception rolls very often, unless I specifically mention it. My problem with this is that I've seen that a lot of faction missions call for searching for some object, or go "dumpster diving" as I've seen it referred to.
I don't want to cheat players out of PA, but at the same time it's not my job to hold their hand. Another thing that comes up with this is the treasure usually found at the end of encounters; they rarely search and hence don't often find treasure that factors into the gold rewards at the end at the scenario or find those potions that could have really helped out with the BBEG.
Does anyone else have this problem???I would say that most players prefer not to waste time
on saying, "I search" after every combat etc. encounter.
This is assumed to be something that happens organically.However, if there is some special faction mission or other
treasure requiring a high perception, you might ask those
who are skilled to roll D20 and check if they make the DC.Regarding new players, you might mention that "you search"
and find whatever, since some other judges might not be as
friendly as you, and thus suggest they mention the searches.
The same would go for checking for traps, etc. in a dungeon.
This frequently turns into assuming "take 10" for search rolls.No one wants to lose because someone broke Wheaton's Law.
Almost evry table I run has players saying 'I search.' In my experiance, that's the norm. If you have a mission saying 'find this', you need to let your judge know you are actively searching for it. Heck, just telling me at the beginning that you plan on searching a room is enough.
You don't get the point just for being in the right place. There's something you have to do. That seems to be in the whole spirit of the faction missions.
|
|
I give the players the benefit of the doubt that they search the remains of defeated opponents assuming there is no immediate threat. As far as searching the room, area, or whatever, that is up to the players to declare. If they are not under duress, they can 'Take 20' and probably find everything. If they chose to make a single check, then they "earn" the results of that roll.
No one wants to waste valuable game-time making repeated die rolls to determine success. OTOH, you must actively search for traps. That is why Trap Spotter is so valuable, especially in OP.
|
I find this discussion funny. As a player I just ran into the exact opposite problem.
First, and I expressed this on another thread, I really don’t like dumpster dives for treasure. I hated the dumpster dives (especially the ones that were completely disassociated from any encounters) in the 1st edition modules. But I understand that this is part of the PFS experience to date. So I swallow mine and my character’s pride, and dive into all trash piles I find.
I am also not a big fan of, “if you fail a roll, you fail the mission” especially if you essentially have zero chance to succeed at the roll. At 1st level, a succeed or fail roll should probably never be DC 20. Even if my guy was a 20 Stat and 1 rank in a Class Skill a DC 20 would be 45% chance success. And then give me no recourse to creatively solve the mission?
|
|
I am also not a big fan of, “if you fail a roll, you fail the mission” especially if you essentially have zero chance to succeed at the roll. At 1st level, a succeed or fail roll should probably never be DC 20. Even if my guy was a 20 Stat and 1 rank in a Class Skill a DC 20 would be 45% chance success. And then give me no recourse to creatively solve the mission?
That is purposely done that way.
Not all PA is a given, you are not entitled to 100% of all PA all the time. Usually one is a given and one is hard, and the best way to make the 1 hard is to base it on a skill check. If you don't have that skill you can't perform the Mission, *Or perform it well if you can roll it unskilled* unless you can get someone else to do it for you or in some cases "pay" and NPCs "services" to do it for you.
|
|
At 1st level, a succeed or fail roll should probably never be DC 20
Not all PA is a given, you are not entitled to 100% of all PA all the time
I agree with both of these. PA should at least be a challenge to earn. However, traps are adjusted for tier, monsters are adjusted for tier, rewards are adjusted for tier...why aren't skill check DC's adjusted for tier, especially if it's a trained only skill? Sure there are a few scenarios that have this feature, but the majority do not.
One low-tier scenario I recently GM'd had a static DC25 check to succeed. That's challenge enough for a 5th level PC, but for a 1st level PC, WOW! And it was a Linguistics check. WOW WOW! Unless you have a bard or rogue it is unlikely (albeit not impossible) anyone will have a rank in Linguistics at 1st level. And even if they do, why does the 1st level PC have to make the same check as the 5th level PC for success?
I agree that at least one of the PA's should be a challenge to succeed, but it should at least be possible outside of a 'nat 20' with an untrained skill. And should never be a 'nat 20' even with a rank.
|
|
I agree with both of these. PA should at least be a challenge to earn. However, traps are adjusted for tier, monsters are adjusted for tier, rewards are adjusted for tier...why aren't skill check DC's adjusted for tier, especially if it's a trained only skill? Sure there are a few scenarios that have this feature, but the majority do not.
I think it should be something like: Base DC + MAX(sub-tier).
So maybe the Base DC for Example Mod is 12, and in a sub-tier 1-2 the DC is 14 and 4-5 it's 17.
|
|
I think it should be something like: Base DC + MAX(sub-tier).So maybe the Base DC for Example Mod is 12, and in a sub-tier 1-2 the DC is 14 and 4-5 it's 17.
Does it matter if it is a trained-only skill? If not, there are more players that can try and/or assist.
Maybe trained only skill checks have a base of 10-12, but untrained skills checks are 14-16 to accommodate the aid another tactic
|
|
At 1st level, a succeed or fail roll should probably never be DC 20
Not all PA is a given, you are not entitled to 100% of all PA all the time
I agree with both of these. PA should at least be a challenge to earn. However, traps are adjusted for tier, monsters are adjusted for tier, rewards are adjusted for tier...why aren't skill check DC's adjusted for tier, especially if it's a trained only skill? Sure there are a few scenarios that have this feature, but the majority do not.
One low-tier scenario I recently GM'd had a static DC25 check to succeed. That's challenge enough for a 5th level PC, but for a 1st level PC, WOW! And it was a Linguistics check. WOW WOW! Unless you have a bard or rogue it is unlikely (albeit not impossible) anyone will have a rank in Linguistics at 1st level. And even if they do, why does the 1st level PC have to make the same check as the 5th level PC for success?
I agree that at least one of the PA's should be a challenge to succeed, but it should at least be possible outside of a 'nat 20' with an untrained skill. And should never be a 'nat 20' even with a rank.
Yes, I agree as well. I think that failure should be an option, even for players who are on the ball, aware, and savvy.
But if the check is so high, that even with a nat 20 I cannot succeed, and there are no alternate ways in which I can possibly succeed, to me that is incredibly anticlimactic. It makes me wonder if I even want to try and be creative anymore.
Now I did mention this to my VC, and he did inform me that the particular module that I ran through was one of the most difficult and that most aren't that difficult.
Still... now granted I've only run through 3 modules, so I have a very small sampling to compare... but if this becomes the rule rather than the exception, then I'm just going to stop caring about faction missions and just play the modules. The easy faction missions will be gimmes, I'll get that PA, and the hard ones, well if I fall into them, I'll get them, but otherwise why bother?
I can imagine, with good roleplay, there might be roughly half the characters that wouldn't go sifting through trash, sticking arms in toilets, or jumping into garbage heaps, because that's nasty and they don't want to get their newly buffed armor all dirty.
I'm just saying, there has to be a better way to ensure some failure, without hinging fail or succeed skill checks of pretty high DC's on these faction missions.
|
|
I agree with both of these. PA should at least be a challenge to earn. However, traps are adjusted for tier, monsters are adjusted for tier, rewards are adjusted for tier...why aren't skill check DC's adjusted for tier, especially if it's a trained only skill? Sure there are a few scenarios that have this feature, but the majority do not.
I think it should be something like: Base DC + MAX(sub-tier).
So maybe the Base DC for Example Mod is 12, and in a sub-tier 1-2 the DC is 14 and 4-5 it's 17.
We did something like that in Living Dragonstar. That way the DC's were tiered as well. I think we called it something like BASE DC (usually 10 or 15 or whatever) + APL.
|
|
I think it should be something like: Base DC + MAX(sub-tier).So maybe the Base DC for Example Mod is 12, and in a sub-tier 1-2 the DC is 14 and 4-5 it's 17.
Does it matter if it is a trained-only skill? If not, there are more players that can try and/or assist.
Maybe trained only skill checks have a base of 10-12, but untrained skills checks are 14-16 to accommodate the aid another tactic
Perhaps it was the fact I sat at an unlucky table, in that all 1st level PC's, only the Rogue had Knowledge Local. He made the rolls for me (and failed) despite the fact he was Qadira and my character was Andoran faction. Technically, he shouldn't have really been able to roll for me right?
I made level 2 in that module, so I put a rank in knowledge local. But it is not a class skill, and only +2 Int, so only have a +3 in it. Normally, I wouldn't have put anything in Knowledge Local and got some of the class skills higher, but it seems that Knowledge Local is an incredibly valuable skill in PFS. But say I'd done that at character creation, my character would only have a 20% chance of success on DC20, maybe 30% if the out-of-faction rogue could have made a 10 and the GM allowed the out-of-faction rogue to even roll.
|
|
Perhaps it was the fact I sat at an unlucky table, in that all 1st level PC's, only the Rogue had Knowledge Local. He made the rolls for me (and failed) despite the fact he was Qadira and my character was Andoran faction. Technically, he shouldn't have really been able to roll for me right?
I made level 2 in that module, so I put a rank in knowledge local. But it is not a class skill, and only +2 Int, so only have a +3 in it. Normally, I wouldn't have put anything in Knowledge Local and got some of the class skills higher, but it seems that Knowledge Local is an incredibly valuable skill in PFS. But say I'd done that at character creation, my character would only have a 20% chance of success on DC20, maybe 30% if the out-of-faction rogue could have made a 10 and the GM allowed the out-of-faction rogue to even roll.
I am the VC in question, and although I did not run this table, I ran the same mod at a different table and I have an idea what's going on. First off, while I love Delirium's Tangle it was the module that got my home game started on the "why are PA so hard to get" and if you dig, you'll find my thread on this topic from the wayback machine.
To your point on getting help: in PFS there is no reason why another faction member can't roll for you. The context should be put in roleplay terms ("hey bud, do these look human to you?") and there's always the possibility a hard-nosed PC will refuse to help ("um...I'm not digging through that crap"), but there's no reason another faction member can't be cajoled or persuaded to help. Unfortunately there's no way for gold to change hands, but one can make deals or future pacts when the other player is in need. Sure, as players we're often predisposed to help out others, but maybe players should separate themselves from their character motivations and be honest that they really can't help ("hey Joe, I know you want the PA, but there's no way my Taldan is going to help out a Qadiran").
All that being said, one thing I enjoy is that PFS really encourages a) group play, and b) characters with diverse background and not just maxed out skills. I love the fact that players have to really consider how to use those skill points beyond just maxing out perception and acrobatics all the time. I think the way the "hard" PA is earned really reflects these two design decisions. Do I think they're too hard to get? Quite possibly yes, especially at level 1 when skill points are sparse and you're the only faction member at the table, but I fundamentally do not disagree with the design, just perhaps minor issues with its implementation. Mark's idea is a good one, and one I'll be happy to champion moving forward.
|
|
For whatever its worth, I’m not upset with Ryan or the GM in question. I think they made the correct call based on the way the module is written.
And I’m all-in as far as playing PFS.
This was just a small matter that I found a bit irritating.
If it helps, I had a player light fire to his own faction mission last weekend. (In game of course) Unintentionally
I see only one problem with scaling DCs for at least some of the skill checks. Here is an example why.
There is a table in the room and on the table is a book written in French. Two people are in the room and their mission is to find some info in the book. The first person took Conversational French in high school (1st level character) and the second person studied French all four years of high school (5th level character).
Why should the first person get the benefit of an easier DC when both are looking for the exact same thing in the exact same book?
If the scenarios were not so tight on page and word counts, they could put in different faction missions for each sub-tier, but they can't.
|
|
I see only one problem with scaling DCs for at least some of the skill checks. Here is an example why.
There is a table in the room and on the table is a book written in French. Two people are in the room and their mission is to find some info in the book. The first person took Conversational French in high school (1st level character) and the second person studied French all four years of high school (5th level character).
Why should the first person get the benefit of an easier DC when both are looking for the exact same thing in the exact same book?
If the scenarios were not so tight on page and word counts, they could put in different faction missions for each sub-tier, but they can't.
Agreed a lot of DCs (like those for Linguistics) are set on the scales that were provided in the Core Rulebook. Basically, things don't get easier just because you young, and in fact are generally harder then.
|
|
Then the nature of the roll should be changed. I’m not talking about a different roll, or a different faction mission per sub-tier. But why should a 5th level character have a better shot at a faction mission than a 1st level character, when the rest of the module is tiered?
If TPTB want to use the RAW without modification, including for DC’s of particular types of roles, then for faction missions, they should probably not use those types of roles.
I mean why would the faction mission be inherently more difficult than the module itself?
|
|
Then the nature of the roll should be changed. I’m not talking about a different roll, or a different faction mission per sub-tier. But why should a 5th level character have a better shot at a faction mission than a 1st level character, when the rest of the module is tiered?
If TPTB want to use the RAW without modification, including for DC’s of particular types of roles, then for faction missions, they should probably not use those types of roles.
I mean why would the faction mission be inherently more difficult than the module itself?
I think a better question is why they would send you to do something they know you can't do, like get the info from a book that they know you probably can't read.
In the end, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and this is one I can live with. You don't need every faction point. And if you build a very focused character with blinders in some points, you won't be getting them all. I see this getting even more competitive with the new season. My main character has played more season 0 mods with 1 faction point than mods that offer 2. I'm still able to use the points for what I need when I need it without much worry about my TPA.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
There is a table in the room and on the table is a book written in French. Two people are in the room and their mission is to find some info in the book. The first person took Conversational French in high school (1st level character) and the second person studied French all four years of high school (5th level character). Why should the first person get the benefit of an easier DC when both are looking for the exact same thing in the exact same book?
Enevhar, I don't think anybody's recommending that the DCs be variable on a character-by-character level, but rather on a sub-tier-by-sub-tier level. So you'd never have two characters walk into the same room and get different DCs. Rather, one party defeats the 4 cultists and has to translate the writing their departed leader scrawled on the wall (DC 12). The other party, more experienced, defeats the 6 cultists, the Blight Druid, and his enormous pet rot grubs. Afterwards, they need to translate the druid's dying declaration (DC 15).
Speaking of which, would anybody mind if, say, a faction mission required the PC to read Druidic?
|
|
Enevhar, I don't think anybody's recommending that the DCs be variable on a character-by-character level, but rather on a sub-tier-by-sub-tier level. So you'd never have two characters walk into the same room and get different DCs. Rather, one party defeats the 4 cultists and has to translate the writing their departed leader scrawled on the wall (DC 12). The other party, more experienced, defeats the 6 cultists, the Blight Druid, and his enormous pet rot grubs. Afterwards, they need to translate the druid's dying declaration (DC 15).
This!
Speaking of which, would anybody mind if, say, a faction mission required the PC to read Druidic?
As long as I could take it to an NPC druid and get him to read it I guess not. If it was some kind of "don't let anyone see you" type of mission then I'd be a little extra cheesed as I have no druid characters.
|
|
I think a better question is why they would send you to do something they know you can't do, like get the info from a book that they know you probably can't read.
I have said this before... The faction does not send you on the Mission, The Venture-Captain sends you on the mission, the factions just takes advantage of that.
The faction can't pick and choose who they get to send, but they need something done during your mission, even if those people are not optimal for that need during that PFS mission.
|
|
I agree that at least one of the PA's should be a challenge to succeed, but it should at least be possible outside of a 'nat 20' with an untrained skill. And should never be a 'nat 20' even with a rank.
TK, just pointing out that 'nat 20s' don't auto-succeed for skills.
Honestly, I have no problem with unattainable missions. As said above, the assumption is that 1 of the PA should be hard to get.
And if you water down the skill system, you take things away from skill characters like the bard and rogue.
|
|
I think a better question is why they would send you to do something they know you can't do, like get the info from a book that they know you probably can't read.I have said this before... The faction does not send you on the Mission, The Venture-Captain sends you on the mission, the factions just takes advantage of that.
The faction can't pick and choose who they get to send, but they need something done during your mission, even if those people are not optimal for that need during that PFS mission.
As is shown on many of the faction missions, they have large numbers of people working in the background. It is possible they could arrange someone else, and they are the ones who send you on your FACTION missions. It's just convenient that the Pathfinders are sending you somewhere they needed a man anyway.
Besides, I think it makes better RP if you think that perhaps you were sent to fail.
|
|
I think the 'tiering" of DC's would need to be coupled with a more strict application of independent faction missions. In most cases, it doesn't make much sense that a Cheliax PC would help an Andoran PC free some slaves.
If you adjusted the DC's to be appropriate challenges based on the sub-tier being played and also limited the assistance to PC's of the same faction only, then perhaps things would equal out.
This could also influence PC's to be better built, with more focus on general usefulness and fewer cases of 'one-trick' ponies that are uber-good at one thing and suck at everything else. YMMV
|
|
Why should the first person get the benefit of an easier DC when both are looking for the exact same thing in the exact same book?
Essentially, because it's a simulation game and not real life. IMO, each PC should have a reasonable chance of success vs. the various challenges they face.
If the 1st level PC's are required to complete the same skill challenges, then why tier the rest of the encounters? They should face the same traps, monsters, NPC's, and get the same rewards.
|
|
If you adjusted the DC's to be appropriate challenges based on the sub-tier being played and also limited the assistance to PC's of the same faction only, then perhaps things would equal out.
If the teases about Season 3 and faction success reporting pan out, I suspect many of those helping hands are going to vanish pretty quickly outside of loyal faction members.
|
|
If the teases about Season 3 and faction success reporting pan out, I suspect many of those helping hands are going to vanish pretty quickly outside of loyal faction members.Unless you get a faction monkey at the table who doesn't care (much) for politics. :-)
Or a replayer that is tasked with completing all 10 anyway
It is sort of odd, that the faction missions frequently
reference an unusual skill, when the whole Pathfinder
paradigm hinges on it being a team game for the party.
.
In the party-focused world, if one character lacks some
important skill, some other character covers for them.
In the Pathfinder Society, everyone is on their own,
so the Cha 7 fighter who needs to make a Diplomacy
skill check is stuck. I find this dichotomy interesting.