A little further edited:
Scar (Su): This hex curses a single target with horrible scars of the witch’s choosing, whether something as simple as a single letter on the target’s forehead or blotchy, burnlike scars on his body. The target may make a Will save to resist this hex. These scars do not physically hinder the targeted creature--the witch cannot scar the target's eyes to blind them, for example--but they are deeply connected to the witch who placed them. As long as a witch can see a creature marked by her Scar hex, she can target that creature with her hexes, even if they are outside the normal range of such a hex. Furthermore, the witch is considered to have a body part from the marked creature for the purposes of Scrying. At GM discretion, visible scars may afford bonuses or penalties to social and interaction-related checks. The witch can withdraw this hex from a target as a move action at any range. The number of supernatural scars the witch can maintain at once is equal to her Intelligence bonus; once she reaches this limit, she must remove the scar from a current victim in order to mark another. Effects that remove curses can remove the scar.
I would add that the scar remains even if the creature changes it's appearance by magical means.
|
I think it's a misconception that every ability in these books is meant for PCs. This, the antipaladin and some other options are meant to be useful tools for the GM to create interesting villains and NPCs. If you aren't a fan of this hex there are plenty of others.If that's the case, a simple sidebar would have have gone a LONG ways towards explaining it.
The ironic thing would be that they would have to remove something to add such a side-bar, they then remove the Scar Hex, rendering the side-bar unnecessary, thus causing a gaping vortex that sucks reality into it with each book printed thus negating all existence everywhere.
Don't you realise what's at stake in the publishing game!
I agree with the original poster.
We need SOOOOO much less of this.
It is a fool's trap with roleplaying as the bait, costing you not only a feat, but standard actions as well. Pffft.
Folks, you can roleplay _AND_ make wise character choices.
You can accomplish similar effects with existing material.
Examples: Capture 'em, burning hands at 4 inches range to a helpless opponent, then look to your DM. "Ok, we didn't kill him, but tell me there isn't a scar there?"
Branding irons. Meshes fairly well with the Catch Off Guard feat.
Arcane Mark might work nicely on living targets. I'm AFB.
We didn't need to pay for this dog-with-fleas feat. It didn't merit making it into print.
Don't like it? Don't take it.
Simple.
Thank you for stating the obvious.
I think most people's issue with it is that they DO like it (or at least the concept of it) but think it's weird that horribly scaring someone has no in-game effect whatsoever.
It's a curse after all, it should be persistent and not easily overcome.
+1 Witches should have effects that are "outside the norm" for that little bit of uncertainty and shunning.
Rean, excellent rewrite. :thumbsup:
but think it's weird that horribly scaring someone has no in-game effect whatsoever.
It most obviously does have in-game effects. Look at SKR's post for reasons why it isn't detailed out in the Hex itself. Quite simply the specifics could and should vary significantly.
At its best an RPG assumes that a skilled GM is running the game. You can write rules assuming the DM needs everything spoon fed to them or you can write rules assuming they can handle it. And, honestly, I think PF errs on the side of spoon feeding too often. A hint of confidence in the GM is refreshing.
The game begins with numbers, plays by numbers and ends with numbers. If it didn't I wouldn't have to buy rulebooks, dice or character sheets. Roleplay is good, but Pathfinder is not a LARP.How can it be useless by RAW? Oh you mean actual people have to make a judgement on what happens instead of relying upon a numerical modifier or 'rule'.
Sad, sad days we roleplayers live in now.
No it begins by saying Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder: IdentifierRoleplaying: the modifying of a person's behavior to accord with a desired personal image, as to impress others or conform to a particular environment
Game: an amusement or pastime
but think it's weird that horribly scaring someone has no in-game effect whatsoever.It most obviously does have in-game effects. Look at SKR's post for reasons why it isn't detailed out in the Hex itself. Quite simply the specifics could and should vary significantly.
At its best an RPG assumes that a skilled GM is running the game. You can write rules assuming the DM needs everything spoon fed to them or you can write rules assuming they can handle it. And, honestly, I think PF errs on the side of spoon feeding too often. A hint of confidence in the GM is refreshing.
It's a lack of trust.
Knowing what they look like does not qualify as the person being known to you. If I send a picture of myself to someone it doesn't mean they know me all of a sudden
Oh? And what qualifies for "knowing" someone?
*Aldin waggles his eyebrows*
Casual acquaintance? Carnal relations? If you say it's "someone you have met that you have the ability to uniquely identify", then scarring them would certainly qualify. Again though, it comes down to trusting the GM to handle it. I feel good about that, YMMV.
It most obviously does have in-game effects. Look at SKR's post for reasons why it isn't detailed out in the Hex itself. Quite simply the specifics could and should vary significantly.
At its best an RPG assumes that a skilled GM is running the game. You can write rules assuming the DM needs everything spoon fed to them or you can write rules assuming they can handle it. And, honestly, I think PF errs on the side of spoon feeding too often. A hint of confidence in the GM is refreshing.
This pretty much sums up my feelings
|
|
To clarify I have a problem when something is obviously unbalanced and needs fixing because of the potential impact that could have on PFS play. On the other hand this I have no problem with because it doesn't unbalance the game.
It's a roleplaying thing. It doesn't need any rules beyond what your GM cares to create.
Plus there are no rules for appearance in this game. Charisma is not appearance as we know so it's not easy to categorise an in game effect.
Personally I would say that it gives apenalty to Diplomacy and Performance checks but a bonus to Intimidate.
Other than that, this is a clear case of hammering something out with your GM.
but think it's weird that horribly scaring someone has no in-game effect whatsoever.It most obviously does have in-game effects. Look at SKR's post for reasons why it isn't detailed out in the Hex itself. Quite simply the specifics could and should vary significantly.
At its best an RPG assumes that a skilled GM is running the game. You can write rules assuming the DM needs everything spoon fed to them or you can write rules assuming they can handle it. And, honestly, I think PF errs on the side of spoon feeding too often. A hint of confidence in the GM is refreshing.
An effect which works or happens based entirely on the whims of the GM is non-functional and badly designed. It will be inconsistent from GM to GM, and in organized play, which operates more or less strictly RAW, it will remain useless. A good GM can fix anything; that doesn't nullify the fact that it needed fixing in the first place.
If you invest your mechanical resources into something, it should have a mechanical effect consummate with the resources required. That's a pretty basic principle of game balance to me--and especially important in RPG design, because by combining interesting flavor with effective and useful crunch, you help to bridge whatever gap exists between roleplaying and mechanical optimization, which are both important parts of an RPG, and should be entwined, not at odds.
Mmmh I think I don't like the number of scars limit... Well I'll try with it but I think I will remove this quickly ;)
Oh, and for the mechanical part why not just add "the scar can add circumstancial bonus or malus as the DM see fit" ?
Or "the scar can add circumstancial bonus based on various factor such as culture etc."
An effect which works or happens based entirely on the whims of the GM is non-functional and badly designed.
Leaving organized play out of it for the moment, didn't you just describe adventures and encounters? "Effects which work or happen based entirely on the whims of the GM"? Sure there is advice for CR levels and world-building and such, but there's also advice for diplomacy DCs.
It's a situational modifier. Bluff checks have built in GM circumstance modifiers. The GM makes a judgment call on how believable the lie is. Does that make Bluff non-functional and badly designed? In Diplomacy, the GM gets to pick the Starting Attitude of the creature and the text says "(s)ome requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion". Does that discretion make Diplomacy non-functional and badly designed?
|
|
but think it's weird that horribly scaring someone has no in-game effect whatsoever.It most obviously does have in-game effects. Look at SKR's post for reasons why it isn't detailed out in the Hex itself. Quite simply the specifics could and should vary significantly.
At its best an RPG assumes that a skilled GM is running the game. You can write rules assuming the DM needs everything spoon fed to them or you can write rules assuming they can handle it. And, honestly, I think PF errs on the side of spoon feeding too often. A hint of confidence in the GM is refreshing.
An effect which works or happens based entirely on the whims of the GM is non-functional and badly designed. It will be inconsistent from GM to GM, and in organized play, which operates more or less strictly RAW, it will remain useless. A good GM can fix anything; that doesn't nullify the fact that it needed fixing in the first place.
If you invest your mechanical resources into something, it should have a mechanical effect consummate with the resources required. That's a pretty basic principle of game balance to me--and especially important in RPG design, because by combining interesting flavor with effective and useful crunch, you help to bridge whatever gap exists between roleplaying and mechanical optimization, which are both important parts of an RPG, and should be entwined, not at odds.
It's not badly designed and it doesn't impact game balance. Impact to game balance would occur if this hex was compulsory or was extremely overpowered. As I have said, this is an optional hex that you can get if you so choose. It does not impact game balance in the slightest.
I find it odd that you equate a GM having to interpret a roleplaying situation as something that is broken and in need of fixing. This hex needs no mechanical rules because the effect of this on say a follower of Shelyn would be massively different to the effect on an Orc Warlord. Paizo is trusting it's players to roleplay through this hex rather than take it because of it's mechanical effects. I see nothing wrong with that.
Creating rules for everything can lead to deeply unsatisfactory roleplaying. I have just thrown the diplomacy rules out the window in Serpent's Skull because rolls were dictating the roleplaying and getting in the way of the game. You don't need to rely on numbers on a page and little bits of plastic to dictate how everything works. Actually that usually leads to clunky games and illogical characterisation.
The answer to this is simple. If you don't like it, house rule it or ignore it. It's no big deal.
Actually the answer for you is simple, play a different game hat isn't based on numbers on a page and little bits of plastic. There is quite a lot of them out there now, check the indy section.
Meanwhile, we will be looking into how to fix things for a game that is based on numbers of a page and little bits of plastic..
Also game balance isn't just Oh this is overpowered. And finally, refer to the rewritten version made by revan. There is how you would write the mechanics for the hex while not actually writing them. Its very similar to the Unnatural Aura trait back in 3.5 that would occasionally lend you a bluff or disguise bonus, and it specifically calls that out for the GM.
Skill checks of all kinds have concrete and consistent mechanical effects. To a pretty significant degree, the player knows what will happen when he succeeds at a Bluff check, what mechanical effect it will have. Feats, spells, other hexes--all these things are mechanically defined effects, and while some fudging and DM discretion is involved, their effects and interaction with the rest of the game world is part of the rules. The Scar hex, as written, is not a mechanically defined effect. Any mechanical effects or consequences of the witch placing the scar are created by each individual GM.
It is badly designed because, as written, it is virtually powerless, and certainly not at an appropriate power level for a Hex. It is so underpowered because it has no mechanical effect. A good GM can invent mechanical effects for the Scar hex, but that does not make the Scar hex well-designed; it makes the GM's house rule good.
At its best an RPG assumes that a skilled GM is running the game. You can write rules assuming the DM needs everything spoon fed to them or you can write rules assuming they can handle it. And, honestly, I think PF errs on the side of spoon feeding too often. A hint of confidence in the GM is refreshing.
*le sigh*
Sure, but even if "do whatever the hell you want" is technically the correct answer to every question ever asked on these message boards, it's not terrible helpful.
It's weird to have a game mechanic that uses game mechanics resources without any game mechanics attached. It's cool in theory, but personally I'd never pick a character option that was designed to behave differently from GM to GM. I wouldn't go as far as to call it bad design... it's just weird.
Oh, and for the mechanical part why not just add "the scar can add circumstancial bonus or malus as the DM see fit" ?
Pretty much. Then even players with bad GMs would get a hint that sometimes it might do something. Unlike the current wording.
|
|
Wow that was patronising.
So just because I think that a perfectly acceptable hex doesn't need to be lumbered with unnecessary rules I lose my right to play the game?
Well that told me. Apparently I've been playing this game wrong for all these years. Apparently this is a game exclusively about numbers and bits of plastic. Ah well, here's me thinking that it was a roleplaying game.
Thank you Sir Kitty! My eyes have been opened! Oh frabjous day! Callooh Callay! I chotled in my joy. Just to check, if I purchase these special games do I get a free smoking jacket and pipe or will I have to sort that out myself?
Ah the truth shall set me free! I will head off to purchase a freeform game based on farming guava in southern Equador. I'll have to get a new group to play with of course but that's a small price to pay for roleplaying freedom and a burgundy smoking jacket.
Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty I am free at last!
Even utility has definite uses. It does not matter if it is combat or not really. I just made the combat reference because the rude poster tried to pretend like the game was not heavy on combat.It is useless by RAW, assuming RD's description was correct. "The GM can fix it" can be applied to any situation.
No the game is heavy on spells.
From the d20pfsrd
Scar (Su): This hex curses a single target with horrible scars of the witch’s choosing, whether something as simple as a single letter on the target’s forehead or blotchy, burnlike scars on his body. The target may make a Will save to resist this hex. These scars do not hinder the target’s actions or abilities in any way. The witch can withdraw this hex from a target as a move action at any range. The number of supernatural scars the witch can maintain at once is equal to her Intelligence bonus; once she reaches this limit, she must remove the scar from a current victim in order to mark another. Effects that remove curses can remove the scar.How can it be useless by RAW? Oh you mean actual people have to make a judgement on what happens instead of relying upon a numerical modifier or 'rule'.
Sad, sad days we roleplayers live in now.
The game's rules revolve around combat not spells. It is a tactical fighting game with RP'ing. It is not a spellcasting based game with RP'ing
I already explained my stance on individual GM applying their own rules. It has nothing to do with RP'ing.
I see you were too busy being to read it though so I will restate it.If my character can do something in one game I don't want the ability taken away in another game. In other words it is about consistency.
That is all it is for me. I don't even care if the ability sucks.
The game is what you, as a group, choose it to be. I personally don't see it as a "tactical fighting game with RP'ing". The characters flavor and background come 1st with us, otherwise we could just play mini games, or WOW for that matter.
It's not badly designed and it doesn't impact game balance. Impact to game balance would occur if this hex was compulsory or was extremely overpowered. As I have said, this is an optional hex that you can get if you so choose. It does not impact game balance in the slightest.
I find it odd that you equate a GM having to interpret a roleplaying situation as something that is broken and in need of fixing. This hex needs no mechanical rules because the effect of this on say a follower of Shelyn would be massively different to the effect on an Orc Warlord.
But it isn't just a roleplaying situation. Dice are being rolled, saves are being made, finite mechanical resources are being spent. These are hallmarks of a defined mechanical effect, but it has no defined mechanical effect. This makes it grossly underpowered.
It is bad design for a finite mechanical resource like a hex, spell, or feat to have no defined mechanical effect. I honestly can't see why that's a controversial statement. And sure, I can just not take it, but that doesn't stop it from being badly designed and underpowered, anymore than a badly designed and overpowered effect stops being badly designed and overpowered just because you don't use it. I'm telling people it' badly designed and underpowered so that the design can improve. Like if you went to the supermarket and discovered rotten produce, you would tell people so that the rotten produce could be taken off the shelves and replaced with good produce, and whatever was causing the produce to go rotten was fixed.
And I totally agree with you that the mere fact of having a scar means different things to different people. This is why the mechanical effects I put into my revision dealt with a mystical connection forged by placing the scar, and left social modifiers to the GM's discretion.
The game is what you, as a group, choose it to be. I personally don't see it as a "tactical fighting game with RP'ing". The characters flavor and background come 1st with us, otherwise...
Even utility has definite uses. It does not matter if it is combat or not really. I just made the combat reference because the rude poster tried to pretend like the game was not heavy on combat.It is useless by RAW, assuming RD's description was correct. "The GM can fix it" can be applied to any situation.
No the game is heavy on spells.
From the d20pfsrd
Scar (Su): This hex curses a single target with horrible scars of the witch’s choosing, whether something as simple as a single letter on the target’s forehead or blotchy, burnlike scars on his body. The target may make a Will save to resist this hex. These scars do not hinder the target’s actions or abilities in any way. The witch can withdraw this hex from a target as a move action at any range. The number of supernatural scars the witch can maintain at once is equal to her Intelligence bonus; once she reaches this limit, she must remove the scar from a current victim in order to mark another. Effects that remove curses can remove the scar.How can it be useless by RAW? Oh you mean actual people have to make a judgement on what happens instead of relying upon a numerical modifier or 'rule'.
Sad, sad days we roleplayers live in now.
The game's rules revolve around combat not spells. It is a tactical fighting game with RP'ing. It is not a spellcasting based game with RP'ing
I already explained my stance on individual GM applying their own rules. It has nothing to do with RP'ing.
I see you were too busy being to read it though so I will restate it.If my character can do something in one game I don't want the ability taken away in another game. In other words it is about consistency.
That is all it is for me. I don't even care if the ability sucks.
I can't speak for wraithstrike, but I know when I say 'tactical fighting game with RPing', I don't mean tactical fighting game first, with roleplaying as a secondary concern. Nor do I mean RP first with tactical combat secondary. I mean they are inseparable and intertwined. I argue for giving Scar mechanical effects, because then it would be both flavorful and useful, something for both pure roleplayers and pure optimizers alike to love, so there doesn't have to be a divide. Make it flavorful and nutritious!
|
|
And that's fine Revan (good name btw) I actually like your revision.
What my point was (and yes I occasionally have them) was that I think either version is acceptable. I personally prefer the version that the GM is able to interpret as he sees fit. If it happened in my game I would be enthused by the roleplaying potential.
It's all good. I personally don't think it needs any revision but I can see how people would disagree with that assertion.
Back to Guava and Fertiliser for me :)
|
So much nerdrage, so little interwebz. I wonder if this thread can handle it all...
In a more serious vein, people shouldn't get so worked up over this. The book is already out, Paizo isn't going to remove it, and they've already got your money since you bought the book. If you're expecting Paizo to change how they write content in the future, you might be hoping for too much.
It's not badly designed and it doesn't impact game balance. Impact to game balance would occur if this hex was compulsory or was extremely overpowered. As I have said, this is an optional hex that you can get if you so choose. It does not impact game balance in the slightest.
I find it odd that you equate a GM having to interpret a roleplaying situation as something that is broken and in need of fixing. This hex needs no mechanical rules because the effect of this on say a follower of Shelyn would be massively different to the effect on an Orc Warlord.
But it isn't just a roleplaying situation. Dice are being rolled, saves are being made, finite mechanical resources are being spent. These are hallmarks of a defined mechanical effect, but it has no defined mechanical effect. This makes it grossly underpowered.
It is bad design for a finite mechanical resource like a hex, spell, or feat to have no defined mechanical effect. I honestly can't see why that's a controversial statement. And sure, I can just not take it, but that doesn't stop it from being badly designed and underpowered, anymore than a badly designed and overpowered effect stops being badly designed and overpowered just because you don't use it. I'm telling people it' badly designed and underpowered so that the design can improve. Like if you went to the supermarket and discovered rotten produce, you would tell people so that the rotten produce could be taken off the shelves and replaced with good produce, and whatever was causing the produce to go rotten was fixed.
And I totally agree with you that the mere fact of having a scar means different things to different people. This is why the mechanical effects I put into my revision dealt with a mystical connection forged by placing the scar, and left social modifiers to the GM's discretion.
It's funny, my first thought when I read this power was "wow, they haven't quantified it, it can be almost anything, that's pretty powerful."
It also reminded me of the Elven Beauty (or something like that) racial trait in the Alpha version of the PF rules. That trait had to be dropped because it attempted to quantify something that was so dramatically situational. Different things would react differently to the elves appearance.
Different things will react differently to scars. From a player using it on himself to blend in or impress a group that performs racial scarring (orcs for instance), or horrifying a group that has a more pure form of beauty.
In a single day you could use this ability to provide a bonus to your disguise check, add a penalty to someone else's diplomacy, add a bonus to your intimidate check, mark someone as a penalty for a crime (murderer across the forehead), the possibilities of this are huge.
Adding other effects to the scarring is nice, but really unnecessary. By not quantifying the ability, it goes from "have a -2 penalty to X", "to what can I do with it now?".
Creating things that rely on DM adjudication enhance the game,
Far from hurting the game, creating powers (effects, etc...) that rely on GM adjudication enhance the playing experience.
If you want an example of the power of a scar just look at Inglorious B*st*rds and the horror and dramatic impact that the scars they left had.
I like this hex. I personally see no need to change it. I will however probably never use it as I tend to stay away from full casters when I play and if I pulled this on some of my players they might kill me. If I ever do play a witch though this will be right up there with the nasty beard and uncut fingernail hexes, just pop some tissue boxes on your feat give yourself some liver spot type scaring an you can transform into a crazy recluse.
As an aside where can I get a burgundy smoking jacket, pipe, and freeform guava farming game? I ask because I would just like to be able to say I own such things, just think of the conversational possibilities =)
This ability is the equivalent of the bard having a class feature that lets him have blond hair or a paladin gaining the class ability to impose vague feelings of guilt. I agree with the OP.
The game begins with numbers, plays by numbers and ends with numbers. If it didn't I wouldn't have to buy rulebooks, dice or character sheets. Roleplay is good, but Pathfinder is not a LARP.How can it be useless by RAW? Oh you mean actual people have to make a judgement on what happens instead of relying upon a numerical modifier or 'rule'.
Sad, sad days we roleplayers live in now.
No it begins by saying Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder: Identifier
Roleplaying: the modifying of a person's behavior to accord with a desired personal image, as to impress others or conform to a particular environment
Game: an amusement or pastime
Changing the name, does not change the game. Remember the game came from 3.5, and the core of the game is the same. You need to come up with some fundamental differences to be convincing.
Or a easy way to mark a unknown assailant for latter ID...oh wait that would be a very good use for the hex as written. I am surprised people are not screaming about how this scar is broken and could destroy mystery style adventures such as 'Who is the werewolf', etc. But than again you guys might not run those non-tactical kind of adventures.
As for needing to have mechanics for consistent use from group to group....you think actualy having mechanics for that will make a difference? I have played with different groups....and even things with mechanics will work differently...either thur houserules or such. When I am playing with a new group ask about things. Ity really is not that hard...heck most groups have a page or two of houserules already.
As for the PFS play...I mean we are talking about such a limited venue already with it rules....it really should not be taken into consideration when designing the game. I know if it was I probably would not be playing Pathfinder as why have avilities above level 12? That is completely useless in PFS play? Because the greater majority of players don't play PFS.
An effect which works or happens based entirely on the whims of the GM is non-functional and badly designed.Leaving organized play out of it for the moment, didn't you just describe adventures and encounters?[/b] "Effects which work or [b]appen based entirely on the whims of the GM"? Sure there is advice for CR levels and world-building and such, but there's also advice for diplomacy DCs.
It's a situational modifier. Bluff checks have built in GM circumstance modifiers. The GM makes a judgment call on how believable the lie is. Does that make Bluff non-functional and badly designed? In Diplomacy, the GM gets to pick the Starting Attitude of the creature and the text says "(s)ome requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion". Does that discretion make Diplomacy non-functional and badly designed?
Not at all. At least they have guidelines and rules so that even a new GM does not mess up or mess up too badly.
The game is what you, as a group, choose it to be. I personally don't see it as a "tactical fighting game with RP'ing". The characters flavor and background come 1st with us, otherwise we could just play mini games, or WOW for that matter.
Did you not read my consistency statement that was bolded? It is not just about playing with one group. What if I play with Tom in Minnesota at his house and then play a PFS game in Utah. I might end up in Miami. In all 3 games I the ability should work the same. I don't see a lot of choosing when I am playing with 3 different versions of the same ability. At least with skill focus(bluff) I know I get my +3 before level 10 at every game I go too.
The game is what you, as a group, choose it to be. I personally don't see it as a "tactical fighting game with RP'ing". The characters flavor and background come 1st with us, otherwise we could just play mini games, or WOW for that matter.Did you not read my consistency statement that was bolded? It is not just about playing with one group. What if I play with Tom in Minnesota at his house and then play a PFS game in Utah. I might end up in Miami. In all 3 games I the ability should work the same. I don't see a lot of choosing when I am playing with 3 different versions of the same ability. At least with skill focus(bluff) I know I get my +3 before level 10 at every game I go too.
You could simply ask how Scar works in x person game. I don't get where the harm in asking that.
You could simply ask how Scar works in x person game. I don't get where the harm in asking that.
Well... depending on the answer, it could leave you scarred ;-)
Or a easy way to mark a unknown assailant for latter ID...oh wait that would be a very good use for the hex as written. I am surprised people are not screaming about how this scar is broken and could destroy mystery style adventures such as 'Who is the werewolf', etc. But than again you guys might not run those non-tactical kind of adventures.
As for needing to have mechanics for consistent use from group to group....you think actualy having mechanics for that will make a difference? I have played with different groups....and even things with mechanics will work differently...either thur houserules or such. When I am playing with a new group ask about things. Ity really is not that hard...heck most groups have a page or two of houserules already.
As for the PFS play...I mean we are talking about such a limited venue already with it rules....it really should not be taken into consideration when designing the game. I know if it was I probably would not be playing Pathfinder as why have avilities above level 12? That is completely useless in PFS play? Because the greater majority of players don't play PFS.
Most house rules consist of allowing or not allowing. That is different than one particular ability that will probably be different everywhere you go.
This hex would not even be a houserule. You might apply a scar to one person the GM might say it has no affect, and later(or even with a different GM) it may give a -3 or +3 for the same reason.
To paraphrase Forrest Gump: It is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.
How can it destroy mystery style games. A simple disguise check can handle that or disguise type magic which I mentioned earlier.
The only person who say it trumps either is the GM who has not right to complain if he rules in that direction.
You could simply ask how Scar works in x person game. I don't get where the harm in asking that.The game is what you, as a group, choose it to be. I personally don't see it as a "tactical fighting game with RP'ing". The characters flavor and background come 1st with us, otherwise we could just play mini games, or WOW for that matter.Did you not read my consistency statement that was bolded? It is not just about playing with one group. What if I play with Tom in Minnesota at his house and then play a PFS game in Utah. I might end up in Miami. In all 3 games I the ability should work the same. I don't see a lot of choosing when I am playing with 3 different versions of the same ability. At least with skill focus(bluff) I know I get my +3 before level 10 at every game I go too.
Really this curse comes down to a matter of preference. You either like it or you don't. There's no absolutes here.
It's not poor game design, it's just game design you don't agree with/like. Poor game design is when a new addition breaks the game or an aspect of the game. This does neither.
It may introduce events you don't like (GM adjudication) but others enjoy that idea (for instance, me).
As for consistancy, it's relatively impossible to find (at least complete consistancy) in any game that requires a human to make the decisions.
Look at baseball, even the strike zone changes depending on the Umpire.
You could simply ask how Scar works in x person game. I don't get where the harm in asking that.The game is what you, as a group, choose it to be. I personally don't see it as a "tactical fighting game with RP'ing". The characters flavor and background come 1st with us, otherwise we could just play mini games, or WOW for that matter.Did you not read my consistency statement that was bolded? It is not just about playing with one group. What if I play with Tom in Minnesota at his house and then play a PFS game in Utah. I might end up in Miami. In all 3 games I the ability should work the same. I don't see a lot of choosing when I am playing with 3 different versions of the same ability. At least with skill focus(bluff) I know I get my +3 before level 10 at every game I go too.
Most likely it will be situational sort of like the charisma based checks when you are using planar ally. I have no problem with a GM making decisions. It is the fact that they can vary greatly with this ability.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Most likely it will be situational sort of like the charisma based checks when you are using planar ally. I have no problem with a GM making decisions. It is the fact that they can vary greatly with this ability.
That's one of the things I like about this ability.
Really this curse comes down to a matter of preference. You either like it or you don't. There's no absolutes here.
Actualy either liking it or hating...wopuld those not be absolutes?
Actualy either liking it or hating...wopuld those not be absolutes?Really this curse comes down to a matter of preference. You either like it or you don't. There's no absolutes here.
Hmm... wasn't too clear on that one.
Absolutes in the sense of the Power being either absolutley good or bad. It's a matter of opinion.
You could simply ask how Scar works in x person game. I don't get where the harm in asking that.The game is what you, as a group, choose it to be. I personally don't see it as a "tactical fighting game with RP'ing". The characters flavor and background come 1st with us, otherwise we could just play mini games, or WOW for that matter.Did you not read my consistency statement that was bolded? It is not just about playing with one group. What if I play with Tom in Minnesota at his house and then play a PFS game in Utah. I might end up in Miami. In all 3 games I the ability should work the same. I don't see a lot of choosing when I am playing with 3 different versions of the same ability. At least with skill focus(bluff) I know I get my +3 before level 10 at every game I go too.Really this curse comes down to a matter of preference. You either like it or you don't. There's no absolutes here.
It's not poor game design, it's just game design you don't agree with/like. Poor game design is when a new addition breaks the game or an aspect of the game. This does neither.
It may introduce events you don't like (GM adjudication) but others enjoy that idea (for instance, me).
As for consistancy, it's relatively impossible to find (at least complete consistancy) in any game that requires a human to make the decisions.
Look at baseball, even the strike zone changes depending on the Umpire.
Doesn't everything come down to preference?
What is broken varies from group to group. The monk is overpowered/weak attest to that.I don't like random GM adjudication.
They(sports) are consistent for the most part, and there are limitation the officials are expected to operate inside of. As an example I have seen people get fouled in basketball, and it(same foul) may not get called by another official. However if you drop your shoulder and ram someone into the crowd it will definitely be a foul. Working with varying parameters is not the same as working with no parameters which is what the hex does.