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.
But that is true of anything in the game that can have a social impact. This I don't consider a bad thing.
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.
But it doesn't do that as written, at least in terms of shapechanging creatures like werewolves. There's nothing in the RAW Scar hex to say that magical shapechanging doesn't hide the scar. If that was in the rules, it would certainly be a substantial improvement, and I should add it in to my revision. Still underpowered for a hex on its own, IMO, but it would at least give a clear and consistent mechanical effect.
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.
Mechanics give you a baseline of expectation. Mechanics give consistency because you can expect to function according to those rules unless explicitly specified otherwise. Consider the difference between a DM who says "In my Pathfinder game, we're still using the 3.5 version of Power Attack," and a feat published in an official Pathfinder sourcebook, whose mechanics are, "This feat does whatever your GM says it does."
Moreover, precisely because every group's house rules are different, and because they reflect the quality of the GM or group that instituted them, and not the quality of the original rule as written, online discussions of rules and how they work really have to take the RAW as the central touchstone.
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.
True, PFS shouldn't be the sole concern. But it is a primary example of why publishing mechanics which depend entirely GM discretion to do anything is a bad idea.
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.
True for most mysteries I agree...but for a who the werewolf type adventure...if the person does not know they are a werewolf...and they wake up with a mystrious scar...they might even got to the PCs to see what it means.
Also I was just stating a possible use for the scar.
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.But that is true of anything in the game that can have a social impact. This I don't consider a bad thing.
It is not true with respect to any one ability(feat, spell, hex, etc).
Getting a max of +2 in one group and having +15 in another group is too much of a difference, IMHO.
*sigh*
It is well-written. It just doesn't do what some folks want it to do. It makes scars that don't cause physical, skill or statistical damage. That may or may not be useful to you. Insisting that it is a waste of time to write is dismissive of the players who look at that ability and can immediately think of half-a-dozen uses in the game using the rules.
The game is not designed to be fully quantifiable. Fully quantifiable games do not need GMs. A game that is not fully quantifiable will occasionally have non-quantifiable things in them. This does not, in any way, take away from the part of the game that is quantifiable.
I can't believe Paizo would introduce such an overpowered hex as scar into the system. Up until now, the world was an immaculate, scarless place. If you get a paper cut you could go to the nearest friendly chapel and the divine healing injuries would not only restore you, but it would leave no trace. With scar, a witch has a power no other class can duplicate: the disfiguring of another character.
We must rise up against this power creep! Say no to scarring!
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
*sigh*
It is well-written. It just doesn't do what some folks want it to do. It makes scars that don't cause physical, skill or statistical damage. That may or may not be useful to you. Insisting that it is a waste of time to write is dismissive of the players who look at that ability and can immediately think of half-a-dozen uses in the game using the rules.
This is exactly how I feel. Well said Aldin.
*sigh*
It is well-written. It just doesn't do what some folks want it to do. It makes scars that don't cause physical, skill or statistical damage. That may or may not be useful to you. Insisting that it is a waste of time to write is dismissive of the players who look at that ability and can immediately think of half-a-dozen uses in the game using the rules.
The game is not designed to be fully quantifiable. Fully quantifiable games do not need GMs. A game that is not fully quantifiable will occasionally have non-quantifiable things in them. This does not, in any way, take away from the part of the game that is quantifiable.
If it's not supposed to be quantifiable, than it shouldn't have mechanics. That's what a rule or mechanic is: quantifying and defining something. It should not require the investment of quantifiable, finite resources to perform an unquantified effect.
*sigh*
It is well-written. It just doesn't do what some folks want it to do. It makes scars that don't cause physical, skill or statistical damage. That may or may not be useful to you. Insisting that it is a waste of time to write is dismissive of the players who look at that ability and can immediately think of half-a-dozen uses in the game using the rules.
In a way such that they could use other mundane or magical means to grant scars?
I removed some posts (and replies to them.)
Rule zero of the messageboards is "don't be a jerk."
Also, please just flag it and move on.
|
In a way such that they could use other mundane or magical means to grant scars?*sigh*
It is well-written. It just doesn't do what some folks want it to do. It makes scars that don't cause physical, skill or statistical damage. That may or may not be useful to you. Insisting that it is a waste of time to write is dismissive of the players who look at that ability and can immediately think of half-a-dozen uses in the game using the rules.
RAW, no. There is no other way to grant scars in Pathfinder than with the Scar hex. Even hacking someones face with a large pick will not cause scarring per the rules as written.
Edited to insert a key word.
RAW, no. There is no other way to grant scars in Pathfinder than with the Scar hex.In a way such that they could use other mundane or magical means to grant scars?*sigh*
It is well-written. It just doesn't do what some folks want it to do. It makes scars that don't cause physical, skill or statistical damage. That may or may not be useful to you. Insisting that it is a waste of time to write is dismissive of the players who look at that ability and can immediately think of half-a-dozen uses in the game using the rules.
And, by RAW, the scar hex doesn't do anything but give a scar...
If it's not supposed to be quantifiable, than it shouldn't have mechanics. That's what a rule or mechanic is: quantifying and defining something. It should not require the investment of quantifiable, finite resources to perform an unquantified effect.*sigh*
It is well-written. It just doesn't do what some folks want it to do. It makes scars that don't cause physical, skill or statistical damage. That may or may not be useful to you. Insisting that it is a waste of time to write is dismissive of the players who look at that ability and can immediately think of half-a-dozen uses in the game using the rules.
The game is not designed to be fully quantifiable. Fully quantifiable games do not need GMs. A game that is not fully quantifiable will occasionally have non-quantifiable things in them. This does not, in any way, take away from the part of the game that is quantifiable.
I didn't say it wasn't quantifiable. I said it wasn't fully quantifiable. The cost, taking the Hex, initiates a quantifiable effect, creating a scar. That effect is not further enumerated. The reason it is in the mechanics is to cover the mechanical and quantifiable portion of the mechanic. The reason it is not further enumerated, in my opinion, is because further enumeration would put unnecessary limitations on the use of the power.
In a way such that they could use other mundane or magical means to grant scars?
Grant scars? I'm not sure I understand. Usually a scar is a physical result of damage and has a fairly random appearance in keeping with the method of damage that caused the scar. The Hex allows for extremely unique, supernatural scarring that the witch can remove at any time. It could be, but isn't necessarily anything like normal scarring.
And, by RAW, the scar hex doesn't do anything but give a scar...Yep, so why so much vitriol?
It's like you completely missed my point on purpose.
Grant scars? I'm not sure I understand. Usually a scar is a physical result of damage and has a fairly random appearance in keeping with the method of damage that caused the scar. The Hex allows for extremely unique, supernatural scarring that the witch can remove at any time. It could be, but isn't necessarily anything like normal scarring.
And you couldn't fluff that ANY other ability does that? You can fluff the result of the Scar hex but you can't fluff anything else to cause scars? Right.
If it's not supposed to be quantifiable, than it shouldn't have mechanics. That's what a rule or mechanic is: quantifying and defining something. It should not require the investment of quantifiable, finite resources to perform an unquantified effect.*sigh*
It is well-written. It just doesn't do what some folks want it to do. It makes scars that don't cause physical, skill or statistical damage. That may or may not be useful to you. Insisting that it is a waste of time to write is dismissive of the players who look at that ability and can immediately think of half-a-dozen uses in the game using the rules.
The game is not designed to be fully quantifiable. Fully quantifiable games do not need GMs. A game that is not fully quantifiable will occasionally have non-quantifiable things in them. This does not, in any way, take away from the part of the game that is quantifiable.
Again this is about play style. Not everyone feels every 'quantifiable, finite resources'(IE skills, feats etc.) needs to spent on a 'quantifiable' effect. Anbd you know what they have fun playing the game too...especialy since they now have options too.
Also why should the scars created by the hex be special? Why don't we have rules for scarring in general?
Cartigan? Anybody? Does your games have a mechanical effect if the PCs have a scar? I mean you guys like rules....so if a witches scar imposes a penalty to Diplomacy(if it is visisble) should not that tough guy scar you have since 1st level have a similiar effect? I like consistency too...lets have it thru out.
And you couldn't fluff that ANY other ability does that? You can fluff the result of the Scar hex but you can't fluff anything else to cause scars? Right.
Grant scars? I'm not sure I understand. Usually a scar is a physical result of damage and has a fairly random appearance in keeping with the method of damage that caused the scar. The Hex allows for extremely unique, supernatural scarring that the witch can remove at any time. It could be, but isn't necessarily anything like normal scarring.
Fluff an ability that puts a scar bearing my initials behind the left ear of the masked leader of the thieves' guild at range, during a fight... where I can be sure it is my scar later after we capture and unmask him because I can remove the scar?
Um.
Nope. I can't think of any other way to fluff that.
You?
Do you think it is safe to assume that the "the witch can remove the scar as a move action" and "this is a curse effect" sections of Scar implies that it cannot be removed by anyone else (such as by using illusion or transmutation magic) short of the methods specifically outlined?
Do you think it is safe to assume that the "the witch can remove the scar as a move action" and "this is a curse effect" sections of Scar implies that it cannot be removed by anyone else (such as by using illusion or transmutation magic) short of the methods specifically outlined?
I would assume that you could still hide the scar (illusion or disguise), but it would still be there for those who could penetrate the ruse. Transmutation wouldn't work, you'd need to use one of the methods listed to remove the scar.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
And, by RAW, the scar hex doesn't do anything but give a scar...
And, on it's own, giving a scar can be a useful and interesting effect, not even counting potential circumstance bonuses.
Being able to inflict a scar on someone as a standard action at range without having to capture them or render them helpless and then inflict an actual wound on them is a cool ability. That the scar is also permanent, and can't be removed without something like remove curse adds to it's utility.
It's a permanent, more versatile version of brand or arcane mark. Are both those spells poorly written?
And, by RAW, the scar hex doesn't do anything but give a scar...And, on it's own, giving a scar can be a useful and interesting effect, not even counting potential circumstance bonuses.
Being able to inflict a scar on someone as a standard action at range without having to capture them or render them helpless and then inflict an actual wound on them is a cool ability. That the scar is also permanent, and can't be removed without something like remove curse adds to it's utility.
It's a permanent, more versatile version of brand or arcane mark. Are both those spells poorly written?
OMG, the assassin that has been hounding us for months is actually the king's own cousin!
Now I've gone from not minding the scar hex at all, to really liking it.
And, by RAW, the scar hex doesn't do anything but give a scar...And, on it's own, giving a scar can be a useful and interesting effect, not even counting potential circumstance bonuses.
Being able to inflict a scar on someone as a standard action at range without having to capture them or render them helpless and then inflict an actual wound on them is a cool ability. That the scar is also permanent, and can't be removed without something like remove curse adds to it's utility.
It's a permanent, more versatile version of brand or arcane mark. Are both those spells poorly written?
Arcane Mark is useful later in the game once you get Instant Summons.
Brand is pretty useless, yes. But least it's a 0-level spell for a class that knows all spells. Greater Brand is remotely less useless.
And, by RAW, the scar hex doesn't do anything but give a scar...And, on it's own, giving a scar can be a useful and interesting effect, not even counting potential circumstance bonuses.
Being able to inflict a scar on someone as a standard action at range without having to capture them or render them helpless and then inflict an actual wound on them is a cool ability. That the scar is also permanent, and can't be removed without something like remove curse adds to it's utility.
It's a permanent, more versatile version of brand or arcane mark. Are both those spells poorly written?
Both those effects are cantrips, requiring virtually no investment for a prepared caster like the witch, and designed to be very low-powered utility. As a matter of game balance, high-opportunity cost resources like the witch's hexes should be more powerful than cantrips. It strikes me as significantly better design to balance Scar against the Greater Brand spell.
Moreover, both those cantrips have defined mechanical effects; Scar does not. In particular, I would argue that Scar is considerably worse than Arcane Mark. Scar may be quasi-permanent, but you can place as many Arcane Marks as you like, and AMs are considerably more difficult for the person marked to hide--they may not even know they have it!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Both those effects are cantrips, requiring virtually no investment for a prepared caster like the witch, and designed to be very low-powered utility. As a matter of game balance, high-opportunity cost resources like the witch's hexes should be more powerful than cantrips. It strikes me as significantly better design to balance Scar against the Greater Brand spell.
Moreover, both those cantrips have defined mechanical effects; Scar does not. In particular, I would argue that Scar is considerably worse than Arcane Mark. Scar may be quasi-permanent, but you can place as many Arcane Marks as you like, and AMs are considerably more difficult for the person marked to hide--they may not even know they have it!
Scar is more powerful than those cantrips. Its easier to apply, lasts longer, can create more impressive effects, and is harder to remove. You can make all the arcane marks you want, but you need to touch the target to apply them, and they can be removed with a simple erase spell.
And neither of those spells provide any defined mechanical effects for what the marks do, which is what people are asking for in the case of Scar. Brand has a minor mechanical effect when it's applied (1 point of damage), but beyond that it's just a mark. It doesn't tell you what the mark does. It doesn't list off circumstance bonuses or penalties that the mark might provide. It leaves it up to your creativity to find a use for marking someone. Same for arcane mark.
Is Scar on the low end of the hex power-scale? Yeah, definitely. Does that make it poorly designed? Absolutely not. Its a fun, flavorful power that can be incredibly useful in the right situations, and it works wonderfully in the hands of an NPC. It fills a solid design niche, and by doing so enriches the game.
Both those effects are cantrips, requiring virtually no investment for a prepared caster like the witch, and designed to be very low-powered utility. As a matter of game balance, high-opportunity cost resources like the witch's hexes should be more powerful than cantrips. It strikes me as significantly better design to balance Scar against the Greater Brand spell.
Moreover, both those cantrips have defined mechanical effects; Scar does not. In particular, I would argue that Scar is considerably worse than Arcane Mark. Scar may be quasi-permanent, but you can place as many Arcane Marks as you like, and AMs are considerably more difficult for the person marked to hide--they may not even know they have it!
Scar is more powerful than those cantrips. Its easier to apply, lasts longer, can create more impressive effects, and is harder to remove. You can make all the arcane marks you want, but you need to touch the target to apply them, and they can be removed with a simple erase spell.
And neither of those spells provide any defined mechanical effects for what the marks do, which is what people are asking for in the case of Scar. Brand has a minor mechanical effect when it's applied (1 point of damage), but beyond that it's just a mark. It doesn't tell you what the mark does. It doesn't list off circumstance bonuses or penalties that the mark might provide. It leaves it up to your creativity to find a use for marking someone. Same for arcane mark.
Is Scar on the low end of the hex power-scale? Yeah, definitely. Does that make it poorly designed? Absolutely not. Its a fun, flavorful power that can be incredibly useful in the right situations, and it works wonderfully in the hands of an NPC. It fills a solid design niche, and by doing so enriches the game.
And how are you so certain that the Scar hex isn't also touch range? There is no range listed! Say what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the hex IS badly designed/written.
|
Say what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the hex IS badly designed/written.
If by "fact" you mean "opinion", then yeah, sure. There have been convincing arguments made by both sides in this thread, whether or not you personally have felt that they were convincing. Some people seem to feel that it's designed just the way they want it to be.
It's not a fact that the Hex is poorly designed. It's an opinion.
In short: That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
|
Let's turn this thread around and try and come up with ways to make such an ability useful. Some that have already been mentioned are as follows:
- Disguises for yourself or others ("How could I have committed the crime? Look at my eyes! I'm clearly blind.")
- Easy friend/foe recognition
- Making criminals easily identifiable to the public (nothing screams rapist like having "rapist" carved into your forehead)
- Marking favored servants as a reward
- Money making schemes (beauty marks for rent)
- Punishment/Revenge (ruining a vane individual's good looks for example)
- Scaring peasants into subservience ("I will curse you with ugliness if you don't do my bidding!")Some new ones I've come up with:
- Communication potential (scarring an animal with a secret message UNDER its fur to get information past guards/enemy spies)
- Framing someone (file a report with the city guard that you were attacked by someone, but you fended them off, scarring their face in the process)Share some of your own ideas.
Not sure if anyone mentioned this.
-Marking that darn lycanthrope so you can track his/her arse down even when they're in human form.
-Marking that darn lycanthrope so you can track his/her arse down even when they're in human form.
Assuming you have a GM that let it do that. :p
Let's turn this thread around and try and come up with ways to make such an ability useful. Some that have already been mentioned are as follows:
- Disguises for yourself or others ("How could I have committed the crime? Look at my eyes! I'm clearly blind.")
- Easy friend/foe recognition
- Making criminals easily identifiable to the public (nothing screams rapist like having "rapist" carved into your forehead)
- Marking favored servants as a reward
- Money making schemes (beauty marks for rent)
- Punishment/Revenge (ruining a vane individual's good looks for example)
- Scaring peasants into subservience ("I will curse you with ugliness if you don't do my bidding!")Some new ones I've come up with:
- Communication potential (scarring an animal with a secret message UNDER its fur to get information past guards/enemy spies)
- Framing someone (file a report with the city guard that you were attacked by someone, but you fended them off, scarring their face in the process)Share some of your own ideas.
Not sure if anyone mentioned this.
-Marking that darn lycanthrope so you can track his/her arse down even when they're in human form.
-Disguise/Intimidate bonuses and Diplomacy penalties are entirely at GM discretion. This is as it should be, scars meaning different things in different contexts, and I believe a good DM should allow such usages, as player inventiveness should be rewarded. They are not, however, inherent powers of the Hex.
-Punishing criminals with a *ahem* Scarlet Letter? Great idea. But rather limited by the fact that the witch can only maintain her intelligence bonus in scars.-Marking favored servants as a reward? There's no tangible bonus to the scar, so the only 'reward' to such a thing is calling it a badge of honor. And you'd probably be better served there by an actual badge, or a tattoo, which doesn't take up your limited hex slots, and you won't be put in the position of being forced to take a badge of honor away from one person to give it to the newest servant to distinguish himself.
-The communication idea is interesting, and I like it. Whether it could work is unclear. One thing that definitely does need clarification about Scar: currently, range is unspecified, and it's not stated one way or the other if you can scar an area of their skin that you can't directly see.
-Nothing in the RAW says that a Scar remains visible despite shapechanging effects. It would be perfectly legitimate for the GM to rule that the scar you put on the werewolf, while permanent, is only visible in the wolf form he was in when receiving it.
Don't get me wrong--these are all very interesting ideas, and a good GM should reward them. But the mechanics of the Scar hex (or rather, the lack thereof) do not support them.
Assuming you have a GM that let it do that. :p
-Marking that darn lycanthrope so you can track his/her arse down even when they're in human form.
Bad design! Doesn't. Even. Have. A. Range!
And, by RAW, the scar hex doesn't do anything but give a scar...And, on it's own, giving a scar can be a useful and interesting effect, not even counting potential circumstance bonuses.
Being able to inflict a scar on someone as a standard action at range without having to capture them or render them helpless and then inflict an actual wound on them is a cool ability. That the scar is also permanent, and can't be removed without something like remove curse adds to it's utility.
It's a permanent, more versatile version of brand or arcane mark. Are both those spells poorly written?
House rules don't belong in this discussion. By RAW the scar is ignored by everyone and everything unless the DM gives it the effect to be noticed and reacted to by the DM which makes it a house rule. If for instance it gave a CHA penalty then the ability would be saying that people will react to it and the DM can react accordingly.
You also don't have to render someone helpless to slash them across the face. A duelist with a rapier can carve his initials into you in the middle of battle if he wants, that is pure fluff and is just as much of a house rules as people reacting to a scar that is supposed to provide no mechanical effect.
I removed another post. Don't be a jerk.
Hi guys. Is this one of those threads where pinko commie diaphanous roleplayers clash with soulless math-obsessed lobotomized rollplayers?Yeah, totally! Which one are you?
No fair, I was gonna tell him no lol
Creative Director
|
Nah, it's one of those threads that's outlived its usefulness and only serves to trick otherwise well-behaved folks into sniping at each other.
I think the topic's been covered. The designers have heard the feedback about the scar hex. Further sniping and snark won't accomplish anything. I'm locking the thread.
Unlocked just long enough to say... FAQ!