|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Can we work out a way to take an average roll for GMs who use their credit to advance characters when they need to make a roll pertaining to their class / abilities, in between games.
Not lobbying for Day Job rolls for GMs.
But I am lobbying for them to be able to take 10 on training an animal on its trick after a GM credited session, or to take 10 on spellcraft check to learn a spell for a wizard between sessions.
Possibly handle them at the start of the next session the GM plays at? making a number of rolls for the chronicles he's applying in front of the GM he's sitting down at the table to play in.
ex. a GM with a 7th level wizard/loremaster 2 sits at a table. he's got a 9th level character from applying the last 4 gm credits to his 7th level character. since he's leveling up a prestige class, he doesn't automatically add 2 spells/level to his spellbook. he must purchase scrolls and scribe them, requiring a check.
ex. a GM with a 2nd level druid sits down to play a game, he's applied gm credit from the Godsmouth Heresy to the character. His animal knows only the 1 bonus trick from start. he's got a 16 charisma druid. and should be able to attempt to teach his owl 3 tricks.
can the GM make those rolls at the start of the game, in front of the table's GM ? or does he just not get to do any of that?
Developer
|
For a spellcaster, I'd just allow it at the beginning of the next table, as indefinite time is supposed to have passed, and I believe the process only takes an hour per spell level. Generally a single day suffices.
As for Druids, I'm less clear. The new rule limits number of tricks per scenario, but I cannot see a reason that you couldn't just roll those at the beginning the same way; the only thing that matters is that you stick to the limit, and the credit rules certainly try not to punish GMs.
I'm not in a position of authority, though, and I don't recall seeing a stance on GMs and between scenario rolls (apart from day jobs)
|
Developer
|
yeah, posting here to try and get an official response on it, or see how other GMs may be handling it.I just do my rolls in front of an unbiased 3rd party. All you need to do is make a roll in front of someone who can say you didn't cheat.Seems smoother to allow people to take 10 on these rolls, as there's no reason to prohibit them from doing so.
The only skill in core rules that you can't take 10 on is UMD. Craft is a prime example of a skill in which you would always take 10 on, and yet in PFS its specifically prohibited for Day Job rolls for such things. Why?
-James
I do not believe a wizard is allowed to take 10 to copy spells into a spellbook. As for handle animal and day jobs, I do not know. I know you cannot, though, at least with day jobs.
|
I'm against this idea. It puts GMs at advantage. Since all registered players are also capable of being GMs as well, all the running GM has to do is get one of his registered Players to sign off on it once witnessing the roll. Their initial (and possibly their number) should suffice.
This is simple and doesn"t require an extra rule, though it might need to go into the FAQ.
|
|
Josh, where did you see that at?
I do not believe a wizard is allowed to take 10 to copy spells into a spellbook.
It's not a fact like from a book, it's a belief from the heart.
That said I've randomly had GMs tell me I can't take 10 which is their prerogative. (Maybe something weird is going on and there's a cursed scroll or an extra ambush or something, I dunno)
I have taken 10 every time I've applied my GM credit to my wizard and wanted spells from scrolls there, and taken 10 whenever the GM hasn't objected and advised players in my game to take 10 to copy their scrolls. Some of whom were quite grateful, having apparently encountered a stream of GMs who didn't think you could take 10.
|
|
It would be one reason that I would suggest that they take away a random restriction not to let players take 10 on a day job check as there's no support for this in the core rules and only goes to further this confusion.
Since the Day Job roll is not a straight Craft|Perform|Profession check in the traditional sense, I'm not sure there is a precedent in the Core for it to take 10.
|
|
The restriction on day job role is not random. It was designed like this from the beginning. Please do not misrepresent the rules.
Oh it's not random? Then what is it?
Being that way from the start doesn't mean anything for it being an arbitrary restriction.
Heck at the start you couldn't get your racial bonuses on craft checks if you were a Gnome, but you would get a racial skill focus bonus.. It really is arbitrary here.
As your other VC captain said it's a complete fabrication in rules. But what is bad is that it tries to pass itself off as a skill check which then rightly confuses people both as to the PFS rules and in some cases as to the core rules.
Simply having been done this way from the start is not a justification or a reason.
-James
The rule is not random. None of the rules were placed in the PFS randomly.
The way one derives the results of the system are random, but the rule is far from that.
All your doing here is twisting the words of a VC. Please stop misrepresenting the PFS.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
My understanding of Nick and Josh's intention regarding the Day Job roll: it was to provide a small reward to player characters who put ranks into craft, perform, or profession, since those skills were unlikely to come up in a scenario.
I had further understood that they didn't want to skew the money curve too badly, so there were limits as to what could help boost that roll. I have no idea why racial modifiers weren't included. I have no idea why equipment, like headbands of vast intelligence, wasn't included. But there you were. (Michael, I don't know if you consider this position to be "twisting the words of a Venture-Captain". While not random, per se, the decisions as to what bonuses to include or not was pretty arbitrary.)
As of the current ruling, I've seen a player character with +39 on his Day Job rolls:
Perform
+10 ranks
+8 charisma bonus (including headband)
+6 skill focus
+4 prodigy bonus
+3 class skill bonus
+3 competence bonus (circlet of persuasion)
+2 circumstance bonus (masterwork instrument)
+2 racial bonus
+1 trait bonus
He tops out the chart by rolling a "1". And the character's a bard, so he uses Perform (string) for Bluff and Diplomacy (that is to say, for skills that do come up frequently in Pathfinder Society) so getting good at the day job roll hasn't cost him anything.
Now, you can argue that 150 gold really is a trivial amount of loot at 10th level. But it's not hard to get +25 at 5th level, and, with slow experience progression, 900 gold per level (day job rolls aren't halved with slow experience, the way loot from the adventure proper is) will make a difference.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
Actually I wouldn't mind if it was possible to take 10 on a dayjob roll. It would reduce a tiny bit of hassle at the end of a scenario and at conventions any time spared with bookkeeping is profit!
(And on average the player would be worse off taking 10, so there's no reason to restrict it balance wise)
|
|
As your other VC captain said it's a complete fabrication in rules.
I'm going to have to ask you to stop James. I realize my opinion is clearly the most important of anyone else on the boards, but if you are just going to make stuff up - please stop.
Oddly the entire Core Rulebook seems to be full of fabrication(s) in rules.
|
|
James, I'm not sure why you seem to be unwilling to accept that Organized Play pretty much be virtue of it's existence will need to have rules differences from the published rulebook.
The Day Job roll is fabricated in the sense that was created. But so was the skill check system. So giving (an apparent) negative connotation to every variance from the Core grows tiresome. It gives me a negative connotation to everything you post, where the might actually be a kernel of valid logic, concern or need.
My personal opinion is the whole system should be scrapped, except that it does have a side effect of actually causing players to put skill ranks in something they might otherwise min/max over. Changing it to be even more mechanized free money interests me even less though.
Is it game breaking either way? Probably not. As Auke pointed out, the average roll should be 11, not 10 so you are actually slightly worse off for it.
Is it epically vital or important? Not really.
Are there areas of the rules that need to be revised? Clearly.
Is painting PFS as random and arbitrary an effective way to help bring around those kinds of revisions? Doubtful.
We are not required to expand on design decisions or philosophy with you. If you feel participation in a system where the decisions are made without your consent is too arbitrary then that is a choice you are going to have to come to terms with on your own.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
James you have no proof that the rule was created arbitrarily. You weren't there when it was created, so you can't know.
Therefor your making accusations you can't prove.
Stop attacking the PFS.
I regret offending you, Michael. But I don't have to have been in the room when Nick and Josh decided on the original Day Job roll to consider it arbitrary.
It allowed some modifiers (racial traits) but not others (racial abilities). There was never an explanation given. The original rule was hard to adjudicate (it was one of the very, very few places where a permanent bonus from a magic headband didn't affect the underlying attribute. If you r crafting PC reads a tome of clear thought, it gives him an inherent bonus to Intelligence for all things in the game -- except day job rolls. That made it hard to adjudicate at a table.
I honestly haven't considered that the objections I've raised have been "attacking" Pathfinder Society. But I am obviously making you angry, so I will absent myself from this thread.
Peace rest on you.
|
|
James you have no proof that the rule was created arbitrarily. You weren't there when it was created, so you can't know.
Therefor your making accusations you can't prove.
Stop attacking the PFS.
I'm not attacking 'the PFS' but I am calling a spade a spade, sorry if that offends you.
-James
My feelings are at issue. Do not put words in my mouth.
Stop making accusations that you can"t prove.
|
|
To me the old day job restrictions felt arbitrary and random.
Maybe they were the most carefully balanced ultra play-tested uber rule to end all rules or maybe Frost made them up on the back of a napkin after having one too many brews.
Intending something to be balanced and easy to adjudicate is not enough. It must actually be balanced and easy to adjudicate. If not, it can feel arbitrary and random and all the good intentions in the world are for naught.
Personally I'd vote for not taking 10 on day jobs for the simple reason that the day job roll is a chance for a player to explain a little bit of their flavor to the table. Sure it takes up a little extra time but letting people take 10 would remove the table interaction as everybody cheers for a high day job and giggles at the silly crafts and professions that some characters have.
|
The reasoning behind no "Take 10" on Day Job, IIRC (and yes, I did speak with the original campaign orgs about it):
"Take 10" assumes no distractions. Day Job is an abstract representation of several days work, there will be distractions.
In justification of the opposing view;
Would not the fact that the roll represents several days work, surely result in reducing the impact of any distractions, and creating outcomes that tended toward the average?
|
|
Getting back to the original topic...
As the rules for GM credit stand, you may NOT make ANY action between sessions where you apply credit that requires a roll of any kind. No Day Job. No Handle Animal checks. No learning spells. No crafting for those classes that can do it.
Actually, the only one called out in the Guide is no Day Job roll.
|
Developer
|
Josh, where did you see that at?
I do not believe a wizard is allowed to take 10 to copy spells into a spellbook.
My mind apparently. I probably just assumed it was a rule from doing so long in home games. A dangerous assumption. Indeed I can find no restriction on taking 10 and scribing. I may have mixed it in my mind with Use Magic Device, which does not allow taking 10 ever.
Seems I was wrong, though, nothing in the core forbids taking 10 to scribe spells. Looks like I've been short-changing my witch... not that it matters for her at this point (level 9, +20 spellcraft), hehe.