|
Besides, you GMS are getting to level YOUR characters with 0% risk and 100% reward, so it really is a jerk move to try to kill other people's characters while you are the only one to benefit.
Actually...no they don't. GM credits are always applied playing down at dead levels for one thing. So unless you play down at dead levels all the time, the GM is not getting 100% rewards.
And oh no, the GM gets something for running a game...oh the horror. Maybe we should punish those bad GM and make their character lose levels when they run games. Sheesh.
If there is a GM that is ACTIVELY CHEATING (running a scenario as written is NOT CHEATING) then you have a case and I do wish there was an easy way to deal with report such behaviors and having it get dealt with...but that is hardly even remotely the norm.
|
|
The power creep issue and difficulty levels will always be an issue in organized play... it was with living forgotten realms, with living greyhawk, and so it will be with pfs. People like to complain about it... but just do what you can in the spirit of the rules to have fun. I never softball and some players will avoid signing up for my tables for that reason... which is fair. It all comes back to why, individually, you play the game. I play for the challenge and companionship of sitting down with old friends or new friends and exploring Golerion and stepping up to the challenges that the pathfinder society presents. Some games are harder some are easier... just try to enjoy the experience.
|
|
First, most players are coming from the video RPG world of endless saves. They get butt sore when their character dies and argues with the GM about it.
All I will say is that this does not jibe with my own experiences in the slightest.
Local pathfinders organizations need to direct the GMs to attempt to kill players when at all possible
Please don't kill the players, even if they haven't showered in days and are hogging all of the Cheetos. ;-)
|
1) - Local pathfinders organizations need to direct the GMs to attempt to kill players when at all possible (using the monsters abilities, coordinate attacks when possible, prebuffing before combat, learn the combat rules to allow them to fight intelligently.
2) Zero tolerance with meta gaming - ("Heal me, I'm -10hp", "that monster can only be hurt by cold iron" even though they all failed the knowledge check, the fighter telling the wizard what spells to cast) Table talk and meta gaming = cheating
3) Playing down means those players do not get any experience for the mission
4) With 4 players you can get the max 3 prestige, 5 players you can only get 2 and with 6 players you can only get one.
5) If the players do not make stealth checks, or are using bombs and gunfire then monsters within hearing distance can start preparing or working together....thus overriding the parameters as listed in the scenario (there were 3 wizards in a room, the players were just outside it throwing bombs and using gunfire, they made no attempt to be quiet, but in the mission it indicated the wizards are surprised)
It isn't always tactically sound to go in for the kill right away. If you've got five more guys after you drop one all trying to beat your face in odds are you'll want to take care of them first. Even low intelligence creatures such as animals will generally be capable of recognizing threats. They won't just sit there and continue to maul someone that goes down under normal circumstances, not if the rest of the party is still out for blood. Survival comes first. However, I will say that there are some enemies whose tactics do involve killing you the second they get you down.
I'm the kind of player that enjoys a challenge. Just the other night landing a scythe crit got me aggro from more than one enemy. I was playing up at the time on a low level character. I honestly expected the character to die, and y'know what I did? I started laughing. Landing a giant frigging scythe crit right before you drop is a fine way to go out. Anyway, back on topic. I don't believe people should be penalized for playing down. Say your only character is a level 7. The rest of the party only has lower level characters in a scenario that maxes at 7. Odds are having those lower level characters present is going to deny the option to play up anyway. Why should the one higher level person be penalized for something beyond their control?
As for OP classes, it's not just certain classes. All but a handful of the less effective classes can be made into absolute beasts by min-maxing. Another thing I don't think I could agree with is the prestige gain change you've recommended. It would probably encourage people to try and form smaller tables, possibly denying some players the opportunity to do so based on hostility from players that don't want to lose out on the extra prestige point. Same problem with nerfing the gain for six players. Sometimes you have six players. PFS is about cooperation, synergy, and having fun above all else. Having a sixth man be run off by a table of people not wanting to only gain 1 PP for that scenario is unacceptable. Obviously a lot of PFS players are nice, but you are going to encounter jerks and groups of jerks that would react in the manner I have described.
Now on to something I agree with! I believe enemies should get a perception check to see if they're able to hear things like combat within a reasonable distance, gunfire, some guy in metal armor clanking down the hall toward their chamber, and so in in that fashion. I've actually encountered many instances of the printed tactics saying to pre-buff and assume tactically sound positioning if alerted to the party's approach ahead of time. That said, I've also encountered fights where the enemies are supposed to get caught with their pants down regardless. If your party bombs on stealth checks (mind you, the enemies should still be forced to make perception checks even if you do fail) it just seems illogical that the bad guys wouldn't get ready for you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion there are a few things that need to be address to correct the issues with challenge.
1) - Local pathfinders organizations need to direct the GMs to attempt to kill players when at all possible (using the monsters abilities, coordinate attacks when possible, prebuffing before combat, learn the combat rules to allow them to fight intelligently.
2) Zero tolerance with meta gaming - ("Heal me, I'm -10hp", "that monster can only be hurt by cold iron" even though they all failed the knowledge check, the fighter telling the wizard what spells to cast) Table talk and meta gaming = cheating
3) Playing down means those players do not get any experience for the mission
4) With 4 players you can get the max 3 prestige, 5 players you can only get 2 and with 6 players you can only get one.
5) If the players do not make stealth checks, or are using bombs and gunfire then monsters within hearing distance can start preparing or working together....thus overriding the parameters as listed in the scenario (there were 3 wizards in a room, the players were just outside it throwing bombs and using gunfire, they made no attempt to be quiet, but in the mission it indicated the wizards are surprised)
1) Just NO. Seriously...just no. There are plenty of DM who already do this and it is VERY much frowned upon to go out of your way to kill characters and it should stay that way. In fact I would report you to the VC if I saw it happen at any event I was at. Killing because you went in alone and got caught and there was nobody else...yes. Killing while drawing 4 AoO just to do a CDG...yeah no.
2) Table talk is table talk. If you want to eliminate that...well too bad. This game is for a wide range of player base...NOT JUST WHAT YOU LIKE. Your just gonna have to deal with it. The ONLY thing I would say in the case where the player meta a monsters weakness, the GM should have leeway to change said weakness on the fly.
3) So you don't like your local coordinators then? HELL NO.
4) See above. You obviously have no idea how to organize an organized event else you would not even have suggest these two.
5) Maybe there are things in the scenario your not accounting for? Like the wizards are in a sound proof room to do their ritual? That said, the scenario is written that way for power balance...and your SUPPOSE TO RUN IT THAT WAY. If you have an issue with this, then don't play organized play where things are SUPPOSE to be standardized as much as possible. You seriously seem to be unfamiliar with what organized play is suppose to be...this is not your home games.
|
|
HHAHAHAHA Meat pants. Are you trying to give the most horrible answers?
1. Play the game as written as best as you understand it. Some enemies do not wish to kill the players. If the enemies wants to kill the player then you play them that way.
2. I will stop severe metagaming, but it is a game and people will play to the game. Me personally I have colorsprayed golems and burning hands imps knowing it would have no effect. Not all players would do that. If a player does not get there knowledge check then I will tell them they can not pull out their cold iron weapon until they notice something is up. If I play against metagamers I know how to make things more difficult for them. I pretend to roll dice and have them roll rnadom perception checks and make notes(I had one player scream at me for not telling him anything with his 25 perception check). I place rnaodm mini's on the map and say these are not monsters I am just settign them there. For some reason they get ready to attack them EVERY TIME.
3. This does not deserve an answer since the idea is not thought out.
4. Look at answer 3.
5. Again you play the scenario as best as you understand it. If someone is in the next room and you are makign lots of noise, well yes the next room will prepare for you. Smart players will use this to their advantage as well. I have left a room with a spellcaster in it. Barred the door shut. Waited an hour. Went back into the room since most of his buff spells are done. Easy fight. Scenarios are heavily written for the PCs to get surprise on the enemies with sound proof rooms and other itmes distracting the enemies.
Maybe you should read the guide to organized play?
|
|
There appears to be just as many scenarios where they're written so the enemies get a surprise round on PCs. It's a two way street, fortunately. Difficulty and tactics are as varied as breeds of dogs or people from different walks of life. I think I'd get bored very quickly without that variety. Getting the drop is cool, but having enemies nearly kill my character in their surprise round is extremely fun for me. I think I'd be dissatisfied without risk, you know? There's just no sense of accomplishment if things get handed to players. That being said it's nice to get some easier combat sessions as well. It would be kind of goofy to have every single encounter bring you to death's door.
|
|
There are 2 issues I believe,
First, most players are coming from the video RPG world of endless saves. They get butt sore when their character dies and argues with the GM about it.GMs are also a huge issue since they either don't know how to coordinate the enemy attacks or they don't want confrontations with the players.
The organization thinks the way to keep players is to take it easy on them, the problem with that is you keep the poor players and lose the good players to boredom.
In my opinion there are a few things that need to be address to correct the issues with challenge.
1) - Local pathfinders organizations need to direct the GMs to attempt to kill players when at all possible (using the monsters abilities, coordinate attacks when possible, prebuffing before combat, learn the combat rules to allow them to fight intelligently.
2) Zero tolerance with meta gaming - ("Heal me, I'm -10hp", "that monster can only be hurt by cold iron" even though they all failed the knowledge check, the fighter telling the wizard what spells to cast) Table talk and meta gaming = cheating
3) Playing down means those players do not get any experience for the mission
4) With 4 players you can get the max 3 prestige, 5 players you can only get 2 and with 6 players you can only get one.
5) If the players do not make stealth checks, or are using bombs and gunfire then monsters within hearing distance can start preparing or working together....thus overriding the parameters as listed in the scenario (there were 3 wizards in a room, the players were just outside it throwing bombs and using gunfire, they made no attempt to be quiet, but in the mission it indicated the wizards are surprised)I guess in closing I would suggest that only character types that were available during a specific season be allowed to play. this will fix the issue with OP character types. Or even better Paizo re-releases all the old missions with updates to account for the OP character classes, feats and traits....
"Everyone who doesn't use my challenge-oriented, extremist style of play should be punished." Gotcha.
And really, who can argue with that? The 'logic' speaks for itself.
|
It has to be kind of safe.
If your character dies in a home game you can bring in another character at the same or slightly lower level, have the group pitch in to raise dead,
In pfs the first isn't an option and the second isn't guaranteed by a long shot. Getting killed doesn't just inconvinience the character it can screw things up for the player: they're too far down to play with their friends in a weekly game or they don't have a character for the slot they scheduled for the con.
|
|
Fact of the matter is that there are reasonably safe scenarios for people that want to play it safe. For people (myself included) that are borderline suicidal with their characters, however, there are over the top scenarios out there. It's just a matter of asking your DM what the estimated difficulty level will be. Yeah, even that might be a little bit of a spoiler, but sometimes it can't be avoided. Make it clear to your DM that you would like to play less risky scenarios for the most part. If they're unwilling to provide you've usually got the option of playing under other DMs. There are plenty of players and DMs alike out there that are plenty willing to do safer scenarios, many of which are also roleplay heavy. So that's something to think about as well. Anyway, there's really something for everybody. You just have to look for it.
|
HHAHAHAHA Meat pants. Are you trying to give the most horrible answers?
....
2. I will stop severe metagaming, but it is a game and people will play to the game. Me personally I have colorsprayed golems and burning hands imps knowing it would have no effect.
....
What is frustrating to players is that in previous games the knowledge rolls were successful and they knew what things were - but in later games the same creatures they somehow have lost the memory - either by a bad roll or because the person who told them all is not there any more.
I wish chronicle sheets had an entry about the creatures met with a check box for important characteristics learned. Then when your character learned that flesh golems were immune to much magic or that some devil had DR 10/good or silver, that was knowledge the character could retain.
|
|
Dhjika, you can always mention that fact to your GM. Most will allow it.
I am always willing to allow it, and I greatly appreciate it if players will also follow the flip-side of this as well when it doesn't help their character (by which I mean, if it's a creature they've encountered since the last time they put a rank in that Knowledge and failed to identify it last time, they refrain from rolling again this time).
|
|
Dhjika, you can always mention that fact to your GM. Most will allow it.
I think your odds are probably 50/50 on that. I like Dhjika's suggestion, I know part of my prep work has become something like this:
Monster Name:
(know Dungeoneering)
DC 10+CR = tidbit 1
DC 15+CR = tidbit 2
DC 20+CR = tidbit 3
Having that already on a chronicle (to use as a GM) would be handy. It's an interesting idea at least. Dhjika, just start keeping a separate sheet with what your character has encountered for each session, put down your know rolls and what you learned. Ask the GM to initialize and date it for you. That should be easy enough- I'd be willing to do that even though its not part of standard operating procedure. Some players I have met really love cataloging the creatures they have met, killed (or even captured*), and in one case, eaten. :-|
* I know two Varisian sisters who are working on collecting beasts for a "zoo" they plan on opening... I assume they will spend the prestige to buy a "farm" to skin out their little circus.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I understand you guys don't agree with my extreme suggestions, which is fine.
That being said, don't you all find the early seasons including 3rd embarrassingly easy? PFS should be a challenge and not a walk in the park.
No, I don't find them too easy. Pre-Season 4 scenarios that I have GMmed or played that nearly caused PC death at level 1-5 include Murder on the Silken Caravan, Among the Living, Voice in the Void and the Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment. Famously difficult 1-5s include The Darkest Vengeance, The Citadel of Flame, The Dalsine Affair and The Gods' Market Gamble. I have killed characters in four scenarios, one of which was a Season 1 and one of which was a Season 3. Characters have died in 7 of my 50 sessions. [For those of you keeping score at home, the other two character deaths were in My Enemy's Enemy and Severing Ties].
|
|
The ones with swarms for a level 1 party and the ones that use monster manual stuff can be challenging. The older seasons are only a cakewalk if you have 6+ players as they were written for a party of 4 PCs. The later seasons are considered harder because they are geared toward a party of 6 (with reductions for 4 players) so you can't just faceroll everything with 7 players like before. If you find them too easy, play up. I usually do with old scenarios if i'm at a table of 7 cause if you don't every combat takes 1 round.
|
I don't think it's a matter of being too safe, I think it's a matter of poor encounter scaling. From my experience, a Tier 1-5 scenario is a breeze for level 3's, but deadly for level 1.
I think that PFS needs to break down the tier system a little more (say, every two levels) and target specific levels more appropriately. All it would take is a table in the side bar, and you can target the CR of encounters to be appropriate for any level of PFS play.
eg. There is a tough fight with some animals in the wilderness. The encounter description gives you the details of what's happening, and a sidebar has the table for the specific type and number of animals that make up the appropriate challenge for each tier of characters. The GM just works out the APL of the group and selects the right line on the table. The encounter is tough without being a TPK or cake walk.
|
|
Fact of the matter is that there are reasonably safe scenarios for people that want to play it safe. For people (myself included) that are borderline suicidal with their characters, however, there are over the top scenarios out there. It's just a matter of asking your DM what the estimated difficulty level will be. Yeah, even that might be a little bit of a spoiler, but sometimes it can't be avoided. Make it clear to your DM that you would like to play less risky scenarios for the most part. If they're unwilling to provide you've usually got the option of playing under other DMs. There are plenty of players and DMs alike out there that are plenty willing to do safer scenarios, many of which are also roleplay heavy. So that's something to think about as well. Anyway, there's really something for everybody. You just have to look for it.
One of the suggestions which came up in the thread on the comparative difficulty of Season 4 is to have some manner of "difficulty rating" on PFS adventures.
If one is signing up to play at a game day or convention, knowing the relative difficulty at sign-up would be helpful...the GM at the table may not have the flexibility to change adventures for a group (or certain players) who want a different difficulty level, and few things will make an event coordinator crazier than having half of a table which he's just mustered stand up and walk away from that table, because they've only just then been able to learn that the adventure isn't what they want.
|
|
Two Observations:
1) Three threads up from this is a thread called "Has PFS gone too far into 'hard mode'?"
2) I was in a 7-11 online mod last night that killed two characters.
It wasn't the monsters or the GM that killed the characters last night, although a good GM with the right attitude can make the simplest mod an exciting and deadly good time (as anyone who has played on a table run by, say, Mike Brock can attest). I was a front rank type who never went below 1/2 hit points the whole time last night and you know why? Because I prepare for the worst and adjust my tactics CONSTANTLY to give myself the upper hand. I've drunk a gallon of antitoxin when I didn't need to, spent THOUSANDS of gold pieces on buff scrolls even though I can't cast a single spell, I am almost never near the party when an AOE goes off, and I would say AT LEAST 50% of my gp expenditure has gone to defensive items.
Also at three points in the game last night characters made choices that triggered my inner voice to scream, 'why on earth would an adventurer worth his/her salt make a decision like that?' I never said anything out loud because hey, your character, your call. But in each of those three cases it went PHENOMENALLY SOUTH for the character in question shortly thereafter.
I'm not saying that in any given mod there is not a chance to snuff it hard. The character I am bragging on here has a death under his belt (back to back Ice Storms, no save, no evade). What I am saying is the choices you make both in your build and on the table can make it hard for even the best GM to kack you.
|
|
I understand you guys don't agree with my extreme suggestions, which is fine.
That being said, don't you all find the early seasons including 3rd embarrassingly easy? PFS should be a challenge and not a walk in the park.
The reason we disagree isn't that it is extreme (extreme is fine)...it's that your ideas will either make muster tables extremely difficult and it breaks the point of organized play (you should have optimally the same, but at least similar gaming experience if you play the same module under different GMs...Barring player differences of course).
Considering that I nearly cause a TPK with average APL 5 playing down to a 3-4 tier on a season 3 scenario...no I don't think things are embarrassingly easy. Now when I PLAYED that same scenario and I played up with in a 6-7 game with a level 4, it was incredible easy. The difference? The group I GMed for had your about average characters. There was 2 somewhat well made characters, 1 sub optimal one and 1 pre gen cleric. They were played with about average tactics as well. The game I played in had everyone else in the group having extremely optimized characters and we played in an almost military tactical manner. I want scenarios to be geared for the former and not the latter. If your group is like the latter...PFS may not be for your group then. Your just not gonna find a challenge when you play like that in PFS...barring something like fortress of nails when played up at APL 7 (which maybe what started the too hard thread).
|
|
I understand you guys don't Your just not gonna find a challenge when you play like that in PFS...barring something like fortress of nails when played up at APL 7 (which maybe what started the too hard thread).
I still haven't figured out what's so bad about that one. I found it to be a lot of fun when I got to play it. I've seen/heard several people bring it up now. Perhaps I'm just blind to something. Anywho, I'm inclined to agree with you. Balancing the game around people that min-max is going to completely destroy any chance your average player has of getting anywhere. It's meant to be a game anyone can sit down and enjoy with a little bit of reading.
I will admit that I myself am guilty of min-maxing. It's a habit I picked up from older versions of D&D. Not running an optimal build there could very easily result in character loss. Then again, even optimized characters probably wouldn't survive beyond their first few levels if your DM went strictly by the books. Anywho, I've still run into some pretty challenging encounters even factoring in the min-maxing. PFS seems fine to me.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
There is a thread around here that is a character's obituary, and though it isn't said what scenario the character died in, it is obvious that it was Fortress of the Nail.
The end BBEG is way above tier, and the optional is something that fights you when you try to leave with the prisoner.
To Easy? Perhaps for some of the earlier scenarios, ones where players only had the Core book and a couple other things to choose from. Now, we have all those wonderful new classes and other choices in newer seasons being used against us.
Easy? Really?
|
|
There is a thread around here that is a character's obituary, and though it isn't said what scenario the character died in, it is obvious that it was Fortress of the Nail.
** spoiler omitted **To Easy? Perhaps for some of the earlier scenarios, ones where players only had the Core book and a couple other things to choose from. Now, we have all those wonderful new classes and other choices in newer seasons being used against us.
Easy? Really?
Shurg...core has plenty of powerful stuff already, The Hezrou is a CR lower then what you see in the fortress of nails and that has a CL 13 blasphemy and a DC 24 nausea effect. The Ice devil at 1 CR higher can pelt the party with 13d6 EVERY round and has a slow effect on hit.
|
|
There is a thread around here that is a character's obituary, and though it isn't said what scenario the character died in, it is obvious that it was Fortress of the Nail.
** spoiler omitted **To Easy? Perhaps for some of the earlier scenarios, ones where players only had the Core book and a couple other things to choose from. Now, we have all those wonderful new classes and other choices in newer seasons being used against us.
Easy? Really?
Character was mine. Alas, poor Warick, I knew you well.
Some OOC detail: this was a 5-9 mod with 4 characters (including the level 7 pregen fighter despite having no real healer after some out-of-game drama..don't ask), APL 7, playing down. Character was a rogue 7, a 14 Con and almost all favorite class abilities put into HP (just under 60), AC 28, and he died from four hits, going from 3 to dead on the last hit. In retrospect, if he had stayed put and attacked instead of trying to tumble out to heal, likely would have taken the critter down, but neither he nor I had that information. It's the only time he retreated in his career.
He was also built all core, as most of my characters have been. He was effectively built within those standards and had less than 500gp unspent. He had sufficient Prestige/Fame to be raised; I opted not to for RP reasons, and had decided that would be the case well in advance if he died before he was free. It was my choice based on the degree to which I'm willing to spend time becoming a rules resource encyclopedia. I don't regret it; and frankly, the gaming sweetspot for me in the 5-7th level range.
Yes, there are all those wonderful new classes and other choices. JJ has stated that an increase in options is not inherently an escalation of the power level of the game (my paraphrase), a position that I fully disagree with. The issue of power escalation is one that is inherent in organized play if the rule choices are regularly augmented.
I wrote for LG, and helped edit as well; I worked on something like 21 adventures. In theory, our local approach was to write to something like an average iconic PC party with the idea that players who want to optimize do so because they like to dominate encounters, so let them. Whether that's true or not is another story. In practice, I don't think it worked out exactly like that with respect to a writing standard, but it represented a theoretical standard. Other regions took different approaches.
The choices are to either write to an average iconic, and it becomes too easy over time as more choices are available; write for the current typical party, which is tough on newbies or characters returning after a layoff, allow some variance to be determined at the table, or some combination. It's very tough sweet spot to hit, and it will invariably be wrong for some portion of the playing population. My character's death had enough out-of-game factors that I don't think it's particularly representative.
I think that the campaign does a pretty good job overall, but I've also only played about 4 of the season four mods. The design of the campaign is pretty forgiving with raise dead available for PP and PF's lack of a level drop. You can generally take a PP raise by about 5th level, and pay for one or two beyond that before it really starts to crimp one's style. I think there may still need to be some work done to fine tune the encounter downgrade from the 6 character standard, but I have a small sample size to work from.
All said, I think administration is doing a pretty good job in meeting a tough, constantly moving goal that will never satisfy everyone.
|
|
Shurg...core has plenty of powerful stuff already, The Hezrou is a CR lower then what you see in the fortress of nails and that has a CL 13 blasphemy and a DC 24 nausea effect.
Herzou blasphemy is a problem in organized play that needs to be handled with kit gloves. The essential problem is that at the levels where they appear, many of the characters playing are susceptible to long term paralysis. While that paralysis can be removed, unplanned party compositions can throw that out the window. Very swingy encounters.
Core has plenty of powerful stuff, but Herzou are a bit of an outlier.
|
|
Shurg...core has plenty of powerful stuff already, The Hezrou is a CR lower then what you see in the fortress of nails and that has a CL 13 blasphemy and a DC 24 nausea effect.Herzou blasphemy is a problem in organized play that needs to be handled with kit gloves. The essential problem is that at the levels where they appear, many of the characters playing are susceptible to long term paralysis. While that paralysis can be removed, unplanned party compositions can throw that out the window. Very swingy encounters.
Core has plenty of powerful stuff, but Herzou are a bit of an outlier.
Half-fiends are even worse. Inspired by James Jacobs's old Fiendish T-Rex avatar, I decided to use as an example a "CR 12" half-fiend T-Rex. As a boss encounter (probably for a level 8-9 party in Season 0-3 or a 7-8 party of 6 in Season 4), not only does it have a CL 18 blasphemy that will certainly be high enough to paralyze (if not kill, for a Season 4 solo against 6 PCs) everyone, it also has an 18d6 horrid wilting and a summon monster IX to summon something higher CR than itself.
|
|
I understand you guys don't Your just not gonna find a challenge when you play like that in PFS...barring something like fortress of nails when played up at APL 7 (which maybe what started the too hard thread).I still haven't figured out what's so bad about that one. I found it to be a lot of fun when I got to play it. I've seen/heard several people bring it up now. Perhaps I'm just blind to something. Anywho, I'm inclined to agree with you.
Well I found it a lot of fun as well...and I was playing up in the 8-9 game at level 5...with my whole 30 hp. But there were some pretty optimized party members on that one...and damage negation when you prep for it as a wizard gets to be pretty big...and no save control spells FTW :) .
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Once player base comes to realize that its far more fun overcoming a tough challenge.....
It's ... more often then not boring because of the lack of challenge...... Once you have experienced that you will find PFS a poor and mostly broken substitute.
What's fun for you is not necessarily fun for others, and those who have fun differently than you are not not the result of simply not having gamed the "right" way yet.
|
What is frustrating to players is that in previous games the knowledge rolls were successful and they knew what things were - but in later games the same creatures they somehow have lost the memory - either by a bad roll or because the person who told them all is not there any more.I wish chronicle sheets had an entry about the creatures met with a check box for important characteristics learned. Then when your character learned that flesh golems were immune to much magic or that some devil had DR 10/good or silver, that was knowledge the character could retain.
Dhjika, you can always mention that fact to your GM. Most will allow it.I am always willing to allow it, and I greatly appreciate it if players will also follow the flip-side of this as well when it doesn't help their character (by which I mean, if it's a creature they've encountered since the last time they put a rank in that Knowledge and failed to identify it last time, they refrain from rolling again this time).
I'm going to disagree with this general sentiment.
Remember, the PCs face a LOT of monsters regularly. And they're presumably swapping "war stories" with other Pathfinders at the local church of Cayden Cailean between adventures, reading Pathfinder Chronicles, getting ongoing training at the Grand Lodge, etc. They're exposed to so much information about different monsters on a regular basis that having faced a monster once doesn't mean you'll remember the details of the same monster months later. And conversely, failing to recognize it once doesn't mean the PC didn't look it up and remember the details for next time just because they didn't study enough to get a new skill rank in that knowledge.
As an example, I have a barbarian with 8 intelligence. I can picture him facing a monster once and being told by a party member to use a cold iron weapon against it. Months later, he faces another of the same creatures and sits there going "Was this the one I needed the silver weapon against, or was that the other one?"
Similarly, my bard with 14 int and bardic knowledge might fail the knowledge roll the first time he faces a devil. But if he faces it again, he may not have read the whole "Field Guide to Spotting Evil Outsiders" since then (put a new skill rank in knowledge: planes), but he may have taken the 5 minutes to ask around at the Grand Lodge or read one page on that particular type of devil in a book, which might stick in his head. So it's fair for him to get a new roll the second time, after failing the first time.
Now if we're talking within the same adventure, then whatever knowledge they have or don't have shouldn't change after the first time, unless they take a break to go do some research. But I don't think knowledge from one scenario should carry over to another when it comes to knowledge checks.
|
|
I understand many of you love PFS, but perhaps you have never been part of an good old school gaming group, with engaged players and a prepared GM. Once you have experienced that you will find PFS a poor and mostly broken substitute.
In my opinion there needs to be many things corrected to make PFS enjoyable other then a stopgap while waiting for a proper gaming group to join.
Perhaps we've been part of a good new school gaming group, and find PFS enjoyable in its own right rather than some 'poor substitute'.
|
|
Perhaps we've been part of a good new school gaming group, and find PFS enjoyable in its own right rather than some 'poor substitute'.I understand many of you love PFS, but perhaps you have never been part of an good old school gaming group, with engaged players and a prepared GM. Once you have experienced that you will find PFS a poor and mostly broken substitute.
In my opinion there needs to be many things corrected to make PFS enjoyable other then a stopgap while waiting for a proper gaming group to join.
This is where I place myself. I could play PFS 5 nights/week within a 20 mile radius if I wanted to. It's readily available. It's enjoyable for what it is, and only lacks when compared to what it isn't.
I've sometimes described PFS as gaming spice. Tastes good, but my gaming life would starve if it were all I ate.
|
|
I think every mission should be a challenge, only working together can pull the team through.
Min/Maxing will always be a problem, but that's an issue with the players, not the missions. Once player base comes to realize that its far more fun overcoming a tough challenge then simply maxing damage, or finding some cheese combination of class, traits and feats.
PFS is a means to roleplay with out actually roleplaying. It's basically a board game and more often then not boring because of the lack of challenge.I understand many of you love PFS, but perhaps you have never been part of an good old school gaming group, with engaged players and a prepared GM. Once you have experienced that you will find PFS a poor and mostly broken substitute.
In my opinion there needs to be many things corrected to make PFS enjoyable other then a stopgap while waiting for a proper gaming group to join.
Umm I have been part of an old school gaming group for a long while now. We in fact don't like 3.x D&D and PF as a system as they aren't exactly the best system for a more roleplay focused group. I don't use PFS as a substitute for anything...nor do I use the old school gaming group as a substitute for anything. They are different and fun in their own way. If you do not understand that, then your the one who has issues...not the system that somebody chooses to play and have fun in.
|
|
Just helped another player pay for his characters rez last night in our Blakros Matrimony game. Thought you guys would like to know.
I'm really surprised by people saying this one was deadly. My group trounced it. I thought it was the 2nd easiest scenario of season 4, at least as far as the combats.
