|
We're not talking about min-maxed characters with AC 32 or CMD 47, we're talking about perfectly balanced characters - even ones that aren't 2 skill point classes - who know they need a single skill for a single scenario.
Nobody's going to buy a headband for 4000gp for that, or a permanent following Scholar for 4 prestige, or skill retraining for more than both of those. That's not a practical solution.
Actually...
The discussion isn't talking about 'a single scenario' It's talking about "I've failed multiple sceanrios because none of my friends have the skills we need. Is there some way to get those skills?"
Getting a hireling would be for a single scenario. If you need a hireling for a second scenario, you would need to hire a new hireling - that's an extra cost. So if the first one cost 500gp, the second one might cost 700gp, or 300gp. The idea is it depends on your need, if you need one at all - but it only lasts for that scenario.
The equivalent of the other examples you've given (like the headband or the armor bonuses) are based on a permanent bonus, comparable to the 4 prsetige scholar. In that case, yes, the Scholar works well.
But we're talking about a one time deal - the length of a scenario - with someone who you find that can assist with that mission.
|
The equivalent of the other examples you've given (like the headband or the armor bonuses) are based on a permanent bonus, comparable to the 4 prsetige scholar. In that case, yes, the Scholar works well
The bonus being permanent is only relevant for as many scenarios as the skill comes up in: which is 1/4 if you're really, really lucky.
|
@Shifty: The Painter skill refers, in case you never twigged to it, to at least one old faction mission. Now, you can keep ragging on it, or you could move into mature discussion of the issue represented by that specific skill: PFS used a lot of obscure skills for faction missions.
Now, for new PCs, from new players, that may not present an issue.
For those of us who have been playing PFS for a while, it gives us a mindset that may no longer be accurate.
I mainly run Andoran PCs. Andoran faction missions, when they aren't "kill the BBEG", frequently relied on Diplomacy checks. My first Andoran PC, my first PFS PC, was a human Fighter with CHarisma a dump stat. I have, over the rest of his levels, spent some of his precious resources mitigating that Diplomacy check for him, especially since one of his early Diplomacy missions was also a secret mission, he was the only Andoran there, and he had to make the check.
Most of my PCs, now, whether Andoran or not, spend points on Diplomacy. Is that a bad thing? Not really, but when you run in a 2 skill point class, that limits your other options.
So, does having Diplomacy trained for my Fighter give him non-combat options? Yes, but they mainly work in social encounters, not research situations where you can't just Gather Information. Most of his feats are fociused on his primary job, being a ranged fighter. He is still feat-starved, and has holes in his ranged capabilities. He has even more holes in his melee abilities, and his knowledge-related side.
There is a good chance that, if even one PC misses the save, that they could easily lose the secondary success condition because the player of the failed PC is playing out the template.
Now, is that fun? Not for me. WOuld it be for you?
And that discounts the not-as-rare-as-I-would-like all low skill point party. Clerics, Fighters, Paladins, etc. You get a fairly effective group, for basic exploration or combat, but if they need to figure out why something is the way it is, they probably don't have the trained skills available for it.
Sometimes you can break the mold, like with a Lore Warden fighter, or that feat you mentioned, but, for some builds, fitting in that feat may not work. My Lore Warden was going to have Cosmopolitan as one of his feats by the time he was 11th level (at least, that is the build I played for him during a grandfathered game of Ruby Phoenix Tournament), but, at 8th level, due to a minor rule change, and some in-scenario events, he has taken some different feats than originally planned.
|
|
@Shifty: The Painter skill refers, in case you never twigged to it, to at least one old faction mission. Now, you can keep ragging on it, or you could move into mature discussion of the issue represented by that specific skill: PFS used a lot of obscure skills for faction missions.
Mate, when asked exactly what skills you NEEDED, you went off on your own initiative and listed that you NEEDED Profession:Painter. I pinged you on it and you then provided a rationale for why you NEEDED this skill.
You don't need it, and as you say it vaguely cropped up once ever on some random faction mission in the wayback - so you threw it on your list to pad out your case. So yeah, I am feeling free to mock away because you put it out there. Looks funny when you play the mature card moments after padding out your argument like that.If you robbed yourself playing an Andoran and dumped CHA then that was less of a PFS problem and more of a player not grasping what the faction was all about problem, and it sucks that you then had to spend a lot of time shoring it up. Still not a fault with PFS, nor is it a fault with playing a 2skill/level class. Dumping Cha was certainly not the best move for that faction and the gameplay it engenders.
On a side note, its the first time I have heard 'Fighter' and 'Feat starved' in the same sentence.
Funnily enough I have gone through that scenario, making a History check is 'nice', but is not essential - and pretty sure it doesn't MAKE you fail. And yeah that can still be fun, because we don't know what is going on and the wild guesses are often more entertaining than the truth. If we fail a secondary success condition then that's too bad, but that's still not a wash.
I think we have a different idea of fun, you seem to be making a case that not beating every DC ever presented to the party is like applying a wet blanket.
In a home game the GM knows the party and knows their strengths, so you can sort of build how you like that 100% fits exactly what you want, and by sheer custom and practice the GM will tailor the game around you, your playstyle, and the builds your party brought to the table - so as players we are pretty used to adventures fitting around us.
In PFS the designer builds what they are building, and the GM wouldn't usually know our characters if he/she fell over them - you are 100% fully aware that the scenarios MAY require a range of skills, so there's little use complaining when you don't plan for that very likelihood in your character selection - we need to ensure our builds fit around the adventures.
By 'outsourcing' buts of the game that don't suit your build you are effectively looking to remove them from the game - you are eliminating them as a risk factor and shallowing out the range of potential obstacles Pathfinders face - in the end all we'd be left with at the end of it is an arena style deathmatch where we fight four encounters on a conveyor belt and go home, as you are asking to strip out the non-combat aspect and subcontract it out to a labour hire company.
|
There once was the idea that you would fail approx. 50% of faction missions. I'm not sure how this translates into secondary and primary success condition - but they should not be automatic - or they get stale.
You want to have the feeling of achievement at the end of a game.
I just posted on the 'how many death characters do you have as GM'. I gave my last group the option - fight on and take the consequence - or go for utter failure but stay alive.
It was this decision that kept the players talking even after the shop had closed and posting on the Facebook page.
Failure in missions - similar to Death of a character - is something where as GM you have to be very careful. Some players take it a lot easier, for some it is only a good game if they get defeated now and again. Other players rather dislike any form of 'failure'.
But PFS only will stay interesting for the majority if failure is an option. The trick is to get the balance right.
As GM do I allow hirelings for X gold to do the success condition. A clear NO.
As GM do I allow the equivalent of creative play if it fits into the game - a clear YES.
I once described some halfling kids as fluff (they actually are in the scenario but not statted). One member of the group went out of the way to impress and befriend them - only to 'use' one of them as 'specialist to reach tiny spaces'.
My belief is that if he just could have hired someone that would have cheapened the whole experience. But he took advantage of me detailing the surrounding and finding a good reason for the GM to accept a 'hireling'.
As such I'm not against the idea - but I know if it becomes a rule I will be presented with 'here are x gp - now I do a roll as I just hired someone' no matter if we talk the deepest Mwangi or the farthest Realm of the Mammoth Lords.
It saddens me - but it is the misuse that I expect that let me lean to the side that I don't want a ruling. No matter what - it can't be detailed enough to cover every circumstance.
How big does a settlement have to be?
Is it easier to find Knowledge Nature in the wilderness or a city?
How much time does it take to find someone?
Money is only one part of this.
|
|
Thod - I appreciate the romanticism you're talking about. We all love that and most of us will try to inject it that kind of verisimilitude into our games whenever possible. We have to try harder to do that in PFS, where that kind of thing can be difficult while we're trying to run it by the book.
But when players go to buy a horse, or any other equipment, or to +1 their weapon, we don't go into that kind of thing as part of a PFS scenario for simplicity's sake. The structure of making purchases is usually that you're assumed to go and buy it, so long as you can make purchases at all. And granted, sometimes you just can't - you might be stuck in a time constraint, or in the Tapestry for the duration of the rest of the mission.
With the case of a hireling, that might (or maybe should) include a brief look around to find someone - I'd go so far as to say a diplomacy check might be called for, except I can see this eventually just getting in the way - and then talking to that hireling, discussing the terms and determining a fair price, have the party confirm any bargaining with a successful social check roll. The party should know they may not find anyone else and know that this is going to cost a fair amount (a significant amount of their final pay from the Society), and even then there's still going to be risk that the hireling's help isn't enough. That last part is important, because in your post you've said:
As GM do I allow hirelings for X gold to do the success condition. A clear NO.
Hopefully you can see how this conflicts with your clear yes. At the end of the day, it's up to the GM to work out how a party should be able to go about organising the person to hire.
You can still be talking after the game about how much better the scenario is knowing you brought that person with you, and how much worse it could've been if you hadn't. That part of the game is still intact.
