|
Back in the days of 1st and 2nd Edition D&D, .
I thought that I was running and playing Pathfinder and NOT 1st or second edition D&D. My mistake.
Changing the game in fairly fundamental ways really shouldn't be done in an obscure splat book together with a single developer comment buried in a thread.
If they want to do this they have to make it a LOT clearer. If it is still possible it should be in the guide. Absent that, at the very least in the FAQ.
That has always been my primary point (my secondary point is that I think this is a terrible idea for PFS although a great idea for home games).
|
I dislike the feat because if I want top particpate ina good chunk of the skills for season 6 I have to buy that book. That seems a bit forced to me.
You should reward people with new content, not punish other people.
This is false. John HSS already stated that Season Six is not going to be filled with Tech and that outside the first 3 scenarios that only a handful will be tech related.
|
|
Changing the game in fairly fundamental ways really shouldn't be done in an obscure splat book together with a single developer comment buried in a thread.
If they want to do this they have to make it a LOT clearer. If it is still possible it should be in the guide. Absent that, at the very least in the FAQ.
Agreed, and I would add that I see no reason why it wouldn't go in the Guide. Frankly, putting it there seems like a no-brainer.
|
I dislike the feat because if I want top particpate ina good chunk of the skills for season 6 I have to buy that book. That seems a bit forced to me.
You should reward people with new content, not punish other people.
Agreed, requiring this feat goes way outside the Core Assumption. "Oh, hello new player. Please sit at this 1-5 table. Oh by the way, your high intelligence character that you brought with all the knowledges(Wizard, etc) can't do any trained skill checks in this scenario because it's all tech based. You had no way of knowing this because you only have a Core Rulebook. Sorry?"
|
|
When you have a game, the content of which draws from a comprehensive set of rules and details, you have two options:
(i) Go ahead and let players bring what they have to the table, with the understanding that it might only be a subset of the whole, and this could impose asymmetrical challenges relative to what other (more "equipped") players may experience.
or
(ii) You require that all players have access to the entirety of the game's ouvre, possibly at considerable expense. This assures fairness, since everyone has everything.
Also, it's not as though Pathfinder has sprung, whole-cloth, into being, like Athena from Zeus' forehead - it's an evolving game. At this very moment, scenario authors are writing encounters which may be impacted by future rules of which they are unaware. Promises of future threads, surely.
So, some scenarios have been developed which are harder-than-intended, because of lack of coordination between scenario and rules development. Some (I, for one), will enjoy a bit of role-playing in lieu of roll-playing to resolve challenges; others will not, and they can't be faulted for this - it's just not their game. Fortunately, PFS has nearly 170 scenarios, not counting specials and modules, of which only three have presented players with this little surprise.
1.8% of scenarios are impacted - hardly worthy of crisis.
The path seems clear enough - run 6-01,2, and 3 with the skill restrictions posed by Technologist, and nod understandingly at players who avoid them. It might even be courteous for organizers to mention the feat in their game-day blurbs and postings, so players can better plan around them.
|
When you have a game, the content of which draws from a comprehensive set of rules and details, you have two options:
(i) Go ahead and let players bring what they have to the table, with the understanding that it might only be a subset of the whole, and this could impose asymmetrical challenges relative to what other (more "equipped") players may experience.
or
(ii) You require that all players have access to the entirety of the game's ouvre, possibly at considerable expense. This assures fairness, since everyone has everything.
Also, it's not as though Pathfinder has sprung, whole-cloth, into being, like Athena from Zeus' forehead - it's an evolving game. At this very moment, scenario authors are writing encounters which may be impacted by future rules of which they are unaware. Promises of future threads, surely.
So, some scenarios have been developed which are harder-than-intended, because of lack of coordination between scenario and rules development. Some (I, for one), will enjoy a bit of role-playing in lieu of roll-playing to resolve challenges; others will not, and they can't be faulted for this - it's just not their game. Fortunately, PFS has nearly 170 scenarios, not counting specials and modules, of which only three have presented players with this little surprise.
1.8% of scenarios are impacted - hardly worthy of crisis.
The path seems clear enough - run 6-01,2, and 3 with the skill restrictions posed by Technologist, and nod understandingly at players who avoid them. It might even be courteous for organizers to mention the feat in their game-day blurbs and postings, so players can better plan around them.
so am I understanding that your advice to me would be to avoid these three scenarios as I am a skill focused character without (so far - I will take it later) this feat?
(oh, and by the way, I enjoy both role-playing and roll-playing to resolve challenges... I do have a problem when I am told that I am unable to resolve a challenge thru role-playing (it requires a skill check) and a new rule blocks my roll-playing thru it also. Generally I try to make my role-playing match what I get with my roll-playing).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so am I understanding that your advice to me would be to avoid these three scenarios as I am a skill focused character without (so far - I will take it later) this feat?
(oh, and by the way, I enjoy both role-playing and roll-playing to resolve challenges... I do have a problem when...
I've played 6-01 and I've prepped 6-02 ready to GM tonight. Both scenarios offer plenty of opportunities for a "skill focused" character to shine. There are also instances where you can't rely on your skills and will actually have to think your way around an obstacle. If you really do "enjoy both role-playing and roll-playing to resolve challenges", these are the scenarios for you! Avoid them? Hell no, sign up for them ASAP!
|
|
so am I understanding that your advice to me would be to avoid these three scenarios as I am a skill focused character without (so far - I will take it later) this feat?
(oh, and by the way, I enjoy both role-playing and roll-playing to resolve challenges... I do have a problem when...
No, you're not understanding my advice.
If you're the sort who enjoys puzzling things out, you'll enjoy them (probably).
If you're the sort who insists on doing everything via skill rolls, and you lack the technologist feat, then (probably) you won't.
It's been made pretty clear (from extensive discussion and a dev post) that these scenarios ARE solvable without "rolls", so you can presumably enjoy them.
"I poke it with a ten-foot pole"
"I put the hat on and jump up and down"
"I take a sip... do I feel anything?"
Old Skool!
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Back in the days of 1st and 2nd Edition D&D, .
I thought that I was running and playing Pathfinder and NOT 1st or second edition D&D. My mistake.
You are, pauljathome. Please read my post again. I'm not suggesting we abandon the Pathfinder RPG, and I'm honestly surprised that you'd think I was suggesting that we go back to THAC0 and different saving throws and all that.
I'm suggesting that, since the Pathfinder RPG now contains rules for super-science technology, there's a play style that John was advocating, and that we follow his advice. I apologize if that wasn't clear.
|
|
Indeed, only the first six or so. So for the first couple months his statement is true.I dislike the feat because if I want top particpate ina good chunk of the skills for season 6 I have to buy that book.I suppose it's a good thing, then, that the majority of Season Six scenarios won't involve technology heavily or at all and you won't need to worry about it.
the first three. john did say that there would be three or four more scenarios throughout the season that would feature tech. he didn't make any statement or even implication that they would be the next three or four scenarios. i would be highly surprised if that turned out to be the case.
|
|
Back in the days of 1st and 2nd Edition D&D, .I thought that I was running and playing Pathfinder and NOT 1st or second edition D&D. My mistake.You are, pauljathome. Please read my post again. I'm not suggesting we abandon the Pathfinder RPG, and I'm honestly surprised that you'd think I was suggesting that we go back to THAC0 and different saving throws and all that.
I'm suggesting that, since the Pathfinder RPG now contains rules for super-science technology, there's a play style that John was advocating, and that we follow his advice. I apologize if that wasn't clear.
Please, just call me Paul :-).
I was being snarky in my response and I apologize for that (your reaction to my snarkiness was quite classy :-). And THAT is not snarky)
But I still think that advocating a change in play style, caused by an unanticipated rules change in an obscure splat book, in a comment buried in a thread is the wrong way to go about it.
As you yourself acknowledge, its a fairly significant change in play style.
Note, I am NOT saying I dislike that playstyle. Its just not the style PFS has had for the last 6 years.
|
|
In light of Johns post in the other thread, I now have no choice but to implement the feat. Little confused on items granted on the chronicle for 6-01 though. Can they be used without the technologist feat?
I don't see how. The same logic that says we're supposed to apply the feat to the scenarios would seem to apply to items found
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I am running at our local shop this week. I went ahead and posted the ruling on our facebook group so that folks could get acclimated to how its going to work.
My VC posted the following in response.
"I am aware that some players greatly dislike going into fights without knowing what they're up against. Without the ability to even make a knowledge check, I expect that their feelings will become more pronounced.
To prepare for this, I will have a cup available to hold the tears of any players who are upset by this ruling. GMs of Season 6 scenarios may drink from it freely."
That made me feel much better about this whole issue.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I am running at our local shop this week. I went ahead and posted the ruling on our facebook group so that folks could get acclimated to how its going to work.
My VC posted the following in response.
"I am aware that some players greatly dislike going into fights without knowing what they're up against. Without the ability to even make a knowledge check, I expect that their feelings will become more pronounced.
To prepare for this, I will have a cup available to hold the tears of any players who are upset by this ruling. GMs of Season 6 scenarios may drink from it freely."
That made me feel much better about this whole issue.
Well, that certainly seems like a great way for your VC to encourage PFS. People love it when they are publicly mocked for preferring a particular play style, especially when it is a play style that the rules actively encourage.
Clearly they should just happily embrace the fact that parts of their characters are useless in these scenarios (I'm presuming these players invested fairly heavily in knowledge skills) and stop whining. After all, they're just having badwrongfun anyway.
|
|
Not exactly the message I think he was intending to convey (or I for that matter). Pretty sure it was tongue in cheek and meant as sarcasm. The levity helped me to be able to deal with it a little better and let go of my anger (which leads to the dark side).
Paul, I pretty much share your opinion on this topic.
|
|
When my brother died my grandmother made jokes about how it was my fault.I don't think she was joking there.
thats exactly why jokes have a hard time being taken as just jokes.
There is often some thought of seriousness in the joke.
I gave a severe personal example to show that some people may still have their feelings effected.
|
In light of Johns post in the other thread, I now have no choice but to implement the feat. Little confused on items granted on the chronicle for 6-01 though. Can they be used without the technologist feat?
It depends!
If the use of that item is connected to a skill check, than you need the feat IMO.
If there is no skill check involved, you can use the item, since the RAW feat applies only to skill checks, not to the use of technological items in general.
So e-pick no (since you are using disable device), but med lance yes (no skill check involved).
Does it make sense? Well, that is another story.