|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey all! Question for those who have begun running this: I saw the recommendation for limiting Androffan to only characters who had the campaign trait for it until 3rd level or so. I was thinking about limiting Technologist in a similar fashion. At 3rd+ level, anyone can take it, but until then the only way to interact with it would be one of the two campaign traits that mimics aspects of it.
Would this be too big of a problem, or is Technologist really not *that* necessary levels 1-3? Keeping in mind that some PCs may have the campaign traits that mimic it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I told my players they were not allowed to take Technologist, unless their background story really would convince me otherwise. So far that has worked out fine. Some of the deficits of not having the feat are directly negated by the campaign traits.
We just entered the Scrapwall and none of my players have taken the feat yet, because the campaign traits just compensated so well for it and other feats were simply more important. That being said, I anticipate at least one of my PCs taking it at level 5, because he is aiming for the technological item creation feats.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of my players only one took the player's guide seriously and took a campaign trait or listened to the guide's advice on technology.
Bumbling through and pressing glowing buttons has gotten them through the first stage of the adventure quite effectively.
I think the first part of the adventure runs smoother if you don't have someone with technologist.
If I run it a second time, I'd go with what Gratz said.
|
|
Our group has a Lore Oracle with a tech obsession, so Sanvil was utterly unnecessary for item ID. That said, we needed someone to sell the tech we looted to, and Sanvil's name was given to us as the most well-known junker around. Pure greed was all we needed to get him.
I think the oracle and the rogue both have Technologist, in fact...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Odd that you're both a player and reading the GM topics shisumo. The meta is realll. But yea, Hnng's post needs to be flaged as spoiler as karui is also a player. Both need spoiler tags.
My GM knows I do it, I'm good at keeping player and character knowledge separate, and I really only get involved in the discussions about stuff we've already done (I've read Fires of Creation since we finished it). Since I GM a lot, I can generally look at the adventure from both sides and comment appropriately.
Honestly with how excited everyone participating in Iron Gods is for it, you'll get a lot more sharing then you would normally get with a different path:)
|
I'd never let a player who's read the AP or is actively reading the GM topics play.
I had several before who did, and they always played with an expectation of events. Not to mention the not-so-subtle hints of back-seat-complaining. I recall removing a magic item from my MM game and that player who I suspected (and lied to my face that he never read it, what a boot licker) made "references" that said creature may have been using a magical item. They tended to be lawyers and power gamers anyway, I was going to axe him, but he axed himself and the game has been better off since.
Players with little to no knowledge had a genuine surprise to the events occurring and the experience was far richer for them from the feedback I got each game running multiple groups. I've purged my groups of power gamers and lawyers and it's been far more entertaining for everyone involved since that decision. I don't regret it.
And yea, I guess the topic needs spoilers now since we're talking spoiler material about significant NPCs.
To each their own:)
as long as they're professional about it I have no problems with it:) very few who play pf in my area as it is:)