|
A project I've been thinking about undertaking for some time is going through every PFS scenario I have and analyzing how often each skill is used. I've never done it because it seems like it'd be a ton of work just to prove something I already know: PFS scenarios reward investment in some skills more than others.
It's obviously a no brainer that Perception is more useful in PFS than Knowledge/Nobility or Appraise. I'm making this thread because I'm firmly of the belief that it shouldn't be. I believe that it shouldn't be so obviously true that the two most important skills in PFS are Perception and Diplomacy.
I also put forth the notion that it doesn't have to be that way; it's a paradigm of how the scenarios are being written and that can change. Early seasons had the faction missions carrying the weight for bringing obscure skills into play more often.
Look at the legwork phase of almost every scenario ever. What do you know about the BBEG's fortress? Anyone have Knowledge/Geography or Knowledge/History? Noone has them? No worries, because Knowledge/Local gives you the info anyway. Knowledge skills other than Arcana and Local are disincentivized because you can pretty much assume info relevant to the plot will be awarded anyway.
Of course, where skills are disincentivized while skill points stay the same, then by necessity other skills are artificially incentivized. Namely, the same ones that keep coming up over and over and over again.
I'm curious to see what thoughts are out there. Personally, I'd like to see Perception go back to 3.0 and be split into Search and Spot, but that's not feasible for PFS.
A few things I do as a GM to deal with extant scenarios that encourage what I perceive as skill specialization born of meta considerations (in other words, if I have players' characters possessing reasonably rounded skills, these managing techniques aren't necessary):
Knowledge/Local in pre-adventuring legwork: Even though K/Local usually gives the info anyway, I ask for the other specified knowledge skills first. Only after those are resolved do I admit "ok, everyone with local roll.." to see if a better result pops up.
Perception (searches): I don't let the one guy with +23 to Perception "search the whole room" for the party. I encourage each player to pick an area or aspect of the room to search, and only the player(s) who picked the area for a hidden thing even get to roll a meaningful check. I even reward people who cleverly deduce where to search based on the box text to find without even having to roll. Way to go gamer, listen to the clues and don't rely on a skill bonus to do your thinking for you. You automatically succeed even if you had a +0 to Perception b/c you searched in the right place and there it was.
Diplomacy: I don't let the dice roll until the roleplay resolves a natural decision point for the NPC, and only people who have been roleplaying even get to touch a die for the test or assist. Sure, some players are naturally introverted and shouldn't be barred from playing faces.. that's a consideration on a case by case basis and is always (not usually, always) obvious right up front.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's obviously a no brainer that Perception is more useful in PFS than Knowledge/Nobility or Appraise. I'm making this thread because I'm firmly of the belief that it shouldn't be. I believe that it shouldn't be so obviously true that the two most important skills in PFS are Perception and Diplomacy.
Why not? Those seem wholy within the purview of the Pathfinder Society. Explore. Cooperate.
Perception (searches): I don't let the one guy with +23 to Perception "search the whole room" for the party.
Again, I ask: why not?
In literary terms, if you had a detective working with a sharpshootrand a martial artist, and the detective wanted to thoroughly check a crime scene for clues, why would he have to ask the other guys to pick parts of the room and check them with whatever luck they might have?
|
But... we're Pathfinders, right? "Explore, Report, Cooperate" to me just screams "Perception, Literacy, Diplomacy". I agree it doesn't have to be this way, just like it doesn't have to be that we're all Pathfinders...
Tongue-in-cheek aside, monster ID already means that several other skills are also used a lot in various scenarios. Can't help you with Knowledge Geography or Nobility, though - they are so niche that arguably doing away with them (folding them into Knowledge nature and local) may make more sense. *Any* knowledge at all is hard enough to come by on so many Pathfinders, that making it harder will not improve the game IMO.
However, I think some of your work-arounds on Perception go against the rules of how Perception now works, although in the interests of mitigating spotlight-hogging there is some merit to them. I also give out free info when people ask the right questions, which is more in line with the GM's ability to adapt. I do the same thing on Diplomacy, though - although I don't give penalties to Diplomacy for bad player-talk when the dice say otherwise.
|
|
Why not? Those seem wholy within the purview of the Pathfinder Society. Explore. Cooperate.
It's obviously a no brainer that Perception is more useful in PFS than Knowledge/Nobility or Appraise. I'm making this thread because I'm firmly of the belief that it shouldn't be. I believe that it shouldn't be so obviously true that the two most important skills in PFS are Perception and Diplomacy.
Why not? Because a skill point invested in Diplomacy or Perception shouldn't (imo) provide more benefits than a skill point of allegedly equal value in, say Appraise or Handle Animal. From a game balance, standpoint, I mean.
Certain skills are going to be more important to certain characters, obviously. That will never change nor should it.
However, the scenarios DON'T have to treat certain skills preferentially. They have been; that's an obvious given. But they don't have to continue to be.
It's probably unlikely the mindset will change, but I just wanted to see what sort of discussion popped up regardless.
|
|
It's not a PFS-specific problem, it's a PFRPG problem.
Try a list of what Craft, Profession, or Knowledge skills come up more often.
That would be enlightening.
If you want Perception and Diplomacy to matter less, you'll need to rewrite Pathfinder itself, not PFS.
See, I disagree with these sentiments. Yes, making mechanical "fixes" to the skills (such as re-splitting Perception) is beyond the scope of PFS, but the PFS scenarios can be written to focus on skills more equitably just as easily as they are written now to not focus equitably. Maybe not so much as have Perception and Diplomacy matter less, but make everything else matter more.
Yes, it's impossible to have Perception and Diplomacy come up no more often than any other skill... perfect balance between skills isn't possible w/o a PF rewrite, that's true. But perfect balance isn't what I'm hoping for.. I'm just hoping to see more rewarding of taking the obscure skills.
We see it sometimes with Profession and Craft skills being called out. I'm saying more of that. And less of allowing the skills everyone knows are overused as being equally applicable in times when obscure skills are called out.. If you're going to have a skill check, at least don't add "or perception" or "or Knowledge/Local" if there are already other skills listed. Let those other skills be relevant.
However, I think some of your work-arounds on Perception go against the rules of how Perception now works, although in the interests of mitigating spotlight-hogging there is some merit to them.
I think we're generally on the same page. However, I will quibble about which side of the legality line such examples are on. If the guy with +23 insists he's within his PFS rights to say nothing more specific than "I. Search. The. Whole. Damn. Room.", you're right in that he's right. However, I am under no obligation to resolve his roll first; I'll ignore whatever number he calls out and deal with everyone else's searches first. They are searching more specificially, it makes perfectly logical sense their searches will resolve first.
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
I think it would be more interesting to actually get the data and see just how skewed it is.
Yes, Perception will come out on top. This is a problem with how they have lumped the skills.
I expect a fairly large showing for Knowledge (local), Diplomacy and Bluff.
Assuming you check each monster, the following knowledges should also be reasonably high:
Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Dungeoneering), Knowledge (Nature), Knowledge (Planes), Knowledge (Religion)
It would be interesting to find out how Disable Device fairs. I wonder if it is more or less common than say Acrobatics or Linguistics.
I would be extremely interested in seeing how other skills fair against each other.
Unfortunately, to do this correctly you would really have to chart skill and DC. Even untrained, someone can make a DC10 check, the DC30 checks can be tough at any level. Knowing the difficulties would show you where the point of diminishing returns is.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A conversation from this coming November:
"Does Season 7 seem to be 'the Year of Climbing and Jumping' to you?"
"Aye. And handling animals."
"Aye, that."
"Why does this puzzle want us to put the gem in the slot numbered according to its average market value in SP in rural Osirion?"
"Because PC's weren't being forced to make enough Profession: Merchant and Appraise checks."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are some (many?) skill checks that need to be made, and aren't called out in scenarios.
Flying characters? -- Fly
Examining loot? -- Appraise, spellcraft
Fighting things? -- Big six knowledges: arcana, dungeoneering, nature, planes, religion, and yes, even local (though it isn't so useful for things with only class HD).
Animal companion? -- Handle animal
Mount? -- Ride
Also, interactions with NPC's can be other things than diplomacy, such as sense motive, intimidate and bluff. These aren't always called out, but may be how the party interacts. Use magic device crops up a lot for us recently, including healing wand use, sometimes desperately.
These examples are just off the top of my head. Not all of the skills used in a scenario have to be called for in the scenario text itself, so searching for those might only give a limited subset of the skills actually useful in a scenario.
|
|
Don't get me wrong, if someone wants to do all that data collection and collation, I will give it a read - I bet there is some interesting stuff in there.
And I am on record as being in favor of versatile, varied characters in PFS, rather than murderhobos.
But I don't think that there is any reason to force-fit more/different skills into scenarios. Some skills are more useful than others.
A good GM will find a way for other skills to matter (even if it's just to the story), even when there isn't content written for them in the scenario.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I don't think there's any chance of pushing Perception off the throne of skill. Consider why it's always going to be important;
- Finding hidden loot.
- Spotting hidden dangers such as traps.
- Spotting clues.
- Surprise rolls.
- Spotting enemies with enough heads up that you might be able to do something other than fight them.
These are all essential to being successful as a PC in any scenario.
Social skills are a bit more diversified, although Diplomacy does lead. Thing is, if you're going the "diplomatic" route, you'll be fine if you have a good spokesman. If you try to go with Bluff/Disguise/Stealth, you might be in trouble if even one PC in the group dumped Charisma entirely, because all it takes is one of them to give away the con.
Adventures are written in such a way that most parties of appropriate level should be able to succeed, including the ad-hoc ones where you don't know who's bringing what. One effect of that is that scenarios can't depend on the PCs having a nonstandard skill. Because then a lot of people will fail the adventure, have a bad time, write bad reviews and so forth.
So there's a feedback loop here. If a skill rarely comes up, few people take it, and then you can't use it for important stuff because not enough people have it.
Conversely, if a skill appears useful often, more people will take it to get at the benefits, until the PC population is ready for that skill to go from "useful" to "vital".
I think that Survival is a decent example; there are now quite a few adventures with Survival checks in them. Not being good at the check rarely brings the adventure to a halt, but it tends to make things harder. Because you waste time while chasing people, or you have to hurry to reach some place on time, or you get to spend more time in a Bad Place. As a result, it's a good idea to have someone with Survival in the party, and people are catching on to that.
During The Confirmation, if you can't make a Survival check, you either miss an encounter (bad) or you have to do a forced march to be on time and get fatigued.
During Destiny of the Sands you're racing against other parties seeking the same ruins. If you do poorly at Survival they get a tactical edge against you (more time to pre-buff and such).
During Elven Entanglement you traverse an evil forest. Every hour spent there exposes you to disease and poison. Failing a survival check causes you to get lost for an hour.
TL;DR - some of what the OP wants isn't gonna happen. But some of it is possible AND desirable.
|
|
I think its reasonable that Skills like Perseption or Diplomaticy are the most used skills.Consider that it isn´t to much different in Real Life. HOWEVER I think it would be a good option to increase to value of other skillchecks,so that Apprise gives the Player more Informations about things he finds or that he can determine how old somthing is. Skills like Swim or Climbe are specific to certain Situations and therefor don´t need to be used to often.However I think that Skills like Spellcraft or Appraise are Skills that could be better tied into the Game.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the issue with Perception being so strong is that authors often misuse it. This is partly by having it cover things that really shouldn't need a check to perceive, but should need some other check to recognize the significance of; and partly by hiding relevant info/loot/whatever behind Perception checks that really shouldn't even require a check at all.
You shouldn't need any check at all to see the angle the rafters are sitting at, but you should need Knowledge (engineering) to recognize that rafters shouldn't be sitting at that angle. But when authors make it a Perception check instead, Perception gets more powerful.
You shouldn't need to make a Perception check (or any check at all) to find the documents sitting plainly in the second drawer; all it should take is declaring that you look in the drawers. But when authors (or sometimes GMs) think that everything needs to involve a roll, they default to Perception, thus making it even more powerful.
If authors would stop conflating "seeing" with "recognizing" and stop being afraid of PCs getting something for "free" (that is, through roleplay rather than a check), then the power gap between Perception and other skills would shrink.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beacuse skill dcs scale by level You really cant have every skill in the game cover ed on any one character except for some pretty niche builds. This means that pfs grab bag of characters are likely to be missing some spots,so making them essential to the adventures can be kinda risky
|
|
I do believe that Jiggy hit the nail on the head with Perception often being misused in PFS scenarios. Seeing some detail and recognizing the significance of said detail are two very, very different things. I don't know if its a problem with the writers or with the editors; either way it's a pet peeve that annoys me every time I see it.
As for a hypothetical analysis of what's been done, I have some thoughts on methodology.
Factors include:
arranging by season: not only is it potentially useful to see trends/creep, the changing nature of faction missions changes the importance of having a rounded skill set. (namely, in season 5+ it isn't anymore)
combat encounters: I'd leave combat encounters out of the methodology completely, excepting for environmental considerations spelled out by the writers. That will potentially skew skills that are often build-specific like Acrobatics, Intimidate, and Fly. And analyzing the monster-identification skill frequencies is simply nothing more than analyzing the monster types presented in PFS. Easily enough done as a separate project.
X, Y, or Z checks: When an obscure skill is called out as relevant at the same time as an over-used skill, the obscure skill may as well not have been called out as being relevant.
Apples and Oranges: Sometimes a skill is paired off with a save (often reflex) or stat check as additional options to overcome the obstacle. It devalues the skill, but it's difficult to qualify categorically.
|
I think part of the issue with Perception being so strong is that authors often misuse it. This is partly by having it cover things that really shouldn't need a check to perceive, but should need some other check to recognize the significance of; and partly by hiding relevant info/loot/whatever behind Perception checks that really shouldn't even require a check at all.
You shouldn't need any check at all to see the angle the rafters are sitting at, but you should need Knowledge (engineering) to recognize that rafters shouldn't be sitting at that angle. But when authors make it a Perception check instead, Perception gets more powerful.
You shouldn't need to make a Perception check (or any check at all) to find the documents sitting plainly in the second drawer; all it should take is declaring that you look in the drawers. But when authors (or sometimes GMs) think that everything needs to involve a roll, they default to Perception, thus making it even more powerful.
If authors would stop conflating "seeing" with "recognizing" and stop being afraid of PCs getting something for "free" (that is, through roleplay rather than a check), then the power gap between Perception and other skills would shrink.
I agree with this sentiment.
But remember, Pathfinder rolled Spot, Listen, and Search into one skill. So reactive or passive skills like Spot or Listen when used like Spot and Search or Listen when used like Search all get rolled into one check, you have a situation where both passive perceiving and active percieving all work off the same skill. You are an Elf or Dwarf or Trapspotter Rogue? Fine, your passive ability to find secret doors and traps is Perception. You are actively tossing a room? Fine, your active ability to find hidden things in a room is Perception.
The same could be said for folding Speak Language and Forgery into Linguistics. Or limiting knowledge skills to the ones written in the CRB. I remember when I was freelancing for some 3PP companies during the initial OGL for 3.0, it seemed every new book was creating some new knowledge skill that was important for a particular new class, prestige class, or whatever. Steampunk? Some new skill was required. Sci-Fi? Some new skill was required. So on and so forth. It got to a point where there was a huge amount of rules glut.
The got rid of Concentration and made it a derived stat for all spell-casters. But did you know that when Psionics was a thing, that there was a different Concentration check for Psionics than there was for spellcasting? And a different spellcraft like skill for Psionics?
So the wisdom of the Pathfinder design team, was to fold a bunch of skills together, and limit everything to come to those skills.
But what it does, is for those skills where two or three from the original 3rd Edition got rolled into one another, is it makes those skills more prevalent in the game itself.
And I'd argue that Perception should be the absolutely most important skill in the game.
But Jiggy is correct. If it is overused or misused, then you it becomes too important above what was intended by the rules set.
That being said, I'm really enjoying a lot of whats happening in the Season 5 and 6 scenarios, where Perception is often used as a secondary skill to learn some information. So what the authors and John Compton are doing, is allowing a party that doesn't have Knowledge (Engineering) to still be able to figure out that the rafters shouldn't be angled in that way.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Oh, speaking of misuse of overpowered skills by authors: Diplomacy to gather information. That's supposed to involve 1d4 hours of canvassing the town. But so many scenarios let you use Diplomacy instantaneously during the mission briefing, allegedly as a gather information mechanic, but being executed like the oft-paralleled Knowledge (local). And thus, Diplomacy becomes more powerful than the Core Rulebook presents it to be.
|
|
Oh, speaking of misuse of overpowered skills by authors: Diplomacy to gather information. That's supposed to involve 1d4 hours of canvassing the town. But so many scenarios let you use Diplomacy instantaneously during the mission briefing, allegedly as a gather information mechanic, but being executed like the oft-paralleled Knowledge (local). And thus, Diplomacy becomes more powerful than the Core Rulebook presents it to be.
That may be more a function that GM's handwave the 1d4 hours of gathering info. Because frankly that is a really boring aspect of the game. Unless time matters in the scenario, that 1d4 hours really doesn't matter.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Oh, speaking of misuse of overpowered skills by authors: Diplomacy to gather information. That's supposed to involve 1d4 hours of canvassing the town. But so many scenarios let you use Diplomacy instantaneously during the mission briefing, allegedly as a gather information mechanic, but being executed like the oft-paralleled Knowledge (local). And thus, Diplomacy becomes more powerful than the Core Rulebook presents it to be.That may be more a function that GM's handwave the 1d4 hours of gathering info. Because frankly that is a really boring aspect of the game. Unless time matters in the scenario, that 1d4 hours really doesn't matter.
Yeah, that too, but I could've sworn there have been scenarios where there really wasn't even an hour to spare, yet Diplo was a baked-in option. Can't think of an example though, so I could be misremembering.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind Perception being used a whole lot, but many folks have not read the list of modifiers below, or forget to stack the modifiers and treat natural 20's in skills as something special. Yes, it's a great skill, but in a confined dungeon environment, etc, you need to sport some hefty bonuses too.
Distance to the source, object, or creature: +1/10 feet
Through a closed door: +5
Through a wall: +10/foot of thickness
Favorable conditions: –2
Unfavorable conditions: +2
Terrible conditions: +5
Creature making the check is distracted: +5
Creature making the check is asleep: +10
Creature or object is invisible: +20
That said, some scenario writers too could do with a look in the skill description once in a while.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I am completely unwilling to even discuss the notion, to split perception into search and spot again. Just try to explain to players why there are two skills for pretty much the same thing, is gets annoying rather fast.
That said, perception is good, but I really don't see a problem with it .
And while I understand your complaints (and the Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate split doesn't make a lot of sense) requiring more obscure skills really doesn't help anybody.
And why should things like appraise have such a huge effect on the adventure? How often is it really relevant, how expensive an item is?
I appreciate the fact, that some classes have more skills points that they need, but a lot of classes already suffer from a low number of skill points, and take several levels to just put a single skills point in each class skill. Oh and pet owners usually max handle animal anyway , I really could not justify it for other characters, considering how much use I got out of wild empathy on my hunter.
The sometimes obscure knowledge skills, are a bit complicated, if it is a class skill and you are an Int based character, it is quite easy to get a +10 without much investment.
Considering the random nature of PFS groups, adding to many specific checks could make it impossible to succeed for some groups.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Diplomacy: I don't let the dice roll until the roleplay resolves a natural decision point for the NPC, and only people who have been roleplaying even get to touch a die for the test or assist. Sure, some players are naturally introverted and shouldn't be barred from playing faces.. that's a consideration on a case by case basis and is always (not usually, always) obvious right up front.
This is a really bad idea.
I do not have a Charisma of 22, like some of my Charisma-based PCs do. My PC should get to use his Diplomacy skill, just like his Disable Device skill, without my ability, or lack thereof, affecting the PC.
Or do you consider, "<Insert PC name here> schmoozes that NPC trying to get <result> from him." to be RP? Or would, "<Insert PC name here> attempts to assist <primary PC name here> in schmoozing the NPC." to work for giving an assist?
|
|
Diplomacy: I don't let the dice roll until the roleplay resolves a natural decision point for the NPC, and only people who have been roleplaying even get to touch a die for the test or assist. Sure, some players are naturally introverted and shouldn't be barred from playing faces.. that's a consideration on a case by case basis and is always (not usually, always) obvious right up front.This is a really bad idea.
I do not have a Charisma of 22, like some of my Charisma-based PCs do. My PC should get to use his Diplomacy skill, just like his Disable Device skill, without my ability, or lack thereof, affecting the PC.
Or do you consider, "<Insert PC name here> schmoozes that NPC trying to get <result> from him." to be RP? Or would, "<Insert PC name here> attempts to assist <primary PC name here> in schmoozing the NPC." to work for giving an assist?
Usually I ask players who want to assist what their character is doing or saying that constitutes diplomacy. If you aren't well spoken or a great creative thinker or whatever. That's ok. I don't expect you to be super eloquent. But I do expect you to say more than, "I just wanna roll the die."
Just giving a description of what you are doing to help is enough in my book. Describe to me what you want to say or what your intent is.
But if you dont' have your character actually do anything, you don't get to assist.
|
|
Diplomacy: I don't let the dice roll until the roleplay resolves a natural decision point for the NPC, and only people who have been roleplaying even get to touch a die for the test or assist. Sure, some players are naturally introverted and shouldn't be barred from playing faces.. that's a consideration on a case by case basis and is always (not usually, always) obvious right up front.This is a really bad idea.
I do not have a Charisma of 22, like some of my Charisma-based PCs do. My PC should get to use his Diplomacy skill, just like his Disable Device skill, without my ability, or lack thereof, affecting the PC.
Or do you consider, "<Insert PC name here> schmoozes that NPC trying to get <result> from him." to be RP? Or would, "<Insert PC name here> attempts to assist <primary PC name here> in schmoozing the NPC." to work for giving an assist?
Usually I ask players who want to assist what their character is doing or saying that constitutes diplomacy. If you aren't well spoken or a great creative thinker or whatever. That's ok. I don't expect you to be super eloquent. But I do expect you to say more than, "I just wanna roll the die."
Just giving a description of what you are doing to help is enough in my book. Describe to me what you want to say or what your intent is.
But if you dont' have your character actually do anything, you don't get to assist.
So, allowable or not: "My PC does what he can to assist <Other PC> in his attempt to get <NPC> to do such-and-so."
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For Diplomacy the minimum I require is some description of the approach the PC takes.
"I'm gonna try to win his sympathy by talking about how I'm a fellow guard, just like him."
"I point out that all we're asking is for him to fetch his CO; he doesn't want to be the idiot who sent away VIPs, all he has to do is pass the buck."
If players want to really RP that out, more power to them. I enjoy that. But I'm satisfied if they just give the approach.
That includes assisting; if a PC was literally doing nothing during the encounter, not interacting in any way with the NPC, he doesn't get to Aid.
"I make sure my insignia are clearly visible, sharply salute the guard, then let Joe's character do the talking."
That would be enough for an Aid Another for me. I'm not asking for the moon here. But I do insist that players actually try to imagine the scene and think about what their character might be doing that's helping.
---
I don't think it's too much to ask from introverted people. I think being challenged (within bounds) like this is actually a good way to help them get a bit more comfortable with RPing the social bits. By not making it too hard, but not handwaving it either, you can ease into it.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I approve of Ascalaphus' determination to get the players engaged in the scene.
To kinevon: If a player said something abstract like "My PC does what he can to assist <Other PC> in his attempt to get <NPC> to do such-and-so." then I would give more details of the scene and ask questions.
"The guards look dubious at the lot of you. The one on the right actually squinches up her face as if you all reeked from the sewers you crawled through on the way here. Is there any way you could use that to help <other PC> convince them to let you through?"
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
For Diplomacy the minimum I require is some description of the approach the PC takes.
"I'm gonna try to win his sympathy by talking about how I'm a fellow guard, just like him."
"I point out that all we're asking is for him to fetch his CO; he doesn't want to be the idiot who sent away VIPs, all he has to do is pass the buck."
If players want to really RP that out, more power to them. I enjoy that. But I'm satisfied if they just give the approach.
That includes assisting; if a PC was literally doing nothing during the encounter, not interacting in any way with the NPC, he doesn't get to Aid.
"I make sure my insignia are clearly visible, sharply salute the guard, then let Joe's character do the talking."
That would be enough for an Aid Another for me. I'm not asking for the moon here. But I do insist that players actually try to imagine the scene and think about what their character might be doing that's helping.
---
I don't think it's too much to ask from introverted people. I think being challenged (within bounds) like this is actually a good way to help them get a bit more comfortable with RPing the social bits. By not making it too hard, but not handwaving it either, you can ease into it.
While the OP caused me to have some knee jerk reactions (which I thankfully kept to myself) your approach earns my full approval, you really have to motivate people to at least pay attention. And even without Diplomacy, aid anothre is a really solid option with a reasonable DC.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While many of these skill issue are not PFS specific, I would definitely say Appraise is. I am currently playing in a Skulls & Shackles Campaign and Appraise can be very valuable in it. However, in PFS, Appraise does nothing for determining how much loot you get. You get the same amount whether you correctly appraise the stuff you find or not.
|
|
@ deusvult
That's why we have GM's and not standardized computers to deliver the information. A good GM can make use of every skill check in the scenario but some specific skills such as Handle Animal might simply not be required at all.
Normally, I'd agree. But far as I know (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this) there hasn't been any "take-back" from the PFS campaign leadership on the prohibition on swapping what skills are appropriate for tests.
Once upon a time the prohibition was made to prevent GMs from allowing people who's faction mission required exactly and only skill X to use skill Y instead. So, like I said, maybe that rule is no longer in place but if not, I'm not aware of it having been struck. It WOULD indeed be nice to allow people with obscure, but arguably relevant skills to use them in PFS even if the scenario doesn't grant that consideration.
While the OP caused me to have some knee jerk reactions (which I thankfully kept to myself) your approach earns my full approval, you really have to motivate people to at least pay attention. And even without Diplomacy, aid anothre is a really solid option with a reasonable DC.
I'm glad you did, too. Although using GM techniques to manage the (perceived) problem with skill imbalances is a part of the thread, it's not really the core concept of the thread. I didn't post as good an explanation of that as Ascalaphus did with regards to Diplomacy.
Try playing a fighter and then come back and tell me how engaging it is to have the scenario depend on half a dozen skills other than diplomacy, perception, and knowledge (Local).
That sentiment, and his entire post, is reasonable. I don't agree with it, but it deserves a response because it's a fair criticism.
Look at PFS scenarios; midway through season 6 we have a sufficiently large corpus to have the writers' formula down. 5-7 encounters. Half (or more) are combat, the rest are some mix of social, puzzles, and traps. Some scenarios deviate from this rough formula, but those are few and notable exactly because they deviate.
The fighter is already relegated to 2nd class status in all encounters that are not combat, that's the way the class is designed. It's mox nix what the fighter does with skill points anyway; even if you do put them all in Perception and Diplomacy all you're doing is overkill on your aid others with those skills.
If a player builds a fighter (or other 2 skill points/level class) with Int as a dump stat, that player should expect to struggle to come up with ways to be relevant in the non-combat encounters. Specialization breeds weakness, and being specialized isn't necessarily a good thing in PFS. It's better to be jacks-of-more-than-one-trade, and that's more or less the assumption from a fluff standpoint. Pathfinder Agents are expected to be well rounded as opposed to one dimensional experts. It's also true from a meta standpoint; you know full well that you've got the possibility of playing at a table without a specialist in whatever niche, and that niche might end up being critical in the upcoming scenario. So plan your character's build accordingly.
If one wants to build a character that can crush one dimension of the game, great. Don't expect sympathy when one has little to do in the rest of the game, that's my stance. Make some non-optimized choices like multiclassing that fighter for more skills. Or buy some utility magic items to contribute in challenges without a skill check, even if they don't help in combat. Or, at the very least (and in vein of Acalaphus' excellent post) use one's real life wits and come up with some ideas making a meaningful contribution despite the handicaps one selected for the character sheet.
|
|
So, allowable or not: "My PC does what he can to assist <Other PC> in his attempt to get <NPC> to do such-and-so."Diplomacy: I don't let the dice roll until the roleplay resolves a natural decision point for the NPC, and only people who have been roleplaying even get to touch a die for the test or assist. Sure, some players are naturally introverted and shouldn't be barred from playing faces.. that's a consideration on a case by case basis and is always (not usually, always) obvious right up front.This is a really bad idea.
I do not have a Charisma of 22, like some of my Charisma-based PCs do. My PC should get to use his Diplomacy skill, just like his Disable Device skill, without my ability, or lack thereof, affecting the PC.
Or do you consider, "<Insert PC name here> schmoozes that NPC trying to get <result> from him." to be RP? Or would, "<Insert PC name here> attempts to assist <primary PC name here> in schmoozing the NPC." to work for giving an assist?
Usually I ask players who want to assist what their character is doing or saying that constitutes diplomacy. If you aren't well spoken or a great creative thinker or whatever. That's ok. I don't expect you to be super eloquent. But I do expect you to say more than, "I just wanna roll the die."
Just giving a description of what you are doing to help is enough in my book. Describe to me what you want to say or what your intent is.
But if you dont' have your character actually do anything, you don't get to assist.
No. If you are at all paying attention to the interaction with the NPC, you can come up with a germane comment or action to take.
|
|
For Diplomacy the minimum I require is some description of the approach the PC takes.
"I'm gonna try to win his sympathy by talking about how I'm a fellow guard, just like him."
"I point out that all we're asking is for him to fetch his CO; he doesn't want to be the idiot who sent away VIPs, all he has to do is pass the buck."
If players want to really RP that out, more power to them. I enjoy that. But I'm satisfied if they just give the approach.
That includes assisting; if a PC was literally doing nothing during the encounter, not interacting in any way with the NPC, he doesn't get to Aid.
"I make sure my insignia are clearly visible, sharply salute the guard, then let Joe's character do the talking."
That would be enough for an Aid Another for me. I'm not asking for the moon here. But I do insist that players actually try to imagine the scene and think about what their character might be doing that's helping.
---
I don't think it's too much to ask from introverted people. I think being challenged (within bounds) like this is actually a good way to help them get a bit more comfortable with RPing the social bits. By not making it too hard, but not handwaving it either, you can ease into it.
This is an excellent set of examples of how I like to see it.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
Beacuse skill dcs scale by level You really cant have every skill in the game cover ed on any one character except for some pretty niche builds. This means that pfs grab bag of characters are likely to be missing some spots,so making them essential to the adventures can be kinda riskyThis.
And to extend it even more: Class design forces authors' hands. Far too many classes have 2 or 4 skill points per level, meaning PCs simply cannot be competent in a broad range of skills.
Try playing a fighter and then come back and tell me how engaging it is to have the scenario depend on half a dozen skills other than diplomacy, perception, and knowledge (Local).
If you keep the set of really important skill small, the skills that you have to succeed at in order to move the scenario forward, that allows everyone to participate most of the time. If there are only going to be 3 to 5 skills that act as gatekeepers in scenarios, even a fighter, Cleric, Sorcerer or Paladin can pick a couple up as class skills from traits, choose not to dump the relevant stat, and be able to competently assist the party while staying effective at their core job as well.
If you open up all the skills to play a major role in the scenario, and use them evenly, those PCs simply won't have any place outside of combat. Even if a fighter doesn't have any stat below 10, and spends both his traits picking up class skills, if you don't provide him chances to use those skills you're punishing him and disincentivizing the player against being well rounded. What's the point, after all, when one scenario requires a DC 20 Appraise check, the next a DC 20 Handle Animal, the next a DC 20 Knowledge (Geography), the one after that a DC 20 Linguistics, and after that a DC 20 Sleight of Hand, and so forth.
There's no way to build a character who can meaningfully participate in that environment without a lot of skill points.
So, if I'm reading this right you would feel as useless as a Rogue often does in combat?
I'm currently playing a Paladin in PFS, so I understand how limited a 2 rank class can be.
That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be opportunities to use other skills. What it does mean is that there should be more than one way to solve a problem in a scenario.
Being able to make that DC20 climb check (fairly difficult -- not for a first level character) in order to get better positioning on the battlefield sounds great. If the fighter in heavy plate still can't make it up after a rope is thrown down, they made their choice.
Being able to make the survival checks for wandering through a wilderness is why taking a someone like a druid, ranger, or hunter along is a good idea. The fighter may be able to make it without the aid, but there are bound to be a few characters that could use the help.
There is a big difference between having a skill be useful in a scenario and locking the scenario when no one has the skill. The first is great, the second not so much.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
@ deusvult
That's why we have GM's and not standardized computers to deliver the information. A good GM can make use of every skill check in the scenario but some specific skills such as Handle Animal might simply not be required at all.
Normally, I'd agree. But far as I know (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this) there hasn't been any "take-back" from the PFS campaign leadership on the prohibition on swapping what skills are appropriate for tests.
Once upon a time the prohibition was made to prevent GMs from allowing people who's faction mission required exactly and only skill X to use skill Y instead. So, like I said, maybe that rule is no longer in place but if not, I'm not aware of it having been struck. It WOULD indeed be nice to allow people with obscure, but arguably relevant skills to use them in PFS even if the scenario doesn't grant that consideration.
There's some leeway here because of the "Creative Solutions" clause from the GtOP, somewhat clarified here.
|
|
I don't think the goal should be for scenario writers to make it easy for fighters to solve puzzles. The Lore Warden archetype exists for the Pathfinder Society. Should they also adjust combats so a low-strength rogue with a dagger can defeat every enemy?
Either you build generalist characters and get to participate a lot, or you build specialists and get to participate less (but are better at what you do). Both approaches can work, although to my mind, the generalist approach is a better fit to both the in-game *and* real-world situation of Pathfinder Society. You never know who you're adventuring with or where you are going, so be ready for everything.
Durvin Gest Lives!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PFS to be completely honest they should call those suited to the job. In story it's mindbogglingly stupid that venture captains keep their jobs sending 4 barbarians to a wedding to represent the society or sending 4 paladins to infiltrate a cult. In real life the VC's would have been outed for such behavior in an instant.
You see the problem, but you place the blame in the wrong place. The society doesn't want (or need) Neurosurgeons; an EMT fills the bill just fine, especially since they expect the EMT to handle other duties as well.
It's not the Society's fault that 4 agents are all carbon copies of an overspecialized build.
That goes for both OOC and IC. ICly, Agents are supposed to be well rounded generalists. OOCly, the encounters are balanced with the assumption that characters are not optimized.
You want to optimize anyway, and roflstomp the encounters? That's your kind of fun? Ok, but don't say it makes no sense when ROFLSTOMPERS get put on missions they can't handle.
And since writers are assuming a non-optimized stance for characters, making wider and better use of skills is the point of the thread.