|
John, my only concern is the one raised by Finlanderboy: the fact that in some situations this would effectively double the risk of a PC contracting a negative boon (AKA a bane, to borrow a PACG term) if both the CFE and PC are exposed to a save-based effect.
Otherwise I think that this is a great solution.
On the other side, I never hear anyone complain about doubling their chances on killing a ghast,* or discovering the trigger to poisoned darts, or effectively lining up enemies for a fireball. I never even hear anyone complain of doubling their chances to get hit by a ghast, poisoned darts, or a fireball. In short, we have two characters/entities at the table. why is this specific (potential) risk/reward worse than any others?
*
|
John, my only concern is the one raised by Finlanderboy: the fact that in some situations this would effectively double the risk of a PC contracting a negative boon (AKA a bane, to borrow a PACG term) if both the CFE and PC are exposed to a save-based effect.
Otherwise I think that this is a great solution.
On the other side, I never hear anyone complain about doubling their chances on killing a ghast,* or discovering the trigger to poisoned darts, or effectively lining up enemies for a fireball. I never even hear anyone complain of doubling their chances to get hit by a ghast, poisoned darts, or a fireball. In short, we have two characters/entities at the table. why is this specific (potential) risk/reward worse than any others?
*
My eidolon, Smoke, is never likely to be in the same area as me... Normally I like to have her scouting far away... Often while the rest of us aren't even in the dungeon. If she gets seen, I just dismiss her, if not, she scouts out the area. And disarms any traps encountered... If everything works right, the rest of the party (and the bad guys) may not ever see her.
|
|
John, my only concern is the one raised by Finlanderboy: the fact that in some situations this would effectively double the risk of a PC contracting a negative boon (AKA a bane, to borrow a PACG term) if both the CFE and PC are exposed to a save-based effect.
Otherwise I think that this is a great solution.
On the other side, I never hear anyone complain about doubling their chances on killing a ghast,* or discovering the trigger to poisoned darts, or effectively lining up enemies for a fireball. I never even hear anyone complain of doubling their chances to get hit by a ghast, poisoned darts, or a fireball. In short, we have two characters/entities at the table. why is this specific (potential) risk/reward worse than any others?
*
I think players need to understand the social contract when they sit down to play with other people they are sharing the game. Having a summoner with an extra character does not mean you break that social contract and get twice the attention.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought that was every PC.Other players have even asked that I run him into traps because I could "always get another one." (This is an idea that I can't even fathom. You don't do that to your buddy.)Every GM knows that all CFEs are just soulless entities ripe for the reaping.
No, just everything not run by the GM. Or was that supposed to be everything run by the GM?
|
No, just everything not run by the GM. Or was that supposed to be everything run by the GM?I thought that was every PC.Other players have even asked that I run him into traps because I could "always get another one." (This is an idea that I can't even fathom. You don't do that to your buddy.)Every GM knows that all CFEs are just soulless entities ripe for the reaping.
Both.
|
|
I thought that was every PC.Other players have even asked that I run him into traps because I could "always get another one." (This is an idea that I can't even fathom. You don't do that to your buddy.)Every GM knows that all CFEs are just soulless entities ripe for the reaping.
Grasshopper, you have learned well.
|
|
The way I'm reading this, my gut intuition (that might need to be encoded if it isn't already) is that if a character gets an effect from their CFE, it only has bearing if they don't have one? ie, no 'doubling down' on negative or positive boons?
That's the balancer to keep folks from playing 'Pet Minesweeper Brigade', but at the same time incorporate the element of risk/fairness to the rest of a given table that *doesn't* have Pet Minesweepers?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it seems we need something else. After discussing the options in-house, we're strongly considering what I'll call the Player Character Responsibility solution: A PC can acquire a boon (negative or otherwise) through the actions of his CFE. If the effect would have an in-game effect that triggers before the end of the adventure, the creature that triggered it still experiences that effect until the end of the scenario, at which point the PC gains the boon (and the CFE is no longer affected).
Consider the following hypothetical examples that involve a CFE and a situation that grants a boon on the Chronicle sheet.
A demon offers the PCs hamburgers made out of angels, and eating one pushes one's alignment one step closer to evil. Only the druid's boar animal companion eats one. The boar becomes neutral evil for the rest of the scenario. At the end of the adventure, the druid gains the associated boon that says, "You ate an angelburger, and you're now evil"—unless of course the druid received an atonement to undo the damage.
A doorway has a curse that afflicts whoever walks through first. It's a really amusing curse, and I've decided that it should be on a Chronicle sheet as something a PC might have for a while. The summoner's eidolon walks through first, fails its saving throw, and suffers the curse for the rest of the adventure. At the end of the adventure, the curse transfers to the summoner.
A scenario offers a boon to whoever can succeed at a DC 25 Climb check and recover a gem. A wizard sends his monkey familiar to do it for him. There's no benefit during the scenario, but the wizard would receive the Chronicle sheet boon instead of his familiar.This route does introduce some minor narrative hiccups, but it also prevents the use of animal companions as minesweepers and eidolon as cole mine canaries.
To address the "double the risk" issue, please consider applying PCR only when the CFE experiences something the PC does not.
If the boar and druid both eat angelburgers, then the druid's alignment only shifts once.
If the wizard already attempted and failed the climb check, then the familiar's subsequent success would not grant the boon.
If a summoner and eidolon save vs. the same effect, only the summoner's result counts past the end of the scenario.
-----
This would address the minesweeper issue without overly penalizing the PC.
|
This is not a final ruling. I'll leave this up until about Tuesday of next week so that folks can get back from any weekend travel, comment, raise concerns, voice support, or the like. If we don't see any alternate proposals or revisions that we want to incorporate, we'll go forward with the "Player Character Responsibility" model above.
Was this ever finalized?
Since they don't get positive boons I don't see why they would get most negative boons.
Because chronicles are built in execeptions to general rules.