|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are very few points in the game where you need to be playing a certain character because there's only one way of doing things. Scenarios mandating an oddball skill check are one of those ways.
I've only run into that situation once, and I'm not even sure the GM ran it correctly.I find that almost always, when the players claim "there's only one way we could do it", then either there ARE alternatives but they haven't considered them, or the GM is overlooking something :)
I agree, which is why I was skeptical about it. Thing is, we did ask about several alternatives and whether or not we could make the roll untrained. It wasn't us assuming there was only one way. That's what we were being told. We finally talked him into substituting the other skill, so we could at least play the scenario.
Anyway, to bring it back to the actual topic, I think we're seeing some of that kind of thing here. Bid for Alabastrine, to my eyes, offers several alternatives built in, several of which are very common skills that can be used untrained. It also offers ample opportunity to get bonuses on the rolls. I think a lot of the perception that some players are walking away with likely has to do with the GM misreading or misinterpreting something in a relatively new mechanic. That can be frustrating to a player (As I can attest!), so I completely understand the reaction that prompted this thread. I just think the author and developers have gone out of their way here, more than any of the Influence scenarios so far, to make sure there are plenty of different ways that you can succeed. That doesn't mean that every group will, but most characters will at least be able to contribute something to the success of the mission.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought I did it because I hate myself.You aren't wrong, but someone has to bite the bullet and run it first. :pYep! And that person is usually me! In fact, myself and another person volunteer to run the month's new scenarios for our store coordinators for just this very reason.
I am way happier GMing than playing.
|
I am way happier GMing than playing.I thought I did it because I hate myself.You aren't wrong, but someone has to bite the bullet and run it first. :pYep! And that person is usually me! In fact, myself and another person volunteer to run the month's new scenarios for our store coordinators for just this very reason.
I have something similar: people are way happier when I'm GMing than when I'm playing...
|
I thought I did it because I hate myself.You aren't wrong, but someone has to bite the bullet and run it first. :pYep! And that person is usually me! In fact, myself and another person volunteer to run the month's new scenarios for our store coordinators for just this very reason.
No, you hate yerself for stocking Hamm's in the fridge. Mmmmmm..... Hamm's.
|
|
No, you hate yerself for stocking Hamm's in the fridge. Mmmmmm..... Hamm's.Hamm's "the beer refreshing" - aaah, memories. But being in MN, couldn't you at least get Heileman's? Missing Mickey's Big Mouth.
I don't know if they brew Old Style anymore. I'll need to look.
I preferred the Schmidt Big Mouth over Mickey's.
|
The GM should *definitely* go over the Social Encounter rules ahead of time. They even have a 2 page synopsis of the rules included which can be used as a handout, since it has no spoilers for the scenario.
I can definitely understand a group being confused and upset if the GM doesn't explain the rules first, and I wouldn't blame them one bit.
I haven't run or played this, but my immediate question for those who have read the scenario is :
How clear is it that, to Run As Written, you are supposed to explicitly tell the players the new rules that they are using?
If it is not CRYSTAL clear then that is a serious problem.
As always, I'm a little nervous or unhappy with Paizo forcing us to use its most recent rules changes. Don't get me wrong, I quite like Ultimate Intrigue, but primarily for a home campaign. For PFS, I have to build my character so that it works in a whole range of scenarios. In almost all of them, if interaction even comes up at all, it is a simple check using a simple skill.
I'd be pretty unhappy if my cleric or druid, who actually have spent some valuable skill and attribute points to have a decent diplomacy couldn't actually diplomatize. They paid a cost to be versatile and then, just when it should matter, it doesn't because Paizo changes the rules (and using the Ultimate Intrigue rules IS changing the rules).
My bard probably has good enough diplomacy to pass the checks anyway. But, instead of rocking he becomes kinda competent? I can see people being upset with that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also had a rather poor time playing through this scenario. I brought my rouge who was invested in the traditional social skills and I felt rather useless due to the DCs being quite a bit higher for them vs the non Charisma skills.
However, I think the main problem was the fact that the GM basically told us at the start that we really shouldn't bother with traditional Charisma Skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, etc) as the DCs would be way to high.
I've since learned from the boards that that
and thus was easily obtainable for me. But due to my GM warning me that I was unlikely to succeed (I was told that the DC was 5 times higher than that of the specific non-charisma skill) I only bothered rolling once or twice for it, and spent most of my time failing sense motive rolls attempting to gather info on the party-goers.
There were additional problems that I encountered, (I'm pretty sure that my GM increased the DCs past what was written, as I passed a DC 17 on most of my rolls but only succeeded once) but from what I've read of other's experiences with this scenario it seems to me that alot of people get the impression that using traditional social skills is useless because the GM has told them that the DC is far higher than that of the other possible skills.
I'd advise GMs to make sure they don't give off the impression that all but one skill is much harder to use than the others, and instead try to portray it as one skill giving a slight advantage.
Edit: On a semi-related note, I was curious what you had to do mechanically to accomplish the exchange faction goal. I tried and failed despite a fairly good roll and my GM was very vague about how exactly I needed to do it mechanically. I'd really appreciate it if someone could explain it in Spoiler Tags for me.
|
|
I'd advise GMs to make sure they don't give off the impression that all but one skill is much harder to use than the others, and instead try to portray it as one skill giving a slight advantage.
This. My advice would be to present the alternate skills as finding a weakness or something that you can exploit to make things easier, which is actually how it's presented in the scenario. Don't present the traditional skills as the poor choice, except in the specific instances where that is information that you learn about the person. The traditional skills work as expected in most of the cases. In a few specific ones, they are harder, because someone doesn't respond well to threats or doesn't want to negotiate. But that is certainly not the case across the board. Even finding out about the alternate skills is finding out inside information. It's an advantage, not a necessity.
EDIT: Spoiler for The Exchange.
The Exchange faction mission was the least obvious part of the scenario to me and required a little guidance, as the one Exchange player when I ran it just wanted to try to make a Diplomacy roll. He exceeded his Influence roll by 10 and asked to Influence the person toward the Exchange, so I just interpreted that as giving him the Discovery for the Exchange goal. He actually did that for two of the participants, but only managed to impress one of them. Still enough to get the boon.
|
|
Members of the Exchange faction are likely to attempt to
gain a new ally in Druma for the Exchange. Of the NPCs
attending the gala, Cyran, Irith, and Vayde can all be
convinced to work with the Exchange. The Kalistocrats
are all experienced negotiators, and they deftly change
the subject if an Exchange PC attempts to persuade them
to form an alliance too quickly.
An Exchange PC must succeed at each of the following
objectives to earn the opportunity to gain one of these
NPCs as an ally. First, the PC must succeed at a standard
influence check to convince the NPC to contribute more
to the bidding for one of the districts. Additionally,
the PC must gain information about that NPC’s trade
interests with a discovery check. When an Exchange PC
attempts a discovery check, offer her the opportunity to
ask about trade interests instead of the other standard
options. Finally, the PC must conduct herself well at that
NPC’s event by succeeding at the skill check to impress
the host. If the PC achieves all three of these objectives,
she can attempt a special influence check that doesn’t
take the entire event to convince the NPC to form a trade
partnership with the Exchange.
Once the Exchange PCs succeed at making one ally
for their faction, they cannot gain another during the
auction—the other NPCs at the auction hear about the
alliance that the PCs have already formed. In general,
they are not interested in working with an organization
that sees them as a second choice.
This does require some hand-holding on the part of the GM, as it's not very obvious to the PCs how it works mechanically.
|
|
Absolutely concur with Jon. Walked in not knowing who I was going to play, went with my cavalier. Had a freaking blast navigating the political dynamics with my 8 Wis wayang.Agree with Jon and TOZ. I think almost universally you should play a scenario before you GM it.
So how would the scenario ever get ran the first time?
Seriously though, I some areas it is impossible to play before you run.
|
|
It was presented to us that using off-topic skills would be exceptionally difficult, and towards the end with a screaming migraine I got a bit flustered and cranky because I couldn't roll *anything specifically appropriate* and everything I had *worth rolling* was rolling in single digits.
Add into this mess that we'd managed to eliminate one of the bidders so suddenly we were 'behind' on influence and trying to coerce individuals to go for areas they really didn't want to go for wasn't an easy thing.
It came down to the Exchange members of the party
Despite all of the above, the GM did, to his credit, note that if we could role-play or demonstrate why an off-skill might work, he'd consider it as an option, but gave us a cautionary tale of someone who relied too much on an 'off-skill' to the point it became a detriment.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
This does require some hand-holding on the part of the GM, as it's not very obvious to the PCs how it works mechanically.
Wow. This is a definite contender for most complicated faction goal. There's absolutely no way anyones going to earn this without explicit instructions on how.
Edit: Wei Ji, your experience sounds shockingly similar to my own with this scenario. The only difference I can see is that my GM was absolutely set against any creative solutions not explicitly defined in the scenario.
For example:
|
|
Wow. This is a definite contender for most complicated faction goal. There's absolutely no way anyones going to earn this without explicit instructions on how.** spoiler omitted **
This does require some hand-holding on the part of the GM, as it's not very obvious to the PCs how it works mechanically.
Some thoughts on how it can play out, but the Exchange members need to start early.
Al'Hakam can let them know that they might have to work on someone, so to start early in the process.
The first event is Passad, and it should be clear to the Exchange members that he's not going to be swayed to their cause (I think the mission actually tells them to find someone else). Assuming the Exchange member talks to one of the people who can be influenced to partner with the Exchange, their first attempt to ask can be met with a clue as to the next step. Cyran: "I have no interest in partnerships on the Prime Material Plane, but... I'm planning a little surprise at my event tomorrow. If you can impress me... prove that your organization is competent... maybe I'll listen further." Hopefully that clues them in to try to impress him when the opportunity comes around. Assuming they succeed at that, Cyran: "Well done. Your understanding of constructing a proper contract is better than I expected. But what does this Exchange have to offer me? As you can see, my interests are far from Golarion. Find something that I want, and we'll talk again." Hopefully that prompts the Discovery check, or, like happened when I ran it, if they succeed on their Influence by enough to also get a Discovery, you can have them get it out of him in the conversation. My player actually mentioned adventuring and trading in the Worldwound, so that was an opportunity to bring up his interest in the Sky Metals. Once the Discovery is made, give them an opportunity to close the deal with their final Influence check.
One of the things that I like so much about this scenario is that there's the potential to weave things like the Exchange faction mission into the rest of the process. It does require a bit more work than "Here's the guy you need to talk to. Make a DC 15+level Diplomacy check." But it can be a lot of fun.
|
|
It does require a bit more work than "Here's the guy you need to talk to. Make a DC 15+level Diplomacy check." But it can be a lot of fun.
Honestly, I would've preferred that to the complete lack of guidance that I was given. The impression the GM gave me was that I just needed a single check and that I simply didn't roll high enough.
|
Wow. This is a definite contender for most complicated faction goal. There's absolutely no way anyones going to earn this without explicit instructions on how..** spoiler omitted **
This does require some hand-holding on the part of the GM, as it's not very obvious to the PCs how it works mechanically.
Now, I *did* give my Exchange character explicit instructions on how to approach the faction mission, but it's actually doable with a cagier GM, as long as they don't ignore the two times the scenario explicitly instructs the GM to tell the Exchange player what is going on.
Succeeding at an initial influence check is your main mission, so that's nothing special. Impressing them at their own party is a roll that happens for each NPC whether you want it to or not.
Once you meet those conditions, the final roll reflects the actual negotiations which do not need to be initiated by the player. Even without the GM spelling it out, it should be clear that that roll is for your faction mission.
So it's not quite as contrived or hard to meet as it might appear at first glance. *But* like everything else in this scenario it would be very easy for an underprepared GM to miss some of those details.
This is a great scenario...as long as the GM has full prep time. Running it cold would be abysmal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a semi-tangent, but a few people are complaining about what happened when they brought characters with no Knowledge skill investment to the game and I have to wonder why anyone has a PFS character with no ranks in any Knowledge.
I think most people invest skill points in knowledge for their character at some point, but not everyone has the skill ranks to spare to pick up a knowledge at level 1 or 2.
PFS is a campaign centered on an organization of Indiana Joneses.
What if your character is an early Indiana Jones who hasn't had the experience to have knowledge skills, but is looking to see the world and learn? That's certainly a character concept that fits into your view of the PFS setting and wouldn't necessarily have ranks in knowledge at level 1 or 2.
|
|
This is a semi-tangent, but a few people are complaining about what happened when they brought characters with no Knowledge skill investment to the game and I have to wonder why anyone has a PFS character with no ranks in any Knowledge. When you build a character, you build it for the campaign you are playing (you wouldn't build a Ranger with favored enemies Drow, Duergar, and Wayang for the Giantslayer AP, a Paladin for Hell's Vengeance's villainous campaign, or a desert-focused character for Skull & Shackles). PFS is a campaign centered on an organization of Indiana Joneses. That doesn't mean all of our characters must be bards, but every character should have some form of Knowledge-based expertise. If you don't have many skill ranks available to you, pick one Knowledge skill for your character to specialize in. I have a Barbarian with max ranks in K(Arcana) even though I never made it a class skill through traits or multiclassing, because I chose that to be his Knowledge specialty for character reasons (and only a single rank dropped into Nature). I also have a 7 Int fighter with a number of ranks in K(Dungeoneering) equal to about half his level (and none in Engineering, his other Knowledge class skill), because every character needs a Knowledge skill decently invested in.
That is certainly a valid way to build characters but not the only way. I tend to have characters with a few scattered points (sometimes into a couple of knowledges, sometimes not), and a focused role for their skills - a face (sense motive, diplomacy, and often bluff with other scattered skills), radar unit (perception and survival), know-it-all (knowledges all over the place). Is it the right way to build characters? For me it is, is it the only right way no not at all.
Edit: So I went through all my 16 characters, I have 1 character (level 10) with no knowledges, the majority have 2 or fewer knowledges, and my highest currently has 6 knowledges, but only 1 has a better than +10 modifier (and he's a seeker). In the 1-5, I have 5 characters, (-7 level 4 has Arcana +11 & Nature +9, -10 level 3 Nature +8, -12 level 3 Local +9, Planes + 7, -13 level 3 Dungeoneering +5, -14 Nobility +2)
|
|
This is a semi-tangent, but a few people are complaining about what happened when they brought characters with no Knowledge skill investment to the game and I have to wonder why anyone has a PFS character with no ranks in any Knowledge. When you build a character, you build it for the campaign you are playing (you wouldn't build a Ranger with favored enemies Drow, Duergar, and Wayang for the Giantslayer AP, a Paladin for Hell's Vengeance's villainous campaign, or a desert-focused character for Skull & Shackles). PFS is a campaign centered on an organization of Indiana Joneses. That doesn't mean all of our characters must be bards, but every character should have some form of Knowledge-based expertise. If you don't have many skill ranks available to you, pick one Knowledge skill for your character to specialize in. I have a Barbarian with max ranks in K(Arcana) even though I never made it a class skill through traits or multiclassing, because I chose that to be his Knowledge specialty for character reasons (and only a single rank dropped into Nature). I also have a 7 Int fighter with a number of ranks in K(Dungeoneering) equal to about half his level (and none in Engineering, his other Knowledge class skill), because every character needs a Knowledge skill decently invested in.
Under normal circumstances dealing with *normal people*
Thank goodness we had someone with
|
|
The GM should *definitely* go over the Social Encounter rules ahead of time. They even have a 2 page synopsis of the rules included which can be used as a handout, since it has no spoilers for the scenario.
I can definitely understand a group being confused and upset if the GM doesn't explain the rules first, and I wouldn't blame them one bit.
I haven't run or played this, but my immediate question for those who have read the scenario is :
How clear is it that, to Run As Written, you are supposed to explicitly tell the players the new rules that they are using?
If it is not CRYSTAL clear then that is a serious problem.
Are the GM's supposed to go over the mechanics with the players? Does it say that in the scenario? I haven't read or GMed this one, so I don't know.
But I can think of at least one other season 7 scenario I've GMed twice, where there's a specific mechanic for PC's to use their skills beyond just a single check, and I've intentionally hidden that mechanic from the players when I GMed the adventure. Instead of telling them, "You need to make this many skill checks at each step of this specific process", I've just let them improvise whatever they wanted to say or do, and told them to roll a skill check when it seemed appropriate. That meant more improvisation for me, to fit their random and weird actions into the specific process laid out by the scenario, but it made the whole thing seamless for the players.
In case anyone's wondering what I'm talking about:
In the bar scene, the PC's are supposed to do three phrases of a plan: 1. Plan it, 2. Do it, 3. Deal with complications. At each step, the DC for skill checks goes up, and at least 3 party members need to succeed at a skill check for each step (2 if there are only 4 PC's).
I never told them that. They tried to gather some information (both socially, and through perception), and that counts as planning. If they talked to the bartender early, then it counted as planning. If they did it later in the process, that might be part of actually doing their plan. It depended on what they were trying.
Again, it made the process seamless to the PC's, who didn't have to know or care what the scenario's oddball mechanic was, but it meant more work for me as a GM, to improvise the whole thing as we played.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a semi-tangent, but a few people are complaining about what happened when they brought characters with no Knowledge skill investment to the game and I have to wonder why anyone has a PFS character with no ranks in any Knowledge. When you build a character, you build it for the campaign you are playing (you wouldn't build a Ranger with favored enemies Drow, Duergar, and Wayang for the Giantslayer AP, a Paladin for Hell's Vengeance's villainous campaign, or a desert-focused character for Skull & Shackles). PFS is a campaign centered on an organization of Indiana Joneses. That doesn't mean all of our characters must be bards, but every character should have some form of Knowledge-based expertise. If you don't have many skill ranks available to you, pick one Knowledge skill for your character to specialize in. I have a Barbarian with max ranks in K(Arcana) even though I never made it a class skill through traits or multiclassing, because I chose that to be his Knowledge specialty for character reasons (and only a single rank dropped into Nature). I also have a 7 Int fighter with a number of ranks in K(Dungeoneering) equal to about half his level (and none in Engineering, his other Knowledge class skill), because every character needs a Knowledge skill decently invested in.That is certainly a valid way to build characters but not the only way. I tend to have characters with a few scattered points (sometimes into a couple of knowledges, sometimes not), and a focused role for their skills - a face (sense motive, diplomacy, and often bluff with other scattered skills), radar unit (perception and survival), know-it-all (knowledges all over the place). Is it the right way to build characters? For me it is, is it the only right way no not at all.
I agree, that there isn't only one way to build a character.
However, when you play a Pirate Campaign (like Skulls and Shackles) and you don't take any skills that actually let you be good on a ship, there are going to be encounters and situations you find yourself in where you are going to be next to useless.
Pathfinder Society is about being a scholar, adventurer, and explorer. Akin to The Librarian or Indiana Jones. And while there isn't only one way to make a character good at that sort of role, its kinda disingenuous to say that its not fair to shortchange certain builds when those builds aren't built to be even remotely viable for that sort of role.
All that being said, some classes are going to have a more difficult time than others at being a versatile character.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
But I can think of at least one other season 7 scenario I've GMed twice, where there's a specific mechanic for PC's to use their skills beyond just a single check, and I've intentionally hidden that mechanic from the players when I GMed the adventure. Instead of telling them, "You need to make this many skill checks at each step of this specific process", I've just let them improvise whatever they wanted to say or do, and told them to roll a skill check when it seemed appropriate.
I completely agree that this is the right way to do it.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing in the adventure that got on my nerves that you get asked to make a lot of trained-only skill checks. None of them are vital to completing the mission, they tend to earn you bonuses. But it's not that easy as a player without Ultimate Intrigue in hard to know that. You just get beat over the head again and again with checks you can't make. It kind of puts you in a mood.
As for the complaints about Diplomacy: the main goal of the adventure is, basically, persuading people to do something. Which is exactly what Diplomacy is for. The blurb for the adventure basically tells you to bring a character with Diplomacy. But in no case anywhere in the entire adventure is Diplomacy the best skill to use. So if people are feeling a bit cheated, I don't think they're wrong.
|
|
Just a general commentary, I can't imagine not putting ranks into sense motive. It's the second most important skill in the game behind perception. You can cover poor ranks in diplomacy or intimate with circumstance bonuses for good role play. There is no such bonus for a lack of sense motive, and knowing when you're being told a deception is vital.
|
|
Are the GM's supposed to go over the mechanics with the players? Does it say that in the scenario? I haven't read or GMed this one, so I don't know. .
The GM should *definitely* go over the Social Encounter rules ahead of time. They even have a 2 page synopsis of the rules included which can be used as a handout, since it has no spoilers for the scenario.
I can definitely understand a group being confused and upset if the GM doesn't explain the rules first, and I wouldn't blame them one bit.
I haven't run or played this, but my immediate question for those who have read the scenario is :
How clear is it that, to Run As Written, you are supposed to explicitly tell the players the new rules that they are using?
If it is not CRYSTAL clear then that is a serious problem.
The Social Encounter is broken up into rounds, much like a combat. In each round, you are allowed to take a defined number of certain types of actions, just like in combat. The players have to understand the rules well enough to actually make the decisions.
If the players are unfamiliar with the rules, the GM has to explain the structure in much the same way that in combat you would have to explain rolling for initiative, knowledge checks to identify monsters, and standard actions vs move actions vs swift actions.
|
|
Just a general commentary, I can't imagine not putting ranks into sense motive. It's the second most important skill in the game behind perception. You can cover poor ranks in diplomacy or intimate with circumstance bonuses for good role play. There is no such bonus for a lack of sense motive, and knowing when you're being told a deception is vital.
Skill point deficit is an issue.
|
|
Just a general commentary, I can't imagine not putting ranks into sense motive. It's the second most important skill in the game behind perception. You can cover poor ranks in diplomacy or intimate with circumstance bonuses for good role play. There is no such bonus for a lack of sense motive, and knowing when you're being told a deception is vital.Skill point deficit is an issue.
Even if you are playing a class with 2 skill ranks per level, you can usually afford a 12 int and a FCB, giving you 4 ranks per level, or 5 if human. That's enough to let you keep perception and sense motive up, and have a a few skills traded or one of two more maxed.
There is only a skill point deficit if you allow there to be one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a general commentary, I can't imagine not putting ranks into sense motive. It's the second most important skill in the game behind perception. You can cover poor ranks in diplomacy or intimate with circumstance bonuses for good role play. There is no such bonus for a lack of sense motive, and knowing when you're being told a deception is vital.Skill point deficit is an issue.Even if you are playing a class with 2 skill ranks per level, you can usually afford a 12 int and a FCB, giving you 4 ranks per level, or 5 if human. That's enough to let you keep perception and sense motive up, and have a a few skills traded or one of two more maxed.
There is only a skill point deficit if you allow there to be one.
I'm trying to remember times in PFS where sense motive mattered and its coming in under knowledge nature.
|
|
I'm trying to remember times in PFS where sense motive mattered and its coming in under knowledge nature.Just a general commentary, I can't imagine not putting ranks into sense motive. It's the second most important skill in the game behind perception. You can cover poor ranks in diplomacy or intimate with circumstance bonuses for good role play. There is no such bonus for a lack of sense motive, and knowing when you're being told a deception is vital.Skill point deficit is an issue.Even if you are playing a class with 2 skill ranks per level, you can usually afford a 12 int and a FCB, giving you 4 ranks per level, or 5 if human. That's enough to let you keep perception and sense motive up, and have a a few skills traded or one of two more maxed.
There is only a skill point deficit if you allow there to be one.
I remember it being useful in several scenarios.
|
|
Every Influence scenario uses Sense Motive. But it's not usually a skill I put much into unless the character has a reason to.
My Monk, for example, only has 3 skill points/level, but he's a Snake Fang user, so I've maxed Perception and Sense Motive, and I've split the other point with it mostly in Acrobatics, but a couple of points in Intimidate and Linguistics (for the languages, though occasionally I get to aid another). EDIT: He might have a point in Know: Nobility or History or whatever it is Monks get as a class skill. I think for a total of a +3 bonus at 11th level.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if you are playing a class with 2 skill ranks per level,you can usually afford a 12 int and a FCB, giving you 4 ranks per level,or 5 if human.That's enough to let you keep perception and sense motive up, and have a a few skills traded or one of two more maxed.There is only a skill point deficit if you allow there to be one.
For races that are not human, that's one down.
For 12 int, that could better be put to 12 Wis to prevent totally being a push-over for mind-affecting, even for martials, correct?
FCB: Usually has to go to HP because of high potential lethality, especially at lower levels.
There's no 'allow' to this.
2 skill points is a joke.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder Society is about being a scholar, adventurer, and explorer. Akin to The Librarian or Indiana Jones. And while there isn't only one way to make a character good at that sort of role, its kinda disingenuous to say that its not fair to shortchange certain builds when those builds aren't built to be even remotely viable for that sort of role.
Adventurer and explorer I'll grant you. But scholar? Not really.
In the vast majority of published PFS adventures knowledge skills are used to get interesting but fundamentally unimportant background information and to identify monster powers.
Now, I build lots of characters with lots of knowledge skills but I refuse to say people who don't are being bad pathfinders.
And the rules mean that a small investment in knowledge skills is a poor choice for most characters. The DCs scale rapidly and most characters can afford to stay relevant in only 1 or 2.
|
|
I made it clear that I knew failing would have serious repercussions as it would be considered an insult to the host to not eat it.
That's not true, though.
There are absolutely NO repercussions for failing. You get a small bonus against the host on future checks for passing. If you fail, there is no downside.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is only a skill point deficit if you allow there to be one.
This is not at all right.
I LOVE playing skill monkeys. But there is a significant cost to doing so. With anything approximating equal optimization my skill monkey will be less powerful in combat than a comparable less skilled character would be.
Now, that is a tradeoff I am willing to make. But its not one that characters should be EXPECTED to make.
And some of those skill monkeys have next to no knowledge skills. Partly, ironically, because I wanted to focus on skills to allow me to participate in social interaction scenes
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I made it clear that I knew failing would have serious repercussions as it would be considered an insult to the host to not eat it.That's not true, though.
** spoiler omitted **
Really? The GM I had gave everyone who failed the fortitude save
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Skills deficits
I wrote this in a previous thread:
"I agree that Pathfinders should be skillful characters. Unfortunately, a lot of the classes just don't have enough base skill points. 2 + Int, 4 + Int just don't cut it, often times. Hell, some times I struggle to get all the skills I feel like I'll need for a character with 6 + int skills.
"And with the random nature of parties in PFS, assuming the skills will all be covered is foolish.
"If you want skillful pathfinders, the classes (especially the skills lite classes) need more base skill points, imo."
Just seems like there may be a disconnect between the people deciding the baseline expectations of PFS characters and the game designers who decide base skill points.
|
|
There is only a skill point deficit if you allow there to be one.
This is not at all right.
I LOVE playing skill monkeys. But there is a significant cost to doing so. With anything approximating equal optimization my skill monkey will be less powerful in combat than a comparable less skilled character would be.
Now, that is a tradeoff I am willing to make. But its not one that characters should be EXPECTED to make.
And some of those skill monkeys have next to no knowledge skills. Partly, ironically, because I wanted to focus on skills to allow me to participate in social interaction scenes
Its the difference between a 18 and a 20 prime stat post racial modifier. The average PFS combat difficulty is low enough that one extra ability modifier is a minimal drop in effectiveness in combat, but a very noticeable increase out of combat.
Hell, I played a dwarf STR monk with a 16 STR starting and did very good DPR, but the 12 int allowed me to save the party with maxed perception and sense motive checks, while also able to handle traps/locks/computer consoles thanks to disable device, with acrobatics, and a few knowledge and profession ranks rounding things out.
Yes I would have done slightly more damage if I dumped int and had an 18 STR. But over the life of the character I would have been less useful to successful scenarios.
|
|
Its the difference between a 18 and a 20 prime stat post racial modifier. The average PFS combat difficulty is low enough that one extra ability modifier is a minimal drop in effectiveness in combat, but a very noticeable increase out of combat.Hell, I played a dwarf STR monk with a 16 STR starting and did very good DPR, but the 12 int allowed me to save the party with maxed perception and sense motive checks, while also able to handle traps/locks/computer consoles thanks to disable device, with acrobatics, and a few knowledge and profession ranks rounding things out.
Yes I would have done slightly more damage if I dumped int and had an 18 STR. But over the life of the character I would have been less useful to successful scenarios.
It's very rare for me to have characters in the high teens or low 20s with skills, because I try to cover all the bases and fail at one aspect or another.
Int is usually an early victim, as is Charisma depending on circumstances, followed by Wisdom.
Typically the highest score I have post-bonus in any given is 16...
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Even if you are playing a class with 2 skill ranks per level,you can usually afford a 12 int and a FCB, giving you 4 ranks per level,or 5 if human.That's enough to let you keep perception and sense motive up, and have a a few skills traded or one of two more maxed.There is only a skill point deficit if you allow there to be one.
For races that are not human, that's one down.
For 12 int, that could better be put to 12 Wis to prevent totally being a push-over for mind-affecting, even for martials, correct?
FCB: Usually has to go to HP because of high potential lethality, especially at lower levels.
There's no 'allow' to this.
2 skill points is a joke.
At low levels if you get hit with something high lethality you are going to die unless you are one of threeish classes (???). Its really more of panacea than anything. Also, that one extra will save is really going to edge those odds in your favor.....
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I played and ran this recently, if you go into this with a couple of very specialized characters, even if they all heavily focus on diplomacy, the scenario, you can absolutely complete the scenario with two pp.
If you go in with a mixed group of pathfinders (ok the 1 skill point per level character with maxed perception might still have a bad time) chances are very good that most players will be able to contribute something.
The ultimate intrigue rules are pretty good to get the whole group involved, not just give the guy with the social character the spotlight for half an hour.
(That said, a couple of stories I have read so far seem to indicated, that GMs didn't explain it properly/made some mistakes. It can happen, it took me quite a long time to prep.)
|
|
I recently played this and had no trouble with my cavalier that had just knowledge religion and a little bit of diplomacy.
If you say, 'social paladin' I take it you mean one with Diplomacy.
Diplomacy is perfectly usable in this scenario. The checks are just a little bit harder then the profession or knowledge checks.
We were told by our GM that the penalty for using Diplomacy was severe, not the exact number mind you but when I managed to hit a 30 Diplomacy with a few assists and just barely made the check, that's ridiculous.