|
Seeing as how people call social characters with a +10 at tier 4-5, I wonder how my +21 diplomacy druid at level 5 can be called ...Over-achiever? I'm not even sure how you get that high a bonus at that level.
Peeking at their character they're a green faith initiate
Diplomacy +19
(5 rank, +3 charisma, +3 class skill, +1 trait, +2 racial (silver tongued- replaces skilled) , +2 class bonus, +3 competence (i assume thats a circlet of persuision, amazing item in PFS) (+2 favored class to change someone's attitude)
It's annoying when class features to change attitude get rendered obsolete by certain mechanics.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is getting dangerously close to reminding me of the stories/arguments/fights over Season 4 difficulty that every single VC yelled at me for saying I was wrong got me to quit back then. Interesting where posts from those same VCs stand now.
I see what you mean.
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because they're poorly built characters?
Which is the #1 reason I think there's something wrong with this scenario too. As written, there isn't a reasonable chance for a group of iconics to succeed in the success conditions. You know why?
They are the example characters that people see. I've seen quite a few people copy portions of the Iconics as they build their first characters.
Additionally, at conventions it is common for people to use one of the pre-generated characters.
I have not read the scenario. I have not even read the information in spoilers about the DCs required. Perhaps someone who has can figure out which Iconics have a good chance at success.
I would expect Quinn (for his ability with knowledge checks) and Lem (Bard), Seelah (Paladin), Meligaster (Mesmerist) or Estra (Spiritualist) to be good choices based on what has been said.
If a team of Iconics do not have a reasonable chance of getting 1 PP out of the scenario, it is probably too difficult.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because they're poorly built characters?
Which is the #1 reason I think there's something wrong with this scenario too. As written, there isn't a reasonable chance for a group of iconics to succeed in the success conditions. You know why?
They are the example characters that people see. I've seen quite a few people copy portions of the Iconics as they build their first characters.
Additionally, at conventions it is common for people to use one of the pre-generated characters.
I have not read the scenario. I have not even read the information in spoilers about the DCs required. Perhaps someone who has can figure out which Iconics have a good chance at success.
I would expect Quinn (for his ability with knowledge checks) and Lem (Bard), Seelah (Paladin), Meligaster (Mesmerist) or Estra (Spiritualist) to be good choices based on what has been said.
If a team of Iconics do not have a reasonable chance of getting 1 PP out of the scenario, it is probably too difficult.
If you have to hand pick the characters because you are metagaming, well then cheating to win is not ideal either.
We did hit DC 20 and fail at diplomacy, we did hit DC 30 and told we barely succeeded.
So according to the module text that should have not only succeeded but also given you extra info. By making it "barely" succeed, it seems the GM was not following the module text, which is against the PFS rules. Here is the relevant rule text from page 35 of the season 7 PFS guide:
If an encounter is a trap, haunt, or skill check that needs to be achieved to bypass a situation then the listed DCs and results are not to be altered
So that's that. Now let's see what else you've written about the game...
We did ask about taking 10 at one point and were told that we couldn't
Hmm. I assume you asked the GM in relation to the topic at hand, otherwise it's not relevant. So assuming that you asked to take 10 in regards to these particular skill checks, it appears your GM both did and did not follow the rules. The normal Pathfinder rules have this:
Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10.
Since nothing was distracting you from the social event, and nothing was in combat with you, taking 10 should be allowed. That's the rules. However... there is this additional ruling by the Paizo Design Team, on the forums:
The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies
Of course, in the comments that follow that ruling, it was hailed as possibly the worst ruling that the Paizo team has ever made. However, as it stands, this ruling is valid, and effectively allows PFS GMs to have a rules-legal way to screw over a PFS team via table variation. It appears that your GM decided to do this.
Because PFS subscribes to the official rulings of the design team, it means your game cannot be appealed. Your team failed because of an obscure ruling that is sanctioned by PFS.
My conclusion in this case is that it isn't the module's fault. It is the GM's fault, but also PFS management is complicit in the problem. They allowed this loop-hole with skills to stand, so they've allowed this kind of GM discretion into the game. So they got the outcome that one might expect. And painfully, we should all expect to see this outcome again and again. It's part of Society play.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone, let's take a deep breath and relax a bit. We're all here for the same reason - we want to share our love of PFS and find a way to make it the best experience it can be. We're getting bogged down in a you said x/no I didn't situation, and that's not a constructive line of discussion. Please, let's move on to something more productive.
Some people did not enjoy this scenario for various reasons, and have provided feedback on why they didn't like it. Some have even provided suggestions on what might improve their experience in the future, such as additional information in the scenario blurb, rules handouts, or additional GM guidance. These are all good suggestions, and I'm fairly confident this feedback has been heard and will be taken into account in future scenarios of this type.
Bearing this in mind, let's move the discussion into a different area. If you didn't enjoy the scenario overall, was their anything that you did like? A favorite NPC? A cool set piece? (spoiler tags, please)
And on the flip side, if you did enjoy the scenario, did you see anywhere that things might be improved? (ditto on tags, please)
Thanks for reading.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Because they're poorly built characters?
Which is the #1 reason I think there's something wrong with this scenario too. As written, there isn't a reasonable chance for a group of iconics to succeed in the success conditions. You know why?
They are the example characters that people see. I've seen quite a few people copy portions of the Iconics as they build their first characters.
That was more of a response of trying to pass off the core iconics as being competent at their job which not all of them of them are. Some of them run into the issue of being cooler to look at picture wise than mechanically sound. Later iconics don't run into that issue as much though still kind of weird and weaker in how you can build them. Also, you forgot the Medium on your list of iconic good at social activities and knowledge skills.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
That was more of a response of trying to pass off the core iconics as being competent at their job which not all of them of them are. Some of them run into the issue of being cooler to look at picture wise than mechanically sound. Later iconics don't run into that issue as much though still kind of weird and weaker in how you can build them. Also, you forgot the Medium on your list of iconic good at social activities and knowledge skills.Because they're poorly built characters?
Which is the #1 reason I think there's something wrong with this scenario too. As written, there isn't a reasonable chance for a group of iconics to succeed in the success conditions. You know why?
They are the example characters that people see. I've seen quite a few people copy portions of the Iconics as they build their first characters.
Some of them are certainly less powerful than others. Harsk has been updated to at least give him the feats to support the weapon the text says he favors. In other cases, they seem to want to show off other rules (two weapon fighting, over-sized weapons, etc.) and those choices may not be optimal.
That does not change the fact that they are example characters from the publisher. Although you may be able to make stronger characters, they should be a reasonable measure of what it takes in order to be able to perform their role.
If they aren't, then they should be changed so that they are a reasonable example.
As for your other point, Erasmus is listed. I didn't list him for potential iconic team because his trained diplomacy is +9, putting it below the threshold that other people in this thread have set.
Contributor—Canadian Maplecakes
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not talking about a 100% chance every time, I'm talking about even odds that they'll walk out with anything other than zero prestige. Sit down and see what kinds of odds the team put together in the comics has of succeeding (Kyra, Meri, Harsk, Valaros, Ezren, and Seoni). I did it at level 1 and was expecting things to be difficult, but even then the results surprised me.
To be fair, I did not play test / even mental math this scenario against the Iconics. So that fault is entirely 100% on me as the author, and not development. I admit, a lot of my background thoughts for writing PFS scenarios comes from my personal experience at seeing what players bring to events. I tend to somewhat base my writing on what I end up seeing people bring to conventions, or the flurry of 'let me tell you about my build/character' stories that I hear from local players. It's probably good feedback for me to think about iconic math, but even that is somewhat tricky given the variety (and scope) of several iconics.
To be fair, most of the iconics aren't in any way built for this type of 'all social, all the time' scenario. But the feedback is still quite valid.
That being said, this is my first non-evergreen/non-special foray into the 1–5 level range (yeah, seriously, it surprised me too). So getting feedback on this is important, and something I'll keep in mind for future writing.
|
|
If it was something isolated to this scenario I would be more encouraged by your comment, Thurston. Really, from what I've seen there's a small number of 1-5 and low tier 3-7 that assume a level five or lower character has the ability to do 10 or more damage in a single hit, soak a decent amount of damage, regularly meet a high DC skill check, have access to lesser restoration or have some niche ability. But really I feel that in the past eight months my experience as a PFS GM has increasingly become a matter of either watching a party that's made itself immune to failure rampage through scenario or scrambling madly to find a way to give an unprepared group a fair chance to succeed/survive. The requirement to run scenarios as written is feeling increasingly onerous.
Also I'm somewhat bothered by what some people are claiming as standard for a social build in this thread. I have a level 11 character with +20 to diplomacy and +22 to bluff. He's sitting on about 22k gold so I could do things like buy a circlet of persuasion and possibly other gear to push the number higher but I feel the character already creeps towards over the top. However, from the looks of things he seems to be meeting level 4 benchmarks. Can't say I've ever been disappointed by his social performance, however.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not consider a +10 or less, at sub-tier 4-5, to be particularly social characters. If they are social based characters, they, at the very least, should have full ranks in at least one of the social skills.Which is the #1 reason I think there's something wrong with this scenario too. As written, there isn't a reasonable chance for a group of iconics to succeed in the success conditions. You know why? Because they don't have the ranks you're talking about. I'm not talking about a 100% chance every time, I'm talking about even odds that they'll walk out with anything other than zero prestige. Sit down and see what kinds of odds the team put together in the comics has of succeeding (Kyra, Meri, Harsk, Valaros, Ezren, and Seoni). I did it at level 1 and was expecting things to be difficult, but even then the results surprised me.
That is a potential problem in scenario design, as DarkKnight keeps mentioning. In this case the pendulum has swung in an entirely different direction of the "build the scenario for optimization" argument.
I know you guys all like this scenario and want to defend Thursty for writing a really good story (I loved the story, I get it), but piling on DarkKnight and the others that didn't like it over and over again without actually trying to hear their side of the story, arguing that it could only be the GM, and not even trying to see why this scenario may not be entirely well balanced is getting REALLY old.
This is getting dangerously close to reminding me of the stories/arguments/fights over Season 4 difficulty that every single VC yelled at me for saying I was wrong got me to quit back then. Interesting where posts from those same VCs stand now.
Without looking, I would suggest an Iconic party of Lem, Sajan, Reiko, Hayato, Kyra, and Ezren. That's a balanced party, has a couple of 2 skill point classes and could handle a combat -- so it's not a cherry-picked group. But I think they'd do fine in this scenario.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seeing as how people call social characters with a +10 at tier 4-5, I wonder how my +21 diplomacy druid at level 5 can be called ...Over-achiever? I'm not even sure how you get that high a bonus at that level.Peeking at their character they're a green faith initiate
Diplomacy +19
(5 rank, +3 charisma, +3 class skill, +1 trait, +2 racial (silver tongued- replaces skilled) , +2 class bonus, +3 competence (i assume thats a circlet of persuision, amazing item in PFS) (+2 favored class to change someone's attitude)It's annoying when class features to change attitude get rendered obsolete by certain mechanics.
Oops, you're correct, I forgot that the +2 favored class is only for changing attitude, so +19.
Also, correct on the circlet, I managed to get that really early thanks to a chronicle sheet and saving up.I also tend to have Fellowship Film with me in case I think I need a little extra boost.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the bigger issue is that it seems that whenever a new ruleset comes out, it seems that it gets shoehorned into a PFS scenario, even if the ruleset is ridiculous, broken, nonfunctional or unnecessary - take Mass Combat and Chase Scenes as other examples.
Expect to see a scenario about Kingdom Building in season eight...
I'll have to disagree on Chase Scenes, I think they're a lot of fun.
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
I'll have to disagree on Chase Scenes, I think they're a lot of fun.I think the bigger issue is that it seems that whenever a new ruleset comes out, it seems that it gets shoehorned into a PFS scenario, even if the ruleset is ridiculous, broken, nonfunctional or unnecessary - take Mass Combat and Chase Scenes as other examples.
Expect to see a scenario about Kingdom Building in season eight...
We still have some very memorable anecdotes from chases round here.
Also, kingdom building rules.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People play Hayato? Nonsense.I love that guy! Probably my favorite pregen.
I played him in The Blakros Matrimony and had a lot of fun roleplaying.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll have to disagree on Chase Scenes, I think they're a lot of fun.I think the bigger issue is that it seems that whenever a new ruleset comes out, it seems that it gets shoehorned into a PFS scenario, even if the ruleset is ridiculous, broken, nonfunctional or unnecessary - take Mass Combat and Chase Scenes as other examples.
Expect to see a scenario about Kingdom Building in season eight...
We still have some very memorable anecdotes from chases round here.
Also, kingdom building rules.
I once failed a DC 17 Acrobatics on my Ninja, who had a +12 in it for 7 turns in a row. I did not get to participate in that fight.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll have to disagree on Chase Scenes, I think they're a lot of fun.I think the bigger issue is that it seems that whenever a new ruleset comes out, it seems that it gets shoehorned into a PFS scenario, even if the ruleset is ridiculous, broken, nonfunctional or unnecessary - take Mass Combat and Chase Scenes as other examples.
Expect to see a scenario about Kingdom Building in season eight...
I think the hate from chases stems from the fact that not everyone is equally good at everything, so some people get left behind (literally). I once saw a chase with options that were pretty much entirely dependent on a single stat. CMB check to push rubble away, or Climb to get over it. Diplomacy to get past a crowd of people, or Intimidate to scare them away.
The ideal way is that you have a physical way to get past things and a mental way, so both types of characters have a chance of progressing. A Sorcerer is never going to make that Swim check, and a Cleric will never make a Reflex save, but both could do Diplomacy or Sense Motives. And ideally, pick things that are pretty common class skills. A Bluff/Stealth action (from an actual chase) is terrible for Paladins, Clerics or Fighters, but a Perception/Strength combination should be doable by pretty much everyone.I saw a newer scenario with a chase I was really impressed by. Several, actually, but the one I'm talking about had pretty high DCs, but you moved as a group. Everyone rolled for something, and the highest one automatically gets aided by the other rolls. Even if you don't have many skillpoints, a DC 10 should be doable.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I saw a newer scenario with a chase I was really impressed by. Several, actually, but the one I'm talking about had pretty high DCs, but you moved as a group. Everyone rolled for something, and the highest one automatically gets aided by the other rolls. Even if you don't have many skillpoints, a DC 10 should be doable.
Agreed - that was an excellent use of the chase mechanic. ^_^
|
|
I'll have to disagree on Chase Scenes, I think they're a lot of fun.I think the bigger issue is that it seems that whenever a new ruleset comes out, it seems that it gets shoehorned into a PFS scenario, even if the ruleset is ridiculous, broken, nonfunctional or unnecessary - take Mass Combat and Chase Scenes as other examples.
Expect to see a scenario about Kingdom Building in season eight...
Chase scenes are decent enough you don't get stuck because you don't have any of the chase scene skills and/or roll in the low single digits *every single roll* and the scenario success/failure rides on *everyone* making the roll.
The most recent treatment of it that I saw in Season Seven(during the three-parter) was quite possibly the best I've seen a chase scene done so far, because it *wasn't* as tied to the 'must have this thing or do THIS thing', but a bit more... free-wheeling, in the spirit of spontaneous gaming...
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that by now there have been at least several new variations of the chase rules used. The oldest rules were awful, but the new ones have been a lot of fun. But the rules have been changed so much that they're really not the same thing anymore. Kind of like heaping 2E and PF combat rules together.
|
|
Well, chase rules have evolved based on feedback (at least for PFS scenarios), and with the latest ones that I've been part of they were a lot of fun to play in. (Might also have been because I could solve a bunch of the obstacles by simply using the trample ability from a huge mammoth)
The intrigue rules have been an improvement upon the old(er) influence mechanics found in some scenarios, and with the feedback in this thread maybe they will also evolve even further for society scenarios to a point where it will not create a 300+ page thread.
|
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I once failed a DC 17 Acrobatics on my Ninja, who had a +12 in it for 7 turns in a row. I did not get to participate in that fight.I'll have to disagree on Chase Scenes, I think they're a lot of fun.I think the bigger issue is that it seems that whenever a new ruleset comes out, it seems that it gets shoehorned into a PFS scenario, even if the ruleset is ridiculous, broken, nonfunctional or unnecessary - take Mass Combat and Chase Scenes as other examples.
Expect to see a scenario about Kingdom Building in season eight...
We still have some very memorable anecdotes from chases round here.
Also, kingdom building rules.
Yes, but I remember you also failing seven will saves in a row. Its a bit of your thing :P
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think this thread is a Chase Scene.
Roll your knowledge scenario to go forward 2 spaces.
You can also roll diplomacy, bluff or intimidate but the DC will be higher, and if you mess up, the whole thread goes backward 5 spaces.
Wheeeee!
Hmm smiles, waves and leaves the thread.
|
|
Chase scenes are decent enough you don't get stuck because you don't have any of the chase scene skills and/or roll in the low single digits *every single roll* and the scenario success/failure rides on *everyone* making the roll.I'll have to disagree on Chase Scenes, I think they're a lot of fun.I think the bigger issue is that it seems that whenever a new ruleset comes out, it seems that it gets shoehorned into a PFS scenario, even if the ruleset is ridiculous, broken, nonfunctional or unnecessary - take Mass Combat and Chase Scenes as other examples.
Expect to see a scenario about Kingdom Building in season eight...
Uh... that kinda applies to everything involving a d20.
|
|
To be fair, I did not play test / even mental math this scenario against the Iconics. So that fault is entirely 100% on me as the author, and not development.
Considering it took me two hours to get to the point that I had mathed out the first "encounter" (not the free encounter, which I also mathed out) says something about how difficult it is to experiment on this one. It's NOT an easy exercise, and I'm not 100% convinced I did it justice either.
I admit, a lot of my background thoughts for writing PFS scenarios comes from my personal experience at seeing what players bring to events. I tend to somewhat base my writing on what I end up seeing people bring to conventions, or the flurry of 'let me tell you about my build/character' stories that I hear from local players. It's probably good feedback for me to think about iconic math, but even that is somewhat tricky given the variety (and scope) of several iconics.
And that I can understand. My personal feeling is that this is better suited for the 3+ materials. At 1-5 we're still contending with teaching a lot of players.
To be fair, most of the iconics aren't in any way built for this type of 'all social, all the time' scenario. But the feedback is still quite valid.
Interestingly, even with the iconics there was almost always a "point person" that did fairly well against one of the opponents. In the six specifics I mentioned a few had a reasonable chance at success (except in the first discovery, which was exceptionally low), and the rest could attempt aids (though Valeros was not exceptionally built for the task at hand, Harsk was better). Their bonuses weren't as a high as most the other posters keep talking about, which skewed things to the "not-automatic" range though, which is the bigger problem.
That being said, this is my first non-evergreen/non-special foray into the 1–5 level range (yeah, seriously, it surprised me too). So getting feedback on this is important, and something I'll keep in mind for future writing.
That's what makes you such a great author Thursty - constant growth!
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Some of them are certainly less powerful than others. Harsk has been updated to at least give him the feats to support the weapon the text says he favors. In other cases, they seem to want to show off other rules (two weapon fighting, over-sized weapons, etc.) and those choices may not be optimal.
Optimal? Harsk barely functions as a pregen even with the update. Valeros' needs more equipment than he has at any level to function well. Meligaster's build seems like at some point the designer couldn't tell how they wanted him to operate. It still works though he has two useless feats.
As for your other point, Erasmus is listed. I didn't list him for potential iconic team because his trained diplomacy is +9, putting it below the threshold that other people in this thread have set.
Its ten though. 11 at minimum if you spirit surge which Im not sure why you aren't in this scenario.
And that I can understand. My personal feeling is that this is better suited for the 3+ materials. At 1-5 we're still contending with teaching a lot of players.
A lot of 1-5 tiers aren't written that way though. They are all over the place and quite honestly this isn't the scenario at all I would draw the line at if you want to complain about it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
