|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since I recently finished my run through this scenario as a player I finally took a look through the PDF. I dumped a whole bunch of thoughts about the scenario into a review on the scenario's store page, but there's one thing that I figured I'd bring up here as well: It seems extraordinarily unlikely that the PCs will avoid triggering the security response and additional encounter.
Even if we disregard the PCs being blindsided by the alarm on the door or another of the 'gotcha' elements that triggers the security response, just the basic perception checks made against the PCs are incredibly likely to pierce any possible disguise. The problem is that for a party of 6 PCs, there are a minimum of 12 perception checks made against them and even a single failure is enough to catch them.
At Tier 1-2, the absolute best case scenario for the PCs is that every single one of them has a computers bonus of +12, with an additional +4 from the Abadarcorp annoyance boon for a total of +16. This is of course incredibly unlikely, as it requires a group of 2nd level PCs all with 18 INT and computers as a class skill and Skill Focus in computers.
The two batteries of perception checks they have to pass are at a +3 bonus for one set and a +5 bonus for the second set. Using Anydice to calculate probability for the opposed rolls, that gives the chance for the enemy to pierce any individual person's disguise at 7% for the first set and 11.25% for the second set. Considering 12 total opposed rolls, the total probability that at least one disguise is pierced is 68.4%!. And this is with giving the PCs absolutely every single advantage.
Say we have a significantly less competent party with no Abadarcorp Annoyance boon. Lets say the disguise computers bonus available to them looks something like (+6, +10, +5, +10-2, +10-4, +10-6) where the computers expert with the +10 is helping the three party members without computers or disguise. Considering 12 total opposed rolls, the probability that at least one disguise is pierced is 99.85%!!! And this party is not even totally incompetent at disguise/computers.
With this considered, I don't see what the point of the disguise even is in this scenario. Its all but guaranteed that most parties will trigger security. The GM might as well not track or roll at all.
|
Out of curiosity, did the PCs get the +4 bonus to their save for wearing armor?that only applies when the environmental seals are up, which is a good possibility after the first round, but not likely when you're taking the tour with envar UNLESS you're doing the bobba fett thing.
I took the radiation protection as innate to the armor but I see now that it should be considered under the environmental protections and thus activated.
|
Since I recently finished my run through this scenario as a player I finally took a look through the PDF. I dumped a whole bunch of thoughts about the scenario into a review on the scenario's store page, but there's one thing that I figured I'd bring up here as well: It seems extraordinarily unlikely that the PCs will avoid triggering the security response and additional encounter.
Even if we disregard the PCs being blindsided by the alarm on the door or another of the 'gotcha' elements that triggers the security response, just the basic perception checks made against the PCs are incredibly likely to pierce any possible disguise. The problem is that for a party of 6 PCs, there are a minimum of 12 perception checks made against them and even a single failure is enough to catch them.
At Tier 1-2, the absolute best case scenario for the PCs is that every single one of them has a computers bonus of +12, with an additional +4 from the Abadarcorp annoyance boon for a total of +16. This is of course incredibly unlikely, as it requires a group of 2nd level PCs all with 18 INT and computers as a class skill and Skill Focus in computers.
The two batteries of perception checks they have to pass are at a +3 bonus for one set and a +5 bonus for the second set. Using Anydice to calculate probability for the opposed rolls, that gives the chance for the enemy to pierce any individual person's disguise at 7% for the first set and 11.25% for the second set. Considering 12 total opposed rolls, the total probability that at least one disguise is pierced is 68.4%!. And this is with giving the PCs absolutely every single advantage.
Say we have a significantly less competent party with no Abadarcorp Annoyance boon. Lets say the disguise computers bonus available to them looks something like (+6, +10, +5, +10-2, +10-4, +10-6) where the computers expert with the +10 is helping the three party members without computers or disguise. Considering 12 total opposed rolls, the probability that at least one...
Yeah, I almost never roll for NPCs for skill checks, simply because I dislike that the dice can make your rolls irrelevant. I just assume they're always taking 10, unless they have reason to not.
|
|
-stuff about disguise-Yeah, I almost never roll for NPCs for skill checks, simply because I dislike that the dice can make your rolls irrelevant. I just assume they're always taking 10, unless they have reason to not.
I think I also like having the NPCs take 10 on their perceptions. It definitely evens things far more in the PCs favor when there are many perception checks being made.
I guess if we assume the security personnel are taking 10 on their perception checks, optimal group A in my example (with +16 to each PC's disguise roll) automatically succeeds. Great! The problem is that anything lower than +15 still invites a high overall likelihood of being busted.
If six PCs each have +14 to their check, only a nat 1 will stop them from attaining the minimum 16 result computers/disguise that bypasses both mandatory NPC perception checks. But the chance for one person to roll a natural 1 out of 6 people is... 26.5% (1-0.95^6).
If the aforementioned run of the mill party, with checks of (+6, +10, +5, +10-2, +10-4, +10-6) went up against the NPCs taking 10, their chances are still pretty bad. Their chance of rolling low enough to be caught by the NPCs with a 15 on their perception check is 96.7%. That's a big improvement over 99.85%, even if it is kinda terrible.
|
|
-stuff about disguise-Yeah, I almost never roll for NPCs for skill checks, simply because I dislike that the dice can make your rolls irrelevant. I just assume they're always taking 10, unless they have reason to not.I think I also like having the NPCs take 10 on their perceptions. It definitely evens things far more in the PCs favor when there are many perception checks being made.
I guess if we assume the security personnel are taking 10 on their perception checks, optimal group A in my example (with +16 to each PC's disguise roll) automatically succeeds. Great! The problem is that anything lower than +15 still invites a high overall likelihood of being busted.
If six PCs each have +14 to their check, only a nat 1 will stop them from attaining the minimum 16 result computers/disguise that bypasses both mandatory NPC perception checks. But the chance for one person to roll a natural 1 out of 6 people is... 26.5% (1-0.95^6).
If the aforementioned run of the mill party, with checks of (+6, +10, +5, +10-2, +10-4, +10-6) went up against the NPCs taking 10, their chances are still pretty bad. Their chance of rolling low enough to be caught by the NPCs with a 15 on their perception check is 96.7%. That's a big improvement over 99.85%, even if it is kinda terrible.
I guess the takeaway here is that, yeah, it's supposed to be hard to Ocean's Eleven this place. Considering the reward for making it through all of the hoops is "skip the starship battle at no loot reduction," I'm fine with that. It should feel like a major accomplishment that the PCs evaded all of the security aboard the station, and at one out of every twenty tables making it through, that sounds like the right amount of difficult.
|
|
I guess the takeaway here is that, yeah, it's supposed to be hard to Ocean's Eleven this place. Considering the reward for making it through all of the hoops is "skip the starship battle at no loot reduction
No.
Hard is one thing, Less than 3% chance of success that is largely in the hands of lady luck and not due to creative play or clever tactics is either terrible scenario design or doing something that probably wasn't intended. If you are reading a scenario with the assumption that this is okay, re read it , because that is WAY above the difficulty intended by most scenarios.
Either way the fix to me is obvious , the security team gets 1 check against the party (or takes 10, which would functionally get you the same thing)
|
I highly suspect that very few Paizo developers have taken many Probability courses. Or that they simply don’t have time to check the math of the writer. Sometimes the intuitive conclusion is not the correct one (see: Monte Hall Problem). A check with an 80% success rate sounds good, until you realize that having to pass 6 times gives only a 26% success rate.
In that vein: I built a spreadsheet to play with radiation DCs and success probabilities. I’ll put a long post in general discussion tomorrow, but the sound bite is that even making some very generous assumptions one out of eight tables of this scenario is going to need remove radiation. With more realistic numbers it’s closer to one out of three.
|
|
I guess the takeaway here is that, yeah, it's supposed to be hard to Ocean's Eleven this place. Considering the reward for making it through all of the hoops is "skip the starship battle at no loot reductionNo.
Hard is one thing, Less than 3% chance of success that is largely in the hands of lady luck and not due to creative play or clever tactics is either terrible scenario design or doing something that probably wasn't intended. If you are reading a scenario with the assumption that this is okay, re read it , because that is WAY above the difficulty intended by most scenarios.
Either way the fix to me is obvious , the security team gets 1 check against the party (or takes 10, which would functionally get you the same thing)
OK...so, how often should parties make it through this mod cleanly? 10% of the time? 20%? Keep in mind - failure does not create an insta-fail scenario. The module expects that the PCs will not fool the guards the entire time they're on the station. The starship combat is the intended path through the mod, and being able to skip it is not the expected outcome.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK...so, how often should parties make it through this mod cleanly? 10% of the time? 20%? Keep in mind - failure does not create an insta-fail scenario. The module expects that the PCs will not fool the guards the entire time they're on the station. The starship combat is the intended path through the mod, and being able to skip it is not the expected outcome.
I would argue that based on the mission briefing to avoid being detected, the starship combat should NOT be the intended path through the scenario. After all, the scenario is presented as an infiltration and social engineering attempt. While I agree that the scenario as written doesn't trigger a 'failure' state upon tripping security, it sure feels like you've screwed up. Real success should be getting out with your victims none the wiser.
To that end, I would want the chances for the PCs to be detected to be mostly in the players hands. The two mandatory security checks should have a small chance to bust your party for a typical group (10-30% chance total, depending on skills and previous boons). A larger chance of getting busted should come from any of: instigating a fight against Razor, tripping the door alarm, stealing Ilia's USB drive rather than hacking the computer. Meanwhile a group optimized for deception (Disguise+Computers maxed out) should have a 0% chance of being busted by security checks and have some leeway on the other three avenues of being caught.
|
|
Any reason the PCs aren't taking 10 themselves? Just looking at the numbers, assuming the PCs hit every encounter that requires their identities to be checked, then the highest DC they're facing is a 17 at low-tier, and a 20 at high tier. That means the PCs need to end up with an average of 18 for each of their assumed identities. How likely is it that we have three PCs with a +10 in Computers at 1st level? If we do, we're golden - each of those PCs takes 10 to generate an identity for themselves and one other PC, so everyone has an identity DC of 18. If the party is smart and doesn't trigger the fight in Eclipse, then we drop down to needing to pass a 15/18, which should be easily taken care of by two PCs with +10 (+6 to cover three identities each).
I mean, that's what taking 10 is for - if you don't want to take the chance that you could roll a 1, then take an average result. Hell, something I just thought of - is there any reason the people that the identity forger is creating identities for couldn't assist on the Computers roll? If so, doesn't that cancel out the penalty?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Take 10 in starfinder is far more explicitly under the DMs control and recommended against being able to be used for plot relevant rolls... which this certainly qualifies as
Unless you have an ability that states otherwise, you cannot take 10 during a combat encounter. Also, you can’t take 10 when the GM rules that a situation is too hectic or that you are distracted, and taking 10 is almost never an option for a check that requires some sort of crucial effect as a key part of the adventure's story.
|
|
Take 10 in starfinder is far more explicitly under the DMs control and recommended against being able to be used for plot relevant rolls... which this certainly qualifies as
Unless you have an ability that states otherwise, you cannot take 10 during a combat encounter. Also, you can’t take 10 when the GM rules that a situation is too hectic or that you are distracted, and taking 10 is almost never an option for a check that requires some sort of crucial effect as a key part of the adventure's story.
I'm aware of the rule that says the GM can deny a player from taking 10 for the nebulous reason of "plot relevancy." I just think it's a stupid rule. The player has made design choices to be good at a particular skill, so denying them agency in saying they have to rely on the roll of a die is baffling to me. If they want to take 10, why shouldn't they be able to? Moreover - if I'm calling for a skill roll, doesn't that mean it's a key part of the story?
Finally, I feel like you're arguing against yourself here - if you want players to succeed more often at the skill challenge, and get out of the station cleanly, then you want to be able to say to them "take 10 if you think you're good." But, if you remove the ability for the PC to take 10, then you're forcing them to deal with the variance of a die roll, meaning they'll fail more often. The big problem is not the DC, and not even the way that the challenge is set up - the problem is that PCs have to rely on a die roll.
And, finally, the big takeaway - this shouldn't be the basic outcome of the adventure. SFS, like PFS before it, is based on the "four encounter adventure" design philosophy. The "penalty" for failing one of these checks is that the PCs have to do all four encounters, which is what they would expect to do in any other scenario. The reward, though, is to avoid the fourth encounter at no XP reduction. That's huge, and should be difficult to obtain. How difficult is up to debate, of course, but it shouldn't be the standard result, at least in my opinion.
|
|
I'm aware of the rule that says the GM can deny a player from taking 10 for the nebulous reason of "plot relevancy." I just think it's a stupid rule.
I don't know what to tell you then. Don't use it, but you really shouldn't expect a scenario to account for it for anything plot relevant given that encounter.
The player has made design choices to be good at a particular skill, so denying them agency
Telling people they cannot take 10 on a plot relevant roll when the rule is you can't take 10 on a plot relevant roll is absolutely 100% NOT denying the players agency. Their character has no idea what take 10 is. Characters do not take 10. Players do. The player is in no way shape or form being prevented from playing their character.
That is a nasty and pernicious accusation to make against someone, it is completely unwarranted to the point of being completely irrelevant.
Finally, I feel like you're arguing against yourself here - if you want players to succeed more often at the skill challenge, and get out of the station cleanly, then you want to be able to say to them "take 10 if you think you're good."
The authors and DMs not understanding the math behind multiple checks. has been a long running pet peeve of mine mine for quite some time.
You can read the security forces as one check against the group or one check against each character. One makes it hard one makes it near impossible. That is an easy choice IF you understand exactly what all of those checks do to your odds of success.
|
|
Re: taking 10. So, let's take a look at that whole entry.
TAKE 10
Most of the time, you attempt skill checks while under pressure or during times of great stress. Other times, the situation is more favorable, making success more certain.When you are not in immediate danger or distracted, the GM might allow you to take 10 on a skill check. When you take 10, you don’t roll a d20, but rather assume that you rolled a 10 on that die, then add the relevant skill modifiers. For many routine tasks, or for tasks you are particularly skilled at, taking 10 ensures success. If you still fail when taking 10, you might require more time and energy to succeed at that task (see Take 20).
Unless you have an ability that states otherwise, you cannot take 10 during a combat encounter. Also, you can’t take 10 when the GM rules that a situation is too hectic or that you are distracted, and taking 10 is almost never an option for a check that requires some sort of crucial effect as a key part of the adventure's story.
In this particular situation, the PCs are aboard their own spaceship, and there are no encounters that would prevent them from working on their cover identities during the trip to the station. They're not in immediate danger, nor are they distracted. It's not a combat encounter, so that section doesn't apply, nor is it too hectic (another vague description, but one that I could get behind, if the situation were properly described as hectic). So, really, the only thing keeping the player from taking 10 is the DM stepping in and saying "no, you can't do that." At that point, we're entering into the realm of "GM's call," since plot relevancy isn't defined anywhere and is strictly up to the person narrating and judging. Like I asked earlier - aren't all rolls, strictly speaking, plot relevant? Which ones can I take 10 on, and which ones can I not, and how is this determined? I would argue that if a particular roll is judged by the scenario author as plot relevant, then it should be called out and notated clearly, to avoid confusion like this in the future.
Re: Player agency. But it does. Sure, the character might not know what taking 10 is, but they do know that if they aren't distracted, they can turn out a perfectly serviceable result on any of their skills, and some pretty good ones on their trained skills. To a very real extent, the only control a player has on the game world are the actions that his character can take, and removing the ability to take 10 is definitely interfering with that control. I'm sorry you feel personally attacked by that, as that was not my intent, but I know several players that would be understandably aggravated if I told them that they had to roll dice rather than just take 10. Sure, maybe they all roll 15s or higher and the numbers go through the roof, and they breeze through it without problems. I guarantee you, though, that they will remember that their Disguise monkey couldn't just take 10, ended up rolling a 1, and groused about it the remainder of the session - and not in a good way. I feel like the player will be less upset if the DCs were too high for his character to beat when taking 10 than if they were average, and he just crapped out on his roll.
Venture-Agent, Netherlands
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just had the NPC roll once against the party which is functionally rolling against the lowest party member
There was apparently a box of VERY good doughnuts in the break room making its way around the station.
I did this too, my officers found that same box of doughnuts...
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Hmmmmm, looks like a bit of a concern that happened when I added in the Vidgamer/Piloting options to this (since they made sense.) That being said, the PCs don't necessarily get all the "mechanical rules" when they're stepping into these roles. Similarly, Razor does the games of wit for fun. If the PCs end up putting their Pilot to play the game, then they luck out. If they end up putting their Vidgamer... well... I'm actually really OK with that.
Let it stand!
That said, while it makes sense that subtier 1-2 Razor has a gunnery of +2 or lower (and just uses her INT) it seems like subtier 3-4 Razor should at least have a +3 to +5 Gunnery...
