|
Executive summary: Is there any recourse for players who bought hireling boons under the 1.0 boon text?
Last weekend I was playing a scenario with my 8th-going-on-9th level character. I said that I would have my Master Hireling Reginald (all hirelings are named Reginald) make a diplomacy check. One of the other players asked “hasn’t he already made a diplomacy check?” “Yeah,” I replied “but that was with a different NPC.” “No, I mean your hireling can only make one check a scenario.” “What?”
We eventually discovered that between Guides 1.0 and 1.1, language was added to the hireling boon specifying that it could only attempt each type of check (bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate in my case) once per scenario. It wasn’t in a changelog and there were no mentions of the difference on the messageboards, so I totally missed it until someone who was newer and hadn’t seen Guide 1.0 pointed it out.
I know I’m a bigger consumer of purchased boons than 99% of players (probably the reason no one else pointed it out) but this is a really big deal for me. I’m now 9th level and made all my skill (and even ability score boost) choices knowing that I would always have Reginald along. All my characters are talky in some way and I certainly would have put points in at least one of those skills if it wasn’t for the hireling boon. It’s a double whammy because I also spent 9 Fame on the boons.
Is there and official recourse for this situation? I’d love to hear “grandfathering” as the reply, but any official guidance is appreciated.
|
|
The change is the addition of
The ally can attempt a given skill check only once, cannot retry a check, and cannot take 10 or 20 on a check.
I agree that “can attempt a given skill check only once” is ambiguous. It could mean “only once any time a check is called for in a scenario?” But that’s redundant with “cannot retry a check” so I have to agree with the player who pointed it out and assume it means “only attempt each skill once.”
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ally can attempt a given skill check only once, cannot retry a check, and cannot take 10 or 20 on a check.
This does not mean your hireling can only use a given skill once per scenario. It means your hireling can only make a given skill check once per scenario. If your hireling tries to perform an autopsy with Medicine, they can still use Medicine to perform another autopsy on a different body later, or to patch up a party member outside of combat.
|
|
The ally can attempt a given skill check only once, cannot retry a check, and cannot take 10 or 20 on a check.This does not mean your hireling can only use a given skill once per scenario. It means your hireling can only make a given skill check once per scenario. If your hireling tries to perform an autopsy with Medicine, they can still use Medicine to perform another autopsy on a different body later, or to patch up a party member outside of combat.
See above. The player pointed out (and I agree) that would be redundant with “cannot retry a check.”
|
I don't find those clauses redundant.
Some skill challenges require you to succeed a skill check multiple times. Your hireling can only attempt one such check per scenario. This means you get a benefit from your investment, but the hireling does not overshadow your fellow Starfinders.
Basically, in addition to being unable to retry checks, they are limited in how much they can contribute to skill challenges.
|
|
See above. The player pointed out (and I agree) that would be redundant with “cannot retry a check.”The ally can attempt a given skill check only once, cannot retry a check, and cannot take 10 or 20 on a check.This does not mean your hireling can only use a given skill once per scenario. It means your hireling can only make a given skill check once per scenario. If your hireling tries to perform an autopsy with Medicine, they can still use Medicine to perform another autopsy on a different body later, or to patch up a party member outside of combat.
After reading it again, I see there is no "per scenario" clause included with "can attempt a given skill check only once". If we were to ignore the word "check" and interpret it as "can attempt a given skill only once", as you suggest, wouldn't that mean that a hireling can only use each of their three skills once ever?
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See above. The player pointed out (and I agree) that would be redundant with “cannot retry a check.”The ally can attempt a given skill check only once, cannot retry a check, and cannot take 10 or 20 on a check.This does not mean your hireling can only use a given skill once per scenario. It means your hireling can only make a given skill check once per scenario. If your hireling tries to perform an autopsy with Medicine, they can still use Medicine to perform another autopsy on a different body later, or to patch up a party member outside of combat.
It's not redundant. It means that your hireling loses the ability to "try again" on a skill check that they have attempted.
The skill’s description contains an overview of the skill’s scope, followed by a number of entries that detail the tasks most commonly performed using that skill. The task entries also contain information about the type of action commonly required to achieve the task, whether or not you can try the task again if you fail, or special effects that occur if you fail a check. Typically, you can’t take 20 to accomplish a task that does not allow you to try it again after a failure, or that has special effects if you fail a skill check.
Emphasis mine.
A PC who fails to pick a non-trapped mechanical lock can simply try again (if the PCs are not under a time-crunch), but a Hireling, by the rules in the guide, cannot. Further, they cannot benefit from a reroll, nor take 10 or 20.
Hopefully by taking the "try again" language into account, that helps resolve your confusion.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hirelings disrupted that game balance.
Did they? Honestly?
When I sit down with my Cha 08 Android, I'm not going to slot his Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate Hireling if there's a dedicated Envoy at the table.
When I sit down with my Int 10 Halfling, I'm not going to slot her Computers/Engineering Hireling if there's a dedicated Tech character at the table.
Why? Because a dedicated character will have a much higher skill bonus.
Hirelings only help shore up a party that is lacking in any one area.
Venture-Agent, Netherlands
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hirelings disrupted that game balance.Did they? Honestly?
When I sit down with my Cha 08 Android, I'm not going to slot his Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate Hireling if there's a dedicated Envoy at the table.
When I sit down with my Int 10 Halfling, I'm not going to slot her Computers/Engineering Hireling if there's a dedicated Tech character at the table.
Why? Because a dedicated character will have a much higher skill bonus.
Hirelings only help shore up a party that is lacking in any one area.
Like that one time we had 6 players and no-one had Computers...that Hireling was insanely useful.
Venture-Agent, Finland—Tampere
|
See above. The player pointed out (and I agree) that would be redundant with “cannot retry a check.”The ally can attempt a given skill check only once, cannot retry a check, and cannot take 10 or 20 on a check.This does not mean your hireling can only use a given skill once per scenario. It means your hireling can only make a given skill check once per scenario. If your hireling tries to perform an autopsy with Medicine, they can still use Medicine to perform another autopsy on a different body later, or to patch up a party member outside of combat.It's not redundant. It means that your hireling loses the ability to "try again" on a skill check that they have attempted.
The skill’s description contains an overview of the skill’s scope, followed by a number of entries that detail the tasks most commonly performed using that skill. The task entries also contain information about the type of action commonly required to achieve the task, whether or not you can try the task again if you fail, or special effects that occur if you fail a check. Typically, you can’t take 20 to accomplish a task that does not allow you to try it again after a failure, or that has special effects if you fail a skill check.Emphasis mine.
A PC who fails to pick a non-trapped mechanical lock can simply try again (if the PCs are not under a time-crunch), but a Hireling, by the rules in the guide, cannot. Further, they cannot benefit from a reroll, nor take 10 or 20.
Hopefully by taking the "try again" language into account, that helps resolve your confusion.
Yeah, as long as rules, the skill or scenario itself doesn't say a PC can't retry the check, you can try again as much as you want. This rule just says hirelings can only try to pick specific lock once.
I presume this ruling is mostly because sometimes hirelings could actually have better skills than characters actually specialized in the said skill, so they would overshadow the character completely in that aspect. So in this case, if hireling fails to lock pick, the character with worse skill gets chance to do it instead.
(I might remember wrong, maybe it was more like character who is pretty good, but not +4 stat bonus in class skill specialized? I could swear it was specific levels and tiers were this happened more commonly)
|
|
sometimes hirelings could actually have better skills than characters actually specialized in the said skill,
At low levels, Hireling bonuses are incredibly small, and at higher levels, while the gap may be smaller, they can't beat a specialist.
At my Level 10 table at the recent Con my social Hireling would have been just +18. The Envoy at the table was rolling +21+1d6.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my experience, a hireling has never been able to outclass a PC who puts work into the skill. They're more supplementary or gap-filling than anything. I incorporate my hirelings into my characters' stories, such as my Demolition Android whose hireling is a lawyer (Cha Skills) because he goes a little haywire with his occupation sometimes and needs legal representation. If there's someone at the table who is a spec in my hirelings' skills, I take a backseat and let their characters flourish, while sometimes providing backup or a possible safety net in case they fail.
|
|
From my experience, a hireling has never been able to outclass a PC who puts work into the skill.
I definitely think it makes most sense to have a hireling in areas where your character is weak, and if there are other PCs in that area who are focused on that skill then they're more likely than not to outclass the PC.
On the other hand, right now I'm playing a level 6 adventure, and someone in the group has the Luwasi Elsebo boon that gives a +3 to all hireling checks. This means my hireling is getting a +15 on Physical Science, Life Science, and Mysticism. My guy is a soldier, and the hireling is basically there to ask the question, "What is that thing and how do I kill it?" But I suspect that the +15 modifier is better than even the science/magic-focused PCs in this particular set of skills.
|
|
My guy is a soldier, and the hireling is basically there to ask the question, "What is that thing and how do I kill it?"I'm not sure that should be allowed, because hirelings do not participate in combat.
Interesting point. I read that as saying that the hireling cannot take part in a combat action, like making the Computers roll as part of the Amplified Glitch feat.
But if there is a combat taking place, I guess I thought that the hireling could still perform a non-combat action ... like if I'm over with my hireling on the other side of the room, then I'd argue that we aren't participating in the combat, even though everything is happening as part of initiative rounds, so the hireling could perform a Computers check to hack a computer. Even if someone takes a shot at me, the hireling isn't participating in the combat.
I agree, though, that I guess the most straightforward and consistent interpretation of "cannot participate in combat" would be "cannot act at all in combat initative rounds."
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Yeah, and I'd definitely count giving critical advice on monsters as participating - you don't have to fire a gun to be involved.Shouting advice around the corner seems like the sort of thing your "guy in the chair" would do though.
There are also hirelings for Athletics. Are we then going to draw lines on which particular skill uses count as participating?
I can't tell if they meant "this is an out of combat skill challenge boon" or "we just don't want to have to bother with stats for this dude if he gets on the battlefield". But the writing is terse and seems to include the former meaning.
There's nothing in the boon that says "the ally does not physically participate". Giving relevant information is also participation.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's nothing in the boon that says "the ally does not physically participate". Giving relevant information is also participation.
Grammar dissection and theorizing about what isn't said is rarely a useful method for interpreting the rules.
They don't have hit points, and AC, it doesn't fight, don't take actions, but i don't see anything to say that their relevant skills just always go dead as soon as combat starts. I don't think "try the nine iron sir" is really participating in the combat.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of the opinion that they can't participate in combat whatsoever. This is less of a conceptual conclusion than a mechanical one. If there are skill uses that couldn't be used in combat then none of them can, regardless of the conceptual nature of their specific skills. This conclusion is intended as a balance and easy rule arbitration. This conclusion also prevents chicanery from clever uses of specific skills. While I appreciate cleverness, I can't always reward it.
* points back to 'balance' *
This would inevitably lead to the magical 'turning off' of the hireling, but *shrugs* that is just how it is. If it makes it any different, the hireling thing isn't in the CRB so... I hold no dedication to hirelings as a mechanical contribution to the game any who. They are just that, a fun little addition.
I believe that their intended purpose is to ensure that, because it is organized play, a random group doesn't get locked off of the rest of a scenario because of not having a specific skill. I have never seen an imperative skill for a scenario be needed during a combat. So, it does not appear necessary for players to have access to their hirelings during combat. Therefore, if they are not necessary, it is just simpler to nix there presence altogether.
Unless it is made more clear otherwise, when I GM I will not allow hirelings to contribute to combats (or take any actions at all during combat).
|
|
Executive summary: ...
between Guides 1.0 and 1.1, language was added to the hireling boon specifying that it could only attempt each type of check (bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate in my case) once per scenario. It wasn’t in a changelog and there were no mentions of the difference on the messageboards, so I totally missed it until someone who was newer and hadn’t seen Guide 1.0 pointed it out.
I've encountered this a few times myself with different interpretations. Looking at the latest version of the guide the wording problem persists. Taken in its most natural context the guide definitely appears to say that a each skill check from the list of available skills for that ally type can be made once. So one Diplomacy check per scenario with that kind of Ally slotted. That may not be the intent since a computer with AI can perform some skill checks for a player without that limit. But that is how it reads. Some clarification from the game devs would be good on this issue.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from for Solarians, I am not a fan of hirelings. Characters are intended to have skills they are good at and ones they aren't. Hirelings disrupted that game balance. I would be more than happy if this new ruling were true
Cupi, I know you hate hirelings, but as a counter argument I'd like to point out that many society scenarios are written with gatekeeping skill checks, that is to say, skill checks that the party HAVE to pass to complete the story (Most notably Engineering, and Computers, and to a lesser extent the sciences and Mysticism). Now, in home games with constant players, this isn't a problem as everyone can get together and figure out what skills are covered, but in society play, that's not possible. Sometimes you are going to play a game with four mystics because that's all there is to play.
Just last Monday I played a game that required an Engineering check to open the front door. If no one had engineering, we all would have been forced to turn around and go home (doors were an adamantine alloy, nothing anyone in our group could have busted down.) So, until they start writing scenarios without those gatekeeping skill checks, I think hirelings have a very definite use, even if you aren't fond of them. All said I'd like to have this kinda cheap way to get a few more skills on my character than not be able to play a game because of who happened to show up that night.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cupi, I know you hate hirelings, but as a counter argument I'd like to point out that many society scenarios are written with gatekeeping skill checks, that is to say, skill checks that the party HAVE to pass to complete the story (Most notably Engineering, and Computers, and to a lesser extent the sciences and Mysticism). Now, in home games with constant players, this isn't a problem as everyone can get together and figure out what skills are covered, but in society play, that's not possible. Sometimes you are going to play a game with four mystics because that's all there is to play.
Just last Monday I played a game that required an Engineering check to open the front door. If no one had engineering, we all would have been forced to turn around and go home (doors were an adamantine alloy, nothing anyone in our group could have busted down.) So, until they start writing scenarios without those gatekeeping skill checks, I think hirelings have a very definite use, even if you aren't fond of them. All said I'd like to have this kinda cheap way to get a few more skills on my character than not be able to play a game because of who happened to show up that night.
In addition, there are some scenarios that essentially *require* a given class to even have a marginal chance to be successful -- if they've made a skill their be-all and end-all focus. A hireling will probably not help in such a circumstance, but it's a very rotten feeling to feel like one is succeeding (if only just) through most of a scenario only to run into MacGuffin McGatekeeper Skill Check.
|
|
In addition, there are some scenarios that essentially *require* a given class to even have a marginal chance to be successful -- if they've made a skill their be-all and end-all focus.
Anyone can have skill focus, which at starfinder society levels does just as well as the scaling class bonus (I am also in love with the new mystic epiphany that expands your connection skills, since my mystic is a skill monkey.. well skillbat)
A hireling will probably not help in such a circumstance, but it's a very rotten feeling to feel like one is succeeding (if only just) through most of a scenario only to run into MacGuffin McGatekeeper Skill Check.
Besides being able to take 10, a maxed out follower isn't more than a few points down from maxed ranks a good score and skill focus. If one can make the roll the other probably can too.
|
|
Hirelings can't Take 10.
Sorry, what i mean is besides having the operative ability to go "I take 10, plus my uber bonus, means I succeed automatically OR the DC is so high we're hosed anyway" that there's not a lot other characters can do to be too much better than a hireling.
I wonder if preventing that was why Colosi's skill challenge was done the way it was.
I understand why the hireling almost has to be that good, but it does mean there's not a lot of point in investing moderately in a lot of skills.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if preventing that was why Colosi's skill challenge was done the way it was.
I played that scenario with a Level 10.2 character, with a +22 mod, and I would have needed a natural 20 to succeed. And nobody in the group could Aid.
A Hireling couldn't have affected that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah but it's a solid reason to have DCs so high to begin with - preventing hirelings from running scenarios.
There’s already a thread that discusses the DCs of that Scenario where people have already aired all their grievances about it. Thurston has agreed to revisit the DCs for future scenarios. Besides, if a Hireling can’t participate in scenarios, what’s the point? Other than providing aid anothers I suppose.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is to say - EXACTLY the same as having that skill yourself with your primary stat (which isnt gonna be the case that often) short of it being a skill you have racial/class/skill focus in.
Its a tricky balance to maintain.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Y'know, I've been going about this all wrong. I've been doing all the work myself. While it's been amazing for my 'mysterious stranger' approach to fashion, the passion needs a team to bring to fruition."
Well yes this is the crux of the problem.
"Oh let me, a person with ranks in the skill roll this"
"Oh sure, but I have a hireling whose bonus is the same/higher" in the case of maxed out hirelings.
There's a fair amount of give and take that needs to happen here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are still stuck in a Pathfinder mindset. Needing to personally have the skill is relevant when you are stuck down some remote dungeon, but in a futuristic setting, people can crack out a Youtube video, Airtasker in the help they need, or just google a stack of information at their fingertips.
We're still discussing this like we have no available resources at the end of widely available communications systems.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's not a Pathfinder mindset issue so much as an investment issue.
As a soldier is 1/4 of my skill ranks worth less than what like 8 reputation?
The answer suggested here is basically "yes, barring specific circumstances"
I can see the counter as well though where someone investing that 8 prestige can make a table with no computers skill otherwise able to get past skill induced checkpoints but it does feel like it cheapens build decisions
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Which is to say - EXACTLY the same as having that skill yourself with your primary stat (which isnt gonna be the case that often) short of it being a skill you have racial/class/skill focus in.
Its a tricky balance to maintain.
A maxed out hireling competes with a character with maxed ranks and the right ability, but no bonuses from insight, race, theme or equipment.
In reality, when you're looking at high-skill characters, there's a gap of 3-8 points between them and hirelings.
You talk about soldiers getting stiff competition from hirelings, but the sad truth is that soldiers are just shut out from most of the skill game anyway. Their class gives them no support for it and the DCs are scaled to challenge operatives.
For a soldier to play at the skill game you need to invest a lot of resources to pull up to where other classes get automatically.
|
|
Ideally, this will lead to less soldier players forcing combat over diplomatic solutions even when diplomacy is appropriate just because they’re bored when combat isn’t as prevalent. I find this happens a lot in organized play (both sfs and pfs1).
That’s a player problem, not a class problem. (It is somewhat class-linked but trying to define why may be “chicken or egg.”) I’ve played plenty of games where the envoys - or bards - started the ball rolling in a social situation then sorta clam up while the “brutes” role-play the encounter awesomely. The “skill” class ends up making the check but the level of engagement is completely up to the players.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Hirelings really only become 'Good' once you have the Tier IV Hireling (lvl +8 bonus); prior to that, they are still behind even a moderately invested PC that isn't an Envoy or Operative.
Frankly, I don't see them as game breaking (especially since they can't outclass an 'invested' PC) - I see it as a way to justify, for example, the low-skill Solider or Solarion being able to contribute in situations where they would otherwise have to twiddle their thumbs, and bypassing that awkward situation mentioned above where the GM will (quite reasonably) ask the *player* who is doing the talking, make the roll...
