|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if you think of it as salary I want to work for a company that rewards effort and merit :-).
VC: "Your goal was to learn about a founding Pathfinder. How'd you do?"
PF: "We found this journal and all these old Pathfinder artifacts AND ingratiated the local government to the PFS."VC: "Cool. But did you make the random Perception check in the middle of the swamp to find some random gems? No? Sorry, we're docking your pay 20%."
No, no. I get the realism. The more treasure you find, the more your character should earn.
However, I feel Treasure Bundles has turned every scenario into a scavenger hunt where you don't know the list of items so you just keep looking for things in random places instead of doing the mission.
Honestly, for me, how much treasure I find or gold I earn isn't a function of my character build or decisions. How I overcome an obstacle is a function of my build. How the story changes is a function of my decisions (whether in the scenario, boon earned or not, and reporting notes). Gold earned is merely a mechanical function to keep my character at pace with the increasing challenges.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, the whole "treasure bundle scavenger hunt" discussion reminds me an awful lot of the days of faction missions in PFS1.
OK, Baron Dalsine wants me to retrieve a teapot. Somehow he knows this teapot exists, but he doesn't know where it is. Let me search this refuse pile in the alley where we got attacked. Not there? Oh well. Hmmm, now we are meeting with a minor noble in her study. Let's lure her outside the room so I can search all the cabinets in the study. Not there? OK, now let's convince her to stay in the room while I go search the rest of the manor. Not there? OK, where else can I look? Oh, wait, maybe I should engage her in a conversation about teapots and she will tell me where to find it. . .
It's not that there's anything inherently wrong with having a couple of treasure bundles hidden in the middle of a swamp. It's that when players have to make proactive choices (say "I'm searching the area" rather than being asked for a check) to find them, the metagame effect is to drastically slow things down as players try everything they can think of to try to find treasure bundles. Which may not even exist in the areas they are hunting.
Summary: I don't have a problem with having treasure bundles gated behind skill checks. I do have a problem with having treasure bundles "hidden" in places/with people where the check isn't going to be automatically attempted by a party doing the mainline quest.
|
. It's that when players have to make proactive choices (say "I'm searching the area" rather than being asked for a check)
It also introduces considerable table variation.
With some GMs you have to proactively state "I search this area" a LOT.
With other GMs, you have to be sufficiently alert to notice the GMs extremely broad hints "So, is there anything else you want to do here in the swamp where you were just attacked before moving on?"
Other GMs just go "I assume you're searching for stuff? Make a perception check"
I do find that, as a player, I constantly just say something like "I say the magic words "We loot the place to the ground"" and it usually works (either getting the item or getting to make the appropriate check
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yet another story from a much-discussed treasure bundle
The game was brought to a halt and a new player was put into a position of making a decision he clearly wasn’t comfortable making for no reason.
So I’ll say again, if we’re doing away with fame, chronicle boons, signing chronicles, slotting boons, and all of these other things, can we just do away with treasure bundles? The majority of the GMs I’ve played with don’t track them, or when they do, they either forget to deduct the gold or just come up with a reason to give it anyway. I can’t imagine it’s fun for the scenario authors to have to come up with all of the places they could be instead of concentrating on the actual information for the scenario (ok, someone will inevitably find that to be fun).
|
While I have no horse in that particular discussion, I do see lots of debate about different GM styles and the levels of rewards they offer.
Particularly for 1-14, I as a GM will just assume that Pathfinders check the gigantic sphinx statue that practically blocks their path.
It's about as assumptive as "You're carrying water with you through the desert, right? Okay. I handwave the Survival checks to look for oases."
Eliminating the randomness of treasure bundles and simply blanket-lowering rewards to 90% of their current state would solve that issue of table variation.
If players then want to focus on earning extra money, they can focus on ways of increasing the Earn Income and/or Crafting, and people who don't care as much can focus on their characters in other ways.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But doing hard things is why you get the big bucks for this job, right :-)? For those with a different sense of humour than mine, that was a joke. I am very much aware that JTT and the others are unpaid volunteers.
That made my morning. :)
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Summary: I don't have a problem with having treasure bundles gated behind skill checks. I do have a problem with having treasure bundles "hidden" in places/with people where the check isn't going to be automatically attempted by a party doing the mainline quest.
I am struggling to remember any instance of a treasure bundle gated behind going off the path and asking for a skill check. In fact one of the things people complain about (treasure bundles gated behind crit successes) are almost always extra rewards for crit succeeding on a skill check related to the main mission.
There are a couple you only find if someone in the party is in "search" exploration mode. But most of those are in hazardous places. (in fact, in one case, if no one was in search mode, the PCs walk into a natural hazard in that area.)
|
|
Summary: I don't have a problem with having treasure bundles gated behind skill checks. I do have a problem with having treasure bundles "hidden" in places/with people where the check isn't going to be automatically attempted by a party doing the mainline quest.
I am struggling to remember any instance of a treasure bundle gated behind going off the path and asking for a skill check. In fact one of the things people complain about (treasure bundles gated behind crit successes) are almost always extra rewards for crit succeeding on a skill check related to the main mission.
There are a couple you only find if someone in the party is in "search" exploration mode. But most of those are in hazardous places. (in fact, in one case, if no one was in search mode, the PCs walk into a natural hazard in that area.)
There was an infamous PF1 example where some loot was found only if the characters triggered a pit trap and then searched the pit.
I think Paizo learned that was a mistake from the outrage it caused :-)
|
|
The wealth by level tables are an odd thing to bring up by comparison... who thinks that a lvl2 martial PC isn't going to buy a magic weapon the very first second they can? Or a lvl4 martial PC isn't going to get a striking weapon? Yet the wealth-by-level tables assume these very things. Outside of PFS, I would not be surprised to see PCs trying to get those things a level early.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
The wealth by level tables are an odd thing to bring up by comparison... who thinks that a lvl2 martial PC isn't going to buy a magic weapon the very first second they can? Or a lvl4 martial PC isn't going to get a striking weapon? Yet the wealth-by-level tables assume these very things. Outside of PFS, I would not be surprised to see PCs trying to get those things a level early.
Normally you can't buy them a level early.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
475 gp isn't that much at 9th level. It's 25 gp more than 3 scrolls or enough for a single level 7 item.
Considering that expected items of a level 9 pc are:
8th: 1, 7th: 2, 6th: 1, 5th: 2,getting an extra 7th level item seems quite a lot!
As a lump sum, you should have 1600gp, 475gp extra is over 25% extra, nearly 30%.
I would go so far as to say the gold reward should be static for completion of a scenario, regardless of success because after playing 7 scenarios, it is economically advantageous to rebuild if you've been getting less than full rewards.
What do you mean by that? Rebuilding reduces your gold to 85% of what you've earned through your chronicle sheets - unless you've made some big sell backs or bought and used a lot of consumables, rebuilding leaves you with sligthly less gold than what you would have otherwise had.
The wealth by level tables are an odd thing to bring up by comparison... who thinks that a lvl2 martial PC isn't going to buy a magic weapon the very first second they can? Or a lvl4 martial PC isn't going to get a striking weapon? Yet the wealth-by-level tables assume these very things. Outside of PFS, I would not be surprised to see PCs trying to get those things a level early.
Not sure what you mean by this. In a home campaign, you might purchase a +1 weapon at level 2, in PFS; that's probably not necessary since you might adventure with people who can cast magic weapon for you (making it +1 striking) but magic weapon can't target a +1 weapon. I don't usually buy a magical weapon until I can go straight for the +1 striking.
Also, the wealth by level tables are brought up to show that pathfinder society does in fact give out more gold than the normal PC wealth level assumption is, and thus shows that while you might not get all the treasure bundles always, you're still ahead of the curve.
I do agree that the loss of bundles has to be fair, though. Players -can't know- if some nook or cranny is "outside the scope of this adventure" OR "something you should explore", so expecting PC's to "randomly go further than reasonable" isn't fair.
I think it's fair:
1. To place treasure bundles behind encounters - you beat it, you get the tp.
2. Put them behind a skill challenges - Again, you beat it, you get it. This usually includes couple different rolls by all PC's, and there should options for different skills.
3. Put them behind a simple skill check: In this case, it should be a really common skill(s) or a perception check. For a perception check, you could require that the PC's are actually searching. For a non-perception skill check, the skill should be something every PC can try, and the DC should be such that a party with 1 dude trained and 3 people untrained still has a "decent chance" at success. Requiring a crit success, for example, isn't fair - that's basically saying that at most every other party will get the bundle.
The TP's should not:
1. Require PC's to go somewhere that seems like it might be outside of the scope of the adventure ("Oh, maybe we should stop here and go search those hills for a cave, I wonder if we find loot there")
2. Require active actions from players ("Oh, you can only find this if you specifically say that you Also search from under the rug. Just being in search mode isn't enough, you need to actually say it.")
3. Require a single very high DC/crit success roll. Something like, DC 25 for a 1-2 party (a "reasonable" max bonus at skill would be maybe 5 or 6, needing 19 or 20 to succeed)
And most importantly: I think TP's could/should be dependant on your choices during the adventure. I also think more boons should depend on your choices, not on how well you did, and I would love to see more adventures where your choices matter. Unfortunately, the campaign moving away from items and boons on the sheet (in which it would be easy to reflect your choices: Did you unlock item A or Item B, and did you get boon X or boon Y), this is probably something we won't see much in the future.
|
|
The wealth by level tables are an odd thing to bring up by comparison... who thinks that a lvl2 martial PC isn't going to buy a magic weapon the very first second they can? Or a lvl4 martial PC isn't going to get a striking weapon? Yet the wealth-by-level tables assume these very things. Outside of PFS, I would not be surprised to see PCs trying to get those things a level early.Normally you can't buy them a level early.
Not in PFS, but it is not unusual for PCs to find magic items (including magic weapons) above their level amongst loot in APs and modules, and I can imagine GMs letting their PC that saved up enough buy a magic item above their level in a big city.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would go so far as to say the gold reward should be static for completion of a scenario, regardless of success because after playing 7 scenarios, it is economically advantageous to rebuild if you've been getting less than full rewards.What do you mean by that? Rebuilding reduces your gold to 85% of what you've earned through your chronicle sheets - unless you've made some big sell backs or bought and used a lot of consumables, rebuilding leaves you with sligthly less gold than what you would have otherwise had.
That was specifically addressing a hypothetical change to tie gold earned to success level around a 30-50% penalty on failure to achieve secondary success.
However, it does apply currently.
8 treasure bundles/scenario = 80% total gold.
If you've averaged less than 85% of possible treasure bundles (and even better if you've spent consumables), you gain gold by rebuilding. I suspect that's the bigger reason for the 15% cut. Not everyone wants dhampirs.
EDIT: No it doesn't. I don't think. Too tired.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
8 treasure bundles/scenario = 80% total gold.If you've averaged less than 85% of possible treasure bundles (and even better if you've spent consumables), you gain gold by rebuilding. I suspect that's the bigger reason for the 15% cut. Not everyone wants dhampirs.
EDIT: No it doesn't. I don't think. Too tired.
It is 85% of what you earned, not of the possible rewards, so it would be 85% of 80%. Not 85% of 100%
That said, if you had to pay for a raise dead with gold, it could be totally worth it.
But that rebuild option is also now gone.
|
|
Nope, there is a PF2 scenario that does the exactly the same thing. Nothing was learned.At least TWO PFS(2) scenarios that do exactly that.
I've played or run every PFS2 scenario and I seem to have missed that.
Out of curiousity, which scenarios? Feel free to PM me if you don't want to make the information public.
|
|
And for players not familiar with the trope, either never having seen that film or not remembering it?
That puts it back to 'I step forward five feet, check everything, etc, et AL"
...for five hours...
When the mission is failed because of that, is it going to be any better?
I'll admit, one of many reasons I don't feel comfortable running PF2 is the whole 'Treasure Bundle' concept.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Nope, there is a PF2 scenario that does the exactly the same thing. Nothing was learned.At least TWO PFS(2) scenarios that do exactly that.I've played or run every PFS2 scenario and I seem to have missed that.
Out of curiousity, which scenarios? Feel free to PM me if you don't want to make the information public.
1-08, though in that case the treasure happens to be in the basement, and the trap drops you into the basement. Even if you don't fall into the trap, you should *probably* search the basement.
Trying to remember if there are others.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
And for players not familiar with the trope, either never having seen that film or not remembering it?
That puts it back to 'I step forward five feet, check everything, etc, et AL"
...for five hours...
When the mission is failed because of that, is it going to be any better?
I'll admit, one of many reasons I don't feel comfortable running PF2 is the whole 'Treasure Bundle' concept.
Why would you do that? That is entirely what the search exploration mode is for.
|
|
Nope, there is a PF2 scenario that does the exactly the same thing. Nothing was learned.At least TWO PFS(2) scenarios that do exactly that.I've played or run every PFS2 scenario and I seem to have missed that.
Out of curiousity, which scenarios? Feel free to PM me if you don't want to make the information public.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
** spoiler omitted **Nope, there is a PF2 scenario that does the exactly the same thing. Nothing was learned.At least TWO PFS(2) scenarios that do exactly that.I've played or run every PFS2 scenario and I seem to have missed that.
Out of curiousity, which scenarios? Feel free to PM me if you don't want to make the information public.
|
|
Fair enough, but it still requires some sort of interaction which could potentially set off the trap. I did misremember it a bit then.
Also while I can understand not wanting to have people with a hireling for every skill, one seems a bit harsh. My fighter has his agent/hype-woman with 2 expert skills not counting lores, is that really a problem or even a gamechanger?
|
|
Just from my own anecdotal experience* I don’t see this change as being any change. Neither myself, nor anyone at any table I have played has slotted multiple ally boons. The going understanding was that you can only slot one boon of the same type. So only one ally boon, or only one social boon, etc. The only exception was the slot less boon. Though I admit that after this rule change was published I reviewed the Guide and did not find the limitation we have been following all this time. So while it seems to have been legal, no one seems to be aware of it. At the end of the day, this change is not likely to affect all that many players. Taking it from that perspective org play leadership can either think “go ahead and rebuild, since it won’t be that many people anyway” or “little to no rebuilding because, meh, it only affects a few people anyway.”
*ive played every published scenario and on my way to my 3rd GM glyph, for what it’s worth.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the design philosophies of 2E, as stated by the designers, is “decisions have consequences.” That means highly specialized (aka optimized) characters are going to have more “holes” in their build than more pragmatic characters. If you choose to dump Intelligence, you should not have a “get outta jail free” card in the way of just buying a bunch of hirelings to cover all your inadequacies. It’s part of the game balance. Having a personal hireling is not unreasonable, but having a harem of followers who are impervious to harm is a bit much. YMMV
|
|
That means highly specialized (aka optimized) characters are going to have more “holes” in their build than more pragmatic characters.
I think that this characterization is quite wrong in PF2.
1) Highly specialized doesn't really mean optimized in PF2. It much more accurately translates to focused.2) Depending on level, a good argument can be made that the pragmatic approach IS to specialize. All those trained skills with middling stats get less and less useful as levels increase. And are best handled by just picking up Untrained Improviser or Clever Improviser (or similar abilities).
Even with multiple minions being allowed it is definitely STILL the case that decisions have consequences.
1) Those minions do consume resources. Whether they consume ENOUGH resources is arguable but they DO consume resources (Fame points, opportunity cost of not slotting other boons)
2) The minions will still generally be rolling at worse modifiers than a reasonably invested PC. They let you try the checks but not succeed all that often.
|
|
Just from my own anecdotal experience* I don’t see this change as being any change. Neither myself, nor anyone at any table I have played has slotted multiple ally boons.
I've seen multiple allies being slotted in on-line groups a reasonable amount. Note that it isn't always readily apparent that allies have been slotted. Many GMs don't ask players to explicitly state slotted boons (relying on the honour system) and many players don't explicitly point out their hirelings in either character introduction or when the skill is rolled against. It can often be quite unclear that an ally was even involved.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough, but I am not advocating for a harem(though sadly I now have an awesome idea for an anime protagonist character, lol), would having two or even three be a "get outta jail free" cad?
The exact number is going to be different depending on how emotionally invested in the topic you are. Personally, I think one is adequate and conforms to the “choices have consequences” ideal while still allowing for a fun addition. Example, my paladin who is pattered after Captain America has Agent Colson as his hireling. It makes for some fun side stuff, but is certainly not required for the character to function. Just means he’ll be without a skill or two. OTOH, I’m sure there will be those who think two, three, or even more hireling are necessary for their build and claim their character is unplayable garbage without them.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've posted this before so I'll just keep it bullety.
1. I don't care what the number of expected Treasure Bundles is. That's just me.
2. I do care that that number is clear. That's a Society issue.
3. I also care that that number is universally agreed on. That's a Society issue.
4. It's possible to put more than 10 TBs in the scenario but cap the number you can earn at 10. This is a design issue, not a Society issue.
5. Then, some can be gated behind very hard checks. For example, have 4 "critical path" Bundles that will be nearly impossible to miss; another 4 that are hidden behind easy checks, so 75% of them are found; another 4 behind hard checks, so only 25% of them are found. 12 Bundles total, 8 expected, 10 max. This is a design issue, not a Society issue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you get to defend using your "fun" option, but then claim other people are "emotionally invested" when they defend theirs?
I didn't say my opinion was more/less fun than anyone else's, nor am I defending anything. Everyone who comments is emotionally invested at least to some extent otherwise they wouldn't bother commenting. It is clear that the addition of hirelings is more fun than not, so any number is "better" than zero. So, by having one, it would continue to provide that additional incremental fun.
I did not evaluate the "fun-ness" of more hirelings, I said that limiting it to one would more closely adhere to the "choices have consequences" model.
These are two separate ideals that only relate to each other so far as an individual deems them to. Having one vs more hirelings does not affect my level of fun, but having more than one hireling starts to affect my expectations of consequential choices.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've posted this before so I'll just keep it bullety.
1. I don't care what the number of expected Treasure Bundles is. That's just me.
2. I do care that that number is clear. That's a Society issue.
3. I also care that that number is universally agreed on. That's a Society issue.
4. It's possible to put more than 10 TBs in the scenario but cap the number you can earn at 10. This is a design issue, not a Society issue.
5. Then, some can be gated behind very hard checks. For example, have 4 "critical path" Bundles that will be nearly impossible to miss; another 4 that are hidden behind easy checks, so 75% of them are found; another 4 behind hard checks, so only 25% of them are found. 12 Bundles total, 8 expected, 10 max. This is a design issue, not a Society issue.
A variant of this is actually fairly common:
- If the PCs travel to the dungeon through the swamp they can find item X with a skill check (1 bundle)
- If the PCs take the mountain route to the dungeon instead they can find item Y with a skill check (1 bundle)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A variant of this is actually fairly common:
- If the PCs travel to the dungeon through the swamp they can find item X with a skill check (1 bundle)
- If the PCs take the mountain route to the dungeon instead they can find item Y with a skill check (1 bundle)
Either way, there's 1 (and only 1) Bundle, and it's automatic, which doesn't address the concedrns of some people.
Some people want some Treasure Bundles to be hard to find, so that it represents an achievement when found. And that's a valid concern.
Some other people want the expected TBs to be less than 10, so that the people who go above and beyond are rewarded more. And I can see the argument there as well.
But what everyone wants is for there to be some kind of agreement. Some may even go as far to say that an agreement that standardizes something against their personal wishes is more valuable than the heterogeneity that comes from freedom.
Because in the interim, what it seems like is that word gets around about "hard" scenarios, which are then either not played or played differently; and there's a heterogeneity within the GM community about how hard to try to give people Treasure Bundles.
Take, for example, the "treasure at the bottom of a pit trap" scenario. Depending on what the GM thinks is the "right" way to assign treasure, they could be very strict - only those who triggered the trap get the Bundle; they could be strict - only those who triggered or disarmed the trap get the Bundle; they could be lenient - only those who perceived the trap (even if they didn't disarm it) get the Bundle; or they could be super lenient - "this setup is stupid, I'm giving it to my characters anyway." I believe variants of all four arguments were presented in this thread, so hopefully it's not contested that there's heterogeneity here.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The going understanding was that you can only slot one boon of the same type. So only one ally boon, or only one social boon, etc. The only exception was the slot less boon.
Probably they assumed a carry over from starfinder, which does have that rule.
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Currently, as I read the current guide, a character could have 4 hirelings / ally boons slotted. There would be a signification cost in fame.
I have not seen this. Part of me feels like this is "cheating" the system (it is not, of course) but it certainly is cheesy.
As long as there remains a limit to how many hireling boons can be slotted, I guess I am ok with this currently level. With the current design of the adventures having skill checks across various skills, having hirelings is a plus. Maybe I need to look into getting a few...
|
|
Also, this is the point where I make the point that *almost no one* reads the whole guide.
From the current guide:
This language got strengthened and highlighted in the new guide, to point out that the campaign rewards are actually balanced around 8-9 treasure bundles.
Expectations and Creative Solutions: In the course of completing a scenario, the PCs are likely to acquire all 10 Treasure Bundles as part of overcoming challenges and inspecting their surroundings. That said, a non-linear adventure might include encounter areas (and treasure) the PCs miss entirely, and there might be small portions of treasure that a group would overlook entirely (such as hidden in a concealed room). As a result, even a capable party might not secure all 10 Treasure Bundles. Taking into account the free consumable items granted to PCs at the beginning of adventures, the wealth earned by Pathfinder Society characters is slightly higher than the standard provided in the Core Rulebook. That means that although missing the occasional Treasure Bundle stings, it’s accounted for in the campaign.
Edit: ah, I spotted the difference. It now says “are likely to encounter, if not acquire, all 10 treasure bundles” which is a small, but important difference. It still sets doesn’t set the expectation at 8 or 9.
Edited again: Ok, it’s under player basics.
Don’t worry if you do not get all the treasure bundles. The game’s rewards are balanced around the assumption that you will get 8 or 9 treasure bundles on average.
My original post below:
I’m not sure if there is more of the guide to be rolled out. It certainly looks like the new version is posted, but as of the posting of this message, the first paragraph under treasure bundles reads exactly as quoted above, and there is no mention of 8 or 9 treasure bundles being what things are balanced around. Is there somewhere else we should look for that?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
The new guide has (or attempts to have) a stacking blocks hierarchy (balanced against the desire not to repeat things)
The ideal is that:
Prior to your first game, everything you need to know should be in the welcome link. With things you might be interested in below.
Repeat players should only need the information in the player basics link, with additional info below *if* they want it.
And so on.
This seemed like a pretty important thing for players to know...
|
|
Is it a correct reading that we only get one item from our school now, and there’s no more assigning points to the schools? So you only have access to one list of items? And is generalist a new, separate choice from the three schools, or is that just a new name for the category of items available to everyone?
Is it a correct reading that we only get one item from our school now, and there’s no more assigning points to the schools? So you only have access to one list of items? And is generalist a new, separate choice from the three schools, or is that just a new name for the category of items available to everyone?
Also how does this change already existing characters?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Is it a correct reading that we only get one item from our school now, and there’s no more assigning points to the schools? So you only have access to one list of items? And is generalist a new, separate choice from the three schools, or is that just a new name for the category of items available to everyone?
That is a correct reading. You are either spells, scrolls, generalist, swords or field commission. Only generalists may choose from the generalist list