Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[sheadunne]

How does this not exacerbate the wizard dominance problem in 3.x/PF? Wizards are already mechanically encouraged to spend most of their ranks in Knowledge (xxx) skills, in particular, the six monster identification skills. Allowing these skills to also override other skill checks appears to be a large power increase for the wizard at the expense of the skill-based classes (i.e. ranger, rogue, scout).

When I run a PF game, I don't attempt to balance anything. I just let it go where it goes. Just because there are balance problems in the 3x/PF framework, doesn't mean the game can't be played with those issues. I also don't ban or disallow any Paizo products in the game, nor did I with 3x no matter how skewed it was. Most players balanced it themselves based on the type of game they wanted to play.

I'm also advocating in this thread for a balance between narrative influences not a balance between combat effectiveness. There aren't two sides in this conversation, more like 6 or 7.

On the issue of skill-based classes, I find that Wizards tend to have as many and often times more skill points than the other classes, simply because it's a SAD class with INT as its primary stat. Aside from the Rogue, INT is usually a dump stat for most of the other skill-based classes, including Bard, although not as much there as the others like Ranger. Fighters got boned before and still get boned, although at least now their few skills are more versatile. I haven't noticed any issues, especially when you consider that due to the trait system in PF pretty much any skill can be a class skill. What the 2+ system does do is allow players to invest skill points in the skills they think their characters would actually know, instead of ones they think their character should know in order to play PF. Ideally I'd take the time to rework the entire skill system, but that tends to make it more difficult for players who use electronic aides like Herolabs to keep track of their characters. In a game like PF it's usually more beneficial to invest in Perception than in Appraise, unless appraise can also be used for Diplomacy in situations of economic negotiations or in place of spell craft for identifying magic items or in place of sense motive to see that the car dealer is trying to rip you off. I'd love to see knowledge skills go away and be replaced by skills that encompass both application and study. 4e does this and I think it would only benefit 3x/PF. Just have an acrana skill that's used for knowledge, spellcraft of arcane spells, concentration checks for arcane spells, etc.

There's also the point that Wizards don't particularly even have to bother with skills, since they usually have access to spells that duplicate or exceed the skills anyway. If the wizard really needs to be sneaky he just casts invisibility. If he needs to climb a wall, he levitates. If he needs speak a language, he casts tongues, etc.

Since this thread is about fighters as well, they really need to give the fighter more skill points, but if you look at all the combat skills (proficiencies he gets) he's not doing too badly (3 weapon skills and 4 armor skills and he gets a free rank in each weapon skill per a level). That is if the game were skill based instead of class based, which it isn't.

Anyway, I like giving players options and I've had too many situations where none of the players had invested in relevant skills and it made running a particular AP more difficult in PF. That's less the case these days since I don't rely on any particular skill to accomplish things.

 

[N'raac]

You're looking at how the scenario resolved, not how the scenario was set up. The only fixed thing in the scenario with the chamberlain was that he was reluctant. The why didn't exist. There was no "why" prior to the die being rolled by Thurgon. Once the roll was made and Thurgon failed his diplomacy with the chamberlain a reason for the failed roll now needed to be created. Why did Thurgon fail to persuade the chamberlain to get an audience with the king? In the context of an heroic game, we might assume that the failure wasn't a result of Thurgon, but rather some other force behind the chamberlain (much like the king was control by Saruman in Lord of the Rings. It wasn't Gandolf's failure at Diplomacy so much as Saruman's control that prevented the success.) I think that may be a difference between 3x and 4e where successes or failure in 3x is a result of player failure and success or failure in 4e is a result of the circumstances. In 3x you failed to jump the pit because you're not good at jumping as opposed to 4e where you failed to jump the pit because the pit was too big or the floor to slippery. This also might be a play-style thing rather than an edition thing. I've certainly always viewed the failure as a result of the character. Now though, I'm thinking that it might be more interesting to look at the circumstances instead.

The Chamberlain was also supposed to be quite difficult to persuade. This seems to presuppose he does not share the PC’s goals, does not approve of their methods, does not trust them or is in some other way predisposed to NOT assist the PC’s in their goals. How would we determine whether the Chamberlain is easy or difficult to persuade if we know nothing of his personality, goals, objectives, etc.?

Just make it 50% likely PC’s can succeed at anything they attempt, even if it was 50% likely when they were L1, is still 50% likely at L11 and will still fail half the time at L21 does not appeal to me.

Here's another way to look the scene. We establish that the chamberlain is going to be reluctant as opposed to more open to diplomacy. We establish a hard DC (in 3x we might give him a circumstance bonus to raise the DC). We now have a chamberlain that requires a more difficult chance of being persuaded using diplomacy alone. The reasons for his reluctance are irrelevant at this stage (although background was established that the city was currently at war and something to do with a dragon, so that can't be changed as a result of any rolling).

So who decided he is hard to persuade in the first place, and how did that decision get made? Purely at random? The GM just decides he’s arbitrarily hard to persuade and we’ll figure out why later? How is that remarkably different from “He’s hard to persuade because the GM wants the players to experience a difficult or impossible time getting to see the King”?

Keep in mind that this isn't my preferred method. I don't like relying that much on die rolls, nor do I like my stories to have that much free-form. But what it does do, that I like to some extent, is remove the one-and-done method of 3x skills. Whether it's better than other systems at doing that I don't know, but as far as what I'd like to see happen, it's probably closer than the 3x model which I find tends to shut down the scene, rather than open it up. In much the same way that a single crit hit will kill the big bad or a S0D spell can end the fight before combat even begins.

Fair enough.

In my PF games (and prior in my 3x games), all challenges can be solved using one of two or more skills. There is never a situation where just one skill is the only option.

While I agree with this, I also disagree with the “any skill can be shoehorned into any challenge” model I see in many of these discussions.

Looking at the [huge] thread referenced by Lostsoul (I like to game, not read other peoples’ games, so that’s likely why I don’t remember this thread). At the bottom of p 6, we start negotiating with the Chamberlain. The first skill used is Diplomacy, followed by combat with a dog (intimidation and endurance), the discovery of a war troll who is ensorcled to attack the person we were trying to negotiate with and slaughters him.

This doesn’t have the feel of a diplomatic negotiation with the Chamberlain from where I sit.

Also, as I've mentioned previously, look at the different actions as pluses or minuses to the initial diplomacy check, rather than different ways to negotiate. Perhaps the chamberlain is a fan of dancing and by doing so you add a bonus to your diplomacy check. In 4e instead of the plus or minus, it's number of successes before failures.

OK. Similarly, if the Half orc rolls a ‘20’ on “Perform: Belching”, does that make the Chamberlain a belching fan? If not, what determines whether he likes or dislikes dancing, etc.?

Yes, Perform: Belching is an extreme (and a nonexistent skill), but what determines if the Chamberlain is impressed or offended by Comedy slipping in a joke to lighten the mood, detests or delights in dancing, etc. And who decides that Comedy and Dance have a shot, and a demonstration of archery skill or even belching does not?

And I believe that there are countries where belching is a compliment to the chef, and cleaning your plate is offensive (it suggests you did not receive enough to eat). Yet the posters on this thread have not allowed for the possibility that this might be the background of the Chamberlain, or that he might be familiar with, and impressed by, someone with that culture.

 

[pemerton]

This seems very "over the top" as compared to negotiating for an audience with the King with a Chamberlain who does not wish to facilitate same. Is it possible for the reluctant Chamberlain to be an obstacle while simply being a person who sees matters differently from the PC's, rather than a flesh golem infiltrator in a Kings Court that sees guard dogs attacking servants and a War Troll prisoner in the course of an afternoon's events?

Sure.

But I posit that in a fantasy RPG with 12th level PCs, who are (in virtue of that fact) comparable to Aragorn or Conan or Merlin or Ged in terms of the scope of their prowess within the fiction, that a reluctant Chamberlain whose reluctance is a result of being a gebbeth under the control of the corrupted Court Mage is more exciting!

I would find it difficult to credit the King's Court being reluctant to grant armed adventurers an audience, but have wild guard dogs and war trolls regularly in the Court.

<snip>

And now the King's first thought is to meet with these adventurers regarding the Dragon's siege? Seems like he has a lot of other matters on his plate...

The war troll was an object of interrogation. The guard dogs were just that. The reason we were not granted an audience wasn't because we weren't genteel enough, but because of political opposition.

Plus, the whole notion of "adventurers" is one that I find problematic - it's fine at the metagame level, but you are using it in a way that implies it has some ingame meaning. In the scenario we played, my PC was a Knight Commander of his order who had been rallying the defenders of the city, [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] played a mercenary fighter in whom the balance between hope and cynicism had left him ripe for recruitment by me, [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] played a cyncial enchanter, and [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] played a refugee from the Feywild, a punisher of Sehanine who remembered a lost harmony between the human and elven worlds. So these characters have a history and an integration into the fictional situation that makes them more than just "adventurers" seeking an audience with the king from out of the blue.

These elements of history and situation were drawn upon by [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] in presenting the chamberlain and the court mage.

The “Reluctant Chamberlain” as originally presented was a challenge which had to be resolved by diplomatic means – murdering the Chamberlain to obtain an audience with the King was simply not a viable option, he had to be persuaded to grant access, or somehow circumvented in a means which would not result in the players’ appeals being summarily dismissed.

This challenge was resolved, in part, via diplomatic means: we argued with the chamberlain and then, by defeating the war troll - whose attempts to go wild had been exacerbated by Quinn's mind control - persuaded other members of the war council that we, rather than the chamberlain, had the right policy.

Thematically and in basic dramatic strcuture, the scene could be compared to the Gandalf/Wormtongue/Theoden scene in The Two Towers, only with more crazy violence.

Apparently, Quinn is well nigh unstoppable by the resources most challenges can be expected to bring to bear against him in his chosen field.

I don't know why you say this. Quinn came close to being stopped at the start of the adventure, when he got in over his head in the city sewers. And then, once the dragon shattered the dams above the city, he nearly got swept over a cliff by rushing waters (Thurgon saved him).

While the scenario presented here is an interesting one (and could certainly be designed for play in an indie or a non-indie model – nothing here requires indie play)

<snip>

It seems like a lot of this revolves around "you can use pretty much any skill to succeed in a skill challenge". If we decide the Chamberlain is highly impressed by whatever activity the PC's may take, then the half orc can ingratiate himself with a stunning display of his Perform: Belch the Alphabet skill.

These claims are both wrong. Furthermore, the second one seems simply to be made up! It has no connection to anything Manbearcat actually posted.

The Chamberlain wasn't impressed by anything - his gebbeth body was cut in half by the war troll's chain when the war troll went wild.

It's true that the encounter was framed by Manbearcat in a way that spoke to the inclinations - both story and mechanical of the PCs - of the PCs, but that is the whole point of "indie" play, and also refutes your contentin that this scenario could be designed on a non-indie model. There is no non-indie way of framing a scenario to respond to the hooks built by the players into their PCs, and then adjduciating and evolving it as it unfolds in a way that maintains the pressure on those same points and invites the playes to thereby push towards resolution of the thematic elements built into their PCs. Because to run a game in this way is precisely what the "indie" style, as characterised by me well over 1000 posts upthread, is all about.

You're looking at how the scenario resolved, not how the scenario was set up. The only fixed thing in the scenario with the chamberlain was that he was reluctant. The why didn't exist. There was no "why" prior to the die being rolled

<snip>

I think that may be a difference between 3x and 4e where successes or failure in 3x is a result of player failure and success or failure in 4e is a result of the circumstances.

<snip>

This also might be a play-style thing rather than an edition thing. I've certainly always viewed the failure as a result of the character. Now though, I'm thinking that it might be more interesting to look at the circumstances instead.

<snip>

Once the players start rolling more dice to investigate, more answers are created based on failure or success, just as if Thurgon had succeeded on his Diplomacy, the scene would have changed to reflect that success.

<snip>

Keep in mind that this isn't my preferred method. I don't like relying that much on die rolls, nor do I like my stories to have that much free-form.

I think this is a good summary.

I think we can also note that some of these things are matters of degree - for instance, from memory some of LostSoul's failed checks early on did just mean that Quinn didn't quite do what he was trying to - and also, in 4e, skill resolution in combat, particularly as it pertains to movement, tends to be less fortune-in-the-middle and more like sheadunne's characterisation of 3E. I find this difference in techniques across domains of conflict (combat vs non-combat) is one of the more challenging aspects of 4e in play.

 

[pemerton]

How would we determine whether the Chamberlain is easy or difficult to persuade if we know nothing of his personality, goals, objectives, etc.?

<snip>

So who decided he is hard to persuade in the first place, and how did that decision get made?

I have answered this multiple times upthread. There are rules for skill challenge construction (how many checks required at Easy, Medium or Hard difficulty) and then DC-by-level charts to assign numbers to those different degrees of difficulty.

It is the GM's job to actually manage all this in play.

 

[pemerton]

If anyone wants I can post my overall thoughts of the PBP game from a non-4e player, in regards to the theme of the thread (caster/non-caster balance).

Yes please.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah but then again in the original rules for SC's the DM was supposed to create a list of primary and secondary skills and the PC's were only supposed to use skills that were specified on that list... Not sure which one is worse actually.

EDIT: I also think this is where the "just an excercise in rolling dice" sentiment might have originated from since this almost seems to be borderline railroading and leaves very little room for creativity on the player's part... except in trying to come up with some description of how they used the DM dictated skill...

But, why bring in the original write up that everyone agrees was poorly done? There's a reason that the original SC rules were redone.

I think that there tends to be two very big problems in these discussions. And I'm likely just as guilty as anyone so don't think I'm pointing fingers.

One, picking and choosing specific point in the development of the game in order to criticize the game without acknowledging that things were changed to fix that issue at some point down the road.

Two, presuming that the people at the table are incapable of choosing interpretations that make sense to the table so all interpretations must be either dictated by the mechanics or the DM.

 

[LostSoul]

IFurther, I think part of it may have just been miscommunication.

Yup; what's more, I wanted to hold my thoughts for later - I wanted to play through it first.

In this case, your initial Disguise Self (Bluff) check is inherent to the power deployed itself so the intent of the mechanics take precedence. The Illusion spell requires you to make a Bluff check (with + 5 power bonus) opposed by target's Insight check. Success (which occurred in this case) establishes the illusory ruse as successful. You became that gutter rut female (I believe that is what it was from memory) to the target.

If we would have been on the same page about your intent to sit and talk with the figure (with reference to the immediate fictional positioning), I would have asked for Diplomacy at the Hard DC) and then we would have gone from there.

That makes sense to me. From my point of view, while playing, I thought that I was going to get an audience with that successful Disguise (Change Self) check, but I did not make my intent explicit. That's the sort of thing that gets dealt with easily at the table but it can be difficult in a PbP.

However, I felt it made more genre sense and better fit the fictional positioning to escalate it to violence and have the lackey dispatched to take care of you while the Court Mage beat a quick retreat. As such, the situation turned into an Action Scene where we resolved the conflict whereby your information gathering effort was on the line.

I felt like Quinn was let off the hook here - when we transitioned to an action scene it seemed as though my previous failures had been erased. I was expecting the successes and failures from the transition scene to carry over to the action scene. Is that because we went from one scene to the next?

*

I enjoyed the game; the action scene with the dryad was very tense. It was rewarding to try to change her mind instead of simply bashing her into the ground.

 

[Manbearcat]

That's the sort of thing that gets dealt with easily at the table but it can be difficult in a PbP.

Quite so. To compound things, there is a driving need to be concerned for the aesthetic of the PbP so that participants and surveyors can easily follow. I found that distracting. Information conveyance real time and the back and forth between player and GM is infinitely easier.

I felt like Quinn was let off the hook here - when we transitioned to an action scene it seemed as though my previous failures had been erased. I was expecting the successes and failures from the transition scene to carry over to the action scene. Is that because we went from one scene to the next?

A couple different things at work there:

1 - I wanted to present a combat as Skill Challenge as an example of technique. This presented an expeditious and flavorful opportunity to do so. In my home game I may have immediately moved to the combat resolution mechanics if I thought the PC(s) were threatened with death and/or climactic potential was inherent. See this thread.

2 - If Quinn failed and the post-failure fictional positioning dictated mortal combat with either the Lackey, the Rat Swarm, or both, we would have immediately moved to the combat resolution mechanics with a Bloodied Quinn (the Healing Surge loss turning into true HP damage) and likely other injured participants.

For instance, the situation was:

4:1 Cold arcane words in a language lost to the ages whisper from nowhere and where there was one terror-filled thug, now there are two. A shadowy double pulls itself from the inky blackness of the ground to stand before the man. Its too much. A shriek echoes off the stonework, running off into the dark distance. With no regard for dignity, machismo or reputation, the man simply turns to (awkwardly given the tight quarters) run. It doesn't occur to him that he's leaving his only light source behind. He just wants out of there. In a cold flash, the shadow dissipates into a thousand flitting tendrils and instantly reappears in his path. The man cowers, overing his face and head, begging for mercy. Quinn hears a strange sound...but its not outward, its inward. A familiar (literally) squeeking and squawking emanates through the corridors of his mind. Something is coming...his senses stretch outward now and the sound of...thousands of tiny feet and chirping rush forward like a tsunami of fur, whiskers and pestilence. Giant Rat Swarm!

You then finished things off with a successful Beguiling Flash, Suggestion and Illusory Obstacles (which was added colour as the BF and S closed the scene mechanically in your favor), which led to:

[My rolls: Beguiling Flash, Suggestion, and Illusory Obstacles (1d20+18=26, 1d20+19=25, 1d20+18=34)]

A Beguiling Flash illuminates the swarm of giant rats and sends them skittering away for a moment. Quinn steps out of the shadows - still in his feminine guise - and extends a hand. "Your life is in my hands now," he says, weaving subtle magic into his words, "Give yourself to me." The mind of the brute burns.

The rats turn back towards their prey. Quinn speaks a word of power and waves his hand, and the rats begin climbing over each other in a confused mess. The brute reaches up, Quinn lifts him to his feet, and the pair flee the scene.

[I think those were successes. The intents were: 1. to force the rats back away from the brute and save him from immediate attack; 2. to hammer it home that the brute is mine now - I wasn't sure if this was a valid intent, so I also threw in 3. to make sure the rats would not be able to catch us. Hope that works.]

Assuming two successes...

1. "Your old master said that everything was going to change - what did he mean?"
2. "Does your old master have any ties to the king or his courtiers, including the chamberlain?"

Instead, let us back things up to the fiction at 4:1 above and assume Beguiling Flash is unsuccessful and then your follow-up action is unsuccessful (I don't know if it would be Suggestion if BF was not successful). You've failed your Skill Challenge. Here is the most likely follow-up conflict (mortal combat) using the combat resolution mechanics:

1 - Quinn is Bloodied.
2 - The Lackey is Bloodied but pretty close to melee range with Quinn.
3 - The Rat Swarm is max HP.
4 - You're in a tight tunnel system with concealment due to lighting conditions (the lantern in the water playing about on the walls...that is about it).

You're talking about dire circumstances there for Quinn facing off against an n + 1 encounter while bloodied. Certainly within his power but things could potentially go south real quick.

I hope that all makes sense.

 

[Manbearcat]

Originally Posted by sheadunne
If anyone wants I can post my overall thoughts of the PBP game from a non-4e player, in regards to the theme of the thread (caster/non-caster balance).

Yes please.

Second that emotion. I think what would be interesting is if both you and [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] broke out your sense of (i) your personal contribution by way of PC build resources meeting the resolution mechanics and how that (ii) compares with your counterpart's contribution.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah but then again in the original rules for SC's the DM was supposed to create a list of primary and secondary skills and the PC's were only supposed to use skills that were specified on that list

But, why bring in the original write up that everyone agrees was poorly done?

Not only that, Imaro's statement of the original skill challenge rules is incomplete. He's leaving out these bits, for instance (pp 73-74):

Certain skills lead to the natural solutions to the problem the challenge presents. These should serve as the primary skills in the challenge. . .

Start with a list of the challenge’s primary skills, then give some thought to what a character might do when using that skill. You don’t need to make an exhaustive list, but try to define categories of actions the characters might take. Sometimes characters might decide to do exactly what you anticipate, but often you need to take what a player wants to do and find the closest match to the actions you’ve outlined. When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it. . .

Always keep in mind that players can and will come up with ways to use skills you do not expect. Stay on your toes, and let whatever improvised skill uses they come up with guide the rewards and penalties you apply afterward. . .

In a skill challenge encounter, every player character must make skill checks to contribute to the success or failure of the encounter. Characters must make a check on their turn using one of the identified primary skills . . . or they must use a different skill, if they can come up with a way to use it to contribute to the challenge . . .​

Making sense of this is not trivially easy - but it is crystal clear that it is not the case that players are expected to use only the skills on the GM's list. As best I can interpret it (and there may be no single, fully coherent interpretation) the GM's list of primary skills is (i) a type of preparation by the GM for improvising, a bit like mapping out likely NPC tactics in advance of a combat encounter, (ii) is part of the process of sketching out the fiction of the skill challenge, thinking of it not only in story terms but connecting those story elements to the mechanical resources for resolution that the players have available, and (iii) provides a source of hints or cribs if the players can't think of anything to do in order to have their PCs engage the challenge.

Another thing which is made quite clear by the reference to rewards and penalties is that the consequences of a skill challenge are intended to turn on the actions actually taken by the PCs in its resolution. (And if there is any doubt that "rewards" in this terminology can go beyond treasure and XP to include changes in the fiction that advantage the PCs, that doubt is resolved by p 122 of the DMG, which observes that "quests can also have less concrete rewards. Perhaps someone owes them a favor, they’ve earned the respect of an organization that might give them future quests, or they’ve established a contact who can provide them with important information or access.")

There is also this interesting remark (on p 73), which reminds me of "quick takes" within the scene resolution mechanics for Maelstrom Storytelling:

Remember that not everything has to be directly tied to the challenge. Tangential or unrelated benefits, such as making unexpected allies from among the duke’s court or finding a small, forgotten treasure, can also be fun.​

This is another way in which 4e GMs are expressly told by their DMG to be flexible, responsive and dynamic in their adjudication and resolution of skill challenges.

So while I agree that the original presentation was not ideal, it certainly did not say what Imaro says it did, and certainly does not provide any licence for the "mere series of dice rolls" which I see as reports and characterisations of skill challenges from time to time. If players didn't in fact read the manual - perhaps because they mistook skill challenges for complex skill checks from Unearthed Arcana - that is not WotC's fault. If they failed to understand the manual, that is getting closer to the author's responsibility, but it still doesn't license the drawing of inferences about intended play which are expressly contradicted, in multiple places, by the statement that players can use whatever skill they like provided that the action they are declaring makes sense within the fiction framed by the GM.