Season 6 Technology Rules Roundup


GM Discussion

1 to 50 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sczarni 2/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey all! Are you running one of the Season 6 scenarios dealing with the wonders of Numeria? There are plenty of new rules you're going to need to familiarize yourself with in order to run them properly. This is a quick rundown with links to pertinent forum discussions!

Learnin' Stuff!

The secrets of technology are difficult for the rest of Golarion to understand, and your average wizard is going to have a tough time identifying items and creatures without investing some resources.

Technology Guide pg5 wrote:

Skills

No new skills are introduced to the Pathfinder RPG to model how characters interact with technology--rather, existing skills** are expanded to allow for such interaction. Additional rules for how skills interact with technology are listed below. Without the Technologist feat, a character is treated as untrained in the skill in question when using it on technology.

**Includes Craft (mechanical), Disable Device, Linguistics (Androffan), or research skills like Heal, K:Engineering, and K: Geography.

Technology Guide pg7 wrote:

Technologist

Benefit: You are considered to be trained in any skill used against a technology based subject. If the skill in question requires training to use even against non-technological subjects, you must still have ranks in the that skill in order to gain the benefit of Technologist.

Normal: You treat all skill checks against technology as if they were untrained skill checks. This may mean that you cannot attempt certain skill checks, even if you possess ranks in the skill in question.

You may notice that Disable Device and Linguistics are both trained only skills, meaning that they may not be used against a technological subject at all unless you have the Technologist feat. Generally, you can only hit a DC 10 on an untrained Knowledge skill check, which means most PCs will be unable to learn about a technological subject.

For more information, check the Technology Guide. A lot of material has been added to the scenarios, but if you plan to GM Season 6 a lot, the book is completely worth it.

(forum post: Robot Knowledge Check DC)

I'll Take That There Space Gun

Using technology isn't a simple task either. Even if you manage to figure out what a particular item is, the item may not be properly charged and finding ammo isn't always easy. Regular ranged weapons take the Exotic Weapons Proficiency (Firearms) feat, though some will require an additional EWP (Heavy Weapons).

However, many of the items are also timeworn, meaning that they have the potential to glitch. These rules are outlined in full in the Guide to Organized Play, but the general idea is that a glitch occurs when:

  • an item is used for the first time after a month of inactivity (50% chance)
  • an item is used in such a way that drains the last charge (50% chance)
  • an item requires a d20 roll which results in a natural 1

The glitch table is detailed in the Guide, and has some pretty random effects. See the Technology Guide for more specifics about weapons, armor, and items.

Because these items are subtyped as technological and not mundane, they aren't Always Available and must be found on a scenario chronicle sheet for purchase.

Them Gosh Darn Robots

Robots are constructs with the robot subtype, which means they must be identified using Knowledge: Engineering with the caveats listed above.

Further, Robots have hardness rather than DR, which we often see as a rule for objects rather than creatures. Since the rules here are confusing, and the forum post is heated, I'll personally go with James Jacobs here.

James Jacobs wrote:
As it turns out, robots are not objects—they're creatures. And as such, energy damage is not halved when applied to them. That bit about halving energy damage is a quality of an object, not a quality of Hardness. (And in my opinion... it's a kind of silly rule anyway—the idea that fire deals half-damage to paper is ridiculous.)

I plan to use Hardness 10 to mean the same as DR 10/- and Resist All 10 for spell and other effects. Consensus remains mixed. :)

(forum post: Hardness Rules and Energy Damage)

Technological Scenarios

These rules currently apply to the following scenarios. There may be more specific information in their specific threads.

6-01: Trial By Machine (post 1/post 2)
6-02: The Silver Mount Collection (post 1)
6-03: The Technic Siege (post 1)

-----

Sooo... any suggestions or updates or arguments or official statements or requests to delete this thread and move on?

Grand Lodge 4/5

A preliminary read through of pages 5 and 6 of the Technology Guide leads me to believe that you are correct, skill checks cannot be made in regards to technology without the Technologist feat. This appears to include making Knowledge (engineering) checks to identify robots. I'm a little saddened to say it, but technology is complicated.

4/5 *

Thanks for the greeat summary!

Grand Lodge 4/5

xebeche wrote:
A preliminary read through of pages 5 and 6 of the Technology Guide leads me to believe that you are correct, skill checks cannot be made in regards to technology without the Technologist feat. This appears to include making Knowledge (engineering) checks to identify robots. I'm a little saddened to say it, but technology is complicated.

Technology is complicated, but with the way things are written it's apparently much stranger and more rare than monsters that are beyond mortal reckoning, because those don't require a feat to identify.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Problem is, it makes these 3 scenarios nearly unplayable (or at least not any fun, as you need to make some skill checks to get past certain parts) if you use that rule.

I'm sure that this happened because of parallel development, which often does not correspond with one another.

Sovereign Court 3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, at least 6-01 and 6-03 i will run as written which means:

6-01
Trial By Machine makes use of the Pathfinder RPG Core
Rulebook, Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, Pathfinder RPG Bestiary
2, Pathfinder RPG GameMastery Guide, and Pathfinder
RPG Ultimate Equipment.

6-03
This adventure makes use of the following Pathfinder
Roleplaying Game products: the Pathfinder RPG Core
Rulebook, Pathfinder RPG Advanced Class Guide (ACG),
Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player’s Guide (APG), Pathfinder
RPG Advanced Race Guide (ARG), Pathfinder RPG Bestiary
(B1), Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 2 (B2), Pathfinder RPG
Ultimate Combat (UC), Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Equipment
(UE), and Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Magic (UM).

No technology guide mentioned, which you can interpret that you don´t need it.

It is also kind of proof that Andrew is right and it is a problem of parallel development which will be solved soon, i guess.

4/5 *

I played 6-01 last night, and the GM did not worry about this issue, and we had fun and succeeded fairly easily (I had a Lore Warden with decent Knowledge (Engineering), and we had 3 (!) rogues) which helped. If it is just a glitch, hopefully it will be clarified soon so we don't have table variation make a scenario unplayable.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Problem is, it makes these 3 scenarios nearly unplayable (or at least not any fun, as you need to make some skill checks to get past certain parts) if you use that rule.

Using this rule does *not* make 6-03 unplayable by any means and it actually pisses me off that you would jump to such a conclusion.

Hyperbole and assumptions help no one.

Dark Archive 3/5

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'll back Kyle on this. My group enjoyed figuring out how to kill them some robots with trial and error. They tried a lot of stuff before someone decided to burn a lightning bolt on one, to great success. The next robot went down much, much faster.

My favorite part was watching the paladin smack the robot over and over again and only just ding the thing before watching the last round's damage go away.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Problem is, it makes these 3 scenarios nearly unplayable (or at least not any fun, as you need to make some skill checks to get past certain parts) if you use that rule.

Using this rule does *not* make 6-03 unplayable by any means and it actually pisses me off that you would jump to such a conclusion.

Hyperbole and assumptions help no one.

I played all three of these at Gen Con, and some of the details may be bleeding into one another. I assure there are no hyperboles or assumptions being made. I may be misremembering about the exact details of 6-03.

But anytime you need to make a skill check to identify something (not just a creature) or disable device to unlock a door, you suddenly can't unless you have the Technologist feat.

There is at least one of the 3 that would be impossible to succeed at without the Technologist feat, and another where you assuredly would have almost no chance to get your second Prestige without the feat.

If 6-03 has none of these circumstances, then exclude it from my commentary. But let's not assume that I'm just assuming Kyle.

5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
If 6-03 has none of these circumstances, then exclude it from my commentary. But let's not assume that I'm just assuming Kyle.

You're right, I made the poor assumption that if you had already played the scenario you wouldn't be making the statement that it's unplayable without being able to identify one (mook) monster and a couple of pharmaceuticals. Clearly it's easier to lump every scenario together to help make an argument.

3/5

Well I guess the real question to Kyle would be if those writing the scenarios knew about this feat (and, more so, the technology/untrained rule) ahead of time, right? If they did, then they should be played that way. If they weren't made aware of the implications... well then perhaps one should rethink how to run those particular scenarios.

For the record, I've not played any of them yet (I'm playing 6-03 tonight). I kinda wish N'wah had spoilered his comment in light of that, but this is the GM Discussion forum, so it's at least partly my fault.

5/5

I did, but I can't speak for the other authors.

As for tonight's game, just don't meta-game it. They basically look and act like constructs (closest to a golem). Approach them as such. Oh, there's technically a chance you won't encounter one depending on where you're playing in the sand box.

Sczarni 2/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Dealing with skill checks...

6-01:
In area B3, the lift can be used without skill checks if you have the ion gauntlet and the correct code. The text given shares with the PCs that there is a handprint pad, and I expect them to figure that out without skills, especially since the gauntlets are IN THE ROOM. 6-01 also gives NPCs which can give some guidance, even though they don't have the Technologist feat either.

The skills listed are there to circumvent the door, so I don't mind that they're difficult.

  • K:Engineering DC 15 to identify that a glove/gauntlet is required to open the door is impossible without Technologist.
  • Disable Device DC 15 to bypass handprint is impossible without Technologist or an E-Pick granted in the scenario.
  • Disable Device or Linguistics DC 15 are both impossible without Technologist (or the E-Pick).

Other than those (and the Infirmary hutch with a similar handprint scheme), the only other tech DCs are to identify the robots, which is of course not possible without Technologist.

All success conditions are totally possible while adhering to these rules.

6-02:
This scenario again features an NPC who can give some minimal guidance to allow characters to gain the story if the PCs can't make these skill checks. The only technology based skill checks that would be performed are identifying the robots, which is impossible without Technologist.

Special note is that the final boss is subtype construct swarm, not construct robot swarm, so I will let my players use K:Arcana to get some hints about the possession. All success conditions are possible.

I haven't prepared 6-03, but there isn't anything here that leads me to believe that either of these scenarios are impossible to complete using these rules. It'll just be a little jarring for PCs to hear "you don't know about these things" rather than the normal PFS scenario!

3/5

Kyle Baird wrote:

I did, but I can't speak for the other authors.

As for tonight's game, just don't meta-game it. They basically look and act like constructs (closest to a golem). Approach them as such. Oh, there's technically a chance you won't encounter one depending on where you're playing in the sand box.

Awesome, thanks Kyle. I look forward to it. It may be the first Mwangi mission I get to play with my Druid that's from the area. How do I deal with constructs? Hit them harder.

First construct I ever came across:

Other character: It's a golem, you need adamantine.
Me: I don't have adamantine, I have this... *wildshape into an Arsinotherium, proceed to pummel the golem to dust*

So yeah, I'll stick to that if it comes up tonight. I'll just make a conscious effort to not prep lightning spells.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

Whether or not we succeeded I know that 6-01 would have been a lot poorer experience without some knowledge checks being made.

I would also expect relatively few GMs to know about a rule in a specific splat book that is not even mentioned in 6-1 so I'd expect lots of table variation.

If I built a knowledge monkey I'd be more than a bit peeved to find I don't know anything useful in Season 6 without buying a book to get an additional feat.

We need a clear statement as to whether or not the skill rules should be applied. If time still allows that statement should be in the Guide. While I strongly hope that they are NOT applied the primary issue is that the situation should be clear.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
If 6-03 has none of these circumstances, then exclude it from my commentary. But let's not assume that I'm just assuming Kyle.
You're right, I made the poor assumption that if you had already played the scenario you wouldn't be making the statement that it's unplayable without being able to identify one (mook) monster and a couple of pharmaceuticals. Clearly it's easier to lump every scenario together to help make an argument.

You did notice that I said that the details may be bleeding together and that I may be misremembering, right?

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

For what it's worth, Kyle's right that 6-03 is unaffected. However, that is the one that I'm less worried about - the lack of knowledge regarding how to get around hardness can be debilitating at Tier 1-5 or 3-7, where 6-01 and 6-02 live.

4/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

6-01:
We didn't need to make Engineering checks to figure out that the big hand-shaped hole in the locked door needed a big hand-shaped object to fit into it. When my hand was too small and proved to not work, we tried the next-biggest hand - the gauntlet from the skeleton.

ID'ing robots:
You don't need a Knowledge roll to shoot an arrow at a robot and see it shatter, doing no damage. You also don't need technologist to know that some constructs have hardness instead of DR - that's Knowledge (arcana). Even though you can't ID the robot, you can make some educated guesses based on what you *do* know, and that's good enough.

Paizo Employee 4/5 Developer

17 people marked this as a favorite.

I've looked over the scenarios in question, and I can see the issue(s) folks are referencing. I assigned #6–01 and #6–02 before developed text for the Technology Guide was readily available, so the authors did not include that expectation into their scenarios. As a result, some of the tasks described in the scenarios are more difficult than originally intended. That said, most or all of the situations in these scenarios are surmountable through other methods.

Arkos (half a dozen posts above) gives a good assessment of the Technologist-related skill checks in the season's first two scenarios, and GM Lamplight has a few other observations from just a few minutes ago. I'll add a little to that.

#6–01:
Using an ion gauntlet and the code written in area B5 can activate the elevator. I don't believe we've ever defined what Goblin numbers look like compared to Taldane numbers, but I'm operating under the assumption that they are similar such that even a Goblin-illiterate PC might be able to distinguish those figures as being different and be able to punch them in for the elevator.

#6–02:
Identifying the gearsmen is difficult without the Technologist feat, but one can still use Knowledge (arcana) to identify the cyberplasm and learn of ways that it might be separated from its host.

I've spoken with several other employees who worked on the Technology Guide to get their take on how to handle the Technologist feat and its impact—direct and indirect—on Pathfinder Society Organized Play. To summarize, the Technologist feat is a mechanism to show how strange and alien (in several senses of the word) Numerian technology is, and it functions as intended. It's not part of one's basic training as a Pathfinder, for example. Expect some trial and error problem solving in-game.

It is clear to me that I need to be more careful in how I handle inclusion of technology in future scenarios: provide plenty of material for non-Technologist characters but include helpful-yet-non-essential aspects that a Technologist character could enjoy and use to benefit the party. A somewhat similar point is true for the hardness rules, which show up with troubling frequency when robots are on the loose; my intention is not to make this the "Year of Being Doomed Unless You Have an Adamantine Greatsword," or any other such unofficial title.

As advertised in prior interviews, blogs, and messageboard posts, there are in the realm of 3–4 more tech-related adventures on the schedule, whereas the rest are expected to have no or virtually no tech tie-in.

Grand Lodge 4/5

I still find it strange and rather silly that it's apparently easier to know all about Cthulhu than it is to know about Technology in general, but if that's the ruling than so be it.

Dark Archive 4/5 *

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I don't think it's all that strange, Cthulhu is something horrible whispered about for millenia, whereas robots have only recent been seen outside of Numeria and when they were seen, were likely mistaken for iron or clockwork golems.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Well, substitute Cthulhu with literally anything else, then. Literally unique creatures that no one has ever seen before don't require a feat before you can knowledge check them.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Yes, but most of those other things come from sources similar to things you have seen.

You have never seen Cthulu, but you might have seen a star spawn or seen the art and lore of the deep ones.

You have never seen a hybrid creature pieced together from three different demons, infused with hellish souls, but you know what those creatures were like when alive.

Etc.

Nothing else on numaria is remotely like a robot or a laser, and the only things that are similar (scorching ray, clockwork golems) may be sufficiently dissimilar that your knowledge as much of a handycap than a help.

(Personally, I would rather they had like an extra +15 DC, failing a knowledge check by more than 10 gives you a piece of incorrect information. But that is just me.)

Grand Lodge 4/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Except that the creature could be completely dissimilar to anything you've ever heard of, or a creature that actively pretends to be another type of creature, and you still wouldn't need a feat to ID it, unless it had the Robot subtype, apparently.

Look, I understand that I'm not going to get things changed. Paizo has obviously decided that this is how things work and my opinion really doesn't matter to them as a whole. I just don't understand why this is where they chose to draw the line in what skills could do.

"This is a CR 1 Robot. You're a level 20 Wizard with 20 ranks in Knowledge (Engineering) and a super high intelligence, but you don't have the Technologist feat so you can't identify it. You can, however, go over there and pilot the Tsar Tank with no further training needed."

1/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Merola wrote:

Except that the creature could be completely dissimilar to anything you've ever heard of, or a creature that actively pretends to be another type of creature, and you still wouldn't need a feat to ID it, unless it had the Robot subtype, apparently.

Look, I understand that I'm not going to get things changed. Paizo has obviously decided that this is how things work and my opinion really doesn't matter to them as a whole. I just don't understand why this is where they chose to draw the line in what skills could do.

"This is a CR 1 Robot. You're a level 20 Wizard with 20 ranks in Knowledge (Engineering) and a super high intelligence, but you don't have the Technologist feat so you can't identify it. You can, however, go over there and pilot the Tsar Tank with no further training needed."

Yeah, it's a train wreck. Put a rule that changes how a scenario works in a book not referenced anywhere in the scenario. *sigh*

I think I'll avoid running any scenarios involving technology for the time being.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:


Yeah, it's a train wreck. Put a rule that changes how a scenario works in a book not referenced anywhere in the scenario. *sigh*

I think I'll avoid running any scenarios involving technology for the time being.

My personal solution until this gets clarified will be to ask if any character has the Technologist feat. If the answer is yes I'll enforce the technology rules and let that character really shine.

If the answer is no, then I won't enforce the technology rules and I'll let the players experience what is IMO the far better experience when they get to know some of what is going on.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Is John's post above not clarification on the issue?

1/5 **

pauljathome wrote:

My personal solution until this gets clarified will be to ask if any character has the Technologist feat. If the answer is yes I'll enforce the technology rules and let that character really shine.

If the answer is no, then I won't enforce the technology rules and I'll let the players experience what is IMO the far better experience when they get to know some of what is going on.

I really like that solution. It rewards people who have spent the resources but doesn't punish people when no one in the group owns the technology guide.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that as PFS GMs we are afforded the latitude to choose which rules to enforce...hence my resolve to avoid running tech-heavy scenarios.

1/5 **

Jeff Merola wrote:
Is John's post above not clarification on the issue?

To the few dozen people who have seen this thread, sure.

As for everyone else...I'd strongly suggest enhancing the "Season 6 special rules" section of the Guide to Organized Play.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

Jeff Merola wrote:
Is John's post above not clarification on the issue?

As far as I can see it does NOT give me guidance on what to do with scenarios 1-3. It is an explanation of why the issue arises and a promise to address it in future scenarios.

If I'm missing something please point it out to me (that is sincere and NOT snark)

Grand Lodge 4/5

bugleyman wrote:
To the few dozen people who have seen this thread, sure.

My post was entirely directed at paul's statement, and I'm pretty sure he's reading this thread.

pauljathome wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Is John's post above not clarification on the issue?

As far as I can see it does NOT give me guidance on what to do with scenarios 1-3. It is an explanation of why the issue arises and a promise to address it in future scenarios.

If I'm missing something please point it out to me (that is sincere and NOT snark)

While he did not directly state that we should use the Tech guide's rules on skills, he did state that most or all of the challenges in the first three scenarios are beatable even without the Technologist feat, that "[Technology is] not part of one's basic training as a Pathfinder, for example" and "Expect some trial and error problem solving in game."

In other words, I'm taking his lack of saying "Don't use the Technologist feat rules for now" as well as his statement that they'll definitely be used in the future as clarification that we should still use them for Scenarios 1-3.

Dark Archive 4/5 5/5 ****

Honestly, what I read was to use the rules as presented in the scenario over the Tech Guide. Although thee tech guide is on the PRD, that does not mean that all rules from it are to be used.

As I said there are already rules for skills in 6-01, so I would assume that if they are going to want to have us use the rules for the tech guide, it will be obvious I am sure there is a lot in the book that does not need the one feat.

Sczarni 2/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just ran both 6-01 and 6-02 using the rules from the Technology Guide, and everything turned out just fine. Everyone was successful, players said they enjoyed the mystery, and no one complained once after I explained the new rules. There were plenty of jokes about who would cast spells hiding the auras of all these clearly magical artifacts.

It was a different kind of game, but I feel like I can say it was fun for the players. Sure, it was challenging, but it still works. It certainly wasn't impossible.

Unless you have a hangup about having to purchase a new book, I don't see why you wouldn't just use the rules. But whatever, I'm certainly not the PFS police.

1/5 **

Arkos wrote:
Unless you have a hangup about having to purchase a new book, I don't see why you wouldn't just use the rules. But whatever, I'm certainly not the PFS police.

The problem is people who haven't purchased the tech guide -- or read this thread -- will have no idea that, say, plain-old knowledge (engineering) isn't supposed to work on tech. As a result, the potential for significant table variation exists. Happily, this can be addressed by adjusting the guide to organized play.

4/5 *

Paulathome: how does this not answer the question?

"I've spoken with several other employees who worked on the Technology Guide to get their take on how to handle the Technologist feat and its impact—direct and indirect—on Pathfinder Society Organized Play. To summarize, the Technologist feat is a mechanism to show how strange and alien (in several senses of the word) Numerian technology is, and it functions as intended. It's not part of one's basic training as a Pathfinder, for example. Expect some trial and error problem solving in-game."

Follow the rule, please.

Shadow Lodge 3/5

This is a little strange that players are expected to have a feat that the authors and development never considered, from a book most people don't have and some won't even know about, in order to make the skill checks that they intended.

Pauljathome had an excellent solution to this; I'm surprised it's not being instantly picked up?

Grand Lodge 4/5

Avatar-1 wrote:

This is a little strange that players are expected to have a feat that the authors and development never considered, from a book most people don't have and some won't even know about, in order to make the skill checks that they intended.

Pauljathome had an excellent solution to this; I'm surprised it's not being instantly picked up?

Chris Mortika had a decent reason for that causing problems. Using that method someone with the Technologist feat isn't making themselves more useful, they're making everyone else less useful.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Jeff Merola wrote:
Avatar-1 wrote:

This is a little strange that players are expected to have a feat that the authors and development never considered, from a book most people don't have and some won't even know about, in order to make the skill checks that they intended.

Pauljathome had an excellent solution to this; I'm surprised it's not being instantly picked up?

Chris Mortika had a decent reason for that causing problems. Using that method someone with the Technologist feat isn't making themselves more useful, they're making everyone else less useful.

Agreed. I can see the following situation:

Table without technologist:
Bard: I have a 30 Knowledge(Engineering) to identify the creature!
GM: You make it!

Table with technologist:
Bard: I have a 30 Knowledge(Engineering) to identify the creature!
Fighter: Oooh, I've got Technologist! That should help me identify it!
GM: You can only roll that knowledge if you've got Technologist. Fighter, go ahead and roll it up.
Fighter rolls 3.

Did Fighter make a wise investment of his feat, or did he just cause the entire party to lose valuable information?

1/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If only there were a simple solution...like putting Season 6's special rules in the Guide to Organized Play's "Season 6 Special Rules" section.

I swear, is there anything people won't argue on the Internet? :P

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

To be fair to bards - it shouldn't matter as long as they still have bardic knowledge. That should let them make the skill check untrained.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Do bards still get Bardic Knowledge to overcome Technologist? I don't know; I haven't read that book. Technologist isn't mentioned in the GtOP, and I don't care to purchase the tech guide for this one question.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Fortunately, the Technology Guide is on the prd. The feat is here.

As far as I can tell, that works. The Technologist feat says that normally the skill checks would be untrained if they didn't have the feat, but bardic knowledge allows you to make skill checks untrained.

5/5

I'm assuming that the same would hold true for anyone with Favored Enemy: Constructs.

Silver Crusade 5/5

I may have to take that level of Galvanic Saboteur after all. Down with robots!

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Huh. Sorry, I thought it was part of the Campaign Setting line. Weird. Well, I can see why Bardic Knowledge would apply, then.

Grand Lodge 4/5

James McTeague wrote:

Fortunately, the Technology Guide is on the prd. The feat is here.

As far as I can tell, that works. The Technologist feat says that normally the skill checks would be untrained if they didn't have the feat, but bardic knowledge allows you to make skill checks untrained.

But would the Bard get the benefit of any ranks in that skill when making a check that would normally require the Technologist feat to make?

Knowledge (Engineering)
+ 1/2 Bard level
+ Int mod
+ skill ranks?
+ class bonus? I would guess that if the actual skill ranks wouldn't count, neither would the class bonus for being a trained skill.

Would that reactivate the benefit of certain feats, like Dilettante, that only give a benefit if you have less than 6 ranks in a skill?
What effect, as well, would it have on the variable benefits of feats like Skill Focus?

I think this whole thing is going to be a prime example of the Law of Unintended Consequences...

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Wait, what?

It just says "treat it as if it was untrained", not "you lose your ranks in that knowledge skill." It clarifies afterwards that it means that you can't make certain checks because they're untrained, not that your bonus goes down.

Grand Lodge 4/5

James McTeague wrote:

Wait, what?

It just says "treat it as if it was untrained", not "you lose your ranks in that knowledge skill." It clarifies afterwards that it means that you can't make certain checks because they're untrained, not that your bonus goes down.

To me, treat it as untrained might mean that you lose your ranks in it, as it is treated as untrained, which is 0 skill ranks....

The language can be interpreted in two ways, apparently...

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am honestly disappointed after reading this thread, mostly because of two specific problems not with the rule itself, but with the way it interacts with organized play rules and adventures.

I actually kind of like the rule and it is a perfect way to make a nod to the collision of genres in a homebrew campaign and also presumably in Iron Gods, which I have not had a chance to read yet.

The place where PFS seems to have dropped the ball on this is from both a complication of the existence of "Additional Resources" as well as from the perspective of good adventure writing from what I have heard of 6-02 especially.

The Additional Resources problem is somewhat similar to what was faced with the Animal Archive, where rules which are not core assumption lessen the effectiveness of someone's character and you basically have to buy the book to get back to where you were before. Admittedly this problem stems from the fact that PFS is organized play and cannot really be solved.

The adventure design problem comes from the issue of gating necessary information or even the best bits of flavor behind difficult or impossible skill checks. If it is indeed true like I have read in a few posts that the secondary success condition all but relies on a knowledge check about something technological then it is a perfect illustration of this kind of bad adventure plotting. This is a problem which can be solved by being careful in development.

1 to 50 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / Season 6 Technology Rules Roundup All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.