|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Pathfinder rules set has become unwieldy. I wish they had stopped publishing core rules books other than bestiaries and codexes after Ultimate Campaign (which I liked), instead focusing on adventures and setting. Too many classes. Too many feats. Too many caveats that you have to know if you want to play the full system (e.g. in PFS).I like the opportunities for play that PFS affords me, and the people I've met in it and play with in it. It's a well run OP campaign. I hate to give it up. But with each release (ACG, OA, now UI) I'm finding that the rules system is increasingly not the one I liked a few years ago, and the overwhelming growth is really turning me off.
Yeah that's where I'm at too. It's spiraled out of control since they dumped so many new classes in a 12 month period into the game (ACG, Occult) and I'm tired of not having a clue what anyone else at the table can do in a pickup game. It's like they actively want to discourage people from GMing with all this. Well it worked. I'll run a CORE game once in awhile and fortunately I have a home game.
|
you really only need to know what the player can do if they don't. With most players you can just ask how that works and go with it, then look it up between games
I don't feel as strongly about not knowing everything. But I can see how GMs, especially newer ones, might be incredibly intimidated by all the things they now don't know.
It's comforting as a GM, to have a general understanding of how classes and primary abilities work. Getting surprised by an ability that neuter an encounter is almost never fun as a GM.
|
|
I've GMed a lot. (You can see I have four stars.) Mostly I trust the players. But it's really not all that uncommon to see a player who doesn't fully understand his character, who assumes that he can do things that he really shouldn't.
It's there even just in core. (E.g., how many of you have run across people who think that the Celestial template that some summoned monsters get grant a "Smite Evil" power that's just like a Paladin's "Smite Evil"? I've seen this multiple times.) I know the core rules well enough that most of the time I can help players out. But there are just so many rules now that I can no longer satisfactorily hold up the part of the GM responsibility that is to know the rules and let players know how they work and if they're doing something wrong. (Another e.g.: I had a player playing a barbarian who thought that raging wasn't useful. I was able to show him why it was; but, I'd never be able to do the equivalent for most of the recent classes in Pathfinder.)
The Pathfinder rules system is just out of control.
|
(E.g., how many of you have run across people who think that the Celestial template that some summoned monsters get grant a "Smite Evil" power that's just like a Paladin's "Smite Evil"? I've seen this multiple times.)
I think thats a bad example because thats somewhere between there's no way for the player to know how that works and table variation. Its also really not huge enough to disrupt play. If you get it wrong you get it wrong, no biggie.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
you really only need to know what the player can do if they don't. With most players you can just ask how that works and go with it, then look it up between games
Unfortunately, players (especially new players) very, very often make mistakes. Given the number of mistakes I catch in classes where I DO understand the rules, I am all but certain that there are LOTS of mistakes in characters with the new classes, especially all of the ones with new and quite complicated mechanics.
But there isn't much I am going to do about it. I don't care enough to spend the time that I'd have to spend to understand classes that I have zero interest in playing.
And it IS affecting the fun I get out of GMing.
|
|
Call truce is clearly effective way more often than using the diplomacy skill without it.This statement IS the problem. You cannot tell me there is no problem, and then say this.
What you've just admited is that you have to make using diplomacy less effective than calling a truce.
The DC is similar, but the percentage of cases where it's possible at all is much higher.What was the percentage befre? Dm Fiat. What is the percentage with the feat? DM fiat.
While I'll grant you the GM leeway bit is worded vaguely, it seems to me like the feat is meant to be usable by default, whereas negotiating your way out of combat otherwise is always impossible.Was negotiating your way out of combat always nearly impossible? The rules don't say. Most DMs didn't seem to think so.
The feat basically turns you into Fisk from Undertale. At higher levels, a character optimized for it can easily consistently meet the DC.And if someone wants to avoid murderhoboing it up for their entire career rather than waiting till 9th level to make a lifestyle change?
For example, a tenth level character might get +5 from Cha, +6 from skill focus, +13 from ranks, and +4 from persuasive, this is a +28 bonus in exchange for feets and ranks a party face probably has anyway.The very end of your career in pfs, with ALL of your feats devoted to something, is hardly the best measure of somethings effectives. The DC is still 40, which you'll only hit with half the time.
You have put half of your feats into this trick. Also note that +6 in charisma isn't really viable for a skill focused character except a bard, who has far more effective options for stopping combat with spells.
If you are a skill based class you cannot reasonably dump that that many feats filling in that hole.
If you are a casting class you have no need to dump that many feats into filling that hole, you have far better ways of doing the...
1: No. Before, it was impossible to call a truce unless the GM specifically allowed it, and if they're a good team they wouldn't very often. Now there is a feat which allows you to do it most times rather than hardly ever. That this feat will, by its existence, point out to GMs that they were being overly permissive is basically blaming this feat for the fact that you got caught abusing the rules in a way your GM was never intended to allow.
2: But the feat's guidelines are clearly meant to encourage the GM to rule in favor of calling a truce way more often. Having this feat is therefore better than not having it even before it existed.
3: The rules do say it is nearly impossible. You cannot normally make a request of a hostile creature. How is that different from it being nearly impossible?
4: if they want to avoid murderhoboing their entire career they shouldn't be an adventurer. Besides that, they should attempt to prevent combat from starting.
5: No, not all of your feats, 3 of them. The DC is 35, not 40, and I said a +5, not a +6. Were you just not paying attention to my post?
Spells are limited resource and probably have a high chance of failure, as it's usually quite difficult to charm someone who you are in combat with.
Look, you could potentially skip more than half of all combats with this feat. If your GM was allowing you to do that before then they were being way too permissive and allowing you to abuse the rules.
|
you really only need to know what the player can do if they don't. With most players you can just ask how that works and go with it, then look it up between gamesI don't feel as strongly about not knowing everything. But I can see how GMs, especially newer ones, might be incredibly intimidated by all the things they now don't know.
It's comforting as a GM, to have a general understanding of how classes and primary abilities work. Getting surprised by an ability that neuter an encounter is almost never fun as a GM.
Not a "newer" GM, but it is difficult to make sure I understand how Player's A's ability Y interacts with Spell B from Player B, while Player C is doing ability C.
As mentioned, even Core is easy to mess up; once you start adding in other things, it can quickly get out of hand. Grab has a size limitation built-in, but Grapple does not.
Also, I cannot look up some of the stuff later, as I cannot afford much in the way of new purchases, even for PDFs, even for ones that affect my own PCs. I have at least one PC affected by the changes to feats in Inner Sea Gods, IIRC he didn't have to change deities because of grandfathering, but I can only use hearsay/forum posts as to what the book changed for other feats.
True story: Our local VC has a multi-class monster, AC obscene. I asked him how he got to the AC he had, and, when he worked up the explanation, he found he had gotten the total AC wrong.
I am concerned, myself, on fixing my Summoner PC, who could remain APG, but will probably, if I can find the "right" eidolon form, become Unchained. I am fairly sure that, in his current form, I have mistakes I haven't found on him. I know I misunderstood the rules on the Reach Evolution, so used it wrongly in at least one game I played with him.
And I only know a little bit about the Occult stuff (which is mainly not at all) due to it being up on the PRD, Without that knowledge, I don't really know what kind of things an Occult PC can do, nor how Burn works, nor which spells are also Occult, now...
|
|
1: No. Before, it was impossible to call a truce unless the GM specifically allowed it, and if they're a good team they wouldn't very often.
Are you under the impression that the party only calls for a truce when they're losing or just that they murderhobo everything ?
2: But the feat's guidelines are clearly meant to encourage the GM to rule in favor of calling a truce way more often. Having this feat is therefore better than not having it even before it existed.
Completely circular. Way more often than what? There was no baseline for this.
3) It was never specified as a request or other specific use of diplomacy. It was just a check with an ad hoc dc.
4) Thank you for making my point.
5) A skill based class cannot afford to throw a 15 charims and that many feats into something.
Even with the +5 bonus it isn't that hard to charm a lot of things (mooks have terrible will saves), and then there's always spells that just incapacitate.
No one is talking about skipping half the combats. Put the strawbales down.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But there isn't much I am going to do about it. I don't care enough to spend the time that I'd have to spend to understand classes that I have zero interest in playing.
.
Meh.
A PFS session is like an 800 question quiz with some subjective answers and some really badly worded questions- think about every possible action you take in a night, the rules for it, the way they interact etc. There is a LOT of stuff.
You're going to hit disagreement on some of them and get some of them wrong. It happens. If its not making anything explode don't worry.
If that doesn't work... don't dm sober?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
you really only need to know what the player can do if they don't. With most players you can just ask how that works and go with it, then look it up between games
Unfortunately, players (especially new players) very, very often make mistakes. Given the number of mistakes I catch in classes where I DO understand the rules, I am all but certain that there are LOTS of mistakes in characters with the new classes, especially all of the ones with new and quite complicated mechanics.
But there isn't much I am going to do about it. I don't care enough to spend the time that I'd have to spend to understand classes that I have zero interest in playing.
And it IS affecting the fun I get out of GMing.
And we've all heard, "But my last 5 GM's let me do X! I had no idea that's not how it worked!"
Well, now that's more likely to happen regardless how experienced and knowledgeable a GM is, because no matter how experienced or knowledgeable you are, there is so much to know, that you'll probably make a mistake. And while trusting people in general should be your starting attitude, trusting players with options you have no idea about can become a snowball effect problem.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion is that subsequent products cannot invalidate previous books and rules simply because something new was created. It is my postulation, that even potion sponges don't change the rules. They just add something more you can do with a potion, essentially helping with action economy.These new feats should be no different.
Both locally and online potion sponges, the flank trick, etc absolutely changed what was allowable at the table. They changed the rules.
Clearly that experience is shared by lots of people.
The flank trick absolutely did not change the rules. People were doing something animals should not have been doing. You can go back to all the arguments about that if you like.
But the creation of the flank trick validated the arguments that animals couldn't choose to go out of thier way to flank.
So lets not conflate the two.
Except animals do flank--all the time. Wolves flank their quarry in nature: it's well documented in photos and on video. (They often surround their quarry, and attack from multiple directions, one distracts the prey while others lunge in from the other side.) Sheep dogs are trained to circle around in different directions based on different whistle commands. And so on.
There was no reason for animals not to flank as part of the attack trick. The flank trick not only made it impossible for those animals who naturally flank in the wild to flank when trained, it also causes most GMs to force the animal to provoke AoOs when they normally wouldn't.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except players were having animals act like tactical geniuses, always making the smartest move, and once engaged, moving about to maintain the most advantageous position and readying and all that.
Animals don't act like that. Some pack animals use some advanced tactics, but solo predators do not. The point is, that allowing that was never RAW, and saying the flank trick changed the way the rules worked is flat out false.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two comments on the general thread.
1) Potions and underwater. Prior to the potion sponge, where was the rule you *couldn't* drink potions underwater?
2) Isn't it a rule that the GM controls the companions? Seems that nips the 'tactical genius' bit in the bud.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except players were having animals act like tactical geniuses, always making the smartest move, and once engaged, moving about to maintain the most advantageous position and readying and all that.
Animals don't act like that. Some pack animals use some advanced tactics, but solo predators do not. The point is, that allowing that was never RAW, and saying the flank trick changed the way the rules worked is flat out false.
The flanking trick DID change the way the rules were interpreted at a great many tables. To say otherwise is flat out false.
Quite frankly, whatever you (or I) think the rules were before is of absolutely no importance. The rules were unclear. Many tables (all local tables, for example) interpreted the rules favourably for flanking animal companions. So, for those tables, the rules changed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two comments on the general thread.
1) Potions and underwater. Prior to the potion sponge, where was the rule you *couldn't* drink potions underwater?
2) Isn't it a rule that the GM controls the companions? Seems that nips the 'tactical genius' bit in the bud.
1) It wasn't addressed. So some GMs allowed it, some didn't. Just like everything else that isn't addressed, including some of the things addressed in Ultimate Intrigue
2) So says a book that many players don't have and almost none have read from cover to cover (Ultimate Campaign). And it is a rule that is almost completely ignored by every single GM that I have EVER played under (so, probably well over a 100 GMs by this point) including various Venture Officers, 4 and 5 star GMs, and people running their very first game.
|
|
Two comments on the general thread.
1) Potions and underwater. Prior to the potion sponge, where was the rule you *couldn't* drink potions underwater?
2) Isn't it a rule that the GM controls the companions? Seems that nips the 'tactical genius' bit in the bud.
1) nope. But neither was there a rule allowing it either. It was a table variation thing. Just because a potion sponge specifically indicates a vial can't be used underwater, doesn't mean that's actually the new rule. If the GM and/or player doesn't own the Advanced Race Guide, the rule defaults to whatever the GM thinks is ok. I default to allowing potions to be drunk underwater.
2) Not until Ultimate Campaign. And if you don't own the book, the rule is whatever the GM decides. I never allowed flanking previously unless it made sense for the creature (i.e. wolves). The trick did two things. Changing the rule was not one of them. You now have a way for your animal to flank if your GM would not normally allow it, and it validated the GMS who did not allow it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except players were having animals act like tactical geniuses, always making the smartest move, and once engaged, moving about to maintain the most advantageous position and readying and all that.
Animals don't act like that. Some pack animals use some advanced tactics, but solo predators do not. The point is, that allowing that was never RAW, and saying the flank trick changed the way the rules worked is flat out false.
The flanking trick DID change the way the rules were interpreted at a great many tables. To say otherwise is flat out false.
Quite frankly, whatever you (or I) think the rules were before is of absolutely no importance. The rules were unclear. Many tables (all local tables, for example) interpreted the rules favourably for flanking animal companions. So, for those tables, the rules changed.
You are using the word rule wrong when applying it to a group consensus or convention. Just because your local convention was to be lenient on flanking animals, does not mean that was a rule.
It was simply a group agreement to interpret things that way together.
|
|
Two comments on the general thread.
1) Potions and underwater. Prior to the potion sponge, where was the rule you *couldn't* drink potions underwater?
2) Isn't it a rule that the GM controls the companions? Seems that nips the 'tactical genius' bit in the bud.
1) It wasn't addressed. So some GMs allowed it, some didn't. Just like everything else that isn't addressed, including some of the things addressed in Ultimate Intrigue
2) So says a book that many players don't have and almost none have read from cover to cover (Ultimate Campaign). And it is a rule that is almost completely ignored by every single GM that I have EVER played under (so, probably well over a 100 GMs by this point) including various Venture Officers, 4 and 5 star GMs, and people running their very first game.
2) agreed. The only caveat I'd make to this, is if the player consistently tries to have thier animal do things that I rule they can't do. Then I ask them thier intent and give them a couple options. If it persists, I take over.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd argue that the rules changed with the potion sponge, as the CRB has a section on underwater combat that lists all sorts of changes and drinking a potion isn't one of them.
i.e. "Please show me where being under water means I can't use a potion, or let me get my 1d8+1 HP back."
Indeed, in CORE there is no potion sponge...
The feat that irks me is 'Swipe and Stash' Planting items has always been a hallmark of the confidence man, but now you need a feat to do it.
Well unless you're doing street performances, then apparently you still can :-(
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I don't think you can normally aid another with a different skill than the skill in question in PFS anyway (I've allowed it in home games, but it's not really in the rules, which clearly state "by making the same kind of skill check").Will this hamper or help social rp for those traditional classes that don't have the 'feat tax' (Bard, Investigator, etc)?The only skill really effected much is Sense Motive. Even if you ignore Mark Seifter's proviso above (which you shouldn't, since he was involved in writing the book) the only change now is that you can't use Sense Motive to read what kind of Bluff check is most likely to work on someone, and also can't use it to tell what kind of relationship two people have with each other.
Oh, and you can't use Bluff to Aid another on someone else's Disguise Check.
In short, I wouldn't expect it to be the end of the world even if everyone rules the way BigNorseWolf fears.
Or did a whole bunch of classes just get taken out to a back alley and given a working-over?Nah. They'll be fine. If you feel it necessary, print out Mark's post above. Maybe that'll help.
Except that several scenarios explicitly allow people to aid another with different skills.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I think it won't affect you at all, especially in PFS (to take one of the feats in the OP as an example, the feat allows your Sense Motive check to, after observing their movements or attacks, reveal the opponent's BAB and some combat feats they know, as well as give you a +1 insight bonus on attack rolls and AC against them; unless that was something you used to do with Sense Motive before this, which honestly seems unlikely to me, you'll be unaffected).
Will this hamper or help social rp for those traditional classes that don't have the 'feat tax' (Bard, Investigator, etc)?
Or did a whole bunch of classes just get taken out to a back alley and given a working-over?
I would do it with profession soldier, actually. Or knowledge local. ("These seem like local boys, have I heard anything about their fighting skill?"
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Except that several scenarios explicitly allow people to aid another with different skills.I don't think you can normally aid another with a different skill than the skill in question in PFS anyway (I've allowed it in home games, but it's not really in the rules, which clearly state "by making the same kind of skill check").Will this hamper or help social rp for those traditional classes that don't have the 'feat tax' (Bard, Investigator, etc)?The only skill really effected much is Sense Motive. Even if you ignore Mark Seifter's proviso above (which you shouldn't, since he was involved in writing the book) the only change now is that you can't use Sense Motive to read what kind of Bluff check is most likely to work on someone, and also can't use it to tell what kind of relationship two people have with each other.
Oh, and you can't use Bluff to Aid another on someone else's Disguise Check.
In short, I wouldn't expect it to be the end of the world even if everyone rules the way BigNorseWolf fears.
Or did a whole bunch of classes just get taken out to a back alley and given a working-over?Nah. They'll be fine. If you feel it necessary, print out Mark's post above. Maybe that'll help.
Scenario-specific custom rules should be considered scenario-specific rules.
|
|
Scenario-specific custom rules should be considered scenario-specific rules.
Okay, so if a new feat tree is actually picked up by a player, and then they encounter a scenario where none of the skills they have in that feat tree are applicable due to scenario-specific rules (yet appear to logically fit based on write-up and other matters), does the GM have the power to allow that feat tree to work, or must the GM completely disallow the significant expenditure of player and character resources with no saving throw?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Scenario-specific custom rules should be considered scenario-specific rules.Except that several scenarios explicitly allow people to aid another with different skills.I don't think you can normally aid another with a different skill than the skill in question in PFS anyway (I've allowed it in home games, but it's not really in the rules, which clearly state "by making the same kind of skill check").Will this hamper or help social rp for those traditional classes that don't have the 'feat tax' (Bard, Investigator, etc)?The only skill really effected much is Sense Motive. Even if you ignore Mark Seifter's proviso above (which you shouldn't, since he was involved in writing the book) the only change now is that you can't use Sense Motive to read what kind of Bluff check is most likely to work on someone, and also can't use it to tell what kind of relationship two people have with each other.
Oh, and you can't use Bluff to Aid another on someone else's Disguise Check.
In short, I wouldn't expect it to be the end of the world even if everyone rules the way BigNorseWolf fears.
Or did a whole bunch of classes just get taken out to a back alley and given a working-over?Nah. They'll be fine. If you feel it necessary, print out Mark's post above. Maybe that'll help.
Except it is not raised in the context of scenario specific rules. It is raised as if it is a general thing.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would do it with profession soldier, actually. Or knowledge local. ("These seem like local boys, have I heard anything about their fighting skill?"
Well knowledge (local) can allow you to identify members of organizations. My "Elliot Spencer" knock off brawler is going to keep knowledge (local) (and cooking!) maxed just for the concept.
"They're aspis agents."
"How do you know?"
"They have a particular stance."
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My "Elliot Spencer" knock off brawler is going to keep knowledge (local) (and cooking!) maxed just for the concept.
"They're aspis agents."
"How do you know?"
"They have aparticularvery distinctive stance."
I happened to notice you got the catch-phrase wrong. It's a very distinctive catch-phrase.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Scenario-specific custom rules should be considered scenario-specific rules.Okay, so if a new feat tree is actually picked up by a player, and then they encounter a scenario where none of the skills they have in that feat tree are applicable due to scenario-specific rules (yet appear to logically fit based on write-up and other matters), does the GM have the power to allow that feat tree to work, or must the GM completely disallow the significant expenditure of player and character resources with no saving throw?
My point is that scenario-specific cases work to open up options to players that GMs might not otherwise consider or allow. Yes, a player's feats should be allowed to work. The fact that another player's skills are appropriate appropriate to the circumstances does not invalidate the feat selection of the first.
Player B should not always expect his skills to be relevant, as they were allowed for the specific circumstances of the scenario. Player A's feats are more likely to be generally applicable.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I happened to notice you got the catch-phrase wrong. It's a very distinctive catch-phrase.My "Elliot Spencer" knock off brawler is going to keep knowledge (local) (and cooking!) maxed just for the concept.
"They're aspis agents."
"How do you know?"
"They have aparticularvery distinctive stance."
*chuckle* Thanks. Either he or my were-Chihuahua will be my next martial character. Afraid I'm hooked on skill monkeys. :-)
|
Contributor
|
They don't have enough interacting parts for me to play with in game or in build. I like putting together different parts and seeing what happens, but those are more or less pretty linear
It's PFS. If you're not hooked on skill monkeys by now, you've missed a boat. (not all of them, though!)
Investigator is SUPER fun. Rolling inspiration is the most addicting thing ever.
|
|
Investigator is SUPER fun. Rolling inspiration is the most addicting thing ever.They don't have enough interacting parts for me to play with in game or in build. I like putting together different parts and seeing what happens, but those are more or less pretty linear
It's PFS. If you're not hooked on skill monkeys by now, you've missed a boat. (not all of them, though!)
Remind me to introduce you to hard drugs :-)
|
|
I've always seen color spray rolled by the player, the few times I've seen it rolled. It suffers the same problem of 'fight is over, CdG, duration irrelevant'.
I usually let my players roll it, when it needs to be.
And, oddly, I have seen a situation in an early PFS scenario where the duration was important.
So, here you are, everyone but the Wizard went into the water to save the NPCs who had been tossed off the cliff. Three of the mooks are under the effects of color spray, and the Wizard is now fighting the last two mobile mooks.
Being a Wizard, and having run out of most of his non-cantrips, and having the two enemies attempting to attack him in melee, his options are limited, so 5' step. acid splash, nickel-and-dime the mooks to death.
Unfortunately, this took so long that the three mooks who had failed their saves managed to survive and recover, rejoining the fight. Until one of the martials finally came back up and joined in himself.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
2. When you introduce a feat that specially allows something that previously might have been justified with a skill check, this will preclude GMs from using their discretion to allow players to attempt the task absent the feat.While we can disagree on the extent that this will happen, refusing to accept that this is going to happen at any level is just flat out disingenuous and precludes any kind of equitable solution.
I think it is going to happen; I just think it will make playing saner for the most part. The GM still has discretion to allow PCs a lesser benefit. The examples previously discussed had them. If there is a specific feat you are worried about, bring it up for analysis.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a point being mostly missed here that I think BNW was originally trying to make - that the style of these new rules, when used in PFS, become tools for inexperienced (or problematic) GMs to abuse.
With good GMs, they are not a problem at all. Mark's point is correct, they will not affect those games. That's not the point of this thread.
It's only when you're playing with a GM who knows these feats exist and says well now you can't do x because y feat exists for that. That is the only case we're talking about.
In other words, rules like these become a tool for GMs to inadvertantly cause strife for players in PFS, because they want to play as closely to the rules as possible, and these new rules suggest - rightly or wrongly - that there's things you cannot do the original way. And that kind of thing can drive people away from playing with that GM again at best (and that's what's been the recommended solution in the past for that kind of experience), or it can drive people away from PFS at worst.
I mean, does the PFS guide need to be updated to talk more about this kind of thing? What's the solution?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure it's entirely fair to say it's a poor GM who will say "there's a feat for x, so without it you can't do it".
That's the implication of the rules set. Lots of feats are nice and explicitly say what you can do without that feat. But lots also don't say that. So, if the designers thought that it was worthwhile to have a feat to do x, then why should a GM think that one could do x without y feat?
What's a GM to do? The ever-expanding special-case rules set of Pathfinder is creating a constant minefield. While, yes, an amazing thoughtful GM can navigate it, those GMs who actually pay attention to the rules as a guide for how they're supposed to run the game are going to be left thinking that there are ever growing strictures. What's more, the implication is that if there isn't a rule explicitly telling you that you have the power to do something, then you can't do it. Which is fine for the wargaming roots of our hobby -- a wargame has a well-defined problem space -- but which undermines a lot of the wonderful flexibility of a roleplaying game.
|
|
What's a GM to do? The ever-expanding special-case rules set of Pathfinder is creating a constant minefield.
I don't think that expanding rules enroach on things you could do TOO often. Off the top of my head is
the list of stuff here (obviously)
Potion sponge
Flank trick
The two guard tricks that are incredibly similar
the investigators ability to tell what a poison is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Ult Intrigue defined some of the finessable moments in play and tried to give players options (or at least think about options that were always there in the GMs grey area).
It did it in such a way to place the options out of the reach of players, or at the very least is going to hurt skill based characters the most by making those options incredibly costly. Trying to talk the party out of killing things and vice versa was hard enough, if you need to have a 15 cha 2 feats and wait till level five then whats the point? You may as well get on with the murderhoboing thats going to be necessary for half your PFS career.
You need a feat (or usually two) to
Call for a truce
Plant something on someone (which i've seen used in pfs more than taking something off of someone)
use knowledge geography to know where you're going with a tport
Use aid another at range instead of... whatever aid anothers range was before.
Get a sense of how your bluff is going
Figure out what relationship two people have
Bluff check to help out someone with a disguise
Those are basic skill uses and making a socialite burn what few feats they have on them in a book that was supposed to help them be more relevant is patently absurd.
Craft Alchemy was used to make poisons so it only made sense to use it to identify poisons. Knowing something is poisonous is different than identifying the specific poison.
One would hope that an "investigator" would know if something were poisonous
You're not getting it, and its not me. You're not listening.
For over 15 years now, you're telling me that the rule has always been -No one can identify poisons, sorry, even if you made it you have no idea what it looks like- because thats what the raw "expands" to when the investigator gets it as a special ability.
That is not expansion that is contraction.
You could accomplish the same thing by saying "alchemists get a +4 bons on craft: alchemy checks to identify poison"
Trying to accuse people of metagaming for having animals smart enough to bite something on the keister is a total non starter. "Bite it on the keister while its busy with someone else" is a tried and true tactic across a lot of the animal kingdom.
|
|
It did it in such a way...yes... I understand the objections all too well.
I don't think the codified methods negated other methods under the GM's purview.
PC's can always throw down their weapons and surrender. That just takes trust on their part that their opponents will act in a civilized or lawful manner. Saying the Ult Intrigue rule prevents that option seems to exhibit very poor GM interpretation.
See, now you're saying the PCs have to throw down their weapons and surrender. Would you have said that before ultimate intrigue?
(wondering if there was a negative that I put in or a double negative in my statement!)
actually that's the opposite of what I'm saying. Craft Alchemy in giving a DC to craft poisons intrinsically gave the skill a method to identify them.
Thats not how i've seen it ruled since the investigator came out.
If thats the case the investigator has a total prone shooter ability , which is itself argh worthy.
I think it is more about a player eliciting a specific behaviour (flanking) from an animal on command (when they desire). If a player wants to do that get the animal training so it can do that. That's all.
That fix was simple. One trick. Erase. Scrible. grumble. Done.
The fix here is a feat tax and a feat... possibly n multiple skills. You're probably going to have to play through 4 more levels to be able to get the character back to where they were. Remind me WHY you just don't say to heck with skills and go with a magic solution?