|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thats not remotely whats going on here. And you cannot logic through this for multiple reasons.
If there is a special ability that does X, it implies that you cannot do X without that or some similar ability, otherwise that special ability would be a null set. A special ability that does nothing is not a special ability. Its not proof but it IS a heavy piece of evidence.
When that happens and the ability is clearly wrong (wild speech's "ability" to talk with animals of your general kind that shapeshifting already grants) That's a clear screwup. When that ability goes into a vague gray area, it tends to push back on the gray area.
|
Something like Call Truce has Cha 13, Persuasive, 5 Ranks Diplomacy. It then goes on for four paragraphs on all the restrictions for this featRight. And before reading that feat, what kind of diplomacy check under what circumstances would you have asked for for the party diplomat to call an end to hostilities?After 1 minute of using diplomacy...
The main use of that feat is to shorten the time for a diplomacy check in combat.
I'm surprised most people don't see this feat as doing this. I don't think I've played a table who hasn't used a minute this way and specifically recall my Vindicator standing in a doorway separating the enemies from his party while we took the time to solve the combat non-violently.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So uh, I'm not really a PFS player but all this really makes me think of Investigator's poison lore ability.
An investigator has a deep understanding of and appreciation for poisons. At 2nd level, he cannot accidentally poison himself when applying poison to a weapon. If the investigator spends 1 minute physically examining a poison, he can attempt a Knowledge (nature) check to identify any natural poison or a Knowledge (arcana) check to identify any magical poison (DC = the poison's saving throw DC). Lastly, once a poison is identified, he can spend 1 minute and attempt a Craft (alchemy) check (DC = the poison's saving throw DC) to neutralize 1 dose of the poison. Success renders the dose harmless. The investigator has no chance of accidentally poisoning himself when examining or attempting to neutralize a poison.
I love the investigator class. I LOATHE, HATE, DESPISE this ability. This ability indicates that poison's can only be identified if you HAVE this ability and make the appropriate skill check. Meaning anytime I would consider buying poison for a ninja, I have no ability to determine if what I bought really was Blue Whinnis or just some smelly and useless concoction. All those times, I've found various poisons on the bodies of my fallen foes? Apparently I am now supposed to write them down as "miscellaneous alchemical item". Nah, that's not true, the item is likely labelled by it's creator (I hope... how does he know he made Blue Whinnis?), I assume. Still - why couldn't of this aspect of poison lore be just an expansion of Craft(Alchemy) or, gods help us all, Appraise. No feat tax or Level tax, just "Hey, we should expand the usage of skills or something."
--------------------------------------
I can't help but wish that whenever a game designer came up with an idea for a feat that incrementally expands on a skill's usage, that they would be given a small bonk on the head and the idea is taken away from them to be catalogued with all the other feats of similar nature, in hopes for a future "Skills Expansion" chapter in a hardcover book that makes them not feats.
My 2 coppers.
EDIT: Apparently this is what I get for skipping a portion of the thread. As to Stephen's comment: There is only one location that talks about identifying poisons and that's in the detect poison spell. DC 20 Wis check to determine the exact type of poison. As far as I know, Craft(Alchemy) was never given this use - either through a feat or (as mentioned above) simple skill expansion. My GM's have generally been pretty liberal on skill usage such as allowing a character with the Heal skill to be able to identify the poison afflicting a character (Note, it doesn't do that in the current reading of the skill) and when acquiring poisons via treasure gain, we've always just been outright given the poison's name (presumably via labelling).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So...Does including ANY feats found Ultimate Intrigue become the same issue as with the requirement of that feat from the Technology Guide during PFS Season 6? Because if so, I know a lot of long-time PFS players and GMs that would just call it quits.
I'd be one of them.
At that time,it really felt like PFS was saying, "If you don't have it(Feat in question), then don't bother to play this season. Your normal characters are basically useless." I had GMs basically tell me that without that feat, I couldn't use/learn about/try to see if ANYTHING my character had could work in a situation involving tech at all. Basically, My skilled characters couldn't help in any way other that buffing the party with standard stuff and hoping for a miracle in the form of a barbarian with 10 rounds of rage facing down a robot.
Basically, If you didn't own the book and accidentally signed up for a game that would be best enjoyed by those who had the text in question...You were pretty much guaranteed to have less fun/be DEEPLY disappointed by your inability to get anything of meaning do in the context of the scenario.
I don't own a copy of UI yet but; I do know that if it is going to bring up similar issues as Technology Guide did, I might just give up on standard campaign and stick with Core until I run out of GM and Play opportunities. By then, I might give up on PFS all together. :(
|
So...Does including ANY feats found Ultimate Intrigue become the same issue as with the requirement of that feat from the Technology Guide during PFS Season 6? Because if so, I know a lot of long-time PFS players and GMs that would just call it quits.
Definitionally no. None of them are nearly as wide in application as Technologist, and indeed there are no 'you must have this Feat to play' categories of activity remotely akin to 'interacting with technology' in any way shape or form.
If you assume people will read just the Feats and not the entire section in the book on how skills work by default there might be issues with certain tactics getting disallowed in all scenarios unless you have the Feat, but even then those are corner cases for the most part.
|
As far as my home (non PFS) game I am very happy with much of the content of Ultimate Intrigue. In PFS, much less so. Need a caster who can spam ranged energy attacks as well as use them in melee? Just call on your friendly warlock. Need a rogue or fighter- just pick your version of Vigilante and call it a day.
I see far too many 'guys trying to break it' with Ultimate Intrigue to make it a good fit for PFS- particularly given the nature/structure of scenarios.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
So...Does including ANY feats found Ultimate Intrigue become the same issue as with the requirement of that feat from the Technology Guide during PFS Season 6? Because if so, I know a lot of long-time PFS players and GMs that would just call it quits.Definitionally no. None of them are nearly as wide in application as Technologist, and indeed there are no 'you must have this Feat to play' categories of activity remotely akin to 'interacting with technology' in any way shape or form.
If you assume people will read just the Feats and not the entire section in the book on how skills work by default there might be issues with certain tactics getting disallowed in all scenarios unless you have the Feat, but even then those are corner cases for the most part.
I hope so. :(
|
|
Regarding Call Truce, at least
Calling for a Cease-Fire: One of the first things that a potential diplomat might try in a combat is to call for a temporary cease-fire. The description of the Diplomacy skill in the Core Rulebook indicates that requests take 1 round or longer, and that shifting attitudes takes 1 minute. Since a cease-fire is a type of request, this would work fine, with the diplomat making the request over the course of a full round of combat and completing it just before her next turn. However, a character can usually only make requests of a target that feels at least indifferent toward that character, and the vast majority of battles involve characters that are unfriendly or hostile toward each other. In this case, and in other instances of requests made to unfriendly or hostile characters, the GM should consider only allowing such requests that are couched in such a way that they seem to be in the target’s best interests. An unfriendly or hostile character certainly isn’t going to be doing the would-be diplomat any favors, but that doesn’t mean they will ignore an idea that is better for them than facing the consequences of the combat. Even if adversaries agree to a brief cease-fire to listen to the diplomat’s terms, they won’t let their guard down. Generally, they will also require the side calling for the cease-fire to make a show of their intentions by laying down or sheathing their weapons, dropping spell component pouches, or the like, while attempting Sense Motive checks to determine if the cease-fire is a ruse. Creatures that feel themselves to be at an advantage in the combat by virtue of a short-duration spell or other effect that would expire during a cease-fire almost never agree to a cease-fire, as it isn’t in their best interest to do so.
And the feat
While in combat, as a 1-round action (as if it were a spell with a 1-round casting time, Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook 213), you can call for a truce with any creatures that have an Intelligence score of 4 or greater and can understand you. When doing so, you can’t be wielding a weapon or threatening implement, such as a charged spell, wand, or anything else the creatures you are entreating might consider threatening. You must also be in plain sight of most the creatures you are entreating. Once you’ve called for a truce, if any of your allies attack or take any threatening action against those you are entreating before the start of your next turn, your call is unsuccessful. At the start of your next turn, attempt a single Diplomacy check (DC = 30 + the Charisma modifier of the creature with the highest Charisma modifier in the opposing group). If you are successful, combat ceases for 1 minute, or until any creature in the opposing group is threatened or attacked. If you fail the check by 5 or more, you cannot use Diplomacy again with any creature you attempted to entreat for 1d4 hours. If anyone in your group instead plans to use the parley to gain a combat advantage, the opponents can attempt a Sense Motive check against each such member of your group to get a hunch, with a DC equal to either 20 or the result of that character’s Bluff check, whichever is higher.
Special: If the parley would inherently result in the opponents surrendering or losing, if the opponents are mind-controlled or fanatics, or if there are other appropriate circumstances at the GM’s discretion, you might not be able to use this feat. For instance, if the opponents’ main advantage over your group comes from a short-duration spell that would end during a parley (see Calling for a Cease-Fire on page 186), you cannot use this feat. Circumstances could potentially increase the check’s DC by 5, 10, or even up to 20.
Call Truce improves your ability to...Call Truces. Imagine that.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that that "feat" looks like a adjudication guide to existing use of Diplomacy! The UI skill section has to go out of its way to constrain the diplomacy skill to "make room" for this feat.
Unfortunately, now that it is a feat, the PFS GM has two choices:
1. Continue to allow the person who has diplomacy, but not the feat, to call for a truce. This is unfair to the player who took the feat.
2. Disallow calling a truce without the feat, thereby reducing the utility of the diplomacy skill for everyone else.
To me, this is a pretty clear cut case of excessive rules curtailing options, then even more rules "selling" those options back in the form of a feat tax. Worse, as far as I can tell, feats like this exist solely to sell more books by padding the feat count. After all, mechanics sell.
Blech. No thanks.
|
|
just thinking on ways to adjudicate rumormonger in a scenario, even a shortened scenario. If you succeed it takes a week, correct? if you succeed well it takes 3-6 days correct?
Thinking OTB/OTG a rumor spreads rather concentrically from the starting point. The closer you are to the origination the more likely you are to hear it directly from the origin. It almost spreads the way fallout spreads from an atomic bomb. Quickly affected close to the origin, eventually with shifts of air spread to the outskirts. Occasionally quick burst of wind (movement of the person) spreads the fallout in unusual patterns.
Say you have a washer woman who hears from the rumormonger that her boss eats unicorns. First she tells the neighbor's servants, then she goes to market days and tells all of the merchants, this gets reinforced by other maids and cooks. The merchants believe the rumor then they tell the non merchant professionals and tradesmen, construction, mages, hostlers. Then it spreads again this time escaping to the local farms, children at school mention it to each other and their friends say it to their parents. The local constabulary hear it, because they are always the last to know, and the Sheriff discusses it with the mayor or the local noble to determine how to investigate, finally shepherds and teamsters who may have been out of town hear the rumor.
The point I am thinking is that the town does not suddenly believe the rumor but rather the strength of the rumor or the number of people who hear it increases by 1/7 each day. It only makes sense that if you try to rely on a rumor on the 7th day it has a near 100% chance of success (after DC success) whereas on the 1st day it has a 14% chance of success. You can quickly reduce a sense motive check by that % rounded down. say they score a 21, you reduce that roll by 3 to get the result of the combined check and rumor. While PFS is generally focused on RAW it still allows for creative solutions and table variation, which this ad hoc ruling would follow, because it just adds a dimension to the standard rule that was unforeseen to the writers of the guide.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as Rumormonger goes, I have yet to see a scenario where you're 'in-game' at game location for more than a week that doesn't get glossed over by the GM as 'And now we move time forward to the action'.
Will this slow down tables as individuals that take this ability go into the detail of how they are messing with 'insert opponent here'?
|
|
Yeah, I'm not seeing a problem with Call Truce. Ignoring Ultimate Intrigue entirely, the only real way I see to accomplish the same that's actually covered by the rules is to first improve the creature's attitude towards the party to at least indifferent
You're not ignoring ultimate intrigue entirely. You're going with ultimate intrigue's mechanical cannon that its making a request.
typical pathfinder situation
Your party, being the inexplicably darkblind things that like to go underground anyway, are walking around a cave with a light. The kobolds see you coming a mile off , ready an ambush and start attacking.
Someone calls out in the mother tongue "STOP! Stop stop we're not here to fight*..." How does that work? How about when the ambush went from an ambush to the barbarian has chopping off Hisshura's head in a splatter of gore , Taskisk being down and bleeding but the guy that was calling for a truce is holding his liver in his stomach, and while trusting a pinkskin to keep their word isn't a great odds, it starts to seem a whole lot more likely than winning this fight or outrunning their pet velociraptor.
I mean, if i really want to I can say that the kobolds are indifferently trying to kill you, but that doesn't seem right.
*i supposed those would be atypical pathfinders in a typical situation...
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't regular Diplomacy take 1 minute and Call Truce takes 1 round? Let me look it up...
And Call Truce...
So they are different. Looks like you can use Diplomacy in 1 or more rounds, at GM discretion, to make a request of a creature with Int 3 or greater. While Call Truce always takes 1 round and requires an Int of 4 or greater. So Call Truce is like an "upgrade" to Diplomacy. It gives you another option that has stricter requirements and is more effective in certain situations. Almost as if you had taken additional training to be able to perform a more specialized action (which is what I consider Feats to be by design).
BNWs example with the kobolds is a good one. Some GMs might say that takes 1 round, in which case Call Truce is useless. But others might say it takes multiple rounds (per the rules of Diplomacy), in which case Call Truce is useful.
So it sounds like Call Truce is a good feat to have if you are wanting to consistently and quickly turn the tide of battle with your words. Otherwise, if you just want to Diplomacy on the fly and hope it works sometimes, you are subject to table variation--as you always were before this book came out.
To me it seems like much ado about nothing, honestly.
|
|
at's it, period; there is no "and whatever you happen to feel like maybe including" clause
Diplomacy is filled with dozens of them.
You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem.
A creature's attitude cannot be shifted more than two steps up in this way, although the GM can override this rule in some situations
Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future
Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion).
. Making a request of a creature takes 1 or more rounds of interaction, depending upon the complexity of the request.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
PCs are beating up on the NPCs. NPCs throw down their weapons and offer surrender. PCs accept surrender, combat over.
NPCs are beating up on the PCs. PCs throw down their weapons and offer surrender. If someone has a specific feat then 1 round later they get a chance to make a check to call a truce. Otherwise, they have to survive getting beat up on for a full minute before they get to make a check for the privilege of being able to spend more time to make yet another check to get the fighting to stop...
Sounds legit.
|
|
So it sounds like Call Truce is a good feat to have if you are wanting to consistently and quickly turn the tide of battle with your words. Otherwise, if you just want to Diplomacy on the fly and hope it works sometimes, you are subject to table variation--as you always were before this book came out.
You don't think this is going to push said variation more towards "can't do it you need the cookie" ? I've already seen that happen with the investigators poison, the potion sponge, and the flank trick. One of those is rare and the other two are pretty easy fixes. This is both vary common (at my tables anyway) and a ridiculously expensive fix.
Call truce 1 round cast
Diplomacy check 1 round (probably full round action)
Diplomacy: int 3
Call truce int 4
Where's the upgrade? Where's the upgrade worth 2 feats?
|
|
You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem.That's the fluff description of the skill; the actual mechanics of the skill are listed under "Check". You can tell this is just fluff because it doesn't say how to handle any of that.
If it doesn't say how to handle any of that THATS MY POINT. There are lots of skill uses without listed mechanisms and DCs. Half the scenario skill checks aren't covered under the rules, but they're rational extrapolations of which skill would let you do which thing.
Alot of people have that thought about table variation. If a class has an oft argued over feature most people will tell you to plan to use it in the least favorable light because its the worse case scenario for using it under multiple GM's. I don't want to wonder each time I go to play if I can do x this game or if I will get it at x-1 or even x/2.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Table variation is what you had before. It was up to the GM how to adjudicate these things. Now there is a system for how to do it. Thus many GMs feel they will have less freedom to make something up (since they are not supposed to in PFS). So maybe they let calling a truce work in 1 round with a diplomacy check, now, that same PC has to invest in several feats to get that same result.
Also, what about CORE? "Sorry, calling a truce is a skill use defined in Ultimate Intrigue, which is not a legal player resource for the core campaign, so I won't allow it at all."
|
|
You know what, I give up. If you want to work in vague irrational terms and then say I'm not understanding you, arguing with you is just going to waste my time. I already explained to you in detail how the material in UI doesn't change how it was already supposed to work. Apparently you're just terrified of table variation, and think we should avoid anything that could maybe possibly eventually sorta lead to it.
This post reminds me of a series about potion sponge. One poster would say "... but this item is changing how we are doing it now!" and the other would say "It doesn't change how it works! You were just doing it wrong before!"....
yeah - the two of you don't see each others view point at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nosig, I'm VERY well aware of the other side. Just because two people are fighting doesn't mean that both are equally clueless.
I understand the point of view that the skills only do exactly what they say they do and give mechanics for, that the game is run on the absolute one true raw* with no creativity or deviation, and that we have always been at war with east asia.
Its just generally not the pfs I know and love. Its rarely the PFS I ever see. Its not the PFS I'd want to be part of.
Sometimes you do understand something and that's WHY you hate it.
*one true raw not valid at all outlets. Multiple cases of one true raw are heresy. One true raw subject to multiple values of the one true raw.
Also, what about CORE? "Sorry, calling a truce is a skill use defined in Ultimate Intrigue, which is not a legal player resource for the core campaign, so I won't allow it at all."
I was wondering about that.
Is everything described as a feat in other books off limits to Core characters?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope so. :(So...Does including ANY feats found Ultimate Intrigue become the same issue as with the requirement of that feat from the Technology Guide during PFS Season 6? Because if so, I know a lot of long-time PFS players and GMs that would just call it quits.Definitionally no. None of them are nearly as wide in application as Technologist, and indeed there are no 'you must have this Feat to play' categories of activity remotely akin to 'interacting with technology' in any way shape or form.
If you assume people will read just the Feats and not the entire section in the book on how skills work by default there might be issues with certain tactics getting disallowed in all scenarios unless you have the Feat, but even then those are corner cases for the most part.
This is REALLY starting to feel like that time now. Just by the arguments going on in this forum alone...I think I might want to start looking for home games again.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me reiterate this one last time: calling a cease fire was always covered under a define use of the Diplomacy skill, and UI does not change that; the Diplomacy section simply explicitly points it out, and opens up the use against creatures that are hostile or unfriendly, and Call Truce allows you to do it without having to either improve their attitude or couched "in such a way that they seem to be in the target’s best interests".
You can still call for a cease fire without the Call Truce feat, and UI is extremely explicit about that. The only change is that there is now official text that points out that calling a cease fire falls under the "making a request" part of the Diplomacy skill, which is not a change. Just because you never stopped to figure out if the rules actually covered it before ad hocing it doesn't mean you're right.
Or the existing rule sucked, so it was ignored. The idea that anyone is going to sit there for 10+ rounds not fighting back while the enemy continues to attack is laughable and that seems to be exactly what the RAW were saying you had to do.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or the existing rule sucked, so it was ignored. The idea that anyone is going to sit there for 10+ rounds not fighting back while the enemy continues to attack is laughable and that seems to be exactly what the RAW were saying you had to do.
I'm pretty sure I said I did exactly this above. We didn't ignore the rule. It is surprising other people thought they could.
|
|
Or the existing rule sucked, so it was ignored.Which is absolutely not something you're supposed to be doing in PFS, anyways.
But I would do it anyways if I thought it would enhance the game for my players.
Most time I've seen the idea brought up in practice, the GM basically said it was next to impossible because of the time required. So we just continued to murderhobo our way through the combats rather than try to stop the fighting. "We have no idea why these guys were attacking us but we're not about to give them free shots for 10 rounds so we can figure it out."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or the existing rule sucked, so it was ignored. The idea that anyone is going to sit there for 10+ rounds not fighting back while the enemy continues to attack is laughable and that seems to be exactly what the RAW were saying you had to do.I'm pretty sure I said I did exactly this above. We didn't ignore the rule. It is surprising other people thought they could.
It wasn't a rule to ignore. Saying that reading the rule that way, so you can't do it, is unrealistic, undervalues diplomacy, and effectively says you've been forced to murderhobo your way through encounters for the last 15 years because there hasn't been another option.
Saying that, of all the things a diplomacy check could be, MUST be requesting a favor is patently absurd. Accusations of cheating for not making the same random flying monk esque leap of logic is as insulting as it is absurd.