Shocked by new feat


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not sure if this is the right place to say this, especially since I have had a few drinks today already, but I skimmed the Ultimate Intrigue book's feats and I have to say, I am disgusted by what I saw.

Who the heck thought Call Truce would be a good idea? Paizo, thanks for making a feat that actually takes away the ability to attempt social skills in a fight as an alternative to beatsticking.

See, talking in a fight was something I would have my characters do. Call for a truce, demand surrender, raise a point to make the fight stop and discuss, etc.. Now, they make this feat that says unless I spend a very limited resource, I am not allowed to do that. Can't you guys just leave some things alone and let the skills actually have something? Why take away the things people like and lock them behind feats? Paizo, you are not adding features to a game. Rather, you are taking options away and locking them behind restrictions of level and feats.

Did anyone else notice this feat when they read it? Is anyone actually going to use this? Because again, this doesn't add anything. Rather, it restricts. What's next? Is Paizo going to take away planning ahead rather than rushing head long into stuff by making that a feat? Stop punishing ingenuity.

Scarab Sages

13 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, given that RAW, diplomacy takes 10 minutes of talking to complete, ending a combat in action with diplomacy probably wasn't happening outside of houserules before this.

Sczarni

Put simply, it's mediocrity in action...


BurkoJames, making a request is a standard. Changing their...whatever it is called for hostile to unfriendly, that takes 10 minutes.

The Exchange

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I fairness the Feat does point you towards the 'Calling for a Cease Fire' section of the book, which highlights that yes, anyone can attempt to just use Diplomacy to call for a cease fire (and lays down some guidelines as to how to adjudicate such things). The Feat just makes you better at doing that, rather than taking the option away from everyone else.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jaçinto wrote:
BurkoJames, making a request is a standard.

You can't make a request of hostile opponents.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
BurkoJames, making a request is a standard.
You can't make a request of hostile opponents.

Or unfriendly ones, for that matter.

CRB>Skill Descriptions>Diplomacy wrote:
If a creature's attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Read the UI section on interaction skills. It explicitly allows the use of Diplomacy to ask for a truce under certain circumstances (ie: it has to be advantageous for your opponent to some degree)...which, as people note, is more than the rules actually allowed pre-UI.

Call Truce lets you bypass some of those requirements and in many cases (ie: if they're anything worse than unfriendly toward you) lowers the DC to call a truce. It makes you better at it. But it's in no way required to do it at all.


Previous discussion regarding Call Truce.

Scarab Sages

Influence Attitude takes 1 minute, not 10. But it's still not probably going to happen inside of combat. Also, the Influence Attitude section states that "Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future." So a GM is justified in it being an automatic fail to begin with, if combat is imminent or already begun.


Imho, it is just bad design. It is not the first it happens nor it will be the last. Just ignore it and keep playing the way you like, no reason to be angry.

Liberty's Edge

Gisher wrote:
Previous discussion regarding Call Truce.

Yeah, I posted there too.

Included in my link is the actual text from the book where you can call truces without the Feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fine but I am still seeing a lot of things that should either just be options available to a skill, or just gone due to clearly being trap feats, or should be class abilities.

Edit: One feat I am shaking my head at is Sense Relationships. DC 20 Sense Motive to figure out the relationship between two people interacting with eachother, -5 if they are speaking a language you don't know. So, you see two humans making out, hot and heavy. You watch them for a minute (creepy) and they are saying things in, lets say, chelish or something and you don't know it. You do not pass a DC 25 and therefore you can not figure out these two have a rather intimate relationship. No matter how obvious it is, you failed it by raw. You just think they are wrestling with their faces. Must be some chelish fighting style.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Jaçinto: You fail the roll, you don't know if they are actually in an intimate relationship or acting. Some people make their living off making think their made up emotions and relationships are real. For all you know they hate each other with a passion but are VERY good at hiding it. ;)

Of course, you can always ignore the dice and just assume that what's "obvious" is correct. Stage magicians and street performers have been relying on people doing JUST that for ages... Better check your money pouch...

Liberty's Edge

The feats give additional opportunities. IIRC they lack the Normal part that would describe what you are restricted to without the feat


It says you need to pass to even get a hunch. Therefore you don't even get a slight inkling of it. And I know you can ignore it, but I am talking about Paizo's rule in the book and how dumb it is.


Jaçinto wrote:
It says you need to pass to even get a hunch.

At their true relationship... Yeah, that makes sense. You don't need a roll to see what the DM describes. You are free to assume anything you wish from that information. The feat lets you KNOW what it is. The feat doesn't replace anything that was there before, it just adds a way to divine things you could only guess at before. It's like seeing something and thinking it's evil vs detecting evil. One is you guessing and the other is KNOWING.

So I'm not really understanding all the hate you seem to have for the feats. they may not be 'OMG AWSOME!!!' but they seem to have a place in an intrigue based book.


I'm upset at this being a feat rather than just something sense motive can do. You know, detecting falsehoods and if they are just acting and whatnot. They need more of these things to just be options within the skills rather than be feats.


I don't think that the Call Truce feat does anything to prevent characters without it from roleplaying attempts to parley with enemies. On the other hand, I could imagine some players getting pretty upset if the DM had an NPC use Call Truce to stop a fight before the PCs can win, especially if the NPC and or other enemies made the Bluff check to gain a combat advantage without the PCs getting a hunch.

I wonder how long it would take for some players to declare that their PCs are fanatics...

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Devilkiller wrote:
I wonder how long it would take for some players to declare that their PCs are fanatics...

Isn't that the Normal state for all the murderhobos PCs we know and love ? ;-))


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
I'm upset at this being a feat rather than just something sense motive can do. You know, detecting falsehoods and if they are just acting and whatnot. They need more of these things to just be options within the skills rather than be feats.

Sense Motive doesn't cover it. It allows you to:

1) avoid being bluffed
2) determine when "something is up"
3) assess someone's trustworthiness.

None of these divine a relationship so at best you'd get a hunch, knowing 'something' is off but not what is wrong.

"Hunch: This use of the skill involves making a gut assessment of the social situation. You can get the feeling from another's behavior that something is wrong, such as when you're talking to an impostor. Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy."

"Bluff: If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true." People not interacting with you AREN'T lying to you, Feinting you or trying to pass you Secret Messages so there is nothing to sense other than a 'hunch'.

So the feat changes you hunch into knowing a relationship... Again, "that makes sense." If it was an additional ability of Sense Motive, it'd have to be a MUCH higher DC than the existing option as it does so much more. When a hunch is a DC 20, KNOWING a relationship seems quite a bit more difficult and NOT the same DC.


graystone wrote:
Sense Motive doesn't cover it.

THat's the problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
It says you need to pass to even get a hunch.

At their true relationship... Yeah, that makes sense. You don't need a roll to see what the DM describes. You are free to assume anything you wish from that information. The feat lets you KNOW what it is. The feat doesn't replace anything that was there before, it just adds a way to divine things you could only guess at before. It's like seeing something and thinking it's evil vs detecting evil. One is you guessing and the other is KNOWING.

So I'm not really understanding all the hate you seem to have for the feats. they may not be 'OMG AWSOME!!!' but they seem to have a place in an intrigue based book.

Sounds like this should be a Sense Motive versus Bluff or Perception versus Disguise check to me if someone is trying to conceal their true relationship.

I also don't understand why this would require a feat investment. Sounds like a basic extrapolation of skills to me.


Nicos wrote:
graystone wrote:
Sense Motive doesn't cover it.
THat's the problem.

Why is that? What part of Sense Motive suggests it can divine things other than 'someone is lying' or 'something is off'? Knowing these things doesn't give a definitive answer as skills aren't as powerful as that. This is close to a spells power, covering part of the abilities of spells like Detect Relations and Blood Biography.

It goes beyond the hunches and guesses that Sense Motives covers [at least not without a substantially increase in DC's]. Some kind of 'epic/mythic' or skill lock ability might cover it. Just look at the skill unlock feat for Sense Motive: 10 ranks and a -20 to the roll allows you to read a creature’s surface thoughts. A feat for a DC 20 to find relationships seems reasonable in comparison. Would it have been better is they allowed the ability to work with just the skill at DC 40 [or -20 roll]? Because that looks about right looking at the minus the skill unlock uses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gulthor wrote:
graystone wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
It says you need to pass to even get a hunch.

At their true relationship... Yeah, that makes sense. You don't need a roll to see what the DM describes. You are free to assume anything you wish from that information. The feat lets you KNOW what it is. The feat doesn't replace anything that was there before, it just adds a way to divine things you could only guess at before. It's like seeing something and thinking it's evil vs detecting evil. One is you guessing and the other is KNOWING.

So I'm not really understanding all the hate you seem to have for the feats. they may not be 'OMG AWSOME!!!' but they seem to have a place in an intrigue based book.

Sounds like this should be a Sense Motive versus Bluff or Perception versus Disguise check to me if someone is trying to conceal their true relationship.

I also don't understand why this would require a feat investment. Sounds like a basic extrapolation of skills to me.

I agree.

The game is run by a humanGM and not a computer for a reason.


graystone wrote:
Nicos wrote:
graystone wrote:
Sense Motive doesn't cover it.
THat's the problem.
Why is that?

It is because something that should be handled just by skills checks now involves a feat that basically will never see the light of day in real play and therefore is something that the players will not be able to try.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

It's something that was outside the scope of the skill in the first place. The feat expands the skill.


Chess Pwn wrote:
It's something that was outside the scope of the skill in the first place. The feat expands the skill.

Pretty much this. it's like a skill unlock.

Nicos wrote:
It is because something that should be handled just by skills checks now involves a feat that basically will never see the light of day in real play and therefore is something that the players will not be able to try.

But it was NEVER possible to do this with the skill as it is before, so why is it 'bad' that you think it'll never happen in the future? When was the last time you rolled a sense motive and the DM told you exact relationship between two NPC's? Or are you just getting upset about theory-craft? If your DM wasn't following the rules before what does this feat change? He can still opt to not follow the rules...


graystone wrote:
When was the last time you rolled a sense motive and the DM told you exact relationship between two NPC's?

When one of the NPCs was being strong armed into something and the relationship wasn't mutual (or friendly) between the two of them once you got past the veneer.


I'm not upset because I don't plan to use the book I just pointing the bad design.

For GMs it was impossible to follow the rule because there was no rule, they have to make it on the spot. Now there is a rule that locks away the possibility because nobody will take that feat.

it is like helpless prisoner, you can't talk your way out of a being imprisoned if you are not a gnome and have one specific feat that only cover that specific circumstance.

Or are you telling me that in your games nobody try to do something that is not specifically written in the rules? would you want a feat for jumping and attacking because the jump skill doesn't cover it?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To quote Mark Seifter (who helped write the book in question, remember):

Mark Seifter wrote:
David Neilson wrote:
Well honestly depends on how you read some of them. After all even without two weapon fighting you can two weapon fight and take the penalties. Most of these seem either feats specific to verbal dueling, much like the gladiatorial feats, or allow you to be better at something that you would out of the box.
This is a good insight. For example, normally you would need to beat a creature's Bluff score if it's trying to hide it's relationship from you via Bluff, but Sense Relationship makes it a static (and pretty easy) DC. Knowing whether a fib is going to be outrageous to someone because of something obviously out of place or incorrect is one thing (like you'd know before you tried that if you said "I'm Aroden reborn, thus I'm the rightful king of Cheliax" that it's going to be a hard sell to those Dottari), but if it's based on information you don't have (like you say the commander sent you and you don't know that the guard unit is a democracy with no commander), you normally would have no way to know that's a bad move until after you say it and get busted. Similarly, the rumormonger rogue talent isn't the only way to spread rumors (heck, Intrigue has several more), but it's sure a powerful and efficient way to do it compared to the normal amount of legwork.

Bolding mine.

So it's an entirely reasonable interpretation (and the intended one in all likelihood) that you can normally figure out people's relationships with Sense Motive under at least some circumstances...the Feat just makes you better at it.

The Feat is also clearly intended to be broader than seeing people making out and leaping to the conclusion they're together. Anyone can do that, and it doesn't even require a roll (though a Sense Motive roll for a hunch might give you an idea as to their relationship under those circumstances, ie: lovers, spouses, friends with benefits). And, of course, if they're lying about their relationship by making out, you can oppose their Bluff with your Sense Motive.

But let's say two people are talking. They aren't doing anything to indicate the nature of their relationship, and they aren't trying to obviously fake it either. That's the situation where the Feat comes in, letting you figure out what they are to each other even with almost no evidence, and with only a minute of observation. At a flat (and fairly easy) DC. Plus, you can use the flat DC even if they're actively pretending a different relationship.

The Feat makes you the best person ever at spotting the couple who are secretly together but enemies in public. Even if both are expert liars.

Really, I'd probably allow almost anyone to make a check to see what people's relationship is...but not after a minute of interaction. That's absurdly fast barring really blatant stuff (like the making out example above).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, go to a party and be able to tell if anyone there is having any sort of relation with anyone else there. Even if they didn't know the other was at the party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Diplomacy isn't magic, if you want to compel the bad guys to stop fighting, play a caster. Diplomacy is for changing NPC's attitudes, and it takes time to do that, as everyone has already pointed out.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

GMs who already allowed PCs to do this without the feat will still allow it. Those that did not may accept the feat in their game and thus offer a new option to characters.
I am not sure where the problem lies


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
I'm upset at this being a feat rather than just something sense motive can do. You know, detecting falsehoods and if they are just acting and whatnot. They need more of these things to just be options within the skills rather than be feats.

You "can't" re-print the base game's Skill and add or change them. There was a push to update Stealth, I recall, and that ultimately fell down because they couldn't figure out a good way to get it into Core.

And that was just trying to clarify and clean up an existing skill, not add new uses for it.

Forcing me to have the 7th printing of Core in order to have the list of how Sense Motive works isn't viable. On the other hand, introducing new uses of a skill via a Feat, that can be done. Because if I don't have that book, I don't have that feat, and nothing changes. Only people with the feat need to know about it. A base change in Sense Motive applies to literally every statblock that can use the skill, regardless of if they have the expanded text or not.

Also, to address your original post, speaking in combat is a free action. You can always use "I surrender". There's zero mechanical weight to saying that, but typically most encounters will get paused at that point because the DM is evaluating the logical consequences of the actions everyone is taking. You don't need Diplomacy to stop combat. You only need it to FORCE someone else to see things your way.


I think the trouble with feats like this is that feats take up too much real estate on your character progression for the pay off they offer. I mean, a spell that has an effect of this sort would be of trivial opportunity cost for the most part, but as a feat it represents ten percent of your character... Which is too costly for the pay off in the extreme.

Of course, this is more an issue fundamental to the games assumptions and is likely a consequence of feat design being overly conservative at inception.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

I will say that I definitely agree that many of the feats in UI should have just been expansions on ways to use the existing skills, and it's not my favorite design decision to charge feats for minor social abilities, especially at an exchange rate of 1 feat for 1 minor social option.
That being said, it seems that generally the design intent of these was to make you better at things you could potentially attempt another way.


It's also important to realize what book these feats came from (hint: Ultimate Intrigue), and what they're intended to be used for.

Yeah, if a normal group of players that doesn't focus on social encounters whatsoever looks at these, then they won't like them.
It's like comparing them to the (arguably) "baseline feat": Power Attack. Or mostly any other combat feat, to be honest. They don't have the same so where of usefulness.

Sense Relationships is most likely outright amazing for any game that takes place in a, mostly social, noble's court.
Who is that person talking to the King, and why is he doing so? *One minute passes.* Oh, he's the King's nephew? Cool.

It's all a matter of perspective, as well as target audience.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Jacinto wrote wrote:
You just think they are wrestling with their faces. Must be some chelish fighting style.

We call it the ancient fighting art of tonsil boxing!


bigrig107 wrote:

It's also important to realize what book these feats came from (hint: Ultimate Intrigue), and what they're intended to be used for.

Yeah, if a normal group of players that doesn't focus on social encounters whatsoever looks at these, then they won't like them.
It's like comparing them to the (arguably) "baseline feat": Power Attack. Or mostly any other combat feat, to be honest. They don't have the same so where of usefulness.

Sense Relationships is most likely outright amazing for any game that takes place in a, mostly social, noble's court.
Who is that person talking to the King, and why is he doing so? *One minute passes.* Oh, he's the King's nephew? Cool.

It's all a matter of perspective, as well as target audience.

Yeah, that's definitely true. I was more speaking too the relative strength of feats in the general sense. You(general) just don't get enough feats for them to be applicable in such a narrow way. If the feat gave niche advantages in one area, I would expect that you end up with other advantages at later levels from that feat.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Shocked by new feat All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.