Detailed process for detecting traps without bogging down gameplay - Preferably baked into exploration mode. With step by step examples. Should include advice for how to run a trap as a GM, advice for character precautions, a comprehensive table of DC's for levels 1-20, and if they ever even suspect they might want trap crafting, comprehensive rules for that as core too.
Easy way to hook in common "always on" effects like detect magic into exploration mode.
Flesh out rules for any exotic weapons/combat styles that need it: such as Nets.
Future proofing to stop people trying to do crazy convoluted things with readied actions.
Valid actions table vs invisibility, based on unaware/aware/aware of location/visible: including explicit "can i target a spell on an enemy that I know exactly where it is, but cannot see at all" kinds of thing.
Valid actions/checklist for underwater
Valid actions/checklist for prone
clear rules/reasons to validate bull rush as a combat action
A flowchart to clearly explain grapple, grab, limbs as grappling vs whole person grappling, and actions while grappled.
If skills like appraise/heal are sticking around, that's fine: but having them irrelevant past 2nd level means they need to have more gameplay benefits, or consider being scrapped.
A usage for languages.
Explicit language to hardcode rules for things like dirty trick so you don't always need to justify things with a dramatic monologue about your dastardly deeds.
loot rules that don't have a 10-100% variance in value of items for GMs designing modules. Sell for 10% in starfinder is fine, but assign to NPCs for 10-100% vs WBL depending on your guess that the group will like/use it is a headache.
The biggest papercuts really amount to rules that don't explain how to use the rules properly.
The second biggest are ones that explain how to use them, but the rules are effectively useless, due to lack of options, or them not being functional in practice.
The third type are the "Just decide as GM" ones, which make running sessions harder for no reason, and unnecessarily dissuade prospective GMs from the task.
GM Fiat should never be required to make a core rule system functional.
There are three problems with the paladin class, each of which contributes to the issues/debate on this forum:
1. People want "Paladin" to be a Class, not a subclass/archetype/feat/prestige.
2. People want "Paladin" to be LG, so anything not LG but similar should have a different name.
3. People want the core "Paladin" to not be a pain to run in a game, so that means not restricting it to LG.
While it's obvious to many that attachment to a name should not dictate mechanical design: it's important from a marketing perspective to sell the "LG Paladin" as a core option.
The most practical way to do it is obviously a parent class with a different name: but since that's a marketing no-no, we're probably going to have to settle for an identical sister class that's obviously the same, but "Paladins" get a special name, and get to be called a core class, just because.
The majority of other arguments that paladins should be special delicate flowers with original mechanics that no one else can have are glossing over the idea of what a core class is meant to represent: there's a reason we don't have core classes for all specializations of wizard, or all sorcerer bloodlines, and this is no different.
TLDR: make it a clone class of the real "sister" class, which is also core, and suspiciously located right after Paladin in the CRB, but they're totally different guys, totally! ;)
Although now they've also FAQ'd (bad choice in my mind) that skill restrictions don't apply to trick attack versatility means nothing from a game mechanic perspective.
Well, yes.
Though they are still relevant from a character-building perspective.
Really all that change does is streamline the rules and throw simulationism to the wind.
There are some aspects of starfinder rules where I find that irritating (armour and environmental conditions are too far in this direction for my tastes), but in this case it doesn't particularly bother me.
I like the way that general play of an operative isn't becoming overly encumbered with justifications, and if you can RP it still, you RP it. The flavour is still intact at least some of the time, without you worrying about nerfing an archetype by running a campaign against creatures that don't understand your methods of communication, etc.
At the end of the day, it's all varying nuanced forms of feint/distraction/misdirection flavouring the rule, the options just allow for more freedom of character building.
They had to err on the side of caution to avoid the whole "sneak attacks dont work on a lot of monsters" thing in the future, and I think this is a simple enough way to achieve that.
I imagine the line between too little/too much simulationism falls differently for different people, however.
New skill for trick attack that is dex based? No Bonus.
No new skill for trick attack and is dex based? +1.
New skill for trick attack that is not dex based? +4.
No new skill for trick attack that is not dex based? +4.
If it was no bonus, Ghost would definitely be worse than Daredevil/Thief in this aspect. With this at least there's some form of tradeoff.
You are correct that Daredevil and Thief lose out in a numbers game of minmaxing, but I suppose the benefit is one of versatility?
Just be aware that if you want to max Trick attack bonus, you're actually better off specializing in the non-dex skills, and raising your relevant other stat to 14 or above, at which point you will outpace ghost: so it's not the winner in that race either.
I think this is all fine: I don't really see any cause for concern here, the monetary offsets are limited to specific consumables only, and it's not like you can sell them.
Basically, you can turn some unwanted gear (ranged energy or powered melee) into low-quality, bulky, cheaper grenades with less range and more tendency to scatter.
They're also only "cheaper" because if you tried to sell them at 10% value and buy the same grenade, you'd not have enough money.
The resolve cost is only necessary for speeding up the action, you can stockpile all you want. It lets you pump unwanted weapons into bulky sub-par consumables, which might have some RP uses like handing a weapon out to an enemy and getting them to fire it.
If you overload a weapon, the grenade it creates will be "cheaper" than if you'd try to sell the weapon and buy an appropriate proper grenade, but due to the 10ft range increment, you'll have a less useful grenade.
Throwing a grenade safely involves hitting a low AC of 5, but making sure that you throw at least 20 ft + radius, so that if you flub your roll, it can't scatter back to you and hit you in the face. This also assumes you are in front of the rest of your group, so if you're 10ft behind, add 10ft to that.
Max range on thrown weapons is 5 increments making the max range 50ft. So for a standard grenade, you'll need to throw between 35-50 ft for a safe throw, increasing your positioning requirements to be safe. You'll also be throwing at a -6 to -8 to hit, which is still only AC11-13, but does mean that scatters will be more frequent, overall.
Using them from behind the rest of your group will also be harder to pull off, as you'll need them to be aware of the narrow restrictions on your makeshift grenades.
Zwordsman wrote:
as if it were a grenade of the weapon’s item level
or lower dealing the weapon’s normal damage type
You can't change the damage type. It has to be a grenade that does damage that matches the weapon being used. Now: Technically, this means you will need to select a correct type of grenade from the list that is below the weapon's level, further restricting the damage output, as the levels don't really match up.
This means that you can't use a lvl 4 Frostbite Zero rifle as a cryo grenade, as the lowest level cryo grenade is lvl 6.
Some might argue that the wording allows you to match another grenade type and just make it cold damage... but that's open for debate.
Since I think this particular point is a very strong candidate for a FAQ request, but this is the general forum (so we cannot flag the posts as FAQ candidates) I've created another thread in the rules forum here:
If you agree that the wording should be clarified, regardless of your opinion as to which way it should be interpreted now RAW/RAI, please hop on over and hit the FAQ button.
It's interesting seeing people rank one class highly, and another poorly - particularly when there's disagreement over which is which.
It probably boils down to how you value skills, DPR, class features and so on in relation to one another.
I, for one, am very keen to try out the soldier class, but find that while the class itself is well designed: it is let down by the restrictive selection of feats (50% of the quantity available in pathfinder, and a large majority of "core" combat feats are simply gone) and gear boosts that really only provide cursory weapon benefits that are often redundant with one another.
I look at the mechanic tricks list with envy (with mechanics being mentioned by others in the thread as weak) and then seriously reconsider to go exocortex mechanic, as I feel that the class features are more fleshed out straight out of the CRB. They have solid stat buffs, offensive abilities, defensive options and actual trick chains (feat chains being the fighter's original forte, but now mostly removed without replacement).
But, there will probably be other people who look at the DPR capabilities of a soldier and call me a crazy person.
It's probably an interesting discussion to have "what is the most glaring weak point of each class, as it stands right now?".
I could see two people who value the skill system differently having very different opinions over operative vs soldier, for example.
What would be the operative's most glaring weak point?
They had a lot of ground to cover in the CRB, and I can agree that sometimes it's a bit light on the options front, but hopefully that gets solved by them putting out a bunch of new feats and equipment options in a PHB/UE style supplement soon.
But yes, I think the problem is less relevant to actual play right now, and more about noticing that you run out of feats you want 5 levels into a character when you'd like to plan it to 20.
There are some definite holes in certain classes: soldier gear boosts being a prime example. And soldier gets hit harder by a lack of feat selection than the other classes too.
Don't get me wrong: the feat system is better than pathfinder (less dead weight) but the trimmed down list doesnt really cater to finishing characters very well yet.
I also really appreciate the few tactical-style feats that are there, there's just not that many.
On the equipment front, its really nice to see such a full table of weapons and armor from the CRB (there's holes, but its still really comprehensive). However when looking to grab other useful equipment, armor upgrades and so on, the list of options does feel very light in comparison.
So yes, I think I agree with other posters here that it's just symptomatic of only being able to fit X amount of content in the 2 books we have so far.
They've actually been very good books, and I hope they continue the trend they've set thus far: it's just that there's a certain critical mass of character options that hasn't accumulated yet, and probably wont for another couple of books.
If you want it to be an improvement over full attacking, onslaught or quad attack, it's going to come up lacking.
However, in turns where you don't want to full attack, it's actually quite nice. If you consider rounds spent not full attacking to be wasted, then this actually lessens the blow of that.
ie turns like:
I move my mechanic into cover close to the terminal and hack it with my exocortex via wireless hack, then overcharge my rifle and fire, and drop prone
I aim my sniper rifle then overcharge it and fire
I overcharge my friend, then overcharge myself and fire
I activate combat tracking, then use overcharge and fire
I overcharge my friend, then activate energy shield
etc.
There's some nice action economy things you can pull off with the combined action, provided you aren't fixated on full attacks.
The move action to use on a friend also allows you to contribute offensively even when you're spending your standard actions defensively or to achieve something else.
overload
energy shield
holographic projector
The standard action to use it and attack allows you to use your move action abilities more liberally inside combat by lessening the damage drop off.
Miracle worker
Overload weapon
control scoutbot
invisibility hampering projector
saboteur (sabotage/disable device)
ultraclocking
master control
combat tracking/twin tracking/quad tracking
Also bear in mind that you are effectively gaining a bonus to hit (or removing the penalty) when you don't full attack, so the gap closes further, when combined with combat tracking, you can actually be better at single attacks than a soldier in some respects (just as accurate, with extra damage), while simultaneously freeing up extra actions.
In the case of sniper rifles, you can even remove ranged increments from the equation, for the most part, making that one attack very accurate, if you wanted.
It is a very bad thing is your GM runs pure random loot (which I honestly do in all other games) or purely by module like Society games, because you may not get what you want and now it takes a lot longer before you can trade that in for what you do want.
The CRB specifies that loot that is likely to be sold only counts against WBL at 10% anyway, so you're intended to hand out more loot to compensate.
If you want to fix the problem without making the decision on every item:
If you are following WBL, compare the WBL value to the characters wealth after they have sold some of the items.
Then, either hand out additional credits (pad existing loot with extra credits) and call it a day, or multiply your WBL going forward (and hand out more loot) by a % that will close the gap.
You can even make it more fun and increase loot by only part/none of that value, but have a 'secret stash' of loot that characters can find if they come up with exceptionally fun/clever ideas of ways to handle in-game tasks. This can serve to make players feel like they still get rewarded for good play, and not feel like they'll still get the same reward regardless of diligence. It also can serve to curtail tables where the party always tries to get more than they should, while still making them feel like they're winning that battle ;)
Since weapons sell for 10% of their price, instead of 50% of their price, this opens up a lot more room for GMs to hand out better weapons, more often, but restricts people from always being able to buy the exact piece of gear they desire, all the time.
I don't see this as a bad thing, personally: it leaves room for loot to provide interesting avenues of play that you might not otherwise entertain, without breaking the economy every time the GM gives you something cool. With that said, if you're playing a custom game, it can be worth having some level of communication with GM/other players as to loot you might be specifically interested in.
Gray's cannot speak, and only can communicate telepathically (p56)
Yet there is no mention of their telepathy ability, nor an inability to speak on the PC version (p57). They do have access to "telepathic message" as an at will spell (which could be used to cover speaking at very short range), but the ommission is somewhat confusing.
Prone is a lot more relevant now in ranged fights (and getting to melee through ranged fire).
Being able to go prone in situations where you're advancing under fire, and then kip up and take a full turn is actually not bad. It really puts prone in the 'free' action with no downsides bucket: even if you can't do it every turn due to only having one swift action.
ie.
Round 1: Run/Jet Dash > prone
Round 2: Kip up > Charge (or charge attack, nimble fusillade, smash through whatever)
I think Kip up is aimed at melee or hybrid melee/ranged (blast weapons like shotguns and flamethrowers), not just because it helps vs trip, but because it allows you to use prone a lot more freely.
Step up/Sidestep:
these let you manage soft cover from enemies a lot more effectively, if someone uses a guarded step to give a firing lane to an ally, step up helps with that.
Improved step up is an accessible way to disrupt standard action spells without needing reach: you can't achieve this with the old pathfinder methods like readying ranged attacks, or combat reflexes. It also lets you AoO ranged attackers obviously.
It's a lot harder to create situations where you can disrupt spells in starfinder (due to rules changes), but when you can make the attempt within the new rules, it's a LOT easier - as you only need to do 1 damage to guarantee failure of the spell.
These are in addition to their flanking/locking in combat purposes.
------
There's a bit of an apparent meta shift from pathfinder->starfinder to facilitate more ranged combat, as it was pretty clunky to fit into Pathfinder. Now it's easier: but the understanding is that cover, prone, gap closing, different spell rules, and so on will shift the way you run encounters slightly.
In theory this should change from 'everyone starts in pounce range' to something a bit more dynamic.
In practice, it will depend on GMs, players and module-writers to provide avenues to make this system flow the way it seems to be intended.
At a bare minimum, I see relative positioning and cover availability as being a key component of most encounters in starfinder: whereas before it was not for many groups.
The Core rulebook has most of the PDF bookmarks override the default (user defined) zoom settings, and instead force "zoom to page level" on most pages.
This is difficult to read, as it makes text rather small.
This makes reading easier, as you can see text more clearly (due to it being a more regular size), however, ironically, this seems to only be applied to full image spreads: actual text pages require you to press CTRL-2 after using each bookmark, to bring it up to a readable size.
Basically: Neither Adobe Reader nor Adobe Acrobat users (due to permissions) can change the settings of these bookmarks (probably to keep the username ID/watermark intact, which is fine) however, since there's a readily available option to set them to inherit zoom, which is essentially "use default defined by user in their own settings", this would be much more preferable.
When you are reading a portrait PDF on a landscape screen, it's usually inappropriate to be viewing it at the "zoom to page level" which fits the entire page on your screen, and makes writing very tiny.
It's probably possible to fix at a file level, but that's really cumbersome, and beyond the scope of most users, who (I assume) would prefer their own default zoom to be applied - users can still set it to default to "zoom to page level" if that's their own personal preference.
Request:
When your designer (or whoever finalises the bookmarks in your PDFs) creates the bookmarks in Acrobat, please ask them to use "inherit zoom level" so that we can define our own, according to preference.
If the bookmark structure is applied via plugin (due to watermarks), please modify the plugin accordingly.
Thanks :)
PS: I should state that other than that, I love the attention to detail applied to the bookmarks section: the zoom level is literally my only gripe with the PDFs, so great job :)
Observing
When you are observing a creature, you can directly perceive
the creature with a precise sense. Generally, this occurs when
a creature is visible, when the situation makes it impossible for
the creature use Stealth to hide, or when you have succeeded
at a Perception check to pinpoint the creature using a precise
sense such as blindsight. You must be observing a creature to
use a ranged effect that targets a specific creature without
requiring an attack roll to hit (such as magic missile). You
can also make normal attacks, including ones using ranged
abilities, against creatures that you are observing. Again, it is
subject to area effects that affect its location.
A creature currently being observed can’t attempt a Stealth
check without first breaking that observation. To break
observation, the creature must either mask itself from your
precise senses (with darkness, fog, invisibility, or the like, but
not with effects such as displacement that still leave a clear
visual indicator of its location), move somewhere it can’t be
observed (a place with cover, for example), or use Bluff to create
a distraction to momentarily break your observation of it.
emphasis mine.
The context is provided in the first paragraph: I'm willing to concede that if you decide that the first paragraph of the "Observing" rules does not provide context for the second paragraph of the "Observing" rules, but that instead you should apply the second paragraph to checks that are outside of the current discussion, then we might have a problem.
That sentence, if taken in a vacuum, would prevent stealth checks of any description from being attempted, I can agree on that.
I'm also willing to concede that future printings might be served by using the words "such a stealth check" instead of "a stealth check", and thus you could probably justify an FAQ.
However: I assert that the RAW and RAI is extremely clear:
1) observing rules are used against "stealth to hide"
2) the rule about not being able to perform that check comes under the observing rules, after their scope has already been narrowed to "stealth to hide" and is thus relevant to the observing rules using stealth to hide, not all stealth checks.
The hide application of the stealth check is not applicable here, and not all stealth checks are subject to the Hide rules.
You can use stealth while being observed. You are applying a specific application of stealth (Hide) that has not been asked for.
While it's understandable that you're connecting the two, Stealth =/= Hide. You can hide something (move in a way that deters active scrutiny) with stealth while being observed, but Hiding your entire self while being observed requires hide in plain sight/diversion/cover etc.
Yes, there are crossovers with bluff or sleight of hand but this is actually fine.
Stealth is just 'be stealthy' and can be done in a lot of different ways. You are not attempting, for example, to hide your entire person in this example, therefore 'hide' is not applicable.
If the rules wanted to have a specific, yet different method for resolving each of these, they would explain accordingly (and simultaneously make the whole system much more cumbersome, which would fly against the apparent design goals of Starfinder as a whole).
In cases where there's additional requirements to rolling the dice other than just changing the check, they are mentioned: ie hacker needs nearby computers and it covers this.
If you want an example of why doing otherwise would be problematic, if you apply the logic to the other specializations:
Detective should probably require an opposed bluff check vs their sense motive for trick attack
Thieves using sleight of hand might require opposed perception checks because "hide object" entry requires it.
It bogs it all down, and the supposed class 'feature' quickly morphs into something bizarre, at best situationally useful, and at worst a direct downgrade from the original.
Basically:
Unless a specific skill check calls out a specific rules entry usage, it may not actually be using that usage.
Yes, common sense applies: but in this case, you aren't attempting to disappear from observation entirely, therefore the "Hide" entry is not applicable. Does it have a bit of a hazy crossover with Sleight of Hand? yes. But it's not meant to completely rework the application of the skill, simply change which one gets rolled.
If the players expect that they should be able to see through rugs, walls, lids, and what have you, you may want to manage their expectations better. That they have some indication that a situation may have hidden dangers is a task for the GM.
Several people have offered their opinions that the rules can enhance the gameplay experience (mostly me, admittedly). The old "rocks fall, you die" is a failure of writing, not game design.
It's not so much a desire to see through things: its perception having a chance to notice something slightly off.
Whether that's an un-evenness of stonework, slight bulge behind a curtain, something incongruous with the surroundings, etc.
A trap being truly impeccably hidden should just have a high DC to notice it, this allows for gradations of how well it is hidden.
Searching for traps without any hint of a trap is pretty much the definition of metagaming (the PCs don't know they're playing pathfinder), and having it as a requirement in a system makes that system feel archaic and in need of a revamp.
While I'm always on the lookout for ways to improve my GMing (in this case, being able to set a scene more vividly, area-by-area, regardless of whether a trap is there) I feel that the rules should facilitate running the game 'fairly' (again, using my definition of 'fairly': players retaining at least some form of agency) without any specific/extracurricular effort on behalf of the GM.
I feel that "it's up to the GM to make it work adequately" represents a flaw inherent in the system.
Having the primary instigating factor (finding or not finding the trap before it goes off) require GM fiat/GM gusto/GM Pizzazz to have it function 'fairly' makes the system a little bit undercooked.
Expectation that a GM describes an area skilfully and with just the right level of detail without signposting the trap too obviously, is putting a bit too much of the weight on the GMs shoulders, particularly when you have to mask that task by performing it in every other trap-less area, so that your additional descriptive efforts do not look out of place.
Ckorik wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
The old "rocks fall, you die" is a failure of writing, not game design.
Er - two things:
1. Some people like that kind of gameplay experience - there is a non-trivial resurgence in 1st edition rule remakes currently.
2. If you did play 1st ed. you may have forgotten just how lethal traps were - poisoned needle was save or *die*. You'd run into that kind of trap at level 1. That was the game design.
People still had fun - but it did make for lots of 'use the dagger to poke at the thing and see if it explodes' moments. 3rd edition changed traps dramatically - Honestly I think they are too watered down these days, it would be nice to have a happy medium.
I doubt anyone wants a system where traps are trivial as a baseline: but the main reason for the revamps to traps/death in subsequent systems was the perception that traps that kill you with no warning and no escape were off-putting to more people than enjoyed them.
I actually kind of appreciate the idea of a hard-core campaign, one where if you don't metagame + optimize the crap out of it, you'll get wrecked repeatedly (Rappan Athuk and ones like that).
However, I disagree that such hardcore punishment should be a baseline in pathfinder: such campaigns need to be entered into willingly by consenting adults, because we all know what's likely to happen :P
There can be a place for it: but "Rocks Fall You Die" should not be a core system design in any area of the game: as it's particularly off-putting to new players.
No, there doesn't. That defeats the entire point of using traps in a tactical situation. Which I'm guessing is your entire intent. If you don't actively look for traps, the consequences are obvious.
Traps are what are called a force multiplier. Think to the original Rambo movie -- that is an effective use of traps in combat.
It slows down those who think they have a tactical advantage after their first few mooks get destroyed (or their "champion" who was stupid).
No, that's not really my intent.
What I'd like is for traps to function in a way that blends seamlessly with the rest of the game rather than presenting obstacles, not only for the party to surmount, but also bog down the session, or make the game feel unfair.
I'm all for traps having the ability to be used tactically (both by players and their foes), but I'm against having them negatively impact gameplay in areas where they aren't present, simply by having them exist at all.
By completely eschewing the ability to see them without searching in any situation, you are presented with a metagaming decision:
slow down from default in-game speed, and also potentially slow down sessions (depending on the table) in general as you repeatedl declare search.
Establish that "we're always searching" which fixes the problem, but runs into the same issue inside combat.
Houserule to make everything reactive, and throw out the idea of actively searching.
I actually don't consider any of those choices to be ideal. I'd like the rules, as written to not require an actively declared search, but to also cater to the idea of an active search.
That's why I consider the trap rules to be too loose, and needing something to help it run fast, without running in a manner that's skewed towards either extreme.
I suggest the "more info" field, as currently if you dont run traps for a while, and then during one encounter you suddenly run a trap inside combat, that's a GOTCHA moment that serves to antagonize your players.
You should not have to precede a trap with more traps in order to emphasise the danger of traps at any particular time: A system that allows traps to ever go off with no possible recourse from players is one that furthers the divide between 'trap campaigns' and 'non trap campaigns'.
And really: the only people that can afford to run the 'trap campaigns' and not have it bog the session down are those with trap spotter/find traps: we're back to square one.
I like traps, and want to use them more: but the rules as written/FAQed are kind of... hostile... at least still during combat, to maintaining a friendly game between GM and players.
The rules+FAQ cover non-combat well enough: take your time if you want to find traps. It just means more in-game time passes: Sessions only get slowed down when you need to explain that's how they're going to work. That's all fine and good.
-----
But they fall over in situations like combat where actions are at a premium, and players will not be burning actions to find traps at all times. Since "finding traps is an action" and that action is unlikely to be taken unless sufficient hints are given by the DM, the problem arises that the Trap Statblock does not include enough information in this regard.
There needs to be a 'hints to divulge' or at least 'hints to notice reactively' section of the statblock for the DM to read off, or use, to give players some form of understanding of their situation.
Since there is not, this rule comes under the guise of requiring either:
excessive metagaming on behalf of the players "I search the puppy for traps"
additional blatant/descriptive gusto on behalf of the GM "the stone walkway is flanked on either sides by carvings of dragons with completely non-suspicious mouth openings that i normally would not describe in such detail"
Both are expectations that are at least slightly unfair, especially on new players/GMs, and turn traps into a mechanic that is clunky to use.
Now, granted: the rules are only really falling apart during a combat/chase: but if they fall apart at all - that's bad.
There are ways that this could be fixed: but searches always being reactive is the only one that would do so without re-writing the trap rules, to some extent. Does this mean that active searching kind of goes out the window? Yes.
But it means that there's no unfair situations inherent in the rules.
Unspottable traps - even if they only have the possibility to occur in combat - are still inherently unfair. Yes: Trap Spotter and Find Traps let you get around that. But for any other party, they become unfair.
You should not require a class+talent or class+spell combo to make a system function in a way that preserves player agency: even if that particular situation is uncommon, it still will occur.
Case in point:
Magic traps are a more specific scenario than just any trap: yet because trapfinding was rogue only, and this was overly confining, they've continually added abilities that either grant trapfinding to non-rogues, or allow the same thing under a different name for other classes.
Combat trap spotting is specific as well, but has only two real options going for it as a solution.
That's also completely discounting the fact that the FAQ still requires you to set up a party "standard procedure" to not have traps function unfairly outside of combat.
There are other problems with the trap rules:
This thread has covered the requirement of meta-gaming to make the rules 'fair':
Unfair outside of combat unless you define a default-party-operating-procedure that is not assumed by the core game.
Unfair inside of combat unless you have a trap-spotter-rogue or find traps spell.
But there's also:
Design rules are overly loose and difficult to scale traps for a relevant CR. Have you ever tried to make a trap as a GM, and match it to a 'standard party'? try it.
Rules don't provide enough guidelines/caveats to cater to all types of parties, nor an expectation for a valid Perception/disable check for a PC per level.
not enough guidelines for getting through traps by blowing them up or smashing them, at least without feats that specifically provide the means to do so etc.
Note: I'm defining "fair" as "preserves player agency without requiring them to jump through hoops, thus creating a negative clash between players and GM". Other's definition may vary.
I read this FAQ, was disappointed, but then took a moment to digest:
It does affect the speed/area covered per action: however, people looking for confirmation that trap checks can be made pseudo-reactively have actually gotten exactly that.
The FAQ says several things:
"searching for traps is a declared only check"
"searching 10x10ft takes a move action, generally, unless cluttered"
"players can declare themselves as searching at all times, provided they move at appropriate speeds"
ergo: if players want reactive checks out of combat, they can have them, provided they are willing to take the speed hit, which will be irrelevant in most non-combat-circumstances. They can take checks in combat too, but since that burns an action, it makes more sense to declare it as a combat action instead.
If you take a second to reword the FAQ to a more simple step-by-step way to play, without changing the meaning:
If players wish to check for traps constantly:
Outside of initiative, it is smoother to have all movement done at search-as-you-go speeds, players should declare when they want to move at full speed, and neglect trap searching.
Inside initiative, whether due to combat/danger/time constraints, players move at full speed by default, and should declare trap-searches only if they are prepared to use a move action.
Furthermore: it provides FAQ backing (by saying its "smoother") for players who want to run the game that way, that might otherwise be denied the option by a hard-line GM.
The one other thing this does affect is that searching for traps and combat/speed/limited actions per round do not mix easily, and thus you must choose an active search and waste part of your combat round, if you're really keen on looking for traps: and even then you're probably burning 1 move action per 10 ft square. Meaning if you want a chance to react to a trap that's on a bridge you are charging across to smack an orc, you want trap spotter talent or find traps spell.
Thus:
Trap Spotter and Find Traps retain some measure of power, allowing them to function as free checks within 10 ft that function even in combat/not searching. If you are solely reliant on a trap-spotter rogue for trap finding, you can move at full speed while relying on them. I'm also reasonably sure that if you move at half-speed-search-mode, they technically allow that character to roll twice to find the trap.
But you don't need to bog the game down, and are directly encouraged not to by using auto-search-speeds.
The FAQ is, in fact, confirming, that you can legally/FAQ-RAW run the games as pseudo-reactive checks, provided you are happy to be moving at a certain speed. You are also within your rights, as a player, to ask the GM to run the game in that manner, as it is FAQ-supported and FAQ suggested:
If a GM objects to you taking 2x as long to clear a dungeon for whatever reason, he can throw random encounters at you to soak more resources.
So:
Barring being mindful of the half speed caveat (which is not relevant a lot of the time) this does not change the way I run my table, and I can't help but feel pleased by this :)
Whether you or your players actually roll the dice is largely up to your table.
There might be some questions about taking 10/20 though!
The James Jacobs rule doesn't mean saying "I check for traps" every time you enter a tavern. It can be done like this:
Player: "I'm moving slowly everywhere, checking for traps, until I say otherwise."
GM: "You know your buffs will wear off soon?"
Player: "I'm OK with that."
Later:
GM: "You're back out in the wilderness. I take it you're no longer looking for traps?"
Player: "No, these are hostile woods and we're low on health. There might be snares or other ambushes. We're going to proceed very slowly and carefully back to town."
GM: "You might have to spend the night in the woods if you're walking that slowly."
Player: "That's OK. We have Hide Campsite and plenty of food and we're not in a hurry."
Later:
GM: "You've made it back to town. Now will you stop looking for traps every few feet?"
Player: "Hmm... I don't entirely trust that tavern we're going to. They might be planning to rob us of our new loot."
GM: "Everyone will give you strange looks if you search for traps everywhere."
Player: "OK, forget it. I won't bother searching for traps until the next dungeon."
3.5 had spot: none of the above was necessary insofar as spotting the need to search.
Since Pathfinder does not have spot/search, for traps they've either:
1. Turned it all into search (a la James Jacobs' response)
2. turned it all into spot (as implied but never explicitly stated by the trap rules)
One removes the act of searching for traps from a list of actions players take.
The other slows down gameplay both from a player's perspective as well as within an in-game perspective.
The thing is: spot/listen/search being rolled into one skill was meant to streamline the game and reduce mechanical bloat: the "all search all the time" option runs contrary to that, as it is more cumbersome and difficult to achieve/apply than the previous edition.
There's an argument to be made that automatic with no search needed ever is too streamlined: but that's a lesser evil, in my opinion.
Creatures that succeed on a perception check detect a trap before it is triggered
CRB page 416 Trap Type: Magic: wrote:
A succesful perception check (DC 25 + spell level) detects a magic trap before it goes off
There is an (admittedly non-concrete) implication here that the check is reactive and freely granted by the encounter with the trap, as there is no call that you need to qualify for the check. Much like not having to state that you want to save, the process is implied as automatic.
The rules do not state:
"Creatures that ask to perform and succeed on a perception check detect a trap before it is triggered"
Nor are there any other clarifications/checklists listed
This is, however, thrown into doubt by the James Jacobs' 2012 input on the matter of the Trap Spotter talent (that is, also, I remind people, not an FAQ):
James Jacobs wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Hi James!
Can you clue us GMs in on the intent behind the Trap Spotter rogue talent and normal perception rules? If a non-trap spotting PC gets within line of sight of a trap, do they get a "reactive" perception check? (Per the perception rule "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus.") Or does a trap not count as a "stimulus" in that sense and any non-trap spotter will have to spend a move action to make an active perception check to search for traps? Would other hidden things (like stealthy creatures) work the same way, or different?
The trap spotter talent lets a rogue make a perception check to notice ALL traps he comes wihtin range of. Normally, you have to tell the GM that you're looking for traps.
There is a problem here:
A designer has stated something that appears to contradict a (soft) implication of a rule, as written.
And, there is no more concrete FAQ backing that up.
The application of the designer's statement leads to an increase of repeated actions that need to be verbalized every time you encounter a new room/object.
This is extremely irritating to put into practice: having to say "I check for traps" every time you enter a tavern, or buy a hotdog. It drastically slows down gameplay in action, and leads to a hostile relationship between players and the GM enforcing the "YOU MUST SAY THE WORDS" policy.
Now, don't get me wrong: I love most of James Jacobs' clarifications on topics (and generally use him as a stand-in FAQ system on topics that don't have them, because they are generally fair and make sense), but I am of the belief that he is either incorrect in this case, or has the correct interpretation of a rule, but that rule desperately needs an errata.
In the instance where such an event occurred, people might ask:
But what does trap spotter do?
Two possibilities:
1. You get to spot the trap 10 feet out instead of 5. The answer is that it is a bad talent, that only seems great if you read the rules in a way that interprets trap-searching as a verbalised only action. It was obviously written because of a similar interpretation of the rules that James Jacobs is using above: thus, if it is an incorrect interpretation, it's either mostly terrible, or would need re-writing to re-establish it as a useful tool.
2. You get one check at 10 feet and an additional check at 5/as you are about to step on the trap. This is obviously still very strong!
Regardless of whether James is correct:
We need an FAQ. or more importantly a concrete explanation on how traps are expected to work in a game session:
What checks are free and when do they occur at what distance?
What checks are only-if-asked-for?
Searching speed/area/time consequences
-----------
Personal Musing:
This comes from the merging of spot and search from 3.5 into perception in PF, but not clarifying clearly enough when such things are applicable. It used to be clear cut. Spot got your spidey sense going, and search did the hard work of finding the whole mechanism/contraption.
Since they merged the two, they needed to explicitly clarify the ramifications of such things, with regards to traps: but unfortunately it all got left as implications that it would go one or the other way.
Perfect candidate for an FAQ, Errata or even a blog post, in my humble opinion! :)
I ran our group's latest session without a map, but we've historically always used a map.
We had a discussion afterwards, and it seems the group preferred the map - but there were pros and cons for both.
I told them "if you want to flank, just tell me that's what you want to do and we'll work it in". I started the combat with very little preamble other than that.
What we found:
Combat was WAY faster, there was less analysis paralysis. Our group tends to ponder moves quite a lot and taking the map out of the equation made it a lot faster & simpler.
There was very little sense of the shape of the battlefield: I told them that they were approaching an medium sized inn, and the enemy appeared and dropped down from the roof-top. This comes down to me not being used to needing to describe the battlefield: I can usually draw it, and additional context usually arises out of that.
Since neither me nor the party thought about formations, area control/positioning went completely out the window: we didn't really define it as the combat started, and thus when I attacked one character, he seemed a bit disappointed that I could do so when he'd have liked to hide behind the front-liner barbarian. We can put this down to both myself and the group not being familiar with running things like this, but it's worth noting that it denied the party an option they would normally have taken advantage of.
So:
If either GM/PCs like to use positioning, flanking, or area denial: map-less could be a bit difficult to cope with keeping track of things, and the more reliant you are on such things, the more of a hassle it will be to shoe-horn it into the more abstract style.
It works both ways: if you want to circumvent area denial (ie have a monster hit someone that is being guarded by someone else) it becomes more difficult to achieve, short of just provoking and running with that.
However: if you want to run a combat fast for whatever reason (near the end of a session perhaps?) it might actually be a good way to rapid-fire your way through. Also, if your group does suffer from analysis paralysis, it might be a good way to explore faster paced action.
I think it will also open up more options as far as "rule of cool", but that will depend much more on your ability to describe the scene of the combat at the beginning, so that people feel more able to make use of the environment you present them with.
On the flip-side: if you have a group that wants to have a more tactical experience, or if you are running an area-control tank, or a mage that likes to land his template spells just right, maybe consider trying a map.
I suspect most groups will have a preference one way or the other: but I think there are lessons to be learned from both styles of play.
One is looser, faster, but potentially more interesting and atmospheric if you take some extra time to set the scene.
The other is more tactical/strategic, and allows more forethought and planning for the party: it also allows both sides to make positioning mistakes, perhaps opening things up that might not have otherwise occurred without a map.
I may be slightly late to the thread (and you seem to have accepted a solution already) But Familiar Adept lets a wizard use your familiar as a spellbook, similar to a witch familiar.
This is kind of a minor thing but it's bugging me. And I know my players are going to be confused. I can't reconcile the map of the basement and area A2 with the main floor area B1. The stairwell seems to be 7 to 8 feet from the chute, but I can't see how that lines up with the description of B1.
Where exactly would the stairs have been if not collapsed on the main floor? I don't see anything on the map that could be the shed-like structure, unless we're talking about the rubble between B1 and C1. Is the compass on the basement map mislabeled? I could sort of align things if north was actually pointing to the right.
What am I missing?
The "shed-like structure" positioning is the confusing part, since it isn't shown on the map, and is located in a place that might not be directly lined up over the basement stairs.
The chute from furnace to furnace lines up reasonably well, if you are willing to accept that it is not a cube, but kind of zig zags out like a Z at the top and bottom.
The chute to the service room lines up fine.
The confusing part is that the stairs look like a tight spiral, when they would not be, they'd be a long extension to the southwest.
If you really need it to line up in your mind: ignore the shed like structure reference, and connect the stairs leading up (collapsed area between B1/C1), and stairs leading down into the basement area, as one continuous stairwell, mentally.
The way you can rationalise it is that there is either:
An additional (collapsed) corridor level of basement connecting two separate stairwells.
or
A very long (collapsed) stairwell between the two points
This is a sketch of how you can reconcile either of those two:
But yeah, everything lines up except for the collapsed stairs, which will probably never be used, so it's more for the architects and draftspeople among us than anything that will affect the module :)
Agreed - the advanced weapon training from the Weapon Master's Handbook is exactly what the fighter needed. Can't wait for the Armor Master's Handbook in April :)
I would gladly wave away the tricks rules in most circumstances: in my opinion they serve to only prevent characters from getting their tiger to solve a rubix cube, or to give players recourse to throw RAW at overly restrictive GMs who think your Lassy should be a Doge.
Anything else is too time consuming, and gets in the way of playing the game :)
22 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
The feat Blind Fight only explicitly states that it allows:
1. rerolls vs concealment
2. invisible attackers get no advantages related to hitting you in melee (you don't lose dex to AC, nor grant them +2 to hit)
Since it explicitly states 'invisible' and not 'you cannot see them for whatever reason', a RAW reading can then assume that the feat does not deny those bonuses (but still rerolls concealment) if you are blinded, or fighting in darkness ('effectively blinded').
A quick reading of the rules will automatically assume that inability to see someone equals invisibility to you, but the RAI and RAW are at odds.
Does the feat negate the advantages due to being unable to be seen, or only if the attacker is specifically under the effects of invisibility?
If you think this is an ambiguous rule, where RAI and RAW are contradictory, or at least misleading: please click that little old FAQ button at the top of this post :)
@Obbu - I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to say, so let me paraphrase it as a question. Would you say that AC 31 is "decent" for 12th level, AC 21 "sucks", and AC 41 is "great"? Would you consider aiming for AC = Level+20 to be very reasonable? Does AC = Level+30 seem unreasonable to you or just very focused on defending attacks on AC? As you mentioned, buffs and debuffs can affect this stuff a lot. I have PC who had AC 32 at 12th level but was considered nearly un-hittable since he intimidates and sickens most foes, trips any who are susceptible to it, and often uses dirty tricks like entangle.
Ignoring buffs and debuffs, they are relevant but they complicate the argument, and I'm trying to make a guideline here.
Per Monster Creation the attack bonus for a CR12 monster with High attack (Accurate Bruiser, not necessarily high damage) is +21.
The AC number I listed will allow you to be missed 50% of the time by their first iterative attack. The other numbers I listed have a similar effect, either 50% defense success, or 50% offense success vs the average monster at that level. Whether you think 50% chance is 'good', 'average' or 'sub-par' depends a lot on other aspects of your character design. Having a 'relevant' AC at level 1 is ridiculously easy, but very dangerous, as your health pool is pitiful.
If the monster uses natural attacks, most of the attacks will be high like this: if they use iteratives, they will be -5/-10 etc.
The AC = Lvl +20 is too hard to apply to all levels, especially level 1, where you are lucky to have over 20.
Loose Relevance Guideline:
If you want a guideline for every level, looking at Pathfinder Bestiary with statistics I think its more meaningful to say:
10+1.75 AC per level
(depending on how defensive you want to be, this would range from 1.5 to 2.0)
1.75 Attack Bonus per level
(depending on whether you are full or 3/4, and whether you want to rely upon iteratives/natural attacks etc, again ranging from 1.5 to 2.0)
3 CMB per level
3 CMD per level
1 reflex per level
1 will per level
1 fortitude per level
2 stealth per level
+1 spell penetration per level (this is actually covered by caster level)
10+1.2 Save DC per level
with the -10 irrelevant, +10 maxxed, and +15/+20 untouchable by bosses caveats, as they all focus around D20 rolls with a bonus.
Caveats:
You do not need all of these stats to be relevant, depending on your class role (spell penetration is not much use to a martial tank). They are simply numbers to gauge if your stat is going to help you out at a particular level.
These numbers are NOT exact, but they give you a smooth curve to refer to at a given level, and they avoid using fractions too much. Just remember that this is simplistic math, and that monster offenses/defenses fluctuate around the norm for the level, and also arent a 100% even growth.
Some monsters have a lower attack bonuses than others (whether because they are less martially competent, have high damage to compensate or whatever), VS these your AC is far more relevant: using the level 12 example, the low attack is 6 lower than the high, which is used for these numbers. So, total irrelevancy is usually 5 to 10 lower than the irrelevant mark, as it is possible to be facing a horde of CR-1 wizards who have no spells prepared, and are hitting you with books: but that is an edge case scenario.
3/4 classes like rogues and investigators can pile on some extra damage per hit, via sneak attack/studied combat/studied strike and so on to generally balance out lower to hit bonus.
Custom built NPCs will often be slightly higher at a certain task (spotting your stealth, if they are focused on perception for example).
CMB vs CMD is very loose, the numbers are for creatures that don't have things like +10 CMD vs trip or trip immunity and so on.
Spell penetration relevance is covered by caster level alone, as noted. However, considering that Spell Resistance is usually in addition to other defenses (saves etc), if your DC is relevant, and your SR is relevant, you'll have only a 25% chance of success at landing that spell on a spell-resistant target, for example. As a quick rule, raise the relevancy numbers both by 4 in that case, and you'll have about 49% success rate.
For the GM perspective:
a CR=APL bruiser (easy fight) should still have a 50/50 chance of hitting these relevance marks (first iterative, or most natural attacks). In my example of the ancient white dragon, a CR+3 boss should have a 50/50 chance of hitting the 'maxxed' value (relevant+10). If they manage relevant +20, I will be very surprised (and I would request a detailed build + gear) if they have not let another aspect of their character slip.
Characters SHOULD get to use their strengths, a high AC character should be a 'hard target' in melee, to deter repeated attacks (both in the sense of iteratives, and after the monster realizes the PC is super-hard-to-hit). But there are plenty of other ways to harass a PC in particular, and unless they are forcing your hand with high damage, area control, positioning (which you have more control of than they do), or some other method of threat, their AC is an attack deterrent, not an I-win-button.
Meta-gaming wise, as a GM there are two ways to attack encounters: how can I win completely, and how can I have a small victory in draining the party's resources by enough that they feel it.
Obviously, if your PCs constrain themselves to not meta-gaming and only take actions in character, then you should consider this yourself for your creatures.
But I believe that meta-gaming as a GM is OK Provided you aren't being too mean-spirited about it. I like the idea of making 1/3 of encounters where a build struggles, 1/3 where they shine, and 1/3 where they get by OK. Obviously you have 4~ players to work with, so that's never going to hold exactly true, but it bears keeping in mind.
Know your party's weaknesses: that means getting their sheets and jotting down their defense numbers.
If a character is skyrocketing way above any of the relevant numbers, they are usually letting something else slide, sometimes this is other defenses, sometimes it's just a low health pool hidden by across-the-board high defenses, sometimes their offense sucks. Sometimes they aren't mobile enough.
If their offense sucks, then you can waltz around them and hit other party members, then gang up on them last. If their attack bonus is low enough that they're almost guaranteed to miss, provoke like a madman to get to the squishy behind them. Consider a monster with DR sometimes, which will be un-damagable if their offense is sub-par.
If one defense (saves, touch AC etc) is lower, make sure you target that in some manner, in some combats at least. Overrun/Trip/grapple them if their CMD doesn't match their AC. Hold person, Charm, Fear, color spray. Ray spells and nets vs touch AC.
If their defenses rock, but they have a small health pool, there are ways around that too: spell resistance can be avoided by many conjuration spells, magic missiles don't miss, many evocation spells do damage on a successful save.
If they arent mobile enough: ranged attacks, flying creatures and so on become big challenges. Formation fighting tactics/terrain/reach might be useful too.
Above all: Don't do this every fight, but do it often enough that the character feels challenged. If they have drastically low defenses in one area, try to walk the line between punishing them and encouraging them to plug the hole.
The hex entries are a little bit confusing at first glance, you need to refer to the class entry for Hex, which tells you its a standard action to use a hex, unless otherwise noted.
Unless otherwise noted, using a hex is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. The save to resist a hex is equal to 10 + 1/2 the witch's level + the witch's Intelligence modifier.
For newcomers to the class - it can be a bit confusing. When I first ran a shaman encounter for my group i was similarly confused by their hex, which is located under the class entry as well.
On further reading Re: flight hex
immediate action at will feather fall, per spell (until landing or 1 round/level)
standard action 1/day levitate (1 min/level)
standard action fly duration per day is usable in discrete 1 minute increments, 1 minute per witch level
It doesn't spell out the activation time, so default assumption is that activating time is what the spells say, which would override the catch-all.
The only non-explicit-but-still-RAW part is:
With the discrete fly usage: standard action to start, ends when you want to stop using your increments.
Well, it would be 3 plunder/day max in a party of 4, assuming one is doing infamy, and crew is already maxxed (and not using other custom daily tasks that players might want to do).
If you're running under 4 players, 1/day/person is going to be harder, and more than 4 it becomes much easier (and, indeed; helps them to feel useful on days spent docked).
But it's probably an indication that the plunder system is loose enough that a variance of a few thousand gold here and there is not going to break the game.
It's probably far less impactful than low-magic vs high-magic for example.
To my mind (halfway through book 2) from reading ahead, the main cap on progress when you first start getting plunder is actually infamy/disrepute: plunder can be used for cash, or to help infamy along.
Of course, if the crew sells their plunder it might delay their infamy progress: which my group did, and I can imagine is the more common route, since you don't necessarily spell out the infamy factor for them in obvious terms yet, other than telling them about impositions.
Infamy is pretty clear-cut at least: the only potential problem you'd have is if no-one in the party was capable of passing the checks at level 4, due to not having the specific skills: in which case you'd need to craft a couple of extra adventure hooks (or modify existing encounters) to hand out more infamy.
If the intent was 50-50 they would have simply stated that half the plunder goes to the crew. I have and will continue to completely disregard the 1 pt max plunder per day thing, as it is ridiculous. We have always unloaded ALL the plunder in one day...
If you look at it from the perspective of trying to give everyone a daily town task, it becomes less ridiculous:
Without the plunder thing, there's only infamy and crew recruitment.
Infamy is once a day, and crew recruitment quickly tapers off.
I'm not saying you're wrong to run it as you do, by the way: merely trying to interpret what they might want in such a rule.
Mmmmm, that's the passage that the OP is referring to:
It says to sell 1 at a time, and deduct an additional 1 per sale.
deduct 1 point of plunder from their total each time they attempt to sell plunder
Book 2 p12
and
Exchanging 1 point of plunder for gold requires a PC to spend 1 full day at port and make an applicable skill check.
Regardless of how much plunder the PCs have, one PC must spend a full day trading to exchange 1 point of plunder for gold
Book 1 p62
Granted, I don't see any problem at all with the 1 every time you dock rule, I was using that myself, and it seemed ok. Though i did not run it for more than a few sessions. I just wondered if there was any part of the book that directly contradicted those two passages :P
I'll try running it close to RAW (though i'm not deducting plunder for an attempt the PCs decide not to accept, i think that's a bit harsh).
So: 50-50 plunder split, but if they attempt a plunder sale and don't like the price, ill let them forgo paying the crew the half.
I follow the AP recommendation of 1 pt. per trip to port. Our group is level 8 now, with 4 players, and I find the gold values pretty much bang on... challenging, but bang on. Less gold to the PCs would make that group a bit anemic. Plus, I don't want to run into a hypothetical scenario where they leave for months (lost a sea or something) and owe thousands of gold pieces to the crew... that would be silly. To give a weekly pay to pirates... is to no longer call them pirates... just sayin' ;)
Purple, do you have a page reference for this recommendation?
This was how i originally assumed it worked - after watching a stream of a S&S campaign. However, upon reading the rules, i cannot find the reference to 'every time they port'.
Book 1 p62
Book 2 p12
There's only a rule saying 'pay 1 plunder every time you *attempt* to sell plunder', and 'only sell 1 plunder at a time'
Both seem to point at 50% or more of the plunder going to the crew.
I'm happy to be proven wrong here, so if there's a contradictory sidebar floating around somewhere, it would be good to know about.
