Mort the Cleverly Named |
That is honestly a good point, though it is a weird artifact of how the system works rather than something that is good for the class itself. Ideally they could create a tag for a modified ability that may still be eliminated (like adding extra bonus feats to a list or slightly changing spellcasting), but otherwise I guess that would be a good point not to fiddle on (much like not changing one silly class skill).
Canadian Bakka |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question: what, exactly, are the differences between using Diplomacy as outlined in the Calling for a Cease Fire subsection of Diplomacy (located the Skills In Conflict section) and using the Call Truce feat?
To me, it seems like the former has no set DC explicitly stated (although it is implied that you would use a base DC equal to 25 [for a hostile creature] or 20 [for an unfriendly creature] + the highest Charisma modifier in the opposing group + any other relevant modifier). The latter has a set DC of 30 + the highest Charisma modifier in the opposing group + any other relevant modifiers. Are there anything else that I missed about the differences between the two?
Also, why is the DC higher for someone who has the feat (including the prerequisites feat, Persuasive)?
It just seems counter-intuitive to me that the feat itself is mechanically harder to accomplish than without the feat. Am I missing anything here?
CB out.
Mark Seifter Designer |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question: what, exactly, are the differences between using Diplomacy as outlined in the Calling for a Cease Fire subsection of Diplomacy (located the Skills In Conflict section) and using the Call Truce feat?
To me, it seems like the former has no set DC explicitly stated (although it is implied that you would use a base DC equal to 25 [for a hostile creature] or 20 [for an unfriendly creature] + the highest Charisma modifier in the opposing group + any other relevant modifier). The latter has a set DC of 30 + the highest Charisma modifier in the opposing group + any other relevant modifiers. Are there anything else that I missed about the differences between the two?
Also, why is the DC higher for someone who has the feat (including the prerequisites feat, Persuasive)?
It just seems counter-intuitive to me that the feat itself is mechanically harder to accomplish than without the feat. Am I missing anything here?
CB out.
Call Truce lets you usually call for a truce as long as they aren't mind-controlled or losing the upper hand, but calling for a cease-fire otherwise only works if it legitimately sounds like it's in the best interests of the opponents to go for a truce instead of fighting, which won't always be possible. Call Truce's DC is based on the hypothetical possibility of asking for dangerous aid from an unfriendly person (30 + Cha modifier), so it's actually +5 better for you if they're hostile.
Mort the Cleverly Named |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does that not seem absurdly circuitous, especially for a book that is supposed to be about such things? I mean, the two sections obviously weren't written with the same hand, and the difference is tiny and vague.
Further, your statement isn't even true, that is only a vague suggestion. The book says:
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.
Are you saying the feat exists to force the GM's hand in such matters? Though even then it won't, because despite only listing surrender, loss, mind control, or zealotry, Call Truce also offers "GM discretion" or arbitrarily increasing the DC. In practice I don't see the difference.
Let us face it: the feat does nothing. It changes "GM discretion" to "GM discretion." There is really nothing it could do that would not be a silly feat tax on a character wishing to use Diplomacy, as whether a situation works or not is still entirely the GM's discretion in either case and has to be.
Either that or it breaks GM discretion and I can stop rampaging Orcs, ravenous Ghouls, or anything else I can talk to and we are in a "Diplomancer" situation. The middle ground is so vague as to be essentially meaningless, and not referencing each other makes the two sections even worse. Honestly, this sort of thing is one of the biggest issues with the entire book.
Canadian Bakka |
Call Truce has a duration of 1 minute or until attacked, whichever is less. The Cease Fire option doesn't have a set duration but I imagine it would probably be the same duration, or at least a couple of rounds for the opposing group to hear the diplomat out. In either case, extending the duration would be a type of request via Diplomacy, no?
Finally, would it be fair to say that in either case, a valid circumstance modifier to the DC for calling a truce/cease fire would be similar to a request that is "giving dangerous aid that could result in punishment?" After all, if you are asking for an evil cleric, via the Call Truce feat, to stand down and allow parley between the adventuring group and the evil cleric's group, wouldn't the evil cleric be going against the dogma of his deity/divine patron by choosing not to continue the battle (assuming neither side has significant combat advantage over each other, whether it be due to spells, number of members, tactical positioning, or even simply due to class or racial abilities)?
Cheers!
CB out.
David N Ross |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I gotta say, I am really liking the Ruse spells in this book. I hope to see more of them in the future.
I'm glad to hear it! Those were my brainchildren. :D
Have I missed something or do a couple of the feats in the book not really do anything?
specificly the sense assumption/relationship ones since arent they already coverd by the sense motive skill anyway?
Good question! As the author of those two feats, I can't offer official rulings, but I can explain why I wrote them this way. Sense Motive's default "get a hunch" function has generally been interpreted to provide less specific information than these feats do. Note that you don't have to talk about things obviously related to the relationship or your potential lie in order to use the feats; they represent being exceptionally adept at figuring out little clues in just about any interaction that meets their limitations. Without such a feat, you can still improvise that use of the skill as your GM deems appropriate (more below).
BigNorseWolf wrote:I'm seeing a lot of what I was afraid of here: Rumormonger like options. Options that don't expand the use of skills, bur rather by their existence constrain the use of skills only to people with a feat or special ability- feats skill focused characters don't have to spare.
Determining that two people have a relationship is just a sense motive check, not sense motive and 2 feats. Knowing whether a fib is going to be outrageous or easy is something the player/character should have some idea of before they start spinning their yarn. Aiding someone's disguise with a bluff is just a creative aid another, not a feat. Telling if someone knows how to use that sword at their hip is something fighting types know,
One of the reasons people complain about caster/skill disparity is that the expanding system has expanded the capabilities of magic. "Abilities" that already do what the skill does constrains them and makes just getting a spell to do it an even better option.
Yeah, I hate to agree... but I do. I really love the rules make cool things like these are codified into the rules, but I wish it didn't take a feat to do it.
Expanding the existing skill system or utilizing the skill unlocks would be fantastic.
I guess a good reason to keep it in feats is that it keeps the game simple. As soon as they put rules in for using Sense Motive to determining two people have a relationship, people familiar with that rule may feel that they need to make use of that option whenever a situation arises. It clutters the skill page on the PRD if they include it. It is difficult to find if they don't include it directly on the skill page. At least with them as feats, only the people who took the feat will spam the skill use and it keeps the information contained in a relevant location.
Still, definitely lame for feats to remove something you've been doing without a feat.
My philosophy is that the feat is only there to do these things better. A feat is not an excuse to forbid improvisation—it's a lower bound on how challenging it should be to improvise. By all means, let the player use Sense Motive after a lengthy exchange to guess a relationship or how believable a lie is without a feat. Just consider imposing a penalty or raising the DC such that the feat is worth it, and remember feats often let you accomplish something without as much to work with or without navigating as many roleplaying hurdles. Without the feat, you might be at greater risk of being found out or encountering other challenges.
Thanks for reading!
Tenacious Spell...
Is awesome. Very cool. Excellent for PCs and NPCs alike. I look forward to the look on my players' faces when they dispel some ultra-important buff on a BBEG only to discover it lingers for another 1-4 rounds.
That's mine, too! I'm glad you like it. :)
Chemlak |
My philosophy is that the feat is only there to do these things better. A feat is not an excuse to forbid improvisation—it's a lower bound on how challenging it should be to improvise.
Interesting, and I think you're right, particularly when you consider:
Normal: What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent.
So for feats without a normal entry, you're not restricted by not having the feat, it's just not as easy as if you do have it. That might change a few rules arguments.
Chris Lambertz Community & Digital Content Director |
ErisAcolyte-Chaos jester |
I'm wondering. if the Meta-morph Alchemist has Shape-shifting, mutagens and increased resistances, would it be possible to use shape-shifting in a minor way to give natural weapons(like claws) for a brief period of time.
Also i am in love with the tyrant Archetype. They don't lose very much but they become infinitely more easy to play as a result. Kind of makes me want to play a Griffith character that doesn't then go on to sacrifice the band of loyal followers he has gathered. Because while i might want ungodly powers, I'm not going to put my hand in with the powers of hell unless i can exploit them for my own benefit. Plus people that are loyal are quite useful to me and i don't want to create a Guts chasing after my head.
Xethik |
My philosophy is that the feat is only there to do these things better. A feat is not an excuse to forbid improvisation—it's a lower bound on how challenging it should be to improvise. By all means, let the player use Sense Motive after a lengthy exchange to guess a relationship or how believable a lie is without a feat. Just consider imposing a penalty or raising the DC such that the feat is worth it, and remember feats often let you accomplish something without as much to work with or without navigating as many roleplaying hurdles. Without the feat, you might be at greater risk of being found out or encountering other challenges.
That is definitely the best way to handle it; There are definitely a lot of posts countering my statements and I agree that this theoretical issue is almost entirely a non-issue in real play. I don't think any GM would run a game disallowing sorts of things. These feats, especially in non-combat scenarios, will almost definitely be handled fine.
In combat, I could see one GM allowing a player to scoop up nearby mud and hurl it at an enemy as a ranged dirty trick attempt. I could totally see another GM requiring a player to have the Mud in Your Eyes feat (Heroes of the Street). A third may allow it by the Mud in Your Eyes rules, but with a penalty. All GMs are right in my opinion. Is that feat existing a bad thing? No! There should definitely be rules for such a tactic. Should it require a feat? Tough to say for me.
I'm rambling and talking to myself at this point, but it is an interesting design problem to me!
Eric Hinkle |
I have to say that while I like the Mask of Stolen Mien, I do kind of wish it didn't sound so gruesome. Made out of patches of human faces? Sounds like something that Leatherface would run around with.
Okay, there's nothing evil about using it, but rather like the hand of glory, I wonder what sort of funny looks you'd be getting from people when you try using it.
Gisher |
I have to say that while I like the Mask of Stolen Mien, I do kind of wish it didn't sound so gruesome. Made out of patches of human faces? Sounds like something that Leatherface would run around with.
Okay, there's nothing evil about using it, but rather like the hand of glory, I wonder what sort of funny looks you'd be getting from people when you try using it.
I wonder what sort of funny look you're giving them when you try using it. ;)
Bryce Kineman |
Is "Ready for Anything" the victim of a missing comma, or does the feat really have four prerequisite feats?
I know this doesn't mean anything, but in the book it says, "Prerequisites: Alertness, Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes, Quick Draw, base attack bonus +6 or uncanny
dodge class feature."I usually translate a listing of prerequisites listed like this. As you only need one of the listed prerequisites. Seeing as it's listed with nothing but commas till the "or". Now I know my English is pretty bad. But I was under the impression that meant the statement of the prerequisites listed as such meant you need Alertness or Improved Initiative or Lightning reflexes or Quick Draw or base attack bonus +6 or Uncanny Dodge.
Forgive me if this has already been clarified or its just my horrid understanding of the English Language(to be fair it's one of the most complex languages in the world)
christos gurd |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
DrSwordopolis wrote:Is "Ready for Anything" the victim of a missing comma, or does the feat really have four prerequisite feats?I know this doesn't mean anything, but in the book it says, "Prerequisites: Alertness, Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes, Quick Draw, base attack bonus +6 or uncanny
dodge class feature."I usually translate a listing of prerequisites listed like this. As you only need one of the listed prerequisites. Seeing as it's listed with nothing but commas till the "or". Now I know my English is pretty bad. But I was under the impression that meant the statement of the prerequisites listed as such meant you need Alertness or Improved Initiative or Lightning reflexes or Quick Draw or base attack bonus +6 or Uncanny Dodge.
Forgive me if this has already been clarified or its just my horrid understanding of the English Language(to be fair it's one of the most complex languages in the world)
believe it would have to start with the word "Either" to be any individual prerequisite. As written it seems to be the first 4 feats then base attack bonus +6 or uncanny dodge.
Zero the Nothing |
Paizo, you managed to make perfect archetypes and classes to let us be Captain America, an Bender(Avatar: The Last Airbender), the Incredible Hulk, Batman, Nightwing, Hawkeye/Green Arrow, and even the Punisher.
Don't take this personally, but what happened with Wild Soul? Especially the Arachnid Wild Soul. I was so EXCITED when I looked in this book and saw that archetype. I read through the Arachnid Wild Soul stuff. 2nd level, spider-sense, great start. The 6th level, shooting Tanglefoot bags up to 3 + Con mod times per day. With a 10ft range increment, not 20. Not a "Web Pool" of 10 + 1/2 Vigilante level + Con mod. Just 3 + Con mod. At 12th level(when PFS characters retire or go Seeker) you gain a climb speed and can shoot weblines as ropes. Finally at 18th, I can web swing. 18th level, I have Potions of Fly or Winged Boots. I've never even played a character of 18th level in 3.5 or PF.
I honestly feel like the Wild Soul could've just replaced the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th level Vigilante talents. I would've been a big trade off with losing early Vigilante talents, but the archetype gives you access to some unique things. Or it could've replaced the 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th level Social Talents. Or a mix of replacing Social and Vigilante talents so 1 or the 2 isn't getting hit too hard. Or the Wild Soul abilities could've just been extra Vigilante talents that you could choose from. That way you could've put more abilities into the archetype, like attaching weblines to creatures, using Dirty Tricks, disarming foes, and even grabbing unattended objects.
You guys still do incredibly good work. I still very much enjoy Pathfinder, especially when I can make one of my favorite characters, but I'm still shocked by this archetype.