Ugh. Use Rope is a lot more important than Jason thought.


General Discussion (Prerelease)


So I only found out about this recently. But apparently they're only going to be listening to comments about one chapter at a time, and I don't know if I'll make it back at exactly the right time (ick). I'm guessing a fair number of people agree with me on this, and I hope my thoughts can get thrown in when the time comes (Skills and Equipment are both relevant)

So I don't mind that Use Rope, as a particular skill, is gone. What I DO mind is that it's now wildly unclear what skill checks to ask for for various rope tricks.

Therefore, I suggest that each of the standard rope options listed in the PHB be included as a possible action with a DC and an skill. Perhaps list them under the Rope listing in equipment!

I don't even care very much exactly which skill is used for, but it's GOT to be crystal clear what you roll to:
(1) Tie a firm knot
(2) Tie someone up securely (yes, some people should be better at this than others. The current rule is not OK; this needs to be an opposed check against Escape Artist).
(3) Tie someone up while they're struggling
(3) Tie a special knot (slip knot, noose, lariat etc.)
(4) Tie knots one-handed
(5) Splice ropes
(6) Swing a lariat
(7) Secure a loose grappling hook (not the same as throwing it)

It feels to me like the knot-tying should be Sleight of Hand, with a firm knot being 10 (doable untrained) and a special knot being 15 (not doable untrained), and one-handed being +5 or even +10 DC (tying knots one-handed is a b$*%+); and Escape Artist should be versus your knot tying result +10, mostly as in the SRD. Sleight of Hand is DEX-based, it's an underused skill (used FAR FAR less than Use Rope -- in the campaigns I've been in, Use Rope is very popular and used constantly, and we've never had a single Sleight of Hand check), tying ropes is harder to do in armor so the armor check penalty is appropriate, and Sleight of Hand is specifically about doing things with your hands and fingers, unlike all the other Dex-based skills. (And if you can tie knots with your mouth and toes, my hat is off to you.) As for the splicing, that should probably be a craft skill. And the lariat should probably simply be listed as an exotic weapon (so attack rolls would be used); and the grappling hook could be either Sleight of Hand or an attack roll.

But it would be tolerable for any of it to be pretty much any of the skills. The key, crucial thing is that we need to be able to take ranks in *something* which improves our ability to do whichever of the above rope tricks we're particularly interested in! They should *not* be guaranteed successes or straight ability checks, because that's just stupid (if you've ever actually tried any of these in RL, you'll know that they really do require practice and training).


Rolling those checks into Sleight of Hand works for me. Adds value to an underutilized DEX based skill. Lariat as an exotic weapon works also. Splicing ropes, I can see the craft check or using Sleight of Hand whichever gives you the better modifier.


I very much like the suggestion of folding use rope into sleight of hand. The current rule that escape artist DC is 10+the rope tier's CMB seems unsatisfactory. Should a fighter really be better than a rogue at tying knots? Should just about anyone be able to escape from being tied up by a 1st level character? No matter how much time and effort the tier puts into securing the knots?

Sovereign Court Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder

The problem with making the Sleight of Hand skill the "de facto" Use Rope skill is that it excludes the skills that would logically lend themselves to rope and knot work.

It's about HOW they learned to tie knots, really.

Rogues learn their way with the ropes via Sleight of Hand and perhaps even Escape Artist (the thinking here is if one learns to loosen knots, one needs to know how they are tied).

I see Survival being a good stat for basic knots and rope use. Most Boy/Cub Scouts know their knots. So, Rangers learn that way. Maybe some war-grizzled fighters, as well.

Likewise, Profession: Sailor would allow a character to work ropes and knots.

Now, that said....I agree that it would be spiffy if we had a solid ruling down on what skills qualify for rope use. As it stands, if a player can argue WHY a certain skill would work, then they should be able to use it in their roll. And while that isn't solid, it is robust to get the job done.


Please, consider the following information:

* Sleight of Hand

* Rope

"Usage

Rope is of paramount importance in fields as diverse as construction, seafaring, exploration, sports and communications and has been since prehistoric times. In order to fasten rope, a large number of knots have been invented for various uses. Pulleys are used to redirect the pulling force to another direction, and may be used to create mechanical advantage, allowing multiple strands of rope to share a load and multiply the force applied to the end. Winches and capstans are machines designed to pull ropes."

* Knot

I can't agree with Sleight of Hand, and instead favour Survival, Craft, or Profession.

"Knot tying skills are often transmitted by sailors, scouts, climbers, cavers, arborists, rescue professionals, fishermen, and surgeons."

Thanks,

Scarab Sages

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Kyrinn wrote:


I can't agree with Sleight of Hand, and instead favour Survival, Craft, or Profession.

"Knot tying skills are often transmitted by sailors, scouts, climbers, cavers, arborists, rescue professionals, fishermen, and surgeons."

Thanks,

To enter into the discussion, I would definately think that climb should be added to the skills that have a use rope component.

Maybe instead of rolling the use rope skill fully into a single skill, it could be split into it's component parts.

For example: Securing a rope (including grappling hook) gets rolled into Climb, Securing a person into Escape Artist, tying of knots for other uses into Profession Sailor/Fisherman etc

This would mean that people who should be good at certain things, like a fighter who has high ranks in climb, wouldn't have to sleight of hand for the ability to secure a rope for others to use after they have scaled the wall, which would be considered a basic of the climb skill.


Or we could just keep use rope, and note that a wide variety of professions would have use for aspects of the skill. And therefore they would take it.


I agree with R_Chance.

Since ropes are used in various ways, why not just re-introduce the use rope skill?

Referring to that one little skill is much easier than to sort out and discern the various situations ropes are used, to keep these in mind and then apply the appropriate skill.

If the removal of a skill raises so many questions which skill is to use instead, it maybe shouldn't have been removed in the first place.

Greetings, Daniel


I've seen very interesting knots on some fetish pictures at DeviantArt... that could be an interesting skill if you find the right playing partner :P


Surely didn't mean it in that context...
(but whatever you play, use rope might fit here as well...)

Grand Lodge

The way I see it now is that anyone can tie or use a rope for perfect ability and therefore it virtyually impossible to escape from. The gods can;t do better than a commoner even.

So, since that is just plain silly, I just ported Use Rope back in. Sure it might be a very focused skill, but Sleight of hand certainly fails to capture all of it's nuances and survival does not suceed either.

There is a reason Boy Scouts spend so much time tying knots... it is really a skill unto itself. Should sailors be using survival or sleight of hand to tie knots? What about executioners? Or animal handlers securing the pack animals? The thief climbing into a dungeon? Or the sherrif binding the outlaw? Or the little girls playing Jump Rope?

These are all very different ways of using ropes. Seems the best way to capture all these different nuances of rope use is a Use Rope skill.


My first instinct is to replace it with an Ability Check (maybe Dex or Int whichever is higher) but that fails mechanically. You can't go opposing a skill (Escape) with an Ability check, it will quickly become too easy to escape.

That the current rules are simply an extension of grappling seems very short-sighted to me. There are just too many other situations where this comes up, not the least of which binding an unconscious escape artist!

Sleight of Hand is out of the question, as far as I am concerned.

Survival would be best of the existing skills, but there are plenty of characters who should be able to tie a secure knot without being able to track or forage (all sailors, for example).

I'm afraid I may see Use Rope returning to my game, but under a different name. I hate skills that start with "Use" to such an extent that I have replaced them all in my campaign. I suppose that makes me a skill name snob. I've asked around with some of my nautical enthusiast friends and they have suggested "Ropework" would be an authentic but sufficiently ambiguous replacement.

Sovereign Court Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder

But the problem with just adding the "Use Rope" skill back in is that it just becomes "that skill no one wastes their points on". And the point of Pathfinder RPG was to simplify skills.

Seriously, the rogue is pretty much the only class that would have points to throw away into this skill. The fact is that tying knots and using ropes can easily be covered by several other skills. Not every action NEEDS a specific skill.

I'd find it acceptable as a DM (or from a DM) if an argument was made to bind up a prisoner using, say Escape Artist as the skill, because if my character can untie knots, he/she would have a good understanding on how to make a well-secured knot.

Equally, the ranger could argue that Survival requires a good knowledge of rope utilized in a variety of ways, often with one's life depending on it, and therefore, he/she would certainly be able to apply this skill to binding up the prisoner...or securing the rope to a person for lowering them down.

True, it causes an open gaming style, and perhaps puts the onus on the DM. But, isn't that part of roleplaying?

That said, it really is your game. Want Use Rope? Put it back in. However, note how many of your players actually put points into it. I daresay that not many will. Instead, they will probably argue that their (survival, profession: sailor, escape artist) skill should provide them the ability to use a rope, so why on earth would I dump points into such a narrowly defined skill??

;-)

Grand Lodge

toyrobots wrote:

My first instinct is to replace it with an Ability Check (maybe Dex or Int whichever is higher) but that fails mechanically. You can't go opposing a skill (Escape) with an Ability check, it will quickly become too easy to escape.

That the current rules are simply an extension of grappling seems very short-sighted to me. There are just too many other situations where this comes up, not the least of which binding an unconscious escape artist!

Sleight of Hand is out of the question, as far as I am concerned.

Survival would be best of the existing skills, but there are plenty of characters who should be able to tie a secure knot without being able to track or forage (all sailors, for example).

I'm afraid I may see Use Rope returning to my game, but under a different name. I hate skills that start with "Use" to such an extent that I have replaced them all in my campaign. I suppose that makes me a skill name snob. I've asked around with some of my nautical enthusiast friends and they have suggested "Ropework" would be an authentic but sufficiently ambiguous replacement.

How about "The Use Rope Skill" :) It doesn't start with Use >;)

But agreed, I actually just had everyone write in Use Rope and we went with that. Actually this was one that when we realized it was gone we all had a "What were they thinking" moment.


Krome wrote:

How about "The Use Rope Skill" :) It doesn't start with Use >;)

But agreed, I actually just had everyone write in Use Rope and we went with that. Actually this was one that when we realized it was gone we all had a "What were they thinking" moment.

I know what they were thinking... "We never use this skill, and people complain about it."

Heck, I was all in favor of it at first, I just think they need to acknowledge the vacuum that was left for those who did use it. A single caveat under grapple is not enough.


Krome wrote:
The way I see it now is that anyone can tie or use a rope for perfect ability and therefore it virtyually impossible to escape from. The gods can;t do better than a commoner even.

No. This is inaccurate.

Page 151. Grapple. Last paragraph.

Krome wrote:

There is a reason Boy Scouts spend so much time tying knots... it is really a skill unto itself. Should sailors be using survival or sleight of hand to tie knots? What about executioners? Or animal handlers securing the pack animals? The thief climbing into a dungeon? Or the sherrif binding the outlaw? Or the little girls playing Jump Rope?

These are all very different ways of using ropes. Seems the best way to capture all these different nuances of rope use is a Use Rope skill.

I disagree. But seeing the "the little girls playing Jump Rope" what to say, since the idea that being able to tie knots means that you are great at jumping rope is pretty silly to me.

I was considering that Use Rope might be important to add back in as a skill and your post reversed that. After reading your post I'm left with the strong belief that Use Rope abilities can and should be given to other skills (profession, sleight of hand, craft), CMB, and other actions, rather than Use Rope being it's own skill.


Blazej wrote:
After reading your post I'm left with the strong belief that Use Rope abilities can and should be given to other skills (profession, sleight of hand, craft), CMB, and other actions, rather than Use Rope being it's own skill.

Thought about it for a minute, and decided that I would rather see Escape Artist rolled into Use Rope (Ropework) for escaping ropes and Disable Device (Sabotage) for manacles and locks. I'll allow a Constitution check vs. the DC for 1d6 subdual damage which represents contortion, and grants a +5 on the "escape" check. Escaping Knots is Use Rope, escaping chains or Manacles is Disable Device, escaping grapples is unchanged.

If Ropework is the skill for escaping ropes, I'm certain more folks will be driven to take it, especially rogues. Think it over: knowledge of knots does in fact make you better at escaping them (even when it is just knowing where to cut). Combining Use Rope and Escape Artist makes for a very good rogue skill, and one that many others might consider investing in if they think they're apt to be restrained.

Plus "Use Rope" and "Escape Artist" are poorly named. Ropework would be great.


The problem I have right now, since I've seen this in action, is that if someone grapples a person, and then someone else binds them, and that person doesn't escape on their turn, you essentially have a person ready for a full party coup de grace, all based on someone being able to hog tie someone at super speed because they are good at grappling.

I haven't seen much discussion about this, but once I saw this used, I was pretty worried about any single NPC that tries to take on a party, no matter how powerful they are, if they don't have grapple specific buffs on them.

I could be reading this wrong, but as I read it, once someone is bound, they count as helpless, and if this is the case, you have a very quick set up to coup de grace city.

Beyond the fact that it just doesn't sit right with me that someone that is good at grappling is good at binding someone with a rope, and quickly, I think that it wouldn't be nearly as bad if the person that was bound was only flat footed instead of helpless.

Personally though, its making more and more sense to add Use Rope, as it existed in 3.5, back into the game. It may be a specific skill that not many people use, but at the same time, I really can't logically roll it into anything, and the rest of the skills have been pretty well rolled into other skills.

If you really want to, you could always call it Ligature to make it sound cooler.


KnightErrantJR wrote:


If you really want to, you could always call it Ligature to make it sound cooler.

Bravo on "ligature"... but clarity counts in a skill name too, which is how we ended up with Use Magic Device instead of, you know, something cool.


Also, to clarify, the reason I'm worried about a bound creature being helpless is that, while the grapple section just says that a bound creature is pinned, the helpless condition itself says that a bound creature is helpless, so I guess it all depends on what part of the rules someone is reading when they make this call.


toyrobots wrote:


Bravo on "ligature"...

Heh . . . thanks . . .


KnightErrantJR wrote:
I could be reading this wrong, but as I read it, once someone is bound, they count as helpless, and if this is the case, you have a very quick set up to coup de grace city.

From the way I read it, it would seem the target is pinned (flat-footed, penalty to AC, limited actions, etc.) while tied up like this, not helpless.

Edit: Ah. That was what you got that. I personally would trust the grapple text more in this circumstance.

And I doubt that a creature could tie up an opponent very quickly. Since it requires you to start the grapple (CMB check), pin (CMB check with +5 bonus), and then tie them up (CMB check with total -5 penalty).

Taking a minimum of three rounds, and I would assume much more just because of a failed check on the character's part or a successful escape by the target.


Sadly, KEJr, someone hogtied is helpless, and CdG'ing them is easy as pie; that's why it is done.

If the problem is being hogtied because a pair of baddies (one grappling, one tying) is the issue; again, that's the way things really go.

What if it were Iron Bands, or a Web or Deeper Slumber spell rendering the poor fellow helpless? Same end result.


That was basically my point . . . one person can grapple them, then pin them, and the next one can tie them up, meaning on the second round, versus one opponent, all of the rest of the party (in my group's case, four other characters) line up for the coup de grace.

I do kind of have a problem with someone, basically anyone, being able to ably hog tie someone in six seconds. I wouldn't have too much of a problem with someone that is already helpless being bound by someone with not special skill, but I think that the "combat hogtie" should at the very least be a function of a specialized feat.

I have no problem with someone that is bound just being pinned, but like I said, the helpless condition mentions a bound person as being helpless.


I must have miss-read your post. Sorry.

Rodeo-ropers, though, are lickity-split fast when tyin' them li'l doggies. ;p


Why not just use Craft (Knots), or something similar to replicate Use Rope?

I'd personally rather leave tying someone up under the grapple rules; it is basically a grappling pin that "keeps on giving". If you don't always want the high-grapple person tying folks up, you could use a caveat to allow someone to use Craft (Knots) instead of the grapple check. Or a feat that lets you use Craft (Knots) in place of a grapple check. However, tying someone up whose struggling does sound, to me, like the job for someone with a high grapple who can keep the person still.

[EDIT] Hogtying someone might be considered "taking 20" - that's 20 combat rounds...

To me, much of the other uses for Use Rope that have been brought up are corner-cases. I've never seen someone attempt to reattach a grappling hook in my game, and a lariat to me is a variant of a whip, net or bola which use base attack and weapon proficiency to use, not a skill check. For profession use, I don't see a need for Use Rope any more than a Cooking skill, Mining Skill or the like; just assume its part of the profession or set it up as some craft skill.


Stephen Klauk wrote:

Why not just use Craft (Knots), or something similar to replicate Use Rope?

I'd personally rather leave tying someone up under the grapple rules; it is basically a grappling pin that "keeps on giving". If you don't always want the high-grapple person tying folks up, you could use a caveat to allow someone to use Craft (Knots) instead of the grapple check. Or a feat that lets you use Craft (Knots) in place of a grapple check. However, tying someone up whose struggling does sound, to me, like the job for someone with a high grapple who can keep the person still.

[EDIT] Hogtying someone might be considered "taking 20" - that's 20 combat rounds...

To me, much of the other uses for Use Rope that have been brought up are corner-cases. I've never seen someone attempt to reattach a grappling hook in my game, and a lariat to me is a variant of a whip, net or bola which use base attack and weapon proficiency to use, not a skill check. For profession use, I don't see a need for Use Rope any more than a Cooking skill, Mining Skill or the like; just assume its part of the profession or set it up as some craft skill.

I'd shy away from Craft(Knot) because you couldn't really use the craft rules for time and cost.

Meanwhile, no one debates the use of an Escape Artist skill, which is often the skill of untying knots. So why not unify Escape Artist (when dealing with knots) and Use Rope under "Ropework"? Escaping from manacles and locked chains should already be disable device.


Because Sailors aren't trained Escape Artists.


Kyrinn wrote:
Because Sailors aren't trained Escape Artists.

I would guess they stand a better chance of escaping restraint by a knot than most. You're welcome to disagree Kyrinn, but I see a closer relationship here than some skills that have been combined.

This would not be combining skills so much as renaming and expanding escape artist to be more useful. It just happens to salvage the applications of Use Rope.

If you'd rather, just use the Escape Artist skill to set Escape Artist DCs, and don't change the name. It is still a policy that makes sense.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

So, there are two issues with Use Rope that I have been thinking about from the start.

First, I realize that the grapple/tie someone up solution is not perfect and I am looking at ways to rectify that.

Second, the prblem with Use Rope was that it was often used as a component of another skill. Want to climb a wall, make a Use Rope skill check fist to see how strong your knot is. Most of the time the group has plenty of time and will just try over and over until they get a good result. My logic here is that this individual usage of rope is better served by assuming that it is part of the relevant skill, not a side skill. To look at this from another angle, should we introduce a Use Piton skill to check and see if you do that right while climbing? No, it should remain part of your Climb check (failed your check? One of the pitons or rope knots must have gave way).

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

The Exchange

I think that the use rope skill should be broken up and added to the text of other skills where appropriate.

Secure a Grappling Hook: Sounds like Climbing skill to me
Bind a Character:Escape artist maybe?
Anything else should probably fall under Sleight of hand I would think.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

So, there are two issues with Use Rope that I have been thinking about from the start.

First, I realize that the grapple/tie someone up solution is not perfect and I am looking at ways to rectify that.

Second, the prblem with Use Rope was that it was often used as a component of another skill. Want to climb a wall, make a Use Rope skill check fist to see how strong your knot is. Most of the time the group has plenty of time and will just try over and over until they get a good result. My logic here is that this individual usage of rope is better served by assuming that it is part of the relevant skill, not a side skill. To look at this from another angle, should we introduce a Use Piton skill to check and see if you do that right while climbing? No, it should remain part of your Climb check (failed your check? One of the pitons or rope knots must have gave way).

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I think setting Escape Artist DCs is the number one problem. The Beta "grapple" treatment was not robust, if it had been more thorough we wouldn't be seeing complaints in this thread. It seems very combat-centric, and I've seen many situations where someone was bound or shackled without being in a position to be grappled.

There are many situations where binding someone is not a combat action. There is a skill dedicated to escaping bonds, and the current system for setting DCs is not as appealing as the 3.5 system. If you can bridge the gap, losing Use Rope is fine.

I think that Escape Artist should set DCs for Escape Artist. And I'd like to see the name change, but that's personal preference.


Climb and Use Rope seem to go hand and hand. So the skill that lets climb, which is Athletics I think, should let you use rope as part of it. Though at times I really wonder if this even needs to have DCs. Can't it just be a time frame that it takes to tie a certain knot? And maybe to tie a knot one-handed you need a minimum dexterity like 15 dex?

Having a bunch of extra DCs just seems overly complex for me. About the only time I've ever had people make use rope checks in D&D is when they were tying someone up.


In the overall Micro-skill v. Macro-skill debate, Use Rope is of relatively little concern, but does show the need for either:

1). A Freer-form system (unlikely given PF's status and mission)
2). More concise and descriptive text regarding applications/usage of text within the d20 +x versus y mechanic.

As specifically regards the quandary of where Rope Use-type skills are bundled or allowed to stand alone, I would ask that something close to the following be done:

A). Provide a metric for Knot DCs but do not rely upon a specific skill to govern that operation. Instead, state that those with the following Skills (including Profession) be allowed to apply their modifiers (Ranks +x) to attempt the Knot DC.

B). Provide a detailed explanation of how long it takes to bind a creature, including in the math, the Size Category of the creature being bound, and that of the binder(s). This will not require an explanation of Grapple effects, because:

--1). Only Grappled or Incapacitated (including Held, Paralysed, etc.) creatures can be bound using the Knot DC
--2). In-combat resolutions would instead rely upon a standard (ranged) Lariat/Lasso, etc. Attack procedure versus (Touch) AC.

Confusing the two circumstances, I think, has somewhat muddied the waters of this issue.

Doing both A and B would mean that Use Rope would disappear as a skill entirely, and be subsumed under an umbrella of skills/backgrounds; and, that combat binding would simply require the resolution of 'hitting' with the binding medium.

Once the binding medium is in place, regardless of whether in or out of combat, the rules would handle how being bound is like being Grappled, with the medium dictating material Strength, Hardness, and Hit Points.
If the victim can break their bonds (including manacles, Iron Bands, Aboleth Mucus, Webs, etc,), they are free. If not, they are Grappled.

While the above sounds complex, in text it is simple to differentiate the two issues.

Likewise, this method does not touch upon the 10, 12, or 15 CMB CD maths, which must be discussed separately.
---

** Toy Robots, **

I'm not certain if something in my previous post offended you, but if it did, I most certainly apologise for my text tone of voice. :)

Best,


Kyrinn: Nope! I took it as civil, I was just responding to your point specifically. Cheers!


:D


toyrobots wrote:
Kyrinn: Nope! I took it as civil, I was just responding to your point specifically. Cheers!

I like other people's ideas. Have certain DCs for certain tasks, but allow a DM to decide which skill works for it. Oh, you have profession: sailor? Ok, you can roll that versus the DC 25 check. Oh, you have no relevant abilities? You can make a Dex check.

Everyone who has made the suggestion that Use Rope needs indications for DC, and that's it, that's the method that I'll use. Beyond that, some characters will know how to tie ropes, some won't. I don't need a separate skill to tell me which characters may or may not. You don't like that a some checks are Wisdom-based instead of Dex-based, change it for that particular usage. Give players a penalty equal to their wisdom and a bonus equal to their dexterity. Don't tell them how you came up with the overall adjustment. Just tell them that if they want to use that skill for ropes, there is an adjustment for their character. Perhaps they will figure it out, perhaps they won't.

I like the idea that this sort of stuff shouldn't take much time up in a D&D game. You tied someone/thing up? Great. Unless it has a ton of Escape Artist, it is tied up. It won't even bother checking. If it is meant to escape, now it might actually matter how it is tied. The DM can make a check if it matters.

Liberty's Edge

Im on board with the 'no need for a specific skill, just give us DC's for knot types and put in the caveat: these skills may apply their ranks to tieing the knot...Profession (Sailor/Laborer), Craft (Rope), Survival, Climb. Then specfic rules on tieing summon up.


toyrobots wrote:


I think setting Escape Artist DCs is the number one problem. The Beta "grapple" treatment was not robust, if it had been more thorough we wouldn't be seeing complaints in this thread. It seems very combat-centric, and I've seen many situations where someone was bound or shackled without being in a position to be grappled.

There are many situations where binding someone is not a combat action. There is a skill dedicated to escaping bonds, and the current system for setting DCs is not as appealing as the 3.5 system. If you can bridge the gap, losing Use Rope is fine.

I think that Escape Artist should set DCs for Escape Artist. And I'd like to see the name change, but that's personal preference.

Color me confused. Can you give me some examples what your are thinking for the Escape Artist DCs? Shouldn't also burst DCs be set (for example, for the Troll who wants to just break a pair of manacles rather than squeeze out of them [er, assuming he doesn't just gnaw his hands off to escape, that is])


Stephen Klauk wrote:


Color me confused. Can you give me some examples what your are thinking for the Escape Artist DCs? Shouldn't also burst DCs be set (for example, for the Troll who wants to just break a pair of manacles rather than squeeze out of them [er, assuming he doesn't just gnaw his hands off to escape, that is])

Well, how I'm handling it may be nothing like what Pathfinder RPG ends up with.

Bursting restraints would be a Strength Check vs. an arbitrary DC set by the GM. You could do a formula based on the hardness of the binding, obviously chains would be harder than ropes to burst.

As for setting Escape DCs, the best person in the party to tie the knot to restrain the villain is probably the Rogue who knows how to escape knots, not the fighter. Escape DCs should be something like 15 + the binder's Escape Artist check, so that unskilled characters aren't going to be effective binding a skilled escape artist.

I will be using a Ropework Skill (Use Rope + Escape Artist) for escaping and binding with ropes, etc. and Disable Device for manacles and locked chains. I'll also allow subdual damage for contortion. Disable device makes too much sense for locks, and without manacles what is the point of an exclusive Escape Artist skill? Isn't that almost as silly as Use Rope?


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
First, I realize that the grapple/tie someone up solution is not perfect and I am looking at ways to rectify that.

I understand the concern about the hogtie vs coup-de-grace.

Perhaps if in the CMB section, it indicated that tying up someone when they are pinned only makes them helpless after you have spent 10 rounds doing so, or if you pass a Handle Animal check with a DC of 15 + CMB.

I am thinking of what happens when the police place cuffs on someone. It not only often takes more than 6 seconds, but that person is far from helpless even once the cuffs are on.

And I am thinking that if someone spends skill points on Handle Animal, then they should have a chance to speed hog-tie an opponent.


Just got back from vacation and looks like I'm just in time for a good discussion. Just for my two bits.

I'm of two minds on the subject of skills reduction, not just for Pathfinder but in games in general. Use Rope is a perfect example as to why.

On the one hand I'm an old palladium player, more and more skills please.

On the other hand I've seen many players complain about sills that fall into one of the following.

a. never used in game.

b. is too much like another skill.

c. is never seen used in a pub. adv.

d. I hate to waste skill points on (skill name inserted here)

IMOP all but the first and last complaints are valid, the first being the fault of the GM who should upon hearing it make the skill used more. Use rope is one of those that isn't used enough nor required enough so players (and the food folks at Pathfinder) think is fall into to the above. I must disagree, use rope ia vital important skill, that comes up at lest once ever other game. As to wasteing skill points, thats one of the things that makes the Rogue shine, he can waste the points, but even more important it makes the helps makes the non-Rogue unique.

Down to the issue at hand, I would like most of the skills be kept, and add a few too boot (Psionic and Tech. Releated particualrly). However the people at Paizo have come up with such a better system for skills comparied to 3.x that it almost dosent matter, just add new skills to your game as you see fit.

In fact the only real flaw in the simple new skill system is in fact the lack of skills.

Example: Simply gaining a +3 to a class skill is far better and easier then the skill ranks system of 3.x games (and I can say as a GM this system actually took the logest to explain to the players and for them to understand. I think this was becuase unlike most of the game, you don't actually play skill ranks in game and therefore begin to get the hang of it, there is no click oh I get it moment in game. Instead they are spent only when you level up).

However the flaw in the system is that with fewer skills a player can multi-class to get ever singel skill in the game very easy. Rogue, Sorc./Cleric or Druid. Yes this is true if you have the old skill list, but the impact of a class skill is leassed by the far fewer skill points you have, thus even with the 3 rank boost you still have to spend very few points on a lot of skills.

Look at it way. I multi-class to get Perception as a Skill I get 3 ranks in it, and from now on I can put 1 skill point from any class I rank up in and keep it up.

Using the old list I would still mult-class but I would get Spot Listen and Search all with +3, but would have to spend 3 skill points to keep them going every level.

All this isn't to say that the old list was perfect. In the above example I'm okay with Spot and Seach being combined, but Listen should remain seperate. Acrobatics also seems alright. In the grand schem of things, more skills is better then few for this new system.

Just MO

TTFN Dre


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Andre Caceres wrote:

However the flaw in the system is that with fewer skills a player can multi-class to get ever singel skill in the game very easy. Rogue, Sorc./Cleric or Druid. Yes this is true if you have the old skill list, but the impact of a class skill is leassed by the far fewer skill points you have, thus even with the 3 rank boost you still have to spend very few points on a lot of skills.

Look at it way. I multi-class to get Perception as a Skill I get 3 ranks in it, and from now on I can put 1 skill point from any class I rank up in and keep it up.

You do realize that to gain that +3 to a class skill, you have to spend a skill point there first?

For those 35 skills (assuming that you only take a single variant for all the varied skills like craft and knowledge local), with 12 int, you would be level 3 rogue/1 druid/1 wizard (27+5+3), with only one skill rank in each skill. A jack of all trade, but master of none.

How are you seeing that as a flaw?


Let's not generalize this to an argument about all skills if we can help it.


Mistwalker wrote:
Andre Caceres wrote:

However the flaw in the system is that with fewer skills a player can multi-class to get ever singel skill in the game very easy. Rogue, Sorc./Cleric or Druid. Yes this is true if you have the old skill list, but the impact of a class skill is leassed by the far fewer skill points you have, thus even with the 3 rank boost you still have to spend very few points on a lot of skills.

Look at it way. I multi-class to get Perception as a Skill I get 3 ranks in it, and from now on I can put 1 skill point from any class I rank up in and keep it up.

You do realize that to gain that +3 to a class skill, you have to spend a skill point there first?

For those 35 skills (assuming that you only take a single variant for all the varied skills like craft and knowledge local), with 12 int, you would be level 3 rogue/1 druid/1 wizard (27+5+3), with only one skill rank in each skill. A jack of all trade, but master of none.

How are you seeing that as a flaw?

I was giving an extream example, but my point holds true. Spend 3points to get those 3 skills you want or 1 point to gain the same thing in Pathfinder? A multiclassed character will have everyskill in the book, soon as he wants it.

Moreover you make it sound like a jack of all trades is somehow less powerful then a master of one. I disagree with that. It has been my experince, both as a player as a GM seeing how my players play, that having a little edge in every skill is far more useful then a big advantage in every skill. Sure there are exceptions, not saying there isns't but look at if from the persective of the guy will the skills.

1. Their is a big Challenge for the group, whatever it might be, bluffy an Orc, disabling a trap, whatever.

One class can do it with no sweat, if it takes the right skill to do it.

The player in my example will have a harder time, but he could do it as well, whatever the task. Remember that same 5th level character you gave as an example with 3 rogue/1 druid/ 1 wizard might not be flying though every situation just off his skills, but just how many skill related problems for a 5th level character have a DC over 20? or over 10 for that matter. A DC of 10 is now reduced 40% (and thats not taking into consideration other ablity modifiers. To negate this a DC would have to be 15 or more, and in a group of say 5 players, most of the time the player is backup, but even as back up in a skill based problem you've reduced odds of failing.

Now take your example and assume a player who is not intersted in being a Jack of all trade, but wants certain skills that are only allowed with certain classes. He could easily end up with a +6 or +8 with average DC's of 10, hell with even a DC 20 I'd take those odds.

Now the reality is that most players will not do this to get every single skill, but an Arcane user will take Rogue to get that one or two skills they want, and this is much easier to do because the skills have been reduced. I've only one player do this, and not for every skill on the sheet.

Haveing said all this, yeah my example will most likely the exception not the rule so your point is taken.

As to expanding the disucussion on that I'm sorry. Use Rope is what ended up changeing my mind conpletly abut reducing skills. With few exceptionts I don't like it, even though I like the actual skill system much better then 3.5 In play testing Use Rope has come up so many times and I have so many discussions on what skill should be used for whatever effect. Honestly I can't image why Use Rope was droped, at lest most of the other skills that were reduced were, reduced not taken out altogether.

For my group it got so bad that eventually sombody just said, hey I got it, Knowledge Use Rope. Everybody on the table to looked at him for a moment, then just started laughing, Use Rope came back into the game.

TTFN DRE

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Ugh. Use Rope is a lot more important than Jason thought. All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion (Prerelease)
Druid / Monk?