Can you re-roll appraise checks? That seems very metagamey to me.
"Hey bob, what's this golden statue worth"
"...100 gold."
"That seems low to me Bob. Stick it in your backpack and go wander around for a month, and then try again."
Yup - and is exactly how I have seen Appraise used time and time again.
I long ago realized that is was BS skill and dumped it. Now when I tell players what an item is worth that is exactly what they will get for it. That can certainly try to bargain for more but no one ever wants to. They seem far, far, far more interested in, y'know, actually adventuring and having fun rather than shopping and selling crap.
Oh and I give every PC a free rank in any Profession they want - it represents what they did before they became adventurers and once in a while a PC practices their profession during downtime between adventures just to earn a little money (of course since it is very rare for anyone to actually put additional ranks into the skill the money made is a pittance).
Can you re-roll appraise checks? That seems very metagamey to me.
"Hey bob, what's this golden statue worth"
"...100 gold."
"That seems low to me Bob. Stick it in your backpack and go wander around for a month, and then try again."
According to the PRD: (Try Again: Additional attempts to Appraise an item reveal the same result.)
So no, once they appraise that item, that's what they think it's worth.
When we roll appraise in our party, everyone takes a shot.. the highest check is what we go by. The GM uses that to give us a price (never more than the actual value) And our party "accountant" writes the item and price in a spreadsheet for when we sell it later.
To save time, we hand-wave any negotiations at sell time and take half appraised value.
I tried to make Appraise useful. I really did.
I allow it to be used as a free action, I reduce the DC to 15 instead of 25.
I try and let it give a bonus on Diplomacy/Bluff/Sense Motive checks when negotiating the price of stuff.
I also let it be used as a pseudo-knowledge skill to get some info about an item ("hm... This dagger seems to originate from Osirian" or "I think this statue is from the dark ages")
But in the end, it's still better to have ranks in Diplomacy and/or the proper Knowledge skill.
Appraise is just too situational. And the few situations where it's useful disappear almost completelly by 2nd level.
|
Why? Crafting is LOOOOOOONG, for nothing.
[...]
Why? Profession... is useless, it has no use. Which adventurer is gonna stop adventuring to work? Furthermore, aside from questions about the profession you're doing, there's no skill check nor related bonus to these. (Brewer) doesn't give you a bonus to identify a faulty drink or even in Alchemy;
It actually sounds like you're the sort of player the WotC designers were thinking of when designing the skill list for D&D 4e. There was a deliberate focus that PCs would be adventurers and whilst they may know how to craft an item etc, it wouldn't need to be a focus of the rules.
It also sounds like Backgrounds from 4e's PHB2 would suit you better than the existing Craft, Perform and Profession skills.
You can choose up to three Backgrounds for a character; each Background must be from a different category. The categories in Players Handbook 2 are: Geography, Society, Birth, Occupation, and Racial; other books may provide access to other categories such as Regional Backgrounds.
For one of the Backgrounds your character has, you select one of the following benefits:
- Gain a +2 bonus to checks with a skill associated with your Background.
- Add a Skill associated with your Background to your Class’s Skills list before you choose your trained Skills.
- Choose one language connected to your Background. You can speak, read, and write that language fluently.
But the best thing about backgrounds is the Background Bonus.
Your DM might decide to give your character a bonus to certain skill checks or other rolls in situations when your character’s background could conceivably provide an edge.
If your character’s background includes an apprenticeship to a blacksmith, for example, the DM might give a bonus to Diplomacy checks when your character interacts with the baron’s blacksmith, or a bonus to a Perception check when particular training could help your character notice something awry. Feel free to ask the DM about a “background bonus” if you see a possible connection.
Your character’s background might also mean that he or she knows how to do certain things that have nothing to do with the game’s skill system or other rules elements. If your character worked as a blacksmith, you don’t need to make a skill check for your character to produce a horseshoe, or to earn a subsistence living as a blacksmith.
This bonus will generally be greater the more relevant to your background the task is, so a moderate bonus if your Background is somewhat relevant (e.g. using your “Noble” Background to aid in a Diplomacy check with a faction allied with your noble family) or a higher bonus for using your “Entertainer” Background in a Charisma check to determine whether the King enjoys your playing of the Lute.
BluffBluff.
It's a good NPC skill I guess.
Bluff has it's uses. Tricking Guards. Making your Illusions more believable. Feint in combat.
I would certainly rank Survival lower than Bluff on the usefullness skills tree. Maybe even Heal as well.
It seems that opinions on skills tend to come down to whether you are role-playing or roll-playing.
Knowledge (Geography) and Knowledge (Nobility) both seem completely useless, not only because they're situational, but beacuse most DMs I know (and myself) tend to lump them into Knowledge (Nature) and Knowledge (History) respectively.
I also tend to make Knowledge (Architecture) the knowledge skill required for identifying constructs, so that one stays usefull at the table (and gets used surprisingly often even when not fighting constructs)
the problem with appraise is that shopkeeps basically have an infinite appraise skill.
That's nice that you think the vase is worth 80 gold, the shopkeep is willing to give you 60 for it.
And yes I suppose you could set up a system to haggle or whatever, but that could get old fast. I'm fine with roleplaying, but that's accounting.
I'm considering doing an appraise roll every time there's a gem or artwork or whatever find. Highest roll in the party "picks" the best gem, so later on I send an email saying his gem is actually worth 150 gold, not 120 or whatever.
There's nothing saying a shopkeeper has an infinite appraise skill. Also, the negotiations are only partially handled with appraise in our group. For example, in the early levels, when money is tight, we would have our rogue do the negotiations trying to bluff the shop-keep into thinking the item had more value than it actually had. If he succeed AND the shopkeeper rolled a low appraise we would generally get more out of the item.
At higher levels we stopped caring as much and started hand-waiving the negotiation process.
It seems that opinions on skills tend to come down to whether you are role-playing or roll-playing.
This is impossible. Skill rolls are unrelated to roleplaying--you mostly roll them to avoid roleplaying.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
There's nothing saying a shopkeeper has an infinite appraise skill. Also, the negotiations are only partially handled with appraise in our group. For example, in the early levels, when money is tight, we would have our rogue do the negotiations trying to bluff the shop-keep into thinking the item had more value than it actually had. If he succeed AND the shopkeeper rolled a low appraise we would generally get more out of the item.
At higher levels we stopped caring as much and started hand-waiving the negotiation process.
Nothing except the rule saying that items/etc are sold for 50% of their value.
PC with bad appraise roll: "This here +1 long sword is worth 40K GP"
Merchant #1: "1160 GP."
PC: Screw that, I'll go somewhere else.
Merchant #2-infinity: "1160 GP."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This. +1. (I don't know how to favorite posts here.)If a PC fails the Appraise check on the golden idol they find in the dungeon (thinking it's worth 110 gp when it's really worth 150 gp) then the player holds onto it long enough to gain a level (and another rank in Appraise) and wants to Appraise the idol again I have to go back through my notes to the original page where I put the idol (assuming I didn't add it in to help players meet WBL).
Suffice to say, it's one of those skills that's supposed to add realism, but just bogs down gameplay. I'd rather just say: "This is what you got, this is what it's worth what do you want to do next?" Rolling appraise checks just slows things down.
The little "+" in the upper right corner of the post.
|
I often call for various Knowledge checks, sure the monster identification stuff makes those particular knowledges more useful but discounting Geography, Nobility, History and Engineering as useless is wide of the mark for me.
Using History in place of Nobility is also strange to me. I'll give it a modern spin to use as an example:
Knowledge History would tell me that there have historically been political parties in Britian and since the Second World War the political landscape has been dominated by the Labour Party and the Conservative Party with the Liberal Democrats as a smaller third party.
Knowledge Nobility (or the modern equivalent) would tell me that currently there is a coalition government between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives with the Labour Party in opposition. It would also state that David Cameron is the Prime Minister and leader of the Conservatives, Nick Clegg is the Leader of the Liberal Democrats and that Ed Milliband is the Leader of the Labour Party.
I hope you see the distinction there. The information in the second paragraph is not covered by Knowledge History IMO.
|
It seems that opinions on skills tend to come down to whether you are role-playing or roll-playing.This is impossible. Skill rolls are unrelated to roleplaying--you mostly roll them to avoid roleplaying.
I assure you, my characters are far more socially adept than I am.
But then, we don't make the player running the barbarian test against his real world strength either.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It seems that opinions on skills tend to come down to whether you are role-playing or roll-playing.This is impossible. Skill rolls are unrelated to roleplaying--you mostly roll them to avoid roleplaying.I assure you, my characters are far more socially adept than I am.
But then, we don't make the player running the barbarian test against his real world strength either.
Artanthos,
How do you feel about circumstance bonuses/penalties on skill checks? I'm prone to offer a modifier to a bluff/diplomacy/intimidate if the player makes an effort, or doesn't. Then again, as anyone who's played with me knows, I'm the guy who does the funny voices and the stuff when I play a character.
There's nothing saying a shopkeeper has an infinite appraise skill. Also, the negotiations are only partially handled with appraise in our group. For example, in the early levels, when money is tight, we would have our rogue do the negotiations trying to bluff the shop-keep into thinking the item had more value than it actually had. If he succeed AND the shopkeeper rolled a low appraise we would generally get more out of the item.
At higher levels we stopped caring as much and started hand-waiving the negotiation process.
Nothing except the rule saying that items/etc are sold for 50% of their value.
PC with bad appraise roll: "This here +1 long sword is worth 40K GP"
Merchant #1: "1160 GP."
PC: Screw that, I'll go somewhere else.
Merchant #2-infinity: "1160 GP."
Sure, if you want to be all RAW about it :)
It's less fun that way.. hehe.
|
Using History in place of Nobility is also strange to me. I'll give it a modern spin to use as an example:
Knowledge History would tell me that there have historically been political parties in Britian and since the Second World War the political landscape has been dominated by the Labour Party and the Conservative Party with the Liberal Democrats as a smaller third party.
Knowledge Nobility (or the modern equivalent) would tell me that currently there is a coalition government between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives with the Labour Party in opposition. It would also state that David Cameron is the Prime Minister and leader of the Conservatives, Nick Clegg is the Leader of the Liberal Democrats and that Ed Milliband is the Leader of the Labour Party.
Agreed. History is supposed to cover events in the past and how historical trends affect the present in general. To know the current state of affairs in detail, including the power players and how to influence those people, Knowledge Nobility is necessary.
When we roll appraise in our party, everyone takes a shot.. the highest check is what we go by. The GM uses that to give us a price (never more than the actual value) And our party "accountant" writes the item and price in a spreadsheet for when we sell it later.
That's a pretty good idea. Appraising something for more than the value is interesting and realistic, but removing that simplifies the skill. With this system, if you put ranks in Appraise you get the real value or close to it for selling your loot. If you don't put ranks in Appraise you get cheated by someone who knows your loot's true value.
This is impossible. Skill rolls are unrelated to roleplaying--you mostly roll them to avoid roleplaying.I assure you, my characters are far more socially adept than I am.
But then, we don't make the player running the barbarian test against his real world strength either.
Artanthos,
How do you feel about circumstance bonuses/penalties on skill checks? I'm prone to offer a modifier to a bluff/diplomacy/intimidate if the player makes an effort, or doesn't. Then again, as anyone who's played with me knows, I'm the guy who does the funny voices and the stuff when I play a character.
I think circumstance modifiers for player effort is perfectly appropriate. It's just a little annoying for a character with Bluff +20 and Diplomacy +15 to have a hard time convincing the guard to let him into a fancy party just because the player isn't good at fast-talk.
I can see some people wanting to use Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate to skip actually talking through a conversation, but Knowledge, Craft Profession, Appraise, and Sense Motive are definitely aids to RP rather than replacements. Knowledge (Nobility) might not help you to identify a monster, but it does tell you that the knight with the boar on his shield has an alliance with the noble who hired you, and it tells you the polite way to address this knight if you want to ask for his help. Profession (Carpenter) gives you the ability to make repairs on an old ranger's wooden cottage, thus making a friend.
I mostly agree with Blueluck's evaluation, save for Sense Motive. I'd rank it as (5) rather than (3).
I'd make Sense Motive 4, it's pretty useful to "read the atmosphere" (e.g: "NPC X seems upset, even thouugh he acts politely" or "NPC is telling the truth, but you feel he's hiding something")
Sense Motive was a tough one to rate. One reason I didn’t rate any of the social skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive) at “5” is that lots of people play ignore them and simply roleplay social encounters. (When you save the villagers, they like you – whether or not you have a high Diplomacy score to make sure you get credit for it. When being lied to, the party frequently has other information to compare the testimony against, whether they have Sense Motive or not.) So, while I like the social skills, and I’m glad they’re in the game, their utility varies greatly by campaign.
Also, they’re the kind of skill it’s great to have one party member excel at, and having others take more ranks doesn’t help much. The rogue can’t “handle the acrobatics” for the party, but the bard can, “Be the face.”
|
. . . swap Knowledge(Dungeoneering) with Knowledge (History). I find the later more useful.
I think all of the “lesser knowledges” can be worth a single rank for one party member with a high INT. In some campaigns, it can even be important. But, generally speaking, having more than one party member, or more than one rank, isn’t going to be helpful. The exception might be when a skill has shown itself to be a GM favorite and there’s nobody in the party like a Wizard, Bard, or Lore Oracle who can get a +10 with one rank.
|
I see Survival and Disable Device as 3, they are useful, but you usually don't really need them very often. Heal may be a 3, but just barely. Tracking is a bit meh because if the GM wants you to find something, you'll find it anyway... heh
I could see bumping Disable Device down from 5 to 4, depending on the campaign. Because Disable Device knocks out both locks and traps, and has strong game mechanics to back it up (Anyone who sets out to be good at DD can usually blow away the DCs they come across.) it’s one of those skills that’s worth going out of your way to have one party member max out.
I can see an argument for Survival being average (3 rather than 4) too. In fact, I think I agree with you on that one.
|
Escape Artist should be a 2. Unless your GM puts your char in chains all the time, it'll very rarely be useful. IMO, this is a "one-rank wonder".
I would agree, if not for grapple and especially grab. After a certain level, lots of big monsters can grab PCs, and Escape Artist is the ticket out of certain death for many characters.
|
2 - Linguistics*Another moderate advantage of Linguistics is if multiple party members pick up a relatively obscure language, then it allows for emergency impromptu communication with a low probability of being understood by any enemies you happen to be fighting/interacting with.
I love using linguistics for that. But, as some of the party will start with bonus languages from INT, and the rest of the characters only need one rank, I still rate it at “2” because nobody needs many ranks in it. It’s cool, and I like it, but it’s just not worth points.
Also, I consider it to have a “weak game mechanic” because so often it is ignored. I’ve been running and playing a couple of APs lately, and they don’t list “language(s) spoken” for any of the NPCs or enemies, not even the ones with INT 12 or higher, or with significant racial/regional heritage. The same tends to be true in most home-brew games as well, everyone speaks enough common for the game to progress unhindered, with an occasional exception for flavor.
|
1 - DisguiseWhen combined with a character with things like the "Disguise Self" spell this one actually can become quite fun. If you know what the captain of the guard looks like, you can disguise yourself as him and act as a scout, except with more or less a CHA-based Stealth. Not to mention a "Stealth" that can potentially allow you to order foes into positions where your party can more effectively jump them. Or, heck, even just dig around for information more effectively when the target thinks you're someone on their side. It's really quite useful, when your character can do it on the fly with a snap of your fingers and a +10 bonus.
I find that, in most campaigns, most of the time, there’s no benefit to be had this way. I agree that it is great fun when you get to do it! But, sadly, it’s rare and easily supplanted with magic like Disguise Self, Alter Self, or Clairaudience-Clairvoyance.
I assure you, my characters are far more socially adept than I am.
But then, we don't make the player running the barbarian test against his real world strength either.
Please, don't start this debate again. I assure you, we totally disagree on this topic and I do not think being totally unable to act in character (i.e. physical actions) in any way parallels being either bad at it or unwilling to try (i.e. wallflowers playing the party face or someone who can barely turn on a computer playing the hacker).
|
|
It seems that opinions on skills tend to come down to whether you are role-playing or roll-playing.This is impossible. Skill rolls are unrelated to roleplaying--you mostly roll them to avoid roleplaying.
How dismissive of other playstyles it borders on offensive.
I've spoken about this before but I like the "Roll First, Then RP the result" method. I use that method for all social skills. If you want to play a free form RPG where your character's statistics don't matter play Fiasco (a great game). In Pathfinder when I put ranks in Charisma skills then those bonuses better matter. Otherwise I might as well drop Charisma to 7, and just RP through my non-combat encounters.
Roll first, then suit your RP to match the roll. It's a wonderful challenge and makes for a more dynamic table. If you're sure you can do well then take a 10 and say whatever you like. :-)
Based on personal experience only, Escape Artist. I don't think in 12 years I have ever seen an Escape Artist check made. Okay, maybe twice in 12 years, once in 3.x to escape bonds vs a Use Rope check (a now defunct skill), and once to squeeze through a tight space. I know what Escape Artist is supposed to do for grapple and other things, but in our games CMB/CMD seems to do just fine (and I hate applying a skill to a combat mechanic and not its own... it does not feel intuitive).
I don't see Disguise used very often. It's one of those things where--it's great in the right circumstance and otherwise... it's kind of like Forgery before Forgery was folded into Linguistics. Sometimes I wonder if Disguise could be folded into something like Perform (Act).
In my gaming groups, there is a lot of love for Craft and Knowledges... use those to make things, evaluate workmanship (Appraise can do that to, but someone with Craft (blacksmith) will evaluate an item made of iron differently than an appraiser), and doing clever things in dungeons ("I'm a carpenter, can I help reinforce the crumbly wall?"). Profession can be useful if you are creative (and I've certainly seen Profession Cook used to make someone a fancy dinner and the like). Knowledge is great to learn of enemy strength and weaknesses and make sure you know key things about the campaign world. I will never forget how my dwarf fighter pretty much saved the party's life with a well rolled Knowledge Engineering check in City of Golden Death. Won't say they are THE most used or most important skills, but they have come in handy well more than once, and I'd never put them on a list of skills to do without.
Probably MVP skills are Acrobatics and Perception. Everyone makes Perception checks all the time. Acrobatics, being not just three functions, but three MAJOR modes of mobility (Tumbling is a big function in combat for finesse types and can boost fighting defensively, jumping is a good way of getting around, and balance more circumstantial but important when it is) is always a way more valuable skill than say, Climb or Swim, which are all by their lonesome (and used less often than, say, the Balance feature of Acrobatics alone).
Don't know what to think about perform skills. Sometimes think they should be broader... Perform (Musical Instrument), Perform (Vocal), Perform (Dance and Movement).
In the campaigns I GM you wouldn't get too far without skills like Knowledge (History) or (Nobility). Once the party has performed enough deeds that their actions are being noticed they will draw attention of more powerful and influential types like local or national rulers, powerful organisations, or extraplanar beings (Knowledge (planes) being useful here). If the party interferes with their plans they will quickly gain enemies who will range from being unhelpful or obstructive to openly hostile.
When roleplaying interactions with these influential types, knowing the background and who's who goes a long way and I use the knowledge skills to inform the PCs of the relevant insights they will find useful. I also often give them more detailed background information so they can imerse themselves in the campaing better.
The roleplayed social encounter and diplomacy in particular is played out but during it I roll how well they are saying what they are intending to say. Bonuses are applied for pressing the right buttons and penalties are incurred for missing required formalities.
Point is the PC could roll-play by stating I want the noble to let me investigate some ruins on his land and that would be a diplomacy check roll to see if he is allowed or not. Or, I could inform the player with knowledge (history) that the land used to belong to a tribe of Orcs that were overrun 50 years ago and with a simple knowledge (nobility) check point out that it was by a non-relative. The higher knowledge(nobility) check reveals that the current Lord received the Land in exchange for some unknown deed but there is angst between the two land owners.
With that background info we can roleplay - I do not know where the conversation will go and neither does the player. As he starts to make his request and explore other points of interest I am guided by the rolls to determine how successfully or otherwise his character made his case.
Without the background knowledge checks we could still roleplay the conversation but the player isn't likely to know what the correct thing to say is and would correspondingly incur penalties on their diplomacy check as they tried to wing it - a particularly smooth talker may still succeed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think those that believe "appraise" is a "worthless skill", have failed their checks.
@Deathquaker
I've seen it used a lot by people without full BAB at lower levels -- wizards and rogues and the like to get out of grapples... it takes longer but they can typically make it out that way instead of being stuck.
|
|
Escape Artist is also useful with Liberating Command, which specifically gives you an Escape Artist check and not a CMB/CMD check.
Occasionally I make my own "chase scene" cards on notecards. I try to include some of the rarely used skills. Appraise made it to the list ... once.
In the campaigns I GM you wouldn't get too far without skills like Knowledge (History) or (Nobility). Once the party has performed enough deeds that their actions are being noticed they will draw attention of more powerful and influential types like local or national rulers, powerful organisations, or extraplanar beings (Knowledge (planes) being useful here). If the party interferes with their plans they will quickly gain enemies who will range from being unhelpful or obstructive to openly hostile.
When roleplaying interactions with these influential types, knowing the background and who's who goes a long way and I use the knowledge skills to inform the PCs of the relevant insights they will find useful. I also often give them more detailed background information so they can imerse themselves in the campaing better.
The roleplayed social encounter and diplomacy in particular is played out but during it I roll how well they are saying what they are intending to say. Bonuses are applied for pressing the right buttons and penalties are incurred for missing required formalities.
Point is the PC could roll-play by stating I want the noble to let me investigate some ruins on his land and that would be a diplomacy check roll to see if he is allowed or not. Or, I could inform the player with knowledge (history) that the land used to belong to a tribe of Orcs that were overrun 50 years ago and with a simple knowledge (nobility) check point out that it was by a non-relative. The higher knowledge(nobility) check reveals that the current Lord received the Land in exchange for some unknown deed but there is angst between the two land owners.
With that background info we can roleplay - I do not know where the conversation will go and neither does the player. As he starts to make his request and explore other points of interest I am guided by the rolls to determine how successfully or otherwise his character made his case.
Without the background knowledge checks we could still roleplay the conversation but...
After that conversation (2-60 minutes of game time), how long does the party spend exploring the ruins, fighting the battles, and hauling the loot back to town? Far more than 60 minutes, I assume. And, should the character doing the talking not have (or roll 1's with) the skills History & Nobility, would you really prevent the characters from having an adventure? Would you actually say, "The Baron says, 'I am insulted by your indelicate request. You do not have permission to explore the ruins.' everyone go home now. Actually, since it's only 7:00, who wants to see a movie?"
Fail your acrobatics check to pass through that square, take a full round attack, die.
Fail your perception checks, party is surprised, TPK.
Fail your Knowledge (Nobility) check . . . death?
After that conversation (2-60 minutes of game time), how long does the party spend exploring the ruins, fighting the battles, and hauling the loot back to town? Far more than 60 minutes, I assume. And, should the character doing the talking not have (or roll 1's with) the skills History & Nobility, would you really prevent the characters from having an adventure? Would you actually say, "The Baron says, 'I am insulted by your indelicate request. You do not have permission to explore the ruins.' everyone go home now. Actually, since it's only 7:00, who wants to see a movie?"
Fail your acrobatics check to pass through that square, take a full round attack, die.
Fail your perception checks, party is surprised, TPK.
Fail your Knowledge (Nobility) check . . . death?
Fail your Knowledge (Nobility) check, insult the high muckity muck and he has you executed... So yeah it could end in death.
Lol.
Like the high muckity muck could even touch a party higher than level 7 in most cases.
|
|
Fail your Knowledge (Nobility) check, insult the high muckity muck and he has you executed... So yeah it could end in death.
I'm having a hard time seeing why Diplomacy wouldn't be the key skill to avoid insulting someone. Also, why wouldn't gather information, going to a sage, or divination magic get you the info you need? If a particular noble lops off the heads of anyone who mentions his father how hard could it be to find that out? The problem with knowledge history and nobility is that they almost never are useful in pressured situations. If you don't know just leisurely ask around to find someone who does.
As a side note, it really annoys me when a gm arbitrarily imposes a skill tax on an otherwise useless skill by making it necessary. For example, one gm I had made appraise necessary by having the merchants rip us off if we did not make the roll. Realistic maybe, fun no.
I've found the opposite to be the case Hanged Man -- in high pressure situations you generally don't have time to consult a sage or have the proper divination magic prepared -- you need to know the answer now and the only way to do that is with the knowledge skill.
|
|
I've found the opposite to be the case Hanged Man -- in high pressure situations you generally don't have time to consult a sage or have the proper divination magic prepared -- you need to know the answer now and the only way to do that is with the knowledge skill.
Sure, but how often do you immediately need to know someone's family history? Outside of contrived situations not very often. Usually, you can do your research before meeting the noble in question.
I've found the opposite to be the case Hanged Man -- in high pressure situations you generally don't have time to consult a sage or have the proper divination magic prepared -- you need to know the answer now and the only way to do that is with the knowledge skill.Sure, but how often do you immediately need to know someone's family history? Outside of contrived situations not very often. Usually, you can do your research before meeting the noble in question.
Damsel in the Dungeon situations come up -- would you rather waste the spell or simply know if she is the princess that she claims to be (or if that kingdom even has royalty of that rank)?
I'm not saying it's a top tier skill mind you, but as a regular player of spell casters I always appreciate when a skill can keep me from having to blow a spell.
History is also useful in a dungeon in such ways too, what culture set up their traps like that and what type of traps did they prefer? Are they likely to have guardian type x or guardian type y (with very different limitations and vulnerabilities)? These are things that you could easily not know before you find the clues in the dungeon/ruins/whatever.
Now if you aren't gifted with an overly abundance of skill points alright I can understand not taking these skills... but if you have some to spend these aren't useless either.
|
|
It seems that opinions on skills tend to come down to whether you are role-playing or roll-playing.This is impossible. Skill rolls are unrelated to roleplaying--you mostly roll them to avoid roleplaying.I assure you, my characters are far more socially adept than I am.
But then, we don't make the player running the barbarian test against his real world strength either.
Artanthos,
How do you feel about circumstance bonuses/penalties on skill checks? I'm prone to offer a modifier to a bluff/diplomacy/intimidate if the player makes an effort, or doesn't. Then again, as anyone who's played with me knows, I'm the guy who does the funny voices and the stuff when I play a character.
I'm all for circumstance bonuses.
What I am opposed to is the player that dumps character stats down to 7 and then uses his personal intelligence and social skills. I've had such players marginalize my characters with solid investments in social skills simply because they have a stronger social presence than I do.
Playind down is simple. Playing up intelligence or charisma, not so much.
|
|
Please, don't start this debate again. I assure you, we totally disagree on this topic and I do not think being totally unable to act in character (i.e. physical actions) in any way parallels being either bad at it or unwilling to try (i.e. wallflowers playing the party face or someone who can barely turn on a computer playing the hacker).
I know more than a few players that would absolutely love your stated position.
Their characters would also never have higher than a 7 charisma with zero points invested in social skills. Why should they when all it takes to succeed is good real like social skills and a little roleplay.
This is not speculation. This describes compaigns I've been involved in. One of two socially dominate players (using characters with negligable social skills) taking control of all social situations while the rest of the table is marginalized.
Lol.
Like the high muckity muck could even touch a party higher than level 7 in most cases.
Strange, I'm running through an AP where the high muckity muck was 16th level, and most of his associates were CR 12 - 14. His guards were all 6th level and ran around in groups.
Fail your Knowledge (Nobility) check, insult the high muckity muck and he has you executed... So yeah it could end in death.I'm having a hard time seeing why Diplomacy wouldn't be the key skill to avoid insulting someone. Also, why wouldn't gather information, going to a sage, or divination magic get you the info you need? If a particular noble lops off the heads of anyone who mentions his father how hard could it be to find that out? The problem with knowledge history and nobility is that they almost never are useful in pressured situations. If you don't know just leisurely ask around to find someone who does.
As a side note, it really annoys me when a gm arbitrarily imposes a skill tax on an otherwise useless skill by making it necessary. For example, one gm I had made appraise necessary by having the merchants rip us off if we did not make the roll. Realistic maybe, fun no.
Diplomacy won't necessarily tell you the proper title, or that this person just deposed his beloved brother. There may not be time to gather information.
No skill is useless, they all have their place.
|
Also, I consider it to have a “weak game mechanic” because so often it is ignored. I’ve been running and playing a couple of APs lately, and they don’t list “language(s) spoken” for any of the NPCs or enemies, not even the ones with INT 12 or higher, or with significant racial/regional heritage. The same tends to be true in most home-brew games as well, everyone speaks enough common for the game to progress unhindered, with an occasional exception for flavor.
In Paizo APs? Pretty much every NPC in a Paizo AP I've seen has a reasonable amount of languages for their stats. It's just below skills.
|
|
Highly competent individuals don't murder people for failed Diplomacy checks. Not usually anyway; if they did, they'd have mental problems, reducing their competence.Lol.
Like the high muckity muck could even touch a party higher than level 7 in most cases.
One does not become Champion of the Crown or High Mage or even Master Assassin by being only modestly competent.
Kings can generally command the loyalty of highly comptent individuals.
Generally speaking no.
However, results may vary depending on the alignment and mental disposition of the king. People have certianly been assassinated historically for perceived social slights.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm all for circumstance bonuses.
What I am opposed to is the player that dumps character stats down to 7 and then uses his personal intelligence and social skills. I've had such players marginalize my characters with solid investments in social skills simply because they have a stronger social presence than I do.
Playind down is simple. Playing up intelligence or charisma, not so much.
Agree on all counts.
Actually I *do* have a problem playing down my intelligence. I'm no rocket scientist, but when the fight breaks out, my brain goes into 'tactical mode' when I'm analyzing the map for advantages/spell effects subconsciously pulling up the bestiaries in the brain etc.* As a result I try to a) avoid the big dumb fighter type characters and b) hang back if I'm playing a scenario/module I've GMed/read.
*
Lol.
Like the high muckity muck could even touch a party higher than level 7 in most cases.
One does not become Champion of the Crown or High Mage or even Master Assassin by being only modestly competent.
Kings can generally command the loyalty of highly comptent individuals.
Highly competent individuals don't murder people for failed Diplomacy checks. Not usually anyway; if they did, they'd have mental problems, reducing their competence.
Failing a Diplomacy or Knowledge (history) check means you can't make a deal. Even a person you made hostile due to a flubbed check is probably going to mock or threaten you long before they try to bisect you or turn you into a frog.
One does not have to be highly competent to command vast legions of troops. You might take a look at some of the Roman Emperors.
What are you going to do when hundreds of archers start shooting at you? Or a dozen mages all cast Magic Missile at you?