|
| 20 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
In the thread on meta-gaming, this question came up. The answer is important, because it potentially determines if a character is allowed to know information that the player learned by reading one of the Pathfinder Tales if that character has a chronicle applied from that novel. For example:
The chronicle sheet contains this section:
Because Pathfinder Tales novels are stories first, there is no easy way to sanction items, spells, feats, or other special abilities whole cloth. Therefore, the Queen of Thorns Chronicle sheet uses the following rules.
• Only items, feats, boons, or abilities found on the Chronicle sheet are legal for play.
• Each player must have a copy of the Chronicle sheet with his or her character at all times.
• In order for the Chronicle sheet to be considered legal for play, the player must show to the GM his or her copy of Queen of Thorns, in either printed or digital format.
The line "Only items, feats, boons, or abilities found in the Chronicle sheet are legal for play" has been taken by some GMs to mean that none of the information gained by reading the book can be used in-character.
The Guide to organized play says:
History: Each time you finish a new scenario, your Game Master will provide a Chronicle sheet, an official record of that scenario that records the experience points you gained, the treasure you discovered, and other important details. You may wish to jot down some additional details about the adventure—its events, interesting NPCs, other characters you adventured with, etc.—on this Chronicle sheet to help you remember your character’s past and influence his future.
The presence of the word "scenario" and the absence of the word "book" has been taken by some GMs to mean that the events represented by the Pathfinder Tales Chronicles do not represent actual events (either experienced by or read about by) the character possessing the chronicle.
The actual boons provided by the Pathfinder Tales Chronicles, however, seem to imply that the character actually experienced the events (not even just read about them).
So, what does a Pathfinder Tales Chronicle represent? Is it a Chronicle like any other, representing events that the character experienced? Does it instead represent a Chronicle that the character read containing the exploits of another Pathfinder? Or, does it not represent anything in-game, and is only a boon granted to the player independent of anything the character has experienced?
Please FAQ this to get clarification from Mike, Mark, or John if you believe this is a question worth having answered.
|
|
Nothing. You get what the chronicle says. If you want knowledge for your character, invest the appropriate skill points.
That may well end up being the answer. You can see the other thread for arguments for and against this. I'd ask that people on both sides hit FAQ so the campaign management will weigh in, as a consensus without that kind of input is unlikely. Thus the need for this thread to address the specific question and try and get some clarity.
I suppose the fourth option, which I didn't list, is that there is no official stance by the campaign, in which case it remains a GM decision, and table variance is to be expected.
|
I am just a V-L. I am not MMJ's mouthpiece.
However, I feel pretty secure that the answer will, go something like...
Novel chronicles are just a nice small bonus for those who support the Tales line and gain more Golarion lore by reading them. Nothing more than what is specifically on the chronicle should be expected.
If im wrong I'm sure mike will correct me. But be prepared for no response.
|
|
I'm definitely prepared for not getting a response. The design and developer teams keep pretty busy.
However, if you listened to the podcast when they announced the changes to how Pathfinder Tales Chronicles will work going forward, one of the things that was said is that they are looking at having the Pathfinder Tales be relevant in future scenarios. I believe there was even mention of interacting with a character or characters from the novels. Personally, I think that's a cool idea, but it would also be somewhat annoying if in a scenario that deals with events and locations from one of the Pathfinder Tales, you aren't allowed to use knowledge gained by reading that Tale and assigning the chronicle to your character. The fact that the bonuses on the existing Pathfinder Tales Chronicles felt random was one of the reasons given for changing the process, and they did make clear in the podcast that the boons going forward will be more relevant.
None of that specifically says the character has knowledge of what happened in the books, but all of it looks to me like they're moving towards Pathfinder Tales being more important and more closely tied to what's going on in Pathfinder Society. So it seems perfectly reasonable to think that they should be treated like any other chronicle sheet, which includes being able to record names, events, and information learned during whatever granted the chronicle.
|
I am just a V-L. I am not MMJ's mouthpiece.
However, I feel pretty secure that the answer will, go something like...
Novel chronicles are just a nice small bonus for those who support the Tales line and gain more Golarion lore by reading them. Nothing more than what is specifically on the chronicle should be expected.
If im wrong I'm sure mike will correct me. But be prepared for no response.
So, to quote you: Novel chronicles are just a nice small bonus for those who support the Tales line and gain more Golarion lore by reading them.
So, gain more Golarion lore is not equal to being able to make use of said Golarion lore?
|
|
Well, there's three possibilities:
No answer = GM's fiat, you're big boys and girls, we don't need to rule on everything, schmooze your GM, buy him a soda or something.
Nope = Sorry, can't use it.
Conditional = Can use it, if the GM has read it, again GM's fiat.
Yep = Sure, go for it if you can explain which book you read it in to the GM and he believes you.
Personally I like GM's fiat, this allows the GM to allow it under the conditions that he knows what you've read. If he/she hasn't well, you're outta luck. But it does allow for greater immersion which does make things more fun for everyone and it allows for Pathfinder Society to grow organically.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, Knowledge skills are not just testing what you've studied, but a variety of things. If you're not trained in Knowledge (x) then that means you might have read a book or two back at the lodge, but your character isn't that interested in it, and/or doesn't remember enough about it to know that thing coming at him is a bone devil and not an ice devil. Regardless of any tales novel the player has read. Even if by having the chronicle it, say, represents him listening to a Pathfinder tell of his own adventure or reading about it in the Pathfinder Chronicles in game, that still doesn't mean he a) listened that closely to the story when told b) paid much attention when he was reading or c) retained that knowledge and can recall it in the middle of combat or some other stressful situation. That's what a rank in the knowledge skill represents, not just having read something, but having had enough interest in it to retain the knowledge and be able to use it at a moment's notice. You can say as much as you want about how a Pathfinder WOULD be interested in those things for his survival, etc. but without putting an investment in the appropriate knowledge skill, the character just doesn't have the ability to put everything together at a moment's notice.
With that said, some times some common sense is required. A knowledge check might be required to tell you, say, the intricacies of a noble house in Cheliax, but if you're from the Inner Sea I would expect that your character knows at least something about Cheliax in general, like it's ruled by a bunch of diabolists. Or that Andoran is all about freedom, etc.
|
|
So, gain more Golarion lore is not equal to being able to make use of said Golarion lore?
For the player, not the character. Basically if you spend time to learn about Golarion as a player, and support the Tales line of products, they give you a small bonus in play for the Organized Play campaign.
But as always, Player Knowledge is not necessarily Character Knowledge.
|
|
So, gain more Golarion lore is not equal to being able to make use of said Golarion lore?
For the player, not the character. Basically if you spend time to learn about Golarion as a player, and support the Tales line of products, they give you a small bonus in play for the Organized Play campaign.
But as always, Player Knowledge is not necessarily Character Knowledge.
Which, again, is why I've posted this question and asked that everyone FAQ it. To find out if the Pathfinder Tales are considered player knowledge or character knowledge, and more importantly to those who like to work their characters' experiences into their background, if the character does experience the Tale, how that is meant to work.
In the situation you present, the character never reads the book or goes to any of the places or knows anything about it. They just have this boon that is unexplained within the game world. In what I'm saying, a Pathfinder Tale is treated the same as any other adventure the PC went on, and making notes or remembering things from it is fair game.
We're not even talking about mechanical things here, like knowing whether or not a Skeleton has DR because you've fought one before. We're talking about Golarion lore... names, places, events.
Are we at least in agreement that you can carry that kind of knowledge over from scenario to scenario? That, at least, seems strongly supported RAW by the rules qutoed in my first message. If you meet someone at the Blackross Matrimony, are you allowed to remember them when they come up in another scenario? If we agree on that, then it comes back to the fundamental question of this thread, which is not does having the knowledge break an encounter. It's did the character experience something. If the character experienced something, and it happens to break an encounter, that's just going to happen from time to time. Sometimes by design.
The GM would be justified in saying to the player something like:
That's fair, and I would hope most players would be fine with that. That doesn't mean when playing a more recent scenario the character doesn't know those events occurred, which is all I'm trying to get an answer on.
If the player brings something up in character, and the GM feels like it will ruin the whole scenario, then of course the GM can say to the player in this instance, we need to pretend like you don't know that. I'm not asking that everyone's fun be ruined. That's why this is a separate thread from the metagaming thread. For roleplay reasons alone, I think it's worth knowing how the Pathfinder Tales Chronicles work in game, and none of the rules listed for them address that directly. A side-effect of clearing that up is that it will make judging those situations easier for the GM.
Anyway, I'll hope to drum up a few more FAQ requests on the original post, and that the fact that this thread hasn't already been hit with a "No Response Needed" means someone at Paizo is at least thinking it over.
|
|
While knowledge skill checks are not perfect ("what is a horse?") they are the way we represent not only what your character has seen but also what your character remembers having seen. I much prefer that to the alternative which is massive notes on every chronicle that are automatically remembered.
Since circumstance bonuses are solely in the GM realm why not just let the GM just give out a circumstance bonus. This way knowledge skills are still relevant but players can be rewarded for keeping notes on what each particular character has encountered.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how you could think it was character knowledge. It essentially lets you bypass a mechanic of the game (Knowledge skills) and maybe even overshadow a character built specifically to know stuff, just because you read a book?
Well, in one of the actual novels or FREE short stories, Captain Jaeggare comes back to Absalom and is talking with one of his associates. And they actually state that they read his report on one of his missions. So you asked how, well because Pathfinders read the reports of other Pathfinders. Just like SEAL Team 1-5 probably read the mission reports of SEAL Team 6, to familiarize themselves with what happened and maybe find something that might be useful in their next mission. This is how organizations become better. The elders teach the youngsters, the students study the works of the masters.
That's why West Point and Annapolis exist, so that new officers of the US Army and Navy and Marine Corps, don't have to rediscover old knowledge every generation. Now you might have read the writtings of Ulysses S. Grant or Lee, while another officer studied Patton and Rommel. All useful things, if somehow they help you be a better officer the next time a war breaks out.
So my question to you is, why is it so hard to imagine that Pathfinders might study the works of previous Pathfinders and even adventurers outside of the Society?
Are game mechanics, like a security blanket for some GMs, sure.
Are they only able to play roll-play games and believe that allowing other GMs to play differently somehow threatens their ability to compete with them? Possibly.
But why take that choice away from GMs, who might be open to it?
And quite frankly, what's in it for you, in not allowing GMs this choice?
|
|
Do you as a person remember everything you have read/seen/experienced?
Knowledge skill points represent how much you have been exposed to a subject (through books, life experience, etc.). The knowledge skill check represents your ability to remember that information at that time. If you want to better represent the ability to remember experiences of your characters you should spend skill points in Knowledges. If you are not doing this then your character really isn't paying attention in life and trying to remember those useful tidbits.
|
|
While knowledge skill checks are not perfect ("what is a horse?") they are the way we represent not only what your character has seen but also what your character remembers having seen. I much prefer that to the alternative which is massive notes on every chronicle that are automatically remembered.
Since circumstance bonuses are solely in the GM realm why not just let the GM just give out a circumstance bonus. This way knowledge skills are still relevant but players can be rewarded for keeping notes on what each particular character has encountered.
But making notes on a chronicle is already explicitly allowed.
History: Each time you finish a new scenario, your Game Master will provide a Chronicle sheet, an official record of that scenario that records the experience points you gained, the treasure you discovered, and other important details. You may wish to jot down some additional details about the adventure—its events, interesting NPCs, other characters you adventured with, etc.—on this Chronicle sheet to help you remember your character’s past and influence his future.
I'm not asking that a rule be added. The rule already exists. I'm just asking whether or not it applies to the Pathfinder Tales Chronicles or not.
[EDITED - Sorry, didn't address the circumstance bonus part of your message. I'm all for that. My issue with the original thread was not that a roll was required. It was that the character was disallowed from bringing it up at all. Though, in fairness to that GM, the player didn't know where he knew the fact from. And in fairness to the player, it sounds like he let it drop quickly.]
|
|
Edit: Removed the rebuttal after notice of an edit.
If a player has notes on their chronicle that are initialed by the GM, I will give that player a circumstance bonus (usually +2, maybe more with multiple chronicles) to their knowledge skill check. Said note does not mean auto success in the future.
|
|
Edit: Removed the rebuttal after notice of an edit.
If a player has notes on their chronicle that are initialed by the GM, I will give that player a circumstance bonus (usually +2, maybe more with multiple chronicles) to their knowledge skill check. Said note does not mean auto success in the future.
And I'm perfectly fine with that. That's very different than telling a player they can't use knowledge of something their character experienced at all.
|
|
So my question to you is, why is it so hard to imagine that Pathfinders might study the works of previous Pathfinders and even adventurers outside of the Society?
It isn't hard to imagine at all. But there isn't a feat or trait or class ability or spell that gives one eidetic memory. Recalling from the depths of your memory is what Knowledge checks are for.
Are game mechanics, like a security blanket for some GMs, sure.
It isn't about a security blanket. Its about the fact that we are playing a game with rules. In organized play, we don't have the luxury of modifying those rules to suit the way we want things to work.
Are they only able to play roll-play games and believe that allowing other GMs to play differently somehow threatens their ability to compete with them? Possibly.
But why take that choice away from GMs, who might be open to it?
And quite frankly, what's in it for you, in not allowing GMs this choice?
This isn't about ego or not allowing or allowing or anything like that.
The game has rules. In a home game, you can modify them to fit whatever you want. But in organized play, scenarios are written dependent that the rules are being followed. Some of this "knowledge" from Novels you talk about isn't going to damage that. Some of it could. As such, in Organized Play, you gotta follow the rules as written.
As written, Knowledge skills represent what your character knows (remembers) from what they've experienced, done, read, et. al.
To give a real live example, which you keep creating to support your point, but ignore when it doesn't, college or even high school.
Did you remember every thing you read in your Biology text book when you took your midterms? Do you still?
I'm going to say that the average and even genius level people, the answer is no.
|
|
And I'm perfectly fine with that. That's very different than telling a player they can't use knowledge of something their character experienced at all.Edit: Removed the rebuttal after notice of an edit.
If a player has notes on their chronicle that are initialed by the GM, I will give that player a circumstance bonus (usually +2, maybe more with multiple chronicles) to their knowledge skill check. Said note does not mean auto success in the future.
If they don't put a rank in the requisite Knowledge skill, they can't make a check over 10 regardless what's written on their chronicle.
|
|
If they don't put a rank in the requisite Knowledge skill, they can't make a check over 10 regardless what's written on their chronicle.And I'm perfectly fine with that. That's very different than telling a player they can't use knowledge of something their character experienced at all.Edit: Removed the rebuttal after notice of an edit.
If a player has notes on their chronicle that are initialed by the GM, I will give that player a circumstance bonus (usually +2, maybe more with multiple chronicles) to their knowledge skill check. Said note does not mean auto success in the future.
No, but I would allow them to say to the party, "Hey, I've got something written down about trolls and fire. Do you know what that's all about?" And then let someone in the party who does have the knowledge skill make a roll. It is, after all, a cooperative game.
I might also allow a circumstance bonus to boost their maximum untrained DC past 10 (as the scenario in the original question does... sorry for being vague, trying to keep this thread relatively spoiler free, since the other one is spoiler crazy).
How a GM lets a character use the knowledge is still up to the GM. The core question I'm trying to get answered is not trying to change that. It's exactly what the title of the thread says. "What does a Pathfinder Tales Chronicle Represent?" If the answer is nothing, then the character doesn't have the knowledge in the first place. If the answer is one of the other two, then the GM should take that into account when making a ruling. Whether that manifests as a circumstance bonus, allowing someone to make a roll, or the GM deciding it's simple enough info that no roll is needed... that's all still up to the GM.
Is that fair?
|
|
So if those notes are, to use the classic example: "Fought trolls. Burn them!!!", you'll give him a +2 on Knowledge rolls to know that fire works well on trolls? Nothing more.Edit: Removed the rebuttal after notice of an edit.
If a player has notes on their chronicle that are initialed by the GM, I will give that player a circumstance bonus (usually +2, maybe more with multiple chronicles) to their knowledge skill check. Said note does not mean auto success in the future.
I would give them a +2 circumstance bonus on knowing things about trolls. If they fought trolls they probably experienced more than just "Use fire".
I am not taking the notes as the only thing they remember just as a way for me to know what they have encountered. I prefer to see notes that list encountered monsters, terrain, nobility, etc and A GM initial by the notes. I don't know every monster in every scenario so I use GM signatures as a way to show proof of encounter.
Andrew: Of course. Giving a circumstance bonus would never by-pass that rule.
|
|
If they don't put a rank in the requisite Knowledge skill, they can't make a check over 10 regardless what's written on their chronicle.And I'm perfectly fine with that. That's very different than telling a player they can't use knowledge of something their character experienced at all.Edit: Removed the rebuttal after notice of an edit.
If a player has notes on their chronicle that are initialed by the GM, I will give that player a circumstance bonus (usually +2, maybe more with multiple chronicles) to their knowledge skill check. Said note does not mean auto success in the future.
No, but I would allow them to say to the party, "Hey, I've got something written down about trolls and fire. Do you know what that's all about?" And then let someone in the party who does have the knowledge skill make a roll. It is, after all, a cooperative game.
I might also allow a circumstance bonus to boost their maximum untrained DC past 10 (as the scenario in the original question does... sorry for being vague, trying to keep this thread relatively spoiler free, since the other one is spoiler crazy).
How a GM lets a character use the knowledge is still up to the GM. The core question I'm trying to get answered is not trying to change that. It's exactly what the title of the thread says. "What does a Pathfinder Tales Chronicle Represent?" If the answer is nothing, then the character doesn't have the knowledge in the first place. If the answer is one of the other two, then the GM should take that into account when making a ruling. Whether that manifests as a circumstance bonus, allowing someone to make a roll, or the GM deciding it's simple enough info that no roll is needed... that's all still up to the GM.
Is that fair?
If they are in the middle of combat with a Troll, and they shout out, "I ran into these once before, fire hurt them good." I'm not going to say no unless there is a reason that the Trolls are different (look or act different) from the ones they ran into before.
PC: Hey, I ran into these before, fire hurt them good.
ME: That may be true, but these don't look quite the same. But you can try it and see what happens.
But to just make a blanket statement that your character should know all knowledge from a novel because he supposedly read the Pathfinder Chronicle is just as ludicrous as saying that I remember word for word everything in my college Biology book 20 years later.
Developer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, I'll hope to drum up a few more FAQ requests on the original post, and that the fact that this thread hasn't already been hit with a "No Response Needed" means someone at Paizo is at least thinking it over.
You've found me out. Yes, I'm thinking it over, and you bring up more points than I feel I can adequately answer in a single post. My conceptual approach with the Pathfinder Tales line is that these are stories set in Golarion, much as a true Pathfinder Chronicle would be. Some of the stories might even show up in some of the actual Pathfinder Chronicles in-game. That said, I'm not comfortable with establishing 100% translation of player knowledge to character knowledge for several reasons.
1) Not everything that happens in a Tale would necessarily make it into a Chronicle. Whispered conversations, portions of character development, and "off-stage" events that happen outside of the main character's perception would likely not show up in an official Chronicle submission.
2) Not every Tale involves a Pathfinder. Called to Darkness, for example, involves a trip taken by several non-Pathfinders to an area from which they are unlikely to report their findings. It makes for delightful fiction, but it does not translate verbatim into an in-game Pathfinder Chronicle. Out of game, it still makes a cool Chronicle sheet.
3) I value Knowledge skills and want to ensure they are relevant. Being able to pull out facts at the drop of a hat is reflected by skill investment, and as a few others have said, reading something once does not always translate to perfect recall—especially not under pressure. I am comfortable with a player's character recognizing the names of places and people, but knowing intricate details is better left to game mechanics. As a GM I don't mind granting a circumstance bonus to a Knowledge check if I know that a character has faced a certain threat before, but I aim to make it a feel-good exception instead of a regular occurrence.
Overall, it's my belief that the Tales make for good reading and help to represent the kinds of reports and stories that might be available for reading in a Pathfinder lodge. The Tales are also a great source of inspiration for coming up with character concepts.
Many of the boons have a line referencing an experience that explains why the character might have the boon, and when I wrote those I intended them as flavor that might inspire better storytelling. How the Tales are incorporated into Pathfinder Society Organized Play from a flavor perspective has evolved over time, at times saying that the character did the deeds, other times saying that the character had read about those deeds, or on occasion just that the character now had a shiny Chronicle sheet and should move along. Personally, I favor the middle option, but primarily in enhancing the storytelling experience without threatening the world canon. We can't all be Varian Jeggare's sidekick, but we can all—in character or out of character—find enjoyment in the writing of Dave Gross and the many other talented writers in the Pathfinder Tales line.
And there we have it. I've talked myself into writing more than I had planned.
|
|
But to just make a blanket statement that your character should know all knowledge from a novel because he supposedly read the Pathfinder Chronicle is just as ludicrous as saying that I remember word for word everything in my college Biology book 20 years later.
And that's not what I'm looking for, either. I really don't think we disagree much about the way things should work.
I do think the point you're missing, though, is that it's not like the player is flipping through the book looking for information at the game table. In the one example from the metagaming thread, it's something that the player actually remembered when presented with the situation. It's perfectly reasonable that if it stood out enough to him that he remembered it, his character might, too. I suggested in the other thread that an Intelligence check might be appropriate, to see if the character remembered enough to bring it up in game. Not to give the character or player any information he didn't already have. Just to allow him to mention it, thus, at the least, maybe prompting other players to make a knowledge check.
I'm really not trying to game the system in any way. I understand why people react that way at first glance at a thread like this, because so many threads are about optimizing or finding holes in the system. I'm just hoping for some kind of official word on what the chronicles represent, because if there is going to be more overlap between them and Pathfinder Society, it's a question that will come up more and more in the future.
[EDITED - Ninja'd by John!]
|
Something to keep in mind - the Pathfinder Society Field Guide has a whole section on various foes and what you should know about them. Player Companions are starting to include a "five things everyone knows about demons" or whatever. I assume that all Pathfinders should know this information without a roll required (although, I find no clarification that this is "the way it is". But if not, half of the Pathfinder Society Field Guide is useless.
So, John, if you could broaden your this to cover what knoweledge you learn from ALL Chronicles, that would be great. If I've fought ghouls before, do I auto-ID them? If the player's companion about trolls tells me I should use fire, do all my PFS characters know that or nto?
|
|
I'm an accountant. I live, eat and pay rent, from my accounting classes. When I need to study something more about accounting I do.
Same goes for my Fighter, he studies the Survival (Survival [7]), he studies Dungeon Crawling (Knowledge Dungeoneering [12]), he's a Diplomat (Diplomacy [10]) and good at detecting lies (Sense Motive [9], that's his JOB, he kills evil stuff that goes bump in the night and he belongs to a Hunting Lodge and is a polite fellow.
Someone comes over and says they are a gnome who's been trapped in a hole for a 100 years but they are perfectly healthy. My character read a report (novel) about someone dying from Bleaching one time, calls him on it. I don't think, my lvl. 4 fighter should require a knowledge check for having read an adventure novel in his spare time. This doesn't make him an expert on Gnomes, on their culture and customs, on how their legal system works or how they shave the hair off their feet. It was a random fact that popped into his head. (my head) And the next time a Knowledge local comes up he's be oblivious to what people are talking about.
Does he need an entire skill set just to remember something he read in a mission report that he read in the Absalom Pathfinder Library, on his spare time? This isn't a cultural studies scholar, he doesn't care how many horses the Shoanti consider to be rich. Or the status of a Jarl who has 5 longships at his command, or the political machinations of the Chelish Empire. It was a random piece of fluff that helped him in some bizzare way that he never expected it to. (It didn't occur to me that remembering that piece of information could have such a huge affect on one encounter. It was a garbage piece of information that sprang out of nowhere.)
You aren’t listening to what a lot of us are saying.
1) You are an accounting expert. You know accounting like the back of your hand. (I know my field extremely well too, I’m an expert in my field—yet I have to look stuff up from time to time.) I’m sure that from time to time, you have to look up some code or form something, especially if it’s a bit obscure. Would you be able to have accounting information come immediately into your head if you are at the end of an 8 hour day of walking with 50 pounds of gear? If someone was swinging a sword at you and you were trying not to get hit at the same time as trying to hit them with your mace?
2) The game mechanics aren’t perfect. There are no set of game rules that reflect the skills and knowledge one person has perfectly. Gurps and Hero come pretty close, but just to stat out my skill sets and combat skills, I’d be nearly super hero level, which is patently ridiculous. I’m not a super hero. Almost all skilled modern day people would stat out similarly (I’m not just tooting my own horn, I’m fairly normal with that system.) White Wolf would require you to be a starting character with about 50 XP to be a regular person in our modern world. There really is no mechanic that is the equivalent of what we think we know and what we think we are skilled at doing. In Pathfinder, the Knowledge skills are what we have.
3) If you want your character to remember or know things that are above DC 10, then you need to take a rank in a knowledge skill. DC 10 or less things represent the things that everyone could potentially know or remember without having specifically studied in that Knowledge. Furthermore, just because Jaggaere may have written about the architecture of a particular Ustalavan manor house, does not mean you suddenly know Knowledge (engineering) stuff. Just because he discussed a particular mountain pass in Varisia doesn’t mean you suddenly know Knowledge (geography). You need to take a rank in the skill to know these things.
I’m sorry if you don’t like it. But that’s the way this game works.
|
|
Sorry Andrew, I hit the delete button as soon as I saw John's response.
We asked for GMs Fiat to be allowed. Why it bothers you what some GM in California or New York does is beyond me and really I don't have the time to speculate.
Congratulations, you got things your way.
Allow me to leave you with this one horrific, mind shattering thought: "Right now on the face of planet Earth, some GM read our arguments and is playing GMs fiat, in a PFS scenario. He's allowing knowledge from novels, even with this ruling. He doesn't care and neither do his players, because everyone is having fun and Paizo doesn't care because people are having fun, using their products. And there's nothing anyone can do to stop this heresy of thought, this minor rebellion of the free spirit."
LOL
|
|
If you can't deal with alternative positions and maybe....just possibly...being on the minority side of an issue, why did you come to the forums for opinions?
PFS is not about GM fiat, it's about having a consistent set of rules no matter where you play. I am cool with sacrificing some GM say so for the ability to play elsewhere without learning each individual GMs house rules.
|
|
No need for the snark man. It isn't about being right. I was giving my opinion.
This specific thread was asking John, Mark or Mike for a ruling. As you may have noticed, you are not either of those three people. The OP specifically asked that people keep the debate in the other thread "When is metagaming not metagaming." The OP asked for a clarification from Paizo staff and you hijacked the thread to continue the debate and rolled in with your two cents.
You gave a strong impression by your snarky responses that you didn't care that a question was asked of other people, YOU JUST HAD TO BE RIGHT and you were going to take both time out of your day and make the effort with the I'LL SHOW THEM attitude when you hijacked the thread to tell us how we're all wrong.
You remember this, right?
Nothing. You get what the chronicle says. If you want knowledge for your character, invest the appropriate skill points.
Let me clarify this for you, in case you are not aware. It wasn't appreciated.
The other thread I had no problems with, everyone with a different opinion posting, but this one was all about you making us wrong.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I don't think there's anything wrong with somebody giving you a circumstance bonus. Some more liberal GMs might have even just given it to you. I think that what we're saying is that it's up to GM discretion, and your GM was perfectly justified in NOT giving it to you.
|
|
I don't think there's anything wrong with somebody giving you a circumstance bonus. Some more liberal GMs might have even just given it to you. I think that what we're saying is that it's up to GM discretion, and your GM was perfectly justified in NOT giving it to you.
And I'm quite alright with that Netoplais. I was ok, with it when I let it drop at the gaming table. Heck, I didn't even bring it up until 2 days after it happened. I just asked out of curiosity as to how it would be ruled by other people and whether it would be considered metagaming.
I doubt I'll come across an issue like this in my future gaming career, since the fact that that piece of knowledge was of any importance seemed like a one in a million shot. And I know I kind of failed to clarify, in my original thread but it wasn't the GM who was running the session who objected, it was a GM who was playing. But even then, I let it drop because I didn't want to cause waves with my group because they're ultimately an nice group of people.
|
|
I think this thread went just like any other rule clarification thread on the forum. Someone asks a question, people post their opinions on the question/answer. At some point Mike, Mark, or John (I am against converting three really awesome people into a 3 letter acronym) may show up, read all of the opinions, think about it, and give an answer that becomes official. Thanks John, your awesome!
Can we lock this thread. We have already gotten an an answer with excellent explanation as to why from John. I don't think this thread needs to fall into a he said she said bicker fest.
|
|
Agreed on not wanting to continue or devolve into anything resembling he said she said. I didn't start this thread to be proven right or do anything to change the rules. I started the thread because I was genuinely curious how Paizo viewed the chronicle sheets.
Instead of the thread being locked, I'd rather see it fall into a discussion of interesting ways players have worked chronicles and past character experiences into their character's backgrounds, whether those be scenarios they've played, or Pathfinder Tales they've read, or Holiday boons. Maybe seeing that will help John and the staff at Paizo with ideas of how to shape boons and chronicles in the future.
Note, that conversation will stray quickly into spoiler territory, so please spoiler tag both the name of the chronicle, and any scenarios where the event came up.
I'll start things off:
Alternately, she also had a pleasant conversation with Tancrid Desimire, during which she convinced him that he would make a much better representative for Cheliax among the Pathfinders than Zarta Dralneen. She did not play The Disappeared (wasn't in tier), but presumably word of the events in that scenario would make it to her eventually. I haven't played Fortress of the Nail yet, but have heard enough about it to have a general idea of what it's about. I intend to play it with this character. Is it possible she might feel guilty about her role in Zarta's fate? Would she then feel honor bound to offer her services (as a Pathfinder! Though, it is Zarta, so that's bad enough) to Zarta and Cheliax?
She's pondering things as she waits to complete one last mission for The Lantern Lodge to earn the title of Master before moving on.
Chances are, the True Neutral Ninja will just do what is best for her, but it's nice to have those experiences to weigh the decision on.
Also, kudos on the Blackross Matrimony, The Disappeared, and hopefully Fortress of the Nail. That's an example of a truly enjoyable multi-scenario arc.
Or, much shorter:
|
|
In regards to Zarta, read at your own peril.