Good Afternoon Fellow Gamers,
In my current campaign, the party is holed up in the wilderness with limited food and water, and some new additions to the group in the form of rescued NPCs.
The party has over a dozen people and horses.
I've calculated the DC to be 32 per day to keep the whole group fed.
I've said that they people who are skilled at survival can attempt to 'aid another' to assist the primary ranger-types in getting food. Maybe harvesting some mushrooms, making some snares, boiling snow for water, etc. (Since the DC increases by +2 for each extra person you are trying to get food for, and the Aid Another provides a +2 bonus, it seems like it was intended to balance out).
I ruled that the other ranger couldn't 'roll their own' when trying to find food for the group, because they would essentially be covering the same area, and if they didn't coordinate they might end up getting in each others' way.
To me this seems reasonable, fluffy, and keeps the idea of getting lost in the wilderness as still somewhat of a threat (when you are woefully unprepared with supplies and/or magic). But, I am not a hunter or survivalist, so I am looking for some input.
Very Respectfully,
--Bacon
Hmmm... tasty bacon... But yeah, I think in such a situation I would rule as you did. If should be ok, if time consuming.
Although if their are 2 skilled rangers, I would probably give them a better boost from the "aid another"... maybe a +4? +6? Hard to say what's best.
From an actual foraging/hunting standpoint, I dont think there is an issue with people making multiple checks. 2 hunters in an area of woods doesnt significantly decrease the chances of either of them killing something, they could simply head in opposite directions from camp and never cross eachothers path. Likewise one could be hunting big game, (deer, elk, or whatever is in the area) while the other goes after smaller prey (rabbits and such) or forages for roots/plants.
There really isnt a real world or in game reason to not allow separate checks. Mind you the less skilled people could still aid one or the other, but I wouldnt allow them to aid both.
Finding food is the easy part. What makes using Survival to hunt difficult is random encounters and a very tasty-looking split party. Om nom nom. :P
Although if their are 2 skilled rangers, I would probably give them a better boost from the "aid another"... maybe a +4? +6? Hard to say what's best.
I allowed the ranger to use his favored terrain bonus as the aid another bonus instead of just the +2
From an actual foraging/hunting standpoint, I dont think there is an issue with people making multiple checks. 2 hunters in an area of woods doesnt significantly decrease the chances of either of them killing something, they could simply head in opposite directions from camp and never cross eachothers path. Likewise one could be hunting big game, (deer, elk, or whatever is in the area) while the other goes after smaller prey (rabbits and such) or forages for roots/plants.
My consideration would be that while Ranger 1 can get X amount of food, they wouldn't know how much food Ranger 2 got, or what kind. So your idea of one getting big game, and the other foraging for berries and grubs and such would be how I would define "aid another" in this instance.
But assume they did split their resources, and each was responsible for x number of people:
With separate survival checks, assuming average rolls;
Ranger 1 would get a 19; enough food for 5 people.
Ranger 2 would get a 21; enough for 6 people.
(If they rolled less than a 10, its even fewer people that they can feed) That would still mean that someone wouldn't get fed that day.
Also, survival assumes that they better part of the day is used to gather food and water, then they would have limited time to butcher their kill and prepare it for consumption with the limited resources they have. Don't have any means to cook two deer a once, for example.
It wouldn't exactly be efficient, might even be closer to being wasteful because they didn't coordinate. Plus they might end up over-hunting the area if they both are trying to feed the whole group
Just my line of reasoning...
Very Respectfully,
--Bacon
Honestly I would adjudicate it by dividing the number of total people by the number of competent woodsmen (people with ranks in survival). Assuming they do some limited coordination with each other then they would each need to attempt to beat the DC for the number of people they were trying to feed. If everyone in the group is helping them, I would allow each survivalist to recieve a bonus as per aid another for each person in his group that he is attempting to feed and that is helping him.
Remember the ranger isn't necessarily alone in this, and with his instruction he should be able to get others to do smaller tasks for him while he focuses on other things, which I would represent as the aid another check. Do remember that aid another is a DC 10 skill check, which as long as they don't have a wisdom penalty they should be able to make successfully even without any skill ranks.
This to me simulates how things function more realistically. In Scouts the older better trained Scouts tell the younger less trained scouts what to do and assign them the less difficult tasks associated with making camp and cooking food etc while the older scouts handle the more complex tasks for the day. If the oldest scouts tried to do everything themselves for the whole troop they would never manage to get it all done. But, with their direction and the division of labor you can accomplish much more.
Edit: Also keep in mind that it's a DC 10 to "Get along in the wild. Move up to half your overland speed while hunting and foraging (no food or water supplies needed). You can provide food and water for one other person for every 2 points by which your check result exceeds 10". So, anyone who doesn't have a wisdom penalty can take a 10 on their check and can provide sufficient food and water for themselves.
I see what you are saying, Claxon...
I know the environment shouldn't be the kind of thing that does in a party of adventurers, but when a dozen people trek into the woods and rely on foraging because only one person brought rations... I kind of think they should be humbled a bit.
Very Respectfully,
--Bacon
OK. Fair enough.
I appreciate your inputs.
And I would agree for a small party. But when the party gets to be 12+ with cohorts, hirelings, mounts, and rescued NPCs... I think one or two rangers foraging around in the middle of winter shouldn't be able to feed them all.
But... I guess the rules are rules. Grubs and squirrels and tree bark for everyone.
:D
Very Respectfully,
--Bacon
One of my groups started an adventure traveling cross country, the group pooled money for rations.
Those with survival made daily checks, DC 10, as listed in the CRB, and supplemented rations to make up the difference. For your situation I'd still have them make a standard DC 10 check.
However, you said there's "limited food and water," but didn't mention a terrain. I'm just wondering how much of that assessment is fair to the situation. Are they in a desolate wasteland or desert? If not, the horses shouldn't be included as food dependent members of the party. There should be enough to graze regardless of season. Just look at the herds of caribou that get plenty to eat while traveling in huge groups.
I would have a discussion with your players before you do this man. If you surprise them with "Oh you suddenly don't have enough food to feed everyone and not everyone can provide for themselves" you're basically just telling them "Screw you, because I said so". If this is a low level campaign and you want a gritty survivalist feel then maybe this sort of thing is appropriate, but that may not be what you players want or signed up for. Just because you think it's amusing this way or more realistic doesn't mean players will enjoy it or have fun. At the end of the day the game is about having fun. If everyone is starving because you wont let them find food and no one is enjoy the "struggle" you're not being a very successful GM. If you want to punish a player or the group, you're the GM. You can do anything you want. But remember, while this isn't necessarily as outright mean as "Rocks fall, everybody dies" depending on how you play this out it could be just as bad from the players viewpoint.
I'm not seeing it as "suddenly you don't have food"
It's more of, "You are going into the wilderness, during winter, without food, supplies, or cold-weather gear." The APL is currently level 8, so they -should- know better. (Or, have bought some magical items to counteract environmental concerns.)
I know that a character dying isn't 'fun' but I don't want to be that GM who obviously fudges things to allow the PCs to survive any/everything.
It seems my original idea was too harsh, but I want to ensure that I am not coddling them either.
Adventuring in the winter is (or at least it should be) different from adventuring during temperate eternal spring.
I'm really not trying to be antagonistic. And I don't want to cultivate the impression that I'm being vindictive or unreasonable. I've had a DM do the 'time stops, you fight a Red Dragon.' when he was annoyed with a player. I don't want to be that guy.
Very Respectfully,
--Bacon
I'm not seeing it as "suddenly you don't have food"
It's more of, "You are going into the wilderness, during winter, without food, supplies, or cold-weather gear." The APL is currently level 8, so they -should- know better. (Or, have bought some magical items to counteract environmental concerns.)
I know that a character dying isn't 'fun' but I don't want to be that GM who obviously fudges things to allow the PCs to survive any/everything.
It seems my original idea was too harsh, but I want to ensure that I am not coddling them either.
Adventuring in the winter is (or at least it should be) different from adventuring during temperate eternal spring.
I'm really not trying to be antagonistic. And I don't want to cultivate the impression that I'm being vindictive or unreasonable. I've had a DM do the 'time stops, you fight a Red Dragon.' when he was annoyed with a player. I don't want to be that guy.
Very Respectfully,
--Bacon
But your idea is fudging things. It's normally a DC 10 check to get along in the wilderness with no listed modifiers for success depending on season or location. Now, I think it is reasonable to adjudicate such things if you really want to make a big deal about it but I also doubt your players were expecting it and they're likely going to resent you for it.
The PCs are also probably more than capable of caring for themselves, but lack the "capacity" for your liking to care for all the hangers on they've accumulated after rescuing the people you mentioned. Without them knowing in advance how many people would be rescued or if they knew they'd be rescuing people in advance (and this hasn't been mentioned and may not be the case) they wouldn't have had any way of knowing or preparing for the situation. You'd be effectively punishing them for something that didn't have any control or knowledge of.
Just food for thought.
|
So who actually plays actually having to eat food? I mean, I wouldn't play and then in the middle of a fight, have a sudden impulse to go use the outhouse. I find it a bit ridiculous that, although it is a part(maybe) of roleplaying, that you have to bother with starving. I mean, maybe just a certain survival campaign but egh i dont like needing food.
|
I have to admit, I don't like to bother buying rations much anymore since I learned how easy it is to use Survival to forage for food. It is somehow easier to forage than it is to do an auto-spend of 1gp for a ration which I could save for something else. Money is actually more valuable than time.
And "assumed checks" like bfobar is talking about are pretty A-OK 99% of the time - the DC is regularly easy on a take 10 anyway.
With regards to the aid another vs multiple check dilemma, I see it like this:
- Aid Another: Two hunters take shots at a deer, more likely to hit than if only one was there
- Multiple Checks: The third hunter has gone off in another direction, even if it crosses paths with the first group, because the game they're both looking for will be moving, so the third hunter might find something the first two missed.
Making that OK as well.
I like the idea of a Survivalist P6 game where food/water matter...
just my 2cp
P6 Plug...p6codex.com its pretty cool
some people like to do Survival stuff in real life
I like to do it in my imagination while eating a bag of chips and drinking a brew with a sandwich
A survivalist game can be a lot of fun...if you talk to your players and express that is what you would like to do. If they're not aware of it in advance, they're going to feel a bit like you've pulled the rug out from under them.
Not to mention that a cleric or oracle in the party means water isn't an issue. You create water. You can also purify food and drink. Meaning anything that was food that you can find becomes safe for consumption. If you've an arcane caster prestidigitation will allow you to reflavor it into the best testing meal you've ever had. So, if you can just find something with enough calories to consume everything else is covered by a couple cantrips. And that's why Pathfinder doesn't emulate survivalist scenarios well in the first place. The game wasn't really meant to be played that way. You can do it, but you're going to have to adapt rules. Which is something that players should know in advance before you start playing, whenever possible.
Now if I was an evil GM who actually warned the players about this trip before hand and they ignored advice it would only be fair for me to remind myself this. Unless they have Endure Elements on every living thing the food intake in such cold climes is huge...I think about 10K calories per person.
First bit of kit I buy for PCs? Ring of Sustenance. Second bit, Handy Haversack.
Is this Jade Regent?
EDIT: I hear ogre is tasty...Perhaps have them find "The Halfling Cookbook" full of delicious halfling recipes...
I would allow each party member their own survival role if they used a differend method.
If for example one tries his luck at fishing the next might attempt to hunt while looking for edible plants. Why should one be just an aid another for the next one? The third, is just collecting grass and such for the horses, again, no problem with this being its own roll.
Edit: My autocorrect keeps changing letters to capitals, I hope I found them all.
All characters should be able to make separate checks if they wish to, Aiding Another only if they want to.
The biggest reason they should Aid Another and not just go foraging on their own is because if you're out foraging you should also
need to roll for the chance to Get Lost, whose DC is higher than the base foraging DC, and you make one every HOUR.
(I would hazard that you are spending 6 hours for the standard Foraging check).
The base DC is only 10 to feed yourself, although modifiers to this might apply depending on the region.
Even if there are no specific modifiers listed, standard +/-2 "favorable/unfavorable", +/-4 "great/horrible" modifiers are still valid.
The rules only mention poor visibility (not seeing 60'+: mist, heavy rain, darkness without DV)
being a specific penalty for Getting Lost, but it seems applicable to Foraging as well
(at least if you don't have Scent, although Scent should really just give a counter-bonus whic still helps in Good Visibility).
I would say that characters who fail that Foraging check could be allowed an additional check,
since the DC10 check normally is allowing for moving half your over-land speed, i.e. half the time is travelling half is foraging, etc.
If you fail the first, you can now have zero free time left in order to have a 2nd chance to keep yourself fed.
If anybody does Get Lost and can't handle the situation themself and decides to blow a whistle to get rescued,
the fact that the standard DC10 check covers both 1/2 a day of travel AND foraging
means that other characters could reasonably be able to go look for them without losing their chance to forage,
although since it would take longer, they possibly should then face a higher DC for "poor visibility" if it gets dark.
Really, there's a crazy amount of little specific rules applicable to specific terrains and outdoor situations,
so if you read up on those and can remember to use them when relevant (checking up for the terrain types in the area),
that can really create alot more specific scenarios and challenges to deal with,
especially in a scenario like this with many lower skilled NPCs.
Hmm... That is some food for thought, Quandary. It's not an auto success, and it makes sense that the city-born merchant's son, and high former high-society courtesan wandering off in the woods to look for food might get lost.
Very Respectfully,
--Bacon
Hmm... That is some food for thought, Quandary. It's not an auto success, and it makes sense that the city-born merchant's son, and high former high-society courtesan wandering off in the woods to look for food might get lost.
Indeed, and that can easily end up being a bigger problem than every person not eating their fill every single day.
So really, any non-Survivalist SHOULD want to just tag along and Aid the real survivalist...Of course, the Survivalist will eventually roll very low, and they do worse than if they Foraged on their own,
or they might not always want to Aid Another with the Survivalist because of personal drama, etc...
To clarify, Getting Lost check only happens when you don't have good visibility (<60') or cannot easily see landmarks,
so if they are in open fields or hills during daytime with clear line of sight to base camp (or relevant landmark), then you wouldn't need to roll for that.
Poor Visibility: Anytime characters cannot see at least 60 feet due to reduced visibility conditions, they might become lost. Characters traveling through fog, snow, or a downpour might easily lose the ability to see any landmarks not in their immediate vicinity. Similarly, characters traveling at night might be at risk, too, depending on the quality of their light sources, the amount of moonlight, and whether they have darkvision or low-light vision.
Difficult Terrain: Any character in forest, moor, hill, or mountain terrain might become lost if he moves away from a trail, road, stream, or other obvious path or track. Forests are especially dangerous because they obscure far-off landmarks and make it hard to see the sun or stars.
Chance to Get Lost: If conditions exist that make getting lost a possibility, the character leading the way must succeed on a Survival check or become lost. The difficulty of this check varies based on the terrain, the visibility conditions, and whether or not the character has a map of the area being traveled through. Refer to the table below and use the highest DC that applies.
I would also say that Getting Lost doesn't necessarily prevent you from Foraging, whose check already includes movement. Once you recognize that your are lost (which is much harder than Not Getting Lost in the first place), you can try to find your own way back, and you can be Foraging during this time. Even if somebody does get lost for more than a day's time, they very well may have found food and water. All that does create problems, so a lost character is highly likely to just seek help if they can (with a whistle or starting a fire for smoke).
Effects of Being Lost: If a party becomes lost, it is no longer certain of moving in the direction it intended to travel. Randomly determine the direction in which the party actually travels during each hour of local or overland movement. The characters' movement continues to be random until they blunder into a landmark they can't miss, or until they recognize that they are lost and make an effort to regain their bearings.
Recognizing You're Lost: Once per hour of random travel, each character in the party may attempt a Survival check (DC 20, –1 per hour of random travel) to recognize that he is no longer certain of his direction of travel. Some circumstances might make it obvious that the characters are lost.
Setting a New Course: Determining the correct direction of travel once a party has become lost requires a Survival check (DC 15, +2 per hour of random travel). If a character fails this check, he chooses a random direction as the “correct” direction for resuming travel.
Once the characters are traveling along their new course, correct or incorrect, they might get lost again. If the conditions still make it possible for travelers to become lost, check once per hour of travel as described above to see if the party maintains its new course or begins to move at random again.
Conflicting Directions: It's possible that several characters may attempt to determine the right direction to proceed after becoming lost. Make a Survival check for each character in secret, then tell the players whose characters succeeded the correct direction in which to travel, and tell the players whose characters failed a random direction they think is right, with no indication who is correct.
Regaining Your Bearings: There are several ways for characters to find their way after becoming lost. First, if the characters successfully set a new course and follow it to the destination they're trying to reach, they're not lost anymore. Second, the characters, through random movement, might run into an unmistakable landmark. Third, if conditions suddenly improve—the fog lifts or the sun comes up—lost characters may attempt to set a new course, as described above, with a +4 bonus on the Survival check.
BTW, I would NOT allow Take 10 for these checks (barring a special ability to do that),
as they carry a risk of failure: starving for that day, or getting lost and wandering off indefinitely.
Any extraordinary successes to allow foraging more than one man-day worth of food, and that can be saved as insurance against failures in the subsequent days.
|
The baseline dc does assume spring in a relatively abundant location. a dc 15 with 3 points rather than 2 per person sounds reasonable in the wilds in deep winter.
The rangers may be able to find adequate shelter ( a cave and dry wood, ect) if they go without searching for food that day.
Non lethal damage for exposure is within the rules when gear is not up to the environment. Again, the rangers can fix this with furs and ect, but only by not gathering food that day.
This sounds like the right balance for bringing folly to the players attention.
just my two copper from work.
There is no reason you can't find caves while foraging/hunting for food, you can make the exact same Perception checks, the only difference is that you will cover half the overland distance as if you were not foraging/hunting for food, so you might discover half the amount of caves or have half the chance of finding one. If you have the capability to kill animals for food, that itself would be a valid source of raw furs.
That's valid enough for Foraging itself,
but failure for the check to Not Get Lost DIRECTLY applies what amounts to a punitive condition akin to confusion.
The RAW for Getting Lost may seem absurd in some situations, like terrain or cities that you are closely familiar with,
but the balancing factor there is that you will know and recognize many more 'landmarks' which negate the Getting Lost check completely.
A risk I see but don't know how to handle is that if the players stay in the same general region foraging might become harder over time as most of the edible plants will be already eaten (by the party or some animals).
At some time it might become easier to eat the horses than to provide sustenance for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Common mistake, Quandary. You can't take 20 when the task is risky or has [/b]direct[/b] penality other than failing itself (ex activating a trap, not just not disarming it). To be prevented to take 10 you need some form of threath other than the task itself (ex moster attacking).
Relevant quote
Taking 10
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.
|
Dont starve them then hit them with mundane annoyances, Colds, flus, getting fatigued... have someone when they make that survival check remember that 'warm winter clothing' helps prevent frostbite. I mean its a +2 bonus to their fort save when the survivalist makes a dc 15 check. People are eventually going to roll low and or ones.
Make them regret being foolish without resorting to being the guy who created the donner party with your pc's (unless you are looking for a horror setting theme suddenly)
|
It's a bit iffy to suddenly spring a survivalist game on people AFTER they've gone into the wilderniss. On the other hand, if they went into the wilderniss with sufficient food and Survival skill to take care of themselves, but then rescued many people that they weren't counting on, it's okay to show that this makes it difficult for them.
I'd say that per foraging team, one person makes Survival checks to forage, and this guy is allowed to Take 10 if he has at least 1 rank in Survival (he's skilled, it's routine). Others can Aid Another to help him.
Now, if you tried to feed the entire party with one foraging team, the DC might become very high. So you may actually want to split the party into smaller teams, to cover more hunting ground. They're rolling separate checks against lower DCs.
However, having split the party, there's the risk of facing encounters with a sub-optimal party. Let the players figure out the party distribution (if they dare to split), then check for possible encounters and getting lost for each team.
If an encounter happens to a foraging party wherein not all players have a PC, let the other players run the NPCs in that foraging party.
Also, allow spells like Create Water and Purify Food & Drink to count. I'd say that if both are available in cantrip-like quantities, the DC hike for feeding more people should be reduced; +1 DC per additional person instead of +2.
With that last modifier alone, the DC goes down a LOT, but the cleric's player had to actually DO something to make it possible, so it doesn't feel like the PCs walked out of the forest for free.
Also remember the rule of 3.
The average person can survive 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, and 3 weeks without food.
*Survive as is in "will not die". They will be in rough shape though.
**This also doesn't take into account greater amounts of exertion, such as combat or dealing with difficult terrain, etc.