| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I happen to have that 'developmental disorder', Chris, and I don't know why people act ashamed about it. And I wasn't conflating anything. I know all too well how irritating it is to disregard a rule like it wasn't there. I have found more fellows on the spectrum gaming than I have at awareness conventions. It's not some dirty secret that you can't discuss or mention.
On topic, free wishes aren't a real thing in any game where they are not a desired thing.
(Also, I didn't see any replies to my comment, so if you were upset or had something particularly clever to say about it, feel free to pm me.)
I happen to have that 'developmental disorder', Chris, and I don't know why people act ashamed about it. And I wasn't conflating anything. I know all too well how irritating it is to disregard a rule like it wasn't there. I have found more fellows on the spectrum gaming than I have at awareness conventions. It's not some dirty secret that you can't discuss or mention.
On topic, free wishes aren't a real thing in any game where they are not a desired thing.
(Also, I didn't see any replies to my comment, so if you were upset or had something particularly clever to say about it, feel free to pm me.)
Power attack with a high STR and a two-handed weapon aren't a real thing in any game where they are not desired in. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though. Could you elaborate?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it's not one of the big reasons spellcasters are over-powered. If you think they are, anyway. There are about 100 things you can support the case with before rolling around to wishful thinking about wishes.
I'm honestly a bit less interested in wishes in particular as I recognize that they are an extreme case of simulacrum use that is likely to draw DM attention in any campaign where such a situation comes up.
What I would like to see is guidance for the simulacrum spell in regards to special abilities generally. The rules as they stand currently are unusably vague and require house-ruling as to the meaning of 'appropriate' - for all special abilities, not just (or even chiefly) wish.
Such guidance would make the spell much more usable, IMO, and I can't see any particular need for the vagueness. Witness the parallel case of class levels and spells where it is quite clear how to adjudicate simulacrum.
Power attack with a high STR and a two-handed weapon aren't a real thing in any game where they are not desired in. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though. Could you elaborate?
This is presumably the viewpoint of, "Any sensible GM would ban the spell, or ban this use of the spell, so it's a not a serious issue."
(By this philosophy, massive RPG game balance problems are effectively less serious than subtle game balance problems.)
|
Using the "safe" options of Wish is strong enough and honestly I've never seen a point to using greater effects. If you can't instantly win while using the safe options, that's not a problem with Wish.Something to think about here with this case regarding FAQ.
FAQ = Frequently Asked Questions.
Is this problem a frequent occurrence or is it a hedge case that has never really happened anywhere other than a musing mind. It doesn't really sound "Frequent". This falls under "do you, as a DM, want this in your game".
You have two sides of viewing the rules, do the rules say "I can do it" and "is there no rule telling me I can't". As a player, insisting on the latter can cause serious friction and can be obnoxious. Without trying to get a game developer to give you an OK on it, the most important person to get an OK on it is the DM himself/herself. In my games, regardless of who chimed in or if there was a FAQ, this would get nixed. Other DMs I have played with would gladly allow it, with the notion that wishes are some of the most dangerous things you could ever do. They were brutal with interpreting wishes. Three chances a day to bring about the doom of your whole party and those around you, bring it on!
That may be the biggest part of the issue, players using the wording of wish in gaming mechanics. The DMs I played with would make you word the wish as the wishing character. "I wish my strength was 1 point higher" would not be an option, or would be taken in an odd way "in character" potentially. As it is worded now, purely RAW, They are essentially wishing as players for things about their character sheet. Making them RP wishes would remove a lot of the problems, assuming the DM isn't a pushover
Power attack with a high STR and a two-handed weapon aren't a real thing in any game where they are not desired in. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though. Could you elaborate?
This is presumably the viewpoint of, "Any sensible GM would ban the spell, or ban this use of the spell, so it's a not a serious issue."
Amost. But even the Devs agree the spell's wording isn't clear. So my FAQ was to both clarify the RAI and RAW.
But when the RAW isnt clear, it's not quite the same as houseruling away something broken. It's more like "Hmm, my reading disagrees with that so my ruling is that it's xxxxxx".
That may be the biggest part of the issue, players using the wording of wish in gaming mechanics. The DMs I played with would make you word the wish as the wishing character. "I wish my strength was 1 point higher" would not be an option, or would be taken in an odd way "in character" potentially. As it is worded now, purely RAW, They are essentially wishing as players for things about their character sheet. Making them RP wishes would remove a lot of the problems, assuming the DM isn't a pushoverUsing the "safe" options of Wish is strong enough and honestly I've never seen a point to using greater effects. If you can't instantly win while using the safe options, that's not a problem with Wish.Something to think about here with this case regarding FAQ.
FAQ = Frequently Asked Questions.
Is this problem a frequent occurrence or is it a hedge case that has never really happened anywhere other than a musing mind. It doesn't really sound "Frequent". This falls under "do you, as a DM, want this in your game".
You have two sides of viewing the rules, do the rules say "I can do it" and "is there no rule telling me I can't". As a player, insisting on the latter can cause serious friction and can be obnoxious. Without trying to get a game developer to give you an OK on it, the most important person to get an OK on it is the DM himself/herself. In my games, regardless of who chimed in or if there was a FAQ, this would get nixed. Other DMs I have played with would gladly allow it, with the notion that wishes are some of the most dangerous things you could ever do. They were brutal with interpreting wishes. Three chances a day to bring about the doom of your whole party and those around you, bring it on!
So you have a problem with the spell Wish itself them? Or just free Wishes?
So you have a problem with the spell Wish itself them? Or just free Wishes?That may be the biggest part of the issue, players using the wording of wish in gaming mechanics. The DMs I played with would make you word the wish as the wishing character. "I wish my strength was 1 point higher" would not be an option, or would be taken in an odd way "in character" potentially. As it is worded now, purely RAW, They are essentially wishing as players for things about their character sheet. Making them RP wishes would remove a lot of the problems, assuming the DM isn't a pushoverUsing the "safe" options of Wish is strong enough and honestly I've never seen a point to using greater effects. If you can't instantly win while using the safe options, that's not a problem with Wish.Something to think about here with this case regarding FAQ.
FAQ = Frequently Asked Questions.
Is this problem a frequent occurrence or is it a hedge case that has never really happened anywhere other than a musing mind. It doesn't really sound "Frequent". This falls under "do you, as a DM, want this in your game".
You have two sides of viewing the rules, do the rules say "I can do it" and "is there no rule telling me I can't". As a player, insisting on the latter can cause serious friction and can be obnoxious. Without trying to get a game developer to give you an OK on it, the most important person to get an OK on it is the DM himself/herself. In my games, regardless of who chimed in or if there was a FAQ, this would get nixed. Other DMs I have played with would gladly allow it, with the notion that wishes are some of the most dangerous things you could ever do. They were brutal with interpreting wishes. Three chances a day to bring about the doom of your whole party and those around you, bring it on!
It certainly comes across as a de-facto nerf of the spell to remove all of the safe options.
Power attack with a high STR and a two-handed weapon aren't a real thing in any game where they are not desired in. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though. Could you elaborate?
Unlikely to your satisfaction, given that you believe and argue strenuously that a DC 10 knowledge check gives you the names of hundreds (or all) metropolis sized cities on a planet.
However, given that your satisfaction means very little to me, 'free wishes' isn't something innate in the game, making it different from things like elves, the sorcerer class, Power Attack, etc. It is an interpretation of something that exists in the game (wish) and potential ways to obtain these things. Saying 'no' to the typically convoluted methods employed is not a rule change.
I agree that simulacrum could be better worded, or at least examples given. But by its current wording, the DM, not the player, gets to determine 'appropriate' by whatever standard they choose. And that includes nixing 9th level spell-like abilities. If those are appropriate to the style of game they are running, great. If not, kiss them goodbye. That's not a houserule, that's a ruling. Which is what the DM is for.
Power attack with a high STR and a two-handed weapon aren't a real thing in any game where they are not desired in. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though. Could you elaborate?
Unlikely to your satisfaction, given that you believe and argue strenuously that a DC 10 knowledge check gives you the names of hundreds (or all) metropolis sized cities on a planet.
However, given that your satisfaction means very little to me, 'free wishes' isn't something innate in the game, making it different from things like elves, the sorcerer class, Power Attack, etc. It is an interpretation of something that exists in the game (wish) and potential ways to obtain these things. Saying 'no' to the typically convoluted methods employed is not a rule change.
I agree that simulacrum could be better worded, or at least examples given. But by its current wording, the DM, not the player, gets to determine 'appropriate' by whatever standard they choose. And that includes nixing 9th level spell-like abilities. If those are appropriate to the style of game they are running, great. If not, kiss them goodbye. That's not a houserule, that's a ruling. Which is what the DM is for.
I don't believe that it's a DC 10 check to know popular local locations. That's exactly what a DC 10 Knowledge check does. Says so in the skill. If you wanted to know a local tradition, you'd need a DC 15. Knowledge (Local) is not the best named, because it is the local knowledge of everywhere. If you want to know a popular location in Absalom, that is a DC 10 Knowledge (Local) check. If you want to know a popular location in Egorian that to is also a DC 10 Knowledge (Local) check. It's how the skill works. Next, you'll tell me that commoner's can't easily identify the most exotic of insects, but often have trouble determining what a whale is...
Free wishes is something innate in the game. If not through Simulacrum, then through Planar Binding. If not through Planar Binding, then through Gate. If not through Gate, then through True Names. If not through True Names, then through Blood Money + Wish. None of those are "convoluted". None of them require "interpretation". They work.
Thank you for proving my point on Knowledge. Knowledge (local of everywhere).
Only in the same way that walking down the road is in the game. It is something you can attempt within the rules, something that you use the rules to work for. But no one is 'entitled' to get down the road without incident. In fact, most of the game is based on the idea that there will be incidents. It is comically simply for a DM to prevent a PC from gaining free wishes, while still allowing them to utilize those other methods for other purposes. Perhaps even to gain paid-for wishes. Since none of your methods other than blood money rely on your own innate power, the entities involved can simply say 'no', or cut you off after a few, or raise the price, etc. In regards to Blood Money shenanigans, it seems fairly simple to ambush such fools with dispels or to not allow bonuses to your ability score to apply. It's silly to say that the PCs can change tactic to get their free wishes, but the DM can't possibly adjust tactics to ensure that they pay for them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Knowledge (Local) is Knowledge (Local) everywhere. Because there is no Knowledge (Local - Absalom) or Knowledge (Local - Egarion). There's just Knowledge (Local - Everywhere). Please provide evidence to the contrary as I've already shown what the rules say the DC for a popular location is.
The DM can certainly adjust to free wishes, but at this point the martials are completely written out of the game. Why? Because casters are incredibly powerful and can do things like get free Wishes. Or make Simulacrums of powerful creatures. Or any one of a hundred other very powerful martial marginalizing things a caster can do.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm actually quite uninterested in combing the rulebooks to find some statement that supports the common sense innate within determining that the provincial level 1 rogue who has grown up in Diamond Lake cannot use his +6 Knowledge (local) modifier to answer questions about destinations on the other side of the world. Much less that those questions are the exact same DC as those about the locale with which is he eminently familiar. That you pretend such is otherwise is simply testament to the fact that you are unable to understand or accommodate other points of view. That you do so belligerently and dismissively is your own personal flawed choice to make, but contributes to me not intending to retread this tired ground about your fantasies of martial inferiority. My suspicion is that even logical and reasonable concerns about caster/martial imbalance are ignored or passed over by the developers, due to the sheer degree of hyperbolic claims made by you and those who share your views.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually quite uninterested in combing the rulebooks to find some statement that supports the common sense innate within determining that the provincial level 1 rogue who has grown up in Diamond Lake cannot use his +6 Knowledge (local) modifier to answer questions about destinations on the other side of the world. Much less that those questions are the exact same DC as those about the locale with which is he eminently familiar. That you pretend such is otherwise is simply testament to the fact that you are unable to understand or accommodate other points of view. That you do so belligerently and dismissively is your own personal flawed choice to make, but contributes to me not intending to retread this tired ground about your fantasies of martial inferiority. My suspicion is that even logical and reasonable concerns about caster/martial imbalance are ignored or passed over by the developers, due to the sheer degree of hyperbolic claims made by you and those who share your views.
Common sense or no, Anzyr has the right of how knowledge (local) works. There isn't really any room for saying otherwise. The fact that you refuse to even *look* for the rule to support your claim implies that you already know this but simply don't like it.
My sense is this is true of martial/caster disparity as well. You know it is real but simply don't like the idea so you deny it.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually quite uninterested in combing the rulebooks to find some statement that supports the common sense innate within determining that the provincial level 1 rogue who has grown up in Diamond Lake cannot use his +6 Knowledge (local) modifier to answer questions about destinations on the other side of the world. Much less that those questions are the exact same DC as those about the locale with which is he eminently familiar. That you pretend such is otherwise is simply testament to the fact that you are unable to understand or accommodate other points of view. That you do so belligerently and dismissively is your own personal flawed choice to make, but contributes to me not intending to retread this tired ground about your fantasies of martial inferiority. My suspicion is that even logical and reasonable concerns about caster/martial imbalance are ignored or passed over by the developers, due to the sheer degree of hyperbolic claims made by you and those who share your views.
It's not just that, but even more extreme. You could be whisked away to Castrovel (Planet in Golarion solar system) and be able to take 10 in knowledge local and have basic knowledge of their society, even with never having been to that entire planet. That particular knowledge skill needed to have a locale attached to them. If you wanted to have intimate knowledge of several regions, you should have to throw several skill points at it instead of one.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is comically simply for a DM to prevent a PC from gaining free wishes, while still allowing them to utilize those other methods for other purposes. Perhaps even to gain paid-for wishes.
Just because a GM can do this doesn't mean they should have to. Also paid wishes are as much an issue as it's hilariously easy for Wizards to get cash if they put their mind and spells to it.
Saying it's easy for GMs to adjudicate admits that it forces GM adjudication, and that's not a good place for a spell. If Power Attack read:
IS MAKE MUCH GREAT STRONG BUT SUFFERING WHEN THE ATTACK STEP IS ENGAGED
A GM is fine to interpret that however they want, but it's not something they should need to, since it's the kind of thing you'd expect the game to spell out for you. Hell, Wish and Miracle are few of the situations where you truly have free reign to do what you want with the caveat of GM Fiat for things outside the description.
It's a rule that needs clarified, and even people who work for the company recognize that, and yet we still sit here without an FAQ on the spell because some people just shout "GMS CAN FIX IT, IT AIN'T BROKE!" when that's probably the worst situation for something to be in, especially considering PFS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually quite uninterested in combing the rulebooks to find some statement that supports the common sense innate within determining that the provincial level 1 rogue who has grown up in Diamond Lake cannot use his +6 Knowledge (local) modifier to answer questions about destinations on the other side of the world. Much less that those questions are the exact same DC as those about the locale with which is he eminently familiar. That you pretend such is otherwise is simply testament to the fact that you are unable to understand or accommodate other points of view. That you do so belligerently and dismissively is your own personal flawed choice to make, but contributes to me not intending to retread this tired ground about your fantasies of martial inferiority. My suspicion is that even logical and reasonable concerns about caster/martial imbalance are ignored or passed over by the developers, due to the sheer degree of hyperbolic claims made by you and those who share your views.Common sense or no, Anzyr has the right of how knowledge (local) works. There isn't really any room for saying otherwise. The fact that you refuse to even *look* for the rule to support your claim implies that you already know this but simply don't like it.
My sense is this is true of martial/caster disparity as well. You know it is real but simply don't like the idea so you deny it.
Happy to cite some rules on Kain's behalf.
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).
The parsing rule of thumb is that, when text and a table suggest different things, go with the text. So in the case where the DCs provided by the text and the table disagree (such as when, using the text, a question is obviously "really tough," but is also covered under the table with a different DC), the text wins.
Now, for the typical Knowledge (local) situations one would expect during an adventure, the DCs from the text and the table are in agreement, but if there's some factor that makes them disagree, the DM is not house ruling if he assesses the DC based on this line.
In some ways I preferred how wishes worked in 3.x and like the ideas presented by the wish economy and such.
Anzry is also right that there are multiple ways to get free wishes, so much so that it is difficult to ignore from a RAW perspective.
Happy to cite some rules on Kain's behalf.
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).
You mean on my behalf, I think.
Knowing the popular locations of everywhere is an easy question. I mean they are popular after all. Plus that is literally the DC 10 easy question example. Common Rumors and Local traditions is DC 15 for record. Knowing the Popular locations of Absolam or even of Castrovel is an easy question. It just makes sense after all. I mean I can tell your plenty of popular locations in other metropolises all around the world and lord knows I haven't invested any points into Knowledge (Local). So, your evidence is not in Kain's favor but mine.
Knowledge local is such a hidden gem, it is such a strong RP skill, almost a force DM fluff check.
Knowledge local is such a hidden gem, it is such a strong RP skill, almost a force DM fluff check.
Or, more likely, outside PFS:
"The party has just arrived in the exotic land of Tian Xia, in the city of--"
"I roll Knowledge (local). 38. What do I get?"
"What? How does that even work? You've never even been here before."
"RAW says so."
"That's stupid. No. Anyway, as I was saying, in the city of..."
Hyperbole, but you get the point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Knowledge local is such a hidden gem, it is such a strong RP skill, almost a force DM fluff check.Or, more likely, outside PFS:
"The party has just arrived in the exotic land of Tian Xia, in the city of--"
"I roll Knowledge (local). 38. What do I get?"
"What? How does that even work? You've never even been here before."
"RAW says so."
"That's stupid. No. Anyway, as I was saying, in the city of..."
Hyperbole, but you get the point.
Uh... that's literally the intent of Knowledge (Local). That's a pretty huge nerf to the skill and the GM should certainly tell the players in advance of such a change. If you made Knowledge (Local) only local to where you are from it be a trash skill. That's like saying Knowledge (Nature) only applies to your native environment. That would be a such an incredibly terrible change to the skill that I'm kind of shocked that anyone would want it to work that way.
|
|
Knowledge local is such a hidden gem, it is such a strong RP skill, almost a force DM fluff check.Or, more likely, outside PFS:
"The party has just arrived in the exotic land of Tian Xia, in the city of--"
"I roll Knowledge (local). 38. What do I get?"
"What? How does that even work? You've never even been here before."
"RAW says so."
"That's stupid. No. Anyway, as I was saying, in the city of..."
Hyperbole, but you get the point.
So in these sorts of games, how many knowledge (local) skills are there, since one obviously isn't good enough. I had a GM pull this on me my first game, and I believed him until I looked up the rules, and once I found out how it actually worked, I was ANGRY.
Why not consider each rank in knowledge (local) to be a different location if you're going to make the skill worthless for a traveling party member?
Well since they have someone giving them a guided tour -- who exactly is narrating?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually quite uninterested in combing the rulebooks to find some statement that supports the common sense innate within determining that the provincial level 1 rogue who has grown up in Diamond Lake cannot use his +6 Knowledge (local) modifier to answer questions about destinations on the other side of the world. Much less that those questions are the exact same DC as those about the locale with which is he eminently familiar. That you pretend such is otherwise is simply testament to the fact that you are unable to understand or accommodate other points of view. That you do so belligerently and dismissively is your own personal flawed choice to make, but contributes to me not intending to retread this tired ground about your fantasies of martial inferiority. My suspicion is that even logical and reasonable concerns about caster/martial imbalance are ignored or passed over by the developers, due to the sheer degree of hyperbolic claims made by you and those who share your views.Common sense or no, Anzyr has the right of how knowledge (local) works. There isn't really any room for saying otherwise. The fact that you refuse to even *look* for the rule to support your claim implies that you already know this but simply don't like it.
My sense is this is true of martial/caster disparity as well. You know it is real but simply don't like the idea so you deny it.
See Anzyr's response to Coriat, who bothered to provide rules (which have been provided to him before)? That's why. It isn't because I 'know I'm wrong'. It's because the convoluted and obstinate way Anzyr presents his ideas is immune to reasonable discourse, and I'll not waste effort on his behalf.
There is absolutely nothing wrong (or houserule/nerf/dick DMing) with evaluating whether the information sought is easy, moderate or difficult. For the planetary traveler to Castrovel, his knowledge (local) eventually comes to encompass that which he's learned on Castrovel, and basic questions about their society ARE easy for him. The round after he arrives? They aren't.
As for the martial/caster disparity, I believe there are issues. I also believe that the incredibly loud vocal minority has distorted the conversation to the point where their nonsensical scenarios are the face of the argument to the developers and have caused it to be completely ignored. This isn't a 'with me or against me' issue. There is room for concern without being a fanatic ranting.
I'm actually quite uninterested in combing the rulebooks to find some statement that supports the common sense innate within determining that the provincial level 1 rogue who has grown up in Diamond Lake cannot use his +6 Knowledge (local) modifier to answer questions about destinations on the other side of the world. Much less that those questions are the exact same DC as those about the locale with which is he eminently familiar. That you pretend such is otherwise is simply testament to the fact that you are unable to understand or accommodate other points of view. That you do so belligerently and dismissively is your own personal flawed choice to make, but contributes to me not intending to retread this tired ground about your fantasies of martial inferiority. My suspicion is that even logical and reasonable concerns about caster/martial imbalance are ignored or passed over by the developers, due to the sheer degree of hyperbolic claims made by you and those who share your views.Common sense or no, Anzyr has the right of how knowledge (local) works. There isn't really any room for saying otherwise. The fact that you refuse to even *look* for the rule to support your claim implies that you already know this but simply don't like it.
My sense is this is true of martial/caster disparity as well. You know it is real but simply don't like the idea so you deny it.
See Anzyr's response to Coriat, who bothered to provide rules (which have been provided to him before)? That's why. It isn't because I 'know I'm wrong'. It's because the convoluted and obstinate way Anzyr presents his ideas is immune to reasonable discourse, and I'll not waste effort on his behalf.
There is absolutely nothing wrong (or houserule/nerf/dick DMing) with evaluating whether the information sought is easy, moderate or difficult. For the planetary traveler to Castrovel, his knowledge (local) eventually comes to encompass that which he's learned on Castrovel,...
Uh.... popular locations is the easy question. It's literally right there under the skill. The DM dosn't get to decide that an easy question is a hard one anymore then they get to decide the penalty of power attack. They may get to decide what counts as a "popular location" in a given metropolis, but that's about it. I'm sorry but your side has provided zero evidence that Knowledge (Local) works differently then I've explained. And it will be difficult to show, because like all the Knowledge skills, Knowledge (Local) is not written or intended to be restricted to your local location.
Seriously, are you telling me that a Druid from the temperate hills can't use Knowledge (Nature) to identify a Polar Bear? I'm sorry you don't like how Knowledge (Local) works, but that's the way it works, the only way it makes sense, and the only reason it's worth investing in at all.
Knowledge local is such a hidden gem, it is such a strong RP skill, almost a force DM fluff check.Or, more likely, outside PFS:
"The party has just arrived in the exotic land of Tian Xia, in the city of--"
"I roll Knowledge (local). 38. What do I get?"
"What? How does that even work? You've never even been here before."
"RAW says so."
"That's stupid. No. Anyway, as I was saying, in the city of..."
Hyperbole, but you get the point.
1. It's bad for to block the DM's box text. It's also rather rude.
2. Knowledge local is a reactive skill. You use it to answer a question that comes up in a situation, not as the Encyclopedia Britannica. And as the DM i can reserve the right to adjust DC's by circumstance. Which is a better way than just saying "No."
Reactive skill? What does that even mean? I don't know, because I can't find those words in the Knowledge Skill section anywhere. If the situation is "I want to know popular locations in X city." The DC is 10. There is no circumstance. That's what the skill does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the situation is "I want to know popular locations in X city." The DC is 10. There is no circumstance. That's what the skill does.
For most cases yes. In typical circumstances this is an easy question. Per the text, easy questions are DC 10, which is just as the example in the table provides.
If there's a particular reason that such would be, say, a very tough question, though - lost city, different planet, whatever - then the text suggests DC 20-30, but the table is still suggesting DC 10. Given the disagreement, the text takes precedence, and so you are looking at DC 20-30.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the GM is encouraged by RAW to impose reasonable circumstance modifiers on all rolls. "OK, that's an easy question, DC 10. However, since you've fallen through a portal to a place on the other side of the universe that no-one you've ever met has ever heard of, I'm imposing a minus one million circumstance penalty."
Even so, some people here seem to think Golarion is medieval Europe where no-one has ever heard of Japan. Golarion has teleport spells and flying mounts. It has magical divination. It has friendly gods and angels. It has widespread literacy. It is entirely reasonable that people will publish and read encyclopedias / travel guides, and that an adventurer who is going to Minkai will have taken the time to learn about the popular tourist attractions and best places to go shopping.
Even so, some people here seem to think Golarion is medieval Europe where no-one has ever heard of Japan. Golarion has teleport spells and flying mounts. It has magical divination. It has friendly gods and angels. It has widespread literacy.
This is a very good point. Unless you live in hovel-ville on a secluded island, you probably have a pretty good idea of what the world is like unless you purposefully avoid knowing. I get the feeling that people who invest skill points in Knowledge (Local) are not that sort.
If the situation is "I want to know popular locations in X city." The DC is 10. There is no circumstance. That's what the skill does.For most cases yes. In typical circumstances this is an easy question. Per the text, easy questions are DC 10, which is just as the example in the table provides.
If there's a particular reason that such would be, say, a very tough question, though - lost city, different planet, whatever - then the text suggests DC 20-30, but the table is still suggesting DC 10. Given the disagreement, the text takes precedence, and so you are looking at DC 20-30.
You know what that people on the other Planet roll to determine popular locations near them? Knowledge (Local). You know what the DC is? 10. It's the same thing as using Knowledge (Nature) to identify creatures that don't live on your planet. People with ranks in Knowledges, and this may shock some people, are knowledgeable about the topic. Lost cities aren't really covered under popular location, so that's kind of irrelevant. At best they are hidden locations which is a DC 20.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Matthew, I don't actually have an issue with knowledge being relatively widespread (depending on the campaign setting), simply with the insistence that the rules provide no leeway for a different DC in any city whatsoever. "The DC is 10. There is no circumstance." I disagree with that. If DC 10 is widespread, that's fine.
Anzyr, you're just repeating your opinion without addressing the argument I made. I similarly have nothing to say about this that I have not said above, so I will now bow out of that particular discussion.
So, is it appropriate for a pit fiend simulacrum to have devil shaping? Or greater scrying at will? Should a linnorm simulacrum have a death curse? How about a dragon simulacrum and a breath weapon? Should a phoenix simulacrum resurrect itself when it's destroyed?
Etc.
Guidelines would be welcome.
A popular location has no circumstances attached to it. Circumstances would be "the popular location has recently been destroyed", "the popular location has moved", "the popular location now does a different kind of business", etc. However, that does not change that a normal regular popular location without any of those "circumstances" is a DC 10. It's on the chart. If you want to argue that where a PC is from should count as a circumstance, why don't you come right out and say that Knowledge (Nature) has a penalty for creatures outside your native environment. I'll wait.
As to Simulacrum, the guideline is simple. Simulacrums keep anything isn't HD related. Which is most things, since these abilities are intrinsic to the creatures that are being copied. The answer to all your questions is "Yes, it's a appropriate, with the exception of the Phoenix who runs into the "If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to snow and melts instantly into nothingness." line of Simulacrum.
Pit Fiends intrinsically have Devil Shaping and Greater Scrying. Gaining or losing Hit Die does nothing to impact this. The same is true of a linnorm's Death Curse (though the save will differ due to lower HD). A dragon will have Age Category appropriate breath weapon. This one is odd because while Dragon Age Categories are HD based, you can make a half-HD Ancient Dragon and it's still a simulacrum of an Ancient Dragon not an Adult. This one might be disputable and I can see it being subject to interpretation am willing to acknowledge it's not as clear cut as the others. I would have no problems if a GM rules an Ancient Dragon Simulacrum had a HD appropriate Breath Weapon, rather than an Age Category appropriate one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is, popular is a relative term. The entire knowledge local check it self is relative. It does not make sense unless a "locale" is attached. By RAW, since Earth exists in the Pathfinder universe, but in another galaxy, a level 10 rogue with 10 ranks in knowledge local and 16 intelligence, along with his group, could be randomly teleported to downtown Seattle Washington. At that point, he could roll high enough to direct his group to the Space Needle(popular location) and know soem details about it, without talking to any locals(that would be Diplomacy). It's not really "local" relative to Golarion
As written, it really cuts into the immersion.
A popular location has no circumstances attached to it.
Circumstances can apply to the target of a skill (the pit you're trying to get across has a massive updraft blowing from it), to the user of the skill (you're trying to get across the pit with your feet chained together) or to some combination of the two. If "the popular location has moved" is a circumstance, then "the popular location is a place your character would have no reason to ever have heard of" can also be a circumstance.
Do you interpret the linguistically ambiguous 'Know local laws, rulers and popular locations' to mean 'Know local laws, local rulers and popular local locations'? Or does it include all rulers and popular locations in the universe? If the former, does that mean you can only use this skill to know about places when they are local to where you are currently standing? So if you travel abroad, you no longer know anything about your home town?
If you want to argue that where a PC is from should count as a circumstance, why don't you come right out and say that Knowledge (Nature) has a penalty for creatures outside your native environment.
That situation came up for me a few days ago. We're playing in a homebrew world with an ancient Celtic feel. Our party went through a magic portal and found ourselves in a distant jungle, where we saw a dinosaur. The druid made a knowledge check. The GM said that he couldn't know what the name of the creature was, since it was something that was completely unknown to him and the culture he was from, but gave him some information about it based on what could be deduced from looking at it. I might not have played it that way, but it seemed perfectly reasonable.
As written, it really cuts into the immersion.
As long as we are all willing to agree on how it's written then the implications don't belong here.
If you are concerned with implications of how it's written then you should start a thread in general discussion or the homebrew forum.
This is the rules forum and the language on the skill is quite clear.
I assume you have to identify a location before it even makes sense to make a knowledge local check. Also I read it that you have to have the thing at hand to make knowledge checks so in the case of knowledge local you must either be in that locale or looking at it through scrying or be discussing the locale in question or reading a book etc. These locations or 'nouns' must also be of some context which might require a knowledge planes or geography or history check to even be aware there is even such a city as Seattle and that the word 'Seattle' isn't referring to a gnomish culiniary fork
Also "Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions)." is what sets the DC, the list is an example of applying this more general rule.
I assume you have to identify a location before it even makes sense to make a knowledge local check. Also I read it that you have to have the thing at hand to make knowledge checks so in the case of knowledge local you must either be in that locale or looking at it through scrying or be discussing the locale in question or reading a book etc. These locations or 'nouns' must also be of some context which might require a knowledge planes or geography or history check to even be aware there is even such a city as Seattle and that the word 'Seattle' isn't referring to a gnomish culiniary fork
Also "Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions)." is what sets the DC, the list is an example of applying this more general rule.
Knowing about "Seattle" also falls under Knowledge (Local). Knowing popular locations (regardless of where) is always an easy question. I've never been to Paris, or Australia, but I can still name you plenty of famous locations even with 0 ranks in Knowledge (Local). I can even name you popular locations on other worlds, despite again having no ranks in Knowledge (Local). The skill does what it does.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kain, I understand that you want the Knowledge (local) skill to function differently. That's fine, and even admirable since there are corner cases of weirdness with the current implementation. But that's not how it functions out of the book, which we're discussing.
It would be more constructive if you'd suggest some alternative mechanics (as in, things that players agree to before the game and are not subject to random change because the GM felt like it) to make it work more sensibly rather than keep shouting down people telling you what the skill in the book does.
If you have ranks in Knowledge (Local) you could very reasonably have knowledge of other localities. After all, you are literally trained in it. I know plenty of locations in places I've never been with absolutely no investment in it.
Knowing about "Seattle" also falls under Knowledge (Local). Knowing popular locations (regardless of where) is always an easy question. I've never been to Paris, or Australia, but I can still name you plenty of famous locations even with 0 ranks in Knowledge (Local). I can even name you popular locations on other worlds, despite again having no ranks in Knowledge (Local). The skill does what it does.I assume you have to identify a location before it even makes sense to make a knowledge local check. Also I read it that you have to have the thing at hand to make knowledge checks so in the case of knowledge local you must either be in that locale or looking at it through scrying or be discussing the locale in question or reading a book etc. These locations or 'nouns' must also be of some context which might require a knowledge planes or geography or history check to even be aware there is even such a city as Seattle and that the word 'Seattle' isn't referring to a gnomish culiniary fork
Also "Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions)." is what sets the DC, the list is an example of applying this more general rule.
For natives in Golarion knowing about the existence of "Seattle" would probably be a knowledge planes check, assuming it even exists, or maybe knowledge history (founding of cities). Unless you believe anyone with 1 rank in knowledge local can take 10 and know about cities on another planet far from Golarion.
I can also name numerous locations, the internet is handy that way, but actually since you're untrained in knowledge local you can't name any popular locations without access to a library.
Knowing about "Seattle" also falls under Knowledge (Local). Knowing popular locations (regardless of where) is always an easy question. I've never been to Paris, or Australia, but I can still name you plenty of famous locations even with 0 ranks in Knowledge (Local). I can even name you popular locations on other worlds, despite again having no ranks in Knowledge (Local). The skill does what it does.I assume you have to identify a location before it even makes sense to make a knowledge local check. Also I read it that you have to have the thing at hand to make knowledge checks so in the case of knowledge local you must either be in that locale or looking at it through scrying or be discussing the locale in question or reading a book etc. These locations or 'nouns' must also be of some context which might require a knowledge planes or geography or history check to even be aware there is even such a city as Seattle and that the word 'Seattle' isn't referring to a gnomish culiniary fork
Also "Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions)." is what sets the DC, the list is an example of applying this more general rule.
For natives in Golarion knowing about the existence of "Seattle" would probably be a knowledge planes check, assuming it even exists, or maybe knowledge history (founding of cities). Unless you believe anyone with 1 rank in knowledge local can take 10 and know about cities on another planet far from Golarion.
I can also name numerous locations, the internet is handy that way, but actually since you're untrained in knowledge local you can't name any popular locations without access to a library.
Knowledge Planes has nothing to do with knowing about Seattle as Seattle and Golarion are on the same plane.
However, based off Reign of Winter, it would be if you did gain Knowledge about Seattle, it would be Seattle as it existed during the time of World War I.