|
When using a Knowledge skill to identify and recall information about a creature the DC is 10 + CR, unless the creature is very common (5 + CR) or very rare (15 or higher + CR).
Are Robots and other technological creatures considered very rare? What should the base Knowledge (Dungeoneering) DC be? What about for unique creatures like the BBEG from 6-02?
|
|
They're confined to Numeria - I'd say they're rare, yes. DC (15+CR)
I'd consider a unique creature rare as well. I'd probably just call it 15 + CR, but just not give away very unique things (like class levels or whatever - I'm not familiar with 6-02 so I can't consider specifics.)
It's important not to be too harsh about DCs, because some character mechanics depend on at least knowing the type or subtype (like inquisitors, for example), and there's no cause for penalizing them unduly.
|
|
They're confined to Numeria - I'd say they're rare, yes. DC (15+CR)
I'd consider a unique creature rare as well. I'd probably just call it 15 + CR, but just not give away very unique things (like class levels or whatever - I'm not familiar with 6-02 so I can't consider specifics.)
It's important not to be too harsh about DCs, because some character mechanics depend on at least knowing the type or subtype (like inquisitors, for example), and there's no cause for penalizing them unduly.
I agree. I find a lot of GMs are too harsh with knowledge check DCs in general. I find myself doing the math on a failed Knowledge check ("If a 22 failed, this is at least a CR 13 creature in a 6-7 sub-tier, etc.") which is very meta-gamey but I can't help it, that's just how my brain works. One of the downsides of a "GM discretion" rule, I guess.
Anyway, I guess that's the problem with the Robot issue. On the one hand, they're new (outside Numeria) and I'd like my PCs to feel like they're up against something the likes of which their characters have never seen before. On the other hand, Engineering isn't something people pour a lot of points into and I don't want players to feel like their skill rolls are useless - especially if they're one of the rare players who has actually put some points in Engineering.
|
|
The reason I mentioned 6-02 specifically is...
|
Wasn't it put forth in new material for season 6 that all checks to ID robots/ tech creatures were Knowledge(Engineering)?
This. Should be Knowledge (engineering).
From the Technology guide (now on the PRD!):
Knowledge (arcana): Although robots are constructs, Knowledge (arcana) cannot be used to identify robots or their abilities and weaknesses.
Knowledge (engineering): This is the most important skill with regard to technological subjects. Knowledge (engineering) can be used to identify a robot's abilities and weaknesses. Knowledge (engineering) is also used to identify and understand unknown technological objects in a similar manner to how Spellcraft is used to identify the properties of a magic item. The DC to correctly identify and understand an unknown technological object is equal to the object's Craft DC.
|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to the Technology Guide there is an almost essential (PFS legal) feat.
There is absolutely no mention of this in 6-1. Nor in the chronicle sheet for items gained.
I am assuming that we just ignore this rule. Otherwise scenarios like 6-1 become absurd without a character SPECIFICALLY designed to handle technology.
Technologist
You are familiar with the basic mechanics of technology.
Benefit: You are considered to be trained in any skill used against a technology-based subject. If the skill in question requires training to use even against non-technological subjects, you must still have ranks in that skill in order to gain the benefit of Technologist.
Normal: You treat all skill checks made against technology as if they were untrained skill checks. This may mean that you cannot attempt certain skill checks, even if you possess ranks in the skill in question.
|
I have to admit i was happy about the season 6 main theme in the beginning. Bringing in some technology seemed quite nice and exciting.
But all this rules questions coming up because the rules are not clear or even missing made me change my mind.
Not sure of i will give season 6 szenarios so many slots in my events with all these missing clarifications about the rules.
Well, we will see what comes up in the FAQ.
The feat must be ignored IMHO! The technology guide is not core assumption, so you cannot expect the players to have it which would make knowledge skills against technology creatures and found items impossible.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Wow, so it really comes down to either bardic knowledge or dilettante! Ouch, Technologist!
Without the Technologist feat, a character is treated as untrained in the skill** in question when using it on technology.
**Includes Craft (mechanical), Disable Device, Linguistics (Androffan), or research skills like Heal, K:Engineering, and K: Geography.
I knew many PCs wouldn't have K: Engineering, but I hadn't realized that feat existed, which means some of the DCs in 6-01 and 6-02 (I haven't prepped the others yet) are going to be straight up bonkers.
This certainly changes thing and adds a lot of doubt in my mind that I'll be able to portray the background as I'd like to and allow players to get in touch with their techy side. It may be a lot of "nope, you don't know what that is."
|
|
I am operating on the assumption that if they meant us to use that rule, that skills must be attempted untrained against technology, it would have been in the season six guide to organized play. Given that they gave us a whole page of new rules.
I really hope that you're right.
But right now it isn't clear if technologist is almost essential for a knowledge based character or almost useless.
Or maybe it varies by table.
It is pretty clear that 6-1 was written with OUT that rule in mind.
|
|
Why do people think that they *should* be able to identify alien technology, based on their ability to understand (say) how a castle is built? I think it is totally realistic that my PC has *no idea* how technology works, if he's never encountered it before. It looks like robots are meant to be "beyond" normal knowledge except for those willing to spend the time (i.e. a feat) to learn a completely new way of looking at the world. This is a pet peeve with the way Knowledge skills work - even a unique monster that has never been seen before can be identified in detail if you roll high enough.
It really should be called out specifically, though, since I can see people not even noticing this issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well it becomes a major issue if scenarios become impossible to complete because nobody has the feat.
Sounds like a good way to increase sales of the Tech. Guide and cause people to take that feat.
It'd be cool if there was a boon, like On the Job Training, that gradually trained you in identifying Robots/Technology up to a DC 20 or something like that.
|
|
Well it becomes a major issue if scenarios become impossible to complete because nobody has the feat.
Yes, but that is a scenario design issue, not a knowledge rules issue. Obviously, I see where you're coming from, and it would just be easier to ignore the feat. I guess it was too much to hope that coming across alien technology would feel, you know, alien...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well it becomes a major issue if scenarios become impossible to complete because nobody has the feat.Yes, but that is a scenario design issue, not a knowledge rules issue. Obviously, I see where you're coming from, and it would just be easier to ignore the feat. I guess it was too much to hope that coming across alien technology would feel, you know, alien...
I don't disagree with you. I like the mechanic.
However, if the scenarios were not written understanding this mechanic existed, then we really are doing our players and the scenarios a disservice by feeling constrained by this rule.
This game is supposed to be fun. And it won't be very fun if even the Bards, Wizards, Alchemists and Rogues feel as useless as a 5 Cha Dwarf at Blakros Matrimony because this mechanic was not coordinated between the Technology Guide and the Scenario Authors.
|
|
Doesn't matter if its core assumption or not. Technology isn't core assumption either.
True enough, but obviously it is a big part of the season so most szenarios will deal with rules not covered by the core, which is not special, i admit, but while it was more a flavor thing in last seasons, it feels more important this time, at least what i got from the first szenarios.
Owning the technology guide should be helpful, not mandatory, which it is if the feat would be required to make knowledge checks higher DC 10.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So knowledge about unthinkable terrors from beyond time and space which drive men mad just to look upon them, that's just a knowledge planes check DC 15+cr. But knowledge about alien tech, which exists in the form of a crashed spaceship on this world and there's a whole human organization dedicated to studying it, that's unknowable without a feat.
|
|
Played 6-01. Technologist feat unnecessary to fully complete adventure. Adventure seems to take into account no one would have this feat or even Knowledge engineering. No need to worry.
Very enjoyable scenario.
Yes, there is a reason to worry.
I'm trying to build a tech friendly character. I'd kinda like to know if I NEED the feat or if it is essentially USELESS. Kinda affects the build.
I'm also planning on running this. I need to know if I should let people know stuff or not.
It is very clear that this scenario expects the rules in The Technology Guide to NOT be applied. It isn't clear if that is to be expected going forward
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Yes, there is a reason to worry.
I'm trying to build a tech friendly character. I'd kinda like to know if I NEED the feat or if it is essentially USELESS. Kinda affects the build.
I'm also planning on running this. I need to know if I should let people know stuff or not.
It is very clear that this scenario expects the rules in The Technology Guide to NOT be applied. It isn't clear if that is to be expected going forward
I'm planning to run 6-01 and 6-02 tomorrow, and I'm going to apply the Technologist rule. I think it's very possible to succeed at the scenarios even without making every skill check, and I hope that players get a kick out of the idea that this is just stuff they can't possibly know about without investing in a feat.
Personally, I'm excited about the idea of adding a little mystery to a PFS game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, there is a reason to worry.
I'm trying to build a tech friendly character. I'd kinda like to know if I NEED the feat or if it is essentially USELESS. Kinda affects the build.
I'm also planning on running this. I need to know if I should let people know stuff or not.
It is very clear that this scenario expects the rules in The Technology Guide to NOT be applied. It isn't clear if that is to be expected going forward
I'm planning to run 6-01 and 6-02 tomorrow, and I'm going to apply the Technologist rule. I think it's very possible to succeed at the scenarios even without making every skill check, and I hope that players get a kick out of the idea that this is just stuff they can't possibly know about without investing in a feat.
Personally, I'm excited about the idea of adding a little mystery to a PFS game.
will the players know this before they come sit at the table?
I have PCs who have taken every knowledge skill - and regularly max out the skills (it's part of the PCs Schtick to be a "know it all"). It would be kind of a let down to sit down at a table and be told that my guy can't "do his thing" because of a rule I had never hear of in a book I didn't own.... and that I couldn't fix at the table by buying the book online - because it took a feat and all my feats were already selected.
|
|
Played 6-01. Technologist feat unnecessary to fully complete adventure. Adventure seems to take into account no one would have this feat or even Knowledge engineering. No need to worry.
Very enjoyable scenario.
I played this and disagree. You can complete it by accidentally fumbling around or if someone has an adamantine weapon. But not being able to use any trained only skills in this scenario would be highly detrimental to success and fun.
My GM did not use and did not likely know about the feat, so we made several skill checks that helped us to succeed where we otherwise would have had to accidentally succeed or destroy more stuff than we did with my wife's adamantine dagger.
|
|
Yes, there is a reason to worry.
I'm trying to build a tech friendly character. I'd kinda like to know if I NEED the feat or if it is essentially USELESS. Kinda affects the build.
I'm also planning on running this. I need to know if I should let people know stuff or not.
It is very clear that this scenario expects the rules in The Technology Guide to NOT be applied. It isn't clear if that is to be expected going forward
I'm planning to run 6-01 and 6-02 tomorrow, and I'm going to apply the Technologist rule. I think it's very possible to succeed at the scenarios even without making every skill check, and I hope that players get a kick out of the idea that this is just stuff they can't possibly know about without investing in a feat.
Personally, I'm excited about the idea of adding a little mystery to a PFS game.
Given the problems my team had in 6-02 The Silver Mount Collection, I can't imagine how much harder it would have been if our GM hadn't shown mercy on us and given us a hint based on a knowledge check that probably shouldn't have worked. I have no idea how any group is supposed to figure out the last enemy and win the scenario without specific information that apparently isn't supposed to be available under any reasonable circumstance.
|
|
The only rule you need to worry about is "expect table variance". Seriously, it's not like the PFS Police are going to come and take your GM screen away just because you let your PCs make a Knowledge check without having a feat the necessity of which has yet to be fully clarified.
I played 6-01 last night and we were allowed to make Knowledge (Engineering) checks to figure out the use of technological items we found but were not allowed to make checks to identify the technological creatures we faced and it felt fine, so that's what I'm going to do in the games I GM until it's explicitly clarified elsewhere. If a situation arises where it is necessary for the completion of a scenario objective to discover something about a creature (as the case might be in the final encounter of 6-02, which I'm GMing in a couple of days) I'll drop as many descriptive clues as possible and if they're not picking up on them I might allow Intelligence checks or high-DC Perception checks to get some kind of hint. I can't imagine there'll be too many instances where it'll be all that important to know about creatures, and the basics (hardness, immunity to mind-affecting, vulnerability to crits, etc., for most tech creatures) will be readily apparent in the first round or two of most combat encounters.
If you're building a tech-savvy character, take the feat. Even if all GMs don't follow the rules regarding Knowledge checks, most will and if that's the concept you're going for, then you may as we'll take it. If it turns out being less useful than you thought, retrain it later.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
will the players know this before they come sit at the table?
I have PCs who have taken every knowledge skill - and regularly max out the skills (it's part of the PCs Schtick to be a "know it all"). It would be kind of a let down to sit down at a table and be told that my guy can't "do his thing" because of a rule I had never hear of in a book I didn't own.... and that I couldn't fix at the table by buying the book online - because it took a feat and all my feats were already selected.
I'll absolutely let them know. And I'll explain that technology isn't something that's been studied or available outside of secret groups in Numeria. Then I'll show them how that's supported by the rules in the Technology Guide and give them their options moving forward. And then I'll start running my game.
|
|
Given the problems my team had in 6-02 The Silver Mount Collection, I can't imagine how much harder it would have been if our GM hadn't shown mercy on us and given us a hint based on a knowledge check that probably shouldn't have worked. I have no idea how any group is supposed to figure out the last enemy and win the scenario without specific information that apparently isn't supposed to be available under any reasonable circumstance.
There are hints available throughout the scenario.
Either your party missed them, which happens, or your GM missed them and didn't tell you, which also happens. It's not always supposed to be easy and in this case I'm starting to think that it encourages intelligent play and discourages murderhoboism so I hope there are more scenarios just like it. Of course, I haven't run it yet so my opinion my change after Monday. :)
|
|
I'll absolutely let them know. And I'll explain that technology isn't something that's been studied or available outside of secret groups in Numeria. Then I'll show them how that's supported by the rules in the Technology Guide and give them their options moving forward. And then I'll start running my game.
This!
|
|
Given the problems my team had in 6-02 The Silver Mount Collection, I can't imagine how much harder it would have been if our GM hadn't shown mercy on us and given us a hint based on a knowledge check that probably shouldn't have worked. I have no idea how any group is supposed to figure out the last enemy and win the scenario without specific information that apparently isn't supposed to be available under any reasonable circumstance.There are hints available throughout the scenario.
** spoiler omitted **
Either your party missed them, which happens, or your GM missed them and didn't tell you, which also happens. It's not always supposed to be easy and in this case I'm starting to think that it encourages intelligent play and discourages murderhoboism so I hope there are more scenarios just like it. Of course, I haven't run it yet so my opinion my change after Monday. :)
We got hints, but there was one crucial piece of information we didn't get until it was partially too late.
I don't remember what check it was that allowed us to find that out - I think the GM may have took pity on us when the thing possessed a PC and let the cleric guess from a Heal check that it was something worth trying. We already had the wand of Remove Disease that we found earlier in the adventure.
I haven't read the adventure yet (I'm scheduled to GM it in 4 weeks, but I'm GMing 3 other things before that, so it's not my top priority), so I don't know if there are other ways to get the thing out of someone it has possessed. If there are, I don't know what checks would be require to find that out.
|
Ok. How about pliers then? Adjustable socket wrench? Arc welder? Hydro-spanner? Sonic Screwdriver? Tri-corder? Where is the crossover point at which I can no longer use knowledge(engineering)? Its unclear to me without owning that book and I'll likely not buy it.
Without guidance in the scenarios specific to that question, I will likely ignore the feat's existence.
|
|
I was reflecting on this earlier.
I, too, kind of like the idea that you need more than just conventional knowledge to understand alien technology - indeed, I'm already planning on having my inquisitor take "Technologist" at level 7 (when she'll also ramp up her K: Engineering.)
That said, I find it unfair to send characters into a situation in which their *players* are uninformed, vis-a-vis new books with radical new rules about knowledge skills (and others).
What I may do, when I eventually run said scenarios, is have the feat "provided" to the party, perhaps in the form of a loaner ioun stone (or a couple, if needed) which grants "Technologist" (akin to stones granting such feats as "Alertness", for power comparison.) I can certainly imagine a small group of hithertoo-unknown Warehouse 13 style scholars in the Pathfinder Society who have been crafting arcane means to penetrate this alien knowledge barrier. That way, I kind of "require" the feat without an expectation of retraining at the table (which is hardly reasonable).
Creative solution.
Another approach - less generous - is simply to allow a "temporary" and minor rebuild, allowing the players to swap out an existing feat for Technologist. Suspension of disbelief for purposes of playability. Kind of metagamy (okay, very), but it "works".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think handing out freebie magic items and allowing temporary rebuilds is pushing the limits of GM fiat and setting an unnecessary precedent. It also over-complicates the issue. If you want your PCs to be able to roll a Knowlefge check, let them roll. No one Is going to arrest you.
|
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your "creative solutions", David, are WAY beyond what is allowable for GMs to do in PFS. If you're running it in a homebrew game, fine, but its not ok in PFS.
So they don't know some things about a couple of creatures, so what? They'll figure things out by trail and error just like we used to before having Knowledge checks. I just played in 6-01 and none of us even had K:Engineering, so we had to do it the old fashioned way anyway. Smart PCs/players will figure things out even without the free pass that they get had they had the knowledge for it.