Robot Knowledge Check DC


GM Discussion

51 to 100 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5

One of the new spells from the Technology Guide is "Technomancy", basically detect technology. It allows the caster to make a Know:Engineering roll on Robots without having to have the Technologist Feat. While not much, it is better than nothing.

Nathan Meyers
NYC PFS GM/Player

Dark Archive 4/5 5/5 ****

I cannot speak In much detail, as I ran it cold, but 6-01 did have special rules on dealing with tech. Example, using disable device on high tech targets would take a -5 on their roll, as I recall, unless you had a high tech lock pick.

That's working from fuzzy memory, though, I don't have the PDF of the scenario, so cannot confirm.

Silver Crusade 4/5

Natertot wrote:

One of the new spells from the Technology Guide is "Technomancy", basically detect technology. It allows the caster to make a Know:Engineering roll on Robots without having to have the Technologist Feat. While not much, it is better than nothing.

A scroll of that (with detailed explanation in the scenario) would be useful in some of these scenarios.

As I said earlier, I haven't read 6-02 Silver Mount Collection yet, but from my experience playing it, I honestly don't know how players are supposed to find out how to succeed in the final encounter. In the earlier parts of the adventure (especially the first fight), trial and error is fine if the players don't have the proper knowledges. But not in that final encounter. There's very specific information for how to win, and I'm not sure what checks are necessary to find it out. My group got in on GM fiat when she took pity on us and let us use what was obviously an improper roll to find out key information.

3/5

Fromper wrote:
Natertot wrote:

One of the new spells from the Technology Guide is "Technomancy", basically detect technology. It allows the caster to make a Know:Engineering roll on Robots without having to have the Technologist Feat. While not much, it is better than nothing.

A scroll of that (with detailed explanation in the scenario) would be useful in some of these scenarios.

Oh, that's perfect.

What level is the spell? If it's 1st level, what a handy, 2-prestige wand to have.

Grand Lodge 4/5

David Haller wrote:
Fromper wrote:
Natertot wrote:

One of the new spells from the Technology Guide is "Technomancy", basically detect technology. It allows the caster to make a Know:Engineering roll on Robots without having to have the Technologist Feat. While not much, it is better than nothing.

A scroll of that (with detailed explanation in the scenario) would be useful in some of these scenarios.

Oh, that's perfect.

What level is the spell? If it's 1st level, what a handy, 2-prestige wand to have.

It is a first level wizard/bard spell.

;)


It's here. (You have to scroll down to the Ts, as the new PRD won't link directly to spells.) But by my reading, it's only useful to identify "items in your possession," not things you're fighting.

3/5

Joana wrote:
It's here. (You have to scroll down to the Ts, as the new PRD won't link directly to spells.) But by my reading, it's only useful to identify "items in your possession," not things you're fighting.

Hmmm, indeed.

Still useful, but not in the middle of a fight (unless maybe you can grapple and pin the robot - "it's in my possession!" - and have a liberal GM!)

I still say it's a good time to dig out the old Gamma World 1st Edition "Artifact Use and Operation" charts!

"Oops!" :P

Shadow Lodge 4/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Please don't characterize the Paizo development teams' work as "stupid BS".

Mostly because it's that bad of an idea. It invalidates certain classes/concept like the Inquisitor who get bonuses specifically for identifying creatures and their weaknesses, or the Wizard/Know Cleric that invests a lot into Knowledge skills and get abilities for just that.

It also assumes that things like Golems, DRAGONS, (something that's extremely rare in the setting, and probably more so that the stuff in the Tech Guide), magic, and even unknowable unique monsters are common enough that nearly anyone could know every detail about them, but somehow technology which has existed in the setting from before there was a deity of magic is just beyond even scholars that don't have a specialized Feat that just came out and is not common knowledge.

Sorry if it offends you personally, but I'm sticking to my statement that it's a terrible idea that's been done before and never really been liked, there is a reason 3.0 ditched the exclusive skills idea, as well as other books: Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, Psionics, Eastern Adventures, etc. . .)

It's a feature that actually removes options that had already existed prior to it.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

5 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Please don't characterize the Paizo development teams' work as "stupid BS".
Mostly because it's that bad of an idea.

I actually quite like the idea of there being very rare knowledge's IN A HOME GAME. It adds flavor, it differentiates characters, etc.

But I think it is an awful idea in PFS where I have to make characters that are capable in a huge range of scenarios from all seasons. As stated, it greatly disadvantages some builds. It also makes for a significantly poorer game when lots of information isn't available, when the only sane lockpick is the adamantine weapon, where items on chronicle sheets are all but useless, etc

Grand Lodge 5/5

pauljathome wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Please don't characterize the Paizo development teams' work as "stupid BS".
Mostly because it's that bad of an idea.

I actually quite like the idea of there being very rare knowledge's IN A HOME GAME. It adds flavor, it differentiates characters, etc.

But I think it is an awful idea in PFS where I have to make characters that are capable in a huge range of scenarios from all seasons. As stated, it greatly disadvantages some builds. It also makes for a significantly poorer game when lots of information isn't available, when the only sane lockpick is the adamantine weapon, where items on chronicle sheets are all but useless, etc

I wish I could favorite that post more than once. But alas, I cannot.

3/5

pauljathome wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Please don't characterize the Paizo development teams' work as "stupid BS".
Mostly because it's that bad of an idea.

I actually quite like the idea of there being very rare knowledge's IN A HOME GAME. It adds flavor, it differentiates characters, etc.

But I think it is an awful idea in PFS where I have to make characters that are capable in a huge range of scenarios from all seasons. As stated, it greatly disadvantages some builds. It also makes for a significantly poorer game when lots of information isn't available, when the only sane lockpick is the adamantine weapon, where items on chronicle sheets are all but useless, etc

Kind of in line with my thinking.

Indeed, I'd like to make a character specifically for Season 6, and makes me realize that PFS would be much better if it were simply designed as a seasonal campaign designed for new characters each year (and scenarios ranging from 1-5 at the start to 7-11 at the end), so that a given character (and player) would actually sense a cohesive narrative.

Well, like a more episodic version of an AP.

But, it's not! So if I do roll a technologist, he might be inexplicably sent - on occasion - to such improbable realms as Tien, or the lands of the Mammoth Lords.

Shadow Lodge 3/5

So having prepped and run both 6-01 and 6-02, as well as started a thread on my local forums about all this here is how I'm landing on the whole Technologist feat, and skills debate.

Since it seems to me that the current offered scenarios were being developed at the same time as the Technology guide there was some kind of disconnect that didn't get translated across.

Before Game:
I've been mentioning to my tables the existence of the Technologist feat, and what it does/means to the players prior to running the game, and letting them know that in the future they might need it to identify and perform trained skill checks against Numerian tech.

During Game:
In 6-01 you can essentially find a Numerian lockpick set, and in the description for the item it says that unless you use this item on Numerian tech any roll of Disable Device takes -5 penalty for not being the proper tools. I've been applying that to all the rolls dealing with anything from Numeria. I've also been having all my monsters (especially since we are still only in the first batch of scenarios) be Unique monsters (15+CR). Although I don't change the Perception check to notice traps, since seeing something weird is usually pretty easy to do.

What Does This Do?
It lets me inform the players of this feat and where they can get it, if it comes down that it is needed. It bumps up the checks needed for all Numerian tech to let the players get a sense of how alien this stuff really is to them. So for now all my Numerian monsters are 20+CR to identify, my Numerian tech is Craft DC + 5, and to disable any Numerian traps the check DC is at a +5.

As an example:
With Disable Device I tell the player that they will take penalties because as they go to disarm the trap they realize that where there should be rope and wire, there are circuits and cables (although I try to explain it to them using words their character would understand). So it's obvious their tools won't work as well as they should. But being trained in Disable Device they have seen all kinds of traps and have some base understanding of mechanics, even if they don't KNOW mechanics, and they can kind of logic out something, hence the -5.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shouldnt that apply to every sort of trap they have never specifically encountered before?

Shadow Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

More and more I begin to think I do not want to deal with tech scenarios.

Shadow Lodge 3/5

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Shouldnt that apply to every sort of trap they have never specifically encountered before?

Not really. Let's look at mathematics:

If you know how addition works and you are presented with 3 + 5, you know that equals 8 (and yes, we are using a base 10 counting system).

Therefore if you are then presented with 4 + 4 and as we have previously established you already have a base understanding of addition it's not like it's a brand new concept to you. You might have some trouble arriving at the solution but you already have some similar knowledge on the subject.

Now apply that to traps, assuming that as soon as you put a rank into the skill that means you have some actual training in disabling mechanical traps. Either you were instructed by a member of the Society, or someone you knew from a previous profession from the Thieves's Guild vanity taught you, it doesn't matter. You have spent time studying, and understanding how traps work. Your instructor probably gave you some example traps to try on, and gradually increased their difficulty, complexity, and lethality until they felt you were skilled enough to go out on your own.

Also if we were to take your approach we could expand that to everything in the game. Should a two martial weapons require unique checks to use them since a trident and a warhammer are used entirely different even if they are in the same weapon category.

tl;dr:
No matter how you look at anything you can just pick it apart until the game isn't fun. What I suggested in my previous post is a way to explain both in-game and through game mechanics that Numerian tech is like nothing they have seen before and I treat it as such. It lets the game continue, and puts everyone (GM and players) on the same page for how it will be treated.

Edit: Removed extra snide remarks that were unwarranted

4/5

Hmmm, I was stoked about Numeira. I may be joining the not going to play season 6 crowd now though!

1/5 **

Couldn't this problem be solved by including the relevant rules in the guide to organized play? People who want to take the feat would still need to buy the book, but everyone would be fully informed.

As it stands, people who don't own the tech guide and don't see threads like this one have no way of knowing that knowledge skills don't work normally against tech items. This is a recipe for table variation.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just a question to the GMs who do not require PCs at the table to have the Technologist feat to use their skills with super-science technology: if a PC with the skill hits your table, do you let him immediately retrain that feat into something useful?

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

Chris Mortika wrote:
Just a question to the GMs who do not require PCs at the table to have the Technologist feat to use their skills with super-science technology: if a PC with the skill hits your table, do you let him immediately retrain that feat into something useful?

My answer, until the situation gets clarified, is that I'm going to enforce the technology rules if and only if a character has the Technologist feat.

So at least the character gets to shine sometimes.

Note : I will do this only because I have no idea whether or not we are supposed to follow the Technology rules or not. So I can NOT follow RAW since I just don't know what they are. Once RAW becomes clear I will definitely follow them.

4/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some people feel they should be pre-prepared for every situation they can face as a Pathfinder, but frankly that is not what the PFS campaign is about. "Explore" is the prime directive of the Society, (along with "report, cooperate"). If you only go places where you already know everything about what you will face, you are not exploring. IMO PFS doesn't do enough of this, with its tiered scenarios which are designed for players to win.

In-game, think about it: how would you know anything about robots without having gone to Numeria and studied them (as represented by investment in a feat)? The only keepers of this knowledge keep it secret. It sounds a bit like player entitlement to expect a free pass into such knowledge that literally anyone can get with a single skill point.

For the players who have fun playing the game with some mystey, and are fine with not autosucceeding, this is a GREAT way to deal with this topic. Even moreso for players who weren't into the topic in the first place.

Clarification is obviously needed, since people seem willing to ignore rules or give people free stuff (which is illegal) rather than face the unknown. I fervently hope the clarification doesn't change the published rule, though.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

So, pauljathome, just checking: my ninja can use Disable Device on a robot, without the Technologist feat, at your table, but only if nobody else in the party has that feat? Why would I ever encourage another player to sit at the table with such a character? It would cripple my ninja!!

Feats usually make a PC better. In this case, it makes everybody else at the table worse!

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

Chris Mortika wrote:

So, pauljathome, just checking: my ninja can use Disable Device on a robot, without the Technologist feat, at your table, but only if nobody else in the party has that feat? Why would I ever encourage another player to sit at the table with such a character? It would cripple my ninja!!

Feats usually make a PC better. In this case, it makes everybody else at the table worse!

I am definitely making the assumption that the Technologist Feat is quite rare, that very few people have taken it. If it turns out that many local people have taken the feat then I'll definitely change to enforcing the Technology Rules at all tables.

With that caveat, I admit to quite disliking my solution too. But I dislike the alternatives that I see even more.

If I enforce the technologist rules, then the probability is very high that nobody in the group will have the feat. I shut down most (or all) skill monkeys. I make the scenario at least somewhat harder. I lose any chance for the players to get the often interesting background information.

If I fail to enforce the technologist rules then I have made that feat and book purchased by the one player essentially absolutely useless.

At least with my solution the person who has the Feat gets SOME benefit and the lack of an obscure feat in an obscure splat book doesn't significantly change scenarios for the worse.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Some people feel they should be pre-prepared for every situation they can face as a Pathfinder, but frankly that is not what the PFS campaign is about. "Explore" is the prime directive of the Society, (along with "report, cooperate"). If you only go places where you already know everything about what you will face, you are not exploring. IMO PFS doesn't do enough of this, with its tiered scenarios which are designed for players to win.

In-game, think about it: how would you know anything about robots without having gone to Numeria and studied them (as represented by investment in a feat)? The only keepers of this knowledge keep it secret. It sounds a bit like player entitlement to expect a free pass into such knowledge that literally anyone can get with a single skill point.

For the players who have fun playing the game with some mystey, and are fine with not autosucceeding, this is a GREAT way to deal with this topic. Even moreso for players who weren't into the topic in the first place.

Clarification is obviously needed, since people seem willing to ignore rules or give people free stuff (which is illegal) rather than face the unknown. I fervently hope the clarification doesn't change the published rule, though.

As others have pointed out, my knowledge local checks tell me about the inns in continents I've never visited, my knowledge Arcana checks tell me about monsters that are completely unique, etc.

You're right. PFS doesn't do this. Why should it start now? Why should the introduction of a new book suddenly limit my Knowledge Engineering roll ? Note that technology was present before this book.

And the Technology rules are fairly well hidden in what is (at least currently) a fairly obscure splat book. We can absolutely presume that a very significant portion of the player/GM base won't even know that they exist.

I'm not sure if you are lumping me in with the "ignore rules" statement but, if so, I want to reiterate that at this point I honestly do NOT know what the RAW or RAI are. I honestly do not know if I should enforce or not enforce the Technology rules. And that is after reading John Comptons post.

Given that, I have NO choice but to make my own decision as to what to do.

Clarification is very definitely needed.

Sczarni 2/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mild Spoilers for 6-01 and 6-02:
Each of these scenarios have NPCs who might be of some help in these scenarios. Not a ton, and not enough to tell players everything, but they can be made helpful with relative ease.

While I was running these, the skill monkeys were satisfied with the idea that they couldn't do some things. Yes, I outlined the extreme secret tactics of the Technic League before we started play. Yes, I went over the basic rules in the Technology Guide. But no one jumped up and said it wasn't fair, or that I was destroying their character because there were skill checks they couldn't make.

Bring it up before you start play. Tell them what the expectations for the game are. Make it sound like an interesting variation on regular play. Focus on having fun.

It sounds like people are worried about their players throwing a screaming fit at the table because their medieval level Disable Device won't let them defuse a space bomb. Maybe it's just the crowd I'm used to playing with here, but that seems like the outlier and not the normal player.

I think the mystery adds something to these scenarios, and I would personally be let down if my characters were suddenly masters of technology even though they'd never seen it before.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Shouldnt that apply to every sort of trap they have never specifically encountered before?
Gabriel Smith-Dalrymple wrote:
Not really. Let's look at mathematics:

I think you took my response out of context. The idea presented was that, as a logical explanation for the Feat and Skills change, it makes sense that a character that has never seen a robot or technology should have a penalty to rolls interacting with it. But, by that logic, unless a character has specifically interacted with a given type of trap, dragon, golem, or whatever, shouldn't they then also take that same penalty?

It also falsely assumes that technology and robots and stuff are rare, unique, and unknowable, (but wait what if my character is from Numeria or whatever), but that other things in the setting, lets say Dragons, (which according to the setting are extremely rare), which is covered by the Know Arcana skill, any character with 1 Rank in Know Arcana has a chance to know every fact about a dragon that there is. But it's a robot, something that's probably not as rare as an actual dragon, and for some reason, they can't use their skills, which are intended to be non-specific in application.

But, if that's the logic, then shouldn't a character that wants to use Disable Device on a trap they have never themselves encounter, then take a -5 penalty and not count as having the right tool for the job too? Well, unless they take a Feat that lets them get around that?

Shadow Lodge 4/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Some people feel they should be pre-prepared for every situation they can face as a Pathfinder, but frankly that is not what the PFS campaign is about. "Explore" is the prime directive of the Society, (along with "report, cooperate"). If you only go places where you already know everything about what you will face, you are not exploring. IMO PFS doesn't do enough of this, with its tiered scenarios which are designed for players to win.

In-game, think about it: how would you know anything about robots without having gone to Numeria and studied them (as represented by investment in a feat)? The only keepers of this knowledge keep it secret. It sounds a bit like player entitlement to expect a free pass into such knowledge that literally anyone can get with a single skill point.

For the players who have fun playing the game with some mystey, and are fine with not autosucceeding, this is a GREAT way to deal with this topic. Even moreso for players who weren't into the topic in the first place.

Clarification is obviously needed, since people seem willing to ignore rules or give people free stuff (which is illegal) rather than face the unknown. I fervently hope the clarification doesn't change the published rule, though.

Well, that's the rub, what part of the setting does a given character just know all about and what do they not? Did Tien Xia just spring into existence with Season 3, or was it always there, and didn't require a Feat to know that?

When Lissala showed up, a religion that has been basically extinct and forgotten for well forever, any character with Know Religion could still have a chance to know little bits about their history, faith, etc. . .

When Oracles showed up with the APG, they didn't just spring into existence, they where there the hole time, we just didn't have specific rules for them.

For my part, I can honesty say when I ran Season 6 games, I had no idea about this rule, and now that I do, I'm seriously thinking about knocking another star off my review. Like has been mentioned, the Tech Guide is not part of the Core assumption, and so far there is a lack of clarification on the subject, added with me personally failing to read the product, (ie Plausible Deniability for the win), until I hear for sure otherwise, and the existing Scenarios and Guide are errated/reprinted to include this, I'll keep with the Core Book's rules over the other's.

So, if I even run more Season 6, (not looking like it so far), and someone does have said Feat, they will need to bring a legal copy of the book, and I'll look at it with the Additional Resources. If said Feat is on page 6-7, then I'll try my best as a DM to make sure both they and all the other players get to have fun and get some use from their options, but also explain what a mess this is, both in my opinion and where exactly this al stands in the RAW/RAI/Needs clarification standpoint, and make an on the spot call.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the easiest solution to this would be to remove the Technologist feat from the additional resources document along with removing the rule stating you need said feat to make trained checks.

If PFS wishes to make 'robot checks' difficult, simply impose a -x penalty in the scenario writeups(this way the scenarios have the rules instead of requiring the DM to have the technology guide). As players explore technology laden areas, those chronicle sheets could have a boon that reduces that penalty.

To me, these suggestions seem thematic, have self contained rules, and they don't totally ruin a skill-monkey's day.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Agreed.

4/5 *

PFS doesn't wish to make robot checks more difficult - the designers did that when they made the rules.

There is a difference between knowledge local telling me about continents I have never been to, but lots of other people have and have published that information, versus a completely alien technology which is jealously horded by one group.

Why can't non-druids learn Druidic? Because it's a secret. So is technology.

Paulathome: there is NO doubt as to the RAW, since it is in the technology guide and PRD. All skill checks against technology are made untrained unless you have the technology feat. You can try to find a loophole that says you don't need to use that rule because it got left off a list accidentally, but it sounds more like you don't want players to have a harder time. RAW is clear, and PFS uses run as written.

If John and Mike decide to change the rules, fine. As of now, you need the feat. Do we suddenly stop letting traps trigger if the party doesn't have a rogue? Maybe the monsters don't attack if no one is a tank?

Giving out feats, choosing whether someone's feat is valid or not depending on the other players at the table... That is against the rules. Please don't do those those things.


GM Lamplighter wrote:

Paulathome: there is NO doubt as to the RAW, since it is in the technology guide and PRD. All skill checks

Just to add to the fun, Iron Gods 1: Fires of Creation apparently explicitly allows Disable Device checks to be made against tech at a -5 penalty without the Technologist feat. :)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:

PFS doesn't wish to make robot checks more difficult - the designers did that when they made the rules.

Why can't non-druids learn Druidic? Because it's a secret. So is technology.

There is NO doubt as to the RAW, since it is in the technology guide and PRD.

I agree that RAW is crystal clear. The problem I have is that these rules are not part of the core assumption (like your Druidic example is). So you can't expect GMs to even know that these rules *exist*. This leads to wildly different table variations, which isn't good for anyone. You say it isn't broken so don't fix it, but I'm inclined to disagree.

4/5

Joana wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:

Paulathome: there is NO doubt as to the RAW, since it is in the technology guide and PRD. All skill checks

Just to add to the fun, Iron Gods 1: Fires of Creation apparently explicitly allows Disable Device checks to be made against tech at a -5 penalty without the Technologist feat. :)

I haven't read Iron Gods but it sounds like a possible misinterpretation. Without proper technological tools (namely, an e-pick) a character suffers a -5 penalty on Disable Device checks when attempting the skill on a technological device. You would still need the Technologist feat to even attempt such a check.

Again, I haven't read Iron Gods so apologies if I'm wrong but maybe recheck the rule to see if it specifically allows you to make the check without the Technologist feat.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Paulathome: there is NO doubt as to the RAW, since it is in the technology guide and PRD. All skill checks against technology are made untrained unless you have the technology feat. You can try to find a loophole that says you don't need to use that rule because it got left off a list accidentally, but it sounds more like you don't want players to have a harder time. RAW is clear, and PFS uses run as written.

I do not and will not own that book, and have not read the Feat. I can not therefore verify if it is listed as an approved Feat or not, and as neither the Tech Guide nor the PRD are part of the Core Assumption, and said rules are not in the PFS Guide or the individual Scenarios, I disagree. Until I hear otherwise, nope.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

DM Beckett, how do you adjudicate magus NPCs in scenarios?

The Magus class is in the APG and the PRD, neither of which is part of the Core assumption. Rules for magus characters aren't spelled out in the PFS Guide nor the individual scenarios.

It's certainly within your purview to refuse to run scenarios with magi NPCs. It's also within your purview to refuse to run scenarios with super-science technology. But if you do decide to run such scenarios, please do not make up rules about how either works in Pathfinder Society.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
So, if I even run more Season 6, (not looking like it so far), and someone does have said Feat, they will need to bring a legal copy of the book, and I'll look at it with the Additional Resources.

Absolutely. That's what the campaign requires.

Quote:
If said Feat is on page 6-7, then I'll try my best as a DM to make sure both they and all the other players get to have fun and get some use from their options, but also explain what a mess this is, both in my opinion and where exactly this al stands in the RAW/RAI/Needs clarification standpoint, and make an on the spot call.

Really? I guess that my expectations as a player are different from the people who sit at your table. If I sat down to play, and the GM explained that he thought the rules were a mess, I might very well take him at his word, ask for a zero-XP Chronicle sheet, and find something else to do with my 5 hours.

We are ambassadors for the game. I don't know how I can square that with a GM who holds the game rules up to ridicule.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

I run Magus players all the time? And no, I would disagree it's not within my purview to refuse a class that is perfectly legal to pay.

On the other hand, if one showed up without a way to verify material I was not familiar with, (in theory, as I have most of the books myself), that's a different story.

I disagree that it's even close to clear cut as far as the Tech Guide. As I mentioned above, I ran The Silver Mount Collect with absolutely no idea about any of this. I didn't find out until afterwards. Because I don't have the book, and I have no plans on buying it any time soon, if I can not confirm that said Feat and Skills are actually part of the legal material according to the Addition Resourced, (the PRD does not list what pages said Feats are on, and neither the PRD or the Tech Guide are themselves part of the Core Assumption, that is to say books that everyone is expected to use and know, and not required to have on hand to use material from), it's a very different thing that assuming it's similar to the Magus issue. As there is no clarification in either the PFS Guide or the individual Scenarios about using different skills, not being able to use the correct skills because another book changed them, or requiring a new Feat, it is not at all clear as to what is right, and in PFS we don't just assume that a new book, in this case the Tech Guide, is defaulted to correct/legal.

Chris Mortika wrote:

Really? I guess that my expectations as a player are different from the people who sit at your table. If I sat down to play, and the GM explained that he thought the rules were a mess, I might very well take him at his word, ask for a zero-XP Chronicle sheet, and find something else to do with my 5 hours.

We are ambassadors for the game. I don't know how I can square that with a GM who holds the game rules up to ridicule.

This part I wanted to talk about specifically. You are taking something outside of the context it was written. The hypothetical situation was if a player showed up that had said feat, but not the book or PDF with it in a group that had one or more characters that where knowledge specialists in a game that involved robots and tech. There are two possibilities here, either the new player wasted a Feat or the other players basically get screwed by not having access to the new Feat and rules. The existence of said Feat and the altering of skills basically screws someone over which is going to mess with that or those players fun. It's a mess because there is no clear answer on if it's even legal or not, and again, in the hypothetical situation, no one has the actual book or PDF.

If you sat down at my table and then asked for a zero-xp chronicle, I'd first try to find out why and then work to fix that. If that's not a possibility, then I'd honor your request, (extremely puzzled). I'm not sure if the implication here was you don't want to play in a game whose rules have issues or you don't want to play in a game that doesn't default to your personal interpretation of something?

Most likely, the resolution, the on the spot call I would make, assuming you decided to stay, would be to continue to allow the other player(s) to be able to use their knowledge skills, Inquisitor abilities, Know Domain powers, etc. . . as normal, and also allow your character with the new Feat to get some benefit, like for instance allowing you to trade skills used and get a bonus to the rolls.

1/5

From the Core Assumption section of the Guide

Quote:

Additionally, a GM should have access to all books in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line of hardcover rulebooks, whether a physical or electronic copy. The rules content of these books can be found online for free as part of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document located at paizo.com/prd.

The Technology Guide is Campaign Setting rather than RPG line, which would appear to exclude it from this section, even though it's on the PRD.

However, given that the Technology Guide is on the PRD, it seems reasonable to me that any GM running a scenario that references stuff in it would at least have a read through the whole thing.

1/5 **

Andy Brown wrote:

The Technology Guide is Campaign Setting rather than RPG line, which would appear to exclude it from this section, even though it's on the PRD.

However, given that the Technology Guide is on the PRD, it seems reasonable to me that any GM running a scenario that references stuff in it would at least have a read through the whole thing.

Strongly disagree. It's hard enough to keep up on the hardbacks.

Also, supplements shouldn't impose changes on the way core rules (skills) work.

Silver Crusade 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:

DM Beckett, how do you adjudicate magus NPCs in scenarios?

The Magus class is in the APG and the PRD, neither of which is part of the Core assumption. Rules for magus characters aren't spelled out in the PFS Guide nor the individual scenarios.

The individual scenarios ALWAYS say "See Ultimate Magic" when there's a magus NPC involved. And if there's an oracle NPC, they ALWAYS say "See Advanced Players Guide". There's usually a page number given. Heck, every single monster specifically says which Bestiary to look it up in. That's just the way PFS scenarios are written.

Just this weekend, I've been prepping a scenario to run tomorrow where some of the NPCs have a prestige class from Inner Sea World Guide (Red Mantis Assassin). Not only does the adventure list the page number from ISWG, it also gives the relevant rules in the stat blocks of those NPCs for those GMs who don't own that book.

If there's a scenario that wants the GM to use non-Core assumption rules, the scenario WILL say so. Otherwise, the GM has no reason to know that there's something they should be looking up.

The new Guide to Organized Play gives some basic rules for tech items for season 6. It doesn't talk about the DC of identifying tech items or robots. Thus, if the rules aren't the same as identifying any other construct (knowledge: arcana with a DC of 15 + CR, since they're such rare "creatures"), then the scenario needs to explicitly say so.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

DM Beckett wrote:

I run Magus players all the time? And no, I would disagree it's not within my purview to refuse a class that is perfectly legal to pay.

On the other hand, if one showed up without a way to verify material I was not familiar with, (in theory, as I have most of the books myself), that's a different story.

I disagree that it's even close to clear cut as far as the Tech Guide. As I mentioned above, I ran The Silver Mount Collect with absolutely no idea about any of this. I didn't find out until afterwards. Because I don't have the book, and I have no plans on buying it any time soon, if I can not confirm that said Feat and Skills are actually part of the legal material according to the Addition Resourced, (the PRD does not list what pages said Feats are on, and neither the PRD or the Tech Guide are themselves part of the Core Assumption, that is to say books that everyone is expected to use and know, and not required to have on hand to use material from), it's a very different thing that assuming it's similar to the Magus issue. As there is no clarification in either the PFS Guide or the individual Scenarios about using different skills, not being able to use the correct skills because another book changed them, or requiring a new Feat, it is not at all clear as to what is right, and in PFS we don't just assume that a new book, in this case the Tech Guide, is defaulted to correct/legal.

<EDIT> Could have sworn this just said Magus when I responded, but maybe I missed the NPC portion, not sure. Anyway, it would have changed my response a bit to what Fromper said below, but not much.

Chris Mortika wrote:

Really? I guess that my expectations as a player are different from the people who sit at your table. If I sat down to play, and the GM explained that he thought the rules were a mess, I might very well take him at his word, ask for a zero-XP Chronicle sheet, and find something else to do with my 5 hours.

We are ambassadors for the game. I don't know how I can square that with a GM who holds the game rules up to ridicule.

This part I wanted to talk about specifically. You are taking something outside of the context it was written. The hypothetical situation was if a player showed...

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

Chris Mortika wrote:

DM Beckett, how do you adjudicate magus NPCs in scenarios?

There is a rather huge difference. The player plays a Magus, they bring the book, I look it up.

I run 6.1 without having read this thread. How exactly am I supposed to have a clue that I should disallow Knowledge checks?

There is absolutely no expectation that a GM will have read the Technology Guide.

As to RAW being clear I strongly disagree. There is an obscure rule in an obscure book that is NOT listed in the Scenario as being necessary. How the heck can it be clear that we're supposed to apply that rule? It is crystal clear that most GMs will NOT be applying it since they won't know about it.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

Andy Brown wrote:
it seems reasonable to me that any GM running a scenario that references stuff in it would at least have a read through the whole thing.

The Scenario (6.1) does NOT reference it

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Nor does 6-02 actually.

Spoiler:
The Silver Mount Exhibition takes place in the Blakros
Museum, a landmark of Absalom’s Wise District. The
museum’s interior has been radically altered by shadow
magic, but its history and organization remain unchanged.
At least a passing familiarity with both Numeria (described
in Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Numeria, Land of Fallen
Stars, the Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Inner Sea Gazetteer,
and Pathfinder Campaign Setting: The Inner Sea World
Guide) and the Blakros Museum (described in the Pathfinder
Campaign Setting: Pathfinder Society Field Guide and
previous Pathfinder Society Scenarios Mists of Mwangi,
Voice in the Void, The Penumbral Accords, and Echos of the
Overwatched) will ready GMs for unexpected questions.

Later on we have another small note:

Spoiler:
The Silver Mount Collection uses both robots (a creature
subtype originally detailed in Pathfinder Campaign
Setting: Dungeons of Golarion, but also described in
Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Inner Sea Bestiary and
Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Numeria, Land of Fallen
Stars) and a few technological items described in
Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Technology Guide. While the
necessary text is reproduced here, GMs should familiarize
themselves with the robot subtype and the firearms rules
before game begins.

The only necessary text reproduced is a short guide to Robots, and then the equipment entries for a few things found or encountered in the scenario, a grenade, a laser pistol, etc. . . along with rules for gliches that's also in the PFS Guide 6.0.

1/5

pauljathome wrote:
Andy Brown wrote:
it seems reasonable to me that any GM running a scenario that references stuff in it would at least have a read through the whole thing.
The Scenario (6.1) does NOT reference it

In that case, I don't see any reason the GM would go looking at the PRD except general curiosity

(I've not looked at the scenarios in question because I'm hoping to play them shortly and want to avoid knowing too much)

4/5

This discussion is really good and interesting to follow, but in case it isn't clear yet, the Technology Guide is in the PRD.

I'm not saying this to imply that every GM has to have read it, but rather to cut off at the knees the argument that "I don't own it and I never will, so I have no way of knowing what the feat says!" Please be precise in your arguments around the Technologist feat.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

John has asked that (a) we follow the game rules and impose the penalty as appropriate, but that (b) players can get around this by clever guessing-and-checking.

I'm going to suggest to my brother and sister GMs that we follow both parts of this advice.

Back in the days of 1st and 2nd Edition D&D, players had a lot of fun with this guesswork. You'd put on a ring, or swallow a sip of a potion, and try to figure out what effects it might have on you. You'd try all manner of ways of killing the invulnerable creature before discovering that electric attacks seemed to slow it down. (Robert Plamodon explains his elaborate procedures for opening a chest in his book Through Dungeons Deep. Under no circumstances should you actually lift the lid!)

Since the year 2000, we're used to a game system with skills for all that. There are GMs out there who insist that skill rolls take the place of that fooling around. No matter how elaborate your explanation, unless your character has Disable Device, you will indeed set off the trap. Unless you have ranks in Knowledge (whatsit) your attempts to find an attack form that might injure the monster will be seen as "meta-gaming". No amount of experimentation will reveal what the magic ring does unless you have detect magic and ranks in Spellcraft.

That kind of reliance on the game system, to trump in-play inventiveness, won't work under this circumstance. If you as a GM rely on PCs making those skill checks as the only ay to circumvent problems or figure things out, then the rules for skills versus technology will stymie the party. If you let players experiment with the goodies and make good guesses about the baddies, this can be a lot of fun.

3/5

I dislike the feat because if I want top particpate ina good chunk of the skills for season 6 I have to buy that book. That seems a bit forced to me.

You should reward people with new content, not punish other people.

The Exchange 5/5

Please excuse me, as I have really only skimmed the posts before this - I haven't played any season 6 games yet and am trying to NOT spoil stuff for myself... so if I come off as not very knowledgable on this thread, I'm sorry.

But, if I am understanding this correctly, our PCs will need a new feat to make skill rolls when dealing with Tech? Is that correct?

I've been playing long enough to realize that at times in a long running campaign, rules change. PFS is actually very good about handling this, being for the most part stable, with "new stuff" not being greatly overpowered (for the most part), and not really changing the core of the game much. When they change something, you normally get to "fix" it...

So, (if I understand the jist of this thread) even though I have created a PC for playing in/around Numeria - one that concentrated on Technology skills - he will be no more (perhaps less) able to understand the items or overcome the challanges in season 6 scenarios than the guy who dumped all his mental stats and just uses a big sword?

I created my PC modeled loosely on the Alchemist in the PF Tales novel City of the Fallen Sky, giving him the two boons:

Fugitive from Numeria: You spent time studying the secrets of the Silver Mount and have acquired both a rudimentary understanding of its cosmic technology and the enmity of a dangerous organization. When you would be targeted or affected by an activated magical item, as a free action you gain a +2 bonus to AC and on saving throws against that item’s effects for 1d4 rounds. When this boon is used, cross it off your Chronicle sheet.

and

Practiced Artificer: Your tinkering with long-forgotten artifacts has granted you considerable insight into how other mysterious devices might work. You gain a +1 insight bonus on Use Magic Device checks—increasing to a +4 bonus when activating an item blindly—lasting until the end of the scenario in which the boon is used. When this boon is used, cross it off your Chronicle sheet.

At 5th level he has a +16 (or highter) in knowledge engineering (in fact, in all Knowledge skills). He has Disable Device - but not Trapfinding - so that while he can deal with mechanical items (and traps) he is unable to deal with even the simplist MAGICAL ones.

It is somewhat disappointing to learn that my "Fugitive from Numeria" has to pick up a feat that did not exist until now, in order to be familiar with things he knew about last month. And that to do it he will need to adventure thru most of the scenarios that I had hoped he would be able to use the skills in... Maybe I can just run a few older scenarios to give him enough credit to re-train a feat - so he can go back to being the expert in cosmic technology that he was before...

5/5

Finlanderboy wrote:
I dislike the feat because if I want top particpate ina good chunk of the skills for season 6 I have to buy that book.

I suppose it's a good thing, then, that the majority of Season Six scenarios won't involve technology heavily or at all and you won't need to worry about it.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Matthew Starch wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
I dislike the feat because if I want top particpate ina good chunk of the skills for season 6 I have to buy that book.
I suppose it's a good thing, then, that the majority of Season Six scenarios won't involve technology heavily or at all and you won't need to worry about it.

Indeed, only the first six or so. So for the first couple months his statement is true.

51 to 100 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / Robot Knowledge Check DC All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.