Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Saint Caleth,
That implies that everyone is supposed to get the 2nd prestige point.
It has been stated that PCs are only expected to earn ~3/4 of second prestige points. Given the number of 2ndPP that are all but automatic, it is not unreasonable to have the occasional 2ndPP all but unachievable.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, what?
It just says "treat it as if it was untrained", not "you lose your ranks in that knowledge skill." It clarifies afterwards that it means that you can't make certain checks because they're untrained, not that your bonus goes down.
To me, treat it as untrained might mean that you lose your ranks in it, as it is treated as untrained, which is 0 skill ranks....
The language can be interpreted in two ways, apparently...
Exactly.
Even if we ignore the silliness that a bard who gets his information hanging out in bars knows more than the far more intelligent engineer we have the major problem that the interaction of these is quite undefined.
I've always treated the bardic ability as them treating the skill as if it were trained. Ie, they could exceed a DC 10.
RAW it applies to only untrained skills. If it is trained it doesn't apply.
Personally, I think that the lack of technologist feat SHOULD trump bardic knowledge. The whole purpose is to make tech mysterious. People who hang out in bars shouldn't automatically know stuff.
RAW I think the situation very unclear and good arguments could be made either way. Although I suspect my belief above may be influencing that :-(
|
|
Saint Caleth,
That implies that everyone is supposed to get the 2nd prestige point.
It has been stated that PCs are only expected to earn ~3/4 of second prestige points. Given the number of 2ndPP that are all but automatic, it is not unreasonable to have the occasional 2ndPP all but unachievable.
I think that the 3/4 prestige success fact is used far to glibly around here. The point of secondary success conditions I think is to get characters to act more like pathfinders are supposed to in-world; not hyper-specializing and not wantonly murder-hoboing, rather than to be some kind of precisely calibrated expectation of failure.
That has no bearing on the fact that gating vital plot information/cool lore/the best bits of content behind skill checks that the vast majority of characters would be expected to fail is pretty much universally recognized as bad adventure writing.
Again the Technologist feat is a pretty cool idea for a long-term campaign with a persistent story, but in an organized play environment it does not really work out, especially when the rule in question is buried in a splatbook.
So for PFS purposes either the "technology obfuscation" rule should be rethought, or at the very least put the benefits of the Technologist feat on the Chronicle for each scenario containing Numerian tech to simulate the character encountering then learning about the tech the best that can be done in the non-persistent context of PFS play.
|
To me, treat it as untrained might mean that you lose your ranks in it, as it is treated as untrained, which is 0 skill ranks....
The language can be interpreted in two ways, apparently...
Exactly.
Even if we ignore the silliness that a bard who gets his information hanging out in bars knows more than the far more intelligent engineer we have the major problem that the interaction of these is quite undefined.
I've always treated the bardic ability as them treating the skill as if it were trained. Ie, they could exceed a DC 10.
RAW it applies to only untrained skills. If it is trained it doesn't apply.
Personally, I think that the lack of technologist feat SHOULD trump bardic knowledge. The whole purpose is to make tech mysterious. People who hang out in bars shouldn't automatically know stuff.
RAW I think the situation very unclear and good arguments could be made either way. Although I suspect my belief above may be influencing that :-(
First of all, Technologist certainly doesn't trump Bardic Knowledge. Technologist says to treat the check as untrained and Bardic Knowledge says that the bard doesn't care, he can still make untrained checks. If Bardic Knowledge said that he treated untrained knowledge checks as trained, that would be a different story, but it doesn't.
And besides, there's at least one Season 6 scenario where hanging out around bars SHOULD give you information about some of the tech.
As to make it untrained = lose your ranks, you're mixing up cause and effect. The untrained condition is caused by not having ranks in a skill, not the other way around. Changing the effect doesn't change the cause.
Or put another way, smashing a lightbulb to make a light go off doesn't make the lightswitch turn off too.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know this may sound like a big ask, but is it possible for the season 6 Guide to Organized Play to be revised to include language explaining the Technologist feat and its role in some scenarios? I played 6-01 with a GM who was unaware of the feat, as was I at the time. The PFS guide currently only includes glitches and timeworn items as "essential rules" from the Tech Guide, but it sounds like this feat and the associated rules implications are essential for players GMs to understand.
Failing that, is there an expected timeframe for sanctioning the Iron Gods player's guide? While having Tech Guide information available on the PRD is definitely going to be useful for GMs, players will still need to own and be able to provide the source material for the feat. The full text of Technologist appears there, which would provide a valid source for those otherwise uninterested in purchasing the Tech Guide.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
As to make it untrained = lose your ranks, you're mixing up cause and effect. The untrained condition is caused by not having ranks in a skill, not the other way around. Changing the effect doesn't change the cause.
Unfortunately the CRB explicitly lists the check for an Untrained skill as not using the ranks in the skill in the calculation.
While it is reasonable to suggest that this was just a simplification (because the contribution from zero ranks in a skill would be zero), that's not what RAW says. At best, expect table variation.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
For what it's worth, this isn't the first, last, or only time an auxiliary book has changed the rules on a character who is built to be Core-only. Animal Archive changed the way animal companions work. The Advanced Race Guide changed whether you could drink a potion underwater. Ultimate Equipment changed how masterwork tools work. (And in all cases, the Core-only PC has suffered.)
Ideal? Of course not. But you can't say "Obviously, the campaign would never intend for a rule in a new book to change the way older characters work," because that has precedent.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chris, I think (as one who doesn't particularly mind the feat) the problem here is that this particular rule change has a serious impact on at least one season 6 scenario (Trial by Machine, the only one I can speak to with any certainty), and almost certainly will in others, yet it isn't really communicated to PFS GMs and players anywhere aside from the Tech Guide and this thread on the forums. It sounds like 6-01 doesn't mention it the scenario text itself, and the Guide to Organized Play didn't include it in the season 6 special rules specifically called out as "essential".
I don't think a GM unfamiliar with the underwater potions rules would have quite the same impact as being unfamiliar with Technologist and all its implications. Of the 40-50 scenarios I'm familiar with, the only time I'd imagine it coming up would be a season 0, in any case.
|
|
ok... do I meta-game and assign this feat to my PC, realizing that I am doing it because I am going to be playing in Season 6 scenarios soon, or do I NOT take the feat (which would be meta-gameing to prevent the meta-gameing of taking the feat - oh, my head hurts....)
If I didn't realize that this feat changed the rules about how trained only skill checks work, and a PC has to have it to use Tech stuff, would I take it just for "Character Background"? or am I just fooling myself into thinking that?
|
|
ok... do I meta-game and assign this feat to my PC, realizing that I am doing it because I am going to be playing in Season 6 scenarios soon, or do I NOT take the feat (which would be meta-gameing to prevent the meta-gameing of taking the feat - oh, my head hurts....)
If I didn't realize that this feat changed the rules about how trained only skill checks work, and a PC has to have it to use Tech stuff, would I take it just for "Character Background"? or am I just fooling myself into thinking that?
wow, I am hearing this exact same thing from other players... I just got this from a friend in an email
" ... i'm reading some stuff about that technologist feat and I'm wondering if I should burn a feat and take it for my new character i plan on running through season 6. the feat is a little lackluster outside of robots and stuff..."
and
"i'm just not sure if it's worth it, the write up completely screws you if you you're playing with "that" judge or at a table with "that" player. 'uhn un you can't make that check unless you have the technologist feat. I just happen to have that feat so I'll make that roll'"
I'm wondering if this is going to be like Haunts back in Seasons 3-4, where a party needed to have someone to handle the haunt,....
some judges really like them, and "when run well they can be lots of fun" but when run by many judges they were just a real pain, often detracting greatly from the scenario they appeared in...
|
|
Chris, I think (as one who doesn't particularly mind the feat) the problem here is that this particular rule change has a serious impact on at least one season 6 scenario (Trial by Machine, the only one I can speak to with any certainty), and almost certainly will in others, yet it isn't really communicated to PFS GMs and players anywhere aside from the Tech Guide and this thread on the forums. It sounds like 6-01 doesn't mention it the scenario text itself, and the Guide to Organized Play didn't include it in the season 6 special rules specifically called out as "essential".
That's really my problem with all this. There are new rules added and nobody at Paizo thought to tell us about them.
I'd be willing to bet that at GenCon, where there were probably more than 500 tables playing the new season 6 scenarios with Numerican technology, there were probably no more than 5-10 tables where anyone had ever even heard of these rules. They're not mentioned in the Guide to Organized Play (despite having a section for "essential" new season 6 technology rules) and they're not mentioned in the scenarios themselves. That's a LOT of tables where nobody used these rules because they simply didn't know about them.
When it comes to identifying robots and knowing how to beat them, not having that information isn't too terrible. Groups can throw everything at them to see what works, or just do enough damage the old fashioned way (power attack, sneak attack) that some of it still gets past hardness. Not having the information from a knowledge check is mildly annoying, but not a show stopper.
My bigger issue is in 6-02 The Silver Mount Collection, where it's not clarified how PCs are supposed to know how to get their second prestige point. How to do it is stated in the scenario for the GM to see, but what skills the PCs can use to find that information isn't mentioned at all. I've played it, and skimmed the scenario since buying it (haven't had time to fully read and prep it yet), and there is no mention of how PCs are supposed to find out at least one key piece of information. If it wasn't for John Compton's post in this thread, I wouldn't know which skill would apply even with the Technologist feat, because the answer's apparently not at all what I thought it might be.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be willing to bet that at GenCon, where there were probably more than 500 tables playing the new season 6 scenarios with Numerican technology, there were probably no more than 5-10 tables where anyone had ever even heard of these rules.
I'll take that bet. I ran 7 and played 2, so that's 9 tables where someone was aware of these rules. Now we just need to find 2 more tables...
|
|
I'd be willing to bet that at GenCon, where there were probably more than 500 tables playing the new season 6 scenarios with Numerican technology, there were probably no more than 5-10 tables where anyone had ever even heard of these rules.I'll take that bet. I ran 7 and played 2, so that's 9 tables where someone was aware of these rules. Now we just need to find 2 more tables...
You should have tendered a preposition for the bet first Mr. Baird.
|
|
And once again, the big picture gets lost in a hypothetical example. Ok, so maybe I underestimated how many times one guy who knows the rules showed up to GM tables of those specific adventures.
It doesn't invalidate my point that changes were rolled out without Paizo actually telling us. You can't expect every single player and GM to read every single splat book that comes out. Most people will only read the ones that they know directly affect their PC or the scenario they're prepping to GM.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And once again, the big picture gets lost in a hypothetical example. Ok, so maybe I underestimated how many times one guy who knows the rules showed up to GM tables of those specific adventures.
It doesn't invalidate my point that changes were rolled out without Paizo actually telling us. You can't expect every single player and GM to read every single splat book that comes out. Most people will only read the ones that they know directly affect their PC or the scenario they're prepping to GM.
I agree compeletly with your point I was just trying to have a little fun.
There will be PFS pockets that have no idea this is a rule unless it is printed in the scenarios.
|
I'd be willing to bet that at GenCon, where there were probably more than 500 tables playing the new season 6 scenarios with Numerican technology, there were probably no more than 5-10 tables where anyone had ever even heard of these rules.I'll take that bet. I ran 7 and played 2, so that's 9 tables where someone was aware of these rules. Now we just need to find 2 more tables...
And at the same time, I ran the scenario you wrote and had no idea the feat existed. It's not very integral in 6-03, at least the way the two tables I ran progressed; the statement still stands.
That said, next time, I'll run it with knowledge of the feat, and things will go closer to intended.
If 6-01 or 6-02 are significantly more tech-centric than 6-03 I could see this being an issue. But, at the same time, it wouldn't be the first time anyone fought a monster they couldn't identify. And, seeing how that is the goal, I say it is done well.
|
|
I still don't understand why they don't just reproduce Season 6's special rules directly in the guide to organized play (I humbly suggest the section entitled "Season 6 special rules").
That would instantly and completely address the issue in a way that should be acceptable to everyone. Then we can go back to arguing about whether the rogue is under powered. :P
|
|
I still don't understand why they don't just reproduce Season 6's special rules directly in the guide to organized play (I humbly suggest the section entitled "Season 6 special rules").
That would instantly and completely address the issue in a way that should be acceptable to everyone. Then we can go back to arguing about whether the rogue is under powered. :P
Absolutely. That's what the already existing special rules section of the Guide should have been. Unfortunately, they seem to have dropped the ball on this one.
Hopefully, there will be an updated Guide with this info within the next few weeks, even if they weren't already planning to do a new version so soon.
The one problem I see is that these scenarios will continue to be played in the future, so they won't be able to get rid of the season 6 special rules when season 7 rolls around. People will still be playing these scenarios in 2-3 years (hopefully).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can foresee the use of "Tech" traps in the future - in NON tech related scenarios. This is after all an "undetectable" trap that can't be disabled by most rogues.
Locks that can't be picked... wow...
Maybe I shouldn't have pointed this out where scenario writers will read it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, my alchemist just leveled to 7th. I guess I could take Technologist for my playthrough of Silver Mount Collection and then retrain...I'm betting there is going to be a lot of that going around....
Well, you also have to buy the book. Given my nearly total disinterest in the subject matter that is, to me, a far greater obstacle than retraining a feat.
|
|
I ran 6-01 tonight. I had posted the new rules to the group before the game and they seemed to take it in stride. They had a bard that could use bardic knowledge to get around the lack of technologist feat. I am still confused if they need to subtract out their skill ranks in knowledge(engineering) when making the identification check though.
The game ran very fast (2.5 hours) due to the presence of a crypt breaker alchemist who just ate up the constructs (1d8s bombs against constructs).
They were able to complete 6 of the secondary objective criteria (3 of which were needed). I was actually quite impressed. Too bad there were no Silver Crusade characters at the table.
|
|
Without the technologist feat, you can't make trained knowledge checks for robots and other technology.
Normally, untrained knowledge checks are capped at scoring a 10 on the skill check.
The class ability Bardic Knowledge allows for untrained knowledge checks, thus allowing for higher than 10 on your skill check, even without the technologist feat.
However, the rules for using skills show how untrained checks are done. You don't just get your full check, you make an untrained check, as shown in table 4.2.
Untrained 1d20 + ability modifier + racial modifier
So, there is no provision for skill ranks and class bonus on an untrained knowledge check. Bardic Knowledge just lets you make a bare-bones check.
Edit: Looks like the post I am replying to got deleted. Sorry about that, but I still think it is clearly laying out the rule, so I'll leave it in.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I think it is very unfortunate, that the list about researching technology follows the skills with with special uses when it comes to tech. This is a far as I could tell identical to the players guide for the current adventure path. And personally, I think that gating knowledge skills behind the feat would be unreasonable (I could live with a +5 to the relevant DC)
Skills
No new skills are introduced to the Pathfinder RPG to model how characters interact with technology—rather, existing skills are expanded to allow for such interaction. Additional rules for how skills interact with technology are listed below. Without the Technologist feat, a character is treated as untrained in the skill in question when using it on technology.
Craft (Int)
Those who wish to construct or repair technological items use the Craft (mechanical) skill in conjunction with the technological item crafting feats. Without the Technologist feat, Craft (mechanical) can still be used to craft less advanced forms of technology such as gears, hinges, and pulleys. Note that in the campaign setting, NPCs with the means of crafting technological items are extremely rare, and it is not assumed that PCs have access to such resources. GMs are encouraged to discuss such considerations with their players before allowing technological crafting into the game.
Disable Device (Dex; AC Penalty; Trained Only)
With the Technologist feat, you can use Disable Device to interact safely with explosive devices and disable technological devices and traps.
Arm Explosive: If you possess a detonator, you can arm an explosive weapon as a trap. Connecting a detonator to an explosive requires a successful DC 10 Disable Device check. Failure means that the attempt fails, but you can attempt to arm the explosive again. Failure by 5 or more means the explosive is triggered as the detonator is installed. You can attempt to make an explosive difficult to disarm. To do so, choose a target disarm DC of 15 or higher, with a DC increment of 5. This becomes your target DC to set the explosive as well as the DC to disarm the explosive.
Disable Electronic Device: Disabling an electronically controlled trap or unlocking an electronically locked door is easier if you use an e-pick. Without an e-pick, you take a -5 penalty on any attempt to use Disable Device on an electronic device.
Disarm Explosive: Disarming an explosive requires the character to succeed at a Disable Device check as if disarming a trap. The DC is usually 10, unless the person who set the explosive successfully did so with a higher disarm DC. A failure to disarm an explosive by 5 or more immediately triggers the explosive.
Special: A character can take 10 when using Disable Device to arm or disarm explosives, but cannot take 20.
Time: Arming an explosive device takes 1 minute or more, depending on the scope of the job. Disarming an explosive is treated as if the explosive were a complex trap, and takes 2d4 rounds to attempt.
Linguistics (Int; Trained Only)
A character with the Technologist feat can attempt a Linguistics check to decipher certain complex messages that appear in ruins. Note that many of these messages are written in Androffan. This language is spoken outside only rarely, and even within its borders, some have tried (quite unsuccessfully) to keep it a secret language.
Androffan: Some robots may also know it (either in addition to Common and Hallit or replacing these languages), depending on the robots' nature. Androffan cannot be chosen as a bonus language for high Intelligence without GM permission.
Researching Technology
A character can use the following skills to research technological subjects. Other skills may have research applications as well, subject to GM approval.
Heal: Used to identify and understand pharmaceuticals.
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. An object with a Craft DC of 15 or less can be automatically identified and understood by someone trained in Knowledge (engineering) who also has the Technologist feat.
Knowledge (geography): Used for astronomy.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
The class ability Bardic Knowledge allows for untrained knowledge checks, thus allowing for higher than 10 on your skill check . . .
I don't believe this is correct.
Bardic Knowledge allows all knowledge checks to be made untrained (thus overcoming the "Trained Only" requirement normally associated with Knowledge skill checks), but it does not override the limitation explicit in the rules
Untrained: You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10.
You can overcome the limitation if you have access to a library, and spend 1d4 hours doing research. That's not going to be a lot of use in combat ...
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Bardic Knowledge allows all knowledge checks to be made untrained (thus overcoming the "Trained Only" requirement normally associated with Knowledge skill checks), but it does not override the limitation explicit in the rules
Untrained: You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're saying that the Bardic Knowledge ability to make a Knowledge check untrained literally does nothing.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I'm saying that the way it's written apparently says you can't succeed at anything with a DC greater than 10. While that, technically, isn't quite doing nothing, I have to admit it's pretty darn close to it for all practical purposes.
I'd hoped there was a FAQ entry, forum post, or something that, that expands on this, but I didn't find anything other than a couple of people asserting, with no supporting evidence, that Bardic Knowledge removes this DC 10 limitation.
Normally you can't even make a Knowledge check untrained - it's a "Trained Only" check. So why is there a section under the knowledge skill talking about using the skill untrained? The only reason I can see is to allow for things (like Bardic Knowledge) that allow you to make the check untrained.
But it's that very section - discussing making untrained knowledge checks - that calls out the limitation to DC 10 or lower.
So a Bard with Bardic Knowledge is allowed to know about things he hasn't studied, but he isn't allowed to know very much about them :-(
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Or maybe you've misinterpreted the relationship between the "Trained Only" heading at the top of the skill and the "Untrained" entry in the skill description.
Untrained: This entry indicates what a character without at least 1 rank in the skill can do with it. If this entry doesn't appear, it means that the skill functions normally for untrained characters (if it can be used untrained) or that an untrained character can't attempt checks with this skill (for skills that are designated “Trained Only”).
As you can see, a skill being designated "Trained Only" does NOT completely prohibit its untrained use unless it ALSO lacks an "Untrained" entry in its description. If such an entry IS present, then said entry defines what exactly "Trained Only" means for that particular skill.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I really don't see what there is to misunderstand.What is the "Untrained" section talking about, if it isn't referring to situations where you are allowed to make the knowledge check untrained?
It defines what "Trained Only" means, rather than being an additional limitation on top of "Trained Only".
As per the rule I quoted, the only time a skill can't be attempted at all untrained is if it's listed as "Trained Only" and does NOT have an "Untrained" listing. Knowledge skills do not match these criteria, and are therefore able to be made untrained by ANY character as long as the specifications listed in the "Untrained" entry are met.
Bardic Knowledge, then, must be allowing something beyond that.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Why is there a "no" under the skill table for untrained knowledge skills, then?
Because the table only has room for a quick snapshot rather than the full rules? That's why we have both: you can skim the table to get a quick idea of which skills are worth paying attention to without ranks and which ones aren't, and then you can look at the actual rules text to learn more fully how things actually work.
Check out the Handle Animal skill for another example.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Ah. I think I follow the logic (thanks for the reference that you added - that was the step I was missing). Following arguments through the twisted path of the CRB seems to have a pretty high DC, even with training!
So, because this "Untrained" section appears, it modifies "Trained Only" to mean that only characters with training get the full benefits of the skill, but anybody can attempt the check untrained subject to any further limitation in the section (in this case, the cap at DC10).
That's certainly a more reasonable (and useful) interpretation.
So Bardic Knowledge removes the limitation to DC10.