|
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many of the feats in ultimate intrigue (I've counted at least 4 so far)
are like the infamous Rumor monger feat: They don't expand the use of skills bur rather by their existence constrain the use of skills only to people with a feat or special ability- feats skill focused characters don't have to spare.
Determining that two people have a relationship is just a sense motive check, not sense motive and 2 feats. Knowing whether a fib is going to be outrageous or easy is something the player/character should have some idea of before they start spinning their yarn. Aiding someone's disguise with a bluff is just a creative aid another, not a feat. Telling if someone knows how to use that sword at their hip is something fighting types know. Getting your opponents to surrender in combat is an ad hoc diplomacy check at the DMs judgement...not 2 feats a high ability score and the DM's ad hoc judgement.
One of the reasons people complain about caster/skill disparity is that the expanding system has expanded the capabilities of magic. "Abilities" that already do what the skill does constrains skills, contracts skills and makes just getting a spell to do it an even better option.
This is effectively adding a HEFTY feat tax to get skills back to what they were doing before, rendering skills pointless, which was the exact opposite of the intent of this book.
When the flank trick was introduced it was no big deal, people just took the flank trick and kept doing what they were doing before. These feats bring up the same problem, but they aren't 1/7th of a capability of one of your class features, these things are taking up a quarter of your feats assuming you even make it to level 11. Now when players try to make basic use of their skills they're going to be hit with "nope can't do that you don't have the feat"
|
Designer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well honestly depends on how you read some of them. After all even without two weapon fighting you can two weapon fight and take the penalties. Most of these seem either feats specific to verbal dueling, much like the gladiatorial feats, or allow you to be better at something that you would out of the box.
This is a good insight. For example, normally you would need to beat a creature's Bluff score if it's trying to hide it's relationship from you via Bluff, but Sense Relationship makes it a static (and pretty easy) DC. Knowing whether a fib is going to be outrageous to someone because of something obviously out of place or incorrect is one thing (like you'd know before you tried that if you said "I'm Aroden reborn, thus I'm the rightful king of Cheliax" that it's going to be a hard sell to those Dottari), but if it's based on information you don't have (like you say the commander sent you and you don't know that the guard unit is a democracy with no commander), you normally would have no way to know that's a bad move until after you say it and get busted. Similarly, the rumormonger rogue talent isn't the only way to spread rumors (heck, Intrigue has several more), but it's sure a powerful and efficient way to do it compared to the normal amount of legwork.
|
|
Well honestly I think it depends on how you read some of them. After all even without two weapon fighting you can two weapon fight and take the penalties. Most of these seem either feats specific to verbal dueling, much like the gladiatorial feats, or allow you to be better at something that you would out of the box.
A number of items were previously undefined and would rationally fall under certain skills, which is pretty maddening. At the same time, there are things that fell under the banner of previously undefined and GM discretion, which meant weird levels of table variation.
I'll be honest, what I'm really looking at out of this book mostly comes out of the spell and equipment chapters.
|
Will this hamper or help social rp for those traditional classes that don't have the 'feat tax' (Bard, Investigator, etc)?
The only skill really effected much is Sense Motive. Even if you ignore Mark Seifter's proviso above (which you shouldn't, since he was involved in writing the book) the only change now is that you can't use Sense Motive to read what kind of Bluff check is most likely to work on someone, and also can't use it to tell what kind of relationship two people have with each other.
Oh, and you can't use Bluff to Aid another on someone else's Disguise Check.
In short, I wouldn't expect it to be the end of the world even if everyone rules the way BigNorseWolf fears.
Or did a whole bunch of classes just get taken out to a back alley and given a working-over?
Nah. They'll be fine. If you feel it necessary, print out Mark's post above. Maybe that'll help.
|
Designer
|
Will this hamper or help social rp for those traditional classes that don't have the 'feat tax' (Bard, Investigator, etc)?
Or did a whole bunch of classes just get taken out to a back alley and given a working-over?
I think it won't affect you at all, especially in PFS (to take one of the feats in the OP as an example, the feat allows your Sense Motive check to, after observing their movements or attacks, reveal the opponent's BAB and some combat feats they know, as well as give you a +1 insight bonus on attack rolls and AC against them; unless that was something you used to do with Sense Motive before this, which honestly seems unlikely to me, you'll be unaffected).
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
, but it's sure a powerful and efficient way to do it compared to the normal amount of legwork.
Thats the problem. Without the fea...(whoops) advanced talent there is no normal. There is no less efficient baseline to compare it to, so how can this statement be true?
Thats the problem with an ability for something that would be a skill check if the ability didn't exist. It sets the baseline. It tells me that either the feat is an old prone shooter option, or that using the skill in the normal way is supposed to be worse.
Say I have two players at the table. Dandy the swashbuckler wants to spread a rumor with bluff. Roger the rogue wants to spread a rumor and has the Rumormonger advanced talent.
Having never seen the talent before, I would just say make the check, play out as much of it as we had time for, and have it done at the speed of plot.
But that would be horribly unfair to Roger. He's invested a tenth level ability into Rumormonger. The existence of that ability rationally implies that that ability is needed in order to accomplish the goal, or at the very least that accomplishing the goal without it is far far worse.
As it stands, I can be horribly unfair to players that select these abilities or I can be horribly unfair to everyone else. That's not a position I like to be in, but I feel I have to go with the former. I can warn the local group that these abilities are pretty worthless because my only other option is to invalidate skills for everyone.
|
Designer
|
Will this hamper or help social rp for those traditional classes that don't have the 'feat tax' (Bard, Investigator, etc)?The only skill really effected much is Sense Motive. Even if you ignore Mark Seifter's proviso above (which you shouldn't, since he was involved in writing the book) the only change now is that you can't use Sense Motive to read what kind of Bluff check is most likely to work on someone, and also can't use it to tell what kind of relationship two people have with each other.
Oh, and you can't use Bluff to Aid another on someone else's Disguise Check.
In short, I wouldn't expect it to be the end of the world even if everyone rules the way BigNorseWolf fears.
Or did a whole bunch of classes just get taken out to a back alley and given a working-over?Nah. They'll be fine. If you feel it necessary, print out Mark's post above. Maybe that'll help.
I don't think you can normally aid another with a different skill than the skill in question in PFS anyway (I've allowed it in home games, but it's not really in the rules, which clearly state "by making the same kind of skill check").
|
Designer
|
, but it's sure a powerful and efficient way to do it compared to the normal amount of legwork.Thats the problem. Without the fea...(whoops) advanced talent there is no normal. There is no less efficient baseline to compare it to, so how can this statement be true?
Thats the problem with an ability for something that would be a skill check if the ability didn't exist. It sets the baseline. It tells me that either the feat is an old prone shooter option, or that using the skill in the normal way is supposed to be worse.
Say I have two players at the table. Dandy the swashbuckler wants to spread a rumor with bluff. Roger the rogue wants to spread a rumor and has the Rumormonger advanced talent.
Having never seen the talent before, I would just say make the check, play out as much of it as we had time for, and have it done at the speed of plot.
But that would be horribly unfair to Roger. He's invested a tenth level ability into Rumormonger. The existence of that ability rationally implies that that ability is needed in order to accomplish the goal, or at the very least that accomplishing the goal without it is far far worse.
As it stands, I can be horribly unfair to players that select these abilities or I can be horribly unfair to everyone else. That's not a position I like to be in, but I feel I have to go with the former. I can warn the local group that these abilities are pretty worthless because my only other option is to invalidate skills for everyone.
That's assuming that the rate and level of acceptance of the rumor specified in rumormonger is the minimum possible bar for spreading rumors (or even a reasonable bar that most GMs would have allowed everybody to do before the advanced talent), which is simply not the case. If anything, rumormonger's ability to say something, then wait a week (possibly 1d4+2 days if you make it by 5), make a skill check that you succeed at because you're a 10th-level rogue, especially if the GM lets you take 10 on it, and then have it "practically accepted as fact within the community" with no limits on whether the rumor has to make sense or be anywhere similar to what they believed before is extremely powerful, assuming you're in a game where you want to spread rumors and care about PR as one of your goals (and you must be, since Roger took rumormonger). Rather than be the minimum bar, rumormonger is something like the maximum bar; the only way it could be any more powerful than it currently is would be if it took even less time to spread the rumor than it currently does, but there's several avenues in which spreading rumors could be less powerful and still very effective (for one thing, if I had a PC in my game spreading propaganda and rumors without rumormonger, I would definitely be instituting a level of acceptance or credibility for the rumor that might grow and shrink based on PR attempts by the PCs and their rivals, whereas rumormonger just springs all the way to being practically accepted as fact). For instance, depending on Will saves, rumormonger is more effective in its rumor-spreading than the 7th level spell pox of rumors, in that the pox of rumors only worsens when the target does something that seems to confirm the rumor, whereas rumormonger is practically accepted as fact without evidence. In any case, rumormonger doesn't seem to be a thing that's PFS specific (if anything, it's much less likely to come up in a PFS scenario, though I can think of a couple), so this thread may want to be General Discussion or potentially Rules.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you can normally aid another with a different skill than the skill in question in PFS anyway (I've allowed it in home games, but it's not really in the rules).
[lawful good]Its not aiding another its a miscellaneous +2 circumstance bonus recommended by page 403 for covering unknown favorable circumstances that just happens to be the same +2 you would get if you were aiding another... [/lawful good]
|
Designer
|
I don't think you can normally aid another with a different skill than the skill in question in PFS anyway (I've allowed it in home games, but it's not really in the rules).[lawful good]Its not aiding another its a miscellaneous +2 circumstance bonus recommended by page 403 for covering unknown favorable circumstances that just happens to be the same +2 you would get if you were aiding another... [/lawful good]
Hehehe, not bad; that's sort of how we explain it in our home games too. In that case, perhaps, it should stack with aiding another if you can do so with an esoteric ability?
|
Designer
|
So my theoretical (and still WIP) Tenth Doctor build will need to have Rumormonger to work well.
Rumormonger would be perfect for that (but remember that's in Ultimate Combat, not Ultimate Intrigue), but there's several other options in Ultimate Intrigue you might consider instead. None of them really give you the powerhouse "practically accepted as fact" of rumormonger, but then again, it's an advanced rogue talent, so it requires level 10 rogue and should be a powerful option for its niche.
|
|
That's assuming that the rate and level of acceptance of the rumor specified in rumormonger is the minimum possible bar for spreading rumors
(or even a reasonable bar that most GMs would have allowed everybody to do before the advanced talent)
I think most would. The bluff check being possible at all would probably be a majority position, which puts it well ahead of rumormonger, which is takes too long to kick in for most campaigns. Doubly so for the g(r)eek drama of PFS.
with no limits on whether the rumor has to make sense or be anywhere similar to what they believed before
Slightly more off topic, Rumormonger not taking the believably of the bluff into account isn't specified in the talent, and -you didn't say no purple dragons- logic is the subject of many an unintended loophole in the rules to start with. Further, its still a bluff check, and thus subject to the belivability guidelines in the skill.
[quote[ Rather than be the minimum bar, rumormonger is something like the maximum bar
Right.
Rumormonger sets the bar.
Rumormonger is... pretty bad.
Doing it without rumor monger should, in all fairness, be X numbers of Thaums worse than rumormonger, where X is = to the number of thaums in an advanced talent, which should be a LOT. The bar for rumormonger is so low that something that much worse should require mining equipment.
(i'm using rumormonger as a stand in here for a lot of the other abilities, because they're new and shouldn't have their full text up)
(if anything, it's much less likely to come up in a PFS scenario, though I can think of a couple), so this thread may want to be General Discussion or potentially Rules.
Rumormonger itself is pretty rare in pfs because 1) its at the tippiing edge of normal play and... I'll just say 10th level rogue and leave it there. But I think I've seen spreading rumors done more often than actual archeology.
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
That's assuming that the rate and level of acceptance of the rumor specified in rumormonger is the minimum possible bar for spreading rumors
(or even a reasonable bar that most GMs would have allowed everybody to do before the advanced talent)I think most would. The bluff check being possible at all would probably be a majority position, which puts it well ahead of rumormonger, which is takes too long to kick in for most campaigns. Doubly so for the g(r)eek drama of PFS.
with no limits on whether the rumor has to make sense or be anywhere similar to what they believed beforeSlightly more off topic, Rumormonger not taking the believably of the bluff into account isn't specified in the talent, and -you didn't say no purple dragons- logic is the subject of many an unintended loophole in the rules to start with. Further, its still a bluff check, and thus subject to the belivability guidelines in the skill.
Rather than be the minimum bar, rumormonger is something like the maximum barRight.
Rumormonger sets the bar.
Rumormonger is... pretty bad.
Doing it without rumor monger should, in all fairness, be X numbers of Thaums worse than rumormonger, where X is = to the number of thaums in an advanced talent, which should be a LOT. The bar for rumormonger is so low that something that much worse should require mining equipment.
The x thaums worst is running it as you are thinking how Rumormonger works. Its actually pretty nifty since as Mark points out it just uses the Bluff skill and has a set DC as opposed to the rising checks for absurdity.
|
|
Even without the side note about believability rumormonger simply takes too long to be useful.
...in organized play, since Drandle Dreng needs us back in time for our 3am wake-up crisis.
Funny enough, the one scenario where I would definitively allow Rumormonger to have an impact is Murder on the Throaty Mermaid and it's precisely because of how long you're on the boat. Seriously, though, that's about it that comes off the top of my head.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you can normally aid another with a different skill than the skill in question in PFS anyway (I've allowed it in home games, but it's not really in the rules, which clearly state "by making the same kind of skill check").
I allow it when it makes sense. The classic example is intimidate/diplomacy. Good cop/bad cop
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Even without the side note about believability rumormonger simply takes too long to be useful.
...in organized play, since Drandle Dreng needs us back in time for our 3am wake-up crisis.
Funny enough, the one scenario where I would definitively allow Rumormonger to have an impact is Murder on the Throaty Mermaid and it's precisely because of how long you're on the boat. Seriously, though, that's about it that comes off the top of my head.
Severing Ties is another one and once again time isnt a factor in that one either.
|
|
Let's look at two situations, one with RM and one without. The rumor is "person X is a secret cultist of Lamashtu"
With: everyone believes it, so everyone is effectively hostile to the target (maybe even those who would be okay with it, if only to maintain their covers). People avoid the person like the plague, the city watch makes excuses to search the person's home, he is targeted by vandals... The person may even be lynched!
Without rumormonger: Likely, everyone drops one step in attitude towards the target. People feel uneasy around the target. His friends might avoid him for a few weeks. People cross the street to avoid him. Guards keep a close eye on him when they see him.
So, I'm not seeing why rumormonger doesn't play nice with normal skill checks.
|
|
In both cases you have people believing it. Thats kinda the point of the bluff check. But different results. Thats after the person with rumor monger spent days crafting the rumor while the person without it spent an ad hoc amount of time.
As an ad hoc way to make rumormonger more useful it works .. but the need to take a feat and turn it into a houserule benefit is something to avoid for PFS.
|
|
I don't think you can normally aid another with a different skill than the skill in question in PFS anyway (I've allowed it in home games, but it's not really in the rules, which clearly state "by making the same kind of skill check").Will this hamper or help social rp for those traditional classes that don't have the 'feat tax' (Bard, Investigator, etc)?The only skill really effected much is Sense Motive. Even if you ignore Mark Seifter's proviso above (which you shouldn't, since he was involved in writing the book) the only change now is that you can't use Sense Motive to read what kind of Bluff check is most likely to work on someone, and also can't use it to tell what kind of relationship two people have with each other.
Oh, and you can't use Bluff to Aid another on someone else's Disguise Check.
In short, I wouldn't expect it to be the end of the world even if everyone rules the way BigNorseWolf fears.
Or did a whole bunch of classes just get taken out to a back alley and given a working-over?Nah. They'll be fine. If you feel it necessary, print out Mark's post above. Maybe that'll help.
Maybe not strictly by the rules, but it has become a convention in PFS when a check is necessary to move the plot along or to succeed at a mission. I don't necessarily agree with the complaint but that's why it's there.
@Mark Seifter - could you reply to the initial post? I'm curious to have the assertions examined.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking someone would need to use something like Rumormonger to actually make me believe that Ult. Intrigue is going to have this dire impact on PFS.
Quite likely it won't affect pfs but it will affect some tables/areas.
The less it affects pfs, the more there's a much smaller group of people are going to be very unhappy with some feat choices that effectively do nothing. They should have a warning sign thrown up that other people without their feats will be able to do much of the same thing, like an ad hoc diplomacy check to get the bad guys (well. antagonists...) to stop fighting.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking someone would need to use something like Rumormonger to actually make me believe that Ult. Intrigue is going to have this dire impact on PFS.Quite likely it won't affect pfs but it will affect some tables/areas.
The less it affects pfs, the more there's a much smaller group of people are going to be very unhappy with some feat choices that effectively do nothing. They should have a warning sign thrown up that other people without their feats will be able to do much of the same thing, like an ad hoc diplomacy check to get the bad guys (well. antagonists...) to stop fighting.
There are a couple of scenarios where you already get that option (without needing feats); those can throw more experienced players for a loop because "they know" that "isn't possible". Whereas inexperienced players may just try it because it makes sense, and then it works.
I wonder if writing these feats "for things you could also do with skills, in some undefined way" wasn't a lost opportunity to instead describe how to do it with skills alone? Then anyone who wants to be good at it can just take the relevant Skill Focus and we all go home happy.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you can normally aid another with a different skill than the skill in question in PFS anyway (I've allowed it in home games, but it's not really in the rules, which clearly state "by making the same kind of skill check").
I allow it when it makes sense. The classic example is intimidate/diplomacy. Good cop/bad cop
I've been doing the same, for over 30 years, before BECMI/AD&D even had a non-optional skill system.
Back when everything was an ability score check, later codified via non-weapon proficiencies in the DSG and WSG, sometime in the early-mid 1980s.
Good cop/bad cop is a great example of two people with different skill sets, working toward the same end goal.
As is, a good bluffer, with a poker face, being coached what to say by a less charismatic individual with all the appropriate knowledge skills.
The idea that 'if you can succeed at skill X, you make using related skill Y easier' is also the reasoning behind the 4th Ed skill challenge rules, plus the Rolemaster 'complex skill checks' (different game, but relevant, as Monte Cook was a RM writer for I.C.E., before writing 3rd Ed D&D, and what possibly prompted the inclusion of 'skill synergy' in that edition).
It would never occur to me, that only those using the same skill would be eligible to contribute to the success of an endeavour.
That would derail every heist movie ever made.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if writing these feats "for things you could also do with skills, in some undefined way" wasn't a lost opportunity to instead describe how to do it with skills alone? Then anyone who wants to be good at it can just take the relevant Skill Focus and we all go home happy.
Yes, that would have been much more useful.
A lot of the feats have prerequisites as well. The feat tax is high, especially if it is just an enhancer on something you can do somewhat anyways.
Something like Call Truce has Cha 13, Persuasive, 5 Ranks Diplomacy. It then goes on for four paragraphs on all the restrictions for this feat. It does include a pointer to the expanded explanation of Diplomacy and how to call a truce, but lacks the section in the feat that says what the normal way to do it is.
If the feat lacks the section indicating the normal way to do something, some GMs are going to only allow those with the feat to do it.
|
|
Something like Call Truce has Cha 13, Persuasive, 5 Ranks Diplomacy. It then goes on for four paragraphs on all the restrictions for this feat
Right. And before reading that feat, what kind of diplomacy check under what circumstances would you have asked for for the party diplomat to call an end to hostilities?
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something like Call Truce has Cha 13, Persuasive, 5 Ranks Diplomacy.
This brings up another problem. Quite a few feats have a prerequisite of "ranks in social skill". Which means that the supposedly best diplomancer character in the game, the bard, is getting royally screwed. With versatile performance most bards have ZERO ranks in their primary social skills.
Hopefully a FAQ/errata will come out stating that ranks in perform count as ranks in the replaced skill for prereq purposes.
It is more of an edge case, but there are also characters who can have quite high untrained skills. I dislike the fact that my character with a +16 or so untrained intimidate can't take a feat but the peon with a +8 can just because he has 5 ranks.
|
|
Something like Call Truce has Cha 13, Persuasive, 5 Ranks Diplomacy. It then goes on for four paragraphs on all the restrictions for this featRight. And before reading that feat, what kind of diplomacy check under what circumstances would you have asked for for the party diplomat to call an end to hostilities?
After 1 minute of using diplomacy...
The main use of that feat is to shorten the time for a diplomacy check in combat.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Something like Call Truce has Cha 13, Persuasive, 5 Ranks Diplomacy. It then goes on for four paragraphs on all the restrictions for this featRight. And before reading that feat, what kind of diplomacy check under what circumstances would you have asked for for the party diplomat to call an end to hostilities?After 1 minute of using diplomacy...
The main use of that feat is to shorten the time for a diplomacy check in combat.
No its rounds of diplomacy but the check would be so high that it would take it into the," Why bother" territory.
There are a couple of scenarios where you already get that option (without needing feats); those can throw more experienced players for a loop because "they know" that "isn't possible". Whereas inexperienced players may just try it because it makes sense, and then it works.
One of those scenarios you listed is definitely not calling for a cease fire but more of a request.
|
|
Calling for a cease-fire without the feat is covered on page 186 though. The Call Truce feat just gives you a different way to calculate the DC.
I don't see any way to calculate the DC on 186. If you're saying it refers to the request a favor in diplomacy, the dcs for that are far LOWER than that in the feat: the feat would make you worse at it.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Calling for a cease-fire without the feat is covered on page 186 though. The Call Truce feat just gives you a different way to calculate the DC.I don't see any way to calculate the DC on 186. If you're saying it refers to the request a favor in diplomacy, the dcs for that are far LOWER than that in the feat: the feat would make you worse at it.
You mean the rules as written impossible DC? Under most circumstances you can't actively parley. Its impossible. No chance of doing. Zip nadda. Never going to happen unless magic happens.
EDIT:Also if you ignore the impossible to do aspect of it the DC's are actually in the mid 40s and higher. You add current attitude DC and DC request and CHarisma modifier.
|
|
Also if you ignore the impossible to do aspect of it the DC's
Its not impossible
Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.
Emphasis mine. So the dm can say that circumstances allow it. Or don't. The same way the feat works.
are actually in the mid 40s and higher. You add current attitude DC and DC request and CHarisma modifier.
How are you getting mid 40s? 25 + charisma mod (usually a minus...) 35 IF you consider talking to the PCs more dangerous than having them continue to whale on you... Thats about what the feat considers it anyway
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Also if you ignore the impossible to do aspect of it the DC'sIts not impossible
Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.
Emphasis mine. So the dm can say that circumstances allow it. Or don't. The same way the feat works.
For most scenarios in Pathfinder Society you can't because the rule you are missing is this:
If a creature's attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also if you ignore the impossible to do aspect of it the DC'sIts not impossible
Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.
Emphasis mine. So the dm can say that circumstances allow it. Or don't. The same way the feat works.
For most scenarios in Pathfinder Society you can't because the rule you are missing is this:
If a creature's attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature.
And before ultimate intrigue "Hey guys, time out, lets talk about this before anybody else dies" wasn't a request.
Or as my exchange kitsune is fond of saying "Whatever they're paying you to stab me i'll pay you double not to"
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always found those ad hoc pre-combat or mid-combat Diplomacy checks a little weird. I'm glad that rules for them are more definite.
Without the feat, the party needs to take more drastic action to stop hostilities. It's still possible, just harder.
Immediate action Diplomacy is pretty cool, too.
|
|
I've always found those ad hoc pre-combat or mid-combat Diplomacy checks a little weird. I'm glad that rules for them are more definite.
Without the feat, the party needs to take more drastic action to stop hostilities. It's still possible, just harder.
Immediate action Diplomacy is pretty cool, too.
Besides needing a two feats and needing to disarm your party it didn't get more concrete. The feat still has the same dm caveats and fiats that an ad hoc ruling would have but more requirements and dc's so high that they're not that far off from impossible.
|
|
Wait everyone in the party has to lay down arms before there's even a chance to request a truce? I much prefer the mechanic of the awkward exchange of, "we'll stop stabbing you if you stop stabbing us," then everyone pauses as they try to decide if the offer is sincere.
With the wrong party this feat could lead to tpks as the party waits for the outlier in initiative, for his turn to come around so he can actually sheath his weapon so the diplomatic can do his thing.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Besides needing a two feats and needing to disarm your party it didn't get more concrete. The feat still has the same dm caveats and fiats that an ad hoc ruling would have but more requirements and dc's so high that they're not that far off from impossible.I've always found those ad hoc pre-combat or mid-combat Diplomacy checks a little weird. I'm glad that rules for them are more definite.
Without the feat, the party needs to take more drastic action to stop hostilities. It's still possible, just harder.
Immediate action Diplomacy is pretty cool, too.
You don't need to disarm the party when you have the feat, they just can't attack or take a threatening action.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What a great discussion. I wonder why it's in the PFS boards though. These seem like valid concerns that should be debated on the rules forum.
The only connection to PFS is that PFS is very RAW, and a RAW interpretation of these UI rules invalidates previous rules. And that's a problem for *anybody* that runs things RAW.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Granted I don't have the book so I'm only gleaning what I can from the commentary in this thread but I am feeling that for the most part common sense will prevail over overly rigid interpretations of these feats, even in PFS. It does seem that it will make the feats rather unattractive character options. Spending multiple feats for niche advantages on things that most reasonable GMs would let you anyway seems like a waste to me.