|
| 3 people 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.
Are the rules in ultimate intrigue the rules for pfs now? Or, if I haven't made it obvious enough,
please don't make these the rules for pfs they are terrible.
They negate investment in skills, require heavy feat taxes from the people that can least afford them, and in return you get... pretty much the same situation you had before with a lot of dm fiat.
If so what am I supposed to do with players that have invested in skills that don't work the way we;ve been using them?
What am I supposed to do with a player that does invest in these feats only to find them useless?
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.
Most of the problem isn't the raw its the implication from the feats' existence.
Nothing raw explicitly says that just because there's a feat requiring a high charisma and a bunch of ranks in a skill you probably have anyway and a skill boosting feat tax that "lets" you ask the dm to make a really high diplomacy check to stop combat... but the feat existing heavily implies it.
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.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"
Its always been a request. Its a really goofy request and one that rarely if ever was going to work in PFS unless written into the module but still its a request. Like you can complain all you want but this isn't one that is a corner case. There have always been explicit rules for it.
Nothing raw explicitly says that just because there's a feat requiring a high charisma and a bunch of ranks in a skill you probably have anyway and a skill boosting feat tax that "lets" you ask the dm to make a really high diplomacy check to stop combat... but the feat existing heavily implies it.
There are multiple rules. You just want to ignore them. And mind you Im not saying its a bad thing to do that but yeah you want to ignore rules.
|
|
I should maybe add that I hope I'm not coming off overly harsh towards the authors, especially on a book that I have yet to see. UI was intended a social book, which is a hard order to fill from a design perspective. If you don't include feats in the book people will ask why they aren't there, make the feats too power and they become must haves, make them too weak and they become traps. The social side of the game has always been more open to GM interpretation than most other aspects, providing something concrete in such a book is not a straight forward project and from what I've heard a large part of this book is very well done.
It does seem like it's going to be another case like Inner Sea Races where the mandatory feats section will be painful to read because perhaps it's something the book didn't really need to begin with.
|
|
Its always been a request. Its a really goofy request and one that rarely if ever was going to work in PFS unless written into the module but still its a request.
I've had a fair bit of success with it on both sides of the table across 4 states and online.
Like you can complain all you want but this isn't one that is a corner case. There have always been explicit rules for it.
There have never been explicit rules for it and there still aren't. Even the allegedly explicit feat has DM fiat as the primary factor.
|
|
I should maybe add that I hope I'm not coming off overly harsh towards the authors, especially on a book that I have yet to see. UI was intended a social book, which is a hard order to fill from a design perspective. If you don't include feats in the book people will ask why they aren't there, make the feats too power and they become must haves, make them too weak and they become traps. The social side of the game has always been more open to GM interpretation than most other aspects, providing something concrete in such a book is not a straight forward project and from what I've heard a large part of this book is very well done.
It does seem like it's going to be another case like Inner Sea Races where the mandatory feats section will be painful to read because perhaps it's something the book didn't really need to begin with.
The problem is to make it interesting. That requires moving parts, positioning, different ways things can move and interact with each other. Skill don't have that Skills in d20 are, mechanically, boring. There's a d20 roll , +2s and minuses but thats pretty much it. You're stuck on an elevator. Its very difficult to have a skill feat be more than just a plus.
|
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.
Conditionally agreed.
Most of the complaints so far have not been RAW issues, but rather GM circumstantial rulings on creative player choices in the absence of any rules.
|
|
| 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.
I'd like to believe that's true...I'd like to, but I can't.
Because I have to buy potion sponges and teach my wolf a separate trick to flank and take a full round to do ranged combat maneuvers at a -2 penalty and...
Players generally have to assume the strictest interpretation of any rule because all it takes is one GM to rule that way to break a character build.
|
|
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.
I both envy and rue your optimism...:)
|
|
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.I both envy and rue your optimism...:)
I will admit it's largely based on how I've seen rules applied in locally in PFS that allows me to say this. If anything I'm most concerned about how this will impact interactions between the old guard and newer players/GMs who recently acquired a bright and shiny new set of rules they are eager to see set into action.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the same time, this book gives rules for how to shank someone while you initiate a grapple, and how to use your evasion to pull someone else into a fireball.
I'm going to take the Mark Seifter approach here. It gives another way to call truce, especially if you're losing. Defeated NPCs surrender. This lets you convince the NPC that's crushing you to let up, and talk it out.
"I would like to call a truce, can the wall of fire get dismissed before it kills my two unconscious friends?"
|
| 1 person 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.I'd like to believe that's true...I'd like to, but I can't.
Because I have to buy potion sponges and teach my wolf a separate trick to flank and take a full round to do ranged combat maneuvers at a -2 penalty and...
*fingers-in-ears*
LA-LA-LAAA CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING
|
|
I'm going to take the Mark Seifter approach here. It gives another way to call truce, especially if you're losing. Defeated NPCs surrender. This lets you convince the NPC that's crushing you to let up, and talk it out.
As an alternate avenue its... doable from a dm perspective. I can warn players that its a costly toll road that is, if anything, worse off than the free highway. For players with dms that don't let them call a truce i suppose its better than nothing, but thats ikea catalog levels of table variation on how useful these things are and what they mean.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
There have never been explicit rules for it and there still aren't. Even the allegedly explicit feat has DM fiat as the primary factor.
I typically run scenarios as straight as possible. The scenarios actively tell you whether or not the parley will work. If you deviate from that fine but don't pretend that the terms "fight to the death" means they are willing to stop fighting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't agree with BNWs general premise. I plan to run a table like I always have and let those feats do exactly what they say.
In general it will make it easier to accomplish things that you may or may not have been able to do based on table variation.
My opinion is that subsequent products cannot invalidate previous books and rules simply because something new was created. It is my postulation, that even potion sponges don't change the rules. They just add something more you can do with a potion, essentially helping with action economy.
These new feats should be no different.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion is that subsequent products cannot invalidate previous books and rules simply because something new was created. It is my postulation, that even potion sponges don't change the rules. They just add something more you can do with a potion, essentially helping with action economy.These new feats should be no different.
Both locally and online potion sponges, the flank trick, etc absolutely changed what was allowable at the table. They changed the rules.
Clearly that experience is shared by lots of people.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion is that subsequent products cannot invalidate previous books and rules simply because something new was created. It is my postulation, that even potion sponges don't change the rules. They just add something more you can do with a potion, essentially helping with action economy.These new feats should be no different.
Both locally and online potion sponges, the flank trick, etc absolutely changed what was allowable at the table. They changed the rules.
Clearly that experience is shared by lots of people.
The flank trick absolutely did not change the rules. People were doing something animals should not have been doing. You can go back to all the arguments about that if you like.
But the creation of the flank trick validated the arguments that animals couldn't choose to go out of thier way to flank.
So lets not conflate the two.
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
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).It was something characters should be able to do without any skill check at all. PFS is dealing with professional adventurers, not housewives and school children. When I play tennis with someone, and I'm not even a semi-pro, it's pretty obvious if the power of their shots is a function of the player's skill or raw strength. I can tell by watching someone's technique whether they are beating me with raw athleticism or skill. And yes, I can tell whether they have more skill than I do (which is BAB in this case.) When someone hits me with a sword, I should automatically know how strong they are, how quick they are. When I hit them or they dodge a blow, it's intuitively obvious their AC and what part of it is magical vs mundane. It should not require a feat and a skill check for characters to intuitively understand things that should be obvious to them as adventurers.
I do not agree that you should know creature stats automatically. Basic relations perhaps( BAB more or less than mine? higher Dex bonus or armor bonus to AC? ), but not BAB or feats they haven't demonstrated (Combat Reflexes is good to know!).
I see these feats as defining options at worst, often adding them. Using Sense Motive in combat is (justifiable) house rules from the start. Groups that do it already will continue to, groups that don't now have options.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the OP is over reacting. We don't know how PFS will implement these rules, and it seems that it isn't impacting what characters could already do as raw. Now it just so happens that many were not following raw since it was unclear, and this book is helping to clear some of that up.
As someone who doesn't have access to the book yet, here's a question.
How much does Ultimate Intrigue have in the way of widely useful social options that don't suffer from "there's a feat for that" syndrome?
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
Re: diplomacy in combat: Just a pointer that if you've got someone around who can channel, this thing can make diplomacy in combat work a lot better without any feats.
|
|
Perhaps a better example of what BNW is concerned about can be seen with Knowledge Checks and monster knowledge. It would seems obvious that if players encountered monsters in one scenario that they should remember that monster in the next. But then PFS released a boon which specifically gave that information and suddenly GMs were denying characters the ability to retain monster knowledge information from one scenario to another.
Flank and the potion sponge are the two examples I was thinking of. The difference being instead of easily being able to adapt and have fluffy just get the trick or drop pocket change for a sponge you need to blow a bunch of feats.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The flank trick absolutely did not change the rules. People were doing something animals should not have been doing. You can go back to all the arguments about that if you like.
But the creation of the flank trick validated the arguments that animals couldn't choose to go out of thier way to flank.
So lets not conflate the two.
You are being extremely pedantic.
Before the flank trick and potion sponge, locally and online GMs would allow an animal companion to flank. And would allow somebody to drink a potion underwater.
After the flank trick and potion sponge, this was no longer acceptable.
Using the definition of rules to mean something like "What was actually allowed at the table" the rules changed.
Maybe where you are Companions weren't allowed to flank. But clearly there are many regions other than mine where they WERE and the rules, as actually enforced at the table, CHANGED.
Right now, I'd estimate that I have a greater than 80% success rate in being allowed to use diplomacy to get a cease fire (usually when combined with actions like not attacking and instead all out defending, stabilizing downed enemies, etc). As the OP points out, there is a significant chance that the new rules will greatly and negatively affect that.
|
|
Using the definition of rules to mean something like "What was actually allowed at the table" the rules changed.
Eyup. There was no rule that said no flanking, or anything other than a DMs judgement to rely on for that. Likewise An ad hoc ruling on when asking for surrender/parley is so necessary that its still effectively in the feat.
|
|
BNW, I think you should at it from another perspective; this is a nice way to give people RP benefits without changing anything in the rules. As a GM I'd be delighted if people took these feats and would definitely change RP encounters a bit to reward players choosing to invest in these feats!
But then he can't say the sky is falling!
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
BNW, I think you should at it from another perspective; this is a nice way to give people RP benefits without changing anything in the rules. As a GM I'd be delighted if people took these feats and would definitely change RP encounters a bit to reward players choosing to invest in these feats!But then he can't say the sky is falling!
if CNN has taught me anything its that you can always say the sky is falling.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
I didn't say, "automatically." I said as a result of interacting with said creature.
Without check or action is pretty much automatic.
Do you play any competitive sports? Basketball, volleyball, or even ping pong? Even when I'm just warming up with someone, it becomes immediately obvious to me the comparative skill level.
Yes, comparative skill level. You might tell that someone is better than you or stronger than you, but you can't tell a 5.0 player from a 4.0 from just 30 seconds of play, or a few rounds of combat.
Obviously you're not going to know if someone has Iron Will, but Power Attack, Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Uncanny Dodge, would be obvious if they were used.
Agreed.
The problem is that if there's now a feat I need to know these things, GMs are going to deny me that knowledge because I lack the feat.
The feat in question lets you identify Combat feats before they are used against you.
Why not assume that it might happen and offer a solution?
That's what I and others have been doing. I know it is frustrating when it seems like options are being taken away. But, sometimes they weren't rightly yours to begin with (You really expect to know an enemies BAB and Str after a round of combat??).
This book defines much of the middle ground, what can still be done without a feat. There are now rules for calling a truce in combat (even without the feat) when before that was impossible by the rules in the CRB.
I've seen PFS scenarios frequently use skills to do things that are not in the skill description. For example, using non-social skills in social situations to make a positive impression. Which encourages GMs to allow liberal and creative use of skills when possible.
Everyone is a fan of looking for circumstance bonuses.
As far as adding options, no it doesn't add options unless you have the feat. Many GMs are often receptive to creative uses of skills. But if there's suddenly a feat that provides that option, do yo think PFS GMs are going to continue to allow it?
Yes. There is still a middle ground for doing something. Feats make doing that something even better.
I'll ask you again, why not make it a general rule that any of these skill expanding feats can be attempted without the feat at some penalty? How does that hurt the game?
A penalty is a bit silly and easily worked around. We can reward characters that invest in new feats while retaining a lesser advantage for those without. Those options are available for both the Size Up and Call Truce feats that have been discussed in this thread. Are there any others you believe are taking away options?
|
|
this is a nice way to give people RP benefits without changing anything in the rules.
Every single word of this is wrong. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the reason for the arrrghhh. Its not a matter of perspective.
It is not a very nice way to give people RPing benefits. It is a very very bad way of giving people Rping benefits. They soak up far too many of your mechanical abilities: Making your mechanics suffer does not make your role playing better.
It is not giving people RPing benefits. People already have these RPing benefits. Thats the entire point of the arghhhh
This is a change in the rules. Or at least change is implied. The less it implies a change in the rules, the more its a prone shooter/trap option (which is itself argh worthy)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before the flank trick and potion sponge, locally and online GMs would allow an animal companion to flank. And would allow somebody to drink a potion underwater.
Well, not everywhere. We didn't allow potions underwater because it would be silly to do so - how could it work without ruining the potion? So in this case, GMs who wre bending the rules or houseruling things were reminded that what they were doing made no sense.
Maybe where you are Companions weren't allowed to flank. But clearly there are many regions other than mine where they WERE and the rules, as actually enforced at the table, CHANGED.
But is that because the rules are changing, or by reading the new rules, people are remembering what the old rules have been all along?
So let's not over-react, let's see how it rolls out.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing that makes me worry for PFS is the diplomacy issue - if this becomes the only way to stop a combat, it will encourage murderhoboism even more than the status quo. I always let people try to talk instead of fight, and call for a truce or a surrender even if the diplomacy rules didn't technically allow it. If that changes officially, I will be sad.
Having said that - this is the flip side of the coin for all the players who demand "RAW only" and "no table variation/GM fiat". It's interesting how much GM fiat has been used to benefit players in these case, but you nev ehar that mentioned - all the discussion is about how bad GMs are breaking the rules. Interesting.
|
|
@BNW, I saw a couple things that made me Arghhh, but not the ones that have been discussed in this thread. I wonder if the same things caught our attention. Are there other options that you were concerned about?
I have arghed over the above feats and seen batman vs superman. I'm out of argh!!!! for a few days :)
|
|
I'm hearing this second-hand (as I do not have a copy yet).
If I don't have the source material, how could I reasonably be expected to apply it either as a GM or as a player?
But additionally, during the Year of the Sky Key, wasn't there a big thing with Technologist as a Feat and it kind of fizzled, too? I don't *think* I was in any scenarios where it was an issue?
|
I'm hearing this second-hand (as I do not have a copy yet).If I don't have the source material, how could I reasonably be expected to apply it either as a GM or as a player?
But additionally, during the Year of the Sky Key, wasn't there a big thing with Technologist as a Feat and it kind of fizzled, too? I don't *think* I was in any scenarios where it was an issue?
I actually had it come up enough to have to re-train a feat to get it.
I first built my my "Technologist" PC (actually an Investigator) - built his background, played him up to 3rd level... And the Tech book come out and I found my Trap specialist/Skill monkey specializing in "Tech" couldn't do any of the things he had been built for...
So he spent most of his PP to retrain a feat to "pay the feat tax" that had not existed when he had been built (originally played).
|
|
I live in fear of the day that a feat is published that lets you "read with darkvision". Because, absolutely, right now you can; there's nothing in the rules that would indicate that you can't. But some GMs have told me you can't, on the basis that darkvision doesn't show colors. (You might notice that this text you're reading right now is fully black and white, as long as you haven't overridden the default style sheet.)
Honestly, every time a new rulebook for Pathfinder comes out, I feel overwhelmed by too many rules, with more special cases all the time meaning you can't take what you read in a earlier book at face value. There are more and more abilities meaning that players can come to the table not understanding what their character can do, but thinking they do. There is just so much out there that as GM, there's no hope of having even a passing familiarity with all of it, so you can't help the befuddled players, or even know something is wrong. (Very often, something that doesn't seem right to me in fact is right.)
The Pathfinder rules set has become unwieldy. I wish they had stopped publishing core rules books other than bestiaries and codexes after Ultimate Campaign (which I liked), instead focusing on adventures and setting. Too many classes. Too many feats. Too many caveats that you have to know if you want to play the full system (e.g. in PFS).
I like the opportunities for play that PFS affords me, and the people I've met in it and play with in it. It's a well run OP campaign. I hate to give it up. But with each release (ACG, OA, now UI) I'm finding that the rules system is increasingly not the one I liked a few years ago, and the overwhelming growth is really turning me off.
I wish WotC would release PDFs of their core rules. That's the one thing that's stopped me from seriously considering that as a rules system. (I know there's a SRD-like thing, but it's not complete. It's not enough that I could GM with references entirely on my laptop, which I *can* do with Pathfinder.)
|
|
Call truce is clearly effective way more often than using the diplomacy skill without it. The DC is similar, but the percentage of cases where it's possible at all is much higher.
While I'll grant you the GM leeway bit is worded vaguely, it seems to me like the feat is meant to be usable by default, whereas negotiating your way out of combat otherwise is always impossible.
The feat basically turns you into Fisk from Undertale. At higher levels, a character optimized for it can easily consistently meet the DC.
For example, a tenth level character might get +5 from Cha, +6 from skill focus, +13 from ranks, and +4 from persuasive, this is a +28 bonus in exchange for feets and ranks a party face probably has anyway. As a monster is very unlikely to have a Charisma modifier over +5, (the contract devil, a CR 10 monster designed to be very charismatic, has +6) this feat can shut down combat with a success rate of 70% with only a 10% chance of not being able to try again. Put that way, it's pretty powerful.
A GM who regularly allows something you "usually can't do" is being a pushover. Likewise, the way I interpret this feat, I am meant to usually allow it to be used, only forbidding it under rare circumstances.
|
|
I live in fear of the day that a feat is published that lets you "read with darkvision". Because, absolutely, right now you can; there's nothing in the rules that would indicate that you can't.
Totally not binding, but in 3.5 in one of the various books (maybe underdark, maybe dwarves) was a special paint that was not readable with darkvision. Dwarven cities with drow problems would use the paint for street signs and stuff.
Despite having darkvision Dwarves used illumination because they liked being able to see in color. By painting their signs this way they could see them and not get lost, while sneaky drow spied/invaders could not.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Call truce is clearly effective way more often than using the diplomacy skill without it.
This statement IS the problem. You cannot tell me there is no problem, and then say this.
What you've just admited is that you have to make using diplomacy less effective than calling a truce.
The DC is similar, but the percentage of cases where it's possible at all is much higher.
What was the percentage befre? Dm Fiat. What is the percentage with the feat? DM fiat.
While I'll grant you the GM leeway bit is worded vaguely, it seems to me like the feat is meant to be usable by default, whereas negotiating your way out of combat otherwise is always impossible.
Was negotiating your way out of combat always nearly impossible? The rules don't say. Most DMs didn't seem to think so.
The feat basically turns you into Fisk from Undertale. At higher levels, a character optimized for it can easily consistently meet the DC.
And if someone wants to avoid murderhoboing it up for their entire career rather than waiting till 9th level to make a lifestyle change?
For example, a tenth level character might get +5 from Cha, +6 from skill focus, +13 from ranks, and +4 from persuasive, this is a +28 bonus in exchange for feets and ranks a party face probably has anyway.
The very end of your career in pfs, with ALL of your feats devoted to something, is hardly the best measure of somethings effectives. The DC is still 40, which you'll only hit with half the time.
You have put half of your feats into this trick. Also note that +6 in charisma isn't really viable for a skill focused character except a bard, who has far more effective options for stopping combat with spells.
If you are a skill based class you cannot reasonably dump that that many feats filling in that hole.
If you are a casting class you have no need to dump that many feats into filling that hole, you have far better ways of doing the exact same thing.
A GM who regularly allows something you "usually can't do" is being a pushover. Likewise, the way I interpret this feat, I am meant to usually allow it to be used, only forbidding it under rare circumstances.
Or has really unusual adventurers. You know, pathfinders.