|
The rule seemed to be clear to me.
You wanted the NPCs to stop fighting, so you would request that they stop. But to make a request, you have to get their attitude to indifferent. But since they are trying to kill you that is pretty much the textbook definition of hostile. So changing someone's attitude takes a minute and a hard diplomacy check. After that you can make another diplomacy check at least 1 round later to make your request.
I don't see any other way to interpret it based on the core rules. You are trying to argue that asking someone to stop trying to kill you isn't making a request. So, what is it?
|
Or the existing rule sucked, so it was ignored. The idea that anyone is going to sit there for 10+ rounds not fighting back while the enemy continues to attack is laughable and that seems to be exactly what the RAW were saying you had to do.I'm pretty sure I said I did exactly this above. We didn't ignore the rule. It is surprising other people thought they could.It wasn't a rule to ignore. Saying that reading the rule that way, so you can't do it, is unrealistic, undervalues diplomacy, and effectively says you've been forced to murderhobo your way through encounters for the last 15 years because there hasn't been another option.
Saying that, of all the things a diplomacy check could be, MUST be requesting a favor is patently absurd. Accusations of cheating for not making the same random flying monk esque leap of logic is as insulting as it is absurd.
I'm not saying anyone has cheated. It is more like a mistake. I do think the rules for diplomacy were fairly clear and continue to be in the light of this new feat that changes how quickly you can diplomacy.
I disagree that it was unrealistic or undervalued diplomacy in any way and most certainly you were never forced to do anything using your character.
|
I don't see any other way to interpret it based on the core rules. You are trying to argue that asking someone to stop trying to kill you isn't making a request. So, what is it?
-Not explicitly covered by the rules , so an ad hoc diplomacy check
-Attempting to move their attitude off hostile, because throwing spears at you is pretty much the definition of hostile.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that if you improved their attitude from hostile to indifferent, they might cease fighting for a round or two for you to make your offer, but if that check failed they might just decide to start fighting again, especially if your check was particularly poor.
See, thats roughly what people have been doing all along, provided a round or two is long enough to start the diplomacy check at least.
Failure is always an option. As is drawing their attention.
"Perhaps we can negotiate?" Diplomacy check of...6
*Draconic growls and a flurry of crossbow bolts to the diplomat*
"Apparently when you mis conjugate negotiate in draconic you get an entirely different verb...."
|
|
Except changing someone's attitude takes a minimum of 1 minute (10 combat rounds) according to the core rules. The GMs that I've had have mostly said that if they are hostile you have to spend 10 rounds not attacking them while they attack you and make a hard diplomacy check. ONLY THEN will they pause to listen to you (assuming you haven't TPK'd already) and then you have to make another diplomacy check to get them to stop fighting for real.
That 10 rounds of getting pounded on is what I would choose to ignore even thought that goes against RAW as I understand it.
I think you are assuming that the PCs have a chance to resolve every encounter diplomatically, but there are some encounters where the NPCs come onto the map with guns blazing. What if the PCs don't want to fight them?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are assuming that the PCs have a chance to resolve every encounter diplomatically, but there are some encounters where the NPCs come onto the map with guns blazing. What if the PCs don't want to fight them?
I have them roll a Diplomacy check that won't change any attitudes but might get the enemy to pause long enough for a check that will.
|
|
Except changing someone's attitude takes a minimum of 1 minute (10 combat rounds) according to the core rules.
Or less at the DM's discretion. Its not a hard and fast rule.
The GMs that I've had have mostly said that if they are hostile you have to spend 10 rounds not attacking them while they attack you and make a hard diplomacy check. ONLY THEN will they pause to listen to you (assuming you haven't TPK'd already) and then you have to make another diplomacy check to get them to stop fighting for real.
Which pretty much leaves you the option of being a murderhobo or assaulthobo.
I think you are assuming that the PCs have a chance to resolve every encounter diplomatically.
Absolutely not.
but there are some encounters where the NPCs come onto the map with guns blazing. What if the PCs don't want to fight them?
If i'm looking at whether the PC's can pull this off or not its an incredibly complex decision. A partial list of factors include a web of interactions between
-What is the NPCS motivation? Is it attacking for food? Have they been paid to? Are they defending an area? Do they seriously hate pathfinders? Last session I had a moderately high Diplo check fail because
"are you going to murder my family if I don't fight for you?
Lawful good cleric: "Erm.. no?"
"She will. Sorry." crossbow bolt.
-Whats their tactical position? Someone out in the open ambushing is pretty unlikely to talk. Someone standing behind an arrowslit has all day. Someone with a fleeting tactical advantage needs to act now.
-What does the scenario say or imply about this persons attitude and their relations with humanoids/pathfinder/surface dwellers.
-How much action am I forseeing here? If this is the only chance for grabthack to get his decapitation on , we'll let him start hacking. If the rest of the dungeon is the golem chorus ensamble with the undead jamboree, maybe i let the bard take lead on this one.
-How much time do we have left.. 10:20 and the boss fight still left? Oddly enough the kobolds were setting up a tea party anyway.
-Was 2 slices enough or am i still hungry enough to KILL THE PARTY
-What did the PCs say? We'll pay you works great for things paid to attack you. With religious fanatics or monsters convinced you're going to kill them? Not so much.
|
|
Every skill has a section detailing common uses. The phrase "common uses" strongly implies that these are not the only uses. Whenever a player tries something with a skill, the GM first has to determine if it falls under one of the common uses for the skills. If so, then the rules are there for the GM to adjudicate the skill use. If not, the GM has to make something up.
Some GMs (myself included) saw calling a truce in combat an application of "Make Request" and had the players follow those rules (requires a starting attitude of indifferent or better).
Some GMs (BNW, apparently) decided that wasn't a good fit and made up their own rules.
But now Ultimate Intrigue has expanded the list of common uses to codify that calling a truce IS making a request. So now there is no wiggle room for those who thought make request was not the correct rule to use. They are forced to now play that way or defy PFS meta-rules to use RAW and continue to do it their own way.
|
|
Some GMs (myself included) saw calling a truce in combat an application of "Make Request" and had the players follow those rules (requires a starting attitude of indifferent or better).
Some GMs (BNW, apparently) decided that wasn't a good fit and made up their own rules.
Keep in mind that that big long list i went through is STILL there, in the feat, under dm discretion. When the rule for something tells you 12 times its at the dm's discretion using said discdretion IS the rule, not making a new one.
I can honestly say that make a request as the mechanic never occured to me.
So now there is no wiggle room for those who thought make request was not the correct rule to use.
The rules will say anything if twist them hard enough. For starters [lawfulgood]you can just ask for surrender on very good terms instead of a truce. Or since npcs rarelyhave a starting attitude, they are indifferently throwing fireballs at you[/lawfulgood]
Ok, i may be dipping into the pools of asmoedeous there but its for a good cause.
They are forced to now play that way or defy PFS meta-rules to use RAW and continue to do it their own way.
I don't even know if those rules are legal/adopted for pfs.
But thank you for at least seeing the problem.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I can't speak for other tables BNW, but the Ultimate Intrigue update will change nothing about how I already run impromptu Diplomacy as a way to avoid confrontation. If someone wants to Diplomacy those kobolds in your example, they're definitely free to try--roleplaying and all--and I'll give them an opportunity to succeed as already detailed in the Core.
And anyone that takes Call Truce will also have the option to use it at the table; most of the time I imagine they'll do it in a more timely fashion--given the feat tax.
I know that's not going to resolve this discussion, but hopefully you now know that 1 person isn't going to add to your headache over it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair I'm going to run it the same as Walter.
I understand the issues, but I think we need to throw in some common sense as well as the whole reason we're playing... to have fun.
Imaginative, fun, role-playing including a less black and white use of any skills/feats which doesn't belittle anyone's contribution can surely only make a game more fun and memorable for all at the table after all.
but then that might just be me :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do the mechanics of the call truce feat improve the base ability to call truce that has no mechanics listed with it?
At best, its changing calling for a truce to "You can't do it" and then simultaneously providing the ability to do it. Not a good "clarification" to the rules either.
I think the feat is more for people who go strictly by the book.
Player: Can I ask them to surrender. There is no way they will win.
GM: I would allow it, but the book says it would take one minute of you talking to them. Sorry, you must fight on.
Personally, I would just allow the NPC's to surrender if they were losing badly enough. A diplomacy check would not even be needed.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's it, period; there is no "and whatever you happen to feel like maybe including" clause. So, pre-UI, technically, per the RAW, you absolutely cannot call a cease fire using Diplomacy without first improving their attitude to indifferent or better, then make a request. UI at least adds provisions to potentially force a cease fire without Call Truce or improving their attitude.
...to which I'd say, what a terrible RPG system, if that's really what Pathfinder was supposed to be all that time. In a wargame or a board game that has a very strict set of rules that define how action may proceed, fine. In a roleplaying game, it's supposed to be more creative, as people build stories rather than just play through tactics.
But I'd argue that this is NOT what the rules were all along. In addition to what BNW pointed out (all the text of Diplomacy itself, which is there and in the book even though you say it's only "fluff", which you seem to think means it can be ignored), there are at least two other things arguing against this. First, "The Most Important Rule" on page 9 of the Core Rule Book. It's really not much of a house rule to say that it's Diplomacy that you'd use to try to all a cease fire. In PFS specifically, we have "Creative Solutions" on page 35, which even includes ...for example, your players manage to roleplay their way through a combat and successfully accomplish the goal of that encounter without killing the antagonist..."
The new Feat that indicates that you have to have it in order to do things that should have been stock in trade for a roleplaying game before are a big waving middle finger to both of those passages.
By adding things to the game, the new rules reduce flexibility, and playability. It's ugly.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are assuming that the PCs have a chance to resolve every encounter diplomatically, but there are some encounters where the NPCs come onto the map with guns blazing. What if the PCs don't want to fight them?I have them roll a Diplomacy check that won't change any attitudes but might get the enemy to pause long enough for a check that will.
This is what I would do too.
It sounds like now you need a feat from a new book in order to be able to do that.
Which is a serious blow to the quality of the rules system, in my opinion.
I'm still going to do it that way in games I GM. I'm going to try as a player, and just be sad when GMs don't let me do it because the overbearing edifice of cards that is what the Pathfinder rules system has become suggests it isn't possible.
If people call me out for paying the game wrong as GM too many times, I'll just stop playing PFS.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the feat is more for people who go strictly by the book.
Player: Can I ask them to surrender. There is no way they will win.
GM: I would allow it, but the book says it would take one minute of you talking to them. Sorry, you must fight on.
Player: (Makes note of GM never to play with again.)
Five repetitions of the same thing later:
Player: (Makes note of organized play system to stop playing in. Perhaps makes note of RPG rules system to stop using.)
|
|
Well I can't speak for other tables BNW, but the Ultimate Intrigue update will change nothing about how I already run impromptu Diplomacy as a way to avoid confrontation.
Yay.
If someone wants to Diplomacy those kobolds in your example, they're definitely free to try--roleplaying and all--and I'll give them an opportunity to succeed as already detailed in the Core.
Some people are reading that as taking 10 rounds. Doing that and not allowing it really aren't that different.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the bigger problem, that isn't being addressed, is that there are maybe far too many encounters which begin with NPCs bursting in, guns blazing.
Whether that's the way the scenarios are written, or a result of GMs rushing through the intermediary stages of the encounter, I can't say.
But what's missing are the instances where one or both groups blunder across the other, and there's a pregnant pause, while everyone stares at each other ("Brad!", "Janet!", Doctor Scott!", "Rocky!", "...!").
And at that point, the correct request from the GM is, "What do you do?", which allows for a myriad of possibilities.
Those who want to talk their way out of trouble, or defuse the situation, are free to declare so.
One side may decide to say "Sorry, wrong room!", shut the door and walk off whistling ("Nothing to see here!").
Or they may decide to flee, in which you might cut to a chase scene.
Both sides may decide to flee, in which case the encounter goes into abstract territory, and the GM declares an appropriate time has passed, and everyone is back at their safe space.
By defaulting to instantly calling for initiative rolls, and declaring that combat breaks out (whether anyone asked for it or not), you are making the players' decisions for them, forcing the PCs' hands, and ruling out all those other possibilities.
And by escalating the situation (from a standoff between indifferent or suspicious groups, to a combat situation between hostiles), you needlessly escalate all the subsequent DCs, to a point at which only maxed-out PCs can contribute.
And if PFS leadership are going to insist that GMs forbid any attempts to defuse hostile situations, without a PC possessing a feat from an optional book, released seven years after the Core Rules, and that any instances prior to now have been illegal; what does that tell prospective players about the game?
We joke about how some of our PCs should be members of 'Murderhobo Society'; that joke is going to wear thin, if murderhoboing is the only valid or legal play style.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How exactly does Call Truce invalidate using Diplomacy to call a cease fire, when the very same book explicitly details how you can use Diplomacy without the feat, in exactly the same manner many GMs were already running it, except with a new exception to add opportunities to do it when you couldn't before (i.e. versus hostile or unfriendly targets)?
Because, practically speaking, unless you were invulnerable anyway, 10 rounds of letting the NPCs pound on you without you responding in kind is simply not an option.
Before it was clarified that you had to make a request, which takes 10 rounds, the "Wait! Let's talk! There's something that you might want to know!" strategy could at least be attempted.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How exactly does Call Truce invalidate using Diplomacy to call a cease fire, when the very same book explicitly details how you can use Diplomacy without the feat, in exactly the same manner many GMs were already running it, except with a new exception to add opportunities to do it when you couldn't before (i.e. versus hostile or unfriendly targets)?Because, practically speaking, unless you were invulnerable anyway, 10 rounds of letting the NPCs pound on you without you responding in kind is simply not an option.
Before it was clarified that you had to make a request, which takes 10 rounds, the "Wait! Let's talk! There's something that you might want to know!" strategy could at least be attempted.
Uh...this is factually inaccurate. To quote the book:
In this case, and in other instances of requests made to unfriendly or hostile characters, the GM should consider only allowing such requests that are couched in such a way that they seem to be in the target’s best interests. An unfriendly or hostile character certainly isn’t going to be doing the would-be diplomat any favors, but that doesn’t mean they will ignore an idea that is better for them than facing the consequences of the combat. Even if adversaries agree to a brief cease-fire to listen to the diplomat’s terms, they won’t let their guard down. Generally, they will also require the side calling for the cease-fire to make a show of their intentions by laying down or sheathing their weapons, dropping spell component pouches, or the like, while attempting Sense Motive checks to determine if the cease-fire is a ruse. Creatures that feel themselves to be at an advantage in the combat by virtue of a short-duration spell or other effect that would expire during a cease-fire almost never agree to a cease-fire, as it isn’t in their best interest to do so.
So, per the bolded bit and all that follow, it explicitly allows requests to be made without changing the creatures attitudes. And thus in only one round.
It just notes a number of necessary (and pretty logical) prerequisites to doing that. Which the Call Truce Feat lets you ignore several of...thus being beneficial without being necessary.
How is this punitive and not allowing the calling of truces again?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since, per strict RAW, one cannot hop, check out this special preview of my new book, Ultimate Ambulation:
Hop
You can move around using a only one leg.
Prerequisites: Dex 13
Benefit: As a move action, you can move at 1/4 your normal speed, even if one leg is somehow impeded or restrained. If you are damaged while moving this way, you must make a DC 15 acrobatics check or fall prone. You may not run while using this feat. Stealth checks made while hopping suffer a -5 penalty.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't read the books at all anymore, unless I need to reference something.
Perfectly understandable.
The 'Skills In Conflict' section of UI is less than 10 pages and well worth reading just to avoid arguments over how skills work, though. Ditto the 'Spells of Intrigue' section regarding somewhat problematic spells.
|
|
How exactly does Call Truce invalidate using Diplomacy to call a cease fire, when the very same book explicitly details how you can use Diplomacy without the feat, in exactly the same manner many GMs were already running it, except with a new exception to add opportunities to do it when you couldn't before (i.e. versus hostile or unfriendly targets)?
The new rule (and its supporters) are retroactively reinterpreting the Diplomacy options, so that truces could only be called, between opponents who were not unfriendly or hostile.
Why would you be calling a truce, if the opposition weren't unfriendly or hostile?
|
|
The new rule (and its supporters) are retroactively reinterpreting the Diplomacy options, so that truces could only be called, between opponents who were not unfriendly or hostile.
Why would you be calling a truce, if the opposition weren't unfriendly or hostile?
Er...given that the new rules explicitly still allow calling a truce with people who are unfriendly or hostile, even without the Feat, what exactly is the issue here?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This whole conversation made me go back and re-read the Cease Fire section of UI.
And I realized that the feat is even worse than I thought. NOBODY in their right mind in PFS is going to take it. So, in PFS, the situation is probably unchanged at almost all tables. GMs who would previously allow diplomacy to have a chance to succeed still will. Since nobody will take the feat no need to be fair to the people who do :-) :-)
The skill section in UI on diplomacy and cease fire is actually remarkably unclear as to whether they are suggesting that it takes 11 rounds or can be done more quickly. Rereading it I realize that I actually have no clue what they are suggesting, except that they think somebody will only accept a Cease Fire if they think it is in their interests (well, duh :-)).
The Feat section gives me a feat.
This feat actually has quite significant prerequisites (over and above the feat tax) that lots of diplomatic characters will NOT meet. So much for being a diplomat without high charisma. Or a bard with versatile performance. Less than 1/2 my diplomatic characters qualify, even ignoring the persuasive feat. Many are bards, many have reasonable Cha of 14 odd and lots of skill ranks.
None have persuasive, of course, as it is a pretty awful feat and there are much better alternatives, even for characters where shmoozing is a high priority.
And this feat only lets me call for a Cease Fire in circumstances when I want to surrender or call it a draw. I cannot use it to call on the opponents to surrender. So, the feat is useless when you're winning and want to stop killing the opponents.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In 5 yrs of PFS play I have yet seen PCs attempt a cease fire. How common is this situation?
Pretty damn common in my groups. Less common with players that just want to kill everything. As I've mentioned before, I've had plenty of tables where we avoided killing anyone, through diplomacy and judicial use of nonlethal attacks.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Er...given that the new rules explicitly still allow calling a truce with people who are unfriendly or hostile, even without the Feat, what exactly is the issue here?
Calling a truce is not 'asking a service'. It is asking for a pause.
Asking a service is part of the negotiations one can attempt, during the discussions following the pause in hostilities.Persuading the Broken Tooth orcs that they would benefit more by allying with you, to steal King Zog's treasure, is a difficult request, which takes the extended time.
Convincing them to allow you the pause in fighting, that allows you to make that suggestion, is not.
"We are not the ones you are looking for." is not a request for service.
It's a statement, which usually prompts the reply "Prove it!".
The next round, you produce your ID, warrant, holy symbol, etc.
The entire exchange should take seconds.
It should not require a feat, either to shout it, or to prove it, or to do so in less than a minute.
Similarly, "Step away from the victim, miscreant!" from the town guard, could be answered by "I'm not hurting him, I'm healing him!", showing the healer's kit in your hands. Another Diplomacy attempt, which should take seconds.
This also should not require a feat, either to declare your innocence, or to do so in less than a minute.
Either the modern feat retroactively wrecks the previously existing ability to call a truce, locking that ability behind an unnecessary feat tax wall;
Or the previous ability to call a truce, in seconds, without a feat, remains in place, and the feat does literally nothing.
Neither is an improvement to the game mechanics, or improves play style.
|
|
The skill section in UI on diplomacy and cease fire is actually remarkably unclear as to whether they are suggesting that it takes 11 rounds or can be done more quickly. Rereading it I realize that I actually have no clue what they are suggesting, except that they think somebody will only accept a Cease Fire if they think it is in their interests (well, duh :-)).
Huh? I actually found it super clear. The first paragraph points out the problem with using the corebook rules as written, the second points out a way to adjudicate them appropriately (ie: you can make requests of unfriendly people, but only if it's to their advantage).
I didn't find it that hard to parse. Maybe I'm just weird...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In 5 yrs of PFS play I have yet seen PCs attempt a cease fire. How common is this situation?Pretty damn common in my groups. Less common with players that just want to kill everything. As I've mentioned before, I've had plenty of tables where we avoided killing anyone, through diplomacy and judicial use of nonlethal attacks.
And that builds on itself. If your DMs don't let peace work, yous tart murderhoboing things. You build characters that are more kill it focused, which makes diplomacy less likely to work.
If talking to the monsters works sometimes, more people will invest for it and try it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Calling a truce is not 'asking a service'. It is asking for a pause.
Asking a service is part of the negotiations one can attempt, during the discussions following the pause in hostilities."We are not the ones you are looking for." is not a request for service.
It's a statement, which usually prompts the reply "Prove it!".
The next round, you produce your ID, warrant, holy symbol, etc.
The entire exchange should take seconds.
It should not require a feat, either to shout it, or to prove it, or to do so in less than a minute.Similarly, "Step away from the victim, miscreant!" from the town guard, could be answered by "I'm not hurting him, I'm healing him!", showing the healer's kit in your hands. Another Diplomacy attempt, which should take seconds.
This also should not require a feat, either to declare your innocence, or to do so in less than a minute.Either the modern feat retroactively wrecks the previously existing ability to call a truce, locking that ability behind an unnecessary feat tax wall;
Or the previous ability to call a truce, in seconds, without a feat, remains in place, and the feat does literally nothing.
Neither is an improvement to the game mechanics, or improves play style.
To reiterate: I literally posted the text where the rules in UI say you can do this without a Feat. Period. Full stop.
They also note that, when dealing with unfriendly or hostile people, some circumstantial prerequisites are likely necessary.
The Feat basically ignores most of the circumstantial prerequisites most of the time, and automatically ensures that the enemy respects the agreed upon cease fire for a full minute (coincidentally, just long enough to make a Diplomacy Check to improve their attitude), something not ensured otherwise.
Is the Feat worth it? Maybe not. But it does do something even if the rules allow calling a truce without it. Which, once again, they explicitly do.