|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yes - generally I've seen GMs deduct gold for this type of activity when successful, thus players avoid it.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.
Which you're specifically not supposed to do
If, for example, your
players manage to roleplay their way through a combat and
successfully accomplish the goal of that encounter without
killing the antagonist, give the PCs the same reward they
would have gained had they defeated their opponent in
combat.
I've had PCs talk past a giant lizard angry at another group of human trespassers, throw the previous groups backpack at them "AND LEARN TO PICK UP AFTER YOURSELVES"
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
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.
You seem to be conflating avoiding hostilities with ceasing hostilities. The options to prevent a fight haven't changed. The Skills section clarified what it takes to stop a fight in progress (presumably, one you are not clearly winning). The new feat makes it a little easier to actually stop that fight-in-progress.
Note: if the PCs are clearly winning a fight, calling a truce or cease-fire is not very applicable. Calling for surrender, or allowing the NPCs to call for cease fire is a slightly different scenario.
|
I have seen several people play "Diplomancers" and it wasn't uncommon. People would use Authoritative Vestments to make a swift action diplomacy check to influence attitude. This feat provides another way of doing so without being a character who can channel.
Some of my characters have also made a request to end combat before this printing. My latest one was my Vindicator who prevented the enemy from reaching the party for one minute. We were not in danger but the mission didn't include harming the people attacking us so we asked them to let us through. This character has +27 diplomacy.
GM: I would allow it, but the book says it would take one minute of you talking to them. Sorry, you must fight on.
And this is where people are noticing this difference. Characters never had to fight on. It might not have been the easy or convenient choice but they did not have to fight. As I said before nobody ever forced your characters to make any decision if you had control of your character at the time. I don't understand why PCs who aren't in a life threatening situation couldn't take the time necessary to accomplish a combat non-violently.
I think the only situation I could understand the fast diplomacy checks is when the NPCs are ruining the party and the GM would feel guilty about wiping the party. The GM doesn't want to do it and the PCs didn't want to die so everyone at the table wanted to just end the combat with a a quick skill check. I understand that this happens even if I don't agree with it being done.
No rules are being changed retroactively. Maybe the way people played is being changed but that isn't unexpected when clarifications are made or new content is printed. The only thing I consider poor form would be to simply ignore the now clear rules while running or playing your games. It is fine to not like it but I don't think it is fine to ignore it.
|
Snorter, not one of those scenarios you provided are happening in combat, and you continue to ignore the fact that the book explicitly calls out how to call a truce with a hostile or unfriendly party without having to have the damn feat.
Okay, I forgot to explicitly state that the town guard had begun laying into the PC, who then shouts out their innocence, and provides proof.
The naysayers on this thread (maybe not you, but definitely Michael Hallet) are ruling that it takes a full minute of being battered, and providing no resistance, for you to inform the guard of their mistake, and 'make a request' that they stop battering you.
"Because some people did not consider it an application of making a request and thus did not run it that way. Now they either have to run it as making a request or choose to ignore RAW."
So if the continuation of this thread is bothering you, and you agree with me, that requests for ceasefire should take mere seconds, without any feat required, then you need to tell posters like him to stop spreading incorrect information that alarms people like me and BNW.
As for the feat. The clarification still makes it ridiculous, for other reasons, as now it's mind-control.
No-one should be forced into inaction for a whole minute, to endure a PC monologuing*, regardless of surroundings, context, and without evidence of peaceful intent. And no-one was asking for that ability.
A feat that was never needed, now makes you the Kwizatz Haderach.
*PCs would never stand for being told they have to listen to a villain's speech, while his getaway carriage approaches, and they would invoke their right to complete immunity, since like all social skills, it has the terrible flaw of being useless against PCs, because they're 'special'. So any NPC antagonist with this build is basically acting at several CR below normal, thanks to their wasted feats and skill ranks.
|
|
again... I'd like to see a build with Call Truce where it would be effective. Otherwise I think it is just a lot of hand wringing over improbable possibilities.
My character changes his Noble Scion feat and Selective Channel feat to Persuasive and Call Truce. My Diplomacy skill becomes:
11 ranks + 8 ability + 3 trained + 2 Skilled Racial Trait + 3 Circlet of Persuasion + 4 Persuasive for a total bonus of +31 Diplomacy.
Using Call truce I now auto-succeed on calling a truce with any group of enemies with a CHR mod of +2 or lower (32 is my minimum result).
Is it really that hard to imagine a character who can do this? It isn't even a long feat line.
|
|
And this is where people are noticing this difference. Characters never had to fight on. It might not have been the easy or convenient choice but they did not have to fight. As I said before nobody ever forced your characters to make any decision if you had control of your character at the time.
Horsefeathers. A "choice" between getting attacked for 10 rounds or fighting back is not a choice at all. You run out of other cheeks to turn after 4 hits.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if PCs negotiate a surrender you should award them full gold?
What about gold found from items on the opponents and gold found via searches (that they now cannot do)?
They get all of it.
If, for example, your players manage to roleplay their way through a combat and successfully accomplish the goal of that encounter without killing the antagonist, give the PCs the same reward they would have gained had they defeated their opponent in combat. If that scene specifically calls for the PCs to receive gold piece rewards based on the gear collected from the defeated combatants, instead allow the PCs to find a chest of gold (or something similar) that gives them the same rewards. Additionally, if the PCs roleplayed past an NPC who carries a specific potion or scroll that the PCs might be granted access to on the scenario’s Chronicle sheet, don’t cross that item off the sheet—instead, allow the PCs to find the item elsewhere as a reward for creatively resolving the encounter without resorting to combat.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if PCs negotiate a surrender you should award them full gold?
What about gold found from items on the opponents and gold found via searches (that they now cannot do)?
p35. Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide
"If, for example, yourplayers manage to roleplay their way through a combat and
successfully accomplish the goal of that encounter without
killing the antagonist, give the PCs the same reward they
would have gained had they defeated their opponent in
combat. If that scene specifically calls for the PCs to receive
gold piece rewards based on the gear collected from the
defeated combatants, instead allow the PCs to find a chest
of gold (or something similar) that gives them the same
rewards."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if PCs negotiate a surrender you should award them full gold?
What about gold found from items on the opponents and gold found via searches (that they now cannot do)?
p35. Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide
"If, for example, your
players manage to roleplay their way through a combat and
successfully accomplish the goal of that encounter without
killing the antagonist, give the PCs the same reward they
would have gained had they defeated their opponent in
combat. If that scene specifically calls for the PCs to receive
gold piece rewards based on the gear collected from the
defeated combatants, instead allow the PCs to find a chest
of gold (or something similar) that gives them the same
rewards."
You forgot to drop the mic at the end.
Edit: Would a mic drop require the Technologist feat? :P
|
|
And this is where people are noticing this difference. Characters never had to fight on. It might not have been the easy or convenient choice but they did not have to fight. As I said before nobody ever forced your characters to make any decision if you had control of your character at the time.Horsefeathers. A "choice" between getting attacked for 10 rounds or fighting back is not a choice at all. You run out of other cheeks to turn after 4 hits.
Do non-violent actions that involve you not dying for a while. Maybe Sanctuary, Vanish, defending, moving away. Is diplomacy supposed to be easy? Am I supposed to solve every combat as a free action with +30s diplomacy?
|
Do non-violent actions that involve you not dying for a while. Maybe Sanctuary, Vanish, defending, moving away. Is diplomacy supposed to be easy? Am I supposed to solve every combat as a free action with +30s diplomacy?And this is where people are noticing this difference. Characters never had to fight on. It might not have been the easy or convenient choice but they did not have to fight. As I said before nobody ever forced your characters to make any decision if you had control of your character at the time.Horsefeathers. A "choice" between getting attacked for 10 rounds or fighting back is not a choice at all. You run out of other cheeks to turn after 4 hits.
Well, there are restrictions to using it, so you certainly won't solve every combat...but actually, and for yet another time:
The rules in Ultimate Intrigue explicitly allow for using Diplomacy to call a cease fire as a full round action without the need for a Feat.
|
|
Am I supposed to solve every combat as a free action with +30s diplomacy?Thats not what anyone here is doing and you know that.
Sure I know that I posted what I see as the most likely examples already. But I again feel that there are plenty of options for not dying in the minute it takes to diplomacy. I also don't think there should be the potential to just end the combat as a free action either.
Do non-violent actions that involve you not dying for a while. Maybe Sanctuary, Vanish, defending, moving away. Is diplomacy supposed to be easy? Am I supposed to solve every combat as a free action with +30s diplomacy?And this is where people are noticing this difference. Characters never had to fight on. It might not have been the easy or convenient choice but they did not have to fight. As I said before nobody ever forced your characters to make any decision if you had control of your character at the time.Horsefeathers. A "choice" between getting attacked for 10 rounds or fighting back is not a choice at all. You run out of other cheeks to turn after 4 hits.
Sanctuary: One of 'ems castin a spell don't trust it.
Vanish: One of 'ems turned invisible he gonna stab us in the back keep at em boys.Defending: Might work but remember to put our weapon away.
Moving away: still have to stay in sight of most of them but might work.
The rules in Ultimate Intrigue explicitly allow for using Diplomacy to call a cease fire as a full round action without the need for a Feat....against people who are at least indifferent to you. Most people in combat with you are probably hostile or unfriendly.
No the rules allow it against anyone if and this is the biggie it's worded favorably to them. Makes it a bit of a issue if they are kicking your ass then doesn't it.
I guess if the Giant Hunter's handbook is legal then one could use the current rules from UI to "suggest a course of action" and make them think a temporary cease fire is their idea.
|
|
Hey I would appreciate it if you calmed down. The line right before it says:
However, a character can usually only make requests of a target that feels at least indifferent toward that character, and the vast majority of battles involve characters that are unfriendly or hostile toward each other.
This is the general rule.
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.
This is an exception to the rule.
|
|
I'm not sure I understand. Can you clarify what you mean?I cannot see this as a legitimate position.Maybe they will trust you more after a minute of making a convincing argument to them with the appropriate diplomacy check.
There is NO, and i mean NO difference between "You can't do it" and "You can do it after a minute of having all 6 of you get attacked and not fire back" The distinction between the two isn't splitting hairs its inducing nuclear fission. Saying "oh yeah you can do it it just takes 10 rounds" is a complete total and utter canard.
Ferguson: Five years?! No! No! I had no choice! They were killing each other in there.
Judge Dredd: You could have gone out the window.
Ferguson: Forty floors? It would have been suicide!
Judge Dredd: Maybe, but it's legal. Judges!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The naysayers on this thread (maybe not you, but definitely Michael Hallet) are ruling that it takes a full minute of being battered, and providing no resistance, for you to inform the guard of their mistake, and 'make a request' that they stop battering you.
Because by the core rules, you can't make a request of someone who is hostile or unfriendly, and if someone is trying to hurt you that is pretty much the definition of hostile or unfriendly. So in order to make them listen to your request, you have to change their attitude, which takes a minimum of 1 minute.
Now it's nice that Ultimate Intrigue mentions being able to make requests of hostile or unfriendly NPCs in limited circumstances, but that's not what it says in the core rules. Since it is not in the core rules, it is not part of the core assumption, so now, Diplomacy might work differently depending upon who brought what books to the table?
Now you may have missed the part where I said that while I agree that the rules as written say one thing I'm perfectly willing to ignore those rules as a GM in favor of letting the PCs resolve the encounter in a way that is fun for them. Even in PFS where I'm not supposed to do that.
|
And this feat only lets me call for a Cease Fire in circumstances when I want to surrender or call it a draw.Well, it does buy you enough time to make a Diplomacy check to improve their attitude, which could result in them no longer wanting to fight.
No it doesn't, actually. Not when they're losing it doesn't
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
No it doesn't, actually. Not when they're losing it doesn'tAnd this feat only lets me call for a Cease Fire in circumstances when I want to surrender or call it a draw.Well, it does buy you enough time to make a Diplomacy check to improve their attitude, which could result in them no longer wanting to fight.
If the PCs are winning, they have more and better options than a Cease Fire. NPCs are allowed to call for a truce or surrender, too.
The naysayers on this thread (maybe not you, but definitely Michael Hallet) are ruling that it takes a full minute of being battered, and providing no resistance, for you to inform the guard of their mistake, and 'make a request' that they stop battering you.Because by the core rules, you can't make a request of someone who is hostile or unfriendly, and if someone is trying to hurt you that is pretty much the definition of hostile or unfriendly. So in order to make them listen to your request, you have to change their attitude, which takes a minimum of 1 minute.
Now it's nice that Ultimate Intrigue mentions being able to make requests of hostile or unfriendly NPCs in limited circumstances, but that's not what it says in the core rules. Since it is not in the core rules, it is not part of the core assumption, so now, Diplomacy might work differently depending upon who brought what books to the table?
Now you may have missed the part where I said that while I agree that the rules as written say one thing I'm perfectly willing to ignore those rules as a GM in favor of letting the PCs resolve the encounter in a way that is fun for them. Even in PFS where I'm not supposed to do that.
So your opinion is that prior to the release of UI no one ever could have asked for a break in combat without surviving a 10 round onslaught without death or retaliation back?
|
|
The rules in Ultimate Intrigue explicitly allow for using Diplomacy to call a cease fire as a full round action without the need for a Feat.
The rules do NOT say that. Not at all.
The first paragraph says that the Core rules says it takes a full round PLUS a minute (assuming the enemies are hostile). Clarifies the Core rules in a bad way
The second paragraph is really unclear. It certainly says NOTHING about reducing the time. I think that it is just further restricting what can be accomplished
Not sure it is appropriate to cut and paste that much text.
If the PCs are winning, they have more and better options than a Cease Fire. NPCs are allowed to call for a truce or surrender, too.No it doesn't, actually. Not when they're losing it doesn'tAnd this feat only lets me call for a Cease Fire in circumstances when I want to surrender or call it a draw.Well, it does buy you enough time to make a Diplomacy check to improve their attitude, which could result in them no longer wanting to fight.
Maybe its not just about winning the fight and killing everyone. Party is tracking an assassin through an elven forest. Elves jump the party but Bob the barbarian and Dave the Diviner have the teamwork feat where both can act in the surprise round and wreck the ambush party. Then rest of the party then realizes these are good guys after someone points out they are forest guardians. A cease fire is still a good option.
|
|
The second paragraph is really unclear. It certainly says NOTHING about reducing the time. I think that it is just further restricting what can be accomplishedThe second paragraph explicitly mentions that it is referring to making requests of hostile or unfriendly creatures, not about adjusting their attitudes first. Using the rules in the second paragraph does not require spending a minute to improve their attitude first. It is not ambiguous about this.
Rereading the paragraph 3 times and rereading what you're saying I can now see where you are coming from but I am not remotely sure that you're right. If that is the intent it is incredibly badly written.
I think that all the second paragraph is doing is to further restrict what diplomacy can accomplish. It is not changing the time or the restriction at all.
At the least, it certainly is ambiguous
Edit: and if you're right then the feat is pretty much TOTALLY useless
|
|
Edit: and if you're right then the feat is pretty much TOTALLY uselessNot useless at all, just much less useful than the Chicken Little scenario; Call Truce has no restrictions about having to couch the cease fire request as a better idea than just murdering the people they want to murder, meaning it can be used in more situations than the feat-less version.
It causes combat to cease for a minute. I guess you can then use diplomacy to shift attitude.
But the skill, according to you, ALREADY allows me to make a request of a hostile party. DC is 25 +/- bonuses for request. So, feat maybe gives me a +5 on that.
I think that, if you're right, this goes firmly into the "far, far too expensive for what it does" category.
I actually think that you are correct from an extremely strict parsing of the language. I stand by my assertion that it is very badly worded and WILL be misinterpreted due to how badly it is worded.
And I stand by my assertion that it won't be an issue in PFS because almost nobody will take it.
|
|
How do rules which differ from the core rulebook work in PFS anyway? The section on calling a truce clearly builds upon the core rules as Michael Hallet mentioned but are not Core and not a legal part of Ultimate Intrigue.
For now I'll probably just continue how I have always played and run games seeing as I have no reason to believe the exception rules for calling a truce to be legal.
|
|
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.
I agree. As long as the attempt is made prior to combat actually starting (not just initiative, but actual raining down of attack rolls upon one another). Once combat has actually started, I still plan to use the CRB rules on diplomacy, that it takes 1 minute to do.
If a feat in Ultimate Intrigue allows you to bypass that rule, then specific trumps general.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes it's impractical to spend a minute changing attitude, but now charm person or charm hex has a use in combat.
Charms always been useful in combat. Even with a +5 you still have most mooks with HORRIBLE willsaves.
But this is exactly the problem. the answer to how to use a skill shouldn't be "hope you have a spell" Spells, magic, and supernatural abilities have abounded while skills remained stuck and static. This was supposed to be the chance for skills to SHINE, to gain the power. To be relevant again. Caster martial disparity is a thing but its not about DPR its about narrative power. Skill focused characters are supposed to be able to change the story and its hard. This book was supposed to fix that and instead it made the problem worse. By putting in all the subsystems, restrictions and feats they made the skills more like stealth, which simply breaks at one of the moving parts so often the default answer is invisibility or bust.