|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, based on what we can infer from the skill list revealed so far, it's easier to have all the Knowledge type skills (Arcana, Occultism, Religion, and Society...maybe Dungeoneering by I personally doubt it's separate), so that's a plus.
On the down side, it's very explicitly one action to make monster knowledge type checks now, which makes this a trifle trickier (though not unworkable by any means).
Wait...it's going to be an action to identify something and tell others about it....
Uggghhhh
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait...it's going to be an action to identify something and tell others about it....
Uggghhhh
I ~love~ playing very knowledgeable characters. I don't mind this so much. (At least in theory we'll see how it plays.)
I'm sure you're not the only one whose gut reaction goes the other way, but here are my initial thoughts.
(1) With the three action system it's not the same crippling hit to your effectiveness as it would be in PF1.
(2) There's a real standardization benefit of having knowledge work like the rest of the system. An action is an action is an action. I prefer to minimize the speed bump of "oh and this works differently" or "oh here's one more thing you can do for free on your turn" (anything to avoid the super cluttered turns off PF1).
(3) Makes it a tactical choice you have to weigh against others, and having to make tactical choices is a large part of the fun, for me, with Pathfinder
(4) I'm sure it will be a very worthwhile action to take. I always find knowledge super useful. So it's not the case that it will be a "wasted" action that's nothing but a drag on your action economy.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I can see how it might take a second or two to recall what you know about some obscure monster, but I think it will simply lead to more metagaming when players choose not to spend the action to confirm things they already know. I also hope that maybe getting a critical success on your ID roll refunds the action since apparently this monster's "stuff" is right there at your mental fingertips.
It also means that talking with monsters before attacking gives you a chance to ID them before initiative is rolled, saving you an action in actual combat if it comes to that.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait...it's going to be an action to identify something and tell others about it....
Uggghhhh
One action to do both, but yes. I'm cool with this on a mechanical level for all the reasons Joe M. notes.
Meanwhile, on a thematic one, spending two whole seconds thinking about the problem is a perfectly reasonable requirement to get useful info about it, and that's all a single action takes.
I guess I can see how it might take a second or two to recall what you know about some obscure monster, but I think it will simply lead to more metagaming when players choose not to spend the action to confirm things they already know.
If they already know in character, this makes sense. Why would they need to roll again? If they only know out of character, that's metagaming and inappropriate, but was already an issue with people who lacked the IC Knowledge Skills but had read the Bestiary. I don't think this will make it notably worse.
I also hope that maybe getting a critical success on your ID roll refunds the action since apparently this monster's "stuff" is right there at your mental fingertips.
Refunding actions gets weird quick. I bet a critical success just gives you lots more info on the beastie. Which seems worthwhile to me.
It also means that talking with monsters before attacking gives you a chance to ID them before initiative is rolled, saving you an action in actual combat if it comes to that.
Encouragement to take a minute (or at least scout things out) before attacking enemies, if possible, is pretty much an unambiguous good in my view. Knowledge is power and you should have more advantage in such things if you have the opportunity to study the enemy before battle.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No more Nature? Is it conflated with Survival? Are oozes covered by Occultism now...?S%#~. No, there's totally Nature. I left it out by mistake here (it's on the full list if you follow the link).
I have no idea what Oozes might fall under, though.
On unaware adventurers?
Alright alright I know where the door is...
I guess my issue is that certain creatures that are super common shouldn't require much thought to recognize and know some basic stuff about them.
Like zombies. You know zombies (at least in Pathfinder) moved slow and weren't affected as much by piercing and bludgeoning weapons. Even if you can't tell other people about it easily, I think basic thinks like this don't really require thought.
As well, if there is an enemy you face all the time (like demons in general) you're probably familiar with all the normal traits of demons without needing to think about it.
To me this system means you don't know anything intuitively, and I don't really like that.
If the system was "you know, but telling your friends is an action", I would have less problem with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many skills get additional features at higher tiers of proficiency. I wouldn't be surprised that "instantly know what a monster is" is a feature that unlocks pretty early.
I wonder if there will be any other mechanical benefit to knowledge checks? I worry making it an action just incentivizes players memorizing the bestiary.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess my issue is that certain creatures that are super common shouldn't require much thought to recognize and know some basic stuff about them.
Like zombies. You know zombies (at least in Pathfinder) moved slow and weren't affected as much by piercing and bludgeoning weapons. Even if you can't tell other people about it easily, I think basic thinks like this don't really require thought.
Eh. There are a lot of rotting corpse monsters, how do you know those are zombies? And both the statements you make aren't even true of all zombies (Fast Zombies ignore all of them).
It's also worth noting that it's exactly the same number of actions to make a Perception check (to find a hiding foe or see through an illusion), so flavoring your knowledge check as scoping them out to make sure what kind of undead they are is totally a reasonable way to justify this.
As well, if there is an enemy you face all the time (like demons in general) you're probably familiar with all the normal traits of demons without needing to think about it.
Why would this require a check at all? If you know they're demons you already know most of this in most cases.
To me this system means you don't know anything intuitively, and I don't really like that.
If the system was "you know, but telling your friends is an action", I would have less problem with it.
Well, with making a Perception check to spot stuff also being an action, I think it makes sense. Heck, even from a realism perspective, I usually can't pull up facts I know intuitively without a couple seconds of thought, and that's what an action is, two whole seconds.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Refunding actions is already something we sort of have in PF1e, although it's pretty obscure. Trying to mount as a free action requires you to have a move action available in case it fails, in which case you're committed to spending the move action because you failed the Ride check.
I'm just thinking if your character basically wrote their dissertation on this exact beastie (represented by the crit success), it doesn't take much time or concentration to shout out its particulars to your friends while also doing other things. I can see a similar argument that you should be able to move and think about a monster at the same time.
Of course, that level of expertise may be represented in the proficiency system - maybe reaching Expert or Master in an identification skill means you can now do it as a free action because you're just that good. Now that I type that it seems that might be more likely than an action refund.
|
|
Of course, that level of expertise may be represented in the proficiency system - maybe reaching Expert or Master in an identification skill means you can now do it as a free action because you're just that good. Now that I type that it seems that might be more likely than an action refund.
I still think action refunds are weird and awkward and would prefer not to see them, but this seems very plausible as well as cool and mechanically sound.
Bards made excellent "nerds" in PF1 and I hope that continues into PF2.
I dont worry about common foes like skeletons/zombies and trolls. I do tend to use the knowledge rules for my players when it comes to aberrations and planar beings that are strange and unusual. So im curious to see how it will work out in PF2.
I guess my issue is that certain creatures that are super common shouldn't require much thought to recognize and know some basic stuff about them.
Like zombies. You know zombies (at least in Pathfinder) moved slow and weren't affected as much by piercing and bludgeoning weapons. Even if you can't tell other people about it easily, I think basic thinks like this don't really require thought.
Eh. There are a lot of rotting corpse monsters, how do you know those are zombies? And both the statements you make aren't even true of all zombies (Fast Zombies ignore all of them).
It's also worth noting that it's exactly the same number of actions to make a Perception check (to find a hiding foe or see through an illusion), so flavoring your knowledge check as scoping them out to make sure what kind of undead they are is totally a reasonable way to justify this.
As well, if there is an enemy you face all the time (like demons in general) you're probably familiar with all the normal traits of demons without needing to think about it.Why would this require a check at all? If you know they're demons you already know most of this in most cases.
Well, with making a Perception check to spot stuff also being an action, I think it makes sense. Heck, even from a realism perspective, I usually can't pull up facts I know intuitively without a couple seconds of thought, and that's what an action is, two whole seconds.To me this system means you don't know anything intuitively, and I don't really like that.
If the system was "you know, but telling your friends is an action", I would have less problem with it.
Also, just because something is well known doesn't mean it is instinctually easy to do or recall under pressure. Gunmen are trained to aim for center of mass; if they have to fight zombies it is going to be hard to adjust in the moment to only taking head shots. Taking an action for Knowledge can be flavored as centering yourself and thinking through how best to proceed.
Also, I think knowledge checks will be SUPER powerful this edition. In the old edition, they were largely only relevant to spell casters. Martials still had to hit the thing, and IIRC you can tell a creature has DR after hitting it once. If the creature had special attacks, you rarely had a way of preventing their use. AoEs being the exception and not the rule means martials need to know if they are safe to move into flanking. If it has a reaction that procs on critical failures, Martials won't want to take their third attack at a -10. And Alchemical Bombs becoming more competitive means martials can more easily exploit elemental weaknesses.
Having them take an action in light of all those new benefits seems legit. ALSO, this opens doors to re-rolling a failed a knowledge check, even if there is some kind of penalty. In the old system, because knowledge checks had no opportunity cost, if you failed to recognize a monster once odds were pretty low you would ever know what it was, no matter how many times you encountered it again. Now, if you desperately need to know what you are dealing with, you can just spend more actions in combat to try and frantically recall it under pressure.
Eh. There are a lot of rotting corpse monsters, how do you know those are zombies? And both the statements you make aren't even true of all zombies (Fast Zombies ignore all of them).
So you can incorrectly assume it's a regular zombie when it's a fast zombie, but I should still be able to see it and think "That's a zombie, it's slow so I should be fine" and then have the zombie run up to me and be surprised.
It's also worth noting that it's exactly the same number of actions to make a Perception check (to find a hiding foe or see through an illusion), so flavoring your knowledge check as scoping them out to make sure what kind of undead they are is totally a reasonable way to justify this.
It's not though. And that's a problem. If you're searching for something it's an action. But if you're passively perceiving it's just a check that happens. I know there's a lot of contention around this sort of thing too, but passive perception is definitely a thing.
Why would this require a check at all? If you know they're demons you already know most of this in most cases.
Wouldn't you require a check each time you see a creature? Else you only need to identify something the first time and then are you forever after able to instantly identify things? That sounds a lot like PF1.
=Well, with making a Perception check to spot stuff also being an action, I think it makes sense. Heck, even from a realism perspective, I usually can't pull up facts I know intuitively without a couple seconds of thought, and that's what an action is, two whole seconds.
So, if a zombie walks out of the woods (I failed to notice before it walked out because it's wearing camouflage) and I have to spend an action to make a perception check to notice it all? And then I have to spend another action to identify it?
This is sounding worse and worse.
To be clear, I'm okay with some thing being more challenging to identify correctly but I don't like this sort of blanket approach on all things. I see a bear I should be able to know "that's a bear" without spending an action. However, when that bear start shooting lasers from it's eyes that when I have to stop and think "Oh that's no bear at all, that's a Laser Bear". But if it's just a regular bear, I should be able to think that's just a regular bear and react appropriately.
Eh. There are a lot of rotting corpse monsters, how do you know those are zombies? And both the statements you make aren't even true of all zombies (Fast Zombies ignore all of them).So you can incorrectly assume it's a regular zombie when it's a fast zombie, but I should still be able to see it and think "That's a zombie, it's slow so I should be fine" and then have the zombie run up to me and be surprised.
It's also worth noting that it's exactly the same number of actions to make a Perception check (to find a hiding foe or see through an illusion), so flavoring your knowledge check as scoping them out to make sure what kind of undead they are is totally a reasonable way to justify this.It's not though. And that's a problem. If you're searching for something it's an action. But if you're passively perceiving it's just a check that happens. I know there's a lot of contention around this sort of thing too, but passive perception is definitely a thing.
Why would this require a check at all? If you know they're demons you already know most of this in most cases.Wouldn't you require a check each time you see a creature? Else you only need to identify something the first time and then are you forever after able to instantly identify things? That sounds a lot like PF1.
=Well, with making a Perception check to spot stuff also being an action, I think it makes sense. Heck, even from a realism perspective, I usually can't pull up facts I know intuitively without a couple seconds of thought, and that's what an action is, two whole seconds.So, if a zombie walks out of the woods (I failed to notice before it walked out because it's wearing camouflage) and I have to spend an action to make a perception check to notice it all? And then I have to spend another action to identify it?
This is sounding worse and worse.
To be clear, I'm okay with some thing being more challenging to identify correctly but I don't like...
I don't think there's anything indicating you won't recognize a bear as a bear without taking an action. The action MIGHT come into play for remembering whether this the type of bear you play dead against or the type of bear you try to scare off.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you can incorrectly assume it's a regular zombie when it's a fast zombie, but I should still be able to see it and think "That's a zombie, it's slow so I should be fine" and then have the zombie run up to me and be surprised.
I honestly don't know that zombies are common enough that your 1st level character has ever seen them before. If you're from Geb or something, sure. If you've seen zombies before with this character, sure.
But random 1st level character? Why would they know that instantly and without thought the first time they see a rotting corpse come for them? Really, the first time a rotting corpse tries to eat you, I'd expect a reaction more like 'What the hell is happening?!?!' than 'Oh, that's a zombie, they're slow.' at least until you take a moment to analyze the situation.
It's not though. And that's a problem. If you're searching for something it's an action. But if you're passively perceiving it's just a check that happens. I know there's a lot of contention around this sort of thing too, but passive perception is definitely a thing.
Passive perception is indeed absolutely a thing. But trying to figure out 'Wait, what's that?' is much more similar to actively searching for a thing IMO.
Wouldn't you require a check each time you see a creature?
PCs who met a creature an hour ago don't need to make a Knowledge check to get info on it again (well, unless they've forgotten the info OOC and the GM is a stickler). Why would they and how would you enforce that? That's absurd.
Are there really Pathfinder GMs who make players roll new monster knowledge for encounters the PCs had 5 minutes ago? Or even one day ago? Because that seems to be what you're saying is necessary, and in that case having it take an action would be more punitive. But that's super unnecessary and has never happened in any game I've played or run or heard of. It's probably happened some time, but it's not a common issue.
Else you only need to identify something the first time and then are you forever after able to instantly identify things? That sounds a lot like PF1.
You the player (and thus also your character) are able to both remember things and make assumptions. Sometimes (without a Knowledge Check to verify them) those memories and assumptions may be wrong, but assuming 'that looks like the demon we fought a while ago, maybe I'll use cold iron' is not something the game needs rules for.
So, if a zombie walks out of the woods (I failed to notice before it walked out because it's wearing camouflage) and I have to spend an action to make a perception check to notice it all? And then I have to spend another action to identify it?
No. Like I said, passive Perception totally exists (and would be used in such a scenario). I just think pausing to go 'Wait, is that a zombie or a ghoul?' is more equivalent to active perception.
This is sounding worse and worse.
Only if you make some really weird assumptions, IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unrelated but I'd really like it in PF2E monsters had a note in their block denoting with the DC of their knowledge check is. How rare are ghasts?
I'll also point out that the ability to make knowledge checks as a free action sounds like prime fodder for a skill feat or something. Not sure how it would be gated or balanced but it seems like it would work pretty well.
If your wizard wrote their dissertation on zombies, for example, the background "Scholar" could grant you free action knowledge checks on undead or another type of creature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To use an example we have been given... imagine you have fireball prepared, and are fighting a red dragon and his kobold minions. In PF1, a knowledge check would tell you that the red dragon is immune to fire and the kobolds aren't. Therefore, you can use the fireball to clear out the minions at least.
In PF2, a Knowledge Check might tell you that the dragon can hijack control of any fire spells cast around it with a reaction, turning the spell back on you. That information is much more valuable, and is worth the cost of an action IMO.
Also, this principle opens up some other interesting tactical choices. Maybe in PF2 identifying a spell as it is cast won't be a free action, so they won't necessarily realize you are casting an illusion. But if you take an action to identify the spell, you'll gain more useful information. One potential example: knowing the level a spell was cast at so you know what level of dispel magic you need to hit it with. Or maybe you can identify how much damage a creature can take to help decide if it worth using a high level blast on it.
Also, this principle opens up some other interesting tactical choices. Maybe in PF2 identifying a spell as it is cast won't be a free action, so they won't necessarily realize you are casting an illusion. But if you take an action to identify the spell, you'll gain more useful information. One potential example: knowing the level a spell was cast at so you know what level of dispel magic you need to hit it with. Or maybe you can identify how much damage a creature can take to help decide if it worth using a high level blast on it.
I think we can pretty well infer this isn't actually a thing right now. We know that there's a thing that lets you counterspell as a Reaction, as they've straight up said such a thing exists. We also know (or at least I think we know) that readied actions (which you would need to use to burn an action to identify off-turn) uses both the action on your turn and your reaction. So since we only get one reaction per turn and I highly doubt they'd expect you to counterspell blindly with that ability I think it's pretty safe to bet that cast-identification is probably not an action.
Also, this principle opens up some other interesting tactical choices. Maybe in PF2 identifying a spell as it is cast won't be a free action, so they won't necessarily realize you are casting an illusion. But if you take an action to identify the spell, you'll gain more useful information. One potential example: knowing the level a spell was cast at so you know what level of dispel magic you need to hit it with. Or maybe you can identify how much damage a creature can take to help decide if it worth using a high level blast on it.I think we can pretty well infer this isn't actually a thing right now. We know that there's a thing that lets you counterspell as a Reaction, as they've straight up said such a thing exists. We also know (or at least I think we know) that readied actions (which you would need to use to burn an action to identify off-turn) uses both the action on your turn and your reaction. So since we only get one reaction per turn and I highly doubt they'd expect you to counterspell blindly with that ability I think it's pretty safe to bet that cast-identification is probably not an action.
See, I just assumed you COULD counterspell blindly. That you don't need to be casting the same spell as the opponent to do it.
See, I just assumed you COULD counterspell blindly. That you don't need to be casting the same spell as the opponent to do it.Also, this principle opens up some other interesting tactical choices. Maybe in PF2 identifying a spell as it is cast won't be a free action, so they won't necessarily realize you are casting an illusion. But if you take an action to identify the spell, you'll gain more useful information. One potential example: knowing the level a spell was cast at so you know what level of dispel magic you need to hit it with. Or maybe you can identify how much damage a creature can take to help decide if it worth using a high level blast on it.I think we can pretty well infer this isn't actually a thing right now. We know that there's a thing that lets you counterspell as a Reaction, as they've straight up said such a thing exists. We also know (or at least I think we know) that readied actions (which you would need to use to burn an action to identify off-turn) uses both the action on your turn and your reaction. So since we only get one reaction per turn and I highly doubt they'd expect you to counterspell blindly with that ability I think it's pretty safe to bet that cast-identification is probably not an action.
While that would be cool in most systems you do need the same spell. And even if you don't, you'll undoubtedly need to know something about what's being cast. There is very little chance it would be as simple as just spending a spell point after all, that would make shutting down an enemy caster (or an enemy caster shutting you down) *too* easy.
While that would be cool in most systems you do need the same spell. And even if you don't, you'll undoubtedly need to know something about what's being cast. There is very little chance it would be as simple as just spending a spell point after all, that would make shutting down an enemy caster (or an enemy caster shutting you down) *too* easy.See, I just assumed you COULD counterspell blindly. That you don't need to be casting the same spell as the opponent to do it.Also, this principle opens up some other interesting tactical choices. Maybe in PF2 identifying a spell as it is cast won't be a free action, so they won't necessarily realize you are casting an illusion. But if you take an action to identify the spell, you'll gain more useful information. One potential example: knowing the level a spell was cast at so you know what level of dispel magic you need to hit it with. Or maybe you can identify how much damage a creature can take to help decide if it worth using a high level blast on it.I think we can pretty well infer this isn't actually a thing right now. We know that there's a thing that lets you counterspell as a Reaction, as they've straight up said such a thing exists. We also know (or at least I think we know) that readied actions (which you would need to use to burn an action to identify off-turn) uses both the action on your turn and your reaction. So since we only get one reaction per turn and I highly doubt they'd expect you to counterspell blindly with that ability I think it's pretty safe to bet that cast-identification is probably not an action.
For some reason I thought that Mark had mentioned we were getting new and improved counterspell mechanics, but I can't find it now, so I'll drop this point.
For some reason I thought that Mark had mentioned we were getting new and improved counterspell mechanics, but I can't find it now, so I'll drop this point.While that would be cool in most systems you do need the same spell. And even if you don't, you'll undoubtedly need to know something about what's being cast. There is very little chance it would be as simple as just spending a spell point after all, that would make shutting down an enemy caster (or an enemy caster shutting you down) *too* easy.See, I just assumed you COULD counterspell blindly. That you don't need to be casting the same spell as the opponent to do it.Also, this principle opens up some other interesting tactical choices. Maybe in PF2 identifying a spell as it is cast won't be a free action, so they won't necessarily realize you are casting an illusion. But if you take an action to identify the spell, you'll gain more useful information. One potential example: knowing the level a spell was cast at so you know what level of dispel magic you need to hit it with. Or maybe you can identify how much damage a creature can take to help decide if it worth using a high level blast on it.I think we can pretty well infer this isn't actually a thing right now. We know that there's a thing that lets you counterspell as a Reaction, as they've straight up said such a thing exists. We also know (or at least I think we know) that readied actions (which you would need to use to burn an action to identify off-turn) uses both the action on your turn and your reaction. So since we only get one reaction per turn and I highly doubt they'd expect you to counterspell blindly with that ability I think it's pretty safe to bet that cast-identification is probably not an action.
For what it is worth, I recall something like that too. I believe someone said something to the effect of "you guys are gonna be really excited to see how counterspelling works in 2E."