Downtime and Exploration mode


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How do you guys feel about these modes?

Personally as someone who likes to have rules for everything I love them.

Do you think they will be incorporated into the AP's and Modules or end up just being a rules system that is used in homebrews?

I really hope they put them into the AP's and use them in unique and diffrerent ways to show off the system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not too fond of them, because I prefer having *less* rules. I know, I know, I landed in the wrong forums and come August I'll be playing the wrong game XD but I mostly need rules for skills and checks, ways to customize characters, and combat rules. I can handle social interaction or exploration without any particular system. I have, many times.

That said... it shall be interesting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Always loved the PF1 downtime rules in that they provided some framework for something that would be really complex for a GM to provide and could grind the game to a halt since you're glossing over weeks and months.

Wilderness exploration stuff is pretty cool too, since it can speed up play to also have some systems specially when you need hours to pass in IRL seconds. Players can at least get some value and feel useful where they would otherwise just ignore the trip.

Dungeon exploration, though, I find those really unwieldy, specially in roll20 where the movement is not abstracted. When you're narrating/RPing in real-time is when you want the least amount of restriction on what you're able to do. It doesn't help that trying to use the rules strictly as shown in the playtest pretty much breaks the game and makes the PCs seem totally incompetent. I mean, you can't even ride a generic horse properly...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that will have been fixed as of now... I refuse to contemplate a scenario in which the Paizo devs forgot all the bad feedback they received on riding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I'd barely consider these things new. There are a few mechanics that are new involving them, but as a whole it is just codification of how the game already worked.

I like having things codified for the sake of implenlmenting new rules and sub systems, though.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Exploration mode feels a bit odd and 'gamey,' but it's not hard to just ignore and handle things like in PF1. Downtime seems more or less fine, except I'm not a fan of making everything take a number of days and removing the option of crafting while traveling entirely. It takes a lot of stuff off the table for happening during the adventure instead of between. I'm hoping for Rituals that take hours instead of days. And some ways to take advantage of travel times for things. Crafting times are also a bit on the long side. It was overdone in PF1 where having a crafter could mean effective doubling of wealth, it's taken to the other extreme in the playtest, where if you don't have weeks or months you just shave a few silver off the price.

I'm skeptical that downtime is going to see much use in APs anyway, considering how much they love to use time pressure as motivation. There is some varying based on GM interpretation, and some APs are more or less than others. I'm running Carrion Crown right now, and the only real downtime at all is in the very first book (and only if you actually complete things before the timer goes off), when a bunch of 3rd level characters don't have the money or abilities to make much use of downtime. The rest is a chase. There isn't an actual timer most of the time, they're allways just behind the bad guys, but narratively there is really no room to take a week off here or there. And that is the case in most of the other APs I've played, very little downtime, which is usually front-loaded to when it's least useful.


ograx wrote:
How do you guys feel about these modes?

I can commend Paizo for trying to formalize these rules. Formal rules could be quite handy if somebody wanted to automate this part of play.

But, in practice, we fell back into established patterns which felt more natural.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Being honest, I haven't looked much into the mechanics as presented in the playtest - but I am very familiar with the ultimate campaign versions - and while I do like the concept, I think they were created with the wrong emphasis in mind. They were made as a way to 'have' these concepts in the game, without taking much table-time to deal with them. As such, they tend to abstract things out WAY too much. The way the resource management is in downtime, for instance, I think is too simplistic, and makes it hard to give out treasure rewards in a meaningful way. Sure, you can have the party discover 6 barrels of fine wine, and simply call that '3 goods' - but then when the party gets back to town, they end up using those 'goods' to help build their wizard's tower. I would much rather goods like this be treated as what they are, and provide a benefit for a specific thing (use it to have an event that raises Influence capital if managed right). Sure, I can do that on my own - but if I'm going to do that anyway, then why use the written system?


CraziFuzzy wrote:
Being honest, I haven't looked much into the mechanics as presented in the playtest - but I am very familiar with the ultimate campaign versions - and while I do like the concept, I think they were created with the wrong emphasis in mind. They were made as a way to 'have' these concepts in the game, without taking much table-time to deal with them. As such, they tend to abstract things out WAY too much. The way the resource management is in downtime, for instance, I think is too simplistic, and makes it hard to give out treasure rewards in a meaningful way. Sure, you can have the party discover 6 barrels of fine wine, and simply call that '3 goods' - but then when the party gets back to town, they end up using those 'goods' to help build their wizard's tower. I would much rather goods like this be treated as what they are, and provide a benefit for a specific thing (use it to have an event that raises Influence capital if managed right). Sure, I can do that on my own - but if I'm going to do that anyway, then why use the written system?

Wait, you're talking about Ultimate Campaign now, aren't you? In the playtest there weren't rules involving abstract "goods" iirc, and moreover, we don't know if and how those rules changed for the final version of 2e.

I mean, I agree with your critique of the system, more or less (although 6 barrels of fine wine can be sold for the services of a crew of carpenters and stonemasons who will build the wizard's tower I suppose), but I don't think we'll get that deep into downtime with the core book already. Rules for building houses... maybe that's not a priority yet.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Roswynn wrote:

Wait, you're talking about Ultimate Campaign now, aren't you? In the playtest there weren't rules involving abstract "goods" iirc, and moreover, we don't know if and how those rules changed for the final version of 2e.

I mean, I agree with your critique of the system, more or less (although 6 barrels of fine wine can be sold for the services of a crew of carpenters and stonemasons who will build the wizard's tower I suppose), but I don't think we'll get that deep into downtime with the core book already. Rules for building houses... maybe that's not a priority yet.

As I said, i don't really have experience with the playtest downtime mechanics. Was just voicing my concerns with the previous ruleset that they called 'Downtime'. I feel my fears of "Downtime-2e" also being TOO abstracted is sort of verified in that it is considered a 'mode of play', where it is quite likely designed to take up less table time than if they just kept things flowing as normal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
As I said, i don't really have experience with the playtest downtime mechanics. Was just voicing my concerns with the previous ruleset that they called 'Downtime'. I feel my fears of "Downtime-2e" also being TOO abstracted is sort of verified in that it is considered a 'mode of play', where it is quite likely designed to take up less table time than if they just kept things flowing as normal.

I think it could certainly end up being too abstracted for your tastes. Perhaps it'll still help you out as a foundation on which to run your group's downtime activities. I see this as a possible problem for me as well, so this is one case in which I do have a horse in the race.

If everything goes pear-shaped though, I think we'll benefit greatly from the 2e Unchained, "soon at a store near you".


4 people marked this as a favorite.

For me I really would like to see it integrated into the AP's with actual outcomes and little rewards that are extra tossed in.

I think the RP possibilities of it are great and can lead to interesting little 2 minute side quests/tasks.

I am maybe looking at it more than it will end up being but I am hoping by them including it as an actual mode of play that they will integrate some of the ultimate campaign type options and really run with it.

Just like with the exploration mode they have as well and the hex maps for PC's to explore that I have seen I really hope this becomes something that isn't just a small section that never really gets used by first party content.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I wanted to like exploration mode, but at least in the playtest version it had some issues:

1) The fatigueing/non-fatiguing options felt a little unbalanced/gamified. I trust that can be revisted and fixed.

2) It felt like the skeleton of a rule system rather than a full system. Not sure if that will be addressed before additional hardcovers.

3) If exploration is defined as 'what happens between encounters' and encounters cover combat, social, etc, then any 'interesting exploring' should be an new type of encounter, rather than exploration mode -- in which case point (2) somewhat goes away -- its never been to be a full/rich system.

4) It 'gamifies' the time between encounters in a way that can discourage RP in favor of 'picking the right exploration actions'. (Good GMs/players can avoid this pitfall, but its likely to sidetrack people who aren't actively trying to avoid it)

The downtime stuff on the other hand felt generally solid, just in need of a bit more content at launch.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The downtime also required days spent crafting even small items =/ I really hope there will be options for shorter intervals too. It's not making or breaking this, but still.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Being honest, I haven't looked much into the mechanics as presented in the playtest - but I am very familiar with the ultimate campaign versions - and while I do like the concept, I think they were created with the wrong emphasis in mind. They were made as a way to 'have' these concepts in the game, without taking much table-time to deal with them. As such, they tend to abstract things out WAY too much. The way the resource management is in downtime, for instance, I think is too simplistic, and makes it hard to give out treasure rewards in a meaningful way. Sure, you can have the party discover 6 barrels of fine wine, and simply call that '3 goods' - but then when the party gets back to town, they end up using those 'goods' to help build their wizard's tower. I would much rather goods like this be treated as what they are, and provide a benefit for a specific thing (use it to have an event that raises Influence capital if managed right). Sure, I can do that on my own - but if I'm going to do that anyway, then why use the written system?

Wait, you're talking about Ultimate Campaign now, aren't you? In the playtest there weren't rules involving abstract "goods" iirc, and moreover, we don't know if and how those rules changed for the final version of 2e.

I mean, I agree with your critique of the system, more or less (although 6 barrels of fine wine can be sold for the services of a crew of carpenters and stonemasons who will build the wizard's tower I suppose), but I don't think we'll get that deep into downtime with the core book already. Rules for building houses... maybe that's not a priority yet.

I found the Downtime rules from Ultimate Campaign to be handy when the party in my Iron Gods campaign started building businesses on their hometown Torch. The first building I constructed was a house for their friend Dinvaya Lanalei, who had moved to Torch from Scrapwall. The second building was a GMPC project. GMPC Val Baine was in charge of hiding the party's identities as adventurers, so she created a business as a cover for the wealth the party was bringing in. And its warehouse a few miles away from Torch could hide their spaceship. And then two players followed through on their own initative with two more businesses.

This was at 7th and 10th levels, so the PCs were rich and did not need to earn the capital (Goods, Influence, Labor, or Magic) to build the places. Behind the scenes Val Baine used her Influence to keep people from asking too many questions and my players never saw Influence in action. One advantage of classifying Ultimate Campaign as supplemental material is that I could leave out complications that did not aid my campaign.

Skilled Work: If you have ranks in a useful skill, you can spend 1 day working in a settlement to earn more capital than you would doing unskilled work. Note that this method includes both legal and illegal means of earning capital—for example, a day spent using Sleight of Hand to earn money could be a day spent performing as a street magician or a day spent pickpocketing.

Choose either one type of capital (Goods, Influence, Labor, or Magic) or gp, and attempt a skill check. You can take 10 on this check.

If you chose gp, divide the result of your check by 10 to determine how many gp you earn that day. For example, if your check result is a 16, dividing it by 10 earns you 1 gp and 6 sp that day (round to the nearest silver).
...

The Pathfinder 2nd Edition Playtest simplified this system into Practice a Trade.

Playtest Rulebook, Skills chapter, page 151-152 wrote:

PRACTICE A TRADE

Downtime
You apply the practical benefits of your Lore specialty to earn money during periods of downtime. Practicing
a Trade is most effective with Lore specialties such as business, law, or sailing, where there’s demand for workers. The GM might increase the DC if you’re attempting to use an obscure Lore skill to practice a trade.

The GM assigns a task level representing the difficulty of the most lucrative job available. You can go looking for lower-level
tasks, with the GM determining whether you find any. Sometimes you can attempt to find better work than the initial offerings, though this requires spending downtime to Gather Information or researching and socializing.

...

After you spend the base downtime to get started, roll your Lore check to determine your earnings. You continue to earn that
amount each day for the duration of the job, without requiring further checks. The GM determines how long the job lasts,
which is limited by how long the task will take to complete and other factors. Most tasks last a week or two, ...

Practice a Trade uses TABLE 4–4: SKILL INCOME on page 153 for the earnings. The table has the same numbers as TABLE 4–3: CRAFTING PROGRESS PER DAY on page 148 and I analyzed those numbers exhaustively at Unskilled labor unable to live at Subsistence Cost of Living comment #13. The table is level based with scarcely a nod to skill proficiency. I believe that earnings are based on level because the primary use for an adventurer's downtime earnings would be to buy (or make with crafting) better gear. Pathfinder uses wealth by level to separate its gear by levels.

Roswynn wrote:
The downtime also required days spent crafting even small items =/ I really hope there will be options for shorter intervals too. It's not making or breaking this, but still.

I think this comes from Practice a Trade. It says, as I quoted above, "After you spend the base downtime to get started, roll your Lore check to determine your earnings." On Failure, the daily earnings are pathetic and the smart thing is to immediately quit the job and try again.

Immediately Try Again is a weakness in the Pathfinder 2nd Edition skill system. Pathfinder 1st Edition had a lot of Cannot Try Again skill uses, but Try Again is the default for Pathfinder 2nd Edition. And nasty results, such as falling off a cliff and taking major damage, are reserved for Critical Failures. If the task is short compared to the time pressure, then the PC simply tries until he or she succeeds or rolls a critical failure. That throws off the odds.

To balance the odds and make failure meaningful, Practice a Trade was given a 4-day time penalty for failure. Except that Paizo wrote it as a 4-day time requirement for the attempt rather than a 4-day time penalty for failing the roll. Representing the time penalty as the time to search for a job was plausible for Practice a Trade. It makes much less sense for Craft, but they used the same mechanic there anyway.

Dataphiles

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Adding terms for them lets you suddenly do things like get a feat that "allows you to thingy when using skill in exploration mode." There is no longer the loophole of the player going, "Y'know I can do this certain thing... can I use it in combat?" The answer is just flat "no". It's just for exploration mode. Same for downtime and such.

Adding delineation of the different types of situations the characters finds them in allows for more granular control of feats, bonuses, and spells.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I tried to use Exploration mode in the Playtest and it felt utterly useless and complicating things that never needed to be complicated. Added on top was the utter pointlessness of choosing tactics in most Scenarios so it felt like wasted time to even do so. Worst offender was the Manticore that only didn't find you if the whole party went sneak tactics, completely independent of their actual skill in Stealth.
I am still interested to see if it has evolved into a working system, but it will only ever be used by me if it gets integrated in their scenarios.

Downtime never was interesting to me either, all their systems before were minigames on top of an already complicated game. I do not see that changing much in the current iteration. It feels like something for Pathfinder Society.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To each their own, I think it was more of a test in the playtest and not hashed our properly by any means.

For me it is something I’d like to see get expanded greatly and it is a book I’d purchase separately as something like an ultimate campaign.

I’m not sure how popular ultimate campaign was but for my group these kind of options and other systems we can integrate are something we’ve always loved to do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DerNils wrote:

I tried to use Exploration mode in the Playtest and it felt utterly useless and complicating things that never needed to be complicated. Added on top was the utter pointlessness of choosing tactics in most Scenarios so it felt like wasted time to even do so. Worst offender was the Manticore that only didn't find you if the whole party went sneak tactics, completely independent of their actual skill in Stealth.

I am still interested to see if it has evolved into a working system, but it will only ever be used by me if it gets integrated in their scenarios.

Downtime never was interesting to me either, all their systems before were minigames on top of an already complicated game. I do not see that changing much in the current iteration. It feels like something for Pathfinder Society.

The group being able to sneak around an enemy is a fantasy trope that I want to be able to have in my games (even if the group isn't particularly skilled at stealth, as bumbling dwarves sneaking successfully is a movie trope).

I found the manticore in the playtest didn't represent that well because it was this hidden behind the screen mechanic. Out of the playtest it would be interesting to instead run that encounter so that the party sees the manticore hunting and it becomes a decision to travel up the mountain at a normal pace (risking attack), or to sneak up the mountain (traveling slower but avoiding the attack). In the scenario it was a auto success if everyone sneaked, and that can stay as the GMs decision to have a stealth DC or not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DerNils wrote:

I tried to use Exploration mode in the Playtest and it felt utterly useless and complicating things that never needed to be complicated. Added on top was the utter pointlessness of choosing tactics in most Scenarios so it felt like wasted time to even do so. Worst offender was the Manticore that only didn't find you if the whole party went sneak tactics, completely independent of their actual skill in Stealth.

I am still interested to see if it has evolved into a working system, but it will only ever be used by me if it gets integrated in their scenarios.

You did better than I did.

The first chapter, The Lost Star, was run almost entirely in encounter mode. They left for healing midway and returned the next day, so I had them re-enter the Ashen Ossuary in exploration mode. After 100 feet of uneventful movement they came into line of sight of a goblin guard and encounter mode began and never ended.

The second chapter, In Pale Mountain's Shadow, ought to have had more exploration mode, because it was about outdoor travel. However, the chapter set up the journey to Pale Mountain as a set of Survival checks, overriding exploration rules. The setup of the Gnarled Foothills, Sand Flats, Gnoll Camp, Treacherous Climb, and Approaching the Tomb felt like describing the terrain as the party approached an inevitable encounter with the one hazard in the terrain. When my players started heavily roleplaying their wilderness expertise, I switched to storytelling in response and totally forgot about the exploration mode rules. Maybe that was habit. Yet when the party barbarian says that she is going to climb a steep cliff with her Raging Athlete climbing abilities to get a better look ahead, viewing that plan as an "exploration tactic" seems a step down from detail into blandness.

In the third chapter, Affair at Sombrefell Hall, my players insisted on a lot more social interaction with Dr. Oscilar and his three students than the chapter intended. Upon hearing about how the scholar had gone into seclusion, the Ustalavian native my wife played, an elf noble bard, immediately wanted whether he had become a vampire. Therefore, the roleplaying began in detective mode where the PCs were seeking to help Dr. Oscilar and obtain some work from him, but also searching for clues whether they ought to put a stake through his heart. This social interaction revealed the potential of the backgrounds for roleplaying, but it was not exploration mode. Page 316 in the Playtest Rulebook said, "While encounters use rounds for combat and roughly real time for social encounters, exploration is more free-form." That implies that social interactions are a fourth mode in addition to encounters, exploration, and downtime. Page 7 says, "There are three main modes of play in a Pathfinder game: encounter mode, exploration mode, and downtime mode." Maybe there are minor modes of play, too.

To me, exploration tactics felt like a montage of snapshots. Here we see the party on the road, here we see them leave the road and head up a rocky wooded hillside, and here we see them find the cave they searched for. My players prefer roleplaying as a series of movie clips, where they are more active as they set the scene. At Sombrefell Hall during the preliminary social interaction, the dwarf barkeep monk wandered off on the pretext of carrying their bags to their room, but really made a series of skill checks, decisions, and reponses to explore Sombrefell Hall for clues, while the other players were talking with Dr. Oscilar. That was a dynamic scene, since simultaneous timing was important.

My players' love of detail is one reason we covered only 3 out of the 7 playtest chapters.

As for the manticore in section B4, Treacherous Climb, of In Pale Mountain's Shadow, some of us GMs interpreted the line, "Two-thirds of the way up the mountainside to area B5, the manticore notices the PCs unless the entire party is stealthy in their exploration," as that if the party is using Sneaking exploration tactics, then they can attempt a Stealth check. See the discussion at Pale Mountain - Stealth and zone B4 for differing viewpoints, including my own. I discussed this matter beforehand with my wife, who played the human nomad barbarian, and she wanted a more realistic rewrite. So I altered the stealth attempt and made it test the Stealth rules (comment #12 under the spoiler seal). That, too, ended up as story rather than tactics.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We had a rather Long initial discussion at the beginning of "In Pale Mountains Shadow" on how Riding mixes with Exploration tactics. I went the harsh route that riding, especially for untrained riders, takes an Action and therefore Counts as a one Action per turn tactic. My Players mitigated that by having one of them lead most of the animals while riding, while the fast Monk went scouting and the others just walked along.
This didn't feel too forced, but in the end I realised we had discussed almost thirty minutes just to establish the group would travel at half pace.
As DM Livgin said, Things like the manticore encounter could lead to interesting decisions, avoiding the ages old "we have one Paladin so we never sneak anywhere" conundrum. If tactics can override skill roles and still have an interesting effect, that opens up new storytelling possibilities. Still, I already hear some of my players moaning how their Full Plate friend can stealth fine while traversing a mountain path and suddenly becomes unbearably loud in the dungeon.

I remain optimistic - with more space, more described tactics and a better integration with the travelling rules, this could have interesting effects. At worst, it's a subsystem that is easily ignored, so no problem for me.

Grand Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
DerNils wrote:

We had a rather Long initial discussion at the beginning of "In Pale Mountains Shadow" on how Riding mixes with Exploration tactics. I went the harsh route that riding, especially for untrained riders, takes an Action and therefore Counts as a one Action per turn tactic. My Players mitigated that by having one of them lead most of the animals while riding, while the fast Monk went scouting and the others just walked along.

This didn't feel too forced, but in the end I realised we had discussed almost thirty minutes just to establish the group would travel at half pace.
As DM Livgin said, Things like the manticore encounter could lead to interesting decisions, avoiding the ages old "we have one Paladin so we never sneak anywhere" conundrum. If tactics can override skill roles and still have an interesting effect, that opens up new storytelling possibilities. Still, I already hear some of my players moaning how their Full Plate friend can stealth fine while traversing a mountain path and suddenly becomes unbearably loud in the dungeon.

I remain optimistic - with more space, more described tactics and a better integration with the travelling rules, this could have interesting effects. At worst, it's a subsystem that is easily ignored, so no problem for me.

I think in that context, it means less "silently sneaky" and more "walking AROUND the skeletons and manticore spikes instead of just walking through it, effectively walking around the encounter". Could also be "Be wary and visually hidden, making sure to stay far enough away to see it before it sees the group, and walking around when you do see it".


I am absolutely on board with you - it's really a wording/wrapping your head around new stuff thing. If the tactic is called "Sneak" or "Stealth" or whatever, my Players look at their character Sheets, see a -6 to stealth and decide "That's not a tactic I'm ever gonna use".
And as in the Playtest the tactics covered both daylong trips and the Exploration of dungeons, there was some grinding of gears. I am hopeful that in the Core Book or latest at one of the next expansions and the Adventure paths themselves there will be more examples of interesting uses for Exploration tactics to teach my Players (and myself) new ways of using them.

Grand Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
DerNils wrote:

I am absolutely on board with you - it's really a wording/wrapping your head around new stuff thing. If the tactic is called "Sneak" or "Stealth" or whatever, my Players look at their character Sheets, see a -6 to stealth and decide "That's not a tactic I'm ever gonna use".

And as in the Playtest the tactics covered both daylong trips and the Exploration of dungeons, there was some grinding of gears. I am hopeful that in the Core Book or latest at one of the next expansions and the Adventure paths themselves there will be more examples of interesting uses for Exploration tactics to teach my Players (and myself) new ways of using them.

Yeah, that's why I was more "interpreting" their descriptions and assigning them tactics (I confirmed with them) than asking them to actually tell the tactic they wanted.

Good thing to note: Jason seems to do the same in the Oblivion Oath streamed game. When Zel tried to hide in the corner of the room for his guard duty at night, Jason assigned him the "stealth tactic" in case something happened. I don't remember anyone actually "I use X tactic" in any episode.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
DerNils wrote:

I am absolutely on board with you - it's really a wording/wrapping your head around new stuff thing. If the tactic is called "Sneak" or "Stealth" or whatever, my Players look at their character Sheets, see a -6 to stealth and decide "That's not a tactic I'm ever gonna use".

Actually, we already have some insight into how this has been addressed. There is now a tactic for someone who is good at a skill to cover the rest of the party. We don't have the full details on it yet, but if you have at least one stealthy member they can help cover folks who aren't. And this is before you get to whatever the new version of the Quiet Allies feat does.

Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
DerNils wrote:

I am absolutely on board with you - it's really a wording/wrapping your head around new stuff thing. If the tactic is called "Sneak" or "Stealth" or whatever, my Players look at their character Sheets, see a -6 to stealth and decide "That's not a tactic I'm ever gonna use".

Plus then it has the same name as an action or skill. Hmm, what about "Avoid Notice" ?


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I hope that's what made it into the book.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
NielsenE wrote:
I hope that's what made it into the book.

Given that it's Mark Seifter saying it and he helped write the book, that seems very likely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That sounds very good. I look forward to how this gets employed, as per the playtest that would have meant the leader is using two tactics? "Avoid Notice" and "Lead other" (or whatever it is called). Or maybe it is something linked to your Expertise Level, e.g. Masters Can use a Skill and help someone else?

Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
NielsenE wrote:
I hope that's what made it into the book.
Given that it's Mark Seifter saying it and he helped write the book, that seems very likely.

I hope that's no secret! But if so, might as well make the big reveal: Hi everyone, I'm Mark! I wrote a lot of this book thing we're all talking about here.

Oops, guess that's not Avoiding Notice.

:ducks under the desk:


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I know you wrote the book, was more just commenting that I hope that was a 'leak' of the re-named exploration activity rather than a newly realized 'oh here's what we should have called it'


Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
NielsenE wrote:
I hope that's what made it into the book.
Given that it's Mark Seifter saying it and he helped write the book, that seems very likely.

I hope that's no secret! But if so, might as well make the big reveal: Hi everyone, I'm Mark! I wrote a lot of this book thing we're all talking about here.

Oops, guess that's not Avoiding Notice.

:ducks under the desk:

You failed to Avoid Notice.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NielsenE wrote:
I know you wrote the book, was more just commenting that I hope that was a 'leak' of the re-named exploration activity rather than a newly realized 'oh here's what we should have called it'

I know you know ;)

I'm cagy because I don't like to confirm things directly except in more official venues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What if we said Jason already confirmed it on stream and we’re just asking for some clarifications?

(You can use Deception to Gather Information, yes?)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Ediwir wrote:

What if we said Jason already confirmed it on stream and we’re just asking for some clarifications?

(You can use Deception to Gather Information, yes?)

Last time I tried that tactic, I was told Erik would be more believable.

Mark, Erik already confirmed it on stream and we’re just asking for some clarifications

Deception: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (1) + 3 = 4

Edit: ... Well, darn. Critical fail

Designer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
3Doubloons wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

What if we said Jason already confirmed it on stream and we’re just asking for some clarifications?

(You can use Deception to Gather Information, yes?)

Last time I tried that tactic, I was told Erik would be more believable.

Mark, Erik already confirmed it on stream and we’re just asking for some clarifications

[dice=Deception]1d20 + 3

Edit: ... Well, darn. Critical fail

Critical fail? Oh man! Not only do I know you were attempting to Lie to deceive me, but I also get a sense of what you were hiding...hmm, it seems like you guys are just fishing for additional information.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Us?
We would never.

(that aside, I am enjoying the parallel between Encounter/Exploration/Downtime and Duel/Social/Persona in WftC :P)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Downtime and Exploration mode All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.