| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually rather like the idea of combining Group Impression and Glad-Hand, wowing a whole group just with your entrance.
Also I wouldn't mind the group...
That's actually a tactic my playtest bard ran, adding Versatile Performance into the mix as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it just confirmation bias of did the combats move along surprisingly quickly for level 7 combats (at least compared to 1E)?
I am not sure if I am tricking myself somehow into thinking what is understand the aim was or if the combats really did run more smoothly
I know the episodes were long but there was so much general joking around filling that...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it just confirmation bias of did the combats move along surprisingly quickly for level 7 combats (at least compared to 1E)?
I am not sure if I am tricking myself somehow into thinking what is understand the aim was or if the combats really did run more smoothly
I know the episodes were long but there was so much general joking around filling that...
Keep in mind The GCP guys do this professionally, and the only thing that slows them down is rule stuff and their GM literally wrote the book.
But I also think the game runs quicker, yeah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it just confirmation bias of did the combats move along surprisingly quickly for level 7 combats (at least compared to 1E)?
I am not sure if I am tricking myself somehow into thinking what is understand the aim was or if the combats really did run more smoothly
I know the episodes were long but there was so much general joking around filling that...
Keep in mind The GCP guys do this professionally, and the only thing that slows them down is rule stuff and their GM literally wrote the book.
But I also think the game runs quicker, yeah.
They do it professionally yes but in their recent podcasts of level 13 pathfinder 1E they have had their struggles and the combats seem to be running slowly
No doubt Jason running things helps. I will pay a bit more attention next time an Oblivion Oath episode comes out
Is it just confirmation bias of did the combats move along surprisingly quickly for level 7 combats (at least compared to 1E)?
I am not sure if I am tricking myself somehow into thinking what is understand the aim was or if the combats really did run more smoothly
I know the episodes were long but there was so much general joking around filling that...
Keep in mind The GCP guys do this professionally, and the only thing that slows them down is rule stuff and their GM literally wrote the book.
But I also think the game runs quicker, yeah.
They do it professionally yes but in their recent podcasts of level 13 pathfinder 1E they have had their struggles and the combats seem to be running slowly
No doubt Jason running things helps. I will pay a bit more attention next time an Oblivion Oath episode comes out
Sure. But that is 13th level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well hopefully “but that is 13th level” is not a statement that can be made about the new edition. If that isn’t an area of concern then they will have succeeded with one of their design goals
Well hopefully “but that is 13th level” is not a statement that can be made about the new edition. If that isn’t an area of concern then they will have succeeded with one of their design goals
Indeed. High level play will inevitably take longer thanks to having more options. But stuff like being able to attack 3 times at level 1 should certainly help even it out some.
Are secret checks no longer a thing in 2nd edition?
Wouldn't that be kind of up to the gm?
Secret checks are the thing, as I recall. In OO there were several moments, such as checking the door for traps, with a secret perception check. But nobody will arrest you if your GM lets you to roll such checks by yourself. This would work strangely with crit fails mechanics, though. False info and stuff, you know
I mean...secret checks are imo something that usually doesn't need a rule (except for some border cases maybe)
If the gm wants to make his roles rather secret then open, for whatever reason, it is kind of his style.
I mean, of course there could be rule for it, I haven't given it much thought tbh
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean...secret checks are imo something that usually doesn't need a rule (except for some border cases maybe)
If the gm wants to make his roles rather secret then open, for whatever reason, it is kind of his style.I mean, of course there could be rule for it, I haven't given it much thought tbh
In the playtest there was a specific tag for 'secret' on some types of check, i.e. checks that the GM makes for you. So if you crit fail a knowledge check the result is your PC gets false info that you the player don't even know is false, and stuff like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean...secret checks are imo something that usually doesn't need a rule (except for some border cases maybe)
If the gm wants to make his roles rather secret then open, for whatever reason, it is kind of his style.
Without it being a rule in the core rules I wouldn't even consider secret rolls. Given it is a rule, I am willing to consider for at least a minute or two before I likely dismiss it and houserule it away.
In the playtest there was a specific tag for 'secret' on some types of check, i.e. checks that the GM makes for you. So if you crit fail a knowledge check the result is your PC gets false info that you the player don't even know is false, and stuff like that.I mean...secret checks are imo something that usually doesn't need a rule (except for some border cases maybe)
If the gm wants to make his roles rather secret then open, for whatever reason, it is kind of his style.I mean, of course there could be rule for it, I haven't given it much thought tbh
Yes, I wasn't a fan of that: if for no other reason than it's tiring to come up with fake info if everyone rolls and gets bad rolls.
Yes, I wasn't a fan of that: if for no other reason than it's tiring to come up with fake info if everyone rolls and gets bad rolls.In the playtest there was a specific tag for 'secret' on some types of check, i.e. checks that the GM makes for you. So if you crit fail a knowledge check the result is your PC gets false info that you the player don't even know is false, and stuff like that.I mean...secret checks are imo something that usually doesn't need a rule (except for some border cases maybe)
If the gm wants to make his roles rather secret then open, for whatever reason, it is kind of his style.I mean, of course there could be rule for it, I haven't given it much thought tbh
I liked the concept quite a lot in theory, but yeah, my autistic brain struggled with the execution. My players also really liked the concept though, even though (/because?) they could invariably tell when I was feeding them "false" information that I'd just had to come up with. For that reason I'll probably keep the mechanic in my games, and just have to trust them not to use their OOC knowledge of my 'tells' for when I'm lying to impact their characters actions in-game
I liked the concept quite a lot in theory, but yeah, my autistic brain struggled with the execution. My players also really liked the concept though, even though (/because?) they could invariably tell when I was feeding them "false" information that I'd just had to come up with. For that reason I'll probably keep the mechanic in my games, and just have to trust them not to use their OC knowledge of my 'tells' for when I'm lying to impact their characters actions in-gameYes, I wasn't a fan of that: if for no other reason than it's tiring to come up with fake info if everyone rolls and gets bad rolls.In the playtest there was a specific tag for 'secret' on some types of check, i.e. checks that the GM makes for you. So if you crit fail a knowledge check the result is your PC gets false info that you the player don't even know is false, and stuff like that.I mean...secret checks are imo something that usually doesn't need a rule (except for some border cases maybe)
If the gm wants to make his roles rather secret then open, for whatever reason, it is kind of his style.I mean, of course there could be rule for it, I haven't given it much thought tbh
*nods* I can see the appeal of the concept too but I'm with you on the struggle. I can see it working if they include false info along with the real info when an adventure asks for a check: that of course doesn't help the person making their own adventures.
*nods* I can see the appeal of the concept too but I'm with you on the struggle. I can see it working if they include false info along with the real info when an adventure asks for a check: that of course doesn't help the person making their own adventures.
That would be so very useful for pre-written adventures though, here's hoping
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Fake information from a bad knowledge roll" is usually just a gag at our table since even if we don't know enough to know what the creature is we know enough to know what probably isn't true. And coming up with false facts every time somebody rolls poorly just seems... like a lot of unnecessary brain work? There are more fun things the GM could be doing.
Secret checks would work perfectly with perception for traps or discern lies, or some stealth checks. Don't know if I would use that in my games
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm just scatterbrained but when I'm GM'ing I don't really want to have to keep track of all of my players' skill mods so I can do rolls for them. For traps I find it's just easier to have them commit to their approach to trapfinding (usually just comes down to who you trust to make the perception check and who is going to open the door if no traps are found). For stealth you commit to your roll by the nature of making it so there's even less of an issue there.
In the glass cannon playthrough the knowledge checks were in the open. Everyone knew about the critical fail and the flamingos ...
So that is not definitively secret anymore
Wasn’t old school D&D almost all GM die rolling and them telling you what happened (after you said what you wanted to do)? That is what happens in Community - but it is not clear what edition they play in that
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you need to keep track of their skills? Just ask them what their modifier is and roll.
Why would you need to keep track of their skills? Just ask them what their modifier is and roll.
This is what I was going to say/how I do it. Yeah, trapfinding and knowledge both were secret rolls in playtest, and maybe some others? I cant remember/don't have the playtest Rulebook with me rn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you need to keep track of their skills? Just ask them what their modifier is and roll.This is what I was going to say/how I do it. Yeah, trapfinding and knowledge both were secret rolls in playtest, and maybe some others? I cant remember/don't have the playtest Rulebook with me rn
I would write down the modifiers once and update them every level
In the glass cannon playthrough the knowledge checks were in the open. Everyone knew about the critical fail and the flamingos ...
That is true. And in the Oblivion Oath where the atmosphere is bit more serious Jason did a secret check at some point. Not 100% sure where it was though, but hopefully someone else can remember what that check was about.
I think Jason used open roll and flamingos as an inspiration for more jokes and they really put those flamingos to a good use.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the glass cannon playthrough the knowledge checks were in the open. Everyone knew about the critical fail and the flamingos ...That is true. And in the Oblivion Oath where the atmosphere is bit more serious Jason did a secret check at some point. Not 100% sure where it was though, but hopefully someone else can remember what that check was about.
I think Jason used open roll and flamingos as an inspiration for more jokes and they really put those flamingos to a good use.
You can never be too careful when dealing with birds of the marsh.
In order for a secret knowledge check to work, the chance of a critical failure has to be relatively low (else the player won't bother even attempting the check, for obvious reasons) and the false information has to be plausible. I probably wouldn't bother putting out fake info on a very basic monster, but the obvious thing to do with a variant or unique monster is to describe it as an ordinary instance of whatever it is a variant of.
lse the player won't bother even attempting the check, for obvious reasons
Shouldn't the gm have the final say?
lse the player won't bother even attempting the check, for obvious reasonsShouldn't the gm have the final say?
I mean, during combat a knowledge check is an action, the GM can't be dictating what actions the players use
Knowledge check would be imo a free action (if any)
a character knows the monster or doesnt know the monster, no action (economy wise) involved
Knowledge check would be imo a free action (if any)
a character knows the monster or doesnt know the monster, no action (economy wise) involved
In the playtest it was explicitly 1 action to "Recall knowledge". And have seen no evidence this would be changed. People didn't even complain about it.
I mean, during combat a knowledge check is an action, the GM can't be dictating what actions the players uselse the player won't bother even attempting the check, for obvious reasonsShouldn't the gm have the final say?
Exactly. Why bother thinking about what a monster might be when any information you might come up with is almost certain to be wrong? You are better off proceeding in complete ignorance with no expectations about what the monster can do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Knowledge check would be imo a free action (if any)
a character knows the monster or doesnt know the monster, no action (economy wise) involved
I think this thread has given a reason why a knowledge check should be some sort of action. I would hate to be forced to act on false information that I didn't even ask for. While many people with low degrees of knowledge don't know their own limitations, some of them do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, during combat a knowledge check is an action, the GM can't be dictating what actions the players uselse the player won't bother even attempting the check, for obvious reasonsShouldn't the gm have the final say?
Exactly. Why bother thinking about what a monster might be when any information you might come up with is almost certain to be wrong? You are better off proceeding in complete ignorance with no expectations about what the monster can do.
Okay this is the first case I actually gonna houserule
A player might not bother thinking about it but the character fighting a monster certainly does - they don't know that there is a chance in the background to recall false knowledge
If you encounter some kind of monster you don't know or might know would you 'not' think about it to be sure you don't have wrong information? No, you automatically try to recall every bit of knowledge that could help you in sich a situation (or panic, but that's a condition)
I like the pathfinder 2 rules from what I know so far, but this makes no sense
An alternative would be that everyone gets a passive (hidden) check by the dm and can take an action to think about what they know (clearing the head and sort the information)
But you can't tell me that someone that is not actively panicking is NOT trying to figure out what the heck is standing in front of one when they see something they didn't see before
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you can't tell me that someone that is not actively panicking is NOT trying to figure out what the heck is standing in front of one when they see something they didn't see before
I must respectfully disagree. At least in the first 6 seconds I would be trying to figure out if I'm in immediate danger, thinking about where to move, thinking about whether to use my weapon or retreat etc. If I get a second to breathe I might spend "an actions amount of effort" to sort through my internal knowledge to see if I can infer anything useful about the thing in front of me. But in the immediacy, if something's attacking me, all I know is what it looks like (which the GM should've described already) and how I'm going to react. In my opinion an action to recall knowledge is fine, especially if it's not a creature the character has come across before and they're trying to infer knowledge from its appearance or match it with something they've only heard of or read in a book.
We may be the odd ones out (or we may not!), but my table actually used the knowledge action more frequently during the playtest than they remember to ask for their free knowledge check in our P1 campaign. Make of that what you will.
I guess it comes down to a matter of taste and perception of those things
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is wild, sometimes I wonder if we are all playing the same game. *chuckles* But, I suppose that is the cool thing about RPGs, it is a human game, and we likely all play it differently.
"Secret rolls", rolls behind the DM screen, whatever you want to call them have been around since the beginning of time. But like anything else it is a tool for a DM, and it is up to them to use how they wish.
For myself, there are certain rolls that just make sense to roll secretly in order to maintain and/or support the mystery of the moment. It isn't always the same type of roll, just depends on the situation. Other times, it doesn't really matter one way or the other if the roll is out in the open or not.
Re secret rolls: For the playtest, I had the players roll the dice & announce their skill bonus but into a dice tower where only I could see the result. At least for checking for traps, the deadpan "looks fine" response became a bit of a running joke that I think added to the fun & with minimal brain load. Crit fails on recall knowledge almost never came up.
I feel like people are going to keep on doing whatever they have been doing regarding secret checks.
But for people without a previous notion of "how the game should be played" I think it is good to point out that some rolls represent information a PC should not have on a failed roll (e.g. "is that person lying" or "is there a trap here") and keeping the roll hidden removes the risk of a character's actions being dictated by meta-knowledge (i.e. the number the die showed) a player possesses but their character does not.
So "secret rolls" should definitely be part of the default rules. We can talk about the potential downside and changing it in the GMG, as part of a larger discussion on cultivating and maintaining trust.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take the case where you are playing an unintelligent barbarian who is untrained in the relevant knowledge skills and is fighting a monster he has never seen before. Wouldn't your approach most likely be to just fight the monster with your best general tactics until the party's wizard or other sage tells you about the monster's weaknesses? Especially since, for all you know, he took a class in how to make monsters like that one.
Of course, this approach magnifies the effects of the wizard's rare knowledge roll fumbles, as he likely has most of the rest of the party following his advice about the monster's weaknesses.
Secret Rolls aren’t anything new; and like was said before, ignoring the rule doesn’t mean the dev’s are gonna bust in and force your roll to be secret; as amusing as that would be. I’m more surprised that a Secret Roll tag has become as controversial as it has. *shrugs*
As for the Knowledge check, it only does something on crit fail and success; there are skill feats in the PT that take away the crit fail part, which someone relying on knowledge checks regularly i imagine would want anyway so it’s not like the DM can screw you over with that.
Secret Rolls aren’t anything new; and like was said before, ignoring the rule doesn’t mean the dev’s are gonna bust in and force your roll to be secret; as amusing as that would be. I’m more surprised that a Secret Roll tag has become as controversial as it has. *shrugs*
As for the Knowledge check, it only does something on crit fail and success; there are skill feats in the PT that take away the crit fail part, which someone relying on knowledge checks regularly i imagine would want anyway so it’s not like the DM can screw you over with that.
There's also Dubious Knowledge, which seemed like a fun Skill Feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also Dubious Knowledge, which seemed like a fun Skill Feat.Secret Rolls aren’t anything new; and like was said before, ignoring the rule doesn’t mean the dev’s are gonna bust in and force your roll to be secret; as amusing as that would be. I’m more surprised that a Secret Roll tag has become as controversial as it has. *shrugs*
As for the Knowledge check, it only does something on crit fail and success; there are skill feats in the PT that take away the crit fail part, which someone relying on knowledge checks regularly i imagine would want anyway so it’s not like the DM can screw you over with that.
My players loved dubious knowledge, even though they were generally correct about which part of the info they got was fake when I made it up from whole cloth, partly because I usually didn't bother making secret rolls for them (although I would not tell them the DC). The player with the feat was also the one that most often actually took an action to recall knowledge in a battle. Mark Seifter came up with some great little planar traits when running the first encounter in the final Doomsday Dawn adventure on the Paizo Pathfinder/YouTube channels.
I can see how coming up with bogus/irrelevant information could get tedious for a lot of GMs, though. The rolls are infrequent enough that it didn't usually bother me too much; even if I wasn't feeling creative it wasn't too hard to come up with stuff. I'd often just make it related to something that was true in a way that seemed like a plausible thing to misremember: Swapping a non-obvious vulnerability for a resistance or a different element. Sometimes giving it as partial information, where it's really good or really bad. Or just flat out identifying it as the wrong creature or spell for less obvious ones. I've done enough troubleshooting and walking others through troubleshooting to get pretty good at seeing what mistakes a person might be seeing and why, so it's pretty easy to reverse that and give plausible bad info.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally liked secret checks, and would love to see them included in the Core Rulebook.
Another point I noted was that on the Monk had more than one Spell Point. I'm guessing the Spell Point classes are going to start with one, and then acquire more, if they desire, through feats...
The rolls are infrequent enough that it didn't usually bother me too much; even if I wasn't feeling creative it wasn't too hard to come up with stuff.
There is a learning curve here: I saw a LOT of these rolls starting out as everyone can roll for these checks. Not knowing it was a bad idea, even those with low or no bonuses rolled to see if they happened to know anything, resulting in quite a lot of incorrect data, often more than correct data.