| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW, no, not automatically, but you can likely recognize most conditions easily without any sort of roll due to basic body language and/or facial expressions.
It really depends on a several of factors...
1) were you looking in the direction of the afflicted party member when they gained said condition
2) was the method of afflicting the condition an obvious sign (bitten or Stung by a venomous creature)
3) do you possess sufficient knowledge of your opponent to know that they can afflict said condition
4) are the effects of the condition immediately recognizable visually (a sickened ally turning pale and looking nauseated)
5) could it be confused with another condition at a glance (Dazed and Confused would both leave someone looking dumbfounded at first)
6) do you possess sufficient knowledge of the affliction to recognize its signs (Poison might be hard to recognize, and could easily be mistaken for something much less serious)
7) does the afflicted party member react to such conditions ever or show signs of said condition on a regular basis (a low int barbarian might have a dumbfounded expression all the time leaving you clueless that they are Dazed or Confused)
8) is the afflicted party member wearing equipment that might make it hard or impossible to notice subtle changes or expressions (a paladin in heavy full plate with a great helm would be impossible to read)
Additionally, you might find it warranted to grant players a free perception check to notice an afflicted condition to an ally, or a heal check to identify it.
|
Automatically no but as the above posters said most conditions are fairly obvious, I'd disagree on bleed personally as it is quite easy to be bleeding but not have it visible especially in armour during a fight where every hit would be potentially leaving marks/blood on them. On the other hand I remember another game where the party walked in on a minor demon and the two humans failed their saves. It was pretty much obvious to me and the Dwarf they were afraid because they both ran screaming back down the corridor leaving us to face the demon alone.
Status helps confirm things, but for the most part it's for when you and the other person aren't in each other's immediate presence (or you're at least out of line of sight). In fact, it even says "When you need to keep track of comrades who may get separated...". There's a good reason most people either don't worry about this issue when characters are together or just don't think of it. As discussed, though, certain effects should be less obvious than others, and that can get forgotten sometimes.
|
Some would be very hard to perceive, such as charmed. But even then, while not automatic, theres rules systems in place to suss it out. Sense motive and heal skills will tell you a lot, and for some like Panic, its not a hard DC
It gets harder with barbarians. Are they drooling because they're charmed? Or are they just drooling because the succubus has her t&%% out?
Are they panicked because the wizard cast cone of fear? Or did they take Superstitious and are scared that the bad man will take their soul away?
No, you do not automatically know what conditions are on your allies. There is a class in Psionics called a Vitalist that can do this with their class abilities though. But you can ask your DM: "do I notice Frank acting funny? and if so, can I make a spellcraft, heal check, or knowledge check, whichever might be applicable?".
No, you do not automatically know what conditions are on your allies. There is a class in Psionics called a Vitalist that can do this with their class abilities though. But you can ask your DM: "do I notice Frank acting funny? and if so, can I make a spellcraft, heal check, or knowledge check, whichever might be applicable?".
If you're citing the existence of that as evidence that you cannot tell... that's 3rd Party content, and thus doesn't count.
I was in the game this came up in.
I'm curious about folks here referring to RAW, since I can find no rules reference to this, one way or the other, with a couple of specific minor exceptions (eg: Dominated noticed via Sense Motive). For those saying 'RAW', which rules are you referring to?
Since I couldn't find any rules about it, I think I'd otherwise describe this as 'not covered in the rules'. Which therefore couldn't be accurately labelled as RAW.
Since there's no rules either way, I'd go with convention. The convention I've observed is that once a specific PC knows they have a condition, then the rest of the party is allowed to act on that without making any checks. Eg:
- Wraith touches rogue, doing 4 con damage.
- GM tells the rogue they have been energy drained for 4 con.
- The party cleric casts Cleanse on the rogue, to undo the energy drain.
- The cleric didn't have to make any checks to be allowed to do this.
I've never seen Pathfinder (or AD&D or D&D) played different from this.
I would ask this way: What are the alternatives to stating conditions openly? There are some, but I don't find them convincing:
a) Describe only the mechanical effects (-2 on d20s or whatever). It's still possible to figure out what condition it is, in most cases. And if not, the player might have no chance to say "but I am immune / have another save etc.".
b) Apply the effects secretly on the opponent, in reversed. So against the affected player, the monster has +2 AC. Meh, more things to deal with it as a GM, slowing down the table.
c) Tell the player secretely. No matter whether you are at a real table or a virtual table, that's additional effort and slows down combat.
I see the merit in an occasional secret condition, like a disease caught from an animal bite (goblin dog, anyone?) or a death curse from a fallen villain. Both would leave the group some time to notice and figure out a solution. For most cases I'd opt for transparency - give them a clear problem to solve, especially under time pressure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see the merit in an occasional secret condition, like a disease caught from an animal bite (goblin dog, anyone?) or a death curse from a fallen villain.
Absolutely. This does happen and is fun. But when it does it's usually intended to be part of the narrative somehow. Disease and Curses usually have distinctive symptoms that should fairly quickly lead the PCs to know what's going on. Also those two cases are somewhat unique. Diseases have the spell Diagnose Disease. And curses caused by magic could usually be detected with Detect Magic I presume? There's no equivalent spells for 'Detect energy drain' or 'Detect deafness' as far as I'm aware.
So I am a bit surprised by most of the answers in this thread: I've always been under the impression that conditions are almost always stated openly. And have never seen general rules for how you would detect and identify them if they were played concealed.
I agree with you when you say:
What are the alternatives to stating conditions openly? There are some, but I don't find them convincing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Conditions are usually pretty obvious. There might be some doubt as to whether someone else is sleeping, unconscious but stable, dying, or dead. Those can be worked out by a Heal check or occasionally a Perception check. But stuff like paralyzed and petrified should be pretty obvious. I always tell the afflicted PC's player which condition applies, and usually I'll just tell the table to keep things running smoothly.
Afflictions are where things get interesting. Are you nauseated because of one of many diseases? Poisons? Because you walked into a region of stale air? That's on the GM to describe from the PCs' perspective and for the players to figure out using the tools available to them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^---- Yep. 99% of the time, I tell my group what's going on anyway. It stops the unnecessary and otherwise frustrating meta-gaming and actually speeds things up because they're all going to find out sooner or later. The 1% of times that I don't tell them what's going on are for my own fun, like when the player has no idea they've just been cursed, diseased, or poisoned by an NPC; or even better, when one of the players does something to another player--
Fun 1% story: Last campaign, the Bard of the group was trying to fornicate with everything under the sun as per usual, but he was also intentionally screwing the group by not telling the party all the info from his Gather Information checks, that way he could "drive" the group towards the stuff he wanted to go do. Anywho, the party found out about one of these particular shenanigans and then started asking questions about the other stuff he'd been doing. So two members of the group texted me out of session and said they wanted to visit an apothecary to develop a cursed poison that they would slip into his drink, and the curse would make all women find him repugnant, causing all Cha-based checks to immediately fail whenever he was addressing a female. That curse lasted for probably 15 sessions before he figured it out :D Probably one of the best counter-pranks I've seen :)
Even when he'd roll high on a Cha check, I'd say something like "well, she's clearly not going to budge on this, but it doesn't look like she'll kill you for suggesting it", or something to that effect. Meanwhile the whole group is snickering under their breathe :)
No, you do not automatically know what conditions are on your allies.... But you can ask your DM: "do I notice Frank acting funny? and if so, can I make a spellcraft, heal check, or knowledge check, whichever might be applicable?".
Ok, so you do get your PCs to make checks to determine a condition on someone else in the party?
^---- Yep. 99% of the time, I tell my group what's going on anyway. It stops the unnecessary and otherwise frustrating meta-gaming.
Your answers have really confused me. They seem to be contradictory, or I'm misunderstanding (which is entirely possible).
Do your or don't you make your players 'make a spellcraft, heal check, or knowledge check' to identify conditions? And since you mention those checks...what checks are they specifically, and what DCs do you use? And what rules do you use to set those DCs?
It's just confusing the spriggarns out of me that folks are saying you don't know the conditions in your party, so you need to use checks, but there's no rules for those checks. I'm not referring to obscure conditions such as curses, I mean eg: fatigued, blinded, deafened, energy drained, shaken, frightened, sickened, etc.
No, you do not automatically know what conditions are on your allies.... But you can ask your DM: "do I notice Frank acting funny? and if so, can I make a spellcraft, heal check, or knowledge check, whichever might be applicable?".Ok, so you do get your PCs to make checks to determine a condition on someone else in the party?
^---- Yep. 99% of the time, I tell my group what's going on anyway. It stops the unnecessary and otherwise frustrating meta-gaming.Your answers have really confused me. They seem to be contradictory, or I'm misunderstanding (which is entirely possible).
Do your or don't you make your players 'make a spellcraft, heal check, or knowledge check' to identify conditions? And since you mention those checks...what checks are they specifically, and what DCs do you use? And what rules do you use to set those DCs?
It's just confusing the spriggarns out of me that folks are saying you don't know the conditions in your party, so you need to use checks, but there's no rules for those checks. I'm not referring to obscure conditions such as curses, I mean eg: fatigued, blinded, deafened, energy drained, shaken, frightened, sickened, etc.
No, I don't usually make my PC's make rolls for that. That's because I've found that the PC's are almost always going to pass anyway, so it's somewhat trivial, and it helps speed things along. But DM's at other tables do make their players roll for things like that, so that's why I initially said you can ask the DM "do I notice Frank acting funny? Can I make a knowledge, heal, or spellcraft check?"
However, I do enforce spellcraft checks to identify spells being cast, otherwise I won't tell them what it is. I do this primarily for counterspelling reasons though, not necessarily for identifying the condition/affliction from the spell (if any).