| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or is this all simply up to the GM?
Bingo. Expect table variation.
It's in there along with "how many HP does the bad guy have left?"
It seems a balance between narrative or mechanical playstyle except a vibrant narrative will inform a player of a mechanical success or crit success in most cases. Not all since sometimes reading a situation is difficult (especially w/ deceptive or passive enemies or unperceptive heroes).
For Calm Emotions, that's in the tough category. It's not establishing a relationship or link (like Dominate), so I don't think the caster would be automatically discern the difference. That said, if there's a PC with super Perception/Sense Motive, I might inform them despite the subtle difference between "calm even during a battle" and "so calm you could whack them freely". As levels rise, some PCs (eventually nearly all) will have such superheroic detection abilities (assuming the enemy doesn't have a rigid statue body or something).
Since the spell lasts long enough to clear out other enemies, and tactics shouldn't vary much, I don't think I'd devote much table time to hashing this out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The players only need to know what their characters perceive. If a spell does "stunned 1" on a failed save and "stunned 2" on a critically failed save, there's no real reason for the characters to be able to tell the difference. And the players certainly don't need to tell those two apart in order to play the game!
The secret tag is for things that would normally be done by the player, like their skill rolls. Things that are normally done by the GM, like the NPC's skill rolls, don't get it. But they aren't supposed to be revealed just for the sake of revealing them---just say what the characters perceive.
Note that a GM should apply the same rules to the NPCs too.
That could leave room for a savvy PC to fool an enemy, perhaps with a Deception check.
Other than the GM outright telling you, is there existing rules support to allow a caster to know if an enemy critically failed it's save?
Some applications of this would certainly be more obvious than others - for example, in my game it's an enemy that crit failed a Calm Emotions spell.
Would a caster just *know* that information?
I couldn't find rules support for this in the CRB.Or is this all simply up to the GM?
Fantasy grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Secret Check rules strongly imply that everyone knows the results of all non-secret checks. Check the example of play as well, it makes specific note of rolling a secret check behind the GM screen, while having non-secret checks rolled openly and their results stated.
Really, looking through the rulebook, the rules assume all rolls in the open aside from secret checks and not playing it that way deprives players of information their characters should self-evidently have.
Now, monster HP and the like, those they don't know, but the results of rolls? Yeah, those they get.
|
Put me on the side of telling my players straight up if they crit.
I hide monster stats for the most part until they interact with that stat. When they make a save against them, I let them know what they are saving against - they're learning how strong it is by fighting it.
I don't usually say how much HP and AC as my players seem to like to work those two out, but Saves and such are fine with being told "Roll vs 19 DC"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My PF2 play has been primarily in PFS and in that context I've yet to see a GM who didn't just tell the players and characters the effects. EVERYBODY at the table just knew. Some GMs hide either or both the modifiers or the rolls so you don't always know how EASY it is to critical but they DO tell you when you critical.
One major reason why I think that this is a good thing is that it lets EVERYBODY at the table essentially help to GM and keep track of everything. For example, it is quite easy for a GM to miss the fact that the Fear spell caused the bad guy's armor class to drop sufficiently that the flanking attack with bard song running actually crit the bad guy who is suffering from Synthesia as opposed to just hitting him. I've yet to see ANY GM (most certainly including myself) remember to ALWAYS apply ALL the buffs and debuffs correctly ALL the time.
I also think that this (mostly) makes sense in world. There should be a visible difference between somebody unafraid, a little afraid and a lot afraid. Generally, the 4 levels of success SHOULD be obvious.
And just telling them openly is, IMO, MUCH better than relying on GM narrative. In my experience, GM narrative is NEVER EVER EVER as clear to the players as the GM thinks it is. Especially when you play under multiple GMs
|
The expectations of org play are such that I always reveal as much as possible since it is technically not MY campaign. I am merely the table narrator, while the org play leadership is the GM and determines the rules.
For my home game/s, however, I am much more cognizant of metagaming and it’s impact on player decision making. I take the “only tell them what their character would perceive” as a rule, though I usually allow very liberal use of Perception to detect things like creature weaknesses/resistances when an injury is inflicted or the degree to which a creature might be affected (or not) by a spell. I think it adds a layer of mystery and tactical that would otherwise be missing. YMMV
The Secret Check rules strongly imply that everyone knows the results of all non-secret checks. Check the example of play as well, it makes specific note of rolling a secret check behind the GM screen, while having non-secret checks rolled openly and their results stated.
Really, looking through the rulebook, the rules assume all rolls in the open aside from secret checks and not playing it that way deprives players of information their characters should self-evidently have.
Now, monster HP and the like, those they don't know, but the results of rolls? Yeah, those they get.
I find this an interesting take.
I agree that any non-secret player character roll that is made players should know the result of. But honestly any NPC rolls I would by default not tell the players the results of.
I agree with the poster above you that mentioned the secret tag applies to player characters, telling the player that the GM can choose to roll this check in secret and the players don't get to know the result.
3 things:
- Many triggers are so specific that I think the game considers you know absolutely everything unless it is specifically hidden (spells like Share Burden, Breath of Life or Nudge Fate need a crazy level of knowledge to be usable).
- Many people consider that magic works like fire and forget. Nothing states that a Cleric casting Calm Emotions is just looking at the enemy to determine the effects. Maybe is he literally forcing the enemy's mind to remove all emotions and as such is fully aware of what he achieved the same way a Rogue is fully aware he hit a sweet spot with his weapon.
- Some effects use a save, others face save DC. But I don't think a character using Demoralize should have more knowledge about the result of his action than a character casting Fear. In my opinion, it's not a question of knowledge but just a rule that has been kept from old D&D.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that Secret Checks are now explicitly a thing...then all non-Secret checks should be non-secret by default, right?
Sure, in cases where the question "is it a secret check" applies---that is, when it's a roll the player would normally make, and which the GM may make instead if it's secret.
Secret Checks
Sometimes you won’t know whether you succeed at a skill check. If an action has the secret trait, the GM rolls the check for you and informs you of the effect without revealing the result of the roll or the degree of success. The GM rolls secret checks when your knowledge about the outcome is imperfect, like when you’re searching for a hidden creature or object, attempting to deceive someone, translating a tricky bit of ancient text, or remembering some piece of lore. This way, you as the player don’t know things that your character wouldn’t. This rule is the default for actions with the secret trait, but the GM can choose not to use secret checks if they would rather some or all rolls be public.
It's all about the GM rolling checks for a player. If the being that needs the check is an NPC, then it's not for a player, and the question of whether it's secret doesn't come up---it's automatically a roll the GM makes. And nothing says the GM should make all such rolls in front of the players.
When the monster uses its Wicked Cool Weapon and then has to roll 1d4 to see how many rounds must pass before it can use the WCW again, do you roll that in front of the players on the grounds that there's no text telling you otherwise?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find this an interesting take.
I agree that any non-secret player character roll that is made players should know the result of. But honestly any NPC rolls I would by default not tell the players the results of.
The example of play involves both the GM specifically noting that an enemy got a 20 to hit a PC (after rolling a 9 openly), and specifically telling a different PC that their hit was a crit, and thus does double damage.
I'm pretty sure information about what actually happens is intended to be transparent barring secret rolls. Now, info about capabilities (including current HP) is intended to not be transparent until revealed in some way, but that's a very different thing.
I agree with the poster above you that mentioned the secret tag applies to player characters, telling the player that the GM can choose to roll this check in secret and the players don't get to know the result.
This is a fine way to run a game, but the more I read of PF2, the more convinced I become that it's not the expected way to run PF2 specifically. As others note, this makes some spells and other effects just not work very well, and can easily either limit PC knowledge in ways that don't make sense, or require the GM to be prescient in what they describe to the players to avoid denying the PCs information that they should absolutely have in-world.
@thenobledrake, I guess I personally default to "the players don't know" unless the game specifically says to tell them or if there would be some obvious sign in game.
I don't think that's an edition change problem though, that to me is the default position.
In PF1 you only knew if a character failed/succeeded on a targeted save, and there were even a small number of abilities that removed that.
In PF2 I'm unaware of rules that explicitly state one way or the other (really, I'm still trying to grok my remembrance of the new rule set).
Lacking a directive to tell the players, I default to they don't know. That doesn't mean I'm going to hide all the rolls, but that's more because I'm lazy. But even if I let them see the die rolls, I'm probably not going to directly tell them if something was a critical success or critical failure unless there are some sort of obvious effects.
Many spells have obvious effects. But let's take the command spell. When the creature makes the save, I'm probably not going to tell you if the creature failed or crit failed. Although there is probably a change in behavior or attention being paid that probably indicates a failed save vs susccess. But I can't reasonably see how you would know the difference between failure and crit failure. Barring rules I'm not familiar with which state you should tell the player, you're not going to know if the creature failed or crit failed.
I disagree, I think the GM (or whatever term is used) should in every game withhold information unless given direction to do so otherwise.
Players aren't supposed to know everything.
PF1 really didn't say much in terms of what you should and shouldn't tell players.
The only thing I recall explicitly was single target saves explicitly gave the caster knowledge about whether the target saved or failed.
It was pretty silent on everything else.
It didn't even have the concept of secret rolls ingrained in the rules of the game like PF2.
I guess my default position for gaming in general (not just pen and paper table top) is that the players don't get to know everything that's happening, and unless it's made explicit that they know something, then they don't (although they may be able to figure it out, like determining a creatures AC after a few attacks).
I disagree, I think the GM (or whatever term is used) should in every game withhold information unless given direction to do so otherwise.
Players aren't supposed to know everything.
PF1 really didn't say much in terms of what you should and shouldn't tell players.
The only thing I recall explicitly was single target saves explicitly gave the caster knowledge about whether the target saved or failed.
It was pretty silent on everything else.
It didn't even have the concept of secret rolls ingrained in the rules of the game like PF2.
I guess my default position for gaming in general (not just pen and paper table top) is that the players don't get to know everything that's happening, and unless it's made explicit that they know something, then they don't (although they may be able to figure it out, like determining a creatures AC after a few attacks).
So, how do you handle Champion's Sacrifice ? Do your player suddenly knows Saving Throw results because he has a reaction triggered on a failed Saving Throw?
I disagree, I think the GM (or whatever term is used) should in every game withhold information unless given direction to do so otherwise.To what end? And why do you think that?
Players aren't supposed to know everything.I'll note for clarity that I'm not talking about "everything." I'm specifically talking about basic game rule information.
To put an example to it, I'm talking about things which fall into this category: How well did my spell work? Did that attack do reduced damage? What skill would be rolled if I Recall Knowledge on this creature?
Not stuff that falls into this category: What's this creature's stat block? Why did that attack do reduced damage?
I guess my default position for gaming in general (not just pen and paper table top) is that the players don't get to know everything that's happening, and unless it's made explicit that they know something, then they don't (although they may be able to figure it out, like determining a creatures AC after a few attacks).I'm entirely confused by what you're even talking about here. Like, it seems as though you're saying that your default position is that if you and your friends crack open a new board game only one of you actually gets to read the rule booklet and the rest just have to figure it out, but that seems too ridiculous to be true because surely anything not labeled in a "If you're just a regular player, not the designated special player for your group, don't read past this point" fashion is free game for a player to read if they want to.
What do you mean to what end? If the player characters cannot observe something, then they aren't told something.
For most of the examples you've given, there would be observable actions/reactions that would make most of it clear in most instances.
How well did your spell work? You don't know precisely, but you can see how much more visibly damaged they look and have a rough idea. For spell which effect you mentally (like my command example above) you probably can observe a change in behavior, but probably can't tell the difference between a fail and a crit fail. For reduced damage again, it's observable.
You will note one of the first things I stated in this discussion was about obvious signs. The things you're asking about all have obvious signs, and even if I weren't to directly say "yeah, he looks like crit failed" and instead said "He looks like he took the full brunt of your fireball" I would expect the player to understand. However, I wouldn't blame a GM for not getting the descriptive every time.
What do you mean to what end?I mean what is gained. What is the purpose. What does ruling this way rather than that way do for the game-play experience.
Maybe I'm weird, but that is the question I ask myself about every rule and ruling in a game I'm going to run - and if a rule isn't adding something worthwhile to the experience, I find a new rule that will and use that instead.
For most of the examples you've given, there would be observable actions/reactions that would make most of it clear in most instances....the whole conversation of this thread has been about things that could be observable, and asking if the player gets to actually benefit from their character observing them, that's why I was like "wait a minute, what?" when you started talking about not telling the player things - in context it sounded like you were saying not to let the player know, whether by letting them see the die roll, telling them the result in rule terms, or describing it narratively, what degree their spell seemed to do its job.
I would expect the player to understand. However, I wouldn't blame a GM for not getting the descriptive every time.This is the reason why I encourage GMs to be transparent with the mechanics. Makes it actually a fair expectation to expect the players to understand, and absolves the GM of any possible guilt for not getting descriptive literally every time. Saves time too.
Well, if I ask myself "what is gained" in regards to PF2 in its current state my end result is "Go back to PF1". But that's an argument/road we needn't tread here.
In regard to your second your second paragraph, no it hasn't. When I entered the conversation the discussion was about how "eveerything non-secret should be known by the player". There are non-secret rolls that the players shouldn't know in my opinion, such as how well/poorly an NPC saved against command. They might have obvious signs for save vs fail, but not fail vs crit fail. But as far as I know, that save isn't listed as a secret check.
In any event, I think you now understand my position better and I think we are less far apart then we originally thought.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing I'd like to note, is that the rules, and certainly the example of play, seem to assume the GM does not have the PCs' stats memorized, and thus tells them results so as to get from them the information necessary for the results to occur (ie: "He rolls an 18, does that Save?") which is a much more reasonable expectation than memorizing all that information for most GMs.
The GM could say, 'What's your DC?' instead of stating the NPC's result...but that is not the method demonstrated in the book, or in those games I've seen run by people at Paizo. Given that either works, I think this is pretty strong evidence that the intent is for information transparency on non-Secret checks.
Which, really, makes the game work a lot better, and that conversational construction, I think, makes the players feel more empowered and in control of their own characters, like they're participating even when the GM is the one rolling, and probably helps players actually learn their stats to boot.