Let's say a pack of wild dogs has been killing the farmer's cattle. Investigator shows up and designated whatever has killed the cattle as the subject of a Lead.
Later....Investigator and party square off against the pack of wild dogs.
1. Does the Investigator get the free DaS against all dogs in the pack?
2. Investigator has Known Weakness. Recall crits against a dog, but kills the dog in the same round. Does the +1 from KW apply to the other dogs as well?
3. Do any of the answers change if the Investigator PaL against the sound of an approaching army? Does the Investigator now get free DaS against everyone in the army?
I'm not sure how the rules should be applied exactly, but I'd let you Pursue a Lead against the entire dog pack, but only give you a free devise a stratagem against the first member you attack of the pack.
Known Weakness would apply, as part of the free action to Devise a Stratagem against the first dog you might get the crit success. The next dog you attack you would have to spend the action to devise a strategem against.
Leads always target a single creature, usually the leader if it's a group. Like if your lead was a Gang causing trouble in the city, it would likely be the leader of the gang. The question you should ask is "Who or What is responsible for this" and go from there.
Cordell Kintner wrote: Leads always target a single creature, usually the leader if it's a group. Like if your lead was a Gang causing trouble in the city, it would likely be the leader of the gang. The question you should ask is "Who or What is responsible for this" and go from there. Sure, but in this situation, there is no alpha dog identified by the content. What happens?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pursue a Lead wrote: You spend 1 minute examining the details of one potential clue, designating the subject related to that clue as the target of your active investigation. This subject is typically a single creature, item, or small location (such as a room or corridor), but the GM might allow a different scope for your investigation. You don't need to know the identity, purpose, or nature of the subject, but you do need to be aware of its existence. For instance, finding a footprint is enough to investigate the creature that left it, and seeing a hasty sketch of an item or location can be enough to start your investigation of that subject. Clearly, the investigation doesn't always have to be of a single creature. It may make more sense to allow a bit wider scope, for example of a small pack of dogs. If this small pack behaves very much as a tight unit, then allowing the whole pack to be the subject could be reasonable. If it was a large pack that splits off into groups and one of those groups were the ones that killed the cattle at the scene the investigator is inspecting, then allowing the whole pack to be the subject is probably too much.
It very clearly is not something you can have one simple rule for that always tells you precisely what to do. It's intentionally up to GM judgement when to diverge from the baseline.
For a small enough pack i do allow them to be a single Investigation.
Especially for cases as the one you highlighted, as long as the "pack" is behaving similarly to one another, then i see nothing seperating them from 1 entity. If somethng stands out in the group though, then it would revert to that (so an alpha wolf in your case).
Things are a bit trickier when it comes to stuff more intelligent than an animal, since those, most probably, aren't behaving as an entity or similar to one another (in short, no matter how close 2 intelligent beings are, they aren't a herd or a pack or a hive, they are almost* always individuals)
*seemed prudent to put an "almost" there for a world where magic and occult exist.
First off, thank you for posting an answer.
Ascalaphus wrote: If this small pack behaves very much as a tight unit, then allowing the whole pack to be the subject could be reasonable. What about a pack of dire wolves? or a pack of zombies? Or a pack of killer whales?
"A tight unit" isn't a tag or a term used in the game. Humans can act as a "tight unit." Your rational isn't clear, it seems arbitrary.
Quote: It very clearly is not something you can have one simple rule for that always tells you precisely what to do. It's intentionally up to GM judgement when to diverge from the baseline. Paizo was obviously thinking of a reason it might not be a single creature. I don't think it was based on unit cohesion.
But let's assume that it does make sense to allow PaL to work against a group committing an act. What happens with Devise a Stratagem and Known Weakness. Do you allow DaS to fire as a free action against all members of the group? Does a crit success on KW of one, work on any other member of the group?
Again, thanks for posting.
shroudb wrote: For a small enough pack i do allow them to be a single Investigation.
Especially for cases as the one you highlighted, as long as the "pack" is behaving similarly to one another, then i see nothing seperating them from 1 entity.
So if all the bandits in a group, are coded to act the exact same (which they usually are), then all of them are Leads?
So if you have a group of terrasques rampaging the country side (content codes them all the same), then all of them are the Lead?
Quote: Things are a bit trickier when it comes to stuff more intelligent than an animal, since those, most probably, aren't behaving as an entity or similar to one another (in short, no matter how close 2 intelligent beings are, they aren't a herd or a pack or a hive, they are almost* always individuals) So zombies but not ghouls?
I'm looking for something a little more supported by the rules. This sounds like you're guessing.
Also, what about the second part of the question referring to DaS and KW? Investigator gets free DaS against all zombie, vermin, etc, if they are all part what's causing the disturbance?
For clarity and to avoid wasted discussion, it's unequivocal that there will be times when the subject of a lead is not a single creature. Obviously a swarm could be the subject of a lead.
I also think it stand to reason that so long as the investigator believes the evidence is the work of a single individual, even though it is the work of several, then PaL provides the bonus to any skill checks while pursing the investigation.
What I am really asking is how to resolve DaS and KW in the context of the lead being creatures that are not a swarm? When the Investigator knows this is not the work of a single individual, but several creatures what happens? Is DaS+ KW intended / written to allow it to work agaisnt an entire group?
N N 959 wrote: Again, thanks for posting.
shroudb wrote: For a small enough pack i do allow them to be a single Investigation.
Especially for cases as the one you highlighted, as long as the "pack" is behaving similarly to one another, then i see nothing seperating them from 1 entity.
So if all the bandits in a group, are coded to act the exact same (which they usually are), then all of them are Leads?
So if you have a group of terrasques rampaging the country side (content codes them all the same), then all of them are the Lead?
Quote: Things are a bit trickier when it comes to stuff more intelligent than an animal, since those, most probably, aren't behaving as an entity or similar to one another (in short, no matter how close 2 intelligent beings are, they aren't a herd or a pack or a hive, they are almost* always individuals) So zombies but not ghouls?
I'm looking for something a little more supported by the rules. This sounds like you're guessing.
Also, what about the second part of the question referring to DaS and KW? Investigator gets free DaS against all zombie, vermin, etc, if they are all part what's causing the disturbance?
Yes, zombies but not ghouls. I would give free DaS vs all of the zombies if it was a small enough group (as small as i would interpet "the group of tracks you followed)
As for it sounding more like a guesswork: you aren't going to get more rules than "sometimes the scope is a little different as judged by the GM" since that's the exact RAW of the ability.
So obviously all the answers will be "in my opinion it's this"
N N 959 wrote: First off, thank you for posting an answer.
Ascalaphus wrote: If this small pack behaves very much as a tight unit, then allowing the whole pack to be the subject could be reasonable. What about a pack of dire wolves? or a pack of zombies? Or a pack of killer whales?
"A tight unit" isn't a tag or a term used in the game. Humans can act as a "tight unit." Your rational isn't clear, it seems arbitrary.
It is - arbitrary as in "GM arbitration". The investigator is a bit fuzzier, more meta class than some of the old classics.
I don't think you can entirely nail down rules for casework in any kind of precise and clear way. Anything more precise would probably involve so much more text and caveats that it would become less clear - and there would still be corner cases. So just straightforwardly stating that it needs GM arbitration is the best way to design it.
N N 959 wrote: Quote: It very clearly is not something you can have one simple rule for that always tells you precisely what to do. It's intentionally up to GM judgement when to diverge from the baseline. Paizo was obviously thinking of a reason it might not be a single creature. I don't think it was based on unit cohesion.
But let's assume that it does make sense to allow PaL to work against a group committing an act. What happens with Devise a Stratagem and Known Weakness. Do you allow DaS to fire as a free action against all members of the group? Does a crit success on KW of one, work on any other member of the group?
I would personally allow the +1 against the whole group. Paizo has a habit of inserting these difficult to judge things though; consider the ranger feat Monster Hunter:
Monster Hunter wrote: You swiftly assess your prey and apply what you know. As part of the action used to Hunt your Prey, you can attempt a check to Recall Knowledge about your prey. When you critically succeed at identifying your hunted prey with Recall Knowledge, you note a weakness in the creature’s defenses. You and allies you tell gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your next attack roll against that prey. You can give bonuses from Monster Hunter only once per day against a particular creature. How was that supposed to work when you critically identify a goblin you're preying on - but there are five more goblins in the encounter? How does it interact with the rules for repeated Recall Knowledge checks on the same topic when you hunt the next goblin? Does it get harder to find a weakness in the second goblin?
This problem is magnified for the Rogue Mastermind racket:
Quote: If you successfully identify a creature using Recall Knowledge, that creature is flat-footed against your attacks until the start of your next turn; if you critically succeed, it's flat-footed against your attacks for 1 minute. If you've identified goblin #1, does the DC go up to identify goblin #2? Or can you not even do that because you already know it's a goblin, and further knowledge isn't the same as first-time identification?
---
My take on this is to not focus on the fleeting +1 bonus; the point of Known Weaknesses is much more about enhanced action economy, fitting a Recall Knowledge into your main combat loop. A lot of other classes struggle to find a spare action to do that, but investigators are supposed to be the smart ones.
---
Coming back to "do you allow free DaS against the whole group?", that's a tricky point. It's really fuzzy, that's just the rules we've been given. I want to allow free DaS much of the time if the investigator has been following cases, but adventure writers are fond of multipacks of nameless goons who did some handiwork for the main boss.
A possible compromise ruling is to in these cases let the investigator "blame" one of the nameless enemies as the chief suspect. That keeps it from being too generous but also isn't too stingy.
Ascalaphus wrote: It is - arbitrary as in "GM arbitration". The investigator is a bit fuzzier, more meta class than some of the old classics. As an FYI, the phrase "GM arbitration" is note used once in the entire Core rulebook. And while the GM does act as "final arbiter" in many cases, that is wholly different from making "arbitrary" decisions about how things work. Pathfinder rules are never intended to be interpreted in an arbitrary fashion.
Quote: I don't think you can entirely nail down rules for casework in any kind of precise and clear way. I believe a person can absolutely talk about the logic behind a decision. The game rules are based on logic and have a specific rationale behind i.e."balance," not whim.
Quote: So just straightforwardly stating that it needs GM arbitration is the best way to design it. Again, the rules do not identify "GM Arbitration" as a technique. I believe you are talking about GM adjudication, which is entirely different. Yes, the GM must adjudicate the rules, but that adjudicating is something that is done on the merits.
As this is the "rules" section, I'm hoping for analysis of the rules and why one resolution is more or less consistent with the rules.
Quote: I would personally allow the +1 against the whole group. Paizo has a habit of inserting these difficult to judge things though; consider the ranger feat Monster Hunter: Yes, I agree. Paizo has done a poor job of providing guidance in, imo, what are obvious gaps in the rules.
I do not believe Monster Hunter counts against any creature other than the one you've specifically used Hunt Prey on. However, you've definitely uncovered a problem with Recall checks and the interaction with MH:
Does a Recall on one creature of the group preclude using Recall on a different member. And if so, then it's nonsensical that the +1 can only be achieved once when the Ranger has to reapply Hunt Prey (and trigger MH) to each creature.
Quote: How was that supposed to work when you critically identify a goblin you're preying on - but there are five more goblins in the encounter? How does it interact with the rules for repeated Recall Knowledge checks on the same topic when you hunt the next goblin? Does it get harder to find a weakness in the second goblin? My resolution is to separate the knowledge part of Recall with the +1 part. So the DC to learn more info rises with each attempt, but the DC to get the crit for +1 stays the same. So the Ranger is never denied an opportunity to get that +1, but it would be denied further knowledge. Granted, the rules to specify this, but to my knowledge the rules are also not clear about using Recall on the same type but a different individual.
And PFI has this Recall problem as well, so it's really disappointing that Paizo has not addressed this directly.
However, with KW, I would definitely raise the DC for each Recall check to get the +1. While this may seem contrary to MH, I do not think it is. KW can be used on the same creature multiple times. MH can only be used once (per day) on each creature.
Quote: A possible compromise ruling is to in these cases let the investigator "blame" one of the nameless enemies as the chief suspect. That keeps it from being too generous but also isn't too stingy. So similar to Claxon, you get it once, then you have to use DaS as an action.
Thank you for posting and offering an interpretation.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Necroing this thread as a player has decided to run an investigator after all these years.
So Pursue a Lead for the free Devise a Stratagem against a group is up to the GM.
I think I will be allowing it given how some monster groups are set up against all creatures of the same type as in named the same and built the same if pursuing a lead against a gang or raiding orcs or something.
Devise a Stratagem has built in limitations of one use per round. It does not appear to be overpowered when used being far less useful and harder to set up than Sneak Attack. I don't see a free DaS against a group of mooks as overpowered when it will only occur once per round against a single mook.
Wish they had made it clearer, but at this point the investigator is in the wild and it is up tot he GM to make it work in a fun, effective, and interesting manner without breaking the balance.
Yeah, after seeing them in practice, it seems that their main combat thing is not very efficient. You have to do all those things to get damage that's in line with what other classes get more automatically. So being pretty liberal with it is fine.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
