Errata needed: Unique tag doesn't make sense

[SuperBidi]

The rules about the Unique tag specify that:
"Unique elements are one of a kind. You have full control over whether PCs can access them. Named NPCs are unique creatures, though that doesn’t mean their base creature type is unique. For instance, an orc named Graytusk is unique, but that doesn’t mean it would be any harder for a PC encountering her to tell she’s an orc—just to discern specific information about her."

Most orcs have a name so it means every orc should have the Unique tag? Actually nearly every creature as they are all unique to the world.

The Unique tag should not indicate the number of creature in the world with the same name but the fact that this creature is very unique to the world. If Graytusk is just an orc warrior he shouldn't have the Unique tag as there are tons of orc warriors. If Graytusk is a great orc hero then he should have the Unique tag as such an orc is unique to the world.

Giving the Unique tag to named NPCs messes up with Recall Knowledge checks as you need to look for every orc types in the books and try to find Graytusk (if it's there) to determine their DC. And if you don't find him then you have to guess how rare are his abilities. It would be way easier if Graytusk just had a Common, Uncommon, Rare or Unique tag in line with its abilities and the Recall Knowledge check DC to recognize him for what he is.

[JackieLane]

The "unique" tag is purely a game term indicating a unique stat block, which makes sense to me. It is usually quite easy, then, to look up the type of creature (orc, green dragon, drow) and see its rarity and what they have in common, which is what would be obtained through most Recall Knowledge checks. Of course every orc is unique as a person, but it's a game term, with some orcs not being named and differentiated as a way to simplify the game. They use the tag only for npcs that don't have just the stats from the Bestiary or GMG, so you know to check the specific new stat block.

Graytusk is a specific orc in an adventure, who doesn't have the same level, stats and abilities as the orcs from the bestiary. Someone encountering Graytusk shouldn't know the specific abilities (oh, this one is especially good at reflex checks and has these ranger abilities), but they should still know about orc ferocity. You don't need to look up a specific class of orc, since she is unique exactly because she is not one of those classes. You only need to know in general what orcs are, and that they are quite common.

[Grankless]

If Paizo were to interpret the words as hyper-literally as you have, it wouldn't exactly be a very useful tag.

[NielsenE]

APs, modules, and PFS scenarios have gone the hyper-literal route. The most egregious example is a named pet that has identical stats to the bestiary creature being called unique because it has a name. In general though I think its an oversight in the editing pass of the adventures rather than the rule being wrong to begin with.

[AnimatedPaper]

Is that quote from the Core Rule Book or the Gamemastery Guide?

If the GMG, then I think it was just a badly written section, not intended to imply that literally every creature with a name has the unique tag with its corresponding higher DC to recall knowledge.

[PossibleCabbage]

More than one person can have the same name.

It's just that "Graytusk the bold, who was born in [city] whose parents were [whomever], who accomplished [some deeds]" is a unique being.

This seems pretty clear to me to be the intent at least. As for identification rolls, the GM has the discretion to adjust difficulty here, and should in cases like "you are trying to identify Abrogail Thrune II" (who is unique, but not hard to identify.)

[Zapp]

SuperBidi wrote:

The rules about the Unique tag specify that:

"Unique elements are one of a kind. You have full control over whether PCs can access them. Named NPCs are unique creatures, though that doesn’t mean their base creature type is unique. For instance, an orc named Graytusk is unique, but that doesn’t mean it would be any harder for a PC encountering her to tell she’s an orc—just to discern specific information about her."

Most orcs have a name so it means every orc should have the Unique tag? Actually nearly every creature as they are all unique to the world.

The Unique tag should not indicate the number of creature in the world with the same name but the fact that this creature is very unique to the world. If Graytusk is just an orc warrior he shouldn't have the Unique tag as there are tons of orc warriors. If Graytusk is a great orc hero then he should have the Unique tag as such an orc is unique to the world.

Giving the Unique tag to named NPCs messes up with Recall Knowledge checks as you need to look for every orc types in the books and try to find Graytusk (if it's there) to determine their DC. And if you don't find him then you have to guess how rare are his abilities. It would be way easier if Graytusk just had a Common, Uncommon, Rare or Unique tag in line with its abilities and the Recall Knowledge check DC to recognize him for what he is.

"Unique" in this sense signals that there is only one creature having a particular stat block.

So if the adventure specifies Graytusk as a level 3 monster or whatever, there is only one such monster.

But most Orcs use the common Orc stats (Warrior, Brute, etc), even if they have a name.

Recalling information that's specific to Greytusk would increase the DC by ten. That would cover the bits unique to that stat block - perhaps Greytusk is immune to cold or whatever.

I see no problem here, and Paizo certainly doesn't need to issue any errata.

[SuperBidi]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

As for identification rolls, the GM has the discretion to adjust difficulty here, and should in cases like "you are trying to identify Abrogail Thrune II" (who is unique, but not hard to identify.)

Identifying Abrogail Thrune II is easy, but not very useful during combat. Knowing Abrogail Thrune II's abilities is extremely hard, because she's a unique character and there's no equivalent to compare her to.

On the other hand, identifying Graytusk is hard as noone knows her. But if Graytusk is just an orc Ranger it should be quite easy to determine what her abilities are even if she has a specific statblock. You may give her the Uncommon tag if you want, but Unique is out of proportion for an orc ranger. There are tons of these in Golarion.
Also, what is the point in saying that everyone is Unique? We already know it. And when a player asks for a Recall Knowledge check on the enemy he's facing he doesn't care about his name but about his abilities.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Is that quote from the Core Rule Book or the Gamemastery Guide?

If the GMG, then I think it was just a badly written section, not intended to imply that literally every creature with a name has the unique tag with its corresponding higher DC to recall knowledge.

Grankless wrote:

If Paizo were to interpret the words as hyper-literally as you have, it wouldn't exactly be a very useful tag.

It comes from the GMG, and Paizo uses it literally as NielsenE points out. And the rules are clear in the Core Rulebook: "A rules element with this trait is one-of-a-kind. The DC of Recall Knowledge checks related to creatures with this trait is increased by 10." So, in PFS, to recognize the domesticated pet that is just a normal animal of its race you need to score the equivalent of a critical success.

Zapp wrote:

Recalling information that's specific to Greytusk would increase the DC by ten. That would cover the bits unique to that stat block - perhaps Greytusk is immune to cold or whatever.

If Graytusk was having some Unique abilities, I'd agree with you. But even Immune to cold is not so rare, there are certainly quite a few orcs with such an immunity. Having a +1 here and there doesn't make an absolutely unique creature out of Graytusk. It's still just a normal orc.

[Xethik]

I had the same sort of realization when planning out my game with a Mastermind Rogue in it. Most of the non-mook NPCs they meet are "Unique", with stat blocks I have been generating myself rather than using a Bestiary entry. But just because this orc warrior isn't an Orc Warrior (as in, the exact Bestiary entry), it doesn't make a ton of sense to make it so much harder for the Mastermind to flat-foot them. Every orc warrior (including Orc Warriors) are unique and individuals to a sense, so it seems a little weird and overly penalizing to make the already-higher-level boss orc warrior impossible to Recall Knowledge.

Planning on just giving out info related to the creature family on a success, and some specific abilities of that creature on a critical success. Which would make more sense for a Battle Assessment style feat, but it's tough to make Recall Knowledge useful in that situation otherwise.

[AnimatedPaper]

SuperBidi wrote:

It comes from the GMG, and Paizo uses it literally as NielsenE points out. And the rules are clear in the Core Rulebook: "A rules element with this trait is one-of-a-kind. The DC of Recall Knowledge checks related to creatures with this trait is increased by 10." So, in PFS, to recognize the domesticated pet that is just a normal animal of its race you need to score the equivalent of a critical success.

They don't generally use it that way though. Not all named stat blocks have the unique tag. Some do.

Consider the following two stat blocks, both from PFS:

Marcon Tinol

Nalla, Rebel Leader

Or the following two, both from the same AP entry:

Grospek Lavarsus
Miriel Grayleaf

When named NPCs have the unique tag, their stat block, which is the relevant rules element, is indeed one of a kind and harder to know exactly what is in it. Other times that is not the case. Edit: mind, sometimes I don't agree with that designation. Why Nalla, for instance?

[Staffan Johansson]

Recall Knowledge DCs are weird to begin with. The idea that higher-level creatures should be harder to identify and know things about is pretty dumb to begin with.

After all, look at the real world. Here in Sweden, you're more likely to know things about bears or meese than about, say, different varieties of rabbits or moles or things like that. Talk to any 10-year old with an interest in dinosaurs and they'll know more about T-rexes and triceratopses than hadrosaurs, because those creatures are more interesting and special. That makes them more memorable, so their Recall Knowledge DC should be lower, despite being "higher level".

A better way to deal with it would be to use static DCs. Something like:

Untrained: Very common creatures, like most PC ancestries, farm animals, and the like.
Trained: The default. This should suffice for most generic creatures unless they are particularly esoteric (e.g. qlippoth).
Expert: Particularly esoteric creatures, or variants on a "base" creature (e.g. if a xulgath uses the Trained DC, recognizing a xulgath bilebearer would be an Expert task - though hitting the Trained DC should tell you it's a xulgath and give you that info).
Master: Stuff that's both weird and esoteric.

This would also go a long way toward alleviating the issue where dabbling in a knowledge skill makes you feel increasingly incompetent at higher levels because the skill doesn't keep up with DCs.

[PossibleCabbage]

Any individual exists in multiple categories of "things you can identify about this person."

Like it's easy to tell that Graytusk is an orc, it's harder to know that she's a specific orc, and unless Graytusk has a reason to be famous then it's going to be harder still to recall her entire life's story.

So what we really need is a way to with one roll represent.
- You can tell that's an orc.
- You can tell that's Graytusk the orc ranger
- You can tell that's Graytusk the orc ranger, underchieftan of clan bloodweasel, hero of the battle of broken spears.

But generally the GM is going to going to tell you the things they want you to know like "that orc looks fearsome and important" or "Grand Princess Eutropia enters the room". A GM can generally be trusted to understand the difference between "This information is scene-setting" and "this information is useful for the PCs." You give away everything that's scene setting, but if it would be diplomatically beneficial for the PCs to greet Bloodtusk by name with the appropriate honorifics, that's something they should roll for.

[The Raven Black]

Obligatory OotS strip

[cavernshark]

SuperBidi wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

As for identification rolls, the GM has the discretion to adjust difficulty here, and should in cases like "you are trying to identify Abrogail Thrune II" (who is unique, but not hard to identify.)

Identifying Abrogail Thrune II is easy, but not very useful during combat. Knowing Abrogail Thrune II's abilities is extremely hard, because she's a unique character and there's no equivalent to compare her to.

On the other hand, identifying Graytusk is hard as noone knows her. But if Graytusk is just an orc Ranger it should be quite easy to determine what her abilities are even if she has a specific statblock. You may give her the Uncommon tag if you want, but Unique is out of proportion for an orc ranger. There are tons of these in Golarion.
Also, what is the point in saying that everyone is Unique? We already know it. And when a player asks for a Recall Knowledge check on the enemy he's facing he doesn't care about his name but about his abilities.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Is that quote from the Core Rule Book or the Gamemastery Guide?

If the GMG, then I think it was just a badly written section, not intended to imply that literally every creature with a name has the unique tag with its corresponding higher DC to recall knowledge.

Grankless wrote:

If Paizo were to interpret the words as hyper-literally as you have, it wouldn't exactly be a very useful tag.

It comes from the GMG, and Paizo uses it literally as NielsenE points out. And the rules are clear in the Core Rulebook: "A rules element with this trait is one-of-a-kind. The DC of Recall Knowledge checks related to creatures with this trait is increased by 10." So, in PFS, to recognize the domesticated pet that is just a normal animal of its race you need to score the equivalent of a critical success.

Zapp wrote:

Recalling information that's specific to Greytusk would increase the DC by ten. That would cover the bits unique to that stat block - perhaps Greytusk is immune to cold

...

I think you've vastly over-complicated this and at the same time managed to clog your own preconceptions about what is unique and what isn't unique at the same time. Characters in game don't have an index of "Ranger Powers" which are possible to be on a character even if you identify them as a Ranger. There's even a ranger in the same scenario where Graytusk appears who has unique "uncommon" ranger powers. So you don't know what all rangers can do and you don't know what this specific ranger can do. Even better, her signature move isn't even a ranger ability -- it mimics a fighter skill.

A basic recall knowledge tells you Graytusk is an orc and can probably use orc ferocity. A success against her unique DC might tell you that her clan is noted for archers or that she specifically has a reputation in the region (if you wanted to go that far and it makes sense for someone in the party to know that).

There's no errata necessary. This works fine as is; you just need to change your paradigm about the Unique trait.

[SuperBidi]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Edit: mind, sometimes I don't agree with that designation. Why Nalla, for instance?

That's it, Nalla's just a bard and bards are far from Unique. She shouldn't have any rarity trait as her abilities are just basic.

cavernshark wrote:

Characters in game don't have an index of "Ranger Powers" which are possible to be on a character even if you identify them as a Ranger. There's even a ranger in the same scenario where Graytusk appears who has unique "uncommon" ranger powers. So you don't know what all rangers can do and you don't know what this specific ranger can do. Even better, her signature move isn't even a ranger ability -- it mimics a fighter skill.

You are contradicting yourself. Either there's no book and then Graytusk is just a Ranger with Fighter Dedication which is far from Unique or there's a book and then Graytusk is Unique.

So, book or no book? Choose well.

[cavernshark]

SuperBidi wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Edit: mind, sometimes I don't agree with that designation. Why Nalla, for instance?

That's it, Nalla's just a bard and bards are far from Unique. She shouldn't have any rarity trait as her abilities are just basic.

cavernshark wrote:

Characters in game don't have an index of "Ranger Powers" which are possible to be on a character even if you identify them as a Ranger. There's even a ranger in the same scenario where Graytusk appears who has unique "uncommon" ranger powers. So you don't know what all rangers can do and you don't know what this specific ranger can do. Even better, her signature move isn't even a ranger ability -- it mimics a fighter skill.

You are contradicting yourself. Either there's no book and then Graytusk is just a Ranger with Fighter Dedication which is far from Unique or there's a book and then Graytusk is Unique.

So, book or no book? Choose well.

SuperBidi wrote:

You are contradicting yourself. Either there's no book and then Graytusk is just a Ranger with Fighter Dedication which is far from Unique or there's a book and then Graytusk is Unique.

So, book or no book? Choose well.

Look, it's Christmas Eve so I'm going to skip the eye roll and just spell this out for you.

You're asserting that knowing someone is a Ranger means you should know something about their fighting style. Let's ignore feats and levels for utter simplicity and only consider Ranger Edges. If NPCs work like PCs as you're suggesting, all orc rangers should have Flurry, Outwit, or Precision Edge. There's only three options currently. But the thing is that even with only three options, you still don't know which one it is for that ranger until you observe it yourself or you happen to know that specific ranger trained in a specific way. Knowing that Steve is a Precision Ranger absolutely is a unique check. And that's only with three options.

Your argument is even more absurd when you realize that no NPC follows PC character creation rules. Superficially they use similar influences, but they simply don't map together and they aren't supposed to. So now take the problem of hundreds of feats and powers and throw any presuppositions about which powers belong to which 'classes' out the window. I tried to illustrate that to you in the fact that while Graytusk is described as a hunter/tracker (read: a ranger), she's actually got no ranger powers.

Knowing *anything* about Graytusk's role her in her tribe or her specific combat abilities absolutely is a unique check, even if you happen to realize that she's got a reputation as a "hunter/tracker", which honestly might be sufficient for the result of the unique DC.

[SuperBidi]

cavernshark wrote:

I tried to illustrate that to you in the fact that while Graytusk is described as a hunter/tracker (read: a ranger), she's actually got no ranger powers.

Knowing *anything* about Graytusk's role her in her tribe or her specific combat abilities absolutely is a unique check, even if you happen to realize that she's got a reputation as a "hunter/tracker", which honestly might be sufficient for the result of the unique DC.

You consider that NPCs exist in a vacuum. But Graytusk abilities aren't unique, which means that she got them from something. Maybe her fighter feat is common among the local orcs, or it comes from her tribe, or it's classical among orc Rangers, or I can deduce it from her equipment. That's the reason why you can know that Orc Warriors have Attack of Opportunity, because it's part of the basic training of orc warriors all accross Golarion, not because they're all clones. Otherwise you consider any Recall Knowledge check on a humanoid has the Unique difficulty.

cavernshark wrote:

Knowing that Steve is a Precision Ranger absolutely is a unique check.

Does Steve has an Animal Companion? Does Steve position himself in the open sticking his arrows in the ground or is he using the cover of foliage where he'll hide every other shots?

And more importantly: How many quivers do Steve carry? Precision Rangers carry way less arrows than Flurry Rangers and Outwit Bow Rangers are a rarity. And then I can ask the questions about Steve race/tribe/affiliation to determine his fighting style. So, it's way far from a unique check, it's a common check as Steve has common abilities.

[Zapp]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Here in Sweden, you're more likely to know things about bears or meese than

As a fellow Swede, lemme stop you right there:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Meese

[cavernshark]

SuperBidi wrote:

cavernshark wrote:

I tried to illustrate that to you in the fact that while Graytusk is described as a hunter/tracker (read: a ranger), she's actually got no ranger powers.

Knowing *anything* about Graytusk's role her in her tribe or her specific combat abilities absolutely is a unique check, even if you happen to realize that she's got a reputation as a "hunter/tracker", which honestly might be sufficient for the result of the unique DC.

You consider that NPCs exist in a vacuum. But Graytusk abilities aren't unique, which means that she got them from something. Maybe her fighter feat is common among the local orcs, or it comes from her tribe, or it's classical among orc Rangers, or I can deduce it from her equipment. That's the reason why you can know that Orc Warriors have Attack of Opportunity, because it's part of the basic training of orc warriors all accross Golarion, not because they're all clones. Otherwise you consider any Recall Knowledge check on a humanoid has the Unique difficulty.

cavernshark wrote:

Knowing that Steve is a Precision Ranger absolutely is a unique check.

Does Steve has an Animal Companion? Does Steve position himself in the open sticking his arrows in the ground or is he using the cover of foliage where he'll hide every other shots?

And more importantly: How many quivers do Steve carry? Precision Rangers carry way less arrows than Flurry Rangers and Outwit Bow Rangers are a rarity. And then I can ask the questions about Steve race/tribe/affiliation to determine his fighting style. So, it's way far from a unique check, it's a common check as Steve has common abilities.

It's pretty clear you're playing a different game if you're making PCs roll Recall Knowledge checks on readily identifiable information. When I GM, I don't make PCs spend actions to see that an opponent has a bow or there's an animal at their side ready to attack; I just tell them as a part of the encounter description.

I also don't pretend that there's a magic ratio of quivers required for a particular fighting style or waste their time suggesting that either of those things are in any way linked. If you do those things, have fun, but that's not how the rules work.

Recall Knowledge is a narrative tool where the GM has a lot of control over how it works and what fits into the campaign. The tags tell us that something is unique about an NPC, and yes, most NPCs have the potential to have a unique trait if you personalize them beyond the base form.

[Ched Greyfell]

Yea. OP is way overcomplicating things.
Graytusk's stats are different than the standard orc from a bestiary. And that was just an example. Tons of unique creatures. A creature created by a mad mage. Unique to the world. But might still be a sort of golem. Even if the mage named the golem Sparky. Even if other golems also get named by their creators, doesn't mean this golem isn't unique.

[HammerJack]

Yeah. Its pretty much just like this:

There's an orc holding a longbow (no knowledge check involved unless the PCs have never seen an orc before, with the way your campaign is set up).

(Note: I think the actual Greytusk was a shortbow. This is all example, not breakdown from the specific character entry)

Orcs are fierce warriors and incredibly hard to put down, with their Ferocity reaction (standard knowledge check about orc. Not hard to make).

This is Graytusk, who has developed a unique fighting style and has some special activities available that no one else uses (this is where the Unique difficulty check comes in).

If Graytusk doesn't have any unique combat abilities, that Unique adjusted DC would only matter trying to know personal/biographical details about Graytusk that might help the party trying to talk their way through this and not have it be a combat encounter at all, or something of the sort.

Simple.

[Staffan Johansson]

Zapp wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Here in Sweden, you're more likely to know things about bears or meese than

As a fellow Swede, lemme stop you right there:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Meese

To paraphrase director Fury: "I recognize (whoever is in charge of English) has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it."

[Claxon]

Zapp wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Here in Sweden, you're more likely to know things about bears or meese than

As a fellow Swede, lemme stop you right there:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Meese

LOL. Sorry I got more of a kick out of this then I had thought I would. I didn't even notice the error in the original post till you pointed it out.

I believe he meant moose (plural) but moose is the plural form of moose. Like deer and deer. Don't ask me why, I don't know. I'm a native speaker of English, but most of the rules don't really make sense. Probably because we've stolen grammar from all the other languages.

It's something we just learn as we're growing up. You say meece once and people laugh at you.

Although meece is generally taken as an incorrect plural of mouse.

[Elfteiroh]

Claxon wrote:

Zapp wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Here in Sweden, you're more likely to know things about bears or meese than

As a fellow Swede, lemme stop you right there:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Meese

LOL. Sorry I got more of a kick out of this then I had thought I would. I didn't even notice the error in the original post till you pointed it out.

I believe he meant moose (plural) but moose is the plural form of moose. Like deer and deer. Don't ask me why, I don't know. I'm a native speaker of English, but most of the rules don't really make sense. Probably because we've stolen grammar from all the other languages.

It's something we just learn as we're growing up. You say meece once and people laugh at you.

Although meece is generally taken as an incorrect plural of mouse.

Moose is an Algonquian word (from one of the numerous Native American cultures), and “loan words” often use the original plural. Fun fact: I learned this yesterday when talking about moose... RANDOM.

[SuperBidi]

cavernshark wrote:

It's pretty clear you're playing a different game if you're making PCs roll Recall Knowledge checks on readily identifiable information. When I GM, I don't make PCs spend actions to see that an opponent has a bow or there's an animal at their side ready to attack; I just tell them as a part of the encounter description.

You haven't understood me. I say these things can give you information about what abilities the creature has.

cavernshark wrote:

Recall Knowledge is a narrative tool where the GM has a lot of control over how it works and what fits into the campaign. The tags tell us that something is unique about an NPC, and yes, most NPCs have the potential to have a unique trait if you personalize them beyond the base form.

Ok, so let's look at the impact on the rules:

Without the Unique tag, you need a DC 20 Recall Knowledge check to recognize Graytusk as an Orc Ranger and get some information about her (Ferocity, Hunt Prey). If you consider her feat to be too special, you can just give it if the players make a critical success.
With the Unique tag, if you don't roll 20 you have wrong information. If you roll 30 you finally know about Ferocity and Hunt Prey.

Which one of these rulings make sense?

Also the Bounty Hunter is a Ranger with Precision Edge and is not Unique. Recognizing a Precision Ranger is (quite) easy.

HammerJack wrote:

Orcs are fierce warriors and incredibly hard to put down, with their Ferocity reaction (standard knowledge check about orc. Not hard to make).

This is Graytusk, who has developed a unique fighting style and has some special activities available that no one else uses (this is where the Unique difficulty check comes in).

So, you're giving basic information if the player meets the normal DC and extended information if the player meets the Unique DC which also happens to be a critical success to the normal DC. So, it looks to me you are just not applying the Unique tag.

As a side note, Orc PCs don't necessarily have Ferocity. That's in my opinion the kind of character that you can consider Unique. Event the most basic implication (like Orc -> Ferocity) are wrong in their case.

[Zapp]

Claxon wrote:

You say meece once and people laugh at you.

:)

(Unless you're director Fury, I guess)

[The Raven Black]

Indeed the Recall Knowledge use for Unique NPCs (rather than Unique creatures) is badly worded.

[graystone]

Claxon wrote:

Although meece is generally taken as an incorrect plural of mouse.

Yep, this is the only meaning I've ever heard of for meece. Never hear it used for something with antlers. ;)

The Raven Black wrote:

Indeed the Recall Knowledge use for Unique NPCs (rather than Unique creatures) is badly worded.

I think it's more a poorly placed tag than a failure of recall language. The tag SHOULD be reserved for those thing that are meant to work with the rules attached to the tag. I seems a complete waste of space to attach the tag to every named creature just because that makes them 'unique' [lower case]: unless it's harder to find things out about them, they are Common [upper case]. In the core books, it's reserved for artifacts and 1 of a kind monsters: not for Bob the blacksmith...

[Ched Greyfell]

I'm not in charge of anything. And I've derailed more than one post in my day.
But in the spirit of keeping this place friendly, perhaps everyone should not jump on a guy to make fun of his word usage?
Just saying =)

[AnimatedPaper]

graystone wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Indeed the Recall Knowledge use for Unique NPCs (rather than Unique creatures) is badly worded.

I think it's more a poorly placed tag than a failure of recall language. The tag SHOULD be reserved for those thing that are meant to work with the rules attached to the tag. I seems a complete waste of space to attach the tag to every named creature just because that makes them 'unique' [lower case]: unless it's harder to find things out about them, they are Common [upper case]. In the core books, it's reserved for artifacts and 1 of a kind monsters: not for Bob the blacksmith...

Why not both? I think the tag is overused, AND that GMG section is badly written to imply that any NPC stat block with a proper name should have the Unique tag.

They sometimes do leave it off, which is something at least. And I would expect to find its usage to be fairly high in AP and module entries, where if a creature is standard for its type they just refer to the relevant stat block rather than reprint it, but for PFS adventures where they print everything, it is used too frequently.

[PossibleCabbage]

The funny thing is that of all unique individuals, the thing the GM should generally guard least preciously is "their name."

Since knowing that the person the name of the person you stand to fight is less useful than knowing their class, their training, their preferred fighting style etc.

Like you're not going to bother to name every bravo duelist the party comes up, but being able to spot the difference between a fencer swashbuckler vs. a free hand fighter vs. an aldori swordlord is useful.

[graystone]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Why not both? I think the tag is overused, AND that GMG section is badly written to imply that any NPC stat block with a proper name should have the Unique tag.

It's more than a matter of being badly written: it's not expanded on IMO. They slapped a simple blurb under the generic trait entry and left it at that instead of having a section under NPC's to explain how it interacts with the trait: just going by that blurb, it's 10 harder to find out ANY information about a named person, even famous ones, so that it's 10 harder on the roll to figure out who the king is because he's Unique and one of the Unique things is that he's king... You get the +10 DC no matter how famous or unknown they are no matter if they are a high priest of a local temple or a beggar in a foreign land you've never been to.

[AnimatedPaper]

graystone wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Why not both? I think the tag is overused, AND that GMG section is badly written to imply that any NPC stat block with a proper name should have the Unique tag.

It's more than a matter of being badly written: it's not expanded on IMO.

Opposite, I think. They really did not need to have that entire section that SuperBidi quotes about named NPCs being unique; at best, I would have preferred writing there saying that even with the unique tag, you are still able to discern information that should be common knowledge, like that the Unique NPC Greytusk is an orc (and what that means) or that King Bob is the king.

That's what I mean about that the section being badly written. I think ultimately that's what they were trying to say about unique NPCs, that the +10 unique penalty shouldn't apply to stuff that isn't actually unique about the NPC (and no, being a king isn't unique, as SOMEONE has to be the head of state; a specific piece of the crown jewels that he wears as a badge of office might be though). But instead, they wrote it so even stat blocks that are named for the sake of clarity and convenience, with no unique features at all, should be at a +10 to recall knowledge.

[graystone]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Opposite, I think. They really did not need to have that entire section that SuperBidi quotes about named NPCs being unique

True: IMO, either drop it or expand it.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

at best, I would have preferred writing there saying that even with the unique tag, you are still able to discern information that should be common knowledge, like that the Unique NPC Greytusk is an orc (and what that means) or that King Bob is the king.

IMO, making levels of info makes the tag meaningless: if you're going to have Common, Uncommon and Rare kinds of info on creatures, why have the tag on the NPC itself? It adds nothing.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

and no, being a king isn't unique, as SOMEONE has to be the head of state

Being a king, no. Being the current king where you are now... Yeah, that's pretty unique. It's more unique than Bob the builder and conversely, it should be harder to track down info on Bob than the king because less people know who Bob is...

AnimatedPaper wrote:

+10 to recall knowledge

It'd be +10 Gather Info too.

[The Raven Black]

Like in PF1, I am left wondering what action can give you useful combat information about adventurers. I mean we have actions that will let us know that a given creature has attacks of opportunities or a weak REF save but nothing that does the same for PCs or PC-likes, no matter what investment we would make. How can we change this?

[Malk_Content]

Isnt that just Society Recall Knowledge?

[Xethik]

There is also the Battle Assessment Rogue feat.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

As always, the recall knowledge action instructs the GM to give useful information. If you want the GM to know what sort of information you might find useful, tell them when you are asking to make a recall knowledge check.

It isn't foolproof, but a looser more GM dependent system works better for knowledge checks in my experience.

Personally I like the unique trait, the level trait can be a bit hit or miss with what a character is trying to identify. But I try not to keep too much arbitrarily secret from players anyway as I don't find it enriches the game for them to know be able to know level 1 goblin traits because a goblin is a level 15 unique npc.

Again, fringe cases for me. Most of the time level + rarity works exactly as it should. (even if uncommon and rare magical items of lower levels are pretty easily dis-assembled and mas produced past certain level thresholds)

[Claxon]

Ched Greyfell wrote:

I'm not in charge of anything. And I've derailed more than one post in my day.

But in the spirit of keeping this place friendly, perhaps everyone should not jump on a guy to make fun of his word usage?
Just saying =)

I didn't feel we were making fun, more just an interesting quirk of language for someone writing in their second language.

As an American who can only really speak English, and some really bad Spanish and Chinese I'm not "making fun" of anyone for incorrect language usage when it isn't there native language. At least I don't think that's what we are doing. It's more just something funny that happened that we've discussed.

It's okay to make mistakes, and to even point them out and correct them, so long as it's done in a positive manner that doesn't hurt the person's feelings.

I don't think we've crossed that line, but if we have (collectively) then I apologize for doing so to Staffan Johansson.

[Staffan Johansson]

Claxon wrote:

I don't think we've crossed that line, but if we have (collectively) then I apologize for doing so to Staffan Johansson.

No worries, I'm well aware that meese isn't the proper plural of moose. I maintain that it should be, however.

[Claxon]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Claxon wrote:

I don't think we've crossed that line, but if we have (collectively) then I apologize for doing so to Staffan Johansson.

No worries, I'm well aware that meese isn't the proper plural of moose. I maintain that it should be, however.

It'd certainly be more entertaining, not that I have much need to discuss moose (either singular or plural) living in the American south. But at least when I did it would be funny.

While we're at it there are probably a lot of other plurals we should take a look.

Like why is it a pair of pants/underwear?
Why do we have silly group names, like flock of seagulls or murder or crows? Granted the second one sounds metal AF, but can't we just say "there are some crows/gulls". Flock implies a large number, but is still imprecise as is just making a word plural with "s".

All in all English just doesn't make a lot of logical sense and is rife with inconsistency. It's also the only language I speak natively (though probably still kind of poorly, I'm an engineer after all).

[PossibleCabbage]

I think one thing that's nice about DCs for unique people being hard is that it increases the odds of recalling false information about a person the PC only knows by reputation. People are going to tell all sorts of stories about what Abrogail is up to, but if you're confronted with her the first time you might not actually know if she can turn you to stone with her eyes.

[The Raven Black]

I find it hard though to believe you might think her a housemaid or being CG, which is as likely as any wrong info.

[PossibleCabbage]

The Raven Black wrote:

I find it hard though to believe you might think her a housemaid or being CG, which is as likely as any wrong info.

Isn't the GM responsible for giving out the "incorrect information" that comes with crit fails? So you'd probably want to choose something that is related to "stories a character might have heard about this person." Like "She can breathe fire like a dragon, but it's hellfire which is worse" is a better piece of wrong information to give out than "she's three kids in a trenchcoat."

Like you don't want to tip your hand by making it *obviously* false.

[RexAliquid]

Yeah, false information should be misleading, not obviously false.

[The Raven Black]

RexAliquid wrote:

Yeah, false information should be misleading, not obviously false.

Some GMs like to give utterly absurd info. Some give info that will lead PCs to death because critical failure.

[graystone]

The Raven Black wrote:

RexAliquid wrote:

Yeah, false information should be misleading, not obviously false.

Some GMs like to give utterly absurd info. Some give info that will lead PCs to death because critical failure.

Yep, as they SHOULD. "Critical Failure: You recall incorrect information or gain an erroneous or misleading clue." It straight up tells you what you recall should be "incorrect" (and that can mean "obviously false") OR erroneous or "misleading". With such little guidance on how to adjudicate crit fails, you can get literally anything as a result as long as it's not the right answer. The only wrong answer is the right one. ;)

[Zapp]

The Recall Knowledge system is clearly broken.

Spending an action for maybe a 50% shot at getting ONE piece of useful info is horrendously expensive, even before we add the +10 of Rare that just makes the idea ridonculous.

Just compare how I'm doing it:

Every player gets a FREE Recall Knowledge check when they perceive the monster, and success gives EVERY essential piece of info. (Not the full stat block but everything that might be the difference between life and death).

Since not every PC have every skill, this still means the players fight "blind" in maybe one third of cases.

As for spending RK actions in actual combat, please. It is far more efficient to just whack the monster. So what it took 15 points of damage less (for example). You still did some damage, which is 100% more damage than an action spent on RK will ever do.

The entire RK combat subsystem just doesn't work. A 50% shot of a single stat snippet is not even close to worth spending even your third action on.

*) The 50% gets better at weaker creatures - but these are exactly the creatures you will defeat even by brute force. Against the monsters you REALLY need information on, the L+4 beasts, you might not even have a 25% chance (and again, this is before the lunacy that is Uncommon and Rare modifiers). But wasting even a single action on standing around conversing with your own brain against these behemoths will get you killed.

So if you ignore the action cost of RK and let heroes research monsters beforehand...
...or if you ignore the success chance of RK and automatically provide relevant info when heroes spend RK actions...
...or if you ignore the extremely limited outcome specified by the RK action and just tell the players enough on a single success...

...congratulations! You have just correctly identified and discarded one of the least playable subsystems of Pathfinder 2!

[MaxAstro]

Zapp wrote:

The Recall Knowledge system is clearly broken.

Spending an action for maybe a 50% shot at getting ONE piece of useful info is horrendously expensive, even before we add the +10 of Rare that just makes the idea ridonculous.

Just compare how I'm doing it:

Every player gets a FREE Recall Knowledge check when they perceive the monster, and success gives EVERY essential piece of info. (Not the full stat block but everything that might be the difference between life and death).

Since not every PC have every skill, this still means the players fight "blind" in maybe one third of cases.

As for spending RK actions in actual combat, please. It is far more efficient to just whack the monster. So what it took 15 points of damage less (for example). You still did some damage, which is 100% more damage than an action spent on RK will ever do.

The entire RK combat subsystem just doesn't work. A 50% shot of a single stat snippet is not even close to worth spending even your third action on.

*) The 50% gets better at weaker creatures - but these are exactly the creatures you will defeat even by brute force. Against the monsters you REALLY need information on, the L+4 beasts, you might not even have a 25% chance (and again, this is before the lunacy that is Uncommon and Rare modifiers). But wasting even a single action on standing around conversing with your own brain against these behemoths will get you killed.

So if you ignore the action cost of RK and let heroes research monsters beforehand...
...or if you ignore the success chance of RK and automatically provide relevant info when heroes spend RK actions...
...or if you ignore the extremely limited outcome specified by the RK action and just tell the players enough on a single success...

...congratulations! You have just correctly identified and discarded one of the least playable subsystems of Pathfinder 2!

This sounds like you had a GM who had a very poor idea of what a "useful piece of information" is.

My players often spend actions on Recall Knowledge, because I make a point to give them worthwhile information.

[AnimatedPaper]

Also, why adding +10 as a rare modifier? Should be half that.