| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you do trivia nights during a gun fight? If not, I'm not really sure why they are a relevant comparison to trying to recall a specific fact while an orc tries to remove your spleen.Why aren't the PCs scouting out ahead of time and making checks prefight wherever possible? .
Because you referenced them knowing it in 2 seconds increments, heavily implying these are actions in combat: "IRL ask a D&D/Pathfinder player to name something specific about a troll and it won't take them 2 seconds to think up each specific thing about that monster."
Outside of combat, the whole topic of how long it takes to think of something becomes rather irrelevant. I already said wise players should try and find out everything they can outside of combat. This also doesn't really have anything to do with rolling dice for it.
Why can't PCs get a certain level of base knowledge about threats common to the region and creatures well below their level?
I mean, they can if they take the Survey Wildlife, Assurance, and/or Automatic Knowledge feats. Otherwise, if specific monsters are well known to menace a specific area, then players can either be given that knowledge at the onset of the game (google 10 things everyone knows about goblins from Rise of the Runelords) or have it relayed to them by the natives who hired them for the job.
But I think you overestimate how much people know about their local ecosystems. There are hundreds of monsters in the bestiary and and many of them look pretty similar to each other. Between that and the fact that most NPCs are trying to avoid monsters, not take time to study them, and I doubt many of them can accurately distinguish between a skeleton and a bone golem, or a dire wolf and a warg. (And some of that applies to PCs, as well. There's too much overlap between monsters with wildly different appearances to make knowing what something is the first time you see it a given.)
I'm not talking about giving everything away for free, I'm talking about ensuring that players aren't surprised by something they expect their character to know going the other way due to the whims of the dice.
OK, but why not:
I'm not talking about giving everything away for free, I'm talking about ensuring that players aren't surprised by something they expect their character to be able to hit going the other way due to the whims of the dice.
I'm not talking about giving everything away for free, I'm talking about ensuring that players aren't surprised by something they expect their character to be able to sneak past going the other way due to the whims of the dice.
I'm not talking about giving everything away for free, I'm talking about ensuring that players aren't surprised by something they expect their character to be their spell to instantly melt going the other way due to the whims of the dice.
I'm generally in favor of reducing variance
Then PF2 is a bad fit for you, and to be honest I imagine most d20 systems are. The d20 is just a super swingy dice to base a game around.
[
One thing I've done w/ a homebrew sandbox which lets PCs level, and that's to let the NPCs level too (and acquire other resources.) So facing threats becomes like stomping out fires. Ignore one too long and it worsens.
Not simple in published content, I didn't find it too difficult if I had an inkling of where the party would focus in the coming sessions.
ETA: And perhaps all of my campaigns (in alternate RPGs too) have been done as war, a trait I explicitly inform new players about (especially those w/ video game or PFS backgrounds).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference, to my mind, is that RK represents things a player's character knows.
Recall Knowledge doesn’t represent things a player’s character knows, it represents things a player character remembers in the moment.
It's much more difficult to play a character when there are aspects of their knowledge only revealed at the roll of a die.
The idea behind recall knowledge is that memory is rarely perfect and especially in a high stress situation you might not be able to remember everything you know about a given monster. In the din of battle you might mistake a fact you know about an Owlbear for a fact you know about a Bugbear. When prompted by a companion about the facts about a monster, you might misremember.
It isn’t knowledge, it’s memory. Hence the name.
This doesn't mean there aren't situations suitable to calling for a check, just that those should be related to gathering new information, conducting research, and solving mysteries.
None of those are about recalling the knowledge you already have and are about acquiring new knowledge - hence they would be a research check not a recall knowledge.
Because you referenced them knowing it in 2 seconds increments, heavily implying these are actions in combat: "IRL ask a D&D/Pathfinder player to name something specific about a troll and it won't take them 2 seconds to think up each specific thing about that monster."
Outside of combat, the whole topic of how long it takes to think of something becomes rather irrelevant. I already said wise players should try and find out everything they can outside of combat. This also doesn't really have anything to do with rolling dice for it.
That is also true, but this falls apart when a player's character is somebody who fought against goblins in some campaign and has to struggle to recall knowledge about them the first time that character encounters them 'on-screen'. Once that roll is made, or post-action talk happens and the subject is broached, that roll never needs to happen again. This feels gamey to me so I want to eliminate those kinds of situations.
But I think you overestimate how much people know about their local ecosystems. There are hundreds of monsters in the bestiary and and many of them look pretty similar to each other. Between that and the fact that most NPCs are trying to avoid monsters, not take time to study them, and I doubt many of them can accurately distinguish between a skeleton and a bone golem, or a dire wolf and a warg. (And some of that applies to PCs, as well. There's too much overlap between monsters with wildly different appearances to make knowing what something is the first time you see it a given.)
So that ranger doesn't know the monsters within a couple of miles of his home then? Then, one day he takes a feat and suddenly gains knowledge that years of living there never imparted upon him? Again, how does that make sense?
I'm not talking about giving everything away for free, I'm talking about ensuring that players aren't surprised by something they expect their character to be able to hit going the other way due to the whims of the dice.
I actually favor systems that do this.
The Riddle of Steel and Blade of the Iron Throne both do this well. More skilled characters are lethal to less skilled characters except in circumstances of incredible luck, poor tactics, or a difference in armor/weapons too large to overcome. Cyberpunk, which has skills that can have bonuses as large as +25 with a D10 resolution die. Beyond that most to hit chances are fixed DCs or opposed rolls so luck, while still certainly a factor, is far less swingy and characters are generally skilled at anything they invest in.
None of these games are made easy due to their dice. In fact, both often have fights end after a few good hits are landed and encourage players to engage in unfair fights or to avoid combat altogether.
The difference, to my mind, is that RK represents things a player's character knows.Recall Knowledge doesn’t represent things a player’s character knows, it represents things a player character remembers in the moment.
Do you expect the party to roll against monsters they've already fought several times? If not, then what makes recalling this knowledge automatic when it wasn't the first time?
The idea behind recall knowledge is that memory is rarely perfect and especially in a high stress situation you might not be able to remember everything you know about a given monster. In the din of battle you might mistake a fact you know about an Owlbear for a fact you know about a Bugbear. When prompted by a companion about the facts about a monster, you might misremember.
It isn’t knowledge, it’s memory. Hence the name.
See above.
None of those are about recalling the knowledge you already have and are about acquiring new knowledge - hence they would be a research check not a recall knowledge.
Yes, because I'd revert the skill to knowledge and roll academic research back into it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea behind recall knowledge is that memory is rarely perfect and especially in a high stress situation you might not be able to remember everything you know about a given monster. In the din of battle you might mistake a fact you know about an Owlbear for a fact you know about a Bugbear. When prompted by a companion about the facts about a monster, you might misremember.
It isn’t knowledge, it’s memory. Hence the name.
This doesn't feel accurate-- the Recall Knowledge action works the same in combat and out. You don't take penalties or change how the rules work for the din of battle.
That is also true, but this falls apart when a player's character is somebody who fought against goblins in some campaign and has to struggle to recall knowledge about them the first time that character encounters them 'on-screen'. Once that roll is made, or post-action talk happens and the subject is broached, that roll never needs to happen again. This feels gamey to me so I want to eliminate those kinds of situations.
A player doesn't have to wait until they encounter a goblin to Recall Knowledge about goblins. If you want to have this already established in a backstory, you can have the player roll ahead of time to see what they learned from their previous encounters, possibly with a bonus. Or just give them knowledge about goblins without a roll. None of this requires rewriting the knowledge rules or giving knowledge of every OTHER creature too.
So that ranger doesn't know the monsters within a couple of miles of his home then? Then, one day he takes a feat and suddenly gains knowledge that years of living there never imparted upon him? Again, how does that make sense?
This feels like a really contrived scenario. PCs aren't usually having campaigns in their own backyard. And even if they were, if they're neighbors with a monster dangerous enough to use for an encounter against 4 players I'd question how the lone Ranger has avoided getting eaten by it already.
And if a Ranger fails a knowledge roll against such a monster that can establish they haven't actually it before. Even if they have, they may not have known what it was at the time.
I actually favor systems that do this.
The Riddle of Steel and Blade of the Iron Throne both do this well. More skilled characters are lethal to less skilled characters except in circumstances of incredible luck, poor tactics, or a difference in armor/weapons too large to overcome. Cyberpunk, which has skills that can have bonuses as large as +25 with a D10 resolution die. Beyond that most to hit chances are fixed DCs or opposed rolls so luck, while still certainly a factor, is far less swingy and characters are generally skilled at anything they invest in.
Which is all fine, but again, none of them are d20 systems and Pathfinder will always be a d20 system. If you don't like d20s that's fine but people who do like them aren't likely to agree with you on what needs to be changed about them.
A player doesn't have to wait until they encounter a goblin to Recall Knowledge about goblins. If you want to have this already established in a backstory, you can have the player roll ahead of time to see what they learned from their previous encounters, possibly with a bonus. Or just give them knowledge about goblins without a roll. None of this requires rewriting the knowledge rules or giving knowledge of every OTHER creature too.
This doesn't seem to be supported in the rules. Can you point me to a page number where Paizo suggests that characters pre-roll RK checks about everything their character might know during session 0? Also, can you explain to me how this isn't just pointless busywork?
This feels like a really contrived scenario. PCs aren't usually having campaigns in their own backyard. And even if they were, if they're neighbors with a monster dangerous enough to use for an encounter against 4 players I'd question how the lone Ranger has avoided getting eaten by it already.
And if a Ranger fails a knowledge roll against such a monster that can establish they haven't actually it before. Even if they have, they may not have known what it was at the time.
The first 5 levels of a game could easily take place near the parties starting town before branching out into the wider world. In fact, this is even a commonly used approach to building out a homebrew campaign. As for how they would avoid those threats the Ranger would use stealth to observe such threats to his home. This would allow them to act as a warning system for the local community.
Or do you not expect the people in your games to behave like real people and just sit dumbly in their homes and wait for the monsters to attack them?
Which is all fine, but again, none of them are d20 systems and Pathfinder will always be a d20 system. If you don't like d20s that's fine but people who do like them aren't likely to agree with you on what needs to be changed about them.
You do realize that you can run it as a 3d6 system without making any serious changes, right? 3.x even had an entire section in Unearthed Arcana about why a group might wish to move away from a d20 but continue using the basic framework of the game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I literally wrote a suggestion as to how I'd house rule PF2's system to better work for my prefered style of game. If that isn't constructive I'm not sure what is?
You're looking for the Homebrew and House Rules subforum.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
PLease show me the page where this is mentioned in the rules.
Please show me where making it its own skill is mentioned in the rules. If you want to gatekeep how this discussion goes down, then you'll have to abide by the same strictures you're attempting to place on others.
I literally wrote a suggestion as to how I'd house rule PF2's system to better work for my prefered style of game. If that isn't constructive I'm not sure what is?
That's all you've done on this forum for weeks now. How are house rules that rewrite PF2 into something else constructive to conversations about how to play PF2 as it currently exists?
This doesn't feel accurate-- the Recall Knowledge action works the same in combat and out. You don't take penalties or change how the rules work for the din of battle.
That is why I gave examples that included both a sudden prompt from a compatriot, as well as the din of battle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This doesn't seem to be supported in the rules. Can you point me to a page number where Paizo suggests that characters pre-roll RK checks about everything their character might know during session 0? Also, can you explain to me how this isn't just pointless busywork?
You can Recall Knowledge whenever you want, and generally about whatever you want. I'm not saying players roll for every monsters in the bestiary. I'm saying that if your backstory involves having fought goblins (your example) or X creature, then you can choose to Recall Knowledge about goblins or X creatures whenever you want. If Y creature isn't specifically mentioned in your backstory, you don't roll for them.
Alternatively, as I mentioned, you can just give the player knowledge of said creature. This does not require giving the player knowledge about every other creature.
The first 5 levels of a game could easily take place near the parties starting town before branching out into the wider world. In fact, this is even a commonly used approach to building out a homebrew campaign. As for how they would avoid those threats the Ranger would use stealth to observe such threats to his home. This would allow them to act as a warning system for the local community.
A level 1 character spying on higher level creatures is actually pretty risky, given how perception DCs work. But what you're describing sounds like a Ranger who got Terrain Stalker from their background and the Monster Hunter feat. You've now got a character who can roll knowledge checks as a free action from the time they spent actively spying and studying the things. You still roll to determine if you know about a specific creature, and if you fail then it just isn't something you had a chance to learn about.
Basically most of your issues are things which can be built around, and none of them seem to warrant an overhaul of the default system.
You do realize that you can run it as a 3d6 system without making any serious changes, right? 3.x even had an entire section in Unearthed Arcana about why a group might wish to move away from a d20 but continue using the basic framework of the game.
And?
You're looking for the Homebrew and House Rules subforum.
I literally wrote a suggestion as to how I'd house rule PF2's system to better work for my prefered style of game. If that isn't constructive I'm not sure what is?
The entire thread is about approaching PF2 from a different perspective than usual. I've had a conversation with the OP and broadly agree with his ideas about using PF2 to run this style of game. I've also introduced an idea in response to people suggesting that they find RK restrictive when used in a sandbox combat as war style game.
I don't see how this is that far afield from the discussion.
You're looking for the Homebrew and House Rules subforum.
I literally wrote a suggestion as to how I'd house rule PF2's system to better work for my prefered style of game. If that isn't constructive I'm not sure what is?The entire thread is about approaching PF2 from a different perspective than usual. I've had a conversation with the OP and broadly agree with his ideas about using PF2 to run this style of game. I've also introduced an idea in response to people suggesting that they find RK restrictive when used in a sandbox combat as war style game.
I don't see how this is that far afield from the discussion.
No one has indicated they have the problem you are trying to fix. The closest that has come is that some of us think you should be able to know when a creature's level is too high for you, which your house rules explicitly don't do. You said characters automatic knowledge of lower level creatures and no one cares about that.
No one has indicated they have the problem you are trying to fix. The closest that has come is that some of us think you should be able to know when a creature's level is too high for you, which your house rules explicitly don't do. You said characters automatic knowledge of lower level creatures and no one cares about that.
Did you miss the entire back and forth about exactly how much info any given RK check should give and how specifically players need to ask to get a particular piece of info instead of something else? My suggestion was made as a way to eliminate exactly this confusion for players and GMs alike.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for encountering monsters out of the party's league, I think much of that should occur before they encounter the monster.
What's been its impact on other creatures? The terrain, i.e. huge footprints or shattered trees? Most especially the NPCs the party might meet? Does it (doesn't it?) have a reputation?*
Have you laid the foundation so that your descriptions represent the ferocity of the creatures (in terms of level/power, not temperament)? How about referencing other creatures of known power?
One base unit I've used is "Ogres" as in, "these creatures are known to destroy an ogre in one or two hits" or "this monster looks like it could hold its own vs. several ogres". Move up as needed.
I mean, if one uses dry descriptions, a Hill Giant simply looks like a broader Ogre...so emphasize that breadth, maybe note how it flips boulders like a rogue might flip daggers, with casual ease.
My veterans have learned to key in on my descriptions. :)
Cannon fodder and ample opportunity to flee are useful, as is an occasional monster willing to toy with the PCs.
*Maybe my favorite was when, in the major metropolis for adventuring types (Greyhawk), one of the newer players got all excited about rumors of a dragon and wanted to investigate immediately, to be the ones to slay this dragon before anybody else. There were at such a level that city guards would've outclassed them.
Veteran player turns to him: "We are not. Fighting. A dragon." (with the heavy subtext of "not any famous/notorious dragon").
Of course, they would've if they'd played to level 20 or so, since that dragon was the biggest boss regionally. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one has indicated they have the problem you are trying to fix. The closest that has come is that some of us think you should be able to know when a creature's level is too high for you, which your house rules explicitly don't do. You said characters automatic knowledge of lower level creatures and no one cares about that.Did you miss the entire back and forth about exactly how much info any given RK check should give and how specifically players need to ask to get a particular piece of info instead of something else? My suggestion was made as a way to eliminate exactly this confusion for players and GMs alike.
People were discussing how Recall Knowledge works as written and how it should be used. Your suggestion is to eliminate Recall Knowledge, except for higher level monsters. That is like if people were arguing about what makes the best ham sandwich and you started talking about taking the ham out of it.
And it doesn't fix the problem people have of figuring out when you're outgunned because your solution doesn't apply to higher level creatures.
People were discussing how Recall Knowledge works as written and how it should be used. Your suggestion is to eliminate Recall Knowledge, except for higher level monsters. That is like if people were arguing about what makes the best ham sandwich and you started talking about taking the ham out of it.
And it doesn't fix the problem people have of figuring out when you're outgunned because your solution doesn't apply to higher level creatures.
"A person trained in a knowledge skill might know the saves, AC, attack bonus, and special traits of all level-2 monsters losing one piece of info for each level the monster exceeds level-2."
If the player is told that they don't seem to know much about the kind of creature that in and of itself is a sign that it's probably too much for them to handle.
TY for the write up The Magic Sword. This goes a long ways towards making PF2 seem more enjoyable from someone who has a CaW preference. I dont necessarily see structures as natural but I can see how they help produce a more CaW like experience. It still seems like a sportification of the past TTRPG experience, which feels more like an evolution of combat as sport to me, al beit one thats more palatable than I've experienced before.
Hm. I suppose we would already be setting danger levels to regions, dungeons, treasure rooms and the likes, so being open about them is much the same as being open about the level of the creatures they encounter. It makes sense, but I admit it feels wrong for some reason and I don't have the words to describe it, but that might just be because it's a new thought. Would you do this even for that Black Door you mentioned, where they have absolutely no idea what's behind it? I understand and agree that informed decision making is king, but if they have no...
Instead, there are 'leads' which can really be anything-- a treasure map some of the players found in a prior adventure, something off the public rumor table, something someone noticed in an adventure and made public information (Like Robbins Black Door example), even a hook from a player's backstory. Really anything can be a lead, it doesn't even require a GM to pre-create it as one (although a GM has to be willing to run with it, at the end of the day.) But because we're formalizing it, it will gain a level somewhere along the way (either when its placed on the public table, or when a player approaches a GM about making it one, before assembling a group.) That level corresponds to what Ben Robbins referred to in his 3e West Marches about things getting higher level as you radiate outwards from town, and telegraphing pockets of higher level danger so players don't just stumble into something out of their league.When the GM is prepping the content of the lead, that level is the level used for the encounter guidelines, and all content and treasure (loosely, our treasure is going to look very different from the standard, but that's a whole other kettle of fish) is designed as if for a party of four PCs of that level. The level of the lead doesn't depend on the PCs, and PCs are welcome to freely choose to pursue leads (read: enter adventuring spaces) completely independently of their level at their own risk.
I thought about this for a while before responding, the black door is an interesting example even though I brought it up, I think that ultimately it depends on whats intended to be on the other side. Most likely I would frame opening as something yields a new lead, separately from opening it-- so if the players encounter it and can't open it, later on they might receive a key, once they have the key they'd probably get a "Open the Black Door!! (Level 15)" lead.
So I guess in that context they'd just get the information, but also I'd smooth over the dissonance by trying to foreshadow whats on the other side, like maybe the key has a letter in the chest with it that talks about the hunt for a legendary treasure, and about a madman raving about a black door and a terrible curse that brings low anyone who isn't strong enough-- then the lead would functionally just be a meta-game clarification of what that means.
If the door can be opened via something within the dungeon, then I'd let them open it, and then as soon as its open I'd try and foreshadow whats ahead, or let them feel that there are dark and powerful things beyond, and then hand them the level 15 lead to "Explore Beyond the Black Door!". This would require any mission to get it open to be worthy of its own quest, which wouldn't be too hard, since dungeon restocking is a thing, and they still have to traverse the hexes to get back to the dungeon in the first place.
See, I think what it comes down to, is if opening the Black Door is primarily a challenge with a reward just sitting on the other side, or the start of whats functionally its own new exploration. If its the latter, we can wait until the door is open and then let that be its own lead, but if its the former, then it isn't necessarily higher level or anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TY for the write up The Magic Sword. This goes a long ways towards making PF2 seem more enjoyable from someone who has a CaW preference. I dont necessarily see structures as natural but I can see how they help produce a more CaW like experience. It still seems like a sportification of the past TTRPG experience, which feels more like an evolution of combat as sport to me, al beit one thats more palatable than I've experienced before.
Yup! I see it as a blending of the two styles, I like it because sometimes you want to roll up and take a challenge head on, but other times you want those classic shenanigans that come from not being able to to. It can make the world feel more real, without having to be completely dis-empowered.
|
I think walking around in a world where there are explicit numbers floating around areas saying how dangerous they are is a bit much, but the general idea isn't so bad. You can be a bit more vague and say anything four or more levels above you is clearly way out of your league - the difference between four and fourteen isn't that important because you don't stand much of a chance in either. Then you've got "a bit above you", "approximately equal", "a bit below" and "trivial, not really worth your time anymore".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that it's possible to play this way, but what's your solution to the high scaling in DCs? You mention a sleeping dragon. If it's sufficiently high level that they don't want to fight it, it probably has quite the high Perception modifier? Similarly with Recall Knowledge, the players can't make smart decisions if they don't know what they're up against, and the book saying the RK DC should be level-based makes it very likely they fail or critically fail the checks.
I think I'd personally try to figure out a better way for RK DCs. Especially for creatures such as Dragons which have lower level versions with lower level RK DCs. I'd say the DC should remain an easy one for the creature's lowest level version, except maybe for the unique features that only show up at the higher levels. But that's a whole other can of worms.
IMO the game should really have a some way to gauge relative level. Like how they can sense power levels in various anime like DBZ or HxH. You could potentially give it on that little bit of info on a failure but not a critical failure as well. PF1 had an AP with a unique CR 11 flesh golem, and it was only DC 17 Arcana to realize it was no normal flesh golem and was probably way too powerful for the low level party. You could also make it a Perception check to gauge instead of a knowledge check.
That can work fairly well, actually, because many monsters have variants that run a variety of levels. So if the sleeping dragon is an adult blue and the player rolls high enough to identify a young blue, you can say "It is a blue dragon. A young one would be a tough fight and this is no young one." Or something to that end.
I'm thinking that since I don't want players unknowingly wandering into anything, I'm going to steal the genre conceit of things like Dragon Ball and other Martial Arts Fantasy, where you can just 'tell' that someone is in a whole different class than you are. You might not know what it is, but you can feel that it would crush you like a bug if its 4 levels over you.
I suppose that would generically count for groups of creatures where the encounter as a whole is too much as well, where you realize that if they catch you, you're just dead, no skill check needed, your preservation instincts just warn you.
I think this could work two ways. On the one hand, the weaker party can sense the presence of a super predator and scurry before they get into direct sight. And on the other hand, super predators maybe actually have some difficulty taking notice of "ants". If you're not actually plundering the dragon's hoard, you're so pitiful and insignificant that the dragon probably just doesn't really consciously register that you're there. I mean unless you tried really hard to get its attention. But if you wanted to just tiptoe away and mark on your map to come back in six levels, you can, easily.
Fun other fact about that game, we're going to be allowing players to level using gold, using Wealth by Level, and substantially scaling up the amount of gold given out. So leveling speed will be a function of how one chooses to spend their treasure, how well they explore, and so forth. Intentionally designed so players can control their leveling speed and those who don't level immediately are better equipped.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bumping this, my Secrets of Old Pandora West Marches Pirate Hexcrawl will be beginning on the 24th, so we're actually in the midst of creating random tables and keying the hexmap. I've already begun learning a lot, we've broken the game world into zones so that we could cut down on the initial mapping, and have general levels on a per zone basis, with the first being a large landmass (pre-players acquiring ships) ranging from 1 to about 5 in terms of leads and parties expected to find content here.