|
3 Action Economist posted:RAW are players allowed to freely share the info they get from Recall Knowledge? I always assumed so, since speaking of a free action, but I had a GM tell me it takes an action to relay it. Some GMs are assholes. Source: I'm a GM. It is an action to point out which square a hidden enemy is located in, but that's because you have to physically point. I could see someone extrapolating from that to make what I'd consider a terrible call regarding recall knowledge.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Lying about recall knowledges on secret crit fails actually owns and is very funny and if you don’t do it that is extremely lame It’s also great because every once in a while you give them info and they’re like hmmmm does crab walking and snapping my hands like crab claws actually frighten this creature and they just don’t know if it’s true or not and that rules sugar free jazz fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Sep 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 17:46
|
|
|
sugar free jazz posted:Lying about recall knowledges on secret crit fails actually owns and is very funny and if you don’t do it that is extremely lame Honestly, crit fails on recall knowledge that a player has actually invested in being good at are rare enough that my initial instinct with the mastermind rogue is to lie to them, and let them have the flatfoot/sneak just to better sell the lie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
3 Action Economist posted:RAW are players allowed to freely share the info they get from Recall Knowledge? I always assumed so, since speaking of a free action, but I had a GM tell me it takes an action to relay it. From the Basic Actions section of the CRB: The CRB posted:Speaking I let my players convey a sentence or two of information per round in-game, which is usually enough to get the point across from recall knowledge. So, it doesn't matter much in practice. And when it does, my players are much more allergic to "metagaming" than I am, so they police themselves on using information that their character wouldn't know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
marshmallow creep posted:What about a half truth? Like "you remember something about fire and this creature" and no context if it's a weakness or not. My GM just gives a fact that is blatantly obvious, like "you remember that mitflits have two eyes", or something pointless but factually correct. It's funny imo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 18:42
|
|
|
I feel like telling a lie would be fun in, say, a PbtA system. There, being blown off course is part of the fun. In a crunchy tactical system like PF2E, at best you're wasting people's time and at worst yiu're getting people killed.
The Bee fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Sep 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
Lying with RK will just make my players not want to use it and that's the exact opposite of what I want to happen
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
Razakai posted:There's been a constant ask for "martial character that can replicate the feats of legendary heroes" and this is pretty much ticking that box. If you want to just hit man with sword increasingly harder, we have Fighter (who's very good at it), and if you want to get so angry you turn inside out and then throw a spear through a dozen guys now we have Exemplar. Yeah like Exemplar is still worse than a Fighter at straight up fighting. Fighter gets Master Weapon Proficiency at Level 5 while Exemplar has to wait until Level 13. Exemplar seems cool in that they've got more flexibility and other stuff to do besides "I improved knockdown"
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
Less worried about the lying for a crit fail, and more worried about the "ask a question" directive because I feel like it's a little *too* restrictive. I feel like it should at least allow broad enough questions to know something like "what are this creature's strengths and weaknesses?" My GM usually dumps the explanation for the monster and some resistances/abilities/saves depending on the degree of success, and that helps shape how we approach the strategy during the fight. Plus trying to summarize info or giving it at the right time is a fun tactical conundrum already, tbh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
The Bee posted:I feel like telling a lie would be fun in, say, a PbtA system. There, being blown off course is part of the fun. In a crunchy tactical system like PF2E, at best you're wasting people's time and at worst ypu're getting people killed. The dice are killing them, which is as it should be when the universe is in balance. namaste
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 19:47
|
|
|
Fair Bear Maiden posted:Less worried about the lying for a crit fail, and more worried about the "ask a question" directive because I feel like it's a little *too* restrictive. I feel like it should at least allow broad enough questions to know something like "what are this creature's strengths and weaknesses?" they also said people should adjust for their tables it probably matters more for PFS than anything
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 21:02
|
|
|
All the martials in PF2e are some level of superhuman, it's just that Fighter is Captain America while the Exemplar is Thor. One can jump twenty feet into the air on top of a flying dragon and send it crashing to the ground while the other can teleport and tell swords to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 23:05
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Lying with RK will just make my players not want to use it and that's the exact opposite of what I want to happen This. I give my players a hero point once per session for using recall knowledge and they still don't do it lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 00:43
|
|
|
Syrinxx posted:This. I give my players a hero point once per session for using recall knowledge and they still don't do it lol it's more of a side effect of Pathfinder being so horizontally wide with abilities/feats that my players-- even the very attentive ones-- do genuinely forget mechanics they can use regularly, focusing instead on what they are sure is effective which is usually some kind of attack cycle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 00:49
|
|
|
Tbh in combat I find it a lot harder to willingly act on information I know to be false, which is where my resistance to the "lie on crit fail" bit comes from. Even if I'm not playing Thaumaturge or Mastermind Rogue there might be times I just happen to know from experience what a type of monster's saves and weaknesses tend to be like, so having the GM lie to me about that just feels like wasted effort on their part. I can definitely see it being interesting in non-combat scenarios, like attempting a RK on a unique NPC to find a way to approach them only to have that backfire hilariously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 10:18
|
|
|
3 Action Economist posted:You can use Forge to host, I think the cost is similar to roll20. You can host it for free on Oracle. It's actually faster and more stable than Forge was for me. https://foundryvtt.wiki/en/setup/hosting/always-free-oracle
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 13:33
|
|
|
Every table I've played at enjoys the "crit fail gives you obviously false and hopefully amusing misinformation". Basically makes it the same as a regular fail but with a joke attached. Like you're fighting a wolf and you tell them "pretty sure that's a cat".
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 13:52
|
|
|
Zarick posted:Every table I've played at enjoys the "crit fail gives you obviously false and hopefully amusing misinformation". Basically makes it the same as a regular fail but with a joke attached.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 15:15
|
|
|
Froghammer posted:"A wolf's teeth are famously brittle; you don't need to worry about it biting you" Immediately I picture a scenario where it goes "Wolves are just big puppers, and puppers love ear scritches." Followed by a crit success Animal Handling roll to actually scritch the wolf's ears.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 15:26
|
|
|
Clerical Terrors posted:Tbh in combat I find it a lot harder to willingly act on information I know to be false, which is where my resistance to the "lie on crit fail" bit comes from. Even if I'm not playing Thaumaturge or Mastermind Rogue there might be times I just happen to know from experience what a type of monster's saves and weaknesses tend to be like, so having the GM lie to me about that just feels like wasted effort on their part. Yeah, the idea is that by giving the players private information with clear tells that they crit failed, results in combat where the PC have the option to act comedically with obviously false information for RP purposes, to let the other players know what won't work and add some levity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:Still a record setting jump that they can do at anytime, but like a magic user can just cast "jump" at level 1 and jump 30 feet. I feel like you need to give martial characters magical powers just to keep up with the power curve. Purely physical stuff just doesn't cut it. To be fair, the problem with skills is that casters get just as many, if not more, skills than martials, and casters who invest in strength are going to be able to just as impressive physical feats. As long as there's no mechanical support for "martial prowess" being limited to martial classes, it means that it just turns into yet another thing that casters can poach. Also, one could argue that Jump takes a spell slot, and therefore is limited usage, whereas "can [long jump] all day" as the old dipshit saying went. It'd be silly to completely deprecate the spell but, on the other hand, it's a lame spell. Chevy Slyme posted:Honestly, crit fails on recall knowledge that a player has actually invested in being good at are rare enough that my initial instinct with the mastermind rogue is to lie to them, and let them have the flatfoot/sneak just to better sell the lie. That kinda steals the thunder of the Thaumaturge a bit, though, since the Thau's gimmick is "believing something absurd hard enough that they force it to become true." Dick Burglar fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Sep 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:To be fair, the problem with skills is that casters get just as many, if not more, skills than martials, and casters who invest in strength are going to be able to just as impressive physical feats. As long as there's no mechanical support for "martial prowess" being limited to martial classes, it means that it just turns into yet another thing that casters can poach. for sure, casters putting points into strength and doing athletics checks is definitely a problem in pathfinder: second edition
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:To be fair, the problem with skills is that casters get just as many, if not more, skills than martials, and casters who invest in strength are going to be able to just as impressive physical feats. As long as there's no mechanical support for "martial prowess" being limited to martial classes, it means that it just turns into yet another thing that casters can poach. Not really, because the catch is the information gained is still false. And if I’m going that route, it is maliciously false info like “it is weak to the damage it is actually resistant to” or “it’s low save is actually the high one”, not comedy false info like “these fire elementals are weak to fire.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 20:10
|
|
|
i had just assumed that recall knowledge was there so that players can use it on stuff they don't know the weaknesses of. are you telling me that people playing pathfinder 2e sit down and decide to waste an action so they're allowed to properly roleplay using a mace to hit a skeleton instead of a spear. what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 21:10
|
|
|
Kyrosiris posted:My GM just gives a fact that is blatantly obvious, like "you remember that mitflits have two eyes", or something pointless but factually correct. It's funny imo. That's good. Another possibility might be an entertaining, silly or funny lie. Ex. You remember a folktale where a monster like this was defeated after a baker threw a cream pie in it's face. You're pretty sure it is weak to pie. "Pie" is not a damage type in the game, so the players know not to waste actions on pie damage. Yet it is plausible within the world that some of the info you learn about esoteric monsters is wrong or misunderstood. The story could even be true. The town guard were whaling on a troll but couldn't kill it, it kept getting up. It was defeated after a baker threw a pie fresh out of the oven at it (mechanically because it was hot enough to do 1 fire damage which was enough to turn off the troll regeneration for a turn which allowed the guards to kill it). In later tellings of the story it was changed to a cream pie because getting hit in the face by a cream pie is always a real crowd pleaser.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 22:16
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:i had just assumed that recall knowledge was there so that players can use it on stuff they don't know the weaknesses of. are you telling me that people playing pathfinder 2e sit down and decide to waste an action so they're allowed to properly roleplay using a mace to hit a skeleton instead of a spear. what the gently caress Eh, it's fine. Lots of times you have a third action and nothing amazing to spend it on anyway. Like a melee guy who is next to the monster and making a third attack probably wouldn't land. I think it was in the DnD thread where there was a story about a frustrating time when a party encountered a troll. The players all knew that you need fire or acid to keep a troll down, but every one of them pretended that their characters didn't know that, and since none of them had a default attack pattern using fire or acid so they didn't try it. So afraid of metagaming they fall assbackwards into meta gaming, because surely in a world where trolls are a common problem and stories about famous adventurers are common entertainment, someone in the party would have heard a troll story. Recall knowledge checks give anxious players an out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 22:27
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:i had just assumed that recall knowledge was there so that players can use it on stuff they don't know the weaknesses of. are you telling me that people playing pathfinder 2e sit down and decide to waste an action so they're allowed to properly roleplay using a mace to hit a skeleton instead of a spear. what the gently caress it’s more that sometimes enemies have weird save patterns, and the wizard you think should suck at fort saves is actually weak with will saves instead and has sky high fort And you don’t wanna waste your power word kill
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 01:34
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:To be fair, the problem with skills is that casters get just as many, if not more, skills than martials, and casters who invest in strength are going to be able to just as impressive physical feats. As long as there's no mechanical support for "martial prowess" being limited to martial classes, it means that it just turns into yet another thing that casters can poach. what caster is pumping strength?? the "mechanical support" is that it's a huge loving waste of time and resources
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 01:47
|
|
|
Fair enough--the athletics skill and strength are a poor example, because strength is... basically rear end for most classes besides martials, and even some martials can pretty safely ignore it. I still think the point applies to other skills that are tied to stats that casters aren't inclined to completely ignore. I suppose there is somewhat of a mechanical precedent for "martial only" skill feats, since some thief-y skill feats are limited to rogues (and swashbucklers?), but that feels a little too far in the opposite direction of being overly limited.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 02:56
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:Fair enough--the athletics skill and strength are a poor example, because strength is... basically rear end for most classes besides martials, and even some martials can pretty safely ignore it. I still think the point applies to other skills that are tied to stats that casters aren't inclined to completely ignore. I suppose there is somewhat of a mechanical precedent for "martial only" skill feats, since some thief-y skill feats are limited to rogues (and swashbucklers?), but that feels a little too far in the opposite direction of being overly limited. as a soft counterpoint, PF2 actually turned a bunch of particularly crazy spells into rituals and made martials just as capable of using them as casters, Wish is only the latest the fundamental issue is that making Jack Knight, gritty human fighter play on the narrative level as Wiib the Magnificent, dream-manifesting conrasu psychic is hard as gently caress because we all have fundamental expectations of how 'regular' things work but don't have them for supernatural abilities and part of making magic seem actually magical is in breaking those normal boundaries Paizo could commit to "this is not a game for your gritty urban fantasy campaign, all our martial characters are obligate magical superheroes from the start" to resolve things in the opposite direction, but that'd nuke a third of the audience if not more
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 06:59
|
|
|
I'm currently designing an encounter that is going to take place in very tight tunnel conditions, basically ones where the ceiling will be between 4 and 5 feet from the floor. I'm aware that for exploration, squeeze is used for getting through tight spaces, but how should this work in combat? My thought would be that the tight confines count as difficult terrain, but that also medium and larger creatures are considered to be Clumsy 1 until they're in less confined spaces. Does this work or is there a better mechanic to use?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 07:28
|
|
|
Jen X posted:as a soft counterpoint, PF2 actually turned a bunch of particularly crazy spells into rituals and made martials just as capable of using them as casters, Wish is only the latest Paizo already committed to martial characters being able to do supernatural things since the core rulebook: barbarians shipped being able to jump hard enough to create earthquakes that can shatter structures around them. There are plenty of cool superhuman things that martial characters can do in Pathfinder 2e. The "problem" is based on two unexamined assumptions: 1) that martial really means the fighter, and the fighter not having some specific superhuman capabilities is a failure of class design and that 2) this makes the fighter bad. I think both of these are wrong, because as anyone who's actually played Pathfinder 2e will tell you, fighters kick loving rear end in this system, in and out of combat. And it's okay for the fighter's narrative to be about athleticism and weapon mastery, because that's their specific niche - and that doesn't take away from anyone else's ideas. If you want to play something more explicitly supernatural that's more like a manga or anime character or whatever, it's alright for that to be a different class, and Paizo is obviously heading this way with the exemplar, as others have pointed out. It's an argument being imported to Pathfinder 2e from people's previous problems with related systems, without examining how it actually works in the design and structure of Pathfinder 2e. It's false from the outset. e: added the quote to make it clear who i was responding to, not the bit about low-ceiling fights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 07:30
|
|
|
I did say "from the start," because yeah, everyone is goku at level 18, anyone trying to be mundane there is a moron I could have said "Jane Sneaky, gritty rogue" or "Jim Woods, gritty ranger" or whoever, it's not just the fighter, it's pretty much all the martial classes that aren't the thaumaturge a lot of people want to play mundane characters and PF2 allows them to sort of be that at the start instead of giving them the earthquake stomp at level 2, but then there's this mismatched narrative/flavor/capability tension because they're in a party with Joe Ages, Time Oracle who literally does time magic
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 08:12
|
|
|
Jen X posted:I did say "from the start," because yeah, everyone is goku at level 18, anyone trying to be mundane there is a moron Nobody in any edition of Pathfinder is "gritty" past the first few levels at most.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 10:37
|
|
|
Jen X posted:I did say "from the start," because yeah, everyone is goku at level 18, anyone trying to be mundane there is a moron Just to be clear, do you think casters have more ability to control the narrative than non-casters, in Pathfinder: 2nd Edition?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 11:51
|
|
|
I think there's also an important niche for people who want to stay "mundane" right to the end, even after the wizard is teleporting and throwing meteor storms around. PF2E seems to have done a decent job of that by curtailing caster power and making Fighter good by making stab man real good always a viable option, and giving them the numbers to back it up. Nothing wrong with being regular Joe Fighter if you can reliably shrug off all that dumb magic bullshit and decapitate the evil archmage rather than "haha I have 15 layers of magical defenses and am actually in a demiplane".
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 11:51
|
|
|
Jen X posted:I did say "from the start," because yeah, everyone is goku at level 18, anyone trying to be mundane there is a moron But the characters live in a world that has a lot of arcane and primal magic abound, has feats of religion from literal gods, ghosts and zombies are things people actually worry about, and several low level creatures could only really exist in a world where the answer can be “because magic” (e.g. oozes). Even if a character spent all their life in a farm growing up away from all that stuff they would have still heard about it while growing up. And there is still the likelihood of a town witch or some local magical phenomenon that the town just lives with. I guess what I’m trying to say is, the feats of a low level caster isn’t going to necessarily be impressing everybody.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 12:19
|
|
|
Roadie posted:Nobody in any edition of Pathfinder is "gritty" past the first few levels at most. Sure, that's not wrong, "gritty" could be worded as "mundane/natural/a thing that exists in real life". To me the term is useful hyperbole to emphasize the distinction. Still, tell it to the flavor writers who did a hell of different job with spells (their flavor is commonly far more impressive sounding than their effects) and even some caster feats vs. lower level martial class features which are commonly "you're skilled at this mundane talent, and can now do a new thing". I think Paizo did a great job of mechanical balancing and a worse job of flavor balancing, insofar as the goal is to make everyone seem roughly equivalently capable across the board without looking at numbers, sugar free jazz posted:Just to be clear, do you think casters have more ability to control the narrative than non-casters, in Pathfinder: 2nd Edition? No. There are implicit player expectations of how the world works (i.e. physics works like real life physics, if gamified in places) that restrict most martial characters in a way the lack of implicit expectations of how magic works (beyond "supernatural and impossible") does not restrict casters. This is because we're familiar with what happens when real people swing weapons around and not familiar with real people obliterating natural laws in consistent ways across media and lived experience. It's a matter of player expectations, given class narrative, class feature flavor, and worldbuilding, not narrative prominence or control. The tension comes from the fact that a lower-level martial character doing something impossible has a greater player perception barrier to overcome than a caster doing so, so the caster feels capable of things the martial isn't while a caster can in theory (though obviously not in practice) do the mundane things the martial does too. If a rogue stabs someone, and the sorcerer summons lightning, only one of them did something the other is not physically capable of, in theory; a wizard can grab a dagger but a rogue can't grab an ethereal thundercloud. Proven posted:But the characters live in a world that has a lot of arcane and primal magic abound, has feats of religion from literal gods, ghosts and zombies are things people actually worry about, and several low level creatures could only really exist in a world where the answer can be “because magic” (e.g. oozes). Even if a character spent all their life in a farm growing up away from all that stuff they would have still heard about it while growing up. And there is still the likelihood of a town witch or some local magical phenomenon that the town just lives with. That's true, but my point is about players, not their characters! Irl, a lot of martial feats are possible and magical powers obviously aren't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 13:55
|
|
|
Jen X posted:No. There are implicit player expectations of how the world works (i.e. physics works like real life physics, if gamified in places) that restrict most martial characters in a way the lack of implicit expectations of how magic works (beyond "supernatural and impossible") does not restrict casters. This is because we're familiar with what happens when real people swing weapons around and not familiar with real people obliterating natural laws in consistent ways across media and lived experience. Is this really a Pathfinder specific issue? I feel like this is something you run into very fast in any setting where some people just swing swords around while others speak in tongues and shoot lightning from their fingertips. Hell I think I've heard this same discussion before with regards to Force users vs. everyone else in Star Wars (although lbf, Star Wars is basically Space Fantasy anyways)
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
As a point in the favor of martials, don't forget that a regular human Fighter became one of the most well-known gods in the setting in order to win a drunken bet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 14:30
|
|