Pathfinder 2E Rate Pathfinder 2E

[CapnZapp]

Yes, in combat, they eat an action, so players are not choosing that option very often. Yes, in many cases players can use Recall Knowledge outside of combat, so the one-action cost is irrelevant. If the PCs can scout whatever strange critters they're about to face from a nearby hilltop, they could certainly call for Recall Knowledge checks without any meaningful action-based cost.

These are problems I have identified, not solutions.

What you're saying is essentially "Our group not engaging with the rules" which basically means you might consider refraining from calling them great, or dismissing the concerns of people who do try to engage with rules as they're written.

In short, why have an action cost if you never pay that cost? Please say you see the problem here.

If we're restricting the discussion to using Recall Knowledge on critters in combat, I still fail to see the problem.

If you had read my other thread, you wouldn't say "I still fail to see the problem". You would have understood what I'm struggling with and why I need a different framework.

Sure, the DM has to make up interesting tidbits to feed players' successful rolls, and misleading tibits for critical failures, on the fly. That's not hard to manage.

I find it hard to manage.

But that's maybe because I tried to use the rules as written, action cost and all. I basically found there was no information transfer - that I never got to tell my players about the cool stuff monsters are made of.

They simply concluded the Recall Knowledge action was worthless/too expensive, shrugged, and proceeded to brute force down monsters.

Basically, they're right. The core objection to the rule is that just by attacking normally you get to know nearly everything you need to know.

To boil it down to a crude example:

For instance, you attack a werewolf. You deal 5 less damage. Now you know you need a special material, and you guess silver based on prior D&D gaming. You still did some damage, which is better than spending your action on Recall Knowledge.

---

Unlike with Crafting or Hero Points I haven't been able to come up with a satisfying solution.

All I've managed is to raise a flag cautioning players against taking abilities related to Recall Knowledge since those likely won't do what you might expect from just reading their text.

That, and starting off each combat with a free "monster knowledge check", much like how I have run things ever since 4E.

Recall Knowledge is basically an over-engineed solution, and a half-baked one at that.

 

[Philip Benz]

Capn, since I quoted from the middle of the other thread, and cited several of your examples, it seemed to me you would understand that I had indeed read it.

You ask, "why have an action cost if you never pay that cost?" That and your further examples show why Recall Knowledge used in combat is often not an optimal solution. Much better for players to try to use it outside of combat. But if they do suddenly think there's some important detail they missed, and it's in the thick of combat, the one-action cost shows that provisions have been made for them to try to do that. There is no problem here, it's working as intended.

And they can always try to Recall Knowledge after a fight is over, in preparation for the real possibility of facing more of these critters just down the next hallway.

Your "free monster check" is still possible if the PCs have a moment after seeing the critters and before initiative is rolled. If they don't have that moment, then one action in their first turn spent trying to lake a "monster check" isn't horribly crippling. It may be non-optimal, but it isn't crippling.

Note that Recall Knowledge checks are also at the heart of the Investigate activity of Exploration mode. Maybe they should just have called them "knowlege" checks, and chucked out the "recall" part, I dunno. But as I often run investigation-oriented adventures, I'm glad there is a system in place, even if it isn't as robust as I might have wished. "Half-baked"? It's a glass half full or half empty quandary.

 

[First Age]

No luck, I few years ago I would have had access to a Chromebook, but not at the moment.

Hi,

I just wanted to pop back and suggest that you could use and Android emulator for your PC?

The one suggest here:
is this: BlueStacks - Not Another Android Emulator - 6x Faster Than Any Phone

No experience of using it but might be a neat way in to get access to Pathbuilder2?

Cheers.

 

[dave2008]

Hi,

I just wanted to pop back and suggest that you could use and Android emulator for your PC?

The one suggest here:
is this: BlueStacks - Not Another Android Emulator - 6x Faster Than Any Phone

No experience of using it but might be a neat way in to get access to Pathbuilder2?

Cheers.

Thank you for the info, I may give that a try.

 

[Philip Benz]

FWIW, after watching Perram's podcast about the Pathbuilder app, I DLed the emulator he suggested, as well as the Pathbuilder app, and it works great on my PC. In 10-15 minutes, you can create a character and export its statblock, and with only a very small amount of post-editing you can create an NPC statblock with very little effort required.

I know that Paizo gave us rules for creating monsters and NPCs without going through the character creation process, but for major NPCs, I really prefer using the character creation system to make NPCs using the same rules that are used for PCs. This app is a godsend for content creators, and I really like the results.

 

[CapnZapp]

I know that Paizo gave us rules for creating monsters and NPCs without going through the character creation process, but for major NPCs, I really prefer using the character creation system to make NPCs using the same rules that are used for PCs. This app is a godsend for content creators, and I really like the results.

Their "rules" are more like broad guidelines. Very broad guidelines. Stuff like "This here monster should have an AC between 21-29". There are few restrictions and no hard choices to make (of the "if I opt for a great offense, the system forces me to have a poor defense" kind.)

For content creators, I would note Paizo's own NPCs follow monster rules. NPCs are monsters. And monsters are significantly tougher than PCs of the same level. Just a heads-up so "content creators" don't end up with NPCs that feel significantly "off" compared to comparable 1PP offerings.

Anyway, a player-made NPC will be weaker in combat and have lots of abilities that doesn't make sense within the "live for 6 rounds" context. All those feats and spells are just clutter. I don't recommend making "PC NPCs".

But anyway.

In short the monster creation rules aren't rules at all. They tell you little beyond the obvious, which basically amounts to "when you're done with your level N monster, check with a level N monster of the Bestiary to see you're still the right ballpark". You didn't need all those tables for that.

Paizo is still holding all the cards close to their chest as to their internal playbook on what sorts of monsters and NPCs get what sorts of stats, the specific considerations and trade-offs I'm sure they use within their team to justify strong and weak stats in the various areas.

The monster rules don't reveal that to us at all.

PS. Of course, none of this should take away the fact Pathbuilder is an excellent chargen tool and it's excellent you got it to work outside Android!

 

[GrahamWills]

Basically, they're right. The core objection to the rule is that just by attacking normally you get to know nearly everything you need to know.

Does PF2 require the GM to tell the player how much of their damage gets through? We haven't been playing it that way, so if you could point me to that reference, please do.

Also vulnerabilities, special attacks, and REALLY IMPORTANT reactive abilities are highly helpful. We typically use recall knowledge most combats as we find it important.

 

[Retreater]

My group has been using Pathbuilder for our whole campaign so far. They complain they have been having trouble with a few of the features (like it doesn't clearly tell them when to take what kind of feats). I haven't noticed any issues though.

 

[CapnZapp]

Does PF2 require the GM to tell the player how much of their damage gets through? We haven't been playing it that way, so if you could point me to that reference, please do.

I don't think any edition of D&D ever has had that kind of detailed meta instructions.

And for a good reason.

So, yes, absolutely, you as the GM can make Recall Knowledge almost mandatory through your GMing style.

Myself, I chose another GMing style where I don't try to salvage a half-baked mechanism by being hard on my players.

Cheers

 

[GrahamWills]

I don't think any edition of D&D ever has had that kind of detailed meta instructions.

And for a good reason.

So, yes, absolutely, you as the GM can make Recall Knowledge almost mandatory through your GMing style.

You said that since the players will know that the monster has DR of 5, there is no need for recall knowledge. My response was that that you choice of telling players all the information they would get from Recall Knowledge is a GM choice, and that it's a bad one. Your response is then to make me try to believe that it's a normal choice.

I straight up don't believe you and honestly think you are just trying to shore up your week argument. I've played thousands of games of D&D -- many at conventions, so with many different GMs; at least hundreds. I cannot recall any that told me, when I swung my weapon, that it did 5 less damage because of DR.

Some GMs might give no information; most would say "not as much seems to go through as you think". None that I can recall would say "it does 5 less because the monster has DR 5 against silver"

Be honest here -- do you actually do that? Because if you don't, then Recall Knowledge is important.

Also, I'm assuming you haven't played the full first part of the Ashes campaign; or were very lucky in a certain fight against undead two of whom had very different resistances that it makes a big difference to know about. We almost lost a character because we matched the wrong attackers against the wrong monsters. Also -- knowing that a certain monster had a reaction of an attack that could swallow a character in another fight made a big difference.

Finally, note that by RAW, Recall Knowledge MUST be useful. By definitions. Because it says it right there in the description of a success. So by RAW a player is quite in his rights to tell a GM "we already knew that werewolves have DR 5; that's not useful. What else do we find out?"

So, in summary:

• I do not believe you are correct about it being normal to disclose DR on swings.
• Either you haven't played enough PF2 to evaluate, or your group has dismissed some PF2 features early and is set in their ways
• By RAW, Recall Knowledge is required to be useful. If you as a GM choose to ignore that, I don't think you can blame the system.

For people playing with normal GMs in the Ashes campaign, it's strongly advised to spend an action using Recall Knowledge. It's definitely better as a third action than a third swing at a foe, and for 2-action spell casters, it makes a ton of sense too. PF2 monsters seem (at least as far as I have seen) much more varied and surprising than their previous counterparts.[/QUOTE]