Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5936176" data-attributes="member: 95493">Wow @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/water-bob.html" target="_blank">Water Bob</a> did you even read the parts I had quoted OR the full paragraphs from which those sentences are taken?These were referring to E6 and non-magic with and a distinct lack of ANY civilization. Referred to lack of ANY (or with severely limited access to) magic in a campaign IS rare I would say as whole. Playing the game only up to E6 isn't playing the game AS WRITTEN OR INTENDED.Just to be clear, I'm also not saying it isn't preferable. I have tried and failed to convince my group to give it a try. I'm only saying that playing E6 and making assumptions about E6 only games isn't taking the whole of the game into account.Also, I wasn't AT ALL saying that "survival" was rare, nor was I saying the  need for survival was rare. I would appreciate you not just picking two  sentences out of a dozen or so paragraphs, taking them out of context and  then proceed to criticize something I didn't actually say with those  sentences.Now onto what you said. You'll notice I'm quoting the full paragraph so that there is no misunderstanding or misinterpreting of what you are saying. Especially for those reading just that post. Where did I say there weren't "hard wilderness" areas in official campaign worlds? I believe I said that @Empirate was playing E6 and not the "stock" rules of the GAME, regardless of setting.Besides that, I am not playing a "official setting". I am playing MY setting. I gave information on how I use wilderness in my setting so I won't go back into that, you can go back and READ the post concerning how I use wilderness.Next, I never said that the skill wasn't dependent on the type of game you were running. Rather the opposite. I said that it DOES depend on the game and setting.Sigh, in my games - yes rangers get rations from town. In fact in my game Druids often do too. Beyond that, if he WAS catching his own food then that is fine. I don't see a skill being necessary to discuss how he relieves himself, or what sexual position he takes, or if he is a day person or a night person, or if he likes sleeping on his side or stomach. IF he does.. once again... IF he does hunt and forage for food that is fine. I just never saw a skill roll as needed to do those activities. See above for what I would expect to do in those situations. You know, read the post. See my previous posts about this too. I said if there was a valid reason then I could certainly understand them needing to find food. I gave the example of escaping from prison but certainly the fluke chance of all their gear being washed downstream works equally well. Go read my previous post to see what I said about this. As far as "three weeks travel" I would probably expect my party to have brought three weeks of food. If they are traveling that far they would almost certainly expect to.. well, be traveling that far. If they are traveling that far they likely brought horses or other pack animals - opportunity permitting of course. IF NOT and they were unable to prepare properly or somehow ran out of food then I would address that when the situation arises. That I believe is a starvation check when they run out of food. I don't see where the survival check comes in. If they are lost in the desert but suddenly able to find an oasis full of clean water and delicious berries it is going to matter more how much they can bring with them or about the recovery time spent in the desert instead of rolling to see if they can "find X food". Why is the check needed if I don't want to roleplay hunting? If it is something NECESSARY for their physical wellbeing then I would certainly force them to do some hunting. If I am trying to move the story along then either I'll say they find food or they don't. If the situation arises where they are starving and must catch some ferrets to eat then YES I'll make them RP it. Otherwise I'm assuming they find food or have rations.To put this another way, because I know I meandered in that explanation..I would MAKE the party RP if they had a disease or if they were cursed. If I didn't want to make them RP then I would simply say what they would do normally. That may be good for them or bad but it is storywise what will happen if they don't RP it. If they aren't diseased or cursed then why do I care how well they brush their teeth in the mean time.If mint cured some random disease then I'll certainly care if they find mint and eat it. Otherwise they can chew mint all they want without me needing to roll. As I have said, go back and read about it, Track is pretty much the only use I can see that is necessary to have survival for. If it was allowed to be used by another skill I would do it. Most of the time however, our groups already use perception skills so that anyone, not just those with the track feat, can find footprints and chase the enemy. Beyond that I don't feel it necessary in my own games to punish people into picking a skill. Especially when that skill rarely comes up (for the reasons I have addressed above).  They can't find shelter when this extreme weather happens? Every single time a bad thunderstorm occurs the party spends time building lean-tos instead of finding a cave to hide out? Regardless, I don't see why survival is the only skill that can give a situational bonus to saving throws. Certainly other skills could perform the same job.Also, most of the checks you are talking about are either new or stamina checks, which already exist and the party can prepare against. Not to mention the "magic" plan to avoid such dangers. Oh, it also forgets any kind of foresight the party may have used to make sure they didn't have summer clothing during winter (that sort of thing).Beyond that I'm sure that a little cold doesn't do the kinds of things you are suggesting and if it did I don't see how a wisdom based skill check could avoid it. It can tell them to bundle up extra good, but so could.. say knowledge nature.. because bundling up good has nothing to do with wisdom. Ah yes, another random reason that people need survival. First of all, I covered this too in a previous post. Second, why couldn't this be knowledge nature or geography, or even nobility and royalty (in the right circumstances)? Next, my players are rarely lost in the "wilderness" without knowing where they are going. They could have their bearings muddled but that is something else entirely which has mechanics related to it already. Plus, magic. Plus, guides. Plus, maps. Compasses are kind of pricy so I'll skip them. Perception checks can't help you find caves? I figured a good "spot" check might help you find a good spot. It isn't rocket science. Plus those things only matter if the DM assigns some new value to it. Finding a cliff should be a spot check .. to see a cliff. Having the benefit of seeing it the party can then decide if it is a good place to sleep or if it is too exposed or whatever. Why is a survival check needed? So would knowledge nature or geography depending on what the party is actually doing. What exactly is a survival check assessing in such situations? If the spot is too exposed, if it is hidden enough, how close it is to X and Y? All those things can just be generally assessed without a roll. How does a survival check find a better spot than a spot or search check? Good? I'm sure it could have been done just as simply with other things or even for free since your party clearly has a background in such things granting them a bonus on the roll (or the roll in the first place).Now, here's a practical use of the Survival check from my game: The PCs were traveling along a road north, fell into a trap created by some goblins, escaped from said goblins and managed to escape from the caves after much effort and a little help from a (new) friendly NPC. This took them several days off track for which they hadn't planned. They were running low on food and so spent a day hunting wild animals. Eventually they found a deer (if I recall correctly) and spent some time getting as close as they dared before shooting it in the neck with an arrow - killing it instantly. (Lucky crit.) Now they had a lot of food and proceeded to cook and chop up and store the excess. None of these things required a survival check. In the morning when they were setting out to leave the one party member approached the river and noticed a small berry bush. They were overjoyed and took as many berries as they found find. Once again, no check required. I may have required a spot check for the berries if they didn't already have the deer or if he wasn't right on top of the bush but that is besides the point.Now, I would have just said that they didn't need to RP this hunt (though it was their idea) and just proceeded. I could have said that during the course of the day they managed to do all I just described and by the next morning are well fed and moved on. OR I could have been vicious and said they didn't find a deer in the first place, or that (skipping the RP) they managed not to find anything. Once again that would have to do with availability which I could set and not due to some random or arbitrary survival check they had to roll. If they hadn't eaten and were starting to get starved I would have required a stamina check in order to keep going or to avoid suffering penalties. But that is something entirely separate from getting food and already has a mechanic. Tracking unfortunately is needed, yes, but see above for my thoughts.Hunting doesn't need a check. If anything it needs to be an attack vs AC roll to hunt and slay a creature.Fishing is the same, nets have stats as weapons don't they?Eating off the land can just happen as needed, no roll needed. Doubly so about the eating while traveling.Building shelter isn't needed if they can find shelter or have shelter (a tent) which they invariably do. In the case they don't have a tent or shelter they often don't want it. In the case they do want it and don't have it then I would make them roll a either knowledge nature check to find the proper materials or a craft check to build something. Certainly not a wisdom based check to build something.Again, fruit = KN: Nature or a poison save if they don't know or fail. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Sniping blinds? Is that really in there?Once again, see above for "knowing direction".It is funny you would say " Rolling to see if a character "knows" about things that happen in the wilderness" because it has the word "know" in it. "Know" is surprisingly the first part of the word KNOWLEDGE.Again, never called the need to do these things rare. Read the post before you reply and certainly before you check-pick quote it.Also, my games aren't entirely city based (you would know that if you read my post) but in fact I rarely see a need to roll SURVIVAL checks. I do have to roll all kinds of other checks, which the party has skills in, but survival is one of those rare skills for us.If you do what you did here again I'll just not reply because it isn't doing either of us any good to keep going over and over this Bob.OH, please note that whenever I say "perception check" I do mean Spot, Listen or Search as necessary. I play Pathfinder primarily and that is a difficult habit to shake.</blockquote>

Verification