Collector trait (Gnomes of Golarion)

[Joana]

This trait doesn't seem to be calculating properly. It seems to only be adding +1 to the selected skill (Disable Device) instead of +2.

EDIT: Or maybe it's not displaying at all, and it is including the + 1 from trapsense? Wish there was a breakdown available of how the skill totals are calculated and what's included....

 

[ShadowChemosh]

You only get the bonus when your Collection is within 5ft. As this means its situational you can find the ability to Activate the trait from the In-Play tab.

 

[Joana]

Okay, thanks. So is the extra +1 coming from Trapsense? Because that's situational, too: If I'm using Disable Device to open a lock or sabotage a cart or something, it doesn't apply.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Okay, thanks. So is the extra +1 coming from Trapsense? Because that's situational, too: If I'm using Disable Device to open a lock or sabotage a cart or something, it doesn't apply.

Think so. Trapsense gives a bonus to your AC and reflex saves only against traps.

So this will show up on the "Special" tab from third level on. It also shows under the "Special Abilities" on the printed sheet. In this case as its situational only to traps and so its totally up to the player to remember to add that bonus in.

Hmm think you meant "Trapfinding"? Though the same applies to its location and use.

 

[Mathias]

Trapfinding:

"A Rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks..."

The perception bonus is situational, but the disable device bonus is always active (so it's applied by HL).

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Trapfinding:

"A Rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks..."

The perception bonus is situational, but the disable device bonus is always active (so it's applied by HL).

Uh really I would not expect the bonus to be applied to Disable Device as it only applies to traps not to open locks or disabling a wagon wheel.

Hmm so just re-read the rule and I guess one could read it EXACTLY and take it to mean the bonus to Disable is for all checks. Though have to say RAI that the intent is ONLY for traps not for every disable device skill check.

This means my Rogue player has been getting it double. Once from HL and another when she adds it back in manually.

 

[Mathias]

If they meant for both to be situational, I think they'd have written "to her Perception and skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks to disarm or bypass traps."

 

[ShadowChemosh]

I agree and not at the same time only in that the wording Paizo uses for ALLOT of stuff is pretty open ended. Its just a difference of Rules As Written and Rules As Intended. With everything I have seen with how Paizo writes stuff its better to use RAI is all. I will keep an eye open for an official stance.

Not a big deal as its an easy fix I can add to my house rules file.

 

[Shayd3000]

The issue here is that we cannot expect Mathias to interpret all the rules so that he can guess at what what intended. Mathias has to use the rules as written and be very specific about it because he can't know the intention of the writers, only what they said specifically. Since he is coding an application that is supposed to enable what is written in the books he has to take the rules as written.

Ug, this is coming out way too wordy. I'm trying to say Mathias does not have the luxury of interpreting the rules for us - he has to take what is available and hope the authors were skilled enough to state what they intended. Not everyone will interpret the rules and what was intended the same way, Mathias is safest by remaining as literal as he can.

George

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Yea agreed and you are correct Shayd3000. Which is why I said if taken RAW how he has it coded is correct and that I will keep an eye open for the FAQ/Errata that will eventually fix the wording.

Also its SUPER easy for me to fix the issue myself for my own rule set that my players use. This is the main reason I like HL as when these type of things come up its a 5 minute fix to not have the bonus go into Disable Device.

I guess I was just showing my frustration with the wording that Paizo uses for their rules. Also James Jacobs latest posts that are all about each GM should be interpreting the rules differently is really getting under my skin. If we are just suppose to GUESS what the rules are why even print the rules.

So my slight showing of frustration was NOT toward Mathais or HL, but actually towards Paizo.

 

[Shayd3000]

No problem. I too find it irritating when folks say everyone should eb interpreting the rules their own way. It feels like a copout on solid editing and writing. It also does create situations in games where folks read things differently and both make sense within the wording.

For convention games that's even worse, because at least in a home game the GM can say "this is my interpretation and it stands as law. In convention games it can get ugly if a player feels you aren't following the "rules". I've seen players stomp off in anger at games because they didn't agree with the GM's interpretation, but worse is when players waste that precious gaming time arguing about it. I've even seen people grab convention staff because they "paid" for the game and now the GM wasn't playing by the rules. While all of this can be dealt with, clearly written rules can help to reduce this type of annoyance.

I haven't had a lot of these types of issues with PF yet (but bOy do I with Savage Worlds (and those rules are fairly clear); but I expect as we move over from our RoleMaster Campaign I will start seeing these issues more and more.