GMs abusing knowledge skills


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 496 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I have a question for the OP.

Is it that the GM always ambushes... or is it that all fights start as ambushes?

Those are two completely different setups.

A) If the GM only does ambush combat, then that's an issue with the GM not planning the game properly, IMHO. I'd talk to him about it and ask why he designs every combat as an ambush.

B) If the only fights you have are ambushes, because when you see a fight coming you work around the battle, then that's not the GM's fault that all your fights are ambushes, that's your own. If you want to have a combat that's not starting in charge range, then set up your own ambushes or start ranged attacks when the GM gives you the opportunity.

In my own games, 90% of the combats are ambush combats. Why? Because when I give the players a situation where they see a potential fight coming up, they work hard to avoid it if they can. They go around that butelle or that half-dragon razor-back boar that's shredding trees at the edge of the clearing. So they go around, work hard to avoid fights unless they can't somehow.

Liberty's Edge

Sounds like a harsh DM. We always use it with the listed DCs and if successful, you can ask one specific question about the creature plus one additional question for every 5 you beat the DC by. We also have a rule that your character cannot shout out the results of the check until their turn. It is a very subjective skill as to what the DM can choose to have disclosed.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The last few encounters that I recall...

...there was one where undead skeletons rose up from their catacombs and attacked us.*
...there were two in which statues came to life and attacked us (one of which was a stone golem that crit-killed one of the PCs).*
...there was one where cloakers swooped in out of the dark.
...there was one where a dark dwarf who claimed to be in exile promised to lead us to his city if we put in a good word for him. He lead us to a hungry quartet of umber hulks instead and abandoned us to die.*

* This encounter started with the enemy already in melee range. All of the above started within charge range.


The GM in question is the one who makes the final call on what information should be given out. Part of the problem is that "useful information" is a judgment call, and not everyone will come to the same judgment.

For what it is worth, I refer to the 3.5 uses of the skill for some guidance. In the Monster Manual IV, for example, Wizards of the Coast started to include what information could be gleaned by Knowledge checks. Unfortunately, they do not seem to have followed the 3.5 D&D rules consistently in the process, but here's the basics of what I see in my copy:

Check >= DC (CR + 10 in Pathfinder, HD + 10 in 3.5): Native terrain, Type and Subtypes, including all details of those from the Type and Subtype definitions.

For each additional +5 over the DC, a special attack or defense ("resistant to magic" or "a single blow can incinerate a hardy adversary", etc.).

Some odd/rare creatures gave nothing between the DC and the DC + 10, but then give additional information for every 5 points over the DC, as normal.

Check >= DC + 10: Name, allegiance (if relevant, especially for high CR creatures), and brief description of one special attack/defense ("it can burn a number of creatures around it" or similar).

Similar guidance would have been nice in the GameMastery Guide.


It's pretty crummy for a DM to tell the party that they're cloakers fly at them and grab them, and when a player who's invested actual ranks in knowledge uses it the DM tells that player that the cloakers fly and like to grapple. If that were the extent of the knowledge about them, then it would be one thing but there are many things the DM could've touched on. It's like telling someone a stove is on and hot after the person already burnt themselves.


Based on a cloaker not being a goblin. The assumption is not unfounded - the Core Rulebook defines the base line DC of a Knowledge check.

On what page? It seems to me like there is a little 3.5 in your reasoning?


p.100: For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals
5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR, or more.

It's reasonable that a cloaker's less common than a goblin, but much more common than a tarrasque. I'd say DC = 10 + CR.


In my campaigns I use the following rule concerning knowledge checks on monsters encountered: a normal succes gets the player a peice of info like DR or a special ability, a good succes, say DC +10, gets him a peep at the stat block (for about 5 or 10 seconds), a great succes (DC +20 or a natural 20) allows them to just take the monster manual/bestiary/whatever and look the monster up.

I know it's pretty metagaming but it works great in my games


Ion Raven wrote:
It's pretty crummy for a DM to tell the party that they're cloakers fly at them and grab them, and when a player who's invested actual ranks in knowledge uses it the DM tells that player that the cloakers fly and like to grapple. If that were the extent of the knowledge about them, then it would be one thing but there are many things the DM could've touched on. It's like telling someone a stove is on and hot after the person already burnt themselves.

We're going around in circles at this point in the thread, but the point you may be missing is that RavingDork didn't ask for his Knowledge() check until a round of combat had concluded.

I reiterate... once players have figured out a bunch of key things about a creature through trial and error, why should Knowledge() grant them any more? What I'm saying is that if - at a standstill outside of combat - a result of 22 would have resulted in "they're aberrations that fly and grapple", why should that same roll give you any more once you've started fighting them? You need a 25 then 30 to get the #3 and #4 salient fact about the creature.

I like RavingDork but this scenario isn't in his favor. What do you do if you've got two PCs with Knowledge() and the first one rolls, learns two things, then the second one asks for a Knowledge() check and rolls the same result to learn two things. Give the PC the same two things. "I already know that!" Oh well.


Anguish wrote:
Ion Raven wrote:
It's pretty crummy for a DM to tell the party that they're cloakers fly at them and grab them, and when a player who's invested actual ranks in knowledge uses it the DM tells that player that the cloakers fly and like to grapple. If that were the extent of the knowledge about them, then it would be one thing but there are many things the DM could've touched on. It's like telling someone a stove is on and hot after the person already burnt themselves.

We're going around in circles at this point in the thread, but the point you may be missing is that RavingDork didn't ask for his Knowledge() check until a round of combat had concluded.

I reiterate... once players have figured out a bunch of key things about a creature through trial and error, why should Knowledge() grant them any more? What I'm saying is that if - at a standstill outside of combat - a result of 22 would have resulted in "they're aberrations that fly and grapple", why should that same roll give you any more once you've started fighting them? You need a 25 then 30 to get the #3 and #4 salient fact about the creature.

I like RavingDork but this scenario isn't in his favor. What do you do if you've got two PCs with Knowledge() and the first one rolls, learns two things, then the second one asks for a Knowledge() check and rolls the same result to learn two things. Give the PC the same two things. "I already know that!" Oh well.

I agree, and really knowledge checks should always be made on sight. What is not being understood is that the knowledge checks represent the studying that takes place "off-camera". You can't just go back in time, and learn more stuff just because you make an observation.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
You can't just go back in time, and learn more stuff just because you make an observation.

Why not? Observational studies lead to new conclusions all the time.

A knowledge check outside of combat might tell me that they are subterranean aberrations that look like cloaks, fly, and like to grab people.

After a round of watching them envelop my comrades, however, I might have observed enough to make another knowledge check to determine that the best way of getting them off my friends is to pull them off (grapple aid another) rather than attacking them (which will damage my ally).

That would be useful new information that would have been sensible to receive given the circumstances.

Instead, I was forced to "not metagame" and lightning bolt my allies over and over again in order to kill the cloakers attacking them. I'm sure I did more damage to them in the end. Sure makes my 22 intelligence wizard look/feel REALLY stupid.


I notice that even the majority of the players defending the GM's actions have the qualifier "but I would have given more information".


Ravingdork wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
You can't just go back in time, and learn more stuff just because you make an observation.

Why not? Observational studies lead to new conclusions all the time.

A knowledge check outside of combat might tell me that they are subterranean aberrations that look like cloaks, fly, and like to grab people.

After a round of watching them envelop my comrades, however, I might have observed enough to make another knowledge check to determine that the best way of getting them off my friends is to pull them off (grapple aid another) rather than attacking them (which will damage my ally).

That would be useful new information that would have been sensible to receive given the circumstances.

Instead, I was forced to "not metagame" and lightning bolt my allies over and over again in order to kill the cloakers attacking them. I'm sure I did more damage to them in the end. Sure makes my 22 intelligence wizard look/feel REALLY stupid.

You don't learn a creature's new abilities the way you are trying to do it. DR might be noticed if the weapon does not do as much damage as it should have, and if the DM is nice, but you were asking for unobserved traits, from what I understand, just because the DM only told you what you already knew. A knowledge check should not tell you about aid another. That is a basic game mechanic. It would be useful as a knowledge(tactics) rule, if such a knowledge existed though. You get certain information based on your role, not new information, but like I said before with a 22 knowledge check I would have been more lenient with the info anyway.

I would have told you about shadowshift, the combat reflexes feat, and engulf.


Ravingdork wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
You can't just go back in time, and learn more stuff just because you make an observation.

Why not? Observational studies lead to new conclusions all the time.

A knowledge check outside of combat might tell me that they are subterranean aberrations that look like cloaks, fly, and like to grab people.

After a round of watching them envelop my comrades, however, I might have observed enough to make another knowledge check to determine that the best way of getting them off my friends is to pull them off (grapple aid another) rather than attacking them (which will damage my ally).

That would be useful new information that would have been sensible to receive given the circumstances.

Instead, I was forced to "not metagame" and lightning bolt my allies over and over again in order to kill the cloakers attacking them. I'm sure I did more damage to them in the end. Sure makes my 22 intelligence wizard look/feel REALLY stupid.

Knowledge doesn't grant you battle tactics, it just keys you in on information you might know about that particular creature, such as the fact that cloakers can manipulate shadows to hide themselves or that they can generate a moan that will knock you back and mess up your mind. If you're playing a 22 int wizard, you should assume that your wizard knows what the best course of action is given the the presented information.


wraithstrike wrote:


You don't learn a creature's new abilities the way you are trying to do it. DR might be noticed if the weapon does not do as much damage as it should have, and if the DM is nice, but you were asking for unobserved traits, from what I understand, just because the DM only told you what you already knew. A knowledge check should not tell you about aid another. That is a basic game mechanic. It would be useful as a knowledge(tactics) rule, if such a knowledge existed though. You get certain information based on your role, not new information, but like I said before with a 22 knowledge check I would have been more lenient with the info anyway.
I would have told you about shadowshift, the combat reflexes feat, and engulf.

A hot place is freezing over, I agree with Wraithstrike. :)

A knowledge check indicates what you know. It doesn't magically represent things you suddenly learn because a die rolled good (or bad). If you're character knew A, B, and C about these things, he's not magically going to learn D, E, and F just because he waited until they had displayed A, B, and C in front of him.

As to the OPs argument that people learn more in studies all the time with second checks, yes they do. Just not in 3 seconds! You don't magically learn more about the creatures in 3 seconds just because you've already observed them do the 2 or 3 things you already knew.

Part of the issue is everything is through the OPs eyes. That means we don't have the GMs side. So we need to allow for things the OP doesn't know. For example, as has been pointed out, nobody knows how rare/common the cloakers are. If they are uncommon but not unheard of, then CR + 10 is a valid target number. In which case, the OP got pretty much exactly what I would have given for a 22. If they're as common as goblins, he didn't get enough, if they're rare, he should be happy he got that much as the GM was being generous.

Now, I would say that the GM is way too much into ambushes, and needs to come up with some new schticks. Sounds like he may be a very old school GM, from back in the days of D&D where everything was dungeon and no RP.

Liberty's Edge

Knowledge: You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions.

This skill is a combination of what the character knows and what they remember. This is a valid way to define a second check when something is encountered later. I know I don't remember 100% of the stuff from my core chemistry classes I took in college at all times of every day.

The information he got, -Fly, Ambush and Engulf- do seem to be in line with quantity, but the Fly and Ambush seem very out of place. The choice of WHAT was given seems to be lacking. The DC for the Cloaker was 15(I would call them uncommon). A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Useful being the operative word. I would think he at least should have got on piece of defensive info and one piece of offense info. This is supposed to be a helpful skill that should reward those who invest in it. Any dumb fighter can see it is flying and ambushing you.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Admiral Jose Monkamuck wrote:
I notice that even the majority of the players defending the GM's actions have the qualifier "but I would have given more information".

More with the roll he had. Which is fairly high.


What level is this character because at 5 level you could pull a DC 22 with a roll of 12.


Anguish wrote:


We're going around in circles at this point in the thread, but the point you may be missing is that RavingDork didn't ask for his Knowledge() check until a round of combat had concluded.

Well here's the first problem.

Players shouldn't have to ask for knowledge checks, they should be given to them.

It's not an action, they don't have to wait until their turn, etc.

The DM should know which of his player's PCs has the applicable knowledge skill (if any) and have them make a roll.

Then he should, indeed, give decent combat relevant information to them.

The way I always learned it was:
DC 10 creature type.
DC 10+CR One useful piece of information in addition to type
DC 15+CR Two useful pieces in addition to type.
+5 another piece, etc.

I did like what the MM4 started doing in listing out exactly what DCs gave what. It would make for more work in making a bestiary, but a better product in the end, imho. Add a note for modifications based upon game world (i.e. an undead heavy world might get +2-5 or more to the knowledge religion rolls, perhaps -2-5 on knowledge nature for fey, representing common/scarce monsters etc).

-James


Iron Kingdoms monster manual had the DC for knowledge check also and it was a nice feature. It gave the DM a range of info to give to a player with a knowledge check.

As for the giving a player a check. Or knowing who has what skills and what bonus that's asking a lot. Six players plus the NPC's and monsters and the game. Even with notes the DM is running a game and as more than one person has stated [with rage] the DM is not playing your character. Skills that may be relevent are on the player, that said the DM should allow knowledge checks when appropriate. The DC and information for knowledge checks given is still the province of the DM.


I've found knowledge (architecture and engineering) to be extremely useful. My campaigns involve a lot of old towers and ruins of a variety of ages and configurations. The players are always asking questions about likely thicknesses and hardnesses, where there's room for chambers or traps, and what they feel they're likely to be able to do in the environment. In my current PF game, I think knowledge (A+E) is second only to knowledge (local) in rolls so far.


I agree that it's reasonable to expect the players to ASK for knowledge. Generally in my game it's gone like this...
Player: "Do we know anything more about this guy than what you've already described?"
GM: "Sure; anyone who has it can make a knowledge (dungeoneering) check."
Player: give DCs
GM: gives more info
... I try to ask for knowledge checks whenever I feel it's appropriate, but I certainly expect my players to chime in with a relevant knowledge or ability when they think it should come into play.
Similarly, when playing a character with passive abilities (like blindsense or secret door detection), I try to remind my GM about once a session that the character has that ability.


I know it's frustrating to learn what you are already seeing. Something to keep in mind though is that you were able to confirm what you saw was accurate. Sure they were flying and liked to ambush but what if the cloakers were actually not cloakers and instead something that looked like a cloaker. Based on your knowledge you were able to make decisions that would be consistent with cloakers. What if you gleaned the information and the cloakers did something that wasn't consistent with your knowledge (maybe they had DR/5)? That would tell you that these aren't your normal cloakers. That's what confirmation does for you.

That being said, I think the DM might want to figure out a way to be consistent with the information given. There have been some good ideas mentioned in this thread. I have also seen something here: http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=65226 that covers all the monsters in the Pathfinder setting so far. It's not expensive and everyone in the group could chip in $1-2 for a copy. Well worth the cost.

Sovereign Court

james maissen wrote:
Anguish wrote:


We're going around in circles at this point in the thread, but the point you may be missing is that RavingDork didn't ask for his Knowledge() check until a round of combat had concluded.

Well here's the first problem.

Players shouldn't have to ask for knowledge checks, they should be given to them.

It's not an action, they don't have to wait until their turn, etc.

The DM should know which of his player's PCs has the applicable knowledge skill (if any) and have them make a roll.

Quoted for truth.

Half of the time players don't even know if their knowledge will be applicable in a given situation. It is the GM's job to ask for knowledge checks.
That said, to err is human and perhaps the GM just forgot this time?


Ravingdork wrote:

After a round of watching them envelop my comrades, however, I might have observed enough to make another knowledge check to determine that the best way of getting them off my friends is to pull them off (grapple aid another) rather than attacking them (which will damage my ally).

That would be useful new information that would have been sensible to receive given the circumstances.

Instead, I was forced to "not metagame" and lightning bolt my allies over and over again in order to kill the cloakers attacking them. I'm sure I did more damage to them in the end. Sure makes my 22 intelligence wizard look/feel REALLY stupid.

It shouldn't take a Knowledge check to realize that attacking something grappling your friend might hurt your friend. That's just common sense. Do you roll a Knowledge check before you decide not to fireball the one bad guy in melee with 2 of your allies? Or do you complain that the GM didn't tell you that doing so might hurt your allies as well?

Grand Lodge

General Dorsey-That seems a tad ridiculous, it also strikes me as wrong, you can't learn something twice, especially not in the short periods of time being discussed here. That would imply you learned it, forgot it, and learned it again in the span of about 6 seconds. You have to give them information that they don't have without that check. Otherwise you are wasting their use of skill points which is bloody annoying for any player.

The GM equivalent would be buying a book that you never get to use.


Mr.Fishy wrote:

Iron Kingdoms monster manual had the DC for knowledge check also and it was a nice feature. It gave the DM a range of info to give to a player with a knowledge check.

As for the giving a player a check. Or knowing who has what skills and what bonus that's asking a lot. Six players plus the NPC's and monsters and the game.

When dealing with passive skills, the players shouldn't have to be active about them imho.

Now there's a difference in that knowledge checks are trained only (beyond DC 10), but the DM should ask for them just as much as he asks for perception checks imho.

If you are running the same group over and over rather than a society game, then knowing which of the 5 applicable knowledge skills the party has trained is very reasonable. If it's too much, you don't have to keep track of who knows what, just that no one in the party has knowledge religion, but someone has knowledge nature.

Its something that the DM should know up there with if the party has someone with darkvision or the like, as it determines how he describes things to the players.

It's nice to know that other companies (I hadn't heard of Iron Kingdoms but if they are doing that right it might be nice to hear more as they're likely doing other things right as well) have taken that up.

And while I agree that its up to the DM what's given, in essence what he gave was the DC 10 entry rather than the DC 22 entry. Unless cloakers are almost completely unknown I think that he is severely short changing knowledges.

From the sound of how he's having encounters (which may or may not be fair depending upon circumstances) it sounds like it might be a bad DM issue, and that the OP is perhaps better off in another campaign. Now that's with a grain of salt as the party is traveling it seems fairly blind and as such, if anything could expect to have encounters start at a distance to their detriment even.

-James


Ravingdork wrote:
Instead, I was forced to "not metagame" and lightning bolt my allies over and over again in order to kill the cloakers attacking them. I'm sure I did more damage to them in the end. Sure makes my 22 intelligence wizard look/feel REALLY stupid.
Joana wrote:
It shouldn't take a Knowledge check to realize that attacking something grappling your friend might hurt your friend. That's just common sense. Do you roll a Knowledge check before you decide not to fireball the one bad guy in melee with 2 of your allies? Or do you complain that the GM didn't tell you that doing so might hurt your allies as well?

That depends. If you went in and said: "{X} moves in to help his friend tear the cloak-like thing off his face" then I for one can't fault you for doing so based on what you knew and could see. If the DM then told you: "No, that's metagame knowledge that you will hurt your allies, you don't know that attacking them will hurt your friends, act accordingly" then that's the DM's bad - that something thin enough to pass for a cloak would not absorb all the damage you direct at it but may in fact hurt them too is a no-brainer for any character with a positive intelligence modifier.

If, on the other hand, Ravingdork threw huff and declared: "Well if my character does not know any more about cloakers than that, he won't know that blasting them will hurt the party enveloped by them" then he really was being a dork.


james maissen wrote:

Players shouldn't have to ask for knowledge checks, they should be given to them.

It's not an action, they don't have to wait until their turn, etc.

The DM should know which of his player's PCs has the applicable knowledge skill (if any) and have them make a roll.

I did like what the MM4 started doing in listing out exactly what DCs gave what.

In no particular order... I agree the MM4 style DC list was a really cool feature. I was going to bring it up earlier but figured it wasn't worth doing so.

<pause>

I'm struggling with the rest of your post. In a decade of playing 3.x it has never occurred to my group to treat Knowledge() as a passive set of skills.

Huh.

On the one hand, it solves the one thing I've never liked: the battleship game of asking which Knowledge() might apply. "Dungeoneering?" Nope. "Arcana?" Nope. "Okay, um, is it planar? I've got Planes..." There you go... roll.

We've evolved almost everything to be bidirectional in our campaigns. Our DMs don't track PC AC for instance. The DM calls out a to-hit value just like the players do and the player tells the DM if it's a hit. Less for the DM to track.

So I dunno. I'm entranced by the obviousness but I'm not sure if I want to accept it just yet. I mean, I always open an encounter with a description so it's no big deal to ask for a roll from everyone and apply the right modifier. It's just the keeping a table of who's got what that I don't relish.

Anyway... huh.


Knowledge checks are described as

"Action: Usually none. In most cases, a Knowledge check doesn't take an action (but see "Untrained", below). Try Again: No." <- page 100 of the Core Rulebook.

Knowledge checks are not passive. They have to be taken as a free action on your character's turn. You do not get to try again. Other characters can attempt their own checks on their turns as free actions. This is not counting checks made in libraries, which typically take hours.

Requiring the GM to keep up with an ever-growing roster of skills, bonuses etc. puts the onus to provide that information on the player and agreement to do so by the GM. I would find this burdensome to do, whether running a Pathfinder Society scenario or my home campaign.

A solution I've seen and used is to place tented index cards in front of each player with the character's name and vital information (AC/Touch AC, initiative bonus, Perception bonus, HP total, saving throw bonuses) on the side of the card facing the GM. If you want the GM to have this kind of information available without forking over character sheets, perhaps one can implement additional tented index cards for the GM to be able to quickly see at the table ?


Hmm... I don`t know if I believe that Action: None is the same as Action: Free Action.
Actions happen on your turn, if something is NOT an Action, it isn`t subject to that restriction.

Anyhow, treating it as a passive check means you`re treating it like Perception.
If the GM is going to be making passive Perception checks, they need to have the relevant skill modifiers written down. Since these Knowledge checks will often be made in similar or identical circumstances to Perception checks, it makes sense to have all the PC`s (and Companion`s, etc) Perception and Knowledge checks written down in one place.

For general ease, don`t write down any Untrained Knowledge skill modifiers and if the party is reasonably sized just assume somebody rolls a 10, which is the limit of Untrained Knowledge.

Liberty's Edge

Try talking to the GM in a calm and rational manner and see if he sees your point of view. Odds are he doesn't know it bothers you (or he knows and deosn't care). As a GM, trying to get players to not use player knowledge on a well known bad guy is almost impossible. A group of experienced players, playing first level characters, on their first adventure, will still cut the head off a troll and burn its body without thinking twice.

Scarab Sages

Ravingdork wrote:
Does the cloaker entry say they are uncommon, or something similar? Or are you just making an unfounded assumption?

Turin's probably old-school, so remembers that they were a freaky monster that was introduced in the back of a tournament adventure, and later released in a later Monster Manual of 'wierdo stuff', rather than being a 'common' monster that got parcelled out in the original Monster Manual.

The frequency entry seems to have disappeared from later rulesets, probably to avoid discouraging GMs from adding whatever is cool, but safe to say, they have always been rare.
The fact that they live underground, can flatten themselves, look like rags, control shadows, and can confuse, sicken, madden, grapple and eat people who do meet them, means they don't appear in many people's holiday slides.


Turin the Mad wrote:

Knowledge checks are described as

"Action: Usually none. In most cases, a Knowledge check doesn't take an action (but see "Untrained", below). Try Again: No." <- page 100 of the Core Rulebook.

Knowledge checks are not passive. They have to be taken as a free action on your character's turn. You do not get to try again. Other characters can attempt their own checks on their turns as free actions. This is not counting checks made in libraries, which typically take hours.

Requiring the GM to keep up with an ever-growing roster of skills, bonuses etc. puts the onus to provide that information on the player and agreement to do so by the GM. I would find this burdensome to do, whether running a Pathfinder Society scenario or my home campaign.

A solution I've seen and used is to place tented index cards in front of each player with the character's name and vital information (AC/Touch AC, initiative bonus, Perception bonus, HP total, saving throw bonuses) on the side of the card facing the GM. If you want the GM to have this kind of information available without forking over character sheets, perhaps one can implement additional tented index cards for the GM to be able to quickly see at the table ?

Once the enemy is sighted I say whoever has knowledge X to make a roll.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think the problem people are having with Turin saying 'uncommon is that he's putting uncommon as the middle of a set of common (5+CR), uncommon(10+CR), rare(15+CR) whilst many others are thinking it more like that rare element. Personally I think of that middle category as 'average'


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Enlight_Bystand wrote:
I think the problem people are having with Turin saying 'uncommon is that he's putting uncommon as the middle of a set of common (5+CR), uncommon(10+CR), rare(15+CR) whilst many others are thinking it more like that rare element. Personally I think of that middle category as 'average'

I know that's what happened in my case.


Mr.Fishy wrote:
What level is this character because at 5 level you could pull a DC 22 with a roll of 12.

You could do that at level 3 too:

Rank 3 (+2 class skill)
Int +2 (14)
Skill focus +3

That is a +10 add a roll of 12 and you get 22.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

He was 8th-level at the time of the cloakers (9th now). I have max ranks in knowledge (arcana) and 1 rank in all the other knowledge skills. With his 22 Intelligence, that gives him a +17 in arcana and a +10 in everything else at 8th-level.


I like to make skills useful. Anyone who maxed out Knowledge, AND made a pretty good roll besides, should get something out of the deal, in my opinion.

Liberty's Edge

Starbuck_II wrote:
Rank 3 (+2 class skill)

Class skills get +3 :P


Anguish wrote:

It's just the keeping a table of who's got what that I don't relish.

Anyway... huh.

You don't need to keep it as a table, rather just know whether or not someone in the party has knowledge X.

For most circumstances that will suffice.

For monster knowledges we're talking 5 knowledges:
Arcana, Dungeoneering, Nature, Planes and Religion.

Just know which of the five are present/absent in the party. In the cases where only one person can see it just ask for a knowledge X roll if it's one that the party has, or ask which of the five (or fewer) that the party has does this PC have.

Also by 'passive' roll I didn't mean that the DM had to roll it in secret. I normally don't roll for the players, rather I will ask for 'perception checks' and the like.

By passive I mean as it's not an action, they don't have to ask for the roll, rather it happens when they encounter the object/creature. It helps me to describe the creature to the party in fact.

-James


Kirth Gersen wrote:
I like to make skills useful. Anyone who maxed out Knowledge, AND made a pretty good roll besides, should get something out of the deal, in my opinion.

I used to feel that way, until one of my players actually made a Loremaster with massive Knowledge everything ranks. Suddenly, I was a GM of a campaign where all the cool lore I'd wanted to trickle in to the players was known to this player. DC 40 Knowledge checks were simple for him. :-p

Now, I'm a bit more careful about my building, and I make sure there's enough "unique" lore and monsters that couldn't otherwise be known with just a knowledge check.


GodzFirefly wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I like to make skills useful. Anyone who maxed out Knowledge, AND made a pretty good roll besides, should get something out of the deal, in my opinion.

I used to feel that way, until one of my players actually made a Loremaster with massive Knowledge everything ranks. Suddenly, I was a GM of a campaign where all the cool lore I'd wanted to trickle in to the players was known to this player. DC 40 Knowledge checks were simple for him. :-p

Now, I'm a bit more careful about my building, and I make sure there's enough "unique" lore and monsters that couldn't otherwise be known with just a knowledge check.

I had that, too, and it worked out great -- one of the PCs had a cohort archivist with super-high knowledge skills; he could identify anything, and its weaknesses, just by looking at it. In that homebrew campaign, death knights were so rare as to be unheard of, so I had an excuse to jack up the DC to astronomical levels when they finally met one (and ended up fleeing from it). They set the cohort loose in a massive library (+2 bonus to checks) and all helped him fetch references (Aid Another), and he took 20 and ID'd the thing (and its weaknesses) -- and most importantly where it came from -- which ended up being the key to that entire phase of the campaign.


Yeah, I am old school enough to remember cloaker's first appearance in the game. I do like the idea of "passive Knowledge checks" though. I think that it can solve quite a bit of table time for home games.

I do not want to short-change the several class features that permit taking 10 on Knowledge checks. Bard, Loremaster and I believe several others (the Oracle's Lore mystery I believe to be an example), so I would implement that "passive" checks are done on a "take 5" basis. Skill Mastery and the aforementioned class features provide take 10 - and a few characters are able to take 12 or even take 20.

Given the horrifically high Knowledge bonuses that see play, compared to the VERY low DC that occurs most of the time, this seems to be a fair trade. I will test this in my home campaign in the coming months.


Turin the Mad wrote:
so I would implement that "passive" checks are done on a "take 5" basis.

Do you do this with perception checks as well?

A rogue is sneaking up to the party. They get passive perception checks.

Do they roll, or do you just have them 'take 5'?

-James


james maissen wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
so I would implement that "passive" checks are done on a "take 5" basis.

Do you do this with perception checks as well?

A rogue is sneaking up to the party. They get passive perception checks.

Do they roll, or do you just have them 'take 5'?

-James

Opposed checks already have rules in place :)

Perception vs. Stealth is the most common - Knowledge checks are not opposed.

Ironically, or perhaps not, Feint is already set as a "set DC" (10 + Sense Motive if you have the skill at a decent bonus) for using Bluff in combat.

If I want to hide the opposed checks, I use a pre-rolled set of d20 rolls that I work up before sessions where I expect much sneaking [insert Gollum voice saying "sneeaaking" here] to be taking place.


james maissen wrote:
You don't need to keep it as a table, rather just know whether or not someone in the party has knowledge X.

Details. The point I was making is that by and large we've managed to cut things down to Perception and Sense Motive for things I need to track regarding my players. (Or my DM has to track regarding my PCs when I'm playing.) Tracking this is just more DM load. Still, it's an interesting idea.

But really, done right a table is required. If I don't want to automatically give away what creature type the PCs are up against, I need to know their modifier. "Can I have a d20 from Stent the Barbarian please?" Take the roll, add the appropriate modifier and decide what - if anything - they've earned. Stent doesn't necessarily roll high enough to recognize the thing is undead.

If I'm not going to track the modifiers and make the effort to make the information flow part of my narrative, I might as well leave it something the players can ask for when and if they feel like it.

Quote:
Also by 'passive' roll I didn't mean that the DM had to roll it in secret. I normally don't roll for the players, rather I will ask for 'perception checks' and the like.

Completely assumed and understood. I prefer to let the players roll as much as they can without doing the whole "players roll all the dice" thing.


Wow ... 2 pages and 90+ posts on what's generally been called a "not so good" GM's call that is more or less fully within the GM's rights ... in the middle of a combat scene, no less and after an attack was already made.

*continues to stare in disbelief at the length for the thread premise*

Grand Lodge

The Speaker in Dreams wrote:

Wow ... 2 pages and 90+ posts on what's generally been called a "not so good" GM's call that is more or less fully within the GM's rights ... in the middle of a combat scene, no less and after an attack was already made.

*continues to stare in disbelief at the length for the thread premise*

Except the GM wasn't even following the spirit of the rules let alone the letter.


Kais86 wrote:
The Speaker in Dreams wrote:

Wow ... 2 pages and 90+ posts on what's generally been called a "not so good" GM's call that is more or less fully within the GM's rights ... in the middle of a combat scene, no less and after an attack was already made.

*continues to stare in disbelief at the length for the thread premise*

Except the GM wasn't even following the spirit of the rules let alone the letter.

I believe he was following the spirit and the letter. It just so happens the OP chose a really rotten time to ask for the check, and probably didn't roll well enough (CR 3 + 10 or 15 means he only got it by 10 or 5, since it goes in 5 pt increments, depending on the rarity of the creature in the game world, 22-13 = 9, while 22-18=4). Nobody has actually commented on the fact that 22 means he either got it by 9 or 4, which is not the +10 or +15 to get really good bits of information. It's only some info or even just basic if it's +15.

51 to 100 of 496 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / GMs abusing knowledge skills All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.