I am not saying they should GoatToucher. What I am saying is that denouncing others based on your alteration of the guidelines without stating you have altered the guidelines is flawed logic at its core.
Note: 'your' is not a specific reference to you GoatToucher, it is a general 'your' applied to anyone that does this.
Regarding your suspension of disbelief, it is stated in the Core Rulebook what level of spells (and thus casters) are available at each level of town. Thus, you are using a lower magic world than the guideline as presented in the core rulebook. Just announcing that would be helpful in relation to your statements regarding how you run your campaign.
- Gauss
Actually it's spot on. Gaining spells beyond your 2 per level is up to the DM, there is no rule for beyond that.
It's spot on nothing. Until wildshape starts giving the druid the ability to charm, blast from hundreds of feet away, hasten, slow, warp reality, confuse, dominate, or raise the walking dead, it's not even in the same ballpark. So whether or not I would allow a wizard to have easy access to all spells is utterly immaterial.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is how this thread is reading to me:
OP- How do you deal with wild shape in your games?
Poster- Well, we do 'such-and-such'
OP- That's stupid and you're stupid for saying it!
Poster- ...lolwut?
OP- Shouldn't post in this thread if you can't handle personal attacks! Why weren't you expecting me to totally criticize you to death? Can't you see this was a trap?
=P
I do have a question for you Shallowsoul that I won't be able to see the reply of until tomorrow afternoon, but I'll give it a stab anyhow.
How does RP fit into this reasoning? I know that if you make a quest for said player to find the animals in question would be RP, but what happens if a type of player, which I am this type, can back up every skill check with RP. What both dungeon masters and players often forget is the skill check represents more than just the hard rule of "ya know it or ya dont", it represents the character's experience and training. Here's an example I'll show you:
--------------------------------
Jordan Snipe: Alright, I am going to wildshape into the dreaded sabertooth tiger!
DM: Where are you from?
Snipe: A fishing community along the Seafoam Coast, why?
DM: There aren't any sabertooth tigers in that region. Almost everywhere they went extinct?
Snipe: Ah, but you see. My father used to tell me tales of the days when our druid order, Sickle Claw I remind you, would go out and commune with the great cats, often seeking answers of not only strategies of the hunt, but also how not let the harsh winters claim our lives. He even had a sabertooth necklace, but the wicked goblin warchief Azhag stole it when he killed my father.
----------------------------------
So does Snipe get to become a Sabertooth, be entitled to a Knowledge (nature) check would would represent how much his father told him/got right, or would you say he would have to see one for himself? Does his familiarity with Sabertooth's equate to your standard of familiar? Would you penalize the player if he/she doesn't know the stats of a sabertooth despite Snipe's backstory knowledge or would you give the player the stats for the Sabertooth after everything is said and done?
When wild shape worked the way it did in 3.5, I would have been all for limiting the amount of shapes a druid could turn into.
But with the Pathfinder version, I see very little reason to limit it beyond a simple knowledge check. Why? Because the difference between forms is so small anyway.
For instance, the difference between a Tiger and a Dire Tiger is simply that base claw damage increases from 1d8 to 2d4. That's it.
Dinosaurs were mentioned earlier in the thread. Apart from them being among the few animals that reach Huge size (and thus granting you +2 STR compared to Large animals, and with better reach), there's little about the big dinosaurs that make them desirable as wild shape selections. Each of them only have a single attack. Triceratops is probably the best of them, since it at least has trample, but you don't get the powerful charge since that's not part of the abilities granted by beast shape.
In most cases, Large-sized options seem better than the dinosaurs.
Triceratops is probably the best of them, since it at least has trample
My favourite huge animal picks would be the Stegosaurus with its' 4d6 tail swipe and trip (good candidate for vital strike), and the Mastodon with two attacks and trample. Special mention goes to the giant squid, when you need to cross a body of water really fast. :)
But overall, wild shape really peaks with the dire tiger.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Nobody in this thread (as far as I can tell) suggests the druid will be able to turn into everything in the bestiary. Requiring knowledge checks to determine familiarity isn't the same thing as giving a carte blanche "do whatever you want".
I will suggest that! I see no reason to bog doen the game with checks that will be nearly automatically made anyway, or to make the poor druid player keep a list of every animal/plant/elemental creature they've ever encountered. I'll play 1e if I want to track minutia on my character.
But I run a fairly liberal game when it comes to PC power.Shallowsoul, is it ok for druids in your game to use summon nature's ally to summon an animal to study so they can know its form?
I understand what you're going for -(how could a desert druid know how to turn into a giant squid?) I'm just not sure the level of bookkeeping is commensurate with the additional verisimillitude for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If anyone's interested, once upon a time I compiled a list of wildshape options. Only including bestiary I though, since my will to live was too strong to start on the other ones. :p
As I recall, bestiary II actually introduced some not-lame plant forms, too!
|
I am not saying they should GoatToucher. What I am saying is that denouncing others based on your alteration of the guidelines without stating you have altered the guidelines is flawed logic at its core.
Note: 'your' is not a specific reference to you GoatToucher, it is a general 'your' applied to anyone that does this.
Regarding your suspension of disbelief, it is stated in the Core Rulebook what level of spells (and thus casters) are available at each level of town. Thus, you are using a lower magic world than the guideline as presented in the core rulebook. Just announcing that would be helpful in relation to your statements regarding how you run your campaign.
- Gauss
Here's the main problem. The guidelines aren't there for the players to begin with, they are there for the DM.
Now if the player's Wizard happens to come across another Wizard who will sell him some spells from his book then the rule about 50% kicks in.
What you keep saying Gauss is about changing the normal guidelines and what I am trying to say is that the player's shouldn't even be worrying about those guidelines when going into a game because it's not for them to worry about in the first place. I don't have to tell them I am not using those guidelines because they shouldn't be expecting them in the first place. Now if they read up on it and auto assume that I am using those guidelines then that's their fault and not mine. The only section they need to worry about is the player's section.
|
|
I do have a question for you Shallowsoul that I won't be able to see the reply of until tomorrow afternoon, but I'll give it a stab anyhow.
How does RP fit into this reasoning? I know that if you make a quest for said player to find the animals in question would be RP, but what happens if a type of player, which I am this type, can back up every skill check with RP. What both dungeon masters and players often forget is the skill check represents more than just the hard rule of "ya know it or ya dont", it represents the character's experience and training. Here's an example I'll show you:
--------------------------------
Jordan Snipe: Alright, I am going to wildshape into the dreaded sabertooth tiger!
DM: Where are you from?
Snipe: A fishing community along the Seafoam Coast, why?
DM: There aren't any sabertooth tigers in that region. Almost everywhere they went extinct?
Snipe: Ah, but you see. My father used to tell me tales of the days when our druid order, Sickle Claw I remind you, would go out and commune with the great cats, often seeking answers of not only strategies of the hunt, but also how not let the harsh winters claim our lives. He even had a sabertooth necklace, but the wicked goblin warchief Azhag stole it when he killed my father.
----------------------------------
So does Snipe get to become a Sabertooth, be entitled to a Knowledge (nature) check would would represent how much his father told him/got right, or would you say he would have to see one for himself? Does his familiarity with Sabertooth's equate to your standard of familiar? Would you penalize the player if he/she doesn't know the stats of a sabertooth despite Snipe's backstory knowledge or would you give the player the stats for the Sabertooth after everything is said and done?
A knowledge skill isn't described in a lot of detail. It talks about the study in a particular area. Now this can be anywhere from learning it from a book to someone teaching you. People can sit down with a book and learn about animals without seeing one.
Cramming as many creatures as you can into your backstory isn't going to cut it. Now a few is not a problem but you have to remember that you are 1st level, you aren't expected to know everything from the start.
I've been playing RPG's for over 27 years and I have seen the people who try and fit their family's heirloom (magical world shattering sword) into their backstory.
There is no where in the description of the ability that states the druid is supposed to be able to turn into every animal on the planet. The ability's description is left open so the druid can come across other animals in his travels and be able to take on their shape. Makes you wonder why they waited until 4th level to give the druid that ability.
If you come up with a backstory that actually fits the world and the area and there is obviously no signs of abuse then it can be allowed.
|
|
Nobody in this thread (as far as I can tell) suggests the druid will be able to turn into everything in the bestiary. Requiring knowledge checks to determine familiarity isn't the same thing as giving a carte blanche "do whatever you want".
I will suggest that! I see no reason to bog doen the game with checks that will be nearly automatically made anyway, or to make the poor druid player keep a list of every animal/plant/elemental creature they've ever encountered. I'll play 1e if I want to track minutia on my character.
But I run a fairly liberal game when it comes to PC power.Shallowsoul, is it ok for druids in your game to use summon nature's ally to summon an animal to study so they can know its form?
I understand what you're going for -(how could a desert druid know how to turn into a giant squid?) I'm just not sure the level of bookkeeping is commensurate with the additional verisimillitude for me.
Using Summon Nature's Ally is fine because the animal actually appears. I know you are allowed to pick the animal but the "you" part is the player and not the druid himself.
Now dinosaurs do not exist in my worlds so I do not allows those to be summoned but I tell the players that part to begin with since they are on the Summons list.
Some of this is an issue of how the GM sees his world working. Wildshape is a supernatural ability, not a spell. For the sake of simplicity it follows polymorph spell guidelines, but it's not a spell.
I would have no problem if a GM were to treat "wild shape" as a conscious act of will where the druid deliberately reshapes themselves into another form. How they accomplish that depends on how well they know that form, or at least how well they can approximate it based on experience, knowledge of similar forms and understanding of natural evolution. Druids get better at all of those things as they level up.
So "familiar with" could easily mean "able to visualize the skeletal and musculature of the chosen form to such a fine degree that they can consciously reshape their bodies into the new form." Meaning for a low level druid that they have physically interacted with the chosen form to a high degree, not merely heard about or seen one from a distance.
Of course that's not RAW. But it's quite flavorful and provides some role playing opportunities for the druid. If I were a player in such a game, I would not whine about the flavor the GM is putting on the ability, I would roll with it and role play it to the hilt.
I don't do it that way, but it wouldn't bother me if a GM did. After all, it's HIS world. Not mine.
|
If anyone should limit the druid shapeshifting options, flufwise , it's the player, not Gm.Emmmmm no. The player doesn't dictate what creatures are available on the GMs world.
Sure, it's Gms world, but every PC has right to vote on something. Saying "NO; NO; NO" on every druid wildshape isn't actually stimulative for players. GM's word is always last of course.
|
|
Sure, it's Gms world, but every PC has right to vote on something. Saying "NO; NO; NO" on every druid wildshape isn't actually stimulative for players. GM's word is always last of course.If anyone should limit the druid shapeshifting options, flufwise , it's the player, not Gm.Emmmmm no. The player doesn't dictate what creatures are available on the GMs world.
Do I say no to all forms, no I don't but if a form doesn't exist in my world or it's not even close to the region.
Being realistic is the key here. Nobody that you continue to play with says no all the time, using that line as an argument is not being realistic. Right now the RAI could be that the druid is supposed to keep a list of what he can turn into.
To better strengthen my interpretation of the ability, the bestiary is actually divided into terrains. Each terrain that you spend some time in could allow you to add those animals to your list of what you can turn into.
In fact, if a druid sits down and thinks hard enough for 2 minutes, he can identify any animal CR19 or lower at level 4. Hint: There aren't any CR19 animals. (At least that I know of).
Umm... Taking 20 requires you to be able to re-roll your check.
Which, last time I checked, didn't work with Knowledge rolls.|
|
It's spot on nothing. Until wildshape starts giving the druid the ability to charm, blast from hundreds of feet away, hasten, slow, warp reality, confuse, dominate, or raise the walking dead, it's not even in the same ballpark. So whether or not I would allow a wizard to have easy access to all spells is utterly immaterial.
Actually it's spot on. Gaining spells beyond your 2 per level is up to the DM, there is no rule for beyond that.
Look, you can sit there and say it until you are blue in the face but the fact of the matter is it is the same.
Per the rules, the Wizard is limited to what spells he gets and the rest are by DM fiat only. There is nothing else in the book that gives you spells.
Now the entry for the druid doesn't give you anything automatically and the description makes it even more open ended as to how you come about getting your forms.
Interpreting a an open rule one way because another class can do XYZ at that level makes no sense. You can't rule in favor of a druids wild shape interpretation just because a Wizard can charm someone at a certain level.
|
|
I see no reason why you shouldn't allow simply a knowledge check to determine familiarity. After all if someone asked me "Are you familiar with the Punic Wars?" Do I respond "Yeah I read about them in a book about the rise and fall of Rome." Or does that imply that I was in fact involved personally in that event? In my opinion the latter is clearly not the case and as such I'd be inclined to allow learned information.
As a side note when you read through the bestiary would you say you are familiar with the creatures in there?
Not a good example I'm afraid.
|
|
I see no reason why you shouldn't allow simply a knowledge check to determine familiarity. After all if someone asked me "Are you familiar with the Punic Wars?" Do I respond "Yeah I read about them in a book about the rise and fall of Rome." Or does that imply that I was in fact involved personally in that event? In my opinion the latter is clearly not the case and as such I'd be inclined to allow learned information.
As a side note when you read through the bestiary would you say you are familiar with the creatures in there?
The definition of being familiar has multiple definitions as well so again it would be up to the DM to decide which interpretation to use.
I would say that being familiar with the Punic Wars does not equal reading about it because it is nothing more than eyewitness accounts that could be flawed, or the information that was gathered could be flawed. The only way to truly be familiar would be to actually have been there.
|
|
Look, you can sit there and say it until you are blue in the face but the fact of the matter is it is the same.
Per the rules, the Wizard is limited to what spells he gets and the rest are by DM fiat only. There is nothing else in the book that gives you spells.
Now the entry for the druid doesn't give you anything automatically and the description makes it even more open ended as to how you come about getting your forms.
Interpreting a an open rule one way because another class can do XYZ at that level makes no sense. You can't rule in favor of a druids wild shape interpretation just because a Wizard can charm someone at a certain level.
Not true, the rules for scrolls are clearly in the magic item rules section based on the availability and price of magic items.
And since you can transcribe spells from scrolls you're just outright wrong about DM fiat being the only rule applying to spell availability.
You can of course apply DM fiat however it is a violation of the rules as written and as such should be mentioned to the players beforehand.
Here's the part that I don't think you are understanding. Just because there are rules on what you do with scrolls doesn't mean that they are going to be in your game. There are rules for all monsters in the bestiaries, is there a rule that states you must use all of these monsters?
The rules for scrolls and copying are there "if" that is a part of your game. I have been playing D&D long enough to know what I am talking about, I am not being big headed but stating a fact.
Magic shops are not RAW, finding scrolls in such and such place isn't RAW, finding a Wizard to let you copy his spellbook isn't RAW.
Now, there are RAW rules for actually copying spells from another spellbook "if" you happen to come across one or you find another Wizard.
There is no RAW, that says this size city is going to have XYZ scrolls and magic items. There are guidelines that are there for "DM's", not players, to use "if" he wishes but there is nothing RAW.
There are rules are the Ranger's Favored Enemy ability, now is there a rule saying every creature you throw at the party is supposed to be one of his Favored Enemies, no there isn't.
Player's need to realize that everything in the book isn't RAW. Also, people need to realize that just because your DM lets you get away with abuse or playing your way doesn't make it the universal or even the right way.
Look, you can sit there and say it until you are blue in the face but the fact of the matter is it is the same.Per the rules, the Wizard is limited to what spells he gets and the rest are by DM fiat only. There is nothing else in the book that gives you spells.
Now the entry for the druid doesn't give you anything automatically and the description makes it even more open ended as to how you come about getting your forms.
Interpreting a an open rule one way because another class can do XYZ at that level makes no sense. You can't rule in favor of a druids wild shape interpretation just because a Wizard can charm someone at a certain level.
Are you even paying attention to the posts I've made? My point is that they are unrelated. I have no compelling reason to be restrictive with a druid's wildshape repertoire like I would a wizard's spell access. If a druid's wildshape repertoire dealt out significant powers like a wizard's spells, I would be more likely to provide a similar level of restricted access. But the fact of the matter is, it doesn't. They are not equivalent issues.
The DM should be prepared to help out the druid player here, especially if it is not entirely clear which animals are native to the druid's home region. For example, if the player says that he is going to wild shape into a sabertooth tiger, the DM might say that the dire lion is the closest equivalent that is native to his region (or whatever vicious feline is most appropriate). A key resource in this area would be the DM's notes -- any creature that the party is likely to encounter should be a reasonable choice for the druid t wild shape into.
In this way the restrictions on wild shape can be a source of significant campaign information. A druid who is severely restricted in his choice of animals to wild shape into knows that the local region is very civilized, with few problems that involve dangerous wild animals. A druid in such a campaign who runs into no restrictions about what he can wild shape into should be very worried for himself and his party.
|
|
The DM should be prepared to help out the druid player here, especially if it is not entirely clear which animals are native to the druid's home region. For example, if the player says that he is going to wild shape into a sabertooth tiger, the DM might say that the dire lion is the closest equivalent that is native to his region (or whatever vicious feline is most appropriate). A key resource in this area would be the DM's notes -- any creature that the party is likely to encounter should be a reasonable choice for the druid t wild shape into.
In this way the restrictions on wild shape can be a source of significant campaign information. A druid who is severely restricted in his choice of animals to wild shape into knows that the local region is very civilized, with few problems that involve dangerous wild animals. A druid in such a campaign who runs into no restrictions about what he can wild shape into should be very worried for himself and his party.
The above is the whole point. If you start out in the jungle then the DM can show a list of animals that are native to the jungle that the druid can turn into and when the druid starts interacting in other terrains more animal choices become available.
|
|
What exactly are the reasons for limiting? By and large most of the cherry picking died when it was switched only to certain boosts to stats and not the stats of the animals themselves. There's no functional difference aside from coloring between a wild shape into polar bear vs brown bear. I can see a level of immersion breaking if say the world doesn't have dinosaurs and they want to be a raptor, but in general it's not the giant issue it was in 3.5 when druids got the exact physical stats of the animal they wildshaped into.
Because the rules for Wild Shape imply that the druid be familiar with the animal that he wishes to wild shape into. If the designers meant for the druid to be able to turn into any animal period then they would have specified that. Some animals just do not exist in some people's campaigns which makes sense. Now if your DM lets you choose anything no matter what then that's fine if you like that but it doesn't make it more right than someone who doesn't.
It actually makes more sense to become familiar with an animal before you can turn into it. "Druid" doesn't mean that you posses infinite knowledge of all things animal, that comes as you adventure and gain experience.
|
Because the rules for Wild Shape imply that the druid be familiar with the animal that he wishes to wild shape into. If the designers meant for the druid to be able to turn into any animal period then they would have specified that. Some animals just do not exist in some people's campaigns which makes sense. Now if your DM lets you choose anything no matter what then that's fine if you like that but it doesn't make it more right than someone who doesn't.
It actually makes more sense to become familiar with an animal before you can turn into it. "Druid" doesn't mean that you posses infinite knowledge of all things animal, that comes as you adventure and gain experience.
1st: I think you're going to need to provide us with your definition of the word Abuse. When most people on these boards use the term, they tend to use it regarding an obvious rule violation which imbalances gameplay in a significant way. We don't believe this is the definition you are using.
2nd: I think we can all agree that the DM has the final say on what is, and is not, allowed in a campaign. The question, then, becomes this: If you knew it would make the experience less fun for a player, would you still impose a limitation on the number of Wild Shape forms available to a player?
|
|
2nd: I think we can all agree that the DM has the final say on what is, and is not, allowed in a campaign. The question, then, becomes this: If you knew it would make the experience less fun for a player, would you still impose a limitation on the number of Wild Shape forms available to a player?
That age old excuse doesn't fly I'm afraid.
A player claiming that he isn't having fun unless he can do a certain thing is not something that I do not allow. When you let one do it then the rest may follow.
Some rules of the game are stead fast and solid while others are not. Wild Shape is one of those spells where it's not solid and it's down to the DM. We are not getting into the whole Rule 0 thing, the actual ability does require the DM to step in.
Now if a player comes in expecting the ability to work one way while the DM says it works another then guess who is right. Now the DM may decide to allow it to work the way the player suggests but he doesn't have to and he shouldn't have to worry about the player throwing the old "I'm not having fun if we can't do it my way" argument.
Shallowsoul,
I think you might be interested in this definition...
Knowledge: "acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report."
There are three ways to gain familiarity of a creature, yet you are only focusing on the first two.
A knowledge check can determine your familiarity with a creature. You can either accept that, or houserule and have them run quests to satisfy your desire to ignore option 3...
As always, DM's can prevent any creature from existing in thier world.
|
|
Shallowsoul,
I think you might be interested in this definition...
Knowledge: "acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report."
There are three ways to gain familiarity of a creature, yet you are only focusing on the first two.
A knowledge check can determine your familiarity with a creature. You can either accept that, or houserule and have them run quests to satisfy your desire to ignore option 3...
As always, DM's can prevent any creature from existing in thier world.
Knowledge (Int ; Trained Only)
You are educated in a field of study and can answer bothsimple and complex questions. Like the Craft, Perform,
and Profession skills, Knowledge actually encompasses
a number of different specialties. Below are listed typical
fields of study.
• Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane
symbols, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)
• Dungeoneering (aberrations, caverns, oozes, spelunking)
• Engineering (buildings, aqueducts, bridges, fortifications)
Geography (lands, terrain, climate, people)
• History (wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities)
• Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws,
customs, traditions, humanoids)
• Nature (animals, fey, monstrous humanoids, plants,
seasons and cycles, weather, vermin)
• Nobility (lineages, heraldry, personalities, royalty)
• Planes (the Inner Planes, the Outer Planes, the Astral
Plane, the Ethereal Plane, outsiders, planar magic)
• Religion (gods and goddesses, mythic history, ecclesiastic
tradition, holy symbols, undead)
Check: Answering a question within your field of study
has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic
questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their
special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of
such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. 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. 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. Many
of the Knowledge skills have specific uses as noted on
Table 4–6.
Action: Usually none. In most cases, a Knowledge check
doesn’t take an action (but see “Untrained,” below).
Try Again: No. The check represents what you know,
and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you
know something that you never learned in the first place.
Untrained: You cannot make an untrained Knowledge
check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an
extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit
is removed. The time to make checks using a library,
however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete
libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in
the fields that they cover.
What you have posted isn't RAW I'm afraid. I have posted the Knowledge Skill from the Core Rulebook and I don't even see the word "familiar" in the description. The definition of the word familiar has multiple meanings, like I have already said, but it is up to the DM which one to use because the book hasn't.
What is the point of this thread? The question asks GMs to describe how permissive they are with Wildshape, which seems straightfoward, however when I read the thread it appears it is a discussion about how everyone is doing it wrong.
What is the point of this thread? The question asks GMs to describe how permissive they are with Wildshape, which seems straightfoward, however when I read the thread it appears it is a discussion about how everyone is doing it wrong.
Yep. Appears that way.
What you have posted isn't RAW I'm afraid. I have posted the Knowledge Skill from the Core Rulebook and I don't even see the word "familiar" in the description. The definition of the word familiar has multiple meanings, like I have already said, but it is up to the DM which one to use because the book hasn't.
But you do see the word "Identify" in the description.
Identify: to recognize or establish as being a particular person or thing
Recognize: to identify as something or someone previously seen, known, etc
Know: to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth.
Knowledge: acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report.
Familiarity: thorough knowledge or mastery of a thing, subject, etc
To Identify is to Recognize is to Know is to Knowledge is to Familiarity.
It's all part of the same coin... If you want to get stuck up on "Umm.. It doesn't say 'familiar' in the skills description", then so be it. You are choosing to ignore that knowledge skills are equivalent to your familiarity of creatures within that field of knowledge.
|
What is the point of this thread? The question asks GMs to describe how permissive they are with Wildshape, which seems straightfoward, however when I read the thread it appears it is a discussion about how everyone is doing it wrong.
It's where shallowsoul states his opinion, and anyone who disagrees with him is stupid.
Bellhop, I'd like to check out now, please. There are no incidentals for this visit so hopefully I can be on my way without undue delay.
Bellhop, I'd like to check out now, please. There are no incidentals for this visit so hopefully I can be on my way without undue delay.
"Relax, " said the night man,
"We are programmed to receive.You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave! "
|
|
What you have posted isn't RAW I'm afraid. I have posted the Knowledge Skill from the Core Rulebook and I don't even see the word "familiar" in the description. The definition of the word familiar has multiple meanings, like I have already said, but it is up to the DM which one to use because the book hasn't.But you do see the word "Identify" in the description.
Identify: to recognize or establish as being a particular person or thing
Recognize: to identify as something or someone previously seen, known, etc
Know: to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth.
Knowledge: acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report.
Familiarity: thorough knowledge or mastery of a thing, subject, etcTo Identify is to Recognize is to Know is to Knowledge is to Familiarity.
It's all part of the same coin... If you want to get stuck up on "Umm.. It doesn't say 'familiar' in the skills description", then so be it. You are choosing to ignore that knowledge skills are equivalent to your familiarity of creatures within that field of knowledge.
That's fine if you want to interpret that way but it still doesn't lead to anything RAW.
If we look at RAW and the Knowledge skills then just read the actual skill. It says that you can make a check to recall some useful information about a creature. It doesn't anything about you being familiar with said creature. It actually goes by if you succeed on your check or not.
Example: Let's say you come across a dire bear and you roll your Knowledge Nature since this is the first time you have encountered one. You roll and you fail your save. Well you don't know anything about this animal. Now let's say that everything is exactly the same except for you make the check. Suddenly you know some information about the bear. There isn't a preconceived notion that you have certain bits of Knowledge in your head concerning certain things. Your preconceived Knowledge kicks in the moment you pass that Knowledge check and from then on you "know" something about said beast.
It is arguable that you don't get to make a Knowledge Nature check until you are actually faced with a creature or someone asks you a question about the creature.
If my players said they were walking around thinking about random creatures that they have never seen before just so they can start making Knowledge Nature, Religion etc.. rolls then I wouldn't allow that.
There is an intended way some of the Knowledge skills are supposed to work.
I'm just unnerved at how many people took the bait. Even I'm taking the bait.
Shallowsoul, 10/10.
When the bait is so tastey, one is compelled to nibble.
That's fine if you want to interpret that way but it still doesn't lead to anything RAW.
If we look at RAW and the Knowledge skills then just read the actual skill. It says that you can make a check to recall some useful information about a creature. It doesn't anything about you being familiar with said creature. It actually goes by if you succeed on your check or not.
Example: Let's say you come across a dire bear and you roll your Knowledge Nature since this is the first time you have encountered one. You roll and you fail your save. Well you don't know anything about this animal. Now let's say that everything is exactly the same except for you make the check. Suddenly you know some information about the bear. There isn't a preconceived notion that you have certain bits of Knowledge in your head concerning certain things. Your preconceived Knowledge kicks in the moment you pass that Knowledge check and from then on you "know" something about said beast.
It is arguable that you don't get to make a Knowledge Nature check until you are actually faced with a creature or someone asks you a question about the creature.
If my players said they were walking around thinking about random creatures that they have never seen before just so they can start making Knowledge Nature, Religion etc.. rolls then I wouldn't allow that.
There is an intended way some of the Knowledge skills are supposed to work.
I'm interpereting RAW just fine. If you can identify a creature, you are familiar with it. Plain and simple.
While most knowledge checks are made the moment they are asked or encountered, this does not mean that NOW is the the time they learned of said creature. A knowledge check represents what you know based on your past experiences and research.
As for your example of your PC's thinking about random creatures... I don't see any reason why someone couldn't. After all, it represents thier past knowledge of creatures.
That would be the same as me asking you to recite the alpha-bet. You already know it.