What animals do I know? (druid - wild shape)


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Odraude wrote:
divineshadow wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
Lots of stuffs.....

Your welcome


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elamdri wrote:


Yes, I'm being hyperbolic for effect, but that's just it. I think the decision is silly. I explained how the monster knowledge rules worked. By the time a Druid is 4th level, he can take a ten on a knowledge nature and get at MINIMUM (assuming he didn't sack INT) a 19. That means that he knows everything up to a CR 9.

So by the time he gets wild shape, a druid is automatically familiar with anything he COULD transform into.

Not true.

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 [u]more.[/u]

So the DC for a native american druid to know what a platypus is is higher than 10+CR. And the DC for a Zulu druid to know what a Polar Bear is higher than 10+CR too.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my games you have to actually engage the animal "in game", roll your Knowledge check to see if you know it, if you do then you can change into it.

I don't allow this sitting at home one night reading though the new Bestiary and then ask me the next day can your druid roll a quick Knowledge Nature to see if he can Wildshape into the animal in question because it's got an awesome attack.

It's like stopping a session with the druid knowing 4 animal shapes, comes back next week and 2 Bestiaries later with a list of 40 that he somehow knows when only 5 minutes of game time as passed since the last session.

Big no no in my games.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elamdri wrote:


So by the time he gets wild shape, a druid is automatically familiar with anything he COULD transform into.

I hope you realize that you don't get to automatically know every CR 9 animal just because you gain a level and suddenly have the ranks in Knowledge Nature to do it. Now if you see said animal during a game then you can take 10 and auto know it but don't go and make a list of every CR 9 animal in all the Bestiaries just because you have the right numbers.


shallowsoul wrote:

In my games you have to actually engage the animal "in game", roll your Knowledge check to see if you know it, if you do then you can change into it.

I don't allow this sitting at home one night reading though the new Bestiary and then ask me the next day can your druid roll a quick Knowledge Nature to see if he can Wildshape into the animal in question because it's got an awesome attack.

It's like stopping a session with the druid knowing 4 animal shapes, comes back next week and 2 Bestiaries later with a list of 40 that he somehow knows when only 5 minutes of game time as passed since the last session.

Big no no in my games.

So if a druid in your game wanted to turn into a wolf or a hawk, but one hadn't actually come up in game yet, you wouldn't allow it?

Does the same hold for summoning? Cause I'd certainly abuse summoning to "engage the animals in game", if that was an option.

Do you really roleplay out "I go out in the woods to look for a squirrel"? Does this add value to the game?

Edit: Never mind. I remember this argument. There was a giant thread a while back. I don't think anyone else bought into it. Let's not have it again here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it depends on what's in the area. Otherwise it'd be like people stopping in the middle of a dungeon to buy gear.

But, you know, a druid with full casting, 3/4 bab, 6+ skill points, an animal companion at first level, and a handful of other class abilities is just so helpless without being able to shapeshift into a dinosaur.

Silver Crusade

shallowsoul wrote:
Elamdri wrote:


So by the time he gets wild shape, a druid is automatically familiar with anything he COULD transform into.

I hope you realize that you don't get to automatically know every CR 9 animal just because you gain a level and suddenly have the ranks in Knowledge Nature to do it. Now if you see said animal during a game then you can take 10 and auto know it but don't go and make a list of every CR 9 animal in all the Bestiaries just because you have the right numbers.

Why would you have to see the monster in the game to make a knowledge check to see if you know the monster? That's silly. You either know it or you don't know it. Whether or not you've seen the creature has nothing to do with it.


Didn't you know? Knowledge does not exist until you are prompted to make a check to see if you know it. You cannot know it any prior point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elamdri wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Elamdri wrote:


So by the time he gets wild shape, a druid is automatically familiar with anything he COULD transform into.

I hope you realize that you don't get to automatically know every CR 9 animal just because you gain a level and suddenly have the ranks in Knowledge Nature to do it. Now if you see said animal during a game then you can take 10 and auto know it but don't go and make a list of every CR 9 animal in all the Bestiaries just because you have the right numbers.

Why would you have to see the monster in the game to make a knowledge check to see if you know the monster? That's silly. You either know it or you don't know it. Whether or not you've seen the creature has nothing to do with it.

Sure, it's silly. It's so silly as when your Druid goes 7th level, and suddenly put 7 ranks into knowledge nature, and he goes from knowing no single animal, ever (not even cats or dogs, because he can't try to roll Knowledge nature untrained), to know any animal, even those that are trapped in a mystical island in the other side of the moon. That's silly too. Things that happen when you play an abstract game, you know.

Funny scene:
A group of players, including a druid, are in a "discover the New World" adventure. They go with a Columbus-like sailor, and they suddenly discover a new continent. Once there, they find a strange, very big dog-like biped creature with a sack in his belly.

The fighter in the group says "what the hell is that??? Is it dangerous??"

Then the druid says "no it's not. It's a kangaroo. It's marsupial, and hervibore. It won't attack us. The sack if for his kindred"
Fighter: "oh... fine. How the hell do you know all of that? We are the first ones here, nobody has seen one of those before, ever....".

And the druid says "well... a Kangaroo is a CR 1 creature. By RAW, as I have Knowledge nature trained, I know everything about it. Actually, I also know everything about the Tasmanian Devil, which is a creature nobody, including us, has met yet, and I also know everything about the Dodo, a strange bird that *got extinct* a few centuries ago, with no human finding them, ever. Funny how RAW works, isn't it??"


Hiya.

I see two sides to the whole "knowing a creature" thing. On one hand, we have the rules experts who pretty much say "See the RAW? That means X. Period. The GM has no right to screw with that, and if he does, he's being a man-member". On the other hand, we have the flavour follower who pretty much says "See the RAW? That means we use X as a base...but the GM should adjust it based on the flavour of the campaign and PC's location".

Both sides are right, and wrong. IMHO, of course.

A RPG is, by its very nature, geared towards using ones imagination. The rules should be adhered to as long as it doesn't really mess with anyone (including the GM's) fun. The thing some players seem to miss is that the GM has a LOT more to worry about that a player. The player is thinking for a single character, interacting in a fictional campaign world. The GM is thinking for *everything* else (NPC's, monsters, gods...and as a purely creative force for consistency and potential of *every* aspect of the game). In this regards, the GM does, and rightfully -should- err on the side of caution. Restrict first, test, then let up later if needed. Players are a LOT more accepting of being told "You know, the druid wildshape thing seems a bit restrictive. I'm going to allow X skill check with a DC Y, in stead of our normal ruling of having to have actually encountered a creature to change into it". Try it the other way and you're almost guaranteed to have the players (especially the druid PC ones) crying foul and claiming the GM is now just being a man-member.

Anyway, IMHO, the RAW does have a specific list of creatures for Summon Nature's Ally. The RAW for Knowledge basically says "common" creatures. So, by RAW, the GM is fully within his 'rights' as GM to restrict knowledge to what would be considered 'common' for a druid based on the druids home climate (re: a druid from the Lands of the Linnorm Kings shouldn't have a DC 10 to have knowledge of a capybara, nor should a druid from the Mwangi Expanse have a DC 10 to know about polar bears). Expanding this, it would be acceptable for a GM to restrict Summon Natures Ally based on the same general assumptions (I don't think I would, but could easily see a GM restricting summoning to monsters/creatures the summoner has a chance to have actually gained information about).

As for the general tone of "screwing with a character classes core ability"...yeah. It happens. It should happen. That makes sense. The key is for the GM to be consistent and use common sense. Experienced GM's naturally learn to do this. Inexperienced GM's end up with the "ever increasing levels for supposedly average commoners" (re: the bouncers at an inn suddenly all being level 15 fighters). A consistent campaign is always better than an inconsistent one, IME.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Silver Crusade

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Elamdri wrote:


So by the time he gets wild shape, a druid is automatically familiar with anything he COULD transform into.

I hope you realize that you don't get to automatically know every CR 9 animal just because you gain a level and suddenly have the ranks in Knowledge Nature to do it. Now if you see said animal during a game then you can take 10 and auto know it but don't go and make a list of every CR 9 animal in all the Bestiaries just because you have the right numbers.

Why would you have to see the monster in the game to make a knowledge check to see if you know the monster? That's silly. You either know it or you don't know it. Whether or not you've seen the creature has nothing to do with it.

Sure, it's silly. It's so silly as when your Druid goes 7th level, and suddenly put 7 ranks into knowledge nature, and he goes from knowing no single animal, ever (not even cats or dogs, because he can't try to roll Knowledge nature untrained), to know any animal, even those that are trapped in a mystical island in the other side of the moon. That's silly too. Things that happen when you play an abstract game, you know.

Funny scene:
A group of players, including a druid, are in a "discover the New World" adventure. They go with a Columbus-like sailor, and they suddenly discover a new continent. Once there, they find a strange, very big dog-like biped creature with a sack in his belly.

The fighter in the group says "what the hell is that??? Is it dangerous??"

Then the druid says "no it's not. It's a kangaroo. It's marsupial, and hervibore. It won't attack us. The sack if for his kindred"
Fighter: "oh... fine. How the hell do you know all of that? We are the first ones here, nobody has seen one of those before, ever....".

And the druid says "well... a Kangaroo is a CR 1 creature. By RAW, as I have Knowledge nature trained, I know everything about it. Actually, I also know everything about the Tasmanian Devil, which is...

Well, I believe knowledges are meant to represent some good old fashioned book learnin. The question becomes do you RP that or not? If you don't then, yeah, you are going to have situations like you described. But if you simply say "My druid carries around wildlife books and studies them in downtime" suddenly you have an excuse.

I liken it to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Every episode they're in the library studying the monster of the day. The druid does that too and it's represented by her knowledge. The isssue is whether or not you RP that.


Elamdri wrote:

Well, I believe knowledges are meant to represent some good old fashioned book learnin. The question becomes do you RP that or not? If you don't then, yeah, you are going to have situations like you described. But if you simply say "My druid carries around wildlife books and studies them in downtime" suddenly you have an excuse.

I liken it to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Every episode they're in the library studying the monster of the day. The druid does that too and it's represented by her knowledge. The isssue is whether or not you RP that.

OF course I roleplay. I roleplay that, if Christopher Columbus haven't discovered America yet, your irish druid can't know what a Llama is. No matter how much books he has. That's roleplaying.

Saying "a llama is CR 1/2 creature, so it's a DC 11 to know about it" is not roleplaying. It's RAWplaying. You are making a case about your irish character knowing about llamas, before they are discovered, just because the RAW DC for a CR 1 monster is 11, or 16 if it's a rare monster. That's right, RAW. It doesn't make sense, RAI. And, for sure, it's not roleplaying.

On a similar note, if your eskimo druid has never went out of Alaska, and has not got access to a library (not a lot of them in Inuit tribal villages), then he can't know what is a cocrodile, or a lion. IF (a big and sound IF) he has access to a library, as the character in Buffy has, THEN (and only THEN) he might know about monsters he is not familiar with.

If your Druid is prisioner in Monte Cristo's Island, with no books, and no tools other than the manacles he is tied to, and suddenly he kills a rat, and with that experience he gets a level, and he puts a point in knowledge Nature, he does not suddenly become aware of what a polar bear is, just because now he can know about creatures with that Challenge Rating.

Silver Crusade

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Elamdri wrote:

Well, I believe knowledges are meant to represent some good old fashioned book learnin. The question becomes do you RP that or not? If you don't then, yeah, you are going to have situations like you described. But if you simply say "My druid carries around wildlife books and studies them in downtime" suddenly you have an excuse.

I liken it to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Every episode they're in the library studying the monster of the day. The druid does that too and it's represented by her knowledge. The isssue is whether or not you RP that.

OF course I roleplay. I roleplay that, if Christopher Columbus haven't discovered America yet, your irish druid can't know what a Llama is. No matter how much books he has. That's roleplaying.

Saying "a llama is CR 1/2 creature, so it's a DC 11 to know about it" is not roleplaying. It's RAWplaying. You are making a case about your irish character knowing about llamas, before they are discovered, just because the RAW DC for a CR 1 monster is 11, or 16 if it's a rare monster. That's right, RAW. It doesn't make sense, RAI. And, for sure, it's not roleplaying.

On a similar note, if your eskimo druid has never went out of Alaska, and has not got access to a library (not a lot of them in Inuit tribal villages), then he can't know what is a cocrodile, or a lion. IF (a big and sound IF) he has access to a library, as the character in Buffy has, THEN (and only THEN) he might know about monsters he is not familiar with.

If your Druid is prisioner in Monte Cristo's Island, with no books, and no tools other than the manacles he is tied to, and suddenly he kills a rat, and with that experience he gets a level, and he puts a point in knowledge Nature, he does not suddenly become aware of what a polar bear is, just because now he can know about creatures with that Challenge Rating.

Well, I think your problem is that the rules don't assume a scenario like that. Remember, the rules assume Golarion. Therefore, I believe they assume that there exists knowledge on all monsters, somewhere.

Certainly you could have a world where no one has ever seen a creature before ever, but the rules don't assume that situation, and that's why you get an absurd result when you apply the rules. If you stick with Golarion, the result isn't absurd because you can assume that you found some dusty old tome somewhere which detailed the knowledge you now have.


The rules assume Golarion, but don't assume your Mwangi Expanse druid from a tribe of pigmy has been in the Library of Absalom and has read through it and know what is a polar bear. Or your eskimo Druid from the glacial wall has read about a Tyrannosaurus.

If you stick with Golarion, you can assume you had access to a dusty tome, but you don't have to. IF your druid has had access to a dusty tome, then fine, you could have read about stegossaurus. But if your druid HASN'T HAD access to a dusty tome, then you couldn't have read about stegossaurus What dusty tomes appear in the world is GM's job. If you are playing in Absalom, yes, your druid can go to a library and take a dusty tome. If you are playing in the middle of Numeria, or the World wound, or a lost tribe in the Mwange Expanse, maybe you don't have access to that same dusty tome.

BTW: in golarion druids can become prissioners too, and level up killing rats.


Except that RAW isn't nearly that inflexible:

Quote:
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.

Notice the "In general" and "or more". Nor are "Rare" or "common" explicitly defined. It's hardly breaking the rules for the GM to decide that any monsters from the mysterious lost continent are considered rare to anyone from outside that continent and thus get a DC of CR+15 or more. Possibly high enough that your druid can't know anything of them even with a good roll. At least until he's spent some time there learning the local lore.

I also wouldn't at all object to the druid's first encounter with a kangaroo going something like: "It's not dangerous unless you threaten it. I don't know what it's called, but it's obviously a herbivore. Look at the teeth. A herd animal, built for running away not for attacking. Could probably kick with those legs though."
His knowledge of nature lets him deduce things from what he sees of the animal.


Knowing what a creature is and being familiar with it are two different things. What if what you read was an indepth guide to something that was made up!? Can the druid shapeshift into the make believe creature? What kind of 'druid' spends his whole flipping time studying books in a library anyway? Nothing in the rules states any sort of Knowledge check to gain familiarity, that's just a houserule that doesn't even make sense. The rules don't assume Golarion, the rules assume a competent GM. A competent GM would allow a druid go around and become familiar with the animals in the local area, not make them roll some BS Knowledge check to get random animals out of the Bestiary or some dusty tomb.

Silver Crusade

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Knowing what a creature is and being familiar with it are two different things. What if what you read was an indepth guide to something that was made up!? Can the druid shapeshift into the make believe creature? What kind of 'druid' spends his whole flipping time studying books in a library anyway? Nothing in the rules states any sort of Knowledge check to gain familiarity, that's just a houserule that doesn't even make sense. The rules don't assume Golarion, the rules assume a competent GM. A competent GM would allow a druid go around and become familiar with the animals in the local area, not make them roll some BS Knowledge check to get random animals out of the Bestiary or some dusty tomb.

Well it's nice to know that your way of doing it is legit and totally ok, but my way is stupid and BS. That's great.

You know what the rules say about Familiarity? Nothing. Who's to say that your way of doing Familiarity is any better than mine?

Knowledges are an abstract rule to fascilitate gameplay, they are meant to represent learning gathered over time. How you gather the knowledge is completely up to the GM and players, but the point is that the rule provides the vehicle, the RP provides how the vehicle is painted.

I simply provided the example of books, but it could just as easily be RP'd as "My druid goes and studies animals in her free time" as a RP means of explaining the knowledge increases.

Or you could just say screw it and not RP it if you want, it's up to you.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:
Except that RAW isn't nearly that inflexible:
Quote:
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.

Notice the "In general" and "or more". Nor are "Rare" or "common" explicitly defined. It's hardly breaking the rules for the GM to decide that any monsters from the mysterious lost continent are considered rare to anyone from outside that continent and thus get a DC of CR+15 or more. Possibly high enough that your druid can't know anything of them even with a good roll. At least until he's spent some time there learning the local lore.

I also wouldn't at all object to the druid's first encounter with a kangaroo going something like: "It's not dangerous unless you threaten it. I don't know what it's called, but it's obviously a herbivore. Look at the teeth. A herd animal, built for running away not for attacking. Could probably kick with those legs though."
His knowledge of nature lets him deduce things from what he sees of the animal.

I think for most games rare is meant to be reserved for things like the Tarrasque, as it is referenced, so greater demons and the like. Obviously, that's up to the GM, but I'm assuming that your standard animal is going to be somewhere between a CR + 5 or CR + 10 DC. Even if you make things like dinosaurs a CR + 15, it's going to be very hard to stop a druid from making that knowledge nature check.

Silver Crusade

gustavo iglesias wrote:

The rules assume Golarion, but don't assume your Mwangi Expanse druid from a tribe of pigmy has been in the Library of Absalom and has read through it and know what is a polar bear. Or your eskimo Druid from the glacial wall has read about a Tyrannosaurus.

If you stick with Golarion, you can assume you had access to a dusty tome, but you don't have to. IF your druid has had access to a dusty tome, then fine, you could have read about stegossaurus. But if your druid HASN'T HAD access to a dusty tome, then you couldn't have read about stegossaurus What dusty tomes appear in the world is GM's job. If you are playing in Absalom, yes, your druid can go to a library and take a dusty tome. If you are playing in the middle of Numeria, or the World wound, or a lost tribe in the Mwange Expanse, maybe you don't have access to that same dusty tome.

BTW: in golarion druids can become prissioners too, and level up killing rats.

You're missing my point: Knowledge is the vehicle to facilitate gameplay, how you RP that knowledge is the paint on the vehicle. To some degree there has to be a suspension of disbelief with knowledges because you have scenarios like you described where a creature the druid has never seen comes across and the druid rolls a nat 20. Which is why I suggested the book example because then the druid can just say "Oh, I read about it in the book."

Point is that rules are going to require a suspension of disbelief. Look at the Ninja who just jumped a 40 foot gap with his amazing acrobatics roll. That's no less unrealistic than the druid who just happens to know what a T-Rex is. The RP's job is to come in and patch that up and say "Oh, the ninja trained forever to do that and has mystic ninja powers" and "Oh, the druid communes with nature on such a deep level she has inherent knowledge of things like this"


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Knowing what a creature is and being familiar with it are two different things. What if what you read was an indepth guide to something that was made up!? Can the druid shapeshift into the make believe creature? What kind of 'druid' spends his whole flipping time studying books in a library anyway? Nothing in the rules states any sort of Knowledge check to gain familiarity, that's just a houserule that doesn't even make sense. The rules don't assume Golarion, the rules assume a competent GM. A competent GM would allow a druid go around and become familiar with the animals in the local area, not make them roll some BS Knowledge check to get random animals out of the Bestiary or some dusty tomb.

Aside: What kind of animals live in a dusty tomb? Spiders, rats? I got a chuckle out of it anyway.

That's the trouble with RAW. RAW has to mean something specific, explicit and mechanical. For familiarity, that can be "Make a Know roll" or it can be "has encountered in game". As far as RAW goes, "A competent GM would allow a druid go around and become familiar with the animals in the local area", means "The GM chooses what the druid can wild shape into."

Or you wind up with players making their druids from exotic places with useful creatures and backstories that involve journeys from there to the game start that just happen to go through areas where all the other useful creatures live.

Sure, competent generous GMs will be fair and reasonable about what Druids can use and decent players won't try to abuse it. In which case, there's no issue at all.

Silver Crusade

Well, I was going for the Buffy example of looking through old books to read up on dinosaurs n' stuff. But whatever, it's just an example. You could just as easily say that your druid spent his entire life traveling the world before deciding to become a druid and therefore has knowledge of many creatures from his travels and that's why he has such a great knowledge.


Elamdri wrote:

Well it's nice to know that your way of doing it is legit and totally ok, but my way is stupid and BS. That's great.

You know what the rules say about Familiarity? Nothing. Who's to say that your way of doing Familiarity is any better than mine?

Obviously, THE GM

Quote:


Knowledges are an abstract rule to fascilitate gameplay, they are meant to represent learning gathered over time. How you gather the knowledge is completely up to the GM and players, but the point is that the rule provides the vehicle, the RP provides how the vehicle is painted.

I agree. Emphasis mine.

Quote:


I simply provided the example of books, but it could just as easily be RP'd as "My druid goes and studies animals in her free time" as a RP means of explaining the knowledge increases.

Which is perfectly fine, IF you can do so. Which is completelly campaign dependant. A campaign about a druid who lives in Absalom is not going to be the same than a campaign about a druid from a lost tribe in the Mwangi Expanse.

Quote:


Or you could just say screw it and not RP it if you want, it's up to you.

This is not the first time you try to imply that not doing this "your way" is "not roleplaying". You are wrong, and it does not help to prove your point either. Of course it is roleplaying. That menas that if, roleplaying wise, your character CAN have access to knowledge about an animal (ie: you got a dusty tome about dinosaurs, or live near one, or saw one in a TV show), you have a RP reason to know about them. If your character *CAN'T* have access to that knowledge about an animal (for example, he is prisioner in a lost island, lives in the jungle without libraries near, or simply *hasn't roleplayed" his character reading about it, then you haven't said RP reason to know about them.

The OP character lives in a world which is NOT Golarion. IT's a low magic world in his GM homebrew campaign. So how rare or not are the Dinosaurs in his world, is *UP TO HIM*. For what we know, the Dinosaurs might be extinct. Or separated from known world in a lost paradise in south pole, or living in a unknown continent.

By RAW, the druid needs to have *familiarity* with the creature he wildshapes into. There's no hard definition of *familiarity*, and thus, it's in the GM hands to define it. Not you, or me, but the GM. And also it's in the GM hands to say how common or uncommon Dinosaurs are (or even if they *exist* at all)


Then my question remains, if a Druid can learn to shapeshift into a creature from a book, can that Druid learn to shapeshift into a non-existant creature from that book. Can druid turn into pokemon if they somehow got a hold of somebody's pokedex book? Or better yet, remember when raptors used to be depicted without feathers, but now they are. Would the druid turn into the feathered form or the non-feathered form?

No I've never seen it, but I read about it... So it must be real and completely accurate, right!? So I can totally transform into it.

And as far as making up backgrounds to explain how you know all the creatures falls on the same line of a player writing a background how he save all of Golarion once before and has fought and won many battle single handedly even at level 1.


Elamdri wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Except that RAW isn't nearly that inflexible:
Quote:
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.

Notice the "In general" and "or more". Nor are "Rare" or "common" explicitly defined. It's hardly breaking the rules for the GM to decide that any monsters from the mysterious lost continent are considered rare to anyone from outside that continent and thus get a DC of CR+15 or more. Possibly high enough that your druid can't know anything of them even with a good roll. At least until he's spent some time there learning the local lore.

I also wouldn't at all object to the druid's first encounter with a kangaroo going something like: "It's not dangerous unless you threaten it. I don't know what it's called, but it's obviously a herbivore. Look at the teeth. A herd animal, built for running away not for attacking. Could probably kick with those legs though."
His knowledge of nature lets him deduce things from what he sees of the animal.

I think for most games rare is meant to be reserved for things like the Tarrasque, as it is referenced, so greater demons and the like. Obviously, that's up to the GM, but I'm assuming that your standard animal is going to be somewhere between a CR + 5 or CR + 10 DC. Even if you make things like dinosaurs a CR + 15, it's going to be very hard to stop a druid from making that knowledge nature check.

Why reserved to them? Just because they have high CR?

Well, I'd consider dinosaurs that went extinct millions of years ago to be rarer than a monster that wakes up and destroys kingdoms often enough to be a legend. Or demons that interact fairly regularly with humanity They could be CR+20 or +30. Remember "or more".

Obviously, that depends on how common dinosaurs really are in your world. If they still exist in the world, not just in some unknown Lost Continent kind of place then they probably wouldn't be rare. Golarion has them more available. They're even on the Summon Nature's Ally list.

Silver Crusade

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Elamdri wrote:

Well it's nice to know that your way of doing it is legit and totally ok, but my way is stupid and BS. That's great.

You know what the rules say about Familiarity? Nothing. Who's to say that your way of doing Familiarity is any better than mine?

Obviously, THE GM

We're talking abstract here, no game specific. Of course it's ultimately up to the GM, but my point is that my way is just as valid in the abstract. It's just as possible that a GM would fine with my way.

gustavo iglesias wrote:


Quote:


I simply provided the example of books, but it could just as easily be RP'd as "My druid goes and studies animals in her free time" as a RP means of explaining the knowledge increases.
Which is perfectly fine, IF you can do so. Which is completelly campaign dependant. A campaign about a druid who lives in Absalom is not going to be the same than a campaign about a druid from a lost tribe in the Mwangi Expanse.

I was just providing examples. Of course you are going to tailor them to the campaign.

gustavo iglesias wrote:


Quote:


Or you could just say screw it and not RP it if you want, it's up to you.

This is not the first time you try to imply that not doing this "your way" is "not roleplaying". You are wrong, and it does not help to prove your point either. Of course it is roleplaying. That menas that if, roleplaying wise, your character CAN have access to knowledge about an animal (ie: you got a dusty tome about dinosaurs, or live near one, or saw one in a TV show), you have a RP reason to know about them. If your character *CAN'T* have access to that knowledge about an animal (for example, he is prisioner in a lost island, lives in the jungle without libraries near, or simply *hasn't roleplayed" his character reading about it, then you haven't said RP reason to know about them.

The OP character lives in a world which is NOT Golarion. IT's a low magic world in his GM homebrew campaign. So how rare or not are the Dinosaurs in his world, is *UP TO...

Which is the result of my "Rules=Vehicle, RP=Paint" spiel. Rules usually lead to a suspension of disbelief, how else are you to describe the druid who rolls a Nat 20 on his knowledge check. Sure, you can always just go, "you can't know that creature, you've never seen it" to the guy who's got a 20 knowledge check, but I feel like you're dicking over the player pretty rough there. The knowledge check is supposed to be a gameplay metric for how booksmart your character is on a topic. A character with a 20 knowledge check is like an Oxford professor on that topic, telling them that they simply can't know something in their field is almost just as unbelievable in my my opinion, because you're telling me that my super-genius character who's studied every aspect of this field to get his super knowledge CAN'T make this roll?

It's why I don't like things like the Familiarity rules and things like Smite Evil, because I feel like they give GMs a lot of freedom to dick over players.

I can't tell you how many times I've tried to Smite Evil as a Paladin only to be told he's not evil.

Me: I smite that guy!
GM: He's not evil
Me: What do you mean he's not evil!? I just watched him drown a baby in it's mother's blood!
GM: Well yeah, but he's not evil in the sense that he's inherently evil, he's just a messed up dude.

It's that kind of stuff I hate. Don't get me wrong, I GM a lot and I like having freedom, but stuff like this is really easy to abuse by GMs, I've seen it happen a lot and I really dislike it as a player and a GM (It's why I tend to GM more now than play).

Silver Crusade

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

Then my question remains, if a Druid can learn to shapeshift into a creature from a book, can that Druid learn to shapeshift into a non-existant creature from that book. Can druid turn into pokemon if they somehow got a hold of somebody's pokedex book? Or better yet, remember when raptors used to be depicted without feathers, but now they are. Would the druid turn into the feathered form or the non-feathered form?

No I've never seen it, but I read about it... So it must be real and completely accurate, right!? So I can totally transform into it.

And as far as making up backgrounds to explain how you know all the creatures falls on the same line of a player writing a background how he save all of Golarion once before and has fought and won many battle single handedly even at level 1.

You're getting silly here. The druid isn't going to be reading books about made up creatures, because they don't exist (The book, not the creature). The purpose for the book is an excuse to explain why the druid can know about a creature he's never seen.

To get into this argument about pokemon and whatnot is just obfuscating the point. The RP in this scenario exists as an explanation of why the rule works the way it does.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:


Why reserved to them? Just because they have high CR?

Well, I'd consider dinosaurs that went extinct millions of years ago to be rarer than a monster that wakes up and destroys kingdoms often enough to be a legend. Or demons that interact fairly regularly with humanity They could be CR+20 or +30. Remember "or more".

Obviously, that depends on how common dinosaurs really are in your world. If...

Well, again, I think this is an example of the rules making assumptions about how you run the world, so yes, a Balor could be super common and Dinos not.

I think your summon example opens up a big hole though which I mentioned earlier in the thread: We're having this huge argument about how the druid becomes familiar with dinosaurs but no one has a problem with summoning.

So a druid could spend the whole game running around never encountering a dinosaur, but the wizard can pop them out of existence at will with his spells. Seems fair.


Elamdri wrote:


We're talking abstract here, no game specific. Of course it's ultimately up to the GM, but my point is that my way is just as valid in the abstract. It's just as possible that a GM would fine with my way.
[...]
I was just providing examples. Of course you are going to tailor them to the campaign.

Then we agree. My point is not that druids should never know any rare animal, but what animals they know is campaign specific. A Mwangi Expanse druid will know about dinosaurs even with 5+CR DC, while some druid from Irasen might have never heard of one, until the character goes to a bookstore and buy a book about it.

Back to OP question, his GM has a homebrew world. How much known dinosaurs are (or even if they *exist* at all) is up to him. Period. No RAW concocted base DC for knowledge nature is going to change that. In Dark Sun world, you can't wild shape into a polar bear, no matter how high your Know Nature is.

About the Smite Evil issue: I, as a DM, use Detect Evil spell as a rule. If he detects as evil, he is evil. That means evil aligned monsters with 5+HD are smitable. I've seen people using it only to [Evil] creatures, and also have seen people using it for any creature with evil alignment. I find myself comfortable in between.


Elamdri wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

Then my question remains, if a Druid can learn to shapeshift into a creature from a book, can that Druid learn to shapeshift into a non-existant creature from that book. Can druid turn into pokemon if they somehow got a hold of somebody's pokedex book? Or better yet, remember when raptors used to be depicted without feathers, but now they are. Would the druid turn into the feathered form or the non-feathered form?

No I've never seen it, but I read about it... So it must be real and completely accurate, right!? So I can totally transform into it.

And as far as making up backgrounds to explain how you know all the creatures falls on the same line of a player writing a background how he save all of Golarion once before and has fought and won many battle single handedly even at level 1.

You're getting silly here. The druid isn't going to be reading books about made up creatures, because they don't exist (The book, not the creature). The purpose for the book is an excuse to explain why the druid can know about a creature he's never seen.

To get into this argument about pokemon and whatnot is just obfuscating the point. The RP in this scenario exists as an explanation of why the rule works the way it does.

Okay so now we're assuming that any books written are all 100% accurate and never made up in Golarion? Also, I'm not even sure what rule you're speaking of, do you mean the houserule where you make a knowledge check to get an animal of your choosing out of the bestiary?


Elamdri wrote:

Well, again, I think this is an example of the rules making assumptions about how you run the world, so yes, a Balor could be super common and Dinos not.

I think your summon example opens up a big hole though which I mentioned earlier in the thread: We're having this huge argument about how the druid becomes familiar with dinosaurs but no one has a problem with summoning.

So a druid could spend the whole game running around never encountering a dinosaur, but the wizard can pop them out of existence at will with his spells. Seems fair.

The wizard knows how to summon him by learning it from a spell. He does not need familiarity with it to do so, just follow the spell instructions.

The wizard probably isn't familiar with lantern archons, shadow demons, succubi and other summonable creatures either.


Elamdri wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Why reserved to them? Just because they have high CR?

Well, I'd consider dinosaurs that went extinct millions of years ago to be rarer than a monster that wakes up and destroys kingdoms often enough to be a legend. Or demons that interact fairly regularly with humanity They could be CR+20 or +30. Remember "or more".

Obviously, that depends on how common dinosaurs really are in your world. If...

Well, again, I think this is an example of the rules making assumptions about how you run the world, so yes, a Balor could be super common and Dinos not.

I think your summon example opens up a big hole though which I mentioned earlier in the thread: We're having this huge argument about how the druid becomes familiar with dinosaurs but no one has a problem with summoning.

So a druid could spend the whole game running around never encountering a dinosaur, but the wizard can pop them out of existence at will with his spells. Seems fair.

Of course the druid can do the same thing. And by RAW, could become quite familiar with many non-local creatures by summoning them.

Silver Crusade

gustavo iglesias wrote:
About the Smite Evil issue: I, as a DM, use Detect Evil spell as a rule. If he detects as evil, he is evil. That means evil aligned monsters with 5+HD are smitable. I've seen people using it only to [Evil] creatures, and also have seen people using it for any creature with evil alignment. I find myself comfortable in between.

Obviously being a little hyperbolic there, but my point is that I've played games where GM's have purposely stymied smite evil by making characters, usually humanoids, who are evil as sin still not count as "evil" for the purpose of smite evil, which I find obnoxious. It's a little outrageous that the wizard who set fire to your paladin's church while tons of people are inside isn't "evil" but rather "neutral"

Silver Crusade

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Elamdri wrote:

Well, again, I think this is an example of the rules making assumptions about how you run the world, so yes, a Balor could be super common and Dinos not.

I think your summon example opens up a big hole though which I mentioned earlier in the thread: We're having this huge argument about how the druid becomes familiar with dinosaurs but no one has a problem with summoning.

So a druid could spend the whole game running around never encountering a dinosaur, but the wizard can pop them out of existence at will with his spells. Seems fair.

The wizard knows how to summon him by learning it from a spell. He does not need familiarity with it to do so, just follow the spell instructions.

The wizard probably isn't familiar with lantern archons, shadow demons, succubi and other summonable creatures either.

I'm just saying it's funny that a druid can have such a hard time learning about a creature, even if they have a baller knowledge, but a wizard can just pluck critters out of the Aether "Because the spell says so"

Roy: Alright, looks like we got about 100 orc warriors. Balthazar, got any spells that can help?
Balthazar: I could summon up a "Tyrannosaurus Rex"
Roy: What's a Tyrannosaurus Rex?
Balthazar: No freaking clue, lets see what happens


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

Then my question remains, if a Druid can learn to shapeshift into a creature from a book, can that Druid learn to shapeshift into a non-existant creature from that book. Can druid turn into pokemon if they somehow got a hold of somebody's pokedex book? Or better yet, remember when raptors used to be depicted without feathers, but now they are. Would the druid turn into the feathered form or the non-feathered form?

No I've never seen it, but I read about it... So it must be real and completely accurate, right!? So I can totally transform into it.

You're getting silly here. The druid isn't going to be reading books about made up creatures, because they don't exist (The book, not the creature). The purpose for the book is an excuse to explain why the druid can know about a creature he's never seen.
Okay so now we're assuming that any books written are all 100% accurate and never made up in Golarion?

No, the books are a backstory to explain the high Knowledge. A source for being familiar with the creatures. If the books are wrong or made-up, those weren't the books that contributed to your Knowledge.

Silver Crusade

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:


Okay so now we're assuming that any books written are all 100% accurate and never made up in Golarion? Also, I'm not even sure what rule you're speaking of, do you mean the houserule where you make a knowledge check to get an animal of your choosing out of the bestiary?

No, No no. Listen

Knowledge lets you know about a creature. Yet, you have situations in the game where you can run across a creature for the 1st time and yet still be able to make a knowledge check about it.

Say for example that you are out adventuring as 1st level characters after taking a boat to a foreign country and come across a Giant Beetle. You've never seen one before, but you roll the correct knowledge and beat the DC. By the rules, you know about the creature, but in terms of RP, the rules results make no sense.

My example was to offer an explanation to bring sense to the rules result. So before your got on the boat, you read up on the local fauna of the place you were going.

Having a book with false information makes no sense, because the only purpose for the book was to explain the rules result. And it doesn't have to be a book. You could have hunted down the old traveler who lives on the outskirt of your village or ask the captain of the boat taking you there. How you do it doesn't matter, what matters is that you do SOMETHING to justify the fact that you are able to make the knowledge check.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

Then my question remains, if a Druid can learn to shapeshift into a creature from a book, can that Druid learn to shapeshift into a non-existant creature from that book. Can druid turn into pokemon if they somehow got a hold of somebody's pokedex book? Or better yet, remember when raptors used to be depicted without feathers, but now they are. Would the druid turn into the feathered form or the non-feathered form?

No I've never seen it, but I read about it... So it must be real and completely accurate, right!? So I can totally transform into it.

You're getting silly here. The druid isn't going to be reading books about made up creatures, because they don't exist (The book, not the creature). The purpose for the book is an excuse to explain why the druid can know about a creature he's never seen.
Okay so now we're assuming that any books written are all 100% accurate and never made up in Golarion?
No, the books are a backstory to explain the high Knowledge. A source for being familiar with the creatures. If the books are wrong or made-up, those weren't the books that contributed to your Knowledge.

Thank you, I think that's a bit more elegant my explanation above.


Elamdri wrote:


I'm just saying it's funny that a druid can have such a hard time learning about a creature, even if they have a baller knowledge, but a wizard can just pluck critters out of the Aether "Because the spell says so"

Roy: Alright, looks like we got about 100 orc warriors. Balthazar, got any spells that can help?
Balthazar: I could summon up a "Tyrannosaurus Rex"
Roy: What's a Tyrannosaurus Rex?
Balthazar: No freaking clue, lets see what happens

Nah, it's worse than that because the Druid can do it to.

Roy: Alright, looks like we got about 100 orc warriors. Balthazar, can you wild shape into something that can help?
Balthazar: No. I don't know anything big enough. I could summon up a "Tyrannosaurus Rex though"
Roy: What's a Tyrannosaurus Rex?
Balthazar: No freaking clue, lets see what happens
Tyrannosaurus Rex: Rawr!!!
Balthazar: So that's what they are. Cool. <wildshape> Rawr!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elamdri wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Elamdri wrote:

Well, again, I think this is an example of the rules making assumptions about how you run the world, so yes, a Balor could be super common and Dinos not.

I think your summon example opens up a big hole though which I mentioned earlier in the thread: We're having this huge argument about how the druid becomes familiar with dinosaurs but no one has a problem with summoning.

So a druid could spend the whole game running around never encountering a dinosaur, but the wizard can pop them out of existence at will with his spells. Seems fair.

The wizard knows how to summon him by learning it from a spell. He does not need familiarity with it to do so, just follow the spell instructions.

The wizard probably isn't familiar with lantern archons, shadow demons, succubi and other summonable creatures either.

I'm just saying it's funny that a druid can have such a hard time learning about a creature, even if they have a baller knowledge, but a wizard can just pluck critters out of the Aether "Because the spell says so"

Roy: Alright, looks like we got about 100 orc warriors. Balthazar, got any spells that can help?
Balthazar: I could summon up a "Tyrannosaurus Rex"
Roy: What's a Tyrannosaurus Rex?
Balthazar: No freaking clue, lets see what happens

I find it quite thematic.

Roy: alraight, looks like we got about 100 orc warriors. Got any spell that can help?
Balthazar: Yes, yesterday we found a tome in that dungeon filled with cultist. It's a summon spell. I'm not sure exactly what does it summon, it seems to be some creature from beyond the stars. I'm trying to study what it is, but my knowledge about planes is not high enough yet.
Roy: What's it called?
Balthazar: Cthuhlu
Roy: Sounds great, call it.

I'm quite sure most cultist that summon things from beyond the pale, has no freaking clue about what the hell they are summoning.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

In my games you have to actually engage the animal "in game", roll your Knowledge check to see if you know it, if you do then you can change into it.

I don't allow this sitting at home one night reading though the new Bestiary and then ask me the next day can your druid roll a quick Knowledge Nature to see if he can Wildshape into the animal in question because it's got an awesome attack.

It's like stopping a session with the druid knowing 4 animal shapes, comes back next week and 2 Bestiaries later with a list of 40 that he somehow knows when only 5 minutes of game time as passed since the last session.

Big no no in my games.

So if a druid in your game wanted to turn into a wolf or a hawk, but one hadn't actually come up in game yet, you wouldn't allow it?

Does the same hold for summoning? Cause I'd certainly abuse summoning to "engage the animals in game", if that was an option.

Do you really roleplay out "I go out in the woods to look for a squirrel"? Does this add value to the game?

Edit: Never mind. I remember this argument. There was a giant thread a while back. I don't think anyone else bought into it. Let's not have it again here.

I wouldn't speak for others around here if I were you.

The RAW and RAI way Wild Shape and Knowledge checks work is not completely defined and you won't really get a definite answer as to the correct way it works.

Silver Crusade

Elamdri wrote:


You're getting silly here. The druid isn't going to be reading books about made up creatures, because they don't exist (The book, not the creature). The purpose for the book is an excuse to explain why the druid can know about a creature he's never seen.

Here is the way Knowledge Nature works. Your druid comes up to an animal so you ask the DM if you can identify it. You roll your Knowledge Nature check and you pass. The moment you pass it is assumed that you had knowledge about the creature ahead of time. Now if you failed that check then it is assumed that you didn't have Knowledge of that animal.

The moment of that pass or fail can determine of you had the information already or you didn't.

Flipping through the Bestiary and picking animals at your hearts desire is metagaming and doesn't fit the "you must be familiar with the animal" rule that is implied.

Now if your DM wants to run it that way then that's up to him then that's fine.

Also, a DM can say that a Knowledge check isn't enough because it's not clear as to whether knowing information about a creature is enough to be "familiar" with it.


shallowsoul wrote:
thejeff wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

In my games you have to actually engage the animal "in game", roll your Knowledge check to see if you know it, if you do then you can change into it.

I don't allow this sitting at home one night reading though the new Bestiary and then ask me the next day can your druid roll a quick Knowledge Nature to see if he can Wildshape into the animal in question because it's got an awesome attack.

It's like stopping a session with the druid knowing 4 animal shapes, comes back next week and 2 Bestiaries later with a list of 40 that he somehow knows when only 5 minutes of game time as passed since the last session.

Big no no in my games.

So if a druid in your game wanted to turn into a wolf or a hawk, but one hadn't actually come up in game yet, you wouldn't allow it?

Does the same hold for summoning? Cause I'd certainly abuse summoning to "engage the animals in game", if that was an option.

Do you really roleplay out "I go out in the woods to look for a squirrel"? Does this add value to the game?

Edit: Never mind. I remember this argument. There was a giant thread a while back. I don't think anyone else bought into it. Let's not have it again here.

I wouldn't speak for others around here if I were you.

The RAW and RAI way Wild Shape and Knowledge checks work is not completely defined and you won't really get a definite answer as to the correct way it works.

Obviously, it's not clearly defined or this thread wouldn't exist. That said, I think your interpretation of not being able to make a Knowledge roll without in-game interaction is extreme and I don't recall anyone agreeing with you. I could be wrong about that.

The Wild Shape part is less clear and there is a camp that does hold "must have encountered in-game".


I'm asking for a logical in-game explanation of how reading a book helps you shapeshift into that creature. If you can look it up in a book, why does it matter if it's real or not? How do you know until you try to shapeshift into it? Does it just not work? Does your shapeshift ability have some sort of sentience and can tell if the form you're trying to take exists somewhere in the world? What if you try to turn into a creature that hasn't evolved yet? If you know so much why can't you just mix and match parts?

I'm sorry if I sound pendantic, but it just sounds like using a cop-out way to bypass going to meet animals and creatures and the explanation for the cop-out doesn't go very far and doesn't even fit with the flavor of the druid.

And I'm the one being called out for trying to just skip roleplaying because I'm looking for some internal consistency?

Silver Crusade

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

I'm asking for a logical in-game explanation of how reading a book helps you shapeshift into that creature. If you can look it up in a book, why does it matter if it's real or not? How do you know until you try to shapeshift into it? Does it just not work? Does your shapeshift ability have some sort of sentience and can tell if the form you're trying to take exists somewhere in the world? What if you try to turn into a creature that hasn't evolved yet? If you know so much why can't you just mix and match parts?

I'm sorry if I sound pendantic, but it just sounds like using a cop-out way to bypass going to meet animals and creatures and the explanation for the cop-out doesn't go very far and doesn't even fit with the flavor of the druid.

And I'm the one being called out for trying to just skip roleplaying because I'm looking for some internal consistency?

The rules say you have to be familiar with a creature. They don't say how. I suggested making a knowledge check to see if you know about the creature. Granted, that's up to the GM, but I don't see that as being an invalid method for determining familiarity. I then suggested that for RP purposes, perhaps a druid read about a creature to explain why they could make a knowledge check about a creature they have never seen.

You're throwing this imaginary creature thing out there like it's some big deal. If you read a book containing imaginary creatures, obviously that doesn't contribute to your knowledge. But the point is that a druid has gotten their knowledge from somewhere, considering a druid can start with a knowledge nature of 9. The books are just one example of how that knowledge exists in the 1st place. To say that there are books out there with imaginary creatures is fine, if your druid read those books then they simply didn't contribute to the druid's knowledge. But that doesn't explain why the druid has the knowledge in the 1st place, so obviously they must have gotten it from somewhere. I simply proffered that perhaps they got it from some legitimate book as a possible solution.

It could just as easily be some other solution, perhaps your druid before becoming a hero was an Earnest Hemingway like world traveler and traveled the world seeing all sorts of creatures. It doesn't matter what the explanation is, as long as there is an explanation.

Silver Crusade

I think some players are just used to be allowed to scan the bestiary for what ever is cool and the DM allows them to "be familiar" with the animal. This in turn makes those players assume everyone else is supposed to play their games that way.

Silver Crusade

Anytime someone plays a druid in my games I make a list of the "common" animals in the area depending on the terrain the druid lives in. The druid automatically knows about these animals and can Wild Shape into them when that ability is gained. Anything after that must be encountered during the game to add it to their list of animals they can Wild Shape into, after a Knowledge check is performed of course.


Elamdri wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

I'm asking for a logical in-game explanation of how reading a book helps you shapeshift into that creature. If you can look it up in a book, why does it matter if it's real or not? How do you know until you try to shapeshift into it? Does it just not work? Does your shapeshift ability have some sort of sentience and can tell if the form you're trying to take exists somewhere in the world? What if you try to turn into a creature that hasn't evolved yet? If you know so much why can't you just mix and match parts?

I'm sorry if I sound pendantic, but it just sounds like using a cop-out way to bypass going to meet animals and creatures and the explanation for the cop-out doesn't go very far and doesn't even fit with the flavor of the druid.

And I'm the one being called out for trying to just skip roleplaying because I'm looking for some internal consistency?

The rules say you have to be familiar with a creature. They don't say how. I suggested making a knowledge check to see if you know about the creature. Granted, that's up to the GM, but I don't see that as being an invalid method for determining familiarity. I then suggested that for RP purposes, perhaps a druid read about a creature to explain why they could make a knowledge check about a creature they have never seen.

You're throwing this imaginary creature thing out there like it's some big deal. If you read a book containing imaginary creatures, obviously that doesn't contribute to your knowledge. But the point is that a druid has gotten their knowledge from somewhere, considering a druid can start with a knowledge nature of 9. The books are just one example of how that knowledge exists in the 1st place. To say that there are books out there with imaginary creatures is fine, if your druid read those books then they simply didn't contribute to the druid's knowledge. But that doesn't explain why the druid has the knowledge in the 1st place, so obviously they must have gotten it from somewhere. I simply proffered that perhaps they got it from some legitimate book as a possible solution.

It could just as easily be some other solution, perhaps your druid before becoming a hero was an Earnest Hemingway like world traveler and traveled the world seeing all sorts of creatures. It doesn't matter what the explanation is, as long as there is an explanation.

You keep referencing the rules. I'm asking for the in-game process of how you're familiarizing with this animal. And why that same process can't be used on a creature that doesn't exist (yet)?


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

I'm asking for a logical in-game explanation of how reading a book helps you shapeshift into that creature. If you can look it up in a book, why does it matter if it's real or not? How do you know until you try to shapeshift into it? Does it just not work? Does your shapeshift ability have some sort of sentience and can tell if the form you're trying to take exists somewhere in the world? What if you try to turn into a creature that hasn't evolved yet? If you know so much why can't you just mix and match parts?

I'm sorry if I sound pendantic, but it just sounds like using a cop-out way to bypass going to meet animals and creatures and the explanation for the cop-out doesn't go very far and doesn't even fit with the flavor of the druid.

And I'm the one being called out for trying to just skip roleplaying because I'm looking for some internal consistency?

You're right. Reading books or talking to people or visiting libraries or any other research is useless, because the information you get could be wrong. You can never use any of those things as background for learning anything in game. Only direct personal experience can be trusted. You can only know things about creatures that you have observed directly. Anything you learn from other sources could be wrong or just made up. We should just drop the Knowledge skills entirely and just have players keep track of what their characters learn about monsters they encounter. </snark>

Reading books leads to knowledge. (As does personal experience. As does learning from others. As does communing with the nature spirits) Knowledge leads to familiarity with the creatures. Familiarity with them leads to being able to wild shape.

Yeah, it's a cop-out, if you will. It's a shortcut, an abstraction. It's a way of not keeping a list of every animal you've ever encountered in-game. Of not haggling with the GM over which common animals you've met. "I don't think your backstory mentioned a dog and there's no mention of one in any of the modules we've played so far, so no you can't become a dog."
Just like all the Knowledge skills are abstractions of what the character has learned about those fields.

I really don't see what is so weird about this.

Silver Crusade

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
You keep referencing the rules. I'm asking for the in-game process of how you're familiarizing with this animal. And why that same process can't be used on a creature that doesn't exist (yet)?

I've explained this like 4 times now.

I make a knowledge check. If I succeed, I know about the creature and thus am familiar with it.

The in-game process is reading books, dicking around in the wilderness, having explored the world beforehand, whatever you want to explain your knowledge.

The reason that it doesn't work for creatures that don't exist is because the rules don't work that way. You can only wildshape into real creatures. I don't understand why this is so difficult.


I'm not sure where Elamdri is getting his hostility towards GM's, but I hope he's getting it out of his system. It sounds like he's played in some awful games.

I'll only stymie a player if they're about to do something weird or unreasonable that doesn't fit my world. "Familiarity" for the purposes of Wild Shape means that said druid really understands that animal, has seen it in The Wild, and understands the primal magic that makes that creature part of Nature. A Knowledge check doesn't include this, and Summoning a creature doesn't include it either. You need to experience the real creature in its natural habitat.

Want to turn into a T-Rex? Time for you and your group to make a quest to the Mwangi. Let the druid tap-into THAT primal nature magic.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

I'm asking for a logical in-game explanation of how reading a book helps you shapeshift into that creature. If you can look it up in a book, why does it matter if it's real or not? How do you know until you try to shapeshift into it? Does it just not work? Does your shapeshift ability have some sort of sentience and can tell if the form you're trying to take exists somewhere in the world? What if you try to turn into a creature that hasn't evolved yet? If you know so much why can't you just mix and match parts?

I'm sorry if I sound pendantic, but it just sounds like using a cop-out way to bypass going to meet animals and creatures and the explanation for the cop-out doesn't go very far and doesn't even fit with the flavor of the druid.

And I'm the one being called out for trying to just skip roleplaying because I'm looking for some internal consistency?

You're right. Reading books or talking to people or visiting libraries or any other research is useless, because the information you get could be wrong. You can never use any of those things as background for learning anything in game. Only direct personal experience can be trusted. You can only know things about creatures that you have observed directly. Anything you learn from other sources could be wrong or just made up. We should just drop the Knowledge skills entirely and just have players keep track of what their characters learn about monsters they encounter. </snark>

Reading books leads to knowledge. (As does personal experience. As does learning from others. As does communing with the nature spirits) Knowledge leads to familiarity with the creatures. Familiarity with them leads to being able to wild shape.

Yeah, it's a cop-out, if you will. It's a shortcut, an abstraction. It's a way of not keeping a list of every animal you've ever encountered in-game. Of not haggling with the GM over which common animals you've met. "I don't think your backstory mentioned a dog and there's no mention of one in...

THANK YOU!

51 to 100 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What animals do I know? (druid - wild shape) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.