Ok, so I just wish to share an experience from our Pathfinder Kingmaker session yesterday.
Anyway, we were out strolling and exploring the northern parts of the area west of Greenbelt and came across a barbarian camp in front of a cave. We pondered this a bit and decided upon a night assault by Dimension Door. Everything went very well and we secured the area and freed some women held in a cage.
After resting up I started teleporting the women back to our capital city.
So, after some logistics were done we head into the cave and came face to face with 2 witches which we beat down. Continue on to the left side and after crossing 3 rooms of obstacles (or was it 2) we get to a big room with a huge suit of armor. As we enter the room the armor animates and we are confronted with an Iron Golem. In 2 rounds he has both the barbarian and fighter down to 10-15 hp and my Searing Light spell did zip damage to him due to immunity to magic (I was told by the GM in a "Muahahahaha!" kind of fashion). My own melee output is horrible as I have gone for a Morningstar/Shield aproach in Full Plate for maximum AC (27 AC without spell buffs). At this session the druid was absent so there were only the 3 of us.
Needless to say we run for our lives but made it out. Both the melee guys were in a "We are NOT doing that again" mood.
We start exploring the rest of the dungeon and nothing much happens and the session is over.
Now here comes the part that I have been called out on. I was frustrated by meeting such a dangerous monster that seemed invincible, and its not the first time we have been dissuaded from exploring further in areas by talk of danger and horrible things. Because of this our party isnt very well decked out with magic items. Most of what we have is made by my cleric with the Craft feats (Weapons/Armor, Wondrous Items).
So, in the meantime I do a quick search on Google for "Cleric kill Iron Golem" and I end up in a thread on these forums which explain some strategies that could be used to defeat an Iron Golem (general strategies, not specific for that module). And for the first time ever I am introduced to this wonderful Summon Monster III monster called Lantern Archon. I quickly see the potential to wreck havok on our big murderous foe.
And then this weeks session comes along and I start asking questions. How high was it to the ceiling of the golem room (50 feet). When did it activate (when we stepped into the room). And I then tell him (the GM) straight out that I have researched a bit and found something that looks like a good strategy to use. I explain it to him what I intend to do. As a cleric of Desna I cast Fly spell on myself, then Summon Monster V for 1d4+1 Lantern Archons which I instruct to fly over the golem and pound it from above. Short story shorter, we kill the golem in 3 rounds.
The GM goes dark red and starts pointing his finger at me calling me a cheater. "You cheated!" and "Dont ever do that again!" and "For that you only get half xp for the encounter!". So, we only got half the xp for the golem. I didnt care to argue much. I just pointed out as a lvl 9 cleric which was heavily invested in creating magic items and being the ruler of the kingdom would have access to information back in the city (about 12-15k people living in our city as I understad).
Now, I never engaged the GM in any information research process because I mainly recogniced the information I found to regard the use of the Summon Monster V spell and Lantern Archons specificaly. And I tried to argue that this was mainly about me finding out how I as a cleric could use my spells to the best of my ability. Which fell on deaf ears. Mainly because I had explained that yes, I did search specificaly on the internet for how a cleric can defeat an Iron Golem.
So what is everyones opinion on this? Personaly I dont feel like I did anything particularly bad. I merely found out how to use one of my spells effectively. Im not used to being called a cheater, but I must admittedly say I found it incredibly laughable of the GM to come off the way he did. Sure, there was metagaming in my aproach. But to me there is a general issue in people not knowing how to use spells/feats effectively. Isnt it in everyones interest that people learn the potential of their class?
Let me hear your opinions on this, please.
It was indeed cheating . you applied player knowledge to your character
A good way to have done this would have been to
* research the information as a player
* Ask the DM which knowledge roll to make to know the weaknesses of an iron golem
* If the roll was successful, then the DM should have allowed you to use these tactics. If not, then your character would not have know this tactic .
Well he did tell us on that prior session that
1. Damage reduction "Muahahaha" to quote him. The fighter and barbarian was doing their best.
2. Magical immunity "Muahahaha"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1 Technically you probably were cheating. Clerics of chaotic gods aren't supposed to be able to summon lawful subtype monsters.
2 Metagaming is your character acting on knowledge that the player has but the character doesn't. If you, the player, knew that lantern archons could damage creatures that were immune to magic, but your character didn’t, that’s metagaming. It’s an ambiguous case here – shouldn’t you know what your own summonings can do? If there’s any doubt, it’s a good idea to get your character to do the research during play. You have access to divination magic, Knowledge: Planes, and so on. It should be within your PC’s capability to find out, but not by googling it.
3 I’m pretty sure there are no Iron Golems in that book of Kingmaker. It’s possible your GM is creating a sandbox enemy which you’re not supposed to be able to defeat until you level up. Did you actually have any need to fight it at that point?
4 At your level, an enemy who can’t fight back against flying opponents is not much of a challenge. Bad encounter design.
5 Your GM sounds annoying.
|
Matthew,
There are iron golems. Well, an iron golem. It's
Yes, I'm afraid it was a cheat at least from my perspective. Next time, have your character do some research in game to give him the strategy necessary to overcome an obstacle.
But I'm wondering what your GM is thinking running such a low-level group compared to the module. That is asking for trouble. I would have used some extra encounters to keep your XP at the correct levels.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You did awesome. You were faced with a challenge and you overcame it. You did so in the framework of the rules. Nothing you did required 'creative' interpretations. Relax, enjoy your victory. If the GM is consistently adversarial look for a new table. The game is PvE with GM as Referee.
Bravo on gaining a stronger understanding of the game.
:)
Now, the GM. This game (and any RPG!) is not Win/Lose. TPKs do not make you a better GM. If they did every party would die when faced by the tribe of 5th level Barbarian Gobbos. The first level party. Forty 5th level Barbarian Goblins. Yeah.
ME v. THEM GMing is for newbs. You do not *win* unless the players at the table (you included) have a good time. Rather than being 'dark red and pointing fingers' you should applaud your player for digging and making the game bigger, better, richer. Your player did not cheat, he researched.
In regards to research, do you as a person think that you can order another person to *not* go and read something? It seems well past 1543 and I think the Inquisition is only alive in fiction and history. You cannot *ban* normal human interaction, and are foolish to think so.
Relax, enjoy the game.
You cheated. You used out of character knowledge to gain an advantage in a fight.
Now the GM seems like kind of a prick, so it's a good thing you knocked him down a peg.
But you should have done it without cheating.
Don't see the out of chracter knowledge here honestly. The archons can fire rays(Ranged Touch attacks) and the golem is a big slow hunk of metal, therefore easy to hit. Flying out of it's reach is also such an advanced tactic.
I don't see how his character shouldn't have gootten this idea all by himself.Or is there anything those Archons do i missed?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's cheating on the face of it, but now you know the DM thinks of it like that, I don't think you should do it again in his game.
Although i dont find such things particularly troubling, i think its worth acknowledging that learning how your character works in a general sense is quite a different thing from specifically searching the Internet for a solution to one particular scenario.
1. I cant see that there is a requisite to be the exact same alignment as the creature you summon. My cleric is Chaotic Good btw.
http://paizo.com/prd/spells/summonMonster.html
As far as I can tell my cleric should be able to summon Lantern Archons.
2. I agree, but the problem here is within understanding you character, the spells and their usefulness. I dont see any way to sidestep this becoming a metagaming aproach. I need to understand what is within my characters ability and how to play it to the best of the party. As there are time restraints to how much time we can spend on such activities I decided that it would be too much to take up a 30-60 minute discussion in this regard as it would not be seen as a constructive talk for the rest of the party (even though beneficial for them). So I took a shortcut. As you say I could simply have used divination spells. But the problem here is also the limit of the GMs knowledge. He would -never- in a million years have pointed out what ended up being the solution. He had already divulged that the Golem had magic immunity and damage reduction.
3. It was a suit of armor in the image of Gorum, we were told it was an Iron Golem. It was blocking access to 1 set of doors on the opposite end of the room. At the stage we decided to attack it we had already explored the rest of the dungeon finding that those doors were the only ones we had not checked out. Our GM points out, at every session, all the time, that this is a sandbox adventure path. We can fall face first into anything regardless of our own level. The party aproach has been to deal with what we can handle or run away when we find out we cant handle it. But if we keep running away, where does it stop? Where is the fun?
4. Official Paizo product as far as I can tell.
5. Well, he is cocky and seldom pulls a punch. If you die you die, is his aproach.
"I don't think it's cheating on the face of it, but now you know the DM thinks of it like that, I don't think you should do it again in his game.
Although i dont find such things particularly troubling, i think its worth acknowledging that learning how your character works in a general sense is quite a different thing from specifically searching the Internet for a solution to one particular scenario."
Yes, I'm not in the habbit of doing this kind of thing. This was done in frustration about seemingly becoming stuck in two ways. The psychology of the two fighters who was almost killed and didnt feel like they had any chance. And that we seem to never come by much loot to speak of. Now, we havent completed the dungeon yet as we stopped after killing some skeleton archers/warriors, so I dont know if we are going to dip into any honeypot of gold/treasure. But one who does not seek, will not find.
My main "fault" as far as I can tell is the fact that I specificaly looked for strategies towards Iron Golems. Basicaly because I felt my character was completely impotent against it in the first fight. If I had worded it differently or not been so honest about it I would probably have gotten away with it. But I prefer honesty, come hell or high water.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your characters ran away, and came back with a better plan. What did your GM expect you to do? Just keep running your heads into the bloody thing until it rusted to death thanks to the salt content of your blood?
As a GM who has run this very scenario I applaud what you managed to do. A Cleric has a Wisdom of 18+, and would intuit that there is a better solution than standing in two rows and politely hitting each other with magic weapons. That's not even a great solution since in this particular scenario:
Other fun solutions include:
Stone Shape - Just put a stone box around the Golem (or a pit beneath it followed by a lid). If it can't perceive you, it won't attack you. And even if the GM fiats it, it'll take time to bust through all that rock. Just skip past it and be on your merry way.
Golems are literally the worst creature in the Bestiaries, they are immune to practically everything and fights with them just end up a slog.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't really sound like cheating, if you ask me. "Big, dangerous almost impervious monster with only melee attacks"? Trying to bombard it with ranged summoned creatures sounds like a perfectly reasonable approach. Granted, you could have taken the discussion up in game. Like, go "hey guys, I know that thing is murdering us in melee, and my magic isn't doing much either. I could try to summon up some ranged things and see if that has any effect. How's that?"
I'm more iffy on the whole Chaotic God letting you summon Lawful outsiders and I think the GM would have been well within his right to shut it down there. That he didn't, and instead started accusing you of cheating seems odd. It's not like you guys are playing against each other (I assume?) Getting angry that you defeated an encounter is weird.
You explained your plan to him, as I understand it, including mentioning where you got the idea. If he had an issue with that, it would be fine IMHO for him to ask you to go through the train of logic that would lead your character to try something like that (or even ask for knowledge checks).
(As a GM, I'd be pleased as punch that a player cared enough about the game to actually think about it outside the session, but maybe that's just me. :p)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your cleric invested good points in Knowledge(Planes), I think it would be far fetched to call it "cheating".
It's not metagaming if you research what your character is able to do and, provided he isn't dumb as a bucket, come up with a solution to the problem.
Metagaming: using knowledge your character simply cannot, should not or is unlikely to have
Not Metagaming: using knowledge YOU don't have (well, had), but you character should, or is likely to have
Thats my take on that.
1. I cant see that there is a requisite to be the exact same alignment as the creature you summon. My cleric is Chaotic Good btw.
http://paizo.com/prd/spells/summonMonster.html
As far as I can tell my cleric should be able to summon Lantern Archons.
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.
When you use a summoning spell to summon a creature with an alignment or elemental subtype, it is a spell of that type.
LG Small outsider (archon, extraplanar, good, lawful)
Since the Archon has the lawful subtype (among others), it makes the spell Summon Monster a spell with the Lawful descriptor, per the spell text. Clerics of Chaotic deities can not cast lawful spells per their class restrictions.
While I wouldn't describe this situation as cheating, I would say that a few steps to translate out-of-character research into in-character knowledge were missed.
You should have had your cleric roll appropriate knowledge skills (or collect information from other characters that had) to learn the important things - such as that lantern archons have that sort of attack, that you can summon lantern archons with a particular spell, and that the creature you saw was probably vulnerable to the tactic you researched out of character.
That's all it takes to translate what you know into information your character can act upon without it being able to be considered cheating.
The problem here is the chain of thought and finding out how to deal with the situation. I had no prior knowledge about Lantern Archons. The GM had no prior knowledge about the Lantern Archons. I could have engaged in a sequence of research back in the capitol. However, I did not know what to look for. The GM did not know what to tell me in relation to the solution we ended up with. He could have told me more specifics about the Golems abilities from the Monster Manual. But not what could be used to bypass them.
I was completely up front with my research. My character had visited the capitol twice in the last few days through teleport which COULD have given me the opportunity to research the solution. The GM did not pick up on my offer to do skill-based research to solidify my aproach within the acutal game. His reaction was pretty much just to be offended that I had the audacity to read on forums to find strategies.
I have no hard feelings towards the GM. He is an old friend Ive known for over 25 years now and is generaly a good guy. But sometimes he seems to take it personal and that he wants to "teach us a lesson" it seems.
I should also put in a sidenote here and say that we are also playing Rappan Athuk over Mumble/d20Pro with some other friends living in other parts of the country. In this campaign we started as lvl 3 characters and are having a horrible time. Last week he killed my rogue/wizard with a CR12 Bone Crawler who jumped my character and proceeded to execute 12 attacks. My character had 23 hp and he was dead by the 3rd hit. This did indeed motivate me quite a bit to do the research because I dont particularly enjoy my characters dying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(From what OP said, the GM is an adversary, not a referee. Do you really think 'in game research' would have led to anything other than "Muahahaha!!! I won't tell, I am winning!!!)
Good research on the Summon Monster regarding alignment. I didnt know those particulars so it would seem my character wouldnt have been able to summon those creatures then.
As for skills, my character has Knowledge Planes (+8), Knowledge Arcana (+7) and maxed Spellcraft (+15).
(From what OP said, the GM is an adversary, not a referee. Do you really think 'in game research' would have led to anything other than "Muahahaha!!! I won't tell, I am winning!!!)
It definitely felt like we were attempting to kill his pet cat or something :-)
Just gonna throw in a big thank you to everyone contributing in the thread so far. I apreciate the feedback both positive and negative. It's all food for thought :-)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be happy that my players are invested enough in the game to do research on their own and not just hit the problem head on until one side or the other broke.
I read the forums and rules all the times about how to handle hypothetical situations and how spells and effects interact. If I apply that knowledge to an encounter I play in a few weeks down the line am I cheating?
The problem here is the chain of thought and finding out how to deal with the situation.Not really - what I was saying is that, after you did your online research, all you had to do to make your activities fully on the "up and up" was to filter your findings through the rules of the game - roll a few knowledge checks or gather information checks around people that could have the knowledge you are seeking, and proceed on just as you actually did.
That is basically the entire point of knowledge skills - to translate what a player can find out with a little looking around into what their character read in a book or heard from some reputable source.
Yes, that is pretty much what I was trying to tell the GM but he wouldnt listen to it. He was just extremely offended that I had found a strategy to defeat the monster. I had the skills, I had the resources (being the leader of the nation and of a city with 10-12k individuals). We also had some institutions in the city where I could probably have gotten advice. We have a cathedral in the city also. So I definitely had the resources available to get the knowledge. The GM just decided that it wasnt relevant since I had already found the knowledge on the forums. I even told him I found the Lantern Archon to be extremely powerful and if he wanted to rule something on using them then it was ok. Instead he was just angry and persistent that we should only get half xp.
Looking back at it it was all kind of surreal and ridiculous that a 50 year old should get all bent about this.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really understand what kind of "out of game knowledge" the player used here.... his cleric went up against an iron golem, and lost. While recovering, he had an idea - any cleric knows what kind of monsters he can summon with his spell, that's in game knowledge. So the cleric comes up with the idea to fly out of harm's way and have his summoned minions snipe down the iron golem.
What part of the process was the character not supposed to be aware of? normally, a player having an idea is equivalent of a character having an idea. So the player found an idea through research, which translates to the character spending some in-game time thinking about it and then solving the problem.
As a GM, I would never call this cheating. Matter of fact is, what the GM is doing (running an 8th level party through a level 12 adventure) is closer to "cheating" than what the player did.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bleh. If you actually need to do research for how to use your own abilities, I hope that applies evenly to all in the game. Sorry, GM, your wizard NPC doesn't know what creatures he can summon without devoting enough time to researching that. Sorry, GM, your rogue NPC needs advanced Stealth training for years and years to go above +10 in Stealth, and this rogue hadn't started this process when we last met him a year ago. Sorry, GM, your cleric NPC needs to research what gods there are to worship before he could cast a single spell...
Furthermore, with summon monster, it gets complicated FAST, and not having updated actual stats for the monsters you summon means it's not going to work at all. Saying the GM should do all that on the fly is unworkable.
I do not begrudge you your victory. From your account the GM would never have given you the information you needed to succeed. However that is his failing as a GM. What you did was bring cliff notes to a book report (I'm dating myself with that reference). It's definatly cheating and I would not award any experience for the encounter.
This might fall into that Kobayashi Maru territory.
Side note: Not every adversary in the realm can be defeated by the players (at least at that given level). Some encounters are designed to humble. Indiana Jones ran from Belloq and the natives, the Fellowship of the ring ran from the Balrog.
This is pretty blatant metagaming. Your character doesn't have the internetand didn't even make a single knowledge check to determine this strategy. Don't do it again.
I would totally have allowed it.
I would have allowed it as well. Often I find scenarios in published adventures that, while an appropriate CL for the level range, the party can't handle for whatever reason. Sometimes it is not having the right weapon made out of the right material. Sometimes it is not having an arcane caster when one is really needed for the encounter. Sometimes you can't explain why it isn't working out. So it is not unreasonable for PCs with 18+ INT/WIS (which should be individuals with genius-level intellects or insight) to have a think about the situation and come up with an answer.
Since player =/= character, you can't expect the player to brainstorm as if he were an actual experienced adventurer. The player has to use his own real-world resources, and then he has to explain how the character would do it. Yes, in this instance, the in-character explanation is lacking. But again with an 18+ WIS and a prior encounter with the golem, the cleric should be able to recall the fight, think about the tactics that were not working, and come up with a new tactic to try.
It does sound like the GM took it all personally. It seems like a red flag that there is an adversarial relationship going on. If that is the case, perhaps an out-of-game discussion needs to take place among players or between players and the GM.
(I tend to be the opposite of an adversarial GM. I am usually the PC's biggest fan, happy to see them succeed. The fights may be tougher at times, but that makes the success so much sweeter. I am also sympathetic when the PCs suffer a setback, especially if character death/maiming is involved.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is pretty blatant metagaming. Your character doesn't have the internetand didn't even make a single knowledge check to determine this strategy. Don't do it again.
You're being sarcastic, right? He shouldn't have to make a Knowledge check to determine what he can summon with his spell. That is not a requirement of the spell in the slightest.
There is no metagaming here. He is using out of game knowledge his character should already have known by the time the first fight rolled around. This is just his GM being a throbbing prick.
Did you have to use the word throbbing? lol
Outside of basic animals and/or creatures the party has encountered I think an roll on the appropriate knowledge skill is reasonable.
Otherwise what is the point of the Knowledge skill? A wizard with that spell would pretty much supercede any need for identification rolls.
It is an interesting topic, that is for sure.
-MD
Knowing your class and what you can do isn't cheating(though it is a very mandatory meta imo). Researching exactly what you need when you know it'll come up though is a pretty iffy thing may not be the best way to handle things. Might've helped if you at least roleplayed a bit about your walk through the library and the research, that could've been fun at least and it wouldn't have been so out of the blue and "OMG!" if you know what I mean. On the other hand, I don't like it when a GM says "muahaha I win this is invincible*!" and it doesn't sound like either side was being the best person. As with all things, communication helps.
*"Well if its invincible how do you see it?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no metagaming here.Unless he has faced a golem and summoned lantern archons before, it's most certainly metagaming to know that lantern archons will mess up the golem without rolling Knowledge checks to find out.
So he needs a Knowledge check to know that a big, heavy, landbound creature is likely to be wrecked by things firing ranged attacks from out of reach?
Who knew?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To actively search, out of character, how to destroy it? Yes, meta gaming. Unless "Google" is a cleric spell.
To actively search, out of character, how to destroy it? Yes, meta gaming. Unless "Google" is a cleric spell.
What, is the mighty google not a god in your realm? It gives me the knowledge and travel domains. Not a bad grab.
Ok, so I just wish to share an experience from our Pathfinder Kingmaker session yesterday.
** spoiler omitted **...
"Cheating" might be a bit of a strong word (though I understand why people would say so), but I'd say very poor form.
How did you know what a Lantern Archon could do? Did you make the appropriate Knowledge checks? After that, how would you know that what a Lantern Archon could do would hurt an iron golem? Did you make the appropriate Knowledge checks then?
Hmm.... now that I think about it, maybe "cheating" isn't that strong of a word.
To the people defending the OP... you're wrong.
|
|
So he needs a Knowledge check to know that a big, heavy, landbound creature is likely to be wrecked by things firing ranged attacks from out of reach?To know that the magic-immune monster isn't immune to magical laser beams? Yes.
I don't get it. Kingmaker is an AP with very little time constraints. Given that the character was flying above the Iron Golem, the PC was not in any danger. Summoning the archons is at least worth a shot ,as an idea. If it doesn't work, retreat and come up with another plan.
Actually, assuming that the character would assume the archon lantern's attack *wouldn't* work is more metagame-y than assuming otherwise. Without making any knowledge checks, all the cleric really knows (in game) is that a single spell he/she cast was reflected from the Golem without harming it. Jumping from there to a conclusion that the golem is 100% magic immune and the archon lantern tactic will never work is not something the PC has any real in game reason to do. A hundred different things could cause a single spell to fail - spell resistance, or immunity only to certain kinds of magic... actually, performing the attacks with the archons just to find out if the golem has true magic immunity or not is probably a decent idea, both in game and out game (in case the player isn't sure).
The player did nothing wrong.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
you're wrong.
No you! Them's fightin' words.
Best to avoid saying things like that. Its okay for people to have opinions and its a subjective gig.
|
|
Ok, so I just wish to share an experience from our Pathfinder Kingmaker session yesterday.
** spoiler omitted **...
"Cheating" might be a bit of a strong word (though I understand why people would say so), but I'd say very poor form.
How did you know what a Lantern Archon could do? Did you make the appropriate Knowledge checks? After that, how would you know that what a Lantern Archon could do would hurt an iron golem? Did you make the appropriate Knowledge checks then?
Hmm.... now that I think about it, maybe "cheating" isn't that strong of a word.
To the people defending the OP... you're wrong.
I have never ever seen a GM force a player to make any sort of checks just to know what the creatures in his summon list can do. That's seemingly absurd. Would you require a wizard using a fireball to make a knowledge check to determine if he is aware of the blast radius? Will you force a paladin to make a knowledge check to know how many times per day she can use Smite Evil? Will you force a barbarian to make a knowledge check to realize he'll get exhausted when the rage ends?
No, that's just silly. a PC knows and fully understands all of her class features to their full extent. That's in game knowledge. No reason to make an exception of it in this case.
you're wrong.No you! Them's fightin' words.
Best to avoid saying things like that. Its okay for people to have opinions and its a subjective gig.
No it is not.
(welcome to the Monty Python Argument Clinic)
I played the adventure the OP is referring to, and my badass Lawful Neutral cleric of Iomedae summoned Lantern Archons that helped reduce the Iron Golem to metallic dust.
Some times before that adventure, I had perused the Monster Manual 1 searching for cool monsters with badass abilities to summon.
In doing so, I read that:
Light Ray (Ex)
A lantern archon can fire beams of light to damage foes. These light rays have a maximum range of 30 feet. This attack overcomes damage reduction of any type.
I went "Wicked !", and so, when this Iron Golem thingie began crushing our fighter/barbarian in the first round of combat, and withstood our wizard's spells without flinching, I remembered this line about overcoming damage reduction
My GM didn't bat an eyelash when the Iron Golem crumbled ; on the other hand, everyone praised me - in character - for my choice of spells.
I didn't know about the Iron Golem immunities. I didn't need that knowledge - nor my character needed it - to realize that the lantern archon's rays would surely be useful againts a creature with obvious immunities.
Bloody Viking : your GM was a dick and a whiner.
I have never ever seen a GM force a player to make any sort of checks just to know what the creatures in his summon list can do. That's seemingly absurd.
Good for you. Of course it's not absurd.
Would you require a wizard using a fireball to make a knowledge check to determine if he is aware of the blast radius? Will you force a paladin to make a knowledge check to know how many times per day she can use Smite Evil? Will you force a barbarian to make a knowledge check to realize he'll get exhausted when the rage ends?
No. I, however, can see the difference.
Characters don't get a big list of monster stats. They have their list of monsters. There they go. Summon one, and then see what it can do. Or, actually use the Knowledge skill for what it was designed for, and learn about monsters. You don't get freebies or exceptions just because it happens to be on one of the myriad of available spells. If they should have the stats, it would be in the CRB in the spell. (See the PHB2 and Complete Mage in the latter days of 3.5.) But, to be honest, that's not even much of my concern. The greater concern is not rolling Knowledge (arcana) to properly get the weaknesses of the construct opponent. So, while it's all well and good to "know and fully understand all of her class features to their full extent" blah blah blah, the line is drawn at opponents.
With all that said, I can appreciate, however, that different groups approach this differently - and people should do what works for their individual group. Apparently their group plays it a certain way... so there we go and here we are. The thread.
Suggesting that everyone should do it one specific way is asinine. The OP isn't going to get anything solved here. They need to have a discussion of what the expectations are in terms of player and character knowledge. Bad on them for not doing so.
No you! Them's fightin' words.
Best to avoid saying things like that. Its okay for people to have opinions and its a subjective gig.
It's sort of an obscure/inside joke about "being wrong on the internet!". Yeah, pretty bad if the joke falls flat.