Number of free actions during a combat round are limited by the GM's discretion, per RAW. So it is entirely the GM's decision on how knowledge checks are handled.
One check per turn makes sense. A character has to make at least a cursory analysis of the creature and actively recall what it is. Now, I would consider allowing them as move actions beyond the first, so a character could make up to three a round in my games.
Number of free actions during a combat round are limited by the GM's discretion, per RAW. So it is entirely the GM's decision on how knowledge checks are handled.
One check per turn makes sense. A character has to make at least a cursory analysis of the creature and actively recall what it is. Now, I would consider allowing them as move actions beyond the first, so a character could make up to three a round in my games.
While it's true the GM can limit free actions, a limit of one would mean that ranged weapons that use ammo could only be reloaded once per round.
However, the knowledge check isn't a free action. From the PRD: "a Knowledge check doesn't take an action". Nothing in RAW stops multiple rolls per round so it's all houserule for less. So...
#1 no limit.
#2 Ozy has it. A glance is all you need. It takes no time at all to ID a lion, tiger and bear. The only time issue would be trying to give that info out as only a "few sentences" count as a free action and after that it moves to a larger action.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But DM argued that it was because we had seen 9in books, tv, directly, etc) those creatures many times in our life so we knew it right away. On the other hand, if you would see an amorphous creature for the first time of your life, it would not be obvious that is a demon, devil , abomination, etc....
Sounds like your GM doesn't understand the Knowledge skill. Making a successful check means you HAVE seen those creatures before (whether directly, in books, through stories, etc). So your example of "if you would see an amorphous creature for the first time of your life" is not true if you made the check successfully.
Just because this is the campaign's first encounter to feature that type of creature doesn't mean you've never seen it before. The PCs did not jump straight from infancy to adventuring.
Seems like your GM thinks that nobody's seen (or heard of) any monsters prior to the start of the campaign, and that a Knowledge check represents making an assessment of something you've never seen before in order to make educated guesses about its physiology.
Barring houserules, this is wrong.
The Knowledge check is simply the player finding out what the character already knows from past experience.
You don't make a Knowledge check to see what you can figure out about something you've never seen before. The Knowledge check tells you whether or not you've seen it before, and what you already learned since that time.
There is no limit. It just like looking at a lion and bear at the same time and knowing what they ate.
If memory serves you get to roll all knowledge checks (limited by what's appropriate for sake of speed) one time when you encounter a new situation. All rolls are free actions. This represents what the character already knows. Not any kind of time consuming analysis or research.
Effectively its one of every knowledge check per encounter. Though DM is smart to tell the player which one(s) to roll.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the GM decided that sinse the character using his knowledge hadn't actually seen such a creature in real life and at most had studied paintings of them
Problem, right here. The GM doesn't decide whether the PC has seen X before. The Knowledge check decides that.
The GM could houserule differently of course, but that's a big enough thing that they really need to tell the players before the campaign starts.
All rolls are free actions.They are actually no action at all.
You are correct. By free I meant a non-action. Semantics.
|
You are correct. By free I meant a non-action. Semantics.All rolls are free actions.They are actually no action at all.
Free action and non-action are separate and distinct game terms. Free actions can only be done on your turn and can be limited by GM fiat. Non-action has no limit, because it take no action at all to do.
Free action and non-action are separate and distinct game terms. Free actions can only be done on your turn and can be limited by GM fiat. Non-action has no limit, because it take no action at all to do.You are correct. By free I meant a non-action. Semantics.All rolls are free actions.They are actually no action at all.
Yes. I know. I accidentally used a game term. I meant it initially as in what it means in the English language, now what it means in pathfinder language.
As stated. You are still correct. I made an err.
|
No action required for knowledge checks, do as many as you want in a round.
I think many of us have played video games involving monsters. When WE see a new monster, we either know what it does or we don't. Thats our knowledge check. If it looks like an ooze, I'd guess it to be like an oozes in the game with some hidden twist. Or perhaps a friendly player told about the different abilities that oozes have, and so I'm able to just click and say "Thats what he was talking about!"
I've never had an issue knowing what different monsters were, even when are introduced several at a time. So why should my character that has grown up in a fantasy world hearing stories of these creatures?
Now, the important thing is: How much time do you have to inform the rest of the party? Now THAT is something that can be limited.
Yep not an action, shouldn't be limited.
The knowledge check represents what you quickly recall about the creature standing before you. Successfully identifying it means you recognize it and the level of success lets you know stuff and determines how many things you know.
|
|
Two Bears, a Wolf, and three Lions approach.
I look, and in mere seconds(maybe two at most), I recognize all of them.
A round is 6 seconds.
I don't need to stand still, and gawk for 6 seconds to recognize the fact that one of them, is a Bear.
I can move(although I would likely run) and identify them at the same time.
Basic points I agree with -
By RAW, it takes no actions to ID with a knowledge check, therefore a check can be made for each different type of monster in a scene.
It takes a single free action to communicate a sentence or two to the rest of the party.
Another point to make -
Each 5 points the DC is made gives you one useful fact about the creature, a successful check does not give encyclopedic knowledge (unless you severely crush your knowledge check).
Knowledge checks do not have to be made against monsters that PCs have faced before, and figured out strengths and weaknesses by direct observation. (I know some GMs that force knowledge checks to see "if your character remembers").
Common sense observation -
In the unlikely event that you face an extremely wide array of monsters in a single scene, you might not be able to make knowledge checks on all of them in a single round (hundreds, or thousands of different varieties of monsters). This scenario is very unlikely, and what adventurer would even bother to take a headcount of 852 different monsters rather than focusing on the closest ones or figuring out some avoidance tactic?
A GM that limits knowledge checks in a round has themselves failed their knowledge check. As others have said, it represents what you already know not things you are figuring out on the spot. Communicating it to your allies is the only real limit (and depending how your GM handles it can add benefit to spells like Telepathic Bond).
|
There is no limit. It just like looking at a lion and bear at the same time and knowing what they ate.
In Pathfinder?
I think that checking all the bestiaries, AP and other sources I can find at least 3 lion like and bear like creatures that you can't recognize from the actual being at first glance unless you roll very well in your check.When you make a check you aren't simply recognizing a creature you have seen in a book, an illusion from your spellcasting teacher or a zoo, you are excluding a ton of creatures you have heard of that are similar to the one you are seeing.
Note that book illustrations aren't photographs, they are drawings by someone that maybe has seen the actual beast.
You will recognize this as a lion? Or any of the creatures in this set of heraldic lions?
Or this one?
All medieval depictions of lions.
- * -
About the question:
- a check is no action: true
- from that we deduce that any number of check can be done in a round: false.
We have 2 examples of how "no actions" work in combat: a 5' step and Delay.
The first can be taken only one, the second is a continuous action until you stop delaying. Both can't be repeated.
Not a basis to say that all no actions work that way during combat, but a clear basis to say that it require GM adjudication.
What I would do as a GM (houserules):
- allow 1 free knowledge "reactive" check each round, further checks would use a move action (a mechanic similar to that used for perception checks)
At this point the character has 2 options in a encounter with different kinds of creatures:
a) trying to do a basic identification of all involved creatures using his lowest knowledge skill. He make the check, the result is matched against the DC of each creature, if the check is successful he get his informations: Name and type of the creature first, subtype second, and then special abilities of the specific creature.
a1) at that point he can use a move action or the next round free knowledge check to redo the check using the right skill only against 1 kind of creature or he can use method b) to check a creature he failed to identify with the first check.
b) he can choose a single creature and roll a knowledge check. All the applicable Knowledges are used (i.e. if the creature is a bone golem that resemble a skeleton the die roll is applied to both his Knowledge religion and Knowledge Arcana at the same time. If the religion check is good enough he recognize the creature as a non skeleton or even as a non undead, if the arcana check is good enough he recognize it as a golem. That can be relevant if the religion skill is way higher than the arcana skill). He get all the relevant informations from his check.
The first check in a round is free, then the others cost a move action.
It seem the best way to do it: a quick glance trying to recognize as much creatures as possible or a more accurate and probably more precise check of a single creature.
In some instance I would allow the b) version of the Knowledge check to work against mundane or magical disguises when the disguise is meant to pass the disguised creature as something different. The DC would be set by the disguise effect. A human trying to disguise himself as a zombie could be discovered either by a Perception check or a Knowledge religion check.
|
If you roll a 15+ on a knowledge check it is because you have read many books, seen many zoos, watched the bazaars, and travelled all over tarnation looking for weird and exotic animals and can identify them ON SIGHT. Hate to say this, but your GM is wrong on this one. The whole "well you never have seen this before" makes no sense in the face of the FACT that you just IDENTIFIED IT FROM MEMORY. Knowledge checks aren't an "analysis of what is in front of you" (I gained the knowledge right this second) - they are a "OH I RECALL THOSE CRITTERS!" (I already have the KNOWLEDGE)
There is no limit. It just like looking at a lion and bear at the same time and knowing what they ate.In Pathfinder?
I think that checking all the bestiaries, AP and other sources I can find at least 3 lion like and bear like creatures that you can't recognize from the actual being at first glance unless you roll very well in your check.When you make a check you aren't simply recognizing a creature you have seen in a book, an illusion from your spellcasting teacher or a zoo, you are excluding a ton of creatures you have heard of that are similar to the one you are seeing.
Note that book illustrations aren't photographs, they are drawings by someone that maybe has seen the actual beast.You will recognize this as a lion? Or any of the creatures in this set of heraldic lions?
Or this one?All medieval depictions of lions.
- * -
It was just an example to show that it does not take additional time to recognize more than one thing.
|
|
Version a) has some pretty weird results. Since you only roll your lowest knowledge skill, you will completely fail to identify those creatures you're most familiar with and in most cases will fail to identify any thing - if there aren't any creatures of that type present or if, as is likely, you fail the roll.
If skills with know ranks count as lowest knowledge skill, you'll never identify anything but common low level creatures."I'm a wizard with a 32 Knowledge(arcane) and I have no idea what that giant reptilian winged thing is, but I think there's a sparrow over on that bush."
If you want to cheek all the creatures at once, yes, it is meant to allow you to recognize only the common ones. It is for bards and similar character mostly as they have a flat bonus in all the knowledge categories.
To resolve the problem you present there can be a c) option, chose 1 Knowledge and roll it, you recognize all the creatures against which it is successful as belonging to that kind of knowledge and and get the relevant informations, you recognize the creatures against which it is not successful as not belonging to that field of knowledge.
- * -
You have ever compared a photograph to a naturalist drawing of a animal or a plant?
The naturalist drawing is way clearer, no background and foreground hiding the beast, no variation in coloring, no defect or damage hiding some difference between a specie and another and so on.
You can be a great expert, but sometime the difference between a species and another is very subtle, and that difference can be deadly. How many mushroom pickers get poisoned every year because they haven't checked a minor detail? And a good number of them are experts.
Wraithstrike has proposed Bears and Lions as example animals.
Let's see:
Bear
Bear Dire,
Bear lord (animal lord) in animal form - an outsider, you have only Knowledge Nature, are you capable to recognize him as a non-animal?
Druid in bear or dire bear form - oops, Knowledge local
Owlbear - I assume everyone is capable to tell at a glance that it isn't a bear and probably not an animal but rule wise if you don't have Knowledge arcana and you have Knowledge Nature you can only say that it isn't an animal with a Cr lower than your check number -5 if it is common, -10 if it is uncommon or -15 if it is rare.
Shapechanged Werebear
Lion
Dire Lion
Cat Lord (lion)
Druid
Guardian Feline form of a catfolk monk
And those are the first two pages of a search for each of them in the PRD only.
You are trying to differentiate between all those creature at a glance. While trying to avoid being eaten or mauled.
|
|
Sure.
Every PC needs to stop everything, be still, and maybe, they identify one, of the number of creatures standing in front of them.
PC 1: What are you doing buddy? Quit standing there, and tell me what those things are, and let's get to killing.
PC 2: Scanning... Scanning... I have identified the creature above us, to be a Sparrow.
PC 1: Dammit man! It took you that dang long, to realize a Sparrow, is a Sparrow?!? What is that big cat thing? What about that other big furry thing?! What the hell is wrong with you?!?!
|
|
WTF, those heraldic depictions are not creatures one would actually meet.
Those depictions are what you will find in most books in a medieval like fantasy world.
Those depictions are what you will find in books about fabled creatures from continents far away. How far is it from Northern Europe to the nearest wild Lion?
Books about likely threats in the local area will be more accurate. As you learn more and travel more and study more and rarer books and talk to travelers from distant lands or the locals in areas you visit - ie as your knowledge skill goes up, you'll be able to identify stranger creatures.
So you give a familiarity modifier? Or what?
Let's see: my magus has been born in Magnimar and traveled to Ustalav, where in a few weeks increased his level from 1 to 11.
I know decidedly well what he has seen and learned in those weeks, so the points he added in knowledge nature, arcana, planes and local are from a very limited set of personal experiences and a lot of book learning.
He hasn't increased his knowledge visiting distant lands or other planes, he has read about them from what is locally available.
You suggest he got his informations talking "to travelers from distant lands or the locals in areas you visit". Fine, so a description done by word of mouth, maybe from someone that hasn't even seen the original creature but only heard tales from another person. You are so sure you will get good or clear informations?
- * -
"How far is it from Northern Europe to the nearest wild Lion?"
In what period? Historically there were lions in Greece till 70 Anno Domini, in Italy till 20 BC, in the Caucasus till the X century.
There are fossil records of them in Hungary dated about 3000 BC.
A continent away from Italy is 250 km from Sicily to Tunisia and the last wild lion there was shot in 1942. And I can assure you that medieval illuminated images of lions made in Italy are akin to the ones I linked.
|
|
From the knowledge check rules:
Try Again
No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something that you never learned in the first place.
So, if I make my knowledge check, I do indeed know the difference between a bear and a dire bear upon a swift glance.
Again, why do you feel the need to change the rules, do knowledge checks break your game?
If you make your knowledge check against both targets. Different DCs.
At that point you are making a single check or one for each different kind of creature?
You keep track of the checks you made,a s you can't retry them until your skill change?
RAW you should do both things.
WTF, those heraldic depictions are not creatures one would actually meet.
Those depictions are what you will find in most books in a medieval like fantasy world.
Those depictions are what you will find in books about fabled creatures from continents far away. How far is it from Northern Europe to the nearest wild Lion?
Books about likely threats in the local area will be more accurate. As you learn more and travel more and study more and rarer books and talk to travelers from distant lands or the locals in areas you visit - ie as your knowledge skill goes up, you'll be able to identify stranger creatures.
So you give a familiarity modifier? Or what?
Let's see: my magus has been born in Magnimar and traveled to Ustalav, where in a few weeks increased his level from 1 to 11.
I know decidedly well what he has seen and learned in those weeks, so the points he added in knowledge nature, arcana, planes and local are from a very limited set of personal experiences and a lot of book learning.
He hasn't increased his knowledge visiting distant lands or other planes, he has read about them from what is locally available.You suggest he got his informations talking "to travelers from distant lands or the locals in areas you visit". Fine, so a description done by word of mouth, maybe from someone that hasn't even seen the original creature but only heard tales from another person. You are so sure you will get good or clear informations?
- * -
"How far is it from Northern Europe to the nearest wild Lion?"
In what period? Historically there were lions in Greece till 70 Anno Domini, in Italy till 20 BC, in the Caucasus till the X century.
There are fossil records of them in Hungary dated about 3000 BC.A continent away from Italy is 250 km from Sicily to Tunisia and the last wild lion there was shot in 1942. And I can assure you that medieval illuminated images of lions made in Italy are akin to...
I'm willing to accept that people are extraordinary and run things RAW instead of simulationist if anyone I played with actually used knowledge skills.
DR give me an in game example of you running knowledge checks for multiple creatures.
....So, many of you guys are saying that you can "remember" 100 things or more at a time (thinking about those 100 things or more, that might not even be related lines of thought, and keeping those thoughts coherent while in the middle of combat fighting things that want to kill you...)within the 6 seconds that is a turn.... Am I really "slow" or are you guys super computers or something? I say a limit needs to be established per turn.
I know what I'm saying is a ridiculous scenario, but what most of you are saying is that if I was a player I could make a knowledge check about every single little thing I see within those 6 seconds(like what is that creature, what are its weaknesses, what type of tree is that, what type of rock is that, what is that other creature, is it going to rain today, etc.) and retain the conscious memory of everything while my character fights for his life.... If we worked like that we could mentally multitask anything, but we don't.
|
While time basically stops when knowledge checks are made (we're talking about how fast the brain thinks about "that's a dog, it can jump fetch run chew etc"), time keeps moving while communicating the information learned to the rest of the party.
Conversation as a free action during combat is decided by the GM.
If I was going to limit it, and that's a big if, I'd do it to "what's reasonable", with leniency for a full 6-second period and a bit of necessary-back-and-forth for clarity. That's usually enough to get out everything they need to know, but if I felt like I really needed to be picky about it, I'd have the player say what the character is saying, and cut it short when I think it's as much as they can get in.
I've limited other types of conversation between PCs during combat before, and I've never had any complaints using this method. The rule of thumb: keep it reasonable.
|
|
I know what I'm saying is a ridiculous scenario, but what most of you are saying is that if I was a player I could make a knowledge check about every single little thing I see within those 6 seconds(like what is that creature, what are its weaknesses, what type of tree is that, what type of rock is that, what is that other creature, is it going to rain today, etc.) and retain the conscious memory of everything while my character fights for his life.... If we worked like that we could mentally multitask anything, but we don't.
That is a ridiculous scenario and it never comes up in Pathfinder, so the point is moot (we're not talking about 100 different monsters ever).
Look around you right now and you'll be able to very quickly establish details about what you see. You could do it while doing other things as well, you wouldn't suddenly be all "oops, I forgot, this rock I'm trying to hit is hard! but I remembered the pillow is soft."
"oops, I forgot, this rock I'm trying to hit is hard! but I remembered the pillow is soft."
That last part was reflexive (unconscious) knowledge, basically something you don't need to think about. I'm talking conscious thought and making use of that information within six seconds. Though I do see where you are coming from.
What I'm talking about when I say "conscious" thought is how much your mind is able to remember, process, and use. This process isn't instantaneous, though its pretty fast and you can remember a certain amount of information. Think of "unconscious" memory like instinct, muscle memory, or intuition. Think of "conscious" memory something akin to a computers ram and think about your overall knowledge something akin to a computers hard-drive.
You "know" a certain amount of information in your lifetime (which could be vast) and a computer's hard-drive can have a certain amount of information on it. How this information is "remembered" and used on a computer is that the computer finds (remembers) the information, assigns it to ram (processes), and presents (application) the information for use. The key here is that the computer first has to find the information and put it into ram (which has a limited amount of space) before the information can be used. This takes time and takes more time the more information is accessed. I'm not saying the human mind is like a computer and we can process a lot more than one, but I am saying its not unreasonable to say that we indeed have limits when it comes to our conscious ability, whatever it might be. We can only hold and process so much in the forefront of our mind at a time.
Though I will say that the more we use information on a particular subject the faster we can access it and the more information we can remember at a time about that subject because we are more used to it.