Are there any limits to number of knowledge checks per round

[Diego Rossi]

@_Ozy_ I am arguing against some oversimplification that is made and against the idea that all knowledge a character get is from perfectly reliable fonts.
Even modern books aren't a perfectly reliable fonts.

And you are arguing for micromanagement with your position that we should follow RAW perfectly. It seem that that position about RAW for a lot of people is "we should follow RAW when it is convenient, discard it when it bother me".
At least I have recognized that from post 1 in this thread.

"Bronnwynn wrote:

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.

wraithstrike wrote:

DR give me an in game example of you running knowledge checks for multiple creatures.

Fine requests, we use Knowledge skills often in our games (and I suffer from bard envy too).

Thinking of recent incidents with me as a GM.
Enemy group composed of 2 Nuckelavee plus a large number of Red caps and a human (they have "some" evil fey problem"). They made the Knowledge cheek well before meeting them, from the descriptions made by the survivors in a city they attacked and from spying them with river sight. Time (in rounds) wasn't relevant, so they did all the checks without an actual sequence.

Before that:
ghost and advanced will-o'-wisp. They have a longstanding history with the "fear eaters" and know them on sight, they made a check to recognize those as different from the norm. The ghost appeared from the earth after several rounds of buffing. So again the checks were made singly.

Previous incidents fall in a similar pattern:
- they were meeting something that they know well
or
- they had the leisure to make the check without a time pressure
or
- they were meeting a group of related creatures, so a single kind of knowledge and a single check, method c) above.

Most of my argument was theory craft as encounters with wildly different creatures are rare unless some are summoned creatures. Against summoned creatures generally they get a check when they appear.

General management of an encounter:

First: if we run an encounter and we meet very common creatures (and the definition of what is common varies with our level) generally the GM in our group (me included) give the creature name. One is in the habit of showing us the images of the creatures we find.
Less common creatures we do a decent description, often with a "they resemble XX" if there is some common creature that is similar.

At that point the players generally ask to make a knowledge check about a specific kind of creature that seem particularly interesting or to get a specific information about the whole group, like "those are demons or devils?". In that instance a knowledge planes check can say demon, devil, daemon or efreeti, depending on the creature type, with further informations depending on the result of the check.

I don't recall any situation where a type c) check wasn't enough and there was the need to instantly recognize all types of several different enemies, so I should have put that as the first option. Generally an in deep examination of some of the enemies that the players realize are different from what they appeared to be at first glance is done after the first round of combat or a reflexively as soon as the enemies show to be different.

You should keep in mind that most of us have played for a lot of years, so very often we recognize a creature from its description, even when we don't know the correct Pathfinder stats.
We recognized the huecuva masquerading as clerics as soon as the illusion was pierced, even if we had no idea of what where their stats in Pathfinder. So sometime it is player knowledge against character knowledge.

[wraithstrike]

Arcanic Drake wrote:

Avatar-1 wrote:

"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.

Remembering something and relaying is not that difficult. Hey that is a 1957 ford mustang with a ___ HP engine with __ valves is simple if you know your cars. That is basically all that is going on. Asking me how to modify an engine block so that it uses a different type of fuel is a different matter, but that is not what knowledge checks are for when used for identification.

[Diego Rossi]

wraithstrike wrote:

Remembering something and relaying is not that difficult. Hey that is a 1957 ford mustang with a ___ HP engine with __ valves is simple if you know your cars. That is basically all that is going on. Asking me how to modify an engine block so that it uses a different type of fuel is a different matter, but that is not what knowledge checks are for when used for identification.

What I get: it is an American car. Oh, there was a mustang in that phrase. Maybe a sport car?

Knowledge (car) has 0 skills.

[wraithstrike]

Diego Rossi wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Remembering something and relaying is not that difficult. Hey that is a 1957 ford mustang with a ___ HP engine with __ valves is simple if you know your cars. That is basically all that is going on. Asking me how to modify an engine block so that it uses a different type of fuel is a different matter, but that is not what knowledge checks are for when used for identification.

What I get: it is an American car. Oh, there was a mustang in that phrase. Maybe a sport car?

Knowledge (car) has 0 skills.

I am not saying everyone knows cars that well. It is not even about the car.

[thorin001]

Why do people think is is so hard to recognize that the creature facing them is an Orc (local), wearing the insignia of the Empty Hand (nobility), and standing in a patch of poison ivy (nature) at a glance?

[DarkPhoenixx]

There is saying in my country - "Nothing is faster than a thought"

[Cuttler]

Diego Rossi wrote:

@Ozy_ I am arguing against some oversimplification that is made and against the idea that all knowledge a character get is from perfectly reliable fonts.

Even modern books aren't a perfectly reliable fonts.

Diego Rossi wrote:

First: if we run an encounter and we meet very common creatures (and the definition of what is common varies with our level) generally the GM in our group (me included) give the creature name.

Diego, you make interesting points, I,m just not sure exactly how you propose the skill should work...

the 2 quotes I noted let me believe that a modification to the knowledge skills should be applied, but not necessarely the number of skills check per round (or the associated time one might think it takes)

if checks is made against unreliable fonts, than DC might be higher. The same with the common creatures. For me, being common translate into low DC. Technically, when the DM says you meet common creature, it's effectively as if you have rolled a knowledge check with a low DC. It was so low, that you recognized it immediately (such as kobold or goblins)

So, would you limit the number of KC per round??

Personally, from what I gathered from this thread so far is that:

1) most people agress that by RAW , knowledge checks are not an action, so technically, not limited to specific numbers per round

2)having ranks in a skill effectively represent your skill/ability to recognize creatures and potentail attributes. If you succeeded at the skill, even though you didn'T see that creature before, you just recognized it based on your memory, research etc.

3) The key here is maybe not the knowledge skill as such, but the ability to communicate the info to others. So maybe the bard can quickly identify/recognize all creatures on the battlefield to his benefit., but can only transmit brief info about 1 or 2 creatures at best to others....(like maybe 3-4 info for 1 creature, or 1-2 info for 2 creatures, etc)....communicating is free action and thus is now in DM's fiat....

4)AS a side note/question, don't think there is any RAW about that, but does anybody uses failed rolls to give bad information??? For example, imagine someone seeing an aberration , and it is not obvious if it's a devil or abomination (did happeneded to me when I saw a picture the DM showed us, but i'm not an expert like my character is), has any of you gave false info on a failed roll???

[Chengar Qordath]

Jiggy wrote:

Lifat wrote:

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.

Yeah, as a GM the only time I would put down an absolute "You know nothing about this creature" ruling would be if it was something brand-new to the setting as a whole. As in, the party are the first people to ever encounter this entity.

[Anzyr]

DarkPhoenixx wrote:

There is saying in my country - "Nothing is faster than a thought"

Harry Dresden agrees!

[Driver_325yards]

By the sound of it, there are a bunch of PCs subjected to GMs that hate Knowledge Monster ID checks.

Worse case scenario, guy identifies every creature in the room and knows every creatures' strengths and weaknesses in less than a second.

SO THE #^%@& WHAT?

Going through an adventure with a GM that tries to complicate rules that have less than a mediocre effect on the adventure even when the PCs sap all the benefit they can from the rule is just #$^#*$^#&

I guess I failed my knowledge check to come up with a word that describes such a frustrating abomination of gamemastering.

Oh, I figured it out ..... Game-disastering.

[Diego Rossi]

wraithstrike wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Remembering something and relaying is not that difficult. Hey that is a 1957 ford mustang with a ___ HP engine with __ valves is simple if you know your cars. That is basically all that is going on. Asking me how to modify an engine block so that it uses a different type of fuel is a different matter, but that is not what knowledge checks are for when used for identification.

What I get: it is an American car. Oh, there was a mustang in that phrase. Maybe a sport car?

Knowledge (car) has 0 skills.

I am not saying everyone knows cars that well. It is not even about the car.

And what I am saying is that you transmit only so much if the other guy don't share your knowledge:

"She is a succubus!" 0 knowledge planes skill guy "...." (most males will "remember" that she suck your soul through your penis) ;-)
"She is a demon!" 0 knowledge planes skill guy "Ah, probably immune to fire. She come from Hell or some such." If they have some appropriate ability they now know that they will work.

That is what you can communicate with a quick phrase. You can add things like "cast magic circle against evil" or "don't grapple her." but you don't have space for much in a 6 second round.

[Diego Rossi]

One of the problems is that the amount of information you give to the player with the name of the creature often is well above what a successful skill check should give.

Let's take the succubus in the above post.
Plenty of tales about them as they are a great character in a opera, a tragedy or a comedy or in ribald tales, so we can consider her a typical monster even if she is an outsider.
DC to identify a typical succubus 17.
5th level wizard with 19 intelligence and maximize Knowledge Planes meet her and roll 10 on the knowledge check.
His result is 22.
From the rules: "A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information."

So. she is a succubus (free from beating the check DC).
First tidbit of information "she is a demon" (that already give an idea of her saving throws, that she is an outsider, that she is immune to fire and electricity, don't need to sleep)
Second tidbit for beating the DC by 5: she can drain levels with a kiss.

What most of us really get:
She can teleport at will, immune or resistant to most energy damages, DR something /good or cold iron, has several charm/dominate spell like abilities, not particularly strong but still enough to be a problem, has SR, can summon other demons, can fly, can change shape.

If we make that check against a Balor the DC would be 35. An appropriate level character would beat it handily, but he wouldn't get a lot of informations beside the basis. The player would get way more informations.

So maybe that is the reason why some GM has problem with totally free knowledge checks.

[thejeff]

Diego Rossi wrote:

One of the problems is that the amount of information you give to the player with the name of the creature often is well above what a successful skill check should give.

Let's take the succubus in the above post.
Plenty of tales about them as they are a great character in a opera, a tragedy or a comedy or in ribald tales, so we can consider her a typical monster even if she is an outsider.
DC to identify a typical succubus 17.
5th level wizard with 19 intelligence and maximize Knowledge Planes meet her and roll 10 on the knowledge check.
His result is 22.
From the rules: "A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information."

So. she is a succubus (free from beating the check DC).
First tidbit of information "she is a demon" (that already give an idea of her saving throws, that she is an outsider, that she is immune to fire and electricity, don't need to sleep)
Second tidbit for beating the DC by 5: she can drain levels with a kiss.

What most of us really get:
She can teleport at will, immune or resistant to most energy damages, DR something /good or cold iron, has several charm/dominate spell like abilities, not particularly strong but still enough to be a problem, has SR, can summon other demons, can fly, can change shape.

If we make that check against a Balor the DC would be 35. An appropriate level character would beat it handily, but he wouldn't get a lot of informations beside the basis. The player would get way more informations.

So maybe that is the reason why some GM has problem with totally free knowledge checks.

That's why players should avoid metagaming. Of course, if they are metagaming, they'll often recognize it just from the description and the knowledge checks won't matter. If they aren't then you're handicapping them even more by punishing them for not doing what they're not doing.

[Diego Rossi]

You really can act as if you hadn't that knowledge?
We can avoid acting on some of the more specific knowledge, but you really think that the player of the character with 0 skill in the appropriate knowledge will act in the same way when he hear ogre, troll and frost giant?

[thejeff]

Diego Rossi wrote:

You really can act as if you hadn't that knowledge?

We can avoid acting on some of the more specific knowledge, but you really think that the player of the character with 0 skill in the appropriate knowledge will act in the same way when he hear ogre, troll and frost giant?

Can we avoid doing so when we get the description, even if no one rolls knowledge?

And yes, I can, well enough to avoid giving myself an advantage. Not 100% guaranteed the same, but close enough. Some even overcompensate. I've seen plenty of reports of players fighting skeletons without making the knowledge check and deliberating not using their normal blunt weapons, but changing to backup piercing ones just to avoid taking advantage of metagaming. I wouldn't go that far.

But your "only 1 free knowledge check" doesn't really address that problem anyway. If you really want to address that problem, hand out just the appropriate information without the name. The name won't affect how the characters react and the players will be less likely to be able metagame based on it.

[Cuttler]

Diego Rossi wrote:

That is what you can communicate with a quick phrase. You can add things like "cast magic circle against evil" or "don't grapple her." but you don't have space for much in a 6 second round.

That is part of the issue between my Dm and I and this is where I make the distinction. MAking the KC is one thing, communicating it to others is another.

And after we both reviewed the post and comments in this thread, the difference in perspective that lead to the original posting is as follow:

DM's perspective: he just can't imagine how somebody can remember within 6 seconds the information you get if you make knowledge checks on many creatures. His example to support his point of view is: imagine you see 10 countries' flags. Can you rememeber within 6 seconds the name of the country associated to each flags, name of his leader, PNB, number of habitants, etc.

My perspective: when you see a creature, if you succeed your KC, i think that you immediately know/rememeber the key elements associated with those creatures, but you would be limited in the number of those things you can communicate:

For example: let's imagine you enter a room and see a troll, a red dragon, and a demon (no specifics for now). I purposely choose those creatures because they are common enough to illustrate the point. For any of us who have been playing for many years (translate that into we have a few ranks in knowledge RPG monster), do you need 6 seconds to know the following:

troll: many attacks (bite/claw), can regerate, use fire or acid to kill if possible.
RED dradgon: many attacks (claw, bite, wing, tail), SR, can cast spells, immune to fire
Demon: immune to electricity and poison, resist cold, resist fire, resist acid, many have DR: cold iron, can summon other demons

I believe that most of us when we see these mosnters, we know all the following (related to the recent discussion about player knowledge vs PC knowledge)because our personal KC is high enough to know this right away upon recognizing these mosnters. But I think we would be hard pressed to communicate all that to a new player within 6 seconds....

Question:
So I'd like to know, do you guys believe that it takes only a few seconds to know these things and it's communicating to others that is the limit, or you think that it actually talkes at least 6 seconds to remmeber all those info (I'm talking about actively thinking and trying to remeber those things)?

[graystone]

Cuttler wrote:

Question:

So I'd like to know, do you guys believe that it takes only a few seconds to know these things and it's communicating to others that is the limit, or you think that it actually talkes at least 6 seconds to remmeber all those info (I'm talking about actively thinking and trying to remeber those things)?

By the rules, it literally takes no time for all your checks (they aren't actions). Speaking a few sentences is a free action. More than that starts eating into your actual actions.

[_Ozy_]

The rules specifically support your interpretation. A high knowledge check represents that you know the topic so well that you do indeed 'instantly' know important details regarding the creature you see.

Just like we don't micromanage the details about how a 1st level character rolling a 20 manages to hit a 10th level fighter in full plate, there's no need to try and explain how it is someone quickly remembers the details about monsters he sees in combat.

Someone with 10 ranks in Knowledge (countries) could very well instantly identify flags as well as 1 or two important details regarding the country, such as its political system, economic system, and major export.

Someone with 10 ranks in Knowledge (cars) could very well instantly recognize many cars as well as whether they are a V6 or V8, and year of production.

Maybe your DM just doesn't understand what 10 ranks in a skill actually means.

[DeathMvp]

For my game I auto assume that everyone get a free cheak on each thing as if you rolled a 0 just looking at things and use this to help discribe what you see. You then can make 1 free cheak on your turn and then each one after that will use up a action of your choice, swift, move or standered. One thing that helps make this work for my group also though is that the DC to find out thier name with no other infor on them is only a DC of the CR on that first cheak.

Yes this does mean that the Wiz know the name of almost anything they are fighting at low level and even a good chance as they level with out knowing anything else about them unless the rack thier brains tring to rember them. Then again I come from a famliy that will rack thier brains goging throw name of famliy member offen.

I did this to help my players get metal images of them before I started using Roll20 and make it easyer for me to state what the baddie is doing. The players have not mined this as they get a free cheak and they most can use the swift for almost free (magues uses swift alot I found) all before it realy affect thier actions in a round.

[Ughbash]

Multiple knowledge checks is fine in a round.

With that said you were verbally giving the infomration to other party members. While it is a free action to speak, it is well within the GM's rights to limit how much you can say in a round.

Even if you have War and Peace memorized... I am not letting you quote it all in one round.

In your case you said he gave you detailed infomration about the elementals, which you passed on to the rest of the party. There is only so much you can pass on verbally in one round.

[Cuttler]

Good point Ughbash and i'm totally fine with that...that is what I explained to my DM. Limiting amount of info to others makes sense within 6 seconds. However, being able to do all checks is different and could have an impact.

For example, having identified the Troll, the dragon and the demon, I could verbally tell the info about the demon to others while I started preparing/casting my fire spell to blast the trolll since I know that it will prevent him from regenerating that damage.

[DeathMvp]

Rember Cuttler he can even limit you more if he likes saying you can not verbally tell them while casting you spell since the spell has a verbal part to it and is taking part or all of the round to say the magic words.

[TGMaxMaxer]

To avoid Metagaming, I usually limit myself to a set list of questions based on my check.

Having a decent memory and having played incarnations of the game for years, the name alone does exactly what was described above.

So, I always ask in order:
1. What do I do to hurt it? i.e. Special Defenses (DR, elemental Resists, outright immunities based on creature type)
2. What is it going to do to hurt us? i.e. Special attacks (poison, rend, engulf, ability damage/drain, etc)
3. Does it have any magical powers? Spell like abilities or known for caster class (each category of SLA: at will, 3/day, 1/day, are extra questions, typical caster level is also a single question for class levels)
4. Typical saves (which are weak/strong)
From there, if I actually get higher than 4 questions I let other people ask stuff.

But by the same token, in a round when facing a troll and a demon(with DR) I would just be allowed to pass on "Use fire or acid on the troll, he'll heal anything else, and hit the demon with cold Iron or blessed weapons, it's resistant to most magic/energy".

[DeathMvp]

I am honest I alowe some metagaming in as just in real life we know some things just becouse we live them with out training I have laways felt that pc in the world would also. It is also funny as hell when they are tring to rember something and get it all wrong. In fact I have even sliped notes to people telling them they will get xp bounes with if they uses the false info like it is real. The funnest is when a group when up agenst a baslick and they started saying to keep you eyes close or it will turn them to stone and they ware wandering around blind for no reason.

[Orfamay Quest]

DeathMvp wrote:

I am honest I alowe some metagaming in as just in real life we know some things just becouse we live them with out training I have laways felt that pc in the world would also.

Well, that's officially part of the Knowledge rules; it's only a trained-only skill if you are dealing with something that is not part of what you live with on a daily basis.

[wraithstrike]

Diego Rossi wrote:

You really can act as if you hadn't that knowledge?

We can avoid acting on some of the more specific knowledge, but you really think that the player of the character with 0 skill in the appropriate knowledge will act in the same way when he hear ogre, troll and frost giant?

You can avoid using the knowledge which is really what matters. I have played through Shackled City's first chapter 3 times. There is a particular incident that I won't chime in on until a certain amount of time has passed. I set off a certain trap also even though I knew it was there because my character failed a perception check. Most gamers I have played are good about this. Yes, I realize everyone won't do it, I will just tell a player up front if they it becomes a problem that I will just swap features out.