How to say no on a very high knowledge roll.


Advice

51 to 88 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

leo1925 wrote:
Ehm... The player rolled more than the 20 you mention, he rolled a 32.

My group uses critical hits on skill checks. So I was referring to a nat 20. Since I don't play PFS and I've never met a group who didn't use crits I did not think to specify crits. Not sure if PFS uses that or not but judging by your response I assume no.

Because it is such a complete logic leap in the context of this conversation. So it requires A) More information (gained through the course of the plot as they have gotten already (which wasn't enough for general knowledge)) or B) A massive leap in logic, a sherlock epiphany to connect things that no one else would ever connect.

Option A is how they normally would do it, which would allow knowledge to be gained over time and lower the DC to something obtainable.

Option B requires the natural critical effect for me. In video game terms, it is bypassing part of the story.

To use Fallout 3. Option A is following the quest markers. Option B is realizing where your father is. (This can in fact be done through throw away conversations in the vault and the first town and you can actually piece it together and realize it if you pay attention and logic leap). Doing so bypasses a large chunk of the story compared to piecing information together.

Simply put they didn't realize those small details so they have to take the long way around.


OK now I understand, and no PFS doesn't have a critical hit house rule for skills (nor any kind of critical fumble house rule either), keep in mind that such rules were never part of the core rules for PF nor 3.5 neither 3.0 (iirc), if my memory serves me well those kind of rules were always house rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since this artifact is THE key piece of the campaign, did you ever think of putting a knowledge chart together for it before the campaign started?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is an analogy.

A scientist back in the 1930s could have rolled 32 on his or her knowledge check, and known just how much that dinosaur dragged their tail, and talk about theoretical climates they could survive in, because they were cold-blooded.

Because that was what was known and published, and therefore available to that scientist's knowledge check.

That same scientist today could come to a different conclusion with that 32, because different things are known today.

Knowledge checks don't uncover 'the absolute truth', they uncover 'possible facts known, based on what is generally rumored and your background' and so on.

For this reason, academia remains in pursuit of the works of old authors, and the acquisition/discovery of new, primary sources is a cause for professional backstabbery. Although it's possible to score a 32 on what's known NOW, there's always that much more to uncover and find...the acquisition of which can rocket you to academic stardom.

An academic character may understand that--that the more you know, the more there is out there TO know. That is, a knowledgeable character should realize just how vast the world is.

They may also put two and two together and realize that if, with all their learning, all they're able to come up with is some rumors and conflicting stories, then that makes whatever they're trying to solve more intriguing. More...let's say, worthy of tenure. That professorship.

There is fame in uncovering, discovering the unknown.

It may also point out to them that there may be reasons it hasn't been studied, and they may wonder why that IS. Perhaps they heard of expeditions that died trying to find the truth. Perhaps they heard of an old rival of their teacher's who died after uncovering just what little IS known.

You can do this.


Here's what I would have said...

"You don't know anything along those lines, but you remember an artifact like that being mentioned by a guy last week. But, strangely, you don't remember anything about him, and until this moment didn't even remember that you had talked to him."

That drops the hint that there is very powerful magic involved and that they're not going to find out info about it through just making skill checks.


A different model could also be applied to the game mechanics, similar to the old idea of "breaking up traps, so that traps aren't boom-you're-done." In this mode, the Quest for Knowledge becomes a series of puzzles and parts of the story, instead of one roll.

This is closer to actual research and knowledge quests, and may let you do story reveals, and plot twists based on what they uncover.

Think of it as the difference between gorging yourself on a cookie very quickly, versus enjoying a series of local foods as you embark upon a historical tour of Rome, led personally by Patrick Stuart, as he reveals the turns and twists of the Roman Empire.


CaptainGemini wrote:

Here's what I would have said...

"You don't know anything along those lines, but you remember an artifact like that being mentioned by a guy last week. But, strangely, you don't remember anything about him, and until this moment didn't even remember that you had talked to him."

That drops the hint that there is very powerful magic involved and that they're not going to find out info about it through just making skill checks.

That sounds like the set up for the story of some eldritch horror. It sounds like the entire areas is being manipulated by some shadowy stuff.

Why is my weapon draw? Wait, I am half way through the duration of a buff? when did that get put up? Did I write a note about some tall grey beings in suits behind me...OH GAWD!


lemeres wrote:
CaptainGemini wrote:

Here's what I would have said...

"You don't know anything along those lines, but you remember an artifact like that being mentioned by a guy last week. But, strangely, you don't remember anything about him, and until this moment didn't even remember that you had talked to him."

That drops the hint that there is very powerful magic involved and that they're not going to find out info about it through just making skill checks.

That sounds like the set up for the story of some eldritch horror. It sounds like the entire areas is being manipulated by some shadowy stuff.

Why is my weapon draw? Wait, I am half way through the duration of a buff? when did that get put up? Did I write a note about some tall grey beings in suits behind me...OH GAWD!

If you want to make an omelet, you've gotta break a few eggs.

If you want to keep an artifact that grants wishes secret, you've gotta break a few minds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had this very issue with Rise of the Runelords, and two PCs who had very, very high knowledge roll potential.

However, there is some stuff in that adventure that simply no one alive knows about. It was secret 10,000 years ago, and very few people knew that secret then, and then 10,000 years passed.

I had people constantly trying knowledge rolls on stuff, hoping for a good roll. If it was POSSIBLE that they might have heard something, I would tell them something. If it was just really inconceivable that they would know about something, I would fill in the gaps around it.

Sometimes, telling people 'what it isn't', 'what it can't be', and 'who might have information about it', or 'why you might not have heard of it', is pretty useful.

I mean, I don't care what you rolled on your Acrobatics check. You aren't juggling 400 glass beads while balanced on a thin wire in a hurricane. Your good knowledge check also isn't going to suddenly tell you detailed information about a entire city that's been little more than commonly accepted fairy tales for thousands of years.


Butch A. wrote:

I had this very issue with Rise of the Runelords, and two PCs who had very, very high knowledge roll potential.

However, there is some stuff in that adventure that simply no one alive knows about. It was secret 10,000 years ago, and very few people knew that secret then, and then 10,000 years passed.

But what if the character in question did?

Part of what Knowledge Checks represent is the character's own research and investigations and logical processes.

Quote:
I mean, I don't care what you rolled on your Acrobatics check. You aren't juggling 400 glass beads while balanced on a thin wire in a hurricane.

Assuming that the character and their worn gear [lead-lined training clothing perhaps?] had sufficient weight the hurricane couldn't just lift them off the wire... why the hell not?

Quote:
Your good knowledge check also isn't going to suddenly tell you detailed information about a entire city that's been little more than commonly accepted fairy tales for thousands of years.

Of course not, that's silly. The check doesn't tell them that, their own personal research and deductions sort whatever quantity of reality from legend that the check result represents.

EDIT: on the juggling glass beads in a hurricane of course I'm assuming solid glass beads not hollow ones. Obviously hollow ones would just blow away in the wind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are you familiar with the term "mnemonic hazard"

It is a kind of odd idea revolving around how the recognition that there is a problem is actually the cause of the problem.

Imagine a curse that spreads and gets stronger the more people that know about it.

Pretty neat concept, especially when applied to ancient artifacts.

It could be that a 32 knowledge check uncovers something that the character figures out from scraps of information, and in doing so sets of some kind of Contingency that alerts an ancient sect of sages who's job is to prevent the spread of the knowledge of this thing.

Now you have an antagonist for your game. Secretive. Ancient. Powerful.

And best of all not evil.

All of a sudden things get a lot more complicated for your PCs as they struggle to figure out why they are being treated as the villains in someone else's story.

And the more they learn and the more they spread the knowledge of the thing, the worse it all gets for them, and for the world at large. Eventually they'll figure out that all the horrible things that have been happening are all their fault, just because they have been learning and talking about this thing.

Then, they have the task of cleaning up the mess and trying to make nice with the sage group that has been their enemy up to this point.

Food for thought. ;)


Wow!!! This community is awesome! Thanks for the great ideas. I read everyone's response and I will be taking a lot these suggestions in. thanks for the great tips! Id go into deal about it but im on my phonw and its 3am. thanks again!


Butch A. wrote:

I had this very issue with Rise of the Runelords, and two PCs who had very, very high knowledge roll potential.

However, there is some stuff in that adventure that simply no one alive knows about. It was secret 10,000 years ago, and very few people knew that secret then, and then 10,000 years passed.

I had people constantly trying knowledge rolls on stuff, hoping for a good roll. If it was POSSIBLE that they might have heard something, I would tell them something. If it was just really inconceivable that they would know about something, I would fill in the gaps around it.

Sometimes, telling people 'what it isn't', 'what it can't be', and 'who might have information about it', or 'why you might not have heard of it', is pretty useful.

I mean, I don't care what you rolled on your Acrobatics check. You aren't juggling 400 glass beads while balanced on a thin wire in a hurricane. Your good knowledge check also isn't going to suddenly tell you detailed information about a entire city that's been little more than commonly accepted fairy tales for thousands of years.

I DMed the entire RotRL (i even used it as an example in this thread), can you give an example of things you didn't allow the players to roll knowledge for? (in spoilers tag)

Sovereign Court

leo1925 wrote:


I DMed the entire RotRL (i even used it as an example in this thread), can you give an example of things you didn't allow the players to roll knowledge for? (in spoilers tag)

I had a very similar approach.

I had to tell players : "NO, your character cannot start with knowledge of Thassilonian", and no, no one can teach it to you, as no one speaks it.

SPOILER :

Spoiler:
That was in hope of getting them motivated to talk to Brother Quink, or whatever his name. it did not work though, they kept ignoring him for the whole campaign.

I also applied huge limitations on rolls pertaining to ancient history, and geography of the old kingdoms, until they found the library. then I lifted it all.

Actually, that did not change much, but I felt it was better.


You can say no but maybe the 32 gives him a lead on where he can go to get more information. The start of a trail of breadcrumbs so to speak.

Adventure hook time!


Stereofm wrote:
leo1925 wrote:


I DMed the entire RotRL (i even used it as an example in this thread), can you give an example of things you didn't allow the players to roll knowledge for? (in spoilers tag)

I had a very similar approach.

I had to tell players : "NO, your character cannot start with knowledge of Thassilonian", and no, no one can teach it to you, as no one speaks it.

SPOILER : ** spoiler omitted **

Actually, that did not change much, but I felt it was better.

RotRL spoiler:

Ok i had the same issue with the language Thassilonian, yes i also didn't allow them to start with Thassilonian in order to steer them to Quink but my players ignored him, they were using scrolls of Comprehend Languages in the start until i caved and allowed them to take Thassilonian as a language.

Why give them penalties in knowledge skills for Thassilonian things? The DCs for all things Thassilonian are already too high; for example in book 1 the DC for identifying the Alaznist in her statue (a perfectly preserved, classic statue of Alaznist i might add) is 25, and things go upward from there, and the +20 that the Therassic Library gives is used to offset those really high DCs.


Stereofm wrote:
I had to tell players : "NO, your character cannot start with knowledge of Thassilonian", and no, no one can teach it to you, as no one speaks it.

Page 251 of the Inner Sea World Guide semi-contradicts this.

In particular, anyone who speaks Shoanti should at least be able to speak some Thassilonian, since Shoanti incorporates Thassilonian into it.


Denying details of a unique object based on a DC 32 Knowledge (History) check doesn't seem unreasonable, especially if the object didn't play a major role in history. It might be nice to allow the PC to learn something useful with that skill though. Maybe if the party uses Legend Lore on the item they could learn the names of some of the important NPCs related to it or the war it was made during and a Knowledge (History) check could produce some information about those things.

I also like to caution people on making Knowledge checks to identify monsters useless or the DCs for them arbitrarily difficult. Just because there's a rule somewhere saying that "particularly rare" monsters "such as the Tarrasque" have a DC of 15+CR to identify doesn't mean that most monsters in the Bestiaries are "particularly rare". I wish they'd bring back rarity as part of monster stats.


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
CaptainGemini wrote:
In particular, anyone who speaks Shoanti should at least be able to speak some Thassilonian, since Shoanti incorporates Thassilonian into it.

English incorporates a great deal of Latin (not enough for it to be a "Romance" language, but still a great bit), but that doesn't mean Farmer Bob—or even a high school English teacher—would be able to pick much out of a Latin text. (English is typically classified as a Germanic language, but it doesn't help me speak German better either.)

I'd suggest the description is flavor, not crunch.

Shadow Lodge

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Butch A. wrote:

I had this very issue with Rise of the Runelords, and two PCs who had very, very high knowledge roll potential.

However, there is some stuff in that adventure that simply no one alive knows about. It was secret 10,000 years ago, and very few people knew that secret then, and then 10,000 years passed.

But what if the character in question did?

Part of what Knowledge Checks represent is the character's own research and investigations and logical processes.

Quote:
I mean, I don't care what you rolled on your Acrobatics check. You aren't juggling 400 glass beads while balanced on a thin wire in a hurricane.
Assuming that the character and their worn gear [lead-lined training clothing perhaps?] had sufficient weight the hurricane couldn't just lift them off the wire... why the hell not?

Both those tasks would have a DC higher than 32, though.

5th level is the benchmark for the top of real-world ability.

A 5th level character can without much difficulty have a knowledge bonus of +18 (5 ranks, 3 trained, 3 skill focus, 5 Int, 2 bardic knowledge or similar). That means they can make DC 28 without effort, 33 on a good day (25% of the time), and 38 occasionally.

I would not expect even the smartest real-world historians to have a 1 in 4 chance to figure out something that was secret 10,000 years ago. To illustrate: we're still not sure what the pyramids are for, and lots of people have been working on it, they weren't a secret at the time, and they're less than half the age of Thassilon.

In this situation it would be appropriate for the character to recall rumours or suspicious gaps in the historic record but they shouldn't expect solid facts.

Since you mention that the player knows a bit about the artifact OOC, I'm wondering what their metagame expectations are. Is there a specific thing they're hoping to get IC? Have they been struggling to separate player knowledge? I can see it being frustrating trying to sit on knowledge of a major plot point, especially if they invested in knowledge history specifically to allow them to have a better understanding of that stuff IC.


TomG wrote:
CaptainGemini wrote:
In particular, anyone who speaks Shoanti should at least be able to speak some Thassilonian, since Shoanti incorporates Thassilonian into it.

English incorporates a great deal of Latin (not enough for it to be a "Romance" language, but still a great bit), but that doesn't mean Farmer Bob—or even a high school English teacher—would be able to pick much out of a Latin text. (English is typically classified as a Germanic language, but it doesn't help me speak German better either.)

I'd suggest the description is flavor, not crunch.

Shoanti is a descendant language of Thassilonian, while English a descendant language of German. Your analogy fails.

And languages are always flavor. Common sense needs apply.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robb Smith wrote:

Here's my opinion.

DC 32 is a considered a pretty absurd knowledge check.

The PC should have known "something" about it. Maybe an esoteric legend. Maybe the information isn't even absolutely correct. But... SOMETHING.

When you tell a PC they know "nothing about it", you make them feel like the investment they have made into their character is pointless. This, to me, feels like a squandered opportunity for a plot hook and a devaluing of where a character has chosen to focus (or maybe even just had a bit of luck)

Allow me to illustrate the point, using your own words.

DC30: "You once heard a story about a gifted Elven cleric who once, having provided someone with materials and tons of supplies to craft a magical creation when requested, encountered an object that teleported away from him."

DC35: "He has been seeking that object ever since, and no one left alive truly knows its properties. This object seems to match the Cleric's description of that very object."

DC40: "The object sounds like it was designed to fulfill the bearer's wishes, without restriction or limitation."

DC45: "You know that such magic is rarely fulfilled as desired, and most likely would come with an unexpected or terrible cost."

here's the cookies and cream of it.

Why did the PC MAKE a knowledge check?

the PC is not the actor, they are they REactor.

The PC can do as they please until the DM puts an obstacle infront of them.

"I go to the bathroom" is not met with a "Make a reflex save to make sure you dont shat yourself"
They just simply do that.... if the DM wants to have a barfight break out while the Pc is in the outhouse, great, the DM knows the location of the PC at that point in time.

If the PC says "I never EVER go to the bathroom" The DM might require the PC to make regular fortitude saves to see when he finally loses control and craps his pants.....

BUT PCs dont go around just making rolls when there ARE no hurtles, JUST like Paladins dont go around detecting evil at every vase and stool.... there needs to be a reason.

So if the PC doesnt know the item exists, WHY where they making the roll about it in the first Place?
You cant overcome a nonexisting obstacle.

Was the PC trying to make an arbitrary knowledge roll to bring out of game knowledge in game? If so that's meta gaming and an automatic fail no matter what dice result they get.

the DM has to ASK the Pc FOR a result.
"Give me a knowledge check" would be the answer to the PCs question
"what do I know about this artifact"
But if the DM and non of the NPCs have let the PCs know there IS an artifact....how can the player ask the question?

do fighters walk around town taking random swings at nonexiting foes, and if they beat a really good armor class you give them something because of an arbitrarily high roll?

"horvath the mighty" got to 10th level by shadow boxing behind the inn, defeating dragons in his mind?

so...the question begs the answer, what prompted the PC to roll the dice in the first place?
What question was he trying to get answered that required a roll in the first place?
because that's how it works.

Not "I think really hard" tell me everything I know.

If he asked the right question, because something came up in game that was a clue to the character...then a 32 result should have netted some kind of knowledge about the subject in question.

But you dont ask "what is the soup of the day" and roll a 32 and get "the artifact is located in the 3rd level of the dungeon underneath the golden keep."

MAN thats some good soup!


While 32 may seem like a high roll keep in mind it can easily be duplicated. A 5th level bard who maxes out the knowledge skill can automatically do this as long as he has either the feat scholar, or the spell heroism. A bard with a 14 INT can do the same thing without either the feat or the spell. This is also without using skill focus which would make it even easier to make the roll. By around 8th level most bards will be able to automatically get a 30 on a knowledge skill without too much trouble.

If the 32 roll is good enough to get him information on the artifact hundreds of people are also aware of it.


How are we defining 'information' M.S.? All I've ever been pushing for in this thread are a few breadcrumbs [leading to dangerous exploration to seek out the details.]


For those of you asking about why the player made the knowledge role, here is the reason:

The players were hunting for an old magical artifact that had a soul stone. The players bumped into the main antagonist and it managed to get the artifact before them. Teleporting away, they found one of the most powerful wizards in the land who was searching for the PCs. They don't like this particular wizard as he was a jerk to them in the past, but he wanted to make amends because the main villain was causing a lot of trouble in the world.

Anywho, the PC who rolled the knowledge roll, Abby, rolled a bluff check to see see if the wizard was lying to the party, she succeeded. She then rolled a knowledge roll to see if based on the information they knew, if it was about wishing artifact. So essentially, based on what they already knew (which was very little as is), she was trying to essentially see if he was hunting for an artifact that the party themselves knew very little about.


Yeah, no way in hell would I have denied her that check.

I might have limited the amount of info received, but she deserved something.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
How are we defining 'information' M.S.? All I've ever been pushing for in this thread are a few breadcrumbs [leading to dangerous exploration to seek out the details.]

Good point. The people I play with are very experienced players so their characters are pretty darn goo.


This is what I'd like to ask..

The wizard that made the artifact, How high was his knowledge check to figure out how to make the item?


Darche Schneider wrote:

This is what I'd like to ask..

The wizard that made the artifact, How high was his knowledge check to figure out how to make the item?

Good question. I'd reply this with: insanely high. I whipped up a quick level 20 wizard in Hero Lab and, without feats or any other enhancements, 30 total. So on a crit a total of 50. Note, I've never built a wizard, so it wouldn't shock me if there are things the wizard can pick up to make that 30 go to a 50. And, this artifact took years to make, decades.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Right, the point would be that unless the wizard created something that was completely and utterly new, the knowledge that he had to acquire to make it would still be out there. The final pieces of the puzzle wouldn't be of course, but the primary stuff that led him to start making it.

And by completely and utterly new, I'm not talking like the combustion engine being made by whoever invented it. Oil, fire, explosions, kinetic energy and motion, mechanics and the like are all bits and pieces of knowledge that is there.

I'd actually be referring more to an engine that doesn't use any of that. Is somehow powered by a material called unobtanionium, a material that disobeys every single law of nature known to man. It can create energy or even destroy it. That it causes time and space to somehow become manipulated to take you where your were going to, before you even began to go there. Stuff on the level of trying to understand elder gods.

Or perhaps rather making that same combustion engine, during the stone age, back when they were just learning of fire.


Ghray wrote:


Good question. I'd reply this with: insanely high. I whipped up a quick level 20 wizard in Hero Lab and, without feats or any other enhancements, 30 total. So on a crit a total of 50. Note, I've never built a wizard, so it wouldn't shock me if there are things the wizard can pick up to make that 30 go to a 50. And, this artifact took years to make, decades.

This is really not indicative of what a wizard can get. You should probably be closer to 70+ average with a level 20 wizard


My general rule of thumb when it comes to very high knowledge rolls about information I don't want to reveal to the party yet is to rather then say "You don't know anything about xxx", I would word it along the lines of "In your extensive research you have never come across anything which matches the description of xxx".

Not a huge difference but in terms of what the PC's learn, but it rewards a good roll and potentially adds some intrigue.

Shadow Lodge

Ghray wrote:

For those of you asking about why the player made the knowledge role, here is the reason:

The players were hunting for an old magical artifact that had a soul stone. The players bumped into the main antagonist and it managed to get the artifact before them. Teleporting away, they found one of the most powerful wizards in the land who was searching for the PCs. They don't like this particular wizard as he was a jerk to them in the past, but he wanted to make amends because the main villain was causing a lot of trouble in the world.

Anywho, the PC who rolled the knowledge roll, Abby, rolled a bluff check to see see if the wizard was lying to the party, she succeeded. She then rolled a knowledge roll to see if based on the information they knew, if it was about wishing artifact. So essentially, based on what they already knew (which was very little as is), she was trying to essentially see if he was hunting for an artifact that the party themselves knew very little about.

I am confused.

Are there two artifacts here - the one with the soul stone and the wishing artifact - or only one?

Was the artifact that the main antagonist recovered the wishing artifact, and did they see him recover it or merely note that it was gone?

And did the player simply want to know "yes, the wizard was lying about the artifact the existence of which you are vaguely aware of" or were they looking to know exactly what the lie was? I would definitely give them the former, and maybe depending on the other two questions give them a hint as to how they might probe the wizard for more details (using social skills to get him to reveal a little more info).


Tell him a week later or so in game that his character wakes up after having had a dream and he suddenly recalls something. At some in a couple of years ago a bard/entertainer was singing about a tragic love story in the background and in the dream he recalls a few words here and there that seem to connect the dots a bit.

Now he needs to choose:
1. Spend time figuring out which inn it was (he vaguely recalls the size and shape of it, but not which town). Then he needs to track down the bard to hear the full song.
2. Ignore it for now.
3. Utilize magical means to better recall the song (which may recall a hint such as a named mountain the couple lived near or similar).

Play it right and this could become an epic campaign adventure. :)


Covered by other posters but I'll pile on:

Reward good dice. Give hints or point to who or what might tell them more.

A "Yes" leads to more interesting story ideas than a 'no' does.

You don't have to tell all with a 32 but you should have said something.


DM_Blake wrote:
I would say something like "Wow, you certainly are well-read on this subject, and with nearly perfect recall you arrive at only one certain conclusion: nobody has ever written anything about this item. And anything with such a strong aura should be written about, for sure, but apparently nobody has; you're quite sure of that. That can only mean one thing: this is a unique and wonderful item that has been kept as a closely guarded secret by anyone who knew of it. And believe me, nobody tries that hard to keep a secret this big unless it's a special item indeed. Unfortunately, since nobody knows what it is, you'll have to find a different way to discern this item's true nature; knowledge is simply not going to suffice."

Brilliant. Unless the item is cursed. Is it?


DM_Blake wrote:
I would say something like "Wow, you certainly are well-read on this subject, and with nearly perfect recall you arrive at only one certain conclusion: nobody has ever written anything about this item. And anything with such a strong aura should be written about, for sure, but apparently nobody has; you're quite sure of that. That can only mean one thing: this is a unique and wonderful item that has been kept as a closely guarded secret by anyone who knew of it. And believe me, nobody tries that hard to keep a secret this big unless it's a special item indeed. Unfortunately, since nobody knows what it is, you'll have to find a different way to discern this item's true nature; knowledge is simply not going to suffice."

You know, the more of your posts I read, Blake, the more I wanna play in your group.

Liberty's Edge

Stereofm wrote:
leo1925 wrote:


I DMed the entire RotRL (i even used it as an example in this thread), can you give an example of things you didn't allow the players to roll knowledge for? (in spoilers tag)

I had a very similar approach.

I had to tell players : "NO, your character cannot start with knowledge of Thassilonian", and no, no one can teach it to you, as no one speaks it.

SPOILER : ** spoiler omitted **

Actually, that did not change much, but I felt it was better.

IIRC, we deduced that since no one could teach us, then it meant that no one we knew could know about it. Else they could have taught us :-/

That is of course for those of us who could actually read ;-P

51 to 88 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / How to say no on a very high knowledge roll. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice