Roll for knowledge...but i already faced this thing once.

[Terminalmancer]

I wouldn't mind a "light touch" approach similar to things they've done before.

"Yes, characters can remember things across scenarios. Yes, they can remember certain things about the places they've been, people they've encountered, monsters they've fought, and anything else they might want to remember, including details learned from knowledge checks and details learned from experience. No, remembering a few details is not the same as a high Knowledge result. In any given game, is up to the GM and the players to determine what is reasonable to remember and to roleplay appropriately. If this gets stupid we might take another look at it."

A list, somewhere, of which monsters are considered common, uncommon, and rare would help clarify what the "Just take 10!" argument works with. Maybe they can write a "Sages of the Inner Sea" companion sometime that would have this and other things in it.

[Liz Courts]

Removed some posts and responses. Dial back the hostility, folks, FAQ it, flag it, and move on.

[nosig]

Terminalmancer wrote:

I wouldn't mind a "light touch" approach similar to things they've done before.

"Yes, characters can remember things across scenarios. Yes, they can remember certain things about the places they've been, people they've encountered, monsters they've fought, and anything else they might want to remember, including details learned from knowledge checks and details learned from experience. No, remembering a few details is not the same as a high Knowledge result. In any given game, is up to the GM and the players to determine what is reasonable to remember and to roleplay appropriately. If this gets stupid we might take another look at it."

A list, somewhere, of which monsters are considered common, uncommon, and rare would help clarify what the "Just take 10!" argument works with. Maybe they can write a "Sages of the Inner Sea" companion sometime that would have this and other things in it.

Bolding mine....

What's the "just take 10!" argument? Did I miss something? (I mean, other than the fact that a percentage of judges rule that you can't ever "take 10" on knowledge rolls.)

[Mike Lindner]

nosig wrote:

Terminalmancer wrote:

I wouldn't mind a "light touch" approach similar to things they've done before.

"Yes, characters can remember things across scenarios. Yes, they can remember certain things about the places they've been, people they've encountered, monsters they've fought, and anything else they might want to remember, including details learned from knowledge checks and details learned from experience. No, remembering a few details is not the same as a high Knowledge result. In any given game, is up to the GM and the players to determine what is reasonable to remember and to roleplay appropriately. If this gets stupid we might take another look at it."

A list, somewhere, of which monsters are considered common, uncommon, and rare would help clarify what the "Just take 10!" argument works with. Maybe they can write a "Sages of the Inner Sea" companion sometime that would have this and other things in it.

Bolding mine....

What's the "just take 10!" argument? Did I miss something? (I mean, other than the fact that a percentage of judges rule that you can't ever "take 10" on knowledge rolls.)

I think what Terminalmancer means is that if you had an idea of what creatures were CR 5+, 10+, 15+, then you would have an idea of what creatures you could take 10 to reliably identify. Not a matter of whether you can take 10.

[Terminalmancer]

Mike Lindner wrote:

nosig wrote:

Terminalmancer wrote:

I wouldn't mind a "light touch" approach similar to things they've done before.

"Yes, characters can remember things across scenarios. Yes, they can remember certain things about the places they've been, people they've encountered, monsters they've fought, and anything else they might want to remember, including details learned from knowledge checks and details learned from experience. No, remembering a few details is not the same as a high Knowledge result. In any given game, is up to the GM and the players to determine what is reasonable to remember and to roleplay appropriately. If this gets stupid we might take another look at it."

A list, somewhere, of which monsters are considered common, uncommon, and rare would help clarify what the "Just take 10!" argument works with. Maybe they can write a "Sages of the Inner Sea" companion sometime that would have this and other things in it.

Bolding mine....

What's the "just take 10!" argument? Did I miss something? (I mean, other than the fact that a percentage of judges rule that you can't ever "take 10" on knowledge rolls.)

I think what Terminalmancer means is that if you had an idea of what creatures were CR 5+, 10+, 15+, then you would have an idea of what creatures you could take 10 to reliably identify. Not a matter of whether you can take 10.

Yep--you got the idea.

[Michael Hallet]

Well, obviously, when the creature is trying to kill you, taking 10 is not an option.

So maybe once you get back to the lodge you can say, "oh yeah, that's a ghoul and it can..." but in the heat of battle you may struggle to recall the information.

The problem I think we've established is not that previous experience should make the check automatic, but it should give you some sort of bonus to your check, and that bonus should probably scale with repeated experience. Currently there is no mechanic for that other than the GM deciding to give you a small circumstance bonus that doesn't take that depth of experience into account.

[nosig]

Michael Hallet wrote:

Well, obviously, when the creature is trying to kill you, taking 10 is not an option.

So maybe once you get back to the lodge you can say, "oh yeah, that's a ghoul and it can..." but in the heat of battle you may struggle to recall the information.

The problem I think we've established is not that previous experience should make the check automatic, but it should give you some sort of bonus to your check, and that bonus should probably scale with repeated experience. Currently there is no mechanic for that other than the GM deciding to give you a small circumstance bonus that doesn't take that depth of experience into account.

or having the judge decide on the Common/Rare axis. Different judges gives different answers... thus Table Variation.

Monster ID from the CRB:

"You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster's CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster's CR, or more."

Goblin<----------------------------------------------------->Tarrasqu e

where on the scale does the monster fall?

[N N 959]

Michael Hallet wrote:

The problem I think we've established is not that previous experience should make the check automatic, but it should give you some sort of bonus to your check, and that bonus should probably scale with repeated experience. Currently there is no mechanic for that other than the GM deciding to give you a small circumstance bonus that doesn't take that depth of experience into account.

A Know. check is about what you've been "educated" on. It's not about what you remember from actual experience. If you want to give someone a bonus on remembering something for having fought it, that's fine, and certainly within the GMs right. However, that does not give the GM the authority to tell the player he or she cannot use memories from previous fights.

As an aside, people (not you) keep wanting to trot out this straw man that characters would forget stuff and that the forgetting stuff is plausible and realistic as exemplified by failed K checks. Great. That has nothing to do with a player using knowledge from a previous combat encounter independent of a K. check. One has nothing to do with the other. You may not remember what you read in a book yesterday, but you may certainly remember what happened last week in an actual fight. Or, you may not. Players don't always remember everything about an encounter.

[BigNorseWolf]

nosig wrote:

where on the scale does the monster fall?

Whereever bruno MAKES them fall?

[Michael Hallet]

N N 959 wrote:

Michael Hallet wrote:

The problem I think we've established is not that previous experience should make the check automatic, but it should give you some sort of bonus to your check, and that bonus should probably scale with repeated experience. Currently there is no mechanic for that other than the GM deciding to give you a small circumstance bonus that doesn't take that depth of experience into account.

A Know. check is about what you've been "educated" on. It's not about what you remember from actual experience. If you want to give someone a bonus on remembering something for having fought it, that's fine, and certainly within the GMs right. However, that does not give the GM the authority to tell the player he or she cannot use memories from previous fights.

As an aside, people (not you) keep wanting to trot out this straw man that characters would forget stuff and that the forgetting stuff is plausible and realistic as exemplified by failed K checks. Great. That has nothing to do with a player using knowledge from a previous combat encounter independent of a K. check. One has nothing to do with the other. You may not remember what you read in a book yesterday, but you may certainly remember what happened last week in an actual fight. Or, you may not. Players don't always remember everything about an encounter.

I have no issue with people hearing a description of a monster and assuming something about it based on what they think they know. They could be wrong after all and the GM shouldn't tell them one way or the other. I have more of an issue with GMs requiring knowledge checks before allowing characters to take a legal action.

Would you put up with the following?

GM: You enter the abandoned section of town and come across the building you've been looking for.

Player: I look over the building first. Perception 21.

GM: You see that the wooden structure itself is worn, as if chewed up in some places.

Player: I wonder if it is insect damage. Maybe termites. Drat nat 1. I only got a 4 on my nature check.

GM: You have no idea what could have cause the damage it could have been anything as far as you know.

Player: Well, still, the structure might not be sound, I guess I'll take some precautions. I'll take out some extra rope and my climbing kit and...

GM: Whoa. You can't just assume the building in unsafe. You need to give me a Knowledge (engineering) check.

Player: Um... OK. *rolls* Only a 6.

GM: You have no idea if the building is unsafe, so I'll have to insist that you proceed inside without taking any precautions. Otherwise you're metagaming after making such poor rolls.

[Terminalmancer]

I think at this point it's become abundantly clear that there are differing opinions. Most people assume memory works, some people do not. There's no clear-cut RAW or campaign leadership to point to, and each playstyle has its own benefits and drawbacks.

Assumptions of persistent PC memory seem to work best when everyone plays along, but that's not always the case. Proscriptive reliance on knowledge checks addresses metagaming concerns at the cost of some flexibility and character narrative.

Regardless of approach, flexibility and common sense are required on the part of both GMs and players.

Sound like a good summary?

[nosig]

Terminalmancer wrote:

I think at this point it's become abundantly clear that there are differing opinions. Most people assume memory works, some people do not. There's no clear-cut RAW or campaign leadership to point to, and each playstyle has its own benefits and drawbacks.

Assumptions of persistent PC memory seem to work best when everyone plays along, but that's not always the case. Proscriptive reliance on knowledge checks addresses metagaming concerns at the cost of some flexibility and character narrative.

Regardless of approach, flexibility and common sense are required on the part of both GMs and players.

Sound like a good summary?

"Some people are unable (for some reason) to trust, and must control all options. Type One gamers."

[N N 959]

Terminalmancer wrote:

Assumptions of persistent PC memory seem to work best when everyone plays along, but that's not always the case. Proscriptive reliance on knowledge checks addresses metagaming concerns at the cost of some flexibility and character narrative.

That's a polite description of the opinion being floated. To be more accurate, Ragoz insists that K. checks include educated knowledge and non-educated knowledge. The rules are clear, K. check represents education i.e. formal teaching or as close to formal as one's backstory allows, that's it.

The extreme contention that K. checks represent all possible knowledge on creatures encountered is contrary to the rules and make the game unplayable. It's tantamount to declaring humans walk on their hands because no rule states otherwise. There is never going to be "clear-cut" RAW or anything from Paizo that humans walk on their feet nor will they come out and say a character may or may not remember a battle that took place in the past. Absence of such a official declaration does not validate the minority position.

What can be asked is whether there is some overarching reason for PFS to insist that character can have no memory of past encounters. Is there a compelling reason that PFS should prohibit players from carrying character knowledge across scenarios? A single boon from 2014 has pushed many in that direction. Arbitrary fears of player dishonesty may be another rationale. But given the honor system, I see no reason not to allow players to call upon past encounters within reason. Let the GM adjudicate as necessary, but make it clear that such an approach is as legal and valid in PFS as it is in non-PFS and GMs cannot prohibit such activity without some valid reason e.g. the character has no chronicles. Likewise, players need to act reasonably and not abuse the practice as is true with hundreds of other things in PFS.

But sorry, there is no valid position that characters cannot remember past encounters independent of k. checks. The K. check simply represents what the GM has to provide. One would think that at 20th level, a character would need to attempt very few K checks for having fought a majority of things in existence.

[robertness]

Taking the most extreme on one side of the spectrum, knowledge checks are needed to ID creatures you've seen previously in the scenario. Do the players have to make knowledge rolls to remember what they fought when they report back to the VC for debriefing?

Barbarian: Then we fought this thing.

Paladin: You mean the scaly thing or the slimy thing?

Barbarian: Ummm... the green thing.

Sorcerer: I thought the green thing had feathers.

Paladin: Naw, that was the blue thing.

Kreighton Shayne wonders about the choices he made in life and if it's too late to join the Aspis Consortium.

[Kitty Catoblepas]

I like it when RAW gets silly like this.

• 20% of humans have no idea what dogs are.

• If you have ranks in Survival, but not Knowledge: Nature, you can avoid hazards, but not identify them.
  Guide: We should walk 10 feet to the left! I have no idea why!

• Orcs may attack a 6th-level (5CR) elf on sight, but not a 7th-level elf, whom they cannot identify. 30% of orcs have no idea what orcs are.

• Neither a Balor nor Pit Fiend can tell a human from an aboleth (no ranks in Kno:Local or Kno:Dungeoneering). A Pit Fiend cannot remember the carnage that he has caused (no ranks in Kno: History).
  Pit Fiend: You... things... can feel my wrath just as your ancestors... may have the last time I... did... something!
  Player: We're Aboleths. We're eternal.
  Pit Fiend: ...I have no way of verifying that.

• There's a good chance that an Aboleth can't tell a human from a Pit Fiend... or an Aboleth.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

I like it when RAW gets silly like this.

• 20% of humans have no idea what dogs are.

• If you have ranks in Survival, but not Knowledge: Nature, you can avoid hazards, but not identify them.
  Guide: We should walk 10 feet to the left! I have no idea why!

• Orcs may attack a 6th-level (5CR) elf on sight, but not a 7th-level elf, whom they cannot identify. 30% of orcs have no idea what orcs are.

• Neither a Balor nor Pit Fiend can tell a human from an aboleth (no ranks in Kno:Local or Kno:Dungeoneering). A Pit Fiend cannot remember the carnage that he has caused (no ranks in Kno: History).
  Pit Fiend: You... things... can feel my wrath just as your ancestors... may have the last time I... did... something!
  Player: We're Aboleths. We're eternal.
  Pit Fiend: ...I have no way of verifying that.

• There's a good chance that an Aboleth can't tell a human from a Pit Fiend... or an Aboleth.

The real reason aboleths dropped rocks on Golarion, REVEALED!

"WE'RE NOT HUMANS YOU MISBEGOTTEN OTHERPLANAR EXTENSION!"

If we drop enough rocks to eliminate all the humans save some we keep around as action figures, we can nip this stupidity in the bud. Who's with me?

[Finlanderboy]

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

I like it when RAW gets silly like this.

• 20% of humans have no idea what dogs are.

• If you have ranks in Survival, but not Knowledge: Nature, you can avoid hazards, but not identify them.
  Guide: We should walk 10 feet to the left! I have no idea why!

• Orcs may attack a 6th-level (5CR) elf on sight, but not a 7th-level elf, whom they cannot identify. 30% of orcs have no idea what orcs are.

• Neither a Balor nor Pit Fiend can tell a human from an aboleth (no ranks in Kno:Local or Kno:Dungeoneering). A Pit Fiend cannot remember the carnage that he has caused (no ranks in Kno: History).
  Pit Fiend: You... things... can feel my wrath just as your ancestors... may have the last time I... did... something!
  Player: We're Aboleths. We're eternal.
  Pit Fiend: ...I have no way of verifying that.

• There's a good chance that an Aboleth can't tell a human from a Pit Fiend... or an Aboleth.

  Ehh the DC to recognize common things like humans and orcs are 5. The int modifier is enough to get that. DC 10 or less can be untrained.

[nosig]

Finlanderboy wrote:

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

I like it when RAW gets silly like this.

• 20% of humans have no idea what dogs are.

• If you have ranks in Survival, but not Knowledge: Nature, you can avoid hazards, but not identify them.
  Guide: We should walk 10 feet to the left! I have no idea why!

• Orcs may attack a 6th-level (5CR) elf on sight, but not a 7th-level elf, whom they cannot identify. 30% of orcs have no idea what orcs are.

• Neither a Balor nor Pit Fiend can tell a human from an aboleth (no ranks in Kno:Local or Kno:Dungeoneering). A Pit Fiend cannot remember the carnage that he has caused (no ranks in Kno: History).
  Pit Fiend: You... things... can feel my wrath just as your ancestors... may have the last time I... did... something!
  Player: We're Aboleths. We're eternal.
  Pit Fiend: ...I have no way of verifying that.

• There's a good chance that an Aboleth can't tell a human from a Pit Fiend... or an Aboleth.

Ehh the DC to recognize common things like humans and orcs are 5. The int modifier is enough to get that. DC 10 or less can be untrained.

only if the judge doesn't default everything to 10 + CR, which many do. and even then only humans count as common - and to an aboleth? maybe they aren't.... guess we'll have to check with the list - wait, we don't have a list...

[BigNorseWolf]

GAH! WHAT IS THAT HIDEOUS CREATURE!

I'm your brother bob. *sigh* Whats a -1 int penalty going to cost me anyway he asked...

[Kitty Catoblepas]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

I like it when RAW gets silly like this.

• 20% of humans have no idea what dogs are.

• If you have ranks in Survival, but not Knowledge: Nature, you can avoid hazards, but not identify them.
  Guide: We should walk 10 feet to the left! I have no idea why!

• Orcs may attack a 6th-level (5CR) elf on sight, but not a 7th-level elf, whom they cannot identify. 30% of orcs have no idea what orcs are.

• Neither a Balor nor Pit Fiend can tell a human from an aboleth (no ranks in Kno:Local or Kno:Dungeoneering). A Pit Fiend cannot remember the carnage that he has caused (no ranks in Kno: History).
  Pit Fiend: You... things... can feel my wrath just as your ancestors... may have the last time I... did... something!
  Player: We're Aboleths. We're eternal.
  Pit Fiend: ...I have no way of verifying that.

• There's a good chance that an Aboleth can't tell a human from a Pit Fiend... or an Aboleth.

The real reason aboleths dropped rocks on Golarion, REVEALED!

"WE'RE NOT HUMANS YOU MISBEGOTTEN OTHERPLANAR EXTENSION!"

If we drop enough rocks to eliminate all the humans save some we keep around as action figures, we can nip this stupidity in the bud. Who's with me?

Level7 Elven Rogue: I'm with you, fellow Aboleth

Aboleth: I really wish I had chosen my knowledge skill more carefully.

[Kitty Catoblepas]

Finlanderboy wrote:

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

• There's a good chance that an Aboleth can't tell a human from a Pit Fiend... or an Aboleth.

  Ehh the DC to recognize common things like humans and orcs are 5. The int modifier is enough to get that. DC 10 or less can be untrained.

Ehh the DC to recognize common things like humans and orcs are 5. The int modifier is enough to get that. DC 10 or less can be untrained.

Depends on whether the human/orc is under level 7 and/or a common creature from where the skill checker comes.

Also, your average Orc gets a -2 to his knowledge roll, identifying your average Orc on a roll of 7 or higher. Of course, this is consistent with how Orcs are usually portrayed.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

l 7 and/or a common creature from where the skill checker comes.

Also, your average Orc gets a -2 to his knowledge roll, identifying your average Orc on a roll of 7 or higher. Of course, this is consistent with how Orcs are usually portrayed.

My tengu Gorumite barbarian's background is that he fought as part of an orc community for a while to prove his strength and they accepted him for his strength rather than the fact he looked 'funny'.

[thejeff]

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

Finlanderboy wrote:

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

• There's a good chance that an Aboleth can't tell a human from a Pit Fiend... or an Aboleth.

  Ehh the DC to recognize common things like humans and orcs are 5. The int modifier is enough to get that. DC 10 or less can be untrained.

Ehh the DC to recognize common things like humans and orcs are 5. The int modifier is enough to get that. DC 10 or less can be untrained.

Depends on whether the human/orc is under level 7 and/or a common creature from where the skill checker comes.

Also, your average Orc gets a -2 to his knowledge roll, identifying your average Orc on a roll of 7 or higher. Of course, this is consistent with how Orcs are usually portrayed.

Well, high CRs due to levels aren't really handled properly.

<Rolls 9 on Knowledge(local): "Well, the militiamen are human and their sergeants are too, but I've got no idea what race the lieutenants and captains are, even though they look just the same."

[Katisha]

thejeff wrote:

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

Finlanderboy wrote:

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

• There's a good chance that an Aboleth can't tell a human from a Pit Fiend... or an Aboleth.

  Ehh the DC to recognize common things like humans and orcs are 5. The int modifier is enough to get that. DC 10 or less can be untrained.

Ehh the DC to recognize common things like humans and orcs are 5. The int modifier is enough to get that. DC 10 or less can be untrained.

Depends on whether the human/orc is under level 7 and/or a common creature from where the skill checker comes.

Also, your average Orc gets a -2 to his knowledge roll, identifying your average Orc on a roll of 7 or higher. Of course, this is consistent with how Orcs are usually portrayed.

Well, high CRs due to levels aren't really handled properly.

<Rolls 9 on Knowledge(local): "Well, the militiamen are human and their sergeants are too, but I've got no idea what race the lieutenants and captains are, even though they look just the same."

that's because Talden noblemen are clearly a different race! ;)

[Talonhawke]

thejeff wrote:

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

Finlanderboy wrote:

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

• There's a good chance that an Aboleth can't tell a human from a Pit Fiend... or an Aboleth.

  Ehh the DC to recognize common things like humans and orcs are 5. The int modifier is enough to get that. DC 10 or less can be untrained.

Ehh the DC to recognize common things like humans and orcs are 5. The int modifier is enough to get that. DC 10 or less can be untrained.

Depends on whether the human/orc is under level 7 and/or a common creature from where the skill checker comes.

Also, your average Orc gets a -2 to his knowledge roll, identifying your average Orc on a roll of 7 or higher. Of course, this is consistent with how Orcs are usually portrayed.

Well, high CRs due to levels aren't really handled properly.

<Rolls 9 on Knowledge(local): "Well, the militiamen are human and their sergeants are too, but I've got no idea what race the lieutenants and captains are, even though they look just the same."

Let us not forget that the CR thing means that long lived big bads who have risen in power are less likely to be remembered.

Commoner's can remember the orc captain who raided their village last fall. However the evil lich who shows up each winter to take a sacrifice.......... who are you again.

[Snorter]

nosig wrote:

...only if the judge doesn't default everything to 10 + CR, which many do. and even then only humans count as common - and to an aboleth? maybe they aren't.... guess we'll have to check with the list - wait, we don't have a list...

Older editions of D&D included creatures' rarity in their stat block (common, uncommon, rare, very rare, unique).

This info was a guide for how likely they existed in a given area, and how likely they ought to appear on a wandering monster table (weighted by the GM, for context, of course).

This practice has fallen out of use since 3rd Ed came out, probably due to acceptance by the writers, that many GMs prefer to create their own game settings, or that any rarity listing would be highly variable from region to region, even in an official game world.
So, any such listing could be debatable at best, and what has happened since then is that CR itself has become used as the measure of rarity.
"That creature is tougher than that one, so they must be less numerous.", and this assumed rarity carries through into the resultant knowledge check, "Creatures that are more dangerous are harder to observe and report on.".

It may be gamist in the extreme, but at least it's easy to explain, simple to remember, and makes 'common sense'. It also frees the creature designer from having to deliberate over setting a rarity rating, which wouldn't satisfy everyone. And at the end of the day, if you don't like it, it's only a baseline DC. GMs are always free to modify it up or down, to fit the needs of their game. Right?

Right. Only what seems to happen, increasingly, is that GMs seem to be increasing DCs when they don't need to. Especially if they grew up playing early editions of the game, and knowing that 'X is a rare creature'.
Because what seems to be overlooked, is that those old-school rarity ratings were objective values, based on the designer's estimate of a creature's actual numbers.
Storm giants (rare) were rarer than fire giants (uncommon), because there were less of them. Fire giants were rarer than ogres (common), because there were less of them.* The lethality of the creature (its CR) didn't come into the equation, as it does now.
If a 1st/2nd Ed designer wanted to introduce an obscure creature that was less dangerous than the fire giant, maybe even less dangerous than the ogre, but wanted it to be rarer than both, or even 'Very Rare', they could, because its rarity was completely independent of its killing power.

The new, CR-based rarity already takes some of that objective rarity into account, by increasing the DC as CR increases.
The CR3 ogre can be recognised on a DC13, the CR10 fire giant on a DC20, the CR13 storm giant on DC23.
A lot of GMs are thinking 'Oh, fire giants and storm giants aren't your normal everyday creatures, you don't see them often, they should be rare.', and thinking that DC20 and 23 seems a bit low.
But the lack of any fire giants for your PC to study, near their home village (the way they spied on the local ogres), is what made the DC 7 higher. The fact that storm giants can live reclusively at the bottom of the sea is the reason their DC is 10 higher. Your PC has to gird up their travelling pants, and go explore the world for 10 levels, intensively studying giant lore as they go (ie adding skill ranks), before they can recall the same number of tales about storm giants, as their level 1 Commoner Grandpappy can tell about the hillbilly ogres of Hook Mountain. Even though storm giants aren't actually all that interesting. Writing home, to let them know that during your year of intense study, you've discovered they're 'big people, who can breath water, and cause storms' isn't going to win you the Pulitzer prize for journalism. Compared to earning the plaudits of the Audobon Society, for discovering a rare disease-curing finch in the remote jungle (CR 0 if you're generous, +5 for rarity, DC15).
The lower numbers and reclusiveness of storm giants is the reason the DC is already 10 higher than it would otherwise be for 'a bigger ogre'. It doesn't need jacking up to 28, to satisfy a GM's need to micromanage information to their players.

*No, I don't have my 1977 Monster Manual to hand, so those may be off. However, it's the overriding principle that counts, so bear with me.

[pH unbalanced]

thejeff wrote:

Well, high CRs due to levels aren't really handled properly.

<Rolls 9 on Knowledge(local): "Well, the militiamen are human and their sergeants are too, but I've got no idea what race the lieutenants and captains are, even though they look just the same."

In all seriousness, is this really RAW?

I've always handled Knowledge rolls for creatures with levels as rolls against the base CR of the creature for knowledge about the creature type. I'd only use the fully weighted CR if they were trying to know things about *that individual*.

Which is to say, I'm usually having them make Knowldege rolls against the Bestiary entry, not against the Stat Block.

[BigNorseWolf]

pH unbalanced wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Well, high CRs due to levels aren't really handled properly.

<Rolls 9 on Knowledge(local): "Well, the militiamen are human and their sergeants are too, but I've got no idea what race the lieutenants and captains are, even though they look just the same."

In all seriousness, is this really RAW?

Eyup.

Even in pfs there's a level of head desking ridiculousness in the rules where you just gotta say "nope"

[N N 959]

pH unbalanced wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Well, high CRs due to levels aren't really handled properly.

<Rolls 9 on Knowledge(local): "Well, the militiamen are human and their sergeants are too, but I've got no idea what race the lieutenants and captains are, even though they look just the same."

In all seriousness, is this really RAW?

I've always handled Knowledge rolls for creatures with levels as rolls against the base CR of the creature for knowledge about the creature type. I'd only use the fully weighted CR if they were trying to know things about *that individual*.

Which is to say, I'm usually having them make Knowldege rolls against the Bestiary entry, not against the Stat Block.

I've never seen a GM give out individual information on K. Local checks. For example, I've never seen a GM give the spells of a creature with PC caster class levels. Is that suppose to happen based on some RAW some where?

[thejeff]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Well, high CRs due to levels aren't really handled properly.

<Rolls 9 on Knowledge(local): "Well, the militiamen are human and their sergeants are too, but I've got no idea what race the lieutenants and captains are, even though they look just the same."

In all seriousness, is this really RAW?

Eyup.

Even in pfs there's a level of head desking ridiculousness in the rules where you just gotta say "nope"

No, actually I don't think it is RAW. I think the CR for Knowledge purposes is the base creature type. Humans are a 1.

There are still cases where it breaks down: Wyrmling dragons being much easier to id than older ones being the most obvious example.

[thejeff]

Snorter wrote:

nosig wrote:

...only if the judge doesn't default everything to 10 + CR, which many do. and even then only humans count as common - and to an aboleth? maybe they aren't.... guess we'll have to check with the list - wait, we don't have a list...

Older editions of D&D included creatures' rarity in their stat block (common, uncommon, rare, very rare, unique).

This info was a guide for how likely they existed in a given area, and how likely they ought to appear on a wandering monster table (weighted by the GM, for context, of course).

This practice has fallen out of use since 3rd Ed came out, probably due to acceptance by the writers, that many GMs prefer to create their own game settings, or that any rarity listing would be highly variable from region to region, even in an official game world.
So, any such listing could be debatable at best, and what has happened since then is that CR itself has become used as the measure of rarity.
"That creature is tougher than that one, so they must be less numerous.", and this assumed rarity carries through into the resultant knowledge check, "Creatures that are more dangerous are harder to observe and report on.".

It may be gamist in the extreme, but at least it's easy to explain, simple to remember, and makes 'common sense'. It also frees the creature designer from having to deliberate over setting a rarity rating, which wouldn't satisfy everyone. And at the end of the day, if you don't like it, it's only a baseline DC. GMs are always free to modify it up or down, to fit the needs of their game. Right?

Right. Only what seems to happen, increasingly, is that GMs seem to be increasing DCs when they don't need to. Especially if they grew up playing early editions of the game, and knowing that 'X is a rare creature'.
Because what seems to be overlooked, is that those old-school rarity ratings were objective values, based on the designer's estimate of a creature's actual numbers.
Storm giants (rare) were rarer than fire giants...

Makes some common sense, but does break down unless common creatures are also considered common. Otherwise even an easy CR 1 creature is a DC 11 and can't be identified by anyone without ranks in the appropriate knowledge skill.

This and the problems of variation between game worlds or even regions is why it was suggested up thread that PFS add a list of creatures covered in Pathfinder training that would be considered "Common" along with with an emphasis that it wasn't an exclusive list of everything that might actually be common, just what was taught to Pathfinders.

[BigNorseWolf]

thejeff wrote:

This and the problems of variation between game worlds or even regions is why it was suggested up thread that PFS add a list of creatures covered in Pathfinder training that would be considered "Common" along with with an emphasis that it wasn't an exclusive list of everything that might actually be common, just what was taught to Pathfinders.

other than jokes and theorycrafting I don't think this problem is serious enough in actual use to warrant yet more specific PFS rules.

[Kitty Catoblepas]

pH unbalanced wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Well, high CRs due to levels aren't really handled properly.

<Rolls 9 on Knowledge(local): "Well, the militiamen are human and their sergeants are too, but I've got no idea what race the lieutenants and captains are, even though they look just the same."

In all seriousness, is this really RAW?

I've always handled Knowledge rolls for creatures with levels as rolls against the base CR of the creature for knowledge about the creature type. I'd only use the fully weighted CR if they were trying to know things about *that individual*.

Which is to say, I'm usually having them make Knowldege rolls against the Bestiary entry, not against the Stat Block.

Now, what you're suggesting would make sense. You should be able to know a lot more about a uncommon/rare creature's type (assuming you recognize it for what it is) than you could know about the creature.

For example, you might not be able to successfully to identify a Cornugon (DC 26), but you could recognize what plane he is from (DC 20). There's a lot that would be useful in the situation that you probably should know about Devil-kind (evil outsiders, extraplanar beings, etc.) even if you aren't able to identify the creature's species. You should know that devils tend to be immune to fire and poison, but not electricity. You should know that good and silver weapons tend to be effective against devils. You should know that they tend to teleport around and that they can communicate telepathically. Maybe you'd even know that some of them tend to be magic resistant.

But the rules don't necessarily support that. It doesn't give a good method of determining what is and isn't common knowledge in the field or how to draw good-enough conclusions (e.g. Fire and acid keep Trolls from regenerating, so that's a good place to start if something is regenerating).

[thejeff]

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Well, high CRs due to levels aren't really handled properly.

<Rolls 9 on Knowledge(local): "Well, the militiamen are human and their sergeants are too, but I've got no idea what race the lieutenants and captains are, even though they look just the same."

In all seriousness, is this really RAW?

I've always handled Knowledge rolls for creatures with levels as rolls against the base CR of the creature for knowledge about the creature type. I'd only use the fully weighted CR if they were trying to know things about *that individual*.

Which is to say, I'm usually having them make Knowldege rolls against the Bestiary entry, not against the Stat Block.

Now, what you're suggesting would make sense. You should be able to know a lot more about a uncommon/rare creature's type (assuming you recognize it for what it is) than you could know about the creature.

For example, you might not be able to successfully to identify a Cornugon (DC 26), but you could recognize what plane he is from (DC 20). There's a lot that would be useful in the situation that you probably should know about Devil-kind (evil outsiders, extraplanar beings, etc.) even if you aren't able to identify the creature's species. You should know that devils tend to be immune to fire and poison, but not electricity. You should know that good and silver weapons tend to be effective against devils. You should know that they tend to teleport around and that they can communicate telepathically. Maybe you'd even know that some of them tend to be magic resistant.

But the rules don't necessarily support that. It doesn't give a good method of determining what is and isn't common knowledge in the field or how to draw good-enough conclusions (e.g. Fire and acid keep Trolls from regenerating, so that's a good place to start if something is regenerating).

I don't think that's what he meant, though it's an interesting suggestion. Just that Knowledge doesn't work based on the CR of individuals and doesn't give information about individuals: A 10th level human mage may be CR 10, but you still roll against CR 1 to identify her as human and learn about human traits.

[pauljathome]

Snorter wrote:

It may be gamist in the extreme, but at least it's easy to explain, simple to remember, and makes 'common sense'.

I'll grant you that it is easy to explain and remember but I vehemently disagree that it makes common sense.

Dangerous monsters are far more likely to be the stuff of legends and stories than weak ones that aren't a local danger.

Just about everybody in Golarion will have heard enough stories about dragons to at least have some chance of identifying a dragon. They are far more likely to misidentify a wyvern as a dragon than vice versa.

Everybody in Ustalov will know a fair bit about vampires.

But I find it hard to believe that many peopke would recognize a Formian worker.

[TriOmegaZero]

The people who identify a Formian worker will be far more accurate about what its abilities and natures are. The people who identify a dragon are far more likely to 'know' abilities that are merely common myths.

Everyone knows what a dragon is thanks to legends. Only greatly learned people have actually sifted through the legends to know what the truth is.

[nosig]

thejeff wrote:

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Well, high CRs due to levels aren't really handled properly.

<Rolls 9 on Knowledge(local): "Well, the militiamen are human and their sergeants are too, but I've got no idea what race the lieutenants and captains are, even though they look just the same."

...snipping to save space...

I don't think that's what he meant, though it's an interesting suggestion. Just that Knowledge doesn't work based on the CR of individuals and doesn't give information about individuals: A 10th level human mage may be CR 10, but you still roll against CR 1 to identify her as human and learn about human traits.

actually, I could see a Kn(Local) roll to get information about individuals that are known in the area. So, if the local Wizard is named Bob "Burning-Snake" Thrune I'm going to guess he has something in the way of fire magic and maybe associations with Devils. A good Kn(Local) roll might give me more info (because of stories I have heard about his adventures... you know, like the time he fireballed those Andoran spies, and summoned up a Bone Devil to finish them off...

[Da Brain]

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

The people who identify a Formian worker will be far more accurate about what its abilities and natures are. The people who identify a dragon are far more likely to 'know' abilities that are merely common myths.

Everyone knows what a dragon is thanks to legends. Only greatly learned people have actually sifted through the legends to know what the truth is.

"Everyone knows what a tiger tank is thanks to old World War II movies. Only Re-Enactors or Military History buffs have actually sifted through the hearsay and rumors to know what the truth is." Yeah, works for me...

"yeah, the Panther tank, much better vehicle. Or if ya really want a heavy tank, the Russian KV-85, now there was a ..." Nurse comes to wheel the old war-gamer back to his room.

[TOZ]

I don't know that I would count a tiger tank as legendary... :)