| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're complete useless garbage that slows the game
You've already made up your mind. Next!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rationale for them is in-character - why would the 7 INT Barbarian and the 30 INT Wizard have comparable knowledge of everything? Surely the Wizard, who has spent a lifetime studying, has a superhuman memory and intellect, should know more about magic than the barbarian who is just barely literate and has never picked up a book in their life.
For the same reason, surely someone who has trained in history their who life and has read many texts should be more likely to know who the Azlanti were, rather than the same barbarian?
I see no issue with you taking them out if you don't like them, but it's meant to represent a mechanical reason for how characters of differing amounts of knowledge in different areas actually know different things. Pathfinder is rules-heavy, as we all know, so there are rules for this type of thing. If you don't like that,feel free to change it, as always :)
1. They are good for helping players gather information during investigations.
2. They help players before and during combat when it comes to monsters.
My players don't ask silly questions. Why ask about architecture when looking for a king?
The problem here is a disconnect between you and your players not knowledge checks. I would try to get them to ask questions that matter.
Removing knowledge checks won't likely stop the way they go about trying ask questions. It might require for you to change how they gain that information though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ask yourself:
"Why shouldn't I abolish attack rolls as a DM?"
It feels really bad to miss, especially if you are counting on a hit for your party to survive. Plus attack rolls take a long time to resolve, especially when you are an archer or are at high levels. They can really slow down the game!
But if the party has no chance of failure, you lose some of the drama and tension, you lose differentiation between different PCs and monsters (everyone suddenly has max BAB), and you lose the sense of being in a real world with real (if abstracted) combat.
This applies just as much to knowledge checks. If your party can't make knowledge checks to find critical info, they can try diplomacy to gather information, intimidate some street toughs for their knowledge, and so on. Rather than "sucking ass", failure broadens the experience of the game and makes it more immersive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to make sure your players get all the plot and nice roleplay bits why don't you just lower the DCs?
Leave them above a 10 so that you need someone trained in it (it's a little silly if literally everyone can make the check). And you can also have multiple knowledge types (or even other skills) apply.
If the check is about dwarven king who forged an incredible sword you could have Knowledge(Nobility), Knowledge(History), craft(weapons), or lore(dwarven history) (it's a new skill from Unchained).
It makes players feel rewarded for their investments and it's makes it a little challenge (more than just giving it away).
Also, if you're not using it you should consider using Background Skills so that characters have more skill points to spend on things that could be related to these sorts of things.
Don't have your character's ask for info, you get dumb questions that way because players don't know what's important to ask about. Just tell players stuff for every info they gain.
If you look at PFS scenarios you do a knowledge at the beginning. It has info to share for a 15, 20, and 25.
|
Strictly necessary information should rarely if ever require a die roll.
Knowledge checks can identify monster weaknesses or tell the PCs that the king is particularly fond of gifts of obregene silks, but shouldn't be necessary to KILL the monster or to gain the king's favor.
Knowledge engineering might reveal that a certain wall isn't constructed properly, and indicates the presence of a secret door. But certainly a mini-boss has instructions on how to spot the same door, allowing smart PCs to skip a potentially tough fight.
First off, don't hide plotrelevant info behind a check that could potentially fail. Sure, you can use it as one avenue to obtain such info but you should always have a backup method they cannot help but run across if such shortcuts fail them.
Second, the various knowledge skills do have actual value for a character, especially when it comes to identifying monsters, so you aren't robbing your players of anything by following my first rule. I'd urge you to define the DC's and the associated info in advance.
Third, players will ask all kinds of questions and some of them will seem nonsensical to you. I wouldn't necessarily stop them from asking you these questions because, even when they're tedious, they provide information on your players'/characters' interests or thoughtpatterns. Other people's theories can be a source of inspiration, or even a way out of a situation you got yourself stuck in. Plus, players don't want to hear their questions are stupid or pointless.
In addition, consider allowing players' characters to use knowledge proactively, giving them minor narrative control over their chosen fields. My current character has all kinds of stories about a wizard then and there who did x, discovering y at the cost of bodypart z. It has no real impact but its fun and I find I really appreciate the freedom to make stuff like that up without having to rely on the DM's ok. Especially if you can always say... "But it turns out... you were wrong/lied to/etc".
I never hide plot information behind knowledge checks. I use knowledge checks to make it easier to find this information. Also, don't make knowledge a pass/fail test. Give them the basic information for free, but let them get more useful details at a higher check.
but if you are going to remove them, let your players know before character creation. Don't make them spend points that aren't going to do any good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Give me a Knowledge (GM) roll and if you score high enough, I will tell you. :)
Dammit I rolled a 1
Will a 25 work?
Look at Gumshoe, or whatever they call its Pathfinder offshoot.
I think it has a mechanism that will suit you.
Don't fall into the trap of rolling for every action. Finding the ruler inside his own city is something everyone can do - at least he will get directions to the palace, probably not admittance.
Keep the checks for stuff that is not obvious or when the information is something that grants an advantage (against what was that demon resistant again?).
(I'm with Philo and Arcane here.)
|
They're complete useless garbage that slows the game, screws the story and leaves players ignorant and helpless.
Say I've got a party entering a big dwarven city. I can either risk withholding valuable information about where to find the king, or pre-write a bunch of fluff about pretty stone architecture.
On the spot, if asked about symbols or history, I just need to make something up. What's the point, when I could pre-write this properly and hand it over via dialog or a prop (note)?
Important stuff, like the age of a dungeon is either useless or crucial to the success of the party.
WITHHOLDING INFORMATION SUCKS ASS
For starters, don't leave information the party NEEDS to know up to knowledge checks. If it NEEDS to be known, just tell them (or have them find a letter with the information spelled out for them).
Knowledge checks should cover things that are HELPFUL to know, but not mandatory. This should be information that the party could live without, even if it means taking the steeper path through an adventure.
Knowing that your big boss in a dungeon is totally immune to all damage except that of a specific magic weapon, that is information the party NEEDS. Knowing that the big boss would be much easier to face with fire attacks, that is HELPFUL information, but they could still get by without it.
If it really irks you, add an NPC to the party that has high INT and lots of trained Knowledge skills.
i'm gonna play the middle ground here... i've always thought players should receive knowledge depending on certain scores, backstory, ect. The Wizard or similar int based character might no more about somethings but not necessarily everything. the rogue will no more about the streets and such in general, the druid about nature, ect the problem is things like this are hard to regulate. to avoid problems i have been theorizing not eliminating knowledge checks as a skill but working around them .
My idea so far is you can never roll a knowledge check to know something. knowledge used for researching is a different story.
What you know at all times even in combat or stressful situations is always set as if taking ten this way characters who should know certain things are screwed by a dice roll. of course this is jsut an idea i'm playing with
Knowledge checks are crucial to the game.
They are your pokedex, fighting something? Don't know its weakness? Knowledge check.
Spymaster's handbook just released a bunch of uses for knowledge checks mid fight that allow you to do all sorts of things like identifying a combat feat being used. (I'm a little salty because I posted similar rules in the houserules forum, but alas I guess I can be happy that it's actually RAW now.)
Using knowledge checks to role play is great, so long as you are doing them properly. House rule them a bit, make them useful.
Knowledge being useless is the DM's fault, not the players. If you want to house rule them out and just give away the knowledge because it's a better story, then let your players reassign the skills, or do it like I do appraise: "Does someone in the party have appraise/knowledge maxed? Good, you know the thing."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you only give the players one way to do something important (e.g.: acquiring essential plot information), then it's your fault for they being helpless when that one way fails.
Knowledge checks are just one of many means PCs have to acquire information. Diplomacy and divination spells are common alternatives. And you don't have to require a check for everything. If the check is easy (or unimportant) enough, just assume they succeed. Knowledge checks should give them additional useful information. They are not supposed to be the only way to know where to go next to get the plot moving.
NEVER make plot advancement depend on a single check. Always have at least 2~3 alternatives.
If you only give the players one way to do something important (e.g.: acquiring essential plot information), then it's your fault for they being helpless when that one way fails.
Knowledge checks are just one of many means PCs have to acquire information. Diplomacy and divination spells are common alternatives. And you don't have to require a check for everything. If the check is easy (or unimportant) enough, just assume they succeed. Knowledge checks should give them additional useful information. They are not supposed to be the only way to know where to go next to get the plot moving.
NEVER make plot advancement depend on a single check. Always have at least 2~3 alternatives.
Very good advice. By having different ways to get the information, you don't fall into a trap when they assume the NPC informant is a spy for the bad guys and kill him. Also, different paths can have different optional information that can help a party.
If they take out the fence where the cult has been selling the loot off of the kidnapped victims, they can find out where the bad guys are. The fence is cowardly and he'll tell you what magic items he's sold to the group.
If they search the alchemist making the chemicals for the ritual, they find the map to the lair and a note in Infernal that gives them a clue that there are devils involved. A knowledge check on the name might tell them the type of devil the main boss is.
If you go to the church they are using for a cover, you can find a secret tunnel that bypasses their main gate. It's trapped, but not as dangerous as their primary defenses.
With regards to gaming, there are, at its most basic, three kinds of information, Must-Have, Nice-to-Have, and Irrelevant/Misinformation. If the party has any engagement in the game at all, you make sure they get all the the Must-Have. (If the party has no engagement at all, check with your significant other and see if you can trade in a bad game night for a good date night.). You make the party work to get useful (advantage) information with the gather info mechanism, freely mixing good and bad info. Their knowledge skills help them separate the good from the bad info.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rationale for them is in-character - why would the 7 INT Barbarian and the 30 INT Wizard have comparable knowledge of everything? Surely the Wizard, who has spent a lifetime studying, has a superhuman memory and intellect, should know more about magic than the barbarian who is just barely literate and has never picked up a book in their life.
Well, I might add 'a barbarian that spent the majority of his life in either the bar or jailhouse'.
You can get knowledge ranks if you personally experience and study something. That is major for things like knowledge (nature). Heck, even just hanging around the bar could give you knowledge (local).
It is certainly true that the more observant fellow gets more out of any experience.
Don't fall into the trap of rolling for every action. Finding the ruler inside his own city is something everyone can do - at least he will get directions to the palace, probably not admittance.
Hell, that sounds like a 'take 10' with a 'DC 10 for common knowledge' situation.
Or a 'you will succeed as long as you didn't dump int' situation.
They're complete useless garbage that slows the game, screws the story and leaves players ignorant and helpless.
Say I've got a party entering a big dwarven city. I can either risk withholding valuable information about where to find the king, or pre-write a bunch of fluff about pretty stone architecture.
On the spot, if asked about symbols or history, I just need to make something up. What's the point, when I could pre-write this properly and hand it over via dialog or a prop (note)?
Important stuff, like the age of a dungeon is either useless or crucial to the success of the party.
WITHHOLDING INFORMATION SUCKS ASS
If the progression of a campaign continues or comes to a complete stand still based on a single dice roll you've got a problem. Its the same reason people say survival (tracking) is useless - because if the path needs to be found to continue the story, the path will be found regardless of dice rolls.
So a couple of options:
1) Such things should only be used for side quests/rewards/bonus loot.
2) Use the rule of 3 clues. That is don't expect your players to pick up on the first clue no matter how smart you think they are, or how obvious you think the clue is. This also applies to success/fail die rolls. Have a minimum of 3 ways for the party to get onto the path you want them on. So a Kn Local roll might allow them to gather the info they needed, but so might a Intimidate check with the bar tender at the local tavern (they should have previously had some hint he knows something of what they are looking for), along with some third option.