Tonight our party encountered several cloakers in an underground, abandoned, dwarven city.
After the first round (in which they swooped in from the shadows and wrapped themselves around two members of the party) I made a knowledge dungeoneering check and got a 22, enough for at least two bits of useful info.
The GM told me that they were dangerous aberrations of the underdark that looked like cloaks, that could fly, and liked to ambush and wrap around victims.
I gaped at him stupidly for a few moments before replying, "You haven't told me anything that I didn't already know! The whole party can clearly see that they are flying aberrations who like to grapple people. They're doing it in front of our very eyes! The skill says I'm supposed to get USEFUL information. What you've told me isn't useful at all!"
He then responded that it was perfectly reasonable for a person to know something about a monster, witness that it is true to what he was taught, and not glean anything more.
I told him that if he was going to not allow his players to use knowledge skills effectively in his campaign, he should have told us at the start. (I have a lot of ranks invested in EVERY knowledge skill.)
The game continued on and despite this hiccup, we all had a great time.
Is this an example of me being screwed out of a knowledge check? Or am I just overreacting? I was hoping to get an outsider's objective opinion on the matter.
nope, nothing here.
Nothing. Sorry. Repost?
|
Tonight our party encountered several cloakers in an underground, abandoned, dwarven city.
After the first round (in which they swooped in from the shadows and wrapped themselves around two members of the party) I made a knowledge dungeoneering check and got a 22, enough for at least two bits of useful info.
The GM told me that they were dangerous aberrations of the underdark that looked like cloaks, that could fly, and liked to ambush and wrap around victims.
I gaped at him stupidly for a few moments before replying, "You haven't told me anything that I didn't already know! The whole party can clearly see that they are flying aberrations who like to grapple people. They're doing it in front of our very eyes! The skill says I'm supposed to get USEFUL information. What you've told me isn't useful at all!"
He then responded that it was perfectly reasonable for a person to know something about a monster, witness that it is true to what he was taught, and not glean anything more.
I told him that if he was going to not allow his players to use knowledge skills effectively in his campaign, he should have told us at the start. (I have a lot of ranks invested in EVERY knowledge skill.)
The game continued on and despite this hiccup, we all had a great time.
Is this an example of me being screwed out of a knowledge check? Or am I just overreacting? I was hoping to get an outsider's objective opinion on the matter.
I personally class 'useful info' as a piece of the monster's stat block. When people get the info, I ask them if they want to know about DR, Immunities, Fast Healing/Regeneration, Vulnerabilities, Resistances, Spell-Like Abilities, Special Attacks or Special Qualities. Every 5 points of success gets them one of the above. Very meta, I know, but it seems to work. I have also occasionally shut people down on knowledges if the monster is totally new (i.e., only exist in the one place they encounter it, likely due to magical experimentation/mishap) and not allowed them a roll at all.
While I don't think what he did was completely whacko, personally I'd have given some more info even if that was the "correct" answer on the knowledge check, if nothing else because you'd already seen it and it would make you as a player and a character feel more awarded for your character being knowledgable.
I'd have told you something along the lines "they are able to manipulate shadows, and it's said that their cries make your blood freeze". I wouldn't have shown the statblock, as I see that as too detailed for any character despite knowledge rank, but giving you a useful hint that you might want to plug your ears is about right for a roll of 22.
I personally class 'useful info' as a piece of the monster's stat block. When people get the info, I ask them if they want to know about DR, Immunities, Fast Healing/Regeneration, Vulnerabilities, Resistances, Spell-Like Abilities, Special Attacks or Special Qualities. Every 5 points of success gets them one of the above. Very meta, I know, but it seems to work. I have also occasionally shut people down on knowledges if the monster is totally new (i.e., only exist in the one place they encounter it, likely due to magical experimentation/mishap) and not...
+1
Although I don't present it as it appears in the stat block. If it has DR 10/Silver I say something like, you've heard that it is vulnerable to silver.
I will say that in other circumstances the information from the GM would be very useful. In fact the knowledge that they are aberrations is still useful knowledge. Still he should have given you at least 1 other bit of knowledge useful to the specific situation. You did get a bit shafted.
Yes, I think the DM could have given them a bit more than that myself, such as that they have a sound-based ability or some such.
can anyone read these posts - the posts are not showing up for me -although other posts are
If you click on the link that takes you to the last thread you get sent to the messageboard, but if you click on the title of the thread you get access.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did not come up with this idea, but I use do use it.
• DC (CR + 10): Identify the monster by name and creature type
• DC (CR + 15): Know the monster's vulnerabilities and defenses. Identify a monster that’s only disguised as a member of that kind.
• DC (CR + 20): Know the monster's spell-like abilities, skills, and special attacks.
For Dragons a DC of 15 + CR determines the age category. The DC's for knowledge checks are also 5 higher than the other monsters.
SPECIAL: Rare monsters(as determined by the DM) get a +5 to the DC of the knowledge check.
Or am I just overreacting?
Yes, IMO.
I had a DM who would give information by the following:
DC 10+CR = name
DC 15+CR = size
DC 20+CR = creature type
DC 25+CR = either one of the powers inherent for its creature type or one of the most visually obvious abilities (ie, efreet are immune to fire or blink dogs have a constant blink effect)
|
I actually think what your DM said was fine.
Say that you saw the cloakers from a distance. You'd roll knowledge, and he'd tell you that little blurb. You'd definitely agree it was useful then, right?
Now they come charging at you. You don't suddenly get more knowledgeable between now and then, even though you've seen them in action. If everyone's characters went around the table, the information you know about the Grappler's doesn't increase based on your position in the circle, just because someone said it already. I think what he did was reasonable.
HOWEVER, I do think that exceeding a DC 20 knowledge check should sort of give a "more advanced" thing that what you can see with your eyes. The grappling might count for that, but that wasn't a trivial check that you passed, and the information was mostly trivial (and not because you were watching it happen, just because that's not much information).
Thats what I was thinking as well. OP with your roll personally i would have given more. But I do think the information the DM gave was useful. Since as stated above it would have been useful before the fight, just cause a fight starts doesn't mean what knowledge can be gained is subject to change IMHO.
I actually think what your DM said was fine.
Say that you saw the cloakers from a distance. You'd roll knowledge, and he'd tell you that little blurb. You'd definitely agree it was useful then, right?
Like that will ever happen. The last five encounters have started us within melee range of the monsters. I've never had a battle under this GM that didn't at least start within charging range.
To answer your question: Some of it. Knowing that they were grapplers long before you got into melee range would be one bit of useful information.
This one's kind of hard to judge. If you think about it, the fact the Knowledge() check was conducted once combat was started, that's what's confusing things. There's nothing in the rules regarding the skill that demands that the information be in addition to anything else. If you nearly kill a red dragon, having figured out it's got DR and immunities and a breath weapon and great saves and huge damned teeth and wings and claws and a tail and SR... THEN you ask for a Knowledge() check, what do you expect to learn?
Nah, I think it's fair for the DM to answer the question as though combat wasn't already educating you. You can still ask for a roll... it might be astronomical and you might get rewarded with stuff you haven't just figured out the hard way. But if you've already figured out the two most obvious traits, why should you get the number three and four traits?
Like that will ever happen. The last five encounters have started us within melee range of the monsters. I've never had a battle under this GM that didn't at least start within charging range.
To answer your question: Some of it. Knowing that they were grapplers long before you got into melee range would be one bit of useful information.
Good news.
Knowledge() is action none. When your DM asks you to roll for initiative, ask for a Knowledge() check before combat starts. Doesn't matter if the creature has pounced on your fighter in a surprise round... you can still get your Knowledge() check before the first regular round begins. And since speaking is free... you may even be able to relate simple things like "don't let it bite you!"
THAT'S what needs to be fixed. Your DM's ruling was fair, I think. But he's got to let you use your skill, and now you know how. As soon as you see or hear something, ask.
The game continued on and despite this hiccup, we all had a great time.
Is this an example of me being screwed out of a knowledge check? Or am I just overreacting? I was hoping to get an outsider's objective opinion on the matter.
Really? You got short changed on a Dungeoneering check and that was the only "hiccup" in a great time?
You need to meet this jerk at his car with a stick.
In order to be objection Mr. Fishy needs to talk to your group and see if this monster is shorting them.
I told him that if he was going to not allow his players to use knowledge skills effectively in his campaign, he should have told us at the start. (I have a lot of ranks invested in EVERY knowledge skill.)
This, I think is something that should have been mentioned. It's really a pain to have invested in something only to find out that it will never be used. It's like a wizard who invests in fire spells only to find out that the rest of the enemies are either immune to fire or absorb it. Or like letting a ranger invest in swim and have aquatic humanoids as favored enemies only to drop him in a desert.
|
|
I actually think what your DM said was fine.
Say that you saw the cloakers from a distance. You'd roll knowledge, and he'd tell you that little blurb. You'd definitely agree it was useful then, right?
Like that will ever happen. The last five encounters have started us within melee range of the monsters. I've never had a battle under this GM that didn't at least start within charging range.
To answer your question: Some of it. Knowing that they were grapplers long before you got into melee range would be one bit of useful information.
With out knowing the situations, but that does sound like poor DMing to not give you any clue of possible fights beyond ambushes. Though it is hard to say with out knowing the details.
I personally think that the GM gave two bits of useful information. A) That it was an aberration and that it can fly (though I'd say whether it was natural, supernatural or whatever it might be). B) It tends to grapple.
Now, as a GM, I would have given slightly more information. Not much, but slightly more. But otherwise...from all the threads I've seen you start, I actually would be looking for a new group. *shrugs*
I don't think you got screwed. I do think you're overreacting.
However, I do agree with those above who said the DM should have given you something a little more. What he gave you was useful, I would say very useful infact. You know the type and a primary way for them to attack (most things can grapple, knowing that this creature prefers to grapple prey is different than knowing that it can grapple prey), also, you know a nonstandard mode of locomotion (yes, you could probably assume the thing flies, but KNOWING the thing flies tells you "this thing flies naturaly, as in something else didn't cast fly on it).
I would have given you an idea of how fast it flies and how agile in the air it is, but yeah, you wouldn't have gotten much more out of me than your DM. You very well would have been reminded that what the DM sais is final, and if you don't like the way the game is being ran, there is a door that's free to use. Keeping that in mind, were I your DM, and knew that you had invested a lot of resources into knowledge skills, I would put forth some effort into giving you opportunities to use them. Maybe throw in something strange with some unusual vulnerabilities for you to recall.
What I see as a much larger problem is what you said later about always starting within charging range. This is a personal pet peeve of mine. What I would do, were I you, is tell him (politely) that you think it's getting a little redundant, always starting out so close to the enemy. Now, if you're doing a lot of dungeon craw this is a little harder to fix than if you have more variety of terrain types, but does not make it impossible.
I actually think what your DM said was fine.
Say that you saw the cloakers from a distance. You'd roll knowledge, and he'd tell you that little blurb. You'd definitely agree it was useful then, right?
Like that will ever happen. The last five encounters have started us within melee range of the monsters. I've never had a battle under this GM that didn't at least start within charging range.
To answer your question: Some of it. Knowing that they were grapplers long before you got into melee range would be one bit of useful information.
To answer your original question: The knowledge checks represent what you know, kind of like the ability to recognize that a car driving by is a 2009 toyota camry SE with a built in GPS.
Just because you happen to look inside the car to see the GPS that does not mean you suddenly get to know it has 200 hp(random number) in place of the GPS knowledge.I do agree he should have given you more information though.
Good news.
Knowledge() is action none. When your DM asks you to roll for initiative, ask for a Knowledge() check before combat starts. Doesn't matter if the creature has pounced on your fighter in a surprise round... you can still get your Knowledge() check before the first regular round begins. And since speaking is free... you may even be able to relate simple things like "don't let it bite you!"
THAT'S what needs to be fixed. Your DM's ruling was fair, I think. But he's got to let you use your skill, and now you know how. As soon as you see or hear something, ask.
Thanks, but I knew that already. It was partially my fault. I didn't think to make a knowledge check until after the first round of combat.
With out knowing the situations, but that does sound like poor DMing to not give you any clue of possible fights beyond ambushes. Though it is hard to say with out knowing the details.
This particular GM really likes his dungeons and closed in spaces. He says he's made Perception checks on our behalf, but I can never seem to catch him rolling them. My wizard's perception is crap, but there is a fair range amidst the rest of the party. You'd think somebody would have spotted something in 5 encounters.
Take off the blindfold. Airbreathers!
Good news.
Knowledge() is action none. When your DM asks you to roll for initiative, ask for a Knowledge() check before combat starts. Doesn't matter if the creature has pounced on your fighter in a surprise round... you can still get your Knowledge() check before the first regular round begins. And since speaking is free... you may even be able to relate simple things like "don't let it bite you!"
THAT'S what needs to be fixed. Your DM's ruling was fair, I think. But he's got to let you use your skill, and now you know how. As soon as you see or hear something, ask.
Thanks, but I knew that already. It was partially my fault. I didn't think to make a knowledge check until after the first round of combat.
With out knowing the situations, but that does sound like poor DMing to not give you any clue of possible fights beyond ambushes. Though it is hard to say with out knowing the details.This particular GM really likes his dungeons and closed in spaces. He says he's made Perception checks on our behalf, but I can never seem to catch him rolling them. My wizard's perception is crap, but there is a fair range amidst the rest of the party. You'd think somebody would have spotted something in 5 encounters.
The DM might be using a number he considers to be a passive perception check, though half the time as a DM myself I forget to compare those numbers vs the encounters i have planned for my players.
As for knowledge checks I think you are entitled to a clearer description of the monsters abilities, especially if your character is a bookworm who has invested his skills into knowledge.
The reiteration of what has already occurred in combat does not really help you. Now of course if there is no additional information that the dm can provide then you're kind of SOL but he could have given an example of the tactics the creatures use on their prey.
A few things to keep in nind:
Encounter distances underground are very short - at best you would start Perception checks at 20 - 25 yards & often closer.
Unless your entire group has darkvision, your light sources give away your presence at 10 times the distance they let you see out to. If you are all using darkvision, your maximum line of sight is 20 yards = charging distance. Barring uncommon sight distances.
Cloakers are uncommon creatures. That in and of itself adds 5 to the Knowledge DC. From the sound of things you hit the DC spot on for a CR 7 critter, garnering the information the GM decided was apprpriate for "one useful bit of information".
Compared to vampires, and depending upon how one reads things, the DC to figure out ALL the useful information is a 42. Just by way of comparison.
That a free action skill check can potentially "spill the beans" on almost every facet of a given category of creatures is pretty formidable.
I would not say your GM is being unfair.
Unless your entire group has darkvision, your light sources give away your presence at 10 times the distance they let you see out to. If you are all using darkvision, your maximum line of sight is 20 yards = charging distance. Barring uncommon sight distances.
We are all humans and a half elf. We've also gained a human were-bunny recently. That in itself would explain why we "walk into the ambushes." Currently we are in an abandoned, underground dwarven city which still has magical motes of light floating all over the place (creating dim illumination).
Cloakers are uncommon creatures.
Where do the rules say that?
I personally think that the GM gave two bits of useful information. A) That it was an aberration and that it can fly (though I'd say whether it was natural, supernatural or whatever it might be). B) It tends to grapple.
But the Knowledge check in this case isn`t ¨Hm. The journal we found said ¨Cloakers¨ are in the cavern complex. What are those like, I wonder?¨. It was more like ¨Hm. Flying beasts descended onto my companions instantly grappling them with ease. What are these creatures and what else can they do?¨
Telling him they are flyers and like to grapple things is like telling someone asking the first question ¨Well, they´re called Cloakers and they live in caverns.¨
I personally think that the GM gave two bits of useful information. A) That it was an aberration and that it can fly (though I'd say whether it was natural, supernatural or whatever it might be). B) It tends to grapple.But the Knowledge check in this case isn`t ¨Hm. The journal we found said ¨Cloakers¨ are in the cavern complex. What are those like, I wonder?¨. It was more like ¨Hm. Flying beasts descended onto my companions instantly grappling them with ease. What are these creatures and what else can they do?¨
Telling him they are flyers and like to grapple things is like telling someone asking the first question ¨Well, they´re called Cloakers and they live in caverns.¨
In which case I view it even more accurate. So now I know what creature type they are (which can affect what spells affect them) and what name they are, as well as where they are normally found. If I wasn't in the underdark, that could be very useful to know. Also, the tendency to grapple is a useful bit, imo, as I generally play casters and want to stay as far from them as I can. But in any case...I did say that I personally as a GM would have given a bit more information. It's just that I do see the information given as fair for the check made.
In which case I view it even more accurate. So now I know what creature type they are (which can affect what spells affect them) and what name they are, as well as where they are normally found. If I wasn't in the underdark, that could be very useful to know. Also, the tendency to grapple is a useful bit, imo, as I generally play casters and want to stay as far from them as I can. But in any case...I did say that I personally as a GM would have given a bit more information. It's just that I do see the information given as fair for the check made.I personally think that the GM gave two bits of useful information. A) That it was an aberration and that it can fly (though I'd say whether it was natural, supernatural or whatever it might be). B) It tends to grapple.But the Knowledge check in this case isn`t ¨Hm. The journal we found said ¨Cloakers¨ are in the cavern complex. What are those like, I wonder?¨. It was more like ¨Hm. Flying beasts descended onto my companions instantly grappling them with ease. What are these creatures and what else can they do?¨
Telling him they are flyers and like to grapple things is like telling someone asking the first question ¨Well, they´re called Cloakers and they live in caverns.¨
Except I've never heard of a player who randomly says "I make a knowledge check to see what I know about X monster." The check is always made at the start of an encounter the moment the GM describes what the monster looks like to the players.
Except I've never heard of a player who randomly says "I make a knowledge check to see what I know about X monster." The check is always made at the start of an encounter the moment the GM describes what the monster looks like to the players.In which case I view it even more accurate. So now I know what creature type they are (which can affect what spells affect them) and what name they are, as well as where they are normally found. If I wasn't in the underdark, that could be very useful to know. Also, the tendency to grapple is a useful bit, imo, as I generally play casters and want to stay as far from them as I can. But in any case...I did say that I personally as a GM would have given a bit more information. It's just that I do see the information given as fair for the check made.I personally think that the GM gave two bits of useful information. A) That it was an aberration and that it can fly (though I'd say whether it was natural, supernatural or whatever it might be). B) It tends to grapple.But the Knowledge check in this case isn`t ¨Hm. The journal we found said ¨Cloakers¨ are in the cavern complex. What are those like, I wonder?¨. It was more like ¨Hm. Flying beasts descended onto my companions instantly grappling them with ease. What are these creatures and what else can they do?¨
Telling him they are flyers and like to grapple things is like telling someone asking the first question ¨Well, they´re called Cloakers and they live in caverns.¨
Actually, I have had players like that, the same as I have had players who insist on listening at and checking for traps on every single door, or who insist on searching every broom closet they find for secret doors. Maybe I just play with more obsessive compulsive people than you do. :)
In response to your original post, I come down on the side of the people who would have given you a little more for your skill check. I never give actual stats, but will give very useful information like "they are rumored to be afraid of fire" or some such in language the character would be likely to know and use. Never use "they take double damage from fire".
Except I've never heard of a player who randomly says "I make a knowledge check to see what I know about X monster." The check is always made at the start of an encounter the moment the GM describes what the monster looks like to the players.-snip--snip--snip-
Well, in my case I have. I generally have seen 3 ways that people make knowledge checks about creatures. 4, actually, now that I think about it.
1) Hear that "Strange, wolf-like creatures with glowing eyes attack by night with chittering, broad eared creatures riding them." are in the area, these being worgs with goblin riders. They make a check to find out what they are, and make plans from there.
2) See claw-marks that the ranger finds and then uses a knowledge check to identify, or has the wizard do so. (I remember having them figure out there were zombies in the area in this manner.)
3) In combat, as per what happened with you.
4) After combat, such as when the tiefling rogue asked the wizard "What the hell was that thing? It nearly bit my tail off!" after the large, sturdy table-shaped mimic attacked her. She gave a 'no duh' comment after he informed her of the fact it has a natural adhesive, as she spent most of the combat trying to save her tail.
All of these, of course, depend on both roleplaying and a cooperative GM, but I have seen all of them done before. And used them, for that matter.
Well, in my case I have. I generally have seen 3 ways that people make knowledge checks about creatures. 4, actually, now that I think about it.
1) Hear that "Strange, wolf-like creatures with glowing eyes attack by night with chittering, broad eared creatures riding them." are in the area, these being worgs with goblin riders. They make a check to find out what they are, and make plans from there.
2) See claw-marks that the ranger finds and then uses a knowledge check to identify, or has the wizard do so. (I remember having them figure out there were zombies in the area in this manner.)
3) In combat, as per what happened with you.
4) After combat, such as when the tiefling rogue asked the wizard "What the hell was that thing? It nearly bit my tail off!" after the large, sturdy table-shaped mimic attacked her. She gave a 'no duh' comment after he informed her of the fact it has a natural adhesive, as she spent most of the combat trying to save her tail.
All of these, of course, depend on both roleplaying and a cooperative GM, but I have seen all of them done before. And used them, for that matter.
I've seen, and probably done, all of those as well. Still never seen someone make knowledge checks at random to see what they knew about a random topic though.
I actually think what your DM said was fine.
Say that you saw the cloakers from a distance. You'd roll knowledge, and he'd tell you that little blurb. You'd definitely agree it was useful then, right?
Now they come charging at you. You don't suddenly get more knowledgeable between now and then, even though you've seen them in action. If everyone's characters went around the table, the information you know about the Grappler's doesn't increase based on your position in the circle, just because someone said it already. I think what he did was reasonable.
This. Knowledge does not improve nor is dependent on what you just viewed.
IMO, you're overreacting.
I've seen, and probably done, all of those as well. Still never seen someone make knowledge checks at random to see what they knew about a random topic though.
All of these, of course, depend on both roleplaying and a cooperative GM, but I have seen all of them done before. And used them, for that matter.
My group does this all of the time because Knowledge: Engineering is absolutely positively useless.
DM: "The massive stone statue stands before you, an enormous marble shield clutched in his arm. He begins to speak..."
Player: "Wait, one sec. 26..."
Player: "... Knowledge: (engineering). What could I make out of this stone golem?"
DM: "What?"
Player: "Like, could he be used to support an arch."
I've seen, and probably done, all of those as well. Still never seen someone make knowledge checks at random to see what they knew about a random topic though.
*looks at posts and scratches head in confusion* Okay...suddenly I'm wondering where in my posts you got the 'randomly' bit, though I'll admit I kinda glazed over it in my responses. Just...hrrm. Anyway, I'd just say you've overreacted somewhat. Not a ton, but I might chat with your GM about what kind of information you'll get out of knowledge skills. If it's not enough...dump 'em, in my opinion.
|
I don't think your GM was out of line. Learning that it was an aberration is a pretty good tidbit, and yes, while it stinks you learned something you witnessed it doing, sometimes what you know *is* what you observe. Yes you rolled a 22, but a 22 in the grand scheme of knowledge checks shouldn't be that high.
I have a fantastic set of Knowledge cards (available pretty cheaply on RPG Now) which gave the following for it's Cloaker entry:
DC 10 – A Cloaker at rest appears as nothing more than a large black cloak or tapestry
DC 15 – A Cloaker can manipulate the shadows around itself
DC 20 – Cloakers try to wrap up human-sized and smaller victims within themselves before biting
DC 25 – Cloakers can emit a sonic moan that causes fear and nausea in nearby victims
It may have given a bit more information than what you had, but not much.
My group does this all of the time because Knowledge: Engineering is absolutely positively useless.
DM: "The massive stone statue stands before you, an enormous marble shield clutched in his arm. He begins to speak..."
Player: "Wait, one sec. 26..."
Player: "... Knowledge: (engineering). What could I make out of this stone golem?"
DM: "What?"
Player: "Like, could he be used to support an arch."
Useful at helping you fix, test and later destroy structures, though. And That has happened to me more than once ...
I've seen, and probably done, all of those as well. Still never seen someone make knowledge checks at random to see what they knew about a random topic though.*looks at posts and scratches head in confusion* Okay...suddenly I'm wondering where in my posts you got the 'randomly' bit, though I'll admit I kinda glazed over it in my responses. Just...hrrm. Anyway, I'd just say you've overreacted somewhat. Not a ton, but I might chat with your GM about what kind of information you'll get out of knowledge skills. If it's not enough...dump 'em, in my opinion.
The "random" bit was referencing one of my earlier posts.
Unless your entire group has darkvision, your light sources give away your presence at 10 times the distance they let you see out to. If you are all using darkvision, your maximum line of sight is 20 yards = charging distance. Barring uncommon sight distances.We are all humans and a half elf. We've also gained a human were-bunny recently. That in itself would explain why we "walk into the ambushes." Currently we are in an abandoned, underground dwarven city which still has magical motes of light floating all over the place (creating dim illumination).
Cloakers are uncommon creatures.Where do the rules say that?
As part of the default of " 10 + CR " (instead of 5 + CR for common monsters, or 15 - and up - + CR for rare monsters) listed in the knowledge skill.
Campaign-specific circumstances can alter the DC and information available from a Knowledge check as well.
Unless your entire group has darkvision, your light sources give away your presence at 10 times the distance they let you see out to. If you are all using darkvision, your maximum line of sight is 20 yards = charging distance. Barring uncommon sight distances.We are all humans and a half elf. We've also gained a human were-bunny recently. That in itself would explain why we "walk into the ambushes." Currently we are in an abandoned, underground dwarven city which still has magical motes of light floating all over the place (creating dim illumination).
Cloakers are uncommon creatures.Where do the rules say that?As part of the default of " 10 + CR " (instead of 5 + CR for common monsters, or 15 - and up - + CR for rare monsters) listed in the knowledge skill.
Campaign-specific circumstances can alter the DC and information available from a Knowledge check as well.
Does the cloaker entry say they are uncommon, or something similar? Or are you just making an unfounded assumption?
Does the cloaker entry say they are uncommon, or something similar? Or are you just making an unfounded assumption?Unless your entire group has darkvision, your light sources give away your presence at 10 times the distance they let you see out to. If you are all using darkvision, your maximum line of sight is 20 yards = charging distance. Barring uncommon sight distances.We are all humans and a half elf. We've also gained a human were-bunny recently. That in itself would explain why we "walk into the ambushes." Currently we are in an abandoned, underground dwarven city which still has magical motes of light floating all over the place (creating dim illumination).
Cloakers are uncommon creatures.Where do the rules say that?As part of the default of " 10 + CR " (instead of 5 + CR for common monsters, or 15 - and up - + CR for rare monsters) listed in the knowledge skill.
Campaign-specific circumstances can alter the DC and information available from a Knowledge check as well.
Based on a cloaker not being a goblin. The assumption is not unfounded - the Core Rulebook defines the base line DC of a Knowledge check.