The fact it's an aberration isn't an immediately observable fact, so...right back at ya.
|
The rule states that it provides useful information. Telling you something you already know, based on approximately 2 seconds worth of observation, isn't useful at all.
This seems to be at the heart of the disagreement. While many have said they would provide more than the OP's DM did, the idea of "what is useful" seems to be fixed for some posters, and relative to what is already known to others. For me, useful information is information that could be used and isn't trivial. It isn't "...and previously unknown."
NPC: "Well, Mr. Wizard, I see that you have just written the definitive monograph on the cloaker. What an odd creature! Having written down everything that is known to anyone about it....what else can you tell me...."
Player: "Let's see, 15 on the die plus 12...that's a 27. DM...what do I know now that I didn't previously know when I wrote that monograph that includes everything that there is to know about this beastie!"
I sincerely hope that this comes across in a positive light. It isn't intended to belittle or denigrate. But the fact is that sometimes what has already been disclosed is all of the useful info that you know.
The rule states that it provides useful information. Telling you something you already know, based on approximately 2 seconds worth of observation, isn't useful at all.
The spirit of the rules is to give you monster information. Making 3 knowledge checks does not mean you get 3 different things, that is what higher rolls are for. The DM should have given the roll before he did, but that does not mean he is entitled to make up for his mistake with more information. It only means he has bad timing for knowledge rolls, and he should fix that for future games
|
The fact it's an aberration isn't an immediately observable fact, so...right back at ya.
Neither natural nor any magical creature I've ever heard of is like that. That's also not really useful information.
I'll agree that he should have made the check earlier. I won't agree that he shouldn't have told them something different, because if I do, and this is allowed to pass, then it will never end, people will be making knowledge skill checks to realize what color they typically are or what they are shaped like. You have to give the players actually useful information, even if they just make the roll, otherwise it's a slippery slope and no one will ever bother with knowledge skills.
The rule states that it provides useful information. Telling you something you already know, based on approximately 2 seconds worth of observation, isn't useful at all.The spirit of the rules is to give you monster information. Making 3 knowledge checks does not mean you get 3 different things, that is what higher rolls are for. The DM should have given the roll before he did, but that does not mean he is entitled to make up for his mistake with more information. It only means he has bad timing for knowledge rolls, and he should fix that for future games
The player didn't ask for the roll earlier. He asked for it after he'd observed them for a round of combat. He admitted that was a mistake on his part.
The fact it's an aberration isn't an immediately observable fact, so...right back at ya.Neither natural nor any magical creature I've ever heard of is like that. That's also not really useful information.
I'll agree that he should have made the check earlier. I won't agree that he shouldn't have told them something different, because if I do, and this is allowed to pass, then it will never end, people will be making knowledge skill checks to realize what color they typically are or what they are shaped like. You have to give the players actually useful information, even if they just make the roll, otherwise it's a slippery slope and no one will ever bother with knowledge skills.
Oh please,
Your approach is just as slippery a slope. The other slippery slope is to always wait until you've observed everything you can without making a roll, and then demanding a roll to tell you something new. Then demanding a new roll after that because the rogue is now using aid-another on your roll. Then demanding another roll after the wizard casts an INT boost buff on you. And then demanding a new piece of information every time you roll.
General Dorsey-That seems a tad ridiculous, it also strikes me as wrong, you can't learn something twice, especially not in the short periods of time being discussed here. That would imply you learned it, forgot it, and learned it again in the span of about 6 seconds. You have to give them information that they don't have without that check. Otherwise you are wasting their use of skill points which is bloody annoying for any player.
The GM equivalent would be buying a book that you never get to use.
That's not even close to what I was saying. I am saying that the PCs did know something about these creatures and it confirmed that these were cloakers and not something else mimicking cloakers. It may sound wrong, but that is often a very bit of important information.
I also highly suggest that the DM have a list of exactly what the checks will grant for each creature.
Im with the OP on this one. :)
IMHO, he should have gotten a snippet of the more useful parts of Cloaker lore (like a vulnerability or special ability).
I love seeing my players use these types of skills. I dont think he's overreacting per se, its more like a heat of the moment rant. :)
Im with the OP on this one. :)
IMHO, he should have gotten a snippet of the more useful parts of Cloaker lore (like a vulnerability or special ability).
I love seeing my players use these types of skills. I dont think he's overreacting per se, its more like a heat of the moment rant. :)
Why?
No, seriously. The only way he should have gotten more information is if cloakers are common as goblins in the universe.
If they aren't, then that means the DC of the knowledge check was either 13, or 18.
If it was 13, he made it by 9, which is only DC+5 (per the chart), not DC+10 (he missed that by 1 on his roll).
If it was 18, he made it by 4, which is only DC (per the chart), not DC+5 (he missed that by 1 on his roll).
People keep saying 'Ooh, that was a high roll', but it really wasn't, unless the cloakers are common as dirt.
Why?
No, seriously. The only way he should have gotten more information is if cloakers are common as goblins in the universe.
If they aren't, then that means the DC of the knowledge check was either 13, or 18.
If it was 13, he made it by 9, which is only DC+5 (per the chart), not DC+10 (he missed that by 1 on his roll).
If it was 18, he made it by 4, which is only DC (per the chart), not DC+5 (he missed that by 1 on his roll).
People keep saying 'Ooh, that was a high roll', but it really wasn't, unless the cloakers are common as dirt.
*points to mdt making points*
See? SEE!?!??!
I'm with what he said!
;-D
{honestly, the raw roll isn't that big a deal considering the skill descriptors. Add to that the situation in which the roll was made ... yeah. I'm not buying it as anything outside of GM's control. Many can and would have been more generous as a GM - this one, at that moment in the game, in mid-combat decided to run fast and loose and didn't give a whole lot of info for the check. End of story. :shrugs: Really it's not that big of a deal ... does seem to inform a lot of the "bad-wrong-fun" mentality that's nearly taken over the hobby, though ... whole new thread for THAT kind of talk however ... }
|
|
MDT,
in your opinion, at what point above the DC does one get more than descriptive information and start getting things that could be used as tactical information? The creatures in question are CR 5, it seems as if you want them to hit DC 30 for useful info. I ask this because the info the OP got would not help at all in that combat and makes his ranks in that skill seem to be wasted
If cloakers are CR 5, that means they have a DC of 15. So I would get two pieces of useful information. One for beating the DC, and another for beating the DC by 5 points (since I got a 22).
What am I missing that people are telling me I'd only get one useful piece of info?
|
|
Why?If it was 13, he made it by 9, which is only DC+5 (per the chart), not DC+10 (he missed that by 1 on his roll).
So he was entitled to TWO pieces of USEFUL information.
What he got, regardless of WHEN he got it, wasn't all that useful, period. Rather it seems it was more dismissive 'I don't want to deal with it/tell you anything'.
That is cause for concern.
The PC shouldn't have to ASK for it anymore than they should have to ASK for a perception check when not taking a move action to search/look around.
-James
lol. I can just see that...
"You are surprised. You did not roll a perception check so you did not see them."
|
|
If cloakers are CR 5, that means they have a DC of 15. So I would get two pieces of useful information. One for beating the DC, and another for beating the DC by 5 points (since I got a 22).
What am I missing that people are telling me I'd only get one useful piece of info?
A more appropriate check result would have been things more like:
-This creature can blend in with the shadows, making it difficult to hit.
-It can wrap around its enemies and trap them in its body.
-It can emit a sound that can have several negative effects on those that hear it.
if i did this to my players, they would call me out on it, and they would be right. Aberration is useful info so that's 1 piece true, but you rolled high enough for one more useful bit. When making a knowledge check, you are searching your memory for useful information, and calling it to mind. Sometime you remember a lot, sometimes you can't recall something you've seen a long time ago. If i see it flying and grappling, then I'm going to gloss over those points and try to recall something else. It's not that the amount of knowledge i have changes, it's the amount of recollection at that time.
Ok, so, it's CR5? That makes it even worse.
Here's what you should get:
Common : DC 10, Roll 22. You get 3 pieces of information (1 for the DC, one for beating it by +5, one for beating it by +10)
Uncommon : DC 15, Roll 22. You get 2 pieces of information (1 for the DC, one for beating it by +5).
Rare : DC 20, Roll 22. You get 1 piece of useful information.
Again, what the GM gave, considering the check wasn't made until after they moved, is perfectly acceptable for Uncommon, and is also acceptable for Rare (although honestly, he gave more than he should if it's a rare creature).
Why?If it was 13, he made it by 9, which is only DC+5 (per the chart), not DC+10 (he missed that by 1 on his roll).
So he was entitled to TWO pieces of USEFUL information.
What he got, regardless of WHEN he got it, wasn't all that useful, period. Rather it seems it was more dismissive 'I don't want to deal with it/tell you anything'.
That is cause for concern.
The PC shouldn't have to ASK for it anymore than they should have to ASK for a perception check when not taking a move action to search/look around.
-James
Again, USEFUL cannot be subjective, it has to be OBJECTIVE. You can't wait until the guy has studied them for a round and seen them use 3 powers and then say 'Oh, ok, they can do A, B, and C, so what else can they do when I roll and get 2 pieces of useful information'. Otherwise you break the system and allow serious metagaming.
Under your preferred method, James, you'd give them a 'freebie' knowledge check at first sight, correct? I have no issue with that, it's your house rule, more power to you.
However, under your method, you would never have this issue come up because you'd make his Knowledge check prior to combat start, and tell him exactly what his DM did the second round of combat. But per your theory, it would be fine because the knowledge wasn't already displayed in game. The big issue here is not how much information was given, it's the fact that the check didn't occur until the second round of combat.
EDIT: Another example of why the amount of information has to be objective. Two different people in the party have the same skill. Person A says 'I make my Knowledge check', he has a +17 and rolls 10 and get's 27. 'I got the DC by 15!'. The GM reads off 4 useful bits of information. The second person has a +4 and rolls a 20. "Woo Hoo! I got a 24! I get 3 useful bits of information!" By your and the OP's logic, the second person has to be given 3 ADDITIONAL bits of information (repeating what the more skilled person got is not useful, they already know that information). Can you see how this would be MASSIVELY abusive? Everyone would put 1 point into every knowledge skill just to get a freebie roll and hope for a 20.
What am I missing that people are telling me I'd only get one useful piece of info?
People have said that you get two pieces of info if the creature is uncommon in rarity, or one piece of the creature is truly rare. People are correct.
The main disagreement remaining is whether pieces of information that are already visible from seeing the creature should be included under the "useful pieces of information". Especially since if you saw the cloaker BEFORE it attacked you, knowing that the black thing hanging from the ceiling can fly and will try to engulf you IS useful information.
If you already know certain facts (such as the fact that the critters fly and like to grapple), when the GM gives you information, it's supposed to be useful according to the skill description. How useful is it really to be given things your character already knows from direct observation? Not at all. So at the time the skill check was rolled, the information he received had to be things he hadn't already figured out, because being given redundant information isn't useful in this case.
Ravingdork, you said you have ranks in all skills right, and you're in a dungeon, so what I would suggest is to try and get your DM to allow a knowledge(dungeoneer) to know what to watch out for. Those with good amounts of ranks in knowledge(dungeoneer) shouldn't get ambushed so many times underground. This check would be answering a question in your field of study.
If you already know certain facts (such as the fact that the critters fly and like to grapple), when the GM gives you information, it's supposed to be useful according to the skill description. How useful is it really to be given things your character already knows from direct observation? Not at all. So at the time the skill check was rolled, the information he received had to be things he hadn't already figured out, because being given redundant information isn't useful in this case.
Lions are large cats with teeth and claws and travel in prides.
2nd round of a pack of lions eating Mr. Fishy's party does not change what Mr. Fishy knows. With ONE rank in knowledge nature.
I'm not sure what "abusive" means in this context. Who is being abused?
And I'm sorry, but I just can't see a PC who gets 2 skill points per level gaming the system on a 5% chance they'll roll a 20 - let alone a 5% * 5% chance they and their buddy will roll a 20.
Well ... if it's a "free" check, why *wouldn't* they try it? It costs the 1 skill point and that's it.
:shrugs:
Potential "abuse" ... I guess - it's only a knowledge check.
If that "useful" marker keeps getting pushed into "tell me what I do NOT know" vs. "limit this use to the critter itself" then by default everyone *could* keep making checks and eventually just get ALL of the info on the critter outright ... "just 'cuz!" essentially. THAT, more than anything else is pure meta-game and out and out BS! The feeling of "I already know that ..." really can't even enter the picture for this skill, IMO.
Again - NO ONE says they'd have given exactly that same info, and *most* have said it's probably just a bad choice for info - but that's just on trying to not frustrate the player end of things. Character-wise, it's perfectly legitimate to see those things, make a check, and really come up with little more than what you've already seen (ie: "Yup - is sure is flying and totally just grabbed my partner!"). It's probably not the best *fun* option, but it's an option (also, it's why I'd have just gone with some other info piece dropped on them - but that would be MY call as GM to play out at MY table - follow?)
@ Mr. Fishy ==> PERFECT summary! Kudos! :-D
Telling you that they are aberrations is useful..
Isn't knowing that the creatures fly important even if you see them flying? What if they weren't supposed to be flying and instead were being moved by telekinesis? Knowing that they fly is useful. It changes the tactics available to you. If they weren't supposed to fly a simple dispel magic would have stopped them. Your character's concerns were confirmed when you realized they actually can fly.
I don't see the same problems you are seeing, sorry. I am with mdt on this. Next time just ask for the information as soon as the creature is encountered. Also discuss with your DM about making a list of what is known with each DC. Yes it's a lot of work for the DM, but someone has already done this and the document can be downloaded from the link I posted earlier.
If you already know certain facts (such as the fact that the critters fly and like to grapple), when the GM gives you information, it's supposed to be useful according to the skill description. How useful is it really to be given things your character already knows from direct observation? Not at all. So at the time the skill check was rolled, the information he received had to be things he hadn't already figured out, because being given redundant information isn't useful in this case.
This is what I disagree with. When your character tries to remember what he/she studied should not affect what he/she learned. "Useful info" should not be determined by what the circumstances are. It should be the same stuff whether you're encountering cloakers in combat or caged in a zoo.
When your character tries to remember what he/she studied should not affect what he/she learned. "Useful info" should not be determined by what the circumstances are. It should be the same stuff whether you're encountering cloakers in combat or caged in a zoo.
And that's all that needs to be said, AFAIC.
If you already know certain facts (such as the fact that the critters fly and like to grapple), when the GM gives you information, it's supposed to be useful according to the skill description. How useful is it really to be given things your character already knows from direct observation? Not at all. So at the time the skill check was rolled, the information he received had to be things he hadn't already figured out, because being given redundant information isn't useful in this case.This is what I disagree with. When your character tries to remember what he/she studied should not affect what he/she learned. "Useful info" should not be determined by what the circumstances are. It should be the same stuff whether you're encountering cloakers in combat or caged in a zoo.
Whereas I see "useful" as being extremely situational, whether it should be or not. But I also think that some of the ideas already mentioned about breaking down the Knowledge DCs could be helpful. If you didn't get a roll high enough to learn something that you already knew from observation, I'd find it fair (if not necessarily RAW) to say "Sorry, you can't think of anything you haven't just seen" and tell the player he would have gotten that information he's already gained in-game ("Yes, if you'd rolled at the outset, you would have learned that cloakers can fly and like to grapple, but as you've already figured that out....").
I wouldn't change what he learns based on the situation.
But I very much disagree on the definition of "useful," and I would scale things so that a check of 20+ gives something better than only the creature's type, means of locomotion, and most obvious melee attack.
Example: Party encounters a 12-ft. tall humanoid with an axe.
Player: "I got a 28!"
DM: "It's a giant. He walks on the ground. He probably hits things with an axe."
That's NOT useful. "It's a flying aberration that grapples" is likewise something that's painfully evident to EVERYONE at first glance, no knowledge required. Claiming that this information is "useful" seems a bit dishonest -- "well, maybe it's being levitated" is a pretty lame rationalization for "useful" -- I might as well say "their favorite color is pink," and claim that's equally useful.
On the flip side:
Player: "I got a 28!"
DM: "You notice the bluish cast to his skin, and realize this may be one of the fabled giants of the north, who are as one with the cold."
THAT would be "useful," to me, because it tells the wizard not to bother with his cone of cold spell. In short, any roll of 20+ probably ought to give at least one special ability that isn't glaringly obvious at first glance.
Okay, if we want to play rules lawyer and underline the word "useful" fourteen times, bold it, make it all-caps, circle it in blood and draw little daggers pointing at it, then let's really play.
It doesn't say useful to you or anyone you know.
That's right. Want to play literalist instead of applying common sense? Well, let's play literalist. Useful information is useful information. Someone less busy being grappled by an aberrant flying cloaker would find the knowledge that they are aberrations that fly and grapple people will find those three tidbits very useful. They might in fact find them so useful that they might avoid getting flown at and grappled.
Don't like that game?
Neither do I. It's childish.
It's been said repeatedly by many different voices that the skill makes sense as an objective check. Heck, why not ask for a Knowledge() check for each cloaker individually. Learn two or three things about the first one, then ask about the second one. Hey, two or three more useful things. Keep it up and you'll know everything there is to know about a creature type just because they are in a group. Woot.
No. It's nonsense.
Knowing a creature is able to fly and likes to grapple is very useful information. Just because you've already learned it the hard way doesn't mean your character should retroactively be entitled to know other things.
The only mistake the DM made was in letting the combat begin without releasing the result of the Knowledge() check. It sounds like RavingDork's group runs things as do my groups and the player requests rolls. It's up to him to discuss and have that process revised. But as things stands, we're just going around in circles. Again. In yet another thread.
As things stands, we're just going around in circles. Again. In yet another thread.
Mr. Fishy thought that was the point.
As things stands, we're just going around in circles. Again. In yet another thread.Mr. Fishy thought that was the point.
Wait, the point was a circle? Now I'm confused.
Wait, the point was a circle? Now I'm confused.As things stands, we're just going around in circles. Again. In yet another thread.Mr. Fishy thought that was the point.
As a circle's diameter approaches 0, it becomes indistinguishable from a point. :)
I think some gamers should try being more social -- you know, moving in larger circles...
|
But as things stands, we're just going around in circles. Again. In yet another thread.Every time I gain access to a Wish spell, I Wish for our dear Paizo boards to not do this.
Alas, it has not happened yet...
...and I feel your pain, dear sir/madam :D
This going around in circles is making me sick to my stomach. If the room is going to spin like this, I should at least be drunk first.
Mr. Fishy is sorry for starting a round of puns. Sorry....
1. It doesn't say useful to you or anyone you know.
2. Knowing a creature is able to fly and likes to grapple is very useful information. Just because you've already learned it the hard way doesn't mean your character should retroactively be entitled to know other things.
1. Then why bother with the Knowledge skill? Throw it out, if it's not good for anything you care about.
2. Again, if the only information that Knowledge will give you is information that you can immediately see for yourself without it, then why should anyone take the skill, ever? Why does it even exist? Fluff only?Again, I'm NOT saying the character should retroactively learn more based on the situation. I AM saying that a good skill check should give some information that's not immediately obvious upon meeting the thing. That same information would be obtained whether you make the check mid-combat or the week before, but it should be more than "it flies and grapples," on a good check.
Overall, if the DM is going to intentionally rig things so that Knowledge will never tell you anything that looking at the thing won't also tell you, then just get rid of the skill entirely. Don't encourage people to waste their skill points on something you're not going to allow them to get any use out of. That's childish -- looking for excuses to screw the players, "just because you can."
1. Then why bother with the Knowledge skill? Throw it out, if it's not good for anything you care about.
2. Again, if the only information that Knowledge will give you is information that you can immediately see for yourself without it, then why should anyone take the skill, ever? Why does it even exist? Fluff only?Overall, if the DM is going to intentionally rig things so that Knowledge will never tell you anything that looking at the thing won't also tell you, then just get rid of the skill entirely. Don't encourage people to waste their skill points on something you're not going to allow them to get any use out of. That's childish -- looking for excuses to screw the players, "just because you can."
Noone ever said that Knowledge could only give him info that was readily available through direct experience. It was simply pointed out that 1) Relatively low rolls may not give you much info, and 2) Information gained through Knowledge skills can often be gained by direct experience.
If you are faced with a White Dragon, it isn't always apparent to a character what its immunities are (unless you memorized the Bestiary entry.) But, once you tried casting a Cone of Cold at it, and found it 100% ineffective, you'd know, wouldn't you? You could also have rolled Knowledge beforehand and potentially remember that you'd studied Dragon Lore enough to know its immunity. Same result, different actions. Having the Knowledge check then would save you a spell.
But, if you cast the spell without waiting to roll a Knowledge check (your character cast without thinking it through first,) It doesn't mean that you should get different info in your Knowledge check. It just means you were foolish in how you used it. Rather like casting Fly to scale a cliff rather than simply using Climb to do so.
Ever heard of an "Educated Idiot".
Knowing something and that information being relevant are two different things. If the party had seen the cloakers before combat flying aberrations would be useful because abberrations are immune to some spells and flying is a movement type that can be troublesome. Also the grapple means that the monster is likey to charge or gang up on one character at a time. All of this information is useful in forming a tactical plan. After the monster starts to chew off your face, Mr. Fishy admits it is less useful. But that does not change what you know.
Looking to screw the player and the best you have is a knowledge check?
Mr. Fishy made a guy beg for character death. That is screwing with a player.
At the end of the day, you're left with one and only one relevant question -- do you want knowledge skills to be as commonly chosen as other skills? If so, then knowledge skills should be as useful and interesting as those other skills.
Exactly correct.
1. No one ever said that Knowledge could only give him info that was readily available through direct experience.
2. If you are faced with a White Dragon, it isn't always apparent to a character what its immunities are (unless you memorized the Bestiary entry.) Having the Knowledge check then would save you a spell.
3. But, if you cast the spell without waiting to roll a Knowledge check (your character cast without thinking it through first,) It doesn't mean that you should get different info in your Knowledge check.
1. To the contrary; that seems to be the thrust of the thread: (a) creature type, (b) mode of movement, and (c) obvious natural attack are always more than enough information, and if they expect more out of a lousy skill -- too bad!
2. Exactly so -- but in the example given, they'd learn only (a) it's a dragon, (b) it can walk or fly, and (c) it attacks with teeth, claws, and maybe wings and tail. That's it. Nothing about immunities, breath weapons, or anything else. And that's the problem I've had with the whole thing. A DC 20 Knowledge check ought to at least mention a special ability (e.g., cold immunity, or breath weapon).
3. Hopefully no one is arguing otherwise -- expecting what you know to change based on when you make the check during an encounter makes no sense at all. I think everyone is in agreement on that point. What we don't agree on is what kinds of information that Knowledge should be able to give you, regardless of when the check is made.
3. Hopefully no one is arguing otherwise -- expecting what you know to change based on when you make the check makes no sense. I think everyone is in agreement on that point. What we don't agree on is what kinds of information that Knowledge should be able to give you, regardless of when the check is made.
Actually, the OP made that exact argument. The fact that he'd already seen them fly, and grapple someone else, was something already known to him. It wouldn't have been known if he'd done the check prior to them taking off from the walls and attacking him. Ergo, he wants the info to change based on what has already taken place, that is, different info based on whether or not he's seen the creature do something.
1. To the contrary; that seems to be the thrust of the thread: Creature type, mode of movement, and obvious natural attack are always more than enough information, and if they expect more out of a lousy skill -- too bad!
2. Exactly so -- but in the3 example given, they'd learn only (a) it's a dragon, (b) it can walk or fly, and (c) it attacks with teeth, claws, and maybe wings and tail. That's it. Nothing about immunities, breath weapons, or anything else. And that's the problem I've had with the whole thing. A DC 20 Knowledge check ought to at least give me a special ability (e.g., cold immunity, or breath weapon).
1: Actually, the general thrust is that THAT roll would only get you two useful pieces of info. That info is up to the GM's discretion and should start with the basics and work its way up, rather than starting from what the player knows and working up from there. A larger roll will give more info.
2: You seem to be assuming that 20+ should always be considered a "tough" DC for a skill check, and thus should always give specific info, like a special ability. That isn't always the case. In this world, cloakers could be quite uncommon, to the point that knowing ANYTHING about cloakers is very hard to begin with. Knowledge DC changes with circumstances, and the circumstances may not be the same based on GM, region, and creature.
Added to this, 20 isn't really that hard a number to reach, even at the lowest level. By Level 10 or so, you can easily get a modifier at +20 or higher, and I can virtually guarantee that no GM will give your character unlimited knowledge about everything in the subject based on just that.