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.
Then the OP is dead wrong about that -- but he's still right about what a knowledge check, in general, should give.
The player is therefore in the right, in asking for more information. It has nothing to do with what the character observed, though, and everything to do with what a knowledge check should generally be able to do.
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.Then the OP is dead wrong about that -- but he's still right about what a knowledge check, in general, should give.
Whether you make the check on round 1 of combat or on round 3 should never matter. On a good check, you should reasonably expect to get more than obvious facts (type, mode of movement, obvious natural attacks). It would be reasonable to expect a DC 20 check to get at least one immunity, resistance, special attack, etc. -- but the dude scored a 22 on his, and the DM told him not one of those things. The DM was wrong, in my opinion, to be so stingy with the information -- he's actively working to make sure no one ever takes that skill. The player is therefore in the right, in asking for more information. It has nothing to do with what the character observed, though, and everything to do with what a knowledge check should generally be able to do.
Ok, let me walk you through how I see it.
Scenario #1
1) Characters are moving through a dungeon.
2) Rogue see's 4-5 rags hanging off the wall 50 feet down the corridor.
3) Rogue makes a Knowledge(Dungeoneering) check.
4) Rogue gets a 22.
5) GM determines that creatures are uncommon, so DC 15. He decides the character gets 2 pieces of useful information, and some fluff. "Those are cloakers, they are outsiders. They can fly, and they like to grapple, especially faces."
Would you say that that is 'useless' or 'useful' information about the creatures? To me, that is very useful information.
Scenario #2
1) Characters are moving through a dungeon.
2) Rogue see's 4-5 rags hanging off the wall 50 feet down the corridor.
3) Rogue points to them and says 'Woah, those look wierd ugly!' in a loud voice.
4) Cloaker's detach from the wall and fly down the corridor and start attacking the party, grappling the loud mouthed rogue first, wrapping around his head.
5) Fighter stabs the cloaker on the rogue, and the rogue screams as the sword cuts his face.
6) The wizard looks around wild-eyed and says 'What are these things?' He makes a knowledge check, and get's a 22.
7) GM determines that creatures are uncommon, so DC 15. He decides the character gets 2 pieces of useful information, and some fluff. "Those are cloakers, they are outsiders. They can fly, and they like to grapple, especially faces."
8) Wizard player curses out GM and speculates on his illigitemacy.
Now, the character got two pieces of useful information. Granted, that information would have been more useful if the rogue hadn't mouthed off and attracted them first, but that's beside the point. The amount of knowledge the character had based on the roll didn't change. The OP would have it stated that the same information that was useful in #1 is useless in #2 because instead of making the check before hand, he decided to make it after he'd already observed the enemy attacking.
The amount of information you get is based on how much you make your roll by (1 for making the DC, 1 for each +5 you make it by). The more uncommon or rare an enemy is, the less you get. Just because you have already observed the creature using one or more abilities doesn't mean you get to know those and any Knowledge checks magically add additional things to that list.
Given the tone of how things were done, I'd say it was the later. That's a red flag in a campaign. That the OP is following this up with how encounters have been going, and I'd say it's time for him to be looking for a better campaign.
One must consider the source, however. Many of us are trying to give the GM the benefit of the doubt because the GM cannot give their side. The tone is heard through the retelling of a frustrated player, which often makes a perfectly reasonably GM decision sound arbitrary. Particularly out of context.
Given the tone of how things were done, I'd say it was the later. That's a red flag in a campaign. That the OP is following this up with how encounters have been going, and I'd say it's time for him to be looking for a better campaign.One must consider the source, however. Many of us are trying to give the GM the benefit of the doubt because the GM cannot give their side. The tone is heard through the retelling of a frustrated player, which often makes a perfectly reasonably GM decision sound arbitrary. Particularly out of context.
Yep, basically why I'm posting so hard.
Isn't this coming from the same DM who stated that Bull's strength doesn't help with your Strength checks?
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?
It depends on how common they are in the gameworld, which is up to the DM. I don't know why he only told you that much info. He may be stingy with information or cloakers may be rare in his opinion.
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
Some DM's don't give knowledge checks. I have a friend who recently started playing under me as a DM, and until then he though knowledge checks were useless because all the other DM's ignored them. If this is the case RD needs to speak with the DM about the usefulness of knowledge checks in his game.
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...
Real life example of what MDT is saying: If I see a car go from 0 to 60 in 3.5 seconds do I automatically get to know it has a car alarm, because I observed it go that fast, in order to replace the fact that I would not have know it went that fast had I not seen it.
In other words either you know it or you don't. Replacing observed knowledge is not a function of the knowledge skill.
You guys are making me agree with MDT. That should automatically end the thread :).
Yeah, I'm having all sorts of cringe moments over here, considering all the people I usually disagree vehemently with who are basically on the same wagon as me this time. ;)
On a separate note, I'm neither extreme. What tends to happen in my games is something like this....
GM : The corridor is about 100 feet long, you can barely see the door at the other end, the light is dim, but the moss on the wall gives off enough light to make it out. Everyone give me a perception roll (done at odd times, whether it means anything or not).
Rogue : 27
Cleric : 16
Sorcerer : 19
Paladin : 23
GM : Ok, Rogue, Paladin, you both noticed that a couple of those black rags that have been hanging all over the ruins just moved near the door.
Rogue : They moved? Does it look like a gust of wind, maybe a secret door that's letting air in or something?
Paladin : Or do they look like they moved under their own power?
GM : Rogue, you're Knowledge (Dungeoneering) is +12 right? And Paladin, you're perception is +10 right? <rolls dice behind screen> Rogue, the movements don't fit with a gust of wind, nor with a hole in the wall, two rags next to each other moved differently. Paladin, you aren't sure if they're just rags or something else.
Rogue : Hmmm, ok, do I know of anything that would look like a black rag that could be alive?
GM : <rolls dice> Well, there are some creatures called Cloakers, they're called that because they are outsiders made of shadow, insubstantial. They are pretty rare though.
Sorcerer : Do I know anything about them? I have a Knowledge (Dungeoneering) of 10.
Paladin : I have a +4 on it.
Cleric : Aww, I don't have that skill.
GM : <rolls some more dice> Sorcerer, you know that these things are often called Facehuggers too, they like to wrap themselves around living beings heads and suffocate them so they can eat their souls when they die. Paladin, you didn't know that, but you know they can fly, pretty quickly too.
What happened above was, for example, the Rogue made his DC by 1, the Paladin with a lucky roll made his DC by 15, and the Paladin made his roll by 1. So, overall, they got 4 bits of useful information off the Paladin. However, since the Sorcerer had the higher skill bonus, I made it look like he got most of the information (two items) and gave one each to each of the other players.
So, to sum up:
Everyone agrees that the information given for the DC 22 Knowledge check would have been sufficient pre-combat.
Some people argue that since the PC already knows the information from the DC 22 Knowledge check, he should get new information.
Of course, getting 2 new bits of information at that point would be akin to him having rolled a 32 on the Knowledge check pre-combat. Why should his skill/recollection suddenly be boosted by 10 points just because combat has started? If Knowledge checks worked that way, I'm pretty sure I'd wait at least one round before ever asking for one :)
So, to sum up:
Everyone agrees that the information given for the DC 22 Knowledge check would have been sufficient pre-combat.
Some people argue that since the PC already knows the information from the DC 22 Knowledge check, he should get new information.
Of course, getting 2 new bits of information at that point would be akin to him having rolled a 32 on the Knowledge check pre-combat. Why should his skill/recollection suddenly be boosted by 10 points just because combat has started? If Knowledge checks worked that way, I'm pretty sure I'd wait at least one round before ever asking for one :)
Not quite a full summary.
First of all.. it's not asking for knowledge checks anymore than it would be asking for perception checks to notice the things in the first place.
Secondly, very few people are taking that stance.. in fact I'm not sure really that anyone IS, rather that's how they are reading the OP's complaint about how useless the information that his DC 22 knowledge dungeoneering check gave him.. that the information was less than what a DC 5 perception check would give I can't really blame him.
To rebut, if knowledge checks give so little.. what kind of DC would it take to really know something about these creatures? Over a 40? A 50? Seems far too steep to me.
-James
I assume knowledge check information comes from studying information in down time. In order for the information to be recorded it had to be observed first, and the first few adventurers to fight cloakers, and survive probably observed(were victims of) the "face hugging" so that is useful to know before you fight them. The fact that the DM did not give them the check until after the fight started does not change the fact that it is nice to know.
Would you rather a DM let you know something is good at grappling through a knowledge check or let you become grapple, and then decide to tell you something else?
Real life example of what MDT is saying: If I see a car go from 0 to 60 in 3.5 seconds do I automatically get to know it has a car alarm, because I observed it go that fast, in order to replace the fact that I would not have know it went that fast had I not seen it.
Let's stick with your example: if I see the car and know a lot about cars, I should be able to recognize it as a '89 Targa or whatever. Me seeing it accelerate does not cause God to come down out of the sky and erase all knowledge of the car from my mind in favor of the observed acceleration. I still have no idea whether it has an alarm -- but I don't forget how many cc's the engine is, or what wheelbase we're dealing with.
So, to sum up:
Everyone agrees that the information given for the DC 22 Knowledge check would have been sufficient pre-combat.
Some people argue that since the PC already knows the information from the DC 22 Knowledge check, he should get new information.
Of course, getting 2 new bits of information at that point would be akin to him having rolled a 32 on the Knowledge check pre-combat. Why should his skill/recollection suddenly be boosted by 10 points just because combat has started? If Knowledge checks worked that way, I'm pretty sure I'd wait at least one round before ever asking for one :)
Actually, whether the DC 22 Knowledge check would have been sufficient pre-combat is the only remaining valid contention.
Assuming that cloakers are neither especially common nor especially rare, the DC of the check should have been 15. The check entitles the character to two useful pieces of information. "Aberrations that can fly and like to grapple," was the info given. Some folks say that is enough; others say it's not.
I think the ship's set sail on the question of whether your knowledge is magically boosted by observing something that the knowledge check could have told you in different circumstances.
All that remains is whether Aberrations/Flight/Grapple is enough useful information.
So, to sum up: Everyone agrees that the information given for the DC 22 Knowledge check would have been sufficient pre-combat.
NO! That is NOT at all my standpoint. I'm claiming that the information given would NOT be enough for a check of that DC, regardless of when the check was made.
Some people argue that since the PC already knows the information from the DC 22 Knowledge check, he should get new information.
Again -- No!!! What I'm arguing is that (a) it should make no difference when he makes the check; and (b) creature type, mode of movement, and obvious natural attacks are insufficient information for a DC 22 Knowledge check -- whether it's made before combat, during the fight, after the battle, or next year. I don't care if a cloaker looks like a rag, or whether it wears a neon sign saying CLOAKER in giant flashing letters -- if you recognize the critter, you should know some things about it on a DC 22 check beyond what was given.
Your "summary" is 180 degrees off from what I'm saying.
Okay. Well, for at least some more useful input to the discussion than arguing back and forth, I went and found my copy of Monster Manual IV. For all its other shortcomings, it has one very useful feature in that all creatures in it have Knowledge check DCs listed right there.
So.. The first comparable creature is the Briarvex. It's a CR 6 Plant. The information listed is as follows:
DC16: This creature is a briarvex, a malevolent plant being. This result reveals all plant traits.
DC21: A briarvex is able to control the plants around it, causing them to grapple and hold its foes.
DC26: A briarvex's strikes implant thorns onto a creature. These thorns can animate and burrow into the flesh, causing grievous injuries.
DC31: A briarvex spends the first two years of its life in an inert state, similar to a normal plant. During that time, it can be easily uprooted and burnt.
All that taken into consideration, I feel the information the DM gave for the Cloaker is comparable. He should have given all Aberration traits, though.
DC16: This creature is a briarvex, a malevolent plant being. This result reveals all plant traits.
DC21: A briarvex is able to control the plants around it, causing them to grapple and hold its foes.
So he should have given:
DC 16: That "rag" is actually a cloaker, an aberration (lists aberration traits).DC 21: Cloakers use weird subsonic humming to disable their prey before attacking.
In that manner, you're getting a special ability at DC 20, not something like "it can fly."
if you recognize the critter, you should know some things about it on a DC 22 check beyond what was given.
The DC only determines the number of things you know. How high that roll is has nothing to do with the quality of the information. Just amount.
DC "22" or otherwise doesn't really matter (by the rules, at least).
The DC only determines the number of things you know. How high that roll is has nothing to do with the quality of the information. Just amount.
That makes no sense at all -- the DM can just pick 2 things at DC 20, for example, regardless of what they are?
And these two things are supposed to be equivalent?
It wouldn't have been known if he'd done the check prior to them taking off from the walls and attacking him.
I didn't see them, have them fly from walls, attack us for a round, and then make the check.
It was more like they swooped out of the darkness and enveloped two party members in the surprise round. I then made my check. There was no wall or prior exposure like you describe.
At what point do I get to learn something useful in return for my skill investment?
The whole "the information WOULD HAVE been useful if he had made the check right away" simply doesn't apply here. I was never even given THAT opportunity. There was no, "what's that on the wall" or "I'll identify it with a knowledge check."
By the time the dust had settled (figuratively speaking) half the party was out of the fight and the GM wasn't telling me anything useful at all, not even bothering to elaborate on what I was observing.
In that manner, you're getting a special ability at DC 20, not something like "it can fly."
That sounds good, yes.
Honestly...sounds more like a GM issue to me. I don't necessarily agree with Kirth, as he seems to be getting up in arms about things others haven't particularly said, but I can see some of his point. Looking at my Bestiary right now, what I would have given, in order, going up beyond what you rolled.
1) It's a cloaker, an evil aberration that distrusts even its own kind.
2) It often attempts to wrap around its targets, immobilizing them to consume while exposing the one trapped to some of the harm it would take.
3) Cloakers have the ability to utilize a number of illusionary effects when in shadows, many of which make them more difficult to hit.
4) Cloakers have the ability to utilize low pitched moans that can cause a number of effects to affect others, ranging from fear to nausea.
Now, these are likely very subjective, but as many people say...the knowledge skills are horribly dependent on the GM's interpretation. And I wouldn't be playing under your GM for long, honestly.
|
Instead, I was forced to "not metagame" and lightning bolt my allies over and over again in order to kill the cloakers attacking them.
That's a much larger problem than how much info you got on the roll.
RD's Wizzie: *zap* take that evil cloaker thingie!
Poor schmuck's character in the cloaker: Hey #&*! quit zapping me you stupid &$*%!
RD to GM: Can I quit zapping my friend now that I know he's taking damage too?
DM "No you fry them." Laughs evilly
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.
Good news. Do it my way (ie. results don't skew based on what round in a combat you get your information) and they're as commonly chosen as any other skill. In my campaigns - be they player or DM - there's always at least one character with a bunch of Knowledge() skills, often maxed out. I as a player, and my players, ask for checks frequently. We get good results and everyone's happy.
In all cases, "flying aberration that grapples" would have happily qualified as two bits of useful information. In no case would we have got anything else once we were already in combat.
So. Anecdotal evidence aside, the one relevant question that remains is "do you want automatically adjusting Knowledge() results or not?"
I vote no.
Mr. Fishy votes no too.
A very interesting debate overall. Personally, my personal take has always been in that in a situation like the OP describes, my character would be taking observed infotmation (he can fly and likes to grapple) and tried to figure out from that bit of information further information in my memory that might be related. To that end, I do believe that useful information does to an extent change based on the circumstances of the roll. My experience in real life is that you do tend to remember more about something if you're starting with more information to begin with.
In the original example, giving the specific type was probably fair, but the whole it flys and grapples, to me at least. Even hints of other traits would have been better than restating the obvious. Otherwise the DCs of learning anything useful about anything just end up being way to high for the knowledge skills to be worthwhile. Even if the creature is uncommon or rare, adventurers would have at least picked up vague tales or rumors about them somewhere.
Ultimately, while I don't think the specific details of what you remember are going to be higher, if you start with a fair bit of observed data, you are far more likely to remember enough rumors/stories to figure out enough bits of a creature's weaknesses or special abilities, even if its not the whole thing, to be useful. For example, a description of a cloaker is able to manipulate shadow or has an irritating scream is generic enough that you still don't know exactly how it works or how tough it is to beat.
Do know he only "invested" one rank.
It wouldn't have been known if he'd done the check prior to them taking off from the walls and attacking him.I didn't see them, have them fly from walls, attack us for a round, and then make the check.
It was more like they swooped out of the darkness and enveloped two party members in the surprise round. I then made my check. There was no wall or prior exposure like you describe.
At what point do I get to learn something useful in return for my skill investment?
The whole "the information WOULD HAVE been useful if he had made the check right away" simply doesn't apply here. I was never even given THAT opportunity. There was no, "what's that on the wall" or "I'll identify it with a knowledge check."
By the time the dust had settled (figuratively speaking) half the party was out of the fight and the GM wasn't telling me anything useful at all, not even bothering to elaborate on what I was observing.
so you are saying since he gave the knowledge check at the wrong time he should have corrected his mistake with more info through the knowledge check?
Wait! What?
Wait! What?
I second this...
Wait! What?I second this...
maybe I failed my linguistics check but that is how I read it.
Knowledge checks should reveal information. Making a knowledge check should be in response to seeing a creature and/or its behavior.
Player: "That cloak just ate Stacy's face! Knowledge check! 22!"
DM: "This cloak shaped creature eats faces."
Player: "Awesome bit of info! I give you +10 to your 'Die in a fire' check!"
Look. The Wiz and his band of thuggish bodyguards walk into a graveyard. An amorphous shape of shadow detaches itself from a deformed tree.
The Wiz digs in his gray matter, pondering what this creature could be. The Wiz's player rolls a d20 and produces a Knowledge() number that entitles The Wiz to know that the creature is undead and immune to cold. The roll entitles The Wiz to know nothing more. If he'd rolled a little better, he would have learned that the creature is vulnerable to fire. But he didn't. Sorry. Crap roll.
WAIT. Rewind. We made a mistake.
The Wiz doesn't dig in his gray matter. Instead he casts chill touch on the creature. Nothing useful happens. "Crap, that's odd," thinks the poor wizard. His player now rolls a d20 and produces .
Explain to us what the rationale is behind revealing to The Wiz's player that this creature is vulnerable to fire. Why? His roll entitles him to know it's undead immune to cold. That's it.
Why should the Knowledge skill grant the PC two more items of information than his player realizes he has? It isn't the Research() skill or the Intuit() skill. It represents the learning that the character has obtained prior to this moment.
I'm not saying there isn't a valid argument for re-conning what a PC knew before he tried to remember what he knew, but I have yet heard a grand total of zero such.
There's another quandary - albeit an absurd one - inherent in the sliding scale Knowledge() technique. What happens when a PC has observed everything a creature can do? The Wiz encounters a zombie. It's got some DR, it's slow, it's undead, it's mindless and uses slam attacks. "Okay, I rolled 30 on a Knowledge(religion) check. What do I know about zombies? I'm entitled to like... five or six useful items that I don't already know." What's the GM to do? "Look, dude, what you see is what you get." 'Fraid not... the rule the relativity way says The Wiz gets to know more than he already does. Sorry Mr. GM. Make stuff up. Grant zombies some teleportation at-will, maybe a gaze attack, oh and they can summon 1d4 Balors as an immediate action each time they're hit by a melee or ranged attack that deals damage. Stupid, right? Well, if it's okay to say "dude, there's nothing more to know" why isn't it okay to say "dude, your roll isn't good enough to know more than you've already figured out"? In both cases you're making the use of the skill a failure regardless of the rolled result. If that's what we're avoiding, we've failed.
So it comes back down to please... someone actually address the points that have been made by a bunch of us. I'm willing to change my mind, but I need some convincing.
|
I'm thinking that the GM should take more time, there isn't any real rush in this, it's not speed chess or real life. Yes going too slow can be boring, but if you go too fast it can ruin the game. Do things in the proper order and none of this will become a problem. You will get your knowledge checks and the proper amount of information.
The Wiz digs in his gray matter, pondering what this creature could be. The Wiz's player rolls a d20 and produces a Knowledge() number that entitles The Wiz to know that the creature is undead and immune to cold. The roll entitles The Wiz to know nothing more. If he'd rolled a little better, he would have learned that the creature is vulnerable to fire. But he didn't. Sorry. Crap roll.
WAIT. Rewind. We made a mistake.
The Wiz doesn't dig in his gray matter. Instead he casts scorching ray on the creature. Great damage happens. His player now rolls a d20 and produces .
Explain to us what the rationale is behind revealing to The Wiz's player that this creature is vulnerable to fire -- in essence, cherry-picking the one thing he already knows. Why? His roll entitles him to know it's undead immune to cold. But the DM picks fire strictly because the player already tried fire, just to enforce the uselessness of the Knowledge skill.
Why should the Knowledge skill grant the PC fewer items of information than a totally ignorant character would get?
---
See, there's another way of looking at this. If the DM gets to pick what facts to reveal on the fly, why should the DM intentionally always reveal only facts the PCs already know? That's EQUALLY wrong as always picking facts the PC doesn't know.
Instead, the DM should make daggone sure that what facts are revealed is pre-determined.
See, there's another way of looking at this. If the DM gets to pick what facts to reveal on the fly, why should the DM intentionally always reveal only facts the PCs already know? That's EQUALLY wrong as always picking facts the PC doesn't know.
Who said the GM "intentionally always reveal only facts the PCs already know"? The GM could very easily have already had in mind what a Knowledge roll of various levels of success might have gotten. Or, perhaps the GM just has a general standard he follows for Knowledge checks...
If the GM does have a consistant pattern of never providing info from Knowledge checks, regardless of circumstance or roll result, that is a problem. I doubt anyone would disagree. I just don't feel this one circumstance shows that. In that regard, I'd say the OP is overreacting.
Who said the GM "intentionally always reveal only facts the PCs already know"?
The OP seemed to be implying it; certainly the specific information given in this case strongly reinforces that impression. Hopefully you're right, and that impression is incorrect, so if the check were higher, we wouldn't be hearing "OK, DC 35 gives you 5 pieces of information: they look like cloaks, they fly, they grapple... uh, they have cloak-like wings... and, uh... they attack people."
Again, it speaks highly for the need for a standardized Knowledge skill with specific information at specific DCs, so that this sort of thing isn't done on the fly.
I do note in the table for Knowledge skill there's an entry that says "Identify a monster's abilities and weaknesses: DC 10 + monster's CR." If the cloaker is CR 6, and we add 5 for it being unusual, a DC 22 check should have revealed its "abilities and weaknesses," not just its mode of movement and natural attack.
DC16: This creature is a briarvex, a malevolent plant being. This result reveals all plant traits.
DC21: A briarvex is able to control the plants around it, causing them to grapple and hold its foes.
So he should have given:
DC 16: That "rag" is actually a cloaker, an aberration (lists aberration traits).
DC 21: Cloakers use weird subsonic humming to disable their prey before attacking.In that manner, you're getting a special ability at DC 20, not something like "it can fly."
Wait ... so, are you saying that Flight is NOT a useful special ability to know about?!?!?
@_@
On the serious side, though - knowledge check and info revealed = static and unchanging. If you do NOT roll high enough, then you don't get the info. It doesn't matter if you've seen that same info or not.
Using the #'s was the best example. If you directly observed 2 things in opening combat, and then make a check with a result of 1-2 things learned - that's all you get. If you get even MORE things, then it's like artificially granting an immediate +10 to the check (what the hell for???).
On the serious side, though - knowledge check and info revealed = static and unchanging. If you do NOT roll high enough, then you don't get the info. It doesn't matter if you've seen that same info or not.
The bold part is 100% correct. So a DM who denies you information you're entitled to, and instead carefully runs through a list of stuff you already know, is wrong to do so. Especially if a DC 21 check entitles you to learn its "abilities and weaknesses," and you score a 22, and he tells you it flies and grapples, but ignores all of its major abilities, and all of its weaknesses.
Using the #'s was the best example. If you directly observed 2 things in opening combat, and then make a check with a result of 1-2 things learned - that's all you get. If you get even MORE things, then it's like artificially granting an immediate +10 to the check (what the hell for???).
So you always start with things they already have seen? And if 2 parties saw things in a different order, they'd get different results for the same DC, just to make sure the things learned are things directly observed? That's like artificially giving them a -10 to the check (what the hell for???)
See what I'm saying? The information learned should be pre-determined, not decided on the spot.
Wait ... so, are you saying that Flight is NOT a useful special ability to know about?!?
You've got a monster with freakin' wings and no legs. What do you think it does, run a marathon? That's not a "Knowledge" check, that's a "total idiocy" check. Stuff that Helen Keller is immediately aware of is OK for a "10" on the check; for a 22, I'd expect a bit more.
Correct. So a DM who denies you information you're entitled to, and tells you only stuff you already know, is wrong to do so. Especially if a DC 21 check entitles you to learn its "abilities and weaknesses," and you score a 22, and he tells you it flies and grapples, but ignores all of its major abilities, and all of its weaknesses.
I think this identifies a significant difference in the way you play with Knowledge checks and the way the other players in this thread (and the rulebook) handle Knowledge checks.
You seem to feel that the DC of 21 "entitles you to learn its 'abilities and weaknesses,'" while the rules and the standard play of many individuals in this thread disagree. Our standard play states that the 22 has earned the player 2 pieces of useful info. Nothing in the rules specifies that the info should be either abilities or weaknesses. The info could be typical living environment, speed relative to a human's, favorite food/prey, its typical alignment, magical abilities, utility as spell components, typical treasure, OR stat block info.
In fact, if the player were a bard who wanted to tell a story involving a creature's non-combat behavior, such a restrictive definition would be frustrating and un-helpful...
If anything, I feel the type of knowledge should be slanted towards the character's personality/build, rather than be set by a general chart. (i.e. bards might know more about famous encounters with a creature and how those were resolved, fighters would know about their combat ability, wizards would know their magical powers and utility as spell components, etc.)
You seem to feel that the DC of 21 "entitles you to learn its 'abilities and weaknesses,'" while the rules and the standard play of many individuals in this thread disagree.
I took that quote directly from the Knowledge skill table in the Pathfinder Reference Document (last item in the table). If that's "non-standard," then so be it.
The text says, "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." It does NOT say, "you learn only things that are easily observable, never things that are not glaringly obvious to anyone looking at it."
The cloaker has an array of spell-like abilities, and a variety of nasty effects with its moan, and you keep all those secret in order to state the obvious: that a winged creature with no legs can fly. That's not a "special power or vulnerability." It's an insult to the players.
I took that quote directly from the Knowledge skill table in the Pathfinder Reference Document (last item in the table). If that's "non-standard," then so be it.
The text says, "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." It does NOT say, "you learn only things that are easily observable, never things that are not glaringly obvious to anyone looking at it."
The cloaker has an array of spell-like abilities, and a variety of nasty effects with its moan, and you keep all those secret in order to state the obvious: that a winged creature with no legs can fly. That's not a "special power or vulnerability." It's an insult to the players.
Ok, I can admit when I'm wrong. I tend to play a bit more of a varied usage of Knowledge that doesn't limit me as much to the chart (unless someone is referencing the chart in a requested use of the skill.) Maybe the rest of us are the guys playing by house rules.
And, I'm not specifically condoning the specific info given by the OP. If you read back earlier, my first post in this thread admitted that I would have given more and different info. And, I do feel that poor judgement may have been used in that one instance.
That said, the comment that it was the only issue all session leans me towards saying, "Eh, everyone's human. It was his 1 mistake per session. Moving on..."
That said, the comment that it was the only issue all session leans me towards saying, "Eh, everyone's human. It was his 1 mistake per session. Moving on..."
That's an excellent point -- it's easy to get caught up in the discussion and lose sight of the big picture. Hope the DM admits his error -- that would go a long way towards cementing his group's loyalty.