See what I'm saying? The information learned should be pre-determined, not decided on the spot.
That speaks of trust issues to me.
Phrased differently, you'd be perfectly fine with the call insomuch as you knew that the DM, pre-game, sat down and wrote up a table that kept with the language that the DM then used?
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..."
Yeah - throw me in this EXACT camp, too, man.
I'm NOT arguing that the info given was a good idea on the GM's side, just a valid use/ruling with the skill and it's description. My initial post was likewise stating that *I'd* have given some different info, too.
I believe the post was also going as far as the "heat of the moment/right in combat at the time" in that it was likely something overlooked or given little thought to by the GM in combat at that moment.
So, yeah ... I'm right there. Just pointing out that, even if not the *best* call it was HIS call and it *was* following the guidelines.
See what I'm saying? The information learned should be pre-determined, not decided on the spot.That speaks of trust issues to me.
Phrased differently, you'd be perfectly fine with the call insomuch as you knew that the DM, pre-game, sat down and wrote up a table that kept with the language that the DM then used?
Assuming the table actually did contain some useful information, rather than being loaded with what I'll call "Helen Keller Knowledge."
Personally, I've never had this issue in any game I've played in -- sometimes I learn good stuff with knowledge, sometimes not, so I've never had a suspicion that a DM was spinning things just to withhold all useful information.
Most importantly, I've never had a DM pass off "it has tentacles and looks creepy" as "a special ability or weakness" of a mind flayer, for example. Instead, he'd tell me, "You have a feeling you don't want those tentacles fastened to your head for any length of time."
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.
You're making up a scenario that doesn't match the OP's at all. He told us what the DM revealed. He started with basic and important items. That's not cherry-picking at all. The specifics don't indicate the Machiavellian DM plot you think is underfoot.
Seriously.
Cloaker. Aberration that flies and grapples. That's cherry-picking?
I'll agree that deliberately screwing your players over is never a good thing. The scenario you throw out is a bad one. But it's not what happened at the OP's table.
I would suggest RD try and get a new DM, not because of this single incident, but because of a series of incidents. :/
> Short changing RD on his knowledge checks
> Giving a series of ambushes without any chances to notice
> Not allowing players to use Bull's Strength to affect Strength checks (this is from another thread RD started)
It sounds like the DM is possibly playing his own game and just having the player's around as an audience to mess with. It wouldn't even surprise me if RD's DM liked to keep the PC death rate high. \o/
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.
doesnt matter if they are uncommom or common to me. When a character takes a Knowledge skill, I go on the assumptuion that he studied somewhere, maybe a college, maybe trained by a sage, maybe pouring over old dusty tomes, etc.
When he makes a check, I treat it as he recalls reading about this particular creature based on its description, and recalls a useful piece of information.
Post as hard as you want :) , this is the way I run the Knowledge checks.
When my characters take knowledge skills, the players and I always discuss the basis for the knowledge skills (academy training? previous adventuring? library bookworm?) and they know that their knowledge checks are going to be based on the information that would have been available in those sources.
Now, generally I give a lot for a good knowledge check, but sometimes I do say "you read the available books on the subject and this is as much as they said," and the players haven't ever given me grief over that. But again, I make it a point to make knowledges useful skills in a lot of situations.
Seriously.
Cloaker. Aberration that flies and grapples. That's cherry-picking?
Yep. It ignores all of the creatures' supernatural and spell-like abilities, it ignores the problems with hitting Engulfed allies, and instead it tells you only things that are immediately obvious to any untrained yokel looking at the thing.
Refer to the white dragon example above. The DM ignores the thing's cold immunity, breath weaopon, SR, and spells -- all the stuff that the Knowledge skill specifically states that the PC is supposed to be able to learn, and instead says, "OK, you get 3 pieces of information: (1) it's a dragon; (2) it can fly; (3) it has claws, teeth, and a tail.
That's not only houseruling in order to ignore the Knowledge skill description, it also has the effect of de-valuing the Knowledge skills to the point of irrelevance. If that's the kind of game you run, fine, but don't expect to see anyone invest in Knowledge after one or two checks. Also realize that you're specifically circumventing the rules as written by "downgrading" the information given.
I think many of the posters in this thread would very much prefer their players -not- take knowledge skills.
I mean, how is it at all as useful as, say, Tumble, for a PC to know "yep, that thing over there you see flying about? Your knowledge skill tells you it can fly!".
I give my players the same info I would give if they were asking without even looking at one.
Gather info check reveals they will run into cloakers
player makes knowledge check while still in town: I tell them X and Y. IF X is flying at least they know that having a fly scroll of potion might help.
if the players dont try to learn what they will run into and the check is made upon site: I still only tell them X and Y.
X and Y don't change. I think that is what most of us are saying.
Now if I only told them what they already knew just to be stingy with info, that would be wrong.
I would suggest RD try and get a new DM, not because of this single incident, but because of a series of incidents. :/
> Short changing RD on his knowledge checks
> Giving a series of ambushes without any chances to notice
> Not allowing players to use Bull's Strength to affect Strength checks (this is from another thread RD started)It sounds like the DM is possibly playing his own game and just having the player's around as an audience to mess with. It wouldn't even surprise me if RD's DM liked to keep the PC death rate high. \o/
Correct me if I'm wrong, RD, but in other threads you've started or contributed to, raising issues about your DM's decisions, I recall you having resisted calls to find another group, for the perfectly valid reasons that they are your friends, and regardless of your problems with individual decisions the DM makes, you're having fun.
Even if that's not the case, I'm not so quick to recommend the nuclear option of taking your ball and going home. Gaming groups aren't that easy to find in most places, and friends even less easy.
We have a whole forum of DMs here responding to RD, some supporting his DM and some not (although most seem to be saying that they probably would have given a bit more info, even if the DM was debatably within his rights by RAW). This indicates to me that your DM, like most of us, sometimes makes mistakes, but probably doesn't fall outside the mainstream in terms of jerking players around.
So work it out with him/her or let it pass and move on is my best advice. If the mistakes become more than you can bear, sounds like a good excuse for volunteering to DM yourself.
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.
doesnt matter if they are uncommom or common to me. When a character takes a Knowledge skill, I go on the assumptuion that he studied somewhere, maybe a college, maybe trained by a sage, maybe pouring over old dusty tomes, etc.
When he makes a check, I treat it as he recalls reading about this particular creature based on its description, and recalls a useful piece of information.
Post as hard as you want :) , this is the way I run the Knowledge checks.
The point he is making is that rare monsters are harder to ID so you get less info with the same knowledge check. Not all DM's do this, but if his DM does then it justifies the check, but not necessarily the timing(after combat started).
Yep. It ignores all of the creatures' supernatural and spell-like abilities, it ignores the problems with hitting Engulfed allies, and instead it tells you only things that are immediately obvious to any untrained yokel looking at the thing.Seriously.
Cloaker. Aberration that flies and grapples. That's cherry-picking?
I'm not entirely following. He got 2 pieces of useful info, and not really even cherry-picked:
1) creature type (aberration) - and regardless of what some people think, creature type is not always obvious.
2) Engulf (Ex) special ability - which, incidentally, is the first item on the cloaker's list (though you are correct - the DM should have completed the Engulf description by noting that allies are vulnerable to attacks when engulfed).
Not an unreasonable result, and even in order of the creature's description (thus not necessarily cherry-picked).
Yep. It ignores all of the creatures' supernatural and spell-like abilities, it ignores the problems with hitting Engulfed allies, and instead it tells you only things that are immediately obvious to any untrained yokel looking at the thing.
You want a knowledge check to tell you that attacking a cloaker while it has engulfed your buddy is a bad thing? That would be something I would put under "common sense."
You want a knowledge check to tell you that attacking a cloaker while it has engulfed your buddy is a bad thing? That would be something I would put under "common sense."
As would I... but the OP explained that when he wanted to refrain from lightning bolting a cloaker that had engulfed an ally, that the DM told him he was "using metagame knowledge" and had no choice but to attack it.
Learning about its grapple actually deprived him of any common sense, evidently. So Knowledge skill in that instance not only doesn't give you anything useful, it actively gets your friends killed.
2) Engulf (Ex) special ability - which, incidentally, is the first item on the cloaker's list (though you are correct - the DM should have completed the Engulf description by noting that allies are vulnerable to attacks when engulfed).
You mean, as opposed to forcing the PC to damage his allies, because refraining to do so would be "metagaming"? YES! Amen. If the DM had instead done as you recommend, I'd have no beef with the results.
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!"
LOL!
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 couldn't agree with you more.
I would suggest RD try and get a new DM, not because of this single incident, but because of a series of incidents. :/
> Short changing RD on his knowledge checks
> Giving a series of ambushes without any chances to notice
> Not allowing players to use Bull's Strength to affect Strength checks (this is from another thread RD started)It sounds like the DM is possibly playing his own game and just having the player's around as an audience to mess with. It wouldn't even surprise me if RD's DM liked to keep the PC death rate high. \o/
I play under several GMs (it's the only way I can get my constant roleplaying fix). As such, all the things you hear about are pretty spread out among several people. Individually, they are all really great GMs. As has been said, nobody is perfect.
Correct me if I'm wrong, RD, but in other threads you've started or contributed to, raising issues about your DM's decisions, I recall you having resisted calls to find another group, for the perfectly valid reasons that they are your friends, and regardless of your problems with individual decisions the DM makes, you're having fun.
Even if that's not the case, I'm not so quick to recommend the nuclear option of taking your ball and going home. Gaming groups aren't that easy to find in most places, and friends even less easy.
We have a whole forum of DMs here responding to RD, some supporting his DM and some not (although most seem to be saying that they probably would have given a bit more info, even if the DM was debatably within his rights by RAW). This indicates to me that your DM, like most of us, sometimes makes mistakes, but probably doesn't fall outside the mainstream in terms of jerking players around.
So work it out with him/her or let it pass and move on is my best advice. If the mistakes become more than you can bear, sounds like a good excuse for volunteering to DM yourself.
I've only ever dropped out of one campaign, and that was the one where I was playing my witch-themed sorcerer Hama who sought lichdom (some of you may be familiar from py previous posts). Even then, I did not leave because of a problem with the players or with the GM, but because it was an evil campaign (which in itself is fine) which allowed PvP options to the players (which is NOT fine).
Roleplaying has always been a cooperative game for me. I quickly found that I was building up MORE stress in my life trying not to get my favorite character killed by my party mates rather than playing a fun game and REDUCING the stress in my life.
So I moved on. I still play with those same people in other non-PvP campaigns.
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.
Bull.
To all of those posters who claim that knowledge check results should be static regardless of circumstances, I ask you this:
Sage A and Sage B see a horrific monster maul their gardener. Upon seeing the creature, they both make knowledge checks to identify the creature and find some useful information that might allow them to save their gardener.
Sage A's check is high enough to learn two pieces of useful information, while Sage B's check nets him three pieces of useful information.
Should A's check be made pointless because B came up with the same check, netting the same info +1 tidbit?
Or should BOTH their checks be made useful as they both come up with different bits of useful information? (After all, not everyone learns the same things or comes to the same conclusions.)
Let's make it a bit trickier. Sage A has Knowledge (nature). Sage B has Knowledge (arcana). The creature mauling their gardener is a familiar from a rival sage/wizard. As a magical beast (augmented animal) both knowledge skills apply. Would you still stick to your fun-ruining restrictions/interpretation and claim Sage A learns nothing that Sage B already had despite two different skills being used?
my only issue with all of this is that a cloaker or other stealthy monster generally gets to attack before the PC can make a n=knowledge check. So yes you will almost always see something about it before hand. I think it should be used early, but some circumstances don''t allow the pc to go first, like stealth, invisibility, initiative, or summoned creatures. in these cases, it seems fair to allow the check after the creature has gone and try and give the PC useful information.
To all of those posters who claim that knowledge check results should be static regardless of circumstances, I ask you this:
Sage A and Sage B see a horrific monster maul their gardener. Upon seeing the creature, they both make knowledge checks to identify the creature and find some useful information that might allow them to save their gardener.
Sage A's check is high enough to learn two pieces of useful information, while Sage B's check nets him three pieces of useful information.
Should A's check be made pointless because B came up with the same check, netting the same info +1 tidbit?
Or should BOTH their checks be made useful as they both come up with different bits of useful information? (After all, not everyone learns the same things or comes to the same conclusions.)
Let's make it a bit trickier. Sage A has Knowledge (nature). Sage B has Knowledge (arcana). The creature mauling their gardener is a familiar from a rival sage/wizard. As a magical beast (augmented animal) both knowledge skills apply. Would you still stick to your fun-ruining restrictions/interpretation and claim Sage A learns nothing that Sage B already had despite two different skills being used?
Yes. I would give them the same information, because they got the same check. I apply the rule universally to every character in the party, regardless of the situation.
Yes. I would give them the same information, because they got the same check. I apply the rule universally to every character in the party, regardless of the situation.To all of those posters who claim that knowledge check results should be static regardless of circumstances, I ask you this:
Sage A and Sage B see a horrific monster maul their gardener. Upon seeing the creature, they both make knowledge checks to identify the creature and find some useful information that might allow them to save their gardener.
Sage A's check is high enough to learn two pieces of useful information, while Sage B's check nets him three pieces of useful information.
Should A's check be made pointless because B came up with the same check, netting the same info +1 tidbit?
Or should BOTH their checks be made useful as they both come up with different bits of useful information? (After all, not everyone learns the same things or comes to the same conclusions.)
Let's make it a bit trickier. Sage A has Knowledge (nature). Sage B has Knowledge (arcana). The creature mauling their gardener is a familiar from a rival sage/wizard. As a magical beast (augmented animal) both knowledge skills apply. Would you still stick to your fun-ruining restrictions/interpretation and claim Sage A learns nothing that Sage B already had despite two different skills being used?
Quoted for truth. {italicized for distinction of the part I'm backing}
Now, here's what *I* would do differently about it - I'd describe it in a way that makes them both feel like they have something to contribute. Hell, I *might* even give one just one piece of information and let the higher roll guy get "the lion's share" of info. Kind of how it was described by a previous poster above - spread that wealth of knowledge EVEN IF it's the same results. At least then the PC's get to feel like it was something useful (even though it takes no actual "time" per se in-game being free actions to make checks on Knowledge).
If you do it the other way, then, RD, what you're complaining about is NOT getting an automatic +5/+10 MORE on the highest check ... just because some other person is present. The roll is the roll - bottom line!
It's not some shifting and changing DC - it's a static thing.
:shrugs:
I have NO idea why this is so difficult to follow and understand ...
:shrugs again:
Should A's check be made pointless because B came up with the same check, netting the same info +1 tidbit?
Absolutely unflinchingly yes.
If you want to help each other, use the aid another action.
If Grunt A and Grunt B both need to climb up a 30 ft cliff face to reach and save a princess before a monster eats her, and Grunt A rolls a Climb check such that he makes it up 10ft and Grunt B rolls such that he makes up 20ft, do you put Grunt B both Grunts at the top of the cliff?
Where in the game does one person's skill check result add onto anyone else's aside from aiding?
I reiterate... RavingDork I'm sympathetic to you and I like and respect you as a poster on these boards. But I don't agree at all on this.
Heck, your scenario is actually broken. Getting four party members to manage a DC 15 and learn one thing each is a lot easier than getting one person to manage a DC 30. In the first case (assuming the DC is 15 for convenience) the four people get 1 fact each for a total of four. In the second, one person gets 4 facts, for a total of four. Um... huh. Assuming flat Intelligence scores and everyone working cross-class, you need 5 ranks in the Knowledge() skill and the on average it'll work. For one guy to average 30 under the same circumstances you need 20 ranks in that particular character. Huh. So a party can do at 5th what a single person can do at 20th? Yeah, no.
I thought this thread had worn itself bare, but it appears not. At least things are still civil and interesting.
Four party members managing a DC15 isn`t really so common, assuming they have training to go over DC10 in the first place... Plenty of characters like to put ranks in things like Peception, Acrobatics, Ride, Sense Motive, after all. The thing is, if they are all making it at the same time, they can`t possibly benefit from the other`s knowledge (there would be some chance to come up with differing info, but defintely not automatically). If they want to share their info and see if that triggers the memories of the others that is very reasonable, but that should take place over multiple rounds.
It doesn`t seem to be mentioned yet that learning monster info later in a fight (whether from sharing information and making checks based off better base info, or from observations of the monster) is substantially less usefull that learning it the very first round, because you are acting without benefit of that full knowledge for the beginning part of the fight.
So let`s say there is TWO well Knowledgeable characters who can make separate rolls. WHO IS MAKING THE CHECK FIRST? If there wasn`t some specific agreement, why would one character NOT make a check? And in-character, such an agreement would seem rather bizarre... ¨You don`t think until I tell you?¨ In any case, a GM pro-actively asking for or making Knowledge checks pretty mcuh takes care of this, since every character who can makes a Knowledge check at first opportunity (without sharing info) and can`t make any more that day on that subject. In that case, there should be a chance for each character to remember DIFFERENT information, as long as it is somewhat equivalent in rarity of knowledge - In this case, i don`t see how the Moans or Shadows are more rare than the Grappling and Flying ability, in fact they seem more common to know - Where does this info come from? Handed down from A) Survivors of Cloaker attacks, or B) from those who used Cloakers as tools/weapons. In both cases, the Moan and Shadow abilities are equally as likely to be known as the Grappling. In fact in the case of Survivors who escaped (rather than who defeated the Cloakers), the Moan is likely going to be the ONLY thing they know if they weren`t in the same section of the cavern where the attack took place, i.e. they could only hear their comrades being massacred and their screams of horrible beasts wrapped all around them, etc...
Where in the game does one person's skill check result add onto anyone else's aside from aiding?
I don`t know...
Diplomacy moves Attitudes from one Category to the other, which should be compatable with multiple rolls...
If one character makes a Perception check to notice a hidden box, another character can make a Perception check to notice the subtle scratches on the lid (very similar to remembering/correlating info about a subject, IMHO)
Sleight of Hand... well, obviously if they have MORE stuff in their pockets, your 2nd Pickpocket friend can grab that too, and if they know what pocket you emptid, they`re not going to bother going for that one (again, like Knowledge)
Again, sharing this info and your buddy making another check shouldn`t all happen immediately, but would take place over different rounds. And as said, a pro-active GM will have all characters make checks simulataneously without benefit of each other`s information, so the only case where sequential checks SHOULD come up is when one character is separated from group and doesn`t see the monster until later... In which scenario at least part of the party has been in combat 1 or more rounds before the 2nd PC`s can, with the benefit of the 1st PC`s shouted out info (`it`s the Cloakers who Envelope people and Manipulate Shadows!!!`), see what that corresponds to in their memory (and share what they remember). I don`t see the problem with them using that info to better stimulate their memory about what else they can remember about the things, as that is pretty much how memory works, if you have more cues you can remember more things.
|
Our game:
-We see creature
-GM describes what we see
-GM asks for relevant Knowledge check if characters possessing said skill would like to roll
-GM asks what kind of details said character is interested in, and gives that character info based on the roll and what the player asks for
It works, we all agree on it, and no one worries about whether its within the rules or not :)
If you see something grappling the fighter do you...
A. Nuke the bastard and screw the fighter.
B. Nuke the fighter and play dumb.
C. Shoot up amongst them somebody needs the relief.
D. Think that "Hey a 120 foot line, that hits everyone in the line. Maybe I should use magic missle."
HINT: D. Is not the right answer.
Area of effect....
Recall makes all the difference and having the thing in front of you helps with recall.
Exactly... Asking yourself ¨Hm, what type of creature might be these `Cave Monsters` the villagers mentioned, and what powers do they have / how are they defeated?´ is a different question than `What type of creature is this monster engulfing my comrades after flying down from the cieling, and what other powers might I expect it have / how are they defeated?` are two different questions. Ask two different questions and you get two different answers. This is how memory works, and in fact how searching for things via Google works, if you have more search terms you can find out more information.
What are people afraid of? Instead of players just asking for a Knowledge check based on vague rumors of Cloaker type monsters, they seek out a recovered corpse of one so they can get a better idea of what they look like, which gives them the information that they are flyers, thus `freeing a slot` of revealed information for something else useful. ...I don`t know, that just seems reasonable and cinematic thing to do, and I would prefer players would WANT to do things like that rather than think it`s not worth the time since any Knowledge check is always the same as any other.
I can't tell you how many times I've been asked something and was able to give only limited info, but when I had that thing in front of me, I became an encyclopedia.
Recall makes all the difference and having the thing in front of you helps with recall.
I think that falls into the category of a DC modifier, rather than affecting the type of info provided by the GM.
So something like a circumstance bonus equal to 5 times the number of "useful" pieces of information you can discern without knowledge skills.
I doubt I'd go as far as a +5...maybe a +2 circumstance bonus.
stuff about knowledge check and sages
That is up to the DM, but let us use a real life example. Let's say both of us are computer techs, and a virus has infested a network. Is it not reasonable that both of us come to the same conclusions about how to get rid of it assuming normal antivirus programs don't work.
I don't think you coming up with one answer automatically means I will have enough insight to come up with another one.
I think many of the posters in this thread would very much prefer their players -not- take knowledge skills.
I mean, how is it at all as useful as, say, Tumble, for a PC to know "yep, that thing over there you see flying about? Your knowledge skill tells you it can fly!".
I give my players the same info I would give if they were asking without even looking at one.
Gather info check reveals they will run into cloakers
player makes knowledge check while still in town: I tell them X and Y. IF X is flying at least they know that having a fly scroll of potion might help.
if the players dont try to learn what they will run into and the check is made upon site: I still only tell them X and Y.
X and Y don't change. I think that is what most of us are saying.
Now if I only told them what they already knew just to be stingy with info, that would be wrong.
I can't tell you how many times I've been asked something and was able to give only limited info, but when I had that thing in front of me, I became an encyclopedia.
Recall makes all the difference and having the thing in front of you helps with recall.
So players should get a bonus to knowledge checks if the monster is there? I am aware that is not what you said, but effectively it is the same thing.
Aid another never made sense to me for things like knowledge checks.
You either know something or you don't (the skill is pretty clear in this regard). How is someone going to aid you in that?
Aid another never made sense to me for things like knowledge checks.
You either know something or you don't (the skill is pretty clear in this regard). How is someone going to aid you in that?
If I'm discussing a topic with someone, I can 1) think it through better, 2) remember the info better for their asking the questions I might forget to ask, and 3) come up with superior conclusions. It may not help a lot, but then neither does an Aid Another check...
|
It may very well be situational for knowledge checks. If you're sitting around studying something with a group of like minded folk and you've got the time, then you may get a collective knowledge check and you can all aid on another to get a better score.
In a combat situation, I think it's highly unlikely that the two knowledgeable folk are going to hang back and have a quick chat about the creature they're facing so they can pool their knowledge in order not to double up on information. That just doesn't make sense really.
As a GM I merely read the info in the order it apears in the stat block, beginning with special abilities and eventually working back to the actual stat block for things like DR etc. This can change however, if a player tells me that their character makes a particular study of certain weaknesses for creatures they study (eg, Energy resistances or damage reduction, that type of thing). In that case then the order is adjusted so their particular focus is now first. But that is true for all checks they make from that point on.
As to the OP, being told something is an aberration might be considered useful in this case, as there are spells and character abilities that trigger off that info and it may mean you already know lots of things about it just frm that info (although this is more likely for things like udead, elemental, demon or devil etc). The creature type is important information for just this reason.
The things about flying etc, I tend to think of as just mundane unless it is a spell like ability, in which case it may be very useful to know since you could dispel it or interrupt it.
I think the best option for you if you're having trouble with the DM on this type of thing, is to ask for him/her to come up with a universal rule for the order that info is given that makes everyone happy.
eg 10+CR = Name and type of creature (eg undead, demon, devil, elemental, fey etc)
For every +5 above this the order is - Energy Resist/DR/spell like abilities/Supernatural abilities/other. One bit of info from a category. If a creature has nothing in a category that you have potentially rolled for, then you move on to the next one until some information is given. (although some may argue that knowing a creature has no elemental resistances is useful, I feel that is not overly helpful to a player. Your call though).
If two or more people roll high enough to get one piece of info then they both know the same thing (P1 says "It's immune to electricity" P2 says "I knew that!"). Only more info is given when a roll leads into the next info category
That's only a suggestion mind, but it may help you and the DM sort this out a bit, and it certainly helps me when I DM as it is one less thing to think about on the fly, now I have a fixed order in which things are done.
Cheers
So players should get a bonus to knowledge checks if the monster is there? I am aware that is not what you said, but effectively it is the same thing.I think many of the posters in this thread would very much prefer their players -not- take knowledge skills.
I mean, how is it at all as useful as, say, Tumble, for a PC to know "yep, that thing over there you see flying about? Your knowledge skill tells you it can fly!".
I give my players the same info I would give if they were asking without even looking at one.
Gather info check reveals they will run into cloakers
player makes knowledge check while still in town: I tell them X and Y. IF X is flying at least they know that having a fly scroll of potion might help.
if the players dont try to learn what they will run into and the check is made upon site: I still only tell them X and Y.
X and Y don't change. I think that is what most of us are saying.
Now if I only told them what they already knew just to be stingy with info, that would be wrong.
I can't tell you how many times I've been asked something and was able to give only limited info, but when I had that thing in front of me, I became an encyclopedia.
Recall makes all the difference and having the thing in front of you helps with recall.
And so what..?
Like I said, in the real world, I can recall more knowledge if I've got the object of interest in front of me.
Are you saying you've never had that experience?
Occasionally, but not a lot. Most of the time either I know it or I dont.
Aid another never made sense to me for things like knowledge checks.
You either know something or you don't (the skill is pretty clear in this regard). How is someone going to aid you in that?
I agree.
Aid another never made sense to me for things like knowledge checks.
You either know something or you don't (the skill is pretty clear in this regard). How is someone going to aid you in that?
Excellent. We agree. You either know it or you don't. Having learned it in the first round of combat doesn't change that you knew it. Getting the roll a round late doesn't change that you knew it. When doesn't matter. You know it or you don't. Your Sage B doesn't get any different information because Sage A already learned and shared with him. You know it or you don't.
Thank you.
|
If I'm discussing a topic with someone, I can 1) think it through better, 2) remember the info better for their asking the questions I might forget to ask, and 3) come up with superior conclusions. It may not help a lot, but then neither does an Aid Another check...Aid another never made sense to me for things like knowledge checks.
You either know something or you don't (the skill is pretty clear in this regard). How is someone going to aid you in that?
+1
Do me a favor.. write out all the useful bits of information about the cloaker.
Make a list.
Now assign the progressive DCs for each.. i.e. +5 to the DC between them.
What's the DC to know the Bestiary entry for the cloaker?
What's the DC to know that they have a loud Moan ability? Etc.
What level PC is going to be ABLE with insane ranks and incredible INT to achieve this DC?
Please do this out.. I'm curious.
This is what I would probably do. I say probably because there's always possibility of variance based on how I interpret things on a given day. Were there a physical table obviously I'd follow it. All I'm saying is that presented with a big list of stuff that's by definition subjective to sort, it's always possible there'd be slight differences in my sorted list each time. Shrug.
- Creature type= aberration (I'd give this free... also it's a giveaway as soon as Knowledge(dungeoneering) is specified)
- flight and disguise (I'd probably describe that cloakers like to lurk above and hide to ambush... gives players the idea what the creature's general tactics are and where to look to watch out for them)
- engulf and bite (I'd probably describe that they like to pounce on people and gnaw. I'd explain that they're fairly good at it and that because they're sort of manta-like they're very thin and attacks on them while attached likely partially penetrate to their victim. I'd also mention they still threaten while attached, to differentiate between them and a stirge for instance.)
- moan (I'd probably describe that they sometimes make a disturbing sound that has different effects but the general theme is those who hear it frequently become afraid or ill. I probably wouldn't give out specific ranges or saves or the precise effects but I might give some more generalities. "Survivors report running away, vomiting, freezing up in combat temporarily and the like. They also say the effects don't tend to last very long.")
- shadow shift (While not a terribly sex feature, this is probably the least iconic and obvious ability. It's possible I might be tempted to slide it lower on this list, but the other entries are more likely to be written and talked about. It'd be like not mentioning vampires feed on blood. So this should be about here on the list.)
Those are the items that I'd give away with a general roll. If a player asked me pointed specific questions like "are they hard to hit" I might give away for free "not particularly". Same for "are they very beefy". If a player makes the effort to ask such a question I don't mind giving general answers. I wouldn't ever give an actual AC or hp value, but if they thought to ask and the creature had an unusually high or low AC I'd let them know.
In the same thought as the previous paragraph regarding AC and hp, if I were asked about senses, I'd probably give those away free. Heck, without actually double-checking I suspect most if not all aberrations have darkvision. Shrug.
I'd rate cloakers as average for how common they are. They're aberrant so by nomenclature they're unusual. But for aberrations I'd consider them fairly tame in my campaigns. They're not kobolds but neither are they phase spiders.
So hey, pull a DC15 and you're starting. DC25 gets you moan. To pull that off with an average roll you need 15 in the skill, so assuming the usual high-Int character taking Knowledge() you might be looking at needing 7 ranks because it's class. That being said, with a good roll you can pull it off at 1st level. Roll well, learn almost everything there is to know about the creature at low level. Roll average, you get average information. Roll poorly... well, you've been busy studying phase spiders, not cloakers evidently.
Failure in my mind is okay. Sometimes your Climb check just doesn't cut it and you fall. Systematic, repeated failure isn't and indicates a rule is broken. I have zero complaint in my campaigns either as a player or a DM and I can tell you my DM runs things the same way I do.
So... in RavingDork's case I would have basically given the same information his DM did. I would have given that information regardless of if it was outside the cavern complex or while the party was busy using raise dead on PCs who'd been slain by cloakers. I'd've given the same results even if there were five wizards who all rolled 22. Unless there's some circumstance bonus (say a PC's backstory was submitted before the session that included history involving cloakers), that's it. What I'm saying is that if I were writing a nice table to put in the corner of the creature entry with hard-coded DCs, that's the table. Start at 15 and add 5 for each bullet point. When in doubt, refer to table. Numbers and order do not change because of player action or inaction.
Incidentally, I have to disclose that I don't rigidly follow the given formula. To be clear here, what I'm saying is that I wing it in general. Beyond the common/uncommon aspect we also play with the concept of iconic/mysterious. Vampires are iconic (in our campaigns). Even if there's only one in the country where the PCs are active, even commoners know several important and useful items. The DC doesn't start at 5+CR. Sorry. Basically you don't even need a roll for things like sunlight being fatal to them. That's a huge weakness if you can exploit it, but "everyone" knows it. Also in the case of creatures like iconic fiends (say... Balor), we might give out more than one ability per 5. This we consider tailoring things to our campaign and PC background, not a formal rule. In a world like Dragonlance, DCs for dragon lore should be low. In a world like Eberron where they're all lurking on Argonessen, there's very, very little common knowledge about them. I just figured I should disclose this as there will be circumstances where this iconic/mysterious factor colours my answers on the boards and I don't want to be figured for being a liar.
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.
Hear! Hear! I'd say minimum level of success should net the things fairly obvious from the creature's morphology and general movement. Cloaker looks like a cloak, flies, looks very much like he can envelop things. You get to another degree of success (I'm reading the new DC-based RPG for Mutants and Masterminds) and you should get to things not readily observable or that you can't simply infer from its appearance. I'd have been pitching in a bit about its sonic abilities for sure at that point.
if I were asked about senses, I'd probably give those away free. Heck, without actually double-checking I suspect most if not all aberrations have darkvision. Shrug.
I liked in that later 3.5 books, the Knowledge information and DCs were provided in each monster entry. The first thing was always creature type AND all details of that type (darkvision, etc.). Which is better, I'm sure we can agree, than just telling them the type and then scolding them for "metagaming" when they assume it has darkvision.
To be clear here, what I'm saying is that I wing it in general.
If you are winging it anyways, why not wing it in a way that makes the players feel useful? Like they invested their resources into something helpful.
If you aren't trying to break the game, and your players aren't trying to break the game, why not give them some info for fun's sake? The fact that so many in this thread scream "BUT RD'S INTERPRETATION BREAKS THE GAME!!!" is indicative of nothing more than the lack of trust between a GM and his players. That's a bigger problem then what's being discussed here. Pathfinder/D&D is a cooperative game. If you don't have trust in your players (or the players in their GM) then the game is doomed before it began.
That's my only problem with many GMs these days. A lot of them are overly concerned with the rules or with their own personal illusion of power that they forget about their player's fun. It's this ever growing number of jerkwad GMs that what will ultimately doom this hobby.
It's this ever growing number of jerkwad GMs that what will ultimately doom this hobby.
I think the computer has already doomed this hobby, but that's neither here nor there. Overall, erring on the side of the players is probably a very good rule of thumb for any DM who insists on winging it.
Actually, going by what you said in the 'spoiler' you would give that AND disguise for a DC15, you would also give engulf and bite for DC 20.
It's simple. There's no table. Ergo EVERYTHING we do is a judgment call. I don't view specific attack methods (claws, bite, slam) to be pivotal and standalone features. It's also pretty evident that a creature that grapples you is going to do SOMETHING to hurt you once it does. By releasing bite, all I'm doing is providing flavor without any mechanical benefit. It doesn't matter that it's not a slam. It's just fluff but it's related fluff to build the creature description. Same for integrating disguise into the flight aspect.
On one side you say that you would give the same information, but on the other say that if the PC asked about 'how hard are they to hit' or 'how beefy are they' that you would alter things.
Yes, precisely for the reasons above. There's nothing bug a generality there. That's working toward rewarding a player who tries. Give them something, without just handing them the monster manual and saying "there".
Now are the results going to be dependent on what OTHERS asked for? Or are the results likely going to be different, with say the same exact knowledge rolls?
Not dependent. That's what I've been saying over and over and over. And over (in case you missed it the first few times).
If you ask for generalities and roll reasonable enough, you get them. That's a house rule and we do it for feel-good purposes. There's really no meaningful (a.k.a.) useful information being gained. It's marginal at best. Absolutely not worth being included on a table of "useful items". I see them in the same general category as telling you what colour a creature is. That's why they're not on the table I presented.
I don't mind there being an absolute table, but then everything gets listed out there and you actually see what the DCs are to know what. Meanwhile saying 'I'll only give one piece of information per 5 on the DC and it will always be the same piece' can lead to requiring a DC 50 check on an uncommon monster.
Yes, it can. If you as a DM view individual features as useful items. I see certain synergies. Honestly, a stirge for instance grapples and drains your blood. I'd consider that one item because they're so closely related.
Consider the cloaker and the information you are giving. You are nicely grouping many different things together in those groups. I would guess that the OP's DM would spread those out...
Irked. Getting.
I nicely gave the same useful information that RD's DM gave. Go figure. If you want to nit-pick to this degree, we're basically done. You're now objecting to the wording of a DM describing something.
The fundamental topic is that RD proposes he gets more information because he's observed the low-hanging-fruit on the tree. He doesn't and I have yet to see a valid argument that he should. I answered your question in good faith and zero in anything you've said has anything to do with the premise RD has made. If you disagree with my version of a table, disagree. Enjoy. Opinions abound. But the whole thread is about the legitimacy of a table and using it. The idea that my table groups line-items on a statblock doesn't in any way alter the fact that I'd give the same useful items out time and time again.