I refuse to get in a discussion with you as to whether knowing that the creature can fly is "useful". It simply isn't relevant and is a distraction. The relevant question is whether it is as useful as, for example, being able to use acrobatics. Because, if it isn't, then what you are doing is encouraging your players to not take knowledge skills, but to take other skills instead.
The utility of the skill is dependent upon the number of opportunities to use it. Success or failure in those attempts is a separate thing.
I'm using really simple decision theory which anybody is capable of after the first day of an Operations Research class. The probability of the reward is a function of the number of opportunities to use the skill as well as the success or failure in those attempts.
What I said is, "the utility of skills is dependent on the reward for taking those skills as well as the probability of the reward". Contrary to your claim, I'm not confounding anything.
Well, I guess we're done then. I reject your basic assumptions, and you reject mine.
There is no way that a GM can have a chart of information for every possible topic at various DCs for the PCs to roll against.
Actually, that's exactly the path that Wizards was following in 3.5 at the end. If you look at the later supplements, each monster and each organization had a block of what information you get at each DC, and what skill was appropriate.
There is no way that a GM can have a chart of information for every possible topic at various DCs for the PCs to roll against.Actually, that's exactly the path that Wizards was following in 3.5 at the end. If you look at the later supplements, each monster and each organization had a block of what information you get at each DC, and what skill was appropriate.
I am aware of those. They were far from perfect, and at times had some really silly results for the DC of the information.
Full disclosure, I got 4 Winds monster knowledge cards. I actually like them, because if I'm at a loss or the PCs don't have a particular need for some kind of knowledge or another about a creature, they jump start my ability to give them something of use. But I don't use them across the board all of the time.
Knowledge skills are harder to get use out of than most other skills simply because their DCs tend to be higher.
A DC 22 check of many other skills would be an automatic success. For Knowledge checks regarding a creature, you probably won't get to know all the information regarding that creature unless you have a DC 30+ (or even 40+) result.
In fact, for many skills, you will pretty much never need to be able to achieve a result higher than around 25-30, while for Knowledge skills you may very well want to achieve a higher result than that.
Besides, all Knowledge skills are also useful for a whole lot of things besides learning about the monsters you are facing. Such as identifying materials, structural hazards, historical events, organizations, people, religious symbols and rituals, and so on.
I'm quoting this for THE TRUTH!!!!
Knowledge as a SKILL is worth far more than just Monster ID and weaknesses.
*shakes head*
Equating Knowledge checks to merely point out the sum of "what can it tell me about the monster I'm fighting" just misses the damn point of 99% of the uses of the skill in the first place.
But hey - call me crazy, I come to "role play" situations and I expect the skills I invest in with Knowledge to come into play with ... you know, stuff that matters to the situation I'm in. I don't take Knowledge: Local to figure out the best way to wipe out my local rat infestation. I take it to show my character knows a bit about the local scene in politics, economics, celebrity, trade, etc, etc. NONE of that comes up in combat, NOR DO I EXPECT OR DEMAND IT TO!
*ROTFL*
Look, *best* situation here is to just house rule the following Knowledge skill into existence, or something akin to it.
Knowledge (Monsters): you have spent many hours studying tomes of the dead, stories of cave diving, and myths and legends of old. As such, you know many things about nearly any kind of fantastical or monstrous creature that could be encountered.
Now, with this in play, LT and RD ought to be perfectly happy to sink all the skill points they want into this ONE specific skill that covers the bases of the only apparent measure of the skill's use that is measureable and that matters, right?
That whole DC formula works like a charm above, AND ... it's rightly focused around what you need and want it to do (ie: tell you about monsters and their weaknesses). You don't even NEED to ponder all that "role playing" use the skill represents *anymore* at all. Load up on the "useful" Knowledge skill and let the rest of that garbage go to some one that's trying to (*chuckle*) develop a 'character' in this game world thing (ie: the place where I kill things ... and take their stuff).
*le sigh*
Ok, now, sass aside, I think that expanding Knowledge skills in general is a good idea as the existing ones are awefully narrow in focus and such. Even extrapolating it to "you know the weaknesses of monster X by studying up on plane Y" pushes it, IMO. A skill like Knowledge: Monsters, though, is tailor-made for EXACTLY this purpose (Dungeoneering is kind of close, though - good on you Paizo!). There's a whole range of things that *could* be introduced specifcally to knowledge, but are not there (Military Tactics/Stragegy for instance). The thing is that mechanically they do not all necessarily have some immediate mechanic in place beyond the D20 roll + mods as to the *other* information it can provide and that, frankly 99% of the skill uses will revolve around.
It's in the realm of "GM discretion" and there are way too many people looking for clear rules on account of just not trusting GM's or feeling like they WILL get screwed if they can't get a result they want (by that I mean, like the GM is ACTIVELY trying to screw them rather than the die not favoring them).
For me, since a LOT of the primary uses of Knowledge skills is more or less "up in the air" then there's plenty of other Knowledge skills that can be introduced to the game with minimal impact on the game.
Hell, just taking that Knowledge: Monsters skill I proposed - make it a class skill for all of the Full BAB types, Bards, and Wizards (since they get *all* of those types of skills anyway). I could totally see a case for the highly trained fighter that's studied all kinds of monsters and just knows how to take 'em out! Ask him about their culture, language, traditions - not a damn clue! He knows just how they attack and how to defend against it, etc, etc.
To *me* that speaks more of a Knowledge: Monsters type of a skill rather than using something FAR more likely to give you cultural information (say Knowledge: The Planes) and dynamics than monster-hunting info.
|
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.)
That's my take.
A Bard would get the story of Sir Billingley, who lured the Bugblatter Beast away from town, into a trap, using the smell of fresh watermelon; "Hey, guys, if we step away from this watermelon patch, we may not have to fight it...".The Fighter would be told he remembered his old sergeant had a six-inch scar on his temple, and being told how he got it; "These Bugblatter Beasts can pounce from 20 yards, and rake with all four claws."
|
|
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.
Chalk me up as one on this side of the fence.
One of the things I was attempting to impart during 'that' wyvern thread (No, don't look, for the sake of your sanity!), but simply got a wall of blank looks about, was that there are certain things that everyone, and I mean everyone should just know, when it comes to legendary creatures, the creatures that get used in heraldry, that get carved into statues, that get told in tales to children, as soon as they're old enough to speak.
Everybody should know what a dragon looks like, without having to roll.
Seriously. Take a picture from the Bestiary.
Go out into the street.
Collar the first person you meet, show them the picture, and say "What is that?"
Pick your spot; don't do this outside the gaming store.
Pick Main Street.
Pick old people, young people, people who don't play RPGs, don't watch fantasy films, don't read fantasy fiction.
Pick Joe Normal.
Pick a parent with a little kid. Ask them nicely if you can ask their kid a question (so you don't get arrested as a wierdo).
Ask the little kid "What's that?"
Answer? "It's a dragon."
"What do dragons do?"
"They're big, scaly lizards, that fly and breathe fire and capture princesses and get killed by knights and live in caves and collect treasure and my friend Stacey has a book where there was a friendly one and it helped chase away the nasty ones and they all went back to the castle for tea and buns and my other friend has a stuffed one on her bag which she calls Desmond and she sometimes does the voice like this..."
"Yeah, OK, that's enough, I get it. You know about dragons."
That's a kid. What level is a kid? Level 1? Level 0?
Do they even have levels? What's that kid's Int? 10?
They're not an adult, do they get the standard array until maturity?
Should they be lagging a few points? Int 9? 8? 7?
So what's the DC to recognise a dragon again?
Should be DC Zero, that's what.
Or even, given that any random kid can give you half a dozen facts, using the RAW formula, the base DC for identifying a dragon should be MINUS THIRTY.
|
|
Basing Knowledge DCs on a creature's CR is a totally crappy way to set the difficulty.
From a purely gamist view, it means that the PCs will always be playing catch-up.
Every level, a player can invest one rank to get a +1 improvement in one of the six monster-lore related Knowledge skills. Forget keeping them all maxed, unless you're a Bard who wants to be hopless at music, a Rogue who wants to be a complete liability at the jobs he was actually hired for, or a Wizard who's washed his hands of learning anything else.
Even if all the PCs get their heads together, and delegate one or two of these skills to each other, there's still a cap of one rank/level that can be invested.
And every level, the average CR of the creatures they face also increases by +1.
So even if all the PCs invest heavily in these skills, by the RAW, they will never get ahead of the curve, and in practical terms (since other skills will demand their attention, and actually, you know, work as advertised) they will actually get DUMBER AND DUMBER, the longer they adventure.
|
|
A further reason why basing Knowledge DC on CR is ridiculous:
PCs see a Huge, red, winged lizard, standing guard over two Small, red winged lizards.
PC1: "Hark! Dost thou see the red winged lizards, in yonder cave?"
PC2: "Yeah, verily, I dost see-eth them. Mayhap our friend, Audobon the Bard, can identify these for us?"
PC3: "Let me see...<rolls vs DC (8+15)=23>...Aha! 27!...err, I mean Forsooth! Hit me on the hindquarters with a pig's bladder, if those small lizards are not Dragons, of the colour Red."
PC2: "And what can you tell us of these probably harmless, noble and goodly creatures (since we are all honour-bound to give every creature the benefit of the doubt), before I walk over to initiate peaceful negotiations?"
PC3: "I can tell you absolutely nothing at all about them. Despite my mother sitting me on her knee every night, to tell me tales of brave knights who encountered such creatures, and despite me actively joining the Bardic College to specifically advance my learning of arcane matters, the knowledge has simply flown out of my head.
All I can tell you are two very important pieces of information: One; they are dragons. And two; they are red."
PC1: "What good fortune it is to have one so erudite in our company! But pray tell, why stop there? What manner of beast is the other lizard? The one that looks almost exactly like them, but is merely larger, yea, unto the size of a barn?"
<GM passes note to PC3 "Your +8 skill cannot beat the DC">
PC3: "I have no possible way of knowing what that creature is."
"But pray tell, why stop there? What manner of beast is the other lizard? The one that looks almost exactly like them, but is merely larger, yea, unto the size of a barn?"
LOL! I love your Olde dialogue. Especially in contrast to my characters, who tend to talk like Mike Hammer or Sam Spade.
|
|
"But pray tell, why stop there? What manner of beast is the other lizard? The one that looks almost exactly like them, but is merely larger, yea, unto the size of a barn?"LOL! I love your Olde dialogue. Especially in contrast to my characters, who tend to talk like Mike Hammer or Sam Spade.
"The dame walked into my bar. She had a look about her that could turn even the most spineless stool-pigeon rock-hard in a second.
No, really. She was a medusa.I was polishing the glasses with my back to her, so I saw her in the mirror.
I put on my shades, the special shades I use, when I want to do business with the freaks of this g~~-d+~ned town, and I turned to give her the look that means I mean business, and business don't come cheap.
I couldn't find my voice when I saw her in full view.
She had legs that went all the way to her chin.
No, really. She was half-achaierai."
|
|
Verily, thy observation doth have some merit to it, yet it seemeth me good that some fell beasts may be identified with greater difficulty than others. How say you? What basis shall we utilize for this discrimination, if not by the rating of their challenge in fair combat?
Creatures used to come with a frequency rating, ranging from 'common as muck' to 'unique'.
That seems to have disappeared, at least from the PFSRD. I'm too lazy to get up and look in the Bestiary.
At the very least, it would help settle the official base DC for those who want to use the RAW, flawed though they be.
[Case in point: I just checked a sample critter; the aboleth is listed with a base DC of 17, which makes it an averagely common creature. Severe double-take there. That's actually way, way way lower than I'd have started to give info on it, since I'd have pegged it as one of the most secretive races in the book, remembering it as a dweller in the deepest lakes of the Underdark. PFSRD has it as 'any aquatic', so now apparently, we should expect to see them sunning themselves on a rock when we go to the beach.]
Mr. Fishy would like to point out TV and video games as major sourses of information in the modern age that would not exist in a fantasy world. Stories would travel but play the Gossip game. Information gets muddled the more people repeat it until a man on a horse is a centaur. A crocodile is a dragon and a giant squid is a monster unknown as the kraken.
Every one loves a good story.
Every one could and should know what a goblin or a bear is if they seen one. A cloaker might be a common monster to dwarves, but unheard of for humans unless they live in a mining town. Dwarves may have never heard of or seen a tengu.
[Case in point: I just checked a sample critter; the aboleth is listed with a base DC of 17, which makes it an averagely common creature. Severe double-take there. That's actually way, way way lower than I'd have started to give info on it, since I'd have pegged it as one of the most secretive races in the book, remembering it as a dweller in the deepest lakes of the Underdark. PFSRD has it as 'any aquatic', so now apparently, we should expect to see them sunning themselves on a rock when we go to the beach.]
Well, the skill itself mentions that common creatures start out with DC 5, "average" monsters with DC 10, and rare monsters with DC 15. The individual monster listings don't say which group a given monster falls into, but frequency does play a part.
Personally, I'd list aboleths as DC 22 for starting information in my campaigns.
(A machine-gun series of noir D&D puns)
Nice! If you're ever in Houston, please do look me up! I'd love to invite you for a game -- or maybe just a beer, if time presses.
Creatures used to come with a frequency rating, ranging from 'common as muck' to 'unique'.
That seems to have disappeared, at least from the PFSRD. I'm too lazy to get up and look in the Bestiary.
At the very least, it would help settle the official base DC for those who want to use the RAW, flawed though they be.
Frequency was dropped in the transition from 2nd Editon D&D to 3rd Edition. It is up to GMs now to decide what is a common or uncommon monster in his/her campaign.
Creatures used to come with a frequency rating, ranging from 'common as muck' to 'unique'.
That seems to have disappeared, at least from the PFSRD. I'm too lazy to get up and look in the Bestiary.
At the very least, it would help settle the official base DC for those who want to use the RAW, flawed though they be.
You know ... I'd MUCH rather go back to the "old school" AD&D listings and use those base frequency rating for the DC checks as a base. Period.
I mean ... IF there *has* to be some sort of delineation of "how hard is it to know about critter X" I'd rather that be based on the frequency (even if modded to each GM's own campaign) over HD any day. I mean ... what if you're facing down a leveled into Barbarian troll? Suddenly that things going to sky-rocket past "troll" because it has levels??? WTF!?!?!?
I, by NO MEANS, am a fan of the way it is. But everything I've argued has been in defense of GM's discretion and following the basic formula (certainly flawed, but clearly laid out) as presented in the description of the skill.
At this point, the productive conversation *should* look at codifying some sort of alternatives, really.
I mean, I've put forth the creation of a new skill wholesale - just full on dedicated to "monster hunting" basically.
Now we have a more generalized "frequency of appearance" or what have you marker to look back at and try to retro-fit into the modern system (easy enough - just pick a DC for each category).
What else is out there?
*rubs hands readily to lay into this task*
I'm w/James on this one, too - I'd totally trust Paizo to give it a shot and abide by what they put in print/make in errata, etc. Free downloads? whatever - point being, I would easily follow their intuition and design precepts going into such an undertaking.
Basing Knowledge DCs on a creature's CR is a totally crappy way to set the difficulty.
From a purely gamist view, it means that the PCs will always be playing catch-up.
Every level, a player can invest one rank to get a +1 improvement in one of the six monster-lore related Knowledge skills. Forget keeping them all maxed, unless you're a Bard who wants to be hopless at music, a Rogue who wants to be a complete liability at the jobs he was actually hired for, or a Wizard who's washed his hands of learning anything else.
Even if all the PCs get their heads together, and delegate one or two of these skills to each other, there's still a cap of one rank/level that can be invested.
And every level, the average CR of the creatures they face also increases by +1.
So even if all the PCs invest heavily in these skills, by the RAW, they will never get ahead of the curve, and in practical terms (since other skills will demand their attention, and actually, you know, work as advertised) they will actually get DUMBER AND DUMBER, the longer they adventure.
My reasoning is that the more dangerous the monster is the less number of people there are alive that will have faced it and survived, meaning information on it will be more scarce, therefore it will be harder to make knowledge checks. Players also occasionally get stat boosting items so they slowly catch up.
I don't want Paizo to tell me how to run my game any further than the most basic skeleton of rules.
I'm actually capable of running my own games, thank you.
If you actually need the game system to hold your hand like that, 4e might work better for you.
Nah!
I don't need 'em to tell me how to run the game. (honestly, crap brought up here never even pops up in my games.)
I'm just in favor of a cleaner implementation/mechanics for monster-knowledge checks as a whole. Cripes - 6+ pages was spent arguing about it ... 6 PAGES!!!!
Don't need anything as flavor-less or lack-luster as 4e to come in and make some improvements.
At the same time, it's some work to get it all done. For doing the 'work' I would call it worth it on my end to go through, find all the critters and add the new stat that meshes with a newer mechanic in general.
Holding hands ... ?? We don't need to turn it into summer camp, man.
{Hell - just a thought experiment for me as, literally, this has NEVER been an issue ... at all.}
My reasoning is that the more dangerous the monster is the less number of people there are alive that will have faced it and survived, meaning information on it will be more scarce, therefore it will be harder to make knowledge checks. Players also occasionally get stat boosting items so they slowly catch up.
Hmm .... had me up to the "players catch up" w/stat creep.
I'm just not a fan of that - at all.
Maybe the HD increase can be scaled back to increasing DC by like 1/2 or 1/3 the critter's existing HD? The problem was sky-high DC's based on CR and HD, no? So ... dialing that back into a more moderate increment would go pretty far to handle the adjustment, no?
Basing Knowledge DCs on a creature's CR is a totally crappy way to set the difficulty.
It's certainly better than the 3.5 method, which based Knowledge DCs on a creature's HD. A creature's number of HD is almost always higher than it's CR (some times by double).
As for the Red Dragon example: I agree that is a silly byproduct, but personally I allow you to learn something about Red Dragons if you make the DC for wyrmling, even if the one you're actually facing is a great wyrm. You won't get to know the abilities that are specific to the older versions unless you beat those DCs, but you will get to know the basics.
I don't see how the CR outpaces the skill.
If anything, a player who invests ranks into the skill every level would keep up with the CR, even overcoming it when you take into account the bonuses for training, ability scores, and possibly feats and class abilities.
The only thing that sucks about the situation is that the PC would only ever get two or three pieces of info on a given creature his entire career (assuming he continues to track down creatures of appropriate CR as adventurers are want to do).
|
I find it telling that a 5 year old kid in 21st century US is likely to be able to identify a mythological creature such as a dragon, yet a 14th century kid in London would not be able to identify an extant yet remote crature such as a Komodo Dragon. For that matter, nor would I expect that 14th century kid to identify a zebra or a polar bear.
In other words, I don't put a lot of value in constructing an analogy between a child of the modern world, steeped in a child's culture in which fantastic and rare creatures become frequent protagonists in picture books, and the models of knowledge known to the world of adventurers in our games of choice.
The knowledge system is not perfect. It is designed to meet a purpose; when used well, it provides opportunity for roleplay and tactical play. It is better in PF than it was previously due to the +/-5 system.
GMs who put a lot of thought into distributions of creatures in their world might well put some additional thought into circumstance modifiers as well, whether they be related to rarity, distance, notoriety, exageration, local experience, etc.
The (very well written) passage about the kid on the street fails in one very telling way: he's describing in detail a creature that doesn't exist in his world..and yet he probably doesn't know it yet. Likewise, the capacity of humans (or humanoids, sentient beings, etc. for our game's purpose) to overgeneralize, confuse, conflate, exagerate, forget, etc. should not be forgotten.
The kid FAILED his check. Not once did he mention that dragons don't exist in his world. :)
What are the rumors and errors that are spread in taverns? Is it widely known that dragons are color coded for our convenience or is that merely something that is known to the GM and Shirley-the-dragonic-match-maker? Are wyrmling dragons a seaonal plague that needs to be knocked out of the trees before they eat all the apples or a source of wonder and fear? Does everyone know the nature of goblins, or are the nearest goblins 200 miles away and basically unheard of here? Does every farm child know about the DR of skeletons and zombies because they have to beat them down daily on the way to milk Betsy, or are these horrid creatures outside the pale of experience? These are, in part, matters for the GM to decide (with or without the players based upon the group's gaming culture).
For anyone who has lived any significant time with someone like that 5 year old kid, let us not forget that it was probably only a couple of years early that he proudly announced that the cow on the hillside was a dog (four legs...hair...makes sense). This process of overgeneralization is well documented not only in childhood development but in learning overall; striving to make the transition from 3.5 to PF, I am experiencing this all too well. To what degree confusion reigns in the knowledge system of a FRPG is a matter of group culture.
*********************************************
The message from this thread is that the continuum from gamists to simulationists is alive and well. What is common and what is not is a matter for the individual gaming table. What useful means..either the simulationist's "That's what there is to know" or the gamist's "But I already knew that..." Whether taking ranks in a knowledge skill represents character development or utiliy is a matter of table culture.
After all of the second-guessing, absentee-GM flames, different opinions, gamer-outrage, etc., what is ultimately meaningful is contained in the original post: Other than OP's objection in this thread, they had a great night of gaming.
Your mileage may, and will, vary. Good gaming!
<DM> The creatures swoop down from the cealing, fly to your party, and begin grappling your allies!
<Player> Crap! Ok...Ok, my character has extensive knowledge in arcane lore and in dungeon dwelling creatures! What do I know or remember?
<DM> That the creatures just flew down and started grappling your allies!!!
I don't think you got SCREWED, but it's a bit of a dick move.
Also 4e owns, why are you badmouthing it, that's dumb and it doesn't even have anything to do with this thread.
|
|
Nothing wrong with trying to simplify something in the game. Just because it works does not mean it cannot be improved on. I think posters need to stop thinking just in terms of "well it works for me so it should work for everyone else and if it does not it means your dumb or not trying" type of attitiude. News flash it not just about you. First off were not all like you. Second it's insulting. Third enough with the 4E bashing. It's getting old stale and your not making any valid points by bashing it over and over again. Not to mention threadcrapping.Found some other bogeyman already. And to the op yeah it was a dick move on the part of your DM.
And to the op yeah it was a dick move on the part of your DM.
Quoted because I believe that, to a one, every person that defended the interpretation also stated that it would have been played differently had THEY been in charge.
So, yeah ... at least on that point (if it was the point) the OP scores with everyone here.
The rest ... not so clear, but nothing wrong in trying to take/ponder steps forward towards refining some *at least* perceived, and *at worst* genuine problems with the skill and how it handles monsters.
I'm totally able to follow the established rule (been doing it most of the time), however I can also clearly see where it falls apart for the particular bits of info gleaned, and then it REALLY has trouble as either CR or HD increase. I mean ... what the hell *other* skills have sky-high DC's for their "standard" use applications (although monster-hunting is contested as being a standard use in the first place for ANY existing knowledge skill, IMO)?
Jump/Acrobatics does, or did ... and it sort of makes sense because if you roll crazy-high you're jumping like world record types of heights (which is cool, but it takes a bit to get there ... unless you're a Monk w/Ki to burn).
Most other ones, when it's crazy-high is more a contest of skill, IMO (Cr-appropriate level traps, stealth vs. perception, etc). Most of the "baseline" skills are ... kind of tough for low level, regularly achievable by mid's, and a joke to high levels (minus the cases where it's a contest of some sort, obviously).
So, in this case, for the Knowledge skills there is benefit to pondering how to streamline the "broken" cases and repackage the whole into something more manageable, reasonable, and fun at the table for both GM (less work intensive and friendly on the fly), and players (semi-predictable for "standard" usage).
There's nothing wrong w/pursuing this course. If you're done w/the topic, though, you're done. No need to bring problems into the thread with those attempting some forward movement and/or potential house ruling to fine-tune an issue in game.
:shrugs:
There was a time when the game was played by geeks - people who didn't hesitate to think for themselves and use the brain god gave them to solve their problems. I'd like to see us go back to that.
Noted and applauded, sir!
*claps and applauds most loudly*
Seriously - a LOT of this flies right back to GM trust issues and people getting all fidgety when "GM fiat" comes into play for ... some damn reason. Back in the day, we took it as part of the way things got done. The ruling was made, then you moved on with the rest of the game - done deal. Now, though, it's like everything gets put on hold for a quick parlay on rules: RAW vs. RAI vs. Setting Staple vs. Theme vs. Conceit of the Game world, etc, etc, etc.
So, I'm down w/just a more traditional tweak that is broad-stroke based (ie: kind of vague like the older editions) that allows for plenty of GM interpretation/customization/whatever. Just ... something functional and easy to use is what I'd like to see. Without over-complicating things out the wazoo!
I'm so, so, SO down with your sentiment overall, though. I'm just a system-mechanic at heart, so no matter what I'm always up for messing with system crunch and junk (not so much the hard math calculations, though - more the framework of such things).
@james: I'm ... not sure exactly where you're going, but I *think* we're more or less agreeing - right? (hard to tell tone but I'm following the suggestion/point easy enough).
I would take what you laid out and call it TOO specific and say that as is, CR as the 'baseline' *is* precisely what's causing the higher level checks to go out of wack with reason and expectation (and thus causing player frustration).
The small tweak I'd make (very small) to your layout is to change CR from being the 'baseline' comparison point and instead go to the frequency of AD&D-like rating of critters and use IT as the baseline. I mean, there were what? Like 4-5 categories of critter back then? So, doing the same you only need to worry about 4-5 DC's period (as a baseline).
From there I'd chunk up HD a signficant portion and have it add to DC's in like ... groups of 3-5 or something like that.
So, something like so:
Common = 10
Uncommon = 15
Rare = 20
Unique = 25
So, that's it - done deal for the "baseline" of critters. Assign each thing a rating of some sort, and that's the base DC. Look at HD and/or CR's to adjust things according to the GM/flavor of the campaign and it should work out just fine. (again, with just a simple +1/X amount of CR/HD will work just fine.)
Seriously - a LOT of this flies right back to GM trust issues and people getting all fidgety when "GM fiat" comes into play for ... some damn reason. Back in the day, we took it as part of the way things got done. The ruling was made, then you moved on with the rest of the game - done deal. Now, though, it's like everything gets put on hold for a quick parlay on rules: RAW vs. RAI vs. Setting Staple vs. Theme vs. Conceit of the Game world, etc, etc, etc.
The thing is, I don't view those things as bad. Fewer rules is great for fostering a "DM is Overlord" game -- but at that point, as someone pointed out in another thread, why not just abandon them all and honestly accept that the DM is running things, instead of pretending that rules and dice actually matter? On the other hand, if the DM is there to facilitate smooth play, he or she would want clear guidelines that lead to minimally disruptive, transparent rulings.
You mentioned trust issues, and I agree. But, personally-speaking, I don't trust a DM who seems to be on a power trip, vs. one who's a bit less concerned with which side of the table he's on, and more concerned with having a game in which everyone is playing by the same rules. Others would much rather have the DM tell them what's what -- so you need to know your group.
The best part about old school games is when you didn't RP your character because your skills as a player mattered more.
And by "best" I mean "worst."
"Sorry, your wizard with 18 int and full knowledge of arcane lore can't pass through this room unless you OoCly solve the puzzle."
Immersion, what's that?
The best part about old school games is when you didn't RP your character because your skills as a player mattered more.
And by "best" I mean "worst."
"Sorry, your wizard with 18 int and full knowledge of arcane lore can't pass through this room unless you OoCly solve the puzzle."
Immersion, what's that?
Yeah, the best part about modern gaming is planning out all my feats, magic items, classes and prcs from level 1 through 20.
And by "best" I mean "worst."
"I don't care if you don't have a Flame Fist Master in your game, the PrC is what I need to optimize my characters casting ability for his next level! It's in the book and I WANT IT! It's in the BOOK!"
Immersion, what's that?
Hehe, so true.
|
So, something like so:
Common = 10
Uncommon = 15
Rare = 20
Unique = 25
I would go with something like this this but change it to add Very Rare = 25, Unique = 30
Add HD but not class levels. Extra-planar, templates, etc, may make it harder - or may modifiy the details given out. If the creature is somewhat humanoid or has had a history of dealing with any of the core races you may make the check easier (still considering base rarity).
The numbers listed can scale based on what each DM would want as his baseline for "common". Maybe start out with DC 5 and then add on other features - HD, templates, out of locale, etc. Maybe give more room to modify base DC if the number is lower.
A small (low HD) but rare creature should be harder to identify - using HD as a core base metric is bad design IMO.
|
|
I like this progression:
Common = 10
Uncommon = 15
Rare = 20
Unique = 25
But I don't think it's necessary to add anything to your basic DC. I hate scaling DC's, in fact, because it means that you will never get better at anything.
If the DC's are all set in stone and they are relatively low, then the PC's will be encouraged to branch out and get some cross-class skills.
The best part about old school games is when you didn't RP your character because your skills as a player mattered more.
And by "best" I mean "worst."
"Sorry, your wizard with 18 int and full knowledge of arcane lore can't pass through this room unless you OoCly solve the puzzle."
Immersion, what's that?
Yeah, the best part about modern gaming is planning out all my feats, magic items, classes and prcs from level 1 through 20.
And by "best" I mean "worst."
"I don't care if you don't have a Flame Fist Master in your game, the PrC is what I need to optimize my characters casting ability for his next level! It's in the book and I WANT IT! It's in the BOOK!"
Immersion, what's that?
Certainly it's a good thing, then, that your situation and my situation have nothing in common at all.
|
|
I like this progression:
Common = 10
Uncommon = 15
Rare = 20
Unique = 25But I don't think it's necessary to add anything to your basic DC. I hate scaling DC's, in fact, because it means that you will never get better at anything.
Not from a good challenge design perspective.
Once the players hit a certain mark they won't need to spend points on knowledge skills to identify even if the foes get more and more exotic. Having CR as a scaling factor (plus any other kind of additional modifiers) keep the skill relevant after 7th-8th level. As the PCs progress in levels the foes they encounter may get rarer and stranger (CR) – the skill shouldn’t hit a cap of identifying unique creatures at the middle levels.|
|
There was a time when the game was played by geeks - people who didn't hesitate to think for themselves and use the brain god gave them to solve their problems. I'd like to see us go back to that.
I had to burst some posters bubble but playing rpgs is not some sort of super exclusive activity that can be played only by a certain secret fraternity of gamers. The hobby needed and still needs a shot in the arm. Trying to pass it off as something only a certain group can play is well not exactly going to do the hobby any good. The DM has enough to worry about in terms of game prep rulings and runnning a game. I see no logical reason why something that helps you run the game is a bad thing. People need to stop thinking that the rules are just designed for them and only them. Paizo has made a set of rules that is supposed to appeal to all players whatever thier knowledge of D&D. Not some sort of gaming "elite".
So, is this the next 1000+ post thread?
I don't see the problem.
- Beat the basic DC and you know type/subtype, the traits shared by all members (Like dragons being immune to sleep and whatnot, elementals immune to crits and sneak attack etc)
- Beat it by like 5+, and you know some tidbits about the specific monster (senses, defenses, presence of DR/ER/Immunities, modes of movement, presence and general nature of exceptional and supernatural abilities)
- Beat it by 10+, and you know pretty much everything relevant (specific spell-like abilities, types of DR/ER, specific resistances/immunities, obscure weaknesses/strengths like Rakshasa and blessed crossbow bolt etc)
- Add 5-10 to DC is monster is rare or unique.
A smart bard who maxes the skill will have a shot at piecing together stuff that will make the unique monster-fight easier, a dumber character who maxes it will learn some specifics of the more common monsters, and the rest will go "Wat?".
|
|
Not from a good challenge design perspective.
Once the players hit a certain mark they won't need to spend points on knowledge skills to identify even if the foes get more and more exotic. Having CR as a scaling factor (plus any other kind of additional modifiers) keep the skill relevant after 7th-8th level. As the PCs progress in levels the foes they encounter may get rarer and stranger (CR) – the skill shouldn’t hit a cap of identifying unique creatures at the middle levels.
I don't think this is true (though maybe the scale could stand to go higher, say up to 30 for unique creatures and maybe a +5 or +10 for how exotic it is). I mean, your contention is what... that an 8th level bard who specializes in one kind of knowledge at the expense of all the others is now a world-class expert in that knowledge?
That's a good thing. I think a character who specializes in something OUGHT to be really good at it by 8th level. Maybe then you can branch out and figure out how to do some other things. Bring up another knowledge really high. Learn to fly. Figure out the usage of magic devices.
It's not a cap. But if you specialize in something to the exclusion of all other things, you hit the law of diminishing returns. You should! It's what happens in real life, and my art mimics life.
But let's say it does scale up with you. Let's say the DC of your skill checks increases by one per CR. So every level you put +1 skill ranks into your skill to identify monsters, and at the same time the DC of identifying level-appropriate monsters increases by +1. So let's say a 1st-level character has a 30% chance of identifying a rare CR 1 monster. That same character, at level 10, has a 30% chance of identifying a rare CR 10 monster. Did he get better? Nope. He didn't get better. He stayed the same. His chance to succeed didn't go up any higher than it was before. When does he get better? He never gets better, unless he invests in a feat or an ability that grants an additional bonus beyond your skill ranks. And really... who wants to take skill focus: Knowledge - Planes? Aside from Loremasters, not many people.
Why don't we just make all skill checks a coin flip? Heads, you succeed. Tails, you fail. If you have a really high bonus, I'll just increase the DC anyways, so you'll always have a high chance of failure. Is that good game design?
No, no. I don't like that. If the DC is set, then players know that they will eventually reach a point where they don't have to put more ranks into that skill. And they won't be in such a rush to keep putting ranks into it every level.
I reward specialization, I don't expect it.