For that matter, we're also veterans. Even when our characters don't make the knowledge checks, we know from past games that; Fey usually have DR/Cold Iron. The ways to kill a vampire. That Trolls have Regeneration/Acid and Fire. Across the group, we have a wealth of general and specific monster metagame knowledge. We take pains to ignore our metagame knowledge, which is really helped by the fact that we have 'standard procedures' of handing things. Still, while that metagame knowledge sadly exists, it does take the sting out of reading the statblock afterwards -- after all, that's information we could have remembered in the first place just as easily.Who's to say that some of this isn't common knowledge in the game world?
I've known how to kill a vampire since I was 4 or 5 years old, for example. We've all heard stories and legends of werewolves being susceptible to silver, vampires holy water, and a plethora of other such stories.
Do PC's and NPC's not tell stories around the campfire? I'm pretty sure they do.
Modern devices such as television and radio attribute to things being common knowledge that would not be in a less technological world.
Remember there was a time when only educated people knew the world was not really flat. If information were transmitted more easily the knowledge would not have been so obscure.
Who's to say that some of this isn't common knowledge in the game world?I've known how to kill a vampire since I was 4 or 5 years old, for example. We've all heard stories and legends of werewolves being susceptible to silver, vampires holy water, and a plethora of other such stories.
Do PC's and NPC's not tell stories around the campfire? I'm pretty sure they do.
Modern devices such as television and radio attribute to things being common knowledge that would not be in a less technological world.
Remember there was a time when only educated people knew the world was not really flat. If information were transmitted more easily the knowledge would not have been so obscure.
Good point, yet just the fact they made it to television is a testament to the value of word of mouth over many generations.
:)
Modern devices such as television and radio attribute to things being common knowledge that would not be in a less technological world.
Remember there was a time when only educated people knew the world was not really flat. If information were transmitted more easily the knowledge would not have been so obscure.
While I agree it may not be as commonplace as now, still back then people would sit around telling and listening to stories. After all they didn't have those fancy newfangled devices to keep their attention. :p
Still this would be evaluated against how common the creature is and what areas they are more common in. While I would assume a small detail or two might be known that's a call for the GM (perhaps some % dice?). We have Knowledge checks for a reason though and most character knowledge of creatures should come from this.
Who's to say that some of this isn't common knowledge in the game world?I've known how to kill a vampire since I was 4 or 5 years old, for example. We've all heard stories and legends of werewolves being susceptible to silver, vampires holy water, and a plethora of other such stories.
Do PC's and NPC's not tell stories around the campfire? I'm pretty sure they do.
Modern devices such as television and radio attribute to things being common knowledge that would not be in a less technological world.
Remember there was a time when only educated people knew the world was not really flat. If information were transmitted more easily the knowledge would not have been so obscure.Good point, yet just the fact they made it to television is a testament to the value of word of mouth over many generations.
:)
I am sure it was passed down through books, and not word of mouth. Nice try though. :)
PS:I am not against some things being common knowledge in game, depending on the campaign world of course, but it would definitely reduce the usefulness of the knowledge skills.
I am sure it was passed down through books, and not word of mouth. Nice try though. :)PS:I am not against some things being common knowledge in game, depending on the campaign world of course, but it would definitely reduce the usefulness of the knowledge skills.
It was word of mouth that brought it to books! :P
I do agree, and skills should never be reduced to little more than just a number on your character record. This is one of my biggest peeves amongst the DMs I've had poor experiences with.
If there is but a single element that should be handled with RAW, it's skills. It's simply too easy to make them useless using arbitrary figures.
|
I am sure it was passed down through books, and not word of mouth. Nice try though. :)PS:I am not against some things being common knowledge in game, depending on the campaign world of course, but it would definitely reduce the usefulness of the knowledge skills.
It was word of mouth that brought it to books! :P
Really?
Most of what we take as "word of mouth gone to books" is a heavily redone version of what where the legends.
I have in my hands a doctorate thesis about the vampire legends in the Balkans. You would have a hard time recognizing those vampires as the D&D creatures with the same name.
I do agree, and skills should never be reduced to little more than just a number on your character record. This is one of my biggest peeves amongst the DMs I've had poor experiences with.If there is but a single element that should be handled with RAW, it's skills. It's simply too easy to make them useless using arbitrary figures.
Here I mostly agree (but the circumstance bonus are part of the RAW).
From my point of view the skills were used exactly as in RAW in this encounter (barring the Rogue using stealth where he couldn't).
The goblins where using their skills and they had a circumstance bonus as they were looking exactly the right spot were the PC would pass.
If the PC had found a way to get to them from another direction they would have suffered a malus.
The players had no way to try a knowledge skill to notice that the goblins in the group wheren't the standard warrior 1 model as they haven't seen them.
Really?Most of what we take as "word of mouth gone to books" is a heavily redone version of what where the legends.
I have in my hands a doctorate thesis about the vampire legends in the Balkans. You would have a hard time recognizing those vampires as the D&D creatures with the same name.
That's awesome!
I like to throw a few legends my players' way pertaining to creature weaknesses and/or disposal methods. Mostly heard from stories or tavern tales. Sometimes, they even end up being wrong.
That's what makes me think some of the more 'popular' monsters' weaknesses can be common knowledge in an area.
I do agree, and skills should never be reduced to little more than just a number on your character record. This is one of my biggest peeves amongst the DMs I've had poor experiences with.If there is but a single element that should be handled with RAW, it's skills. It's simply too easy to make them useless using arbitrary figures.
Here I mostly agree (but the circumstance bonus are part of the RAW).
From my point of view the skills were used exactly as in RAW in this encounter (barring the Rogue using stealth where he couldn't).
The goblins where using their skills and they had a circumstance bonus as they were looking exactly the right spot were the PC would pass.
If the PC had found a way to get to them from another direction they would have suffered a malus.The players had no way to try a knowledge skill to notice that the goblins in the group wheren't the standard warrior 1 model as they haven't seen them.
The OP's scenario wasn't really on my mind when I posted that. What was on my mind is all the times in the past my skills had been rendered useless by arbitrary bonuses/skill adjustments that had no rhyme or reason, other than to thwart my attempts. Mostly due to lack of DM's experience and knowledge of RAW in the first place. It really killed the gaming experience for me, so I thought I'd share that with any newer DM's reading this.
That being said, the OP's scenario was handled fairly, I thought. You can't expect to stealth when someone has knowledge of your whereabouts. Top that with 'hiding in shadows' versus creatures with darkvision, and I'd say the goblins should have gotten a chuckle out of it at the very least.
|
|
I think that in most situations the total circumstance modifier to the skill should stay in the +/-2 or at most +/-4 range.
Generally modifier larger than those are already explicitly described in the rules.
Unless there is something special at work the players would generally notice if there is a larger modifier than that.
To make an example if you want to enter a noble residence and he has a 6 meters road running around the whole building and continual flames on both sides of the road every 10' the guy trying to hide would suffer a hideous negative modifier, but any players worth something would realize that seeing the set up.
I've actually called out a player after a game for exhibiting, what I thought to be, specific "behind the screen" knowledge. The player admitted that they had procured a copy of the module and had read through "some" of it. We discussed it and the player agreed that's akin to cheating. Much like Noah and Wraith have already said. If a player has knowledge of what is "supposed" to happen in a module or adventure path, they've essentially just ruined the campaign for themselves and anyone else that benefits from their "behind the screen" knowledge. It's a no-no. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a GM that would be happy about it. HOWEVER!!! If you have a very controlled player, it is entirely possible for them to "forget" any knowledge they gained from an AP or module, and play their character as if they knew nothing. This requires a lot of self discipline, but I have seen it done effectively.
Very good point. Also, I have "used" such a player as a plot device, to help the party along, sort of like an NPC, but one that has more "life" to it. Or using them to play critical NPCs or Monsters if they feel that they will take away from the game.
To me it sounds like that is what you are saying, that if questioned I should literally present the monster to them on paper giving them all those paper details. To me this intern is more like playing a video game, you find the cheat code and go at it and wow surprise surprise you beat the game.
No. A lot of my concern on that front is this ...
To which I attempted to do with the fact the Goblins used tactics in an archery battle and in the end only one survived fleeing, where his last surviving member as a free action yelled out "Tell the Master!"
You seem to think that the players should have just 'gotten' that the goblins were turbogoblins by the fact that they used tactics and that they have a leader. I disagree that it is readily apparent, or even suspicious, from those cues alone. On occasion I run NPCs with rather low Intelligence that use tactics, because even dumb critters can learn to respond to situations when trained.
You also seem to think that the PCs had the option of researching these goblins or investigating, but the first method that comes to mind is sneaking into or around the room and observing them -- which failed in the first place, here. So I'm not entirely sure what you're saying they should have done, if the room was already locked down and they failed the one option that would have gleaned that information.
For what it's worth, I also object somewhat to giving them bonuses for watching the door. If they were expecting the rogue in the next ten minutes, perhaps I could agree with it, up to perhaps a +5. But a group of people cannot stare at an opening and keep their focus on a door for the several hours it took your PCs to get there. Once you start talking hours, that bonus for knowing that they're coming and where they're coming from progressively dwindles down to nothing.