You are correct. There is no internet, radio or tv like there is in our world. Even some people in our world don't know basic things.
Some GM's allow certain things to be common knowledge, but as a general rule the character does not have access to the information. Character knowledge is not the same a player knowledge.
In my games:
Things like orcs, goblins, and so on I don't worry much about since people commonly interact with them, but things I consider to be monsters, such as trolls, have to be rolled for. You might know that a troll has regeneration that is overcome with fire, but your character does not unless he makes a knowledge check.
How common are lycanthropes in your world? What about fey? These are creatures common to legends and stories that have DR/silver or cold iron respectively. I imagine some undead might also be common in tales and lore, and they can require specific weapons.
A common creature requires a DC 5 + CR Knowledge check, you're right. But some things are probably so well-known that they go into the realm of common knowledge. Do you require everyone to roll to recall that fire and acid are great on trolls? They're common, but technically unless you've got a rank in the requisite Knowledge skill, you're going to be in trouble remembering that at low levels.
Your archer is stocking up for the future. Let him. He still needs to learn what arrow to shoot into what creature, as one episode of Order of the Stick so aptly demonstrated :)
I have a similar issue in my group, as far as the Knowledge skill goes. One or two of my PCs found the concept of summoning interesting, but one thing that struck me as odd is that you could summon any creature on the list, even ones your character might not have heard of.
So is the Knowledge skill a matter of knowing what it is, or just a means of knowing what it could do? I suppose you could conjure a Devil without knowing about its vulnerability to silver, but I'm just a tad curious.
As for OP's point, that player's actions somewhat constituted metagaming. The boundary between player and character knowledge can be a difficult nut to crack for some people.
As I have pointed out before, one method of looking at "common" knowledge is to also remember that you can "Take 10" on knowledge checks.
For "common" untrained folk they are capped at DCs of 10 anyways. This means commonly know or encountered creatures are know up to about CR 5. Uncommon critters need to be CR 1/2 or lower in this case. So generally speaking a good default assumption is that most people will know one or two pieces of "useful" information about the majority of Humanoids in the world.
This is information the PCs either know or can pick up sitting around the fire... not if they are already being attacked by said creature.
For a Vampire, just on a ballpark estimate, the lowest CR you will find is CR 5 ( a 5th level Expert human turned vampire). If Vampires are a de-facto ruling class in the region then it is possible that the locals will know that garlic can help ward their homes from nightly raids. There are a few nations in Golarion that I think can fit that bill.
Alright everyone, I'd like some help settling a debate that a friend and I have been having lately.
It involves Knowledge skills and what things characters would and wouldn't know.
I contend that unless a character has personal experience with a creature with DR/(special material), has a knowledge skill that pertains to such a creature, or has talked to someone who has such knowledge or experience, they would have no in character reason for buying special ammunition or weapons to bypass such DR.
He contends that any knowledge of DR and materials bypassing it is common knowledge, and as such such a character would have every reason to do so.
The specific example in question is regarding an archer who had fought a total of 1 creature with DR/Adamantine, which she did not ask about or question afterwards, but then went on to buy silver and cold iron arrows despite not having any knowledge of creatures with DR that was bypassed by those materials.
Now, I, as the DM allowed it because I knew it would start a long argument if I said anything about it, and such things are usually moot as the archer could just ask the resident knowledge expert "Why weren't my arrows doing anything to that beast?" and get a lecture on the nature of DR and what bypasses it. I just contend that if none of that is done, the character would have no reason to buy the special arrows.
My reasoning for this is that I can't find a creature common enough to meet the Goblin style DC 5+CR standard for Knowledge checks, so technically the weaknesses of every creature with DR/(special material) isn't common knowledge.
Thoughts? Opinions?
FWIW, I would think instead about whether the items are for sale at the store.
If the items aren't for sale, then the player is metagaming by making special requests for items the character can't see in front of him and has never heard of.
If they are, the player could look at them and the natural reaction is to say "hey, what are these for?" Then the clerk could say "they are more effective for damaging certain rare creatures, sir, and for just $$$$, you too can _____." If you want to be rude, the clerk could...exaggerate a little.
|
It is not uncommon for folk tales in the real world to discuss fantastical and mundane materials that are needed to thwart supernatural boogiemen. Taking that into account for the game world and realizing that traveling troupes of performers might take these tales for inspiration and make plays about them. Thereby taking common folk tales from one part of the world and spreading them throughout the world. Other methods of dissemination exist. Of course the problem with this is that as tales spread details are missed or changed. Having silver arrows is useless if the folk tales say that cold iron is what kills lycanthropes. So you shoot your cold iron at it and just make it angry.
Now the key point here is knowing which materials affect what things. That is why you need knowledge skills.
I would let him buy these things. I would not let him use them on a creature unless it has obvious DR. Even then I would make him randomly choose which material he uses first so that his player knowledge does not skew the choice. If a character with knowledge skill yells out "use cold iron" then that changes things but otherwise I think this is a non issue.
I believe Order of the Stick covered that Karkon.
www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0062.html
So all merchants in your world are idiots deserving to fail?
Picture this: You're in the place where you can buy ranged weapons. They have bows to sell. Big ones, little ones, the composite stuff.
And they have ammo. Normal ammo, cold iron arrows, silver arrows, maybe even adamantine arrows. And if people ask them why that one arrow costs as much as hundreds of regular ones, they'll tell you it's because some creatures shrug off normal weapons and need these special arrows to hurt them.
Even smaller shops will probably have a few of those. Even someone who is in the bespoke bow trade will know about special arrows.
And I do think that adventurers will know that some creatures can only be harmed by specific kinds of weapon, and that if you're using ranged weapons, the ammunition needs to be special if we're talking about special materials.
|
The problem with trying to answer this with setting-flavor reasoning, like In Ustalov everyone knows about werewolves & silver or a store that has adamantine arrows knows why they're more costly or it's common knowledge that vampires & the Sun and trolls & fire don't like each other, is that each DM's game is different.
So each DM, if one uses any kind of setting flavor argument, has to come up with his own answer. Drawing the line at where common knowledge begins and ends or arbitrating how much "experience" a PC has to fall back on is different for each DM. (see Spoiler at bottom)
It's better to start with a Metagame reasoning to make your rule.
We have a mechanic to allow PCs to learn about monster vulnerabilities. Players have the option to spend skill ranks on those Knowledges. If they do, good for them. If none of them did, they're screwed.
Otherwise Knowledge Skills would be worthless. Why should a Player put Ranks into 1 or 2 Knowledges if the info is given for free.
Does one PC spend lots of Ranks in the Knowledge Skills? If so than the DM needs to allow only THAT PC the ability to attempt knowledges. That PC spent the skill ranks so that PC gets the opportunity.
For my games, Knowledge Skills are Very useful. ESPECIALLY since I change the stats for all the monsters at the start of each new campaign. Maybe in this campaign a cockatrice paralizes you instead of turning you to stone. Maybe next campaign Grimlocks won't be blind. Maybe this campaign Demons are vulnerable to electricity instead of immune to it. Maybe drow have 10+Lvl SR instead of 5. Maybe zombies are CR 5 next campaign instead of CR 1. Etc.
And only with the Knowledge Skill can one attempt a check.
Lots of DMs I've met, though, use a different rule:
PCs are MORE than just the sum of monsters they've fought in a DM's Campaign. They are intrinsically different from commoners and adepts. Not just statistically . . . .
NO Campaign covers EVERYTHING a PC experiences or knows. EVER. Otherwise we'd roleplay going to the bathroom, searching for firewood, PC groups talking about families and politics and "home," etc.
AND, almost None of those things a PC gets at each new level: Skill Ranks, Feats, Class Features, Spells, etc. would be earned when a PC levels up.
A first level Rogue doesn't roleplay how come he'll get Evasion after he helps the other PCs in three more fights!