|
I wanted to get some opinions on Knowledge checks...
They seem extremely overpowered, and remove a lot of fun from the game if you can abuse them on monsters to such an extreme. Doesn't it take away a lot of the fun of running into something and suddenly pulling up information randomly as a free action... Last time I checked this was not a poke'mon game? Any ideas or clarification would be great...
Now this relates more to starting at level 1 and advancing I am not talking about high level characters or anything...
It depends entirely on how you GM that kind of thing.
Giving out monster information is not the same as handing over the bestiary and letting the player read from it. If you are pretty heavy into story based realism (as I gather from your post), there should never be a roll high enough to get the players to that point.
In short, Knowledge is overpowered only if you don't put any work into it. I would recommend the Monster Knoweledge cards from 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming. I'm not a huge 4WFG fan, but I've found this very cheap PDF to be invaluable. While the amount of information scales with the higher roll, it never goes so far as to remove thought from the process or break the realism of the moment.
Watch the DCs and knowledge checks aren't that game breaking. Abusing them on monsters only happens if the DM doesn't take into account the rarity in the DCs or forget that the amount information a player can get is limited to 1 fact for every 5 that they surpassed the DC in addition to the basic information from the initial success. While this means that most common creatures become easy enough to know about by mid levels, unless all you're throwing at them is common creatures straight from the book for the entire campaign, it really shouldn't be a problem. Level appropriate critters will usuallly stay just on the edge of "doable but tough" and "if you roll a 20, you might get a name, but not much else."
They seem extremely overpowered, and remove a lot of fun from the game if you can abuse them on monsters to such an extreme.
Knowledge is a trained only skill, identifying a creature's strengths and weaknesses is usually DC 10+CR, modified by rarity. For success, and each 5 they beat the DC, they recall a useful bit of information about the creature.
If you're not asking about the rules, then the Advice or Houserules sections of the forums might be a better place.
That said, how are you encountering the skill where it gets abused? Do you find it strange that adventurers, who mostly make a living by killing hostile and dangerous creatures, would know about their abilities? We don't have monsters, but most people can still tell you how to stop a zombie (destroy the brain), vampire (sunlight, wooden stake), or werewolf (silver). If those things were real, and often out terrorizing villages, I think adventurers would probably want to know about things like that.
If I'm in or from an area where devil summoning isn't really rare, is it overpowered for my Knowledge (religion) check of 21 to tell me three useful things about the Lemure that just appeared? (Say, it's difficult to hurt with mundane or unblessed weapons, it's resistant to most elemental magics, and cannot be magically compelled)
|
|
Watch the DCs and knowledge checks aren't that game breaking. Abusing them on monsters only happens if the DM doesn't take into account the rarity in the DCs or forget that the amount information a player can get is limited to 1 fact for every 5 that they surpassed the DC in addition to the basic information from the initial success. While this means that most common creatures become easy enough to know about by mid levels, unless all you're throwing at them is common creatures straight from the book for the entire campaign, it really shouldn't be a problem. Level appropriate critters will usuallly stay just on the edge of "doable but tough" and "if you roll a 20, you might get a name, but not much else."
+1
Information gleaned is (someone can correct me if I'm wrong) DC 15 + CR. So CR 1 is going to be a 16. If you have a rank in the right skill, it's a class skill, and you have a +3 int mod, your average roll (10.5) will net you a 17 or 18. As Sunshadow pointed out, that's enough for you to go:
wizard: "ahhh... that's a goblin!"
rogue: "What do they do?"
wizard: "umm... have big football heads and eat kittens?"
*combat ensues*
Sure, you can trick it out and max it by spreading your skill points among knowledges, being a bard, or taking skill focus. BUT, if you have a player who wants to spend his resources being the Monster Knowledge King, why are you fighting it? Let him play what he wants, let him have his fun, and then when he gets cocky hit him with a unique or otherwise incredibly rare creature.
I've a rule question. My local PFS game seems to have this table rule that you can't use Aid Another on a Knowledge check, but I don't recall seeing that rule written anywhere. Thoughts?
I see three spots this could be taken from:
Knowledge: "Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn't let you know something that you never learned in the first place."
If you either know it, or don't know it, someone can't help you know it. This is kind of weak, I think, since if you're trying to recall special abilities, someone could nudge your thinking a bit, which makes sense.
"Oh, that's a.... Lemure, they had some strange abilities..."
Aid other: "Something about weapons, right?"
"Oh yeah, they hate silver!"
Aid Another: "In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, ... you can't aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn't achieve alone."
So, if the Knowledge DC is higher than 10, you need to both be trained.
Aid Another: "The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well."
DM fiat.
Personally, I would totally allow it if both parties are trained.
I went through the 1st and 2nd edition monster books, took the old common-uncommon-rare-very rare ratings and used them as the base DC for the monsters (5, 10, 15, 20), then added the CR to that base. Works in my game. If the creature is a variant of another, they may determine the base type (skeleton instead of bloody skeleton, or some kind of troll instead of skrag, etc.) if they roll close enough (like within 5 or so).
|
|
Watch the DCs and knowledge checks aren't that game breaking. Abusing them on monsters only happens if the DM doesn't take into account the rarity in the DCs or forget that the amount information a player can get is limited to 1 fact for every 5 that they surpassed the DC in addition to the basic information from the initial success. While this means that most common creatures become easy enough to know about by mid levels, unless all you're throwing at them is common creatures straight from the book for the entire campaign, it really shouldn't be a problem. Level appropriate critters will usuallly stay just on the edge of "doable but tough" and "if you roll a 20, you might get a name, but not much else."+1
Information gleaned is (someone can correct me if I'm wrong) DC 15 + CR. So CR 1 is going to be a 16. If you have a rank in the right skill, it's a class skill, and you have a +3 int mod, your average roll (10.5) will net you a 17 or 18. As Sunshadow pointed out, that's enough for you to go:
wizard: "ahhh... that's a goblin!"
rogue: "What do they do?"
wizard: "umm... have big football heads and eat kittens?"*combat ensues*
Sure, you can trick it out and max it by spreading your skill points among knowledges, being a bard, or taking skill focus. BUT, if you have a player who wants to spend his resources being the Monster Knowledge King, why are you fighting it? Let him play what he wants, let him have his fun, and then when he gets cocky hit him with a unique or otherwise incredibly rare creature.
Another thing with the character is that his character may get lots of info on a monster, but he has 6 second's per round to tell everyone else and get them to understand. This is a place where handing a note-card, or many paper slips, with the info the character knows about the monster (easy enough to prep ahead of time if you know you have a monster lore character in the party), and let them figure out what order to give it in. Since they are most likely doing other things that round other then talking, restrict them to 1 item revealed per round. If they just want to talk, let them get out more.
Well, let's look at what those DCs are, shall we?
We take a mid-range monster, the bulette. Assume it's neither particularly common (which would be DC 5+CR), nor as rare as duck's teeth (DC 15+CR). So the DC to identify it and a piece of useful information is DC 17 (10+CR 7). If you get a result of 17-21, you recall some of a passage from Eloren's Unusual Bestiary about the Bulettes or 'Land Sharks'--that they are ravenous, all-consuming predators that burrow through the earth as easily as a man might swim through water. At a result of 22-26, you might also know that they can sense vibrations in the ground. 27-31, that they have scent. 32-36, that they have darkvision. 37-41, that they have low-light vision. 41-45, that they are known for leaping charges which bring all their claws to bear. 46 and up identifies all that, and the incredible force with which its jaws snap closed.
Exact order in which the information is gained is up to the DM; point being, it can take a Knowledge check of 46 to identify all capabilities of a CR 7 monster.
I am saying having a single Point in a knowledge knowing everything in the world about the subject seems slightly skewed when that subject covers such a broad spectrum.
You are aware this is not the case, correct?
A knowledge check of 30 (1 rank, 3 class skill, 4 int, 1 bardic knowledge, 1 trait, rolling a natural 20 on the die) will tell you six things about a very common monster, four things about a normal monster, or maybe three things about a rare monster.
For anyone not as invested, lets say it's more reasonable for them to get a knowledge check of 17 (1 rank, 3 class skill, 3 int, 10 on the die) drops that to 3/2/1 things about the creature.
That's six skills to invest in, if you want to identify creatures. (Arcana, Dungeoneering, Local, Nature, Planes, Religion)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
or just play a Cleric or Inquisitor with the Knowledge Domain which allows you to make any knowledge relevant to a monster with a specific DC.
Lore Keeper (Sp): You can touch a creature to learn about its abilities and weaknesses. With a successful touch attack, you gain information as if you made the appropriate Knowledge skill check with a result equal to 15 + your cleric level + your Wisdom modifier.with this even at level 1 you'll average a 18-20 depending on your stats.
And the first thing that you learn is that you should not be standing in melee range with it. :P
I currently DM for a group with several knowledge focused characters and the creature ID comes up a lot. I simply use the DC listed and give them info about the creature based on what they roll. The 1st 1-2 info bits are usually Type and some environmental or social aspect , after that (target DC+10 and beyond) i ask the player what he wishes to know more about. attack capabilities (physical), defenses/redutions, resistances, special abilities, magic powers, other stuff.
Thus the PC gets to know some of the details he really wants to, but also learns stuff i chose, it seems to be a working mix in practice.
You should either change things on the monsters or write up new ones all together. Also, be VERY clear with the players that the monsters in the book are not necessarily RAW. That way they can RP learning about the monster's weaknesses easier, because the players really are. On top of that, the players can have some fun learning something new.
While writing up new monsters can be very rewarding, I don't think it's fair to expect the DM to go through that much effort for every encounter. Making new monsters requires a significant time investment. A better solution, I think, is to discourage your players from making decisions based on out of character knowledge. In a game I played recently, we fought a ghoul (fairly common low level enemy with iconic abilities).
Did my character shout a warning about its paralyzing bite? Of course not, he'd never even heard of such a creature, much less studied it (although the cleric with Knowledge:Religion might have). Instead he charged up the stairs after it. Fun moment.
I love knowledge skills when I DM because it gives me an opportunity to let the PCs know things about the homebrew world I run. They're a very helpful fool for determining what the characters (not PCs) are likely to know.
I've a rule question. My local PFS game seems to have this table rule that you can't use Aid Another on a Knowledge check, but I don't recall seeing that rule written anywhere. Thoughts?
I don't think the rules have anything to say about aid another and knowledge checks specifically, but logically it makes sense that you could. Hell, we do it at college all the time.
A: "...take the tension force from the rope, subtract the static friction force and divide by the mass-"
B: "Don't you want kinetic friction, not static? The crate's already moving, remember?."
A: "Oh, right. Good catch. So that means the acceleration is..."
In Pathfinder it probably goes more like:
A: "...take these holy symbols and these onions, and place them on all the doors and windows-"
B: "Don't you want garlic, not onions? Vampires don't like garlic, remember?"
A: "Oh, right. Good catch. So that means we should..."
I'd agree though, that you need to be trained in the skill to aid another for a knowledge check. The history majors weren't much help in our study group. :P
or just play a Cleric or Inquisitor with the Knowledge Domain which allows you to make any knowledge relevant to a monster with a specific DC.
Lore Keeper (Sp): You can touch a creature to learn about its abilities and weaknesses. With a successful touch attack, you gain information as if you made the appropriate Knowledge skill check with a result equal to 15 + your cleric level + your Wisdom modifier.with this even at level 1 you'll average a 18-20 depending on your stats.
And that is a great ability to use when you are trying to figure out how to make it easier the next time you fight something like it and you can walk up and touch the dead corpse, but if you're trying to use it in the middle of trying to fight it, you're either very brave or very desperate.
or have realized that your weapons are doing no damage & a little divine help might tell you HOW to kill the damn thing...not necessarily desperation...but never know.
It's still desperation to put yourself in melee with a creature that has otherwise proven unbeatable, especially since most clerics with the knowledge domain probably aren't built for melee.
well, I am thinking more of the inquisitor which is more innately built for melee than the cleric & still get a domain ability.
Good point, I had forgotten that possibility. Still a bit of desperation to sacrifice an action to use it, but if nothing else has worked and you can stand up to being in melee, it's not a bad fall back option.
Unless they have levels in monk, at which point, it could get more interesting.
i have never seen the problem on the player end of things for playing the big dumb guy. I GM a lot so i know most creatures weaknesses that doesn't make it a long uncomfortable session since i have to RP that i dont know to use my club on skeletons. And why is a GM lazy for using Monsters players know about by that statement you shouldn't use any Iconic creature since my 5 year old neice can tell you to stake a vampire and that they hate garlic.
For iconic things that people know about or have myths about i use the common dc anyways meaning they can usually get what they need throw in a quick description when not very or super effective attacks happen and even a player who truely doesn't know to burn the troll figures it out.
P.S. Your not presenting the shadow strongly enough
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand the logic, Cranewings. If I felt more strongly about this, I'd I'd argue that the DM is being too literal about his knowledge rules.
When my party fought Dark Stalkers for the first time, their knowledge checks didn't reveal that they cast darkness spells and use sneak attacks. Instead, I told them that they had heard rumors of a race of men that, like the drow, had been living underground and as a result had turned into a twisted and malign race that worships the Throne of Night.
Good knowledge checks get good answers, just not necessarily combat useful ones. But that's just me, I guess. Though it's easier to feel justified about it if your group is already familiar with the bestiary.
But I took a generic Skeleton and when they appeared he Knowledge checked and I said you see an ordinary Skeleton... As soon as they made an action against the skeletons they burst into flames.
Why would a generic Skeleton make them burst into flames?
If it was a Burning Skeleton, is there a reason they couldn't see the aura of flames?
If the Knowledge (religion) check was 12 or higher, and there wasn't some reason for them not to be able to see the aura of flames, then they should have identified what it was, and one useful bit of info. If the check was 17, two bits of info. Etc.
I was describing it that way and creating an affect in the game, i made the choice since they were raging spirits they didnt reveal their true nature until they entered combat, there is an example of this in Carrion Crown Path.
Actually those have to dry off. They aren't hiding it.
True and thats fine. As to the statement of knowledge checks being overpowered unless your party has a stockpile of items to overcome every special defense or attack a monster has knowing about them doesnt really help the party.
I probably would have let the aura be visible from the start, and the initial DC would have been the same, but the only way they would have found out details would be if they successfully hit the higher DC. The lower DC would have determined that is was a nonstandard skeleton. The higher DC would have started to reveal details of how it was nonstandard following the usual ways of handling extra information.
Well here is what I did, just to give you guys an idea of how I am dealing with knowledge checks, since I was really asking if they felt over powered or not I really Foots idea and that makes a lot of sense. It was my first game dealing with a Monster Lore Player type so I was caught off guard since my usual group doesn't ever use it.
But I took a generic Skeleton and when they appeared he Knowledge checked and I said you see an ordinary Skeleton... As soon as they made an action against the skeletons they burst into flames. And he said I would of known that. I made a call as a GM that know you wouldn't based on what you saw, you had no idea they were a different type based on how they appeared in the beginning. I allowed him a second knowledge check at a higher DC.
So anyone feel that he should of known regardless? This is the main reason it seems overpowered, if based on their argument they know what is regardless even it looks like something or did I handle this correctly?
First off, I applaud you for a creative way of describing the creature. And no, they shouldn't know it was a variant skeleton until it revealed that it had powers beyond the normal. Like I mentioned before, variants are always a higher DC in my game, and if you make the knowledge roll between what's needed for the base creature and the variant, you only know that it is some type of (base creature).
I'll toss my opinion in the mix in Reecy's favor. The occasional surprise is never a bad thing in my opinion, and I've found that DMs that surprise me are often the most fun to play for. As it is, based on what the party saw (an apparently "normal" skeleton), it's hard to justify them knowing all of its special abilities with only a cursory examination.
It's true that burning skeletons usually have a fire aura that is easily visible, but there's nothing wrong with a bit of creative flair on the DM's part. While it'd be perfectly reasonable to rule that a high enough check would have let the character know that some skeleton variants are difficult to tell from normal ones, I don't think it's necessary. I'd file that option under "DM discretion."
While it seems that his party didn't appreciate the approach, it could have easily went the other way and caused a very interesting rp moment for the characters. At the very least, if they've learned anything, they'll be more careful of garden variety monsters in the future, which can only help their survivability.
If you disagree, here's something to consider: if you came across some orcs and one of them had levels in, say, barbarian, would you expect to be able to identify the fact with a knowledge check? Physically there is no difference between a barbarian orc and a normal orc. The barbarian *might* be equipped better or differently if, for instance, he is the tribe leader, but very often you won't know he's a barbarian until he starts raging. It might be reasonable that a knowledge check reveals that some of the highland orcs train as barbarians, but I'd never expect to pinpoint exactly which orcs in that raiding party have class levels. Reecy followed a similar judgement call with these skeletons and I approve.
Let me be clear: I do not think knowledge skills are overpowered. They don't need nerfed and they don't need to be hamstrung by overzealous DMs. But they're not infallible and they don't make players prescient.
|
Knowledge Skills are a huge part of my game. Both as Player and DM.
Like someone said earlier -- if a Player builds his PC around Knowledge Skills, he's gotta be allowed to use them. When I run a Fighter-Type it ALWAYS ends up with a weaker BAB cuz I take a level here or there in something where I can get Knowledges, ALWAYS ends up with fewer HP cuz his Favored Class boon is always a Skill Point, ALWAYS has a few fewer combat Feats cuz I need Skill Focus AND Scholar AND maybe Hermean, etc., etc. ... So my Fighter-Type is NEVER as powerful as the other Fighters. But DAMN IT, he knows about monsters!.
And if you have a Player who likes to make that kind of PC you gotta make sure he can get something out of it -- of course keeping an eye out to make your not too much info is given based on the DC achieved.
Now, as DM, one of the fun things for me is to redesign all the monster stats at the beginning of each new Campaign. Maybe a Cockatrice in my game makes you permanently Deafened instead of turned to stone; maybe Grimlocks aren't blind; maybe Hobgoblins have SR 5+Level; Maybe Blue Dragons can breathe fire; maybe trolls regenerate even if damaged with fire, etc.
And when my Players are building their PCs before the Campaign I let them know this -- and remind them about Knowledge Skill checks (and maybe a suggestion on getting them).
|
|
And it's easy for a DM to create occassional encounters where the PCs can't learn all the secrets -- maybe when the Player rolls that Knowledge: Religion the PC remembers that some Vampires can do "x" but others can't; the PCs will find out if this one can soon enough! And a DM can apply that logic to other monsters, too. It's not wrong or bad DMing if a DM says, after the Player rolls the Knowledge: Nature, that some Trolls regenerate even with Fire damage but those trolls will not regenerate with either Cold or Lightning damage -- and the PCs have to try Fire, Lightning and Cold on the Troll to see which one it is.
Just don't fall into the rut of doing this ALL the time. Let the "knowledge-monkey" shine for most encounters and every once in a while throw the curveball -- otherwise you're just trumping how the PC's abilities. It's the same bad-DMing mistake as always throwing stuff against the sneak-attacking-Rogue that's immune to Sneak damage, or always throwing stuff against the party Divination Wizard that makes Divinations useless.
They seem extremely overpowered
But they're not. They can be life-savers. Which is a good thing, not a bad thing.
and remove a lot of fun from the game if you can abuse them on monsters to such an extreme.
How can you abuse it? You see a monster, you make your check, you get some information about the monster.
I'd say that is part of the game's fun: Being able to play someone who isn't completely clueless, who won't waste most of his time and resources (especially magical ones) trying to find out a creature's strengths, weaknesses, resistances and immunities the hard way while the creatures lay the party to waste.
Doesn't it take away a lot of the fun of running into something and suddenly pulling up information randomly as a free action... Last time I checked this was not a poke'mon game?
What dimension are you from? In the one this game was written, it's normal to have a sizeable amount of information - and the ability to instantly recall it.
If you see an animal, do you need several seconds or even minutes to recognise it and remember important things about it? I know I don't.
Doesn't have anything to do with Pokemon. Has everything to do with the way things are even in real life.
"Slithery, leg-less thing with smooth skin making rattling sound? Hm... I think I heard of it. It is a reptile I think. I wonder if it wants to be my friend. Let's pat it, like one would a dog. Damn, it bit me! Not a very friendly thing. What was the name again? Oh, yes, snake! That's the crawly things without legs and so on. The rattle sound was significant, though. Oh, I'm such a silly - it's rattle snake, of course. There was something about them. I'm not feeling well, why's that? Oh, now I remember - they're fatally poisonous. That explains the unbearable pain and why everything gets so dark and cold in the middle of the scorching day."
People (and animals, really) whose brains work like that have a very bad chance of surviving long enough to have off-spring, so they're mostly extinct.
Most people would see and hear that thing and instantly go "S+$& RATTLESNAKE! DANGER POISON GET AWAY!"
Same with Pathfinder heroes encountering enemies. It's all "big, green, ugly - TROLL! Dangerous claws! Use Fire!" or "Angry-looking chick with feathery wings and a rope - Erinyes! Devil! Fire is useless! Can teleport at will and sees through all illusions!" In a flash of insight.
Since you don't get to know everything about a critter (Beating the DC lets you identify the creature by name and get very specific information, and for every 5 you're over the DC, you get another piece of information. Since the DC is anywhere between 5+CR and 15+CR depending on how common the critter is, it's not easy at all to know everything there is to know about a critter, especially if it's a more complex beast.
It's not hard to know more or less you need to know to successfully kill goblins - they're a common pest in many areas, and Darkvision is about the most extraordinary ability they have - it's a lot harder to know everything about a Keketar - or even to know what the heck a Keketar even is!