Well, presume I'm playing a high-Int rogue, for instance. Suppose I encounter a creature I've never seen before, and I have poor Knowledge skills. Can I look at a creature and say 'it appears to have an unusual system of organs - likely that a sneak attack would be ineffective' if I know such a creature is not vulnerable to sneak attacks? Or 'the wings on that creature's back are too small to assist it too much in flying - its flight is likely to be ungainly' if I know a creature has poor flying maneuverability? These don't require the kind of specialized expertise represented by a Knowledge check - rather, they are deductive conclusions based on reason rather than a particular field of study.Yup. The High Int represents potential, not knowledge.This should be represented by high amounts of skill points (check) and high modifiers to them (check); and a roll for that matter.
As such, I think it's really dependent on the player. A player using an 8 Int Barbarian shouldn't be employing any out-of-character knowledge. A player using a 20 Wis, 20 Int Wizard really should be allowed to use some out-of-character knowledge to account for the Sherlock Holmes-level deductive ability such a character would doubtlessly be possessed of (unless, again, your GM really plays up having high stats as more than just some numerical value).
If you can come up with a logical reason like that, you have more chance of my allowing it than you do if you go: "Ooh, I know that armor-clad figure coming toward me is actually a construct, so I can't sneak attack it." Or: "That's obviously a manticore and the Bestiary says they have poor maneuverability. Oh, and their spikes have incredible range so we have to close."
It's still a gray area, but I'd likely give some leeway to someone with a high Int character, so long as they weren't being too specific or spouting off about things that would be difficult to deduce from mere observation, like damage resistance, spell-like abilities and spell resistance.
|
Painting someone's position to be the most extreme version possible (like changing "some of X should be tolerated" to "we should do X as much as possible") is pretty bad form.So, the argument is, because it is hard not to metagame, we should just ignore metagaming entirely, and everyone should metagame to the hilt, so everyone has whatever knowledge their player has, and we just toss the skills overboard? What about people metagaming by reading APs ahead of time and making all the right choices at all the right times, even if it doesn't fit their character background?
I agree - it becomes a sort of meta-metagame; consciously trying to avoid metagaming is a metagame of the metagame./dizzy
I didn't say he said it, I asked if that was the argument. I still ask that. Since it seems to be part of the thread. Either the skills mean soemthing, or they don't. The argument became not 'how much knowledge can you have without actually putting in ranks' and instead became 'you cna't not metagame, so quit stopping others from metagaming'. And now, believe it or not, osmeone in the thread has said 'If you stop me from metagaming, you are metagaming, stop telling me what my skills represent!'.
So I stand by the question, is that what the argument is, that if you can't avoid metagaming you should go full hilt? Or should we have some threshhold above which we should say 'No, this far and no further' with metagmaing?
Nekyia's post is just the one I responded to, the question was not directed purely at him, but at the side of the thread who says you can know internal organs without seeing them, or that saying the game has too many examples of things that fly fine with small wings to use small wings to estimate how well something can fly is metagaming (which is a logic fault if I ever heard one).
Suppose you're a first-level adventurer who's never seen any unusual creatures - just the stuff we see every day like birds and cats and dogs. Suppose then you are shown a Nalfeshnee, and are very intelligent. Based on the creatures you have observed, is it reasonable to say 'those wings don't look like it could support the creature's weight?'
I've already described why "if you can't avoid metagaming you should go full hilt" is a faulty argument - metagaming is unavoidable unless you're playing with first-time players. For a first-time player to look at the Nalfeshnee and say 'hey that doesn't look like it could fly well' is not metagaming, but rather an empirical observation. Once your players know how things work, such an observation can become metagaming. I already described how saying that as an 8 Int rogue would amount to something the character might not be able to do (ie. making the connection between 'small wings' and 'giant body' because the character is stupid) - this is not 'going full hilt' - and a smarter character could reasonably make such an assumption without any specialized knowledge.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say 'because there are so many creatures with unorthodox means of flying and they clearly violate reason' is in itself a form of metagaming - returning to the example of the 1st-level adventurer who has never seen supernatural creatures, such a character has NOT seen creatures with such means of flight, and thus is bound by what amounts to real-world logic.
|
|
Well, presume I'm playing a high-Int rogue, for instance. Suppose I encounter a creature I've never seen before, and I have poor Knowledge skills. Can I look at a creature and say 'it appears to have an unusual system of organs - likely that a sneak attack would be ineffective' if I know such a creature is not vulnerable to sneak attacks? Or 'the wings on that creature's back are too small to assist it too much in flying - its flight is likely to be ungainly' if I know a creature has poor flying maneuverability? These don't require the kind of specialized expertise represented by a Knowledge check - rather, they are deductive conclusions based on reason rather than a particular field of study.Yup. The High Int represents potential, not knowledge.This should be represented by high amounts of skill points (check) and high modifiers to them (check); and a roll for that matter.
As such, I think it's really dependent on the player. A player using an 8 Int Barbarian shouldn't be employing any out-of-character knowledge. A player using a 20 Wis, 20 Int Wizard really should be allowed to use some out-of-character knowledge to account for the Sherlock Holmes-level deductive ability such a character would doubtlessly be possessed of (unless, again, your GM really plays up having high stats as more than just some numerical value).If you can come up with a logical reason like that, you have more chance of my allowing it than you do if you go: "Ooh, I know that armor-clad figure coming toward me is actually a construct, so I can't sneak attack it." Or: "That's obviously a manticore and the Bestiary says they have poor maneuverability. Oh, and their spikes have incredible range so we have to close."
It's still a gray area, but I'd likely give some leeway to someone with a high Int character, so long as they weren't being too specific or spouting off about things that would be...
This is exactly what I'm saying, thank you! :)
Suppose you're a first-level adventurer who's never seen any unusual creatures - just the stuff we see every day like birds and cats and dogs. Suppose then you are shown a Nalfeshnee, and are very intelligent. Based on the creatures you have observed, is it reasonable to say 'those wings don't look like it could support the creature's weight?'
In which case, the more logical thought would be: "Those silly little wings could never support that big piggy-looking thing. It must be some kind of weird flightless bipedal bird-pig." Which would be your last thought is you encountered a Nalfeshnee at first level, because it would be devouring your entrails before you could do anything else.
Suppose you're a first-level adventurer who's never seen any unusual creatures - just the stuff we see every day like birds and cats and dogs. Suppose then you are shown a Nalfeshnee, and are very intelligent. Based on the creatures you have observed, is it reasonable to say 'those wings don't look like it could support the creature's weight?'In which case, the more logical thought would be: "Those silly little wings could never support that big piggy-looking thing. It must be some kind of weird flightless bipedal bird-pig." Which would be your last thought is you encountered a Nalfeshnee at first level, because it would be devouring your entrails before you could do anything else.
Give that man a cupie doll. :)
|
|
Give that man a cupie doll. :)Suppose you're a first-level adventurer who's never seen any unusual creatures - just the stuff we see every day like birds and cats and dogs. Suppose then you are shown a Nalfeshnee, and are very intelligent. Based on the creatures you have observed, is it reasonable to say 'those wings don't look like it could support the creature's weight?'In which case, the more logical thought would be: "Those silly little wings could never support that big piggy-looking thing. It must be some kind of weird flightless bipedal bird-pig." Which would be your last thought is you encountered a Nalfeshnee at first level, because it would be devouring your entrails before you could do anything else.
Well of course! I'm positing a hypothetical scenario (hence 'suppose [x]') to illustrate the argument. It is very much dependent on circumstances, which makes my point hard to make since I'm coming up with these on the fly (poor maneuverability! ;D).
I could look at a manticore and say 'hey, that thing has a big spiked tail, don't go behind it or it'll hit you with it' despite knowing it uses the tail as a ranged attack because I've read its Bestiary entry just as easily as I could draw the opposite conclusion because this might be what my character is thinking.
If I go up to a Nalfeshnee I could say 'well, it probably can't fly, but there would be no reason for the vestigial wings because [x] - if it can fly, it's likely to be ungainly, so my wizard friend can fly up and outmaneuver it'.
tl;dr surely you know what I mean by now, as flawed as the examples are
Give that man a cupie doll. :)Suppose you're a first-level adventurer who's never seen any unusual creatures - just the stuff we see every day like birds and cats and dogs. Suppose then you are shown a Nalfeshnee, and are very intelligent. Based on the creatures you have observed, is it reasonable to say 'those wings don't look like it could support the creature's weight?'In which case, the more logical thought would be: "Those silly little wings could never support that big piggy-looking thing. It must be some kind of weird flightless bipedal bird-pig." Which would be your last thought is you encountered a Nalfeshnee at first level, because it would be devouring your entrails before you could do anything else.
But he used logic. You've already implied no one is allowed to use logic without succeeding at a Knowledge roll first.
|
|
But he used logic. You've already implied no one is allowed to use logic without succeeding at a Knowledge roll first.Give that man a cupie doll. :)Suppose you're a first-level adventurer who's never seen any unusual creatures - just the stuff we see every day like birds and cats and dogs. Suppose then you are shown a Nalfeshnee, and are very intelligent. Based on the creatures you have observed, is it reasonable to say 'those wings don't look like it could support the creature's weight?'In which case, the more logical thought would be: "Those silly little wings could never support that big piggy-looking thing. It must be some kind of weird flightless bipedal bird-pig." Which would be your last thought is you encountered a Nalfeshnee at first level, because it would be devouring your entrails before you could do anything else.
Painting someone's position to be the most extreme version possible (like changing "some of X should be tolerated" to "we should do X as much as possible") is pretty bad form.
Let's be fair, shall we?
As MOK said earlier, the level of immersion in game makes a big difference I think. I lean towards the tactical simulation side, but can RP my butt off when it suits me. BTW, until you show up to a new group's game and find out they are total immersionists with costumes, you haven't really lived.
We discuss rules, but don't let it bog down the game. We speak in character when we are interacting with NPC's but not really in party. That is the level we seem to function best at. Moving the plot along and killing things is our niche I guess.
Barring a 2 or 3 year stretch, we have never not had a few new players at the table. This is a good and bad thing when it comes to the Meta. The new people don't know about the monsters, but they also don't know about their powers as well. If you were to believe what some people post on the boards, a new player asking about a power or ability at the table would get them booted.
1) Knowing what creatures do, what their weaknesses are, and how to fight against them.
Players can't keep their faces out of the bestiary. :-)
(and many of them have GMed before)2) Cursed items are often involved with metagaming. It usually goes like this:
"Sarah got this cool new ring. Sarah begins acting strangely hours later. Ring is cursed."3)Finally, this metagamer tactic is ALWAYS used. If they cannot succeed at noticing something, their behavior changes even though they should be oblivious. This happens often because I believe characters should have the excitement of rolling their own dice.
It always goes like this: "Roll a perception check...(they fail so I describe what is clearly there)
You see a hallways spread before you with a rug. On either side, there are shields hanging on the walls.From here, players will often do something crazy like attack the shields, or light the carpet on fire, or start buffing with spells, or start casting spells to help them spot things (knowing that they just failed a spot), or simply turn around, or send their familiar to be a decoy for something they don't know is there.
This is why I sometimes make my players roll perception for nothing. If someone decides to metagame, hilarity ensues when they spend an hour seraching for nothing.
Look at, say, the Nalfeshnee (Bestiary 65) - I could reasonably look at such a creature and say 'hey, that thing is huge but it has tiny wings; its flight is likely to be ungainly' with a degree of certainty while knowing as a player that it has poor flight maneuverability.
One problem, based on common sense observations a human cannot fly. Yet, what in the manuverability of a wizard using the flight spell? The creature may look like it can't fly well, but in a world full of magic, looks can be decieving.
Look at, say, the Nalfeshnee (Bestiary 65) - I could reasonably look at such a creature and say 'hey, that thing is huge but it has tiny wings; its flight is likely to be ungainly' with a degree of certainty while knowing as a player that it has poor flight maneuverability.One problem, based on common sense observations a human cannot fly. Yet, what in the manuverability of a wizard using the flight spell? The creature may look like it can't fly well, but in a world full of magic, looks can be decieving.
Your point being what? Because magic exists, logical deductions can't be made at all? More like, the deduction becomes "Either that thing can't fly, or it flies magically. Which means it can use magic! Run away!"
Woops, didn't use a Knowledge roll. I know nothing but stuff about pig husbandry.
|
|
Look at, say, the Nalfeshnee (Bestiary 65) - I could reasonably look at such a creature and say 'hey, that thing is huge but it has tiny wings; its flight is likely to be ungainly' with a degree of certainty while knowing as a player that it has poor flight maneuverability.One problem, based on common sense observations a human cannot fly. Yet, what in the manuverability of a wizard using the flight spell? The creature may look like it can't fly well, but in a world full of magic, looks can be decieving.
Oh, of course! I'm just saying that it's a matter of possibility - eg. "I suspect, based on such evidence, that this creature here is going to be poor at maneuvering while flying, if it can even fly at all!" That is, it is not unreasonable for a character to make such a supposition, hence the above example of a smart character who hasn't borne witness to such supernatural means of flight. Even if a character is experienced with such spells or abilities, it likely doesn't mean that they're going to say "welp, can't make any assumptions based on what I observe because this stuff is crazy" - just that in most cases such observations have at least some grounding in fact (ie. the supernatural is supernatural - that is, not the norm!).
|
|
Look at, say, the Nalfeshnee (Bestiary 65) - I could reasonably look at such a creature and say 'hey, that thing is huge but it has tiny wings; its flight is likely to be ungainly' with a degree of certainty while knowing as a player that it has poor flight maneuverability.One problem, based on common sense observations a human cannot fly. Yet, what in the manuverability of a wizard using the flight spell? The creature may look like it can't fly well, but in a world full of magic, looks can be decieving.Your point being what? Because magic exists, logical deductions can't be made at all? More like, the deduction becomes "Either that thing can't fly, or it flies magically. Which means it can use magic! Run away!"
Woops, didn't use a Knowledge roll. I know nothing but stuff about pig husbandry.
Friend, we may be agreeing, but there's no need to exaggerate people's arguments into strawmen. He's simply saying that 'the character's observation may not be correct', which is a legitimate caveat I addressed in my previous post.
Look at, say, the Nalfeshnee (Bestiary 65) - I could reasonably look at such a creature and say 'hey, that thing is huge but it has tiny wings; its flight is likely to be ungainly' with a degree of certainty while knowing as a player that it has poor flight maneuverability.One problem, based on common sense observations a human cannot fly. Yet, what in the manuverability of a wizard using the flight spell? The creature may look like it can't fly well, but in a world full of magic, looks can be decieving.Your point being what? Because magic exists, logical deductions can't be made at all? More like, the deduction becomes "Either that thing can't fly, or it flies magically. Which means it can use magic! Run away!"
Woops, didn't use a Knowledge roll. I know nothing but stuff about pig husbandry.
I think the mistake is that you assume that all of this happens in a vacuum. Campaigns happen in a living breathing world full of distractions, lies, rumours, and half-truths.
Most of the time, you don't have a lot of time to observe a creature, and make logical conclusions about its abilities. While a combat may take hours to play out, 5 rounds is 30 seconds. Most fights are over within that time.
You see a monster, you have a moment to observe it, and try to remember everything you know or have heard about creatures matching that discription. That may include rumours you have heard that are not true. Maybe you have heard a false rumour that undead must be killed by silver. Maybe you have heard that demons can be hurt by someone pure of heart, which is only partly true. Maybe some drunk dwarf in a bar told you the story about the time he killed a troll, and you think he was exaggerating about the troll's healing capabilities as drunken dwarves are prone to do.
I am a rapier using weapon finesse fighter. I see a skeleton, and I immediately swap to using a mace because I have a hunch it will work better. Nevermind the fact that I have trained with the rapier all my life, and it is an heirloom passed to me through generations, I have a hunch I should use a mace, because maces break bones. That is metagaming. Now if after taking a few swings at the skeleton I am finding that my rapier is less than effective, then I might think to try a different tact.
Common sense says you should always carry a silver dagger because it is fairly cheap and some creatures are only hurt by silver. I see a wolf like creature and suddenly I switch to my dagger for no explicable reason. That is metagaming. If after wounding the creature a few times I notice that I am just not really hurting it, then I might think to try my dagger.
Another form of metagaming is when players think believe that all encounters will be level appropiate. I sometimes put my players in situations they should avoid.
Most of the time, you don't have a lot of time to observe a creature, and make logical conclusions about its abilities. While a combat may take hours to play out, 5 rounds is 30 seconds. Most fights are over within that time.
...how long does it take you to form an opinion or impression? I am pretty sure it doesn't take me hours.
You see a monster, you have a moment to observe it, and try to remember everything you know or have heard about creatures matching that discription. That may include rumours you have heard that are not true. Maybe you have heard a false rumour that undead must be killed by silver. Maybe you have heard that demons can be hurt by someone pure of heart, which is only partly true. Maybe some drunk dwarf in a bar told you the story about the time he killed a troll, and you think he was exaggerating about the troll's healing capabilities as drunken dwarves are prone to do.
A debate about how "realistic" knowledge checks are is irrelevant to a debate about logical observations performed ad hoc. Which is what we were having.
I am a rapier using weapon finesse fighter. I see a skeleton, and I immediately swap to using a mace because I have a hunch it will work better. Nevermind the fact that I have trained with the rapier all my life, and it is an heirloom passed to me through generations, I have a hunch I should use a mace, because maces break bones. That is metagaming.
No, that's pretty damn common sense. "Hark, I see a creature with neither skin nor organs and appeareth to be nothing but walking bones! What possible effect could my weapon have that I use for stabbing creatures! Perhaps I shall try to bludgeon yon monster!"
THAT is exactly my point. YOUR assertion that a rapier user would not switch to an obviously superior weapon is metagaming. You are using your personal knowledge that bludgeoning weapons are the correct weapon to overcome a skeleton's DR to make the argument that a character - who knows nothing of said DR - would NOT switching to a bludgeoning weapon from a piercing weapon to overcome said DR DESPITE the fact that it is clearly observable that there is NOTHING TO STAB. You are metagaming to make your character a buffoon.
Common sense says you should always carry a silver dagger because it is fairly cheap and someone creatures are only hurt by silver. I fight a wolf like creature and suddenly I switch to my dagger for no explicable reason. That is metagaming. If after wounding the creature a few times I am just not really hurting it, then I might think to try my dagger.
Are you, by chance, hunting werewolves? If I was hunting werewolves, I would bring a silver dagger. And werewolves don't fraking exist.
I play with friends only. That is to say, people I've known for decades and played together since around that long, people I can reason with.
Metagaming is not bad per se, as many people have mentioned already, we are all metagaming because we are playing a game.
The way I see it, it's only ok to use you player knowledge if it suits what your character could know or reasonably infer.
A barbarian can't know an enemy has protection from chaos(this was 3.0) and that's why his attacks aren't effective, so I would only give him little hints that his blows aren't really delivering, and let him work out the rest.
This actually happened to us in game, the fighter then announced out loud, that he would "relinquish his light crossbow in the ground in order to lighten his load and fight more effectively", which was clearly just a metagaming way to let the barbarian know he could pick up the crossbow and attack at range, this IS metagaming, the fighter can't know how the spell works, can't know it only matters in melee, and wouldn't reasonably throw one of his weapons on the ground just because, I ruled this behavior is OOC, and wouldn't fly in my campaign. It's enough with having the players use telepathic links with each other in order to communicate their tactics. (I mean, you know how everyone converses about their battle actions, even though their characters wouldn't be exactly on the same loop at all the times in combat)
Frankly, I wouldn't mind too much if the Rogue said to me, "hey, that's the Plague Bearer, he has an aura of stench that will cripple us if we get closer", that IS meta gaming, and he can't know that just yet, however, if he can somehow justify to me how his character can reasonably deduct this then I will allow it.
Having said that, I always trow metagaming into the curve:
"Oh, so you thought these were undead and used mass cure light wounds to harm them, too bad, they are not undead, thanks for healing the monsters ;)"
I only metagame as a GM as much as the players, meaning, if you as a player use your knowledge of the game in order to give your character an edge, I can do the same, meaning I can use MY knowledge as a GM to prepare the monsters accordingly. Indeed, even sometimes I reward players for coming up with solutions as to how their characters can deduct such a knowledge.
It sounds much worst than it actually is, I have never had any real fall out with my gaming group, most heated discussions have been resolved in a friendly manner, and most of the times the immersion is there and nobody tries to out smart the system, but when it happens, I can only ask for how the CHARACTER can assume this, and if I am not satisfied with the answer, then the world shall metagame as well to accommodate for such otherworldly findings.
Nothing wrong with the act in itself, but just like many things about playing the game, it truly depends on the table. If everyone is having fun, then keep playing as you were.
|
|
Look at, say, the Nalfeshnee (Bestiary 65) - I could reasonably look at such a creature and say 'hey, that thing is huge but it has tiny wings; its flight is likely to be ungainly' with a degree of certainty while knowing as a player that it has poor flight maneuverability.One problem, based on common sense observations a human cannot fly. Yet, what in the manuverability of a wizard using the flight spell? The creature may look like it can't fly well, but in a world full of magic, looks can be decieving.Your point being what? Because magic exists, logical deductions can't be made at all? More like, the deduction becomes "Either that thing can't fly, or it flies magically. Which means it can use magic! Run away!"
Woops, didn't use a Knowledge roll. I know nothing but stuff about pig husbandry.
I think the mistake is that you assume that all of this happens in a vacuum. Campaigns happen in a living breathing world full of distractions, lies, rumours, and half-truths.
Most of the time, you don't have a lot of time to observe a creature, and make logical conclusions about its abilities. While a combat may take hours to play out, 5 rounds is 30 seconds. Most fights are over within that time.
You see a monster, you have a moment to observe it, and try to remember everything you know or have heard about creatures matching that discription. That may include rumours you have heard that are not true. Maybe you have heard a false rumour that undead must be killed by silver. Maybe you have heard that demons can be hurt by someone pure of heart, which is only partly true. Maybe some drunk dwarf in a bar told you the story about the time he killed a troll, and you think he was exaggerating about the troll's healing capabilities as drunken dwarves are prone to do.
I am a rapier using weapon finesse fighter. I see a skeleton, and I immediately swap to using a mace because I have a hunch it will work better. Nevermind...
We all agree on what constitutes obvious metagaming; that is, acting on knowledge that the character simply cannot or is very unlikely to have within the bounds of reason.
These examples illustrate my point perfectly (thank you!). An intelligent fighter might, however, know that blunt weapons affect brittle substances to a greater extent than sharp weapons (eg. trying to smash glass with a mace is far more effective than doing so with a rapier). There is, in this case, a precedent for such a thing based on knowledge the character could conceivably know. An intelligent fighter who knows nothing about lycanthropes could not, however, just pull out a silvered weapon specifically for that encounter, because there is no stimulus that makes such a thing reasonable - that is, the character could not conceivably know about a lycanthrope's weakness to silvered weapons.
Hmmmm... metagamming? It's taking outside knowledge and using it to your own advantage. Here are a few of my examples...
1) I often find myself doing this as a player who has ran many games. I have no ranks in a knowledge about a creature but I often find myself biting my own tongue on info how to take it down. That often happens with more experienced players. I recall telling someone they can't make a heal check on another player for their 2nd save vs. pois. for they where a cleric, and sure they have the heal skill, but how do you know that snakes are poisonous with no ranks in knowledge nature?
He said back "It's a snake that bit him, why wouldnt I have a hunch he's poisoned?"
I then said, "that's player knowledge, sure it may almost seem silly to us as players but if you are a character who's from a arctic waste land, where there are no snakes, where do you draw the lines at? This is why they have knowledge checks about creatures to affirm such things as poisons and such."
2)This oldie' but a goodie'; Not being in the same place/area and players passing advice to one another as if they are right next to one another.
3)Saying things in front of a NPC that are rude or even threatening; and not saying anything along the lines that what was said was not in character and assuming the DM figures he's joking. When I am running a game, my NPC's have ears too!
4)Players telling others to cast a certain spell when they (their character) have no idea of what spells even are or how they even come into being. "You don't even have a rank in spellcraft, shut-up!" lol
5)Character knowledge about a area and its people because they have read a few paperbacks in the pass and then tell their fellow players info, as if a frickin' tour guide. That's why they have knowledge geography, history, local and nobility! :P
stuff
First, what is "common sense" for an int 20 wizard isn't "common sense" for an int 8 barbarian. Hence, common sense isn't common.
Tim the Wizard - Zog, use this mace on the skeleton.Zog the barbarian - But ma lucky axe is smashing dem good!
If you think something would be common sense for your character, ask the DM. 90% of metagaming can be avoided if you check with the DM before acting on a hunch.
Second, why are you so sure the mace is the right choice? Are the skeletons just bones or is there still some flesh attached? What is the exact % of flesh loss where a zombie becomes a skeleton? Maybe the rapier will be effective if I aim for the joints(IE get critical hits)? By your, "common sense", skeletons should be immune to critical hits and sneak attack, but they are not, and a rapier has a better threat range. Thanks you for proving my point. The problem is that your "common sense" is tainted by the fact that you know out of character that blunt weapons work better against skeletons. The moment I told you is was a skeleton, you started coming up with a "common sense" explaination to explain how you knew a mace was a better weapon to use. If I told you it was a humanoid creature walking upright missing a lot of flesh, would you still be sure that the mace is the right choice? Would you be sure enough to bet your life on it?
Finally, my bigger point is that usually when someone derides the skill/knowledge system and cries "but its common sense", it is because they are over simplifying the situation. You spot a medium creature crawling on 4 legs 15 feet away at the edge of your torchlight, exactly how many common sense observations do you think you can make during the 2 seconds it is crossing the room and lunging for your friend's throat?
If you think something would be common sense for your character, ask the DM. 90% of metagaming can be avoided if you check with the DM before acting on a hunch.
This. I can't believe how true this statement is.
|
First, what is "common sense" for an int 20 wizard isn't "common sense" for an int 8 barbarian. Hence, common sense isn't common.
Common sense doesn't really have a lot to do with intelligence. I've known some extremely intelligent people who don't really seem to have a lick of common sense, and some people who are a bit dim but have lots of it.
I don't care if the character has an 8 Int...even if they're extremely stupid and have little common sense, a good round of trying to poke a skeleton with a rapier is going to make it obvious to them that is a pretty fruitless endeavor.
Now for my design element criticism...I can see skeletons having a pretty high DR for piercing attacks, maybe it should even have been upped to more than 5. But I likewise think that their DR against slashing shouldn't be at the same level.
stuffFirst, what is "common sense" for an int 20 wizard isn't "common sense" for an int 8 barbarian. Hence, common sense isn't common.
Tim the Wizard - Zog, use this mace on the skeleton.
Zog the barbarian - But ma lucky axe is smashing dem good!
Forsooth, these goalposts move! Logically. An axe might logically work on a skeleton. An axe is basically a hammer with a huge blade. The question wasn't if Bob the Barbarian would switch to a mace from an axe. The question was why wouldn't d'Artegnan switch to a mace from a rapier when faced with skeletons.
If you think something would be common sense for your character, ask the DM. 90% of metagaming can be avoided if you check with the DM before acting on a hunch.
If your example is also an example of a DM's opinion, DMs are equally metagaming idiots.
Second, why are you so sure the mace is the right choice?
Because they are skeletons and I have a rapier.
Maybe the rapier will be effective if I aim for the joints(IE get critical hits)?
"Joints" are generally held together by flesh. A skeleton would not move without muscles. Museum skeletons? Held together by pins. Joints don't exist.
By your, "common sense", skeletons should be immune to critical hits and sneak attack,
Which they would be.
but they are not,
Not now they aren't. And that is for game balance reasons. Both you AND the devs are metagaming here!
and a rapier has a better threat range.
What.. I don't even..
The problem is that your "common sense" is tainted by the fact that you know out of character that blunt weapons work better against skeletons.
I KNOW AS A PERSON WHO ISN'T A BLISTERING IDIOT THAT TRYING TO STAB SOMETHING THAT IS JUST BONES INSTEAD OF TRYING TO BLUDGEON IT IS STUPID.
God forbid that a person who is a master of "the pointy end goes in the squishy bits" might consider a new course of actions when faced with something without squishy bits.EDIT: I am not convinced that Charender is not trolling to purposefully provide an example of a person metagaming to make their character worse instead of better.
First, what is "common sense" for an int 20 wizard isn't "common sense" for an int 8 barbarian. Hence, common sense isn't common.Common sense doesn't really have a lot to do with intelligence. I've known some extremely intelligent people who don't really seem to have a lick of common sense, and some people who are a bit dim but have lots of it.
I don't care if the character has an 8 Int...even if they're extremely stupid and have little common sense, a good round of trying to poke a skeleton with a rapier is going to make it obvious to them that is a pretty fruitless endeavor.
Now for my design element criticism...I can see skeletons having a pretty high DR for piercing attacks, maybe it should even have been upped to more than 5. But I likewise think that their DR against slashing shouldn't be at the same level.
Reread what I said originally. I have no problem with a player changing tactics after they spend a round poking at the skeleton. It is when a player automatically goes for the mace that I have issues.
stuffFirst, what is "common sense" for an int 20 wizard isn't "common sense" for an int 8 barbarian. Hence, common sense isn't common.
Tim the Wizard - Zog, use this mace on the skeleton.
Zog the barbarian - But ma lucky axe is smashing dem good!Forsooth, these goalposts move! Logically. An axe might logically work on a skeleton. An axe is basically a hammer with a huge blade. The question wasn't if Bob the Barbarian would switch to a mace from an axe. The question was why wouldn't d'Artegnan switch to a mace from a rapier when faced with skeletons.
If you think something would be common sense for your character, ask the DM. 90% of metagaming can be avoided if you check with the DM before acting on a hunch.If your example is also an example of a DM's opinion, DMs are equally metagaming idiots.
Ok, so if the GM sucks, that makes is ok to cheat? I usually like to start with the assumption that DM are generally trying to run a fair game, and work from there.
Second, why are you so sure the mace is the right choice?Because they are skeletons and I have a rapier.
They are undead creatures made of mostly bone with some pieces of rotting flesh hanging off them. How exactly do you know they are skeletons? Maybe they are heavily decayed zombies....
Maybe the rapier will be effective if I aim for the joints(IE get critical hits)?"Joints" are generally held together by flesh. A skeleton would not move without muscles. Museum skeletons? Held together by pins. Joints don't exist.
Whatever you want to call the place where the bones meet. Even without muscle tissue, you can still pop the arm out of its socket if you get a blade in the right place. In fact, without the muscle tissue in the way, it should be easier to pop a limb off on a skeleton. That is pretty much exactly how I would describe a critical hit on a skeleton, you seriously damage a joint and either impare its functionality(skeleton is still up and moving), or pop it out of socket completely(skeleton is dead).
By your, "common sense", skeletons should be immune to critical hits and sneak attack,Which they would be.
but they are not,Not now they aren't. And that is for game balance reasons. Both you AND the devs are metagaming here!
and a rapier has a better threat range.What.. I don't even..
The problem is that your "common sense" is tainted by the fact that you know out of character that blunt weapons work better against skeletons.I KNOW AS A PERSON WHO ISN'T A BLISTERING IDIOT THAT TRYING TO STAB SOMETHING THAT IS JUST BONES INSTEAD OF TRYING TO BLUDGEON IT IS STUPID.
God forbid that a person who is a master of "the pointy end goes in the squishy bits" might consider a new course of actions when faced with something without squishy bits.
I own a longsword that is capable of cutting through bone. My common sense says it would be just as good as a mace against a skeleton. Yet the guy with a rapier immediately switches to the mace and not the longsword, why is that? Their common sense never for a moment lets them think that maybe their longsword is a better choice... why? Because they already know that blunt > slash against skeletons. Their entire thought process is already contaminated by the metagame knowledge. They don't try to argue that a scimitar or axe should be good for hacking bones apart. No, they immediately try to justify that a mace is good for smashing.
EDIT: I am not convinced that Charender is not trolling to purposefully provide an example of a person metagaming to make their character worse instead of better.
More like I have had to deal with too many players who try to completely bypass the Knowledge rules in the name of common sense. If you let the players do everything they believe is common sense, then you would have no need for knowledge skills at all. "What do you mean I am metagaming? Every adventurer knows that the tomb of unspeakable horrors is guarded by undead demons that can only be hurt cold wrought silver weapons blessed by a celibate priest. It's common sense!"
I describe an encounter with a strange skeletal creature covered sparsely with stringy bits of rotten flesh, and my players are unsure how to attack it. If I accidently call it a skeleton, the players suddenly try to come up with a "common sense" reason why they know to use a mace instead of their normal weapon. That is metagaming.
Reread what I said originally. I have no problem with a player changing tactics after they spend a round poking at the skeleton. It is when a player automatically goes for the mace that I have issues.If a spear or arrow hits a rib or sternum the victim is lucky. If it doesn't it would have gone right through a skeleton.
If a sword hits bone it's likely going to stop there, though not always. An axe less so, but D20 combat tends to be light on limb loss so that's not the case in Golarion.
Maces break bones. That's their primary means of inflicting damage. Of course they're the thing to use against something that's nothing but bone.
Someone who doesn't switch to a bludgeon if they have one when facing skeletons is the one metagaming. Piercing weapons sucking against constructs, animate plants, and oozes is similarly obvious. Some things just have resistances because it was obvious to the game designers that they should. Those resistances will be just as obvious to people in the game world.
So common sense is wrong. A maces primary method of inflicting damage is internal bleeding. Broken bones, while painful, will not kill you. Blood loss from internal hemorraging will. Also, a solid blow to the chest can stop the heart, or force it out of rhythm resulting in death. A blow to the head can cause fatal brain swelling even though the helmet prevents the skull from cracking. But common sense tells us that maces kill by breaking bones....
A adamantite rapier works fine against constructs, contrary to what you call "common sense"
Common sense also says that poking an ooze with an inch wide piece of metal should not cause it to split.
Common wisdom from the middle ages told us that most sicknesses were causes by demon possession, and poking hole in someone's skull was the best way to let the demons out....
I've seen some amusing things when a player with meta knowledge refuses to use it to remain in character. The best was one of my players (playing a halfling druid) encounter a variant ooze he turns to me and says " I know what this is...but unfortunately for x(his character) he dosen't [sighs] I stab it with my +1 cold iron dagger..."
I did that in the Crypt of the Everflame- A first level fighter shouldn't have enough ranks in knowledge to know that skellies have DR. So I just smashed their skulls in. It's not that hard to dumb down your character, most people just don't realize that they need to.
I recall telling someone they can't make a heal check on another player for their 2nd save vs. pois. for they where a cleric, and sure they have the heal skill, but how do you know that snakes are poisonous with no ranks in knowledge nature?
He said back "It's a snake that bit him, why wouldnt I have a hunch he's poisoned?"
I then said, "that's player knowledge, sure it may almost seem silly to us as players but if you are a character who's from a arctic waste land, where there are no snakes, where do you draw the lines at? This is why they have knowledge checks about creatures to affirm such things as poisons and such."
This for me is a great example of bad meta-gaming. How does someone trained to treat snake bites with the heal skill NOT know what a snake bite is? Are you saying that he could NEVER use his heal skill to treat any type of poisonous creatures bites?? Why not weapons he has never seen before? Would you tell him that he can't stabilize someone who goes down from a gnomish hook hammer because there are no gnomes in the northern tundras? (damn bloodthirsty gnomes)
This for me is a great example of bad meta-gaming. How does someone trained to treat snake bites with the heal skill NOT know what a snake bite is? Are you saying that he could NEVER use his heal skill to treat any type of poisonous creatures bites?? Why not weapons he has never seen before? Would you tell him that he can't stabilize someone who goes down from a gnomish hook hammer because there are no gnomes in the northern tundras? (damn bloodthirsty gnomes)I recall telling someone they can't make a heal check on another player for their 2nd save vs. pois. for they where a cleric, and sure they have the heal skill, but how do you know that snakes are poisonous with no ranks in knowledge nature?
He said back "It's a snake that bit him, why wouldnt I have a hunch he's poisoned?"
I then said, "that's player knowledge, sure it may almost seem silly to us as players but if you are a character who's from a arctic waste land, where there are no snakes, where do you draw the lines at? This is why they have knowledge checks about creatures to affirm such things as poisons and such."
More like a DM trying to make something harder than is should be.
First, bites from poisonous creatures have a different look and pattern to them than bites from non-poisonous creatures. Even if you know absolutely nothing about the creature that bit him, there is a difference in bite patterns between a creature with fangs that are trying to inject venom, and a creature that is just trying to tear off a chunk of flesh. If the poison had already done some damage(IE the first save was failed), then most likely the flesh around the wound would have an unhealthly look to it. A successful heal check would have revealed both of these things.
Second, I would assume that the players attempt to treat all wounds after combat. Even a bite from a non-poisonous animal has an extremely high chance of getting infected. Just because there are not rules for untreated wounds getting infected doesn't mean that the character ignore their injuries completely after the fight is over.
Jim - Hey, Bill that lion bit you deep, and nearly took your arm off. Let me take a look at the wound and make sure everything is ok.
Bill - Nah, I'll just sleep it off tonight...
|
|
Reread what I said originally. I have no problem with a player changing tactics after they spend a round poking at the skeleton. It is when a player automatically goes for the mace that I have issues.
Yeah, but most of us don't play Int 3 characters. And frankly, that's the only excuse for using a rapier against a skeleton.
Damn it, you're making me agree with Cartigan. Stop it.
These examples illustrate my point perfectly (thank you!). An intelligent fighter might, however, know that blunt weapons affect brittle substances to a greater extent than sharp weapons (eg. trying to smash glass with a mace is far more effective than doing so with a rapier). There is, in this case, a precedent for such a thing based on knowledge the character could conceivably know. An intelligent fighter who knows nothing about lycanthropes could not, however, just pull out a silvered weapon specifically for that encounter, because there is no stimulus that makes such a thing reasonable - that is, the character could not conceivably know about a lycanthrope's weakness to silvered weapons.
Then we pretty much agree. It's one thing to see a giant crystal earth elemental and say 'Hey, maybe a big chunk of steel war hammer would be better than my flimsy bendy rapier' at damaging it (or any other sword for that matter). I object only to people looking at a drake, with no appropriate knowledge skill, and popping out 'Hey, make sure you use a magic weapon to bypass it's DR, oh, and that one's got blue scales, it's got lightning attacks'. Unfortunately, as you can read with the people you have been agreeing with, there are those who take it to extremes and say 'He's an adventurer, he should know it's a drake with DR and lightning without needing the skill or making a roll, it's what he does for a living!'. To which I would reply, then if he does it for a living, he should have a skill to represent that. But then I tend to think that the character sheet represents the character, and the rules represent the physical laws of the universe he lives in. Nobody has to tell him magic is real, or that Good, Evil, Chaos and Law are all real forces that vie for power, that's all things he knows as much as I know the sun rises in the east and that if I jump off a 100 foot building I'm going to splat when I hit the concrete below. Not everyone shares that belief, they think talking about Good/Evil/Chaos/Law in character, or levels of spells, is metagaming, and any complaints about using player knowledge is just hypocrisy, despite the fact that spell levels are a real tangible bit of physics in the D&D universe. It doesn't mean they actually call them level 1, level 2, level 3, etc. One 'branch' might do so, another might call them Apprentice, Advanced, Journeyman, Expert, etc level spells. But the fact they are tiered, and every wizard progresses at the same general rate is a well known fact of physics in that world.
Reread what I said originally. I have no problem with a player changing tactics after they spend a round poking at the skeleton. It is when a player automatically goes for the mace that I have issues.Yeah, but most of us don't play Int 3 characters. And frankly, that's the only excuse for using a rapier against a skeleton.
Damn it, you're making me agree with Cartigan. Stop it.
Well to be fair, the DC for a knowledge(religion) check against a skeleton (common CR1 undead) is a 6. Since it is DC 10 or less, you can make the check untrained. So the only people who need to worry about failing it are characters with an int of 3. If you have a party of 4 players and no one in the party can make a DC 6 knowledge check, then you have bigger issues than a couple of skeletons.
My point is that if your character can't make the knowledge check, then it is metagaming to use the knowledge. There are rules that denote exactly what is common knowledge(basically anything with a DC of 10 or less). Bending those rules for the sake of a player crying "common sense" is just giving the finger to every other player at the table who actually invested points into the appropiate knowledge skills.
Well to be fair, the DC for a knowledge(religion) check against a skeleton (common CR1 undead) is a 6. Since it is DC 10 or less, you can make the check untrained. So the only people who need to worry about failing it are characters with an int of 3. If you have a party of 4 players and no one in the party can make a DC 6 knowledge check, then you have bigger issues than a couple of skeletons.My point is that if your character can't make the knowledge check, then it is metagaming to use the knowledge. There are rules that denote exactly what is common knowledge(basically anything with a DC of 10 or less). Bending those rules for the sake of a player crying "common sense" is just giving the finger to every other player at the table who actually invested points into the appropiate knowledge skills.
Give that man a Cupie Doll!
:)
I don't think there is a simple answer to this, but if my character know something he should know that is metagaming.
As an example Devil and Demons being immune to certain energy types is one.
Knowing who the mayor of town X is when my character is from another part of the world is another example.
I am trying think of non-monster related ones, but my brain is failing, and is the most common one.
Telling another player what to do with their character what to do is one. "You should power attack because that last attack hit on an 8." <--I know some people consider this to be ok, and I let it go for new players because I don't mind them getting the help, but after a while I expect for you to run your own character.
I am trying think of non-monster related ones, but my brain is failing, and is the most common one.
Here's a couple :
A) Someone spouting out spells and what they do with no Kn(Arcane), Kn(Religion), or Spellcraft. And no, I'm not talking about OOC statements, I'm talking about devising plans in character and talking about spells as if their barbarian were a wizard. I've had this happen when players deal with NPCs, and their last character was a wizard.
B) A character with a 7 INT and 7 CHA that has all his skill ranks in Perception and Stealth making detailed siege plans, giving speeches and discussing things with the local ruler as if they had diplomacy, Profession(Soldier) and other skills they don't have and then throwing a fit when it is pointed out they have a character with low brains, low charisma, and no skills in those areas.
I do think this is a weird situation. Maces do indeed rely on doing internal damage to you, not necessarily breaking your bones. Heavy-bladed weapons are meant to shear through meat and bone alike. To be honest, I would rather use a quarterstaff, m'self, but that's just me. Huh. Weird.
Damn it, you're making me agree with Cartigan. Stop it.
Man, I hate it when that happens. It doesn't help that he's so often (but not always) right.
|
|
Damn it, you're making me agree with Cartigan. Stop it.Man, I hate it when that happens. It doesn't help that he's so often (but not always) right.
Well, I disagree on the frequency of him being right, but even when I agree with him, he usually presents his case in a way that makes me feel slimy for agreeing with it.
Well, I disagree on the frequency of him being right, but even when I agree with him, he usually presents his case in a way that makes me feel slimy for agreeing with it.
Use my solution. I just never read his posts anymore. This means I technically never know when I am agreeing with him, and thus no nausea.
Well, I disagree on the frequency of him being right, but even when I agree with him, he usually presents his case in a way that makes me feel slimy for agreeing with it.Damn it, you're making me agree with Cartigan. Stop it.Man, I hate it when that happens. It doesn't help that he's so often (but not always) right.
Essentially +1, although I don't feel slimy. Maybe gooey, but never slimy. And I actually don't necessarily agree with him here, but I may make some changes to skeletons with respect to DR in my own games.
Reread what I said originally. I have no problem with a player changing tactics after they spend a round poking at the skeleton. It is when a player automatically goes for the mace that I have issues.First, what is "common sense" for an int 20 wizard isn't "common sense" for an int 8 barbarian. Hence, common sense isn't common.Common sense doesn't really have a lot to do with intelligence. I've known some extremely intelligent people who don't really seem to have a lick of common sense, and some people who are a bit dim but have lots of it.
I don't care if the character has an 8 Int...even if they're extremely stupid and have little common sense, a good round of trying to poke a skeleton with a rapier is going to make it obvious to them that is a pretty fruitless endeavor.
Now for my design element criticism...I can see skeletons having a pretty high DR for piercing attacks, maybe it should even have been upped to more than 5. But I likewise think that their DR against slashing shouldn't be at the same level.
Metagaming stupid.
They are undead creatures made of mostly bone with some pieces of rotting flesh hanging off them. How exactly do you know they are skeletons? Maybe they are heavily decayed zombies....
Metagaming. Skeletons are clearly not zombies anyway you slice it, regardless of how much loose flesh they may have.
Whatever you want to call the place where the bones meet. Even without muscle tissue, you can still pop the arm out of its socket if you get a blade in the right place. In fact, without the muscle tissue in the way, it should be easier to pop a limb off on a skeleton. That is pretty much exactly how I would describe a critical hit on a skeleton, you seriously damage a joint and either impare its functionality(skeleton is still up and moving), or pop it out of socket completely(skeleton is dead).
The point you missed was skeletons are being held together by stuff that is not muscle. Why would you think you would be able to pop ANYTHING out of socket on a skeleton when clearly nothing is holding it there to begin with?
I own a longsword that is capable of cutting through bone. My common sense says it would be just as good as a mace against a skeleton. Yet the guy with a rapier immediately switches to the mace and not the longsword, why is that? Their common sense never for a moment lets them think that maybe their longsword is a better choice... why? Because they already know that blunt > slash against skeletons. Their entire thought process is already contaminated by the metagame knowledge. They don't try to argue that a scimitar or axe should be good for hacking bones apart. No, they immediately try to justify that a mace is good for smashing.
MORE goalpost moving. Clearly he is going to switch to a weapon that is NOT stabbing. I don't give a rat's ass whether it is a mace or a greatsword. YOUR point was still that he would keep trying to poke it with a rapier because to do anything else is metagmaing.
Reread what I said originally. I have no problem with a player changing tactics after they spend a round poking at the skeleton. It is when a player automatically goes for the mace that I have issues.Yeah, but most of us don't play Int 3 characters. And frankly, that's the only excuse for using a rapier against a skeleton.
Damn it, you're making me agree with Cartigan. Stop it.
Well to be fair, the DC for a knowledge(religion) check against a skeleton (common CR1 undead) is a 6. Since it is DC 10 or less, you can make the check untrained. So the only people who need to worry about failing it are characters with an int of 3. If you have a party of 4 players and no one in the party can make a DC 6 knowledge check, then you have bigger issues than a couple of skeletons.
My point is that if your character can't make the knowledge check, then it is metagaming to use the knowledge. There are rules that denote exactly what is common knowledge(basically anything with a DC of 10 or less). Bending those rules for the sake of a player crying "common sense" is just giving the finger to every other player at the table who actually invested points into the appropiate knowledge skills.
To be fair, no one is trying to identify a skeleton. They are trying to hurt it, regardless of what it is. If something doesn't have squishy bits, you don't need to make a knowledge (religion or anything-else-for-that-matter) check to realize stabbing it is quite possibly the least productive thing to do because to hurt it by stabbing it you would have to hit a bone - exactly, not just a glancing blow like a slash. What's the called shot AC on something that is 3 inches in diameter and waving around again?
Reread what I said originally. I have no problem with a player changing tactics after they spend a round poking at the skeleton. It is when a player automatically goes for the mace that I have issues.First, what is "common sense" for an int 20 wizard isn't "common sense" for an int 8 barbarian. Hence, common sense isn't common.Common sense doesn't really have a lot to do with intelligence. I've known some extremely intelligent people who don't really seem to have a lick of common sense, and some people who are a bit dim but have lots of it.
I don't care if the character has an 8 Int...even if they're extremely stupid and have little common sense, a good round of trying to poke a skeleton with a rapier is going to make it obvious to them that is a pretty fruitless endeavor.
Now for my design element criticism...I can see skeletons having a pretty high DR for piercing attacks, maybe it should even have been upped to more than 5. But I likewise think that their DR against slashing shouldn't be at the same level.
Metagaming stupid.
If nobody in the party can make a DC 6 untrained knowledge check, then the characters are either stupid or ignorant, and should be played accordingly. To play it otherwise is metagaming. I suppose you have all your int 3 characters running around inventing gunpowder and solving the universal field theorum?
The point you missed was skeletons are being held together by stuff that is not muscle. Why would you think you would be able to pop ANYTHING out of socket on a skeleton when clearly nothing is holding it there to begin with?
Yes, they are held together by magic, not flesh, but it stands to reason, that it requires more magic to hold together two pieces of bone where the joints meet than it does to hold a single piece of bone together. The joints are still a potential weak point, because there is only magic holding the creature together at those points. If you separate the bones enough, the magic holding the bones together fails. So how do you know that the joints aren't the weak points?
Note, this line of reasoning is also why I have no problems with corporeal undead and constructs being vulnerable to sneak attack and criticals. You are damaging the physical construct in such a way that it weakens the magic that is binding and animating the creature.
MORE goalpost moving. Clearly he is going to switch to a weapon that is NOT stabbing. I don't give a rat's ass whether it is a mace or a greatsword. YOUR point was still that he would keep trying to poke it with a rapier because to do anything else is metagmaing.
MORE avoidance of my point and the question it brings. You see a walking pile of bones, you have a rapier, a longsword, and a mace. Lets assume for a moment that is is obvious that the rapier is a bad choice(although I have some doubts on that point, see above). A longsword/broadsword is NOT a stabbing weapon, it is a very sharp blade that is designed to cleave through flesh and bone alike. A mace is designed to kill by causing internal bleeding via bruising and tissue damage. Yet you pick the mace over the sword, and claim it is common sense to do so, why?
To be fair, no one is trying to identify a skeleton. They are trying to hurt it, regardless of what it is. If something doesn't have squishy bits, you don't need to make a knowledge (religion or anything-else-for-that-matter) check to realize stabbing it is quite possibly the least productive thing to do because to hurt it by stabbing it you would have to hit a bone - exactly, not just a glancing blow like a slash. What's the called shot AC on something that is 3 inches in diameter and waving around again?Reread what I said originally. I have no problem with a player changing tactics after they spend a round poking at the skeleton. It is when a player automatically goes for the mace that I have issues.Yeah, but most of us don't play Int 3 characters. And frankly, that's the only excuse for using a rapier against a skeleton.
Damn it, you're making me agree with Cartigan. Stop it.
Well to be fair, the DC for a knowledge(religion) check against a skeleton (common CR1 undead) is a 6. Since it is DC 10 or less, you can make the check untrained. So the only people who need to worry about failing it are characters with an int of 3. If you have a party of 4 players and no one in the party can make a DC 6 knowledge check, then you have bigger issues than a couple of skeletons.
My point is that if your character can't make the knowledge check, then it is metagaming to use the knowledge. There are rules that denote exactly what is common knowledge(basically anything with a DC of 10 or less). Bending those rules for the sake of a player crying "common sense" is just giving the finger to every other player at the table who actually invested points into the appropiate knowledge skills.
Says you. The RAW says otherwise.
Check
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).
In many cases, 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. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
The RAW says that knowing something about the vulnerabilities of a skeleton is a DC 6 knowledge(religion) check. You can house rule that the DC is -5 and thus no one can possibly fail the check, which is essentially what you are doing by claiming it is common sense. Now the players are no longer metagaming, but only because you have a houserule that fundamantally changes the value of knowledge skills.
I love how you have all of this common sense methods for fighting a mythological(IE nonexistant) creature. You can watch several different movies with undead in them, and find ten different ways that undead are supposed to be killed(hacked or smashed to bits, sever the neck, shoot them in the brain, etc). It all depends on exactly how the undead work.
Sidenote: In Army of Darkness, Ash trains the army to fight undead(which are mostly skeletons) with slashing polearms. By that point in that series of movies, Ash was a veteran of several fights with undead, and he didn't think twice about using slashing weapons against skeletons. I guess he didn't get the memo about blunt weapons being obviously better.
I stand by my earlier statement about knowledge tainting logic.
Quick Cool Story Bro
I was helping a friend with some homework in college. Sophmore level electric circuits. They got to a next problem, and I looked at it, and I solved the problem in my head in about 30 seconds. They spent 30 minutes, and 2 pages of paper solving the problem to get the same answer. This person is a very smart person, but they were unfamiliar with the material. I had been solving problems like that on a regular basis for over 5 years at that point. To me, the solution was simple and obvious.
You have known for years that blunt beats skeletons. You have had the answer, then you created a set of reasons to explain why. You have a bunch of proper logical steps, but you only knew the proper steps because you had the final answer to start with. I have given you a pretty solid reason why slashing weapons should actually be better against skeletons, but you dismiss it because you already know the slashing is the wrong answer. That is the subtle danger of "common sense" in games like this, when you have been working with something long enough, it all becomes simple and obvious.