I've always been a sucker for limiting the information my players(or at least their characters) should rightfully know, and enjoy using knowledge skills extensively, anything from identifying monsters to recall old knowledge, history, local information or lore.
But I've been at a loss for how to effectively use knowledge skills, and then how to spread that information around. For monsters in combat, I tend to rank them to a DC depending how rare they are, their more common abilities easier to know, rarer ones requiring a higher DC.
There are two ways I can see you rolling for knowledge, especially if you have several people with the same knowledge skill. The first one is the regular, everyone rolls a dice and whomevever rolls high enough knows this and that. I find this way to be somewhat lacking when several people have the same knowledge, one player rolls low and another rolls high, or perhaps one rolls high and another higher. Two experts in magical knowledge gets two different results, both are no doubt confident their training is extensive, the natural reaction isn't to bend to the roll of the higher dice, but I'd imagine the two would come to a twist of who's information is the accurate one. Imagine two wizards arguing over the weaknesses of Devils and Demons.
So the other way I thought could represent them putting their heads together and figuring out an answer would be an aid another roll, and the highest skill making the actual roll. I thought this would be a good idea to keep consistency of information, but it does take away the option to actually roll another dice. Two persons with the same skill is essentially two chances to get it right after all. And having aid another rolls would not work in combat encounters for example, when you make a roll to see what this sudden monster that jumped out at you is, and have no time to stand around and discuss.
Would an idea perhaps be to let them chose? They roll separate, but extensively low or widely different rolls can produce faulty information, or twists on who is right. Or they decide to think it through together, use aid another and get only one roll on it, which is guaranteed to be accurate(if they roll high enough).
The DM would have to do the knowledge rolls then. The problem of a stressful situation such as a combat remains, where three people can roll knnowledge religion to figure out what this strange decaying wizard is(a Lich), and all three get widely different results, potentially causing a LOT of misinformation being yelled out in the combat.
So how do you handle knowledge rolls?
|
I find this tricky as well and I'm looking forward to what other posters will have to say.
At the beginning of an adventure path, I organize all the flavor that I'm willing to have the PCs know into bite-size chunks on index cards, sorting by local knowledge, knowledge nature, etc. Then I put a mark in small print on the back of each card for my convenience, not the players. The players never see these cards unless they receive one. Then when they make a knowledge check, I hand them an appropriate card. They can choose to share the information with fellow players or not. Some hang on to the cards and then share the information at an appropriate point as part of the role-playing.
During the adventure as part of a specific plot point, I haven't really found a good way. One player says I make a knowledge religion check. Immediately, others say, "No, I do. I have more points than you." Then they all make the check and I end up telling them what I wanted them to know anyway. I find it disruptive to the role-playing as the game mechanics immediately overwhelm the story. So I'd love a good idea here.
But I've been at a loss for how to effectively use knowledge skills, and then how to spread that information around. For monsters in combat, I tend to rank them to a DC depending how rare they are, their more common abilities easier to know, rarer ones requiring a higher DC.
DCs for monster lore are explicitly defined. DC (5 to 15) + CR. I don't remember the rest. I imagine you would know more about the creature the more you exceeded that.
There are two ways I can see you rolling for knowledge, especially if you have several people with the same knowledge skill. The first one is the regular, everyone rolls a dice and whomevever rolls high enough knows this and that. I find this way to be somewhat lacking when several people have the same knowledge, one player rolls low and another rolls high, or perhaps one rolls high and another higher. Two experts in magical knowledge gets two different results, both are no doubt confident their training is extensive, the natural reaction isn't to bend to the roll of the higher dice, but I'd imagine the two would come to a twist of who's information is the accurate one. Imagine two wizards arguing over the weaknesses of Devils and Demons.
Except that is out and out wrong. If you don't make a high enough knowledge roll, you don't know that much about the creature. You do not get wrong information. If one Wizard gets a 30 on dragon knowledge and another gets 20, they aren't going to argue about what dragons can do. They will both know the DC20 knowledge about dragons but the Wizard with a DC30 will know even more.
You could judge that those that don't make the DC mark doesn't know the information, but skills tend to have some side-effect if you roll 5 or sometimes 10 below the DC. In the case of Knowledge, I would imagine that would be misinformation.
Knowledge does not have a codified serious failure rule. You just don't know. That is your failure. You are an idiot on the subject.
|
|
One thing I feel I have to note: You do not make knowledge checks (with the exception of when you research). You are told to make knowledge checks.
This means that if there is information to be known, you ask the player to make a knowledge check. If you forgot that there might be something to know and the players remind you, you have ALL of them make the check. Regardless, they should ALL be making the roll.
The only times that less than the full party should be doing the check is if A) the party is split or B) a subset of the party is researching. I suppose those without training might just not bother rolling, though.
Personally, unless a character is very dumb, I assume that knowledge checks do not result in misinformation, only a lack of information. A character who gets less than 1 on their check? Sure, some misinformation, but everyone should know not to trust what he says anyway (and if they have at least an average wisdom score, they should know to trust the others over themselves).
As for multiple people making the check, I usually determine how many "pieces" are involved in the information (usually no more than 2-4, possibly more for complex creatures), with one as the "base" (which includes name and creature type). Anyone who makes the check gets the base, and every 5 over gets a random other piece of information.
For example, if three characters have a -2, +10 and +13 on their knowledge (religion) and get a -1, 18 and 22 on a DC15 check for a vampire, the first character gets misinformation (it's a plant!), the second knows its a vampire which means it's undead, and the third knows that and its shapeshifting abilities. If they instead got 13, 22 and 27 then the first guy knows nothing, the second knows the name and type along with the domination abilities, and the third knows name and type along with shapeshifting and weaknesses.
Regardless, beating the check by 20 is everything that you could know about the creature, and possibly even that specific creature's name.
As for sharing information in combat, I usually limit it to tactical information. If someone makes their knowledge check on a zombie they might say "Use slashing weapons", but they aren't going to be able to give a speech on the subject.
Knowledge does not have a codified serious failure rule. You just don't know. That is your failure. You are an idiot on the subject.
You could judge that those that don't make the DC mark doesn't know the information, but skills tend to have some side-effect if you roll 5 or sometimes 10 below the DC. In the case of Knowledge, I would imagine that would be misinformation.
Minus the negative connotations of the word "idiot"... this.
I've never known anyone to do this differently...
Except that is out and out wrong. If you don't make a high enough knowledge roll, you don't know that much about the creature. You do not get wrong information. If one Wizard gets a 30 on dragon knowledge and another gets 20, they aren't going to argue about what dragons can do. They will both know the DC20 knowledge about dragons but the Wizard with a DC30 will know even more.
I don't dispute this as RAW, but I don't think that makes sense realistic or is consistent with how other skills usually work. Realism as in knowledge is not always a binary thing, you don't just know or not know, you have varying degrees of certainty. Many skills offer penalties for rolling low, usually a certain increment below the set DC.
Wouldn't misinformation be a logical side-effect if you roll too low against the DC of certain information?The best way to combat that would of course be a longer and extensive brainstorming, which would represent everyone with the relevant skill using aid-another against one of them.
Also try to keep your petty insults to yourself, if you can't argue without them I suggest you don't at all.
...
I like your ideas about pieces of knowledges, that would let several players making the roll feel useful, and anyone who really maxes it out can spew out information like a book, instead of everyone doing it.
I don't dispute this as RAW, but I don't think that makes sense realistic or is consistent with how other skills usually work.
Except that is out and out wrong. If you don't make a high enough knowledge roll, you don't know that much about the creature. You do not get wrong information. If one Wizard gets a 30 on dragon knowledge and another gets 20, they aren't going to argue about what dragons can do. They will both know the DC20 knowledge about dragons but the Wizard with a DC30 will know even more.
I really don't care. You were having an issue with implementing knowledge skills. I told you what the rules say. I would posit to guess that YOUR specific issue with using the Knowledge skills comes from your houserule on how knowledge skills work. Clearly you are the only one who can fix your problem.
Realism as in knowledge is not always a binary thing, you don't just know or not know,
This is a game, based on rules. You do in fact know or not know. Just like you fight fracking dragons.
Wouldn't misinformation be a logical side-effect if you roll too low against the DC of certain information?
Logical? Maybe. Conducive to fun and productive game play? Judging by you anecdote, I have to say no.
Also try to keep your petty insults to yourself, if you can't argue without them I suggest you don't at all.
Telling you you are wrong when you are wrong is not an insult. When I insult you, you will know it.
.
..
...
....
.....
Admit it, deep down, it's all you really want!
^_^
Also try to keep your petty insults to yourself, if you can't argue without them I suggest you don't at all.
I don't see anywhere in there where he insulted you. He referred to a character who failed their knowledge check as being an idiot on the subject, not you...
Also try to keep your petty insults to yourself, if you can't argue without them I suggest you don't at all.I don't see anywhere in there where he insulted you. He referred to a character who failed their knowledge check as being an idiot on the subject, not you...
"ignorant" is a more accurate word than "idiot." Idiot implies lack of knowlege across several subjects. Ignorant implies a lack of knowlege in a particular subject. For example I (in real life) am ignorant on the subject of cars. I am blissfully unaware of brands, types, year, make, models, etc.
To be clear this is a reflection of the character, not the person. Nor is it intended as an insult. If the character failed a knowledge check on the demonic sea serpent than he is ignorant about demonic sea serpents, not necessarily any other subject.
My 2C
We've played the last couple campaigns with a rule that whomever has the highest number of ranks is the primary for the skill check. Everybody else is aiding another. Basically what you described.
We did throw in a rule that if the aid another person has a higher result, you can take their result up to +5 your result (so, if I'm the primary and roll a 22 while the Aid Another person rolls a 25, I could take 25).
I never liked the "lottery" aspect of the skill check - let's just keep rolling dice until we get a success. The 20 STR barbarian didn't knock down the door? Have the STR 10 rogue try, then have the STR 8 wizard try.
"ignorant" is a more accurate word than "idiot." Idiot implies lack of knowlege across several subjects. Ignorant implies a lack of knowlege in a particular subject. For example I (in real life) am ignorant on the subject of cars. I am blissfully unaware of brands, types, year, make, models, etc.Also try to keep your petty insults to yourself, if you can't argue without them I suggest you don't at all.I don't see anywhere in there where he insulted you. He referred to a character who failed their knowledge check as being an idiot on the subject, not you...
Technically, any given knowledge covers several subjects. You are just ignorant on one at a time based on the day and hour.
My apologies then, I thought the idiot part was directed at me.
Eitherway it was not my intention to get this moved to the rules section, perhaps it had been better posted under the houserules board. I did not intend to discuss the RAW of the knowledge rules, but rather various ways to expand the use of it. Or know how other people use it.
My "house-rules" are only suggestions on how to use it. As it stands, I'm using skills as RAW, which I find to be somewhat lacking.
Technically, any given knowledge covers several subjects. You are just ignorant on one at a time based on the day and hour."ignorant" is a more accurate word than "idiot." Idiot implies lack of knowlege across several subjects. Ignorant implies a lack of knowlege in a particular subject. For example I (in real life) am ignorant on the subject of cars. I am blissfully unaware of brands, types, year, make, models, etc.Also try to keep your petty insults to yourself, if you can't argue without them I suggest you don't at all.I don't see anywhere in there where he insulted you. He referred to a character who failed their knowledge check as being an idiot on the subject, not you...
True. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Also try to keep your petty insults to yourself, if you can't argue without them I suggest you don't at all.I don't see anywhere in there where he insulted you. He referred to a character who failed their knowledge check as being an idiot on the subject, not you...
"ignorant" is a more accurate word than "idiot." Idiot implies lack of knowlege across several subjects. Ignorant implies a lack of knowlege in a particular subject. For example I (in real life) am ignorant on the subject of cars. I am blissfully unaware of brands, types, year, make, models, etc.
To be clear this is a reflection of the character, not the person. Nor is it intended as an insult. If the character failed a knowledge check on the demonic sea serpent than he is ignorant about demonic sea serpents, not necessarily any other subject.
My 2C
I agree, especially given the definitions of the term idiot with regards to mental health. It is a pretty significantly overused word.
We've played the last couple campaigns with a rule that whomever has the highest number of ranks is the primary for the skill check. Everybody else is aiding another. Basically what you described.
We did throw in a rule that if the aid another person has a higher result, you can take their result up to +5 your result (so, if I'm the primary and roll a 22 while the Aid Another person rolls a 25, I could take 25).
I never liked the "lottery" aspect of the skill check - let's just keep rolling dice until we get a success. The 20 STR barbarian didn't knock down the door? Have the STR 10 rogue try, then have the STR 8 wizard try.
Well in the case of the door, it's logical that you can keep trying as minutes pass by. Usually a take 20 can represent that effort, if there is no chance for failure(such as hurting yourself while the portcullis slams down), or on a time restrain. Knowledge skills can't be used untrained, and you usually only get one check.
We've played the last couple campaigns with a rule that whomever has the highest number of ranks is the primary for the skill check. Everybody else is aiding another. Basically what you described.
We did throw in a rule that if the aid another person has a higher result, you can take their result up to +5 your result (so, if I'm the primary and roll a 22 while the Aid Another person rolls a 25, I could take 25).
I never liked the "lottery" aspect of the skill check - let's just keep rolling dice until we get a success. The 20 STR barbarian didn't knock down the door? Have the STR 10 rogue try, then have the STR 8 wizard try.
It's the "I loosened it for you" Pickle-Jar phenomenon. You've never seen a big man turn red in the face trying to open a jar, only to give up and hand it back to his wife, who gives it a twist and off it pops? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Unless it's digital :) </threadjack>
DCs for monster lore are explicitly defined. DC (5 to 15) + CR. I don't remember the rest. I imagine you would know more about the creature the more you exceeded that.
...which leads to quite some... interesting situations if played strictly by the rules.
"Oh, sure... thrse are Red Dragon Hatchlings... nasty critters, breathing fire and stuff... Huh? What? The large red creature (which looks quite alike to them) who is just coming round the corner? Nah, no idea what that might be."
Strange how the monsters get more difficult to recognize once they get tougher, no matter how iconic they are.
DCs for monster lore are explicitly defined. DC (5 to 15) + CR. I don't remember the rest. I imagine you would know more about the creature the more you exceeded that....which leads to quite some... interesting situations if played strictly by the rules.
"Oh, sure... thrse are Red Dragon Hatchlings... nasty critters, breathing fire and stuff... Huh? What? The large red creature (which looks quite alike to them) who is just coming round the corner? Nah, no idea what that might be."
Strange how the monsters get more difficult to recognize once they get tougher, no matter how iconic they are.
It is not really strange. They are iconic to us because we see them used a lot in games. In the game world they are rare and/or knowledge of them is rare because few people survive contact to report the info. If the info is harder to find then the DC goes up.
|
|
DCs for monster lore are explicitly defined. DC (5 to 15) + CR. I don't remember the rest. I imagine you would know more about the creature the more you exceeded that....which leads to quite some... interesting situations if played strictly by the rules.
"Oh, sure... thrse are Red Dragon Hatchlings... nasty critters, breathing fire and stuff... Huh? What? The large red creature (which looks quite alike to them) who is just coming round the corner? Nah, no idea what that might be."
Strange how the monsters get more difficult to recognize once they get tougher, no matter how iconic they are.
For these kinds of creatures I use the base CR (in this case the CR of the wyrmling) to determine DC (though for dragons I would probably do 15+CR), and then only reveal the older dragons' abilities if they exceeded the DC based on THAT CR. So a DC18 might let you know that black dragons breath acid, while a DC34 might let you know that the great wyrm black dragon can mass-charm reptiles.
I like the assist method. The more d20s rolled the more wild variation, but also two people colablerating on a question falls right into the aiding another concept. Imagine if you're playing trivia, one person might think they remeber the monster's immune to cold they other thinks it's immune fire, the advice of one might help the other make up his mind or it could also make him second guess, but you don't get to put both answers down and get credit for whatever is the right.
For difficulty, I like to go by what book the things out of. Iconic low level monsters from the Bestiary are the base DC5 guys, the rest DC 10, Bestiary II et seq are DC 15, monsters specific to the module or in an AP's bestiary might be DC20 obscure.
|
|
As far as dragons and such go, I essentially agree with StabbityDoom. While a wizard should be able to instantly recognize a older dragon if he can identify a younger one, he might only know of what the younger ones are capable.
Generally, I prompt my players to make Knowledge rolls but I don't mind if they take it upon themselves to ask for a roll when they want to see what they know about something. I also might tell a player to make a roll or shoot it down altogether if I see their character seems to know something he probably shouldn't. It's one thing to know silver hurts lycanthropes, another thing altogether to know a Move Earth spell can stun a Xorn.
For group rolls, I tell each player what their roll gives them and leave it up to them whether or not they share the info. The more helpful PCs tend to announce their findings to the party, but there's often a jerk who keeps things to himself so he can appear to be Billy Badarse when he exploits the monster's secret weakness.
Misinformation does have a place at my table, but not with Knowledge rolls. If a player wants to see if his PC knows anything about a pack of minotaurs, for instance, and he doesn't have ranks in Know: Nature, I let him roll Diplomacy since you can use Diplomacy to Gather Information. The result is what he's heard from locals concerning the minotaur pack. The higher the roll, the more he's heard and some of what he's heard might be false.
True. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.Unless it's digital :) </threadjack>
Depends. Is it flashing 12:00 all day? Still right twice a day. Is it just not working? It's no longer a clock, just an inert pile of silicon and plastic. :D
Some important things to note about knowledge skills.
DC 10 or less checks can be made untrained. This is important, because unless you are under pressure, you can take a 10 on the knowledge check. So unless you are in the heat of combat or have a negative int modifier, you will generally autopass these checks.
The root of knowledge in know as in being sure. When you pass a knowledge check, you are sure of the information. Someone who fails their check may have some false ideas about the information question(not by RAW), but they don't know anything. As a house rule, it is not unreasonable that someone would be certain of incorrect knowledge, but that should be something reserved for critical failures. There are people in the United States who believe they know the earth is flat, and the moon landings were staged, but those people are not exactly common.
Aid Another
You can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you're helping gets a +2 bonus on his or her check. (You can't take 10 on a skill check to aid another.) In many cases, a character's help won't be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help at once.
In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can't aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn't achieve alone. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.
Knowledge skills are a great place to use aid another to get the entire group involved. So, in the case where player A gets a 30, player B gets a 20, and player C gets a 15.... Rather than player A and B get the same information with players A getting more, while player C gets nothing, the players work together to get a 34.