|
Okay, so picture a typical fighter, and he's squaring off against a werewolf.
Fighter: "Okay, I approach the werewolf, draw my silver longsword, and attack."
DM: "Wait a sec, roll knowledge nature."
Fighter: "Oh, I don't have that. I guess I hit him with my greatsword."
DM: "Your strike seems to do less damage than you thought it would."
This is all well and good, right? But what about this situation?
Fighter: "Okay, I approach the werewolf, draw my silver longsword, and attack."
DM: "Wait a sec, roll knowledge nature."
Fighter: "Oh, I don't have that. But wait, I've fought werewolves before, a few modules ago."
DM: "You don't have knowledge nature, so you still don't know about silver weapons."
For someone without points in knowledge, is there no memory? Is a level 20 fighter doomed to repeat the same mistakes from level 1 on?
We handle this two ways:
If the player remembers it, great - the character remembers it. For us, that's kinda one of the points of playing the game. On the mental side of things, we don't make too much (repeat: too much) of a distinction between what a player has learned and what the character has learned.
We also have "memory sheets" - pretty much the number of pages a character can have to write whatever the hell they want. The higher the intelligence, the more sheets you get. Go nuts.
Other than that, if they don't remember it, too bad. None of us are willing to guess what somebody might or might not remember.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Assuming that the fighter actually learned that werewolves were vulnerable to silver, I see no reason (aside from being a jerk) to erase his memory. Now, if the only werewolves he's fought before were fought without silver (and no one at the time made the necessary knowledge check), then obviously he wouldn't have learned it. But if he sees his own weapons doing poorly and sees his buddy's silver dagger sizzle the guy, he's going to hit the market and buy a silver weapon with the intent to use it on werewolves.
Okay, so picture a typical fighter, and he's squaring off against a werewolf.
Fighter: "Okay, I approach the werewolf, draw my silver longsword, and attack."
DM: "Wait a sec, roll knowledge nature."
Fighter: "Oh, I don't have that. I guess I hit him with my greatsword."
DM: "Your strike seems to do less damage than you thought it would."
This is all well and good, right? But what about this situation?
Fighter: "Okay, I approach the werewolf, draw my silver longsword, and attack."
DM: "Wait a sec, roll knowledge nature."
Fighter: "Oh, I don't have that. But wait, I've fought werewolves before, a few modules ago."
DM: "You don't have knowledge nature, so you still don't know about silver weapons."
For someone without points in knowledge, is there no memory? Is a level 20 fighter doomed to repeat the same mistakes from level 1 on?
The knowledge roll is twofold.
1. Do you recognize what the creature actually is?2. What do you know about it's weaknesses?
In this case, I would give a circumstance bonus if the group has faced the creature before(they seem familiar). If they did some research after the fight, I would give then another circumstance bonus(Hey Mr. sage, we ran into these creatures in the woods...). If someone else in the party had made their knowledge check and flat out told the fighter "Those are werewolves, use silver to kill them", then no check is necessary.
Now, by RAW, if the DC > 10, they cannot make the check untrained, but I would use the circumstance bonuses to lower the DC, so that if the DC drops to 10 or less, the fighter could attempt the check untrained.
|
|
Alright, so we've established that most people would not penalize someone without the skill in question so long as the character has had experience before.
Maybe I should repost this in the rules or PFS forums for a RAW decision too, because I'm worried that some DMs have the potential to be ridiculous.
Alright, so we've established that most people would not penalize someone without the skill in question so long as the character has had experience before.
Maybe I should repost this in the rules or PFS forums for a RAW decision too, because I'm worried that some DMs have the potential to be ridiculous.
Yes, my only caveat is how much experience. There is a huge difference between fighting some wolf like creature that you are not quite sure what it is, and being flat out told that "This is a werewolf, kill it with silver".
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Yes, my only caveat is how much experience. There is a huge difference between fighting some wolf like creature that you are not quite sure what it is, and being flat out told that "This is a werewolf, kill it with silver".Alright, so we've established that most people would not penalize someone without the skill in question so long as the character has had experience before.
Maybe I should repost this in the rules or PFS forums for a RAW decision too, because I'm worried that some DMs have the potential to be ridiculous.
One of my characters was sent to deal with a werewolf. The paladin in the party was like "Don't worry, we can deal with this" and shows off his recently acquired silver short sword. During the adventure, my character saw it being used against the werewolf that we were specifically hunting (so he knew what it was) and saw that it worked well.
Thus, it's reasonable that my character now knows that silver is useful against werewolves.
Of course, this is complicated by the fact that players love flipping through the Bestiaries, and the fact that they've encountered the same creatures playing previous characters.
I don't even worry about it for iconic creatures like werewolves and vampires. The mystery there is whether or not the players can figure out the true nature of these things before they "vamp out" or "wolf out" on them. In other words, that the Duke is only seen at night because he's a vampire, or why nobody knows where Dave goes when there's a full moon out, or whatever. What to do about them; well, I just assume they are as well known in the game world as in the real world, so no problem if the PCs know about silver and wooden stakes.
Now, an otyugh is a different story. I imagine a PC could live his whole life and never encounter one of those, provided he never wandered into a sewer or the like. In those cases, unless somebody has a specific skill, I just guide them along as if they have never encountered the thing before. If they do have a relevant skill, I roll for them, and in most cases I just allow the player to act on everything he might have read about the thing, so long as the roll is successful. It's simply more expedient. I do, however, encourage him to roleplay any knowledge he is passing to his companions.
If I have created the creature, it's a no-brainer. They won't know anything about it the first time they encounter it.
There's a lot of in-between area. For instance, if I have stated that a certain otherwise rare creature is not rare in this particular world, I can't go back and say the PCs have no knowledge of it.
The most fun, because it's the most challenging, is when I tweak something for a particular region or use, or the players otherwise mistake one creature for another.
Knowledge skills represent "book learning" (or, I suppose "epic poetry learning" for your preliterate cultures): it allows you to know about things you haven't experienced. A character should never have to roll to know things they've actually experienced. (Maybe an check to remember minutia, but fighting a monster is pretty memorable.)
Okay, so picture a typical fighter, and he's squaring off against a werewolf.
Fighter: "Okay, I approach the werewolf, draw my silver longsword, and attack."
DM: "Wait a sec, roll knowledge nature."
Fighter: "Oh, I don't have that. I guess I hit him with my greatsword."
DM: "Your strike seems to do less damage than you thought it would."
This is all well and good, right? But what about this situation?
Fighter: "Okay, I approach the werewolf, draw my silver longsword, and attack."
DM: "Wait a sec, roll knowledge nature."
Fighter: "Oh, I don't have that. But wait, I've fought werewolves before, a few modules ago."
DM: "You don't have knowledge nature, so you still don't know about silver weapons."
For someone without points in knowledge, is there no memory? Is a level 20 fighter doomed to repeat the same mistakes from level 1 on?
If you fight something then it makes sense to remember how to beat since not knowing how to beat it might get you killed.
Yes, my only caveat is how much experience. There is a huge difference between fighting some wolf like creature that you are not quite sure what it is, and being flat out told that "This is a werewolf, kill it with silver".Alright, so we've established that most people would not penalize someone without the skill in question so long as the character has had experience before.
Maybe I should repost this in the rules or PFS forums for a RAW decision too, because I'm worried that some DMs have the potential to be ridiculous.
One of my characters was sent to deal with a werewolf. The paladin in the party was like "Don't worry, we can deal with this" and shows off his recently acquired silver short sword. During the adventure, my character saw it being used against the werewolf that we were specifically hunting (so he knew what it was) and saw that it worked well.
Thus, it's reasonable that my character now knows that silver is useful against werewolves.
Well ignoring the fact that a paladin can smite evil, (because Smite evil ignores DR, and thus it doesn't matter what weapon he uses) that is basically the character being told, "It is a werewolf, use silver"
My point is that how a character's second experience with werewolves goes depends on how much they learned during the first encounter.
One of my characters was sent to deal with a werewolf. The paladin in the party was like "Don't worry, we can deal with this" and shows off his recently acquired silver short sword. During the adventure, my character saw it being used against the werewolf that we were specifically hunting (so he knew what it was) and saw that it worked well.
Thus, it's reasonable that my character now knows that silver is useful against werewolves.
Well ignoring the fact that a paladin can smite evil, (because Smite evil ignores DR, and thus it doesn't matter what weapon he uses) that is basically the character being told, "It is a werewolf, use silver"
My point is that how a character's second experience with werewolves goes depends on how much they learned during the first encounter.
Well, it also depends on something else. So ok, your character knows now "Ok, we fought a werewolf, and silver hurts it. So, use silver on werewolfs."
But now he fights another werewolf who probably looks different and without knowledge nature he MIGHT think "Hmm, is that a werewolf or not?" or just "Huh? What the hell is that?"However due to the previous experience with werewolves, I'd give him the chance to make the check untrained in that case, to recongize it (Either by saying DC is 10, or just allowing it untrained) - but not more, just recognize it, no additional weaknesses even if he beats the DC by enough.
The first assumption by the fighter is why I:
a) design monsters myself and am working on my own quick-monster-build system.
b) describe monsters by looks instead of naming them. In fact, I should design more monsters without giving them a name. They get the name whatever the PCs decide to give em.
This way, there's no problem when characters and players learn, without the confusion which combining metagaming knowledge with knowledge skills brings.
Implicitly I'm saying that yes, characters and players should learn from experience, and this should supersede knowledge skills. As a GM I like to mix my creatures up though. Have em with very similar appearance, but the suped-up big-brudda version for a nasty surprise. Keeps PCs on their toes. When using goblins, I don't use plain bestiary goblins, I modify them with class levels, templates and feats.
Also I let them use knowledge skills to induce or recognize properties about creatures based on similarities, which ups the value of these skills. For instance, I made this Octabrain creature (inspired by Duke Nukem). Players with proper knowledge could reason that their big skull implies a big brain with probably some sort of psionic power.
Okay, so picture a typical fighter, and he's squaring off against a werewolf.
Fighter: "Okay, I approach the werewolf, draw my silver longsword, and attack."
DM: "Wait a sec, roll knowledge nature."
Fighter: "Oh, I don't have that. I guess I hit him with my greatsword."
DM: "Your strike seems to do less damage than you thought it would."
This is all well and good, right? But what about this situation?
Fighter: "Okay, I approach the werewolf, draw my silver longsword, and attack."
DM: "Wait a sec, roll knowledge nature."
Fighter: "Oh, I don't have that. But wait, I've fought werewolves before, a few modules ago."
DM: "You don't have knowledge nature, so you still don't know about silver weapons."
For someone without points in knowledge, is there no memory? Is a level 20 fighter doomed to repeat the same mistakes from level 1 on?
My reaction:
"Oh, sorry, GM, I don't have ranks in Knowledge (nature) in real life, so I can't be expected to know that showing knives in your belly would hurt you."
Or maybe not. Most judges have a crappy sense of humour.
But it would probably spark a discussion - and if not, I'd just go. I mean: You recently fought werewolves, learned about the silver weapons (which I consider common knowledge, so you can easily gain it with a general knowledge check without ranks. I'd say the DC for that one is like 5), but now, only a few months later, you have totally forgotten again?
Please. That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard today, And I just watched a TV series where someone claimed a correlation between a person's age and whether they like ewoks. And the ewok part was at least funny.
I'm all for a system with a complex and established set of rules - I'm playing Pathfinder, after all - but this is overdoing it.
I've GMed that monsters that are common enough or famous in their own way or known in the area (things like werewolves and trolls and vampires and dragons but not variants or... I don't know, stuff too uncommon for me to think examples for) are known when you've reached around level 6. The character has spent time in taverns hanging out with other adventurers swapping stories. We have a long time span in my game, covering ten years so far from level 3 - 6, so there has been plenty of time in taverns.
Adventurers are basically professionals, and their life depends on it. They should spend their downtime learning new stuff. I offer the Knowledge skills as class skills to all players to represent learning these things. It doesn't seem game breaking at all, especially since most of them don't take me up on it, or only drop one or two points into one or two areas of knowledge, as fits with their character concept.
|
Knowledge skills represent "book learning" (or, I suppose "epic poetry learning" for your preliterate cultures): it allows you to know about things you haven't experienced. A character should never have to roll to know things they've actually experienced. (Maybe an check to remember minutia, but fighting a monster is pretty memorable.)
This is pretty much my opinion on the matter, with the caveat that creatures that look like other creatures (such as wolf-form werewolves) might still not be immediately apparent. Even then, once its creature type is identified, they only need the knowledge check if they have no experience with that facet of the creature.
In the case of a wolf-form werewolf, if they hit it on the assumption of being a wolf and did less damage than normal, I'd be perfectly okay with them pulling out a silver weapon if they have a reason to know that. Heck, if they encounter a wolf and use the silver one "just to be safe," I'm still okay with that.
This is completely up to the GM. When the PC's arrive at a new town they should consult a bard or sheriff and ask about monsters in the area, sewers, caves, etc and how to fight them if something extra other than normal weapons would be needed. Also, just because you fought something in the past does not mean you figured out to use silver on it, it may have died from a spell or massive damage. Also, werewolves and vampires could be subjects of stories passed down from generations and the players could have knowledge from those stories. There are a lot of opportunities for the PC's to figure things out...
|
|
Well:
a) a lycanthrope is a shapechanger, so knowledge nature would not work;
b) From PRD: You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10.
In a world where lycanthropes are a know and relatively common menace I would say that knowing that silver hurt them is a a very simple check. So easily within a DC of 10, maybe you don't know why or what it do, but almost everyone know that silver hurt lycanthrope, holy water hurt undead and so on.
c) the trick is recognizing a werevolf from any of the other bipedal, furry humanoids. The DC for that would be harder.
Again from PRD 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. Many of the Knowledge skills have specific uses as noted on Table: Knowledge Skill DCs.
As "lycanthrope" is a template it has not a inherent CR. I would use the animal CR+1 and a base DC of 10 to recognize it.
So in your situation, if the fighter had the foresight to buy a silver weapon we should assume he know that there are creatures that can be harmed only by that kind of weapon. He probably has even asked more knowledgeable people what are those creatures.
So he is fully entitled to draw it when he meet a furry humanoid and he think he is a lychantrope. His only problem is that the creature can be any of a plethora of monsters that don't care at all for silver and will be more than happy for the reduced damage of the silver weapon.
Well:
a) a lycanthrope is a shapechanger, so knowledge nature would not work;
The year 2000 has called, they want their rules back :P
Shapechanger hasn't been its own type since forever. 3.0 had a shapechanger type, but in 3.5 and Pathfinder, it's just a subtype. A werewolf is a humanoid, so you identify him with Knowledge (nature).
|
|
Well:
a) a lycanthrope is a shapechanger, so knowledge nature would not work;
The year 2000 has called, they want their rules back :P
Shapechanger hasn't been its own type since forever. 3.0 had a shapechanger type, but in 3.5 and Pathfinder, it's just a subtype. A werewolf is a humanoid, so you identify him with Knowledge (nature).
You are right about type/subtype, but:
[Knowledge]
Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids).Nature (animals, fey, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin)
So RAW it is Knowledge (local).
In my game you can both use Knowledge (Arcana) for the supernatural effect of the curse or Knowledge (local) for the folklore about the local monsters.To know the ways to cure lycanhtropy it would be Knowledge (arcana) only.
Did the GM tell them they were werewolves? IMO if so, the GM bypassed the check already- he did not say "furry bestial men" or "these feral combatants make you uneasy" or any way of describing the opponents without identifying them. If he DID identify them, it's kind of a jerk move to backtrack and tell the players "even though I told you they were werewolves in my description and you logically acted on that knowledge, you have no idea what they are until you roll the check".
Furthermore, skills represent broad competency in a particular area. Knowledge (nature) ranks indicate the player is more likely than a layman to have an understand of the natural world and its inhabitants, with how much more likely determined by the number of ranks. It doesn't mean someone without knowledge (nature) doesn't know mud from grass, or that their life experience is worthless. A character who grew up on a farm can understand how a plow works without knowledge (engineering). Similarly, a character who has fought werewolves before at least gets a bonus to identify them, and will retain any knowledge s/he gained regarding them (i.e. silver weapons). Lack of knowledge ranks does not preclude characters learning about the world around them from experience. I would even argue lack of ranks doesn't preclude them from acquiring knowledge through study of a specific subject, for example the party knows they have been hired to combat a lycanthropy problem so they spend a few days in the library reading up, or speaking to people in the town who have fought them previously. Specificity is important; once you cross the line from the specific, isolated subject to the broad, you really need to invest the ranks.
If the GM really wants the players to have to roll to identify the werewolves and/or how to fight them, in light of the characters' previous experience, he really has to allow an untrained check for this single circumstance or base it off an int or wis roll to recall the information and put it together with what they are currently seeing. It's not fair or logical to tell a fighter with experience but without knowledge ranks that he is going to be functionally ignorant of past enemies and their weaknesses for the duration of the game.
We have the same rule of "if the player remembers the character does also". In the case that they can't remember we allow a dc 15 intelligence check to remember things. They add the intelligence modifier to their roll as well.
Please. That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard today, And I just watched a TV series where someone claimed a correlation between a person's age and whether they like ewoks. And the ewok part was at least funny.
Oh come on, the Ewok Line is a scientificality soundind theoretic of most methodic science. How can you think is ridiculous?
...Wait for it...
For werewolves and silver ... this should probably fall under common knowledge (a low DC that you can make untrained). It's just so common. Sort of like that dragons have breath weapons, or that dire bats fly.
Ideally they should make the check as soon as they see it. If you fail the knowledge check, you don't even know it's name. A were animal in the dark, on a failed check, is just a furry, toothy growling thing, with a vaguely human posture. Once you've said were wolf you've let the cat out of the bag.
Players do need to respect the 4th wall to a degree. Some bad luck our entire party completely failed recognizing a bunch of monsters as trolls. We had to play along, knowing full well as players that everything we dropped would stitch itself back together.
So RAW it is Knowledge (local).
Son of a parent! Didn't see that.
And apparently this has been the case for years and years now.
The learning never stops.
|
|
So RAW it is Knowledge (local).
Son of a parent! Didn't see that.
And apparently this has been the case for years and years now.
The learning never stops.
Agreed.
I had totally forgotten the shapechanger as subtype thing.I will still use my personal version, but when houseruling remembering what is the original rule is important.
This is completely up to the GM. When the PC's arrive at a new town they should consult a bard or sheriff and ask about monsters in the area, sewers, caves, etc and how to fight them if something extra other than normal weapons would be needed. Also, just because you fought something in the past does not mean you figured out to use silver on it, it may have died from a spell or massive damage. Also, werewolves and vampires could be subjects of stories passed down from generations and the players could have knowledge from those stories. There are a lot of opportunities for the PC's to figure things out...
Alex the Rouge you replied to a now closed discussion about wanting to sell me your DF. You can reach me ericKandkim AT cox DOT net.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A DM who is Unreasonable before his "mastery", and Brash last, becomes a DUMB.
Okay, so picture a typical fighter, and he's squaring off against a werewolf.
Fighter: "Okay, I approach the werewolf, draw my silver longsword, and attack."
DM: "Wait a sec, roll knowledge nature."
Fighter: "Oh, I don't have that. I guess I hit him with my greatsword."
DM: "Your strike seems to do less damage than you thought it would."
This is all well and good, right? But what about this situation?
Fighter: "Okay, I approach the werewolf, draw my silver longsword, and attack."
DM: "Wait a sec, roll knowledge nature."
Fighter: "Oh, I don't have that. But wait, I've fought werewolves before, a few modules ago."
DM: "You don't have knowledge nature, so you still don't know about silver weapons."
For someone without points in knowledge, is there no memory? Is a level 20 fighter doomed to repeat the same mistakes from level 1 on?
If the PC had encountered werewolves before then sure, why not? I allow PCs to roll Knowledge to expose a weakness or ability that they weren't aware of beforehand (either from memory or extrapolation depending on the situation). Rolling knowledge for things you've already experienced first-hand is a bit silly.
If you already know werewolves have a weakness to silver then there's no need for a knowledge check in the first place (except maybe to learn something else about them).