So it happened a player who was not a bard took 1 rank in all knowledges and every fight knowledge check knowledge check knowledge check. I understand thats why its there but come on it was being way over used. So simply I have changed the time it takes to make a knowledge check on a monster in combat to a full-round action to represent a character thinking hard and long about it since knowledges cover such a broad area. In hindsight I could've just made it use a standard action but this change has worked well for my group. It is rarely used now unless the party is having a difficult go at it or they're geniunely intrested in what something is and not just its weakness.
We make it take a move action (similar to an active perception check). It takes action economy, but doesn't gimp a character from being combat effective.
Ahem, knowledges don't imply you sitting around and thinking about something... they are for things you already know. They are rolled during combat because that is the relevant time the information is needed.....
... not because someone is sitting there thinking and pulling out books and studying.
Does having your player roll what he already knows pre battle for each and every monster in the manuals sound like a good concept?
Imagine that you, yourself are the character (with all your DM knowledge). You see a Red Dragon and BOOM, it takes a second for you to recall: Breathes Fire, Fire Immune, High Natural Armor, Spell-Casting Capabilities, Flying.
|
Ahem, knowledges don't imply you sitting around and thinking about something... they are for things you already know. They are rolled during combat because that is the relevant time the information is needed.....
... not because someone is sitting there thinking and pulling out books and studying.
Does having your player roll what he already knows pre battle for each and every monster in the manuals sound like a good concept?
Imagine that you, yourself are the character (with all your DM knowledge). You see a Red Dragon and BOOM, it takes a second for you to recall: Breathes Fire, Fire Immune, High Natural Armor, Spell-Casting Capabilities, Flying.
Essentially this. A knowledge roll is not an action, but rather a way of resolving what it is that you already know.
If someone says "red dragon" I don't have to think for a second to know things about it, I just do. I can then communicate that knowledge.
There are various "think on it" types of abilities, and those *do* require actions, but they are the exception rather than the rule.
How does one account for those situations where you DO know something but you have a huge brain fart?
"Oh, man! That's a...! A uh... I know what it is! It's on the tip of my tongue! Tongue! It does something with its tongue! What though...?"
|
Yeah, knowledge checks seem over used these days, and in the worst cases by players wishing to circumvent having to think about things.
It gets worse with some players, "A wizard of my level would surely know that!"
Sometimes its just best to not ask for checks, make them secretly behind the screen, or allow one check but no more for certain things.
I'm still trying to figure out how to stop everyone from rolling knowledge checks everytime someone else does. I swear its like a contageous yawn. lol
Missing by 1 is a failure; AFAIK, you can't retry a knowledge check, and the results are black and white. You either know, or you know.
Our deal is that, while knowledge checks are free actions, perception checks to look something over in detail during combat take a move action. To get a proper read on something to gain type, resistances, vulnerabilities, special abilities, etc. you have to spend a moment examining the thing.
We also rule away the nonsense of black/white knowledge checks. You make a check every time you see a critter that you want to identify, with bonuses if you've met it before. You also automatically know information that would be gained from a minimum roll without rolling. So, if I've got a +10 to my Knowledge (Local), I get two automatic bits of information about goblins, without having to take a move action to learn them.
Missing by 1 is a failure; AFAIK, you can't retry a knowledge check, and the results are black and white. You either know, or you know.
"Try Again
No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something that you never learned in the first place."
I normally rule that when new information presents itself, you can retry later (usually much much later). After all, a Wizard who rolls at level 1 and fails to know about a Ghoul should have "learned" something as soon as they reach level 5 and have put new ranks in the knowledge. To be realistic, putting "ranks" in something IS supposed to represent you learning new things.
PS: Having something on the "tip of your tongue" is a state of failure, not knowing, and forgetting. It's a fail! I would give you another check much later on when you study the topic some more or talk with someone who knows more than you etc etc.
|
|
You wouldn't give them another check at two am, as they wake up from a deep sleep suddenly remembering the thing that they needed to know hours earlier? Cuz I make that kind of knowledge check all the time.
I believe that would be something done for the purposes of narrative. The rules can't cover everything.
@Foghammer: As Matthias_DM noted, if you can't remember then it's a failure, no matter how close you were to remembering. Failing by 1 would be very very close to remembering and would be a good point to describe being "on the tip of the tongue."
I've been toying with the idea of doing knowledge checks similar to passive perception checks in (I think) 4E. Basically, the characters would have a static Knowledge Score - same as if they took 10 on a knowledge check.
No rolls, just flat out compare the knowledge score to the DC.
I'm still not sure if it's something I want to implement, but it's a change I've been considering.
I can agree with the whole 'tip-of-the-tongue' is a state of failure point, but RAW is not forgiving. You know or you don't (I realized upon revisiting the thread that I accidentally omitted the word 'don't last time). There's no provisional statement that says "if you fail by less than 5, you remember the name of the creature 1d4 rounds later" or anything like that. It says that if you fail you don't know.
Rules don't cover everything, and I understand that. But rules as written do not allow you to actually know something and be unable to recall it. A failure represents a lack of that knowledge.
|
I was mostly kidding, but this thread has firmed up my ideas about Knowledge checks. It's not RAW, but this is the House Rules forum...
1) Knowledge (Local) can be used untrained, in a character's home region. (Not related to this thread, but annoys me.)
2) Certain traits can let character use other knowledge skills untrained (if a trait ties a character to a noble family, they can use Nobility, for example).
3) Characters can not fail a knowledge check with a DC lower than either their intelligence or their Knowledge score +10 (making checks easier at low levels and rewarding investment at higher levels).
4) Any character can make a monster knowledge check after 3 rounds of combat, using their base A, at a +5 DC. (If a combat is going for longer then three rounds, they should be able to work out how to beat the monster. Also, to end combat sooner.)
5) If a character misses a knowledge check by less than 5, they get the creature's name, basic information and possibly story 1d4 hours later, while they're doing something else.
6) A characters make make one knowledge check per turn as a free action, but if the character takes a full-round action to study the creature they may make a check (or another check) at a +10.
Ideally, this will make monster knowledge checks more useful, and get the players more of the monsters' stories. Without the story, the monsters tend to be floating stat blocks with treasure, and I hate for players to miss out on a cool story just because they failed their knowledge check (or because no one took dungeroneering). This may only work for my game, since some people have players who actually remember to make knowledge checks from time to time. My players? Not so much.