The book may not say how much knowledge you have but you aren't free to give yourself any knowledge you want, that is why the mechanics for Knowledge skills are designed to be used during actual in game engaging. You could in theory say your character knows everything there is not know in the world but you are still limited by the roll of the dice and this is no different. it is not about crippling anything it is about playing the rules. Last time I checked, metagaming when it wasn't necessary is a big no no. I am fully aware of the 2 spells per level but read it very closely, you don't get to choose those spells until you reach the next level, you can't pick those spells ahead of time. Now you might be able to in your mind and when the time comes for you to choose the DM can't question you because the rules dictate that you get to choose your spells but you can't use the knowledge of future spells in order to help you in the now. It's metagaming now matter how you try and justify it.
Saying a character knows everything about the world is a far stretch from getting two spells you want at level up.
Just to make sure we are clear a player should not plan his character build ahead of time at all. If he needs to get into PrC X he just has to hope he got lucky and picked feats and skills that work as an example.
Actually the wizard(character) does not gain those spells until he levels up. It says nothing about choice at the at the time of level up. Furthermore the book says those spells are assumed to be spells the wizard has been researching so obviously he had to know about them ahead of time.
edit:
For reference again
Spells Gained at a New Level: Wizards perform a certain amount of spell research between adventures. Each time a character attains a new wizard level, he gains two spells of his choice to add to his spellbook. The two free spells must be of spell levels he can cast. If he has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, one of the two free spells must be from his specialty school.
The wizard is researching the spells that the player chose. :)
So, Shallowsoul, first question: Do you require a Knowledge (Arcana) check to determine if a particular character is aware of a particular arcane spell? ("Aware of" being the operative words -- I'm not talking about a character identifying a particular spell as it's being cast, which is covered by the rules.) If so, what's the DC?
Second question: Does an arcane caster need to succeed on this check in order to be aware of a spell's existence, and thus be able to add it to his spellbook or list of spells known?
Assuming you answered yes to both of the above: Have you ever had a wizard or sorcerer in any of your games who were untrained in Knowledge (Arcana)? If so, were they able to cast first-level spells?
You have a very strange way of playing.
Now there's an understatement.
|
Table 4–6: Knowledge Skill DCs
Task Knowledge Skill DC
Identify auras while using detect magic Arcana 15 + spell level
Identify a spell effect that is in place Arcana 20 + spell level
Identify materials manufactured by magic Arcana 20 + spell level
Identify a spell that just targeted you Arcana 25 + spell level
Identify the spells cast using a specific material component Arcana 20All of these indicate that you must actively be engaging with something in game.
I know a wolf spider exists. I've seen pictures of them in books. I don't need to make a check to know that one exists. I only need to make a check to know if the one crawling on my arm is a wolf spider.
The book may not say how much knowledge you have but you aren't free to give yourself any knowledge you want, that is why the mechanics for Knowledge skills are designed to be used during actual in game engaging. You could in theory say your character knows everything there is not know in the world but you are still limited by the roll of the dice and this is no different. it is not about crippling anything it is about playing the rules. Last time I checked, metagaming when it wasn't necessary is a big no no. I am fully aware of the 2 spells per level but read it very closely, you don't get to choose those spells until you reach the next level, you can't pick those spells ahead of time. Now you might be able to in your mind and when the time comes for you to choose the DM can't question you because the rules dictate that you get to choose your spells but you can't use the knowledge of future spells in order to help you in the now. It's metagaming now matter how you try and justify it.
If I were to just read this post, I'd say... this guy knows what he's talking about. I would agree with your interpretations of this in most regards, except possibly that the wizard researching takes time and therefore would be happening prior to the level up. That wouldn't take away from your interpretation too much though.
What REALLY throws this off is what you were saying prior to this post. You were saying that you can't even make those Knowledge checks because asking to make a Knowledge check is meta-gaming. This throws a huge hole in the dependence on Knowledge checks that you stated above. Either you changed your mind and are allowing Knowledge checks to happen, or the real issue isn't being addressed. The real issue is, if you are going to use Knowledge checks to determine what a character knows (as you should), then these checks should be getting rolled, often, and even at the player's request.
The character doesn't know that he needs to know... he just knows because he knows, or doesn't know because he doesn't. This isn't meta-gaming to have the player ask to find out which is these is true.
|
A player asking to roll to determine the extent of character knowledge is definitely not metagaming -- in fact, it's avoiding metagaming. Once the player rolls, the results of the knowledge check can be used to determine what the character knows. Thus, the player will not use knowledge beyond what the character should have when making decisions. Matagaming averted.
There are all kinds of analogies that can be applied from the real world to the in-game prospect of using knowledge without actually facing whatever it is you're talking about. Physicists and astronomers constantly use theory to make determinations on things that no one has ever encountered. If science had to wait for a human to interact with something before being useful, we'd likely still be using 1930s technology, or worse. In game, I always treat magic similar to a science, with theory and application. Wizards can talk about things far beyond their ability to perform in the same way a chemist can determine the result of a reaction without access to a sophisticated lab. Or the way a physicist without a particle accelerator can read about smashing atoms together and discuss the results and the next step with his peers.
Along those lines, I'd allow a Knowledge (Arcana) check to see if a caster knows anything at all about the theory behind a particular spell. For example, a wizard who hasn't studied Fireball may well still know the fundamentals of fire spells and understand how to go about devising the spell, even if he never does it. I'd also allow a Spellcraft check to see if the wizard actually knows anything at all about the Fireball spell. Perhaps the wizard had seen one in the past, or perhaps the casual research that all wizards do as they level has led him far enough along the path of Fireball that he can recognize it, even if he opted to finish other spells instead.
|
So do I have to make a knowledge arcana check to know that shield of faith is on my spell list before I prepare it?
Seriously , what state are you in, I just want to steer clear of it.
Cleric spells don't function like Wizard spells. You don't purchase cleric spells, they are granted to you by your deity.
|
|
A player asking to roll to determine the extent of character knowledge is definitely not metagaming -- in fact, it's avoiding metagaming. Once the player rolls, the results of the knowledge check can be used to determine what the character knows. Thus, the player will not use knowledge beyond what the character should have when making decisions. Matagaming averted.
There are all kinds of analogies that can be applied from the real world to the in-game prospect of using knowledge without actually facing whatever it is you're talking about. Physicists and astronomers constantly use theory to make determinations on things that no one has ever encountered. If science had to wait for a human to interact with something before being useful, we'd likely still be using 1930s technology, or worse. In game, I always treat magic similar to a science, with theory and application. Wizards can talk about things far beyond their ability to perform in the same way a chemist can determine the result of a reaction without access to a sophisticated lab. Or the way a physicist without a particle accelerator can read about smashing atoms together and discuss the results and the next step with his peers.
Along those lines, I'd allow a Knowledge (Arcana) check to see if a caster knows anything at all about the theory behind a particular spell. For example, a wizard who hasn't studied Fireball may well still know the fundamentals of fire spells and understand how to go about devising the spell, even if he never does it. I'd also allow a Spellcraft check to see if the wizard actually knows anything at all about the Fireball spell. Perhaps the wizard had seen one in the past, or perhaps the casual research that all wizards do as they level has led him far enough along the path of Fireball that he can recognize it, even if he opted to finish other spells instead.
It's not metagaming as long as the PC is actually interacting with the world. Sitting at home after a game and saying you want to roll a Knowledge to see if you can have the knowledge of spells XY and Z because they are needed for this cool new item that you read about in a supplement is metagaming.
Ever notice how in the DC charts for Knowledge Arcana and dealings with spells how it's all done with PC interaction?
Could it not be said that while the player just found out about this cool new item that he read about in a supplement, his character knew about it all along?
Therefore, in this sense, it's reverse meta-gaming. The character knew about it before the player did. =^.^=
|
|
The book may not say how much knowledge you have but you aren't free to give yourself any knowledge you want, that is why the mechanics for Knowledge skills are designed to be used during actual in game engaging. You could in theory say your character knows everything there is not know in the world but you are still limited by the roll of the dice and this is no different. it is not about crippling anything it is about playing the rules. Last time I checked, metagaming when it wasn't necessary is a big no no. I am fully aware of the 2 spells per level but read it very closely, you don't get to choose those spells until you reach the next level, you can't pick those spells ahead of time. Now you might be able to in your mind and when the time comes for you to choose the DM can't question you because the rules dictate that you get to choose your spells but you can't use the knowledge of future spells in order to help you in the now. It's metagaming now matter how you try and justify it.Saying a character knows everything about the world is a far stretch from getting two spells you want at level up.
Just to make sure we are clear a player should not plan his character build ahead of time at all. If he needs to get into PrC X he just has to hope he got lucky and picked feats and skills that work as an example.
Actually the wizard(character) does not gain those spells until he levels up. It says nothing about choice at the at the time of level up. Furthermore the book says those spells are assumed to be spells the wizard has been researching so obviously he had to know about them ahead of time.
edit:
For reference again
Spells Gained at a New Level: Wizards perform a certain amount of spell research between adventures. Each time a character attains a new wizard level, he gains two spells of his choice to add to his spellbook. The two free spells must be of spell levels he can cast. If he has chosen to specialize in a school...
Which limits you to 2 spells. If you are going to say you have Knowledge of Fireball and have been researching it then when you level up one of your two spells better be Fireball.
If you are playing a Wizard and you approach me with a list of spells that just came out in a new supplement then I am going to ask you how does your character know about the existence of these spells? Now if you want those to be your 2 per level then that's fine but anything beyond that won't fly with me.
|
|
Could it not be said that while the player just found out about this cool new item that he read about in a supplement, his character knew about it all along?
Therefore, in this sense, it's reverse meta-gaming. The character knew about it before the player did. =^.^=
That's metagaming. That is using your knowledge and not the actual PC's knowledge. There is a reason why we have Knowledge skills and why they are all set up to be used with actual in game interaction.
Why stop there? Why not just say you have the knowledge of all spells, present and future and all magic items?
Yeah, but you have to roll to see if you know shield of faith is a cleric spell and that your deity grants it. Otherwise you can't prepare it.Clerics and druids don't work the same way as Wizards.
Yeah TOZ don't you know you ask your diety for in the morning but if you haven't then don't go to the store and ask for scrolls of it until you at least prepare it.
|
|
Yeah, but you have to roll to see if you know shield of faith is a cleric spell and that your deity grants it. Otherwise you can't prepare it.Clerics and druids don't work the same way as Wizards.
You can't ask to prepare a spell you don't know about. Unless your deity runs down the list for you, it's metagaming.
That's metagaming. That is using your knowledge and not the actual PC's knowledge. There is a reason why we have Knowledge skills and why they are all set up to be used with actual in game interaction.
Well, that's my point! Roll dem bones! The next time that players sit at the table, he should get his rolls. I mean, you're letting them level their character outside of the game, but you won't let them roll their appropriate skills? The knowledge skill should be rolled, but you were saying that you would forbid it.
Which limits you to 2 spells. If you are going to say you have Knowledge of Fireball and have been researching it then when you level up one of your two spells better be Fireball.
If you are playing a Wizard and you approach me with a list of spells that just came out in a new supplement then I am going to ask you how does your character know about the existence of these spells? Now if you want those to be your 2 per level then that's fine but anything beyond that won't fly with me.
Maybe the character does not know the name of those spells. Maybe he(the character) just wants a spell that does X. Since each wizard has to decipher another wizard's writing anyway maybe fireball is the most common way to throw fire at people so he comes up with the same spell as some wizard far away, even if he writes it down differently.
As an example if I give a bunch of programmers the goal of making me a program that does X they one might do it using 500 lines of code, and another might do it using only 350 lines of code. One might write in C++, and another might use BASIC(not yelling).
What really matters is that the wizard/programmer achieves the desired affect. I figured if the spells were as easy as learning the names the research would not be necessary.
Could it not be said that while the player just found out about this cool new item that he read about in a supplement, his character knew about it all along?
Therefore, in this sense, it's reverse meta-gaming. The character knew about it before the player did. =^.^=
That's metagaming. That is using your knowledge and not the actual PC's knowledge. There is a reason why we have Knowledge skills and why they are all set up to be used with actual in game interaction.
Why stop there? Why not just say you have the knowledge of all spells, present and future and all magic items?
As I said before the game does not assume your player does not know anything when it comes to character building. This information was in the player's handbook for a reason in 3.5 instead of the GM's guide. Do you make them roll for their spells at character creation also?
How do players learn spells in your game if they don't take knowledge arcana. Note that the rules say nothing about it being a requirement and neither does PFS. How do sorcerers learn new spells or is it only wizards and witches that have to deal with this. If so what rules support this interpretation? Sorcerers don't even get to research spells. Does the GM get to choose their spells at random?<--I have seen that argument before also. By RAW it never even says the sorcerer gets to choose which spells they learn. It does say they can choose to replace a new spell with an old spell at every 4th level, but it saying the get to choose to get rid of an old spell, can choosing the replacement spell are not the same thing.
Example:I might pull an 8 if I am playing 21. If I don't like the 8 I get to choose another card. That does not mean I get to determine what that next card is.
Why are you only focusing on spells. I have heard the same argument with regards to feats and magic items. You still have yet to say where the book say divine casters know all of their deity's spells. The book only they(prepared divine casters) can choose any spell, just like it says a wizard can choose any spell. Just like the wizard the book never says all the spells are known to the cleric as an example.
You can't ask to prepare a spell you don't know about. Unless your deity runs down the list for you, it's metagaming.Yeah, but you have to roll to see if you know shield of faith is a cleric spell and that your deity grants it. Otherwise you can't prepare it.Clerics and druids don't work the same way as Wizards.
Wrought, so much wrought! *faints*
|
And since you cant ask your deity about a spell you don't know about, and can't talk to your deity before you get Commune, clerics clearly can't cast any spells before 9th level, unless a higher level cleric tells their character about it in game. And then the player has to hope that higher level cleric wasn't punking them , and they didn't waste their slot asking their deity for a spell that doesn't exist.
Eh, never been a problem for me or any of my players. Everybody be chill. It's like... a game yo.
Ever notice how in the DC charts for Knowledge Arcana and dealings with spells how it's all done with PC interaction?
Interestingly enough, "Know that a spell exists" is not on that chart.
The chart only covers identifying auras, identifying spells that are already in place, identifying things that were made with magic, and identifying spell that are currently being cast.
If you are playing a Wizard and you approach me with a list of spells that just came out in a new supplement then I am going to ask you how does your character know about the existence of these spells?
You keep using this example. Has this actually happened? Has one of your players brought you a list of spells from a new book? What was he expecting to happen? Was he asking if the magic shoppe has scrolls of these spells? Was he asking if there's a friendly wizard that knows any of these spells? Those are all perfectly valid questions and expectations. There's no way the player (or the wizard) could possibly know about them before that book came out, because they didn't exist.
Why not just say you have the knowledge of all spells, present and future and all magic items?
Honest question: What difference would it make?
Say the player goes home and picks up his copy of Ultimate Earrings, he flips to page 184 and finds the Earring of Perception. He decides he wants his wizard character to craft one. To do so, he needs the Craft Wondrous Item feat, and the spell "Sharp Ears."
So in order to make the item, he's got to prepare Sharp Ears. And his wizard doesn't know that spell.
So either
A) He chooses Sharp Ears as one of his two researched spells at level up (No knowledge check needed, RAW)
or
B) He goes to a shop and they have a Scroll of Sharp Ears which he purchases, deciphers, and scribes (No knowledge check needed, RAW)
or
C) He finds a friendly wizard who knows Sharp Ears, and is willing to let him study his spellbook (for a price). He pays to borrow the book, deciphers, and scribes (No knowledge check needed, RAW)
The only way it could possibly be relevant for him to know about the spell without having ever encountered it is if he wanted to make the item without the spell. Which he can do, by adding 5 to the DC. In this case, he doesn't need to know the spell exists. Just "Hey, my earring could make me hear stuff better. Hrm, I need magic to make it hear stuff, but I don't know a spell like that. It'll be tough, but I'll just do without the spell and rely on my talent."
As an example if I give a bunch of programmers the goal of making me a program that does X they one might do it using 500 lines of code, and another might do it using only 350 lines of code. One might write in C++, and another might use BASIC(not yelling).
My spells are all in FORTRAN or PL/SQL (also not yelling).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem I see is that you are taking "meta-gaming" to such an extreme that the game becomes impossible to play due to circular reasoning.
Your PC's fight a troll, and have to retreat because they have no fire or acid. (which they successfully rolled a knowledge check to find out)
Back in town they are totally screwed. Since they haven't encounterd any magical fire yet *they don't know it exists*. And since they dont' know it exists they can't roll to figure it out- because asking about it at all is metagaming.
So they need to find out about fire but have no mechanism to do so because the very asking is metagaming.
Player:"Do I know about fireball?"
DM: "what makes you think you should? thats metagaming, you can't ask that"
player: *smacks DM with book a few times*
Knowledge skills exist for *playerS* to differentiate what *we* know from what our *players* know.
My witch, the one I'm playing right now, is smarter than me by several notches on the IQ slider. By lots of 'em actually. However, I've read all the books- and he hasn't.
I have one way to differentiate the two: I talk to the DM about knowledge rolls. Does my character know X? Does he know Y?
By your interpretation he only knows things he's already come across.
Does that not sound somewhat silly to you?
Keep in mind that by your own interpretation:
I, the player, have never heard of a red dragon because I've never encountered one.
I've never heard of a jabberwock because I've never encountered one.
I've never heard of a werewolf because I've never heard of one.
Despite the fact that I've read about all of them- some of them extensively- and the fact that *none of them exist in the real world*.
You are taking the raw to the extreme, to become an impossible argument where someone literally knows nothing until it slaps them ingame. Then they either know everything about it or nothing. Literally "wow never knew anything about red dragons before until JUST NOW!".. which makes no sense.
So little sense that the rule can't possibly be that way. It just can't. That is what folks are trying to get across to you.
Knowledge checks represent what your character has found out about the world from being in that world. The wizard doesn't have to be hit with fireball to know what fireball is because the game assumes that the wizard talks to other wizards, to other people, that everyone in world is talking to people, hearing stories, and that they even might know things above their pay grade.
Compare these two scenarios:
The PC's are walking along a forest road when they see a shadow cross directly where they are walking. They look up and see a large flying shape. a couple of perception checks later, they realize two things:
its a dragon. and its red.
Now, the PC's roll a knowledge check and.. nope, sorry.. they know nothing about it.
They look at each other and shrug.. sorry guys never heard of those before. Oh well, they keep riding and ignore it.
vs.
The PC's are walking along a forest road when they see a shadow cross directly where they are walking. They look up and see a large flying shape. a couple of perception checks later, they realize two things:
its a dragon. and its red.
Now, the PC's roll a knowledge check and.. nope, sorry.. they know nothing about it *mechanically*.
They do, however, know that red dragons exist in the game world. They probably know it breathes fire (even without a knowledge check) but absent a bardic roll o something all they know is thats a red dragon and they need to hide- though its probably already too late for that. They dive off into the woods, looking at each other in despair.. very much afraid that this is the Big Red that's been haunting the nearby mountain range.. and that they are its next meal.
Your interpretation of the knowledge rules completely negates the *far* more interesting 2nd scenario there and renders the PC's oblivious to the world that they live in.
-S
My spells are all in FORTRAN or PL/SQL (also not yelling).As an example if I give a bunch of programmers the goal of making me a program that does X they one might do it using 500 lines of code, and another might do it using only 350 lines of code. One might write in C++, and another might use BASIC(not yelling).
I really was not yelling. That is always how I see it written. I did not want someone to try to argue semantics with me because I put it in lower case letters.
I used the word "automobile" instead of "SUV" once and the other poster became intentionally obtuse. I try not to give people much leeway after that.
I removed some posts. Can we not make things so personal?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spells : A cleric casts divine spells which are drawn from the cleric spell list presented in Spell Lists . Her alignment , however, may restrict her from casting certain spells opposed to her moral or ethical beliefs; see chaotic, evil, good, and lawful spells . A cleric must choose and prepare her spells in advance.
To prepare or cast a spell, a cleric must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a cleric's spell is 10 + the spell level + the cleric's Wisdom modifier.
Like other spellcasters, a cleric can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table: Cleric . In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Wisdom score (see Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells ).
Clerics meditate or pray for their spells. Each cleric must choose a time when she must spend 1 hour each day in quiet contemplation or supplication to regain her daily allotment of spells. A cleric may prepare and cast any spell on the cleric spell list, provided that she can cast spells of that level, but she must choose which spells to prepare during her daily meditation.
By RAW, Clerics do not know any spells.
I am so confused.
Why am i here?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there's any point in continuing to belabour the point. We've all provided examples of why the OP's position is absurd, but he / she isn't engaging with any of the arguments beyond the repetition of 'that's metagaming.' Clearly they've argued their case against their players so much that it has become inviolable and impervious to all reason or appeal. I'm not sure what would persuade them - clearly they want a developer to step in and state the official position, but I honestly have no idea how any argument could be advanced that hasn't been already, beyond 'you're wrong.'
I think I'm done here.
I see a knowledge roll as one of two things:
1) A roll to permit player knowledge to become character knowledge ("I know it's a red dragon, but does my character?")
2) A roll to permit character knowledge to become player knowledge ("My character's heard the name of the king of our neighboring country. I need to know that.")
On a failed check, the knowledge doesn't transfer. The character fails to remember the pertinent facts, which means that either they can't act on the player's metagame knowledge (1) or the player can't find the answer they want (2).
|
|
I don't think there's any point in continuing to belabour the point. We've all provided examples of why the OP's position is absurd, but he / she isn't engaging with any of the arguments beyond the repetition of 'that's metagaming.' Clearly they've argued their case against their players so much that it has become inviolable and impervious to all reason or appeal. I'm not sure what would persuade them - clearly they want a developer to step in and state the official position, but I honestly have no idea how any argument could be advanced that hasn't been already, beyond 'you're wrong.'
I think I'm done here.
All that has been presented is your opinion on why you think it is absurd. Nobody has yet to prove that I am wrong though.
|
|
The problem I see is that you are taking "meta-gaming" to such an extreme that the game becomes impossible to play due to circular reasoning.
Hold on a moment! I haven't stated anything that makes the game impossible. What I have stated actually makes sense.
If you approach a scroll vender and "you" the player start telling the DM that you would like to buy spells ABCDEF and G. Now the DM asks you how on earth do you know about these spells since you have never seen them in action nor have you ever mentioned them.
The player responds with a "Can I make a Knowledge Arcana check to see if my wizard will know about these spells?" DM responds with a no because that is not how the skill works.
The DM then tells you that you could talk with him after the game about maybe having another vender carry the spells that you would like to purchase and that vender offer them to you when you ask what spells do you carry.
The problem I see is that you are taking "meta-gaming" to such an extreme that the game becomes impossible to play due to circular reasoning.
Hold on a moment! I haven't stated anything that makes the game impossible. What I have stated actually makes sense.
If you approach a scroll vender and "you" the player start telling the DM that you would like to buy spells ABCDEF and G. Now the DM asks you how on earth do you know about these spells since you have never seen them in action nor have you ever mentioned them.
The player responds with a "Can I make a Knowledge Arcana check to see if my wizard will know about these spells?" DM responds with a no because that is not how the skill works.
The DM then tells you that you could talk with him after the game about maybe having another vender carry the spells that you would like to purchase and that vender offer them to you when you ask what spells do you carry.
It makes sense to you because what you call metagaming and what we call metagaming are not the same. I also applied your theory to other classes, and showed how it does not work with them either, but you did not reply. Maybe you did not see it though.
PS:It may have been in the other thread.
The player responds with a "Can I make a Knowledge Arcana check to see if my wizard will know about these spells?" DM responds with a no because that is not how the skill works.
DM responds with a yes because that is exactly how the skill works.
You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions.
All that has been presented is your opinion on why you think it is absurd. Nobody has yet to prove that I am wrong though.
Hey! I've seen you say this in three completely separate threads so far! It's like your catch phrase!
There's something about that picture of Raistlin that screams your personality, just can't quite put my finger on it.
You know what? I think we're done here. This thread is going in circles.
I've removed some posts.