| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like others have said, if it took away from the fun of the table, then it shouldn't have happened.
This is a platitude. It isn't actually anything that rises to the level of "advice" or "guidance."
It's just something that sounds nice to say.
It's much better to tell the DM he should quit forever and switch to board games.
AD I know that's not you, you were constructive through the whole thread, and right on point.
i wouldnt call it metagaming when a player see an action then makes a check in responce to that action. i think that was you trying to prevent what you thought was metagaming.
in my opinion i think that if he saw the vrock and said" im going to make a check to know that they can do a dance that will pwn the party!" thats meta gaming, but since he saw them dancing, his character said "i think ive heard of vrocks doing this, what was it" so if he did beat that dc i think he should have got the dance ability not a random roll.
I CANT STAND METAGAMING AT MY TABLES!, with that being said, he was rolling in responce, similar to a spell craft type check. and i would have given him what the dance was.
after rereading the initial post, i would have given a second check to identify the dance, it seems to me that what the player said, and what the player ment were different. it seems to me that he wanted to know what the creatures were, then more specifically wanted to know what the dance was.
The adventure specifically calls out the frocks as summoning drenches to bombard pcs from the air so everyone please stop blaming op for that. It's written by Greg Vaughn, one of the most prolific adventure authors, frequent contributor to Paizo AP's, so pretty damn official, and it's his opus. So chill. It's meant to be hard. You dies and you fool new characters in this campaign.And he's wrong. Not only is it against RAW (twice!), it's against RAI and fairness.
I'll tell him so to his face if he posts here.
What is the name of this module?
DM- you made two bad calls here. But yes, you're doing the right thing.
Slumbering Tsar Saga
Greg Vaughn
No problem. That's a bad call on the Dev's part to go against the RAW like that- against the players. And justifying it by a warning them that's it's a deadly game? Bullhockey. What are the players going to do? "OH, a deadly game. No thanks Mr DM". Right. Heck I went down into TOH multiple times and even finished the WLD. But still, both of those products have serious issues.
It's much better to tell the DM he should quit forever and switch to board games.
Really? I hope this was meant in some form of /sarcasm or /humor ...
It's not for everyone. I think the author said when he play tested it in his home game there were 18 deaths before the campaign was concluded? Something crazy like that.
The book has 8 pages in the back reserved for obituaries.
It's much better to tell the DM he should quit forever and switch to board games.Really? I hope this was meant in some form of /sarcasm or /humor ...
Totally. A couple of the posts on the first page were approaching this level of rabid nerd rage.
Quantum Steve, that is not how you use Knowledge to identify creature abilities. I am pretty sure the text from the rulebook on that use of Knowledge (planes) has been quoted a dozen times in this thread. Your example would be for a question like "where is the nearest portal to the plane of fire" or some other plane related question, not for creature ID. They have these two different uses of knowledge, and describe how to use the skill in both instances.
FACT: "What are those things(Vrocks) and why are they dancing?" is a question related to Knowledge(Planes).
FACT:RAW, Knowledge answers a question related to a field of study.
FACT: RAW, Knowledge can also be used to identify creatures.
Are you actually arguing that a question cant fall under both categories? Because I can show you one that does.
And for the record, that use of Knowledge (planes) has been quoted exactly once in this thread, by me.
No problem. That's a bad call on the Dev's part to go against the RAW like that- against the players. And justifying it by a warning them that's it's a deadly game? Bullhockey. What are the players going to do? "OH, a deadly game. No thanks Mr DM". Right. Heck I went down into TOH multiple times and even finished the WLD. But still, both of those products have serious issues.The adventure specifically calls out the frocks as summoning drenches to bombard pcs from the air so everyone please stop blaming op for that. It's written by Greg Vaughn, one of the most prolific adventure authors, frequent contributor to Paizo AP's, so pretty damn official, and it's his opus. So chill. It's meant to be hard. You dies and you fool new characters in this campaign.And he's wrong. Not only is it against RAW (twice!), it's against RAI and fairness.
I'll tell him so to his face if he posts here.
What is the name of this module?
DM- you made two bad calls here. But yes, you're doing the right thing.
Slumbering Tsar Saga
Greg Vaughn
It is not bad to go against RAW, if you want to change a creature's abilities, as a GM, to adjust them for an encounter that is not breaking the rules. If it did not increase the CR of the creatures, which I am convinced it did not, than it is perfectly legal as stated in the encounter.
Quantum Steve, that is not how you use Knowledge to identify creature abilities. I am pretty sure the text from the rulebook on that use of Knowledge (planes) has been quoted a dozen times in this thread. Your example would be for a question like "where is the nearest portal to the plane of fire" or some other plane related question, not for creature ID. They have these two different uses of knowledge, and describe how to use the skill in both instances.FACT: "What are those things(Vrocks) and why are they dancing?" is a question related to Knowledge(Planes).
FACT:RAW, Knowledge answers a question related to a field of study.
FACT: RAW, Knowledge can also be used to identify creatures.
Are you actually arguing that a question cant fall under both categories? Because I can show you one that does.
And for the record, that use of Knowledge (planes) has been quoted exactly once in this thread, by me.
Yet there is a separate guideline about creature's related to the subject at hand. The fact that the roll was a partial 'succes' was infact based on the guidelines for creature knowledge and it seems that both the GM and player were using those guidelines to determine succes.
The knowledge skill is vague enough in it's execution that they can hardly be called out as solid rules, needing someone to adjucate the use of the skill. Now you might be convinced that the GM did it wrong, I do not believe that, a DC 22 check is not a great roll and most people would have ruled that an outright failure.
Perhaps the GM should have set a DC before the player rolled instead, maybe at DC 25, maybe at 30. It doesn't seem like the GM handled the encounter terribly though, minor glitches that could be done better, saying the GM f*cked up means that 80/90% of the encounters over level 7 gets f*cked up, by players or by GMs. minor mistakes are part of the game, were they bad enough to undo what happened ? I don't think so.
Yet there is a separate guideline about creature's related to the subject at hand. The fact that the roll was a partial 'succes' was infact based on the guidelines for creature knowledge and it seems that both the GM and player were using those guidelines to determine succes.
The knowledge skill is vague enough in it's execution that they can hardly be called out as solid rules, needing someone to adjucate the use of the skill. Now you might be convinced that the GM did it wrong, I do not believe that, a DC 22 check is not a great roll and most people would have ruled that an outright failure.
Perhaps the GM should have set a DC before the player rolled instead, maybe at DC 25, maybe at 30. It doesn't seem like the GM handled the encounter terribly though, minor glitches that could be done better, saying the GM f*cked up means that 80/90% of the encounters over level 7 gets f*cked up, by players or by GMs. minor mistakes are part of the game, were they bad enough to undo what happened ? I don't think so.
So if a specific question is about a creature, a knowledge check cannot answer it because the are already rule for gaining general, unspecific information about a creature? That doesn't make sense.
What if I wanted to know if the Mayor of Town had a mistress? Would a knowledge check get me info about the humanoid creature type?
Also, what "partial success"?
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities... 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.
If you beat the DC, that's a success. Just because you can get different results with a higher check doesn't make a success not a success.
Disable Device has a different result with a higher check. If a Rogue doesn't beat a trap's DC by 10 would you have it go off in their face?
Just because the PC wanted to know specifically what was the dance, doesn't mean he knew it even if he made the check. He just knows some things and doesn't know others. Of course the DM could throw a bone to him and tell him what the dance was, but he didn't have to.
Would you say the same thing if the PC asked any other question and made a successful check?
There are rules for gaining general, unspecified info about a creature. There are also rule for getting specific answers to specific questions.
Quantum Steve, the book gives two different processes, and the one in question here is pretty clearly an example of "identifying monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities". Here is what the Core Rulebook has to say:
• Planes (the Inner Planes, the Outer Planes, the Astral
Plane, the Ethereal Plane, outsiders, planar magic)
(These would be topics to ask questions about)
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).
(Some examples for each difficulty are suggested by the book and listed below)
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 4–6.
(Vrock would take a 19 just to identify and get one bit of useful information. The 22 would give no more than that)
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.
(For all those who said since a Knowledge Check does not count as an action, you should just spam it to learn everything)
Know the names of the planes Planes 10
Recognize current plane Planes 15
Identify a creature’s planar origin Planes 20
(This is their guideline for easy basic and difficult planar related questions)
I keep a list on my players, detailing the order in which they research about monsters, for instance, the ranger studied monsters firstly looking to see what weapons are least effective(DR), whereas when the wizard studies creatures, he first looks at how they interact with fire.
Prevents metagame or me holding out vital info.
If the roll is high enough, or if there are multiple abilities, I roll.
Quantum Steve, the book gives two different processes, and the one in question here is pretty clearly an example of "identifying monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities".
Really, I would say "Why are they dancing?" is pretty clearly a question related to a Knowledge(Planes). Vrocks, as outsiders, would be covered under.
Do disagree that "Why are they dancing?" is a question related to a Knowledge(Planes)? If so, what field of study would the question be related to?
Know the names of the planes Planes 10
Recognize current plane Planes 15
Identify a creature’s planar origin Planes 20
(This is their guideline for easy basic and difficult planar related questions)
You, of course, realize this isn't an exhaustive list, right?
Let's look at this from another view.
Let's say they're not Vrocks. It doesn't matter what they are, what matters is they're dancing, they're dancing for a reason, and that reason is generally known to at least a small percentage of the population.
The question "Why are they dancing?" has an answer, and that answer should be answerable by a related knowledge check.
Why does this statement suddenly become not a question if a creature ability comes into play?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to your question of "Why are they dancing?" I'd say to the player "You don't know".
So, if someone makes a successful knowledge check, you would answer their question with "I don't know"? That seems to be just a little bit blatantly contrary to RAW.
As to your question of "Why are they dancing?" I'd say to the player "You don't know".
So, if someone makes a successful knowledge check, you would answer their question with "I don't know"? That seems to be just a little bit blatantly contrary to RAW.
Not at all. The player makes a check, gets a 22. DC 19 gets them what the creature is and some useful information.
At DC 19 I'd give them the name/type of the creature and general info they know about the creature type, plus one of their abilities. In this case the OP gave them the screech ability (chosen randomly). That is all the knowledge he has about these creatures from his studies. His studies didn't give him any knowledge about their dance ability, so he doesn't know anything about it.
That's what you get if you try to identify a creature. If you ask a *specific* question, you get the answer.
Let me make a real life example. If you were to read my facebook page and found out that I like the Pathfinder RPG, Futurama and Ranma 1/2. That's the extent you'd know about me from study. You would't know that I'm a fan of Star Trek or comics as I haven't posted that. It's just not knowledge you've come across.
So if I were to ask, "Does Flintas like Star Trek?" I would have failed my knowledge check because I do not know the answer.
Likewise, if I were to ask, "Does Flintas like Pathfinder?" and succeed my check. I would get the answer, not "Flintas likes Futurama."
The knowledge of the specific question you want to ask is based on what you know about the creature. If I just started to dance in the middle of the street, you'd have no idea why. You'd need to know something about me to know why I did it.
That's what the knowledge check is for, to see if I know why you did it.
I actually know quite a bit about street dancers. I make a knowledge (Street Dancing) check to see if I know why you're dancing. If I succeed the check, I know why your dancing.Edit: If I didn't particularly care why you were dancing, and just wanted to find out what I know about you, as a street Dancer, I would get bits of info based on how high I rolled. Different use of the skill.
The question "Why are they dancing?" has an answer, and that answer should be answerable by a related knowledge check.
Sure about that one? Strictly speaking...
."What kind of dance is this?" is something that unamigiously calls for a Knowledge check.
"Why are they dancing?" might as well cause a Sense Motice check, possibly resulting in "They're up to something, you can almost feel their anticipation."
The question "Why are they dancing?" has an answer, and that answer should be answerable by a related knowledge check.Sure about that one? Strictly speaking...
.
"What kind of dance is this?" is something that unamigiously calls for a Knowledge check.
"Why are they dancing?" might as well cause a Sense Motice check, possibly resulting in "They're up to something, you can almost feel their anticipation."
Read my whole post.
what matters is they're dancing, they're dancing for a reason, and that reason is generally known to at least a small percentage of the population.
Pivotal to may example is that they're dancing for an established reason. One that is known.
Pedantry aside, the Vrocks are dancing for an established reason: To cause some ruin; and that reason is documented well enough that a character might have come across it in their studies.
I somehow doubt that you'd know WHY I was dancing just because you know about street dancing. You may know what the dance is, where it originates, what it's about, even how to do the dance, but that doesn't mean that you know what would possess me to start dancing in the first place. For that's, again, you'd need to know something about me.
If I read about why you dance in a book, or heard about it from a mutual friend, or just through the grapevine then I would know why you're dancing. That's what a knowledge check represents.
Read my whole post.
Actually, I did.
Pedantry aside, the Vrocks are dancing for an established reason: To cause some ruin; and that reason is documented well enough that a character might have come across it in their studies.
Might. Might not. Might fail to remember that detail in the heat of combat.
You call the roll a successful Knowledge check. May I ask why? In my opinion, the GM is perfectly within his rights to call knowledge about this Dance of Ruin (which IIRC is an ability specifically tied to one type of creature) to be more obscure than 'being able to determine a creature's planar origin', moving the DC past the 22 the player achieved.
Pedantry aside, the Vrocks are dancing for an established reason: To cause some ruin; and that reason is documented well enough that a character might have come across it in their studies.Might. Might not. Might fail to remember that detail in the heat of combat.
That's what the check is for.
In my opinion, the GM is perfectly within his rights to call knowledge about this Dance of Ruin (which IIRC is an ability specifically tied to one type of creature) to be more obscure than 'being able to determine a creature's planar origin', moving the DC past the 22 the player achieved.
The GM can do whatever he wants.
The DC for this specific question isn't listed anywhere, but the DC for an extremely similar, (arguably identical), use of the skill is given.
A DM could set the DC to whatever he wants, but most would use the similar DC.
I think setting the DC for one bit of info more than 3 higher than the DC for one bit of info is a dick move.
As to your question of "Why are they dancing?" I'd say to the player "You don't know".
So, if someone makes a successful knowledge check, you would answer their question with "I don't know"? That seems to be just a little bit blatantly contrary to RAW.
Not at all. The player makes a check, gets a 22. DC 19 gets them what the creature is and some useful information.
At DC 19 I'd give them the name/type of the creature and general info they know about the creature type, plus one of their abilities. In this case the OP gave them the screech ability (chosen randomly). That is all the knowledge he has about these creatures from his studies. His studies didn't give him any knowledge about their dance ability, so he doesn't know anything about it.
Let me make a real life example. If you were to read my facebook page and found out that I like the Pathfinder RPG, Futurama and Ranma 1/2. That's the extent you'd know about me from study. You would't know that I'm a fan of Star Trek or comics as I haven't posted that. It's just not knowledge you've come across.
Lol... you left out, while looking at your facebook page you were dressed in a star trek outfit pewpewing with a phaser in a pic..
Even tho it doesnt say you are a fan of star trek, the ACTION would sorta suggest it =P
With the even limited examples, a DC 20 check gets you the creature's planar origines, let alone knowing it is infact a demon which is a subtype of abbysal natives, knowing the abilities of a specific demon type seems to me to be a harder check. So I guess if you do not want to know anything else I'd say that a result of 22 is a failed check and leave it at that.
If you say the check should be a DC 20 check at the most than that is a difference of opinion. I'll admit that CR is not necesarily a good measure of how difficult it is to know some information though, so if you want to assign a plain DC of 25 or 30 that is fine.
FACT: "What are those things(Vrocks) and why are they dancing?" is a question related to Knowledge(Planes).FACT:RAW, Knowledge answers a question related to a field of study.
FACT: RAW, Knowledge can also be used to identify creatures.
Are you actually arguing that a question cant fall under both categories? Because I can show you one that does.
And for the record, that use of Knowledge (planes) has been quoted exactly once in this thread, by me.
If we use your interpretation, you might as well throw away the entire section on identifying monsters. Especially if I take time to meta-game and read about all the likely monsters that I'll encounter.
Because if we go with your method, I just need to know the precise ability that I want to identify and I can make the check and guarantee that I'll get the precise information that I want.
Thank you for making my point for me. The knowledge still comes back to what you know about me, not about dancing.If I read about why you dance in a book, or heard about it from a mutual friend, or just through the grapevine then I would know why you're dancing. That's what a knowledge check represents.
I somehow doubt that you'd know WHY I was dancing just because you know about street dancing. You may know what the dance is, where it originates, what it's about, even how to do the dance, but that doesn't mean that you know what would possess me to start dancing in the first place. For that's, again, you'd need to know something about me.
Yes, but my knowledge about you comes from my Knowledge (Street Dancing) check. If I succeed my Knowledge(Street Dancing) check, I know enough about you to get the answer to my question
In this case the incident with the Vrocks is the same thing. If the Wizard succeeds his Knowledge (Planes) check, he gets the answer to his question.
That's how Knowledge checks work. If you succeed to check, then you get the answer to your question.
With the even limited examples, a DC 20 check gets you the creature's planar origines, let alone knowing it is infact a demon which is a subtype of abbysal natives, knowing the abilities of a specific demon type seems to me to be a harder check. So I guess if you do not want to know anything else I'd say that a result of 22 is a failed check and leave it at that.
If you say the check should be a DC 20 check at the most than that is a difference of opinion. I'll admit that CR is not necesarily a good measure of how difficult it is to know some information though, so if you want to assign a plain DC of 25 or 30 that is fine.
So, you don't use the 10+CR method for determining the DC for identifying creature, so you would set the DCs for similar questions higher. I can respect that.
I think a DC 30 to know what a Dretch is is a little harsh.
With the even limited examples, a DC 20 check gets you the creature's planar origines, let alone knowing it is infact a demon which is a subtype of abbysal natives, knowing the abilities of a specific demon type seems to me to be a harder check. So I guess if you do not want to know anything else I'd say that a result of 22 is a failed check and leave it at that.
If you say the check should be a DC 20 check at the most than that is a difference of opinion. I'll admit that CR is not necesarily a good measure of how difficult it is to know some information though, so if you want to assign a plain DC of 25 or 30 that is fine.
So, you don't use the 10+CR method for determining the DC for identifying creature, so you would set the DCs for similar questions higher. I can respect that.
I think a DC 30 to know what a Dretch is is a little harsh.
There is :
'knowing what a dretch is'
and
'knowing all there is to know about dretches'
A DC 20 check will probably tell you it is a dretch, a minor demon from the abyss.
A DC 25 will tell you what the common immunities and resistances are and their most well documented abilities.
A DC 30 more obscure and less visual abilities.
Which is considerably harder than a standard check, but then more powerful demons basic abilities become that much easier.
It is not bad to go against RAW, if you want to change a creature's abilities, as a GM, to adjust them for an encounter that is not breaking the rules. If it did not increase the CR of the creatures, which I am convinced it did not, than it is perfectly legal as stated in the encounter.
Allowing Vrock to act as B-17's dropping Dretch bombs? Flying & moving while flying while dancing without a skill check?
+2 to CR at least. Generally a party of that level isn't suitable for creatures who can make unlimited attacks from the air. Esp things like vrock who can resist most of the wizards best shots.
It is not bad to go against RAW, if you want to change a creature's abilities, as a GM, to adjust them for an encounter that is not breaking the rules. If it did not increase the CR of the creatures, which I am convinced it did not, than it is perfectly legal as stated in the encounter.Allowing Vrock to act as B-17's dropping Dretch bombs? Flying & moving while flying while dancing without a skill check?
+2 to CR at least. Generally a party of that level isn't suitable for creatures who can make unlimited attacks from the air. Esp things like vrock who can resist most of the wizards best shots.
* Vrock's throwing down dretches is that much more lethal than throwing plain rocks ? probably not.
* They do not use their ability to summon another Vrock, on average 1 Vrock would appear, possibly 2 or 3 if unlucky.
* The dancing skill check is one they can make without a skill check, hovering in the air is a DC 15 check, Vrocks have +12, +14 with heroism on, a 10 minute per level buff.
I do not see a CR increase in there, if at all, I don't even think they are played in an optimal fashion, ofcourse they did not need to be since they were CR +4 opponents.
The knowledge check was sufficient to identify the creatures and a single piece of useful info about them. The dance is happening in front of them, is clearly what the wizard's most curious about, and is pretty much the iconic ability of a Vrock. No rule says knowledge of the dance only comes with higher checks. It is eminently reasonable to let the wizard know what's going on, and I feel fairly unreasonable not to.
The knowledge check was sufficient to identify the creatures and a single piece of useful info about them. The dance is happening in front of them, is clearly what the wizard's most curious about, and is pretty much the iconic ability of a Vrock. No rule says knowledge of the dance only comes with higher checks. It is eminently reasonable to let the wizard know what's going on, and I feel fairly unreasonable not to.
I can understand where you are coming from, but if you have to make a DC 19 check to identify the creature and a bit of useful information it would not be :
This is a Vrock, a powerful bird demon from the abyss, they are known for their ability to do a dance of ruin.
More likely I'd let them have the name and classic demon abilities first, presumably the wizard knows of more specific knowledge with a higher DC checks but that would be no lower than 24. There is such a thing as giving away too much information with an honestly quite horrible check. Your opinion might differ but calling it unfair goes much too far in my opinion.
As a general rule of thumb, the fun and enjoyment of everyone at the table is a far more important factor than being a rules hawk or making everything super challenging.
The result of your decision is a near TPK and pissed off players.
Now imagine the result if you gave him the dance info.
He'd have an awesome story about how his learned wizard saved everyone's butt (or tried to) when he recognized the terrible Dance of Ruin ability.
He'd feel awesome, he'd feel his "knowledge (planes)" skill was a good pick, he'd demonstrate that skills are as important in combat as swinging a weapon.
Overall you had the opportunity to create an awesome moment that the player likely would remember forever in a positive way.
What you did may have been more "balanced" or "rules appropriate" but you created harm when you could have created happy.
Just my views on the matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a general rule of thumb, the fun and enjoyment of everyone at the table is a far more important factor than being a rules hawk or making everything super challenging.
The result of your decision is a near TPK and pissed off players.
Now imagine the result if you gave him the dance info.
He'd have an awesome story about how his learned wizard saved everyone's butt (or tried to) when he recognized the terrible Dance of Ruin ability.
He'd feel awesome, he'd feel his "knowledge (planes)" skill was a good pick, he'd demonstrate that skills are as important in combat as swinging a weapon.
Overall you had the opportunity to create an awesome moment that the player likely would remember forever in a positive way.
What you did may have been more "balanced" or "rules appropriate" but you created harm when you could have created happy.
Just my views on the matter.
By this logic no party should ever TPK, and probably no PC should ever die. The GM should always make sure the PCs win and have awesome stories to tell.
There are some people who play that way and enjoy it.
I'm not one of them. I believe that how well I play the game is a factor in how much I enjoy it. Having the GM feed me information so I can have an awesome story wouldn't make the game more enjoyable to me.
This is like saying "Imagine if your dad hadn't checkmated you, and instead had sacrificed his queen so you could win. You'd have an awesome story about how you beat your dad at chess!"
Except you didn't beat your dad. Your dad let you win.
As a general rule of thumb, the fun and enjoyment of everyone at the table is a far more important factor than being a rules hawk or making everything super challenging.
The result of your decision is a near TPK and pissed off players.
Now imagine the result if you gave him the dance info.
He'd have an awesome story about how his learned wizard saved everyone's butt (or tried to) when he recognized the terrible Dance of Ruin ability.
He'd feel awesome, he'd feel his "knowledge (planes)" skill was a good pick, he'd demonstrate that skills are as important in combat as swinging a weapon.
Overall you had the opportunity to create an awesome moment that the player likely would remember forever in a positive way.
What you did may have been more "balanced" or "rules appropriate" but you created harm when you could have created happy.
Just my views on the matter.
If you turn misses into hits for the sake of player enjoyment than you should not be playing a lethal game period, in this case it was clear what the intention was. 'Bad rolls can get you killed' is preferable to
'no matter what you roll the GM will save your ass' imo.In the longer term a game with the kiddy gloves off results in more fun and players feeling challenged for 'many' players. That doesn't take away that players might be temporarily disgruntled for losing every once in a while.
Remco Sommeling
I think we have a misunderstanding. I am not saying using a random roll for a knowledge check is unfair as a general rule.
I am saying that alientude's use of a random roll for a knowledge check when his player posts that that is not the way that alientude normally handles knowledge checks is unfair.
And, besides, folks, "Why are they dancing?" is a Perform (dance) check, it has absolutely nothing to do with any knowledge whatsoever. DUH! ;-P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A TPK should happen when it will be awesome.
Player death should happen, but it should happen in events and places where that death has meaning.
You can kill a warrior in any random encounter with a bad crit and that warrior becomes just another throw away character that died.
Or you can have a situation where the warrior sacrifices himself for the benefit of the party.
The lucky crit could down him, but maybe the guy who crit him is close to a cliff, maybe the crit was an impalement and you ask the player "Your vision is darkening, you are almost certainly dead. Maybe, just maybe, you could survive if you let the darkness come and hope to stabilize before you bleed out... or you can try to bullrush this mother off the cliff. You'll both die, and be utterly obliterated, but the party lives.
Same situation, but in one the player's character is just dead.
In the other, he's a dead hero. Yes, you bent the rules as a DM, but your rule bending just made a mundane death into an epic story.
You don't fudge the dice to save people, you fudge the dice to make the story better.
In the end, the stories outlive everything.
The knowledge check was sufficient to identify the creatures and a single piece of useful info about them. The dance is happening in front of them, is clearly what the wizard's most curious about, and is pretty much the iconic ability of a Vrock. No rule says knowledge of the dance only comes with higher checks. It is eminently reasonable to let the wizard know what's going on, and I feel fairly unreasonable not to.I can understand where you are coming from, but if you have to make a DC 19 check to identify the creature and a bit of useful information it would not be :
This is a Vrock, a powerful bird demon from the abyss, they are known for their ability to do a dance of ruin.
More likely I'd let them have the name and classic demon abilities first, presumably the wizard knows of more specific knowledge with a higher DC checks but that would be no lower than 24. There is such a thing as giving away too much information with an honestly quite horrible check. Your opinion might differ but calling it unfair goes much too far in my opinion.
'Classic demon abilities' would presumably be the things that are part and parcel of the demon subtype. If I know it's a demon, I know it has all of that. If I successfuly identify an elf, I think I can count on knowing all about the humanoid type in addition to knowing it has, say, low-light vision.
And yes, I would give out information about the Dance of Ruin as freely as I would give out the knowledge of a dragon's breath weapon. If I had to pick one thing to be the defining characteristic of vrocks in comparison to other demons, it would be the Dance of Ruin. I'd especially give it out if they were in the midst of dancing and that's what prompted the wizard to make a knowledge check, and doubleplus especially if this was an encounter in which the PCs were outmatched and might have to retreat.
A TPK should happen when it will be awesome.
Player death should happen, but it should happen in events and places where that death has meaning.
You can kill a warrior in any random encounter with a bad crit and that warrior becomes just another throw away character that died.
Or you can have a situation where the warrior sacrifices himself for the benefit of the party.
The lucky crit could down him, but maybe the guy who crit him is close to a cliff, maybe the crit was an impalement and you ask the player "Your vision is darkening, you are almost certainly dead. Maybe, just maybe, you could survive if you let the darkness come and hope to stabilize before you bleed out... or you can try to bullrush this mother off the cliff. You'll both die, and be utterly obliterated, but the party lives.
Same situation, but in one the player's character is just dead.
In the other, he's a dead hero. Yes, you bent the rules as a DM, but your rule bending just made a mundane death into an epic story.
You don't fudge the dice to save people, you fudge the dice to make the story better.
In the end, the stories outlive everything.
And there are those of us who believe the stories are more meaningful when our skill and knowledge in playing the game were critical to the story.
I view the game as a collaborative story telling exercise. The GM is only part of the story telling. The players contribute their bit by how they build and play their characters, and the dice contribute their bit by keeping the events in doubt until they are resolved through execution of the rules.
One thing I see a lot less of these days than when I started is the concept that my game skills are meaningful to playing the game. That means whether my characters live or die is dependent on my ability to play them competently. It is not entirely up to the GM.
This, I think, is yet another example of the "cinematic" vs "gritty" play styles I see all the time.
I like "gritty". Play the rules straight and let's see how well I did building my character and how well I do playing them. If they fail, oh well. If they succeed, I can claim credit for having played the game well.
Games where the GM owns the story and the story is "all that is important" that by definition means my character build and play is not important.
I like that part of the game to be important.
That's how I play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is an important point to be made here. The party in question was not nearly wiped out because the knowledge check did not reveal the Vrock's dance ability.
The party in question was nearly wiped out because they ignored the dancing. And that was due entirely, imho, due to the wizard player metagaming by attempting to avoid metagaming. In my opinion the wizard player was so concerned about metagaming that he had his wizard ignore something that should have caused some sort of reaction.
As I said a hundred posts or so above, upon seeing the Vrocks dancing, the entire group should have said: "Dancing demons? That can't be good!"
I have seen this before and it's usually from the better players who are aware of the potential for metagaming. But acting in a specific way to avoid metagaming is metagaming too. It's hard to balance these things, especially when the player is acting in good faith to avoid metagaming.
In situations like this I always try to just forget about all the rules, all the books I've read, all the encounters I've had and just say "What would my character do in this situation?"
Many, many times the answer to that question has been: "Run away! Run away!"
A TPK should happen when it will be awesome.
Player death should happen, but it should happen in events and places where that death has meaning.
You can kill a warrior in any random encounter with a bad crit and that warrior becomes just another throw away character that died.
Or you can have a situation where the warrior sacrifices himself for the benefit of the party.
The lucky crit could down him, but maybe the guy who crit him is close to a cliff, maybe the crit was an impalement and you ask the player "Your vision is darkening, you are almost certainly dead. Maybe, just maybe, you could survive if you let the darkness come and hope to stabilize before you bleed out... or you can try to bullrush this mother off the cliff. You'll both die, and be utterly obliterated, but the party lives.
Same situation, but in one the player's character is just dead.
In the other, he's a dead hero. Yes, you bent the rules as a DM, but your rule bending just made a mundane death into an epic story.
You don't fudge the dice to save people, you fudge the dice to make the story better.
In the end, the stories outlive everything.
And there are those of us who believe the stories are more meaningful when our skill and knowledge in playing the game were critical to the story.
I view the game as a collaborative story telling exercise. The GM is only part of the story telling. The players contribute their bit by how they build and play their characters, and the dice contribute their bit by keeping the events in doubt until they are resolved through execution of the rules.
One thing I see a lot less of these days than when I started is the concept that my game skills are meaningful to playing the game. That means whether my characters live or die is dependent on my ability to play them competently. It is not entirely up to the GM.
This, I think, is yet another example of the "cinematic" vs "gritty" play styles I see all the time.
I like "gritty". Play the rules...
I dunno, I'm just old-school.
It's usually among the first paragraphs in the DMG/GM manual of a game system that the DM/GM not only can cheat, but is encouraged to do so for the sake of fun at the table.