A little while ago, I heard from another player that having access to an extensive library might justify a character performing a second knowledge check where they've failed a time before.
I haven't found anything to support that at all, nor really have an idea where it might have come from.
Is there anything by the RAW that might allow one to retry a knowledge check?
Spells, maybe, that might allow a reroll? A significant enough change in bonuses? Anything of the sort?
I allow it with research that costs time and money.
|
Add a skill point, or learning something new about the subject in question. Or some other thing that specifically states you get a reroll.
This. The library is an example of learning something new about the subject. Library = reroll, though only once per library. As a GM I'd restrict it to once a day, so no going to every book collection in town to get a reroll at each one. Of course the library also has to contain material on the subject at hand.
I agree that access to a library would justify a re-roll.
Research is how a lot of people learn.
Incidentally, do we think that the cleric could use this power on himself?
I occasionally allow a reroll if a creature reveals a defining ability, or does something out of the nature of what they think it is. Like if a vampire drains blood, or a dragon breathes fire instead of acid.
Remember people, that a knowledge check does not represent what you know, but what you can remember. This is the biggest misconception about basically anything in the game that I encounter. When you fail a knowledge check, it does not mean that you have never learned the fact, it means that you can't remember something off the top of your head.
I have no idea why letting someone re-roll a knowledge check given a library is even controversial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you fail a knowledge check, it does not mean that you have never learned the fact, it means that you can't remember something off the top of your head.
I have no idea why letting someone re-roll a knowledge check given a library is even controversial.
Presumably because the Knowledge skill says "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 agree that access to a library would justify a re-roll.
Research is how a lot of people learn.
I'm just going to throw this out there, but wouldn't access to a library, wherein the knowledge you sought was present, also allow a Take 20?
A little while ago, I heard from another player that having access to an extensive library might justify a character performing a second knowledge check where they've failed a time before.I haven't found anything to support that at all, nor really have an idea where it might have come from.
Is there anything by the RAW that might allow one to retry a knowledge check?
Spells, maybe, that might allow a reroll? A significant enough change in bonuses? Anything of the sort?
Our DM allows re-rolls in Knowledge checks only if there is some reasonable method to show new information is available. Spells, access to a library, hiring a scholar etc are all good ways to get a re-roll
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Presumably because the Knowledge skill says "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."When you fail a knowledge check, it does not mean that you have never learned the fact, it means that you can't remember something off the top of your head.
I have no idea why letting someone re-roll a knowledge check given a library is even controversial.
That sentence of fluff after the word "No" was stupid in 3.5 and is still stupid in PF. Knowledge checks represent recalling on the spot things that you have learned. You know the feeling on a test when you answer everything and then just sit there staring at the last question for the rest of the time and can't answer it then the next day, you suddenly remember the answer? That is what failing a knowledge check feel like.
Saying that failing a knowledge check represents the fact that you don;t know something at all implies that if you fail to identify a monster in one encounter, you cannot even try to identify it in a subsequent encounter untill you add a skill point or something. Is that the intention, because if it is not the "official" fluff of the knowledge skill makes no sense.
A little while ago, I heard from another player that having access to an extensive library might justify a character performing a second knowledge check where they've failed a time before.I haven't found anything to support that at all, nor really have an idea where it might have come from.
Is there anything by the RAW that might allow one to retry a knowledge check?
Spells, maybe, that might allow a reroll? A significant enough change in bonuses? Anything of the sort?
I don't think it'd be a reroll, because it's not like the *Character* is having another chance to know something. It's not whether they know anything, it's whether that bit of info is in the library, and whether the character can find it.
Instead, I'd do it like one of the following:
Option #1 - Full Fledged
A) Determine, as GM, whether the library has the piece of information in question. Maybe it's by a "Take 20" by a level 8 expert with an INT of 14. In that case, would a Knowledge check of 30 succeed? Then that bit of info is in the library
B) (Optional) Determine whether the char can find it. Maybe an INT check with a DC=5 or DC=10. Depends on how well the library is laid out, and how obscure the info is.
Option #2 - Quick and Easy
Assume the info is in the library. Then, make the char do an INT check, with a DC ten less than the original Knowledge DC. Trying to determine a relatively obscure fact with a Knowledge DC=25? Then it'd take an Int check of DC=15 to manage to find it in the library. Not ideal, but it's a nice quick way of handling it.
If I had followed my initial logic through to its fruition, I would have completed my thought by realizing that finding knowledge that is in a library is not a knowledge check, unless you're checking for knowledge of how to use a library correctly. Finding information in a library is (at least in my estimation) a perception check. In which case you absolutely could take 20. Checking whether or not you can recall something is a knowledge check. Checking whether or not you can find something hidden, is a perception check.
Presumably because the Knowledge skill says "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."When you fail a knowledge check, it does not mean that you have never learned the fact, it means that you can't remember something off the top of your head.
I have no idea why letting someone re-roll a knowledge check given a library is even controversial.
That sentence of fluff after the word "No" was stupid in 3.5 and is still stupid in PF. Knowledge checks represent recalling on the spot things that you have learned. You know the feeling on a test when you answer everything and then just sit there staring at the last question for the rest of the time and can't answer it then the next day, you suddenly remember the answer? That is what failing a knowledge check feel like.
Saying that failing a knowledge check represents the fact that you don;t know something at all implies that if you fail to identify a monster in one encounter, you cannot even try to identify it in a subsequent encounter untill you add a skill point or something. Is that the intention, because if it is not the "official" fluff of the knowledge skill makes no sense.
Also this.
If I forget a piece of information on a quiz, and never go back and study the material, it is still well within the realms of possibility that I would remember that same piece of information on a subsequent test. The brain is funny like that.
I allow rerolls if the PC gains access to a library. I even allow them to take 20 researching in the library, though the duration becomes several hours rather than just 2 minutes.
I would even allow a reroll when the context in which the PC is operating significantly changes and more identifying information about a creature or situation is revealed.
I don't allow immediate rerolls or rerolls if nothing significant has changed that should trigger an epiphany.
Most likely you'll remember it as soon as you walk out of the classroom door. The whole "no reroll" thing bugs me a little. If you can't remember something in a couple of seconds, you really have no chance of remembering it if you think about it longer? Does that really match people's experience?
Saying that failing a knowledge check represents the fact that you don;t know something at all implies that if you fail to identify a monster in one encounter, you cannot even try to identify it in a subsequent encounter untill you add a skill point or something. Is that the intention, because if it is not the "official" fluff of the knowledge skill makes no sense.Also this.
If I forget a piece of information on a quiz, and never go back and study the material, it is still well within the realms of possibility that I would remember that same piece of information on a subsequent test. The brain is funny like that.
It certainly doesn't match mine. If I'm trying to recall something I know, I can usually think about it long enough to come up with it.
This just made me think of something... Sometimes when I'm trying to think of something out loud, if my wife knows the information as well, and is also trying to recall it, we'll bounce names, syllables, ideas, etc. off of each other until one or the other of us comes up with it.
How would you mimic that in Pathfinder? An aided knowledge check, by somebody that has the same knowledge skill?
I agree that access to a library would justify a re-roll.
Research is how a lot of people learn.
This.
Not only a re-roll but a re-roll with a bonus based on the extent of said Library.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Presumably because the Knowledge skill says "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."When you fail a knowledge check, it does not mean that you have never learned the fact, it means that you can't remember something off the top of your head.
I have no idea why letting someone re-roll a knowledge check given a library is even controversial.
That sentence of fluff after the word "No" was stupid in 3.5 and is still stupid in PF. Knowledge checks represent recalling on the spot things that you have learned. You know the feeling on a test when you answer everything and then just sit there staring at the last question for the rest of the time and can't answer it then the next day, you suddenly remember the answer? That is what failing a knowledge check feel like.
Saying that failing a knowledge check represents the fact that you don;t know something at all implies that if you fail to identify a monster in one encounter, you cannot even try to identify it in a subsequent encounter untill you add a skill point or something. Is that the intention, because if it is not the "official" fluff of the knowledge skill makes no sense.
It's pretty incontrovertible: it represents what you know. You study to learn more by increasing your knowledge skill as you level up. Just because you don't like the philosophy behind it doesn't make it dumb, it just makes it obvious that you play it with a house rule.
Lore Master (Ex): At 5th level, the bard becomes a master of lore and can take 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in. A bard can choose not to take 10 and can instead roll normally.To me that strongly implies you can not take 10 on a knowledge check.
Most people consider "any" to mean any Knowledge skill check, even in combat.
Also since the highest you can roll UNTRAINED is 10, everyone in the world with a normal Int could take 10 and know the same amount about every subject as everyone else untrained. Again a reason not to allow take 10.
Since DC 10 is for really easy questions, most people should be able to know common knowledge, if they're not stressed out by the monster that's trying to eat them.
I don't agree with the assumption of any meaning in combat.
James Jacobs (Creative Director): "You can take 10 on knowledge checks, as with all checks. The bard lore master ability lets a bard take 10 at all times, even in the middle of combat."
If that was the case then an argument could be made that if you failed a check in combat due to stress when combat was over you should be allowed another roll taking 10 since you were no longer stressed.
Why would you be allowed to retry the check?
I'm going to go ahead and show my ignorance here, but... why is 10 the highest you can roll on a skill check untrained? I thought even untrained you still get to roll the d20 and add the relevant ability modifier?
Also since the highest you can roll UNTRAINED is 10, everyone in the world with a normal Int could take 10 and know the same amount about every subject as everyone else untrained. Again a reason not to allow take 10.
Common sense. But no, nothing RAW.
I say common sense because if the library contains the data they need, why on earth can't they look through the books/tomes to find it? This would effectively mean nobody could EVER learn anything they realized they didn't already know (ie: failed a previous knowledge check)in a library. Seems rather odd.
This.
Pathfinder has no Research skill, like Call of Cthulhu and other systems. I see no reason why spending an hour or two, or half a day in a library would not allow the PC a retry on a Knowledge check.
It's hardly game breaking and quite reasonable. Forcing them to wait until leveling, or paying money is ridiculous. It's not like the player is asking for 10 additional rolls to try to confirm a crit or something. He's just asking to use a resource that THE GM MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM in a way FOR WHICH IT WAS INTENDED.
I have to ask those recommending strenuous means of achieving the check, what have you done in situations where you needed to read a tome or diary, or some other written clue, to help get you through a dungeon or adventure? Did you wait to level up before each attempt at finding the next location on a map? Many old adventures, and home adventures (such as mine) require research on the part of the PCs to get around and solve things. If they had to wait to level up and gain another rank, a single encounter could take months and month of real-world gaming.
Come on, people.
|
It's pretty incontrovertible: it represents what you know. You study to learn more by increasing your knowledge skill as you level up. Just because you don't like the philosophy behind it doesn't make it dumb, it just makes it obvious that you play it with a house rule.
Ask yourself this question. Your are DMing an adventure and the party runs into a troll that just drank an Potion of Invisibility. Would you give the PCs a penalty on their Knowledge Check on the troll because they don't have visual clues to identify it?
If the answer is, 'Yes' then you have just pointed out a major flaw in RAW because in the real world, being able to identify a creature and what you KNOW about a creature are not always the same thing. But in RAW you use the same check for both. Logically, the PCs should get a reroll when the troll attacks and becomes visible, but by RAW they can't. So how did making the troll invisible make the character forget the knowledge they have regarding trolls?
The whole point of having a DM is to have someone there to adjudicate the rules when they don't make sense, not just to regurgitate RAW.
Well if the argument for them not being allowed to take 10 was they were stressed from combat, once that stress was removed it would seem logical for them to be able to take 10.
That's how it would work if they were allowed to try again.
For example, trying to cross a slippery floor. While the goblin is shooting at you, you can't take 10 and you fail and fall down. Next round the goblin dies and combat is over, you can then take 10 and succeed without a problem.
Note that taking 10 is not a guaranteed success. If the DC to know something is 11 higher than your skill mod, you couldn't take 10, fail, then try again with a d20.
You've got it a bit wrong. 10 is not the highest number you can roll untrained, it's the highest DC you can suceed in for an untrained Knowledge Check.I'm going to go ahead and show my ignorance here, but... why is 10 the highest you can roll on a skill check untrained? I thought even untrained you still get to roll the d20 and add the relevant ability modifier?
Ah. Thanks for the clarification LazarX.
This conversation has come quite a way, and thank you everyone for insight...
To be truthful, I was looking for an excuse for a Mindchemist to drink a powerful Cognatogen, other than the simple boost to intelligence. Perhaps it would allow the Mindchemist to remember something of significance. (To a Mindchemist, even a +8 to int. would be a +8 to any knowledge skill check).
It's beginning to look like that wasn't even covered, and therefore probably in no ways a legal move.
Is there a way to Delay a knowledge check until a time that such significant bonuses can apply?
And thanks for the info about taking 10 ^_^
That's a nice bit of information to take home.
|
|
It's pretty incontrovertible: it represents what you know. You study to learn more by increasing your knowledge skill as you level up. Just because you don't like the philosophy behind it doesn't make it dumb, it just makes it obvious that you play it with a house rule.Ask yourself this question. Your are DMing an adventure and the party runs into a troll that just drank an Potion of Invisibility. Would you give the PCs a penalty on their Knowledge Check on the troll because they don't have visual clues to identify it?
If the answer is, 'Yes' then you have just pointed out a major flaw in RAW because in the real world, being able to identify a creature and what you KNOW about a creature are not always the same thing. But in RAW you use the same check for both. Logically, the PCs should get a reroll when the troll attacks and becomes visible, but by RAW they can't. So how did making the troll invisible make the character forget the knowledge they have regarding trolls?
The whole point of having a DM is to have someone there to adjudicate the rules when they don't make sense, not just to regurgitate RAW.
I don't understand the point of your question.
I don't understand the point of your question.It's pretty incontrovertible: it represents what you know. You study to learn more by increasing your knowledge skill as you level up. Just because you don't like the philosophy behind it doesn't make it dumb, it just makes it obvious that you play it with a house rule.Ask yourself this question. Your are DMing an adventure and the party runs into a troll that just drank an Potion of Invisibility. Would you give the PCs a penalty on their Knowledge Check on the troll because they don't have visual clues to identify it?
If the answer is, 'Yes' then you have just pointed out a major flaw in RAW because in the real world, being able to identify a creature and what you KNOW about a creature are not always the same thing. But in RAW you use the same check for both. Logically, the PCs should get a reroll when the troll attacks and becomes visible, but by RAW they can't. So how did making the troll invisible make the character forget the knowledge they have regarding trolls?
The whole point of having a DM is to have someone there to adjudicate the rules when they don't make sense, not just to regurgitate RAW.
The point is that part of the DM's job is to be able to distinguish when "the holy writ of RAW" is just asinine and to adjust accordingly. You might denigrate this as house rules, but it is a necessary part of what a good DM does.
In this case, this is how I would describe it in PFS, so it is more recognizing RAI than any sort of house rule.
I suspect that the note about retrying was written by someone who was thinking only about immediate retries. Obviously, if you cannot remember something right now, it is unlikely that you will suddenly remember it six seconds later. But if you spend several hours looking through a library that happens to have information about the topic in question in its books, it is only common sense to let you try again at that point. If I were adjudicating the situation, I would probably require a combination of time passing and the relevant Knowledge bonus being improved somehow to permit a second check.
I was thinking about Both Immediate and Later retries. Anything, from the second a combat ends, to after you achieve a new level, and spent the day in a city library.
Anything.
The main concern; Does anything in the Rules As Written support Anything of the sort?
I know too many players that would read the Knowledge Skill, and simply denounce even the possibilities after seeing that no retries are allowed, rather than consider it to be in GM judgement territory.
So I'd love the cold, hard rules regarding the matter. So far, I've got none.
You could put Knowledge traits into two categories.
Knowledge rolls that you want your players to make.
Knowledge rolls that you don't want your players to make.
If you can come up with a good excuse to let your players reroll their knowledge skill for something you want them to make I would let them.
What counts as a good excuse it up to you. Certainly finding a library would be a good excuse.
There is no RAW that supports this idea.
However there are many adventures written where the discovery of new information specifically calls for a new Knowledge check.
If there is no retries, opt out during combat.
DM says "roll knowledge religion" during combat, then refuse.
Say you will wait, and think it over, after combat.
That's actually what I was hoping to do. It's a nice idea; one could benefit the most from a cognatogen, spell, and environment that'd grant significant Knowledge check bonuses.
But it wouldn't be necessary, if there was some clarification that knowledge checks were Meant to be retried in the future. I guess the verdict is that there simply is nothing in the RAW or official statement on the matter?
...Yet?
So I'd love the cold, hard rules regarding the matter. So far, I've got none.
Knowledge: "Try Again: No."
I guess the verdict is that there simply is nothing in the RAW or official statement on the matter?
SKR mentions the Try Again section of the Knowledge skills here, so here's aware of it.
As written your only option is to have someone else search the library, which lets them find information higher than DC10, maybe aid another to help them, and once they make the check, they can just tell you what they now know.
Or do the simple thing and house-rule that using a library allows you to re-try a knowledge check, and if they spend a few days there they can take 20.