PF basic training - Monster Recognition Class


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 115 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mystic Lemur wrote:

Why not reduce all DCs by 5 to represent Pathfinder training (Common races would be DC 0, et al)?

Or, for a slightly different approach, make a list of what creatures a Pathfinder would consider "Common" due to their training.

Or instead of a list, maybe scenarios could list identification DC (and knowledge skill, because sometimes we have to think about it) as part of the monster stats. That way, the Paizo staff could designate certain monsters common enough for PCs to be more likely to have heard of them.

4/5 *

The problem is, there is a simple and perfectly effective version in place right now: roll a Knowledge check. Any system that requires consulting Chronicle sheets during play to see what you've encountered before is a non-starter in my opinion. Any free benefits to everyone effectively penalizes the folks who took Knowledge skills in the first place.

Besides, do all harpies look the same? Can the average non-knowledgeable person distinguish between a harpy and a strix, say? According the the description of strix, people usually think they are winged devils - a completely different type of creature (reference).

If you want to match the campaign background, then make a character that reflects the training the Pathfinders gave you. If you don't, don't complain that you should get such benefits for free.

(It's like I've said that before... weird!)

The Exchange

Is there a rule of using knowledge checks to I'd a monster you are not interacting with?

Like: idk what that giant flaming monster is but if I recall correctly it looks like a giant small fire elemental, which is strong/weak to x/y/z.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

GeneticDrift wrote:

Is there a rule of using knowledge checks to I'd a monster you are not interacting with?

Like: idk what that giant flaming monster is but if I recall correctly it looks like a giant small fire elemental, which is strong/weak to x/y/z.

Let me make sure I'm understanding your question correctly:

So I encounter a big fiery thing, roll a really high knowledge check, and get that it's a fire elemental and (say) five other pieces of information on it. Later, I encounter another big fiery thing, and barely roll high enough to know that it's a fire elemental. You're asking if, having determined that they're the same creature, I can act on the five pieces of information that I got the first time but didn't get the second time?

Dark Archive 4/5

But Jiggy, one of them was small and the other one was big!

How could they possibly be the same creature?

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adam Mogyorodi wrote:

But Jiggy, one of them was small and the other one was big!

How could they possibly be the same creature?

*looks around the gaming table, surveying the range of pant sizes*

Well...

The Exchange

Not quite what I asked.

Encounter large fire elemental and fail the knowledge check.
Make knowledge check to I'd a small elemental and succeed, even though it is not present.

Or
fail to I'd an evil outsider, but it looks like one
Roll to I'd an imp.
It's the same thought but this one is easier to backfire (demons/devils )

The attempt is to basically ID the basic elemental or outsider monster trait.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

No, that's metagaming.

You can't choose to try and ID a lesser creature In Character when Out of Character you know that the higher HD version is beyond your ability to roll with a knowledge check.

If you are asking, however, if the roll would have gotten a lesser version, again, I still say no. You aren't rolling to ID a small elemental, you are trying to ID what is standing right in front of you.

Silver Crusade 4/5

Jiggy wrote:
Adam Mogyorodi wrote:

But Jiggy, one of them was small and the other one was big!

How could they possibly be the same creature?

*looks around the gaming table, surveying the range of pant sizes*

Well...

I'm reminded of an old science fiction story by Isaac Asimov. Some aliens abduct two people from Earth - one man, one woman. One alien who has been observing our planet the longest tries to explain sexual reproduction to another alien, who doesn't believe him and responds with "But they're clearly different species!"

Silver Crusade 5/5

Scott Young wrote:
If you want to match the campaign background, then make a character that reflects the training the Pathfinders gave you. If you don't, don't complain that you should get such benefits for free.

I agree with you to a degree, but the problem is the way knowledge checks are currently implemented. The core problem, I suppose, is that there are so many Knowledge skills and they are all trained-only.

Let's say your character wants to have some basic knowledge about monsters, without going to the specifics. For example:


  • Memorize the very basic information about roughly 100 of the most common monsters: what they look like, their subtype, and perhaps a special ability if they have a really nasty one (for example, you could recognize a dretch as a demon even if you don't know which demon)
  • Know the basic traits given by the common subtypes (for example, you would know that you should hit demons with cold iron and not use fire against them)

Now, that kind of basic information is something most people would learn in a day or two, and strikes me as maybe one skill rank worth of knowledge. But the way the knowledge skills are now implemented, you would have to invest at least one rank in each of 10 knowledge skills to learn that, which doesn't make any sense.

If I was running Pathfinders as characters in a home game, I would probably implement a skill Knowledge (pathfinding) or something to make up for this.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Not explicitly true Jussi.

You can make a DC 10 untrained in all knowledge skills.

The DC of a common monster is 5 + CR

So there are plenty of monsters that those who are untrained in knowledge skills, can easily try to figure out.

The key is, training our GM's as to what is considered common vs. standard vs. rare for PFS characters.

Silver Crusade 2/5

You don't need 10 ranks in knowledge skills to have a chance to recognize monsters. You need 3.

Kn: Nature for animals

Kn: Planes for Outsiders

Kn: Religion for Undead

That is it. If they are class skills, that puts you at a +4 in each, meaning you have a good chance of getting some information most of the time. That is with no Int bonus and only 1 rank. Common creatures, you'll get information every single time.

Silver Crusade 4/5

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

You don't need 10 ranks in knowledge skills to have a chance to recognize monsters. You need 3.

Kn: Nature for animals

Kn: Planes for Outsiders

Kn: Religion for Undead

That is it. If they are class skills, that puts you at a +4 in each, meaning you have a good chance of getting some information most of the time. That is with no Int bonus and only 1 rank. Common creatures, you'll get information every single time.

You're forgetting arcane for identifying dragons, constructs, and other magical creatures, dungeoneering for identifying oozes and other slimey things, and local for identifying humanoids of various types.


Andrew Christian wrote:

No, that's metagaming.

You can't choose to try and ID a lesser creature In Character when Out of Character you know that the higher HD version is beyond your ability to roll with a knowledge check.

If you are asking, however, if the roll would have gotten a lesser version, again, I still say no. You aren't rolling to ID a small elemental, you are trying to ID what is standing right in front of you.

What about if both were present? Could you recognize the lesser one and know all sorts of details but know nothing about the big one?

"Yeah, those little critters flying around are hatchling red dragons. Breath fire etc. No idea what the giant red scaly thing looming protectively over them is though."

Grand Lodge 4/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

Not explicitly true Jussi.

You can make a DC 10 untrained in all knowledge skills.

The DC of a common monster is 5 + CR

So there are plenty of monsters that those who are untrained in knowledge skills, can easily try to figure out.

The key is, training our GM's as to what is considered common vs. standard vs. rare for PFS characters.

No, the key is defining what creatures should be considered common, standard or rare in the Golarion setting.

And I have to say that, sometimes, they go way out on a limb for some of the DCs given in scenarios for things like recognizing deities. Some of the DCs given run past "Say what?!" and right on out to totally absurd.

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a fine line between metagaming and knowing the game.

Some players really know the game well. They know the rules mechanics, they're familiar with the setting, and they're familiar with the bestiaries, spells, and magic items.

When a player who, as a player, recognizes that a creature is, say, a Glabrezu, but, because he's playing a PC who lacks Knowledge:Planes acts as though he does not, he is absolutely metagaming! By that criterion, the only avoidance of metagaming would occur when a player only plays PCs with knowledge skills mirroring his player knowledge of the game. It's absurd.

There is no reason a player who has taken the time to read the books shouldn't be better at the game than those who haven't, or that an experienced players shouldn't be better than those who aren't.

If I'm at-table, and my fighter (clueless about K:Planes) encounters a Glabrezu, and I deliberately, as a player, ignore what I know as I make tactical decisions (or worse, actually act counter to what I know is wise (a common psychological response to concealed prior knowledge), then why am I even playing? I can simply have someone else run my character - after all, he's just the sum of his traits and skills, right? - while I go grab a sandwich. It doesn't make sense.

A PC is not just a PC - he's a projection of the player into the game. The PC can do things the player can't - jump a forty foot chasm, say - and the PC may know things the PC doesn't - like the fact Glabrezu can reverse gravity at will, or rend, or appear veiled as a huge tree. That's the fun of the game, the bidirectional interplay between player and player, between player and GM, and between player and character.

In practice? If a player knows, based on GM description, what a monster is, he should act freely on that knowledge; if the GM wants to obfuscate within reason? All the better!

Shadow Lodge 4/5

I've got a level 2 Wizard with a rank in every knowledge skill. He can take 10 and identify rare creatures of CR 4 or less and can answer easy (DC 10) questions about every field of study even under stress. Not every character has the skill points to spare to do something like that. Heck, I don't have the skill points to keep doing that. I'm going to have to cut back to the six monster identification skills (Arcana, Dungeoneering, Local, Nature, Planes, and Religion) if I want to have any points left over for silly things like Spellcraft and Perception.

I try to give all of my characters one relevant knowledge skill, but even that doesn't come close to replicating the background fluff of being trained by the Society. That's why I suggested lowering the DC's for PFS characters. It's not meant to reward characters who don't bother to train knowledge skills, it's meant to represent the background training of every character in the organized campaign.

Grand Lodge 2/5

Look, this is a game, yah? And the more that we play, the better players we become. Some of the mechanics are intrinsically tied into this fact, such as checking for traps. (Characters must announce they are using perception to check for traps unless they have the Rogue Trap spotter deal). Players who have played the game more are naturally going to be more suspicious of those areas that traditionally have traps than a person playing for the first time. An experienced player may cast a buff rather than a direct offensive spell at a dragon knowing from years of playing that dragons have high SR. How far down the rabbit hole do we go when questioning what is meta, and what isn't?

Without reading through every response, I pretty much agree with Ziggy. It's ok for players to 'meta' basic knowledge such as "IS that humanoid an undead? Can holy water hurt it?" On the other hand, if a new player didn't know that, I would very well make him roll a knowledge check...and if he rolled well, I would tell him that :)

For higher CR creatures, or more rare creatures, I usually make my descriptions pretty vague if knowledge checks aren't met. "A huge lizard" could mean anything (we had that recently with a certain scenario that shall remained un-named). By the time it started turning players to stone, meta knowledge wasn't much help :)

By using the rule that it's OK for players/characters to know/meta the 'basics', and keeping descriptions vague for failed knowledge checks on creatures seen, I do a decent job as a GM from preventing too many opportunities for unnecessary meta to creep in. Every once in a while, I DO have to pull out the yellow penalty flag for something terribly blatant, but its rare. People are here to have fun, and if they know something as a player from fighting a fast zombie or a green dragon a while back, I let them have it (If they start sharing it with others, it makes me cranky).

1/5

Question for you Jiggy (and anyone else who wants to answer as a GM):

PRD wrote:
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster's CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster's CR, or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Many of the Knowledge skills have specific uses as noted on Table: Knowledge Skill DCs.

I personally read this to mean that if you make the DC you get 1 question (i.e. "what is it's DR" or whatever). If you beat it by 5 then you get a 2nd question, and so on. Is there a ruling somewhere as to whether I'm being too lenient by giving more than the name?

Dark Archive 4/5

Actually, I think what you're doing is appropriate Odea. I'll take a closer look at Knowledge skills and see if I've been doing it right.

2/5

I don't think there's an official rule anywhere...but we all want to minimize meta without being crazy and violating the spirit of what makes a game a game.

IMHO, Common monsters are fine because 1) Yeah, everyone in Golarion has heard of a goblin, skeleton, etc and 2) there's usually enough variations of those things to where it still keeps the players on their toes (Dragons have various colors with different powers, different variants of zombies, class levels on goblins, etc).

More uncommon monsters (say, basilisks!), I tend to not to say their name without a successful knowledge check because anyone who has played against one in the past will instantly yell "I close my eyes!" and who can blame them? Sure, they'll figure it out once their first friend turns to stone looking into Lizzy's eyes... but, by that time, I imagine SOME part of their Pathfinder training would kick in :)

But, yeah, if players want more than a name, they either have to figure it out through trial and error (GM's usually tell you what the DR is when you hit and then you have to figure out the weakness, for example), or better knowledge checks. The fact that you give them questions to ask based on how much they surpass the CR (as opposed to, let's say, giving them completely random pieces of information), it an interesting one...but since its not dictated by the rules, I would think it's all good.


I feel compelled to post this to the thread.

Bear Lore

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

Odea wrote:

Question for you Jiggy (and anyone else who wants to answer as a GM):

PRD wrote:
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster's CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster's CR, or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Many of the Knowledge skills have specific uses as noted on Table: Knowledge Skill DCs.
I personally read this to mean that if you make the DC you get 1 question (i.e. "what is it's DR" or whatever). If you beat it by 5 then you get a 2nd question, and so on. Is there a ruling somewhere as to whether I'm being too lenient by giving more than the name?
Well, that's the way I see it done around here (SF Bay area). The questions are usually selected from
  • Special attacks (poison, fear, ...)
  • Special defenses (DR)
  • Weaknesses/Vulnerabilities
but that's not an exhaustive list. The player gets to decide which question to ask (or to ask a totally different question).

Shadow Lodge 4/5

I don't think I like that at all. I'm more fond of the way 4e does it. Hit the base DC, you get name, type, and other keywords. Beat the DC by 5 and you get attacks. Beat it by 10 or more and you get weaknesses.

In general, I would consider the weaknesses/defenses to be a more rare piece of information than special attacks.

"When I saw that lizard turn Fred into a statue I didn't stick around long enough to see whether my sword would hurt it or not."

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Odea wrote:

Question for you Jiggy (and anyone else who wants to answer as a GM):

PRD wrote:
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster's CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster's CR, or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Many of the Knowledge skills have specific uses as noted on Table: Knowledge Skill DCs.
I personally read this to mean that if you make the DC you get 1 question (i.e. "what is it's DR" or whatever). If you beat it by 5 then you get a 2nd question, and so on. Is there a ruling somewhere as to whether I'm being too lenient by giving more than the name?

Well, first, there's nothing in the skill description about getting to ask questions. Lots of GMs (at least around here) do it that way, but I usually don't. It says they recall a piece of information; doesn't say they get to choose.

Now, that statement has probably made some people (justifiably) uneasy, so let me expound: the rules say you get a piece of useful information. So although I decide what you get, I make sure it's something useful, not something that will make my players hate me. ;)

So anyway, as for your question about how many bits you get: it explicitly says that if the check is successful, you remember a useful piece of information. So yes, you should be giving them more than just the name if they succeed on the check, even if they don't exceed it by 5 or more.

Some GMs count that among your total number of questions, some give you the type/subtype and any standardized traits (or confirm the lack thereof) and then let you ask questions for higher checks. Me, a successful check gets you the name and whatever would be the most famous aspect of the monster.

For instance, I feel like there's no such thing as "knowing what a basilisk is but not knowing it can petrify you with its gaze", so if you make the check at my table, you get that. Exceed it by 5 or more, you get something else (probably that its blood can reverse the petrification), and so forth.

Make the check against a dragon, you probably get the type of breath weapon, as anyone encountering a dragon is going to notice that aspect and tell you about it in their stories/books. Higher checks will start getting you other things.

The Exchange 5/5

I agree with Jiggy on this.
.
I also might try to tailor the information gotten to the PC that got it... so a blaster wizard might know that the creature has SR, and a Melee cleric might know it has DR. This helps when there are two or more PCs that just make the Kn DC.

I have encountered a judge who seemed to like to play 20 questions.

Judge: "you get three questions"
Player: "Does it have DR?"
Judge: "Yeah"
Player: "What's the DR?"
Judge: "that's your second question?"...

Yeah, really...

Or the judges who let you ask questions, so they can say no.
"Does the creature have DR?"
"No. That's the first bit of information."
"SR?"
"No."
Realizing that this creature blows up for 6d6 of damage when killed.

Then the one that figured just telling you what Knowledge skill you used was a useful bit of information. "Knowledge Religion? so you know it's undead."

Realize that these judges are in a minority. Most judges WANT to tell you about the monster you are facing.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Jiggy wrote:
Odea wrote:

Question for you Jiggy (and anyone else who wants to answer as a GM):

PRD wrote:
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster's CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster's CR, or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Many of the Knowledge skills have specific uses as noted on Table: Knowledge Skill DCs.
I personally read this to mean that if you make the DC you get 1 question (i.e. "what is it's DR" or whatever). If you beat it by 5 then you get a 2nd question, and so on. Is there a ruling somewhere as to whether I'm being too lenient by giving more than the name?

Well, first, there's nothing in the skill description about getting to ask questions. Lots of GMs (at least around here) do it that way, but I usually don't. It says they recall a piece of information; doesn't say they get to choose.

Now, that statement has probably made some people (justifiably) uneasy, so let me expound: the rules say you get a piece of useful information. So although I decide what you get, I make sure it's something useful, not something that will make my players hate me. ;)

So anyway, as for your question about how many bits you get: it explicitly says that if the check is successful, you remember a useful piece of information. So yes, you should be giving them more than just the name if they succeed on the check, even if they don't exceed it by 5 or more.

Some GMs count that among your total number of questions, some give you the type/subtype and any standardized traits (or confirm the lack thereof) and then let you ask questions for higher...

What if, before rolling the check, I say,

Hey GM, does my Tengu Bard Arawcaw remember if this creature has DR?

If I make the roll, would you give that information to me? Or would you pick something else to give me?

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:

What if, before rolling the check, I say,

Hey GM, does my Tengu Bard Arawcaw remember if this creature has DR?

If I make the roll, would you give that information to me? Or would you pick something else to give me?

Possibly. That would really depend on the situation, though. How good was your check? How well-known is the monster's DR? What if the monster doesn't even *have* DR, and your check was only high enough for 1 tidbit? ("No" would seem really lame for a successful check.) Is the party mostly martial? Mostly spellcasters? Likely to cakewalk if you get the DR? Likely to get trounced if you don't? Am I letting you shoot yourself in the foot if I give you the DR you asked for instead of the triple-energy-drain I would've otherwise given you?

Definitely depends on the situation.

The Exchange 5/5

Is the judge using the "question" system to conceal the monsters abilities? Is he playing "Me against them"? or rewarding the player whose PC is the know-it-all, the Professor Type?

The Exchange 5/5

By the same token, is the players Meta gaming with the "question" system?

"Oh, a Golem... ok. First question,
"What energy type has a bad effect?
"second question, What energy type helps it?"

or,
"Ghoul - ok, I only get two questions. So - Special attacks? Yeah paralyze. and Special Defenses: Undead, so no mind effecting spells. Got that everyone?"

You know, the player who is asking questions that he knows the answers to, so he knows what questions to ask.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Since we're on the topic of questions spawned off knowledge checks...

I usually run it like this...
.
.

Player: 23!
Me: Alright... that gives you two questions.
Player: What's the creature resistant to?
Me: Well you know that this bad boy laughs in the face of fire and acid, and his skin is resistant to bladed weapons
Player: Ok, cool. Second question - what signature attacks does he have?
Me: It's said that a single look into his eyes can send even the most seasoned pathfinders fleeing in terror, and that, infrequently, he can even control the mind of weak-willed creatures.

Everyone can read between the lines (fire, acid resistance, DR 5/slashing, aura of fear, dominate or charm 1-3/day) -- but I try to keep players immersed in RP, rather than rattling off terms and breaking the fourth wall like a strip of OOTS.

EDIT: Re Nosig -- With the exception of low level games, and the reoccurring beasties therein, I've never had a player ask the "perfect question" for a high level monster they identified IRL. Usually, people remember things like "a dragon can fly," but exactly what a dragon's senses are, the DC formula for its frightful presence, etc.

The Exchange 5/5

Walter... "his skin is resistant to bladed weapons" would not be "DR 5/slashing", would it?

You mean "his skin is LESS resistant to bladed weapons" I think.

edit: LOL! we play with different people. My son used to tell the judge the Page number for the monster... but that was back in LG days. Now, not so much. But he can rattle off the stats most of the monsters in the Bestiary I & II.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

nosig wrote:

Walter... "his skin is resistant to bladed weapons" would not be "DR 5/slashing", would it?

You mean "his skin is LESS resistant to bladed weapons" I think.

edit: LOL! we play with different people. My son used to tell the judge the Page number for the monster... but that was back in LG days. Now, not so much. But he can rattle off the stats most of the monsters in the Bestiary I & II.

Whoops, yea.

Cool son ;)

1/5

I really don't like the PC asking questions for a successful knowledge check. This sometimes doesn't really work well for new players. Tho I guess players can ask, "would you like to know a defense, offense, or weakness?" But this seems to destroy the RP/immersion aspect of the game.

Also, a lot of creatures have neat lore/ecology. Sometimes that's more useful and fun, but players aren't gonna ask those questions because they don't wanna lose a question, so of course they are gonna ask for defense/offense/weaknesses.

When I GM, I personally like to read the side notes to the creature (not just the stat block) and give out some useful information on the creature depending on the PC's check and the situation.

A good example I remember back in D&D 3.x was the Grey Renderer (or something like that). Doesn't really bother you until you mess with it's little deer or animal it's protecting (my memory might be fuzzy xD). That is probably a really useful bit of info for PCs :P

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Relmer wrote:

This thread seems to boil down to

"We have rules, Knowledge checks, to find stuff out. That should be the way characters learn about their adversaries" (Translation: My character took ranks in Knowledge skills and you should not get benefits that I 'paid' for and/or I am rules lawyer when it benefits me)

VS

"Its realistic to assume that any given Pathfinder has some information on basic threats by virtue of being a Pathfinder" (Translation: My character build does not allow me to easily take Knowledge skills but I personally have been playing for a long time and I should be able to apply my out of game knowledge due my my vast gaming experience and/or I want to be a munchkin)

Pick you poison because you don't get to have it both ways. Both sides have valid points for and against.

I've been mulling over this post for a few days and find I'm not willing to just let it go.

There aren't only two positions. For example, neither of these summaries represent my position. This post suffers from a false bifurcation, if which it it is suggested that there are only two possible position. The problem with such positions is that western logic systems then engage in the A vs Not A forms.

There is a tendency for people to see the worst motivations in others and expect them to see our own action in the best possible motivation. I might be guilty in this myself, so my apologies to OP if so.

My motivation in my post is to point out that making in-game character decisions through the use of skills that the character doesn't have is on par with using other resources a character doesn't have. That's a round about way of saying it's the C-word. My motivation for pointing that out is that we often learn by example about how to play, so people can become blind to this. I prefer a gaming culture with less conflict between all the players at a table, including the GM. This is an area that players, who often are pretty smart, tend to apply there own personal experience to how they learn, regardless of how that translates into a given character's ability to learn. It makes the knowledge system seem wonky.

I have a personal opinion about how this is supposed to work in game. I believe it to represent the rules. I think we get a better gaming experience when people follow the rules. Ultimately, I prefer it when people play the way I understand it to work.

Enjoy your gaming. Help promote how you think the game should work. If you think I'm wrong, show me why. If you're convincing, I'll change my mind.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mystic Lemur wrote:
I've got a level 2 Wizard with a rank in every knowledge skill. He can take 10 and identify rare creatures of CR 4 or less and can answer easy (DC 10) questions about every field of study even under stress.

If you haven't, you should get him a full set of pathfinder chronicles for the different knowledge skills from the inner sea world guide. Its effectively a masterwork tool for knowledge skills, and a steal at 50gp.

Collecting them all can get pricey though.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Howie23 wrote:
There aren't only two positions. For example, neither of these summaries represent my position. This post suffers from a false bifurcation, if which it it is suggested that there are only two possible position. The problem with such positions is that western logic systems then engage in the A vs Not A forms.

The words "seems" and "boils down" caveat the post by implying that there may be more to the full discussion than just the presented summary. I suggest, simply, that the motivations of gamers is often self-serving. Some participating in the discussion are not interested in "improving" the game and seek benefit only for their individual character and/or choices.

Quote:
I prefer a gaming culture with less conflict between all the players at a table, including the GM

On this I agree with you.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Relmer wrote:
Howie23 wrote:

I prefer a gaming culture with less conflict between all the players at a table, including the GM

On this I agree with you.

I think everyone agrees with this position. But on what not to argue about is the key, and everyone understands knowledge checks differently, thus there will be disagreement on what is kosher and that is up to the GM. So we will get a variety of variation. We need to pick our battles and know if it will stall the game and "is it worth it?" Remember, we never have to join a table we don't want to play at. If we know a judge has quirks and we're going to argue, then we probably shouldn't play at his table. Personally I am pretty strict with knowledge rules, but that is my opinion, and I am a finite human, so I could be wrong.

Grand Lodge

I would be quite grateful for any kind of official table saying what should/should not be revealed.

The Exchange 5/5

Ill_Made_Knight wrote:
Relmer wrote:
Howie23 wrote:

I prefer a gaming culture with less conflict between all the players at a table, including the GM

On this I agree with you.
I think everyone agrees with this position. But on what not to argue about is the key, and everyone understands knowledge checks differently, thus there will be disagreement on what is kosher and that is up to the GM. So we will get a variety of variation. We need to pick our battles and know if it will stall the game and "is it worth it?" Remember, we never have to join a table we don't want to play at. If we know a judge has quirks and we're going to argue, then we probably shouldn't play at his table. Personally I am pretty strict with knowledge rules, but that is my opinion, and I am a finite human, so I could be wrong.

bolding mine

please clearify this. Strict how?


Nuku wrote:
I would be quite grateful for any kind of official table saying what should/should not be revealed.

It would be nice, but when they do that, you're going to get a group of GMs that prefer to do it one way, and a group of GMs that prefer to do it another way. We're talking about a game that has a great number of GMs, and no two GMs run their tables the same way.

Grand Lodge

It would still be an improvement over what we have right now.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Nuku wrote:
It would still be an improvement over what we have right now.

There will always be table variance, if only because some GMs in PFS (even those with quite a few stars next to their names, unfortunately) are DEDICATED to running the game how they think it should be despite RAW.

Sometimes its ignorance of the rules. Sometimes its stubbornness (which as gamers we have all been guilty of at some point).

Still, I am always in favor of more clarifications even if I know that some people will choose to ignore them.

4/5

Too much logic in this thread.

Pathfinder and all games that have a mechanic to playing are not based on logic, they are based on the mechanics.

Something your character should have known, yet does not have ranks in knowledge? Too bad, game mechanics are not based on what you should-have-would-have-might-have-may-have known. It is only based on what your character does know after rolling a die.

Pathfinder is Mechanics based, not logic based. Most problems can be answered by this simple truth.


I, personally, don't like doing the 20 questions thing with my players.

Why? Because that's not how people learn things.

A Knowledge check implies that the individual making it has had some specific education on the subject.

They aren't going to recall the information in any sort of "list" or "category" order.
They are going to recall things by "most important" to "least important".

If a monster has some awful special feature, I'm not withholding that merely because the player asked the wrong category.

I also don't ask for checks for stuff that's obvious, like that creature with a glowing fire aura perhaps having fire related abilities.

Certain things will also be "common knowledge", like undead being hurt by holy water. Although for some monsters, that "common knowledge" may be incorrect, like an oddball undead that is HEALED by holy water - only a specific Knowledge check would reveal that.

-k

The Exchange 5/5

You know... the original intent of this post was not to argue about the knowledge rules and how they work. It really wasn't even about how we should all strive as judges to do it the same way - to reduce YMMV and bad feelings and all that.
What I was trying for was some light-hearted stories... the original question was...
"What was that training like? Let's hear some stories from Basic Training people! What did YOU learn from your DI (Drill Instructor)."

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Drill Instructor: [after PC#1 interupts Climbing class and asks a question] Are you a God?
[PC#1 looks at PC#2, who nods]
PC#1: No.
Gozer: Then... SHUT UP!
[Lightning flies from the DIs fingers, driving the PCs to the edge of the Grand Lodge roof and almost off;
PC#2: Hay, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say "YES"!

Liberty's Edge 5/5

nosig wrote:

You know... the original intent of this post was not to argue about the knowledge rules and how they work. It really wasn't even about how we should all strive as judges to do it the same way - to reduce YMMV and bad feelings and all that.

What I was trying for was some light-hearted stories... the original question was...
"What was that training like? Let's hear some stories from Basic Training people! What did YOU learn from your DI (Drill Instructor)."

Sure, it would have been nice if that's all it was.

But you set up the premise of your post by stating that pathfinders should just know certain things about certain monsters because of their basic training.

If the premise is essentially false (based on game mechanics and fairness to those who invested resources towards knowledges) then expect there to be argument.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Jiggy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

What if, before rolling the check, I say,

Hey GM, does my Tengu Bard Arawcaw remember if this creature has DR?

If I make the roll, would you give that information to me? Or would you pick something else to give me?

Possibly. That would really depend on the situation, though. How good was your check? How well-known is the monster's DR? What if the monster doesn't even *have* DR, and your check was only high enough for 1 tidbit? ("No" would seem really lame for a successful check.) Is the party mostly martial? Mostly spellcasters? Likely to cakewalk if you get the DR? Likely to get trounced if you don't? Am I letting you shoot yourself in the foot if I give you the DR you asked for instead of the triple-energy-drain I would've otherwise given you?

Definitely depends on the situation.

Maybe. But if a player specifically asks if he remembers a specific thing, that's the thing I'm going to give them with a successful check.

Why? Because the player has a reason for asking that specific question.

If a sorcerer has fireball and lightning bolt, and asks (before rolling) if his character remembers if the BBEG has any energy resistances...

Because you think its more important to give the BBEG's main offensive power, it leaves that sorcerer in a bad spot. Do I cast lightning bolt, or fireball, or does it matter (either resistant/immune to both, or neither to both?) So the Sorcerer made a knowledge check, based on information he wanted to know, and still would have to guess as to which spell to cast.

That could leave a really bad taste in the players mouth.

If the player just makes a generic knowledge check, sure, run the situation however you want.

But if they ask a specific question prior to the roll, then give them that info.

Grand Lodge 4/5

It seems the real solution here is Paizo just needs to sell a new book of "basic knowledge" that by virtue of the player owning it their characters get to automatically identify a list of creatures and know specific pieces of info about them.

Paizo makes money, Knowledge Skills are still valuable because they save you money, and pay-to-win players can now make theme characters without having to worry about making them well-rounded. Everyone wins.

51 to 100 of 115 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / PF basic training - Monster Recognition Class All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.