Knowledge checks. It's generally considered metagaming to ask the GM "what CR is the creature?" but with a successful knowledge check you'd be justified in knowing whether it's within your party's capabilities to handle or not.
Nope.
Complete warrior had one using sense motive, but PF has no such thing (you can guesstimate by using detect alignment spells [it will give you a range, due to how auras work] as well as, I suppose, spells with hard HD limits [although HD is only loosely related to CR]).
Knowledge checks. It's generally considered metagaming to ask the GM "what CR is the creature?" but with a successful knowledge check you'd be justified in knowing whether it's within your party's capabilities to handle or not.
I never considered CR to be a 'bit of information'; but I suppose that is one way to run things. The knowledge rules are all sorts of bad, anywho.
Knowledge checks. It's generally considered metagaming to ask the GM "what CR is the creature?" but with a successful knowledge check you'd be justified in knowing whether it's within your party's capabilities to handle or not.
When GMing, I usually include "threat level" with any successful knowledge check. "That's an ogre mage. They're built like ogres, but are much more powerful, and are known to wield magic."
Not unless you metagame... which you should be avoiding.
Well I don't think he's looking for "it is CR7", but rather "this guy is a BAMF that you probably shouldn't deal with." There's nothing metagamey about knowing that if you see a huge dragon, it's time to scram.
Knowledge checks. It's generally considered metagaming to ask the GM "what CR is the creature?" but with a successful knowledge check you'd be justified in knowing whether it's within your party's capabilities to handle or not.When GMing, I usually include "threat level" with any successful knowledge check. "That's an ogre mage. They're built like ogres, but are much more powerful, and are known to wield magic."
Such a descriptor seems quite imprecise. Also, it doesn't handle rarer monster without easy comparison, things with templates, and things with class levels (the sense motive complete adventurer method [I said complete warrior up-thread, I was incorrect] does the job quite well:
Sense Motive vs Bluff (with some modifiers for the following table)
Opponent’s CR * Result
4 or more less than your level/HD * A pushover
1, 2, or 3 less than your level/HD * Easy
Equal to your level/HD * A fair fight
Equal to your level/HD plus 1, 2, or 3 * A tough challenge
Exceeds your level/HD by 4 or more * A dire threat
Page 102.. check it out if you have Complete Adventurer. I will be using this in my next game.
Edit: Or I might rewrite this system... hmm...
Such a descriptor seems quite imprecise. Also, it doesn't handle rarer monster without easy comparison, things with templates, and things with class levels. . .Knowledge checks. It's generally considered metagaming to ask the GM "what CR is the creature?" but with a successful knowledge check you'd be justified in knowing whether it's within your party's capabilities to handle or not.When GMing, I usually include "threat level" with any successful knowledge check. "That's an ogre mage. They're built like ogres, but are much more powerful, and are known to wield magic."
Yes, it is a rather imprecise system. My "home made system" amounts to "If your character knows what they see, they probably have an idea how powerful it is too." So, it "handles rarer monster without easy comparison" just fine - I simply make the description fit the monster.
I really don't want a game mechanic for conning CR precisely. It's too metagamy for my taste. For example, take my ogre mage scenario, which was originally a description for a 6th level party who had been fighting ogres and was spying on the "ogre chief" deciding if they should rush him.
Instead, let's say I have a 9th level party. They look at this guy and succeed in a roll. Now they know whether that particular ogre mage has any class levels, because he'll be "easy" without, "a fair fight" with one, and "a tough challenge" with two or more levels.
I don't think it would ruin the game for a system like that one to exist, but if one is ever made, I hope it's not based on Sense Motive vs. Bluff. That really steps on the utility of the six knowledge skills that explicitly say they're good for knowing about various kinds of monsters.
Such a descriptor seems quite imprecise. Also, it doesn't handle rarer monster without easy comparison, things with templates, and things with class levels. . .Knowledge checks. It's generally considered metagaming to ask the GM "what CR is the creature?" but with a successful knowledge check you'd be justified in knowing whether it's within your party's capabilities to handle or not.When GMing, I usually include "threat level" with any successful knowledge check. "That's an ogre mage. They're built like ogres, but are much more powerful, and are known to wield magic."Yes, it is a rather imprecise system. My "home made system" amounts to "If your character knows what they see, they probably have an idea how powerful it is too." So, it "handles rarer monster without easy comparison" just fine - I simply make the description fit the monster.
I really don't want a game mechanic for conning CR precisely. It's too metagamy for my taste. For example, take my ogre mage scenario, which was originally a description for a 6th level party who had been fighting ogres and was spying on the "ogre chief" deciding if they should rush him.
Instead, let's say I have a 9th level party. They look at this guy and succeed in a roll. Now they know whether that particular ogre mage has any class levels, because he'll be "easy" without, "a fair fight" with one, and "a tough challenge" with two or more levels.
I don't think it would ruin the game for a system like that one to exist, but if one is ever made, I hope it's not based on Sense Motive vs. Bluff. That really steps on the utility of the six knowledge skills that explicitly say they're good for knowing about various kinds of monsters.
I agree that there should be no in-game way to determine precise CR. A homebrewed Knowledge system can really help the PCs in understanding the CR of a monster if only be inference (I had one for my last campaign, but it was a bit too clunky and involved printed out sheets for each monster I would fill out according to how well the PC did on their check; its good in theory but it needs streamlining).
"Assess Opponent", as the system is called, does not step on the toes of the knowledge skills. Assess opponent only lets you know how tough a monster is through a descriptive term. Knowledges give you actual capabilities. Assess Opponent is also a move action, while Knowledges are a reflexive action. As I understand it, Assess Opponent is connected to the 'intuition' aspect of sense motive. I like the sense motive part of it, but not necessarily the bluff aspect. Not sure what a better target DC would be...
"Assess Opponent", as the system is called, does not step on the toes of the knowledge skills. Assess opponent only lets you know how tough a monster is through a descriptive term. Knowledges give you actual capabilities. Assess Opponent is also a move action, while Knowledges are a reflexive action. As I understand it, Assess Opponent is connected to the 'intuition' aspect of sense motive. I like the sense motive part of it, but not necessarily the bluff aspect. Not sure what a better target DC would be...
Hmm, that does sound a little better than I first thought. I'd be inclined to give a penalty to Sense Motive for assessing creatures you'd never heard of, and a bonus for assessing creatures you're very familiar with. "I have no idea what that clear thing is (gelatinous cube), but I'm pretty sure it's a fair fight."
I agree that the bigger problem is targeting Bluff, which the vast majority of enemies won't have, and which implies that the enemy is actively trying to fool onlookers.
From personal experience, I let the players have a knowledge check. I'll tell them some basic characteristics like what elements they're resistant against, what they need to overcome their DR and if they have spell casting (a lot or a little). As of late though I've been running Rappan Athunk and a simple "You're f*cked" is all that is needed to get the point across.
I don't need to know much about raccoons or elephants to know which one can hurt me more.
Does it have pointy teeth? Claws? Tentacles? A beak? Eyes in front or on the side of its head? All of those answers would scream the creatures danger level to me.
The only reason we don't know more about the physical dangers of animals in our world is because they are largely nonexistent to us. In a world were demons and trolls actually exist, I assure you, most people know what to fight and what to run from.
I actually used Assess Opponent in Kingmaker, since I knew that running into monsters far above the party's EL was possible and likely (in fact, it happened a few times). They used it once or twice. For the rest of the encounters, the party had all Knowledges covered (sometimes doubled over) and that kept them well-informed enough.