|
Ok, I came into a scenario yesterday where a Gnome was stuck in a force field for over a century. You know the usual, purple hair and all that. So I said, that I don't see any bleaching and I'm suspicious. The GM said it was metagaming, so I let it drop. The think is, I learned about bleaching in a PF novel, specifically the Queen of Thorns. I have the sheet to prove that I have read it, since it was signed by a different GM. So, would this knowledge be Metagamer, since having read the novel is actually part of my PCs story?
|
|
bleaching is a trait aggregate to golarion gnomes. It's not widely known, but someone who understands or has experienced how gnomes are affected to that degree could easily have that knowledge and not metagame. Nor do I think it's a major detail in the scenario, probably overlooked by the writer, so I don't think you can read too much into it game wise.
|
|
The boons from Queen of Thorns is something different. However, one of the main characters in the book is a Gnome who is affected by Bleaching. And since the book is written by Count Varian Jaggare, a noted Pathfinder who writes reports that are presumably read by other Pathfinders, I would imagine I could draw on the knowledge I read, written by a former VC of the Pathfinder Society.
I would imagine that any knowledge that is written in a novel aka a literal report to the Pathfinder Society, should be fair game to Pathfinders aka Players, who actually read that novel aka 'report by one of their own.' If I'm reading it in the Core Book, I'd say that knowledge is not fair game, if its in an actual novel that is supposed to be a recounting of events by a high level Pathfinder and a former VC, then yeah, I should be able to come up with that knowledge.
The Gnome said he was trapped in the binding circle for over a century. And then I remembered that I read about gnomes and their inability to survive without any new experiences. So, 100 years, trapped in a circle, no new experiences, means Bleaching. No Bleaching, then its not a gnome.
|
|
Isn't my memory of having read a Pathfinder Venture Captain's mission report a knowledge check of its own. I, me, myself, literally Eric Saxon, living in Reseda, CA read a VC's mission report.
My remembering something from that book means that I succeeded my own knowledge check at the table, there was a DC20 knowledge check against what I remembered from that book, that I read in February, after our local VC gave it to us at Orcon here in Los Angeles. That DC 20 check didn't happen on the table, it happened between my ears, in my brain but I did succeed that DC knowledge check of Count Varian Jaeggare's adventures. Here's another knowledge check, the Jaeggare clan is a Chelish noble clan who have large, wealthy estates in Imperial Cheliax. Shouldn't need a DC 20 to know who he is, if I'm even introduced to him. And if one of these adventures presents me with a Dwarf named Count Varian Jaeggare, I get to call him a liar because I've been given credit for having read these books and I know he's a partially gray haired, half-elf, with a fetish for a soul patch. He also has a half-devil servant/bodyguard/best-friend Radovan who doesn't think very highly of his employer's "Adventurers' Club."
Now, I was given credit for having read these books, which I applied to all my PCs. Shouldn't I have that knowledge available to myself?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your character experienced these things I think it should be allowed, but I don't think PFS supports that. If you read a book, but your character has not actually seen ____ in play then you need a knowledge check. You are not your character.
|
|
I understand your point, but you must understand there is no way to limit that sort of knowledge. What if I completely memorized the Bestiary and say, well, Pathfinders report on what monsters they encounter and the known weaknesses and strengths, so I should have access that knowledge. What if I'm a voracious reader of Pathfinder products, could I not have more knowledge than would my PC could reasonably have? Now some Pathfinder Tales Boons actually grant bonuses to knowledge checks, so I think it is safe to assume that the a DC 20 check is still needed.
|
|
PFS supports all these novels 'reports.' They are in the PFS library in Absalom to be read by any Pathfinder on his off days. Now, do I know about the mating habits of gnomes or their cultural quirks.
Nope, I certainly don't. And for this I would think I need a knowledge check. But reading a VC's adventure report, that's fair game, in my opinion. Paizo certainly entices its players to buy these books and read them, even gives them a session sheet for having read them. If you read one of the other Varian Jaggare reports, you'd have a +2 to diplomacy with werewolves, due to your knowledge. But in that same book, Jaggare also meets a vampire and mentions that sunlight really does a number on fangers. Again, I don't know anything about other undead, so I'd need a knowledge check religion, but knowing that Vampires are not fans of sunlight, I can extrapolate from reading the former VC's mission reports.
Or at least this is my not so humble opinion.
|
If your character experienced these things I think it should be allowed, but I don't think PFS supports that. If you read a book, but your character has not actually seen ____ in play then you need a knowledge check. You are not your character.
But all characters can read pathfinder chronicles, doesn't that boon represent that they read a chronicle put out by the society that is of a similar nature?
(I actually have no idea on this, the book boon rules and what they "mean" for the characters applied to them isn't something I know very well)
Either way, if your character hasn't had first hand experience with bleaching, even if you know what it is, you might not be able to tell for certain without that knowledge local check.
If your character is a gnome, that is bleached. I'd give it to you :)
|
|
You must remember that these are novels, not Pathfinder reports. There are plenty of books in the line that have nothing to do with the Pathfinder Society. The Boons are just an incentive to buy the books, nothing else. If you read the Worldwound Gambit, should you be able to use knowledge within that book? None of the characters are Pathfinders, where do you draw the line? Bottom line, the rules do not allow metagaming and unfortunately that knowledge falls in that area. You needed to make a skill check.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eric,
It's one of the harder things to remember about gaming. I have an incredibly useless knowlege of game mechanics in general and lore in specific. (There's a reason I like lore wardens and bards)
More than once, I've played a scenario I GMed before. I'll warn the GM I've played it, and warn the players I'm staying back in the rear, so they can discover the wonders of the scenario. So think about it from that point of view. Would I be expected to use the information I'd gleaned from reading the scenario, even though my character's never seen it? The same thing holds true for the novels.
|
This does bring up an interesting point. A Character in scenario X sees the holy symbol of Lissala. This character works out A) Who the holy symbol represents without a shadow of a doubt and B) Who the leader of a particular branch of that cult is.
Fastforward to when that character is playing in scenario Y. A character sees the exact same symbol of Lissala, fails a roll and cannot identify it. The player fully knows what is is, the GM of course knows.. the character for some reason does not.
We arnt talking about a slightly different stylised version of the Holy Symbol here. Its the exact same depiction.. just in a different location.
Also scenario Y was played directly after Scenario X.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
If the specific character has encountered this in a previous scenario, that information may be used. The player need only produce the chronicle. This is not such a case, however, because here, the player has OOC knowledge that relates to the game world. The way that we find out whether or not a *character* knows something, apart from a player, is through the use of knowledge checks.
|
|
Fastforward to when that character is playing in scenario Y. A character sees the exact same symbol of Lissala, fails a roll and cannot identify it. The player fully knows what is is, the GM of course knows.. the character for some reason does not.
Presumably there's more than one way to make the same holy symbol. The fish and the cross are both symbols for Christianity that don't resemble each other for instance.
|
|
This does bring up an interesting point. A Character in scenario X sees the holy symbol of Lissala. This character works out A) Who the holy symbol represents without a shadow of a doubt and B) Who the leader of a particular branch of that cult is.
Fastforward to when that character is playing in scenario Y. A character sees the exact same symbol of Lissala, fails a roll and cannot identify it. The player fully knows what is is, the GM of course knows.. the character for some reason does not.
We arnt talking about a slightly different stylised version of the Holy Symbol here. Its the exact same depiction.. just in a different location.
Also scenario Y was played directly after Scenario X.
Also remember that a knowledge check is also a simulation, albeit somewhat random, of memory. A character may have learned something in a previous scenario, but perhaps can't recall the details, i.e. fail the skill check.
|
|
Knowledge checks can get kind of wonky... some food for thought...
.
Is it metagaming for someone to recognize a horse for what it is?
This is a Knowledge Nature DC 10 after all... if your PC has a 9 INT, it means you FAIL MORE THAN HALF THE TIME to recognize what a common animal or plant is."Go get a horse!"
"I might need someone to help me... last time I came back with a chicken."
Your characters will take 10 and get it wrong every single time... :)
|
|
LOL, except this wasn't ooc info that some of you are mentioning. Count Varian Jaeggare is a former VC according to the novels. Therefore his reports are being turned in to the PFS. That means they are fair game to anyone who reads them. This isn't me reading the Core Rulebook, its me looking at a report. Heck, I might have looked at Grandmater Torch's former reports, does that mean I can use any info he's learned, once I've read his report? This seems silly and counter productive. Why ask Pathfinders to write reports if no one will gain anything from them?
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
LOL, except this wasn't ooc info that some of you are mentioning. Count Varian Jaeggare is a former VC according to the novels. Therefore his reports are being turned in to the PFS. That means they are fair game to anyone who reads them. This isn't me reading the Core Rulebook, its me looking at a report. Heck, I might have looked at Grandmater Torch's former reports, does that mean I can use any info he's learned, once I've read his report? This seems silly and counter productive. Why ask Pathfinders to write reports if no one will gain anything from them?
No, no, no, that's just it. It *is* out-of-character information for your character. We're not disputing that it happened in the game world, we're explaining that, without the requisite knowledge skills, your character doesn't know about it. Knowledge checks encompass your knowledge of PFS chronicles.
|
|
This seems silly and counter productive. Why ask Pathfinders to write reports if no one will gain anything from them?
People do. But they can't read and remember every report. So the knowledge check tells you if your specific character has read that report and if he remembers it. You the player having that chronicle doesn't make it automatic knowledge.
|
|
Actually horses are likely common enough to be DC 5+.
Meaning that in a non stressful situation you can take 10 and recognize it.
However if you were kicked in the head out of nowhere you would likely be sure that it was equestrian but you might not be sure if it was a horse, or a pony, or a donkey, or a hippogriff.
|
|
If Paizo provides a scenario sheet for it, then it either counts as played or as learned. You tell me guys? Is a scenario sheet given for a novel considered that you've read the report or is it considered as your own accomplishments?
MB or anyone else in the Paizo staff, I'd like to request an opinion, as to how you'd rule on it? Just curiosity, not a binding ruling.
|
|
If Paizo provides a scenario sheet for it, then it either counts as played or as learned. You tell me guys? Is a scenario sheet given for a novel considered that you've read the report or is it considered as your own accomplishments?
Barring an official clarification or rule in the guide, you get nothing but what the chronicle says you get.
|
Here's how I look at it.
For Eric's specific question. If you were a gnome, I would give it to you without a roll. Otherwise, a Knowledge: Local should be required. Now, if you can provide some evidence that your character has interacted with gnomes, perhaps that grants you a small circumstance bonus (+2). But, as Hawkwen pointed out, the Knowledge roll is just a simulation of your character being able to recall something on the spur of the moment.
Just think about your own personal life. There are times that you cannot "instantly" recall specific details about a thing. That's why we have reference materials, and the like! How many people can quote the "Infield Fly Rule" and get it right every time? I use this example, because I have had umpires get it wrong!
As for the horse example... I would assume you would be getting a hefty Circumstance bonus by the GM. However, that doesn't mean you know everything there is to know about a horse... but you identify the equine the Cavalier is riding as a horse (but not necessarily the specific bread, lineage, etc).
|
|
Pathfinders live in Absalom, the City that is considered the Center of the Known World. When we're not out and about killing stuff, we chill in this city, see the sight, meet the people, prepare for the next mission. I'd imagine most Pathfinders know something about gnomes, just by living in the largest city in the world, where everyone could be your neighbor.
I'm just wondering if Pathfinder Chronicles would be considered to be something a PC would have read.
|
|
In regards to the Bleaching, I didn't recognize it. I found a gnome who was trapped in a barrier for over 100 years and didn't see it, which is why I was shocked that he hadn't bleached. So my PC said, this isn't a gnome, he'd be a corpse if he was trapped behind there for a century and this Gnome isn't even bleaching.
At which point the GM stepped in and said that's meta info.
The thing is I thought about it and I'm not sure it would be a meta disease. Its a genetic disease that affects all Gnomes, if they fail to have a new experience, for a prolonged time. Now I've read of it in a PFS Chronicle, so I figured that would be information that most humans wouldn't know but a Pathfinder in Absalom who read the chronicles of his predecessors and higher ups, I'd consider it fair game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eric, I will give your character the benefit of a doubt and say, "okay, he read a pathfinder report regarding gnomes once. Now roll a Knowledge (local) check to see if he learned it." After all, that is what the knowledge checks represent.
Personally, in real life, I am very good at math, I know a lot of mathematics, and I have read a lot of mathematics. There are some mathematics that I have read which I would not be able to recall if asked, even if I had once understood it perfectly.
I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for knowledge checks for stuff like that, even if your character read it in a book once.
As a better example, there is a particular book on a particular chronicle sheet which provides a +4 bonus to a particular knowledge check regarding a particular subject. In other words, the chronicle sheet says that having and reading the book gives a better chance of succeeding on the knowledge check, not automatic success.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would gnomish bleaching be some kind of secret or unknown knowledge that would require a skill check?!? It's widely present in materials we should all want players to have more than a passing knowledge of and be able to use in game to produce a more immersive experience. If some scenario expected some widely accessible (and with a player-oriented Companion on gnomes covering the topic as well as the description in the Inner Sea Guide covering it, I consider it widely accessible in Golarion materials) element of a core race to be secret, then it's the scenario at fault for trying to make something out to be secret that shouldn't be.
The GM should have been happy the player picked up on the reference to the unbleached gnome without requiring a knowledge check. That's the kind of game mastery that should be promoted, not squashed because of misplaced dislike of metagaming.
|
This is a tough one. There is a chronicle sheet for the novel. If the chronicle was signed off on for that character (and it sounds like that is the case), I'd be inclined to allow it. It's worth noting that in two places on the chronicle for Queen of Thorns, it is referred to as a "Chronicle" not, like on the holiday boons, a "Boon." It's also worth noting that the chronicles from the Pathfinder Tales give you access to purchase items from those scenarios, not just the boons. I think it's as reasonable to assume knowledge from those is as familiar to the PC as knowledge from any other scenario with a chronicle. It might be a leap in logic for the PC to immediately assume the gnome was a fake, but it would certainly, in my mind, give the PC the ok to bring it up and have the gnome try to talk his way out of it.
I suppose if you're a GM that feels no past knowledge of the character applies unless it's quantified by a bonus on the chronicle, then this wouldn't either. But the argument that Eric is presenting is completely valid in my mind, because it is a chronicle sheet applied to the character reflecting his experiences. If a PC can be allowed to remember "we killed that troll with fire," or the identity of the shadow lodge traitor from ten scenarios ago, or "a harpy charmed me with her song then ripped my throat out," then something like the existence of bleaching seems fair enough. Not saying the GM should give them every detail about bleaching, but bringing up the term and prompting anyone in the party to roll Knowledge Local would seem completely warranted.
For the record:
|
|
Why would gnomish bleaching be some kind of secret or unknown knowledge that would require a skill check?!? It's widely present in materials we should all want players to have more than a passing knowledge of and be able to use in game to produce a more immersive experience. If some scenario expected some widely accessible (and with a player-oriented Companion on gnomes covering the topic as well as the description in the Inner Sea Guide covering it, I consider it widely accessible in Golarion materials) element of a core race to be secret, then it's the scenario at fault for trying to make something out to be secret that shouldn't be.
The GM should have been happy the player picked up on the reference to the unbleached gnome without requiring a knowledge check. That's the kind of game mastery that should be promoted, not squashed because of misplaced dislike of metagaming.
Also, this. Well said.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@Bill Dunn,
For the same reason we don't want players using encyclopedic knowledge of the Bestiaries?
For example, I know that Pathfinder gives 'outs' for characters petrified by basilisks that don't exist in D&D. It doesn't mean my characters with no ranks in knowledge nature know it. I even explained the rule from memory at the table, and followed up with, "so let's hope I roll well enough to let Narnia remember it too."
|
|
I think what Eric is getting at is the following:
the chronicle my characters *currently* receive for Prince of Wolves has two pages. The first page is about how to use the chronicle. It details how to get your GM to sign it etc.
The second page is the actual chronicle.
click HERE {LINK} to download it (or go to additional resources and click on Prince of Wolves a little ways down on the far right of your screen).
It has on it a boon:
Prince of Wolves: Your experiences with the Sczarni of the Prince’s Wolves have given you insight into dealing with werewolves and other lycanthropes, and you are unphased by their bestial natures. You receive a +2 bonus on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks against lycanthropes. Additionally, the Intimdate DC for a lycanthrope to demoralize you is 2 higher than normal.
Essentially, my character "read" the chronicle written by Count Varian Jaggare and from reading it has gained the experience of "interacting with Sczarni werewolves." Like, literally gained that experience. Like as if my character(s) (and each of them at least for now) ALL DID THIS THEMSELVES.
So what Eric is saying is: My character has the chronicle for Queen of Thorns, and counts as having done the adventure in that book and thus should know about the bleaching.
As for my answer to you, Eric: Ask your GM who claims you are "metagaming": if I keep a journal of everything my character does and either himself identifies or some other party member identifies and tells me about, can I use that knowledge later? For instance, the 3rd time I see Skeletons, can I go straight for my club even though my "normal" weapon is a scimitar? or are you going to call me a "metagamer" and insist that I draw my scimitar and attack the "unidentified bone creature" to find out that it doesn't work well?
|
|
I was playing a cloistered cleric when the party encountered an ooze. I immediately cast protection from energy (acid) on the fighter. Was I justified in using my player experience there?
Yeah, never been a fan of "selective memory." I'd allow it.
And as for Eric's problem, seems like he's got the chronicle to back his claim. Unfortunately, some GMs have their own notions of things, and don't much care for dissent.
|
|
I was playing a cloistered cleric when the party encountered an ooze. I immediately cast protection from energy (acid) on the fighter. Was I justified in using my player experience there?
Good question, has any of your PCs ever met an ooze? You have, then sure. Your PCs are drinking buddies, your current PC was talking to your other PC about how the other PC almost got his face burned off by acid due to an ooze and now its your knowledge.
If you've got to grab a book or an Iphone or an Ipad, then its not commonly available and I'd say roll me a d20. If you can pull it out of your (we'll go with brain) in a spur of the moment situation, then its fair game.
Or do we all need to roll a d20 to know that Vampires don't like sunlight and the best way to kill undead is holy magic, holy water and decapitation for Vampires and maybe a bit of burning of the body, just to make sure?
We've all got our fairy tales, I don't have to be a religious zealot with a Knowledge Religion to know that undead don't like Holy magic items. Now, knowing that you need blunt weapons to kill a skeleton, that might require a single knowledge check.
But after killing 20 skeletons and meeting a skeleton dragon, I don't honestly think you need to re-roll that skill check. Its still a SKELETON, so grab a mace.
And if you can memorize the Bestiary, have at it. Seriously, you can memorize 300 pages of data on the weaknesses and strengths of every monster and still function and have a real life job, spouse and life. Then I'm going to say that this knowledge should not require all those knowledge checks.
Why would you need a Knowledge Religion and Knowledge Dungeoneering and Knowledge Planar and Knowledge whatever, if you can memorize every possible monster out there in your free time and recite it for me and know every weakness and strength, you are the bomb, enjoy it.
|
|
Because I am not my character.
Mind you my PC fighter has an int of 14, I don't like playing stupid and I don't do dump stats, so all my stats are 10 or more. So, I really am not a meta-gamer. Now if you're a min/maxed PC, I'd say, throw me that DC 20 because you have an INT of 5 and that's not fair game.
But if your warrior isn't an 20 STR warrior with -2 to INT and -2 to WIS and -2 to CHA, I'd give a little leeway. Again, this is all opinion and I didn't bring it up with my GM since it ultimately didn't matter and I'd rather not stir that up, since he's actually one of the nicest people I've met as a GM. But it was more of a question that I thought would be interesting to bring up and debate and see how others felt about it.
|
|
No doubt. But there must be a way to delineate between player and character knowledge. Knowledge checks and Rule Zero accomplish that.
Personally, I would have given you that knowledge when you produced the chronicle. I enjoy using previous chronicles to enhance roleplay and show continuity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Bill Dunn,
For the same reason we don't want players using encyclopedic knowledge of the Bestiaries?
For example, I know that Pathfinder gives 'outs' for characters petrified by basilisks that don't exist in D&D. It doesn't mean my characters with no ranks in knowledge nature know it. I even explained the rule from memory at the table, and followed up with, "so let's hope I roll well enough to let Narnia remember it too."
But in this case, we're dealing with 2 differently sourced pieces of knowledge. The information about gnomes and bleaching is accessible in player-oriented and setting defining materials, about a player character race that should be pretty widely distributed throughout Golarion, and pretty general in terms of the applicability of gnomes. Use of that sort of information should be encouraged or at least celebrated by players as a way of deepening the role playing experience and not hidden behind a "did I pick the right knowledge skill" wall.
Would you require a player to make a knowledge roll to know that the Cheliax is ruled by the Thrune dynasty and that they worship devils? Or would you encourage a player knowing and using that information in role playing? That dwarves can see in the dark? That elves live a really long time? That a number of dwarven Sky Fortresses have fallen to orcs and other humanoids? That Galt is a land of perpetual revolutionary instability? That Varisians often lead a semi-nomadic life? That Ulfen raiders are known to sail the western coast of Avistan in longships? That Aroden tangled with Tar-Baphon or that Iomedae was once the herald of Aroden and took over much of his church when he died?
I mean, how much are you going to let a player use without a knowledge check on most of this fairly general stuff? Frankly, I'd love to have players reasonably invested in this sort of information. It tells me they're paying attention to the setting and story and not just the rules of the game and that just makes the game better.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@Bill Dunn,
A lot of those? Yes. Do you know who General Sheridan is? Or who the current ruler of Luxumburg is? Do you know the CPT codes for an initial office visit of moderate complexity?
Does Ted Andoran know about the House of Thrune? Maybe. It's more likely that he 'knows' it's an evil nation ruled by monsters. He might recognize a lemur, but anything of 6HD or higher is beyond his abilities to recognize untrained.
To this particular scenario. the bleaching is specifically called out in the scenario as being known by DC X Knowlege check. With Gnomes getting a racial bonus and being allowed to make the check untrained. So the bleaching isn't a 'DC 10, everyone can try,' check.
As for common knowlege... I wish I could cast summon KAM. If a character can ID a vampire, and if he relies on common myths, what is he going to do? Throw rice at it? Tell it it can't come in? Curse that he doesn't have a white ash stake at hand, the oak one won't do? Is he going to hide and have a virgin boy on an young stallion ride through the cemetary to see which grave the horse doesn't step on to find the vampire? All those are perfectly valid real world vampire myths.
As to the sheet itself. Nowhere does it state that the character has read the novel/pathfinder journal. (Not to mention, the boons on it really aren't something you can 'read about') From the "How to use" section:
Because Pathfinder Tales novels are stories first, there is no easy way to sanction items, spells, feats, or other special abilities whole cloth. Therefore, the Queen of Thorns Chronicle sheet uses the following rules.
• Only items, feats, boons, or abilities found on the Chronicle sheet are legal for play.
The character no more becomes an expert on the bleaching anymore than reading Called to darkness makes your character an expert on Serpentfolk.