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.
And that DC should have been useful as a backup to some player having a good background in the setting and cueing in to the description the GM read off out of the boxed text.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
But the novel sheet does not give the character the background, it gives him the information on the sheet, nothing more. Whether you omitted that part of my post because of brevity or because it undermines your argument I can't say. Again
Only items, feats, boons, or abilities found on the Chronicle sheet are legal for play.
I have a good background of the setting. So you're saying that if I put in my PC's description "He read a lot of the pathfinder journals as a kid" I can use all my knowlege?
Edit to add: Death's Heretic, Nightglass, Called to Darkness, Blood of the City and others are specifically *not* written from the points of view of Pathfinders, again making the 'I read about these adventures in character' fall flat.
|
Let's reverse this for a second.
.
If the PLAYERS have no knowledge, does the judge interrupt the game to say,
"Even though you guys have no sense motive reason to suspect something is odd, your Knowledge local roll of '23' points out that this gnome is not suffering from Bleaching..."Does the players get the benifit of the DC check, without asking? or is this another case of "Gotcha!" when the players have to ask before the PCs get a roll?
I mean, I have a Trapsmith PC. His job is to check for and disarm traps. If I, as a player, am tired and forget to say, "I check this door for traps" - realizing my PC is fresh from 8 hours of rest (he's an elf, so no sleep right? What's the DC to know that by the way?), does the PC remember to Perception the door? Or does the judge get to say "Gotcha!"?
I wouldn't think so. I know that some GMs have players roll Knowledge checks before starting in order to just be able to tell the PCs what they know, so as to not cue players when something comes up in the scenario.
Unless your rogue has the Trap Spotter talent I would say you need to say your looking for traps. If I were your GM, I would probably roll a Perception check for you just to be nice, but I tend towards being a softie.
|
|
There are certain things I dont consider metagaming that Im sure other people would. For example:
A skeleton has DR/bludgeoning. A Zombie has DR/slashing.
I dont consider that kind of info metagaming because I think that is probably common enough information in a world where the dead rise semi-regularly. I compare it to the likes of general knowledge of 'play dead and the bear wont eat you' or 'blood in the water will attract sharks', regardless of how correct those might actually be (I know I wouldnt wanna test them lol).
Just my opinion, and obviously others are welcome to disagree.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@Nosig
If I'm familiar with the player, or if he's been checking the doors every time, but 'forgets' this one, I'll gently ask.
In this case, if the players are suspicious, then I'll ask for the appropriate knowlege checks. They don't need to tell me what knowledge they're using. If a player says "That doesn't sound right. Knowledge local?" that's fine. If the player just says, "That doesn't sound right," Then I'll say "Ok, knowledge XXXX check?"
This isn't relevant to the discussion at hand though. The example is of a character using knowlege from a book the player read.
A similar example is when I played Severing Ties this weekend. The <redacted> we encountered were aberrations. The GM asked for a knowledge check, the player asked if it was a knowledge Dungeoneering check. I (as a player) nodded, because I remembered they were aberrations. The knowledge didn't affect my character's actions, even though I'd read and ran the scenario. The only affect it had on the scenario was the GM not needing to look it up.
The argument of "IT's in the book I have the chronicle sheet for," is as akin as saying I can use, for my character, anything in beastiary 3 for reference because Talyn had Riddywhipple.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I generally ask my players to make a knowledge check if they're missing something that their PC would know, the exception being identifying monsters.why an exception?
Because at least one player at the table will generally ask about it, and that teaches good habits to those who don't' think about it. That's one of those things that I always encourage people to learn as an "always do this" action. However, it makes sense that a character might remember something that his player wouldn't necessarily know to ask about.
|
|
Having read through the thread, I have to say that I'm mostly with the majority here, and I'm against the OP's interpretation in general, but for this fact in particular, I'm torn because I think the DC (whatever it is, haven't read the scenario) probably should have been 10, and automatic for gnomes (in my hypothetical situation where knowing about the Bleaching is automatic, I still wouldn't say that every character would immediately think about the lack of Bleaching--I would have allowed maybe a Wisdom check to realize that the lack of Bleaching was weird if no one thought of it, though).
The Bleaching is a fundamental fact of being a gnome, and it is inevitably deadly. Until this thread, I assumed all gnome PCs automatically know about it, and being the lore guy that I am, I flat-out tell new players about it when they're playing a gnome as part of the fluff of the race (they usually think it's really cool). If a gnome PC doesn't know about the Bleaching, either they were adopted or their parents were horrible people--it would be like knowing your child has a peanut allergy or diabetes and knowing exactly how to avoid it but just saying nothing. We have had a good number of gnomes in our area, for whatever reason. One of them even had the backstory that he started Bleaching, got scared, and joined the Pathfinder Society to ensure that it didn't happen again.
So, what you're saying is that the 5 INT fighter should have just been able to pop up and say, "Duh, shouldn't gnomey-thing be white after no fun?" as the wizards and bards scratch their heads? That doesn't make much sense.
Possibly, just like if a gnome player found a human who had been in an oubliette for a hundred years without food or drink. Then even a Int 5 gnome might realise something was wrong.
Unless of course Bleaching is a secret shame and no gnome talks about it.
|
|
So, what you're saying is that the 5 INT fighter should have just been able to pop up and say, "Duh, shouldn't gnomey-thing be white after no fun?" as the wizards and bards scratch their heads? That doesn't make much sense.
Come again? Are you asking me, since that is the exact opposite of what I said and meant.
Until PFS comes up with a rule that says your character retains knowledge of what you read in ____, then you can't do it. You can ask for it to be changed, but as of now, whether it makes sense or not, you have to roll the check.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Let me ask you a question Eric.
Do you have an eidetic (photographic) memory? Are you one of the few who can remember every moment of every day they’ve been alive? Are you even close?
I am close to a photographic memory. It isn’t automatic for me though. Often I have to actually think about memorizing something, and then that memory is typically short term, not long term.
I just played Eyes of the Ten last night, and the GM wanted to see all our chronicles so he could personalize it for us. So I was looking through them as he looked through them, and there were a couple that I was like, “I have absolutely zero recollection of that particular scenario.” I played through it, and I remembered nothing of it.
I failed my Knowledge (memory) check.
Just because I went to class and read (and studied) all my biology material for my biology class in college, doesn’t mean I actually retained any of that information currently.
So here’s my answer to you:
It doesn’t matter if the reading of that novel, and assigning the chronicle sheet to your character, represents your character reading that Pathfinder chronicle or not.
1) Did your character take any ranks in an appropriate Knowledge skill to try and retain that knowledge? If not, then your character read it for pleasure and then brain-dumped it when done.
2) Did you succeed on your Knowledge check? If not, then your character didn’t remember anything pertinent to the situation from the chronicle he read.
That’s how Knowledge skills work in this game system.
|
|
Actually Matthew, to me, meta-gaming is using player knowledge to influence what the PC does. I know that if I steps off a cliff, my PC is going to suffer damage. Does my PC know what I, as a player knows?
Then by this definition, I'd say that my PC should have access to this knowledge.
A Pathfinder Chronicle, written as a report to the Pathfinder Society about a mission and the knowledge he gleamed from it. Its essentially a textbook for Pathfinders who have read it. Hey, the elves are long lived and they left prior to Starfall. Oh, that's the Royal House of the Elves. Oh, this is the name of the Head Ranger in charge of the defenses of Kyonnin, the name of the Elven nation. Oh, BTW they are really huge fans of Callistria but some are more focused on the vengeance aspect of their goddess than the lust aspect. But there's still plenty of the lust aspect.
Now, do I need a Religion DC20 for knowing that Callistria is the goddess of well, you know....
What about the name of the Head Ranger? Name of the Queen of Kyonnin? Knowledge local?
Knowledge history for the fact that the Elves left prior to Starfall?
Knowledge local for the fact that non-elves are not allowed outside of certain port towns, because the forests are for elves ONLY?
These are minor pieces of information from "Queen of Thorns" and certainly something you'd find in a Pathfinder report to the Society. Does that mean you know everything about Elves, certainly not. Does it help with certain taboos like, don't go into the woods unless your a full blooded elf? Yeah, it might help.
But honestly the bleaching thing, I could never imagine where I'd come up against that piece of information. Heck, I didn't even know, HOW I knew about bleaching until I got home, honestly Gonomes bore me so I've never read one entry about them, certainly not in the CORE RB, if its there. It was one of those RANDOM pieces of information just hanging out in the gray zone of my brain. Who the hell comes up with that 15 seconds after he meets a dude stuck behind a barrier for a 100 years? But because I read a certain Pathfinder's report to the Society, I pulled it out.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Eric, you're saying that because you, the player, read something that your PC should know about it. If you're playing that 5 INT fighter, then yes, that is exactly what you're saying.
@Nosig
If I'm familiar with the player, or if he's been checking the doors every time, but 'forgets' this one, I'll gently ask.
In this case, if the players are suspicious, then I'll ask for the appropriate knowlege checks. They don't need to tell me what knowledge they're using. If a player says "That doesn't sound right. Knowledge local?" that's fine. If the player just says, "That doesn't sound right," Then I'll say "Ok, knowledge XXXX check?"
This isn't relevant to the discussion at hand though. The example is of a character using knowlege from a book the player read.
A similar example is when I played Severing Ties this weekend. The <redacted> we encountered were aberrations. The GM asked for a knowledge check, the player asked if it was a knowledge Dungeoneering check. I (as a player) nodded, because I remembered they were aberrations. The knowledge didn't affect my character's actions, even though I'd read and ran the scenario. The only affect it had on the scenario was the GM not needing to look it up.
The argument of "IT's in the book I have the chronicle sheet for," is as akin as saying I can use, for my character, anything in beastiary 3 for reference because Talyn had Riddywhipple.
I think it is relevant. The question here is are you as adamantly against meta gaming when said meta gaming is detrimental to the players as you are against it when it's beneficial?
Will you stop a PC from doing something that they wouldn't do based on some in character knowledge that the player forgot or just doesn't know?
Example:
Player: I attack the ooze with my scimitar
GM: First give me a Knowledge Dungeoneering.
Player: 18
GM: You know that slashing weapons will just make this ooze split into two so you don't attack it with your scimitar.Is that a scenario that you see playing out?
I have done this very thing a few times with newbies. I try to avoid "gotcha" moments as a GM, because they are generally unsatisfying.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Eric,
It goes back to the fact that none of that information is on the sheet. Nor is a good deal of the information in the novel shared with anyone. The count isn't going to report "By the way, my father is <redacted> and <redacted> is a gateway from hell for four different devils" even though those facts are in the book.
Again, the novels are not Society Chronicles. Nowhere does it say they are. The rules for using them expressly say the only thing your character gets for his player reading them are the access to items/boons/conditions on the sheet.
If I were to run "Snows of Summer" and apply it to Ksenia, it doesn't mean she suddenly knows, outside of her limited skillset, the entire summary of the adventure path, even though it appears in that AP publication.*
Likewise, if I play Silent Tide, then play it *again* with hte same PC to fill out a table, I don't get credit for it, (I think that's legal, I've not had to do it so far.) Having the Silent Tide chronicle sheet on my character's folder does not mean I can go "Let's skip right to <redacted>'s base. I know where it is!"**
*
**
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
This is a very interesting topic. We've got people saying, basically, that their characters spend time reading the chronicles and reports of other pathfinders, and swap war stories with them, and in doing so -- know various things as they level up. Like the resistances of demons, or how to kill a swarm, etc. On the other hand, we have people saying that's great and all outside of combat, but in combat, in the heat of the moment you need to make a knowledge check to recall that information.
Personally, if I'm running a game and throw a ghast at the PCs, and a player says "oh, this character fought those last game!" I'm going to be inclined to just let that guy let his teammates what he remembers about the previous encounter.
I actually have a character that notes on the various creatures he has encountered. I keep a list on the back of his sheets; I can flip it over and say, "oh no, not another harpy! Plug your ears lad!" If a GM were to have me make a knowledge check at that point, I'd be miffed to say the least. But I can see the argument.
I guess my question is, to those that are requiring the checks on monsters PCs have previously identified -- where is the line drawn? At what point don't I have to make a check to identify a creature? Is combat so stressful that I can't spend a moment to check my note-card on monsters?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think it is relevant. The question here is are you as adamantly against meta gaming when said meta gaming is detrimental to the players as you are against it when it's beneficial?
Will you stop a PC from doing something that they wouldn't do based on some in character knowledge that the player forgot or just doesn't know?
Example:
Player: I attack the ooze with my scimitar
GM: First give me a Knowledge Dungeoneering.
Player: 18
GM: You know that slashing weapons will just make this ooze split into two so you don't attack it with your scimitar.Is that a scenario that you see playing out?
IF I know the character has the skills, then I'll ask. I don't pretend to be omniscient (and my Player doesn't tell me everything) so it might get missed. If I'm proactively asking, I'll ask before the action starts, to avoid bias.
If I forget, that's called a mistake. Again it's not relative to the initial argument which is, "I have a chronicle sheet because I have the book. So I can use any data from the book, even if it isn't on the sheet."
So "bleaching" is a hidden problem? Requiring a DC20 check, even from gnomes.
I could see a few ways in which in this instance it's not applicable, potentially.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
This is a very interesting topic. We've got people saying, basically, that their characters spend time reading the chronicles and reports of other pathfinders, and swap war stories with them, and in doing so -- know various things as they level up. Like the resistances of demons, or how to kill a swarm, etc. On the other hand, we have people saying that's great and all outside of combat, but in combat, in the heat of the moment you need to make a knowledge check to recall that information.
Personally, if I'm running a game and throw a ghast at the PCs, and a player says "oh, this character fought those last game!" I'm going to be inclined to just let that guy let his teammates what he remembers about the previous encounter.
I actually have a character that notes on the various creatures he has encountered. I keep a list on the back of his sheets; I can flip it over and say, "oh no, not another harpy! Plug your ears lad!" If a GM were to have me make a knowledge check at that point, I'd be miffed to say the least. But I can see the argument.
I guess my question is, to those that are requiring the checks on monsters PCs have previously identified -- where is the line drawn? At what point don't I have to make a check to identify a creature? Is combat so stressful that I can't spend a moment to check my note-card on monsters?
There's a difference between having encountered something in a scenario and having read about it in a book. One of them, you will remember intimately. The other, not as much.
In regards to the gnomes thing, for them it's a DC 13 Knowledge (Local) that can be made untrained. To me, that looks more like the gnome putting it together and realizing it and less about them knowing that bleaching is a thing that exists.
Not putting spoiler tags on here because this thread has already been spoiled everywhere.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You raise an excellent question Walter,
I think a character drawing on his experience is different than drawing on experience, stories and reports of others, and that's why we have a GM, not a computer.
If we fight a troll in a scenario, then fight a troll later, it's one thing to say "We fought a troll in the scenario Tons of Troll Trouble, and I learned cold won't stop them. but fire does."
That's different than "I'm using knowledge from some book I said my character read."
As to the (in game) Chronicles themselves. How accurate are they? There was a cute scene in Highlander where Methos was helping Joe correct the Watcher Records. An Immortal who was allegedly killed in a great combat was actually beheaded after passing out in a vomitorium. Joe's shocked. Methos snarkily points out that the Watcher just didn't want to write that his cool immortal got beheaded in a pile of puke. Who knows what is embelished? Let alone what the Ten might alter in the official record.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your characters will take 10 and get it wrong every single time... :)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."
by the same token, a PC in the middle of a fight might roll poorly and try to ride the chicken??? even one with a high Knowledge Nature, say a +8. Roll a "1" and jump on the wrong animal in the barnyard!
Would this count as "reskinning" if he rode a pig into combat?
;)
Well, if you extend this to the fact that not every class gets K:Nature or can make K checks untrained, this means that my Paladin has no idea what his favorite four-footed furry thing is. Just name it Ted, and hope it comes when I call. Or wait until someone casts Speak With Animals, and I can find out exactly how much of an idiot Ted thinks I am.
Until PFS comes up with a rule that says your character retains knowledge of what you read in ____, then you can't do it. You can ask for it to be changed, but as of now, whether it makes sense or not, you have to roll the check.but we do it now! for many things that are not listed as skill checks...
Hellknights - where are they from? did you roll?
Goblins - do they like fire? did you roll?
"Eagleknight slaver"... what's wrong with this term? did you roll?SO many things we never question, because they are part of the "flavor" of the world. Part of what makes the world come alive for us. We know it, or we tell it to each other, as part of playing. Most of us have someone we go to for "Canon" - for "Campaign flavor", someone to ask, "Hay, tell me about the Worldwound". The only time it should be an issue is when the adventure calls it out, and then... what happens when no one knows to ask the question, "is this normal? what's wrong with this picture?"
I know I did not say it, but I was referring to things that are not common knowledge.
Actually Matthew, to me, meta-gaming is using player knowledge to influence what the PC does. I know that if I steps off a cliff, my PC is going to suffer damage. Does my PC know what I, as a player knows?
That is common sense, just like being stabbed in the face being harmful is common sense. Bleaching for gnomes is not common sense.
Now if you rationalize you can fall 200 feat(20d6 damage) and walk away because you are level 11 or 12 then that would metagaming.
Again, the novels are not Society Chronicles. Nowhere does it say they are. The rules for using them expressly say the only thing your character gets for his player reading them are the access to items/boons/conditions on the sheet.
^This. The rules only give you what they give you. If they don't say your character retains the knowledge then you don't.
In regards to the gnomes thing, for them it's a DC 13 Knowledge (Local) that can be made untrained. To me, that looks more like the gnome putting it together and realizing it and less about them knowing that bleaching is a thing that exists.
Not putting spoiler tags on here because this thread has already been spoiled everywhere.
Why would it be untrained if it is above a 10? Does gnomes get a special exception? I am asking because I have never heard of this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would it be untrained if it is above a 10? Does gnomes get a special exception? I am asking because I have never heard of this.
In regards to the gnomes thing, for them it's a DC 13 Knowledge (Local) that can be made untrained. To me, that looks more like the gnome putting it together and realizing it and less about them knowing that bleaching is a thing that exists.
Not putting spoiler tags on here because this thread has already been spoiled everywhere.
Mechanically its untrained above a 10 for gnomes because the scenario says it is.
In character, while gnomes don't like to talk about it, at some point your daddy gnome should have sat your gnome down and had "the talk" about what really happened to your uncle Frank when he settled down and became an accountant... which is why you should never settle down and become an accountant. It will drive you stark raving mad
|
|
Eric, you're saying that because you, the player, read something that your PC should know about it. If you're playing that 5 INT fighter, then yes, that is exactly what you're saying.
No, that's not what I'm saying and twisting my words to fit your counter argument won't work.
As I've said, before, I DON'T PLAY STUPID CHARACTERS. My fighter has an INT 14, if I had an INT 5 character, I'd agree, that he needs to make a roll. But I DON'T do dump stats. Now, I've said this SPECIFICALLY 5 or 6 responses, prior to this question.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Eric, you're saying that because you, the player, read something that your PC should know about it. If you're playing that 5 INT fighter, then yes, that is exactly what you're saying.No, that's not what I'm saying and twisting my words to fit your counter argument won't work.
As I've said, before, I DON'T PLAY STUPID CHARACTERS. My fighter has an INT 14, if I had an INT 5 character, I'd agree, that he needs to make a roll. But I DON'T do dump stats. Now, I've said this SPECIFICALLY 5 or 6 responses, prior to this question.
Why doesn't he have to make the roll? Because he has an INT of 14?
IF the Int 5 fighter dumped one point into the relevant skill, he can make the roll (difficult, but not impossible). If your int 14 fighter has no points, he can't. Period. (unless he's a gnome). That you have a chronicle sheet from Queen of Thorns doesn't change this.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
...snipping to the important comments....
Is there a definition of what is common knowledge?
I think part of the disconnect here is that many people assumed Bleaching was common knowledge.exactly.
Is it common knowledge?
More importantly, does the author think it's not?I have run more than one scenario where the author has the monster do something that they can't or that makes no sense. (for example: Cast entangle when there are no plants for it to effect). Because the author missed something, ...
so... Is Bleaching like Hemophilia? Recognized by persons who can't suffer the effects?
As an aside, in Pathfinder, plants are not required for entangle. They *were* required in 3.5.
Eric: Yes, your fighter has a higher INT. Mechanically, however, what you are talking about is independent of his stats. It could be any character that has the boon you are referring to. I don't care if it's a 16th level Wizard without a single rank in knowledge local - the boon doesn't help.
|
|
...snipping to the important comments....
Is there a definition of what is common knowledge?
I think part of the disconnect here is that many people assumed Bleaching was common knowledge.exactly.
Is it common knowledge?
More importantly, does the author think it's not?I have run more than one scenario where the author has the monster do something that they can't or that makes no sense. (for example: Cast entangle when there are no plants for it to effect). Because the author missed something, ...
so... Is Bleaching like Hemophilia? Recognized by persons who can't suffer the effects?
As an aside, in Pathfinder, plants are not required for entangle. They *were* required in 3.5.
Eric: Yes, your fighter has a higher INT. Mechanically, however, what you are talking about is independent of his stats. It could be any character that has the boon you are referring to. I don't care if it's a 16th level Wizard without a single rank in knowledge local - the boon doesn't help.
Nope, still does
Area plants in a 40-ft.-radius spread
|
Two things really surprise me in this thread.
1. That the DC for a gnome to know about bleaching is so high. I can understand non-gnomes needing to roll that high, since it's something gnomes might not talk about with outsiders. But this should be DC 9 for a gnome, and allow taking 10 (so really stupid gnomes still have a chance to mess it up).
2. That the conversation is this big of a debate. Really? People have that big a problem separating player knowledge from character knowledge? People really think their character has a perfect memory of every detail that their drinking buddy told them about his last adventure while they were both fall down drunk at the local "church of Cayden"?
I can see the argument for the "This PC has faced this type of monster before, so I know what to expect" reasoning. (More on this later)
But saying that you should be allowed to metagame knowing everything about every monster without a knowledge check just because you personally have the free time to sit and memorize the Bestiary is just wrong. Your character hasn't necessarily read books on that information, and even if he has, he doesn't necessarily remember the details. That's what knowledge checks are for. Which knowledge skills you have trained represents which books you've read. Your intelligence score, skill ranks, and other modifiers represent how likely your PC is to remember that particular detail. I know I don't remember every detail of every book I ever read, and I was an honor student in school.
As for stupidly easy setting stuff, I've actually GMed a PFS scenario where I made everyone at the table roll a DC 10 knowledge (local) check untrained to let them know that Cheliax is a devil worshiping nation, and a similarly easy knowledge (planes) to know that silver is the weapon of choice against devils, so they could prepare before going into a scenario revolving around Cheliax. If 60+% of Americans can fail to find Iraq on a map in various surveys while we were at war with them, then DC 10 to know obvious setting stuff like this seems reasonable to me.
As for horses, don't try to bring stupid examples into this. Identifying common objects that you're surrounded by every day doesn't require a knowledge roll. Now, identifying the breed of horse might be DC 10 or higher, even in a society where horses are much more common than our modern world, so people are more likely to know about them. Knowing animals that you're not surrounded by every day is what the Core Rulebook is talking about for DC 10 knowledge (nature) checks.
Eric, you're saying that because you, the player, read something that your PC should know about it. If you're playing that 5 INT fighter, then yes, that is exactly what you're saying.No, that's not what I'm saying and twisting my words to fit your counter argument won't work.
As I've said, before, I DON'T PLAY STUPID CHARACTERS. My fighter has an INT 14, if I had an INT 5 character, I'd agree, that he needs to make a roll. But I DON'T do dump stats. Now, I've said this SPECIFICALLY 5 or 6 responses, prior to this question.
In Eric's defense he did state this(the bolded area several times).
@Eric: Your character's intelligence does not get you a free pass. Either having the chronicle allows you to use the information in it or it does not. Currently the rules give you something for the chronicle, but in-character knowledge is not one of them.