"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."
I ususally ask:
1. What is it?
2. Does it have any weaknesses?
3. Does it have any special abilities?
What are your go to questions?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I've always chosen what pieces of info players learn, rather than asking what they'd like to know. This way, if I think there is something that will significantly challenge the players, I can make sure they know. Or, conversely, if I think the critter is not challenging enough, I might purposely reveal details that don't help as much.
|
As a GM, I've always chosen what pieces of info players learn, rather than asking what they'd like to know. This way, if I think there is something that will significantly challenge the players, I can make sure they know. Or, conversely, if I think the critter is not challenging enough, I might purposely reveal details that don't help as much.
Well, I suppose you can do that but RAW says the players get to ask questions. Just seems a little limiting and less useful to me if you're going to choose what they get to know. I know I'd be a perturbed and would be less inclined to put ranks into knowledge skills if I don't get to know what I'd like to know.
I remember once we encountered a cloaker that swooped in and grappled one of the PCs. Knowledge checks told us that it was a carnivorous flying aberration known for wrapping around its victims.
We were like "no duh!" We just witnessed all that! Most of us were pretty upset that the GM refused to tell us anything we hadn't already observed despite a 35 on the check.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the reason I feel players should get to choose (beyond anything that's RAW) is that if, say, I'm a witch, the first thing I know that character would be researching on every single creature they come up against is whether it's immune to mind-affecting/enchantment. If that same character gets knowledge about DR, it's not just "more of a challenge", it actually breaks verisimilitude.
The same thing applies if I'm a fighter and I learn that it has a high will save. Who cares?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the reason I feel players should get to choose (beyond anything that's RAW) is that if, say, I'm a witch, the first thing I know that character would be researching on every single creature they come up against is whether it's immune to mind-affecting/enchantment. If that same character gets knowledge about DR, it's not just "more of a challenge", it actually breaks verisimilitude.
The same thing applies if I'm a fighter and I learn that it has a high will save. Who cares?
I think this part of the Knowledge Skill check should apply to what your saying.
"you recall another piece of useful information."
Thus learning something your character doesn't care about/doesn't find useful would be outstepping the RAW of the skill check.
|
I usually ask for whatever my character would have found most interesting. When I think about ants, I remember their intricate social structure and phenomenal strength. When you think about ants, you might fondly recall the effectiveness of homemade napalm on a hill of them. Likewise, when my Alchemist makes a knowledge check on a bone devil, he'll recall its immunity to fire, the poison in its tail, and its invisibility and wall of ice. My Magus, on the other hand, will want to know about its DR, its other elemental resistances, and its vision. This, of course, works best when your GM has a firm grasp of both your character and the monster. In PFS, I generally just ask what stands out about the monster the most.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I've always chosen what pieces of info players learn, rather than asking what they'd like to know. This way, if I think there is something that will significantly challenge the players, I can make sure they know. Or, conversely, if I think the critter is not challenging enough, I might purposely reveal details that don't help as much.Well, I suppose you can do that but RAW says the players get to ask questions. Just seems a little limiting and less useful to me if you're going to choose what they get to know. I know I'd be a perturbed and would be less inclined to put ranks into knowledge skills if I don't get to know what I'd like to know.
Where in the rules is it written that the player gets to ask a question about the monster's abilities upon succeeding at a knowledge check? That is, after all, what RAW would mean.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The assumption that players are supposed to ask questions, instead of receiving one or more pieces of "useful information", is my biggest Pathfinder pet peeve. It rewards metagaming like nothing else. The more knowledge a player has about a monster, the more useful the information their character can learn.
Example: A relatively new player is playing as a 3rd-level wizard. He has Acid Arrow, Daze Monster, Shocking Grasp, Ray of Enfeeblement, and Bull's Strength. He encounters a Carrion Golem, succeeds on his knowledge check, and is told that he gets one question. Not knowing that golems are immune to magic, he asks what its weakest saves are. He's told that it has poor Fortitude and Will saves. In his first turn, he casts Ray of Enfeeblement to weaken it, and then next turn he casts Shocking Grasp to damage it. Electric damage Hastes Carrion Golems, so because the player didn't know the right question to ask, he's wasted his first turn and spent the second round buffing the enemy. If the GM had just told him the most relevant information (immunity to magic that checks SR), he could instead have cast Acid Arrow in the first round and Bull's Strength on an ally in the second round.
That was the most obvious example I could think of. There are so many strange immunities, abilities, and weaknesses that monsters have which have to be handled correctly to keep them from being much greater challenges than intended. If GMs don't tell you the most useful information, then you need to already know it out-of-character to learn it in-character.
It's a tough road to navigate, since player knowledge often outstrips character knowledge. New players should get more assistance as a general rule, so suggesting a more useful question or supplying more relevant information just seems like a better option.
On the contrary, I think characters could use ineffective actions on "new" monsters as a learning experience. There's far too many factors to have more than general guidelines, but "wasting" resources from lack of knowledge isn't so awful, except perhaps at the lower levels when resources are often very scarce.
The real trick is finding the balance for giving the right amount of useful knowledge based on the knowledge check. This is especially true when facing monsters that are similar to ones that have already been successfully "knowledged". Without a good roll, that ghast and ghoul might appear too similar to tell the difference until they get close.
IMO, monster type should be given first, followed by name, then everything else, but tailored to the character. The example above between the witch and magus is really good. Archers should know if a creature has DR vs piercing before learning about SR, perhaps unless they are some form of arcane archer.
Most important question : what is its reach ?
Being in its threatened area is not something you want to learn through experience.
Unless it has super crazy biology, I think reach is intuitive.
You should tell that to my GM :-(Unless it has super crazy biology, I think reach is intuitive.Most important question : what is its reach ?
Being in its threatened area is not something you want to learn through experience.
Ouch.
Sounds like a lot of GM's out there hate Knowledge checks!
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'm with YogoZuno on this one, I usually know what ill tell my players with knowledge checks.
Despite what was said earlier in the thread it does not say the players get to ask questions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do i hurt it?
Whats the worst thing it does to me?
Its important to note that it flat out states "Useful information" in the text of Knowledge skills.
Characters AND their players have no use for the mating habits of Aberrations.
It does say useful.....but it doesn't say WHICH useful information u will receive. U may learn what its called (that right there is useful information if we wanna be technical) but the player may learn its not very intelligent, is very strong, etc etc.
I will agree when they roll they the players do need to gain useful info and not just mating habits etc etc unless a mating habit coukd be deadly for the player.
But no, players do not get to ask questions, the dm is suppose to decide which information the player receives. If low, I'd be incline to say u learn the name and nothing else, and if high u get to learn weaknesses or special abilities.
The name goes with a successful check. If you only get the name alone, that isn't very useful now is it?
Useful means the players can USE the information. In a life or death situation knowing a creature's name won't help you.
It does say useful.....but it doesn't say WHICH useful information u will receive. U may learn what its called (that right there is useful information if we want to be technical)
Except for the fact that with wizard who always uses fire, whose most intimate fantasies involve fire, and whose caster level with his favorite fire spell is 6 or so higher than his actual hit die, it isn't going to be the name that he remembers first and foremost.
It’s going to be how well it burns.
Because, to that characters mind, that is the important information. Knowledge checks is a representation of what a character has chosen to memorize, and for Mr. Fire Fetish, that is always, always, always going to be the same thing.
Really, I say something Like what TGMaxMaxer said.
Its name and type (for free if they make the check, not among the questions.)
Special defenses (DR, Immunities, Energy resists etc)
Special attacks (Poison, rend, grab, paralysis, natural weapons etc)
SLA's/Su abilities (Not sure about this one. I’d probably include a Vampire’s Dominate at will in special attacks, for instance.)
saves or HD or other interesting info not covered by the other 3
I think one should build a list like this, apply it universally to every monster, and then answer it in whatever order the character that makes the check would have been interested in learning the information.
If the rogue Mr. StabbyMcStabalot or Sir Fire Fetish makes the check, the first piece of info will be Special defenses. If the Big Stupid Fighter makes the check, he'll probably know about how it is going to bring the pain first and foremost, and so on. Writing it down like this and then checking off one item at a time would also help bookkeeping, as well as keep it all consistent. Also, little bit of roleplaying when the interest of the characters does not overlap.
Big Stupid Fighter - Damn, what the hell is that thing!
Mr Fire Fetish - It is a Alchemical Golem, and it is immune to magic, the bastard! Hit it with a blunt stick!
Big Stupid Fighter - thanks, but in the future? Please tell us about the lightning bomb it’s going to throw at us first.
Knowledge checks should be what the character that makes it wants and needs to know. As has been stated, a Fighter would not research will saves with any priority.
Notice how I said if they did a "low" knowledge check, I'd give them the name.
But realistically, what the character wants to kbow isn't always what's going to be available at low or mid rolls. Lets say for example, ur party comes across a troll for the first time. Depending on the setting, level, how many their are in the region ur characters have been in, etc etc doesn't mean with a low roll or even a "mid" roll depending on the dm and factors, that wizard may have not came across anyone who had the knowledge they are wanting to know.
The knowledge checks aren't solely what the character would have wanted to know but depending on the roll they never had access to gain that knowledge.
Lets say the wizard rolled a low roll. The wizard in the past has came across towns and villagers who have barely escaped the trolls fury, only citing that the troll was very strong and any wounds the villagers inflicted seemed to heal right before their eyes. Your character had asked about fire but no one thought to attack it withbfire so they didn't know.
Lets say the wizard rolled a high roll. The same thing in the past but they had also came across a vet guardsmen or a book that stated that fire would harm the troll and would stop its miraculous healing and could only be slained under the effects of fire.
The knowledge rolls aren't solely what ur character would have wanted to know, but would be what ur character had access in knowing. Its flavor and access to useful knowledge. And I agree, what they should receive is useful but how useful would determine by what the dice says ur character has access to.
Notice how I said if they did a "low" knowledge check, I'd give them the name.
Except you have not specified what a "low" roll is. If "low" is a failed knowledge check, as in less than the monster's CR, sure, feel free to just give the name. If they actually made the check, meeting the CR or better, I cannot agree that that is a "low" roll. It is my opinion that that earns them what they would know (the highest priority category on that list I made as an example) + name and type, because they succeeded on the check.
But realistically, what the character wants to know isn't always what's going to be available at low or mid rolls. Let’s say for example, your party comes across a troll for the first time. Depending on the setting, level, how many there are in the region your characters have been in, etc etc doesn't mean with a low roll or even a "mid" roll depending on the dm and factors, that wizard may have not came across anyone who had the knowledge they are wanting to know.
The knowledge checks aren't solely what the character would have wanted to know but depending on the roll they never had access to gain that knowledge.
I'll bring up two things:
1: I vehemently, but respectfully, disagree with you that the players should not get their just reward for defeating the challenge (a skill check, in this case) because of the nebulous force of "realism". (and you mean to tell me that Trolls, who are living creatures with specific preferred habitats as well as being fond of raiding villages and stealing cattle, as well as being absolute death to anything without adventuring levels because of their regeneration (A single troll could thrash an entire village if they don't have the right defense ready) and no one would ever have been in a position to tell the PC's about the most obvious trait of Troll's, the regeneration, in Troll country?)
2: Do they have the right Knowledge as a class skill? Well then, they DID have access to that knowledge at some point! All fighters had a obligatory semester of "Aberrations and Oozes: What you need to know." back in their days at Fighter College! I do agree with you that the Knowledge check represents not only what the character would have remembered, but also what knowledge they would have access too - but if it is a class skill, they are guaranteed to have access to that knowledge, and the skill roll merely represents whether they paid attention in “Aberrations and Oozes 101” or were trying to catch the attention of the pretty redhead by the window, in my personal opinion.
<Snip>
The knowledge rolls aren't solely what your character would have wanted to know, but would be what your character had access in knowing. It is flavor and access to useful knowledge. And I agree, what they should receive is useful but how useful would determine by what the dice says your character has access to.
Again, I disagree. My opinion is that each piece of information should always contain the same amount of usefulness - the dice should determine the amount of pieces of information, not the validity of each.
Side note: I feel obligated to mention that I changed some of the text in the quotes: I replaced what I thought were misspelled words with what words I thought the misspelled words were, for my own ease of reading. I apologize for this rudeness.
I do agree with a lot of whatbur saying and maybe ill make myself more clearer.
I guess my tier would be their offensive abilities (because most people would see that first), then their defensive abilities (because after attacked, people will fight back) and then weaknesses (people who fought back and found certain things more effective).
By all means again I do agree that players should receive USEFUL information and not "fluff" or useless information.
And yes I should said "failed" rolls instead of low, I blame late night lol. Fail a roll and I believe the character receives a name unless th hey roll horrendously low, then I would tell them they either didn't know or if they rolled a 1, I would give a different name.
I think we are on the same page somewhat, its just I am against giving the character information they want first (aka weakness for fire for the fire mage) because I believe that's gonna be a higher dc. Just because the fire wizard is all about flames, doesn't mean that they woulda had access to info if they roll at just the dc for a knkwledge check or 5 higher. In that situation I'd give the offensive and the defensive abilities, but not the weakness. Because it would mean that either hearing about trolls, the character wasn't even caring at that point to ask about the flames because maybe they had teir mind somewhere else or they never found anyone or resources to let them know what they wanted to know.
Imho it fits that way and the good thing about the way its worded, is that ur way and my way is right in our games the way we have the tiers fkr the checks on what they wanna know. If the dm wants to give them the info they believe their players wanna know, then they are following the rules if they do so. If I wanna have a certain tier on how information is given out, then I'm doing it right in my game.
The oft overlooked "Can i talk to our REASON with it?"
There are a lot of monsters: otyugs for example, that you wouldn't think you can talk to but can actually be quite pleasant once you get them gabbing. Likewise you can usually buy off a rust monster with your cheap armor or spare swords so it doesn't go after that heirloom +3 sword.