| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
During the last days of 3.5, they started adding sidebars to all the monster entries in the last Monster Manual volumes they published which told you exactly what info a given Knowledge check would reveal. That was extremely helpful, and I wish it had become standard practice.
I really would love to see that as standard practice for the Pathfinder Bestiaries.
|
What I do believe is that players can't control what they remembered.Totally disagree. When someone studies a subject, the parts that interest them the most are the parts that will stick in their mind the best.
When my sorceress spends time reading books in the library of the Grand Lodge (otherwise known as putting a skill rank in knowledge (planes) or knowledge (arcana)), the one thing that's most likely to stand out to her about any monster is how well her specific spells will work on it. Since she has Scorching Ray, that means fire. Since she's never in melee, she's unlikely to care about their melee attacks or tough armor.
If I was playing that PC at your table, rolled 5 higher than the target number to id a monster, and you didn't let me ask "How will fire affect it?" as my first question, I'd be very annoyed.
Well I am sad to hear it Fromper, but in general, my players are fairly pleased with it. Most of time, you can guess if it has resistance or immunity by the looks of it and you will notice it probably when you hit it with fireball if the monster is resistant more then usual.
Adam
|
I feel your pain. I was at a table where the GM wouldn't even give us the name of the monster after correctly identifying it because he didn't want players to meta-game. So we were kept in the dark about them being ratfolk vice warerats and one of them actually being a demon. Never mind that my character has reseached humanoid mosters extensively (+15 to local knowledge and planer creatures even more so I would metagame if I could tell them apart). Its super frustrating when GMs decide to randomly neuter your characters. The only option is to play with people you trust but then you don't get to make new friends.
Oh wells, my local shop has good GMs so I'll just try to endure cons.
|
|
I feel your pain. I was at a table where the GM wouldn't even give us the name of the monster after correctly identifying it because he didn't want players to meta-game. So we were kept in the dark about them being ratfolk vice warerats and one of them actually being a demon. Never mind that my character has reseached humanoid mosters extensively (+15 to local knowledge and planer creatures even more so I would metagame if I could tell them apart). Its super frustrating when GMs decide to randomly neuter your characters. The only option is to play with people you trust but then you don't get to make new friends.
Oh wells, my local shop has good GMs so I'll just try to endure cons.
Are there twit dms? Yes. Are there great DMs you have no played with? YES!
The cost of finding great people is to occassionally put up with some bad ones. The cool thing though is that if you get a poor DM you rem,eber it and avoid them.
|
I once saw a creature that looked like a weird zombie. I rolled like a 30 knowledge religion and got 3 pieces of info.
I got the name, which was extremely weird and had zombie in it.
I then asked what made you this different from a normal zombie.
GM said I cannot ask that.
I had to pick the things I asked for.
I said special attacks
I got slam attack.
That's a standard attack, not a special attack. The level drain and exploding you referenced are both (probably) Special Attacks.
I asked resists.
I got slashing
I asked for immunities.
I got undead traits.
That's not an immunity, that's a whole host of abilities/restrictions/immunities. However, it still seems off in that if it's a zombie and you're making a Knowledge (Religion) check, it's pretty obvious that it's undead.
The way I run this for players is I let them ask questions. If they ask something general, like "Special Attacks," I look and see if there are any Special Attacks listed in the stat block. If there is more than one, I roll randomly among them to determine which one they know about. Same with Special Defenses, Resistances, and Immunities. If the creature doesn't have one of those, I don't count it against their number of facts known and let them ask again. If the players want to ask for additional items in any category, that's fine too, as long as they're willing to use up their fact store.
Also when I run, multiple characters making the check are able to ask independent questions and get different information. There's no reason to penalize characters who have invested in Knowledge skills because someone else at the table rolls higher than they did.
Honestly, it's not hard to be impartial about these things and apply some common sense.
Re: What your character remembers. Keep in mind that while you may choose to study certain aspects of a creature, it's possible that the information you studied was incomplete or missing key facts. That's why I allow some randomness in answering the questions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's ok, I'm cool with it now.
As a player, it's my fault for seeking actual story and depth from amazing number crunching death machine creating people who, when they play, run over everything (though have recently reigned it in for which I'm super grateful), and as GM's the session is over 2 hours early because there is little to no player/npc interaction beyond combat.
I know that when I question something, not to get ticked off when I'm told "I'm a 4 Star GM, I think I know what I'm talking about," just because it reminds me of being 5 and my dad saying "Because I said so." Mind you, he only said it once, but it was enough to make me sit back and reassess the situation.
All this an more I know and have determined I, as a person, am not a good fit to play under either of them and therefore, rather than expect them to change for me, give what I seek.
In 1 months time I'll financially be where I need to be. Get an E-reader, get the bestiaries, and Run!
I love what I've read in ISWG and all of the books I've bought to date. I hardly ever see any of it implemented... and I want to change that. Because I adore fluff and capturing the mood when I write short stories... I think I'll be able to do it as a GM, just got to be better prepared <33
But I will definitely go to those two GM's when it comes to brass tacks or how to handle unruly players (being an unruly player when it came to those knowledge checks myself, I'd say they handled me well,)... but beyond that, it's to hypocritical of me to keep going to their games and complaining about it rather than do something about it. Still, I'll see if I can find those previous edition books with the rarity classification <3
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player, it's my fault for seeking actual story and depth ...
I'd love it if more people were at fault for seeking that.
|
It's sad to see once again a player being unhappy with a ruling at the table. I think the biggest issue with knowledge checks is expectations what you should get vs what a GM will give you.
This is mainly to the OP
I've read through the thread and noted a few points
a) you invested heavily in knowledge. As GM I try to reward this. It says 'useful information' and which such a roll I would ensure you get something useful for yourself OR the group
b) you seem to be interested in RP - even more reason to phrase information in a nice way and I likely would throw in a random 'useless' fluff about the knowledge in for free
How much info would it be?
The scenario doesn't tell a DC and I'm likely not prepared - so I would have to wing it while at the table.
Identification that it's a golem would be a given - and that leads to Immunity to Magic and Damage Reduction - we are talking here knowledge 18+ for that (10 + CR).
Now - this isn't a normal golem - I would rule that the common golems are in Bestiary, rare ones are in Bestiary II and later or splat books. That actually would make the DC to 15 + 8 = 23
I already gave some general info (Immune to Magic, Damage Reduction) so the remaining would be a little bit extra - like bleeding attack, damage reduction not very high compared to more common clay or stone golems, shatter spell damage them, slow spells affecting them, reflect spell ability, etc. I would likely pick 2 of these that I feel useful (and that I remember in the heat of the moment).
That should be enough
At the same time there are aspects that players think they are entitled to.
a) you don't have a right to ask questions or know it all. I quickly counted 9 bits of information that could be useful about the Glass Golem. I hope Kayle joked when he said - let me just open my own bestiary. I would calculate a DC 68 for this specific monster 'to know all' and to allow to look it up in the bestiary. Yes - I will hold information back - but I take care it isn't information that turns out deadly
b) I read somewhere - I invested in all the Pathfinder Chronicles. I assume these are the 50gp +2 to a skill check. This is a real bugbear of mine. They are USELESS in a fight - unless you first take them out of your backpack (move action, possible AoO) and then you spend 1d4 full rounds before you are entitled to the +2.
Any decent player with a knowledge built should know that and it should not be to the GM to ask - did you just add your pathfinder chronicle into your skill check. Unfortunately I have seen too often that this is forgotten.
If you spot them, take your time to look up the book - great - I will reward this. Unfortunately the moment all the rogues or fighters charge in on first sight this +2 will never be useable.
c) unique monsters - PFS scenarios often have some unique monsters that are build upon a generic one and get added bits to it. For these I start with the info to the base build - but unique abilities will be more shady.
d) experienced players often know more without a knowledge check as a lowish knowledge check would reveal. People posting here would likely regard is as an affront if they do a knowledge check and are told - blunt weapons are good for skeletons, slashing is good for zombies. Actually - you shouldn't take it for granted. I often GM for beginners. There the player doesn't know yet. In this cases if I have a cleric on the table I even prompt at the table - make a knowledge religion check - and then I hand out this knowledge - provided it doesn't end up as a skill check <5 - we are talking beginners here who might have 1 rank.
I love knowledge skills in players. It gives me opportunities to ask them to roll the dice and then to know some fluff I read about in one of the many Paizo books. As GM I use it in a way to involve players and give them a nod to their skills.
|
|
a) you don't have a right to ask questions or know it all. I quickly counted 9 bits of information that could be useful about the Glass Golem. I hope Kyle joked when he said - let me just open my own bestiary. I would calculate a DC 68 for this specific monster 'to know all' and to allow to look it up in the bestiary.
No joking at all. My little knowledge monkey can hit mid-60's on knowledge checks if needed (desired? not sure if 60+ is ever really needed).
FWIW, I agree with your post ;-)
|
|
a) you don't have a right to ask questions or know it all. I quickly counted 9 bits of information that could be useful about the Glass Golem. I hope Kyle joked when he said - let me just open my own bestiary. I would calculate a DC 68 for this specific monster 'to know all' and to allow to look it up in the bestiary.No joking at all. My little knowledge monkey can hit mid-60's on knowledge checks if needed (desired? not sure if 60+ is ever really needed).
FWIW, I agree with your post ;-)
I've seen him do this as a player and had him do it to me as a GM. He can and does roll that high quite often with that character lol
|
I don't agree that all Bestiary II monsters should be classified as rare.
"It's weird how no one knows what that toad can do." "Nah, the publishers didn't have enough space in the first book, so toads only appeared in this world a few years ago."
I personally think the only logical way to handle knowledge checks when a monster has a mile-long list of special abilities is to dole them out in blocks. In the case of the golem, perhaps mention not only that it's immune to most spells, but also which spells are likely to have some effect?
DC 18 - Golems are tougher than the average construct, and more than one wizard has been beaten to death when he found his spells had no effect. Glass golems in particular are only vulnerable to the few spells which take advantage of its construction: cold damage and shattering spells would be wise, while fire would just allow it to repair itself.
DC 23 - The guards at golem factories all carry at least one adamantine weapon, knowing full well that a golem can be brought down faster with skymetal than with anything else.
DC 28 - Even a veteran spellcaster might be surprised to learn that a glass golem can become completely immune to all magic, using its reflective surface to fire the incantation back upon the hapless wizard who cast it. It usually needs to recharge after doing this, but stories are told of a golem performing the feat many times in a row as well.
There. Reward minor investment in knowledge by letting them know not to hit it with spells. It would be moderately intuitive for a wizard to remember to look at the golem's makeup (glass means break it like it was glass) before choosing a spell. Next is an option to remember why the guards were carrying adamantine weapons, and last is the glass golem's trump card. Thrown in right at the start is the bleed ability, which would be a pretty disappointing thing to find out with a high knowledge check anyway.
Hey guys, I found out that it can make people bleed!
|
|
a) you don't have a right to ask questions or know it all. I quickly counted 9 bits of information that could be useful about the Glass Golem. I hope Kyle joked when he said - let me just open my own bestiary. I would calculate a DC 68 for this specific monster 'to know all' and to allow to look it up in the bestiary.No joking at all. My little knowledge monkey can hit mid-60's on knowledge checks if needed (desired? not sure if 60+ is ever really needed).
FWIW, I agree with your post ;-)
Only in the 60s? If I pull out all the stops and get extremely lucky, I will get in the low 80s. At the bare minimum, it's at least insanely useful in Part 6 of Shattered Star due to one of the Magnimarian monuments being extremely poorly balanced compared to all of the others (the Stone of the Seers).
|
|
Only in the 60s? If I pull out all the stops and get extremely lucky, I will get in the low 80s. At the bare minimum, it's at least insanely useful in Part 6 of Shattered Star due to one of the Magnimarian monuments being extremely poorly balanced compared to all of the others (the Stone of the Seers).
I've only bothered to put one rank in each knowledge skill. :-)
|
|
I don't agree that all Bestiary II monsters should be classified as rare.
I only said this about Golems. I don't advocate it as a 'hard rule' but rather as 'guidance'. If I have monsters in the original bestiary and then there are variations in bestiary II or later then it is likely that the later variants are less common.
You misinterpret me if you apply this to ALL monsters in later books.
Another example:
Kobolds are darn common and you should know about them even with a lowly check.
At the same time variant kobolds in later books are likely needing a higher DC. A knowledge of 5 + 1 won't tell you at my table what is special about the Black Claw tribe kobolds
|
|
On the common/average/rare difficulty to identify monsters, I tend to have a quick skim of the creature's fluff to see if there's any help there. If a creature's mentioned as being rarely seen on the prime material plane or that only a handful of this creature have ever been seen on Golarion, or something of that nature, I'd make it 15+CR. Also any creatures native to another planet, such as a moonflower.
At the other end of the spectrum, it's good to bear in mind that common creatures of low CR can be identified by any level 1 commoner taking a 10 on their untrained knowledge skill, so I think that's a good benchmark for the sorts of beings we're talking about (at low levels, at least). Joe Farmer says "Skeletons are attacking my farm!", not "Mysterious humanoid beings constructed of white bones are attacking my farm!"
Finally, I'd generally say that I try to hold back on designating creatures as 'rare' without a good reason. If you make a creature rare, it tells the players there's something special about this encounter, and that's a great tool if it's used sparingly. Overuse risks players thinking you're just out to screw them over, and smacks of sloppiness. Common's pretty easy; goblins, skeletons, zombies, kobolds, etc; all those low-level staples. The vast majority of creatures I treat as of normal rarity.
|
|
D&D/PFS does a crappy job of handling this aspect of the game. Knowledge about your enemy can be a tremendous advantage. In literature and fiction, a protagonist remembering/learning something about the BBEG is often the key to how its overcome. Rarely, if ever, do I see this played out in PFS.
I have to say I disagree on this point - PC Knowledge (not player) has very often been greatly helpful to groups to take down something dangerous. Recently my character in Carrion Crown turned a potential TPK into just a simple (if rough) fight by gathering knowledge about a certain unusual creature in book 3.
Now, I *do* agree it doesn't always do superb at "well of course everyone knows you use garlic to keep a vampire at bay". However, if you call a vampire "common", then it's DC 9 to know one fact about them, and the whole group could know different facts (one garlic, one holy symbols, one stakes through the heart, one silver weapons, etc.)
|
I don't know why GMs in PFS feel the need to punk players on K checks.Flame much? If you feel you're getting 'punked' by GMs on knowledge checks, why not GM for those GMs and show them a better way to do it?
Because they don't have to emulate you. That's a non-solution. I have played with my share of antagonistic GMs, and when I, or other GMs of my general philosophy, run for them, they just find my style "too easy on the PCs".
I dare them to come to my homebrew and say that. :)
In PFS, GMs need to accept that the authors often just don't give us the tools to make things as challenging as we might like. Griefing PCs on knowledge checks in order to try to compensate for this is not acceptable. Acceptance. It's wonderful.
|
|
I stand by Kyle on this... He's one of the top GMs I've ever had the pleasure of playing under and even co-gming with; 2nd only to Doug Miles imo....
Despite the joking way of where I have been trying to GM for kyle for awhile so he can make me better at it.
This is one the most elitest things I have read on here in awhile. I did not know he was perfect. I know you do not like me but this is pretty vain. You never played with and think I have nothing to offer anyone. Well that is sad.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I stand by Kyle on this... He's one of the top GMs I've ever had the pleasure of playing under and even co-gming with; 2nd only to Doug Miles imo....
Despite the joking way of where I have been trying to GM for kyle for awhile so he can make me better at it.
This is one the most elitest things I have read on here in awhile. I did not know he was perfect. I know you do not like me but this is pretty vain. You never played with and think I have nothing to offer anyone. Well that is sad.
Complementing a fellow GM is elitist and vain? And where in there does she say that:
A) Kyle is perfect,B) Anything about you at all, let alone that you have nothing to offer anyone?
|
|
stuff
Yes very much so
SInce there was no other real direct notion to kyle recently I read this.
Also I understand CRobledo to have the same understanding as me. If you think it is alright to skirt the rules of not being a jerk by not directly mentioning what you mean and leave insult that are directly pointing at the person as no-nos. Well that is a pretty ignorant statement to make.
I took a slight insult to the means and words she used. That is my problem, and that is why I repsonded like I did.
In response to below. Under that possiblity that I do not believe is true. I apologize if that is the intent.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Finlanderboy: She framed her post as general commentary on the thread as a whole, not a reply to you. CRobledo's reference to a "burn" was about putting Kyle below Doug, not about putting you down.
You are the only person who believes anyone was talking to/about you.
Gotta get used to the fact that not every post on an internet messageboard is a reply to the post above it.
EDIT: Now understanding your error, it makes your comments about vanity and ignorance kind of ironic. ;)
|
|
stuffYes very much so
** spoiler omitted **
In response to below. Under that possiblity that I do not believe is true. I apologize if that is the intent.
My comment was not directed at you... get over yourself.
If I was to directly comment to you, I would quote you as I did with this post.
Like Jiggy said, Not everything on the internet is about you. Sometimes *gasp* people make general comments that are in no way directed to or at or about one specific person.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
A lot of unique monsters in modules are variants of standard monsters. If they make the 10+CR, I give them the fact that it is a variant. (As in "well, you would guess it is some sort of zombie, but it doesn't look quite normal, it isn't moving as slowly / it is blue / it is on fire")
|
|
This does not solve the current issue of rarity, and I made this in 30 minutes on a whim before a gameday, but I do have a document I made in an effort to standardize my method of doing monster knowledge checks.
I'm sure many people won't agree with this method, or have suggestions, but again, the whole reason I'm doing it is to be consistent and have a hand out detailing exactly what players can expect to get from me so there are no arguments later. I am very open to suggestions if people would like to give them, as well.
|
|
Suggestion 1: Define what monsters are Common/Uncommon/Rare.
Possible Problem in this: The commonality of any given monster should be related to the campaign setting, and perhaps even dependant on the location/area within that campaign... so for example, Hobgoblins are common around the Chitterwood, but maybe not so common in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords... and Mammoths are not to common in Qadira, but Camels would be. Advantage: Removes one instance of Table Variation... (Are Ghasts "rare" or "uncommon", or heck, "common" in Osirian tombs?)anyone else have a suggestion for improving this issue?
I can see your point, but I tend to just assume DC 10+CR unless I have a good reason otherwise. Skeletons, zombies, goblins, kobolds, orcs, and basic animals are common enough to be 5+CR. Anything that's a variant on a normal monster gets an extra +5 (so zombies are 5+CR, but Juju zombies are 10+CR). Only really rare stuff (usually variants on normal 10+CR monsters) get 15+CR.
But if PFS wants to standardize this, AND take your thoughts about different rarities in different regions into account, there's actually a very simple way to do it. They just have to add the DC to identify a creature into the stat block in each adventure. That would be the DC for identifying it in the context of that particular scenario/module.
A simple "Identify: Knowledge (Arcana) DC 17" in the stat block would eliminate table variation on the DC (though not the type of info revealed, as debated earlier in this thread), but also remind people which knowledge skill is appropriate for the creature type.
|
As both a GM and player, I have never found this to be an issue at any table. I know others have had problems, but I haven't seen it in my gaming.
Typically, as Fromper said, I consider skeletons, zombies, goblins, kobolds, orcs, animals and the like to be common (5+CR.)
When they succeed on a check, I give them the monster name and the type of creature (after all, the type of creature determines which knowledge skill has to be used, so it seems only fitting.) I will give them the subtype for free (if they succeed on the initial check and ask me). I then give them 1 piece of useful information.
Beyond that, for each other fact they get, they can ask me about any one category (defense, offense, etc.) I will pick an item from that group to share, and I try to pick one that is most useful to the group.
For me, the flexible and undefined system works quite well. I can tailor the results to the group.
What I don't do is let any knowledge check tell the character everything about the monster. I think that is well beyond the scope of a skill.
