Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "the flexible and undefined system" reduces a part of a players PC to Table Variation. Dependant on the whim of the judge...
Get a good judge and it can be a fun entertaining event (see some of the posts above) - even if it doesn't inform you of the "important bits" of knowledge.
Get a poor judge and it can contribute to a poor gaming experience (see different posts above) - even if it does inform you of the "important bits" of knowledge.
This is just another bit of YMMV - something that we'll need to work out at each table we sit down to play at. Gameing with strangers today? guess you need to learn the "table rules" on knowledge checks...
Yes, I agree that it does, but the alternative is a system in which the GM has little, if any, latitude, if the system is so defined as to remove any sort of variation. I don't know what the middle ground is, and I'm not really opposing having a more standardized system. What I do oppose is any system that removes from the GM his or her ability to judge the result of the skill check and make a decision based on that judgement. I understand people here are worried about the whim of the GM, but we aren't really talking about skill checks at that point: we are talking about the GM vs. Player argument, and that's an entirely different matter, in my opinion.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Should Perception be tied into this?
I mean, given the environment of the Knowledge Check... let's think about this a sec...
Dark tomb in the desert, lit by flickering torches. The heros open a door long closed and are rushed by... somthing.
The Bard, from 30 feet back in the hallway, peering around a corner into the room, catches a glimpse of the creature at the edge of the torch light. Looking past the fighter and cleric into the doorway he says:
"I got a 32 Knowledge Religion check - What kind of undead is this?"
Maybe apply the perception modifiers for lighting and distance?
(Actually, that could make fighting invisible creatures interesting and justify the 60+ knowledge checks people were talking about earlier. "Okay, you can't see it, and you aren't sure where it is, but you recognize it's scraping and grunting sounds, and you believe this is a <redacted>")
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, nobody here is complaining about the times that the GM decided a monster was "common" (DC 5+CR), it's only the times the GM decided it was "rare" (DC 15+CR or more) that there's an issue.
Having Paizo add a Knowledge DC to every statblock is a lot of extra writing/development time. But what if there was a blanket rule of "The Knowledge DC is never higher than 10+CR unless otherwise specified in the scenario". Then we get two benefits: Paizo can make certain baddies "special" with the boosted DC, and nobody has to worry about inflated DCs from GMs who have a liberal idea of what "such as the tarrasque" means.
Wouldn't that solve a good chunk of the problems with virtually no extra work for Mike/John/Paizo?
|
Remember, nobody here is complaining about the times that the GM decided a monster was "common" (DC 5+CR), it's only the times the GM decided it was "rare" (DC 15+CR or more) that there's an issue.
Having Paizo add a Knowledge DC to every statblock is a lot of extra writing/development time. But what if there was a blanket rule of "The Knowledge DC is never higher than 10+CR unless otherwise specified in the scenario". Then we get two benefits: Paizo can make certain baddies "special" with the boosted DC, and nobody has to worry about inflated DCs from GMs who have a liberal idea of what "such as the tarrasque" means.
Wouldn't that solve a good chunk of the problems with virtually no extra work for Mike/John/Paizo?
I'd go along with that, too.
But mostly, this thread is about GMs with an "us vs them" attitude refusing to give legitimately "useful" information on knowledge checks, despite what the Core Rulebook says. There's really no systemic way to deal with that.
|
|
I announce to the players if I determine if a creature is rare and explain why.
It is a touchy area so I want the PCs to generally agree with me.
I think the idea is exactly as walter suggested. It is not meant to be GM vs player. I want to reward people for preparing for things. If someone has the knowledge skill and they invest ranks in it I want them to know things. Infact I help players with their knowledge checks and give them things I think will help them best if they are not sure.
To me it is no different forcing a player to roleplay diplomacy rolls as it is forcing them to ask questions.
I rolled a character with 20+ int. Me myself I do not have anywhere near that. I should not be punished because I am not smart enough to fill my characters shoes. My 20+int character should be smart enough to know what to know about this threat. While I the player might not be.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"What defenses does the monster have?" - "you can't ask that!" - "Does the creature have DR?" - "Yes. That's one question."
Even worse: "No. That's one question."
Imagine a biology lecture where the professor tells the class "The important thing all of you should know about whales is that they don't have feathers."
|
|
Actually, that's more like someone telling you "You don't have to worry about specialized weapons to take it out, they'll all work just as well.""What defenses does the monster have?" - "you can't ask that!" - "Does the creature have DR?" - "Yes. That's one question."Even worse: "No. That's one question."
Imagine a biology lecture where the professor tells the class "The important thing all of you should know about whales is that they don't have feathers."
If you need to justify giving the least helpful information, feel free.
If I ask whether a creature has any special defenses and you tell me that it does NOT have DR, I am going to be upset when I find out that it does have spell resistance or is immune to fire. It outs the GM as antagonistic.
|
|
Here is an example. You are fighting a large creature, humanoid in shape, you think it's probably a giant. You make a Knowledge (local) check and get a 25. I tell you the name of the creature and you recognize that those creatures are a type of giant. But you haven't been playing very long so you don't know anything about these particular giants in the Pathfinder game. So you begin asking me questions. I tell you that you get four questions.
You: what special defenses does it have?
Me: you need to be more specific.
You: does it have DR?
Me: no. Three more questiions.
You: does it have any immunities?
Me: you need to be more specific.
You: is it immune to magic?
Me: no. Two more questions.
You: does it have spell resistance?
Me: no. Last question.
You: does it have any resistances to energy damage?
Me: be specific!
You: is it resistant to fire?
Me: nope.
Ok. So you remember that these things don't have damage reduction, they aren't immune to magic, they don't resist spells, nor do they resist fire.
But the book your character read on this creature back in Absolom probably contains the line: "The thing you need to always remember when fighting trolls is to use fire or acid, under all circumstances. If you don't have access to fire or acid, you had best run!"
|
|
If you ask about special defenses, I'll tell you all of them. But if you ask specifically about DR, I'm going to assume that's all you care about asking about and just tell you "it has X DR" or "It doesn't have DR."Actually, that's more like someone telling you "You don't have to worry about specialized weapons to take it out, they'll all work just as well.""What defenses does the monster have?" - "you can't ask that!" - "Does the creature have DR?" - "Yes. That's one question."Even worse: "No. That's one question."
Imagine a biology lecture where the professor tells the class "The important thing all of you should know about whales is that they don't have feathers."
If you need to justify giving the least helpful information, feel free.
If I ask whether a creature has any special defenses and you tell me that it does NOT have DR, I am going to be upset when I find out that it does have spell resistance or is immune to fire. It outs the GM as antagonistic.
Do you see in nosig's post that I quoted, all defenses were asked about, and he was told that isn't valid.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like a way, as a GM, to occasionally throw the pc's for a loop and have an intelligent monster stop before acting, look a character up and down, (while I roll a die for the monster's knowledge check), then ask, "what's your lowest save?" That would get the player's attention, and ramp up the sense of danger. But with PC races, I'd just get base race stuff, not class levels, so it is of little actual tactical advantage.
Perhaps I'll try that on a baddies with sleep effects, etc..., Asking "is your race immune to sleep?" even if I already know the answer, still adds to the richness of the experience. Players will feel the world is reacting to them, instead of just the other way around.
Any GMs out there ever try the reverse knowledge check?
|
|
I'd like a way, as a GM, to occasionally throw the pc's for a loop and have an intelligent monster stop before acting, look a character up and down, (while I roll a die for the monster's knowledge check), then ask, "what's your lowest save?" That would get the player's attention, and ramp up the sense of danger. But with PC races, I'd just get base race stuff, not class levels, so it is of little actual tactical advantage.
Perhaps I'll try that on a baddies with sleep effects, etc..., Asking "is your race immune to sleep?" even if I already know the answer, still adds to the richness of the experience. Players will feel the world is reacting to them, instead of just the other way around.
Any GMs out there ever try the reverse knowledge check?
I do this all the time. It is almost always with relgion the most recent...
Overall I agree that someone who took the trouble to put ranks in a knowledge skill should derive some tangible benefit for doing so.
I think what I am going to be doing for the RotRL game I am running is make some notes ahead of time about what a knowledge check might produce. I had not known about the common/uncommon/rare rule and I think that actually gives a better spread for things. A lot of the monsters in RotRL are pretty common.
A little off-topic, but how tough would it be to identify a sinspawn? Are they ever encountered outside of places with access to a runewell? If not then I imagine they would be pretty obscure. So far I have avoided telling the characters what they are even called as I am holding back the details of the Runelords' relationship to the seven deadly sins (so far they have only heard about the seven virtues of rule), and letting them know the name of the creature will spoil the reveal. They are pretty early on, close to the end of Burnt Offerings.
Peet
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find a lot of GM's do want to hold back information from the players. They then complain that they never got to do the "cool things" that the monster could do.
This is where I love the knowledge checks as a GM. It allows me to put a certain amount of fear and respect into the minds of the players. I prefer to tell people information, rather than asking questions. Once I have told the players what the beast is capable of, it's almost as good as getting to the thing itself. In a certain respect giving the players more details on a better knowledge check will make the characters respect the monsters capabilities AND it gets rid of the times when the players expectations don't meet their results.
For the most part, frustration from GM's comes when player expectations and results don't match. Once you tell the players what their expectations are, then they are less likely to be mad. Transparency is a fantastic tool to running a high quality game.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
What I have done with things like that is:
"Well, you don't know what it is called, or even if it *has* a name, but from what you have seen of similar creatures you think you can make some deductions." (DC 20 + CR, and they get questions based on successes, with answers phrased as "You think that those heavy scales might provide it some sort of DR, maybe magic weapons would work better against it.")
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Overall I agree that someone who took the trouble to put ranks in a knowledge skill should derive some tangible benefit for doing so.
I think what I am going to be doing for the RotRL game I am running is make some notes ahead of time about what a knowledge check might produce. I had not known about the common/uncommon/rare rule and I think that actually gives a better spread for things. A lot of the monsters in RotRL are pretty common.
A little off-topic, but how tough would it be to identify a sinspawn? Are they ever encountered outside of places with access to a runewell? If not then I imagine they would be pretty obscure. So far I have avoided telling the characters what they are even called as I am holding back the details of the Runelords' relationship to the seven deadly sins (so far they have only heard about the seven virtues of rule), and letting them know the name of the creature will spoil the reveal. They are pretty early on, close to the end of Burnt Offerings.
Peet
I am about to start running this, and I would consider Sinspawn as rare. Sin magic is old, the Runelords long gone, and runewells unknown. To me, that all adds up to sinspawn being rare.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I realize that this is off topic, but I somewhat dislike that knowledge checks are coupled to CR to begin with. And I think the Tarrasque is actually a poor example for an obscure creature, despite its rarity. Imagine if Godzilla were a real creature who emerged from the depths every few decades to destroy different cities around the world. I'm guessing that even during the dark ages, this is the type of knowledge that would spread through the trade routes of the known world.
It would be nice if creatures were given an obscurity level that was decoupled from rarity or challenge rating. Basically, it would be the DC of the knowledge check to identify the creature.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
and the Tarrasque (one of a kind monster) is a DC 15 + CR....What I have done with things like that is:
"Well, you don't know what it is called, or even if it *has* a name, but from what you have seen of similar creatures you think you can make some deductions." (DC 20 + CR, and they get questions based on successes, with answers phrased as "You think that those heavy scales might provide it some sort of DR, maybe magic weapons would work better against it.")
Yes, but people have seen the Tarrasque before and lived, and it has been around for a long long time. I haven't read the shattered star, so I don't know the details, but I was thinking in terms of "No one has ever seen these before except their creator, and he didn't tell anyone."
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I realize that this is off topic, but I somewhat dislike that knowledge checks are coupled to CR to begin with. And I think the Tarrasque is actually a poor example for an obscure creature, despite its rarity. Imagine if Godzilla were a real creature who emerged from the depths every few decades to destroy different cities around the world. I'm guessing that even during the dark ages, this is the type of knowledge that would spread through the trade routes of the known world.
It would be nice if creatures were given an obscurity level that was decoupled from rarity or challenge rating. Basically, it would be the DC of the knowledge check to identify the creature.
I always figured that the CR inversely correlates to the number of people who have seen one and lived. The fewer people who survive, the less information is out there about its strengths and weaknesses.
|
|
If I was giving someone information on a Dragon when they got a knowledge check, I probably wouldn't include "it has a breath weapon." Some knowledge should be somewhat common.
However, I might tell them the spells it has, or what is good saving throws are, or if it has SR, those are the kinds of things that aren't common knowledge.
Like if you saw a tarresque, it might be common to realize its gigantic and it levels cities. On the other hand, it may not be that common of knowledge that it has an SR, or that it has a specific DR, or what kinds of weapons supposedly hurt it. Knowledge would tell you how adept it is at dodging things (reflex save). Or what has been shown to never hurt it (immunities).
There is some sense in saying that rarity matters, but at the same time just because something is legendary and well known, does not mean the legends are accurate or that the information contained in them will benefit the characters.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I realize that this is off topic, but I somewhat dislike that knowledge checks are coupled to CR to begin with. And I think the Tarrasque is actually a poor example for an obscure creature, despite its rarity. Imagine if Godzilla were a real creature who emerged from the depths every few decades to destroy different cities around the world. I'm guessing that even during the dark ages, this is the type of knowledge that would spread through the trade routes of the known world.
To be fair, your Godzilla comparison only works if, during these decades between Godzilla's attacks, there are also kaiju, mutants, demons, etc running around smashing stuff (on both large and small scales).
Would most people know that the creature they're looking at (Godzilla) is a giant monster who smashes things? Sure. But how many of them would know that it's specifically Godzilla, and not just a really big kaiju, mutant, or demon (if they even know the difference between those)? And of those who do know that it's got a name and isn't a kaiju/mutant/demon, how many know the nature of that breath weapon it just used (fire? radiation? light?) or what you need to penetrate its hide (titanium? something charged with electricity? something superheated?) or whether it can heal rapidly or is immune to flamethrowers or whatever else?
To most people, it's just another big smashy monster. And since he shows up so infrequently, the opportunities to learn specifics about him are rare and dangerous. The likelihood of knowing those facts next time, then, is exceedingly small.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know I've posted this elsewhere..
I ask players if they want to ask me questions or if they want me to provide information I think is valuable.
If they choose to ask questions, I do so based on the "you get X questions" method.
If they choose to let me give out information, I usually give out a lot more information, some of it fluff, some of it crunchy but hidden in fluff, and some of it very direct. For example, if a wizard is making the check, I'll likely include something like, "this creature can resist spells from most schools of magic," versus just saying it has SR. Never will I say that it has "SR 21"
As far as rarity goes: If it's an iconic low-level creature like a skeleton, goblin, zombie, or even something like a ghoul, I just give all the information. If it's in a Bestiary it's 10+ (roughly, see methods above). If it's in a splat book or unique to a scenario it's 15+. If it's a variant, I'll give all the information of a 10+ but the variant stuff needs the 15+.
Successful knowledge checks are a reward for players who've invested resources in that ability. Actively trying to restrict knowledge is akin to not counting all the damage dealt by someone with Power Attack.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing: I want to reward players for taking Knowledge skills, since precious few of them bother and then just meta-knowledge what they need to know anyway. I'm also a big proponent of the "more lore" philosophy - the more players (and by extension, their characters) know about the world of Golarion, the more fun we all have.
So, if a PC ID's a monster, I tell them all the good stuff. No asking questions (which is NOT RAW - the GM is required to *provide* a useful bit of information). It makes sense that if you only remember a few things, you would remember the important stuff.
What I give for free: details about observables: size, wings, AC details ("wearing plate mail" or "thick, scaly hide"), reach, etc.
What I give for free on a successful Knowledge check: creature name, creature type, subtype, all details of creature type and subtype, and the most important thing to know about them. (Dragons have breath weapons, trolls regenerate, etc). I also give out a few things like resistances or abilities here, the things that make the creature what it is.
After that, if the beat the DC by "lots", I give them all the details they would likely have learned in Pathfinder school: immunities, vulnerabilities, social interactions, SLAs, etc. I don't give numerical values, but I describe it the way I imagine an in-game instructor would.
Aside: I won a boon at PaizoCon this year that allows one to record what monsters they encounter, and record one bit of info about that monster that they get for "free" without a Knowledge check. It's a shame that a) this isn't built into the core Knowledge system, and b) it's required to help defeat GMs who are withholding information unjustly.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aside: I won a boon at PaizoCon this year that allows one to record what monsters they encounter, and record one bit of info about that monster that they get for "free" without a Knowledge check. It's a shame that a) this isn't built into the core Knowledge system, and b) it's required to help defeat GMs who are withholding information unjustly.
Thats interesting, I always assumed that once my PC has encountered a creature and learned certain details about it, that I could always remember those details whether or not I even had the correct knowledge.
I have a level 8 PC that does not have Knowledge religion, but has faced ghouls in multiple scenarios, I would not be happy if the DM would not let me 'remember' that they can paralyze you.|
|
Alas, without Knowledge (religion), you don't even recognize them as ghouls in the heat of the moment - they don't all look the same, and they could be some other form of undead. I agree, we should be able to track this sort of thing, and it's easy in a home campaign, but it's one of the things that you sacrifice in organized play.
EDIT: I have seen GMs allow this sort of thing, since it does make sense, but technically it is not RAW so expect table variation.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aside: I won a boon at PaizoCon this year that allows one to record what monsters they encounter, and record one bit of info about that monster that they get for "free" without a Knowledge check. It's a shame that a) this isn't built into the core Knowledge system, and b) it's required to help defeat GMs who are withholding information unjustly.
I don't really like that boon. I really like it when player's draw from their characters experiences in past adventures. That boon feels like it discourages that by giving the idea that you can't remember what you experienced in previous scenarios without a boon saying you can.
I can understand the issue of recording stuff your character experienced rather than the player, but it still comes off as feeling ridiculous. I would rather see players metagame than discourage any player from using the information their character has learned from previous adventures.
|
|
The Pathfinder Knowledge skill paradigm has some obvious flaws. One of those is identifying a sense of common knowledge all PC would have growing up with real live monsters. By age 10 the average kid in North America can identify a bear. They may not know black from brown, but they would know its a bear not mountain goat or a fox.
What your saying has some truth to it.
But, by age 10 the average north american kid also has spent more time on youtube and wikipedia than a normal pathfinder character. Also, what we have in pathfinder is much different than just random animals walking around, the world the game is set in has more kinds of creatures in it than our world does, so there are more things to know and information is not as easy to access.
While you may know that a bear is not a goat or fox, would you be able to tell the difference between a coyote, a long legged silver fox, and a mid sized mutt?
Have you ever seen a breed of dog that you didn't recognize? Could you tell right away if it was a retriever or if it was a shepherding dog?
Could you tell the difference between a male mountain lion and a female Savannah lion?
And when it comes to magical creatures it would be not only likely, but totally reasonable that a character could look at that monster and say "I have no idea what the hell that thing is." Because it has 3 heads, or it kinda looks like a dragon, or it has 6 arms and, or whatever.
Even if you do recognize what that thing is, you may not be able to do anything about it.
"It's a golem."
"What does that mean?"
"That its...um...a golem."
"What hurts it?"
"Probably anti-golem stuff, like anti-golem swords, and anti-golem spells...you know."
"Thanks for the help."
"That's what you guys pay me for."
outside of all of that, I think trying to inject too much reality in this fantasy game can cause a lot of confusion.