Official Ruling on Knowledge Checks Please.

[Dave Setty]

The Fox wrote:

I 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 don't think this is actually the case in Golarion though. AFAICT from the Inner Sea World Guide, the Tarrasque hasn't been seen since -632 AR, upwards of 5000 years before the present. I'm not sure it actually ever went on more than one rampage.

The Fox wrote:

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.

This I agree with totally.

[Finlanderboy]

Jiggy wrote:

Seems a lot of people forget that when the Knowledge rules talk about "rare" creatures, the example given is a god's unique divine herald.

I think this is a bad use of example.

I rule orginal creatures, such as one uniquely created as rare as well. I am sure there may be other example of where rare would be referenced too.

The traitors lodge:

These unique monster that were created here I made harder to indentify due to them being unique creations.

[N N 959]

Ubercroz wrote:

But, by age 10 the average north american kid also has spent more time on youtube and wikipedia than a normal pathfinder character.

My father has often told me that when he was 10, he would read the newspaper cover to cover every morning. How many 10 year olds in 2014 do you know assimilate a comparable amount of data?

It's a myth that the Internet means kids or even adults, know more about the world around them. While an increased amount of information is present, so is the increase in noise. Kids are more likely to spend their time watching DragonballZ or Epic Fail than they are reading CNN, BBC, or any other news station.

Another factor that we can't really understand historically is gossip, traveling minstrels, oral histories, folklore, and trade. All these things were conduits for large amounts of information that modern society is less dependent on, but it's difficult to know what the average person knew. Bards were a big deal in medieval Europe because they brought news. That news would quickly spread throughout a locale.

With respect to Pathfinder, we're also not concerned with what the Commoner would know. We're talking about people whose livelihoods may depend on what they know about the creatures they face. We can't really know what that's like because we don't have monsters with magical properties. Humanity never has. All creatures that threaten humans, bleed when cut. All creatures eat, breath, sleep. So there's no need to cultivate specific knowledge on how to kill a horse compared to an eagle. What does get spread is information about an animals abilities. We all know that snakes have poison or constrict. We all know that rhino's will charge and elephants trample. We know that crocodiles will twist and drown their victims and big game predators will choke the windpipe. Yes, I learned these things on TV/Books, but any kid who lives in the Serengeti can probably tell you the same things.

Quote:

So there are more things to know and information is not as easy to access.

Assuming you have a computer and the Internet. But before these things were ubiquitous, people weren't clueless. In a world without such things, there would be a greater need for local experts and libraries (as there used to be in the US). And I'm not so sure a wealth of information isn't available at the roadside in for a drink or two.

Quote:

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?

This is a disanalogy. FIrst, we're not dealing with 30 different species of vampires that have been bred by humans over the last 2000 years. Second, the average person is not at risk for their life from the average dog. Third, and this is the biggest one, I don't need to know the difference between a corgi or a shitzu because they both die from the same thing. Neither one has any mechanical difference that I derive any profit in knowing about. Knowledge checks are not intended to tell me one creature's mating habits from another, but whether they are immune to fire or can cast spells. If the differences between dogs was of that magnitude and scope, then I'll guarantee people would be as discerning as they are between sharks and dolphins.

Again, my issue is that we're talking about missing your K. check and not knowing any mechanical difference between a gnoll and manticore, a beholder and a dire rat. The absurdity results not from confusing a ghoul with a ghast, but when I need OOC info tell me the that a dragon is more dangerous than a stirge. Grant it, you could run into the bunny from Search for the Holy Grail and get your head ripped off. But there would be lots of things you'd heard about and would have some idea of what you're up against.

Quote:

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.

I agree. There will be creatures that you've never seen and those who have are few and far between.

[thejeff]

I'm also amused by the logical conclusion of having DC tied to CR that if you don't recognize something you should run from it as quickly as possible.

Laaving aside things like the Tarrasque, the average peasant and even most adventurers, those who haven't invested in Know: Arcane, can't even recognize a dragon. Much less know what one is capable of. And that seems wrong.

[Jiggy]

thejeff wrote:

the average peasant and even most adventurers, those who haven't invested in Know: Arcane, can't even recognize a dragon. Much less know what one is capable of. And that seems wrong.

So in a world that contains not only dragons, but also drakes, wyverns, tyrannosaurs, pterodactyls, and lizards the size of houses; someone who's never actually seen one of the massive scaly beasts from that list being unable to distinguish it from the rest of the list "seems wrong"?

[Giamo Casanunda]

Jiggy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

the average peasant and even most adventurers, those who haven't invested in Know: Arcane, can't even recognize a dragon. Much less know what one is capable of. And that seems wrong.

So in a world that contains not only dragons, but also drakes, wyverns, tyrannosaurs, pterodactyls, and lizards the size of houses; someone who's never actually seen one of the massive scaly beasts from that list being unable to distinguish it from the rest of the list "seems wrong"?

I think the problem is more when he can't tell it from a chicken.

In my defense - I'm a dwarf and I haven't really been exposed to such exotic animals in my underground background. I did not grow up on a farm which has such things.

Undead chicken - that I can recognize most of the time (Knowledge Religion +2)... but I've got training for that...

[N N 959]

Jiggy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

the average peasant and even most adventurers, those who haven't invested in Know: Arcane, can't even recognize a dragon. Much less know what one is capable of. And that seems wrong.

So in a world that contains not only dragons, but also drakes, wyverns, tyrannosaurs, pterodactyls, and lizards the size of houses; someone who's never actually seen one of the massive scaly beasts from that list being unable to distinguish it from the rest of the list "seems wrong"?

I am pointing out that one of the major flaws is not my inability to name one from the other, the problem is that I am not allowed to know anything about them if I roll a 1 on a K. Check. There's no provision for me to have any base amount of knowledge from society. I can't Take 10 in combat, so even if someone tells me I am facing a dragon, I still have to roll and I can still know nothing. Does that seem right to you?

Perhaps a system which separated id'ing from knowledge might have been preferable. In other words, the identification check is rolled, but what you know is always a T10.

[Ubercroz]

N N 959 wrote:

It's a myth that the Internet means kids or even adults, know more about the world around them. While an increased amount of information is present, so is the increase in noise. Kids are more likely to spend their time watching DragonballZ or Epic Fail than they are reading CNN, BBC, or any other news station.

Another factor that we can't really understand historically is gossip, traveling minstrel...

With respect to Pathfinder, we're also not concerned with what the Commoner would know. We're talking about people whose livelihoods may depend on what they know about the creatures they face...

I think your argument against my point suffers from the issues my original point did.

You say it is a myth that the internet means that people know more about the world around them. How do you know it's a myth. There are certainly studies on education that would argue people today are substantially more educated. I could argue it's a myth that a 10 year old read a paper front to back every day - the only evidence you have is that your dad told you that one time, not really that substantial of an argument.

You then talk about gossip and minstrels, I kind of addressed that. Gossip, minstrels, stories, etc., may not be that accurate. People tell stories all the time - a lot of them aren't true or accurate.

All that said, the knowledge checks are more to identify the characteristics of the creature than it is to simply know what it is.

Like I said being able to point at something and say "Hey its a golem." doesn't really help, if you don't have a context to put it in.

Once more, setting everything else aside - this is a fantasy game where the rules are trying to simulate something that will provide a mechanical advantage based on the finite resources that you choose to place into the various skills that are available to your character. The purpose of these knowledge checks is to provide that mechanical advantage to the people who place the skill points into those skills that could be beneficial.

Trying to argue that pathfinder isn't like real life is pretty obtuse. It certainly isn't like real life. Like you said, we don't fight monsters everyday. Spells don't exist. We may or may not be able to take a 5 foot step without provoking an attack of opportunity. We can't see 360 degrees around ourselves. We can't fall 50' and make our reflex save to avoid the first 10 feet of damage. I could keep going, but pathfinder is not real life and trying to draw comparisons will ultimately end in feeling that the world of pathfinder doesn't make sense.

Guess what, the world of pathfinder doesn't make sense. But it is still fun, and the rules work within the context of the game.

And if you can identify a bear when you see one, I guess you must have put a couple of points into knowledge bear.

[BigNorseWolf]

Jiggy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

the average peasant and even most adventurers, those who haven't invested in Know: Arcane, can't even recognize a dragon. Much less know what one is capable of. And that seems wrong.

So in a world that contains not only dragons, but also drakes, wyverns, tyrannosaurs, pterodactyls, and lizards the size of houses; someone who's never actually seen one of the massive scaly beasts from that list being unable to distinguish it from the rest of the list "seems wrong"?

I think anything on that list is going to get cries of "dr..draaagon!" from the local torch and pitchfork set. They shouldnt not be able to scream it while running away just because a broken clock can be right twice a day.

[N N 959]

Ubercroz wrote:

I think your argument against my point suffers from the issues my original point did.

You know what, I'll just concede that and we can move on.

Quote:

All that said, the knowledge checks are more to identify the characteristics of the creature than it is to simply know what it is.

I think that's debatable. In fact, many in this thread are focusing on the plausibility of failed checks strictly based on creature identification. I tend to think the check is meant to encompass both...which makes it easier to rationalize bad outcomes.

Quote:

Like I said being able to point at something and say "Hey its a golem." doesn't really help, if you don't have a context to put it in.

Well, I don't think someone would know it's a golem without knowing what a golem is and is not. In other words, you're only learning about creatures in context of people fighting them and either dying or defeating them and then relating that information. Adventurers aren't leafing through year book photos of Monster high school with nothing but a name to identify them.

Quote:

Guess what, the world of pathfinder doesn't make sense. But it is still fun, and the rules work within the context of the game.

I use this type of rationale all the time. But you're oversimplifying the problem. It's not about a failure to emulate "real life", it's about the game experience. Somethings in a fantasy game are easy to set aside e.g. rolling initiative for every battle, and some things aren't e.g. humans walk on their hands.

The fact that I can't know anything about a creature because I rolled a 1 in combat, when every Commoner back in town could tell me something because they'd Take 10.... is, for lack of a better word, silly. I get that there is a game mechanic at work and I'm a firm believer in putting ranks in skills (I play two Investigators and a human ranger with 14 INT and Fast Leaner and Improvisation). I love skills. And i think that the way the K. system works, it actually undermines investment. It'd be one thing if I got to keep rolling, but I only get one shot.

The K system needs to be revamped because it leads to nonsensical results that make it hard to enjoy the game. Pathfinder's selling point is that they fixed a lot of the problems with 3.5. This is one thing that they've actually made worse. We don't even have monster frequency stats but the game is telling to use them.

[Mike T.]

How we do knowledge roles for monster identification in our game:

If it is a common monster: If you meet the DC you know what it is and may ask one question about it. Then for every 5 you beat the DC by you may ask another question about it.

Uncommon Monster: You know what it is. By every 5 points you beat the DC by you get to ask a question about it.

Rare/Unique Monsters: Some how some way you know what this creepy thing is. You get a question for every 5 points you beat the DC and get to pat yourself on the back :D

Question must pertain to in game knowledge. You can't say I want to know if it has DR: blah blah/overcome by blah. You can however ask of it's defensive abilities or any special attacks it may have. Etc, etc.

This seems to work well where I'm GMing at. And I have to say it makes things a tad bit smoother than, "I got 23, what do I know about it?"

[Chris Mortika]

N N 959 wrote:

I am pointing out that one of the major flaws is not my inability to name one from the other, the problem is that I am not allowed to know anything about them if I roll a 1 on a K. Check. There's no provision for me to have any base amount of knowledge from society. I can't Take 10 in combat, so even if someone tells me I am facing a dragon, I still have to roll and I can still know nothing. Does that seem right to you?

Yes.

Outside of combat, you can Take 10 on a Knowledge: Arcana check and get some of the basics of dragons: they have breath weapons, it's better to be facing a metallic dragon, but maybe not by much, etc. In combat, rolling a 1 might well mean that your character knows something, but in the heat of combat with a freaking dragon there is a decided lack of academic disinterest, and adrenaline is blocking everything except looking for cover.

[Dr. Fraz Finkleton]

Chris Mortika wrote:

academic disinterest

Never!

[Mark Stratton]

Interestingly, the skill check doesn't actually say that the PC gets questions.

The Core Rulebook wrote:

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.

So, rather than leaving it up to my PCs to phrase questions a certain way (because on here, it seems that some GMs treat those questions like a Wish spell - "be careful how you word it!"), I may start marking the monster's abilities/characteristics with numbers and have the players roll randomly, once for every 5 by which they beat the DC. So, making the check gets a person the name of the creature, the type (after all, the type determines which knowledge check must be made), and maybe some just general information.

For a monster which is so common as to render the skill check pointless, I'm likely to just give them the information without a check.

For example:

Spoiler:

I am about to run Rise of the Runelords. In Burnt Offerings, they encounter tons of goblins. Goblins are common to the area. I am not going to make them roll to see if they know that something is a goblin. For some of the creatures that are modified goblins, I might tell them, "it looks like some sort of altered or mutated goblin" but without telling them specifically, unless they make the check.

I need to think about this some more. But, I am in general agreement that GMs shouldn't be hindering characters - if they put ranks in a skill and meet the DC or whatever the standard is, they should get the benefits of it.

I need to think on this some more.

[thejeff]

Mark Stratton wrote:

Interestingly, the skill check doesn't actually say that the PC gets questions.

The Core Rulebook wrote:

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.

So, rather than leaving it up to my PCs to phrase questions a certain way (because on here, it seems that some GMs treat those questions like a Wish spell - "be careful how you word it!"), I may start marking the monster's abilities/characteristics with numbers and have the players roll randomly, once for every 5 by which they beat the DC. So, making the check gets a person the name of the creature, the type (after all, the type determines which knowledge check must be made), and maybe some just general information.

For a monster which is so common as to render the skill check pointless, I'm likely to just give them the information without a check.

For example:
** spoiler omitted **

I need to think about this some more. But, I am in general agreement that GMs shouldn't be hindering characters - if they put ranks in a skill and meet the DC or...

As long as the information is useful. For a lot of monsters, it's pretty obvious what the useful information is: Trolls: Need acid or fire.

If so, neither a randomized system, GM whim, or bad questions from the players should keep them from getting it.

Only in cases where there are multiple pieces of actual useful information should this even come into play. Then, whatever method you use should be aimed at getting that useful info to the players. In my experience, the asking questions approach really only accomplishes that when the player already knows the answer and uses that metagame knowledge to ask the right questions.

Of course, if the GM wants to be a dick about it, no method will save you. He'll give you the least useful info or require narrow questions likely to lead to useless responses or come up with something else to avoid letting your skill be useful. Get a different GM.

[Mark Stratton]

thejeff wrote:

As long as the information is useful.

This.

[Care Baird]

thejeff wrote:

if the GM wants to be a dick

Muhuhahaha...

[joe kirner]

Sadly dm does not always stand for dungeon master.

[GM Lamplighter]

... and since this is in the PFS forums, every one of us either went through THREE YEARS of training, or were given special reduced training based on our previous experience. At any rate, there should be a level of knowledge base there that IMO is not well-modeled by the Knowledge skills. (How do all Pathfinders not have the equivalent of a point in Knowledge (local) to identify the various humanoid races they've been training with? And ditto arcane, nature, planes, and religion? If I went to school for three years and Master Shaine never once told me about skeletons, I'd be asking for my tuition fees back! ;)

But is a more complicated system worthwhile for an organized play campaign? No. I think it's better to encourage GMs to be more generous with their Knowledge, rather than devise a more "realistic" system.

[Greg Hurst]

I played in a game last weekend where my character literally fought the same monster two games in a row, but apparently didn't recognize them the 2nd time. He must've been having some good times inbetween missions.

[Sniggevert]

Greg Hurst wrote:

I played in a game last weekend where my character literally fought the same monster two games in a row, but apparently didn't recognize them the 2nd time. He must've been having some good times inbetween missions.

Hey, hey, hey! What happens in Urglin, stays in Urglin...mmm hmm...

[Silbeg]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

the average peasant and even most adventurers, those who haven't invested in Know: Arcane, can't even recognize a dragon. Much less know what one is capable of. And that seems wrong.

So in a world that contains not only dragons, but also drakes, wyverns, tyrannosaurs, pterodactyls, and lizards the size of houses; someone who's never actually seen one of the massive scaly beasts from that list being unable to distinguish it from the rest of the list "seems wrong"?

I think anything on that list is going to get cries of "dr..draaagon!" from the local torch and pitchfork set. They shouldnt not be able to scream it while running away just because a broken clock can be right twice a day.

Of course, they may not be right about it, either. Their "dragon" might be a giant frilled lizard, an allosaurus, or a forest drake. In most cases, running would still be the "proper response" from the "torch and pitchfork set". (love that description!)

[Akerlof]

Grumpus wrote:

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.

In a home game, that makes complete sense: The GM knows what the PCs have seen and dealt with and knows that they spent two entire levels slogging through hordes of Ghouls. So there's no real reason to make them roll a knowledge check on a Ghoul 5 levels later.

However, in PFS there isn't that continuity. The GM doesn't know that your first three scenarios featured Ghouls and Ghasts in just about every way you could find them. There's no guarantee that every character has faced <common monster to PFS.> I know for a fact that some of my characters have hit level 4 or 5 without seeing a Ghoul, for example. Even more, I've got something like 8 active characters, there's no way I remember what each one of them has run across, let alone a way for my GM to divine whether PC #5 has faced Goblins or not!

So, yeah, for organized play with random players and random GMs, it makes perfect sense to require a boon or some record keeping if you want to allow a character to automatically ID a monster.

[Silbeg]

Mark Stratton wrote:

thejeff wrote:

As long as the information is useful.

This.

That is why I have taken to crafting the knowledge known to the character rolling.

Take for example a golem. A wizard would have studied more about immunities and spell resistance than a fighter, who would want to know what to hit the thing with to hurt it.

If two characters roll high enough (and have different enough specializations), they will likely get different information. But I don't typically do the "questions" routine any more. If a player demands them, they'll definitely get less information than I would normally get if they relax and let me describe.

[thejeff]

But I'd also consider the party as a whole. If there's a lighting focused sorcerer along, but someone else has the relevant skill, I'm still likely to let them know the creature feeds on electricity. And I'll tell anyone that what the trolls are vulnerable to.

I'll give out useful info that isn't in the character's specialty before giving negative info (It has no DR or other weapon-type resistances or vulnerabilities).

Different characters rolling will get different info, as long as there's something useful to give.

The other thing I'd usually give out with a basic success is a rough idea of how tough the thing is. CR essentially, though not necessarily by number.

When a couple of first level characters come across a family of trolls the fact that the trolls will tear them to pieces with ease is even more useful than knowing how to stop their regeneration. :) Run away!!!

[nosig]

"For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster's CR."

so for common monsters with a CR of 5 or less... anyone can try the Knowledge check - even if they don't have a rank in it.

I mention this as I have seen a table of experienced players, who know as players that you need to hit skeletons with blunt weapons NOT USING blunt weapons because no one at the table had Knowledge Religion - so... a bunch of players felt constrained to try to prevent "meta-gaming"... They knew that the monsters weren't taking full damage, but restricted their PCs, because they knew what to do (as players)- they didn't do it (as PCs). The player "meta" knowledge constrained thier PCs ... If the monster had been something called a "Green Wiglet" and they had noticed it wasn't takeing full damage they would have switched to different/back up weapons to try to find the DR type. It would have been a "puzzle" they would have enjoyed solving! (I can almost hear the table talk now..."Not Silver Blunt! switching to a Magic Slashing! You got that oil applied yet? Think it might be DR/Good then?")

Heck, these were not under-equiped PCs! They all had blunt weapons! they just were afread to appear to be Meta-gaming.... One of the players had a Dwarf that often switched off from Warhammer to Battle Ax, but he was careful to use the Ax so no one would think he was "meta-gaming".

[Jiggy]

I once heard a story of a player whose fighter had a flaming longsword, always used his flaming longsword, sunk all his feats into his flaming longsword, never used anything but his flaming longsword. Until he fought a troll and couldn't ID it—then he fought with his backup dagger the whole time.

[N N 959]

Chris Mortika wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

I am pointing out that one of the major flaws is not my inability to name one from the other, the problem is that I am not allowed to know anything about them if I roll a 1 on a K. Check. There's no provision for me to have any base amount of knowledge from society. I can't Take 10 in combat, so even if someone tells me I am facing a dragon, I still have to roll and I can still know nothing. Does that seem right to you?

Yes.

Outside of combat, you can Take 10 on a Knowledge: Arcana check and get some of the basics of dragons: they have breath weapons, it's better to be facing a metallic dragon, but maybe not by much, etc. In combat, rolling a 1 might well mean that your character knows something, but in the heat of combat with a freaking dragon there is a decided lack of academic disinterest, and adrenaline is blocking everything except looking for cover.

Except that this applies if I fight an aggressive butterfly. It applies when the GM rolls init and we're just talking to the local baker. Every fight a player rolls a 1 on a K check isn't justified by asserting the player is so scared he pisses his pants. Resorting to that rationale further exposes the ridiculousness of the situation. What's more, there's nothing in RAW says failure to know something is attributable to fear when in combat.

You know, if my encountering X creature was the first time anyone had encountered such creature in a 1000 years, then I could see it. But the ridiculousness of the K. system is that I can know nothing about humans...as a human.

[thejeff]

N N 959 wrote:

Chris Mortika wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

I am pointing out that one of the major flaws is not my inability to name one from the other, the problem is that I am not allowed to know anything about them if I roll a 1 on a K. Check. There's no provision for me to have any base amount of knowledge from society. I can't Take 10 in combat, so even if someone tells me I am facing a dragon, I still have to roll and I can still know nothing. Does that seem right to you?

Yes.

Outside of combat, you can Take 10 on a Knowledge: Arcana check and get some of the basics of dragons: they have breath weapons, it's better to be facing a metallic dragon, but maybe not by much, etc. In combat, rolling a 1 might well mean that your character knows something, but in the heat of combat with a freaking dragon there is a decided lack of academic disinterest, and adrenaline is blocking everything except looking for cover.

Except that this applies if I fight an aggressive butterfly. It applies when the GM rolls init and we're just talking to the local baker. Every fight a player rolls a 1 on a K check isn't justified by asserting the player is so scared he pisses his pants. Resorting to that rationalize further exposes the ridiculousness of the situation.

You know, if my encountering X creature was the first time anyone had encountered such creature in a 1000 years, then I could see it. But the ridiculousness of the K. system is that I can know nothing about humans...as a human.

"1" isn't an autofailure. If the DC is low and you've got some points, you'll still recognize the common low CR stuff.

[N N 959]

thejeff wrote:

"1" isn't an autofailure. If the DC is low and you've got some points, you'll still recognize the common low CR stuff.

A 1st level human Ranger with Favored Enemy Human can roll a 1 = 3 on Knowledge Local and technically not know if humans eat, breath, or sleep.

[Mark Stratton]

N N 959 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

"1" isn't an autofailure. If the DC is low and you've got some points, you'll still recognize the common low CR stuff.

A 1st level human Ranger with Favored Enemy Human can roll a 1 = 3 on Knowledge Local and technically not know if humans eat, breath, or sleep.

I am reasonably sure that, as a human, that human ranger would indeed know if humans eat, breathe, or sleep.

[Fromper]

Mark Stratton wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

"1" isn't an autofailure. If the DC is low and you've got some points, you'll still recognize the common low CR stuff.

A 1st level human Ranger with Favored Enemy Human can roll a 1 = 3 on Knowledge Local and technically not know if humans eat, breath, or sleep.

I am reasonably sure that, as a human, that human ranger would indeed know if humans eat, breathe, or sleep.

On the other hand, I've been playing Pathfinder for almost 3 years now, and I still don't know if elves sleep.

[N N 959]

Mark Stratton wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

"1" isn't an autofailure. If the DC is low and you've got some points, you'll still recognize the common low CR stuff.

A 1st level human Ranger with Favored Enemy Human can roll a 1 = 3 on Knowledge Local and technically not know if humans eat, breath, or sleep.

I am reasonably sure that, as a human, that human ranger would indeed know if humans eat, breathe, or sleep.

So you're saying some level of non-stupidity should supersede RAW? Gosh, I am forced to agree with you.

[Ubercroz]

N N 959 wrote:

Except that this applies if I fight an aggressive butterfly. It applies when the GM rolls init and we're just talking to the local baker. Every fight a player rolls a 1 on a K check isn't justified by asserting the player is so scared he pisses his pants. Resorting to that rationale further exposes the ridiculousness of the situation. What's more, there's nothing in RAW says failure to know something is attributable to fear when in combat.

You know, if my encountering X creature was the first time anyone had encountered such creature in a 1000 years, then I could see it. But the ridiculousness of the K. system is that I can know nothing about humans...as a human.

I don't think there was an assertion that the character was scared, rather that in combat you may not be focusing on the details of the monster in front of you.

You other examples are pretty preposterous - you will never fight an aggressive butterfly and even if you "roll initiative to talk to a baker" you aren't in combat.

I don't think leaning on the ridiculous is doing a very good job of proving whatever point it is you are trying to make.

The stress of combat really does do funny things to people, and the difference between trying to remember something in conversation and trying to remember something when your life matters are very different.

Have you ever rehearsed what you were going to say to your boss about getting a raise and then when you went in to speak you said something like "I need get more money, now.... sir." When what you really meant to say was "I have been working here for five years and have been an excellent worker, by progress reports show my value and I deserve a 5% raise because of that."

Stress effects the body, no way around it.

Have you ever had problems remembering A WORD. Just a word, no real stress - its on the tip of your tongue and you can't manage to recall that one word... its right there and you can not say it.

When Samuel L. Jackson is pointing a gun at you, it might be hard to answer what Marsellus Wallace looks like. You might say "What?" one to many times.

[Finlanderboy]

N N 959 wrote:

Mark Stratton wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

"1" isn't an autofailure. If the DC is low and you've got some points, you'll still recognize the common low CR stuff.

A 1st level human Ranger with Favored Enemy Human can roll a 1 = 3 on Knowledge Local and technically not know if humans eat, breath, or sleep.

I am reasonably sure that, as a human, that human ranger would indeed know if humans eat, breathe, or sleep.

So you're saying some level of non-stupidity should supersede RAW? Gosh, I am forced to agree with you.

The person still knows the basics of humans. Heck they may even knwo the special feastures of huamsn they possess.

The 3 just means they do not recognize the creature infront of them as a fellow human.

[N N 959]

Ubercroz wrote:

I don't think there was an assertion that the character was scared, rather that in combat you may not be focusing on the details of the monster in front of you.

Mark wrote:

and adrenaline is blocking everything except looking for cover

I take that as a definitive statement that the adventurer is scared.

Quote:

You other examples are pretty preposterous - you will never fight an aggressive butterfly and even if you "roll initiative to talk to a baker" you aren't in combat.

As is the suggestion that my 1 means I'm so scared I am completely witless about the creature I am facing.

Quote:

I don't think leaning on the ridiculous is doing a very good job of proving whatever point it is you are trying to make.

I agree. So let's not have people come up with ridiculous rationales to defend a system that is clearly a candidate for improvement.

Quote:

Have you ever had problems remembering A WORD. Just a word, no real stress - its on the tip of your tongue and you can't manage to recall that one word... its right there and you can not say it.

Except that the only time stress affects my speech is if I'm in combat or distracted. So I can get up to talk to 1000 people and still take 10. But 1 hit point rat can attack someone 80ft away in my party and I can't remember if rats eat, breath, or sleep. That's stupid. There's no way around it.

Quote:

Stress effects the body, no way around it.

I agree. And I'm not going to say it's ridiculous that fear of a dragon could cause me to forget it casts spells. But as you said, the game isn't mean to be real. So defending the current system to preserve that semblance of plausibility while it results in the absurd, is a net negative. I'll gladly sacrifice the "realism" of stress to avoid the silly of how RAW imposes complete stupidity for a failed roll.

Let me ask you, what happens if I fail my K check in combat. If someone tells me what the creature is after combat? Do I get another? If roll out of combat, how long am I completely clueless about dragons? Do I have to wait until I encounter one in the flesh before I can roll/check again?

[N N 959]

Finlanderboy wrote:

The 3 just means they do not recognize the creature infront of them as a fellow human.

PRD - Knowledge wrote:

You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities.

RAW does not limit the use of the skill check to only identifying creatures. It is common practice for myself and other players to make K checks as soon as a VC tells us what type of creatures we might encounter. If someone asks you about humans and you fail the roll, you don't know anything about them.

[N N 959]

Mark wrote:

Deleted

Heh. You realized that Humans fall under K. Local :) . It's only fair we have to be identified just like everyone else.

[Ubercroz]

@ N N 959: I can see that you are not going to accept any argument on the issue. If someone makes an argument that its a mechanic to simulate something that we can't you are argue it's not real enough to make sense. If someone argues that it's not supposed to represent reality then you argue that it's not a logical system. If someone argues that it is a logical system you say it doesn't do a good job of simulating something that in the game.

Rather than deal with the concept raised you push to a different slant on the argument. I understand you don't like the knowledge check. It doesn't do what you want it to do.

I think it works pretty well, it allows people to use their skills to gain a mechanical advantage in combat.

I appreciate your perspective. However, because any argument I make is going to be distilled to a single line that is dismissed before you alter the argument you make, I will simply state I am likely to disagree with your stance.

Knowledge isn't perfect- but it's good at doing what it is trying to do.

[Bruno Breakbone]

Bruno, as a handsome and beautiful Terori, often makes Knowledge: Grapple checks for party.

GM: "An unholy wave of foul miasma washes across the party as the twisted, profane horror from beyond advances."

Bruno: "Bruno grapple."

Bruno rolls dice. Bruno succeeds.

Bruno: "Hey everyone, it can be grappled."

[Raan Deio, Oracle of Metal]

Bruno Breakbone wrote:

Bruno, as a handsome and beautiful Terori, often makes Knowledge: Grapple checks for party.

GM: "An unholy wave of foul miasma washes across the party as the twisted, profane horror from beyond advances."

Bruno: "Bruno grapple."

Bruno rolls dice. Bruno succeeds.

Bruno: "Hey everyone, it can be grappled."

And sometimes Raan Deio makes Knowledge: Bruno checks to see if it could have been grappled if he'd spent a Ki point to suppress Freedom of Movement.

[N N 959]

Ubercroz wrote:

@ N N 959: I can see that you are not going to accept any argument on the issue.

Ironic because I've never agreed with another poster more and had them insist I wouldn't accept their arguments.

Quote:

If someone makes an argument that its a mechanic to simulate something that we can't you are argue it's not real enough to make sense.

And yet, that was your rationale for why it has to be the way it is instead of some other way.

Quote:

If someone argues that it's not supposed to represent reality then you argue that it's not a logical system.

Not quite. You asserted that the "rules work within the context of the game." That's an opinion. I feel these rules do not. Nothing we can prove either way.

Quote:

If someone argues that it is a logical system you say it doesn't do a good job of simulating something that in the game.

I didn't see anyone say it's a "logical system." It's a legacy system from probably as far back as 3.0 and maybe earlier. I don't' think it was well thought out. If you actually go and read some of the hardcoded DC checks in 3.5 bestiaries, some of the information provided is extremely qualitative to the point of being almost worthless.

Quote:

Rather than deal with the concept raised you push to a different slant on the argument.

Apologies, but what concepts where those?

Quote:

I understand you don't like the knowledge check. It doesn't do what you want it to do.

I love knowledge checks. I invest in them frequently. The system is poorly implemented, imo. I hardly think I'm alone in that opinion and believing as such is hardly some incredible blasphemy.

Quote:

I think it works pretty well, it allows people to use their skills to gain a mechanical advantage in combat.

That really depends on your GM, when it shouldn't.

Quote:

However, because any argument I make is going to be distilled to a single line that is dismissed before you alter the argument you make.

Highly inaccurate considering how many times I've agreed with your observations.

Quote:

Knowledge isn't perfect- but it's good at doing what it is trying to do.

"Good"? Why not see if we can make it great at what it's trying do? You say it's not perfect but you seem unwilling to concede it could be improved.

Quote:

@ N N 959: I can see that you are not going to accept any argument on the issue.

This comes across as an ad hominem when you concede the system isn't perfect and I'm simply trying to highlight the specific issues.

[Andrew Christian]

Mark Stratton wrote:

Interestingly, the skill check doesn't actually say that the PC gets questions.

The Core Rulebook wrote:

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.

So, rather than leaving it up to my PCs to phrase questions a certain way (because on here, it seems that some GMs treat those questions like a Wish spell - "be careful how you word it!"), I may start marking the monster's abilities/characteristics with numbers and have the players roll randomly, once for every 5 by which they beat the DC. So, making the check gets a person the name of the creature, the type (after all, the type determines which knowledge check must be made), and maybe some just general information.

For a monster which is so common as to render the skill check pointless, I'm likely to just give them the information without a check.

For example:
** spoiler omitted **

I need to think about this some more. But, I am in general agreement that GMs shouldn't be hindering characters - if they put ranks in a skill and meet the DC or...

If a creature has a specific time, with specific abilities that go with that type (i.e. Demons always have the same immunities and resistances and are typically DR/good and/or cold iron.), then making the DC tells you what type, an you get its immunities, resistances, and that it may have some sort of DR of good and/or cold iron.

I really don't like a player yelling at me telling me that because they made the DC exactly, they automatically get a question. I'm like, "hey, knowing what the creature is, its type, and that it has construct traits is fairly useful info."

[thejeff]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Mark Stratton wrote:

Interestingly, the skill check doesn't actually say that the PC gets questions.

The Core Rulebook wrote:

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.

So, rather than leaving it up to my PCs to phrase questions a certain way (because on here, it seems that some GMs treat those questions like a Wish spell - "be careful how you word it!"), I may start marking the monster's abilities/characteristics with numbers and have the players roll randomly, once for every 5 by which they beat the DC. So, making the check gets a person the name of the creature, the type (after all, the type determines which knowledge check must be made), and maybe some just general information.

For a monster which is so common as to render the skill check pointless, I'm likely to just give them the information without a check.

For example:
** spoiler omitted **

I need to think about this some more. But, I am in general agreement that GMs shouldn't be hindering characters - if they put ranks in a skill and meet the DC or...

If a creature has a specific time, with specific abilities that go with that type (i.e. Demons always have the same immunities and resistances and are typically DR/good and/or cold iron.), then making the DC tells you what type, an you get its immunities, resistances, and that it may have some sort of DR of good and/or cold iron.

I really don't like a player yelling at me telling me that because they made the DC exactly, they automatically get a question. I'm like, "hey, knowing what the creature is, its type, and that it has construct traits is fairly useful info."

Does that count if the type doesn't actually include any useful info? To drag out the perennial troll again: Would "It's a troll, a type of giant humanoid" be sufficient for making the DC? Regeneration stopped by fire and acid would require a +5?

It's not like knowing it's a giant humanoid gets you anything useful that's not immediately obvious. Other than a bunch of "Well it doesn't get anything special from its type."

Obviously yelling at the GM is out of bounds, but I'd be upset with that.

[Andrew Christian]

Nah, I would actually give you some useful info if the type was pretty mundane.

True story:

While playing with the Winnipeg crew Sunday evening after Paizo Con was over, one of the guys wants to roll a knowledge against a beasty. Just happened to be a Ghost.

The GM was using the 'Question me' strategy for knowledge checks. The guy says, "I want fluff text."

So the GM says that ghost often have a story for how they became ghosts and if you know their story, they often have a way to permanently kill them.

So the next guy also rolls a knowledge check, and asks, "Tell me its story!"

We all laughed, it was hilarious.

The GM just glared at him.

[FLite]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Nah, I would actually give you some useful info if the type was pretty mundane.

True story:

While playing with the Winnipeg crew Sunday evening after Paizo Con was over, one of the guys wants to roll a knowledge against a beasty. Just happened to be a Ghost.

The GM was using the 'Question me' strategy for knowledge checks. The guy says, "I want fluff text."

So the GM says that ghost often have a story for how they became ghosts and if you know their story, they often have a way to permanently kill them.

So the next guy also rolls a knowledge check, and asks, "Tell me its story!"

We all laughed, it was hilarious.

The GM just glared at him.

Kind of legitimate though. I would think knowledge local to know the local ghost stories. Might give the guy several unless he rolled well.

[David_Bross]

I ask pcs if they want questions or tailored information. I've never gotten a complaint about this system.

Technically a gm could give you ecology, environment, and standard treasure before getting to other things if so inclined.

[Arnim Thayer]

As a GM, I usually allow the player to ask for a specific bit of information for each +5 success exceeding the DC...

GM: "Okay, you rolled a 32. That allows for 5 specific questions to be asked."
Player:"Does it have a specific DR?"
GM: "Yes. It is DR/silver and good
Player: Does it have any Defensive abilities?"
GM: Yes. Do you want to know the first one only and then move on, or do you want all of them?"
Player: Hell, yeah! Give me all of them!"
GM: "There are four... that will use up all of your Knowledge bonus."
Player: "Um... can I just get the first two and then the first teo Offensive abilities?"
GM: "Yes. It has..."

That is how I adjudicate it. Other GMs might do it differently. Your mileage may vary. Expect Table Variation.

[Andrew Christian]

FLite wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

Nah, I would actually give you some useful info if the type was pretty mundane.

True story:

While playing with the Winnipeg crew Sunday evening after Paizo Con was over, one of the guys wants to roll a knowledge against a beasty. Just happened to be a Ghost.

The GM was using the 'Question me' strategy for knowledge checks. The guy says, "I want fluff text."

So the GM says that ghost often have a story for how they became ghosts and if you know their story, they often have a way to permanently kill them.

So the next guy also rolls a knowledge check, and asks, "Tell me its story!"

We all laughed, it was hilarious.

The GM just glared at him.

Kind of legitimate though. I would think knowledge local to know the local ghost stories. Might give the guy several unless he rolled well.

Not saying it wasn't legit. Just really funny in the moment. You have to understand, we were all fried from a 3 day Con, and it was late on Sunday night. And we had imbibed a few. So we were in the middle of giggle fits anyways.

[pauljathome]

Andrew Christian wrote:

"hey, knowing what the creature is, its type, and that it has construct traits is fairly useful info."

One of my issues with knowledge checks is that sometimes just telling the players WHICH knowledge check to make gives too much information. Some monsters deliberately look like something that they aren't.

And even telling the players that (explicitly or implicitly by asking them to roll multiple checks) gives some information away.

Note:some players take advantage of metagame knowledge. Some try so hard not to that they harm themselves. None totally ignore it since they're humans and we pretty much can NOT just ignore information.

Its one thing I really like about online play. Most players have a know-stuff macro that automatically shows every knowledge skill.

One reason that many of my characters have identical skills in all knowledge's :-)