I don't know why, but I just hate the sheer power that comes with knowledge checks. Player runs into something they haven't seen before, 2 or 3 people have the knowledge, one of them is going to ace it, now everybody knows the weaknesses and strengths of every new person they run into.
How do other GMs handle knowledge checks so they are useful, but not too much? It really just feels to me like it's not exploring the world, it's just running into something and hitting the "Knowledge" button. Hit button, get combat advantage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The normal adventuring day assumes 8 hours of travel, 8 hours of rest and 8 hours of making camp, faffing about and taking down the camp. During this time, the players are assumed to be doing stuff, even though you don't always roleplay every hour in-character. Ever read Lord of the Rings? The poor level 1 hobbits may start out with low knowledge checks, but Strider and Gandalf share alot of information, and alot of songs are shared in the travelling party. Songs about history, geography, and great legends. Ample basis for increasing your knowledge skills, and it works for them. After stopping in Rivendell, Merry reads up on the lay of the lands, which helps him guide Pippin in Fangorn. Alot of things go down behind the scenes.
Reading books, sharing stories and gossip, singing together (alot of useful info in songs). As the players increase in level, they may raise their knowledge skills, and they will learn stuff. As they return from their adventures, the other veteran adventurers in the tavern will nod respectfully, and let them share a seat at the big-boys table. Suddenly the players have access to a wealth of info from other well-travelled adventurers.
Point is: There is alot of stuff going on during the small bits of downtime, and it does not have to diminish the fantastical, if the player characters know what they're dealing with.
Presently my gaming group is playing through an old AP, and they've encountered dragons twice. Both times, the Bard aced his knowledge checks, but that did not mean I had to make them any less fantastical.
He had enough knowledge of dragonkind to know many of its strengths and weaknesses. I took a minute to explain his character's memories as he searched his brain-box for answers. He knew about their flight (clumsy) from having observed a dragon on one of their travels, as it flew overhead and into a forest. He remembered an old song, being sung by Chelish sailors that spoke of Captain Harnowasch who drove off a white dragon with fire and flame. And so on, and so on.
Also, do note that the amount of information you gain from succeeding a knowledge check is not set in stone. 2 playsessions ago, I had my players run into a Leng Spider, stalking them in the night, in the frozen wastes of the Varisian nolands. They hid in the witch's secure shelter, and I was able to make it into an intense scene, rather than a fight, by describing the creature, when they succeeded their knowledge checks. I emphasized the murky, conflicting information on the subject, and what little actual knowledge existed of the Nightmare realm of Leng. I gave them information on its strengths and weaknesses, but delivered it in such a way, that the players would shy away from confrontation. Instead it became an instense, memorable sequence :)
Hope it helps.
-Nearyn
Thank you Nearyn. I do agree, there is certainly room for knowledge checks. The wizard who collects tomes of lore, the rogue listening to the wind at the tavern, picking up rumors and bits of stories. The cleric who heard tales from men while healing them. The room for roleplaying is certainly there, but I think there is also room for exploration and mystery. I want to reward my players for investing their skill points in knowledge skills, but I also don't want to have to give up every monster's tactics and secrets. When you have 3 players in a 5 person group rolling checks, even for a rare monster (DC 15+hd), at the current point in my campaign even an obscure monster might be a DC22 or so, but invariably one of my players will bust that wide open.
Normally this hasn't been as much of a problem, but the game I'm running now is a set in a homebrew mesoamerican setting. Jungles, blood magic, mysterious diseases and even more mysterious monsters. Exploration and mystery are the themes of the day and those damn knowledge checks keep killing my mystery! They hit the "Uncover secrets" button and the mystery of an interesting creature falls away.
Wow. It must really be a play style thing, because I've never been in a group where knowledge checks were relevant. As a GM, I've never had a player ask for one. As a player the times I've ever even seen a knowledge check made, the result has always been just the creature's name and some vague hints. I don't know anyone who just hands over the stat-block.
If anything, I feel that knowledge skills are underpowered. It's essentially the players begging the GM for info because the DC results are so vague. You'd be surprised just how little "another piece of useful information" can be. Let's say you, as the GM, decide that zombies are rare. DC 15 just to know what it is, 20 to find out it shambles, 25 to learn it's undead, 30 to learn it has darkvision... Good to know, but not what the PCs actually wanted to learn (that it has DR 5/slashing). Other skills like Disguise or Handle Animal at least have concrete definitions of what the skill does.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Normally this hasn't been as much of a problem, but the game I'm running now is a set in a homebrew mesoamerican setting. Jungles, blood magic, mysterious diseases and even more mysterious monsters. Exploration and mystery are the themes of the day and those damn knowledge checks keep killing my mystery! They hit the "Uncover secrets" button and the mystery of an interesting creature falls away.
You're very welcome mate.
Is this neck of the world, they're travelling in, well documented by prior explorers? If not, then there's a limit to the usefulness of knowledge skills. The knowledge skills may provide helpful hints, but if no clear knowledge has been uncovered, no clear knowledge has been uncovered.
Your PCs might become the law on the area and the creatures of the area, when they return, having uncovered a tonne of information themselves.
If only small bits of pre-existing information exist, I'd basically increase the DC og the knowledge check by somewhere between +5 to +15 based on how little information exist. If the players run across some form of giant, monstrous wasp, that has only been encountered once in recorded history, by the explorer Maggie the Snoring, who only managed to scribble "THE PAIN! THE PAAAAAIN!" into her notes, before she was found in a deep sleep, from which she has yet to be roused, then there won't be alot of basis for knowledge checks.
Here's what I suggest you do. Let the Knowledge checks remain relevant, but do so in a different way. Exploration is the flavour of the day? Let characters with high knowledge, have insight into the workings of the world, and use this to provide hints. An example:
"As you clear the foliage, you spy a creature, its rubbery skin a deep, murky green, covered in clusters of rocklike scales, almost like barnacles on a ship. <insert more description>"
Player 1: "I roll an applicable knowledge skill!" *rolls and succeeds*
"You realize, almost immediately after browsing your brain-box, that you have no knowledge of this creature. No references in any tomes, no tribal stories carried over by sailors or explorers. To you, this creature is completely alien..."
Player 1: "But..."
"...However! You are no amateur to the ways of the world, realizing that the creatures rocklike scales and rubbery skin, will likely prove a tough fight, even for a well sharpened sword. Its form is big, and lumbering, but you notice its hind legs are fairly strong-looking, and seems to carry alot of the weight. The creature might be capable of quite extraordinary speeds. That, coupled with the long claws on its front legs, but not-so-long claws on its hind-legs, implies that the creature might be a charging hunter, like the great cats of northern forests back home, or the far-east. Finally, the stinky, dank swamp you're presently traversing, though full of pestilence and mosquitos, seem to be its hunting grounds. Unless it drags its prey to a patch of dry-land somewhere, it likely eats whatever it catches, right here, slurping up a tonne of disease-ridden, boggy water, while eating. This creature is likely very healthy, maybe even downright immune to disease"
And from this, your players have uncovered that the creature has damage reduction, a high base speed, pounce, a good fortitude save and maybe immunity to diseases and poisons. Not from knowing it in advance, but from applying knowledge to an unfamiliar situation. As the battle progresses, they may learn new things about the creature, and if they're smart, their characters will keep a journal of it, and have it published when they get home, for the benefit of the scientiific world :)
hope it helps
-Nearyn
The story of the game is that they are trying to start a colony, well, protect a newly started one (and help it grow. They generate capital they can expend on starting factions and such-I've heard people refer to kingmaker though I have no experience with it.) in an ancient jungle. Lost cities built on lost cities, tribal creatures worshiping loa (Oni reflavored) and dwarves that channel the spirits of their ancestors to gain power (reflavor of barbarians). Basically, the players know next to nothing-all the other colonies have lasted a year or two before being destroyed by natives, disease or going the way of roanoke.
I sat down and talked to the players, many of them have invested in knowledge skills and before I just added 10 to every DC, I wanted to try to find something we could all deal with.
We came to something about like your suggestion. Instead of saying "Trolls regenerate unless attacked by acid and fire" I give them a bit of text from "A Treatise on Otherworldly Healing by Arrias Bailey" that talks about cauterization and regeneration.
Remember that the basic DC (10+CR) only identifies the monster and a few of its abilities. Each +5 achieved above that identifies more of the monster's abilities.
For me, very simple monsters (assuming they're neither common nor rare) will have all of their abilities known at 15+CR, while slightly more complex monsters will have all of their abilities known at 20+CR, and the most complex monsters only at 25+CR.
I am thinking being in a gaming group with you DM'ing might be a pretty cool experience.
OOh Stahp, you flattered, you! *@w@*
I agree with Clectabled, Nearyn. I've had both sides; one GM that never gives us more than a name (even at 30+), and another who basically gives us the stat sheat if we succeed. It makes for very different types of combat, but you seem to have a pleasantly theatrical style. I hope I can reproduce such stylings one day. (PS: expect flattery for such effort, it goes above and beyond the average gm in my (admittedly short) experience)
Let's say you, as the GM, decide that zombies are rare. DC 15 just to know what it is, 20 to find out it shambles, 25 to learn it's undead, 30 to learn it has darkvision... Good to know, but not what the PCs actually wanted to learn (that it has DR 5/slashing).
Darkvision is an undead trait and wouldn't qualify as 'another piece of information'.
Let's say you, as the GM, decide that zombies are rare. DC 15 just to know what it is, 20 to find out it shambles, 25 to learn it's undead, 30 to learn it has darkvision... Good to know, but not what the PCs actually wanted to learn (that it has DR 5/slashing).Darkvision is an undead trait and wouldn't qualify as 'another piece of information'.
Ah, but the list of undead traits is out-of-character knowledge. My point isn't that the darkvision or any other piece of information is worth a specific DC. My point is that the GM decides what is or isn't and so can decide that the 45 you just rolled gets you nothing useful.
|
The information given can vary widely from GM to GM. What's demonstrated in this thread is that there is a lot of variance, sometimes by not knowing the rules, due to intentionally avoiding giving information (effectively a house rule), or by creative interpretation about what is useful.
From OP's post, it sounds like he's giving more than one piece of useful information for a simple success. Success for monster knowledge is scaled. Using the DC 22 example, 22 gives an ID and a single piece if info. 27 gives a second piece if info. 32 is required for a third.
For some GMs, ID includes type and related traits common to all creatures of that type. For others, it is just a name. Additional pieces of information are determined by the GM, including how extensive. For one GM, a single additional point might be all special attacks, while for another it is only one. For simple creatures, low checks will give full knowledge for many GMs, just because there isn't a lot to give.
Personally, I find the game more interesting when characters are discovering information, often partial info, and acting on it, rather that keeping them in the dark.
Ah, but the list of undead traits is out-of-character knowledge. My point isn't that the darkvision or any other piece of information is worth a specific DC. My point is that the GM decides what is or isn't and so can decide that the 45 you just rolled gets you nothing useful.
I would need a citation before I believed that creature type knowledge was a purely OOC thing.
As to the GM fiat, well yeah, all checks suck if your GM makes them worthless. That's not unique to knowledge checks.
EDIT: Though I do think knowledge check fiat is a lot more common than other types of checks.
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
If you succeed, you get ID, and one bit of useful information.
Knowledge checks are CR+5/10/15 (for common/uncommon/rare). CR for average monsters are APL. For an average character with 10/11 Int, this requires 1 skill rank per level to have a 50% chance to succeed. If it is a class skill (wizard, whoever) and you have high Int (wizard, whoever) and you invest 1 rank each level, you can improve the odds. This is why Int casters are king of knowledge checks. If you don't keep the ranks up, you quickly loose out.
What the GM should give for success is not as obvious.
If anything, I feel that knowledge skills are underpowered. It's essentially the players begging the GM for info because the DC results are so vague. You'd be surprised just how little "another piece of useful information" can be. Let's say you, as the GM, decide that zombies are rare. DC 15 just to know what it is, 20 to find out it shambles, 25 to learn it's undead, 30 to learn it has darkvision... Good to know, but not what the PCs actually wanted to learn (that it has DR 5/slashing). Other skills like Disguise or Handle Animal at least have concrete definitions of what the skill does.
ID what it is, is free with a success. Shambling is not a game mechanic, and is visually obvious. It should not be a bonus.
The given example, would be better done as:
DC Free: Humanoid looking monster is shambling toward you.
DC CR+15: Zombie, Undead
DC CR+20: +Darkvision
I have heard of a project for monster knowledge checks. I don't know where it resides, but if you search the threads, I'm sure you can find it.
Also note that you cannot Take-10 in combat. You must roll and hope for good dice. Before combat, you can Take-10, so it is best done before the monsters are in range for combat.
/cevah
