| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
See subject: The question is not to specifically identify the creature or what it is, but the creatures type, such as humanoid instead of goblin.
The Knowledge skill states that to Identify a monster's abilities and weaknesses is a DC of 10 + Monster CR with differences based on rarity.
But a creature type -- such as undead or native outsider as compared to lich or tiefling is a much more basic question.
Is that check made against the base CR of the creature (modified by rarity), or something else?
|
As to identify the creature.
edit: The more I think about it, the greater the wealth of information it gives about the target. Sometimes it's the only answer a character needs in combat.
The obviousness or simplicity of the answer varies greatly by the creature. For some monsters, looking like a different type than they are is pretty much the point of their existence.
If you know what it is, you know what its Type is.
Stands to reason that if you've never seen the thing before and don't know what it is you don't somehow know its creature type.
So, because you don't know what the specific name of said mushroom means you can't tell its a fungus?
While identifying a creature will definitely lead to knowing the type, it would seem that being able to identify the creature type is not so difficult in some instances as knowing the identity of the creature itself.
My suggestion would be a DC of 10 with a -5 modifier for common creatures, adding a +5 for each rarity category above common.
So, because you don't know what the specific name of said mushroom means you can't tell its a fungus?
So, assuming you'd never seen a mushroom before, you could look at one and tell me it was a fungus?
|
It is true that as soon as your players know what Knowledge they need to roll to identify a creature, they know its type. And it is pretty hard for my players not to metagame this. Not to mention that for many monsters, their type is rather self-evident (undead, constructs).
I give info based on the monster's description and image in the Bestiary. And I know the PCs' bonuses to the various identifying Knowledge skills. So when they meet a creature, the players juts roll the dice and I give them what info they uncovered. Without telling them what skill they just used ;-)
Black Raven,
That's an interesting observation - having the skill and being able to make the check pretty much ensures that they are able to narrow down which type it is.
So that would lead me to believe that creature type is far easier, logically, to identify than creature specifics.
Rynjin,
Assuming that I know what mushrooms are, I still can't identify a morel from a toadstool.
This pretty much mimics real life for me. I know what a mushroom is, I can't identify the specifics of each unique plant.
So, because you don't know what the specific name of said mushroom means you can't tell its a fungus?So, assuming you'd never seen a mushroom before, you could look at one and tell me it was a fungus?
That is a different case.
Identify a common plant or animal Nature 10
Since you can get up to a 10 untrained, that means you can identify a CR 12 elephant as being an elephant without any training (assuming there are elephants where you grew up).
I think I would use something like DC 5 for type, DC 10 for subtype and name. Then adding penalties for its rarity.
I would rule that for the most part types are rather obvious. I would never make it harder than a DC of 10. Therefore if the PC has a intelligence of 10 or higher, it is automatic.
In the mushroom example above, I find it misleading. You don't need to know it is a fungus, you only need to know it is a plant, just like you know a tree is a plant. You don't even need to know if it is a tree or bush.
I don't think there is a single plant on earth that I will ever mistake for an animal.
Basing the DC on CR also seems misleading to me. There is no reason to think a CR 50 Red Dragon is any harder to identify as a Dragon than a CR 5 Red Dragon.
Would a level 20 elf be harder to identify than a commoner 1?
But there are a few cases where figuring out the type is not so easy. For example, you encounter a creature that looks vaguely human. Without positively identifying exactly what it is, are you sure that it is a humanoid? Or is it a native outsider? Or is it the shapechanged form of a monstrous humanoid or something weirder?
There's no rule to identify a characteristic of a creature apart from the written rules on Knowledge checks, so RAW would only grant you type information if you made at least the minimum Knowledge check required to identify the creature itself.
It's not unreasonable to allow a "whatever it is, it ain't local!" result to recognize an outsider without recognizing its species, but that's not something covered by the rules.
Perhaps a FAQ is in order?
I would rule that for the most part types are rather obvious. I would never make it harder than a DC of 10. Therefore if the PC has a intelligence of 10 or higher, it is automatic.
In the mushroom example above, I find it misleading. You don't need to know it is a fungus, you only need to know it is a plant, just like you know a tree is a plant. You don't even need to know if it is a tree or bush.
I don't think there is a single plant on earth that I will ever mistake for an animal.
Basing the DC on CR also seems misleading to me. There is no reason to think a CR 50 Red Dragon is any harder to identify as a Dragon than a CR 5 Red Dragon.
Would a level 20 elf be harder to identify than a commoner 1?
You have my point down exactly. Since creature type (barring some corner cases of things that could at first glance be in multiple categories) is nearly obvious...but still not covered by the rules.
One doesn't need to be able to differentiate between a Demon, Devil, Daemon or Daemodand to tell it's an outsider.
This is not a FAQ candidate. The rules are quite clear. DC = 10 + CR. Period.
What you really want is a separate rule for identifying creature type. Essentially, creating a whole new rule that doesn't exist - that's the provenance of erratas, not FAQs.
Until then, each GM is going to have to handle this his own way. Me, I usually figure it's obvious (that shambling humanoid that looks like a corpse and smells like rot is clearly undead and that weird oozy thing with all the mouths that are driving you insane is clearly an abberation, etc.) or it's not obvious (e.g. recognizing a very humanoid outsider). In the first case I usually just tell them the type, representing a Take-10 with a DC around 10 - anyone can make it automatically if they have 1 rank in the necessary knowledge skill (Trained-only). In the second case, I make them roll the stated DC.
A protozoa is a microscopic organism that isn't any type. It also can't be hit with a sword or even perceived by a character. Why would that ever need to be classified? Again, type has nothing to do with modern day classifications.
DM_Blake, I respectfully disagree. There is disagreement on what it takes to identify type. DC = 10 + CR identifies the actual creature, not just it type. Period. If the answer is that there is no rule, than that answer should be the answer to the FAQ, because it is not obvious but comes up, i.e. it is frequently asked.
Secondly, Knowledge skills are only "trained only" if the DC is over 10. Even then a PC can succeed at higher DC checks with a library. They do not need to have 1 rank in it. That is an artificial requirement that does not exist to take 10.
NN959, your mushroom example would only be correct if you didn't know what a plant was. Does it have two arms and legs? Well then it is not a humanoid or monstrous humanoid. Does it have eyes? Well then it is not an animal. Spirit is not a type. Demon is not a type. Constructs are not living and do not require sustenance. A mushroom does. It takes mere seconds to identify these characteristics.
In a previous thread related to this subject someone said that if I didn't know what a certain animal was I could not identify it. I googled it. By looking at just a picture, in less than one second I could classify it as a mammal, which is WAY more precise than animal, which is all that the OP is looking to do.
Dragons do not exist on Earth. Yet they are the stuff of legend and almost every human being knows what they are and can identify them in artwork from all over the world. It is only logical to believe that if they were actually a real threat to your existence you damn sure would know about them!
If you know what it is, you know what its Type is.
Stands to reason that if you've never seen the thing before and don't know what it is you don't somehow know its creature type.
Unless it's obvious. Most undead, plants, and giants are no-brainers, for example. I can't imagine anybody looking at a mushroom-monster and not coming to the conclusion that it's a Plant-type. I wouldn't put a check for this higher than 5.
There may be exceptions for creatures that strongly resemble one type but are not, but that's where the higher DC 'standard' knowledge checks come in.
|
|
Logic dictates it should be either 10, or 10 + CR of lowest CR creature in that Creature Type. I have yet to find it addressed by RAW.
This was part of the monster knowledge system that was introduced late in D&D 3.5, maybe in MM IV. Helpful for those who see PF as the successor to D&D. Those of the school that see PF as its own game are on their own.
So, because you don't know what the specific name of said mushroom means you can't tell its a fungus?So, assuming you'd never seen a mushroom before, you could look at one and tell me it was a fungus?
That is a different case.
Identify a common plant or animal Nature 10Since you can get up to a 10 untrained, that means you can identify a CR 12 elephant as being an elephant without any training (assuming there are elephants where you grew up).
I think I would use something like DC 5 for type, DC 10 for subtype and name. Then adding penalties for its rarity.
Thankfully, mushrooms are fungi, not plants or animals, so that doesn't apply. =)
Fungi are plants in Pathfinder.
Pathfinder doesn't rely too heavily on scientific classifications. See also the Fungus Weird, the Sheet Fungus, and the Mindstab Fungus.
The answer doesn't have to be "no". There is simply no written rule for it. In a game where the GM is unable or unwilling to implement this rule:
Characters can sometimes use skills for purposes other than those noted here, at the GM's discretion.
then the player is out of luck. If the GM is allowed to use her discretion as the rules expect, then the answer may be different. But the decision to exercise that discretion is outside the realm of this forum.
The answer may be that there is no rule. That doesn't mean the answer has to be no.
I can identify many canines as canines and all of them as animals. I can only identify about 8 breeds of dog.
In my opinion, it has to be simpler than identifying a wolf vs. a husky.
This has major game implications. If the GM describes a creature, a player should never be forced into the position of having no clue as to how to combat it. That player should not have to ignore the most basic information of type.
For instance, every character should know that humanoids usually have two arms and two legs and one head. So if something has no arms, no legs but one head, they won't cast Charm Person on it. They should not be required to make a trained only knowledge nature check to understand this is an animal (Venomous Snake, DC 11).
If you hold true to the letter of RAW, you could not identify a Halfling from a Half Orc without making the check. Obviously this is a problem.
As to your insect acting as a plant, camouflage has nothing to do with type. That is perception. The point of the camouflage is to hide the EXISTANCE of the creature at all. A rattle snake is never mistaken for terrain once it is seen. It is only not seen within the terrain. No one looks at the 3' long serpent rattling its tail while hissing at them and says, oh, it must be a rock.
The answer may be that there is no rule. That doesn't mean the answer has to be no.
This.
No, they aren't, which is the point of the thread. The player wants to use Knowledge for a different purpose than described. The GM has specific latitude to decide whether this is possible and, if so, how difficult it is. The GM is absolutely free to say that this is not possible, and the player must be willing to accept that per the above-quoted rule.
IMO, a straight Int check vs. DC 5, 10, or 15 to determine the general type (depending on how obvious it is) could work. Characters with the appropriate Knowledge skill should not have to make an Int check; they have enough training to identify the general creature types covered by that skill.
Alternately, the GM could make the player(s) "blind roll" a d20 and apply the skill modifier for the Knowledge skill in question (if the character has it) before revealing any information (the GM does have copies of the PCs' character sheets, right?) to maintain a slightly higher sense of mystery/tension. It can also make facing creatures that can masquerade as something else, like yellow musk creepers/zombies, more difficult.
There aren't any RAW on this, so by RAW you'd have to identify the creature to know it's type. I would however describe the creature and let the players assume what they will, and in most cases their assumptions will naturally be correct. This mimics real life rather well. If you aren't an expert on things you are going to assume stuff and most of the time on the easier questions you will be correct, but there will be exceptions.
THIS.
Knowledge is something you know or don't know based on the skill check. Without identifying the creature you can't be sure of anything. BUT your pc is free to assume what he wishes and properties of creature types would be common knowledge to adventures. Just because it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck doesn't make it a duck in pf. it could be anything. Now if the player chooses to assume its an animal because he feels it is, he's free for his pc to atack it as such without metagaming.
In my campaign I roll knowledge checks and other checks secretly. Though a player is also free to actively make a check himself.
If your so sure its a mushroom then attack it as a fungus. But don't be suprised sometime when it ends up being an outsider or say... an eidolon.
RuneladeX, I agree whole heartedly with your sentiment. Problem is that not everyone agrees what is metagaming vs. intelligence.
That is where the problem lies. Recently I started a thread where a player knew without a doubt that the creature he was fighting was a glabrezu. The character didn't. But because the player knew what it was, the DM felt that any action towards it had to be meta-stupid* or it was meta-gaming.
The PC in question was a cleric that KNOWS planes exist. Of course almost all people on a world like that would know of demons, devils and angels. How could they not? They know for a fact that there are Gods meddling in their lives and these creatures work at their behest.
The PC in question could identify and cast a spell (from scroll) that would summon the same creature. The PC in question could summon over 50 demonic creatures himself.
But to the DM, even memorizing banishment for a subsequent encounter would be meta-gaming.
The problem is that the gamer that is brand new and doesn't know anything is label as smart when they try attacks based on what they see in the encounter and hear based on the description.
The experienced player that doesn't have the benefit of being ignorant to the situation is treated as a cheater for doing the same exact thing as the new gamer.
I think that is why this conversation is so important to people.
------
*meta-stupid is when you do what you know is the exact stupid thing to do in order to prove you are not meta-gaming. Of course you failed, because being meta-stupid IS meta-gaming.
This seems like the sort of situation where 99% of the time no roll is necessary, like there's no Knowledge: Nature DC given for determining whether it's currently raining outside.
But in the corner case where a monster's type is not obvious and telling the player the type of roll required would spoil the surprise, seems to me like the DM should just make the roll for the player (or have them roll the die and apply the result without telling them what they were rolling for).
Something like this:
DM: You see a floating sheet with eyeholes.
Player: Great Scott! Is it a ghost?
DM: (rolls - success) No, it's a Floating Sheet Fungus - a type of plant that just looks like a ghost.
OR (rolls - failure) You don't know for certain. Sure looks like one, though.
etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having re-read what I wrote (& still attempting to provide a useful answer to the OP) here is an alternate means of adjudicating the same encounter.
DM: You see a floating sheet with eyeholes.
Player: Great Scott! Is it a ghost?
DM: Could be. Roll Knowledge: Religion.
Player (rolls) Let's see, with my modifiers, I got a 45. Does that succeed?
DM: It's not any type of ghost you've ever encountered or heard about.
I don't have a hard and fast house-rule, but when I GM I do apply a bit of common sense with regards to how much is obvious and how much the PCs would already know based on lore.
I get the PCs to make a roll for information, but even on a failure I will tell the PCs a little bit of information. I will usually identify the type unless there's something in the description of the creature about its type being disguised or unusual. If it's a common well known creature within the campaign setting, I'll give a vague reference to what people know about it.
It would be nice to have some clearer guidelines with this, to ensure that how much I'm giving out is fair and doesn't cheat the player who spends their points in the knowledge skills or bardic knowledge.