Back in the day, players were expected to learn what worked and didn't work against monsters. Character death was the price of not knowing/learning lessons. If you didn't want your next character to die, you had to remember how to beat them.Very early on, but that style wasn't the only way even back in the early 80s. It wasn't what I picked up from the 1st edition books.
I tend to think of that as transitional from the wargaming roots to actual role-playing. Once the idea of playing a character with his own background and personality took hold, the ideal of carrying specific knowledge learned from one character to another began to fade.
Read some of Role-Playing Mastery by Gygax. I get the distinct impression that the PC is really just a vehicle/representation of the player. The player is playing the game, and based on the myriad pieces of advice, he is advising the players actions and how to increase their chances of success, both in the process of playing the game (overcoming challenges) and the spirit of playing the game (telling a story). There's even a whole chapter on Tactical Mastery, and it's directed at the player, not the character.
I agree, this wasn't/isn't the only way to play, but it was a commonly accepted one and one that was valued by the creator of the game.
|
Why can't I?Because the rules don't allow you to learn things like that.
I'm not saying it's sensical, I'm saying that's what is literally written.
I can't find it.
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.
Untrained: You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit is removed. The time to make checks using a library, however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in the fields that they cover.
I must be dense. Help me out.
|
|
I must be dense. Help me out.A CR6 skeleton has a minimum Knowledge check DC of 11.
I can't find a rule saying you can roll a Knowledge check against a CR5 skeleton to learn something about the CR6 one.
I can ask what I know about CR1/3 skeletons (DR5/bludgeoning) which is a DC 5 or 6 depending on whether you round up or down.
I can ask what I know about CR2 skeletal champions (DR5/bludgeoning) which is a DC 7 check.
I can extrapolate from that to get an educated guess that sketons have DR?/bludgeoning. Now, I know that I might be wrong. This may be a CR 6 skeleton with a variant DR type, but it's a reasonable guess for anyone to make, and certainly within the rules to ask.
|
I can extrapolate from that to get an educated guess that sketons have DR?/bludgeoning. Now, I know that I might be wrong. This may be a CR 6 skeleton with a variant DR type, but it's a reasonable guess for anyone to make, and certainly within the rules to ask.
Actually, it's not within the rules. It's certainly logical, but the rules do not support it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Are you saying that if you are fighting a skeleton your ability to make a knowledge check about wolverines is immediately turned off?No, I'm saying that the rules don't actually support generalizing from the specific. If you can find a rule that allows it, by all means show it to me.
This isn't air-tight, but:
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Good find Jiggy. I won't argue semantics, but I find that the same as rolling against the standard skeleton and expecting it to be the same for advanced ones.
Depends on what you give out as a "really easy question". My initial thought is that a DC 10 Knowledge (religion) check could mean you know that when an obviously-dead creature is up and about, it's called being undead, which inherently means [insert undead traits here]. I'm not sure I'd give the DR (or the immunity to cold, for that matter).
As for the apparently hot topic of "a skeleton's DR should be obvious", maybe that's a DC 10 Knowledge (engineering) check. ;)
I wouldn't support a ruling that says a level 20 dwarf fighter is impossible for most people to identify as a dwarf because due to high CR.
I once reverse metagamed myself.
We were in a pub getting a quest and one of the players said he was going to take aside the quest-giver and negotiate in private.
We (the other players) listened as he made a deal which, in character, we couldn't hear.
Then his character came back and lied about the size of the reward so he could claim a larger share.
I was pretty sure that my character would be suspicious but none of us felt willing to look like we were acting on out-of-character knowledge.
I always thought the rules said something about not getting caught up in what the rules say?
But if the rules say that but you shouldn't get caught up in the rules...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
ERROR ERROR PARADOX DETECTED ERROR ERROR ABORT ABORT
|
|
I can extrapolate from that to get an educated guess that sketons have DR?/bludgeoning. Now, I know that I might be wrong. This may be a CR 6 skeleton with a variant DR type, but it's a reasonable guess for anyone to make, and certainly within the rules to ask.Actually, it's not within the rules. It's certainly logical, but the rules do not support it.
If I'm faced by a CR 1/3 skeleton, and I don't have knowledge(religion), can I ask what I know about skeletons? Isn't that a DC6 check, which I am allowed to make even without a rank in the skill because the DC is 10 or less?
Where am I going wrong?
Where am I going wrong?By thinking 'I can just roll a check for that CR1/3 skeleton and use it for the CR6 skeleton as well', which is not supported in the rules.
You'd be on firmer ground saying that you need to make a (DC 11) knowledge check to know that the (CR 6) creature in front of you is a skeleton.
It might be a bone golem, and if you use what you know about skeletons to fight a bone golem, you're gonna have a bad time.
it would be more appropriate to make a DC 11 knowledge check to differentiate a CR6 Bone Golem from a CR6 Skeleton rather than mistake the bone golem for a skeleton. it would take no knowledge to mistake it for a skeleton though.
but i don't like a rule that makes a dwarf harder to identify as a dwarf due to their higher levels or makes higher tier versions of the same creature harder to identify.
i'm fine with mistaking a lacedon for a lesser ghoul or a bone golem for a skeleton without requiring a knowledge check.
but basing knowledge on CR, makes that 20th level Dwarven Fighter require a DC 24 knowledge check when he only required a DC 6 check at level 1. to know he was a dwarven fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*falls over from dizziness from circular discussion*
*crawls out of thread to huddle in the bushes*