Hmm...I just started as a player to an AD&D campaign this week.
There IS something almost palpable that is different, but I can't quite put my finger no it. Something that makes your characters slightly more memorable to me.
I love PF, don't get me wrong, and there are ways to make PF more like AD&D, but when playing our first two sessions, there really is something different about AD&D. It's absolutely noticeable...and I like it, but I really can't put my finger on exactly what it is.
Perhaps for this game it's because there is less focus on numbers and more on what makes your character, aka...what is unique about my Ranger vs. any other ranger out there? Instead of simply numbers with skills and weapons and other options, your focus is drawn towards the character and character development...aka...you have to roleplay that part?
Of course, if you are a use and dispose party (a group where you roll up characters only to have them die that session and have to roll up more...high mortality...etc) then I suppose it wouldn't have the same idea...but at the same time...you'd still have it that if you want something more unique about your character that others don't have...it's more up to you to roleplay that difference in some ways rather than focusing on what the numbers could tell you.
PS: OR, maybe it could be that I have to DM PF and the group is all women besides me. With the AD&D group, I'm only a PC/Player and the entire group is a bunch of guys?
Hmm...I just started as a player to an AD&D campaign this week.
There IS something almost palpable that is different, but I can't quite put my finger no it. Something that makes your characters slightly more memorable to me.
I love PF, don't get me wrong, and there are ways to make PF more like AD&D, but when playing our first two sessions, there really is something different about AD&D. It's absolutely noticeable...and I like it, but I really can't put my finger on exactly what it is.
Perhaps for this game it's because there is less focus on numbers and more on what makes your character, aka...what is unique about my Ranger vs. any other ranger out there? Instead of simply numbers with skills and weapons and other options, your focus is drawn towards the character and character development...aka...you have to roleplay that part?
Of course, if you are a use and dispose party (a group where you roll up characters only to have them die that session and have to roll up more...high mortality...etc) then I suppose it wouldn't have the same idea...but at the same time...you'd still have it that if you want something more unique about your character that others don't have...it's more up to you to roleplay that difference in some ways rather than focusing on what the numbers could tell you.
PS: OR, maybe it could be that I have to DM PF and the group is all women besides me. With the AD&D group, I'm only a PC/Player and the entire group is a bunch of guys?
Playing with women definitely brings a different dynamic to the table.
You can keep trying to convince me they were bad, but our experiences clearly differ. Most enjoyable class behind fighting man, great if you didn't want to just hit things.
You're welcome! ;-)
Skills suck?
I can make a 1 in 4 roll. I've made harder rolls (like needing a 19-20 to hit on a d20).
I was going over the table of thief skill progression recently. I do love it, and I was finding some ways it was superior to 3.5/pf.
Just look at it.
http://cybertrout.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/thief-skills1.jpgLook at that climb walls and how quick pick pocket goes up. Find/remove traps takes a while, but it increased quickly.
The difference is with a lot of the thief skills, it's a one shot deal.
In a fight, you'll make a bunch of attack rolls, you'll miss some of them and hit others.
Miss your hide or move silently rolls and you're probably spotted.Again, I'm not really trying to bash thieves here. I'm saying a 10% chance to Hide in Shadows sucks. I'm saying a 30% chance to pick pockets sucks. Because you can't rely on them.
Sure, they get better quickly, but you're talking about stealing 1000s of gp at 1st level when you're failing most rolls most of the time. There being easy opportunities to swipe that much gold didn't exist in the games I played.
The class had a couple other things going for it. Remember, skills added racial and Stat bonuses, and they stacked.
Next a design feature of the class was that it would be a level or two ahead of the pack at low/mid and then high/mid levels. That is a HUGE boost.
Nor did you need to steal all that stuff, since you got eps for adventuring, etc.
Hmm...I just started as a player to an AD&D campaign this week.
There IS something almost palpable that is different, but I can't quite put my finger no it. Something that makes your characters slightly more memorable to me.
I love PF, don't get me wrong, and there are ways to make PF more like AD&D, but when playing our first two sessions, there really is something different about AD&D. It's absolutely noticeable...and I like it, but I really can't put my finger on exactly what it is.
Perhaps for this game it's because there is less focus on numbers and more on what makes your character, aka...what is unique about my Ranger vs. any other ranger out there? Instead of simply numbers with skills and weapons and other options, your focus is drawn towards the character and character development...aka...you have to roleplay that part?
Of course, if you are a use and dispose party (a group where you roll up characters only to have them die that session and have to roll up more...high mortality...etc) then I suppose it wouldn't have the same idea...but at the same time...you'd still have it that if you want something more unique about your character that others don't have...it's more up to you to roleplay that difference in some ways rather than focusing on what the numbers could tell you.
PS: OR, maybe it could be that I have to DM PF and the group is all women besides me. With the AD&D group, I'm only a PC/Player and the entire group is a bunch of guys?
Yes, well I just had to bow out of a conversation because the player was excitedly talking about how op they would be, what feats and templates and class combinations they would use to make something really game breaking. That is DULL, but very common now.
PS: OR, maybe it could be that I have to DM PF and the group is all women besides me. With the AD&D group, I'm only a PC/Player and the entire group is a bunch of guys?
You know women aren't uncommon in the hobby now-a-days, but the whole group besides the GM?
Was that just pure chance?
Yes, well I just had to bow out of a conversation because the player was excitedly talking about how op they would be, what feats and templates and class combinations they would use to make something really game breaking. That is DULL, but very common now.Hmm...I just started as a player to an AD&D campaign this week.
There IS something almost palpable that is different, but I can't quite put my finger no it. Something that makes your characters slightly more memorable to me.
I love PF, don't get me wrong, and there are ways to make PF more like AD&D, but when playing our first two sessions, there really is something different about AD&D. It's absolutely noticeable...and I like it, but I really can't put my finger on exactly what it is.
Perhaps for this game it's because there is less focus on numbers and more on what makes your character, aka...what is unique about my Ranger vs. any other ranger out there? Instead of simply numbers with skills and weapons and other options, your focus is drawn towards the character and character development...aka...you have to roleplay that part?
Of course, if you are a use and dispose party (a group where you roll up characters only to have them die that session and have to roll up more...high mortality...etc) then I suppose it wouldn't have the same idea...but at the same time...you'd still have it that if you want something more unique about your character that others don't have...it's more up to you to roleplay that difference in some ways rather than focusing on what the numbers could tell you.
PS: OR, maybe it could be that I have to DM PF and the group is all women besides me. With the AD&D group, I'm only a PC/Player and the entire group is a bunch of guys?
It is no more or less common than it was 5, 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago.
Bottom line: 1st edition D&D was incredibly new and rough designed. 2nd ed brought with it changes and improvements to the way characters were built, what abilities they had, and the customization rules. 3rd ed was a product that continued the succession. It built on what they already had. Some things changed. Some things were removed. Weapon proficiencies and non-weapon proficiencies became feats. THAC0 went from trying to have the lowest armor value, to AC where you want the highest armor value possible. 3.5 ed was just a massive line of supplemental books that continued to BUILD ON WHAT THEY ALREADY HAD, to improve and provide more options for character customization. 4th ed caused a bit of strife because WotC threw out the old books and tried to start something new. They did away with some classes and expanded on some of the new ones. IE: Warlock. I love Pathfinder because it picks up where 4th ed should have. It took the old system, chopped out some of the more troublesome aspects, (don't get me started on the Turn Undead formula), such as sorcerers having to take half a dozen feats to get some of the bloodline benefits that sorcerers get with their class in Pathfinder. Cleric's Channel Energy is one of my favorite class abilities. Now you can play a cleric in an undead free campaign and not have a chunk of your class abilities going to waste. There is no perfect system. Our best bet is to play the systems we like, and leave the others for other players. Homebrewing isn't illegal. Make it your own.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bottom line: 1st edition D&D was incredibly new and rough designed.
And yet, because it didn't feel the need to overcodify things, it didn't allow BS like Pun-Pun, or have the need for Advanced Multiclassing Redux (subtitled "because it's sucked since 2000, but we couldn't be bothered to fix in in the Core Rulebook").
It also wasn't as new as I think you probably assume it was. Or as roughly designed. It had been around in the form of Original Dungeons & Dragons for about 4 years, and the AD&D books were MUCH better organized and well-designed than the original booklets.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is no more or less common than it was 5, 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago.Yes, well I just had to bow out of a conversation because the player was excitedly talking about how op they would be, what feats and templates and class combinations they would use to make something really game breaking. That is DULL, but very common now.Hmm...I just started as a player to an AD&D campaign this week.
There IS something almost palpable that is different, but I can't quite put my finger no it. Something that makes your characters slightly more memorable to me.
I love PF, don't get me wrong, and there are ways to make PF more like AD&D, but when playing our first two sessions, there really is something different about AD&D. It's absolutely noticeable...and I like it, but I really can't put my finger on exactly what it is.
Perhaps for this game it's because there is less focus on numbers and more on what makes your character, aka...what is unique about my Ranger vs. any other ranger out there? Instead of simply numbers with skills and weapons and other options, your focus is drawn towards the character and character development...aka...you have to roleplay that part?
Of course, if you are a use and dispose party (a group where you roll up characters only to have them die that session and have to roll up more...high mortality...etc) then I suppose it wouldn't have the same idea...but at the same time...you'd still have it that if you want something more unique about your character that others don't have...it's more up to you to roleplay that difference in some ways rather than focusing on what the numbers could tell you.
PS: OR, maybe it could be that I have to DM PF and the group is all women besides me. With the AD&D group, I'm only a PC/Player and the entire group is a bunch of guys?
I really liked the potent feat mixes and wicked templates that you could stack in AD&D to make a totally baller character.
Except they didn't exist...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, well I just had to bow out of a conversation because the player was excitedly talking about how op they would be, what feats and templates and class combinations they would use to make something really game breaking. That is DULL, but very common now.It is no more or less common than it was 5, 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago.I really liked the potent feat mixes and wicked templates that you could stack in AD&D to make a totally baller character.
Except they didn't exist...
Yeah, back in the day you could only boast about your stats and the awesome magic items you had.
The mechanics are different and I think 3.x does encourage the focus, but the mentality's been around from the start.
Back in the day, you boasted about your actual accomplishments. Given how cowardly modern PCs tend to be, the boasting has had to shift over to how badass their build is. But apparently not so badass as to risk a battle against anything that might stand a remote chance. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I lose track of which stereotypes we're supposed to be bashing who for today.:)
Everyone that plays differently to us, as usual :)
HOOt! My buddy and I call that " game store mentality"! Lol that happens in other regions too? Cowards I say Thee!
That was for kthulu , sorry;).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, are we saying the essence of AD&D in PF is to complain a lot, do bold stuff with our characters and then tell people how awesome we are?
I think we should get back to the essence of AD&D in PF. I didn't play at a lot of cons back in the 1e/2e days, but I played a couple event games and now since PF I've played a couple of those at cons too. I think when it comes to events the games play pretty similarly. You get some pre-gens, roll some dice, and try not to die.
So I think a lot of the "essence" that's changed/stayed the same/disappeared/whatever is at home games/private games. Is that ENTIRELY due to the system and ruleset, or could it also be the maturity of the gamers?
I wonder if too much of this debate can be summed up with the fact that we were younger when we played 1e, and now we're older and playing PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are we having any debate, though?
This thread was started by someone saying that he liked Pathfinder but wanted to recapture some lost elements of AD&D that he also liked. He wasn't asking for opinions on which style of gaming (old vs. new) was better, he was seeking advice on what elements he could add/change in his PF game to get a little more "old school" feel back in his particular game.
I have no idea why this devolved into an "AD&D is better, no PF is better" wrangle-fest, other than that is apparently what internet message boards were built for.
I think we should get back to the essence of AD&D in PF.
Good idea :)
I didn't play at a lot of cons back in the 1e/2e days, but I played a couple event games and now since PF I've played a couple of those at cons too. I think when it comes to events the games play pretty similarly. You get some pre-gens, roll some dice, and try not to die.So I think a lot of the "essence" that's changed/stayed the same/disappeared/whatever is at home games/private games. Is that ENTIRELY due to the system and ruleset, or could it also be the maturity of the gamers?
I wonder if too much of this debate can be summed up with the fact that we were younger when we played 1e, and now we're older and playing PF.
I'd put it more down to the fact that back then we were not exposed to such a dramatic difference in playstyles to whatever our own was. Some of that is down to system differences, some of that is down to the Internet.
Why are we having any debate, though?
This thread was started by someone saying that he liked Pathfinder but wanted to recapture some lost elements of AD&D that he also liked. He wasn't asking for opinions on which style of gaming (old vs. new) was better, he was seeking advice on what elements he could add/change in his PF game to get a little more "old school" feel back in his particular game.
While there's some debate that isn't really serving the purpose of this thread, such as:
I have no idea why this devolved into an "AD&D is better, no PF is better" wrangle-fest, other than that is apparently what internet message boards were built for.
^^ that.
There is some debate that's kinda at the root of the topic, which is "what *is* 'old school' anyway?" It's no more clearly defined what the essence of AD&D was any more than the essence of Pathfinder. There's a natural leaning towards particular types of play, but nothing that can be distilled down to being the way people are "supposed" to play play - we all played different styles back then, we all play different styles now.
At the end of the day though, the best answer I can come up with is that playstyle decisions come from the players, no matter what the rulebooks say. They may encourage or influence, but we still get to make the final decision how each of us wants to play. So, to recapture the essence of AD&D in Pathfinder... just play Pathfinder the same way you did AD&D - I really don't see it being any more complicated than that (unless everyone in the group wants to pull in a different direction, and that's a whole different issue and is down to dealing with playstyle differences, and not how to implement them.)
PS: OR, maybe it could be that I have to DM PF and the group is all women besides me. With the AD&D group, I'm only a PC/Player and the entire group is a bunch of guys?You know women aren't uncommon in the hobby now-a-days, but the whole group besides the GM?
Was that just pure chance?
When I was a teenager and GMing, my typical group consisted of my sister, a pair of female cousins, and a couple other girls who usually played whenever they were around.
My current usual group consists of a cycling between 6 (one of which is my brother) guys and 2 girls. There's also another girl who begs to play each time she comes to visit our house (the last time we played with her, my brother and her 2-manned a 5th level adventure module in a 12-hour marathon session that began at 8pm and ended at 8am). My brother also wants me to introduce his girlfriend to the game, and his ex has also wanted to play again.
I'd say personally speaking I don't want to get into a fight I have less than an 80% chance of winning.
I've played in campaigns in which everyone's chance of "just barely" winning every fight was always 100%, because the DM would selectively add/subtract hp, fudge rolls, etc. to make that happen. I presonally hated it, because I felt like it took all the fun out of things, but some people love it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say personally speaking I don't want to get into a fight I have less than an 80% chance of winning.I've played in campaigns in which everyone's chance of "just barely" winning every fight was always 100%, because the DM would selectively add/subtract hp, fudge rolls, etc. to make that happen. I presonally hated it, because I felt like it took all the fun out of things, but some people love it.
I'm here for the real experience. I don't want someone to hold my hand. I don't want someone to cheapen what I've accomplished. I want to win because we did well. Not because the magic hand in the sky is moving us through the motions.
When I'm GMing, the same is true. I'm rooting for you (the player) the whole time. I'm hoping you do well. I want the good guys to win. But I will ****ing kill you. :P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say personally speaking I don't want to get into a fight I have less than an 80% chance of winning.I've played in campaigns in which everyone's chance of "just barely" winning every fight was always 100%, because the DM would selectively add/subtract hp, fudge rolls, etc. to make that happen. I presonally hated it, because I felt like it took all the fun out of things, but some people love it.
Yep. Live or die by my choices and the dice. I get that the modern game is more about the story than being a game, but I can't play like that. I love the story, but it shouldn't exist because of DM fudging, not for me, anyway. I find that games where death is either never an issue, or scripted for "dramatic effect on the story" bore me to tears.
Same reason I GM without a screen.
Yeah, me too.
I also don't like it where players think that if its an encounter then they must be able to win.
There are going be times when the only way to survive is to run !
I still recall in one game where our party of high level characters (16+) got caught in a magic dead zone where no magic worked not spells items anything
We where then set upon by swarms of goblins and orcs .
At this point myself and my friend Dave ( both of us playing mages) took to our toes and ran for the hills and i saw no shame in doing so
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't like it where players think that if its an encounter then they must be able to win.
There are going be times when the only way to survive is to run !
I still recall in one game where our party of high level characters (16+) got caught in a magic dead zone where no magic worked not spells items anything
We where then set upon by swarms of goblins and orcs .
At this point myself and my friend Dave ( both of us playing mages) took to our toes and ran for the hills and i saw no shame in doing so
I've always been of the belief that an encounter doesn't necessarily mean a combat encounter. There are plenty of times that I include hazards and even creatures in the game and they aren't intended to even be obstacles for the party to overcome, but some of these make for some of the more hilarious stories.
For example, once during a game the party was walking along a trail through the woods heading towards their adventuring destination. While the party was doing so, they saw an ettin off in the distance foraging and hunting for food (he had a javalin in one hand and a club in the other). The ettin was a pretty good distance away and either hadn't noticed the party or didn't care to try and rob/kill them, which was good because the party was first level.
Enter the monk player. He sees the ettin, recognizes that it's a monster and that they have seen it. In his mind, this means that it must be time to fight it and that it wouldn't even be here unless he had a good chance of defeating it. Chaaaaaaarge!
*SPLAT* The Ettin swats the little monk as it attacks him, crushing him in a single blow. He then picked up the monk, tossed his lifeless body into his bag, and decided his hunting trip was over and he would pick up some mushrooms on the way home.
The rest of the party sat there staring at the sight for a moment.
P1: "Um, should we go after it?"
P2: "I think the damage is done."
P1: "Maybe we should have a moment of silence or something."
P3: "...He will be missed."
Ashiel that's a classic example of player assuming that they can kill anything they meet.
I've seen that a few times over the years and it always amazes me how dumb some players can be
Also makes me laugh at the look on there faces when there characters take on something which is so obviously stronger than them gets killed by the first hit
|
KH: some skills already have a "get close/partial success" sort of thing to them. Fail your climb roll by 4 or less and you just don't make any progress but you don't fall. Maybe use that as a baseline.
Yeah, feed the players some false info whenever they fail their knowledge checks by 5 or more.
The fire in a red dragon's belly keeps it protected from cold spells. The only way to defeat a red dragon is to fight fire with fire, as it's skin is not as fireproof as his gizzard.
A lot of my NPCs aren't bloodthirsty monsters either, and are more than happy to cross swords with the party (or anyone else) without trying to kill them at every step. One of my favorite NPCs who makes an appearance in a few of my campaigns is Captain Scurvy the Pigmy Pugwampi Pirate.
He's a CR 4 6th level diminutive (young template) pugwampi ranger. He rides around on a warf rat (his companion) named Skitters. He commands a sailing ship (Scurvy's Sails) with a crew of gnoll pirates (called Scurvy Dogs). He had a run in with my brother's character on two or three occasions where they crossed paths (and swords) before he rode skitters off into the sunset wishing the hero better luck next time (and yes, that is a pun on his unluck aura).
Another NPC that I put together for Jade Regent (which I've been meaning to get around to running) is Yasei no Kaze or "Wild Wind". She's a medium sized young ogre magi with yellow eyes like a lion, light blue skin, golden yellow hair, and a pair of small horns jutting from her forehead like a rhino. She generally carries a tetsubo and a large gourde of magic sake and wears a combination of fine robes and chain.
She carries these magic items.
Moesashi (Ember) Greatclub
Aura faint evocation; CL 1st
Slot–; Price 1,305 gp; Weight 4 lb.
Moesashi is a masterwork darkwood greatclub wielded by the
young oni Yasei no Kaze. The moesashi deals 1d3 fire damage on
each successful hit.
Requirements Craft Magical Arms & Armor, any [fire] spell; Cost 885 gp
Ogrekin Sake Gourd
Aura faint conjuration; CL 1st
Slot–; Price 200 gp; Weight 1 lb.
This magical gourd seems to hold impossible amounts of rice
wine (though versions with other alcoholic drinks exist). The
gourd produces up to 2 gallons worth of drink each day (drink
emptied from it but not consumed within 10 minutes vanishes),
though as alcohol it provides little nourishment or deterrent to
thirst. Some consider these magic items cursed as they seem to
have little use other than developing addictions.
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, create water; Cost 100 gp
She's kind of a goof-off. She isn't really into her family's political machinations and just wants to hang out, drink sake, and have fun. She is intended to meet up with the party while half-assing a task given to her by her clan. She's prone to laziness and enjoys a good joke. While it's very likely that she'll cross the party as an antagonist pretty frequently she's just as likely to chat with them, tease them, or ask them to share a drink with her when her orders don't explicitly involve conflict with them.
Were you the DM?
Yes I was.
Just out of curiousity, how do you inform players that something is "obviously stronger" than them? Do they rely on metagame knowledge? Do you give them that info through Knowledge rolls?
Generally it's through a narrative, though most of my groups tend to have Knowledge skills with modifiers good enough to pass on a take 10 to identify most normal types of creatures.
For example, in that game I said something like...
GM: "The air is warm in the forest today as you make your way through the forest towards your destination. In the distance you can see a large two-headed giant hunting in the forest. Fortunately it has either not noticed you or is uninterested in bothering you on your way through the forest, which is probably for the best given its size and apparent strength".
Maybe 1st level characters vs 13' tall guy with 2 heads is obvious. (Maybe not. An ogre is 10' tall and reasonable for a 1st level party.) At what level is it no longer obvious that the 13' tall guy is too strong for them?
Well they were 1st level humorously. That said, who knows when it's obvious? That's one of the reasons Knowledge skills are pretty good (otherwise it's your best guess, and size is often misleading when it comes to power in Pathfinder).
There are also plenty of things that are much to strong that aren't at all obvious. Unless you recognize them OOC.
I agree completely. Knowledge skills are pretty nice for this reason. :P
I've got nothing against that playstyle, though I do hope you inform new players what kind of game you're running before killing them and laughing. And it's not really that much more realistic or anything. Rather than just not putting in encounters that are too hard, the GM has to make sure they're all not only avoidable (or otherwise resolvable without combat) but also needs to make sure they're surrounded by enough warning signs the players can make informed choices about what to fight. If there are any kind of missions or short term goals they have to involve just the standard CR appropriate encounters.
Well I don't generally point and laugh. :P
Though honestly if your usual mode of operation is to attack everything that you see, I imagine you may be playing a psychopath. :\
Did you give any indication that such wasn't such a great idea, or did you simply assume common sense would inform the monk's player not to try it? I'm just trying to get a better sense of context.
I could almost see this happening were he a new player and unused to your refereeing style.
Guess that showed him. :)
Does the traditional "are you really sure?" count? :P
I recall a 1st level druid that charged a troll once. She never came back to the game after that.
(I would have called for a Wisdom check to tell her it was a VERY bad idea, but I wasn't the DM sadly.)
Well I can say we had many more games with the monk player after that, so I'm happy for that. :)
If charging something twice your size at first level without any provocation or motivation and then getting squashed is going to break your heart, then my kobolds may give you nightmares. :o
I can't say that old school D&D taught me how tough any given monster was. (Well, not without countless hours spent pouring over the Monster Manual.) It did teach me (like, within three sessions) that attacking every single monster you meet and expecting survive because you're the protagonist and they're the monster is unrealistic.
It was mostly just rough to watch her roll her first character up over the course of an hour while the rest of us were playing and then have that character dead within five minutes of starting.
I should also mention this occurred as a random encounter rolled while the druid was on night watch.
Ouch. (>_<)
In a word ... yes. :)
Yay! (^.^)
Personally, I'm not fond of the "Attack everything" playstyle, so I would have been unlikely to attack the ettin. That's true whether my character was 1st level or 10th.
Same here. :)
One of the things I was asking was whether Knowledge Checks as you use them reveal anything about how tough a given monster is. As far as I can tell, RAW, they don't. Name, type and special abilities.
It's pretty vague unfortunately. It says that you can use it to identify a creature, their special powers, or vulnerabilities. To me, part of identifying a creature suggests that you have a basic understanding of what it is. While not RAW, the way I handle it in my games is...
1: Roll (or take 10) Knowledge. A success nets you their common names (such as a cave troll, mountain troll, etc), creature type, and 1 block of information. A block of information is the Defensive (AC, HD, Hp, Defenses, Weaknesses), Offensive (speed, attacks, special attacks / SLAs, etc), or Statistical information of the creature (ability scores, feats, skills, special qualities).
2: Every +5 points you roll over the needed DC nets you another block of information.
Example of Play
Pretend that you're a PC and I'm the GM. You're wandering along and you're attacked by a pair of wyverns. One of them is more robust than the other one (it's been advanced some extra hit dice beyond the norm). One of them is a standard CR 6, the other is CR 8.
You roll Knowledge (Arcana) and get a 22. You know they are wyverns and of the dragon type (and you know dragon type traits). You ask for defensive and offensive information for the first. So you find out that the first one has 7HD, AC 19, Fort +9, Ref +6, Will +8, and immunity to sleep and paralysis, moves 20 ft., flies 60 ft. (poor), has a sting, bite, and 2 wing attacks, and its poison.
The second is too rare a specimen to estimate with such accuracy, so you opt for its defensive block (because you want to know if your deep slumber spell will work on it). You realize that this one has 12 HD (bummer, no deep slumber :o), and a 23 AC, etc.
It's a simple, standardized way to provide relevant information to the player quickly without stumbling over which abilities stand out. Especially helpful when dealing with odd enemies or humanoids who are frequently defined more by their class levels but have higher CRs and thus higher DCs to meet with Knowledge checks.