I have a question or two regarding the use of knowledge checks for my character who was trained in and had +8 to the knowledge skills arcana, dungeoneering, local, nature, planes and religion.
While playing tonight I attempted a knowledge check by requesting such and indicating a total of X so long as it fell in any of those categories and asking if my character was able to recall knowing anything regarding them.
My GM advised me that this was not the case and that I couldn't take a shotgun approach to knowledge skill checks and that I needed to specifically indicate which knowledge skill I was using.
Can't I say I study the situation and determine if any of my vast knowledge grants me any insight into the situation? Say that I rack my brains trying to recall if I've ever heard/seen/encountered/read about a creature matching what stands before me?
Do I really need to meta game the bestiary so that I know which knowledge skill to request a check on? Once I train other knowledge skills, will I need to specifically say "Oh I'd like an engineering knowledge check on this one"?
If so it's horrible! How am I supposed to know which knowledge skill to use? Guess? What, is my PC's knowledge compartmentalized in his brain such as that he can only check one mental compartment and wouldn't spend time to look in the others but simply assume "I don't know nothing about this thingy here"?
Can anyone shed some light on this subject and help me find where it would confirm or deny such in regards to how I'm supposed to use knowledge checks?
The ruling kinda contradicts the intent there.
If the GM doesn't want you to take a "shotgun approach" to skill checks, but requires you to specify the knowledge skill you're using, that requires you to roll each skill individually, and announce them one at a time. Remember, it doesn't take an action to use a skill check, so there's nothing RAW that prevents you from attempting them all. It's just that only the GM knows which dice roll actually matters, and chooses to delay the game by demanding them all.
So I guess that's more of a machine gun than a shotgun, and a lot more of a waste of time.
I agree with you, that sort of bizarre demand does encourage you to have metagame knowledge of the bestiary. The core rulebook is never very specific about when a knowledge check should be called for (as far as I know), but personally, I always just ask for a relevant knowledge check from the party as soon as they see a creature they're not familiar with, and then immediately spill the beans on its statblock accordingly.
Your GM compares knowledge skills with books. You have to decide which book you open and then maybe you find something usefull. That is not correct in my opinion.
Knowledge skills are like Google. You have some details of a situation, person or monster and hit ENTER. If Google finde something (=you have the related knowledge skill and a good roll) you get some informations.
You know something or not.
That's certainly not how I believe Knowledge is intended to be used.
If the players ask what they can roll, I give them a list. In general I will state which they can use before they need to ask. Sometimes, if they don't have a Knowledge I've already listed, they will ask if Knowledge X is possibly useful in Y situation and I will judge yea or nay.
Expecting them to state beforehand which they wish to use is ridiculous. You might as well just say "from hereon out I will roll all Knowledge skills until I find something useful" and make your DM do his job.
yeah, not a ruling I would be comfortable with. In our games, it goes like this.
"I want to make a knowledge check... which one is it?"
"Geography."
"Crap, I don't have that... if it's above 10 I don't get a roll."
"Yeah, your hosed then."
I have one knowledge character that has +6 in all the knowledges... so he WILL say "I roll a 21 knowledge... Y'know... whichever it is."
I think it'll end up being a DM call, but I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the Core that claims you have to 'declare' which one you're chosing."
Actually the GM should tell you what to roll. The idea is to see if your character can recall certain knowledge in that situation. It is not like making a knowledge check is an focused event. It is comparable to recognizing certain cars if you were a car enthusiast.
How silly.
Please wait while I roll for each knowledge check independently...
Please wait while I roll 6 sets of dice and tell you what each color refers to and their adjusted total...
If they take no time, take no action, and I can attempt all of them, then I will! If that's the case, since I have all the pertinent knowledge skills, why not just have me roll once realizing that I'm going to successfully roll on said pertinent skill.
Why bog down game play with a large amount of knowledge rolling when I already have all the pertinent knowledge skills needed and will be rolling for the appropriate skill.
I'm going to see if my GM will agree to the following:
There are only 6 knowledge skills that relate to creature/monster identification and I'm trained in all of them. Thus I will be rolling on the relevant knowledge checks. I can also use inspiration on trained knowledge skill checks for free (unlimited) to add 1d6 (Advanced Character PlayTest Investigator).
Why waste time economy rolling for each one when you know I will be rolling on the relevant skill?
For simplicity, why not simply say:
Default: When able, my character will always take 10 on knowledge checks he is trained in. My take 10 value is 13 due to inspiration prior to adding the skill bonus.
Combat/Distracted: So long as it is for a knowledge skill he is trained in, roll once for D20 + D6 + Skill Bonus.
? How do you want me to do knowledge checks going forward?
wraithstrike wrote: Actually the GM should tell you what to roll. The idea is to see if your character can recall certain knowledge in that situation. It is not like making a knowledge check is an focused event. It is comparable to recognizing certain cars if you were a car enthusiast. Yep. At table the conversation usually goes something like:
PC: Well, can I tell what kind of creature it is or if it has any weaknesses?
GM: Make a [relevant version] knowledge check.
PC: *rolls* Crap, I got 4.
GM: Nope.
Whatever the outcome, the GM should probably be directing you to the type of check to make. After all, s/he's the one who actually knows what the thing is.
Or if your GM wants to do more work, make a roll, and the GM can take your KSes and determine which applies, and give you the resultant information.
It'll keep you guessing whether the roll was actually a very good one or not, and avoid any question of whether or not you were metagaming at all.
I would suggest either asking the GM to tell you which KS is relevant or you should just make a roll, tell the GM "I rolled an <x> before any bonuses, add the modifier for the relevant KS and let me know what information I gain."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/knowledge.html#_knowledge
Follow that link to the KS grid that Paizo published. It might help?
Hopefully he'll agree to such. Then I have to work with him regarding what he actually learns. This is a critical component of my character...
Ravingdork wrote: It is my opinion that a GM who does not tell me the creature's name, type, subtype, and all abilities associated with its creature type when I succeed at making the minimal DC is screwing me out of (a) valuable skill(s).
Take the land shark for example. If I make a DC 17 check, I know it is a bullete (or land shark), that it is a magical beast (which in itself tells me little more than it eats sleeps and breathes).
Had my check been a 27, I might also have learned it's sensory capabilities and common attack forms.
If I was fighting an undead monster and made the minimum DC, I would expect to learn its name, type, and all the resistances and immunities common to ALL undead. A better roll would go on to tell me about its strengths, weaknesses, and unique abilities.
This attitude primarily stems from my time playing v3.5 (on which Pathfinder is based) where this kind of thing was the norm.
It doesn't make sense to me that it would require a DC 45 (near impossible) check to know that a land shark "leaps on its victims." I imagine some farmers could tell you that much if they'd ever seen it.
Another reason why I require this "minimal" information, is I have had FAR too many GMs jip me out of my many knowledge ranks and 20+ intelligence by telling me blatantly obvious things.
I once rolled a 38 total, only to have a GM tell me that the flying creature breathing fire in front of me was a dragon that could fly and breathe fire.
Whuh!? I can clearly see that it is flying and breathing fire! Tell me something I can't so readily observe!
I can't stand such GMs as that!
I agree! If sinking skill points in knowledge skills isn't going to tell me anything other than what I can already see and what everyone already knows.
Matthew Winn wrote: Sure, you can trick it out and max it by spreading your skill points among knowledges, being a bard, or taking skill focus. BUT, if you have a player who wants to spend his resources being the Monster Knowledge King, why are you fighting it? Let him play what he wants, let him have his fun, and then when he gets cocky hit him with a unique or otherwise incredibly rare creature. My thoughts exactly! After all a major component of an Investigator is inspiration.
"An investigator is beyond skilled and knowledgeable-he also possesses keen powers of observation and deduction above and beyond the abilities of others. An investigator typically uses these powers to aid in their investigations, but can use these flashes of inspiration for other situations."
Free 1d6 to all trained knowledge checks? Sounds like a Monster Knowledge King to me! Yet I still want to rollplay and would rather learn about a monster in the field rather than reading the bestiary.
Knowledge gained without a knowledge check:
This squat humanoid stands around 3 feet tall and seems to be nearly all head—an unfortunate circumstance, considering how ugly its puffy blue face is.
Knowledge gained on a DC2 Mite with a knowledge check of 24:
You recognize the creature as a mite and that they are descended from even smaller fey. They are among the most pitiful of cavern dwellers and hideously ugly so much so that even goblins have been known to mock them for their appearances.
You remember that they are particularly fond of spiders, centipedes, cave fishers and a colony usually has a few of these far more dangerous monsters on hand to defend the group.
One common tactic is that when faced with dangerous foes, a mite uses its doom ability to hex a foe during which a mite's eyes bulge hideously open while using this spell-like ability.
You have 3 questions.
Me: What language does it speak?
GM: You recall that it speaks the strange language of undercommon
Me: Whelp, communication is out!
Me: What alignment does it have?
GM: Lawful Evil
Me: Lovely...
Me: Your pick of either Weakness/Damage Reduction/Special abilities?
GM: You recall that they have vermin empathy and are able to control them via such means
Me: Aw come on! Tell me something everyone else doesn't already know! There's a big dumb giant ant in the middle of them heeding their commands... that's like telling me the fire breathing dragon is a dragon breathing fire.
GM: Alright, in your extensive research you recall no reports of any damage resistances.
Me: Thanks!
Me in character: Mite! Ugly! Small Fey! Can't communicate. Evil! No resistances!
That or having everything before the questions on a small card which I get to read. Yet this was a group of all level 1 new players. I don't know a mite from a dendrite and the flavor text would be very welcome.
, please
Thanks guys! Thanks Kelarith =)
A level 1 character with +8 in all 6 basic knowledge checks and a +D20+D6 could technically get a 10 but the monsters DC was 12 (possibly 17 if he would consider it rare/uncommon). I offered him a flash card with such things on it before game so he could roll it himself if he wanted to but he rejected my offer multiple times =).
Since he knows now in advance that I'm a monster knowledge king character type, I hope he'll write something up like the example above. The other characters can then after the battle say something like:
Dwarf: So uh... you said that thing was a mite? What the heck is a mite other than short blue and incredibly ugly?
Me reading/paraphrasing what the GM gave: Do you know that they're so ugly that even goblins mock them for it? They're descendant from... etc.
Others: Whoah! You really know your stuff! Thanks for the warnings back there!
Me feeling very useful: My pleasure!
Sounds like your GM has a thinking that knowing what you're fighting makes it less fun. I've played with GMs that think if you don't get ambushed by the stealth monsters it's less fun. Same idea as your knowledge check woes: skill points invested in perception are wasted because the information you get is "you see the monster that just jumped out and bit you, does a 28 beat your flat-footed AC?" GMs can get funny ideas in their heads about what things make the game fun and which things don't. I suspect I'm guilty myself, probably in the "too many extra options, additions, and changes to the base game" category. I just can't keep my fingers out of the system's gears :P
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
wraithstrike wrote: Actually the GM should tell you what to roll. The idea is to see if your character can recall certain knowledge in that situation. It is not like making a knowledge check is an focused event. It is comparable to recognizing certain cars if you were a car enthusiast. Right. It's Yoda like: "You either Know, or Don't Know, there is no guessing which check applies".
I can see the benefit of not telling the players what check to use, since even that gives out information (Hey, it's undead!), but that shouldn't be used to punish the players. If you don't want them to know, get their Knowledge skills ahead of time, have them roll and apply the correct one.
As for what you learn from it, one thing not officially revealed that I'd add in, especially in a more sandbox game is CR. Or some in world representation of how tough the thing is.
It seems wrong to me that you can know what the thing is called and several details of its strengths and weaknesses and have no idea whether it can wipe the floor with you or not.
Your DM is wrong and it pisses me off. Some players in my group have this attitude as well, because they don't know the rules. They just sigh and complains "you should be more prepaired" when I'm trying to get the party not killed, while not metagaming, while they stand around stabbing skeletons and golems.
I don't know about anybody else, but I don't have to think in a specific category when I'm trying to recall some information i learned a few years ago. "Hm, what is that thing on the table? Oh I don't know, looks too complicated to be a sandwich. Perhaps it's not food? Let me try to recall my knowledge about mechanics. Yupp, now I see it, that's deffenetly a calculator!"
How is anybody supposed to know that the thing coming at them needs a Knowledge Arcana and not Dungeoneering? There is no way of knowing unless you interrogate the DM beforehand. And what's the point in having knowledge skills if the DM is just gonna tell you anyways?
The only reason why there is different knowledge skills is to avoid making a singel 'THE Knowledge' skill. Not to make it impossible to use.
The DM should even do the check for you. Otherwise every player would have to stop the game to ask if they can roll any of their knowledge skills. Players rolling leads to metagaming, since they would know their roll and the result, letting the player know that they either get everything or nothing from the DM.
I think it's a much better game when you are told what you are supposed to know.
I think that you as the player should wait for the GM to announce which skill needs to rolled for instead of blurting out "I want to use my dungeoneering check to see what kind of mushroom this is" :) Just a thought
Yeah-- I just tell the PCs which Knowledge check to make.
Sometimes, more than one check applies. (e.g. "Knowing the date of the coronation of King Eodred I is a DC 15 Know(history) or a DC 20 Know(nobility) check.") If that's the case, I'll say, "Make a knowledge (history) or (nobility) check."
If a PC has both skills, roll both, and tell me both results. I figure that having knowledge in more than one relavent area would increase the chance of knowing the answer.
Haladir wrote: If a PC has both skills, roll both, and tell me both results. I figure that having knowledge in more than one relavent area would increase the chance of knowing the answer. That totally makes sense!
Daengren wrote: I think that you as the player should wait for the GM to announce which skill needs to rolled for instead of blurting out "I want to use my dungeoneering check to see what kind of mushroom this is" :) Just a thought True true! I won't do that anymore! Yet the only reason I had done so was because I had been told previously when trying to identify monsters that I needed to indicate which knowledge skill I needed to use.
Now I know better and will simply ask, I want to check to see what kind of mushroom this is. What knowledge checks to do you want me to roll? Or simply ask how my GM does knowledge checks ahead of time.
By the way, the quoted items from Ravingdork and Matthew Winn are not related to my GM but simply to me research the matter to try to understand how to do things better.
I'm fully confident that I'm now well informed enough that my GM and I won't have issues with this in the future. ^_^ I think it was mostly miscommunication mixed with my ignorance and him not remembering or even really knowing that this was my... second pathfinder session and that I'm technically a really green greenie.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
