|
I'd say this is all a pretty fine line to walk, and definitely subject to massive table variation.
At the minimum, I would offer a PC a bonus on his knowledge check if the player can demonstrate that he's faced a given critter. Also, there are going to be situations that things are hard to identify.
That's also a reason to potentially have players list out their knowledge skills, and when there is a need to roll, you have them roll and give you the raw number. Then you can add in their bonus, and tell them what they know. Assuming, of course, you are worried about metagaming.
As for the dwarf that switches to a battleaxe, when he always uses a warhammer, I would point out that is actually metagaming as well. I would say that if you are trying not to metagame, then use the weapon you would normally use.
Which gets me into a different thing... when you are under a compulsion to attack your friends, you attack with the most common attack you would use. If you are a pistolero of high enough level, you open up with both barrels, using your grit abilities (if that is the pattern you have been using). You will also reload, and fire iterative attacks, because that is how you fight! You don't drop your gun, and go fisticuffs with you party. If you are a 2H Fighter with a greatsword, you Power Attack, blah blah blah... you do NOT pull your punches.
|
I have one friend whose character got ambushed by something that dropped from the ceiling, even after rolling a Natural 20 on his perception (Total 28) when he walked into the room.
When my friend confronted the GM about his perception (Which made the DC) GM said, "You didn't specify that you looked up."
Well, that character learned, and he "Perceives Up!" from now on.
I absolutely hate that sort of nonsense.
It doesn't help that some scenarios and mods do it too.
Yeah me too. I specifically told one GM recently that I look up at the ceiling for anything amiss and with a 27 I missed not one, but two separate net traps. This was a 1-3 module so I find it highly unlikely the DC was higher than that. Two of us also readied attacks for something hostile to pop out of the cupboard in the corner when something hostile popped out when a third guy opened it--same GM wouldn't let us take the attacks, either.
|
|
Readied actions outside of initiative are tricky. I rule that you must have surprise in order to be assured of getting your actions ahead of the enemy. If they are aware of your approach, they may be readying their own actions. So I roll normal initiative (as everyone is aware) to determine the order of actions.
|
|
Hmm - that's an interesting idea, Mistwalker. Still not RAW, but at least a compromise between RAW and something a bit more realistic. I think I will use this as my default position now if someone says, "I've fought X before!"
Or: maybe we could have a PFS defined list of "common" creatures that all Pathfinders have at least learned a bit about. We are already seeing a bunch of player-friendly information in the Field Guide (which tells you, among other things, to use cold iron on demons and blunt weapons on skeletons).
Or maybe identifying the creature type is common knowledge, but the specific creature is as usual? "Well, it's a demon, for sure, but you can't remember whether the bird ones had the spores or cast darkness... either way, cold iron is your best bet."
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Two of us also readied attacks for something hostile to pop out of the cupboard in the corner when something hostile popped out when a third guy opened it--same GM wouldn't let us take the attacks, either.
This is, somewhat, more understandable as I have seen players who have tried to grossly abuse Readied actions to essentially claim they always go before the monsters.
Hmm - that's an interesting idea, Mistwalker. Still not RAW, but at least a compromise between RAW and something a bit more realistic. I think I will use this as my default position now if someone says, "I've fought X before!"
Or: maybe we could have a PFS defined list of "common" creatures that all Pathfinders have at least learned a bit about. We are already seeing a bunch of player-friendly information in the Field Guide (which tells you, among other things, to use cold iron on demons and blunt weapons on skeletons).
Or maybe identifying the creature type is common knowledge, but the specific creature is as usual? "Well, it's a demon, for sure, but you can't remember whether the bird ones had the spores or cast darkness... either way, cold iron is your best bet."
I must be missing something here. Why isn't it RAW?
What is common will be different for each PC. A PC with most of their adventures/scenarios been up in the Lands of Linnorn Kings and the Realm of the Mammoth Lords will have a completely different experience and definition of common creatures than a PC that has spent their adventures/scenarios in Osirion.
As PCs fight creatures, some will become common to them, with untrained knowledge checks becoming possible for some of those creatures.
|
|
There is no definition of 'common' and 'rare' creatures in the rules, so it is GM discretion as to what counts. (I use it liberally with goblins, ghouls, and other low CR creatures, and reserve rare creatures to unique ones that often crop up in scenarios.)
I only use rare creatures as ones unique ones. A very few scenarios have completely unique monsters and those are rare.
There is no definition of 'common' and 'rare' creatures in the rules, so it is GM discretion as to what counts.
That is basically what I am suggesting. That the GM treat fought before creatures as common, rather than general or rare creatures.
For a lot of creatures, that will end up with a DC of 10 or lower, which can be made untrained. It will likely only give them a single feature of the creature (harpies sing, trolls regenerate unless fire or acid, skeletons need bashing, etc).
|
|
There is no definition of 'common' and 'rare' creatures in the rules, so it is GM discretion as to what counts.That is basically what I am suggesting. That the GM treat fought before creatures as common, rather than general or rare creatures.
For a lot of creatures, that will end up with a DC of 10 or lower, which can be made untrained. It will likely only give them a single feature of the creature (harpies sing, trolls regenerate unless fire or acid, skeletons need bashing, etc).
And if that player fought dozens of succubi in the worldwound, they suddenly forget all their experience against their most common foes simply because they are more powerful? I'm not trying to attack you personally, but the knowledge skills do not mesh with anywhere close to realistic expectations of knowledge.
And if that player fought dozens of succubi in the worldwound, they suddenly forget all their experience against their most common foes simply because they are more powerful? I'm not trying to attack you personally, but the knowledge skills do not mesh with anywhere close to realistic expectations of knowledge.There is no definition of 'common' and 'rare' creatures in the rules, so it is GM discretion as to what counts.That is basically what I am suggesting. That the GM treat fought before creatures as common, rather than general or rare creatures.
For a lot of creatures, that will end up with a DC of 10 or lower, which can be made untrained. It will likely only give them a single feature of the creature (harpies sing, trolls regenerate unless fire or acid, skeletons need bashing, etc).
I am mostly trying to find a way to allow PCs to use knowledge skills untrained to ID creatures, while still following RAW.
For the Succubi, as the PC has fought lots of demon types in the worldwound, I wouldn't see a problem the PC using untrained knowledge planes skill to know the common traits about demons:
darkvision
need cold iron and/or good
all have some ability to cast spells.
Personally, I wouldn't have a huge problem if the player remembered that they can drain their victims, or other details about the creature, as long as the remembering was something that they had seen in an adventure, and not from reading it directly from the bestiary.
|
|
It's a very fine line. I'm not sure this is a reasonable solution, but here's what I do when running, and hope for when I'm playing:
Anything I've fought before, my PC knows about. However, for the GM to confirm my knowledge / suspicions / assumptions, I'd need to make a successful knowledge check.
Again that doesn't work. I've fought skeletons before. I know I need to use a bludgeoning weapon because that's what I was told last time I fought some. But I don't have kn: religion so now I'm forced to use my longsword instead. How does that make sense?
|
|
Again that doesn't work. I've fought skeletons before. I know I need to use a bludgeoning weapon because that's what I was told last time I fought some. But I don't have kn: religion so now I'm forced to use my longsword instead. How does that make sense?It's a very fine line. I'm not sure this is a reasonable solution, but here's what I do when running, and hope for when I'm playing:
Anything I've fought before, my PC knows about. However, for the GM to confirm my knowledge / suspicions / assumptions, I'd need to make a successful knowledge check.
Sorry, but that's not what I said. If you've fought skeletons before, then by all means, please, use a mace rather than a sword. But for the GM to confirm that is more effective, you need a successful knowledge roll.
Also note that a GM will often drop clues about effectiveness and DR, at least I do.
|
I am mostly trying to find a way to allow PCs to use knowledge skills untrained to ID creatures, while still following RAW.
While this is a small step in the right direction it isn't enough.
The int 10 ftr should automatically know that bludgeoning is likely to be good against THIS skeleton since it was effective last time he fought a skeleton. That really is the kind of thing you don't forget.
I stand by my belief that, under the current rules, the best solution is conscious but limited metagaming by the player. The player has to use only that subset of knowledge he is SURE his character would know from that characters experience and background.
As a thought experiment, I'd point out that the time between some scenarios is less than the time between encounters in other scenarios. Do the "RAW mean nothing is remembered" croud think that a knowledge check is required every time the characters face the same monster in the same scenario?
|
|
Two of us also readied attacks for something hostile to pop out of the cupboard in the corner when something hostile popped out when a third guy opened it--same GM wouldn't let us take the attacks, either.This is, somewhat, more understandable as I have seen players who have tried to grossly abuse Readied actions to essentially claim they always go before the monsters.
We knew there was something in the cabinet as we were on the second floor of a dungeon crawl with nothing friendly in sight save for the party. I wouldn't have minded if he had said "you can act in the surprise round with the monster" but it was just "no".
Again that doesn't work. I've fought skeletons before. I know I need to use a bludgeoning weapon because that's what I was told last time I fought some. But I don't have kn: religion so now I'm forced to use my longsword instead. How does that make sense?It's a very fine line. I'm not sure this is a reasonable solution, but here's what I do when running, and hope for when I'm playing:
Anything I've fought before, my PC knows about. However, for the GM to confirm my knowledge / suspicions / assumptions, I'd need to make a successful knowledge check.
Sorry, but that's not what I said. If you've fought skeletons before, then by all means, please, use a mace rather than a sword. But for the GM to confirm that is more effective, you need a successful knowledge roll.
Also note that a GM will often drop clues about effectiveness and DR, at least I do.
I'm confused, you're saying that if I use a club rather than a sword the club isn't going to overcome the DR unless I also make a successful check to id the monster?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People.
As players, (this is a PC issue) you know what your PC knows. To get more info, make knowledge checks. It's really that cut-and-dry.
I know that my barbarian has dealt with multiple Hezrou. If I see anything demonic, I'm going to fight the new thing accordingly (hold your breath and power attack!). That may get him level-drained by a succubus, but until then, he wouldn't know the difference.
My rogue can tell the difference between Lamia and Lamia Matriarchs via experience (one has legs!), but has no idea how to go from there (unless she rolls higher on her next knowledge:(nature) check). But the last time, it seemed her fists did just fine.
My cleric has dealt with nearly exclusively humanoid opponents. But the single Earth Elemental that knocked her unconscious thrice will stick in her mind. Mud Elementals, Shambling Mounds, Rock Trolls, and anything else that looks remotely rock-ish would be expected to be able to travel through the ground and resist her attacks.
The GM (after a sucessful knowledge check) can offer more info. But until then, you (the player) know what you (the PC) know. Being able to reference a specific chronicle sheet helps. Because it always sounds better to say "...that looks like the thing I fought in Geb, [insert fact here/story about how you triumphed]..." than "I've fought a [creature] before. It has [characteristic]."
|
All the Gms Ive worked with in the bay area have asked if you know the creature if you pull out a weapon specialized to that creature that you normally don't use. If you have, they'll allow it.
I've got an int 5 brawler who knows to stab the fleshy rotting ones with her fighting fan rather then headbutt it (her normal method of attack). If someone says demon or devil she uses her cold iron fighting fan. Shes been told she needs an adamantine and silver fighting fan, so she has them, but hasn't used them yet.
Trust me when I say Ive seen description based assumptions backfire for this brawler, causing me to use less then optimal weapons because the brawler thought it was something it wasn't.
|
|
Two of us also readied attacks for something hostile to pop out of the cupboard in the corner when something hostile popped out when a third guy opened it--same GM wouldn't let us take the attacks, either.This is, somewhat, more understandable as I have seen players who have tried to grossly abuse Readied actions to essentially claim they always go before the monsters.We knew there was something in the cabinet as we were on the second floor of a dungeon crawl with nothing friendly in sight save for the party. I wouldn't have minded if he had said "you can act in the surprise round with the monster" but it was just "no".
I'm confused, you're saying that if I use a club rather than a sword the club isn't going to overcome the DR unless I also make a successful check to id the monster?Again that doesn't work. I've fought skeletons before. I know I need to use a bludgeoning weapon because that's what I was told last time I fought some. But I don't have kn: religion so now I'm forced to use my longsword instead. How does that make sense?It's a very fine line. I'm not sure this is a reasonable solution, but here's what I do when running, and hope for when I'm playing:
Anything I've fought before, my PC knows about. However, for the GM to confirm my knowledge / suspicions / assumptions, I'd need to make a successful knowledge check.
Sorry, but that's not what I said. If you've fought skeletons before, then by all means, please, use a mace rather than a sword. But for the GM to confirm that is more effective, you need a successful knowledge roll.
Also note that a GM will often drop clues about effectiveness and DR, at least I do.
No, he's saying that you can use knowledge that your PC has learned from past experience, but if you misremember something he will not correct you if you don't make the knowledge check. So if you go, "Hey guys, I've fought skeletons before, use blunt weapons!" you are okay. But if you misremember it and instead say something like, "Hey guys, I've fought skeletons before, use slashing weapons!" he will not correct you, uness you make a knowledge check.
You can use prior PC knowledge, but he will not confirm it one way or the other unless you make a check.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wait! I got the reverse of what most people have been posting about!
I encountered a "little kid" in a dungeon crawl a while back. yeah, sure, little kid in a bad place - like how'd you get here kid? Glance around at the rest of the party and they are all buying into this creatures story. But I know, this kids a shapechangeing demon - I read about these things before.
So, first excuse I get I splash her with holy water! Yeah! Holy Water burns more than undead you know! I carry it for extra-planer creaters too. You know, just an "opps! sorry 'bout that!" and... no hsss and burn. Darn it. It wasn't a demon after all.
I just glanced around at the rest of the guys and said... "what? I got a low CHA, so sue me..." and stocked off back to the head of the party.
|
So before I go into the wall of text, let me just say: I wish our training as a Pathfinder was better represented in the mechanics. Off the top of my head, I can think of two ways to handle this.
1) Give all characters an extra 2 skill points per level that must be used on knowledge skills. Similar to a Lore Warden fighter.
2) Make a list of creatures that are "common knowledge" to Pathfinders, so that the checks can be made untrained and there is less table variation. That way even the Int 5 brute has a chance of remembering why you don't charge things with 5 natural attacks.
Now, feel free to skip the rest...
You're saying that if a character doesn't invest in knowledge skills he can't recollect anything? That's just asinine. Knowledge is research. Rolling for knowledge is recollecting your research. This physically happened to the PC. Or are you saying that I need to invest in "Knowledge: backstory" to remember everything that my PC has ever been through, too?The PRD says that knowledge skills represent your education in a field of study, so at first blush you seem to be right. But then it goes on to say:
Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn't let you know something that you never learned in the first place.
Knowledge skills are the only mechanical way to represent what your character knows, and if you fail the check (or can't make it because it's trained only) you just don't know it. Maybe someone told you, but your brain didn't think it was important enough to form a memory. Is it realistic? Not especially, but they are the rules of the game we all agreed to play. Common knowledge has a DC between 0-10, and that represents things "everyone" is expected to know. Maybe the problem isn't with the knowledge skill, maybe it's the DC set by the scenario/GM for "common" knowledge.
Again that doesn't work. I've fought skeletons before. I know I need to use a bludgeoning weapon because that's what I was told last time I fought some. But I don't have kn: religion so now I'm forced to use my longsword instead. How does that make sense?
I never said that. You can use whatever weapon you want. You can even claim "I've fought skeletons before, so I know to use bludgeoning." You just can't claim that you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these are skeletons without the appropriate knowledge. Skeletons are a bad example, because you look at them and they're obviously skeletal undead. But what's the difference between an earth elemental, an animated statue, and a stone golem? Sure, maybe you pull out the adamantine pick, but you don't know it will be more effective. Or sticking with undead, is it a fast zombie, or a ghoul, or a wight, or something you've never even imagined? Sure, pull out that magic silver slashing weapon. Maybe it will work, or maybe the weapon you're using should be the least of your worries.
Im of the opinion thain a world where undead regularly rise, that knowledge of a skeleton having DR/bludgeoning is probably about as common as RL people knowing that sharks can smell blood in the water, or that you should play dead cause then a bear wont eat you, or that climbing a tree will help get you away from a wolf, but not from a big cat, etc. Its not always the best idea, but it could help.
Similarly, if someone wanted to throw some water onto a fire elemental, I wouldnt count that as metagaming.
Quoted for the simple fact that some of your "common knowledge" is factually incorrect, and some of your "common knowledge" serves to highlight that people often remember rumor more accurately than fact. Maybe GMs should start giving out bad information for poor knowledge rolls...
|
|
Giving out free knowledge skills is one way to do it, I suppose... But it will just enable the behaviour of building campaign-inappropriate characters. You wouldn't build a wizard for a low-magic game or a divine character for a campaign set in Rahadoum unless you wanted the particular challenge of being behind the eight ball. Yet players routinely design PCs that have no knowledge or social skills, depsite the fact that the Society is primarily about knowledge.
Allowing players to track the creatures they have encountered, and treating them as "common", seems to be the better solution. Yes, it slightly undrmines the recent boon (although that boon is useless for no-knowledge characters anyway). Best of all, it seems to allowed unde RAW at the GM's discretion, since the GM determines what creatures count as "common".
|
|
Giving out free knowledge skills is one way to do it, I suppose... But it will just enable the behaviour of building campaign-inappropriate characters. You wouldn't build a wizard for a low-magic game or a divine character for a campaign set in Rahadoum unless you wanted the particular challenge of being behind the eight ball. Yet players routinely design PCs that have no knowledge or social skills, depsite the fact that the Society is primarily about knowledge.
Allowing players to track the creatures they have encountered, and treating them as "common", seems to be the better solution. Yes, it slightly undrmines the recent boon (although that boon is useless for no-knowledge characters anyway). Best of all, it seems to allowed unde RAW at the GM's discretion, since the GM determines what creatures count as "common".
Knowledge and socials skills are for the weak! Why bother when one can murderhobo everything? /snark
|
|
Knowledge and socials skills are for the weak! Why bother when one can murderhobo everything? /snarkGiving out free knowledge skills is one way to do it, I suppose... But it will just enable the behaviour of building campaign-inappropriate characters. You wouldn't build a wizard for a low-magic game or a divine character for a campaign set in Rahadoum unless you wanted the particular challenge of being behind the eight ball. Yet players routinely design PCs that have no knowledge or social skills, depsite the fact that the Society is primarily about knowledge.
Allowing players to track the creatures they have encountered, and treating them as "common", seems to be the better solution. Yes, it slightly undrmines the recent boon (although that boon is useless for no-knowledge characters anyway). Best of all, it seems to allowed unde RAW at the GM's discretion, since the GM determines what creatures count as "common".
I just ask if anyone knows what we be fightin'. If there be no answer, I go and do what I do best.....
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can see where alot of people are coming from here and there is certainly an arguement to be made.
I'll play devils advocate for a moment.
People forget things. Alot. Especially when it's not something they invest in learning (which, for arguments sake, we'll say Knowledge skills represent.)
Imagine you live in a world with hundreds, maybe thousands of different monsters. Some are very different, but share some visual factors (skeletons/wights/mohrgs etc) and some are just subsets of the same creature but have different traits (skeletons, bloody skeletons, exloding skeletons, burning skeletons).
During one (very intense and life threatening adventure) you encounter a skeleton, and some bookish guy you've know for a few days yells at you to hit it with your mace. You do. It works. You continue on your mission and succeed.
Weeks, perhaps months later, following lots of time living your life, seeing your friends and family and possibly embarking on other dangerous, exciting and life threatening adventures, you again encounter something similar. You remember the bookish guy said something, but it was all heat of the moment and this thing looks older and more worn, maybe it's something completely different?
The point I'm making is, to avoid this, invest a rank here and there into common use knowledge skills to show your character attempting to retain this knowledge (or get that Boon). I understand the logic and it removes metagame risk and people lying. It's not a perfect system, but it's that or ALOT of extra bookkeeping at the end of adventures.
so now you invest that rank and you are now allowed to make a roll... which you miss and don't recognize the monster you fought those weeks back. But you can now roll and maybe will recognize that holy symbol of a forgoten god that had nothing to do with anything you have ever encountered before...I can see where alot of people are coming from here and there is certainly an arguement to be made.
I'll play devils advocate for a moment.
People forget things. Alot. Especially when it's not something they invest in learning (which, for arguments sake, we'll say Knowledge skills represent.)
Imagine you live in a world with hundreds, maybe thousands of different monsters. Some are very different, but share some visual factors (skeletons/wights/mohrgs etc) and some are just subsets of the same creature but have different traits (skeletons, bloody skeletons, exloding skeletons, burning skeletons).
During one (very intense and life threatening adventure) you encounter a skeleton, and some bookish guy you've know for a few days yells at you to hit it with your mace. You do. It works. You continue on your mission and succeed.
Weeks, perhaps months later, following lots of time living your life, seeing your friends and family and possibly embarking on other dangerous, exciting and life threatening adventures, you again encounter something similar. You remember the bookish guy said something, but it was all heat of the moment and this thing looks older and more worn, maybe it's something completely different?
The point I'm making is, to avoid this, invest a rank here and there into common use knowledge skills to show your character attempting to retain this knowledge (or get that Boon). I understand the logic and it removes metagame risk and people lying. It's not a perfect system, but it's that or ALOT of extra bookkeeping at the end of adventures.
Not to mention that weird period where you are between levels. "I'm sorry guys - it hasn't been long enough since we fought that thing for me to remember it."
|
|
2) Make a list of creatures that are "common knowledge" to Pathfinders, so that the checks can be made untrained and there is less table variation. That way even the Int 5 brute has a chance of remembering why you don't charge things with 5 natural attacks.
Uhmmm... Don't. We. Already? I wish the Field Guide were still core assumption for this reason and this reason alone. (Though there are lots of other reason too :)
I like the suggestion above that if the smith knows to make cold iron weapons & why, there is a good chance the characters do as well. A market driven knowledge just makes sense. And occasionally you can throw in the snake-oil salesman (of course this colorfully cartooned box is part of a complete nutritional breakfast!). I have one player who writes the critters encountered on every chronicle so he can make the claim, "well this one time, at rogue camp..."
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I usually tell the GM "I've seen this before in Adventure X" and then proceed to recycle knowledge gained then, and haven't had any GM object to that yet.
In addition, most GMs allow us to know the type-related traits of any creature we can somewhat identify, sometimes even giving the type if we're a little short of the DC for the specific creature. So you'll know that this is an evil outsider, not sure what kind, but give silver, cold iron or Good weapons a try, and don't expect too much from elemental damage attacks.
|
|
I think I'm going to adopt this approach of lowering monster knowledge dc's on the common - rare spectrum if the character has confronted these things before. I've done it before, particularly with some popular evil outsiders, but a systematic approach wouldn't hurt.
Common monsters for me: all animals sans megafauna, goblinoids, reptilians, zombies, shadows, ghouls, vampires, PC races, dretches, imps, babaus, some vermin, basic elementals and will'o'wisps.
Note that some of these things might have large enough cr's case-by-case that even a dc of 5+cr is too high for an untrained check. Often players can't quite hit the dc so I have a tendency to just drop them the type and/or subtype if the result is at least passable. And knowing something is dead doesn't require a check at all.
|
|
I think I'm going to adopt this approach of lowering monster knowledge dc's on the common - rare spectrum if the character has confronted these things before. I've done it before, particularly with some popular evil outsiders, but a systematic approach wouldn't hurt.
Common monsters for me: all animals sans megafauna, goblinoids, reptilians, zombies, shadows, ghouls, vampires, PC races, dretches, imps, babaus, some vermin, basic elementals and will'o'wisps.
Note that some of these things might have large enough cr's case-by-case that even a dc of 5+cr is too high for an untrained check. Often players can't quite hit the dc so I have a tendency to just drop them the type and/or subtype if the result is at least passable. And knowing something is dead doesn't require a check at all.
I think you forgot to include skeletons in your common monster list. I would probably include wights, simply because there are potential for encountering some at even first level...
Also, I thought it was a Heal check to see if something is living or not. ;) Although that is usually in the heat of combat, and in regards to someone or something that might be faking it, or in the bottom end of the Dying range...
|
|
I don't think it's too weird to have fought the Spider in one scenario, and play in another Spider scenario and remember that she's a...
bard that likes to go invisible, fascinate the party, and charmed my Tian-Xia fighter to "go home" so he left the battle to go to the docks to wait for the next boat heading East. The moment I heard I was facing her again, my character bought a potion of protection from evil.
|
|
I've had a case where my Tengu Rogue had encountered Vroc's in three separate times.
Each time after the first, though I didn't announce it to the world on how to beat them. My character had become more knowledgeable on how to deal with these particular creatures.
