Contributor
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
After reading through several threads on these boards (most of which are several years old, at least), I've found that I still have questions and concerns about those Knowledge checks usually called (at least in my area) "Monster Knowledge Checks." It is my hope that this post yields advice, productive discussion, and specific answers regarding those questions and concerns. (If all of this has been covered in a thread or threads I missed in my reading, I'll be delighted with a simple pointer to the post or posts that address what is raised below. I apologize for the repetition in that case.)
To review, the rules for these Knowledge checks are found on page 100 of the Core Rulebook, as supplemented by the final entry on CRB Table 4-6: Knowledge Skill DCs on the page immediately following. The relevant rules read:
You can use this skill [Knowledge] 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.
Task: Identify a monster's abilities and weaknesses
Knowledge Skill: Varies
DC: 10 + monster's CR
Question #1: Are there other rules covering these checks I've overlooked?
Now, the rules above are neither exacting nor detailed (I suspect they weren't intended to be), which would be fine in a home game, but I am sensitive to the philosophy of play outlined under the Table Variation heading at pages 33 and 34 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play Version 6.0. Particularly, the balance to be struck between exercising "the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience" and what, exactly, "within the rules" means in this particular case ("Monster Knowledge Checks"). Because the rules are, to me, frustratingly vague. There's also a contextualizing bit of local implementation in my area that figures in here, which I'll mention in a moment.
Question #2: What is a monster?
This may seem like a question with an obvious answer (one answered on p. 12 of the Core Rulebook, but there is a consideration to be raised here. If a monster is a creature that "rel[ies] on racial Hit Dice instead of class levels for their powers and abilities" then how do these Knowledge checks come into play (if they do at all) when PCs are facing enemies ("creatures") which either (a) have no racial Hit Dice (a human wizard, for example), or, (b) have class levels as well as racial powers and abilities dependent on Hit Dice.
For example, if a party is faced with a gnome illusionist, can a "Monster Knowledge Check" be made at all? In that case, the enemy isn't a monster, is she?
A second example and attendant question: if a party is faced with an troll illusionist, do the results of the check only cover those "powers and abilities" (or "powers and vulnerabilities" or "abilities and weaknesses" depending on which terminology one uses) granted by Hit Dice (the troll's racial abilities) or do they also cover qualities granted by Class Levels?
Question #3: What do "common" and "particularly rare" mean?
How do you judge whether a particular monster is common or not? Does context come into account, by which I mean the particular setting, the past experiences of the Pathfinders (thorny, that), or the information gleaned from the traditional start-of-scenario Knowledge checks and questions?
Question #4: What does "remember a bit of useful information" mean?
This, it seems to me, probably means that a successful check obligates the GM to choose and relate one power, vulnerability, or weakness possessed by the target monster, right? This might be something found under Defenses (DR or an immunity, perhaps), or listed as an SQ, or even a special attack. Some monsters have a plethora of things to choose from, some have only a few, but I think I have a handle on this one. Why it gets complicated for me, personally, has to do with that bit of local implementation I mentioned above.
For reasons I haven't been able to get a handle on, local players in my area believe that a successful check allows them to "ask a question." They roll, they get a number, and then figure out how many such questions they're "allowed" depending on whether they simply meet the DC or instead exceed it by 5, 10, or what-have-you (yielding them one more question per each increment).
This is problematic for me for two reasons. First, there's nothing in the rules at all that I've found about players asking questions when this type of check is made. Second, it doesn't strike me as a particularly useful way to to run these checks unless the players are metagaming. Which is to say, they might ask questions that don't yield "a bit of useful information."
For example, if a player "gets a question" and asks "Does the monster have vulnerability to cold?" and the answer is "no," that's, frankly, not as useful as the information I probably would have provided acting on my own judgement. Especially for newer players or players who try not to metagame, this question and answer method doesn't seem in the spirit of the rules to me.
(Is this question thing, perhaps, an artifact of 3.0/3.5, games I never played?)
Okay, I have even more questions and concerns about these checks, but this has gone on way too long already, so I'll leave this here and hope it sparks a useful conversation. Thanks!
|
1. That's it for rules as written. A forum search should find many posts on common (but not universal or consensus) practice.
2. A creature encountered that is not a player character. A creature trained in Knowledge (local) can make a skill check for a gnome illusionist. If it succeeds, it identifies the monster as a gnome and learns one useful piece of information about gnomes (edit: which could well be "they favour illusion magic"). Appropriate Knowledge checks, not necessarily against the same skill as for the race, can also identify well-known individuals.
Unofficially, I allow checks to identify obvious classes and their basic class abilities, unusual weapons, creatures easily mistaken for a different type than they actually are, and so on.
3. Up to the GM, though note that it probably shouldn't relate closely to CR and that there is no category higher than rare or unique. Common monsters are noted in the descriptions of countries and regions that PCs are likely to know about, relate to other described game elements (such as gear they're known to use or that adventurers carry to deal with them) and people offer tales and warnings about them. Rare creatures are small in numbers, described by few scholars or chroniclers, live in places seldom visited by civilised peoples or haven't appeared in the campaign region for a long time. This all implies that the rarity of a creature depends on its specific place in a campaign.
4. What the GM thinks it means. Players asking questions is a common practice, but not required or supported in detail by the rules, though for avoidance of doubt, one extra piece of information per 5 points of success is official. I would choose the first piece of information to give them, myself. If a player asks a question, "no" or "none" is a sufficient and useful answer.
|
Contributor
|
Thanks, Starglim. I do want to talk a little more about one of your answers, though. You were answering my question, "What is a monster?" and wrote this:
2. A creature encountered that is not a player character.
But that's not supported by the rules, is it? The Knowledge check specifically says that "monsters" may be identified and etc., not "enemies" or "creatures" and "monster" has a specific definition in the game.
Monster: Monsters are creatures that rely on racial Hit Dice instead of class levels for their powers and abilities (although some possess class levels as well). PCs are usually not monsters.
By my reading, the core races, which are dependent on class levels (be they PC classes or NPC classes) for their powers and abilities are not monsters and thus not covered by "monster knowledge checks."
Are gnomes, elves, humans, etc. even given entries in the Bestiaries?
|
|
Thanks, Starglim. I do want to talk a little more about one of your answers, though. You were answering my question, "What is a monster?" and wrote this:
2. A creature encountered that is not a player character.But that's not supported by the rules, is it? The Knowledge check specifically says that "monsters" may be identified and etc., not "enemies" or "creatures" and "monster" has a specific definition in the game.
Monster: Monsters are creatures that rely on racial Hit Dice instead of class levels for their powers and abilities (although some possess class levels as well). PCs are usually not monsters.By my reading, the core races, which are dependent on class levels (be they PC classes or NPC classes) for their powers and abilities are not monsters and thus not covered by "monster knowledge checks."
Are gnomes, elves, humans, etc. even given entries in the Bestiaries?
I wouldn't use this interpretation for PFS, because I know of at least one specific Knowledge check for a CRB race in a scenario (with a DC that could have been calculated on the basis that <redacted> are common monsters). It also wouldn't allow a Knowledge check for a goblin, which would make problematic its use as an example in the skill description.
|
Contributor
|
I wouldn't use this interpretation for PFS, because I know of at least one specific Knowledge check for a CRB race in a scenario (with a DC that could have been calculated on the basis that <redacted> are common monsters). It also wouldn't allow a Knowledge check for a goblin, which would make problematic its use as an example in the skill description.
Why would it not allow for a Knowledge check on a goblin? They're "creatures" with Hit Dice, as described and defined in the Introduction and in their entry of the Bestiary.
|
|
I wouldn't use this interpretation for PFS, because I know of at least one specific Knowledge check for a CRB race in a scenario (with a DC that could have been calculated on the basis that <redacted> are common monsters). It also wouldn't allow a Knowledge check for a goblin, which would make problematic its use as an example in the skill description.Why would it not allow for a Knowledge check on a goblin? They're "creatures" with Hit Dice, as described and defined in the Introduction and in their entry of the Bestiary.
The Bestiary goblin is a 1st-level warrior. It has no racial hit dice. edit: On the same page:
Goblins are defined by their class levels - they do not possess racial Hit Dice.
|
When "asking a question" I've thought of it less meta-gamey. A wizard isn't all that concerned about DR or special abilities, but is very interested in elemental resistances and immunities. So the player isn't asking per she, they are relaying what would be important to their character.
I generally use less specific questions, such as immunities, resistances, Dr, SLAs, special defences, special attacks, best or worst save, etc.
|
When "asking a question" I've thought of it less meta-gamey. A wizard isn't all that concerned about DR or special abilities, but is very interested in elemental resistances and immunities. So the player isn't asking per she, they are relaying what would be important to their character.
I generally use less specific questions, such as immunities, resistances, Dr, SLAs, special defences, special attacks, best or worst save, etc.
To expound on this, the rules call for a 'piece of useful information'. Allowing the player to ask questions, he can direct the GM to what information would be useful. My sorceress is very interested in spell resistance and elemental resistances, and not very interested in damage reduction. (She can, on a good roll, do 2 points of weapon damage).
On some rare occasions, a roll can be good enough to get all of the information in the Bestiary, and then some. Hopefully the PC's can deal with this sort of monster pretty easily.
Also, I believe the term 'monster' in use here is generic for opponent. So, you can use Knowledge Local for a human, but it won't give information on classes and abilities, just on what about them is human.
|
Contributor
|
The Bestiary goblin is a 1st-level warrior. It has no racial hit dice. edit: On the same page:
Goblins are defined by their class levels - they do not possess racial Hit Dice.
Now that is interesting. And frustrating, as it seems contradictory to the monster definition in the CRB as amplified by the use of the goblin as an example you pointed out.
|
|
In our area, it's common for GMs to give players the option of asking questions or letting the GM decide what information to give them.
I have problems when a player makes a knowledge check, and the GM says, "OK, it's a chimera--you get one question." Um...how about "what the heck is a chimera?"
If the character makes a knowledge check, they should have some clue what the thing is.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Typically I dislike having hard and fast rules. No two situations are identical and we should be able to rely on reasonable GM judgement to adjudicate something as mundane as a knowledge check to identify a creature. That said, in PFS it's good to have some basis for those decisions. We have the largest base of GMs on earth all running the same fights. It would be nice for our players to experience some continuity between tables.
I follow a few guidelines when it comes to identification:
- What is common? Is it anything defined by class levels? Is it a PC race? If so-yes, the creature is common. DC 5+ CR.
- What is rare or uncommon? Did I have to pull out a random sourcebook for the stat block? Is this the first time I've seen it in PFS? Did I not know what it was before looking it up? In its descriptive text, is it called out as being uncommon or rare? If so-yes, it is uncommon or rare and has a higher DC.
- What information does a PC get for succeeding? They get the name, types (specifics about those types, ie undead are immune to mind effecting), and a general description. "Dragons are powerful foes that can fly, rip through flesh with their mighty claws and teeth-the eldest can cast a wide variety of spells and are feared or venerated by creatures across the Inner Sea."
- A PC succeeded by 5 or more, what additional info do they get? They can ask a question or I tell them something relevant about the creature. Resistances? One question. Immunities? One question. Special abilities? One detailed description of one ability, this counts as one question. "This dragon can breathe acid every few rounds. It takes the form of a line. You think that currently you are inside its range."
If I have time, I also try to roleplay this information out. "You recall from your studies at the Academae that these dragons possess the ability to mold earth, and can cast several Druid and cleric spells that do so." Or "you recall hearing in a tavern that a giant hunter drunkenly proclaimed that acid and fire were the best way to kill a troll-both if you could afford it!"
In the end, if as a GM we are up front and fair with our players about the extent of their abilitiy to identify creatures, and try to present information in a way that is mechanically advantageous without shattering immersion, I think we've done a great job.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
2) I think that in writing practice, "monster" is synonymous with "any creature that is likely hostile to the PCs". I wouldn't make too much of the difference between "monsters" and "characters".
3) This is subjective, but I think it's fair to say that things like skeletons, zombies and goblins are "common" while asuras and oni are "rare". If the current PFS season has already featured a lot of a particular monster (like demons in season 5), then I'd say the monster shouldn't be considered "rare" anymore, because people have been talking about those monsters around the water cooler in the Grand Lodge.
4) Players tend to ask questions, but I agree with others; that's mostly to indicate what pieces of information would actually be "useful". I've found that a very good question is "what is this monster's most significant property that hasn't already been demonstrated". Some monsters have abilities that are pretty far out there, but if you had to describe the monster, it'd be the first one you'd bring up. Like basilisks being known for petrification, and that their blood can reverse it. But if you didn't (ooc) know what a basilisk was, you'd never specifically ask about that. "What kind of attack does work on this thing" is also a good one.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I generally follow the same guidelines as Walter.
As I've gotten more experienced, I give players a choice of me telling them information that would be of specific interest to their particular character or of asking me for something in particular. "Hint: unless you have something specific in mind it's usually better to let me give you information."
So an inquisitor or fighter might "recall from previous encounters that the carapace of the beast provides good protection against slashing and piercing weapons." A wizard or alchemist could see that "the flesh looks similar to some you have experimented on before. It took a great deal of heat to char but it shriveled up almost instantly when exposed to cold." A bard "knows the bone-chilling tale of the devastation the breath of such a creature wrought on an innocent village" (I fill in the details). And so on and so forth.
The players who know how I operate generally only ask if they have something specific in mind. A good example is "Do I think it would be susceptible to sleep?" "Your studies didn't indicate that this beast has an immunity to such a spell, but the experienced way this particular one holds itself leads you to believe it could shrug off such a low-level attempt" (has more than 4 hit dice).
The point of that is to say that you need to decide ahead of time to either give the players tons of information or to stand firm if they complain about the quantity. It's personal interpretation.
|
Contributor
|
Thanks everyone, this is all very interesting and helpful.
I'm still not convinced that we can or should blithely ignore the fact that "monster" has a specific definition in the game and that the knowledge checks under discussion specifically cite monsters as their targets, but am sensitive to the incongruity Starglim noted in those same rules' citation of the goblin as an example.
Neither am I convinced that letting the players ask questions is either (a) within the rules (unlike Walter, I do like having hard and fast rules, at least in organized play) or, (b) more importantly, in the players' best interests.
That said, I'm listening to what others have to say with an open mind and thinking carefully.
Now, to get to some specifics, as this will come up in a scenario I'm running in a couple of weeks. How would you handle a successful "monster knowledge check" on a 9th level human wizard?
As can be guessed by what I've written in this thread so far, my impulse is simply to not allow such a check (he's not a monster). But if I do come around on that, as I'm likely to, how do I justify telling my likely party of tricked-out aasimirs and tieflings much or anything about this opponent? How do they "remember" anything useful about a figure they've never encountered (at least not in combat) before? Until he acts, how do they even know he's a wizard (or arcanist of some description, anyway)? This particular wizard has some buffs on he's applied prior to the encounter--people have mentioned giving out information about DR in response to these checks, but typically, humans don't have DR. Do I just say, "he appears to be an arcanist with the ability to cast spells" or do I say "he's a 9th level transmuter and has cast see invisibility" or, more likely, something in between?
The combats in this particular scenario are all like that--fighting PC races with character levels instead of creatures from the Bestiaries--so I definitely need education on this issue soon if I'm to come up with a fair, reasonable, and rules-based method for handling these checks.
|
|
Now, to get to some specifics, as this will come up in a scenario I'm running in a couple of weeks. How would you handle a successful "monster knowledge check" on a 9th level human wizard?
Knowledge (local)
DC 5 - Humans are Golarion's most populous race. Not racially specialized, they are able to excel in almost any field. Surface-dwellers, they require aid to see in dark conditions.DC 10 - This middle-aged man stands before you in a thin garment. The pouch worn where casters typically dip a hand to acces components and the confident way he stands before your heavily armed and armored party lead you to suspect he has magical resources to stand up to you.
(If the caster is locally known, earlier checks asking around could gather more information. Depending on the circumstances I'd probably peg it at about DC 15 to confirm he is a wizard, 20 for some townspeople to describe a lot of transmutation effects he's been doing, and maybe around 30 you could have a townperson describe seeing the effects of his highest level spell - and then a knowledge arcana of 20 to recognize it as a 5th level spell. Again, that would all be well before the encounter.)
You definitely shouldn't give out spells cast, there are specific spells and abilities players should use to identify those effects. Humanoids aren't identifiable because they vary so much!
|
|
Rules as written, something like:
Visual description of the character and his gear.
Knowledge (local) DC 13: This is a male human, a humanoid with the human subtype. Humans are adaptable and follow diverse ways of life.
Knowledge (local) DC 18: Another piece of information - I might suggest the next obvious one is, This human is of X ethnicity. X's speak language Y. edit: Age category also sounds good.
Knowledge (local) DC 23: Humans have normal vision. Some humans inherit or learn traits of other races. There's not much more to know about humans.
Knowledge (arcana) DC 18: The cat following him seems unusually intelligent. It's a familiar, which is a magical beast. Familiars can communicate with their masters and grant minor abilities when they're close.
Knowledge (arcana) DC 23+: further information about familiars, maybe specifically what a cat familiar does
Knowledge (religion) DC 10: The pendant he is wearing is a holy symbol of Nethys.
To me it makes more sense to give racial information on a DC set by the lowest CR of the creature type, making humans DC 5 and basic familiar abilities DC 10.
Monster knowledge checks don't tell them he's any kind of spellcaster until he casts a spell. If they want to know what spell it is, that's Spellcraft.
edit: A separate Knowledge check might identify him as a specific person as Belafon described.
|
Contributor
|
Further thanks due and extended!
And Starglim, I just found this, which muddles things even further for me.
There are a number of monsters in this book that do not possess racial Hit Dice.
Muddling as it runs directly counter to the definition of "monster" I cited above.
Monster: Monsters are creatures that rely on racial Hit Dice instead of class levels for their powers and abilities (although some possess class levels as well). PCs are usually not monsters.
The Knowledge rules are very careful in using the word monster (it appears six times with variants in the relevant paragraph), never saying "creature" or "opponent" or "enemy" or anything but "monster."
This vexes me.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Further thanks due and extended!
And Starglim, I just found this, which muddles things even further for me.
There are a number of monsters in this book that do not possess racial Hit Dice.Muddling as it runs directly counter to the definition of "monster" I cited above.
Monster: Monsters are creatures that rely on racial Hit Dice instead of class levels for their powers and abilities (although some possess class levels as well). PCs are usually not monsters.The Knowledge rules are very careful in using the word monster (it appears six times with variants in the relevant paragraph), never saying "creature" or "opponent" or "enemy" or anything but "monster."
This vexes me.
Christopher,
I believe that the thing you have to remember is that these books are written by Humans, fallible humans. More importantly these books are written by more than one person.
Reasons why this matters:
One, people make mistakes. Even if these books were all written by one person, that person can not be expected to remember everything they wrote in over 800 pages of material, and that is only the Core book and Bestiary I.
Two, often books like these are written by multiple people handling different sections all writing at the same time. In theory, the definition for monster was written around the same time as the rules for knowledge checks by different people working, at best, in different parts of the office. While I am sure they regularly conferred on things, if they had conferred on literally everything the book would still be in the process of being written and probably only 50% done. So I imagine the person writing the section on knowledge checks may not have even imagined that there was a definition for the word monster in the book, believing that it did not require a definition as, "eveyone knows what a monster is."
My point overall is that the rules for identifying "monsters" were probably written without considering the definition for "monster" included elsewhere in the book. I believe the author used the word monster, and variants thereof, consistently, not because the word is defined explicitly elsewhere in the book, but rather for the simple reason of consistency within the paragraph. Authors often do this.
Obviously, this discrepancy bothers you, given that I would suggest making a post in the rules forum, where we can click the FAQ button and try to get the developers to lay the issue to rest. If you do this I suggest being polite, not that you have been impolite so far, and laying out all of the arguments you have laid out in this thread showing how the discrepancy leads to confusion.
|
|
Yeah players very rarely even want to roll knowledge checks if the creature you describe to them is "a middle-aged man in robes". They just assume it's a human. I'd give them a check the realise it's actually some a bit more obscure humanoid, for example a tiefling (I remember one scenario with tiefling alchemist). But as those basic humanoids very rarely have any racial abilities the players don't know about, they very rarely bother to ask for rolls.
My two cents about recognising class (abilities) is that knowledge checks aren't used for those, considering it would be kinda weird if you could just look at someone and tell more than the basic "seems to be a caster/religious type/heavy hitter", and you don't need a Knowledge roll for that, more like Perception. Consider for example how to differentiate between a witch, a wizard and a sorcerer in battle. Would be kinda difficult from what you can see.
|
|
2: Anything you have to fight, or simply want to know more about counts as a monster (for the purposes of knowledge checks). Otherwise you couldn't know things about humanoids, which seems silly.
3: What do common and particularly rare mean? Basically, I consider most things as common as long as they are in the bestiaries. If they are outside of the bestiaries, I consider them rare. There are some exceptions to this (I don't explain anything about templates, for example unless the player gets the rare DC)
4: "A Useful Bit of Info" I generally let the players ask questions. Special Attacks, Special Defenses, Special Qualities, Spell-like abilities are all valid questions. Yes, these are very broad categories, however I have no problems with rolling 15+ above the DC meaning that the knowledge guy basically knows everything about a creature.
A successful knowledge check also results in the name, creature type, subtype and common abilities of that creature type if applicable (EVERY demon has the same resistances/immunities, for example).
|
|
When playing, my most common question for GMs is for the monster's reproductive habits. Laugh your way to the bank when your character finally encounters that Shadow.
While GMing...
1. Expect Table Variation, even when said Table Variation is late.
2. Anything hostile to the players.
3. Common and particularly rare refer to things that are typically referenced in the bestiary entry, although a human, elf, or other player race is typically common. Note that in Advanced Race Guide, the chapters actually spell this out for you.
4. Typically, I've seen this as the "ask a question" format, though sometimes I forego this in favor of a specific nugget if I think that the players are not likely to ask and would be better served with that than the standard "defenses, resistances, special attacks" questions. Again, expect the uninvited Table Variance.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The term 'monster" is general, but superseded with the specific rules in the Knowledge skills description which uses precise terms such as humanoid, aberration, etc. Thus, every creature can be ID'd by a Knowledge check of some kind. this information would include only race-specific information, and not things like class levels.
As for asking questions: to me, this is a way for GMs to screw their players. We're not genies trying to pervert the intent of a wish while following the letter. All PFS characters should be able to have access to the information given in all the player-friendly books without Knowledge checks. The Pathfinder Society Field Guide, for example, has a section with specific information on how to deal with undead, outsiders, etc. that should not require a roll.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think the entire Knowledge system should be scrapped for PFS.
All Pathfinders should be able to know the basic information on all creatures of CR<= their character level (although, still needing a Knowledge check to make the ID in the first place). There should be prestige items on monster training that provide higher-CR creatures as well, so for example I could spend some prestige and be able to know the basics on all creatures of CR <= my level, but my level + 3 for creatures ID'd through Knowledge (planes), for example.
"Basic" information would include:
* creature type, subtype(s)
* alignment, size, senses
* all racial abilities: resistances, immunities, special attacks, special qualities
* all SLA's usable more than 1/day
* a basic personality including Intelligence and favored tactics as presented in the Bestiary entries (NOT scenario-specific stuff!)
It should NOT include any class-related abilities, scenario-specific abilities, etc.
If a creature's CR is above my level, I should have to make a roll to ID the creature, and beat it by 5 to be able to get the basic information listed above. None of this "X questions" baloney - we're PATHFINDERS. We have books. We study for years. We should know what we're facing.
|
Contributor
|
...we're PATHFINDERS. We have books. We study for years. We should know what we're facing.
Those are some very interesting and provocative suggestions, Lamplighter. I like it!
You mention Chapter Four of the Pathfinder Society Field Guide (the actual "Field Guide" section of that book), which is one of my favorite chapters in the whole Campaign Setting line. I love the way it combines in-world lore with practical advice that can be translated directly into gameplay suggestions. I wish that chapter was longer than fourteen pages, and that it was required reading.
As for the specifics of your suggestions, I don't know enough about the intricacies of organized play to have an educated opinion on how they might be implemented or what unexpected results they might have, but my gut feeling is that they certainly map onto the way I wish Pathfinders acted. My characters tend to be scholar/adventurers, carefully prepared users of divination spells and knowledge skills. But I must say my experience of PFS play, at least in my area, is that that style of play isn't as prevalent as brute number crunching optimization with little consideration of in-world story concerns or themes (and I present that observation neutrally, not as a suggestion that any one style of play is somehow better or more appropriate than another).
One concern I might raise, though, is just how complete the education of Pathfinders actually is. You suggest using CRs versus Character Levels to represent that education, but that doesn't take rarity into account. I'm playing a fourth level cleric of Desna right now who just went on a tiger hunt to Jalmeray. The creature we fought at the end of that adventure was an asura (not sure of its CR, actually), and after the game I took down my Bestiary 3 and read up on those deeply strange and unfamiliar (to me, the player) creatures. If I may indulge in a bit of parallelism, these are beings that might be more common in Vudra, but which are probably exceedingly rare in the Inner Sea region, whatever their CR.
Which is a long way of saying I think rarity should be taken into account in your proposal, I guess, but that would require a lot of thinking about context and setting that might be better hand-waved than explicated.
Another thing to consider would be character experience. If Sarabel Hieronymus (my cleric) encounters another asura of the particular type she and her friends fought, it seems logical that she should have detailed knowledge of its abilities. But how could that be fairly and accurately reflected in game terms without laborious record-keeping or additions to the Chronicle sheets? I don't know.
But these are minor concerns. As I said above, I very much like the tenor and spirit of your suggestion.
I think it's a mistake in the first place to expect a careful definition of "monster" from the game. Actually, that's not a term that gets used as a term of art. "Creature"? Yes, defined, and a term of art. For instance, it's important to be able to tell the difference sometimes between a creature and an object. But I can't think of any place in the rules where it specifically matters whether a creature is a "monster" or not. What matters is the creature type, and there's then an assigned Knowledge check for each creature type (including humanoids), whether we would agree to call them "monsters" or not.
|
|
Locally, most of the GMs assume that making the check allows the players to know the race, type and subtype of the creature as the 'initial peace of useful information' with every 5 beyond letting the player ask a question about it. I am somewhat on the fence on players asking the question and have started experimenting with different options.
Regarding allowing the players to ask monster questions:
The biggest advantage of this is the appearance of fairness. The players do not have to worry about malicious GMs giving 'useful' bits of info that are actually useless (such as telling a party with no offensive spell casters that the monster has SR.) Or GMs simply mistakenly giving information they thought would be useful, but really wasn't. If the player didn't get useful information with his question, then it was his fault for asking the wrong question. I think this is why most people use this system even though it is very metagamy and can actually lead to players not getting useful information even though they are supposed to.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The biggest advantage of this is the appearance of fairness. The players do not have to worry about malicious GMs giving 'useful' bits of info that are actually useless (such as telling a party with no offensive spell casters that the monster has SR.) Or GMs simply mistakenly giving information they thought would be useful, but really wasn't. If the player didn't get useful information with his question, then it was his fault for asking the wrong question. I think this is why most people use this system even though it is very metagamy and can actually lead to players not getting useful information even though they are supposed to.
So what you're saying is that BOTH methods run the risk of getting unhelpful information?
Yeah, I agree.
My usual method is to list off information I think they'll want, but then if they immediately follow up with "But what about X?", then if it's no more obscure than what I've already told them I go ahead and throw that in as well. Also, the stuff I list off by default is the stuff I see people ask about the most (at tables where the GM does the questions thing) so people usually seem to be satisfied.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I provide everything they should know in character from the monster type (and subtype) and then I relate, in character, things that the PCs would know, starting with "everybody knows" and going down to "a senior pathfinder agent ran into one of these once and said ... "
Because, given a troll, knowing that it regenerates from most damage, but not fire, is a bigger deal than which are the critter's good saves.
|
|
The biggest advantage of this is the appearance of fairness. The players do not have to worry about malicious GMs giving 'useful' bits of info that are actually useless (such as telling a party with no offensive spell casters that the monster has SR.) Or GMs simply mistakenly giving information they thought would be useful, but really wasn't. If the player didn't get useful information with his question, then it was his fault for asking the wrong question. I think this is why most people use this system even though it is very metagamy and can actually lead to players not getting useful information even though they are supposed to.So what you're saying is that BOTH methods run the risk of getting unhelpful information?
Yes. All it really changes is who get's blamed for it.
|
|
So you contend that it is only possible for PCs to know that the Troll of Black Marsh can regenerate, but not that she is a witch who likes to cast Slumber Hex?
Seriously, that's your shot?
It should be clear that knowledge of a SPECIFIC, named creature, such as you give in your example, is not covered under the "identifying monsters" rules. Instead, this is scenario-specific information which would be found using Knowledge (local) or Diplomacy to gather information. Same as knowing what the mayor likes for breakfast, or what color clothes are popular in Ilsurian this season.
You have no way of knowing that a given troll is a witch, though, just because you have seen other trolls in the past - this is what Knowledge checks attempt to model. Class levels are not inherent to a creature type, but learned skills which are not common to all members of the species.
|
|
So you contend that it is only possible for PCs to know that the Troll of Black Marsh can regenerate, but not that she is a witch who likes to cast Slumber Hex?Seriously, that's your shot?
It should be clear that knowledge of a SPECIFIC, named creature, such as you give in your example, is not covered under the "identifying monsters" rules. Instead, this is scenario-specific information which would be found using Knowledge (local) or Diplomacy to gather information. Same as knowing what the mayor likes for breakfast, or what color clothes are popular in Ilsurian this season.
You have no way of knowing that a given troll is a witch, though, just because you have seen other trolls in the past - this is what Knowledge checks attempt to model. Class levels are not inherent to a creature type, but learned skills which are not common to all members of the species.
While I admit Knowledge (local) sounds like the right answer, it does present certain problems; not the least of which is to potentially make Knowledge (local) more powerful than all of the monster knowledges combined.
For example, where do you draw the line when it comes to which knowledge gives you which information? Knowledge (arcana) might tell you that the dragon, Smaug, can breath fire, but why wouldn't Knowledge (local) tell you that also?
Another issue is the idea that it is possible to know huge amounts of information about dragons by having a large number of ranks in Knowledge (arcana) but know nothing about any one specific dragon either contemporary or historical, because you have no ranks in Knowledge (local) or Knowledge (history).
Of course, the whole knowledge system is a little wonky in the first place. I am just trying to point out some of the pitfalls.
|
|
As far as it goes, for a PC race from the Core Rulebook, I would not expect anyone to make a knowledge check to know about what the races abilities are.
I apply the same principle to players knowing what "undead traits" or "swarm traits" or "elemental traits" or "construct traits" (or xxxxx traits) are.
I consider any adventurer would know the bare basics.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Re: GM Lamplighter's comment on "X questions" and knowing what we're facing, I take knowledge checks to be as much about knowing as it is about recalling relevant information. Being able to tell the difference between a ghoul and a festrog is just the first part, but then you need to remember what the ghoul does vs. what the festrog does, etc. Eventually, this is just second nature to you, which is reflected in the increase in skill ranks.
Ultimately, I feel that this:
we're PATHFINDERS. We have books. We study for years. We should know what we're facing.
...means that Pathfinders should have ranks in knowledges.
|
|
Re: GM Lamplighter's comment on "X questions" and knowing what we're facing, I take knowledge checks to be as much about knowing as it is about recalling relevant information. Being able to tell the difference between a ghoul and a festrog is just the first part, but then you need to remember what the ghoul does vs. what the festrog does, etc. Eventually, this is just second nature to you, which is reflected in the increase in skill ranks.
Ultimately, I feel that this:
we're PATHFINDERS. We have books. We study for years. We should know what we're facing....means that Pathfinders should have ranks in knowledges.
Which attitude, of course, doesn't take into account all the 2 ranks per level classes, especially the ones who don't need much Intelligence to do their thing.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
i've been playing so long I can often quote monster stats in my sleep (not as good as my son though. He used to be able to give the page number in the MM for whatever you encountered - often just from the description). So often I know the monster stats good enough to know WHAT to ask.
So I have started doing this:
Judge: "Knowledge Religion?"
Me: "26"
Judge: "Ghoul - Three extra items...."
Me - in character - "Everyone! Undead - Paralyze you with a hit! Except for you Merisiel - guess it pays to be an Elf sometimes huh? And Kera 47 - Channels work, but it has a little bit of resistance to them..." grabbing holy water as a move action, I throw it..."...and Holy water works just fine!" roll a '6' plus 4 is only a 10 and so I bet I missed... "amend that. Holy Water works if you hit it!"That way - I get to show off some... in character. The judge can check my facts and correct me (if he feels we need it), and best of all... IT"S FUN!
This applies to me as well :)
|
|
Having ranks in Knowledge skills doesn't remove the HUGE table variation on what a GM actually gives you when you make your roll. If skill points are rare, why would I spend them on Knowledge if my GM can still give me no useful information when I make the roll? Especially if I *as a player* have to ask a question, and choose the wrong questions *as a player* (like asking for DR when the creature doesn't have it). My PC's knowledge shouldn't be limited by my player's knowledge in this case.
Also, remember that Knowledge skills are not only used for monster ID, so worrying about relative "power" is not really important. Knowledge (local) is already the most useful Knowledge skill in PFS, since there are rolls for it in every scenario and it gives you information that allows you to actually undertake the scenario in many cases.
A modification of the proposal would be to still require a skill check to ID the creature, but then standardizing the amount of info provided when the check is made. This would help preserve the "value" of skill points, bardic knowledge, etc. and yet prevent GM fiat from making Knowledge skills useless.
I might not be able to tell if that thing is a zombie or a wight myself, but once someone tells me it's a wight, I should know what that means and be able to act on it [EDIT: if I'm high enough level]. I didn't do enough training to have that information at the tip of my tongue in combat, but I still took Kreighton Shane's "Undead and other nasties" class sometime in my three-year training period.
|
|
I usually give the player a choice on focusing on offense or defensive qualities of the monster. And give each point based on number of successes. If I run out of things to say I move on to next category.
Offense: disease/poison/paralyze or other rider effects on attacks, cure/remedy for such effects if applicable (how to basilisk petrification for example), number and kind of attacks, special combat maneuver abilities. Whatever order I find more useful for the player.
Defense: DR/hardness, energy resistances, regeneration/fast healing, special effects if struck in melee, etc.
This way I don't have to specifically pick out useless items as player is picking his priority topic. If second player makes a check to, can know to focus on same category (if first player rolled low) or try different category.
|
|
I still haven't decided if I'm going to let players ask questions or if I'm going to give them info. If I'm in a different region, I will often go with whatever is the generally accepted method in that region.
One thing I will do though, is if someone says, "hey, what material is this thing affected by?" I'll let them roll, and if they beat the DC, they get that specific information they asked for. And this will not preclude me from allowing them to roll a generic knowledge check vs. that creature.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i've been playing so long I can often quote monster stats in my sleep (not as good as my son though. He used to be able to give the page number in the MM for whatever you encountered - often just from the description). So often I know the monster stats good enough to know WHAT to ask.
So I have started doing this:
Judge: "Knowledge Religion?"
Me: "26"
Judge: "Ghoul - Three extra items...."
Me - in character - "Everyone! Undead - Paralyze you with a hit! Except for you Merisiel - guess it pays to be an Elf sometimes huh? And Kera 47 - Channels work, but it has a little bit of resistance to them..." grabbing holy water as a move action, I throw it..."...and Holy water works just fine!" roll a '6' plus 4 is only a 10 and so I bet I missed... "amend that. Holy Water works if you hit it!"That way - I get to show off some... in character. The judge can check my facts and correct me (if he feels we need it), and best of all... IT"S FUN!
I like the in-character description of the critter and the way you make the information applicable (e.g., "It can paralyze you with a hit" instead of "It has the paralysis special ability"). I'm going to try to start using that approach more.
There are, unfortunately, two other possible scenarios that I run into more often:
Scenario 1 (this one is only mildly annoying to me, but a lot of GMs hate metagaming)
Judge: "Knowledge Religion?"
Veteran player: "13"
Judge: "Ghoul - That's all you know...."
Veteran player- in character - "Everyone! Undead - Paralyze you with a hit! Except for you Merisiel - guess it pays to be an Elf sometimes huh? And Kera 47 - Channels work, but it has a little bit of resistance to them...Holy water works just fine!"
Scenario 2 (this is the one that bothers me most)
Judge: "Knowledge Religion?"
New player: "26?"
Judge: "Ghoul - You can know three items/ask three questions"
New player: "What's a Ghoul?"
Judge: "It's an undead creature. That was question number 1--next question?"
New player: "What's an undead creature?"
Judge: "OK, that's question number 2..."
In my early gaming days, I played with antagonistic GMs who tried to get any advantage they could over the players. So it didn't matter if your character got a 26 knowledge check and would know everything about the creature: if the player didn't have the monster manual memorized and couldn't recognize the creature from the description, it just sucked to be them. They should study harder. If they're brand new, well they need to go away until they have all their books memorized.
That attitude is not conducive to attracting new players to the game, so I don't think it has any place in PFS.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any griefing of players on knowledge checks just makes the power combat builds more desirable. Two hander power attack barbarians and clustered shots Zen archers don't care about DR in anyway. Their "knowledge" is pure, raw damage which very few Bestiary monsters can stand against regardless of defenses.
|
|
i've been playing so long I can often quote monster stats in my sleep (not as good as my son though. He used to be able to give the page number in the MM for whatever you encountered - often just from the description). So often I know the monster stats good enough to know WHAT to ask.
So I have started doing this:
Judge: "Knowledge Religion?"
Me: "26"
Judge: "Ghoul - Three extra items...."
Me - in character - "Everyone! Undead - Paralyze you with a hit! Except for you Merisiel - guess it pays to be an Elf sometimes huh? And Kera 47 - Channels work, but it has a little bit of resistance to them..." grabbing holy water as a move action, I throw it..."...and Holy water works just fine!" roll a '6' plus 4 is only a 10 and so I bet I missed... "amend that. Holy Water works if you hit it!"That way - I get to show off some... in character. The judge can check my facts and correct me (if he feels we need it), and best of all... IT"S FUN!
I like the in-character description of the critter and the way you make the information applicable (e.g., "It can paralyze you with a hit" instead of "It has the paralysis special ability"). I'm going to try to start using that approach more.
There are, unfortunately, two other possible scenarios that I run into more often:
Scenario 1 (this one is only mildly annoying to me, but a lot of GMs hate metagaming)
Judge: "Knowledge Religion?"
Veteran player: "13"
Judge: "Ghoul - That's all you know...."
Veteran player- in character - "Everyone! Undead - Paralyze you with a hit! Except for you Merisiel - guess it pays to be an Elf sometimes huh? And Kera 47 - Channels work, but it has a little bit of resistance to them...Holy water works just fine!"Scenario 2 (this is the one that bothers me most)
Judge: "Knowledge Religion?"
New player: "26?"
Judge: "Ghoul - You can know three items/ask three questions"
New player: "What's a Ghoul?"
Judge: "It's an undead creature. That was question number 1--next question?"
New player: "What's...
Yeah, this is no fun as a player. I try to be liberal with the information I give out as a GM, unless there is something very specific about a creature that I feel either thematically or scenario specific would be particularly difficult to know.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's also something else to keep in mind. Many GMs make a player determine every single time, what the DR and Resistances of a Demon are.
Well, knowing its a demon tells you it has Demon Traits. As such, you should know that all demons have:
Some variation of DR Cold Iron and/or Good and several immunities and resistances (forget what they are right now, but you should tell the players what these are for the base Knowledge check, because they are part of a Demon's traits, not something specific to that type of demon.)
Undead Traits will tell you whether they can be affected by mind affecting attacks and a whole slew of other things.