Matthew Downie wrote: nosig wrote: DC to identify a Skeleton would be ... 5+CR at my table. and Knowledge checks for DCs below 11 are possible untrained.
So... INT 7 fighter to ID a Skeleton would be something like DC 5 or 6, so he needs to roll a 7 or 8. He still will miss it 30-35% of the time (say 1/3), but then there are other PCs at the table who could easily point out the problem.
IDing a skeleton lets you know that the skeleton is a skeleton (which sounds easy but telling a skeleton from a skeleton champion isn't always going to be obvious). You'd need to make DC 11 to know one useful bit of information about a skeleton - which hopefully the GM would allow to be the DR. Monster Lore wrote: 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.
Matthew Downie wrote: nosig wrote: DC to identify a Skeleton would be ... 5+CR at my table. and Knowledge checks for DCs below 11 are possible untrained.
So... INT 7 fighter to ID a Skeleton would be something like DC 5 or 6, so he needs to roll a 7 or 8. He still will miss it 30-35% of the time (say 1/3), but then there are other PCs at the table who could easily point out the problem.
IDing a skeleton lets you know that the skeleton is a skeleton (which sounds easy but telling a skeleton from a skeleton champion isn't always going to be obvious). You'd need to make DC 11 to know one useful bit of information about a skeleton - which hopefully the GM would allow to be the DR. from the CRB pg 100.
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster's CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster's CR, or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Many of the Knowledge skills have specific uses as noted on Table: Knowledge Skill DCs.
so the DC to identify a Skeleton would be 5+CR if it was a common monster. This would identify it as an undead monster and give it's "special powers or vulnerabilities".... which would be what in the case of a Skeleton? A DC of 11 would give ol' INT 7 Fighter "another piece of useful information". This would seem to indicate that he should have gotten at least one piece of usefule information for his DC 5/6 roll.
For a fighter checking about a skeleton, I (as the judge) would think it would be the DR... at someone elses table it might be something else. YMMV
edit: NINJA'D! thanks thejeff. I just type to slow
That's a good point nosig, but it doesn't necessarily mean you get a free question at the initial DC (without beating it by 5).
Identifying the creature also identifies its type, and that comes with a slew of useful information, often immunities, vulnerabilities, alignment, and so on. Identifying the skeleton already tells you, among many other things, that as an undead it is immune to mind affecting effects, damaged by positive energy, and so on.
I'd say such information about type certainly qualifies as "a bit of useful information about that monster". I'd still insist on beating the DC by at least 5 to get to ask about anything beyond the identified monster and type.
deusvult wrote: That's a good point nosig, but it doesn't necessarily mean you get a free question at the initial DC (without beating it by 5).
Identifying the creature also identifies its type, and that comes with a slew of useful information, often immunities, vulnerabilities, alignment, and so on. Identifying the skeleton already tells you, among many other things, that as an undead it is immune to mind affecting effects, damaged by positive energy, and so on.
I'd say such information about type certainly qualifies as "a bit of useful information about that monster". I'd still insist on beating the DC by at least 5 to get to ask about anything beyond the identified monster and type.
Is that actually stated anywhere? The Monster Lore text quoted above says nothing about all the useful information associated with its type.
You can identify the monster and get a bit of useful information about it. That's RAW. That you identify the type and know all the general information about that type doesn't seem to be.
And frankly, if you told the fighter on his roll of 9 that it was a skeleton, immune to mind control and vulnerable to positive energy, but nothing about whether his arrows would hurt it, you're being a jerk of a GM.
If you're counting the generic type information as "a bit of useful information", then don't automatically give it, give something actually useful. If you're not, then they get the useful bit when they make the roll.
What else does "identify" mean? If you know it's an undead, what use is that information if you're not allowed to know what "undead" means?
When you make the roll, you should get name, type, subtype, and all the details entailed by those subtypes, PLUS one bit of "useful information" (where "useful" means "useful to the character who made the roll". Giving something a name without allowing players to know what those things are is not playing nice.
deusvult wrote: Identifying the creature also identifies its type Only if the GM determines that is a useful piece of information.
GM Lamplighter wrote: What else does "identify" mean? If you know it's an undead, what use is that information if you're not allowed to know what "undead" means?
When you make the roll, you should get name, type, subtype, and all the details entailed by those subtypes, PLUS one bit of "useful information" (where "useful" means "useful to the character who made the roll". Giving something a name without allowing players to know what those things are is not playing nice.
What else does "identify" mean? If you know it's a skeleton, what use is that information if you're not allowed to know what "skeleton" means?
It's not even clear to me that you actually get the type. Though it may be implied by what knowledge skill you roll.
Mind you, I'm fine with the common interpretation that you get the type and all the relevant information, just not with the one where that trumps learning anything actually useful.
deusvult wrote: That's a good point nosig, but it doesn't necessarily mean you get a free question at the initial DC (without beating it by 5).
Identifying the creature also identifies its type, and that comes with a slew of useful information, often immunities, vulnerabilities, alignment, and so on. Identifying the skeleton already tells you, among many other things, that as an undead it is immune to mind affecting effects, damaged by positive energy, and so on.
None of which is actually useful unless you are a spell caster or a channeler. "Useful" is a contextual, subjective measurement.
That's probably the main reason that the question method evolved: what's useful to one PC (or player) is completely pointless to another. Then there's the whole in-character aspect. My fighter would have no way of knowing (and no reason to remember) that a skeleton can't be charmed, but she would definitely remember stories about arrows going right through them until the archer had to pick a rock and smash the thing's skull in.
deusvult wrote: I'd say such information about type certainly qualifies as "a bit of useful information about that monster". I'd still insist on beating the DC by at least 5 to get to ask about anything beyond the identified monster and type. I tend to think of the base DC as "what the average person would know about skeletons", and I'd wager that many more people know that you need bludgeoning weapons for skeletons than would know that skeletons are immune to mind effecting spells.
GM Lamplighter wrote: What else does "identify" mean? If you know it's an undead, what use is that information if you're not allowed to know what "undead" means?
When you make the roll, you should get name, type, subtype, and all the details entailed by those subtypes, PLUS one bit of "useful information" (where "useful" means "useful to the character who made the roll". Giving something a name without allowing players to know what those things are is not playing nice.
Well, until you positively identify the skeletons, you don't know they're undead. A bunch of bones walking around could be a construct. Or extraplanar. Or it could even be literally an animated object. You might suspect the dead looking dude coming at you is undead, but you don't know until you succeed on a knowledge check to be sure. Heck, just because the GM asks for knowledge/religion isn't verification that they're undead, not in an in-character sense, anyway.
The "plus" in your comment is your addition to the rule. If you want to allow type plus a question simply for meeting the DC without beating it by 5, that's your prerogative. As I said, I consider the type(s) of the critter in question to already be pretty useful info.
deusvult wrote: GM Lamplighter wrote: What else does "identify" mean? If you know it's an undead, what use is that information if you're not allowed to know what "undead" means?
When you make the roll, you should get name, type, subtype, and all the details entailed by those subtypes, PLUS one bit of "useful information" (where "useful" means "useful to the character who made the roll". Giving something a name without allowing players to know what those things are is not playing nice.
Well, until you positively identify the skeletons, you don't know they're undead. They could be constructs. Or extraplanar. You might suspect the dead looking dude coming at you is undead, but you don't know until you succeed on a knowledge check to be sure.
The "plus" in your comment is your addition to the rule. If you want to allow type plus a question simply for meeting the DC without beating it by 5, that's your prerogative. As I said, I consider the type(s) of the critter in question to already be pretty useful info. Might be. Might not be.
"It's a troll. A humanoid type."
I'd much, much rather know about the regen than that it's a humanoid. Even subtype Giant doesn't really tell you anything that's not obvious looking at it.
Like with a skeleton, I'd rather know the DR than that it's undead. If I had my choice. Maybe if I'm playing a divine or enchanter type. Even then, for the others in the group, I'd lean towards DR.
As I said earlier, I see no RAW that states you learn its type, therefore since you're required to give useful information, make sure it's useful. Let the players ask or make a good guess as to what they'll find useful.
I think we're splitting hairs over the difference between "useful" and "the single most useful" things to know.
To continue using the skeleton example, if confirmation that the skeletons are indeed undead and not constructs, or a skeleton walking around thanks only to Animate Object, or some kind of bone demon ends up being information your character cannot capitalize upon, that's pretty much your problem as being so unlikely as to be unforeseeable by the GM.
It is objectively useful to have all that above confirmed, not to mention the usefulness of being allowed to have your character act upon your meta knowledge of what does and doesn't work on the undead type.
deusvult wrote: I think we're splitting hairs over the difference between "useful" and "the single most useful" things to know.
To continue using the skeleton example, if confirmation that the skeletons are indeed undead and not constructs, or a skeleton walking around thanks only to Animate Object, or some kind of bone demon ends up being information your character cannot capitalize upon, that's pretty much your problem as being so unlikely as to be unforeseeable by the GM.
It is objectively useful to have all that above confirmed, not to mention the usefulness of being allowed to have your character act upon your meta knowledge of what does and doesn't work on the undead type.
You are correct. It is within your prerogative as the GM to hand out the most useless bits of technically useful information you can think of first and only if the PC didn't make the check by enough, while not revealing the most pertinent pieces, but it's a really crappy move for a GM to do.
It's a trust destroying move.
thejeff wrote: deusvult wrote: I think we're splitting hairs over the difference between "useful" and "the single most useful" things to know.
To continue using the skeleton example, if confirmation that the skeletons are indeed undead and not constructs, or a skeleton walking around thanks only to Animate Object, or some kind of bone demon ends up being information your character cannot capitalize upon, that's pretty much your problem as being so unlikely as to be unforeseeable by the GM.
It is objectively useful to have all that above confirmed, not to mention the usefulness of being allowed to have your character act upon your meta knowledge of what does and doesn't work on the undead type.
You are correct. It is within your prerogative as the GM to hand out the most useless bits of technically useful information you can think of first and only if the PC didn't make the check by enough, while not revealing the most pertinent pieces, but it's a really crappy move for a GM to do.
It's a trust destroying move. Let's set logical fallacies aside please? Just because I said I believe type is "useful, just not always MOST useful" means in any way I was saying the GM should hand out the least useful info, and you're implying that's what I was saying. So, stop it.
You want to discuss the problem of the first piece of useful info not being the MOST useful information given? Let's discuss that with integrity.
How is the fairest way to go about handing out the most useful piece, first? The major problem is having a universal way to define what is "most useful". It's fatal; you can't have a universal way to come up with it. It'll be different info based on different characters, and it'll be different info for the same character in different contexts.
So, that means abandoning the idea of "most" useful being necessarily first, or putting the onus on the player. I don't like the latter.
Why? Well, sometimes it works fine, and that's fine. But what about when the player asks "Tell me about the DR" when the monster doesn't have any despite the player's suspicion it does? The player got technically useful information, almost assuredly not the "most" useful information, though. And letting the player pick a question at < DC+4 was the goal of giving the most useful info.. so now what? ANOTHER question, because the first question's answer was "nil"?
I like giving type(s) with creature name because it's fair. Not fair as in always the most useful information, but fair as in equally useful every time a monster is identified.
deusvult wrote: thejeff wrote: deusvult wrote: I think we're splitting hairs over the difference between "useful" and "the single most useful" things to know.
To continue using the skeleton example, if confirmation that the skeletons are indeed undead and not constructs, or a skeleton walking around thanks only to Animate Object, or some kind of bone demon ends up being information your character cannot capitalize upon, that's pretty much your problem as being so unlikely as to be unforeseeable by the GM.
It is objectively useful to have all that above confirmed, not to mention the usefulness of being allowed to have your character act upon your meta knowledge of what does and doesn't work on the undead type.
You are correct. It is within your prerogative as the GM to hand out the most useless bits of technically useful information you can think of first and only if the PC didn't make the check by enough, while not revealing the most pertinent pieces, but it's a really crappy move for a GM to do.
It's a trust destroying move. Let's set logical fallacies aside please? Just because I said I believe type is "useful, just not always MOST useful" means in any way I was saying the GM should hand out the least useful info, and you're implying that's what I was saying. So, stop it.
You want to discuss the problem of the first piece of useful info not being the MOST useful information given? Let's discuss that with integrity.
How is the fairest way to go about handing out the most useful piece, first? The major problem is having a universal way to define what is "most useful". It's fatal; you can't have a universal way to come up with it. It'll be different info based on different characters, and it'll be different info for the same character in different contexts.
So, that means abandoning the idea of "most" useful being necessarily first, or putting the onus on the player. I don't like the latter.
Why? Well, sometimes it works fine, and that's fine. But what about... Equally useful? Well, I suppose that "this creature doesn't get any special abilities from its type" is technically useful information.
I've got similar concerns with the "player asks" system.
Giving types first doesn't remove the problem though, just pushes it back one step. You still have the same dilemma if he beats it by 5 or more.
You're right that there is no universal algorithm for determining "most useful". A GM can probably make a good guess, knowing the monster and knowing his players. It should at least be a goal. And in cases where the creature has an iconic ability, that should really be it. Trolls regenerate. Basilisks turn things into stone. I'd really hate to only find out that they're humanoid and magical beast, respectively. That give me nothing.
Most creature types don't really give you anything immediately useful. Constructs, Oozes, Plants and Undead are the only ones that really matter, though some subtypes do as well.
deusvult wrote: That's a good point nosig, but it doesn't necessarily mean you get a free question at the initial DC (without beating it by 5).
Identifying the creature also identifies its type, and that comes with a slew of useful information, often immunities, vulnerabilities, alignment, and so on. Identifying the skeleton already tells you, among many other things, that as an undead it is immune to mind affecting effects, damaged by positive energy, and so on.
I'd say such information about type certainly qualifies as "a bit of useful information about that monster". I'd still insist on beating the DC by at least 5 to get to ask about anything beyond the identified monster and type.
I'm sorry... but where does it say the player get's to ask a question?
No, the responsibility here is clearly on the judge (often that is me).
whatever the DC is (and I have seen judges set DCs by very wide ranges, as many as 20 pts difference), if the PC makes the DC, it is the judges responsibility to provide the player with information... as I said above...
"...so the DC to identify a Skeleton would be 5+CR if it was a common monster. This would identify it as an undead monster and give it's "special powers or vulnerabilities".... which would be what in the case of a Skeleton? A DC of 11 would give ol' INT 7 Fighter "another piece of useful information". This would seem to indicate that he should have gotten at least one piece of usefule information for his DC 5/6 roll...."
no where did I say I was going to change this into a game of 20 questions where the player is required to guess what he needs to ask..
again, from the CRB... Knowledge skill checks can be used 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.
SO, when I am the judge, I give the PC what I think would be useful information to him. And I give him at least one useful bit for meeting the DC and at least one more for every 5 he beats the DC by. No questions need be asked. Beginers are on the same footing as someone who has an indepth knowledge of the Beastiary and knows what questions to ask. And the guy making the roll doesn't have to step out of character to ask some off the wall question...
deusvult wrote: thejeff wrote: deusvult wrote: I think we're splitting hairs over the difference between "useful" and "the single most useful" things to know.
To continue using the skeleton example, if confirmation that the skeletons are indeed undead and not constructs, or a skeleton walking around thanks only to Animate Object, or some kind of bone demon ends up being information your character cannot capitalize upon, that's pretty much your problem as being so unlikely as to be unforeseeable by the GM.
It is objectively useful to have all that above confirmed, not to mention the usefulness of being allowed to have your character act upon your meta knowledge of what does and doesn't work on the undead type.
You are correct. It is within your prerogative as the GM to hand out the most useless bits of technically useful information you can think of first and only if the PC didn't make the check by enough, while not revealing the most pertinent pieces, but it's a really crappy move for a GM to do.
It's a trust destroying move. Let's set logical fallacies aside please? Just because I said I believe type is "useful, just not always MOST useful" means in any way I was saying the GM should hand out the least useful info, and you're implying that's what I was saying. So, stop it.
You want to discuss the problem of the first piece of useful info not being the MOST useful information given? Let's discuss that with integrity.
How is the fairest way to go about handing out the most useful piece, first? The major problem is having a universal way to define what is "most useful". It's fatal; you can't have a universal way to come up with it. It'll be different info based on different characters, and it'll be different info for the same character in different contexts.
So, that means abandoning the idea of "most" useful being necessarily first, or putting the onus on the player. I don't like the latter.
Why? Well, sometimes it works fine, and that's fine. But what about... (bolding mine)
actually, by requiring the player to ask questions to get information, you actually are putting the onus on the player.
Why not just tell her something useful to her player. At least one bit of info for making the DC and another for every +5 she beats it by.
nosig wrote: deusvult wrote: thejeff wrote: deusvult wrote: I think we're splitting hairs over the difference between "useful" and "the single most useful" things to know.
To continue using the skeleton example, if confirmation that the skeletons are indeed undead and not constructs, or a skeleton walking around thanks only to Animate Object, or some kind of bone demon ends up being information your character cannot capitalize upon, that's pretty much your problem as being so unlikely as to be unforeseeable by the GM.
It is objectively useful to have all that above confirmed, not to mention the usefulness of being allowed to have your character act upon your meta knowledge of what does and doesn't work on the undead type.
You are correct. It is within your prerogative as the GM to hand out the most useless bits of technically useful information you can think of first and only if the PC didn't make the check by enough, while not revealing the most pertinent pieces, but it's a really crappy move for a GM to do.
It's a trust destroying move. Let's set logical fallacies aside please? Just because I said I believe type is "useful, just not always MOST useful" means in any way I was saying the GM should hand out the least useful info, and you're implying that's what I was saying. So, stop it.
You want to discuss the problem of the first piece of useful info not being the MOST useful information given? Let's discuss that with integrity.
How is the fairest way to go about handing out the most useful piece, first? The major problem is having a universal way to define what is "most useful". It's fatal; you can't have a universal way to come up with it. It'll be different info based on different characters, and it'll be different info for the same character in different contexts.
So, that means abandoning the idea of "most" useful being necessarily first, or putting the onus on the player. I don't like the latter.
Why? Well, sometimes it works (bolding mine)
actually, by requiring the player to ask questions to get information, you actually are putting the onus on the player.
Why not just tell her something useful to her player. At least one bit of info for making the DC and another for every +5 she beats it by. The debate here is whether the type (and whatever powers and vulnerabilities come with it) count as the bit of info for making the DC.
The asking questions part is a distraction. It's one, fairly common, way of defining "useful bit of info". Generally pushed, I suspect, by players who know the monsters well and have been burned by GMs who didn't give out the info they really wanted.
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 as I often play skill monkey PCs, 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!
Going back to the 5' step discussion for a moment:
If "Tricky PC" decides to ready "attack and 5' step back when attacked" what is stopping the BBEG from moving (or double moving) up to base the PC and just not attack. The "TPC" then has to make the decision to either keep his readied action or do something else such as withdraw. If he maintains his readied action the BBEG then declares full attack... the first attack misses due to the "TPC" attacking and 5' step, but then the BBEG uses his 5' step and unleashing the rest of his full attack.
Just a thought.
ArtelSriven wrote: Going back to the 5' step discussion for a moment:
If "Tricky PC" decides to ready "attack and 5' step back when attacked" what is stopping the BBEG from moving (or double moving) up to base the PC and just not attack.
BBEG has just wasted one round of what is , at best, his 4 round life.
Quote: The "TPC" then has to make the decision to either keep his readied action or do something else such as withdraw. Tricky keeps his action.
Quote: If he maintains his readied action the BBEG then declares full attack... the first attack misses due to the "TPC" attacking and 5' step, but then the BBEG uses his 5' step and unleashing the rest of his full attack. Which, unless the big bad is a whisk or a velociraptor, puts the bad guy at 1 attack at -5 and 1 attack at -10 for an 11th level character.
Just a thought. Tricky has avoided 1 and a half rounds of BB attack at pretty much no cost.
At most pfs level, the big bad only has 1 attack.
Once you past thhose levels rocket tag sets in and combat only lasts 3 rounds tops
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Tricky has avoided 1 and a half rounds of BB attack at pretty much no cost.
At most pfs level, the big bad only has 1 attack.
Once you past thhose levels rocket tag sets in and combat only lasts 3 rounds tops
That is not taking into consideration all the other effects that have been brought up earlier in this thread such as pounce, haste etc.
Not disagreeing with either side of the discussion. It is a delicate topic that is more useful at lower levels as far as I am concerned. Yet at the same time its most useful assignment depends on winning initiative and being able to act in a surprise round. Even if surprise rounds only make up 10-15% of encounter rounds its still very possible the characters that use this tactic may not live to see or just be conscious come the first non-surprise round.
Recent threads in GM Discussion
|
