
Rudy2 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

One method I like is to give the name and type (animal, outsider, humanoid, etc.) with the baseline successful check, along with all useful information about that type. Granted, just knowing what the type is is not always helpful, but it can be useful in distinguishing between a native aberration, say, and an outsider that can be banished. I agree with DM_Blake that giving ALL subtypes and information about them on just the baseline roll is way too much. If the type and name tells them absolutely nothing useful at all, I might throw another tidbit in there.
For each additional 5 over the DC they can ask questions. Valid questions are pretty broad for me, though. Here are some examples:
* What are its subtypes, and the properties from subtypes? [If they ask this, I will give them ALL subtypes, and select ONE subtype that is most useful for them to know the details of, such as 'devil' for example, rather than 'evil'. For that subtype they will learn the properties shared by all devils. In almost all cases there is only one "useful" subtype.]
* What special attacks does it have? [If they select this, I will tell them all special attacks if it has only a few, or a selection of the most significant ones if it has a lot.]
* What spells or SLAs does it have? [As above]
* What are its defenses like against damage? [This will give them elemental resistances, as well a general sense of its armor class breakdown]
* What are its defenses like against magical effects? [This will give them a sense of its saves, and immunities to specific types of magic]
* What is its most dangerous quality? [Because this is such a targeted and useful piece of information, I only give them one thing, but I select it to be the one thing that is most threatening to them]
* How does it move? [This will get them all move speeds, as well as any teleportation or movement abilities]
Other questions are possible as well, and note that some of the above overlap in their information. For example, asking about the devil subtype and its defenses against damage will both give you some information about elemental resistances.
Further, and this is my favorite, if they beat the DC by a full 20, which is not easy, but I've seen it done, then they get to just flat-out read the monster's entry. They know everything about it. Players really like this, and I like it as a special reward for someone who really invests in knowledge (and you have to to ever beat the DC by 20).
Roleplaying wise, I like to ask my players how they know something after I give them the info. So, the Fighter [Lore Warden] might learn something about a troll, and I'll ask how he knows. A good roleplayer might say: "Oh, right; I remember hearing about that from one of my sergeants back at the academy. He lost half a hand to one.", for example.
I should also add that I assume players carry-over information shared between monsters. Like, once you show that you know the properties of devils, then you forever-after remember the properties of devils. So, if you encounter another devil, as long as you can determine it *is* a devil, then you automatically know devil properties for it.

DM_Blake |

DM_Blake wrote:You're not reading it thoroughly enough. Here's the text:
I am reading it thoroughly enough, but you are obviously not reading my post as such:
NN959 wrote:So that sheds some ambiguity on whether hitting the DC gives you something singular or whether powers and vulnerabilities are treated as a singular unit. Either way, the text clearly states you learn something "useful" if you hit the DC on the nose.DM_Blakde wrote:Learning all its special powers and vulnerabilities is not likely to qualify for any definition of "a bit".No where do I suggest or say you learn "all its special powers and vulnerabilities" by just hitting the DC.
Very well.
However, the parts of your own quote that I italicized here made me think you were unclear about whether "hitting the DC" tells you all powers and vulnerabilities "as a singular unit". Your own words very much read that way. You claim that it's "ambiguous" but I don't think it is, and I don't think it can be read that way at all.
No where do I suggest or say you learn "all its special powers and vulnerabilities" by just hitting the DC.
Yes, you did, at least as one of your "ambiguous" possibilities. I was just trying to clear that up.

shadowkras |

N N 959 wrote:DM_Blake wrote:You're not reading it thoroughly enough. Here's the text:
I am reading it thoroughly enough, but you are obviously not reading my post as such:
NN959 wrote:So that sheds some ambiguity on whether hitting the DC gives you something singular or whether powers and vulnerabilities are treated as a singular unit. Either way, the text clearly states you learn something "useful" if you hit the DC on the nose.DM_Blakde wrote:Learning all its special powers and vulnerabilities is not likely to qualify for any definition of "a bit".No where do I suggest or say you learn "all its special powers and vulnerabilities" by just hitting the DC.Very well.
However,
the parts of your own quote that I italicized here made me think you were unclear about whether "hitting the DC" tells you all powers and vulnerabilities "as a singular unit". Your own words very much read that way. You claim that it's "ambiguous" but I don't think it is, and I don't think it can be read that way at all.NN959 wrote:No where do I suggest or say you learn "all its special powers and vulnerabilities" by just hitting the DC.Yes, you did, at least as one of your "ambiguous" possibilities. I was just trying to clear that up.
I just want to say that quote-fests are pretty boring to read.
@Topic
I give them any information that their character should have heard of, and for every 5 DC they beat, i will let them ask a question, which usually is: "What are his resistances?" or "what are his vulnerabilities?" or "any special attacks?", often in that order (+5, +10 and +15 respectively), as they are more worried about killing it than anything else.

N N 959 |
[
Yes, you did, at least as one of your "ambiguous" possibilities. I was just trying to clear that up.
No I didn't. First off, I started the post under the paradigm that you get one piece of info.
Technically the rules are written to suggest that you get "one info" when you make the DC. +5 should give you a second bit of info.
If you're reading for comprehension instead of conflict, my opening statement presupposed that you don't get ALL the info from hitting the DC, otherwise why would I talk about a "second bit of info"?
Second, I suggested that powers and vulnerabilities could be combined and that you get a bit of info on both, or that maybe you get just the power or just the vulnerabilities. It's not clear how much information we are suppose to share and the designers have never clarified it. The point is that there is some ambiguity and judging by the multitudinous ways I've seen GMs handle it, I stand by the assertion the rules are ambiguous.
My point for responding to the necro post was that you get something "useful" when you hit the DC, not just the creature's name. I am not here arguing that you get ALL of anything, nor has that ever been my position. Trying to argue with me that I am is your trying to pick a fight because you seem to be a GM who wants to limit the value of K. checks.

Urath DM |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

FWIW, in his "Monster Focus" series self-published through Minotaur Games, Jason Bulmahn included tables of a few knowledge check results for the creature in each book. This is certainly not an official thing for Pathfinder overall, but it does offer some insight into what at least one of the Designers considers appropriate.
Ghouls, for example, seems to use the "it is common" modifier as the base entry is for DC 6 ...
DC 6 tells us that the creature is a ghoul, ghouls are undead, they retain some intelligence, they are ravenous, and there is a more powerful version called a ghast.
DC 11 tells us that ghouls can paralyze by touch, but elves are immune, and that this immunity does not include the touch of a ghast.
DC 16 tells us that the ghoul's bite carries a disease that rots flesh and dulls reflexes. Those who die from it become ghouls.
DC 22 is for ghasts only, and tells us they have stench that sickens those who get too close.

![]() |

I ask myself, "Where did this knowledge come from?"
It's not about looking at the monster and figuring it out - that would be more like Perception.
No, it's knowledge. It means you already KNOW something about this creature. Maybe a lot about this creature.
So where did that knowledge come from?
Answer: books, legends, barroom tales, rumors, history, study, academia, whatever. You learned it because other people encountered these creatures and survived and then lived to tell the tale and record this information in books and songs and legends - and then you learned your knowledge from that.
So then I ask myself, "What did these survivors say about this monster? What was the scariest, most obvious, most important stuff they talked about?"
That's what you read and or heard in those books and tales and songs.
It can be that you don't know any tale or have any prior knowledge about the specific creature but you know enough to classify it at a glance.
In the real word if we see a 4 legged quadruped with fur trotting around can generally say:
- it is an animal
- a mammal
- as it is a mammal it almost certainly don't depose eggs but give bird to live young
- almost certainly it is warm blooded
Maybe we will not know if it is a feline or a a canine or some other family or animal subfamily, but generally we can get at least the right kingdom: With more knowledge we can guess the family or subfamily with a good certainly and guess more information even if they aren't always right.
The above description, "a 4 legged quadruped with fur trotting around" can be a wind up toy or even a robotic one, but usually we can recognize the difference. A little children or someone with a very peculiar upbringing or lack of world knowledge can miss it.
So it isn't always "prior knowledge from tales or reports", it can be guessing from similarity with other species, specific traits that allow you to recognize someone as a member of a specie and family or other characteristics.

Gwen Smith |

DM_Blake wrote:Throw in Breadth of Experience (feat) and Noble Scion (trait) and now he just needs to roll a 13 or higher.When I see a Wizard with either one of those feats, it'll be the firs time. What you're overlooking is all the stuff the wizard has to give up to get those bonus. And even with those bonuses, there's no guarantee you'll meet a creature for which that's beneficial. So, I, as a GM, am not going to nerf K. checks for someone that invests in them. Why shouldn't the wizard who can tell you how to defeat said creature be just as important as the sorcerer who can cast hightened empowred maximized firebal on occasion?
DM_Blake wrote:If that character is an investigator, he'll be adding about 15-20% to his chances on those rolls, putting him up to knowing every detail about approximately 55-60% of all monsters in the game - and he'll only get better with higher levels. Not too hard to achieve?The Knowledge master must be actively nerfed, but the trip master or grapple master is fine? Investigators don't just get max skills in every K skill. Investing in those skills comes at a cost. One of the very reasons to play the class is to be able to dole out that info. Why not reward people who want to do something other than carry a big sword or spam save or suck spells?
I have a mindchemist alchemist who is specifically a knowledge monkey (the character is an insufferable know-it-all). At level 3, she has a base +16 in all knowledge checks (except nobility, because they're snobs), and she can boost that to a +22.
BUT
I burned her first level feat on Breadth of Experience, multi-classed into two archetypes that specifically give her bonuses on knowledge checks, swapped out her mutagen for more Int, and she dedicates at least 30% of her consumables to boosting her knowledge checks.
At third level, she really doesn't do much else...

DM_Blake |

Err on the side of the players.
Nothing is lost by being generous with knowledge check results.
How about this then:
"OK, everyone, you kick down the door and in the room you see a, well, OK, open your bestiaries to page 137 and read that monster description before we roll initiative."
Are you advocating that?
Probably not (maybe you are, I don't know for sure, but I'll guess that you're not).
So maybe something is lost by having the players always know every detail about every monster. If not, we would all do this all the time. After all, the picture of the monster is worth 1,000 words, save us a long description and everyone would know exactly what they're facing. Perfect solution.
Except it takes some of the mystery out of the game, some of the chance for the players to figure something out in course of playing the game. It takes out some of the essence of the game itself.
So, for everyone who doesn't tell them to open the bestiary and read the monster description, there seems to be a line where it is possible to be too generous with monster knowledge, which invalidates your the point Jayson is trying to make here.
How about this then:
"OK, you kick down the door and in the room you see a, well, everyone who has at least 1 rank in Knowledge (Whatever) open your bestiaries to page 137 and read that monster description before we roll initiative."
So, the point of knowledge checks in the first place is to give players a bit of a mini-game around figuring out how to beat monsters. The player who invests enough skill points and rolls well enough gets a better reward than the player who doesn't. Investing more gets a bigger reward. Being "too generous" dilutes that reward and negates that mini-game.
While I agree with you that the GM's job is to facilitate fun for the players, I also believe that oversimplifying the game lessens the GAME aspect and turns Pathfinder into story mode.
It's pretty obvious that you CAN be too generous when it lessens the game.
/thread
Really?
First you have to say something that's right before you're entitled to end the thread.

![]() |

Err on the side of the players.
Nothing is lost by being generous with knowledge check results.
/thread
"How we can kill this monster?"
Knowledge (aberrations) "This monster can only be killed by the holy obsidian knife of Zara Thoot.""Where is it?"
Knowledge (geography) "The lost temple of Zara Thoot is in the island of Timolty in the Eye of Abdengo."
"How we get there?"
Knowledge (geography) "the character draw a map based on his knowledge."
Adventure solved with 3 checks. If those check can be made by a barely competent character without any research the adventure lost all the flavor. If they are the result of gathering information, going to places and doing things those 3 checks can be worth a whole AP.

andreww |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"How we can kill this monster?"
Knowledge (aberrations) "This monster can only be killed by the holy obsidian knife of Zara Thoot."
"Where is it?"
Knowledge (geography) "The lost temple of Zara Thoot is in the island of Timolty in the Eye of Abdengo."
"How we get there?"
Knowledge (geography) "the character draw a map based on his knowledge."Adventure solved with 3 checks. If those check can be made by a barely competent character without any research the adventure lost all the flavor. If they are the result of gathering information, going to places and doing things those 3 checks can be worth a whole AP.
Straw man is made of straw and is a serious fire risk to the whole forum.
Try harder next time.

DM_Blake |

Diego Rossi wrote:"How we can kill this monster?"
Knowledge (aberrations) "This monster can only be killed by the holy obsidian knife of Zara Thoot."
"Where is it?"
Knowledge (geography) "The lost temple of Zara Thoot is in the island of Timolty in the Eye of Abdengo."
"How we get there?"
Knowledge (geography) "the character draw a map based on his knowledge."Adventure solved with 3 checks. If those check can be made by a barely competent character without any research the adventure lost all the flavor. If they are the result of gathering information, going to places and doing things those 3 checks can be worth a whole AP.
Straw man is made of straw and is a serious fire risk to the whole forum.
Try harder next time.
Diego's example was perfect. Hyperbole? Yes, definitely, but his hyperbole illustrated the point perfectly: sometimes NOT knowing something makes the game more interesting.

DeathQuaker RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8 |

Basic success, I give the creature's name, its type and loose origin ("they dwell in caves and eat blueberries"), and one to two key attacks or defenses ("it has a nasty stinger in its tail").
I add 1-2 more pieces of information for 5+ the DC, 10+ the DC, etc.
If they exceed the DC by, say 20 or more, I pretty much hand them the Bestiary entry.
I try to use common sense based on the monster, the story, the players, etc.

N N 959 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diego's example was perfect. Hyperbole? Yes, definitely, but his hyperbole illustrated the point perfectly: sometimes NOT knowing something makes the game more interesting.
Diego's example was a perfect example of how you and others consistently resort to hyperbole because you can't make a point any other way.
Your italicized statement is not a truism. It's a rationalization spoken by a GM to justify withholding information from players that they would otherwise be entitled to.
I get it. I've noticed the funny transformation that occurs when I GM. I suddenly find myself taking a position or viewpoint that is contrary to the interests of the players. It's a natural thing that happens to just about every GM. That's what you're doing here. But you're pretending that this is more fun for the players when it's really just more fun for a subset of GMs.
Yes, a legitimate uncertainty can add some tension and tension can be enjoyable. But withholding information is simply that. Cheating the players out of information because, you the GM, think this makes the game more fun, is a cancer in Pathfinder and PFS. When players should be provided with information and its clear the GM is nerfing the K checks, then the game isn't fun, it's adversarial.
Let me try to enlighten you and other GMs who routinely nerf K checks. The most important aspect of an RPG is purpose.
Players need to feel that their characters serve a non-trivial purpose in the adventure.
If you play a fighter or blaster, you're validated every time there is combat. When you play a skill monkey, then your skills need to be instrumental in moving the game along. Knowledge checks which yield "useful" information in helping to defeat an encounter, allow those characters just as much import to the combat as the fighter who delivers the killing blow. How would the fighter feel if the GM applied DR 5/- to every hit? That would undoubtedly add more tension and uncertainty to the game because the party might lose the fight. Do you think the players would find that more fun?
An important part of playing and RPG is being able to make substantive decisions.
The game is about decision making. People are empowered to make decisions when they have information. Forcing players to act without information emasculates their ability to make substantive decisions. If players are able to learn that the creature before them has weak Will saves, that allows them to formulate a strategy and make use of the Bard. If the party learns that the creature has DR x/ magical, that can prompt the Wizard to use a scroll of Magic Weapon.
When you nerf K checks, you are biasing the game in favor of combat-focused builds.
By giving out crucial information when its earned, you deemphasize the role of damage-based builds. You balance the game and make it less about who has the best DPS and more about who is the most flexible. Knowledge about creatures can lessen the need for combat.
When characters earn the knowledge, giving it to them empowers those who retrieve it. It rewards the party for making decisions that rely upon that information. It is a consistent trope in fantasy movies that specific knowledge is often critical in defeating fantastical creatures.
Trotting out absurd examples of the GM opening the book and letting the players read the stats is simply that, absurd. Pretending that PFS authors are so simple-minded that their adventures can be solved with skill checks during the briefing is equally absurd. It proves nothing by example other than unreasonableness and an unwillingness to take a holistic view of the game mechanic.
Fun is letting characters who focus resources on knowing things, know thing that help the party defeat the monsters/encounters, when the die dictates that they should know those things. In no way shape or form, do I advocate letting players know stuff without making the K. checks, unless there is some in-game justification.

![]() |

I get it. I've noticed the funny transformation that occurs when I GM. I suddenly find myself taking a position or viewpoint that is contrary to the interests of the players. It's a natural thing that happens to just about every GM. That's what you're doing here. But you're pretending that this is more fun for the players when it's really just more fun for a subset of GMs.
Interesting problem, but it is yours problem. Some GM feel that they are antagonist of the players, I have know one that kept a tally of his TPK and considered them a badge of honor, but please, don't make some individual problem a general problem.
An adventure about travelling to and then exploring the lost temple of Zara Thoot sounds more exciting than an adventure spent researching that information.
I suppose that you would dislike Carrion crown then, as half of the AP is finding what the bad guys are doing and why.
Speaking with NPC, doing errand to get their trust or to pay for information, exploring locations to find the information and so on.
How many adventures include you traveling to the only sage that know enough about the beast to know what can kill it and making a quest to get the map to reach the temple of Zara Thoot?
Sure, saying that the GM that feel that a simple knowledge check about a monster give almost all information about it can be hyperbole, but by how much? Upthread there is people arguing that a basic success should give all resistances and weakness of a monster. If that is true, what is the reason to be a skill monkey? The DC of the basic check for most creatures is so low that for middle levels you would identify almost anything with a minimal expends in skill points.

Saldiven |
Lots of stuff
Nobody is talking about "nerfing" knowledge checks. The issue is that some people believe that a knowledge check should divulge virtually everything about a monster, both strengths and weaknesses. Other people disagree. Some people believe that knowledge checks should give out specific, numerical, stat-line quotes about the monster. Other people believe that the same degree of useful information can be given without divulging the specific numbers.
The knowledge skill states that "useful" information is obtained. What is "useful" is nowhere defined in the rules. There is a subset of players that believe the only useful information is that which helps kill the monster faster. However, that is just their opinion that is not supported anywhere in the rules.
Just because someone disagrees with what your interpretation of "useful" is doesn't mean that there is any "nerfing" going on. In fact, from my perspective, I would say that being too free with information on knowledge checks is unnecessarily buffing knowledge checks.
Both Blake and I have described how we handle knowledge checks in our games; Blake is a little bit more conservative in it than I am, but not horribly so. In either case, I don't believe we're substantively "nerfing" knowledge checks, though some have argued that Blake does a bit.

N N 959 |
N N 959 wrote:Interesting problem, but it is yours problem. Some GM feel that they are antagonist of the players, I have know one that kept a tally of his TPK and considered them a badge of honor, but please, don't make some individual problem a general problem.
I get it. I've noticed the funny transformation that occurs when I GM. I suddenly find myself taking a position or viewpoint that is contrary to the interests of the players. It's a natural thing that happens to just about every GM. That's what you're doing here. But you're pretending that this is more fun for the players when it's really just more fun for a subset of GMs.
I have't TPK'd anyone, haven't even had single death. So nice try. But pretending someone solved a PFS adventure with a bunch of knowledge checks in the briefing suggests a fear and angst towards players knowing things you don't think they should know, even when the scenario calls for it.

N N 959 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
N N 959 wrote:Lots of stuffThe knowledge skill states that "useful" information is obtained. What is "useful" is nowhere defined in the rules. There is a subset of players that believe the only useful information is that which helps kill the monster faster. However, that is just their opinion that is not supported anywhere in the rules.
The game doesn't need to define "useful" because it is the common language definition that applies.
Useful: helping to do or achieve something
It's not complicated. If they players are trying to kill something, then yes, by definition, information that helps them kill it faster is useful. If they are trying to trick it or reason it with it, then different information would be useful. You know what's not useful? Telling me it has Spell Resistance when nobody can cast any spells. Or telling me it has immunity to poison when nobody can use poison in the party. Providing information that is of no use to the party at the time they need it is nerfing K. Checks.
The only interpretation of useful that applies is if the party finds the information you provide, "useful." If you are GM that allows players to ask questions, and the information that you give isn't useful, then you haven't honored the rule. The players may not have any clue what to task for or if the information will prove useful. That's your job as GM, to provide information that helps the party overcome the encounter. Grant it, if they are fighting goblins and they are 10th level, none of the information may be particularly useful..
The issue is that some people believe that a knowledge check should divulge virtually everything about a monster, both strengths and weaknesses.
Well, that would depend on how high the roll was and what there was to know. If a character makes the DC and there is only one piece of useful information, then the player gets it. If there are thirty things, then the GM can decide what a "bit of useful information" might be. What I see is people advocating one err on the side of generosity, if you're going to err.

![]() |

Diego Rossi wrote:I have't TPK'd anyone, haven't even had single death. So nice try. But pretending someone solved a PFS adventure with a bunch of knowledge checks in the briefing suggests a fear and angst towards players knowing things you don't think they should know, even when the scenario calls for it.N N 959 wrote:Interesting problem, but it is yours problem. Some GM feel that they are antagonist of the players, I have know one that kept a tally of his TPK and considered them a badge of honor, but please, don't make some individual problem a general problem.
I get it. I've noticed the funny transformation that occurs when I GM. I suddenly find myself taking a position or viewpoint that is contrary to the interests of the players. It's a natural thing that happens to just about every GM. That's what you're doing here. But you're pretending that this is more fun for the players when it's really just more fun for a subset of GMs.
You are the one that said that when you GM you rule against the players interests. I haven't accused you TPKing groups, I have said that some GM feel they are antagonist of the players, and "I suddenly find myself taking a position or viewpoint that is contrary to the interests of the players." seem to fill the bill perfectly.
Some of those GM kill the characters, some are simply antagonistic.
N N 959 |
You are the one that said that when you GM you rule against the players interests. I haven't accused you TPKing groups, I have said that some GM feel they are antagonist of the players, and "I suddenly find myself taking a position or viewpoint that is contrary to the interests of the players." seem to fill the bill perfectly.
Some of those GM kill the characters, some are simply antagonistic.
Taking a viewpoint and perspective that is against the players' interest is not tantamount to "ruling" against them. You're trying to misrepresent the point of this statement in order to invent a conflict because you have no substantive response to the actual point of the thread.

![]() |

Merium Webster wrote:Useful: helping to do or achieve somethingIt's not complicated. If they players are trying to kill something, then yes, by definition, information that helps them kill it faster is useful. If they are trying to trick it or reason it with it, then different information would be useful. You know what's not useful? Telling me it has Spell Resistance when nobody can cast any spells. Or telling me it has immunity to poison when nobody can use poison in the party. Providing information that is of no use to the party at the time they need it is nerfing K. Checks.
The only interpretation of useful that applies is if the party finds the information you provide, "useful." If you are GM that allows players to ask questions, and the information that you give isn't useful, then you haven't honored the rule. The players may not have any clue what to task for or if the information will prove useful. That's your job as GM, to provide information that helps the party overcome the encounter. Grant it, if they are fighting goblins and they are 10th level, none of the information may be particularly useful..
Players knowledge shouldn't influence what is useful information for the characters. Even if you can identify most creatures of the bestiary from the description that isn't true for the character.
You, the player, can feel that the only useful information about a red dragon, is what are his spell like abilities as you could have forgotten some of them, the low level character would find useful to know that it has DR/magic.

![]() |
I run it as:
I number all useful info in stat block. Player rolls or picks a number for ea. bit of useful info they recall.pcs dont know game mechanics like how much of dr, sr they have
As one of Joe's players, I just want to say that I prefer this method over any of the others than I have played. Everybody attempts their Knowledge check, maybe there is some overlap in what they remember about the creature and maybe not. It has added some fun drama at the table when one player knew a pivotal piece of information that nobody else did and that info made a huge impact on the battle. It doesn't take long to do and it is more fun and flavorful as different adventurers remember different things and work together to build a profile of the creature's abilities.

DM_Blake |

Wall of admonishing text
Nice. I'm nerfing knowledge checks because I don't give every detail on a successful roll. Somehow by following the rule in the core rulebook, I'm nerfing the check. You know the rule; it's the rule that says to give ONE piece of useful info per +5 the PC beats the base DC. By following that OFFICIAL RULE, I am somehow nerfing the knowledge check.
I suppose you want a DC 15 check to tell them every detail of the monster? Do you want an attack roll of 15 to always hit? Ever saving throw of 15 always saves?
We have rolls for a reason. We have DCs for a reason. We have modifiers for a reason. Using these modifiers to add to dice rolls to hit DCs (or ACs) is a big part of this game.
Using that big part of the game is not nerfing anything. It's simply playing the game that we're all so excited about.

Chess Pwn |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

DM_Blake
I'm not representing your view or N N 959's, just translating what I believe N N 959 is trying to say.
He's saying that when you beat the DC you get 1 useful piece of info. If you tell them that this monster is 10ft tall as 1 piece of info and the second you tell them the skin is green you've failed to give useful info. You've given info, but it's not useful to the characters/players. So if you give the 10ft and green as the 2 info pieces you've nerfed knowledge checks.
Since you don't/didn't address the questions and reasoning that N N 959 is giving and instead you make the straw man argument example it's not N N 959 to deal with your straw man, but it's instead your turn to actually address the topic that N N 959 is talking about.

DM_Blake |

DM_Blake
I'm not representing your view or N N 959's, just translating what I believe N N 959 is trying to say.He's saying that when you beat the DC you get 1 useful piece of info. If you tell them that this monster is 10ft tall as 1 piece of info and the second you tell them the skin is green you've failed to give useful info. You've given info, but it's not useful to the characters/players. So if you give the 10ft and green as the 2 info pieces you've nerfed knowledge checks.
Since you don't/didn't address the questions and reasoning that N N 959 is giving and instead you make the straw man argument example it's not N N 959 to deal with your straw man, but it's instead your turn to actually address the topic that N N 959 is talking about.
I don't do that. None of my posts say I do that.
The Knowledge skill says it's used to identify the monster and gives +1 useful piece of info for every +5 above the base DC.
I have said on a useful check that I give the monster's identification and I have detailed how I give that useful info by making a list of the stuff from most noticeable to least noticeable (based on what survivors would likely be talking about in local pubs or writing about in books). I don't give info like 10' tall or green skin because I've already read the book's description which includes that stuff and I've usually also shown the picture from the book.
In fact, in post #6 of this very thread I said exactly the opposite of what you're posting here.
This is true too. Every GM is different, so decide what you like. I suggest that whatever you decide, the player who invested skill ranks into his character's knowledge skills should feel like he's learning USEFUL things.
Read the whole post, I said a lot more on this subject. And then scroll down 13 more posts and I clarified even more in post #19.
I have no idea where he or you or anyone else might think I've nerfed knowledge checks in any way.
I'll grant that some people have a valid point that giving the name is often not useful enough for a minimum success (just hitting the DC with no additional info). I disagree on that - by then they know the name and type and physical description and all of that is very useful, even the name in many cases. I think that both interpretations of the wording of the Knowledge skill are valid and it's a GM's call at that point. If my opinion that identifying the creature is "nerfing" the skill, even though the skill uses that exact wording, well, then I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think that's really what "nerfing" means.

Chess Pwn |

Stuff...
This is a good post addressing some of the things I think N N 959 was getting at. I think a point of why he feels you're nerfing it is that you're supposed to identify and get 1 piece of info for meeting the DC and then you get another piece of info for every +5.
I have no idea where he or you or anyone else might think I've nerfed knowledge checks in any way.
I personally only skimmed like 6 posts, so I had very little idea of what you think, do, or have said.

DM_Blake |

I believe this line...
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities.
...is talking about several equivalent things. Identifying them is one thing that is equivalent to special powers or vulnerabilities is a separate thing. Separated by "AND" seems to make them equivalent.
And I believe that this line...
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.
...says that the first useful bit can be anything, and one of the possible anything options is "identify" (from the first line). It does not say "A successful check identifies the monster and one bit of useful info". It simply says "one bit". Identification is one bit. It's equivalent to their special powers and vulnerabilities. It's often useful.
If I don't give the name first, should I give it last? You don't know what it's called unless you roll a 42... I doubt that makes sense to anyone. If I give the identification AND something else useful, that's two bits of useful information for just hitting the DC which is NOT what the skill says to do.
I get it that not everybody interprets that paragraph the same way I do. What I don't get is the vitriol being aimed my way over my interpretation.

Bill Dunn |

I think a lot of people feel this way, but I'll point out something. You're giving information to the players, not the characters. The point being that while the characters don't use terms like DR 10/- or an AC 21, those are terms we use as players to understand what is happening in the game. IMO, telling someone the creature has an AC of 25 is no different than asking the player to roll a die to see if they hit. You're drawing some arbitrary distinction as to when you're breaking verisimilitude. Players can know their AC value, but not that of creatures they fight?
Think of it like this: How you convey the information OOC is not how the characters know it IC, but it represents the same actionable information. Your PC doesn't know she has an AC of 21 when she adds a shield, but that is how it has to be translated for the player.
All that having been said, I get the idea of trying to create more immersion by using fewer meta terms. When describing misses by players, I try to give information that makes it clear whether armor, dexterity or magic is at work protecting a creature. I also think it's great to describe things in comparative terms. I've often told players that the creature's hide feels like plate mail when their sword bounces off. The idea is that the players still need to get actionable information rather than qualitative descriptions that provide no real information from which to make decisions e.g. the man has a strong handshake. What does that mean? Is strong a 12 STR or a 20 STR?
But sometimes there is no comparative way to share the information so I just share it. It's a game.
It's a game, sure, but not all games are the same. It doesn't hurt to know that my kill stack in ASL is shooting at an 8-3-8 engineering unit with a smoke exponent of 2. That's all right out on the chit. But that game has a very different feel from an RPG - and in an RPG, I'm looking for a bit more immersion than knowing the hezrou has DR 10/good, SR 22, and has acid/cold/fire resistance 10. I'd much rather be told that the hezrou's skin is difficult to penetrate without holy weapons, they are moderately resistant to all forms of spells, acid, cold, and fire. I don't need much more specific than that since that's enough to tell me I am fighting magic resistance (though not overwhelmingly so like a golem), low-damage energy attacks are moot, and any weapon that isn't good-aligned is facing DR. Being read the specific elements from the rulebook - that's annoying. I'd like some effort devoted to keeping players immersed in their characters.

Matthew Downie |

I suppose that you would dislike Carrion crown then, as half of the AP is finding what the bad guys are doing and why.
It's been a while.
I remember exploring a rotating maze.I remember undergoing trials in an attempt to join a tribe in the Cinderlands.
I remember being killed by a demi-lich while exploring a giant castle full of undead things.
I don't remember why I was doing any of those things.
How many adventures include you traveling to the only sage that know enough about the beast to know what can kill it and making a quest to get the map to reach the temple of Zara Thoot?
That could equally be a quest to befriend the sage who has the magic key to open the inner sanctum of the temple of Zara Thoot. That way, the PCs are strongly motivated to go to the sage, and not just go to libraries or cast divination spells to find the same information.
Anyway, I think we've strayed so far from the original point (which I think was, should we err on the side of giving the players too much benefit from a knowledge roll, or too little?) that we're no longer debating anything meaningful.

Matthew Downie |

I'd much rather be told that the hezrou's skin is difficult to penetrate without holy weapons, they are moderately resistant to all forms of spells, acid, cold, and fire.
To someone using fire spells, the precise level of fire resistance is very significant. If my interpretation of 'moderately' fire resistant is different to my GMs, I might wind up wasting my spells despite having passed the knowledge checks. It's like the GM who won't tell players what their current hit points are, but instead describes injuries and leaves them to guess how close they are to death. If it's done well, it's fine. If it's done badly, it's infuriating.

![]() |

Diego Rossi wrote:I suppose that you would dislike Carrion crown then, as half of the AP is finding what the bad guys are doing and why.
It's been a while.
I remember exploring a rotating maze.
I remember undergoing trials in an attempt to join a tribe in the Cinderlands.
I remember being killed by a demi-lich while exploring a giant castle full of undead things.
Curse of the Crimson Throne
There was a disease in it. You had to gather several pieces of information to find a cure. Every piece lessened the difficulty of the Knowledge and Healing checks needed to find it.
it would have been more or less interesting if a single die roll had determined the if you were successful?
I don't remember why I was doing any of those things.
It was a memorable campaign then, if you can't recall your character motivations.
Diego Rossi wrote:How many adventures include you traveling to the only sage that know enough about the beast to know what can kill it and making a quest to get the map to reach the temple of Zara Thoot?That could equally be a quest to befriend the sage who has the magic key to open the inner sanctum of the temple of Zara Thoot. That way, the PCs are strongly motivated to go to the sage, and not just go to libraries or cast divination spells to find the same information.
Anyway, I think we've strayed so far from the original point (which I think was, should we err on the side of giving the players too much benefit from a knowledge roll, or too little?) that we're no longer debating anything meaningful.
Really? I am debating that it is better to err limiting the information that in giving away too much. You can always add more information, you can never take them back.
Bill Dunn wrote:I'd much rather be told that the hezrou's skin is difficult to penetrate without holy weapons, they are moderately resistant to all forms of spells, acid, cold, and fire.To someone using fire spells, the precise level of fire resistance is very significant. If my interpretation of 'moderately' fire resistant is different to my GMs, I might wind up wasting my spells despite having passed the knowledge checks. It's like the GM who won't tell players what their current hit points are, but instead describes injuries and leaves them to guess how close they are to death. If it's done well, it's fine. If it's done badly, it's infuriating.
Sure, if it a one shot adventure with an unknown GM that can be a problem, but it can be easily fixed by the GM adding, "you think that your current fire/acid/whatever spells will do nothing or very little damage to this creature" or "Your fire/acid/whatever spells will almost certainly do some damage but will be lessened".
Translation: "you are a level 5 wizard and the creature has fire resistance 10, so your fireball probably will do a few hit point of damage if it fail the save, nothing if it save" and "the creature has fire resistance 5, so your fireball will do some damage even if it save".

N N 959 |
It's a game, sure, but not all games are the same. It doesn't hurt to know that my kill stack in ASL is shooting at an 8-3-8 engineering unit with a smoke exponent of 2. That's all right out on the chit. But that game has a very different feel from an RPG - and in an RPG, I'm looking for a bit more immersion than knowing the hezrou has DR 10/good, SR 22, and has acid/cold/fire...
I have no issue with trying to preserve the immersion. I've been in PFS and non-PFS games where the GM just dumped the stats and it was less than desirable. But as Diego Rossi points out, when GMs substitute qualitative/subjective descriptions for specifics, its often worthless information. I've seen GMs use terms like "strong" or "fast" or "tough-skined." Six people will have six different ideas of what that means.
The fact is, and this is a fact, sometimes information that the characters would know intuitively, cannot be conveyed to the players without using OOC numbers. IMO, I'm willing to break a small bit of immersion to provide players with information that I believe their character would know.

N N 959 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe this line...
SRD, Skills, Knowledge wrote:You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities....is talking about several equivalent things. Identifying them is one thing that is equivalent to special powers or vulnerabilities is a separate thing. Separated by "AND" seems to make them equivalent.
This coupon entitles you to a burger and fries or chips.
The use of "and" means you get both the burger and (fries or chips).
Trying to interpret "and" as meaning you get a burger or fries is clearly an attempt to nerf K. checks.

Bigger Club |
The rules as written are just horrible, so I prefer to houserule them.
Now the meeting DC is fine, and even +5 or even to +10. After that it starts to get ridicolous. If a character beats the DC with 25 or 30, they should pretty much know just about everything there is to know about the monster(well a typical invidual of that species, after all the Marilith might have class levels for example.)
My reasoning is that DC 40 knowledge check in other context reveals increadibly obscure information.
So let's say that an adult red dragon is the monster in question.
Well they are not common but I would not call them super rare either, and they are pretty iconic creatures so they should have more legends and such about them than another creature that is just as un/common. so DC is 10+CR(14)=24
Rules: (as an example, only talking about combat applications)
DC 24: A red dragon, Adult aged, true dragon, Dragon traits.(it would seem silly not to reveal those because they are the same even for lower CR. So the useful information is that it falls into the type.)
29: Cone breath weapon fire
34: Vulnerability to cold
39: Equal spell casting to moderately experienced arcane caster.
44: Can see through smoke.
How I would do it.
24: Same as above
29: Same as above and vague about idea on how much damage it does.(example has a decent chance of outright killing the wizard.)
34: Vulnerability to cold, they are however highly intelligent creatures and aware of this weakness.
39: Casts as a moderately experienced spontaneous arcane caster, most likely to enhance it's own abilities than rely on them for offense. Has some spell like abilities that are much more potent.
44: In vague idea likely all about defense section.
49: Same but about offense
54: Just about everything you can know without just handing the character sheet.
Higher: Know very spesific knowledge about this particular dragon, as what sort of spells it has in it's spells known. Some of the feats(the kind that allow new tactics like flyby attack.)

DM_Blake |

Looking at the DCs for the adult Red Dragon, how would you justify such high numbers for the breath weapon and cold vulnerability, when a baby dragon has the same things, for a much lower DC?
I don't justify that. It's a weird rule that doesn't always work.
GM: You see two red monsters flying overhead. They look almost exactly the same but one is only about the size of a horse while the other one is the size of a small castle.
PC: I use Knowledge to identify them. Which skill"
GM: Knowledge (Arcane)
PC: No problem, I got a 20.
GM: Well, the smaller one is a baby red dragon. Practically a newborn. Here's a few things you know about it. The other one that looks like a much larger copy of the baby red dragon is a mystery to you; you have no idea what it is.
That makes no sense. At all.
But that's how the rule works.

Bigger Club |
Looking at the DCs for the adult Red Dragon, how would you justify such high numbers for the breath weapon and cold vulnerability, when a baby dragon has the same things, for a much lower DC?
I am not sure if that was directed at me but. Personally I treat dragons as the adult one being the typical member of the species as it doesn't make sense to me that knowledge about babies of species is more common than the mature ones. Also those breath weapons have differences you can reveal such as rough idea on damage, range and save DC. "The flames are hot enough to seriously hurt even the toughest ones among you and outright kill some of you, unless you are well spread out it can likely get multiple ones in it's area or even all, the most agile ones have a decent chance of protecting themselves from the worst of it." As an example, assuming the dragon is worked in as a boss fight.

![]() |

Sorry, I should have said "How would one justify such a thing?" It wasn't meant as a dig at anyone.
I had that particular situation recently and just discovered this thread - hence plunging in! I like the idea of using an Adult for everything beyond the obvious - I can imagine dragons being well known, but there also being plenty of misinformation.
As far as the size - I just thought that the higher DC could sometimes be justifiable - maybe larger ones lose their vulnerability to cold as they gain in power. That kind of thing...
The whole knowledge thing is crying out for a proper treatment.