Roll for knowledge...but i already faced this thing once.

[Snowblind]

TOZ wrote:

Probably the same place it says you can't drink a potion underwater.

Oh, boy...

[TriOmegaZero]

Pirate Rob wrote:

Thanks TOZ, now I'll have to go burn my ARG again.

Again huh?

[Pirate Rob]

Actually I sold my print copy on ebay earlier this year because I needed the shelf space.

I downloaded it for the rules quote. Am now deleting it again, just in case I want to drink a potion underwater. Also I'm going to go have a drink so I forget the whole thing.

[Snowblind]

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Pirate Rob wrote:

Thanks TOZ, now I'll have to go burn my ARG again.

Again huh?

I would have assumed that he owns a PDF and a printer.

Hey, that's something Paizo could use when advertising PDFs of their books.
"All the joy of expressing just how much you love our products, but without the normal costs involved when burning $100 RPG Hardbacks. Printer not included."

*wow, that came out way more dark than I expected*

[N N 959]

Quadstriker wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Just out of curiosity, where is it written (RAW) that characters in PFS don't retain monster knowledge from scenario to scenario? Yes, I know there is that boon from 2014, but is it actually written that characters cannot retain knowledge?

You're just going to get a mix of "If it doesn't say you can remember things, you can't" and "omg you can't possibly recognize that it's the same type of creature you've seen before" from a certain crowd.

So there is no actual text in the PFS Guide or PFS FAQ page that states characters can't recall creatures from past adventures? All of this teeth grinding is over a boon from 2014 which whole generations of players don't even know exists and fewer still have ever seen?

When Mike Brock was here, he repeatedly said that PFS is a game based on trust. If players can be trusted to not cheat or lie about their characters' equipment, then I, as a GM, am going to trust a player if he or she tells me his or her character has fought this creature before.

Now granted, there is some ambiguity about what the K. check represents: Perceiving the actual identify of the creature or simply remembering it. Because K. checks do not have any penalty for lighting or concealment or anything else that suggest my ability to identify is hampered by my ability to perceive, then it is logical to assume that this is not about how well I see, but how well I remember.

[BigNorseWolf]

N N 959 wrote:

So there is no actual text in the PFS Guide or PFS FAQ page that states characters can't recall creatures from past adventures?

That's bad argumentation. Theres no absolute rule against what I'm saying therefore I'm right " is nothing more than shifting the burden of evidence onto someone else.

The question that should be asked is "what is the rule on recognizing something you've fought before" and its a big gray area. Gray areas are best adjudicated based on

Interpretation from existing rules
Balance
Playability
realism (when applicable)

Any position being argued for needs to be argued for on the same criteria, not special pleading that there;s no rule against one position so that position must be the right one.

The existing rule for identification says no.Creatures are identified by a knowledge check based on cr.

Having everyone have the knowledge skill of everyone they've ever traveled with kind of undermines the value of the knowledge skill.

The idea that you can instantly and automatically identify something just from seeing it once is based on the idea that all members of a species look exactly the same and that there's no other species that looks like it. This isn't true in nature, and its pretty untrue in un nature as well. There's lots of demons devils and beasties who's rogue descriptions overlap. Is the bird lady a harpy or a styrix? The dragony looking thing could be a wyvern or a dragon. Is that spikey outsider thing a barbed devil or a bone devil? Poison ivy or virginia creeper? Is that demony dog a howler or a hell hound? A wolf or a coyote? Werewolf or Gnoll barbarian with a drooling problem? Common sense, the strongest argument for -I've seen it before so i know how to hit it- says that its not that simple.

With that said... some things are pretty obvious. Dragon aligments are color coded for your convenience. Every pathfinder is probably familiar with the field guide's field guide of common critters and what to do about them. Dragon alignments are color coded for convenience so people know not to kill the shiny ones. You fight skeletons enouh times you know to grab something blunt. You see a wayfinder on a walking dead man you get ready to be paralyzed .

[Gwen Smith]

I tend to avoid the "all or nothing" approach for knowledge checks, where if you fail you know absolutely nothing at all. (If this were the case, how would characters even recognize that it's hostile and they should run?)

If someone misses the knowledge check by less than 5, I'll tell them something like "it looks like a skeleton, but not like any skeleton you've ever seen" or "your best guess is that might be in the dragon family, but you're not sure". A lot of this information is what the players will be guessing from the description anyway, so it makes sense to put it in character, to me:
"You smell rotting flesh."
"Crap, it's probably undead. My knowledge religion roll is 11." (CR is 15)
"You're pretty sure it's undead, but you have no idea what kind or what it does."

Of course, this doesn't work on monsters that specifically mimic other creatures' traits. (There's one critter in Mummy's Mask that looks a lot like a mummy, even though it's not even undead.)

Also, as characters get more information, I'll give them additional checks. "Holy water didn't hurt it, so it's probably not undead..."

On the flip side, I've had GMs who wouldn't even let you make a knowledge check unless you a) specifically asked and b) correctly guessed which knowledge check to make. Even worse, sometimes they would only let you make one or two checks a turn, so it was possible for characters with two knowledge skills to identify creatures faster than scholar characters with 10 ranks in everything.

I understand where the idea comes from: if your goal is to keep the players as much in the dark as possible, even telling them which knowledge check to make gives them too much information. I just hate being on the receiving end of it, so I never do it as a GM.

[thejeff]

Dorothy Lindman wrote:

I tend to avoid the "all or nothing" approach for knowledge checks, where if you fail you know absolutely nothing at all. (If this were the case, how would characters even recognize that it's hostile and they should run?)

If someone misses the knowledge check by less than 5, I'll tell them something like "it looks like a skeleton, but not like any skeleton you've ever seen" or "your best guess is that might be in the dragon family, but you're not sure". A lot of this information is what the players will be guessing from the description anyway, so it makes sense to put it in character, to me:
"You smell rotting flesh."
"Crap, it's probably undead. My knowledge religion roll is 11." (CR is 15)
"You're pretty sure it's undead, but you have no idea what kind or what it does."

Of course, this doesn't work on monsters that specifically mimic other creatures' traits. (There's one critter in Mummy's Mask that looks a lot like a mummy, even though it's not even undead.)

Also, as characters get more information, I'll give them additional checks. "Holy water didn't hurt it, so it's probably not undead..."

On the flip side, I've had GMs who wouldn't even let you make a knowledge check unless you a) specifically asked and b) correctly guessed which knowledge check to make. Even worse, sometimes they would only let you make one or two checks a turn, so it was possible for characters with two knowledge skills to identify creatures faster than scholar characters with 10 ranks in everything.

I understand where the idea comes from: if your goal is to keep the players as much in the dark as possible, even telling them which knowledge check to make gives them too much information. I just hate being on the receiving end of it, so I never do it as a GM.

If you wanted to not let on what type of monster it was without actually being a jerk about it, they could just roll once and the GM could apply the appropriate skill bonus to the roll.

[BigNorseWolf]

Dorothy Lindman wrote:

On the flip side, I've had GMs who wouldn't even let you make a knowledge check unless you a) specifically asked and b) correctly guessed which knowledge check to make. Even worse, sometimes they would only let you make one or two checks a turn, so it was possible for characters with two knowledge skills to identify creatures faster than scholar characters with 10 ranks in everything.

Ugh. I cannot express how much i hate it when i see this. Bonus points if you get accused for metagaming when you correctly call which knowledge skill you shouldbe using on the first try.

"how'd you know you need knowledge arcana to recognize a dragon?"

"For my dragon obsessed dragon disciple that turns into a dragon .. yeah i think he knows how to id a dragon

[Jason S]

Z...D... wrote:

But if you fought something before, how would you magically forget that you fought it and forget important things such as, I don't know, what it's weaknesses are?

Your GM is correct, but he should have given you a bonus on the roll (honor system). Just because you remember doesn't mean your PC remembers.

Having said that, the Pathfinder Knowledge skills in general need to be streamlined and simplified more.

[pauljathome]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Dorothy Lindman wrote:

On the flip side, I've had GMs who wouldn't even let you make a knowledge check unless you a) specifically asked and b) correctly guessed which knowledge check to make. Even worse, sometimes they would only let you make one or two checks a turn, so it was possible for characters with two knowledge skills to identify creatures faster than scholar characters with 10 ranks in everything.

Ugh. I cannot express how much i hate it when i see this. Bonus points if you get accused for metagaming when you correctly call which knowledge skill you shouldbe using on the first try.

"how'd you know you need knowledge arcana to recognize a dragon?"

"For my dragon obsessed dragon disciple that turns into a dragon .. yeah i think he knows how to id a dragon

There are quite a few monsters where even knowing the creature type can give more information than the players should have (and I MEAN players, not characters). In those cases, I ask the player to roll a D20 and hand me their character sheet. They automatically get to roll if they ask "What do I know about it".

On the flip side, I have a strong tendency to have my Know it all characters have all knowledge skills either identical or very close. So I can tell the GM: I got a Knowledge 27. +2 if planes or religion

My favourite question (both as a GM and player) is "tell me what you think my character would know". Because, lets face it, for LOTS of monsters the most interesting information would be far better known than specific mechanical details. For some, its special attacks ("Wight. Drains your life. RUN"), for others its special defences ("Caratyd columns used to damage your weapons, fortunately about 10 years ago the universe shifted so they aren't dangerous any longer :-)") for others it may well be its personality "Faerie dragons are mischevous but fairly good natured in general"

[Deighton Thrane]

Man, the amount of times I've been at a table where the GM makes the entirely wrong rules call, because that's what makes sense to them...

[BigNorseWolf]

Deighton Thrane wrote:

Man, the amount of times I've been at a table where the GM makes the entirely wrong rules call, because that's what makes sense to them...

... is probably less than the amount of times the dm's called something wrong because they thought it was raw

[BigNorseWolf]

Paul Jackson wrote:

There are quite a few monsters where even knowing the creature type can give more information than the players should have (and I MEAN players, not characters). In those cases, I ask the player to roll a D20 and hand me their character sheet. They automatically get to roll if they ask "What do I know about it".

They should not have to ask to roll, especially in PFS.

There is no rule requirement that you have to ask to roll.

More importantly in PFS There is no way that the players can know that you require them to ask to roll, or whether you require that they make a general knowledge check or if they're going to have to sit there and make 10 different knowledge checks to try to figure the thing out. This is not a settled procedure and its something that you have to tell the players how it works.

Quote:

My favourite question (both as a GM and player) is "tell me what you think my character would know". Because, lets face it, for LOTS of monsters the most interesting information would be far better known than specific mechanical details.

I do it the same way. You don't bother learning "wolves DON"T need any special materials to hit" you learn "wolves travel in packs so if you're seeing one.. there are probably more. " This sometimes confuses people who were going to ask questions and.. go the answers anyway.

*cues the jeopardy themes song*

[pauljathome]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Paul Jackson wrote:

There are quite a few monsters where even knowing the creature type can give more information than the players should have (and I MEAN players, not characters). In those cases, I ask the player to roll a D20 and hand me their character sheet. They automatically get to roll if they ask "What do I know about it".

They should not have to ask to roll, especially in PFS.

There is no rule requirement that you have to ask to roll.

More importantly in PFS There is no way that the players can know that you require them to ask to roll, or whether you require that they make a general knowledge check or if they're going to have to sit there and make 10 different knowledge checks to try to figure the thing out. This is not a settled procedure and its something that you have to tell the players how it works.

I try hard to remember to tell unknown players how I run things. Certainly, if an unknown player doesn't ask I'll try to remind them.

But I definitely believe that characters only get to roll when they act (usually on their initiative). And, in the middle of combat when I'm juggling the usual plethora of things a GM is juggling I don't think it unreasonable to put the responsibilty of asking questions on the player. If they don't care enough to remember to ask why should I care to remember to tell them?

[KenderKin]

This is one reason I have been making my paladins with the eternal understanding trait.....

link

I feel like it presents a good compromise to having so many knowledges and so few skill points. My thinking is it represents a basic understanding of the world without disrupting game balance.....

[Kalindlara]

KenderKin wrote:

This is one reason I have been making my paladins with the eternal understanding trait.....

link

Question...

They're all paladins of Irori, right?

This is why d20pfsrd annoys me so much. I had someone at a convention recently who had a Ydersius Religion trait on his aasimar tetori...

[Finlanderboy]

Dorothy Lindman wrote:

I tend to avoid the "all or nothing" approach for knowledge checks, where if you fail you know absolutely nothing at all. (If this were the case, how would characters even recognize that it's hostile and they should run?)

If someone misses the knowledge check by less than 5, I'll tell them something like "it looks like a skeleton, but not like any skeleton you've ever seen" or "your best guess is that might be in the dragon family, but you're not sure". A lot of this information is what the players will be guessing from the description anyway, so it makes sense to put it in character, to me:
"You smell rotting flesh."
"Crap, it's probably undead. My knowledge religion roll is 11." (CR is 15)
"You're pretty sure it's undead, but you have no idea what kind or what it does."

Of course, this doesn't work on monsters that specifically mimic other creatures' traits. (There's one critter in Mummy's Mask that looks a lot like a mummy, even though it's not even undead.)

Also, as characters get more information, I'll give them additional checks. "Holy water didn't hurt it, so it's probably not undead..."

I like to do this as well, but I do not give definitives.

II will says ut looks like"describing features". I try to create a theate of the mind and let the players assume. I will never tell them if their assumptions are correct or not.

But i like players guessing and trying things.

[Rei]

Kalindlara wrote:

KenderKin wrote:

This is one reason I have been making my paladins with the eternal understanding trait.....

link

Question...

They're all paladins of Irori, right?

This is why d20pfsrd annoys me so much. I had someone at a convention recently who had a Ydersius Religion trait on his aasimar tetori...

Gotta get dem delicious grapple bonuses somewhere. (Totally not why my white-haired witch went to gladiator school in Valknar. At least it gave her some interesting backstory?)

[BigNorseWolf]

thejeff wrote:

]I don't know.

Then your character definitely doesn't.

It's in the monster description.

Quote:

I mean, I guess you can just throw out the descriptions and make them look like whatever you want.

Horsefeathers, NOT the argument. At all. The description has NOT been altered. Flag on the play: strawman.

You, looking at the monster manual, know what the description is. You also know that the description is not "sometimes have bat or bird like wings" The character, with no knowledge planes, do not get to do that.

What the thing is, and what you know about that thing, are very different.

Quote:

Doesn't change the larger point that you're just as likely to recognize a theletos with its "Four bandy limbs, each splitting at the elbow into two three-fingered forearms, emerge from this creature’s crystalline body." Even though you've never seen one before. And apparently it might not look like that anyway.

If you're taking a more common sense than raw approach something with a more variable appearance is harder to recognize again . Quip

[Terminalmancer]

Well, if it's not common sense that a character can remember things across scenarios, then maybe they shouldn't be able to remember anything at all, ever. There's nothing that says that they can remember monsters across encounters, after all. There's nothing that says they can even remember anything across rounds.

[Da Brain]

Jason S wrote:

Z...D... wrote:

But if you fought something before, how would you magically forget that you fought it and forget important things such as, I don't know, what it's weaknesses are?

Your GM is correct, but he should have given you a bonus on the roll (honor system). Just because you remember doesn't mean your PC remembers.

Having said that, the Pathfinder Knowledge skills in general need to be streamlined and simplified more.

(Bolding mine) Wait, what if my PC remembers the monster, but I (the player) doesn't?

I mean, my PC has a photographic memory (mind chemist), but I don't. What if I fought the creature last adventure for the PC - but that was a year of real time for my less than photographic player memory. Can I get information about the beast - if I don't actually know I have encountered it before (but my PC would?)

[p-sto]

Terminalmancer wrote:

Well, if it's not common sense that a character can remember things across scenarios, then maybe they shouldn't be able to remember anything at all, ever. There's nothing that says that they can remember monsters across encounters, after all. There's nothing that says they can even remember anything across rounds.

Well isn't that what the chronicler vanity is all about. So characters can reminded about the thing that happened six seconds ago. Only once a scenario though, wouldn't want it to be over powered for the cost of 10 PP.

[Quandary]

Michael Hallet wrote:

...But this exposes a serious flaw in the monster knowledge system.

"You encounter 4 skeletons, three appear to be animated human bones, but the fourth is the size and shape of an ogre."

Right...

Or to unwrap what you wrote, there is the distinction between recognizing a specific creature species and it's specific abilities... and recognizing that the specific creature(s) before you belong to a broader group (e.g. type/subtype) which has certain general characteristic abilities.
Yet Knowledge never speaks about what you know about a type/subtype, or merely recognizing membership of that group (without specific-creature knowledge). It would seem plausible you could get that info in most cases, but then again, if there is some ultra obscure demon that seems morel like a fey, should it be that easy?
YET, at the least, if you can get basic ID of a creature, and you know it is a Demon (or X type whatever), shouldn't you be able to know the general traits of Demons (or whatever)? I mean, that perhaps should still depend on your Knowledge roll in the moment... but since those are features of the type, not specific to the creature in front of your face... It shouldn't depend on that specific creature's HD/CR (or even the rarity of that specific creature), since as long as you recognize that is IS a Demon (or whatever), then you should be able to make a Knowledge check re: Demons in general, i.e. applicable to 1HD Common Demons.
Similar applies to creatures like Dragons who change/grow abilities over their age. Just because you might not roll high enough to get "access" to Elder Worm abilities, shouldn't you be able to recall relevant Dragon abilities from lower age categories?

[The ShadowShackleton]

Finlanderboy wrote:

As a DM i do not care if people say I fought these before watch out for XYZ.

The thing is Realalchemy stated I as the Dm will not confirm if they are incorrect.

I agree with this as well. It sometimes has hilarious results.

One group was fighting a gelatinous cube and someone shouts out "It's a gelatinous cube so it's immune to weapon damage!" No one with proper knowledge to contradict.

Three characters engulfed before one even bothers to try to take an aoo with a weapon. Much hilarity once they realize they did it to themselves.

Generally some common sense should prevail as a GM. I let it slide if people have fought them before but they need the knowledge rolls to test if they are right and if this specific creature is common of the breed.

[nosig]

Ran a game last night and added a fun little twist to the "Rolll for Monster Knowledge" thing... The parties "Mr. Knowledge" check - monster ID guy would roll for some monster and get something over 40 on his check... Basicly the PC must have written a term paper on these creatures back in Lodge Training camp. So rather than have him ask me questions, I asked him "what do YOU remember abou (insert monster name)?".

The player, one of those gamers that sleep with the Beastiries under their pillow, proceeded to resite random facts to the other players, with me nodding (or correcting what he was saying - when he was a little off target) until it seemed like he had about the right number of facts, so I stopped him at that point. It was great - and actually much faster than "20 Questions". And let the Player show off, and interact the other PCs the way his "Mr Professor" PC should have been able to.

Great fun. I recogmend it to everyone. Try it next time you have some real experienced player running the Knowledge Weenie. Just correct him when he get's something wrong, and cut him off when he get's to about the correct number of facts...

[Gwen Smith]

Da Brain wrote:

Jason S wrote:

Z...D... wrote:

But if you fought something before, how would you magically forget that you fought it and forget important things such as, I don't know, what it's weaknesses are?

Your GM is correct, but he should have given you a bonus on the roll (honor system). Just because you remember doesn't mean your PC remembers.

Having said that, the Pathfinder Knowledge skills in general need to be streamlined and simplified more.

(Bolding mine) Wait, what if my PC remembers the monster, but I (the player) doesn't?

I mean, my PC has a photographic memory (mind chemist), but I don't. What if I fought the creature last adventure for the PC - but that was a year of real time for my less than photographic player memory. Can I get information about the beast - if I don't actually know I have encountered it before (but my PC would?)

At my table, always. I always separate the character's knowledge from the player's knowledge, and I won't punish the character because of things the player doesn't know. Your wizard would know how that spell works, even if you forget whether it's conjuration or adjuration. (I tend to run a lot of demo games, so I often deal with brand new players.)