Are they using a disguise check? If so, then yes, since that allows you to hide your race.
Otherwise, I would say that the knowledge check would include other aspects, both visual and otherwise. Elves might have distinctive sword styles that helps you identify them, or an elven accent. The skeleton warrior might have the stench of a tomb, or use a sword style that was only in use a few hundred years ago (that you know from manuscripts). ETC. ETC.
And successful disguise checks would hide more and more such details, making it harder and harder to get ahold of the clues for the knowledge check. But if they don't bother to make the check, then they are not bothering to hide the various side details that would allow you to make a knowledge check (although I suppose I could certainly see a circumstance bonus/penalty to notice something such as distinguishing a human raised half elf from a human using the knowledge check)
|
Are they using a disguise check? If so, then yes, since that allows you to hide your race.
Otherwise, I would say that the knowledge check would include other aspects, both visual and otherwise. Elves might have distinctive sword styles that helps you identify them, or an elven accent. The skeleton warrior might have the stench of a tomb, or use a sword style that was only in use a few hundred years ago (that you know from manuscripts). ETC. ETC.
And successful disguise checks would hide more and more such details, making it harder and harder to get ahold of the clues for the knowledge check
No active disguise check, but the armor does completely conceal all visual aspects of the player's race. I mean, they're clearly humanoid medium creatures in heavy armor.
Suppose, could impose some degree of passive disguise check, but I don't think that's really part of the rules.
Was just wondering if visibility of the creature was in any required for the knowledge check? Can their armor conceal their identity?
Well one could still ascertain the rough height and girth of the creature being fought, as well as maybe the style of combat the creature engages in, so that might help too. (maybe elves are more graceful while orcs are more lumbering?)
Was just wondering if visibility of the creature was in any required for the knowledge check? Can their armor conceal their identity?
It helps, and practically a prerequisite (since seeing those big old ears turns this into a basic DC 10 knowledge check), but it isn't all that goes into a disguise check.
If I was a cold war spy trying to infiltrate Russia, but I had a HORRENDOUSLY think Brooklyn accent and talking about how how much I love the Dodgers, then I would blow it even if I had a perfect uniform and ID papers.
But again- you could impose circumstance penalties to their knowledge check. Make it dark, make them covered, have loud noises (so you couldn't hear the rasping moans of the skeleton, for example), etc. etc. I could totally see bringing in perception check into this to notice details, which you then interpret with a knowledge check. There are enough core rule factors that effect perception that you could satisfy yourself.
Of course, I suppose, calling for a perception check is the exact same as putting on an automatic disguise check...eh? Maybe just apply all those perception modifier tables to the knowledge check.
Smoothness of movements, types of movements, sounds it makes, odd smells (elves don't usually smell like rotting flesh), etc.
I mean, a skeleton in full armor is going to be making a lot of noise. The only thing the armor is touching is bone, and that's going to rattle around a ton because it's not properly resting on anything useful.
Might even be a decent maracas stand in. I imagine the Dirge Bard would love that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the rules, armor does not impede knowledge checks to determine a creatures race.
If the elf or skeleton warrior that I'm trying to identify is covered head to toe in armor that completely conceals the creature (like full plate, probably), does this affect the knowledge check in any respect?
Good question. As far as I know, the rules don't say anything about this (although I could have missed something burrowed in there), but logically, fully covering armor should obscure identity (although overall size and shape would still be visible, as would parts for accommodating appendages that not just everyone has, such as really pointy ears). Unlike a disguise, it would not give out wrong information about identity unless crafted to resemble somebody else's specific armor. Recognition of fighting styles, etc should use some different Knowledge skill from the monster identification skills -- I haven't seen definitive instruction what to use for this, but would be somewhat inclined towards Profession (Soldier) that a couple of other posters on these boards have suggested.
By the rules, armor does not impede knowledge checks to determine a creatures race.
This. A ranger can still manage to get their favored enemy bonus against the dude in head to toe armor too, just like you can somehow tell someone's spellcasting with no components used... Not everything makes sense when looked at as if it was happening in the real world.
you could impose circumstance penalties to their knowledge check.
This would be about the only modifier and it would be completely DM fiat. Expect table variance.
|
|
By the rules, armor does not impede knowledge checks to determine a creatures race.
As I read it, the rules don't really address armor specifically regarding knowledge checks.
They do address requiring the ability to see (or sense) the creature in order to make such a check.
I think most armor and clothing would not conceal enough of the creature to afford any difference in the knowledge check. Thick armor, like full plate, might, provided the face was concealed as part of the design. Especially if the armor resized from a captured suit, rather than actually designed for the creature in question.
Maybe a cloak covering an NPC with their back to the party would qualify under the same question.
It helps, and practically a prerequisite (since seeing those big old ears turns this into a basic DC 10 knowledge check)
Small point of order, that would be a DC 5. Elves are common and, as near as I can tell, a level-less elf is CR < 1.
An INT 3 animal can identify an elf on a take 10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By that logic you'd never be able to identify a Death Knight because of the full plate armor they commonly wear.
|
|
By that logic you'd never be able to identify a Death Knight because of the full plate armor they commonly wear.
If the full plate is a uniform, that would certainly be a different story. And, as mentioned, their behavior, fighting style, smell, sounds and other could give them away.
So if the PCs merely see a figure in fullplate off in the distance, I'd probably impose a penalty to the knowledge check (or not even allow one). The more details they noticed, the more reasonable the knowledge check would become.
The point is that if their plate conceals them, it should penalize or limit the knowledge check. But only if it conceals them.
If Death Knights are commonly in Full Plate, then full plate itself could serve to help identify them. It would not count as concealing in this case. Might even give a bonus to the check.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Change the rules as little as you can, and then when it improves things. Applying extra bonuses and penalties or disallowing checks at every turn isn't likely to make the game more fun, so just stick with the basic rules. If I had to, I'd call completely covering oneself a disguise check that neatly avoids a lot of the disguise check penalties.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point is that if their plate conceals them, it should penalize or limit the knowledge check. But only if it conceals them.
This is really where things break down. Armor offers no concealment of any kind, offering no modifier to perception, disguise, sense motive or knowledge checks. That's the rules. So suggesting "it should penalize or limit the knowledge check" is an incorrect answer. The rules don't have to conform to what you think is logical.
Now you have to remember, this is the rules question section. If you wish to ask this question in advice or house-rules, then "it should penalize or limit the knowledge check" might be an acceptable answer. It just doesn't follow the rules as/is.
|
|
This is really where things break down. Armor offers no concealment of any kind, offering no modifier to perception, disguise, sense motive or knowledge checks. That's the rules. So suggesting "it should penalize or limit the knowledge check" is an incorrect answer. The rules don't have to conform to what you think is logical.
Now you have to remember, this is the rules question section. If you wish to ask this question in advice or house-rules, then "it should penalize or limit the knowledge check" might be an acceptable answer. It just doesn't follow the rules as/is.
I disagree. I was referring the word "concealment," not the rules regarding cover and concealment. Though I do see where that would be confusing.
When they say armor doesn't offer concealment, they are talking about concealing the creature from view. Yes, you can certainly see the creature. It's wearing full plate.
Regarding knowledge checks, technically the Core rules don't even require players to be able to see a monster, to identify it. Here
A player could say, "I'm attempting to identify all the creatures in this room," pointing to some unexplored section of the map. There's no rules against this, but it still wouldn't fly for most GMs because the players cannot see the creatures and have no real clues as to what they are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game has specific rules for disguising things/people and hiding them. Armor is not one of them. Like someone said a deathknight can't be identified if that is the case. You would not know if it was a deathknight, human, aasimar, or some other humanoid shaped creature in that armor.
PS(another example): Someone could also animate a suit of armor and you would not be able to identify it as an animated object.
I disagree. I was referring the word "concealment," not the rules regarding cover and concealment. Though I do see where that would be confusing.
No, it's you that's mistaken. I was using the word in the same way you are. Armor offers nothing to alter any perception, disguise, sense motive or knowledge checks. It doesn't alter any attempts to identify the creature in the armor. It does nothing to conceal the identity of who ever is in it. That kind of concealment.
Regarding knowledge checks, technically the Core rules don't even require players to be able to see a monster, to identify it. Here
Why, yes, that's a rule. that's the kind of thing we look for in the rules section of the board. You notice nothing listed about armor...
A player could say, "I'm attempting to identify all the creatures in this room," pointing to some unexplored section of the map. There's no rules against this, but it still wouldn't fly for most GMs because the players cannot see the creatures and have no real clues as to what they are.
And? Someone can cast a spell with no components and the DEV's have said you can identify the spell with no modifiers to the roll. Again, this is the rules section. Real world logic doesn't live here, just the rules no matter how illogical you may think they are.
If you want to debate what you think it SHOULD be, try advice or house-rules sections. Here, you'll hear what the rules are. Those rules are: NO to "does this affect the knowledge check in any respect?"
|
|
A player could say, "I'm attempting to identify all the creatures in this room," pointing to some unexplored section of the map. There's no rules against this, but it still wouldn't fly for most GMs because the players cannot see the creatures and have no real clues as to what they are.And? Someone can cast a spell with no components and the DEV's have said you can identify the spell with no modifiers to the roll. Again, this is the rules section. Real world logic doesn't live here, just the rules no matter how illogical you may think they are.
If you want to debate what you think it SHOULD be, try advice or house-rules sections. Here, you'll hear what the rules are. Those rules are: NO to "does this affect the knowledge check in any respect?"
So, if at a PFS table a player wanted to identify monsters in a room they could not see and had never been to, you'd let them because the rules don't require it?
Requiring the monster to be present in the room with a PC that is trying to identify it doesn't really seem like a house rule, but if you think we should ignore common sense and play with hardcore RAW, I suppose this is a houserule. I would not consider it one, though, and I don't think I'm alone in this.
So, if at a PFS table a player wanted to identify monsters in a room they could not see and had never been to, you'd let them because the rules don't require it?
This isn't in the PFS forum and I don't play PFS, so the question it pretty moot. Secondly, this is the RULES forum. RULES, RULES, RULES!!! Let's talk about things that are rules not about what isn't one or what might happen in someone else's house-rules [PFS].
Requiring the monster to be present in the room with a PC that is trying to identify it doesn't really seem like a house rule, but if you think we should ignore common sense and play with hardcore RAW, I suppose this is a houserule. I would not consider it one, though, and I don't think I'm alone in this.
Remember what I said before? Where is the "common sense" rule again? The rules don't care one bit about "common sense". The rules are what they are. It doesn't make sense a fighter can fall from orbit and walk it off after landing but those are the rules...
If you want to ask 'how should I deal with the lack of X rule', well you're in luck. There is the Advice section for that. If you want to know how people in PFS deal with that lack of a rule, then head over to the PFS section and give it a spin. Asking about something you AGREE isn't a rule doesn't belong in a RULES thread.
Again, you've gotten the answer to your question about armor: NO.
PS: If you think I'm being harsh or using hardcore RAW, well YOU picked the place to talk about this and you'll find RAW[rules as written] talked about in the rules section. You don't go to the DMV and complain that they don't have your tax forms. If you don't wish to deal with RAW answers, try a place that isn't about RAW. I've already pointed out a few.
Just run with a disguise check at like +5 or +10 at your leisure i suppose and then have perception penalties due to range and circumstance.
As for the deathknight example they could indentify it was a deathknight or "warrior in plate" with a easy check, but to see what was in the armor or who is a harder check.
By the rules, armor does not impede knowledge checks to determine a creatures race.As I read it, the rules don't really address armor specifically regarding knowledge checks.
They do address requiring the ability to see (or sense) the creature in order to make such a check.
I think most armor and clothing would not conceal enough of the creature to afford any difference in the knowledge check. Thick armor, like full plate, might, provided the face was concealed as part of the design. Especially if the armor resized from a captured suit, rather than actually designed for the creature in question.
Maybe a cloak covering an NPC with their back to the party would qualify under the same question.
The rules don't mention it, and therefore armor doesn't have any effect on identification. If the developers intended it to, they would have written the rules to cover such.
Now, as a GM if a player wanted to bring it up I would be generous and give a circumstance bonus to disguise checks for the armor. Somewhere between a +2 and a +5 circumstance bonus seems fair.
If the elf or skeleton warrior that I'm trying to identify is covered head to toe in armor that completely conceals the creature (like full plate, probably), does this affect the knowledge check in any respect?
No.
By that logic you'd never be able to identify a Death Knight because of the full plate armor they commonly wear.If the full plate is a uniform, that would certainly be a different story. And, as mentioned, their behavior, fighting style, smell, sounds and other could give them away.
So if the PCs merely see a figure in fullplate off in the distance, I'd probably impose a penalty to the knowledge check (or not even allow one). The more details they noticed, the more reasonable the knowledge check would become.
The point is that if their plate conceals them, it should penalize or limit the knowledge check. But only if it conceals them.
If Death Knights are commonly in Full Plate, then full plate itself could serve to help identify them. It would not count as concealing in this case. Might even give a bonus to the check.
Since you're asking a RULES question, I would direct you to the armor section in the CRB where you'll find a complete lack of text of anything that hints that armor or shields have any impact on identifying a creature type. So by rules... no, you can wrap a zombie in plate mail and it'll still be identfiable as a zombie.