So, knowledge... that great skill that is the in-game proxy that lets characters "know" things, as it were.
I, for one, love player agency. The ability for me to dive into my character's mind-suit and work the levers myself is what I look for. This has lead me to greatly favor manually maintained dictionaries of knowledge questions I've asked I can reference at any time and have some tangible proof of the body of knowledge my character provably has. However, this can be a bit of a nuisance since it's a lot of paperwork and because it can be rather stingy.
Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn't let you know something that you never learned in the first place.
This wholesale stops a character from growing, as if what they know at level 1 is ostensibly what they'll know at level 20. This makes knowledges a bit of a headache for GMs and makes them prone to abuse. GMs have to insert a bunch of house rules for retries or forcing you to wait until you encounter the creature again to "remember" things about them.
This also puts a strict limiter on characters that I've seen GMs take sadistic glee over because a player forgets about an aspect of a creature they might have encountered repeatedly even though a character very well should have a vast amount of experience with them. Then there's the metagame aspect that you "need" to roll them so you can't be accused of somehow breaking the rules or power gaming.
In short, I don't like how the system treats knowledge. How do you handle it?
You can retry every 24 hours.
Intrigue even has awesome research checks.
You can retry every 24 hours.
Intrigue even has awesome research checks.
Does Intrigue explicitly say this?
Does Intrigue explicitly say this?You can retry every 24 hours.
Intrigue even has awesome research checks.
The retry part? That's CRB:
Try Again: Any conditions that apply to successive attempts to use the skill successfully.
Try Again only means you cannot do the same thing successively. You can attempt it at later points if it's justified.
So, "Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn't let you know something that you never learned in the first place." only means you cannot make knowledge checks successively, not FOREVER.
|
As a GM, I based the information gained from knowledge skills based upon the campaign location and the character's background. So I wouldn't allow a character from Sandpoint in Runelords campaign to make successful Knowledge (local) checks about Kalsguard. I also don't allow retries until the character place a point into the skill or visit some "in-game" library of sorts.
Like Secret Wizard said, the characters can't be allowed retries continuously unless the knowledge the character has changes. But just like the other skills you add ranks to when you level, it should be considered that characters are studying to further increase their knowledge of things related.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Knowledge skills not counting as an action is kinda dumb. You are shifting focus to figuring something out. That is kind of a big deal. Yes people are always thinking, but focusing thought on figuring out some bit of information really does take time and focus away from other things.
Knowledge skills are for what you potentially know. You don't know everything about every local town when you train Knowledge Local. You have the potential to have learned about it. Making the check is when you determine if you know it. What you have a problem with is the d20 systems binary results and increasingly irrelevant RNG as people become more skilled. And Knowledge checks don't take an action because it's to see if you recognize what you are looking at. Research takes actions, recognition is reactive.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This wholesale stops a character from growing, as if what they know at level 1 is ostensibly what they'll know at level 20.
No, it doesn't. It stops them from gaining additional knowledge just by rolling the check again, not from gaining additional knowledge at all.
The Knowledge skill (and the skill system as a whole) is borked enough without you adding made-up restrictions with no basis in the text. :/
No, it doesn't. It stops them from gaining additional knowledge just by rolling the check again, not from gaining additional knowledge at all.
The Knowledge skill (and the skill system as a whole) is borked enough without you adding made-up restrictions with no basis in the text. :/
This is why I said ostensibly.
apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually.
Going by pure RAW, what I said is correct. However, it's rarely the actual outcome of things.
No, it doesn't. It stops them from gaining additional knowledge just by rolling the check again, not from gaining additional knowledge at all.
The Knowledge skill (and the skill system as a whole) is borked enough without you adding made-up restrictions with no basis in the text. :/
This is why I said ostensibly.
apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually.Going by pure RAW, what I said is correct. However, it's rarely the actual outcome of things.
Again, you are misinterpreting what "try again" means as a condition.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it doesn't. It stops them from gaining additional knowledge just by rolling the check again, not from gaining additional knowledge at all.
The Knowledge skill (and the skill system as a whole) is borked enough without you adding made-up restrictions with no basis in the text. :/
This is why I said ostensibly.
apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually.
Things you came up with yourself do not count as being "ostensibly" what the text means. The Knowledge Skill rules (the part you quoted, and the rest) neither apparently nor purportedly suggests that you can never learn anything new after making a check. That came from you, not from the Knowledge rules.
Going by pure RAW, what I said is correct.
No, it's not.
"RAW" stands for "Rules As Written". If we're going by "pure [Rules As Written]", then for what you said to be correct, it has to actually be written in the rules. It's not. You came up with it on your own, as (somewhat sloppy) assumption that's not actually supported by the text.
"Going by pure RAW", you make a Knowledge check to either answer a question in your field or recognize a monster, and the check represents what you know (present tense, not future tense), and you can't retry that check.
Your idea about the inability to retry the same check somehow meaning you can never learn new things is something you're adding. You might be able to build an argument that it's implied, but "going by pure RAW"? Nope. It's not there. That idea is Buri's, not the CRB's.
You roll knowledge (religion) about skeletons at level 1. That pins what you know about skeletons. Per the rules, you can't roll that knowledge again at level 20. You've already rolled that and can't roll it again.
You roll knowledge (religion) about skeletons at level 1. That pins what you know about skeletons. Per the rules, you can't roll that knowledge again at level 20. You've already rolled that and can't roll it again.
Again, this is not correct.
The Try Again rules only apply for successive rolls.
Did you read the rules I quoted on the second post? It appears to me you have not.
You roll knowledge (religion) about skeletons at level 1. That pins what you know about skeletons. Per the rules, you can't roll that knowledge again at level 20. You've already rolled that and can't roll it again.Again, this is not correct.
The Try Again rules only apply for successive rolls.
Did you read the rules I quoted on the second post? It appears to me you have not.
I didn't see its relevance. A succession of 2 minutes or 20 years doesn't change the fact its still rolling the same roll again. Successive doesn't have any inherent immediacy to its intent. It just means to "do again after the times before." If it does, it's because that's imply how you've been reading it. It has nothing to do with the word's meaning.
The Try Again rules only apply for successive rolls.I think that's what he's getting at. What if you just barely succeed, gaining almost no info the first time?
Then you try again later. There's no rule saying you cannot attempt a knowledge check at a later time.
The whole Research system on Intrigue is based on this premise.
I didn't see its relevance. A succession of 2 minutes or 20 years doesn't change the fact its still rolling the same roll again. Successive doesn't have any inherent immediacy to its intent. It just means to "do again after the times before." If it does, it's because that's imply how you've been reading it. It has nothing to do with the word's meaning.You roll knowledge (religion) about skeletons at level 1. That pins what you know about skeletons. Per the rules, you can't roll that knowledge again at level 20. You've already rolled that and can't roll it again.Again, this is not correct.
The Try Again rules only apply for successive rolls.
Did you read the rules I quoted on the second post? It appears to me you have not.
That is not what "successive" means. Successive means immediate succession, it's clearly stated in the rules in any of the examples that the Retry rules apply to doing the same thing twice after recently failing, providing examples like "you can retry, but only after 10 minutes".
In the case of Knowledge checks, it says you cannot roll successively because Knowledge checks represent your knowledge (lower case) on a topic. Ergo, you can only retry if that changes somehow.
If you wish to interpret it in a way that not only warps the rules meaning of the text, but also warps common sense and the rules of English language, then I guess there's no way me using rules text, common sense and the English language can help you understand what the text is trying to convey.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't see its relevance. A succession of 2 minutes or 20 years doesn't change the fact its still rolling the same roll again.
It is NOT the same roll if you have learned new information between the previous one and the new one. Leveling up, gaining more ranks in the skill, visiting a library, asking your buddy what the hell just hit you, all of these will allow a new roll later on. You just can't try your roll again without such circumstances.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You roll knowledge (religion) about skeletons at level 1. That pins what you know about skeletons. Per the rules, you can't roll that knowledge again at level 20. You've already rolled that and can't roll it again.
And then you added the part about never being able to learn anything new, even though the Knowledge skill doesn't impact learning at all.
If you roll your DC 5(ish?) Kn(rel) at 1st level and determine that your character knows they have DR/bludgeoning, the rules say you can't make another DC 5 Kn(rel) check and determine you actually know some other stuff too. The rules do not say that you are forever barred from going out and learning additional information directly, and retaining that information.
You can come to know all kinds of new stuff. You just can't do it by re-rolling previous Knowledge checks.
You just can't do it by re-rolling previous Knowledge checks.
Right which is all I'm saying and asking others how they manage that aspect of the game.
It is NOT the same roll if you have learned new information between the previous one and the new one. Leveling up, gaining more ranks in the skill, visiting a library, asking your buddy what the hell just hit you, all of these will allow a new roll later on. You just can't try your roll again without such circumstances.
These are the house rules I'm talking about. I don't see these situations built into the game, common they may be.
Common sense and reading the whole rules may not be common, but they are not houserules.
You are purposefully ignoring the meaning of the word successive, the started rules definition of the try again clause, and the basic notion that the game is supposed to represent a verisimile world.
Your statements seem to only represent something you want to get mad about even if no pathfinder game would be subject to it.
I'm far from mad. I found a method to deal with them that works for me. If anything, I'm more being reminded this board is about binaries and not discussion.
Cura te ipsum
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You just can't do it by re-rolling previous Knowledge checks.Right which is all I'm saying
No, that's not all you're saying.
This wholesale stops a character from growing, as if what they know at level 1 is ostensibly what they'll know at level 20.
Saying "This rule stops you from growing" is NOT the same thing as saying "Your growing can't come via rerolling these checks".
Either you didn't really understand what was on the screen in front of you when you said "That's all I'm saying", or you're changing your stance and pretending it's what you said all along, just to avoid looking "wrong" in public. In either case, you're not left with much room for your "everyone else isn't really interested in discussion" accusations.
Be attentive. Be honest. Be listened to.
Jiggy, I was enjoying your last post until you had a sentence end with a preposition. I could feel my brain twitch with that one. It is one of the few grammatical errors that do bother me.
You just can't do it by re-rolling previous Knowledge checks.Right which is all I'm sayingNo, that's not all you're saying.
This wholesale stops a character from growing, as if what they know at level 1 is ostensibly what they'll know at level 20.Saying "This rule stops you from growing" is NOT the same thing as saying "Your growing can't come via rerolling these checks".
Either you didn't really understand what was on the screen in front of you when you said "That's all I'm saying", or you're changing your stance and pretending it's what you said all along, just to avoid looking "wrong" in public. In either case, you're not left with much room for your "everyone else isn't really interested in discussion" accusations.
Be attentive. Be honest. Be listened to.
I'll concede my wording may have been off. However, what you said in your post that I quoted was my intent from the start. I never said "this rule stops you from growing." I said what I did with a preposition to present the base and then to further clarify tying the whole sentence around knowledge checks. To imply I'm talking about anything other than knowledge checks in a topic wholly devoted to them is frankly absurd. Why would I derail my own thread from the first post? It doesn't make sense. Maybe I'm relying too much on grammar and associative inference.
The point stands. If, for some reason, you rolled all the knowledge checks at level 1 that could potentially exist, you could not ever make another knowledge check. This stops the character from growing... (with respect to knowledge, since this apparently needs explicitly said in my own thread about the knowledge skill). This basically requires a lot of bookkeeping for both players and GMs. On players because it's their character and also on GMs to adjudicate rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point stands. If, for some reason, you rolled all the knowledge checks at level 1 that could potentially exist, you could not ever make another knowledge check.
That is an impossibility, for the reason I stated up-thread.
The point stands. If, for some reason, you rolled all the knowledge checks at level 1 that could potentially exist, you could not ever make another knowledge check.That is an impossibility, for the reason I stated up-thread.
It's not. Consider you're trying to re-examine some clues to a puzzle at a later date. Same puzzle, no new information or clues, all that's changed is that you leveled. It's still the same knowledge check. Then again I would classify them as such:
knowledge (type) -> purpose
As long as the type and purpose remain the same, I would consider them the same check.
|
|
It's not. Consider you're trying to re-examine some clues to a puzzle at a later date. Same puzzle, no new information or clues, all that's changed is that you leveled. It's still the same knowledge check.
Agreed. That's why you can't retry that check.
Once you have gained new knowledge, you can try a new check on the same subject. This is usually called out in 3.5 as represented by gaining another rank in the Knowledge skill in question.
Agreed. That's why you can't retry that check.
Once you have gained new knowledge, you can try a new check on the same subject. This is usually called out in 3.5 as represented by gaining another rank in the Knowledge skill in question.
I think this might be my disconnect with the other posters. My experience with 3.5 is basically zero. I don't have that kind of history with the knowledge skill.
Say I am level 1, and am rolling Knowledge Religion for info on Skeletons. I failed my roll in round 1 of the encounter.
When would you allow a re-roll?
In the same encounter after a round passes?
In the same encounter if someone does Aid Another that changes your check DC?
After you flee the encounter and come across the same skeletons later that day?
Joe's Breakpoint is here; earlier = no new check; below this point = enjoy a new roll.
After you defeat the encounter (gaining XP specifically against that type of enemy) and come across more skeletons later that day?
After you defeat the encounter (gaining XP specifically against that type of enemy) and come across more skeletons the next day?
After a level up? You gained enough experience to gain new feats /spells / class features. You get at least 19 re-rolls if you encounter Skeletons at every level if you answer "yes" here.
After the spell Fox's Cunning was cast on you and is still in effect?
After you gain a point in Intelligence from level up? If you have reached level 4 and used the +1 on intellect, maybe you managed to find info in approximately 4 levels.
After getting a Headband/Tome/Ioun Stone with Intelligence?
After you specifically put a new skill point in Knowledge Religion?
After you visit a library or consult with some NPC specifically on Skeleton abilities?
I really cannot see that you would only ever get to roll that Knowledge check once as a level 1 Fighter with 1 rank in Knowledge Religion and a temporary 1 in Intelligence (say some ability damage). What if you select 19 more levels as a Bard, max the ranks in K:Religion, exceed super-genius intelligence now, and attend a dissertation on Skeletons in the land's highest university?
I really cannot see that you would only ever get to roll that Knowledge check once as a level 1 Fighter with 1 rank in Knowledge Religion and a temporary 1 in Intelligence (say some ability damage). What if you select 19 more levels as a Bard, max the ranks in K:Religion, exceed super-genius intelligence now, and attend a dissertation on Skeletons in the land's highest university?
Unfortunately, that's what the "try again" entry under the knowledge skill says. For all the extremely wordy rules in the game, that section begins with a very curt and simple "no" with a period and goes on further simply to justify the no.
This definitely impacts how I approach a new gaming table. I start my little dictionary of knowledge checks and don't do frivolous checks. For example, I'd never roll a know (rel) on solar angels at level 1 or even 5. I might need that later. That said, if a GM is more relaxed with them, sweet. I simply don't expect them to be.
As for how I would run it? For one devoted to the topic, I might let a library spark a new roll for one or two additional bits of info unless it's a super rare collection of works which might get you more. But, I'd also mark that library with those bits of info so anyone else coming along would get the same results using the same library. That's one way and takes a "anyone reading these books gets x" approach. Alternatively, I might let a character's knowledge modifier let them understand the works and therefore each character might get something different out of it, but I'd still mark that library with the general scope of information it contains. It would depend on the kind of game I'm trying to run.
Buri,
I really think you're misreading the rule on no rerolls. I suspect you choose not to be convinced. It is an interesting take on it.
It may not convince you, but I will describe my knowledge-monkey character. She has a couple ranks of profession (librarian). She visits every library she can, and just reads. A bookseller is far more interesting than any bar. (She has her own section in her guild's private library. She has heard of the Eternal Library, and finding it is high on her list. When she doesn't know something, she goes and finds out.
Would you think that one role would pin her knowledge for life?
Or am I being clueless and you were doing a reductio ad absurdism argument?
I really think you're misreading the rule on no rerolls. I suspect you choose not to be convinced. It is an interesting take on it.
My take on the no rerolls is my honest assessment of what that text means. Even walking away and making a perfectly calm review of that section I still come away with the same conclusion.
I would wager the way it's been described here is simply so common and used to be the standard rule in 3.5 that it is simply ingrained into the very fabric of how people treat the knowledge skill in Pathfinder because it came from D&D and is subsequently passed on because that's how it's taught to others. Mix that history and dynamic with some group reinforced "I'm right"-ness shoring up each others view on how it's ran and of course I appear to be the one in the wrong. However, I don't think I'm wrong because of the text of the rule. I'm basically simply being outvoted on the boards. I'm wrong because the group says I'm wrong.
I really think you're misreading the rule on no rerolls. I suspect you choose not to be convinced. It is an interesting take on it.My take on the no rerolls is my honest assessment of what that text means. Even walking away and making a perfectly calm review of that section I still come away with the same conclusion.
Nobody is doubting your honesty, but the simple fact that you believe to be something one way, even if there is plentiful evidence that it is not, does not make you right.
Interestingly, the main point of your argument, the crux of it, is that you think that "successive" on the try again condition means that "with an indeterminate amount of time between them", rather than the clearer "consecutive" meaning. You said it could mean a "succession of time", when a "succession of time" is NOT an interval of time, but the flow of time itself.
Could you please tell me what possible use could the word "successive" in that rules sentence if it was meant to imply that "you cannot retry this ability BETWEEN PERIODS OF TIME"? Why would it have been added?
Once you attempt to explain whatever reasoning that could have, because I am honestly curious, I can show you several examples in game in which abilities reference the ability to retry knowledge checks at later periods as an implied thing.
My take on the no rerolls is my honest assessment of what that text means. Even walking away and making a perfectly calm review of that section I still come away with the same conclusion.
I might argue it's an overly literal and overly pedantic interpretation that makes no attempt to understand what really constitutes a skill check and what is really meant by successive. I might even say that your deflection of other posters' attempts to breathe a little more flexibility and subtlety into the meaning of the rules makes the jump to willfully pedantic. Is there a reason you're grinding that particular axe?
If I fail a knowledge check and then gather information in character, no knowledge check is required, e.g., I observe skeletons taking less damage from slashing weapons and full damage from blunt weapons.
If I add an additional rank in a knowledge skill I, by definition, know more on the subject than I used to.
Prior limitations on my knowledge may no longer apply. My knowledge of the subject matter has increased.
@Buri: The developers have repeatedly stated the rules were written under the assumption players were capable of applying common sense. Once again, the developers have been proven wrong.
Should you wish to be truly pedantic and record all failed knowledge checks, don't forget to record all successful knowledge checks and all information observed by the characters in game. Once information has been obtained by a character in-game, there is no mechanic for forgetting that information.
I really think you're misreading the rule on no rerolls. I suspect you choose not to be convinced. It is an interesting take on it.My take on the no rerolls is my honest assessment of what that text means. Even walking away and making a perfectly calm review of that section I still come away with the same conclusion.
I think you are making a fundamental mistake in your analysis that are causing this confusion, others have tried to explain that with little success, but I am willing to try it.
The key is the meaning of 'successive' in this context, which as far as I can tell you are pretty much ignoring. Successive, i.e. right after another. In this case, the most common sense way to read that is making the same check, with nothing that would cause it to change would not be allowed. If something changes, such as you gain a new skill rank, you get a bonus for research, or your INT modifier changes, then it is perfectly acceptable to conclude that the check is not successive and you can make a new roll.
You seem dead set on refusing to accept this common sense interpretation of the rules, I'm hoping that was simply because you didn't get the point they were trying to make, and that my restatement will make more sense to you.
For those bothered by the idea that one rank in knowledge local would give access to information about a bar maid on Castrovel, the answer to this is already built into the system as well. The GM is able to (and encouraged to when appropriate) add in a circumstance modifier and/or adjust the DC for such things.