|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Here is what the SRD says about Monster Lore rule under Knowledge Skills.
Monster Lore:
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities.
Check: In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
I feel that "a bit of useful information" means on a success the character who wants to know the Special Powers of a Vampire gets one or two pieces of information. If he beats the DC by 5 he gets another one or two pieces of information etc
I have a player who feels that if he succeeds on the his check I have to tell him ALL the Special Powers listed under Special Abilities for Vampire (9 in total) which at DC 24 isn't that hard for a 1st level Cleric with ranks in Religion.
Paizo simple question, who is correct here?
success and ever 5 is 1 piece of useful info
success it's a vampire, it's undead with undead traits and <one info>
info:
negative energy drain on it's slams.
it can dominate you
it can shapechange
when it's defeated it turns to gas and returns to it's coffin
the only way to kill a vamp is by X, Y and Z
It has SR (not sure if applicable to vamps)
It has DR beat by silver
so you'd need a +30 over the DC to get all that info.
|
The knowledge rules are (probably intentionally) VERY, VERY vague and the GM gets to decide how much information to give.
In PFS the knowledge rules are one of the areas where there is HUGE table variation.
I doubt very much that this is going to change. It would be a large amount of work to even come up with guidelines, let alone reasonably hard and fast rules
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any character can pump a skill hard if the player tries.. at the expense of other skills, though.
1 Rank, Class Skill is +3, Skill Focus is +3, a Trait may add another +1, Int score can add anywhere from +0 to +2 (if we're not talking about an Int-based caster.. then higher is possible) .. so that's +8 to +10 already.. putting DC 24 in reach with a roll as low as 14... at first level.
YMMV on what is "hard", of course. :)
This thread will probably join the many others complaining about the vagueness of Knowledge checks.
For what it is worth, the results are what the CHARACTER knows, not what the PLAYER knows. He may get "they don't much damage from weapons that do not have enhancemens".. they typically are not intended to get "they have DR 10/magic".
Also for what it is worth.. I recommend checking out Monster Focus: Gravelings (a free PDF sample product from Minotaur games... Jason Bulmahn's side work. It shows a new monster, the Graveling, and the results of knowledge checks for it. That pretty well showcases how at least one of the Pathfinder Design Team sees them working.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The knowledge rules are (probably intentionally) VERY, VERY vague and the GM gets to decide how much information to give.
In PFS the knowledge rules are one of the areas where there is HUGE table variation.
I doubt very much that this is going to change. It would be a large amount of work to even come up with guidelines, let alone reasonably hard and fast rules
+1
Everything about knowledge checks is vague. To even get the target DC for the check, the DM has to make a determination based on the relative scarcity or obscurity of the critter in question. So all you can do is just roll with it.
Some friends who play PFS told me that for every five points over the target DC, they get to ask a question like:
- does it have any special protection, like DR?
- does it have any special attacks?
- does it have any immunities?
- does it have any vulnerabilities? etc.
This seems like as good a solution as any. At the end of the day, only the DM can determine how much info he wants to impart in a given situation.
It does not need more clarification... you quote the answer to your question for godsake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does not need more clarification... you quote the answer to your question for godsake.
What's missing if how much information should be learned per success and +5. You can't get much vaguer than 'a bit'. Is it has energy resistances a bit? It that it has multiple ones? Is it that it has fire and cold resist? Is it that it had Resist fire and cold 20? It's left up to 'whatever your DM thinks a bit means' which can vary wildly from table to table.
Who decides when a monster is normal and when it is rare?
The GM.Who decides when a monster is normal and when it is rare?
The GM is in a pinch then.
What could be monsters of common knowledge?
One might think it is determined by CR, after all, the more dangerous something is, the less likely there is going to be recorded knowledge of such monsters as they slay their finders. But I find this wrong, because while this makes sense for first 2 bestiaries, there are now so many very obscure low CR monsters, I can't think of them all being common knowledge.
Maybe it is by beastiary books. First Beasitiary has all those classical monsters like goblins and fire beetles that fit into idea of common knowledge. But it also has Aboleths and Froghemoth so it is not foolproof.
It is an interesting question. Mostly because it is kinda metaquestion, because we all have different exposures to different monsters. Lot of classic, "common" monsters are really rare in my games.
|
|
The GM.Who decides when a monster is normal and when it is rare?
The GM is in a pinch then.
What could be monsters of common knowledge?
One might think it is determined by CR, after all, the more dangerous something is, the less likely there is going to be recorded knowledge of such monsters as they slay their finders. But I find this wrong, because while this makes sense for first 2 bestiaries, there are now so many very obscure low CR monsters, I can't think of them all being common knowledge.
Maybe it is by beastiary books. First Beasitiary has all those classical monsters like goblins and fire beetles that fit into idea of common knowledge. But it also has Aboleths and Froghemoth so it is not foolproof.
It is an interesting question. Mostly because it is kinda metaquestion, because we all have different exposures to different monsters. Lot of classic, "common" monsters are really rare in my games.
or to sum all that up, "it up to the GM" what is common and what is rare. Not really in a pinch at all. It's not even a metaquestion. Bestiaries don't determine what is common and rare, how and when the creatures show up in the GM's campaign is what determines if they're common or rare.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was not about if GM decides or not.
But how he will decide.
Forget it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the setting, region of the setting, events in the setting and many other factors which render suggestions such as 'goblins are very common' useless.
GM's job is to call such shots. No guide will do that better than him/her.
Precisely.
Are you in Numeria? Then robots are common. Outside Numeria? Rare.
Are you in Mendev? Then demons are common. Outside Mendev? Rare.
Are you playing Giantslayer? You see where I'm going with this, I'm sure.
Our group has never had a problem with the way Knowledge skills work; and while I happen to prefer the way that they were handled in 4E, that kind of a system simply doesn't work in 3.x/PF.
First off, to address the OP's question: you are correct, your player is wrong, you quoted the text that supports your position, and you get to decide what information to give.
One thing that our group does frequently when making Knowledge checks is to ask for specific information; for instance, "I'm going to make a Knowledge check, but I'm wracking my brain over trying to remember if this creature has any resistances."
Sometimes the GM decides to share that, sometimes not, "Try as you might, you can't remember if the creature has any resistances, but since you beat the DC by 5, you do remember that they're known for..."
When our group does relay if there are resistances, we also don't throw out numbers; we give an answer based on the capabilities of the party.
So early on, resist fire 5 might be relayed as, "The creature is resistant to fire," but later on, it'd be relayed as "The creature has a minor resistance to fire."
In any case, I'm not going to hit FAQ on this, because I believe you've answered your own question and that it's important for GMs to be encouraged to make decisions for their game. PF has very codified rules in many cases, but it's decidedly not a computer game.
As Moss says in the IT Crowd, "It uses the most powerful processor known to man... the human mind."
Are you in Numeria? Then robots are common. Outside Numeria? Rare.
Are you in Mendev? Then demons are common. Outside Mendev? Rare.
Are you playing Giantslayer? You see where I'm going with this, I'm sure.
So you're saying the DC could even change based on who is making the check and where they are from?
I really don't believe that is the intent. No other skill in the game works like that, why would knowledge?
Such a house rule makes the skill so complete!y arbitrary, to the point of "why even bother?" So much is left to the GM at that point that it's not really a rule anymore, it's only ever by the graces of the GM that you ever learn anything at all. Best get out his favorite candy.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you in Numeria? Then robots are common. Outside Numeria? Rare.
Are you in Mendev? Then demons are common. Outside Mendev? Rare.
Are you playing Giantslayer? You see where I'm going with this, I'm sure.
So you're saying the DC could even change based on who is making the check and where they are from?
I really don't believe that is the intent. No other skill in the game works like that, why would knowledge?
Such a house rule makes the skill so complete!y arbitrary, to the point of "why even bother?" So much is left to the GM at that point that it's not really a rule anymore, it's only ever by the graces of the GM that you ever learn anything at all. Best get out his favorite candy.
I'm sensing a bit of bitterness. It's not a house rule since common and rare aren't even defined. They're left up to the GM.
"No other skill in the game works like that, why would knowledge."
Because those other skills aren't Knowledge skills. More on point, knowledge represents what your character knows, so of course two people from vastly different places would most likely have different DCs and/or views on creatures, unlike Perception which is how aware you are.
These rules aren't in effect to prevent players from determining things about creatures, and if your GM is doing this that's on them, not the rules.
It is easier to make the call when there is clear theme in place. In demon land you probably know demons. But it gets kinda harder with monsters from later bestiaries that are just weird. So as GM, I am tempted to just slap "rare" on all of them because they really don't seem to fit normally into anything.
So I usually just go by CR to determined if it is rare or not, even if it is not perfect. Not the most intuitive solution, but workable. Although it did lead to one conflict once because players knew a demilich, but they could not beat the knowledge roll to identify it. I deemed it rare and DC 29 is high enough not to be beat easily.
specific named creatures are always gonna be rare as they're unique - just the generic creature is probably always going to be common unless it's a creature type that's new to the campaign. Say you're playing WotR (almost solely demons), if it's a demon you've seen before it's 10+CR, if it's a lower than normal power for your lvl it's possibly 5+CR (I generally give the PCs +5 to check if they've seen it ever before, +10 if they've seen it recently), but the 1st time you see a new demon type that's relatively rare it's 15+CR, or that named demon that's the boss of a section, def 15+CR
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you in Numeria? Then robots are common. Outside Numeria? Rare.
Are you in Mendev? Then demons are common. Outside Mendev? Rare.
Are you playing Giantslayer? You see where I'm going with this, I'm sure.
So you're saying the DC could even change based on who is making the check and where they are from?
I really don't believe that is the intent. No other skill in the game works like that, why would knowledge?
Such a house rule makes the skill so complete!y arbitrary, to the point of "why even bother?" So much is left to the GM at that point that it's not really a rule anymore, it's only ever by the graces of the GM that you ever learn anything at all. Best get out his favorite candy.
Normally I agree with you Ravingdork, but on this one I have to disagree. What a rare creature is or isn't depends on the experiences of an individual. I doubt you'd have an issue with a GM running an adventure in a custom-world where the Undead are basically unknown, essentially don't exist. In that case, the DC to identify any undead creature would effectively by based on the Rare 15+CR value; you are unlikely to have heard of a skeleton.
I don't see why this is different for different areas of Golarion; Nagaji are an incredibly rare race in the Inner Sea, so the DC 15 knowledge (local) check makes sense. In Zom Kullan, the capital of Nagajor, there are ~80,000 citizens, primarily Nagaji. Why would it be a DC 15 Knowledge(local) check to someone born and raised in Zom Kullan? The same applies in any knowledge check. If you're a human born in Mendev, and raised in Mendev, Demons are a constant threat. You'll be taught to identify the obvious characteristics of a demon, because why wouldn't you? Whereas if you were born as a human in Almas, there is a lot less of a reason to be taught about recognizing demons - maybe Devils, for your fights with Cheliax.
Can also do the same for Darklands vs surface - I'm slowly writing a campaign set in the Vaults of Orv. Why would it be a DC 5 check to identify a halfling, but a DC 19 check to identify a Xulgath if you were raised in Deep Tolguth?
Essentially, why would something being common or rare not be affected by the culture in which you were raised?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the DCs might well vary from campaign setting to campaign setting, but the rules should generally work the same across a given setting.
Goblins are rather common all across Golarion, but the Tarrasque is rare.
In a homebrew game, the Tarrasque might be as common as goblins are on Golarion.
I don't think it should get more complicated than "campaign world."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never said it did or didn't makes sense, just that I don't think the DCs are expected to vary so widely as to be practically arbitrary.
Thanks for all of you who replied with thoughtful answers, however the thread has gone on a different, though interesting tangent.
So can we at least agree that a single Successful Knowledge Monster Lore check DOES NOT give you ALL the monsters Vulnerabilities or Special Abilities?
No, I would not agree with this. I personally find "A bit" to give all of the vulnerabilities, or all of the special abilities, is already far too hard to pick up all the information about a monster. If you break it down one by one, you can end up with a 50+ knowledge check and still be missing relevant information about a vampire. As a result, I usually attempt to be as permissive as possible with regards to what constitutes "A bit".
I do agree that knowledge skills could use a large reworking in this regard, but I would much prefer it to move the other direction, where hitting a DC 25 or so over the check just lets you essentially look at the bestiary entry, with lots of information doled out in 5 pt buckets between the DC and that point. It should not be effectively impossible to learn everything there is to know about moderately complex monsters.
So can we at least agree that a single Successful Knowledge Monster Lore check DOES NOT give you ALL the monsters Vulnerabilities or Special Abilities?
Well that all depends on what a 'bit' means now doesn't it. To some, that may mean they get all that info while others may only let you know it HAS Vulnerabilities or Special Abilities but not what they are. So a made check can vary from super useful to essentially useless depending on how big/small a 'bit' is.
Well, the rules do specify useful.
LOL That's almost as bad as 'a bit'. Useful in what way? Knowing that a monster in front of you has a vulnerability could be thought of as useful but if that's all you learn, it's pretty useless. Now if you can call a time out, go to a library and find out exactly what it's vulnerable to - THEN it's truly useful. I mean, if I find the info the DM gave me useless do I get to ask for more info?
What would be nice is actual examples of what the game expects rolls to get you, just like they give pictures under cover, flanking ect to show you what they mean. Here is a common monster: here is what a made check gives, here is what a +5 check gives, ect. Some general guidelines so a player can have confidence in what making a know check will get them.
Right now, it's as clear as alignments and we all KNOW how differently 2 people can see an action's/character's alignment depending on POV/perspective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you're saying the DC could even change based on who is making the check and where they are from?
I really don't believe that is the intent. No other skill in the game works like that, why would knowledge?
I don't think it would be bad to have other skills work that way too.
Let's say a PC is suddenly transported to the far side of Golarion and they're trying to:
Find food in the wilderness with Survival skill when the plants aren't familiar.
Identifying a valuable stamp with the Appraise skill without knowing what's common or rare in these parts.
Or use Diplomacy when unfamiliar with what the locals consider to be polite.
Giving someone a -5 circumstance penalty wouldn't be unreasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like "how much do you actually know about this monster if you make the knowledge check" is something best left to GM discretion. The rule has built into it "it's 5+CR for common monsters, but more for rarer monsters" and I'd prefer to avoid having to do 20+CR for particularly rare (or unique) monsters because the alternative is having to tell the player everything about it if they make the roll. What's "common" and what's "rare" is going to vary from place to place and only the GM can really make that call.
I tend to play it as "exceeding the DC, and by every 5 you beat it by, you get to ask one question which I will answer truthfully". Thereby approximating "useful" by telling the player what he or she wants to know. So the player passing the check against the vampire by 5 can know its bad save and its DR, or "how to kill it for good" and "it can dominate you" or whatever the player wants to ask about.
I'm totally on board for circumstantial penalties for things like "diplomacy when meeting a new culture" or "survival in an unfamiliar biome" though. That's how I've always played it, and this seems like what circumstantial modifiers are for in the first place.
Thanks for all of you who replied with thoughtful answers, however the thread has gone on a different, though interesting tangent.
So can we at least agree that a single Successful Knowledge Monster Lore check DOES NOT give you ALL the monsters Vulnerabilities or Special Abilities?
Yes, you shouldn't get to automatically know everything unless you've also crushed the DC.
I am a supporter of the "let the PCs ask a question for every 5 pts they beat the DC". At least that way they get the piece of information that wanted to try and recall instead of whatever the GM tells them.
Giving someone a -5 circumstance penalty wouldn't be unreasonable.
I'd be more inclined to use the modifiers from Perception: Favorable conditions [–2 DC], Unfavorable conditions [+2 DC], Terrible conditions [+5 DC].
I can't really say more than abit, because different creatures have different numbers of different ability types. It can't specify which creatures are rare and which are common, because that's going to be different from region to region and campaign to campaign.
So, once again, we reach the point where the clarified rule comes down to "GM's call"... and a number of folks are not comfortable with that.
I've made my peace with it by working out my approach.
I think part of the issue is when the GM is caught unprepared to answer the question, and puts himself/herself under pressure for it. Knowledge checks are probably not high on most GMs' preparations list, so when it comes up, they're stuck more often than not. At that point, the vagueness of "a useful bit of information" just adds to any tension the GM already feels.
I am presently preparing Rise of the Runelords and Second Daekness in the Realm Works program from Lone Wolf Development (makers of HeroLab).
For this, I added a "Critter" type of entry, with the specifics of the creature for my own use (type, Subtypes, my impression of rarity in the setting [Varisia], my impression of overall notoriety in the setting) and items of information that may be revealed by a knowledge check.
I calculate the Base DC from 10 + [modifier for rarity] (values of -5, 0, +5, +10, +15, +25 and +50) + modifier for fame] (fame is a negative adjustment... 0, -4, -7, or -10)
Absolutely new creatures for the adventure are +50 rarity.
Templates are handled as a separate knowledge check (not fully fleshed out yet how I will handle Simple vs Acquired and Inherited).
Variants and creatures that advance with levels are based on the "standard race".
Creatures with more than one version (Elementals, Dragons) are based on the species as a whole, with powers gained later requiring higher DCs to "remember".
In the end, probably 90% of the DCs for creatures are pretty close to 10+CR. There are a few oddball entries, but 10+CR is close enough to make me think that worrying about rarity and fame is more trouble than it is worth, except for the outliers (which should either be "impossible" or "too easy", generally).
I can't really say more than abit, because different creatures have different numbers of different ability types.
That's why I suggest a few examples instead of 'a bit'. Take some fairly complicated monster, like a balrog. Highlight sections of the stats that should count as one bit. Then do that for a few different types to cover the majority of abilities. That way at least everyone is starting at the same point. It seems like the perfect thing for a blog post.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you're saying the DC could even change based on who is making the check and where they are from?
I really don't believe that is the intent. No other skill in the game works like that, why would knowledge?
I don't think it would be bad to have other skills work that way too.
Let's say a PC is suddenly transported to the far side of Golarion and they're trying to:
Find food in the wilderness with Survival skill when the plants aren't familiar.
Identifying a valuable stamp with the Appraise skill without knowing what's common or rare in these parts.
Or use Diplomacy when unfamiliar with what the locals consider to be polite.Giving someone a -5 circumstance penalty wouldn't be unreasonable.
Without weighing in on the thread's main question, I definitely adjust Knowledge DCs based on the PC's specific background, though in almost every case I use discretion to lower the DC for the PC because they have a background that makes something more common (and I almost always adjust the DCs like in graystone's example rather than provide circumstances bonuses or penalties because if the DC decreases to 10, the info is accessible without ranks in the skill). For example, in a PFS scenario, there was a DC 25 Knowledge: Religion check to identify a holy symbol of an obscure goddess, but I made the DC lower for the PC in the party who worshiped that deity because that holy symbol isn't obscure for that PC (he owned one himself). A funny moment came recently when I was running an adventure written by Linda (who does the same sort of thing in the same style) for planar pregen PCs, and I hadn't fully prepared it in advance. I told one of the PCs who had spent a lot of time in Golarion that a Golarian specific question had a lower DC for her than the rest of the group, then in the next paragraph the adventure instructed me to lower the DC for that PC by precisely the same amount as I had said.
If your in Kanto articuno is a rare encounter
if your in janto lugia is a rare encounter
If you playing borderlands a Bad@$$ spiderant is a rare encounter.
*sneaks off*