|
I have a question on knowledge checks; because the raw states that you can “answer a question within your field of study” and it states that “ in most cases, a knowledge check doesn't take an action” My DM has determined that knowledge checks require an action during combat and that you must specify the type of knowledge check you are making ie. Arcana, planes nature ect before doing the check.
Does anyone have any RAW or official ruling that can help me persuade my DM differently.
The "In most cases, a knowledge check doesn't take an action" explicitly refers you to the untrained section, which states
"You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit is removed. The time to make checks using a library, however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in the fields that they cover."
Which means that it takes an action only if you're using a library to assist, which takes 1d4 hours.
In short, your DM is wrong and should feel bad for neutering knowledge skills to the point of being completely worthless.
The description for knowledge skills very obviously shows that it only takes time to make a Knowledge check if you're doing research in a library.
Basic knowledge of the English language?
There is literally no way to interpret that sentence to mean anything else.
|
|
My DM is getting me on the arbitrary language; saying that it would say if there were no other times that it couldn't require a skill use it would state that it doesn't require a skill unless using untrained or in a library. Rather it states that in most cases and that the library could be seen as an example of such a case not the only example however.
I understand the frustration on this one and I appreciate any and all help that I can use to convince my DM.
Thank you,
Corb
If he can't read, he can't read. There's not much I can do about illiteracy.
At the very least, if it takes an action every time, then it's hardly 'usually takes no action', is it?
Also, if you have to take an action - and decide at random which skill to apply in a given situation - it's kinda completely worthless. You can wander around killing things because reasons, I guess, but actually knowing that they are things and they are the things you mean to kill and all that's a good idea.
When your DM is awful and nerfs something you have for no particularly good reason, and can't be negotiated with:
a) ask for a rebuild
If that doesn't solve the issue,
b) leave
*edit*
Worth mentioning that he is completely wrong. He has parsed the rules text very poorly. Unfortunately, because Pathfinder rules text does need to be parsed (it assumes a level of literacy), it does leave itself open to be misread like this on occasion. I've seen some weird rulings in my time from bad DMs.
I am with you I have devoted 2/3 of my skill points to knowledge skills; then my DM throws this on me. But without some sort of official ruling he is stating that his decision is justified by RAW so...
Except his decision isn't justified by RAW. A KC doesn't take an action. "In most cases." Alright, if you're trying to analyze something then maybe - but what? a swift action? move? But just to recognize something and inform the Player what they recall, no - no time at all.
|
Considering the only 2 time (or action) restrictions listed for knowledge checks are either none, or 1d4 hours, it's funny that your GM came up with "a" action to identify. There's nothing in the book that supports it. This sounds more like a knee jerk reaction from an inexperienced GM (or one who simply never reads the rules) to limit something he doesn't like, or doesn't think is right. But according to the rules you recognize something the moment you see it. Now being able to tell your team-mates all the enemies weaknesses and special abilities is something else. The GM can limit free actions (like talking) on your turn, and since you only have 6 seconds a turn it might take a lot of speed talking and short hand to explain what 4 distinct enemies are and what their weaknesses are. But you should be able to know immediately everything your knowledge rolls tell you.
|
Actually, there is a special case, in a couple of places, where there is a different action called out for knowledge checks, but they are class/ability specifgic, and never go hihgher than a STandard action, and give more than just information for the check.
Lore Warden "Know Thy Enemy" ability at 7th level, for one, starts as a Standard, gets faster as get higher in level, but you also get a bonus to hit and damage.
The RAW doesn't support what he's saying.
Think about how many times you've used - or would have used - a knowledge skill.
How many of those were in combat? Most of them? Well, most of the time it doesn't take an action.
Every person in this thread recognizes how RAW and RAI work on this. There isn't some other ruling we can pull out to make it any clearer, except maybe something obscure from a specific NPC's stat block or a module or something.
If he won't acquiesce, you'll have to ask yourself if you'll still enjoy playing despite his complete obstinancy. If yes, well, keep playing and live with it. If no, then stop playing.
Actually, there is a special case, in a couple of places, where there is a different action called out for knowledge checks, but they are class/ability specifgic, and never go hihgher than a STandard action, and give more than just information for the check.
Lore Warden "Know Thy Enemy" ability at 7th level, for one, starts as a Standard, gets faster as get higher in level, but you also get a bonus to hit and damage.
Yep, if it isn't specifically called out by an ability, it's MORE THAN SAFE to assume it falls into the "usually doesn't take an action" category.
Your GM sound like he is being deliberately obtuse for some reason. Bring him to this thread. We will set him straight. If he isn't swayed after seeing this thread, then I strongly suspect there's something else wrong here other than a simple misinterpretation of the rules.
Man, if he can't get that one right, what else might he get wrong??? That's one of the most plainly written rules in the game!
I'm not defending the OP's GM, nor am I saying I agree, but I understand the desire to limit knowledge checks on monsters. For one there's no clear-cut definition of exactly what info the PCs know based on their knowledge check. For another some PCs have a ridiculously high knowledge skill.
For example there is an inquisitor PC in my current game. She has Knowledge: Dungeoneering with 4 ranks. Her total check for monster lore against dungeon dwellers like aberrations or slimes is +15 from stats, a magic item and skill. Even on a 1 she gets some basic info from a CR1 or below monsters; her average of 25 (10 on a d20 +15) is so high compared to monsters of the party's APL that I usually just read most of the Bestiary entry.
If you're playing a gritty or horror-themed game or the GM is trying to keep monsters fantastic in some way such high checks can really deflate the mood quick. "You see a hideous, lamprey-mouthed humanoid with gray flesh and tentacles..." Knowledge check... "I mean, you see a Choker, CR 1 with a Grab attack and much of its defense wrapped up in high Dex. Please note the Aberration qualities here..."
Anyway, that's my 2CP.
I'm not defending the OP's GM, nor am I saying I agree, but I understand the desire to limit knowledge checks on monsters. For one there's no clear-cut definition of exactly what info the PCs know based on their knowledge check. For another some PCs have a ridiculously high knowledge skill.
For example there is an inquisitor PC in my current game. She has Knowledge: Dungeoneering with 4 ranks. Her total check for monster lore against dungeon dwellers like aberrations or slimes is +15 from stats, a magic item and skill. Even on a 1 she gets some basic info from a CR1 or below monsters; her average of 25 (10 on a d20 +15) is so high compared to monsters of the party's APL that I usually just read most of the Bestiary entry.
If you're playing a gritty or horror-themed game or the GM is trying to keep monsters fantastic in some way such high checks can really deflate the mood quick. "You see a hideous, lamprey-mouthed humanoid with gray flesh and tentacles..." Knowledge check... "I mean, you see a Choker, CR 1 with a Grab attack and much of its defense wrapped up in high Dex. Please note the Aberration qualities here..."
Anyway, that's my 2CP.
If you're playing a gritty or horror-themed game perhaps you should be playing in a gritty or horror-themed system? Pathfinder lends itself to extremely exceptional PCs... and if the PCs are setting their minds to knowing everything then they damn well can, within the ruleset.
Yeah. Complaining about characters gaining an advantage with a high knowledge check is like complaining that characters with a high attack bonus hit a lot.
Or the ones with a high sneak bonus sneak a lot, or the ones with a high spellcraft roll identify spells a lot, or the ones with a high bluff fall off cliffs a lot... wait.
|
|
I'm not defending the OP's GM, nor am I saying I agree, but I understand the desire to limit knowledge checks on monsters. For one there's no clear-cut definition of exactly what info the PCs know based on their knowledge check. For another some PCs have a ridiculously high knowledge skill.
For example there is an inquisitor PC in my current game. She has Knowledge: Dungeoneering with 4 ranks. Her total check for monster lore against dungeon dwellers like aberrations or slimes is +15 from stats, a magic item and skill. Even on a 1 she gets some basic info from a CR1 or below monsters; her average of 25 (10 on a d20 +15) is so high compared to monsters of the party's APL that I usually just read most of the Bestiary entry.
If you're playing a gritty or horror-themed game or the GM is trying to keep monsters fantastic in some way such high checks can really deflate the mood quick. "You see a hideous, lamprey-mouthed humanoid with gray flesh and tentacles..." Knowledge check... "I mean, you see a Choker, CR 1 with a Grab attack and much of its defense wrapped up in high Dex. Please note the Aberration qualities here..."
Anyway, that's my 2CP.
Best solution, in this case, would be to talk with your players, and make sure they understand the theme you are trying to convey.
If your players know X in advance, they can work with it.