Scenario calls for skill check, do you roll all options or only one?

[N N 959]

So a typical PFS scenario says something like this:

the PCs can attempt a Knowledge (religion), Spellcraft, or Heal check...

Does this mean the players can only choose one skill to make the attempt at or they can try all three skills? This is situation where failure does not preclude another PC from trying nor does anything prevent the PC from attempting another check if it were allowed.

If the answer is that you only choose one, why? If knowledge can be obtained from several different sources, why is the PC not allowed to overcome the obstacle from any and all skills that would provide insight?

For example, I may not know/remember the history of a region, but I might know/remember the geography. If K. Geography and K. History are both options, why would a PC not be able to tap both?

[WalterGM]

So first of all, this sounds like a specific situation that arose in a game you played in. If that's the case, more details are warranted to give an accurate response.

Generally speaking, for the skill checks asked at the start of the scenario to gather background information on the scenario in question, all of those skill checks are valid options. Each PC may make each skill check asked. As you say, you may not remember the history, but the geography.

I have never been at a table where the GM has limited a PC to only one skill check during the post-briefing skill check phase of a scenario.

[Razoack]

Walter Sheppard wrote:

So first of all, this sounds like a specific situation that arose in a game you played in. If that's the case, more details are warranted to give an accurate response.

Generally speaking, for the skill checks asked at the start of the scenario to gather background information on the scenario in question, all of those skill checks are valid options. Each PC may make each skill check asked. As you say, you may not remember the history, but the geography.

I have never been at a table where the GM has limited a PC to only one skill check during the post-briefing skill check phase of a scenario.

From what I understand from the post, this isn't the checks to get information (such as Knowledge Local, etc) at the start of the scenario but this is to notice something.

e.g. The PCs can find something if they make a DC 20 Perception or Survival check.

Correct me if I am wrong N N 959 but I believe this was the question you were asking?

[Nathan Monson]

usually, each PC can make at least one check, except when circumstances would prevent it.(ie. the PC isn't in the room)if there is no penalty for failure, and the PCs can retry; I see no reason to forbid them from retrying with another skill.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

My personal take is that if a character has invested precious skill ranks in multiple appropriate skills, they shouldn't be penalized for knowing things from different fields.

Sometimes 'cross-pollination' is the key to invention and whatnot?

And... some people build towards having all or most of the skills, so that tables aren't completely hosed when say, a K: Planes question comes up in addition to a K: Arcana and a K: Nobility.

To shut down an avenue of information acquisition seems unduly harsh to me?

[RealAlchemy]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

My personal take is that if a character has invested precious skill ranks in multiple appropriate skills, they shouldn't be penalized for knowing things from different fields.

Sometimes 'cross-pollination' is the key to invention and whatnot?

And... some people build towards having all or most of the skills, so that tables aren't completely hosed when say, a K: Planes question comes up in addition to a K: Arcana and a K: Nobility.

To shut down an avenue of information acquisition seems unduly harsh to me?

In a lot of the scenarios I've run it looks like the intent was to roll one check for each question in the beginning. The character who invested in a bunch of skills is more likely to have a skill to roll and gets to pick the skill with the most ranks.

[N N 959]

Razoack wrote:

e.g. The PCs can find something if they make a DC 20 Perception or Survival check.

Correct me if I am wrong N N 959 but I believe this was the question you were asking?

Correct. This is not in regards to the post-mission briefing, but any random situation where a PC can make a skill check and several options are given. For example, solving a puzzle, learning about an artifact, etc

Here's a random example from a Season 00 scenario:

Spoiler:

Most of the pictures show a human male, the right side of his body blackened and crackling with lightning and the le side pristine and glowing with a white radiance. A DC 15 Knowledge (religion) or bardic knowledge check reveals this gure to be Nethys, the god of magic.

These read as if the PC only gets one attempt. As a player, I don't recall GMs ever letting me use more than one skill on any skill attempts other than the post-briefing info-gather. So I'm wondering if there is widespread misinterpretation of how these skill checks are being handled or I'm missing something.

[N N 959]

Walter Sheppard wrote:

So first of all, this sounds like a specific situation that arose in a game you played in.

No, but I'm GMing one in which skill checks are called for and calling on my experience as a player, GMs are always asking players to choose one in these situations, rather than let players roll all that might apply. My instincts as a GM suggest that it would seem too easy to allow each PC to use every skill suggested.

However, GMing various scenarios, it occurs to me that it's never clear whether such skill checks allow a player to use all three or they have to choose one. Obviously there are skill checks for things like persuading an NPC that logically you only get one attempt because failure triggers something bad. I'm specifically referring to skill checks where nothing specifically stops a PC from making another attempt.

[Chess Pwn]

I've always ruled that they must pick one and only one to attempt

[Quentin Coldwater]

I've also seen everyone around here use one skill check only.
Say there's a dead body somewhere. The scenario says you can either make a Heal check or a Perception check. The flavour is that you can either use medical knowledge to see how long he's been dead for (rigor mortis and the like), or look at circumstantial evidence (insects crawling around). Say the DC for both is 20, and someone rolls a Heal 14. He concludes that he doesn't know anything about when the guy died. He says, "Oh, I'll make a Perception check instead, because you offered me that choice," and I'll say that's metagaming. You've already concluded there's nothing to know about it. Yeah, the different angle makes sense, but only if you all hit a dead end. I can try a different scientific approach to my thesis if one approach doesn't work, but only if I have a clue that my supposition bore any sort of fruit. I can't keep throwing myself against a wall, hoping it'll eventually fall over. This is the same. It's just a dead guy, nothing remarkable about it.

About the Geography vs History example, that's pretty much the same. It basically pulls from the same memory banks. If you want to know about Osirion, you probably know it has pyramids and mummies. If you have no clue where Osirion is in Golarion, but know all about its history, that seems weird to me. Especially if you reach the same final conclusion, such as with an either/or check like this.

[zauriel56]

I disagree with Quentin's first example of the dead body, you might determine your not sure based on the heal check, so you look for other things that might clue you into how long someone has been dead,

Unless it says they must pick one skill, I allow any and all skills available.

[tchrman35]

It's my opinion that having multiple options is not intended to give multiple d20 rolls. And if I'm asking for a roll, you don't get to reattempt it.

That is, if you walk into a room and say, "Can I look around with perception?" I'll say, "sure, take as much time as you'd like." You can roll 30 times, I don't care.

If you walk in the room and I say, "make me a perception check," you're getting that one shot (usually because something is about to happen).

I'm also pretty lenient about allowing other relevant skill checks. "Make me a heal check." "Can I use Profession (surgeon)?" "Heck yes, you can use that!"

In fact, that person might get extra information. Normal heal check: "Looks like they died from a piercing weapon. They were stabbed multiple times across their torso."

Profession: "These stab wounds aren't random. Someone knew just where to strike. This damage was precise and likely to a huge toll on them with each blow. Your quarry is capable of dealing high amounts of precision damage."

But no, if I ask for it, you get it once. This includes checks with multiple listed options.

[Spacelard]

Roll all and any skills as listed in the scenario.

What does it add to the game to restrict it to, say, just one of three options?

Does it add or subtract from the overall experience of play allowing all options available to those who have invested in a range of skills?

[N N 959]

For all the GMs that believe only one attempt is allowed, is there any PFS ruling or directive that clearly illustrates that this is how it is suppose to be played?

Thanks.

[N N 959]

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

I've also seen everyone around here use one skill check only.

Say there's a dead body somewhere. The scenario says you can either make a Heal check or a Perception check. The flavour is that you can either use medical knowledge to see how long he's been dead for (rigor mortis and the like), or look at circumstantial evidence (insects crawling around). Say the DC for both is 20, and someone rolls a Heal 14. He concludes that he doesn't know anything about when the guy died. He says, "Oh, I'll make a Perception check instead, because you offered me that choice," and I'll say that's metagaming. You've already concluded there's nothing to know about it. Yeah, the different angle makes sense, but only if you all hit a dead end. I can try a different scientific approach to my thesis if one approach doesn't work, but only if I have a clue that my supposition bore any sort of fruit. I can't keep throwing myself against a wall, hoping it'll eventually fall over. This is the same. It's just a dead guy, nothing remarkable about it.

About the Geography vs History example, that's pretty much the same. It basically pulls from the same memory banks. If you want to know about Osirion, you probably know it has pyramids and mummies. If you have no clue where Osirion is in Golarion, but know all about its history, that seems weird to me. Especially if you reach the same final conclusion, such as with an either/or check like this.

Going to have to disagree with both examples. I periodically am involved in negotiations with people. When I meet with them I often draw upon what they say in terms of making sense logically--my ability to make a Profession() skill check---and the vibe I get from them--Sense Motive. These are two entirely different skill sets. Sometimes I get a better read or sometimes the nuts and bolts of the discussion provide me with critical information--essentially getting a higher roll on one versus the other. You're suggesting that the PCs in PFS can't do that.

It occurs to me that aside from the info-gather portion at the beginning, there is a belief by some that no PC is ever allowed to approach a problem using different disciplines. That doesn't make any real world sense. But I agree that the way the scenarios are written, it does feel like there is an assumption that only one check is allowed.

Barring some past FAQ/directive, I'm hoping PFS heads of state might entertain a conversation on this. I would certainly vote that, where appropriate, PCs should benefit from using any skills the scenario identifies as useful in solving the problem.

[Jurassic Pratt]

I'm not aware of any ruling on this. So unless is specifically says you can't roll multiple skills for the situation it seems sort of anti-player to not allow it.

[terry_t_uk]

Why do we need a PFS directive on everything ?

The first rule of GM-ing is to use some common sesnse. Use what you think appropriate - in some cases, using all the skills will make sense (with each skill providing different information) and in other cases, only one will do.

[B.O.B.Johnson]

I think the key that is being overlooked is that in all the scenarios I've run, the optional skills says 'OR' not 'AND'.

To quote the original example:

Quote:

the PCs can attempt a Knowledge (religion), Spellcraft, or Heal check...

^ this reads a lot different than:

Quote:

the PCs can attempt a Knowledge (religion), Spellcraft, AND Heal check...

Also for instance, in the post-briefing knowledge check, numerous scenarios have a 'Knowledge (local) or Diplomacy (gather information)' check that is allowed. Meaning each PC can make either a knowledge local check or a diplomacy check, but not both.

[N N 959]

Terry Thambipillai wrote:

Why do we need a PFS directive on everything ?

The first rule of GM-ing is to use some common sesnse. Use what you think appropriate - in some cases, using all the skills will make sense (with each skill providing different information) and in other cases, only one will do.

I've never seen that as the first rule of PFS gaming. The cornerstone of community gaming is fairness. It's a huge deal if one GM is allowing PCs to always roll all skills that apply and another GM never allowing it. More to the point, players are entitled to a consistent application of the rules.

[N N 959]

B.O.B.Johnson wrote:

I think the key that is being overlooked is that in all the scenarios I've run, the optional skills says 'OR' not 'AND'

Let's say a scenario has the following instructions:

The PCs can eat apple pie with a fork or a spoon.

The use of "or" does not preclude me from trying both and then proceeding with whichever proves most useful. Also, if it said this,

The PCs can eat apple pie with a fork and a spoon.

that would not convey what is really intended.

[tchrman35]

N N 959 wrote:

For all the GMs that believe only one attempt is allowed, is there any PFS ruling or directive that clearly illustrates that this is how it is suppose to be played?

Thanks.

Nah, and I doubt you'll get one. This is fully and completely in the area of GM purview. Here are some general principles I draw on to make my personal decision:

1) Many skills allow retry. Perception is among them (as long as the stimulus remains). Survival can be retried in some situations. Knowledge cannot be retried. Your knowledge check represents whether you've ever known that bit of info, so retrying it breaks a conceit of the game.

2) Meta knowledge should not allow a retry. If I asked you for a perception check, knowing that I asked should not make your character stop and look around. If YOU asked for a check, you didn't know something was there or not, so you don't know whether a higher roll would've gotten a better result. If I asked, the implication is that there's something to see. Some GM's try to mitigate that by asking for rolls when there's not anything to see. I occasionally mitigate it by providing some kind of minor macguffin if they miss the DC but rolled reasonably well. "You find a string with several tiny shells on it, possibly a necklace sized for a child."

3) The abilities that allow you to too twice and take the better in this game are few and far between, and they're quite powerful. It seems wrong to me to gain that advantage just by putting ranks into both knowledge (history) and knowledge (religion).

4) It says or.

5) Black tentacles and stinking cloud both offer battlefield control. The caster doesn't get to their them both in a round. Likewise, the fighter can't swing both his falcata and his scimitar in the same action. Skill monkeys are very useful, but I don't want to create an environment that unnecessarily penalizes those with 2 skill points per level.

I think, regardless of how you rule on this, you should try to make the game as accommodating to players as possible. When a player asks "will this other skill work", my answer is almost always yes. Sometimes I'll impose a penalty if it's only tangentially related, but I almost always allow it. If I were allowing separate checks on all of the specified skills, I'd probably say no to others, since you're already rolling two dice.

[N N 959]

Stephen Wight wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

For all the GMs that believe only one attempt is allowed, is there any PFS ruling or directive that clearly illustrates that this is how it is suppose to be played?

Thanks.

Nah, and I doubt you'll get one. This is fully and completely in the area of GM purview. Here are some general principles I draw on to make my personal decision:

1) Many skills allow retry. Perception is among them (as long as the stimulus remains). Survival can be retried in some situations. Knowledge cannot be retried. Your knowledge check represents whether you've ever known that bit of info, so retrying it breaks a conceit of the game.

2) Meta knowledge should not allow a retry. If I asked you for a perception check, knowing that I asked should not make your character stop and look around. If YOU asked for a check, you didn't know something was there or not, so you don't know whether a higher roll would've gotten a better result. If I asked, the implication is that there's something to see. Some GM's try to mitigate that by asking for rolls when there's not anything to see. I occasionally mitigate it by providing some kind of minor macguffin if they miss the DC but rolled reasonably well. "You find a string with several tiny shells on it, possibly a necklace sized for a child."

3) The abilities that allow you to too twice and take the better in this game are few and far between, and they're quite powerful. It seems wrong to me to gain that advantage just by putting ranks into both knowledge (history) and knowledge (religion).

4) It says or.

5) Black tentacles and stinking cloud both offer battlefield control. The caster doesn't get to their them both in a round. Likewise, the fighter can't swing both his falcata and his scimitar in the same action. Skill monkeys are very useful, but I don't want to create an environment that unnecessarily penalizes those with 2 skill points per level.

I think, regardless of how you rule on this, you should try to make the game as accommodating to...

Thank you for the response Stephen. Let me clarify my question as some of your responses seem to address different topics.

1. I'm definitely not talking or confused about using a "retry" of the same skill. I'm specifically talking about a situation like this, taken from an actual scenario:

Season 6 spoiler:

They keypad can be overridden with a successful DC 15 Disable Device or Linguistics check (DC 18 in Subtier 4–5). Once activated, the lift travels up and down freely.

In this situation, there is no penalty identified for failure. However, based on posts in this thread, it would seem several GMs would only allow a DD or Linguistics check, not both.

2. You're addressing something that is unrelated. I'm dealing with situations where the players know which skills they can use because either the GM tells them or they simply attempt it.

3. I would argue that a person who puts skills in both History and Religion should have an advantage over a person who only put skills in one. Shouldn't a PC gain an advantage if they come across a situation that can be solved with knowing History or Religion? It's like saying PC who puts point in to both STR and DEX should not have a combat advantage over a PC who only puts point into one.

4. Obviously not concerned with situations where the scenario explicitly says you only get one attempt.

5. I can' t say I find this example analogous. Having the option to use any applicable areas of knowledge one has is not tantamount to swinging two weapons you can't wield in one-hand or using two spells in a single round.

One PC solves a problem with History, another solves it through Engineering. How is the PC who has both not benefited by that? It's like saying people who have multiple Ph.Ds can't benefit from them at the same time.

[Tallow]

N N 959 wrote:

Razoack wrote:

e.g. The PCs can find something if they make a DC 20 Perception or Survival check.

Correct me if I am wrong N N 959 but I believe this was the question you were asking?

Correct. This is not in regards to the post-mission briefing, but any random situation where a PC can make a skill check and several options are given. For example, solving a puzzle, learning about an artifact, etc

Here's a random example from a Season 00 scenario:

** spoiler omitted **

These read as if the PC only gets one attempt. As a player, I don't recall GMs ever letting me use more than one skill on any skill attempts other than the post-briefing info-gather. So I'm wondering if there is widespread misinterpretation of how these skill checks are being handled or I'm missing something.

I don't think your example is really a good example, because Bardic Knowledge isn't a separate roll anymore. Season 0 scenarios are written in 3.5 DnD. So as such, there really is only the Knowledge (religion) check available.

But I get your point.

I think circumstances depend on how I'd rule. If the characters have all the time in the world, each one could make all the checks unless the obstacle is written in such a way that it makes sense that each character would only get a single check. If the characters are in combat, it would likely be a single check per round. Despite how I feel otherwise or how the scenario is written, if moving along with the scenario is predicated upon making a check, each character can make all the checks.

[Tallow]

N N 959 wrote:

Season 6 spoiler: Show

In this example, I'd allow both. I'll reiterate though, if in combat, or in a very time sensitive situation, I'd only allow one check per round. And some checks take multiple rounds (Disable Device might take 1d4+1 rounds or something like that.)

[N N 959]

Tallow wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Season 6 spoiler: Show

In this example, I'd allow both. I'll reiterate though, if in combat, or in a very time sensitive situation, I'd only allow one check per round. And some checks take multiple rounds (Disable Device might take 1d4+1 rounds or something like that.)

Right. If the circumstances clearly indicate that a failure springs monsters or PC's only have time for one check before the door closes, or the scenario explicitly says you only get one attempt, it's not a debate.

But judging on the responses, there are many PFS GMs who are applying a blanket, "No, you only ever get one choice." Is this the correct interpretation? Doesn't seem like something that should be GM discretion in PFS.

In fairness, my random sampling of scenarios shows that most skill checks do not create ambiguity on this matter.

[Bill Dunn]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

My personal take is that if a character has invested precious skill ranks in multiple appropriate skills, they shouldn't be penalized for knowing things from different fields.

Sometimes 'cross-pollination' is the key to invention and whatnot?

And... some people build towards having all or most of the skills, so that tables aren't completely hosed when say, a K: Planes question comes up in addition to a K: Arcana and a K: Nobility.

To shut down an avenue of information acquisition seems unduly harsh to me?

The way I'd look at a situation involving just Knowledge skills, I'd have the player roll on whichever is higher for their PC among the skills listed. I would not give them what are essentially retries with different skills. Either the PC knows the info or they don't. Picking the highest check in the situation gives them the best chance to make the DC.

PCs who pick up lots of different Knowledge skills do open lots of avenues of information acquisition that would otherwise be closed. But as long as one is opened, that's sufficient and I'm not going to have him test every avenue with a new roll.

[tchrman35]

Tallow wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Season 6 spoiler: Show

In this example, I'd allow both. I'll reiterate though, if in combat, or in a very time sensitive situation, I'd only allow one check per round. And some checks take multiple rounds (Disable Device might take 1d4+1 rounds or something like that.)

I concur. And I agree with N N 959 when I say there shouldn't be a blanket rule. The GM needs to decide when it's appropriate. I simply don't think that during the knowledge check phase it's appropriate.

I agree that it's rarely ambiguous. Use your best judgment.

I'm glad you gave your specific case. I had no idea what you were talking about, so I gave, as I said, some general rules I follow when deciding whether to allow it. I certainly didn't expect all of them to apply. :)

[Quentin Coldwater]

N N 959 wrote:

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

I've also seen everyone around here use one skill check only.

Say there's a dead body somewhere. The scenario says you can either make a Heal check or a Perception check. The flavour is that you can either use medical knowledge to see how long he's been dead for (rigor mortis and the like), or look at circumstantial evidence (insects crawling around). Say the DC for both is 20, and someone rolls a Heal 14. He concludes that he doesn't know anything about when the guy died. He says, "Oh, I'll make a Perception check instead, because you offered me that choice," and I'll say that's metagaming. You've already concluded there's nothing to know about it. Yeah, the different angle makes sense, but only if you all hit a dead end. I can try a different scientific approach to my thesis if one approach doesn't work, but only if I have a clue that my supposition bore any sort of fruit. I can't keep throwing myself against a wall, hoping it'll eventually fall over. This is the same. It's just a dead guy, nothing remarkable about it.

About the Geography vs History example, that's pretty much the same. It basically pulls from the same memory banks. If you want to know about Osirion, you probably know it has pyramids and mummies. If you have no clue where Osirion is in Golarion, but know all about its history, that seems weird to me. Especially if you reach the same final conclusion, such as with an either/or check like this.

Going to have to disagree with both examples. I periodically am involved in negotiations with people. When I meet with them I often draw upon what they say in terms of making sense logically--my ability to make a Profession() skill check---and the vibe I get from them--Sense Motive. These are two entirely different skill sets. Sometimes I get a better read or sometimes the nuts and bolts of the discussion provide me with critical information--essentially getting a higher roll on one versus the other. You're suggesting that the PCs in PFS can't do that.

The main problem with that example is that it's from real life, which does not apply to a made-up rules system. There's lots of abstractions and concessions made to make the game play smoother. And I think this is one of them. It makes sense to be able to try different avenues of approach, but like I said in my example, I think it also makes sense that if you have no valid reason to distrust the situation, you still want to see if your hunch is correct. Say I'm convinced the moon is made of cheese. I've tried using physics to prove it's made of cheese. Then I try chemistry to prove the moon is made of cheese. And finally, I try biology, with the same result. Sometimes, your hunch is just wrong. If one avenue of research doesn't lead to anything, why continue down that road? Yes, second opinions are a thing, but usually not by the same person. But as to why, it's simply because of metagaming. You get offered a second chance, and you want to take it. But in-game you have no reason to assume you've failed. A friend recently GMed a scenario where only the Rogue was looking for traps, as he said he was really good at it. And even when he rolled low on his Perception checks, no one else offered to roll as well. They stumbled into so many traps.

Or let's try the reverse: there's a red herring somewhere. People don't trust it and try all kinds of things to figure out why the red herring is there. There's certainly no consequence to keep on trying, as nothing really changes, but people get freaked out anyway as you're offered a check that no one is able to make. The "I rolled low, let someone else try this"-mentality drives me nuts sometimes. In-game you have no idea how well you did a job. You might flub a Sense Motive and think the other guy is totally right, or miss a Diplomacy check and be convinced that he can't be persuaded. That lock you failed to open with Disable Device is absolutely impossible to figure out, and you have no idea how that guy died. You don't visibly do a poor job at something because you rolled a 3. You tried your best, and chance dictated you missed something. There's no reason to doubt yourself in-game.

Also, I really dislike repeated attempts at something. It's metagaming to the extreme. I once GMed for a group who out of character knew an NPC was lying, but in-game they'd all failed their Sense Motives. They kept asking to roll Sense Motives after every single thing I said, because they knew eventually they'd roll high and I'd roll low. But in-game, after several checks they had no reason anymore to be distrustful of the NPC. Lots of PFS scenarios offer relatively little penalty for actually failing checks and/or repeatedly trying that check. I hate how the mentality of "I have a big bonus in this, eventually I'm able to succeed" warps games. If the DC to find evidence on a body is 25 and you have a Perception of +5, eventually you'll find it. But that's after a very thorough search and unless you're absolutely sure it's supposed to be there, trying again after the third time isn't realistic anymore (in-character, that is). Sometimes the bad guy gets away. Sometimes you don't get all the pieces. Sometimes you miss your second prestige point because of it. That's life.

EDIT: TL;DR: If retries/rerolls are allowed until you make it, why still roll at all? GM just asks, "is anyone capable of beating DC X?" and just handing them all the information.

[Tallow]

N N 959 wrote:

Tallow wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Season 6 spoiler: Show

In this example, I'd allow both. I'll reiterate though, if in combat, or in a very time sensitive situation, I'd only allow one check per round. And some checks take multiple rounds (Disable Device might take 1d4+1 rounds or something like that.)

Right. If the circumstances clearly indicate that a failure springs monsters or PC's only have time for one check before the door closes, or the scenario explicitly says you only get one attempt, it's not a debate.

But judging on the responses, there are many PFS GMs who are applying a blanket, "No, you only ever get one choice." Is this the correct interpretation? Doesn't seem like something that should be GM discretion in PFS.

In fairness, my random sampling of scenarios shows that most skill checks do not create ambiguity on this matter.

I would not be happy if a blanket rule were created. Let the GMs use some discernment as for what's best for their table.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

I'm thinking I might try something different the next time the situation comes up if the information has the same table, at least and possibly add circumstance modifiers based on what other skills the character in question has...

Upside: One roll/shot at a given knowledge to prevent a crudtonne of rerolls.

Downside: Roll might be obscenely high or pathetically low, and player may feel robbed despite investing in the skills in question.

EDIT: eg. Skill roll calls for K: History, K: Nobility, or K: Religion. My current thinking is an unspoken +2 for each additional skill they have that could apply to the roll, barring any sort of indication of skill focus or the like.

[N N 959]

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

he main problem with that example is that it's from real life, which does not apply to a made-up rules system.

Perhaps not, but then your statement:

Quote:

About the Geography vs History example, that's pretty much the same. It basically pulls from the same memory banks.

Isn't part of any rule and is essentially a house rule that sounds like you're basing on your real life belief about memory and that you seem to be applying to PFS. So I responded with my own take on real life.

Quote:

Say I'm convinced the moon is made of cheese. I've tried using physics to prove it's made of cheese. Then I try chemistry to prove the moon is made of cheese. And finally, I try biology, with the same result. Sometimes, your hunch is just wrong. If one avenue of research doesn't lead to anything, why continue down that road?

A couple of observations here:

1. The skill checks in PFS don't usually involve PC starting with some belief about something that they are trying to prove, it typically involves PCs trying to figure out what is going on. So an example where the player is convinced the moon is made of cheese comes across as your addressing PC metagaming.

2. It's interesting that in your example, you indicate a person tries biology, chemistry, and physic to determine something, but then you're claiming a PC can't do that, so I'm confused.

3. If one avenue doesn't prove your hunch, assuming that you even start with one, then trying another approach is exactly what people do.

Quote:

Yes, second opinions are a thing, but usually not by the same person.

A second opinion would require using the same skill. You don't go to a doctor to get a second opinion on fixing a transmission, you go to another auto mechanic. Using another skill isn't a "second opinion" it's drawing upon different skills to examine the same problem. For example, using navigating one's course by stars or navigating one's course by using maps. If you have skills at both, you're going to use both. Not just use one and convince yourself you don't need to affirm it through other means.

Quote:

There's certainly no consequence to keep on trying, as nothing really changes, but people get freaked out anyway as you're offered a check that no one is able to make.

That's the nature of these types of RPGs. If you're going to have players roll, then they are obviously going to expect it's for a reason. The rules don't really encourage confusing and misleading players. Not sure how this is relevant.

Quote:

You might flub a Sense Motive and think the other guy is totally right, or miss a Diplomacy check and be convinced that he can't be persuaded.

Failure on either of those skills does not mean the player is "convinced" of anything. I've never failed to convince someone and been convinced that person could not be persuaded by anyone. And these types of forums should be proof-positive that failing to convince someone the first time is hardly a deterrent for the same person to keep trying.

Quote:

That lock you failed to open with Disable Device is absolutely impossible to figure out

And yet the rules give lock-picking as a specific example of something you can Take 20 on.

Quote:

You don't visibly do a poor job at something because you rolled a 3. You tried your best, and chance dictated you missed something.

I've never looked once for something and been convinced I tried my best and the item can't be found...unless the thing I'm searching is a an empty table. Honestly, your examples are not valid and are completely contrary to both real life and how the game talks about the skills.

I've run into on GM at Paizocon who had this approach with Perception to find traps. His explanation was that you've searched once and you're "convinced" that there are no traps so you can't search again.

PRD on Take 20 wrote:

Common "take 20" skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).

Quote:

Also, I really dislike repeated attempts at something.

Based on the totality of your response, this seems to be the main issue for you. Not really something I'm trying to address.

[Fromper]

Stephen Wight wrote:

2) Meta knowledge should not allow a retry. If I asked you for a perception check, knowing that I asked should not make your character stop and look around. If YOU asked for a check, you didn't know something was there or not, so you don't know whether a higher roll would've gotten a better result. If I asked, the implication is that there's something to see. Some GM's try to mitigate that by asking for rolls when there's not anything to see. I occasionally mitigate it by providing some kind of minor macguffin if they miss the DC but rolled reasonably well. "You find a string with several tiny shells on it, possibly a necklace sized for a child."

I'm not sure I like this idea. The players could easily get distracted by something unimportant.

GM: "You find what appears to be some fish scales here, as if someone cleaned and ate a fish that they caught in the river nearby."

Player: I roll knowledge: nature to identify the type of fish. *rolls high*

GM: You're pretty sure the red scales come from some sort of herring.

N N 959 wrote:

I've never failed to convince someone and been convinced that person could not be persuaded by anyone.

So you've never had a conversation about religion or politics in your life? </snark>

But back to the topic at hand, here's an example from a scenario I GMed over the weekend. An NPC used the Spellsong feat to cast a spell in a non-combat situation. Here's the feat for reference:

Ultimate Magic wrote:

Spellsong

You can blend the power of your performance and spellcasting.

Prerequisites: Cha 13, bardic performance class ability, able to cast 1st-level spells.

Benefit: You can combine your bardic performance and your spellcasting in two ways.

First, you can conceal the activity of casting a bard spell by masking it in a performance. As a swift action, you may combine your casting time of a spell with a Perform check. Observers must make a Perception or Sense Motive check opposed by your Perform check to realize you are also casting a spell. This uses 1 round of your bardic performance ability, regardless of the spell's casting time.

Second, as a move action, you can use 1 round of bardic performance to maintain a bard spell with a duration of concentration. You can cast another spell in the same round you are using bardic magic to maintain concentration; if you do this, your concentration on the maintained spell ends when you end the bardic performance the spell is part of.

Note the bolded part. When it came up in the scenario, I told everyone at the table to roll perception or sense motive, whichever is higher. So each PC only got one roll.

Similarly, for opening mission briefings, you're often told that you have a choice of knowledge skills for the same information. For instance, it might say the players can roll knowledge: nature or knowledge: geography to know piece of information #1 about the terrain they're traveling through, but then they can also roll knowledge: local or knowledge: nobility to know information #2 about the people in charge of that land. I'd usually tell them roll geography or nature, whichever is higher. Then I'd tell them to roll local or nobility, whichever is higher.

In the disable device vs linguistics example, that's something with no time limit or consequence for failure, so they can keep rolling all day. As was pointed out, you can take 20 on disable device, so there's no reason not to let them try both skills, over and over if necessary.

I could be convinced otherwise, but that's how I typically do it.

[Ascalaphus]

If the skill check can be retried, sure, you can try it with the other skill the second time.

If it's a one-time opportunity (before something happens) then there's no retrying.

In cases when "This or That" represent entirely different approaches, I can see the argument for trying the other route as well if the first one doesn't bear fruit.

But in cases where it's "This or That as a slightly different route towards the exact same thing" I'm gonna go with the natural-language OR that says you have to make a choice.

Like briefing knowledge checks.

The reward you get for having a lot of different skills is that you'll be able to participate in many more of these opportunities.

Note that in those cases I do allow people to cross-aid: if the briefing calls for "History or Local", I'm okay with the rogue with Local trying to aid the cleric with History. After all, it's a check for the same thing.

You could try to stretch that into a principle: if cross-aiding isn't applicable, then (providing opportunity for retry exists), trying both approaches should be allowed.

[Quentin Coldwater]

N N 959 wrote:

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

he main problem with that example is that it's from real life, which does not apply to a made-up rules system.

Perhaps not, but then your statement:

Quote:

About the Geography vs History example, that's pretty much the same. It basically pulls from the same memory banks.

Isn't part of any rule and is essentially a house rule that sounds like you're basing on your real life belief about memory and that you seem to be applying to PFS. So I responded with my own take on real life.

Quote:

Say I'm convinced the moon is made of cheese. I've tried using physics to prove it's made of cheese. Then I try chemistry to prove the moon is made of cheese. And finally, I try biology, with the same result. Sometimes, your hunch is just wrong. If one avenue of research doesn't lead to anything, why continue down that road?

A couple of observations here:

1. The skill checks in PFS don't usually involve PC starting with some belief about something that they are trying to prove, it typically involves PCs trying to figure out what is going on. So an example where the player is convinced the moon is made of cheese comes across as your addressing PC metagaming.

2. It's interesting that in your example, you indicate a person tries biology, chemistry, and physic to determine something, but then you're claiming a PC can't do that, so I'm confused.

3. If one avenue doesn't prove your hunch, assuming that you even start with one, then trying another approach is exactly what people do.

Okay, I set that up wrong. I was going there by a false belief, with the example showing that multiple tries don't guarantee positive results. My example of retrying (despite me stating it shouldn't be possible) was meant to show that lack of evidence doesn't necessarily means that there's evidence to be found.

Maybe it's a bit fatalistic of me to assume you just quit after one attempt, but to me it really seems useless to try a different approach. I subconsciously pull from all my memories at once, I don't necessarily take the historical approach first, then open an atlas when that doesn't work. The example with consulting the stars and a map works the same way. I assume you're using both at the same time, but preferring one over the other. Going, "great, we're lost. This map is useless, let's now look at the stars instead" seems weird to me. In my mind, I fold both attempts at gaining knowledge into one. Can't find anything about it; apparently I'm simply not good enough.

About looking and not finding something: I've repeatedly seen (and done myself) things like looting a room, suspecting (but not knowing) we might find treasure, failing our rolls, and asking to roll again, despite having no reason to suspect someone has hidden something here better than we could find it. My point is that here, and in the example of "misleading players" by rolling for things that aren't there, people rolled, and they want payoff. If they can't find it through one method, they'll try another. It's not necessarily a min/maxing thing, but more a completionist thing. You've left a stone unturned, and that doesn't sit well with you.

Also, this isn't an argument, but the part about taking 20 contradicts itself. The important part is that it states that you can do it as long as there's no penalty for failure. Disable Device, for example, states that if you fail by 5 or more, you trigger the trap. That's definitely a penalty for failure. Every GM I've seen rules that you can't take 20 on Disable Device.

[Fromper]

You can't take 20 on disable device if you might set off a trap. But the example above was just to operate a machine, with no penalty for failure. Ditto with picking a lock. In those cases, taking 20 on disable device makes perfect sense.

[N N 959]

Fromper wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

I've never failed to convince someone and been convinced that person could not be persuaded by anyone.

So you've never had a conversation about religion or politics in your life? </snark>

I think my statement was poorly written. Let me try again:

If I fail to convince someone about something, I've never left the discussion believing everyone else would fail in my place.

[N N 959]

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

Maybe it's a bit fatalistic of me to assume you just quit after one attempt, but to me it really seems useless to try a different approach..

You may want to read about how many attempts it took Thomas Edison to find something to work as a a filament for a light bulb. In any event, I'm not concerned about GMs letting me try again when appropriate. That hasn't been an issue in my games as a GM or player.

Quote:

I subconsciously pull from all my memories at once...

And what's to say that isn't how it works when you make multiple knowledge checks on the same subject? Also, I thought you said not to use real world examples for making rules in a fantasy game?

Quote:

I don't necessarily take the historical approach first, then open an atlas when that doesn't work

If you thought the answer could be found in an atlas, why on earth would you not look for it there if you can't find it in a history book, or vice versa?

Quote:

The example with consulting the stars and a map works the same way. I assume you're using both at the same time.

So the problem here is your approaching this from a single-minded paradigm and then imposing rules logic to fit your paradigm. If navigating by the stars is completely separate skill from using a map and dead-reckoning, then it's two separate skill checks. K. History and K. Religion are two separate skill checks. Regardless of how a PC access the knowledge from separate skills, it's a separate skill check for each. Your statement that you think a person would use both stars and maps together, is your essentially agreeing that the player should get to make a roll for each.

Quote:

My point is that here, and in the example of "misleading players" by rolling for things that aren't there, people rolled, and they want payoff. If they can't find it through one method, they'll try another. It's not necessarily a min/maxing thing, but more a completionist thing. You've left a stone unturned, and that doesn't sit well with you.

And this is most likely the exact reason that 3.5 created the Take 20 rule. This allows the player to know that the PC can't do any better and PC knows that continued searching isn't going to be useful.

.

[N N 959]

Fromper wrote:

Note the bolded part. When it came up in the scenario, I told everyone at the table to roll perception or sense motive, whichever is higher. So each PC only got one roll.

Why? If one PC could get information via Skill A and another can information via Skill B, why couldn't someone with both skills uses them in this situation? Where in the rules do we know that this only allows a PC/NPC to roll one skill check?

Actually, this is a bad example, because the ability essentially is written to limit it to one check.

[N N 959]

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Generally speaking, for the skill checks asked at the start of the scenario to gather background information on the scenario in question, all of those skill checks are valid options. Each PC may make each skill check asked. As you say, you may not remember the history, but the geography.

I have never been at a table where the GM has limited a PC to only one skill check during the post-briefing skill check phase of a scenario.

Walter,

What about where it lists three separate ways to gain information such as:

1. Diplomacy (Gather Information)

2. K. Arcana or K. History

3. K. Geography or Profession (Astronomer)

We are in agreement that a player can roll all three. But it's my understanding that 2 and 3 are a choose one. If so, why is this the case?

I guess I could see it IC if somehow its a concept of both Skill paths are acquiring it via the same method, i.e. historians and and arcanologists(?) know it from the same book.

[Chris Mortika]

The way I have phrased this is: you get all the checks, but you only get the one die roll. If you have a Knowledge (religion) of +3 and a Survival of +6, roll, and let me know what you get (roll a 12. That's Religion 15 and/or Survival 18.) Depending on the DCs, one or the other (or both) might succeed.

But rolling multiple times is essentially allowing a re-roll. If the GM allows 3 rolls for 3 different skills, then the PC is likely to roll 15 or higher on one of them.

So, in PFS, do we assume that all parties succeed at all of the investigative skill rolls? If so, let the party keep rolling until they succeed.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Chris Mortika wrote:

The way I have phrased this is: you get all the checks, but you only get the one die roll. If you have a Knowledge (religion) of +3 and a Survival of +6, roll, and let me know what you get (roll a 12. That's Religion 15 and/or Survival 18.) Depending on the DCs, one or the other (or both) might succeed.

But rolling multiple times is essentially allowing a re-roll. If the GM allows 3 rolls for 3 different skills, then the PC is likely to roll 15 or higher on one of them.

So, in PFS, do we assume that all parties succeed at all of the investigative skill rolls? If so, let the party keep rolling until they succeed.

That seems a rather broad-brush logical leap to make from 'handful of skills that are applicable' to 'multiple rerolls to ensure success'.

This pursuant discussion is cementing my resolve.

[thorin001]

B.O.B.Johnson wrote:

I think the key that is being overlooked is that in all the scenarios I've run, the optional skills says 'OR' not 'AND'.

To quote the original example:

Quote:

the PCs can attempt a Knowledge (religion), Spellcraft, or Heal check...

^ this reads a lot different than:

Quote:

the PCs can attempt a Knowledge (religion), Spellcraft, AND Heal check...

Also for instance, in the post-briefing knowledge check, numerous scenarios have a 'Knowledge (local) or Diplomacy (gather information)' check that is allowed. Meaning each PC can make either a knowledge local check or a diplomacy check, but not both.

Of course if you are using formal logic definitions the OR means that you can roll them all, while the AND means that they have to succeed at them all.

Even in common usage OR has two meanings, inclusive and exclusive.
Inclusive means any and all from the list.
Exclusive means only one from the list.
Nothing in PF or PFS suggests which usage of OR is intended.

[TwilightKnight]

N N 959 wrote:

players are entitled to a consistent application of the rules.

In a world-wide campaign based on a game with rules that are often written intentionally to allow, even encourage GM adjudication? Good Luck

[Quentin Coldwater]

N N 959 wrote:

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

Maybe it's a bit fatalistic of me to assume you just quit after one attempt, but to me it really seems useless to try a different approach..

You may want to read about how many attempts it took Thomas Edison to find something to work as a a filament for a light bulb. In any event, I'm not concerned about GMs letting me try again when appropriate. That hasn't been an issue in my games as a GM or player.

Quote:

I subconsciously pull from all my memories at once...

And what's to say that isn't how it works when you make multiple knowledge checks on the same subject? Also, I thought you said not to use real world examples for making rules in a fantasy game?

I should not have used that real-world example. My point still stands that it's an abstraction of your knowledge and I think failing one locks you out of trying the other. I'm a big fan of being able to miss things, even if it's through chance.

[Ascalaphus]

thorin001 wrote:

Of course if you are using formal logic definitions the OR means that you can roll them all, while the AND means that they have to succeed at them all.

Even in common usage OR has two meanings, inclusive and exclusive.
Inclusive means any and all from the list.
Exclusive means only one from the list.
Nothing in PF or PFS suggests which usage of OR is intended.

Obviously PFS scenarios aren't written in formal logic.

In natural language "or" can be both inclusive and exclusive, but it's more commonly exclusive. "Do you want chocolate or vanilla" sounds like you have to choose.

The problem is that we don't have a widely-used normal-language term for exclusive-or. People may say "and/or" is ugly, but it clearly tells you it's an inclusive-or.

[Mike Lindner]

The convention around here is to allow one roll with the highest bonus. I like the idea of one d20 roll and getting the benefit of all the results that one roll would give. I think I'll give that a try when GMing.

[Bill Dunn]

N N 959 wrote:

Walter,

What about where it lists three separate ways to gain information such as:

1. Diplomacy (Gather Information)

2. K. Arcana or K. History

3. K. Geography or Profession (Astronomer)

We are in agreement that a player can roll all three. But it's my understanding that 2 and 3 are a choose one. If so, why is this the case?

I guess I could see it IC if somehow its a concept of both Skill paths are acquiring it via the same method, i.e. historians and and arcanologists(?) know it from the same book.

I would allow an attempt to gather info via diplomacy AND one of the 4 skills. They're utterly different processes - asking around vs knowing something from previous experience or education. But the reason I wouldn't allow trying multiple skills is because a PC either knows it or doesn't and the skill check determines that. Does it really matter if they know it because of their studies in arcana, history, geography, or astronomy? No, it doesn't. Just use their best chance of success out of those skills and have them make one roll.

I can see Wei Ji the Learner's circumstance bonus (in which having ranks invested in multiple applicable skills) being a good way to get at it since that suggests the PC might have an increased chance of knowing that piece of info from multiple directions, but I wouldn't do re-rolls. That's more likely to skew the chances of success beyond expectations.

[Sabretooth Turtle]

I will absolutely allow a PC to attempt all relevant Knowledge skills on a post-briefing Knowledge check. Knowledge isn't only testing recall, it's testing whether you ever learned something in the first place. Each skill represents a separate expenditure of time and effort (and precious skill points) acquiring information. Maybe I nodded off in History class whilst we were discussing Tar-Baphon's imprisonment, but that doesn't mean I wasn't paying attention in my Geography lesson on the Isle of Terror. Furthermore, there is usually little point in playing coy with those checks. Generally, they're providing context, rather than hints. Context is good, it helps keep scenarios from being "Generic Dungeon #19".

In the case of allowing multiple checks to overcome an obstacle, it is not metagaming to attempt various options, insofar as the various skills represent different approaches to the obstacle, all of which are apparent to the characters. For example: I'm faced with a door, secured by a runic puzzle, for which the relevant skills are Linguistics, Knowledge (Engineering) and Disable Device. I have a choice: I can try to suss out the runes, ignore the runes and rely on my expertise in sliding puzzle mechanisms, or I can pull out my tool kit and jimmy the thing. My player knowledge of the three skill choices directly represents my character's understanding of the challenge. Giving me those options is a shorthand description of the situation.

As for the example upthread of the dead body and the bugs, would a successful Heal check notice the insects? If not, I would allow a Perception check as well, maybe calling for one automatically if the poor healer had to kneel down in the middle of a swarm to work. Not a Swarm swarm, of course. That would be a Fortitude save.

[WalterGM]

Well, for this:

Most of the pictures show a human male, the right side of his body blackened and crackling with lightning and the le side pristine and glowing with a white radiance. A DC 15 Knowledge (religion) or bardic knowledge check reveals this gure to be Nethys, the god of magic.

It's just one check. Knowledge (religion), DC 15.

Bardic Knowledge in Pathfinder just lets you roll for it even if you have no ranks, and enables you to achieve a result higher than a 10. So really, the only check you can make is a Kn. (religion).

----------------------
In games, if the situation warrants it (no consequences for failure, no time limit, etc), I permit characters to make multiple checks.

Here are some random examples that don't exist and how I'd handle them.

"The body looks fresh, it's insides appear to have been ripped open by some strange creature. A DC 18 Heal, Knowledge (planes), or Survival check will tell the PCs that this is the result of the facehuggers from Aliens."
I'd allow any of the three, and the same PC to make all three checks--taking three times as long to do so. First you examine the wound, then you think about what could have done it, then you check the surrounding area for some acid burns.

"As fire begins to lick up around the sides of the barge, the sailors nearby cry a warning. In the distance, a galleon can be briefly spotted--flying colors of some allegiance: a man wrestling and pinning a massive serpent. A DC 18 Perception check identifies the serpent as a linnorm, and a DC 22 Knowledge (religion) check reveals the banner to be of Jarl Rukk, the Linnorm King."
Despite the urgency of the situation, these checks are worded to allow for both. One to tell you what is on it, and the second tells you what it means. You can make one without needing the other, or make both.

"The end of this hallway widens and terminates in a domed ceiling. A beam of sunlight shoots through an opening in the dome, illuminating a stone pedestal beneath. Resting on the pedestal is a squad golden idol, depicting a long haired grinning man. To retrieve the idol without setting off the boulder trap, the PCs can attempt the following checks: Disable Device, DC 25, Profession (archeologist) DC 20, or Sleight of Hand DC 30."
Given that failure here indicates setting off some sort of event, only one check can be attempted. I'd present the PCs with all three options, but not tell them the DCs for any.

[gatherer818]

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

He says, "Oh, I'll make a Perception check instead, because you offered me that choice," and I'll say that's metagaming.

So is not playing an Evil character in PFS. So is not playing a Vivisectionist because it's banned. So is making a check in the first place, you should just say "my character uses his medical knowledge to determine the victim's time of death", there are no dice involved in that. Except, you shouldn't say "my character" because that's meta as well....

Metagaming isn't a crime. Metagaming isn't against the rules. Metagaming is literally required from all players at all times. If you reference your character sheet, roll dice, speak out of character, or check the mechanics of a spell or feat, you're metagaming.

Unless there is some reason the character cannot use his Perception skill at this point (checking the body triggered a modify memory spell that made him forget what kinds of insects and how many there were, AND one of the other party members has driven them off with a smokestick or a spell so they're no longer there to study; or, say, the character has been attacked by someone wanting to prevent him from studying the body too closely), refusing to allow it makes absolutely no sense. "You can't see because you're a doctor."

....and is metagaming.