I'm tempted to say 'no, it doesn't take an action' mainly becouse you're not so much taking time to do anything as you're rolling to see how much you allready know about the creature in question.
But I'm pretty sure this is going to go down as 'personal interpretation' unless there's something stated about it I don't remember.
|
No, it does not require an action.
Checks to "Recall Knowledge" don't take an action unless you are actively looking something up or conducting research, then it takes time.
You can use certain skills to recall knowledge about specific topics. The topics a given skill relates to are detailed in the individual skill descriptions. A successful skill check allows you to answer questions about the topic in question. You can attempt untrained skill checks to recall knowledge if the DC is 10 or less. You can take 20 on this check, but only if you have a means of researching, such as access to an information network or downloaded data set; this typically takes 2 minutes.
A single check is to recall something a character already knows.
If someone would like to argue that it takes an action to remember things, then we would likely have very interesting interactions.
Remembering what a creature is in the middle of combat is harder than remembering your own name, hence the need for a skill check, it's not necessarily any slower.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was the GM of this particular game and the reason I chose to make it an action is that the players were not recalling knowledge but trying to identify traits of an attacking creature from a planet that the PC's were making first contact on.It stated within the scenario that the creature had evolved over the centuries due to the radiation on the planet (result of a nuclear war).
So I figured that Identify Creature needed an action to observe the creature in order for the PC's to make an educated guess on it's strengths and weaknesses.
If I was wrong in that interpretation, that is cool. It just made sense to me and rules as written didn't clearly specify in this case.
|
I do feel the identifying creatures thing wasn't fully thought out thematically. Depending on the style of your campaign, you could be discovering new species on a regular basis-therefore you shouldn't be "recalling" info on them.
I personally am just changing the wording to account for that, but still keeping it as a non-action. You can look at something and figure stuff out about it while shooting at it.
I do feel the identifying creatures thing wasn't fully thought out thematically. Depending on the style of your campaign, you could be discovering new species on a regular basis-therefore you shouldn't be "recalling" info on them.
I personally am just changing the wording to account for that, but still keeping it as a non-action. You can look at something and figure stuff out about it while shooting at it.
To the contrary, knowing about Life Science goes a long way to figuring out what a new creature is capable of.
I do feel the identifying creatures thing wasn't fully thought out thematically. Depending on the style of your campaign, you could be discovering new species on a regular basis-therefore you shouldn't be "recalling" info on them.
I personally am just changing the wording to account for that, but still keeping it as a non-action. You can look at something and figure stuff out about it while shooting at it.
Yeah, but then you're recalling information about creatures that are similar, or using individual features to make educated guesses about the creature. But you're right, the phrasing "recall" probably could have been altered to make it easier to understand that your might not be recalling that specific creature as much "You're trained in alien lifeforms, and you think that the thing in front of you [insert features] based on [insert characteristics]."
For what it's worth, I don't think your ruling is out of line.
You allowed them to "observe and make conclusions" about the creature using "non-specific knowledge" about the creature.
The only thing I would have done differently is not made it cost a standard action, but I don't think your having done so is vastly out of line either.
Actually I've always felt that recalling and conveying the information about creatures you're fighting should have always been more than a free action (to speak) or non-action (to know or remember).
This is a corner case where no-one genuinely knows anything about these space creatures you're encountering, and so you have to observe them to know about them. But I'm not going to penalize the players for this.
I mean in Pathfinder you could always identify anything, with the idea being that even if you hadn't seen it before you read about it (or something).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say observing an unknown creature to identify traits would certainly fall under more than simply "Recalling Knowledge".
I would hesitate to make it a standard action in most situations, but depending on how strange the creature is that might actually be the right call.
The situation you described is 100% a GM call, and it sounds like yours was very reasonable.
|
I do feel the identifying creatures thing wasn't fully thought out thematically. Depending on the style of your campaign, you could be discovering new species on a regular basis-therefore you shouldn't be "recalling" info on them.
I personally am just changing the wording to account for that, but still keeping it as a non-action. You can look at something and figure stuff out about it while shooting at it.
Recalling Knowledge and Identifying creatures are not the same application of the skill and are covered under different subheadings.
The GM or scenario/module/AP author can always say, "This is a completely unknown creature so you wouldn't be able to determine what it is through a knowledge check."
These are not cinematic combat rules. This is a d20 game. We have a grid, defined movement, etc.
Very interesting discussion.
I would say, provided you are not taking 20, "recall knowledge" should not be an action. This is because I think of it as a mental reaction of sorts that should really be semi-instantaneous. For example, identifying a spell being cast is not an action as per the rules explicitly (page 143), and that is the same thought process: you see something happening, it rings a bell if you know it already.
But identifying a creature is different in my opinion. Here you are trying to understand what something is and does. The way it's presented on page 133 is not helpful at all, because again it uses the "recall a piece of info" language which is confusing at this point. Regardless, I think that task requires a little bit more concentration.
So, I would make it at least a swift action.
This makes it so that it takes a second or two because you are giving it your full attention, even for just a moment, and at the same time limits the task to once per turn, which makes sense to me!
Or, it could be a move action if you interpret it in the same way that you do "sense motive" as an active task (page 146, combat banter, or move action), or "perception" as an effort to see or become aware of something like finding an invisible creature that you know is there, which is a move action (page 144).
As a side note, I don't like the idea of non-actions. I think everything that is considered not an action, in combat, should actually be a swift action instead!
I had this issue come up in my last Starfinder game. I usually let the players do it for free, but in this session, there was a creature on a planet that no one from the Pact worlds had visited in thousands of years. So I said standard Action but later went to look up the rule.
If it is a free action, then in Starfinder, it converts to Swift action. Page 500 of CRB. If it's a swift action, then he can't use it with a trick attack. Now, if it's "not an action at all," then nothing limits him from rolling 20 times other than me as a GM setting a limit.
I like to run 100% RAW.
I took this to Starfinder Society Discord. In Pathfinder 1E, it clearly says Knowledge checks are one roll. In Pathfinder 2E, it says it is an Action. Starfinder..nothing.
So in my game, we are going with the Pathfinder 1E rule that makes identify creatures a non-action, but you can only roll once. This way, the operative still can trick attack while using Alien Archive (EX) and doesn't have unlimited rolls in a single turn.
Firstly for identifying creatures:
If you look at identifying creatures section of the rules, it does indirectly tell you it is a standard action. This is how I have played it for as long as I have been gaming over multiple systems.
It states that you can take 20 on an identify creature check with access to research materials and it also states that it typically takes two minutes.
When we go to the Take 20 section of the rules it states that it takes 20 times longer as attempting a single check, stating usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes a standard action to perform.
So identifying a creature takes a standard action.
Secondly for Recall Knowledge:
It is also a standard action. Recall knowledge also states that you can take 20 on an identify creature check with access to research materials and it also states that it typically takes two minutes.
And then use the Take 20 definition and you come up with recall knowledge as a standard action.
Yes Identify Creature and Recall Knowledge are not overly clear, but it is in there sort of.
Logically it makes sense to me. 6 seconds is not a long time. Figuring that a standard action is 3 seconds, it is not unreasonable for these tasks to take a standard action.
Additionally if my players know what it is based on a picture or my description then their characters know what it is and they can just react.
And lastly I don't always make them have to guess. Sometimes I just tell them if they have encountered it before or it is something prevalent from the backgrounds.