Identifying a Creature Type = Automatic?


Rules Questions

51 to 63 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

It's probably easier to tell the difference between an animal and a plant than it is to tell the difference between an aberration and a magical beast.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Berti Blackfoot wrote:

I don't know if I should be embarrassed but I saw a mule in real life for the first time last year, and I thought it was a horse. I realized something was odd about it, but not enough to think it's not a horse. I expected mules to look more like donkeys, but apparently mules are a lot bigger with smaller ears. So that could be an example of failing identification for a common creature.

An NPC might try to pass off a drafthorse as a warhorse, etc. Or warg hide among wolves or large dogs

We actually skip the first roll and just ask for the correct knowledge roll. That breaks some immersion but moves things along.

We're talking about *types* here though right? Last I checked the Types were: Abberation, Animal, Construct, Dragon, Fey, Humanoid, Magical Beast, Monstrous Humanoid, Ooze, Outsider, Plant, Undead, and Vermin.

Since I believe you would conclude upon seeing a mule, zebu, donkey, elephant, goat, horse, zebra, and giraffe "each of these is an animal" without laboring under the impression that it might be a plant or a humanoid; I believe the type is the sort of thing we can give for free in most cases.

But how would you distinguish an animal from a magical beast just by looking at it? In the real world, you have the advantage that magical beasts (and most other creature types that might look like but not be animals) do not exist, so you have very close to a 100% chance of being right when you say that a creature you are looking at is an animal.

In a game world, your percentage chance of being right is "only" in the high 90s.


David knott 242 wrote:


But how would you distinguish an animal from a magical beast just by looking at it? In the real world, you have the advantage that magical beasts (and most other creature types that might look like but not be animals) do not exist, so you have very close to a 100% chance of being right when you say that a creature you are looking at is an animal.

In a game world, your percentage chance of being right is "only" in the high 90s.

In the game world, the DM has to tell me which knowledge skill I am rolling against. If he says Knowledge: Arcana, I know it's a magical beast, not an animal.

Meanwhile, the ranger is scratching his head saying, "It's not an animal."


Giant Eagle versus Roc is an example of a magical beast and an animal that would look pretty similar to a non-expert.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:


But how would you distinguish an animal from a magical beast just by looking at it? In the real world, you have the advantage that magical beasts (and most other creature types that might look like but not be animals) do not exist, so you have very close to a 100% chance of being right when you say that a creature you are looking at is an animal.

In a game world, your percentage chance of being right is "only" in the high 90s.

In the game world, the DM has to tell me which knowledge skill I am rolling against. If he says Knowledge: Arcana, I know it's a magical beast, not an animal.

Meanwhile, the ranger is scratching his head saying, "It's not an animal."

Maybe. It's also possible that you the player know it's a magical beast, but you the PC don't unless you positively ID the thing.

Matthew Downie wrote:
Giant Eagle versus Roc is an example of a magical beast and an animal that would look pretty similar to a non-expert.

Same idea when you look at an Adlet (man-wolf with a spear; humanoid) and an Adaro (man-shark with a spear; monstrous humanoid). They're both half-animal hybrids that use weapons, but only one is "monstrous."


Matthew Downie wrote:
Giant Eagle versus Roc is an example of a magical beast and an animal that would look pretty similar to a non-expert.

eh rocs are more vulture like then eagle like


as to the baseline DC, there are only guidelines (see skill descriptions).

Monster Lore wrote:
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.

tarrasque, lol, that's pretty rare and probably everyone gets eaten. Sometimes the flavor text gets silly.

I'd use 15 for rare and/or oddball monsters (ignoring CR for this determination). The metric on this is really GM dependent on what he uses in his world. In PFS it's 99% gonna be a base of 10 (hopefully writers will hint at a DC in a scenario if it's not 10).

You >could< use the encounter tables to make this determination. As tarrasque isn't on the tables that would define "rare". I think this is a bit wide as there are so many books and monsters. I just wanted to throw this out there as the methodology is well defined.


one thing that's not specifically covered is what does a Knowledge(nature) check tell you about undead. So it's coverage on the negative condition. I think it should tell you that they are not natural or found in nature. You see this with robots where Know(arcana) tells you they are constructs just weirdly not operating to the rules of magic! lol...

Most players assume dead looking stuff is undead, really weird looking stuff is an aberration, animals don't do magic and if they do (like breath fire or sparkle) then they are a magical beast. Red humanoids with horns or on fire tend to be thought of as infernal and if bestial then demonic/abyssal. Players just make educated guesses and that's okay if it fits their character and experience.

It's standard operating procedure(SOP) to use a weapon and if the PC notices it's not doing the damage it should to pull back and change weapons to another type.


As far as type of knowledge checks rolled, as the GM id give a visual description if the creature and let the players name their kn. Checks as they see fit, if its the wrong kn. Area, the info they receive is null regardless of their roll. Of the top of my head example:

GM: Coming straight for you is a roiling mass of slithering, slimy, black tentacles. Within you see several gaping maws lined with rows and rows of grinding razor like teeth. You feel sick to your stomach just gazing upon it.
Wizard: I think back on my yeats of wizardry school to try and identify the beast. Kn. Arcana = 25.
GM: It is like nothing you've ever heard of.
Ranger: I think back on all my days wandering the wilderness to try and identify the beast. Kn. Nature = 25
GM: You've never seen anything even remotely similar.
Cleric: I think back on everything I know about the Gods and the planes they inhabit. Kn. Planes = 25
GM: You've never heard of such a thing, and this very fact fills you with dread.
Fighter: I hit it with my broadsword.
GM: Roll for a will save.


djdust wrote:

As far as type of knowledge checks rolled, as the GM id give a visual description if the creature and let the players name their kn. Checks as they see fit, if its the wrong kn. Area, the info they receive is null regardless of their roll. Of the top of my head example:

GM: Coming straight for you is a roiling mass of slithering, slimy, black tentacles. Within you see several gaping maws lined with rows and rows of grinding razor like teeth. You feel sick to your stomach just gazing upon it.
Wizard: I think back on my yeats of wizardry school to try and identify the beast. Kn. Arcana = 25.
GM: It is like nothing you've ever heard of.
Ranger: I think back on all my days wandering the wilderness to try and identify the beast. Kn. Nature = 25
GM: You've never seen anything even remotely similar.
Cleric: I think back on everything I know about the Gods and the planes they inhabit. Kn. Planes = 25
GM: You've never heard of such a thing, and this very fact fills you with dread.
Fighter: I hit it with my broadsword.
GM: Roll for a will save.

Sounds nice, but that slows the gameplay down far too much for me.

In an ideal world I'd have a list of the characters knowledge's, roll if for them and give them what they know as part of the monster description.

In reality I ask for an appropriate knowledge roll and ask the players to refrain from using that meta-knowledge.


djdust wrote:

As far as type of knowledge checks rolled, as the GM id give a visual description if the creature and let the players name their kn. Checks as they see fit, if its the wrong kn. Area, the info they receive is null regardless of their roll. Of the top of my head example:

GM: Coming straight for you is a roiling mass of slithering, slimy, black tentacles. Within you see several gaping maws lined with rows and rows of grinding razor like teeth. You feel sick to your stomach just gazing upon it.
Wizard: I think back on my yeats of wizardry school to try and identify the beast. Kn. Arcana = 25.
GM: It is like nothing you've ever heard of.
Ranger: I think back on all my days wandering the wilderness to try and identify the beast. Kn. Nature = 25
GM: You've never seen anything even remotely similar.
Cleric: I think back on everything I know about the Gods and the planes they inhabit. Kn. Planes = 25
GM: You've never heard of such a thing, and this very fact fills you with dread.
Fighter: I hit it with my broadsword.
GM: Roll for a will save.

so knowledge +50 to everything your pc would get no info?


With those kinds of stats, i'd probably give more info in the introduction of the creature, considering high lvl pcs should have enough experience to make a better educated guess and at least help them rule out some options. I dont even know what type this hypothetical creature even is... the Illustration type? But... If its something that no one in the game world should know about, an unknown unknown so to speak, what knowledge is there to give?

To say, "Its nothing like you've ever even seen or heard of, but it's presence fills you with the same dread that other aberration you fought last month did."? Iunno.


I tend to set a DC between 5 and 15 for the creature type itself (dragon, magical beast, etc). A goblin is pretty obviously a humanoid, but a vampire sure looks like one even though it technically isn't. An untrained commoner just isn't going to know (DC 11-15) unless someone waves garlic in his face (prompting a reduction to the DC to bypass the DC 10 restriction). Use this for anything that might be mistaken for another depending on appearance.

Athatchs often feel like monstrous humanoids or even aberrations, but they're giants. Rust monsters might be mistaken for magical beasts. Gargoyles can definitely be mistaken for constructs.

Now, actively disguised creatures, thats totally different. A rakshasa in human form, or an ecorche wearing a skin, its going to take something unusual to give them away, like using a spell like ability or withstanding something they normally shouldn't. And even then, the DC will be higher, perhaps in the 15-20 range to get creature type.

Now, I should make it clear that the DCs im talking about are PART of the DC to identify the specific type of creature. A hill giant would be DC 10 for humanoid(giant), and 17 for hill giant. A nabasu demon would be DC 10 for outsider, say 14 for demon (and other) subtypes, and 18 for nabasu.

Thats how I tend to handle it at least.

51 to 63 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Identifying a Creature Type = Automatic? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.