What Skill do you use to Identify a Troll?

[thenobledrake]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Yes, but it would be extremely strange that the creature you casually decides to use holy water onto is an undead, or the one you decide to light up with fire is a troll.

That entirely depends on context though, doesn't it?

For example, a campaign in which you find holy water as treasure provides a context that there is some purpose for that item being where you found it, so even if a creature you encounter soon after doesn't tick the boxes for being obviously undead or a fiend throwing the holy water at it without stopping to think "do I know if this is actually going to work out well?" isn't an unreasonable course of action for a character.

HumbleGamer wrote:

But roleplay apart, the game is also balanced around recall knowledge checks too, so it would be better to stick with then.

The game is balanced even if players never choose to use the Recall Knowledge action, and I guess I should point out again that it's an option in the book not something presented as mandatory at the start of every encounter with a creature.

Players are allowed to just dive in and do what they want with their characters - even if they've got lots of experience playing the game.

[HumbleGamer]

thenobledrake wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Yes, but it would be extremely strange that the creature you casually decides to use holy water onto is an undead, or the one you decide to light up with fire is a troll.

That entirely depends on context though, doesn't it?

For example, a campaign in which you find holy water as treasure provides a context that there is some purpose for that item being where you found it, so even if a creature you encounter soon after doesn't tick the boxes for being obviously undead or a fiend throwing the holy water at it without stopping to think "do I know if this is actually going to work out well?" isn't an unreasonable course of action for a character.

HumbleGamer wrote:

But roleplay apart, the game is also balanced around recall knowledge checks too, so it would be better to stick with then.

The game is balanced even if players never choose to use the Recall Knowledge action, and I guess I should point out again that it's an option in the book not something presented as mandatory at the start of every encounter with a creature.

Players are allowed to just dive in and do what they want with their characters - even if they've got lots of experience playing the game.

About the first, it seems a double assumption.

1) that the holy water is there for a reason ( could be part of generic provisions ).

2) that the creatures you will find there are demons or undeads ( could be anything ).

As for the possibility to use it or not, since it force you to wonder if to expend or not an action during an encounter, while it is ok not to use it, it semplifies the encounter, giving extra actions.

[thenobledrake]

Yes, it is an assumption for a character or player to think an item is where it is for a reason.

What relevance does that have to the discussion?

And no, no "extra actions" are being given anywhere I don't even know what you're talking about there.

[HumbleGamer]

thenobledrake wrote:

Yes, it is an assumption for a character or player to think an item is where it is for a reason.

What relevance does that have to the discussion?

And no, no "extra actions" are being given anywhere I don't even know what you're talking about there.

The relevant part is to expect the player to declare that stuff and proceed with flasks in hand, ready to throw it to the first thing you see which is not human.

About the action, if during a campaign you play with recall knowledge, because of it you will be expend ing 1 or more actions during an encounter. Those actions could be on the other hand expended in other ways.

Not sure if you are suggesting that a party can play the whole campaign without a single recall knowledge check or to simply remove the mechanics.

Whatever the reason, not to expend an action on a recall knowledge while knowing what you are fighting at the same time, it is increasing your action economy.

[Mathmuse]

thenobledrake wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Yes, but it would be extremely strange that the creature you casually decides to use holy water onto is an undead, or the one you decide to light up with fire is a troll.

That entirely depends on context though, doesn't it?

In addition to recalled knowledge, the game also has basic knowledge, information that no character needs to roll for. For example, people know that rain is water, people ought to eat every day, and that goblins die when swords stab through them.

In my settings, holy water hurting undead is basic knowledge. The bestiary has Skeleton Guard and Zombie Shambler, creatures -1, so the DC that at least two undead creatures are hurt by holy water would be 13 at the highest. We also have Ghoul and Plague Zombie at level 1.

For that matter, there might be places where the troll's regeneration is basic knowledge.

SHOPKEEPER: Here are your travel provisions. Going off hunting?
PLAYER: We are heading to the Heatherpeak Hills.
SHOPKEEPER: (reaches below the counter to pull out two flasks) In that case, you will need these.
PLAYER: (reads labels) Acid Flask and Alchemist's Fire?
SHOPKEEPER: The maps might call them hills Heatherpeak, but we call them the Troll Hills. Trolls live in the caves there.
PLAyER: What does that have to do with acid?
SHOPKEEPER: Let me explain about troll regenertion, and why you want to pay 3 gold pieces for each of these little beauties. ...

[theservantsllcleanitup]

thenobledrake wrote:

can you explain why I'm being forced to provide an explanation instead of being allowed to play my character the same way that someone who doesn't have my experience with the game could play?

Yes. The player who doesn't have your experience doesn't have to roleplay being ignorant, because they are ignorant. If they randomly decide to use just the right tool for the job, then they have legitimate stumbled upon serendipity.

Murder and manslaughter may have the same result, but they are two different crimes due only to what is going on in the head of the person who committed them.

[Troll Bait]

If it's eating me, I assume it's a Troll.

[thenobledrake]

HumbleGamer wrote:

The relevant part is to expect the player to declare that stuff and proceed with flasks in hand, ready to throw it to the first thing you see which is not human.

I don't think I understand what you have said, because it appears that you have said that if I come across holy water in your campaign you expect me to throw it at the next monster I see even if it is clearly some kind of giant insect (or otherwise definitely not something that seems like maybe the holy water will work on).

HumbleGamer wrote:

Not sure if you are suggesting that a party can play the whole campaign without a single recall knowledge check or to simply remove the mechanics.

I'm not suggesting anything. I am stating that not all character will be making Recall Knowledge checks, nor should they be required to for any reason.

Just like how some characters will never take a Strike action, or Ready an action, or any other specific action (though I figure every character is going to Stride pretty regularly).

HumbleGamer wrote:

Whatever the reason, not to expend an action on a recall knowledge while knowing what you are fighting at the same time, it is increasing your action economy.

It most definitely is not.

3 actions is 3 actions, no matter what a player has chosen to use them on.

[Rysky]

And that third Action you can now use on soemthing else, thus increasing your action economy.

[thenobledrake]

Does choosing to Stride, Strike, and Strike "increase my action economy" from choosing to Stride, Raise a Shield, and Strike? What about from choosing to Stride and Cast a Spell as a 2 action activity?

No, it clearly doesn't... so what's different about the Recall Knowledge action?

[Rysky]

Way to completely ignore what was being said.

[thenobledrake]

You are making a claim that doesn't make any sense, I'm trying to make sense of it and struggling on account of the it not making any sense... maybe try to explain it differently?

Because as-is, I see no way in which I am receiving "increased action economy" as a result of choosing particular actions - it's not like I've somehow quickened my character or just outright cheated and taken more actions than the game allows.

[Rysky]

You have more action economy because instead of using 1 Action to Recall Knowledge you cheat and go off your player knowledge of having read the stat block, thus saving that 1 Action.

[thenobledrake]

Except no, because you're still assuming I'm aware of what I'm fighting and that if I weren't I'd use Recall Knowledge which there's no requirement for me to do.

So I'm not "saving" anything, and I'm also not "cheating" since another player could do exactly what I'm doing and that be totally fine.

[Rysky]

If you switch to a different means of attack to take advantage of a monster’s weakness then yes you do know what you’re fighting.

Doing so against not common creatures aka the only way you would know about this weakness outside of Recall Knowledge is from you already knowing the statblock aka cheating.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Rysky, let me ask you a question- if I'm a wizard who uses a bunch of different elemental spells, like, it's not weird for me to throw a fireball at something, but sometimes I throw lightning bolts, cones of cold, and etc.

I happen to know that trolls have that vulnerability to fire because I have a pulse, but this character doesn't know that because they've never encountered trolls.

Do I have to succeed a recall knowledge check to throw the fireball to game ethically?

The fireball isn't the only thing I do (I'm not a pyromancer or something), but its certainly something I regularly have on me, and use as part of my kit.

[Nefreet]

Roll randomly to decide which spell you use?

[Rysky]

^ Especially if you play a Sorcerer.

More seriously if Fireball is something you actually use often then it’s not outside the norm (what is it, i’unno it’s fleshy).

Pulling an obsidian dagger out that you’ve never used to stab a random undead you just met? Not so much.

Trolls was just a example. By no means the only or even the main one, just what everyone defaulted to.

[HumbleGamer]

Depends the spells you have prepared and what you would have thrown at Giants.

If I were a wizard and my party were facing a Giant or Giants, i would blast him/them with an aoe.

If I had more than 1 aoe i would try a recall knowledge, just to be note efficient or not to waste a spell.

Since he is a Giant i would However blast him with something reflex based saving throw.

On the other hand a sorcerer would probably have less aoe spells and probably one of them would be a signature spell.

So you would have even to think less.

I just have fireball so I throw it regardless my enemy.

If you are a only offensive spells sorcerer it could be different.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Yeah, I sharply disagree- it breaks the tactical verisimilitude of the game to demand that players have to ignore all of their prior experience with the creatures to simulate a character's lack of knowledge by specifically refusing to take the correct action.

I'm less interested in the obsidian dagger interaction because if they bought an obsidian dagger, then they probably have undead's relationship with obsidian in mind as something their character would know for whatever reason, and that backstory is in their purview. It's just better to take for granted that the player knowing it means that they expect their future characters to have an idea about it, specifically to avoid dissonance.

Basically, the sore point for me is that the game uses it's tactical level to draw people into the action- a lot of the immersion in fighting a dragon for me comes from the simulation of a contest between me (vis-a-vis my character) and the dragon. When I have to step out of that mindset in order to say "Ok, I know that throwing a fireball here will increase my chance of victory but now I need to decide whether it's justifiable that my character would happen to do that not knowing about this dragon's fire weakness" it pulls me out of that tactics side of the game in a really jarring way, and it makes me play a weird game of mother-may-i with myself (in terms of my own honor) and the DM (whose idea of honor might be different) of when I've done enough work to realize what the good idea is.

Actually, I think I know how I'll probably run this- I'll encourage my players to bring up when they face this conflict "uh... would Johnny know about trolls and fire?" or "I know throwing a fireball is the right thing to do but..." and then let them spend the action to recall knowledge, but have it succeed automatically.

They pay an action cost, but don't have to play stupid games.

[thenobledrake]

Rysky wrote:

If you switch to a different means of attack to take advantage of a monster’s weakness then yes you do know what you’re fighting.

If I switch to a different means of attack because I feel like switching things up, and it happens to trigger a weakness, that doesn't mean I knew what I was fighting.

How do you know which has happened?

[Nefreet]

So, again, I believe the point being made is that you can either go about your decisions in good faith, or bad faith.

(I will refrain from using the word "cheat" because I personally find that to be more triggering in these sorts of discussions)

If you have a character who's opening tactic is to fireball anything that moves, then fireballing a troll upon your first meeting shouldn't be a problem.

If you have a character who legitimately does switch up their attacks, using different weapons over the course of every encounter, then randomly pulling out your cold iron sword against the weird wolf that happens to be a fey creature shouldn't be a problem.

It's when you use your out-of-character knowledge to your benefit without disclosing why you're doing it that you are acting in bad faith.

[Rysky]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

I'm less interested in the obsidian dagger interaction because if they bought an obsidian dagger, then they probably have undead's relationship with obsidian in mind as something their character would know for whatever reason, and that backstory is in their purview. It's just better to take for granted that the player knowing it means that they expect their future characters to have an idea about it, specifically to avoid dissonance.

If your player talks to you before hand about encountering and dealing with a rare undead and you agree with them (aka work out their backstory) that’s fine.

Other than that I’m against Players arbitrarily deciding their Characters know monster’s weaknesses, especially rare ones that live on another planet. Even moreso when said weapon is not used for absolutely anything else.

(For those who still haven’t caught on, I’ve been referring to Rasputin Must Die! where you start to encounter Fexts, which are hurt more by glass/obsidian)

[Rysky]

thenobledrake wrote:

Rysky wrote:

If you switch to a different means of attack to take advantage of a monster’s weakness then yes you do know what you’re fighting.

If I switch to a different means of attack because I feel like switching things up, and it happens to trigger a weakness, that doesn't mean I knew what I was fighting.

How do you know which has happened?

The fact that this was the only time you “switched it up” and it only seems to occur when benefitting you, not out of some whimsy.

[theservantsllcleanitup]

Rysky wrote:

How do you know which has happened?

Only you know which has happened.

Let's remember at the bottom of all this, it's down to the player who is making the decision. There are no thought police, no GM can read anyone's mind. If you find yourself constantly deciding that your character will whimsically decide to switch to an optimal strategy that they would have very little reason to actually know about... well that's up to you. But at the very least be self aware that you are cheesing it a bit.

[Nefreet]

Rysky wrote:

(For those who still haven’t caught on, I’ve been referring to Rasputin Must Die! where you start to encounter Fexts, which are hurt more by glass/obsidian)

This whole time I thought you were making a Game of Thrones reference.

I guess the GM governing my life decided that wasn't "common knowledge" for me.

[Rysky]

theservantsllcleanitup wrote:

Rysky wrote:

How do you know which has happened?

Only you know which has happened.

Let's remember at the bottom of all this, it's down to the player who is making the decision. There are no thought police, no GM can read anyone's mind. If you find yourself constantly deciding that your character will whimsically decide to switch to an optimal strategy that they would have very little reason to actually know about... well that's up to you. But at the very least be self aware that you are cheesing it a bit.

If you "whimsically" decide to switch to an alternate weapon/fighting method every time it's optimal to take advantage of Weaknesses without using Recall Knowledge and without having encountered said creature before everyone in the group knows what's happening.

[Rysky]

Nefreet wrote:

Rysky wrote:

(For those who still haven’t caught on, I’ve been referring to Rasputin Must Die! where you start to encounter Fexts, which are hurt more by glass/obsidian)

This whole time I thought you were making a Game of Thrones reference.

I guess the GM governing my life decided that wasn't "common knowledge" for me.

LMAO

I completely forgot Whitewalkers were hurt by obsidian too.

[thenobledrake]

Rysky wrote:

The fact that this was the only time you “switched it up” and it only seems to occur when benefitting you, not out of some whimsy.

It's not a fact that this is the only time though. The nature of using one example is that we only have a single data point - you can't assume this is the only time I'll ever switch up attack options or that it'll always be to my benefit when it happens, you can only determine based on this singular data point and things which have happened prior to it... and up to this point I've had no hint of doing anything you don't want me to, so why are you certain that my motive in this instance is anything but genuine?

[Rysky]

You've been using "switch it up" as a cover to metagame thus far so that's what I've been going off of.

[Nefreet]

My coworkers, all 4 of them, have never played a tabletop roleplaying game. Their fantasy knowledge is limited to what I've explained to them (although, admittedly, that might be more than the average American in itself).

I just asked them what their weapon of choice would be if they fought a troll.

One responded with "Arrows. That's what Legolas killed the cave troll with!"

Two responded with, basically, "I don't know... A sword?"

And the last one responded, questioningly, with, "Fireball?"

So I asked that person why they answered the way they did, and their reason was, "Isn't that, like, the most powerful spell?"

Small sample size, to be sure, but enough to show that we as gamers have more experience with iconic tropes than the average Joe, and we should admit that might influence our biases. Just a little.

[thenobledrake]

Rysky wrote:

You've been using "switch it up" as a cover to metagame thus far so that's what I've been going off of.

...how exactly is that different from me legitimately not metagaming and explaining how I was not metagaming?

It looks like you're applying circular logic - you know I'm metagaming because you know I'm metagaming, and you know I'm just covering for my metagaming rather than being honest because you know I'm metagaming.

[Rysky]

Because over these 3 threads about metagaming you have been defending metagaming and bouncing back and forth with "metagaming isn't bad" to "[metagame] is what I do, but metagaming is bad, so I can't be metagaming" to "there's not a rule saying I have to use Recall Knowledge before I attack with anything" to "oh this character is just being whimsical and decided to switch for this specific creature for no reason" as well as a host of hypotheticals that only exist in a theorycrafting vacuum and don't actually play out.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Rysky wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

I'm less interested in the obsidian dagger interaction because if they bought an obsidian dagger, then they probably have undead's relationship with obsidian in mind as something their character would know for whatever reason, and that backstory is in their purview. It's just better to take for granted that the player knowing it means that they expect their future characters to have an idea about it, specifically to avoid dissonance.

If your player talks to you before hand about encountering and dealing with a rare undead and you agree with them (aka work out their backstory) that’s fine.

Other than that I’m against Players arbitrarily deciding their Characters know monster’s weaknesses, especially rare ones that live on another planet. Even moreso when said weapon is not used for absolutely anything else.

(For those who still haven’t caught on, I’ve been referring to Rasputin Must Die! where you start to encounter Fexts, which are hurt more by glass/obsidian)

ah I honestly thought it was something more general to undead at large, that changes my assessment- imo, the problem there is reading the module, its not general knowledge, its specific knowledge.

I'm defending knowing about a more general weakness, like regeneration and fire, or whatever relationship some undead probably have with radiant, or knowing about skelles and bludgeoning.

[Rysky]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Rysky wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

I'm less interested in the obsidian dagger interaction because if they bought an obsidian dagger, then they probably have undead's relationship with obsidian in mind as something their character would know for whatever reason, and that backstory is in their purview. It's just better to take for granted that the player knowing it means that they expect their future characters to have an idea about it, specifically to avoid dissonance.

If your player talks to you before hand about encountering and dealing with a rare undead and you agree with them (aka work out their backstory) that’s fine.

Other than that I’m against Players arbitrarily deciding their Characters know monster’s weaknesses, especially rare ones that live on another planet. Even moreso when said weapon is not used for absolutely anything else.

(For those who still haven’t caught on, I’ve been referring to Rasputin Must Die! where you start to encounter Fexts, which are hurt more by glass/obsidian)

ah I honestly thought it was something more general to undead at large, that changes my assessment- imo, the problem there is reading the module, its not general knowledge, its specific knowledge.

I'm defending knowing about a more general weakness, like regeneration and fire, or whatever relationship some undead probably have with radiant, or knowing about skelles and bludgeoning.

*nods*

[BellyBeard]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

I'm defending knowing about a more general weakness, like regeneration and fire, or whatever relationship some undead probably have with radiant, or knowing about skelles and bludgeoning.

IMO the GM should decide where the line is drawn between "general knowledge" and something you have to roll for. I would assume most GMs would probably give the regeneration one to anyone who comes from an area with trolls, and the skeleton one seems like common sense, but once you get to very slightly more obscure ones (demons with cold iron, how common is that knowledge?) it gets muddier, which is why the GM should decide.

[thenobledrake]

Rysky wrote:

Because over these 3 threads about metagaming you have been defending metagaming and bouncing back and forth with "metagaming isn't bad" to "[metagame] is what I do, but metagaming is bad, so I can't be metagaming" to "there's not a rule saying I have to use Recall Knowledge before I attack with anything" to "oh this character is just being whimsical and decided to switch for this specific creature for no reason" as well as a host of hypotheticals that only exist in a theorycrafting vacuum and don't actually play out.

What you're looking at there and calling "bouncing back and forth" and in the other thread "moving the goal posts" is actually just me trying to bring in different facets of my argument - that the generally used definition of metagaming is useless because the only difference between just playing the game and that definition of metagaming is the GM believing the player is metagaming - to try and get some understanding.

Meanwhile, you've basically called me a liar by saying "no they didn't" when I told you exactly what has actually happened to me before as a player - and throughout the whole discussion, you've presented no more evidence for your own arguments than the equivalent of "because I said so" and circular logic that says I'm definitely metagaming because you believe I am metagaming, and there's literally nothing I can say to change your mind (at least nothing I can think of, because every time I try you just dismiss me out of hand or accuse me of some bad faith discussion).

At this point, I believe I've said all I can, and brought ideas to all those currently participating in the discussion that are receptive to them - so this post is gonna be the last one unless someone new joins in, or a fresh direction for the discussion occurs.

[Ascalaphus]

theservantsllcleanitup wrote:

Rysky wrote:

How do you know which has happened?

Only you know which has happened.

Let's remember at the bottom of all this, it's down to the player who is making the decision. There are no thought police, no GM can read anyone's mind. If you find yourself constantly deciding that your character will whimsically decide to switch to an optimal strategy that they would have very little reason to actually know about... well that's up to you. But at the very least be self aware that you are cheesing it a bit.

Well it's not really just up to the player. It's up to the gaming group to agree on a set of rules by which they want to play together, and the player playing fair by those rules.

Although not all groups play that way, it is pretty much the baseline assumption that using player knowledge that the character wouldn't have is not okay.

If the gaming group (especially the GM) agrees that trolls are common in this part of the setting and people know about their weaknesses, that's fine. If you as a player unilaterally decide that your character knows about that, that's not fine.