What Skill do you use to Identify a Troll?

[Jib916]

A interesting question came up this weekend. What skills do you use to Identify a troll?

Trolls have The Giant and Troll traits. They do not have any of the traits used to Identify creatures. Looking up Giants, they have the Humanioid trait, so I am inclined to believe they missed that trait in the stat block, but as written, there is no way to identity trolls.

It did lead to some fun during the rest of our game, when ever we could not Identify a creature, it was automatically a troll! xD

[Loreguard]

It may be that a Troll, Giant, Elf, Drow, etc. would all use the Society skill.

[Gorbacz]

Lore (Internet Discussions).

[HumbleGamer]

Gorbacz wrote:

Lore (Internet Discussions).

I was waiting for this.

[archmagi1]

All the skills!

Society: Trolls are big ugly monsters who like swamps, caves, and under bridges!
Occult: Trolls can regrow basically anything but a head.
Arcana: Fire and Acid to keep them dead!
Religion: They are not outsiders or undead.
Nature: They're not good for you to eat.

But I would probably use a Lore (Common Monsters, Fairy Tales, Folklore) or something equally commonplace.

[Brew Bird]

archmagi1 wrote:

Occult: Trolls can regrow basically anything but a head.

I think they can regrow that too. Trolls are terrifying.

[Mechagamera]

Scent

[tivadar27]

Gorbacz wrote:

Lore (Internet Discussions).

I came here to say this...

[Angel Hunter D]

Take the easy route that my local has gone with - don't ID things in combat, your actions are almost always better spent elsewhere.

Outside of combat, nature or society would be my bet. People from Kaer Maga know their troll neighbours.

[Handy Haversack of Hillarity]

Gorbacz wrote:

Lore (Internet Discussions).

You beat me to it! Which one do I use to identify a ninja troll?!?!

[BellyBeard]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Take the easy route that my local has gone with - don't ID things in combat, your actions are almost always better spent elsewhere.

Outside of combat, nature or society would be my bet. People from Kaer Maga know their troll neighbours.

So how do your characters know to hit it with fire then?

[krazmuze]

BellyBeard wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Take the easy route that my local has gone with - don't ID things in combat, your actions are almost always better spent elsewhere.

Outside of combat, nature or society would be my bet. People from Kaer Maga know their troll neighbours.

So how do your characters know to hit it with fire then?

Recall knowledge in exploration to get the intel does not work when the troll starts initiative by jumping you from under the bridge. So by all means use it during combat if you missed the chance to do so in exploration, especially if the GM is fond of uncommon trolls that are not solved with fire. If all the players start hitting it with fire, then I think GM should force the recall knowledge actions to avoid the metagaming. It literally says in the troll description that first hand knowledge is needed to truly understand them, but surely some villagers have had experience so that society knows about the local trolls.

[HumbleGamer]

archmagi1 wrote:

All the skills!

Society: Trolls are big ugly monsters who like swamps, caves, and under bridges!
Occult: Trolls can regrow basically anything but a head.
Arcana: Fire and Acid to keep them dead!
Religion: They are not outsiders or undead.
Nature: They're not good for you to eat.

But I would probably use a Lore (Common Monsters, Fairy Tales, Folklore) or something equally commonplace.

That's nice.

Especially for the lore skill part.

[NielsenE]

In general I've been allowing a broad range of skills on recall knowledge checks -- tailoring the information based on the skill. In the case of trolls, I'd probably alloy Society, Arcane, Primal, or Occult -- all of which would get the regeneration stopped by fire as the key defining thing, given that its a relatively well-known fact. Fire/sun domain clerics could probably also use religion. In the case of trolls, there isn't an interesting set of non-regeneration based key facts to key to difference skills.

If it was a non-standard troll, Primal would probably have the easiest time recognizing the difference. Maybe allowing Craft from an alchemically minded character after observing the regeneration in action.

[thenobledrake]

krazmuze wrote:

...If all the players start hitting it with fire, then I think GM should force the recall knowledge actions to avoid the metagaming...

Throwing fire at a monster isn't inherently meta-gaming - even in cases where the player totally knows that it will work out well but the character doesn't - because fire is harmful to nearly all living creatures.

But what is guaranteed to be meta-gaming is the DM forcing the character to take particular actions for no reason other than because of what a player presumably knows.

TL;DR: "What do you mean I'm meta-gaming? Since when can't I throw fire at ogres if I like it? No, I didn't know it was a troll, calm down and let's play already."

[JohannVonUlm]

archmagi1 wrote:

All the skills!

Society: Trolls are big ugly monsters who like swamps, caves, and under bridges!
Occult: Trolls can regrow basically anything but a head.
Arcana: Fire and Acid to keep them dead!
Religion: They are not outsiders or undead.
Nature: They're not good for you to eat.

But I would probably use a Lore (Common Monsters, Fairy Tales, Folklore) or something equally commonplace.

Here's the thing I like about PF2, it gives some flexibility to the GM to determine the DC when PCs try side cases.

Player, with Pathfinder Society Lore -- I'm sure I read about someone fighting these great green beasts. I think it was Bartavious the Brave in issue 23. Or maybe it was Kalkamedes in issue 152. Can I make a PF Society Lore check?

GM -- Um sure.
<<SECRET CHECK - success>> yeah, these are trolls with vulnerability to fire.
or
<<SECRET CHECK - crit fail>> yeah, these are troglodytes. Mean buggers nasty with a club.

The GM gets to set the DC, has a nice couple of tables based on the creature level. I love the flexibility of it.

[Tender Tendrils]

I think the metagaming issue is when everyone in the party starts throwing fire at the troll without a knowledge check when they don't normally throw fire at things.

If the wizard normally fireballs everything, then fireballing the troll is only natural.

If the rogue immediately pulls out the lamp oil that they have never used in combat before when they normally just stab everything, or the ice themed sorcerer pulls out the scroll of burning hands they looted 4 levels ago, I would probably ask them to justify why their character knows to do that.

Edit: also, I would classify identifying the physiological traits of non-magical creatures under natural philosophy (the predecessor to modern biology) which would make it a nature roll, though society would work to identify the trolls cultural apprehensions of fire (say, a legend among trolls that fire is a malevolent spirit that they all fear, which won't necessarily tell you that it stops their regeneration, but knowing they fear it is enough).

[thenobledrake]

If you wouldn't balk at the character that "normally just stab everything" deciding to mix-it-up and using flaming oil in an encounter against <insert monster that has no positive interaction with fire damage>, but you take issue with that character making that choice in an encounter against <insert monster with positive interaction with fire damage> you are the one bringing the player's knowledge, rather than the character's, into the equation - and I hear that's called "metagaming" and is "a bad thing."

This is why I usually tell people that metagaming, as the term is commonly used, is a thing that a power-tripping DM way back in the day made up as a means to punish his players for remembering the rules of the game, especially if it prevented that DM from using artificial difficult in encounters (like how some video games are difficult not because the challenge of jumping over a hole is difficult, but because the controls are unreliable or unresponsive).

[Rysky]

Players are supposed to know how their characters play, not the statblocks of monsters.

A PC suddenly using fire against an enemy weak to it out of the blue with no catalyst to cause that change (such as making the knowledge checks) is metagaming.

[HumbleGamer]

In this specific scenario, if fire is not what he would normally use in that scenario, then the player is doing metagaming.

A caster with only 2 offensive cantrips, like Electric Arc and produce flame, would probably use produce flame on the giant, knowing his weakness.

Another caster with all primal cantrip could be choosing between produce flame and ray of frost, with no metagaming because both could be ok in my opinion ( Electric Arc is for 2 targets, acid splash if I recall correctly is for objects and splash dmg, while chili touch is for undead creatures ).

A fighter lighting a torch and using it to damage the troll without knowing it would be meta.

A charhide Goblin fighter with torch goblin feat could simply decide to use it because of the size of the enemy, or to intimidate it, or simply because of damage rotation.

Knowing that even if a character able to cast fireballs could have hard time remember monster stats, while some players could exactly remember most of the monster Manual stuff with no issues, I tend to modify some monsters to give unique enemies to deal with, and also to make good use of recall knowledge skill.

Finally, what I always try to avoid is to forcing players to act like the don't know stuff. Instead, I tend to make them know or not know things related to the monsters ( es: on successful knowledge i will give the one who did the check a piece of paper to read, or if playing by roll20 or fg, I simply whisper them. But this applies to pratically anything ).

[BellyBeard]

thenobledrake wrote:

If you wouldn't balk at the character that "normally just stab everything" deciding to mix-it-up and using flaming oil in an encounter against <insert monster that has no positive interaction with fire damage>...

That's exactly the point they're making, they would balk at this because it flatly does not make sense at all unless you know about the monster's weakness to fire. From a numbers perspective it will do less damage and be unreliable (attack roll followed by flat 45% chance to fail, for a whopping 1d6 damage), which translates to a character perspective of: if I've got this sword in my hand why the heck would I put it away and pull out lantern oil that I hope will ignite when I fashion a molotov cocktail? It's nonsense to put a real weapon away and make an improvised one on the spot just for kicks in a life or death scenario.

If my wizard character decided to stop using spells and start punching things with a pitiful attack and damage modifier, I would ask them why they're doing that. If my fighter decided to put away his sword and start throwing weak homemade bombs for pitiful damage, I would ask why he was doing that. Mind you, they might have good reasons, in which case we could happily proceed, but in this particular case the reason is "my character doesn't know about their fire weakness but I do so I'm using fire".

Edit to add: frankly, I didn't care about this in PF1, because the mechanics around determining what your character knows were kinda more vague so I just rolled with the OoC knowledge. But now we have concrete mechanics to determine what you know, and actual actions you have to take to know more, so I'm enforcing it more.

[Fumarole]

thenobledrake wrote:

TL;DR: "What do you mean I'm meta-gaming? Since when can't I throw fire at ogres if I like it? No, I didn't know it was a troll, calm down and let's play already."

If a player told me to calm down at my table, in my house where they are a guest, then there'd be a bigger problem than possible metagaming.

[thenobledrake]

BellyBeard wrote:

That's exactly the point they're making, they would balk at this because it flatly does not make sense at all unless you know about the monster's weakness to fire.

Not only is it not required that a player's choices "make sense" to anyone but them, but it does actually make sense to use fire as a weapon when you don't know about what weaknesses your foe has.

The only time it doesn't "make sense" is if the character is sure that their target will resist the damage.

And the only time a hypothetical GM is going to try and step in and say "hang on, you can't do that" isn't happening because the player is doing something they haven't done all the time before this point, it's happening because the GM is trying to prevent a weakness from being correctly guessed at by a character.

I say it all the time just in case someone reads it and "gets it" finally: Metagaming as commonly understood is just a power-trip that punishes players for learning the game - if a brand new player that doesn't know anything about the game could choose an action in a given situation, and you'd balk at an experience and knowledgeable player taking the same action in the same situation, you're the one doing the metagaming, and you're also suggesting that the longer a person has been playing and the better memory they have the worse of a player they are.

[BellyBeard]

Do you think there should be some kind of separation between what a player knows and what a character knows? Put another way, is it fine for a level 1 character rolled up by someone who just finished an AP to have the same knowledge of the monsters the 20th level character just fought?

Without separation, Recall Knowledge and the associated skills actually become worse as the player gets more experience in the system. Rolling Recall Knowledge means your character could crit fail and think the wrong thing, and we can just use the right thing without rolling at all, so these skills and actions are strictly for new players to pathfinder or for weird enemies specific to an AP, including the Bard and ranger class features revolving around identifying enemy weaknesses. As an experienced player you should entirely avoid the Recall Knowledge action, read the bestiaries, and use the weapons enemies are weak to just because your character is just really good at guessing and has plausible deniability, not because they actually have knowledge of the enemy. Is that how the game should be played in order for the GM to not be on a power trip?

[thenobledrake]

Separation of what a player knows and what a character knows only matters in cases of when the character cannot possibly do the thing they are doing without some piece of knowledge (and incidentally all of that is outright cheating, rather than metagaming).

Otherwise player knowledge is simply a means by which what a character knows and/or can perceive in the fictional world they exist in is communicated to and interpreted by a player.

And by the way, trying to paint my stance in extremes like equating me saying "it's not metagaming to throw fire at an unknown enemy, even if that enemy happens to be a troll" to me saying that players should go memorize the bestiary isn't helping your point look reasonable.

Players shouldn't go out of their way to memorize all the weaknesses and resistances in the game, but they also shouldn't be penalized if they remember some that they learned in the natural course of playing the game. And Recall Knowledge is there for them to use in situations where they either don't remember what they are facing (whether that's because they've never faced it before or just lapsed memory) or are looking for confirmation that their assumptions made based on the description given are correct.

It's no more mandatory to roll Recall Knowledge before using <insert attack type> against <insert monster type it interacts with> than it is to roll Recall Knowledge before using a longsword against a goblin.

[Rysky]

"if a brand new player that doesn't know anything about the game could choose an action in a given situation, and you'd balk at an experience and knowledgeable player taking the same action in the same situation."

Did the "experience and knowledgable" player make a recall knowledge check to determine the weakness of the monster thus faciliating the action? No? Then yes.

"Players shouldn't go out of their way to memorize all the weaknesses and resistances in the game, but they also shouldn't be penalized if they remember some that they learned in the natural course of playing the game."

Have they fought a troll previously in this campaign? That's fine. Have they never encountered a troll in this campaign and are just running off reading the Bestairy statblock or having encountered a troll in a different campaign with a different character? That's metagaming.

"It's no more mandatory to roll Recall Knowledge before using <insert attack type> against <insert monster type it interacts with> than it is to roll Recall Knowledge before using a longsword against a goblin."

It very well is since how would your character know to do otherwise.

You go through an entire campaign using whatever increasingly better weapons you find until you encounter an undead you've never met and decide to take out a nonmagical obsidian greatsword that you bought at the beginning of the game that you've never used before the fight starts it's blatantly metagaming. There is absolutely zero reason or justification for your character to switch to that weapon.

[thenobledrake]

Rysky wrote:

Did the "experience and knowledgable" player make a recall knowledge check to determine the weakness of the monster thus faciliating the action? No? Then yes.

Does a brand new player have to make that same check before taking the action? No? Then why does the experienced player?

What you're describing isn't policing the knowledge a character has, it's policing the player's thoughts. How is that an improvement to the game? How is it reasonable to have players have to jump through more hoops the more experienced they are at playing the game? How is the GM insisting on a particular action because of what the player knows not the exact same thing as the player choosing an action because of what they knnow?

Rysky wrote:

You go through an entire campaign using whatever increasingly better weapons you find until you encounter an undead you've never met and decide to take out a nonmagical obsidian greatsword that you bought at the beginning of the game that you've never used before the fight starts it's blatantly metagaming. There is absolutely zero reason or justification for your character to switch to that weapon.

How many sessions, or how much time passing in other measured ways, stands between "I just hadn't used that yet" and "you haven't ever done that before, so doing it now is metagaming"?

Why would every GM I've ever had a discussion about metagaming with online not have equal "you can't do that, that's metagaming" reaction if a player whips out <item they've been holding on to but haven't used yet and isn't their go-to method of attacking> and it not happen to be relevant, if it is actually "your character wouldn't know" that is the problem?

Edit to add:

Rysky wrote:

It very well is since how would your character know to do otherwise.

If I don't need to know that a normal longsword is definitely going to work in order to attack a <insert literally anything here>, then I don't need to know <other attack> is definitely going to work to use it either.

People that insist that this kind of thing is metagaming never seem to want to answer me when I ask why a character has to know a troll is a troll to try and burn it, but don't need to know an ogre is an ogre to burn that, or know that a demon is a demon to burn that. They also don't seem willing to acknowledge that it isn't lacking the information that it will work that would prevent an attack, but possessing the knowledge that it won't work that would - otherwise "I'll just see what happens" is a valid explanation.

[Rysky]

Quote:

Does a brand new player have to make that same check before taking the action? No? Then why does the experienced player?

Of course they do, why wouldn't they?

Quote:

What you're describing isn't policing the knowledge a character has, it's policing the player's thoughts. How is that an improvement to the game? How is it reasonable to have players have to jump through more hoops the more experienced they are at playing the game? How is the GM insisting on a particular action because of what the player knows not the exact same thing as the player choosing an action because of what they knnow?

Making a Recall Knowledge IS what the character knows. You don't arbritrarily get to decide what statblocks and maps your character knows.

Quote:

How many sessions, or how much time passing in other measured ways, stands between "I just hadn't used that yet" and "you haven't ever done that before, so doing it now is metagaming"?

I said whole campaign. The hypothetical I used was Rasputin Must Die, so book 5 of 6 of Reign of Winter. Which is irrelevant since I also said they had better magical weapons, there is absolutely no reason for them to switch to a nonmagical weapon of a weaker material unless they know the monster is weak to it. A monster they've never encountered before and haven't made any checks on.

Quote:

Why would every GM I've ever had a discussion about metagaming with online not have equal "you can't do that, that's metagaming" reaction if a player whips out <item they've been holding on to but haven't used yet and isn't their go-to method of attacking> and it not happen to be relevant, if it is actually "your character wouldn't know" that is the problem?

Got an actual example of this or is it just something you're saying to say.

Quote:

If I don't need to know that a normal longsword is definitely going to work in order to attack a <insert literally anything here>, then I don't need to know <other attack> is definitely going to work to use it either.

If said attack is outside the norm then yes you do. Unless you used Recall Knowledge. Just because you read all the statblocks and know the Weaknesses of enemies and what elements and materials to use does not mean your character does. This is flat out cheating.

You read the statblock so you know what to use, you read the map of the AP so you know where all the traps are. Acting on that is metagaming.

Quote:

People that insist that this kind of thing is metagaming never seem to want to answer me when I ask why a character has to know a troll is a troll to try and burn it, but don't need to know an ogre is an ogre to burn that, or know that a demon is a demon to burn that. They also don't seem willing to acknowledge that it isn't lacking the information that it will work that would prevent an attack, but possessing the knowledge that it won't work that would - otherwise "I'll just see what happens" is a valid explanation.

And now you're just flat out not arguing in good faith, and also arguing something that absolutely no one is making an argument of. If your go to is using fire that's fine. Switching to fire which is outside your norm without any catalyst for doing so to take advantage of player knowledge the character does not have access to is not.

[MadMars]

I agree broadly with Rysky and the others, but trolls would be a bad example for me. Trolls getting harmed by fire (well, the common ones) is so commonly known OoC it would be really, really, hard to ask a PC to roleplay not knowing it. I might just say "everyone in the world basically learns that if they live anywhere in the vicinity of trolls so bring out the fire" in that very specific niche of "monsters' attributes are so common they could probably even be guessed at by a fair number of people who have never even played the game."

That's a very specific niche indeed, though, limited to things like trolls, hydras, etc.

[Rysky]

MadMars wrote:

I agree broadly with Rysky and the others, but trolls would be a bad example for me. Trolls getting harmed by fire (well, the common ones) is so commonly known OoC it would be really, really, hard to ask a PC to roleplay not knowing it. I might just say "everyone in the world basically learns that if they live anywhere in the vicinity of trolls so bring out the fire" in that very specific niche of "monsters' attributes are so common they could probably even be guessed at by a fair number of people who have never even played the game."

That's a very specific niche indeed, though, limited to things like trolls, hydras, etc.

Yep, and that's a perfectly legitimate Setting/GM allowance. Not "my character knows because I say so."

And Troll/Hyrda are just two common examples (and there's more than one type of Troll/Hydra as well), there's a LOT of monsters with specific Weaknesses that certainly aren't commonly encountered.

[David knott 242]

Don't forget that PCs can legitimately learn from things that the players ahead of them try and fail with. For example, if one of their allies attacks a monster, gets a solid hit, and does little or no damage, that is generally enough notice that they should start trying unusual things.

[Chief Cook and Bottlewasher]

The idea that you only know about things you've encountered bothers me. Many of the traits are from mythology. And we know them because of storytelling, not just RPG experience. Surely every village in Golarion has storytellers. Featuring trolls as well as vampires and dragons and ghosts and the like. In fact, everyone is assumed literate, so have likely been reading stories. The classic abilities like regeneration ought at least be an easy knowledge check.

[Rysky]

And again, having well known/easy Knowledge checks for a certain populace is a legitimate setting/gm allowance. Trolls and Vampires also aren’t everywhere with everyone knowing about them so this is not a given.

Characters going out of their way to use an attack that targets the monster’s weakness with them knowing nothing about said monster is a completely different story.

You’d also at least need to identify the creature as a troll, for example. There’s more than one type.

Also it’s called Recall Knowledge for a reason, you’re remembering what to do.

[HumbleGamer]

Rysky wrote:

You’d also at least need to identify the creature as a troll, for example. There’s more than one type.

Also it’s called Recall Knowledge for a reason, you’re remembering what to do.

Agree.

Also, it would be 2 seconds during a fight ( 3 actions would ne like 6 seconds, isn't it? ).

I see the check as something to recall in a reactive way something you know.

Like to identify the creature you have in front of you, ready to attack, and recall his weakness, attacks and so on in a moment.

While sitting in a tavern you could freely browse your memore searching for specific info you know, without being in a hurry, scared or whatever.

[BellyBeard]

Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:

The idea that you only know about things you've encountered bothers me. Many of the traits are from mythology. And we know them because of storytelling, not just RPG experience. Surely every village in Golarion has storytellers. Featuring trolls as well as vampires and dragons and ghosts and the like. In fact, everyone is assumed literate, so have likely been reading stories. The classic abilities like regeneration ought at least be an easy knowledge check.

Which is why we have Recall Knowledge. You remember a story from your childhood about trolls if you successfully make the check. If you don't spend the actions, that story is not the first thing coming to your mind as a thundering green giant swings a club at you the size of a tree.

[thenobledrake]

Rysky wrote:

Of course they do, why wouldn't they?

Well, for one because the rules present Recall Knowledge as an option, not a mandatory first step you have to take every time you plan on trying to attack literally anything...

or where you meaning that players only have to use Recall Knowledge prior to triggering a weakness and not applying a consistent reasoning at all?

Rysky wrote:

Got an actual example of this or is it just something you're saying to say.

You mean like getting out a hammer that the character has had for in-game months without using because there's some kind of living booger attacking the party?

Rysky wrote:

If said attack is outside the norm then yes you do.

Okay, let's get back to specifics then: How many attacks using my bow are needed for it to officially be 'outside the norm' for me to switch to the sword that my character has, assuming both were purchased at character creation and we are starting counting from there.

[Rysky]

Quote:

Well, for one because the rules present Recall Knowledge as an option, not a mandatory first step you have to take every time you plan on trying to attack literally anything...

No one has made that argument in the slightest.

Quote:

or where you meaning that players only have to use Recall Knowledge prior to triggering a weakness and not applying a consistent reasoning at all?

They need to use it in order to find out whatever esoteric weaknesses/resistances a creature may or may not have if they've never dealt with the creature before.

Quote:

You mean like getting out a hammer that the character has had for in-game months without using because there's some kind of living booger attacking the party?

Using smashy smashy on squishy in hopes of it doing more damage isn't the same leap of logic as using glass weapons on a specific undead because they're weak to them.

Quote:

Okay, let's get back to specifics then: How many attacks using my bow are needed for it to officially be 'outside the norm' for me to switch to the sword that my character has, assuming both were purchased at character creation and we are starting counting from there.

Specific and a wee bit goal post shoving, in here it depends. Is the longsword their standard melee weapon? Do they have other better/magical melee weapons and just switched to the nonmagical longsword because this enemy happens to have weakness to Slashing?

[thenobledrake]

Rysky wrote:

No one has made that argument in the slightest.

That is the exact argument presented by you saying that a player who has no idea what the monster they are facing is that wants to use fire on it would have to roll Recall Knowledge to do so, just like a player that new they were facing a troll would have to.

Rysky wrote:

They need to use it in order to find out whatever esoteric weaknesses/resistances a creature may or may not have if they've never dealt with the creature before.

I do not need to anything at all about a monster in order to choose which of my character's available attacks to use against it. True or false?

Rysky wrote:

Using smashy smashy on squishy in hopes of it doing more damage isn't the same leap of logic as using glass weapons on a specific undead because they're weak to them.

That's true. But it's also a massive shift of the goal posts because before this point we weren't talking about an esoteric weakness like a weapon made of stuff not typically used in making weapons, but a ubiquitous and generally dangerous thing.

Most adventurers wouldn't even think a glass weapon is a thing, but almost all of them have constant access to fire.

Rysky wrote:

Specific and a wee bit goal post shoving, in here it depends. Is the longsword their standard melee weapon? Do they have other better/magical melee weapons and just switched to the nonmagical longsword because this enemy happens to have weakness to Slashing?

I haven't moved my goal posts one bit from where they started, which to be clear is that the thing most people mean when they say "metagaming" is actually thought policing and requires the exact thing that is it is supposedly avoiding (the action taken being what it is because of what the player knows, not because of what the character knows) to be done. And as a result is a useless concept that has no gains, but does cause problems (such as forcing experienced players to play differently than inexperienced players, or making it "wrong play" for me - an experienced GM - to play a character in someone else's campaign that isn't a 'I know everything' concept or just never gets anything right on the first try, unless the other GM takes on the extra work-load of altering every monster or hunting down ones I've never used before).

That said, I still have to ask because, as is typical in these discussions, I'm not getting answers to my questions: How long using one weapon stands between "I just hadn't used this other one yet" and "that's metagaming because you never do that"?

The character believes the sword will work and wants to use it. Why does it matter what other options the character has that they also believe will work? Why does what I as a player think seem necessary for you to know, I thought we were supposed to be keeping that out of the mix because otherwise it's "metagaming."?

[Rysky]

Quote:

That is the exact argument presented by you saying that a player who has no idea what the monster they are facing is that wants to use fire on it would have to roll Recall Knowledge to do so, just like a player that new they were facing a troll would have to.

I have done no such thing. Attempted gaslighting isn't going to do you any favors.

Quote:

I do not need to anything at all about a monster in order to choose which of my character's available attacks to use against it. True or false?

Your justifications do. If the only reason you're pulling out a torch is because you the player and not the character know fire stops the regeneration and wouldn't switch to a torch otherwise, that's metagaming.

Quote:

That's true. But it's also a massive shift of the goal posts because before this point we weren't talking about an esoteric weakness like a weapon made of stuff not typically used in making weapons, but a ubiquitous and generally dangerous thing.

Most adventurers wouldn't even think a glass weapon is a thing, but almost all of them have constant access to fire.

But fire was not being regularly used in these instances. If your a Pyromancer and all your stuff is fire based then it's a non issue. If you only decide to switch to fire from your normal pattern because you player and not your character knows fire does something extra on top of the normal damage fire does then that's an issue.

Quote:

I haven't moved my goal posts one bit from where they started,

If you say so.

Quote:

which to be clear is that the thing most people mean when they say "metagaming" is actually thought policing and requires the exact thing that is it is supposedly avoiding (the action taken being what it is because of what the player knows, not because of what the character knows) to be done. And as a result is a useless concept that has no gains, but does cause problems (such as forcing experienced players to play differently than inexperienced players, or making it "wrong play" for me - an experienced GM - to play a character in someone else's campaign that isn't a 'I know everything' concept or just never gets anything right on the first try, unless the other GM takes on the extra work-load of altering every monster or hunting down ones I've never used before).

Annnnd all of this is pretty much wrong. Metagaming is when you use out of character knowledge to cheat.

Quote:

That said, I still have to ask because, as is typical in these discussions, I'm not getting answers to my questions: How long using one weapon stands between "I just hadn't used this other one yet" and "that's metagaming because you never do that"?

And again that depends. Is it a weapon that you are only using in this one specific instance when it greatly benefit and would never use otherwise and you would need to know the creature's statblock ahead of time to know it would benefit you?

Quote:

The character believes the sword will work and wants to use it. Why does it matter what other options the character has that they also believe will work? Why does what I as a player think seem necessary for you to know, I thought we were supposed to be keeping that out of the mix because otherwise it's "metagaming."?

Why does the character think it will work? Is it a last resort? Or is it because you the player know the creature's statblock?

[RoastCabose]

The issue with metagaming is that it is impossible to not metagame. You cannot separate player knowledge from character knowledge. Simply having the knowledge changes your decision making process, as making a choice without knowing its outcome and purposefully making the wrong choice and fundamentally different.

However, that doesn't mean you could come into my game with the Bestiary memorized and think that you'll be gucci pulling out a cold iron dagger at the first sight of a Redcap, because people in universe don't have encyclopedic knowledge of Fey and all their types (unless they do).

In this conversation, the subject chosen was unfortunate as it really isn't a good example; Trolls are super common knowledge, and people love fire. I'm not going to slap somebodies wrist because they pulled out a firebomb against a troll.

I think a better example would be oozes. They're really a dnd only thing, and not even that common place within the settings. They're resistances to slashing and lightning are interesting for a few reasons. Slashing could easily be figured out with very few context clues, namely that oozes would sensibly not be harmed by things cutting it, cause it just falls back together. A savvy adventurer could probably deduce that, even if the players might not be able to, in kind of a reverse metagame problem.

However, lightning resistance doesn't make intuitive sense. There's nothing to suggest why oozes are resistant. Maybe you could say something about the fact that they're liquid, or something like that, but eeeeehhhhhh, I'd probably call b%~@~%#~.

My point is that since it is impossible not to metagame on some level, there has to be an understanding from the DM that the more common the monster they use, the more likely a player is just going to know something about via osmosis, and really that's okay. It usually just makes the player feel empowered, which I generally see as a good thing. kudos to them. BUT! There is no hard and fast rule about this, and it just has to be a case by case basis.

I think its also important to remember that this is ultimately a game, and you cannot avoid playing it like a game. Recall Knowledge is a very gamified thing in the first place, and is more to fill in the gaps of player knowledge than to define character knowledge, imo.

[Mathmuse]

thenobledrake wrote:

Rysky wrote:

No one has made that argument in the slightest.

That is the exact argument presented by you saying that a player who has no idea what the monster they are facing is that wants to use fire on it would have to roll Recall Knowledge to do so, just like a player that new they were facing a troll would have to.

I would prefer to have this argument over in the metagaming thread, because I want this thread to tell me what skill to use for Recall Knowledge on a troll, but since the dicussion is here, I will make my point here.

If the party failed to identify the troll and then saw that it was regenerating, Pathfinder 2nd Edition has no restriction on rolling multiple creature identification checks. The GM can raise the DC after each check, but that would still allow a few more checks before the DC became impossible.

Furthermore, I would allow Recall Knowledge checks on regeneration ability itself.
GM: You see the wound from the rogue's rapier stab closing up. The troll bites at the rogue and misses. Then it tries a claw rend. Wizard's turn.
PLAYER: It's regenerating. What stops regeneration?
GM: That would be a Recall Knowledge Arcana check.
PLAYER: Great, I am trained in Arcana! I make the check, 21.
GM: Regeneration easily heals slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning damage. The best ways to stop it are methods that destroy tissue rather than slicing tissue, such as fire or acid or extreme cold. However, many regeneration creatures have resistances to one of those, since such a resistance greatly enhances their regeneration.
PLAYER: Well, I can make fire. I'll try that now. I cast Produce Flame.

[thenobledrake]

Rysky wrote:

I have done no such thing. Attempted gaslighting isn't going to do you any favors.

Don't go assigning malign motives to me. If you weren't doing what I said you were, which I believed because of the responses you made to me, then you must have misunderstood the question you were answering when you said "Of course they do, why wouldn't they?"

Rysky wrote:

Your justifications do. If the only reason you're pulling out a torch is because you the player and not the character know fire stops the regeneration and wouldn't switch to a torch otherwise, that's metagaming.

You have failed to answer the question. Stop talking about what I know, tell me what the character needs to know to make the choice to use a particular weapon against a particular foe.

Rysky wrote:

But fire was not being regularly used in these instances.

You're kind of seeming to be saying that at the start of a campaign everyone gets to pick a small list of attack types they are allowed to use and any time they deviate, for any reason, from those limited options the GM swoops in and goes "Hey, stop metagaming!"

I know that's not actually the case, but I am pointing out what the supposed caring about what is or isn't "regularly" happening makes it seem like - when the issue really isn't doing something 'unexpected', it's that the unexpected action is beneficial and you think the player knew it would be, which is bad for some reason.

Rysky wrote:

Annnnd all of this is pretty much wrong. Metagaming is when you use out of character knowledge to cheat.

How is having my character do a thing that is entirely possible for the character to do in a given in-character scenario, and also wouldn't be cheating if done exactly the same by a player that has no idea whether it is a good idea or a bad one, cheating?

It's either not cheating, or always cheating, right? We can't have a "it's cheating if Drake does it, but Sam can do it all he wants" rule and call that 'fair play' can we?

Rysky wrote:

Why does the character think it will work?

Why does the character think a thing that can kill him might kill a monster? The answer to that is obvious: because lethal weapons kill things, it's like their defined purpose.

Rysky wrote:

Is it a last resort?

Nope, just a valid option. Is there any actual reason it would have to be a "last resort" to have a player put some variety in their play instead of always using whatever their "best" weapon is?

Rysky wrote:

Or is it because you the player know the creature's statblock?

Player knowledge is meant to be avoided, though, right? So it's irrelevant if I know the statblock.

And yeah, I know you said "metagaming is using out of character knowledge to cheat" but that's a shifted goal post if ever there was one. If me going "I know that's a troll so I'm gonna bust out my fire attacks" is an issue than so should be "I know that's a troll so I'm gonna roll Recall Knowledge" because it's the exact same thing - the action I pick being a result of believing I know what the creature is, and in both cases is equally not just doing whatever I've established as my go-to in combat (which to fill in the blank, let's say is attacking with a sword).

[Matthew Downie]

Once you've seen that the creature is regenerating health, it's reasonable that you would experiment with different types of damage to see if anything can stop the regeneration, and fire and acid would be the most obvious choices. I don't think that should require a knowledge check.

[Rysky]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Once you've seen that the creature is regenerating health, it's reasonable that you would experiment with different types of damage to see if anything can stop the regeneration, and fire and acid would be the most obvious choices. I don't think that should require a knowledge check.

Experimenting after the fact is reasonable, opening the fight? Not so much.

[Rysky]

Quote:

Don't go assigning malign motives to me. If you weren't doing what I said you were, which I believed because of the responses you made to me, then you must have misunderstood the question you were answering when you said "Of course they do, why wouldn't they?"

You have repeatedly moved goalposts and were then/are now arguing that characters must now make Recall Knowledges before they're allowed to attack at all, which absolutely no one has argued for or suggested.

Quote:

You have failed to answer the question. Stop talking about what I know, tell me what the character needs to know to make the choice to use a particular weapon against a particular foe.

Recall Knowledge to use attacks outside what they would normally do.You're kind of seeming to be saying that at the start of a campaign everyone gets to pick a small list of attack types they are allowed to use and any time they deviate, for any reason, from those limited options the GM swoops in and goes "Hey, stop metagaming!"Lol, not in the slightest.

Quote:

I know that's not actually the case, but I am pointing out what the supposed caring about what is or isn't "regularly" happening makes it seem like - when the issue really isn't doing something 'unexpected', it's that the unexpected action is beneficial and you think the player knew it would be, which is bad for some reason.

It's bad because the scenario is only occurring due to metagaming, not due to serendipity.

Quote:

How is having my character do a thing that is entirely possible for the character to do in a given in-character scenario, and also wouldn't be cheating if done exactly the same by a player that has no idea whether it is a good idea or a bad one, cheating?

Doing something outside the established norm of what your character would do in a fight solely because it is beneficial but your character has no knowledge that it would be is cheating. And also obscenely unlikely something that someone would do unknowingly. It's precisely because you the player know it is beneficial that it's the issue. You're cheating basically.

Quote:

It's either not cheating, or always cheating, right? We can't have a "it's cheating if Drake does it, but Sam can do it all he wants" rule and call that 'fair play' can we?

Actually read what people are saying instead of moving the goalposts.

Quote:

Why does the character think a thing that can kill him might kill a monster? The answer to that is obvious: because lethal weapons kill things, it's like their defined purpose.

But the weapon they were already and mainly using was lethal, why would they change for no reason?

Quote:

Nope, just a valid option. Is there any actual reason it would have to be a "last resort" to have a player put some variety in their play instead of always using whatever their "best" weapon is?

The fact that you only know what the "best" is by either A) Recall Knowledges B) have fought the creatures C) read the creatures statblock. Going off the latter and not the former two is cheating.

Quote:

Player knowledge is meant to be avoided, though, right? So it's irrelevant if I know the statblock.

Then what pray tell is causing you to switch weapons and tactics before the fight has even started without using Recall Knowledge to know something about the creature that you've chosen to fight differently?

Quote:

And yeah, I know you said "metagaming is using out of character knowledge to cheat" but that's a shifted goal post if ever there was one. If me going "I know that's a troll so I'm gonna bust out my fire attacks" is an issue than so should be "I know that's a troll so I'm gonna roll Recall Knowledge" because it's the exact same thing - the action I pick being a result of believing I know what the creature is, and in both cases is equally not just doing whatever I've established as my go-to in combat (which to fill in the blank, let's say is attacking with a sword).

Those are not even remotely the same since being a troll has no effect on Recall Knowledge's outcome. That first part is superfluous to "I'm going to use Recall Knowledge on it" You can use Recall Knowledge, and are encouraged to use, on everything. There's no metagame there.

[thenobledrake]

I can also use <insert attack>, and am encouraged to use, on everything. So there is equally no metagame there if there is no metagame when deciding what to Recall Knowledge on.

You're getting hung up on the "getting a bonus" part and completely skipping over the part where the GM is assuming they know what the player is thinking. A player, even an experienced one, could have no idea what their character is actually facing and just be picking a different type of attack than they have been "mainly using" for the sake of variety and because they've had it on their sheet a while and don't want to go the whole campaign without using it - and that's not cheating, not even cheating adjacent.

And we still haven't established how long it takes before an attack option changes from being a completely valid option that isn't at all suspicious to use to something that the GM isn't completely out of line in demanding an explanation for the player deciding to use it without electing to take a Recall Knowledge action first.

[Rysky]

Quote:

I can also use <insert attack>, and am encouraged to use, on everything. So there is equally no metagame there if there is no metagame when deciding what to Recall Knowledge on.

Hello again moving goal posts and arguing in bad faith, we weren’t talking about your standard attack routines.

That’s not even getting into the asinine statement that Recall Knowledge is metagame.

Quote:

You're getting hung up on the "getting a bonus" part and completely skipping over the part where the GM is assuming they know what the player is thinking. A player, even an experienced one, could have no idea what their character is actually facing and just be picking a different type of attack than they have been "mainly using" for the sake of variety and because they've had it on their sheet a while and don't want to go the whole campaign without using it - and that's not cheating, not even cheating adjacent.

And you’re getting hung up on these corner case hypotheticals that don’t actually happen in order to justify your metagaming.

Quote:

And we still haven't established how long it takes before an attack option changes from being a completely valid option that isn't at all suspicious to use to something that the GM isn't completely out of line in demanding an explanation for the player deciding to use it without electing to take a Recall Knowledge action first.

You’re also hung up on this “how long it takes” like it’s a set time limit, a legitimate defense. It’s not. If you can’t explain your actions that’s on you.

[theservantsllcleanitup]

Let's all remember that this is a role playing game. You are pretending to be your character. If that means not acting on knowledge you have that could produce better outcomes, then so be it.

Let's use another example. Let's say someone rolls a barbarian with 8 int and 8 wis. If this player was constantly using advanced tactics and planning out how they were going about their fights, would that seem out of place to anyone? This barbarian has intelligence and insight that is actually WORSE than an average person. How are they coming up with these strategies and tactics?

This is a much better example, because it gets down to the fundamental concept at hand. Using your ability as a human being to analyze a situation and come up with an optimal strategy is not in character. It is your knowledge and your thought processes that are driving the character's actions. You might be thinking "well I'm playing my character, of course it's my thought processes". But understand that there is a qualitative difference between acting on your thought processs and acting on the simulated thought processes of your character.

When it comes to functional knowledge like resistances and such, as has been said it's impossible to not know something that you know. But it is not impossible to roleplay not knowing. It you are facing some monster with an obscure weakness that you as a player know, it is up to you whether you want to directly act on that, or use the systems built into the game that allow your character to skip the experimentation phase.

But saying "my character might have just randomly done this on their own" is absolutely rationalization. Your character doesn't do anything on their own. You made the decision, and you benefit from it. If everyone at the table is fine with it, so be it. But at least be self-aware about it.

[thenobledrake]

Rysky wrote:

If you can’t explain your actions that’s on you.

I can explain the actions being taken (though I always seem to get that "that's BS, you're metagaming, stop lying about it" response when I do... go figure, eh?) - 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?

You say I'm moving the goal posts and arguing in bad faith, but from where I stand it was you that brought up the edge cases that you're now accusing me of getting hung up on - and also, you called me trying to apply the reasoning presented in an edge case more broadly to the way the game is actually played "moving the goal posts" so make up your mind, would you? Are we arguing about a general philosophy like I have believed this entire time, or just the specific cases (that still have only been talked about without context) that have been brought up?

And yeah, I am hung up on "how long it takes" because when someone says "You've never done that before" like that is relevant to the discussion, I kinda have to know precisely how long a character can hang on to a particular thing unused without it being "a problem" to use it, otherwise how am I going to know how often to switch up attacks to prove I'm not metagaming? Am I supposed to use every weapon, including the expendable ones, as rapidly varying as I can?

Assume my character started play with a bow, a sword, and some oil. Also assume I have only used the bow for the first 9 sessions of play, and 3 sessions ago my character found some holy water. Now it's session 10: can I use my sword, oil, and/or holy water without first making a Recall Knowledge check on the creature I'm facing at the time, whatever it may be?

[HumbleGamer]

thenobledrake wrote:

Assume my character started play with a bow, a sword, and some oil. Also assume I have only used the bow for the first 9 sessions of play, and 3 sessions ago my character found some holy water. Now it's session 10: can I use my sword, oil, and/or holy water without first making a Recall Knowledge check on the creature I'm facing at the time, whatever it may be?

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.

Out of XX possible unknown enemies, to get the right one vulnerabile to fire or holy water would be definitely great.

What could be done is to fight undeads without making a Recall knowledge, then being explained that those creatures which are dead corpses walking are undeads, which are vulnerabile to positive energy and good damage. Even holy water.

Because of that, if you see something which seems like a rotten corpse, you could think that's a undead and throw holy water on it.

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