|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would that feel wrong? You're seeing a massive six-armed white eyeless humanoids, this happens:
Start of the combat:
Action 1: Recall Knowledge, fail.
"It's a ... a ... I remember ..."
Action 2: Recall Knowledge, fail
"They're Kosprogoti ... no, Kospogroti have eyes and 8 arms!"
Action 3: Recall Knowledge, success
"They're Zerkizars! Immune to cold, have poisoned claws!"
Sometimes, remembering things takes longer than 2 seconds.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a related relevant rule on page 506, though it does refer to what happens after a success, rather than a failure.
"additional knowledge
Sometimes a character might want to follow up on a check to Recall Knowledge, rolling another check to discover more information. After a success, further uses of Recall Knowledge can yield more information, but you should adjust the difficulty to be higher for each attempt. Once a character has attempted an incredibly hard check or failed a check, further attempts are fruitless—the character has recalled everything they know about the subject."
It's also fairly common to get a critical failure and get false information. As it's a secret roll, you'll never know the difference. AFAIK there is nothing specific about retries for this skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You'll know the difference when you try to act on the incorrect information.
One of my characters critfailed a Recall check on undead, because I was told beheading them was the only way to kill it. When my character started chopping off heads, the GM allowed everyone else a Recall check to let them correct me.
Yeah, multiple recalls seems like a pretty classic trope to me. It’s the scene where the hero really tries to pick their brain for that vital piece of information that they’re sure is in there somewhere while a giant acid-breathing colossus readies and attack.
Failing a recall knowledge doesn’t mean you don’t have the information in your head, it just means you couldn’t remember it in two seconds.
Yeah, multiple recalls seems like a pretty classic trope to me. It’s the scene where the hero really tries to pick their brain for that vital piece of information that they’re sure is in there somewhere while a giant acid-breathing colossus readies and attack.
Failing a recall knowledge doesn’t mean you don’t have the information in your head, it just means you couldn’t remember it in two seconds.
Unfortunately, while that makes sense in combat, it would also allow people to reattempt over and over out of combat. Which is certainly not intended.
It is a reasonable house rule for in combat though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could say further attempts require more research time or resources out of combat.Yeah, multiple recalls seems like a pretty classic trope to me. It’s the scene where the hero really tries to pick their brain for that vital piece of information that they’re sure is in there somewhere while a giant acid-breathing colossus readies and attack.
Failing a recall knowledge doesn’t mean you don’t have the information in your head, it just means you couldn’t remember it in two seconds.
Unfortunately, while that makes sense in combat, it would also allow people to reattempt over and over out of combat. Which is certainly not intended.
It is a reasonable house rule for in combat though.
You might even need to spend time investigating first. For instance, to use Medicine to learn the cause of death, you might need to conduct a forensic examination before attempting to Recall Knowledge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect the loop is supposed to be:
[Player Rolls Critical Failure on recall check]
"It's a [whatever], fire kills it!"
[Player whacks it with a torch, creature gets stronger]
"I guess I was wrong, it must not be a [whatever]"
[Player rolls again].
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not quite. I think it's:
[Player Rolls Critical Failure on recall check]
"It's a [whatever], fire kills it!"
[Player whacks it with a torch, creature gets stronger]
"I guess I was wrong, it must not be a [whatever], does anyone else know?"
[Different player who hasn't failed at this yet rolls]
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Recall knowledge is a secret check, they have no idea if they rolled high, they may just not know anything about this, and if they're trying to force it, you could just disallow it since it's already been established they know nothing.
Personally, I always thought the traditional ruling of "this one Knowledge check result represents everything you know about X" didn't make much sense. It wouldn't be rare for a character to "know" about some very obscure creature but fail to recall anything about a very common one by using the same Knowledge skill with this ruling due to the randomness of the dice.
Most of the Recall Knowledge threads I read (list at Save Rock Paper Scissors comment #24) talk about the annoyance that a successful Recall Knowledge check gives only one piece of information although the character probably knows more. Thus, a single Recall Knowledge result cannot represents everything you know about X.
INVESTIGATE
Concentrate, Exploration
You seek out information about your surroundings while traveling at half speed. You use Recall Knowledge as a secret check to discover clues among the various things you can see and engage with as you journey along. You can use any skill that has a Recall Knowledge action while Investigating, but the GM determines whether the skill is relevant to the clues you could find.
The Investigate exploration activity uses Recall Knowledge checks, but it is not structured as the characters remembering things. It is about finding and figuring out clues.
Moreover, some creatures can have very counter-intuitive strengths and weaknesses and not learning about them in any way can lead to ludicrous situations if not an impromptu TPK: I remember my D&D 3.5 GM using a monster from an obscure rulebook and describing it as "a flying swarm of metal shards spinning at great speed like a whirlwind", my friend and I playing a rogue and a fighter respectively had no idea what to do against this thing and called for a retreat while our druid sent her animal companion on it and killed it in a single attack and proceeded to call us cowards and idiots for the rest of the session afterwards. Apparently, a creature that looked like a flying swarm of metal shards had no attack that dealt any damage and could be killed easily with any weapon. Don't ask.
In PF1 swarm traits say, "A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage." If that so-called flying swarm of metal shards was a swarm, then the animal companion's attack would not have harmed it. The creature was highly misdescribed.
The unreliability of Recall Knowledge might be the reason why the game is considered so punishing right now: by RAW, failing a single check bars you from retrying ("Once a character has attempted an incredibly hard check or failed a check, further attempts are fruitless") and it takes only one ability you didn't know the monster had for an encounter to rapidly turn into a complete disaster. Actually, the more I look at the bestiary, the more it looks like monsters were designed to be beaten by players who already know them and are prepared accordingly, and to destroy parties that don't have such knowledge.
Back in PF1 I houseruled that Knowledge checks give more information, and I kept that additional information for PF2 Recall Knowledge. My players have already used my altered Recall Knowledge rules in my PF2 Ironfang Invasion campaign, but I went over the details again in this Friday's session. The 2nd-level party was checking out an abandoned half-collapsed farmhouse as shelter in the night and their NPC blind mentor Aubrin warned that some animal might lair there, so they checked for tracks. The rogue Sam spotted centipede swarm tracks. Sam Zinfandel, and Binny rolled Recall Knowledge. Sam got information on their attacks and climb speed, because he had seen centipedes in action before. Binny got information on their venom, because her fellow criminals (Criminal Background) had used the poison. Zinfandel failed the check. Stormdancer didn't even roll, because she was keeping her distance. But later, when Binny threw a torch at the centipedes so that they were finally illuminated, I told Zinfandel's player that she could make another Recall Knowledge check because she had new information. She made the check and saw that the centipedes' chitin exoskeleton would give them AC 18 while still leaving them with an excellent Reflex save.
Thus, I declared a houserule that new information refreshed the Recall Knowledge checks so that the characters can interpret the new information.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
New data is a pretty good rule. I've been using that in general for things like failing to identify a monster by its tracks, but it obviously makes sense to be able to try again when you actually see the creature.
That can also solve the "allow retries in combat but not out of combat" puzzle, as you could try rolling again after the monster busts out a new ability. But you're much less likely to have that happen about the name of a Runelord, unless you're gaining additional information through other channels.
Since this was a rules question, however, and there was a rules answer that came up pretty quickly, I'm going to consider this resolved :-P.
This is "Rules Discussion" not "Rules Questions". If there's anything to discuss about the rule, the discussion is never closed!
Viva la Discurso!
I actually kind of hate that name change.
Makes the rules feel less...certain.
I actually kind of hate that name change.
Makes the rules feel less...certain.
I think that may actually be the point. Less One True Interpretationism, fewer "I will only accept an answer from the devs" posts. (Or so they hope.)
I think that may actually be the point. Less One True Interpretationism, fewer "I will only accept an answer from the devs" posts. (Or so they hope.)I actually kind of hate that name change.
Makes the rules feel less...certain.
Problem there is it won't change that. Really even when we have had Dev intervention it doesn't stop the more heated arguments and we get so little Dev insight now compared to years ago that even really debated questions (masterpieces and Bardic Music from 1E) might never see an answer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem there is it won't change that. Really even when we have had Dev intervention it doesn't stop the more heated arguments and we get so little Dev insight now compared to years ago that even really debated questions (masterpieces and Bardic Music from 1E) might never see an answer.I think that may actually be the point. Less One True Interpretationism, fewer "I will only accept an answer from the devs" posts. (Or so they hope.)I actually kind of hate that name change.
Makes the rules feel less...certain.
I confess that since the PF2 playtest was only a little over one year ago, I still think of the Pathfinder 2nd Edition rules as a work in progress. Maybe one day, a solid system for interpreting clues with multiple Recall Knowledge checks will appear in the PF2 Ultimate Intigue as optional rules for investigation. Or they could appear in the PF2 Advanced Player's Guide to fill out the new Investigator class.
Because I tried to play the PF2 playtest rules as written, the playtest made me realize how many interpretions and outright houserules I and my players had layed over the Pathfinder 1st Edition rules. The PF2 rules are clearer, so I don't need interpretations. Nevertheless, in a few areas I use houserules to better match Pathfinder to my players' interests. They like investigation.
I have been reading the Paizo forums long enough to remember when the Rules Development Team would give official rules clarifications in the forum. People still argued with them, sometimes even more vehemently than the usual discussion, so the team retreated from the forums. The forum seems more polite these days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The forum seems more polite these days.
I respectfully disagree. With the influx of new players with the new edition, this community strikes me as more hostile than I've seen in nearly 10 years.
They just haven't learned the local etiquette yet I think, and come off as less mature as a result (quite possibly because there are far more younger people than there used to be).
Or at least that's the impression I've had since soon after the release of 2nd Edition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Makes the rules feel less...certain.
I think that's the point. Ambiguous situations are going to come up inevitably because the rules are written by humans who use natural language to express themselves. The emphasis should be less on "what is the correct way to resolve this?" and more "how do we resolve this so it's fun, fast, and makes sense?"
I mean, we're better off teaching people to fish than to hope that Devs deliver us seafood from on high.
The only thing I ran into that was an issue was, round 1: action 1: secret check crit fail (bad info), action 2: they want to do another recall but I tell then they are unable to, so they assume (correctly) that the first check was a crit fail.
Sadly, the rules don't say that the additional Recall Knowledge check is impossible, they say that the additional Recall Knowledge check is fruitless. Thus, by the rules, you could allow the next check, roll your d20 in secret, and regardless of the roll result, say that the character learned nothing more.
But fooling the player into wasting an action feels hard-hearted to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I ran into that was an issue was, round 1: action 1: secret check crit fail (bad info), action 2: they want to do another recall but I tell then they are unable to, so they assume (correctly) that the first check was a crit fail.Sadly, the rules don't say that the additional Recall Knowledge check is impossible, they say that the additional Recall Knowledge check is fruitless. Thus, by the rules, you could allow the next check, roll your d20 in secret, and regardless of the roll result, say that the character learned nothing more.
But fooling the player into wasting an action feels hard-hearted to me.
It may feel hard-hearted, but that's how it should be played. Players should be given maximum agency, and the DM should restrict himself to making the game world react in appropriate ways.
In the same spirit, you don't ask a player what his exploration activity is, as such. You ask him what his character is doing, then assign the best fit from the list of exploration activities.
I'm glad that Hammerjack found us the caveat about further checks (after a failed check) being fruitless. That simplifies matters a lot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Makes the rules feel less...certain.I think that's the point. Ambiguous situations are going to come up inevitably because the rules are written by humans who use natural language to express themselves.
Maybe they should write the rules in Lojban instead.