|
Source
Advanced Player's Guide pg. 134
If you successfully identify a creature using Recall Knowledge, that creature is flat-footed against your attacks until the start of your next turn; if you critically succeed, it's flat-footed against your attacks for 1 minute.
You're trained in Society and one of the following skills of your choice: Arcana, Nature, Occultism, or Religion. You can choose Intelligence as your key ability score.
Assuming you succeed (but don't critically succeed) on your Recall Knowledge check, how does this special ability function in subsequent rounds of combat against the same foe? Do subsequent checks made under the 'Additional Knowledge' rules still qualify as 'successfully identifying' a creature?
Core Rulebook pg. 506 1.1 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.Source
Or is this ability basically limited to 'once per creature'?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are 3 questions here, so I'm not sure which was answered. So let's get more specific.
Mastermind Lex encounters Two goblins, A and B. He successfully Recalls Knowledge on A and now A is Flat-footed. The fight continues.
He then trues to Recall Knowledge on goblin A again, is this at a higher DC using Additional Knowledge?
Let's assume it is, but Mastermind Lex kills the gobbo anyways.
Mastermind Lex then decides to Recall Knowledge on goblin B. Is this going to be a normal Recall Knowledge check or, since he is also a goblin, will this be an increased DC again due to Additional Knowledge?
What happens when Mastermind Lex encounters the goblin revenge squad a few months later? Does his Recall knowledge "reset" or does it continuously increase in DC?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
None of those questions have an answer that isn't "talk to your GM about how they run it at their table". I haven't seen anyone that wouldn't go back down to base DC and start over at some point for your third question, but there's still no "it says on this page of the book" to point you towards, even for that.
Recall Knowledge is right up there with Polymorph rules as a massive hotbed of table variation that people have been desperately wanting some kind of FAQ for.
|
|
Awesome. I am definitely not familiar with the system enough to make that decision.
It does seem that using the term 'identify' in this context is either exceptionally limiting or misleading.
Assuming that all gobbos are gobbos puts a ceiling to the ability with Additional Knowledge and thus the utility of it.
Allowing it to just work without the Additional Knowledge aspect seems, to me anyways, to make the ability almost overpowered.
But, again, I have literally never run a PF2E game as of typing this, so I could be wrong on all accounts.
Any kind of guidance would be helpful at this point.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best guidance I can give you is this:
1. If you're the GM, your game is probably going to go better if you error on the side if being too generous with Recall Knowledge. I'd probably recommend just going ahead and treating those goblins as separate from each other if you've got someone playing a mastermind. (This has no rules supportbut is likely to be good for your table)
2. If you're a player, ask your GM about how they want to run those grey areas before you commit to playing a character whose mechanics are very reliant on the answers.
None of those questions have an answer that isn't "talk to your GM about how they run it at their table". I haven't seen anyone that wouldn't go back down to base DC and start over at some point for your third question, but there's still no "it says on this page of the book" to point you towards, even for that.
Recall Knowledge is right up there with Polymorph rules as a massive hotbed of table variation that people have been desperately wanting some kind of FAQ for.
Do we have an official ruling for Recall Knowledge yet? Like, what do we give our players if they're fishing for saves or weaknesses and the book just says it's our choice of what to share/ "what the character remembers".
Like, for a mage, this *really* needs a definitive answer. Like, if the DC is easy or they've encountered the monster type before; after encounters this character does-just says as they do as the player-annotates their journal.
I feel that, for at least simple DC mobs and those they've actively researched outside/prior to battle, referencing their journal just lets them pick an ask if they've encountered it/similar +low enough DC before. If it is a confirmed x y z, then just let them have it for the reference action. This applying to both mages and Mastermind Rogues at my table.
I feel confident that in that instance giving out very helpful info/ what they're after is permissible with the effort both the character and player put into acquiring and maintaining this knowledge.
But a monster the character hasn't seen before and they only roll a success but they're wanting a weakness or lowest save, what can I do that isn't GM fiat but fair with how the rules are written? I really wish there was a ruling for this.
treating those goblins as separate from each other if you've got someone playing a mastermind. (This has no rules support...Well, this one doesn't look like a common goblin. That's a fey in disguise! I just need to check! And that one is definitely a halfling. A very toothy one. Recall knowledge on him! Those are devils! RK them! Very short elf, RK!
I think this is more how the Thaumaturge plays. Make up your own story as to why your recall knowledge works...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ny own approach to Recall Knowledge, which got a thumbs up from Mark Seifter during an Arcane Mark epsiode, is that on a success, you start reading the creature's name and flavor text until you hit something useful to the player, with useful meaning actionable. Something they don't already know and that can be implemented to use against the creature. Usually the flavor text will contain something, though you might need to put it in meta terms from the statblock. Your players need to know that the key to avoiding a medusas gaze is to not end their turn within 30 feet of it, and that's just straight up meta.
Also, they should know its creature type or traits, and any universal abilities of those traits. For example, a RK check on a succubus might warn you of her life draining kiss so you know to break out of her grapples, but it should also make it clear that all demons are weak to cold iron, good, and a specific sin vulnerability.
If they want to find out more something specific, like a save, that's good grounds for second roll. (You can increase the DC, or not because I find that rule questionable.) Letting the players get the first pick isn't my favorite, because if they ask about vulnerabilities and the creature has none... Well, that is pretty lame. Or it won't help the player to know a creature's lowest save is will if the creature is mindless.
Oh, I also let people retry whenever they get new information that might jog their memory. But that's more or less a house rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of those questions have an answer that isn't "talk to your GM about how they run it at their table". I haven't seen anyone that wouldn't go back down to base DC and start over at some point for your third question, but there's still no "it says on this page of the book" to point you towards, even for that.
Recall Knowledge is right up there with Polymorph rules as a massive hotbed of table variation that people have been desperately wanting some kind of FAQ for.
Do we have an official ruling for Recall Knowledge yet? Like, what do we give our players if they're fishing for saves or weaknesses and the book just says it's our choice of what to share/ "what the character remembers".
Like, for a mage, this *really* needs a definitive answer. Like, if the DC is easy or they've encountered the monster type before; after encounters this character does-just says as they do as the player-annotates their journal.
I feel that, for at least simple DC mobs and those they've actively researched outside/prior to battle, referencing their journal just lets them pick an ask if they've encountered it/similar +low enough DC before. If it is a confirmed x y z, then just let them have it for the reference action. This applying to both mages and Mastermind Rogues at my table.
I feel confident that in that instance giving out very helpful info/ what they're after is permissible with the effort both the character and player put into acquiring and maintaining this knowledge.
But a monster the character hasn't seen before and they only roll a success but they're wanting a weakness or lowest save, what can I do that isn't GM fiat but fair with how the rules are written? I really wish there was a ruling for this.
Official ruling reducing table variation of Recall Knowledge? Absolutely not. Nothing remotely like that has happened.
Weaknesses and low saves? Nothing in the written rules prevents you from giving those. The rules tell you 2 things about what kind of information to give:
1. They say to start with commonly known things (which are a judgement call, not marked in a statblock or something.) Obviously, many people prefer to go with "the sort of thing the player was asking about" instead, at their tables. I'm not about to say that's a bad practice, but it is a table practice, not something a rulebook said to do.
2. They say to give useful information. You can derive some guidelines from that. Don't tell them something impossible to act on (even if that action is just "Run!"). Don't tell them things they already know (saying something can fly while it's airborne is obviously antagonistic).
Nothing says that weaknesses or lower defenses can't ever fit those criteria. There is the example of a demon's weakness as less common knowledge to give on a critical success. That does not say that all weaknesses are strange knowledge to reserve for a critical success. Demons, specifically, have weird "anathema to their base sin" weaknesses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, many people prefer to go with "the sort of thing the player was asking about" instead, at their tables. I'm not about to say that's a bad practice, but it is a table practice, not something a rulebook said to do.
I mean not exactly. The rules for RK say that you roll the skill to recall a specific piece of knowledge and success gives you "the knowledge", not a random piece of trivia. That clearly points toward at least some agency for players, and calling that a houserule feels misleading.
|
The rules for RK seem to cover both specific and general information.
"What is the name of the king's nephew?" is RK and is a specific question.
"What is useful to know about eight-legged lizards with a moody stare" is more generic. "How do you fix it when someone's been petrified by a basilisk" is specific again.
The way I do it is that players can certainly ask for specific things, but as GM I reserve the right to give them different information, in order to ensure the players get USEFUL information.
I might decide that the question the players didn't think to ask is more important. Or I might decide that the question the players did ask doesn't result in useful actionable information. So I give them something better.
Wasn't there a rule saying you can't RK a creature again if you failed a previous check?
I ignore that rule for the purposes of abilities like the above, but I won't give new information at that point.
Obviously, many people prefer to go with "the sort of thing the player was asking about" instead, at their tables. I'm not about to say that's a bad practice, but it is a table practice, not something a rulebook said to do.I mean not exactly. The rules for RK say that you roll the skill to recall a specific piece of knowledge and success gives you "the knowledge", not a random piece of trivia. That clearly points toward at least some agency for players, and calling that a houserule feels misleading.
Technically what it says is:
You attempt a skill check to try to remember a bit of knowledge regarding a topic related to that skill. The GM determines the DCs for such checks and which skills apply.
Critical Success You recall the knowledge accurately and gain additional information or context.
Success You recall the knowledge accurately or gain a useful clue about your current situation.
So you are both kind of right. You only HAVE to give the player the knowledge they asked for on a critical success, and then you're supposed to provide additional information on top of that. On a regular success, the GM can choose to give the player the answer they asked for, or instead substitute in a useful clue of their choice.
That actually seems pretty great, as long as your GM can be trusted to figure out what is actually useful to you. (And if they can't, you're never gonna have a good time with RK, IMO.) You should be pretty much guaranteed to get something which helps you, whether or not it is what you asked for.
Interestingly enough, Dubious Knowledge doesn't specify whether the true and erroneous info is actually helpful or harmful.
Also, I need to remember this text: The GM might allow checks to Recall Knowledge using other skills. For example, you might assess the skill of an acrobat using Acrobatics. If you’re using a physical skill (like in this example), the GM will most likely have you use a mental ability score—typically Intelligence— instead of the skill’s normal physical ability score.
Letting a fighter gauge how dangerous an opponent is with athletics might be a nice way to let a dumb party know they are in over their head.
Wasn't there a rule saying you can't RK a creature again if you failed a previous check?
I ignore that rule for the purposes of abilities like the above, but I won't give new information at that point.
Yeah, there is:
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.
However, I personally let people reroll if they gain new information about a creature, which usually a round of combat will give. Also, I just don't like the increased DC rule.