So you succeed on a recall knowledge, you identify it as a troll and that it regenerates unless damaged by fire or acid. But that knowledge does nothing unless you also know the relative strength of a creature.
For example, you succeed on identifying above troll as a 3rd level party, you take out all your fire stuff and run out to beat up this party of trolls. And die.
So what info do you get when using recall knowledge, as written it seems useless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what info do you get when using recall knowledge
You get whatever information the GM decides to give you.
The CRB gives some examples of what kind of information you might get, but those are examples, not rules, and they only cover a tiny, tiny amount of the possible Recall Knowledge questions you might ask.
o you succeed on a recall knowledge, you identify it as a troll and that it regenerates unless damaged by fire or acid.
Maybe you get that information, and maybe you don't. For example, your GM might tell you it's a troll, and tell you that it is much larger than you are and appears to be much, much stronger than you are. The GM might think that having that knowledge in this particular situation is far more important to your survival than knowing about regeneration.
They might skip the fire and acid bit entirely.
There is nothing written in any rule that gives you the right to specific information about a subject.
Remark on regeneration was an example. But the point was, you recognize something as a troll, you've apparently heard/read things about trolls, but you have no way but a possible remark from a GM to know if that creature is too strong for the party. Weird. Useless even.
Also, under general Recall Knowledge, the book advises that a success gives useful information, not just information. So while the Regeneration info is extremely useful (and would make a huge difference if the party were to face a single Troll), I'd reckon if the party were of a mind to take on multiple Trolls, it'd be wiser for the GM to mention how their Rend can tear apart a raging bull in seconds...best avoid. Or they could rephrase the Regeneration tidbit because it really is pertinent & well-known enough to be the number one datum. Put it in regards to the Troll's overall strength. Remember these aren't statistics being doled out, but lore from libraries, songs, and talks w/ co-adventurers.
So instead of focusing on how fire & acid "work" (implying that's the route to an easy victory), one could emphasize how fire & acid make this insurmountable terror into something merely ferocious. (Which is somewhat true, as Trolls have several defensive stats way above their level because they have other defensive vulnerabilities.)
Also, who set up this scenario where a 3rd level party runs across multiple Trolls, and with some confidence? Seriously, that's a grievous error there. I enjoy verisimilitude so have to note to my players that just because you hear of an evil dragon doesn't mean that dragon's for you. Yet. But I'd never toss that dragon at the party on the road.
I'd say though this goes back to a longstanding issue. One wishes to describe an Ogre in the most severe terms when first met (fierce, dirty, brutish Large Giant w/ club). Several levels later when the party meets a Hill Giant (fierce, dirty, brutish Large Giant w/ club) what's to differentiate that in the minds of the PCs? Sounds like an Ogre, lets take them on = OUCH! One solution is to compare strength of new things to the strength of creatures the party has experience with. "A single Hill Giant will often control a band of Ogres after eating their most powerful leader." (or popping their head off and drinking from their corpse, if one really needs to shoo the PCs away.)
ETA: I realize in retrospect that Ogres have long been my default example, much like horsepower for engines. "Kill an Ogre in one swing", or "Wipe out a troop of Ogres" and so forth. Poor schmucks.
This usually comes down to table agreement and trust, so you don't need to ask about how hard a fight is at the beginning of the fight, because it should be feasible. (I'd generally recommend always being ready for a tough fight and testing the waters before you start throwing out important limited use abilities.) A GM is generally expected to follow the rules of encounter design. If they don't, a good GM should probably let the players know at session 0 that some fights will be too hard to fight head-on, give foreshadowing about the extra strong encounters, and give escape routes to players, but that's all they need to do. It shouldn't really be part of the Recall Knowledge action.
I'm trying to understand what happened. In this case, a single troll is a tough enemy, but an appropriate encounter for a party of four level 3 characters. If that's what happened, it seems like they gave you relevant information for a fight you should have been able to win. Maybe you got unlucky. That's not something the GM can predict.
If it was an actual party of trolls, though? Two regular trolls would be a very deadly encounter (50% chance you all get killed, 50% chance you win). More than two would be way above budget and a very likely tpk. Did your GM misunderstand the recommended xp budget for encounter design? Did they know it was too strong for you and expect you to run? Either way, if you really did fight multiple trolls at once, I'd recommend sitting down with your GM and discussing expectations, because that's a GM problem more than a game problem.
Weird. Useless even.
"Recall Knowledge" is a single-action skill check. No one can force you to use it if you find it distasteful.
This usually comes down to table agreement and trust, so you don't need to ask about how hard a fight is at the beginning of the fight, because it should be feasible. (I'd generally recommend always being ready for a tough fight and testing the waters before you start throwing out important limited use abilities.) A GM is generally expected to follow the rules of encounter design. If they don't, a good GM should probably let the players know at session 0 that some fights will be too hard to fight head-on, give foreshadowing about the extra strong encounters, and give escape routes to players, but that's all they need to do. It shouldn't really be part of the Recall Knowledge action.
I'm trying to understand what happened. In this case, a single troll is a tough enemy, but an appropriate encounter for a party of four level 3 characters. If that's what happened, it seems like they gave you relevant information for a fight you should have been able to win. Maybe you got unlucky. That's not something the GM can predict.
If it was an actual party of trolls, though? Two regular trolls would be a very deadly encounter (50% chance you all get killed, 50% chance you win). More than two would be way above budget and a very likely tpk. Did your GM misunderstand the recommended xp budget for encounter design? Did they know it was too strong for you and expect you to run? Either way, if you really did fight multiple trolls at once, I'd recommend sitting down with your GM and discussing expectations, because that's a GM problem more than a game problem.
I don't think this was an actual example. I think it was a hypothetical scenario that will probably never come up because of the reasons you mentioned.
I do think sharing the level of a creature, or hinting at it in terms the characters would understand (well, you know that grizzly you fought? Each of those trolls could tear one in half with a few claw swipes) is a a good idea for a game as tactical as PF2. It also helps for things like the incapacitation trait. Even just telling the players whether a monster is weaker, stronger, or an even match for any single PC is probably enough. Especially if you try and avoid having EVERY encounter scale to the party and want a few things the party should run away from.
Worth noting that bestiary statblocks are just a baseline. Monsters don't usually get class levels anymore, but they can get equivalent boosts in stats. We have already had a level 13 ghoul or ghast published, for example. So you don't necessarily know if that is an average troll or the troll equivalent of a PC.
Remark on regeneration was an example. But the point was, you recognize something as a troll, you've apparently heard/read things about trolls, but you have no way but a possible remark from a GM to know if that creature is too strong for the party. Weird. Useless even.
Thing is, GMs aren't out to kill PCs, and if they are you have bigger issues than recall knowledge.
You can always ask for information not covered by what recall knowledge "have I heard much about a troll's strength?"
If a GM refuses to give some background information regarding the trolls to go with the useful information you recall wellll... that is a different issue but I would be more concerned about random meteors or adult descending on your party at level 1 at that point.
Simply put.
- Antagonistic GMs are a problem that no amount of clarification will solve.
- Recall knowledge gives useful information, I think the ability should specify that the player can ask for a specific type of information that they are interested in, but even without that it still serves its purpose.
- If a GM is putting a creature the party cannot defeat or is WAY stronger than the party in their way, and doesn't give hints or outright recollections of knowledge. Then the group is going to die regardless of a recall knowledge check and a bad roll could have damned them anyway.
I'm talking examples. Mostly I'm just amazed that if you see a sign with a red dragon to the left, and a green man to the right, you have no way to compare the strengths the of those creatures, or compare them to your own strengths, even if you make both recall knowledge checks. In the above example, based a RK, I'd always go for the medium humanoid as compared to the big bad dragon.
A monster hunter I would imagine would be able to compare this, like a park ranger would be able to say that a grizzly is more dangerous than an puma.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you have no way to compare the strengths the of those creatures, or compare them to your own strengths, even if you make both recall knowledge checks.
The way to compare the strengths of those two creatures, or to compare the strength of one creature to your own strength is to use a Recall Knowledge skill check.
You can tell your GM that you're trying to remember how strong they are. You can tell your GM that you're trying to remember whether they might be stronger or weaker than you are.
You can tell your GM anything that you're trying to remember.
The GM is not required by the rules to give you any specific information. It's entirely up to the GM what information she gives you.
Work with your GM. Tell them what you're trying to remember. You're more likely to get the information you need using that approach.
As Grognard said
Antagonistic GMs are a problem that no amount of clarification will solve.
If you've got an antagonistic GM, there is no knowledge anywhere that will save your party.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing a successful K check should do is tell you how tough an opponent is, and it doesn't do anything close to this.
That is not universally true. Recall Knowledge tells you exactly what the GM wants to tell you. I share quite a bit of information. Generally, I’ll ask the player what sorts of things their character studies about creatures. Do they focus on immunities and resistances? Special offensive or defensive actions? Other. At a minimum, I generally reveal the traits/classification of the creature, what alignment it tends towards, and basic strength/level though I may indicate something to the effect of “this one seems to be a particularly strong (elite) or weak example.”
Like of there have said, if your GM is not using Recall Knowledge to help the PCs navigate the dangerous world of creatures, then it serves no purpose and I agree there is no point. However, IMO that is a problem with the GM, not the rule set and you should consider having a conversation about how everyone in your group views and values Recall Knowldge. I know some who never bother using it because of bad experiences. OTOH, I know some who use it extensively to assist the party in efficient use of their limited resources.
The only thing that disappoints me is that this subject could have made for an interesting and lengthy chapter in the Gamemaster Guide. Seems clearly obvious that would have been the place to have a thorough breakdown and expansive discussion of Recall Knowledge. iMO, it was an obvious ball that was dropped.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was actually amazed of not finding anything on the forums regarding this topic. Maybe it just clashes with my idea of an open world where you can make decisions based on some form of knowledge. One of the reason for me to go ranger with a martial character, the monster hunter feat tree. Where you'd expect the character (a monster hunter) to be able to tell the difference between a Green Man and a simple Dragon, or the medium fiend vs the hobgoblin.
Agree that it would have been a nice addition to the Gamemastery guide. So much options you could have with this.
I would think the results of a recall knowledge check would be framed like this: "You remember hearing the story of Sir Bozo, the Hero of Hickville, who fought a troll six years ago, and just barely managed to kill it, after sprinkling an acid flask on its still-twitching corpse."
But for DMs who aren't into making up story elements on the fly, you could stick with general qualifiers like "more powerful than you" or "a lot more powerful than you". And "You remember that trolls are afraid of fire and acid."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can tell you that I've not seen anyone use RK in PFS unless they absolutely have nothing else to do and the GM is specifically telling them they should be doing it.
Just wanted to agree with this.
I had a bardic knowledge focussed bard in PFS that I ended up completely rebuilding because I got so little benefit in general from Recall Knowledge. The table variance was just immense and quite frustrating.
I ended up deciding that the average knowledge was about worth it for the action cost but most emphatically NOT worth the character resources sunk into it. And the frustration level when a GM told me information that the character already knew was just too high.
Guidance on this is desperately needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
During a session this past weekend I let the player tell me, in general, what he was interested in knowing. If it's not something very unique to the creature I give him the info on a successful check. I know some people don't like this approach but I feel if they won the check they should be able to get something that is more relevant for them at the moment.
I did get a comment from a gm (who has probably been doing it longer than I have and was a player in the game)counseling me that "in PFS2 the GM simply decides the most important thing to tell the characters (this also speeds up play)"
The RK exchange took all of 10 seconds in the game. Player asked if the creature had any known resistance. Answer: it does not. That was the end of it.
I feel a player gets more satisfaction from succeeding on their check this way than random info that may not be useful. Curious how other's feel about this approach?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like most rules discussions this is mostly just a series of complaints with no solutions. Rather than complaining about what GMs don’t do, offer ways how they can make the experience better. I dunno what kind of crappy GMs you get, but mine have been fairly helpful with “useful” information, and I know my players are always happy to hear what I provide with Recall Knowledge. So be a part of the solution, not the problem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's really funny about this is I can imagine Paizo was patting themselves on the back with the PF2 changes to RK and creature info.
Awhile back (I forget if it was during the playtest or just after release) Mark Sifter came into one of the Recall Knowledge threads.
The very, very strong impression that I got from what he said was that he was a GM who was quite liberal with the information given out on checks. It seemed that he very possibly didn't understand my issues, quite likely because they never arose at his tables.
It took awhile for PF1 to settle in on a more or less common understanding of what was gained by a knowledge check. Unfortunately, that common understanding does NOT yet seem to have been achieved with PF2.
Its an issue.
the first step in solving any problem is admitting there is a problem. I don't see any admission or acknowledgment from Paizo that this is a problem. People have been complaining about it for over a decade now, and PF2 is even more vague than PF1.
<snip>
Paizo could roll up their sleeves and fix it. But first, they need to acknowledge the problem exists and have the will to address it.
Perhaps, after considering this for over a decade, Paizo has decided that there isn't a problem.
Perhaps, after considering this for over a decade, Paizo has decided that there isn't a problem.That's certainly a likely possibility. However, it may be more complex than that. Probably more likely that they don't have a solution that they see as a win/win. There would be some trade-offs and they aren't willing to make them.
They've made trade-offs and published them in the new edition: they removed specificity and made the rules more flexible. That's their 'solution' to the problem you're describing.
Occam's Razor applies here. The answer is
"There is no problem."
It's not "there is a complex problem that we don't have a good solution for, because of the trade-offs involved, so we won't do anything"
They did something. They made changes for the new edition.
They didn't 'solve' the problem to your satisfaction, but they did do something.
rather than ignoring it.
But they didn't ignore it.
They made a change with the new edition.
In game design, that's not Occam's Razor.
Occam's Razor is not about game design. It's a commonly used philosophical and scientific principle about creating hypotheses.
Often restated as "the simplest explanation is the most likely" or "the law of parsimony".
You don't need to get into deep design jargon to understand what I was saying.
when independent groups of people complain about a problem over a span of 10 years and two versions, doing nothing is because you don't want to spend the resources. Not because you think there is no problem.
People complain about a lot of aspects of Pathfinder. But that doesn't mean that Paizo believes there is actually a problem.
Does Paizo think there's a problem with Recall Knowledge? Who knows. We're only throwing out hypotheses here about why there have only been small changes.
You believe that there is a complicated problem that has existed for decades and through multiple editions and is too complex for Paizo designers to solve.
I believe that there is no problem.
Two hypotheses, no data. And we have no way of knowing what Paizo staff believe, so we're left with our own imaginings.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People complain about a lot of aspects of Pathfinder. But that doesn't mean that Paizo believes there is actually a problem.
Does Paizo think there's a problem with Recall Knowledge? Who knows. We're only throwing out hypotheses here about why there have only been small changes.
You believe that there is a complicated problem that has existed for decades and through multiple editions and is too complex for Paizo designers to solve.
I believe that there is no problem.
Two hypotheses, no data. And we have no way of knowing what Paizo staff believe, so we're left with our own imaginings.
Unfortunately the reverse is also true. Just because Paizo believes there is no problem with Recall knowledge doesn't mean there is no problem with recall knowledge.
And regarding "no data base for any claims" we have multiple entries in this thread alone that confirm that RK is not used much in official play, mostly because table variation is huge.
So we do not have hypothesis verus hypothesis, we have the hypothesis of no problem versus empirical data of there apparently being a problem. And in any such cases empirical usually trumps hypothetical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And in any such cases empirical usually trumps hypothetical.
If you want to make empirical claims, you have to have empirical data.
Thirteen people offering data about their own experiences, not all of whom think there is a problem.
Not only is that too small of a sample size to draw any conclusions about tens of thousands of people's experiences, it's not even a random, unbiased data set.
Not much "empirical" evidence there.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And in any such cases empirical usually trumps hypothetical.If you want to make empirical claims, you have to have empirical data.
Thirteen people offering data about their own experiences, not all of whom think there is a problem.
Not only is that too small of a sample size to draw any conclusions about tens of thousands of people's experiences, it's not even a random, unbiased data set.
Not much "empirical" evidence there.
As far as I can tell, this argument applies to just about all issues that people have with Pathfinder.
Is it your position that there is no empirical evidence of any problems with PF1?
If not, what is your threshold where you admit there is empirical evidence? 10 people? 1,000 people?
Is it your position that there is no empirical evidence of any problems with PF1?
Not at all.
If not, what is your threshold where you admit there is empirical evidence? 10 people? 1,000 people?
I don't have to 'admit' anything. I'm not being accused of anything.
But I do believe two things about Paizo staff
1. They have experienced literally thousands more Pathfinder games than anyone posting in this thread.
2. If there was a problem that showed up in PF1, they are competent enough game designers to have come up with a solution to the problem.
Their "solution" to this obvious problem was the removal of specific wording and leave in the "vague" parts.
You can conclude that either they thought that was a sufficient remedy or that they were deliberately covering up how incompetent they are.
My conclusion is that, in their experience, this wasn't much of a problem for most people, so they didn't have to make much of a change.
Others have concluded that it is such a huge problem that staff cannot solve it, and staff are ignoring tens of thousands of people's gaming experience by pretending it isn't actually a problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have to 'admit' anything. I'm not being accused of anything.
But I do believe two things about Paizo staff
1. They have experienced literally thousands more Pathfinder games than anyone posting in this thread.
2. If there was a problem that showed up in PF1, they are competent enough game designers to have come up with a solution to the problem.
Their "solution" to this obvious problem was the removal of specific wording and leave in the "vague" parts.
You can conclude that either they thought that was a sufficient remedy or that they were deliberately covering up how incompetent they are.
My conclusion is that, in their experience, this wasn't much of a problem for most people, so they didn't have to make much of a change.
Others have concluded that it is such a huge problem that staff cannot solve it, and staff are ignoring tens of thousands of people's gaming experience by pretending it isn't actually a problem.
I think we all agree that all changes Paizo did were based on good faith and not the inability to come up with a "better" rule. GM empowerment and all. So instead of giving specifics they softened the rule in order to allow (benevolent) GM's to hand out tailor-made information to their individual gaming groups. After all I don't need to know about a breath attack that I can do nothing about if the monster has a weakness to the cold iron sword the party found just two rooms back.
Whatever their thought process was by doing so they in fact took a rule which already was inherently prone to a lot of table variation and even increased the chances for table variation.
Homebrew campaigns are one thing, however huge table variation is not especially well suited for organized play (for neither game). One table is breezing through the scenario because of a liberal GM, who is providing a lot of really useful information when a player uses RK, the other table is struggeling because a restrictive GM is giving out information scarcely only.
And to be honest I am a little surprised how people fail to perceive that there may be a (at least potential) problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it's clear that at least one person doesn't think there is a problem.
For those that do actually use the skill, but have issues with it, what would be the info that should be part of a RK? Not saying that everyone should use it, please don't start discussing about that. Just asking what would be info you'd expect in a RK, for those that would like to "fix" the skill.
In my eyes:
- General info on CR, in the form of: You think you'd be able to take it on without much issue/it will be a challenge/too much to handle.
- Very general knowledge: Troll regenerates, unless damaged by fire. Dragons have a breath weapon.
- A specific question, something like a weak safe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it's clear that at least one person doesn't think there is a problem.
For those that do actually use the skill, but have issues with it, what would be the info that should be part of a RK? Not saying that everyone should use it, please don't start discussing about that. Just asking what would be info you'd expect in a RK, for those that would like to "fix" the skill.
In my eyes:
- General info on CR, in the form of: You think you'd be able to take it on without much issue/it will be a challenge/too much to handle.
- Very general knowledge: Troll regenerates, unless damaged by fire. Dragons have a breath weapon.
- A specific question, something like a weak safe.
For our group it usually goes like this:
1) Creature appears
2) GM gives description of appearance *and* states the applicable knowledge skills (which is a big deal, as I do not want to waste an action trying to use RK on an animal or aberration with my Religion only trained Cleric)
3) After a successful hidden check GM provides the creature name and general creature info (descriptive and background text in stat block)
4) GM also provides one or more commonly known and useful abilities or resistances, depending on the creature
What our GM does not yet is to provide insight into the creature CR, however given that incapacitation is a thing I think a weaker, on par, stronger or much stronger indication seems appropriate.
Our GM generally does not give info about saves apart from the general description: "Looks like a priest...is hulking and slow...has an almost fragile frame...etc." and I don't think it is needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the way i run RK i do not require, nor tell, to point out which skill they use for RK.
They simply say to me that they try to Recall about the creature and i look at their character sheet and do a secret roll if they have an applicable (or the most applicable) skill.
All I can say is that we did consider this in the beginning, however not knowing what skill will be used plus the high probability for a false information result then is a huge turn off for using RK at all.
If using RK this way I woudn't even try to identify a Zombie with his face rotten off with my Cleric...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
most of the stuff is pretty clear even in-game what it is.
zombies and skeletons, aberrations, animals, dragons, magical beasts, golems, etc. In-game knowledge of the character themselves should allow an educated guess.
It's only the trickier monsters that really benefit from it (like vampires and etc)
it's just that it makes more sense in our table that you are seing "something" and the character goes "what is it? do i know anything about it?" rather than you seeing the same thing and going "do i recall anything about it from my knowledge about religions?"
Even if using some kind of elimination process?
For example instead of a player just asking "do I know something about that creature" he could instead ask "I want to determine if this creature is undead using Recall Knowledge (Religion)".
So for example if facing an Orc the GM could now simply follow through with Society (probably yielding false information) or just roll Religion vs the same DC and assuming the player passes simply state that he is sure that the creature is not undead.
Like, when you are an expert in dog breeds and are shown a turtle, you might not know what kind of animal it is, however you will most certainly be able to determine that it definitely is no dog.
Stating the skills in advance simply bases on the assumption that any expert in a given field easily *knows* when something is outside his specific field.