Recall knowledge

[shroudb]

Ubertron_X wrote:

shroudb wrote:

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 bases on the assumption that any expert in a given field easily *knows* when something is outside his specific field.

if someone wants me to ask something that specific like "can i use ONLY religion to see if it's undead or not" i have no issue with it.

but that's worse than the generic ruling of mine that's using the best out of all the characters skills to determine what something is.

the way i use it is using the "best" of the character's skills for each creature.

So, if a cleric did ask me (and spent an action to RK) "do i know anything about the thing in front of me?" and used Recall, if his only skill was Religion i would already roll it and inform him that "you don't know any undead matching this creature"

But if he had both Occult and Religion, i would pick occult instead of Religion, and on a success inform him that "it's an aberation called souleatingtentaclebaby that's weak to X attacks"

[Quandary]

I think I'm on the same page (re: PCs not choosing which skill to use, just declaring RK and GM chooses most relevant skill), I guess the interesting part is where a PC is only good at certain skills and not others, but rolls RK because the creature overtly seems like it might fall within their skillset (yet actually isn't). I guess that is one where it's nice for PC to at least be Trained in all RK skills so they are less likely to Crit Fail, even if each skill isn't fully up to the same max skill level. Which is defacto a benefit of high INT... even if they aren't as good at WIS RK-skills as they are at INT RK-skills, they will probably have enough Trained skills to cover ALL the RK skills including WIS ones... Whereas as a high WIS character may likely NOT have spare Trained skills to cover all INT skills, and could easily CritFail if they are "tricked" into thinking a creature might fall under their WIS based RK skills. Still, the whole fun of the CritFail effects on RK is that they do come into play every so often to spice things up, so no complaints there :-)

[Ubertron_X]

shroudb wrote:

if someone wants me to ask something that specific like "can i use ONLY religion to see if it's undead or not" i have no issue with it.

but that's worse than the generic ruling of mine that's using the best out of all the characters skills to determine what something is.

the way i use it is using the "best" of the character's skills for each creature.

So, if a cleric did ask me (and spent an action to RK) "do i know anything about the thing in front of me?" and used Recall, if his only skill was Religion i would already roll it and inform him that...

If you adjust the roll and answer based on the (best) existing skills and provide appropriate "negative" information that is an entire different beast than always using the appropriate skills and skyrocketing chances for critical fails.

Else I would never ever recommend for anyone to waste an action for a recall knowledge check that you neither know which skill was used for, nor if you can trust the result at all.

[shroudb]

Ubertron_X wrote:

shroudb wrote:

if someone wants me to ask something that specific like "can i use ONLY religion to see if it's undead or not" i have no issue with it.

but that's worse than the generic ruling of mine that's using the best out of all the characters skills to determine what something is.

the way i use it is using the "best" of the character's skills for each creature.

So, if a cleric did ask me (and spent an action to RK) "do i know anything about the thing in front of me?" and used Recall, if his only skill was Religion i would already roll it and inform him that...

If you adjust the roll and answer based on the (best) existing skills and provide appropriate "negative" information that is an entire different beast than always using the appropriate skills and skyrocketing chances for critical fails.

Else I would never ever recommend for anyone to waste an action for a recall knowledge check that you neither know which skill was used for, nor if you can trust the result at all.

as i said, i'm using the best skill appropriate.

if someone spends hte action, he does receive a roll even if his best action is actually not that helpful in this situation. It still gives a tiny bit of information (in the example before that it's not an undead you know)

Now, if "it's not an undead you know" means you failed the check, you critically failed, you made it and it simply isn't an undead, it's still for the player to decide, but at least it's not erroneous information that makes the action spent a direct negative.

Although i tend to not give "positive/negative" information on failed checks and would often resort to "you can't tell/ you aren't sure" and etc rather than "it's not"

[SuperBidi]

N N 959 wrote:

CR2 p.239 wrote:

To remember useful information on a topic, you can attempt to Recall Knowledge. *** 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.
Critical Failure You recall incorrect information or gain an erroneous or misleading clue.

That's it. To remember "useful" information...use Recall K. There's nothing about powers, vulnerabilities, etc. In fact, PF2 doesn't even say you "identify" the creature.

There is an additional rule: "A character who successfully identifies a creature learns one of its best-known attributes—such as a troll’s regeneration (and the fact that it can be stopped by acid or fire) or a manticore’s tail spikes. On a critical success, the character also learns something subtler, like a demon’s weakness or the trigger for one of the creature’s reactions."

So, you know what the creature is. Actually, I find this second piece of rule, which is more specific, to be worse. I would have prefered to gain a "useful information" than to know the creature "best-known attribute". Because if I Recall Knowledge after taking the Dragon Breath, what can the GM give for information? It flies?

[Captain Morgan]

TwilightKnight wrote:

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.

So as a GM, my 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 flavortext 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.

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 specific details, that's good grounds for subsequent checks at higher DCs. Especially if the players want to dictate the question. 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.

Also, players should be encouraged to roll outside of combat when they have ways to identify critters. Being able to get multiple actions worth of knowledge from party members before a fight is a stupendous advantage.

[Staffan Johansson]

N N 959 wrote:

Telling me its Reflex is its "weak" Save doesn't help me out if we can't target that Save. Knowing that its got resistance to piercing when everyone in the party is using bows (true story) is useless. Telling me that it's just a rat, is useless. I suspect this is why Paizo also coded some of these Recall feats to give the +1 mechanical bonus.

Many of those examples seem pretty useful to me. Learning things that don't work is pretty useful. So if everyone in your party is armed with bows, learning "it's hide is really thick, piercing weapons just bounce off it" is definitively useful information as long as you get it before people start shooting.

[N N 959]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Many of those examples seem pretty useful to me. Learning things that don't work is pretty useful. So if everyone in your party is armed with bows, learning "it's hide is really thick, piercing weapons just bounce off it" is definitively useful information as long as you get it before people start shooting.

Regardless of when you get it, it's not useful if you only have bows.

My real point is that "useful" as a criteria is problematic. What would have been useful? How many hit points the creature had. That would have told us, right away, whether we had any shot at killing this thing in a reasonable amount of time. As it turns out, it ended up killing one ranger and another ranger's pet. I mean killed, not Dying. I don't fault the GM....at all.

Again, I think Paizo is failing to recognize how fertile and rewarding the design space is for class concepts that focus on information, specifically monster info. Knowledge about the enemy should be tremendously valuable. The classic example is the killing of Smaug in the Hobbit. Made possible because the archer found out the dragon was missing an armored scale right above its heart.

[cavernshark]

You could literally put a recall knowledge block on each and every creature for success, crit success, fail, and crit fail (a monumental undertaking) telling the GM exactly what to say and it would still probably be underwhelming and very often providing information that isn't "useful" since what it useful is inherently contextually independent. It might fix table variation, but it'd be a bad implementation. This way at least you have the potential for it to be useful.

If a GM isn't providing you useful information on a success, that's a conversation with the GM. It's not different than adjudicating alignment infractions or any number of other subjective areas. For Organized Play, I'm a little more sympathetic, but at that point you're looking for an Org Play adjudication, not a change to the core rules. Honestly, I'm pretty happy with how they handled it in this edition.

[Wheldrake]

Ubertron_X wrote:

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.

This looks to me like a perfect plan for RK checks. If you open the creature on aon, you have the RK DC right there, along with a fairly interesting descriptive text.

Take the Dark Naga, for example. If players make a successful RK check, I could read out the general descriptive text:

Dark Naga:

"Dark nagas are wicked, jealous creatures that crave power and wealth. Indeed, the dark naga sees such ideals as spiritual expressions of an essential truth: if one can take something, that something is theirs to have. The dark naga sees other creatures as lessers worthy only of subjugation or as rivals who must be eliminated.

Dark nagas dwell in remote places other creatures have forsaken, searching abandoned ruins for wealth and potent magic items. Those unlucky trespassers into a dark naga’s lair typically find themselves as the naga’s slaves or playthings, put to sleep with the monster’s poison or incinerated by its deadly magic. Some dark nagas are more disposed toward socializing than others; in these cases, they may become wicked despots who rule over enclaves of captive or unsuspecting subjects. Subtler dark nagas, especially those who crave finer luxuries, dwell in or under the wealthy settlements and use their wiles to garner a decadent following, forming something akin to a cult with the naga as the jewelry-bedecked object of worship."

I might add (if they made a really good RK knowledge check), that they have nasty poison, cast nasty spells, and can read minds.

What else should players have access to? Seems to me this gives them a good baseline. Of course, a different creature might have specific vulnerabilities, that would be good to share on a RK check at +5 or +10.

[Staffan Johansson]

N N 959 wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Many of those examples seem pretty useful to me. Learning things that don't work is pretty useful. So if everyone in your party is armed with bows, learning "it's hide is really thick, piercing weapons just bounce off it" is definitively useful information as long as you get it before people start shooting.

Regardless of when you get it, it's not useful if you only have bows.

On the contrary. If your whole party for some reason is only armed with bows (which is a pretty bad party design to begin with, but nevermind that), and you learn that the foe you are facing has strong resistance to piercing, that's very valuable information. It is information that tells you that this is not a good place to be, so you should get away from this place and rethink your life decisions.

[N N 959]

No, that is not useful information in defeating the creature by any means available. The information has to be useful in the context of defeating it. You're grasping at straws.

And nobody "designs" the party in PFS.

[CrystalSeas]

N N 959 wrote:

No, that is not useful information in defeating the creature by any means available. The information has to be useful in the context of defeating it.

Nonsense.

You don't have to defeat every opponent. You especially don't need to use "any means available".

Not even in PFS

[HammerJack]

How actionable the information is in that kind of case can still vary by level. I have seen low level archers benefit from realizing that they were going to need to start punching skeletons.

The same party composition at a higher level, after Striking runes cone into play and monster math expects them, would not have benefitted if they still had no decent backup weapons and resorted to fisticuffs as the damage would be so much lower that avoiding the resistance wouldn't come out ahead, though they might have benefitted from fleeing.

[Staffan Johansson]

N N 959 wrote:

No, that is not useful information in defeating the creature by any means available. The information has to be useful in the context of defeating it. You're grasping at straws.

Why does the information have to be useful in the context of defeating the creature? Recall Knowledge specifies that you get useful information, but information that tells you that you're in over your head is still useful. Knowing when to run and regroup is very useful. Or to switch to backup weapons.

And what would you expect knowledge to do if you don't have the means to defeat the monster in the first place? Remove the resistance? What if you're fighting swarms and no-one has brought any AOEs? What if there are incorporeal undead and no-one has any force effects? What if you're fighting flyers with ranged attacks and no-one has brought any ranged weapons?

Quote:

And nobody "designs" the party in PFS.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[N N 959]

CrystalSeas wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

No, that is not useful information in defeating the creature by any means available. The information has to be useful in the context of defeating it.

Nonsense.

You don't have to defeat every opponent. You especially don't need to use "any means available".

Not even in PFS

Yes, you do need to defeat every opponent. If you fail to overcome/defeat encounters, you are denied "treasure bundles" and in some cases, specific items. Now, it doesn't always happen when the party gets bad rolls, but the expectation is every encounter is winnable. Running from an encounter has never been part of the expected outcome in all my years of playing PFS. Encounters are not coded with information that is intended to convince the party to flee.

[N N 959]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

No, that is not useful information in defeating the creature by any means available. The information has to be useful in the context of defeating it. You're grasping at straws.

Why does the information have to be useful in the context of defeating the creature?

You're right, 'useful' should consider information needed to throw a surprise birthday party or buy a holiday gift. It was badwrongfun of me to expect Recall Knowledge to help the party defeat the monsters we encounter.

Quote:

Knowing when to run and regroup is very useful.

Recall Knowledge doesn't give you information so that you know when to regroup. That information is already available in the terms of your hit points and standing party members.

Quote:

Or to switch to backup weapons.

We didn't have back up weapons that avoided the damage restrictions. Nor did we have the Armor Class to employ them in melee. "Useful" is not "useful providing you have X." Your attitude seems to be that it's not the GM's fault if the party can't use the information.

Quote:

And what would you expect knowledge to do if you don't have the means to defeat the monster in the first place?

Provide us with some information that would be useful in defeating it. Hence the problem. "Useful" is going to be highly circumstantial/context driven.

What we needed to know was how strong this opponent was in mechanical terms for the players. "Stronger than a grizzly" is fine for the _characters_, but the GM should then translate that to HD or approximate hit points for the _players_. Knowing what it would take to defeat the creature would have been "useful."

Alternatively, the GM could have pointed out its thought process or something else that might be useful. Again, not the GM's fault. The Recall K check is just poorly implemented and under leveraged..

[The Gleeful Grognard]

What is useful information is unique to each party, scenario, resources and even timeframe / purpose.

It is intentionally flexible, this does make it vague and as I said before the ability could do with a "the player gives an indication as to what sort of knowledge they are trying to recall".
But overall as long as you don't have an antagonistic relationship with your gm it should be fine and the ability does its job.

Recall knowledge isn't for everything either, try asking your GM questions and make educated assessments yourself, or, plan for worst case scenarios.