| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are many house rules to give players more information on their foes. A common one is one fact for each 4 or 5 by which they succeed.
Some monsters are very hard to fight unless you know a lot of things about them and you might otherwise have to use many actions to learn them.
The number of checks can depend on how well your players know the system, and can separate their knowledge from their character's knowledge.
It's hard to compare AP directly because extinction curse has a lot of monsters of the same type, so you can stop rolling after a while.
There's always homebrew monsters.
There are many house rules to give players more information on their foes. A common one is one fact for each 4 or 5 by which they succeed.
Some monsters are very hard to fight unless you know a lot of things about them and you might otherwise have to use many actions to learn them.
The number of checks can depend on how well your players know the system, and can separate their knowledge from their character's knowledge.
Because of these motives I currently house rule a lot the Recall Knowledge checks. Except for analysis and investigation I have problems in force the players to waste their actions to do Recall Knowledge during encounters. It's hard to explain and contextualize to a player that his char is taking a time thinking and trying to remember "where I found this creature before". So instead of waste an action Recalling Knowledge I run a secret Recall Knowledge test and in private depending on the result I talk to the player and explain what was remembered, but if this player want to pass this information to others he has to waste an action for it. I do this for each player in their first turn or when a new creature appears.
Also I don't allow Recalling Knowledge rechecks. Or you know or you don't know. This also matches with other outside encounters Recall Knowledge tests where's not possible to retest until remember something.In compensation I give them a lot of information about the creatures when they pass in the tests, even when they fail I give them at last the creature name and traits and some fluff (usually the first paragraph of the creature description in the Bestiary). I also don't lie in critical failures because as even the Gamemaster Guide says some false information can have much larger consequences for a long time if not controlled by GM so I prefer simply don't do this.
So my rolls are:
- I roll automatically the Recall Knowledge check for each creature type in battle in the first player turn after the creature appears.
- So I explain the info to the player and give him the option to give this info for other players but using an action*.
The info provided can be:
- Critical Fail: None
- Fail: Creature name + traits** + some fluff
- Success: All** creature's characteristics explained in must fluff way I can explain. If want the player can pass this info to other chars using an action*
- Critical Success**: A give creature information including the numbers (I give a print of the book page) but I ask to the player to not share to the other players any numeric information but he can try to explain for them in a fluff way using an action*
* If the char has some ability to recall knowledge as free action he can use of an action to share the info as a free action instead.
** For some creatures I don't give all the info in case they have some multi tradition traits. Ex.: If the char face an undead pig and I roll nature as recall check but this char is not trained in religion I only allow the char to know the pig natural traits and characteristics but not their undead parts. I only info that this pig has some strange open injures with decrepit appearance.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also I don't allow Recalling Knowledge rechecks. Or you know or you don't know. This also matches with other outside encounters Recall Knowledge tests where's not possible to retest until remember something.
Be aware that not being allowed further RK checks on the same creature will weaken Mastermind Rogues significantly and also Investigators with Known Weaknesses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The recall knowledge activity is one of those places where you have to make a major choice as a GM. Do you want it to be an action players use in combat? Do you want it to be something PCs specialize in with character choices? If so, your players need to see you prove it by rewarding those decisions in play.
As a GM, I try to be generous with the information I give out, trying to frame it in the context of a story that the character might have heard, giving as much information as I possibly can within that context. I also l let PCs make new checks after watching the enemy act. I might say “your weapon doesn’t seem to be doing as much damage as it should.” If the creature has resistance, but if they recall knowledge afterwards, I’ll give them exact numbers for the revenant resistance and possibly tie it to other information that might make sense.
I also have monsters spend actions on recalling knowledge about the PCs as well
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For investigator I allow the Known Weaknesses checks only for the benefits of the +1 circumstance bonus and to transfer the information, not to try know more every turn it attacks. Same for Mastermind.
These abilities works more as an analysis from the current enemy weakness than just try to remember something about it. (something like, this enemy is moving their leg a little slower, or the guard uses movements of that martial art where I know the weak point). This also helps to explain how to able use these abilities against some unknown NPC.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The official guidance is that after a successful check, you can attempt another at a higher DC using the DC adjustments. (+2/+5/+10) I don't love this rule as that increased DC makes the chances of critical failure higher, and it doesn't play well with creatures that are already getting an adjustment from rarity. So I sometimes ignore it.
Players usually roll knowledge checks until they've identified the enemy. They rarely roll past that point unless it is bundled with something like Known Weakness.
On a success, I first identify the creature's traits and what is universally true for those traits. "That vrock is a demon, so like all demons it is weak to cold iron and good damage. Most demons have a specific weakness associated with the particular sin they embody."
From there I start reading the creature's flavor text until I find something actionable, that the players can actually use. Sometimes this calls for a mechanical translation afterwards-- telling players a medusa's gaze turns you to stone is only helpful if the players understand how gaze mechanics work. It also has to be something the PCs aren't already aware of.
On a critical success, players get all of the above plus something really juicy, like if the creature has attack of opportunity.
You can't retry knowledge checks by default. I personally allow rerolls if the player has gained new information that could jog their memory. It is one thing to not recognize a creature at a glance, and another to recognize it once it uses its iconic ability.
The official guidance is that after a successful check, you can attempt another at a higher DC using the DC adjustments. (+2/+5/+10) I don't love this rule as that increased DC makes the chances of critical failure higher, and it doesn't play well with creatures that are already getting an adjustment from rarity. So I sometimes ignore it.
Players usually roll knowledge checks until they've identified the enemy. They rarely roll past that point unless it is bundled with something like Known Weakness.
On a success, I first identify the creature's traits and what is universally true for those traits. "That vrock is a demon, so like all demons it is weak to cold iron and good damage. Most demons have a specific weakness associated with the particular sin they embody."
From there I start reading the creature's flavor text until I find something actionable, that the players can actually use. Sometimes this calls for a mechanical translation afterwards-- telling players a medusa's gaze turns you to stone is only helpful if the players understand how gaze mechanics work. It also has to be something the PCs aren't already aware of.
On a critical success, players get all of the above plus something really juicy, like if the creature has attack of opportunity.
You can't retry knowledge checks by default. I personally allow rerolls if the player has gained new information that could jog their memory. It is one thing to not recognize a creature at a glance, and another to recognize it once it uses its iconic ability.
I agree with this general line of thought, and especially since it costs action in combat players should be rewarded. Some monsters can be especially punishing if you don't have the correct information about how their mechanics work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They should put an alt ID system into their next GMG-type book. Does any one know any experienced GMs who run ID monster by raw? If everyone feels the need to change that 1 rule, that rule is a good candidate to be explored.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally don't like that after a failure you can't recall knowledge anymore, but it does make sense at the same time. Just can be rough when only one person in the group has the right skill for the check, and it's a very important recall knowledge.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally don't like that after a failure you can't recall knowledge anymore, but it does make sense at the same time. Just can be rough when only one person in the group has the right skill for the check, and it's a very important recall knowledge.
It's "realistic", but a poor game mechanic. One could just as easily instead describe a failure as "You can up blank in the two-seconds you took in a high-pressure situation, but you might just need more time" rather than "you know nothing about this creature."
That also keeps Recall Knowledge as a viable option even after a failure, which means the player has more options, always a good thing.
The official guidance is that after a successful check, you can attempt another at a higher DC using the DC adjustments. (+2/+5/+10) I don't love this rule as that increased DC makes the chances of critical failure higher, and it doesn't play well with creatures that are already getting an adjustment from rarity. So I sometimes ignore it.
I was re-reading this and notice this is way more brutal then I have remembered:
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.
So a char cannot remember more than 4 times (+0/+2/+5/+10) and if fail no more attempts!
Ps.: Maybe I have failed in my self Recall Knowledge of the rules :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally don't like that after a failure you can't recall knowledge anymore, but it does make sense at the same time. Just can be rough when only one person in the group has the right skill for the check, and it's a very important recall knowledge.It's "realistic", but a poor game mechanic. One could just as easily instead describe a failure as "You can up blank in the two-seconds you took in a high-pressure situation, but you might just need more time" rather than "you know nothing about this creature."
That also keeps Recall Knowledge as a viable option even after a failure, which means the player has more options, always a good thing.
I disagree. Recall Knowledge isn't primarily a combat mechanic. Retrying outside of combat would mean every roll would get a nat 20 eventually. You need a meaningful restriction if you want skills to mean anything, or reward research or father information activities.
The issue is that by RAW it doesn't have wiggle room for things like getting additional information. I highly recommend house ruling that in.
|
|
I personally don't like that after a failure you can't recall knowledge anymore, but it does make sense at the same time. Just can be rough when only one person in the group has the right skill for the check, and it's a very important recall knowledge.It's "realistic", but a poor game mechanic. One could just as easily instead describe a failure as "You can up blank in the two-seconds you took in a high-pressure situation, but you might just need more time" rather than "you know nothing about this creature."
That also keeps Recall Knowledge as a viable option even after a failure, which means the player has more options, always a good thing.
I disagree. Recall Knowledge isn't primarily a combat mechanic. Retrying outside of combat would mean every roll would get a nat 20 eventually. You need a meaningful restriction if you want skills to mean anything, or reward research or father information activities.
The issue is that by RAW it doesn't have wiggle room for things like getting additional information. I highly recommend house ruling that in.
If we're talking house rules, then just don't allow repeated attempts outside combat. Or maybe Recall Knowledge should be split in two - one for Encounter Mode, one for Exploration Mode.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we're talking house rules, then just don't allow repeated attempts outside combat. Or maybe Recall Knowledge should be split in two - one for Encounter Mode, one for Exploration Mode.I personally don't like that after a failure you can't recall knowledge anymore, but it does make sense at the same time. Just can be rough when only one person in the group has the right skill for the check, and it's a very important recall knowledge.It's "realistic", but a poor game mechanic. One could just as easily instead describe a failure as "You can up blank in the two-seconds you took in a high-pressure situation, but you might just need more time" rather than "you know nothing about this creature."
That also keeps Recall Knowledge as a viable option even after a failure, which means the player has more options, always a good thing.
I disagree. Recall Knowledge isn't primarily a combat mechanic. Retrying outside of combat would mean every roll would get a nat 20 eventually. You need a meaningful restriction if you want skills to mean anything, or reward research or father information activities.
The issue is that by RAW it doesn't have wiggle room for things like getting additional information. I highly recommend house ruling that in.
That just feels immersion breaking to me and frankly is unnecessary. Usually as a fight wears on you will see more and more abilities from a creatures, assuming it has any abilities worth learning about. So you'll probably get new information without needing to build weird exceptions into encounter mode.
Also... Why is that big a deal if players can't retry a knowledge check midcombat? That just means they are going to spend their actions on something else instead. We've all seen fights resolve where the players didn't know what they were fighting until after it was dead, haven't we?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do kinda wish “identify creature” was a separate activity from generally recalling knowledge. It seems like having one action for the combat activity and for what you do when you investigate kinda necessitates a pretty broad, vague action description.
Usually as a fight wears on you will see more and more abilities from a creatures, assuming it has any abilities worth learning about. So you'll probably get new information without needing to build weird exceptions into encounter mode.
Yes, the exploration mode thing is weird. I would allow more checks in encounter mode, rather than make an exploration activity. If you need to roll immediately and frequently in exploration mode, you should just change to encounter mode.
However, I've seen parties suprised by the abilities of monsters, often with fatal consequences - I think mostly at escape time when they realise they can't, but it's not like I recorded all the fights I GMed. I don't agree that it's a good idea to just keep whacking a monster until you science its powers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our house rule is:
- New rolls are allowed.
- If you fail, you can make a new roll, but with an increased dificulty (same increments as the oficial rule)
- Succes or Crit Succes don´t increase the dificulty for a new roll.
- Crit. failure makes impossible to re-roll.
- We don´t use false information on Crit. Failures.I don´t feel is unrealistic this way, because in the real life you have some knowleadge but you don´t remember right away (anyone forgot how a rule was exactly, but came to your mind some minutes later?), that would be a case of Fail but you can keep trying.
This rule doen´t make Recall Knowledge over used in combat (in fact is used the same times as the OP said), because in the end, it cost an action and the there is a limited amount of info relevant from a creature.
In the exploration mode is the same house rule and we feel it works perfectly.
I do something similar, and because of the Critical Failure change, it's not SECRET either.
has made me think that you can try again and get new information if your very first attempt was a failure or critical failure (but maybe at a higher DC for the crit failure). That the rules for gaining more information only matter after you’ve gotten information.
I think it's not like that because the part "...rolling another check to discover more information. After a success, further uses of Recall Knowledge can yield more information..." already block new tries.
If you failed in 1º test you already cannot retry.
|
I figured this is related enough and as everyone seems to have the rules fresh in mind, it'd be best to ask instead of starting a new thread.
Considering that Recall Knowledge is supposed to be a secret check, how do you handle feats like Master Monster Hunter that give an attack bonus, even on a normal success? If everyone is aware whether they get the bonus or not, they will then know if the information they gained was accurate or false. However, it seems like it would be a lot of secret extra bonus tracking for the GM which could also easily be missed/forgotten.
Using RAW is the same of Recall Knowledge, if you pass in the test you receive the bonus, if you fail you don't and cannot retry.
But most permissive GMs can allow new tests just for this. I don't think this could unbalance just because you allow a player to try again to earn his +1 circumstance bonus against only one specific creature in your next attack.
Being honest I always thought that Master Monster Hunter is too weak for a class feat. (it just add +1 circumstance bonus for next attack and for the hunted prey and only once if you pass in a success. Is probably one of the the mostly mée feat I already see).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the idea of secret recall knowledge checks is a really cool and thematic one, with many feats and abilities that interact with it in interesting ways, but there is pretty much no way to combine all of the different elements that interact with recall knowledge by RAW and have them all work together without a lot of GM arbitration.
I don't think I have ever seen any 2 GMs handle recall knowledge in exactly the same way, or even one GM be precisely consistent with applying it in every situation.
Which is ok.
It is interacting with the single most fragile, but important aspect of any role playing game: The delivery of information from the GM to the players. Trying to turn it into a carefully measured science instead of a more intuitive "feels right" game element is going to heavily affect the entire narrative aspect of the game. As either a player or a GM, this is one category of the game where you are going to have to talk to your other players about all of your expectations before you start playing, and probably again after future sessions when your expectations and theirs for the ability are not matching up.
I understand why some players want to just walk away from secret rolls all together with it, because that does simplify many of the elements of the game, even as it can remove some of the fun mystery as well.
Certainly the hard mechanical elements of the activity and many of the class abilities that interact with it are a lot cleaner and easier to understand without secret checks.
I think I personally still prefer the magic and mystery of the secret checks, but I also place a lot of value on the relationship/community building aspect of roleplaying games, which game elements like secret checks can exercise.
In that regard, a GM using secret checks should be kind in their playfulness with false information and be thinking about opportunities to help the party fail forward with false information, as well be thinking about how and where they want the PCs to get the information that will be necessary to move the story along. If the answer is going to be from a successful recall knowledge check, then allowing the party to make multiple checks without penalties might be one straight forward way to do it, but you can always use failures as opportunities to encourage the PCs to take some down time, do some research in town, talk to more NPCs, etc, and re-approach the situation with a little more preparation as well. It really boils down to whether you are trying to keep things moving along one specific direction, or are ready to open the game up more and let the players create their own new paths with the information that they get.
As somewhat of an aside,
Interestingly, all the monster hunter ranger feats work best for the Mastermind Rogue, who gets enough skills and skill feats to really become a lore master, AND two incredibly punishing abilities to exploit with recalling knowledge (extra damage and reduced enemy AC).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using RAW is the same of Recall Knowledge, if you pass in the test you receive the bonus, if you fail you don't and cannot retry.
But most permissive GMs can allow new tests just for this. I don't think this could unbalance just because you allow a player to try again to earn his +1 circumstance bonus against only one specific creature in your next attack.
Being honest I always thought that Master Monster Hunter is too weak for a class feat. (it just add +1 circumstance bonus for next attack and for the hunted prey and only once if you pass in a success. Is probably one of the the mostly mée feat I already see).
Much like the original Monster Hunter feat, Master's +1 bonus is really just icing. The thing that makes it really sweet is that you can use nature to identify any creature. That's a really big advantage.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the idea of secret recall knowledge checks is a really cool and thematic one, with many feats and abilities that interact with it in interesting ways, but there is pretty much no way to combine all of the different elements that interact with recall knowledge by RAW and have them all work together without a lot of GM arbitration.
I don't think I have ever seen any 2 GMs handle recall knowledge in exactly the same way, or even one GM be precisely consistent with applying it in every situation.
Which is ok.
It is interacting with the single most fragile, but important aspect of any role playing game: The delivery of information from the GM to the players. Trying to turn it into a carefully measured science instead of a more intuitive "feels right" game element is going to heavily affect the entire narrative aspect of the game. As either a player or a GM, this is one category of the game where you are going to have to talk to your other players about all of your expectations before you start playing, and probably again after future sessions when your expectations and theirs for the ability are not matching up.
I understand why some players want to just walk away from secret rolls all together with it, because that does simplify many of the elements of the game, even as it can remove some of the fun mystery as well.
Certainly the hard mechanical elements of the activity and many of the class abilities that interact with it are a lot cleaner and easier to understand without secret checks.
I think I personally still prefer the magic and mystery of the secret checks, but I also place a lot of value on the relationship/community building aspect of roleplaying games, which game elements like secret checks can exercise.
In that regard, a GM using secret checks should be kind in their playfulness with false information and be thinking about opportunities to help the party fail forward with false information, as well be thinking about how and where they want the PCs to get the information...
Thank you for the comprehensive answer. Though it does seem that the feats conflict with the rules without a way around it, your perspective helps with how to approach things. If I ran the game, I think I would stick with RAW except in the rare cases of such feats and tack on a "ignore false information from critical failures" or "Recall Knowledge checks from this feat are not secret". It seems to be a good way of making everyone happy without modifying the rules too much. As a player, I will make this suggestion to my GM. Thanks again.
Much like the original Monster Hunter feat, Master's +1 bonus is really just icing. The thing that makes it really sweet is that you can use nature to identify any creature. That's a really big advantage.
Sorry but still meh IMO.
A LvL 10 class feat that works like a skill feat. This create a situation similar to Unified Theory discussion where we can question if worth (IMO maybe worth if you make a build based on it but it's still too much expensive, is a Class LvL 10 feat with another class feat requirement).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Biggest issue with Master Monster Hunter is that before you get it at 10th level you have to spend 9 levels as a character who really needs Int to identify creatures, and then once you do get it that investment is worthless.
While I agree Monster Hunter works like a skill feat (albeit a really strong one) so do many of the Ranger feats it is competing with.
And I think comparing it Unified Theory feels off. You're going to be identifying monsters way more often than rolling tradition locked skill checks. And within that, we are talking about like a +6 bonus compared to trained skill without an item bonus. Before ability scores. And you're doing it as a free action against pretty much anything you fight, and can give the whole party a little buff? That's awesome.
But the reason we probably have different opinions here is how good the feat is really hinges in the incredibly inconsistent "how well does my GM do knowledge rolls."
Biggest issue with Master Monster Hunter is that before you get it at 10th level you have to spend 9 levels as a character who really needs Int to identify creatures, and then once you do get it that investment is worthless.
While I agree Monster Hunter works like a skill feat (albeit a really strong one) so do many of the Ranger feats it is competing with.
Sorry but I think have a mistake here.
We are discussing the Master Monster Hunter feat! The Monster Hunter feat instead is an interesting lvl 1 feat that allow the char to Recall Knowledge at same time it do Hunt Prey using the same action for both and as bonus if you crit the Recall Knowledge test you also gain +1 circumstance to next attack.This IMO is a good class feat because a ranger will Hunt Prey anyway to receive most of his abilities and allow to Recall Knowledge as part of the action already make it a good feat. The +1 in a crit is just icing.
And I think comparing it Unified Theory feels off. You're going to be identifying monsters way more often than rolling tradition locked skill checks. And within that, we are talking about like a +6 bonus compared to trained skill without an item bonus. Before ability scores. And you're doing it as a free action against pretty much anything you fight, and can give the whole party a little buff? That's awesome.
Sorry but I think I was misunderstand here too. I'm not comparing the Master Monster Hunter feat with Unified Theory i'm only quoting that Master Monster Hunter feat creates a similar situation of the other topic where we discuss if the feat worth their costs over it's benefits.
Where IMO the Master Monster Hunter feat don't worth because it's a lvl 10 class feat with other class feat as requirement that in practice gives a main benefit that's comparable to some skills feats that allow some skills to be used in place of others in some situations. And his additional bonus that's allow the +1 that's was given from lvl 1 Monster Hunter feat now is acquired in case of success too. Especially when when we consider that Recall Knowledge using master skill checks against a creature with same level is about 50% of chance to work.
So if the test fail all this will do no effect except Hunt Prey. Making this lvl 10 class with low benefit and that has only about 50% of chance to work.
But the reason we probably have different opinions here is how good the feat is really hinges in the incredibly inconsistent "how well does my GM do knowledge rolls."
Yes, if the GM allow re-rolls after failures the feat utility increases a lot because it allow the player greatly increase that chances to recall from any creature. But I fells that this feat still to much expensive for a lvl 10 class feat with requirements. It's look like's too much as a skill feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry but I think have a mistake here.
We are discussing the Master Monster Hunter feat! The Monster Hunter feat instead is an interesting lvl 1 feat that allow the char to Recall Knowledge at same time it do Hunt Prey using the same action for both and as bonus if you crit the Recall Knowledge test you also gain +1 circumstance to next attack.
This IMO is a good class feat because a ranger will Hunt Prey anyway to receive most of his abilities and allow to Recall Knowledge as part of the action already make it a good feat. The +1 in a crit is just icing.
Yeah, I know. I was more referring to the entire Monster Hunter feat line, but did a poor job phrasing it.
Where IMO the Master Monster Hunter feat don't worth because it's a lvl 10 class feat with other class feat as requirement that in practice gives a main benefit that's comparable to some skills feats that allow some skills to be used in place of others in some situations.
There's no skill feat that lets you substitute skills on something you are rolling in every single combat, usually more than once. What are you comparing it to? Natural Medicine, the feat that lets you do nothing but Treat Wounds without any Medicine feat support?
Especially when when we consider that Recall Knowledge using master skill checks against a creature with same level is about 50% of chance to work.
Only if you put literally zero investment in Wisdom or items, which is a weird choice on this build. Realistically we are taking about a character with at least 16 Wisdom and a +1 item. We are talking minimum of 70% chance of success against an level DC. An outwit ranger with druid's vestments can potentially get as high as +24 against a DC 27. That's an 85% chance of success. Now, the level and rarity of your opposition will make these numbers fluctuate, but the odds are pretty good.
Yes, if the GM allow re-rolls after failures the feat utility increases a lot because it allow the player greatly increase that chances to recall from any creature.
Rerolls aren't what I was referring to-- you only make a creature your Hunted Prey once, so you'd be spending actions past that point, at which point the value of the feat chain drops off. And properly specced for it you'll usually get it on the first go anyway. What I was referring to was the simply the quality of the information provided by the GM-- not everyone is good at making it helpful.
But I fells that this feat still to much expensive for a lvl 10 class feat with requirements. It's look like's too much as a skill feat.
Again, have you looked at its competition? Many ranger feats are basically skill feats. Even at this level, two more of the level 10 feats in the CRB are based around master stealth. And besides the skill stuff, the other level 10 ranger feats are really build specific-- there's something for animal companions, crossbows, and dual wielders. Nothing that's just a universal must have.
It isn't until level 12 when ranger feats become too powerful to ignore. If we were weighing MMH against things like Distracting Shot, Second Sting, or Shared Prey, I'd have a harder time justifying it. But for its level, I think it is actually one of the better options.
There's no skill feat that lets you substitute skills on something you are rolling in every single combat, usually more than once. What are you comparing it to? Natural Medicine, the feat that lets you do nothing but Treat Wounds without any Medicine feat support?
It's a good comparison. While Natural Medicine is a lvl 1 skill feat that allow you not only to Treat Wounds. But open your way to use Nature to all other skill feats that requires medicine like Battle Medicine.
This is a skill feat a specific type of feat that can be acquired by any class and also is lvl 1. So no matter what's your class or your level you can buy this feat without having to "sacrifice" any more "useful" Class skill.While Master Monster Hunter feat is a lvl 10 class feat, a feat that dispute the player interest with other lvl 10 Ranger feats like Camouflage or Incredible Companion or Twin Riposte. This level requirement and the fact this is a class feat as also has other class feat requirement make Master Monster Hunter be too much underpowered IMO.
Only if you put literally zero investment in Wisdom or items, which is a weird choice on this build. Realistically we are taking about a character with at least 16 Wisdom and a +1 item. We are talking minimum of 70% chance of success against an level DC. An outwit ranger with druid's vestments can potentially get as high as +24 against a DC 27. That's an 85% chance of success. Now, the level and rarity of your opposition will make these numbers fluctuate, but the odds are pretty good
Not it's not a weird choice, the most rangers probably will focus their stats in str and or dex and con instead of wis. Is a Ranger not a Druid, there's way less utility in have high Wis even for Outwit Edge, specially for combat. (But to be honest until now I never even see someone playing with Outwit Ranger, except for NPCs), so most of them have 12 Wis or in maximum 14, in other way you loose too much combat power to just gain better perception, will and knowledge checks. So even with +1 item the most expect bonus against CD 27 is +18 (+2 Wis +10 lvl +6 mastery +2 outwit) making the player having 60% chance of success in a recall knowledge.
If you seriously invest in Wis you will end with a ranger with low melee hit and damage or low ranged hit or low HP and fortitude.Obs.: Sorry but I don't find what lvl 10 or less item you used to increase nature recall knowledge test.
Again, have you looked at its competition? Many ranger feats are basically skill feats. Even at this level, two more of the level 10 feats in the CRB are based around master stealth. And besides the skill stuff, the other level 10 ranger feats are really build specific-- there's something for animal companions, crossbows, and dual wielders. Nothing that's just a universal must have.
Mostly of other feats options have better usage in this level. Camouflage allow you to hide in plain sight while you are in natural terrain. There not usable in all situation (when you are in some dungeons and in cities) but this is an action you can retry and usually have a better success rate once many Ranger do a good investment in dex to increase at last their AC. Incredible Companion is excellent that greatly increase the companion stats. Twin Riposte is an excellent counterattack reaction.
I know, all they have requirements but they are far "stronger" and less limited than Master Monster Hunter at last IMO.And this comparison ignores that there are other good lower class feats or you can also put an dedication instead.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a good comparison. While Natural Medicine is a lvl 1 skill feat that allow you not only to Treat Wounds. But open your way to use Nature to all other skill feats that requires medicine like Battle Medicine.
This is a skill feat a specific type of feat that can be acquired by any class and also is lvl 1. So no matter what's your class or your level you can buy this feat without having to "sacrifice" any more "useful" Class skill.
While Master Monster Hunter feat is a lvl 10 class feat, a feat that dispute the player interest with other lvl 10 Ranger feats like Camouflage or Incredible Companion or Twin Riposte. This level requirement and the fact this is a class feat as also has other class feat requirement make Master Monster Hunter be too much underpowered IMO.
I mean you're citing Camouflage, which is a glorified skill feat that I guarantee you'd use less often than the Monster Hunter combo. Incredible Companion is certainly mandatory if you want a battle worthy animal companion but isn't otherwise relevant. Twin Riposte also has a feat prerequisite, and has an action that conflicts with the usual build there: using an action to Twin Parry means you're not taking advantage of your reduced MAP to make as many strikes as possible. I'd consider skipping it entirely until Improved Twin Riposte comes into play and then retrain into it, in much the same I'd only retrain into Monster Warden once I had Master Monster Hunter. Until then, Disrupt Prey is probably a stronger choice.
By comparison, the Monster Hunter line is nothing but free actions that serve to only enhance things you were already doing-- they work great on any that maxes nature. You use it on literally every enemy you fight.
Not it's not a weird choice, the most rangers probably will focus their stats in str and or dex and con instead of wis. Is a Ranger not a Druid, there's way less utility in have high Wis even for Outwit Edge, specially for combat. (But to be honest until now I never even see someone playing with Outwit Ranger, except for NPCs), so most of them have 12 Wis or in maximum 14, in other way you loose too much combat power to just gain better perception, will and knowledge checks. So even with +1 item the most expect bonus against CD 27 is +18 (+2 Wis +10 lvl +6 mastery +2 outwit) making the player having 60% chance of success in a recall knowledge.
Absurd. You literally HAVE to put 3 boosts into mental stats by level 10 due to the 4 boost steps. And Wisdom is the clear front runner of mental stats on any build that doesn't use Int or Cha for a key stat Much less the ranger who needs to patch a bad will save and is going to be the best shot at spotting proficiency gated hazards. If you play something like a dwarf with an inherent boost to wisdom, you've hit 18 wisdom by this point.
I mean, I have seen rangers invest into charisma and act as the party face, but that's pretty atypical.
Obs.: Sorry but I don't find what lvl 10 or less item you used to increase nature recall knowledge test.
Druid's Vestments. I wouldn't assume the ranger makes this a first purchase over a +2 weapon potency rune, but the option exists and you're gonna be getting that or a greater primeval mistletoe eventually.
So generally your math with basic optimization is +3 (wis) +10 (lvl) + 6 (master) + 1 (item). That's +20 to the roll against DC 27. By comparison, your Monster Hunter feat on even a trained skill without further investment (a safe bet for say, Arcana or Occultism) is only going to be +12. That actually leaves you with a 25% chance of critically failing the check, meaning your Monster Hunter feat is feeding you false information.
Master Monster Hunter has a prerequisite, yes, but it also provides a serious upgrade to the feat, turning it from a potentially higher level liability into the premier monster identification tool. It is good enough that the druid in my party willingly forked over their +2 nature item despite better Wisdom, because the Ranger was getting to roll nature more often and successes helped the whole party. When the rest of your party begins warping around a feat, I'd say it is pretty significant.
And again, I can't overstate that the feat line only enhances your action economy rather than offer mutually exclusive options like Twin Parry, or Quick Snares, Penetrating Shot, or Skirmish Strike.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
tl;dr so sorry if this has already been said. I find this is largely based on how stingy or generous the GM is with revealing the info. Most of the GMs I play with regularly give out the name and traits of the creature with a successful check plus one detail of its block like a singular resistance, immunity, or weakness or perhaps a special attack. With a critical success they give out at least another piece of info. Usually the GM allows the player to choose the type, if they have an interest, or picks the one they think is of most valuable to the party. It means one knowledge check is rarely enough, but more than 2-3 will be unnecessary, assuming of course the checks succeed.
Org play, OTOH, I rarely find players using Recall Knowledge because it seems like most are in a competitive game of who can do the most DpR and/or the GMs they've experienced nerfed the knowledge checks so bad that they don't want to waste an action. It gets very frustrating when characters built for expansive knowledge in a variety of skills almost militantly refuse to Recall Knowledge that would help the entire party select the most efficient weapons and spells or how to defend against them. Not to mention that org play likes to use variant monsters or completely made-up ones that player's could not possibly know about. Its the same mentality that causes players who win initiative to charge away from the party to attack the enemy only to be surrounded by them and dropped before anyone else can act and then act surprised and throw a tantrum about how unfairly unbalanced org play encounters are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
tl;dr so sorry if this has already been said. I find this is largely based on how stingy or generous the GM is with revealing the info. Most of the GMs I play with regularly give out the name and traits of the creature with a successful check plus one detail of its block like a singular resistance, immunity, or weakness or perhaps a special attack. With a critical success they give out at least another piece of info. Usually the GM allows the player to choose the type, if they have an interest, or picks the one they think is of most valuable to the party. It means one knowledge check is rarely enough, but more than 2-3 will be unnecessary, assuming of course the checks succeed.
Org play, OTOH, I rarely find players using Recall Knowledge because it seems like most are in a competitive game of who can do the most DpR and/or the GMs they've experienced nerfed the knowledge checks so bad that they don't want to waste an action. It gets very frustrating when characters built for expansive knowledge in a variety of skills almost militantly refuse to Recall Knowledge that would help the entire party select the most efficient weapons and spells or how to defend against them. Not to mention that org play likes to use variant monsters or completely made-up ones that player's could not possibly know about. Its the same mentality that causes players who win initiative to charge away from the party to attack the enemy only to be surrounded by them and dropped before anyone else can act and then act surprised and throw a tantrum about how unfairly unbalanced org play encounters are.
I also play a fair bit of organized play and it does seem like a lot of PFS2 GMs are conditioned to give out only the most specific information listed in the adventure, and will never consider adapting information, based upon the skill used to recall knowledge. Not all society GMs, mind you, but it does seem like there is a general stigma around PFS GMing and wanting to play it “by the book” that is very challenging for GMs to navigate the ambiguity of the recall knowledge mechanics. Far more than in other styles of play. You can even see the difference in the same GM, running an AP in campaign mode for society credit, and an official sanctioned scenario.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ OP:
My parties typically recall knowledge once or twice when the fight includes creatures that they haven't fought before.
My personal house rule is somewhat permissive.
I basically break the monster's stat block into "defensive stuff" and "offensive stuff" categories. A successful Recall Knowledge check gets then the name of the monster and their choice of offensive or defensive knowledge. A critical success gives them the name and both offensive and defensive knowledge.
So, I'm not parsing it out into little bits. If a monster has a good Will save and a poor Reflex save, also has Weakness to Cold Iron and Resistance to Bludgeoning (I dunno... these are just random examples...) they get ALL of that if they choose "defensive knoweldge."
Likewise if it has multiple special attacks or whatever, I'll give them all of the goods should they choose (so, that dragon has a breath attack that deals acid, it has a reaction that does such and such, and watch out for the longer reach on the bite attack!).
If a monster has nothing of note in a category that a player selects, I let them know there's nothing interesting (such as a creature with just one or two basic attacks) and then I give them the info in the other category.
My intent behind all of this is to get my players to actually Recall Knowledge. As a gameplay cycle, it feels GOOD to learn something and then act accordingly. That feels like smart gameplay, and it's rewarding to make smart choices based on what you know. However, it feels awful to flail away at an enemy without realizing important information and just wondering why it's beating you senseless. That is not a rewarding gameplay cycle.
These are my opinions and methods :)
|
|
Maybe I'm missing something but doesn't Master Monster Hunter give you ALL the monster info? Or does it just let you use Nature for all Recall Knowledge checks which still leaves you in the neighborhood of table variation for its actual effectiveness?
Personally, my ranger took Monster Hunter because even if the GM is overly strict, they have to tell me something and its a free check with Hunt Prey so I'm not really "out" anything other than the opportunity cost of a different feat. Luckily, so far it has at least been effective in getting something meaningful from the checks and with GMs who are more generous with info, it has been really nice.
|
|
break the monster's stat block...
I'm a bit more granular, but still more generous than most org play GMs I experience. Since I generally ask the player what they are most interested in it tends to be information they would find especially useful for their character. If they ask about saves, I'll tell them which is the best, middle, and worst. If they ask about resistances, I'll generally tell them all the physical ones or all the energy ones or sometimes a mix depending on how well they rolled. I might give them bonus info if something is especially common, like say a dragon has a breath weapon (and what it is) or that a basilisk's gaze can turn you to stone, etc. I rarely, if ever give out the magnitude/value of a stat block since those numbers can fluctuate greatly from creature to creature and you may not be able to tell that just by looking at one. So, I might tell you they have resist slashing, but not that its resist slashing 5.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playing a mastermind rogue, I can say that getting useful information, a +2 effective bonus to hit and added sneak attack damage for the rest of the round makes recalling knowledge a very fun and rewarding activity. But there are still some areas that I don’t feel like I full know how it is supposed to work.
My rogue sees a new creature. I decide I want to recall knowledge on it. Am I supposed to choose the skill I use and then the GM makes the check? Is the GM supposed to decide and roll for me? Do they tell me what skill they rolled? What about if I start picking up some additional Lore feats in more specialized monster types, should I automatically get to know that I get to use those skills instead?
If I have to choose, and I choose badly, maybe thinking something is an animal when it is a magical beast, can I succeed? Does it auto fail? Do I get to try again with a different skill?
I don’t really think these questions are too complicated to work out by talking to your GM, but it is definitely the case that people have different interpretations for how these situations are supposed to be handled.
|
|
I agree which is why i love VTT over live gaming right now. I can pop into a PCs character sheet, often without them knowing, and roll secret checks for any number of things. Example, there are generally knowledge checks at the beginning of org play scenarios. Once I have all the players imported, I can make those checks days in advance of the game and roll the results into the narative so it all sounds organic. I generally find, since critically failing a check gives false info, players avoid checks unless they are trained and then they virtually always want their chance. So, anyone with training in the listed skills gets a check.
I don't want to keep pages and pages of reference notes when I'm focused on running a game, so I cannot really do this at live events since I cannot easily access the PCs character sheet and passing them back and forth is REALLY distracting.
Knowing the skill is a bit of problem. You shouldn't know what the creature is (traits) until you identify it, but if the GM tells you to roll or which skill it is then you already got information before you rolled. Sometimes, that's good enough to make significant tactical decisions. Player meta-knowledge is such a tricky thing.
Retries are certainly table variation. I've seen some GMs say you cannot try again until you increase your knowledge, ie gain a level. Others allow you to retry but raise the DC. At lease there is some support for that in the skill rules.
Maybe I'm missing something but doesn't Master Monster Hunter give you ALL the monster info? Or does it just let you use Nature for all Recall Knowledge checks which still leaves you in the neighborhood of table variation for its actual effectiveness?
Personally, my ranger took Monster Hunter because even if the GM is overly strict, they have to tell me something and its a free check with Hunt Prey so I'm not really "out" anything other than the opportunity cost of a different feat. Luckily, so far it has at least been effective in getting something meaningful from the checks and with GMs who are more generous with info, it has been really nice.
The MMH only allows you to do all RK checks using Nature and give +1 in success instead of critic success. There's no ALL the monster info in RAW. But many GMs provides more info per check or allow rechecks more often or maybe freely even after failures.
My rogue sees a new creature. I decide I want to recall knowledge on it. Am I supposed to choose the skill I use and then the GM makes the check? Is the GM supposed to decide and roll for me? Do they tell me what skill they rolled? What about if I start picking up some additional Lore feats in more specialized monster types, should I automatically get to know that I get to use those skills instead?
If I have to choose, and I choose badly, maybe thinking something is an animal when it is a magical beast, can I succeed? Does it auto fail? Do I get to try again with a different skill?
In RAW the GM chooses everything and do the check in secrete. As secret test the GM even has to say what skill was used. If you have some useful lore skill that can be used and are stronger than Nature/Religion/Arcane/Occult/Society to identify that creature your GM has to use it (usually the GMs has a copy of the players info, especially their skills values to do these choices for secret tests).
I don’t really think these questions are too complicated to work out by talking to your GM, but it is definitely the case that people have different interpretations for how these situations are supposed to be handled.
The GMG strongly recommends that GM talk if his players to give some non-spoiling details about his adventure and rules, especially if are house rules.
In RAW the GM chooses everything and do the check in secrete. As secret test the GM even has to say what skill was used. If you have some useful lore skill that can be used and are stronger than Nature/Religion/Arcane/Occult/Society to identify that creature your GM has to use it (usually the GMs has a copy of the players info, especially their skills values to do these choices for secret tests).My rogue sees a new creature. I decide I want to recall knowledge on it. Am I supposed to choose the skill I use and then the GM makes the check? Is the GM supposed to decide and roll for me? Do they tell me what skill they rolled? What about if I start picking up some additional Lore feats in more specialized monster types, should I automatically get to know that I get to use those skills instead?
If I have to choose, and I choose badly, maybe thinking something is an animal when it is a magical beast, can I succeed? Does it auto fail? Do I get to try again with a different skill?
Can you point to the rule that says the GM chooses the skill that you recall knowledge with? Under the activity it says that the GM chooses which skills might apply, but then goes on to say that a player can seek GM permission to use a different skill. How do you do that if you never know what skill was being used in the first place?