
mattdusty |

So I understand most of the Recall Knowledge action. I'm a GM and I totally get that to use recall some knowledge on a dragon, a player needs to roll Arcana. I also am quite sure of what information to give to players and what DCs to set such checks for. I get all of that (I only mention this because it seems that 99% of all Recall Knowledge discussions fall into either of those two questions - what info and what DC). But here is my question:
I have a couple of players that want to use Recall Knowledge by using the exact same skill on every creature. For example, they came across a blue dragon and the bard didn't have Arcana, but he had Nature. The player could not understand why he couldn't use Nature to identify the dragon because "aren't dragons part of the natural world?" They ran into a group of zombies at one point and the wizard player wanted to use Arcana to use recall knowledge, but I said it had to be Religion. He didn't have Religion and got frustrated that Arcana wouldn't work "necromancers are wizards, how are there undead without the use of magic, Arcana should work!" I even had that bard with Nature try to use Nature to identify a stone golem, because I described it as being made of stone and he argued that since it was made of a naturally occurring substance like stone, then Nature should work.
It's gotten to be pretty much every single encounter, every player wants to roll their 'good' knowledge skill to recall knowledge and get frustrated that their 'good' skill won't identify everything. They then go about a 5 minutes trying to justify why it doesn't make sense that their skill won't work, which often never makes sense to me as the GM.
Does justifying a round about way to use a different skill make sense and not be OP - like using Arcana to identify Undead because necromancers are wizards? Has anyone else come across this at their table, where players just want to roll their one or two trained knowledge skills and get frustrated that such a skill won't work as written? Are there any good house rules or suggestions to alleviate the frustration players get when their skills aren't working when they think it should. It's gotten to the point where the players are using Recall Knowledge less and less when they should be using it more now that they are levelling up and facing higher level creatures all because I'm not letting them use non-applicable skills.

Paradozen |

A couple of useful quotes for this
The following skills can be used to Recall Knowledge, getting information about the listed topics. In some cases, you can get the GM's permission to use a different but related skill, usually against a higher DC than normal. Some topics might appear on multiple lists, but the skills could give different information. For example, Arcana might tell you about the magical defenses of a golem, whereas Crafting could tell you about its sturdy resistance to physical attacks.
The skill used to identify a creature usually depends on that creature’s trait, as shown on Table 10–7, but you have leeway on which skills apply. For instance, hags are humanoids but have a strong connection to occult spells and live outside society, so you might allow a character to use Occultism to identify them without any DC adjustment, while Society is harder. Lore skills can also be used to identify their specific creature. Using the applicable Lore usually has an easy or very easy DC (before adjusting for rarity).

HumbleGamer |
The majority of creatures have double choice, but even with a single choice it's quite easy for the player to guess what skill is required
[Arcana] Recall Knowledge about arcane theories; magic traditions; creatures of arcane significance (like dragons and beasts); and the Elemental, Astral, and Shadow Planes.
[Crafting] Recall Knowledge about alchemical reactions, the value of items, engineering, unusual materials, and alchemical or mechanical creatures. The GM determines which creatures this applies to, but it usually includes constructs.
[Lore] Recall Knowledge about the subject of your Lore skill’s subcategory.
[Medicine] Recall Knowledge about diseases, injuries, poisons, and other ailments. You can use this to perform forensic examinations if you spend 10 minutes (or more, as determined by the GM) checking for evidence such as wound patterns. This is most useful when determining how a body was injured or killed.
[Nature] Recall Knowledge about fauna, flora, geography, weather, the environment, creatures of natural origin (like animals, beasts, fey, and plants), the First World, the Material Plane, and the Elemental Planes.
[Occultism] Recall Knowledge about ancient mysteries; obscure philosophies; creatures of occult significance (like aberrations, spirits, and oozes); and the Positive Energy, Negative Energy, Shadow, Astral, and Ethereal Planes.
[Religion] Recall Knowledge about divine agents, the finer points of theology, obscure myths regarding a faith, and creatures of religious significance (like celestials, fiends, and undead), the Outer Sphere, and the Positive and Negative Energy Planes.
[Society] Recall Knowledge about local history, important personalities, legal institutions, societal structure, and humanoid cultures. The GM might allow Society to apply to other creatures that are major elements of society in your region, such as the draconic nobility in a kingdom of humans ruled by dragons.
This list is not to know what "all recall knowledge checks" do, but what the skills you are trained in are proficient with.
Finally, giving a picture of the enemy, as well as some extra description, would lead the players to the right decision.

mattdusty |

Would you allow a player that didn't have Arcana, make a Nature check to recall knowledge about dragons because dragons are natural beings/live in the Material Plane/found in a specific environment/use elemental like breath weapons? Would you allow a player to use Medicine to identify a green dragon because green dragons use poison? Use Society to identify a type of fey creature because the fey have kingdoms, royal courts, and are found in local legends? These are literally questions/justifications I get from my players to use the skill that they have the highest modifier in.

mattdusty |

The majority of creatures have double choice, but even with a single choice it's quite easy for the player to guess what skill is required....
Oh they know which skill to use to figure it out, that's easy for them. The issue is that they want to use the very specific skill that they have the highest modifier in, even if they know its not the right skill that the rulebook says to use.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

There is a Ranger Feat that allows you to use Nature to Recall Knowledge for any Creature.
Since it's a 10th level Feat, with another Ranger Feat as a prerequisite, I would not allow Nature for any Recall Knowledge otherwise.
Same logic applies for any of the Recall Knowledge skills.
But, allowing Nature to Identify certain aspects of a Dragon, at a higher DC, I'd allow, following the guidance quoted above.
Maybe types of energy that it uses, but nothing about its magical abilities.
But as with any Recall Knowledge discussion, this will vary from GM to GM.

Paradozen |

Would you allow a player that didn't have Arcana, make a Nature check to recall knowledge about dragons because dragons are natural beings/live in the Material Plane/found in a specific environment/use elemental like breath weapons? Would you allow a player to use Medicine to identify a green dragon because green dragons use poison? Use Society to identify a type of fey creature because the fey have kingdoms, royal courts, and are found in local legends? These are literally questions/justifications I get from my players to use the skill that they have the highest modifier in.
Yeah, but with limits on what knowledge they could recall and difficulty adjustments depending on the circumstance. If the recall knowledge on a green dragon was medicine because poison, the information available would be the poison-relevant information (breath weapon details, posion damage on strikes) but not things that are poison unrelated (trackless step, draconic frenzy). For fey, it really depends on the fey and how related they are to society, society is more useful in identifying a bogeyman than a unicorn in my games because bogeymen are heavily focused on societies, but unicorns actively avoid them. But that's just for my games, since the action is very table dependent.
Without something like Bardic Lore I wouldn't allow the normal DC and array of information for a skill that is tangentially related but not directly.

HumbleGamer |
HumbleGamer wrote:The majority of creatures have double choice, but even with a single choice it's quite easy for the player to guess what skill is required....Oh they know which skill to use to figure it out, that's easy for them. The issue is that they want to use the very specific skill that they have the highest modifier in, even if they know its not the right skill that the rulebook says to use.
Then... you should point out to them that there's a whole class who does what they want. The ranger.
By lvl 10 he's going to be able to identify all creatures with only one skill.
I mean, it seems your players are being pretentious by asking something which is definitely not meant by the rules.
In a party of 4, even the trained skill with a +3 ( +1 from item +2 from stat ) gives a nice chance to identify a creature.
Medicine, for example, might be useful when examining a poisoned character, but not to identify a green dragon.
If the poisoned character is suffering from the green dragon, poison they might be able to identify that specific poison, but I wouldn't let them use instead of arcane during a combat encounter.

mattdusty |

I should also note that they only try to use these types of justifications during combat only. For some reason, they tend to follow the recommended skills for lore/social encounters. At least I can't recall a time when they tried to use one of their usual antics in social situations.

HammerJack |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |

Let them, if their justification makes sense to you. Just increase the DC.
Pretty much exactly this. If the reasoning makes no sense at all (like trying to use Medicine to identify a green dragon because they use poison, or Nature for a golem because it's made of rock) then only give the type of information that fits the skill (like details of the poison, or just how hard the rock is). If the nonstandard skill is a great fit (like Occultism instead of Religion for the ghost haunting a place, because that kind of IS where those two skills overlap) allow it. If the skill makes sense to be fully usable, but is clearly worse suited than the one you were looking for, give them a higher DC.

Captain Morgan |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

Your players sound whiny. I can't decide if they are 5e players, spoiled, or both. In 5e, skills seem to get used a lot more interchangeably. That is not how PF2 works. Skills do very explicitly defined things.
Most of the relevant rules have been quoted already, and using an increased DC if you think it makes sense is fine. It is a judgement call on your part and depends on the particular situation. I'll weigh in on your specific examples, but generally your players seem wrong here.
Would you allow a player that didn't have Arcana, make a Nature check to recall knowledge about dragons because dragons are natural beings/live in the Material Plane/found in a specific environment/use elemental like breath weapons?
No, but there are dragons that have the elemental trait which CAN be identified with Nature. But chromatic dragons are creatures of arcane magic. They even use arcane spells. By this logic you would use Nature to identify a wizard.
Would you allow a player to use Medicine to identify a green dragon because green dragons use poison?
Medicine would only really be relevant for treating poison. I'd allow it for afflictions, but there's nothing to do to actually treat a green dragon's breath weapon.
Use Society to identify a type of fey creature because the fey have kingdoms, royal courts, and are found in local legends?
I'd probably allow this with a +10 DC adjustment, roll it secret, and then enforce the rules that if you critically fail a check you get false information. This isn't asking to use well sourced information, this is asking to apply hearsay.
They ran into a group of zombies at one point and the wizard player wanted to use Arcana to use recall knowledge, but I said it had to be Religion. He didn't have Religion and got frustrated that Arcana wouldn't work "necromancers are wizards, how are there undead without the use of magic, Arcana should work!"
Tell them they can use Arcana to find out how an undead is created, but they still need Religion for its abilities. (Or Undead Lore. A dedicated necromancer probably took undead lore, and so can your players.) You can point out that that default Necromancer statblock is a wizard who took both Arcana and Religion.
I even had that bard with Nature try to use Nature to identify a stone golem, because I described it as being made of stone and he argued that since it was made of a naturally occurring substance like stone, then Nature should work.
Let them roll and then tell them that it looks like it is made of stone and stone is hard.
It's gotten to be pretty much every single encounter, every player wants to roll their 'good' knowledge skill to recall knowledge and get frustrated that their 'good' skill won't identify everything. They then go about a 5 minutes trying to justify why it doesn't make sense that their skill won't work, which often never makes sense to me as the GM.
Don't tolerate this. Tell them to roll the proper skill, or skip their turn. Doing this repeatedly is unacceptable.

Captain Morgan |

Guntermench wrote:Let them, if their justification makes sense to you. Just increase the DC.Pretty much exactly this. If the reasoning makes no sense at all (like trying to use Medicine to identify a green dragon because they use poison, or Nature for a golem because it's made of rock) then only give the type of information that fits the skill (like details of the poison, or just how hard the rock is). If the nonstandard skill is a great fit (like Occultism instead of Religion for the ghost haunting a place, because that kind of IS where those two skills overlap) allow it. If the skill makes sense to be fully usable, but is clearly worse suited than the one you were looking for, give them a higher DC.
I agree with the advice, though I will note Ghosts usually have the Spirit trait so you can roll Occultism anyway.

Aw3som3-117 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

2 Things that I'd like to point out:
1. Recall knowledge is a secret check, and I personally think it works a lot better to run it as such. If a player is trying to identify the creature, then they, in character, don't even know what skill they're using, really. That's part of the recall knowledge check: you're recalling the relevant information about the thing's origins.
2. If a player insists that they want to use a specific skill for a recall knowledge check that's only going to hurt them in the long run. Any check could probably be used to recall some piece of knowledge about a creature, but there's certain skills that are more or less likely to give you useful information, a.k.a. different DCs and different information on a success. These are what the handy-dandy recall knowledge skills and DCs on the creature's stat-blocks are for: to help the players.
With that out of the way, if you still want to do open or semi-open checks, and the players still want to use a less effective skill, then I'd say let them. Just remember that using different skills on a recall knowledge check will almost certainly increase the DC and/or change the type of information you can successfully recall.
- Let's take the golem, for example. The Nature Recall Knowledge check may indeed be possible... if you're trying to figure out the properties of the stone it's made of. For example, you may be able to determine that it's immune to bleed and resistant to physical damage [something most players can probably guess anyway], and I'd even say it's a fairly low DC considering how obvious it is (with a bit higher of a DC for the exact numbers), but anything related to how it's affected by magic and whatnot are totally impossible to gleam from learning about it's natural parts.
The one notable exception to this is if you have the Ranger feat that many have mentioned which specifically allows Nature to be used to recall knowledge on any creature.

mattdusty |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

I'm liking the idea of using different skills for different aspects of a creature - like using Arcana to learn about any arcane spells it can cast or if it has any magic immunities or using Medicine to learn that it deals poison or can inflict diseases. I think that's balanced enough to let players use their skills they've invested in while still using the recall knowledge action and not feel useless. Using the suggested skill on the appropriate creature type grants the standard info from the skill check and having the specific Lore is an easier check to make. They will just have to understand that they can't get all the normal bits of info if they don't use the appropriate skill - like they can't know a zombie's lowest save from an Arcane check.

Captain Morgan |

I'm liking the idea of using different skills for different aspects of a creature - like using Arcana to learn about any arcane spells it can cast or if it has any magic immunities or using Medicine to learn that it deals poison or can inflict diseases. I think that's balanced enough to let players use their skills they've invested in while still using the recall knowledge action and not feel useless. Using the suggested skill on the appropriate creature type grants the standard info from the skill check and having the specific Lore is an easier check to make. They will just have to understand that they can't get all the normal bits of info if they don't use the appropriate skill - like they can't know a zombie's lowest save from an Arcane check.
I don't think that's gonna work out well for them in the long run, at least not if they are using it in combat. The point of Recall Knowledge in combat is that it is supposed to be useful, which in practice means actionable. Knowledge that it deals poison damage is really only useful if you have a way to avoid or mitigate the poison.
The spells example could be useulful, but most of the time the spells a creature casts align with the skill to identify it anyway.
This might be a decent argument to make to your players: if they try to pick the skill, they'll be limited in the type of information they receive. If they use the skill they are actually supposed to and stop whining about it, you can promise that you will give them a piece of information they can actually use.
Also, you can point out they could take Bardic Lore or Master Monster Hunter or Loremaster Lore or Gossip Lore or any other feat that lets you apply a single skill to all knowledge checks.

![]() |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

If a player is trying to identify the creature, then they, in character, don't even know what skill they're using, really.
That interpretation of recall knowledge is one of the things about PF2 that I absolutely loathe with a fiery passion.
Beyond the lowest levels many characters are very likely to critically fail quite a few knowledge checks. Much more likely than they are to succeed. And that makes absolutely no sense from either a realism point of view or a gaming point of view.
In reality there are quite a few subjects that I know nearly nothing about. If you ask me a more difficult question that does NOT make me more likely to wrongly think I know the answer, it just makes me MORE certain that I don't know.
And from a gaming perspective its already quite a gamble to spend an action on getting a knowledge check. I often get no useful information and I sometimes get false information. And the action spent has value. But making me spend that action without even knowing what skill I'm using is frustrating and, IMO, flat out wrong (I don't really care whether or not it's RAW).

mattdusty |

I've just gotten to telling them which skill is appropriate, followed by 5 minutes of players trying to justify why I'm wrong and their skill with the highest modifier is actually the right skill to use.
I thought I saw it somewhere before, but wasn't the Recall Knowledge action an untrained skill action?

mattdusty |

I mean my players loooooove the Recall Knowledge action. When they use it right, they know that I let them ask one question (two if its a crit), and they usually ask, what it's lowest save is or if it has a really strong special ability and they can use that information to their advantage. I have no issues with that, I know its not exactly per RAW, and I think its pretty cool that can happen. And I think, maybe that's why they always want to be successful in that action because they know they'll get something useful out of it.

Captain Morgan |

Aw3som3-117 wrote:If a player is trying to identify the creature, then they, in character, don't even know what skill they're using, really.That interpretation of recall knowledge is one of the things about PF2 that I absolutely loathe with a fiery passion.
Beyond the lowest levels many characters are very likely to critically fail quite a few knowledge checks. Much more likely than they are to succeed. And that makes absolutely no sense from either a realism point of view or a gaming point of view.
In reality there are quite a few subjects that I know nearly nothing about. If you ask me a more difficult question that does NOT make me more likely to wrongly think I know the answer, it just makes me MORE certain that I don't know.
And from a gaming perspective its already quite a gamble to spend an action on getting a knowledge check. I often get no useful information and I sometimes get false information. And the action spent has value. But making me spend that action without even knowing what skill I'm using is frustrating and, IMO, flat out wrong (I don't really care whether or not it's RAW).
I mostly agree with this. In character, the PC doesnt know what skill they'd use. But in character, there's also gonna be different thought process when you look at something relevant to a field you've studied versus something you're completely unversed in. If I'm not trained in religion, I probably won't think "well it looks like a demon, I better roll to figure out what kind." You'll think gah! Scary monster!
I think you could make the skill being a secret work if your players are rules savvy enough to know the categories and the GM is descriptive enough to give them a pretty accurate guess about the category. It will backfire occasionally, like a player rolling undead for a flesh golem, but that strikes me as more of a fun misunderstanding, and a successful religion check would probably be enough to tell you this isn't an undead at all-- that even handed stitching looks constructed. Maybe try crafting or arcana?

Castilliano |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

One could encounter an undead fey spirit bound by arcane magic to haunt a temple as penance for heresy wronging a great religious leader.
That could fall under all four magical traditions plus Society, yet IMO for each type of roll the PC would recall much different knowledge. Nature might reveal the base abilities of the fey for example, yet no undead ones nor how one might undo its arcane bindings. And some info might hardly be applicable in battle because the skill's too tangential (yet still might be their best shot at learning anything and they've spent the action).
As noted above, Medicine might teach you about the Green Dragon's poison, but nothing else (perhaps having read of it in a book of toxins), even with a crit success because there simply may not be anything else medical to learn about the beast. A GM could cast a broader net as to which skills to allow, yet that should IMO narrow the results tightly (except for the main skill(s)), raise the DC, and/or give extraneous information, like sure Society might well reveal a dragon's name (unless that had major ramifications!).

Aw3som3-117 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

pauljathome wrote:Aw3som3-117 wrote:If a player is trying to identify the creature, then they, in character, don't even know what skill they're using, really.That interpretation of recall knowledge is one of the things about PF2 that I absolutely loathe with a fiery passion.
Beyond the lowest levels many characters are very likely to critically fail quite a few knowledge checks. Much more likely than they are to succeed. And that makes absolutely no sense from either a realism point of view or a gaming point of view.
In reality there are quite a few subjects that I know nearly nothing about. If you ask me a more difficult question that does NOT make me more likely to wrongly think I know the answer, it just makes me MORE certain that I don't know.
And from a gaming perspective its already quite a gamble to spend an action on getting a knowledge check. I often get no useful information and I sometimes get false information. And the action spent has value. But making me spend that action without even knowing what skill I'm using is frustrating and, IMO, flat out wrong (I don't really care whether or not it's RAW).
I mostly agree with this. In character, the PC doesnt know what skill they'd use. But in character, there's also gonna be different thought process when you look at something relevant to a field you've studied versus something you're completely unversed in. If I'm not trained in religion, I probably won't think "well it looks like a demon, I better roll to figure out what kind." You'll think gah! Scary monster!
I think you could make the skill being a secret work if your players are rules savvy enough to know the categories and the GM is descriptive enough to give them a pretty accurate guess about the category. It will backfire occasionally, like a player rolling undead for a flesh golem, but that strikes me as more of a fun misunderstanding, and a successful religion check would probably be enough to tell you this isn't an undead at all-- that...
To be clear I would never make my players tell me which skill they're using recall knowledge with without telling them what skills will be useful.
IMO it should either be
1. I tell them what skills are useable and they tell me which they're using, or
2. They say something like "I use recall knowledge on it" in which case I'll pick the highest relevant skill their character has. Or they could say something more specific if they're trying to figure out something in particular about it, in which case I'll take the higher of whatever skill I think is relevant for that and the general recall knowledge checks on it, but the info they get is limited to what they ask about.
I prefer #2, but #1 is a lot easier, and it doesn't require as much trust between the GM and the players, which for some people is a plus.

Gortle |

Surely recall knowledge is just taking a moment to think. A part of that is working out what type of creature it is.
Not knowing which skill to use for recall knowledge doesn't make sense. To me that fails basic common sense. Until they release an Ettin PC, you only have one mind. Either you know something about it or you don't.

AlastarOG |
6 people marked this as a favorite. |

Their argument is clearly done in bad faith, so it's hard to do anything.
Maybe ask them " by your definition... What ISNT the nature skill?"
Overall I'd have called out my players on that a while ago and told them to quit it.
If they insisted I'd let them roll and then give them Crit failure results if they roll the wrong skill. Either that or funny but kmmapropriate information:
"I roll nature to identify the golem"
"Roll"
"34!"
"Granite, which was used in the making of this golem, is striated differently from other types of stones, its unique hue is due to a technique from local craftsmen"
"But whats its lowest save?"
"Go ask the local masons"

Captain Morgan |

I definitely will houserule that you can keep on trying to recall knowledge even after a failure. It does cost 1 action after all.
I hate this approach because it breaks down when you leave combat and can keep rolling forever. You can make it only apply in encounter mode and not exploration or downtime, but that is a kludgey solution.
My preference is that you can reroll a knowledge check when you gain more information about the subject. So you can't retry immediately after failing a check, but each time the monster demonstrate a new ability you can reroll. That solution works equally well put of combat. :)

BloodandDust |
FWIW, I have good results with (mostly) the approach Alistair OG listed above but, additionally,:
1) I ask for something beyond “I recall knowledge” for the action and,
2) I always say yes they can attempt it (to the action), adjust the difficulty, and give an absurd result or a “nothing comes to mind” where appropriate.
E.g.: the green dragon
Gm “you hear, almost feel really, a low rumbling snarl as a huge horned head moves forward into the dim light. You see a long sinuous neck with iridescent green scales and sense a massive unseen bulk. The head looks at you calmly with it’s huge eyes and a jaw open just enough to reveal rows of sharp teeth.”
Wizard “shite, green dragon, I try to remember how intelligent they are and/or what spells they have”
GM (Arcana best match, has Arcana, reasonable request) on success “you recall from your studies that Green Dragons are wily and proud, one even co-wrote a manual on use of enchantment and illusions with a famous mage whose name you cannot recall. With more time you might remember more detail”
Ranger “frick, could be a dragon or a drake or something, I try to figure out what it’s lowest saving throw is”
GM (has Nature and Society, Nature is closest, request is meta-gaming) “your character does not know what a saving throw is, what are you trying to recall?”
Ranger “oh right. Is it actually a green dragon and is it more like fast, or just like really tough”
GM (on success) “It’s definitely not a Drake, way too big and the horns are wrong. That’s all you know”
Fighter “Aw, man, I only fixed this shield like yesterday. I recall knowledge”
GM (has Society and Warfare Lore but hasn’t made a real request yet) “details bro, what are you trying to remember?”
Fighter “Um, what’s the best way to fight this thing?”
GM (ok, warfare lore, on success) “you remember the basic defense against dragons, drakes, and similar attackers is to use massed ballistae or longbows to keep away, out of breath weapon range”

![]() |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

FWIW, I have good results w
I suspect your players disagree. I most certainly would.
In all 3 examples you give pretty much completely useless information on a success. The only vaguely useful information was the arcana check "Enchantment and illusion magic" (I'm ignoring the fact that these statements are incorrect and presuming that was an example without you actually checking). The other 2 examples of information given were completely useless. Actually, depending on the character, the warfare lore is giving actively BAD advice to the character on a success.
In fact, the third example is egregiously bad. You're NOT giving information so that the player to make a decision, you're giving them advice that may or may not be correct (for a great many characters, the best thing to do when fighting a dragon is to get fly/air walk cast on you and go up and hit it with your pointy stick)

Captain Morgan |

The arcana example strikes me as relatively fine because it isn't describing a combat encounter yet. The dragon is looking the wizard in the eye calmly, and the wizard is trying to figure out if it is smart enough to reason with. That answer satisfies that-- not only is the dragon smart enough to reason with, he basically told the wizard the dragon would be down to compare magical notes as a way of staying on its good side.
The other two examples aren't meant to helpful, they are meant to be retorts to players trying to use their best skill inappropriately.

Squiggit |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

Flavorful answers were neat in PF1 where recalling was a free action, but spending actions to get dud information even on a success feels pretty bad, I'd avoid it.
I also think it's probably best to be kind of upfront about what sort of knowledge checks to make. It seems much more reasonable to me that a legendary Arcanist would be able to look at something and decide it's not part of their area of expertise, rather than have them spend the actions and then give them bad info from their basically-guaranteed-to-crit-fail untrained Nature check.
The other two examples aren't meant to helpful, they are meant to be retorts to players trying to use their best skill inappropriately.
Seems like kind of a spiteful way to run a game.

Captain Morgan |

Flavorful answers were neat in PF1 where recalling was a free action, but spending actions to get dud information even on a success feels pretty bad, I'd avoid it.
I also think it's probably best to be kind of upfront about what sort of knowledge checks to make. It seems much more reasonable to me that a legendary Arcanist would be able to look at something and decide it's not part of their area of expertise, rather than have them spend the actions and then give them bad info from their basically-guaranteed-to-crit-fail untrained Nature check.
Captain Morgan wrote:Seems like kind of a spiteful way to run a game.
The other two examples aren't meant to helpful, they are meant to be retorts to players trying to use their best skill inappropriately.
Oh, I'm not saying it is a mature way to handle things. But laying out a case of how the information was bad (as Paul seemed to be doing) is rather missing the point.

breithauptclan |

Either:
* Let them roll whatever skills they want and adjust the information given accordingly. Don't give any benefits granted on a Crit for an off-topic skill though. Things like Monster Hunter should only work on Crit success for the appropriate skill.
* Tell your players to quit whining and play the game by the rules.
What sort of benefits are you handing out for recall knowledge checks? I am suspicious that you are giving out more than you should - which is why the players are trying to pull out every benefit they can to these checks.
Recall Knowledge is generally useful, but isn't overpoweringly useful. We have quite often gone an entire battle without doing a Recall Knowledge on any of the enemies. Because it wouldn't change the tactics the characters are using anyway, so no point in spending the actions.

AlastarOG |

Bloodanddust was indeed giving false or useless information on the two checks that were not relevant, that is what I had discussed.
If you insist on rolling the one skill for recall knowledge, and it's not relevant, Imma give you trivia.
And we keep refering to monster hunter but there's a ton of others that allow players to do exactly that, so as a DM if they want to be doing that I'd direct them towards those feats
Unified theory allows you to roll arcana for all creature recall knowledge.
Combat reading (bard 4) allows you to know lowest save of a creature with occultism only.
Oracle vision of weakness (4) gives a focus spell that straight up tells you, no skill no save.
Whiny players who derail the game trying to argue with me to let them do something they know they shouldn't don't get a no from me, they get sass.

![]() |

The Raven Black wrote:I definitely will houserule that you can keep on trying to recall knowledge even after a failure. It does cost 1 action after all.I hate this approach because it breaks down when you leave combat and can keep rolling forever. You can make it only apply in encounter mode and not exploration or downtime, but that is a kludgey solution.
My preference is that you can reroll a knowledge check when you gain more information about the subject. So you can't retry immediately after failing a check, but each time the monster demonstrate a new ability you can reroll. That solution works equally well put of combat. :)
I was indeed thinking more of in-combat use.
Maybe I will offer my players a free RK check during combat and 2 rolls, keep best, if they spend an action for RK.
The current implementation of RK makes most people avoid it because of both the action cost and the risk of erroneous info on critical failure (which really should have gone the way of the dodo).
I find it sad because it can be a great tool and should be often used by adventurers. And the alternative is players checking monster stats on AoN. Which the rules really should not encourage.

BloodandDust |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Always fun to see the range of interpretations on a post :)
and yes, the last two examples were meant to show appropriate responses for using a skill that doesn’t really apply. It is not spiteful and I’ve not had players take it that way. It’s an obvious, but narratively fun, way to tell a player they are doing something dumb without saying “no you can’t, it’s dumb”. Yes, they waste an action, but usually not more than one, and the information is typically no worse than a failed roll.
Note that for the situation the OP has (players forcing a square peg) the information returned has to be both skill-appropriate but *obviously* not useful to make the point… i.e. not something subtle or devious that they discover later. So, in the case of warfare lore; sure in the history of war there are probably some good “how to defend a castle against dragons” techniques (ballistae etc), but probably nothing on dragon-specifics or how to win single combat with a dragon by type… that would be Arcana or Dragon Lore.

![]() |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Bloodanddust was indeed giving false or useless information on the two checks that were not relevant, that is what I had discussed.
If you insist on rolling the one skill for recall knowledge, and it's not relevant, Imma give you trivia.
I think it is far more honest and fair to your players to just say no than to effectively say "No, but I'm costing you an action anyway".
The message that you're sending to your players is "Never try and go beyond what is very clearly written in the rules or you WILL be punished for it". Or possibly "Don't argue with the GM or you'll be punished for it". Its pretty likely to lead to a pretty adversarial relationship with your players.
AFTER considering the players point and discussing things, if there is still not consensus or at least grudging acceptance of the GMs ruling I much prefer the "No, I've ruled, move on" method. If the players continue past that then I (pretty much ONCE) go "Move on or this session is over".
I very much prefer the game be run by agreement and consensus where possible but ultimately I'm one of those who thinks the GM has the authority AND responsibility to make rules decisions and the players have to just live with those decisions or decide that game isn't for them.

breithauptclan |

Bloodanddust was indeed giving false or useless information on the two checks that were not relevant, that is what I had discussed.
If you insist on rolling the one skill for recall knowledge, and it's not relevant, Imma give you trivia.
And we keep refering to monster hunter but there's a ton of others that allow players to do exactly that, so as a DM if they want to be doing that I'd direct them towards those feats
Unified theory allows you to roll arcana for all creature recall knowledge.
Combat reading (bard 4) allows you to know lowest save of a creature with occultism only.
Oracle vision of weakness (4) gives a focus spell that straight up tells you, no skill no save.
Whiny players who derail the game trying to argue with me to let them do something they know they shouldn't don't get a no from me, they get sass.
It is Master Monster Hunter (level 10 upgrade feat) that allows Nature for any Recall Knowledge check. The level 1 feat Monster Hunter only allows a free action Recall Knowledge and gives you some bonuses if you crit succeed. It doesn't change what skill is required to make the check.
Which actually improves your argument for forbidding skill replacement generally. Vision of Weakness costs a focus point in addition to the action to cast the spell - and is cursebound on top of that. And Combat Reading is on the same class that has Bardic Knowledge, so it is kinda the theme of the class to be able to use one or two skills for everything.

![]() |

Bestiary Scholar is great too, but also level 10.
In fact, if you build for it, a RK specialist gets pretty unbelievable results from level 10 on. But before level 10, they are not that great at it and pretty bad at anything else.
Second edition got rid of most of these all-or-nothing cases. I really regret they could not do it for RK, as it is one of the few things that really help immerse the players in the setting through their PCs.

![]() |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Bestiary Scholar is great too, but also level 10.
In fact, if you build for it, a RK specialist gets pretty unbelievable results from level 10 on. But before level 10, they are not that great at it and pretty bad at anything else.
Second edition got rid of most of these all-or-nothing cases. I really regret they could not do it for RK, as it is one of the few things that really help immerse the players in the setting through their PCs.
The benefits of Recall Knowledge are also very much up to the GM. Some GMs just hate giving information (or think the rules do) and recall knowledge is only occassionally worth the action and even less often worth the build investment. And others give out so much information almost for free that Recall Knowledge is also less valuable.

mattdusty |

I give out mechanics/stats/combat information if they roll a recall knowledge check during combat; give out mostly lore information if they roll outside of combat, with maybe....maybe one commonly known thing about them combat wise...depends on the situation, creature, rarity, ect.

![]() |

Another thing I dislike about the current RK rules is that when faced with a group of similar enemies if you fail your roll on a creature and thus cannot learn anything about them, you just make a new RK check on the exact same creature next to them.
So, you knew nothing about Ghouls from looking at Ghoul1 and suddenly you crit success and know everything about Ghouls just from looking at Ghoul2.
Not to mention that when faced with opponents of the same type and various levels, you should RK on the weakest to know things about their type that would be much harder to obtain from a RK check against the strongest.

HumbleGamer |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing I dislike about the current RK rules is that when faced with a group of similar enemies if you fail your roll on a creature and thus cannot learn anything about them, you just make a new RK check on the exact same creature next to them.
So, you knew nothing about Ghouls from looking at Ghoul1 and suddenly you crit success and know everything about Ghouls just from looking at Ghoul2.
Not to mention that when faced with opponents of the same type and various levels, you should RK on the weakest to know things about their type that would be much harder to obtain from a RK check against the strongest.
To me that part makes totally sense.
Imagine being in a combat and have a couple of second to recall information about the creature which is in front of you.
it's not granted that you'll be able to instantly recall everthing you know, but this doesn't meant neither you don't know the creature nor you can't know everything about it.
Obviously it's something which might be exploited after combat through forensic or anatomy examination, but I just see it as a combat mechanic:
You invest one of youe 3 actions in one skill, make a skill check, and depends your investement
- Stat
- Item bonuses
- Circ bonuses
- Statu Bonuses
- Proficiency ( Untrained/trained/expert... etc... )
- General one or skill ( Undead lore vs Religion to identify undeads )
Your odds are going to be lower or higher.
Obviously you might be unlucky that day, but this could be said for anything else. For example:
- Got crit 4 times out ofr 6 combat rounds
- Fail 5 times your first attack
- Extremely low rolls on damage or heal
and so on.
Though I might not like something, I think that messing up with the core mechanics would be screwing up the game even more.

Ravingdork |

information can be both positive and negative, such as nature on undead would tell you they are not natural (defy the normal rules of nature).
This is how Arcana worked on Robots in PF1. A construct but doesn't follow normal(magical) rules.
This is what I do. If they unknowingly use an inappropriate skill, I at least throw them a bone on anything short of a critical failure. (Usually giving them just enough info that they can identify the creature's type and get on track with using an appropriate skill to Recall Knowledge.)
On a success with the correct skill, I almsot always default to the full creature intro description, though I occasionally omit parts if (1) they are not the least bit relevant or (2) would be giving away multiple useful pieces of information (I reserve that for crit success).
I like that as a rule of thumb because the Recall Knowledge rules say to go with the most well known features of the creature first, and I find the intro description do a good job of pointing out precisely what those are.
SOME EXAMPLES:
PC: I use Religion. *Crit Fails*
GM: It is a zombie brute, essentially a bigger stronger zombie capable of hurling debri and body parts like a catapult hurls boulders.
***
PC: I use Religion. *Fails*
GM: You're not certain what this fearful abomination could be, or what its capabilities are, but you know that this conglomeration of animated body parts is not an undead creature.
***
PC: I use Religion *Succeeds*
GM: You're not certain what this fearful abomination could be, or what its capabilities are, but you know that this conglomeration of animated body parts is not an undead creature. You think it might be a construct of some sort.
***
PC: I use Religion. *Crit Succeeds*
GM: Though some people might mistake this fearful abomination made up of a conglomeration of animated body parts to be some form of undead--such as a zombie brute--you know it to be a construct creature known as a flesh golem. You do no know what its capabilities are.
***
PC: I use Arcana. *Succeeds*
GM: The fearful abomination before you is commonly known among arcane scholars as a flesh golem, a golem animated from the body parts of many dead. Made of odd scraps of skin and muscle, a flesh golem is a grotesque parody of life. Though it has no mind, it can still go into a berserk rage when harmed, giving it a faint semblance of emotion. Flesh golems guard the laboratories and charnel houses of fleshwarpers and necromancers who feel no compunctions about desecrating corpses for their own ends. Though the first flesh golem is believed to have been a misguided attempt to create from simple base elements, these monstrosities are far from human. In isolated cases, echoes of a personality might rise in a flesh golem if the brain used as part of its construction belonged to a particularly powerful personality, but such tragic instances are (thankfully) rare in the extreme.
At this point, I would consider outlining the general golem resistances and vulnerabilities, but not those specific to the golem in question, as well as the following:
Berserk A severely damaged flesh golem has a chance of going berserk. If it has 40 or fewer HP at the start of its turn, the golem must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or go berserk. A berserk golem wildly attacks the nearest living creature, or the nearest object if no creatures are nearby.
***
PC: I use Arcana. *Crit Succeeds*
GM: As Success above plus, "Flesh golems on particular possess some unique resistances and vulnerabilities."
Golem Antimagic harmed by fire (5d8, 3d4 from areas or persistent damage); healed by electricity (area 2d4 HP); slowed by cold
Vulnerable to Flesh to Stone Casting a flesh to stone spell on the flesh golem affects the golem normally.
If it was a non-caster making the check, I might give up adamantine as a means of bypassing its damage resistance instead.
[ooc]A failure with the appropriate skill would be very much like a failure with an inappropriate skill. It wouldn't tell them anything, but might get them started on the right track. A critical failure on the other hand, would lead them further off track.

Ravingdork |

Another thing I dislike about the current RK rules is that when faced with a group of similar enemies if you fail your roll on a creature and thus cannot learn anything about them, you just make a new RK check on the exact same creature next to them.
So, you knew nothing about Ghouls from looking at Ghoul1 and suddenly you crit success and know everything about Ghouls just from looking at Ghoul2.
Not to mention that when faced with opponents of the same type and various levels, you should RK on the weakest to know things about their type that would be much harder to obtain from a RK check against the strongest.
It also begs the question: Do you allow multiple Recall Knowledge checks when using unrelated abilities that require them, such as the Mastermind Rogue Racket?

Captain Morgan |

I don't think you're intended to be able to identify ghoul 2 if you already failed to identify ghoul 1. If you succeed at identifying ghoul 1, there's no reason you can't roll on ghoul 2 to identify further information and also trigger your Mastermind ability. .
Azothath wrote:information can be both positive and negative, such as nature on undead would tell you they are not natural (defy the normal rules of nature).
This is how Arcana worked on Robots in PF1. A construct but doesn't follow normal(magical) rules.
This is what I do. If they unknowingly use an inappropriate skill, I at least throw them a bone on anything short of a critical failure. (Usually giving them just enough info that they can identify the creature's type and get on track with using an appropriate skill to Recall Knowledge.)
On a success with the correct skill, I almsot always default to the full creature intro description, though I occasionally omit parts if (1) they are not the least bit relevant or (2) would be giving away multiple useful pieces of information (I reserve that for crit success).
I like that as a rule of thumb because the Recall Knowledge rules say to go with the most well known features of the creature first, and I find the intro description do a good job of pointing out precisely what those are.
SOME EXAMPLES:
PC: I use Religion. *Crit Fails*
GM: It is a zombie brute, essentially a bigger stronger zombie capable of hurling debri and body parts like a catapult hurls boulders.***
PC: I use Religion. *Fails*
GM: You're not certain what this fearful abomination could be, or what its capabilities are, but you know that this conglomeration of animated body parts is not an undead creature.***
PC: I use Religion *Succeeds*
GM: You're not certain what this fearful abomination could be, or what its capabilities are, but you know that this conglomeration of animated body parts is not an undead creature. You think it might be a construct of some sort.***
PC: I use Religion. *Crit Succeeds*
GM: Though some people might mistake this fearful abomination made up of a conglomeration of animated body parts to be some form of undead--such...
I think this is an excellent approach right here.

![]() |

I haven't read the whole thread when I'm posting this.
OP, what you need to do is secretly roll their Recall Knowledge checks for your players. Don't let them choose a skill, you choose the best skill for the creature, and roll it. Don't even tell them which skill they used. This way, they will start misidentifying creatures when they don't have the correct skills. A Druid wants to recall on a Stone Golem? Sure. You secretly roll an Arcana Recall Knowledge and they crit fail, misidentifying it as an Earth Elemental. Wizard using Religion on a zombie? Oh, that's a Flesh Golem.
Make them realize their "skills" only cover certain fields, and they need to spread them out. The only skills that can accurately roll a Recall Knowledge on everything are Bardic/Loremaster/Gossip Lore.