The Recall Knowledge activity could use a facelift in the Dark Archive

[Unicore]

With another new class building its chassis on the recall knowledge activity, there are some aspects of the activity that could use more definite explanations in the next rule book. Since Dark Archive feels like THE book for seeking out strange information, I think it would be both appropriate and useful to have a couple pages dedicated to talking through the recall knowledge action.

Right now there are major question marks that GMs have to resolve individually that can have massively swingy effects on the usefulness of whole builds.

Does the DC for identifying a creature go up for every individual monster of that type faced? If so, this is brutal on classes like the Mastermind rogue, the investigator, and the thaumaturge. Part of the issue is that the word "Identify" and the idea of "learning more about" a creature are fundamentally tied together in the recall knowledge activity, but they really have very different purposes, especially for classes built around identifying their enemy.

Relatedly, what about uncommon, rare and unique versions of common creatures? Are these targets supposed to be extra difficult to use basic class features against? Can basic information about the common aspects of the creature be learned/used on a check? Does that DC have to be determined before the roll, so the GM or the player has to decide what they are trying to learn? This question becomes important for the 4 tiers of success, and the reality is that targeting a lower DC with gaining additional information on a critical success is always the better idea than targeting a higher DC slightly out of your characters range.

Similarly, with secret checks that can be triggered off of multiple different skills, who decides what skill is used? DOes the GM automatically decide to use the player's best skill for the creature? Does the player have to decide which skill to use? Both can be reasonable and fun, but radically change how a character should be built if they have core mechanics built around recalling knowledge. Additional Lore skills are a lot of fun, but when the player has to decide wether the new enemy is a demon or fiend generally, and thus whether to use demon lore or religion, it can result in wasted actions for the player against a creature that punishes wasted actions.

Lastly, because the "identify x" aspect of the activity is linked directly with the "learn more about x" aspect of the activity, what information to give becomes a big nebulous ball of GM fiat. We have already seen that a big part of people's perceptions about whether spell casting in PF2 is underpowered or not is tied to whether or not players gain useful information about weaknesses and low saves from recalling knowledge or not. As more classes gain specific abilities tied to this activity, its broad, far reaching, and highly subjective interpretability is going to consistently lead to arguments and hard feelings without further guidance about how to handle it. This does not have to mean establishing a new set of specific rules in the Dark Archive book about how to use the recall knowledge activity, but it could also include a transparent discussion about how such an activity is always going to come down to GM fiat, but that GMs probably need a little more support and help understanding the consequences of the different ways that interpreting the activity can have.

[vagrant-poet]

How Recall Knowledge works is a pain point I see brought up, and it's not that it requires errata, just a clearer process, so I agree Dark Archive is a perfect book to do that organically.

[Amaya/Polaris]

Seconded. It'd be both fitting and very helpful to make Dark Archives the place where Recall Knowledge is expanded on or clarified, beyond the ability of simple errata to handle.

One thing that could be cool is suggesting ways to backport an "Evaluate" action to handle concretely determining things a character could reasonably puzzle out in the moment, separate from the vaguer, more specific, and potentially more important Recall Knowledge action that already exists. Though such a thing most likely wouldn't be assumed by the rest of the rules, the community would pick up on it and use it to improve their games when warranted, much like GMG's variant rules.

[nephandys]

I don't have much to add to this other than that any clarification, better description, fleshing out, etc. here would be welcomed and Dark Archives seems a great place to do so.

[Rude_]

Excellent points, guess we'll see as more info comes out in the later months

[Porridge]

This strikes me as an inspired idea. Perhaps worth cross-posting or linking to in the Playtest forum to make sure one of the devs (James Case or Mark Seifter) sees it?

[Unicore]

Feel free. Or to flag it and suggest it gets moved there. It is an idea that has been floating around for a while. I don't think anyone has claim over it. I posted it here because it felt connected to general PF2 development, but I think you could be right about audience targeting.

[Zwordsman]

I would love if they expanded it more. Particularly to things like PFS. Where it can still be pretty swinging and inconsistent despite the PFS trying to equal out.

I think it would be great to expand a bit on the Lore specific recall knowledge too. as I think the only mention might be.

"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)"

but as its only in one specific place its often misjudged or missed out to some extent.
(more so with the new playtest class having a lore specifically for identfying monsters.. )

[Seisho]

I always struggle 'how much information should I give my players' when they succeed theri recall knowledge

[David knott 242]

Porridge wrote:

This strikes me as an inspired idea. Perhaps worth cross-posting or linking to in the Playtest forum to make sure one of the devs (James Case or Mark Seifter) sees it?

I recall seeing at least two threads on this subject in the Thaumaturge playtest forum. One major issue is that, even though Recall Knowledge checks are supposed to be secret checks, you would know immediately whether you succeeded, failed, or critically failed on the roll by what if anything you can do after the Recall Knowledge action.

[PlantThings]

I've definitely ran into each issue you've pointed out at least once. And I agree, we don't need a new set of rules. Just a little bit of polish and structure would go a long way. I'd looove it if we could get even a brief list of examples for the more bizzare but possible interactions.

The only thing I can add is that personally, I'm not a big fan of this particular line: "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."

[The Raven Black]

And when you have failed your RK vs ghoul1, you RK ghoul2, no problem.

[James Case]

Post moved to Dark Archive Playtest forum.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

Another call here for clarifying or even formalising Recall Knowledge. For me the guidelines are too vague, and could sure use being codified. I find it frustrating that 3rd party publishers can make products like Recall Knowledge: Dragons that can be sold to give me information I’d really like the Core game to give me with the ruleset.
Although a low price point, that is but one creature type and also creates multiple files for the plethora of monsters.

Is there a way for base knowledge checks to be listed in each creature’s Bestiary entry, or failing that (considering the added work, wordcount and retrofitting), coding the various participles (weakness/saves/ abilities etc) into stepped knowledge groupings?

As far as the Thaumaturge goes, it does seem to lean on a glaring issue.

[roquepo]

Making clear once and for all if it is the GM who decides what information gives (accompanied by an explanation of what constitutes "useful information") or if it is the player who asks for an specific thing would be appreciated too.

[Angel Hunter D]

It's been an issue since the core playtest, and one I've always said would need clarifying/improving. This is the kind of technical debt I was worried about, not finishing the rules then just moved it further along and made it more difficult to do.

Now or never. If a class built around Recall Knowledge won't make it happen then nothing will.

[Tender Tendrils]

I'm all for something like in the GMG's sections (where it says "more on X" and gives general advice on running things) or stuff that expands upon an existing thing being in a book.

But I think FAQ type clarifications.... well, that belongs in an errata. I shouldn't have to buy a book (I know AoN exists, but when I say "buy a book" I also kind of mean "buy into a book" and "when I buy this book, part of the money I paid to get cool new stuff went towards page space on an errata thing instead") to find out the answers to basic rules questions.

[Unicore]

I hear that, but if the clarifications in the book help address skill use by the class that is being introduced in the book then I don’t think it is a problem.

And while personally, I would have loved to see this in the APG when the first recalling knowledge as a part of essential class choice feature became a thing. The Thaumaturge is the first class that HAS to interact with recall knowledge, no matter how you build them.

That plus the book having distinctly knowledge-y feel to it makes me think this might be the best book to have the more on recall knowledge section, as I am really not asking for any kinda of Errata, but just a deeper discussion of the consequences of GM choices on how they run this mechanic. That doesn’t feel like some thing that could be retroactively smashed into any other book.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

Tender Tendrils wrote:

I'm all for something like in the GMG's sections (where it says "more on X" and gives general advice on running things) or stuff that expands upon an existing thing being in a book.

But I think FAQ type clarifications.... well, that belongs in an errata. I shouldn't have to buy a book (I know AoN exists, but when I say "buy a book" I also kind of mean "buy into a book" and "when I buy this book, part of the money I paid to get cool new stuff went towards page space on an errata thing instead") to find out the answers to basic rules questions

I agree. Given my problem with a 3rd party publisher providing support for something that should have been specified in the CRB, I’m not enthused by the call for the clarification to appear in Dark Archive.

PF1 had the same problem with cracks not being filled and then being spakk’d over much later if at all and it frustrates me no end to see a similar approach. The paradigm of more, shiny and new content that is the release schedule/“business model” I feel to be incredibly problematic..

The ruleset is, here, in Recall Knowledge, ambiguous and provides little support for GM’s yet RK is a major part of the Encounter mode. That’s bad enough. But to then release more content that interacts with it, and then release a new class that absolutely revolves around it is disappointing. Or at least, dismissive of and ignores calls for it to be clarified.

I get that there are plenty of GMs super comfortable and confident with the ruleset to rule RK checks on the regular and on the fly - but that isn’t the ruleset, that’s them. And they aren’t all the customers.

[Shandyan]

Another grey area is what DC to use with multiple variants of the same creature that have very different levels. Technically speaking, it's easier to know that baby red dragons can breathe fire than to know the same thing about adult red dragons!

I house rule using the DC of the lowest level version to get the "family" info.

[Thewms]

I would also like to echo the thought that this would be valuable to see in the new book.

[Ruzza]

While beyond the purview of the playtest, I fully support RK getting a more concrete ruleset. Most everyone I talk to handles Recall Knowledge differently from table to table, which makes so many builds (builds I really enjoy, too!) a little shakier when going in blind.

[IAmPageicus]

Please Paizo please do this... even today on Facebook and the discord group there is debates going on.

When a fighter uses an action something easy to understand happens. Using the physical attributes always seem to be more beneficial as written than the 3 mental.

5e doesn't have the bad ass weaknesses and resistances your enemies do. Knowing those makes tables want a bard...

But right now it's all up to the game master and more so than any other ability.

The fireball works... the attacks work...persuasion works...

But recall is game master may I?

[AnimatedPaper]

I think this would be best handled in a section devoted to research in general, with perhaps the page or two of advice you mention and also a complete optional subsystem akin to the library research rules.

Just give every creature a number of points equal to their level+3, adjusted for rarity, and as you earn points by succeeding at recall knowledge checks you earn specific bestiary information in a preset order. And by "adjusted for rarity" I mean that instead of having a higher DC, you have to succeed at more RK checks to get part the first tier.

Not sure if that is the exact mechanic to use, but something equally easy to just glance at a bestiary entry and come up with a quick creature "library" on-the-fly would be good. Stifling and overkill compared to the CRB activity, but that's fine for an optional rule system in an add-on rule book.

Bonus points if the PFS/SFS designers write this section specifically, with an eye towards immediately adopting it for both their own developers and freelancers.

[Mathmuse]

I houseruled Recall Knowledge, based on the houserules I used in PF1, so I invent my own answers to ambiguities about Recall Knowledge. Yet the way the thaumaturge uses Recall Knowledge opens up new questions that were not relevant before.

Unicore wrote:

Does the DC for identifying a creature go up for every individual monster of that type faced? If so, this is brutal on classes like the Mastermind rogue, the investigator, and the thaumaturge.

Typically a group of foes opposing the PCs are identical creatures. For Recall Knowledge for the sake of knowledge, knowledge about one of many identical creatures is as good as knowledge about all of them. If one Mummy Guardian has weakness fire 5, then all Mummy Guardians have weakness fire 5. We don't need to check each one individually.

But for a thaumaturge's Find Flaws and Esoteric Antithesis the particular creature identified matters. Likewise for a mastermind rogue rendering a creature flat-footed through Recall Knowledge and an investigator's Known Weaknesses feat.

I have had a similar situation in game with the ranger in the party. When he tracks a group of enemies, he can Hunt Prey on one before Encounter Mode. Which one? He followed the tracks of all of them. I let the player pick one once they are visible on the map, since any one is as suitable as the others.

The only mastermind rogue I ran (ironically, I am converting that character to thaumaturge for the playtest) was an NPC initially opposed to the party, and each party member was different. I had considered her mastermind Recall Knowledge ability, but only in consideration of using it twice against the same party member since the benefit was short-lived. In that case, I could justify a higher DC for a second Recall Knowledge. The party talked the NPC into working for them, so she never used the ability in game.

But for Recall Knowledge on a second identical foe, with the player willing to accept a mere confirmation that it is identical to the first foe, I would view that as an easier check rather than a harder check. "Does the mummy guardian by the hieroglyphics have the same weaknesses as the mummy guardian we just killed?" does not require delving deep into memory. Alas, that is my private judgment, unsupported by any rules. We ought to have official rules for this.

[Mathmuse]

Some poor phrasing in Esoteric Antithesis opens up another knowledge problem. It says,

Dark Archive class playtest document, Thaumaturge, Esoteric Antithesis, page 19 wrote:

If the creature has a weakness with a value of 2 + half your level or higher, set the type of weakness to the creature’s highest weakness. Otherwise, you create a custom weakness with a value equal to 2 + half your level; ...

The thaumaturge can use Esoteric Antithesis if they had a regular failure on the Recall Knowledge check in Find Flaws. So how does the player know what the value of a weakness is if they failed the check to learn the weaknesses?

Okay, the thaumaturge has Dubious Knowledge, so a regular failure gives both a true result and a false result. The GM would describe the true weakness and a false weakness. The GM ought to give the true and false weaknesses the same value, so that the player knows the value is correct. Then the player has to decide which weakness to attack.
GM: The giant yak has weaknesses fire 5 and electricity 5.
THAUMATURGE: For Esoteric Antithesis I rub my sword with silk to give it an electrical charge. I Strike and roll 22 to hit and 4 damage.
GM: It takes 4 damage.
THAUMATURGE: Just regular damage? Nothing from the weakness to electricity?
GM: You rolled dubious knowledge. It doesn't really have weakness to electricity.
THAUMATURGE: Next turn I'll use Esoteric Antithesis again and pull out lamp oil for the essence of fire. Remind me why I couldn't do that earlier?
GM: The fine print says, "you cause them [the Strikes] to apply one of the creature’s weaknesses." Only one.

Even with the workaround of Dubious Knowledge, it feels hard to justify.

[AnimatedPaper]

I don't think it should work like that Mathmuse. You'd know if you failed the check because EA would take an extra action, but the false weakness should still be triggered. Well, actually, in this case, the true weakness is triggered even if you don't do the correct damage. Find Flaws has a failure chance, but EA just works.

I also didn't see any notes on when that weakness stops working, so you could be slamming away with your static sword and triggering it's fire weakness the entire combat.

The rest of the party will wonder why THEIR electric attacks are fizzling, but yours are fine.

[Unicore]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

I don't think it should work like that Mathmuse. You'd know if you failed the check because EA would take an extra action, but the false weakness should still be triggered. Well, actually, in this case, the true weakness is triggered even if you don't do the correct damage. Find Flaws has a failure chance, but EA just works.

I also didn't see any notes on when that weakness stops working, so you could be slamming away with your static sword and triggering it's fire weakness the entire combat.

The rest of the party will wonder why THEIR electric attacks are fizzling, but yours are fine.

This is the result that I love about the Thaumaturge. There ability to make the impossible possible in a totally confounding way. I really, really hope it caries through.

[Captain Morgan]

I agree there should be some clarification on Recall Knowledge, and have a few additional issues to add to the pile:

-The increasing DCs and not being able to learn anything past the +10 adjustment puts an unnecessary cap on how much you can learn, and when combined with the critical failure rule really discourages multiple attempts. It also stacks oddly with the rarity adjustments.

-The rules should allow for retire on failed checks when you discover additional information. You may not recognize a monster until it has used its signature ability.

-Sharing traits and their tactically relevant commonalities should be standardized. If a creature is a mindless construct, players should just be told what that means before getting into specifics about this particular creature.

However, I am firmly against creating specific knowledge bullet points to give out for every monster. Recall Knowledge is supposed to give out USEFUL information, and what is useful to one party may not be useful to another. Knowing a spider has a poison bite only helps if you can avoid getting bitten or prepare antidotes ahead of time. Knowing something is weak to silver doesn't help if you can't get your hands on silver weapons.

GMs need to able to tailor the information they give to their specific party. Publishing examples is fine, but creating "canon" answers is bad for the game.

[Unicore]

I am also not in favor of mandatory bullet points. I am in favor of further discussion/advice about helping GMs arbitrate fairly and in the most fun and exciting way possible for their players.

[AnimatedPaper]

The thing is, for Society play, that creates a lot of table variance and variance from adventure to adventure. Table variance is fine for home play, but not everyone plays with a group that knows and trusts one another.

I wouldn’t recommend my bullet points for normal play, but specifically for drop in and society play. Which is why it should definitely be an optional system that home groups can just not use.

edit: I get that your chief concern is ambiguity, but mine is consistency. That it would also eliminate ambiguity is nice, but not the point and not the best method to solve that problem.

[Midnightoker]

Captain Morgan wrote:

I

-The rules should allow for retry on failed checks when you discover additional information. You may not recognize a monster until it has used its signature ability.

I'd go a step further and say retries should be allowed if they are performed under duress period.

Like someone out of combat rolling poorly means they just don't know.

Someone who spent an action to try to remember might just not remember at that moment specifically.

I personally house rule this to allow reroll if used in combat as an action as long as you don't critically fail.

In general, I think because of the diversity of PF2 monster design Recall Knowledge should have been treated as an action you can take each round against a creature period in the same way that you can Raise a Shield every round.

[Unicore]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

The thing is, for Society play, that creates a lot of table variance and variance from adventure to adventure. Table variance is fine for home play, but not everyone plays with a group that knows and trusts one another.

I wouldn’t recommend my bullet points for normal play, but specifically for drop in and society play. Which is why it should definitely be an optional system that home groups can just not use.

edit: I get that your chief concern is ambiguity, but mine is consistency. That it would also eliminate ambiguity is nice, but not the point and not the best method to solve that problem.

What information to give for society scenarios seems like something to focus on in the scenarios themselves, or society guidelines, doesn’t it? Not general rule books?

[AnimatedPaper]

I’m a little confused by the question.

I’ve been pretty clear I want this as an optional rule subsystem. Which is different than new rules just for society play.

Edit: it is also more than just guidance. Converting the scaling DC system we have now to a victory point subsystem as described in the GMG would require at least a couple pages, including specific notes on what to put in a creatures “library”.

[Mathmuse]

Captain Morgan wrote:

-The rules should allow for retire on failed checks when you discover additional information. You may not recognize a monster until it has used its signature ability.

I presume you meant "retry" rather than "retire." I have the retry on new information as part of my houserules. For example, the ranger gets Recall Knowledge checks to identify creatures from their tracks and fresh new Recall Knowledge checks to identify them when he finally sees them.

For another example, imagine the party fails their Recall Knowledge (Nature) on a Centipede Swarm and does not learn about its venom. However, when the centipede poisons a party member, then they know it has venom. That is new information, so they can make their Nature checks again and learn the properties of the venom.

That can be justified under the current rules without a houserule. Simply view it as the party rolling Recall Knowledge about the venom rather than the centipede swarm. They might have failed to identify the swarm fully, learning its swarm traits and its AC but not its special attacks, but they could have learned about centipede venom from a different source. I let a rogue with Criminal background roll Recall Knowledge (Underworld Lore) about the venom because some assassins use that poison. Likewise, Recall Knowledge (Medicine) would be useless to identify a centipede, but it would identify a poison.

[Mathmuse]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

I don't think it should work like that Mathmuse. You'd know if you failed the check because EA would take an extra action, but the false weakness should still be triggered. Well, actually, in this case, the true weakness is triggered even if you don't do the correct damage. Find Flaws has a failure chance, but EA just works.

I also didn't see any notes on when that weakness stops working, so you could be slamming away with your static sword and triggering it's fire weakness the entire combat.

The rest of the party will wonder why THEIR electric attacks are fizzling, but yours are fine.

Okay, being able to exploit a fake weakness would be hilarious, but think about the consequences. It would make rolling a failure on Find Flaws more powerful than rolling a success. On a success the giant yak is vulnerable only to fire. On a failure it is vulnerable to fire and electricity.

One missing piece of information is the versatility of a thaumaturge's esoterica. If the thaumaturge learns that a troop has Weakness to area damage, does he have some esoterica that lets him deal area damage with his shortsword? (I expect this scene to come up in my thaumaturge playtest next week.)

Does the player have to describe how the esoterica works? "I wrapped streamers of barbed wire around my sword so that the area behind my swing takes damage." Dos the GM have to accept a bad description? Or does esoterica work flavorlessly without a description? Without a description, does the damage type of the weakness found by Find Flaws matter?

[AnimatedPaper]

Mathmuse wrote:

Okay, being able to exploit a fake weakness would be hilarious, but think about the consequences. It would make rolling a failure on Find Flaws more powerful than rolling a success. On a success the giant yak is vulnerable only to fire. On a failure it is vulnerable to fire and electricity.

For you only, but yes. Honestly it’s just bonus damage in a different form, like barbarians, rogues, and rangers all get.

Mathmuse wrote:

One missing piece of information is the versatility of a thaumaturge's esoterica. If the thaumaturge learns that a troop has Weakness to area damage, does he have some esoterica that lets him deal area damage with his shortsword? (I expect this scene to come up in my thaumaturge playtest next week.)

Not sure what form that would take, but yes.

Mathmuse wrote:

Does the player have to describe how the esoterica works? "I wrapped streamers of barbed wire around my sword so that the area behind my swing takes damage." Dos the GM have to accept a bad description? Or does esoterica work flavorlessly without a description? Without a description, does the damage type of the weakness found by Find Flaws matter?

no, yes, yes, not really, as it works regardless if you use the correct damage type or not.

That said, I would argue resistances are not RAI or RAW bypassed, and other effects according to the damage type still happen, so you could for example trigger an oozes split while still dealing “weakness” if you’re using a sword.

[AnimatedPaper]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Mathmuse wrote:

Does the player have to describe how the esoterica works? "I wrapped streamers of barbed wire around my sword so that the area behind my swing takes damage." Dos the GM have to accept a bad description? Or does esoterica work flavorlessly without a description? Without a description, does the damage type of the weakness found by Find Flaws matter?

no, yes, yes, not really, as it works regardless if you use the correct damage type or not.

That said, I would argue resistances are not RAI or RAW bypassed, and other effects according to the damage type still happen, so you could for example trigger an oozes split while still dealing “weakness” if you’re using a sword.

One other thing I forgot, your damage type doesn’t actually change, and the fake weakness only applies to your strikes. So even if you had access to electric arc and cast it, that would not trigger a weakness, since the electricity weakness does not actually exist. Your strikes, for some Esoteric Reason, are triggering the existing fire weakness without needing to apply fire damage. I think you would, in fact, trigger the fire weakness even if it was resistant or immune to slashing damage, resulting in only the weakness damage applying at all.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

Captain Morgan wrote:

I agree there should be some clarification on Recall Knowledge, and have a few additional issues to add to the pile:

-The increasing DCs and not being able to learn anything past the +10 adjustment puts an unnecessary cap on how much you can learn, and when combined with the critical failure rule really discourages multiple attempts. It also stacks oddly with the rarity adjustments.

-The rules should allow for retire on failed checks when you discover additional information. You may not recognize a monster until it has used its signature ability.

-Sharing traits and their tactically relevant commonalities should be standardized. If a creature is a mindless construct, players should just be told what that means before getting into specifics about this particular creature.

However, I am firmly against creating specific knowledge bullet points to give out for every monster. Recall Knowledge is supposed to give out USEFUL information, and what is useful to one party may not be useful to another. Knowing a spider has a poison bite only helps if you can avoid getting bitten or prepare antidotes ahead of time. Knowing something is weak to silver doesn't help if you can't get your hands on silver weapons.

GMs need to able to tailor the information they give to their specific party. Publishing examples is fine, but creating "canon" answers is bad for the game.

I hadn’t considered that the variance in what is considered useful, though I’m not sure what about bulleted points wouldn’t be useful. And as Animated Paper points out, they could just be ignored, or heck, even used as a guide.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

@Unicore - sorry if I’m being obtuse - can you clarify what you mean by wanting to see “further discussion/advice about helping GMs arbitrate fairly and in the most fun and exciting way possible for their players.”

[Unicore]

This thread about developing recall knowledge more in the dark archive playtest is a bit of an out growth of this thread: Recalling Knowledge can be fun

I have played a fair bit of PFS online with a wide assortment of GMs. All of them were trying their best to make the game fun for everyone, but it was always a bit of a let down when recalling knowledge ends up revealing the first sentence of the descriptive text and its name.

The bottom line is that every monster entry does include an organized list of information about the creature to draw on for when a player does a recall knowledge check, it is called the stat block. As a GM you probably don’t want to turn over the whole thing your player when they succeed or even critically succeed, especially as that robs the game of the chance for story development alongside the mechanic of the activity. So the challenge of the activity becomes deciding what aspect of the activity is useful to your party and how you can reveal that information in the most fun way for everyone, including yourself.

Always prioritizing defenses information, about weaknesses, resistances and saves can be a problem for parties that don’t have many offensive casters or players that can do different types of damage, in some encounters getting more info about a specific attack or special ability would be useful, actionable material, and in other situations the odds of that action coming up are negligible and giving that information as a GM is frustrating and a waste of an action.

Making tables of what should be revealed with checks of various DCs against a specific monster is easily as likely to result in useless information being given to the players in any specific encounter as it is in making recall knowledge actually better and easier to implement for the GM. Some aspect of this conversation, and a nudge towards being kind to your players using actions to learn more about both the mechanical and narrative depth of a specific encounter is what I think could be very useful to GMs. Especial a discussion that addresses some of the complications of having more and more class features/feats that have very specific and essential tie-ins to a innately subjective and interpretable activity.

[Ascalaphus]

I'm considering these house rules for Recall Knowledge:

- If you're actually face to face with the monster, its rarity doesn't affect the DC.
- If you get new information about a monster, the DC to learn about it resets, and you can try again even if you failed before.
- Each time the monster gets a turn in combat counts as new information.

Let me explain. I'm leaning more heavily into the idea that Recall Knowledge isn't just knowing facts about each monster; it's also being able to observe a completely new monster and make some guesses about it based on how it looks, moves, smells etc. So when you're actually face to face with a monster, it doesn't matter anymore that it's rare and not a lot of books were written about it, because you have plenty of access to it right now. And each turn the monster continues to maraud you can observe it more.

This approach solves several problems with Recall Knowledge:
- The DCs are already tough, because when you really need the knowledge, it's because you're fighting something higher level than you.
- It works well with abilities that space out RK checks over time, such as Known Weaknesses, Monster Hunter (against a group), Mastermind and Find Weakness (against groups). Especially these last two will otherwise get into deep trouble if you essentially have a finite number of times you can RK against a creature that happens to get re-used a lot in a themed adventure.
- In fact it gets rid of the whole problem with a class ability rewarding you for RK working poorly if there are multiple creatures of the same type.
- It works well with adventures where you gradually figure out more about the monster, such as at crime scene #1, #2 and #3. Each new crime scene is a new opportunity to start making RK checks. So this system also works with noncombat uses of RK.
- For the Thaumaturge, it's a pretty big deal for them to be fighting uncommon/rare/unique monsters. That's their job, not fighting common bandits or wolves. So the difficulty hike for RK checks imposed by rarities directly conflicts with the aim of the class. By waiving that DC hike when you're face to face, the class can do its job properly.
- You have fewer problems with authors randomly deciding that their named NPC is Unique despite having a pretty standard statblock.
- It also works well with advice like "don't waste your third action on a hopeless Strike, do something useful like Recall Knowledge". These rules encourage you to do RK over multiple rounds of combat.
- It's simple. You don't have to remember how many previous attempts were made.

[Cyder]

RK really needs to have an overhaul in the way it works and give players a bit more agency. For me the fantasy of recall knowledge is more is more knowing what the weakness of a creature is (werewolf - silver), or that the way the victim was found drained of blood with puncture wounds in the neck (foe likely vampire). the Van Richtens and other famous monster hunters.

Different standards for in combat checks and out of combat checks really need to apply. But I think in combat a player should be able to recall knowledge with the idea of learning its most likely weakness if that is what they are after. They should always be entitled to new information if they succeed so if they already knew its had a weakness to fire could get its lowest save. Similarly they could choose to learn what its deadliest attack is or something else about the way it fights rather than being completely at the GMs mercy. I am a forever GM and allow this as it saves me the hassle of trying to think what is fair to give.

[rainzax]

+1

I'll take the third point a step further too - How should the Investigate exploration activity interact with what out-game information Players learn for what in-game checks Characters will make?

I am of the opinion that if a PC uses this exploration activity, every "recall knowledge" skill they have is potentially brought to bear, and a GM can give a "hint" by telling which skill among those they have is the best to use in a certain situation, allowing them to "choose one skill" correctly.

=)

[Midnightoker]

Ascalaphus wrote:

- If you're actually face to face with the monster, its rarity doesn't affect the DC.
- If you get new information about a monster, the DC to learn about it resets, and you can try again even if you failed before.
- Each time the monster gets a turn in combat counts as new information.

I like these. Let's the reset happen naturally, and allows the "once per turn" aspect that I think the action needs.

If they add some specific guidance on what GMs should be sharing (I just drop literally statistics with flavor text or outright read out abilities), then Recall Knowledge can solidify itself as a pretty valuable action at any table.

[N N 959]

Unicore wrote:

Right now there are major question marks that GMs have to resolve individually that can have massively swingy effects on the usefulness of whole builds. ....

Unicord, thank you for bringing this up. Recall Knowledge has been a mess since 3.5 and I am really hoping whatever they are doing with Dark Archives bring things to a head. Many times in the past I've discussed this and now is as good a time as any to both affirm some of your observations and add my own.

1 Core issue is the conflation of categorically different functions. You've touched on this, but I think it needs to be spelled out. Since PF1 RK conflated three things:

1. Identifying the creature;
2. "remembering" things about a creature type;
3. Determining whether you ever knew anything about the creature type to begin with;

Combining all three concepts into one roll is what leads to the nonsensical outcomes in the course of game play.

In PF2, Paizo has changed the language:

Core p. 239 wrote:

You attempt a skill check to try to remember a bit of knowledge regarding a topic related to that skill. The GM determines the DCs for such checks and which skills apply.

Critical Success You recall the knowledge accurately and gain additional information or context.
Success You recall the knowledge accurately or gain a useful clue about your current situation.
Critical Failure You recall incorrect information or gain an erroneous or misleading clue.

Emphasis mine.

So PF2, it's all about "remembering" and "recalling" not identifying. So where are the rules for simply identifying? Paizo, why not let players hear the name of what they are fighting? Isn't it a little silly that a player can go through an entire scenario or AP and have no idea what they fought because no one bothered to roll a RK check. But for this to happen, Paizo needs to hardcode this, and I don't see them dong this.

2. The cost outweighs the benefit. In PF1 the fact that RK was a mess was easy to overlook as it was essentially free. Now, it costs an action barring some feat that grants it for free. Why this was done, seems obvious. Paizo wanted to create design space with feats and what not. So letting Characters check for free would undermine the value of feats that gave it as a free check.

Great, but the problem is just as Unicore and others have observed. Paizo is now charging for something with no hard-coded benefit. In the last two or so years of PFS play, I've seen RK used like three times (outside some coupled feat). In none of those circumstances did the party get any actionable information. This is the same problem that happened in PF1, but at least you weren't paying for it. Recall Knowledge needs to provide some consistent benefit. "Useful information" isn't cutting it. Not because GMs are unwilling, simply because most creatures don't have any useful information outside of their stat block and GMs aren't willing to hand out AC and HP on these checks because the rules don't even hint that this is an option, when it really should be.

I've used example before, but given the rules for RK, I can succeed on a check an have no idea which is tougher to kill or harder to hit, an ogre or a hobgoblin. That seems really silly.

3. No idea how to resolve common situations involving feat coupled RK checks. This has also been mentioned. But playing an Investigator and a Ranger, I've get in that situation where I'm fighting three or four X's and I am getting repeated RK checks on each one. What happens with Known Weakness repeated on the same creature? Does the DC go up each time for both the mechanical benefit and the check.

For the Ranger, I see a creature prior to combat and I do RK check. What happens when I later designate the same creature as prey with Monster Hunter? Do I keep my original roll? Do I roll again? Wha happens when I pick up tracks and designate it as my prey before I see it? What happens when I'm tracking a several creatures and combat starts? How does the GM know which creature?

Recommendations:

1. GMS are officially authorized to give out the names of creatures in encounters, and the name of the creature does not require a RK check.

2. A successful RK check with the primary Skill or any Skill that can be substituted for the primary, allows the player to choose any stat block information. total Hit points, Armor Class, Save modifier, etc.

3. In the spirit of PF2, repeated checks on the same creature increase the DC per the rules, 2, 5, 10.

4. There is no penalty to Monster Hunter when a Ranger designates prey on the creature's tracks. Ranger gets the name of the creature on finding the tracks.

5. If tracking Prey, the Ranger gets to pick the target if there are multiple identical creatures.

[Rysky]

“ So PF2, it's all about "remembering" and "recalling" not identifying. So where are the rules for simply identifying? Paizo, why not let players hear the name of what they are fighting? Isn't it a little silly that a player can go through an entire scenario or AP and have no idea what they fought because no one bothered to roll a RK check. But for this to happen, Paizo needs to hardcode this, and I don't see them dong this.”

What does this even mean?

[Ascalaphus]

I don't agree with basically handing people the name of the creature for free. I would do that in some circumstances ("you can see they're orcs") but not others ("It looks... well not alive anyway...") where the identity of the creature is a key component of a mystery adventure.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

@Unicore - forgot to say: ok, thanks for the link!

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

If anybody ever asks me just how hard did 3.5/PF1 shackle people to textualism of the rules and hypnotized them with the "the rules will tell you exactly and explicitly how everything works, there's no need for any room for interpretation from Mister Cavern or table variance" mantra, I'll point them to this thread, thank you.