I would run it differently depending on the intent of the character making the attempt.
1) Verifying that the creature is indeed the same.
Just because a creature very much resembles a creature that was fought earlier doesn't mean that it is actually the same. I would want to reward that type of thinking.
So a character can make a Recall Knowledge at the base DC for the creature and get confirmation of the information that they already knew.
I would also allow this for triggering things like Rogue Mastermind Racket.
2) Gaining new information.
If the character is already certain that the creature is the same, or even if they just want to assume so, then they can use the Additional Knowledge rules to make a Recall Knowledge check at a higher DC in order to gain more information than they had previously.
And if it does happen to be a different creature, then they could still roll at the higher DC and learn some new information, though it will likely be the initial information that they would learn about that new creature.
In the Ironfang Invasion's 2nd module Fangs of War the party encounters trolls at Fort Nunder, a Nirmathi fortress conquered by the Ironfang Legion. They made Recall Knowledge checks. Later, they encounter one more troll at Fort Trevalay, another Nirmathi fortress conquered by the Ironfang Invasion. I figured that they won't have forgotten about trolls in just three days and was not surprised when they started their offense with fire.
A more interesting case is the hobgoblin troops. The 1st module Trail of the Hunted defined troop units for the Ironfang Legion and I adapted them to PF2 rules. This was before Bestiary 3 with PF2's own troops was published, so I started with large troops of four Hobgoblin Soldier before working my way up to gargantuan troops of sixteen Hobgoblin Soldiers. The Roll20 virtual tabletop icon I created for the large 5th-level Hobgoblin Troop consisted of four overlapped copies of the Hobgoblin Soldier icon, so the players knew without Recall Knowledge that these creatures were a troop of four soldiers, and they had been fighting those soldiers from 1st level. Thus, they did not make a Recall Knowledge check. They did learn from observation that the troops had Weakness to area damage.
Two weeks ago at 18th level, they encountered the 16th-level Veteran Formation, my newest troop unit. I had to raise the level of the single soldier inside the troop in order to get the troop itself up to 16th level without it being an oversized carpet of individual soldiers. This troop had some new abilities and I illustrated it with pictures of humans in face-covering plate armor since I had no pictures of hobgoblins in plate armor and added a Veterans' Day symbol with the word "veteran" in prominent display. My players did not bother with Recall Knowledge. They knew that this was a new level-appropriate hobgoblin troop. One player did ask, "Wait, are those humans?" and got my answer, "No, they're hobgoblins," for free. They threw fireballs and meteor swarms at the formations and learned their hit points, saves, and weaknesses by observing the damage (AC 36; Fort +28, Ref +25, Will +22; HP 400; Weakness area damage 30, splash damage 15). I got to show off a few abilities--they had reach because they were armed with glaives--before they died.
They will fight several more Veteran Formations in future encounters, and I expect them to remember that "Weakness area damage 30."
Thus, I expect the PCs to remember old enemies and deduce details about new enemies whom I build as blatantly similar.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just give it to them. Is putting up roadblocks to narrative continuity and in-character knowledge making the game more fun or interesting?
After a certain level common sense about the famous abilities of famous monsters should be given freely. For example, low-level PCs probably know about skeleton resistance and can adjust on it without being accused of "metagaming." Same for mid-level PCs facing enemies like trolls.
Of course sometimes a troll may not be a troll, but that should be the rare exception and not the rule.
Oh certainly. If the characters want to just assume that this mobile pile of bones attacking them is a skeleton just like the ones they have fought previously and they use the same tactics against them, that is definitely not metagaming.
But if one of them wants to spend an action on Recall Knowledge at the base DC, I'm not going to say that they can't. They won't get additional information without using the higher DC that gives additional information. But they can use the basic Recall Knowledge again.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PFS I have seen level 8 PCS roll to RK just to justify pulling out a bludgeoning weapon against skeletons and I am like "who hurt you?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the other one I have seen is on these rules threads some people say that Mastermind Racket is terrible in a lot of encounters and campaigns because they use the same creatures a lot of the time. So once you use Recall Knowledge on one of them, then you face the increasing DC in order to use the Racket bonus on any of the other creatures for the entire rest of the campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My general rule of thumb is you can reroll checks Knowledge checks if you gain new information or level up. Luckily, fighting a creature usually provides more and more insight into it, which might help jog a memory you didn't recall before.
You might not recognize the troll is a troll at first glance, but when you see it regenerate it might click for you.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the other one I have seen is on these rules threads some people say that Mastermind Racket is terrible in a lot of encounters and campaigns because they use the same creatures a lot of the time. So once you use Recall Knowledge on one of them, then you face the increasing DC in order to use the Racket bonus on any of the other creatures for the entire rest of the campaign.
I have a Mastermind Rogue in my Strength of Thousands group, and I reset the DC ladder per encounter when they run up against a repeat enemy.
I assume PCs retain information across encounters, so with repeat enemies, we sometimes reach the point where the players don’t even really ask questions, but are simply looking for the Mastermind or Monster Hunter bonuses.
I track DC increase for repeated questions across the entire party, though, not per PC, and I’m not sure either of those is strictly correct under RAW.
What I know isn’t correct under RAW is that I have adopted the house rule I first saw proposed by The Rules Lawyer that deletes the Critical Failure and Critical Failure results from Recall Knowledge, and shifts the Failure down to Critical Fail. I find this encourages a lot more Recall Knowledge checks from my players, and frees me from having to come up with inaccurate responses on the fly. This is by far my favorite PF2 house rule.
Oh look, here’s the specific video in question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That video gives a shout out to Unicore, myself, and a couple posters whose names I can never spell. :)
Just have to do it once. As soon as they get the info they retain it for the time coming. If the character has a special ability connected to RK they just roll it again. I just tend to ignore the DC increase because knowing things is fun
|
|
I just tend to ignore the DC increase because knowing things is fun
That's honestly not a bad practice, because I like to encourage Recall Knowledge checks. I keep the DC increases, though, for a couple reasons. One, I like the strategic mini-game of letting the players decide who should make the Recall Knowledge checks when, and two, I worry that it might break stuff like Monster Hunter and the Mastermind Rogue to be able to repeatedly crit because the DC never rises.
That video gives a shout out to Unicore, myself, and a couple posters whose names I can never spell. :)Yeah. I'd love to read the thread he's talking about in the video, but I didn't notice a link, and I don't know what search terms would help.
link to thread. From the YouTube video's description links.
|
|
link to thread. From the YouTube video's description links.
That's what I get for watching YouTube on TV. Thank you for the link!