| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
https://reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/s/PLg8AK5P2P
You ask a question, and on a success the GM gives you the answer. They specifically mention "what is this thing's lowest save" in the book as an example, along with "can this monster he reasoned with" and other stuff.
This basically is how reasonable GMs were already running it based on the Recall Knowledge action. But it clarifies that the creature identification text of the CRB was just answering "what is this creature" and you can ask more specific questions instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a good clarification.
The only complication I see is with critical failures. I'm not very good at improvising, and thus I wanted to prepare a list with some wrong info for each creature that I was going to use in my adventures; but what should I do if the critical fail happens on a specific question?
what should I do if the critical fail happens on a specific question?
A specific question like: which save is their lowest?
Is that a difficult question to come up with a wrong answer to?
There is a card game that you can play to practice with. It is actually a rather fun game. And a lot harder than it would seem.
This basically is how reasonable GMs were already running it based on the Recall Knowledge action. But it clarifies that the creature identification text of the CRB was just answering "what is this creature" and you can ask more specific questions instead.That moment when our homerule was more favourable to players and it still wasn't always good enough. The answer to "what is this creature" and some basic knowledge is a default 'always on' thing on success for us. Specific questions are in addition to that.
And the problem is when you wouldn't guess the right question, like - 'What's a weakness the creature has?' - 'None'. Now what? Yes, that's not completely useless, but won't really help to select damage type in case the creature has resistances.
I'd try the specific question 'what's one of the best damage types to hurt this creature (the lowest [res-weak] value) from this list <damage types you have>?' next time :)
Well the good thing is that the Recall Knowledge actions as currently written allows GMs to substitute useful information in place of what the player asked for:
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.
I'm not actually sure the action text itself is changing so much as the guidance and examples around it, so this will probably still be fine. And personally I think "what is most useful to know about it" isn't an outrageous question if you can trust your GM's evaluation of what is actionable for your party.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
substitute useful information in place of what the player asked forThe problem is a difference in 'useful' definition. I can't in good faith argue that 'the creature doesn't have weaknesses' is useless or even not an information at all. That it's not enough for me seems like mine problem, not GM's.
Useful information, in the context of this game, means actionable. See Michael Sayre comment here.
https://twitter.com/MichaelJSayre1/status/1684325883958681600?s=20
If succeeding at the check does not offer a reason to change your course of action based on the information revealed, it is not useful. If the end result would be the same as if you had failed the check, it is not useful. If your GM is opting to give you useless information, that is a failing on their part. It is admittedly a common failing, and one we all hope happens less after the remaster. But it is still a failing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
https://twitter.com/MichaelJSayre1/status/1684325883958681600?s=20
If succeeding at the check does not offer a reason to change your course of action based on the information revealed, it is not useful. If the end result would be the same as if you had failed the check, it is not useful.
I'm not on Twitter. But I'll mention here - that is a really useful way of phrasing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, glad you like it. I've been banging that particular drum for years now.
I'll also note that determining useful information is HARD for some GMs. It requires awareness of both the monster's statblock and the options available to your PCs. And it requires critical thinking about how the two interact.
But you should be making the effort because you're the only one with all of the information. You're supposed to root for your players as a GM and be a fan of their characters. You're also supposed to make their actions matter, particularly if said actions are a limited resource expended in a challenging encounter.
You're supposed to root for your players as a GM and be a fan of their characters.
Yeah, I've been banging that drum for a while now too.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Almost as if that should be in the book instead of a twitter or reddit post...
They've very clearly stated that this is an explicit change in wording that will be printed in the Remaster, so you'll only have to wait a couple of months for it to be as official as you'd like! :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it still a secret check where RAW you don't even know what skill you rolled?
That aside... I still feel like one piece of information for a successful check that can be reasonably hard to pass and costs an action is extremely stingy, and leaves open the very brutal possibility that a player asks the wrong question and gets screwed for it.
Breaking it down like this, a monster could easily have half a dozen or more different valid snippets of information in their stat block. More complex monsters could be pushing double digits.
I just don't really get why Paizo is so afraid of players getting information about monsters.
A lot of GMs I've been seeing lately have been giving out significant information on successes (and sometimes just revealing the whole statblock on a crit success). That style of play feels a lot more rewarding for knowledge-centric characters.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't really get why Paizo is so afraid of players getting information about monsters.
I'm not going to blame Paizo devs themselves for things that these hypothetical GMs are being stingy about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What are you talking about? This actually was discussed in the podcast: ONE question on success, nothing in addition to that, 'what is this thing?' is just one question from the list. So it's either 'What's that thing even is, and what is does?' or 'What's its weakest save?' Both only on crit, and only if you ask for it. As a default at least. So you could know it's resistant to fire and has weak Reflexes, but have no idea what is this :)I just don't really get why Paizo is so afraid of players getting information about monsters.I'm not going to blame Paizo devs themselves for things that these hypothetical GMs are being stingy about.
*shrugs*
Congratulations on outing yourself as one of the not-so-hypothetical stingy GMs.
Does this proposed ruling about the question and answer process for Recall Knowledge meet the recommendations mentioned here?
Is it still a secret check where RAW you don't even know what skill you rolled?
That aside... I still feel like one piece of information for a successful check that can be reasonably hard to pass and costs an action is extremely stingy, and leaves open the very brutal possibility that a player asks the wrong question and gets screwed for it.
Breaking it down like this, a monster could easily have half a dozen or more different valid snippets of information in their stat block. More complex monsters could be pushing double digits.
I just don't really get why Paizo is so afraid of players getting information about monsters.
A lot of GMs I've been seeing lately have been giving out significant information on successes (and sometimes just revealing the whole statblock on a crit success). That style of play feels a lot more rewarding for knowledge-centric characters.
I think this new clarification is a good move because it prevents 1 character from being forced to be the RK monkey. Having a breadth of knowledge, possible lore general and specific lore usages, and a willingness to use across the party could be just as important as setting up off-guards or prones.
Hell, I might even be willing to try a second RK attempt at a higher DC for some encounters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what should I do if the critical fail happens on a specific question?A specific question like: which save is their lowest?
Is that a difficult question to come up with a wrong answer to?
It depends upon what you want to do.
Giving the polar opposite of the correct answer isn't always the best way to handle that case, IMO. Imagine the party fighting trolls: they have realized that they regenerate, and use Recall Knowledge to ask the GM what they can do to kill them for good. But: critical fail!The GM could say things like:
1) Use electricity or cold.
2) Nothing: they are basically immortal, you can only run away while they are down.
3) You have to cut their nose off and throw them in water.
4) Bathing them in lava is the only way.
Answer 1 is the first I would think about, because it's simply about taking what actually works, and twisting it. Is it the most fun, though? I could find some inspiration and make it better by giving a pseudo-logical reason ("Cold doesn't really stop it, but slows it down enough that you can finish them off"), but that would be easier to do if I had the time to think about it in advance. Which would require knowing that such a question will likely be asked.
Answers 2 and 3 look more interesting narratively. Answer 4 is good, IMO, because, while wrong, it can still prompt the PCs towards the correct way to win the fight.
I would rather have these possible answers written down in my notes than have to come up with them at the last moment. But while I can take the time to think about a few wrong info pieces about each monster I use, I can't do that for every single facet they have.
https://reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/s/PLg8AK5P2P
I'm not able to read anything at this link. Is there a better link?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like, seriously?!
Just the never ending clash between people who insist loosely worded rules are obvious and well defined, and the same people with a different interpretation. With a touch of insensitivity added in for good measure.
I'm not able to read anything at this link. Is there a better link?https://reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/s/PLg8AK5P2P
The Reddit link expands to The Official Recall Knowledge Clarification in the Remaster has Been Revealed,
The Twitch link is Paizo LIVE! 1 September 2023.
I'm not able to read anything at this link. Is there a better link?https://reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/s/PLg8AK5P2P
The Reddit link expands to The Official Recall Knowledge Clarification in the Remaster has Been Revealed,
The Twitch link is Paizo LIVE! 1 September 2023.
Thanks. I am not sure why but that reddit link just returns a blank page for me. I'm not having problem with anything else in reddit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If succeeding at the check does not offer a reason to change your course of action based on the information revealed, it is not useful. If the end result would be the same as if you had failed the check, it is not useful.I like this too. And even much better than Michael's wording. But that's not only not in the book, they haven't even reiterated that in the recent podcast.
What are you talking about? This actually was discussed in the podcast: ONE question on success, nothing in addition to that, 'what is this thing?' is just one question from the list. So it's either 'What's that thing even is, and what is does?' or 'What's its weakest save?' Both only on crit, and only if you ask for it. As a default at least. So you could know it's resistant to fire and has weak Reflexes, but have no idea what is this :)I just don't really get why Paizo is so afraid of players getting information about monsters.I'm not going to blame Paizo devs themselves for things that these hypothetical GMs are being stingy about.
My own thought on the upcoming Remaster interpretation of Recall Knowledge is whether I should alter my houserules about Recall Knowledge. My wife invented our current system, so she likes the flavor.
On the question about being stingy with knowledge, I recall the Old School days of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (now called 1st edition). Monsters were often undead stolen from foreign folklore or abominations made up almost randomly, both with strange vulnerabilities that could easily defeat them. Chancing upon the vulnerability made the party feel lucky, but knowing the vulnerability with a Knowledge skill felt like cheating. But with D&D 3rd Edition, weaknesses became more standardized into monster families, such as skeletons resisting puncturing and slashing damage, so foreknowledge was more believable.
And Knowledge skills are not properly credible, not even in PF2. I recall a joking description from these Paizo forums about a decade ago: "My Knowledge check says that smaller winged red creature in front of us is a young red dragon. It breaths fire. But I don't have a clue about the larger winged red creature next to it that looks almost identical." The higher-level adult red dragon had a higher DC on Knowledge checks. Balance is odd, too, because good Recall Knowledge check can change the tactics and make combat easier. So some GMs restrict the information from Knowledge checks to prevent weirdness and tactical swings.
As for me, I like watching my players invent new tactics on the fly. They are good at it and I plan for the effect in my encounter design. So a bad Recall Knowledge result means that both they and I have less fun. In case they roll poorly and fail the Recall Knowledge, I made rules about new information revealed in combat allows new Recall Knowledge checks because the new information might trigger memories. "Hey, that troll is regenerating. Now I remember: trolls regenerate unless we hit them with acid or fire."
My players made plenty of Recall Knowledge checks before 10th level, but at higher levels they preferred direct tests. "I wonder whether my Cone of Cold will affect the monster. Let me test it. I cast Ray of Frost!"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
DC is determined by rarity. 10 for ultra-common (e.g. common PC ancestries and many other humanoids or regular creatures, as well as creature families), 15 for common, 20 for uncommon, 30 for rare, and 40 for unique. If a creature is a more specific version of a more common creature, succeeding at the lower DC would suffice to get the information for the common version For example, Ancient red dragons are uncommon so they'd be DC 20, but red dragons in general are DC 15 so you'd only need DC 20 for the additional abilities of an Ancient, and you'd only need 10 for general dragon stuff (e.g. flies, has breath weapon, generally immune to or at least highly resistant to the same type of damage their breath deals)).
While Unique rarity can mean an extremely exotic unique creature such as the Sandpoint Devil, the Archives of Nethys list of Unique creatures shows that half of them are simply named individuals of common ancestries. For example, Daring Danika, a female human lion tamer from page 28 of The Show Must Go On is labeled Unique, but her stat block is a human with a whip and a lion companion, not exotic. (Note: Archives of Nethys put her lion companion in a separate entry: Leandrus.)
Thus, Unique might need to be split into two categories in this homebrew system: Unique individual and Unique species. Unique individuals would have the Recall Knowledge DC of their species, but a critical success would also reveal on of their unique features, such as Daring Danika's Sting of the Lash ability. Uncommon ancient dragons and similar elder creature could have the same system, with the same DC as a common adult dragon but a critical success would also reveal their uncommon features.