Forcing a GM to come up with some "erroneous knowledge" is one of the worst mechanics of PF2. As a GM it feels like garbage, especially when I can't come up with a good lie at the drop of a hat so I come up with something and the players just laugh at the obvious fake info. It's like what was the point? Making the monkey GM dance so you can point and laugh? Having a heritage or background drop Dubious Knowledge in your lap feels somehow worse than getting nothing at all.
Please just pretend this feat doesn't exist in Starfinder, and let us get back to ignoring the critical failure effect of Recall Knowledge as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, that whole problem exist because Recall Knowledge is a secret check for whatever reason. But its not like I'm the guy to ask here because I ignore secret rolls because I find them weird and put more work on the GMs table.
But leave Akashic Eye and make it common. I love it so much.
While I admit coming up with good lies is hard, it's an absolute g&% d@%n miracle (or rather extremely dedicated roleplay) that my player took me at my word when I said a fire elemental was immune to Cold the one time, I think Dubious Knowledge is extraordinarily fun in its flavor. I love the idea of a character who has such a mess in their brain that they randomly come up with the right answer alongside something incredibly ludicrously incorrect. I'm with moosher12 on this one, you not liking a mechanic isn't cause to remove it from the game, it's cause to ban it from your table or otherwise home-rule it out. Unless you run PFS in which case, and I'm sorry to say this, but tough s$@*.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah it's fine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very easy fix, just flip to a random monster and plug in information from that with a few tweaks. You even have the excuse 'hang on, looking it up' to pull up the other stat block.
Coming up with stuff on the fly is the bread-and-butter of a TTRPG.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aw geez you guys were supposed to agree with me. I don't know what to do now, this isn't going according to my script!
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love erroneous knowledge in Starfinder. In Pathfinder you don't have an infosphere and social media to spread conspiracy theories. If The Gap happened today in the real world it would be the biggest source of conspiracy theories. Who's out to get the elves?, Where is Golarion, is Golarion just a story made up for the theme park Golarion World? Are all other sources of conspiracy theories backed into Starfinder lore.
My characters do Recall Knowledge checks with a comm unit or computer whenever they can, making it really easy to blame a bad roll on watching the wrong video. It's much easier to come up with erroneous knowledge players find than knowledge they recall directly. One time we were trying to figure out how to get past the bouncers at a fancy restaurant because we didn't have reservations. My character used his comm unit to get ideas and got a video that suggested cutting off the air supply to that entire section of Absalom Station.
Sometimes as a character, I show up to a mission briefing and during the character introductions, I read from a newspaper I picked up on the way from a shady figure in a dark alleyway that's full of conspiracy theories and scam adds. It sets up the rest of the game with a source of false information to use if needed.
As a GM you are having hard times coming up with erroneous knowledge, pass a note to the player making the check and only let them know they failed and have them make up the erroneous knowledge so the other players don't know the truth.
|
I feel similar about the feat, absolutely not a fan (I am fine with people crit failing but having to provide both a true and false fact is not a gameplay option I personally enjoy)
I would have chosen an interesting-looking ancestry heritage but since dubious knowledge was backed in, I had to go for something that was a worse fit.
A reasonable solution would be to make it an uncommon feat so GMs can opt into it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree. As someone who loves the Thaumaturge class, I absolutely hate that the feat is baked into the class chassis. I do NOT want it. None of the other players I know that play Thaumaturges want it. Every GM I know completely ignores it. That feat should go the way of the Dodo and just die out (during the gap or something)
Opposite experience here- making up lies is my GM's favorite part of the game and Thaumaturge. My character gets all their Thaumaturge knowledge from the rats they talk to, so rat-based mistakes are an important part of the experience.
|
|
I completely agree. As someone who loves the Thaumaturge class, I absolutely hate that the feat is baked into the class chassis. I do NOT want it. None of the other players I know that play Thaumaturges want it. Every GM I know completely ignores it. That feat should go the way of the Dodo and just die out (during the gap or something)Opposite experience here- making up lies is my GM's favorite part of the game and Thaumaturge. My character gets all their Thaumaturge knowledge from the rats they talk to, so rat-based mistakes are an important part of the experience.
Part of the reason the class is banned in my APs, though as has been suggested... making it optional so people can opt into it seems like a reasonable solution.
In practice that sounds like 1. the critfailed player giving lip service to the silly disinfo, and 2. the other players shrugging and ignoring them.
If nothing mechanically compels a player to act on bad info, then it's purely the bluffing skills of the GM that will make them do so. And if they don't act on it, then you're making the GM jump through an unexpected hoop, often mid-combat, for nothing.
Personally I love Dubious Knowledge, and don't know why people have such an issue with it. Like, the simplest and easiest way to deal with it is take an actual piece of info and just... hotswap it. Like a White Dragon's infamous weakness to ice-shattering Bludgeoning damage. Or tossing out an incorrect save information, like the spindly Wyvern's horrible Fortitude, or how a Cave Giant's sheer stubbornness makes trying to break its Will a foolhardy exercise. Bonus points if the thing you're swapping in is the exact opposite of reality (but is still believable, people are unlikely to believe a White Dragon is weak to Ice). Or if you want to be creative then do so, like just "give" the thing an ability it doesn't have but looks like it could, like an Adult Red Dragon's hooking jaws making it easy to swallow targets whole, or a Cloud Dragon's natural ability to call forth Lightning Bolt spells akin to the bolts of the storms it lives in.
As a personal anecdote, GM once used the hotswap on me to devastating effect when my Dubious Knowledge told me about how a particular fungus reacted poorly to Fire. Turns out Fire made it expel spores explosively, and it was *Cold* it was weak to.
That said, if it's not your cup of tea, just tell your players so. Good players will probably be okay with it. Rule 0 is what it is for a reason after all.
Forcing a GM to come up with some "erroneous knowledge" is one of the worst mechanics of PF2. As a GM it feels like garbage, especially when I can't come up with a good lie at the drop of a hat so I come up with something and the players just laugh at the obvious fake info. It's like what was the point? Making the monkey GM dance so you can point and laugh? Having a heritage or background drop Dubious Knowledge in your lap feels somehow worse than getting nothing at all.
Please just pretend this feat doesn't exist in Starfinder, and let us get back to ignoring the critical failure effect of Recall Knowledge as well.
Counter:
Misinfosphere
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I'm also not a big fan of giving false info on RK checks, I also don't think the point of SF2e is to fix perceived issues with Pathfinder. If Dubious Knowledge is something to take out of the game, might be worth having that discussion in the space of the game that had it first.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree. As someone who loves the Thaumaturge class, I absolutely hate that the feat is baked into the class chassis. I do NOT want it. None of the other players I know that play Thaumaturges want it. Every GM I know completely ignores it. That feat should go the way of the Dodo and just die out (during the gap or something)Opposite experience here- making up lies is my GM's favorite part of the game and Thaumaturge. My character gets all their Thaumaturge knowledge from the rats they talk to, so rat-based mistakes are an important part of the experience.
Hi, this is me, I'm in this post and I like it.
But yeah as Quid says, I think getting rid of Dubious Knowledge is a bad idea- if you don't want it in your game, just disallow it and go on, but generally speaking I feel like you'd be missing something without it.But I do understand it might be overwhelming to some GMs, so
As a Certified Good Dubious Knowledge Liar, here are my trade secrets to spreading misinformation to your players:
- Look at the enemy art, look at the enemy traits, say something that could be a plausible ability for it to have: a water elemental might be able to engulf someone instead of grappling, a stubborn person could have incredibly good wisdom saves, a creature with many eyes might be weak to piercing damage
- Think about the right information and say that, but a little to the left: Wolf bite -> Snake bite (They're both bites by medium creatures!), Halfling -> Gnome (Small humanoids), The NPCs are lovers -> The NPCs are siblings (this one was a joke, but still stands. Loved Ones)
- Say the polar opposite of something that is hard to discern: The water elemental's will save is its strongest save (It's a magical creature, it's plausible), The NPC wanted to pay you more than they did but you made them feel awkward, The acrobat has really good strenght because they're athletes
- "concatenate" your information: The water elemental can use a wave attack to pull you in -> So that it can engulf you.
- Make up detail: the aberration needs to eat brains to have the correct nutrients to survive -> So in its hungry state, it's weakest save is Fortitude
- Consider who your character is and where the information comes from: There's a halfling guild in the sewers -> My thaumaturge asks their rats for info -> To rats, all humanoids are large -> There are large people in the sewers, The badgers are angry because they're being disturbed -> The characters are in a haunted house's garden -> The badgers are influenced by supernatural energies
- if all else fails, be funny: "It's ghosts."
and, MOST IMPORTANTLY:
Say s@*@ with your whole chest. Be 100% confident that what you're saying is factually true. Hesitation is defeat.
|
To Regard to the OP, I think you are overthinking it. You don't have to come up with some big thing. Just come up with a few go-to generalizations.
-Say the opposite of what is true.
-Say it has an erroneous melee, ranged, or spell attack.
-Say that it is not widely known and not widely studied, so it's a very rare thing.
-Say a rebellian exists when it doesn't for social knowledge. Or say that the rebellian is a hoax if there is one.
-Significantly downplay, or up play, a minor aspect of lore. Triaxus was attacked once by the Vesk during the silent war? Say that Triaxus was under constant bombardment by the vesk. Fail a knowledge check about the Azlanti? They are a minor star empire of no real concequence.
And half the time, if you have good players who will actually role-play and not metagame the snot out of something, they'll do the heavy lifting for you. In "Season of Ghosts" one of my players crit failed their knowledge check about the local guardian statue and though it was evil, and was certain it would go against the town and gill everyone for four levels.