| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, I am about to make my first house rule on recall knowledge and would like your input.
I would like to remove the need for players to suggest a skill. It is a secret roll, and I keep it as such, and I can see which skill/lore would fit best for the creature and would be their best chance to get their questions answered.
In encounter mode they start wondering about a creature and discussing it between themselves "What was that?", and I find it at natural place for me to make a recall knowledge check for the characters and prompting them for questions or giving them an answer for the question they ask.
In combat mode the players say they take the Recall Knowledge action, I roll the dice based on what I think would be fitting for the character to think, and they get their answers.
I think there could be some problems with it, but perhaps there is more than I have thought of.
Problems with item bonuses and temporary bonuses like guidance, could be problems. But they haven't tried that yet.
Is there something I am missing with them suggesting a skill, perhaps?
I think this hits an interesting point of ambiguity with Recall Knowledge in that there are often many different valid skills to use, plus some very obviously invalid ones too, and because there's no clear flowchart for selecting just one, the rules basically offload the burden of selection onto the player, which makes sense in its own way. The problem that creates, however, is that being able to select the right skill is contingent on being fed enough information to make an informed decision, something that would normally be obvious in-game when a character perceives a creature, but that may not be so obvious if the GM doesn't give enough information.
Flipping this around and having the GM decide instead (obviously in good faith) would likely address that problem of the player accidentally picking the wrong RK skill based on insufficient or misleading information. However, I think it also risks carrying its own problems:
So that too would carry its own tradeoffs. I will say, however, that the tradeoffs also heavily depend on your table: if you have a table full of players who dislike secret rolls and don't want anyone else making decisions for their character, then that table should probably not use this house rule, but if the players are fine with secret rolls and trust their GM to make the best RK skill choices for them, then your proposal would likely work quite well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you. Good input.
I will ask them how they would feel about the house rule and at that point I can also ask what they feel about secret checks - it is fine with me if they wouldn't be secret.
And the player<>GM trust is an interesting topic. One of my new players have more trust in me than I think I deserve and one of the new players am I only now building trust with.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Recall Knowledge action says this:
You attempt a skill check to try to remember a bit of knowledge regarding a topic related to that skill. Suggest which skill you'd like to use and ask the GM one question. The GM determines the DC. You might need to collaborate with the GM to narrow down the question or skills, and you can decide not to Recall Knowledge before committing to the action if you don't like your options.
So the action does tell the player to suggest which skill to use...but then it tries to also say you don't commit your action if you don't like your options and you are supposed to collaborate with the GM to establish the question and skill.
I agree with you (and don't really think of it as a house rule) to skip the "negotiation" phase and tell the players exactly what skill (or sometimes multiple knowledge/lore skills are relevant). Although I also establish that I'm open to hearing arguments for how other skills could be relevant, but tell players not to expect it.
Otherwise players are just playing a guessing game, and in the worst case having an antagonistic GM force them to waste actions on something that couldn't work (which is bad GMing). Player characters should have a decent idea of if they know something about the thing in front of them, enough to not waste an action if they don't have the relevant skill.
After I've informed the player what skills are relevant, and we confirm their bonus (I typically try to have a copy of all the players skills & bonus) I then roll the check in secret and proceed.
I agree that since it is supposed to be a secret check, while discussing what skills might be useful seems a perfectly relevant discussion, it also seems like it could become a 'give away information' situation as well, which might not be exactly as intended.
Example:
Say I have Divine, Occult, and Ghoul lore, but not Arcane or Primal. So if I suggest Divine, they say it would be a really high DC, suggest Occult they say, sorry no DC available, ok, so I say ghoul lore, they say a low DC, now without even rolling, I know it is something covered under Ghoul Lore, even if end up rolling a natural 1 on the roll.
I think it makes the most sense to have the player give their question, and while they suggest what skills may be useful, and give a chance to mention bonuses that would be relevant, it makes sense in my mind for the GM to look at the RK relevant skill and pick the most appropriate skill they have to generate the DC and roll their secret check, and give them the information relevant to the check. (which on a success, I'd probably also give them the skill I as GM used for it)
I mostly agree, as long as you also agree that if the GM decides you don't have a relevant skill, that they should tell you that and not that "it's a very high DC".
I generally feel strongly that characters would know based on their skills generally if they recognize something, and the action spent recalling knowledge is summoning the specifics about that creature beyond "Oh, that's a Heffalump".
VTT play helps this somewhat as it's very easy to see exactly what skills the player has, exactly what the DC's to RK are, and then pick their best one - for a house rule, I don't think it's terribly necessary to consider player trust so long you communicate why you're doing this (ie to speed things along and make sure players are getting the information they're asking for as often as possible) and why they don't need to worry about you doing it "wrong." If any of them have relevant feats, which of course makes this all the more annoying, you'll need to note that down as well with their skills when you check RK.
I would still prompt the player to think of anything they might have htat might be relevant just in case I miss something, but I very much value speed of play so that we can spend as much time actually playing the game during the few hours we can all play each week. Anything that involves an extended back and forth over something as uninteresting as "does your character know anything" and not "what is it your character actually knows" feels like a waste of valuable play time, and I'm already pretty unhappy with how RK works as it is since if that info is available in an RK roll it would probably be more interesting for the players to actually learn things about the world (or not have some mystery spoiled for them because of some secret roll).
But yeah, if we're not massively reworking RK, agreeing with players ahead of time that you're gonna just pick their best skill if they aren't proactive in saying what skills they think ought to be used seems fair. Feels like this ought to be a Foundry module, something that adds a button to NPC's or other sections in AP's to filter skills players have and highlight the one with the best odds of success, with a listing of possibly relevant feats the player has, and a button beside each option to quickly do a secret roll. Just something to speed this along a bit more so you can get to the part where you actually say interesting things instead of hemming and hawing with a player.
Claxon, yes. I can see that the possibility of not being able to reach a DC would be a problem before using an action in combat. Especially at higher levels (they are at 2).
I will tell them during combat if that would be a waste of an action with something like "This creature is definitely outside your area of expertise". I don't want them to feel like they waste actions
I will also talk with them about agency in this action and this house rule. To hear if they feel like they lose some with this house rule.
I think they would prefer natural and quick flow of action with slightly increased chance of success.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm gonna be honest, I just straight-up tell my players what RK skills would be appropriate. I'm pretty generous with Recalling anyway, because the conservative reading of the rules is kinda bad.
I'm gonna be honest, I just straight-up tell my players what RK skills would be appropriate. I'm pretty generous with Recalling anyway, because the conservative reading of the rules is kinda bad.
Likewise for me, but my alteration of Recall Knowledge has a long history behind it. First, I also do not bother with secret rolls. My players are good at roleplaying mistakes, such as recalling erroneous knowledge.
Second, during the public playtest of Pathfinder 2nd Edition, my wife wanted the player character's background and backstory to matter more. The one place we were able to implement it was in Recall Knowledge. If a wizard from a wizard school succeeded Recall Knowledge, I would emphasize information that would come out of textbook. If a barbarian from a tribe succeeded at Recall Knowledge, I would emphasize information that was told as stories around the campfire, such as, "You recall a hunter in the tribe telling stories about fighting this kind of creature. He told of its deadly sting and the venom's effects on his teammate. It does ..." I have not had as much fun this this in my current Strength of Thousands campaign, because all the characters are students at the Magaambya School of Magic, so they study similar knowledge.
Third, I also give three times the information recommended in the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Core Rulebook, because I have more fun when the players know what they are fighting.
As for which skill my player non-secretly roll for Recall Knowledge, I tell them the skill from the creature entry. Sometimes I give them a list, because some entries give a list; for example, identifying a Hell Hound is DC 18 in Arcana, Nature, or Religion. Nevertheless, they will sometimes negotiate, such as, "Can I roll Society on this shady count rather than Religion, because he has been involved in the society of this town?" And if I allow it, I will tell a tale about his political machinations and the loyalty of his staff rather than on his supernatural vampiric abilities.
I did not change my system for the Remaster, which emphasizes a specific question. That is better than the pre-Remaster recommendation of giving the most common knowledge. However, I like tailoring the answer to what the PC would care about based on their roleplayed priorities.
In conclusion, house rules on Recall Knowledge do work out when they make the action more flavorful.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Oh, that incorporeal being was under Religion, not Occult."
What? No bueno.
It's silly to differentiate Recall Knowledge attempts as if our minds have some segmented filing system. We're plumbing all of our knowledge at once. The only significant choice IMO is what type of info/what angle one's taking on it, and this presumes a level of topical knowledge to sift through meaning one has already narrowed down the applicable fields. GM should use the best ability to answer the question the player/PC asks (which with some multi-faceted creatures/situations might lead to different skills).
So yeah, as noted above, I wouldn't even call this a houserule so much as a player-friendly & realistic interpretation of the negotiation phase in the rules.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a part Claxon quoted that I think needs emphasis: the player can decide to abort spending the action if they don't like their skill options.
You see a weird beastie. You propose recalling knowledge, thinking your Nature is pretty good and it's probably some kind of Beast. But the GM says you're gonna need Religion for this. You don't have Religion and there's no way you're gonna make the check rolling bare wisdom. Now you can decide that's not worth spending an action on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a part Claxon quoted that I think needs emphasis: the player can decide to abort spending the action if they don't like their skill options.
You see a weird beastie. You propose recalling knowledge, thinking your Nature is pretty good and it's probably some kind of Beast. But the GM says you're gonna need Religion for this. You don't have Religion and there's no way you're gonna make the check rolling bare wisdom. Now you can decide that's not worth spending an action on.
This is honestly the most important thing. The GM needs to clearly tell the players what skill is to be used, and in the case of multiple skills providing information a general idea of the difference in DC/the kind of information you would receive for using that skill, AND then be given a choice of whether or not to proceed.
If a player wants to recall knowledge on something, but hasn't invested in the required skill they shouldn't be hit with a failure or critical failure (and not know about it too!) because the GM decided their other skills didn't apply.
If something looks like an animal, but turns out to be magical and thus falls under Arcana instead of Nature the player should be told about that before hand.
And if the GM is being generous and allowing Nature to know a little bit about the creature but not the full extent (and potentially at an altered DC) that should be relayed to the player as well, so they player can decide whether its worth it to proceed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm gonna be honest, I just straight-up tell my players what RK skills would be appropriate. I'm pretty generous with Recalling anyway, because the conservative reading of the rules is kinda bad.
Same. With RK costing an action and having a critical failure condition, doing anything else is too punitive. Players need to make an informed decision over whether they should bother trying. They already don't know the DC. (And frankly I might consider telling them that, as well.)
IMO Pathfinder and D&D GMs are just way too stingy with information in general. Sense motive is pretty much the only exception there.