PDA

View Full Version : The Knowledge roll(Again)



Gamer Girl
2010-12-27, 11:08 PM
So gaming with Fred again at the local Game Store....

Fred is always obsessed with finding out what creatures he is fighting and finding a weakness. So he makes tons of Knowledge rolls.

I've discovered that he is quite happy with just a little information, and to that end I made him little monster information cards. So they game when on with out any bumps.....until

They had come to the 'secret tunnel' under the castle, and found it guarded by two humanoids they did not recognize. Fred made his knowledge roll and found out they were kenkus and was quite happy with his monster identification card.

Right up until the group attacked the kenku guards and the guards 'fired bolts of eldritch power' at the characters.

Fred screamed and ranted. He says it was not fair that the kenku's had some kind of special magic that was not included on the information card. He ranted for a bit until the other players calmed him down, but he was not happy that his 'knowledge roll did not work'.

Of course, the kenku's big secret was there class...they were warlocks. The race information card did not include any information on the class of the said race. As, the cards were generic and any intelligent creature can be of any class.

So, should a knowledge roll about a race tell you the class of the race? Any race can be any class.

Sure a player can guess 'the guy in robes might be a wizard' and 'the guy in plate armor' might be a fighter.....but should they know a races class for certain?

bartman
2010-12-27, 11:36 PM
I think a successful knowledge roll would reveal the favoured class, but not necesarily the actual class, unless there was something obvious, like a holy symbol, or a spell component pouch, etc. I also think that a failed knowledge roll would lead to incorrect information being given. I understand that you cannot botch skill checks, but if you get a total of 2 on a DC 15 knowledge roll, then you "maybe think" you remember something about this that you heard from your brothers step-son's aunt...

HunterOfJello
2010-12-27, 11:41 PM
I'm really glad that I don't game with Fred.

~

You can't tell a Sorcerer from a Wizard from a Warlock from a peasant with a robe and pointy hat unless you use magic to do so.

The great danger that is presented by LA 0 races in the game is that they often have levels in a PC class and can pull out all sorts of surprises on you.

~

Fred needs to have it slowly and carefully explained to him that he's not playing Final Fantasy. A Knowledge check is not the equivalent of Libra in FF XII or any other type of spell that scans an enemy and tells you every tiny detail about them.

Knowledge Checks are all reactionary based upon current information. You come across new information related to a field and then recall information about that topic. You meet strange raven-people in a tunnel? Knowledge check to realize they're kenkus. The Kenkus shoot magical fire stuff at you? Knowledge (Arcana) to realize they're warlocks and to recall information about warlocks.

So, unless the Kenkus are firing Eldritch blasts at rocks in the tunnel when the group arrives or are wearing unique, visible magical items that only work for warlocks, then you can't tell that the Kenkus are warlocks.

~


One solution that could help things along would be to roll all his knowledge checks for him behind the screen. I'm guessing that he's rolling the dice, sees a high number and then demands some ridiculous prize for it. If you roll the dice behind the screen and he complains at the lack of information, then just tell him that his roll wasn't high enough.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-12-28, 12:35 AM
The Knowledge: Nature check he presumable made would have told them they were Kenkus and whatever else you had on the card. After they fired their eldritch blasts (and Fred calmed down) you could have given him a Knowledge: Arcana check to figure out "Hey, these guys aren't just regular commoners but warlocks!"

Still, in the previous circumstance, you did the right thing. Next time, though, it may help to list that "a creature may also have levels in classes." For things with X or less racial HD. With X being whatever you want it to be.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-28, 01:27 AM
1st: What Edition? (tm)

2nd: Dude needs to learn what the crap "Knowledge Checks" mean. He currently seems to think they are "look at source code" checks; the ability to learn everything about a given creature. Now, if you are playing 4E it is true that an appropriate Knowledge Check of sufficient value should reveal all the powers of a given creature. In practice, I'd say Nature/Arcana/Dungeoneering/Religion tells you about their "natural" abilities and that anything extra they've trained would not be immediately obvious.

However, with proper clues, additional checks might reveal that info.

So, for your Kenku. If Kenku traditionally train in the Dark Arts, that should certainly be on their Monster Card as Lore. But, if this special Kenku is trained differently it might be worth noting "unlike normal Kenku, this one has ritual tattoos" or somesuch, and let him make an Arcana check to figure out what they mean.

Another_Poet
2010-12-28, 03:42 AM
You were right, Fred is wrong.

The knowledge checks that ID creatures and their weaknesses do not ID classes.

Someone above suggested it would ID their favoured class, which is fine, but don't give out too much info on any given roll unless it is very high.

A separate knowledge check might help ID class - for instance, if they were described as wearing robes and strange amulets a Kn (Arcan) or Kn (Relig) might ID their class as wizard, sorc, warlock, cleric, fav soul, druid, etc. Or it might just say what god they worship or what school of magic they practice, and nothing at all about their class.

grimbold
2010-12-28, 03:57 AM
i believe you would have seperate knowledge rolls.
one for race (contributing factors to selecting the DC would be the appearance of their bodies.)
one for class (contributing factors would be what kind of equpiment the creature has)
if you score high enough on guessing the race you might get to know the favored class of the race.
thats how i would rule it.

tiercel
2010-12-28, 04:13 AM
I routinely modify monsters -- the question I ask is "am I modifying this monster because I think the monster entry is flawed and *all* such monsters are updated in my world, or is this just a special version of this monster?"

An ogre is arguably a lot more effective if it has Power Attack, Cleave, and a greatsword instead of Toughness, Weapon Focus, and a greatclub; the question is whether ogres in your world are more organized, trained, and better equipped overall, or whether you are just getting ready some ogre bodyguards, especially trained and equipped for your BBEG of the Week.

If the former, it should be susceptible to Knowledge checks; if the latter, it should require more than the simple, base Knowledge check -- either directly seeing evidence of expanded capability, making a higher DC Knowledge check, or an adjoining check (bardic knowledge, Knowledge (local), Gather Info, researching, etc).

This applies, as mentioned here, to any sort of upgrade -- whether it's class levels, modified feats, modified ability scores, treasure actually used as useful equipment, etc.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-28, 04:18 AM
You can't tell a Sorcerer from a Wizard from a Warlock from a peasant with a robe and pointy hat unless you use magic to do so.
This. As an adventurer, you do not know in advance every little detail about every little enemy you face. I never give players exact monster stats for everything: a knowledge check may reveal that a hydra breathes fire, not that he deals 1d10 damage with a DC 18 saving throw.

Shinizak
2010-12-28, 04:34 AM
I had one of those players, they're the type who take comfort in their bubble of knowledge/success. Next time you are in a public situation, politely ask Fred to ascertain the job, marital situation, living conditions, and family connections of random passers by. Explain to him that his knowledge rolls are exactly like this. While you might be able to generalize some things about people, a casual 20 second look at someone will not tell you what a person majored as in college.

tenshiakodo
2010-12-28, 06:05 AM
This brings to mind one of the big issues of RPG's in general. The more information players have about something, the more able they are to handle the situation.

DM's, however, always want to 'surprise' players. Letting a player know details can ruin the surprise, and make encounters easier (since players know what to expect/can use better tactics).

Now I can understand things like "sorry Bob, your Fighter has never faced Trolls, he doesn't know he needs to use fire against them"- although, to be honest, Trolls are a fairly common enemy in a lot of games, so you'd think that sort of thing is handwaveable.

Knowing specific details about rarer monsters, of course, requires specific knowledge. Now here's the rub- the whole point of Knowledge-type skills is to give players who spend the skill points (a resource) to have specific knowledge!

If a character has an ability, and they want to use it, they have a right. Now I'll grant that this player obviously annoys you (and likely, everyone else at the table) when he demands information, but there are clear DC's for knowing information about monsters, and you can adjust these difficulties as DM.

Annoying or not, what he's doing could lead to smart play (dependng on what he does with the knowledge you give him), and thats a good thing.

In this specific example, you created an encounter with a creature that nobody knew anything about, thus a check was the only way for the players to know anything more than "ah, you see a couple of bird-men".

And then, you gave them a character class, and abilities that the average bird-man wouldn't have. You wanted to surprise the players. And that's fine, but ask yourself this- how could the players have foreseen the way the encounter played out, and reacted accordingly?

If this comes off as harsh, I do apologize, but one thing I've seen time and again in RPG's is the players being denied of options. In real life, things happen all the time that you have no control over- but in the game, players like having a chance, however small, of taking their fate in hand.

I think if a player invests in a Knowledge skill, and actively uses it, with a decent enough roll, they should be able to get some useful information. You can justify denying them the information rather easily, but should you?

I mean, let's look at this encounter. If you'd said "roll your check at DC pretty damn high. Ok, you make it- from their stances, you get the idea they have some kind of arcane ranged attack that they plan on using."

I'm going to guess that the players would have charged in, never thinking that you'd use Eldritch Bolts on the environment, but they certainly couldn't blame you for their lack of lateral thinking!

The players only know what you, the DM, allow them to know. You're their eyes into this fantasy world- the more you let them know, the more they can enjoy the world and the game. You can challenge them in just about any way you can think of, there's no reason to give them artificial blind spots.

FelixG
2010-12-28, 06:11 AM
I would say they can make guesses based on what the creatures are wearing, but never give them a knowledge check, or any check, to know what class they are. This is not a JRPG.

You could dress a fighter in scalemail and give him a long sword and do the same to a warrior/warblade/cleric/ect and you would likely never know the difference between the two just by looking at them.

Alternatively they could get a spot check to find things that are iconic of particular classes, spell books, holy symbols, wands, ect to give them some idea of what might be waiting for them.

Though recommendation: Get a tranq gun for fred :smallcool:

AnswersQuestion
2010-12-28, 06:11 AM
The DM was right. Knowledge checks are, mostly, things you'd find in a book. You can tell the general details of a creature, not its life until the point you met. Unless a creature is particularly unique(like a Tarrasque or an arch-fiend), you can't tell individual details of it, and even then it will have a very high DC.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-28, 06:11 AM
the more you let them know, the more they can enjoy the world and the game.

I don't think that's necessarily true. The more tactical data and numbers you reveal to the players, the more they are tempted to have their character do what is mechanically optimal, rather than what is in-character for them. Whetehr this is desirable depends heavily on what kind of game you're playing.

AnswersQuestion
2010-12-28, 06:17 AM
I don't think that's necessarily true. The more tactical data and numbers you reveal to the players, the more they are tempted to have their character do what is mechanically optimal, rather than what is in-character for them. Whetehr this is desirable depends heavily on what kind of game you're playing.

It goes either way...especially because it makes sense that a character wants to deal with hostiles in the most effective manner possible. It's In-character for any personality that isn't deviant enough to enjoy something ineffective, like psychos with their games or heroes obsessed with an aspect of combat.

"I'm not used to not knowing something"
A character with lots of Knowledge skills could be a guy that loses his cool once he's not sure of what is going on.
"The machines just talk to me"
A high int, high knowledge character interpreted as a sensitive type could have spurs of competence in the middle of stressful situations.

Curmudgeon
2010-12-28, 06:20 AM
I prefer higher-level games. Nearly all of my enemies have class levels. So I'm perfectly happy to say "Your Knowledge (local) check has revealed that this is a Wood Elf, its base land speed is 30', it's got low-light vision, and it's immune to sleep and charm spells". The smart players will realize that this is 2-3 pieces of information fewer than what their good roll would yield for the base creature, indicating this "monster" has 10-15 HD of extra capabilities. :smallsmile:

FelixG
2010-12-28, 06:22 AM
In this specific example, you created an encounter with a creature that nobody knew anything about, thus a check was the only way for the players to know anything more than "ah, you see a couple of bird-men".

And then, you gave them a character class, and abilities that the average bird-man wouldn't have. You wanted to surprise the players. And that's fine, but ask yourself this- how could the players have foreseen the way the encounter played out, and reacted accordingly?

The players only know what you, the DM, allow them to know. You're their eyes into this fantasy world- the more you let them know, the more they can enjoy the world and the game. You can challenge them in just about any way you can think of, there's no reason to give them artificial blind spots.

Artificial blind spots? :smallconfused:

Knowledge checks dont exactly cover classes:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/knowledge.htm

And a humanoid having classes should be identified by such a check? Sounds like they have the same blind spot everyone else in the world is, IE not being able to walk up to their enemy and ask them kindly what all they can do before hand without having an axe being lodged in their skull.

If the players want to just rush into a situation thats fine, but theres no reason to tell them that they are standing in some odd position prepared to point their finger and say BANG with an eldritch blast, they could be leaning back against the wall smoking a pipe, notice the intruder and do their thing just as easily.

KillianHawkeye
2010-12-28, 08:44 AM
The thing I love about Warlocks is that they can look suspiciously like Rogues until they do something magical (light armor, simple weapons, no wands or rods required).

Anyway, you really need to stop playing with this guy. If for some reason that is unfeasable, tell him quite firmly that temper tantrums are unacceptable and be prepared to use disciplinary punishments until he gets your point. If continues making a scene in a public gaming store, see if you can get the proprietors to eject him.

One way or another, Fred needs to learn that KNOWLEDGE CHECKS DON'T WORK THAT WAY.

Stegyre
2010-12-28, 12:14 PM
One way or another, Fred needs to learn that KNOWLEDGE CHECKS DON'T WORK THAT WAY.
Fred just needs to start putting points into Knowledge (3.5).

Then, at the start of every encounter, let him make a K(3.5) check, and if it succeeds, you explain another game rule to him, like "A knowledge check will not reveal whether an intelligent creature has PC classes or what those classes are." :smallwink:

obliged_salmon
2010-12-28, 12:36 PM
Okay, first off, if Fred acts the way OP makes him sound, then OP is a humanitarian for letting him play in her game.

I'm going to strongly agree with AnswersQuestion on this issue, however. It's obviously important to Fred that his character knows what the crap is going on, as he's invested in knowledge ranks

On that vein, it seems to me that Fred's character should know what's going on. If breaking the rules in such a small way makes Fred happy, then break the rules.

Hope this helps.

AnswersQuestion
2010-12-28, 12:41 PM
Okay, first off, if Fred acts the way OP makes him sound, then OP is a humanitarian for letting him play in her game.

I'm going to strongly agree with AnswersQuestion on this issue, however. It's obviously important to Fred that his character knows what the crap is going on, as he's invested in knowledge ranks

On that vein, it seems to me that Fred's character should know what's going on. If breaking the rules in such a small way makes Fred happy, then break the rules.

Hope this helps.

You are disagreeing with me o.O
Knowledge skills are broad studies, and they assess general theories and the like. Knowledge to ascertain the nature of a creature will only let you know what is specific to that species...not the specific creature.

obliged_salmon
2010-12-28, 01:10 PM
Hmm, I guess I was hearing you say that knowledge can be interpreted differently, to cover a wide range of situations. I also might have mistaken you as having written tenshiakodo's post further up, so my bad.

Brom
2010-12-28, 03:25 PM
So gaming with Fred again at the local Game Store....

Fred is always obsessed with finding out what creatures he is fighting and finding a weakness. So he makes tons of Knowledge rolls.

I had a character named Brom of Ebb, the party Wizard. He was much like this. +5 Int, human, he maintained ranks in Religion, Nature, Arcana, The Planes, Dungeoneering, Nobility & Royalty, Architecture, Geography, and had cross class ranks in speak languages. So I think I have a decent mindset as to how Fred sees his character.



I've discovered that he is quite happy with just a little information, and to that end I made him little monster information cards. So they game when on with out any bumps.....until

Cards? That's nice of you. My DM just gave me the page number of the creature's monster manual entry or a pre-prepared page similar to that from his DM notes, if the check was high enough (usually was ^^)



So, should a knowledge roll about a race tell you the class of the race? Any race can be any class.


No. Several inhibitors to this.

1) Most DM's I run with say there are degrees of success. If it's DC 25, a roll of 25 identifies the race, where it lives in the world, and it's alignment (they never say the alignment outright for suspension of disbelief purposes). So in games I've played in, you don't even hear common classes and tactics of the race as well as inbuilt advantages without getting a 30 or 35 (5-10 higher than the check DC)

2) Knowledge is the mental compilation and memorization of common knowledge about the topic. If the knowledge isn't known by other scholars, you likely can't tell. A high roll on Ogres would tell you that they are frequently Magi or dumb brutes, but without other indicators, you have no reason to suspect the ogre in front of you has levels in Rogue.

3) KNOWLEDGE IS THE MENTAL COMPILATION AND MEMORIZATION OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE. It is not mind reading, it is not an analysis on the life of an individual creature, it is not a Legend Lore (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/legendLore.htm) or Mind Probe (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/mindProbe.htm). I felt like that point was worth repeating.




Fred screamed and ranted. (insert other irrelevant details here)

Don't take this from your players. Period. I wouldn't tolerate it at my table. I wouldn't tolerate it from a fellow player. I wouldn't tolerate it as a DM. I wouldn't even tolerate it as a spectator who was hosting the event at my house. I wouldn't tolerate it as a guest at someone else's house who was hosting.

Unless someone just physically slapped him or unless people are indignantly ignoring him, he doesn't remotely possess justification for this.

It's immature.

ericgrau
2010-12-28, 04:03 PM
If you have an electronic template or something for your monster cards I'd like to steal borrow them so that if I want to use them in the future I don't have to make them from scratch.

Yeah knowledge rolls don't tell you about class. Simply tell the player that the monster is not an ordinary monster, it has class levels like you. Just like knowing about humans doesn't tell you about wizards, his knowledge doesn't help him here either. That's spellcraft, and only after the monster casts the spell.

+1 you shouldn't tolerate whining screaming players the slightest bit. As with any problem first tell them to stop, then tell them to stop or else, then do the or else. "Or else" equals some kind of penalty which is most often kicking them from the group.

Person_Man
2010-12-28, 04:11 PM
Fred shouldn't be such a jerk. ever. No exuse.

But on the flip side, Knowledge Skills are a huge and mostly useless Skill point sink (Archivist and Knowledge Devotion being the exceptions). So if your player is willing to invest points in it, then I do my best to make it useful.

Specifically, in addition to the normal monster manual info, I have no problem with giving the player additional metagame info as part of a successful Knowledge check if it's based on observations the character could reasonably make. For example, if an enemy has a spell component pouch, a holy symbol, is wearing heavy armor, using specific weapons, has any obvious magic items or items made of special materials, etc. In this case Fred I would have told Fred that he sensed an "unnaturally magic aura" around the Kenku. That gives him a heads up that they're not just standard issue monsters, without revealing their specific abilities in a way he couldn't know.

I would also just have a beer with Fred and discuss what you think a Knowledge check does and does not reveal. It seems like his anger stems from the fact that he feels jerked around. He bought a car without asking enough questions or understanding what he was getting, and now he's pissed that it doesn't have satellight radio. Again, there's no reason for him to be a jerk about it. But it's an easily solvable problem.

tenshiakodo
2010-12-28, 04:32 PM
The odd part is, most groups I've played with have had barely any Knowledge skills available to them. Unless someone was playing a Knowledge Domain Cleric or Wizard (just talking core here, I know there are other classes with a wide array of Knowledge skills), you just didn't see much investment.

And even then, Clerics have such horrible skill points available to them that getting much more than Knowledge-Religion is a challenge.

I remember this conversation I had with a Paladin player.

"Don't you have Knowledge-Nobility? It's on your Class list."

"So is Sense Motive, Ride, Heal, Concentration, and Diplomacy. I only get 3 skill points a level!"

An Intelligence-based character who can put points in all Knowledge class skills- I submit that the Wizard's ability to know stuff is a Class Feature!

And yes, I know that the rules don't allow you to discern character class, but what I'm pointing out is that there is a vast amount of deliberate obfuscation in the game. Many enemies are made less effective if you know what they can do, as an example.

Is adding another layer necessary? Back in 2E, I remember running an adventure, Vale of the Mage. In one encounter, a Fighter used his Armor of Blending to mimic 'Wizard robes' and carried an enchanted quarterstaff.

The party naturally assumed he was a Wizard, went to focus fire him, and found that he was a much tougher melee unit. The party called it, rightly, as a dirty trick.

Dragon Mountain had two such encounters. One, with the bodyguard of the kobold king, who was a Fire Giant polymorphed into a kobold. The second, when the party first faces the Dragon, it's actually a kobold polymorphed into a red dragon, while the real red dragon is polymorphed into a sparrow in the back of the cave, waiting for the party to waste their nova turn.

And I remember a Spelljammer adventure where the DM described a 'man in leather armor, carrying a short sword, standing in the shadows'. We all thought Thief, and were quickly dismayed when the "Thief" used an Ultrablast on our Fighter.

I'm not saying that enemies can't employ such tactics, but the question quickly becomes- is it ok that a player can always be so easily tricked? And what defense do they have?

Going back to the Kenku encounter (and do note, I'm not defending Fred- from what you've said about his attitude, I wouldn't want to play with him either), did having a Wizard with strong Knowledge skills affect the outcome in any way?

It sounds like it didn't, and that quickly begs the question of what, exactly, a player who invests in Knowledge gets for that investment. Players buy the game they want to play- a guy who plays a Conan-style Barbarian with a big sword wants to smash things.

The DM should give him many things to smash.

The player who creates a Rogue with lots of social skills wants to put them to use, using their glibness to talk themselves out of trouble, and maybe dealing with intrigue and politics.

And so on. Any time a player makes a noticeable investment, by spending skill points or Feats, I think the DM should take a minute to talk to the player and tell them what they can expect from that investment in the campaign.

If it's not going to be useful, they can take something else. When you invest in something and it turns out to be less than useful, that's frustrating, and not much fun.

Cadian 9th
2010-12-28, 06:59 PM
I'd have to agree with Person_Man and others above. I, at the moment, and for the past year, have been playing a wizard who is an angel of Ioun (goddess of knowledge, 4th ed hangover) and has a +20 or more bonus in every knowledge skill and Lore, for good measure, combined with being a Diviner. Having invested so much into knowledge (dozens of skill points and feats, even) I feel really cheated when my DM, understandably, can't tell me everything I ought to know because it ruins the story.

Knowledge skills at the moment don't do much for their investment. I'd rather have Tumble, UMD, Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, etc. However, investing all that into knowledge does not grant your the right to be a jerk when it doesn't work out. OP, you are a very tolerant person - but do yourself and the other players a favor and put your foot down.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-28, 07:18 PM
I'm not saying that enemies can't employ such tactics, but the question quickly becomes- is it ok that a player can always be so easily tricked? And what defense do they have?

In my opinion, if the players are so easily tricked then they are (1) metagaming, and (2) reckless. Misdirection is a major part of battle.

And yes, investing in knowledges and/or sense motive should help, but that doesn't mean that they are entitled to know all the enemy's statistics immediately.

Ernir
2010-12-28, 08:03 PM
The problem has nothing to do with the knowledge skills, but that Fred has issues. And sorry, but I think you're enabling him.

You need to talk, and not about knowledge skills. =/

tenshiakodo
2010-12-28, 09:23 PM
In my opinion, if the players are so easily tricked then they are (1) metagaming, and (2) reckless. Misdirection is a major part of battle.

And yes, investing in knowledges and/or sense motive should help, but that doesn't mean that they are entitled to know all the enemy's statistics immediately.

That first point is quite interesting. Is it metagaming to assume that a man dressed like a priest is a priest? Couldn't it be also metagaming NOT to assume that?

Examples!

DM: "You enter the hall and you see before you a double row of skeletal warriors. Towards the back of the hall is an ancient and desecrated altar, and standing before it is a human wearing chainmail, holding a flanged mace of black iron in hand. His cloak and tabard bear the symbol of the Dark One, as does his shield, and he wears a holy symbol of the evil god around his neck."

Reaction 1: "Chainmail, mace, holy symbols, check. Must be a Cleric."

Reaction 2: "That's too obvious, the DM is trying to trick us."

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-12-28, 10:53 PM
That first point is quite interesting. Is it metagaming to assume that a man dressed like a priest is a priest? Couldn't it be also metagaming NOT to assume that?

Examples!

DM: "You enter the hall and you see before you a double row of skeletal warriors. Towards the back of the hall is an ancient and desecrated altar, and standing before it is a human wearing chainmail, holding a flanged mace of black iron in hand. His cloak and tabard bear the symbol of the Dark One, as does his shield, and he wears a holy symbol of the evil god around his neck."

Reaction 1: "Chainmail, mace, holy symbols, check. Must be a Cleric."

Reaction 2: "That's too obvious, the DM is trying to trick us."

Personal, I'd go with:

Reaction 3: "Probably some sort of necromancer controlling the undead! Watch out, he may be a spellcaster."

But, yeah, there are certain things different people will draw from that. I show you a man wearing glasses, a tweed jacket with a bunch of pens and papers, you'll probably think he's some sort of professor or mathematician. That or just really nerdy.

JaronK
2010-12-28, 11:38 PM
Figuring out class is something I do all the time, but wouldn't expect it from a knowledge check. If I see a guy in light armor with simple weapons, I'm probably going to assume Hexblade (Rogues wouldn't be so easy to spot!). If he shoots a magic blast at me, well, he's a Warlock. That's just how you figure these things out.

JaronK

Gamer Girl
2010-12-29, 01:30 AM
This brings to mind one of the big issues of RPG's in general. The more information players have about something, the more able they are to handle the situation.


This sure is a big problem in RPGs. I think it's bigger in scope.

My view:A character interacts and discovers things about the game world by adventuring in the game world. The game world is a living, breathing fictional world to explore.


The information player view:It is just a game. Beep. All 'targets' are classisifed on how to kill them and get loot and win the game. Beep. Fluff things like race names don't matter..everything is just walking HP's to kill. Beep.



In my view...a group of players would slowly discover details about a lost demon temple in the mountains, and the strange bird men with 'eldrich' demon powers.


The information view... As characters stand near the mountains, Beep, roll. "The kenku are warlock demon spawn from a lost temple...and here is all the needed game notes..lets figure out how to 'handle the situation', kill them all and go up a level.



The first is just more fun. Slowly the characters uncover clues and figure things out.

The second is so...game boring...''Blah, blah DM, yea the room has scary statues..we know they are of demons, remember my knowledge roll told me all about this place before we even set foot in here.. No where is the next combat encounter!"

Kurald Galain
2010-12-29, 05:04 AM
That first point is quite interesting. Is it metagaming to assume that a man dressed like a priest is a priest?

No, but it is metagaming to assume that a man dressed like a priest has exactly these abilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm).

(edit) It is reasonable for a character to believe that priests heal, mages throw fireballs, and vampires are allergic to garlic. It is also reasonable for a character to be proven wrong about these, some of the time. It is not reasonable for a player to be upset if his character is proven wrong; it could even be a plot point why this particular wizard that the party is facing doesn't throw fireballs.


The second is so...game boring...''Blah, blah DM, yea the room has scary statues..we know they are of demons, remember my knowledge roll told me all about this place before we even set foot in here.. No where is the next combat encounter!"
This, too. To me, part of the fun of roleplaying is that your character can and will do things that aren't mechanically optimal, simply because they're in character.

Glyde
2010-12-29, 10:59 AM
Telling the class of an opponent, or if someone is trying to trick you, is not a Knowledge check. It's an entirely different skill - Spot, Sense Motive come to mind. Knowledge is about the creature and what's easily researchable, or that you may have read somewhere. It's not observational skills or being able to see that something is wrong - Lest it's "Hey, wizards don't have holy symbols..."

broli
2010-12-29, 11:09 AM
depends on the environment, if you are in a magic school, and everyone is wearing robes and carring books, then a player with int 10 or more can make a guess...

its the job of the dm to pain a complete picture, with important and useless details, and the players job to roleplay his char

i face the problem of dming players that have dm experience and have read many books, so i like to pull their chains with inteligent pnjs they have to fight.

for example, they encountered this goup of fat people in robes, with books in one hand and wands on the other.

they inmediatly jumped a conclusion, made a tactic and attacked, what turned out to be, a group of fighters and rouges in disguise
the strategy failed and they almost died.

now i have a group of paranoid players who dont even try a knowledge roll, they dont trust it even when they roll a 20 :P

obliged_salmon
2010-12-29, 12:38 PM
The first is just more fun. Slowly the characters uncover clues and figure things out.

The second is so...game boring...''Blah, blah DM, yea the room has scary statues..we know they are of demons, remember my knowledge roll told me all about this place before we even set foot in here.. No where is the next combat encounter!"

So what I'm hearing is that you want to play a role playing game, and he (they?) wants to play a tabletop war game. Knowledge checks are a symptom of this problem, not the crux.

Hard to say for sure, as I don't know your situation, but I'll throw out some possibilities for solutions.

-Have a sit down with everyone and talk about your expectations and goals for the game, find a compromise.

-Find a new player/group that wants the same things as you.

-Stop caring about the game you want and give them the game they want and/or turn over the DMing reins (if the whole group feels differently than you). Warhammer is fun, too, in its own way.

Hope this is helpful