Knowledge vs Players

[Daracaex]

I have a moral quandary to bring in front of you guys.

I am a DM for a campaign (party lv 13 right now), and one of my players has an artificer with absurd check bonuses in pretty much any skill, but especially the Int-based skills and even more especially Arcana. Basically, I don't think it's possible for him to fail any given level-appropriate hard arcana check I put in front of him, and he often blows them away easily.

Because of this, I have taken up the habit of giving information in terms of more vague ideas of what things do rather than exact details or game mechanics. The problem with this is that my players feel cheapened when they're taken off-guard by effects they didn't expect because I didn't tell them they were going to happen straight out. I keep trying to hide the truth in other statements, but it's not working out.

So this is basically my problem. How do I keep secrets from characters who can know everything? And how can my players' characters know everything but not know my secrets? If I side with my players, I cannot really surprise them with anything. If I keep information from them, they basically feel like they wasted feats/theme choice/whatever on these skills that I'm cheapening.

[Kane0]

The same problem exists in Divination (in previous editions at least). There are a couple loopholes, but using any single one too much will get annoying and feel cheap.

-Their knowledge (and all common knowledge on the matter) isn't quite true. Look at what Greek Philosophers took as truth, it was very hit and miss
-Game mechanics are meta-knowledge. For example arcana might discern a moderately-powerful evocation (fire) effect that is designed to last, but don't use the words 'Wall of Fire'. If the characters have more intimiate experience with the topic they might know exactly what it is, otherwise they have to guess IC and OOC.
-Allow them to know, and allow them to assume. If they put the effort into knowing then it is an asset you should allow them to utilize. Besides, knowing isnt the same as being prepared, it only makes the exercise easier (like having a scout in the party).
-Certain entities have tight control over the flow of information. No check will beat a secret Vecna wants to keep from you.

[Gavran]

1) If they've put forth a lot of effort into specializing, is it really so bad that they're good at it?

2) Knowledge checks aren't the actor's ability to manifest information, they're a method for characters to use knowledge they acquired that the player might not necessarily have. Therefore, if you present them with situations that are outside the scope of "human" knowledge... you can justify insane DCs. Whether this is a mad wizard who uses magic in strange ways or a literal Outsider kind of thing is up to you.

[DHKase]

If it's just flat out knowledge, I second what Kane0 recommended, and imply that they feel their source may not really know everything that was going on and give them a hint as to what there gut tells them might happen based on their prior experience.

Also, there are some times where it might just be flat out impossible for the PC to have prior knowledge of something because no information on that topic exists. New phenomena are out their to be discovered, and while prior knowledge of similar things can give them insight, it won't provide them with the DM's notes as to what is really happening.

To summarize, the results of a knowledge check are strictly in the domain of the DM. After all, this is a free to use skill that costs them nothing, so they get what they pay for. If they want more thorough knowledge, then they can use a ritual such as Consult the Mystic Sages or Consult Oracle.

[RochtheCrusher]

Whenever possible, I'd address this sort of thing in character. If anyone's specifically gunning for this party and knows the Artificer, they will do their best to hide clues... much like a Moriarty would to Sherlock.

For example, they find this chest. Probably trapped, probably magically so. However, it's lined, inside and out, with cold iron. When your Artificer succeeds on an Arcana check, you just tell him, "You cannot detect an aura through this much cold iron, but that is enough to shield a lot of powerful magic... more, if the magic is Fey in origin. The awful things which could be in there include: a delayed fireball trap, an acid spout, summoning traps of up to moderate power, an angry Djinn, conventional clockwork traps, no trap at all, an Orb of Annihilation, some sort of flash-bang effect..."

And just keep listing until he gets bored. Have what's really there (or something close) be in there somewhere, and have most of the options be close to each other in terms of power level, but it is fair to say, "This guy is up to something, but he knows you'd recognize it and has stopped you from seeing it."

As long as you let regular bandits get found out by knowledge checks ridiculously easily, a cautious enemy or two won't feel cheap.

[Tragak]

IMHO: if you have already come up with information, don't roll. Give the players perfect information, and let them decide whether their characters get the same information imperfectly (if they feel like using dice to decide, then goody for them) and what they do with it. Only roll checks if the players come up with something to do.

Lets say the Knowledge check revolves around a certain monster and whether or not it can reach the PCs from across a body of water:

Traditionally, the DM decides what would or wouldn't work for the PCs, then uses dice to decide whether or not to tell the players to do it.

If the players decide what their characters do, on the other hand, then the player is allowed to declare, "I go in the water where the monster won't get me," and then follow up with a Knowledge check. A successful check makes it so that the PC was right and is safe, while a failure makes it so that the PC was wrong and is in danger.

The DM doesn't need to know ahead of time what the monsters are going to be like: the dice say whether the character knows or not.

Don't make challenges that revolve around reading the DM's mind, make challenges that revolve around the PCs doing things.

[windgate]

Keep in mind the resources the player is investing to achieve these benchmarks. They might be sacrificing combat abilities for the sake of skill checks.

There is an epic destiny called "sage of ages" that grants an untyped +6 to all knowledge checks. The destiny is thematically linked to the character wanting to know everything.

I wouldn't discourage or raise the bar to overcome the player. Instead talk to the player about those traits being a core component of the characters role-played personality (why is he learning all these things and when is he finding the time to do it)


Honestly, It can get much "worse". I have a bard build that will auto-pass (doesn't need to roll) any Hard DC Int or Cha based skill. His worst skills still auto-pass at least the easy DC's (and can reroll skill checks multiple times a day)

Keep in mind, in order to do so, I am sacrificing:
1) Class: Bard
2) Feats(4): Bardic Knowledge, Bard of All Trades, Legend Lore, MC Rogue
3) Paragon Path: Jack of all Trades
4) Epic Destiny: Sage of Ages
5) Theme: Sensate
6) Numerous magic items

If knowledge checks are so important for the character. Make the search for that rare information a frequent quest hook.

Edit: You can also have a personal talk with the player, and ask him to occasionally choose not to roll on certain things for the sake of suspense and storytelling.

[Epinephrine]

You could remind people that there are only a few seconds per round, so they can't give out that much info? When you've got time, it's fine, but in combat you just shout the most important stuff. "They explode when killed!"

Also, some checks may take a while - in my campaign there are a series of checks coming up that take an hour each with a library. Having knowledge means knowing how to find the info, it doesn't make it fast.

[Tragak]

You could remind people that there are only a few seconds per round, so they can't give out that much info? When you've got time, it's fine, but in combat you just shout the most important stuff. "They explode when killed!"

Also, some checks may take a while - in my campaign there are a series of checks coming up that take an hour each with a library. Having knowledge means knowing how to find the info, it doesn't make it fast. Why does 1 second for the characters have to correlate to 1 second for the players?

[Gavran]

Why does 1 second for the characters have to correlate to 1 second for the players?

Why would you assume the PCs have supernatural talking speed? Or thought speed? The PCs training/knowledge is represented by the player taking as long as they need to decide what to say/do, but there's still a limit on how fast the PCs can do it.

[EugeneVoid]

Just let him know everything.
But make sure it's cryptic.

[MunkeeGamer]

Whenever possible, I'd address this sort of thing in character. If anyone's specifically gunning for this party and knows the Artificer, they will do their best to hide clues... much like a Moriarty would to Sherlock.

For example, they find this chest. Probably trapped, probably magically so. However, it's lined, inside and out, with cold iron. When your Artificer succeeds on an Arcana check, you just tell him, "You cannot detect an aura through this much cold iron, but that is enough to shield a lot of powerful magic... more, if the magic is Fey in origin. The awful things which could be in there include: a delayed fireball trap, an acid spout, summoning traps of up to moderate power, an angry Djinn, conventional clockwork traps, no trap at all, an Orb of Annihilation, some sort of flash-bang effect..."

And just keep listing until he gets bored. Have what's really there (or something close) be in there somewhere, and have most of the options be close to each other in terms of power level, but it is fair to say, "This guy is up to something, but he knows you'd recognize it and has stopped you from seeing it."

As long as you let regular bandits get found out by knowledge checks ridiculously easily, a cautious enemy or two won't feel cheap.

Reposted because this is the correct answer. IF he has time to think, you give answers like this.

If it's combat related, he really only has 6 seconds to do everything. Analyzing, remembering, formulating, and then communicating clearly to several people at varying distances who are preoccupied with their own issues is no easy task easy. Unless he can slow time or he can think like a super computer of course.

[Scow2]

He's an INT-based character. Supercomputers compare to his computing/thinking ability about as well as Boxes of Rockses compare to your computing/thinking ability.

[Lord Haart]

Let him have what he's trying to have hard enought that the system hands it to him. There's nothing bad about that, and it is quite possible to tell him everything about things he rolls knowledge on and still keep the story interesting and not always predictable. After all, there is no Knowledge: what the guy will do; the closest is Knowledge: Tac- erm, History, which tells you what is, going by history of similar situations, the optimal cource of actions in a given situation — and there is no guarantee that the guy is acting rationally or that he has a good enough Knowledge: History himself to make an optimal decision. Stupidity killed far more people than malice ever did.


The Doctor doesn't look like he had ever failed a Knowledge check. Doesn't seem to let him solve all his (or people's) problems.

[Epinephrine]

He's an INT-based character. Supercomputers compare to his computing/thinking ability about as well as Boxes of Rockses compare to your computing/thinking ability.

He still only has 6 seconds to communicate in. Give him an hour to figure out what to say, if you want, but no matter how smart you are, there`s only so much info you can pack into 6 seconds. I allow as much time as they want to talk if it`s a monologue or other role playing speech, but if they are trying to communicate a ton of tactical information, they have to prioritise.

[Yakk]

I would go with "the player knows ridiculous things about Arcana". That means very little Fey, Shadow or Elemental (Primordeal) magical will be a mystery to them.

Some Far Realm magics will be a mystery (Dungeoneering)
Some Primal magics will be a mystery (Nature)
Some Divine magics will be a mystery (Religion)

unless they juke these as well.

Finally, hiding your nature (via Bluff or Stealth) is a perfectly valid way to avoid Knowledge checks: such checks will be opposed by the artificers passive insight or perception unless the artificer makes an active (minor action) check to see if the opponent is faking the artificer out. Once the fakery is obvious (the creature uses a power that they should not have) the artificer can go "aha!"