dm vs player knowledge question

[questionmark693]

When you're the DM and a baddie casts a spell on a character who fails their save, do you tell them what spell they've fallen under the effect of, or do you just tell them what effects now are on them? Like, if you use "fear", do you say so, or do you just tell them they get suddenly panicked and have to find a way to escape? (or shaken, as the case may be) Just looking for opinions, as I'm still a relatively new DM and trying to find what works best.

[eggynack]

Have them make a spellcraft roll, and if they pass, give them the name of the spell (along with its doings if they don't know it), and if they fail, just tell them the basic outcome.

[Aegis013]

My table is pretty excellent at keeping player knowledge and character knowledge separated. I generally tell the player what the spell is, unless I have some reason not to (hiding the power of the enemy, or whatnot).

So if the enemy casts Unluck and the player fails his save during a battle, I will say "You're under the effects of the Unluck spell." It saves me time and effort to let them deal with the mechanical issues of that spell (roll 2d20 and take the worse on attacks, skills, etc).

Then again, a simple spellcraft check as a non-action to identify the spell being cast often makes the point moot.

[evilserran]

My table is the opposite of ^. My guys SUCK at table knowledge lol. I have to keep them guessing. At times i have them roll saves for nothing and jot down notes. I made a grocery list once.... Rogue thought for sure she had the plague... I generally keep track on my side when bad things are going on, and if it affects the player directly i just tell them what to do, i.e. reroll, attackan ally etc. Generally i do it via notecards though, so the rest of the table doesnt know.

[Nibbens]

My table is the opposite of ^. My guys SUCK at table knowledge lol. I have to keep them guessing. At times i have them roll saves for nothing and jot down notes. I made a grocery list once.... Rogue thought for sure she had the plague... I generally keep track on my side when bad things are going on, and if it affects the player directly i just tell them what to do, i.e. reroll, attackan ally etc. Generally i do it via notecards though, so the rest of the table doesnt know.

That's deliciously evil of you! haha.

OP, I often do a mixture of both. I hit another player with a fear spell, I'll pull him out the room and I tell him on his next turn he runs out the room screaming. The other players see the outcome on his next turn. However, after they've seen a 'fear' situation once, doing it again is pretty pointless. They all know what it is when they see it and it wastes valuable table time (as is a commodity with my guys) if I whisk another player into another room. After the table settles down from the first effect, let them roll spell-craft and tell them exactly what it is. Remember, presentation of material is just as important as how you play the game.

[Piggy Knowles]

Have them make a spellcraft roll, and if they pass, give them the name of the spell (along with its doings if they don't know it), and if they fail, just tell them the basic outcome.

This is basically what I do.

[BWR]

It depends on the situation. If your players are experienced and generally know what's what in the game, it's often just expedient to tell them the name of the effect and rely on their ability to avoid metagaming to help share the burden of bookkeeping - they've probably guessed which spell it is in any case. If it's an effect they aren't familiar with I play things close to the chest and let them sweat.

Most magical effects will be described by Knowledge (arcana) or Spellcraft, in which case they are allowed a roll to identify and know about it. If the PCs make the roll, tell them what it is "e.g. BBEG cast Dominate Person" or "BBEG casts Ray of Enfeeblement" . If the PC fails the roll I just tell the immediate effects - "BBEG orders Bob to attack you, and to your surprise and horror, Bob turns on you guys" or "BBEG shoots a black ray at you and you're suddenly weak as a new-born kitten".

In the case of OP I'd say you would be confusing the issue if you mix the terms 'panicked' and 'shaken'. They refer to specific mechanical effects. In the case of panicked you have basically removed all control of the character and they think of nothing but escaping at all costs. For shaken I'd say something like "you feel terror grip your spine and your bladder loosen. You shake like a leaf and want to run away or hide in a hole in the ground. Do you try to force yourself to contine or just give in to your instincts?"
If the player decides to tough it out I'd say "fine, but you're shaken".

[Raezeman]

As a DM, my players are fairly new, they don't really know most of the effects being used, so (on a failed spellcraft check) i tell them what the character experiences and the effect it has (minus here and minus there). I won't tell them the name of the spell (unless it comes from a friendly NPC and they ask him) or if there were anything hidden happening.

[jedipotter]

I never tell the game effect, just the effect. And I make Spellcraft next to useless for this in my game.

It's like:

DM: An strange effect hits your character and fills him panic. You drop your sword and must move away from the lich. Your character gains the panicked condition
Player Gosh wounder what spell that was, [Roll Spellcraft] Made it.
DM: It was a spell that causes fear and panic in targets.
Player: The official D&D game spell Fear? Or another spell?
DM: You have no idea.


Telling game effects just breaks the immersion too much. To say ''the lich casts the spell Fear on you'' is boring and mechanical. Saying ''some unknown fear producing effect'' has a much greater role play impact.

[Gavinfoxx]

Do realize that, based on other threads, jedipotter simply hates using skills in his game, doesn't actually want players to role play their characters as they are on the sheet, makes huge categories of skills useless, and encourages metagaming...

[Amphetryon]

I never tell the game effect, just the effect. And I make Spellcraft next to useless for this in my game.

It's like:

DM: An strange effect hits your character and fills him panic. You drop your sword and must move away from the lich. Your character gains the panicked condition
Player Gosh wounder what spell that was, [Roll Spellcraft] Made it.
DM: It was a spell that causes fear and panic in targets.
Player: The official D&D game spell Fear? Or another spell?
DM: You have no idea.


Telling game effects just breaks the immersion too much. To say ''the lich casts the spell Fear on you'' is boring and mechanical. Saying ''some unknown fear producing effect'' has a much greater role play impact.

Filling him [with] panic is telling the in-game effect; it's just not telling him the name of the cause. Making Spellcraft (or any other Character Skill) "next to useless" for a function for which it's expressly designed should definitely be addressed before the Player starts contemplating how to represent the concept in his head with the mechanics of the game.

[Chernobyl]

This is basically what I do.

According to the rules, you're supposed to use Knowledge (Arcana) to "Identify a spell that just targeted you" (DC=25+spell level), and Spellcraft to "Identify a spell as it is being cast" (DC=15+spell level).

So I suppose that if the player has the presence of mind to ask for a spellcraft check during the caster's turn, he gets to take advantage of the lower DC. If he can't see the caster, or waits until the spell hits him, he has to rely on the higher DC to identify it.

[Nibbens]

I never tell the game effect, just the effect. And I make Spellcraft next to useless for this in my game.

It's like:

DM: An strange effect hits your character and fills him panic. You drop your sword and must move away from the lich. Your character gains the panicked condition
Player Gosh wounder what spell that was, [Roll Spellcraft] Made it.
DM: It was a spell that causes fear and panic in targets.
Player: The official D&D game spell Fear? Or another spell?
DM: You have no idea.


Telling game effects just breaks the immersion too much. To say ''the lich casts the spell Fear on you'' is boring and mechanical. Saying ''some unknown fear producing effect'' has a much greater role play impact.

Sure, it breaks immersion, but if the player successfully makes the roll shouldn't he be rewarded with the knowledge of how to break it (should it apply)? For example Feast of Ashes (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/spells/feastOfAshes.html#_feast-of-ashes) can be broken by break enchantment et al - shouldn't the players also be privy to that information as well, even though receiving a wall of text about which spells breaks it could be breaking the immersion?

[Kazudo]

That's pretty much what I do. Spellcraft to discern the spell's name and secondary effects. Now, IIRC, the DC to obtain knowledge of what a spell is after it's been cast on you is tough (25+spell level looking at the SRD), if you watch the spell being cast and throw spellcraft beforehand it's easier (15+spell level), and if it's a spell that leaves lasting obvious effects but you weren't affected, spellcraft is, I think, a bit easier than after save but a bit tougher than before save (20+spell level or something)

So very few people are going to be able to make the skill check barring characters with ranks in spellcraft and a half decent Int score reliably unless they're built for that sort of thing.

I do give hints though. "You feel stricken by fear" versus "You feel panicked and scared" depending on the spell being used. As an out-of-character hint for the actual players.

[heavyfuel]

I never tell the game effect, just the effect. And I make Spellcraft next to useless for this in my game.

It's like:

DM: An strange effect hits your character and fills him panic. You drop your sword and must move away from the lich. Your character gains the panicked condition
Player Gosh wounder what spell that was, [Roll Spellcraft] Made it.
DM: It was a spell that causes fear and panic in targets.
Player: The official D&D game spell Fear? Or another spell?
DM: You have no idea.


Telling game effects just breaks the immersion too much. To say ''the lich casts the spell Fear on you'' is boring and mechanical. Saying ''some unknown fear producing effect'' has a much greater role play impact.

I think this is a bad move. As immersion breaking as it may be, knowing the name of the spell is part of what Spellcraft check is.

If you just say that the spell "Gives the enemy great agility" that can mean Haste, Expeditious Retreat, Cat's Grace, Snake's Swiftness, Celerity or a number of other things. If it's Haste, than the player should be able to counter it with Slow and so on. A Summon Nature's Ally III can be confused for a SNA II if you got an unlucky 1d3.

[the_other_gm]

Do note that Jedipotter firmly believes that your knowledge and character knowledge should not be separate (thus why knowledge and spellcraft-like checks are useless in his games: if you don't know it, neither does your PC), that roleplaying a concept is fine but if you dare to put resources towards that concept you are a dirty, cheating optimizer and that the DM is so absolute and infallible that compromise is unneeded and unwanted.

Take what he says with a very large grain of salt.

[Alex12]

I think this is a bad move. As immersion breaking as it may be, knowing the name of the spell is part of what Spellcraft check is.

If you just say that the spell "Gives the enemy great agility" that can mean Haste, Expeditious Retreat, Cat's Grace, Snake's Swiftness, Celerity or a number of other things. If it's Haste, than the player should be able to counter it with Slow and so on. A Summon Nature's Ally III can be confused for a SNA II if you got an unlucky 1d3.

Note that this is the same guy who, by (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17687561&postcount=60) his own (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17687594&postcount=61) admission (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17689978&postcount=68), on a successful Knowledge check, doesn't tell his players anything until after the session (also known as "after the information is no longer useful") and thinks that a player having memorized the Monster Manual and instantly identifying every monster thrown at them despite the character having an Int of 6 and no Knowledge skills is good roleplaying.
He also thinks Bags of Holding are cheating.
jedipotter's advice on how to handle D&D is of at best questionable utility (unless you are, perhaps, using it as a guide on what not to do)

[jedipotter]

Filling him [with] panic is telling the in-game effect; it's just not telling him the name of the cause. Making Spellcraft (or any other Character Skill) "next to useless" for a function for which it's expressly designed should definitely be addressed before the Player starts contemplating how to represent the concept in his head with the mechanics of the game.

Well, to play the game, players need to know the game effect. So you'd tell the player that their character has gained the panicked condition. They just don't know the source.


Sure, it breaks immersion, but if the player successfully makes the roll shouldn't he be rewarded with the knowledge of how to break it (should it apply)? For example Feast of Ashes (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/spells/feastOfAshes.html#_feast-of-ashes) can be broken by break enchantment et al - shouldn't the players also be privy to that information as well, even though receiving a wall of text about which spells breaks it could be breaking the immersion?

No. What you call an award, I call too much free information. The idea that if a character makes a save they ''remember'' that class in school where they learned the exact details of every single spell in the Multiverse is just silly.


I think this is a bad move. As immersion breaking as it may be, knowing the name of the spell is part of what Spellcraft check is.

If you just say that the spell "Gives the enemy great agility" that can mean Haste, Expeditious Retreat, Cat's Grace, Snake's Swiftness, Celerity or a number of other things. If it's Haste, than the player should be able to counter it with Slow and so on. A Summon Nature's Ally III can be confused for a SNA II if you got an unlucky 1d3.

Your example is exactly one of the reasons why I do it. So players can't just automatically counter everything in one move.

[Alex12]

No. What you call an award, I call too much free information. The idea that if a character makes a save they ''remember'' that class in school where they learned the exact details of every single spell in the Multiverse is just silly.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that you're just a dimwit.
It's not free information any more than spending gold to buy a magic item is getting that magic item for free. They spent resources (skill points) on knowledge skills, and those skills later paid off. I'll agree that "that class in school where they learned the exact details of every single spell in the Multiverse" is a dumb idea, sure. But they didn't learn "the exact details of every single spell in the Multiverse" any more than you learned the exact solution to every equation in the multiverse in math class, or the exact spelling of every word in the English language in English class. Knowledge skills are to represent things your character knows. If you fail the check, you didn't learn that particular thing.


Your example is exactly one of the reasons why I do it. So players can't just automatically counter everything in one move.

Let's just say that I am (against my better judgement) a player at your table, and I'm playing a sorcerer. Among my spells are both Haste and Cat's Grace. I cast a spell on myself and say "My spell grants me great agility." You complain, and I tell you that it's so my enemy can't just automatically counter everything in one move.
There is no difference at all between the two situations.

[Flickerdart]

Well, to play the game, players need to know the game effect. So you'd tell the player that their character has gained the panicked condition. They just don't know the source.



No. What you call an award, I call too much free information. The idea that if a character makes a save they ''remember'' that class in school where they learned the exact details of every single spell in the Multiverse is just silly.



Your example is exactly one of the reasons why I do it. So players can't just automatically counter everything in one move.
I hope your players know you've made Spellcraft not do anything. I would hate to think that you were cheating by changing the rules and not telling them.

[jedipotter]

Let's just say that I am (against my better judgement) a player at your table, and I'm playing a sorcerer. Among my spells are both Haste and Cat's Grace. I cast a spell on myself and say "My spell grants me great agility." You complain, and I tell you that it's so my enemy can't just automatically counter everything in one move.There is no difference at all between the two situations.

Um, what? If you were a player at my table, I'd encourage you to have the full write up of all your spells with you when your gaming. And when you, the player, have your character cast a spell, you know exactly what the spell is and what it does. And as DM, you would tell me the spell. The player can't hide things from the DM. My rule here is simple: if you attempt to hide something, it just does not exist.

The situation is very, very different. A player has an active character in the game and have a vested partial interest in the character. The player just plays in the game. The DM has no character in the game and is completely impartial. The DM runs and controls the game.

[awa]

In the grand scheme of things i typically don't agree with jedipotter and would not personally make the same ruling in regards to the skill in question. But hes right the player not telling the dm something is very different from the dm not telling the player something.

[Flickerdart]

Um, what? If you were a player at my table, I'd encourage you to have the full write up of all your spells with you when your gaming. And when you, the player, have your character cast a spell, you know exactly what the spell is and what it does. And as DM, you would tell me the spell. The player can't hide things from the DM. My rule here is simple: if you attempt to hide something, it just does not exist.

The situation is very, very different. A player has an active character in the game and have a vested partial interest in the character. The player just plays in the game. The DM has no character in the game and is completely impartial. The DM runs and controls the game.
Sounds like cheating DM metagaming to me.

[Alex12]

Um, what? If you were a player at my table, I'd encourage you to have the full write up of all your spells with you when your gaming. And when you, the player, have your character cast a spell, you know exactly what the spell is and what it does. And as DM, you would tell me the spell. The player can't hide things from the DM. My rule here is simple: if you attempt to hide something, it just does not exist.

The situation is very, very different. A player has an active character in the game and have a vested partial interest in the character. The player just plays in the game. The DM has no character in the game and is completely impartial. The DM runs and controls the game.
Ordinarily, I would agree with you. "Ordinarily" in this instance referring to a situation where I am capable of actually recognizing what a spell is and what it does. I'm not insisting on an automatic success, but if I've got 10 ranks in Spellcraft, 5 in K(arcana) for the synergy bonus, Skill Focus (Spellcraft) and am a specialist wizard of that school watching you cast it, then per the actual rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm) I don't even have to roll to identify a spell of third level or lower, since I've got an automatic +17 even before rolling.

Also, you have demonstrated, repeatedly, that you are not completely impartial.

[mythmonster2]

No. What you call an award, I call too much free information. The idea that if a character makes a save they ''remember'' that class in school where they learned the exact details of every single spell in the Multiverse is just silly.
.

Gosh, yeah, how dare spellcasters expect to know spells. What do they think they are, spellcasters?

[the_other_gm]

someone who is impartial would have no reason to withhold the information though.

you expect the player to be invested in the game but you've repeated stated that any sort of mechanical investment on their part will be stonewalled or rejected outright. you keep telling him that he has little way of interacting with game elements in a fashion the game expects. how, exactly, is the player supposed to be even partially invested in the game in such a scenario?

for someone to be invested in the game, they need to have agency. they need to feel like they have some modicum of control, something you seem to be very hesitant to give out.

to me it seems like you're expecting the player to be invested in the story, not the game, but there is only so much one can say before they're asked to back it up.

you can call yourself the greatest archer in the world but if you're unable to hit targets, the story immersion breaks apart. if you call yourself a great rider and you fall off your mount half the time, I'd question the validity of the rumor.

there is a certain point where the story needs some sort of mechanics to back them up. things like a character being angry and brooding don't really require mechanics as that's simply characterization, but almost anytime the character attempts to meaningfully interact with the world you can probably expect mechanics to come into play and constantly stonewalling those mechanical interactions is a great way to frustrate someone trying to get invested in the story.

[Alex12]

Gosh, yeah, how dare spellcasters expect to know spells. What do they think they are, spellcasters?

You're spelling things correctly! You must have gone to some class where you learned how to spell every word in the English language! That's just silly, you filthy cheater!

[Piggy Knowles]

If your concern is breaking immersion, why have them roll for spellcraft at all? To me, that breaks immersion more than giving them the information. Why not have them ask to identify the spell, then take a look at their character background and tell them, "When you trained with the wizard Fenmaer, you once heard him mention the workings of a powerful spell that causes fear and panic in its targets," or else tell them, "Your schooling never taught you such terrible spells as these." I mean, rolling the dice in this case and randomly determining whether they know something or not is silly and totally breaks immersion and verisimilitude.

Besides, are you going to let some dice tell you what your players know and don't know? I mean, that's your job, not the job of some stupid d20 roll, right?

[jedipotter]

Also, you have demonstrated, repeatedly, that you are not completely impartial.

So wait are you saying that I'm not impartial in all things in life, for example posting online.....so that somehoe equals that I'm not an impartial DM during the game?


Gosh, yeah, how dare spellcasters expect to know spells. What do they think they are, spellcasters?

It's the idea that they know all the spells that bothers me.



you expect the player to be invested in the game but you've repeated stated that any sort of mechanical investment on their part will be stonewalled or rejected outright. you keep telling him that he has little way of interacting with game elements in a fashion the game expects. how, exactly, is the player supposed to be even partially invested in the game in such a scenario?

I said that? Maybe i can use this for proof that things I never said are somehow thought to be said by me.... I'm not even sure what you mean. Are you saying that I said something like play D&D with no mechanics?



for someone to be invested in the game, they need to have agency. they need to feel like they have some modicum of control, something you seem to be very hesitant to give out.

to me it seems like you're expecting the player to be invested in the story, not the game, but there is only so much one can say before they're asked to back it up.

A player has control over their character. And why would I not want the player invested in the game? We are all playing the game, it's not just free form.



there is a certain point where the story needs some sort of mechanics to back them up. things like a character being angry and brooding don't really require mechanics as that's simply characterization, but almost anytime the character attempts to meaningfully interact with the world you can probably expect mechanics to come into play and constantly stonewalling those mechanical interactions is a great way to frustrate someone trying to get invested in the story.

I'm not sure what you mean by stonewalling.


You're spelling things correctly! You must have gone to some class where you learned how to spell every word in the English language! That's just silly, you filthy cheater!

That is not a bad example. So after a dozen years of schooling, can anyone spell every single word in the English language? That is a lot of words. That is at least a quarter of a million words.

[mythmonster2]

It's the idea that they know all the spells that bothers me.

That being the reason why there's a roll: to see if they know that specific spell. It doesn't mean they know every spell, it just means they know that specific one. Because their character is knowledgeable about magic, or at least is supposed to be.

[eggynack]

That is not a bad example. So after a dozen years of schooling, can anyone spell every single word in the English language? That is a lot of words. That is at least a quarter of a million words.
First of all, after a dozen years of schooling, a highly intelligent person would still only maybe have the mental fortitude of a 5th level wizard. Wizards can obviously get somewhat higher up than that, so even if it were somehow crazy to assume such spelling capacity, it's not necessarily relevant. Second, this person with a dozen years of schooling is presumably spending a great deal of that time practicing spelling. After all, the wizard did invest full skill ranks in spellcraft, and has used up much of his life in pursuit of learning all of the spells. After that, you might find someone with a level in spelling that, while not necessarily up to that level, would be around there. Third, and this is an easy one, there aren't nearly as many spells as there are words to spell. So, yeah, that makes things a lot easier.

[heavyfuel]

That being the reason why there's a roll: to see if they know that specific spell. It doesn't mean they know every spell, it just means they know that specific one. Because their character is knowledgeable about magic, or at least is supposed to be.

Yup. While I can agree that the roll is too easy at higher levels, it exists for a reason. That a spell causes fear right after someone has failed their saving throw isn't Spellcraft, it's simple observation.

I once ran a game with little Psionic/Magic transparency, and when they tried a Spellcraft check instead of a Psycraft check, that kinda of description is what they get, because they can clearly see the effects, while not knowing them perfectly.

There's zero reason anyone at your table should invest skill points in Spellcraft. They are better spent elsewhere. If you dislike them identifying your spells all the time, crank up the DC from 15+lv to 15+lv*2 (like PF did with concentration).

I hope you at least told your players what they were in for from the get go, cuz otherwise what you're doing is just plain unfair

[heavyfuel]

First of all, after a dozen years of schooling, a highly intelligent person would still only maybe have the mental fortitude of a 5th level wizard. Wizards can obviously get somewhat higher up than that, so even if it were somehow crazy to assume such spelling capacity, it's not necessarily relevant.

Using the rule of thumb that 1 int = 10 IQ, yup, a 4th level wizard has at least 17 Int (probably 21, but still) so that's 170 IQ right there. Wikipedia says that above 140 you're "near genius or genius", so... Not your average person.


Second, this person with a dozen years of schooling is presumably spending a great deal of that time practicing spelling. After all, the wizard did invest full skill ranks in spellcraft, and has used up much of his life in pursuit of learning all of the spells. After that, you might find someone with a level in spelling that, while not necessarily up to that level, would be around there.

Most people can't do that because of basic education in the matter. But spelling bee champions are pretty darn close, and their aren't IQs isn't 30 above "near genius"


Third, and this is an easy one, there aren't nearly as many spells as there are words to spell. So, yeah, that makes things a lot easier.

I think there are 5k spells, give or take, in D&D. Oxford dictionaries say that there are "71,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words".

Sorry, but your comparison is not even in the same ballpark

[the_other_gm]

I said that? Maybe i can use this for proof that things I never said are somehow thought to be said by me.... I'm not even sure what you mean. Are you saying that I said something like play D&D with no mechanics?


to quote you in this thread

I never tell the game effect, just the effect. And I make Spellcraft next to useless for this in my game.

It's like:

DM: An strange effect hits your character and fills him panic. You drop your sword and must move away from the lich. Your character gains the panicked condition
Player Gosh wounder what spell that was, [Roll Spellcraft] Made it.
DM: It was a spell that causes fear and panic in targets.
Player: The official D&D game spell Fear? Or another spell?
DM: You have no idea.

the player made a mechanical investment (spellcraft (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm)) fully expecting it to work as the game says.

I'll even bring out the 2 relevant DCs :

15 + spell level : Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.

20 + spell level : Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.

In this case the player has succeeded in the roll needed to identify the spell either as it's being cast or already in place and in effect. thus he can identify the spell.

The player has made a very conscious effort to be mechanically invested in what is going on in the game and you shot him down by refusing to communicate what is asked. IE: stonewalling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewalling).

You have also stated this when it comes to knowledge checks to find information on monsters in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?358592-Disallowing-people-to-identify-specific-creatures-with-Knowledge-rolls/page2)


What opposites? The characters and the players know the same things......whatever the player knows. If they encounter a monster, they both know whatever the player can recall about the monster. There is no roll for free information. No roll play.

But the player can role-play their character and ask an NPC a question. That is role-playing.

Again, the player made a mechanical investment to flesh out his character (in this case a knowledge skill) but you refuse to even let him attempt to see if his character has come by any information on a given monster, forcing him to rely on out of character knowledge or asking an NPC for help.

again, you refuse to communicate to the player information that the game expects you to

In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/knowledge.htm)

as for


A player has control over their character. And why would I not want the player invested in the game? We are all playing the game, it's not just free form.

the player is in "control", but it seems like a very superficial control. what agency does the player have to try something interesting?

you're right, it's not just freeform, yet you seem to have some sort of blind hatred for characters that are competent.


And what is ''competent''? And what is it mean in the game. Doing something at about average? Above average? Super human? God-like? Almost never failing? Dictonary.com says: ''having the necessary ability, knowledge, or skill to do something successfully.'' Note that does not mean ''almost never failing unless a one is rolled''. A fighter with a BaB of +1 is a competent combatant. But that won't go for an optimizer, as they twist competent to ''never fails at a task''.

you quote a number in a void as an example of competence, but a total attack value of +1 means you'll probably fail in context at attacking most enemies who put up even a token amount of defense. You quote a dictionary but again, it's a word in a void and without context.

when people talk about competency at a task, it's often in the context of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competence_(human_resources)).

A fighter with a total +1 to hit is NOT competent at being an offensive character no matter how you try to spin it. you're not really posing a threat to anyone by missing as often as you do, especially against an enemy who tries to defend himself. A competent melee combatant is one that strives to get that + to hit as high as possible since that's how he'll help the group. I'm not saying you absolutely need to have a 100%sure hit, but you need to be very consistent in your hits as it will also back up claims of being good at actually fighting as whenever asked to showcase your skill, you can actually go through with it.

you say you're playing a game, but to me you're only letting the players play what you want them do. they don't seem to have any agency to make their characters competent without being labeled cheaters, they're not able to see if the character (that lives and grew up in the game world) knows things the player doesn't.

so if I can't play a competent character (IE one who's not able to fulfill the tasks he's supposed to within context of the gameing experience) and I'm expected to have memorized information my character has no right having access to (because otherwise my character won't know anything because as you yourself said (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?358592-Disallowing-people-to-identify-specific-creatures-with-Knowledge-rolls/page4): I like characters to be cabbageheads , that is they ''know less then they should.'' And then the players must play the game to figure things out)

so how are we to take it, that you want characters that are barely capable of fulfilling their position in the party while having barely any knowledge of the world around them and you expect the players to be invested in these characters and the world around them when you give them little to no information when they invest resources into having access to information?

[Flickerdart]

so how are we to take it, that you want characters that are barely capable of fulfilling their position in the party while having barely any knowledge of the world around them and you expect the players to be invested in these characters and the world around them when you give them little to no information when they invest resources into having access to information?
He expects his players to do as they're told, and if he orders them to be invested in the game, they damn well better fall in line.

[Kazudo]

Hey everyone, let's avoid turning this thread into another "Playground vs. Jedipotter" flamewar thread. Seriously. It's getting pretty old from all sides and I'd just like to have a constructive conversation on here without feeling like I'm having to shout over gunfire in the trenches, mmkay?

Meanwhile, back to the topic at hand

I have played before with a notable exception, however, that I've considered using.

If you have the spell in your spell list you don't need to make a check to know the name of the spell (by which you can infer what it does usually) but it's made clear that it's metagame information. You also don't get to know what kinds of metamagic are on the spell or anything and can't transfer that information to in-character knowledge unless your character makes a spellcraft check.

HOWEVER. If you have the spell PREPARED and ready to use (which happens more often than you'd think when a lot of people in the group have levels in some caster or other) then your character knows the name of the spell and it's just a DC 10 raw INT check to recall what it does. If the spell deals damage to you, it carries a DC 10+spell level concentration check or you find out at the beginning of your upcoming turn (or next turn if it went off during your turn). It's basically a way to tip the hat to chance.

Yeah, it kinda tramples all over one of Spellcraft's tenets, but at my table generally if you have Spellcraft and need it, you're probably capping it out whenever possible and since you can't auto-fail skill checks (and some builds I've used or seen used can even take 10 on Spellcraft though I can't recall how) we usually just give it to you unless it's a spell above your casting ability (including heightens and such).

[jedipotter]

The player has made a very conscious effort to be mechanically invested in what is going on in the game and you shot him down by refusing to communicate what is asked. IE: stonewalling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewalling).



Ah I see, to you ''Stonewalling'' is changing how the game rules work in a single campaign when the DM creates House Rules. Bit of an odd definition.

If the players encounter a spell, they will mostly likely never know it's name or full effects. They just know what they encountered and experienced. They are free, in the game to figure out what spell it was by role playing.

The group enters the area where firenewts live(they are fire type lizard-men). In every fight, they are targeted with a spell that causes their blood to boil for long periods of time, even after the battle. They can't just roll Spellcraft to get the name and effects of the unknown spell(and no it's not a custom spell, it's in the book(s). If the wizard wants to know about the spell, his best chance is to capture a firenewt sorcerer alive and get the information from him. Or he might try and find a spellcasters lair. Or a scroll. Or head to a school or library to search. Or summon aid. But no roll to know.

It's a great way to keep spellcasters immersed and interested in playing the game.

[Amphetryon]

Ah I see, to you ''Stonewalling'' is changing how the game rules work in a single campaign when the DM creates House Rules. Bit of an odd definition.

If the players encounter a spell, they will mostly likely never know it's name or full effects. They just know what they encountered and experienced. They are free, in the game to figure out what spell it was by role playing.

The group enters the area where firenewts live(they are fire type lizard-men). In every fight, they are targeted with a spell that causes their blood to boil for long periods of time, even after the battle. They can't just roll Spellcraft to get the name and effects of the unknown spell(and no it's not a custom spell, it's in the book(s). If the wizard wants to know about the spell, his best chance is to capture a firenewt sorcerer alive and get the information from him. Or he might try and find a spellcasters lair. Or a scroll. Or head to a school or library to search. Or summon aid. But no roll to know.

It's a great way to keep spellcasters immersed and interested in playing the game.

Opinions vary, but I personally find any variation of "my character is terrible at the things his background and listed studies would indicate he's good at" to be a bad way to maintain immersion and interest in playing the game.

[Piggy Knowles]

So.... what's the advantage to Spellcraft, then? Do your players bother with the skill? From what I can tell, you're basically saying that if they've had a reason to encounter the spell and learn its workings, then they'll understand the spell regardless of Spellcraft. If they haven't encountered the spell within the campaign, then no amount of ranks in Spellcraft will help.

I mean, earlier you said that you would describe fear as a spell that causes fear or panic in enemies. Well, that much was obvious by direct observation. Is there any advantage at all to even taking ranks in Spellcraft, then? Or should I, as a wizard in one of your games, probably just invest my skill ranks in something else?

Again, if that's how you want to play it, that's fine. I'm not judging anyone's playstyle. But I don't get what the point of a Spellcraft or Knowledge roll is at all, then. Why not eliminate skills like that entirely?

[Flickerdart]

I'm not entirely convinced that jedipotter's players bother with any skills, since he just cheats them away regardless.

[Kazudo]

So.... what's the advantage to Spellcraft, then? Do your players bother with the skill? From what I can tell, you're basically saying that if they've had a reason to encounter the spell and learn its workings, then they'll understand the spell regardless of Spellcraft. If they haven't encountered the spell within the campaign, then no amount of ranks in Spellcraft will help.

Was this directed at Jedipotter or myself? I think I said something similar in my HEY GUYS post.

[Piggy Knowles]

Specifically jedipotter, since you at least demonstrated some usefulness of the Spellcraft skill, though I guess it sort of applies to you as well. My general point is this: if you don't like skill rolls to determine what a PC knows or doesn't know, why not eliminate those rolls entirely, instead of either nerfing them (as you seem to do, Kazudo), or else ignoring them (as jedipotter seems to do)?

Not trying to be confrontational, just genuinely curious. If it works for your group and you're all having fun, I'm certainly not going to tell you to stop. It just seems like eliminating the skills completely is a cleaner option.

[Kazudo]

Oh no, it was a form I'd seen done at a table. Generally speaking I tend to run things by book, since houserules give me a headache to keep up with. Specifically, a DM I've played under would do that. I had considered porting it to my table at some point, but perhaps you're right, nerfing skills is kind of unnecessary.

[Alex12]

Hey everyone, let's avoid turning this thread into another "Playground vs. Jedipotter" flamewar thread. Seriously. It's getting pretty old from all sides and I'd just like to have a constructive conversation on here without feeling like I'm having to shout over gunfire in the trenches, mmkay?

Meanwhile, back to the topic at hand

I have played before with a notable exception, however, that I've considered using.

If you have the spell in your spell list you don't need to make a check to know the name of the spell (by which you can infer what it does usually) but it's made clear that it's metagame information. You also don't get to know what kinds of metamagic are on the spell or anything and can't transfer that information to in-character knowledge unless your character makes a spellcraft check.

HOWEVER. If you have the spell PREPARED and ready to use (which happens more often than you'd think when a lot of people in the group have levels in some caster or other) then your character knows the name of the spell and it's just a DC 10 raw INT check to recall what it does. If the spell deals damage to you, it carries a DC 10+spell level concentration check or you find out at the beginning of your upcoming turn (or next turn if it went off during your turn). It's basically a way to tip the hat to chance.

Yeah, it kinda tramples all over one of Spellcraft's tenets, but at my table generally if you have Spellcraft and need it, you're probably capping it out whenever possible and since you can't auto-fail skill checks (and some builds I've used or seen used can even take 10 on Spellcraft though I can't recall how) we usually just give it to you unless it's a spell above your casting ability (including heightens and such).

So would the "spells prepared" version include being a spontaneous caster and being able to cast that spell? Like a Sorcerer who has and uses Grease being able to recognize the base spell?
And would the Int check be another option in addition to Spellcraft, for those casters who don't key off Int? Or perhaps be keyed off your primary casting stat? I once played a Neanderthal Dread Necromancer (Charisma-based caster) with an Int of 6 and a Cha of 18. Would he have been able to reliably identify, say, Inflict Light Wounds using this method?

[Kazudo]

Well, I'm not that DM so I wouldn't be sure how to rule that, but I'm pretty sure that's how they played things. It wasn't the default setting though, if you didn't have the spell in your spells known (for spontanucasters) or in your spells prepared, you still could do the normal spellcraft stuff.

His game didn't have a lot of the complicating factors that some do for immersion, however. Little stuff like all spells are cast the exact same way with the exact same gestures and words (even across different languages. I didn't bother asking.), potions of the same type had a flavor or aroma to them (which scared us, the healing potions tasted like almonds), stuff like that.

It was basically "Hey wait, is that a half clap toe-tap finger-snap finger-wag? And did he say 'yu-mo-gwei-gwai-fai-di-zhao'? I prepared that exact same spell! It's Fireball!"

But if it's a spell you don't know, then you're pretty much extrapolating based on the components, which made it REALLY tough when the person has still/silent/eschew or something going on.

[Piggy Knowles]

Oh no, it was a form I'd seen done at a table. Generally speaking I tend to run things by book, since houserules give me a headache to keep up with. Specifically, a DM I've played under would do that. I had considered porting it to my table at some point, but perhaps you're right, nerfing skills is kind of unnecessary.

Some skills DO need to be nerfed. Diplomacy, for example, basically requires an unwritten agreement to not totally destroy the campaign. To a lesser degree, so does Bluff.

But a point of a nerf or skill fix, in my opinion, should be to take a mechanic that doesn't function properly and fix it. If the issue at hand isn't that Spellcraft doesn't properly function as written, but rather that the DM wants PC knowledge to derive from in-game circumstances instead of skill ranks and random die rolls, then the answer to me isn't to nerf the skill or ignore it, but to remove it.

[Svata]

No. What you call an award, I call too much free information. The idea that if a character makes a save they ''remember'' that class in school where they learned the exact details of every single spell in the Multiverse is just silly.

So, the wizard, whose entire job is learning and using spells, cant tell wha spell the enemy just cast? How is that less silly?

[Kazudo]

My usual interpretation isn't that a wizard knows every spell in the world, no. It's that the building blocks of spells, the components and such are similar enough across the boundaries of vancian magic that he can infer important things about the spell and what it does.

Kind of like medical professionals. They see symptoms, they identify trends, and they can tell what it basically is. The guy's coughing with a fever and his flu test is positive. He has the flu. The fact that he has strain 1350137 of this year isn't really important unless it really is.

If you tell someone that based on the information they see, they're looking at a third level evocation spell which conjures heat damage, they can infer that it's a fireball. They might be wrong, it might be a heightened burning hands (for whatever reason) or something similar, but the general notion's the same.

However, to save on postage, if they make their spellcraft roll we pretty much say that their character is capable of piecing that together themselves, and the information the player should get out of it is that it's a fireball.

[the_other_gm]

Ah I see, to you ''Stonewalling'' is changing how the game rules work in a single campaign when the DM creates House Rules. Bit of an odd definition.

If the players encounter a spell, they will mostly likely never know it's name or full effects. They just know what they encountered and experienced. They are free, in the game to figure out what spell it was by role playing.

The group enters the area where firenewts live(they are fire type lizard-men). In every fight, they are targeted with a spell that causes their blood to boil for long periods of time, even after the battle. They can't just roll Spellcraft to get the name and effects of the unknown spell(and no it's not a custom spell, it's in the book(s). If the wizard wants to know about the spell, his best chance is to capture a firenewt sorcerer alive and get the information from him. Or he might try and find a spellcasters lair. Or a scroll. Or head to a school or library to search. Or summon aid. But no roll to know.

It's a great way to keep spellcasters immersed and interested in playing the game.

Sorry if English is your second language. I know from personal experience that reading comprehension and conversation can be a bit difficult so i'll try to make it a little bit more clear:

Stonewalling is the refusal to answer or cooperate. Unlike you and the word "cheating" I am using a very real term in a very real way, and regardless that you are changing the rules or not, this is what you are doing: You are refusing to answer the player's questions and cooperate with him.

From my past readings of your various posts, this scenario indicates one of three things

DM: An strange effect hits your character and fills him panic. You drop your sword and must move away from the lich. Your character gains the panicked condition
Player Gosh wounder what spell that was, [Roll Spellcraft] Made it.
DM: It was a spell that causes fear and panic in targets.
Player: The official D&D game spell Fear? Or another spell?
DM: You have no idea.

Either

A: You failed to properly communicate how useless you've made these skills and thus, from the player's perspective you are simply refusing to answer a valid rule-based question when he's asking for more information.

B: The rule was changed on the fly without any attempt to communicate the change or allow players a chance to re-allocate those resources. The player is left with skills that are now useless.

C: the player is so thick and lacks such awareness that he puts a limited resource into a skill that was made clear that it is useless and he is wasting everyone's time by asking questions that.

It doesn't paints you or your group in a positive light.

As for keeping spellcasters immersed, making people jump through hoops does not keep them immersed. It makes them jump through hoops or figure out ways around the hoops. Giving a kid homework in and of itself doesn't keep the kid interested or immersed in the actual class/topic, it just gives the kid work to do.

If I had to interrogate every enemy wizard post-combat to figure out what spells they used on me and my party, killing them and taking their spellbook would be much faster and safer.

[Teron]

Well, to play the game, players need to know the game effect. So you'd tell the player that their character has gained the panicked condition. They just don't know the source.



No. What you call an award, I call too much free information. The idea that if a character makes a save they ''remember'' that class in school where they learned the exact details of every single spell in the Multiverse is just silly.



Your example is exactly one of the reasons why I do it. So players can't just automatically counter everything in one move.
If your challenges can be trivially overcome by anyone who knows what's going on, the problem is that your challenges suck.

[Dimcair]

Can we all just decide to not respond to anything what jedipotter says? Messing up every second thread that is here lately.

[Kazudo]

Or, better yet, getting into an argument with Jedipotter about what Jedipotter says. Let's just live and let be here folks.

[jedipotter]

Stonewalling is the refusal to answer or cooperate. Unlike you and the word "cheating" I am using a very real term in a very real way, and regardless that you are changing the rules or not, this is what you are doing: You are refusing to answer the player's questions and cooperate with him.

That is not right. I change the way the free information skills work so that the players have to role play. Your making it sound like ''haha, I'm not going to tell you''. I don't like giving the players free information, so I don't. They have to play the game to learn things, not just roll and have me tell them things.






It doesn't paints you or your group in a positive light.

How about:

D. With no free hand-outs of information, players in my game must pay attention and role play during the entire game. That ''boring gnome'' beekeeper is the only way to find out about the Umber Hulk in the Caves of Chaos. There will be no ''oh I roll to remember'' as soon as you see it. So if you skip role-playing just to get to more combat quicker, you will do so with little or no information provided in game.

So take Kyle. In a normal game he sits on his phone almost all the time. He only pays attention when a fight comes up, and he is always ready with the d20. In the normal game he sees a creature or spell or whatever and the DM tells him what it is and all about it. And then Kyle attacks, often using the free information he was just given to a huge advantage. ''Oh, the Sarki Serpent is vulnerable to fire? Thanks Buddy DM....I attack with fireball!''

Not so in my game. In my game the players must find out things like the ''Sarki Serpent is vulnerable to fire'' by role playing. There are some NPC's that know, it's written in a book or two and there are a couple other ways for a player to discover the information playing the game. But not if the player is just sitting back waiting for some combat to start and never even trying to role play. If Kyle was on his phone in my game, he would have missed the ''Sarki Serpent is vulnerable to fire'' when told by a NPC. So he would attack the Sarki Serpent with a sonic attack and just do normal damage....or worse.



As for keeping spellcasters immersed, making people jump through hoops does not keep them immersed. It makes them jump through hoops or figure out ways around the hoops. Giving a kid homework in and of itself doesn't keep the kid interested or immersed in the actual class/topic, it just gives the kid work to do.



Well the game is all about ''jumping through hoops'' if you mean ''it's all about over coming challenges''. And does not homework keep a kid intrested/immersed? The kid likes the Civil War, so you give the kid a book about the Civil War and they read it......that is how it works.

[mythmonster2]

How about:

D. With no free hand-outs of information, players in my game must pay attention and role play during the entire game. That ''boring gnome'' beekeeper is the only way to find out about the Umber Hulk in the Caves of Chaos. There will be no ''oh I roll to remember'' as soon as you see it. So if you skip role-playing just to get to more combat quicker, you will do so with little or no information provided in game.

So take Kyle. In a normal game he sits on his phone almost all the time. He only pays attention when a fight comes up, and he is always ready with the d20. In the normal game he sees a creature or spell or whatever and the DM tells him what it is and all about it. And then Kyle attacks, often using the free information he was just given to a huge advantage. ''Oh, the Sarki Serpent is vulnerable to fire? Thanks Buddy DM....I attack with fireball!''

Not so in my game. In my game the players must find out things like the ''Sarki Serpent is vulnerable to fire'' by role playing. There are some NPC's that know, it's written in a book or two and there are a couple other ways for a player to discover the information playing the game. But not if the player is just sitting back waiting for some combat to start and never even trying to role play. If Kyle was on his phone in my game, he would have missed the ''Sarki Serpent is vulnerable to fire'' when told by a NPC. So he would attack the Sarki Serpent with a sonic attack and just do normal damage....or worse.


Or, in a more realistic approach, one out of any of your players would have read the books and just said that the Sarki Serpent is vulnerable to fire at the beginning of the battle. It could have been the idiot barbarian, the reclusive tiefling, or the gnome from a continent the Sarki Serpent doesn't even exist on, none of whom would have had any reason to know that the creature existed, let alone its stats, strengths, and vulnerabilities.

[Flickerdart]

That ''boring gnome'' beekeeper is the only way to find out about the Umber Hulk in the Caves of Chaos.
How is a beekeeper more knowledgeable about Umber Hulks and Caves of Chaos than heroes? Did he cheat to learn this information?

[Piggy Knowles]

jedipotter: You still haven't answered my questions. Do the spellcraft or knowledge rolls exist in your games (albeit neutered)? Or do you just do away with them entirely?

[Kazudo]

Now, the way that I view skill checks and having attributes and such is that your character isn't you. It might be some facet of your personality depending on how psychological you want to be, but it isn't you. If average human stats are 10's and 11's across the board, how can an average human person IRL PLAY someone with INT 18? Seriously?

That's why we have skills and attributes and such. You might not know how masonry works or what kind of creature that is, but your CHARACTER might, so you're rolling knowledge to see what your character knows. And it's safe to say that whatever the character knows, the player should know to more effectively roleplay the character.

[eggynack]

How is a beekeeper more knowledgeable about Umber Hulks and Caves of Chaos than heroes? Did he cheat to learn this information?
No, he learned it by roleplaying an interaction with a shepherd, obviously. It's arbitrary roleplaying all the way down.

[the_other_gm]

That is not right. I change the way the free information skills work so that the players have to role play. Your making it sound like ''haha, I'm not going to tell you''. I don't like giving the players free information, so I don't. They have to play the game to learn things, not just roll and have me tell them things.

except you've made it clear that you keep devaluing things that enhance roleplay. you seem far more interested in the act of playing pretend then actually roleplaying. the idea behind the knowledge skills and spellcraft is that they represent things the character might have encountered or learned about before the campaign began. the fact you seem to make no differentiation between player knowledge and character knowledge is another example of your devaluing roleplay: you might not want to accept it, but you encourage players to read the monster books by denying them information their character might have access them yet fully allow them to act with the knowledge of monster abilities if they happen to have read about it outside of the game.


How about:

D. With no free hand-outs of information, players in my game must pay attention and role play during the entire game. That ''boring gnome'' beekeeper is the only way to find out about the Umber Hulk in the Caves of Chaos. There will be no ''oh I roll to remember'' as soon as you see it. So if you skip role-playing just to get to more combat quicker, you will do so with little or no information provided in game.

So take Kyle. In a normal game he sits on his phone almost all the time. He only pays attention when a fight comes up, and he is always ready with the d20. In the normal game he sees a creature or spell or whatever and the DM tells him what it is and all about it. And then Kyle attacks, often using the free information he was just given to a huge advantage. ''Oh, the Sarki Serpent is vulnerable to fire? Thanks Buddy DM....I attack with fireball!''

Not so in my game. In my game the players must find out things like the ''Sarki Serpent is vulnerable to fire'' by role playing. There are some NPC's that know, it's written in a book or two and there are a couple other ways for a player to discover the information playing the game. But not if the player is just sitting back waiting for some combat to start and never even trying to role play. If Kyle was on his phone in my game, he would have missed the ''Sarki Serpent is vulnerable to fire'' when told by a NPC. So he would attack the Sarki Serpent with a sonic attack and just do normal damage....or worse.


or by paraphrasing your own words : reading the rulebook the serpent was in.

roleplaying is not just talking in funny voices. it's also making informed decisions based on things your character would know, rather then personal (player) experience. in this case it actively discourages roleplaying : the character seems to have no knowledge bank to draw from. no experiences prior that he can go "yes i was in a situation similar to this/heard stories from local bard/was a topic lectured during my academy days". the "character" (or 'Toon, to use a more accurate word) seems to have sprung up from a void and you expect the player to somehow make in-character decisions based on what? what foundation does a player use to base their in-character decisions off of?

or do you even make a distinction between the player and character?

If this Kyle guy is more interested in his phone then your game, I would say that says more about your game then about him.


Well the game is all about ''jumping through hoops'' if you mean ''it's all about over coming challenges''. And does not homework keep a kid intrested/immersed? The kid likes the Civil War, so you give the kid a book about the Civil War and they read it......that is how it works.

No homework in itself does not keep someone interested in and of itself. As someone who's got his post-secondary degree, I would like to think that I did a lot of homework and a lot of it was not retained because it was on topics I didn't care for. In high school I had history and geography classes and to be honest, what I retained from them is very little unique to those classes... most of what i can claim to know about history or geography is more akin to a cultural knowledge, things ingrained in my culture. I didn't take those classes because I had interest in the topics, but rather they were the best choices of electives when the other options were "Shop Class" or "Physical Education", the lesser of two evils if you would.

In no way was I actually interested in these topics. I got my passing grade and left most of what was "learned" on the exam paper. Most people are like that: Not every subject they take in school is something they feel strongly about. I've known quite a few people to take math classes because they were required to graduate.

[Faily]

Completely disregarding skills as a way to represent a character's knowledge prior to the encounter is just plain silly and actively discourages immersive roleplaying.

If I play a 150 year old Elf Wizard with 20 Intelligence, I want to be able to benefit from the huge amount of skillpoints I have available, as well as the fact that my character have lived almost three times longer than your average human and should have had plenty of time to study all these fields of knowledge.

Do I as a player know *a lot* of the stuff that is in the books? Yes, I as a player can identify most spells and monsters by just description or mechanic effects along, but I will never ever act on it unless my character manages a roll to identify it (player knowledge vs character knowledge). I the player know most types of undeads and how to combat them in-game, but my character who has no ranks in Knowledge: Religion would just scream "zombies!" at the sight of the first shambling undead, be it an actual zombie, ghast or ghoul and be completely unaware of the differences they might have. But if I play a character with Knowledge: Religion, I want my roll to know that "omg gaiz! Ghouls! They paralyze you by touch!".


Mechanics are there to support players to know things their character would know, but their character would not. I for instance know absolutely nothing about how magic would work in real life, or the deeper meaning of the existential cosmos and the multitude of worlds that lie beyond our own. But if I play a Wizard that specialises in calling and summoning outsiders, I darn well want to benefit from having Knowledge: The Planes.

Anything else is just stupid.

[jedipotter]

jedipotter: You still haven't answered my questions. Do the spellcraft or knowledge rolls exist in your games (albeit neutered)? Or do you just do away with them entirely?

They exist. They are a great spot for players to waste skill points, Character's get way too many skill points as it is, so it's nice when they put a ton in knowledge and spellcraft hoping to ''know everything''. At least it is less they can put in annoying skills like perception.


My usual interpretation isn't that a wizard knows every spell in the world, no. It's that the building blocks of spells, the components and such are similar enough across the boundaries of vancian magic that he can infer important things about the spell and what it does.

This is what I do. They get the basics, ''the building blocks'', but the player still has to figure it out on their own.


So, the wizard, whose entire job is learning and using spells, cant tell wha spell the enemy just cast? How is that less silly?

Well it only makes sense if your world is pathetically small like Middle Earth or Kyrnn. Though I do see a lot of tiny campaigns, so it's popular.

I go for the idea that the world is as big as the Earth. So a wizard from ''Canada'' does not know every spell in ''Africa'', he just knows the Canada spells, and maybe a couple French, American and Cuban ones.

It's odd that you'd think it's not silly to ''go to class'' and learn about every spell in the world. And keep in mind it's like the 10th-14th century in a D&D game.....so no internet, or phones, or telegrams or fast communication.

[Flickerdart]

I go for the idea that the world is as big as the Earth. So a wizard from ''Canada'' does not know every spell in ''Africa'', he just knows the Canada spells, and maybe a couple French, American and Cuban ones.
That's exactly as stupid as saying that a Canadian physicist doesn't understand French physics.

[eggynack]

They exist. They are a great spot for players to waste skill points, Character's get way too many skill points as it is, so it's nice when they put a ton in knowledge and spellcraft hoping to ''know everything''. At least it is less they can put in annoying skills like perception.
Wait, so you don't tell people that those ranks are going to do nothing? That seems extremely jerkish. Actually, it's "to deprive of something expected." In other words, it's cheating, ya big cheater.




I go for the idea that the world is as big as the Earth. So a wizard from ''Canada'' does not know every spell in ''Africa'', he just knows the Canada spells, and maybe a couple French, American and Cuban ones.
As I've mentioned, there are fewer spells than there are words in the English language. If all the languages of the world only had as many words as there are spells, I'd expect a linguist to know all of them, and if there were as many animals, then I'd expect a zoologist to know all of those. Information spreads. Expecting otherwise seems ridiculous.

[the_other_gm]

They exist. They are a great spot for players to waste skill points, Character's get way too many skill points as it is, so it's nice when they put a ton in knowledge and spellcraft hoping to ''know everything''. At least it is less they can put in annoying skills like perception.



This is what I do. They get the basics, ''the building blocks'', but the player still has to figure it out on their own.



Well it only makes sense if your world is pathetically small like Middle Earth or Kyrnn. Though I do see a lot of tiny campaigns, so it's popular.

I go for the idea that the world is as big as the Earth. So a wizard from ''Canada'' does not know every spell in ''Africa'', he just knows the Canada spells, and maybe a couple French, American and Cuban ones.

It's odd that you'd think it's not silly to ''go to class'' and learn about every spell in the world. And keep in mind it's like the 10th-14th century in a D&D game.....so no internet, or phones, or telegrams or fast communication.

problem is, the middle ages are a horrible analogy to D&D. D&D is modern technology posing as the middle ages. It's like going to a ren fair and seeing the court jester talk in YE OLDE ENGLISHE then quickly deke around the corner so he can text his wife that he'll pickup bread & eggs before he goes home.

the entire divination school is effectively Google Search. various spells exist to allow communication over distance, like message, animal messenger, telepatic bond, PRCs like the mindbender that grant telepathy, etc... scrying allows one to remotely view a location and teleportation spells allow for instantly meeting with someone to discuss with them.

the addition of magic to the setting, but having that magic never affect the way of life of the people is not just jarring, it destroys any semblance of immersion. D&D's medievalism is laughable in how easily the facade breaks down when you drop the idiot ball for even a second.

[Faily]

Well it only makes sense if your world is pathetically small like Middle Earth or Kyrnn. Though I do see a lot of tiny campaigns, so it's popular.

I go for the idea that the world is as big as the Earth. So a wizard from ''Canada'' does not know every spell in ''Africa'', he just knows the Canada spells, and maybe a couple French, American and Cuban ones.

It's odd that you'd think it's not silly to ''go to class'' and learn about every spell in the world. And keep in mind it's like the 10th-14th century in a D&D game.....so no internet, or phones, or telegrams or fast communication.


1. Worlds like Mystara's are ridiculously big. Or if you play third party settings like Dragonstar, they span over an entire galaxy. The RAW still says that people can use the skill-system to know things that the players do not nescessarily know.

2. That's retarded. That's like saying that a student of fine arts in Europe is not able to know tribal Kenyan art (I refuse to use the term "African" as that is drawing too wide a brushstroke over an entire continent and its different cultures), Aztec art or Korean art. Also; Magic.

3. See the above again: Magic. D&D have wizards who can Teleport where they want to go, or Clerics casting Wind Walk to travel huge distances. People can Planeshift for crying out loud. Sure, there is no internet, but magic sure allows people to hear and read more than you know. People weren't completely ignorant outside their hometowns in the 10th-14th centuries either (again, a rather big span). Explorers, whom adventurers emulate the most, were well-read and often studied all sorts of imported goods. That broad stroke again is completely overlooking the academic world of those time periods from 10th century to 14th century; knowledge from Jerusalem and the islamic world of science, and later the Silk Road, just to mention some big ones here.

Sending, Animal Messenger, Whispering Wind, Teleport, Wind Walk, Planeshift, Word of Recall... all these spells allow swift communication in a D&D world. Magical pages allow tomes and books to withstand the wear of time better.

Your arguments hold little water.


EDIT: Completely forgot this one as I was typing up; Bard! Now there's an entire class that from level 1 is based on "I happen to have heard this great poem about a winged serpentine beast who breathed fire."

[eggynack]

the entire divination school is effectively Google Search. various spells exist to allow communication over distance, like message, animal messenger, telepatic bond, PRCs like the mindbender that grant telepathy, etc... scrying allows one to remotely view a location and teleportation spells allow for instantly meeting with someone to discuss with them.

My favorite option along these lines is whispering sand (Sand, 128). Give everyone you know a one pound bag of sand, to carry around with them all the time, and suddenly you can start up hour long phone calls between multiple people simultaneously, and do so on a whim. You can even have a caster set up a call service, offering anyone the ability to call up anyone with the relevant focus, because they can just act as a third party in such a call. A pound of sand is admittedly a bit unwieldy, but not so much so that it makes reasonably functional cell phones not worth it.

[Genth]

Just a point - am I mistaken in thinking ranks in a knowledge/spellcraft skill DO NOT mean that the person 'knows everything'? Isn't it a combination of time and effort spent studying/thinking about a subject (The ranks) the natural aptitude to figure things out logically (intelligence modifier) and whether it's an everyday use for the person (class/cross-class)? The reason a person rolls isn't really to -remember- something they already know, it's to see if they know it at all.

[Kazudo]

Well, and it's really two sides of the same coin. Unless you're spontaneously acquiring the knowledge, you either knew it or you didn't. Rolling Knowledge Checks are there to see if you can recall knowledge you already knew or whether you knew the information at all.

[Kazudo]

This is what I do. They get the basics, ''the building blocks'', but the player still has to figure it out on their own.


A primary difference though is that I have a good rapport with my players, a boundary of trust and compromise, and a firm understanding of character vs. player knowledge. My players know a lot about the game. Sometimes I won't directly say something, but if the player itself infers correctly then I at least let them know they're right. What a player knows and what a character knows, in an honest game, are separate things. Your character knows things you don't, you know things your character doesn't. It's the way the game works. It creates a sense of dramatic irony about things when you're fully aware that the BBEG is using all kinds of screwed up tactics against your character, but your character can't make the knowledge, spellcraft, or sense motive rolls to know it, so you act as your character would if you didn't know it. It's how the game works at least at my table and we do pretty well.

It's not me vs. my players, it's all of us having fun. Though your mileage may vary, we have fun by using our characters like we would action figures. Dolls. Puppets. It's not me vs. my players at all, it's actually my players' characters versus the creatures and situations I generate, sometimes each other!

However, not all tables are partnerships and while it saddens me, we all find our fun some ways.

Wanted to clear that up before the quote was misconstrued.

[eggynack]

I think I may have mentioned this sometime in the past, but the odd impression I get from Jedipotter's games is that they're trying to emulate a roguelike. Death is frequent, often to a crazy level, and out of game knowledge is almost the whole point, trying to learn enough with each death to avert the same fate when you're in the same situation next time. Combat and problem solving are rather direct, and uncomplicated, such that doing something out of the box is often impossible. Sure, there is some room for that sort of thing, but it often doesn't fit, and such maneuvers actually do look something like cheating, like when you find a combination that's somewhat glitchy (these definitely pop up a lot in the binding of isaac). It's a comparison that's likely imperfect, but it's surprisingly close.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I try to give everyone exactly the information they're entitled to via their skills* plus any information they need to enact the effects of a spell on their character. When people are effected by a spell I'll use game terms like 17 points of Fire damage and Frightened. Players need these game terms in order to apply resistences and on occasion remind me of defenses I may have forgot since I'm not infallible.

When checks fail, I'll do my best to give an honest description of what their character percieves that isn't taken directly from the spells default flavor text, because at this point I'm trying not to trigger the player's spellcraft. In some cases you just have to give it to them anyway.

Like if someone is hit with Charm Person, it's best to just tell them so, trust to their ability to roleplay and reserve the right to veto too extreme a finagling. You don't want to explain requests to a Charmed individual in a way that makes the player think their character may have been hit with Command.




*15 + spell level Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.

20 + spell level Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.

25 + spell level After rolling a saving throw against a spell targeted on you, determine what that spell was. No action required. No retry.

[georgie_leech]

I think I may have mentioned this sometime in the past, but the odd impression I get from Jedipotter's games is that they're trying to emulate a roguelike. Death is frequent, often to a crazy level, and out of game knowledge is almost the whole point, trying to learn enough with each death to avert the same fate when you're in the same situation next time. Combat and problem solving are rather direct, and uncomplicated, such that doing something out of the box is often impossible. Sure, there is some room for that sort of thing, but it often doesn't fit, and such maneuvers actually do look something like cheating, like when you find a combination that's somewhat glitchy (these definitely pop up a lot in the binding of isaac). It's a comparison that's likely imperfect, but it's surprisingly close.

I dunno, the good Roguelike's often have an insane level of detail applied to them, giving more freedom than you'd think. Like, for instance in NetHack Cockatrices turn anything that touches them into stone. You can turn into another creature (or gender, oddly enough) and gain their abilities with a polymorph effect. Female Birds, snakes, and dragons can lay eggs, and the answer to "Is a cockatrice a bird, dragon, or snake?" is "Yes." Combined, you can transform into a female Cockatrice, lay eggs, and chuck your Instant Petrification Bombs at your enemies. Of course the Dev team actually thought of that and you get a significant Guilt penalty to luck, since you're essentially using your children as weapons.

[BWR]

1. Worlds like Mystara's are ridiculously big. Or if you play third party settings like Dragonstar, they span over an entire galaxy. The RAW still says that people can use the skill-system to know things that the players do not nescessarily know.


Nitpicks:
Mystara is pretty exactly Earth-sized, and the published setting doesn't cover more than roughly 10% of the world (a bit hard to calculate, based on the few and sometimes conflicting maps). This map (http://www.mystara.fr/maps/mystara/outermap.jpg), though a bit hard to read, has the Known World in that little black box (roughly). The rest of the published setting explores from the Serpent Peninsula and the Sind Empire east including all islands including Bellissaria, north from the Known world until it's level with the northern top of Alphatia, and barely touches on the easternmost tip of the continent of Skothar.

And the Dragon Empire in Dragonstar is only about 1000 ly in diameter.

[eggynack]

I dunno, the good Roguelike's often have an insane level of detail applied to them, giving more freedom than you'd think. Like, for instance in NetHack Cockatrices turn anything that touches them into stone. You can turn into another creature (or gender, oddly enough) and gain their abilities with a polymorph effect. Female Birds, snakes, and dragons can lay eggs, and the answer to "Is a cockatrice a bird, dragon, or snake?" is "Yes." Combined, you can transform into a female Cockatrice, lay eggs, and chuck your Instant Petrification Bombs at your enemies. Of course the Dev team actually thought of that and you get a significant Guilt penalty to luck, since you're essentially using your children as weapons.
Yeah, you can do some very awesome and very intended things in those sorts of games. I still do think that the philosophy applies somewhat, though. Especially in this case, as applies to the relevance of out of game knowledge.

[jedipotter]

That's exactly as stupid as saying that a Canadian physicist doesn't understand French physics.

It's more like saying a Canadian musician does not know every song in France and the rest of the world. The Canadian musician will only know one or two types of music too: if they are ''pop'' then they might know some ''pop'' from the rest of the world. But they will know little or no ''country'' or ''blues''. And the defiantly won't know the current popular song from Papa New Ginnie.


As I've mentioned, there are fewer spells than there are words in the English language. If all the languages of the world only had as many words as there are spells, I'd expect a linguist to know all of them, and if there were as many animals, then I'd expect a zoologist to know all of those. Information spreads. Expecting otherwise seems ridiculous.

Well, your average zoologist does not know every animal in the world. I don't go for the ''information spreads'', that is just silly. So on Day One of the world ''information spread'' so everyone everywhere knew everything known for all time? Does it work like that? Oh, of course it does not. The wheel was invented a long time ago in the Old World: did it instantly spread to the whole world? Or did it take centuries to get to the New World? Rome had some good advances, but when Rome fell, most of it was lost for centuries.




the addition of magic to the setting, but having that magic never affect the way of life of the people is not just jarring, it destroys any semblance of immersion. D&D's medievalism is laughable in how easily the facade breaks down when you drop the idiot ball for even a second.

True, but it does not make it ''everyone in the world knows everything''. Not everyone has magic, and not everyone who has magic cares about the rest of the world. And not everyone does research 24/7 and not everyone is discovering new things every day. And not everyone is communicating with everyone.

It's not like Bob wakes up some Monday, teleports and uses divination to learn every spell in the world and then makes a trillion copies of them in books for everyone. That is just silly.

I rank spells by Common, Uncommon, Rare, Very rare and Unique. And the ranks are diffident for each region. A spellcaster only knows the common and (maybe) uncommon spells of their region, and the regions adjacent to their home region.

[Flickerdart]

It's more like saying a Canadian musician does not know every song in France and the rest of the world. The Canadian musician will only know one or two types of music too: if they are ''pop'' then they might know some ''pop'' from the rest of the world. But they will know little or no ''country'' or ''blues''. And the defiantly won't know the current popular song from Papa New Ginnie.
Wow, you have a really low opinion of musicians. They might not know how to play every genre, but they'll be able to recognize what the genre is, what the instruments are, etc. In the same way, a wizard doesn't need to recognize the actual spell to know what it does and how it does it.

[jedipotter]

Wow, you have a really low opinion of musicians. They might not know how to play every genre, but they'll be able to recognize what the genre is, what the instruments are, etc. In the same way, a wizard doesn't need to recognize the actual spell to know what it does and how it does it.

Well, that is what I do with Spellcraft. You can figure out some details of the spell, but not the name of the spell and it's exact effects.

The hobgoblin touches a character with a glowing gray hand and does damage. You can roll Spellcraft to figure out it was a touch necromancy effect, but your not going to be told the spell is Touch of the Wraith.

[eggynack]

Well, your average zoologist does not know every animal in the world.
That's the point. There are fewer species of animal than there are spells in the game, and if the wizard in question knows every spell in existence, and can identify them on the spot, then we're not talking about your average zoologist. You need to be able to hit consistent DC 24 checks in order to pull that off. Start with an intelligence of 20, for a +5, assume the synergy bonus, getting us to +7, and you still need 16 ranks to ensure that you're hitting your checks, given that this is presumably happening under duress. Thus, we're talking about a 13th level wizard, or returning to the analogy, the absolute God of zoology, greater than any being who has ever existed or will ever exist. You can bump around a few numbers and get somewhat different results,


I don't go for the ''information spreads'', that is just silly. So on Day One of the world ''information spread'' so everyone everywhere knew everything known for all time? Does it work like that? Oh, of course it does not. The wheel was invented a long time ago in the Old World: did it instantly spread to the whole world? Or did it take centuries to get to the New World? Rome had some good advances, but when Rome fell, most of it was lost for centuries.
Is this game taking place on day one of the world? If that's the case, sure, limit this stuff a bit. However, the D&D world is in no way going to perfectly mimic the real world in its development, owing to the capacity for magic. Traveling to new places is a whole lot easier in D&D, owing to teleportation, and other spells and effects that offer fast travel speeds, and once you've found a place, ensuring mass communication between your place and that place is actually a pretty easy low level effect. So, if this game is taking place only a few years after magic's existence, then do as you please, but if this is a world which exists in this world's "medieval times," and it's been thousands of years with magic just hanging around, then your methodology makes no sense.

[Flickerdart]

Well, that is what I do with Spellcraft. You can figure out some details of the spell, but not the name of the spell and it's exact effects.

The hobgoblin touches a character with a glowing gray hand and does damage. You can roll Spellcraft to figure out it was a touch necromancy effect, but your not going to be told the spell is Touch of the Wraith.
Except you're supposed to know exactly what the spell does, so you're still doing it wrong.

[Amphetryon]

Well, your average zoologist does not know every animal in the world.Is it your opinion that your average zoologist has an IQ hovering at or above genius-level?

[Alex12]

It's more like saying a Canadian musician does not know every song in France and the rest of the world. The Canadian musician will only know one or two types of music too: if they are ''pop'' then they might know some ''pop'' from the rest of the world. But they will know little or no ''country'' or ''blues''. And the defiantly won't know the current popular song from Papa New Ginnie.
I have no meaningful interest, talent, or training in music, and I can generally tell what instruments made what sounds in a song. Someone with all three of those should darn well be able to recognize more than that.
A better analogy might be cooking. A good cook can taste a dish and often identify the ingredients and method of prep just by taste alone.


]Well, your average zoologist does not know every animal in the world.
The best estimate I've been able to find with a quick Google puts the number of non-bacterial species in the world at around 8.7 million species, far more than even the highest estimation of number of spells. Even just the number of mammalian species is something like 5500, which is still far higher than the number of spells in D&D.


I don't go for the ''information spreads'', that is just silly. So on Day One of the world ''information spread'' so everyone everywhere knew everything known for all time? Does it work like that? Oh, of course it does not. The wheel was invented a long time ago in the Old World: did it instantly spread to the whole world? Or did it take centuries to get to the New World? Rome had some good advances, but when Rome fell, most of it was lost for centuries.
And how long have people been using the same spells? For that matter, given the existence of teleportation, divination magic, and the like, information spread is much more likely to more closely resemble that of the modern age. How long does it take for information about, say, a new invention or new TV show to spread?


Well, that is what I do with Spellcraft. You can figure out some details of the spell, but not the name of the spell and it's exact effects.

The hobgoblin touches a character with a glowing gray hand and does damage. You can roll Spellcraft to figure out it was a touch necromancy effect, but your not going to be told the spell is Touch of the Wraith.
So you can roll Spellcraft to be able to tell...what you probably could have known anyway.
Per the actual rules for Spellcraft (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm), it's a DC 15+spell level roll to identify a spell as it is being cast, even before it's actually cast. This is in fact the fundamental basis of counterspelling (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#counterspells).

[awa]

Why are you still talking to him? He wants you to argue with him. Your letting him win by paying attention to him.

[Flickerdart]

Why are you still talking to him? He wants you to argue with him. Your letting him win by paying attention to him.
Because a novice player or DM might come across this thread and think that what jedipotter is doing is in any way okay.

[eggynack]

Why are you still talking to him? He wants you to argue with him. Your letting him win by paying attention to him.
Well, y'know, just because he wants to argue with me, that doesn't necessarily mean that I don't want to argue with him. I could equally say that he's letting me win by paying attention to me, or something.

[jedipotter]

Except you're supposed to know exactly what the spell does, so you're still doing it wrong.

Guess I just like it like this:

DM:The frog like humanoid casts some sort of spell and spits a glob of blood at you! (roll fort save, or take negative energy damage)
Player: What was that...(roll check) Made it
DM: It was some type of weak necromancy spell that shoots out a casters blood charged with negative energy.
Player: *nods* Ok, I'll just keep playing the game to learn more about the spell, but until then we will just have to keep playing and just wonder what the spells effects might be

And not this:
DM:The frog like humanoid casts some sort of spell and spits a glob of blood at you! (roll fort save, or take negative energy damage)
Player: What was that...(roll check) Made it
DM: Wow, good thing your character knows every spell in the world **hands player the spell description**
Player: On 'blood spit', 1st level, low damage, range only twenty feet
All Players: We move 21 feet away..hehe

[eggynack]

DM: Wow, good thing your character knows every spell in the world **hands player the spell description**

I don't really understand why you keep using this odd hyperbole of one check granting access to every spell out there. That's obviously not how it works. Meanwhile, the whole point of spellcraft is that you know what the spell does. The wizard in that example knows pretty much exactly the same amount about the spell as some illiterate barbarian would in the same situation. Does that make any sense to you? Because it doesn't to me.

[Teron]

Guess I just like it like this:

DM:The frog like humanoid casts some sort of spell and spits a glob of blood at you! (roll fort save, or take negative energy damage)
Player: What was that...(roll check) Made it
DM: It was some type of weak necromancy spell that shoots out a casters blood charged with negative energy.
Player: *nods* Ok, I'll just keep playing the game to learn more about the spell, but until then we will just have to keep playing and just wonder what the spells effects might be

And not this:
DM:The frog like humanoid casts some sort of spell and spits a glob of blood at you! (roll fort save, or take negative energy damage)
Player: What was that...(roll check) Made it
DM: Wow, good thing your character knows every spell in the world **hands player the spell description**
Player: On 'blood spit', 1st level, low damage, range only twenty feet
All Players: We move 21 feet away..hehe
I think my favourite part is the one where moving away from a presumably mobile enemy is apparently a snicker-worthy stratagem.

[eggynack]

I think my favourite part is the one where moving away from a presumably mobile enemy is apparently a snicker-worthy stratagem.
It also seems a bit, y'know, late for that kind of plan. The spell already happened and either did or did not do its damage. Next turn the caster will presumably use a different spell, if the party is really out of range of that one. Spellcraft really provides most of its impact with lingering effects, so that you know which of the gazillion fogs you're dealing with.

[Kazudo]

For an immersive DM, I could see spell names being a fluid thing. What is Fireball in one land is called Flameburst in another is called El Fuego Mas Rapido in another one is called flammenwerfer in another one (real languages butchered on command!).

So it would actually be more useful to the players to know that it's a 3rd level evocation that causes a fiery burst than to know the spell's name is "fireball".

EDIT: And actually with that in consideration, the players could just note down what it is, a good DM would say "It's that fiery burst spell from earlier!" the player would look at their notes and go "Ah, the 3rd level evocation that causes a fiery burst. Neat." then later, they could be chatting with a career wizard who happens to have it in their spellbook (assuming the players don't) and describe it, he flips open his book and says "Ah! Yes! That sounds exactly like [fireball, flameburst, el fuego mas rapido, flammenwerfer, etc.]. I know it well." the players would then write down that name. Just because the book calls it something doesn't mean that an immersive fantasy world has to. Yes, it's a system thing, but really that's within a DM's purview to alter.

[Flickerdart]

Player: What was that...(roll check) Made it
DM: Wow, good thing your character knows every spell in the world **hands player the spell description**
The check represents the character's knowledge of spells. Succeeding on it means that the character knows that particular spell. He is not always going to pass that check, especially not for more complex high-level spells, which means that he doesn't actually know all of the spells.

When players invest in a skill that represents their character knowing things, not letting them use that skill to know things is the height of cheating.

[Gildedragon]

And the defiantly won't know the current popular song from Papa New Ginnie.
Just gonna say it's "Papua New Guinea", unless that's some particular band or artist's name, in which case I apologize for my nitpicking

[jedipotter]

The check represents the character's knowledge of spells. Succeeding on it means that the character knows that particular spell. He is not always going to pass that check, especially not for more complex high-level spells, which means that he doesn't actually know all of the spells.

When players invest in a skill that represents their character knowing things, not letting them use that skill to know things is the height of cheating.

My knowledge of spells is just different.

In default D&D you can roll to know any spell, and with the easy to abuse skill system, will likely know any spell. Worse default D&D lets a spellcaster know and pick any spell. So when the Hobgoblin casts a spell, they roll and identify it instantly as ''animate blood'' and they know the ''blood elemental'' made by the spell can't be dispeled, but can be effected by normal attacks and has fifty hit points. And when that character goes up a level he can pick Animate Blood as a spell, as they know every spell in the world(aka book) that is not a special, rare DM custom spell


In my game, they encounter the spell, and when they roll they just get the vague ''it's a necromancy spell that animates blood.'' Now if a player of a spellcasting character wants to know more, they have to role play it out, using whatever means they wish to in the game. And when they level up they can't just ''automatically'' know the spell, they have to plan ahead. If they want the spell when they level up, they have to...you guessed it...role play finding the spell.

So, first off it's a bit of a balance thing, that strikes right to the heart of problem players: they can't just automatically choose any spell they want.

Second, it encourages role playing. A typical spellcaster has to put in a lot of work and effort to get a spell. They don't get the spell as a free hand out. It gives them a reason to role play talking to every spellcaster they meet. Even a shy, quite person in real life will start role playing like a master when they want a spell that has peak their interest.

And third, it encourages group play. It's rare the spellcaster will be able to get a copy of the spell alone. Quite often they will ask the group for help. And an adventure can be made out of the task.

Do some players of spellcaster ignore ''looking for spells'', sure. They just go on with what spells they can find. Most players find they have fun looking for spells, and the players that complain that it's ''no fun'' or ''too much work'' or ''not fair'' or ''not the official rules''...well, we don't want them around anyway, and they leave soon enough.

[questionmark693]

If a fighter rolls and confirms a critical hit and deals say a hundred damage-ten times the amount to completely kill your average, commoner human-does he need to roleplay that?

[RegalKain]

I won't say I agree with everything Jedipotter says, I will however say that my players and I (One in particular) have done some rather extensive re-working of DCs etc, we also generally play in E6 and E10, because my group and I, much like Jedi have a dislike for how easy most (Read almost all) of the DCs for various things are. Spells being one of them, I can agree with him that hitting the DC (Is rather easy if you disbelieve that browse these forums a bit and they'll have you hitting 100DC checks in no-time flat!) is rather easy, and I agree that people shouldn't be a bastion of knowledge in which they know Everything. While I can also agree his idea is a bit...excessive it's a good starting point. Let's set it up something like this, with all DCs being place-holding examples.

SC 5- The man waved his hands wildly for a moment and a moment later there was a burst of fire!
SC 10- You've heard of a spell like this it causes a large blast of fire where the Wizard wants
SC 15- The spell is of the third circle (We don't use "levels" in our game we say Circle instead, cause the whole level/level thing always bugged us.) in the Evocation school.
SC 20- You know of this spell, most arcane dabblers call it Fireball, it has an approx. range of X
SC 25- This spell can be defeated by fast reflexes and supernatural resilience to spells!

So on and so forth, so long as the person hits the DC 15 or so mark on that, I'd allow them the counterspell (If that's what they're going for.) while the 5 and 10 marks add some flavor, and the character can later talk to a Wizard at a bar (In a shadowy corner of course.) to see just what that spell was, this makes it so that the DC isn't a "Let me read the spell description real fast" it's more of a "I got a 22, hey guys I think if we fall back X we can be out of range, it's also of the third circle, based on facts X of King Y we know this isn't going to be a very powerful mage, he may have exhausted his arcane power for the day!" Or yadda yadda you get the point, this was Spellcraft is still worth taking, but it doesn't instantly notify you of everything the spell is capable of, the same for knowledge checks. Then again this also goes on a basis of players enjoying that, your group may vary.

I'd also like to say, all of you people saying he is "cheating" I'd like to say as a DM he really can't, there is bad DMing sure, but cheating? Sadly not so much, Rule 0 exists for a reason, someone else said "you're playing wrong" which is also un-true, so long as he and his players are having fun they aren't playing wrong are they? If a new DM comes here, reads this exhaustive argument and then decides they want to use Jedipotter's variant on skill checks, good on them? I will say I feel he should be upfront with his players about rule changes that he's made, or mechanic changes to the game, but if his players don't mind and they are all still having fun, no harm no foul.

[Faily]

Yet he seems to display that he believes that mechanics for some reason will obstruct roleplaying, which is just simply untrue. That is like saying that an optimizing player cannot roleplay, or that dicerolling obstructs roleplaying.

Any skilled roleplayer can roleplay regardless of wether or not they manage skill checks. There is simply a majority seeming to support that successful skill checks according to RAW should be rewarded properly, to give more time to the game at hand rather than dealing with vague descriptions of the world happening around them.

I'd personally prefer the GM just flat-up telling me if my character is under a Confusion-spell, and leave me to roleplay the various consequences of the spell-effect (after I roll up the consequences myself, I can spare the GM the time to look up the table for it so he can move the game along for everyone else), than to have the GM tell me what my character is doing while under the Confusion effect. A majority seem to feel the same.

It's not roleplaying if the GM has to tell you everything, yes, but it's taking the roleplaying out of the players hands if they cannot be trusted with roleplaying the sharing of information. Just because I manage a Knowledge-roll to identify a monster, only my character is aware of it at the time and may share the information as I see fit on my own turn (there is a limit to how much can be said during one turn too). "Careful it paralyzes you!" or "Use fire magic!" or "GTFO now!" or even "Hah! Pitiful goblins!"

EDIT: Likewise, if a caster recognizes the enemy using Fireball, he can tell his teammates to scatter out (a common tactic against AoE-effects), but very rarely have I encountered players announce, in-character, to spread out with a 20-feet burst distance between themselves.

[RegalKain]

Yet he seems to display that he believes that mechanics for some reason will obstruct roleplaying, which is just simply untrue. That is like saying that an optimizing player cannot roleplay, or that dicerolling obstructs roleplaying.

Any skilled roleplayer can roleplay regardless of wether or not they manage skill checks. There is simply a majority seeming to support that successful skill checks according to RAW should be rewarded properly, to give more time to the game at hand rather than dealing with vague descriptions of the world happening around them.

I'd personally prefer the GM just flat-up telling me if my character is under a Confusion-spell, and leave me to roleplay the various consequences of the spell-effect (after I roll up the consequences myself, I can spare the GM the time to look up the table for it so he can move the game along for everyone else), than to have the GM tell me what my character is doing while under the Confusion effect. A majority seem to feel the same.

It's not roleplaying if the GM has to tell you everything, yes, but it's taking the roleplaying out of the players hands if they cannot be trusted with roleplaying the sharing of information. Just because I manage a Knowledge-roll to identify a monster, only my character is aware of it at the time and may share the information as I see fit on my own turn (there is a limit to how much can be said during one turn too). "Careful it paralyzes you!" or "Use fire magic!" or "GTFO now!" or even "Hah! Pitiful goblins!"

EDIT: Likewise, if a caster recognizes the enemy using Fireball, he can tell his teammates to scatter out (a common tactic against AoE-effects), but very rarely have I encountered players announce, in-character, to spread out with a 20-feet burst distance between themselves.

So, why aren't we stepping away from one poster's opinion and furthering the discussion OT? Seriously the past two pages are almost completely people battering and belittling Jedipotter's style of gameplay, which is not only foolish it's off-topic, ok so he wants to do X who cares, doesn't matter, it's been discussed and re-hashed a dozen times in this thread alone, let alone the forum. The style I setup rewards making the check, and rewards focusing into the skills for that matter, and if they roll well it reveals all of the information you're asking it to reveal as well. As another note, the DM shouldn't have to look up ANYTHING he is using against his players, that's my opinion though, it should all be on index cards or memorized by the time it sees play, otherwise you bog down the game and make things take to long, that's my approach though, I suppose YMMV.


Any skilled roleplayer can roleplay regardless of wether or not they manage skill checks. There is simply a majority seeming to support that successful skill checks according to RAW should be rewarded properly, to give more time to the game at hand rather than dealing with vague descriptions of the world happening around them. Sure let's successfully reward diplomacy checks shall we? :) Oh right that can make your BBEG go from wanting to slaughter everyone to being DMPC #942 because that's how diplomacy works by RAW. I'm not saying you are right or wrong here, I'm saying it's not a far cry to alter certain things about the system to ensure they function as your group intends and prefers for them to function, you know like not chain-gating, not infinite looping, not Diplomancy-ing the campaign away? Jedipotter takes an extreme (By our account) route to ensuring that happens, again if his players enjoy it (Some obviously do since he has players) what does it matter? Again continually bashing the same point and bashing him feels as though it's not only going off-topic, but completely de-railing the thread for a hate-wagon, seems to be spreading these days.

[Flickerdart]

role play finding the spell
Given that you've previously assigned knowledge of exotic beasts in far-off locations to random beekeepers, I can only assume that "roleplaying" to find the location of a spell involves a similarly obscure route.

Do characters ever get anything done in your game, or do they just "roleplay" to get every class feature they are entitled to, first? And without Spellcraft, how did the mage they're talking to learn about this spell, anyway? According to your hamfisted regional analogy, neither wizard should know anything about such an "exotic" spell.

[questionmark693]

Have you ever watched Dr. Who? I'm going to explain a small part of it, regardless, for the benefit of everybody here. They have a time machine that can travel through space. They travel to places that don't speak english. Their brains get rewired (essentially, I'm really paraphrasing here, I know) so that they understand and speak whatever languages they here, in the dialects they are spoken in. That way us viewers can watch it and actually understand whats happening without breaking immersion because nothing on the entire show happens in the language I speak.

In the same way, we say that a weapon is +1, our characters hear 'mildly enhanced by magic to be more accurate, powerful, and durable', because we don't want to break our immersion by trying to translate everything we try to say in character.

[jedipotter]

That is like saying that an optimizing player cannot roleplay............



Oh, this will so be a post someday......the Fallacy Full of Hot Air....

[Story]

My table is the opposite of ^. My guys SUCK at table knowledge lol. I have to keep them guessing. At times i have them roll saves for nothing and jot down notes. I made a grocery list once.... Rogue thought for sure she had the plague... I generally keep track on my side when bad things are going on, and if it affects the player directly i just tell them what to do, i.e. reroll, attackan ally etc. Generally i do it via notecards though, so the rest of the table doesnt know.

If it were me, I'd just invest in a permanacied Arcane Sight so I could see when I had magical effects active on me.

[Amphetryon]

Oh, this will so be a post someday......the Fallacy Full of Hot Air....

Looks pretty much like standard Stormwind to me. Why do you see it as significantly different enough to warrant its own title, assuming you're not being entirely sarcastic?

[eggynack]

Looks pretty much like standard Stormwind to me. Why do you see it as significantly different enough to warrant its own title, assuming you're not being entirely sarcastic?
I think he's saying that indirectly citing the fallacy in that fashion is, in itself, a fallacy. Something like that, anyway. It seems somewhat mean spirited, and I'm vaguely inclined to report the post on that basis, but it's just so confusing that I can't tell for sure. Weird stuff.

[Brookshw]

I think he's saying that indirectly citing the fallacy in that fashion is, in itself, a fallacy. Something like that, anyway. It seems somewhat mean spirited, and I'm vaguely inclined to report the post on that basis, but it's just so confusing that I can't tell for sure. Weird stuff.

Really? After so many people have taken specific shots at jedi w/o him taking any at particular individuals, THAT'S the comment that almost does it for you?

I'll give it to him regarding how easy most checks are by the book. It's not exactly hard to pump a spell craft check to the point low level characters can consistently identify any 9th level spell. That's always struck me as odd, I can think of justifications, but it still seems odd.

[questionmark693]

I don't care if a table ruins skills, as long as they tell the players beforehand. That's fine. It's a house rule. Whatever. But do they hold everybody to that standard, or only spellcasters noticing spells? Do we roleplay bluff checks? Do we roleplay strength checks? Attack and damage rolls? Saving throws?

[Zombimode]

I'll give it to him regarding how easy most checks are by the book. It's not exactly hard to pump a spell craft check to the point low level characters can consistently identify any 9th level spell. That's always struck me as odd, I can think of justifications, but it still seems odd.

This I don't get. It is not like "pumping" a skill is free or something. It costs skill points at the very least, gold, item slots and other resources to boost a skill further.

Someone with a high int score and max ranks in spellcraft is obviously both talented and dedicated to be knowledgeable about spells. That a character like this can identify spells with relative ease is both believable and a good thing in my view.

The level 9 character with Int 10 and 5 ranks in Spellcraft however has still a shot at identifying spells, at a much lower chance of success (and only up to 5th level). This seems quite reasonable too, since this character has spent quite some time to study spells (5 ranks), but without the mental faculties and the dedication, his knowledge is much less complete.

In short: I just don't see the problem.

[RegalKain]

This I don't get. It is not like "pumping" a skill is free or something. It costs skill points at the very least, gold, item slots and other resources to boost a skill further.

Someone with a high int score and max ranks in spellcraft is obviously both talented and dedicated to be knowledgeable about spells. That a character like this can identify spells with relative ease is both believable and a good thing in my view.

The level 9 character with Int 10 and 5 ranks in Spellcraft however has still a shot at identifying spells, at a much lower chance of success (and only up to 5th level). This seems quite reasonable too, since this character has spent quite some time to study spells (5 ranks), but without the mental faculties and the dedication, his knowledge is much less complete.

In short: I just don't see the problem.

Personally it's a problem with D&D at a base overall, but in this instance, it's a problem with how skill checks are handled overall. Much like Diplomacy is broken, I think if you tweak the checks and how skills works it's perfectly fine, the only thing I'd dis-agree with is doing so without warning your players, even if you have to do it mid-game, after that session sit down and tell them "Sorry guys we'll be re-tweaking how DCs are handled for skills, if you'd like you can re-allocate your skill points as you see fit, since the DCs may be (higher/lower) then they are now." It's again more group based, it's going to vary from table to table, in a Tippyverse setting there's no issue with insta-win checks etc, that's how the whole campaign is setup, if a DM/GM is running an E6 campaign where a Balor is the stuff of legends, and only the oldest of the old tombs know about them, the DM may not want the characters to easily know about cause they have a normal Knowledge check going on a skill-monkey, the DM is within his rights to do so to maintain a certain bit of dramatic flair, RPing reasons, really any reason he wants to, so long as the players know that certain DCs will be harder to hit. It's like playing with critical fumble rules (On skill checks, saves everything.) as long as you let your players know that variant/houserule/etc is in play, then it's fine and shouldn't be contested, as the group is enjoying it apparently.

[Brookshw]

This I don't get. It is not like "pumping" a skill is free or something. It costs skill points at the very least, gold, item slots and other resources to boost a skill further.

Someone with a high int score and max ranks in spellcraft is obviously both talented and dedicated to be knowledgeable about spells. That a character like this can identify spells with relative ease is both believable and a good thing in my view.

The level 9 character with Int 10 and 5 ranks in Spellcraft however has still a shot at identifying spells, at a much lower chance of success (and only up to 5th level). This seems quite reasonable too, since this character has spent quite some time to study spells (5 ranks), but without the mental faculties and the dedication, his knowledge is much less complete.

In short: I just don't see the problem.

/shrug, not sure I'd label it a problem but it definitely pings my credibility meter when a level 5 character nails it everytime when they identify a 9th level spell go off. Barring epic magic I've always seen 9th as the pinnacle, the explored deepest mysteries which I expect should take a heck of a lot more time and resources than hitting a +23 on a check. Heck, there's another thread currently about how easy it is to pump.

Honestly its just the dc's that seem odd, maybe link it to min caster level instead of spell level (baring early entry maybe). Should it really be harder to track someone at night, say in the rain, than it should be to recognize how someone is telling reality to sit down and shut up?

[Oddman80]

Hey Jedipotter. The only thing I disagree with on your stance in this matter is it seems like you are trying to fool players into taking skills that are useless at your table to help balance a game mechanic you think is op. But you have already changed so many game mechanics at your table for rebalancing purposes.. So why wouldn't you just reduce the number of skill point available, or some other rules fix that is also presented up front to the players at your table? It just seems passive aggressive to spring the fact that you don't adhere to wotc/srd rules for these few skills the first time a player tries using them.

Alternately, I know you also were seeking ways to differentiate the wizard and sorcerer. This seems like a prime place to do that. Sorcerers would be limited to the minimal info, since they don't have the wealth of book knowledge wizards do...

[Gildedragon]

My own take on knowledge skills (spellcraft an appraise included) as a frequent skill-monkey is that they are great. Names needn't be included, and I'm cool with that as long as my character has the mechanical bonuses they earned (kn dev damage, knowledge of attacks and properties and abilities). In fact treating names as separate from properties is something I am quite fond of. Every commoner and their pig know what a dragon, a human, wheat, a cat, or a devil are; they might not know what their attacks and abilities are, but they can recognize a picture of them... And try will know to run (doubly so for the cat).

(note: I am thoroughly unfond of the counterspelling mechanics, and generally (as a DM) allow any equivalent-level spell to work: same school, same subschool, same descriptor, and higher spell level all provide bonuses to the counterspelling; this means spellcraft tells level, descriptors, school, and subschool)

[eggynack]

Really? After so many people have taken specific shots at jedi w/o him taking any at particular individuals, THAT'S the comment that almost does it for you?
Probably, yeah. I don't think there's been anything particularly report worthy in these arguments thus far. We've mostly been attacking his DM'ing style, rather than the man himself, and the same can generally be said in the opposite direction.

[jedipotter]

So why wouldn't you just reduce the number of skill point available


I've tinkered with it, but I'd want like one skill point a level...and most players think that is too low. So you add a couple more and a couple more, and your back to the current ''too many''.




or some other rules fix that is also presented up front to the players at your table? It just seems passive aggressive to spring the fact that you don't adhere to wotc/srd rules for these few skills the first time a player tries using them.


I'd think it was more overt aggressive....



Alternately, I know you also were seeking ways to differentiate the wizard and sorcerer. This seems like a prime place to do that. Sorcerers would be limited to the minimal info, since they don't have the wealth of book knowledge wizards do...



Yea, but it's more fun if no one knows the spells.

[questionmark693]

I'm not sure if I was clear, but I'm directly talking to you, jedipotter. I'm really curious how you define which rolls need to be roleplayed, and which ones don't.

[Gildedragon]

I've tinkered with it, but I'd want like one skill point a level...and most players think that is too low. So you add a couple more and a couple more, and your back to the current ''too many''.

I struggle to believe 1 skillpoint per level is what you regard 'reasonable'. But I will concede that different people have different standards for reasonable.
There ought be a compromise point between 1 and 'too many', unless one's counting system goes: "one, too many, way too many" as some apocryphal knowledge(local) scholars of orcish have claimed. I suspect someone dropped a comma there

Now if one has a problem with skillchecks being too high (diplomacy is a clear contender for this) well, one could take out the synergy bonuses or reduce the skill cap to character level as opposed to character level+4. Though the latter strikes me as rather draconian.

Edit: Note that so drastically reducing skillpoints hurts mundanes far more than it hurts spellcasters. A cleric can just Guidance of the Avatar up, for example.



I'd think it was more overt aggressive....

You say this as if it were a good thing. This worries me



Yea, but it's more fun if no one knows the spells.
For you, perhaps. But the players... well... I guess they can vote with their feet

[kellbyb]

I've tinkered with it, but I'd want like one skill point a level...and most players think that is too low. So you add a couple more and a couple more, and your back to the current ''too many''.

1 per level? Even for the skillmonkeys? That's just harsh.


I'd think it was more overt aggressive...

Yeah, that doesn't really make it any better.


Yea, but it's more fun if no one knows the spells.

How to you handle counterspells?

[Oddman80]

Yea, but it's more fun if no one knows the spells.

For who? For you? For everyone?
I honestly don't get how you could claim a 'book study' character that is one of the best in his field, in the world couldn't reasonably know/recognize on site 3,000 different spells. Licensing exams for most professions (in the real world) require that volume of memorization, recognition, classification... And that's just to be allowed to do the job... The "average" person in the job field should be capable of even more than that, as bottom 1% was able to pass that hurdle...
think about it, at level one, maxing out ranks in knowledge or spellcraft isn't going to yield these OP results you fear. Its only after a few levels are gained.. Where your character is now amid the top 1% of society among kbnowledge and adventuring abilities, do you begin to make difficult checks

[Flickerdart]

I've tinkered with it, but I'd want like one skill point a level...and most players think that is too low. So you add a couple more and a couple more, and your back to the current ''too many''.
One skill point is too many? You must be surrounded by people who are lousy at what they do, if you think that the average human being only has two competences.

[jedipotter]

I'm not sure if I was clear, but I'm directly talking to you, jedipotter. I'm really curious how you define which rolls need to be roleplayed, and which ones don't.

I covered this like three times: You don't ''role play'' a roll. You make a roll, and it shows you what happens. You need to do something like jump over a pit, you roll and see what you get against the DC to see what happens. I encourage players to describe this (but not ''role play it'').

And you can still roll Spellcraft, and I'll tell you ''the fire spell that just hit you was likely a low level fire attack spell'' or such. So you still ''use'' the skill, as useless as the information is......

The role-play comes in when you want to learn information in game.


I struggle to believe 1 skillpoint per level is what you regard 'reasonable'. But I will concede that different people have different standards for reasonable.

I just use the skill points by the book.


1 per level? Even for the skillmonkeys? That's just harsh.

I never did that.


How to you handle counterspells?

Most players just use a dispel. My game has hundreds of what others call ''custom spells'', so you won't see the same spells often. Chances are you would not have the exact counter spell anyway. I like the idea that a lot of spellcaster makes unique spells. The idea that everyone useing the same dozen spells is boring.

[questionmark693]

Sorry, you're right, I phrased that poorly. At your table, my spellcraft character would need me to roleplay having searched for and learned esoteric knowledge, such as names and exact effects of spells. Would I need to roleplay practicing riding to up my ride skill? Or roleplay combat training to gain more base attack bonus?

[Gildedragon]

I just use the skill points by the book.

Why? I mean your previous statement indicates you are not satisfied with them, and you are already not using skills by the book, so why not craft something that is consistent and you are happy with.

Something less mechanical and more freeform, which seems to be a playstyle you are advocating.

[Amphetryon]

I just use the skill points by the book.Given how you say you use skills in general, I'm not entirely convinced on this claim. What do you mean when you say "I just use skill points by the book" in contrast to your stated limitations on skills per character level and what ranks in, for example, spellcraft can do in your campaign versus what they do by the book?

[jedipotter]

Sorry, you're right, I phrased that poorly. At your table, my spellcraft character would need me to roleplay having searched for and learned esoteric knowledge, such as names and exact effects of spells. Would I need to roleplay practicing riding to up my ride skill? Or roleplay combat training to gain more base attack bonus?

No.


Why? I mean your previous statement indicates you are not satisfied with them, and you are already not using skills by the book, so why not craft something that is consistent and you are happy with.

Something less mechanical and more freeform, which seems to be a playstyle you are advocating.

I like mechanics for actions, like movement, not for role-play stuff.



Given how you say you use skills in general, I'm not entirely convinced on this claim. What do you mean when you say "I just use skill points by the book" in contrast to your stated limitations on skills per character level and what ranks in, for example, spellcraft can do in your campaign versus what they do by the book?

I use the skill points by the book....what limitation are you talking about?

[questionmark693]

Then I'm confused why I would need to roleplay learning spellcraft, when that's one of the few skills that don't actually exist in the real world.

It was insinuated you don't use skills by the book because...well....you don't use spellcraft by the book.

[Gildedragon]

I like mechanics for actions, like movement, not for role-play stuff.

And thus I repeat: why use skills at all?
Tinker up your skill-less 3.5 mod, let players know what the rules for that are, and go to town.
Far more consistent and fair to the players than a kafkaesque skill system, where you get points but they don't matter unless the DM wants them to...

Edit as to roleplaying spellcraft it might be something like "I tap into my years of study at Swinepapilloma to prepare a defense against the spell my opponent is likely to cast..."

[jedipotter]

Then I'm confused why I would need to roleplay learning spellcraft, when that's one of the few skills that don't actually exist in the real world.

You don't ''role play learning spellcraft'', you role play learning information in the game.


And thus I repeat: why use skills at all?


I don't have a problem with the other skills, the ones that don't give free information.

[questionmark693]

Spellcraft is a skill that you put points in to represent knowledge your character has gained. Ride is a skill you put points in to represent practice your character has in riding animals. Sense Motive is a skill you put points in to represent your character's practice in reading people successfully. Why do you pick one of these and say that the process has to be roleplayed before the results can be used?

[jedipotter]

Spellcraft is a skill that you put points in to represent knowledge your character has gained. Ride is a skill you put points in to represent practice your character has in riding animals. Sense Motive is a skill you put points in to represent your character's practice in reading people successfully. Why do you pick one of these and say that the process has to be roleplayed before the results can be used?

Ride is a skill that lets a character do a couple of physical actions in the game world. Sense Motive is for people that don't pay attention and want to be told what to do. It's on my list of hated skills. Much like spellcraft, I'll give the obvious. When the character is on Rip-Off Road, talking to a cloaked figure in a shadowy corner named Steely Gotyourcash and that figure is offering a vorpral sword +5 for just the low, low price of 25 gold coins, and the player does the ''um, oh, I sense motive on the cloaked figure'', I'm going to answer with ''you sense it might be too good to be true and that Steely is lying to you.''

But Spellcraft gives away free infromation I want the players to role play for.

[questionmark693]

What about intimidate? I'm not a very physically imposing, or in any other way intimidating, person. So would it be fair for me to roleplay my half orc character with a greataxe? Or maybe I should be as god of a liar as my bard? Would you make me roleplay concentrating on a spell after taking fifty damage? Why do you pick certain skills and decide you have to roleplay them? I realize I'm coming off as really antagonistic, and I'm really sorry because that's not my goal. But I hate that I can't play a charisma focused character because I need to roleplay charisma skills, or in your case, I need to roleplay knowledge relaying skills, but I can play a fighter (archetype, not class) with no issue whatsoever.

[ko_sct]

In my group when you are under the effect of a spell you only get the information that you can see or that directly affect you. For example, if an enemy cast a fear spell, the dm will only say that he cast a spell, the targeted player must make a will save and if he fail he get a note telling him he must run-away next turn (or if it apply penalty he just get told what they are).

For knowledge roll, we usually work by RAW, if you make your roll you get to know the name of the spell and you get told the important information (and you can look it up while it's not your turn if you want more information).

But I've been in game where the effect of spellcraft was more restricted and it was plenty of fun. It was a game with a heavly house-ruled magic system and most of the time spellcraft would just give me vague information about the spell but it also allowed me to get information like ''this book is a grimoire, it is the source of some wizards power'' wich meant that it was probably important but we didn't know if the wizard needed it cast spell (in which case stealing it would be a good idea) or if it gave the wizard powers but he didn't need it to cast spell (in which case stealing it would be a bad idea)

Overall both ways of handling spellcraft were fun. You just need to tell your player upfront if your using the second way because that's not the way it work in the books.

[questionmark693]

There's a difference between 'spellcraft gives only limited knowledge' and 'spellcraft gives only the information you have uncovered as a player character during actual roleplaying time'. That's the distinction that bothers me.

[Vhaidara]

Ride is a skill that lets a character do a couple of physical actions in the game world. Sense Motive is for people that don't pay attention and want to be told what to do. It's on my list of hated skills. Much like spellcraft, I'll give the obvious. When the character is on Rip-Off Road, talking to a cloaked figure in a shadowy corner named Steely Gotyourcash and that figure is offering a vorpral sword +5 for just the low, low price of 25 gold coins, and the player does the ''um, oh, I sense motive on the cloaked figure'', I'm going to answer with ''you sense it might be too good to be true and that Steely is lying to you.''

But Spellcraft gives away free infromation I want the players to role play for.

Really? So what if Frank, the NPC the players have worked with for the past three years, tells them that, while he was out in the forest hunting (he is a hunter, it's what he does), he saw a pack of trolls going into a cave. In truth, the evil bandit lord the PCs thwarted two and a half years ago, with Frank's help, has returned, kidnapped Frank's wife Mary Ann and his daughter Beth, and is holding them hostage until Frank sends the PCs into a trap, which is in the woods near the cave Frank claims to have seen trolls at.

Do the players have to guess that you're lying? Even with a +20 to Sense Motive, at which point the character has honed their ability to read people to the point of being a human lie detector, would they be unable to tell from subconscious ticks (Frank, being a hunter, isn't exactly what one would call a "skilled liar") that Frank wasn't telling them the whole truth?

[Flickerdart]

Ride is a skill that lets a character do a couple of physical actions in the game world. Sense Motive is for people that don't pay attention and want to be told what to do. It's on my list of hated skills. Much like spellcraft, I'll give the obvious. When the character is on Rip-Off Road, talking to a cloaked figure in a shadowy corner named Steely Gotyourcash and that figure is offering a vorpral sword +5 for just the low, low price of 25 gold coins, and the player does the ''um, oh, I sense motive on the cloaked figure'', I'm going to answer with ''you sense it might be too good to be true and that Steely is lying to you.''

But Spellcraft gives away free infromation I want the players to role play for.
Wow, I'm impressed, jedipotter - apparently you are a renowned thespian who gets across not only the impression of untrustworthiness, but the exact level of it that a particular character would need. I'm surprised you're not off making a big buck in Hollywood with such acting prowess.

[Graypairofsocks]

It's the idea that they know all the spells that bothers me.

Here is a solution: Spellcraft rolls to identify a spell are like using your knowledge of magic to determine the effects of a spell(sort of like solving a puzzle), not always like trying to remember it.

[eggynack]

Here is a solution: Spellcraft rolls to identify a spell are like using your knowledge of magic to determine the effects of a spell(sort of like solving a puzzle), not always like trying to remember it.
That does seem reasonable. I mean, you'd presumably just tell your player the spell, because just saying that this is a cloud kill is an excellent short hand for that pile of description, but the character would be seeing the pile of description. This isn't a knowledge skill, after all, and thus might be based on skill with magic, rather than straightforward memorization. To return to the analogy of the English language, the spell in question is a sentence, and I can likely tell you exactly what a sentence means, even if I don't know every word in it. That would be doubly true for a linguist. This also bypasses the communication issue, because you don't need to read all of the materials about a theoretical foreign spell if you just know all of the mechanics behind it.

[jedipotter]

Here is a solution: Spellcraft rolls to identify a spell are like using your knowledge of magic to determine the effects of a spell(sort of like solving a puzzle), not always like trying to remember it.

That is what I do. You will get the obvious things about the magic used, but they might be things the player missed or did not realize were important. Or they might just confirm what they already suspected, or set them on the right path. But they won't get the spell name, effects and details with out role-playing for them.

[eggynack]

That is what I do. You will get the obvious things about the magic used, but they might be things the player missed or did not realize were important. Or they might just confirm what they already suspected, or set them on the right path. But they won't get the spell name, effects and details with out role-playing for them.
No, that's not what you do. Or, the stuff you said after that is, but it's not alike to what he was saying. In particular, the idea is that you use your vast understanding of the mechanics of magic so that you actually do get the effects and details. As I've said before, any barbarian can identify that they were hit with a glob of spit that deals damage. Only a caster, or other fellow with spellcraft, can identify that the glob of spit has a certain range, that the spit deals negative energy damage, and that, I dunno, the caster gets a +4 spittle bonus to AC.

Edit: Basically, you get exactly what spellcraft says you get. It's just flavored differently.

[kellbyb]

That is what I do. You will get the obvious things about the magic used, but they might be things the player missed or did not realize were important. Or they might just confirm what they already suspected, or set them on the right path. But they won't get the spell name, effects and details with out role-playing for them.

So spellcraft only tells people what they probably already know? That's a pretty heavy nerf. As to spellcraft giving free information - you have to invest skill points in it, at the very least. Skill points are a rather scarce, though I can see we disagree about that part.

[Amphetryon]

I use the skill points by the book....what limitation are you talking about?

You think "spellcraft does nothing" is using the skill points by the book? Really?

[Graypairofsocks]

That is what I do. You will get the obvious things about the magic used, but they might be things the player missed or did not realize were important. Or they might just confirm what they already suspected, or set them on the right path. But they won't get the spell name, effects and details with out role-playing for them.

Not exactly, what I gave was a way to "rationalize" wizards knowing the details (not how to cast) of every spell.

Also a way to (sort of) put both in one game would be: if you fail the spellcraft check by less than a certain amount (5 to 10) you don't identify it, but you would gain incomplete information about the spell.

[jedipotter]

So spellcraft only tells people what they probably already know? That's a pretty heavy nerf. As to spellcraft giving free information - you have to invest skill points in it, at the very least. Skill points are a rather scarce, though I can see we disagree about that part.

Well, spellcraft does have other uses.


You think "spellcraft does nothing" is using the skill points by the book? Really?

Remember I see the rules as just suggestions, not some kind of carved in stone mandaite.


Not exactly, what I gave was a way to "rationalize" wizards knowing the details (not how to cast) of every spell.

Also a way to (sort of) put both in one game would be: if you fail the spellcraft check by less than a certain amount (5 to 10) you don't identify it, but you would gain incomplete information about the spell.

Brings us back to the too many skill points problem though....

[eggynack]

Remember I see the rules as just suggestions, not some kind of carved in stone mandaite.
That doesn't suddenly mean you're doing things by the book. In fact, it means that you're doing the opposite most of the time.

Brings us back to the too many skill points problem though....
I don't really see how that's the case. Sure, you have the odd case like the truenamer, where there's a lot of intelligence skill points trying to fit on a tiny list, but a good amount of the time you end up with not enough points for the places you need to put them. Really, if anything, your "fix" exacerbates the issue. Characters presumably don't put many points into knowledges or spellcraft, so they end up with even more skill points relative to the places they want to put them.

[awa]

You forget he doesn't tell his players about the "fix" he has indicated that he uses knowledge and spell craft to trick players into wasting their skill points.


They exist. They are a great spot for players to waste skill points, Character's get way too many skill points as it is, so it's nice when they put a ton in knowledge and spellcraft hoping to ''know everything''. At least it is less they can put in annoying skills like perception.

[eggynack]

You forget he doesn't tell his players about the "fix" he has indicated that he uses knowledge and spell craft to trick players into wasting their skill points.
True enough, I suppose.

[kellbyb]

Well, spellcraft does have other uses.

Yes, but it's still an unnecessary nerf.


Remember I see the rules as just suggestions, not some kind of carved in stone mandate.

So do I. My biggest beef here is that you seem to withhold this information from your players.


Brings us back to the too many skill points problem though....

...which isn't actually a problem.

[Svata]

Brings us back to the too many skill points problem though....

I don't see the problem. Rogues have 8+int skill points/level, the most in the game. If they have 14 int, that's 10. That covers Bluff, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Hide, Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Sleight of Hand, Tumble, and UMD. He goes without Listen, Spot, Gather Information, K. (local), Appraise, Disguise, Balance, Escape Artist, Forgery, and Use Rope. How is that too many skills again?

[awa]

actually ignoring Jedi for a minute i also find sense motive a bit problematic.
On one hand i don't want a social interaction to be just a roll on the other hand I certainly cant perfectly manage the body language and speech of every possible npc. A related problem is if i just describe them the very fact that I'm putting a lot of detail into a specific npc I'm drawing undue a attention to some part of the character and if i do it for every npc then drowning the pcs in details will cause them to not pay attention when it actually matters.

It's something i have to spend a good deal of time thinking about when designing mysteries.

[jedipotter]

I don't really see how that's the case. Sure, you have the odd case like the truenamer, where there's a lot of intelligence skill points trying to fit on a tiny list, but a good amount of the time you end up with not enough points for the places you need to put them.

I find it the other way around. By like 3rd level the characters have so many skill points that things become pointless. With such high, optimized, pluses, they pass every skill check...it's really pointless to roll.


i don't want a social interaction to be just a roll .

It's worse then that, by the rules: one roll an they know for a fact if someone is lying or not.

[eggynack]

I find it the other way around. By like 3rd level the characters have so many skill points that things become pointless. With such high, optimized, pluses, they pass every skill check...it's really pointless to roll
I don't even understand how that works. Everything scales up with level, such that a character will gain approximately the same use from skill points early that they will late. You get ridiculous sneaking abilities, but enemies can boost their spot and listen to the same degree. You can boost spellcraft and knowledge, but high level spells, and especially high level enemies, are harder to identify, which is a problem exacerbated by the fact that there are so many knowledges. You can pick more difficult locks, but locks are more difficult to pick, because they contain better valuables, because that's how WBL works (and enemies get more money too). As long as you just max out every skill you put points into, which is often the best way to go, the ratio between skills you can put points into and skills you have access to will remain constant. Your argument here doesn't seem to hold up to any kind of logic, in other words.

Edit:

It's worse then that, by the rules: one roll an they know for a fact if someone is lying or not.
Unless they have bluff. It's an opposed roll, after all. Moreover, even if they don't have bluff, and you succeeded at the check, you still can't know for a fact that they are lying or not because they could have bluff, and you might be getting wrong information. This isn't as good as you think it is.

[Vhaidara]

It's worse then that, by the rules: one roll an they know for a fact if someone is lying or not.

Except, you know, if they fail it. Which, since Bluff is, in my experience, easier to pump than Sense Motive, shouldn't favor them.

[Svata]

Jedipotter, I would like a response to my post on how too many skill points is a problem when the class with the most cannot do most of the things they're expected to. Please and thank you.

[Vhaidara]

Jedipotter, I would like a response to my post on how too many skill points is a problem when the class with the most cannot do most of the things they're expected to. Please and thank you.

It seems the problem is having max ranks in a skill, meaning that you actually have a decent bonus, which makes the game too easy.

[eggynack]

Actually, come to think of it, the ratio of points to places to put them tends to decrease as time goes on. If you're not just maxing everything out, then you slowly lose points to skill tricks, languages, and 5'ing out skills for a synergy bonus or ability to balance on grease. The chances that a given skill will be maxed out continually goes down as you increase in level, and level one is thus the level where you'd have the greatest chance of fully maxed skills.

[kellbyb]

It's worse then that, by the rules: one roll an they know for a fact if someone is lying or not.

Save-or-Dies are bad for roleplaying, by the rules: one roll and you know for a fact if someone is dead or not.

[Arkhaic]

Do you tell your players whether they succeeded on the check or not? Because if you don't, it doesn't tell them for sure—they have no way of knowing whether they passed the check.