Knowledge and Mysteries

[jedipotter]

So Knowledge checks, again.

So the PC in a solo game is a gnome adventurer. One of his foes is a fellow gnome that tries all sorts of tricks to get rich quick, that the PC has uncovered in the past. So the PC wanders into a new town, and finds the gnome foe. The gnome foe has a pink dragon and is selling tickets to see it and such. The locals are eating it up and the gnome foe is making lots of money.

But the PC is not convinced everything is right. He thinks it might be a scam of some sort. The PC has never heard of a pink dragon, and finds it odd that one might even be working for the gnome foe. So the PC rolls the dreaded knowledge check. He wants to know if pink dragons are real. Now this is the big game stopper. The adventure is ''what is the foe up to, what is the 'dragon', how to uncover what is going on and find some proof''. So if the player can make one lazy roll, and know for an absolute fact if the pink dragon is real or not.

So in my game pink dragons are real, but rare. Most common folk have never heard of them, but sages and dragon experts would know. Knowledge does not take this into account though. A couple ranks are equal to years of school. So a character with like a +10 would ''remember' that class where they were taught everything. So even if the DC was ''hard'' and like 20, the character ''should'' still know. And this is what makes knowledge ruin the game, a lazy roll and the player knows everything.

And knowage rolls can't be vague, incomplete or give false information...without telling the player the information might be vague, incomplete or false.....right? I've asked this one before and most people say that knowledge must be 100% true. You can't say ''as a fact'' that pink dragons are flakes, if they are real. As, somehow, when they character learned everything in school, they only learned the truth.

So the adventure plot is the PC thinks something is up. The gnome foe has lots and lots of false clues to make the PC think the dragon is fake, like lots of buckets of pink paint. And at the same time, there are clues that the dragon is real. like that it uses magic. So the PC will face the mystery with conflicting clues, some fake and some real and some just neutral. In the end, the PC should discover that the dragon is, in fact real, and discover how it became a part of a gnome side show.

So how to handle the problem? The PC will want an answer to the question ''are pink dragons real dragons?'' If I go by-the-book, he will know ''pink dragons are real'' and that his information is 100% true. So all the misleading clues are pointless as he will know they are fakes. He knows the dragon is 100% real. That takes away a huge chunk of game play and ruins the whole mystery of ''is this dragon real or not''.

In my normal games, I make knowledge skills useless. He'd get an answer like ''You have never heard of pink dragons.'' Is that an acceptable answer in default by-the-book D&D? Can the DM just set an impossible DC like 30 to keep information unknown? Is this ''fair'' or whatever, to the player that says ''a couple ranks makes me an expert and I can remember almost everything''. Should a player be able to solve a mystery by just rolling a couple checks? Are mysteries pointless with the by-the-book knowledge rolls? Do you just have to do the lame ''ok, player you know the 100% truth, but you still must play the game anyway and just 'pretend' like you don't know it too much all the time''?

[firebrandtoluc]

It doesn't matter if pink dragons are real or not. What matters is if the gnome foe actually has one. They could be real but the one he has is fake. They could be non existent naturally but the gnome foe found some unique creature that a wizard messed with. The knowledge check can only eliminate a very small portion of the mystery here. The player still needs to defeat the foe (if that is the goal).

[jedipotter]

It doesn't matter if pink dragons are real or not. What matters is if the gnome foe actually has one. They could be real but the one he has is fake. They could be non existent naturally but the gnome foe found some unique creature that a wizard messed with. The knowledge check can only eliminate a very small portion of the mystery here. The player still needs to defeat the foe (if that is the goal).

But knowing if the dragon is real or not is a huge part of the mystery. One roll, and the player knows ''100% sure'' that the dragon is real. With no roll, the player can never be ''sure 100%'' and might swing from real to fake to real and back as they get clues.

[bjoern]

Edit--him finding out--Whether pink dragons are real or not I feel is irrelevant .

Rather than pink dragons, let's say the gnome has gold nuggets that he found in a nearby stream.he is selling them to towns folk at a discount rate for cash to upgrade his side show.

A successful knowledge check tells the player that there were stories long ago about gold riches to be found in the rivers near the town, but noone has found much for a long time but that it is assumed there is more.
Right there a successful knowledge check validates the gnomes story as plausible.

But the gnome is just using gold paint on rocks to prey on peoples belief in something that is actually real .

If the gnome made his pink dragon something that wasn't real.....like a langoleer or something, then nobody would believe it for a second. All good cons must be based on truth and be more believable than the real thing is.

[Vhaidara]

It's incredibly obscure. Using the bardic knowledge guidelines
DC 30: Extremely obscure, known by very few, possibly forgotten by most who once knew it, possibly known only by those who don’t understand the significance of the knowledge.
Does that sound about right? if so, there's your DC.

Appropriate answer on failure by 5 or more (or success if they don't exist): You have never heard of a Pink Dragon
Appropriate answer on failure by 4 or less: You have heard of them, but every time it was a fake
Appropriate answer on success by less than 5/10: You have heard of them, but they are rare, and many scholars question their existence
Appropriate answer on success by more than 5/10: They are real.

[awa]

your kinda setting up a straw man here,
As the dm you should roll knowledge checks secretly if its really hard to find info dc 30 is a listed dc. If a players fails the check he might have bad info and think they exist when they don't or don't when they do, or more commonly they just don't know. The knowledge system is not nearly as broken as you make it out to be.

Although personally i feel that any mystery that can be solved by a single knowledge check is a poorly made mystery.

[HunterOfJello]

If you want to have a mystery in your game then you definitely need to start from a position that is mysterious. I think that a Pink Dragon is a decent one.

As far as knowledge checks are concerned, the more the DM knows about the game the more he can reference and allow for rumors. I've always thought that the value you roll on a knowledge check (if high enough) will allow you a specific amount of 100% certain information and a varied amount of uncertain information. For instance, if I was DMing the adventure you mentioned I would answer a roll of 20 on the question of

"Are there such things as pink dragons?"

with

"You have heard in the past that Red Dragons once they advance into their Wyrm age have been known to lighten in color to almost become Pink rather than Red. Gargantuan dragons that are pink in color are therefore greatly feared. You have not heard of any commonly pink dragons of smaller sizes before, but you do not know everything about all dragons. Black Dragons are said to turn almost dark purple in color when they reach advanced age, but you have also heard of extraordinarily rare Purple Dragons which are another type of dragon altogether. Whether the Ruby Dragon that lives in the outer planes is of a darker or lighter hue (and therefore pinkish in color) is not known to you since you weren't pay attention very well in class that day."

Did I provide a lot of information for the knowledge check? Aboslutely. He knows that Pink is not a common color that dragons are known for. However, he knows that it is a valid color for a scale to possess, other types of very rare chromatic colored dragons exist, and this could also very well just be a gem dragon and not a pink dragon at all. He will have to gather information himself to get 100% completeness on a full answer to the question since it relates not only to simple knowledge but to very advanced knowledge as well.


~~~~~~~~~

What should happen when a PC is regularly rolling 60s on their knowledge checks due to extreme skill buffing is another conversation entirely, and thankfully not the one happening in this thread.

[squiggit]

BOne roll, and the player knows ''100% sure'' that the dragon is real.

Unless of course the information isn't at the character's disposal or isn't available. Set the DC reasonably high. Roll in secret. Give him appropriate but not conclusive information. This one honestly seems pretty straight forward.

[dextercorvia]

His check doesn't let him know that This dragon is really pink. It only lets him answer the question he asked, "Do pink dragons exist?" If you answer with, "Yes, but they are incredibly rare, and several reported sightings were probably mistakes or counterfeits." it tells him exactly what he needs to know and furthers your mystery.

[Sidmen]

A quick thought exercise:

The Player rolls Knowledge and succeeds: Yes, Pink Dragons are a real thing, you've never seen one before.

This does not tell the Player whether or not this particular animal is a pink dragon - he has never seen one before so can't positively ID one. The mystery is still mysterious - why would any dragon (let alone a rare pink one) bother helping this gnome make money?

The player rolls Knowledge and fails: You've never heard about Pink Dragons.

The mystery is still mysterious - this may or may not be a pink dragon, which may or may not even exist.


In either case, the roll has only a small impact on the final outcome.

[Red Fel]

You're not looking at a single roll - you're looking at several: Do pink dragons exist? Success: Depending on how successful the roll is, you may know that they exist, how rare they are, possibly even their distinctive features or natural habitats. Failure: You do not know whether they exist or not. It's like if I asked you if M-Theory was commonly accepted by theoretical physicists - fail your real-life Knowledge (Theoretical Physics) check, and you simply don't know whether it's accepted, let alone whether I just made the term up. Is this thing in front of you real? Roll to disbelieve. If it's an illusion, you can do that. Success: The illusion vanishes. Failure: It seems quite real. It could be real. Or it could be a very clever illusion. Again, you don't know. If it's not an illusion, or you fail the disbelieve roll, it's time for another knowledge check. Is this thing before you a pink dragon? Success: You can identify whether this thing is a pink dragon or not. Note the distinction between the first roll ("Do pink dragons exist?") and the second ("Is this particular thing a pink dragon?"). Failure: Again, you can't tell. Like if I asked you if this thing I was holding was sedimentary limestone. Without the success on your real-life Knowledge (Geology) check, you just can't be sure if it is, or if sedimentary limestone is even a thing.
It's not a single roll, because you're not just testing one thing. Indeed, even Sherlock Holmes doesn't solve mysteries with a single knowledge roll.

Step one is eliminating the impossible. Being a pink dragon is rare, but not impossible, so you can't eliminate it.

Step two is narrowing your possibilities. Is this thing an illusion? A simulacrum or other artificial being? A shapeshifter? A purple dragon that's been painted? There are many ways to test for this, and a single roll won't do it unless you just happen to hit on the precise right one.

[jedipotter]

your kinda setting up a straw man here,
As the dm you should roll knowledge checks secretly if its really hard to find info dc 30 is a listed dc. If a players fails the check he might have bad info and think they exist when they don't or don't when they do, or more commonly they just don't know. The knowledge system is not nearly as broken as you make it out to be.

Although personally i feel that any mystery that can be solved by a single knowledge check is a poorly made mystery.

This is why I make knowledge skills useless, so problem players can't cheat and say insulting things like ''if your mystery can be solved by one roll it's poor''. I'd love to do true, deep mysteries, but the average player just does not like that. Unless I officaly say before the game starts that ''this will be a mystery game''. Though then they will want to cheat, er ''use the dumb rules'' to ''solve''(that is have the DM tell them) the mystery.

I can't see anyway knowledge skills are not broken....unless the DM can lie and give false information or just set the DC's sky high.

[Hazrond]

This is why I make knowledge skills useless, so problem players can't cheat and say insulting things like ''if your mystery can be solved by one roll it's poor''. I'd love to do true, deep mysteries, but the average player just does not like that. Unless I officaly say before the game starts that ''this will be a mystery game''. Though then they will want to cheat, er ''use the dumb rules'' to ''solve''(that is have the DM tell them) the mystery.

I can't see anyway knowledge skills are not broken....unless the DM can lie and give false information or just set the DC's sky high.

Or heres a thought, use the knowledge skill how it is SUPPOSED to be used, if they ask you if pink dragons exist and make the roll then tell them "Yes you have heard of them, but they are very rare" now he has if anything more reason to suspect the foe because how would they gain the cooperation of such a rare creature? whenever you specifically jedi, make an argument against the knowledge skill you always make these situations where the DM gives them a platter of info as opposed to the answer with possible clarification, you seem to think that people can make knowledge checks to go around story when they really cant, if he made the check he knows that pink dragons ARE a thing but he has no clue whether the pink infront of him is genuine or not, you seem to think sometimes that knowledge can be used to gain information that a knowledge check just cant do, stuff like "is this individual in front of you genuine?" the answer to that would be "Find out yourself" because the knowledge would not cover such a subject

Edit: this is all based off of arguments ive seen you make before, i may be wrong but from my perspective these are your most common choices

[troqdor1316]

In almost every book and campaign module I've ever read, I've never seen somewhere stating you should use knowledge checks (or any single roll of a die) to hand the players what they need to know in order to progress the story. In fact, in one of my favorite books (The Dragonlance Campaign Setting), there is a class, the Noble, with a class feature (the Favor check) that specifically states that a Favor should never be something allowing the character or party to bypass a problem completely. It should only be something to make that problem easier to solve.

I think the problem is that you for some reason assume, Jedipotter, that knowledge checks are meant to be used the exact opposite way that these aforementioned Favor checks are meant to be used, when there is absolutely no precedent for this assumption.

Simply put, it's not the game's fault that you're playing the game wrong.

[Zanos]

This is why I make knowledge skills useless, so problem players can't cheat and say insulting things like ''if your mystery can be solved by one roll it's poor''. I'd love to do true, deep mysteries, but the average player just does not like that. Unless I officaly say before the game starts that ''this will be a mystery game''. Though then they will want to cheat, er ''use the dumb rules'' to ''solve''(that is have the DM tell them) the mystery.

I can't see anyway knowledge skills are not broken....unless the DM can lie and give false information or just set the DC's sky high.
You know what you're starting.

I smell a fifty pager.

[jedipotter]

Edit: this is all based off of arguments ive seen you make before, i may be wrong but from my perspective these are your most common choices

In general, I just say that Knowledge rollers are problem players and don't game with them. But not always. Some times I get stuck with them.

No one ever seems to have a problem with ''just telling the players everything like your all the 'authors' of some type of group story''. But then everyone is so stuck on the holding hands group story thing. And that just rubs me the wrong way.

[squiggit]

In general, I just say that Knowledge rollers are problem players and don't game with them.
I think you need to take a step back and reexamine this. Using a relevant, flavorful, appropriate skill as described makes you a problem player?


No one ever seems to have a problem with ''just telling the players everything like your all the 'authors' of some type of group story''.
I haven't seen many people do that here... and I simply don't see why you feel that you have to do it.

Honestly your problem seems self perpetuating: You hate knowledge because of your own version of how knowledge works. Apply it more judiciously and you wouldn't have the problem in the first place.

It really seems rather simple. Knowledge skills are used to translate information a character should know from their training into information a player can know (because the player doesn't exist in that world and therefore doesn't have that training or experience). Given that, and the rarity of your monster, you try to figure out a reasonable DC to gain some information. Or simply deem it too alien altogether and say they don't know anything (be careful with this one though as overusing it can make a character's skill choices feel wasted).

There's nothing wrong with being vague or unclear if the roll isn't high enough and that's what fits.


Let's make up an example to try to be reasonable here. Pink Dragons. Extremely Obscure, DC30.... So, let's say your player has gets a 6 on his roll after modifiers. He has no idea what he's looking at. A 20? Again. No clue. Maybe he remembers one of his classmates or research assistants used to doodle dragons in pink in. DC30, passing the test. He might have remembered coming across a mythical reference to pink dragons, but no clear information one way or the other (and there's myths of bugbear unicorn hybrids too so can it really be trusted?) Maybe he rolls a 35 or 40 and he finds out that there have been reported sightings of Pink Dragons in X region, but none have ever been confirmed. Or that Researchers theorize pink dragons might be the bastard offspring of white and red dragons. Or the work of a rogue kobold and a bucket of paint.

You don't need to give everything away, it's simply not a requirement.

[troqdor1316]

Or that Researchers theorize pink dragons might be the bastard offspring of white and red dragons.


You just gave me a great idea for a character concept. Half-blue half-silver kobold. Two HD increases, +8 Nat Armor, two different 1/day breath weapons, +16 Str, +4 Con, +4 Int, +4 Cha, +6 LA. His conflicting ancestries (complete with the genetic memories inborn into true dragons from both his blue side and his silver side) make him a rather chaotic individual, and he's uncertain of his choices as he's unsure which side of his lineage he truly wants to embrace.

[Hazrond]

You just gave me a great idea for a character concept. Half-blue half-silver kobold. Two HD increases, +8 Nat Armor, two different 1/day breath weapons, +16 Str, +4 Con, +4 Int, +4 Cha, +6 LA. His conflicting ancestries (complete with the genetic memories inborn into true dragons from both his blue side and his silver side) make him a rather chaotic individual, and he's uncertain of his choices as he's unsure which side of his lineage he truly wants to embrace.

For added confusion two of his ancestors fought at one point, meaning he has conflicting memories of both viewpoints :smallbiggrin:

[Alent]

I don't get the problem. Knowledges have context, as people have already pointed out, per the setting you've outlined this is out of scope of context.

What's wrong with saying something witty like "In all your research, you've never read anything about an official taxonomy of 'pink' dragons... but dragons will mate with anything living or otherwise, your arcane history professor was quite fond of showing off that taxidermied half dragon, half orc, half minotaur mimic from his adventuring days, could this be a similar crossbreed?"

Give 'em a chuckle while letting them know they're onto something but asking the wrong question.

[Macros]

In general, I just say that Knowledge rollers are problem players and don't game with them.

*facepalm*

Honestly, I don't even see what's the problem IS in your particular situation. If your player has invested in the appropriate knowledge skill, it won't break the story if you tell him that pink dragons do exist but are incredibly rare, because in no way does it tell him that the thing before his eyes is the real deal. It just says it might be. Even if he rolls well, and the answer is "you've never heard of any pink dragon", he still cannot be sure the dragon is a fake : this dragon might be the first of a newly discovered species.

What I want to point out is, no matter what answer you'll give him, your player would still have to investigate.

[kardar233]

A high Knowledge skill generally represents someone who is learned on the matter.

A character who has spent most of their life in a wizards' guild would have a high Knowledge: Arcana skill representing the fact that they've read all sorts of books on various arcane subjects. As Arcana covers identification of dragons (Player's Handbook p. 78) someone with a high Knowledge: Arcana skill should know a fair amount about dragons.


So in my game pink dragons are real, but rare. Most common folk have never heard of them, but sages and dragon experts would know.

That's cool. I would say that "sages and dragon experts" would tend to have a pretty high Knowledge: Arcana, which is the mechanical manifestation of knowing a lot about dragons.

If a character has a high Knowledge: Arcana, that indicates that that character is knowledgeable in arcane subjects. They might even be a sage. Therefore, they should know a lot about dragons.

The important part, however, is that this doesn't need to remove the mystery. Making a difficult Knowledge: Arcana check (it's difficult because information about pink dragons is fairly rare) would tell the character that pink dragons do exist.

However, that doesn't that what this gnome has is one of the very rare pink dragons. He might just have a white dragon that he painted pink. The mystery still exists, because the Knowledge check doesn't necessarily tell you whether the gnome has a real pink dragon. If you got your hands on it and inspected it closely, you might be able to make a Knowledge check to tell, but the gnome's probably not going to let you get the chance.

Really, all that the Knowledge check does is cut out the part where the party searches for books to find out whether pink dragons really exist. You still have to sneak around and find a way to figure out whether the gnome has a real pink dragon or not, and that's the main part of the mystery. The Knowledge check has the bonus of making the player running the loremaster feel like a real loremaster, because he knew a piece of esoteric lore that ended up being useful, for the cost of a sidequest to find a book which would probably be pretty boring anyway.

[troqdor1316]

For added confusion two of his ancestors fought at one point, meaning he has conflicting memories of both viewpoints :smallbiggrin:


Also, oh deary me. I just pictured this character and with an average point buy, he would start off with upwards of 22-26 STR. Probably more if I turned him into a reasonably optimized barbarian (since he needs the health bad with a +6 LA), so let's say beginning with 34 STR, 38 in a rage, and 44 once I get him into his 8th level of frenzied berserker for ECL 20. Add level up bonuses to get to 47, enhancement to get to 53, inherent to go up to 58, and Muscle Kobold casts fist. :|

EDIT: Crap, now I'm stuck actually building this character to make it as viable as possible. Will update.

[supermonkeyjoe]

I think your idea of a "Mystery" is slightly off Jedipotter, the mystery in your case shouldn't be 'Are pink dragons real?' it should be 'does this gnome have a genuine pink dragon?', a knowledge check would only tell you that pink dragons exist/don't exist and/or that the pink dragon in front of you looks/doesn't look like a pink dragon. If this isn't discoverable with a knowledge(arcana) check then how are the PCs supposed to find out?

Assume the PCs discover pink dragons aren't real, what then? They confront the townsfolk about it who all turn around and say "of course they are real, I saw one"

Being upset that a PC can figure part of a puzzle out with a knowledge check is like putting a 10' gap in front of the PCs and then being upset when one of them simply jumps over it.

[Macros]

Plus, try to remember that knowledge checks do tell you if something is true or false with 100% certainty. The basis of the collective knowledge drawn upon might be flawed or incomplete, especially if it's an obscure domain, where only a handful of person can be called experts.

For exemple, the fact that the Sage Knowsalot, legendary scholar, wrote that Pink Dragons indeed do exist does not make it necessarily true. For all we know, he wrote that while being drunk, and saw a red dragon or a pink elephant, or whatever, and his brain translated "hey, pink dragon!". So, a knowledge check would tell you that Sage Knowsalot, who's generally a trustworthy source, wrote that pink dragons are real, and nothing more.

On the other hand, the fact that Sage Knowsalot never wrote about any pink dragon whatsoever doesn't mean that they don't exist. Only that he never met one.

[awa]

In general, I just say that Knowledge rollers are problem players and don't game with them. But not always. Some times I get stuck with them.

No one ever seems to have a problem with ''just telling the players everything like your all the 'authors' of some type of group story''. But then everyone is so stuck on the holding hands group story thing. And that just rubs me the wrong way.

see this is your problem you want knowledge not to work and so you ignore every comment telling you how to make it work. Virtually every one in the thread says give a limited amount of useful information. but instead you say we are all saying tell them everything and hold there hands.

I mean it doesn't actually surprise me ive read some of your previous posts.

also i think id like a source for that quote because i would be very surprised if you had not completely made it up.

[eggynack]

This is why I make knowledge skills useless, so problem players can't cheat and say insulting things like ''if your mystery can be solved by one roll it's poor''. I'd love to do true, deep mysteries, but the average player just does not like that. Unless I officaly say before the game starts that ''this will be a mystery game''. Though then they will want to cheat, er ''use the dumb rules'' to ''solve''(that is have the DM tell them) the mystery.

I can't see anyway knowledge skills are not broken....unless the DM can lie and give false information or just set the DC's sky high.
But...why don't you just make it so your mystery can't be solved in one roll? Maybe don't make your mystery, "Identify this dragon." Maybe make the mystery, "Figure out where your gnome foe acquired this rare dragon, and what he's planning to do with it, perhaps while contending with the fact that knowledge doesn't really give you the magical ability to perfectly tell a real pink dragon from a fake, so he could be swindling folks." So, there ya go. Do that. Plenty of mystery, can't be solved in one roll at all.

Meanwhile, I don't think you ever answered my question related to this in the last thread, though I may have missed the answer. Do you have no qualms with the fact that your anti-knowledge check stance actually distances your game from reality? People do know things, after all. Often really specific and obscure things.

[thethird]

And knowage rolls can't be vague, incomplete or give false information...without telling the player the information might be vague, incomplete or false.....right?

[...]

He'd get an answer like ''You have never heard of pink dragons.'' Is that an acceptable answer in default by-the-book D&D? Can the DM just set an impossible DC like 30 to keep information unknown? Is this ''fair'' or whatever, to the player that says ''a couple ranks makes me an expert and I can remember almost everything''.

First of all giving false information wouldn't be "you have never heard of pink dragons." it would be, "you know pink dragons are not real" (when the dragon is real). The creature might be rare, and yes, the DC to now about it might exceed what a character with 2 ranks can get.

But the biggest complain I have is that resources spent by players to make their characters competent at what they can do should not be penalized.

Okay, let's assume that I do want to know about pink dragons, and I'm a level 2 wizard. A lvl 2 wizard who happens to be of any of the several races that have a +2 to int, or I had a good roll (17 or 18) to get an 18 in the int stat, which is the most important to a wizard. Acceptable thus far? Within my budget there is a masterwork tool of knowledge (arcana) let's call it Encyclopaedia Arcana of Monster Lore, or whatever, I also invested five ranks in knowledge (arcana) because it is my thing to do. I do happen to know where a library is nearby, it is not a well stocked one, but it has some useful books, and helpful clerks (as long as you pay them). Since I like to be able to identify monsters, and I like to listen to random stories I have the collector of stories skill trick.

That leaves me with the following, while I research on the dragon thing I have the following roll

10 (I'm taking ten in the 1d20) + 4 (int stat) + 5 (ranks) + 2 (MW tool) + 1 (library, I'm going with stronghold builders here) + 2 (aid another from the librarian) = a 24 doesn't come close enough to the arbitrarily high DC of 30, but I will be able to do it in a better library and with more clerks helping out. Or if you rule that collector of stories (+5 to knowledge checks to identify monsters) works there.

Alternatively I could have used magic, to increase my knowledge check and get it past 30, granted the best for that would be clerical help, but it is far from impossible.

What I'm trying to say is that getting the knowledge so high takes resources, some of them nonrefundable like feats, skill points or class features, some of them partially refundable (if you believe in wbl) and some refundable (spell slots) but the return time of those investments is still pretty high.

My advice, would be to

A) Implement a houserule in which everyone takes 10 in knowledge checks, they cannot not take 10 in a knowledge check. And you know what a 10 in knowledge check gives them. So you can plan your encounters accordingly. I.e. they will know that it is a pink elephant disguised as a dragon, and you will tell them. It can lead to fun situations. Or you will be able to prepare a response for when they check.

B) Use the players that invest resources permanent or otherwise in their knowledges as a way to "info dump" the table. That way it is your knowledge guy who is doing the exposition of the plot. Like, pink dragons are a believed mythological breed of Tiamat's sister, their resurgence to the world can only mean dire trouble. There you go, plot in a can, and the player asked for it with the knowledge check, you didn't have to dump it on them.

[DarkWhisper]

I can't see anyway knowledge skills are not broken....unless the DM can lie and give false information or just set the DC's sky high.

Have you considered that without knowledge skills, your "mystery" actually becomes irrelevant ?

1:
<rumors / stories of pink dragon show>
PC: "A pink dragon... good for him. Maybe a crossbreed from a red-white dragon couple. I wonder if I can get the dragon to turn on my foe... dispelling controlling magic ? Bribing it with gold ? Hmm..."

2:
<rumors / stories of pink dragon show>
PC: "There are no pink dragons, so it's a scam. I'll expose him."

In either situation, your 'mystery' - finding conflicting evidence and clues - is irrelevant because the player has completely passed over that part, ignoring the "collecting clues"-part and instead moved on to the "what do I do about it" part.

Without any knowledge checks to represent what the character would actually know, either the GM feeds the player info - or the player decides for himself what his character knows / believes.
And if the GM feeds the player info (e.g. "You dimly remember having heard of pink dragons... but can't remember whether it was in jest or not." or "You have heard about pink dragons before; they are exceedingly rare.") - you're actually back at using knowledge skills, albeit in a [choose between "freeform" or "rail-roading"] fashion instead of using the character resources and rule-system that's actually part of the rules.

As has (repeatedly) pointed out throughout the thread, knowledge check results are not necessarily binary.

"You have never heard of pink dragons before"
"You haven't heard of pink dragons before, except as punchlines of a series of gnomish jokes... [insert joke about indiscriminate dragon promiscuity]
"You have heard of pink dragons"
"You have heard of pink dragons, though they are supposedly very rare"
"[5+]: Sage Rubus has postulated the existence of pink dragons in his treatises. Despite the theorized existence of pink dragons, only one sighting - near the ruins of Ru'ru'ranthar, in the western parts of Boltstrike Mountains - has ever been reported to the Explorer's guild. [10+]: The pink dragon the Explorer had seen was reported to be slightly smaller than other chromatic dragons and somewhat clumsy. [15+] [Insert more details you want the players to have (e.g. elemental affinities, danger level, etc) depending on how much of a success the knowledge check was]"

All those are completely acceptable responses to a knowledge check to the question "Do pink dragons exist ?". Obviously, the first two are failures, the next two are success and the last one would be a success exceeding the DC by a fair margin (5+ / 10+ / 15+).

And at no point has the GM lied or necessarily set the DC "sky high".

[Red Fel]

This is why I make knowledge skills useless, so problem players can't cheat and say insulting things like ''if your mystery can be solved by one roll it's poor''. I'd love to do true, deep mysteries, but the average player just does not like that. Unless I officaly say before the game starts that ''this will be a mystery game''. Though then they will want to cheat, er ''use the dumb rules'' to ''solve''(that is have the DM tell them) the mystery.

I can't see anyway knowledge skills are not broken....unless the DM can lie and give false information or just set the DC's sky high.


In general, I just say that Knowledge rollers are problem players and don't game with them. But not always. Some times I get stuck with them.

No one ever seems to have a problem with ''just telling the players everything like your all the 'authors' of some type of group story''. But then everyone is so stuck on the holding hands group story thing. And that just rubs me the wrong way.

First: Please don't turn this into another "This is the way I play, because anything else is cheating" thread. You know how that will end, so if you do it again you're just provoking it.

That said: What you describe above isn't how Knowledge rolls work. I used Sherlock Holmes as an example, and I'll use him again.

Let's treat Sherlock Holmes as someone who has ranks in every Knowledge skill, and even has a feat that allows him to take 20 on a Knowledge check at any time. He is, in short, an encyclopedic receptacle of information.

So why doesn't he simply solve every mystery within five minutes?

Because a successful Knowledge check doesn't work that way.

A player can roll well on Knowledge, and you may give him information. But that shouldn't be the end of things. Knowing something and applying that Knowledge are two different things.

In a well-designed mystery, you could give your players a forensic laboratory, a full set of encyclopedia, and the phone numbers of three experts, and they could have every Knowledge check handed to them. That still wouldn't guarantee them victory. Why? Because you have to put all of that information together. You may be able to tell that the soil on the footprints on the ground comes from mineral deposits by a particular river, that the chemical residue is the result of a carbonation process, and that there are two soda bottling plants along that particular river. That tells you a place to look; it doesn't tell you whodunnit, how, or why.

That's what, you know, actual investigation is for.

I happen to agree that a player who treats Knowledge checks as the ultimate solution to everything is in the wrong. I have never met a player like that. Maybe I'm lucky.

A single Knowledge roll will tell you a single thing. Something about the architecture. Something about the footprint. Something about the smell. A series of Knowledge checks might give you a laundry list of clues. But Knowledge checks alone do not solve the mystery, and no DM should be expected to let them.

[Vhaidara]

Excuse me, but I believe I gave an appropriate layout of how a knowledge check like this should work (in any situation). Does anyone feel this is inaccurate?


It's incredibly obscure. Using the bardic knowledge guidelines
DC 30: Extremely obscure, known by very few, possibly forgotten by most who once knew it, possibly known only by those who don’t understand the significance of the knowledge.
Does that sound about right? if so, there's your DC.

Appropriate answer on failure by 5 or more (or success if they don't exist): You have never heard of a Pink Dragon
Appropriate answer on failure by 4 or less: You have heard of them, but every time it was a fake
Appropriate answer on success by less than 5/10: You have heard of them, but they are rare, and many scholars question their existence
Appropriate answer on success by more than 5/10: They are real, though their existence is often disputed by scholars.

Bolded part added as an afterthought

Notice how extreme failure give directly false information, slight failure give the most misleading piece of information (they are all hoaxes), slight success tells you that they might be real, but there is controversy (bigfoot, for example), and extreme success tells you the same, but you have found reliable sources supporting their existence

Other notes about Knowledge checks: Make them yourself and tell the player their result.
If the player is a wizard who has committed their life to the study of the arcane, there really should be a chance that they know this.

If your starting DC is 30, someone needs at least a +10 to match it. Technically, this is possible at level 1, if you are a grey elf wizard (20 Int) with max ranks and Skill Focus (Knowledge (Arcana)). But guess what? You're 100 year old elven wizard who has spent those 100 years studying arcane creatures like dragons, it makes sense that you would know this! However, this simply tells you that their existence is debated, no confirmation. I don't think that the DC 35/40 is possible here

Now, let's move to level 5. Masterwork Knowledge Tool (reference book of dragons and draconic theories), 8 ranks, Skill Focus, +6 Int. That's +19. This is the same grey elf wizard, with significantly more experience under his belt. He has traveled the world and, knowing FR, has probably met at least one epic spellcaster. He has a book on draconic theories, exactly the kind of thing that might contain a footnote or a sidebar about Pink dragons. He has studied matters of the arcane extensively, and is well beyond human levels of genius. On average, he can, in fact, get the same information that took him an 18+ four levels ago. However, the DC 40 confirmation of the theories is STILL out of range for him.

[jedipotter]

Excuse me, but I believe I gave an appropriate layout of how a knowledge check like this should work (in any situation). Does anyone feel this is inaccurate?


I do. I think it's accurate.

[Vhaidara]

I do. I think it's accurate.

Wait, the question was does anyone feel it is inaccurate. You said you do. You then say it is accurate.

Did you misspeak, or is this another of your non-sequitor logic parodies?

[Hazrond]

Wait, the question was does anyone feel it is inaccurate. You said you do. You then say it is accurate.

Did you misspeak, or is this another of your non-sequitor logic parodies?

Obviously both and neither :smalltongue:

[dextercorvia]

If you think it is inaccurate, then tell me how a single knowledge check ruins your mystery.

[Arkhaic]

Wait, the question was does anyone feel it is inaccurate. You said you do. You then say it is accurate.

Did you misspeak, or is this another of your non-sequitor logic parodies?

The answer to this question is obviously, "Yes," Keledrath.

[Vhaidara]

Just to be clear, that question was not me forgetting blue text, as some people seem to be assuming. I actually am curious.

[jiriku]

I can't see anyway knowledge skills are not broken....unless the DM can lie and give false information or just set the DC's sky high.

The trouble here, JP, is not that the rules don't work, but that you have not applied enough imagination and creativity to the task at hand. You seem to favor bluntness, so let me be semi-blunt here:

If you plan an adventure and the challenge would be trivial for players who simply use the basic rules, you did a bad job of making the adventure. It doesn't matter that you like the challenge; you need to stop using trivial challenges as the core of your adventures. In your example, if making a DC 20 Knowledge check solves the adventure, then the plot is an EL 1 or EL 2 challenge, suitable only for 1st - 2nd level PCs. You wouldn't use a CR 1-2 monster as the central opponent in an adventure for high-level PCs would you? Using an EL 2 plot against a much higher level party is setting yourself up to fail in the same way. Setting yourself up to fail is bad. Stop doing that immediately.

Further, if you can get ten suggestions on how to make your plot work here on the Playground and none of them occurred to you before you asked, you should consider that maybe you've been getting frustrated and giving up prematurely. It's easy to see the obstacle in your path; it takes a little more work and mental effort to see how you can overcome the obstacle. Quitting as soon as you run into a challenge is bad. Stop doing that immediately.

I know you're used to getting a lot of opposition here, but I've always been a straight shooter in my conversations with you. I'm gonna call a spade a spade here and tell it to you like I see it. You're mature enough that I don't think I need to sugar-coat this stuff for you.