Venting - Skill Checks and Role Playing vs Roll Playing

[Lord of Shadows]

This has probably been covered before, but after a while playing 3.x and later versions of the "world's first RPG," something is just wrong with the way role vs. roll is reflected in the game. Maybe I am just too old school to get used to this, but it is just darn aggravating what Skill Checks can do. They take all the mystery, excitement and danger out of the game.

No matter what challenge the DM places in the adventure, there is a Skill Check that will tell characters everything they need to know about it, regardless of what the player might know. Examples (using Pathfinder rules):

#1. DM places a book that has been altered by magic to look like a book of bad poetry. The book radiates magic.

With Detect Magic, a Knowledge (Arcana) DC 18 (15 + spell level) identifies it as Transmutation. Not too bad if it stopped there. BUT... add a Knowledge (Arcana) DC 23, and it is revealed to be writing protected by a Secret Page spell (Identify a spell effect that is in place, DC 20 + spell level). THEN a Spellcraft DC 18 (15 + spell level, again) reveals the "properties of the magic item," which some players argue includes the "command word" to decode the writing.

While this may be a bit of a challenge for low level parties, by the time a character reaches mid-level, there isn't much that they can't find out just by looking at or studying an item. Sure, there are ways in the rules to make it harder, like the Heighten Spell feat. Still, special measures should not be a requirement to make every single challenge harder. It starts to become bland when every single NPC caster has Heighten Spell, and the number of these options is limited.

#2. DM places some obscure reference to a local custom in the adventure. None of the characters are part of the local culture, or from anywhere near there, BUT... one or more of them have Knowledge (Local) and the players argue that they should be able to roll to see if their character knows all the details about this custom (that their characters have never been exposed to):

Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations DC 10
Know a common rumor or local tradition DC 15
Know hidden organizations, rulers, and locations DC 20

I realize that there is a possibility that any character could have heard something about the local customs of somewhere, but this happens everywhere and every time some obscure reference is made. And not just local customs, but local rulers, local geography, and so on. There is a Skill answer for almost every non-combat challenge conceivable.

And even combat challenges fall victim to this process.

"Identify the abilities and weaknesses of:"

Constructs, dragons, magical beasts - Knowledge (Arcana)
Aberrations, oozes - Knowledge (Dungeoneering)
Humanoids - Knowledge (Local)
Animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, vermin - Knowledge (Nature)
Outsiders - Knowledge (Planes)
Undead - Knowledge (Religion)

DC 10 + monster's CR

So a CR 10 monster is a DC 20.

What's that? You want to get around this by creating new monsters? Nope... every creature must be one of the types listed, and is therefore subject to the knowledge check. This is where the whole thing breaks down. It is true that perhaps a character would have some local knowledge, no matter how obscure or slight, but to have knowledge of a creature that was just created?

How many times are the players going to use the excuse "my character could have found it out somewhere," and "it doesn't matter how my character knows it, I just beat the DC so tell me!"

Where is the danger, the mystery, the excitement of encountering something new and actually having to work to find out about it instead of simply rolling a D20? (not to mention "Take 10 " and "Take 20") Skills give knowledge to players through their characters that they would not otherwise have.

True, the DM can just rule that the character didn't roll high enough, but that's kind of hard to do when the character is trying to "Identify a spell effect that is in place." The Knowledge (Arcana) DC is 20 + spell level, for a maximum possible of 29 for a 9th level spell. The player rolls his D20 and gets a result in the 30's... telling the player they didn't roll high enough would be a bit of a stretch.

Then there is always the Rule #1 thing about the DM always being right, but having to continually fall back on that starts to wear thin among players who think their characters can solve the mysteries of the universe with a single D20 roll. Roll playing has overtaken role-playing.

In fact, almost anything that is used to oppose these Skill checks is going to be a kludge, a solution that is inefficient, clumsy, or patched together.

Ok, end of venting. It is just aggravating when a player dismisses all the work you put into something by claiming that their character can roll a D20 and know all there is to know about it. And they can even give you what they think the DC should be... <sigh>

So what are some solutions I have used? I tend to pin down the player and point out that there is just no way their character could have that knowledge. I might be more generous on this point if the players didn't try to know everything, no matter how obscure or hidden, with a single D20 roll. Some players have complained, saying that no where in the rules does it say that, which forces me to resort to Rule #1. There is no way they can know everything about a new spell, or a strange new creature.

I suppose this could be thought of as injecting some "realism" into a "fantasy" game, but without it, the game is nothing but tossing some dice and scribbling on a battle mat.
.

[Rhynn]

All of that is subject to DM adjudication. Old editions explicitly left more to the DM, which I find preferrable, but it's up to each DM to use or not use any particular rules.

But if you don't want a game that tries to make explicit rules for everything, then D&D 3.X is definitely the wrong game. It is way too cumbersome for no real benefit to me, so I play ACKS.

Also retroclones in sig, etc. etc.

[veti]

D&D 3+ is, quite deliberately, a mass-market, commoditised game. The books no longer pay more than lip service to DM creativity. The goal is that any 13-year-old can pick up the books and start running a game, with no knowledge of - well, anything that's not in the books.

(And if you decide you want more - good news! There are plenty more "Official" books to sell you! No need to sully your campaign with ideas taken from other media, or (shudder) sources not Officially Sanctioned by WotC, such as literature or mythology! Everything you could possibly need is right here in our store!)

Older editions, explicitly, required a lot more knowledge and input from the DM. I think WotC came to the (probably correct) conclusion that this was limiting their sales, as it raised the minimum ability threshold for a DM, and that's what they set to lower.

Being a good DM is probably about as hard as it ever was, but being a minimally competent DM is now within reach of just about anyone.

[Rhynn]

The goal is that any 13-year-old can pick up the books and start running a game, with no knowledge of - well, anything that's not in the books.

Hey, now, I did that with Basic D&D (of BECM) at age 10, and it's a great game.

Pretty sure Basic D&D was the only RPG I actually used the rules right in at that age.

[Brookshw]

No arguments here op, I agree. I'm also more than willing to hamfistedly say when you can make those checks. You can always home brew / house rule as you like to get the "feel" you want. Granted, many players may dislike this so always good to lay it out up front.

I know my players have cringed a time or two when I told them that I have a homebrew fiat feat called "favored of the dm" not for players that's effectively, "screw it, this happens".

I'm curious what 5e will bring.

[NichG]

Take away with the left hand but give with the right. If you just take away these skill functions, the players will gripe. If you say 'I want to replace these very nebulous skill functions with very specific things that are easier to adjudicate so we don't get into cowboys and indians territory' then its easier to swallow. Especially if it lets them get mechanical bonuses they couldn't otherwise have.

For example, you cannot tell 'everything' about an existing spell effect by making a Spellcraft check, but what you can do is give the party a +4 Insight bonus on saves against that effect when someone triggers it. Or get a +4 bonus on CL checks to dispel it.

You cannot tell everything about a monster by making a Knowledge check, but you can decrease its DR with respect to your attacks by 5 points if you hit the usual DC, or 10 points if you beat it by 20. Or (not and) you can decrease its elemental resistance for a specific energy type with respect to your attacks by the same amount.

Or how about this - as a Swift action, make a Knowledge check about a monster with respect to one specific spell/skill/ability/attack. If you succeed, you know whether the monster would: Be particularly vulnerable (as in take more damage or a penalty to saves, not tactical sense), have no particular resistance or vulnerability, be resistant to it, or be immune to it.

The new things are still nice for the players, and they also interfere a lot less with your ability to have things be mysterious or make the players figure things out.

[PersonMan]

Maybe I am just too old school to get used to this, but it is just darn aggravating what Skill Checks can do. They take all the mystery, excite

It's a playstyle issue, plain and simple. You dislike the PCs having lots of knowledge, other people probably hate playing games where they just sort of stumble around in the dark until the DM lets them gain enough knowledge to continue (to put it in a way biased in that direction, to give you an idea of their view).

[Glimbur]

Some of the later monster manuals have examples of what information you should give out on a Knowledge check on a monster. It's not a case of DC 10+CR means you know everything; you get one thing and each 5 points (I think) gets you another thing.

The balance, as Nich was suggesting, is to make the skills useful but not mandatory. If the players beat the DC for a red dragon by 30 and you give them "it has claws", "it has teeth", "it has wings", and so on, you might as well just ban the skill entirely so it's not a trap. On the other hand, you don't have to tell them "it casts as a sorcerer of this level and these are its spells known" either. Tell them about the [fire] subtype first, then the presence of sorcerer casting, then breath weapon, then other useful stuff. His other suggestions seem like reasonable homebrew.

As far as your book example,

With Detect Magic, a Knowledge (Arcana) DC 18 (15 + spell level) identifies it as Transmutation. Not too bad if it stopped there. BUT... add a Knowledge (Arcana) DC 23, and it is revealed to be writing protected by a Secret Page spell (Identify a spell effect that is in place, DC 20 + spell level). THEN a Spellcraft DC 18 (15 + spell level, again) reveals the "properties of the magic item," which some players argue includes the "command word" to decode the writing.

It is not a magic item they are identifying; it is a spell effect they are examining. Therefore they don't get the command word to the spell effect.

[BWR]

Hey, now, I did that with Basic D&D (of BECM) at age 10, and it's a great game.

Ditto (well, age 12, but you get the idea).

The OP's problem I think is one of communication and expectation. A lot of players expect the game to run by the rules presented in the books or at least with house rules presented at character creation. This isn't an unreasonable expectation, to be honest. If the rules say you can, you expect that you can. Yes, there are problems with RAWtards and stupid rules and loopholes and resetting-Wishtraps and whatnot, but most people are fine with ignoring things like that so long as the majority of the rest works as presented. It's when you build a character to do something and the DM on the spot nerfs or invalidates your attempt that you have a right to feel a bit annoyed. I've been on both sides of that and on the receiving end it's very easy to feel that the DM is not acting fairly.
As a DM I try to be upfront about changes to the default rules of the game, and if I change them during the game I try to explain why, perhaps compromise and allow them to either rebuild their character to something more palatable or give them the benefit of the rules then and there and implement the changes later.

So basically if you communicate your problems with the RAW and how you are going to run things - that the Skill DCs are guidelines rather than hard limits, that things like rarity of of monsters/spells/whatever will impact how likely it is they have heard of it, that a unique, never seen before monster has not been written of in any book they've read or spoken of in any story, etc. I think most players will accept this. It's all about being on the same page, about feeling that the DM is treating you fairly.

Edit: regarding Knowledge (local) I think it's a very poorly worded and defined skill. The only sensible way to interpret it as Knowledge (specific area). I treat it like this: You choose one geographical area and can use it as a generic Knowledge for everything in the area: history, denizens and monsters, etiquette, religion, etc. Thus you can have just about as many Knowledges (local) as you want, each applying to a different area, possibly overlapping in some respects.

The exact DC is dependant on size of area, length of history, importance of formal education, contact with rest of the world, frequency of interactions with monsters etc. Using K. (your city) to know how the city was founded will be possible with a lower DC K. (history) check but can be done with K (your city). Likewise K. (your city) can tell you who the leader is and who the local nobles are probably at a lower DC than K. (nobility).

[sktarq]

I find a few house rules about knowledge's useful

To know anything about any monster from a knowledge check someone must have survived and been able to write it down or talk about it and have that knowledge get to you. New monster is an unknown factor in the world and thus there is know way that any character in the world knows anything about it. The knowledge check covers how much of the knowledge available to be learned in the books and stories of your home region (and the regions traveled through adventuring) that you have personally absorbed and have at you fingertips. And nobody can know knowledge that has yet to be discovered. This is logic of how a world works trumping RAW.
And for local knowledge-give it a home region advantage only. Possibly transferable after months or years of living someplace.
And unless the spell specifically states that it can give a command word then it doesn't. . . good grief.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Error in example #1: the target of a secret page spell is -not- a magic item. That use of spellcraft doesn't apply. You can only get the password from someone who already knows it.

At the core issue of #1 is the simple fact that the mid-level wizard -should- know more about magic, having studied it for years both in the lab and the field, than any yutz rolling dice in his or his buddy's basement.

If you don't have access to that spell and those skills, having chosen some other class or simply not to put the necessary ranks into know (arcana) or spellcraft, then they don't do anything for you. You're irritated with a possibility, not a guaranteed occurrence.

There's also the fact that you can booby trap that book in a way that doesn't endanger its contents or that will destroy it if they're not properly bypassed. At mid-levels you -should- be putting more guards and wards on sensitive information that a simple secret page. At bare minimum you can lay a mystic aura over the secret page, obscuring its aura and making it impossible to even make those checks without first making a successful saving throw. If you know the system it's trivial to make -any- task prohibitively difficult, regardless of level.

#2 is a simple fix. Just go back to the 3.0 rule; requiring separate ranks in know (local) for each locale.

On creatures; there's supposed to be a direct correlation between a creature's CR and its rarity in the world. Any given CR 10 creature is supposed to be just as common as any other CR 10 creature. Making a new creature to thwart the player's knowledge is straight-up metagaming.

On the flip-side of the coin you can forbid the players from acting on knowledge they have of a creature unless one of the PC's can make the relevant knowledge check. For example; I -know- that daelkyr are vulnerable to the special material byeshk. It bypasses their damage reduction. If I'm playing a fighter with no ranks in know (the planes) or know (dungeoneering) then I'm forbidden from advising the other players, in character, that we should acquire byeshk weapons. If no one else can make the knowledge check we just have to deal with not having byeshk weapons when we fight daelkyr unless you put some in the treasure we find before those encounters.

The entire purpose in having such a rules intensive system as D&D 3.X is to free up the DM's creative juices for crafting the world, its characters, and the plots he wants to put the PC's through (without excessive railroading, of course) instead of having to figure out how to structure each mechanical interaction and to allow characters to simulate skills and abilities their players do not or even cannot have and to help separate the game from the metagame.

[Faily]

At the core issue of #1 is the simple fact that the mid-level wizard -should- know more about magic, having studied it for years both in the lab and the field, than any yutz rolling dice in his or his buddy's basement.
.

This is, in my opinion, the reason why these Skill checks exist. They exist to cover knowledge that the players may not know, to fill in the character they're playing.

While everyone should of course make an effort to roleplay (roleplaying a conversation with an NPC), the dice and the mechanics are there to support everyone and putting them on an even playing field. Simply put, it can get pretty unfair if those who are simply more intuitive and/or charismatic to just steamroll through everything because they know what to say, where to look, etc, than those who are a bit more unsure. But with dicerolls, everyone can have an equal chance in the mechanical sense.


I will also wholly agree that Knowledge: Local as it is should go DIAF, or just be Knowledge: Local (One Specific Place).

Knowledge against monsters, it's a bit back and forth, imo. Even if it's a homebrew monster, I'd let players roll, but make it more difficult, and instead of them identifying what it is, I'd say something like "you think it resembles a Choker, but you know it's not because of its two heads. Judging by its long powerful limbs, you assume it might try grappling to incapacitate you." Remember as the GM, you decide what they learn. DC 10+CR gives them name (usually) and one useful bit of information. For every 5 thereafter, it's one more thing.

If it's a one of a kind monster that was specifically made for that adventure, I'd go with the "no name, but you think it resembles [insert name]"-route, to give them an idea of what it might fight like, or maybe even made from. In some cases, just knowing the creature-type it is also clears up some things like wether or not a Ranger gets Favored Enemy bonuses, or a Paladin gets Smite bonuses (Pathfinder Paladin do more damage on the first Smite against Evil Outsiders, Dragons or Undeads), and similar cases.

[Eric Tolle]

Wow. Someone actually used "roleplay vs. rollplay" in a sentence non-ironically. I feel like it's 1996 and I'm back on Usenet, say rec.arts.frp.misc.

I mean I suppose I can sympathize with the whole "All these rules are keeping me from hiding important information from my players" (which in my experience usually translates our to "These rules are keeping me from screwing over my players), but that's why we have games like Dungeon World, Amber and the whole OSR thing. Open up Basic D&D and you can engage in roleplaying "20 questions" all you want.

[Lord of Shadows]

It is fantastic to see that so many people understand where I am coming from, and also to see all the great ideas. Thank you everyone for the input so far. I have a few specific responses noted below.

But my faith in "role-playing" has been mended a bit.

Again, my problem isn't so much with the Skill system, it is how some seem to regard it as an infinite source of everything for their characters, regardless of the rarity of the information or difficulty of the task. Having precise sample DC's in the material doesn't help, as it gives the player a peg on which to hang their argument on why they should succeed.

For example, you cannot tell 'everything' about an existing spell effect by making a Spellcraft check, but what you can do is give the party a +4 Insight bonus on saves against that effect when someone triggers it. Or get a +4 bonus on CL checks to dispel it.

You cannot tell everything about a monster by making a Knowledge check, but you can decrease its DR with respect to your attacks by 5 points if you hit the usual DC, or 10 points if you beat it by 20. Or (not and) you can decrease its elemental resistance for a specific energy type with respect to your attacks by the same amount.

Or how about this - as a Swift action, make a Knowledge check about a monster with respect to one specific spell/skill/ability/attack. If you succeed, you know whether the monster would: Be particularly vulnerable (as in take more damage or a penalty to saves, not tactical sense), have no particular resistance or vulnerability, be resistant to it, or be immune to it.

These are some GREAT ideas. I think I will be using some (or all) of these. I have tried to Scale the Skill checks before, but usually just by the amount of information gained. These ideas open up lots more possibilities.

Some of the later monster manuals have examples of what information you should give out on a Knowledge check on a monster. It's not a case of DC 10+CR means you know everything; you get one thing and each 5 points (I think) gets you another thing.

...

As far as your book example, it is not a magic item they are identifying; it is a spell effect they are examining. Therefore they don't get the command word to the spell effect.

Yes, the scaling example has been used here, but there is one player who seems to think that a Skill Check is the answer to the Universal Question (instead of Forty-two). And they argue that an item with a magic spell cast on it by default makes it a magic item. I have not given too much on this point, and tried to scale the info received, to the howling of some.

Edit: regarding Knowledge (local) I think it's a very poorly worded and defined skill. The only sensible way to interpret it as Knowledge (specific area). I treat it like this: You choose one geographical area and can use it as a generic Knowledge for everything in the area: history, denizens and monsters, etiquette, religion, etc. Thus you can have just about as many Knowledges (local) as you want, each applying to a different area, possibly overlapping in some respects.

The exact DC is dependant on size of area, length of history, importance of formal education, contact with rest of the world, frequency of interactions with monsters etc. Using K. (your city) to know how the city was founded will be possible with a lower DC K. (history) check but can be done with K (your city). Likewise K. (your city) can tell you who the leader is and who the local nobles are probably at a lower DC than K. (nobility).

Yes, I agree and that was how I was trying to rule it. Each character had to declare the area they were from at creation, and I was basing their Knowledge (Local) on that area). The player tried to complain that Knowledge (Local) applied everywhere, as no matter where the character was at it was "local." The character could have heard it in a tavern on the way into the area, or stopped and talked to someone on the road, or whatever. Again, the argument I get tries to ignore how the character obtained the knowledge, just that it has it. Somehow.

To know anything about any monster from a knowledge check someone must have survived and been able to write it down or talk about it and have that knowledge get to you. New monster is an unknown factor in the world and thus there is know way that any character in the world knows anything about it. The knowledge check covers how much of the knowledge available to be learned in the books and stories of your home region (and the regions traveled through adventuring) that you have personally absorbed and have at you fingertips. And nobody can know knowledge that has yet to be discovered. This is logic of how a world works trumping RAW.
And for local knowledge-give it a home region advantage only. Possibly transferable after months or years of living someplace.

And unless the spell specifically states that it can give a command word then it doesn't. . . good grief.

Ahh... this hearkens back to earlier editions, when you actually had to travel and fight stuff (read: adventure) to find out about stuff. <sniff> Those were the days of high adventure...

Oh, sorry, back on topic, yes. Some sort of limit needs to be imposed on Knowledge checks, especially. Other skills are not quite so far reaching, like Climb and Heal. Disable Device gets to be a pain once in a while, when the player demands to know why his Skill roll of a bazillion-something didn't disable the trap.

As for the command word thing, yea, I didn't let that fly, but all they had to do was flip it over and read the runes on the back. I think Skills are also making for some lazy "role-players" who depend on their character's Skills to tell them everything.

At the core issue of #1 is the simple fact that the mid-level wizard -should- know more about magic, having studied it for years both in the lab and the field, than any yutz rolling dice in his or his buddy's basement.

There's also the fact that you can booby trap that book in a way that doesn't endanger its contents or that will destroy it if they're not properly bypassed. At mid-levels you -should- be putting more guards and wards on sensitive information that a simple secret page. At bare minimum you can lay a mystic aura over the secret page, obscuring its aura and making it impossible to even make those checks without first making a successful saving throw. If you know the system it's trivial to make -any- task prohibitively difficult, regardless of level.

...

The entire purpose in having such a rules intensive system as D&D 3.X is to free up the DM's creative juices for crafting the world, its characters, and the plots he wants to put the PC's through (without excessive railroading, of course) instead of having to figure out how to structure each mechanical interaction and to allow characters to simulate skills and abilities their players do not or even cannot have and to help separate the game from the metagame.

I agree completely that a mid-level wizard should know more about magic than any yutz rolling dice in his or his buddy's basement. (Eloquently spoken, too, if I may say so )

The problem come from those who think their wizard of any level should know all there is to know if they beat the DC. Period. Like dropping a coin in the slot machine and hitting the jackpot if you roll a 20. The problem with the magic traps is, well, that they are magic and I get hit with the argument again that beating the DC (so it says in the book) should give the player all the knowledge about it. In a world like that, I would begin to wonder what's the point of trying to protect anything, if all it takes to defeat the protection is a few rolls of the dice. In a game like that, I begin to wonder where the role-playing went, since it all seems to depend on rolls of a D20.

As far as the purpose of the rules-intensive system, I can see that, and even agree with it. I can remember when reading the AD&D DMG seemed like trying to decipher rocket science. <sigh> That all seems so simple, now. It does seem, though, like the mechanics are getting in the way of, or even replacing, role-playing.

This is, in my opinion, the reason why these Skill checks exist. They exist to cover knowledge that the players may not know, to fill in the character they're playing.

Again, eloquently said. The Skills are part of a rules system, and as such do seem to fit in nicely. I recall back in AD&D we would sometimes use an "ability check" (D20 plus ability score) to determine something the character might know that the player didn't. Sort of a primitive Skill system. Now it is all standardized, computized, figurized and homogenized... and I sometimes wonder where the mystery went.

Lots to think about, and again, great posts by all, not just the ones I replied to.
.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I like how you made the title rolepaying vs roleplaying.

I was wondering if it was going to be about role in the party vs roleplaying.

[Lord of Shadows]

Wow. Someone actually used "roleplay vs. rollplay" in a sentence non-ironically. I feel like it's 1996 and I'm back on Usenet, say rec.arts.frp.misc.

I mean I suppose I can sympathize with the whole "All these rules are keeping me from hiding important information from my players" (which in my experience usually translates our to "These rules are keeping me from screwing over my players), but that's why we have games like Dungeon World, Amber and the whole OSR thing. Open up Basic D&D and you can engage in roleplaying "20 questions" all you want.

Yes, it is like 1996 on Usenet, or even earlier. LOL

I must admit, the OSR games are appealing. Unfortunately, everyone here has become intoxicated with how "easily" they can trash a dungeon. They fail to mention, of course, that it was done with Skill checks and not role playing.
.

[Lord of Shadows]

I was wondering if it was going to be about role in the party vs roleplaying.

LOL No, but that could be another whole topic. Skills do seem to blur the lines between classes, though, don't they...
.

[Lord of Shadows]

I like how you made the title rolepaying vs roleplaying.

Ooops.. darn it, that was supposed to be "Role" vs. "Roll"

I think I fixed it. My fingers were typing too fast.
.

[Janus]

Unfortunately, everyone here has become intoxicated with how "easily" they can trash a dungeon. They fail to mention, of course, that it was done with Skill checks and not role playing.

I think you just put into words why I have so much disdain for "awesome builds."
Thanks!

[Lord of Shadows]

I think you just put into words why I have so much disdain for "awesome builds."

Thanks!

LOL You are welcome. I am sure that there are plenty of players and DM's/GM's who see nothing wrong with things the way they are. And character optimization devotes a fair amount of attention to Skills.
.

[NichG]

Actually, skills tend to fall by the wayside in really high-op stuff, except for a few peculiar tricks. Hide/Move Silently is better than any sort of magical stealth, because True Seeing doesn't beat it; Sleight of Hand can be used for some high-op stuff because it can't be defended against by RAW; same with Diplomacy. Otherwise, I don't actually see that much focus on skills at the high end.

[Lord of Shadows]

Actually, skills tend to fall by the wayside in really high-op stuff, except for a few peculiar tricks. Hide/Move Silently is better than any sort of magical stealth, because True Seeing doesn't beat it; Sleight of Hand can be used for some high-op stuff because it can't be defended against by RAW; same with Diplomacy. Otherwise, I don't actually see that much focus on skills at the high end.

Yea, I was thinking mainly of the Stealth (or Hide/Move Silent) stuff. That can get wicked at high levels.
.

[TuggyNE]

This has probably been covered before, but after a while playing 3.x and later versions of the "world's first RPG," something is just wrong with the way role vs. roll is reflected in the game. Maybe I am just too old school to get used to this, but it is just darn aggravating what Skill Checks can do. They take all the mystery, excitement and danger out of the game.

No matter what challenge the DM places in the adventure, there is a Skill Check that will tell characters everything they need to know about it, regardless of what the player might know.

Counterpoint: "There is an evil wizard who has presumably made various plans to deal with any interference in his schemes." What skill check can a player make to be auto-informed of how to get past that? Gather Information? No. Spellcraft? They'd need to be near whatever spell effect they wished to investigate, which is of no value when it's a dominate person on some important personage halfway across the kingdom, called minions devastating several widely-separated targets at once, or scrying-protected items within a sealed vault.

#2. DM places some obscure reference to a local custom in the adventure. None of the characters are part of the local culture, or from anywhere near there, BUT... one or more of them have Knowledge (Local) and the players argue that they should be able to roll to see if their character knows all the details about this custom (that their characters have never been exposed to):

Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations DC 10
Know a common rumor or local tradition DC 15
Know hidden organizations, rulers, and locations DC 20

I realize that there is a possibility that any character could have heard something about the local customs of somewhere, but this happens everywhere and every time some obscure reference is made. And not just local customs, but local rulers, local geography, and so on. There is a Skill answer for almost every non-combat challenge conceivable.

Knowledge checks need to be seriously reformed; their primary problem is that they are oversimplified in an attempt to make them usable for play.

That said, how would you represent a character that really has read and studied a great deal about all the other cultures they can manage, and maintains a network of contacts in various areas? In 3.x, that'd be, in large part, through K: Local.

I am also curious; just how did you expect them to know about this obscure local custom to begin with? Was it some sort of planned-out "there's no way you could have known this, but here's why everything made sense" idea? That's great for overconfident villains to use, but it's also kind of cool when the heroes manage to figure it out early anyway and use it against them, as long as the scheme is not so fragile as to simply unravel the second they discover this.

DC 10 + monster's CR

So a CR 10 monster is a DC 20.

That's not actually the core rule, which is DC 10 + HD, not 10 + CR; most monsters must use the primary source rules on this. Both usually make DCs too high, not too low, such that, say, a level 11 Ranger (who should have a fair idea how their favored enemies are best fought) with a +15 K:Nature modifier (14 ranks, +1 Int) who rolls a 20 can only determine that a CR 11 cloud giant is a Giant (Air) and throws rocks. Their SLAs, battle strategies, and so on remain unknown.

What's that? You want to get around this by creating new monsters? Nope... every creature must be one of the types listed, and is therefore subject to the knowledge check. This is where the whole thing breaks down. It is true that perhaps a character would have some local knowledge, no matter how obscure or slight, but to have knowledge of a creature that was just created?

Here it would be useful, as part of a larger reform of those specific skills, to add a modifier (+8 or +10 or something) to represent the difficulty of extrapolating, from existing knowledge, the properties of a brand-new monster. Should it be impossible? No; naturalists can make predictions about newly-discovered species based on observed similarities to existing creatures, and someone with a ridiculously large amount of memorized knowledge should be even better at this. Of course, the more complex deductions are harder, but that's what the higher DC is for.

Where is the danger, the mystery, the excitement of encountering something new and actually having to work to find out about it instead of simply rolling a D20? (not to mention "Take 10 " and "Take 20")

You can't take 20 on Knowledge skills, or even retry them. Taking 10 is not possible in combat, either.

Skills give knowledge to players through their characters that they would not otherwise have.

That? That right there? Working as intended. That is precisely the entire purpose of skills. They make it possible to roleplay a character by the character's own merits, rather than through rampant metagaming.

This is a design goal. It is not one all share, but it is one that many players (and DMs) find desirable.

True, the DM can just rule that the character didn't roll high enough, but that's kind of hard to do when the character is trying to "Identify a spell effect that is in place." The Knowledge (Arcana) DC is 20 + spell level, for a maximum possible of 29 for a 9th level spell. The player rolls his D20 and gets a result in the 30's... telling the player they didn't roll high enough would be a bit of a stretch.

Again, working as intended. A character that gets a result in the 30s on a Knowledge check is one that is well-educated beyond pretty much all professors you can imagine; that's what their ranks represent.

Then there is always the Rule #1 thing about the DM always being right, but having to continually fall back on that starts to wear thin among players who think their characters can solve the mysteries of the universe with a single D20 roll. Roll playing has overtaken role-playing.

In fact, almost anything that is used to oppose these Skill checks is going to be a kludge, a solution that is inefficient, clumsy, or patched together.

Ok, end of venting. It is just aggravating when a player dismisses all the work you put into something by claiming that their character can roll a D20 and know all there is to know about it. And they can even give you what they think the DC should be... <sigh>

So what are some solutions I have used? I tend to pin down the player and point out that there is just no way their character could have that knowledge. I might be more generous on this point if the players didn't try to know everything, no matter how obscure or hidden, with a single D20 roll. Some players have complained, saying that no where in the rules does it say that, which forces me to resort to Rule #1. There is no way they can know everything about a new spell, or a strange new creature.

Being able to reach the high DCs needed to make this problematic involves either being of very high level, using Extraordinary abilities that explicitly go beyond what most NPCs could do, or using magic. In all of these cases, saying "there's no way you could do that!" is a little out of place; there's no way they could surround their foes with an impenetrable cage of force or imprison an enemy in a coma deep beneath the earth either, is there? A character so mystically knowledgeable that they can look at a brand-new spell effect and puzzle out how it was made and what it does is just par for the course. They're just that good.

I suppose this could be thought of as injecting some "realism" into a "fantasy" game, but without it, the game is nothing but tossing some dice and scribbling on a battle mat.

Generally, if a conflict is trivially bypassed merely by possessing one or a few pieces of information, it was not very robust. Most monsters, for example, do not simply roll over and fall down if the characters are aware of some or even all of their tricks and vulnerabilities. Preventing this is not injecting realism, or even verisimilitude in most cases; it's a shortcut to artificially make the game more difficult with less DM work, and when it backfires because it doesn't hang together right, well, them's the breaks.

[neonchameleon]

#1. DM places a book that has been altered by magic to look like a book of bad poetry. The book radiates magic.

With Detect Magic, a Knowledge (Arcana) DC 18 (15 + spell level) identifies it as Transmutation. Not too bad if it stopped there. BUT... add a Knowledge (Arcana) DC 23, and it is revealed to be writing protected by a Secret Page spell (Identify a spell effect that is in place, DC 20 + spell level). THEN a Spellcraft DC 18 (15 + spell level, again) reveals the "properties of the magic item," which some players argue includes the "command word" to decode the writing.

Tell the players that that last part is ridiculous. The rest? Why not.

While this may be a bit of a challenge for low level parties, by the time a character reaches mid-level, there isn't much that they can't find out just by looking at or studying an item. Sure, there are ways in the rules to make it harder, like the Heighten Spell feat. Still, special measures should not be a requirement to make every single challenge harder. It starts to become bland when every single NPC caster has Heighten Spell, and the number of these options is limited.

In short you want high level PCs to be stumped on the same stuff that would have foiled them ten levels earlier. Why? Part of the point of levelling up is that you get new and different challenges as you've passed the old ones. I see no problem here, quite the reverse.

BUT... one or more of them have Knowledge (Local) and the players argue that they should be able to roll to see if their character knows all the details about this custom (that their characters have never been exposed to):

First, Knowledge (Local) is a bugged skill. There should be a Knowledge (Local) for each separate region. "I know local knowledge about everywhere" is just ridiculous. Second, they may not have seen it directly, but gossip? The fact that you and they do not play out every interaction they have had since the cradle?

And even combat challenges fall victim to this process.

"Identify the abilities and weaknesses of:"

Constructs, dragons, magical beasts - Knowledge (Arcana)
Aberrations, oozes - Knowledge (Dungeoneering)
Humanoids - Knowledge (Local)
Animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, vermin - Knowledge (Nature)
Outsiders - Knowledge (Planes)
Undead - Knowledge (Religion)

Once again I'm with the game rather than the GMs who want to blindfold the players (unless you're using beasties explicitly from the Far Realms). A high enough level ranger should be able to take one look at a monster they have never seen before and say "Teeth? It's a herbivore, it doesn't bite often - but watch for the back two molars. From its musculature, the real danger is that sharp tail that it can crack like a whip, breaking the sound barrier. It needs lungs that are larger than you'd expect so its heart will be *scetches* there. Top speed? With those muscles? Twenty five miles per hour or so - and it can keep it up for a few minutes. From the gashes along its side, it's been in a fight and will lash out twice as fast at anyone on its left flank." And be pretty close on their estimates.

Not having monster knowledge skills that can cover monsters the PCs haven't met before assumes one of two things:

1. There are no laws of physics, biology, or magic
2. The PCs are incurious idiots who never learn or extrapolate

Frankly, DMs assuming they are oh so clever because they are changing the natural laws is something I think should have been left in the 70s.

DC 10 + monster's CR

So a CR 10 monster is a DC 20.

Now here's a problem. A baby red dragon might be fifteen points easier to identify than its mother (who just gets identified as "A big red flappy thing" even after they've killed the baby).

How many times are the players going to use the excuse "my character could have found it out somewhere," and "it doesn't matter how my character knows it, I just beat the DC so tell me!"

As often as the DM tries to blind them and destroy their immersion by denying that their characters are capable of learning about the gameworld.

Where is the danger, the mystery, the excitement of encountering something new and actually having to work to find out about it instead of simply rolling a D20?

Who says you know everything about new monsters? Their physiology? Quite a lot. Their politics? Very little. Literally the only place where I see you having a point is that Knowlege (Local) is bugged.

Skills give knowledge to players through their characters that they would not otherwise have.

And by doing so they help make up for the fact that the pipe by which the players may investigate the world is pathetically tiny - and is limited to the speed at which they can talk and the DM can answer questions, and possibly to a couple of illustrations rather than to having five senses and having lived in the world for many, many years.

Skills give knowledge to players that their characters would have but the players would not have unless the DM gave it to them.

True, the DM can just rule that the character didn't roll high enough, but that's kind of hard to do when the character is trying to "Identify a spell effect that is in place." The Knowledge (Arcana) DC is 20 + spell level, for a maximum possible of 29 for a 9th level spell. The player rolls his D20 and gets a result in the 30's... telling the player they didn't roll high enough would be a bit of a stretch.

This is not a problem. The DM trying to create a world even people who live in know nothing about is a problem. So is the DM fudging rolls to restrict the players understanding of the world still further than the very low bit rate of the DM talking.

Roll playing has overtaken role-playing.

No. What you call roll playing is making up for the fact that you are unable and apparently unwilling to give the PCs sufficient information to portray experienced characters who are capable of observing their world and learning patterns at a deeper level than their PCs.

In fact, almost anything that is used to oppose these Skill checks is going to be a kludge, a solution that is inefficient, clumsy, or patched together.

GOOD! Trying to lobotomise PCs and deny them their choices and place in the world is a bad thing. Now (other than on the Knowledge: Local front) stop it!

Ok, end of venting. It is just aggravating when a player dismisses all the work you put into something by claiming that their character can roll a D20 and know all there is to know about it. And they can even give you what they think the DC should be... <sigh>

It might be aggravating, but if the players weren't finding your game of 20 Questions annoying they wouldn't be doing this. The problem isn't at the players end. It's that you are wasting your time putting together things the players obviously don't find fun, that spoil the players' immersion, and that just lead to tedium and frustrated players.

So what are some solutions I have used? I tend to pin down the player and point out that there is just no way their character could have that knowledge. I might be more generous on this point if the players didn't try to know everything, no matter how obscure or hidden, with a single D20 roll. Some players have complained, saying that no where in the rules does it say that, which forces me to resort to Rule #1. There is no way they can know everything about a new spell, or a strange new creature.

In short you are using Rule #1 to ensure that Spellcraft literally is meaningless. That there are no laws to magic, and no common patterns between spells. Which is the only way they couldn't know at least something about spells they encounter. You're trying to force a Calvinball universe.

I suppose this could be thought of as injecting some "realism" into a "fantasy" game, but without it, the game is nothing but tossing some dice and scribbling on a battle mat.

Or you give them challenges that don't revolve around you changing the rules on the characters. Instead you give them interesting and situations that are more interesting the more they know.

Or you play a game other than D&D where the magic isn't half so formalised. It's not "This spell always does this thing." And there's no spellcraft skill.

Actually, my serious recommendation is that you get a copy of Dungeon World and read the advice in there.

And seriously, as my final comment, if you take nothing else on board, the PCs apparently seem to think that they need to fight for every scrap of knowledge with you - because you are apparently adamant about denying it. I think everyone would be much more relaxed if you gave them more and only very occasionally kept some back rather than that they got used to fighting for every scrap of information. (In Dungeon World I'll sometimes ask the players why these monsters are especially scary - and if I get the Destroyer being made of marshmallow, I'll run with that).

[Kelb_Panthera]

As I read, I more and more get the impression that your issue isn't so much with the system as a rules-lawyer player being a bit of a munchkin.

Be firm with him. "If the magic and the item can be separated by simple dispel magic, it's not a magic item. It's the target of a spell effect. If you disagree, stow it. Whether that's RAW or not is irrelevant because that's how I'm ruling." Same goes for the know (local) issue. "I'm exercising rule zero here. I don't care that the book doesn't say it works that way, that's how it works when I'm the DM."

It -is- RAW but that's not the issue. The issue is that the player is causing disruptions by disrespecting the DM's position as arbiter of the rules. If the players want you to take on the responsibility of building and running a fun game, especially in such a complex system, they have to accept the fact that you must act as an authority to do so. Just don't let it go to your head and remember that the purpose of the game is for -everyone- to have fun.


On the issue of challenges being overridden by a single successful check, that's just poor planning. Information is like a bomb; if it's complete it can be very powerful when used properly but if it's incomplete or, worse, wrong then it can range from useless to extremely dangerous to the person that wields it. When a knowledge check gives the player the information that the rules say that check should grant, that's the system working exactly as it's supposed to.

For any given creature it's a DC 10 +CR to -identify- the creature. Determining anything beyond that is +5 to the DC for each piece of useful information. Take a troll; DC 15 to say "it's a troll. They're really hard to kill," DC 20 to add "if it hits you with both claws it'll tear a big chunk out of you (a description of the rend ability)" and DC 25 to add "they can regenerate, only fire and acid can harm them." Technically the rend and regeneration descriptions could be flipped at the DM's prerogative.

As I said, you can -forbid- the players from acting on knowledge they have as players unless they can make the relevant check(s). It's supposed to go both ways.

Honestly though, I don't really see the problem or even how to setup a problem that is virtually solved with a single check and still call it a fully constructed problem. Take your secret page example; choosing not to layer a mage's magic aura over it or lay a sepia snake sigil under it (both if I'm feeling nasty) just strikes me as careless. In any case knowing it's a secret page effect doesn't give them the password to bypass it.

If I was the mage that identified it, I'd immediately be suspicious. The lack of further protection suggests to me that the secret page is, itself, the clue I should be looking for. Perhaps it's a red-herring and dispelling the secret page will actually destroy the information I'm looking for, or at least part of it, instead of revealing it. Perhaps the "false" page is actually the cipher for the coded information it's covering up or vice-versa. Worse, say I was looking for research notes and the secret page effect constitutes half of what I'm looking for. I must -still- find the password if I'm to be sure.

I think you see my point.

[Lord of Shadows]

Originally Posted by ShadowLord79
This has probably been covered before, but after a while playing 3.x and later versions of the "world's first RPG," something is just wrong with the way role vs. roll is reflected in the game. Maybe I am just too old school to get used to this, but it is just darn aggravating what Skill Checks can do. They take all the mystery, excitement and danger out of the game.

No matter what challenge the DM places in the adventure, there is a Skill Check that will tell characters everything they need to know about it, regardless of what the player might know.

Counterpoint: "There is an evil wizard who has presumably made various plans to deal with any interference in his schemes." What skill check can a player make to be auto-informed of how to get past that? Gather Information? No. Spellcraft? They'd need to be near whatever spell effect they wished to investigate, which is of no value when it's a dominate person on some important personage halfway across the kingdom, called minions devastating several widely-separated targets at once, or scrying-protected items within a sealed vault.

The problem is a gradual one. The "catch-all" Knowledge (Local) would tell the party some things, especially if there was no restriction on it to a specific area, which in the rules there is not. But, it doesn't really become broken until the party is confronting the evil wizard and his minions and with a few Skill checks they know exactly how to defeat them. Granted, it burns an Action (usually a Standard action) to do it, but the Knowledge gained can be crippling to the enemy. And while a lead lined vault protects from Scrying, it has no protection from Skills (Disable Device, for example) other than the quality of its construction.

Originally Posted by ShadowLord79
#2. DM places some obscure reference to a local custom in the adventure. None of the characters are part of the local culture, or from anywhere near there, BUT... one or more of them have Knowledge (Local) and the players argue that they should be able to roll to see if their character knows all the details about this custom (that their characters have never been exposed to):

Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations DC 10
Know a common rumor or local tradition DC 15
Know hidden organizations, rulers, and locations DC 20

I realize that there is a possibility that any character could have heard something about the local customs of somewhere, but this happens everywhere and every time some obscure reference is made. And not just local customs, but local rulers, local geography, and so on. There is a Skill answer for almost every non-combat challenge conceivable.

Knowledge checks need to be seriously reformed; their primary problem is that they are oversimplified in an attempt to make them usable for play.

That said, how would you represent a character that really has read and studied a great deal about all the other cultures they can manage, and maintains a network of contacts in various areas? In 3.x, that'd be, in large part, through K: Local.

I am also curious; just how did you expect them to know about this obscure local custom to begin with? Was it some sort of planned-out "there's no way you could have known this, but here's why everything made sense" idea? That's great for overconfident villains to use, but it's also kind of cool when the heroes manage to figure it out early anyway and use it against them, as long as the scheme is not so fragile as to simply unravel the second they discover this.

The first example that comes to mind here is this: the party enters a new area, has not stopped at any Inn and has not talked to anyone. They notice that some houses have a small statue of a warrior placed on the right side of their house doors. The player felt that a Knowledge (Local) DC 15 should tell him everything there is to know about this local custom. He argued when he caught wind that the DC might be more than 15, since it doesn't allow for that under the description of the Skill. This was perhaps one of the more aggravating scenarios. Actually, the statues were a local custom believed to protect the residence. The player wanted to find that out with a D20 roll rather than approaching an NPC and asking. Roll play was seemingly preferred over role-play. There wasn't really anything to it, it wasn't part of the BBEG's plan, and it had no real bearing on the rest of the adventure except to introduce the fact that the local populace was superstitious.

This group is also fond of trying to use Skill checks to overcome puzzles and riddles, arguing that "their character has a god-like intelligence, but they don't."

Yes, I do like it when the heroes have an A-ha moment. Unfortunately, too many of them come from Skill checks.

Originally Posted by ShadowLord79
DC 10 + monster's CR
So a CR 10 monster is a DC 20.

That's not actually the core rule, which is DC 10 + HD, not 10 + CR; most monsters must use the primary source rules on this. Both usually make DCs too high, not too low, such that, say, a level 11 Ranger (who should have a fair idea how their favored enemies are best fought) with a +15 K:Nature modifier (14 ranks, +1 Int) who rolls a 20 can only determine that a CR 11 cloud giant is a Giant (Air) and throws rocks. Their SLAs, battle strategies, and so on remain unknown.

Actually, in Pathfinder, it is DC 10 + CR to identify "a monster's abilities and weaknesses."

And I agree that Rangers should know more about some things than other classes. So too should any character that devotes themselves to being good at one thing. Good example with the Cloud Giant.

Originally Posted by ShadowLord79
What's that? You want to get around this by creating new monsters? Nope... every creature must be one of the types listed, and is therefore subject to the knowledge check. This is where the whole thing breaks down. It is true that perhaps a character would have some local knowledge, no matter how obscure or slight, but to have knowledge of a creature that was just created?

Here it would be useful, as part of a larger reform of those specific skills, to add a modifier (+8 or +10 or something) to represent the difficulty of extrapolating, from existing knowledge, the properties of a brand-new monster. Should it be impossible? No; naturalists can make predictions about newly-discovered species based on observed similarities to existing creatures, and someone with a ridiculously large amount of memorized knowledge should be even better at this. Of course, the more complex deductions are harder, but that's what the higher DC is for.

Agreed, it should not be impossible. The problem here is that there are those who complain when DC's are "modified," even a little. Since the DC's are included in the descriptions, they think they know when they have beat it.

Originally Posted by ShadowLord79
Where is the danger, the mystery, the excitement of encountering something new and actually having to work to find out about it instead of simply rolling a D20? (not to mention "Take 10 " and "Take 20")

You can't take 20 on Knowledge skills, or even retry them. Taking 10 is not possible in combat, either.

Yes, agreed. This problem is not limited to just Knowledge checks, however, although those have been most of the examples.

Originally Posted by ShadowLord79
Skills give knowledge to players through their characters that they would not otherwise have.

That? That right there? Working as intended. That is precisely the entire purpose of skills. They make it possible to roleplay a character by the character's own merits, rather than through rampant metagaming.

This is a design goal. It is not one all share, but it is one that many players (and DMs) find desirable.

It is true that metagaming can be a problem in rules systems without Skills. However, Skills need to be carefully controlled so as not to swing the pendulum too far the other way, and the game becomes a roll-fest. I do think that Skills are a good thing, just that they need tweaking to prevent another sort of "power" gaming.

Originally Posted by ShadowLord79
True, the DM can just rule that the character didn't roll high enough, but that's kind of hard to do when the character is trying to "Identify a spell effect that is in place." The Knowledge (Arcana) DC is 20 + spell level, for a maximum possible of 29 for a 9th level spell. The player rolls his D20 and gets a result in the 30's... telling the player they didn't roll high enough would be a bit of a stretch.

Again, working as intended. A character that gets a result in the 30s on a Knowledge check is one that is well-educated beyond pretty much all professors you can imagine; that's what their ranks represent.

Agreed... and this is part of the Skill system that has been abused the most by the players here. Identifying a spell in place has way too low a DC. Perhaps the CL should be added to it. I dunno.

Originally Posted by ShadowLord79
Then there is always the Rule #1 thing about the DM always being right, but having to continually fall back on that starts to wear thin among players who think their characters can solve the mysteries of the universe with a single D20 roll. Roll playing has overtaken role-playing.

In fact, almost anything that is used to oppose these Skill checks is going to be a kludge, a solution that is inefficient, clumsy, or patched together.

Ok, end of venting. It is just aggravating when a player dismisses all the work you put into something by claiming that their character can roll a D20 and know all there is to know about it. And they can even give you what they think the DC should be... <sigh>

So what are some solutions I have used? I tend to pin down the player and point out that there is just no way their character could have that knowledge. I might be more generous on this point if the players didn't try to know everything, no matter how obscure or hidden, with a single D20 roll. Some players have complained, saying that no where in the rules does it say that, which forces me to resort to Rule #1. There is no way they can know everything about a new spell, or a strange new creature.

Being able to reach the high DCs needed to make this problematic involves either being of very high level, using Extraordinary abilities that explicitly go beyond what most NPCs could do, or using magic. In all of these cases, saying "there's no way you could do that!" is a little out of place; there's no way they could surround their foes with an impenetrable cage of force or imprison an enemy in a coma deep beneath the earth either, is there? A character so mystically knowledgeable that they can look at a brand-new spell effect and puzzle out how it was made and what it does is just par for the course. They're just that good.

I agree that, at a certain point, a character could know everything there is to know about something, I guess the question is when.. Certainly "Mythic" characters (the Pathfinder kludge for Epic) would have a good chance. And they really are "that good." I think some players have become accustomed to their characters gaining access to powerful knowledge and abilities at levels much lower than the typical 20th, sometimes even in the single digits.

If this is a play style that appeals to the local group, that is great, although I will be a voice in the background telling them about all the role-playing they are missing out on by rolling a Skill check to find an answer.

Originally Posted by ShadowLord79
I suppose this could be thought of as injecting some "realism" into a "fantasy" game, but without it, the game is nothing but tossing some dice and scribbling on a battle mat.

Generally, if a conflict is trivially bypassed merely by possessing one or a few pieces of information, it was not very robust. Most monsters, for example, do not simply roll over and fall down if the characters are aware of some or even all of their tricks and vulnerabilities. Preventing this is not injecting realism, or even verisimilitude in most cases; it's a shortcut to artificially make the game more difficult with less DM work, and when it backfires because it doesn't hang together right, well, them's the breaks.

This is also true. An encounter should demand more than a few Skill checks to defeat it. And Skill checks can give the party an advantage. I think the question that comes up is exactly what that advantage should be.

[delenn]

The player tried to complain that Knowledge (Local) applied everywhere, as no matter where the character was at it was "local." The character could have heard it in a tavern on the way into the area, or stopped and talked to someone on the road, or whatever. Again, the argument I get tries to ignore how the character obtained the knowledge, just that it has it. Somehow.

Wow, I thought it was just a given that Knowledge (Local) meant, you know, local. Just because I know some things about NYC doesn't mean I know the same things about LA. I might give a character a synergy bonus to a skill like gather info if they're in a place that's very similar to their 'local' location, but if local means 'wherever the pc is right now,' that's absurd. I'm not even really that rules-oriented, but I didn't know people seriously tried to argue that.

[Lord of Shadows]

In short you want high level PCs to be stumped on the same stuff that would have foiled them ten levels earlier. Why? Part of the point of levelling up is that you get new and different challenges as you've passed the old ones. I see no problem here, quite the reverse.

No, I don't think they should be stumped by the same stuff, and leveling up has many rewards besides skill points. The problem is the reverse, that no matter what the challenge is, the response is a Skill check to "know" how to deal with it, be it monster, or trap, or whatever.

First, Knowledge (Local) is a bugged skill. There should be a Knowledge (Local) for each separate region. "I know local knowledge about everywhere" is just ridiculous. Second, they may not have seen it directly, but gossip? The fact that you and they do not play out every interaction they have had since the cradle?

There is a class that encompasses a more general knowledge base: the Bard. And guess what, this party has one. <sigh> But I can't complain too much about that, they are historically the "adventuring party's library" anyway.

Once again I'm with the game rather than the GMs who want to blindfold the players (unless you're using beasties explicitly from the Far Realms). A high enough level ranger should be able to take one look at a monster they have never seen before and say "Teeth? It's a herbivore, it doesn't bite often - but watch for the back two molars. From its musculature, the real danger is that sharp tail that it can crack like a whip, breaking the sound barrier. It needs lungs that are larger than you'd expect so its heart will be *scetches* there. Top speed? With those muscles? Twenty five miles per hour or so - and it can keep it up for a few minutes. From the gashes along its side, it's been in a fight and will lash out twice as fast at anyone on its left flank." And be pretty close on their estimates.

This is actually a very good example of a Skill "in action." If only that was how Skills were played instead of, "I rolled a 25, tell me everything about the monster."

This is not a problem. The DM trying to create a world even people who live in know nothing about is a problem. So is the DM fudging rolls to restrict the players understanding of the world still further than the very low bit rate of the DM talking.

Well, actually, they are relying on their own skills to "know" things about the world rather than actually doing any investigating. Sometimes I think Knowledge (Local) is expected to produce a map of the dungeon.

It might be aggravating, but if the players weren't finding your game of 20 Questions annoying they wouldn't be doing this. The problem isn't at the players end. It's that you are wasting your time putting together things the players obviously don't find fun, that spoil the players' immersion, and that just lead to tedium and frustrated players.

Unfortunately it seems to be the other way... Sometimes it seems they don't have fun unless their characters can solve every challenge with a die roll. Forcing some of them to Role-play sometimes leads to frustration. Sad, really. But this is, I guess, a style of play issue.

In short you are using Rule #1 to ensure that Spellcraft literally is meaningless. That there are no laws to magic, and no common patterns between spells. Which is the only way they couldn't know at least something about spells they encounter. You're trying to force a Calvinball universe.

Actually, no, I don't want any of the Skills to be meaningless, and they always get the basics about a spell from Detect Magic. Beyond that, the DC's for Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft are ridiculously low, and can all be hit by most characters by mid-level, regardless of the source of the magic.

Actually, my serious recommendation is that you get a copy of Dungeon World and read the advice in there.

Thanks! I will check it out.

And seriously, as my final comment, if you take nothing else on board, the PCs apparently seem to think that they need to fight for every scrap of knowledge with you - because you are apparently adamant about denying it. I think everyone would be much more relaxed if you gave them more and only very occasionally kept some back rather than that they got used to fighting for every scrap of information.

Actually no, they don't, as I generally default to the rules as written. It's just that the RAW are so... aggravating sometimes.

[Lord of Shadows]

As I read, I more and more get the impression that your issue isn't so much with the system as a rules-lawyer player being a bit of a munchkin.

Be firm with him. "If the magic and the item can be separated by simple dispel magic, it's not a magic item. It's the target of a spell effect. If you disagree, stow it. Whether that's RAW or not is irrelevant because that's how I'm ruling." Same goes for the know (local) issue. "I'm exercising rule zero here. I don't care that the book doesn't say it works that way, that's how it works when I'm the DM."

It -is- RAW but that's not the issue. The issue is that the player is causing disruptions by disrespecting the DM's position as arbiter of the rules. If the players want you to take on the responsibility of building and running a fun game, especially in such a complex system, they have to accept the fact that you must act as an authority to do so. Just don't let it go to your head and remember that the purpose of the game is for -everyone- to have fun.

...

Honestly though, I don't really see the problem or even how to setup a problem that is virtually solved with a single check and still call it a fully constructed problem. Take your secret page example; choosing not to layer a mage's magic aura over it or lay a sepia snake sigil under it (both if I'm feeling nasty) just strikes me as careless. In any case knowing it's a secret page effect doesn't give them the password to bypass it.

If I was the mage that identified it, I'd immediately be suspicious. The lack of further protection suggests to me that the secret page is, itself, the clue I should be looking for. Perhaps it's a red-herring and dispelling the secret page will actually destroy the information I'm looking for, or at least part of it, instead of revealing it. Perhaps the "false" page is actually the cipher for the coded information it's covering up or vice-versa. Worse, say I was looking for research notes and the secret page effect constitutes half of what I'm looking for. I must -still- find the password if I'm to be sure.

I think you see my point.

Yes, and a very good point (er.. points) it is. I don't think it's so much of a rules lawyer issue, although once in a while I get the: "but it doesn't say that in the book." Usually related to how skill checks work.

And you would be a great addition to this party, as none of your "suspiciouns" have even occurred to them. Sometimes it seems like they rely too much on Spells and Skills, and forget strategy and tactics. Or push them to the rear until they have stepped into deep doodoo..
.

[TuggyNE]

The problem is a gradual one. The "catch-all" Knowledge (Local) would tell the party some things, especially if there was no restriction on it to a specific area, which in the rules there is not. But, it doesn't really become broken until the party is confronting the evil wizard and his minions and with a few Skill checks they know exactly how to defeat them. Granted, it burns an Action (usually a Standard action) to do it, but the Knowledge gained can be crippling to the enemy.

What's an example of "exactly how to defeat them"? If it's a matter of, say, the evil wizard sending dominated minions directly into battle with no other preparation, then the fact that Sense Motive DC 15 + dispel magic makes him lose is pretty much his own fault, because that's a lousy plan. A better plan is to mix minions from different sources, or still better, to have dominated minions order those they control into battle/provide resources/whatever. A BBEG needs to be clever and have contingencies, or else they're just asking to be shut down by a single trick.

If it's a matter of "they're immune to everything except sonic", well, that may or may not be exploitable (see 's difficulty with Leeky Windstaff) and in any case is probably something a well-prepared enemy should manage.

There are not many skill checks that are just "you auto-defeat this enemy now that you know this, no save", in large part because 3.x moved away from those sorts of "weaksauce weaknesses" in any case. Rakshasas are no longer autodefeated by a single blessed bolt, and so on.

And while a lead lined vault protects from Scrying, it has no protection from Skills (Disable Device, for example) other than the quality of its construction.

Or, you know, guards. An obstacle without covering fire is not an obstacle.

The first example that comes to mind here is this: the party enters a new area, has not stopped at any Inn and has not talked to anyone. They notice that some houses have a small statue of a warrior placed on the right side of their house doors. The player felt that a Knowledge (Local) DC 15 should tell him everything there is to know about this local custom. He argued when he caught wind that the DC might be more than 15, since it doesn't allow for that under the description of the Skill. This was perhaps one of the more aggravating scenarios. Actually, the statues were a local custom believed to protect the residence. The player wanted to find that out with a D20 roll rather than approaching an NPC and asking. Roll play was seemingly preferred over role-play. There wasn't really anything to it, it wasn't part of the BBEG's plan, and it had no real bearing on the rest of the adventure except to introduce the fact that the local populace was superstitious.

DC 15 is probably too low, but honestly, it's not that hard for a moderately insightful person to look at patterns like that and deduce a general "these people are superstitious" vibe. This would be useful for a broad knowledge of how the region works.

And if it had no negative consequences, what's the harm of having a character that is just that great at finding patterns?

This group is also fond of trying to use Skill checks to overcome puzzles and riddles, arguing that "their character has a god-like intelligence, but they don't."

Ah yes, puzzles. Some people like solving puzzles themselves. Some people hate that with the burning passion of a thousand thousand flaming suns. If your players are in the latter group, do not force them to solve puzzles they dislike. That's just making them do stuff that's not fun for no other reason than that you think they should.

Yes, I do like it when the heroes have an A-ha moment. Unfortunately, too many of them come from Skill checks.

The problem there is not that the skill check defines it; it's that your players are, apparently, unwilling to roleplay out what that skill check means. This lack of roleplaying is not due to the skill check at all.

Actually, in Pathfinder, it is DC 10 + CR to identify "a monster's abilities and weaknesses."

Ah. I assumed 3.5, but whatever.

Agreed, it should not be impossible. The problem here is that there are those who complain when DC's are "modified," even a little. Since the DC's are included in the descriptions, they think they know when they have beat it.

This is a question of system predictability vs fiat; generally, changing DCs should be done with a light hand to avoid disrupting expectations too much for no good reason; if it doesn't matter, just let them have it.

Agreed... and this is part of the Skill system that has been abused the most by the players here. Identifying a spell in place has way too low a DC. Perhaps the CL should be added to it. I dunno.

It's worth considering, but whatever changes you make should probably be discussed, or at least explained, before you implement them.

This is also true. An encounter should demand more than a few Skill checks to defeat it. And Skill checks can give the party an advantage. I think the question that comes up is exactly what that advantage should be.

Ideally, the advantage should be commensurate with the action cost and resources invested or expended. After all, there's a lot of things you can do with a standard action and a 10kgp magic item besides making Knowledge checks to know that the frost worm explodes when it dies and freezes those who attack it.

No, I don't think they should be stumped by the same stuff, and leveling up has many rewards besides skill points. The problem is the reverse, that no matter what the challenge is, the response is a Skill check to "know" how to deal with it, be it monster, or trap, or whatever.

Skill checks only go so far by the rules. They mostly give a framework to approach things, not an auto-win, so for those struggling with creativity they can mean the difference between "I have no idea what to do" and "oh, it's vulnerable to fire? I guess we should fireball it!"

Unfortunately it seems to be the other way... Sometimes it seems they don't have fun unless their characters can solve every challenge with a die roll. Forcing some of them to Role-play sometimes leads to frustration. Sad, really. But this is, I guess, a style of play issue.

Solve it with a die roll, or solve it with nothing but a die roll? The former does not preclude roleplaying, as previously seen. Indeed, if properly managed, it provides a framework, much like the way old-school random monster tables can give some fascinating ideas to elaborate on a dungeon's structure.

Actually, no, I don't want any of the Skills to be meaningless, and they always get the basics about a spell from Detect Magic. Beyond that, the DC's for Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft are ridiculously low, and can all be hit by most characters by mid-level, regardless of the source of the magic.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are all their characters trained in Spellcraft? What are they doing with their knowledge of spells, exactly?

And you would be a great addition to this party, as none of your "suspiciouns" have even occurred to them. Sometimes it seems like they rely too much on Spells and Skills, and forget strategy and tactics. Or push them to the rear until they have stepped into deep doodoo.

Then the logical counter is to push these logical consequences on them. Run with their desire to use skills, and rely more on tactics and strategies that cannot be bypassed by a single roll.