Results 1 to 6 of 6
-
2021-07-25, 05:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- Terra Australis
- Gender
[3.5] Templates and Knowledge Checks
A current thread about Lycanthropy reminded me of an issue I've often pondered. How do you apply Knowledge checks to learn about specific templates?
Lets take Lycanthropy as an example: a Human afflicted with Lycanthropy does not change type. So, would Knowledge (local) [for Humanoids] be apt to know info about Lycanthropy, or get a hint that someone is afflicted?
Same question, but how about a Hill Giant afflicted with Lycanthropy? Same template, but would the check change to Knowledge (nature) because its a Giant?
Now lets look at something different: party encounters a Spellwarped Ettin. The end creature is an Aberration, so that's a Knowledge (dungeoneering) check, to know stuff about Spellwarped creatures. But what about the base creature? Is that a separate Knowledge (nature) check to know the base creature is an Ettin, or is that information now lost forever because of the type change?
While I'm at it, on a related tangent, what about disguised creatures? Say a Green Hag is using its Disguise Self ability, and is posing as a Dryad. Assuming you haven't penetrated the disguise, what happens when you roll your Knowledge (nature) check for a Dryad? Do you get Dryad traits, or just nothing [since the Hag requires Knowledge (arcana)]. If the Hag example doesn't work for some reason, how about an Elf using a Hat of Disguise to pose as a Dryad?
Am I overthinking this, or are these things the rules does not really address?
Cheers - TMy winning competition entries: Kinvig Arrumskor | The Great Pumpkinhead | Wynfrith d'Acker
Torn-City - Massively multiplayer online browser based crime RPG
-
2021-07-25, 06:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
- Location
- <<Undetected>>
- Gender
Re: [3.5] Templates and Knowledge Checks
Most templates that change type assign the Augmented subtype attached to the previous type. You could do a knowledge check against the previous type but it might give you inaccurate data that is not relevant against your current opponent.
What you should be doing is rolling a knowledge check in general. Your DM should apply the appropriate modifier based on your skill bonus in the correct skill (so as not to impart OOC knowledge to the player), and reveal relevant information based on the results.Blank 3.5 Character Creator Iron Chef Style Tables (in Google Sheets)
Chairman Emeritus of Zinc Saucier.
Avatar by Derjuin, sing her praises to Elysium.
-
2021-07-25, 10:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2020
- Location
- Moscow
- Gender
Re: [3.5] Templates and Knowledge Checks
Players check knowledge and DM interprets check. Players don't need to know what exactly knowledge they check. This about some disguise. It can be relevant for Kn Devotion. And maybe, if check is really good they can somehow understand that this is hag, not dryad.
For Spellwarped Ettin need two separate rolls as I think.Last edited by loky1109; 2021-07-25 at 10:23 PM.
-
2021-07-26, 01:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
Re: [3.5] Templates and Knowledge Checks
Knowledge skill problems?
In-universe, templates aren't necessarily widely known things. Templates are usable by the DM to create entirely new monsters, which could be anything from a unique experiment to a common sight with their own name which only someone with the statblock could recognize as having a "template." Aside from those that are directly applied via spells or have obvious heritability like half-X.
Lets take Lycanthropy as an example: a Human afflicted with Lycanthropy does not change type. So, would Knowledge (local) [for Humanoids] be apt to know info about Lycanthropy, or get a hint that someone is afflicted?
Same question, but how about a Hill Giant afflicted with Lycanthropy? Same template, but would the check change to Knowledge (nature) because its a Giant?
Now lets look at something different: party encounters a Spellwarped Ettin. The end creature is an Aberration, so that's a Knowledge (dungeoneering) check, to know stuff about Spellwarped creatures. But what about the base creature? Is that a separate Knowledge (nature) check to know the base creature is an Ettin, or is that information now lost forever because of the type change?
While I'm at it, on a related tangent, what about disguised creatures? Say a Green Hag is using its Disguise Self ability, and is posing as a Dryad. Assuming you haven't penetrated the disguise, what happens when you roll your Knowledge (nature) check for a Dryad? Do you get Dryad traits, or just nothing [since the Hag requires Knowledge (arcana)]. If the Hag example doesn't work for some reason, how about an Elf using a Hat of Disguise to pose as a Dryad?
Am I overthinking this, or are these things the rules does not really address?
The better version you might look for is that found in Tome and Blood, where they *actually use* the concept of general basic DCs and provide some examples. DC 10 to know you use silver on lycanthropes, DC 15 to remember fiendish creatures have cold resistance, or DC 20 to remember what kind of spells affect a particular golem. These are of course examples for Arcana because it's a Sor/Wiz book and that's the magic knowledge skill.
But that's it. No, there is no deeper set of rules for knowledge. The DM is supposed to set appropriate DCs to recall this or that useful information, and are given Zero major examples for what sort of questions are actually "easy," "tough," or "hard." Of course, they can't answer how common a monster is supposed to be and thus how common knowledge of its abilities are and how high the knowledge check DC should be, because every setting is different and thus what people know is going to be different. In one game dragons of every color fly the skies and any farmer can tell you what color brings what type of death because their cousin died to it, in another dragons are rare and secretive hidden in their lairs, in another they're extinct, in another one or two planar travellers exist but no native dragons have ever lived. All are completely reasonable, and all should have completely different knowledge checks decided by the DM.
The 10+HD DC in 3.5 is a hack around that sort of represents how common a monster might be based on its power, which was not present in the 3.0 PHB. It's not even a full "rule," since the entry still disclaims itself by saying "In many cases you can. . ." The "reveals all traits of creature type" thing in published monster info blocks isn't in the 3.5 PHB either, it's just how they started interpreting things when later books actually began presenting ready-made information for knowledge rolls. And those information blocks actually contradict the 3.5 PHB where it says you learn "a bit of useful information" for succeeding, not "a slew of information which you have no reason to have catalogued together in such a way which may or may not be useful and also a name, followed by more bits of information some of which were physically visible features or completely useless trivia or impossible secrets."
Even so, the solutions for running knowledge are incredibly simple. What is the DC to know something? Ask the DM- and the DM either knows or decides on the spot what the DC is*. What information do you get if you roll knowledge on a creature? One useful bit +1/5 over the DC- and the fastest way to determine what would be useful is if you tell the DM what you want to know before rolling, if the DM can't be bothered with such thoughts. Which they should, because it's their job. If the DM has built an encounter and doesn't actually know what useful bits of information the PCs should get for an obviously relevant knowledge skill that the PCs have, then they didn't finish building the encounter.
*Which could even involve awareness of skill bonuses and other mechanics, though it requires a dose of remember "commonsenseknowledge isn't common," because 50% of people not knowing DC 10 untrained information is if anything higher odds than real life.
And if that sounds like it's not enough information to gg wrekt the whole game? Yeah, it's not supposed to be. As evidenced by uncountable threads, when the players/PCs can read the monster entry, it's not much of a monster. The knowledge skill is not supposed to allow your character to become a walking bestiary that knows what any foe can do on sight unless they're loaded with PC class levels. It's supposed to give you a hint that can help in a sticky situation, or give the DM a way to just hand you relevant information without needing to drag you by the nose into it.
Knowledge checks are like Spot/Listen checks: the only reason the player should be rolling them at all is in a specific situation that demands it- and unlike active Spot/Listen checks, there is no retry on Knowledge skills, it's an entirely passive no-action skill without some sort of added mechanic (usually library research, which shouldn't be a knowledge check at all, but anyway). Which means it shouldn't have abilities which the player can expend to boost it that necessitate they have control over the die.Fizban's Tweaks and Brew: Google Drive (PDF), Thread
A collection of over 200 pages of individually small bans, tweaks, brews, and rule changes, usable piecemeal or nearly altogether, and even some convenient lists. Everything I've done that I'd call done enough to use in one place (plus a number of things I'm working on that aren't quite done, of course).
-
2021-07-26, 03:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
- Location
- <<Undetected>>
- Gender
Re: [3.5] Templates and Knowledge Checks
Knowledge checks are kinda meta-gamey. Like I don't make my players roll to remember the name of the Baron who has ruled the city for the past 20 years, where they also grew up. I just tell them. But If they are trying to remember the name of his great-aunt who married into the family from the next kingdom over, that's Know (Nobility). Or if they are trying to remember why he had a dust-up with the merchant guild last year, that's Know Local.
What I meant by my suggestion is that if players think they are fighting a dryad, and have some metagame knowledge of what that is and think they can take it, they probably aren't going to roll. But if its secretly a green hag, I might roll a Knowledge Nature check for them and tell them the behavior is off in some fashion and give them insight into the true nature of the foe.Blank 3.5 Character Creator Iron Chef Style Tables (in Google Sheets)
Chairman Emeritus of Zinc Saucier.
Avatar by Derjuin, sing her praises to Elysium.
-
2021-07-26, 04:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- Terra Australis
- Gender
Re: [3.5] Templates and Knowledge Checks
The knowledge skill kind of already builds in a mechanic for common knowledge:
Untrained
An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).
From my time doing trivia comps, trust me when I say there's almost always someone who doesn't know even the most glaringly obvious facts, so in game that might represent Int 9 or lower (or a poor roll if they aren't taking 10).
Back to my OP: looks like there's no clear RAW on a lot of what I asked.
FWIW, I am usually the DM when these scenarios arise, and I always like to seek a RAW answer where possible.My winning competition entries: Kinvig Arrumskor | The Great Pumpkinhead | Wynfrith d'Acker
Torn-City - Massively multiplayer online browser based crime RPG