Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

High DC Knowledge checks

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 6:14:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

My Int-monster sage can get some knowledge skills up to +39. The Knowledge
skill description in the PHB says that "really hard" questions are DC 30.
Thus, if this really are the highest possible DC, all he needs is +29 to be
guaranteed to answer any question (except, presumably, those the DM declares
by fiat to be beyond even this sage's knowledge. If he can take 10 (and the
PHB doesn't say he can't as far as I can tell), then he only needs +20 to
answer any question.

The SRD description says identifying a monster is DC 10+HD. So with +20 for
Knowledge(nature) he could identify up to a 20 HD forest creature. I know
monster HDs can get very high HD, e.g. 48HD for the Tarrasque, and likely
higher for some dragons. So he'd still fail on "touch monster"
identifications -- but presumably if he fails such a check and doesn't
recognize it, he would know "I don't know what it is, but I'm sure it's a
really tough critter".

The Epic Skills section of the SRD says there are no "epic level" applications
with higher DCs. Does anyone know of other sources of high-DC knowledge
checks, or negative modifiers to knowledge checks?
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

More about : high knowledge checks

Anonymous
April 7, 2005 6:14:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:

> My Int-monster sage can get some knowledge skills up to +39. The Knowledge
> skill description in the PHB says that "really hard" questions are DC 30.
> Thus, if this really are the highest possible DC, all he needs is +29 to be
> guaranteed to answer any question (except, presumably, those the DM declares
> by fiat to be beyond even this sage's knowledge. If he can take 10 (and the
> PHB doesn't say he can't as far as I can tell), then he only needs +20 to
> answer any question.
>
> The SRD description says identifying a monster is DC 10+HD. So with +20 for
> Knowledge(nature) he could identify up to a 20 HD forest creature. I know
> monster HDs can get very high HD, e.g. 48HD for the Tarrasque, and likely
> higher for some dragons. So he'd still fail on "touch monster"
> identifications -- but presumably if he fails such a check and doesn't
> recognize it, he would know "I don't know what it is, but I'm sure it's a
> really tough critter".
>
> The Epic Skills section of the SRD says there are no "epic level" applications
> with higher DCs. Does anyone know of other sources of high-DC knowledge
> checks, or negative modifiers to knowledge checks?

Okay, I might be remembering wrong, but you can't Take 10 on a knowledge
check. Information is random, and you can never be guaranteed of knowing
something. It's not like making an item. However, I have no references,
so that means squat. The RAW supports your view.

The #1 adjuster to knowledge is a situtational modifier. If you have the
History of Rome in front of you, you can answer some very obscure
questions about the Empire with little or no ranks. However, running
into a unique creature should have a huge penalty as there is NO
KNOWLEDGE available, even if you have 100 ranks. Between that is DM
judgement. The skill DC's are guidelines, rather than fixed rules, as
circumstances can and will vary.

CH
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 6:16:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <d33f7v$egk$1@knot.queensu.ca>,
David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
>... So he'd still fail on "touch monster"
>identifications

Sigh. That's "tough monster" of course.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Related resources
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 8:43:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <t5d5e.52$fZ5.165@mencken.net.nih.gov>,
Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>David Alex Lamb wrote:
>
>> My Int-monster sage can get some knowledge skills up to +39. The Knowledge
>> skill description in the PHB says that "really hard" questions are DC 30.
>Okay, I might be remembering wrong, but you can't Take 10 on a knowledge
>check. Information is random, and you can never be guaranteed of knowing
>something. It's not like making an item. However, I have no references,
>so that means squat. The RAW supports your view.

I had a vague impression I might have been wrong on Take 10 for Knowledge
skills, but I couldn't find anything in the PHB or DMG.

>The #1 adjuster to knowledge is a situtational modifier.

I just wish the main source had given some better guidelines other than just
that 20 and 30 were "really hard" questions.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 9:40:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
> My Int-monster sage can get some knowledge skills up to +39. The
> Knowledge skill description in the PHB says that "really hard"
> questions are DC 30. Thus, if this really are the highest possible
> DC, all he needs is +29 to be guaranteed to answer any question
> (except, presumably, those the DM declares by fiat to be beyond even
> this sage's knowledge. If he can take 10 (and the PHB doesn't say he
> can't as far as I can tell), then he only needs +20 to answer any
> question.

You can't Take 10 on Knowledge checks; they're too hit and miss.

> The SRD description says identifying a monster is DC 10+HD. So with
> +20 for Knowledge(nature) he could identify up to a 20 HD forest
> creature. I know monster HDs can get very high HD, e.g. 48HD for the
> Tarrasque, and likely higher for some dragons. So he'd still fail on
> "touch monster" identifications -- but presumably if he fails such a
> check and doesn't recognize it, he would know "I don't know what it
> is, but I'm sure it's a really tough critter".

The fact that it's 60 feet tall, covered in armor plating, has massive
horns and is current *charging you* is probably enough of a hint, even
without a skill check.

> The Epic Skills section of the SRD says there are no "epic level"
> applications with higher DCs. Does anyone know of other sources of
> high-DC knowledge checks, or negative modifiers to knowledge checks?

Non-core, I suppose, but circumstance penalties for dealing with
somethign foreign is entirely possible. For instance, taking a
Dalelander and dropping him in Kara-Tur, there's a good chance that his
social (and many knowledge) skills should suffer at least a little bit.
It's hard to make a good Diplomacy check, or Knowledge(Nature) check,
when you've never seen or heard of the creatures you're dealing with.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 9:53:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> My Int-monster sage can get some knowledge skills up to +39. The
> Knowledge skill description in the PHB says that "really hard"
> questions are DC 30. Thus, if this really are the highest possible
> DC, all he needs is +29 to be guaranteed to answer any question
> (except, presumably, those the DM declares by fiat to be beyond even
> this sage's knowledge. If he can take 10 (and the PHB doesn't say he
> can't as far as I can tell), then he only needs +20 to answer any
> question.

You can't take 10, because Knowledge checks aren't an action - you either
have the knowledge or don't.

> The SRD description says identifying a monster is DC 10+HD. So with
> +20 for Knowledge(nature) he could identify up to a 20 HD forest
> creature. I know monster HDs can get very high HD, e.g. 48HD for the
> Tarrasque, and likely higher for some dragons. So he'd still fail on
> "touch monster" identifications -- but presumably if he fails such a
> check and doesn't recognize it, he would know "I don't know what it
> is, but I'm sure it's a really tough critter".

It's 10+HD to know what it is and one piece of useful information, with one
extra piece of information for every 5 points by which you beat the DC. If
you assume that individual attack forms and special qualities can be
considered separate "chunks" of information, you'll still need to get well
beyond the basic 10+HD check in order to get a good idea of the capabilities
of a creature with lots of racial features.

> The Epic Skills section of the SRD says there are no "epic level"
> applications with higher DCs. Does anyone know of other sources of
> high-DC knowledge checks, or negative modifiers to knowledge checks?

Unfamiliarity is a common negative modifier. If you're part of the first
successful expedition to a new continent and you come across a creature that
doesn't exist on your home continent, you'll need to do a lot better than
10+HD to recognise it, for instance. Maybe 20+HD to make an educated guess
based on comparison to more familiar creatures.

--
Mark.
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 9:53:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <3bl6s7F6fs1idU1@individual.net>,
Mark Blunden <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote:
>David Alex Lamb wrote:
>> My Int-monster sage can get some knowledge skills up to +39.
>> ... If he can take 10 (and the PHB doesn't say he
>> can't as far as I can tell), then he only needs +20 to answer any
>> question.
>
>You can't take 10, because Knowledge checks aren't an action - you either
>have the knowledge or don't.

Thanks. Where did you find this? The SRD just says:

Taking 10: When your character is not being threatened or distracted,
you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill
check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many
routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically
successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it
impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is
purely a safety measure -you know (or expect) that an average roll
will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to
settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in
situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.


>> The SRD description says identifying a monster is DC 10+HD. So with
>> +20 for Knowledge(nature) he could identify up to a 20 HD forest
>> creature. I know monster HDs can get very high HD, e.g. 48HD for the
>> Tarrasque, and likely higher for some dragons. So he'd still fail on
>> "touch monster" identifications -- but presumably if he fails such a
>> check and doesn't recognize it, he would know "I don't know what it
>> is, but I'm sure it's a really tough critter".
>
>It's 10+HD to know what it is and one piece of useful information, with one
>extra piece of information for every 5 points by which you beat the DC. If
>you assume that individual attack forms and special qualities can be
>considered separate "chunks" of information, you'll still need to get well
>beyond the basic 10+HD check in order to get a good idea of the capabilities
>of a creature with lots of racial features.

Right. So for identifying creatures, the sky is the limit.

>> The Epic Skills section of the SRD says there are no "epic level"
>> applications with higher DCs. Does anyone know of other sources of
>> high-DC knowledge checks, or negative modifiers to knowledge checks?

>Unfamiliarity is a common negative modifier. If you're part of the first
>successful expedition to a new continent and you come across a creature that
>doesn't exist on your home continent, you'll need to do a lot better than
>10+HD to recognise it, for instance. Maybe 20+HD to make an educated guess
>based on comparison to more familiar creatures.

Do you have any guidelines for modifiers IYC?
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 9:53:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote:

>Unfamiliarity is a common negative modifier. If you're part of the first
>successful expedition to a new continent and you come across a creature that
>doesn't exist on your home continent, you'll need to do a lot better than
>10+HD to recognise it, for instance. Maybe 20+HD to make an educated guess
>based on comparison to more familiar creatures.

Am I the only one who thinks 10+HD doesn't make a lot of sense?
Why are high hit-dice monsters more obscure? I would think dragons,
for example, would be easy to remember. If you read about something
nasty enough to defeat an army, you're going to remember. If you
read about a type of kangaroo rat native to an obscure part of
the continent, you're not likely to remember much.

I can understand why HD was chosen, especially since it makes
the DC go up as the PCs and their opponents get more powerful.
Although maybe CR would be better for that particular justification.
But something simple works best, and HD are pretty simple.
They don't really represent anything even vaguely related to
how hard it is to learn or remember facts about the creature,
though.

Does the MM still have an indication of how common the
various monsters are? Did it ever, or am I misremembering?
Using something like that, along with the preferred terrain
of the monster, could result in something that makes more
sense. Be a lot of work, though, and it might not end up
at all balanced for character level.

I dunno. It's just weird, man.

Pete
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 9:53:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On a related note, the MSRD description of Knowledge explicitly states
that one may Take 10, but not Take 20.



... Roger Carbol ..
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 9:56:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <d33rp6$lu5$2@news3.bu.edu>,
Peter Meilinger <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote:
>Mark Blunden <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Unfamiliarity is a common negative modifier. If you're part of the first
>>successful expedition to a new continent and you come across a creature that
>>doesn't exist on your home continent, you'll need to do a lot better than
>>10+HD to recognise it, for instance. Maybe 20+HD to make an educated guess
>>based on comparison to more familiar creatures.
>
>Am I the only one who thinks 10+HD doesn't make a lot of sense?
>Why are high hit-dice monsters more obscure?

I noticed that; the tarrasque is a rare creature, but it's probabl famous.

>Does the MM still have an indication of how common the
>various monsters are? Did it ever, or am I misremembering?

The original AD&D manual had them, if I am remembering correctly. The SRD
doesn't.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 9:56:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> >Does the MM still have an indication of how common the various

> >monsters are? Did it ever, or am I misremembering?

>

> The original AD&D manual had them, if I am remembering correctly. The

> SRD doesn't.

> --

Even so, this doesn't really solve the problem. It makes sense that one
would learn properties of generic groups (such as all bears are omnivores)
early, but not properties of species (such as the American Black Bear eats
salmon (or whatever)). In this case, the difficulty of the knowledge check
depends on the specificity of information required. The more common a
species is, the more likely you are to have encountered the specifics of
that species.

At the same time, the more interesting a creature is, the more likely one is
to know tidbits about that creature. For example, it is (I assume) common
knowledge that the playpus is a mammal that lays eggs. This species is by no
means common, but it is interesting (because it is an exception). In a world
with dragons and demons, I'd guess that power (or HD) equates roughly to
interesting. Moreover, power and frequency are (loosely) negatively
correlated. There are fewer 50HD creatures than 1HD creatures.

For play-balance (encouraging ongoing Knowledge skill development), using HD
to determine DC is probably a good idea. In reality though, HD probably
subtracts from DC (at least across generic groups). No doubt about it,
knowledge skills are hard to model.

Peter
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 9:58:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <slrnd5as3u.rb.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>You can't Take 10 on Knowledge checks; they're too hit and miss.

That makes sense, but as I asked Mark: where is this written down?
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 10:25:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 7 Apr 2005 17:48:22 GMT, Peter Meilinger <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote:

>Mark Blunden <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Unfamiliarity is a common negative modifier. If you're part of the first
>>successful expedition to a new continent and you come across a creature that
>>doesn't exist on your home continent, you'll need to do a lot better than
>>10+HD to recognise it, for instance. Maybe 20+HD to make an educated guess
>>based on comparison to more familiar creatures.
>
>Am I the only one who thinks 10+HD doesn't make a lot of sense?
>Why are high hit-dice monsters more obscure? I would think dragons,
>for example, would be easy to remember. If you read about something
>nasty enough to defeat an army, you're going to remember. If you
>read about a type of kangaroo rat native to an obscure part of
>the continent, you're not likely to remember much.

I think it has to do with unfamiliarity. There aren't a lot of
high-HD creatures around so people know less about them.

On other other hand, for things like dragons I think I would let them
be identified at low DC's suitable for when they were small.
Likewise, their powers could be identified based on when they gained
the power. When you're facing the Great Wyrm it's a more powerful
version of the Wrymling--anything the Wyrmling has, it also has. That
doesn't mean you'll get to identify it's later powers.
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 10:37:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:3bl6s7F6fs1idU1@individual.net...
> David Alex Lamb wrote:
>> My Int-monster sage can get some knowledge skills up to +39. The
>> Knowledge skill description in the PHB says that "really hard"
>> questions are DC 30. Thus, if this really are the highest possible
>> DC, all he needs is +29 to be guaranteed to answer any question
>> (except, presumably, those the DM declares by fiat to be beyond even
>> this sage's knowledge. If he can take 10 (and the PHB doesn't say he
>> can't as far as I can tell), then he only needs +20 to answer any
>> question.
>
> You can't take 10, because Knowledge checks aren't an action - you either
> have the knowledge or don't.

What the Hell? Of *course* you can Take 10 for a Knowledge check. Whether
or not it is an action only has to do with the time required to make a
check.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 10:37:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
> In article <slrnd5as3u.rb.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>You can't Take 10 on Knowledge checks; they're too hit and miss.
>
> That makes sense, but as I asked Mark: where is this written down?

That's the part that's giving me trouble. I don't know where it's
written down.

I know it *is*, I just haven't found it yet.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 10:37:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:

> David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
>
>>In article <slrnd5as3u.rb.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
>>Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>
>>>You can't Take 10 on Knowledge checks; they're too hit and miss.
>>
>>That makes sense, but as I asked Mark: where is this written down?
>
>
> That's the part that's giving me trouble. I don't know where it's
> written down.
>
> I know it *is*, I just haven't found it yet.
>
>
> Keith

Bardic Knowledge says that you can't Take 10 or Take 20. However, that's
Bardic Knowledge. That's closely related to Knowledge, but not the same
thing.

CH
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 10:54:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> You can't Take 10 on Knowledge checks; they're too hit and miss.

That's true for Lore checks, but there is no analogous rule for
Knowledge checks, AFAIK. It's the bard/loremaster stuff that's hit &
miss.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 11:10:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> In article <3bl6s7F6fs1idU1@individual.net>,
> Mark Blunden <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote:
>> David Alex Lamb wrote:
>>> My Int-monster sage can get some knowledge skills up to +39.
>>> ... If he can take 10 (and the PHB doesn't say he
>>> can't as far as I can tell), then he only needs +20 to answer any
>>> question.
>>
>> You can't take 10, because Knowledge checks aren't an action - you
>> either have the knowledge or don't.
>
> Thanks. Where did you find this? The SRD just says:
>
> Taking 10: When your character is not being threatened or
> distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20
> for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a
> 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically
> successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it
> impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is
> purely a safety measure -you know (or expect) that an average roll
> will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to
> settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially
> useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.

It stems from the description of using the skill:

Action: Usually none. In most cases, making a Knowledge check doesn’t
take an action—you simply know the answer or you don’t.

The knowledge you have is essentially pre-determined - you simply roll at
the time in order to discover what it is. Since there's no action involved,
it can't be modified by circumstances at the time you make your check.

>>> The SRD description says identifying a monster is DC 10+HD. So with
>>> +20 for Knowledge(nature) he could identify up to a 20 HD forest
>>> creature. I know monster HDs can get very high HD, e.g. 48HD for
>>> the Tarrasque, and likely higher for some dragons. So he'd still
>>> fail on "touch monster" identifications -- but presumably if he
>>> fails such a check and doesn't recognize it, he would know "I don't
>>> know what it is, but I'm sure it's a really tough critter".
>>
>> It's 10+HD to know what it is and one piece of useful information,
>> with one extra piece of information for every 5 points by which you
>> beat the DC. If you assume that individual attack forms and special
>> qualities can be considered separate "chunks" of information, you'll
>> still need to get well beyond the basic 10+HD check in order to get
>> a good idea of the capabilities of a creature with lots of racial
>> features.
>
> Right. So for identifying creatures, the sky is the limit.
>
>>> The Epic Skills section of the SRD says there are no "epic level"
>>> applications with higher DCs. Does anyone know of other sources of
>>> high-DC knowledge checks, or negative modifiers to knowledge checks?
>
>> Unfamiliarity is a common negative modifier. If you're part of the
>> first successful expedition to a new continent and you come across a
>> creature that doesn't exist on your home continent, you'll need to
>> do a lot better than 10+HD to recognise it, for instance. Maybe
>> 20+HD to make an educated guess based on comparison to more familiar
>> creatures.
>
> Do you have any guidelines for modifiers IYC?

No, I'm afraid I generally just wing it, choosing a modifier that seems
sensible based on the circumstances. As Peter Mellinger mentions in his
reply, the HD basis of the check doesn't always make logical sense - though
it works fairly well in game-balance terms - so you just have to try and be
sensible about it, and try to be consistent.

--
Mark.
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 11:11:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <3blbdsF6icck7U1@individual.net>,
Mark Blunden <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote:
>David Alex Lamb wrote:
>> In article <3bl6s7F6fs1idU1@individual.net>,
>> Mark Blunden <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote:
>>> David Alex Lamb wrote:
>>>> My Int-monster sage can get some knowledge skills up to +39.
>>>> ... If he can take 10 (and the PHB doesn't say he
>>>> can't as far as I can tell), then he only needs +20 to answer any
>>>> question.
>>>
>>> You can't take 10, because Knowledge checks aren't an action - you
>>> either have the knowledge or don't.
>>
>> Thanks. Where did you find this? The SRD just says:
>> [snip]
>
>It stems from the description of using the skill:
> Action: Usually none. In most cases, making a Knowledge check doesn’t
> take an action—you simply know the answer or you don’t.

Maybe I'm dense today (not that other days are much better): I see how this
says that knowledge checks are not actions, and probably saw it when I read
the Knowledge description, but: where does it say that non-actions can't take
10? It wasn't in the take 10 part of the SRD (in the snipped bit).
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 11:11:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:
>>It stems from the description of using the skill:
>> Action: Usually none. In most cases, making a Knowledge check doesn't
>> take an action -- you simply know the answer or you don't.

David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
> Maybe I'm dense today (not that other days are much better): I see how this
> says that knowledge checks are not actions, and probably saw it when I read
> the Knowledge description, but: where does it say that non-actions can't take
> 10? It wasn't in the take 10 part of the SRD (in the snipped bit).

I don't think it implies what he think it implies. I also think various
posters have the Knowledge skill confused with the Bardic Lore feature,
which does not let you take 10.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
April 7, 2005 11:11:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message news:<slrnd5b0jo.ccj.bradd+news@szonye.com>...

>
> I don't think it implies what he think it implies. I also think various
> posters have the Knowledge skill confused with the Bardic Lore feature,
> which does not let you take 10.

What on earth would taking 10 on a Knowledge skill represent?
Considering something slightly, but not so hard that you might confuse
yourself? That is crazy talk!

I guess it would make sense to take 10 if you were providing a synergy
bonus to someone actually doing an action (using the Complete
Adventurer rule on sharing synergy skills) but IMHO in general it is
nuts.

Mark
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 11:44:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <slrnd5b0f0.ccj.bradd+news@szonye.com>,
Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
>Keith Davies wrote:
>> You can't Take 10 on Knowledge checks; they're too hit and miss.
>
>That's true for Lore checks, but there is no analogous rule for
>Knowledge checks, AFAIK. It's the bard/loremaster stuff that's hit &
>miss.

Thanks! Then there is less of a change to the Sage description; I have to
figure out what to do about monster checks, but can plan on Take 10 if he's in
his comfy study.

He'd have to roll (sometimes) if using the magical scry/telepath device to
advise a party in real-time.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 12:03:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>
>> David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <slrnd5as3u.rb.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
>>>Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You can't Take 10 on Knowledge checks; they're too hit and miss.
>>>
>>>That makes sense, but as I asked Mark: where is this written down?
>>
>>
>> That's the part that's giving me trouble. I don't know where it's
>> written down.
>>
>> I know it *is*, I just haven't found it yet.
>
> Bardic Knowledge says that you can't Take 10 or Take 20. However,
> that's Bardic Knowledge. That's closely related to Knowledge, but not
> the same thing.

I'd swear that I've seen somewhere that you can't Take 10 on Knowledge
checks. I *know* you can't Take 20 (Retry: no, from the description).

This is going to bug me now.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 12:03:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
>
> I'd swear that I've seen somewhere that you can't Take 10 on Knowledge
> checks. I *know* you can't Take 20 (Retry: no, from the description).
>
> This is going to bug me now.

I'm having the same problem; I was certain I'd read
this...until I couldn't find it.

-Bluto
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 12:25:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 7 Apr 2005 17:48:22 GMT, Peter Meilinger <mellnger@bu.edu> scribed into
the ether:

>Mark Blunden <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Unfamiliarity is a common negative modifier. If you're part of the first
>>successful expedition to a new continent and you come across a creature that
>>doesn't exist on your home continent, you'll need to do a lot better than
>>10+HD to recognise it, for instance. Maybe 20+HD to make an educated guess
>>based on comparison to more familiar creatures.
>
>Am I the only one who thinks 10+HD doesn't make a lot of sense?
>Why are high hit-dice monsters more obscure?

Rarity, most likely. How many normal people are going to know the
difference between a Balor and Pit Fiend? They are very similar in
appearance. The basic rule of thumb makes sense, but there are going to be
some pretty obvious exceptions....

> I would think dragons, for example, would be easy to remember.

....like that

>If you read about something
>nasty enough to defeat an army, you're going to remember.

Well, as an example, there is Hannibal and his elephants. Lots of people
"know" that Hannibal used elephants to win battles. What most people do not
know is that most of them died of starvation in the alps, and that the
romans killed the few that were left by the second battle after they had
gotten over their fear of the unusual. Reading a battlefield account might
give you some insight into a rare, powerful beastie, but such things are
typically light on the details and innaccurate in parts (real world heroes
who were reported to be a couple feet taller than they really were, or to
slay men by the hundreds, etc).

Anyone can recognize a dragon...but how many folks will know that a blue
dragon's breath is a line and a red dragon's breath is a cone? That's where
knowledge comes in.

>Does the MM still have an indication of how common the
>various monsters are? Did it ever, or am I misremembering?

My first printing 3.0 MM does not have this. The older rules did, but
skimming them would show that as a general rule, the more HD something had,
the rarer it was. I think it was removed to avoid placing restrictions on
the DM, and because it was kind of pointlessly redundant.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 12:29:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrnd5as3u.rb.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...

> Non-core, I suppose, but circumstance penalties for dealing with
> somethign foreign is entirely possible. For instance, taking a
> Dalelander and dropping him in Kara-Tur, there's a good chance that his
> social (and many knowledge) skills should suffer at least a little bit.
> It's hard to make a good Diplomacy check, or Knowledge(Nature) check,
> when you've never seen or heard of the creatures you're dealing with.

There is always the generic "-2 general penalty" they use in D20 modern, for
unfamiliarity. On the other hand, I could see not allowing a roll at all
for complete unfamiliarity. In the case of a different plane, you could do
something like a Knowledge: Planes check, and set the penalties to other
skills based upon that...

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 12:31:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:37:51 GMT, Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org>
scribed into the ether:

>David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
>> In article <slrnd5as3u.rb.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
>> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>>You can't Take 10 on Knowledge checks; they're too hit and miss.
>>
>> That makes sense, but as I asked Mark: where is this written down?
>
>That's the part that's giving me trouble. I don't know where it's
>written down.
>
>I know it *is*, I just haven't found it yet.

Found this...3.0 PHB, Page 62.

The normal take 10 rules apply for ability checks that are routine
untrained skill checks (such as jumping but not disguising yourself) or
when there is no skill associated with the check. The normal take 20 rules
apply to all ability checks.

That's not really it, since we are talking about making a trained check,
and not just an ability roll vs int...but it is as close as I could find.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 12:31:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1112905393.396067.169890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
rcarbol@home.com <rcarbol@home.com> wrote:
>On a related note, the MSRD description of Knowledge explicitly states
>that one may Take 10, but not Take 20.

OK. What's the MSRD? modern SRD?
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 12:32:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Senator Blutarsky" <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4255E293.69378C18@comcast.net...
> Keith Davies wrote:
>>
>> I'd swear that I've seen somewhere that you can't Take 10 on Knowledge
>> checks. I *know* you can't Take 20 (Retry: no, from the description).
>>
>> This is going to bug me now.
>
> I'm having the same problem; I was certain I'd read
> this...until I couldn't find it.

It ain't there, folks.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 12:36:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd5b0f0.ccj.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> You can't Take 10 on Knowledge checks; they're too hit and miss.
>
> That's true for Lore checks, but there is no analogous rule for
> Knowledge checks, AFAIK. It's the bard/loremaster stuff that's hit &
> miss.

....which is as it should be. As it is, Bardic/Loremaster abilities are
disgustingly powerful (not that this is a *bad* thing). At last Dundracon I
ran a giant 10-person game where the Bard character was basically the key to
to figuring out *everything*. He was 19th level, and was regularly busting
out upper-30s to 40s Bardic Knowledge checks. He must be pretty good at
Trivial Pursuit ;-)

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 12:38:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <pu5b51leqhontf3g8mtv6mvd8vn05e7qs6@4ax.com>,
Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>Found this...3.0 PHB, Page 62.

OK, but if it's not repeated in 3.5 it no longer applies (except for rule 0).

>The normal take 10 rules apply for ability checks that are routine
>untrained skill checks (such as jumping but not disguising yourself) or
>when there is no skill associated with the check. The normal take 20 rules
>apply to all ability checks.
>
>That's not really it, since we are talking about making a trained check,
>and not just an ability roll vs int...but it is as close as I could find.

Actually that could imply that trained-only skills like Knowledge don't get to
Take 10. Because a presumption if someone mentions a special case only is
that the general case is different -- "the exception proves (the existence of)
the rule".
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 1:04:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

rcarbol@home.com wrote:
>> On a related note, the MSRD description of Knowledge explicitly
>> states that one may Take 10, but not Take 20.

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> OK. What's the MSRD? modern SRD?

Yes.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 1:04:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Mark Blunden wrote:
>>> It stems from the description of using the skill:
>>> Action: Usually none. In most cases, making a Knowledge check
>>> doesn't take an action -- you simply know the answer or you
>>> don't.
>
> David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
>> Maybe I'm dense today (not that other days are much better): I see
>> how this says that knowledge checks are not actions, and probably
>> saw it when I read the Knowledge description, but: where does it say
>> that non-actions can't take 10? It wasn't in the take 10 part of
>> the SRD (in the snipped bit).
>
> I don't think it implies what he think it implies. I also think
> various posters have the Knowledge skill confused with the Bardic
> Lore feature, which does not let you take 10.

The Knowledge skill description says that you either know something or you
don't, and that knowledge skill checks are not actions. That being the case,
how exactly would not being under pressure allow you to apply that skill
more reliably? You don't suddenly acquire knowledge just because someone's
not swinging a sword at you. Being able to take 10 on knowledge conflicts
with the way the skill is applied.

--
Mark.
April 8, 2005 1:04:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:3bli2cF6jmiv8U1@individual.net...
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Mark Blunden wrote:
>>>> It stems from the description of using the skill:
>>>> Action: Usually none. In most cases, making a Knowledge check
>>>> doesn't take an action -- you simply know the answer or you
>>>> don't.
>>
>> David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>> Maybe I'm dense today (not that other days are much better): I see
>>> how this says that knowledge checks are not actions, and probably
>>> saw it when I read the Knowledge description, but: where does it say
>>> that non-actions can't take 10? It wasn't in the take 10 part of
>>> the SRD (in the snipped bit).
>>
>> I don't think it implies what he think it implies. I also think
>> various posters have the Knowledge skill confused with the Bardic
>> Lore feature, which does not let you take 10.
>
> The Knowledge skill description says that you either know something or you
> don't, and that knowledge skill checks are not actions. That being the
> case,
> how exactly would not being under pressure allow you to apply that skill
> more reliably? You don't suddenly acquire knowledge just because someone's
> not swinging a sword at you. Being able to take 10 on knowledge conflicts
> with the way the skill is applied.

You know, off of the top of my head, rushed as I am, I'm not sure. Hmmm.
Let me think about it a moment. Ah, now I remember. Sometimes knowledge is
not immediately accessable due to stress, adreneline (sp?) rush, etc. So,
if you have a chance to be reflective, you have a better chance of accessing
that knowledge.

US Biased example: Quick, who was the 17th president? Oh darn, I don't
know. Wait a minute, wasn't Lincoln the 16th? Hmmm...Ford's
theatre...ok..it was his vice president...that guy from Tenn...starts with a
J....Johnson. Not LBJ, he was JFK's Veep. [note to self, never have a
Johnson as a running mate if running for president..there's gotta be a joke
in there, probably involves Nixon. Wait, I'm getting distracted... Johnson,
Andrew Johnson. That's it!

David


--
CaissaWas__SPAMHater__INTP@adelphia__ANTIV__.net without the block
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 1:04:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <3bli2cF6jmiv8U1@individual.net>,
Mark Blunden <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote:
>The Knowledge skill description says that you either know something or you
>don't, and that knowledge skill checks are not actions. That being the case,
>how exactly would not being under pressure allow you to apply that skill
>more reliably? You don't suddenly acquire knowledge just because someone's
>not swinging a sword at you. Being able to take 10 on knowledge conflicts
>with the way the skill is applied.

That makes sense, but it's still a deduction and not a RAW.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 1:04:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:3bli2cF6jmiv8U1@individual.net...
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Mark Blunden wrote:
>>>> It stems from the description of using the skill:
>>>> Action: Usually none. In most cases, making a Knowledge check
>>>> doesn't take an action -- you simply know the answer or you
>>>> don't.
>>
>> David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>> Maybe I'm dense today (not that other days are much better): I see
>>> how this says that knowledge checks are not actions, and probably
>>> saw it when I read the Knowledge description, but: where does it say
>>> that non-actions can't take 10? It wasn't in the take 10 part of
>>> the SRD (in the snipped bit).
>>
>> I don't think it implies what he think it implies. I also think
>> various posters have the Knowledge skill confused with the Bardic
>> Lore feature, which does not let you take 10.
>
> The Knowledge skill description says that you either know something or you
> don't,

Yes. That means you only get one shot: no "trying again".

> and that knowledge skill checks are not actions.

In other words, it does not take an action to use this skill. Duh.

> That being the case, how exactly would not being under pressure allow you
> to apply that skill
> more reliably?

Let's see: is it easier to remember something you read in a book when being
attacked by demons, or when sitting quietly in your study?

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 1:04:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David wrote:
> "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3bli2cF6jmiv8U1@individual.net...
>
>>The Knowledge skill description says that you either know something or you
>>don't, and that knowledge skill checks are not actions. That being the
>>case,
>>how exactly would not being under pressure allow you to apply that skill
>>more reliably? You don't suddenly acquire knowledge just because someone's
>>not swinging a sword at you. Being able to take 10 on knowledge conflicts
>>with the way the skill is applied.
>
>
> You know, off of the top of my head, rushed as I am, I'm not sure. Hmmm.
> Let me think about it a moment. Ah, now I remember. Sometimes knowledge is
> not immediately accessable due to stress, adreneline (sp?) rush, etc. So,
> if you have a chance to be reflective, you have a better chance of accessing
> that knowledge.

Exactly my line of thought. I've taken enough exams to know what stress
can do to a brain.

Of course, letting people take 10 for "rushed bits" probably implies
that you'd have to alter restrictions on retries. Y'know, if they flub
a check during a battle, time-restricted puzzle, or calculus exam ;-),
maybe let them take 10 once their safe.

Personally, I've never played a campaign that didn't allow taking ten.
The retry issue never came up, though.

- Tialan
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 1:18:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:
> The Knowledge skill description says that you either know something or
> you don't ....

Therefore, you cannot retry the skill or take 20. However, that does not
prohibit taking 10.

> ... and that knowledge skill checks are not actions.

Taking 10 is a feature of skill checks, not actions.

Both of your facts are irrelevant. They don't actually imply what you're
suggesting, and an implication isn't good enough anyway. The rules state
that you can take 10 any time you're not being threatened or distracted.
You need something explicit to overrule that, such as the explicit rule
for the Bardic Knowledge feature.

> That being the case, how exactly would not being under pressure allow
> you to apply that skill more reliably?

Because it's easier to think straight when you aren't under attack. Duh.
The problem here is that you aren't allowed a retry once the pressure
goes away. Forbidding take-10 checks fixes the wrong problem.

> You don't suddenly acquire knowledge just because someone's not
> swinging a sword at you. Being able to take 10 on knowledge conflicts
> with the way the skill is applied.

That's far from the only realism problem with Knowledge checks. They're
a very rough approximation of how real knowledge works, and you'll need
to overrule the rules as written quite often to avoid disbelief
problems.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 3:17:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:
>
> ...which is as it should be. As it is, Bardic/Loremaster abilities are
> disgustingly powerful (not that this is a *bad* thing). At last Dundracon I
> ran a giant 10-person game where the Bard character was basically the key to
> to figuring out *everything*. He was 19th level, and was regularly busting
> out upper-30s to 40s Bardic Knowledge checks.

Well, a 19th-level bard has to be useful for
*something*. ;-)

-Bluto
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 3:39:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> I don't think it implies what he think it implies. I also think
>> various posters have the Knowledge skill confused with the Bardic
>> Lore feature, which does not let you take 10.

Mark wrote:
> What on earth would taking 10 on a Knowledge skill represent?

The same thing it does for any other skill: routine use.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 4:38:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 7 Apr 2005 14:16:34 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
wrote:

>In article <d33f7v$egk$1@knot.queensu.ca>,
>David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>... So he'd still fail on "touch monster"
>>identifications
>
>Sigh. That's "tough monster" of course.

TOUCH THE MONOLITH, MONKEYBOY!


--
Hong Ooi | "COUNTERSRTIKE IS AN REAL-TIME
hong@zipworld.com.au | STRATEGY GAME!!!"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- RR
Sydney, Australia |
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 5:13:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Malachias Invictus hastily scrawled:
>"Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in message
>news:3bli2cF6jmiv8U1@individual.net...
>
>> That being the case, how exactly would not being under pressure allow you
>> to apply that skill
>> more reliably?
>
>Let's see: is it easier to remember something you read in a book when being
>attacked by demons, or when sitting quietly in your study?

And if you were attacked by demons while trying to recall a particular
fact, would that make it impossible for you to know that fact later?
And if you don't know something now, why is it you can never learn
that fact even if you train further in that field of study? What is
it the knowledge skill ranks are representing, if not learning things?



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 5:14:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Peter Meilinger hastily scrawled:
>Mark Blunden <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Unfamiliarity is a common negative modifier. If you're part of the first
>>successful expedition to a new continent and you come across a creature that
>>doesn't exist on your home continent, you'll need to do a lot better than
>>10+HD to recognise it, for instance. Maybe 20+HD to make an educated guess
>>based on comparison to more familiar creatures.
>
>Am I the only one who thinks 10+HD doesn't make a lot of sense?
>Why are high hit-dice monsters more obscure?

Because they tend to eat more of the folks who encounter them. Thus,
the recorded facts available for study are rare, obscure and difficult
to find.

>I would think dragons,
>for example, would be easy to remember. If you read about something
>nasty enough to defeat an army, you're going to remember. If you
>read about a type of kangaroo rat native to an obscure part of
>the continent, you're not likely to remember much.

True, but there's a lot more information available about kangaroo rats
than giant squid, or the loch ness monster. You might know what
Nessie is, (presuming here for a moment that she's real, something I
truly doubt) but you aren't going to know much about her feeding
habits.




Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 5:28:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David wrote:
>
> You know, off of the top of my head, rushed as I am, I'm not sure. Hmmm.
> Let me think about it a moment. Ah, now I remember. Sometimes knowledge is
> not immediately accessable due to stress, adreneline (sp?) rush, etc. So,
> if you have a chance to be reflective, you have a better chance of accessing
> that knowledge.

That's true, and I've thought about that before, but here's the thing:
failure indicates that you don't know something, not that you can't
remember it. You don't get to re-try later the way you can in your example.

-Will
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 5:28:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Will Green" <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote in message
news:57l5e.20530$DW.10087@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> David wrote:
>>
>> You know, off of the top of my head, rushed as I am, I'm not sure. Hmmm.
>> Let me think about it a moment. Ah, now I remember. Sometimes knowledge
>> is not immediately accessable due to stress, adreneline (sp?) rush, etc.
>> So, if you have a chance to be reflective, you have a better chance of
>> accessing that knowledge.
>
> That's true, and I've thought about that before, but here's the thing:
> failure indicates that you don't know something, not that you can't
> remember it.
> You don't get to re-try later the way you can in your example.

True, but his idea would be a good house rule anyway.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 5:44:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David wrote:
>> You know, off of the top of my head, rushed as I am, I'm not sure. Hmmm.
>> Let me think about it a moment. Ah, now I remember. Sometimes knowledge is
>> not immediately accessable due to stress, adreneline (sp?) rush, etc. So,
>> if you have a chance to be reflective, you have a better chance of accessing
>> that knowledge.

Will Green <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote:
> That's true, and I've thought about that before, but here's the thing:
> failure indicates that you don't know something, not that you can't
> remember it. You don't get to re-try later the way you can in your example.

And that's a problem. However, being able to take 10 for routine
knowledge is not a problem.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 5:58:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
> Will Green <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote:
>
>>That's true, and I've thought about that before, but here's the thing:
>>failure indicates that you don't know something, not that you can't
>>remember it. You don't get to re-try later the way you can in your example.
>
> And that's a problem. However, being able to take 10 for routine
> knowledge is not a problem.

I suppose you could just rule that if a character fails a Knowledge
check taken under pressure (such that take 10 was not allowed), he can
re-try once later when not under pressure.

It bugs me a bit that all this conflates remembering with knowing; the
skill description makes no mention of the former.

-Will
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 6:10:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Senator Blutarsky" <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:42562214.113B8603@comcast.net...
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>>
>> ...which is as it should be. As it is, Bardic/Loremaster abilities are
>> disgustingly powerful (not that this is a *bad* thing). At last
>> Dundracon I
>> ran a giant 10-person game where the Bard character was basically the key
>> to
>> to figuring out *everything*. He was 19th level, and was regularly
>> busting
>> out upper-30s to 40s Bardic Knowledge checks.
>
> Well, a 19th-level bard has to be useful for
> *something*. ;-)

Indeed.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 6:13:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Will Green <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>>
>> Will Green <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote:
>>
>>>That's true, and I've thought about that before, but here's the thing:
>>>failure indicates that you don't know something, not that you can't
>>>remember it. You don't get to re-try later the way you can in your example.
>>
>> And that's a problem. However, being able to take 10 for routine
>> knowledge is not a problem.
>
> I suppose you could just rule that if a character fails a Knowledge
> check taken under pressure (such that take 10 was not allowed), he can
> re-try once later when not under pressure.
>
> It bugs me a bit that all this conflates remembering with knowing; the
> skill description makes no mention of the former.

Like I said before, it's not the game's most realistic abstraction.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 12:22:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> Mere moments before death, Malachias Invictus hastily scrawled:
>> "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:3bli2cF6jmiv8U1@individual.net...
>>
>>> That being the case, how exactly would not being under pressure
>>> allow you to apply that skill
>>> more reliably?
>>
>> Let's see: is it easier to remember something you read in a book
>> when being attacked by demons, or when sitting quietly in your study?
>
> And if you were attacked by demons while trying to recall a particular
> fact, would that make it impossible for you to know that fact later?
> And if you don't know something now, why is it you can never learn
> that fact even if you train further in that field of study? What is
> it the knowledge skill ranks are representing, if not learning things?

Certainly, a very sensible houserule would be to allow retries after an
increase in skill ranks.

It does seem that there is nothing in the rules against taking 10, but it
definitely throws up some logical inconsistencies when combined with the 'no
retries' rule. I guess the basic fix would be to rewrite the 'Re-try' part
of the skill description to:

"Yes, but only by taking 10, or after adding new ranks to the skill."

That allows for the "can't remember under pressure" factor.

--
Mark.
!