High DC Knowledge checks

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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...)

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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...)

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[David]

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

 

[Guest]

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...)

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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 |

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.