GM using older knowledge check rules in 4e game

[rafet]

My GM is requiring monster knowledge checks to be a standard action, instead of a free action according to 4e rules, claiming that what the old rules were, and sees no reason they should of changed. Is this true?

Is there a solid reason they changed?

[Akodo Makama]

PHP p180 says the GM is wrong.

Monster Knowledge: No action required—either you know the answer or you don’t.

But the RAW also doesn't allow the GM any leeway in trying to make a "Monster you've never heard of before", and the DCs are so ridiculously low (DC 25 to know everytning) that even at fairly low levels someone can easily know almost everything about any given monster, which takes a lot of the mystery/discovery of new things out of adventuring.

[sakuuya]

Also, it was a nonaction in 3.5:

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

[Source]

[rafet]

Thank you for the responses, I really appreciate the check on the rules for 3.5.

Is http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/knowledge.htm considered an official site?

Lastly, my GM, kind of plays by his own rules, he's pretty fair, he wants us to make it to the end of his story. But how can I show him that it just makes sense that if you have knowledge in an area, you will just know information about it without having to think about it?

[sakuuya]

It's not an official source (in that it's not run by WotC) but it contains only official material. Basically, 3.X allowed much of the content its core books, plus a couple others, to be used freely, and the SRD is a repository of that stuff, without the mess of homebrew you'll find if you try to look up the official rules at, say, D&Dwiki. If you don't think that's official enough, though, I can go dig out my 3.5 PHB.

[rafet]

It should be, I'll check back if it isn't, but like I said he likes to fly by his own rules sometimes anyways.

[Sliver]

Lastly, my GM, kind of plays by his own rules, he's pretty fair, he wants us to make it to the end of his story. But how can I show him that it just makes sense that if you have knowledge in an area, you will just know information about it without having to think about it?

There is a problem in that line of argument.

If your character knows something, either because it was told so in-game or has it in the background (and the DM okay-ed it), you don't need to roll.

A Knowledge check is needed when something that you might have encountered during your general studies of the field.

You can say that if if you know it, you know it, but the DM isn't out of line in saying that your character's memory isn't perfect or automatic, and that an action is needed when he tries recalling it. Maybe a standard action is too much, maybe it isn't.

It's a houserule and there is some sense in it. If the reasoning you already presented isn't enough to persuade him, I doubt "here are rules from a slightly older edition" would really convince him, unless his reasoning really is purely "I liked how they did it back then" and his "back then" is 3.5e. I doubt that's the case, though, but I'm not familiar with older editions.

[rafet]

It may be what it will be, we're best buddies, and we have arguments like this all the time.

Quoting him would be, "Since 2.0 until 4e, and even pathfinders it's a standard action"

I asked him, 'You've been playing since, 2.0?" Since I know he has only really been playing for 2 years tops and most of that is pathfinder.

I've never played Pathfinder, so I figure he's telling the truth there.

His idea is that you have to actively think about a creature to recall information, and that's where our disagreement lies. I'm pretty sure if I think about any common animal, I can recall if it climbs, swim, and maybe even it's diet to some degree before I have to actually think about it.

[Kurald Galain]

I've never played Pathfinder, so I figure he's telling the truth there.

No, he's wrong. In Pathfinder, knowledge checks are also not an action.

2E doesn't have actions or monster knowledge checks in the first place. So in fact, in no edition of D&D ever did monster knowledge checks require a standard action.

[Boci]

Lastly, my GM, kind of plays by his own rules, he's pretty fair, he wants us to make it to the end of his story. But how can I show him that it just makes sense that if you have knowledge in an area, you will just know information about it without having to think about it?

Show him a picture of a rattle snake and an anaconda whilst running 100m in 25 seconds. Ask him to shout out whether the snake is poisonois enough. By the rules of 4th ed, the only way he can move that fast is to run and double move, which means he cannot be taking a standard action in between, yet he will be able to tell which snake is poisonous and which isn't.

No serous, this is a bad idea. Not only is it illogical, making knowledge checks harder doesn't add anything to the game, and forces players to maybe skip the roll if their modifier is low, which is a shame because rolling high and getting a tibit really helps the fluff of the game shine through.

[Beta Centauri]

You're not going to be able to convince him. If I were you, I'd just stop making monster knowledge checks or training in knowledge skills. If he wonders why you never make them, you can tell him it's because it takes a standard action.

But, really, so what if it does? If the monster is immune to your attacks and is carving through your defenses, then spending that standard action to find out what to do is worth it. If you're having no problem with the monster, don't bother. If you're always trying to make knowledge checks before actually taking the risk of engaging with the monster, I guess I can't have much sympathy for you.

[Gavran]

It's more likely he has a problem with monster knowledge checks in general, I think. He'd be far from the only GM who does. The rules are on your side, but it's probably better to discuss the issue with him from that angle than one about the speed of it.

[dps]

My GM is requiring monster knowledge checks to be a standard action, instead of a free action according to 4e rules, claiming that what the old rules were, and sees no reason they should of changed. Is this true?

How could we possibly judge whether you're telling the truth about what your GM said or not?

[Galen]

But how can I show him that it just makes sense that if you have knowledge in an area, you will just know information about it without having to think about it?

You can't, because it doesn't make sense. And the reason it doesn't make sense is because it's not true.

I have significant Knowledge (Programming), but if I'm shown a particular piece of code and asked "what does this piece of code do", or "is this piece of code vulnerable to exploits", there is no way I can answer without having to think about it.

I strongly suggest you stick to the rule-based arguments. Don't even think going the it-doesn't-make-sense way because you will be hoisted by your own petard.

[Gavran]

You can't, because it doesn't make sense. And the reason it doesn't make sense is because it's not true.

I have significant Knowledge (Programming), but if I'm shown a particular piece of code and asked "what does this piece of code do", or "is this piece of code vulnerable to exploits", there is no way I can answer without having to think about it.

I strongly suggest you stick to the rule-based arguments. Don't even think going the it-doesn't-make-sense way because you will be hoisted by your own petard.

Ehhh... apples and oranges.

If I ask you "what do frogs eat?", you don't need to think to say "bugs." That isn't because you're an animal expert. Interpreting code in the same way would be equivalent to interpreting a page of a book all at once. It's not that it takes time to access the knowledge, it's that in the case of programming and reading it takes time to parse the information. (Coincidentally, speed readers can accomplish some pretty impressive things. I wonder if sufficiently practiced speed reading programmers could do the same.)

[Galen]

Ehhh... apples and oranges.

If I ask you "what do frogs eat?", you don't need to think to say "bugs."

In other words, you can recall, without thinking about it, a piece information that's completely trivial and is no use to anyone. Gotcha.

[Gavran]

In other words, you can recall, without thinking about it, a piece information that's completely trivial and is no use to anyone. Gotcha.

No, my point is that almost anyone can recall, without taking significant time, the kind of things a low DC monster knowledge check would impart. But if you're just going to be dismissive, I'm not going to waste much more effort replying to you.

Consider this though: how long does it take you notice a missing semicolon, or to diagnose an off by 1 error in a for loop? Counting curly braces may take some time but you can likely recognize the problem for what it is in far less time.

There's a vast difference between "remembering" and "figuring out." Both are arguably knowledge rolls.

[Boci]

In other words, you can recall, without thinking about it, a piece information that's completely trivial and is no use to anyone. Gotcha.

Many wild animals can be held in check, at least temporarily, by fire, a notable weak spot on a boar is the groin artery on its hind legs, bears find to hard to stop running down hill, but a pissed off bear can run pretty fast up hill. Sharks are surprisingly unagile in the water, ditto on a charging rhino...this is all information that could be useful if I ever had the misfortune to face one of those animals, and none of that took a standard action to remember.

Also "frogs eat bugs" is useful, if you are facing a giant frog and want to cast an illusion to detract it.

[Beta Centauri]

I hope this thread helps people see some of the issues with "roll to know things" checks as opposed to "roll to do things" checks. "Trying to remember" isn't really the same as "trying to pick a lock." We can assume the character knows how to pick a lock, but something in the attempt went awry. Knowledge skills would work better if it was assumed the character was reasonable knowledgeable, and if the check was just to see if they were able to apply the knowledge. Hiding information about the game world behind them is the worst possible use of them.

[Boci]

I hope this thread helps people see some of the issues with "roll to know things" checks as opposed to "roll to do things" checks. "Trying to remember" isn't really the same as "trying to pick a lock." We can assume the character knows how to pick a lock, but something in the attempt went awry. Knowledge skills would work better if it was assumed the character was reasonable knowledgeable, and if the check was just to see if they were able to apply the knowledge. Hiding information about the game world behind them is the worst possible use of them.

I don't see how it would. Nor do I see how your last sentence holds true. Knowledge checks represent the fact that the brains capacity for knowledge is around 1 terabyte, but you are never going to extensively map out all that information, so instead you assign priority in the form of varying skill modifiers, then when one topic comes up use that to determine what you know. This works, pretty well in fact in my opinion, and I don't see how your method is an improvement at all.

[Beta Centauri]

I don't see how your method is an improvement at all.

And clearly you don't want to, or you'd have asked questions to clarify. There's no point in me explaining something you don't want to understand.

[Boci]

And clearly you don't want to, or you'd have asked questions to clarify. There's no point in me explaining something you don't want to understand.

Sorry, that was me asking for clarification. If I don't understand something I want to by default unless I specify otherwise, but I do forget that other people may not speak Bocese.

[Beta Centauri]

Sorry, that was me asking for clarification. If I don't understand something I want to by default unless I specify otherwise, but I do forget that other people may not speak Bocese.

The problem is that people get wrapped around the axle about what kind of action it is to use powers of recall. The approach of modelling various kinds of activities as the same kinds of "actions" is already silly enough, without trying to model things that don't actually require any physical action. Meanwhile, we have a lot of other skills that involve both physical action and some sort of accessing of knowledge. Picking a lock or disarming a trap almost certainly involves the character trying to recall what they remember about mechanical devices, but if the character fails the check they don't just not know; they've actually failed at an action.

Take Nature: it can be used to forage which certainly involves knowledge. It takes an hour of effort. I'll grant you that failing at it isn't any more interesting than failing at a monster knowledge check, but it at least involved action and time. The character had to put a little skin in the game.

So, instead of making "monster knowledge checks" about the players just being told about the creatures abilities, it could instead simply provide a benefit when dealing with the creature in question. Then it doesn't matter how much time the check itself takes because what matters is what's done with the benefit.

The Scholar theme power Use Vulnerability is a good model for this: succeed on a monster knowledge check, and you get a bonus to your defenses against its attacks and a bonus to the damage you deal to it. If you fail the check, you deal half damage for a time. The character doesn't need to know anything about the creature, just what it's "type" is like. It even makes sense to be able to use this on unique creatures, insofar as we can believe that in D&D one's "type" defines some fundamental things about their behavior and vulnerabilities.

But, no, instead monster knowledge checks are just a silly way for the GM to try to make the monsters more powerful by hiding the information about them. It's an approach that is always going to provide an incentive for metagaming and arguments.

[georgie_leech]

I'm a little confused as to how assuming knowledge but not application is necessarily an improvement. For instance, knowing a creature has Fire Immunity has a simple application: don't use Fire on it. It seems to be more plausible that you wouldn't know if a given creature (unless it was made of fire or something) was immune to Fire, than it would be to know about the immunity but think that Fire would work on it just fine. How does the system work in regards to knowledge that has immediate and obvious application?

[Boci]

The Scholar theme power Use Vulnerability is a good model for this: succeed on a monster knowledge check, and you get a bonus to your defenses against its attacks and a bonus to the damage you deal to it. If you fail the check, you deal half damage for a time. The character doesn't need to know anything about the creature, just what it's "type" is like. It even makes sense to be able to use this on unique creatures, insofar as we can believe that in D&D one's "type" defines some fundamental things about their behavior and vulnerabilities.

Certainly interest, but I'm not sure 4th ed is the game for this. Risking half damage is a pretty big deal, double so for a striker. Plus I find this rather dull (see below).

But, no, instead monster knowledge checks are just a silly way for the GM to try to make the monsters more powerful by hiding the information about them. It's an approach that is always going to provide an incentive for metagaming and arguments.

This seems more like a bad way to use the default set up, rather than the only. I use knowledge checks as a way to give the players some info without cramming it down their throats. "27? Here's two abilities you may find relevant and some fluff about its habitat and how it features in Veizan mythology". Plus I allow players to learn stuff without knowledge checks. I always mention when the monster takes damage it is resistant or vulnerable to, and try to drop hints as to whether the power it just used was an at will, encounter or recharge. Metagaming can be an issue, but as always, the fact that a player will metagame is genuinely more of a problem than the mechanic that allowed it. Refluffing monsters (something I do habitually anyway) or switiching some energy types can alleviate this.

[themaque]

I think a fair balance might be a bit of info for free, and a bit more after some effort.

You instantly know the BIG stuff. Dragons fly, breath fire, yadda yadda yadda. Most things you're going to get on a cheap and easy DC.

But stuff people might have to think about? Was it demons or devils weak to silver? Okay I know it can breath fire, but what spells could that particular dragon cast? that may take a bit of effort to try and remember when said beasty is trying to make you his supper.

[Boci]

I think a fair balance might be a bit of info for free, and a bit more after some effort.

You instantly know the BIG stuff. Dragons fly, breath fire, yadda yadda yadda. Most things you're going to get on a cheap and easy DC.

But stuff people might have to think about? Was it demons or devils weak to silver? Okay I know it can breath fire, but what spells could that particular dragon cast? that may take a bit of effort to try and remember when said beasty is trying to make you his supper.

Wrong edition. Neither demon or devil is weak to silver and dragons don't cast spell (although they can get a single recharge powers that allows them to invoke an alternate manifestation of their breath element). As for whether or not to do this in 3.5 (in which both of those assumptions are true), I wouldn't, as it makes things more annoying and it is highly debatable as to whether someone who had studied outerplane denizens would need to take 3.5 seconds to remember if demons are vulnerably to silver or cold iron. The fact that it is mid combat is reflected in the fact that you cannot take a 10 on the check. Furthermore, if players are having to take a standard action to make a knowledge check about monsters, then intelligent monster are having to take a standard action to make a knowledge check about them right?

[themaque]

Furthermore, if players are having to take a standard action to make a knowledge check about monsters, then intelligent monster are having to take a standard action to make a knowledge check about them right?

If the party is surprising them? If so, Yes that could be reasonable.

[Boci]

If the party is surprising them? If so, Yes that could be reasonable.

As long as its being applied equally. I still don't think its a good rule, because it will result in less knowledge checks being attempted, which I feel would have a negative impact on the game. Incidentally, since the two factors you mentioned aren't actually things in 4th ed (seperate materials for fighting demonsa nd evils and dragons with spells), what kind of things would take a standard action to know?

What if you made a rule that you get a +10 bonus to knowledge checks if you attempt it as a standard action? Then there could be a reason to do so, but players don't lose anything.

[themaque]

What if you made a rule that you get a +10 bonus to knowledge checks if you attempt it as a standard action? Then there could be a reason to do so, but players don't lose anything.

I would put it a little lower, but a +5 for taking the time to stop and think it over?