BG3 and the fun of transparency

[Cikomyr2]

I personally feel all living mortal creatures should be vulnerable to poison damage just to represent biochemistry explicitly designed to hurt them.

It also provides a nice balance to justify the number of stuff immune to it.

But to go back, having more information available to engage with rather than "here's someone, start swinging and finish your turn, others are waiting."

[Maryring]

As a DM of Pathfinder 1st ed primarily, I do not state the enemy's numerical bonuses outright, but I do give my players chances to learn more about a foe before they end up fighting them. Sense Motive, Knowledge and Perception checks can all help provide further insight into the foe. You're not going to know the numerical AC you have to beat, but if you have invested into knowing how your foe works, then you are going to know if you've got a greater than even chance to hit. If the foe looks particularly apt at some kind of combat style, and so on.

Of course, one advantage here over 5th is that there's only one mental save, so an expectation of what saves are good and bad can usually easily be discerned by a cursory glance.

But more importantly, I feel that not explicitly showing information gives an opportunity for my players to feel clever. There's a certain sense of enjoyment being derived from looking at a foe and assessing "this guy is probably vulnerable to Hold Person", trying that strategy, and then feeling a strong sense of satisfaction when they roll high, but are still held.

And that sense of satisfaction can only be achieved if there's a chance to be wrong. If you can see the entire lineup from the start, you don't feel clever for choosing Hold Person. You just know that the guy has a low will save, so you gotta hit the will save. You're not making a choice anymore, you're just performing first grade value comparisons.

[KorvinStarmast]

Maybe I wanna be a little bit surprised when the dragon breaks out a special breath weapon instead of just the standard fire? Idk.

5e gives some dragons two breath weapon options. (Metallic ones).

I do agree with OldTrees1's point about the characters' own abilities though, they should have a pretty clear idea of how much they can lift or how far they can jump.

Players can figure that out, and I wish more players I DM'd for would bother to actually know what their characters can do.

I like how Solasta does it and Incorperated it into my games. After battle roll a relevant knowlege or survival check to increase your "Rank" of knowlege. you start off knowing nothing but as you pass checks you learn more after each encounter. First their average HP (I like rolling for every monster this just gives your players a baseline to think of what they will be around), then you learn their typical ac and saves, then you learn abilities and resistances at full knowlege. This is things you can learn through play but this would just be confirmation.

Diablo (the original) did something like this. The first few times you battled a monster, the little box under them didn't show anything. After you had defeated a certain number of them (Doom Knights? )) their immunities would display when you moused over them.

A single-player CRPG is a very different beast. You have visual and auditory elements doing much of the work which, at the table, largely has to be done by imagination.

Bingo.

[OldTrees1]

Players can figure that out, and I wish more players I DM'd for would bother to actually know what their characters can do.

In 5E some of the player capabilities, that they "can figure out", require asking the GM. Jump distance is an example where a 5E player knows their minimum jump distance but their PC's capabilities for jumping are not transparent unless they ask the GM about how the GMs rules jumps beyond that minimum distance. In contrast BG3, usually*, gives you all the information up front.

I understand your desire for the players to A) know the minimum, and B) asking you for the rest, since they know it is not transparent by default.

The same holds for lifting, climbing, and a few other things in 5E. Players can figure it out, by looking up the minimum and then asking the GM a series of questions. As a GM, I prefer when the players ask those questions, but I also prefer the series of questions be shorter.

* On rare occasions you might hit some geometry that BG3 miscalculated.

[Dr.Samurai]

I agree with others that it makes sense for PCs to know some things but not others. However, I think some people blur the line between "will know how hard the enemy is to hit" with "will know the exact AC value of the enemy".

We're fighting fire giants. They are wearing plate armor and one has a shield. I know this guy is going to be relatively hard to hit. It doesn't matter if I know his AC is exactly 19, 20, or 21. I know it's higher than most, such as the frost giants we were fighting previously that wore hide armor with no shield.

When I'm playing, I don't particularly care what these exact values are. I tried grappling the frost giant jarl's wife in one encounter. I rolled high and she resisted the attempt. I tried to knock her prone and she resisted that as well. The monk tried to push her away and she made her Strength save. So I deduced after that single turn in the encounter that she had a very high Str mod and probably proficiency in Athletics and maybe Str saves. Exact values not needed.

I agree that the game changes into something different when all of these values are given up front, especially dice rolls. In one of my current games, it's PbP so players can see the DM rolls on the forum. So one player moved away and provoked three OAs. They saw that all 3 of the OAs would hit them, and that the combined damage would drop them to 0. A use of the Shield spell would prevent 1 of those attacks, but keep the character conscious at 3hp. They felt this was not worth the spell slot since on the enemy turn they would likely get hit and dropped to 0 anyways. This becomes less "players know how their abilities work" and more "players can see into the future" and "players can see the 0s and 1s and play the meta". Similarly, watching the Dungeon Dudes play has the same effect. Monty tells them upfront how many enemy attacks hit and at what total attack rolls. This is very generous and buffs reaction abilities considerably for those that have them. I don't see a need for it, and don't like the narrative impact.

[kyoryu]

I agree with others that it makes sense for PCs to know some things but not others. However, I think some people blur the line between "will know how hard the enemy is to hit" with "will know the exact AC value of the enemy".

We're fighting fire giants. They are wearing plate armor and one has a shield. I know this guy is going to be relatively hard to hit. It doesn't matter if I know his AC is exactly 19, 20, or 21. I know it's higher than most, such as the frost giants we were fighting previously that wore hide armor with no shield.

When I'm playing, I don't particularly care what these exact values are. I tried grappling the frost giant jarl's wife in one encounter. I rolled high and she resisted the attempt. I tried to knock her prone and she resisted that as well. The monk tried to push her away and she made her Strength save. So I deduced after that single turn in the encounter that she had a very high Str mod and probably proficiency in Athletics and maybe Str saves. Exact values not needed.

While this is true, I also don't see a huge level of value in obscuring that information. And I've often seen more issues with GMs trying to play cagey with exact values and give hints just not giving enough info.

IOW, to me the decision matrix is pretty simple. I don't see any harm in giving out the exact values, and it's a really convenient shortcut that bypasses any misunderstandings. So while they're not necessary (and I agree with that!) they're a good way to give players the info I actually do want them to have while not having to worry about miscommunications.

[KorvinStarmast]

In 5E some of the player capabilities, that they "can figure out", require asking the GM. Jump distance is an example where a 5E player knows their minimum jump distance but their PC's capabilities for jumping are not transparent unless they ask the GM about how the GMs rules jumps beyond that minimum distance. In contrast BG3, usually*, gives you all the information up front.

That's an odd hill to chose to die on.

I understand your desire for the players to A) know the minimum, and B) asking you for the rest, since they know it is not transparent by default.

I want them to know the basics of chapter 9, I want them to know their own PC top to bottom. If you are a level 7 monk, you need to know all about a monk that is in the PHB. (And if the sub class is in a different book, the Player needs to know that).
Then ask the DM about stuff that is unclear/confusing/novel.

Very few of the people who play in my games bother to put in the effort. Because I do, I find that frustrating.
Example: a guy I play with has a pseudodragon familiar. He basically doesn't use it unless I ask him if he is. Same guy, shadow sorcerer, finally tried to use his shadow doggie during a fight...at level 11. "Yeah, I forgot about that". A monk who plays for me consistently has to be reminded of how flurry of blows worked up until about level 9.. Then she got the hang of it.

I do have a few players who make the effort to know their stuff, and I love DMing for them.

One of the reasons I like to play in Phoenix's game so much is that all four of the players (me included) get into knowing what our characters can do...and trying to use all of the features, and trying stuff that isn't on the character sheet ... it's fun.

[King of Nowhere]

Players can figure that out, and I wish more players I DM'd for would bother to actually know what their characters can do.

that's a problem with some players being low effort. i had some of those myself, never find a fix beyond finding other players.
but really, if someone does not want to put in the effort to engage the numerical part of the game at least to a basic competence level (i mean, i had a player who after one year still did not know her saving throws), then d&d is probably not for them

[OldTrees1]

I want them to know the basics of chapter 9, I want them to know their own PC top to bottom. If you are a level 7 monk, you need to know all about a monk that is in the PHB. (And if the sub class is in a different book, the Player needs to know that).
Then ask the DM about stuff that is unclear/confusing/novel.

Very few of the people who play in my games bother to put in the effort. Because I do, I find that frustrating.
Example: a guy I play with has a pseudodragon familiar. He basically doesn't use it unless I ask him if he is. Same guy, shadow sorcerer, finally tried to use his shadow doggie during a fight...at level 11. "Yeah, I forgot about that". A monk who plays for me consistently has to be reminded of how flurry of blows worked up until about level 9.. Then she got the hang of it.

I do have a few players who make the effort to know their stuff, and I love DMing for them.

Yes, I understand and share this desire for players to know their character's capabilities. In cases where those capabilities are not transparent, I too appreciate and desire the players ask the GM so that the player can know their character's capabilities.

I also desire, and hope you can understand the desire, for more of the character capabilities to be transparent rather than opaque. You are right that players can figure the opaque stuff out by asking the GM. So when you quoted Biggus in order to reply to this preference of mine, I thought it reasonable to agree with your desire for players to know their character's capability and clarify my desire for transparency about character capabilities. Nobody needs to die on any hill if we choose peace and understanding.

[Vahnavoi]

Transparency is not vital, as long as there are strong indicators for how to progress in a game. For most game mechanics based on hidden information, accumulation of information itself is a progress tracker. This said, based on observing common complaints, a lot of modern games or at least game masters don't utilize hidden information efficiently. Largely because they aren't clear on what the gameplay task for the player is supposed to be.

It starts with the seemingly obvious: if your game involves numbers and dice, the expected core gameplay would be your players doing arithmetic and probability. If that's not what you want them to do, why are you bothering your players with numbers and dice? Figure out a non-numerical way to represent information and keep the numbers and dice out of their sight.

---

OldTrees1:

As a commentary on the discussion between you and KorvinStarmast, I consider all information a player can just ask from their game master to be transparent. Reason being, a game master is effectively serving as a player's external memory for all such cases. It's not much different from having the information written down. Opaque information is what a player has to figure out on their own, truly opaque information is things even the game master doesn't know.

[Dr.Samurai]

While this is true, I also don't see a huge level of value in obscuring that information.

I think it depends on what we're talking about.

I take more issue with letting players know what the monster has rolled on their attack rolls or saving throws, etc. because I do think it interferes with playing the game.

Saying "the monster has a +6 to hit" is less offensive to me than saying "the monster just hit you with all three multiattacks and the rolls are 23, 17, and 24".

"The monster just used 1 of its 3 Legendary Resistances" is also a different thing to "the monster makes its save".

I don't think players should feel entitled to this information, and I think it changes how the game is being played to give out this information, for the worse.

[Ignimortis]

I personally feel all living mortal creatures should be vulnerable to poison damage just to represent biochemistry explicitly designed to hurt them.

It also provides a nice balance to justify the number of stuff immune to it.

But to go back, having more information available to engage with rather than "here's someone, start swinging and finish your turn, others are waiting."

Well, some TTRPG systems tend to do that either through implicit knowledge if the backbone is there (i.e. 3.5) or by explicit "learn stuff about X" checks like PF2's Recall Knowledge is explicitly designed to do. Either approach is fine and has its' own benefits and downsides, although the former resonates better with me (every skeleton is likely vulnerable to being bashed with a mace, it's just common sense, innit?).

In 5e, you're mostly stuck with calculating to-hit by using your party's ACs as measuring sticks. And maybe seeing an ability cooldown d6 or d4 rolled by the GM sometimes.

[OldTrees1]

OldTrees1:

As a commentary on the discussion between you and KorvinStarmast, I consider all information a player can just ask from their game master to be transparent. Reason being, a game master is effectively serving as a player's external memory for all such cases. It's not much different from having the information written down. Opaque information is what a player has to figure out on their own, truly opaque information is things even the game master doesn't know.

Ah. I was using transparent/opaque slightly differently than you are. Thank you for pointing that out.

[Cikomyr2]

I just Want to reassert something important: even in the event the DM would give information, i dont think they HAVE to give perfect information.

I dont mind a DM telling me the duellist in front of me has an AC of 17, but he hides from me the Duellist has a Parry Reaction that gives him +3 to AC. Thats someone having a secret trick in battle that i did not expect.

Thats actually ***cool***. Things deliberately hidden should be hidden.

But if a wizard doesn't care that people knows he's a wizard, dont give the cagey stuff like "oh well thats a man without armor with a staff in the back". Theres a thousand cues someone living in a magical world would have to recognize a spellcaster (component pouches, focuses, flair of magic,.whatever). Then the one time an Arcane Trickster manages to sneak magic stuff on you, you get genuinely had. Or a warlock keeping a low profile.

[KorvinStarmast]

So when you quoted Biggus in order to reply

{censored} multiquote! Sorry about that.

"The monster just used 1 of its 3 Legendary Resistances" is also a different thing to "the monster makes its save".

The latter is probably the way it was intended to work, but I won't swear to it. (I would have to ask Mearls).

I dont mind a DM telling me the duellist in front of me has an AC of 17, but he hides from me the Duellist has a Parry Reaction that gives him +3 to AC. Thats someone having a secret trick in battle that i did not expect.

Thats actually ***cool***. Things deliberately hidden should be hidden.

yes.

Or a warlock keeping a low profile.

My firest ever Warlock in this edition was an Archfey/chain whose background was Entertainer.
By day, he was the minstrel, bard, stand up comedian. By night, he fought crime (or adventured, whatever). His sprite stayted invisible unless it was necessary not to be.

[OldTrees1]

{censored} multiquote! Sorry about that.

Nothing to be sorry about. We all know the rare frustrations. (this week the forum multiquote kept asking if I wanted to restore an old post)

[King of Nowhere]

by the way, something else impacting the transparency or perceived lack of consistency is: do you fight the same type of enemies often?

because I don't like introducing a crapton of worldbuilding elements that are encountered once and are quickly forgotten afterwards, so I often tend to use the same kind of enemies, and this leads to players learning them. but in many cases the dm will look to make encounters by pulling some appropriately CRed creature from a manual, only for that creature to never being seen again.
and this can encourage the perception of inconsistency

[Telok]

by the way, something else impacting the transparency or perceived lack of consistency is: do you fight the same type of enemies often?

.... but in many cases the dm will look to make encounters by pulling some appropriately CRed creature from a manual, only for that creature to never being seen again.
and this can encourage the perception of inconsistency

Yeah. That's a thing. I build a monster bible for my campains of about 100 or so critters & npcs and use that for anyone who isn't a unique individual. Granted the baseline "animal" and "generic people" are templates with minor variations, it just fits in barely noticable differences between elf and tau "generic mall-cop". The players aren't going to be shocked by anything I call "<species> mall-cop with a <gun type>" suddenly sporting a death aura and adding +10 poison damage to everything.

On the other hand having dealt in D&D with four or five different types of wraith/shadow-like undead things with totally different abilities & mechanics, a dozen different humanoids in plate armor with a 2-handed sword or sword & shield thats anything from a human guard to a celestial to a construct to a vampire spellcaster, and innumerable variations of "a lizard-faced person with scales & claws" thats anything from a demon to a hopped up alligator to a mini-dragon...

Yeah. There can be an issue with picking out cr appropriate critters from a huge database or set of monster manuals. Eventually you can get lots of things that are descriptively or visually similar. Then, if they're all mechanically quite different because there aren't consistent sets of critter & ability building guidelines, the players end up having no expectation that any description maps to any capabilities. If every critter becomes "expect anything" the players can't plan except in the most super generic terms. And that led our group to all monsters & npcs being bags of hit points with what feels like random special abilities thrown in.

[NichG]

I just Want to reassert something important: even in the event the DM would give information, i dont think they HAVE to give perfect information.

I dont mind a DM telling me the duellist in front of me has an AC of 17, but he hides from me the Duellist has a Parry Reaction that gives him +3 to AC. Thats someone having a secret trick in battle that i did not expect.

Thats actually ***cool***. Things deliberately hidden should be hidden.

But if a wizard doesn't care that people knows he's a wizard, dont give the cagey stuff like "oh well thats a man without armor with a staff in the back". Theres a thousand cues someone living in a magical world would have to recognize a spellcaster (component pouches, focuses, flair of magic,.whatever). Then the one time an Arcane Trickster manages to sneak magic stuff on you, you get genuinely had. Or a warlock keeping a low profile.

I'd generalize this and say:

Hidden information can lead to awesome gameplay, but it doesn't do that just by virtue of being hidden. The fact that a thing is hidden has to be incorporated in an intentional manner in order to extract that value - that means things like making finding the information out an active part of play (and not just doing mental math), making the hiding or revealing of information a meaningful decision for characters (like in Amber Diceless where you basically have static rankings of who would win/lose in different kinds of conflicts and making sure people don't know exactly where you are in that ranking is an important element of strategy), having mysteries that can be figured out or revealed and where doing so is impactful, etc.

IMO, in the absence of active, intentional uses of the fact that some particular information is hidden, the good feelings associated with informed decision making outweigh the passive benefits from the information being hidden.

So e.g. 'the AC of this enemy is hidden' or 'the elemental resistances of this enemy are hidden' aren't particularly interesting on their own. But if you have a monster which has a very exotic vulnerability, it could be very effective gameplay for that to be hidden when there are leads and interviews and other possible ways for the players to choose to actively investigate that vulnerability in advance of fighting it.

And on the fence, something like 'there's a DC 25 trap somewhere on the battlefield but you have to hit the Search check to actually know that IC' could be thwarting a potential active use of hidden information, or it could be good transparency, but that would depend on what the fight is, what the trap is, and how it's being used by whoever put it there. If part of the fight is asymmetric information between the sides - one side knows about it, the other side doesn't - then that information being hidden is serving an important purpose and could be interacted with in various ways. If its just a random room of a dungeon and the trap isn't really going to be lethal but just consume some resources, it could actually be more interesting to communicate to the players 'there's some bloodstains here - probably a trap but you can't immediately tell how it triggers or what it does'. Because the 'by the way, take 23 damage because you forgot to search' sequence of play isn't really all that interactive.

[kyoryu]

I just Want to reassert something important: even in the event the DM would give information, i dont think they HAVE to give perfect information.

I dont mind a DM telling me the duellist in front of me has an AC of 17, but he hides from me the Duellist has a Parry Reaction that gives him +3 to AC. Thats someone having a secret trick in battle that i did not expect.

Thats actually ***cool***. Things deliberately hidden should be hidden.

But if a wizard doesn't care that people knows he's a wizard, dont give the cagey stuff like "oh well thats a man without armor with a staff in the back". Theres a thousand cues someone living in a magical world would have to recognize a spellcaster (component pouches, focuses, flair of magic,.whatever). Then the one time an Arcane Trickster manages to sneak magic stuff on you, you get genuinely had. Or a warlock keeping a low profile.

Those are good examples. There are times when it does make sense to deliberately hide something, especially when it's something that the character themselves would and could conceal.

I guess a more accurate take on my stance is something like "be transparent by default. Hide information for effect, but generally do so only when the information is in some way being deliberately concealed". That's still more weak than I'd actually word it, but the idea is that by default, things like AC, HP, etc. should be available info, and only hide things that have are being held "in reserve".

Even in those cases, though, i think it's more interesting to reveal the information early, and have the challenge be "how do we deal with this?" rather than "how do we figure the thing out?" Trolls and fire is the classic example - going through every attack type to figure out what might work is, to me, kinda boring. Figuring out how to coordinate attacks from different characters to best handle the troll vulnerabilities? That's a lot more interesting. And revealing it removes any metagaming concerns as well as the awkward "when have we done enough to cash in on the info we already know OOC" minigame, which i just find tedious.

[Cikomyr2]

Those are good examples. There are times when it does make sense to deliberately hide something, especially when it's something that the character themselves would and could conceal.

I guess a more accurate take on my stance is something like "be transparent by default. Hide information for effect, but generally do so only when the information is in some way being deliberately concealed". That's still more weak than I'd actually word it, but the idea is that by default, things like AC, HP, etc. should be available info, and only hide things that have are being held "in reserve".

Even in those cases, though, i think it's more interesting to reveal the information early, and have the challenge be "how do we deal with this?" rather than "how do we figure the thing out?" Trolls and fire is the classic example - going through every attack type to figure out what might work is, to me, kinda boring. Figuring out how to coordinate attacks from different characters to best handle the troll vulnerabilities? That's a lot more interesting. And revealing it removes any metagaming concerns as well as the awkward "when have we done enough to cash in on the info we already know OOC" minigame, which i just find tedious.

Exactly! Known mechanics and numbers are things the players can engage and coordinate over. Unknowns are things players will probe and paranoid over.

****. Even cheating sometimes can be fun. Imagine if there was a big encounter set in a hallway, and the DM outright tell the player "there are 4 traps hidden around this area, could do from 10 to 80 damage". It would make the encounter more suspenseful as some players may rush ahead with the dread of triggering the traps.

I am reminded of Alfred Hitchcock's words about 5 minute or boredom followed by being startled, vs 5 minutes of dread. If you telegraph to your players when bad **** are coming their way, they will engage with you and actually play scared.

If you just sneak damage on to them because they didnt ask questions, they will be surprised and possibly frustrated.

[LibraryOgre]

On transparency of HP, one thing I appreciated from 4e was "Bloodied", a term which means "Half or less HP". It was a useful descriptor without necessarily talking about numbers of HP (which might be hidden from players), without leaving them perfectly fine until they were dead.

[gatorized]

Since I roll in the open for everything, there's a log of every roll in the game, and a trait's rank directly determines the number of dice rolled, the players learn more about a creature every time it does anything, including defending. I also allow them to learn more info about creatures with an appropriate ability or talent roll, just like for anything else in the world. And that's not even counting stuff like Weakness Detection, Attuned, etc

[Vogie]

One of the things I love about PF2e is the codification of the "Recall Knowledge" action. It gives the players the ability to roll knowledge-based skill checks to see that information you want to be transparent, while also giving you the choice of not announcing everything for every fight. Successful Recall Knowledges can allow the players to find out what they are immune or resistant to, what things it's vulnerable or weak to - you can even reveal what their lowest DC is. It's often used by spellcasters because they have the ability to use different spells and flex towards the weaknesses - If the lowest is the Reflex, then I will use this and won't use this, for example. Once that information is out there, anyone can use it - "Oh, my wizard found out it has a low will save... maybe I'll try Demoralizing it before I attack this turn to give it the Frightened condition"

On transparency of HP, one thing I appreciated from 4e was "Bloodied", a term which means "Half or less HP". It was a useful descriptor without necessarily talking about numbers of HP (which might be hidden from players), without leaving them perfectly fine until they were dead.

I like this as well. You can use whatever you like - I like splitting it out to the Diablo setup 4 where above 80% hp is "Healthy" and below 50% is "injured". As a DM, once you include these types of things in your normal descriptions, you can then iterate on them. The monster only acts like this when it's healthy, then it acts like that. The tactics or spells might change when they're bloodied. I also include the "barely hanging on" condition trait if they are at or under 10 hp.

[Psyren]

One of the things I love about PF2e is the codification of the "Recall Knowledge" action. It gives the players the ability to roll knowledge-based skill checks to see that information you want to be transparent, while also giving you the choice of not announcing everything for every fight. Successful Recall Knowledges can allow the players to find out what they are immune or resistant to, what things it's vulnerable or weak to - you can even reveal what their lowest DC is. It's often used by spellcasters because they have the ability to use different spells and flex towards the weaknesses - If the lowest is the Reflex, then I will use this and won't use this, for example. Once that information is out there, anyone can use it - "Oh, my wizard found out it has a low will save... maybe I'll try Demoralizing it before I attack this turn to give it the Frightened condition"

5.5e is adding this sort of thing via the new Study Action.

I like this as well. You can use whatever you like - I like splitting it out to the Diablo setup 4 where above 80% hp is "Healthy" and below 50% is "injured". As a DM, once you include these types of things in your normal descriptions, you can then iterate on them. The monster only acts like this when it's healthy, then it acts like that. The tactics or spells might change when they're bloodied. I also include the "barely hanging on" condition trait if they are at or under 10 hp.

While I wouldn't mind the "bloodied" condition coming back, I'm not sure it makes sense for every monster either, so I can see why they didn't make it a universal thing. If they brought it back I wouldn't complain though.

[Maryring]

One of the things I love about PF2e is the codification of the "Recall Knowledge" action. It gives the players the ability to roll knowledge-based skill checks to see that information you want to be transparent, while also giving you the choice of not announcing everything for every fight. Successful Recall Knowledges can allow the players to find out what they are immune or resistant to, what things it's vulnerable or weak to - you can even reveal what their lowest DC is. It's often used by spellcasters because they have the ability to use different spells and flex towards the weaknesses - If the lowest is the Reflex, then I will use this and won't use this, for example. Once that information is out there, anyone can use it - "Oh, my wizard found out it has a low will save... maybe I'll try Demoralizing it before I attack this turn to give it the Frightened condition"

As someone who hasn't touched PF2e at all, how is "Recall Knowledge" different from the PF1e Knowledge Checks? At least in my games, I almost always allow a specific knowledge check already to identify key aspects of a foe. And that's only "almost always" because sometimes sense motive is better.

[Beelzebub1111]

As someone who hasn't touched PF2e at all, how is "Recall Knowledge" different from the PF1e Knowledge Checks? At least in my games, I almost always allow a specific knowledge check already to identify key aspects of a foe. And that's only "almost always" because sometimes sense motive is better.

It's better codified as to what you can learn (although it could do with more specific examples in my opinion) and it works within the action economy. It's meant to learn specific meta information like: WEaknesses and Resistances, Best and Worst Saves, Specific abilities like attack of oppurtunity.

[Maryring]

Ah. Thanks for the answer. It sounds a bit like what I'm already using, so not something to search out and cri.. err, respectfully study and learn from. But it's good to see the system made clearer.

[Ignimortis]

It's better codified as to what you can learn (although it could do with more specific examples in my opinion) and it works within the action economy. It's meant to learn specific meta information like: WEaknesses and Resistances, Best and Worst Saves, Specific abilities like attack of oppurtunity.

IIRC, this is actually just a common houserule. RAW, it only grants you "some useful information" as determined by the DM.

[ciopo]

IIRC, this is actually just a common houserule. RAW, it only grants you "some useful information" as determined by the DM.

Oh yeah, the "useful information", the kind of description that prompts me to ask leading questions such as "does my character know that [some information that I, the player, know]"

in other words, snark aside, I find that obfuscating mechanically relevant information ( example : lycanthropes and alleged vulnerability to silver weapons ), even when using the rules-appropriate, results in an increase in metagaming that information, and then that awkwardness of wasting turns doing something ineffective on purpose, or not wasting turns doing somethign ineffective on purpose, but having the awkwardness of acting on information you haven't been esplicitly been told, but your character should have known due to high knowledge result.

I.E., if I make a good knowledge roll about the werewolf or whatever, and you don't tell me "you should use silver weapons", I will use silver weapons all the same, If I get questioned about it, I would probably snark about "well, since I know (whatever fluff things I got told about weres just some minutes ago), why wouldn't I know about (tactically relevant info about weres) ?


So, yeah, I'm on camp transparency :)