Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7300281" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Ok, so it’s worth noting here that I run Knowledge skills differently than I think most of the folks on the no-player-initiated-rolls side of this argument. See Ovinomancer’s response for one that is likely more typical of how someone in that camp might approach that.For me, yes, there are two different “tiers” as you put it, or rather categories of checks. Ones that can be described as an action a character does, and one that passively happens in a character’s brain. I don’t like the awkward word gymnastics that have to happen to phrase wanting to know if you recognize the origin and nature of runes in the goal + approach format, and I don’t like DM-initiated “there’s a thing you might know more about, roll to see if you do” checks. So I handle such checks with the passive score (10 + Ability Mod + relevant Proficiency if trained). So, if I include some strange runes in the dungeon that players might or might not recognize, I’ll not a DC for players to recognize them. Intelligence (Arcana) 12 for easy, 17 for moderate, 22 for hard. I would probably include another DC for knowing it with Intelligence (History), and might also note that a character who can read the language the runes are written in passes automatically. Then when I describe the runes, I will include the information about their nature and origin right in the description if anyone reads the language or has a high enough passive Intelligence (Arcana). I will make sure to point out that the players are receiving this information because of so-and-so’s high passive ability or language. “Thanks to your arcane studies, you recognize these runes as...” or, “with your vast knowledge of history, you recall that these runes...” or, “being familiar with Primordial runes, you recognize these runes easily, and can tell that they say...”Now, assuming no one met the passive DC, it might be possible to actively analyze the runes with a more typical goal-and-approach action. For example, “I translate the runes by comparing them to this handy Primordial/Dwarvish/Goblin/Orcish/Giant Rosetta Stone we found on our last expedition into the Ruins of Convenient Plot Devices.” That’s going to be an automatic pass, although it will probably take some time. “I try to translate the runes by randomly guessing” is going to be an automatic fail, because there’s no way randomly guessing will lead to the correct interpretation. “I try to translate the runes by comparing them to Dwarvish, which I am familiar with and uses the same script” I will probably allow an Intelligence check for. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of what Proficiency might apply, but if the player suggests something reasonable, “could my Proficiency with translator’s tools help?” I’d allow it.And again, in none of these examples is the quality of the description of the action the determining factor. It’s the content of the action that I care about. The goal and the approach.</blockquote>

Verification