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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6159042" data-attributes="member: 6681948">That would imply no one would have much in the way of knowledge of those creatures.  Do you consider the MM bedtime reading for toddlers around the D&D world?I was referencing "some creatures would be much less well known than their HD might indicate", but the need to have separate modifiers for every character based on background and experience in different terrains multiplies the complexity considerably.  But your model suggests that both the Arctic character and the lifelong desert dweller know all the basics of that white dragon,  Where it is encountered does not alter those odds, in my view (unless we assume the arctic dweller dismisses the signs it is a White Dragon because they don't live in the desert - but then, that implies he has knowledge of the desert as well as the arctic).Take 10!  Perhaps this is an answer for a lot of the randomness.  Given the knowledge check cannot be re-tried because "the check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something that you never learned in the first place" , perhaps Take 10 should be automatic in many cases.  This does, however, set a pretty strict curriculum - EVERYONE with +3 knows everything with a check of 13- and nothing with a higher DC.  I wonder whether a better answer might be that the check is "what you immediately recognize in the heat of the moment", and you may Take 20 by taking the time to sit down, in calm surroundings, gather your thoughts, and carefully consider all aspects of the issue.  Maybe that gets a penalty if you lack the appropriate tools  - say, without your notes and reference materials, you take a -5, say, much larger than the usual penalty, but with access to excellent facilities, such as a research library, you get +5.  Or perhaps taking a few moments to review the notes you carry with you, and consider the matter, allows you to Take 10 (meaning all common knowledge can be recovered in a minute or so, provided you can focus on the issue without being distracted), while access to proper research materials (your library at home, for example) and a few hours permits you to Take 20.  A great research facility might even allow "Take 20 with a bonus", while colleagues might provide a sounding board ("Aid Another").We'd still be a long way off from "real world" realism.  Maybe not as far as I'm off the actual topic, but pretty far nonetheless.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />It is another flaw in the system that more abilities = less likelihod of recall.  Perhaps a random number of facts, with a bonus for making the roll by X (and X could vary with the creature, smaller for those with lots to reveal) ensuring higher skill typically generates more results.  That said, for a rare creature with many unknowns, I have no problem with only Epic Success getting all the details, especially with NO CHANCE of misrecall or misinformation resulting in an error, rather than "don't know".Does the fact that I once had a group roll all 1's for saves prove it's not nonsense, or do we accept the potential for statistical outliers?  If a bunch of NPC's died, as well as that Animal Companion, perhaps the issue is that you targeted the creature away from PC's, another means of mitigating the "save or die" aspects.  That, or they're heroically using the NPC's as human shields to die in their place.   The Bodak DC is 15.  At CR 8, a strong save is +6 and a weak one is +2.  It's CON based, so slap +1 to +4 on and we get a range of success from 12 (45% success) to 5 (80% success).Now, assuming the bodak took your advice and did plenty of scouting, it should target those FORT weak characters.  Three attempts have a 9.1% of not killing the target.  Three attempts against the hardiest targets allow a 51.2% chance the target survives.So why does the most lethal of venoms either kill the target or leave him unharmed, with no possible result in between?  That is what SoD does.  Is that a reasonable result that satisfies your desire for verissimillitude?I'm amazed you can see all those possibilities, but view poison as always having a precise dose delivered (or, perhaps, nothing), with no possibility that a hardier soul might be injured, but not killed, by the lethal venom.  If he does save, that exceptionally lethal attack did precisely nothing?  "Dead" or "Unaffected" are appropriately the sole choices?</blockquote>

Verification