What does "Familiarity" mean to you?

[Dwarmaj]

Several of the guys I game with and I are trying to determing how familiar a Shifter must be with a creature before he's allowed to change into one.

So far there's a pretty big gap in what people think it means. It ranges from seen once, studied for an hour, to studying a creature for several days.

I'm more in favor of a skill check for a particular form with a modifier based on the length of study (retries acceptable).

How do others handle it?

Dwarmaj

 

[nharwell]

I would argue for "seen once." One of the designers (Monte or Sean, I believe) suggested that as a limiting factor for the polymorph spells, and I think that it would serve well with Wildshape and Greater Wildshape. IMHO, requiring anything more would too greatly limit this ability -- and, in the case of the shifter, you're already sacrificing spell progression. Even "seen once" can be quite limiting depending on the DM.... (trust me, I enforce this harshly on my players)

 

[Vecna]

Familiar = Seen Once is generally wrong, cause an accurate description can actually be better

Here are a couple of examples to demonstrate this:

1. Shifter A sees a troll, but doesn't have a fight with him. How could he guess he can regenerate?

2. Someone in a tavern describes to Shifter B a large humanoid (height, skin color...) and tells himhe can heal his wounds very quickly.

Who is more likely to shift into a "more correct" troll as given in the MM?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Familiar = Seen Once is generally wrong, cause an accurate description can actually be better

It works for Wildshape no problem, through Nature Sense. See once, know all.

I don't think a Shifter has that advantage, though, does he?

-Hyp.

 

[Chun-tzu]

It works for Wildshape no problem, through Nature Sense. See once, know all.

I don't think a Shifter has that advantage, though, does he?

-Hyp.

Good point. Works for druids and wild shape, but not for shifters, since A) not all shifters are druids, and B) Nature Sense works only for animals and plants.

If I were DMing a Shifter, I'd probably require some kind of interaction (combat or peaceful, either is fine). If the Shifter interacts with it for a few rounds (say, 1d4), then he or she can take that form (as long as it's legal). Even spying on it from a distance is okay (but would take a little longer, say 2d4 rounds). You could add more rules to make it more realistic, but that also makes it more cumbersome. Someone suggested a knowledge skill, which is a cool idea, but i don't like the way it virtually requires Shifters to max out that skill (what Shifter wouldn't?).

You could use the Teleport tables for any time a Shifter attempts a new wild shape (which would make for some interesting possibilities if the Shifter rolls a mishap), but I think those percentages are too high (52% chance of success based on a description).

 

[Vecna]

Someone suggested a knowledge skill, which is a cool idea, but i don't like the way it virtually requires Shifters to max out that skill (what Shifter wouldn't?).

I did. I can't figure the DC for each knowledge however.
A DC X (10/15) + creature CR (higher CR = less common creature) could be right?

examples of knowledges:
Planes: outsiders, elementals
Arcana: constructs
Nature: animals, beasts, plants

remaining (not sure about the right knowledge):
humanoids (monstrous), ooze, magical beasts, aberrations, undead, dragons, giants

Know: undead & dragon exist, but are too specific (maybe a lower DC?)

 

[Jairami]

I can post the skill tree our group has been using for the last year or so if it'll help ya choose Vecna.

Posted from a different thread:

Monte's group uses a Knowledge (Monster) skill, though I haven't heard what system he uses. It was tossed around for a while for the PHB but was taken out for many good reasons.

The way we use it, it represents book knowledge or learned tales of monsters. Knowledge (Monster) being too broad and easy (who wouldn't try to put some ranks in it?), it was divided up. Very often no one will have any of these skills, but occasionally they come in handy. I had one wizard who specialized in studying various dangerous creatures and was diversified over all the fields. A successful check indicates knowledge of the base creature based upon your visual sighting of the creature or other clues (if the DM considers enough of them to be present). Any templates, advancement in HD, added class levels, or off shoots of the race are always unknown as they aren't in the books for every individual of every race. Of course on the brightside, this means you always roll against only the base CR of the creature.

Creatures your character has actually encountered and knows about first hand do not require checks (as the checks represent only book knowledge and hear-say).

We use CR because it allows the DM to keep back knowledge of the critter if he needs to, and because the difficulty of the check reflects the rarity of the creature (in general). And because it was simplest of course. Ack. Rambling on. Here's the system we use. Works great for us. Been using it for almost a year now.

Knowledge (arcana) - aberrations, constructs, dragons, ooze, shapechanger

Knowledge (history) - giants, humanoids, monstrous humanoids

Knowledge (nature) - animals, beasts, fey, magical beasts, plants, vermin

Knowledge (the planes) - elementals, outsiders

Knowledge (religion) - undead

Type of Knowledge.........DC
Common Knowledge........5+CR
Basic Knowledge............10+CR
Specific Knowledge........15+CR

Common Knowledge would usually include what the creature is, and what its usual reaction to people is.

Basic Knowledge would be a general physical description of a creature, its general level of intelligence, basic ecology, and general habitat.

Specific Knowledge would include strengths, weaknesses, and a detailed knowledge of about every trait of the most common example of the creature in question.

Ranks and successful knowledge checks in these skills represent information resulting from study, stories, and training. They do not include first hand experiences.

Also, in areas where creatures are more prevalent, specific traits of some creatures may be basic knowledge or even common knowledge. A border country constantly pushing back orcish hordes would know of the adverse affect of bright light on orcs. This trait would be common knowledge there. But to those in lands where orcs are a far off nuisance, only study would reveal this trait and it would be considered specific knowledge.

Side Note: We use Knowledge (Religion) for Undead as opposed to Knowledge (Undead) because a) Defenders of the Faith wasn't out yet and knowledge (undead) wasn't in print anywhere yet, b) because clerics have very few skill points to throw around, and c) because life and death, death and undeath are things we like clerics in our campaign to know about. It has worked out wonderfully so far. Especially against the Nightcrawler....

 

[nharwell]

I still dislike the idea of so limiting the shifter -- after all, shapeshifting is ALL they can do. Even using familiarity=seen once can greatly limit the PC -- the power is completely in the DM's hands. If you plan to use one (or more) knowledge skills, I would hope that you would then boost the Shifter's skill points to 6/level to compensate....

This is a cool and interesting class but one, I'd argue, that is weaker than a single-class druid, especially once you reach higher levels. Rather than hamstring the class, simply disallow if you don't like it.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

"Seen or studied parts from it" From a WotC person. If the search function worked, I'd find their name for you.

 

[Vecna]

"Seen or studied parts from it" From a WotC person. If the search function worked, I'd find their name for you.

It was a response from the Sage (aka Skip Williams) to some questions about Polymorph/Alter Self.