Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7606821" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Okay, let us take this a bit at a time. Let us cover the check first. Thinking is an action, to think is an action verb, so it counts. We do not know if the character has the knowledge, therefore we have uncertainty. Now, meaningful consequences are hard to really nail down, and I don't like that stipulation. I can however point to the PHB, pages 177 and 178 where they lay out that Intelligence checks (including Arcana, History, Religion and Nature) all can involve checks to "recall lore" and Arcana specifically is used for recalling lore about the denizens of different planes of existence. Like Elementals.So, an Arcana check to know the weaknesses of Earth Elementals seems to fit entirely within the game structure. Even without potential "meaningful consequences" beyond not knowing the information. Now, since this check was to give the barbarian the reason to act on out-of-character knowledge, then yes, if the roll fails and they do not know that Earth Elementals are weak to Thunder damage there is no reason for the player to continue going to shop to buy scrolls of magic that the elementals are weak against. In fact, knowledge checks and out-of-character knowledge really highlights the crux of this. Because the entire thing is predicate on knowing something their character does not know. To give an example I'm sure you would not allow at your table. A player receives a secret letter from the Mob, and hides it in their bag. None of the other characters know about this letter. Later that night one of the players declares they are searching the Mob players bag for the hidden letter. Not only is this rude to the other player, but there is no reason for the character to do this. And sure, I can come up with reasonable answers to why they would suddenly go rooting through their companions bag and "accidentally" find the letter I know about but my character doesn't, but that does not change the fact that they were just finding a work around to act upon knowledge they did not have. Also I enjoy you slipping in "to satisfy what appears to be an incredulous DM's questions about the validity of the action declaration". Because there is nothing wrong with questioning the validity of an action declaration, as a DM I am supposed to make sure that actions are valid. You can't climb a wall that doesn't exist after all. So the DM isn't "incredulous" they are simply confirming where the character received the information they are acting upon. Nice job breaking up one statement into two. Yes, I think we would agree that it is not the DMs problem if the players are not playing the game optimally. Generally, it isn't even a problem. However, we have two opposing perspectives of the game going on here. We have the DM who is going forth assuming the players will double check everything, and the players going forward assuming that they are allowed, perhaps even encouraged to use out-of-character knowledge in regards to settings, monsters, and NPCs. These can come into conflict, especially the rarer it is that the DM changes something. Because if those changes just happen to be worse for the PCs, invalidating plans and actions they thought were clever because of some secret knowledge that is actually not viable, then it can give a poor impression on the DM. IT can cause tension at the table. And I am fully aware, "this doesn't happen if the players trust the DM" and "That isn't the DMs problem" and "You are talking about problems away from the table, not at the table, and they should be handled away from the table". Yeah, I get all that. But, if one isn't careful with our their actions at the table effect things away from the table, then it is an issue. It is something that can cause problems. So, you have to examine things carefully, you have to weigh pros and cons. You know, I wonder if one of these days we will have something we are discussing that you will say is the DMs problem. So far, nothing involving the players or their characters is ever the DMs problem. Maybe that is a side benefit of playing with the same group for decades instead of getting a new table every year, the DM concerns themselves with less and less.</blockquote>

Verification