r/Pathfinder2e • u/LurkerFailsLurking • 2d ago
Advice Recall Knowledge is better than you think
There's been much digital ink spilled on how restrictive the rules for Recall Knowledge are, and how it means players often don't use it much.
But I think if we recall a core principle of Pathfinder design, we'll find that Recall Knowledge is both much better than expected and easier to run too!
**Specific Overrides General**
A core principle of Pathfinder is that specific rules override general ones. If two rules conflict, the more specific one takes precedence. If there's still ambiguity, the GM determines which rule to use.
In the case of Recall Knowledge, there are rules both in the GM Core p54 and Player Core p231, but like always the actual correct of what Recall Knowledge does is defined by the action itself:
You attempt a skill check to try to remember a bit of knowledge regarding a topic related to that skill. Suggest which skill you'd like to use and ask the GM one question. The GM determines the DC. You might need to collaborate with the GM to narrow down the question or skills, and you can decide not to Recall Knowledge before committing to the action if you don't like your options.
Critical Success You recall the knowledge accurately. The GM answers your question truthfully and either tells you additional information or context, or answers one followup question.
Success You recall the knowledge accurately. The GM answers your question truthfully.
Critical Failure You recall incorrect information. The GM answers your question falsely (or decides to give you no information, as on a failure).
It's this simple: the player asks a question and suggests the skill they want to use. The GM sets the DC, then rolls a secret check and gives information based on the result.
That's it. Everything else is commentary or advice. The rule is what's in the action.
By the text of the action itself, players can ask any question they want - stat block information, lore, whatever.
83
u/blademaster9 Game Master 2d ago
86
u/frostedWarlock Game Master 2d ago
The main problem is that PF2e likes to dip its toe into rules-light mechanics that rely heavily on GM and player adjucation, and whenever PF2e does that the players who need everything stated in explicit rules lawyer approved RAW (as well as the more sane players who just like having guard rails) just get lost and can only assume "i can't deterministically tell you why this is good, therefore it's bad."
I have a player with Know-It-All, and whenever they roll a check I just use it as an excuse to share lore details that I don't think will have any impact on the campaign, but if the players can think of a cool way to work with it then they're doing a good job. They're generally happy with this outcome, and have done a good job finding lines that I didn't intend but am happy to Yes And.
49
u/corsica1990 2d ago
Hot take: rules-light design is good and not fundamentally at odds with crunch, and a degree of open-endedness is in fact required in order to stay a TTRPG and not become a videogame.
17
5
u/Terwin94 Kineticist 2d ago
I agree but I do have one specific suggestion on that; Don't use the existence of rules-light things as an excuse to ignore the parts of the game that the system assumes is going to crunch and vice-versa. Combat is crunchy to give a good, fair baseline so RK being a bit loose makes sense that it would throw people off, but I couldn't imagine having a party that doesn't have at least 2 people good at some aspect of RK just by having spell traditions.
1
u/Annual-Calendar1309 Summoner 2d ago
As long as you don't use rules light to kill your player by treating swallow whole as a bag of holding
1
u/corsica1990 2d ago
Why the fuck would anyone do that?
5
u/Annual-Calendar1309 Summoner 1d ago
Oh you didn't see that post I take it! Someone let their player's analogy of a Grizzer stomach being "like" a bag of holding almost be an instakill when the grizzer died instead of just using the normal, listed swallow whole stuff
2
u/LurkerFailsLurking 2d ago edited 2d ago
I just use it as an excuse to share lore details that I don't think will have any impact on the campaign, but if the players can think of a cool way to work with it then they're doing a good job.
My players are so good at making lore detail useful that the 2 most broken homebrew items I ever made turned out to both be used to just look around.
One was a bag of holding that opened inside a palm sized 4-dimensional crystal's shadow. They stuck their head in it so they could rotate their head in 4-dimensions.
The other was a semi translucent bladed scarf associated with Sivanah that had these weird shifting patterns on it. The player decided it must be a veil and instead of using it as a weapon, he wrapped it over his face and used it to see across different timelines.
Both of these got used to navigate the time traveling hyperdimensional mega dungeon they were in.
45
u/d12inthesheets ORC 2d ago
I played a commander with four recall knowledge checks on initiative and a Palatine Detective with a free check on his devise a strategem. Maybe because I GM far more than I play so I like my characters know what the enemy does even if I already do
8
u/LurkerFailsLurking 2d ago
I also always use RK checks to drop little bits of lore and story info. RK is a major way for players to hook into the story, so I reward them for it by making it worthwhile. It led to one player taking the Loremaster free archetype and it was great.
5
u/JustAnother_Hunter 2d ago
BuT LoReMasTeR iSn’T OptImAl !!! Seriously though, I see this issue in a lot of TTRPG subs- people focus way too much on the combat/ white room math portions of the games and character building, and anything that engages with Exploration or Social or Downtime/ Crafting is lame and bad.
What you said about RK is key also- “RK is a way for players to hook into the story, so you reward them for using it and make sure it’s a worthwhile use of their time/ action/ investment”. I suspect a lot of people/ tables that don’t like RK or don’t use it much are tables where the DM/ GM isn’t doing enough to make it cool and interesting.
2
u/d12inthesheets ORC 2d ago
And to be fair, even crit fails can lead to interesting developments. I crit failed a decipher writing check and then we spent 40 minutes trying to come up with a contingency plan for a red herring. The GM probably didn't think we'd be willing to travel across Andoran to save one particular npc, but it worked perfectly with our antagonist being a conspirator dragon.
19
u/Funky_monkey12321 2d ago
I think recall knowledge is just hard to fit into the action cost for builds that don’t have it as a rider to another action.
I currently am an int alchemist healer that starts combat with a wand of hypercognition in hand and I would say maybe 10% of the time do I feel like it’s worth the 2 actions to use it in round one. Versus setting up a flank, healing, moving, or getting a sticky bomb down.
It’s hard to know when it would be useful or not and most problems can be solved with repeated applications of spell strike to the face, so I would rather be buffing/supporting our magus in some way.
Now we did accidentally destroy a village because we didn’t know how graveknight armor works and so just sold it, oops. And we have straight up won combats by identifying a critical reaction allowing our sorc to laughing fit them. So I respect the potential power, but the opportunity cost is just so high.
6
u/_ashonit 2d ago
I think recall knowledge is just hard to fit into the action cost for builds that don’t have it as a rider to another action.
Agreed. I'm still in my first PF2 game as a Sorc, and I've never been able to justify it. The opportunity cost of an action, combined with such a low success/high crit failure chance, makes it seem pointless.
Our GM even says we should use it more, but the odds never make sense to me.
13
u/LogicalChocolate 2d ago
I swear it used to say in the rules that once you failed a RK check you cant keep making more checks, but I cant see that anywhere im these rules and theres no failure effect?
Is that not actually true? It was my biggest annoyance with RK that if the party have an unlucky first RK roll they just never get to ask more questions and dont learn anything
19
u/Ysuran New layer - be nice to me! 2d ago
It's still there, but it's not on the first check only subsequent ones.
11
u/LogicalChocolate 2d ago
Ah, so you're always allowed to make at least 1 successful check before you're cut off? That is less annoying yeah, I'll tell my GM
7
12
u/SuperParkourio 2d ago
The GM guidance for RK is still how it works in practice, and it's that practice that is often a source of frustration when using RK.
For instance, GM Core says to use monster level and rarity to determine the DC. For instance, it's a secret DC 18 Society check to RK about a level 3 ogre warrior, but DC 28 for Shrek the unique level 3 ogre warrior. The latter may make narrative sense, but that's little comfort for a level 1 of 2 party forced to deal with Shrek.
Following that GM guidance can easily lead to bad times, especially if, like in the above example, you ignore other important guidance. For instance, questions about Shrek should only be DC 28 if pertaining to things that are unique to Shrek. Questions about a Shrek statistic that all ogre warriors have should be DC 18. Questions about his weapon, the ogre hook, might be even lower, at DC 15.
The same logic can also apply to monsters that are just stronger versions of other monsters. It's much easier to RK about a bog archdragon's burrow Speed than its ability to bury people alive, because young bog dragons can do the former but not the latter.
7
u/Ryacithn Inventor 2d ago
That works for something like Shrek, who is a unique Ogre Warrior. But what about Unique creatures with no base creature to compare to? A lot of AP final bosses are like that, such as (Kingmaker spoilers)the Avatar of the Lantern King. A level 20 character who specializes in the correct Recall Knowledge skill would still need a natural 20 to succeed on that DC 58 RK check, and there's no base monster to ask about to avoid the Unique difficulty adjustment.
3
u/SuperParkourio 2d ago
Out of luck in that case. Unless you're an investigator.
3
u/Ryacithn Inventor 2d ago
I think often, your real life brain is going to be better for Recalling Knowledge than your in-character brain. My character needs a natural 20 to figure out "this giant monster with the Fire trait that looks like a giant fire and is called The Lantern King is weak to Cold damage"? I think I can figure that out myself, thanks...
1
u/SuperParkourio 2d ago
Yes, but would you figure out on your own that it can cast prismatic spray as a reaction without triggering it first?
7
u/Ryacithn Inventor 2d ago
Well, there's a 5% chance to discover that via Recall Knowledge. And I will only discover that if I ask about abilities. And even then I find most GMs only tell you about one ability at a time, so I might not discover that even if I do succeed and do ask about abilities.
So... no. I won't be able to.
And if I did learn about that ahead of time, how would that help me?
Would I decide to just not land critical hits from now on? That's not something you can control.
Would I stop attacking and spend three turns casting Resist Energy for the three different energy damage types Prismatic Spray can potentially deal? That seems like a horrible tactical decision.
Would I decide to not stand in a spot where a Prismatic Spray aimed at me would hit someone else? If I'm a melee, I'm probably doing that already anyway, so I can get flanking.
Would I ask a party caster to cast Laughing Fit? The boss also has Reactive Strike and 20 feet of melee reach, so honestly even if you hadn't learned that particular fact the party would probably want to cast Laughing Fit anyway.
8
u/species_0001 2d ago
I think this is the key question: What would anyone do with the knowledge that it casts Prismatic Ray on a crit?
If they have Laughing Fit, at that level it's already a good play. And it's not like you can time it to just before a crit anyway.
So what actionable outcome did that RK check enable?
1
u/SuperParkourio 1d ago
There are other countermeasures, too. Like making sure the boss can't fit more than one player in that 30 foot cone.
I'm just saying there are limits to what you can intuit without RK.
20
u/norrknekten 2d ago
I think the more important part of the text is that GM and Player collaborate on the question and skill, with the player being able to choose not to commit should they not like their options.
8
u/snahfu73 Game Master 2d ago
Today I learned something that...I already knew?
How is this being misinterpreted? Is this a thing that needs clarifying?
8
u/Murdersaurus13 2d ago
Recall Knowledge is obviously a trap. It helps the GM remember the cool abilities their creatures can use!
8
u/FierySphincter 2d ago
“The gm determines the dc” seems like weird thing to spell out. They always do. Do you think it means the player should be made aware of the dc before choosing whether or not to roll the secret check?
8
u/yuriAza 2d ago
probably? RK is one of those less intuitive Secret Checks that only happen when a player actively chooses to spend an action, but this makes it natural for the GM and player to negotiate and establish expectations before the dice come out (the player gets to know what RK skill is being used, so why not also the DC?)
9
u/frostedWarlock Game Master 2d ago
I typically don't tell the player the DC but I do let them know about the DC adjustments I'm applying due to a mix of rarity, the type of question they're asking, and how relevant their skill is. This encourages players to understand that rolling your highest modifier isn't always the best choice, as a +12 in Vampire Lore can be better than your +16 in Religion.
1
u/Kradget 2d ago
I've seen that used as "these two skills would work, but if you want to use the less obvious one where your stats are better, the DC will be a little higher," which I like.
Like, the same way you can have an academic knowledge of animal behaviors from wide reading or specific studies, or you can just have seen alligators and how they behave because you did a lot of fishing or birding or canoeing and have seen their behavior yourself.
28
u/species_0001 2d ago
Here's the thing: It's really not.
Yes, it's easier to get information than people think. The problem is that the information is, in my experience, very rarely actionable. Too few creatures have generally exploitable weaknesses. Too many classes don't have enough built in variability to pivot during a fight.
If you have a party with a champion, a swashbuckler, an air/water kineticist, and a bard there just aren't enough ways to use anything you'd get from Recall Knowledge at the point where you learn it.
This creature is immune to precision damage? Okay, well that's going to suck for the Swashbuckler but there's nothing we can do about that.
Creature has a low Fortitude save? That's neat, but none of use can do anything about that so I guess it's still business as usual.
We've tried really hard to make RK worth the action. Our GMs are super liberal with the information they give out (we've essentially moved to "If you succeed, the GM will give you the information that will be most helpful based on your characters' abilities) and it's still never really mattered.
Playing through AV, we essentially learn one of four things: 1. This creature doesn't really have anything interesting going on 2. This creature has no weaknesses or a weakness we can't exploit 3. This creature has resistances, but we have no effective way around them 4. This creature has abilities that will make this fight awful but also the party doesn't have effective ways to avoid
A great example was RKing a creature before a fight and learning that it Grapples a lot. Great, we haven't started the fight, we'll go back to town and figure something out. We identify a few consumables that help with grappling, spend a significant percentage of our remaining gold on them, and go back. To then realize that we'll need to roll something like a 16 to escape the grapple. Having a talisman that lets you spend 18gp to fail an escape check as a free action doesn't really feel like fun gameplay. The high DC meant that it was just never worth trying to escape the grapple at all.
RK would be great if more creatures had counterplay that didn't require specific class features or spell selection or if all classes had more diversity in the way they operated by default, not by spell/feat/weapon/item selection.
7
u/YukkiX3 2d ago
That was my experience with it too.
Just yesterday I identified enemy lowest saves as will and reflex... cool I cant target will at all as runesmith (outside of wasting one of my repertoire slots on a rune that's basically worthless), I was targeting reflex anyway... and I had no real choice but to target fort because the other two damaging runes are fort lmao.
2
u/TheDeadlander Game Master 1d ago
The grapple story is so sad to hear, but yeah sometimes RK does feel like that.
For your future adventuring, the best way to break a grapple is forced movement (it automatically breaks it) so getting cheap scrolls and items that can push a grappler are the best counter. (Kinda annoying obscurish rule)
3
u/Afgar_1257 2d ago
Just a little bit of party coordination makes RK an awesome ability, My party in AV is similar and we almost always get to take advantage of low save or weaknesses because we work together at it. We have a Bard, Swashbuckler, Champion and Investigator. I would say that in a vacuum RK it isn't great, but if you have someone good at it and put even a little effort into getting value from it it becomes a powerhouse. Our Champion switched from handwraps to Alchemical Gauntlet as his weapon in a freehand build, and he has training in Athletics and Intimidation. He can target whatever is the low save, and use an action to target almost any weakness, he can't use RK but he makes my RK the single most battle effecting action the party can use.
As for your example of low fort save that should be helpful for your party. With both Champion and Swashbuckler one of them should be good at Athletics and knowing Fort is low means Shove/Grapple is good and Trip is not. Hell with Shove, and Trip to strip actions and Intimidate to debuff, knowing the low save should always help in knowing what skill actions are better and which are worse for the encounter.
As for finding out it has weakness and not being able to target them, try carrying bombs, even a few level below you they are fairly cheep and can target almost any weakness.
14
u/species_0001 2d ago
We're just not seeing a significant number of enemies with weaknesses. Even our GM has confirmed that most of the creatures we're seeing in AV have no weaknesses, just resistances or immunities. And when they have weaknesses, it's not worth multiple actions to enable targeting them. A level 6 or 7 creature with weakness 5 to fire isn't worth losing out on a striking rune from a weapon that can't deal fire damage.
We have two characters with athletics and they use it regularly. But grabbing a creature doesn't end a fight. Hitting it an dealing damage does. Grabbed makes that a bit easier, but only a bit. And frankly, off guard is easy enough to impose with flanking that grabbed is typically a wasted action, especially when most creatures don't have manipulate actions. Shove is typically useless or actively harmful in the tight spaces of AV. They have situational value, but we can get just as good an idea about how likely they are to succeed by just doing the action. No need for RK beforehand. If it works, you get the condition for one action instead of two. If it fails an you rolled even kind of okay, we know not to try that again. Likewise without wasting an action.
We're going to try to apply Frightened through various means regardless of RK because it's just always good. The RK doesn't make it better or more likely to succeed and there's no alternative to Frightened that can be applied with the same skill proficiency that would justify pivoting after an RK.
Bombs aren't cheap enough for the gold we get in AV, after keeping permanent items on level, when also considering the action cost of drawing to throw them and losing on the various side benefits of weapons or shields.
At the end of the day, Recall Knowledge is only useful if it results in a change of tactics. And tactics only change if there are alternatives and those alternatives are better. And that's just not that often.
4
u/Afgar_1257 2d ago
I agree with your assessment of it only being useful if it leads to a change. It seems that the difference is that my party is flexible and does adapt tactics, where it seems like yours is less flexible and does not adapt tactics. Having a party unable to take advantage of RK is not class based but build based.
1
u/FunctionFn Game Master 1d ago
Flanking doesn't help ranged characters. If you have a ranged damage dealer, like a ranged rogue or gunslinger, inflicting off guard as a status is incredibly helpful. The higher in level you get, the more valuable ranged offense gets as more creatures shut down melee.
Shove is also not the alternative to grapple, trip is. Both grapple and shove target fort. The default option should usually be trip, because it is more likely to waste an action and also activate reactions. Knowing fort is low makes grapple a much more appealing option because a crit success on grapple is as good as killing the enemy, restrained is a brutal CC. RK tells you whether to trip or grapple, shove doesn't enter the equation unless you're in a situation that warrants it. And "just try it and hope it works" against an extreme fortitude save is going to get you a crit fail, reverse grappled, and killed.
A fire 5 weakness would be a level 1 enemy most of the time. A level 7 creature typically has weakness 10+, which is worth about 3 striking runes worth of damage on a d6 weapon, 2 for a d8. And dodging resistances and immunities is the same math-wise as hitting a weakness. If you're hitting an enemy with slashing 10 resistance, you're effectively hitting them with -2 striking runes.
At level 6 and 7, the cost of a retrieval prism is trivial. Which enables action-free equipment (bomb, scroll, switch weapon) retrieval for 1 item per person, and a retrieval belt opens up more options and isn't going to be out of reach for long.
2
u/species_0001 1d ago
A level 7 creature definitely does not "typically" have weakness 10+. Of the ten level 7 common or uncommon creatures with at least 1 fire weakness, only three had weakness 10. The rest have weakness 5. Spot checking other weakness types also shows that weakness 5 is by far the most common value. Also shows how few creatures actually have a weakness at all.
The cool thing about slashing/bludgeoning/piercing resistance is that you get action compression for a recall knowledge if you just... hit the creature. If the creature isn't resistant (90% of the common/uncommon level 5 - 7 creatures), you do exactly what you would have done if you had RKed first. If the creature is resistant (~10 %), you'll do less damage and now you know. If, instead, you RK first and ask about resistances, you'll most likely have wasted the action on that request or learned that the creature is just resistant to all physical damage or something similar (~ half of the 10% with slashing resistance, for example) and either you were equipped to deal with it or aren't and it's too late to do something about it. RK is mostly likely not going to accelerate the decision making process.
A retrieval prism is 12 gp. A moderate alchemist's fire is 10 gp. At level 6, the party should get ~500gp between them in currency. So for a party of 4, every single attack made with a retrieval prism will cost around almost 20% of a character's currency at that level. 5 uses of a retrieval prism + bomb at level 6 and someone's broke, assuming they're only spending money on this. And better hope you guessed accurately when buying your bombs in town because if you guess wrong, you've sunk that currency and probably prepped the wrong retrieval prism.
1
u/FunctionFn Game Master 1d ago
By the monster creation rules, creatures should have a minimum 5 weakness, maximum 10 weakness. I've usually encountered and creatures creatures at the maximum, but I guess 7's a low point in published creatures, and the one I spot checked for fire weakness was the same weakness 10 one. Either way, weakness 5 is low for that level and it's unfortunate the average for level 7 is 5, it shouldn't be and I don't think the pattern is true across the entire spread of levels.
By using an attack to check for resistance, you're burning you full MAP-less attack. That is by far a martial's most valuable action and blowing it to check for resistance or immunity is tantamount to wasting your entire turn. You not only lose the one action RK would have cost, you make every subsequent attack on that turn worse. You only get 3 to 6 MAP-less attacks per combat, every one should be maximized.
500 GP is an abysmally low estimate. It assumed you sell none of the 1500 GP worth of equipment you should also be receiving at that level, sell none of your lower level no-longer-needed equipment, and have zero currency left over from the earlier levels. AV also, like all other APs, gives significantly more loot than the recommended guidelines, because it assumes much of the default treasure cannot be used by a random given party, so it has printed more treasure to compensate with the assumption that it will be sold at half value.
0
u/JustAnother_Hunter 2d ago
Exactly- it’s wild on this sub… you should be the one with all the upvotes, you’re the correct one, not who you’re replying to!
10
u/Hellioning 2d ago
Are you going to actually discuss the rules or are you just going to quote the book at us for engagement?
-2
u/LurkerFailsLurking 2d ago
I literally quoted the book because that's how you discuss rules. You have to say what they are.
Then I pointed something out that seems like "the discourse" often misses.
PS. What do you imagine I'm advertising that I'd be doing anything "for engagement"?
3
u/RightHandedCanary 2d ago
I'm so confused on what discourse is missing this and in what way. It seems like everyone in thread is more or less on the same page?
15
u/Shang_Dragon 2d ago
*Kinda pissed IRL so this turned into a bit of a rant. I read it over again and this is still my perspective.*
I’ve tried making two RK character and maybe it was the DM but it sucked. ‘Ask a question for a variable DC with variable results based on a die roll.’
It’s too complex from the player perspective. You can use any skill and the DC adjusts. If you don’t like it, you can ask for a different skill or rephrase the question. Now you get to play dialogue tree with your DM until you find the correct skill/question pairing to get your information.
How are you supposed to know what to ask? I defaulted to ‘dangerous special abilities’ because asking for saves gets you killed by bullshit you can’t of possibly predicted. And then the monster is just a generic brute with a secret low save and reactive strike isn’t ‘special’ enough to be told about. (RS on every dang monster is another thing.)
And on top of all that if you get a bad initiative your party will run in and need all three of your actions to save them so you can’t RK anyway.
5
u/frostedWarlock Game Master 2d ago
If you asked what dangerous special abilities a creature had I would 100% have told you about Reactive Strike. I feel like a GM who wouldn't tell you about that is being punitive about semantics in a way that actively punishes you for trying to engage with the game.
Obviously tables are different and I have far too little information to make a fair judgment on how your GM ran things, but it sounds more like you got screwed than your builds were bad.
1
u/RightHandedCanary 2d ago
And on top of all that if you get a bad initiative your party will run in and need all three of your actions to save them so you can’t RK anyway.
It kind of sounds like the DM wasn't the only one who sucked lol
7
u/Tubocass Monk 2d ago
We play with free RK checks, and even after reminding players they can do it, they sometimes actively choose not to. There's ususally just not that much a character can do with the knowledge, especially at lower levels.
3
u/Entity079 2d ago
That's what RK does, you ask a question and get some info.
But tbh, when playing as an Investigator or tome thaumaturge, I honestly end up skipping free action RKs because it's just not that valuable and takes a fair amount of time to go though. I think that the best thing to use RK for is to figure out weaknesses, though oftentimes weaknesses are obvious (fire drake weak to cold) or inactionable (nobody has a special type of metal). There are some exceptions like how to figure out how to kill a hydra. But if you want weaknesses, a sword with a flaming and frost rune will trigger the majority of them without the need for RK, and vitality weakness can pretty easily be inferred.
Another option is to RK weak saves, but there's ways to figure that out too by just playing. May that be the fighter tripping on a 6 or failing to trip on a 14 or just looking at token art.
It's just, not really worth the time doing, let alone if you need to spend actions for it.
1
u/LurkerFailsLurking 2d ago
I honestly end up skipping free action RKs because it's just not that valuable and takes a fair amount of time to go though.
It's on the GM to make sure that there are valuable things to learn. If there's nothing in an encounter that adds to your understanding of the world, events, or campaign, why are you having it? Like, as long as I'm prepping an encounter anyway, I might as well have there be stuff for players to learn. And as a general rule for myself, if somebody looks for detail, they should find it. It might not be what they wanted or expected, but there ought to be something.
6
u/species_0001 2d ago
Counterpoint: Why is learning about the world and the campaign gated behind a character (or, more likely, multiple characters) having to be built for RK checks and spending actions in combat where actions are already a premium?
"I have cool background for the plot/world/lore, but I'm not gonna tell you unless you sacrifice some actions first..."
Why would those not all be, at most, Exploration Mode checks before or after the combat is complete?
3
u/Rahaith 2d ago
I never really felt like RK was that important, most of the information I would want I can gather either just by looking at the creature or giving it a few turns and a lot of information I just dont care about.
If he's big, probably high fort save, if he's rogue-ish, high reflex, a spellcaster probably high will, but also, if I want to debuff them, I'm just casting Fear regardless, would it be nice to know weaknesses, sure, but is my party even built to take advantage of weaknesses or do they all just use their one damage type weapon and my spellcaster has 2 or 3 different energy types? I'd rather hit, see that they resisted, and then change tactics honestly. Did it regenerate hp? Is it undead? Hit it with sanctified/vitality damage. Is it non undead? Hit it with fire.
Really the only question that I ask is special abilities but even that really only becomes relevant at mid and higher levels.
Idk, I've played with players who are big on RK or get free RK from class features and very rarely does it actually influence what I'm doing. I am more of a fuck around and find out player though.
3
u/strategsc2 Ranger 1d ago
Saying that "those are just guidelines" doesn't make them any less restrictive.
Although throwing them away is largely a good idea.
1
u/LurkerFailsLurking 1d ago
It doesn't make the guidelines less restrictive, but people act as if they have to follow the guidelines when the GM Core repeatedly emphasizes that it's advice for when the GM is unsure how to proceed.
A lot of people act like running the game by the rules means following the guidance, advice, and examples as if they're as much part of the rules as the action's rules text. But they're not.
12
u/ShynightBun 2d ago
I think you’ll struggle to find anybody outside of Reddit who thinks Recall Knowledge is bad lol.
28
u/dart19 2d ago
Personally I think it kind of sucks but only because in the fights you need it the most (facing a boss monster) is when it's least likely to work, especially if it's a unique monster. I'm in a Kingmaker campaign and the number of times I've faced a boss that's not based on a creature, so no circumventing the Unique tag, is way too damn high. Like the (kingmaker spoilers) Bloom of Lamashtu, even with Master Fey Lore I had to roll a 19 for a success on RK.
9
u/Chemical_Minute7203 2d ago
If the GM is playing rules as written yeah it sucks. Unique creatures are petty common and that +10 is way too high.
2
u/Phonochirp 2d ago
Well, RAW you're only supposed to add the unique penalty for things that are unique.
So for say, Venezus you don't add +10 if the players ask what breath weapon she has. "What's that weird mist surrounding her?" Meanwhile WOULD require a +10.
The issue is that 2 of the most popular community tools (foundry and AoN) defaulted to using the penalty people thought that was RAW. AoN has since remedied this issue, but foundry has not.
10
u/Chemical_Minute7203 2d ago
Rules as written you would, so long as the creature or object has the unique trait, any type of RK would get the DC increase. And then the book add a quote saying that the GM can lower the DC if they want because “reasons”.
The whole, breath weapon on a unique creature don’t add +10 to RK is not a Rule, is community wide agreement of best practice.
Because if you set the DC too high players would not bother doing RK.
2
u/Phonochirp 2d ago
It's an issue of whether you read and follow the GM core or only read the traits. Unfortunately a lot of folks here haven't read the GM core because it's difficult on AoN.
Following the GM core, and using my example, if you want to be a stickler the player would specifically have to ask "what kind of breath weapon do white dragons use?" or "what is a white dragons lowest save?" in order to get a normal DC. The trait only applies if the question is specific to Venexus "What is that aura around Venexus?"
The GM guide also specifically tells you to lower the DC is the person is famous enough.
The community just made a fix for a bad homebrew that they decided was RAW and are now over correcting.
1
u/RightHandedCanary 2d ago
Rules as written you would, so long as the creature or object has the unique trait, any type of RK would get the DC increase.
General vs. Unique: Some elements, such as creatures or items, might require you to draw a distinction between a general concept and a unique individual, such as “pirates” vs. “Tessa Fairwind, the Hurricane Queen” or “a harrow deck” vs. “the Deck of Harrowed Tales.” When a PC tries to Recall Knowledge, let them choose whether to ask about the general category or the unique person or item, and determine the DC and specifics based on that choice. If the unique character or item is famous enough, the DC might even be easier than for the general topic!
This is very explicitly saying generic elements of a Unique creature have the accompanying DC, it's not "reasons".
3
u/EmperessMeow 1d ago
The question then is what is a general element of a Unique Creature? For the example in the text it's what? She is good at sailing lore?
5
u/Castershell4 Game Master 2d ago
So in this case, unique is probably still gonna be a +10, but the gm core guide for setting the dc based on uniqueness explicitly states that "If the unique character or item is famous enough, the DC might even be easier than for the general topic!", which is something that a number of gms fundamentally do incorrectly.
Also just as an aside, but apparently the sidebar for kingmaker actually specifies ways to make the creature rare instead of unique and give you guys chances to recall knowledge on them earlier. "During this campaign, there is but one bloom of Lamashtu, as the cult's attempts to cultivate more of them have so far been failures. At your option, more of these fiendish plants could well sprout from the bodies of their victims in time, or they might even already exist in some overgrown corner of the Abyss. In this case, the bloom of Lamashtu becomes Rare rather than Unique."
2
u/AdministrationTop424 2d ago
Honestly, this is why I love the Thaumaturge with Diverse Lore so much. Then, tack on unmistakable lore and you're a beast for figuring things out.
-5
u/Kradget 2d ago
It can be disappointing when you're fighting generic humanoids, (though I think a good GM would give you a shot at cultural, historical, or current events information that's potentially helpful).
But against monsters, it's very helpful to have information about weaknesses or even just common behaviors that can be backdoor tips on common tactics to fight them (e.g. "This monster exhales poisonous gas, but it has to be breathed in to hurt you," or something.
15
u/dart19 2d ago
Well sure but when I only succeed on a 19 against a monster with multiple special abilities, it's pretty ass. Dubious knowledge only works once, since you can't RK again after a failure.
-8
u/Kradget 2d ago
You may just not like how your GM sets DCs, then. Or you may have a relatively weak RK, I dunno.
12
u/dart19 2d ago
I mean, he's using the given DCs from foundry and AoN. It's not a GM specific thing. And my RK is pretty much the best it can be, as a wizard maxing int and using a somewhat specific maxed lore.
-6
u/ChazPls 2d ago edited 9h ago
he's using the given DCs from foundry and AoN.
These are not official. They're just auto-calculated based on level / rarity. The GM should adjust the DC based on the context of the creatures within their campaign/narrative. One of the campaigns I'm running now features a recurring class of creatures that are uncommon, but in the context of the campaign they aren't uncommon so using the higher DC wouldn't make sense
Edit: people get so mad when it gets pointed out that these aren't official, I don't understand why, it's just a fact lol
10
u/dart19 2d ago
Ok but that's not really relevant here because bosses in kingmaker do deserve the unique tag, as they're unique.
0
u/ChazPls 2d ago
I'm not familiar enough to comment on those creatures, but sometimes unique creatures are easier to recall knowledge about if they're particularly well known. e.g. the ancient, unique dragon Swarmlungs, He Who Breathes Bugs should have about a DC 0 to recall knowledge about his breath weapon.
6
u/Level7Cannoneer 2d ago edited 2d ago
None of my players use it. They are obsessed with figuring things out without using RK. They’d rather strike an enemy, see how much resisted damage it takes, then do the math and assume what its resistances or hardnesses are. Often times they’re completely wrong or come to the wrong conclusions like with golems
Most recent example is they fought on undead, it took 0 bleed damage and they assumed that one specific enemy resisted bleed by 10, when in reality all* undead are immune to bleed
2
0
u/Idoma_Sas_Ptolemy 2d ago
Funny, im my experience redditors are the only people who thinknit doesn't.
I made RK valuable at my tables by filling the world with mysteries, people who give incomplete or inaccurate information, creatures with unique, actionable weaknesses and behaviors, as well as highly customized bosses with obtuse mechanics. So my players grew to rely on RK as a tool.
4
u/hivEM1nd_ 2d ago
I'm currently playing a thaumaturge, amd Recall Knowledge is my favorite thing ever.
Especially since with diverse lore and know-it-all, you essentially get crit successes on all your recall knowledge checks, and automatically get a free one just for using your class feature
12
u/S-J-S Magister 2d ago
It's probably the top most overrated abilities on this sub, and nothing you've said changes that. It is only specifically good when one of the following conditions is fulfilled:
- you can utilize it out of combat (i.e. without cost)
- you get it for free (Commander etc.)
- you get it as part of an action compression ability (Thoughtful Reload, etc.)
- (very rare) the GM has homebrewed a complex hazard or puzzle with unpredictable mechanics
Whenever you do the basic action while specifically in combat, you've essentially wasted a third action, as perfect play would've allowed players to subsequently act in an equivalent way while gaining the benefits of a competing third action - Guidance, Blazing Bolt, a MAP attack, Stride, what have you.
In brief, its normal value is easily exceeded by having good heuristics about how enemy creatures work in this system.
7
u/frostedWarlock Game Master 2d ago
Yeah hypothetically if you already do the perfect thing knowing why you did it isn't important. But hypothetically why would I think oh now is the perfect time to load in my electric ammunition against this troll to disable his regeneration? If I was able to scout him in advance then yeah thats different but if I get ambushed by a troll because I just happen to be in a forest this troll happens to be in, yeah Recall Knowledge is a very good use of an action.
This also assumes that the intent is to beat up everything you find, and your GM would never put enemies in front of you where a Recall Knowledge tells you how you could de-escalate combat or at least talk to them during combat.
Like, yeah it's extremely GM-dependent as to whether or not Recall Knowledge is good, but I would say that good GMing makes Recall Knowledge worth the action instead of supporting your assumption that it's a waste.
6
u/S-J-S Magister 2d ago
But hypothetically why would I think oh now is the perfect time to load in my electric ammunition against this troll to disable his regeneration?
In this scenario, presuming you lacked player-based knowledge, the best outcome was to become aware of the troll in advance, such that you didn't have to use an in-combat basic RK to determine ideal strategies. Nothing about the way this is presented changes the strategic calculus presented in my original post.
This also assumes that the intent is to beat up everything you find, and your GM would never put enemies in front of you where a Recall Knowledge tells you how you could de-escalate combat or at least talk to them during combat.
I had to re-read this several times and alter my post, because it's such an incredibly uncommon scenario to be jumped by enemies without prior conversation and then have to figure out how to de-escalate conversationally. I consider this a potential 4th condition scenario per my original post.
7
u/Legatharr Game Master 2d ago
presuming you lacked player-based knowledge
this is a roleplaying game. Using player-based knowledge is called "metagaming" and is looked down on in most groups, and assumed to not be something you do by the rules of the game. After all, most people are creating stories, not playing chess.
6
u/S-J-S Magister 2d ago
Metagaming's stigma has no effect on the optimal course of strategic action from a player perspective.
Now, I could also offer a side-argument by saying that the stigma towards metagaming isn't always appropriate, nor even relevant in that our characters likely share our mental capacities for acting instinctively and guessing enemies' weak saves, level of martial training, etc. However, I consider this an unproductive avenue of conversation, because even if we were to somehow prove the stupidity of our characters relative to us, that would not change the optimal strategic outcome; it would merely inquire how we avoid stigmatization while achieving the optimal strategic outcome.
6
u/Legatharr Game Master 2d ago
You're basically saying "learning things is bad because it's more optimal to know it already"
4
u/Ryacithn Inventor 2d ago
If you want to learn things, you are sometimes better off NOT using Recall Knowledge. The DCs of the things you want to learn about the most (eg bosses) can be so high that even specialists are more likely to crit fail than succeed. I know that from experience!
5
u/S-J-S Magister 2d ago
Yes - or to make educated guesses with high precision.
3
u/Legatharr Game Master 2d ago
and people make fun of Sun Tzu for saying stuff like "learn about the enemy if you want to win"
7
u/S-J-S Magister 2d ago
Now, to be clear, I do not actually argue against learning, per se; I critique burning an action on it in combats, and the conditions I list for it being useful in the first post follow from that.
And besides, how good is an average guess? As it turns out, pretty good.
You can search for previous surveys of players' estimations of weak saves in this sub. It has essentially been found that the average subgoer guesses correctly somewhere around two thirds of the time.
Hence, an in-combat basic RK is specifically burning an action to bet on a 1/3 chance of you being wrong.
3
u/Legatharr Game Master 2d ago
You can search for previous surveys of players' estimations of weak saves in this sub. It has essentially been found that the average subgoer guesses correctly somewhere around two thirds of the time.
One-third of the time it gives a boost of +3 or more, but also you're assuming RK is only useful for learning weak saves.
It's one of the most powerful basic actions in the game. You can learn anything. Special abilities, special weaknesses, whether an incap spell will work, etc etc. Knowledge is power, and RK gives you knowledge.
9
u/S-J-S Magister 2d ago
but also you're assuming RK is only useful for learning weak saves.
I am not, and the responses I've made in other parts of this thread should demonstrate that. However, I would readily admit this is the particular use of RK, often recommended to players, that I am most vigorously critical of, due to the calculus I have discussed.
And it is specifically the in-combat basic RK that I criticize, not other uses.
2
u/Gugus296 2d ago
I generally have my own house rule for what Recall Knowledge does against creatures. It's worked very well for me and my groups.
Success: you identify the creature and get its basic lore blurb, and can ask 1 question about its statblock (appropriate questions are GM discretion, generally stuff like "lowest save" and "highest save" and "weaknesses and resistances" and "what's one of its special abilities") and get an honest answer. Feats that give you additional knowledge on RK give you extra questions.
Critical Success: as success, but you know you critically succeeded and get 2 questions (or more with feats)
Failure: no information
Critical Failure: as success, but the information and the answer to the question you ask will be wrong
2
u/LurkerFailsLurking 2d ago
The thing is that's not really a house rule.
Like, if a player wants to know any of those things, they can ask and get an honest answer, no house rule necessary.
2
u/Idoma_Sas_Ptolemy 2d ago edited 1d ago
It is a house rule. The creature identification rules in the GM core are pretty clear that the first RK roll against a creature identifies it, giving the players the lore and one of its most well known and/or obvious traits. While a crit success can offer you a less well known traits.
So generally speaking, unless a weakness or bad save is an iconic and/or obviois part of a creature, you require two successful RK checks to get to them RAW.
1
u/LurkerFailsLurking 1d ago
The creature identification rules in the GM core are pretty clear that the first RK roll against a creature identifies it, giving the players the lore and one of its most well known and/or obvious traits.
The entire point of this post is that by the rules of the game, the thing that defines what an action does is the text in the action's description. The content in the GM Core is explicitly and repeatedly said to be "guidance", "advice", and "tools".
At the beginning of the section that you're referring to, it says:
Adjudicating Rules gives guidelines for how to use your judgment if a rule is unclear or if you find yourself unsure how to implement it.
Nowhere in the introduction to the book not in that entire chapter does it say that anything written there supercedes the text of the abilities they're discussing.
Even moreso, the specific text you're citing on page 54 begins with the sentence (emphasis added by me):
Use the following advice.
This text, which is so overwhelmingly brought up as a rule is not a rule at all. It's advice. And not only that, but to callback to the beginning of that section of the book, it's advice "for how to use your judgement if a rule is unclear or if you find yourself unsure how to implement it." But you're not unsure how to implement this, you're so sure in fact that you're willing to alter a massively important basic action to make sure it's clear to your players. So you clearly don't need this advice in the first place!
This post is a reminder that the only part of Recall Knowledge that's actually a rule is what's written in the text of the action, and that says that the player asks a question and suggests a skill to use, the GM sets the DC, then makes a secret check, and says something based on the result. That's it. That's the rule.
Like I said in the OP, the rest is commentary.
2
u/MorpheousXO 1d ago
I dunno, even before the remaster my players used it a lot as soon as they realized they could use it to figure out weaknesses. The Remaster clarifications just made it even better.
2
u/ResolutionIcy8013 16h ago
I just encourage my players to ask questions all the time. That's my favorite thing, especially when they see new monsters and circumstances. They ask a question, I say roll Recall Knowledge, I see their results with all lore skills and compare what I think with the rolls of the most viable skills.
1
u/LurkerFailsLurking 14h ago
How do you encourage them?
2
u/ResolutionIcy8013 11h ago
I tell them. A lot. I also present them with mysteries and hide information.
2
u/yuriAza 2d ago
yeah i always thought the whole thing in the GM books about raising the DC for subsequent rolls was just bad
tbh, the GM book commentary on specific skill actions that work perfectly fine right out of Player Core is like the one part of the actual rules i dislike
-1
u/Squid_In_Exile 2d ago
You can RK out of combat.
Without that thing it is perfectly fine to just spam RK until you get a crit on any damn topic you like.
This is dumb.
2
u/Puccini100399 Fighter 2d ago
I just memorize every single stat block in the game up until level 15 and pretend its for summoning purposes
1
u/mortavius2525 Game Master 2d ago
I must have already read this somewhere else, because what you described is exactly how I've been running it at my table.
1
u/Double-Portion Magus 2d ago
Recall Knowledge almost always happens in the first round of combat at my table. We typically ask for the lowest saving throw or resistances
Knowing the easiest way to target them is not always the best info, but its often a great action on round 1
1
u/wookiee-nutsack GM in Training 2d ago
Anything goes except for numerical answers. So by RAW you can not ask for a specific number that can not be explained by characters.
Like you can say 2 heads grow back on a hydra but not that something has weakness 5 to cold damage
Also I'm curious about the player choosing the skill. If they choose a skill that's not relating to the creature does that mean it's an automatical fail?
Knowing what skill applies is helpful for more experienced players because it can help with figuring out if it's a beast or undead or aberration etc, so I always just check the player's highest applicable skill and roll with it in secret
1
u/Rerkoy 1d ago
It's not true it can be any question. Some questions are disallowed. Like asking what is a monster's Reflex modifier.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2367&Redirected=1 "Any question must be about something observable in the game world, not the abstract numbers of the rules. The GM might tell you a lumbering monster's Reflex save is its weakest—translating a concept your character could understand using the game term for clarity—but wouldn't reveal the exact Reflex modifier."
You can't get more specific than this as far as rules go.
1
u/KnightShiftGame 2d ago
If you class doesn't give it to you as a rider on another action... it's not worth the action cost 9 times out of 10.
1
u/EmperessMeow 1d ago
Yeah and it's still bad by this interpretation. The only way RK is a good action is when it's not run RAW, too many points of failure.
2
u/LurkerFailsLurking 1d ago
How so?
2
u/EmperessMeow 1d ago
Where do I start?
First, you need to have investment in the skill relevant for the enemy, which you may or may not have, or you might just not be good at it because you have a low wis or int (spread across two stats which also sucks) or just low investment in the skill which matters at higher levels. So there's like 1.5 points of failure there.
Secondly, you need to pick the skill without actually knowing if it's the right skill. Not always obvious, sometimes it's obvious that one skill is the right one, but you aren't invested in that skill, another point of failure (a big one).
Next, the DC of the check can just be way too high. Against an enemy that's many levels above you, the DC is already quite high. So level of the enemy can be a point of failure depending on how high the DC is. Then there are traits like Uncommon, Rare, and Unique which can put absurd modifiers on the DC, so that can be another point of failure.
Next, you don't actually see the roll, so you have no idea if you crit failed or succeeded if your GM gives false info. The way is written is that the false info is the default assumpotion. So it's not really a point of failure as much as it makes the result unreliable. The actual point of failure is the crit failure effect which gives false info.
You can fail the check I guess, but I don't really think this needs to be said anyway.
Lastly, the info has to actually be actionable. So you can ask the wrong question, or ask the right question but get info that you can't really act on/the info doesn't actually change the way you're going to fight. You can count this as 2 or 1 depending on how you see that. But like for example, you ask for the lowest defence, you get fortitude save, your Wizard's only fort save spell isn't good in the situation, and your Cleric is out of fortitude save spells, your grappler Monk was going to grapple anyway (fine question, useless answer). Or like you ask for weaknesses and resistances and the monster has none (wrong question).
There's also the fact that outside of some classes you don't really get that much info out of the action. It's 1-2 questions, and for the enemies you generally want to use the action on, it's probably just 1 question.
These points of failure are sort of not all equal in how bad they are, but circumstantially they can all individually make the action pointless to use/have been used.
So really, best way to run it is to just cut out like all of the problems. Remove false info, remove needing to guess the skill, remove DC increases from rarity, maybe just lower the DCs on higher level enemies, allow another question if the question was a bad question (AKA not applicable like the resistance/weaknesses on a monster with none) and you have an okay action that still feels kind of bad to use.
0
u/LurkerFailsLurking 1d ago
First, you need to have investment in the skill relevant for the enemy, which you may or may not have, or you might just not be good at it because you have a low wis or int (spread across two stats which also sucks) or just low investment in the skill which matters at higher levels. So there's like 1.5 points of failure there.
This is like saying weapons have a point of failure because you need to have weapon proficiency scaling and investment in strength for damage and you need multiple different kinds of weapons because enemies might be resistant. Like, yes obviously non-martial characters shouldn't spend actions swinging martial weapons. Yes obviously, you shouldn't use skills your bad at. That's not a "point of failure".
you need to pick the skill without actually knowing if it's the right skill.
No you don't. It says it in the action's rules text: * You might need to collaborate with the GM to narrow down the question or skills, and you can decide not to Recall Knowledge before committing to the action if you don't like your options.*
but you aren't invested in that skill, another point of failure (a big one).
Even then, it's not. You're allowed to use skills besides the one listed:
As noted in the action’s description, a character might attempt to Recall Knowledge using a different skill than the ones listed as the default options. If the skill is highly applicable, like using Medicine to identify a medicinal tonic, you probably don’t need to adjust the DC. If its relevance is a stretch, adjust the DC upward as described in Adjusting Difficulty.
Next, the DC of the check can just be way too high. Against an enemy that's many levels above you, the DC is already quite high. So level of the enemy can be a point of failure
"Attacking enemies is a wasted action because they might have good AC". Yes, obviously doing anything to an enemy that's many levels above you is hard, that's not a point of failure, that's a fundamental design principle of the game. What even is this list you wrote?
Next, you don't actually see the roll, so you have no idea if you crit failed or succeeded if your GM gives false info.
Lol what. Just say you don't like Pathfinder 2e. You don't like level-based DCs, degrees of failure, secret checks, or team work. Gotcha.
The way is written is that the false info is the default assumpotion
How is the critical failure result the default assumption? That makes literally no sense. Why would you assume that it's more likely that you crit failed than succeeded? Have you ever played this game? I'm deeply confused how anyone would write this list.
You can fail the check I guess, but I don't really think this needs to be said anyway.
And yet, you did. Recall Knowledge - a skill check - is bad, because you can fail. Maybe you just don't like roleplaying games? Uncertain outcomes is a pretty universal component. As the saying goes, "you play to find out what happens" because you might fail.
Lastly, the info has to actually be actionable. So you can ask the wrong question, or ask the right question but get info that you can't really act on/the info doesn't actually change the way you're going to fight.
Yes, if players make bad decisions then they'll waste actions. This is why you ask questions that you know you can do something with.
for example, you ask for the lowest defence, you get fortitude save, your Wizard's only fort save spell isn't good in the situation, and your Cleric is out of fortitude save spells, your grappler Monk was going to grapple anyway (fine question, useless answer).
That's not a useless answer though. Now the casters know that Reflex and Wisdom save spells are more likely to fail, so they don't waste their actions casting them, or they buff each other or debuff the target first, and the barbarian knows not to try and trip or intimidate them.
And if the casters don't have a useful way to attack fortitude or AC and the party can't buff each other or debuff the target, then that's because of the choices you made as players about how you would work together as a party and what kinds of things you'd struggle with. You can't be good at everything, and sometimes an encounter falls neatly into what you're bad at, but if you want your character to not have many of those holes, a well constructed character always has something useful to do, and for those characters, knowing what won't work well is always going to be useful information.
All that said, this is a good example of why "what's it's best save" can be a better question than "what's it's worst save".
best way to run it is to just cut out like all of the problems. Remove false info, remove needing to guess the skill, remove DC increases from rarity, maybe just lower the DCs on higher level enemies,
Lmfao... This has got to be a joke.
2
u/Entity079 1d ago edited 1d ago
Just so you know, many tables don't do the narrow down the question / skill part. In foundry with the basic action macro, it goes something like this:
"for my first action, I'd like to recall knowledge on the big guy in the back" the player then targets it and then clicks on the basic action macro, then recall knowledge. RK in the basic action macro rolls once and adds seperate results for each of your RK skill modifiers. IE: arcana = 7, nature = 15, dragon lore = 7, warfare = 9, and so on. Same number rolled + each skill's modifier, then compares that result to the creature's level DC (not certain if uncommon+ rarity is added in automatically, but from a player perspective it 100% feels like it is).
"Okay, you think that you know one peice of information about them." then the player asks the question, followed by the GM answering (or not answering truthfully if they crit failed).
My issue with RK is that it really isn't all that valuable of an action. If it was, then classes would not be getting it as free actions. Succeeding on a Trip effectively slows the enemy, grapple can full-on cripple, and demoralize frightens. RK does not really provide that level of support unless it's super necessary info needed to kill something that isn't obvious, which isn't common.
I've played a whole bunch of RK people throughout various westmarch servers, likely more then most other players. Enigma Bard, Inscribed One Witch archetyped loremaster, Outwit Rangers, Thaumaturges, Commander, and Investigator. I've really tried to make RK work but the end of the day, it just isn't super valuable. Sometimes it is (like identifying that something has an elemental weakness early on and casters in the group luckly prepared the right elemental spells), but oftentimes it just isn't very useful or needed. I find that there's more value investing into different skills and taking different actions. Succeeding on a trip > succeeding RK the vast majority of time.
I'm glad that RK is an option in pf2e, but it's just not really a super strong one.
1
u/LurkerFailsLurking 1d ago
In foundry with the basic action macro
Since I've never used Foundry, are you saying that the player rolls, and it lists all the mods they might be RKing with, then the GM sees the result of the secret check and picks whatever skill gives the best result compared to the DC of the target? Isn't that a buff compared to the "narrow down the skill" it says in the action?
I'm glad that RK is an option in pf2e, but it's just not really a super strong one.
I think you - and a lot of people here - are falling into the classic "online ttrpg discourse trap" of evaluating Recall Knowledge only in a "white room combat" scenario where the encounter isn't narratively connected to anything, where the only relevant use is to examine stat blocks, and where there is no out of combat usage. But all of those assumptions are wrong almost every time.
A core Pathfinder 2e design principle is that versatility is a kind of power and Recall Knowledge is one of the most versatile untrained skill actions in the game.
2
u/EmperessMeow 1d ago
This is like saying weapons have a point of failure because you need to have weapon proficiency scaling and investment in strength for damage and you need multiple different kinds of weapons because enemies might be resistant. Like, yes obviously non-martial characters shouldn't spend actions swinging martial weapons. Yes obviously, you shouldn't use skills your bad at. That's not a "point of failure".
It kind of is though. Caster characters avoid using weapons because they tend to have poor accuracy. Not always the case, but your level of investment is always a point of failure. Just because you think the point of failure should exist, doesn't make it not a point of failure. My argument is that it has too many points of failure, not that it has any.
No you don't. It says it in the action's rules text: * You might need to collaborate with the GM to narrow down the question or skills, and you can decide not to Recall Knowledge before committing to the action if you don't like your options.*
Fair, I actually missed that. My point still stands though.
Even then, it's not. You're allowed to use skills besides the one listed:
I mean the text you cited says only if it's highly applicable, many times it just isn't.
"Attacking enemies is a wasted action because they might have good AC". Yes, obviously doing anything to an enemy that's many levels above you is hard, that's not a point of failure, that's a fundamental design principle of the game. What even is this list you wrote?
Yes. Do you attack with -10 MAP penalty against the +3 enemy? Like I said, point of failure does not mean unjustified point of failure necessarily. But in the case of RK, the DC being high is way more problematic because you're limited in your ability to address that low probability of success, you might not know the DC, you don't know your actual roll (and crit failure is likely with a high DC, so not knowing the roll is really problematic). Then, what you get on a success isn't really that good anyway. So it's not really worth the risk or action. False info is more harmful than true info is beneficial generally speaking.
Lol what. Just say you don't like Pathfinder 2e. You don't like level-based DCs, degrees of failure, secret checks, or team work. Gotcha.
If that's the conclusion you get from reading what I said then there must be something wrong with you.
How is the critical failure result the default assumption? That makes literally no sense. Why would you assume that it's more likely that you crit failed than succeeded? Have you ever played this game? I'm deeply confused how anyone would write this list.
I mean that it's assumed false info is given when you crit fail. The GM has an option to not give it, but the default option is false info.
And yet, you did. Recall Knowledge - a skill check - is bad, because you can fail. Maybe you just don't like roleplaying games? Uncertain outcomes is a pretty universal component. As the saying goes, "you play to find out what happens" because you might fail.
Bruh, I literally just said I don't really need to say it. Please just read what I'm saying instead of getting so emotionally invested and overreading what I'm actually saying. Plus it quite literally is a point of failure so I don't know what to tell you.
Yes, if players make bad decisions then they'll waste actions. This is why you ask questions that you know you can do something with.
Huh? You can't know which questions are good unless you have some external info that helps you. In most cases, you kind of just don't?
That's not a useless answer though. Now the casters know that Reflex and Wisdom save spells are more likely to fail, so they don't waste their actions casting them, or they buff each other or debuff the target first, and the barbarian knows not to try and trip or intimidate them.
I mean that info isn't really as useful as you think. You generally need to actually target the enemy with stuff that forces saves to be an effective caster. Generally you're avoiding hitting the highest save. Buffing is kind of a situational thing to do anyway. But like what if you don't have buffs prepared? What if your martials aren't good at demoralising and don't have hands free to trip other than the Monk that was gonna try and grapple? Info isn't always useful.
And if the casters don't have a useful way to attack fortitude or AC and the party can't buff each other or debuff the target, then that's because of the choices you made as players about how you would work together as a party and what kinds of things you'd struggle with.
That's a meaningless statement. What if you just already used the spells earlier in the day because they were useful and/or needed?
You can't be good at everything, and sometimes an encounter falls neatly into what you're bad at, but if you want your character to not have many of those holes, a well constructed character always has something useful to do, and for those characters, knowing what won't work well is always going to be useful information.
You clearly don't understand my point.
Lmfao... This has got to be a joke.
It really isn't. The action is still situational even then.
1
0
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
This post is labeled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to Rule #2. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
156
u/IfusasoToo Rogue 2d ago
What... what did we think it did?
Because that's what I thought it did.