Couple quick Questions [Archive] - Wizards Community

Couple quick Questions [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Gargs454
07-05-07, 11:44 AM Hey All,

Just a couple of hopefully quick questions. I may have even just overlooked it in the rules, and if so, my apologies.

First: with knowledge checks, is there a way to use just "general knowledge" on a check? i.e. The PC's find a lost historical artifact which would normally call for a Knowledge (History) check. Unfortunately, none of the PC's have taken this skill. Can they just do it untrained with a penalty? If so, what is the penalty? A worse situation would even be if one of the characters has taken a couple of knowledge skills, but now the rest of the party seems to be able to know everything he does anyway, without having to invest the skill points.

On the flip side, I hate the idea of just not allowing them to make a check at all, since it would seem obvious that even non-students of history, nature, religion, etc. would have some knowledge of those fields, and not allowing them a check could lead to some silly results, like "Unfortunately, since you have no Knowledge (Nature) you fail to realize that the creature in front of you is a harmless crow. I've been house ruling it at a -5 penalty which still encourages the use of specialized knowledge skills, but still lets everyone try to recognize the item. Is this correct? Should the penalty be greater?

My second question is with the spell Detect Lies. It states that the spell will reveal any untruths the target utters. What if the target utters a half truth? For example: The target has been sworn to keep a secret. When asked by the cleric that just cast Detect Lies, the target responds "I cannot tell you anything more." Does this register as true since he is sworn to secrecy, or as false since he does technically know more?

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer!
eternalwelcome
07-05-07, 11:57 AM Few options...

knowledge checks are trained only, so no ranks means no checks.

if you allow "general" checks then you take away from the skill or bardic knowledge...you can just share some general info...or a clue or teaser that leads to npc who has the skills and can tell a tale...make a little adventure out of it...ignorance is bliss at the gaming table imo...can lead to a lot of fun options/situations...

so i would say...personally...keep to the rules, no knowledge no check...

you could allow however...an alternate check at higher dc or minuses to role...like instead of history maybe knowlege religion if tied to a church but +5 DC for a little info...or know:arcana at -5 to the role for a few details about the item...

hope this helps a bit...
Salla
07-05-07, 11:58 AM Hey All,

Just a couple of hopefully quick questions. I may have even just overlooked it in the rules, and if so, my apologies.

First: with knowledge checks, is there a way to use just "general knowledge" on a check? i.e. The PC's find a lost historical artifact which would normally call for a Knowledge (History) check. Unfortunately, none of the PC's have taken this skill. Can they just do it untrained with a penalty? If so, what is the penalty? A worse situation would even be if one of the characters has taken a couple of knowledge skills, but now the rest of the party seems to be able to know everything he does anyway, without having to invest the skill points.

See the Knowledge skill description in the PHB. You can attempt a 'general knowledge' (aka untrained) check if the DC for said check is no higher than 10.

My second question is with the spell Detect Lies. It states that the spell will reveal any untruths the target utters. What if the target utters a half truth? For example: The target has been sworn to keep a secret. When asked by the cleric that just cast Detect Lies, the target responds "I cannot tell you anything more." Does this register as true since he is sworn to secrecy, or as false since he does technically know more?

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer!

What the character said, in this instance, is a lie ... he CAN tell the cleric more, he merely choosing not to. (unless he's geased into not talking about it). If he were to say "I won't tell you," then it would be the truth.
eternalwelcome
07-05-07, 12:03 PM double post sorry...

ref;detect lies...i don't have a book and the SRD is unavail to me so i'm going from the head...

"sworn" to secrecy does not denote "CAN NOT" when speaking in the statement...truth vs lies and any grey area inbetween is a huge discussion and basically you need to use your best judgement...

personally i would say that the statement is a lie...something more true would be "I am unwilling to tell you more", or "I am bound not to disclose that information" blah blah blah...
Some_call_me_Tim
07-05-07, 12:08 PM knowledge checks are trained only, so no ranks means no checks.Not exactly; from the Knowledge skill entry:
Untrained
An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).
I doubt this will help in this case.

As eternal welcome says, you can allow the use of alternate but closely related skills at a higher DC.

Plus don't forget circumstance bonuses. A dwarf would know more about dwarven history and should receive a bonus on knowledge(history) checks about dwarves. Of course the half-orc will likely get a penalty.
eternalwelcome
07-05-07, 12:11 PM Thank you Tim...something was tickling the back of skull...like tracking w/o the feat...
Gargs454
07-05-07, 12:20 PM Hey all, thanks for the quick replies (obviously I failed my spot check on the DC 10 part :P ). That certainly clears things up for me.

Also, that is sort of what I was thinking with regard to Detect Lies, but I wanted to make sure before it came up in a session. Unfortunately, it would all be a lot simpler if my players would just remember sense motive, but that one seems to have permanently escaped them.
BigJohn42
07-05-07, 02:05 PM My second question is with the spell Detect Lies. It states that the spell will reveal any untruths the target utters. What if the target utters a half truth? For example: The target has been sworn to keep a secret. When asked by the cleric that just cast Detect Lies, the target responds "I cannot tell you anything more." Does this register as true since he is sworn to secrecy, or as false since he does technically know more?

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer!

I'm going to skip the Knowledge question, as it appears to have been covered quite nicely.

Now, on to Discern Lies. I've appended the appropriate parts of the spell from the SRD.

Discern Lies
Divination
Level: Clr 4, Pal 3
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets: One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 round/level
Saving Throw: Will negates

Each round, you concentrate on one subject, who must be within range. You know if the subject deliberately and knowingly speaks a lie by discerning disturbances in its aura caused by lying. The spell does not reveal the truth, uncover unintentional inaccuracies, or necessarily reveal evasions.

Each round, you may concentrate on a different subject.

Examining the spell, it targets the creature being questioned, not the caster. Therefore, each creature targeted (1/lvl) gets a will save to resist.... Lots of people don't like having their minds "laid bare" like that.

Taking your example: NPC is being questioned, and has "Detect Lies" cast upon him. He fails his Will save (for sake of argument). He reveals some information, which is not banned by his (non-magical) oath of secrecy. Then the NPC is asked something that he has sworn not to reveal. Assuming that the NPC's code of honor is such that he will keep his oaths, it is not a lie that he cannot tell anything more (without violating his code). He didn't say "I don't KNOW anything more," merely that he cannot tell them.

Additionally, if the NPC knows how this spell works (Spellcraft), then he could try to waste time until the 1 rnd/lvl expires. Please note that there's nothing in this spell compelling the NPC to speak at all. He could just stay quiet until the spell elapses.

As far as I'm concerned, this spell is best used with cooperative witnesses, not necessarily as an interrogation tool.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gargs454 07-05-07, 11:44 AM	Hey All, Just a couple of hopefully quick questions. I may have even just overlooked it in the rules, and if so, my apologies. First: with knowledge checks, is there a way to use just "general knowledge" on a check? i.e. The PC's find a lost historical artifact which would normally call for a Knowledge (History) check. Unfortunately, none of the PC's have taken this skill. Can they just do it untrained with a penalty? If so, what is the penalty? A worse situation would even be if one of the characters has taken a couple of knowledge skills, but now the rest of the party seems to be able to know everything he does anyway, without having to invest the skill points. On the flip side, I hate the idea of just not allowing them to make a check at all, since it would seem obvious that even non-students of history, nature, religion, etc. would have some knowledge of those fields, and not allowing them a check could lead to some silly results, like "Unfortunately, since you have no Knowledge (Nature) you fail to realize that the creature in front of you is a harmless crow. I've been house ruling it at a -5 penalty which still encourages the use of specialized knowledge skills, but still lets everyone try to recognize the item. Is this correct? Should the penalty be greater? My second question is with the spell Detect Lies. It states that the spell will reveal any untruths the target utters. What if the target utters a half truth? For example: The target has been sworn to keep a secret. When asked by the cleric that just cast Detect Lies, the target responds "I cannot tell you anything more." Does this register as true since he is sworn to secrecy, or as false since he does technically know more? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer!
eternalwelcome 07-05-07, 11:57 AM	Few options... knowledge checks are trained only, so no ranks means no checks. if you allow "general" checks then you take away from the skill or bardic knowledge...you can just share some general info...or a clue or teaser that leads to npc who has the skills and can tell a tale...make a little adventure out of it...ignorance is bliss at the gaming table imo...can lead to a lot of fun options/situations... so i would say...personally...keep to the rules, no knowledge no check... you could allow however...an alternate check at higher dc or minuses to role...like instead of history maybe knowlege religion if tied to a church but +5 DC for a little info...or know:arcana at -5 to the role for a few details about the item... hope this helps a bit...
Salla 07-05-07, 11:58 AM	Hey All, Just a couple of hopefully quick questions. I may have even just overlooked it in the rules, and if so, my apologies. First: with knowledge checks, is there a way to use just "general knowledge" on a check? i.e. The PC's find a lost historical artifact which would normally call for a Knowledge (History) check. Unfortunately, none of the PC's have taken this skill. Can they just do it untrained with a penalty? If so, what is the penalty? A worse situation would even be if one of the characters has taken a couple of knowledge skills, but now the rest of the party seems to be able to know everything he does anyway, without having to invest the skill points. See the Knowledge skill description in the PHB. You can attempt a 'general knowledge' (aka untrained) check if the DC for said check is no higher than 10. My second question is with the spell Detect Lies. It states that the spell will reveal any untruths the target utters. What if the target utters a half truth? For example: The target has been sworn to keep a secret. When asked by the cleric that just cast Detect Lies, the target responds "I cannot tell you anything more." Does this register as true since he is sworn to secrecy, or as false since he does technically know more? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer! What the character said, in this instance, is a lie ... he CAN tell the cleric more, he merely choosing not to. (unless he's geased into not talking about it). If he were to say "I won't tell you," then it would be the truth.
eternalwelcome 07-05-07, 12:03 PM	double post sorry... ref;detect lies...i don't have a book and the SRD is unavail to me so i'm going from the head... "sworn" to secrecy does not denote "CAN NOT" when speaking in the statement...truth vs lies and any grey area inbetween is a huge discussion and basically you need to use your best judgement... personally i would say that the statement is a lie...something more true would be "I am unwilling to tell you more", or "I am bound not to disclose that information" blah blah blah...
Some_call_me_Tim 07-05-07, 12:08 PM	knowledge checks are trained only, so no ranks means no checks.Not exactly; from the Knowledge skill entry: Untrained An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower). I doubt this will help in this case. As eternal welcome says, you can allow the use of alternate but closely related skills at a higher DC. Plus don't forget circumstance bonuses. A dwarf would know more about dwarven history and should receive a bonus on knowledge(history) checks about dwarves. Of course the half-orc will likely get a penalty.
eternalwelcome 07-05-07, 12:11 PM	Thank you Tim...something was tickling the back of skull...like tracking w/o the feat...
Gargs454 07-05-07, 12:20 PM	Hey all, thanks for the quick replies (obviously I failed my spot check on the DC 10 part :P ). That certainly clears things up for me. Also, that is sort of what I was thinking with regard to Detect Lies, but I wanted to make sure before it came up in a session. Unfortunately, it would all be a lot simpler if my players would just remember sense motive, but that one seems to have permanently escaped them.
BigJohn42 07-05-07, 02:05 PM	My second question is with the spell Detect Lies. It states that the spell will reveal any untruths the target utters. What if the target utters a half truth? For example: The target has been sworn to keep a secret. When asked by the cleric that just cast Detect Lies, the target responds "I cannot tell you anything more." Does this register as true since he is sworn to secrecy, or as false since he does technically know more? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer! I'm going to skip the Knowledge question, as it appears to have been covered quite nicely. Now, on to Discern Lies. I've appended the appropriate parts of the spell from the SRD. Discern Lies Divination Level: Clr 4, Pal 3 Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Targets: One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart Duration: Concentration, up to 1 round/level Saving Throw: Will negates Each round, you concentrate on one subject, who must be within range. You know if the subject deliberately and knowingly speaks a lie by discerning disturbances in its aura caused by lying. The spell does not reveal the truth, uncover unintentional inaccuracies, or necessarily reveal evasions. Each round, you may concentrate on a different subject. Examining the spell, it targets the creature being questioned, not the caster. Therefore, each creature targeted (1/lvl) gets a will save to resist.... Lots of people don't like having their minds "laid bare" like that. Taking your example: NPC is being questioned, and has "Detect Lies" cast upon him. He fails his Will save (for sake of argument). He reveals some information, which is not banned by his (non-magical) oath of secrecy. Then the NPC is asked something that he has sworn not to reveal. Assuming that the NPC's code of honor is such that he will keep his oaths, it is not a lie that he cannot tell anything more (without violating his code). He didn't say "I don't KNOW anything more," merely that he cannot tell them. Additionally, if the NPC knows how this spell works (Spellcraft), then he could try to waste time until the 1 rnd/lvl expires. Please note that there's nothing in this spell compelling the NPC to speak at all. He could just stay quiet until the spell elapses. As far as I'm concerned, this spell is best used with cooperative witnesses, not necessarily as an interrogation tool.