How to decide if a PC knows a creature's catch

[exploding_brain]

So the following situation came up in a recent session: A party of PCs (built at chest deep) ran into some out of control red court vampires (in horrible bat-monster form, no flesh masks).  Our wizard decided to create a magical block against them, then the player said, "Hey, I'll make it a spirit block, making my pentagram (a holy symbol to my character) shine with bright light, to take advantage of the vampire's vulnerability to sunlight and holy stuff.  Wait, does my character even know about that weakness?  Do I need to roll lore first?"

We just hand waved it, and it turned out not to matter in that combat, but it got me thinking about catches and lore checks in combat.  It seems like that should be one of a Wizard's best tricks in combat against magical creatures.  "That's may not look like a fey, but it is. Hit it with cold iron."  "That's a rare blue-bellied soul-sucker.  It's only vulnerable to obsidian."  But does a character with high lore need to spend an exchange to see if he knows, or can deduce, a monster's catch?  It's not quite the same as assessing or declaring an aspect, and it has a different in-game effect.

Should a character with lore get a "free" lore check to see if he knows a monster's catch?  Should it always take a complete exchange?  Maybe a suplemental action?

How do you estimate the difficulty of the roll?  I assume it's different for a catch that's worth +0, +1, or +2 for obscurity of the information.  Should the monster's social skills be taken into account?

I'm not worried that this is going to break my game, but I'd love to hear what other folks are doing in their games, and how it's working out for them.

[Mindflayer94]

I think for a wizard, they would just know, because as you said, in the novels one of a wizard's biggest advantages is that they know things about supernatural creatures that others don't but any other character would have to make a lore check with a good (3), or great (4) difficulty with a bonus equal to that which the catch gains for how well known the catch is.

[Deadmanwalking]

I think it usually depends on how well-known the creature's Catch is. If they got +0 for it from people knowing, you need a hell of a good reasn (like having actually figured it out previously in play), if they got +1, you can make a high difficulty Lore roll to know it off the top of your head, if they got +2 you just know it.

Obviously, you also know that for your own creature type, and possibly one or two related ones that anyone of your sort would know. For a Wizard, post vampire War, that definitely includes the Red Court.

[CableRouter]

So the following situation came up in a recent session: A party of PCs (built at chest deep) ran into some out of control red court vampires (in horrible bat-monster form, no flesh masks).  Our wizard decided to create a magical block against them, then the player said, "Hey, I'll make it a spirit block, making my pentagram (a holy symbol to my character) shine with bright light, to take advantage of the vampire's vulnerability to sunlight and holy stuff.  Wait, does my character even know about that weakness?  Do I need to roll lore first?"

Possibly.  I'd rule that anyone with Lore will know about the catches of anything supernatural you'd rate as commonly occurring within the supernatural world, which would certainly include Red/Black/White court vampires and Fae.

As for obscurity, anyone with Lore is going to know a +2 awareness catch without needing to roll.  A +0 catch can only be discovered through play, not necessarily in combat though, tracking down a former associate of the big bad to find out how to kill it might work too.  +1 catches are where the rolls would come in, I'd be generous to the monster; maybe making the difficulty equal to the sum of it's two or three highest skills or power costs (two for a general type of critter, three for extremely rare or unique individuals).  Per the Answers trapping under scholarship, if the Lore roll fails (and it should fail pretty big against things like major demons), it moves to the Research trapping, where shifts of time can make up the difference.  The reason I went with skill or power rather than a flat number is that more dangerous creatures are more likely to kill those who oppose them, leaving a very small pool of people who figured out their catch and survived to pass along the knowledge.

Of course, that assumes that the character in question even knows that kind of critter they are looking at.  A Lore check vs the target's highest skill or power cost would be reasonable to determine if they even know what it is; with a failure possibly misidentifying it as a similar creature.

[Ravangames]

Possibly.  I'd rule that anyone with Lore will know about the catches of anything supernatural you'd rate as commonly occurring within the supernatural world, which would certainly include Red/Black/White court vampires and Fae.

I remember even Harry going to Bob and asking him what he knows about them before assuming anything...  so was that just the TV show...

I would argue that the White Court's catch would need a high difficulty Lore role or played out in game... highly unknown.  I don't think Harry even knew what it was till Thomas told him.

Black would known.

Red would be a lore roll of some difficulty... for the non armor around the belly...

The way I did it was everyone tries the normal crap everyone knows about for vampires/werewolves... (for those not in the know)

Sun light, Holy Stuff, Stakes, beheading.... and then makes rolls for any lore checks and research...

for those in the know, I have them do a lore check before play to see where they are at off the bat for that subject (baseline)... and move on from there...  If the character wants to research them during play, I'll let them roll again to see if they figure it out.  Helps speed up the combat encounter if they haven't seen it before.

[Steed]

I think, in that specific example, it would be hard to justify a Wizard not knowing the Red Court's vulnerabilities, assuming this is during the Vampire War.  Even if not all Wizards knew their weaknesses originally (and I'm including the stomach-bursting thing here) they would likely have been informed pretty hastily after the Vampire War began.  You don't leave your troops uninformed when supernatural predators are launching guerilla attacks on them.

[CMEast]

Possibly.  I'd rule that anyone with Lore will know about the catches of anything supernatural you'd rate as commonly occurring within the supernatural world, which would certainly include Red/Black/White court vampires and Fae.

As for obscurity, anyone with Lore is going to know a +2 awareness catch without needing to roll.  A +0 catch can only be discovered through play, not necessarily in combat though, tracking down a former associate of the big bad to find out how to kill it might work too.  +1 catches are where the rolls would come in, I'd be generous to the monster; maybe making the difficulty equal to the sum of it's two or three highest skills or power costs (two for a general type of critter, three for extremely rare or unique individuals).  Per the Answers trapping under scholarship, if the Lore roll fails (and it should fail pretty big against things like major demons), it moves to the Research trapping, where shifts of time can make up the difference.  The reason I went with skill or power rather than a flat number is that more dangerous creatures are more likely to kill those who oppose them, leaving a very small pool of people who figured out their catch and survived to pass along the knowledge.

Of course, that assumes that the character in question even knows that kind of critter they are looking at.  A Lore check vs the target's highest skill or power cost would be reasonable to determine if they even know what it is; with a failure possibly misidentifying it as a similar creature.

Alternatively, you could rule that it would normally take a legendary roll [+8] to work out a catch without any hints, then reduce the difficulty by the cost of the power used. You might not recognise a werewolf at first, but as you see it act abnormally you realise it's behaviour is familiar. In the same way, it might be hard to recognise a demon until it starts throwing around hellfire and leathery wings burst out of its back, suddenly you realise it can't be anything but a demon.

Also, I don't mind just rolling lore automatically for knowledge, however if they are currently in the middle of the action then I might limit their lore skill with awareness, unless they took a supplemental action to roll for lore.

[luminos]

In this kind of situation, the PC's either would know the catch or the won't.  If its something they have faced before and researched, then they might know the catch and there is no reason to roll anything.  Likewise, if its a monster they've never heard of or seen, then they don't know it and there is no reason to roll anything (during the fight.  They can certainly research afterwards).  Its only for extremely hazy borderline cases, where the characters background might justify knowing the creatures weakness but isn't specific enough to let you be sure, that you would do a lore check in the middle of battle.  And if its something thats weaknesses are extraordinarily well known, like Black Court Vampires, it shouldn't require a roll either.

[exploding_brain]

I'm not sure I like that.  Sometimes it's cool if a character can say, "I read about these in Tobin's Spirit Guide!  We can kill it with..."

Sometimes it works better if the player just pays a fate point and point to their "Well read Wizard" aspect to determine that they know the catch, but sometimes it's fun for a bookish PC to roll lore for that kind of thing.

[exploding_brain]

I'd also like to see the PC try something along the lines of, "I think I might know what this thing is vulnerable to.  I'm going to attack it in a way that test my theory."  That would be a perfect opportunity to take a -1 on your attack, and roll lore as a supplemental action.

On the other hand, I think there's probably a more FATEy way to do this, with maneuvers and declarations and tagging for effect and such.  It's just not obvious to me at the moment how to put all the bits together.

[luminos]

oh, I certainly agree that its cooler to let a fate point decide the matter if it can make sense doing so.  Fate points are a great way to justify a character knowing what a player knows.

[Ravangames]

I'd also like to see the PC try something along the lines of, "I think I might know what this thing is vulnerable to.  I'm going to attack it in a way that test my theory."  That would be a perfect opportunity to take a -1 on your attack, and roll lore as a supplemental action.

On the other hand, I think there's probably a more FATEy way to do this, with maneuvers and declarations and tagging for effect and such.  It's just not obvious to me at the moment how to put all the bits together.

Im running an all mortal game and I am looking forward to them finding out that the RCVs dont have armor over their belly and WCV are not afraid of crosses and holy water.

[Remy Sinclair]

I think for a wizard, they would just know, because as you said, in the novels one of a wizard's biggest advantages is that they know things about supernatural creatures that others don't but any other character would have to make a lore check with a good (3), or great (4) difficulty with a bonus equal to that which the catch gains for how well known the catch is.

Harry does not have Lore thus he does not always know, why he has Bob to cover those things in fact it is mentioned in the character description. Molly the apprentice knows less than Harry.

I would think depending on the template and concept it would make it easier on the Ladder for the character being a Wizard to know than lets say a Lycanthrope or a were as example. Harry for instance on the things he does know has to tell Billy what the catch is because Billy and his pack do not know of these things.

That difficulty does go down to the GM and players. Some aspects might effect this as well Loves Old Legends and Myths or My Grandmother Taught Me The Old Ways.

[luminos]

Harry very much has Lore.  He has a Lore at good (+3) at Storm Front.  That still doesn't change the fact that he has to use a mystical library (Bob) to do research.

[prophet224]

In this kind of situation, the PC's either would know the catch or the won't.

Honestly, I don't think there are many cases where this will come up. I mean, if you are facing them off against a "fluted milfonky" (lol--yes, completely made up) then they will have no idea. However, if you have any kind of creature that can, for instance, suck blood, drain life essence, etc. you will have a character that goes "that sounds similar to x,y,z" and starts trying things.

These days there is a great deal of talk and media representation for the supernatural.  Joe Shmoe may hear "chupacabra" and think "I saw that on X-Files".  The media tends to mix up <ahem> "truth" and fiction, but that is the point.  I really think that lore should give a sliding scale of information.  You may not get the catch, but you might have an idea...

Now regarding actually running it, I don't think it should be a complete exchange, unless the creature is using powers to guide the character's mind away from the truth. I think you make anyone, wizard included (wizards don't know EVERYTHING, but they know more than others which is what the Lore skill represents), make a lore check automatically on being given a reason to believe that the creature is not human, but yes, adjusted based on what the creature is doing.  For DnDers, this would be like a disbelief check on illusion. Later in the scene, for instance, if you get more data, then I would let them do a similar 'quick check'  as a supplemental action again modified for how much they have seen (remember they will probably be running under incorrect info more often than not, unless a creature really shows its full abilities). It doesn't take any time, really. If a character has a hunch, they can take a full exchange to really examine and search their memory.  Otherwise, it is 'hey, the way he went up that wall didn't look natural.'  But that still isn't a lot to go on for a lore check.  Transform into a dragon and you've got more to work with.