Knowledge checks remove mystery?

H

hailstop

First Post

• Aug 14, 2009

• #1

Is it just me or is it way to easily to succeed at Monster Knowledge checks, specifically to find out what powers it has?

It seems to me that in every encounter the PCs are able to figure out everything about the creature, at least power-wise.

I don't want to eliminate the utility of the skill use, but I think the way it currently is going isn't as much fun...especially for those 'surprises'. I think the last time the PCs were actually caught by a close burst from a killed creature was over six months ago...

 

log in or register to remove this ad

weem

First Post

• Aug 14, 2009

• #2

When it comes up, I have not seen more successes than failures - seems pretty even (they generally get the low-mid range info).

With that said though, I really don't allow knowledge rolls on every monster - I think about how common they are - how often they may be encountered etc. After all, their information would come from other peoples experiences. So, if a monster they are fighting is not as common, I may not allow it, or may up the difficulty. But to be honest, my players don't ask to do it often (never have much, even before not allowing it in some cases).

 

M

Markn

First Post

• Aug 14, 2009

• #3

In the DMG it talks about using the passive version of those skills. If you use that, it works quite nicely because in the early part of a tier PCs pretty much only get the basics. As they advance they learn the powers and as they approach near the end of the tier they start getting vulnerabilities and immunities. Once they start the new tier, the DCs go up and the process starts over again.

Additionally, when it comes to powers many DMs don't go into details. For example, they would explain that a dragon would have a breath weapon of flame but wouldn't go into the details of a burst, blast, or how big. I'd also recommend this approach.

Hope that helps!

 

Hjorimir

Adventurer

• Aug 14, 2009

• #4

I tend to describe powers in general (non-mechanical) terms when this comes up. Instead of telling the PCs that a monster breathes acid when it becomes bloodied, I might say that you've heard that such creatures may breathe acid in the throws of combat.

I don't give specific values for Resistances and Vulnerabilities.

The only specifics I give are for Name, type, and keywords, but the Name may be different in my homebrew setting, so that may not help all that much anyway.

 

Theo R Cwithin

I cast "Baconstorm!"

• Aug 14, 2009

• #5

You could use monster with variant powers. Allow the Skill checks as normal, but always qualify the information with something like "It's an otyugh, blah, blah, blah. But this one's different." Then give a litttle extra description to hint at what the difference is. For example "Beyond its normal foul aroma, it reeks strongly of vinegar making your eyes water. But you've never that these things should smell like that," which could indicate it might have an acid attack - without giving away any specifics: spit? slime? breath?. Only on an very high Knowledge check would a PC recall "From an old Abyssal Geographic article that you read back in kindegarten, you vaguely remember reading about the Fetid Sourmouth, a more evolved cousin of the otyugh that belches a cloud of acidic gas every 1d4 rounds in a 10' radius cloud." And an exceptionally high check might yield: "Oh yeah, and it can fly at 10' per round by inflating its gas bladder and propelling itself forward by squeezing acidic gas out its..."

 

Glyfair

Explorer

• Aug 14, 2009

• #6

One thing I liked in the Eberron campaign setting is that they had 2 extra levels of knowledge for world related bits. They had "Common Knowledge" (which everyone knew) and "Secret Knowledge" ( which no one knows). The first didn't require a knowledge check and the second could never be found just by a knowledge check.

You could just carry that over to monsters. I'd make it reasonable, after all the character is knowledgeable about that area and at the levels they have it would likely have a chance to know most of the information in monster statblocks. Still, a creature that has just appeared in the world for the first time would have, at best, sketchy assumptions based on similarities to monsters the players know about.

 

Hjorimir

Adventurer

• Aug 15, 2009

• #7

I think you'd be totally justified adding a rarity modifier to the knowledge check (or outright denying a knowledge check for certain monsters).

 

coyote6

Adventurer

• Aug 15, 2009

• #8

Yeah, Knowledge checks about monsters should (or at least could) vary by setting. In one setting, trolls might be a well-known threat, and thus easy DCs are appropriate; in another setting, they might only haunt an area far from civilization, leading to information being rare, and the DCs be higher.

 

Ed_Laprade

Adventurer

• Aug 15, 2009

• #9

A lot of good advice. For myself, I assume that one of the reasons they became adventurers in the first place was because of all the stories they heard in their youth. And that after becoming adventurers they actively seek out such knowledge. Of course, that may not apply to everyone in the party, but it should to most. (And I hate it when a GM says that you don't recognise the most common monsters in the world because you've never seen one yourself. Blah!)

 

LostSoul

Adventurer

• Aug 15, 2009

• #10

You could also be a hard-ass and give them incorrect information on a failure.