D&D 5E Recalling lore about creatures... what does it entail?

clearstream said:

Do you feel any concern that some class features (the ones I cited) are rendered fairly valueless by this approach? Do those features seem more or less like design errors?

Click to expand...

Not really, no.

There's a difference between lore that hints at potential stat info (skill check) and telling a player a monster's vulnerabilities outright (Hunter's Sense). Look back at my example – yes, the player who made the Religion check guessed that the wight was vulnerable to sunlight, but they had no idea about silver overcoming a wight's resistances. In fact, the party had a silver weapon, but no one thought to use it, and the fight was harder because of that. If a Monster Slayer ranger had been in the group and spent an action to expend a use of Hunter's Sense, they would have had that information.

Similarly, the Monster Slayer ranger's Hunter's Sense wouldn't have picked up on all that juicy lore information about wights, particularly they would have missed out on "You've heard stories of ancient human civilizations in the jungle whose aristocrats and priests voluntarily become undead, their wicked hearts and minds sworn in service to the dark entity that granted them undeath" (clue about being failed warlocks which hints at spellcasting capabilities, and clue about voluntarily embracing undeath which is relevant to the rest of the adventure) & the bit about "It is said that the moon was so offended by the sight of these wights crawling from their ruined cities at night that she cursed them to reveal their true forms under her light" (a clue I made up which makes the sun dispel any disguise self a deathlock is using). The Monster Slayer would have missed out on all that.

So, it depends on your point of view. Are there parts of D&D that are important which have nothing to do with combat or even dice-rolling?

If you're the type of player who would answer "no, the important parts are where I kick ass", then you probably don't see any use in the Religion check, while favoring Hunter's Sense.

Conversely, if you're the type of player who would answer "absolutely, yes", then you probably would prefer the information offered by the Religion check, and would view the Hunter's Sense info as inferior because it's only of short-term use and doesn't shine a light on the bigger picture.

I tend to give out some information based on the character and the level of the monster. I figure that growing up in the world and with background and training for first level gives out a bit of knowledge. For example, first time the PCs run into skeletons- they know that bludgeoning deals more damage, or that shadows steal strength. Some stuff is obvious like frost giants should not be targeted with cold spells.

Hiya!

clearstream said:

Do you mean that the class features I quoted from WotC official publications are cheating players out of one of the greatest parts of the game?

Click to expand...

Yes, in a nutshell.

But one of the beauties of 5e is that it's the most forgiving version of D&D since 1e AD&D, and because of that me and my group can play the way we like (re: Old Skool, basically ignoring or glossing-over the stuff calling for rolls normally)...and the game system doesn't "break".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Quickleaf said:

There's a difference between lore that hints at potential stat info (skill check) and telling a player a monster's vulnerabilities outright (Hunter's Sense). Look back at my example – yes, the player who made the Religion check guessed that the wight was vulnerable to sunlight, but they had no idea about silver overcoming a wight's resistances. In fact, the party had a silver weapon, but no one thought to use it, and the fight was harder because of that. If a Monster Slayer ranger had been in the group and spent an action to expend a use of Hunter's Sense, they would have had that information.

Click to expand...

Right, that makes sense. They received hints, but not the precise information, such as about resistances, that the class feature would have revealed.

pming said:

But one of the beauties of 5e is that it's the most forgiving version of D&D since 1e AD&D, and because of that me and my group can play the way we like (re: Old Skool, basically ignoring or glossing-over the stuff calling for rolls normally)...and the game system doesn't "break".

Click to expand...

I hear people say this, and perhaps I've always been wayward as a DM, but no version of D&D (since 1e AD&D) has felt more, or less, forgiving to me. We've always been able to play the way we like.

So far, zero visits from the TSR/WotC rules police to make us stop.

clearstream said:

The presence of class features to learn those things implies that those things can't be learned without the feature.

Click to expand...

First of all, that's BS. Those features entitle the PCS to learn that information, but don't preclude other waysto obtain the same.

In general the game assumes the DM doesn't show monsters stats to the players, but the designers are not fools and they know that many players own the MM, or know many monsters already by having encountered them before. Still, those features are useful against creatures they don't know yet, including presumably all unique creatures such as NPCs.

Knowledge skills are still totally valid to know stuff about monsters, they are just more subject to DM's adjudication, and rightly so! Because every DM has the right to decide what creatures in her fantasy world are commonly known and which are rare, unheard of, or misknown.

Further, those abilities do NOT represent knowing, they represent sensing or figuring out, in factthey require observation or interaction. So there is narrative space for them alongside knowledge skills.

That means, you are totally fine continuing using knowledge skills for monsters knowledge in your favourite way. Speaking of which, I do not allow them too much for this purpose, but at the same time I require no action for a knowledge skill, because I prefer the "what you already know" interpretation over the "what you can recall by actively thinking hard".

Li Shenron said:

First of all, that's BS. Those features entitle the PCS to learn that information, but don't preclude other ways to obtain the same.

Click to expand...

By "implies" I intended only implies. I agree that as you say, it does not mandate that there are no other ways to obtain the same information.

Li Shenron said:

In general the game assumes the DM doesn't show monsters stats to the players, but the designers are not fools and they know that many players own the MM, or know many monsters already by having encountered them before. Still, those features are useful against creatures they don't know yet, including presumably all unique creatures such as NPCs.

Click to expand...

That's true and some posters prefer the "old skool" approach of allowing players to know only what they know. It depends whether a group's RP includes suspending such knowledge or not, and I suppose if a DM often tweaks their creatures!

Li Shenron said:

Knowledge skills are still totally valid to know stuff about monsters, they are just more subject to DM's adjudication, and rightly so! Because every DM has the right to decide what creatures in her fantasy world are commonly known and which are rare, unheard of, or misknown.

Click to expand...

Agreed. In fact, I was thinking more that perhaps these class features offer a guide to the kind of effort and DCs associated with recalling lore about creatures (if that happens at all in a DM's campaign)? Say that where a feature makes something automatic, at the same level a skill should offer no better than a 50/50, then it could be that...

Lore DCs
It usually takes one minute to recall lore comprising multiple facts, but an isolated fact can be recalled by taking an action to reflect. Any helpers must also spend a minute or an action, including any casting Guidance. For concrete lore about creatures, the following DCs may be typical –

Difficulty-------------DC------------Lore Recalled
Very Easy--------------5
Easy ------------------10--------------Creature type and usual alignment; languages
Moderate--------------15--------------Damage immunities, resistances or vulnerabilities; condition immunities; senses; movement types; regional effects
Hard-------------------20--------------If a creature is your equal or superior in Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, AC, current HP, or class levels in your class; actions; skills; traits
Very Hard-------------25--------------If a creature is your equal or superior in Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, total class levels; spells
Nearly Impossible----30--------------Saving throws; legendary actions; lair actions

Another approach might be to base it on CR, but when I looked at that it seemed to me quite possible legendary creatures could be better known than low-CR obscure ones. As an aside, I've also found a bit of over-reliance on Arcana for everything remotely magical, while it seems to me that in a magical world, magical creatures that are part of an ecology are really quite natural. Perhaps the types might be split like this -

Arcana
Aberrations, Celestials, Constructs, Fiends, most Monstrosities

History
Most Humanoids

Nature
Beasts, Dragons, Elementals, Fey, Giants, Oozes, Plants

Religion
Undead

Hiya!

clearstream said:

I hear people say this, and perhaps I've always been wayward as a DM, but no version of D&D (since 1e AD&D) has felt more, or less, forgiving to me. We've always been able to play the way we like.

So far, zero visits from the TSR/WotC rules police to make us stop.

Click to expand...

I think it's in the "modularity" of 1e. Nothing is really "glued together" with 1e...if a DM wants, they an rip out the Proficiency rules and replace them with the ones from Powers & Perils (and old, early 80's fantasy RPG by Avalon Hill). Nothing else in the game will really be affected. Same with pretty much everything else.

With 3.x/4e/PF, it's all so..."tight" with tendrils of one area snaking into others, it becomes more of a chore to consider the consequences of mucking with a major aspect of the game. With the advent of 5e, however, it has sort of severed many of these tendrils...almost like they are lego pieces. They can be shifted around her and there and still remain attached. You can even outright remove a piece and the system doesn't just implode (e.g., the OPTIONAL rules of Feats and Multiclassing; we don't use them, and the game runs just fine...).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

pming said:

I think it's in the "modularity" of 1e. Nothing is really "glued together" with 1e...if a DM wants, they an rip out the Proficiency rules and replace them with the ones from Powers & Perils (and old, early 80's fantasy RPG by Avalon Hill). Nothing else in the game will really be affected. Same with pretty much everything else.

With 3.x/4e/PF, it's all so..."tight" with tendrils of one area snaking into others, it becomes more of a chore to consider the consequences of mucking with a major aspect of the game. With the advent of 5e, however, it has sort of severed many of these tendrils...almost like they are lego pieces. They can be shifted around her and there and still remain attached. You can even outright remove a piece and the system doesn't just implode (e.g., the OPTIONAL rules of Feats and Multiclassing; we don't use them, and the game runs just fine...).

Click to expand...

I know exactly what you mean, and I agree with you about 1e's modularity (and special cases!) that made it easy to remove and replace parts. Yet I can't agree about 5e. So much in 5e is stitched together in sophisticated ways or cross-balanced. Features appeal to underlying principles that cut across multiple classes.

I mean, look at their reasoning for Monk unarmed attacks not getting finesse, despite the very similar text that applies to them: it was out of concern for multiclassing cases where multiple core contributors to damage might be stacked. Or look at the text of Crossbow Expert and reflect on how it interacts with the ammunition rules so that a change to one can be stymied by the existence of the other. Or Long Jump in move, which has a tie in with some specific pieces of text under Strength in abilities. Look at the care in wording the features that expand critical hit range, due to interactions across the system such as with GWM. Consider the careful "that you can see" wording, and how it is entangled with multiple spells and the vision and stealth rules. There are even cases such as the Abjuration ward that is carefully not temporary HP, with consequences on the way it interacts with Concentration.

And then, consider how much more leverage characters have on the fiction, at lower levels, than earlier editions (sans splatbook madness, of course). That adds to complexity at the table. I think a key win for 5e has been in encouraging DMs and players not to get too hung up on the rules, rather than that the rules are simpler or less sophisticated. In places, they've streamlined... largely without losing expressive power nor complex entanglements across the extant game system.

I use passive knowledge checks* to determine what the characters may know about a creature they face. If they fail (or want more knowledge), they can take an action to study them and think about it.

In general, the only information I give out is creature name, type, short ecology, and any very notable traits. The DC starts at about 10 to get name and type, with more details on the ecology with a DC15. Starting with 15, I start giving out notable traits, based on the actual roll. I don't often give out weaknesses, unless they are already well known (burn trolls, stake vampires, etc.), but I might give out strengths (breath weapon, energy attacks, spellcasting, etc.).


*We play in roll20, so I have a macro I use to roll against all the PCs passive scores at once. Very useful, but only with an automated system.