D&D 5E 5e Do How Often Do You Use Skill Checks for ‘Monster Knowledge’

[Umbran]

I use such things pretty frequently - in D&D or other games.

I figure that my players don't generally read the GM's books, and the players are at the table only a few hours a month. The PCs are in the game world constantly, and will typically have a lot more information than the players do. To cover the gaps, I may just flat out tell them really common knowledge, and let them roll for less common knowledge.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Two reasons why it is important to me to use them:

1. Sometimes the characters should known things the players don't.
2. Sometimes the players know things the character's shouldn't.

Since I like to keep in-character and out-of-character knowledge separate, it's kind of important.

The first time they run into something I'll either describe it, show them a picture, or both. Proficient characters essentially get a passive skill check to know basic info about the creature. If anyone (proficient or not) wants to know a specific detail they can make a skill check.

Once a character is exposed to any information (including about creatures) I assume they more or less remember it--especially when it involved survival in a life or death situation. Having proficiency in a skill represents a broad body of knowledge and a good chance to know about anything within that knowledge, but you don't need any proficiency to pick up facts and file them away. So the proficient character can easily fill in the party ahead of time if they are going up against a specific foe.

Lack of specific correlation between skills and creatures types has kind of bugged me. I don't mind letting it be bit more open, but I do mind how the descriptions mention some creatures and not others. Here's my tentative way of splitting it up in 5e:

Arcana: Aberrations, Constructs, Elementals
History: Humanoids, Giants, Dragons, Monstrosities
Nature: Beasts, plants, fey, oozes
Religion: Undead, Celestials, Fiends

The reasoning is that Arcana covers creatures that are strongly magical in nature. Religion covers creatures that are strongly connected to the Upper or Lower planes, or infused with good/evil positive energy/negative energy. Nature covers natural creatures and the fey (especially with the stronger mystical connection to nature that they are given in 5e). History covers creatures that have a society*, as well as those that are most likely to be known about through legends. (I really liked the Knowledge (folklore) skill from some of the earlier playtests, and put a bit of that into History).

Also, if you speak a language, I assume you know something of the culture of the species the language belongs to.

Dragons and monstrosities were the only difficult ones to classify, since they can both be magical to various degrees, but I decided to place the dividing line so as to make the History skill stronger, since Arcana, dealing with all thing magical, is already a more attractive skill than History overall.

Of course, those are your defaults. You can always make a case for using a different skill to know about something.

*I fold the 3e Knowledge (local) and Knowledge (nobility & royalty) into History. Basically anything about peoples and societies.

 

[Starfox]

Also, if you speak a language, I assume you know something of the culture of the species the language belongs to.

I use this too. Alot. It makes actually knowing a language a valuable asset, rather than making languages the domain of spells alone. Tongues and the like make you a fluent, but not an ideomatic speaker. The devil is in the details, and customs super-important.

 

[steeldragons]

Also, if you speak a language, I assume you know something of the culture of the species the language belongs to.

I use this too. Alot. It makes actually knowing a language a valuable asset, rather than making languages the domain of spells alone. Tongues and the like make you a fluent, but not an ideomatic speaker. The devil is in the details, and customs super-important.

Ditto.

 

[Fire Brand]

Two reasons why it is important to me to use them:
1. Sometimes the characters should known things the players don't.
2. Sometimes the players know things the character's shouldn't.
[...]
Here's my tentative way of splitting it up in 5e:
Arcana: Aberrations, Constructs, Elementals
History: Humanoids, Giants, Dragons, Monstrosities
Nature: Beasts, plants, fey, oozes
Religion: Undead, Celestials, Fiends
[...]
Also, if you speak a language, I assume you know something of the culture of the species the language belongs to.
[..]

Outstanding. The origins is along the lines of what the 4e was getting at. It was probably more mechanical than organic. 5e's flavor will open that up. I also agree as others have below that you make a great point about the use of known or languages. and ones that can learned in the new 'Downtime' feature that will be avaiable in upcoming published adventures as was pointed out earlier.

 

[TwoSix]

LOL "Let me eat a pizza while you photocopy the stat block." Some DC Lore checks in 4e are really high. But that's a good one.

In my last Pathfinder campaign, the 20th level bard ended up easily being to make Knowledge checks with results in the high 60s. When they fought something, I would just hand him the stat block and ask him to give it back to me when he was done.

 

[Fire Brand]

In my last Pathfinder campaign, the 20th level bard ended up easily being to make Knowledge checks with results in the high 60s. When they fought something, I would just hand him the stat block and ask him to give it back to me when he was done.

At least the earned it! At that level it's probably a 2 page stat block : I'd give him a time limit with a hourglass (more of a medieval feeling timer) then make him give it back lol

 

[sunshadow21]

One thing I tend to do is if they have rolls that high is just tell them that the stats in the monster manual represent the typical stats of that creature, but exceptions do exist, and I rarely follow the listed stats 100%, so the numbers listed may not be entirely accurate, and occasionally the powers, skills, or feats listed will be different. I find that this gives them a decent idea of what to expect while emphasizing that individual variations require specific research into that individual to be absolutely certain. Makes knowledge checks useful without being a metagame crutch.

 

[Savage Wombat]

On the one hand, I as DM prefer to keep my monster's abilities secret for the entertaining surprise value. I'll give you basic information on a KN roll when appropriate. You can learn through play like the characters do.

On the other hand, my wife haaaaaates having to remember whether it's, say, demons or devils that are immune to electricity. So she really wants to be able to ask someone before wasting a spell.

 

[trentonjoe]

bump