D&D 5E Knowlage checks

[nomotog]

How do people handle knowledge checks? The form that was drilled into me is that players make a knowledge check and it's the DMs job to pull out some useful information to give to the player, but I don't really like that style. It's very reliant on the DM to come up with bits of information and the player doesn't have much involvement in the outcome.

My idea for a replacement is more of a question and answer mechanic. The player gets to ask a question about the topic, and then the DM answers honestly. A failed check won't result in incorrect information, but it means you can't ask any more questions about the subject unless you find new information or perform a new test of some kind.

The DC of the knowledge check would be based the vagueness of the question. A question that can be answered with a yes or no is a simple DC10. To get a 1 or 2 word answer, you need to pass a DC of 15. Then if you need a more complex answer of a few sentences you have to roll over 20.

Good bad idea? How do other people handle knowledge skills?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I use the traditional method, which you dislike, because the alternative doesn't make sense to me.

The character shouldn't get to decide what it knows, and once the game starts, neither should the player. If it wasn't determined in the pre-game that a character does know a particular bit of information, then it should be random - and only the DM can be trusted to be unbiased in that regard.

 

[the Jester]

I'll stay traditional, thanks. I agree with [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] about the logic of the situation.

 

[Riley37]

I dunno that tinkering with mechanics is the best way to resolve the thing you don't like.

If I understand correctly, what you don't like is either having to do worldbuilding on the fly, or having to recite info from encylopedic knowledge of an already-written game world.

Perhaps a few specific, concrete examples would help?

I've posted in the Impossible Ability Check thread, some opinions about what might count as "lore"; for example, what Galdalf knew about the Balrog, vs. what Legolas knew, vs. what the hobbits knew.

 

[nomotog]

I dunno that tinkering with mechanics is the best way to resolve the thing you don't like.

If I understand correctly, what you don't like is either having to do worldbuilding on the fly, or having to recite info from encylopedic knowledge of an already-written game world.

Perhaps a few specific, concrete examples would help?

I've posted in the Impossible Ability Check thread, some opinions about what might count as "lore"; for example, what Galdalf knew about the Balrog, vs. what Legolas knew, vs. what the hobbits knew.

The world building thing taxing. Though my main problem is the skill is very random on how well it works. Your throwing out a check and hoping you get something useful back from it, but you could get anything. With something like an attack roll you kind of have a good idea what can happen. You can hit, or miss. With a knowledge check you have no idea what kind of result you might get.

Like lets say a PC makes a knowledge check to find out more about a golem. What do you tell them? I assume something useful on a high check and something less useful on a low one, but would you even know what the player would consider useful in this case?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Like lets say a PC makes a knowledge check to find out more about a golem. What do you tell them? I assume something useful on a high check and something less useful on a low one, but would you even know what the player would consider useful in this case?

Don't base it on what would be useful. Base it on what they would be likely to know - a low roll only gives something that they would be very likely to know (or nothing), and a high roll would give stuff that they would be unlikely to know.

Maybe if they roll a 10, then they know that stone golems are super strong and super tough (and maybe a magic weapon would have a better chance of cutting through their defenses); if they roll 15, then they know about resisting spells; if they roll 20, then they know about the slowing effect.

You have to think about what would be obvious to anyone seeing it, and what sort of information would be passed on to others.

 

[nomotog]

Don't base it on what would be useful. Base it on what they would be likely to know - a low roll only gives something that they would be very likely to know (or nothing), and a high roll would give stuff that they would be unlikely to know.

Maybe if they roll a 10, then they know that stone golems are super strong and super tough (and maybe a magic weapon would have a better chance of cutting through their defenses); if they roll 15, then they know about resisting spells; if they roll 20, then they know about the slowing effect.

You have to think about what would be obvious to anyone seeing it, and what sort of information would be passed on to others.

My worry is that makes the skill even more random. (and more labor intensive for the DM.) My thinking is wouldn't it be easier if players could be more direct and ask dose my character know what a golem eats, or dose my character know what spells would be good to cast?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

My worry is that makes the skill even more random. (and more labor intensive for the DM.) My thinking is wouldn't it be easier if players could be more direct and ask dose my character know what a golem eats, or dose my character know what spells would be good to cast?

That's a fair concern. I guess you could allow that approach, but I have to imagine the DCs would be higher. They would get less information out of it than if you just tell them everything up to a certain point, but it's less work for you.

Going with my previous examples to set the DC, let's say that it would take a DC 15 check to know that stone golems are weak to a certain spell. If they make that check, then they know that one thing, but they don't know any of the other stuff. It also means that you have to be ready to answer any question that they give you, and there's no way of knowing what they'll ask.

 

[Tormyr]

My worry is that makes the skill even more random. (and more labor intensive for the DM.) My thinking is wouldn't it be easier if players could be more direct and ask dose my character know what a golem eats, or dose my character know what spells would be good to cast?

This could work. Have them tell you what about their background or experiences would give them the possibility of knowing that information. A wizard/scholar could make an Intelligence (Arcana) check to know what spells might be useful (or not) against the golem. A ranger might make a Wisdom (Survival) check to determine if it has noticed what golems eat in the past.

As for DC, 10 is likely to know information, 15 is maybe and 20 is not likely to know the information. Another way to set DC would be 10 + CR for 1 piece of specific information.

Whichever method is chosen, it is basically a (common) house rule since monster knowledge checks are not really in this edition.

 

[nomotog]

This could work. Have them tell you what about their background or experiences would give them the possibility of knowing that information. A wizard/scholar could make an Intelligence (Arcana) check to know what spells might be useful (or not) against the golem. A ranger might make a Wisdom (Survival) check to determine if it has noticed what golems eat in the past.

As for DC, 10 is likely to know information, 15 is maybe and 20 is not likely to know the information. Another way to set DC would be 10 + CR for 1 piece of specific information.

Whichever method is chosen, it is basically a (common) house rule since monster knowledge checks are not really in this edition.

There not in this version? Did I imagine them then? What is the arcane proficiency for if it's not a knowledge skill?