Knowledge skills (Identifying a creature)

[iwatt]

I've always been bothered with the way identifying creatures using knowledge is defined in the RAW. As it stands, it's harder for a wizard to identify a Bear than a mephit. (assuming equal skill modifiers in both areas). So I proposed the following rules change:


KNOWLEDGE SKILLS

To identify creatures and their abilities, a knowledge check result determines what information, if any, you obtain. The DCs listed are for creatures qualified as common. For more mysterious or unknown creatures, adjust the DC.

The tiers of Knowledge checks, and the information they provide are:

DC 5 Basic: Name/Type of creature.
DC 10 Advanced: How big a threat it is? (Give CR range for example)
DC 15 Expert: A Strength and a weakness. (A special attack, and one of it's vulnerabilities)
DC 20 Master: A complete understanding of the beast.

Creatures can be catalogued as:

I) Common: Use base DCs
II) Uncommon: Adjust base DCs by +5
III) Rare: Adjust base DCs by +10
IV) Extremely Rare: Adjust base DCs by +15
V) Nearly Unique: Adjust base DCs by +20

Common - seen frequently, mostly animal or very prevalent in area (ie goblins in a area known to be controlled by goblins)

Uncommon - one of the local top predators in an area, travelers frequently warned about them. (i.e.) Ogres, Ghouls, gaint spiders, demon/devil identification (lemure vs drech)

Rare - The impressive and locally famous beasts, monsters that are native to the area, but have not been refered to or previously mentioned in the campign.
ie Dragons in nearby habitats, Sphinx in dessert or barrens, Aboleth in underdark most demons/devils.

Very Rare - WTF monsters - Grey Renders, Purple Worms, Tojanda, beholders, Gotorsti demons

Nearly Unique - a monster that the party would have no way of knowing about, new to the world or where only one exists in the world - ethergaunt, katori, juggernaut, Radient Dragon.
Some unique monsters are better known, ie if your world has a tarrasque, and it has ever been awake in recorded history people may know of it.



EDIT: The guidelines describing rarity were provide by courtesy of EvilHalfling. Thanx EH.

 

[iwatt]

No comments?


BUMP

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just found this post.

Overall, I like the idea. Some creatures will be more common in certain areas than others, and in certain campaigns. I, for example, never use umber hulks or phantom fungi.

DCs, of course, depend upon what you expect from your players. Assuming a +2 attribute bonus and 4 skill ranks (reasonable at 1st level), a person will automatically recognize all the common creatures in his area and 85% of the uncommon creatures. He will at least know what 55% of the rare creatures are, and 35% of the extremely rare creatures. This is, again, at first level.

As something of an armchair naturalist and a semi-regular hiker, I would recognize a deer or a bear, but I would not be able to name every type of creature with the same accuracy. Certainly I could say, "Some form of frog, and probably a leopard frog (but maybe a wood frog)" with a fair degree of confidence. This leads me to accept the percentages for common and uncommon creatures.

I would adjust more for rare and extremely rare creatures, though. Say, a +15 adjustment for rare creatures and a +25 adjustment for extremely rare creatures. Then adjust back down on the basis of CR, i.e., for every 4 full points of CR, the DC of the check is lowered by 2. You are far more likely to know about the things that can hurt you than the ones you can ignore.


RC

 

[iwatt]

I would adjust more for rare and extremely rare creatures, though. Say, a +15 adjustment for rare creatures and a +25 adjustment for extremely rare creatures.

Then adjust back down on the basis of CR, i.e., for every 4 full points of CR, the DC of the check is lowered by 2. You are far more likely to know about the things that can hurt you than the ones you can ignore.

I was trying to keep it simple, so I went for +5 increments (easier to remember on the fly). Also, I want to get away from making the knowledge based on CR. I believe rarity should be the sole argument for a DC modifier. Because if not you run into the problem that a templated creature is moer recongizable than the base creature.


Let's compare the chances for each Tier, assuming a level 1, 5 and 9 Wizard (18 Int) with max ranks in the corrsponding knowledge skill. That is skills with +8,+12,+17

ORIGINAL
RARE
DC 15/20/25/30
LEVEL 1: 70%/45%/20%/0%
LEVEL 5: 90%/65%/40%/15%
LEVEL 9: 100%/90%/65%/40%

VERY RARE
DC 20/25/30/35
LEVEL 1: 45%/20%/0%/0%
LEVEL 5: 65%/40%/15%/0%
LEVEL 9: 90%/65%/40%/15%

ALTERNATE
RARE
DC 20/25/30/35
LEVEL 1: 45%/20%/0%/0%
LEVEL 5: 65%/40%/15%/0%
LEVEL 9: 90%/65%/40%/15%

VERY RARE
DC 30/35/40/45
LEVEL 1: 0%/0%/0%/0%
LEVEL 5: 15%/0%/0%/0%
LEVEL 9: 40%/15%/0%/0%

This makes it very hard for even a focused character (max skills) to even know how threatening the creature is. I think +15/+25 is a bit too harsh. YMMV though

 

[Raven Crowking]

This makes it very hard for even a focused character (max skills) to even know how threatening the creature is. I think +15/+25 is a bit too harsh. YMMV though

I don't have a real problem with a character not knowing everything about a creature he encounters. As for how dangerous it is, you should remember that the creature description probably contains some clues. Most huge creatures with massive claws and fangs are not good for your health, for example.

Tracking the creature that's been killing all those cattle pretty much guarantees that the creature is at least more dangerous than the average cow.

When we discuss how dangerous a creature is, we also presumably mean relative to the average guy, i.e., a level 1-3 commoner.

For me, the unknown is a large part of the fun of the game. I describe monsters rather than name them, and change the descriptions if I feel like it. I don't want every monster to be immediately catalogued.


RC

 

[iwatt]

For me, the unknown is a large part of the fun of the game. I describe monsters rather than name them, and change the descriptions if I feel like it. I don't want every monster to be immediately catalogued.
RC

I agree with you on the unknown been important. The thing is with my players, I ahve to give them reasons to avoid combat, so it's gotten to the point that I have to lay signs saying: CR IS WAY OVER YOUR HEAD

The good thing (IMNSHO) of the above system is that it allows a DM to adjust the DCs easily, as you did.

Actually I can see your DCs working better, in the sesne that they encourage PCs to research (if you use heft circumstance bonuses for acces to Libraries). Kinda of like what Zander and Willow would do in the Buffy series.

 

[RamYaz]

Knowledge

I don't have a real problem with a character not knowing everything about a creature he encounters. As for how dangerous it is, you should remember that the creature description probably contains some clues. Most huge creatures with massive claws and fangs are not good for your health, for example.

Tracking the creature that's been killing all those cattle pretty much guarantees that the creature is at least more dangerous than the average cow.

When we discuss how dangerous a creature is, we also presumably mean relative to the average guy, i.e., a level 1-3 commoner.

For me, the unknown is a large part of the fun of the game. I describe monsters rather than name them, and change the descriptions if I feel like it. I don't want every monster to be immediately catalogued.


RC

I agree with Raven but, I think you should give players a chance to shine those earned skill points; although I'd keep their chances steep.

 

[nightprowler4321]

Just found this post.

Overall, I like the idea. Some creatures will be more common in certain areas than others, and in certain campaigns. I, for example, never use umber hulks or phantom fungi.

DCs, of course, depend upon what you expect from your players. Assuming a +2 attribute bonus and 4 skill ranks (reasonable at 1st level), a person will automatically recognize all the common creatures in his area and 85% of the uncommon creatures. He will at least know what 55% of the rare creatures are, and 35% of the extremely rare creatures. This is, again, at first level.

As something of an armchair naturalist and a semi-regular hiker, I would recognize a deer or a bear, but I would not be able to name every type of creature with the same accuracy. Certainly I could say, "Some form of frog, and probably a leopard frog (but maybe a wood frog)" with a fair degree of confidence. This leads me to accept the percentages for common and uncommon creatures.

I would adjust more for rare and extremely rare creatures, though. Say, a +15 adjustment for rare creatures and a +25 adjustment for extremely rare creatures. Then adjust back down on the basis of CR, i.e., for every 4 full points of CR, the DC of the check is lowered by 2. You are far more likely to know about the things that can hurt you than the ones you can ignore.


RC

I tend to agree with you on the adjustments, and I know that the developer was going for ease of memory on the fly. Course, the only true way to test this is to playtest the tiers and DC's. Afterall, what fun is it to have the players notice an extremely rare creature 85% of the time (hyperthetical, not actual stats).

On top of identifying the creature, most likely the creature is just not standing there posing for characters to get a good look at it. Its not like they have a nature guide with them. Nobody playing a ranger is going to say, "And if you look to your right ladies and gentelmen, you see a mother owlbear looking at us as if were food, but don't worry that is just her glare (how do you tell the sex of such an creature anyway?)" lol


There are a lot of factors to consider too; light, dark, distance, obstacles, the situation at the time. I agree with someone else later in the post of blurting what the creature is. I imagine a huge spotlight shining on the creature and a large neon sign above saying the creatures name. Lmao.

We did a similar thing that the developer did with some or our wilderness skills by giving them tiers. He is on a good track though and its certainly better then making the skill an opposed roll, ie, the dragon recognizes <sp> (its late for me), you, but you do not recognize the red dragon, even though he has red scales.

"And its not like we aint on the ball, we just talk to our shrinks Huh! they talk to their shrinks, no wonder were up the wall.
And were not stupid or dumb, were the lunatic fringe that rusted the hinge on uncle sam's daughters and sons" -Inmates (were all crazy)-Alice Cooper


"

 

[Land Outcast]

How to handle the Wyrmling-Great Old Wyrm Issue?

 

[iwatt]

How to handle the Wyrmling-Great Old Wyrm Issue?

What issue?

You mean that a Great Old Wyrm should be harder to recognize than a Wyrmling? That will depend on how common is the knowledge of elder Dragons in your campaign.

For example, with the RAW it's easier for a desert dwelling mage to identify a a White Great Old Wyrm than a Blue Great Old Wyrm. Which doesn't make much sense (to me at least). With my system a desert dragon is much easier to identify for a desert mage.

The advantage of the system is that it's independent of the HD or even CR, leaving the info available based on how rare or common the creature is. Personally, I'd make knowledege of wyrmlings more rare than of the Elder dragons, since probably a lot more research has gone into the Big dragons.