Regarding Knowledge Checks

[RYPros53]

When making decisions for which skill to apply to an on-the-fly knowledge check, I have some difficulties coming up with which skill rolls to ask my players for.

It seems strange to me that there is Arcane power, Divine power, Psionic power, etc... relating to magical powers and the like, but when making a magic-related skill check, there is only Arcana?

Also I know that each monster's type relates to which skill the PCs need to role in order to discover information about it, but have yet to find a good table/chart describing this and the type of information that is provided on which DCs.

Then I come to the part of 4E that suggests, "if the PCs need to know the information, give it to them." Why even have them make a knowledge check then? But if its information that they don't entirely need, its only thematic in essence, and therefore it should just be given to them also?

Let me know what you think, I want to pick your brain.

 

[Dragoslav]

"Information they need" = stuff they need to know to advance the plot rather than aimlessly wandering around because they missed a minor detail that is the clue they needed to figure out what they're supposed to be doing.

For example, your party clears out all the rooms in a bandit camp and then is stumped because they didn't find the small slip of paper that you wanted them to find in one particular room about where the bad guys' REAL base is hidden.

Things they would want to make knowledge checks about would be things that could give them an advantage for knowing or put them at a disadvantage for not knowing, but which won't impede their progress beyond that.

Completely fabricated example:

The party is told that giant octopi have been attacking towns along the coast. They could go and kill all of the octopi, but the ranger makes a hard DC nature check and remembers that octopi love cheese, so they buy a cart full of cheese wheels and haul it to the coast to placate the rampaging octopi. Either way, the encounter is completed and the party is rewarded, but the successful knowledge check meant that they avoided combat completely.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Mmmmmm, cheesy takos...

Tako (Monstrous Manual)


(PS: To be more helpful here is the breakdown of monster type and the associated skill. These are from the Compendium, so I can't tell you where they are in the books.

Arcana: Construct, Elemental, Fey, and Shadow
Dungeoneering: Aberrant
Nature: Natural
Religion: Immortal or Undead

"Refer to these rules whenever a character makes a check to identify a mon-ster, regardless of the knowledge skill he or she is using. The DM typically tells a player which skill to use, based on the creature’s origin or relevant keyword. If a monster’s origin and keyword suggest the use of two different skills, the DM decides which skill can be used to identify the monster, and might allow the use of either skill. For example, a dracolich is both a natu-ral creature and undead, but the DM might decide that its being undead is more relevant than its natural origin and require the use of Religion. In contrast, an abyssal ghoul is an elemental undead creature, and the DM might allow the use of either Arcana or Religion.")

 

[Ryujin]

When making decisions for which skill to apply to an on-the-fly knowledge check, I have some difficulties coming up with which skill rolls to ask my players for.

It seems strange to me that there is Arcane power, Divine power, Psionic power, etc... relating to magical powers and the like, but when making a magic-related skill check, there is only Arcana?

Also I know that each monster's type relates to which skill the PCs need to role in order to discover information about it, but have yet to find a good table/chart describing this and the type of information that is provided on which DCs.

Then I come to the part of 4E that suggests, "if the PCs need to know the information, give it to them." Why even have them make a knowledge check then? But if its information that they don't entirely need, its only thematic in essence, and therefore it should just be given to them also?

Let me know what you think, I want to pick your brain.

Make a simple cheat sheet, that states what knowledge skills pertain to what things; for example monster knowledge checks. That way you can quickly consult it, to give you an idea what to use.

In the case of "on the fly" skill determinations, use what seems to apply. Sometimes multiple skills might be applicable. You might be able to navigate a sailing vessel using either Nature or Arcana, as both could be assumed to study the stars, for example. They wouldn't necessarily have the same difficulty number, perhaps Easy for Nature and Moderate for Arcana, as an Arcanist would be less likely to be called upon for that particular duty. Sort of like the difference between practical and theoretical knowledge.

This applies for things that the players don't necessarily need, but might make their job easier. If the 'navigation' roll is failed then they would still get to their destination, if they must in order for the story to continue, but might take longer and/or have an unnecessary encounter along the way that complicates things.

 

[RYPros53]

LOL cheese wheels. Thanks to all - loving this forum and the breadth of responses. Here's a similar issue I'm facing: I DM on WotC virtual tabletop, which imports every monster and their stats and then allows me to order them and the PCs in an initiative tracker. The players can't see the monster stats, but can see the monster name, meaning even if the characters failed a knowledge check to identify the monster, they still (metagame-wise) know what it is. I love the feature i just wish i could hide the creatures on it. Should i just keep track of initiative separately to allow knowledge checks to function properly?

 

[Saagael]

LOL cheese wheels. Thanks to all - loving this forum and the breadth of responses. Here's a similar issue I'm facing: I DM on WotC virtual tabletop, which imports every monster and their stats and then allows me to order them and the PCs in an initiative tracker. The players can't see the monster stats, but can see the monster name, meaning even if the characters failed a knowledge check to identify the monster, they still (metagame-wise) know what it is. I love the feature i just wish i could hide the creatures on it. Should i just keep track of initiative separately to allow knowledge checks to function properly?

Letting them know the name is fine, you just have to be more creative with what the players don't know. If they see a troll, it should be fairly common knowledge to players that fire and acid are your best bet.

So you use monsters in a creative way to avoid that. Or give them more world-building information. Maybe a history or nature check reveals that this certain tribe of trolls really likes sport, and so instead of fighting the trolls, they can engage them in some athletic competitions, and then knock the troll out after he's tired.

I tend to put monster knowledge checks less on "this monster is weak to X, and resistant to Y" and more to "this is how these creatures are known to act" and let the players figure out how to use that to their advantage.

Or better yet, use the virtual setting to really mess with the players' brains and make metagaming their downfall. The easiest way to do this is to change a monster's name. Instead of "Troll", put "swamp giant" or some such. Using the virtual tabletop as a means to twist players' preconceptions is a great bonus that virtual play has.

 

[Ryujin]

LOL cheese wheels. Thanks to all - loving this forum and the breadth of responses. Here's a similar issue I'm facing: I DM on WotC virtual tabletop, which imports every monster and their stats and then allows me to order them and the PCs in an initiative tracker. The players can't see the monster stats, but can see the monster name, meaning even if the characters failed a knowledge check to identify the monster, they still (metagame-wise) know what it is. I love the feature i just wish i could hide the creatures on it. Should i just keep track of initiative separately to allow knowledge checks to function properly?

You say that it imports the monster and its stats. Does it do so from Monster Builder? If so then just make copies of the monsters, then rename them to something more generic. Load THAT monster instead

 

[RYPros53]

Ah! Great ideas all. I will definitely rethink this and the way I implement it into my game.

 

[Viking Bastard]

It seems strange to me that there is Arcane power, Divine power, Psionic power, etc... relating to magical powers and the like, but when making a magic-related skill check, there is only Arcana?

I use Religion for all checks concerning Diving Magic. This still has the problem of Religion being keyed off INT, just like Arcana, which makes the Mage character in the party better at Divine things than the Cleric.*

Then I come to the part of 4E that suggests, "if the PCs need to know the information, give it to them." Why even have them make a knowledge check then? But if its information that they don't entirely need, its only thematic in essence, and therefore it should just be given to them also?

I just treat all Easy to Moderate checks as autoachieved by those Trained in a skill, unless it's something very specific or the action is taken in a stressful situation (in combat, on a tightrope, etc.).

--

* We've been experimenting with dislodging Skills from Abilities (only one session so far), so Detect [Divine] Magic is WIS + Religion, but Knowledge checks are INT + Religion. But y'know, it's a complication.

 

[Ryujin]

I use Religion for all checks concerning Diving Magic. This still has the problem of Religion being keyed off INT, just like Arcana, which makes the Mage character in the party better at Divine things than the Cleric.*

Again situational modifiers could be applied, to change the difficulty of a Religion roll for a Cleric, as he would have applicable working knowledge.