D&D 5E Tactics in combat

[Sunseeker]

There are a lot of ways to rationalize handing out free info on a die roll. That does not mean that the rationalization makes sense.



Uh huh. Gotta love those criminals eavesdropping on other folk who are capable of accurately talking about monster abilities.



Yet another argument about the person you are replying to and not the topic on hand. Talk about trolling.

Alright well I can see our conversation is done.

 

[Paraxis]

This is the relevant rule from 4e.

Monster Knowledge Checks
Refer to these rules whenever a character makes a check to identify a monster, 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 natural 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.

✦ Action: No action. A character either knows or doesn't know the information.
✦ DC: The DM sets the DC using the Difficulty Class by Level table (page 126), selecting the moderate DC for the monster’s level instead of the level of the character making the check.
✦ Success: The character identifies the monster and knows its origin, type, typical temperament, and keywords. If the character meets or exceeds the hard DC for the monster’s level, he or she also knows the monster’s resistances and vulnerabilities, as well as what its powers do.
✦ Failure: The character doesn't recall any pertinent information about the monster. The Dungeon Master might allow a new check if further information comes to light.


I would change that to something like.
✦ Action: No action. A character either knows or doesn't know the information.
✦ DC: The DM sets the DC using 10+ 1/2 the Monster's CR rating, modified by rarity as he sees fit.
✦ Success: The character identifies the monster and knows its origin, type, typical temperament, and keywords. If the character exceeds the DC by 5, he or she also knows the monster’s resistances and vulnerabilities, as well as what its powers do.
✦ Failure: The character doesn't recall any pertinent information about the monster. The Dungeon Master might allow a new check if further information comes to light.

So for a Fire Giant.
DC = 14
With a 14-18 result they know giant type, lawful evil, and know the general information like they keep hell hounds as pets and lair near volcanoes.
With a 19+ they know it has fire immunity and great Con saves.

 

[SirAntoine]

For rangers who select giants as their species enemy.

 

[Paraxis]

For rangers who select giants as their species enemy.

In my games anyone and everyone in the party that wants to make the Int ability check, some might get a prof bonus with the right skill, like history for giants I could see.

 

[SirAntoine]

Isn't that exactly what I said I did? Determine how much a player knows about the monster based on their character and their check?

I just want a few characters with expert knowledge to usually be able to know something about the monsters. I think it's a very important part of the challenge to usually have to learn from first hand experience. There is nothing unfair about this to me.

 

[SirAntoine]

In my games anyone and everyone in the party that wants to make the Int ability check, some might get a prof bonus with the right skill, like history for giants I could see.

Okay, but are you sure you want anyone to do it untrained, with a zero total bonus?

In a traditional campaign, that is some of the most valuable information there is. Sages are paid gold for that kind of information.

 

[Sunseeker]

I just want a few characters with expert knowledge to usually be able to know something about the monsters. I think it's a very important part of the challenge to usually have to learn from first hand experience. There is nothing unfair about this to me.

That's precisely what I said I do. Someone who is in this edition, proficient in the skill may roll, while someone who is not, may not. Proficient people get better results from their rolls than non-proficient people, who I sometimes allow to roll anyway, but they get much less relevant info.

EX: a ranger, whose favored enemy is ogres and proficient in nature will get much better info about ogres than a rogue, with no nature proficiency, no favored enemy of ogres. The rogue might recall that ogres are big, mean and like to eat rock gnomes. The ranger on the other hand would learn specifics, weaknesses, strengths, where they sleep, how far they roam from their caves, etc...

 

[Kikuras]

Uh huh. Gotta love those criminals eavesdropping on other folk who are capable of accurately talking about monster abilities.

I'm with shidaku on this. The concept is sound, and not at all unreasonable in a world populated by monsters and magic. Commoners should know a hell of a lot more than you give them credit for. How do farmers survive roaming bands of this, and the not unheard of that? No doubt men-at-arms and militias alike are called upon to dispatch a troublesome owlbear, or maybe the odd displacer beast.

And who is to say that stories told around campfires and taverns aren't distorted, but as the PC faces the beast, he recognizes it... and what was that one thread of truth in all those tales? Use fire on trolls!

People don't live in little monsterless/beastless bubbles and only those with 'adventurer' stitched on their cloaks are allowed to come and go. Merchants may face a relatively common foe on the road far from here, where no one has heard of that particular nasty creature. Nobles might have trophy rooms with stuffed beholders. And are you really going to tell me that when the old beggar woman warns you that a dragon might breathe fire that she is not at credible because she doesn't live in a fortress paid for by decades of adventuring?

 

[Paraxis]

I don't put tasks behind a proficiency door, anyone can try anything. The section in the rules is Ability Checks not proficiency checks.

The only place in the whole rules system where it mentions not allowing someone to try anything they want is under the description of locks and manacles, so I see that being a very odd exception to the norm since it is pretty obscure.

Anyone can try to pick a pocket, climb a wall, play a harp, know about arcane things, or intimidate people. Now if you have proficiency there are plenty of occasions where I wouldn't even ask for a roll, a bard with perform and harp tool proficiency can just explain he is entertaining the tavern for the night and if he doesn't want to impress a young lady or noble doesn't need to roll.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't put tasks behind a proficiency door, anyone can try anything. The section in the rules is Ability Checks not proficiency checks.

Yes well I've openly admitted to using the rules as guidelines. But, and I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying here's why I do it: First I use it to encourage people to play to their character. I shouldn't have to, but when Joe creates the most learned, bookish, well-read character you can, I don't want him to constantly get shown up by Bob the Barbarian just 'cause Bob happens to get lucky on his rolls. Second: I want the party to feel like, while at times they may have strokes of inspiration, they are dependent on each other for different things. Sure, anyone can forage for food, but the ranger forages for food better, so it's best to let the ranger forage while the rest of the party sets up camp or does other things.

It's too easy for players to get it in their heads that they don't need anyone else around and a good roll can replace a good party member.