Monster Knowledge checks - why bother?

[DNH]

The title doesn't really do this post justice. Me, I am a big fan of them and I am the DM of our 4e group. My players? Meh. Trouble is, I want to get them to use them but they don't/won't (we use a VTT so they see monster names straight off in tooltips and don't generally bother beyond that; I am working on removing the names). Today, I had a long discussion with one of the players who says he sees a fatal flaw in them. Now, he says, assume that a party is fighting trolls and no-one has managed to roll high enough on a Monster Knowledge check to know about the regen/fire/acid thing. That is heading to a TPK and for what? Essentially, the party gets killed thanks to one bad die roll each.

M'yeah but it's unlikely. For starters, in my game, I make a passive check for everyone at the start of the encounter and then call for additional checks if something unusual (say, a wound closing up) happens. (Trolls are a poor example because the regen/fire/acid thing is known to anyone who makes a Nature check at DC 15; that's anyone trained in Nature for my passive checks.)

From that discussion today, I get the feeling that I should be simply saying "Oh yeah, you're X level. You know all about Monster Y." But me, I see all that embodied in the Monster Knowledge check (the level thing is even in there, as you had half your level to the die roll).

So we have me (the DM) wanting to use Monster Knowledge checks to separate the characters' knowledge from the knowledge of our players, garnered from nigh on 30 years of D&D monster lore. And then we have my players, wanting to just get stuck in, see the word "Troll" and then start applying fire and acid attacks for no reason I can see.

How do other DMs play it?

 

[Blackbrrd]

Personally I give the information as they fight the monsters.

Let us say a monster has regen, I tell them so the first round it regens.
Let us say a monster has resistance 5 fire, I tell them that the first time they do fire damage.
I used a monster with an recharge 6 domination ability and they freaked out, so I told them that after dominating them a couple of times.

I don't give much info as they start playing, mostly descriptive stuff like:
He looks really well armored
That attacked glanced of his shield
He looks really tough
He looks like a jumpy son of a bitch
He just looks evilly at you after using [insert will attacking power here]

This works out pretty well and is a fast way of resolving it.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I agree with Blackbrrd. I don't see anything in the rules that says that PC's (and creatures for that matter) don't understand the impacts of their powers or, more specifically, the effects of other's powers and resistances. "Your attack doesn't affect the monster as well as you would expect." "The creature's wounds heal up."

Outside of that, what's a passive knowledge check? Is that in the rules? If so, I'm surprised. If not, I really don't like it. Passive checks should only be for things that allow a retry and I don't think knowledge checks allow retries.

 

[Nichwee]

what's a passive knowledge check? Is that in the rules?

It is suggested as something your DM may use to decide how much to tell you about a monster at the start of an encounter. Page 179 PHB 1.
It's the equivalent of "This is basic stuff you recall. You can think about it for a sec and do a proper check on your turn."
And retries for Monster Knowledge are again suggested as something your DM may allow as new info comes to light (I guess if you see a troll regen you may be allowed reroll and then go "Oh yeah, they regen. Use fire guys or this will take all day").

 

[keterys]

Passive monster knowledge checks are great things so that you can just know your group and give them info at the start, rather than having people try to make knowledge checks during the combat.

I ran a tournament at a local store recently where there were 5 encounters to play in 4 hours, so I predid the monster knowledge information so I could just look at people's scores (I had them give then to me at the beginning) and hand a sheet out to the people who knew the most and move on without such clogging up the game. Worked like a charm.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree with Blackbrrd. I don't see anything in the rules that says that PC's (and creatures for that matter) don't understand the impacts of their powers or, more specifically, the effects of other's powers and resistances. "Your attack doesn't affect the monster as well as you would expect." "The creature's wounds heal up."

Outside of that, what's a passive knowledge check? Is that in the rules? If so, I'm surprised. If not, I really don't like it. Passive checks should only be for things that allow a retry and I don't think knowledge checks allow retries.

I would say generally PCs will be able to gauge the results of their attacks. In some cases it might be worth giving the character a perception check to notice something, but if the monster is insubstantial then when the fighter hits it he should know that his attack did less than the damage he expected "your sword passes through the wraith's form with little effect (you did half damage)" would be a decent example. Personally I don't hesitate to explain certain aspects of the rules either if the players may not know or remember it, like telling them what insubstantial does or how regeneration works so they have a baseline understanding.

Passive checks have nothing to do with things which allow a retry. Its just a mechanism for doing 2 things. With perception/knowledge skills it just lets you know what the players accomplish without trying. They see the monster or they know a certain fact. With skill checks for doing stuff its just a way to let the player do an ordinary job competently in a setting where failure is unlikely and the task is fairly routine. It avoids silly things like a blacksmith failing to make a tool 1/3 of the time simply because he rolls bad when he has all the time in the world and the right equipment and should never mess up a horseshoe.

Take 20 is what can be used when unlimited retries are available, failure isn't penalized, and thus eventually the player WILL roll 20, so just get it over with and figure out what happens when they do.

 

[Dragonbait]

I've always assumed that in settings where monsters are commonplace (standard D&D worlds, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, etc..) that they might know general rules about some monsters. For instance, they probably know that trolls regenerate and you have to kill them with acid or fire. It's like knowing that dragons can fly and have a breath weapon. They might NOT know that a bladerager troll explodes when it dies rather than regenerating back to life. They have grown up in a world full of these amazing and frightening things and certain aspects have been in their world's fairy tales, rhymes, and so on since they day they were born.

Other than that I usually "inform" players who don't make a high enough check about a monster's abilities the same way Blackbrrd does it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've always assumed that in settings where monsters are commonplace (standard D&D worlds, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, etc..) that they might know general rules about some monsters. For instance, they probably know that trolls regenerate and you have to kill them with acid or fire. It's like knowing that dragons can fly and have a breath weapon. They might NOT know that a bladerager troll explodes when it dies rather than regenerating back to life. They have grown up in a world full of these amazing and frightening things and certain aspects have been in their world's fairy tales, rhymes, and so on since they day they were born.

Other than that I usually "inform" players who don't make a high enough check about a monster's abilities the same way Blackbrrd does it.

Yeah, mechanically the way I do this is to always let the PCs have whatever information their monster knowledge would give them for a roll of 10, so they do a passive knowledge check which represents their baseline knowledge of the subject. Then they can also roll to see if they happen to know more about the specific subject. Just combine the two and treat any roll below 10 as a 10. Maybe if the monster is really esoteric or higher tier or unique then just make it an active check and if they roll bad they just don't know anything about that particular beasty.

Then of course is the "what you learn while you're fighting" which doesn't really have a defined mechanism in the rules but perception, maybe insight, or just trial and error will yield it up. Plus of course general description will tell them something like roughly how good the monster's armor is or what sort of attacks it seems to be able to make. Remember, they'll pick up things like AC and defense numbers and probably pretty exact hit point totals simply by paying attention to their die rolls and attack results pretty quick. Sometimes I'll even tell a player a defense or hit point value at the point where they should know it simply to make things go faster. Its not that big a deal and helps them decide on tactics quicker.

 

[Flipguarder]

my larger problem, and probably the biggest i have table-top rpgs in general is you can't limit what one person knows over another. The meta-game knowledge just leaks through and it can ruin role-playing very quickly.

Wizard: I want to make a knowledge nature to know what trolls are weak to. *rolls* thats a 23.
DM: *reads the monster lore block for 20 and 15* ok do you want to use a free action to tell your party this info?
Wizard: No, I just want to look super cool next round when I smack him with a fireball.
sorcerer: Ok im going to attack with *random fire attack*
DM: umm... did you roll a knowledge check?
Sorcerer: No, but I was going to hit him with it anyway, its a good power (clearly just not true, he always opens with the same attack)
DM: Ugh.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

my larger problem, and probably the biggest i have table-top rpgs in general is you can't limit what one person knows over another. The meta-game knowledge just leaks through and it can ruin role-playing very quickly.

Wizard: I want to make a knowledge nature to know what trolls are weak to. *rolls* thats a 23.
DM: *reads the monster lore block for 20 and 15* ok do you want to use a free action to tell your party this info?
Wizard: No, I just want to look super cool next round when I smack him with a fireball.
sorcerer: Ok im going to attack with *random fire attack*
DM: umm... did you roll a knowledge check?
Sorcerer: No, but I was going to hit him with it anyway, its a good power (clearly just not true, he always opens with the same attack)
DM: Ugh.

Sounds to me like an issue with players being dorks, not an issue with the design of RPGs. Impossible to fix anyhow and always present in all games. This is one advantage to playing on a VTT over the net, you can tell someone something and nobody else is any the wiser.