D&D 5E How to Handle Monster Knowledge Checks

[Kalshane]

I kind of just assume that the creatures in the MM (if they are in the campaign world at all) are fairly well known and so is the folklore surrounding them. For truly ?? moments from the players there are always new monsters. I like the idea that not every monster possibly encountered is an actual species with an ecology, and so forth. In a world of magical experiments gone wrong with owlbears and such there really isn't a need for every possible monster to come from some place logically.

That seems a little too generous, to me. Most people probably know a few things about common monsters that live near their home (much as they would about bears, mountain lions or other dangerous animals that inhabited their area) but probably little of use about rarer monsters and/or those who don't live nearby outside some random folklore that may or may not be wildly off-base. Adventurers probably know a little more, though that's pretty much what the knowledge skills are for.

I agree with Jester Canuck that uncommon and rarer monsters should likely require the Buffy/Supernatural approach of cracking the books and researching the beastie in question.

 

[ExploderWizard]

That seems a little too generous, to me. Most people probably know a few things about common monsters that live near their home (much as they would about bears, mountain lions or other dangerous animals that inhabited their area) but probably little of use about rarer monsters and/or those who don't live nearby outside some random folklore that may or may not be wildly off-base. Adventurers probably know a little more, though that's pretty much what the knowledge skills are for.

I agree with Jester Canuck that uncommon and rarer monsters should likely require the Buffy/Supernatural approach of cracking the books and researching the beastie in question.

I agree with you in theory. As far as practicalities at the table go, having to remember who knows what about specific monsters based on the check is a pain to track and enforcing OOC knowledge about monsters ends up being a hassle.

The advantages to creating NEW unknown things are:

1) ain't nothing like the real thing when it comes to player ignorance & uncertainty.

2) it helps maintain the creative instinct for the DM. If I need to actually come up with new stuff to keep them really guessing it becomes a good workout for the imagination.

 

[nomotog]

That seems a little too generous, to me. Most people probably know a few things about common monsters that live near their home (much as they would about bears, mountain lions or other dangerous animals that inhabited their area) but probably little of use about rarer monsters and/or those who don't live nearby outside some random folklore that may or may not be wildly off-base. Adventurers probably know a little more, though that's pretty much what the knowledge skills are for.

I agree with Jester Canuck that uncommon and rarer monsters should likely require the Buffy/Supernatural approach of cracking the books and researching the beastie in question.

It's a nice idea to have to like hit the books, but you would need to build encounters around it. Like your not going to able to pull out a pocket library in the middle of a fight.

 

[iserith]

I think requiring the character engage in the Research downtime activity is a decent condition on a failed check. "You're unable to recall the monster's vulnerabilities; however, you can have the information if you spend a day and X gold on research." This represents a choice and trade-off: Spend time (a resource) and gold (another resource) or go into the monster's lair or whatever without potentially valuable information. A successful check would have sorted this out, but the player blew it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Monster knowledge checks were always a bit of a metagame. They were a way to justify the character knowing or not knowing what the player knew, mostly the former so the PC could bypass defences and resistances. It always got a little funky when the PCs knew lots about obscure monsters and their weaknesses.

I've always seen monster knowledge checks as a way to prevent meta-gaming. It's an unbiased way of determining whether the character does or does not know something.

Before knowledge checks, it was always tempting to play a character who knew everything that the player knows, because there was no objective way to measure that. You could play a character who knew less, but you were actively choosing to increase the chance of TPK based on your preference for one story element over another.

With knowledge checks, you don't have to worry about that. It becomes a pure trade-off in character utility, whether you'd rather know about religious stuff or know how to tell when someone is lying. If your character doesn't know it, then your character doesn't know it, and you know how to play that. It also introduces the possibility that the character might know something that the player doesn't, in which case you will also know how to play that.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

• Success: The character identifies the monster, its type, and some lore about it that can be used to deduce its motivations, strengths, and weaknesses. If the player beats the DC by 5, the character also knows the monster's resistances and vulnerabilities and abilities.
• Failure: The character identifies the monster and some lore about it that can be used to deduce its motivations, strengths, or weaknesses.
• Alternative Failure: As per Success, but the character's sudden revelation leaves him or her frightened until the end of his or her next turn. (Use this basic alternative failure condition as a model for variations on this theme.)

...
How do you handle them?

For unimportant stuff I just say, "No, you don't recognize it/know anything," but my favorite way to do it takes a little more work: give each player a written stat block for the monster. Better knowledge skill gets you more true information and less false information. False information could be spurious weaknesses, mistaken emphases ("death slaads are mostly squishy back-line spellcasters"), or over/underestimated stats. Or all three. ("I think vampires have STR 26 and 300 HP and regenerate 30 HP per round; they usually wade into melee and try to suck or all your blood; but they are powerless against anyone who knows their mortal name.")

 

[Celtavian]

I don't allow them unless them seem reasonable such as a player writing them into their background, even then only a limited body of knowledge at best obtainable through study and books. I hated knowledge checks in 3E. I was so sick of players demanding to make knowledge checks for every monster no matter how rare. "C'mon, can't I roll a DC 20 or 25 or something? Just give me something." Now I say, "You know nothing. I might give you a rumor or legend if I feel it is appropriate. The world is mysterous again. Enjoy."

 

[Sunseeker]

It's tricky with 5e as there's a range of 1/8 to 25 in CR but 1 to 11 for lore check mods. Would a level 1 scholar really be able to know the secret weakness of a CR 19 monstrosity (or the tarrasque). Off the top of their head.

This might work best requiring downtime days and lengthy research.

I think the key, is as always, some good old fashioned RP. Perhaps the scholar remembers as a young child being fascinated with monstrous creatures of myth and legend and that is was drew him into the arcane arts, where he studied much more mundane things, but that initial fascination and what he learned has always stuck with him.

I think that is key to good gameplay as well. You're not just "making a check" to learn something, your character is literally trying to remember something, which is why when a player is successful at my table, I may inform him of what he learns, but it is up to him to inform everyone else at the table.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

[QUOTE=Chocolategravy;6594455]If a player knows about a fictional monster for a game, it would seem reasonable that a character would know about the actual monster that actually eats people and as an adventurer is their job to know about. When the bards come to the inn to entertain, stories of dragons would be like Star Wars and gnolls and hobgoblins like episodes of Breaking Bad. It would be hard to believe that even the average person wouldn't have a huge amount of general monster knowledge.[/QUOTE]

This, this, and this. The characters LIVE in the world, and have taken up a profession that will greatly benefit from paying attention to all those stories. Who wouldn't know all about Goblins? they're everywhere, EVERYWHERE!

 

[vandaexpress]

Policing character knowledge (fire w/ trolls) is too much of a hassle, such that I'm willing to handwave it most of the time. As another poster said, it's a good incentive to make your own monsters or remix the ones in the MM.

One of the characters in my party is a dragon sorc, loves dragons, they're all over his background. When he spent 10 downtime days with the scribes at the temple of Bahamut, they created a book of dragons for him full of lore, physiology, etc. While it's in his possession, I let him have access to the stat blocks for dragons from the MM, and he can reroll any failed dragon-related INT check with advantage if he spends 10 minutes studying his book for information on the specific topic. Obviously it really only comes into play against dragons, but a similar item could be made really for any creature type, or even an in-game monster manual, like the Winchester's family journal/diary thing. Not really applicable in combat, but if a party is getting stomped or unable to hurt something, they could fall back and consult something like that for a few minutes before returning to face the creature.

Depending on the setting, with folks like Volo running around and the rise of adventurers, I feel like such a book would sell extremely well and the knowledge therein could be quite common amongst veteran adventurers. YMMV. You could make it rare and award it like a treasure.

For most other creatures, when they first appear, I give information to the party from the outset that I think the characters would have ICly based on backgrounds. I pretty much always make sure at least one character knows a vital weakness if the monster is impossible to defeat without that info.

Insight checks to determine what a creature's tactics or strategy might be, or if he seems to be avoiding or wary of a particular character, likely to flee, or fighting to the death.

Martial characters get automatic insight into whether or not an enemy fighter is better or worse than a typical city guard or recently fought monsters (a more limited version of the Battlemaster ability) unless the enemy is deliberately trying to look weak (in which case deception applies).

I allow characters to make an intelligence check to confirm a specific fact, This has to be a specific fact, like "Do I know if this target would be hurt by heat metal?". I also have begun introducing reaction rolls to speed things up. Basically, if they're about to do something less effective, for instance, casting heat metal on a helmed horror, I ask them to make an int (arcana) (in that case) check and if they score above a certain number (pretty much 10, 15, 20 like others have mentioned) they "remember" at the last minute it's less effective to do that and I'll let them change their action accordingly.

I allow medicine checks to verify more information on creature health, if it makes sense for the creature (I.E. not undead). Aside from "bloodied" this is the only way they can really figure out HP info. Additionally, I may give information on a living creature's physical characteristics based on observing physiology, animal handling or nature if its a beast or monstrous type creature.

I give a free perception check to realize that a monster isn't as hurt by an attack as you would expect (resistant), or particularly vulnerable.