D&D 5E How to Handle Monster Knowledge Checks

[FormerlyHemlock]

Considering how bad the presentation of science, legal procedure, technology and other assorted fields can be on television, I don't see this as an argument for everyone knowing the truth about every monster. Quite the opposite, really.

That's why I believe in giving out false information on a failure, instead of no information.

 

[CapnZapp]

Reopening this to present my take:

Monster Knowledge Checks
Arcana: Constructs, Elementals, Monstrosities
Dungeoneering: Aberrations, Beasts, Monstrosities, Oozes
History: Humanoids, Giants
Intimidate: Dragons, Giants
Survival: Beasts, Monstrosities, Oozes, Plants
Religion: Celestials, Fiends, Undead
Feylore: Aberrations, Dragons, Fey, Undead

Characters with proficiency may attempt the check normally. Characters without proficiency can only gain limited knowledge.

Yes, as you can see there are often two skills that can be used. Use either if you have both.

Yes, as you can see I've tweaked the skill list a bit. Dungeoneering (from 4E) is in. Nature has been bundled into Survival and Dungeoneering respectively (above/below ground). Feylore is in for all the "almost-natural" aspects of shadowfell, seelie court, and far realms.

As for DCs, I've found through practical play the 10 + CR suggestion doesn't really work. The DCs simply get too high; characters can't keep up. While DC 12 for a CR 2 creature to know even basic details might seem reasonable, DC 32 for a CR 22 creature doesn't.

So instead I'll be using a more practical approach:

With proficiency:
DC 10: the name and type of the monster
DC 15: more immediate powers and behaviors
DC 20: specific details about resistances, spells and what not

Without proficiency
DC 15: the name and type of the monster
DC 20: more immediate powers and behaviors
Impossible: specific details about resistances, spells and what not

And then:

+5 for CR 11-19 monsters (paragon tier)
+10 for CR 20- monsters (epic tier)

This way, yes, there are DCs of 30, but only to know "everything".

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I assume all my players have read the MM, which represents being raised in a society where encounters with monsters is a fairly common thing as well as choosing 'adventurer' as a vocation. If they ask about a creature they get an Int (Arcana/Nature, depending) roll with scaled DC based on the rarity of the creature in my estimation.

 

[CapnZapp]

I assume all my players have read the MM

That's why I want monster knowledge checks. The purpose is to regulate when a character does or does not know what the player already knows. Otherwise it's no fun if you play with veterans, especially if you're the single player not having memorized the MM.

The reason I liked the monster knowledge check framework is that it reinforces the stereotypes of the D&D world.

If you want to know more about strange monsters living underground, you'd ask a Dwarf or a Rogue, not a Wizard just because he's got a high Int. A Cleric might have a high Wisdom, but a Ranger proficient in Survival is still better when it comes to handling the Wyverns or Hydras on her home turf.

It's of course just a small thing, but still - everything that encourages players to create varied parties with a lot of different core competencies is a good rule in my book

That, and also that anything that makes hacknslashers actually care about their skills is good

 

[iserith]

That's why I want monster knowledge checks. The purpose is to regulate when a character does or does not know what the player already knows. Otherwise it's no fun if you play with veterans, especially if you're the single player not having memorized the MM.

I think it's still fun to play with veterans even if we all know what the monsters can do. And if I'm the guy at the table who doesn't know whereas the rest of the players do, I'm grateful to have such knowledgeable folks on my team. It may well save my character's life after all!

Where it gets strange with me is when the DM asks for a check to "regulate" what a character can recall despite what his or her player knows. What happens if the check fails? I certainly wouldn't expect the player to play dumb. That's just weird to me, so my adjudication process neatly avoids it.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

That's why I want monster knowledge checks. The purpose is to regulate when a character does or does not know what the player already knows. Otherwise it's no fun if you play with veterans, especially if you're the single player not having memorized the MM.

The reason I liked the monster knowledge check framework is that it reinforces the stereotypes of the D&D world.

If you want to know more about strange monsters living underground, you'd ask a Dwarf or a Rogue, not a Wizard just because he's got a high Int. A Cleric might have a high Wisdom, but a Ranger proficient in Survival is still better when it comes to handling the Wyverns or Hydras on her home turf.

It's of course just a small thing, but still - everything that encourages players to create varied parties with a lot of different core competencies is a good rule in my book

That, and also that anything that makes hacknslashers actually care about their skills is good

In a perfect world that's a great approach. But the reality is that the players have read the MM. I don't want to get into the whole 'your character would not know that' discussion at the table about iconic monsters. It's a PITA, confuses players about what it's 'okay' to know and can create table friction that drags on enjoyment of the game. I don't find that it adds any dramatic tension to the game. Yes, it's an orc and yes they see in the dark and can charge you & atttack. You've heard about them ten thousand times. So I typically handwave that PCs know a lot about monsters, from growing up in a monster-laden society and hearing countless tales from other adventurers about encounters with them.

This is augmented by my 'no MM at the table' rule for players, which means players have to rely on their memories, so there is an element of uncertainty. If they get it wrong, that just adds to the fun! It keeps things simple - if a player wants to self-enforce limited knowledge, okay, that's fine. Or if they want to be sure or just don't remember or I pull out a custom/reskinned creature, make a roll.

Of course at your table YMMV.

 

[Bawylie]

Is Volo's Guide to Monsters more than a table accessory? Does that book (or one like it) exist in your game world?

I like to think these things do exist. And I like to put in stuff like this whenever players search for books.

As a bonus, I can use it to telegraph upcoming threats. "You find a book about the treatment of uncommon venoms" and later on you wind up fighting something with a very nasty bite!


-Brad

 

[Sword of Spirit]

My players are great at role-playing appropriate knowledge, and "playing dumb" if their characters don't know about something. They have a general idea of what they should know based on their background (it helps that I wrote up an individual "What You Know" brief document for each player explaining the kind of things they know about their world, magic, cultures, creatures, etc). It's fun to watch the characters discuss the possibilities or research for answers on things that some of the players already know from game books. Some of the most enjoyable times have been when the party (each from a different world) have discussed cosmology and religion, trying to figure out how/why things seem different on other worlds, and if there are any points of connection. In character discussions where non-Faerunian characters expressed surprise at the harshness of the Forgotten Realms Fugue Plane compared to their own more laid back afterlife sortings were fun. Sometimes they'll even ask me what their characters know about a certain creature or such. Exploring their persona, including how it would interact with the world based on what he/she knows, rather than what the player knows, is a huge part of why they play the game.

So I can't really relate to players not role-playing the knowledge their characters would realistically have, or a friction between them. It honestly sounds like either mismatched DMs and players, or player immaturity.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Where it gets strange with me is when the DM asks for a check to "regulate" what a character can recall despite what his or her player knows. What happens if the check fails? I certainly wouldn't expect the player to play dumb. That's just weird to me, so my adjudication process neatly avoids it.

That avoidance of such regulation is also good because it greatly reduces the chance that you get distracted by wondering "does the character actually know X?" and fail to realize that the character doesn't need any particular knowledge in order to arrive at the course of action the player is describing.

So you don't, for example, prevent a character that is interrupted by some horrible monster while tending a fire at camp from thrusting the flaming log already in hand at it violently because you are worrying about whether or not said character knows that using fire against a troll is a good idea.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Lots of interesting approaches here. Most of the time I handle these are passive checks. Since I make a lot of modifications to the MM so that tempers part of it. I also tie in the background to it, and I've never really had a player argue that they should know something that we don't agree on.

Basic things, (trolls with fire) are obvious. These are cultures that have lived with monsters for thousands of years, so the most common things, lycanthropes and silver arrows, how to kill a vampire, etc., are known by just about everybody. Actually, I kind of hope they know some of the stuff in the MM, because sometimes it's wrong in my campaign.

For things like aberrations, and extraplanar creatures, they won't know as much. That's tempered in part by the changes I make, but we also work out what they know and don't know, and research is one way to learn more.