D&D 5E 5e Do How Often Do You Use Skill Checks for ‘Monster Knowledge’

[Fire Brand]

5e Do How Often Do You Use Skill Checks for ‘Monster Knowledge’

Do you, as long-time players (in any edition really), ever ask a DM about traits of a monster you’re facing prior, during, or after an encounter whether it’s combat or otherwise?

In 5e identifying Monsters (especially ones that are uncommon for beginning players) I'm thinking of their Traits, Damage Resistances (keywords), Condition Immunities (keywords), Abilities, Strengths, Weaknesses, what it looks, sounds, smells like etc. Anything a PC would ask of a DM (who chooses the skill check and DC).

Or a PC might ask if they can roll an INT Religion check on an undead creature to determine one of the items I listed above.

I ask because most podcasts and youtube gameplay see it and fight it. No questions asked. Although I think Chris Perkins doesn't say what monster it is you're confronting all the time. When I've played, the DM just said what it was and let's fight. Most 5e beginners might not know what a kobold really is. It’s up to the DM to describe what it looks like I’d think. 4e’s Keep on the Shadowfell 1st printing had short descriptions of Kobolds under their stat block that were replaced with equipment from there on out. The 4e Red Box had a dragon where you could talk to him instead of trying to fight him if I recall. It may have been a skill challenge and if you pissed him off well you’re toast. That’s a little different but you get the idea.

This got me thinking because 4e in comparison says:
a) Monster Knowledge (Arcana - INT) PHB1 pg181 Elemental, Fey, and Shadow
b) Monster Knowledge (Nature - Wis) Aberrant Make a Dungeoneering check to identify a creature that has the aberrant origin (a creature of the Far Realm). See “Monster Knowledge Checks,” PHB1 pg180.
c) Monster Knowledge (Int) PHB1 pg186 Natural
d) Monster Knowledge (Religion - INT) PHB1 pg187 Immortal or Undead
e) Nature Knowledge (4e WIS NOW 5e INT) PHB1 pg186

 

[the Jester]

I'm not a big fan of monster knowledge checks; I would rather have the pcs rely on a mix of what I tell them they know as 'common knowledge' about a given monster and in-game learning from encountering it or talking to people who have done so.

 

[Fire Brand]

That's interesting. That's what I like to know.

One example of game play I’ve read recently along those lines was a party encountering 5e zombies who have a trait: Undead Fortitude. If damage reduces the zombie to 0 hit points, it can make a Constitution saving throw with a DC of 5 + the damage taken, unless the damage is radiant or from a critical hit. On a success, the zombie drops to 1 hit point instead.

The DM said the party was surprised the zombies kept coming. Learning the surprised fun way. Although once that starts happening a Cleric might ask to determine what’s happening with the zombies to make them do that. If it mattered to role playing somehow if they needed to tell a cleric back n town or the townsfolk what happened and why it was happening with the zombies etc. So I can see situational RPG uses.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Before 4e I had never thought of this as a thing to do. I guess it was also an intended feature of 3e, but I don't remember noticing.

I tried it for a while, but ultimately my feelings mirror Jester's. I don't really see how this makes for a more enjoyable game for anyone.

 

[1of3]

I think it is a very important part of making knowledge skills relevant. It is the only part where Knowledge skills can be reliable. Of course, as a GM I can use knowledge checks to make known certain elements of the plot, but that doesn't have the same effect. After all, everything the PCs need to know the PCs need to know. So at worst, Knowledge skills allows for an infodump.

The skills had rules for doing monster knowledge in 3.x as well. I usually asked my long time GM, although he never was forthcoming.

In my experience the rules have two issues:

In my experience using passive checks works better. The game is not interrupted for everyone rolling. And since Monster Knowledge is distributed over several skills, active checks give away the monster type at once.

The DC based on Challenge Rating / Monster Level can make for strange results, when the monster can be found at diferent levels. So a character might know all about a young dragon, but not an old one. Of course, I could reiterate the facts about lesser forms, but that only makes it more complicated. In addition, how well known a monster is might not be related to its level at all.

For 5e I'd make a static list of difficulties. That would be in line with the generally easier skill checks in 5e.

 

[Wolfskin]

I'm with Jester here: I've tried to do it for 4e, but we weren't getting much out of it so we stopped.

Most of my players don't read the books, or DM books at least, so facing a new monster is always an exciting prospect for them. Sometimes they learn stuff about the monsters they'll be facing in-game, and from time to time I'll let some of them make an Arcana/Religion/Nature check to see if they can figure out some useful tidbits (not stat block details) about what may be lurking from a peasant's rumors, but I don't do straight out knowledge checks anymore.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I'm not too terribly fond of knowledge checks either--I prefer knowledge to be more binary: if you're trained in the skill, I'll just hand out the information.

More than anything, I use it as a guide for to what player I'll hand out the information.

 

[Grazzt]

I'm not a big fan of monster knowledge checks; I would rather have the pcs rely on a mix of what I tell them they know as 'common knowledge' about a given monster and in-game learning from encountering it or talking to people who have done so.

Same here. No "I rolled a 20 so tell me everything about the monster."

 

[Grazzt]

Most 5e beginners might not know what a kobold really is. It’s up to the DM to describe what it looks like I’d think.

When we first started playing back with the original red box and in 1e, we didn't either. The DM (me or someone else) described kobolds. Later adventures when we met small dog-looking humanoids with tiny horns and red eyes (or whatever) we figured out...kobolds. Was the same with all monsters. Learned through playing (or by asking town locals or sages or whatever).

 

[steeldragons]

I think I'm falling mostly in with everyone else here. The description is the description I give the player. What it looks, sounds, smells like?...that's all done. It's right there...in front of you...ready to rip your head off. You don't need a check for that.

"Common knowledge" is freely given for critters that would be "common": orcs, ogres, goblins...maybe hobgoblins and kobolds depending on the area and characters...a dwarf or gnome is going to know immediately what a kobold is. The Cleric from the big city or halfling fresh out of his farming community...maybe not. A giant is "a giant?!"

Player 1: "Was it a red giant or a blue giant?"
Player 2: "OR grey or purple? What was it wearing?"
Farmer who just crapped his pants when the giant took his cow: "It was BIG!"
All players look annoyed.
Farmer continues: "Kinda dirty. Mangy lookin' like. N' hooooWEE! I smelled it from across the field...was wearing, ya know, normal clothes. Patchy. Leathers...bit o' fur, I think."
Players 1 & 2: "Hill giant."

A troll is a troll. A basilisk? Maybe they'll mistake it for a drake/dragon of some kind until someone turns to stone...and maybe even after.

Other stuff is really kinda dependent on the PC. I would give a modicum of information to a Cleric about an "Angel", i.e. You know from its coloring that it is what's described in the holy writings as being of the order of Planetar vs. a Deva...they are said to (2 or 3 things a planetar can do) or whatever. Mages are gonna know basic things and be able to recognize magical creatures like unicorns, cockatrices, pseudo-dragons and imps, etc... Demons are a bit more difficult since their appearances are all fairly mutable (in my world)...but I generally keep to the book descriptions or some permutation thereof so that a player is going to identify a Type I vs. a Type III, for example.

If it comes to damage resistances, attack forms, special powers or any of that kinda "meta-game knowledge"...that's all going to be figured out from descriptions of the combat or, if the Player has some pre-established reason in the PC's background why they would know, I might have a roll about this particular type of demon...or demons vs. devils...or umber hulks or whatever. If its a cleric who belongs to a church/order of demon-hunters or a ranger who's made their PC around a concept of being a giant-slayer, I'd probably not require a roll. A thief with an interest in magical items/devices may be given free knowledge of magical guardian-type creatures or might be require a roll to see just what/how much she remembers, depends on the critter and how much/hcomplex they are. "I've read about these! It's an evil naga. Don't look it in the eyes!"

Once the party has encountered something, though, I am inclined to just tell them...presuming their PCs have better memories/ pay more attention than the players...most times.