Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7577492" data-attributes="member: 42582">Here is the rule for monster knowledge checks in the 4e Rules Compendium (p 130):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. . . .Here is the same rule from the 4e PHB (p 180):Regardless of the knowledge skill you’re using, refer to the rules here when making a check to identify a monster. . . .Both entries go on to state DCs for learning various bits of information about a monster.Both entries also - as I have emphasised - explain that they govern checks made to learn stuff about monsters. They say nothing about other ways in which a character might know something about a monster (eg because the GM tells the player; because the player already knows; etc). And obviiously if a player already knows about a monster then there is no particular reason why s/he would need to make a check to identify and learn about it. Hence, as I said, these rules are a device for players who don't have that knowledge to oblige the GM to share it with them.A table could adopt further conventions around this: for instance, I can imagine a table which took the view that player A, who knows, shouldn't tell player B, who is ignorant, unless one or the other successfully makes a check (which would then provide an ingame rationalisation of A's PC's knowledge and hence of A's PC's communication to B's PC). But that would be a table convention/"house rule". There is no discussion of this sort of thing in the rules for monster knowledge checks.</blockquote>

Verification