Are Knowledge checks proactive or reactive?

[Three_Haligonians]

Your in a game,

The party opens up the dungeon door and the DM describes the horrible beast that rushes the party, intent on.. well.. probably eating some of them.

My question is when does the Knowledge [Whatever pertains to this creature] step in to learn about it? Do the character's have to declare "Can I try my skill to identify this thing?" or should the DM say "Make a Knowledge [Blank] check."

Which do you use? which is best? Would it make a difference if instead it wasn't a monster but an NPC with identifying markers like.. a crest or tattoo?

For the record, my group have trained themselves to automatically ask to make various Knowledge checks whenever they open the door.

J from Three Haligonians

 

[Aaron L]

If you want a character to know something, then call for a check. If you dont think of it, but a player asks if his character could know about something, then let them roll. It's both, but you cant be responsible for EVERYTHING. But sometimes try to remember if one of the characters is knowledgable about something, and give them a bit of spotlight. I know I would have appreciated it with all of my characters that had big ranks in knowledge skills that were pretty much just decoration on my character sheet.

 

[jaerdaph]

My question is when does the Knowledge [Whatever pertains to this creature] step in to learn about it? Do the character's have to declare "Can I try my skill to identify this thing?" or should the DM say "Make a Knowledge [Blank] check."

Personally, I prefer the players to make all decisions for their characters' actions, so I would say the former.

In some cases though, where something might be a gut reaction or gut instinct, the latter would work very nicely.

Scent is a very powerful sense, so there might be an "instinctual" reaction recalling to mind the source of the odor (ug! wet knoll fur!), but only if the character had smelled the odor before.

 

[painandgreed]

If it's obvious to the player, then I'd say that the DM should ask for a role. As a rule of thumb, if I, as a DM, have determined that some knowledge role would give them information, then I call for it when it is appropriate. If they seek to use one of their knowledges to get information and I deem it possible, then it becomes proactive. in the case of a charging monster, I'd give it to them automatically, especially if they decalre they want a check everytime. However, there might be modifiers due to being in combat.

 

[Crothian]

They are both, sometimes a DM asks for a character to make it and sometimes the player requests it to happen

 

[Umbran]

Both.

There's basic knowledge that a character may have on sight that the player doesn't, and they shouldn't have to ask for that. Then there's more specific stuff that may not occur to them unless they think about it, and that they have to ask for.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Both. And allow for research as well.

The Auld Grump

 

[Morrus]

It's no different to describing what a character sees or hears. Knowledge is automatic. You can't expect a play to know to ask "Can I make a spot check?" an "Can I make a listen check?" every time he turns a corner, or to ask "Can I make a sense motive check?" every time someone talks to him.

I'd ask them to make the check, not expect them to know to ask to make the check.

 

[Whimsical]

What I offer to players automatically is what they would get if they "take one" on the roll. If a player has a high knowlege score or spellcraft or sense motive, I keep note of what it is +1 and automatically give them the information for that DC. If I'm prepared, then the information is printed on an index card that I hand to the player when he encounters it. It is up to the player to see if his character knows more about it, then he can roll for it. Spot and Listen are reactive, so they automatically get a roll when they have line of sight to the hidden/inobious creature/object.

 

[DragonLancer]

I let the players ask for a roll, and they usually do.