DCs for Knowledge checks about monsters too dang high

[buzz]

If you have time and have the jump on the creature, you take 10 and at 1st level can get a useful bit of information about creatures up to 5 HD.

One useful bit, though; that's all. You gotta try your luck if you want more than that.

If you have long enough time to study...you can take 10 each round and garner more and more nformation.

No, the rules for Knowledge explicitly state that you cannot make successive checks to garner more answers to the same question. You get one check, and that's it.

Try Again
No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something that you never learned in the first place.

 

[buzz]

Buzz -> If your Knowledge roll of 7 (+10 modifier) tells you that a griffon sees like a hawk and fights like a lion, you're actually telling the player "it gets +x on Spot and can pounce and rake", minus the mechanics lingo.

IMO, the mechaics lingo is what should be conveyed to the player. It's the character that tells her comrades it "sees like a hawk and fights like a lion".

So even if you meet a 40HD red dragon, it's still only a DC 17 to know that a red dragon breathes fire.

A seemingly logical interpretation, but not RAW. By the book, the DM can call for a DC50 check before he gives you any info at all about that 40HD dragon.

 

[buzz]

Everybody has heard about dragons, but when it comes to describing what they actually can do, there might be a lot of misconceptions, myths and contradicting information.
The rulebook might say there are chromatic and metallic dragons and this color means this energy breath weapon, but the rulebook isn't what the people in-game know.

What's in the MM is what people in-game know, assuming they have knowledge of the subject (i.e., ranks). The MM is a zoology text as far as the D&D universe goes.

My argument isn't that PCs shouldn't necessarily have to make checks; I just don't think the rule for determining the DC is accurate. I also think that, gvien we're talking about professional adventurers here and not Joe Commoner, some "common knowledge" is perfectly reasonable. A PC shoud never have to make a check (or at least one with a significant DC) to know something about orcs, and being able to tell the basic differences between the "core" dragon types should be a no-brainer, IMO.

 

[buzz]

I don't see any reason why the wizard can't be making his knowledge rolls against what he remembers about wyrmling red dragons when he meets an old one. It doesn't really specify you have to have the monster you're rolling about right in front of you.

Well, it does technically say "identify" and not "remember". (Which to me says: "If you've met this creature before, you don't need to make a check.")

It seems like sort of a cop-out to just default to, "Well, what do I know about baby illithids?" I'd rather just use a more reasonable rule.

 

[buzz]

kigmatzomat, I like your rules.

I've changed my mind!

Setting different base DCs for different creature types makes some Knowledge skills less useful than others. That's a double-whammy given the PC already has to invest ranks in a specific skill to know about specific monster types.

What should matter is the commonality of the subject in question within the field of knowledge. What I would do is:

DC10 - Traits common to all creatures of the type(s) covered by the skill. E.g., "All creatures of the dragon type have darkvision and are immune to magic sleep effects and paralysis effects."

DC15 - Traits common to all creatures of a species. E.g., traits common to all True Dragons and the basic characteristics of the various colors, associated sub-types, etc.

DC20 - Traits of specific members of a species. E.g., knowing at what ages balck dragons get DR or plant growth.

DC30 - Knowledge about individual creatures. E.g., where Smaug lives, how old he is, his past exploits.

The DC30 level can be modified depending on the reknown of the creature in question.

And again, if you've met the monster before, no check is made.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I might not get it right off the top of my head, but my rule of thumb goes something like this:

DC15 - know about its attacks
DC20 - know about its defences
DC25 - know about its vulnerabilities

Then modify DC upwards for increasing rarity.

My thinking is that more people will know about its means of attack, somewhat less may have actually attacked it back and even fewer have discovered a vulnerability.

e.g. troll, pretty common.
DC15 "It attacks with two claws and a bite, and it can rend if it gets both claws on you - don't just stand and fight it if you can avoid it"

DC20 "Most weapons don't do it serious harm, and it quickly regenerates damage you do it"

DC25 "However, they take permanent harm from acid and fire, or so the sages say"

Cheers

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

And, as IanB says, it's pretty easy to know that a red dragon breathes fire and is impervious to it (DC 17 for a wyrmling), and that information holds true for the remainder of the dragon's life. So even if you meet a 40HD red dragon, it's still only a DC 17 to know that a red dragon breathes fire.

Ignoring the fact that this isn't how the rule works, it still doesn't make sense.

What you're saying, is that, except for people with Knowledge: Arcana, people in the D&D world don't know that Red Dragons breathe fire. Knowledge skills can't be used untrained. Furthermore, a DC17 knowledge check isn't that easy to make...someone of average intelligence with 5 ranks in the skill will miss the check more than half of the time.

Knowing that a Red Dragon breathes fire should be like knowing that tigers have sharp claws and eat people. It should be automatic.

What is missing in the rules, as was stated earlier, is information on how well known monsters are. It makes sense to require knowledge checks for the more esoteric monsters, but the iconic ones should be well known, in my opinion.

Ken

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Knowledge skills can't be used untrained.

Actually, they can. You just can't try for anything with a DC higher than 10.l

 

[Klaus]

Ignoring the fact that this isn't how the rule works, it still doesn't make sense.

What you're saying, is that, except for people with Knowledge: Arcana, people in the D&D world don't know that Red Dragons breathe fire. Knowledge skills can't be used untrained. Furthermore, a DC17 knowledge check isn't that easy to make...someone of average intelligence with 5 ranks in the skill will miss the check more than half of the time.

Knowing that a Red Dragon breathes fire should be like knowing that tigers have sharp claws and eat people. It should be automatic.

What is missing in the rules, as was stated earlier, is information on how well known monsters are. It makes sense to require knowledge checks for the more esoteric monsters, but the iconic ones should be well known, in my opinion.

Ken

They might mix up green dragons breathing fire, or black dragons breathing acid gas. Someone not trained in Knowledge (Arcana) can only go by hearsay, and tales can get confusing. The blue dragon has yellowish wings, so it may be confused for a Yellow Dragon. The Red Dragon has purplish wings and crest, so it may be confused for a blue.

Compare it to our world's legends on dragons, where fire-breathing dragons have been portrayed as red, green, brown and black, mostly.

 

[iwatt]

In this house rule thread I proposed a variant. (For some reson I can't cerate a hyper-link from this computer today :\ )

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=146088