DCs for Knowledge checks about monsters too dang high

[buzz]

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

As usual, ENWorld ahs already dealt with the question I post. Interesting stuff, iwatt.

The alternate question: it this check even worth bothering with? Does it add anything to the game to forbid player knwoledge from being character knowledge w/r/t monsters?

 

[buzz]

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

The difference is that dragons are not legend in the D&D universe. If Joe Average today can be expected to tell the difference between a brown bear and a polar bear, Joe Commoner can tell the black dragons from the red. Heck, they're color-coded!

 

[iwatt]

As usual, ENWorld ahs already dealt with the question I post. Interesting stuff, iwatt.

thanx

The alternate question: it this check even worth bothering with? Does it add anything to the game to forbid player knowledge from being character knowledge w/r/t monsters?

Well... IMO it encourages the sage concept. Some people like to play the wise and all knowing character, and it is a common archetype in fiction. If you don't stop this type of metagaming, a player who chose to have a sage character may feel slightly shafted.

Another reason is that sometimes a DM does bring in a "new" monster, which the characetr might know about while the player might not have any idea about it (new monster manual, DM changes description but keeps stats, etc..).

 

[IanB]

I disagree that my interpretation isn't RAW. Is it being suggested that you can't make a knowledge check about the capabilities of, say, bone devils unless you actually have one in front of you?

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

C'mon: DC10 + HD for one useful bit of info, one extra bit for every 5

I don't like the HD, as certain creature types (giants for example) are based on having a lot of Hit Dice to make it the Same CR as a Fey or Outsider.

CR is a better indication for me as to how tough it should be for someone to know bits about it. After all an 8 HD demon with a CR of 8 Shouldn't be harder to figure out than a giant with 12 HD and a CR of 8.

I go with 10+CR then throw in a DM modifier based on the rarity/abundance of the creature (in my gameworld).

I also give a small plus/minus based on Climate/Terrain. (I.e. a Druid from the Tropics isn't going to know a lot about the habits of a Polar Bear).

 

[kigmatzomat]

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.

I really need to set up a script that pre-pends all my comments with "I still run 3.0"

We came up with a Knowledge(Bestiary) that only knows a) how things try to kill you and b) how to kill those things. It wasn't until 4th level+ that the first splat book came out and I wasn't going to rewrite the game world as new rules tricked in.

Knowledge(Fey) provides much more information about Fey than Knowledge(Bestiary) and without the high base DC using the common/uncommon/rare/secret standard.

 

[buzz]

CR is a better indication for me as to how tough it should be for someone to know bits about it.

CR seems problematic to me as well. What if you're talking about a creature with a high CR that also happens to be widely known about? E.g., Smaug probably has a CR of 25+, but I'd bet the good folk of Lake Town would be well aware of his basic abilities.

 

[buzz]

We came up with a Knowledge(Bestiary)...

Ah, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved has this as well. Yet another reason to love it.

 

[Klaus]

The difference is that dragons are not legend in the D&D universe. If Joe Average today can be expected to tell the difference between a brown bear and a polar bear, Joe Commoner can tell the black dragons from the red. Heck, they're color-coded!

Joe Commoner doesn't meet that many dragons in his lifetime, do they? And the D&D world doesn't have a crystal ball network running a fantasy version of Animal Planet. You'd do better to compare Joe Commoner from a D&D world with the average worker in our world in the 1800s. Even the average Eberron commoner will be no more knowledgeable than the average 1930s Joe Average.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Joe Commoner doesn't meet that many dragons in his lifetime, do they? And the D&D world doesn't have a crystal ball network running a fantasy version of Animal Planet. You'd do better to compare Joe Commoner from a D&D world with the average worker in our world in the 1800s. Even the average Eberron commoner will be no more knowledgeable than the average 1930s Joe Average.

this comes down to game world flavor, which is something the group needs to establish and work within. If you want complete commoner cluelessness, thats fine, but I find it just as reasonabe to take a Pern/Reign of Fire tack and assume that small children are taught songs and rhymes to know about the dangers and heroes of their world. (which gives bards another game world niche - traveling from village to village teaching the "danger songs" and correcting any changes that might have been made to the important info in retelling.)

If the latter is your world, the knowlege checks need a serious house rule.