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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 2799623" data-attributes="member: 6777">C'mon: DC10 + HD for one useful bit of info, one extra bit for every 5 by which you make the check?E.g., griffon: 7HD = DC17 for basic info. Depending on how you define "useful info", DC22 will tell you it has a pounce ability and DC27 ("Formidable" task) will tell you it has rake... assuming your DM hasn't filled those two breakpoints with basic info like "it's a large magical beast with darkvision". This is a CR4 creatutre. Ergo, your wizard will at best likely have Knowledge (arcana) +10 or so; i.e., 65% to know basic info, and it spirals down from there.E.g., stone golem: 14HD = DC24 for basic info, up to DC44 (beyond "Nearly impossible"!) to know all there is to know about them (if your DM is being nice), even for your Wiz11 with his maxed +19 or so skill bonus. I.e., 0% to know all the useful info... and this for a creature typically created by wizards.I gotta say, I find this wacked. For monsters that fall into less-common Knowledge areas (dungeoneering, local, the planes), your characters, by RAW, have no chance of knowing in-game anything about the creatures they spend their entire lives battling.There's part of me that wants to agree with gamist approaches to D&D and just allow players to use their own knowledge of creatures instead of maintaining the pretense of PCs acting in total ignorance of creatures they fight regularly. That, or just making sure some in-game source is available to consistently keep them informed.Or... at least ditching the "more info for every 5 the DC is beat" rule, and just making it like every other Knowledge check: you make the DC, you know the answer.Or... having a simple Knowledge (monsters) skill, a la AE.Thoughts?</blockquote>

Verification