D&D 5E How do you handle monster knowledges in your game?

[Demetrios1453]

That's because people are too used to the idea of binary results and using skills as win buttons.

Then assign different, higher DCs for more obscure info. A minimally successful roll still should merit some useful, if minor, nugget of information at the least, while a success with a very high DC means the character did their thesis on the creature at Monster Fighter University.

 

[billd91]

Depends how you like to run game world and how you approach what knowledge skill does. Personally, i run games where knowledge skill is your ability to recall pieces of knowledge about certain topics. If you fail - you can't recall anything. It's like blanking out on exam. You know that you studied about topic, but you just can't remember anything about it under stress. On success, you remember, but how true that info is, for that, use Investigation skill. For example, back in elementary school we learned that Pluto is a planet. If you asked me what is Pluto, i would probably tell you- it's a planet (that's sucess on knowledge check). But in the meantime, Pluto was reclassified. Failed check would be - don't know.

I understand blanking out on a failure - that seems perfectly reasonable. What I'm not personally keen on is a result being paradoxical. It's like those stupid nilbogs from the 1e AD&D Fiend Folio (if there's a dumb monster, chances are it's from the FF) - they healed when you hit them and took damage when healed. They're pretty much a "gotcha" encounter and I'm not a fan of those. Misinformation on a success is a "gotcha" result because you can't tell its reliability until it effs you up.

 

[Osgood]

I've adopted this system. If a character is proficient in the appropriate skill, they more or less automatically know the monster's type (Aberration, Celestial, etc.). If they take the Study action, they can learn more based on the check, which had Advantage if the CR is 5 or more lower than than level and Disadvantage if it is 5 or more higher than their level.

• DC 10: Name and basic origin and place in the world (which could include some misinformation)
• DC 15: As above, plus identify a signature attack or ability (like beholder eye rays or a ghoul's paralyzing touch)
• DC 20: As above, plus identify one or more signature defenses (resistances, immunities, perhaps regeneration)
• DC 25: As above, plus identify one or more weaknesses (vulnerabilities, ways to kill a vampire, etc.)

 

[el-remmen]

Amazingly, I think I kind of run this kind of thing like @Reynard is describing - though I have no hard and fast rules about it, it is a case by case basis. I think the question is, is the character trying to recall information based on objective fact divorced from their experience of hearing stories about the creature or even studying it or are they recalling what they might know, whether or not it is 100% factual.

I have a general rule in my current games where PCs know whatever the players think they know about a monster (characters by design come from a place where most monsters are extinct or sometimes, if possible, kept in a zoo or a monarch's private collection). I am just never in the mood to police what players think their characters know or don't know about stuff like that.

So if you think that trolls are vulnerable to fire, you are welcome to think that and do what you will based on that info. You probably don't know about this specific variant of troll that uses its regenerative ability to perform body modification, implanting countless stones in the flesh of their back - as a reaction they can turn their back to the source of fire damage from a targeted attack and only take half fire damage.

Recently, the PCs had an encounter with a vampire. One of the PCs wanted to make a check to know if they had ever heard of vampires who could curb their appetites and be neutral or even try to be good (which the vamp was claiming).* Despite having a successful enough roll to learn a lot of about what vampires can do, it was not high enough to determine that yes, in theory some vampires can make efforts to be less evil. So the answer had to be, "No, you've never heard stories of good vampires, but you have heard stories of vampires pretending to be good." The thing was, the vamp was sincerely trying to change his ways!

Ultimately, the player decided that just because all the stories they'd heard said X, doesn't mean that Y could not also be true and risked a negotiation with the vampire. What did he base this choice on? Other information the party had gathered about the vampire's recent activities and behavior which shed more positive light.

My point being that when you move away from binary yes/no results regarding info like this, some successes might still come with absent or even erroneous, or more complexly, "partially true" information.

* like the vast majority of monsters in my games, vamps are homebrewed.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

I use them right in the monster manual entry.
you roll well enough, you learn something.
you roll really well, you can get a tactical advantage.

It allows pcs to really feel like an expert., plus puts a real shine on skills that were most likely put in for rpging purposes.

 

[Weiley31]

But what about "interesting"?

 

[GrimCo]

Misinformation on a success is a "gotcha" result because you can't tell its reliability until it effs you up.

I see how it can be viewed as "gotcha" and some people probably do use it as that. For me, it's more about world building and immersion. Using it on monsters that are very common doesn't make sense. Specially for things that are more or less human with a paint job. But even then, it can be fun if you use it well and in moderation. When i do that, i look at characters race, class, background and think from what kind of sources would that character learn about certain topic. I'll even ask player- where and how did character acquire knowledge about certain type of monster.

It's fun way to keep creatures that most people in setting consider beings of myths and legends really be beings of myth and legend.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i could maybe see it as a viable implementation of 'misinformation on a success' if the information also comes with a specification of potentially how unreliable it may possibly be, if information could perhaps be separated into three tiers of sourcing 'book research and experts', 'legends, common knowledge and unverified sources' and lastly 'rumors and hearsay'.

you know that information you recall from a published beastiary is going to consistently reliable, but something you only know 'from a guy you met in the tavern' likely only contains some small grain of truth that you have to discern from amongst the exaggerated boasts and face-saving omissions.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Any "thought true by the general public but really isn't true" results on a knowledge skill check would have to be considered within the "failure" part of the skill check spectrum. When you roll for any knowledge check, a success means you have some knowledge of the  objective truth of the matter. A failed check would mean you lack that objective truth in the matter, which would include subjective "truth" which is in fact objectively wrong.

 

[GrimCo]

i could maybe see it as a viable implementation of 'misinformation on a success' if the information also comes with a specification of potentially how unreliable it may possibly be, if information could perhaps be separated into three tiers of sourcing 'book research and experts', 'legends, common knowledge and unverified sources' and lastly 'rumors and hearsay'.

you know that information you recall from a published beastiary is going to consistently reliable, but something you only know 'from a guy you met in the tavern' likely only contains some small grain of truth that you have to discern from amongst the exaggerated boasts and face-saving omissions.

That's why i'm taking into account things like race, class and background when someone makes knowledge check. 2 characters, scholarly wizard and tavern hopping bard can both make same kn:arcana check, hit same dc and get two completely different information from it. Cause they recall information from different sources. Wizard from books and manuscripts, bard from old folk tales and songs. One has higher probability of being objectively true than another, yet sometimes even in those old folk tales there are some parts that are objectively true. And that's why you cross reference different sources.

But, my players know this in advance. They know that making knowledge check and beating DC doesn't give them automatically give them insight into the part of monster stat block and that sometimes what they learn may not be true. It helps with immersion.

Any "thought true by the general public but really isn't true" results on a knowledge skill check would have to be considered within the "failure" part of the skill check spectrum. When you roll for any knowledge check, a success means you have some knowledge of the  objective truth of the matter. A failed check would mean you lack that objective truth in the matter, which would include subjective "truth" which is in fact objectively wrong.

Sure, you can do it that way. Personally, i don't, but that's just preference. I have friend GM. In his games, if you roll high enough, you get practically whole mechanical stat block ( without ability scores and HP). I find that immersion breaking and boring, but he and his group like it that way, so kudos to them.