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

[Charlaquin]

Ultimately this is a broader "what should skills be used for" question and I am generally on the side of "stuff we can model without skill rolls, we should, and even when we do we should still make players work for it." I dislike "playing the sheet."

I get you, I agree with this position in principle. However, I also hold a principle that you shouldn’t ask for a check unless the results of that check matter. And if you can’t tell whether information is reliable or not, it’s unreliable.

Let me try a different tac here. Let’s say you do go with the possibility of unreliable information on a successful knowledge check. How do you determine when to give reliable information and when not to? Perhaps you assign a probability and roll a die to determine it? If so, how is that different than the random die roll you already made to determine if the check was successful? Why not save the superfluous die roll and call the random chance of getting correct information the DC?

 

[Charlaquin]

I would not ask a player to make a knowledge check. That is a player side thing, and it essentially represents a failure of preparation (which of course might not be their fault). A knowledge check is essentially a player asking for a cheat code. I actively don't want it to work all the time, and I don't want it to obviate the need for engaging the fiction of the game. And, like I said, I think it is interesting and realistic for there to potentially (remember, I am not saying this should happen every time) be bad info in there because the PC has only ever read about these things, or listened to rumors, or whatever.

Why even allow knowledge checks if you don’t want players to make knowledge checks? Just say those skills are only used for research, not for on-the-spot recollection.

 

[billd91]

I would not ask a player to make a knowledge check. That is a player side thing, and it essentially represents a failure of preparation (which of course might not be their fault). A knowledge check is essentially a player asking for a cheat code. I actively don't want it to work all the time, and I don't want it to obviate the need for engaging the fiction of the game. And, like I said, I think it is interesting and realistic for there to potentially (remember, I am not saying this should happen every time) be bad info in there because the PC has only ever read about these things, or listened to rumors, or whatever.

Like I said, I would prefer to do this without rolls at all, but the question was about a random knowledge check. That should come with the chance for some shenanigans. This is a different situation than characters trying to actively research and prep in order to take down whatever it is.

OK, I see what's going on here. Your approach of researching something and prepping to determine how best to take it down might work for certain known set-piece types of encounter lairs such as "We're planning to confront the Demon Beast of Yppsilanti in his lair and we need to know more about it". But it's not that useful for running into a creature on some random encounter while traveling. In that case, I don't see how it's a "cheat code" to look at what the character has invested in "ah, history and nature because of his studies at the Grand Library at the College of Proctor and Gamble" and try to use that background to relate it to the current situation and see if some recognition of the critter comes up. How is it not engaging in the fiction - as in my character's backstory/development fiction - to rely on the skills he has?

 

[Reynard]

I get you, I agree with this position in principle. However, I also hold a principle that you shouldn’t ask for a check unless the results of that check matter. And if you can’t tell whether information is reliable or not, it’s unreliable.

Let me try a different tac here. Let’s say you do go with the possibility of unreliable information on a successful knowledge check. How do you determine when to give reliable information and when not to? Perhaps you assign a probability and roll a die to determine it? If so, how is that different than the random die roll you already made to determine if the check was successful? Why not save the superfluous die roll and call the random chance of getting correct information the DC?

I would have a chart of some number of bits of info, and some portion of that would be false or incomplete information. So, just as example, say you had a chart with 1d8 bits of info. 2 of those might be wrong or incomplete.

One way to mitigate for higher success might be to base the die rolled on the result. Let's assume the wrong info are entries 1 and 2. Hitting the CR you roll a d4. Cr +5 you roll a d6. CR +10 you roll 1d8. CR +15 you roll 2d4. Or something.

Why even allow knowledge checks if you don’t want players to make knowledge checks? Just say those skills are only used for research, not for on-the-spot recollection.

I mean, I am just spitballing. I am not writing a set of houserules.

If the PC were exploration some location and a random encounter table came up with some monster they had not encountered in play, and someone asked to make an Arcana check, I would treat it like any other skill roll. What are they trying to accomplish. If they respons with "have I ever heard anything about this weird creature" then I am likely to have them roll against a DC based on CR and rarity, then quickly come up with some possibilities. I would, of course, rather have that stuff prepared (whether by me or in a book).

Of course, intent and approach and context all matter. There are an unlimited possible scenarios, so each one has to be judged on its own. But in general, if the player is trying to find out what they learned in wizard school about nilbogs, there is a chance that they can succeed on remembering stuff they were told that wasn't true.

 

[Charlaquin]

I would have a chart of some number of bits of info, and some portion of that would be false or incomplete information. So, just as example, say you had a chart with 1d8 bits of info. 2 of those might be wrong or incomplete.

One way to mitigate for higher success might be to base the die rolled on the result. Let's assume the wrong info are entries 1 and 2. Hitting the CR you roll a d4. Cr +5 you roll a d6. CR +10 you roll 1d8. CR +15 you roll 2d4. Or something.

It just seems unnecessary, since you’re already making a random roll for the check. Again, why not just make the chance of correct information the DC?

Of course, intent and approach and context all matter. There are an unlimited possible scenarios, so each one has to be judged on its own. But in general, if the player is trying to find out what they learned in wizard school about nilbogs, there is a chance that they can succeed on remembering stuff they were told that wasn't true.

Right, sure, there’s a chance the information they recall is wrong. But since the results of the check are already random, why not make that the determining factor of if the information they recall is correct or not?

 

[Plaguescarred]

When i DM i usually determine wether player characters know anything about a given monster or not, and wether an Intelligence check is warranted.

 

[aco175]

So, do you think the GM should ever give the PCs unreliable information if a successful roll was made?

I would place bad information in with the 'miss by 5 or more' stuff. Of course that brings up having the DM or player roll for the check, but I always have the payer roll more dice than not, so I would need to player to go with it and not metagame.

 

[Horwath]

Yes.

The best way to avoid bad information is to not roll. If a PC is supposed to be a expert in monster lore, the player needs to actively play that way: doing research in down time, taking actual real world notes, asking the GM questions, examining monsters after fights, etc...

Like I said, I would prefer to do this without rolls at all, but the question was about a random knowledge check. That should come with the chance for some shenanigans. This is a different situation than characters trying to actively research and prep in order to take down whatever it is.

But I already acknowledged that I get why people don't like anything but perfect success. I just find it boring on both sides of the screen.

that is not the point of the "knowledge" check.

you roll for knowledge for something you did not encounter by now.

maybe you read it in some book, maybe your grandma told you a story, maybe that drunk bard in your towns tavern was really an adventurer and not just a town drunk always.

 

[Reynard]

why not make that the determining factor of if the information they recall is correct or not?

Because a chart of a bunch of "common knowledge and lore" about a particular monster is more interesting if there is some rumor, inuuendo, and misinformation in it.

You keep asking as if I am coming from this with a fundamental misunderstanding of what "success" is. I'm not. What I know is what makes the game more fun for my players, and what makes for a more interesting world.

 

[Reynard]

that is not the point of the "knowledge" check.

you roll for knowledge for something you did not encounter by now.

maybe you read it in some book, maybe your grandma told you a story, maybe that drunk bard in your towns tavern was really an adventurer and not just a town drunk always.

Exactly. And grandma's stories and drunk bards are hardly what you would call reliable.