How do you use knowledge skills?

[QuinnHarlech]

That's actually an official rule change as of MM4. Both it and MM5 (page 7, Lore) state that the Knowledge DCs should be (generally) based on CR.

Just to be pedantic, it's a change in the rules for MM4 and Dragon Magic, but not a retroactive change or a change for home-brew monsters. I'm afraid I can't comment on MM5 since I don't have it. Those two books change the knowledge DCs for monsters listed in them, but still quote the rule of DC=10+HD (see MM4 p. 6). Checking with (the admittedly unreliable) Customer Service says that they have not changed the rules but the new DCs aren't errors. Take that as you will. I personally like the new DCs, but really would like them to update the rule and adjust the old ones, too.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Something that some of the recent articles on the WotC site have been doing is to have several different knowledge skills apply, with different skills giving you different pieces of information.

I'd like to see this extended to monster knowledge skills, where you can approach critters from several different angles.

For instance, take Mindflayers.

Knowledge (Dungeoneering) might give you some idea of how their physical attacks work and the extent of their natural armor.

Knowledge (Arcana) might tell you about their spell resistance and what types of spells will affect them.

Knowledge (Religion) might tell you that they rarely utilize clerics.

And so on...

 

[Stormborn]

We basically use Knowledge skills as written. However once a character has a certain score (not ranks) in a skill they know all the basic information about a subject. We also tend to say that PCs from certain backgrounds know particular info, if not covered by a specific knowledge skill, and if they want to know something specific that might be covered under a knowledge skill they can make a Level + Intelligence check. The tiefling fighter mentioned above might get such a check.

 

[Asmor]

However once a character has a certain score (not ranks) in a skill they know all the basic information about a subject.

That's already handled by the rules... Someone with +X in a knowledge skill knows everything with a DC of X+1 or higher.

 

[RFisher]

In any game, I prefer to not call for checks against knowledge skills. Instead, I use the skill rank as a guide for how much extra detail to give.

If the players need to know something I try not to make it depend upon either a roll or a skill rank. At most they have to look in the right place or ask the right person the right question.

 

[Jhaelen]

Just to be pedantic, it's a change in the rules for MM4 and Dragon Magic, but not a retroactive change or a change for home-brew monsters. I'm afraid I can't comment on MM5 since I don't have it. Those two books change the knowledge DCs for monsters listed in them, but still quote the rule of DC=10+HD (see MM4 p. 6). Checking with (the admittedly unreliable) Customer Service says that they have not changed the rules but the new DCs aren't errors. Take that as you will. I personally like the new DCs, but really would like them to update the rule and adjust the old ones, too.

I enjoy being pedantic from time to time, so I don't mind
Actually, I don't have MM4, but the quoted page/section in MM5 explicitly states it's supposed to supersede the old rules. I'm currently away from my books, so I can't give the exact quote right now.

 

[wedgeski]

Knowledge checks to uncover monster lore/abilities are one of the most important innovations of the game I think. I love them. My players love them. They slap a plaster on player-knowledge metagaming in a way everyone can get behind. I expect them to be absolutely integral to 4ed. A knock-on effect is that I suddenly have PC's with *lots* of ranks in various Knowledge skills, so they come up in play a lot more often and are much more important to the game.

And in answer to at least one of your questions, yes, I have serious problems with any players who abuse their own knowledge of the game in ways their character could not. And that's just what the Knowledge skills get us away from.

 

[Asmor]

In any game, I prefer to not call for checks against knowledge skills. Instead, I use the skill rank as a guide for how much extra detail to give.

If the players need to know something I try not to make it depend upon either a roll or a skill rank. At most they have to look in the right place or ask the right person the right question.

Well, that's just good policy in general. Anything that the players need should never be dependant on a die roll... Dice rolls fail sometimes (that's what makes 'em interesting), and if they fail then they're missing something they need and the story stalls.

Dice should only roll for things that could help the characters but are not necessary. Example: A knowledge check to determine what overcomes a monster's DR is helpful, but not necessary. This is a good use of a skill check. A knowledge check to know that the mcguffin has to be baked in a strawberry rhubarb pie in order to open the portal and continue the story is bad, because if they fail it then you're stuck.

This doesn't just apply to knowledge checks, either. Nothing that is decided by a single die roll (or even a couple rolls) should be critical to the campaign. If you start off with the PCs on a boat, sink the boat, and then force them to make swim checks or drown... you're doing it wrong.

 

[Li Shenron]

Well, that's just good policy in general. Anything that the players need should never be dependant on a die roll... Dice rolls fail sometimes (that's what makes 'em interesting), and if they fail then they're missing something they need and the story stalls.

Dice should only roll for things that could help the characters but are not necessary. Example: A knowledge check to determine what overcomes a monster's DR is helpful, but not necessary. This is a good use of a skill check. A knowledge check to know that the mcguffin has to be baked in a strawberry rhubarb pie in order to open the portal and continue the story is bad, because if they fail it then you're stuck.

This doesn't just apply to knowledge checks, either. Nothing that is decided by a single die roll (or even a couple rolls) should be critical to the campaign. If you start off with the PCs on a boat, sink the boat, and then force them to make swim checks or drown... you're doing it wrong.

Very interesting observation, although I mainly disagree. I think quite the opposite in fact, that critical things should be decided by dice (I'm not saying that a single die roll is good...). Because the dice is the most fair way to resolve something. If they aren't decided by dice, they are ultimately decided by DM's arbitrium, which means either to handwave success or to voluntarily go against the players. The dice lifts the responsibility of deciding success/failure from the DM. In a storytelling game this isn't a good thing, but in the average D&D game I believe it is.

 

[Asmor]

A bit of clarification on my points...

When I say that something is needed, that's what I mean. I mean the game, simply put, must stop without it. If there's a way around something, then it's not needed. If the story/game can continue without it, it's not needed.

I also don't define moments of success and failure as needs... If the PCs are in a battle with the BBEG, they don't need to win. The story continues just fine if they fail: BBEG crushes the PCs, sees them driven before him, and hears the lamentations of their women. Depending on the nature of the BBEG, might be time to formulate an escape plan, or it might be time to figure out if your PC fits in best in Ysgard, Arborea or the Beastlands.

As an example of something that's needed... Suppose you've just got to wrap up one last encounter to finish the dungeon, and then you've got the rest of the night planned on the basis of the PCs finding a map in a secret passage. You assign it a nice medium-low DC 15 to make them feel like they earned it... and they all roll natural 1s, and the highest total is 11.

Granted, this situation isn't impossible (or even particularly difficult) to fix, but it's an example of poor planning.