D&D 5E How to Handle Monster Knowledge Checks

I kinda agree with you in principle. However.

As DM how would you react to a character with no background on the subject, pulling out a crossbow bolt and blessing it in order to kill a rakshasa*, a creature they had done no research on, or had never encountered?

(in the contex of when rakshasa could be instantly killed that way)

(1) If it turns out to be something other than a Rakshasa, I'd laugh and laugh.

(2) If it's a Rakshasa, and I haven't altered it for this campaign, I'd be fine with it. As a player I like to roleplay stuff, sometimes even being ignorant of things that I know better as a player--but that's only because I find getting into someone else's head fun. If the player decides that his PC's beliefs about the world are identical to the players' beliefs about the world, fine, that's still a fun game.

(3) I do alter a lot of monsters on a per-campaign basis. Sometimes trolls turn to stone in sunlight, and in other campaigns they don't. In some campaigns vampires can enter dwellings uninvited but must obey anyone who knows their true name. In some campaigns, Rakshasas are mighty spellcasters, and in others they have strictly MM stats except they can also eat your dreams and modify your memories over time. Sometimes, Nagas and Couatls are all evil creatures allied with the drow and the neogi, and sometimes orcs and goblins are (arguably) the good guys and the elves are semi-bad guys (or at least no better than the orcs--more like Germany vs. Britain). Sometimes black puddings are delicious treats when dead... and sometimes they aren't, and they dissolve your stomach from the inside out.

If a player wants to know a monster's actual stats/goals/vulnerabilities/habits, I will sometimes make secret checks for each PC and pass out information based on the check results to each PC... which sometimes means that PCs have conflicting beliefs about monster stats. One guy thinks vampires are an overhyped pushover because his grandmother told him so, and the other PC swears up and down that they are death incarnate. You can sort of guess who might be right by looking at whether the high-proficiency PCs agree with each other, but you can't ever really know for sure how vampires work in this campaign until you meet one.

Ultimately I don't think it's a big deal if people who live in a big, complex, deadly D&D world know as much about the folklore of their world as I know about Greek mythology. Because that's all it is, folklore, unless and until I the DM give it my blessing by actually using that folklore as the actual stats in my game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I would react by describing the result of the adventurer's actions. If I wanted not knowing this weakness or discovering it in some way to be part of the challenge, then it's my mistake that I didn't make the weakness a blessed dart.

I'm sure you see it differently, but the thought I'm having is that you aren't requiring enough of your players from my perspective. As much as I usually think it's my job to make the play experience enjoyable for them, examples like that just make me think that players need to accept some responsibility for the overall experience (not just their character). Part of that, in my opinion, is playing the game by established parameters (and keeping player knowledge and character knowledge separate ought to be a perfectly acceptable parameter if it enhances the game for the players (including the DM)).

Using obscure lore that the character doesn't have any way of knowing is just childish and unacceptable behavior. It is literally the kind of crap you expect from a child. But with a child I would be more patient and help them learn that's not how we do it because of such and so. If an adult did that, I would explain the issue once and not be patient if it happened a second time.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
I'm sure you see it differently, but the thought I'm having is that you aren't requiring enough of your players from my perspective.

I think it would be more reasonable to say that I require more of the DM. And, as the DM in this discussion, requiring more of myself is likely to get better results since I cannot control other people. I can control whether or not I alter monsters when playing with veterans. And if I don't, I hardly have any room to complain in my view when the players reduce the difficulty of a challenge by applying their hard-won knowledge to the situation.

Using obscure lore that the character doesn't have any way of knowing is just childish and unacceptable behavior.

To you. To me, it's unacceptable to demand other people play a certain way when I could have fixed this issue myself with the stroke of a pen prior to it becoming a problem.
 

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
I think it would be more reasonable to say that I require more of the DM. And, as the DM in this discussion, requiring more of myself is likely to get better results since I cannot control other people. I can control whether or not I alter monsters when playing with veterans. And if I don't, I hardly have any room to complain in my view when the players reduce the difficulty of a challenge by applying their hard-won knowledge to the situation.



To you. To me, it's unacceptable to demand other people play a certain way when I could have fixed this issue myself with the stroke of a pen prior to it becoming a problem.

I think part of this highlights my slight difference n view.

A veteran player has knowledge that a novice character would not have. I expect there to be some separation between characters, to include personality, demeanor, and even knowledge.

However, I have no serious problems at my table, they all play characters knowing trolls/fire cause they feel thats common knowledge, but even if the previous campaign was a rakshasa slaying carnival of illusion and madness, they would not use that knowledge in a new campaign with new characters. So they kinda self police themselves.

I was curious to your views, and I thank you and the others who have input...interesting thread exploring some semi-deep fundamentals if you think about it.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
A veteran player has knowledge that a novice character would not have.

I find it trivially easy to imagine how a novice character might have knowledge a veteran player would have. An acolyte might remember it from an obscure sermon he or she once heard. A criminal could have gotten the information from his or her underworld contact. A folk hero might be destined to defeat such a creature and so has been steeped in folklore since birth. A noble might have had access to histories of his or her house which included a confrontation with such monsters before. A sage could have read it in a book. And so on.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
Just a general question for anyone to answer as I can't think of any:

What are some other games where there is an expectation (enshrined in the rules or a common enough table rule) that the players should avoid using their knowledge and skill in certain situations?
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
Supporter
I find it trivially easy to imagine how a novice character might have knowledge a veteran player would have. An acolyte might remember it from an obscure sermon he or she once heard. A criminal could have gotten the information from his or her underworld contact. A folk hero might be destined to defeat such a creature and so has been steeped in folklore since birth. A noble might have had access to histories of his or her house which included a confrontation with such monsters before. A sage could have read it in a book. And so on.

It would be nice, though, for a veteran player to come up with some entertaining explanation for their knowledge rather than just using it and making everyone else to come up with in game rationalizations. Not required of course, but more team-player oriented.
 

Ilbranteloth

Explorer
I find it trivially easy to imagine how a novice character might have knowledge a veteran player would have. An acolyte might remember it from an obscure sermon he or she once heard. A criminal could have gotten the information from his or her underworld contact. A folk hero might be destined to defeat such a creature and so has been steeped in folklore since birth. A noble might have had access to histories of his or her house which included a confrontation with such monsters before. A sage could have read it in a book. And so on.

Absolutely. Many of these monsters are based on the tales and lore of past ages anyway. In other words, they were tales and stories known (and often believed to be true) by a large part of the population. It just so happens that in D&D, they are true. In our world, for somebody in medieval France to not hear the German tales of trolls is a cultural thing. In the Forgotten Realms, it could be a deadly thing.

More importantly, the fantasy D&D worlds have some significant differences with our historical world. In an age before TV and even, for the common person, books, stories are entertainment. This is a world where dragons, trolls, and worse are real. Every single village has had some threat from monsters, undead, and orcs, goblinkin, ogres, and the like. Bards not only entertain, but record the history of a magical land.

A novice character is a novice in their class skills. They are not, however, a novice person living in a land and frankly, even a young 17-year-old character knows more about their own world than a veteran player could ever know. Simply because it's the world they live in. But we're also talking about a world where a given party may consist of elves, dwarves, humans, and other races. And what the elves teach their young is different than what the humans teach. The knowledge of their elders that are hundreds of years old may not only have heard the bards' tales, but experienced every such creature in person.

For example, in the Forgotten Realms, past supplements and novels have identified cheeses, ales, wines, favorite recipes, trees, common plants, and all sorts of other lore. Then there is the endless amount of lore that has never been published. When your character walks down their home village or town street, they know people by sight, who lives there, and the tales of the ruined keep in the woods. Things that the DM may not have detailed yet, or even knows existed (because nobody has explored that part of the forest yet, and the random roll that places the ruins hasn't occurred yet. Of all the stuff that has been detailed about any fantasy world, the actual characters know more.

When a mother and father tell their children that the silver arrows in the corner are to be used only against werewolves and other were-creatures, it's not a myth or folklore.

While it's nice to role-play the elf telling the human something new about a creature they have just spotted, we don't really have the time to play out the character's lives in real time. So much of that is glossed over as knowledge that is shared at a meal at a campfire, or over an ale at a tavern.

Travel and trade in the Forgotten Realms is much greater than it was in our own middle ages. The Realms (and most fantasy settings) are not feudal systems, and they are not typically embroiled in the same constant war between states nor anything like the crusades. News travels with the trade, and again, has for thousands of years.

When people have been fighting these monsters for literally thousands of years, there is very little of the basic folklore that I think would be unknown. I alluded to it earlier, but in my campaign, pretty much any surface creature, monster, humanoid, etc. that is known to be a potential danger is known by at least the basics. That is, use fire against a troll (maybe not acid, that's a bit rarer to have on hand), silver against lycanthropes, undead can drain your strength (hit points, etc.).

Sure, they may not be able to tell the difference between a troll and an ogre on sight, or a wight and a zombie. Which means they will treat them with more respect, and might attack an ogre with fire just to be safe. People in the North probably don't know what a wemic is, because it's so far removed from their homeland in the Shaar. But they know what a centaur is, and would probably equate it to that until they knew more.

I don't typically use the art in the MM, mostly because so little of it reflects what I think the creatures should look like. So I give descriptions, and a walking corpse is a walking corpse of some sort. Could be a zombie, could be much worse. The uncertainty of knowing what something is, rather than trying to determine what a character would know once identified, is a much better approach. Because the player and the character are both suffering the same problem - they don't know what they're up against.

As I said, sometimes my players will decide there is something the characters don't know, even though the players do. That's tough to play out though. Would they figure it out? How long to take to figure it out? Etc. Instead, if there's something where it's actually important that they don't know it, then I'd agree with what others have said. Change it.

Try a trivia game to see how much "useless" information you actually know. Then imagine if even 25% of that useless information was actually about real monsters that might use real magic and might attack your village on any given night.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
It would be nice, though, for a veteran player to come up with some entertaining explanation for their knowledge rather than just using it and making everyone else to come up with in game rationalizations. Not required of course, but more team-player oriented.

Yeah, I think it's fine to ask a player to establish why a character believes something provided it's not a challenge of the player's right to do so and just a way to flesh out the PC. But it's also something that in my opinion is easy to not give a flumph about and move on.
 

Bawylie

A very OK person
I kinda agree with you in principle. However.

As DM how would you react to a character with no background on the subject, pulling out a crossbow bolt and blessing it in order to kill a rakshasa*, a creature they had done no research on, or had never encountered?



(in the contex of when rakshasa could be instantly killed that way)

Here's something that came up in one of my games.

Wizard wanted to cast Power Word Kill. He declared it as his action. I informed him it wouldn't work bc the target's HP wasn't low enough.

In this instance I gave the player knowledge that the character couldn't have so that the player could make an informed decision about what to do. Also so that they would not feel they wasted a powerful ability.

So it's a sort of inverted scenario to the Rakshasa one. I prefer to avoid challenges predicated on ignorance and instead lean heavily on challenges that pit priorities against each other. Harder choices are to me more fun than mistakes or fumbling around for a solution.


-Brad
 

Remove ads

Top