D&D 5E How to keep "recall lore" checks from ruining monster mystique?

[Hriston]

The way I see it, it’s not my job as DM to tell the player what their character remembers, so if the player describes their character attempting to recall information about a monster based on prior experience or research, etc., I ask the player (if they haven’t gone into sufficient detail already) what will be true about the monster if their character’s attempt is successful. If the outcome of this attempt at recall is in doubt and has a meaningful consequence of failure, then it’s resolved with an Intelligence check. On a success, the player’s assertion about the monster is correct. On a failure, it is revealed as incorrect in a way that is somehow disadvantageous to the players and their characters.

For example, in my current game, the party druid tracked some giant toads through a swamp to where he found them sleeping in burrows. He tried to remember from previous observation if the toads sleeping habits were such that they would remain asleep long enough for him to return to the rest of the party and bring them back before they woke up. I asked for an Intelligence (Nature) check which failed, the result of which was that his prior observations of the toads confirmed that they in fact would not remain asleep long enough but would have moved on by the time he returned.

 

[aco175]

I try to give the benefit to the PCs. They are the ones that would have grown up in this world and heard the stories and studied in the academies and war schools. Most common monsters have a bunch of lore that is collected and told by campfires and in training. Some is wildly false and other stories are true. It is also hard to separate common things from players who have been playing for a long time to not know certain things. I kind of handwave common things like trolls and fire to stop regeneration. Wizards may have learned about acid as well. Some problems may occur when a PC grew up in isolation in a remote island like the movie Castaway and somehow knows all these things about trolls, but I tend to not worry about PCs like this.

There is also times when I change monsters to make ice trolls or fire trolls or such. PCs know that trolls and fire do not mix, but in the encounter I may describe the trolls living in a cave with torches and a bonfire in the grand cave. Some players may suspect something like other monsters or question the deal with these trolls, but tend to shoot fire until I tell them that the troll appears to heal from the fire. That's cool once in a while where now they can return to their school and talk about the time in the Fire Hills they ran into specific trolls that were immune to fire. That should be the exception though and not every monster is an albino dragon that is actually a red dragon and you thought it was a white- gotcha.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Generally I just ask the players what one thing they are trying to recall, specifically, about a monster (and the basis for which they might have encountered this knowledge in the past), and if they succeed (roll or not), I give them what they want, plus one other thing of my choosing that is of interest. If they fail (roll or not), I only give them one thing of my choosing that is of interest.

More specifically, in my current swamp hexcrawl game which includes a lot of unique monsters and rules for harvesting their parts, it matters if you can see the monster or not. If you try to recall lore about a monster without seeing it, then if we're rolling, it's an Intelligence (History) check. If you try to recall lore about a monster while seeing it, then if we're rolling, it's Intelligence (Arcana, Investigation, Nature, or Religion). On a success, the PC identifies the monster, its common instinct or agenda, and its valuable parts (if any). If they exceed the DC by 5 or more, they also recall the monster's resistances, vulnerabilities, and what it can do in general terms. On a failed check, they can recall the monster's common instinct or agenda or its valuable parts, but nothing else. If they fail the check by 5 or more and can see the monster, they are frightened until the end of their next turn.

If a roll is called for by the DM, do you use the Group Check mechanic here or have each player roll for their PC?

 

[iserith]

If a roll is called for by the DM, do you use the Group Check mechanic here or have each player roll for their PC?

The player who described the task makes the roll if a roll is needed.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The player who described the task makes the roll if a roll is needed.

And, if a roll fails, how do you handle the other players now describing that their PCs want to try, too? (The old cascading roll or dog-piling dilemma)

 

[iserith]

And, if a roll fails, how do you handle the other players now describing that their PCs want to try, too? (The old cascading roll or dog-piling dilemma)

Much like any other task, they have to make the case that they could recall the lore before I decide if they succeed, fail, or roll. They don't just get a roll. That means players will tend to self-select as someone who wouldn't be able to recall it and not make the attempt. In the specific example of my hexcrawl, they also risk becoming frightened in some situations which might be undesirable.

 

[Umbran]

And, if a roll fails, how do you handle the other players now describing that their PCs want to try, too? (The old cascading roll or dog-piling dilemma)

I let them roll, and if the first person doesn't get useful information, then maybe someone else will. If they want to use an action racking their brains, that's their choice.

Narratively, the first person to try got half a memory, and mention of it reminds whoever succeeds of the full fact they're looking for.

 

[Umbran]

Much like any other task, they have to make the case that they could recall the lore before I decide if they succeed, fail, or roll. They don't just get a roll.

I generally hold that if they are proficient in the relevant skill, whatever gave them proficiency was enough exposure that they may well recall a useful bit of information. If you're looking at a Big Plant Monster, and you are proficient in Nature, you can try. If you want to try using Arcana instead, then you may have to justify how your Arcana might apply to BPMs.

 

[iserith]

I generally hold that if they are proficient in the relevant skill, whatever gave them proficiency was enough exposure that they may well recall a useful bit of information. If you're looking at a Big Plant Monster, and you are proficient in Nature, you can try. If you want to try using Arcana instead, then you may have to justify how your Arcana might apply to BPMs.

In my games, every player is expected to describe a goal and approach for a task. Only then do I adjudicate. It's likely that it's easier to make the case while having relevant skill proficiencies. But it's not enough to just say they have the proficiency.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I considered using CR as 15+DC. Problem is, with the way ability checks work, it's CR 25 to start getting information on CR 10 creatures, a roll that is very difficult for a guy who's trained in the relevant skill at the appropriate level for the encounter, and it goes downhill from there. The luck of the dice makes it decreasingly possible to have lore on it as players advance in level and meet equivalent opposition. Arguably, they meet rarer and more obscure monsters, but they also approach the pinnacle of their skill and should be able to recall equally obscure bits of knowledge.

Also, I prefer to say that what is known isn't necessarily what is the more useful knowledge for the players (saving throws, damage resistance and immunity, HP, special attacks). "Being from the plane of fire, XYZ is naturally immune to it" is something that could reasonably be self-apparent, while "he's trained in wisdom saves..." less.

I usually set the DC as 10+2*tier to have a base DC of 12-18 to determine if the creature is known, and appreciate the margin of success to determine what type of information is known. Encounter-breaking properties like damage immunity or resistance comes first, extrordinary abilities second, then the weakest saving throw. Success by 10ish gives access to the stat block.

I also rule that some informations are "common knowledge". If a player casts fireball at the fire elemental, I'd say that his... passive insight is enough to realize it won't work. Fire immunity of a fiend wouldn't be as "blatant".

If the PCs have time to discuss the monster an pool their knowledge and think, I ask for the most competent character to make the roll for everyone. If they are stumbling upon a monster, everyone rolls and they have to wait for the more competent ones to act and share their knowledge. One piece at a time (it's OK in my opinion within a round to say "don't use fire" or "don't stay near it, it can swallow you whole" but not pass the stat block. Since I don't allow Help action to remember something, I however allow to roll with advantage should one take an action to actively try to recollect knowledge. [I am sure I can tell you what the segment addition postulate is, from high school but it will take more than 6 seconds... ] [ok, more probably 6 hours but the PCs are heroes].