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

[iserith]

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].

I usually set the DC at 8 + CR and then modify with advantage or disadvantage. The storied dragon of the Dark Forest might mean it's easier to recall useful information. For the strange aberration lurking in the bowels of a forgotten ruin less so.

 

[Umbran]

In my games, every player is expected to describe a goal and approach for a task. Only then do I adjudicate.

I understand the process. I just feel that some goals are bloody obvious. "Know something relevant about he beast so I am not completley guessing what to do," for example.

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.

I think "give me a goal" and "prove to me that your skills actually do apply" are not synonymous. And I think skill points are rare enough that making the player have to come up with specific justifications for each application is not terribly fair.

 

[iserith]

I understand the process. I just feel that some goals are bloody obvious. "Know something relevant about he beast so I am not completley guessing what to do," for example.



I think "give me a goal" and "prove to me that your skills actually do apply" are not synonymous. And I think skill points are rare enough that making the player have to come up with specific justifications for each application is not terribly fair.

It's not about fairness. That's their role in the game - to describe what they want to do. In order for the DM to fairly adjudicate, it needs to be reasonably specific e.g. "I draw upon my experience reading books in the world's greatest libraries to recall the weaknesses of trolls." As well, part of the goals of play are that we're creating an exciting, memorable story together while playing. Thus, including details such as how a character might be able to recall certain information contributes to the creation of that story by saying something about the character. Further, in the doing, the player may even earn Inspiration by playing to a personality trait, ideal, bond, or flaw.

So here we see that the player's role, adjudication process, goals of play, and even an incentive in the form of a useful resource are all aligned to produce a particular experience at the table.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Sometimes these “recall lore” checks are not done in the heat of the moment when encountering a monster but occur either as part of the aftermath of an encounter with a strange creature or perhaps from hearing a curious rumor in town without having ever seen the rumored creature. In those cases, a player may want to express their PC’s desire to “recall lore” and, if that seems incomplete or impossible, they may wish to perform some specific active research at the local library or wizards’ guild or what have you. Resolution would then be similar to what others have indicated (personally, I’ve been trying to emulate @iserith’s techniques at our table).

 

[SkidAce]

I am generous with the DC (5+CR) if the monster is common, or relevant to the character's background.

Otherwise its usually 10+CR.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Considering that there are spells and abilities for learning monster information, I generally don't allow monster lore skill checks in my games. If they want to make a history check, they can learn about that time a manticore attacked Phandelver and challenged the adventurers to riddle contest. Arcana might tell you that a manual of golems is required to create one. But it won't necessarily reveal unknown weaknesses, or specific abilities.

That being said, I'm fairly lenient with things like people knowing that you need to use fire or acid on a troll, or that vampires need to be staked in the heart. I assume that some things are just common lore in the world, like how I, despite never having met a platypus, know that they have venomous spurs.

 

[cbwjm]

I just set a flat DC based on how common the target is, well known creatures might be 10, uncommon 15, rare 20, unique 25. Sometimes it isn't even a roll, rather if the player is proficient in the relevant skill the player knows. Some things everyone knows, trolls are hurt by fire and acid for example.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

That being said, I'm fairly lenient with things like people knowing that you need to use fire or acid on a troll, or that vampires need to be staked in the heart. I assume that some things are just common lore in the world, like how I, despite never having met a platypus, know that they have venomous spurs.

Blasphemy! PCs need to discover that and anyone starting right off with fire is metagaming! (I kid)

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

There's a funny story there. I got back into gaming after a break when 4e came out, along with a bunch of friends that had likewise lapsed. I threw a band of trolls at the party and no one knew how to make them stay dead. For almost an hour, they'd kill the trolls, then the trolls would rise up and insult them while attacking, rinse repeat. Eventually the wizard just happened to use a fire-based power and they figured it out.

I thought that they were just trying to not metagame, but when I asked them, no, none of them remembered (or knew in the first place) how to properly kill a troll. Not even my twin brother, who I absolutely know fought trolls in the old days.

Blasphemy! PCs need to discover that and anyone starting right off with fire is metagaming! (I kid)

 

[Li Shenron]

I therefore turn to the boards for guidance. When it comes to recalling monster lore, what kinds of info do you give to your players? How much is "too much?"

To "recall" something, you need to know it in the first place.

I mostly just tell the players what their PCs have heard. There's no need for rolls. The info is narrative rather than mechanical (like "hobgoblins fight better when close to each other", without mechanical details). That's ok for common creatures.

I wouldn't be against telling actual abilities or stats, but only if the PC has actually studied those creatures. In that case, I'd go with some randomness so that its not entirely up to me. Knowledge Nature for animals would be fine, but I would not guarantee anything else for other creatures.