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

[jmartkdr2]

So my suggestion for solving the most common case of 'recall lore' ruining an encounter is - don't use trolls. Or at least don't use trolls with the expectation that figuring out how to get past regeneration will be difficult but not too difficult. Trolls are just a poorly designed monster if you think of them that way.

That's for a few reasons: player are likely to know the weakness anyways, so if you force the pc's to not know you're forcing the player to metagame. And metagaming is bad. Trolls don't really give clues about what will work. They're not ice- or water- or plant-themed, so weakness to fire is either already known or would require a blind guess. It isn't obvious. Nor is it even something you could deduce from the description. Acid is just right out. The only clue you have is regeneration in general, and that obviously leads to fire, since it also works on hydras and most other things that regenerate.

So either the player gets to guess - in which case they'll get it immediately or not at all - or you call the player's out for metagaming and force them to metagame differently.

Now, trolls are decent bruisers if you use them as such (ie like you would ogres), so you can still include them, but just assume the players/pc's knowing how to deal with regeneration is factored in to the CR. Because it is.

The other creatures with specific weaknesses are all built this way as well. You wouldn't penalize player for thinking to use holy water against a vampire, would you? But vampires are built to assume the plc's will try to use at least of their weaknesses.

 

[billd91]

I don't even make it an action - if they ask what they might have heard about Monster X, I have them roll. I'm not a fan of taking an action to dredge up memories about what a monster is or isn't. That seems a waste of time and effort for relatively limited benefit.
I'm also not keen on basing the DC on a creature's CR. I think that's one way D&D-esque games have veered wrongly since these kind of checks have been commonplace. If it's a relatively common and mundane creature like a bear or an ogre, the DC should be low. Same for creatures that might be a bit rarer but legendary. Then I move the DC up as the creature gets rarer and more obscure.

 

[Nebulous]

A fun alternative to the troll regeneration issue would be having to deal 10 (or more) points of damage in a single attack or a round to thwart the regeneration. That would be a good knowledge roll and it would eliminate decades worth of metagaming. In fact, having PCs coordinate attacks to inflict 20 points of damage to a troll just so it CAN'T regenerate would turn a ho-um encounter with jaded players into something wholly new.

 

[Oofta]

If people want to know what their PCs know about a monster, I base the DC on how common the monster is, or how much I think people would talk about it. Dragons are actually fairly rare in my campaign, but they're extremely memorable so they'll know what breath weapon they use with a low DC (or automatic).

Then as the knowledge gets more obscure the DC goes up; truly obscure monsters that have only been whispered about may have a DC over 20.

When I describe monsters I describe them from the perspective of how someone would describe the creature, I think of how I would describe a grizzly bear, a crocodile or some other creature I know about. So it's never specific numbers, I might say a rhino has a thickly armored hide, is short tempered, has an excellent sense of smell but is extremely near sighted.

As far as how they ask ... I have no clue how anyone would state an approach other than "I try to remember something about that monster using my training in Arcana". Of course I also allow that short-hand "Does an arcana check tell me anything"? It's not like there's a process for remembering something, you either remember or you don't, mentioning a skill is just reminding the DM of your training and proficiency.

EDIT: Also knowledge checks to remember something is always free, you either remember or you don't.

 

[DammitVictor]

Mechanically, I understand this kneecaps the value of lore skills... but generally speaking if there's more than a handful of this type of monster in multiple locations around the world, then anyone with a background (or Background) in operating where the monsters live is going to know pretty much everything a "lore check" would tell them. Adventurers who ask non-hostile locals what kind of threats are around the area are going to get this information for free-- the locals will be eager to tell them.

This is... a pet peeve on par with hardened soldiers in heavy armor being practically helpless against the grease spell because 2 skill points per level isn't enough to let them take Balance: it's the kind of thing that only makes sense when you view the game world strictly as the interaction of game objects as defined by the rules.

If the monster "isn't from around here", or is a one-of-a-kind monster, then lore checks might be called for.

If you want to preserve the mechanical utility of the various lore skills I would suggest-- and a friend only just suggested it to me-- that those lore skills provide interaction/exploration pillar information, like "trolls venerate the demon lord juiblex, and consider people/animals visibly infected with green slime to be sacred" or "rendering the fat from a troll's body produces fumes that make ghosts and other spirits irritable and combative".

 

[Quartz]

I'm having trouble finding the right balance with "recall lore" checks for monster identification.

Something to remember: you only roll the dice when the result is in doubt. If the PCs cannot know the players don't get to roll. Equally, if it's common knowledge, they don't need to roll.

 

[Umbran]

It's not about fairness. That's their role in the game - to describe what they want to do.

And if it works for your group, that's great. But "I wrack my brain to remember its vulnerabilities" and "I wrack my brain to remember something relevant about it" are both describing what the PC does - the question is about specificity. If there's a fighter, do you expect them to describe each strike, and what vulnerable place in armor they are aiming at, or is "I attack" sufficient for you?

As a general approach, there's a flaw asking for specificity in games like D&D, and it is encapsulated in the phrase, "We don't have enough intelligence to have plans!" You need to have information before you can ask meaningful questions.

When the character has time to play 20-questions with the GM, it works out. But when a large humanoid shape is charging at them, the question, "What are its vulnerabilities?" is great if it is a troll (because it has specific vulnerabilities to acid and fire), but irrelevant if it is a giant (where the meaningful question is more "How tough is it?" so the PCs know if they should just run). Ask the wrong question, and you get squished.

If the player does not have information to make a reasoned choice on what questions to ask, this is really asking the player to make two checks - one to randomly pick the right question, and then one to see if they know the answer.

When the knowledge skill is basically a gateway to use of player knowledge, then this is a test of "skilled play" I suppose, which some folks like. I prefer to put that kind of testing into player ingenuity after they have a bit of information, not while they are ignorant.

 

[dave2008]

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.

How do you handle dragons, or any creature with multiple CR versions? If you going against a ancient red (DC 32 lore check, I think) and don't succeed, but you are high enough to get information on a DC 25 lore check for an adult red, wouldn't that still get you some useful information?

 

[Oofta]

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.

First, this assumes they know the creature is a troll. Second, it assumes a whole lot of extra verbiage ""I draw upon my experience reading books in the world's greatest libraries to recall the weaknesses of trolls." That may work for some people, and for them it's great.

It's also expecting a level of improv and creativity that will be very frustrating for some people; it may be my preference that people speak in character but I learned long ago that forcing my preference on players isn't a good idea. I think "Do I know what this is?" is fine. Maybe throw in a reminder for the DM what you're trained in. If they want to throw in fluff, great. If a guy running a wizard wants to say how they're pulling out a pinch of bat guano and some smelly yellow powder that they form into a small ball that they throw at the enemy and it explodes in a ball of fire, cool. They can also just say "I cast fireball".

There's plenty of time and space for a player to fill in details if they want, I don't see why every check need to be included unless the player wants to do so.

 

[iserith]

And if it works for your group, that's great. But "I wrack my brain to remember its vulnerabilities" and "I wrack my brain to remember something relevant about it" are both describing what the PC does - the question is about specificity. If there's a fighter, do you expect them to describe each strike, and what vulnerable place in armor they are aiming at, or is "I attack" sufficient for you?

As a general approach, there's a flaw asking for specificity in games like D&D, and it is encapsulated in the phrase, "We don't have enough intelligence to have plans!" You need to have information before you can ask meaningful questions.

When the character has time to play 20-questions with the GM, it works out. But when a large humanoid shape is charging at them, the question, "What are its vulnerabilities?" is great if it is a troll (because it has specific vulnerabilities to acid and fire), but irrelevant if it is a giant (where the meaningful question is more "How tough is it?" so the PCs know if they should just run). Ask the wrong question, and you get squished.

If the player does not have information to make a reasoned choice on what questions to ask, this is really asking the player to make two checks - one to randomly pick the right question, and then one to see if they know the answer.

When the knowledge skill is basically a gateway to use of player knowledge, then this is a test of "skilled play" I suppose, which some folks like. I prefer to put that kind of testing into player ingenuity after they have a bit of information, not while they are ignorant.

The threshold for reasonable specificity looks different for the task of attacking and the task of recalling lore. "I attack the orc to the left with my sword..." is sufficient because it spells out the target and the means of attack. That is all that is needed to adjudicate. If the orc has a means of defense, then the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure, so the player must make an attack roll. "I try to recall the weaknesses of trolls based on my time living in Moonstair, near the Trollhaunt Warrens..." is sufficient because it establishes the necessary information for the DM to decide if the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. Here the DM might just give them the knowledge without a roll because the information happens to coincide with the character's history. Being reasonably specific here benefits everyone: The player stands to get the information without a roll. The DM has an easier time adjudicating. And the group gets to enjoy a little extra detail about one of the characters.

As for "asking the right question," my experience with D&D 5e is that it is unnecessary. Gaining inside knowledge of a monster isn't typically required for defeating it. It's a nice-to-have, not a must-have. You can also imagine that a DM like myself who advocates for telegraphing is providing clues as to the monster's threat level and weaknesses while describing the environment. The troll, for example, is avoiding the brazier or campfire like the plague during the fight. Players who are paying attention can use this information to their advantage without successfully recalling lore.