D&D 5E Knowlage checks

[Riley37]

If you post a few more examples, perhaps we can post how we, as DMs, might answer those questions...

At my table, it matters who's asking, and under what circumstances.

If the PC walks into an inn, and is chatting casually about monsters, and the player wants to know "What does my PC know about golems?", that's one scenario. Maybe a few random facts such as posted previously. "Golems are magical constructs, and they're often big, strong and tough. There are different varieties, made out of different materials."

If the same PC walks into the same inn, and the bartender is a golem, and the player asks the exact same question - then in this scenario, the PC might connect *things the PC already knows* with *their ongoing observations*.

If the PC makes an a Arcana check, then I'd tell him that golems are magical constructs, and are often found doing whatever their creator directed them to do. If the player says that the PC examines the golem's actions closely, then I'd invite them to try an Insight check, and if it succeeds, then I might point out which of the golem's motions seem repetitive and scripted, and which motions look more like on-the-fly autonomous intelligence, and thus, that's a clue about what the original spell set in motion, versus the golem's most recent instructions, versus the chance that it's maybe developing its own agenda. If the PC is a dwarf with Stonecunning, I might ask for that check (History), and if it succeeds, then I might point out that the golem is made out of a kind of stone which isn't found within thousands of miles of the golem's current location, and was used to make statues in ancient Rashem. (If the check fails, then the player got a free clue that History is somehow relevant.)

If the player approaches the bar, and the bartender says "We don't serve your kind here", and the player says "Okay, I look around the bar to survey the other customers", another successful check might give the PC (and the player) a clue that all the other customers are actually constructs of various sorts...

 

[Tormyr]

There not in this version? Did I imagine them then? What is the arcane proficiency for if it's not a knowledge skill?

It is a knowledge skill, but not focused on info about monsters (at least not all monsters) specifically.

Arcana. Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes.

Intelligence (Nature) checks are similar but cover animals only.

Now there is nothing stopping a DM from incorporating Arcana, Nature, Survival, checks to reveal information about creatures, but there isn't really something in the rules that says, "Use this skill to learn privileged info about monsters."

 

[nomotog]

It is a knowledge skill, but not focused on info about monsters (at least not all monsters) specifically.

Arcana. Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes.

Intelligence (Nature) checks are similar but cover animals only.

Now there is nothing stopping a DM from incorporating Arcana, Nature, Survival, checks to reveal information about creatures, but there isn't really something in the rules that says, "Use this skill to learn privileged info about monsters."

So it's just not explicit anymore. I think most DMs would see a proficiency in arcane would apply to knowing information about magically made creatures like a golem. At least I would.

 

[Fralex]

Yeah. Makes sense. If you know stuff about magic and the things it can do, you might know about creatures that it is used to create.

 

[nomotog]

If you post a few more examples, perhaps we can post how we, as DMs, might answer those questions...

At my table, it matters who's asking, and under what circumstances.

If the PC walks into an inn, and is chatting casually about monsters, and the player wants to know "What does my PC know about golems?", that's one scenario. Maybe a few random facts such as posted previously. "Golems are magical constructs, and they're often big, strong and tough. There are different varieties, made out of different materials."

If the same PC walks into the same inn, and the bartender is a golem, and the player asks the exact same question - then in this scenario, the PC might connect *things the PC already knows* with *their ongoing observations*.

If the PC makes an a Arcana check, then I'd tell him that golems are magical constructs, and are often found doing whatever their creator directed them to do. If the player says that the PC examines the golem's actions closely, then I'd invite them to try an Insight check, and if it succeeds, then I might point out which of the golem's motions seem repetitive and scripted, and which motions look more like on-the-fly autonomous intelligence, and thus, that's a clue about what the original spell set in motion, versus the golem's most recent instructions, versus the chance that it's maybe developing its own agenda. If the PC is a dwarf with Stonecunning, I might ask for that check (History), and if it succeeds, then I might point out that the golem is made out of a kind of stone which isn't found within thousands of miles of the golem's current location, and was used to make statues in ancient Rashem. (If the check fails, then the player got a free clue that History is somehow relevant.)

If the player approaches the bar, and the bartender says "We don't serve your kind here", and the player says "Okay, I look around the bar to survey the other customers", another successful check might give the PC (and the player) a clue that all the other customers are actually constructs of various sorts...

I am kind of imagining my idea kind of working like a game a 20 questions. Lets say a player comes across a dead body. There first question might be "How did they die?"
"They are missing their brain."
"How dose someone lose their brain?"
"It looks as though it was pulled out through a hole in the back of the head."

And then it just goes back and froth like that until the player fails their check or they run out of questions.

 

[AmerginLiath]

One idea I like, based off thoughts from different blogs (and a dose of 13th Age), is for a player with knowledge skills to tell the DM their bonus to the roll and what their previous research/knowledge on the subject tells them (have the player make it up – cooperative worldbuilding!). The DM rolls behind the screen and sees how it comes up, then tells the player what "jogs the character's memory" based on the result: a low roll adds a bunch of BS and disregards what the player said as wrong, while a high roll adds more real details and adds the player-derived details (since a player choosing to use skill slots on knowledge skills traditionally has an interest in USING those elements of the world) to the world's narrative in some fashion (even if only in a hearsay manner).

Honestly, it might just be the intellectual in me, but knowledge skills always have the potential for being the most skills in any RPG because they're the keys to the campaign setting's backend – you can hide in shadows or notice a trap all day long, but that doesn't build the network on story links between players and GM like the thousand story seeds of any given knowledge roll...

 

[nomotog]

One idea I like, based off thoughts from different blogs (and a dose of 13th Age), is for a player with knowledge skills to tell the DM their bonus to the roll and what their previous research/knowledge on the subject tells them (have the player make it up – cooperative worldbuilding!). The DM rolls behind the screen and sees how it comes up, then tells the player what "jogs the character's memory" based on the result: a low roll adds a bunch of BS and disregards what the player said as wrong, while a high roll adds more real details and adds the player-derived details (since a player choosing to use skill slots on knowledge skills traditionally has an interest in USING those elements of the world) to the world's narrative in some fashion (even if only in a hearsay manner).

Honestly, it might just be the intellectual in me, but knowledge skills always have the potential for being the most skills in any RPG because they're the keys to the campaign setting's backend – you can hide in shadows or notice a trap all day long, but that doesn't build the network on story links between players and GM like the thousand story seeds of any given knowledge roll...

I experimented with making knowledge checks predictive. That is a player would say what they wanted something to be and then they would make a roll, If they passed they were right, if they failed, they were wrong. It didn't fit what they were expecting and in the end just confused them.

 

[weldon]

I don't really care for active (dice-rolling) monster knowledge checks where you just disclose the name of the creature for two reasons.

One, I dislike the randomness. If you know this creature, then you know. If you don't, you don't. Two, I dislike the metagaming that can come along with it. I really prefer for the information to come out as part of the story.

I've decided to address this by making small tweaks in they way I handle it. One, I use more passive checks (10+modifier). If your passive skill is high enough, I just tell you something useful. I don't take the dice away, but I deemphasize the randomness while still rewarding players who invested skill points in knowledge. Two, I spin the checks as using your skill and training to carefully observe the creature for details. Success means that you observe a useful and important detail (I might even read it straight out of the statblock). It's a little more work for me to come up with a description of what they find out, but it's also more fun. It doesn't mean the PCs knows the name of the creature. I'll give that to them after the encounter is over and they've defeated the monster.

 

[Authweight]

I experimented with making knowledge checks predictive. That is a player would say what they wanted something to be and then they would make a roll, If they passed they were right, if they failed, they were wrong. It didn't fit what they were expecting and in the end just confused them.

I might have to steal this idea, I like it a lot. I can see how it would be confusing though, so maybe only in certain cases where it makes sense in the narrative.