Noumenon
First Post
The SRD for 3.5 just says "A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information." The 4th Edition Monster Manual makes this a much more defined part of the game, with every entry including a list of "Lizardfolk Lore": on a 15, you know a few paragraphs that boil down to "lizardfolk are traders who live in swamps," on a DC 20 you know about their tribal structure, and so on.
I want to pick the good elements of both systems. I would like to have defined results for a good Knowledge check in 3.5 (some DMs in 3.5 would let a good roll tell you everything in the MM entry for that monster, and sometimes the individual's name). I would like to have more informative results than the 4E entries, which are really more fluff for the reader than anything you'd want to roll to see. I am tired of my 20-year-veteran D&D players asking me "Does my character know that werewolves fear silver?"
Here's what I'm thinking for 3.5. There are six knowledge skills that cover monster types: Arcana, Dungeoneering, Local (for humanoids), Nature, Religion, and the Planes. I'll set the DC at 10 + CR (the SRD says 10 + HD, but HD go up too fast). Here's what you learn:
DC 15: Identify the monster by name and behavior
DC 20: Know the monster's vulnerabilities and defenses
DC 25: Know the monster's spell-like abilities, skills, and special attacks.
I don't know if you should be able to figure out AC or hit points. If you fail a check versus an advanced monster that you would have passed against a regular monster, you should learn that so you can tell when you're outclassed.
There are two game balance issues I don't know about. One is class balance: this makes bards and wizards better and barbarians worse. Doesn't matter much since the info is shared among the party. The other is creature type bias: won't the paladin's knowledge of undead prove a lot more useful than the ranger's knowledge of oozes?
I'm also worried that this will sound like "The DM tells you how to beat it," but Final Fantasy does that explicitly and it works out fine. Still, is part of the challenge of D&D supposed to be trying approach after approach till you find out what hits this monster? Seems boring in out-of-game terms since everybody has to fake that they think slashing weapons might work this time.
I want to pick the good elements of both systems. I would like to have defined results for a good Knowledge check in 3.5 (some DMs in 3.5 would let a good roll tell you everything in the MM entry for that monster, and sometimes the individual's name). I would like to have more informative results than the 4E entries, which are really more fluff for the reader than anything you'd want to roll to see. I am tired of my 20-year-veteran D&D players asking me "Does my character know that werewolves fear silver?"
Here's what I'm thinking for 3.5. There are six knowledge skills that cover monster types: Arcana, Dungeoneering, Local (for humanoids), Nature, Religion, and the Planes. I'll set the DC at 10 + CR (the SRD says 10 + HD, but HD go up too fast). Here's what you learn:
DC 15: Identify the monster by name and behavior
DC 20: Know the monster's vulnerabilities and defenses
DC 25: Know the monster's spell-like abilities, skills, and special attacks.
I don't know if you should be able to figure out AC or hit points. If you fail a check versus an advanced monster that you would have passed against a regular monster, you should learn that so you can tell when you're outclassed.
There are two game balance issues I don't know about. One is class balance: this makes bards and wizards better and barbarians worse. Doesn't matter much since the info is shared among the party. The other is creature type bias: won't the paladin's knowledge of undead prove a lot more useful than the ranger's knowledge of oozes?
I'm also worried that this will sound like "The DM tells you how to beat it," but Final Fantasy does that explicitly and it works out fine. Still, is part of the challenge of D&D supposed to be trying approach after approach till you find out what hits this monster? Seems boring in out-of-game terms since everybody has to fake that they think slashing weapons might work this time.
