Knowledge skills - how they can be worthless

[Saeviomagy]

OK, we all know that the new uses for knowledge skills are really quite good.

However - does anyone else think that the exact things a knowledge check should reveal should be more specific?

I note that in the shackled city story hour, a player was upset that on a successful knowledge(religion) check on some oddball zombie things the DM gave "they have fasthealing 5", when the player would have been far more interested in "if their maggots hit you, you die in 5 rounds and reanimate as one of them".

In my group, I'm certainly getting sick of being told that (for instance) a vampire spawn is undead, and has 4 hit dice, but NOT being told that when they die, you have to hunt down their sarcophagus and decapitate them.

Basically the wording means that if the DM so wishes, he could totally deny me any information from a knowledge check - he could go through, give out type, subtype, hitdice, wisdom score, charisma score, ac vs touch attacks, will save, for a knowledge DC of 35 above the base and that's even BEFORE he decides that information on their mating habits is something I'd know.

Anyone else had this problem with knowledge skills used like this?

 

[hong]

Your energy might be better invested in talking personally with your DM, airing this grievance, and working toward a compromise that will suit you both, as opposed to complaining to uninvolved third parties on an anonymous, asynchronous medium.

 

[Crothian]

This is not a rules issue, its a DM issue. Some DMs will tell you useful things and some will tell you useless things. I for instance would never tell a PC a creature has fast healing 5 or 4 HD. I always put the info in terms the character would understand and not the metagame ones.

 

[Trainz]

Upon a successful knowledge check, I give my players the type, one weak spot and one dangerous thing about a critter.

For example, I would tell that a ghoul is undead, that it's touch paralyses for a short time, and that a ghoul is very slow to get out of harm's way (low AC and reflex saves).

 

[Jhulae]

Well, one thing you might do is have your DM look at the Monsternomicon (by Privateer Press). Each monster has an entry as to what the characters would know about it based on how high the knowledge roll was, with each successive entry also allowing the information of those below it.

It's a very well done book, IMO.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I agree with Hong, it is really an issue for you to take up with your DM.

For myself (as DM) I scale the information I give out about creatures revealing first its threats, then if DC made by at least 5 its defences and finally (on very good rolls) its weaknesses.

 

[Pielorinho]

DM problem, definitely.

My approach is to tell people the best-known information about a monster first, and keep it all in terms the characters could know (i.e., no stats). What you might learn about a vampire:
-It's the dead, risen to suck your blood!
-They can turn into a bat!
-They can turn into mist!
-They can control your mind just by looking at you!
-They die in sunlight!
-They can't cross running water!

I play pretty fast and loose with the rules, however: I figure that the abilities of a great wyrm red dragon (breathes fire, casts spells, scales a foot thick, flies faster than anything, etc.) are better known than the abilities of an illithid, even though according to the rules the check for the lower-HD illithid is easier.

Daniel

 

[Ssyleia]

Personally, as a DM I am a big fan of knowledge skills. Particularly Knowlege (Local) is one of my favorites.

In my campaigns pay someone with a few ranks of Knowlege (Local - Area in Question) and you'll usually get a wealth of useful information. If you - as a PC - possess that skill yourself you will be well rewarded both in terms of info that brings you along and xp...

Then again our campaigns mostly tend to not focus on combat...

 

[Saeviomagy]

I agree with Hong, it is really an issue for you to take up with your DM.

For myself (as DM) I scale the information I give out about creatures revealing first its threats, then if DC made by at least 5 its defences and finally (on very good rolls) its weaknesses.

I'll agree that the thing about vampire spawn is a DM problem - however the other situation was a totally different DM. He DID hand out some useful information, it's just that his opinion differed with the player's as to what information was most useful.

For instance - following your standard schema for something like a troll... I'm sure I'd be thrilled as a player to be told that it's going to hit me, but not know that you need fire or acid to hurt it effectively, or that it regenerates.

If, for instance, I meet a werewolf, the fact that it needs silver weapons to hurt effectively is important to me in the short-term, but it is by no means ESSENTIAL. I could win the fight without that knowledge. The knowledge that it's bite and claws could infect me with lycanthropy, and that I can combat this by eating belladonna is useless if I don't defeat it. However if I win, then that information is extremely important, or it's basically bye-bye PC time.

So which information does the DM give out? Either could save the PC, lack of either could kill him.

The problem is that there's not really a way for a player to request a particular bit of information (because they don't know what information is available), nor is there a way for the DM to anticipate what information is most important.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Interesting. I would generally take the HD of the weakest form of the creature in order to set the DC. So the DC to know things about red dragons would be set by a wyrmling red dragon. (Of course, if you got a DC high enough for the great wyrm form, I'd give you some useful information specific to great wyrm red dragons). Similarly, the DC for knowing stuff about a mummy lord is set by the HD of a non-advanced mummy. Getting 10+mummy lord HD will net you some info specific to the mummy lord. And the DC for getting info about a Dread Wraith would be set by the HD of a normal wraith. Getting the dread wraith's HD would net info specific to the dread wraith.

Similarly, I'd use the DC for the weakest creature with a given type to find out about type or subtype qualities. (For instance, all constructs are immune to spells with fort saves that don't effect objects).

I'm not sure it's playing fast and loose with the rules to run it like that though. Most Knowledge skills deal with the general abilities of the type of creature rather than the abilities of any specific creature so starting with the weakest forms and moving up seems like the proper way to do it.

I play pretty fast and loose with the rules, however: I figure that the abilities of a great wyrm red dragon (breathes fire, casts spells, scales a foot thick, flies faster than anything, etc.) are better known than the abilities of an illithid, even though according to the rules the check for the lower-HD illithid is easier.