Knowledge Skills in Combat

[Zathraas]

I have heard that some DMs feel threatened by character use of knowledge skills to gain an advantage in combat (for example, Knowledge: Dungeoneering check for the possibility of knowing that oozes are immune to poison and mind-affecting spells, or the fact that a hit on a black pudding could melt a metal or wooden weapon). I personally like giving players in-game ways to get useable information, but am wondering how other people approach this.

Do you allow the use of the various knowledge skills for the characters to gain insight into creatures they are fighting? Or do you feel too much is given away by characters able to figure out strengths and weaknesses of creatures? Also, do you allow the skill trick Collector of Stories (allows a +5 to one knowledge check per encounter to know details about a creature)?

 

[TheCrazyMuffinMan]

I have heard that some DMs feel threatened by character use of knowledge skills to gain an advantage in combat (for example, Knowledge: Dungeoneering check for the possibility of knowing that oozes are immune to poison and mind-affecting spells, or the fact that a hit on a black pudding could melt a metal or wooden weapon). I personally like giving players in-game ways to get useable information, but am wondering how other people approach this.

Do you allow the use of the various knowledge skills for the characters to gain insight into creatures they are fighting? Or do you feel too much is given away by characters able to figure out strengths and weaknesses of creatures? Also, do you allow the skill trick Collector of Stories (allows a +5 to one knowledge check per encounter to know details about a creature)?

That's actually a great idea. Adventurers are likely to want to study the kind of things that adventurers face, to be prepared in advance. Knowledge ($thing) is ideal (possibly intended) for the situation in the thread. This also silences the cry of "metagaming" that some people like to use in this case.

I would allow this sort of thing in a heartbeat, with appropriate DCs. I would even say so. The DCs, however, would remain secret.

 

[irdeggman]

I haven't used any skill tricks yet (no one has tried and I generally like them).

I have used some knowledge checks but I refuse to let players know everything about a monster by making a skill check. Based on the result I will tell them "some" information but not everything. I also think the DCs are too low for what they give in the PHB.

 

[Vorput]

The current rules allow for, and encourage this, right? With the DC 10+hit die giving useful information.

If anything, the current system has DCs too high since Hit dice go up much faster than CR.

But anyway- of course I'd allow this. Not to allow it doesn't make any sense.

"Yeah, I'm an adventurer. I read books, I study other dungeons, I hang out with other adventurers, listen to tales in taverns, and am generally pretty smart- but I have no idea maces work well aginast skeletons and red dragons breathe fire."

Knowledge skills are such a dump for skill points anyway, they'd better have significant value. In fact, out group uses Amber Scott's variant found on Burlew's site:
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/paBcfg1YaEccDMQACfu.html

and I still don't think they get used nearly enough. We're even lenient and allow if one person has the skill and makes the check they can communicate the information to other players, even if it neccesarily would be a bit more than a free action "Use bludgeoning weapons, avoid its tentacles, and it isn't hurt by Cold!" simply because why would you penalize adventurers for knowing stuff and not meta-gaming.

And I love the skill trick collector of stories- it helps balance (somewhat) the differences between hit die and CR I mentioned above.

Vorp

 

[Vorput]

I have used some knowledge checks but I refuse to let players know everything about a monster by making a skill check. Based on the result I will tell them "some" information but not everything. I also think the DCs are too low for what they give in the PHB.

Too low?! Party runs into a basilisk at appropriate level (5). Assuming they have the appropriate knowledge skill maxed out and a +2 int bonus- their average roll is a 20 (10+8 ranks+ 2 int). They learn ONE piece of information, which can be anything the DM pleases.

Party of 7th level hits a black pudding (CR 7)- same situation (average result: 21)- again, they learn a single thing about a black pudding (a fairly common monster to anyone in dungeons).

If they hit a very young red dragon (cr 5- they're level 5)- they don't learn anything with the average roll. Nevermind that dragons are such iconic creatures in most worlds that tales of them should be told to children.

And this is assuming maxed out skill ranks and a decent int. I disagree, the DCs are way too high.

Vorp

 

[shilsen]

Do you allow the use of the various knowledge skills for the characters to gain insight into creatures they are fighting?

Absolutely. I don't set the DC based on HD, however, but on rarity (DC 10 - common; DC 15 - uncommon; DC 20 - rare).

Or do you feel too much is given away by characters able to figure out strengths and weaknesses of creatures?

Absolutely not. That's one of the primary reasons for the existence of knowledge skills, IMNSHO.

Also, do you allow the skill trick Collector of Stories (allows a +5 to one knowledge check per encounter to know details about a creature)?

I don't have the book skill tricks came from, so I don't have any in my game.

 

[schporto]

Of course I allow it. And personally I don't hold too much in the 10+HD = get one piece of info. I wing it (as horrible as that is) based on my opinion of how common and storied these critters are in the world. So of course you probably know a red dragon is immune to fire and doesn't like the cold. You've heard that in a story before. But did you know the nightwalker can destroy potions at range by it's aura? Probably not. As for using these skills in combat I've even encouraged it more - you can use a knowledge skill at -5 as a swift action.
-cpd

 

[Jhaelen]

I disagree, the DCs are way too high.

I disagree with you AND irdeggman. I think the DCs are exactly right. However, I am using DC 10 + CR, which is the DC that has been used in MM4 & MM5. In MM5 they mention that the rule for setting the DC has been changed (probably it's mentioned in MM4, as well, but I don't have it, so I cannot tell).

IMC the knowledge skills are among the most useful skills and one player has pretty much specialized in them (he originally planned to take the loremaster prc). He often rolls well enough to find out more than I am comfortable with, but he still sometimes fails to identify a monster at all (like when they encountered phrenic will-o-wisps - very fun! )

 

[Vorput]

I disagree with you AND irdeggman. I think the DCs are exactly right. However, I am using DC 10 + CR, which is the DC that has been used in MM4 & MM5. In MM5 they mention that the rule for setting the DC has been changed (probably it's mentioned in MM4, as well, but I don't have it, so I cannot tell).

I never noticed that, that is a better system.

 

[Slaved]

I do not think that information based on type and subtype should be included in the single bit of information line. Those should be seperate, and very low, checks.

I would expect most normal people to realize that being undead means that the creature is not subject to critical hits and has no constitution score for example.

Only in a creature specifically designed so that it is hard to tell its type would this check be extra information.