D&D 5E Knowledge skills in combat

[abirdcall]

the vast majority of a person's knowledge is generally ingrained enough so as not to be tempermental though. you recently learned something? well then what you actually keep will be shaky. known something for months or even years? unlikely to forget the really important parts. even if rare knowledge.

I guess I am just different then.

I have forgotten more than I have known.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I guess I am just different then.

I have forgotten more than I have known.

of course it should be noted that there is a signifficant difference between long term and short term memory. it takes a while for short term to strongly encode as long term. and continued use or recitation of knowledge or similar things. much of what you know never gets encoded as truly long term. could be the explanation for your perception. presumeably you are rolling knowledge at least mostly for your long term memory. stuff you forget, but not as often because its been committed to memory, contemplated upon, and called upon at least frequently enough to be long term and also restrengthened repeatedly. also if you don't remember the fine details on something you are still likely to remember the broad strokes.

all that failing, there are of course some people who's strong suit is not memory. most people really. but someone with a large number of ranks in knowledges is already implied to be exceedingly strong in memory. so there isn't really a contradiction there. they are after all distinctly different at that point from the baseline person.

 

[abirdcall]

of course it should be noted that there is a signifficant difference between long term and short term memory. it takes a while for short term to strongly encode as long term. and continued use or recitation of knowledge or similar things. much of what you know never gets encoded as truly long term. could be the explanation for your perception. presumeably you are rolling knowledge at least mostly for your long term memory. stuff you forget, but not as often because its been committed to memory, contemplated upon, and called upon at least frequently enough to be long term and also restrengthened repeatedly. also if you don't remember the fine details on something you are still likely to remember the broad strokes.

all that failing, there are of course some people who's strong suit is not memory. most people really. but someone with a large number of ranks in knowledges is already implied to be exceedingly strong in memory. so there isn't really a contradiction there. they are after all distinctly different at that point from the baseline person.

I'm still not really with you on this one. I have forgotten things that I didn't learn recently.

If I can look some things up I can often fill in the blanks. So it's not that I'm forgetting it completely, I just need to be reminded of the information I can't recall.

I think we may be talking about different things too (and maybe different games? The thread title says 5e but there are no ranks in 5e). There is a lot of possible knowledge out there.

Easier information should just be an automatic success. Something the character could not have known is an automatic failure.

Something that the character might recall from that one bestiary book they read 5 years ago is time to call for an ability check. Even if they have an hour to think about it they might just not be able to remember.

Absent minded professor is also a trope for a reason.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I'm still not really with you on this one. I have forgotten things that I didn't learn recently.

If I can look some things up I can often fill in the blanks. So it's not that I'm forgetting it completely, I just need to be reminded of the information I can't recall.

I think we may be talking about different things too (and maybe different games? The thread title says 5e but there are no ranks in 5e). There is a lot of possible knowledge out there.

Easier information should just be an automatic success. Something the character could not have known is an automatic failure.

Something that the character might recall from that one bestiary book they read 5 years ago is time to call for an ability check. Even if they have an hour to think about it they might just not be able to remember.

Absent minded professor is also a trope for a reason.

of course everyone forgets things they didn't learn recently, but the longer you've successfully retained a piece of knowledge the less likely it is that particular piece will leave.

"If I can look some things up I can often fill in the blanks. So it's not that I'm forgetting it completely, I just need to be reminded of the information I can't recall. " - also that wouldn't be forgetting it so much as recall being dampened over time. also this is absolutely something i agree would occur for the record. definitely. but also to varying degrees.

"I think we may be talking about different things too (and maybe different games? The thread title says 5e but there are no ranks in 5e). There is a lot of possible knowledge out there. " - old habits die hard. i'm using the wrong terminology but i mean the right thing. no ranks, but there are still levels of skill proficiency and various other things which can contribute to mastery of a skill. its more similar than it is different.

i mostly agree with what you are saying over all.

 

[Li Shenron]

the dm and i have been told by a fellow player who dm's that the fact my wizard functionally has expertise in all knowledge skills is not usable during combat at all. i can't ask him if i "know" anything, during combat. can't ask if i know about a monster. know any of its vulnerabilities. commonly known weaknesses. rarely known ones. i have a +12 to all knowledges. i can't ask to know any sort of thing about combat? really? is there anything about this that isn't quite right? he's been told he shouldn't ask me to roll any knowledges at all when i see a creature. basically this player in and out of combat keeps finding reasons to say knowledge skills basically just don't have functions.

Different DMs handle Knowledge skills differently.

For instance, my idea has always been to have Knowledge checks represent merely the randomness of what you either know or don't know. Because of that, I do not require any action for a Knowledge check and I definitely allow it in the middle of combat, but on the other hand I do not allow retries or circumstance bonuses (such as Guidance), and I generally decide whether you are entitled a Knowledge check on a specific case (vert often conditioned to having proficiency in the relevant Knowledge skill).

The RAW doesn't say this is how it should be done, but also it doesn't say that it should not be done. This is just how I have been doing for years because it's simple and I do not mind if it's not fully realistic (incidentally, I believe that overthinking the lack of realism in a RPG is a booby trap for complicating the game without reaching satisfactory results in most cases). My players are not supposed to tell me how I should run the game, but they can of course tell me whether they like it or not. However, I have learned that reasonable people will always accept the compromise of staying consistent until at least the end of an adventure, with the promise of trying out a different rule in the next. If a player cannot even accept that, I say good riddance!

As others have pointed out, I do not think you have a rules problem here, but a social problem due to another player wanting to exert leadership on the whole gaming group.

IMHO every game is first and foremost a DM's game, like a movie is first and foremost a director's movie, then it's for everybody else to contribute, but the DM/director is in charge. Again, the key is to view the current adventure/campaign as the creative expression of the DM, but to see it as just one adventure/campaign on a long-term hobby, where everyone else at the table can take the role of the DM for the next adventure/campaign which will then be someone else's creative expression. If your group understands this, they won't feel the same hostility when they don't like something a DM has chosen to do in a certain way, because the underlying idea is that it won't always be the same. I do not trust players who behave as the current game must be perfect according to their personal preference, it makes me feel like they are into it as a short-term activity with no future, which is OK but in that case they should definitely not patronize those who are there long-term. My suggestion is that you bring the discussion up with your group, and promote the idea that your DM has all the rights to decide how things work, and whoever disagrees should just let it go and they can be the DM in the next adventure with their own rules.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

"I do not trust players who behave as the current game must be perfect according to their personal preference"

neither do i. i wish the dm was a little less trusting of this particular player.

depending on how far this goes i'll definitely be bringing it up. right now i'm just hoping that player stops on their own though.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

side note: i don't put guidance on my spell list. that spell irked me the moment i read it. just seems so...cheap. i strongly dislike it. i know that wasn't your point. but, yeah, kinda hate that spell. others are of course welcome to use it, but...i won't. kinda just hate it.

 

[GlassJaw]

Sounds like your game has more issues than whether or not knowledge skills can be used during combat. This sounds like a symptom.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Sounds like your game has more issues than whether or not knowledge skills can be used during combat. This sounds like a symptom.

Well yeah. There is a very manipulative player. Im hoping it goes away but not holding my breath.

 

[Oofta]

If I see a rhinocerous, I know what it is. I know basic things like short-sighted, tends to charge, thick skin that acts like armor. I know they're dangerous. I know to be more careful around them than a deer (although a deer can be dangerous under certain circumstances). It's automatic and virtually instantaneous.

Whether or not I know hippos are one of the most dangerous animals in Africa depends on how much I've learned about hippos and would require a check. But if I know, again, I know pretty much instantaneously. Whether or not I know a specific spider is poisonous may require looking up the knowledge in a book.

So I disagree with your DM, and your fellow player. Depending on the rarity of the creature (and whether you've established you have a particular specialty in spiders) some checks will be automatic, require a check or not be possible in an instant. However, it's the DM's game.