D&D 5E Knowledge skills in combat

[Son of the Serpent]

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.

I agree. I feel the same way. I just dont think the dm would make these decisions if someone wasnt practically dominating his decisions to a degree. It feels like its not this dms game because hes trusting thos dude too much. Dont really know how to get that through to him without causing a rupture in the group though. Socially defusing a bomb that someone pratically seems to WANT to go off isnt something I'd call my forte. Just had another session for the record. Seems like thats where the player causing the issues is thinking of taking it.

Ive never quite been in this situation before.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I’d talk with the DM one on one and tell him that’s not how I understood it would work when I created my character. I’d tell him that I’m not really interested in playing it this way. I’d tell him that I’d like to continue playing the character in the way I thought I could play him, but if that’s not how it is going to work I would rather create a different character (or rebuild this one to de-emphasize knowledge skills if that is still desirable).

As a DM, that would cause me to think pretty hard about whether there was a way to work with the character concept, and if I still felt like I couldn’t, at least I could feel like I could be focused on making sure the player’s next character was going to work the way he wanted it to.

 

[jasper]

So two friends of friends are rubbing each other wrong. Sorry Sos you're SOL. Talk to the dm about knowledge check in combat. I would say burn your action and roll the check. Talk with this goober about your problem with him. If he does not change, don't play with him. Remember no gaming is better than bad gaming.

 

[Nebulous]

If you were not in combat I wouldn't bother with the roll at all, but combat is distracting so a roll while you try to think as part of your action may be appropriate. Combat itself doesn't mean a person does not know the lore or cannot take an action that might cause a check, but a DM could still say you are focused on the combat and call it impossible. That's something you would want to go over with your DM and still how he or she wants to run the campaign.

This is sort of related, but maybe someone can help me with the ruling. When running ToA the players had access to Volo's Guide. Fine and well, but the only time they referred to the monsters was IN combat. So obviously no one is pulling the book out of the backpack and thumbing through to the jaculi entry and reading up on them in six seconds, but that's basically what it amounted to. I guess you could say that during downtime every hero read the book forwards and backwards, and I should have asked for an INT check to recall information rather than just letting them know. That was my fault. There's also the question of, does it take an action or not in six seconds to jog your memory about hundreds of details from a strange book you read a week ago? Or months?

How did other people hand Volo's Guide when the players could access it?

 

[generic]

What I would do is try to explain to the DM that there is no explicit rule preventing you from using knowledge skills in combat.

Sadly, however, 5e does not offer advice as to how they might be used. At my table, I have implemented a few simple guidelines for knowledge-based checks in combat:

• You can make an Insight check to ascertain the enemy's morale, as well as who the leader of the group is.
• You can make an Arcana check to see what type of spells/abilities the enemies are using.
• You can make a Nature check to learn more about enemies who are Beasts or Fey (this one is only sometimes implemented).
• You can make a Medicine check to try to ascertain how many hit points the enemy has remaining, and so on and so forth...

Just try to explain to the DM that you don't even need a special homebrew system for this to work. Skills should be able to do what they normally do, regardless of the situation. Of course, not all skills are always applicable, and there is an immense amount of DM purview that comes into play.

 

[Oofta]

This is sort of related, but maybe someone can help me with the ruling. When running ToA the players had access to Volo's Guide. Fine and well, but the only time they referred to the monsters was IN combat. So obviously no one is pulling the book out of the backpack and thumbing through to the jaculi entry and reading up on them in six seconds, but that's basically what it amounted to. I guess you could say that during downtime every hero read the book forwards and backwards, and I should have asked for an INT check to recall information rather than just letting them know. That was my fault. There's also the question of, does it take an action or not in six seconds to jog your memory about hundreds of details from a strange book you read a week ago? Or months?

How did other people hand Volo's Guide when the players could access it?

I don't allow those kind of books at the he table. The PCs may or may not know details, whether or not players know should be irrelevant. It can also be quite disruptive to the game, especially if players start spouting off details of monsters.

 

[generic]

I don't allow those kind of books at the he table. The PCs may or may not know details, whether or not players know should be irrelevant. It can also be quite disruptive to the game, especially if players start spouting off details of monsters.

At my table, you might (emphasis on might) be able to learn enough about an enemy using a skill check to take a glance at the stat block. But, then again, this only works after a check, and sometimes, it doesn't work.

I agree that having books such as Volo's at the table is rather meta-gamey in the worst sort of way.

 

[Nebulous]

I don't allow those kind of books at the he table. The PCs may or may not know details, whether or not players know should be irrelevant. It can also be quite disruptive to the game, especially if players start spouting off details of monsters.

Well I don't know if you ran ToA or not, but the PCs meet Volo in the game and he has that particular book to sell (or do a quest) with the specific intent of giving the heroes a slight edge on native Chultan baddies. It didn't occur to me at the time how disruptive and ridiculous this would actually be, and I will never ever allow such a thing again.

 

[Oofta]

Well I don't know if you ran ToA or not, but the PCs meet Volo in the game and he has that particular book to sell (or do a quest) with the specific intent of giving the heroes a slight edge on native Chultan baddies. It didn't occur to me at the time how disruptive and ridiculous this would actually be, and I will never ever allow such a thing again.

I haven't run/played it yet. If this came up in game I'd probably ask the players if they were taking an action or two during combat to look up info on the monsters and that I'd consider them incapacitated while they were doing it.

 

[uzirath]

I haven't run/played it yet. If this came up in game I'd probably ask the players if they were taking an action or two during combat to look up info on the monsters and that I'd consider them incapacitated while they were doing it.

This sounds reasonable and even potentially fun to me. I've run games with scholar-type characters who have access to lots of information about monster weaknesses, dungeon lore, etc. Sometimes it takes them time to remember the exact details or they have to dig through their notes to come up with the specifics. This works great in games where opponents are especially dangerous... identifying weaknesses (whether physiological or tactical) becomes essential.

I'd run anything like that in the abstract with die rolls rather than have players actually digging through books at the table—the fact that real time and game time are decoupled makes it meaningless to actually do the research at the table.