D&D 5E Knowledge skills in combat

[Oofta]

No harm at all. I'd be perfectly fine with a PC carefully watching a combat with a strange creatures, examining the corpse, and then recalling tales about such a creature, its habits and weaknesses. Just not in combat.

However, I know that approach runs against the grain of modern D&D, where the combat encounter is the default element of play, and PCs are assessed almost exclusively by their effectiveness in those encounters.

But it's not even a D&D thing. It's a pretty common trope in sci-fi/fantasy/superhero/action movies to have the expert yell out "OMG! That's a __, we need to __!"

Ultimately I ask myself: is it more fun for the group to allow this. I believe it is.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

its not as simple as "my dm is saying it". its more that there is a player (who is a dm in other games) who is convincing the dm that these skills aren't allowed to be used in combat and that their out of combat uses are extremely limited.

The DM is permitted to base their decisions on any number of factors. If the DM thinks that the other player is making a logical argument, then that's usually enough to make a ruling. If you have an alternate interpretation, then you are also permitted to try and persuade the DM. Hopefully, neither side is trying to invoke RAW, which is intentionally quiet on the topic.

As for knowledge skills being usable in combat, there's a pretty significant divide within the community. Suffice it to say that some DMs don't like it when the dice make decisions for the players at the table.

 

[Haffrung]

But it's not even a D&D thing. It's a pretty common trope in sci-fi/fantasy/superhero/action movies to have the expert yell out "OMG! That's a __, we need to __!"

Ultimately I ask myself: is it more fun for the group to allow this. I believe it is.

You're assuming my games are meant to evoke action movies. There are all kinds of ways to approach D&D/Pathfinder.

 

[Oofta]

The DM is permitted to base their decisions on any number of factors. If the DM thinks that the other player is making a logical argument, then that's usually enough to make a ruling. If you have an alternate interpretation, then you are also permitted to try and persuade the DM. Hopefully, neither side is trying to invoke RAW, which is intentionally quiet on the topic.

As for knowledge skills being usable in combat, there's a pretty significant divide within the community. Suffice it to say that some DMs don't like it when the dice make decisions for the players at the table.

This is what I don't understand. How does a knowledge check "make decisions for the player"? It's just resolving what they know if it's uncertain.

So pop quiz. Do you know what this is?

Spoiler: Monster 1

Or this one

Spoiler: Monster 2

Because most people who've played D&D for a while and gained proficiency MM could tell you some basics if not full details on those guys. For most people it will be pretty instantaneous. No pondering, no looking it up in the manual (although the manual may tell you additional info).

But seriously, how does giving/allowing a knowledge check to know basics of either of these monsters "make decisions for the player"?

 

[Oofta]

You're assuming my games are meant to evoke action movies. ...

Or sci-fi movies or fantasy or war movies or ... well ... reality.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But seriously, how does giving/allowing a knowledge check to know basics of either of these monsters "make decisions for the player"?

Yeah, I didn't word that correctly. I meant to suggest that character knowledge should be based on player knowledge rather than numbers on a sheet, which is a perfectly valid playstyle, even if I don't subscribe to it.

It's similar to the "RP vs skill check" debate regarding social skills.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, I didn't word that correctly. I meant to suggest that character knowledge should be based on player knowledge rather than numbers on a sheet, which is a perfectly valid playstyle, even if I don't subscribe to it.

It's similar to the "RP vs skill check" debate regarding social skills.

Okay, that does make more sense. I totally disagree but to each their own.

 

[Garthanos]

Want to use your memory of books and lore to identify the tentacled horror that grabbed your shrieking companion from a pit in flickering torchlight 4 seconds ago? Not possible.

I have remembered make and model of vehicles that hit me in a car accident even though i was knocked out during the incident ... sorry that above sounds like hogwash.

 

[Haffrung]

I have remembered make and model of vehicles that hit me in a car accident even though i was knocked out during the incident ... sorry that above sounds like hogwash.

You know about makes of vehicles because A) you've seen them on the road, and B) you've seen pictures of them on TV and the internet. Neither of those apply to monsters in my campaigns, where:

A) Most people have rarely if ever seen a monster. And those only the most common. PCs begin as neophytes, and only know what they've seen with their own eyes, or heard garbled campfire stories about. Until a PC encounters one face-to-face, a roper, gargoyle, or behir is a rumoured horror, not an object of scientific study.

B) There are no illustrated encyclopedias of monsters for scholars to research. If there's any information at all, it's sketchy second-hand accounts from unsavoury scoundrels and boasting treasure-hunters.

How many makes of cars would you know by sight if you've only ever heard verbal descriptions of them from unreliable sources?

For a historical analogue of how a pre-Enlightenment medieval society regards monsters, look at 15th century drawings of sea creatures. Even the educated people of the era imagined all sorts of fantastical and garbled nonsense. The depths of the seas and jungles were terrifying and unknown. So are the wilderness, ruins, and dungeons of my D&D worlds.

I'm not saying anybody else is doing it wrong. This is all just a matter of personal preference. I put a high premium on mystery, strangeness, and immersion.

 

[Garthanos]

B) There are no illustrated encyclopedias of monsters for scholars to research. If there's any information at all, it's sketchy second-hand accounts from unsavoury scoundrels and boasting treasure-hunters.

For me that implies no actual wizards/bards/clerics (or even Warlord historians) who are educated types adventuring. And that really was the point of some of these classes in legend and history for some of them collecting and propagating lore is the ancient bards middle name. Though they didnt write things down they memorized by rote early on and they were their cultures trusted historian teachers. Basically the classes most likely to have these skills are the ones who are most likely to have the background of exposure to what you just decided does not exist. No you're not wrong just saying that there is every bit of reason for those to actually exist if the world is anything like the default assumptions and though in the real world this stuff well isn't real and the stories are more embellishments than anything in one where it is real that lore would be way more vital to have distributed and I think probably would be more real too. (but then again the real world has anti-vaxxers who think some starlet knows more than scientists) so I am just putting out why your context may not be the assumed one for most other people.
You not letting them know anything seems wrong I suggest you warn people to be honest I would not assume a Bard would ever be as ignorant as your rulings make them out to be.