D&D 5E Knowledge skills in combat

[Son of the Serpent]

I was demonstrating what I might do... and since there is already an ability to help, well the extra knowledge seems a bigger boon.

I agree with this.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Basically, yes. Knowledge can be acquired through role play. But that is not unique. Its true of most resources in some way shape or form in an rp context. However what is also true of most contexts is that some classes give vast boons in the area of some resources. And i cant think of any feature in which this makes more sense than with knowledges. High knowledge bonuses make HUGE sense when considering that your class probably has a lot to do with things youve poured years of you life into you arent getting back. That can be years spent researching, experimenting, reading, practtioning, and getting field experience. All of which could cause a person over many years to turn into a vast repository of knowledge. And the brighter they are (exceptions be damned) the more rapid (with seriously strong correlation to intellect) their capabilties of recollection even in combat will likely be. You didnt live under a rock prior to adventuring (at least most people didnt). You were likely doing things. High knowledge checks for a lot of classes actually make the roleplay MORE authentic IMO.

The roleplaying PART is typically what you do with the knowledge. The numbers on the sheet dont take away from roleplay IMO. They reinforce and modify it.

Just my opinion.

 

[ccs]

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?

Had that come up (not in ToA though)
A character had a copy. At no point had they ever indicated they read it. Indeed, asude from two short rest, there hadnt even been time to read it... Another charater passed an arcana check when they found it & id'd it as an encyclopedia on monsters. So character A put it in thier pack.
Later they wanted to use the info on the fly.
They discovered that merely possessing the book wasn't enough (it's not magical you know).

So we paused the game, I set the stopwatch on my phone, & I handed the player the actual book and told them "Look it up". GO! (Hitting start).
That + 1 round to dig it out of thier pack is how long it would take in game.
Game resumed with them trying to read a book during combat. Each round of reading required a concentration check. (You know, dodging fireballs, etc might cause you to lose your place) Each failure simply added +1 round.
The fight ended before they'd read the whole entry.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Do I make the pe

Because some of don't play D&D combat as a deliberative, slow-motion meta-game. Each round is 6 seconds. Most combat takes place in darkened caverns, amidst shrieks, yowls, and the clangour of battle. There is not the time or the clarity to coolly assess what exactly you're fighting, cross-reference that with your knowledge of flora and fauna, and then communicate that to your companions in the midst of a wild melee.

Want to use your memory from books and lore to identify the creatures shuffling around a camp that you're spying on? Sure. 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.

Boy do I disagree. It’s a bear. I don’t make someone spend and action to make a knowledge check that it’s a bear. I don’t make someone spend an action to make a knowledge arcana check that red dragons breathe fire. Knowledge checks are a non-action. Do I make a player make an knowledge religion check to know holy water hurts undead. Do I make them spend an action to know fire elementals are vulnerable to cold or trolls regenerate. No. I tell them to make the check as a non action. They are spending a skill slot to know these things. If they ask let them make the appropriate check as a non-action.

 

[Arnwolf666]

In fact I’m quite comfortable with every encounter beginning with a knowledge check. He can make a knowledge check every round he sees something new as a non-action. It’s his skill. He trained for it. Let him do it. Round 3. Monster X shows up. Allow a non-action knowledge check. No big deal. He trained to be this kind of character. Let him.

 

[uzirath]

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.

Although this isn't my current campaign style, you've convinced me that it is a well-thought-out choice for your campaign world. Sounds like fun, too.

I tend to have a mix. There's a large array of well-known species that most PCs will automatically know about. Then there are rarer things whose specifics are known only to scholars (requiring appropriate knowledge checks with penalties or bonuses depending on rarity and circumstances). Finally, there are unique or unknown things that basically nobody knows anything about.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Although this isn't my current campaign style, you've convinced me that it is a well-thought-out choice for your campaign world. Sounds like fun, too.

I tend to have a mix. There's a large array of well-known species that most PCs will automatically know about. Then there are rarer things whose specifics are known only to scholars (requiring appropriate knowledge checks with penalties or bonuses depending on rarity and circumstances). Finally, there are unique or unknown things that basically nobody knows anything about.

I really like this. One of the mistakes of pathfinder and maybe 3.x too was that a knowledge check was versus the CR of a critter. This is a bad way of doing it. The DC should be based off of how rare a critter is.

i did it this way

common no check or dc 5 depending on certain circumstances
Uncommon dc 10
Rare. Dc 15
Very rare dc 20
Unique special

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The numbers on the sheet effect how much knowledge a particular character has. Wizards typically are schooled. They literally ought to have more knowledge. This is represented by those numbers on that sheet. It is literally a resource for allowing a player power to effect the game world in the same way as the fighter's muscle increases his efficacy elsewise.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but those skills haven't always existed in the game (much like social skills haven't always existed in the game). For someone who really enjoyed playing the older editions, they might not want something that they see as a core element of gameplay to be replaced by some newfangled mechanic.

And in any case, it isn't obvious how those skills are supposed to work, now that they exist. You could argue that you should be able to recall lore in the middle of combat, to help exploit the monster's weakness, but that's just one interpretation. The book doesn't literally say that you can do that, or give any examples. Someone else could argue that the skills are meant to be used on a captive specimen, in a well-lit area, and combat is obviously too chaotic for you to figure out what you're looking at. The rules give zero guidance on the matter.

 

[Arnwolf666]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but those skills haven't always existed in the game (much like social skills haven't always existed in the game). For someone who really enjoyed playing the older editions, they might not want something that they see as a core element of gameplay to be replaced by some newfangled mechanic.

And in any case, it isn't obvious how those skills are supposed to work, now that they exist. You could argue that you should be able to recall lore in the middle of combat, to help exploit the monster's weakness, but that's just one interpretation. The book doesn't literally say that you can do that, or give any examples. Someone else could argue that the skills are meant to be used on a captive specimen, in a well-lit area, and combat is obviously too chaotic for you to figure out what you're looking at. The rules give zero guidance on the matter.

Well. I would play exactly opposite of you. But I basically agree with you. It’s not written exactly how to use the skills.

I would disagree with you on the social skills. There were reaction adjustments for charisma In 1E that worked exactly like diplomacy in 3.x and morale which was a better way of doing intimidation imho.

now back to the knowledge skills. I do enjoy a style of play where there are no skills. And knowing what monsters do and learning the setting is part of the game rather than making a check. But in a game where someone spends a skill slot I would let them make the check. Look how powerful stealth can be as a skill for example.

but I really see your POV. Nice post.

 

[Garthanos]

The book doesn't literally say that you can do that, or give any examples.

Hmmm nope indeed it doesn't because well skills are basically YOLO let the DM decide. I find that unsatisfying at so many levels.