D&D 5E Knowledge skills in combat

[Son of the Serpent]

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.

 

[Ashrym]

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.

If your DM says it's impossible I would have to say it's impossible in his campaign.

It's possible in my campaigns, but the DM is the DM and that's who allows, disallows, or interprets rules at his table. He or she definitely gets to decide how or why a check is made and any results, if a roll is needed or if the result of an action is impossible. I don't know the context of the setting leading to the decision and it wouldn't be my place to disagree, sorry.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

If your DM says it's impossible I would have to say it's impossible in his campaign.

It's possible in my campaigns, but the DM is the DM and that's who allows, disallows, or interprets rules at his table. He or she definitely gets to decide how or why a check is made and any results, if a roll is needed or if the result of an action is impossible. I don't know the context of the setting leading to the decision and it wouldn't be my place to disagree, sorry.

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. basically someone is manipulating the dm. bit of a cursed dm al a possessed dm variant sort of situation if you are familiar with the community figures of speech.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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. ...basically this player in and out of combat keeps finding reasons to say knowledge skills basically just don't have functions.

I'm curious what this guy is playing that he's that envious.

Also didn't catch what you meant by functional expertise...

 

[Son of the Serpent]

its not really because of class. i don't even think the other player is jealous. they crave attention basically. although, the class they play would normally have a big advantage over most classes in knowledges. perhaps that's related? we made our characters without eachother's knowledge.

i get double prof but its not named "expertise". i have it in all knowledge skills. paid through the nose for it.

 

[Ashrym]

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. basically someone is manipulating the dm. bit of a cursed dm al a possessed dm variant sort of situation if you are familiar with the community figures of speech.

It's still very DM dependent. The rules are clear on that. The checks specifically state they recall lore so there's no reason to believe they would not do that, but how much lore could easily be dependent on the amount of time invested.

If I think you should reasonably know based on your actual bonus then I'm just going to tell you without a check. Many DM's are looking for an action of some sort. If you do something that costs you time in that combat round I would let you do so. If it's using your reaction I'll give more information than the standard "what you should reasonably know" and if it uses your action I would give even more information. That's the benefit of investing time into the check through some sort of action.

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.

Personally, if you invested heavily in the concept on your character I would allow you to use that investment.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

thankyou. what about simple facts? whether rare or not, simple facts can just flash to your mind. like, i've got an undead in front of me, precisely because i'm focused on combat wouldn't the idea of "x undead is weak to silver" or something simple like that reasonably come to mind? kinda the same way if you are fighting a man hand to hand, and you see a sword on the wall it occurs to you "beheading him with that thing would kill him" would come to mind? simple stuff? like, stuff that can be said in 10 words or less. snap decision type stuff.

if not thankyou either way.

 

[Ashrym]

thankyou. what about simple facts? whether rare or not, simple facts can just flash to your mind. like, i've got an undead in front of me, precisely because i'm focused on combat wouldn't the idea of "x undead is weak to silver" or something simple like that reasonably come to mind? kinda the same way if you are fighting a man hand to hand, and you see a sword on the wall it occurs to you "beheading him with that thing would kill him" would come to mind? simple stuff? like, stuff that can be said in 10 words or less. snap decision type stuff.

if not thankyou either way.

If it were me I would just give those simple facts. A person doesn't become an expert in lore without having learned lore. The check is just in recalling it. If it's basic knowledge everyone knows or basic knowledge I would expect any academic trained in the area to know I would give it. Again though, not my campaign. I cannot speak for your DM; only what I would do.

 

[billd91]

Why on earth would knowledge not be useable in combat? Is it because there isn't a specific action for it detailed in the Players Handbook? The DM can always rule that there's an improvised action to account for it if he feels an action is necessary.
It sounds like the other player is trying to manipulate your DM into running the game like he runs his game.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Why on earth would knowledge not be useable in combat? Is it because there isn't a specific action for it detailed in the Players Handbook? The DM can always rule that there's an improvised action to account for it if he feels an action is necessary.
It sounds like the other player is trying to manipulate your DM into running the game like he runs his game.

pretty much my feeling. plus extra angst because he doesn't want to be the second most knowledge capable pc.

further, i just don't get why even if its advanced knowledge you wouln't have access to it. maybe if you JUST got punched in the face. then for a round i'd understand like a...stupifying effect? you'd think if you know it you know it.