Monster Knowledge checks - why bother?

[Infiniti2000]

I stand (sit) corrected about passive knowledge checks, but it seems like an inconsistency. I'll have to reread the rules on those later to unravel my opinion on them.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I would say generally PCs will be able to gauge the results of their attacks. <snip>

As a corollary, a creature knows exactly what effects it is subject to. I would think, therefore, it would know exactly how its own powers affected others. I agree it's left unsaid in the rules, but I think it's a reasonable approach that is at least supported by a corollary.

 

[Philip]

Trouble is, I want to get them to use them but they don't/won't

That is your main problem right there. Suppose you were asking the question differently: I want to get my players to haggle over mundane items in ther markets, but they don't/won't. If your players don't like some mechanic or other aspect of play, attempting to coerce them to use it anyway is folly.

So we have me (the DM) wanting to use Monster Knowledge checks to separate the characters' knowledge from the knowledge of our players, garnered from nigh on 30 years of D&D monster lore.

If you want to separate character knowledge from player knowledge, attempting to force a game mechanic on players to do so is poor form. Just change the appearance of the creature while still using Troll stats if you want to shake them up. Or use trolls that are vulnerable to cold or something like that.

And then we have my players, wanting to just get stuck in, see the word "Troll" and then start applying fire and acid attacks for no reason I can see.

How do other DMs play it?

If your players are just 'wanting to get stuck in' its likely they just enjoy a good romp and are not really interested in worrying over such minutae as what one's character should or shouldn't know.

Earlier editions didn't have or require knowledge rolls, but it still had the same Trolls. You simply learned from your mistakes. If your players are still interested in learning from their mistakes, switch it up. If they just want a good evening bashing good old trolls, don't bother.

 

[LightPhoenix]

If you want to separate character knowledge from player knowledge, attempting to force a game mechanic on players to do so is poor form. Just change the appearance of the creature while still using Troll stats if you want to shake them up. Or use trolls that are vulnerable to cold or something like that.

I've always liked the idea of Trolls vulnerable to Radiant damage, to reflect Tolkien's influence.

I stand (sit) corrected about passive knowledge checks, but it seems like an inconsistency. I'll have to reread the rules on those later to unravel my opinion on them.

My opinion is that all of the "knowledge" skills should be passive unless called for (ie, Skill Challenge, recall, etc). It makes sense that, with a Nature of 20, you have a certain basic knowledge of natural workings. Rather than having the player always stating that they Take 10, just have the information ready. It's basically the same as Passive Perception; the characters are assumed to be taking 10 unless otherwise stated or not possible.

I ran a tournament at a local store recently where there were 5 encounters to play in 4 hours, so I predid the monster knowledge information so I could just look at people's scores (I had them give then to me at the beginning) and hand a sheet out to the people who knew the most and move on without such clogging up the game. Worked like a charm.

I really like this idea. If the players don't know each others' scores, you also run into the situation where one player thinks the other players know something:

"What, you don't know to use fire on trolls? What kind of adventurer are you?!"

To that end, I wouldn't put down the DCs on the sheets. Anything everyone would know I'd simply include in the description in the beginning of the encounter.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Bah, all this talk about trolls made me think of the last encounter we had.

The players just blasted away, ignoring fire damage, just DPR-ing the monsters down. After they got it down and it jumped back up one of the players pulled out a flask of oil, his flint-and-steel and tried to set it on fire. Damn that was amusing. Especially when the troll jumped up again, got an attack of, got kicked down again and set on fire.

Btw, Trolls are waaaay to boring as written. Was no threat at all.

 

[keterys]

Btw, Trolls are waaaay to boring as written. Was no threat at all.

Yeah, our group recently did a 'dungeon delve' with trolls, and we had basically no source of fire or radiant damage, though one character picked up a single target source of fire before the last battle...

Sooo boring.

 

[Markn]

Passive knowledge check work well. The basic premise is that in each tier as you rise higher in the tier and your passive check gets higher you will begin to know more and more about the monsters you are facing. Once you reach the next tier, the DCs are bumped up and the process begins again. It seems to be pretty solid. Of course, pure min-maxing can break this but I think it takes a fairly concerted effort to break the intent behind the design.

On the other hand, I have yet to find the proper medium to give the info out. I've tried just giving the monster lore but that doesn't seem to follow the intent for monster knowledge since there are different DCs for powers, key words, etc. Then I tried giving the knowledge info out at the beginning of each players first turn in combat, but that became a literal pain as combat would stop so I could give info out.

Ultimately, while the passive check design is nice, the presentation has yet to feel right so that there is a flow of combat. It would be nice to give out a piece of info here or there but giving it out over time seems to rob the PC who invests in the skill. Still not sure how to hand out the info but I am very happy with the passive check mechanic and so far works fantastically.

The other thing I have noticed in this thread, is that DMs give out different info - some giving monster lore (which doesn't seem to fit with the knowledge check IMHO), others giving out more crunch. This area could be greatly improved by WotC. In fact, I would like to see a future MM have an appendix that discussess the use of this, how to present it and offer options for different playstyles. It may even go a long way to getting people purchase future MM's instead of just rehashed monsters. While they have done a great job with PHB and DMG (from a driving interest in the sales of future volumes perspective), they have yet to hit on a "draw" for the MM other than leaving a few key monsters for MM2 but I suspect with each MM iteration they will have less and less sales. I predict the next great innovation for D&D will be MM design.

 

[Starfox]

To me, a monster lore check gives both the crunch and the lore. It is not every exiting to repeat the crunch info in the lore section of each monster, tough.

Both lore and crunch are fun and useful. The best is if you can combine them, doing a quick retelling of a tale where a hero defeated the monster using a particular method while at the same time incorporating a bit if the lore. But I only rarely manage that in the middle of a fight.

As to the OP, they way to make your players interested in lore checks is to make it useful, as has been pointed out above with the radiant-vulnerable trolls. But it seems you are already so generous with information that its not really a problem for your players. I make mine work for their information, if only by having to ask for a roll, which seems to have increased its value.