D&D 5E Monster knowledge checks

[Quickleaf]

How would you or do you handle monster knowledge checks in 5e? Do they exist?

Looking down the lore skills in the most recent (June 7) playtest packet, there is no explicit mention of monsters of any type/origin under any of the lores. Some of it we could just copy/paste from 3e/4e (e.g. make a subterranean lore check to see what you know about ropers), but it's not at all clear that is what's intended. Is religious lore or magical lore or forbidden lore appropriate when attempting to recall lore about ghosts? The way religious lore is described in 5e it wouldn't seem to have to do with undead at all, then again neither would magical or forbidden lore.

Am I correct in assuming this is left entirely as the DM's judgment call?

And if so, say I'm playing with a new player or a player new to 5e who needs some guidance (of the "I don't know, what check do I make to know more about it?" variety), what do I base my call on?

 

[steeldragons]

I"d say any or all of them could apply. Ghosts are undead, traditionally, with skills or not, it is reasonable that Clerics would have some basic undead knowledge. Priests of light/sun/good deities...or death/undeath/spirit/etc... for that matter, would have more than basic knowledge. Magical Lore applies as far as mages knowing "what ghosts are" and, thus "how [what spells] to deal with ghosts" I would say is completely reasonable. "Forbidden" Lore just seems like a catchall, so I'd say, yup ghosts fall in there too.

Basically, you correct in your assumption. It's your call what applies and what exactly/how much the given "lore" offers knowledge...I'd even go a bit more in depth and say the amount of knowledge that is true may be different than the amount of "general" lore one might have.

 

[Quickleaf]

I'd even go a bit more in depth and say the amount of knowledge that is true may be different than the amount of "general" lore one might have.

Sorry, can you explain what you mean? My mind must not be working right, I see words that should make sense, I re-read them and don't know what I just read.

 

[CAFRedblade]

He means that the "General" knowledge (told around the fire-pit) might not be accurate compared to well studied and researched knowledge located within a library or scholar's notes. [ although that has a chance to be wrong/outdated as well ]

 

[steeldragons]

What CRFedblade sed, basically.

There is "lore" that anyone would know..."The werewolf is going to fall to silver weapons"..."The vampire is going to be held off by garlic"..."Vampires can't cross flowing water"..."Fire elementals can't cross flowing water"..."The dragon of green will be held at bay from a sprig of mistletoe"..."The dragon of white is weakened by heat or fire..."

Does anyone know that garlic won't do [in D&D] against vampires? Does the PC know that sprigs of mistletoe will get you a face full of chlorine gas from the green dragon?

What do these things say? Are they all true? Are they invariably true? Do they all make sense? Would they all be part of what someone knows with "arcane lore", "religious lore", "forbidden lore"? I don't know...you're the DM, you do know.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think part of the point is to spread out the "specific" skills into more general ones.

Clerics could easily roll religion for ghosts, spirits, zombies, revenants and other undead monsters.
Druids would likely go to nature for natural beasts.
Wizards might go arcana for constructs or aberations.
Warlocks might be familiar with demons and devils, clerics might as well.
etc...

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think this will be given a once-over when the "areas of knowledge" mechanic is added in. Right now, it's a DM judgment call--which matches the way I (and everyone else I know) actually plays: either the DM tells you it, doesn't tell you it, or goes "eh, roll something," and tells you it if the die roll looks good.

 

[Rhenny]

I think this will be given a once-over when the "areas of knowledge" mechanic is added in. Right now, it's a DM judgment call--which matches the way I (and everyone else I know) actually plays: either the DM tells you it, doesn't tell you it, or goes "eh, roll something," and tells you it if the die roll looks good.

I basically do the "roll something" method. I would really like to be able to use PC background, race and class to help make quicker knowledge rolls though. I think WoTC could make it very easy and clear that background, race and class determine what a PC might know. This could reduce the need for lots of little Lore checks that everyone forgets about most of the time anyway (or feels awkward using...Folklore, Forbidden Lore, etc.)