Monster Knowledges - Making them Fun

[Trit One-Ear]

Beginning to see a trend in my posts here: "This is how I've been running my adventures, what do you do and is that better?"

This time around, it's Monster Knowledges. How do you all use Monster Knowledge checks in combat, and to what effect? I tend to use passive knowledge scores to tell heroes info based on the table in the PH (pg 180), but switch around the Powers and Resistances/Vulnerabilities entries. I'd rather my heroes know an undead was vulnerable to radiant damage before they know it will explode in a bone shower upon death.

Also, when they reach the point where they learn the monster's powers, how much info do you give? Just the power name, or a full description?

Trit

 

[Nichwee]

Our DM only gives out data if someone asks to roll the Knowledge Checks, but then again the basics get memorised (like Undead looking thing = assume no poison damage works but radiant is probably extra tasty).

When we get the powers info she normally tells us it in generic terms:
"You recall this creature has a strong swing, and can often get off a couple of them quickly, it sometimes uses a long range power that hits lots of people for a bit and can daze them, and it punishes openings really well."
This tranlates too:
"It has a strong MBA, and can do two (or more) of them as a Standard, it has an Enc/Recharge power with Area Burst 1-3 at Range 10-20 that is lower damage but dazes, and it has a nasty OA"
That sort of thing lets us build our tactics to the mobs abilities but doesn't let us make gamey choices like "If I stand here I will be too far from DefenderA and StrikerB for it to get all of us in its AoE power, but close enough for HealerC to still reach all of us with a heal."

 

[Saeviomagy]

That sort of thing lets us build our tactics to the mobs abilities but doesn't let us make gamey choices like "If I stand here I will be too far from DefenderA and StrikerB for it to get all of us in its AoE power, but close enough for HealerC to still reach all of us with a heal."

So I guess you leave the gamey choices for the second round of combat?

The basic stuff for monster knowledge checks is ok, but I wouldn't call it fun.

If you want fun, go for interesting things like temperament and ways to turn monsters in an encounter against each other, or interesting things the adventurers might prep.

Personally I'd be all for a D&D session taking the structure of a buffy episode every so often: Adventurers meet foe and have a hard fight (to the point where they need to flee). Adventurers go off and research monster that they fought. Adventurers come up with counter to monster's tactic/abilities and apply it.

For instance I'd introduce monster knowledge doing things such as allowing you to know that the Great Godric once used alchemically enhanced poultices of garlic and mint in order to be on an even footing against troglodytes. Or that Rhinos dislike fires, so if one attacks your camp at night you should just let it stomp out the campfire and leave.

That feels like monster knowledge had a positive impact on the combat, instead of the current model which feels like it's not a benefit to have, but rather a drawback NOT to have it.

 

[DNH]

the current model feels like it's not a benefit to have, but rather a drawback NOT to have it.

This is a valid point that has come up in our group before now. Suppose the party is fighting trolls. "Only fire or acid can kill a troll" but it takes a DC 15 Nature check to know that. That is admittedly a rather low DC for that kind of info, all it would take is a passive check by a PC trained in Nature. But the fact remains that unless you make that DC, you don't know that. (Assuming you're not meta-gaming, of course; trolls have been killed only by fire and acid since forever.)

A good DM would of course work around the restriction by introducing descriptions such as "You notice a number of scars and scorch marks on its otherwise healthy flesh" and trying to prompt inventiveness by the PCs, but I don't find it hard to imagine party wipes simply because a DM played entirely by RAW.