Monsters and Lore

[Jarjaxle]

I have looked at the Monster Knowledge section in the PH and it says that a PC makes a Knowledge check using the appropriate skill (Nature, Arcana, etc..) the DC for Basic information (name, etc...) is 15, Powers would be 20 and Resistances 25. If a monster is a Paragon tier add 5 to the check, Epic add 10. Would this be a passive skill check? How does this work with the specific lore information given in the Monster Manual for a creature?

What I don't get is this...

If a PC's trains in a Knowledge skill he automatically knows every monsters Name, type and keywords??

Int +3 (16 Int) plus trained Arcana (+5) plus passive bonus (+10) = passive 18 - now that means that a character would have to roll a 1 to NOT know a creatures name, keywords, powers, type... etc...

This can't be right.... can it?

 

[Wystan]

This would not be a passive check, he is actively trying to recall information about that exact creature.

 

[unan oranis]

looks right... there is also a blurb in the monster manual for the lore checks.

What I want to know is how much information about the powers is the dm supposedly oblidged to give? I'm thinking just the names...

A full stat readout for a free action seems a bit whack.

 

[Kordeth]

I have looked at the Monster Knowledge section in the PH and it says that a PC makes a Knowledge check using the appropriate skill (Nature, Arcana, etc..) the DC for Basic information (name, etc...) is 15, Powers would be 20 and Resistances 25. If a monster is a Paragon tier add 5 to the check, Epic add 10. Would this be a passive skill check? How does this work with the specific lore information given in the Monster Manual for a creature?

It can be used as a passive skill check, but by the RAW it's an active, rolled check.

What I don't get is this...

If a PC's trains in a Knowledge skill he automatically knows every monsters Name, type and keywords??

Int +3 (16 Int) plus trained Arcana (+5) plus passive bonus (+10) = passive 18 - now that means that a character would have to roll a 1 to NOT know a creatures name, keywords, powers, type... etc...

Ummm..."passive checks" don't give you a +10 bonus to your skill roll, they're just a constantly-active "take 10." Your example character automatically knows the name, type, and keywords of any heroic-tier monster he runs across, but has to actively roll a 12 or better to know its powers, or a 17 to know its resistances and weaknesses.

This can't be right.... can it?

Why not? I'd expect a trained paleontologist to be able to easily name and recognize most dinosaurs on sight, or a trained herpetologist to know pretty much every common reptile at least by name. Why should a character who has extensively studied natural lore not be able to recognize the monsters found in those environments?

 

[Tzepish]

Giving just the names is metagame, since not every player is gonna know what these powers are... so the players with more player knowledge (not more character knowledge) are the ones who know about the monsters.

I'd suggest giving them names and a "plain language" description of what they do, like "a poisonous bite attack" or "a powerful lunge that can push you backward".

 

[Jarjaxle]

The whole thing seems off-it's-rocker to me.

I seriously hate the idea of Monster lore used in combat to give the PC's an advantage. I know that Knowledge skills should be used for something, but the monsters should have DC's set to each of them. It should be clear what information is given.

The players I have will take this rule and use it every time, on every monster... forever.

With the DC being set at a "you can't loose" low-point, this removes all chances of them getting information 50% of the time....

DM: "You see a green, little...."

Players: "Monster Lore Check!"

DM: *sigh"... "Its a Gragziff, a Large natural beast Elite Brute... it has a slam attack, it can split into 2 creatures and it can take 2 move actions when it becomes bloodied...." *sigh*

Players: "WOOT"

 

[Kordeth]

The whole thing seems off-it's-rocker to me.

I seriously hate the idea of Monster lore used in combat to give the PC's an advantage. I know that Knowledge skills should be used for something, but the monsters should have DC's set to each of them. It should be clear what information is given.

It is clear what information is given. Why shouldn't PCs who have studied the Arcane arts have knowledge of the denizens of the Feywild, or one who has studied Religion know about the denizens of the Astral Sea? As for every monster having a specific DC, that's arbitrary and cumbersome. Far better to have a standard DC that the DM can modify as needed based on the prevalence of monsters in his world. If I make a homebrew world in which orcs are all but unheard of, why should I be stuck with Knowledge DCs set for orcs with the assumption that they're common as dirt?

The players I have will take this rule and use it every time, on every monster... forever.

So? Sometimes that will get them useful information, sometimes it gets them a name and little else, and sometimes it gets them nothing.

 

[eleran]

The players I have will take this rule and use it every time, on every monster... forever.

That does not mean it is the rule that is wrong.

 

[unan oranis]

Giving just the names is metagame, since not every player is gonna know what these powers are... so the players with more player knowledge (not more character knowledge) are the ones who know about the monsters.

I'd suggest giving them names and a "plain language" description of what they do, like "a poisonous bite attack" or "a powerful lunge that can push you backward".

Yes well the players with more meta game knowledge will just know the monster stats anyway, no?

But perhaps a vague but plainly spoken clue is better than the hint the name gives, I intend on only revealing one power in this fashion per check, maybe two on a natural 20.

 

[Incenjucar]

The trick is to not rely on well-known monsters very often.

I like to just make my own when possible.