Monstet Knowledge

[KahlessNestor]

I don't think my newbie players will really think or realize to do monster knowledge checks. But I could call for them. I don't recall anything in the rules about knowledge checks for monsters. Does anyone have suggestions for DCs (based on CR?) and how much info should be given? Pathfinder has one question for every five you beat the DC.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

5E doesn't specifically allow for monster knowledge checks, so it's really up the DM to decide if that's a valid use for the knowledge skills.

For players who aren't already familiar with all the monsters in the book, not having monster knowledge checks can make a monster more mysterious and challenging. Both of which I consider good things.

But, if your players are veterans who likely recognize a monster from the smallest description and have a basic idea of what they can do, but who want to play a character who might not, then I could see asking for checks.

I would say, don't use CR for the DC. Determine how common, or generally well known you think the monster would be in your setting. The basic DC rules can help you then. Common critters are an easy DC 10. Rare or underdark critters would be a DC 20 or higher.

A twist, well known, legendary creatures like dragons might have a high DC to get accurate information, but a low DC to get common misconceptions.

 

[biotech66]

I give the name and the type at ~10, the base stuff for the type (demons don't care about fire et all) at about 15, and if you hit 20+ you basically get to read the stat block.

It's a free action for me, since you know what you know. I also HIT MY PLAYERS AS HARD AS I CAN with the idea that KNOWING THINGS IS GOOD! If you do that enough, they will lean that that's a good thing. You have one turn where the wizard drops his big once a day spell to no effect, then they learn real fast that knowing is over half the battle!

 

[KahlessNestor]

Yeah, it would definitely be a free action, probably right after initiative. Not sure the point of waiting for turns when talking is free, like Pathfinder makes you do.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I give the name and the type at ~10, the base stuff for the type (demons don't care about fire et all) at about 15, and if you hit 20+ you basically get to read the stat block.

It's a free action for me, since you know what you know. I also HIT MY PLAYERS AS HARD AS I CAN with the idea that KNOWING THINGS IS GOOD! If you do that enough, they will lean that that's a good thing. You have one turn where the wizard drops his big once a day spell to no effect, then they learn real fast that knowing is over half the battle!

What about special abilities? Like goblin cunning, or that hobgoblins hit freaking hard? Or pack tactics and trip? DC 15?

 

[iserith]

As with any action a player describes for his or her character, you'll have to decide whether it succeeds outright, fails outright, or has an uncertain outcome at which point you can call for an ability check. In order to decide this, it's important in my view to fully understand the character's goal and approach.

A typical goal and approach to figuring out what a monster can do is "I draw upon my knowledge of beasts gleaned through many years in the wild to discern this monster's secrets." If it is indeed a natural beast, the DM might call for an Intelligence check with a DC appropriate to the relative obscurity of the monster being faced. This will vary according to the setting, of course. What is common in your setting may be rare in another. But as with any check, you basically can't go wrong with using 10, 15, or 20. Personally, I make iconic D&D creatures a 10, anything else a 15, and stuff I've created myself a 20. I would suggest letting the player ask whether a proficiency they have applies to the check.

The real question in my view is what to do if the check fails. I recommend you provide full information on a successful check and partial information on a failed check. Information I typically include is what the monster is called and its strengths and weaknesses. On a failed check, I might just say its name and strengths. Another decent failure condition (in combat) is to have it cost an action instead of being "free" or to impose the frightened condition as the character discovers an unwelcome truth about what he or she faces. Just be sure the player is aware of the stakes prior to the roll. A reasonable failure condition keeps pig piling on recalling lore on monsters to a minimum in my experience.

Of course, one of my DM advice posts wouldn't be complete unless I suggested telegraphing the monster's strengths and weakness via description so that players who are paying attention have an opportunity to deduce them without trying to recall lore and proc an Intelligence check.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I encourage DMs to do as I do when it comes to monster knowledge: decide that the characters have it, or that they don't on a case-by-case basis, and leave the dice out of it.

Especially because knowing or not knowing whether the monster can do X doesn't actually affect what actions a character is capable of trying (i.e. knowing a creature is vulnerable to radiant damage is not necessary in order to attack a creature with radiant damage, knowing a creature is immune to poison is not necessary in order to attack without using poison, and so on).

The idea that no information at all about a monster is to be given out unless a certain roll is passed is a bad idea that, to my knowledge, has only ever lead to nonsensical arguments of "you can't do that" and attempts by DMs to police the thoughts of their players.

 

[the Jester]

I don't use them.

The pcs learn about monsters in-game from encounters, local lore, research and npcs. They automatically know what the common people know, including that hobgoblins are militaristic, undead are horrible evil monsters, giants are big and strong, demons and devils come from the Lower Planes and are tremendously powerful and that griffons like to eat horses, but not that ghouls paralyze, the AC of anything, what type of giant has what strength, which creatures have magic resistance or even what, exactly, most creatures are on sight.

 

[Oofta]

I base monster knowledge on character's backgrounds and common knowledge. Someone raised in the city may know that there's a difference between a goblin and an orc, but are clueless beyond that unless they are a scholar or historian.

But it's all taken on a case by case basis. Some regions know a fair amount about red dragons, but have no clue what an oytugh is. Every once in a while I'll allow the scholarly type a roll - or ask what their skill is and roll secretly for them and give them bad information if the result is bad enough.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I encourage DMs to do as I do when it comes to monster knowledge: decide that the characters have it, or that they don't on a case-by-case basis, and leave the dice out of it.

Especially because knowing or not knowing whether the monster can do X doesn't actually affect what actions a character is capable of trying (i.e. knowing a creature is vulnerable to radiant damage is not necessary in order to attack a creature with radiant damage, knowing a creature is immune to poison is not necessary in order to attack without using poison, and so on).

The idea that no information at all about a monster is to be given out unless a certain roll is passed is a bad idea that, to my knowledge, has only ever lead to nonsensical arguments of "you can't do that" and attempts by DMs to police the thoughts of their players.

I don't see the knowledge check as gating what the character can do, but it does "reward" the player. Sure, they can always cast radiant damage on an undead regardless of knowledge, but maybe they will decide NOT to cast that fireball on the fire immune monster. Or they will decide not to engage the werewolf and retreat because they don't have magic weapons. It rewards them by not wasting resources or going TPK and allows them better decision making. As a player (in other systems like Pathfinder) who doesn't study the monster manual, I'm an inveterate monster knowledge checker. I was surprised to find it left out of 5e.