Monstet Knowledge

[iserith]

It's not really left out - it just doesn't have a subsystem. For any fictional action established by the player for a character, the DM is obliged to narrate the result of the adventurer's actions and this includes trying to recall lore or make deductions about a monster. An appropriate ability check resolves any uncertainty as to the outcome.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I don't see the knowledge check as gating what the character can do, but it does "reward" the player.

No, it really doesn't. You are even implying the gate you claim not to see with statements like:

... 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.

They can make those very decisions without knowing the creature is immune to fire or only fully harmed by magic, so attributing the ability to make those decisions to passing a monster knowledge check implies that if they failed said check they wouldn't be able to make the same decisions.

And in my experience, that's what happens when you stick to using those rules. You get DMs that question an action because they think the player is acting like they passed a check that they failed even though the truth is that a character can do that action whether they know how it will work out or not, and you get players that come up with a cool idea but then they fail some knowledge check called for by the DM and think "I guess I have to do something else" even though that isn't actually the case. You also end up with a player that is forced into playing a character with high ratings for every knowledge skill that applies to monster knowledge just so that they don't end up in yet another argument with the DM that boils down to the DM saying "you can't do that because you don't know X" while the counter argument is "knowing X doesn't matter, my character is guessing." which the DM answers with the thought-policing statement "Your character can't guess that because you know their guess is correct." (Note: that last bit is the most personal bit of experience I can share, being a DM with a good enough memory to be perceived as "knowing everything about D&D" and trying to play under another DM.)

 

[Quickleaf]

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.

When I was starting out playing D&D as a kid, I never asked "what do I know about these monsters?"

I was at the edge of my seat, looking at older kids to figure out what they knew, asking the DM what it looked like, what it smelled like, did it notice me, was it standing in oil, etc. It never would have occurred to me to ask...it would probably have taken the fun out of figuring it out for myself

The whole idea of monster knowledge checks are predicated upon your players even knowing that's a thing, usually for players conscious of meta-gaming to separate player-knowledge from character-knowledge.

But for new players? Nah, don't worry about it. If it is important for your story, just tell them flat out, otherwise don't worry about it until the moment in play comes up (and it may not for quite some time).

 

[Ezequielramone]

I'll refer you to this:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Nz3NeC2w51jBHXsnilLbbWF3zvu52OXz-NSZShhEVao/edit#gid=0

The Excel was made to fit 3rd ed monster. But is the best reference for you. You have a base DC (10+monster's CR), then you have an extra knowledge for each +5 after the base DC. Just change the base DC according to the new CR and change flavor if it changed in the new edition.

Or you can set the same DCs but use the bold "tittles" in the monster's description. That is a great way to add color to the game (also use the paper references that some npc wrote for that monster if that one has the note).

Also a good roll should show the creature's type and one special ability.

 

[KahlessNestor]

No, it really doesn't. You are even implying the gate you claim not to see with statements like:



They can make those very decisions without knowing the creature is immune to fire or only fully harmed by magic, so attributing the ability to make those decisions to passing a monster knowledge check implies that if they failed said check they wouldn't be able to make the same decisions.

And in my experience, that's what happens when you stick to using those rules. You get DMs that question an action because they think the player is acting like they passed a check that they failed even though the truth is that a character can do that action whether they know how it will work out or not, and you get players that come up with a cool idea but then they fail some knowledge check called for by the DM and think "I guess I have to do something else" even though that isn't actually the case. You also end up with a player that is forced into playing a character with high ratings for every knowledge skill that applies to monster knowledge just so that they don't end up in yet another argument with the DM that boils down to the DM saying "you can't do that because you don't know X" while the counter argument is "knowing X doesn't matter, my character is guessing." which the DM answers with the thought-policing statement "Your character can't guess that because you know their guess is correct." (Note: that last bit is the most personal bit of experience I can share, being a DM with a good enough memory to be perceived as "knowing everything about D&D" and trying to play under another DM.)

I guess I don't see myself operating like that. I see it as a player resource for conserving character resources (spell slots, action economy) and allowing informed tactics. Look at it the other way:

Player: What do I know about these things that would help me make good decisions?

DM: Nothing.

Player: Can I make an Intelligence check?

DM: No. Those aren't allowed. You have to make decisions based off your player knowledge of the MM, which you have never seen or read. Despite the fact your character is a half orc raised by orcs, you know nothing about orcs from your tribe standing right in front of you.

Exaggerated, yes, but to make a point.

 

[iserith]

And in my experience, that's what happens when you stick to using those rules. You get DMs that question an action because they think the player is acting like they passed a check that they failed even though the truth is that a character can do that action whether they know how it will work out or not, and you get players that come up with a cool idea but then they fail some knowledge check called for by the DM and think "I guess I have to do something else" even though that isn't actually the case. You also end up with a player that is forced into playing a character with high ratings for every knowledge skill that applies to monster knowledge just so that they don't end up in yet another argument with the DM that boils down to the DM saying "you can't do that because you don't know X" while the counter argument is "knowing X doesn't matter, my character is guessing." which the DM answers with the thought-policing statement "Your character can't guess that because you know their guess is correct." (Note: that last bit is the most personal bit of experience I can share, being a DM with a good enough memory to be perceived as "knowing everything about D&D" and trying to play under another DM.)

I've seen that sort of behavior from DMs before as well, but I think the underlying cause is not the desire to recall lore or make deductions about a monster's traits and any check that results from it. Rather, it stems from a DM trying to control things he or she has no business controlling.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Look at it the other way:

When I am talking about providing hints via descriptions, rather than locking information away behind successful rolls, "the other way" has already been looked at and is not "you know nothing", exaggerated or otherwise.

So I really don't see any point that you were making by bringing it up.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I've seen that sort of behavior from DMs before as well, but I think the underlying cause is not the desire to recall lore or make deductions about a monster's traits and any check that results from it. Rather, it stems from a DM trying to control things he or she has no business controlling.

I certainly agree in most cases that I've seen that there was more to the issue that just the monster knowledge check idea.

However, I've also seen DMs stumble over the idea while not trying to control things they shouldn't - wondering what the point of the roll is when pass and fail aren't determining A or B, but rather A with known potential or A with unknown potential, and (mistakenly, in my opinion) trying to force the roll to have the point it seemed on the surface that it might have.

 

[KahlessNestor]

When I am talking about providing hints via descriptions, rather than locking information away behind successful rolls, "the other way" has already been looked at and is not "you know nothing", exaggerated or otherwise.

So I really don't see any point that you were making by bringing it up.

How do you telegraph this stuff? Sure, maybe shifty goblins goblins can be telegraphed a bit, but how is a player to know that's not just fluffy description from a flowery DM and actual knowledge he should glean? Hoe do yo I telegraph immunity to fire? Have him burn himself with a cigarette? Why? Or a troll vulnerability to acid? Player characters should have some recourse to knowledge apsrt from just trusting the DM. Heck, I'm a newbie DM, so I don't even trust myself! [emoji6]

 

[iserith]

I guess I don't see myself operating like that. I see it as a player resource for conserving character resources (spell slots, action economy) and allowing informed tactics.

Right. That is a good way to look at it in my view and makes it worth investing in particular skills so that if your attempt at recalling lore or making a deduction is uncertain, you have a little bonus there to help you succeed.

Look at it the other way:

Player: What do I know about these things that would help me make good decisions?

DM: Nothing.

Player: Can I make an Intelligence check?

DM: No. Those aren't allowed. You have to make decisions based off your player knowledge of the MM, which you have never seen or read. Despite the fact your character is a half orc raised by orcs, you know nothing about orcs from your tribe standing right in front of you.

Exaggerated, yes, but to make a point.

Eh, really, all the player needs to make decisions is the DM to describe the environment adequately and this includes telegraphing monster strengths and weaknesses well. The goblin's deceptively shoddy shortbow, their twitchy eyes that betray they could run away at any moment, their putrid skin color and drab clothing that would make it easy for them to hide in the surrounding terrain. (For example.) Trying to recall lore or make deductions on top of that is just a way to confirm assumptions made based on that description so as to mitigate failure. Even if the player has encyclopedic knowledge of the Monster Manual, he or she can never know if the DM changed the monster in some way except for what the DM telegraphs or the character recalls or deduces.