Longbow
First Post
From the SRD: I"n many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.
For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information."
As a DM I find this rule problematic. The level 10 Wizard player in my campaign regulary asks for information pretty much every time a monster appears. He has pumped a ton of skill points in knowledge skills and in some areas has a really high modifier (for example about +23 in the planes). This way he can identify most monsters and can get information about weaknesses, etc easily.
He gained those bonues fair and square (Grey Elf, feats, wizard class, high INT) and the rules allow him to do this. So why is this a problem for me as the DM?
If I understand the rule correctly I have to give him some useful information. Now what is useful inormation and what do I tell the player? Do I have to tell him important things like the monster is immune to cold, what is his bad save, what spell-like abililtes does he use, what kind of DR? Or do I state mundane or obvious things which aren´t very useful to know like darkvision, forms of movement (fly)?
Should it be some kind of balance and a mixture of both? I find that hard to decide, especially if the PC has a really high result on his check. I believe it´s not good for the game if the player gets to know things like what is the bad save of the monster. That was one thing the player asked me last time. Where´s the fun/balance in that if the player(s) get to know important abilities of the monster? Isn´t that boring and too easy? If a PC has that really high result than I could just give him the statblock. That´s how I feel. And on top of it I feel it holds up the game. Encounter starts, knowledge roll. Every time.
I don´t want to limit the player for having a great skill in knowledge but to me it´s annoying (no/less surprises about monsters, too much valuable information that a player shouldn´t have, IMO).
For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information."
As a DM I find this rule problematic. The level 10 Wizard player in my campaign regulary asks for information pretty much every time a monster appears. He has pumped a ton of skill points in knowledge skills and in some areas has a really high modifier (for example about +23 in the planes). This way he can identify most monsters and can get information about weaknesses, etc easily.
He gained those bonues fair and square (Grey Elf, feats, wizard class, high INT) and the rules allow him to do this. So why is this a problem for me as the DM?
If I understand the rule correctly I have to give him some useful information. Now what is useful inormation and what do I tell the player? Do I have to tell him important things like the monster is immune to cold, what is his bad save, what spell-like abililtes does he use, what kind of DR? Or do I state mundane or obvious things which aren´t very useful to know like darkvision, forms of movement (fly)?
Should it be some kind of balance and a mixture of both? I find that hard to decide, especially if the PC has a really high result on his check. I believe it´s not good for the game if the player gets to know things like what is the bad save of the monster. That was one thing the player asked me last time. Where´s the fun/balance in that if the player(s) get to know important abilities of the monster? Isn´t that boring and too easy? If a PC has that really high result than I could just give him the statblock. That´s how I feel. And on top of it I feel it holds up the game. Encounter starts, knowledge roll. Every time.
I don´t want to limit the player for having a great skill in knowledge but to me it´s annoying (no/less surprises about monsters, too much valuable information that a player shouldn´t have, IMO).
