Recognizing an enemy (goblin, ogre, etc.) on sight

[schporto]

Ya know I didn't notice before. I have a 1st edition MM. It has a listing in there for its commonness. So elves were listed as 'Common', beholders 'Very Rare' , bugbears 'uncommon', etc. That's not in the current SRD at least. (At work books aren't with me) It used to be we'd recognize I think anything down to 'uncommon' and know basic details of any special powers that creature had. I can't remember all the rules we cooked up, but the more rare (personally I prefer medium rare) the creature, the more divergent your knowledge. So you may recognize that thing as a beholder, and rumors have it that merely looking at it can kill a man. Or something to that effect.
-cpd

 

[Hand of Evil]

Depends, common monsters maybe but sometimes not, orcs, hobgoblins, and bugbear could be confusing just seeing them. Rangers and barbarians I give special thought to, they can tell you tribe of orc by seeing weapons and armor.


It all has to do with contact and general appearance. If the creature is a variation of a monster the person will believe it is the most common creature unless they look for tell tales. It is my job as a DM to make sure they see the common monster then pick up on the hints that it is something more.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

IMC we use a Knowledge (Adventuring) skill to identify monsters when faced for the first time. The DC to identify a particular monster (if you've never faced it before) is 15 + the CR of the monster.

Knowledge (Adventuring) covers all monsters. The other knowledge skills allow the player to make a roll for certain types of monsters (same DC):

- Knowledge (local): includes local Humanoids, Monstrous Humanoids, and Giants, as well as local history, customs, and lore.
- Knowledge (nobility): includes local rulers, leaders, and the leaders of major countries, as well as political and military groups
- Knowledge (arcane): includes arcane items; Constructs, shape-changers, magical beasts, fey, and dragons; also arcane power groups
- Knowledge (religion): includes divine items; Undead; religions, faiths, pantheons, and religious groups
- Knowledge (Planes): includes planar travel, dangers; aberrations, outsiders, elementals
- Knowledge (Nature): includes animals, plants, beasts, oozes, and vermin; also nature religions and power groups
- Knowledge (Underdark): includes Underdark power groups and residents (drow, mind flayer, cloaker, deep dwarf, deep gnome, etc.)


A successful roll means they've identified the creature, and know common strengths and weaknesses. It's worked fairly well so far, though it doesn't comepletely eliminate metagaming.

 

[Voadam]

I've been playing with my friends for about two decades now. I have one friend who has never bought anything for gaming purposes besides a PH, dice, and mountain dew. When I DM I only describe physical descriptions not race names. My friend thinks that owlbears are called bugbears to this day. When I was DMing and described an encounter with actual bugbears in game he thought they were ogres. His stories are interesting when he comes back from his solo ventures.

Everything is more fresh and new for him this way, and it is why I haven't opened the MMII or the Fiend Folio, so there are critters my DMs have that I have not seen.

Now when I play my current wizard, he's constantly asking about local critters and gathering info on them to be prepared, but he does it all in game and I try to act surprised when things outside of his but not my experience pop up.

 

[Pielorinho]

My default setting is to assume that the Monster Manual reflects a smart person's knowledge of monsters in the world, with some exceptions.

If, for example, illithids are unknown in my campaign, I'll tell the players that when they first encounter one.

I might also caution the players that, although they've heard of gibbering mouthers before, the only thing they know about them is that their noise will drive them insane. Players who then shield their eyes will get scolded for metagaming.

The MM reflects common knowledge. This knowledge is far from perfect, however. I quite enjoy tweaking monstrous appearances and stats in order to change their flavor and in order to keep players on their toes.

Sure, a hill giant might look and act like a hill giant. But a barghest may appear as a small, dapper man in shining silk clothes, and instead of turning into a wolf, he may turn into a golden monkey.

Daniel

 

[Gort]

And of course, there's nothing wrong with taking an existing monster that fits the stats you're after and simply changing the appearance.

For instance, you might want to put Gibberlings in your game, but don't have the stats.

Kobolds work just as well.

 

[Duncan Haldane]

I've been thinking about this question since about the time 3rd ed came out, and still haven't come up with an answer.

I think that normal monsters should be recognised using a wilderness lore role., while magical creatures with a knowledge Arcana role.

Undead would probably be best with a Knowledge undead, but I think that knowledge religion could cover ex-planar creatures.

There are plenty of other skills in WotC sources (eg Knowledge The Planes), and those from other sources, but I don't like skill creep (increasing the number of skills that a player can choose from, while their skill points available stay the same).

I miss the Frequency of monsters from earlier versions, but I realise that should be world specific (but MM/MMII/FF could list the World of Greyhawk frequencies). I think this stat would be useful in determining knowledge of monsters.

But I don't think it should definately become harder to recognise just because a monster is more or less frequent. For instance, I think that it's reasonable the recognise a Dragon type (maybe not knowing that it's a wyvern), even though they are probably quite rare, just because of fables, etc.

Added to that is what would characters know of the powers of monsters. For instance, what sort of roll would be needed to know that a troll regenerates? What about that a troll is susceptible to fire and acid? I would think that this information can be given based on how much a PC suceeds at a recognition roll - eg, get 5 above the DC of the roll and you get some knowledge of a Special Attack or Special Defence.

On top of all this, there is personal experience for a character - should we expect the players to keep a list of all creatures that character has fought? What if a SA or SD wasn't used in a fight? Should they just keep a list of anything they noticed about particular combats - that just means the paperwork gets too much, IMO.

So, all in all, it's a more difficult question than one would guess.
I hope that my points at least made sense

Duncan

 

[Haradim]

Re: Re: Recognizing an enemy (goblin, ogre, etc.) on sight

Strictly speaking, and I hate to say this, but this will depend on campaign world.

I have to go with this.

For example, I am sorta tempted to create a setting where 'monsters' are unknown; no Orcs, Goblins, Displacer Beasts, nothing. The only 'monsters' are creatures of myth and religious dogma, and great power (and, ironically, would probably be the most easily identified creatures, despite the fact that they might be encountered only once).

Then (taking a page from the Warcraft storyline), creatures start finding their way to the world the PCs live on. Orcs, Goblins, Displacer Beasts, etc, all start appearing, creatures that no-one has ever even imagined (or, if they have, only have passing resemblance to various myths). It's then up to the PCs to deal with this threat, with the extra challenge (upon both player and PC) that they know nothing of the creatures they are facing, and can only win by finding this information for themselves (and without blatant metagaming).

On the other hand, in the average DnD setting, I would be very surprised if this knowledge wasn't already available. If Orcs exist in an accessable manner, whether they are natives or long ago arrived on the world, it wouldn't make much sense for the information to be unavailable to anyone who wanted to find it.

With regards to recognition, I'd personally shy away from rolls. Save for special circumstances, one or more (or all) PCs would either recognize the foe, or find that none of them knows what it is.

IMO, at least..