The ethics of ... death

[Ahnehnois]

If there is a medusa around the area, how have the people in the area survived this long? They're pretty dangerous to a town full of commoners, I believe.
...
Which leaves the question of how common volcanos and extraplanar portals are. If magmin (and salamanders, fire elementals, etc.) are just wandering around, I speculate any human(oid) settlement would be long since wiped out.
...
This posits a world simply teeming with monsters. How do all those low level commoners survive in such an environment?

Because there are adventurers defending them?

If you don't buy that, than the level of danger a commoner must face given the threats posited in the monster manual(s) is indeed completely untenable, and believing that there are human commoners in large numbers requires some combination of rationalization and suspension of disbelief.

FWIW, I once based a campaign on the premise of exploring how miserable it must be to be a commoner in D&D.

I see the Knowledge Skill rules for creature identification, and the fact that the average peasant is not typically assumed to have 6 - 12 years of education not focused on their role in society.

Assuming that they have proficiency in reading, they must have read something. Only barbarians are illiterate, as far as I know. Regardless, even relatively uneducated people (real or fictional) have quite a bit of knowledge.

Indeed. Perhaps the better answer would have been a general guideline on monster rarity, and MM specifics as to the DC to identify a creature, and what facts are gained at each success level. But that's a lot more work, so we take a shorthand assumption.

Given the amount of comparatively useless stuff that pops up in books, I don't think that guidelines for rarity of information are at all prohibitive. The existing rule is lazy (and lousy) design.

This highlights another problem with the Knowledge conceit - if only it were a younger dragon, the DC would be lower and he would be easier to identify! That said, from that distance, they see a large winged shape, and likely cannot differentiate colour. Do they wait to see whether it might be a Gold or Red Dragon? That dragons are color-coded for our convenience is every bit as much a conceit as the Knowledge DC's.

As per your reading of the rules, any creature of CR 1 or greater cannot be identified by anyone untrained in the relevant Knowledge skill. That means that even if a red dragon were standing right in front of the people, regardless of its age, they would not know that it was a dragon, was evil, or breathed fire, even as they were spontaneously running in fear from the giant, rapacious lizard with smoke coming from its nostrils.

Well, clearly if some half-drunk vagrant at the inn said it, it MUST be true!

I'm not against misinformation on occasion.

It is quite similar to that player asking to use his Knowledge: Arcana to determine a potion's effects by taste. Identifying magic items has a specific rule.

The books are explicit that using experimentation to identify magic items is under the DM's discretion and is entirely reasonable.

 

[jasper]

nracc..This posits a world simply teeming with monsters. How do all those low level commoners survive in such an environment?....
They do very well by not bothering the monster. It not until the heroes show up till the peasants start dying in huge amounts. See any movie with a hero in it.

 

[N'raac]

If you don't buy that, than the level of danger a commoner must face given the threats posited in the monster manual(s) is indeed completely untenable, and believing that there are human commoners in large numbers requires some combination of rationalization and suspension of disbelief.

Or it requires that most monsters are quite rare, and don't inhabit the same areas where human(oid) settlements are located. I think there is a need to decide what is a "monster", though. Elves, dwarves, orcs and goblins are all in the MM, however it seems quite reasonable to establish that these are not "monsters" for identification purposes - they are "races", and they can be identified by a C 10 or lower check.

Assuming that they have proficiency in reading, they must have read something. Only barbarians are illiterate, as far as I know. Regardless, even relatively uneducated people (real or fictional) have quite a bit of knowledge.

3e+ barbarians can read too. But this need not mean that everyone can read, only that the special breed with PC class levels can. Having quite a bit of knowlege does not specify what they are knowledgeable of. And there's tons of specialized knowledge that the vast majority of people lack, and tons of misconceptions they have about issues outside their expertise that they "know" with absolute certainty.

Given the amount of comparatively useless stuff that pops up in books, I don't think that guidelines for rarity of information are at all prohibitive. The existing rule is lazy (and lousy) design.

I think it would be a fine approach. It's not the RAW approach.

As per your reading of the rules, any creature of CR 1 or greater cannot be identified by anyone untrained in the relevant Knowledge skill. That means that even if a red dragon were standing right in front of the people, regardless of its age, they would not know that it was a dragon, was evil, or breathed fire, even as they were spontaneously running in fear from the giant, rapacious lizard with smoke coming from its nostrils.

As per reading the rules, any creature of CR 1 or greater cannot be identified by anyone untrained in the relevant Knowledge skill. Why would they know that all Red Dragons are evil, or that not all Dragons are red, or that not all Dragons are evil, or that some breathe fire, or that they don't all breathe fire? What they would see is a huge, winged reptile. The possibility that they might come rnning back from the mountains shrieking of "Dragons" which turn out to be wyverns, or some other big, winged lizard, or even a Tyranosauraus, seems perfectly believable to me, assuming these creatures are so rare that only someone with specialized knowledge might possess the skills to accurately identify them. You are assuming "these things are everyday occurences", and concluding "they are therefore common knowledge" as a result. I am reading the actual rule, which says "they are not common knowledge" and, from that, concluding "they must therefore be rare".

I'm not against misinformation on occasion.

OK, that's just too obvious as a straight line. I...will...resist!

nracc..This posits a world simply teeming with monsters. How do all those low level commoners survive in such an environment?....
They do very well by not bothering the monster. It not until the heroes show up till the peasants start dying in huge amounts. See any movie with a hero in it.

In all of those movies, how many of the peasants say "Hey, we should go hire some adventurers like we did last Spring when that other monster showed up"? Those same movies tend not to portray monsters as a common threat.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Or it requires that most monsters are quite rare, and don't inhabit the same areas where human(oid) settlements are located.

That's one way of doing things. Not enumerated or even suggested by the rules though.

I think there is a need to decide what is a "monster", though. Elves, dwarves, orcs and goblins are all in the MM, however it seems quite reasonable to establish that these are not "monsters" for identification purposes - they are "races", and they can be identified by a C 10 or lower check.

Rules don't say that either. And even in your example, a human that rolls a 9 has no idea what an elf is.

You are assuming "these things are everyday occurences", and concluding "they are therefore common knowledge" as a result. I am reading the actual rule, which says "they are not common knowledge" and, from that, concluding "they must therefore be rare".

I am not assuming that they are everyday occurrences, only that common people will have heard of them. And the rules are silent on what is and what is not common knowledge.

 

[N'raac]

Because there are adventurers defending them?

I thought experienced adventurers fled at the first encounter with a monster so they could research and strategize how they can be defeated? The peasants are an all you can eat buffet while you're out researching, planning and scribing scrolls!

Mind you, if I played the monsters as half that tactical and paranoid, the Banshee is unbeatable. She can hear your hearts beat, remember. So she stays incorporeal inside a wall until she identifies all the heartbeats in her lair, spying on them to determine their capabilities. Maybe they will just go away. Maybe one will separate frm the group, making easy prey as just a hand, or just a face, pokes out of the wall, wails or touches, then withdraws and moves 60' up/back, fleeing through several walls and circling back later to see if she got one, or must try again. If they stay clustered, come around behind the direction those heartbeats are moving in, pop out your head, wail, and (again) flee 60' through walls and floors, hen circle back around.

Why should she ever come all the way out of the wall, or stick around in the minute that must pass between wails? She's immortal - your spells will run out eventually...

Death Ward lasts one minute per level. Only attack every half hour or so and that's taken care of. Follow them under the ground if they leave when their spells expire, stick your face out and wail, then retreat underground. They Teleport back and forth? When the heartbeats all cluster together, "reach out and touch someone". If he flees, he won't teleport out with the rest. If not, either they don't come back (mission accomplished) or they come back later (and we try, try again). No unncecessary risks - the Banshee has all eternity.

 

[N'raac]

That's one way of doing things. Not enumerated or even suggested by the rules though.

Rules don't say that either. And even in your example, a human that rolls a 9 has no idea what an elf is.

Or he doesn't realize that fellow is one - or he mistakes a half elf for an elf.

I am not assuming that they are everyday occurrences, only that common people will have heard of them. And the rules are silent on what is and what is not common knowledge.

Yes, completely silent...

An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).

That is, you have to read them - the book does not scream them out at you. Perhaps my emphasis above will be of some assistance.

 

[pemerton]

You're assuming that the saving throw means you are poisoned. A success could mean that so little got in you that it had no effect.

So why would it be a Fort save, then?

This is the logic expounded in 1e, I believe - did that tiny nick still get some venom injected? It made a bit more sense in 1e when the likelihood of that venom being injected declined as the hero became higher level and gained more hp.

Yes. Also, in AD&D it wasn't a Fort save. There was no such thing as a Fort save pre-3E.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I thought experienced adventurers fled at the first encounter with a monster so they could research and strategize how they can be defeated?

If necessary.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Or he doesn't realize that fellow is one - or he mistakes a half elf for an elf.

I assume when your players encounter a bear, you explain that it is a "large animal with fur" unless they make a trained Knowledge (Nature) check?

That is, you have to read them - the book does not scream them out at you. Perhaps my emphasis above will be of some assistance.

Well, it shows which characters know common knowledge (i.e. all of them). What knowledge counts as common is not described. So yes, it was of some assistance in proving my point.

 

[Imaro]

So why would it be a Fort save, then?

Maybe because even a trace amount of poison would still be countered by your body... *shrug* of course if your group is playing in a less simulationist fashion you could always re-skin the fort save as anything you want, including a complete miss...