Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6157839" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Or it requires that most monsters are quite rare, and don't inhabit the same areas where human(oid) settlements are located.&nbsp; I think there is a need to decide what is a &quot;monster&quot;, though.&nbsp; Elves, dwarves, orcs and goblins are all in the MM,&nbsp; however it seems quite reasonable to establish that these are not &quot;monsters&quot; for identification purposes - they are &quot;races&quot;, and they can be identified by a C 10 or lower check.3e+ barbarians can read too.&nbsp; But this need not mean that everyone can read, only that the special breed with PC class levels can.&nbsp; Having quite a bit of knowlege does not specify what they are knowledgeable of.&nbsp; 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 &quot;know&quot; with absolute certainty.I think it would be a fine approach.&nbsp; It's not the RAW approach.As per reading the rules, any creature of CR 1 or greater cannot be identified by anyone untrained in the relevant Knowledge skill.&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; What they would see is a huge, winged reptile.&nbsp; The possibility that they might come rnning back from the mountains shrieking of &quot;Dragons&quot; 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.&nbsp; You are assuming &quot;these things are everyday occurences&quot;, and concluding &quot;they are therefore common knowledge&quot; as a result.&nbsp; I am reading the actual rule, which says &quot;they are not common knowledge&quot; and, from that, concluding &quot;they must therefore be rare&quot;.OK, that's just too obvious as a straight line.&nbsp; I...will...resist!In all of those movies, how many of the peasants say &quot;Hey, we should go hire some adventurers like we did last Spring when that other monster showed up&quot;?&nbsp; Those same movies tend not to portray monsters as a common threat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="N'raac, post: 6157839, member: 6681948"] 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. 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. I think it would be a fine approach. It's not the RAW approach. 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". OK, that's just too obvious as a straight line. I...will...resist! 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification