Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6158067" data-attributes="member: 17106">I think there's a case to be made for some creatures that are.For example, if you've played Baldur's Gate, you may remember a field of statues full of basilisks, and a halfling village nearby. I think every halfling in that village knows exactly what a basilisk is, even if their general knowledge of magical beasts is not great.No, but who needs to? All you need to know is that it's a <a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/210979/december-01-2008/exclusive---godless-killing-machines-mash-up" target="_blank">godless killing machine</a>. I don't care whether my bodak is a medium one or a large one either. I just care that it's an undead with a death gaze that dies in sunlight.Of course, if it's a brown bear, the DC to identify it is 2 higher than if it's black. Two bears attack you at once and you can conceivably go "hey, watch out for that black bear and its grapple attack, and what the hell is that brown thing?". This is the system you're defending.Probably not. Again, that's not the point. The question is whether a character can recognize a monster that does live near them and its basic threat level, not whether they are a scholar of zoology.That's circular reasoning. A DC 10 knowledge check can get you common knowledge, which is anything of DC 10 or below. That tells us nothing.There's nothing in that that says a DM can't define common knowledge to include things like which monsters are likely to have instant death abilities.</blockquote>

Verification