Ubiquitous knowledge checks

[Matthias]

Getting back into DMing after a year or two and am anticipating running a PF game for the first time... I have been thinking about ways to improve my style and to make running the game smoother and more interesting both for myself and my players.

Players (as well as DMs) can develop habits and routines. One of these is making Knowledge checks to remember information about monsters. And oh my gosh, it about drove me nuts sometimes when the first thing, my players would say every time I called for initiative on an encounter is "knowledge check, is it a/n <creature type>?" if they did not immediately recognize the species (as creature type relates to which field of knowledge is to be used).

I'll admit that throwing a huge variety of creatures at a party will make them to do this as a sort of defensive adaptation, but when it comes up even before discussion of tactics or some real, actual combat, it spoils the anticipation, kind of, and "facing the unknown" doesn't seem so thrilling when you have PCs hopped up on knowledge ranks and able to extort some pretty useful info about a creature that has never actually appeared "on screen" in the present campaign, even if the PC might have heard about or read about it in their studies.

I did notice that Pathfinder incorporated a pretty nifty modification, a "species rarity bonus" to the base DC. I had this in 3.5 and will enjoy using it in this system...it makes plenty of sense to me that not all creature information is equally obtainable.

Of course, players *should* be able to rely on their PCs' in-game knowledge to recognize threats. I'm certainly not looking to remove this basic feature or replace it with something else. What I'm mainly looking for is a method to push this automatic defensive maneuver more into the background, or handle it in some way so as not to waste too much time dickering over PC knowledge and preventing this from derailing what I intend to be a tense and exciting encounter.

My first idea is to make the knowledge checks (and field of study) myself and to keep the results hidden, thereby keeping a newly discovered monster's creature-type (and by extension its templated abilities & immunities) a 'state secret', as well as concealing its assigned rarity in the world. Perhaps the PCs will be able to recognize the monster by its general appearance and movement based on legends they've heard, but again the exact monster type won't be automatically known to them, nor any but its most common traits.

I also thought of maybe attaching a "hard way" XP bonus to encounters whenever the PCs go for the "cold read" approach when handling an encounter with an unrecognized monster.

Any other suggestions or ideas?

 

[BlubSeabass]

I got a hard head in this. My party, out of pure sloppy and laziness, almost never has the important info about a foe they are going to battle. They forget about knowledge, don't ask or inform PC's in game etc.
Now the party also had two protective players, both with low self esteem when it comes down to battles, who also happen to be the players that take initiative. The result of this all is that the party is often being kicked, and I have to go easy on them. The battles are sometimes fun, since there is no calculation, but most of the time the players feel more like "we sucked" instad of " yeah we did it!".

I'm curious what information you give away to a player with a knowledge check. Do you tell them everything, like HD? I tend to tell them more information scaling with the ammount that they beat the DC. If I really want to surprise them, I just throw 1 or 2 levels of prestige class-special template to surprise them in battle.

 

[Mark Chance]

Here's my take:

An important part of the DM's job is to describe the world the PCs are in. This should include not only sensory detail, but also knowledge about the world suitable to the PCs' skills, background, et cetera. In many situations, checks ought not be necessary. No one needs a Perception to check to notice obvious details, for example. Likewise, no one should need a check to know obvious facts.

So, what's obvious?

IMO, anything a character could know by taking 10 on a Knowledge check. Thus, any PC with at least 1 rank in a Knowledge skill shouldn't be making Knowledge checks for DC 10 (really easy questions) regarding that skill.

Consider now a 1st-level wizard with a 16 Int who has put 1 rank in Knowledge (arcana). He's got a +7 bonus with Knowledge (arcana). Any Knowledge (arcana) check with a DC 17 or less should be a no-brainer for him. This means that, in general, he should be able to identify constructs, dragons, and magical beasts of CR 7 or less on sight. He can make a check to remember more useful information as normal.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I despise Knowledge checks to identify monsters. The DCs in 3.x were tied to monster HD. Basing on HD makes advanced versions of monsters strangely harder to identify. Stupid. Stupid.

 

[Noumenon]

"knowledge check, is it a/n <creature type>?"

The benefit of this question is that your players can say "Remember that time we fought the dretches" without breaking character. It's better to tell them the name than have them talking about "those oozy demon things" or "the booger monsters" all adventure. I tell players the name and creature type if they hit a Knowledge DC of 15 + the CR. (Hit dice do increase too fast.)

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with knowledge checks. Look at games like Final Fantasy X, where you can scan a monster and learn every last thing about its vulnerabilities and immunities. That adds to the game by letting you intelligently plan a strategy. For one thing, you can tell whether your spells that target specific creature types like "animal" will work.

Consider the alternatives:

1) Make the players hit the monster with their fire weapons, their silver weapons, their holy weapons, their cold iron weapons, until they find one that works. Then the same on the next monster. Then their character dies and their next character has to go through the same discovery process, only it's even less fun because not only do they get to be ineffective for rounds and rounds, they're just pretending to discover things they already know.

2) Have the characters always asking you, "Does my character know that werewolves hate silver?" and then having to pretend that he doesn't.

Just be prepared for the knowledge checks ahead of time so you can rattle off the information. It's too bad the 3.5 MM didn't have Knowledge DCs included like the 4E MM. Here's what I reveal:

• DC = CR + 15: Identify the monster by name and creature type
• DC = CR + 20: Know the monster's vulnerabilities and defenses. Identify a monster that’s only disguised as a member of that kind.
• DC = CR + 25: Know the monster's spell-like abilities, skills, and special attacks.

Familiarity can get you +2 on the check, favored enemy status gets you +4.

Note how the stuff that really makes a monster mysterious and challenging is a very hard DC, while the stuff PCs need to know to fight effectively is lower (still high enough to reward asking NPCs for help, though).

Basing on HD makes advanced versions of monsters strangely harder to identify.

That's okay, as long as you tell them "You think you've heard of this monster before, but this one seems taller, more resilient than a normal member of its kind." Then the fiendish spell resistance won't come as such a surprise.

 

[pawsplay]

That's okay, as long as you tell them "You think you've heard of this monster before, but this one seems taller, more resilient than a normal member of its kind." Then the fiendish spell resistance won't come as such a surprise.

Curiously, though, the more powerful the creature becomes, the more difficult it becomes to tell it's something out of the ordinary.

 

[Matthias]

I got a hard head in this. My party, out of pure sloppy and laziness, almost never has the important info about a foe they are going to battle. They forget about knowledge, don't ask or inform PC's in game etc.
Now the party also had two protective players, both with low self esteem when it comes down to battles, who also happen to be the players that take initiative. The result of this all is that the party is often being kicked, and I have to go easy on them. The battles are sometimes fun, since there is no calculation, but most of the time the players feel more like "we sucked" instad of " yeah we did it!".

I'm curious what information you give away to a player with a knowledge check. Do you tell them everything, like HD? I tend to tell them more information scaling with the ammount that they beat the DC. If I really want to surprise them, I just throw 1 or 2 levels of prestige class-special template to surprise them in battle.

When it comes to Knowledge checks, I never describe monsters using out-of-game talk if it can be helped. I won't read an ability verbatim from the text using the technical terms but try to describe the game effect as though I were an NPC describing it in layman's speech. I might let the players know the DC they are rolling against--if they have fought the monster long enough to have some idea of how powerful the effect is, that's hitting them. If I initially conceal how many dice of damage I'm rolling then eventually I'll let them observe and guesstimate that too.

 

[Matthias]

Here's my take:

An important part of the DM's job is to describe the world the PCs are in. This should include not only sensory detail, but also knowledge about the world suitable to the PCs' skills, background, et cetera. In many situations, checks ought not be necessary. No one needs a Perception to check to notice obvious details, for example. Likewise, no one should need a check to know obvious facts.

So, what's obvious?

IMO, anything a character could know by taking 10 on a Knowledge check. Thus, any PC with at least 1 rank in a Knowledge skill shouldn't be making Knowledge checks for DC 10 (really easy questions) regarding that skill.

Consider now a 1st-level wizard with a 16 Int who has put 1 rank in Knowledge (arcana). He's got a +7 bonus with Knowledge (arcana). Any Knowledge (arcana) check with a DC 17 or less should be a no-brainer for him. This means that, in general, he should be able to identify constructs, dragons, and magical beasts of CR 7 or less on sight. He can make a check to remember more useful information as normal.

This approach looks good in theory but there is something that makes me uncomfortable with having that 1st-level wizard be turned into a walking encyclopedia vs. all CR <=7 monsters. 'Course, that is what the rarity factor is for, I guess.

 

[Matthias]

I despise Knowledge checks to identify monsters. The DCs in 3.x were tied to monster HD. Basing on HD makes advanced versions of monsters strangely harder to identify. Stupid. Stupid.

True, although you as the DM could house-rule that advanced HD (and class levels) don't apply to the Knowledge check DC; you might take only the base CR of the monster's race no matter what modifications you make to the monster.

High-CR monsters are by their nature going to be more infamous unless they happen to be exceptionally reclusive. The "rarity bonus" could be balanced by a "fame penalty"... at least when it comes to monsters that have built-in advancement (e.g. Dragons) you might counter the increased CR with a legend penalty that keeps Knowledge/arcana DCs from rising too high.

 

[Mark Chance]

This approach looks good in theory but there is something that makes me uncomfortable with having that 1st-level wizard be turned into a walking encyclopedia vs. all CR <=7 monsters. 'Course, that is what the rarity factor is for, I guess.

Precisely. The DCs for Knowledge checks to identify monsters and their traits are not written in stone. For example, the PFSRD says that goblins are common monsters. Well, maybe in this campaign, but not necessarily in that one.