Using Monster Knowledges

[Trit One-Ear]

Just curious, when dealing with knowledge checks to learn information about new/unique monsters encountered by the party, how do you like to use Monster Knowledge skills?

The PHB suggests the following:

No action required--either you know the answer or you don't.
Name, Type, and Keywords - DC 15
Powers - 20
Resistances and Vulnerabilities - DC 25
Paragon Tier - +5
Epic Tier - +10

So... how to handle this?
1) Passive skill checks? Or active free action?
2) Does anyone else feel like vulnerabilities and resistances should come before powers? I've switches them in my group (when we remember to use knowledge skills). It seems the players gain a more direct advantage knowing if a creature has any vulnerabilities, and is more likely to be known, than specifically what powers the creature has.
3) What to tell characters who know about a creature's powers? Just the names? The general uses/conditions they apply? The exact numbers/descriptions? Or a more "narrative" description (such as "dangerous while wounded"(i.e. hits harder when bloodied) or "hurls explosive fireballs (i.e. blast powers)).
4) And lastly, how to remember to use the skills!? That's my biggest problem, remembering how to weave these knowledge into the story and narrative of the encounter.

Any thoughts, advice, personal experience, etc would be amazing.

Trit

 

[Quickleaf]

Those rules were updated a while back via free errata documents and Rules Cyclopedia. The relevant changes are to the DC.

MODERATE DC (according to level of monster): name, origin, type, keywords, typical temperament
HARD DC (according to level of monster): powers, resistances, vulnerabilities

4) And lastly, how to remember to use the skills!? That's my biggest problem, remembering how to weave these knowledge into the story and narrative of the encounter.

So is your problem that when players ask to use a knowledge check to learn about monster X you draw a blank?

Or is "your" problem that your players aren't remembering to use skills to make monster knowledge checks?

 

[fba827]

Just curious, when dealing with knowledge checks to learn information about new/unique monsters encountered by the party, how do you like to use Monster Knowledge skills?

For new/unique monsters, if I were the DM, I'd apply a circumstance modifier to the DC (+2 to +5 or something depending on the true uniqueness of the situation). But even then, different creature types have things in common and using that as a baseline, somoene who knows information about the general type of monster can make educated guesses about a spcific monster that has similar traits.

"Look at the way it lumbers forward, much like a berserker orc"
"Look at the skin sack at it's throat, the bullwug have that too and it produces a noxious gas. while it may not be exactly the same as the bullwug's, it may be some sort of gas or poison to be wary of"
"The way the shadows seem to cling to him, like other shadow-plane native creatures. perhaps it is vulnerable to radiant energy just like other shadow creatures"

1) Passive skill checks? Or active free action?

If your group is okay with it, just use passive checks at the start of the encounter to describe whatever anyone knows about the creature type. This method also saves the DM some time in that he/she does not need to prep/think about knowledge that would be above the group's passive checks (i.e. if the DM knows everyone's passive knowledge results, and none of thme would beat "hard" then the DM doesn't have to worry about how he/she is going to describe powers or vulnerabilities in a narrative or game mechanical way

2) Does anyone else feel like vulnerabilities and resistances should come before powers? I've switches them in my group (when we remember to use knowledge skills). It seems the players gain a more direct advantage knowing if a creature has any vulnerabilities, and is more likely to be known, than specifically what powers the creature has.

While the vulnerabilities might be more useful information, i disagree that it is more likely known than the powers of a creature.

Using a lich as an example. More people would have witnessed or experienced the lich's power. It is a smaller subset of people that would have been able to stand toe to toe with the lich (as opposed to fleeing or dieing) long enough to figure out its weaknesses

3) What to tell characters who know about a creature's powers? Just the names? The general uses/conditions they apply? The exact numbers/descriptions? Or a more "narrative" description (such as "dangerous while wounded"(i.e. hits harder when bloodied) or "hurls explosive fireballs (i.e. blast powers)).

I prefer the narrative description. But then, that's personal taste. Your group's preference may vary depending on the tone and style of your table's game/atmosphere.

4) And lastly, how to remember to use the skills!? That's my biggest problem, remembering how to weave these knowledge into the story and narrative of the encounter.

Remembering to use the skill isn't the job of the DM, that's the job of the players. Weaving it into the story/narrative, however is the DM's job. So frankly, it just takes some improvisation. OR if you have encounters planned ahead of time, take a moment to read about them (if there is a blurb available) or figure something out and jot down a note or two. It doesn't need to be anything fancy.

 

[Trit One-Ear]

Thanks guys, this sounds about right for my play style.

[MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION], those DC's seem much more logical and easier to use. Thanks for pointing those out to me.

[MENTION=807]fba827[/MENTION] Passives seem to be easiest, possibly with a minor action as an option if players want to take time to study the creature (and make an actual check).
Also, I agree with the use of narrative vs. stats. We're much more into storytelling at my table.

I think using passive skills will make it easier for me to remember to give players the info they'd have. Then I feel no guilt if they don't seek out further info.

Thanks for the helps gents.

Trit