Which monsters are common knowledge to PCs?

[Relic]

I am not of an adventuring class and am poorly traveled, but I know big jellyfish are probably poisoness, wolves can track me by scent, and a lot of things can see better in the dark than I can. I even know that bats have blindsight, some sea predators have a sort of electricity sense and snakes detect heat. and I'm, what, a low level commoner?

That is because of modern day technology. Things such as television, the invention of the airplane (broader ranges of trade), the printing press, and the world wide web make information available to millions and millions of people.

In the mid-evil time period that classic D&D is most often set... the only way you learned about something was: a) someone taught you their knowledge and/or experiences, b) you experienced it yourself, or c) you are lucky to find some written information.

Heck, the first scientific examination of a shark (other than to see what it ate) was not until 1919. Sailors have know of sharks for hundreds of centuries and it has not been until the last century that detailed knowledge of sharks and their behavior has been discovered (i.e. learned). Sailors used to think that sharks were from the devil himself, hungry to devour the souls of those that fall victim to it.

 

[Kershek]

In the mid-evil time period that classic D&D is most often set... the only way you learned about something was: a) someone taught you their knowledge and/or experiences, b) you experienced it yourself, or c) you are lucky to find some written information.

You cannot equate medieval real life with D&D due to the prevalence of magic. With the amount of training they receive to become first level in their class, I expect they already have a level of knowledge about the kinds of things they are going to be facing in their career.

 

[Vuron]

I go with Knowledge: Local or Knowledge: Folklore for monsters common to the starting locale or particularly common monsters, however both are fraught with danger and false knowledge just like real folklore. So for instance people might believe that corpse not buried with thier hands tied together will rise as undead.

For sage types and adventurers, Knowledge: Monstrous Flora and Fauna are more common but both require either alot of hands on study or working with someone who has done such. Sages and wizards who specialize in this form of knowledge regularly pay adventurers to bring back specimens for experiments, autopsies, vivisection and taxidermy.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

That is because of modern day technology. Things such as television, the invention of the airplane (broader ranges of trade), the printing press, and the world wide web make information available to millions and millions of people.

In the mid-evil time period that classic D&D is most often set... the only way you learned about something was: a) someone taught you their knowledge and/or experiences, b) you experienced it yourself, or c) you are lucky to find some written information.

And of the sort of people most likely to have met travelers or perused written records, a cleric, a wizard, a bard, a monk.... these are unrealistic how? I think you underestimate casual knowlege. People knew what lions were, and they were never likely to encounter one. A first level adventurer is not a newborn. They have had years of life behind them, and most have not been locked in a tower for that time. Hell, a first level elf has had a hundred years or so to meet people who are more traveled than himself. A first level druid has been out in the wilds where the beasts and such roam. Sure there's gonna be suprises, but dragons, oozes, elementals and beasts aren't going to be amoung them unless the party is in a largely unexplored area far from where they grew up.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Ravellion]

I myself detest Knowledge: monster. The skills are already there, for the most part in knowledge: Nature (beasts, animals, humanoids, giants, plants), history (mostly general unreliable info, same as local), Arcana (magical beasts, constructs), Dragons (duh!), undead (as found in Defenders of the faith, otherwise use Arcana for undead as well), and planes (outsiders).

I hate Knowledge: Monsters. With a passion. It would be like inroducing a skill "perceive" or "observe", completely overlapping with spot, search and listen.

Rav

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I hate Knowledge: Monsters. With a passion. It would be like inroducing a skill "perceive" or "observe", completely overlapping with spot, search and listen.

Rav

Indeed! Monsters of various sorts are such a basic part of the game, if such a skill was needed it would be right there in the listings and class skill for almost everyone. Monsters are a part of this world. Asking players to suck up skill point losses to know (equivelently) that cats are agile but dogs are meaner is just silly.

There are a lot of things that technically are "knowlege" skills, that no one expects characters to have on the sheet. Do you ask for "knowlege : cartography" when your players want to read a map? Or "profession : chef" when they want to throw the boar they killed over a fire and eat it without worrying about trichtenosis? Of course not. But one could argue that there might be societies out there with no concept of 2d maps or people who won't know that cooking meat is good for it.

Decide in advance how common certain monsters are in the world you are running. Very common mosters (which of course should be the ones used the most) tell them on a spot check. Less common, or easily confused with a more common monster, knowlege nature, knowlege arcana, planes for outsiders or a straight int check are all thats needed. If you don't think the characters should have ever heard of this thing before, you better have a good reason for why its popping up rather than just liking to confuse your players.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Shallown]

In my present campaign the characters are adventuring after a recent war with humaniod and undead armies so there base knowledge (Compared to some other campiagns I have run) Is higher about the creatures common during the war. Orcs, goblins, bugbears, trolls, zombies, skeletons etc.

I also allow a Knowledge skill creatures but only becuase the characters began to research the things they thought they would run into. So I couldn't think of a way to deny them something they were spending money and time to do. Of course the knowledge is limited and not always correct but I couldn't tell them know and be fair. Of course they don'thave outragous levels in the skill since in my game knowledge skills are highly valued. Since I request a lot of knowledge rolls to Know things.

Even my fighter types have Knowledge skills though to qualify as class skills they have to be Orientated that way.

Just my ideas

later

 

[Ravellion]

When characters actually start researching them, say that you can't learn about just the monster. When you read a book in the library about Dragons, it will not say "mature reds have DR 10/+1. mature blues 5/+1. Close this book now, there isn't anything else in here".

"it will say: FREDSAERT the Red Dragon was slain by suchandsuch. We know his weapon was enchanted by the clerics of ROIUNT. suchandsuch had to travel to the HYUINBYP mountains. Apparantly that is the natural habitat for red dragons. his travels were made difficult by blahblahblah."

Ie: Don't let them get away with one mere skill: Let them actaully take the proper knowledge skills: Force them to take knowledge dragons in this case. Knowledge nature for beasts etc. etc. if the fighter doesn't have enough skill points to do this, say to him that he could research all this, but it would take a lot of time and dedication (ie. one level of Expert:Sage).

Just MHO of course.

Rav