IN.. well. Many games. The players are up against something that would only be mentioned once or twice in legends, and using the 15+CR rating for the creature...
They manage to get the dc around level three.
I'm entirely not sure what to do about this besides making DCs higher.
Any suggestions on how to go about this?
Or is there really a book of legends in the worlds out there that detail every single bloody creature in the game along with a handy page of well-drawn images showing the creature from different angles?
Because if so. I'm going to burn every copy in a mysterious warehouse fire.
|
No snark intended, but think about it like this.
You don't have knowledge trained, so you might not be able to tell the difference between an Indian Elephant and an African Elephant. But if you saw Nessy or Bigfoot, due to their legendary status, you'd probably have a decent chance of picking them out. Just my thoughts on it.
Or is there really a book of legends in the worlds out there that detail every single bloody creature in the game along with a handy page of well-drawn images showing the creature from different angles?
Wrong game and all, I know, but Drizzt found a collected book of dragons which he used to help with what I assumed had to be one of is favored enemies, lol.
edit: 'it'
edit 2: quoted stuff
Heh. I don't disagree, given that the 5th level wizard in my campaign regularly seems to hit DCs of 25-30. Personally, I'd be tempted to adjust the levels of information provided - maybe by a +5 DC or so. I'd also apply contextual adjustments based on how much direct experience the PCs have with such things.
Here's my thought on the matter, and this is just my opinion:
These are the days when just about everyone in every gaming group has their own copies of all of the rulebooks. Since most people have their own copy of the bestiary and have read through all of it they are aware of what every creature can do. Since the character that they play doesn't have all of this knowledge, taking a knowledge skill let's them use what they as players already know. I like to think of it as justified metagaming.
There are a couple ways around it. One is like you said and make the DCs of the checks higher. Another is to penalize obvious metagaming by someone who doesn't have the proper knowledge skill. A third option is to use templates or other modifications to change a creature enough so that the party still is a bit clueless on all of its abilities.
Couple of things:
1) Why do you want them to fail their check? Do you not want the PCs to succeed? If a PC has invested the time and effort to put max ranks in a skill - and since, 1) knowledge skills have to be trained to succeed on DCs higher than 10 and 2) a 3rd level PC, assuming Int of 18, would still fail a DC 15 check 30% of the time unless he's taken more than 1 rank, I'm assuming we're talking max ranks here - why are you suggesting that you have the right to raise the bar on him? He's told you, in creating his character, he wants his character to be able to have all of the answers. And he's built a character who can, most of the time. Why is that wrong? And, more importantly, why didn't you tell him that before he invested the points?
2) that being said - if you've created a creature that is completely obscure (or for some reason, a particular creature is obscure in your world), there's nothing to say that you can't raise the DC to 20 + CR. It would just be one of the creature's quirks that it's unstudied and unheard of.
But artificially raising the bar is a poor move.
Here's my thought on the matter, and this is just my opinion:
These are the days when just about everyone in every gaming group has their own copies of all of the rulebooks. Since most people have their own copy of the bestiary and have read through all of it they are aware of what every creature can do. Since the character that they play doesn't have all of this knowledge, taking a knowledge skill let's them use what they as players already know. I like to think of it as justified metagaming.
There are a couple ways around it. One is like you said and make the DCs of the checks higher. Another is to penalize obvious metagaming by someone who doesn't have the proper knowledge skill. A third option is to use templates or other modifications to change a creature enough so that the party still is a bit clueless on all of its abilities.
I actually am hoarding my copy of bestiary 2.
Only showing it to people I know don't metagame.
There are two people in my group I purposely do not show it to. Aeons and Daemons need to stay secrets. <.<
IN.. well. Many games. The players are up against something that would only be mentioned once or twice in legends, and using the 15+CR rating for the creature...
Start with what the rules specifically say:
"In many[1] cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more.[2]"
[1] Which means not in all cases.
[2] Note the "or more." IOW, I, the DM, set the DC, not the book and certainly not the players.
So, let's say that, in my campaign, aboleths are "particularly rare" monsters. Indeed, they're virtually unknown, having vanished from history and general knowledge many centuries ago. If I treated the 15+CR as a hard-fast rule, aboleth knowledge would face a 22 DC. Hardly difficult for a properly skilled character.
There are three solutions:
1. Use the DC, but restrict the information so that only a spectacular success yields more useful data.
2. Up the DC by +10, +15, or more.
3. Rule that aboleth knowledge is so specialized that no mere Knowledge check reveals much data at all.
All that said, there is seldom any good reason to not let a PC benefit from areas in which effort (and skill points) have been invested.
IN.. well. Many games. The players are up against something that would only be mentioned once or twice in legends, and using the 15+CR rating for the creature...Start with what the rules specifically say:
"In many[1] cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more.[2]"
[1] Which means not in all cases.
[2] Note the "or more." IOW, I, the DM, set the DC, not the book and certainly not the players.So, let's say that, in my campaign, aboleths are "particularly rare" monsters. Indeed, they're virtually unknown, having vanished from history and general knowledge many centuries ago. If I treated the 15+CR as a hard-fast rule, aboleth knowledge would face a 22 DC. Hardly difficult for a properly skilled character.
There are three solutions:
1. Use the DC, but restrict the information so that only a spectacular success yields more useful data.
2. Up the DC by +10, +15, or more.
3. Rule that aboleth knowledge is so specialized that no mere Knowledge check reveals much data at all.
All that said, there is seldom any good reason to not let a PC benefit from areas in which effort (and skill points) have been invested.
In my next game where I introduce the things from bestiary 2, I think the Qlippoth would probably require summoning/binding a demon and asking IT about them.
IN.. well. Many games. The players are up against something that would only be mentioned once or twice in legends, and using the 15+CR rating for the creature...
The Pedantic Grammarist (I'm sure that's not a word) in me requires me to inform you that there are way too many periods in that sencence! :P
But back to the topic at hand:
I'd say the average loremaster (wizard, bard, oracle of lore) will have knowledge bonuses of Level + 8 (probably not quite that much at lower levels, higher at higher levels). With an average roll of 10, you get 18 + level on average on your knowledge check, meaning a loremaster will usually identify monsters with a CR equal to his level, and have a decent chance for stuff of a higher CR.
But some things to consider:
It's nice that you know that this is the Legendary Black Beast of Argh, but that is not too useful. You'll need to know stuff like that it's vulnerable to sudden heart attacks - but not its own heart, but that of its animator.
Or, for a more serious example: For a mere DC 34, you'll realise that the unspeakable horror before you is a Shoggoth, an ooze creature with all around vision.
But that's all you know right now! You'll need to roll higher to know more, something like this:
39: Its ceaseless gibbering stems from the heart of madness. No sane creature can hear it but be affected by a strong supernatural attack unless its mind is strong enough to withstand the effects (the maddening cacophony ability)
44: It's very hard to damage with physical weapons, having a resistance to such damage that cannot be overcome with any weapon (DR 10/-) and is resistant to magic to boot! (SR 30)
49: It's hard to harm it with any elemental attacks, having resistances or immunities to all 5 elemental energy types (immune cold, sonic; res 20 acid, electricity, fire)
...
So while it's not too hard for loremaster types to be able to at least put a name on the critter, that basic knowledge alone isn't too useful. Getting enough information to get an effective strategy against it without trial&error tactics is going to be harder!
Beyond that, I'd say that there's nothing wrong with modifying the DCs further for creatures that are really exotic (and, on the other hand, really common critters might have even easier checks).
For example: Say you're from Varisia and have done a fair bit of heroing there, too. Let's look at some monsters and how I'd determine the knowledge DCs:
You could always use my alternate Knowledge rules for identifying monsters.
/shamelessplug
In an ideal world, monsters would have a rarity rating like they did in AD&D days; then you could have little-known low-CR monsters and well-known high-CR monsters. But that's extra work.
IN.. well. Many games. The players are up against something that would only be mentioned once or twice in legends, and using the 15+CR rating for the creature...The Pedantic Grammarist (I'm sure that's not a word) in me requires me to inform you that there are way too many periods in that sencence! :P
But back to the topic at hand:
I'd say the average loremaster (wizard, bard, oracle of lore) will have knowledge bonuses of Level + 8 (probably not quite that much at lower levels, higher at higher levels). With an average roll of 10, you get 18 + level on average on your knowledge check, meaning a loremaster will usually identify monsters with a CR equal to his level, and have a decent chance for stuff of a higher CR.
But some things to consider:
Non-loremasters (characters that have some knowledge skills that pertain to their training, like clerics with knowledge (religion)) will often have bonuses that are not as good. They often have to make do with level +3, meaning an average roll of 13 + level, which means you need to roll above average even for "CR-appropriate" monsters (and I'd guess that legendary stuff would, if anything, tend to be more difficult)
Making that check means you'll just know what it is (i.e. know it by name, some very general info, and probably what category it belongs to, like undead, outsider, etc.) and "a bit of useful information about the monster". That's one piece of concrete info that will help you fighting that thing (unless the GM rules that its category already counts as useful info). For everything else, you must get higher DCs (for every 5 by which you exceed the DC, you get another morsel of information). It's nice that you know that this is the Legendary Black Beast of Argh, but that is not too useful. You'll need to know stuff like that it's vulnerable to sudden heart attacks - but not its own heart, but that of its animator.
Or, for a more serious example: For a mere DC 34, you'll realise that the unspeakable...
+1
I was thinking of implementing something like this as well.
|
Are Knowledge DCs too low?
Seriously?
In the majority of cases, they're already far too high.
In the original post, it mentions creatures 'that would only be mentioned once or twice in legends'; in other words, creatures that are legendary.
Legendary creatures are, by definition, creatures that people talk about around the fire, that are used to scare children into behaving, that are put into books of folk tales, that appear in travelling shows (as an actor in a costume, obviously).
They are common knowledge.
How many posters on these boards can say they had never heard of dragons, before playing D&D?
How about giants?
Vampires?
Werewolves?
Take my avatar; it's actually a rather little-used beastie in most D&D games. It doesn't get used in many published adventures, it's not on anyone's Top 10 Must-Have Wandering Monsters list. But if you took Classics as a subject in school, you'd know what it was. If you were a child in Ancient Greece, you'd instantly recognise it, even if you couldn't read.
So, what should the starting DC be?
15? (rare monster?)
10?
5?
Or 0? (household name?)
Legendary creatures are, by definition, creatures that people talk about around the fire, that are used to scare children into behaving, that are put into books of folk tales, that appear in travelling shows (as an actor in a costume, obviously).
Yes -- and many of those legends are going to be contradictory. Dragons, for example, have anywhere from zero to four legs, might or might not have wings, may breathe fire or poison or nothing, may be stupid brutes or be massively intelligent, may have vulnerable spots or not, etc etc. Too much information is as bad as not enough, and bogeyman stories are hardly reliable sources.
But if you took Classics as a subject in school, you'd know what it was. If you were a child in Ancient Greece, you'd instantly recognise it, even if you couldn't read.
Your avatar is a gorgon, which, in a course on the Classics, had better not be presented as an armor-plated bull that snorts petrification fog, or else someone is due a tuition refund.
I am a Khalkotauroi, as well you know....
Don't see any bronze, and that looks like green smoke, not fire. :p
|
|
...many of those legends are going to be contradictory. Dragons, for example, have anywhere from zero to four legs, might or might not have wings, may breathe fire or poison or nothing, may be stupid brutes or be massively intelligent, may have vulnerable spots or not, etc etc. Too much information is as bad as not enough, and bogeyman stories are hardly reliable sources.
True, but that is what the additional scaling DCs are for, to weed out the wheat from the chaff.
The point was to show that the starting DCs should be much lower; it should not take a result of 20+, just to realise the winged lizard might actually be a 'dragon', or the overly-tall fellow might be a 'giant'.
|
|
Don't see any bronze, and that looks like green smoke, not fire. :p
I don't know why they changed it, nor why they felt the need to rename the critter a 'gorgon', either.
Nevertheless, in a world where the creature actually existed, the tales would reflect it's actual appearance and capabilities, more exactly, wouldn't you say?
I don't know why they changed it, nor why they felt the need to rename the critter a 'gorgon', either.
Been that way for approximately 30 years. It's not really a change so much as established game lore. :)
Nevertheless, in a world where the creature actually existed, the tales would reflect it's actual appearance and capabilities, more exactly, wouldn't you say?
Not necessarily. Myths were often contradictory. For me, I can see the unskilled Knowledge check getting you the pop culture version of the creature, but a skilled check being required for accurate data.
Personally, I don't think getting the names of most critters should be all that difficult; while mythology and folk lore may not be much help in identifying actual facts, they should at least be enough to put you in the ballpark of "this looks like it could be some kind of dragon."
Any actual, accurate information, on the other hand, should vary according to how common they are to the area, and how personally well known the creature and their relatives are to the character.
Maybe the best way to resolve it is to allow partial, or ballpark, answers (like what one could reasonably pull from mythology and still be fairly accurate) if you get close to the DC, but don't quite make it. Like with a dragon, honestly most adventurers could figure out its a dragon, just not what the specifics of that particular kind are.
|
|
Myths were often contradictory. For me, I can see the unskilled Knowledge check getting you the pop culture version of the creature, but a skilled check being required for accurate data.
I don't necessarily disagree, with you or Zurai.
Wouldn't the old wives tale be better than nothing?Assuming it wasn't totally bogus info that got you killed (Ogres are friendly, lovable, huggable, peaceful, generous cooks, and their invitations to 'have you for dinner' should always be accepted...)?
I see far too many instances of the player being told they have zero idea of what a critter is; I just believe that most PCs should know something (incomplete, irrelevant or not).
I find that I appreciate the house rule where the DC is the same as the check in the book, but it only gets you basic information as to what the creature is. If you best the DC by 5 or a multiple of 5, you can ask questions about the creature and the GM will answer them in what they determine is the best way.
For example, I can ask how good is that kobold's sight, and the GM may answer that they don't see well in bright light (light sensitivity) and see better in darkness (darkvision) and that they seem to not excel at picking things out (low perception).
|
|
I find that I appreciate the house rule where the DC is the same as the check in the book, but it only gets you basic information as to what the creature is. If you best the DC by 5 or a multiple of 5, you can ask questions about the creature and the GM will answer them in what they determine is the best way.
That's not a house rule, that's the RAW, which some have issues with.
Because what constitutes a useful new piece of information is subjective, players are at the mercy of the GM's whim, to be fobbed off with miniscule pieces of blatantly obvious information, with the actual meat of the matter withheld at escalating DCs that are impossible for any sanely-built PC to match.
I'm GM of my current game, and I frequently err on the side of releasing info, but I have been on the other side of the screen, and it is not pleasant to have PCs with double-figure ranks in class skill knowledges being told to accept things like a creature's favourite colour as worthwhile info, when you're trying to beat its DR.
Because what constitutes a useful new piece of information is subjective, players are at the mercy of the GM's whim, to be fobbed off with miniscule pieces of blatantly obvious information, with the actual meat of the matter withheld at escalating DCs that are impossible for any sanely-built PC to match...it is not pleasant to have PCs with double-figure ranks in class skill knowledges being told to accept things like a creature's favourite colour as worthwhile info, when you're trying to beat its DR.
No rule can "fix" a bad GM. It just isn't possible.
Something I like to do is read the description of the creature. Not the little sentence at the top, but the longer description. There is some interesting things in there that the player can use. Most is just general stuff but there are some nuggets in there. Afterwards, depending on how well they rolled, I will give some more information.
So I start with the creature type and subtype. Then I give one offensive and one defensive ability. Generally I don't give obvious ones. If it's a fire elemental, I don't tell them it's vulnerable to fire. If the ability can be learned without having to make a knowledge check, I don't usually give that either. DR/- is not something I usually tell them with a simple check. DR/cold iron is something I would tell them unless I know that someone is using cold iron already.
I want the skills to give useful information. I don't see a need to tell them what they can figure out on their own. I also encourage them to take notes. No one does so they have to make the checks more often, but I think it would be great if they would write down what they learned so that when they encounter the same creature, they can know stuff without metagaming.
No rule can "fix" a bad GM. It just isn't possible.Because what constitutes a useful new piece of information is subjective, players are at the mercy of the GM's whim, to be fobbed off with miniscule pieces of blatantly obvious information, with the actual meat of the matter withheld at escalating DCs that are impossible for any sanely-built PC to match...it is not pleasant to have PCs with double-figure ranks in class skill knowledges being told to accept things like a creature's favourite colour as worthwhile info, when you're trying to beat its DR.
I never do that.
I always try to give them something useful. Since I do want them to win. I just don't want it to be easy. :P
IN.. well. Many games. The players are up against something that would only be mentioned once or twice in legends, and using the 15+CR rating for the creature...
They manage to get the dc around level three.
I'm entirely not sure what to do about this besides making DCs higher.
Any suggestions on how to go about this?
Or is there really a book of legends in the worlds out there that detail every single bloody creature in the game along with a handy page of well-drawn images showing the creature from different angles?
Because if so. I'm going to burn every copy in a mysterious warehouse fire.
A couple of things here.
1. How legendary or common a creature is considered is up to you, of course, but in a world (like Golarion) with tens of thousands of dragons, jabberwockys, dinosaurs, and abberations regularly running around slaughtering or being slaughtered by adevneturing parties, knowledge of creatures even as rare as angels before level 5 isn't that far out there.
2. Assuming a score of 18, 3 (ranks) + 4 (score) + 3 (class) = 10, which means you still need to pass a check of 5 just to identify a goblin. One-quarter of the time you bug out and don't realize what a goblin is, even though you've likely fought about 50 by that point. So, yeh, bizarre stuff can happen in both directions if you start dissecting the system too finely.
2. Assuming a score of 18, 3 (ranks) + 4 (score) + 3 (class) = 10, which means you still need to pass a check of 5 just to identify a goblin. One-quarter of the time you bug out and don't realize what a goblin is, even though you've likely fought about 50 by that point. So, yeh, bizarre stuff can happen in both directions if you start dissecting the system too finely.
In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
Ah. Amazing how many little things escape notice.
Actually, imnsho, there should be a table for each creature.
DMs would be free to adjust this table to account for scarcity (much like they can change xp awarded, etc) and perhaps the table would even list 3 different numbers to deal with how rare this creature might be.
Some of the obvious facets would be low DCs or for free.
-James
That actually wouldn't be bad, maybe in a "Adventuring Revisited" supplement.
As a side note, I've run some numbers on this, using Tarry as a benchmark. Assuming a score of 24 total at level 20:
7 (score) + 20 (ranks) + 3 (if a class skill) = 30. You need a 10 to ID Tarry if INT isn't a primary ability score. Half the time. That seems reasonable by that level.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
You can play with the DC to provide color for your campaign.
When the adventuring party come ashore at a city port, and every local seems to have thorough knowledge of vampire lore:
"Oh, yeah," says the young man, whittling a stick outside the general store, "fampires is easy t' kill, what with their fulnerability t' sunlight an' all. Staggers 'em for a few seconds, then sizzles 'em righ' up. It's much better'n bashin' 'em in wit' axes or such. Those fampires jus' turn t' mist and go hide. They has t' be wifin nine miles o' their coffins, though."
The woman struggling with her purchase overhears the lad and calls out "Don't forget about running water, young man. Keep a vampire in running water for, what, 15 or 20 seconds, and it up and dies."
The gnarled old man limping down the street snarls at her, "Aye, that they do. But they can dominate any foolish enough t' get within 30 feet, an' they're resistant t' both electricity an' cold attacks, able to just shrug off the damage that a wizard might do to 'em with a shockin' grasp at the point when he starts bein' able to cast 2nd Level spells."
The PCs are shocked by this font of information. "Is there anything that keeps the monsters at bay?"
All the townsfolk within earshot merely hold up a mirror or a holy symbol. "Ef'r'one has one o' these," the child explains. "'Ceptin' Cedric o'er there. He don't need one, on account o' he reeks o' garlic."
|
|
The current cliffhanger in my game involves the sudden appearance of a black dragon, whose actions have been a pain in their rear, but has till now, only been a name in the background.
One PC had earlier managed to narrow down this dragon's likely age, and the party have been joined by a new player (and new PC), who was being brought up to speed on events so far.
This PC aced the Knowledge check, with a roll of 33(?), which as far as I'm concerned, means I tell him pretty much everything; barring specifics such as what specific spells it knows, or if it has any class levels (though I'm coming round to the idea of letting him retrospectively recognise the individual, now he's seen it in the flesh, displaying non-standard tactics).
So that's not an issue for me; however, in checking out PFSRD for their recommended Knowledge DC, I noticed that it was possible for this PC, level 10, with maxed class skill, to get sweet b***er all, beyond 'a lizard with a breath weapon', and some basic draconic traits.
DC Result
13 All Black dragons may breath a line of acid, reveal all dragon traits
Fair enough, though this seems rather front-loaded, when you consider the other entries.
18 Black dragons are immune to acid
Really? The creature, whose spittle can melt flesh and bone, is resistant to acid? Well, here I was thinking it melted its own face off every time it burped or licked its lips, and burned its tail off every time it broke wind. This entry is utterly superfluous.
23 In addition to being formidable swimmers black dragons learn at an early age to move with preternatural speed through dense bog, seemingly able to effortlessly deal with hazards such as quick sand.
Interesting. But would this not be inferred from the fact it is an aquatic, bog-dwelling creature?
28 Black dragons delight in cruelty and bully most creatures under their status. The exception seems to be lesser reptiles whom they possess the ability to converse with. Such creatures seem to faun over black dragons and may even risk their lives to defend their draconic masters.
Interesting. Again, wouldn't most people assume animals can communicate with others of a similar type? It implies there may be some magical compulsion, but never outright states it, here or later.
33 Black dragons are known to like rotted food and can foul fresh water such that it can no longer support life
Possibly of use. But no specifics, as to how it is carried out. It implies an emanation ability of personal range, and would be difficult to predict the reality of the Corrupt Water ability, from this info.
38 All black dragons saliva is somewhat caustic, the strength of this acid grows more and more potent with age, the spittle of older specimens can eat through armor, flesh and bone.
The strength of a dragon's racial abilities grows, as it becomes older and larger? Is this not a given?
43 Woe be to those who would seek the eldest of black dragons in their lair, they can create dangerous pools of acid with their breath to melt interlopers long before they can even lay eyes on the reclusive beast.
A creature with acid spit may collect pools of such spit, to hurt intruders who step in it? Again, is this not a given? I would expect this tactic from the youngest hatchling, not the eldest of its race.
That final DC is at 43, something that even a level 20 PC would not be able to count on, without Skill Focus. (20 ranks +3 class bonus +13 max Int bonus? = +36). A master arcanist, with a head the size of The Mekon may not think to tell his allies "We're hunting a creature with acidic drool. Don't step in any puddles.". Really?
Out of all of that, beyond the base DC, there are possibly two incomplete snatches of vague information, the rest is utterly useless.
Where is the DR, the SR, the frightful prescence, the plant growth, the insect plague? Is that intended to be included in the base DC?
Despite my position that the DCs are too high, I wouldn't give all that out with the base DC13 traits, but neither would I string it out till DC40+.
The problem being, the parcelling of information into chunks separated by +5 DC, is simply too much gap between items. I'd prefer to see the information spread more evenly, maybe at increments of +2.
Note that the PFSRD Knowledge entries are not canon. The actual Pathfinder Bestiary entries for monsters never include Knowledge DCs.
Knowledge skills being left largely to GM implementation is something that I've always liked. Yet it can leave a pretty large gap from GM to GM especially when you go to a Con and see people's interpretations from different areas (almost sub-dialects of roleplay...uh oh nerd tangent...).
That being said I really don't think Knowledge DC's are too low. There is no saving a group from a GM that just wants to ignore knowledge skills in the interest of maintaining some fourth wall secrecy (GM's that typically grew up with experienced metagamish players instead of us grognards that learned about monsters as we inserted them into our binders).
In terms of what I personally give away for knowledge? I run pretty close to what KaeYoss laid down before. To streamline it for myself I usually give away information in order of Special Attacks > Spell-like Abilities (not spells)> Non-combat Special Abilities > Special Defenses (DR bypasses, etc).
I don't include spells known by a creature (in the case of outsiders, dragons, etc) as it is usually more useful for players to know that a monster will attempt to breathe awful demonic ant spores into your urethra than to know that it could cast darkness as a 15th level caster. I do reveal spell-like abilities though when you start getting to an outsider's abilities to summon other outsiders and things of that nature.
Wow...lots of I I I in there. YMMV. Peace out homies.
Couple of things:
1) Why do you want them to fail their check? Do you not want the PCs to succeed? If a PC has invested the time and effort to put max ranks in a skill - and since, 1) knowledge skills have to be trained to succeed on DCs higher than 10 and 2) a 3rd level PC, assuming Int of 18, would still fail a DC 15 check 30% of the time unless he's taken more than 1 rank, I'm assuming we're talking max ranks here - why are you suggesting that you have the right to raise the bar on him? He's told you, in creating his character, he wants his character to be able to have all of the answers. And he's built a character who can, most of the time. Why is that wrong? And, more importantly, why didn't you tell him that before he invested the points?
. . . artificially raising the bar is a poor move.
+1
Don't stop the players from using knowledge skills effectively, just stop them from using metagame knowledge to go beyond what the knowledge check would have told them.
Related:
My favorite monster manual ever was the Monsternomicon by Privateer Press. It had good art, cool monsters, great text descriptions, and best of all, nearly every monster had a list of available information based on your knowledge check result.
Rolled a 15? You've heard these live in water and eat people.
Rolled a 20? You know that some of them can attack on land.
Rolled a 25? You know that the young are aquatic, and the older, larger ones can move on land, and are quite deadly.
Rolled a 30? Also, they hate salt, and won't cross it on land.
|
|
You could just buy THESE .
GM's Aid III: Monster Knowledge Cards Volume I—Aboleth to Fungus (OGL) PDF
4 Winds Fantasy Gaming
List Price: $3.99
Sale Price: $3.19
Add To Cart
With GM’s Aid III: Monster Knowledge Cards Volume I—Aboleth to Fungus, your job as GM just got easier. There is a card for each of the OGL monsters from Aboleth to Fungus in the SRD, and each includes a number of facts about that particular creature. Each fact is tied to an increasingly higher Knowledge check DC. When the players characters are faced with a creature, whip out the appropriate card, have the players make rolls, and tell them what they know.
The cards have been formatted to print on any standard-size business card paper, or you can just print them on cardstock and cut them out using the lines as guides
You could just buy THESE .
Thanks, those look great!
IN.. well. Many games. The players are up against something that would only be mentioned once or twice in legends, and using the 15+CR rating for the creature...
They manage to get the dc around level three.
I'm entirely not sure what to do about this besides making DCs higher.
Any suggestions on how to go about this?
Or is there really a book of legends in the worlds out there that detail every single bloody creature in the game along with a handy page of well-drawn images showing the creature from different angles?
Because if so. I'm going to burn every copy in a mysterious warehouse fire.
I don't allow a successful knowledge check to give everything away about the monster. The +15 or 10 depending on the monster is the minimum to learn the monster's name and type. From that point I give out additional info. That is how a lot of DM's do it.
In an ideal world, monsters would have a rarity rating like they did in AD&D days; then you could have little-known low-CR monsters and well-known high-CR monsters. But that's extra work.
That's something every GM has to decide for himself. It's specific to a specific campaign world, and even to different areas within those worlds.
You just can't have a generic rarity rating slapped on every monster in a bestiary and expect people to follow that. And if they're not expected to follow it, what use is it?