
Kildaere |

I saw a question in the general section about Monster Lore, and it got me thinking about application to PFS and experiences I had over the summer.
Is there somewhere in the rules where it says exactly how knowledge checks work, and what information is available about each monster? I have read the core rules under “Monster Lore” and the “Check” section which gives us the rules for getting “a bit” or “piece” of useful information. But, what does that mean, or is purposefully vague so each GM can interpret it differently? Are there PFS rules somewhere that standardize it?
If I am missing something and there are rules for it, please point me at them (because I do occasionally run PFS games), and if there are not (and I know we are loath to add rules) we should really codify this as it is something that happens EVERY combat encounter.
If I ask for “resistances”, I have had a GM list all of them, and I have also had GMs tell the table “It has DR/magic” and upon asking if it is resistant to fire (they were a fire based caster), been told to “roll again next turn.” UGH! Not only does this slow down combat but is frustrating to PCs who one of their combat contributions is monster lore.
Monster lore treads very tenderly into metagame territory anyways so I am not entirely sure that numerical values are off limits. When I GM, I tend to steer players away from numerics and answer in general terms. As a player, when asking about saves, I have had GMs tell me it has a will save of +12, I have had GMs tell me “will is its highest”, and I have had GMs order the saves “Will, then Dex, then Fort”.
I see that there are old threads about this subject, but no FAQ or guidance from the powers-that-be. Is this one of those “expect variation” issues? That would be surprising, considering how often they occur. Honestly, when I GM, I tend to give players more information (if they ask for resistances I give em all). What do when the monster has class levels would be another good subject for guidance.
I suspect that these rules do not exist and “a bit” is all we have to go on. If one of the campaign goals is to have a mostly “standardized experience” then this is a part of the rules that could use some definition.
What are your experiences / opinions?

Kildaere |

Thanks...I did not see that particular thread. And a lot of that is what I do for my home game. What are the strict rules for application for PFS, where an objective is to keep table variation to a minimum?
See a lot of "I do this...", "Well I do this...", "Ok, I do this other thing...". For something (imo) as key as Monster Lore (it really can effect every combat), I would like to see some tighter rules for PFS (or at least some official guidence as to how we are expected to run it), instead of everyone making it up (kind of how it is now).

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

That's because there are no strict rules for application. It's either not economical or not feasible for the Developers to try and write a detailed rule for something that is not perceived as a widespread problem. It's not something that folks walk away from the table over. Until they do, GMs use their own judgment when interpreting the results.

![]() ![]() ![]() |

Monster abilities/stats are too varied to standardize what pieces of information are given at various check results.
In my experience, variation on this isn't too big of a deal: either you're making the check as a Hail Mary anyway and any info is welcome, or you're a "knowledge monkey" and you're going to get so much info that it makes very little difference whose table you're at.
The only time (again, IME) that there's a problem is if the GM actually gets it wrong, like if they overlook the word "useful" in the rules for what you get, or mistakenly think DC+5 is one piece of info instead of two, or think a 4-piece check's tidbits are spread across 4 turns, or whatever else. But hey, errors are errors, and aren't going away any time soon. ;)
So all in all, I don't think there's any practical need for standardizing what pieces of info are obtained with monster knowledge checks.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

For every "bit" of information the PC qualifies for, I let them ask a question about the monster. I figure that puts them in control of asking what's most important. But I steer clear of giving them numerical answers.
I won't give you the monster's AC, HP, or bonuses to attacks and saves, for example.
I will tell you what special materials bypass its DR, but not "It has DR 5/bludgeoning".
I will not say "It has a +15 Fort save", but I might say that it's best at making Fort saves, and worst at making Will saves.
I might say it's immune to Fire, and resistant to Cold, but not "It has Energy Resistance 5 Cold".
That sort of thing.

![]() ![]() ![]() |

Just my opinion, but aren't some people making truly Massive rolls and not getting much information? The DC is already based on CR of the monster, and rarity, and on top of that it is only one item of information for each additional +5. So, on a CR 10 monster, if you roll a 30!! you get 3 items of information, which might not include the important stuff. At 30, you are ready to write books on the subject.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Knowledge checks = table variation
there is so much variation here I don't even know how to answer. And I have no idea how to fix this. (so the following is mostly just venting - skip it if you like).
I normally say: "I've got an XX, what's the most improtant thing for me to know?"
Many judges figure I am trying to pull something... when all I am doing is trying to NOT make this a game of Player Vs. Judge where the judge makes me create questions depending on what I as a player know about the monster, while he tries to conceal anything I might get wrong... in other words a Meta-Game Game. Tell me what my PC knows, so I know how to run him for you...
I personally know a lot of important "bits" about Flesh Golems. I can recognize them from their discription.... but my wife can't. She has no idea. "Frankenstiens Monster" doesn't mean much to her (she grew up in a different culture - different myths). So, her "3 questions" are going to be very different from mine. Then add in the judges who give "limited response" answers and we see how useless it is to put points into knowledge skills at some tables.
"What defenses does the monster have?" - "you can't ask that!" - "Does the creature have DR?" - "Yes. That's one question."

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
For every "bit" of information the PC qualifies for, I let them ask a question about the monster. I figure that puts them in control of asking what's most important. But I steer clear of giving them numerical answers.
...snipping for space...
But I know what to ask because I have been playing RPGs for longer than many players have been alive. Often the questions I would ask I already know the answer too... and this converts my PCs Knowledge check into "Which 'bits' of information can my PC use?"
When you ask my wife to ask questions, she is going to not have any idea what to say. Originally, she would just not make the check (and often her Wizard has more than +10 or +15), but now she has a card of questions to ask. Problem is - often the quesions she asks get the response "you can't ask that, please clearify what you are asking."
SO, by putting the PLAYER "in control of asking what's most important" you penilize the new player, and reward the Meta-gamer. Do we really want to do that?
Try this sometime. Let the Player ask questions when they don't know the name of the creature they are facing ... or worse yet, if they haven't even gotten the description of the creature, and don't know which knowledge they used to get the number.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

No one has ever complained at my tables about knowledge checks. I think part of a GM's prep includes anticipating these questions, especially when the creature is unusual.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
No one has ever complained at my tables about knowledge checks. I think part of a GM's prep includes anticipating these questions, especially when the creature is unusual.
Ok... let's try this.
My Elven Rogue/wizard is facing a creature (a Ghoul) - I know not what it is. The Knowledge check (religion) gives a 23 and I say to you...
"I've got a 23, what's the most improtant thing for me to know?"
what do you tell me?

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Doug Miles wrote:No one has ever complained at my tables about knowledge checks. I think part of a GM's prep includes anticipating these questions, especially when the creature is unusual.Ok... let's try this.
My Elven Rogue/wizard is facing a creature (a Ghoul) - I know not what it is. The Knowledge check (religion) gives a 23 and I say to you...
"I've got a 23, what's the most improtant thing for me to know?"what do you tell me?
Tell the non-elves to be wary of the creature's attacks, the merest touch can render them frozen; likely to be eaten alive. Elves are made of sterner stuff, although they can still be killed by wounds.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

I disagree. New players tend to like it the most, as they're the ones that tend to think in character most.
GM: "You exceeded the DC by 5. You recognize this as a KoolAid Demon. You know that Demons are chaotic evil outsiders native to the Abyss, and that all Demons are immune to electricity and poison, and resistant to acid, cold, and fire. They have the ability to summon other Demons to aid them. You may ask one question about this KoolAid Demon."
PC: "Well, my character is a fighter, so what weapons hurt it the most?"
GM: "You know that the spherical glass body of a KoolAid Demon is best damaged by bludgeoning weapons, and that slashing or piercing weapons won't be as effective."
As GMs, we should recognize when we're dealing with a new player versus an experienced character. This isn't a test of egos. Help the new players out, and the experienced players can handle themselves.
(this was in reply to nosig's reply of me)

![]() ![]() |

What's an example of a question a player can ask?
Player "Kn (Local) 25!"
Judge "ok, it's a Left-handed Banded Mogart. You get 2 questions..."what do you ask?
1. What are its special attacks
2. What are its special defensesFirst two questions I always ask. Even if I, as a player, already know the answers, others may not.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
You know, his link actually answers that.
yes, and both of us can see this. but I was hopeing other judges would see how NICE it is, and easy, and maybe get more people to do it like he does.... ;)
his reply is most likely going to be something like
"The creature has Undead traits. Ghouls are undead said to be created upon the death of a cannibal. They are cunning opponents and often use tactics like flanking. A ghoul’s bite transmits a disease that can kill and cause the victim to rise as a ghoul. A ghoul’s bite or a hit from its claws can paralyze a victim, though elves are immune to this paralysis. "
which is KEWL! I like this! (though my Elf PC is more likely to know that he is immune to it's paralysis, before knowing that the bite transmits Ghoul fever... but either way is good).

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
nosig wrote:Tell the non-elves to be wary of the creature's attacks, the merest touch can render them frozen; likely to be eaten alive. Elves are made of sterner stuff, although they can still be killed by wounds.Doug Miles wrote:No one has ever complained at my tables about knowledge checks. I think part of a GM's prep includes anticipating these questions, especially when the creature is unusual.Ok... let's try this.
My Elven Rogue/wizard is facing a creature (a Ghoul) - I know not what it is. The Knowledge check (religion) gives a 23 and I say to you...
"I've got a 23, what's the most improtant thing for me to know?"what do you tell me?
+1!!!
I salute you sir! Clearly your stars are showing.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Doug Miles wrote:No one has ever complained at my tables about knowledge checks. I think part of a GM's prep includes anticipating these questions, especially when the creature is unusual.Ok... let's try this.
My Elven Rogue/wizard is facing a creature (a Ghoul) - I know not what it is. The Knowledge check (religion) gives a 23 and I say to you...
"I've got a 23, what's the most improtant thing for me to know?"what do you tell me?
If it touches you, you could be paralyzed.

![]() ![]() ![]() |

Doug Miles wrote:No one has ever complained at my tables about knowledge checks. I think part of a GM's prep includes anticipating these questions, especially when the creature is unusual.Ok... let's try this.
My Elven Rogue/wizard is facing a creature (a Ghoul) - I know not what it is. The Knowledge check (religion) gives a 23 and I say to you...
"I've got a 23, what's the most improtant thing for me to know?"what do you tell me?
This is a ghoul, a type of undead with all the usual undead traits. Its claws and bite can paralyze its victims, though elves are immune to this. Its bite can transmit ghoul fever, a disease which can not only eventually kill the victim, but also raise it as a ghoul itself.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I disagree. New players tend to like it the most, as they're the ones that tend to think in character most.
GM: "You exceeded the DC by 5. You recognize this as a KoolAid Demon. You know that Demons are chaotic evil outsiders native to the Abyss, and that all Demons are immune to electricity and poison, and resistant to acid, cold, and fire. They have the ability to summon other Demons to aid them. You may ask one question about this KoolAid Demon."
PC: "Well, my character is a fighter, so what weapons hurt it the most?"
GM: "You know that the spherical glass body of a KoolAid Demon is best damaged by bludgeoning weapons, and that slashing or piercing weapons won't be as effective."
As GMs, we should recognize when we're dealing with a new player versus an experienced character. This isn't a test of egos. Help the new players out, and the experienced players can handle themselves.
(this was in reply to nosig's reply of me)
I have never seen a judge answer like that. Many judges I have played for in the last year would brake your reply up like this....
1). chaotic evil
2a). outsiders
2b). native to the Abyss,
3a). immune to electricity
3b). and poison,
4a). resistant to acid,
4b). cold,
4c). and fire.
5). They have the ability to summon other Demons to aid them.
Most would require the above information to be given out in 5 questions, some would require 9 questions. (and these questions would be like "Is this an outsider?" "Does it have any immunities? etc.)
Isn't that what other people are seeing?

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
nosig wrote:This is a ghoul, a type of undead with all the usual undead traits. Its claws and bite can paralyze its victims, though elves are immune to this. Its bite can transmit ghoul fever, a disease which can not only eventually kill the victim, but also raise it as a ghoul itself.Doug Miles wrote:No one has ever complained at my tables about knowledge checks. I think part of a GM's prep includes anticipating these questions, especially when the creature is unusual.Ok... let's try this.
My Elven Rogue/wizard is facing a creature (a Ghoul) - I know not what it is. The Knowledge check (religion) gives a 23 and I say to you...
"I've got a 23, what's the most improtant thing for me to know?"what do you tell me?
without Mr. Miles write-ups, would you have given the same thing? I'm not sure I would have. (before now anyway... after this, I may be working at doing something like this...).
We need to get him to do these for all the monsters in the Game.... By next friday? I might be running something next week... ;) (seriously though, maybe we can get some sort of shared file for this sort of thing... it would be wonderful!)

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I disagree. New players tend to like it the most, as they're the ones that tend to think in character most.
GM: "You exceeded the DC by 5. You recognize this as a KoolAid Demon. You know that Demons are chaotic evil outsiders native to the Abyss, and that all Demons are immune to electricity and poison, and resistant to acid, cold, and fire. They have the ability to summon other Demons to aid them. You may ask one question about this KoolAid Demon."
PC: "Well, my character is a fighter, so what weapons hurt it the most?"
GM: "You know that the spherical glass body of a KoolAid Demon is best damaged by bludgeoning weapons, and that slashing or piercing weapons won't be as effective."
As GMs, we should recognize when we're dealing with a new player versus an experienced character. This isn't a test of egos. Help the new players out, and the experienced players can handle themselves.
(this was in reply to nosig's reply of me)
new players, really new players as in never played RPGs before, have no idea what to ask. They have trouble even putting a question together. They will often glance around the table at "the people who know how it works" and ask (silently or outloud) "what do I say? What CAN I say?" and we say, "ask about defenses." "Special attaks!" "Immunities" - this is how they learn (be it right or wrong).
Do we want this game to work that way? I'm not sure. I like Mr. Miles anwser better and better.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

We need to get him to do these for all the monsters in the Game.... By next friday? I might be running something next week... ;) (seriously though, maybe we can get some sort of shared file for this sort of thing... it would be wonderful!)
It would be great if everyone who makes custom 'Monster Knowledge Results' could share them on the GM Shared Resources site. It'd be cool if there was a format agreed to. So many monsters are recurring, I don't think it would be a lot of extra work.

![]() ![]() ![]() |

without Mr. Miles write-ups, would you have given the same thing?
Yup. Some time ago I briefly started typing up handouts for Knowledge checks. Then I realized that (1) that's a lot of work only to have a no-Knowledge table and have it all go to waste, and (2) I really didn't find it too difficult to hand out the tidbits "on the fly" with the statblock in front of me.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
You've obviously never played under me before =). I give out all subtype information on a successful Knowledge check. Beating the DC by 5 warrants questions about that specific creature.
Clearly.
I am getting used to having my question "what's the most improtant thing for me to know?" get the explaination:
"that's not how this works - you ask questions and I answer them".
or every now and again just a chuckle and a repeated "you get two questions about the monster."

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

You've obviously never played under me before =). I give out all subtype information on a successful Knowledge check. Beating the DC by 5 warrants questions about that specific creature.
This is what I try to do as well. Meeting the DC identifies it as its subtype, and gives all of that information. Anything extra and I tell them something useful based on what I feel would be useful to their character.
If they have requests they can make them, but I don't always give them what they ask for; sometimes players are their own worst enemies that way.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

It appears Mr. Miles does something similar, reading off the "undead traits" of a ghoul upon meeting the base DC. I think subtype information, undead traits, construct traits, etc. are a good place to start off any Knowledge check. After that, to each their own.
There was a discussion about who benefits more from Knowledge checks, new players or experienced players. The difference is that new players can't metagame as well as older players. Some older players can supress it, but it's a hard habit to break. When my rogue sees elementals, I don't even bother asking. I tell the table, "Well, I'm useless. Anyone else is going to be more effective than I am." It's shameful to admit.
On the other hand, there are new players who say something like "I cast color spray at the ghouls!" and I have to choose between stopping play and explaining that it's not going to work, or letting them waste an action (even rolling saving throws just to twist the knife). A great learning moment is to ask "Does anyone have Knowledge (Religion)?" [Players raise hands] "John, you have already acted in initiative. Why don't you make a check to learn something useful about the creatures you're fighting." Hopefully the players learn more than just 'illusionists suck at fighting undead'.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

In the example Doug gives, the only caveat I have is that the paralysis should be on the same line as the ghoul paralysis.
DC 12 - It's undead and called a ghast. You know all the things about undead things.
DC 17 - It'll give you a disease that will make you turn into one of it over time.
DC 22 - It'll paralyze you just like a ghoul.
DC 27 - It stinks. Like, it REALLY stinks.
DC 32 - It'll even paralyze elves!
In this case, we've taken the added abilities and tacked them onto the end, showing off how it is a rarer occurrence. Of course the players will likely figure out some of the higher level abilities through experience with the monster, but perhaps they just underestimated HOW stinky it was.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

How do other GMs handle Spell-like Abilities? Based on the latitude Knowledge checks give the GM, it could be anything from "You know it can cast some spells" to "It has mass hold monster 1/day, and can cast deeper darkness and enervation at will. Here is a list of all of its other spells and their effects."
Naturally both of those examples are extreme. However, with higher level monsters it becomes literally impossible to know what it could do if each increase by 5 tells only a single spell.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Ugh. Asking questions takes too long. The player is trying to avoid the literal genie DM and the DM is trying to look up the monster.
Make the check: the things name, if a martial what obscure alchemical metal you need to hurt it, if a caster a rough idea of how spell resistant they are.
+5 the other info from above to share with your friends.
+10: Here, read the book.
The raw for knowledge skills gets a little ridiculous.
11: Thats a wolf!
16: They travel in packs, look for more woofs
21: They have a good sense of smell
26: They like to trip people *omfs* thank you captain obvious!
32: They can see at night
37: Built in snowshoes!
42: Scent glands in its feet

![]() ![]() |

DC 27 - It stinks. Like, it REALLY stinks.
I'm pretty even the most ignorant character realizes when something smells bad.
I don't require knowledge checks for obvious details. It results in stupid situations, like the time A GM would not tell me I was taking damage because I was still covered in ants after moving away from the swarm. He just assigned damage every round until I dragged an explanation from him as to the source of the damage.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Adam Mogyorodi wrote:
DC 27 - It stinks. Like, it REALLY stinks.I'm pretty even the most ignorant character realizes when something smells bad.
I don't require knowledge checks for obvious details. It results in stupid situations, like the time A GM would not tell me I was taking damage because I was still covered in ants after moving away from the swarm. He just assigned damage every round until I dragged an explanation from him as to the source of the damage.
It might not be obvious at the time of the check. It's also possible that a PC might have said this upon learning of this detail in Pathfinder training: "Pfft, what's the big deal? All undead stink!"
And that's why he failed his knowledge check and wasn't aware of the nauseating property.
What your GM did with the ants wasn't very realistic because you should have been able to see the ants still clinging to you and falling off of you as you moved away. However, I would still have the army ant swarm's clinging property be part of a knowledge check, because that's a good thing to know before you get swarmed by them.

![]() |

I have never seen a judge answer like that. Many judges I have played for in the last year would brake your reply up like this....
1). chaotic evil
2a). outsiders
2b). native to the Abyss,
3a). immune to electricity
3b). and poison,
4a). resistant to acid,
4b). cold,
4c). and fire.
5). They have the ability to summon other Demons to aid them.Most would require the above information to be given out in 5 questions, some would require 9 questions. (and these questions would be like "Is this an outsider?" "Does it have any immunities? etc.)
Isn't that what other people are seeing?
Or they'd expect each of those nuggets to require a DC 5 higher than the last...
so Base DC +0 "it's called a dretch"
DC+5 "it's a demon"
DC+10 "it's an outsider"
DC+15 "it's chaotic evil"
DC+20 "it's from the Abyss"
DC+25 "they have a claw attack"
DC+30 "what? you expect MOOOORE?!?"
If you search for 'wyvern' in my historical posts you might find a hilarious thread. Some posters absolutely lost their minds, at the idea that PCs might actually be allowed to know something relevant about creatures after Knowledge results of less than +100 or the like.