Monster knowledge categories (common, regular, rare)

[Prethen]

Sorry if this has been broached before but I couldn't find a thread on it on these boards (probably bad searching).

How do you determine if a monster is common (like a goblin) versus regular (like...oh...I don't know...wight) versus rare (super high CR?).

Could you use a rule of thumb like anything below a CR of 1 is common?

I have to admit, that I sort of wing it and for the most part, most monsters are just normal checks (10+CR).

[nosig]

Prethen wrote:

Sorry if this has been broached before but I couldn't find a thread on it on these boards (probably bad searching).

How do you determine if a monster is common (like a goblin) versus regular (like...oh...I don't know...wight) versus rare (super high CR?).

Could you use a rule of thumb like anything below a CR of 1 is common?

I have to admit, that I sort of wing it and for the most part, most monsters are just normal checks (10+CR).

That's what most judges I encounter do...

[Doug Miles]

It is completely within your judgment. This thread may help, or not.

[nosig]

here's a weird take on it I have encountered...
Metagaming PC knowledges.

now realize that if a monster needs a knowledge check above DC 10, that you can't even roll unless you have a rank in it. So if Skeletons/Zombies are DC10+CR, then you have to have a rank in Knowledge Religion to know what their DR is... so why exactly are you makeing sure to have a slashing/blunt weapon?

[David_Bross]

I tend to do 10+CR for most creatures.

If its something from an obscure book (e.g. they had to print it in the scenario), I assume it is similarly rare, and tend to increase the DC to 15+CR (unless there is text to make me think it is more common), while things like skeletons and such I tend to use 5+CR.

[nosig]

From the PRD on the skill:
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. Many of the Knowledge skills have specific uses as noted on Table: Knowledge Skill DCs.

the examples given are goblins as a common monster, and the tarrasque as a particularly rare monster. I like to point out that the tarrasque is a unique one-of-a-kind monster that... "spends most of its time in a deep torpor in an unknown cavern in a remote corner of the world—yet when it wakens, kingdoms die."

where should we draw the line for DC5, for DC10 and what in the world would be DC15?

[Finlanderboy]

Well there are scenarios where the monster are unique creations. I use 15+

Although I make sure to give usefull infromation to the players.

I had a DM give me the names of their special abilities. That ment nothing to me since I did not have knowledge of the creature,

[Andrew Christian]

If its a monster I've never heard of, I go 15+.

If its a staple humanoid, natural, or magical beast monster, I go 5+.

Everything else is 10+.

[Prethen]

Andrew Christian wrote:

If its a monster I've never heard of, I go 15+.

If its a staple humanoid, natural, or magical beast monster, I go 5+.
Everything else is 10+.

I guess that's the "rub"...what's considered a "staple". "Staple" for the GM or the player? :-)

[GM Lamplighter]

I feel GMs should be generous when using the Knowledge skill: more lore always helps the game along and improves the "reality" of the world.

I submit that, to Pathfinders, skeletons and zombies are "common" in that, what else would you think a walking skeleton or corpse is? Same with most humanoids, animals, or any monster based on a mythological beast of legend like a dragon or manticore. We're Pathfinders, darn it! Even if we don't all have ranks in every Knowledge skill (wait, why not?... but I digress) we should at least have picked up something from our three years of training!

Finally: we start every scenario at a Lodge, with a library and a bunch of other adventurers. I bet we chat with them about the things they've faced, and learn a trick or two from our mentors. The newer Players comapniosn have the "Ten Things everyone knows about..." sections, which help. Being generous with Knowledge allows greater immersion in the rich detail of Golarion, AND avoids having to worry about metagaming.

[Andrew Christian]

Prethen wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

If its a monster I've never heard of, I go 15+.

If its a staple humanoid, natural, or magical beast monster, I go 5+.
Everything else is 10+.

I guess that's the "rub"...what's considered a "staple". "Staple" for the GM or the player? :-)

Normal animals like dogs and cats and frogs and snakes.

Goblins, kobolds, gnolls, orcs, etc are staple monsters.

Undead not staple but typically normal difficulty.

Staple basically means a creature that is incredibly common in golarion to the point that its the example or a core race is represented. An entire country is run by them.

[kinevon]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Prethen wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

If its a monster I've never heard of, I go 15+.

If its a staple humanoid, natural, or magical beast monster, I go 5+.
Everything else is 10+.

I guess that's the "rub"...what's considered a "staple". "Staple" for the GM or the player? :-)

Normal animals like dogs and cats and frogs and snakes.

Goblins, kobolds, gnolls, orcs, etc are staple monsters.

Undead not staple but typically normal difficulty.

Staple basically means a creature that is incredibly common in golarion to the point that its the example or a core race is represented. An entire country is run by them.

So, wouldn't Geb make undead a staple?

[Muser]

My view:

Common: low cr humanoids, classic fey such as dryads, most animals, skeletons, zombies, shadows, many magical beasts, low cr evil outsiders(particularly imps since, hey, Golarion), some giants

Regular: most other creatures, sans for instance qlippoths, since while there are plenty different kinds of the bastards, even the low cr ones are terrifyingly strange.

Rare: Uniques, high cr aberrations, Dark Tapestry creatures, Mythos creatures, Thassilonian creatures such as Shining Children, mythic creatures

[Prethen]

Muser wrote:

My view:

Common: low cr humanoids, classic fey such as dryads, most animals, skeletons, zombies, shadows, many magical beasts, low cr evil outsiders(particularly imps since, hey, Golarion), some giants

Regular: most other creatures, sans for instance qlippoths, since while there are plenty different kinds of the bastards, even the low cr ones are terrifyingly strange.

Rare: Uniques, high cr aberrations, Dark Tapestry creatures, Mythos creatures, Thassilonian creatures such as Shining Children, mythic creatures

I agree with your Rare observations and many of the Common. However, I don't think I'd put shadows, most/any magical beasts, outsiders into the common (Knowledge 5+) category.

[Jayson MF Kip]

One thing that bugs me about the "10+CR" DC.

Say you have a final enemy encounter that is a monster with clas levels.

Say:

Ghast Fighter 10. CR 12 (If I'm counting right, no guarantees).

10 + CR = DC 22. While the fact that it's a ghast should be readily apparrent, its class levels impart a "penalty" of sorts to your ability to identify it. And since class levels aren't something that you can ask about with sucessful knowledge checks, shouldn't they be xcised from the DC to identify?

So, your Ghast Fighter 10 should be identifiable as only a standard Ghast (CR 3 = DC 13 (or 8 if its common enough by your campaign standards)). Info you get should pertain to the basic creature (in this case, stench, paralysis, undead traits, etc).

Unrelated: If a creature is listed as "variant" or "unique" then I'll apply 15+CR as my DC to identify.

[nosig]

Prethen wrote:

Muser wrote:

My view:

Common: low cr humanoids, classic fey such as dryads, most animals, skeletons, zombies, shadows, many magical beasts, low cr evil outsiders(particularly imps since, hey, Golarion), some giants

Regular: most other creatures, sans for instance qlippoths, since while there are plenty different kinds of the bastards, even the low cr ones are terrifyingly strange.

Rare: Uniques, high cr aberrations, Dark Tapestry creatures, Mythos creatures, Thassilonian creatures such as Shining Children, mythic creatures

I agree with your Rare observations and many of the Common. However, I don't think I'd put shadows, most/any magical beasts, outsiders into the common (Knowledge 5+) category.

I can see putting some outsiders into common...

Tieflings, Aasimari, Imps (there's one in First Steps!), maybe a few others...

It would be kind of odd to step into the VC briefing and ask "what's everyone running" only to have the other players respond "That's a Kn: Planes check DC... ah... 15?"

(A Tiefling, an Aasimar, and a Human Cheliaxian with an Imp Familiar...)

[Du Nord]

Jayson MF Kip wrote:

One thing that bugs me about the "10+CR" DC.

Say you have a final enemy encounter that is a monster with clas levels.

Say:

Ghast Fighter 10. CR 12 (If I'm counting right, no guarantees).

10 + CR = DC 22. While the fact that it's a ghast should be readily apparrent, its class levels impart a "penalty" of sorts to your ability to identify it. And since class levels aren't something that you can ask about with sucessful knowledge checks, shouldn't they be xcised from the DC to identify?

So, your Ghast Fighter 10 should be identifiable as only a standard Ghast (CR 3 = DC 13 (or 8 if its common enough by your campaign standards)). Info you get should pertain to the basic creature (in this case, stench, paralysis, undead traits, etc).

Unrelated: If a creature is listed as "variant" or "unique" then I'll apply 15+CR as my DC to identify.

For those types of creatures that have special templates, class levels and anything else strange about them, I always look at the CR of the base monster and give information about that first.

For example, and trying not to use something taken straight from a scenario, if you were fighting an advanced, young goblin with 5 rouge levels, I'd give them the typical DC 5+CR of the goblin to give them knowledge about the goblin. If they got at least a 15, I'd give them hints about the extra stuff attached to it by hinting at things such as "He seems a little more agile than the typical goblin, maybe even a little smarter. Not only that, but he's quieter than the typical goblin and is armed to the teeth with daggers. He's looking around as if trying to find a shadow or trying to figure out the best place to put a dagger in your back."

If the knowledge check was exceptionally high, I may even give them the details of what the template actually does and a rough guess of how many levels the creature might have.

[nosig]

Mostly I have seen judges just do the standard....

"DC10+CR and you get a question per +5 over that"

then the player get's to do the guessing game...

here's an older thread kind of related...

Monster Knowledge - waht to ask.

[Kyle Baird]

Where's my quote about trusting a GM...

*searches around*

[nosig]

Kyle Baird wrote:

Where's my quote about trusting a GM...

*searches around*

oh, I trust them! 99% of the judges I have played with in PFS have been great!

mostly the judges that do this have learned it that way - it's kind of common in my area to do it like that. When I throw a monkey wrench into it by "asking" - "what's the most important thing for me to know about this monster?" it kind of throws them off game. I'll often follow that up with "what do you think my PC would know about this thing?" and then I get the "training class" -

"you get to ask questions about the monster, like What's it's DR, or Does it have SR, that kind of thing."

Heres the link to your quote about trusting a GM..

[Disturbed1]

There are a few things related to this kind of thing that I dont go out of my way to tell the player, but I also dont consider it metagaming, and will readily answer if someone just asks.

For example, if someone asks if they think their sword will be effective against the swarm of mosquitoes, I tell them no, it probably wont have any effect.

Same for the DR on zombies and skeletons.

I handle it a bit differently if there is a knowledge-monkey at the table, since I dont want to steal their thunder, but otherwise, I think this sort of information (when you live in a world where these are semi-common problems) are things that most people would just know off the top of their head.

I compare it to knowing (though Ive heard this isnt true, but it still gets my point across) that if you play dead, a bear will leave you alone. An alligator can be deceptively fast. Dont stand behind a horse. Etc.

Alternatively, if the encounter is a fight which the party should have no problem, and yet the knowledge-monkey rolls terribly or incredibly well, I have given out false information, though false in a way to where everyone realizes Im making it up.

Player: I have a 3 on Knowledge Local to identify this guy.
GM: You think this guy is actually the tarrasque in disguise!

or

Player: I have a 42 on Knowledge Local to identify this human.
GM: His name is Bob, and he is from a small village on the outside of Absalom. He's left handed, but wields his sword in his right hand. He met his wife when they were just children. She moved away for a few years to take care of a sick aunt who has since past, and they now live in her old home. Last you knew, he was a blacksmith, but seeing as he is now brandishing a sword against you and you are nowhere near his shop, you suspect something might have happened recently to upheave his happy life.

[thejeff]

nosig wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

Where's my quote about trusting a GM...

*searches around*

oh, I trust them! 99% of the judges I have played with in PFS have been great!

mostly the judges that do this have learned it that way - it's kind of common in my area to do it like that. When I throw a monkey wrench into it by "asking" - "what's the most important thing for me to know about this monster?" it kind of throws them off game. I'll often follow that up with "what do you think my PC would know about this thing?" and then I get the "training class" -

"you get to ask questions about the monster, like What's it's DR, or Does it have SR, that kind of thing."

I'm never quite sure how to handle the question approach. Are we expected to metagame: As in "I know the monster and its abilities out-of-character, so I ask specific questions that I know will be useful"? Or should I ask questions based on my character's abilities, things he'd want to know about any monster, even if I know the answer will be irrelevant.

Example: If I'm playing a lightning focused blaster sorcerer, the single thing he's most interested in would be "Is it electricity immune?" Should he always ask that or should he only ask that when I as the player know (or at least suspect) the monster might be immune?
The second would be the more effective thing to do, but is it metagaming? Or the point of Knowledge skills?

[Du Nord]

thejeff wrote:

nosig wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

Where's my quote about trusting a GM...

*searches around*

oh, I trust them! 99% of the judges I have played with in PFS have been great!

mostly the judges that do this have learned it that way - it's kind of common in my area to do it like that. When I throw a monkey wrench into it by "asking" - "what's the most important thing for me to know about this monster?" it kind of throws them off game. I'll often follow that up with "what do you think my PC would know about this thing?" and then I get the "training class" -

"you get to ask questions about the monster, like What's it's DR, or Does it have SR, that kind of thing."

I'm never quite sure how to handle the question approach. Are we expected to metagame: As in "I know the monster and its abilities out-of-character, so I ask specific questions that I know will be useful"? Or should I ask questions based on my character's abilities, things he'd want to know about any monster, even if I know the answer will be irrelevant.

Example: If I'm playing a lightning focused blaster sorcerer, the single thing he's most interested in would be "Is it electricity immune?" Should he always ask that or should he only ask that when I as the player know (or at least suspect) the monster might be immune?
The second would be the more effective thing to do, but is it metagaming? Or the point of Knowledge skills?

I find the people with a shtick, such as a magus using shocking grasp, will always ask about their shtick. Other than that, if they want to know "What might/should I know?", I'll go with something that makes the monster unique. A behir that likes to constrict or rake, a yeth hound with the bay ability or anything else along those lines, just whatever makes the creature stand out from other creatures.

[Dorothy Lindman]

Lately, I've seen a lot of "if you beat the DC, I'll tell you the name of the critter and maybe its type, anything beyond that requires +5 and questions". When I compare that to the breakouts in the scenarios for gather information, knowledge history, etc., it seems really stingy.

There's also the problem of "how much do I know about monster types"--are characters assumed to know what "undead traits" are already, or does that need to be one of the questions? A lot of players don't know, especially new players, so we can't count on metagame knowledge for this. (Heck, I have all the traits on my GM screen.) And since a lot of the monsters are imports from other mythologies, we've ended up with players having incorrect metagame knowledge.

It would be really nice to see a breakout for PFS of what monsters are common, what general traits any pathfinder should know, what types are common in different regions. For example, someone from Cheliax should know some general information about devils--it's the state religion. But if a monster shows up in a lot of PFS scenarios, it should be considered more common than it would be outside of PFS.

[Jiggy]

Don't forget the guidance we're given right there in the rules for the 15+CR category:

Core Rulebook wrote:

For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque

"Such as the tarrasque".

That's the league of rarity we're looking at for DC=15+CR.

Not that even that is fully defined, but it should help. Most things in the rules that aren't spelled out do still have helpful reference points. (Sort of like how the illusion rules don't completely spell out what "interaction" means, but they do say that it has to fall somewhere between "encountering doesn't get a save" and "proof doesn't need a save".)