The section on monster lore in the PFSDR is not well written. But they are correct. The PFSRD is poorly written and I would not recommend using it for rules decisions. A better sources is the Archive of Nethys. Knowledge Skills
Anyone can use a knowledge skill to try and identify a monster if the DC is 10 or less. If the DC is higher than 10 you have to have at least one skill point in the relevant knowledge skill. The inquisitors Monster Lore is simply a bonus to that roll. So, even an inquisitor needs to have at least a point in the knowledge skill that covers a monster before they can attempt to identify most monsters. Unless the monster they are identifying is considered common and has a low CR someone untrained in the knowledge skill cannot use it to identify monsters.
|
The name “Monster Lore” as it appears on that d20pfsrd is not an official game term. But what it is referring to are the same rules found under the Knowledge skill in the CRB (page 99).
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.
It’s not exactingly defined, and it sounds like you are more strict than most GMs. Usually a supernatural or extraordinary ability would count as a “special power” just like “immune to cold” would count.
It’s also not defined how much information counts as one piece of knowledge. I’ve had some GMs rattle off every special attack as one piece of information while others count each of a demon’s standard resistances and immunities as a separate piece.
Personally, when a player makes a knowledge check I ask the player if they want to ask specific questions or want me to tell them what I think their character would be most focused on. “Hint: you’ll probably get more useful information if you let me pick.” So the bomb-throwing alchemist might learn about fire resistance, the save-or-suck caster might learn that the best save is Will, and so on.
|
|
Maybe a better question would be - Can you directly identify these abilites like you could with spellcraft? With spellcraft ill tell them the exact spell, and they can look it up or i can tell them what it is.
If they get high enough knowledge checks though, ill give them just about everything BUT the actual (non spell or spell like) abilities name and crunchy functionality.
I might tell them what it does and how it works, but not the specific DC, name etc...But hey, maybe that does make me strict.
Maybe its just a personal thing then? Like, its up to me to tell them the actual ability rather than sidestep it?
So, are you asking if they can identify a supernatural ability that the monster has just used? That's going to depend on what the ability is. If the ability is (Su) and duplicates a spell then using Spellcraft would be fine. After the (Su) is used. Since it's (Su) they couldn't identify it as its being used and use a reactive ability. However a PC could likely realize "oh gosh, what just happened to us is exactly the same thing that would happen if someone cast horrid wilting!"
If it's a unique ability, not duplicating a spell, then it's up to you. I'm like you in this case. I describe the effects but don't give them the name and exact text of the ability (until after the fight, if they still want it). Too much potential metagaming.
Now, if you're asking "can the PCs make a Knowledge check to know that the monster is capable of using this ability?" then the answer is yes. And they could know the name and full text. However as mentioned earlier exactly how much information counts as "a piece of information" is up to the GM.
This is entirely my way of doing things, not anything formal or something that has to be duplicated. There's absolutely no "right" way.
Let's say the party encounters a vampire and makes a Knowledge: Religion check. If the party asks "does it have spellcasting abilities?" for one of their pieces of knowledge, then I would say something like "you recall from tales told by hunters in taverns that vampires usually do cast spells spontaneously. They tend to love offensive spells such as fireballs that can wipe out a threat." If the players want mechanical details I will give it to them: "casts as a sorcerer, up to 4th level spells." I don't read off their entire spell list, I just give the players one or two of the spells most likely to be used against them. I've seen other GMs read out the whole list of a caster.
If the party asks for "any special attacks?" I generally treat each as a separate piece of knowledge unless they are very closely related. In our vampire example I'd probably say "They have several, but the thing everyone warns you about is to beware of their blows, which can drain your life force - so energy drain, 2 negative levels from any natural attack. It can be even worse if they grapple you, draining your blood as well for constitution damage. If it drains you enough, you can even become a vampire yourself!" If they really want to know I'll read out the exact text of the abilities. If they want more special attack info (and rolled high enough) I'd give them Dominate next, and Children of the Night last.
I have to disagree with the example of using the vampire out of the bestiary. Vampire is a template that is added on to a character to create a monster. Not all Vampires are spell casters. The Vampire in the bestiary is but that does not mean they all are. It’s spell casting comes from the class it had before it became a vampire. The knowledge religion roll would give details on vampire abilities, not abilities of the individual vampire that are based on their class. You would get things like they are undead and are harmed by silver. You would not get details about the spells it can cast or even if it is a spell caster. If the monster has racial casting ability like a dragon, then the appropriate knowledge skill can give information on its casting ability.
|
One of the problems with identifying a creature's abilities with the different Knowledge skills is using it repeatedly, or different people using it on the same creature.
To make an example, a party of four first-level characters, all with 1 rank in Knowledge Nature, meet a Caliban, CR 2. The DC of the check is 12. All make it, no one gets a result of 17+, so each character "remembers a bit of useful information about that monster".
a) Everyone remembers the same bit?
"It is a Caliban, an humanoid monster."
b) Different things, so that every bit is useful?
"It is a Caliban, an humanoid monster."
"Its touch can warp people's appearance and hinder them."
"The warping damage heals naturally after 24 hours even without the use of magic."
"It can scream to deafen people and instill fear in them."
After a couple of sessions, they meet a Caliban again. They are successful again at identifying it. They get the same answers, or they get more information?
For me, the answer is a), and the information they receive is the same for the same level of success (unless they have raised the skill or done some research), but doing that over multiple sessions requires either a lot of bookkeeping or a ladder of information that you would get with different levels of success.
My solution is the ladder of information. It goes (more or less):
- minimum success: type and subtype of the creature and a common name for it (not always that of the Bestiary, for the Goblin prisoner, a Will-o’-Wisp is a Feareater).
- one extra level of success: the most noteworthy ability of the creature (the kind of breath weapon used by a dragon, that a lich is usually a spellcaster, that Efreeti have spell-like abilities, and can grant wishes).
- two extra levels of success: a noteworthy weakness, or resistance that is not part of its type. like "Vampires are damaged and killed by sunlight". That they can be damaged by Holy Water isn't relevant, as all undead can be damaged by it.
- and so on, with every level of success adding more.
For some creature never seen before by anyone, there is a cap to what can be gathered by a Knowledge check. For a totally unknown creature,e it is possible to discern that it is "an undead" or "an aberration", but knowing its powers in advance should be impossible, as no one has reported them.
It is a knowledge check, not a divination.