I'm curious as to how other DM's handle the various Knowledge checks in a module or AP.
Do you allow anyone with the appropriate Knowledge check to automatically make the roll when prompeted from the module?
Or do you only allow it when a PC asks to make a check?
Or some combination of the two?
Looking forward to the replies.
Segallion
This is how I *think* my DM handles it (I don't know because he likes to keep his secrets . . . .)
Throughout the game he'll ask everyone for d20 rolls, then he writes them down.
As we progress he might say "You know from your experience in (profession, class, race, etc) that (imparts clue, knowledge, etc.)
This keeps us from knowing that the module has cued him for a knowledge check.
He uses the rolls for spot checks, listen checks, etc.
Of course, if one of us asks for the check, he'll ask for the roll . . .
If you ask for a knowledge check, you can make for a knowledge check. If I have information I think you guys can use, I tell you to make a knowledge check.
It works both ways. Just as knowledge works both ways: Sometimes you try to remember things, but sometimes, you just remember spontaneously.
There might be situations where I don't tell you to make a check, but that's because I might forget. I won't withold information with the childish "you didn't ask" routine.
My players rarely ever ask to make knowledge checks, though this is changing. Since their previous DM rarely ever called for them and NEVER allowed them to use knowledge for info on monsters, I have kind of gone to the opposite extreme.
I call for knowledge checks any time in the game I think they might give someone pertinent knowledge about a situation. I let whoever wants to roll to do so, even if they are just making an intelligence check (basically untrained knowledge). I WANT to hand out information about things.
For a while I included asking them to roll knowledge checks at the beginning of encounters and if they made them just letting them see the MM entry for the creature (not any template or class info though unless appropriate). Now I am backing off a little on this as they have become more used to knowledge checks actually being useful. I require them to ask for the knowledge check when a combat starts and make them tell me which check they are making to determine the nature of the creature. This is a free action on their turn in combat, but they can only make one each turn.
So if they see Half-ogre and ask if they can make a Knowledge: Dungeoneering check to determine the nature of the creature, I would let them do so and only tell them that this is not an aberration. The next turn they might make a Know: Local check and get to see the creatures entry.
I would like to get to the point where I make monster cards I can hand out that give just the info described in the knowledge check rather than the full entry, but this is a bit more work for me and I haven't taken the time as of yet.
Sean Mahoney
Sometimes, we do hand out the MM, but only if the party's smart-alek rolled an insane knowledge check again.
Right now, I'm the designated smart-ass in our runelords campaign, what with playing a bard and all (getting an even 30 on half a dozen knowledge skills rocks - and if I need something really bad, I can take 20 and arrive at 40.)
I think I'll ask the GM if I can add ranks in Knowledge (Kung Fu) ;-)
As for knowledge and monsters: Not only do I allow it (because it makes sense!), I have been using the "lower DC for common critters" rule before they introduced it in Pathfinder, and there's some stuff that is considered common knowledge - and you won't even have to roll for it. This includes information like "fire is really helpful against trolls", and "silver hurts werecritters".
I usually don't hand out the MM, nor will I give out any numerical value (meaning "its attacks have +20/+15/+10", not necessarily "it can use that ability once per day"). I will tell about special abilities, about strengths and weaknesses, and give them a general idea about the power level.
One thing I always make sure is that if we're talking about the same critter with different CRs, I make sure to use the base CR for general stuff.
Meaning just because the little red wyrmling is all grown up now doesn't mean you won't recognise a red dragon. The DC will not be 36, it will be more like 10 (special abilities, especially those he gets at high levels, might be another matter).
They won't learn about any common "advanced" version like the ogre barbarian - though if they keep fighting ogres and ogre barbarians, they will be able to tell the two apart.
What bugs me is figuring out Knowledge checks for templates that don't provide an HD increase or have an HD minimum.
I was going to use the vampire template as an example but they have a minimum HD of 5 HD for the base creature. I was going to use werewolf as an example template but it grants racial hitdice. So let's use ... tiefling. A tiefling could be 1 HD.
By the PHB description of Knowledge checks, the DC to know about a creature is 10 + creature's HD. Does this mean the minimum HD possible? So a templated human tiefling commoner 1 would have 1 HD and the DC would be 11 to know something about it? Then to know something else at 16 (11+5) and something more at 21 (11+5+5)?
It just seems like a tiefling should be harder to find information on than a wolf (2 HD) mule (3 HD), or dire wolf (6 HD), or, to branch away from animals, a dwarf/elf/gnome/halfling (minimum 1 HD). Then you look at things like the half-dragon, half-celestial, and half-fiend, and they could also be applied to a 1 HD creature, which gives them the same DC as a tiefling or aasimar, arguably more common than creature of the "half-" variety.
For templates I'd like to at least go by the minimum ECL for a template, not the minimum HD. (Minimum ECLs/checks: Tiefling/Aasimar: 2/12, half-dragon: 4/14, half-fiend/half-celestial: 5/15, afflicted werewolf: 5/15, werewolf lord: 10/20, vampire: 13/23.) Of course for vampires, a person could gain some information valid for vamps by making a vampire spawn knowledge check at DC 14, but they wouldn't necessarily know what was good for vamps and what was just good for vampire spawn.
Anyway, that's my thought on it. Maybe I missed the memo saying how to do template knowledge checks differently than regular creature knowledge checks.
I also play it both ways. Anytime the module calls for a Knowledge check, I ask my players to roll one. Anytime they want to roll a Knowledge check, I let them. In fact, if they ask to roll a Knowledge check and it seems even half-way pertinent, even if I didn't have notes for a what a Knowledge check would yield at that juncture, I will typically try to give them some relevant information as a reward for taking an interest.
The Knowledge checks to learn information about crittes as per the RAW bug me. They serve as a decent baseline, but hardly make sense in some cases. I like some of the approaches mentioned in this thread thus far, such as using the normal/minimum HD for a base creature type to learn something about it, but if it's advanced, only giving out that information if the appropriate DC is met. Regarding elves, wolves, and common creatures, I think the DM just has to make a call about what is "common knowledge" to the players. Wolves and bears of some kind or another are pretty common throughout most temperate and cold climates, so any native of those regions probably just knows about them automatically. The same goes for relatively weak and common creatures such as goblins and kobolds who have no special abilities. I figure they have enough presence in the world that anyone who actually becomes an adventurer more or less knows about the buggers and that they're "just" a "normal" race, without any super special abilities. I might let a player roll to learn they have darkvision, but I really can't think of anything else.
That being said, I dislike the purely mechanical nature of the knowledge gained through Kowledge skills as per the RAW. If you roll amazingly against a high HD creature, you can learn of its amazing powers, but nothing about its ecology and/or society. Plus, the way the rules go, you just learn one more piece of information per 5 points by which you exceed the DC. Many higher level creatures have more abilities than anyone could ever identify. Some DMs might be fine with that, but what about the not-too-uncommon characters whose players take pride in their scholarly in-game knowledge? Why should they be denied that role?
Therefore, I tend to break the check into three levels, as others have suggested before: basic knowledge (DC = 10 + HD), expanded knowledge (DC = 15 + HD), and in-depth knowledge (DC = 20 + HD). On a basic knowledge check, I'll give the party basic information, such as the creature's type (giant, dragon, aberration, etc.), basic ecology/sociology, and some idea of its strengths, weaknesses, and unusual abilities (as seems appropriate); all as opposed to just the one factoid recommended in the RAW. Needless to say, the information handed out rises with the DC the party hit, and I'll try to tailor the information to give them a tangible benefit in the adventure (i.e., if they're fighting fiends and roll a big check, I'll try to give some information, or at least clues, about how the fiends came to be there).
I tend to run homebrewed adventures, but I've taken my cue from Paizo's modules and include plenty of opportunities to use not only Knowledge checks, but other non-combat abilities. Diversity is the spice of life and the D&D adventure, not just in the enemies you fight, but in the very structure of the encounters you have (i.e., sometimes the goal is defeat the monster, sometimes it's to cross the river which is flooded and raging after a storm; both are dangerous encounters and will yield XP). I really try to mix it up for the party, both to keep their interest high and to encourage them to build rounded characters who can deal with a wide range of situations. Building in places for Knowledge checks is a great way to do that.
This is how I *think* my DM handles it (I don't know because he likes to keep his secrets . . . .)
Throughout the game he'll ask everyone for d20 rolls, then he writes them down.
As we progress he might say "You know from your experience in (profession, class, race, etc) that (imparts clue, knowledge, etc.)
This keeps us from knowing that the module has cued him for a knowledge check.
He uses the rolls for spot checks, listen checks, etc.
Of course, if one of us asks for the check, he'll ask for the roll . . .
I've done this for Spot and Listen checks before and it has worked well so players aren't tipped off when I ask for a spot or listen check. I hadn't thought of doing it for Knowledge checks. Hmm might be worth trying.