So, I was having a talk with my players, and we are trying to agree on an interpretation of the use of knowledge skills for identifying monsters.
It says on the Knowledge Skill that you learn "useful info" on 5(common monsters) 10(normal DC) and 15 (Rare/unique monsters)+CR, and then one more per 5 you beat said DC.
I think that each useful bit should be extensive enough to use, but then some think that you learn one ability/weakness per 5. By that logic, knowing everything about a skeleton is a pretty high DC, and against the higher CR monsters, the DC goes bananas if you hope to learn everything, becoming next to impossible to even learn basics, and thus the skill is pretty useless for that purpose.
Is there a good guideline as to how much knowledge should be given per 5 beaten? I have seen some good lore boxes on the PFRD, but they are usually on low-CR monsters, such as orcs and whatnot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my group we go with questions, one question for every 5 you beat the DC.
For example if i beat the DC by 10 i get the following:
1)The "basics" of the monster, that usally means what traits does it have, usual alingment and such.
2)then i get to ask my questions, for example my two questions could be:
does the monster has any energy immunities and/or resistances?
what king of DR does the monster has (if it has any)?
Hope that helps.
In my group we go with questions, one question for every 5 you beat the DC.
For example if i beat the DC by 10 i get the following:
1)The "basics" of the monster, that usally means what traits does it have, usual alingment and such.
2)then i get to ask my questions, for example my two questions could be:
does the monster has any energy immunities and/or resistances?
what king of DR does the monster has (if it has any)?Hope that helps.
That is rather ingenious in it's simplicity. Let the players ask what relevant information they want to learn. That will also allow different PCs to ask different questions, depending on their stand-point. The magus is likely more interested in DR and physical defenses, while the sorcerer wants ER, SR and weaknesses/immunities.
I might copy that one. But by all means, keep the suggestions coming. The more perspectives, the better.
If you have access to WotC's 3.5 MM4 and MM5, you might want to take a look at them. Each monster in those books has a box with Knowledge DCs. From the information given there, it should be possible to determine what kind of information to give at each DC even for other creatures.
|
Yesterday's game was a typical knowledge check on an unknown monster scenario:
I see the spider-like monster shoots a ray out of one of its eyes and turns the ranger's animal into stone.
My character: so, not vermin...uh let me make a knowledge check (gives the DM the knowledges known - she's a bard so all can be used)
Planes - 26 total. (CR 11)
DM - It's a retriever - a demonic construct that can shoot eye rays and walk on walls and water.
Me: holy crap! tells the ranger to use adamantine arrows and gets her wand of bless out.
During battle we find out it doesn't have any DR. BUT, I barely made the check to know what it was. Through previous in-character experience, I assumed it would have hardness or DR/adamantine for being a construct, and guessed it may have DR/good.
If I got the DC by five, I may have learned it had no DR.
leo's suggestion is the most eloquent I've seen. The initial DC should provide basic identifying information: name, type, subtype, etc.; sometimes this alone will provide useful information if a player is familiar with the rules, such as a creature possessing the fire subtype being immune to fire and vulnerable to cold. From that point on let the player's ask what they specifically want to know, if they have specific questions. If they don't, the GM should provide answers to specific questions he or she feels are reasonable to be asked.
It's always important to remember that player knowledge is often not the same as character knowledge; just because a player doesn't know what to ask, doesn't mean the character wouldn't. Additionally, any information provided as a result of beating the DC by increments of five should be useful to one who would confront such a creature. Include all the fluff you want, but spell out at least one of its abilities, weaknesses, etc. each time.
It is all right to include more than one useful tidbit per increment, if you would like. To use one of your examples, I don't think you're alone in thinking it odd to require an extremely high check to identify the abilities of a skeleton. Throw the players a bone (hehe) and give them more information with each increment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should also feel free to take into account a character's background when deciding what information to provide. Consider two characters, each beating the Knowledge DC by five, each asking the same question: will I be able to hurt this thing with my sword?
The first character comes from a purely martial background. Perhaps he trained as part of a city guard. He might know that the creature possesses DR 3/-. The second character comes from a more divine background. Perhaps he trained in a temple, combining any combat training with researching holy texts. He might know that the creature possesses the ability to become intangible at will.
Varying what information you provide each character can be another means of fully disclosing a creatures abilities without a Knowledge DC that seems completely outlandish.
So, I was having a talk with my players, and we are trying to agree on an interpretation of the use of knowledge skills for identifying monsters.
It says on the Knowledge Skill that you learn "useful info" on 5(common monsters) 10(normal DC) and 15 (Rare/unique monsters)+CR, and then one more per 5 you beat said DC.
I think that each useful bit should be extensive enough to use, but then some think that you learn one ability/weakness per 5. By that logic, knowing everything about a skeleton is a pretty high DC, and against the higher CR monsters, the DC goes bananas if you hope to learn everything, becoming next to impossible to even learn basics, and thus the skill is pretty useless for that purpose.
Is there a good guideline as to how much knowledge should be given per 5 beaten? I have seen some good lore boxes on the PFRD, but they are usually on low-CR monsters, such as orcs and whatnot.
It is ambiguous, and some monsters have a lot of abilities. What I do is give one offensive and defensive ability or hint about how to defeat the monster for every 5. If they beat the base DC by 15 I give them all the special abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A fixed DC? Really? The rules say it's harder the higher the CR of the monster.
"Hey, what's that creature stomping on the palace?"
"No idea."
"Isn't it that Tarrasque thing?"
"Never heard of it."
"It destroyed half the city last year!"
"Nope, it's just too powerful for me to recognise or identify."
I guess your system makes as much sense as anything else...
In my group we go with questions, one question for every 5 you beat the DC.
Do you give one for succeeding on the skill check and then one for each 5 over? So if your 10 over you would get 3 questions?
That is basically how we do it at our table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my group we go with questions, one question for every 5 you beat the DC.Do you give one for succeeding on the skill check and then one for each 5 over? So if your 10 over you would get 3 questions?
That is basically how we do it at our table.
Your table is doing it correctly.
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.
Leo1925 was writing in 2011 so I wouldn't be too confident of getting an answer.
Names of monsters is one thing, abilities of them is a mechanical advantage IMO.
Personally I do it as such:
DC 15+CR gets you type, subtypes, and things you can glean from appearance.
DC 20+CR gets you defenses and special abilities, but maybe not specific numbers
DC 25+CR gets you everything I'm comfortable giving out.
I consider pretty much every line of the stat block to be one bit of useful information. So special attacks would be one, and auras might be another. I also treat the creature description/flavor text as one section. Its surprising what you can learn simply by asking about the creature's known habits.
For beating the basic DC I give them the name, type, and subtype, as well as all the info that goes along with those (such as knowing that creatures with the devil subtype are immune to fire).
|
|
This subject is a long-running beef for me, for many reasons.
No time to go into them all now, but in brief:
Many starting DCs are set too high, because...
Many creatures' CRs are poorly calculated,
DC should be a factor of rarity in any case,
and many creatures really shouldn't be considered 'rare'.
Just because it doesn't exist on 21st century Earth, doesn't make it rare in a fantasy setting.
In fact, an argument could be made, that it's the normal Earth animals who should be far rarer than iconic D&D magical beasts, since the animal creature type is utterly awful, and they couldn't possibly compete, possibly to the point of extinction.
Put a displacer beast into the same forest as a tiger. Which one would become the apex predator, and displace (sorry) the other?
|
|
The point is, players and GMs assuming creatures are rarer than they actually are, in-setting. In some cases, even the most outlandish creature types aren't rare at all.
Take the imps and pseudodragons of Korvosa; the art and lore shows the skies obscured by swarms of both, fighting a permanent vendetta above the heads of the populace.
Many GMs would instantly default to dragons and outsiders being rare, and slap a +5 surcharge on the DC. Some generous ones may reduce that to being a +0 'average'.
How many would apply the -5 'common' rebate?
But more to the point, why would it require a roll at all?
Both creatures are enough of a pest, that every inhabitant and visitor would have personal experience of them, or be informed of them on entry.
Like the monkeys on Gibraltar, the street signs and guides would warn you to keep all your valuables out of sight, as the little buggers will pick up everything not nailed down.
And you'd be told of their special attacks and vulnerabilities, by the stall-holders selling antitoxin and silver-plated 'impstickers' on every street corner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My thinking is this:
The d20 is supposed to represent a degree of success. The base case is a character with +0 int and max ranks encounters a creature with CR = level. So he has a 50% chance of success. Now the question you want to answer, what is the "greatest success" you want to allow and how much investment this should require.
In my mind, maximum success should be knowing everything about the monster. Basically unlimited questions; and For this I want a character to have significant investment. So say +5 int, +6 skill focus and +4 from racial abilities or a second feat. Thus if you beat the DC by 15, I would tell you everything there is to know about a monster.
For lower level monsters (<10) I set this at DC +10 because there are less resources to invest at that level.
I usually break the stat block into 3-4 parts and describe one +1 for each 5 points the DC is beaten by.
If you give only one line per 5 points, then characters would need to be level 20 just to know everything about a CR 1 creature or something absurd like that.
My Ranger has 3 FE based on Class an 2 from campaign feats. I am the go to guy for ID. GM counts FE as +1 step (+5). A natural 20 also counts as an up.
Knowledge skills apply to different Types and subtypes, at a 'fact' per 5, unless you do some observation and/or research. We're currently hunting a 'fire' dragon that lives in a glacier and I rolled a '1'. I still think its a dragon, the 'frill' around the neck being mistaken for wings. Me, personally, I know its a Remoraz (sp) and will see its not a dragon when I first see it. Until then...
DC 25+CR gets you everything I'm comfortable giving out.
Pretty much this.
One of my players (frequently) beats the DC by 20 or more, I just tell him the creatures name and to look it up.
He gets to feel special for investing in knowledge skills and I don't have to waste time reading off the entire entry.
I have a Bard with +11 - +15 per Knowledge at just level 7. With a Take 10 and Book of Lore (+5), that comes out to 26 - 30. Once per day I can Take 20 to get 36 - 40, if I feel like using up my standard action for a round.
I generally get about the basic info: monster name, basic type (not much more than knowing which knowledge applies in the first place), and 3 additional questions.
I usually ask for special attacks, special defenses, and either the DR or saves (weak/normal/strong by category). What I can't get my GM to give is the HD (even approximate) or the specific save modifiers.
I don't give out specific numbers, and my players know not to relay specific numbers to the party when they beat the DC by enough for me to allow them to look up the monster's SRD entry.
|
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.
Because of the above wording, I've always given out info for making the check DC and then additional info for each increment of 5 they beat it by.
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.Because of the above wording, I've always given out info for making the check DC and then additional info for each increment of 5 they beat it by.
Agreed. Simply making the basic check will get you basic information such as creature type and relative strength, e.g. "You may want to consider running."
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.
I'm a little late to the conversation, but I try really hard to use the 'Useful' part of that as a guide on what to share. When a player beats the DC I give them an option to ask about specifics or for me to volunteer something I think would be useful to them.
So for the first few pieces of info I try to ensure that I'm giving them information that is Useful, as in it informs a tactic in a meaningful way. Eg. That dragon breaths a line of X, not a cone. These undead are intelligent, hence are not immune to mind effecting. That shadow demon has shadow evocations but no true evocations, here is a bonus to your will saves.
The question is, how much information is 'a bit of useful information'. For example, if you meet a dragon and it's red and you meet the DC, I could say, "This is a Mature Red Dragon. Its creature type is Dragon." That's information - is it enough?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The definition for useful that I use for this situation; I use that a piece of information is useful if having the information gives the character a chance to change their action to a more informed action.
In the case of the Mature Red Dragon, Telling them that it is a mature red dragon, type dragon doesn't help their tactical information without the players using meta-knowledge, so not ideal.
Now, to convert that into useful information: It is a Mature Rad Dragon: It is Huge, generally has 10ft reach, and red dragons are associated with fire. It has the dragon subtype: It has lots of HP, full bab, good progression on all it's saves, is guaranteed to have Darkvision 60 feet, low-light vision and Immunity to magic sleep effects and paralysis effects. It could have more abilities from it's age.
The above should inform the players that this dragon is going to hit hard in melee and have a good chance against save or suck spells. Which is two half useful pieces of information that should inform them to avoid full attacks and that save or sucks have a worse chance (maybe the fighter decides to take a total defense before closing in, and maybe the wizard casts haste instead of glitterdust). Allowing them to make tactical decisions to suit and meeting my criteria for useful.
So the information is useful if it changes what the character was going to do. I'd like to her criticism or refinement on this usage of useful information.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If my players' characters saw a red dragon and made knowledge checks only to have me turn around and tell them that it is a Red Dragon with the Dragon subtype, I'd get lynched. And rightfully so.
For reference, here's what Jason Bulmahn put into his "Monster Focus: Ghouls" for knowledge checks:
DC Information
6 This creature is a ravenous undead known as a ghoul. Unlike other lesser undead, ghouls possess a cunning intelligence. More powerful ghouls are known as ghasts.
11 A ghoul can paralyze a creature with a touch, but elves are immune (elves are not immune if it is a ghast).
16 A ghoul’s bite carries a terrible disease that can rot flesh and dull the reflexes. Those who die from it become a ghoul themselves.
22 (Ghast Only): A ghast is surrounded by a horrid stench that can sicken those that draw close to the monstrosity.
I should clarify that our group is counting the DC as CR + 15 to get this:
monster name, basic type (not much more than knowing which knowledge applies in the first place)
And with another 15 above (so, CR + 30), then getting another 3 questions, though perhaps 4 more often, now that I got another +5 with the Book of Lore.
And by questions, we're using the line in the stat block (all special attacks = question 1; all special defenses = question 2; saving throw progression = question 3...)
Pretty similar to a lot of other answers here. However, I don't ever see the actual monster entries from the books or websites, as the GM doesn't want to give out the HD or actual save modifiers.
I never bother asking about AC, as the party will sort that out in 1 or 2 rounds.
We run the let players ask thing
After all the characters will know the things relevant to them if they're researching something. A sorc is t going to remember so ething is vulnerable to silver before he does that it's immune to fire.
Now, to convert that into useful information: It is a Mature Rad Dragon: It is Huge, generally has 10ft reach, and red dragons are associated with fire. It has the dragon subtype: It has lots of HP, full bab, good progression on all it's saves, is guaranteed to have Darkvision 60 feet, low-light vision and Immunity to magic sleep effects and paralysis effects. It could have more abilities from it's ageI will usually include armor class information in the form of, "it's scales are like full plate." That way the players have the OOC information but its delivered in an IC format.
My only criticism is "lots of HP." That's really vague. If you have 8 hps , 24 hps, is "lots of HP". I usually either give the number of HD, or tell them it has vitality comparable to a X level fighter.
But I totally agree with your definition of useful: actionable information that increases the likelihood of surviving the encounter, for that player or party
I agree with the hit points criticism, I was struggling to figure out how to say it has a d12 hit dice.
|
I don't like DC tied to CR. My young son can consistently identify an Elephant. What's his knowledge nature? According to RAW that's a DC of 17 and can't be done untrained. So my first grader has around a +7 knowledge nature?
Reminds me of a game recently.
DM: "You see a large dog like creature. You can roll knowledge nature if you want."
Player 1,2,3 don't have nature.
Player 4 rolls and fails.
DM: "Yeah, some kind of large wild looking dog."
Player 4: Is it a wolf? I think I could recognize a wolf.
DM: "Apparently you can't."
This is where we remember that the pathfinder bestiaries are extensive and lots of things look similar.
Is it a wolf? Maybe. But it could also be a young dire wolf, a werewolf, a fiendish wolf, a winter wolf, or a worg. And probably some other more obscure things. You're not sure.