Situation: Villager describes the beast that attacked their village.
That would depend on how much information the villager gives, and on how accurate that information is.
For instance:
"It was a huge beast" -> no Knowledge check possible, as there's not enough information
"It was a huge flying creature that breathed acid" -> normal Knowledge check DC, as if the PC saw the creature himself
There also might be some negative modifiers, depending on the accuracy of the villager and the personal spin that he may be giving it after filtering it through his own beliefs: "It were some horrible fiend sent by the devil himself!"
Okay, is this an actual fiend we're talking about or a superstitious peasant attributing supernatural agency to a mundane (albeit dangerous) rabid bear?
And how exactly do you distinguish between fiendish possession and rabies anyway?
"It was a huge flying creature that breathed acid" -> normal Knowledge check DC, as if the PC saw the creature himself
I don't know that I'd go that far with that description. Huge, Green, Winged Reptilian creature that breathed acid, we're getting a little closer. This is where circumstance modifiers come into play, as determined by the DM. +2 to +6 to the DC depending on the information (or lack thereof) gathered.
If you have multiple witnesses, you can use that to narrow down the suspect pool so to speak, until you're pretty sure what's true and what isn't. I'd also allow multiple checks, as more information flows in.
Regardless, until the PC's see for themselves, they can never be sure. "It sounds like they're talking about a Green Dragon," or "You think it might've been a Ghoul, but it could've been a Ghast too," that sort of thing. Rolls made in secret might be appropriate in this kind of situation, so that the players don't know how close to the truth they've gotten.
Situation: Villager describes the beast that attacked their village.
There is no rule for it. It is up to the DM to decide if there is a modifier at all.
"It was a huge flying creature that breathed acid" -> normal Knowledge check DC, as if the PC saw the creature himselfI don't know that I'd go that far with that description. Huge, Green, Winged Reptilian creature that breathed acid, we're getting a little closer.
Yeah, I meant to say "green" in there, but apparently forgot to type it :)
|
"It was a huge flying creature that breathed acid" -> normal Knowledge check DC, as if the PC saw the creature himselfI don't know that I'd go that far with that description. Huge, Green, Winged Reptilian creature that breathed acid, we're getting a little closer.Yeah, I meant to say "green" in there, but apparently forgot to type it :)
But he is a a green dragon or a copper dragon suffering from verdigris? [grin]
(to my defence I must say that I was much younger when I pulled that trick and it was 1rst edition)More seriously, if a random villager was describing something as:
- "huge" I will translate to "probably large"
- "green" I will generally think will be right
- "breathed acid". Really the average villager in a semi-medieval setting has an idea of what acid is? Probably he would say something like "it spittle was burning everything"
- he actually witnessed the event? or he is relating something second hand and/or inventing most of what happened, mixing it with half remembered bards performances and stories?
As the witness will be relating his experience, not what actually happened, I would give negative circumstance modifiers to the die roll, depending on the witness:
- if he was somewhat an expert in reporting facts and maintained a calm head during the encounter (not succumbing to dragon fear or other mind affecting spells) I would give a small modifier, -2 or so (example: elite city guard, ranger)
- not an expert but calm head -4
- others: from -6 to -10 depending on general character.
The worst is when the NPC are "sure " they have identified the beast but are mistaken.
"It was a dragon ser, breathing fire, like in the tales."
(it is a pyrohydra)
In no situation the players will receive a 0 or positive modifier (0 modifier is when they see the creature, witnesses are never on par with actually seeing the beast).
You get no bonus on the check for actually being there to see the monster yourself to identify it, so someone else describing the monster to you shouldn't give a bonus either.
If it was me, I would give penalties though. (Actually being there to witness it is better than a description from someone else, especially since that villager was probably panicked and scared out of his mind from the attack). Say a -2 for a very good description from the witness, -4 for an average description, -6 for a poor description. If the witnesses description of it is really bad, I wouldn't allow the check to be made at all.
You get no bonus on the check for actually being there to see the monster yourself to identify it, so someone else describing the monster to you shouldn't give a bonus either.
If it was me, I would give penalties though. (Actually being there to witness it is better than a description from someone else, especially since that villager was probably panicked and scared out of his mind from the attack). Say a -2 for a very good description from the witness, -4 for an average description, -6 for a poor description. If the witnesses description of it is really bad, I wouldn't allow the check to be made at all.
Seriously. These days it seems like GMs literally have to give as vague a description as possible to prevent PCs from instantly knowing exactly what it is, does, breathes, what it's weaknesses are, etc.
I understand splitting character knowledge from player knowledge and fortunately most players at least make a passing effort at it, but oh do I pine for the days where players didn't try to practically memorize the monster manual/bestiary/etc.
From me, you'll get no bonuses on knowing what a monster is, ever, for any reason, unless you have a class ability or the rules dictate it. it's not a hard check most of the time anyway.
