So my gaming group and I have played D&D 2nd edition together for many years. We just switched to Pathfinder this past year. We are starting off our Pathfinder adventures with myself GMing the Dragon's Demand "module". One of our players is a complete rules nazi (when it benefits him). Every time we encounter an enemy mob, he wants to use knowledge checks to gain knowledge of the creature (which I'm cool with), but seems to think that with a high enough knowledge check, that I should reveal practically everything the monster manual says about them. In my opinion, if they start off with too much info about new monsters, it takes a lot of the fun out of it for them and makes it harder for me to offer them a challenge. Any opinions or advice? Should I just let him have his way, or should I resist him trying to be all knowing? Is there an answer to this situation in the rules somewhere I don't know about?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's very few things that one usually needs to know about a monster
How can you kill it?
How can it kill you?
What this devolves to is basically asking what defenses it has and what attacks it has.
This can be very broad in both catagories. With defenses, you could say what it has DR against, if it's immune to anything, if it has spell resistance, etc. For attacks, this can be anything from natural attacks, to special abilities, to even spellcasting for certain creatures such as dragons.
The Knowledge rules that that for every 5 by which you beat the creatures DC (10+CR), you gain an additional piece of information regarding the creature, ontop of the piece of information for just beating the DC.
You can be incredibly pendantic about this, and say that each little thing is a bit of information, such as saying that it has DR 5 or that it's bypassed by silver, rather than saying DR 5/silver, or that it has a breath attack, but not what that breath attack does.
If your player invested into these knowledge ranks to be able to tell how to fight these creatures, then that's their reward. No need to cheapen it just because you don't like it.
Keep in mind there are certain creatures that have higher base DCs (15+CR) or just flat-out can't be knowledge checked due to obscurity or rarity.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it's not detailed very well in what you should be able to get from a knowledge check, but generally yes, anything that someone wants to know about a creature should be fair game if it makes the knowledge check. But there's also 2 caveats to this; one, certain creatures are more, or less rare than others, so the base DC can be CR+5, CR+15, or even higher. So depending on how rare the creature is, it might be hard to identify. Secondly, they would only know things about the creature type, not any class or item abilities. So they would know that undead are immune to fort saves, and could ask if it has DR, but wouldn't know that a juju zombie has the ability to cast spells.
In most games I'm used to seeing people ask for DR, energy resistance, best save, worst save, special attacks/abilities, and flavour text, because why not? So if that's what he's been asking, that's pretty typical of the skill use, and shouldn't be discouraged. After all, if you're not letting your players use their skills, you're basically invalidating their character choices. If that's how you play it, you might as well just tell them to put the skill rank somewhere else, or even play a different class.
Annnnnd ninja'd by Opuko.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To add on what Deighton said
You don't necessarily need to give numbers.
Just because a player asks if a monster has resistance to something, you don't have to say 'Yeah, it has Cold Resistance 20', you can make it a bit more wondrous if you'd like, for example 'The creature is naturally resistant against the cold, even the most biting blizzard does little to even slow them, let alone cause any sort of harm.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ask, ask, ask. Questions, questions, questions. This is a continuing source of frustration for me. Where did this--apparently world-wide--interpretation of the monster knowledge check subsystem as being dice rolls that result in some number of questions that the players can ask come from? Is it from 3.0 or 3.5 (I never played those)?
The rules in the Core Rulebook are clear, if brief: "You can use this skill [one of the several Knowledges] 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."
The words "ask" and "question" appear nowhere in the rules. They're not even IMPLIED in the rules.
When a player wishes to make such a check, it is the responsibility of the GM to set a DC, and then to adjudicate what constitutes useful information about special powers and vulnerabilities and supply one or more "bits" of such information. That is ALL the rules support.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always view it as the questions simulate the area of focus the character had when studying.
Mages are very interested in SR, energy resist and Saves, Mundanes aren't.
Mundanes are interested in DR, Poisons, non-obvious abilities, while mages don't interact with those all that much and thus don't find them important.
Thank you all VERY MUCH! Although I have a lot of "D.M." experience, I'm still relatively new to being a "G.M." because of the rules change. Your thoughts have been extremely helpful for me. I want to always be fair to my players, but I also want to challenge them, so that at the end of the night they feel like they accomplished something and didn't just have it handed to them. I like to give them answers in more of a role play manner, than I do as number stats. Your help will help me smooth out the process.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Glad to help! Hope you and your players are enjoying Pathfinder so far!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In addition to the advice above, another option is to make your own monsters. Kind of cheap, but it will help you keep the mystery you want to achieve. You can even use the stats for a monster from the book and re-skin it as a new monster. I agree that knowing how a monster works is the reward for spending ranks in Know, but sometimes the unknown is fun, too.
In addition to the advice above, another option is to make your own monsters. Kind of cheap, but it will help you keep the mystery you want to achieve. You can even use the stats for a monster from the book and re-skin it as a new monster. I agree that knowing how a monster works is the reward for spending ranks in Know, but sometimes the unknown is fun, too.
That does not help with knowledge checks. Unless your new critter was just created in a lab by a mad scientist there is lore on it somewhere that is represented by the knowledge check.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Others have quoted the rule.
Here's how I use it:
The DC listed is the DC to identify what a monster is. If you exactly hit this DC, you know that's an orc, or a griffon, or a dragon, or whatever. Given just that, it's fair for players to assume their characters know some very basic general stuff (e.g. dragons fly and have breath weapons and like to eat meat and hoard treasure) but not specific abilities (such as SR or resistances or SLAs, etc.).
For every 5 they beat the basic DC they get to know one useful thing. The big question is, what is a "useful thing"?
I don't include specific data (such as exact HP, AC, resistance values, SR, etc.). I consider all that numerical stuff to be metagamey and outside the parameters of in-game knowledge.
But that still leaves a whole lot of "useful things" that might be learned.
What I do is make a mental list of things I think would be useful in an encounter with this creature and then I arrange them from most obvious to least obvious. Yep, this is a judgement call. Note that what is most obvious is not always what is most important - if a monster has a very powerful mental ability that is not obvious when he uses it, and also has a weak breath weapon that everyone can see, then the breath weapon goes higher on my list. Another example, in the real world we all know that cheetahs are very fast, it might even be their one defining characteristic. But it's not exactly obvious when you look at them, especially in a fight - you might notice sharp claws and fangs and camouflage fur before you notice their defining speed.
Once I have this mental list sorted by most obvious feature to least obvious feature, I just tell the players however many items on that list they are entitled to based on their skill check - one useful thing from the top of the list (most obvious) for every 5 points they beat the check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it easiest to ask the player what he/she wants to try to know from their knowledge check before they make the roll. The DC's for different powered/commonality of creatures are there in the knowledge skill rules.
If your rules nazi player is that adamant than use the rules right back at them. Unless his knowledge rolls are seriously high he will at best get 2-4 useful details depending on creature.
And make sure to be familiar with what knowledge skills cover what creatures. Covering ALL knowledge skills is seriously hard so there will be gaps in a characters knowledge. Make sure to enforced the rule where you cannot even make a knowledge roll if the DC is more than 10 and you have no ranks in the appropriate knowledge skill.
Let them know their options are yes/no questions, not exact game numbers. So they could not ask WHAT the creatures Spell Resistance is but they could ask if the creature HAS spell resistance for example. If your feeling very generous you could use descriptors such as weak, average or strong on things like AC, SR, elemental resistances, saves etc.
And that would be one 'fact'. Whether the creature has spell resistance or not would be one fact from a successful use of the skill. Another example would be if the player asks what the creatures Fire Resistance value is, they would only be able to find out if they creature has one or not and if the answer is 'not' that would still be one piece of information.
You may even want that player to make an ongoing log of their 'established monster knowledge' and if they run into the same monster type again, they can reference what they already know as their 'knowledge'. If they have increased a relevant skill since the last encounter of that type then a new skill check could be made to see what new info they learned. If the new roll is not better than the old then they have learned nothing effectively new enough to matter.
It would be a lot of book keeping but it would be fair and a way to curb rule abuse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even facts like "they are tribal, and likely travel like nomads" are still facts.
But probably not "useful," which the skill description specifies.
Pulling a monster at random from the Bestiary, I think it's definitely "useful" to know that a minotaur's strongest save is Fort. It's probably not useful to know that it's immune to a maze spell if no one in the party is capable of casting that spell. It's probably useless, because it's obvious, that it is a Large monster and that it uses the greataxe it's self-evidently holding.
And the fact that "most modern minotaurs [...] believe that they are not divine mockeries but divine paragons created by a potent and cruel demon lord named Baphomet" is probably pretty d--n useless, even though it's a fact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even facts like "they are tribal, and likely travel like nomads" are still facts.But probably not "useful," which the skill description specifies.
Pulling a monster at random from the Bestiary, I think it's definitely "useful" to know that a minotaur's strongest save is Fort. It's probably not useful to know that it's immune to a maze spell if no one in the party is capable of casting that spell. It's probably useless, because it's obvious, that it is a Large monster and that it uses the greataxe it's self-evidently holding.
And the fact that "most modern minotaurs [...] believe that they are not divine mockeries but divine paragons created by a potent and cruel demon lord named Baphomet" is probably pretty d--n useless, even though it's a fact.
I agree. While it is up to the GM what facts are recalled by the check this shouldn't be used for douchebaggery. On a successful check I always give the players the name of the creature and one piece of useful information.
Also there are some things that the average person should just know. For example, most people are going be able to identify a Wolf by sight and probably know they usually travel in packs even if they have no ranks in Knowledge (Nature) and therefore can't even attempt a check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Others have quoted the rule.
Here's how I use it:
The DC listed is the DC to identify what a monster is. If you exactly hit this DC, you know that's an orc, or a griffon, or a dragon, or whatever. Given just that, it's fair for players to assume their characters know some very basic general stuff (e.g. dragons fly and have breath weapons and like to eat meat and hoard treasure) but not specific abilities (such as SR or resistances or SLAs, etc.).
For every 5 they beat the basic DC they get to know one useful thing. The big question is, what is a "useful thing"?
I don't include specific data (such as exact HP, AC, resistance values, SR, etc.). I consider all that numerical stuff to be metagamey and outside the parameters of in-game knowledge.
But that still leaves a whole lot of "useful things" that might be learned.
What I do is make a mental list of things I think would be useful in an encounter with this creature and then I arrange them from most obvious to least obvious. Yep, this is a judgement call. Note that what is most obvious is not always what is most important - if a monster has a very powerful mental ability that is not obvious when he uses it, and also has a weak breath weapon that everyone can see, then the breath weapon goes higher on my list. Another example, in the real world we all know that cheetahs are very fast, it might even be their one defining characteristic. But it's not exactly obvious when you look at them, especially in a fight - you might notice sharp claws and fangs and camouflage fur before you notice their defining speed.
Once I have this mental list sorted by most obvious feature to least obvious feature, I just tell the players however many items on that list they are entitled to based on their skill check - one useful thing from the top of the list (most obvious) for every 5 points they beat the check.
This is basically what I do, with the addition that I let them identify a monster's type with a flat DC 15 if the monster is harder than 15 to identify specifically.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I didn't realize every question would be "how do I murder it" or yes it would be a less useful fact.
Well, I suppose it's possible that not every question would be "how do I murder it." Some group of murderhoboes somewhere might have encountered something that they didn't immediately size up for killin'.
..... Nah, don't buy it.
Well I didn't realize every question would be "how do I murder it" or yes it would be a less useful fact.
When there is some thing there looking like it wants to eat your face, "how do I kill it?" is indeed useful. Knowing that it has a talent for horticulture is significantly less so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In addition to the advice above, another option is to make your own monsters. Kind of cheap, but it will help you keep the mystery you want to achieve. You can even use the stats for a monster from the book and re-skin it as a new monster. I agree that knowing how a monster works is the reward for spending ranks in Know, but sometimes the unknown is fun, too.That does not help with knowledge checks. Unless your new critter was just created in a lab by a mad scientist there is lore on it somewhere that is represented by the knowledge check.
My suggestion implied just that: a new creature recently loosed upon the world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My suggestion implied just that: a new creature recently loosed upon the world.In addition to the advice above, another option is to make your own monsters. Kind of cheap, but it will help you keep the mystery you want to achieve. You can even use the stats for a monster from the book and re-skin it as a new monster.That does not help with knowledge checks. Unless your new critter was just created in a lab by a mad scientist there is lore on it somewhere that is represented by the knowledge check.
Even if your suggestion did not imply that, it's still useful as a way to prevent metagaming. You can take a simple goblin stat block, rename it to goshena, and describe the creature as having horns, fur, and cat-like eyes. Use the stat block exactly as a normal goblin, but just revise the flavor text. The players will have zero clue what they are facing, and will be forced to rely upon knowledge checks to figure it out. This syncs up the character and the player. They both are in the same position: they must rely solely upon what the character gleans from the check, and will only be able to execute actions based upon that limited knowledge.
I did that recently with a dragon. Just renamed it to skydrake, and converted its breath attack to a roar that affects those within 30'. It seemed to throw off all preconceptions and the ability to metagame was diminished.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My suggestion implied just that: a new creature recently loosed upon the world.In addition to the advice above, another option is to make your own monsters. Kind of cheap, but it will help you keep the mystery you want to achieve. You can even use the stats for a monster from the book and re-skin it as a new monster.That does not help with knowledge checks. Unless your new critter was just created in a lab by a mad scientist there is lore on it somewhere that is represented by the knowledge check.Even if your suggestion did not imply that, it's still useful as a way to prevent metagaming. You can take a simple goblin stat block, rename it to goshena, and describe the creature as having horns, fur, and cat-like eyes. Use the stat block exactly as a normal goblin, but just revise the flavor text. The players will have zero clue what they are facing, and will be forced to rely upon knowledge checks to figure it out. This syncs up the character and the player. They both are in the same position: they must rely solely upon what the character gleans from the check, and will only be able to execute actions based upon that limited knowledge.
I did that recently with a dragon. Just renamed it to skydrake, and converted its breath attack to a roar that affects those within 30'. It seemed to throw off all preconceptions and the ability to metagame was diminished.
Sounds reasonable to me. I think it's logical that using Know to more or less study an unknown target for a round could yield valuable insight into its makings. I might raise the DC by 5 in situations where the new creature is especially exotic or magically augmented.
Thanks again guys!You have been so helpful! I'm feeling totally squared away on this question now! In defense of my player (against myself), I forget that sarcasm doesn't translate to text very well. My calling them a "rules nazi" and that they use the rules to their self benefit. I was meaning it in a mostly sarcastic, busting their balls kind of way. In person, in our group, we give each other a hard time, in an endearing kind of way. Nobody gets their balls busted more than whoever is DMing/GMing. So just for personal record, they are actually a very good player. I just needed some rules clarification, so that I can be the best GM that I can be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something that I use that has been very effective is allowing one yes-no question for every 5 they beat the DC. The PC can ask anything they want provided it is a yes-no question. This has had a two-fold benefit: It severely limits the possibility of abusing the information (yes-no is extremely limiting) and it makes having a high Knowledge skill very useful.
However, it sounds like you've gotten some great advice already.
I would be hard-pressed to come up with yes/no questions that would be useful.
Suppose I beat the DC by 15 and get 3 pieces of useful information. "Does it have DR?" "Yes." okaaaay...but I still don't know how to bypass it.
"Is it bypassed by silver?" "No."
"Is it bypassed by cold iron?" "No." Three questions, down, and I still don't have anything actually "useful"...
On the other hand, "What kind of DR does it have?" "5/bludgeoning" is a single question that tells the players exactly what they have to do.
I've had players beat the DC by high enough that I just hand them stat block, usually with some joke like, "OK, his name is 'Bob'..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My suggestion implied just that: a new creature recently loosed upon the world.In addition to the advice above, another option is to make your own monsters. Kind of cheap, but it will help you keep the mystery you want to achieve. You can even use the stats for a monster from the book and re-skin it as a new monster.That does not help with knowledge checks. Unless your new critter was just created in a lab by a mad scientist there is lore on it somewhere that is represented by the knowledge check.Even if your suggestion did not imply that, it's still useful as a way to prevent metagaming. You can take a simple goblin stat block, rename it to goshena, and describe the creature as having horns, fur, and cat-like eyes. Use the stat block exactly as a normal goblin, but just revise the flavor text. The players will have zero clue what they are facing, and will be forced to rely upon knowledge checks to figure it out. This syncs up the character and the player. They both are in the same position: they must rely solely upon what the character gleans from the check, and will only be able to execute actions based upon that limited knowledge.
I did that recently with a dragon. Just renamed it to skydrake, and converted its breath attack to a roar that affects those within 30'. It seemed to throw off all preconceptions and the ability to metagame was diminished.
Why don't you just ban knowledge skills from your game? It would cause many fewer problems.
I have a character who has invested quite a bit into knowledge skills as her main "thing": at level 3, she can get up to a +18 in all knowledge skills (except knowledge nobility, because who care about them?).
Needless to say, I would be really, really annoyed if the GM decided that there were creatures in the world that don't get any knowledge checks because "metagaming".
Making knowledge checks isn't "metagaming"--it's just plain old gaming. Knowledge checks are the rules mechanic that represents what the character knows about certain aspects of the world. It's no more metagaming than rolling an attack roll.
|
It is notable that the knowledge check represents previously known knowledge being recalled, not the acquisition of new knowledge. You'd be unable to learn information that is uncharacteristic of the species.
For example, a goblin with electrical resistance acquired through Oracle levels wouldn't show up in a knowledge check to learn about goblins. You might list Oracle as a possible class for goblins, but the electrical resistance of that one unusual goblin isn't something the PCs can "recall" from their studies on goblins. That is, unless this particular goblin is famous for their electrical resistance.
It's also notable that the check based on what the PCs perceive the creature to be, not what the creature actually is.
So an illusion of a goblin tests knowledge about goblins, provided the PCs fail to discern the illusion. Likewise, a goblin polymorphed into a rabbit would require a suitable check to learn about rabbits.
|
|
Suppose I beat the DC by 15 and get 3 pieces of useful information. "Does it have DR?" "Yes." okaaaay...but I still don't know how to bypass it.
"Is it bypassed by silver?" "No."
"Is it bypassed by cold iron?" "No." Three questions, down, and I still don't have anything actually "useful"...
On the other hand, "What kind of DR does it have?" "5/bludgeoning" is a single question that tells the players exactly what they have to do.
I've had players beat the DC by high enough that I just hand them stat block, usually with some joke like, "OK, his name is 'Bob'..."
Asking about DR is sort of a metagaming question already, but I agree that the question system is unreasonable if you do not give useful information.
Useful bits of information are contextual to the situation, but information gained would be along the lines of:
"You recall that the werewolf's thick hide is more easily pierced with silver"
You've admitted a weakness that the party can exploit.
"This creature is known to hunt in packs"
Could also qualify as useful information if the party has only encountered the one. As the knowledge check is revealing the likely presence of additional creatures of the same type. Though this is contextual to the actual encounter, as this information would not be useful if there were not others (or if the lack of others wasn't important to the encounter).
You can take a simple goblin stat block, rename it to goshena, and describe the creature as having horns, fur, and cat-like eyes. Use the stat block exactly as a normal goblin, but just revise the flavor text. The players will have zero clue what they are facing, and will be forced to rely upon knowledge checks to figure it out. This syncs up the character and the player. They both are in the same position: they must rely solely upon what the character gleans from the check, and will only be able to execute actions based upon that limited knowledge.Why don't you just ban knowledge skills from your game? It would cause many fewer problems.
Huh? That's such a weird response I don't even know what to ask about it.
Needless to say, I would be really, really annoyed if the GM decided that there were creatures in the world that don't get any knowledge checks because "metagaming".
What? Oh. You have read something that I didn't write. That's my confusion. I didn't suggest or even intend to imply what you're imagining. You might want to re-read what I wrote. Start with the bolded text above.
People in my games make knowledge checks a TON. A literal TON. I've weighed it. It's nuts how much it's used. Your character would do fine in my game world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My suggestion implied just that: a new creature recently loosed upon the world.In addition to the advice above, another option is to make your own monsters. Kind of cheap, but it will help you keep the mystery you want to achieve. You can even use the stats for a monster from the book and re-skin it as a new monster.That does not help with knowledge checks. Unless your new critter was just created in a lab by a mad scientist there is lore on it somewhere that is represented by the knowledge check.Even if your suggestion did not imply that, it's still useful as a way to prevent metagaming. You can take a simple goblin stat block, rename it to goshena, and describe the creature as having horns, fur, and cat-like eyes. Use the stat block exactly as a normal goblin, but just revise the flavor text. The players will have zero clue what they are facing, and will be forced to rely upon knowledge checks to figure it out. This syncs up the character and the player. They both are in the same position: they must rely solely upon what the character gleans from the check, and will only be able to execute actions based upon that limited knowledge.
I did that recently with a dragon. Just renamed it to skydrake, and converted its breath attack to a roar that affects those within 30'. It seemed to throw off all preconceptions and the ability to metagame was diminished.
Why don't you just ban knowledge skills from your game? It would cause many fewer problems.
I have a character who has invested quite a bit into knowledge skills as her main "thing": at level 3, she can get up to a +18 in all knowledge skills (except knowledge nobility, because who care about them?).
Needless to say, I would be really, really annoyed if the GM decided that there were creatures in the world that don't get any knowledge checks because "metagaming".
Making knowledge checks isn't "metagaming"--it's...
Their proposal allows gaming and discourages metagaming, knowledge checks become much more important as player's can't rely on their in game knowledge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually give away some non-useful information with whatever useful bits the players are entitled to after a knowledge check.
Knowing just a name and the information that the monster is weak against silver but can resist magic you face a very bland monster. Sure, the players get a description of how it looks too. Maybe some dialogue. But there's often a lot more than that in a monsters description that the player's never gonna hear of unless I tell them.
Say you run in to a Salamander - a half-lizard-like, burning smith from the Plane of Fire. It's useful to know that weapons need to be magical in order to hurt it, that it can't be damaged by fire and that it can use it's tail to grab enemies.
But after the players have killed the salamander, they've just slain another monster like every other.
If they, in the knowledge check, also got to knew that Salamanders either are summoned to the material planes or slip in where the planar boundaries wear thin near volcanoes, that they often serve as guardians and smiths to more powerful creatures and often ally with demons, well then the adventure suddenly has alot more potential. The player might want to try and find out where the salamander came from, who it served etc.
For the OP: Some third-party publishers have made "Monster Knowledge cards" type products to handle how to give out this information. However, since the rules are ambiguous, you're looking at what they think is the right information to give. But, it is a start.
(except knowledge nobility, because who care about them?).
You've clearly never fought against the nobility, in the political arena, where knowing who has a position of strength, who is allied with who, who is likely to betray who, etc. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My default extra question is "Reproductive habits?"
You would be surprised how often this is a useful piece of information.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes you can find good information that's more than just how to kill something with these questions. One time I figured that air elementals could be convinced to let us pass since they were more territorial and not so much hunters or some stuff. The other time was searching an ice troll for any signs of an employer since they have a tendency to be recruited as mercenaries. Turns out it was hired by one of the cults we were looking for!
I usually give away some non-useful information with whatever useful bits the players are entitled to after a knowledge check.
Knowing just a name and the information that the monster is weak against silver but can resist magic you face a very bland monster. Sure, the players get a description of how it looks too. Maybe some dialogue. But there's often a lot more than that in a monsters description that the player's never gonna hear of unless I tell them.
I usually give them the at least the tagline description along with the type, sub-type, and general traits as part of the "identify the monster" check. (If the players are new, I usually give them more than just the tagline for the description.)
We have players who have started asking for the "fluff" as part of their knowledge check. That's really cool, but it means I have to remember to grab that along with the stat block... :-)