I was thumbing through a bestiary this weekend, and a thought struck me. How many of the creatures in this book (let alone the other two bestiaries) does an average PC know exist? I mean, we live in an age of mass media, so I know about the existence of some strange animals that live half-way across the world. In a setting like Golarion though, even with magical flight, and planar travel, how many uncommon or rare (both terms alluded to in the Knowledge Skill) monsters would a PC even know existed? (To further complicate things, is it just GM fiat as to which creatures are uncommon or rare?) Obviously the Knowledge Skill, since it is INT based, represents a level of study, either through instruction, or research. What about those PCs, though, that have no trained knowledge? When they come across a Bulette, is there a moment where they look at the thing in fear and awe because they've never even imagined that such a creature exists?
I've been to some very nice zoos, that have some very exotic creatures, and even with a pretty decent practical knowledge of the animal kingdom, I still look at some animals and shudder or gasp.
Obviously people talk, and anyone that hears a story about a strange creature is probably going to tell that story to other people. So picking up tidbits of gossip about strange beasts, angels, devils, giant behemoths, etc. Will be part and parcel of the nomadic life of an adventurer, but how far does that "gossip level" knowledge go?
To boil it down to its essence: If you had to place a percentage on how many creatures a PC, without any trained Knowledge, knows exist, what would it be? Let's set 100% at knowledge of the existence of every creature in all three bestiaries (we'll exclude supplemental books, including modules and APs, for the purposes of this discussion).
What about someone with trained Knowledge? Let's set the total Knowledge bonus at an even 10, just to keep a stable parameter. What percentage of creatures does that PC know exist?
Well, it depends on what the GM says is common. Common creatures have a knowledge DC of 5+CR. Normal ones have a DC of 10+CR. Rare ones (as in, Tarrasque rare. It's not a linear progression here.) get 15+CR.
Even an untrained knowledge check can learn of a very common monster whose CR is 5. That's it though. They can also learn about uncommon, aka normal, monsters whose CR is less than 1 (unless there's text saying you round up fractional CRs for this purpose).
Knowledge (Local) could actually help if there are legends of the monster.
The knowledge rules in general are fairly non-specific and don't really give much guidance on how much any given check will tell you about the monster, so it's fully possible that just remembering the name of something is considerably easier than making the check to identify abilities and weaknesses. That would work in much the same way of how I know what a wolverine is, but I have absolutely no clue how to deal with one that attacks me. Other than hitting it with pointy or piercy things.
I fully expect a certain forum poster to be in this thread in short order.
This has always been a bother for me as well. I have been with by group nearly 20 years and at this point I spend a great deal of time creating new monsters because they have seen darn near everything.
I have always felt that the monsters should have a small chart to give players a knowledge DC for what they know about the monster with the relevant knowledge skill, having to determine how much info to give them stinks. But simply other then typical animals that live in areas that the characters would be familiar with, such as homeland, they must use knowledge checks. Even if they know its a grizzly bear without know nature they wouldn't know specifics.
To answer you last question the knowledge skill spells it out. If the monster is very common DC would be like 5 + HD uncommon 10 + HD, rare 15 + HD etc. You could know pretty much any monster but as a DM you can keep a monster secret say it's unique or unknown.
As Cheapy said, they can know about any monster with a Knowledge DC of 10 or less, and that's it.
Anything common with CR 5 or less is likely to be known by every adventurer, with none of the more powerful creatures, and no uncommon or rares.
Of course, it's up to the GM to determine what counts as Common, Uncommon, or Rare.
Everyone knows about anything that is CR 1/2 or lower (Knowledge (all) 10), no matter what spectrum it is.
If the creature is the subject of prolific tales, like dragons, trolls or local color such as hobgoblins, everyone knows what they are (knowledge (local) 10), and everyone knows local rulers, laws and traditions (knowledge (local) 10), but not everyone knows rumors or folk tales specific to the area (knowledge (local) 15).
If the creature is a god and they belong to a well-known religion such as Desna, Abadar, Sarenrae, Pharasma, Asmodeus or Iomedae, everyone knows who they are (knowledge (religion) 10), but if they belong to a rarer sect, like Norgorber, Lamashtu, Cayden Cailean, Irori or Gozreh, they may not be recognizable (knowledge (religion) 15+), with regards to racial and geographical inclinations as far as religion goes. Their heralds are equally difficult to identify no matter the pantheon (knowledge (religion) 15) and extremely difficult to know of if one isn't fluent in religious doctrine (knowledge (planes) 30 minimum).
Everyone knows every person's ethnicity (knowledge (geography) 10) but not what country they're in (knowledge (geography) 15), and everyone knows every recent or historically significant event (knowledge (history) 10) but not the day on which they occurred (knowledge (history) 15). Everyone knows the current ruler and his sigil (knowledge (nobility) 10), and everyone knows common plants and animals (knowledge (nature) 10).
Everyone knows the names of the planes (knowledge (planes) 10), but no one knows which one we're on (knowledge (planes) 15).
Finally, no one knows anything about magic because there is no DC 10 for it.
As Cheapy said, they can know about any monster with a Knowledge DC of 10 or less, and that's it.
Anything common with CR 5 or less is likely to be known by every adventurer, with none of the more powerful creatures, and no uncommon or rares.
Of course, it's up to the GM to determine what counts as Common, Uncommon, or Rare.
Bolding mine.
This is exactly why I bring up the question. I know what the rules say about the skill check; however, unless I'm mistaken, there is NOWHERE in the rules that states what is common, uncommon, and rare. Which, by default, means the designers wanted GMs to come up with that on their own based on their setting. Maybe one GM doesn't use planar creatures at all, so they aren't rare, they're nonexistent. The designers are silent because each GM has to flesh out their own world. Unless of course we're all using Golarion. Shouldn't Golarion have a table somewhere that lists common, uncommon, and rare? Since it doesn't, I'm trying to gauge the community standard for average knowledge.
I guess I could have asked it a different way. If you play in the Golarion setting (but really, even if you don't I still want to hear about it) what percentage of the creatures in the bestiaries would you rate as uncommon, and therefore "knowable" by anyone? What percentage are uncommon, and thus only knowable by those that are studied? What percentage are rare, and therefore only knowable by the select few that have a rigorous and thorough study?
I like the way Bigger Club put it down. That's really kind of what I'm looking for.
I normally go with Cheapy's 5+CR, 10+CR, 15+CR with one caveat.
I add an additional 5 for terrain. So an elf who spent his entire life in the forest would get a +5 to identify a forest dwelling creature. While a barbarian who grew up in the mountains would need an additional 5 to identify an aquatic creature.
I would also say that knowing a creature exists does not mean they know everything about it. Lots of tails may have reached a character abotu the great undead dragon in the north. But how much of what he was told was true and how much exagerated story?
I also have encouraged players to ID things with Basic ID and not specific info. So they see a humanoid that is 15 feet tall they know it is a giant of some sort. But they may not know the specific one.
They see some kind of ethrial being come out of the grave, clearly some kind of undead, but what it is? Who knows. Of course I also take into account skills/class/etc
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I could have asked it a different way. If you play in the Golarion setting (but really, even if you don't I still want to hear about it) what percentage of the creatures in the bestiaries would you rate as uncommon, and therefore "knowable" by anyone? What percentage are uncommon, and thus only knowable by those that are studied? What percentage are rare, and therefore only knowable by the select few that have a rigorous and thorough study?
I like the way Bigger Club put it down. That's really kind of what I'm looking for.
That's a very different question. I would say right off the bat that, barring regular animals, almost nothing in any Bestiary past the first one is Common.
All the core PC races are common, the "featured ones" like Aasimars and whatnot are uncommon, and the "uncommon" races are, oddly, rare.
I would consider all the "filler" type enemies to be common--the sort you can safely just throw at players without thinking. Orcs, kobolds, goblinoids, almost every normal animal and vermin, ogres, zombies, skeletons, vampires, ghosts, ghouls, and stuff like that. If you need to come up with an encounter that can fit anywhere in your campaign world, you come up with Common enemies.
Demons, Dragons, Devils, Wraiths, Wights, Liches, Golems, and other creatures like that which are "classic" D&D monsters, but not commonly encountered in the game world are Uncommon. When you want a monster the Players will recognize, but one that's still a change of pace from the usual fair and you build a special encounter or story around it, that's an uncommon creature.
Weird stuff like Galeb Duhrs, Mohrgs, or Catoblepas as well as non-chromatic/metallic dragons are Rare. I don't know the latter Bestiaries well, but I do know every Monster Manual after the first in every edition of D&D so far has dealt almost exclusively in rare creatures (and the occasional setting-specific common/uncommon, like warforged and shifters, for example). Whenever you think, "man, I need something really different for this--let me flip through...oh, damn, what is that weird crab/cthulhu dude? A Chuul? What the crap? Ok, yeah, I'm using them," that's a rare creature.
Keep in mind, though, that this does not mean that the untrained characters will have never heard of uncommon or rare creatures--they are quite likely to have heard of dragons through stories and legends. It's just that they won't know much accruate information about them.
For example: most people in the western world know that clown fish exist and generally what they look like, thanks to Finding Nemo. However, how many of those people know that clown fish can switch genders? Yeah, not many. So, your average untrained person thinks, "Oh man, I've heard of dragons--they're scary/cool!" Your average knowledgeable person knows useful facts like the fact that their color determines their immunities/breath weapon/personality/etc.
In my games most domestic or wild game animals, goblinoids, orcs, skeletons (come on, now), and dragons are immediately identified as such without a check. That doesn't give any info about them, they are just familiar enough (whether from first-hand experience, local events, or study) to know what it is on sight.
Most people never see creatures from any plane other than the material plane, and while wizards may speak of "realms beyond the understanding of mere men" that doesn't explain anything.
Some creatures are so similar in appearance or function that people often mistake them for another creature. Wraiths for ghosts, worgs for wolves, trolls/ogres/particularly ugly giants can all be confused for one another depending on the locale. A nymph and dryad, to the uninitiated, are essentially the same kind creature.
I tend to wing it, but this is the gist of my method. Everything is still a knowledge check, and I grant bonuses if the knowledge skill is particularly pertinent to a character's job/class/backstory (especially if the character is older).
EDIT: Ninja'd, and in more detailed. That's what I get for trying to post while I'm at work.
This is exactly why I bring up the question. I know what the rules say about the skill check; however, unless I'm mistaken, there is NOWHERE in the rules that states what is common, uncommon, and rare. Which, by default, means the designers wanted GMs to come up with that on their own based on their setting. Maybe one GM doesn't use planar creatures at all, so they aren't rare, they're nonexistent. The designers are silent because each GM has to flesh out their own world. Unless of course we're all using Golarion. Shouldn't Golarion have a table somewhere that lists common, uncommon, and rare? Since it doesn't, I'm trying to gauge the community standard for average knowledge.
I guess I could have asked it a different way. If you play in the Golarion setting (but really, even if you don't I still want to hear about it) what percentage of the creatures in the bestiaries would you rate as uncommon, and therefore "knowable" by anyone? What percentage are uncommon, and thus only knowable by those that are studied? What percentage are rare, and therefore only knowable by the select few that have a rigorous and thorough study?
I like the way Bigger Club put it down. That's really kind of what I'm looking for.
I usually base it off the way most people in DnD gain knowledge of such things... Bards and Books. If its a creature you can see having many Bard songs and tales being sung around the globe in bars and play halls then its should be a common creature. Is it a creature you would assume had popular books or childrens tales writen about them... again common knowledge. Things like Gryphons, Vampires, Dragons, Goblins, Trolls, Orcs, ect... they are both common foes and should have plenty of interesting stories told regularly.
If however they are more rare creatures or creatures that wouldn't make for good stories... they should be a larger skill check. After all... I dont see there being many Bard tales about Black Poodings, or Lizard Men.
I look at the creature and think.
A. How common is it?
B. Would there be alot of stories about it?
C. Have the locals had any recent exposure to it?
I base the check off that.
I always did dislike the the idea of the knowledge check based off of CR.
I have to agree with Dragonamedrake. I bet a lot of kids on Golarion have heard a story with a Dragon in it even though it is not a commonly found monster. I am sure stories with lots of inaccurate information have been told about many other non-common beasts as well. For me the key is not just do they know that a beast called a Xenodork exists, but do they know that if you toss salt at them they flee?
So I allow characters to know more monsters but question if they now know the weakness of them all etc.
So I allow characters to know more monsters but question if they now know the weakness of them all etc.This is a tricky territory. The skill listing itself is pretty clear
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.
Emphasis mine
This is also one of motivations for my question. The proliferation of "common" creatures, the relative scarcity of "uncommon" creatures, and the all-but-unknown-ness of "rare" creatures, has to play a role in how much a character could know, At least in my opinion. The skill just represents this with an increasing DC number.
Also,
Is it a creature you would assume had popular books or childrens tales writen about them... again common knowledge. Things like Gryphons, Vampires, Dragons, Goblins, Trolls, Orcs, ect... they are both common foes and should have plenty of interesting stories told regularly.
emphasis mine, on what do we base these assumptions? Proliferation of creatures as enemies in our playing history? Proliferation of creatures as enemies in APs or modules? That's not a very good standard for what actually is "common" in any given setting.
Which means that, once again, the problem is that this entire section of the skill (which can end up being pretty important to the life or death of some characters) is set up to be GM fiat.
If your GM says orcs are uncommon, she's right. Why? Because the only race specifically mentioned in the rules as common is goblins. Orcs are not goblins, if a GM chooses, they could be rare. Likewise a GM could say dragons are common. They're everywhere, you see them flying overhead all the time. You see them perched on mountain crags overlooking their domain. If that's the case, wouldn't everybody have a pretty decent working knowledge of their abilities, and maybe even weaknesses?
It's the arbitrariness of the thing, that makes me desire for a community standard. I mean ideally I'd like a listing of every creature in all three bestiaries, and to have the community vote on whether that creature is common, uncommon, or rare in their campaign world. Good luck! That's why I settled on a rough percentage. A percent number of creatures that are common, at least gives me a place to start gauging things on my own.
Which means that, once again, the problem is that this entire section of the skill (which can end up being pretty important to the life or death of some characters) is set up to be GM fiat.
I really don't see what that's a problem or a bad thing at all. More things should be up to the GM, in my opinion.
In fact, the thing I like the least about D&D post 2e is the focus on depowering the GM.
You have to consider the terrain (coastline/desert/forest etc and cold/temperate/warm) at least. Each bestiary has an appendix of monsters by terrain, so a starting point might be 'low CR monsters are common in their listed terrain and uncommon to rare the further away they get'. But I'm afraid it is GM fiat, and I wouldn't want to change that.
For example, in Katapesh everyone will recognise gnolls as they're traders - they may be more common than dwarves or elves. And there are lots of genies in Jalmeray. And that sort of distinctive regional flavour's important to make new regions interesting, and give you the sense of being in a new and strange land.
Rarity tends to go by region. To give an example, when I was six, I visited the zoo in Frankfurt, Germany. There were a whole bunch of kids crowding around one cage to look at some amazing animal. I went and looked. It was a hummingbird.
I live in California, at the foot of Mt. Umunum, which is the old Ohlone word for "Home of the Hummingbirds." I walk out into my backyard past the fuchsia and they buzz me, scolding me if I haven't refilled the feeder lately.
Same thing will go on in a fantasy kingdom: Is a unicorn a fabulous beast you've only heard stories about, maybe seen a stylized version on a pub sign somewhere, or is there a unicorn that lives in the forest by your house and sometimes comes into your garden to nibble the cabbages?
The easiest way to do it is to just set a difficulty to know about any particular beast then apply a modifier if such a beast is notably common, rare, or unheard of where a character grew up. Someone from a landlocked country who has never seen the ocean, let alone sailed up on a ship, will not be able to tell the difference between a kraken and a giant squid.
Someone who's lived in the Darklands all his life will not be able to tell the difference between a domestic pig and a wild boar, or a wolf and a dog. They may have seen honey before, since imports and exports can happen anywhere, but think it comes from the udders of cows. I mean, there are four teats, and they've heard of the land of "Milk and Honey." One is for milk and one must be for honey. Presumably the other two dispense coffee and tea, right? What, honey is vomited by insects into perfectly formed hexagonal wax receptacles? And the insects inject you with poison from their butts? I'm sorry, you failed your Bluff check. There's no way I'm believing you.
Someone else from the Darklands will say that they have it on good authority that honey comes from bears, but the forest dwelling type, not the cave bears those in the Darklands are familiar with. Bears keep it in jars marked "HUNNEE."
|
Someone who's lived in the Darklands all his life will not be able to tell the difference between a domestic pig and a wild boar, or a wolf and a dog. They may have seen honey before, since imports and exports can happen anywhere, but think it comes from the udders of cows. I mean, there are four teats, and they've heard of the land of "Milk and Honey." One is for milk and one must be for honey. Presumably the other two dispense coffee and tea, right?
Oh, Kevin. Now you got me humming that old schoolyard classic.
"Milk, Milk, Lemonade.
Round the corner Chocolate's made!"
(bonus points if you do the moves)
It's the arbitrariness of the thing, that makes me desire for a community standard. I mean ideally I'd like a listing of every creature in all three bestiaries, and to have the community vote on whether that creature is common, uncommon, or rare in their campaign world. Good luck! That's why I settled on a rough percentage. A percent number of creatures that are common, at least gives me a place to start gauging things on my own.
I think you are heading in the right direction. I believe this will end up being a setting by setting answer. In my world the Orc is a common monster and is seen on a regular basis. In Bob's world there is only one small tribe of orcs on a small island far out to sea. The GM will have to make the final call.
So as a GM I would end up with a listing of every creature in all three bestiaries showing if they are common, uncommon, or rare in my campaign world. Of course that would be a lot fo work but it is the only way I can see to give your quest a real answer for a particular setting.
I was considering becoming an adventurer when guidance counselor told me, "if you are interested in a career as an adventurer you should check out these pamphlets." It was the pamphlet Undead Opponents & the Adventurer that got me interested in my eventual career path.
Depending on how characters got into adventuring it could vary from 5% to 95%. If a character has been trained to be an adventurer since a young age then they would have a pretty good knowledge of monsters, it is an important job skill. If the character was a peasant farmer who no one ever expected to travel more than 5 miles from where she was born before being dragooned into adventuring, then she would have minimal knowledge of monsters and even animals like lions could be unknown or at best known only though campfire tales.
Honestly, if a player for a Pathfinder game wanted to have their character specifically trained to recognize monsters because they were trained as an adventurer, I'd tell them to take the "Collector of Stories" skill trick from the 3.5 Complete Scoundrel which gives a +5 bonus to all Knowledge checks to identify creatures and declare that this is now a Pathfinder trait, though I'd also apply it to the kid who liked collecting bestiaries or was the daughter of the imperial menagerie keeper.
And then you'd start your next campaign in the same world, but in the frozen northern kingdom or in the desert instead of the temperate forested kingdom of your first game and have to change your listing all over again.
I would rather that he spend the time making new lists then us trying to create a community wide rule that half of us would never agree to. The reality is that what he is looking for *is* a setting specific list. That is why I said he is heading in the right direction.
It's just so weird that a rare but extremely weak creature (CR 1/2, Check ~15-16) is just as easy or easier to know all about than a fairly powerful but ubiquitous creature (CR 15, Check ~20)
It's just so weird that a rare but extremely weak creature (CR 1/2, Check ~15-16) is just as easy or easier to know all about than a fairly powerful but ubiquitous creature (CR 15, Check ~20)
Books are written and sermons are given on the power of dragons and the "outsiders," creatures from beyond the mortal world. Great pieces of art are commissioned, built, campaigned against and torn down of these alien beasts and creatures so far removed from the mortal kin.
When was the last time you heard a folk tale about the platypus?
When was the last time you heard a folk tale about the platypus?
Last night, when I sat with my son and listened to a tale about a great platypus named Perry... ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's just so weird that a rare but extremely weak creature (CR 1/2, Check ~15-16) is just as easy or easier to know all about than a fairly powerful but ubiquitous creature (CR 15, Check ~20)Books are written and sermons are given on the power of dragons and the "outsiders," creatures from beyond the mortal world. Great pieces of art are commissioned, built, campaigned against and torn down of these alien beasts and creatures so far removed from the mortal kin.
When was the last time you heard a folk tale about the platypus?
In Golarion, that tale begins with "One night Cayden Cailean and Lamashtu got very drunk..."
Honestly its a judgement call. I don't see it being a huge issue with it being a on the spot GM decision either.
A quick look at the creature. Determine how rare it is. Determine whether there would be alot of knowledge about said creature. And then come up with a DC for the knowledge check. I feel like your trying to make it harder on yourself then need be.
I'm very good at making things hard on myself. <------ Please avoid inserting crass joke here. Part of the reason for that is I like to take absolutely everything out of my hands that can be taken out of them. <------ I'm starting to see a theme here. Why? Insecurity. If I don't make the decision on what's common, uncommon, and rare, then I'm not the butt-end of any backlash or snide commentary when gamers disagree. I mean, could I sit down with my groups one night and just go through the bestiaries and have us all agree on their commonness or uncommonness, one by one by one...? Yeah, but... hey wait, that actually sounds like fun.