Alright; so normally a PC can use the applicable knowledge skill to make a check to learn about opponents' special powers and vulnerabilities. This is based on the type of creature being fought.
The question: is information about a creatures' subtype (specifically the swarm subtype) information learned with a knowledge check, or is that public knowledge?
What I'm having problems with is the fact that the swarm subtype, being what it is, isn't tied to a specific creature type (and therefore knowledge check,) so I'm not sure if/how the PCs learn about how to deal with the special rules of swarms. At this point, I'm leaning towards the following possible answers to the question:
A) Swarm rules are a property of the monster, and with the appropriate knowledge check, the info about swarms is presented like any other monster lore;
B) Swarm rules are a mechanical game subsystem, and the information is publicly available like any other game rules, and monster lore only really applies to the individual creatures that inhabit the swarm;
C) Through trial and error let the PCs learn things the hard way. (This answer strikes me as very old-school; possibly venturing into the territory of "unfair.")
Any thoughts?
A and C and logic
Fighting against a wasp swarm with a dagger is not effective. A torch is better, alchemistic fire too and burning hands or a fireball will kill the swarm.
You don't learn specifically about the swarm subtype. At least not under the current rules.
Most swarms I believe fall into either vermin or animal creature types. By properly identifing the creature using the correct type of knowledge (Nature), I usually provide any important information about creature type and subtype that may be important to the players, as reward for making the check successfully.
I guess since most creatures that form swarms fall into animal and vermin and since both are knowledge nature you could say that someone can know the general attribute of swarms (the information presented in the swarm subtype) by making a knowledge(nature) check, DC 10?
|
My interpretation is that if the party makes the appropriate DC (5+CR for common encounters, 15+CR for rare/unique, 10+CR for everything else) I'll give them all pertinent information about the creature's subtypes. In the case of swarms that usually includes almost everything they need to know. Then for every 5 they beat the DC by I'll let them ask a question about that particular swarm.
Say it was a CR 5 Fire Elemental instead, and they made a 20 skill check. I'd tell them all the details about the Elemental subtype for free, and then let them ask one question about that particular elemental.
It works for me because I have a handy booklet I carry around that lists all the various creature types and subtypes out there, so it's easy for me to reference. YMMV.
In my mind, a knowledge check gives you this information. The subtype is party of the creature, you know about the creature. You heard or read one time, "Spiders in swarms are difficult to fend off with weapons, fire works better". I would go with A, and ofcourse C also if players dont have the knowledge or failr their check. If they struggle against a swarm of spiders in the sewers, reasonably intelligent people (characters) would be able to translate that difficulty to swarms of bees in the woods later on.
Much about swarms is intuitive - it's obvious that you cannot fight a swarm with a sword, you need a way to cover them with an area attack.
B, unless the PC is a complete idiot.
Much about swarms is intuitive - it's obvious that you cannot fight a swarm with a sword, you need a way to cover them with an area attack.
I agree. I'd call this "PC common sense" (as opposed to "player common sense"). It's like choice (B) above, but I'd go even further: not only do PCs know everything in the combat section of the rules without needing a Knowledge check (e.g. flanking an opponent is good, being flanked is bad), but obvious features of monsters shouldn't require Knowledge checks either (e.g. if you're attacked by a skeleton, even a dumb person knows that smashing bones to pieces with a hammer is easier than poking them to pieces with a needle).