|
The rules are great for knowledge checks, they describe to us what knowledge corresponds to what monster we might find the wild but all too often does it feel like as a GM my monsters simply run into humanoids and can only judge them based on how they look but even judging how they look can be quite subjective.
Say for example my Kobolds are about to ambush a party, of course laying traps, could the Kobold rogue use his Kn: Arcana to identify the difference between a Wizard or Sorcerer? And say he succeeds and identifies it as a Wizard would that be sufficient reason for him to use his Improved Steal on the Wizards spell component pouch?
I am only wondering how much, from a GMs perspective do we take Knowledge checks for granted. If a party fails their check it can be quite disastrous at times but as a GM our monsters always know the relative strengths and weaknesses of the party, for example having my Orc send his Lion/Tiger/Bear animal companion to pounce/grapple the Wizard or cleric.
My closing question is how do other GMs handle Knowledge checks from a "Monster's" point of view and do you make it a rule to use them at all? And if I am simple using to much Meta Information as the Gm and should be playing my side dumber if they have no knowledge skills.
I think it depends on how you like to run games as a GM, what kind of style you prefer. If you run open-ended games where you improvise a lot, or need to make stuff up in a second, I think having a rough guidline for estimating monster knowledge isn't a bad idea. To keep it slim, I would just reduce it to a simple, unspecified DC 15 Knowledge check or something, there are more important rules to worry about (and to waste time over). If you like to run games with a tight framework, or AP's or whatever, you usually have some information as to how team monster (re)acts to the players, and don't need to make dedicated Knowledge checks all that often.
It also depends on the world you're playing in. If arcane magic is widely known, and your orcs are of the typical marauding type, they will of course know how typical spellcasters look like - for them, it is a matter of survival. However, you should be careful with tactics like this, because it can easily escalate into the proverbial arm's race. You target the spellcasters more often, the party adapts, you circumvent their new tactics, they step up the game even further, and so on.
Personally, I like to run with a diverse cast of monsters, so the players will engage dumb ones and smart ones, and combat tactics on both sides switch often.
|
The PHB2 in 3.5 included knowledge checks for identifying members of the new classes introduced in that book. There was also a mechanic for Sense Motive checks to determine if an opponent was tougher/weaker than you. I think the Sense Motive was a flat DC20, but the Knowledge checks worked like normal with higher results revealing higher level class abilities. Basically, you might recognize a wizard or specialist wizard with a Knowledge Arcana check (but not what specific spells he can cast) and guess how powerful he is if you use Sense Motive to sum him up. Some classes lend themselves to certain knowledges (Rogues = Local, Clerics = Religion, Rangers = Nature,) but other classes and archetypes can confuse things. I'd rule Fighters are Knowledge Local unless the character has an archetype, theme or backstory that suggests Nobility. Just go with what feels right.