I think monster knowledge is one of those things pretty much every DM/GM does differently.
For myself, on a check meeting the baseline DC, I usually give name, type, all type traits, plus one or two abilities or combat-relevant statistics. For each +5 afterwards, I give another two abilities or combat-relevant statistics.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of people goof up monster ID checks, whether from actually understanding the rules wrong or from poor execution.
For instance, there have been loads of times that I've ID'd a monster and the GM told me the name, and I got the distinct impression they were assuming I (as a player) knew some basics about them, and the GM announcing the name was supposed to be permission for my PC to know those things.
So it could be that the GM thought he gave you multiple pieces of information by announcing it was a sandman.
Alternatively, many people misremember monster ID rules as saying that meeting the DC simply "identifies" the monster, which they in turn think means knowing the name. They then think you don't start getting actual information until DC+5.
How it's supposed to work is that hitting the DC gets one piece of "useful information", as does each 5 by which you exceed the DC. Exceptionally common or rare creatures could have DCs ranging from 5+CR to 15+CR, and different GMs will have different ideas of what qualifies.
So my completely speculative guess as to what happened is that the GM classified the sandman as "rare", for a base DC of 18, gave you the name (and possibly some assumed basics) for meeting that DC, and one additional question for hitting +5 (the 23 the sorcerer rolled).
Hope that helps!
Yeah, I don't think they'd be as "unique" as the Tarrasque, so 10+CR is about right. So with a DC of 13, and a roll of 23, you met the DC and got 10 higher.
Meeting the DC gives you "a bit of useful information about that monster" regarding their "their special powers or vulnerabilities".
As GM, I would have given 3 bits of useful info about the sandman. At the very least, the GM should have given the name and two bits of info.
I would have probably answered with: "You know this is a sandman, a feared elemental of earth that plagues desert travelers. It is hard to find because it can look like a pile of sand, and it's particularly feared for it's sleep-based aura."
Name, creature type, pile of sand ability, and sleep ability. Name + 3 things.
|
Yeah, I don't think they'd be as "unique" as the Tarrasque, so 10+CR is about right. So with a DC of 13, and a roll of 23, you met the DC and got 10 higher.
Meeting the DC gives you "a bit of useful information about that monster" regarding their "their special powers or vulnerabilities".
As GM, I would have given 3 bits of useful info about the sandman. At the very least, the GM should have given the name and two bits of info.
I would have probably answered with: "You know this is a sandman, a feared elemental of earth that plagues desert travelers. It is hard to find because it can look like a pile of sand, and it's particularly feared for it's sleep-based aura."
Name, creature type, pile of sand ability, and sleep ability. Name + 3 things.
So by your post as a GM you will give out what info you feel like? I was under the impression that the players got to ask questions not the GM just giving out random monster info.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So by your post as a GM you will give out what info you feel like? I was under the impression that the players got to ask questions not the GM just giving out random monster info.
The rules don't mention how this is done at all. None of the groups I've played in have used the "players asking questions" method (I wasn't aware that some people did it that way until I started visiting these forums). Both methods should work fine for the purpose.
Edit: It might be worth mentioning that in later 3.5 monster manuals, each monster had a sidebar detailing what specific pieces of information you got for the various check results.
|
|
So by your post as a GM you will give out what info you feel like? I was under the impression that the players got to ask questions not the GM just giving out random monster info.The rules don't mention how this is done at all. None of the groups I've played in have used the "players asking questions" method (I wasn't aware that some people did it that way until I started visiting these forums). Both methods should work fine for the purpose.
Edit: It might be worth mentioning that in later 3.5 monster manuals, each monster had a sidebar detailing what specific pieces of information you got for the various check results.
Your right doesnt say anything about how the knowledge is given, just that info about a monster is remembered and that its useful info.
"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."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently I tend to be fairly liberal when it comes to these things.
Upon making the 5+CR, 10+CR, or 15+CR check I give out the name, type, and all subtypes, as well as the universal monster rules for those subtypes. I consider that general knowledge that anyone with one rank in the appropriate Knowledge skill would know.
It also lets Rangers know its their Favored Enemy and alerts Inquisitors what to Bane.
Beyond that, I let them ask questions about that specific monster for every 5 they beat the DC by.
And I don't give out numbers, like HP, AC, saves, the numerical DR or energy resistance, etc.
But, as others have said, it's a grey area that is the definition of table variation (even in PFS).
|
|
Upon making the 5+CR, 10+CR, or 15+CR check I give out the name, type, and all subtypes, as well as the universal monster rules for those subtypes. I consider that general knowledge that anyone with one rank in the appropriate Knowledge skill would know.
It also lets Rangers know its their Favored Enemy and alerts Inquisitors what to Bane.
Rangers are allowed to make untrained knowledge checks to identify their favored enemy.
My question on this topic is -
PFS play. We were facing an undead incorporeal enemy. The group knew it was undead. We could see that regular damage was not harming it. I wanted to know if my character (who could cast a wand of CLW - Spell on PRD) would know that positive energy could harm undead and therefore would know that the wand could be used to harm this thing. It was ruled that this would be a common knowledge check, DC 10. I then failed my untrained check so therefore did not know I could do what I wanted to do.
When looking at the description of the spell (I did not at the time) it says clearly that it can be used to harm undead. So I guess I would not actually need a knowledge check, is that correct?
What if the group members failed their knowledge checks to ID the enemy. If the gm considered it a common enough monster, could it be identified (no fancy info, just the creature type) by a successful untrained check (DC 10)?
|
|
Your check might have been to determine that the enemy you were facing was, indeed, undead. Not sure if your group had made a knowledge check and IDed the monster as undead earlier.
If the GM decides that it is a common monster, therefore DC 5+CR, and the CR is 5 or less, then, yes, you should be able to get at least basic knowledge on it, even untrained, if the total DC is 10 or less, and you get a roll total that equals or exceeds that number.
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.
You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit is removed. The time to make checks using a library, however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in the fields that they cover.
|
|
It was an uncommon monster but the group had already successfully identified it as undead. I think the check was just done because I asked the question and the dm did not have an answer right away so a suggestion was made to make it a dc10 check which worked fine to keep things moving along.
In the future I will certainly make sure to double check the spell description since that would have simplified things. Anyway, thanks for the response.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't fix what ain't broke. The skill says it's not an action to use and that you can't retry.
There are some circumstances where I'll allow a retry.
For example, if the characters hear a description of a monster I'll allow a knowledge check (at significant minuses). I'd then allow a reroll when they actually see it.
So by your post as a GM you will give out what info you feel like? I was under the impression that the players got to ask questions not the GM just giving out random monster info.The rules don't mention how this is done at all. None of the groups I've played in have used the "players asking questions" method (I wasn't aware that some people did it that way until I started visiting these forums). Both methods should work fine for the purpose.
Edit: It might be worth mentioning that in later 3.5 monster manuals, each monster had a sidebar detailing what specific pieces of information you got for the various check results.
Given that the GM is deciding the rarity of the creature, and therefore the DC of the check, it seems natural to me that the GM decides what information is "remembered". System mastery would otherwise allow some players to ask "better" questions. The GM should be in charge of the encounter.
Having said that, many GMs have difficulty with these checks. I think it reasonable to rely on one of more players to help with which knowledge skill is relevant, and suggestions or leading questions that will make it go smoothly and be useful. This is also advisable if the GM knows that they tend to guard and withhold this info. It is an old instinct with many....
For some reason, the other GMs in my very experienced game group get totally hung up on this use of knowledge.
As an aside, it drives me absolutely bonkers that Knowledge (Local) is the skill used to identify Humanoid Type critters. Per the CRB this skill is used to learn about Ogres, Storm Giants, Trolls, etc. REALLY?
Unfortunately, the best alternative is Knowledge (Nature) which is already fairly laden with info. But it seems the best choice.
Also, why in hell is a Troll a Humanoid anyway. Aren't they the very definition of Monstrous Humanoid?
/rant
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: It might be worth mentioning that in later 3.5 monster manuals, each monster had a sidebar detailing what specific pieces of information you got for the various check results.
There's also a player-made 3.5 player lore compendium as well, which extends this to creatures that didn't have official lore sidebars in 3.5. Not PF RAW, but I think it gives some idea of common practice. Which seems to include giving type, subtype, and associated qualities as part of the base check.
Personally I will sometimes give type or subtype to a character who narrowly fails a Knowledge check eg "you're not sure what it is exactly, but it's definitely some sort of undead."
I also tend to lean towards most notable attack for my first fact, with weaknesses/resistances coming soon after.
On just making the DC to ID a wyvern: "This is a wyvern, a dragon (thus immune to sleep and paralysis) known for its poisonous sting"
On beating the DC to ID a mummy by 5: "This is a mummy, an undead (associated qualities). Its touch spreads a terrible disease known as mummy rot, and its wrappings are vulnerable to fire."
Making a knowledge check is not a conscious action. As an example if I and my friend are sitting on the porch and a car goes by and he says it is a 1975 Ford Mustang Turbo X21 with 300 HP and V8 engine, and 2500 were custom made and retail for 50000 due to being rare he just made a knowledge check because he knows the information. That is why it is a non action, and there is no retry because if he does not know it then he does not know it.
PS: Yes, I know in real life sometimes we temporarily forget things.
PS2: I dont know anything about cars so I made up most of that info. <---before someone tries to correct me. :)
I think a web ressource/app like the post linked by Weirdo would be nice to have. :)
Especially for new DMs etc.
So by your post as a GM you will give out what info you feel like? I was under the impression that the players got to ask questions not the GM just giving out random monster info.The rules don't mention how this is done at all. None of the groups I've played in have used the "players asking questions" method (I wasn't aware that some people did it that way until I started visiting these forums). Both methods should work fine for the purpose.
Edit: It might be worth mentioning that in later 3.5 monster manuals, each monster had a sidebar detailing what specific pieces of information you got for the various check results.
Given that the GM is deciding the rarity of the creature, and therefore the DC of the check, it seems natural to me that the GM decides what information is "remembered". System mastery would otherwise allow some players to ask "better" questions. The GM should be in charge of the encounter.
Having said that, many GMs have difficulty with these checks. I think it reasonable to rely on one of more players to help with which knowledge skill is relevant, and suggestions or leading questions that will make it go smoothly and be useful. This is also advisable if the GM knows that they tend to guard and withhold this info. It is an old instinct with many....
Until they've identified the monster (at least by type) how do the players know which knowledge skill is relevant?
More generally for those that allow asking questions, do you expect players to metagame what they ask or should they ask more generic questions?
I had meant to mention that as one more reason it lies entirely in the GM's purview. The GM will need help, unless he has a detailed list of all PC's Knowledge skills, and religiously checks it. But, part of my point is that the PC doesn't "know" what questions to ask, nor even, as you said, what skill to "use".
|
|
I had meant to mention that as one more reason it lies entirely in the GM's purview. The GM will need help, unless he has a detailed list of all PC's Knowledge skills, and religiously checks it. But, part of my point is that the PC doesn't "know" what questions to ask, nor even, as you said, what skill to "use".Until they've identified the monster (at least by type) how do the players know which knowledge skill is relevant?
More generally for those that allow asking questions, do you expect players to metagame what they ask or should they ask more generic questions?
It's tricky. I try to keep track of who has what Knowledge skills but often when encountering a monster without an obvious type I'll ask for one of several knowledge checks eg if it's some sort of reptilian thing I'll ask for Nature (animals) or Arcana (dragon or magical beast). Then I'll give info according to the appropriate skill - for example if it turns out it's a dinosaur I'll tell the character who rolled Nature he ID'd it if the roll is high enough. If the character with the right knowledge fails but the one with the wrong knowledge rolls high I'll tell them that they can rule out the relevant types ("This creature doesn't seem magical in nature to you").
Don't fix what ain't broke. The skill says it's not an action to use and that you can't retry.All I can say to this is: "Know Thy Enemy" which is both a spell and a special ability of one or more class archetypes.
The spell appears to grant a reroll by common sense in that most groups automatically allow a free knowledge check immediately on encountering a monster and the spell describes thinking back to a monster previously encountered. Since it grants a hefty bonus to the check it makes sense that the character might remember something about the monster that he/she hadn't thought of at the time.
Class abilities like those of the Lore Warden or Student of War that allow Knowledge checks as part of a non-free action do not mean that a normal Knowledge check is not made as a free action. Instead these abilities give you the option to increase the time spent identifying the creature, making a more careful than usual study in order to gain special tactical advantages.