Monster Knowledge & Perception

[Kryx]

At what distance can a player see enough details so that they can make a knowledge check against a monster?

Is this governed by Perception? Is it a DC 0? DC 5? What if the creature is concealed or in cover? What about dim light?

Or do they automatically just see the creature no matter the light levels, cover, distance, etc.

Any RAW, RAI, or houserules in this regard is appreciated. Obviously there is some kind of limit, but I don't want to screw over my players.

[Dafydd]

There is no real perception check.

In my games, I allow a perception check (5 if out of combat, 0 if in) to know what category the thing is, or appears to be. A high perception might pierce the disguise, if the creature is disguised, and thus the DC is the disguise check.

Obviously, the PC need to be able to see the thing, so if there is no light, they need darkvision. If there is dim light, they need to have low light.

I do allow different people to do different parts, a spotter to see the creature and describe it to the KN user. DC increases by 5 on the id check.

Above is basically all house rule btw, no official rules I know of on this.

[Bane Wraith]

Whatever level of perception or awareness you judge fit, I'd recommend keeping in mind that knowledge checks are generally never able to be retried. Whatever information you gleam from a knowledge check, that's all you typically get.

While it seems perfectly fair as a GM to overrule this, and instead allow multiple knowledge checks based on a gradient of perception and useful new observations, the rules don't reflect that. Furthermore, nothing in the knowledge page hints towards increasing or decreasing the DC based on observable conditions. Any knowledge check made, regardless of perception, is normally final.

ALL THAT BEING SAID...

It seems to be entirely a GM's call as to what's sufficient to justify a knowledge check. The environment, perhaps. The nature of the monster's audible grunts and groans. Some unique behavior, or attack, even unseen. Full visual observation seems to be the clincher (Though even that's troublesome, with naturally invisible monsters).

One of my GMs longer ago seemed to like asking the player what observations they were going to base their knowledge on, and arbitrarily decided afterwards whether there was a chance of that succeeding.

As Dafydd said; there's no rule supporting it. If the players are aware of a monster's presence at all, by RAW, they can make that fully unhindered knowledge check.

[Kayerloth]

The only comments I might add is go ahead a run with it some, especially if this is your campaign and not bound by PFS. And one possible way to handle the single roll decides all 'problem' would be to have the player make the single roll and apply everything but the perception based mods and just add details to what you reveal as the perception mods beat the needed DC by increasing amounts if you follow me.

[Kryx]

This is my own game so I have full control. Just trying to do something that is fair.

I came across a very similar thing under Spellcraft:

"Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors."

Obviously this is left up for DM fiat to decide the final DC, but is there any baseline DC to "clearly see the spell" before adding any penalties?

[Rhatahema]

I would suggest handling it with circumstance modifiers. For instance, say the character succeeds on a perception check to hear a distant call from some creature. If they wanted to ID the creature based on its call, you might up the knowledge DC by +2 for identifying through sound only, and +2 for the difficulty hearing the noise. Keep note of the character's check, and when they encounter that same creature up close, compare that check to the lower DC to see if they learn any additional information.

Some creatures have distinctive sounds, smells, silhouettes, etc., others don't. I'd adjust DCs on the fly and most of all keep things simple. If it's important for the creature's identity to remain a mystery, up the DC liberally. If not, up the DC by less.

[Bacon666]

Perception is only needed if the monster is stealthing, or is otherwise hidden...

If the monster is in cover, I add the AC bonus to the stealth check...

Distance without stealth is handled on a case by case scenario (penalty on the knowledge roll due to distance)

[Kryx]

Ah, I finally understood the bit under Spellcraft.

Quote:

Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

It means you get a penalty to Spellcraft based on the penalties from perception (distance, cover, etc).

[Gark the Goblin]

Bacon666 wrote:

Perception is only needed if the monster is stealthing, or is otherwise hidden...

Or if they're really far away. Base DC is 0 to notice a visible creature, +1/10 feet of distance.

[That Crazy Alchemist]

There isn't really anything RAW but in most every case, when the battle music has started up and initiatives are rolled, as long as there is nothing directly obscuring the monsters like fog or a curtain then they are probably clear enough for the PC's to start rolling knowledges.

[Kryx]

My group and I decided on a houserule:

"If you identify a spell being cast you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors." Penalties for distance start after 30 feet. If your Perception bonus is greater than 6 the penalties for distance start after your Perception bonus multiplied by 5

This means a PC with a Perception of 7 would start subtracting 1 from his Spellcraft for every 10 feet beyond 35ft. (5*7=35)
A PC with a Perception of 15 would start subtracting 1 from his Spellcraft for every 10 feet beyond 75ft. (5*15=75)

It's slightly rules heavy, but we're ok with that.

We'll use the same wording for Monster Lore.

[That Crazy Alchemist]

Kryx wrote:

My group and I decided on a houserule:

"If you identify a spell being cast you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors." Penalties for distance start after 30 feet. If your Perception bonus is greater than 6 the penalties for distance start after your Perception bonus multiplied by 5

This means a PC with a Perception of 7 would start subtracting 1 from his Spellcraft for every 10 feet beyond 35ft. (5*7=35)
A PC with a Perception of 15 would start subtracting 1 from his Spellcraft for every 10 feet beyond 75ft. (5*15=75)

It's slightly rules heavy, but we're ok with that.

We'll use the same wording for Monster Lore.

The problem with doing it this way is it encourages players to wait until they are at the optimal distance before making their roll since Knowledge checks may only be made once so they only have one shot. Essentially the characters will be purposefully trying not to remember what a creature is until they are at a specific distance away from it and that's just silly.

[Kryx]

So is the idea that you make it once when you see the creature (say 400 ft) and do poorly because you notice very few details.

If they decide to wait a round or two in order to get the default level of bonuses then that's fine imo. Most groups play without any negatives based on distance anyways.

[That Crazy Alchemist]

But that was my point, playing with negatives based on distance results in players actively trying not to identify a monster until they are right on top of them to get the optimal roll. Makes much more sense just to roll em the moment you see em and ignore distance penalties completely.

[Dafydd]

If you are tossing negatives for distance, why not allow retries once closer.

GM: You see a creature in the sky over head. It is coming closer.

Now, you can make a perception check to identify its a dragon. Once you know its a dragon, you make a KN arcana to ID what a dragon of that color does. (Type of breath weapon, resistances, usual alignments)

GM: It is now much closer and you can see finer details. You would hazard a guess that it is a Large Red Dragon.

Now they may make another check for what kinda abilities such a sized dragon has. (Size of breath weapon, damage reduction, special abilities, possible age categories)

[That Crazy Alchemist]

Dafydd wrote:

If you are tossing negatives for distance, why not allow retries once closer.

GM: You see a creature in the sky over head. It is coming closer.

Now, you can make a perception check to identify its a dragon. Once you know its a dragon, you make a KN arcana to ID what a dragon of that color does. (Type of breath weapon, resistances, usual alignments)

GM: It is now much closer and you can see finer details. You would hazard a guess that it is a Large Red Dragon.

Now they may make another check for what kinda abilities such a sized dragon has. (Size of breath weapon, damage reduction, special abilities, possible age categories)

All that extra rolling slows the game down to a crawl. There are already enough dice being thrown around that more isn't a good thing. From experience it's best to streamline the Knowledge rolls rather than impede them, makes everyone happier. As a GM, immediately after initiatives were rolled, I would have everyone roll appropriate knowledges before anyone's taken a turn because this steamlined the process. There was no: "Oh I forgot to roll my knowledge on my turn", no distance penalties, no trying harder to remember, nothing to slog up the gameplay. The players either knew the creatures immediately or they didn't. Works great, try it!

[Jeff Merola]

If you really want to use distance penalties on Knowledge checks, here's how I'd do it:
1) Have them roll Knowledge as soon as they can see it and tell you the result.
2) Write down their results, apply appropriate penalties, and give them the info that the penalized checks would get.
3) As soon as they get close enough that their reduced penalty on their roll would let them know more, give it to them.

For instance, let's take a Young Red Dragon at 200' as an example. The party wizard rolls a total of a 30 before distance, which means he's gotten a 10 from where he's standing. The DC is 20 (for this example, I'm saying that while a true dragon is iconic, it's not exactly common, so the DC is 10+CR), so at this distance the wizard can't identify it. As soon as the distance closes to 100', he realizes "Wait, that's a Young Red Dragon!" but doesn't know anything else about it. When it closes to 50', he gets one piece of info, and if he ever gets within 5' of it he gets another.

Personally, I'd never do this myself as it just adds more work for me, and I don't see a problem with identifying a monster you can just barely see.

[Emmanuel Nouvellon-Pugh]

Shouldn't we section this off at the close, medium, and long range of spells, with caster level being ranks in perception?

[Kryx]

We don't mind the slight extra complexity. However I do like the suggestion about using the same knowledge roll and giving more info if they get closer.

Emmanuel Nouvellon-Pugh wrote:

Shouldn't we section this off at the close, medium, and long range of spells, with caster level being ranks in perception?

I based my houserule off of the RAW for spellcraft (even made it less punishing by ignoring 30ft of distance).

If you have a suggestion on how to handle it with close, medium, and long then please do share. :)

[Aratrok]

I haven't implemented it, but I've been kicking around an idea similar to what FantasyCraft uses to deal with distance based Perception and Spellcraft penalties; visual range increments.

Instead of cutting perception checks by -1 per 10 feet, you have a visual range increment equal to your Wisdom score multiplied by 5, and you can pick out details and spot creatures at a maximum of 20 increments away. Anything further than that has to be exceptionally large (like general landscape, mountains, or very large structures), or you have to have circumstances in your favor (like using a spyglass or having a vantage point- this section of the rules needs defining to be fair to players and not rely on GM fiat, though as is it doesn't any more than the current rules). For every increment something is away from you, you take a -2 penalty on Perception checks, similar to attack range increments. Creatures with exceptional senses might have longer increments, like elves and half elves (which have Keen Senses).

The perception check to spot a creature that's not moving is DC 0 plus or minus their Stealth penalty from size. DC -5 base if they're moving, and DC -20 base if they're running.

This results in a totally average human (10 Wis, +0 Perception) being able to pick out an immobile medium sized creature up to ~300 feet away most of the time. ~400 feet away if they're walking or hustling, and ~800 feet away if they're sprinting, with differing odds with rolls for people further away. It also does away with the weird short-sightedness characters get in Pathfinder, where the average person can't see much of anything 100 or more feet away from them, and slightly nerfs Stealth (and by association, invisibility) by making it much harder to take a wide berth around someone and just be utterly undetectable.

I haven't applied anything like this to Knowledge checks, but including range penalties but giving more information as you get closer sounds pretty slick to me. I'm partial to just letting you make the knowledge check if you've hit the DC to spot the creature, though, for the sake of ease of play.