| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Up to GM discretion. Number of questions based off CR of monster, their roll and whether the monster is unique. I normally tailor how generous I am with the experience of the group. Special attacks, I'll normally only give one per question. I've not seen any hard set rules on this.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
D20PFSRD has a lot of suggestions for what you may learn, for example;
Abolth entry.
|
1 information for basic success, for each 5 point by which you beat the DC you get 1 extra information.
What is an information is a hot debate, see this thread.
BTW, it is not "a question from the players", the GM choose what he think is appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Additionally, nowhere in the chart goes any of the stuff most players want to know appear, specifically the strong Will and weak Reflex saves.
SG 17 also states "This result reveals all aberration traits." - and Abberrations in general only have good will saves.
And charts like these were actually pretty common in D&D 3.5 bestiaries. So common in fact that I'd consider them more RAI - at least for 3.5, from which Pathfinder's knowledge rules were pretty much directly copied over - than any other "one piece of information"-interpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My philosophy is that if they beat the DC by 10, they get all relevent combat info. Basically beating the DC gives you 1/3rd the combat info, and every 5 points gives you 1/3rd more.
If you break it up into one question per one stat-block item then you are forcing the players to play a guessing game and reward meta-gaming since knowing the right questions is hard. And really, if a character beats the DC by that much, they should get some reward.
For me, based off PFS, Base success (10+monster CR) Name of the monster, type, and one piece of information. For every 5 over the base DC, another question.
Types of questions I have used and recommended
HD of Creature
Lowest Saving Throw
Special Defenses in general
Specific details on a special Defense
Special Attacks in General
Specific details on a special attack
Weaknesses/Vulnerabilities
Spell-like abilities
TemplatesI have no problem sharing information, provided the players ask the right questions.
Disagree with HD. I never tell people the monsters HD. Too much meta gaming with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disagree with HD. I never tell people the monsters HD. Too much meta gaming with it.For me, based off PFS, Base success (10+monster CR) Name of the monster, type, and one piece of information. For every 5 over the base DC, another question.
Types of questions I have used and recommended
HD of Creature
Lowest Saving Throw
Special Defenses in general
Specific details on a special Defense
Special Attacks in General
Specific details on a special attack
Weaknesses/Vulnerabilities
Spell-like abilities
TemplatesI have no problem sharing information, provided the players ask the right questions.
Saves are metagame. Most defenses are metagame. Lots of special attacks are metagame. Knowing HD allows you to know if certain spells will work, which is something that a competent caster should know if he made the knowledge check.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My philosophy is that if they beat the DC by 10, they get all relevent combat info. Basically beating the DC gives you 1/3rd the combat info, and every 5 points gives you 1/3rd more.
If you break it up into one question per one stat-block item then you are forcing the players to play a guessing game and reward meta-gaming since knowing the right questions is hard. And really, if a character beats the DC by that much, they should get some reward.
Agreed; knowledge checks should give important information in my view, handing out useless tidbits just to make things more difficult only frustrates new players who actually don't know what the monster is while annoying the players who do (I made my knowledge check and I know that this monster is immune to my usual stuff but you're intentionally not giving my character the knowledge that the monster is immune to his usual stuff).
|
You really shouldn't be allowing players to ask questions at all, imho.
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.It's up to the GM what a "bit of useful information" is.
On a successful check I typically explain/remind all the basic qualities of a creature of that type. (for free)
Then I'll go over some things which that monster is famous/well-known for. Dragons breathing fire. Giants throwing rocks. A harpy's song. etc. I'm usually quite generous here.
If they have additional successes, I'll start divulging more specific and critical information and will try to start with things I feel would be most significant / relevant to the character making a check. e.g. a fighter is more likely to remember if a creature has DR or can break weapons while a wizard is more likely to be familiar with a creature's SR or immunity to types of magic.
It takes a bit of work to get right. You don't want to give too much away, but at the same time, want to give the players information which is actually useful to reward them for their successful checks.
Seriously? How do you, as GM, know what kind of information is useful to my character?
Is it the information about SR? DR? Immunity or resistance to trips, or channel energy? Special attacks? Death effects?
No, only the player really knows what kind of information is important to his PC. And that includes not getting stupid information. If the skeleton is on fire, I don't really need you to waste my known information on the likely situation that that skeleton is resistant or immune to fire attacks. That would be a "Duh!" I would, likely, if running a spellcaster, like to know if it is vulnerable to cold attacks; or if running a typical melee type, know if it explodes when destroyed. Then again, if I am running a reach melee type, that usually is less important than knowing if it is hard to trip, or resistant to certain kinds of weapon damage. And, sometimes, I am looking for information beneficial to other members of the party, like when I run a Bard, letting someone else know how to best use their abilities against the creature.
|
|
...You really shouldn't be allowing players to ask questions at all, imho.
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.It's up to the GM what a "bit of useful information" is.
On a successful check I typically explain/remind all the basic qualities of a creature of that type. (for free)
Then I'll go over some things which that monster is famous/well-known for. Dragons breathing fire. Giants throwing rocks. A harpy's song. etc. I'm usually quite generous here.
If they have additional successes, I'll start divulging more specific and critical information and will try to start with things I feel would be most significant / relevant to the character making a check. e.g. a fighter is more likely to remember if a creature has DR or can break weapons while a wizard is more likely to be familiar with a creature's SR or immunity to types of magic.
It takes a bit of work to get right. You don't want to give too much away, but at the same time, want to give the players information which is actually useful to reward them for their successful checks.
Seriously? How do you, as GM, know what kind of information is useful to my character?
Is it the information about SR? DR? Immunity or resistance to trips, or channel energy? Special attacks? Death effects?
No, only the player really knows what kind of information is important to his PC. And that includes not getting stupid information. If the skeleton is on fire, I don't really need you to waste my known information on the likely situation that that skeleton is resistant or immune to fire attacks. That would be a "Duh!" I would, likely, if running a spellcaster, like to know if it is vulnerable to cold attacks; or if running a typical melee type, know if it explodes when destroyed. Then again, if I am running a reach melee type,
Gotta say, what?
Especially in PFS, with a rotating batch of players and PCs, you aren't going to always know what the knowledge guy would find useful.
And there are plenty of experienced GMs who suck at that kind of thing, and I have suffered under some of them.
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
Answer questions, have a bit of useful information. NOWHERE does it say that the GM determines what the player's PC finds useful. The EASIEST way to determine that is to have the player ask for the kind of information he finds useful. Now, if you run it different, that is your call, but expect the players to complain, vocally, if your definition of useful does not match theirs.
The horror tales include the GM giving out that a monster has material DR to a spellcaster making the knowledge check. Is that really useful information for a Wizard, that the demon has DR Silver? Marginal, at best. Yet I have heard and seen GMs do that very thing when they decide, on their own, to do it your way. Your way is fine for a competent GM. Unfortunately, not all GMs are competent. And you don't always know how good or bad a GM is until you are into the game for organized play, whether it is PFS, Legacy, or Adventurer's League.
So, are we going for just supercompetent GMs with a home game, so they ALWAYS know what their regular players find useful, or are we setting the bar a little lower, for public games, with a rotating stock of GMs and players, with a rotating stock of PCs, as well, so that we can get a consistent response for a knowledge check?
Heck, it would be nice if there were at least a Golarion oriented list of rarity of monsters, so we could look at it, and determine at a glance whether the base DC is 5, 10, or 15 before adding CR. For some GMs, a 7 result will give you some basic info on goblins, as a common race, for others, nothing at all, for a basic 10+CR.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How I do it.
CR+10 for normal or CR+15 for rare(GM discretion) monsters gives you the monster name, type, and CR if the players want it.
For every 5 past that they get more info. How much depends on how many abilities(to include special defenses) the monsters has.
If you beat the DC by 20 you get to know everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM's role is to run the game, guide the players, and create a fun experience.
Just coming in from left field to say: it's everyone's role to create a fun experience.... and, while the GM guides the players, the players also have a duty to guide the GM, especially if they lack experience.
A failure to adapt to criticism is a big cause of terrible GMs. We've all experienced some bad ones. Nothing wrong with a player going 'Hey, that information is not useful. Perhaps something about their saves? That'd make me feel more like my skill check is contributing'.
I don't agree with that, nor do I agree that the player should get to ask questions as a default rule.
I have seen GM's do both, or just one or the other. Both methods work. The only thing I have seen not work is giving more flavor info, that does not help the group mechanically.
A player won't always get useful info. If two players roll the same score they might get the exact same info or they might get different bits of info. Neither method is really wrong. It all boils down to playstyle and opinion.
Respect the table.
GMing a game takes a lot of work. It is cool to disagree with a GMs style, but it is their table. If the GM knows the players at the table actually know the monster stats from the MM, then asking questions gives the players a different advantage, so some GMs may want to remove that advantage. Some may want to create a sense of reality. A character may know one piece of information even though he wants to know another. Another GM may like the game-like quality of players asking questions.
Whatever style the GM uses, it takes a lot of time to come up with it. Talk to GMs before sitting at their table to get a feel for the table. If it is not a fit, don't sit.
Respect the table.
Meeting the base DC gives you the monster name and it's general type.
Each +5 over the base DC gives you one question.
|
|
Meeting the base DC gives you the monster name and it's general type.
Each +5 over the base DC gives you one question.
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.
So, where is your "useful information" about that monster?
Humanoid (goblin) is not really useful, as one example.
|
|
As a frequent PFS GM, I give the type/subtype info for meeting the check and allow for a question from the players for every 5 above that. Why? Cause that's how I learned it and that's what makes sense to me.
The character sees something that looks like it's bursting with energy - their first thought is 'Does it have a weakness?' - that's where they are focusing their mind and that's going to be the first thing they recall.
The Mesmerist has probably spent a decent amount of time figuring out the type of things it will be effective against - it can ask the relevant questions.
There's also an amount of player trust and cooperation that goes along with the questions - I'm not going to give them information that's not useful, they're not asking out of character questions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your GM doesn't know your character well enough to know what aspects of the enemy impact your character the most, then your GM isn't doing a very good job.
Though this isn't a PFS forum, the rules here are relevant to all game styles.
You sit down at a convention with 6 people you've never met and have to run a scenario in 5 hours. Yeah, even if I review every character sheet, I'm not going to know exactly what strategy or tactics they're going to try for this particular encounter.
Not just aimed at you, but everyone: Please refrain from blanket 'your GM isn't very good', 'your gm sounds inexperienced', 'experienced GMs do it this way' type comments, they're rude and disrespectful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This comes up a lot. A whole lot.
In the 4th post of this thread, Diego Rossi included a link to another thread with a lot of opinions going back and forth on this subject.
In THAT thread, I linked two other threads (my post there is the 2nd in the thread) which have even more opinions going back and forth.
And I'm sure there are dozens, maybe hundreds more threads about this.
Read those. Follow Diego's link and then my links and you'll have an abundance of advice, all different, but I'm sure it will be enough to figure out how YOU want to do it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your GM doesn't know your character well enough to know what aspects of the enemy impact your character the most, then your GM isn't doing a very good job.Though this isn't a PFS forum, the rules here are relevant to all game styles.
You sit down at a convention with 6 people you've never met and have to run a scenario in 5 hours. Yeah, even if I review every character sheet, I'm not going to know exactly what strategy or tactics they're going to try for this particular encounter.
Not just aimed at you, but everyone: Please refrain from blanket 'your GM isn't very good', 'your gm sounds inexperienced', 'experienced GMs do it this way' type comments, they're rude and disrespectful.
Most of the experienced PFS GMs I know will give the players the option of asking questions or having the GM choose the useful information. If the players ask questions, the GM is the final arbiter of what questions are too broad and would count as more than one question.
Often, if the players ask questions, they will ask one question and then throw to "GM's choice".
I have seen players ask for some stuff the GM would never think they wanted:
-- "Give me the fluff text" (creature description)
-- "Can we reason with it/negotiate with it?"
-- (Related to above) "Are these generally lawful/known to keep their word?"
-- "What languages does it speak?"
-- "Can I ride it?" (beast rider cavalier archetype)
-- "Can I pet it?"
All of those are completely driven by the character. The last one is pure role playing and not "useful" by anyone else's definition, but it's what that particular character always wanted to know. (If the GM chose to give information, that character would turn to someone else at the table and ask, "Does that mean I shouldn't pet it?")
Me, I don't waste time with questions. Roll your check and I'll tell you some number of useful pieces of info based upon your roll, as the rule describes. This is much faster than having a dialogue with the people at the table. I always tell them what they want to know and what's useful to them, if they rolled well enough to learn useful stuff.
In my head I formulate a list of useful stuff, starting with the most obvious* feature of the monster and ending with the least. Then I give that info in that order, so if you rolled high enough for three pieces of info, you get the three most obvious pieces of useful information.
*For this purpose, "obvious" means whatever somebody is most likely to talk about after encountering this creature. For example, a person who survives a battle with a red dragon will definitely talk about the fiery breath but probably not talk too much about the smoke vision, so I would put fire breath higher on my mental list. I assume what you "know" about a monster is what you read in books or heard in taverns or whatever, and that info is what OTHER people were writing, talking, or singing about, and THEY talked about the most obvious and/or memorable things.
I tend to try to give what I think would be most important to the party. I have never even considered letting the Players ask questions, and don't think I would, primarily because there are thousands of good valid questions, but most only apply to a subset of monsters. I think it would be a huge disadvantage to require the players to ask questions to get the important information.
One thing I have never considered, and was surprised to see in this thread is giving out things like HD, and good and bad saves. That seems to metagame to me. I do though reveal the CR of the typical creature on success, and if the particular individual deviates far from the norm due to templates or HD advancement I'll give that. Simple advanced template probably wouldn't be obvious, but giant or several extra HD would give some sort of clue (it is larger than a typical one of its kind etc.)
Unless it had some obvious gear, a creature with class levels wouldn't be obvious (and I don't include the class levels in the knowledge DC) So an orc monk 11 and an orc warrior 1 would have the same DC and reveal the same info. An orc fighter 8 would as well, but the PCs would be able to see the obvious high quality armor and weapons, marking that particular orc as different.
I tend to try to give what I think would be most important to the party. I have never even considered letting the Players ask questions, and don't think I would, primarily because there are thousands of good valid questions, but most only apply to a subset of monsters. I think it would be a huge disadvantage to require the players to ask questions to get the important information.
I disagree. I think this is how it should work as knowledge isn't always useful. I may know 10 facts about a particular monster but if no one told me that it was vulnerable to fire then I wouldn't know that. I think it also gets the players to think critically about how they handle various encounters (in particular when they only get 1 or 2 questions). Alas, I think this can be chalked up to table/local variation on terms of how its handled.
My standard first question - "What's the most important thing for me to know?" My second? - "What's the NEXT most important thing for me to know?"
If I were your GM, you wouldn't have to lead me by the nose to tell you what you want to know. You wouldn't even have to ask. You roll, tell me what you got, and I'll tell you what you should know.
That said, as I've mentioned above, I rank from most obvious to least obvious, not most needful to least needful. Seems more realistic and/or reasonable to me. In most cases, it's the same list in the same order anyway, but not always.
My standard first question - "What's the most important thing for me to know?" My second? - "What's the NEXT most important thing for me to know?"If I were your GM, you wouldn't have to lead me by the nose to tell you what you want to know. You wouldn't even have to ask. You roll, tell me what you got, and I'll tell you what you should know.
That said, as I've mentioned above, I rank from most obvious to least obvious, not most needful to least needful. Seems more realistic and/or reasonable to me. In most cases, it's the same list in the same order anyway, but not always.
And how do you determine what is most obvious?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does any GM determine what is most important or most needful or most useful? Experience, system mastery, just plain old thinking about it.
However, I think that most of the time the most obvious thing is, well, obvious.
To give an answer that is more useful, some of the most obvious stuff is too obvious and doesn't even require a roll. Dragons fly, bears eat meat, elephants are big and strong, etc. I don't count that stuff, anyone with eyes gets all that for free.
So I just ask myself, with all the legends, songs, stories, books, etc., about this particular monster, what is the one thing people talk about the most? What's the next most, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. I think this is how it should work as knowledge isn't always useful. I may know 10 facts about a particular monster but if no one told me that it was vulnerable to fire then I wouldn't know that. I think it also gets the players to think critically about how they handle various encounters (in particular when they only get 1 or 2 questions). Alas, I think this can be chalked up to table/local variation on terms of how its handled.I tend to try to give what I think would be most important to the party. I have never even considered letting the Players ask questions, and don't think I would, primarily because there are thousands of good valid questions, but most only apply to a subset of monsters. I think it would be a huge disadvantage to require the players to ask questions to get the important information.
The knowledge skill description specifically says you remember useful information. That's in the rules.
If you want to dole out "useless" information for flavor, go ahead, but making the check means you get "useful" information.
|
|
Meeting the base DC gives you the monster name and it's general type.
Each +5 over the base DC gives you one question.
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.
So, where is your "useful information" about that monster?
Humanoid (goblin) is not really useful, as one example.
Ask an inquisitor or a magus with the bane arcan if that ia a useful information or not.
Even without being a member of one of those classes, it give a lot of information.- what spell can target the creature ("Hold person work or not?")
- its good and bad saves
- and idea of how skilled it is for its HD
and for some creature plenty of other information.
Humanoid
A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but most can speak and usually have well-developed societies. They are usually Small or Medium (with the exception of giants). Every humanoid creature also has a specific subtype to match its race, such as human, giant, goblinoid, reptilian, or tengu.
Humanoids with 1 Hit Die exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class. Humanoids of this sort are typically presented as 1st-level warriors, which means they have average combat ability and poor saving throws. Humanoids with more than 1 Hit Die are the only humanoids who make use of the features of the humanoid type. A humanoid has the following features (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).
d8 Hit Die, or by character class.
Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (medium progression).
One good save, usually Reflex.
Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die or by character class. The following are class skills for humanoids without a character class: Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Heal, Profession, Ride, and Survival. Humanoids with a character class use their class's skill list instead. Humanoids with both a character class and racial HD add these skill sto their list of class skills.Traits: A humanoid possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).
Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class.
Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, or by character class. If a humanoid does not have a class and wears armor, it is proficient with that type of armor and all lighter types. Humanoids not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Humanoids are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
Humanoids breathe, eat, and sleep.
You still think that the Type of a creature isn't an useful information?
|
|
One thing I have never considered, and was surprised to see in this thread is giving out things like HD, and good and bad saves. That seems to metagame to me.This is the one thing that drives me crazy about the meta-game crowd and Paizo's treatment of it. While I can agree that there are somethings that are legitimately unknowable to the PCs, the vast majority of information that a PC would know IC can only be conveyed through metagame numbers/terms. In real life, people frequently rate the looks of others on a 1-10 scale. But GMs balk at the idea of giving out someone's CHR score?
I really wish the game would stop pretending all numbers are bad and advocate sharing information that should be intuitively obvious to the player's characters even if that means you have to give out a number.
I do though reveal the CR of the typical creature on success, and if the particular individual deviates far from the norm due to templates or HD advancement I'll give that.Then I think this is the same as HD. The point is that characters would have a darn good idea which was tougher to kill, a troll or a goblin. But if you don't give out either HD or CR, how would the player know?
Charisma isn't directly related to your looks.
To use an old example and avoid Godwin's law Rasputin had Charisma and Constitution 18. And I wouldn't call him a great beauty. Rasputin photosSimilarly in D&D HD isn't directly related to size.
Giving a rough indication of how many HD the creature has? Fine. Exact numbers? No.
Same thing for saves and other features. You recall some information, not exact game details.
You know that a specific kind of snake is poisonous and that its bite slow you down i.e. affect dexterity and that it is relatively easy to resist, not that the DC is 12 and it do 1d2 point of dexterity damage.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. I think this is how it should work as knowledge isn't always useful. I may know 10 facts about a particular monster but if no one told me that it was vulnerable to fire then I wouldn't know that. I think it also gets the players to think critically about how they handle various encounters (in particular when they only get 1 or 2 questions). Alas, I think this can be chalked up to table/local variation on terms of how its handled.I tend to try to give what I think would be most important to the party. I have never even considered letting the Players ask questions, and don't think I would, primarily because there are thousands of good valid questions, but most only apply to a subset of monsters. I think it would be a huge disadvantage to require the players to ask questions to get the important information.
The knowledge skill description specifically says you remember useful information. That's in the rules.
If you want to dole out "useless" information for flavor, go ahead, but making the check means you get "useful" information.
Useful isn't the same thing as unknown to the player.
As DM_Blake said the first thing someone will recall about red dragons is that they breathe fire. Then it can vary.Useful information:
- they are fast but relatively clumsy fliers.
- they are very strong and resistant (high strength and constitution) but not so agile (average dexterity)
- they are typical magic resistance (have SR, a caster with the same Cr of the dragon has about 50% chance of success)
- they have a modest DR that increase with age against non magical weapons
and so on.
If you are a member of a fourteen level party where no one lack a magical weapon don't make knowing that it has DR/magic a useless information. It can be useless to you, but "useful information" isn't about their utility for you, it is about "general utility in the game world".
As DM_Blake say, it is what people record after an encounter with the creature, not what a fourteen level character want to know.
I disagree. I think this is how it should work as knowledge isn't always useful. I may know 10 facts about a particular monster but if no one told me that it was vulnerable to fire then I wouldn't know that. I think it also gets the players to think critically about how they handle various encounters (in particular when they only get 1 or 2 questions). Alas, I think this can be chalked up to table/local variation on terms of how its handled.I tend to try to give what I think would be most important to the party. I have never even considered letting the Players ask questions, and don't think I would, primarily because there are thousands of good valid questions, but most only apply to a subset of monsters. I think it would be a huge disadvantage to require the players to ask questions to get the important information.
The knowledge skill description specifically says you remember useful information. That's in the rules.
If you want to dole out "useless" information for flavor, go ahead, but making the check means you get "useful" information.
I said "Knowledge" not "knowledge skill." I wasn't talking exactly about gaming mechanics. For example, if a player ask whether a monster is vulnerable to silver, for example, and I say "no not vulnerable." While that bit of information was "useful" it wasn't may be "useful" to the player.
Questions at my tables asked, in no particular order: (1) SR, (2) DR, (3) vulnerabilities, (4) special attacks; and (5) special defenses. If the monster is really unusual and the players need a push I'll voluntarily give them the information and not require a question but do require a roll.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen players ask for some stuff the GM would never think they wanted:
-- "Give me the fluff text" (creature description)
-- "Can we reason with it/negotiate with it?"
-- (Related to above) "Are these generally lawful/known to keep their word?"
-- "What languages does it speak?"
-- "Can I ride it?" (beast rider cavalier archetype)
-- "Can I pet it?"
My favorite question from the local lodge, which seems like Fluff but sometimes pays off in a big way:
"What are its reproductive habits?"
|
I have seen players ask for some stuff the GM would never think they wanted:
-- "Give me the fluff text" (creature description)
-- "Can we reason with it/negotiate with it?"
-- (Related to above) "Are these generally lawful/known to keep their word?"
-- "What languages does it speak?"
-- "Can I ride it?" (beast rider cavalier archetype)
-- "Can I pet it?"
My favorite question from the local lodge, which seems like Fluff but sometimes pays off in a big way:
"What are its reproductive habits?"
Which gave you valuable information.
Do you actually give out that information? Or assume that all the players have it memorized and will metagame it?
And falling back to DM Blake's "obvious" point, if we run into a troll and you tell me it's a humanoid and don't mention the fire/acid thing, I'm not going to be happy.
No worries, when it comes to trolls, people only talk about two things:
"Man, that thing was big and tough and really really mean!"
and
"Every time we hit it, its wounds closed right back up! But after the wizard hit it with Burning Hands, its wounds stopped healing and that's how we beat it. My cousin said he killed one when he was in the army, and they used acid to stop its regeneration, so I guess that works too."
I wouldn't even count the first one since anyone with eyes knows that when they see the troll. The second one is at the very top of the list for most obvious thing about at troll, and it's all one useful piece of information (regeneration overcome by fire and acid).