PDA

View Full Version : Monster Knowledge Checks



Mauril Everleaf
2009-12-02, 02:08 AM
I had a thought today. Well, I've had this thought before but it came up again today, and I decided to see what other people thought of it.

Currently, when making monster knowledge checks, my group requires the player to declare which knowledge they want to use (arcana, religion, whatever) and then make a roll. If their roll is high enough and was made using the right knowledge skill you get your information. If it was too low or you used the wrong knowledge, you get nothing. You can try again with another knowledge skill, if you want, but you have no idea if it's going to help or not.

So my thought is this: one roll. You simply declare "I want to figure out what this thing is. I rolled a 14." Then the DM asks what the relevant knowledge bonus is and determines if I know what I'm looking at. If it's, say, an aberration and I didn't bother with ranks in dungeoneering, I get nothing. But if it's an outsider and I have ranks in planes, then I might.

My reasoning is that my character is looking at the beastie in front of him and cycling though his reservoir of knowledge to identify it. He's not running a search through a series of books, with certain pictures in the "nature" book and certain others in the "religion" book.

Other uses of the knowledge skills would remain the same. Just monster identification checks would change.

Is this reasonable? Unreasonable? Already a rule that we have overlooked?

Sliver
2009-12-02, 02:25 AM
You could just roll all your k.w/e checks at once, or just roll once and add the modifier. I never thought of knowledge checks as needing to declare the specific area of knowledge before you roll.. Anyway, it should be clear for the character what area of knowledge is covering the specific monster. If the character can't see what area would be the right one, he probably shouldn't be able to recognize the monster in the first place, so, IMO, there is no point in needing to declare and roll for each knowledge separately..

Scarlet Tropix
2009-12-02, 02:29 AM
I think what you're saying sounds pretty reasonable. In fact there are plenty of situations in my own games where, when multiple Knowledge skills can lead to the same information, I will simply use the highest relevant bonus rather than waste time.

Also, in response to the second poster, the difference between Character Knowledge and Player Knowledge is reversed cruelly here. A Wizard has, for example, probably had the training to identify a beholder and its properties.

We haven't.

Grumman
2009-12-02, 02:30 AM
Is this reasonable? Unreasonable? Already a rule that we have overlooked?
It's unreasonable. You're doing it backwards - you don't pick particular a knowledge skill and hope the creature in front of you is covered by that skill, you pick a particular creature (the one in front of you) and hope it is one of the ones you've learnt about.

Milskidasith
2009-12-02, 02:32 AM
Why would your character need to categorize information like that? From an IC perspective, if I know a whole lot about undead (let's say I'm a cleric) I wouldn't need to say which check I'd made, because if it was an undead I'd know it was an undead (well, OK, because of the HD+10 = DC of check thing, undead are hard to identify, but still).

The DM should just add the relevant check, because, honestly, if your character has the ranks in the skill needed, he should be able to identify the traits of that type (for example, even if I can't identify different species of butterfly, I damn well can tell an insect from an arachnid.)

From a metagame perspective, your method requires more rolling, and possibly makes actually identifying things worthless if more checks require more actions.

Scarlet Tropix
2009-12-02, 02:34 AM
I may just be really tired, but I think you guys are getting what he's suggesting backwards.

He's specifically talking about cutting it down to a singular roll.

:smalleek:

Sliver
2009-12-02, 02:37 AM
Also, in response to the second poster, the difference between Character Knowledge and Player Knowledge is reversed cruelly here. A Wizard has, for example, probably had the training to identify a beholder and its properties.

We haven't.

What I meant was, as the character should know what category the creature is, if he has some chance of identifying it, so there is no reason for the player to declare he checks if k.religion covers the monster in front of him, as the DM knows that it is or isn't already, so he can just ask "What is your k.religion bonus?" and there is no real harm in letting players know the monster is covered by k.religion. Or ya know, the DM can just say what check is relevant to the monster at hand.

Edit: And there is no real difference if a single area of knowledge can give you relevant data, if you roll all your knowledge checks or the only one that is relevant, or roll once and the DM will check if your relevant knowledge bonus is high enough.

Mauril Everleaf
2009-12-02, 02:46 AM
What I meant was, as the character should know what category the creature is, if he has some chance of identifying it, so there is no reason for the player to declare he checks if k.religion covers the monster in front of him, as the DM knows that it is or isn't already, so he can just ask "What is your k.religion bonus?" and there is no real harm in letting players know the monster is covered by k.religion. Or ya know, the DM can just say what check is relevant to the monster at hand.

Edit: And there is no real difference if a single area of knowledge can give you relevant data, if you roll all your knowledge checks or the only one that is relevant, or roll once and the DM will check if your relevant knowledge bonus is high enough.

This is exactly what I suggested in the OP. I roll once and the DM asks me what my bonus is in the relevant knowledge skill.

As it is currently played, I have to declare which skill I am using, then roll. I do not like how that works for the reasons you stated.

DSCrankshaw
2009-12-02, 02:55 AM
It really depends on the DM. If my players want to know what something is, I ask them to roll the appropriate check. I don't make them roll a check and then tell them if it did any good, or even if it was the right kind of check. I thought most DMs did it that way.

jmbrown
2009-12-02, 03:04 AM
Knowledge checks for monsters are one of those rolls that should be made by the DM. The person testing to see if he knows something shouldn't be able to see the results of what his character may or may not know. Having the DM make a check for the person with the highest knowledge skill when they encounter a new monster cuts back on waiting for people to declare what they're rolling for. It's safe to assume that, given the fact adventurers are chatter boxes, someone who positively identifies a monster freely blabs on to the rest of the party.

Sliver
2009-12-02, 03:13 AM
Knowledge checks for monsters are one of those rolls that should be made by the DM. The person testing to see if he knows something shouldn't be able to see the results of what his character may or may not know. Having the DM make a check for the person with the highest knowledge skill when they encounter a new monster cuts back on waiting for people to declare what they're rolling for. It's safe to assume that, given the fact adventurers are chatter boxes, someone who positively identifies a monster freely blabs on to the rest of the party.

The DM should roll for any character that has a chance to recognize the monster. Anyone that is trained in the skill and has a chance to pass the DC (even on 20) should get his chance. The only thing that rolling in secret hides from the players is the HD "Oh, I failed, so his HD is higher then X". Depending on how the DM rules it, it might allow you to guess the HD in case of "Hmm, I did it on an X but you rolled Y and failed, so his HD is between that.." but from successful knowledge checks the players might be able to know about such thing as "how tough it is, compared to what we defeated before"...

The benefit from rolling in secret those checks is pretty small I'd say..

TheCountAlucard
2009-12-02, 03:14 AM
Whenever I DM, I'm typically the one to ask the players for the Knowledge rolls, and I specify which one when I ask for the rolls. No offense, OP, but your GM sounds kinda jerkish in making you pick what Knowledge you're wanting to roll.

As if my PCs have ever needed to roll for anything they're fighting; the 18 Int Warlock has full ranks in all the monster-identifying Knowledges except Dungeoneering, and then took that invocation that gives a +6 bonus. The number of occasions in which he has failed to immediately recognize something for exactly what it is can be counted on a single hand.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-02, 03:19 AM
...why wouldn't the DM specify the Knowledge? All that leads to is every player with any ranks in any skills rolling all of them. I'm currently in a not-very-int-focused group where every knowledge is represented at least once, most a couple of times. Our DM would rather just tell us than wait for all of those to finish rolling.

Sliver
2009-12-02, 03:24 AM
...why wouldn't the DM specify the Knowledge? All that leads to is every player with any ranks in any skills rolling all of them. I'm currently in a not-very-int-focused group where every knowledge is represented at least once, most a couple of times. Our DM would rather just tell us than wait for all of those to finish rolling.

Maybe the OP's DM finds telling his players "You failed" really amusing, so forcing them to roll a lot of checks that have no chance of to succeed and contribute nothing is really cool and makes his day.

Mauril Everleaf
2009-12-02, 03:43 AM
Well, no, I'm pretty sure the DM(s) don't like us failing, as we pretty much all DM at various points in the campaign.

I'm pretty sure the reason we do things the way we do is because that's how we treat all the skills. You say which skill you want to use and how you want to use it and then the DM decides/looks up the DC and you throw your d20.

I can see other groups where a character says that he wants to do something, then the DM declares which skill to use.

Anyway, the real issue with monster knowledge checks is because I am currently playing an Archivist and Dark Knowledge checks require an appropriate knowledge check. In most combats, both me and my character know which knowledge check to use (sometimes better than whoever is DMing at the time), but sometimes not enough description of the critter is given for me to decide if it is, say, a large skeleton (k: religion) or a bone golem (k: arcana).

Sliver
2009-12-02, 03:47 AM
Except "That is how we always did it" is there any other reason to use the knowledge checks that way?

Mauril Everleaf
2009-12-02, 03:55 AM
Really, no. Hence me asking if my brainstorm was reasonable. I wanted to make sure it was before suggesting it to the group.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-02, 03:59 AM
If you haven't already, by the way, you need to take Knowledge Devotion. What this does, other than add a 3rd Know:greenskin check for you to roll, adds +1-+5 to all attacks and damage based on that roll. It's bbasically made for Archivists.

Thrice Dead Cat
2009-12-02, 06:15 AM
This may help in alleviating some of your current problems on the subject. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/knowledge.htm)

Kol Korran
2009-12-02, 10:07 AM
Mauril, i think you are quite reasonable to suggest your idea to the group. i've always played that way, never thought of trying anything else. my group goes by the "player tells what he wants to do, DM determines the skill" kind of group. worked fine for us.

jiriku
2009-12-02, 10:13 AM
Yes, it's reasonable. Making a knowledge check is not an action - it requires zero time within the game (and since it doesn't require an action you can make the check even when it's not your turn). Since it requires no time, each character can technically instantly roll every knowledge skill he has all at once. Making a single roll and then applying the bonus for the correct skill, whatever it may be, simplifies things greatly.

Zaq
2009-12-02, 11:09 AM
The only monkey wrench I see is that certain monsters fall under multiple Knowledges. The iconic example is a Mind Flayer. It takes K:Dungeoneering to know "That squid-thingy wants to feast on your juicy cerebrum," but it takes K:Psionics to know "That squid-thingy will probably brain-blank you and leave you defenseless if you're not careful."

Likewise, if you see some horrible thing conjured by a mysterious cult, it might take K:Planes to know what kind of demon it is, but K:Religion to know which evil god they're associated with and what the cultists likely did to bring it here.

This isn't an insurmountable challenge, of course.

Also, how does bardic knowledge work in this case?

Grommen
2009-12-02, 11:29 AM
I think we do that just about the same way. Other than we just figure out what knowledge check the monster falls under, go around the table and find the character that has the highest total in that skill and have him roll it. If we think about it we have the other characters aid him in the roll.

We have a bard in our one party so it's pretty easy to pick out critters.

The only other thing we do it simply assume that it is common knowledge about some monsters. Most of the common critters that dwell around the game world, like Orks, minor undead, and the like. Also anything that we have run across extensively we assume that we have puzzled out knowledge of the creature.

Funny story though. We have this particular Troll that managed to become immune to fire in our campaign. In dealing with him we have never discovered that acid will keep him from regenerating. So long story short we have not managed to kill him, and he has taken to stalking the party :smallbiggrin: All due to a series of really bad knowledge rolls.

erikun
2009-12-02, 03:35 PM
I don't think I've ever had a DM tell us to roll random knowledge skills when encountering a monster. It would be like picking up a plant and rolling Knowledge: Nobility to see if it is poisonous - there just isn't any reason a character would be thinking about the rules of social etiquette to determine wild plant toxins.

Also, most creatures should be obvious. A dead body walking towards us? Religion. A giant walking tree? Nature. Some hideous horror crawling from the depths of the cavern? Dungeoneering.

At worst, if the creature is one thing but looks like something else, I'd allow a successful DC 10 roll to identify "something strange" and allow them to use the correct Knowledge skill. Trying to identify a Bone Devil with Knowledge: Religion should tell the character that it definitely isn't undead - roll Knowledge: Planes to get some idea of what it is.

If the party is fighting a dragon polymorphed into a skeleton, then Knowledge: Religion will identify that the skeleton is "acting funny" and not behaving like a skeleton should. It doesn't mean they know if the skeleton is awakened, of an illusion, or something polymorphed, or under some compulsion, just that it isn't acting like any skeleton should.

CasESenSITItiVE
2009-12-02, 04:59 PM
The DM should roll for any character that has a chance to recognize the monster. Anyone that is trained in the skill and has a chance to pass the DC (even on 20) should get his chance. The only thing that rolling in secret hides from the players is the HD "Oh, I failed, so his HD is higher then X". Depending on how the DM rules it, it might allow you to guess the HD in case of "Hmm, I did it on an X but you rolled Y and failed, so his HD is between that.." but from successful knowledge checks the players might be able to know about such thing as "how tough it is, compared to what we defeated before"...

The benefit from rolling in secret those checks is pretty small I'd say..

i think there are a few benefits of rolling secretly actually. not only does it stop HD guessing, but it stops type guessing as well (is that mess of violence an abberation or demon of some kind?). i also think it represents knowledge more accurately. when you see something you might know, you don't ask yourself "is that under knowledge(religion)?" you just recognise it, or don't.

t_catt11
2009-12-02, 05:06 PM
Eyep. One roll. Take the highest applicable bonus, you know it or you don't. Seems silly to me to penalize a player who uses knowledge (religion) when knowledge (arcane) is the correct application. As earlier posters have pointed out, you are simply digging through your brain for data. You don't ask yourself "does my knowledge of puppies cover this?" - you ask yourself "have I ever run across any useful information about this?".

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-02, 06:01 PM
So, basically, you're asking whether it would be better not to require players to go through a bunch of metagame busywork in order to get the result they want. Um, the answer is that yes, it would be better not to do that. Why would you even need to ask that?

This isn't like, say, requiring a wizard to keep track of his spell components. That can be tedious but can also contribute to immersion. Having a player cycle through Knowledge skills breaks immersion, both because it disrupts the flow of the game and because, as you point out, the divisions between Knowledge skills don't represent how characters think in-game.


I'm pretty sure the reason we do things the way we do is because that's how we treat all the skills. You say which skill you want to use and how you want to use it and then the DM decides/looks up the DC and you throw your d20.
Ah, well, in that case, you're doing it wrong. :smalltongue: A DM should call for or secretly make Spot, Listen, Sense Motive, Knowledge, and Spellcraft rolls as appropriate. At least some of the tests against these skills are meant to be automatic, because they're checks to see whether characters recognize something as a result of normal attention to their environment. They don't represent special effort on the characters' parts. The players don't know ahead of time whether there's something to notice... because they haven't been told about it yet... because the characters don't notice it until they succeed on the check. And the players shouldn't have to guess when there's something there to notice and what sort of thing it might be. That would be bad. (http://agc.deskslave.org/comics/AGC5-6.GIF)

Mauril Everleaf
2009-12-02, 09:06 PM
Well, to be fair, the DM will ask for Perception checks to notice stuff (we play Pathfinder, not that it matters). But if I want to figure out if an NPC is lying to me, I have to declare that I want to Sense Motive. If I want to identify a spell or a magic item, I declare that I want to roll Spellcraft. If I want to tumble past an enemy (rather than just walking past) I have to tell the DM I want to make an Acrobatics check. If I want to "remember" something about a painting that my character finds, I have to roll the Knowledge: History check (and an associated Appraise check to figure out how much it's worth).

It just sort of spilled over into monster knowledge checks. If I want to know what the critter is, I have had to declare that I was rolling a Knowledge: Nature or Knowledge: Arcana check, since there is no singular Knowledge: Monster skill.