Quick fix for the Knowledge skills?

[Zombimode]

The rules for using the Knowledge skills for identifying creatures are borked.

Can they be fixed though?

I thought of instead using the creatures HD, each creature would get an "obscurity" value that defines the possibility to know something about the creature.


Any thoughts on how to make the Knowledge rules more senseable?

[NeoSeraphi]

That's kind of impossible to do, as each campaign setting has different "obscurity" values.

For example, my campaign may completely lack dragons, while yours may have had almost all gnomes become extinct. Furthermore, another DM's game may take place in the Feywild itself, while in a different game, pixies are almost unheard of.

See the problem here? Obscurity values just don't make sense for a game. You have to homebrew them and tailor them to the specific setting. There's no default "rare" and "common" creature.

[Hirax]

I'm a big fan of obscurity factors too. Which basically makes it arbitrary on the part of the DM, but that's fine.

[Zombimode]

See the problem here? Obscurity values just don't make sense for a game. You have to homebrew them and tailor them to the specific setting. There's no default "rare" and "common" creature.

And I never said that this was the case. Of course the DM would have to make them up for his setting - but I dont see the problem with that.

[Hanuman]

I'd say general insight is the most broken part of 3.5, low tier characters simply don't know whats going on half the time.

[NeoSeraphi]

Ah, alright. You just want help making the factors themselves, and let the DM assign them as according to his campaign setting. Makes sense.

Alright, for monsters who are rare, but not unheard of, I suggest making the DC for a Knowledge check 20+HD, instead of 10+HD.

Conversely, for monsters that are obvious (such as humanoids and most low-HD animals), no Knowledge check is required. (If your DM actually has you rolling Knowledge checks to identify a housecat, you should hit him in the shoulder, but I just thought I'd make this one clear since we're talking by-the-book Knowledge)

For creatures with a magical bent (the ones that require Knowledge (Arcana) or Knowledge (The Planes) checks instead of Know (Nature) or Know (Dungeoneering)), you should increase the DC of the check by 5, which can be erased if you have personal experience with the creature type, such as visiting the plane of an elemental or crafting your own construct. (This allows a wizard to easily understand others, as he should, but prevents, say, a bard, from knowing that an inevitable is not your ordinary construct)

A creature that is absolutely rare, such as a dragon in a typical setting or an outsider of the highest caliber, such as a Pit Demon, has a base DC of 30+CR. (Combining the new base DC with their HD, which is typically over 30 for most great wyrms, and 48 for the tarrasque, would be unreasonable. 30+CR is manageable, but still harder to hit than 10+HD in most cases)

What do you think?

[Kyeudo]

Actually, most people can identify a dragon in the common campaign setting. They may never have seen one, but dragons are so legendary that everyone has heard a discription of one in a story and knows something about them.

Its goblins and kobolds and the like that should be hard to identify unless you have reason to have encountered one before.

[NeoSeraphi]

Actually, most people can identify a dragon in the common campaign setting. They may never have seen one, but dragons are so legendary that everyone has heard a discription of one in a story and knows something about them.

Its goblins and kobolds and the like that should be hard to identify unless you have reason to have encountered one before.

With dragons, the problem is color. Does the commoner know that a black dragon breathes acid instead of fire? Probably not. Does the commoner know that chromatic dragons are generally evil while metallic dragons are good? If he has a few ranks in Knowledge (Arcana), maybe. Knowledge checks grant a lot more information than just what the creature is.

[Urpriest]

If you want to model it realistically rather than having it be a level-dependent way to access combat data, then just skip the Knowledge checks for monster info and tell the players whatever their characters know based on their backstory. Use Knowledge for mechanical applications that actually benefit from level scaling, like Knowledge Devotion.

[Kol Korran]

my part actually uses knowledge rules of "obscurity". i copied them from our party's site. here they are:

Knowledge checks for monsters: there are 5 DCs- 10,15,20,25,30 corresponding to how rare the creature is. (10- common knowledge to everyone, 15- common knowledge to people who deal with the creartures. 20- more distant rare creatures, but of which lore can easily be found, if searched for, 25- rare creatures, known only by experts, of which not much is known. 30- bizzare, obscure and unheard of creatures. little if any knowledge exists).
Success means knowing general CR, Type, and 2 main characteristics. (for combat matters) Any 5 above the DC gives out 2 more facts. for more "general knowledge", the character knows 4 general facts, and 2 more for every 5 above. The check does not reveal class levels or specific alterations of individuals (and for some there will be), it gives information on common creatures of that type.
Some creatures have less common variants (like special mindflayers, or Stone giant Elders for example). This could be identified with a normal check +5 or +10.
Templates can also be identified, and get their own DC. For example, a ghost stone giant will receive DC 15 for the stone giant, and DC 25 for the Ghost.

all in all, this system served us quiet well. but it requires the DM to prepare "facts" to present the players, and decide level of obscurity. since i alter quite a few of the creatures, and since their "non combat" info becomes quite important, the players have tried to improve the skills, but they know some things, not all things.

also, an idea we use: we combined knowledge geography, local, nobility, and history into "knowledge (region) skills" to represent general knowledge of an area. (the areas are quite big). the skill can be used in bordering areas with some penalty, but not beyond that. each character receives 3 free ranks to allocate between her own home region and regions she may have visited.

these (region skills) can be used in two ways- basically just get knowledge, or they can be used to gain a bonus on other relating knowledge skills. (yes you know arcana, but knowing that the order of who-cares in the region of not-me follows the ancient fiend lord magic traditions (knowledge check) enables you to decipher their magical scripts easier (+3 if you made the check?)

just an idea,

[Xtomjames]

Dm to Dm knowledge guide 101:

Knowledge roles and creatures, here is a simple trick for determining General obscurity and General knowledge. Any creature that has a CR will have a Knowledge check relative to the creature of 15+CR. Thus lower classes will be capable of knowing things about low level CR creatures (that they'll be facing) and the roles scale.

If you use a creature from a character's background (region, history etc) give them a +4 to their checks to see if they know anything.

A key point of contention: Knowledge skills and the game ignore memory in the basic rules of use. If you want to "fix" the skills introduce a memory factor and treat knowledge skills as memory rolls not purely knowledge rolls. Thus you can let them re-roll even if they don't make their first check and you can ignore the rule of absolutism given when checking if a player knows something or not.

Conversely a person could use concentration checks to gain a boost in a knowledge skill (as another way to fix the system) for every 5 points of a concentration roll check (D20+concentration skill) they gain a point bonus to the knowledge check being performed. Also, don't forget PC aid in skill checks. A party could aid one person with their own knowledge checks giving a boost to the one with the most chance of knowing something.

The others have it correct though it's up to the DM as to what knowledge the PCs have and don't have. The obscurity tables are there for reference (and those who play strict RAW).

[Zombimode]

my part actually uses knowledge rules of "obscurity". i copied them from our party's site. here they are:

Knowledge checks for monsters: there are 5 DCs- 10,15,20,25,30 corresponding to how rare the creature is. (10- common knowledge to everyone, 15- common knowledge to people who deal with the creartures. 20- more distant rare creatures, but of which lore can easily be found, if searched for, 25- rare creatures, known only by experts, of which not much is known. 30- bizzare, obscure and unheard of creatures. little if any knowledge exists).
Success means knowing general CR, Type, and 2 main characteristics. (for combat matters) Any 5 above the DC gives out 2 more facts. for more "general knowledge", the character knows 4 general facts, and 2 more for every 5 above. The check does not reveal class levels or specific alterations of individuals (and for some there will be), it gives information on common creatures of that type.
Some creatures have less common variants (like special mindflayers, or Stone giant Elders for example). This could be identified with a normal check +5 or +10.
Templates can also be identified, and get their own DC. For example, a ghost stone giant will receive DC 15 for the stone giant, and DC 25 for the Ghost.


That is pretty much what I was looking for, thanks :smallsmile: