Using knowledge skills on monsters

[Phawksin]

So in some previous editions there were rules for using some skills to learn some thing about monsters. 5e has no such rules in the PHB (as far as I can tell), but its a bit of a habit at some tables. So! Do you use skills like Arcane, History, Nature or even Investigation and Insight to try and glean mechanical/combat information about monsters? If you so, what DCs or information would be appropriate? Should trying to learn that information be an action? A reaction? Something more? Something less? If you don't use those skills for that purpose, why not? Do you feel it steps on the BM fighter's "know your enemy" feature? Or is it a "quest" to discover what strengths/flaws a monster has? Or is that information theoretically prohibited from players and their characters?

I'm genuinely curious how other tables deal with this in 5e.

[Ralanr]

My table allows you to roll insight to learn the monster's current hit points.

I think the houserule is utter BS and refuse to use it even if others do.

[SharkForce]

the entire skill system is essentially designed around the principle of "do it however you want".

i don't think i would necessarily give specifics like HP, but if you know all about the planes and the creatures that live there, you've got a fair chance of knowing that they're resistant to magic, or that they're immune to fire, and potentially even their weaknesses (for example, if they're known for being weak-willed and easy to dominate, or if they're known for being slow and clumsy).

but yeah, the whole skill system is completely arbitrary and based on what your DM thinks it should do.

[Daishain]

at my table, 10 or above will identify the creature, 15 will give a blurb about strengths and weaknesses and any amusing fluff content I wish to share, 20 tactical information on its attack patterns. If someone gets an incredible roll, 30 or so, I might grant a sneak attack style damage bonus for knowing a specific weak point to hit.

Which skill can be used to gain this info varies based on the creature, and the DC for each stage can go up if the thing is particularly obscure

[dropbear8mybaby]

Allowing this as an easy roll devalues the already in place ability of the Battle Master. If the designers thought that knowing such things was going to be as difficult as requiring one minute of interaction and only giving you one piece of information in relation to your own character and not even being able to be done until 7th-level, then I think a simple and low DC roll for a far more powerful result really doesn't cut it.

[Daishain]

Allowing this as an easy roll devalues the already in place ability of the Battle Master. If the designers thought that knowing such things was going to be as difficult as requiring one minute of interaction and only giving you one piece of information in relation to your own character and not even being able to be done until 7th-level, then I think a simple and low DC roll for a far more powerful result really doesn't cut it.
I'm afraid the designers can stuff it up their ass on this one so far as I am concerned. Remembering folk lore (if untrained) or better yet a bestiary entry (if trained) is something that anyone should be capable of. The Battlemaster needs a better L7 ability in any case, way too situational.

[Ralanr]

I'm afraid the designers can stuff it up their ass on this one so far as I am concerned. Remembering folk lore (if untrained) or better yet a bestiary entry (if trained) is something that anyone should be capable of. The Battlemaster needs a better L7 ability in any case, way too situational.

The ability that can give AC, amount of levels, fighter levels, current hit points, Str score, dex score, and/con score of an opponent that you spend 1 minute observing or interacting with. You can't fail it if you spend the minute doing such, there is no DC, and no other class can replicate this ability. Not even casters.

No wonder fighters can't have nice things. Everything on the fighter is considered bad because it's on the fighter.

Has anyone ever bothered to play a fighter and test this ability out?

[mephnick]

I don't have any codified rules, but outside of common knowledge I basically use 8+CR for basic info (name, type, one thing it's known for), +5 of that for physical properties (resistances, immunities, weaknesses) and +10 of that for special things (history of the monster, obscure special attacks etc). It changesa bit depending on how rare the monster is.

The only real rule I have is that rolling without proficiency in the require knowledge will limit you to basic information. I basically did that to allow everyone to roll, without the near guarantee someone would roll high and get all the info regardless on party make-up or character.

Edit: I'd never allow it to show HP or any other mechanical number.

[dropbear8mybaby]

I'm afraid the designers can stuff it up their ass on this one so far as I am concerned. Remembering folk lore (if untrained) or better yet a bestiary entry (if trained) is something that anyone should be capable of. The Battlemaster needs a better L7 ability in any case, way too situational.

It's a ribbon, so no, they really don't. Also they're already very powerful.

Your justification for change seems to ignore balance issues and simply be a desire for a powerful ability to use in play. If that's the case then only personal opinion really matters so just give out the information without any need to roll on anything.

Folk lore is also wrong more often than not, historically speaking, as it's based more on a social, cultural version of the game operator/broken telephone, and less on actual empirical evidence passed down by word of mouth.

Now if you're talking about lore garnered through study then that becomes dependent on the milieu. If your setting is more dark ages than renaissance, more Greyhawk than Eberron, then such lore is going to be a rare commodity, not something learned through rote study by any average citizen. If it is learnable by the average citizen then consider that the repercussions will mean having very few monsters left alive at all. Knowing a monster's weakness can make a huge difference to the outcome of an encounter and tips the balance considerably in favour of the PC's (and by association, society in general).

[SharkForce]

information being rare doesn't mean nobody knows it, it just means that not everyone has access to it.

the people who have proficiency in skills like nature will be the ones who have access to lore about natural creatures like bears, skunks, wolverines, etc, plus probably many types of fey and monstrosities. those with proficiency in arcana have access to lore about constructs and possibly some planar creatures (elementals, possibly some fiends, possibly neutral-aligned outsiders, but probably not the good-aligned ones), and possibly aberrations too. religion is likely to represent access to lore about the planes and most creatures that serve deities or other beings that are worshipped (like many demon lords), so probably good and evil-aligned outsiders for the most part, plus probably things related to the afterlife (i'd say they might have a chance of knowing about maruts, for example, in spite of them not being good, evil, or associated with a deity), plus probably undead (arcana might also cover some undead, hard to say). history i'd say could potentially cover any category of creature, but with a particular emphasis on things that are either particularly common and form nations or large groups (many humanoids fit here), or things that have a major impact when they occur (that is, they're far more likely to know about orcs if there is a region full of orc tribes that regularly attacks or otherwise interacts with the nations around them than they would be to know about, say, a basilisk that probably causes a few problems for a small town and then leaves, and isn't generally likely to be incorporated into any armies or nations as a primary feature). though of course, history will give you a more historical perspective; you might remember that the red dragon flamespitter was immune to arrows, but you're unlikely to know whether that was from a magic item, or a natural dragon ability, or a spell, or something completely different.

not necessarily every creature will be covered in full depth, of course, and some creatures might be potentially identifiable with multiple skills. some creatures may not have an ideal skill and you'll have to settle for likely getting less or no information at all (dragons, for example, don't strike me as being quite a perfect fit for nature, arcana, or religion in most settings... though on the other hand, religion would make perfect sense if you're on krynn).

[Daishain]

(dragons, for example, don't strike me as being quite a perfect fit for nature, arcana, or religion in most settings... though on the other hand, religion would make perfect sense if you're on krynn).
In most settings, dragons are actually an excellent match for arcana. They're ingrained in the field heavily enough that serious magic users are very likely to seek draconic lore (either written by or about) at some point.

[Daishain]

It's a ribbon, so no, they really don't. Also they're already very powerful.

Your justification for change seems to ignore balance issues and simply be a desire for a powerful ability to use in play. If that's the case then only personal opinion really matters so just give out the information without any need to roll on anything.

Folk lore is also wrong more often than not, historically speaking, as it's based more on a social, cultural version of the game operator/broken telephone, and less on actual empirical evidence passed down by word of mouth.

Now if you're talking about lore garnered through study then that becomes dependent on the milieu. If your setting is more dark ages than renaissance, more Greyhawk than Eberron, then such lore is going to be a rare commodity, not something learned through rote study by any average citizen. If it is learnable by the average citizen then consider that the repercussions will mean having very few monsters left alive at all. Knowing a monster's weakness can make a huge difference to the outcome of an encounter and tips the balance considerably in favour of the PC's (and by association, society in general).I 'desire' for collective knowledge, and the skills that a player buys, to matter.

Communities all over the D&D world are plagued by griffons, so go figure, the common person might have some idea about what they're like. Given personal experience, they might know stuff like hunting patterns or their particular craving for horse flesh. Since it would be bad form to just give the information away, a knowledge skill check is the only reasonable means of simulating this I can think of.

If we're talking Illithids, the common person isn't likely to even know what it is. Which, go figure, is why I was talking about adjusting the DC of the check for lesser known creatures. Only someone trained in an associated knowledge skill would have a shot at useful information.

This is not a new concept here. Every 3.x MM entry came along with this kind of information, which DMs were supposed to hand out on a successful check over a listed DC. The only change I made, which is a personal house rule, is to reward the equivalent of a critical success from someone trained in the field with a slight mechanical bonus.

[Eric Diaz]

If you must set a DC for "bear lore" and other simple stuff, it should be 4 or 5.

So, 80% of people that aren't particularly intelligent and DO NOT have proficiency in nature (something rare in rural areas) will know that bears live in caves and can kill you with their claws... although "everybody knows this" would be probably better.

For actual monsters, I think it you be reasonable to tie DC to their CR... assuming dragons and tarrasques are rarer than orcs and ogres, for example.

[JackPhoenix]

If you must set a DC for "bear lore" and other simple stuff, it should be 4 or 5.

So, 80% of people that aren't particularly intelligent and DO NOT have proficiency in nature (something rare in rural areas) will know that bears live in caves and can kill you with their claws... although "everybody knows this" would be probably better.

For actual monsters, I think it you be reasonable to tie DC to their CR... assuming dragons and tarrasques are rarer than orcs and ogres, for example.

Do you have to revive 3 year old thread, where there's a new thread right on the first page?