Knowledge checks run amok.

[fishdad]

I have a concern about knowledge checks.

I am currently in a gaming group that is composed of 6 kids all about 14 or 15 years of age. I'm the dad of one of them and have been playing D&D is some form or another for twenty years.

Anyway, the group has come to the conclusion that Knowledge checks are all powerful ways to know in-game information. This is a little disturbing when the fighter with a intelligence/wisdom of 10 and no proficiency in a particular knowledge skill rolls a 20 and now he knows the inner workings/history/nature/arcana/religion of what ever the situation we find ourselves in. I know he got lucky with the rule but it seems a little far fetched and it continues to happen. With a large group someone has a pretty good chance of meeting the DC of the knowledge check. This causes the group to never pick knowledge skills and just rely on luck. They also start calling for knowledge checks at times to try to figure things out without trying to figure things out. If you catch my meaning.

I was trying to think of a way to balance the play. But thinking about it really there is no good solution. You can't just preempt their roll and say, "your character wouldn't know that." Maybe the fighter just ran in to someone one day on a long journey and that someone happened to be an expert in astronomy and taught the fighter just enough to recognize "the Star Gazer" apparatus for what it was. (See Hoard of the Dragon Queen Module)

So far I have been making up scenarios similar to the one above to explain away seemingly unlikely knowledge that the "dice" say the character has.

Any thoughts, or how do you all handle knowledge checks?
Thanks for any input. Longtime lurker, first time poster.

[JumboWheat01]

Just amp up the DC on knowledge you consider more "specific" while keeping the more "generic" information at its normal DC.

In a high magic world, everyone can know a bit about magic and how it works, but only someone who is skilled in Arcana should really know some of the more esoteric and juicy bits. By amping up the DC, you pretty much make sure that someone with proficiency in the skill would be able to drum up the knowledge.

[hymer]

You can't just preempt their roll and say, "your character wouldn't know that." Maybe the fighter just ran in to someone one day on a long journey and that someone happened to be an expert in astronomy and taught the fighter just enough to recognize "the Star Gazer" apparatus for what it was. (See Hoard of the Dragon Queen Module)

I'd give them disadvantage on the roll if there is no indication from their race, class, background, skills or backstory that they should know this. It reduces the chance of encounter with an expert in astronomy dramatically, as it ought to.

That aside, is it really such a problem? Surely they aren't learning anything you don't want them to know, and they've effectively cut themselves off from DC 21 and above. That should give you all the mechanics you need.

[Ninja_Prawn]

My thoughts:

Count your blessings. At least they're not putting player knowledge into the heads of their characters.
Use passive checks for common knowledge. Then Int 10 and no proficiency will have that 'uneducated' feel you're looking for.
Make it cost an action in combat, if you're not already. "Do I know anything about this monster?" "Roll Int (Arcana)." "16." "You spend a few seconds studying it and figure that it's some kind of demon. Your turn, Bob."
Create challenges that can't be solved with intelligence checks. A good roll should provide a minor benefit, not solve the whole conflict.
If all else fails, treat it as an opportunity for comedy. In a game I'm running, the bard (who was a fey creature that looked like a little japanese girl) rolled a 20 on a check to see what she knew about gnoll culture. Since then, we had a running joke that she has this creepy fascination with gnolls that was never quite explained. It was funny.

[Finieous]

The most important thing is that no one rolls the dice unless the DM tells them to. They can ask, "Do I know anything about that?" all they want, but as the DM it will often be your job to say "No" without anyone ever touching a d20. (Likewise, the answer may be "Yes, you know that..." without rolling any dice.) The player tells you what his character is doing. You tell the player what happens, and you tell them to pick up the dice only when that character attempting that task has a chance of both success and failure.

[JackPhoenix]

Arcana, History, Nature and Religion don't give you knowledge...they give you lore, and they certainly shouldn't allow them to just figure things out.

If they roll Arcana to identify a demon, they may learn how is it called and maybe few legends about it, not its stat block. If they find ruins of long lost civilisation nobody has ever encountered before, they can't know anything about it.

The results may even differ between the skills: first quest of my current party was to recover some stolen relics. Religion check gave them some info about the significance of those relics, History check allowed to learn them something about the battle they were used in (and they've got at least two different versions of the events from different accounts, and the truth was a little different still), Arcana helped them to figure the relics could be used in certain rituals (which was not the true purpose why they were stolen in the first place, because they couldn't have known about the demon with an access to an artifact recovered on the other end of the world that could be used with the relics to fulfill his goals... even the thieves didn't knew who was manipulated them.)

I've also houseruled in "trained only" requirement for certain skills from 3.5e. In some cases, you'll need to be trained in a skill to even get a chance for a roll (example, you have no chance to succeed at brain surgery unless you're trained in Medicine). In other cases, being proficient in a skill means you autosucceed, while someone untrained still have to roll (example, if you've studied History, you know the name of a king that ruled the land thousand years ago. If you've not, you still could've heard that name somewhere...that's what the roll is for). The DC can be also different for proficient and non-proficient characters. It reflects how the real world skills and knowledge works better.

[Freemason Than]

Looks like the poster above me ninja'd me, but I agree: proficient-only (or trained-only) should solve a whole lot of problems. It simply doesn't make sense that anyone can figure out how an ancient, magical machine works, if they're not even aware of the most basic magical principles (as represented by the Arcana skill).
Skill checks quickly become a problem if you let everyone try all the time, especially in larger groups, after all.

The proficient-only approach also cuts down on "miracle rolls" if you rule that a Natural 20 is an automatic success (some DM's do).
Again, if six people roll, critical successes like these just become commonplace.

Other methods are applying advantage or disadvantage wherever appropriate or simply upping the DC to 20+ or 25+ (to sow the weed from the chaff, so to speak). You should probably use a mix of all three, depending on the circumstance. This helps round out situations where it only makes sense that everyone involved gets a roll, such as with perception, insight, endurance, etc.


That said, it's also important to know when to call for (or allow) checks, and when not to.
If it's an easy check and you let everyone roll, there's probably no need to even roll in the first place. Especially if the information is plot-critical and you really, really need them to get the information. In that case: just tell them.

If it's a hard check and you let only one or two people roll, maybe with disadvantage, and with a high DC, then if they do succeed, they should get some juicy info. If you're unwilling to give information about something or someone anyway, don't let them make the check in the first place (and provide a reasonable explanation as to why).

And in some cases, just put a certain limit on the information they're going to get.
If Sherlock Holmes finds a footprint and "rolls high" as it were, he should be able to extrapolate a lot from it. But he's not going to solve the mystery from that one, single clue alone. If it's not reasonably possible (like figuring out a secret password a villain never told to anyone and never wrote down) or it sounds like a Deus Ex Machina (like remembering the secret lore of an obscure deity that no one has remembered in the past 1000 years), don't give it to them. Knowledge should offer clues, not answers.
If you make it clear that you're not going to solve the puzzle for them, they'll catch on.

[jm6713]

The most important thing is that no one rolls the dice unless the DM tells them to. They can ask, "Do I know anything about that?" all they want, but as the DM it will often be your job to say "No" without anyone ever touching a d20. (Likewise, the answer may be "Yes, you know that..." without rolling any dice.) The player tells you what his character is doing. You tell the player what happens, and you tell them to pick up the dice only when that character attempting that task has a chance of both success and failure.

I agree, in my games a knowledge check is something the DM calls for when trying to decide how much detail to give the characters about a certain situation. Players can't simply call for a knowledge check. I think this rule is meant to represent knowledge based on a charter's background and training. And meant as a tool so the DM doesn't have to decide whether to give the players certain details. In any case certain topics a fighter wouldn't have any chance of knowing based on their background and training so I wouldn't even let them attempt a knowledge check.

[Shining Wrath]

The way the knowledge checks work with bounded accuracy, a party could hire 100 commoners, put them in bags of holding, and know anything with a DC of 20 or less pretty much automatically by consulting the "Commoner Library". Just roll 100 D20 and someone is pretty likely (99.5%) to roll 20. Note that these commoners can be illiterate and uneducated, so long as they have INT=10. Of course you have to open the bags of holding every couple of minutes to ensure enough air, but the up side is when you make camp you have a horde of servants. :smallsmile:

I recommend having a scaling level of knowledge - "That's a demon" requires DC 15, "that's a Marilith" requires DC 20, "A Marilith has 7 attacks per round and will almost certainly kill us all" is DC 25. On top of that you may have to limit the number of rolls that can be made by the party on a typical topic.

[Ninja_Prawn]

to sow the weed from the chaff

Do we have to? I was hoping we could burn that bridge when we came to it.


hire 100 commoners, put them in bags of holding, and know anything with a DC of 20 or less pretty much automatically by consulting the "Commoner Library".

Isn't that basically how Wikipedia works? :smalltongue:

Yes, darling. I'm in one of those moods today.

[ZenBear]

Isn't that basically how Wikipedia works? :smalltongue:

Lol, yup!

@OP It's funny that you have this issue, since I was just debating someone over the usefulness of INT and Knowledge checks. Most people consider INT a dump stat and Knowledge checks pointless.

I would say limit the information they receive from untrained Knowledge checks rather than bump the DC. If a character has proficiency in Arcana at low levels they will only have INT+2 and if the DC is 20+ they're still banking on miracle rolls.

[Laserlight]

You can't just preempt their roll and say, "your character wouldn't know that."

Sure you can. "You're not trained in that skill, so, you wouldn't know that. Knowing stuff is what training in a skill MEANS."

[RickAllison]

One option is to make high DC checks with the caveat that failing by excessive amounts gives detriments. A 25 DC check might give wrong information if the player rolls less than a 15, but the players wouldn't know that. It would rarely come into play, but it might make characters cautious about constantly rolling knowledge checks.

"Your character knows that this type of demon is not particularly strong and often has gems in its stomach."
"I charge!"
*7 attacks later...*
"HELP ME!"

[mephnick]

I allow non-proficient characters to roll, but their max roll is a 10. That lets them know the name and maybe the most famous thing about the creature if it's not too rare.

So a non-proficient character might realize it's a grimlock and they're blind and hunt by smell, but not that they can blend into stone, speak undercommon, ignore illusions and generally act as servants of mind flayers. They'd probably never be able to identify a mind flayer or something rare like that. Proficient characters can get any information as normal, including special attacks, resistances etc.

[fishdad]

Thanks for the input. I think a variable DC maybe a hybrid idea born of this thread.

If you are proficient in the skill of which the knowledge is based on the DC is similar to the DMG's guidelines. Otherwise +5 to the DC. That would make the DC chart look something like this for untrained checks: (Going from memory) 10 Easy, 15 Average, 20 Difficult, 25+ Impossible

This would all be situation dependent, of course. Maybe +10 to the DC but that seems extreme.

I'm not sure advantage/disadvantage would add the same flair. I have seen the advantage/disadvantage tables and mathematically advantage/disadvantage is very powerful/harmful.

[ZenBear]

Thanks for the input. I think a variable DC maybe a hybrid idea born of this thread.

If you are proficient in the skill of which the knowledge is based on the DC is similar to the DMG's guidelines. Otherwise +5 to the DC. That would make the DC chart look something like this for untrained checks: (Going from memory) 10 Easy, 15 Average, 20 Difficult, 25+ Impossible

This would all be situation dependent, of course. Maybe +10 to the DC but that seems extreme.

I'm not sure advantage/disadvantage would add the same flair. I have seen the advantage/disadvantage tables and mathematically advantage/disadvantage is very powerful/harmful.

Advantage is essentially a +5 to the roll, so disadvantage without proficiency accomplishes the same thing.

[hymer]

Advantage is essentially a +5 to the roll, so disadvantage without proficiency accomplishes the same thing.

If the chance is 50/50 before advantage, then yes. But as you get further away from 50/50, the effect is worth less. On average, going from 5/95 to 95/5 counting each 5-points once, it's worth approximately +3.3.

[Shining Wrath]

Throwing out an idea against the Wikipedia Commoner Library: if the DC is 15 (hard) or greater for a knowledge skill, untrained persons roll with Disadvantage. There's stuff the (Wo)Man on the Street might have picked up (I saw a picture of a creature like that once - it's a demon!), but there's stuff an untrained person is extremely unlikely to know (this demon has Blindsight).

[Slipperychicken]

I think the solution is simple. Give them incorrect knowledge on some failures. Usually something that sounds likely, or is close, but is ultimately not correct. If they're going to metagame about that, then make the roll yourself in secret. That nixes both metagaming fighters and crowd-sourcing.

Also, nat 20s aren't auto success on skills. If your fighter has +1 and rolled a 20, then he still ony got a 21.

[downlobot]

Maybe continue as is - when someone with an int 10 or less (or is untrained or what have you) beats your DC on a Knowledge check, ask them how they know what they know (before you tell them what they know). Use it as an opportunity to give them some fun creative license with their characters. i.e., don't make up some reason for them to know yourself - they know, ask them how they know and let them go nuts.

[ChelseaNH]

Two thoughts:

1. For people without proficiency, let them know something useless: "Ah, yes, this monster particularly enjoys brangleworts and will fight to the death to keep any it finds to itself."

2. When they roll, you roll. Add the two numbers and mod 20. Then tell them something. If the result is a high number, give them something accurate. If the result is a low number, then they remembered incorrectly, so give them bad intel. But the fun part is, they never know which is which until they act on it.

[Thrudd]

That isn't how knowledge checks should be used. Let the kids know you made a mistake before, but from now on it won't work that way.
You, as the DM, decide what is possible for a character to know, not the dice. If a character has a knowledge skill the player thinks is relevant, you decide whether or not there is a reason to roll. Regardless of the die result, you decide how much the character can know. You also need to judge what subjects require specific skills to know anything about, and what is general knowledge/straight intelligence checks.

Bottom line is, anything that will be overpowering or that will make the game too easy or that it doesn't make sense for a character to know, they don't know.

[Safety Sword]

You can also have knowledge that is "unknowable" by anyone who isn't an expert in the field.

Or lost to history.

Or only exists with a certain tradition (religious, racial, location based).

[Vogonjeltz]

I have a concern about knowledge checks.

I am currently in a gaming group that is composed of 6 kids all about 14 or 15 years of age. I'm the dad of one of them and have been playing D&D is some form or another for twenty years.

Anyway, the group has come to the conclusion that Knowledge checks are all powerful ways to know in-game information. This is a little disturbing when the fighter with a intelligence/wisdom of 10 and no proficiency in a particular knowledge skill rolls a 20 and now he knows the inner workings/history/nature/arcana/religion of what ever the situation we find ourselves in. I know he got lucky with the rule but it seems a little far fetched and it continues to happen. With a large group someone has a pretty good chance of meeting the DC of the knowledge check. This causes the group to never pick knowledge skills and just rely on luck. They also start calling for knowledge checks at times to try to figure things out without trying to figure things out. If you catch my meaning.

I was trying to think of a way to balance the play. But thinking about it really there is no good solution. You can't just preempt their roll and say, "your character wouldn't know that." Maybe the fighter just ran in to someone one day on a long journey and that someone happened to be an expert in astronomy and taught the fighter just enough to recognize "the Star Gazer" apparatus for what it was. (See Hoard of the Dragon Queen Module)

So far I have been making up scenarios similar to the one above to explain away seemingly unlikely knowledge that the "dice" say the character has.

Any thoughts, or how do you all handle knowledge checks?
Thanks for any input. Longtime lurker, first time poster.


Well, Intelligence (X) checks are only useful insofar as the character can recall lore about related things. It's not magic, it's just asking: How learned are they on the topic of X and did they, in that moment, remember something useful about it? They might actually know something, but they just can't recall it, or they simply might not be privy to that information because you as DM determine that nobody but a select few know it.

Also remember, you as the DM typically set the DC for how difficult such a check would be. So (assuming there's no DC at all listed in the module) if you think virtually nobody living has heard of this stargazer device, maybe you set the DC to 30 (nearly impossible), which is outside the bounds of anyone who isn't proficient to attain (maximum roll + int bonus would only be 25).

The game affords you a lot of latitude in this regard, such that if you think it's literally impossible for one of the characters to know this information (or beyond the scope of the characters life experiences) then you can simply say: Your character doesn't know that/has no idea.

I'd advise that you use the same static metric across the board however. I wouldn't have one DC for the untrained and one for the trained.

You might also decide to make such rolls behind a screen and then inform the player about what the character knows/recalls on the subject. Sometimes even the best possible outcome still isn't enough (and conversely even the worst outcome is good enough).

[Safety Sword]

Stuff.

A lot of what you said is just good DMing, really.

[quinron]

I've made the knowledge skills passive in my game, using the Passive Checks rules on PHB 175 - 10 + Int + proficiency, +/-5 for advantage/disadvantage. This means I don't have the barbarian who dumped Intelligence beating out the wizard on Arcana checks; I don't have rangers getting unlucky knowing absolutely nothing about their favored enemies, even with advantage; and I don't have characters getting lucky and knowing information they shouldn't.

I could make judgment calls for all of those situations, but I don't want to rob a player who rolled well of a sense of accomplishment, and I don't want players who've designed intelligent, knowledgeable characters feeling like their characters are stupid because of bad luck.

That, and it's more similar to how knowledge actually works: you either know something or you don't, there's no randomness to it. Of course, you can explain failed knowledge checks as just not being able to recall the specific information, but while that may be more realistic, I tend to find it actually takes the players out of the game more.

[ZenBear]

I've made the knowledge skills passive in my game, using the Passive Checks rules on PHB 175 - 10 + Int + proficiency, +/-5 for advantage/disadvantage. This means I don't have the barbarian who dumped Intelligence beating out the wizard on Arcana checks; I don't have rangers getting unlucky knowing absolutely nothing about their favored enemies, even with advantage; and I don't have characters getting lucky and knowing information they shouldn't.

I could make judgment calls for all of those situations, but I don't want to rob a player who rolled well of a sense of accomplishment, and I don't want players who've designed intelligent, knowledgeable characters feeling like their characters are stupid because of bad luck.

That, and it's more similar to how knowledge actually works: you either know something or you don't, there's no randomness to it. Of course, you can explain failed knowledge checks as just not being able to recall the specific information, but while that may be more realistic, I tend to find it actually takes the players out of the game more.

That's a good way to do it. How do you determine whether they have advantage/disadvantage?

[endur]

Any thoughts, or how do you all handle knowledge checks?


Some thoughts.

1) multiple DC levels with additional info at higher DCs: DC 10= x, DC15=X+Y, DC20= X+Y+Z, etc.

2) ROLE PLAY. Tell a story about how the fighter remembers drinking in a bar with an astronomer. The wizard remembers debating magic with a star mage. Then later having that barely remembered NPC show up in campaign. It all fits together.

3) The goal is to have the players get all the information. Even if they don't take the requisite skills.

[eastmabl]

Sure you can. "You're not trained in that skill, so, you wouldn't know that. Knowing stuff is what training in a skill MEANS."

It should be noted that "trained-only" skills is not a 5e attitude. Anyone should be able to try any check --- with some common sense. I like to ask players why they would know something before they make the roll.

If they can't tell me why they'd know something, I don't let them roll.
If they tell me how they might know something, that sets the scope of my answer.

[JoeJ]

Also, nat 20s aren't auto success on skills. If your fighter has +1 and rolled a 20, then he still ony got a 21.

Maybe not explicitly called out as such, but if a 20 won't succeed and a 1 won't fail, why roll at all?

[ruy343]

As an alternative to what's been said (Proficiency-only is the way that you know whether you can make the check), ask your players, "How does your character know about Dwarven stonecutting/Drow cult worship/trapmaking/the madness of King Ludwig/The overall objective of the Harpers/etc.?" If they're trained, then fine, let them make the check, but if they're not, they can supply a roleplaying reason as to why they might know that knowledge, which you can feed off of as a DM to make the adventure, and the characters, more interesting and lifelike. Here are some examples of how they might explain that their player knows enough to justify a check (for the examples given above):


Perhaps a the human fighter once accompanied a caravan through the mountains to a dwarven city, and the dwarves in the caravan taught him about the stonecutting they passed.
Perhaps the half-orc barbarian was once held captive by drow and nearly sacrificed in one of their worship rituals, or they were tasked with cleaning the bloody remains of their terrible sacrifices from their altars, allowing them to learn about their cult worship.
Perhaps the monk was assigned to accompany a group that created traps to prevent adventurers from reaching a dangerous artifact, allowing him to learn trapmaking.
Perhaps the bard was a traveling performer, and he learned about the madness of King Ludvig through rumors he collected at a noble court.



Of course, such a justification doesn't guarantee success, and this advice only applies to groups that can handle it. Don't let players go crazy with explaining these things from their background. However, at the same time, let their backgrounds become more a part of the game!

[quinron]

How do you determine whether they have advantage/disadvantage?

First, there's the mechanical stuff - ranger Favored Enemies, the enhance ability spell, etc. In those situations, either you've made a specific, intent study of one particular subject, or you're being supernaturally enhanced. So, continuing along those lines, I generally rule that you have to have expended additional time and effort somehow studying the topic you want to know about to have advantage. If you want a bonus on your Religion score to tell devils from demons, you have to put some time into reading up on the Lower Planes; if you want a bonus on your History score to find out what culture built the ruins in the jungle, you have to examine lots of different types of architecture.

[mgshamster]

Maybe not explicitly called out as such, but if a 20 won't succeed and a 1 won't fail, why roll at all?

That's actually part of the rules. A d20 roll is only for when the result is in question - if you're uncertain if they will pass or fail. When the outcome is certain, they don't roll at all (aka auto succeed or auto fail).

PHB page 6 and 171.

[Gnaeus]

It should be noted that "trained-only" skills is not a 5e attitude. Anyone should be able to try any check --- with some common sense. I like to ask players why they would know something before they make the roll.

If they can't tell me why they'd know something, I don't let them roll.
If they tell me how they might know something, that sets the scope of my answer.

Strongly, strongly agree with above poster. Strongly disagree with posters limiting unskilled checks. This isn't 3.5, where the party fighter or rogue has the option to drop a rank, or even a cross class half rank, into a skill to have a chance to roll. There are 2 states of skill in 5e. You are really good at something (add your proficiency to it) or you are decent at it (make your normal roll). Adventurers in 5e are assumed to be generally competent at Adventure stuff. Telling your fighter or rogue that they can't roll religion or arcana checks is basically telling them, "your character is stupid. You don't get to know things, sit down and be quiet until I tell you to roll initiative." Getting to roll is fun. Succeeding sometimes is fun. Being told you can't try is not fun.

Also, it isn't balanced. 5e isn't as unbalanced as 3.pf, but it is still pretty clear that all the strongest characters cast spells. There is just no need to make the fighter less awesome by limiting what he can roll for. It isn't like the 8 str wizard wouldn't be allowed to make an untrained grapple check to escape a grapple, or the dwarf cleric with 8 dex can't make the roll for a neat jump. Limiting knowledges, but not other skills, solely hurts the least versatile classes in the game and doesn't hurt the strongest ones at all.

[Thrudd]

Telling your fighter or rogue that they can't roll religion or arcana checks is basically telling them, "your character is stupid. You don't get to know things, sit down and be quiet until I tell you to roll initiative."


No, it isn't. It is telling them that their character doesn't have the proper training to have access to such specialized information, which is sensible and true. They could have chosen to select such skills if they had wanted them for their character, through background or normal skill selection or feats. The fact that a skill exists for these things means it is specialized knowledge that most people don't have.

[Demonic Spoon]

No, it isn't. It is telling them that their character doesn't have the proper training to have access to such specialized information, which is sensible and true. They could have chosen to select such skills if they had wanted them for their character, through background or normal skill selection or feats. The fact that a skill exists for these things means it is specialized knowledge that most people don't have.

To continue with this line of thinking, I also don't think that merely being a wizard necessarily qualifies you to roll for any Arcana check, nor does being a cleric qualify you to roll for any Religion check. A cleric who does not have proficiency in Religion is presumably pretty ignorant about religious practices outside of his own - similarly, a wizard without Arcana proficiency may know about the mechanics of arcane magic but not whether a particular type of creature is a demon or a devil.

[Pex]

It's ok to be concerned about PCs knowing about everything all the time, but the counter to that is not make it so that they never know about anything ever. It's because 5E does not give defined DCs for things that this problem arises. For example, in Pathfinder a DC of 15 + CR determines whether or not a PC can know something about a creature. The player gets one question to ask the DM about the monster. (What special attack does it have? Is it vulnerable to something? What defense does it have?) For every 5 the character beats the DC the player gets another question. The game does not think it an abomination that a PC knows something about a monster.

In 5E it's up to the DM to determine what to do. Some DMs are stingy and won't allow PCs to know anything or very little or encourage misinformation for the lulz. Some DMs can be too generous and give out all information. 5E does not give hard rules, so the DM needs to come up with his own guideline. It's irrelevant "that's not how 5E does it" because 5E purposely does not do it at all and wants the DM to do it.

Determine what knowledge of a subject, if any, anyone can know. If a character can know it based on class, proficiency, or background, he just knows it. Others get a check, DC 10. When you first feel a character based on class, proficiency, or background needs to roll, that's DC 10 and DC 15 for others. Increase DC 5 for each degree of difficulty and don't be so quick to make something DC 25 just because it's "hard", though DC 25 is fine sometimes, makeable for someone with 20 Int and proficient. DC 20 is suffice for "hard" and let DC 25 be "very hard". Context of situation may allow for non-divisible by 5 DCs, DC 18, DC 22, etc.

[KorvinStarmast]

Arcana, History, Nature and Religion don't give you knowledge...they give you lore, and they certainly shouldn't allow them to just figure things out.
It is also how one fleshes out the memory/what I learned growing up, for a character who comes into play at about age 20 (for human) and something a bit older for other races.

Rather that write a few dozen pages of all of the things a person knows/remembers/learns while growing up, the various knowledge checks allow the DM to flesh some of that out. Backgrounds don't do that element of a person justice, though they are good for what they are.

Sitting around the fire listening to grandpa tell stories about gnolls or ogres or alligators: you remember some of this stuff your whole life. Some of it is fact, some myth, some lore, and a lot of it somewhat in between.

The DM need not use dice, but can, to decide if that memory or lore or up bringing is useful at the time a check is desired/needed.

[Vogonjeltz]

A lot of what you said is just good DMing, really.

I mean, that was what was requested wasn't it? (Sound DMing advice)

[bardo]

This reminded me of an older thread (see here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20055209&postcount=25)). So I thought, why not re-run the numbers for a party of 6 adventurers?

Probability of passing an Intelligence Check: A party of 6 adventurers, each with INT 10 and no relevant skill proficiencies (rolling at +0) VS. A 1st level Wizard with INT 16 and a relevant skill proficiency (rolling at +5).



DC
Party of 6
Wizard


5 (very easy)
99.99%
100%


10 (easy)
99.16%
80%


15 (medium)
88.23%
55%


19 (-)
46.85%
35%



20 (hard)
26.49%
30%


21 (-)
0%
25%


25 (very hard)
0%
5%



Up to and including DC 19 checks, the party of 6 uneducated simpletons handedly beats the know-it-all wizard. If the party has access to the Guidance cantrip their lead would be even bigger and stretch into higher DCs. Even at level 20 a Wizard has "only" an 85% chance of beating a DC 15 intelligence check (rolling at +11, +5 intelligence modifier and +6 proficiency bonus). Whereas the party of 6 has an 88% chance.

The same applies to any ability check. Having 6 untrained characters roll at a less-than-hard DC is better than having a single trained character roll at it. Unless... unless there are consequences to failing. Usually failing an intelligence check means you just say "I don't know". What if rolling very low means you think you know the answer but you get it wrong? DM rolls secretly for each player, turns and says "your character doesn't know, your character doesn't know, your character thinks they are immune to cold and acid, your character doesn't know, your character thinks they are immune to lightning and poison, and your character doesn't know". Now what? Party of Smartypants.

Bardo.

[Sigreid]

No, it isn't. It is telling them that their character doesn't have the proper training to have access to such specialized information, which is sensible and true. They could have chosen to select such skills if they had wanted them for their character, through background or normal skill selection or feats. The fact that a skill exists for these things means it is specialized knowledge that most people don't have.

I believe the tact they have taken is that you have a solid general knowledge of many things, and that general knowledge/skill pool is governed by your attributes (so intelligence in many ways also covers general education) and the skills you pick are areas of particular interest or skill for your character. Think about yourself and how much you know that you haven't studied in depth as opposed to the much more limited areas of knowledge where you can be considered skill or an expert.

Just my read and opinion.

[Malifice]

You can't just preempt their roll and say, "your character wouldn't know that."

Yes you most certainly can.

If the PC is a Barbarian from the northern wastes, it's fair for the DM to say 'You character has no way of knowing the inner workings of arcane magic'. In previous incarnations of the game, you were limited to 'common knowledge' in a knowledge skill unless you were trained in it.

Never be afraid as a DM to say 'no'. We all prefer to say yes, but there are limits.

Your players are young, but they should be policing this themselves. When our DM calls for a knowledge check, I dont roll unless its something that my character might know. I just inform the DM that my character has never encountered the creature/ magic/ religion before and dont roll. Takes a mature player to do this though.

Maybe ask the player HOW his character could know about the topic having regards to his background and class (bearing in mind being untrained in the knowledge skill indicates that his character hasnt put any effort into learning about stuff if he tries to argue otherwise). Inform him you'll allow the roll if he insists, but he aint going to learn anything other than common knowledge.

Finally, dont be afraid to turn low knowledge checks into misinformation. Maybe the half orc barbarians only information on Mind Flayers is an old wives tale that half orc flesh is poison to them or something equally hillarious.

[Thrudd]

I believe the tact they have taken is that you have a solid general knowledge of many things, and that general knowledge/skill pool is governed by your attributes (so intelligence in many ways also covers general education) and the skills you pick are areas of particular interest or skill for your character. Think about yourself and how much you know that you haven't studied in depth as opposed to the much more limited areas of knowledge where you can be considered skill or an expert.

Just my read and opinion.

We live in a different world than that described by most fantasy settings. We're talking about medieval technology and society for the most part. We can't really compare the type of education and access to information we have, in the information age, with what things would be like in a pseudo medieval society. There is likely no such thing as "general education" in such a world. People are educated in the trade of their family, or apprenticed to a master that teaches a specific trade and knowledge set. Only the nobility and aristocrats have anything resembling a "general education" from family tutors, and even that is not nearly as diverse as the information we are able to peruse in modern times.

[Safety Sword]

I mean, that was what was requested wasn't it? (Sound DMing advice)

My intention was to point out that your advice would extend well beyond just knowledge based checks.

Your advice is how you DM all situations where players are using skills and you don't want them to metagame.

[Vogonjeltz]

My intention was to point out that your advice would extend well beyond just knowledge based checks.

Your advice is how you DM all situations where players are using skills and you don't want them to metagame.

Oh I see, yes I suppose it probably would extrapolate.

[Safety Sword]

Oh I see, yes I suppose it probably would extrapolate.

Learn to take a complement every once in a while, sheesh :smalltongue:

[JoeJ]

No, it isn't. It is telling them that their character doesn't have the proper training to have access to such specialized information, which is sensible and true. They could have chosen to select such skills if they had wanted them for their character, through background or normal skill selection or feats. The fact that a skill exists for these things means it is specialized knowledge that most people don't have.

Is it equally sensible and true that a character without proficiency in Athletics doesn't have the training to be able to escape a grapple? Or a character without proficiency in Deception doesn't have the ability to tell a convincing lie? Or without proficiency in Stealth they aren't able to keep their mouth shut long enough to sneak up on somebody? After all, they could have chosen those skills, but they didn't.

[RickAllison]

One option is to allow skill checks, but to change what they remember to fit whatever hare-brained excuse they can come up with. If someone says they learned about from some travelers, you can give them legends that may or may not be true, but it would make sense with their story. If they say they have encountered it before, you can give them tidbits flavored for someone who was not actively observing them for knowledge, and so not comprehensive. Meanwhile, someone who took proficiency in the relevant skill might know accurate and relevant information. The kicker then is that the proficient user should get real pieces, while the non-proficients can work on deciphering the truth from their fragments. Everyone can roll, but it still rewards actually taking the skill.

[Thrudd]

Is it equally sensible and true that a character without proficiency in Athletics doesn't have the training to be able to escape a grapple? Or a character without proficiency in Deception doesn't have the ability to tell a convincing lie? Or without proficiency in Stealth they aren't able to keep their mouth shut long enough to sneak up on somebody? After all, they could have chosen those skills, but they didn't.

No. Those are clearly tasks which can be attempted by anyone. Knowledge of obscure and specific subjects are things that only someone with specific training would have. If you try hard enough or get lucky enough, you can escape someone's grasp or sneak past a guard. No matter how hard you try, you can't know something that is beyond your learning.

This is part of the problem with knowledge skills in the first place.

[JoeJ]

No. Those are clearly tasks which can be attempted by anyone. Knowledge of obscure and specific subjects are things that only someone with specific training would have. If you try hard enough or get lucky enough, you can escape someone's grasp or sneak past a guard. No matter how hard you try, you can't know something that is beyond your learning.

This is part of the problem with knowledge skills in the first place.

While it's true that anybody can attempt to sneak past a guard, it's equally true that anybody can attempt to remember what they've heard about dragons, or magic, or the history of some long-dead empire. Whether or not it's beyond their learning is determined by the DC and the die roll. Adding a proficiency-only requirement detracts from verisimilitude by making it impossible for anybody to have ever picked up any information in certain fields without specific training in them. It also unfairly punishes players for choosing certain builds rather than others.

[Thrudd]

While it's true that anybody can attempt to sneak past a guard, it's equally true that anybody can attempt to remember what they've heard about dragons, or magic, or the history of some long-dead empire. Whether or not it's beyond their learning is determined by the DC and the die roll. Adding a proficiency-only requirement detracts from verisimilitude by making it impossible for anybody to have ever picked up any information in certain fields without specific training in them. It also unfairly punishes players for choosing certain builds rather than others.

Ask the DM. Would my character have heard anything about dragons? Maybe they say "yes, you know x, y, and z." Maybe they say "no". Maybe they say "maybe, roll an int check."
The point is, it is the DM's decision on these matters, the players don't get to unilaterally declare that their characters are rolling intelligence and then demand the DM tell them something specific. If a player has knowledge:dragons, then the character definately knows about dragons, the DM doesn't need to determine that.

The possibility of a character having knowledge of any random thing is up to the DM, the only person with perfect information about the setting.

[Randomthom]

As a general rule this is how I work it;

If I call for a roll it is because the players have a realistic chance of knowing the answer.

If the players roll the knowledge check for something I consider outside of their scope of knowledge, I'll tell them they failed.

If they roll a 20 on their roll, it still fails. If they roll on mine then it's a success as I won't be asking them to roll if they needed more than 20!

"But I rolled a 20..." Some things are outside the scope of the dice, especially if you are not proficient in that knowledge skill. What the players here are asking you to do is accept general knowledge as a route to specific knowledge.

While, in real life, it is possible that someone with good general knowledge might know one or two very obscure facts, they don't know 5% of all obscure facts which is essentially what rolling a 20 here will represent.

The other way to consider it is simply "does it hurt the storytelling if I let them succeed?" If you've got a whole information gathering thing planned, don't let them circumvent it with a general knowledge check (unless you've designed it badly). Let the knowledge checks enrich what they know, not define it.
------
You find a magic sword.
Do I know anything about it?
Roll an intelligence (knowledge history) check.

DC 15=You recall seeing a very similar-looking blade wielded by General Heggar in a tapestry in the King's great hall. In the tapestry it had a beam of light shooting out the end of it striking a demon. DC 18=The battle depicted happened over three thousand years ago and was the last battle in the Abyss war to close the Abyss gate. DC 20=The General sacrificed himself by going through the gate to seal it from the other side, he (and his sword) were never seen again.
------
You find a crumpled hat at the scene of the crime, it looks like it was stepped on during the melee and trodden into the mud.
Is there anything remarkable about the hat?
It is finely made, purely a fashion item really but would have cost a pretty penny.
Anything more?
Intelligence (knowledge local) check please!

DC 10=There is a milliner (hat maker) in town on bridge street, perhaps you could ask there. DC 14=Greig's Hat Emporium is widely known as the place to go for the local nobility's headwear. DC 18=Greig, the owner was once a suspect for a murder that bears some resemblance to these circumstances. DC 22=Before starting up his business as a milliner it is rumoured that Greig was an adventuring wizard and a dangerous one at that...
------
...the old man finishes with "He's back... the Wild Knight is back", fear in his eyes.
I roll an intelligence check, hey! 20! Tell me everything about this Wild King.
No
What? I rolled 20! You see that there! T-W-E-N-T-Y. It means I know everything.
No, you've never heard of the Wild Knight.

With a name like the Wild Night perhaps a knowledge nature or local (if 'local' is referring to some woodland or farmland) might allow that player some hope of gleaning information. Basically, rolling a 20 is not a one-way ticket to omniscience.

[JoeJ]

Ask the DM. Would my character have heard anything about dragons? Maybe they say "yes, you know x, y, and z." Maybe they say "no". Maybe they say "maybe, roll an int check."
The point is, it is the DM's decision on these matters, the players don't get to unilaterally declare that their characters are rolling intelligence and then demand the DM tell them something specific. If a player has knowledge:dragons, then the character definately knows about dragons, the DM doesn't need to determine that.

The possibility of a character having knowledge of any random thing is up to the DM, the only person with perfect information about the setting.

Of course it's up to the DM. Where did you get the idea of the player demanding anything? You can't roll Dexterity and demand to successfully sneak up on a guard; you can only state that you're trying to sneak up on them. The DM determines what the DC is, whether you have advantage or disadvantage, or whether it's even possible in the current situation at all. Knowledge skills aren't any different.

[Thrudd]

Of course it's up to the DM. Where did you get the idea of the player demanding anything? You can't roll Dexterity and demand to successfully sneak up on a guard; you can only state that you're trying to sneak up on them. The DM determines what the DC is, whether you have advantage or disadvantage, or whether it's even possible in the current situation at all. Knowledge skills aren't any different.

The OP, who's players have come to believe that is exactly how intelligence checks work. They decide to roll, get a 20, and expect the DM to tell them anything and everything about a subject.

[Malifice]

As a general rule this is how I work it;

If I call for a roll it is because the players have a realistic chance of knowing the answer.

If the players roll the knowledge check for something I consider outside of their scope of knowledge, I'll tell them they failed.

If they roll a 20 on their roll, it still fails. If they roll on mine then it's a success as I won't be asking them to roll if they needed more than 20!

"But I rolled a 20..." Some things are outside the scope of the dice, especially if you are not proficient in that knowledge skill. What the players here are asking you to do is accept general knowledge as a route to specific knowledge.

While, in real life, it is possible that someone with good general knowledge might know one or two very obscure facts, they don't know 5% of all obscure facts which is essentially what rolling a 20 here will represent.

The other way to consider it is simply "does it hurt the storytelling if I let them succeed?" If you've got a whole information gathering thing planned, don't let them circumvent it with a general knowledge check (unless you've designed it badly). Let the knowledge checks enrich what they know, not define it.
------
You find a magic sword.
Do I know anything about it?
Roll an intelligence (knowledge history) check.

DC 15=You recall seeing a very similar-looking blade wielded by General Heggar in a tapestry in the King's great hall. In the tapestry it had a beam of light shooting out the end of it striking a demon. DC 18=The battle depicted happened over three thousand years ago and was the last battle in the Abyss war to close the Abyss gate. DC 20=The General sacrificed himself by going through the gate to seal it from the other side, he (and his sword) were never seen again.
------
You find a crumpled hat at the scene of the crime, it looks like it was stepped on during the melee and trodden into the mud.
Is there anything remarkable about the hat?
It is finely made, purely a fashion item really but would have cost a pretty penny.
Anything more?
Intelligence (knowledge local) check please!

DC 10=There is a milliner (hat maker) in town on bridge street, perhaps you could ask there. DC 14=Greig's Hat Emporium is widely known as the place to go for the local nobility's headwear. DC 18=Greig, the owner was once a suspect for a murder that bears some resemblance to these circumstances. DC 22=Before starting up his business as a milliner it is rumoured that Greig was an adventuring wizard and a dangerous one at that...
------
...the old man finishes with "He's back... the Wild Knight is back", fear in his eyes.
I roll an intelligence check, hey! 20! Tell me everything about this Wild King.
No
What? I rolled 20! You see that there! T-W-E-N-T-Y. It means I know everything.
No, you've never heard of the Wild Knight.

With a name like the Wild Night perhaps a knowledge nature or local (if 'local' is referring to some woodland or farmland) might allow that player some hope of gleaning information. Basically, rolling a 20 is not a one-way ticket to omniscience.

Yeah. Its a bit like:

Player: I want to jump to the moon!
DM: OK, roll athletics (ignores roll). You failed.

The short answer for the OP DM is to just say 'no' from time to time. If the player sooks that his character should know about a topic, point to the fact he dumped intelligence, has no proficiency in any relevant knowledge skill, and his background is he is a hermit from the northern wastes with no formal education other than being raised by wolves.

[JoeJ]

The OP, who's players have come to believe that is exactly how intelligence checks work. They decide to roll, get a 20, and expect the DM to tell them anything and everything about a subject.

Ah, okay. But requiring proficiency is still the wrong fix for the DM not saying "no" to something that should have no chance to succeed.

[mgshamster]

No. Those are clearly tasks which can be attempted by anyone. Knowledge of obscure and specific subjects are things that only someone with specific training would have. If you try hard enough or get lucky enough, you can escape someone's grasp or sneak past a guard. No matter how hard you try, you can't know something that is beyond your learning.

This is part of the problem with knowledge skills in the first place.

I don't know... Have you ever tried to escape a grapple by someone who was trained in it? It's damn hard. Small joking aside, one thing this game has never really focused on is the difference between knowledge, lack of knowledge, and misinformation. That last bit is key to separating out the knowledgable from those who simply don't know.

Take the example someone posted earlier about modern general education - even with that there is still rampant misinformation in almost every field. Pseudoscience, pseudo history, conspiracy theories, alien visitation theories, and much more. Most people aren't apt to simply say "I don't know." Instead, they come up with whatever little bit of knowledge they may have in hopes that it helps - and those who aren't trained simply don't know if what they know is accurate. Even those who are trained can fall in to the trap.

If we ignore misinformation in the game (which is a very valid choice), I believe that it's also fair to simply not allow a knowledge check in some instances for those not trained. The knowledge check represents accurate information - and that particular character simply doesn't have accurate information (that innacuracy may be complete lack of knowledge or just wrong knowledge). They can't roll in this situation.

If you want to introduce misinformation in to the game, then I think it's fair to have characters roll in all situations - those that fail are given either no knowledge or wrong knowledge, depending on the roll.

[PotatoGolem]

One approach that I like (shamelessly stolen from Flashy) is to let anyone roll, but have different information available depending on whether you're proficient. When the wizard with Arcana makes an arcana check, he's getting what he learned in a formal academic setting about the strengths and weaknesses of demons. When the nonproficient fighter rolls, he's seeing what a bloke in a pub who might have fought a demon once told him

[Thrudd]

I don't know... Have you ever tried to escape a grapple by someone who was trained in it? It's damn hard. Small joking aside, one thing this game has never really focused on is the difference between knowledge, lack of knowledge, and misinformation. That last bit is key to separating out the knowledgable from those who simply don't know.

Take the example someone posted earlier about modern general education - even with that there is still rampant misinformation in almost every field. Pseudoscience, pseudo history, conspiracy theories, alien visitation theories, and much more. Most people aren't apt to simply say "I don't know." Instead, they come up with whatever little bit of knowledge they may have in hopes that it helps - and those who aren't trained simply don't know if what they know is accurate. Even those who are trained can fall in to the trap.

If we ignore misinformation in the game (which is a very valid choice), I believe that it's also fair to simply not allow a knowledge check in some instances for those not trained. The knowledge check represents accurate information - and that particular character simply doesn't have accurate information (that innacuracy may be complete lack of knowledge or just wrong knowledge). They can't roll in this situation.

If you want to introduce misinformation in to the game, then I think it's fair to have characters roll in all situations - those that fail are given either no knowledge or wrong knowledge, depending on the roll.

I agree, that's my whole stance on this subject.

[RickAllison]

Not a D&D example, but one of my Star Wars players severely botched his knowledge check about this peaceful race of alien monks that one of the party members is. He is now convinced they are a warlike society seeking Force artifacts to power their galaxy-rending war-machine. As a running gag, I occasionally remind the player how his character might really interpret the words of the alien in light of that knowledge :smallbiggrin:

[Demonic Spoon]

While it's true that anybody can attempt to sneak past a guard, it's equally true that anybody can attempt to remember what they've heard about dragons, or magic, or the history of some long-dead empire. Whether or not it's beyond their learning is determined by the DC and the die roll. Adding a proficiency-only requirement detracts from verisimilitude by making it impossible for anybody to have ever picked up any information in certain fields without specific training in them. It also unfairly punishes players for choosing certain builds rather than others.

"Proficiency only" is an oversimplification of what was originally proposed. There are other things that would make it reasonable that a character knows a particular thing. For example, a character who grew up in a region in which interaction with dragons was common could definitely know something about dragons regardless of Arcana or History proficiency. A cleric of Lathander might know something about obscure Lathander lore without Religion proficiency.

However, a character who has never seen a dragon before, never grew up around people who had seen a dragon before, and has never had any formal education on the topic of dragons is not going to know that a red dragon is evil and breaths fire and has a fear aura.

[JoeJ]

The most important thing to remember is that the player doesn't get to roll dice to know something or to do something unless the DM says that they do. Auto-failure and auto-success are very much a part of the game.

Player: "What do I know about this symbol (rolls die). Natural 20!"

DM: "You've never seen it before, but it sort of resembles the old coat of arms of Almery. And what was that 20 for? I didn't call for a die roll."

Player: "That was to see how much my character knows."

DM: "Oh, you didn't need to roll for that."

Player: "That's it? But I rolled a natural 20!"

DM: "Great. Try to roll that again when it will actually mean something."

[Cybren]

The most important thing to remember is that the player doesn't get to roll dice to know something or to do something unless the DM says that they do. Auto-failure and auto-success are very much a part of the game.

Player: "What do I know about this symbol (rolls die). Natural 20!"

DM: "You've never seen it before, but it sort of resembles the old coat of arms of Almery. And what was that 20 for? I didn't call for a die roll."

Player: "That was to see how much my character knows."

DM: "Oh, you didn't need to roll for that."

Player: "That's it? But I rolled a natural 20!"

DM: "Great. Try to roll that again when it will actually mean something."

This gets at one of my biggest pet peeves, players that roll dice before being prompted by the DM (unless it's very clear that the action requires a die roll).

[Gnaeus]

So, mechanically, if I don't want my fighter to be a complete fracking idiot, what choice do I have?

In 3.5, there is an easy solution. As an int 10 human, I get 3 skill points per level. One point in Know Arcana gives me a half rank, which lets me roll to know things. For 1 feat, or a couple levels of skill ranks, I can be basically trained in the most common knowledges. Not really good at them, but I have a chance to make a DC 15 roll, or even a 20 if I am lucky. If I am a rogue, I am likely to at least pip every knowledge I want.

But its 5e. I can't do that, because there are no skill ranks. Taking it as a proficiency indicates a significant and ongoing study of that thing, to a level above the common knowledge of adventurers. So I'm a scholar, or I'm useless.

I suppose, I could spend all my downtimes telling the DM that I am researching information on a wide variety of topics. But I strongly suspect that the people who want to prevent the fighter from rolling will generally call that "metagaming" or "munchkinry".

No one has bothered to even try to rebut the fact that all the things you expect your caster to learn, like religion and arcana, are things that you are arguing you need proficiencies for, but everyone agrees that it is still perfectly legit for the wizard to out-grapple hercules by rolling a 20 on an "untrained" athletics check. I'm not sure whether this reveals an incredible failure to understand game balance, or just a lack of caring.

[mgshamster]

So, mechanically, if I don't want my fighter to be a complete fracking idiot, what choice do I have?

Pick up the "Skilled" feat for three more proficiencies. Use your background to gain proficiencies in the areas you want to know things about. Use your money and downtime to gain more proficiencies (the PHB has ruled for tool proficiencies, but the DMG suggests allowing skill proficiencies to work too).


In 3.5, there is an easy solution. As an int 10 human, I get 3 skill points per level. One point in Know Arcana gives me a half rank, which lets me roll to know things. For 1 feat, or a couple levels of skill ranks, I can be basically trained in the most common knowledges. Not really good at them, but I have a chance to make a DC 15 roll, or even a 20 if I am lucky. If I am a rogue, I am likely to at least pip every knowledge I want.

A single rank in many skills will leave you worthless at most higher level knowledge DC's. This is not a solution at all. I've done this, because I want my characters to know a little bit about a lot of things, and every time I get screwed because of it. You either max your ranks out or don't even bother.


But its 5e. I can't do that, because there are no skill ranks. Taking it as a proficiency indicates a significant and ongoing study of that thing, to a level above the common knowledge of adventurers. So I'm a scholar, or I'm useless.

Binary thinking. Doesn't help. Several people have argued that you should be able to make untrained knowledge checks in areas relevant to your background or class or experiences. Grew up in an area ravaged by dragons? You could make untrained knowledge checks on dragons. Grew up in an area that doesn't even have dragons in their mythologies? Sorry, no check if you're not trained.


I suppose, I could spend all my downtimes telling the DM that I am researching information on a wide variety of topics. But I strongly suspect that the people who want to prevent the fighter from rolling will generally call that "metagaming" or "munchkinry".

That's exactly what the training rules are for. I mean, you can literally use your downtime to gain new proficiencies. How in the world is that going to be countered with "you're just a munchkin for doing that!"?


No one has bothered to even try to rebut the fact that all the things you expect your caster to learn, like religion and arcana, are things that you are arguing you need proficiencies for, but everyone agrees that it is still perfectly legit for the wizard to out-grapple hercules by rolling a 20 on an "untrained" athletics check. I'm not sure whether this reveals an incredible failure to understand game balance, or just a lack of caring.

I have argued above that it is very difficult to get out of a grapple in real life against someone trained in it. If the GM doesn't allow you to escape, then you simply can't do it. But in a contest of dex/str vs str, it's certain possible in a struggle that the stronger person could make a mistake and the weaker person could get out.

Even with all that, several people have argued that you could make untrained knowledge checks if it's relevant to your background. A soldier should be able to make military history checks untrained - even if they couldn't make history checks about something else. Work it out with your GM.

[Gnaeus]

Pick up the "Skilled" feat for three more proficiencies. Use your background to gain proficiencies in the areas you want to know things about. Use your money and downtime to gain more proficiencies (the PHB has ruled for tool proficiencies, but the DMG suggests allowing skill proficiencies to work too).


That's exactly what the training rules are for. I mean, you can literally use your downtime to gain new proficiencies. How in the world is that going to be countered with "you're just a munchkin for doing that!"?

Because in most games, the training rules are useless. 1. As you yourself point out, depending on which book you use, it may or may not be legal.
2. Even if it worked, I have never been in a campaign that gave 250 days of downtime. Not saying it never happens, but generally, no. It isn't a solution.
3. You accuse me of binary thinking? the solution to "I can't make general checks to have a chance to know something" is to take a 250 day graduate course and become an expert? The solution to "I want to have a general base of knowledge about things I am likely to encounter as an adventurer" is to take a 250 day graduate course in Arcana, and another in Religion, and another in Nature? And this is more realistic than just giving him a chance to roll how?


A single rank in many skills will leave you worthless at most higher level knowledge DC's. This is not a solution at all. I've done this, because I want my characters to know a little bit about a lot of things, and every time I get screwed because of it. You either max your ranks out or don't even bother.

And letting the muggle make a roll "untrained" in 5e also leaves him worthless at most higher level knowledge DCs. That is the point exactly. He's never gonna hit a 25. He might not even hit a 20. but he has a good chance at common knowledge and if he gets lucky he may even know some useful piece of DC 15 trivia.



Binary thinking. Doesn't help. Several people have argued that you should be able to make untrained knowledge checks in areas relevant to your background or class or experiences. Grew up in an area ravaged by dragons? You could make untrained knowledge checks on dragons. Grew up in an area that doesn't even have dragons in their mythologies? Sorry, no check if you're not trained.

And now the strawman proposes an alternate DND world where monsters just appeared and no one knows about legendary monsters. Yes, I will concede that if your character was raised by wolves on a desert island and just entered civilization for the first time yesterday, he shouldn't get a check to know about things he could never possibly have heard about. But after a couple of levels, hanging out with adventurers and wandering through taverns and learning things about his world, he should get to roll. Now lets go back to the average adventurer, who is exceptional by his nature, and who generally grew up in DND world where there are gods and demons and dragons and undead and everyone knows this and most people probably have some clue what they are and certainly most adventurers do before they start exploring ancient crypts.


I have argued above that it is very difficult to get out of a grapple in real life against someone trained in it. If the GM doesn't allow you to escape, then you simply can't do it. But in a contest of dex/str vs str, it's certain possible in a struggle that the stronger person could make a mistake and the weaker person could get out.

And it is certainly possible that even the dumb guy may once have had an uncle who was attacked by oozes so he knows something about them.


Work it out with your GM.

And this thread is discussing good DM practice. Not letting people roll is still not fun, not fair, and not particularly realistic. You all want to argue realism, fine. Even if I conceded your points, it still is bad for balance, and it still sucks for players to make them fail without a chance.

[JoeJ]

And this thread is discussing good DM practice. Not letting people roll is still not fun, not fair, and not particularly realistic. You all want to argue realism, fine. Even if I conceded your points, it still is bad for balance, and it still sucks for players to make them fail without a chance.

Letting players roll for anything and everything is also not realistic, and makes the game far too swingy. If it's reasonable for a character to know something, given their class, race, or background, they should know it without needing a die roll. (You grew up in a town that gets attacked by orcs every couple of years, so of course you recognize orcs and know how they typically fight.) Or, if information is necessary to advance the adventure, then again it should be available without a roll. ("Margary," the name written in blood by the murder victim before they expired, is also the first name of the prime minister's wife.)

Conversely, if it's completely absurd for the players to know something, then they automatically don't know it. (You can't roll to identify some unnatural creature grown in a vat by an alchemist working to their own original design.) And if the information would trivialize the adventure, then it should not be known. (No knowledge roll will tell you that Lord Evilton is the murderer.)

Only when none of these is the case should the DM set a DC and ask for a die roll.

If you want your fighter to not be an idiot, give them an Intelligence of 10 or 11. Then they have a +0 modifier to recall lore about subjects they're not proficient in, which is enough to succeed at Very Easy tasks most of the time and Hard ones occasionally.

[Sigreid]

We live in a different world than that described by most fantasy settings. We're talking about medieval technology and society for the most part. We can't really compare the type of education and access to information we have, in the information age, with what things would be like in a pseudo medieval society. There is likely no such thing as "general education" in such a world. People are educated in the trade of their family, or apprenticed to a master that teaches a specific trade and knowledge set. Only the nobility and aristocrats have anything resembling a "general education" from family tutors, and even that is not nearly as diverse as the information we are able to peruse in modern times.

True, but we are also talking about a world with wandering bards spreading tales about anything and everything to do with with the great heroes and legends. We're also dealing with a setting where a basic proficiency with things like carpentry would be basic skills nearly everyone would have had some exposure to.

Anyway, each table can run it the way they want. I just expressed my perspective.

[Malifice]

So, mechanically, if I don't want my fighter to be a complete fracking idiot, what choice do I have?

Take a background that gives you some knowledge skills to reflect his study. Select skilled with one of your bonus feats to reflect it. Dont dump Int. Spend downtime picking up a proficiency in knowledge.

Off the top of my head.


This gets at one of my biggest pet peeves, players that roll dice before being prompted by the DM (unless it's very clear that the action requires a die roll).

Only topped by a player stating 'I'll disarm the trap' (rolls D20) or 'I'll look in the room' (rolls D20).

Cringe.

Tell me what your player is doing with a little more detail for gods sake.

[bardo]

No one has bothered to even try to rebut the fact that all the things you expect your caster to learn, like religion and arcana, are things that you are arguing you need proficiencies for, but everyone agrees that it is still perfectly legit for the wizard to out-grapple hercules by rolling a 20 on an "untrained" athletics check. I'm not sure whether this reveals an incredible failure to understand game balance, or just a lack of caring.

Let's recap:

Fighter is proficient in Athletics, rolls with +5. Goes head-to-head in a long jump contest against Average Joe (+0). Average Joe will beat the Fighter 1 out of 4 times (26.25%).

Rogue isn't just proficient in Acrobatics, Rogue is an expert at Acrobatics, rolls with +7. Goes head-to-head in a juggling contest against Average Joe (+0). Average Joe will beat the Rogue 1 out of 5 times (19.50%).

Wizard is proficient in Arcana, rolls with +5. Goes head-to-head in a dragon trivia contest against now you just hold on a minute there, Joe. You can't just roll an intelligence check every time you feel like recalling arcane lore. You have to provide some plausible explanation as to where when how and why that average-sized head of yours would contain lore at all. Does your background say you've ever even seen a dragon? Wizard wins by default.

I'm not questioning the realism of the argument. It's real. There is no way Average Joe could beat a jeopardy contestant at trivia. Not even one time out of a hundred. But could Average Joe win one race out of a hundred against anyone from the track & field team? Why does the realism clause only applies to intelligence checks and all other checks are played by the rules?

That. Is what we call. Bias.

Bardo.

[Malifice]

Let's recap:

Fighter is proficient in Athletics, rolls with +5. Goes head-to-head in a long jump contest against Average Joe (+0). Average Joe will beat the Fighter 1 out of 4 times (26.25%).

Rogue isn't just proficient in Acrobatics, Rogue is an expert at Acrobatics, rolls with +7. Goes head-to-head in a juggling contest against Average Joe (+0). Average Joe will beat the Rogue 1 out of 5 times (19.50%).

Why are you rolling for these things? A Str 16 fighter proficient in athletics just wins in a long jump competition against a commoner.

Just like Le Bron is gonna beat you in a game of 1 on 1 down the local basketball ring, and outdunk you every time.

[mgshamster]

I'm not questioning the realism of the argument. It's real. There is no way Average Joe could beat a jeopardy contestant at trivia. Not even one time out of a hundred. But could Average Joe win one race out of a hundred against anyone from the track & field team? Why does the realism clause only applies to intelligence checks and all other checks are played by the rules?

That. Is what we call. Bias.

Bardo.

My guess:

Everyone runs and jumps. We all do it. We all did it as kids. It's something every able-bodied person can do. Some do it better and some actively train for it. But everyone does it.

Not everyone learns every bit of detail about every subject matter in existence. Not everyone is exposed to everything there is to know. It's expected that every able-bodied person is able to run and jump, but it is not expected that every able-minded person has knowledge on every subject.

If you've never learned how to read, it doesn't matter if you roll a Nat 20 on a knowledge check to understand a document - you simply can't read it. Knowledge is something one must gain through exposure. In the game, this is represented through background, character experience, and skills.

Even with that, there's no reason you can't just declare a high strength person trained in athletics to auto win a jump contest against a commoner - unless something out of the ordinary happens (like cheating or injuries or something). Or just declare the rogue wins at juggling (unless our commoner has proficiency in juggling specifically). Remember, the d20 is for when the outcome is uncertain. If you honesty think the commoner has a chance to beat the fighter trained in athletics - then sure, allow a roll. If you don't, then don't allow one.

[quinron]

No one has bothered to even try to rebut the fact that all the things you expect your caster to learn, like religion and arcana, are things that you are arguing you need proficiencies for...

This is why I don't like restricting characters to proficiency-only rolls on ANYTHING. Especially as a prepared caster, I think it's unreasonable to say that just because they don't have the requisite skill proficiency, the character is clueless about the force they study/devote themselves to in order to gain power. Most players will choose a background that gives them the appropriate knowledge or take it as a class skill, but nonstandard characters and multiclass characters especially can end up crippled by these restrictions; if a monk multiclasses to cleric or druid but didn't plan for that at character creation and didn't take Religion proficiency, does that mean their religious studies have given them no insight into the gods or the Outer Planes?

Now, you can always rule that if you're playing a cleric/druid/wizard, you have to take the requisite proficiency, but while that's reasonable from a realistic viewpoint, a) it's restrictive of the player, which is the easiest way to make a player uncooperative later, and b) anyone trying to claim that vanilla, by-the-book D&D even flirts with realism is deceiving themselves.

The randomness that can occur from this - "Oh, your barbarian with 7 Intelligence just got a 17 on that Arcana check, guess he suddenly knows how magic works" - is the main reason I switched to passive skills for the actual knowing-stuff part of knowledge rolls. Doing something out of the ordinary with magic still requires an Arcana check, harvesting parts from a slain creature still requires a Nature check, but the amount of information in your character's head is a fixed number based on your decision to make your character intelligent or invest a skill proficiency to reflect their studying something.

[Malifice]

This is why I don't like restricting characters to proficiency-only rolls on ANYTHING. Especially as a prepared caster, I think it's unreasonable to say that just because they don't have the requisite skill proficiency, the character is clueless about the force they study/devote themselves to in order to gain power. Most players will choose a background that gives them the appropriate knowledge or take it as a class skill, but nonstandard characters and multiclass characters especially can end up crippled by these restrictions; if a monk multiclasses to cleric or druid but didn't plan for that at character creation and didn't take Religion proficiency, does that mean their religious studies have given them no insight into the gods or the Outer Planes?

Now, you can always rule that if you're playing a cleric/druid/wizard, you have to take the requisite proficiency, but while that's reasonable from a realistic viewpoint, a) it's restrictive of the player, which is the easiest way to make a player uncooperative later, and b) anyone trying to claim that vanilla, by-the-book D&D even flirts with realism is deceiving themselves.

The randomness that can occur from this - "Oh, your barbarian with 7 Intelligence just got a 17 on that Arcana check, guess he suddenly knows how magic works" - is the main reason I switched to passive skills for the actual knowing-stuff part of knowledge rolls. Doing something out of the ordinary with magic still requires an Arcana check, harvesting parts from a slain creature still requires a Nature check, but the amount of information in your character's head is a fixed number based on your decision to make your character intelligent or invest a skill proficiency to reflect their studying something.

Its just a judgement call by the DM.

A player is expected to know what a person with his background and class would indicate. If your player chararacters background is (Anvil in the Ice reference):

'A Half elf mage-smith from the North who escaped serfdom and fled into the underdark, where he was trainined in smithcraft by a goodly Duergar and indoctrinated into the worship of Moradin, before fleeing to the surface' (Half Elf, Artificer, Craftsman background, speaks dwarven and undercommon).

then it can be expected he knows a bit about the North, the Underdark (and its common inhabitants) smithwork, dwarves (particularly Duergar) and the faith of Moradin.

If it does nothing but encourage players to provide backstories for PCs and stray away from murder-hobism, then its a good thing.

[Cybren]

Let's recap:

Fighter is proficient in Athletics, rolls with +5. Goes head-to-head in a long jump contest against Average Joe (+0). Average Joe will beat the Fighter 1 out of 4 times (26.25%).

Rogue isn't just proficient in Acrobatics, Rogue is an expert at Acrobatics, rolls with +7. Goes head-to-head in a juggling contest against Average Joe (+0). Average Joe will beat the Rogue 1 out of 5 times (19.50%).

Wizard is proficient in Arcana, rolls with +5. Goes head-to-head in a dragon trivia contest against now you just hold on a minute there, Joe. You can't just roll an intelligence check every time you feel like recalling arcane lore. You have to provide some plausible explanation as to where when how and why that average-sized head of yours would contain lore at all. Does your background say you've ever even seen a dragon? Wizard wins by default.

I'm not questioning the realism of the argument. It's real. There is no way Average Joe could beat a jeopardy contestant at trivia. Not even one time out of a hundred. But could Average Joe win one race out of a hundred against anyone from the track & field team? Why does the realism clause only applies to intelligence checks and all other checks are played by the rules?

That. Is what we call. Bias.

Bardo.

That's a false equicilancy. "Jumping contest" is a simple but concrete task. "Know something specific about dragons" is not. It would be no different than saying average joe can't try a long jump across a 20 ft gap but the fighter could. The game rules should respect the fiction.

[bardo]

Even with that, there's no reason you can't just declare a high strength person trained in athletics to auto win a jump contest against a commoner


Why are you rolling for these things? A Str 16 fighter proficient in athletics just wins in a long jump competition against a commoner.

It shouldn't matter whether Average Joe is a commoner, a PC, or a monster. Stat blocks are stat blocks. Joe rolls strength (athletics) with +0 and the Fighter rolls strength (athletics) with +5. It's only a 5 point difference.

If your character were in an archery competition, and Robin Hood had a 5 point lead over your character, would you accept the DM ruling you lost without even getting to roll? I think most players would insist they should be allowed to roll for it.

Forget long jump. Here's one straight out of the book: Fighter is trying to hold the door shut and Average Joe tries to bust through that door. By the book (that's one of the examples under skill check contests on page 174 of the PHB) Average Joe busts through 1 out of 4 times. Same results if we switch places: Now Average Joe tries to hold the door shut and Fighter tries to bust through that door. Again, by the book, Average Joe manages to hold the door shut 1 out of 4 times.

Realistically, that's whack. Joe can't stop Dwayne the Rock Johnson from barging through the door, and can't barge in when Dwayne the Rock Johnson is holding the door shut. Realistically, Joe would fail every single time on each side of the door. The rules in this case are not realistic. The rules say Joe wins 1 time out of 4.

It's fine for the DM to want more realism in the game and say Joe auto-fails the door contest. But that's a house rule, and it's a house rule that goes directly against RAW as the PHB literally explains how to handle a door contest. That sort of thing is fine as long as it's explained to the players before the game starts. DM can't just pull that out of his hat during play. Which brings me back to the point, DM can't pull "explain how your character would know anything about dragons" out of his hat either.


That's a false equicilancy. "Jumping contest" is a simple but concrete task. "Know something specific about dragons" is not. It would be no different than saying average joe can't try a long jump across a 20 ft gap but the fighter could. The game rules should respect the fiction.

Answering "Are red dragons immune to fire?" seems like a concrete task to me. Are you saying it's not? Explain why. Telling Joe he can't try a 20 ft jump seems needlessly restrictive to me. The distance/DC might be well out of Joe's capabilities, but I don't think it breaks realism or fiction in any way to let him *try*.


Everyone runs and jumps. We all do it. We all did it as kids. It's something every able-bodied person can do. Some do it better and some actively train for it. But everyone does it.

Not everyone learns every bit of detail about every subject matter in existence. Not everyone is exposed to everything there is to know. It's expected that every able-bodied person is able to run and jump, but it is not expected that every able-minded person has knowledge on every subject.

This is the bias. Right here. When you talk about running and jumping you say "everybody does it". Sure, everybody does stuff like finishing the 100 meter dash in under 30 seconds and hopping over puddles. But when you talk about intelligence you raise the bar to "every bit of detail about every subject matter in existence" and having "knowledge on every subject". You're comparing very basic physical competence against extraordinary intellectual skills, is that a fair comparison?

Everybody runs. Everybody jumps. But also everybody thinks. Everybody learns. And everybody remembers.

Intelligence checks should not be treated differently from any other check. Set a reasonable DC for the challenge and let Joe roll. If the DC is beyond Joe's capabilities then Joe won't pass the check. If Joe thinks rolling a natural 20 should give him something special you can point Joe to the PHB section where it clearly says only attack rolls get natural 20 perks. Don't put up barriers to stop Joe from rolling intelligence checks. Let Joe roll intelligence checks like you let everybody roll strength and dexterity checks.

Bardo.

[mgshamster]

This is the bias. Right here. When you talk about running and jumping you say "everybody does it". Sure, everybody does stuff like finishing the 100 meter dash in under 30 seconds and hopping over puddles. But when you talk about intelligence you raise the bar to "every bit of detail about every subject matter in existence" and having "knowledge on every subject". You're comparing very basic physical competence against extraordinary intellectual skills, is that a fair comparison?

Everybody runs. Everybody jumps. But also everybody thinks. Everybody learns. And everybody remembers.

Intelligence checks should not be treated differently from any other check. Set a reasonable DC for the challenge and let Joe roll. If the DC is beyond Joe's capabilities then Joe won't pass the check. If Joe thinks rolling a natural 20 should give him something special you can point Joe to the PHB section where it clearly says only attack rolls get natural 20 perks. Don't put up barriers to stop Joe from rolling intelligence checks. Let Joe roll intelligence checks like you let everybody roll strength and dexterity checks.

Bardo.

That's fair. So why don't we do a fair comparison?

Let's compare easy physical tasks against easily acquired knowledge. Both can be rolled untrained.

And we can compare extremely difficult physical tasks vs esoteric knowledge. Both may auto-fail for someone without training.

When we set up a scenario about why someone can perform an easy physical task and compare it to rare knowledge, then yes, we are going to see differences.

Edit: There's also a difference in scope and capability. If we really want to do a fair comparison, then we should be comparing the ability to jump with strength vs the ability to logic with intelligence. That's pure ability right there.

What were actually doing is comparing the ability to do [activity] to the "chance to have learned something in one's past."

How well one learns and thinks really has nothing to do with whether one was exposed to a subset of knowledge. Now, if one was exposed, then a check may be to recall that information - but raw intellect will never make up for lack of exposure. You have to be exposed to knowledge in some form before you can recall it. Backgrounds, proficiencies, class, race, etc represent that exposure.

What we seem to be doing by always allowing a knowledge roll untrained is assuming that the roll represents whether one was exposed to the knowledge in the past beyond their declared experiences. Which actually ain't a bad way of looking at it.

[Vogonjeltz]

If we ignore misinformation in the game (which is a very valid choice), I believe that it's also fair to simply not allow a knowledge check in some instances for those not trained. The knowledge check represents accurate information - and that particular character simply doesn't have accurate information (that innacuracy may be complete lack of knowledge or just wrong knowledge). They can't roll in this situation.

I think that if you set the DC to something theoretically passable by the characters, depending on the die roll outcome, then it would be a double standard to outright refuse to allow a roll unless the character has proficiency. The additional knowledge of the proficient character is already emulated by the proficiency bonus.

This is distinct from saying in no case do the characters (As a whole) know the information aforehand, which would be equitable.

[Finieous]

It's fine for the DM to want more realism in the game and say Joe auto-fails the door contest. But that's a house rule, and it's a house rule that goes directly against RAW as the PHB literally explains how to handle a door contest. That sort of thing is fine as long as it's explained to the players before the game starts. DM can't just pull that out of his hat during play. Which brings me back to the point, DM can't pull "explain how your character would know anything about dragons" out of his hat either.


This isn't a "house rule." It's just the rules. Actually, that's the whole game.

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of their actions.

Basic Rules, page 63

The DM calls for an ability check when a character or
monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that
has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain,
the dice determine the results.

Basic Rules, page 58

Players describe what their characters want to do (or know). DMs describe what happens, and they can call for an ability check if and when, in their judgment, the outcome of that character's action is uncertain.

[JackPhoenix]

This is why I don't like restricting characters to proficiency-only rolls on ANYTHING. Especially as a prepared caster, I think it's unreasonable to say that just because they don't have the requisite skill proficiency, the character is clueless about the force they study/devote themselves to in order to gain power.

That's not strictly true...prepared caster can certainly learn the spells by rote without having any idea why they work.

However, it was said multiple times that there are circumstances other then just proficiency. Wizard without Arcana proficiency may still know more about how magic works (unless the players really wants to play a wizard who has got no idea what is he doing...certainly valid character concept!) then the average peasant, even if the peasant is just as intelligent.

The wizard without Arcana proficiency still studies magic, even if he only knows he need to mumble *this* and wiggle his fingers like *that* to shoot lightning from their fingertips, and not that he's using Mordenkainen's theorem to manipulate the Weave to create ionised path in the direction he's pointing, and combines it with Bigby's effect that will turn raw mana into electrical energy (or whatever technoarcanobabble is applicable). At the same time, the peasant watches in awe, because all he learned to do was how to grow bigger and tastier potatoes (which the wizard thinks only need planting and then harvesting after some time with no extra work), and maybe how to write his own name.

[bardo]

This isn't a "house rule." It's just the rules. Actually, that's the whole game. *snip*

Specific rules take precedence over general rules. There is a specific rule for this situation. The general rules that you cited take a back seat. The specific rule I cited applies. RAW tell the DM exactly how to resolve the situation.

The DM can say "I know RAW calls for a strength check contest here, but instead I'm just going to decide the outcome". That's fine. If it happens once or twice per session we can call it rule zero, a fudge, whatever. If the DM does this regularly I must insist on calling it a house rule, because the only other option would be to call the DM a cheat.

Bardo.

[Finieous]

Specific rules take precedence over general rules. There is a specific rule for this situation. The general rules that you cited take a back seat. The specific rule I cited applies. RAW tell the DM exactly how to resolve the situation.

The DM can say "I know RAW calls for a strength check contest here, but instead I'm just going to decide the outcome". That's fine. If it happens once or twice per session we can call it rule zero, a fudge, whatever. If the DM does this regularly I must insist on calling it a house rule, because the only other option would be to call the DM a cheat.


Yes, if the DM calls for an ability check, the specific rules you've identified tell him how to resolve it. It's still, always, the DM's decision whether or not to call for an ability check. The specific rules for resolving different kinds of ability checks do not overwrite the general rule that "The DM calls for an ability check." This isn't a fudge, and certainly not a cheat; it's how the game is played.

[bardo]

What we seem to be doing by always allowing a knowledge roll untrained is assuming that the roll represents whether one was exposed to the knowledge in the past beyond their declared experiences. Which actually ain't a bad way of looking at it.


I think that if you set the DC to something theoretically passable by the characters, depending on the die roll outcome, then it would be a double standard to outright refuse to allow a roll unless the character has proficiency. The additional knowledge of the proficient character is already emulated by the proficiency bonus.

This is distinct from saying in no case do the characters (As a whole) know the information aforehand, which would be equitable.

Right on the money. The knowledge check roll reflects the chance of the character having been exposed to the information and able to recall it correctly. The DC of a knowledge check reflects how scarce the information is. Set an appropriate DC, let the players roll, and it all works out great.

If your DM insists you must provide a plausible explanation as to where you picked up the info, feel free to put down "I once spent an amazing night with Bardo" in your background. That should cover it.

Bardo.

[coredump]

Specific rules take precedence over general rules. There is a specific rule for this situation. The general rules that you cited take a back seat. The specific rule I cited applies. RAW tell the DM exactly how to resolve the situation.

That only applies when the rules contradict. In this case they don't.

The rules say that "if there is uncertainty' a DM *may* call for an ability check. Then there are more rules for what to do when resolving that ability check.

If there is no uncertainty, then no ability check/contest happens.

[MeeposFire]

This is actually an advantage in the current system in that DCs are not concrete you apply them as you feel the situation warrants (including to being automatic success or failure). An action for one character due to all sorts of factors could be very easy (and thus could be shown by a lower DC on top of the higher skill bonus) while a higher DC is appropriate for other characters where it makes sense. Sometimes something is automatic. If you grapple the lady bug you will win. There is no chance that even the weakest healthy human will lose to the lady bug (htough he may miss the lady bug it is small but once it is grappled the bug is toast).

A person from Japan would likely not need to be proficient in a game sense with knowledge of Japan customs for to know how to act polite to the Japanese and would likely not even have to roll unless it was obscure. Some one from the USA might need to be trained to know anything at all and thus have a high DC instead of auto or near auto success despite doing the same action (say not sticking your chop sticks into the rice). On the other hand the American who took the time to really train themselves in Japanese culture could have a chance of knowing something really obscure that the common person in Japan may not know about themselves. As an American example not many Americans know that the most commonly seen Confederate flag is not actually the confederate flag but one of the many types of Confederate battle flags. While many common people are ignorant of this fact people that took the time to study American history (whether from the USA or from outside the country) could actually tell you that (which depending on how obscure it is in your opinion in game terms may require a roll or could be auto known for somebody trained in American history). For an example of what a common person might know but may need to be trained for an outsider is something like the chief executive in the USA is the president. Essentially most everybody in the USA knows this but somebody in some other country would likely need to be taught that (though in this case it would be probably a fairly easy one so the American is probably auto success on this and the non-American probably has to make a very low DC).

[BW022]

fishdad and folks,

I don't see these as big of an issue as others... if you just handle is with a few caveats. Our group loves knowledge checks as it is primarily a roleplaying exercise. Both the DM and players handle it in a way which limits meta-gaming.

(I'll use the example of players entering an old keep and seeing a man across the room turn into a bat and fly out the window.)

First, unlike any other ability checks there is no reason a character would know the result as correct or not. When jumping a pit, it is obvious that you succeeded or failed. It is not obvious on a knowledge check. They may not know, they may get the wrong information, or they may just get a partial answer. Someone rolling a 4 might be convinced that the man is a druid. You expect him to roleplay this. Just because someone rolled an 18 and thinks it is a werebat... that doesn't mean you'd magically accept his *roll*.

Second, if players don't roleplay their result... roll secretly and tell them their results. The side effect of this is that players tend to automatically believe other party members who are more likely to be correct. If the fighter rolls a 20 and thinks it is a vampire... and the ranger rolls a 4 and thinks it is a druid... let the party figure out who right or wrong.

Third, if players do roleplay incorrect results realistically... give them some XP or an inspiration point for good roleplaying.

Forth, secret rolls work well if someone has advantage (say a ranger with knowledge of lycanthropes) or disadvange (no spellcasting ability). Players can't see this and can't metagame that is is more likely a werebat.

Fifth, knowledge checks don't help if players ask the wrong questions or jump to conclusions. If they assume the man is a vampire and ask "What do I know about vampires?" Give them some information about vampires.

Sixth, knowledge checks don't have to give immediate and detailed knowledge. It might give a place or person who might give the answer, it might give some way of testing an answer (or breaking a tie), etc. For example, the ranger thinks it is a werebat and the cleric knows that vampires can turn into bats. And the fighter, even with his 20, knows that werecreatures don't transform their clothing when they change shape. They can then look for clothing or try to remember if anyone saw the man with clothing. Fighter still helps with some more obscure information, but he isn't any type of expert on either.

Seventh, answer *specific* questions rather than encyclopedic knowledge if the DC is high. "Do I know what the man is?" is not the same as give me all the details on what the man is. Encourage multiple lines of thought. A high roll might return, it could be a druid, werebat, polymorph spell, an illusion, a vampire, etc. Different PCs might have advantages on each of those rolls. The ranger with a 15 might conclude is isn't a druid. A spellcaster with a 10 might determine where was no spellcasting so it likely wasn't polymorph. Encouraging multiple rolls tends to smooth out the chance that someone gets lucky.

Eighth, if someone does get lucky... do give them something useful and good. If the fighter rolls a 20, maybe he heard a bard telling the story of a werecreatures and have him notice that the man's clothes are lying on the floor near the window.

Nineth, the amount of success can depend upon the DC. A fighter might have had a DC of 20, while a ranger only had a DC of 15. Both the ranger and fighter may of determined that the man was a werebat. Further, had the ranger rolled a 20, he might also know something more than that... say that werebats almost always hunt in pacts and often hang from ceilings....

[pwykersotz]

I use a combination of many of the systems that have already been discussed.

*A floating head appears before you. You feel your access to your spells drift away.*

"What is that?": DC 10 check to recognize a Beholder and know that it uses magic eye rays and some of its lore.
"What happened to my magic?": DC 12 check to know that it has an antimagic cone for its central eye.
"Does it have any other powers?": DC 15 check to know that this Legendary monster is much more powerful around its lair.
"Does it have any weaknesses?": Trained only, DC 10 to know for certain that it has no particular weaknesses.
"What do its eye rays do exactly?": Trained only, DC 15 identifies one eye ray, +1 ray identified per +1 to the roll.
"I saw several statues on the way here, I'll bet it can petrify people!": No check, I confirm this is probably the case.
"I saw several statues on the way here, I'll bet it loves art!": DC 10 to realize this is probably not true, failure allows the misinformation.
Background of "Beholders ravaged my village": Automatic success on all the above regardless of proficiency.
Background of "I hunted one of those once": Automatic success on all checks that aren't trained only.
Worshiping the Great Mother: "I bring you gifts, my brother." (Your slipped your fellows slow poison so your "brother" dies after eating them.) :smalltongue:

Everyone gets to roll if they want to and the information they get is useful, but the exacting mechanical information is limited to those who have studied it. Typically I either call for a group check, or I allow the one with the highest check to roll (with advantage if another person of similar skill can help). I haven't had any complaints at my table, though I'm sure the table of the forums would excoriate my system.

[quinron]

However, it was said multiple times that there are circumstances other then just proficiency. Wizard without Arcana proficiency may still know more about how magic works (unless the players really wants to play a wizard who has got no idea what is he doing...certainly valid character concept!) then the average peasant, even if the peasant is just as intelligent.

Preciso. The issue (and I think this thread has generally reached a consensus that this is the case) is saying that something can only be done if you're proficient. Eventually you're going to make an exception - "Well, you don't have Arcana proficiency, but you're a sorcerer who uses glyph of warding to set fireball land mines all the time, so you can roll to try to recognize this fireball/glyph of warding land mine." You're breaking a rule you explicitly spelled out to the players, which makes them worry what other rules you might bend due to circumstance, and you're setting a precedent: from now on, every potential knowledge check is going to provoke an argument of, "I don't have proficiency in [skill], BUT..."

Also, on an only-tangentially-related note, I think the idea of forcing a player to withhold their knowledge of a monster's weaknesses is a question of both setting and presentation. In your archetypal game - high fantasy, PCs are members of an adventuring guild - it's pretty unreasonable to say that no knowledge whatsoever about, say, a troll's weakness to fire and acid would ever reach the PCs. Eberron's a good example of the opposite - while magic is common, not many NPCs have high levels, so most adventurers that come across a pointy-nosed green giant that won't stay dead aren't going to have a chance to make it back to civilization to spread word of its weakness.

[Pex]

Preciso. The issue (and I think this thread has generally reached a consensus that this is the case) is saying that something can only be done if you're proficient. Eventually you're going to make an exception - "Well, you don't have Arcana proficiency, but you're a sorcerer who uses glyph of warding to set fireball land mines all the time, so you can roll to try to recognize this fireball/glyph of warding land mine." You're breaking a rule you explicitly spelled out to the players, which makes them worry what other rules you might bend due to circumstance, and you're setting a precedent: from now on, every potential knowledge check is going to provoke an argument of, "I don't have proficiency in [skill], BUT..."



The solution for this specific scenario is that the sorcerer player wouldn't need to roll at all and recognize the glyph by default but would not recognize a symbol of sleep let alone knowing it even was a symbol at all. Similarly, a fighter not proficient in Religion but who worships Torm would recognize the Torm Holy Symbol the Mysterious Hooded Stranger in the back of the tavern is wearing but never know the bartender gave a sign of Bane gesture with his hand to signal the start of an ambush.

[Slipperychicken]

This gets at one of my biggest pet peeves, players that roll dice before being prompted by the DM (unless it's very clear that the action requires a die roll).

You also have the opposite: DMs who won't ever prompt for any kind of mental roll (like sense motive or knowledge), then assume your PC is being willfully ignorant if you don't announce the use of a skill at exactly the right time.

[quinron]

The solution for this specific scenario is that the sorcerer player wouldn't need to roll at all and recognize the glyph by default but would not recognize a symbol of sleep let alone knowing it even was a symbol at all. Similarly, a fighter not proficient in Religion but who worships Torm would recognize the Torm Holy Symbol the Mysterious Hooded Stranger in the back of the tavern is wearing but never know the bartender gave a sign of Bane gesture with his hand to signal the start of an ambush.

This is good, yes. But then we get into situations with multiple complicating features: Rangers get advantage on Intelligence checks related to their favored enemies. If I don't have proficiency in any knowledge skills, how much do I automatically know about my favored enemy? My dwarf is treated as proficient in History for the sake of studying stonework. How much do I get out of studying stonework? Do I recognize that these are yuan-ti carvings; that the structure indicates the ruin was once a sacrificial temple; that the last reports of yuan-ti sacrificing humans was during the Serpent Empire; or that this was specifically the sacrificial high temple of Merrshaulk? All of these are definitely History, and all of them could be considered benefits of having insight into masonry, but I don't think I'd give a player all of that just for stonecunning. If the player - not the character, and I know that's a controversial opinion - puts facts 1 and 2 together, they may ask about 3; if their History is high enough, they get it, and if they keep following and have the proper score they may get all 4.

I'm a big proponent of giving the DM more authority, which is why I love 5e. They put their effort into design, where it belonged, not into trying to cover every possible circumstance that could arise; DM ruling is more essential to the game than it has been in ages. I also try to be a fair DM by making sure that I don't have to make off-the-cuff rulings often; my players know how powerful their characters are when they look at their sheets. And really, a lot of my love for passive knowledge skills comes from the fact that a) I don't want to memorize the overly complicated backstories of 4-7 characters just to run a game smoothly, and b) it makes it harder for players to get upset with rulings; if you dumped Intelligence and didn't take any knowledge profs, it's not my fault your character doesn't know anything.

[Pex]

This is good, yes. But then we get into situations with multiple complicating features: Rangers get advantage on Intelligence checks related to their favored enemies. If I don't have proficiency in any knowledge skills, how much do I automatically know about my favored enemy? My dwarf is treated as proficient in History for the sake of studying stonework. How much do I get out of studying stonework? Do I recognize that these are yuan-ti carvings; that the structure indicates the ruin was once a sacrificial temple; that the last reports of yuan-ti sacrificing humans was during the Serpent Empire; or that this was specifically the sacrificial high temple of Merrshaulk? All of these are definitely History, and all of them could be considered benefits of having insight into masonry, but I don't think I'd give a player all of that just for stonecunning. If the player - not the character, and I know that's a controversial opinion - puts facts 1 and 2 together, they may ask about 3; if their History is high enough, they get it, and if they keep following and have the proper score they may get all 4.

I'm a big proponent of giving the DM more authority, which is why I love 5e. They put their effort into design, where it belonged, not into trying to cover every possible circumstance that could arise; DM ruling is more essential to the game than it has been in ages. I also try to be a fair DM by making sure that I don't have to make off-the-cuff rulings often; my players know how powerful their characters are when they look at their sheets. And really, a lot of my love for passive knowledge skills comes from the fact that a) I don't want to memorize the overly complicated backstories of 4-7 characters just to run a game smoothly, and b) it makes it harder for players to get upset with rulings; if you dumped Intelligence and didn't take any knowledge profs, it's not my fault your character doesn't know anything.

Your problem is essentially the same as my problem coming from a different angle. 5E does not give defined DCs of things. The DM has to make everything up. Some people are happy happy joy joy with that. Others, like you I surmise, don't like that because they just want to run the game and not have to game design in the middle of play - determine DC and take into consideration proficiency, background, race, class, past incidents of that particular campaign and character to determine what the player rolls, does proficiency matter, advantage or disadvantage or neither, or does the player not need to roll because it's automatic, or can't even roll in the first place because he can't succeed no matter what. Others, like me, don't like not having a clear picture what my character can or cannot do/know in non-class specific features and have to relearn the game to cover such things when I play with a different DM who needs to do his own game design in the middle of play.

[mgshamster]

5E does not give defined DCs of things.

Very easy 5
Easy 10
Moderate 15
Hard 20
Very hard 25
Nearly impossible 30

Just determine difficulty and you have your defined DCs. :)

[Pex]

Very easy 5
Easy 10
Moderate 15
Hard 20
Very hard 25
Nearly impossible 30

Just determine difficulty and you have your defined DCs. :)

What is easy for one DM is hard for another DM. For the third DM it is moderate if the character is proficient, hard if it at least matches background or class, and impossible for anyone else.

[quinron]

Others, like me, don't like not having a clear picture what my character can or cannot do/know in non-class specific features and have to relearn the game to cover such things when I play with a different DM who needs to do his own game design in the middle of play.

That explains the difference of views perfectly. I more or less completely stopped playing in favor of DMing a while ago, and I tend to run for one group for an extended period; I like to do long-term campaigns, and I hate teaching new players who can't be bothered to RTFM.

I do use the typical 5/10/15/20/25 scale, so after some experience my players have a good idea of how much knowledge their score in a given ability grants them. But I know the passive knowledge setup isn't typical, so I can see why it would be stressful to a player who moves between tables.