How powerful are Knowledge Checks? (or how powerful should they be?)

[heavyfuel]

First things first, this is an E6 campaign.

For the first time in my DMing career I have a group that pretty much has all Knowledge skills possible, all pretty much maxed out, and I'm really having some touble dealing with it.

Allow me an example: The players are going to a new land; very few people who have been there have come back. They want to know how's the land, and what dangers they should expect. After they roll pretty well in K.Geography, K.Nature, and K.Arcana, I describe the land as being tropical with some forests, and the dangers as being creatures who have previously been mistaken by dragons. Very large creatures with wings. (Rocs in reality, but I didn't tell them that)

My players though my description of the creature to be unsatisfying, after all, they had rolled really well (high 20s). I argued that knowledge checks don't entitle you to know specific details of creatures long forgotten, even if you have a Tome of Wordly Memory (MIC p190) that mentions forgotten lore.

How would you have done it?

[Duke of Urrel]

What did your players ask you about the country they are visiting? One of the ways to limit Knowledge skill is to demand specific questions for specific answers.

That having been said, if a player asks, "What's the biggest monster known to exist in this area?" and then makes a high Knowledge check in the field of Geography or Nature, and if the biggest monster in this area happens to be rocs, then I think you should let the player know this.

On the other hand, I don't believe Knowledge of Arcana has anything to do with rocs (which belong to the Animal type), so this kind of Knowledge shouldn't reveal this fact.

Another way to limit Knowledge skill is to remind players that Knowledge doesn't include up-to-the-minute news. There is no CNN on Oerth or Toril. Something doesn't become Knowledge of any kind until somebody somewhere observes it and reports it in writing, and this Knowledge doesn't travel around the world until somebody delivers the writing – or at least sends it by magical means – to the various sages (including very Knowledgeable PCs) who take an interest in this thing. So you can reasonably rule as a DM that, as a general rule, there may be a long time lag between the moment rocs suddenly mysteriously appear somewhere and it becomes Knowledge, even among the best-informed sages, that this has happened.

EDIT (Postscript):


I describe ... the dangers as being creatures who have previously been mistaken by dragons. Very large creatures with wings. (Rocs in reality, but I didn't tell them that)

Come to think of it, this is exactly the kind of outcome that I think players should expect from a successful Gather Information check. If an event is too recent to belong to any field of Knowledge, then it should fall under Gather Information. Of course, even a very high Gather Information check score may not give players all the information they want, because local people simply don't know everything. For example, they might easily mistake rocs for dragons if they've never seen rocs before. However, a very high Gather Information check score should give extra hints and leads in addition to incomplete information – as well as plot hooks, of course.

[NecessaryWeevil]

A big part of your adventure will be about exploring unknown new lands. Thus, you want them to remain unknown.

On the other hand, players who invest a lot of resources into swordplay want to feel like legendary masters of the sword; players who invest a lot of resources into knowledge want to feel like wise masters of forgotten knowledge.

Is there a way you can compromise? Maybe their checks will recall the location of ancient tomes etc. which will reveal most of what they want -and whose acquisition will be an interesting sidequest?

Or just ask yourself, "Will it really ruin the adventure if they know they're going to face Rocs?"

[Kelb_Panthera]

Circumstance penalties should be applied to some of these checks, for a start, since they're trying to deduce things indirectly. Forgotten or obscure knowledge should have higher DC's too.

Then there's being sure you're applying the skills correctly.

Knowledge (geography) tells you -where- a place is and what kind of weather and terrain to expect but little about the political landscape or wildlife in the area.

Knowledge (Arcana would) only be pertinent to your example if the land was particularly known for its ties to some kind of powerful magic. Even then, it would only tell you about the magic the land was tied to, and little else.

Knowledge (nature) can tell you about the natural flora and fauna of the region in general terms but picking out the description of a roc from second-hand or further removed sources should definitely come with a steep penalty since it's hardly the only gigantic bird out there unless the description is particularly detailed or comes with an artistic rendition.

If you want to know about other details of the land you have to draw on the right skill.

Politics would be under (nobility & royalty), local customs under (local), and history of the region under (history) but, given that it's a largely forgotten realm, -all- of those should come with appropriately boosted DC's or circumstance penalties on the checks.

Players are always gonna whine when they don't succeed at something they -think- they should. Always be fair but firm in these situations. Knowledge works how it works. Magic can help to get around some of these limitations but that doens't make them stop existing. If they don't like it, tough.

[heavyfuel]

The answer to the quote below should've been in my OP, but in my haste, I forgot.


[...] if a player asks, "What's the biggest monster known to exist in this area?" and then makes a high Knowledge check in the field of Geography or Nature, and if the biggest monster in this area happens to be rocs, then I think you should let the player know this.


That's the crux of my question. The land has been long uninhabited. The only dude who had been there is a guy the players know to be the biggest douchebag in existence. He wouldn't have written a book, he would've kept any secrets to himself, especially since he had big reasons to do this.

If there were no books, and no one (except this dead dude, who took any secrets to his grave) that would have this information, should a simple knowledge check reveal this information to the players?


What did your players ask you about the country they are visiting? One of the ways to limit Knowledge skill is to demand specific questions for specific answers.

Specifically, how was the land (K.Geography), if there were any dangerous creatures (K.Arcana revealed the "confused by dragons" creatures) and what creatures could be confused by a dragon (K.Arcana and Nature)


On the other hand, I don't believe Knowledge of Arcana has anything to do with rocs (which belong to the Animal type), so this kind of Knowledge shouldn't reveal this fact.


It's because they asked what creatures could be mistaken by dragons, so a K.Arcana check was mostly to reveal that.


Another way to limit Knowledge skill is to remind players that Knowledge doesn't include up-to-the-minute news. [...]
Come to think of it, this is exactly the kind of outcome that I think players should expect from a successful Gather Information check. If an event is too recent to belong to any field of Knowledge, then it should fall under Gather Information. Of course, even a very high Gather Information check score may not give players all the information they want, because local people simply don't know everything. For example, they might easily mistake rocs for dragons if they've never seen rocs before. However, a very high Gather Information check score should give extra hints and leads in addition to incomplete information – as well as plot hooks, of course.

But they didn't ask to Gather Information, they asked about things they already knew. How would handle things in this case then?


A big part of your adventure will be about exploring unknown new lands. Thus, you want them to remain unknown.

On the other hand, players who invest a lot of resources into swordplay want to feel like legendary masters of the sword; players who invest a lot of resources into knowledge want to feel like wise masters of forgotten knowledge.[...]

That's why I'm asking. It sounds unfair to give them all the information they want because I think knowledge checks shouldn't include information which is unavailable through normal sources (books, legends, witnesses). But it also doesn't seem fair to not reward the players for investing in the skills.


Circumstance penalties should be applied to some of these checks, for a start, since they're trying to deduce things indirectly. Forgotten or obscure knowledge should have higher DC's too.

Then there's being sure you're applying the skills correctly.

[...]

Players are always gonna whine when they don't succeed at something they -think- they should. Always be fair but firm in these situations. Knowledge works how it works. Magic can help to get around some of these limitations but that doens't make them stop existing. If they don't like it, tough.

How big of a penalty would you give in this context (especially regarding the new information I've given at the start of this post)?

[Deophaun]

That's why I'm asking. It sounds unfair to give them all the information they want because I think knowledge checks shouldn't include information which is unavailable through normal sources (books, legends, witnesses). But it also doesn't seem fair to not reward the players for investing in the skills.
At a certain level, Knowledge skills push you into the realm of Sherlock Holmes: you don't simply know what the books tell you, but you also know the implications of what the books tell you, and the implications of those implications. Get past the capabilities of mortal men, and you are drawing massive amounts of information from details that everyone else deems irrelevant. What's recorded down is long past relevant to you.

Now, you're saying these guys are rolling in the high 20s. That's nice and all, but it's not the point to start tearing out your hair. Read some adventure modules and see what those DC 30 knowledge checks are getting you. (Although I have difficulty believing a roc would be confused for a dragon; unless regular eagles and falcons are extinct in your world, because that's what a roc looks like from a distance)

[Deadline]

That's the crux of my question. The land has been long uninhabited. The only dude who had been there is a guy the players know to be the biggest douchebag in existence. He wouldn't have written a book, he would've kept any secrets to himself, especially since he had big reasons to do this.

If there were no books, and no one (except this dead dude, who took any secrets to his grave) that would have this information, should a simple knowledge check reveal this information to the players?

No, and you should probably have said this to the players in advance and told them not to bother using their skill on this one. However, you did mention a Tome of Worldly memory. It's a magic book that lets you call upon the secret memories of the world to aid you in unlocking forgotten knowledge. If they have one of those, then yeah, that's a solid reason to let them have good information with a good check.

If your whole campaign centers around this kind of stuff (unknown mysteries that are completely ruined by a skill check), you should probably let your players know that and allow them to rebuild their characters so they can actually have useful abilities they can do. But I'd just avoid doing this in general, because skill checks are the least of your problems in this sort of setup. Divinations are going to be a real spoiler for you, if the party thinks to use them. If this is just one area of the campaign, I'd still preface any rolling with a notice of what the roll can and can't do in this particular instance. "Since this area is literally unknown, and contains creatures never before seen in the game world, you won't be able to get exact creature information with a general knowledge roll." Something like that.


That's why I'm asking. It sounds unfair to give them all the information they want because I think knowledge checks shouldn't include information which is unavailable through normal sources (books, legends, witnesses). But it also doesn't seem fair to not reward the players for investing in the skills.

I just avoid using plots that involve this sort of thing, or apply circumstance penalties. Worst case scenario if it's a thing that they truly can't have any way of knowing or getting the info, I'll let them know that in this instance, none of the currently available info they have applies, but they may be able to glean some useful info with a good knowledge roll. For example, the Gribblemen of the Moon Isles have never been seen or heard of before on the mainland and are now invading. No one has ever seen them, or knows anything about them, there are no written records of them or stories about them. The PCs come upon some tracks in the mud on the coast and want to know what made them. I'll tell them that due to it's obscure nature, knowledge rolls won't identify it, but they may provide some useful information about what left them. After some good rolls the PCs now know that whatever creature left the tracks is quadrupedal, possibly tauric, very large, and judging by the residue left behind in the many jointed web-toed imprints, is probably some kind of venomous aquatic aberration. It's also likely that those long thin imprints at the end of the toes are sharpened claws that could be used for battle. I might even just go with my standard default of "your roll indicates you get 3 pieces of information about the creatures. You won't be able to get what they are called, but aside from that what info do you want?" (Players usually ask for Creature Type, special defenses, or special attacks, basically something to give them an edge if they have to then face the creatures in combat).


How big of a penalty would you give in this context (especially regarding the new information I've given at the start of this post)?

Anywhere from -2 to -10, on top of the usual DC of 10+HD of the creature. Assuming they've got that tome, or some other possible way of having heard the information. If you are saying that quite literally there has never been any contact with this area ever and no one could have had any knowledge of what is there, then just tell them a roll won't identify the creature due to that, but may yield some useful info.

[awa]

the dc for being able to identify a roc is 28 when your looking at it. any circumstance penalty might shift that into the 30s.

Although i'm goanna say unless you have feathered dragons, rocs are so different in appearance to dragons I kind of think id be annoyed by that description to.

[DirePorkChop]

How big of a penalty would you give in this context (especially regarding the new information I've given at the start of this post)?

Honestly, the DC's to learn anything about a critter is 10+HD, and I feel that it should scale from there. You said that they got high 20's on their roles? Did they get a 28? because that is what you need to realize that a Roc is a Roc, and not just a humongous eagle.

The problem with knowledge skills is this: You either know it, or you don't. There is no middle ground. If the DC is 28, and I get anywhere between 1 and 27.5, I fail and I probably look at a Roc as a giant Giant Eagle, never realizing that it is indeed, a magical beast animal.

If these Roc's only live in this far-away-land, and no one has ever come back from said land, that DC just skyrocketed. Probably somewhere in the 40-50 range, if information is not leaking out. If they want to learn about this exotic place no one has ever returned from, they either need to go explore, or use some resources to aid in their information gathering.

[heavyfuel]

I'm running a bit late so I'll reply to everyone in a few hours, but to clarify the "Roc confused by Dragon" bit:

Imagine you're a sailor, you've been out in the sea for god knows how long, you see this new land, but your captain (the douchebag dead guy) tells you to anchor the ship and takes a small boat and a handful of his most trusted people to the land.

Now you're on the ship, and from a some miles away you see this notorious landmark, a big mountain. From this mountain, you notice a huge winged creature take flight. You know nothing about the ecology of the place. It's too far away to notice the presence or absence of feathers or scales.When you come back to your homeland, you're not going to describe it as "probably just a big bird". NO! You're going to embellish it as this "huge drake that almost attacked the ship!" and the crew will totally support you, cuz they wanna be a part of this epic tale and cuz you're all probably drunk.

So from this moment on, the new land has dragons, as far as anyone knows. A good knowledge check (I don't remember the exact number, but probably was as high as 28) might tell you just that. You've heard the legends, it doesn't mean they are true.

[Deophaun]

Now you're on the ship, and from a some miles away you see this notorious landmark, a big mountain. From this mountain, you notice a huge winged creature take flight. You know nothing about the ecology of the place. It's too far away to notice the presence or absence of feathers or scales.When you come back to your homeland, you're not going to describe it as "probably just a big bird".
YES! If it's good enough for Sinbad, it's good enough for me.

Especially as everyone apparently has seen a dragon before, but no one has ever seen something like this. Why would I make the story less fantastic if the goal is embellishment?

[Kelb_Panthera]

The answer to the quote below should've been in my OP, but in my haste, I forgot.



That's the crux of my question. The land has been long uninhabited. The only dude who had been there is a guy the players know to be the biggest douchebag in existence. He wouldn't have written a book, he would've kept any secrets to himself, especially since he had big reasons to do this.

If there were no books, and no one (except this dead dude, who took any secrets to his grave) that would have this information, should a simple knowledge check reveal this information to the players?

How big of a penalty would you give in this context (especially regarding the new information I've given at the start of this post)?

For completely lost knowledge, the skill is useless. Gonna have to get magical with it.


That said, I want to be clear; I'm presuming that it's been long enough that -no one- in living memory has been there with your listed exception and that if there ever was a civilization in that area it's been completely lost to the sands of time. If it's only been a few generations, particularly sagacious character might have heard of it (penalty of -5 to 15 or DC set as difficult for mid-level characters) and it would certainly still be mentioned in the historical record in libraries and the like, making a research based check possible unless there's been a concerted effort to erase such records.

[Duke of Urrel]

That's the crux of my question. The land has been long uninhabited. The only dude who had been there is a guy the players know to be the biggest douchebag in existence. He wouldn't have written a book, he would've kept any secrets to himself, especially since he had big reasons to do this.

If there were no books, and no one (except this dead dude, who took any secrets to his grave) that would have this information, should a simple knowledge check reveal this information to the players?

[…]

But they didn't ask to Gather Information, they asked about things they already knew. How would handle things in this case then?

I believe Knowledge covers all facts that are generally true or that have been reported to be true, and the latter kind of fact takes some time to establish. I believe it doesn't cover events that happened very recently; as I mentioned above, I think this can be discovered only by Gather Information skill. If there is observable evidence that rocs have appeared in a region, such as tracks or scat, this might be discovered by Survival skill.

So if your players started by asking what they know automatically by Knowledge, I would start with general information and work toward specific information as they narrowed their questions down. For example, if one player has Knowledge of Geography, I would first give information about the general lay of the land (mountains here, hills there, swamps in between) and then give more specific answers when more specific questions were asked (such as about major fauna, including rocs if they are known to inhabit the region). The more specific the question, the higher the Knowledge DC.

I think either Knowledge of Geography or Knowledge of Nature (Animals) could reveal that rocs live in this region, but of course this information might appear mixed with a lot of other information. If a player with a lot of Knowledge ever asks you a question that is way too general and way too exhaustive, I wouldn't hesitate to do some "spamming." For example, if a player with a lot of Knowledge of Nature wants to know about all the most dangerous creatures that either have long been known to inhabit a region or may possibly have wandered there from somewhere else recently, you can rattle off a long list of Animals, Giants, Monstrous Humanoids, Plants, and Vermin, mentioning rocs quickly and in passing. (Do you recall how Data responded to Captain Picard's questions early in the series STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION? The android often gave way too much detail, much of it in the form of statistics and measurements, until Picard cut him off, saying, "Thank you, Data...") Knowledge skill, even if you have a lot of it, doesn't narrow down the possibilities in an unpredictable world enough to eliminate all surprises.

I think Arcana is the unlikeliest field of Knowledge to be useful in the situation you have described, because it doesn't really involve Dragons or Magical Beasts at all. I think Knowledge of Arcana would be applicable only if players got (i.e., were fed, by you) misleading reports from locals who really mistook rocs for dragons, and only if the player with Knowledge of Arcana asked enough follow-up questions and got enough details to conclude that those big flying creatures couldn't have been dragons.

[Darth Ultron]

Unfortunately, the knowledge rules are vague.

Sadly the skills allow a character to know everything about everything and there are no rules for secret or lost or unknown knowledge other then the DC. You can set a DC for lost knowledge high, but there are no ''rules'' that allow the DM to say ''you don't know''.

The skill is just horribly broken as a character who has lived on a small tropical island their own life knows everything about every single animal world wide with one rank of nature. The character can still, stupidly, go to the arctic and know all about polar bears and every other form of life there.

And even worse, your average player that exploits the rules, thinks a knowledge check is like a wish spell that tells them everything. And If your a DM that does not think that way, you simply can't play with such a player.

...unless your willing to lie and trick them. You can have knowledge checks tell the players exactly what they want to hear. Then they will be all happy that they can exploit the game and ''win''.

So,

Step One: Don't use book monsters.
Step Two: Use all custom creatures.

The other option is to just fuel their roll playing exploit exceptions. Go ahead and tell them all about the hard, crunchy stuff about a monster so they can exploit it and roll and away and ''auto win'' every encounter. They will be so happy that they were ''so smart'' and ''won the game'' all by ''how cool of a player they were''. But just avoid telling them any fluff, not that they would care much. Then you keep your game world intact.

[heavyfuel]

YES! If it's good enough for Sinbad, it's good enough for me.

Especially as everyone apparently has seen a dragon before, but no one has ever seen something like this. Why would I make the story less fantastic if the goal is embellishment?

As it turns out, people can have different opinions on what is considered an epic tale and what isn't. And yes, pretty much everyone in the campaign world had seen a dragon (back when douche guy was alive).


For completely lost knowledge, the skill is useless. Gonna have to get magical with it.


That said, I want to be clear; I'm presuming that it's been long enough that -no one- in living memory has been there with your listed exception and that if there ever was a civilization in that area it's been completely lost to the sands of time. If it's only been a few generations, particularly sagacious character might have heard of it (penalty of -5 to 15 or DC set as difficult for mid-level characters) and it would certainly still be mentioned in the historical record in libraries and the like, making a research based check possible unless there's been a concerted effort to erase such records.

It's been about 120 years since anyone had been there except the douche guy. And like I said, they would've only seen the creature from a far distance. Before that, probably over a millennium.

What roll would ask for a research based check, and how would the check work?


I believe Knowledge covers all facts that are generally true or that have been reported to be true, and the latter kind of fact takes some time to establish. I believe it doesn't cover events that happened very recently; as I mentioned above, I think this can be discovered only by Gather Information skill. If there is observable evidence that rocs have appeared in a region, such as tracks or scat, this might be discovered by Survival skill.

Survival? Not K.Nature? As for the "fact category", it has been reported to be true that dragons live there, but the reports are from people with little to no knowledge of things. Dunno if you would consider this knowledge check worthy.


So if your players started by asking what they know automatically by Knowledge, I would start with general information and work toward specific information as they narrowed their questions down. For example, if one player has Knowledge of Geography, I would first give information about the general lay of the land (mountains here, hills there, swamps in between) and then give more specific questions when more specific questions were asked (such as about major fauna, including rocs if they are known to inhabit the region). The more specific the question, the higher the Knowledge DC.


Fair enough. But doesn't this waste a lot of time? I'm afraid the other players who aren't interested in playing 21 question are going to be bored out of their minds.



I think either Knowledge of Geography or Knowledge of Nature (Animals) could reveal that rocs live in this region, but of course this information might appear mixed with a lot of other information. If a player with a lot of Knowledge ever asks you a question that is way too general and way too exhaustive, I wouldn't hesitate to do some "spamming." For example, if a player with a lot of Knowledge of Nature wants to know about all the most dangerous creatures that either have long been known to inhabit a region or may possibly have wandered there from somewhere else recently, you can rattle off a long list of Animals, Giants, Monstrous Humanoids, Plants, and Vermin, mentioning rocs quickly and in passing. (Do you recall how Data responded to Captain Picard's questions early in the series STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION? The android often gave way too much detail, much of it in the form of statistics and measurements, until Picard cut him off, saying, "Thank you, Data...") Knowledge skill, even if you have a lot of it, doesn't narrow down the possibilities in an unpredictable world enough to eliminate all surprises.

Really? This sounds like a ton of work. Plus, I'd say knowing a whole bunch of creatures goes beyond the scope of a K. check.


I think Arcana is the unlikeliest field of Knowledge to be useful in the situation you have described, because it doesn't really involve Dragons or Magical Beasts at all. I think Knowledge of Arcana would be applicable only if players got (i.e., were fed, by you) misleading reports from locals who really mistook rocs for dragons, and only if the player with Knowledge of Arcana asked enough follow-up questions and got enough details to conclude that those big flying creatures couldn't have been dragons.

Like I said (did I say it?), I asked for K.Arcana when they asked me what creatures were similar to dragons, and did list a few non-true dragons, though not a bunch.


Unfortunately, the knowledge rules are vague.

Sadly the skills allow a character to know everything about everything and there are no rules for secret or lost or unknown knowledge other then the DC. You can set a DC for lost knowledge high, but there are no ''rules'' that allow the DM to say ''you don't know''.

The skill is just horribly broken as a character who has lived on a small tropical island their own life knows everything about every single animal world wide with one rank of nature. The character can still, stupidly, go to the arctic and know all about polar bears and every other form of life there.

And even worse, your average player that exploits the rules, thinks a knowledge check is like a wish spell that tells them everything. And If your a DM that does not think that way, you simply can't play with such a player.

...unless your willing to lie and trick them. You can have knowledge checks tell the players exactly what they want to hear. Then they will be all happy that they can exploit the game and ''win''.

So,

Step One: Don't use book monsters.
Step Two: Use all custom creatures.

The other option is to just fuel their roll playing exploit exceptions. Go ahead and tell them all about the hard, crunchy stuff about a monster so they can exploit it and roll and away and ''auto win'' every encounter. They will be so happy that they were ''so smart'' and ''won the game'' all by ''how cool of a player they were''. But just avoid telling them any fluff, not that they would care much. Then you keep your game world intact.

I'm gonna be honest and say that I don't like your idea very much, it doesn't really address the problem, and it creates an additional problem.

I don't like it because I don't use metagame terms when playing. I don't say "ok, you've hit his AC of 26" or "you know this creature has fire resistance 5". I much prefer to say that these creatures have very tough skin, or are basically immune to small fires.

It doesn't address the problem because I still need better guidelines on what to give when a knowledge check comes up. I couldn't possibly have said "On this land lives a flying creature with a lot of hit points".

And the additional problem it creates is that now I need to tailor every encounter, and I honestly don't have the time. I might do this from time to time, against specific monsters, as I have done in the past, but just doing this for every encounter is impossible

[Deophaun]

As it turns out, people can have different opinions on what is considered an epic tale and what isn't. And yes, pretty much everyone in the campaign world had seen a dragon (back when douche guy was alive).
I just loved the fact that you were talking about sailors embellishing rocs into something else, when the most famous story about a roc involved one of the most famous sailors of all time.

[heavyfuel]

I just loved the fact that you were talking about sailors embellishing rocs into something else, when the most famous story about a roc involved one of the most famous sailors of all time.

I honestly never heard the story of Sinbad, so I could possibly have though of that. :smallbiggrin:

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's been about 120 years since anyone had been there except the douche guy. And like I said, they would've only seen the creature from a far distance. Before that, probably over a millennium.

What roll would ask for a research based check, and how would the check work?

Research is a special knowledge check that gives you a substantial bonus on the result and allows the players to get results that would otherwise be impossible because of the extreme rarity of the knowledge but it takes several hours instead of the usual, instantaneous result and requires a library or archive of some sort for reference. IIRC, the rules are in an eberron sourcebook. There's even a feat to make it take less time or give better results or something like that (NPC feat, if I ever saw one but its there.) I'm pretty sure it's in ECS.

[Duke of Urrel]

Survival? Not K.Nature? As for the "fact category", it has been reported to be true that dragons live there, but the reports are from people with little to no knowledge of things. Dunno if you would consider this knowledge check worthy.

I don't want to seem hyper-critical. I think your original response to your players was reasonable, and I'm sure you've noticed that the options that I consider reasonable turn out to be pretty much the same as yours. Whether one uses Survival skill or some kind of Knowledge skill may depend on whether one's senses or one's interpretation of sensory data is more important.

Come to think of it, if we're talking about roc scat, maybe Knowledge of Nature would be more important, since you probably can hardly miss noticing roc scat. Not finding the stuff, but identifying it would be the hard part.

Also, you've made clear that your players did, in fact, hear rumors of purportedly dragon-like creatures – which is fine. You're the DM, and you get to decide what the players hear about, maybe without having to use Gather Information skill at all. So then the next question becomes, do they hear enough to use Knowlege of Arcana to make knowledgeable corrections in what they've heard about alleged "dragons"? This is your call to make. I'm sorry if I seemed judgemental about it.


Survival? Fair enough. But doesn't this waste a lot of time? I'm afraid the other players who aren't interested in playing 21 question are going to be bored out of their minds.

…

Really? This sounds like a ton of work. Plus, I'd say knowing a whole bunch of creatures goes beyond the scope of a K. check.

Long lists do take some work – unless you just point to Random Encounter Tables for a particular region and say: Here you go. Because for a very vague question, this is probably the fairest and most honest answer you can give. Another option is just to paraphrase. "There are a lot of very dangerous creatures in this region; in fact, with your superior Knowledge of Nature, you can name about 50 species right off the bat." This is also fair in my opinion, and also honest.

I agree that knowing a whole bunch of creatures goes beyond the scope of a Knowledge check. But this is exactly what a player demands to know if he or she expects to know the single most dangerous creature in a region. In order to know this, you have to know about all the other creatures that are less dangerous. Besides, the most dangerous creature in a region may change from one week to the next. This is especially true of rocs, which can travel just about anywhere they want to.

[Jay R]

Knowledge isn't magic. It can only represent what you can actually know. If nobody knows it, then the PC couldn't have learned it. A high score means that you learned, and can remember, most of what the people you have talked to know about the subject. It doesn't let you see behind a locked door, or sense what's in a hidden valley no person has ever explored.


That having been said, if a player asks, "What's the biggest monster known to exist in this area?" and then makes a high Knowledge check in the field of Geography or Nature, and if the biggest monster in this area happens to be rocs, then I think you should let the player know this.

ONLY if somebody knows that there are rocs there. If the PC has never talked to anybody who's been there, and no books have been written about it, then the answer could be, "The largest monster known to exist in this area is that mosquito on your wrist." [DM rolls dice.] "No, wait, there's a sparrow flying by. That's now the biggest one known. Or you, of course."

If there's a legend about rocs in that land, then of course a high enough knowledge check should identify it. But if something is not known by anybody, then it's still not known by anybody even with a perfect Knowledge roll, just like rolling a 20 on an attack roll won't hit if there are no enemies nearby.

I have a DM who invents interesting information in similar circumstances. He might say, "You have no knowledge of this continent. But you can see spruce treess on the mountains in the background, and you know that on your home continent, there are always Winter Wolves in spruce forests." But if there is no way to know about the rocs, then they can't learn about them by rolling dice.

[Darth Ultron]

It doesn't address the problem because I still need better guidelines on what to give when a knowledge check comes up. I couldn't possibly have said "On this land lives a flying creature with a lot of hit points".



The last Monster Manual or two at the end of 3.5 had some really nice Knowledge DC info boxes. I've used them for very by-the-book players: they get the official printed information, and that is it.

Once upon a time there was a thread on the Wizards board for all monsters....I wonder if that got saved somewhere?