Knowledge checks and monsters

[Corinath]

I’ve been DMing a group for a few years in 5e now. One of my house rules is that you can roll an appropriate Intelligence check on a monster to know, in character, part or all of its stat block.

For example, a a skeleton, being common, would be a DC 10 religion check. An owlbear might be a DC 10 Nature check. A frost giant might be a DC 14 History check (civilized races are history checks).

To do this in combat, I’ve been saying it takes an action to attempt to recall information. I justified this by thinking that sometimes it really takes focusing on remembering something to get it.

One of our new members is a knowledge fiend. He feels that forcing an action in combat may be too hefty a price tag, and I’m starting to be inclined to agree with him. We’re about to start a new module and I promised I’d meditate on this mechanic.
What type of action would you “charge” to roll one of these int checks? Why?

I also posted this on reddit, in case you lurk in both areas and / or want to see other answers: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/7vx0j1/knowledge_checks_and_monsters/

Thanks!

[Elbeyon]

I wouldn't make it take any action. Int is a fairly weak stat.

[Angelalex242]

A purely mental action like remembering doesn't require an action at all. You either know something or you don't. Communicating it to your allies shouldn't cost any more than a bonus action, as you're yelling at that point, presumably a short sentence.

"Attack the red dragon with ice!"

[Unoriginal]

It would only take an action if the PC really has to stop and think to recall something, which would normally not happen.

Beside, unless the PCs are getting ambushed, that kind of INT check would be done out-of-combat.

Should also be noted that you often just lack the hints to exactly know what the creature is. How do you make the difference between a Mummy in armor and a Wight in armor, for exemple?

[MrStabby]

There are a couple of variables here to play with. One is sacrificed actions, the other is time.

You could make it free as an action but still take a round or two to get a result. Maybe you can roll each turn to remember for free but can't concentrate on anything else in the interim?

[Corinath]

A purely mental action like remembering doesn't require an action at all. You either know something or you don't. Communicating it to your allies shouldn't cost any more than a bonus action, as you're yelling at that point, presumably a short sentence.

"Attack the red dragon with ice!"

RAW or RAI?

I always took communication as a free action. But there are days I can't remember who stared in a film for a solid minute and I'm not even in combat with a hill giant.


I wouldn't make it take any action. Int is a fairly weak stat.

Yeah you're right. Another good point.

[Corinath]

There are a couple of variables here to play with. One is sacrificed actions, the other is time.

You could make it free as an action but still take a round or two to get a result. Maybe you can roll each turn to remember for free but can't concentrate on anything else in the interim?

Ohhhh tying it with concentration is interesting.

One person on reddit created a passive INT score and used that as a "you remember this immediately" thing, and otherwise you need to roll for it as well.

Concentration may totally be the mechanic I need.


It would only take an action if the PC really has to stop and think to recall something, which would normally not happen.

Beside, unless the PCs are getting ambushed, that kind of INT check would be done out-of-combat.

Should also be noted that you often just lack the hints to exactly know what the creature is. How do you make the difference between a Mummy in armor and a Wight in armor, for exemple?

That last part is super important and I never considered it. Sometimes an undead thing is just an undead thing. How do you tell a thug from a veteran from some other human? Etc.

[Tiadoppler]

Knowledge checks mid-battle should be free (no action required), but, in my opinion, one per PC, per round. One character can take a close look at one type of enemy, and try to remember if they recognize that particular foe.


It should be free because of all the previously mentioned great reasons, and also because it reduces the player urge to metagame. The player may very well know the difference between a Copper Dragon and a Bronze Dragon, but the PC might not. As long as the knowledge check is free, the PC can quickly learn what the player already knows.

[Kuulvheysoon]

You know, I do something similar, but it’s never even occurred to me to use History for civilized races. I love that and I’m stealing it immediately.

[Tiadoppler]

Skills I accept for monster knowledge checks (there's some crossover) (this is just off the top of my head, I might have forgotten something):


Perception for very obvious things (He has a longbow; he probably has a ranged attack. He breathes fire; he probably isn't very flammable)

Survival for the weaknesses of common animals and their variants (A Dire Boar isn't that different from a meat pig, anatomically).

Nature for general knowledge about natural plants and creatures.

Medicine for a specific humanoid's stats.

Arcana for explicitly magical beings.

Religion for divine/infernal/outsider beings.

History for knowing legends of this type of creature. This is the least precise, because it involves hearsay and possibly oral tradition.



Edit: I knew I forgot stuff

Animal Handling for behavior of INT < 3 beings
Insight for behavior of INT >= 3 beings




Investigation, along with Medicine will let a character do a post-mortem exam on a creature to figure out what it was.

[Galadhrim]

I’ve been DMing a group for a few years in 5e now. One of my house rules is that you can roll an appropriate Intelligence check on a monster to know, in character, part or all of its stat block.

For example, a a skeleton, being common, would be a DC 10 religion check. An owlbear might be a DC 10 Nature check. A frost giant might be a DC 14 History check (civilized races are history checks).

To do this in combat, I’ve been saying it takes an action to attempt to recall information. I justified this by thinking that sometimes it really takes focusing on remembering something to get it.

One of our new members is a knowledge fiend. He feels that forcing an action in combat may be too hefty a price tag, and I’m starting to be inclined to agree with him. We’re about to start a new module and I promised I’d meditate on this mechanic.
What type of action would you “charge” to roll one of these int checks? Why?

I also posted this on reddit, in case you lurk in both areas and / or want to see other answers: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/7vx0j1/knowledge_checks_and_monsters/

Thanks!

Our DM has a similar system and requires an action. Consequently, no one ever makes a check unless we have been wailing on a creature for several rounds without any headway. It always bothers me, particularly because my character is int based and proficient in history and arcana and it is in his nature to know this kind of information (librarian background, likes to study lore, etc). I can just metagame but I don't like doing it. I want my character to be able to use his intelligence to learn things in game, but at that cost I'm better off not knowing.

[Corinath]

Someone on reddit just posted the following, which may have solved this for me:

u/-Rozekail-
"Xanathar's has a section for identifying a spell that a spellcaster has perceived. Uses either a reaction or action. DC = 15 + spell's level. If the spell was cast as the same class as the character making the check, it's made with advantage.
Taking that, I'd apply the same thing to creature knowledge.
The base attribute would be Intelligence, but the specific skill would vary. Religion for creatures of celestial or demonic nature, arcana for elementals and monstrosities and the like, nature for plants and beasts, etc. So you'll always be applying your Intelligence modifier, but the skill proficiencies will vary. After all, a Ranger that knows a ton about tracking wild beasts is gonna know more about, say, a Bear than a Wizard who has spent all their time studying magic and demons.
Intelligence (variable skill) DC = 10 + creature's Challenge Rating."

So Xanathar's apparently has a mechanic RAW for how long it takes to recall a thing you see, which is a reaction. I'll likely tweak the DC a bit to line up with things, but basing it on CR is pretty fantastic.

I'm currently thinking DC = 10 + (CR * .5), that way a thing like the Terrasque would still be a DC25 (I think?), but if you're a level 20 Int character who devotes his life to reading I'm guessing that's still a challenge, while a fighter would maybe have to roll a nat 20.



Knowledge checks mid-battle should be free (no action required), but, in my opinion, one per PC, per round. One character can take a close look at one type of enemy, and try to remember if they recognize that particular foe.

It should be free because of all the previously mentioned great reasons, and also because it reduces the player urge to metagame. The player may very well know the difference between a Copper Dragon and a Bronze Dragon, but the PC might not. As long as the knowledge check is free, the PC can quickly learn what the player already knows.

Not meta gaming is a great point, and why I don't like imposing penalties for doing things. I tried to make it realistic, but worry that I basically forced them to metagame because they don't want to lose a round of combat.


You know, I do something similar, but it’s never even occurred to me to use History for civilized races. I love that and I’m stealing it immediately.

Yay! I actually read that on this forum, funny enough, so I'm glad it's still getting use. :D


Skills I accept for monster knowledge checks (there's some crossover) (this is just off the top of my head, I might have forgotten something):

Perception for very obvious things (He has a longbow; he probably has a ranged attack. He breathes fire; he probably isn't very flammable)

Survival for the weaknesses of common animals and their variants (A Dire Boar isn't that different from a meat pig, anatomically).

Nature for general knowledge about natural plants and creatures.

Medicine for a specific humanoid's stats.

Arcana for explicitly magical beings.

Religion for divine/infernal/outsider beings.

History for knowing legends of this type of creature. This is the least precise, because it involves hearsay and possibly oral tradition.

Edit: I knew I forgot stuff

Animal Handling for behavior of INT < 3 beings
Insight for behavior of INT >= 3 beings

Investigation, along with Medicine will let a character do a post-mortem exam on a creature to figure out what it was.

I REALLY like some of these, and may incorporate them into the knowledge thing as well :D


Our DM has a similar system and requires an action. Consequently, no one ever makes a check unless we have been wailing on a creature for several rounds without any headway. It always bothers me, particularly because my character is int based and proficient in history and arcana and it is in his nature to know this kind of information (librarian background, likes to study lore, etc). I can just metagame but I don't like doing it. I want my character to be able to use his intelligence to learn things in game, but at that cost I'm better off not knowing.

Yeah I'm glad to hear that too. This is my worry, and my player's.

Per the first part of this post, I think I'm going to make it a reaction henceforth.

[Oerlaf]

I’ve been DMing a group for a few years in 5e now. One of my house rules is that you can roll an appropriate Intelligence check on a monster to know, in character, part or all of its stat block.

For example, a a skeleton, being common, would be a DC 10 religion check. An owlbear might be a DC 10 Nature check. A frost giant might be a DC 14 History check (civilized races are history checks).

To do this in combat, I’ve been saying it takes an action to attempt to recall information. I justified this by thinking that sometimes it really takes focusing on remembering something to get it.

One of our new members is a knowledge fiend. He feels that forcing an action in combat may be too hefty a price tag, and I’m starting to be inclined to agree with him. We’re about to start a new module and I promised I’d meditate on this mechanic.
What type of action would you “charge” to roll one of these int checks? Why?

I also posted this on reddit, in case you lurk in both areas and / or want to see other answers: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/7vx0j1/knowledge_checks_and_monsters/

Thanks!

I require no action - either a character knows the answer or the character doesn't, and no retries are allowed.

I use 4e mechanics of Knowledge skills with slight chances.

Intelligence (Arcana) for elementals and feys

Intelligence (Survival) for aberrations and oozes

Intelligence (History) for constructs and for lore at DM's discretion

Intelligence (Nature) for beasts, dragons and monstrosities

Intelligence (Religion) for undead

[Galadhrim]

Someone on reddit just posted the following, which may have solved this for me:
So Xanathar's apparently has a mechanic RAW for how long it takes to recall a thing you see, which is a reaction. I'll likely tweak the DC a bit to line up with things, but basing it on CR is pretty fantastic.

I'm currently thinking DC = 10 + (CR * .5), that way a thing like the Terrasque would still be a DC25 (I think?), but if you're a level 20 Int character who devotes his life to reading I'm guessing that's still a challenge, while a fighter would maybe have to roll a nat 20.


How much information are you giving out with a successful check? The whole stat block? A few key pieces of information? Specific request from the player? Might be nice to tier the information. DC 10 + (CR * 0.5) gets you some information. DC 10 + CR gives you better, more specific information, etc. I would like that as a player.

[Kuulvheysoon]

How much information are you giving out with a successful check? The whole stat block? A few key pieces of information? Specific request from the player? Might be nice to tier the information. DC 10 + (CR * 0.5) gets you some information. DC 10 + CR gives you better, more specific information, etc. I would like that as a player.

I kinda do that - I've usually got 2 thresholds set up, and the first one will give you basic information, while the second gives more/better/accurate.

Example- DC10: Trolls regenerate their health and are commonly thought of as unkillable, but you remember hearing that fire can put them down.

DC15: Fire and Acid negate regen, Trolls are Giant (creature type), reveal if using the Loathsome Limbs variant (yes. the answer is ALWAYS yes).

[Tiadoppler]

I kinda do that - I've usually got 2 thresholds set up, and the first one will give you basic information, while the second gives more/better/accurate.

Example- DC10: Trolls regenerate their health and are commonly thought of as unkillable, but you remember hearing that fire can put them down.

DC15: Fire and Acid negate regen, Trolls are Giant (creature type), reveal if using the Loathsome Limbs variant (yes. the answer is ALWAYS yes).

I do something similar, but with slightly higher DCs/more levels of knowledge:

DC 5: Trolls are small and obnoxious irritants. They have thin skin and mostly appear in online forums.

DC 10: Trolls are big and very tough. You've heard rumors of a dead troll coming back to life after being stabbed a hundred times.

DC 15: Trolls are giants that can regenerate their health, even when they're nearly dead. Legends say that their remains must be disposed of in a bonfire to prevent them from returning to life.

DC 20: Full info on resistances/vulnerabilities/special stuff

DC 25: Full info, plus relative HP to something (tougher than a bear, or whatever) and highest/lowest saving throws

DC 30: I hand you the MM with the page bookmarked and call your character a geek.

[mephnick]

I use passive knowledge with thresholds based on rarity. When they first see the monster I just tell them what they know about it for free. They can spend an action in combat to "study" it for hints that might spark a memory (active roll), but that rarely happens.

[willdaBEAST]

My approach as a DM is I try to feed information to relevant classes, especially if it should be common knowledge. For example, a Paladin or a Cleric would know that a skeleton is vulnerable to bludgeoning damage. For something more specific like "what are a vampire's weaknesses?" I usually do some kind of history or religion check to try to determine what facts the character can separate from hearsay, or to determine if they were paying attention during that lesson. Unless a barbarian's backstory was directly tied into something involving undead, I find it hard to believe that they would know much about the differences between ghosts and wraiths, no matter how high they roll.

Similarly a Druid would be fed basic information about beasts. "Wolves are pack hunters, don't let them gang up on you", or something of that nature. If it's a beast the druid has never encountered before, a nature check makes sense to me.

As far as things like stats, I try to be as descriptive as possible in order to clue the players in on which stats are high. If the creature has a high dex, I'll describe it as agile and swift. If it's immensely tough, maybe I'll describe it's calloused skin if that's appropriate. Unless the creature is deceptive, a lot of that information would be abundantly obvious to anyone present. If a monster is rippling with muscles, it seems silly to force a player to spend a turn studying them to recognize that. You can also feed more of this kind of information to players who invest in perception or insight.