Tasha Settled an Important Debate

[CornfedCommando]

Chapter 4, Parleying with Monsters
Monster Research

We now have a definitive ruling on what skills are used to know stuff about each of the monster types. Just another little gem that Tasha has to offer.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Chapter 4, Parleying with Monsters
Monster Research

We now have a definitive ruling on what skills are used to know stuff about each of the monster types. Just another little gem that Tasha has to offer.

Which is, IMO, a bad way of doing things. I'd much prefer each skill being useful for (almost) all monsters, just giving different information.

Arcana tells you about the magical potential/origins (and possible uses of their parts).

Nature tells you about their physical being. Habitat, usual reactions, common desires, etc.

Religion tells you things related to, well, religion. Most useful for fiends, etc., but also relevant for many creatures.

Investigation tells you things you could figure out by observation.

Etc.

[Tanarii]

If the DC for a check involved monster CR, just another reason not to use Tashas

[Rynjin]

If the DC for a check involved monster CR, just another reason not to use Tashas

It works for every other ding-dang edition quite well, I'm not clear on why there's pushback.

[MrCharlie]

If the DC for a check involved monster CR, just another reason not to use Tashas
Why? Honest question-I have problems with it because I generally dislike CR being a discrete mechanism in and of itself, do you have a different reason?

Oh, and it is absolutely CR dependent. 10+CR or something.

I agree with Pheonixpyre here; skills should tell you different things, depending on the situation. That said, I don't think it's a bad addition-like all things, it's optional. Let DMs who want a quick and dirty mechanism have one. There are enough parts I still feel its worth the money.

[CornfedCommando]

Which is, IMO, a bad way of doing things. I'd much prefer each skill being useful for (almost) all monsters, just giving different information.

Arcana tells you about the magical potential/origins (and possible uses of their parts).

Nature tells you about their physical being. Habitat, usual reactions, common desires, etc.

Religion tells you things related to, well, religion. Most useful for fiends, etc., but also relevant for many creatures.

Investigation tells you things you could figure out by observation.

Etc.

I like it because, in most instances, more than one skill is applicable. This could easily be for the reasons you’ve explained, which is my preference too.

[Hellpyre]

It works for every other ding-dang edition quite well, I'm not clear on why there's pushback.

I would assume because bounded accuracy concerns could push information on certain high-power monsters to unknowable levels. An ancient Red Dragon is CR-24, and a DC 34 check sounds a bit high to learn basic information like them liking gold and jewels.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would assume because bounded accuracy concerns could push information on certain high-power monsters to unknowable levels. An ancient Red Dragon is CR-24, and a DC 34 check sounds a bit high to learn basic information like them liking gold and jewels.

Yeah.

Two words. Bear Lore. It was the problem that 4e ran into--knowing basic information about creatures scaled with level (4e didn't have CR). So to know that bears use the woods as a privy was like a check that only a specialist could know (at levels they were relevant).

And I hate anything that reifies CR. CR is so bad a measure of how rare a creature is it's not even funny. It imposes all sorts of hugely stupid assumptions onto the world. It says that knowing anything relevant about the king's champion (who everyone has seen fight in the arena a million times) is way harder (basically impossible for anyone not trained) than knowing about that weird CR 1 aberration that is a total one-off and was created last Thursday in a secret lab somewhere.

Of course you could have the DM adjust for that...but if you're adjusting the king's champion from a DC 19 to a DC 0 and the aberration from a DC 11 to a DC No...why not just make those up yourself based on what you know about the world? Same amount of work, but without the added step of looking things up first and fighting dissonance.

Basically, CR tells you nothing about rarity or knowledge. Those two are almost entirely orthogonal. And rarity/knowledge is not only setting dependent, but micro-setting dependent (ie small regions within settings may have different "common beasts").

I won't be using those rules at all if they're based on CR. They're a total mistake.

[t209]

Well, mostly I think of treating Sapient Monster Race as "Romans and Germans".
Sometimes raiders, sometimes recruited into the army in exchange for resources and prestige, and mostly in indifferent to mutual distrust.
Kinda thought about Half-Orc being a son of an Orcish general whose tribe was integrated into a Kingdom and became a noble. Think Arbogast, Aspar, Stilicho, Ricimer, Postumus, Odoacer, and Strabo.
Edit: You can ignore this, but just that I saw parleying with monsters and thought about my idea.

[Rynjin]

I would assume because bounded accuracy concerns could push information on certain high-power monsters to unknowable levels. An ancient Red Dragon is CR-24, and a DC 34 check sounds a bit high to learn basic information like them liking gold and jewels.

An Ancient Red Dragon is CR 24, sure.

What's a Young Red Dragon? If you only hit the DC to learn about a young one, you'll get basic info like "breathes fire". If you miss the higher DC, you'll miss stuff like (for Pathfinder, I'm not super knowledgeable about the 5e Bestiary) "fire breath can melt stone into lava" and the like.


Yeah.

Two words. Bear Lore. It was the problem that 4e ran into--knowing basic information about creatures scaled with level (4e didn't have CR). So to know that bears use the woods as a privy was like a check that only a specialist could know (at levels they were relevant).

And I hate anything that reifies CR. CR is so bad a measure of how rare a creature is it's not even funny. It imposes all sorts of hugely stupid assumptions onto the world. It says that knowing anything relevant about the king's champion (who everyone has seen fight in the arena a million times) is way harder (basically impossible for anyone not trained) than knowing about that weird CR 1 aberration that is a total one-off and was created last Thursday in a secret lab somewhere.

Of course you could have the DM adjust for that...but if you're adjusting the king's champion from a DC 19 to a DC 0 and the aberration from a DC 11 to a DC No...why not just make those up yourself based on what you know about the world? Same amount of work, but without the added step of looking things up first and fighting dissonance.

Basically, CR tells you nothing about rarity or knowledge. Those two are almost entirely orthogonal. And rarity/knowledge is not only setting dependent, but micro-setting dependent (ie small regions within settings may have different "common beasts").

I won't be using those rules at all if they're based on CR. They're a total mistake.

Does the book not reprint the rules on monster rarity? Because previous editions had that as well, and it wasn't based on CR.

It varies by region, to an extent, but as an example, skeletons and zombies are a very common monster, as are most animals and Humanoids (goblins, orcs, etc.) so the DC is 5+Cr instead of 10; exceptionally rare monsters might be 15 or 20+CR to know about.

It's usually clear when, where, what, and why a monster's rarity would be adjusted. Eg. an Oni might be a 15+CR check in Ye Olde Englandquivalent, but a 5+CR check in Vagueasialand.


But learning about the "king's champion" wouldn't be a monster lore check anyway. Those things don't tell you class levels and the like. That would be a Kn. Local (easy DC because it's common knowledge) or Diplomacy to Gather Info check; or teh 5e equivalents, of course.

Rules like these are only a "mistake" if you go out of your way to make them so.

[MrCharlie]

Yeah.

Two words. Bear Lore. It was the problem that 4e ran into--knowing basic information about creatures scaled with level (4e didn't have CR). So to know that bears use the woods as a privy was like a check that only a specialist could know (at levels they were relevant).

And I hate anything that reifies CR. CR is so bad a measure of how rare a creature is it's not even funny. It imposes all sorts of hugely stupid assumptions onto the world. It says that knowing anything relevant about the king's champion (who everyone has seen fight in the arena a million times) is way harder (basically impossible for anyone not trained) than knowing about that weird CR 1 aberration that is a total one-off and was created last Thursday in a secret lab somewhere.

Of course you could have the DM adjust for that...but if you're adjusting the king's champion from a DC 19 to a DC 0 and the aberration from a DC 11 to a DC No...why not just make those up yourself based on what you know about the world? Same amount of work, but without the added step of looking things up first and fighting dissonance.

Basically, CR tells you nothing about rarity or knowledge. Those two are almost entirely orthogonal. And rarity/knowledge is not only setting dependent, but micro-setting dependent (ie small regions within settings may have different "common beasts").

I won't be using those rules at all if they're based on CR. They're a total mistake.
Oh god yes, thank you for putting that issue into words.

Also, 4e had a lot more wrong about DCs than this, but still, it applies here for sure.

[Hellpyre]

An Ancient Red Dragon is CR 24, sure.

What's a Young Red Dragon? If you only hit the DC to learn about a young one, you'll get basic info like "breathes fire". If you miss the higher DC, you'll miss stuff like (for Pathfinder, I'm not super knowledgeable about the 5e Bestiary) "fire breath can melt stone into lava" and the like.



Does the book not reprint the rules on monster rarity? Because previous editions had that as well, and it wasn't based on CR.


I brought up dragons because it's an explicit example of what you can learn from the check at DC 10+CR from the boom - what sort of offering might appease a monster. Even if your DM did the sane thing and let you use lower CR versions for shared information, that's still a DC 20 check (again, as an explicit example from the book - to learn that dragons like gold) in a game where a first-level character who is specialized into that skill's attribute and is proficient might barely swing a +6, and a high level character without the Expertise ability tops out at +11, or just barely better than a 50/50 for a 17th level adventurer.

And no, there are no rarity rules in here for that.

[qube]

Why? Honest question-I have problems with it because I generally dislike CR being a discrete mechanism in and of itself, do you have a different reason?

Oh, and it is absolutely CR dependent. 10+CR or something.Ironically it's contra intuitive.

More people will be able to answer "What's the God of evil dragons" over "what's the god of goblins"

Likewise, "this a ancient dragon has recentily burned entire villages." What breath weapon do you think it has?
*roll check*
maybe, poison? :smallconfused: if only it was a wyrmling that hasn't done anything noteworthy. That would be much easier :smallconfused:

Typically, the higher in CR , the more visible it's actions are - or in the case of the hidden lich - the more calculated it's actions are.

If your CR 18 mastermind boss sits in his throne room without armor or weapons.
*roll check*
Maybe he's a fighter? :smallconfused:

(while you could argue that if you find a goblin underling somewhere, you might have cought 'm off guard without his weapons)

[Rynjin]

I brought up dragons because it's an explicit example of what you can learn from the check at DC 10+CR from the boom - what sort of offering might appease a monster. Even if your DM did the sane thing and let you use lower CR versions for shared information, that's still a DC 20 check (again, as an explicit example from the book - to learn that dragons like gold) in a game where a first-level character who is specialized into that skill's attribute and is proficient might barely swing a +6, and a high level character without the Expertise ability tops out at +11, or just barely better than a 50/50 for a 17th level adventurer.

And no, there are no rarity rules in here for that.

Seems like a problem in the execution, not the concept.

Did they forget that they roughly quartered all the numbers in the game?

[Pex]

Chapter 4, Parleying with Monsters
Monster Research

We now have a definitive ruling on what skills are used to know stuff about each of the monster types. Just another little gem that Tasha has to offer.

I definitely noticed that! :smallbiggrin: They even gave a DC formula. Still disappointed they didn't do anything with skills in general, but it's a nice bone.

[RifleAvenger]

Did they forget that they roughly quartered all the numbers in the game?

Evidently yes, since Knowledge DC for identifying monster abilities in 3e was 10+HD. In Pathfinder 1e it's literally 10+CR, like it is here.

These DCs are pretty nuts for 5e, unless the assumption is that Arcana, History, Nature and Religion will be treated as passive skills with a floor of 10+bonus and +5 for advantage.

Even then, characters with proficiency and 20 INT, but not expertise, could find it hard to gain information on relevant threats at T3/T4.

[Kane0]

Ugh. In that case I’ll just file this particular snippet away with Xan’s Spell ID rules.

[Unoriginal]

I'm pretty sure that those rules are only to figure out what this specific monster would want to not be hostile to you.


It isn't Bear Lore, or for generic information.

I'd say that in this context it makes sense to base the difficulty on CR, because as a rule of thumb the more powerful a being is the harder it is to "bribe". Giving gold and jewels to a Young Red Dragon may be enough, but an Ancient Red Dragon will probably consider that they can just take such riches from your corpses without effort, and such won't consider it a worthwhile gift. On the other hand, if you know that this particular dragon has a murderous feud ongoing with a Green Dragon, and that you have info on the latter...

[LudicSavant]

And I hate anything that reifies CR. CR is so bad a measure of how rare a creature is it's not even funny. It imposes all sorts of hugely stupid assumptions onto the world. It says that knowing anything relevant about the king's champion (who everyone has seen fight in the arena a million times) is way harder (basically impossible for anyone not trained) than knowing about that weird CR 1 aberration that is a total one-off and was created last Thursday in a secret lab somewhere.

"Oh yeah, I can tell you everything there is to know about that red dragon wyrmling. As for the larger red winged lizard that's glaring at us from atop a mountain of gold, I'unno, your guess is as good as mine."

I personally can't really comment on what Tasha's actually says yet though, since my book has yet to arrive.

[EggKookoo]

I'm pretty sure that those rules are only to figure out what this specific monster would want to not be hostile to you.

Exactly. It's not a DC 34 arcana, nature, or history check to know dragons want gems, or stuff from rival hoards, or antiques, or flattering selfies. It's a check to see what this particular dragon wants in this particular instance, without guessing wrong and pissing it off further.

[AdAstra]

Yeah, the use of DC checks at all to determine what a monster wants seems, kinda boring to me? Feels like the sort of thing where it should either be pretty obvious, or something that is likely to be revealed later if it's relevant at all, or figured out organically by the players. It's like having a knowledge check to figure out the BBEG's plan, just feels wrong.

[Arkhios]

Everything. And I emphasize, EVERYTHING, in Tasha's is entirely optional. If a DM doesn't feel that knowing stuff about monsters isn't something they want their players' characters' capable of knowing, it's within the DM's rights to not use this optional rule.

Players need to get this in their thick heads: Optional rules are not a given to be always available. Regardless of what they think of it's reasonability.

[JackPhoenix]

Evidently yes, since Knowledge DC for identifying monster abilities in 3e was 10+HD. In Pathfinder 1e it's literally 10+CR, like it is here.

It was worse because knowledge skills used to be trained-only, so you could only roll for DC 10 and less. Which meant a random commoner didn't know what race his family or neighbors were, as DC 11 was beyond their ability to know.

[Unoriginal]

We now have a definitive ruling on what skills are used to know stuff about each of the monster types. Just another little gem that Tasha has to offer.

On top of everything else, it's not a "definitive ruling" at all. The text is clear that the skills it mentions are only *suggestions*.




On that topic, a PC using Jeweler's Kit proficiency to see if you know a piece or a kind of jewelry the being would be interested in would be awesome. Same with a PC using their Brewer's Kit proficiency to see which booze could help the situation.

[KorvinStarmast]

"Oh yeah, I can tell you everything there is to know about that red dragon wyrmling. As for the larger red winged lizard that's glaring at us from atop a mountain of gold, I'unno, your guess is as good as mine."

I personally can't really comment on what Tasha's actually says yet though, since my book has yet to arrive. I'll comment: I got to that part and leafed through it, thinking "if you don't know how to RP NPCs very well, this might be a decent point of departure to give you something to work with."

For a modestly to very experienced DM; pages I don't need, but I think Unoriginal is on to something. The picture of holding out a hunk of flesh to an owlbear as a start to a parley is a good visual, and a lot of that section is "rather than kill them, let's work a deal." (And in a recent session our level 2 party was in the presence of a powerful NPC who could have wiped the floor with us, I suspect. We spent a significant amount of effort on a parley to free a prisoner. Great stuff, and no blood shed).

That, my friends, is what Old, Old School D&D was about roughly half of the time - get the loot and get out. Them monsters is dangerous!

Now, if we can just get the "1 GP = 1 XP" thing ... yeah, don't have to kill 'em if you just made off with the loot. (Unless they come after you!) Oceans Eleven, for the win! :smallbiggrin:


On that topic, a PC using Jeweler's Kit proficiency to see if you know a piece or a kind of jewelry the being would be interested in would be awesome. Same with a PC using their Brewer's Kit proficiency to see which booze could help the situation. That too.
What, blue dragons prefer light beer? Who'd have thunk it!

[SiCK_Boy]

Everything. And I emphasize, EVERYTHING, in Tasha's is entirely optional. If a DM doesn't feel that knowing stuff about monsters isn't something they want their players' characters' capable of knowing, it's within the DM's rights to not use this optional rule.

Players need to get this in their thick heads: Optional rules are not a given to be always available. Regardless of what they think of it's reasonability.

The fact that rules are optional is no excuse for a half-baked or badly designed system.

Not commenting on this specific system (although I tend to think somewhat along the lines of what PhenixFyre indicated), but it’s generally a poor excuse to try to stop debate about the possible merits of a given rule by just telling people it is optional.

Participation in this forum thread was also optional, by the way.

[Unoriginal]

Now, if we can just get the "1 GP = 1 XP" thing ... yeah, don't have to kill 'em if you just made off with the loot. (Unless they come after you!) Oceans Eleven, for the win! :smallbiggrin:

I'm not sure if wealth directly translating into personal, physical power is a good idea.


Then again it worked for this guy:


https://youtu.be/2_JTzEppKy8

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not sure if wealth directly translating into personal, physical power is a good idea. It's the process of searching for, finding, and then recovering that wealth that's where Adventuring Experience comes from, originally. (And they may chase after you, so you may still have to do some fighting ... and FWIW, killing a whole bunch of skeletons hardly prepares you to learn new spells, but that's how it works too ... )

What EGG did with "and now you pay for training with that money you recovered" from AD&D 1e was fine for a campaign based game, but the game has changed to an "instance based game" so that's not quite the good fit that it once was.

[Willie the Duck]

Now, if we can just get the "1 GP = 1 XP" thing ... yeah, don't have to kill 'em if you just made off with the loot. (Unless they come after you!) Oceans Eleven, for the win! :smallbiggrin:

We have (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse/pub/13311/O5R-Games/subcategory/30580_32808/Into-the-Unknown)that.

[EggKookoo]

Yeah, the use of DC checks at all to determine what a monster wants seems, kinda boring to me? Feels like the sort of thing where it should either be pretty obvious, or something that is likely to be revealed later if it's relevant at all, or figured out organically by the players. It's like having a knowledge check to figure out the BBEG's plan, just feels wrong.

For seasoned players, sure.

For beginners (DMs and players alike), having a fallback mechanic so the players can make a check is a good things. One common caveat about including puzzles in your adventures is to remember that what might be obvious to the DM or the person setting up the puzzle can be frustratingly opaque to the players trying to solve the puzzle. So often the DM is advised to create alternative ways to solve the puzzle, which can include things like multiple valid solutions, and maybe a way for players to just make some kind of roll or check to solve it. This is less of an issue for more experienced players. An experienced DM knows to "keep it simple" with puzzles, and experienced players start to learn the patterns those solutions can take.

Now I'm talking about puzzles there, but this could also apply to social encounters and this kind of quasi-social monster-parlay thing. Ideally, the situation can be resolved through at-table discussion and roleplaying, with players (not PCs) actively thinking about their options and making decisions or suggestions. But failing that -- and it often can fail -- the game must go on, and a check-based fallback is needed.

[Unoriginal]

It's the process of searching for, finding, and then recovering that wealth that's where Adventuring Experience comes from, originally. (And they may chase after you, so you may still have to do some fighting ... and FWIW, killing a whole bunch of skeletons hardly prepares you to learn new spells, but that's how it works too ... )

I'm far from an advocate of the "you must fight to get the XPs" school, I consider anything that "defeats" the encounter (including stealing their stuff from under their nose without them noticing) to be worth the XPs.

I'm just not a fan on how the riches you'd get from the encounter also determines how rewarding in XPs it is.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm far from an advocate of the "you must fight to get the XPs" school, I consider anything that "defeats" the encounter (including stealing their stuff from under their nose without them noticing) to be worth the XPs.

I'm just not a fan on how the riches you'd get from the encounter also determines how rewarding in XPs it is. GP are already not an actual economic thing in D&D, they are a game token.
So too are XP.
And for that matter, eschewing XP altogether and leveling up "when it's the right time to do it" also works.

[Unoriginal]

GP are already not an actual economic thing in D&D, they are a game token.
So too are XP.

Doesn't mean that they should be equivalent. Poor monsters can be a great challenge, rich monsters can be pushovers.



And for that matter, eschewing XP altogether and leveling up "when it's the right time to do it" also works.

It does, indeed.

[Arkhios]

The fact that rules are optional is no excuse for a half-baked or badly designed system.

Not commenting on this specific system (although I tend to think somewhat along the lines of what PhenixFyre indicated), but it’s generally a poor excuse to try to stop debate about the possible merits of a given rule by just telling people it is optional.

Participation in this forum thread was also optional, by the way.

Raising up a controversial opinion and questioning someone else's logic is still debating.

You have no obligation to agree with me, but neither do I have any obligation to agree with you. Opinion is like a butt. Everyone has one.

[Tanarii]

Now, if we can just get the "1 GP = 1 XP" thing ... yeah, don't have to kill 'em if you just made off with the loot. (Unless they come after you!) Oceans Eleven, for the win! :smallbiggrin:
Absolutely. I played around with it for a while, but ultimately you have to rescale XP entirely if you want to do that. But it'd be worth it if you brought back a lot of things that made D&D great. Speaking of which ...


We have (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse/pub/13311/O5R-Games/subcategory/30580_32808/Into-the-Unknown)that.
So far, Into the Unknown 05R is the best third party 5e based adaption I've read. It sure beats all the ones that try to treat spells as technological tricks.

[rel]

The best approach to knowledge checks to learn about monsters came at the tail end of the 3.5 by which time everyone had stopped paying attention so sadly it never made it into any later editions;
Static DC's that slowly reveal more and more about a creature as part of the monsters stat block.

I personally think anything that detailed isn't appropriate for 5e but a generic table is helpful for the GM to refer to when considering what to reveal.


DC 5 basic / well known facts
e.g. red dragon, big flying lizard, smart, evil, lusts for treasure, born of flame

DC 10 As above and the less well known but iconic or particularly relevant features
e.g. can track a mouse by its heartbeat, terrifying aura, beast of legend, preternaturally resistant

DC 15 as above and ask a few of specific questions and get accurate answers

DC 20 as above but a few more questions and more precise answers

DC 25 as above but the biggest danger is explicitly explicitly called out
e.g. a dragon can fly and climb exceptionally well and has effective ranged options



I also really like the suggestion that any skill can be used and they all tell you different things. This really plays to the strength of 5e. Arcana might tell you the monsters signature supernatural powers while history might reveal people with a grudge against the monster or treasures you might find in its hoard.

[Tanarii]

The best approach to knowledge checks to learn about monsters came at the tail end of the 3.5 by which time everyone had stopped paying attention so sadly it never made it into any later editions;
Static DC's that slowly reveal more and more about a creature as part of the monsters stat block.
Which is how we ended up with Bear Lore.

[Pex]

Which is, IMO, a bad way of doing things. I'd much prefer each skill being useful for (almost) all monsters, just giving different information.

Arcana tells you about the magical potential/origins (and possible uses of their parts).

Nature tells you about their physical being. Habitat, usual reactions, common desires, etc.

Religion tells you things related to, well, religion. Most useful for fiends, etc., but also relevant for many creatures.

Investigation tells you things you could figure out by observation.

Etc.

That's being overly complicated. It's supposed to be a simple resolution mechanic like any other skill use. You're free not to use it, but it's nice a reference is available for DMs who do want/need it. A simple formula to use to get a DC and a suggested skill. That's all I've been asking for skill use in general, but I'll take it for this.

Whether the math is good is a different subject. Ancient Black Dragon is DC of 31. An Adult Black Dragon is DC 24. It's up to the DM whether someone wanting to know about the Ancient Black Dragon but gets a 28 can at least know stuff about the Adult Black Dragon and let the character extrapolate from there. If the DM refuses to give any information at all because the player didn't get the DC 31 I lean toward the DM being a donkey cavity more than a mathematical fault of the rule.


I would assume because bounded accuracy concerns could push information on certain high-power monsters to unknowable levels. An ancient Red Dragon is CR-24, and a DC 34 check sounds a bit high to learn basic information like them liking gold and jewels.

But you would know dragons like them from the lower DC of younger dragons.

[Unoriginal]

That's being overly complicated. It's supposed to be a simple resolution mechanic like any other skill use. You're free not to use it, but it's nice a reference is available for DMs who do want/need it. A simple formula to use to get a DC and a suggested skill. That's all I've been asking for skill use in general, but I'll take it for this.

Whether the math is good is a different subject. Ancient Black Dragon is DC of 31. An Adult Black Dragon is DC 24. It's up to the DM whether someone wanting to know about the Ancient Black Dragon but gets a 28 can at least know stuff about the Adult Black Dragon and let the character extrapolate from there. If the DM refuses to give any information at all because the player didn't get the DC 31 I lean toward the DM being a donkey cavity more than a mathematical fault of the rule.

The Tasha's rule is about learning what a specific creature wants as an offering, to give a good first impression. Knowing what a specific Adult Black Dragons want doesn't particularly help with knowing what a different, specific Ancient Black Dragon wants.

If the two are connected in some ways then maybe you could use the younger one to get an in with the Ancient Black Dragon, but otherwise...



But you would know dragons like them from the lower DC of younger dragons.

For basic informations, I'd say the PCs know without a check. The Tasha's rule applies if the PCs want to know if the specific dragon would prefer rubies, or a dragon-adapted crown, or the head of an enemy.

[Hellpyre]

The Tasha's rule is about learning what a specific creature wants as an offering, to give a good first impression. Knowing what a specific Adult Black Dragons want doesn't particularly help with knowing what a different, specific Ancient Black Dragon wants.


The way I read it from my copy, it seemed more like knowing what would be a generally good offering for a generic monster of the type at hand, rather than that specific specimen over there. But I can appreciate the other view.

Either way, it is unlikely to impact my tables personally as I tend to diverge from CR as I see fit for a party, and I already have my own guidelines that I was using for IC monster IDing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For basic informations, I'd say the PCs know without a check. The Tasha's rule applies if the PCs want to know if the specific dragon would prefer rubies, or a dragon-adapted crown, or the head of an enemy.

If you just suddenly, on the fly (pun intended) meet a dragon and are doing it spur-of-the-moment, why in the world do you believe that you'd have any relevant information about this particular dragon? Unless he's so famous that...wait for it...CR makes a bad metric. Because being famous enough that you'd have already heard about it usually means that you've already heard and thus it's an easier (or trivial) check.

If you want to know about a specific dragon (or other creature) ahead of time (ie during the research/planning phase), finding out shouldn't be as simple as just one-check-and-done. It should be part of the adventure, doing a bunch of things that everyone can get involved in. At least if it's important. If it's not important...why even roll for it?

The adventure might involve
* the scholar-type hitting the books and researching the history of that dragon (and having to deal with getting access to the books and figuring out fact from fiction).
* the schmoozer type talking to other people who might have encountered the dragon. Or to the dragon themselves.
* etc.

I have a strong dislike for mechanics that promote a "one person pushes a button to win" mentality. In this case "push the Knowledge Check button to receive the answers." If it's important enough to roll for, it should be part of a larger, multi-person scenario. Everyone turning to the person with the high skill numbers and saying "here, solve this" is horrible (IMO) scenario design. Everyone should have some role to play in every "encounter". We don't have dedicated "combat people" who handle combat encounters while everyone else sits back; why should we have designated "Knowledge skill" (or social skill for that matter!) people who handle knowledge or social encounters?

[MaxWilson]

But you would know dragons like them from the lower DC of younger dragons.

Heh. This is an interesting exploit illustrating why CR is a bad proxy for obscurity. If you want to know something about the lifecycle or diet of CR 7 Mind Flayers, ask about CR 0ish baby Mind Flayers, which are much less obscure by virtue of having fewer HP.

It would probably be better just to bucket them into four groups (Common Knowledge/Uncommon Knowledge/Obscure/Unknown), give DMs a handful of tips on how to extrapolate rarity if they aren't sure (e.g. "Buy an AD&D or Hackmaster Monster Manual and check the Frequency in that stat block", only half-kidding because it's a good idea but WotC would never do it), and give DCs and example info for each rarity category. E.g. T-Rexes might be Uncommon Knowledge, but their primary trait of "eats meat" might be common knowledge while "can see you even when you're not moving" might be Obscure since many people falsely believe misinformation saying the opposite.

[Sigreid]

Why? Honest question-I have problems with it because I generally dislike CR being a discrete mechanism in and of itself, do you have a different reason?

Oh, and it is absolutely CR dependent. 10+CR or something.

I agree with Pheonixpyre here; skills should tell you different things, depending on the situation. That said, I don't think it's a bad addition-like all things, it's optional. Let DMs who want a quick and dirty mechanism have one. There are enough parts I still feel its worth the money.

For me it would be because there could be low CR monsters like say Intellect Devourers that would be rare and obscure enough to be harder than say, Dragons which are high CR but I'd expect almost everyone in a world with them to have some idea about them.

[MrCharlie]

If you just suddenly, on the fly (pun intended) meet a dragon and are doing it spur-of-the-moment, why in the world do you believe that you'd have any relevant information about this particular dragon? Unless he's so famous that...wait for it...CR makes a bad metric. Because being famous enough that you'd have already heard about it usually means that you've already heard and thus it's an easier (or trivial) check.

If you want to know about a specific dragon (or other creature) ahead of time (ie during the research/planning phase), finding out shouldn't be as simple as just one-check-and-done. It should be part of the adventure, doing a bunch of things that everyone can get involved in. At least if it's important. If it's not important...why even roll for it?

The adventure might involve
* the scholar-type hitting the books and researching the history of that dragon (and having to deal with getting access to the books and figuring out fact from fiction).
* the schmoozer type talking to other people who might have encountered the dragon. Or to the dragon themselves.
* etc.

I have a strong dislike for mechanics that promote a "one person pushes a button to win" mentality. In this case "push the Knowledge Check button to receive the answers." If it's important enough to roll for, it should be part of a larger, multi-person scenario. Everyone turning to the person with the high skill numbers and saying "here, solve this" is horrible (IMO) scenario design. Everyone should have some role to play in every "encounter". We don't have dedicated "combat people" who handle combat encounters while everyone else sits back; why should we have designated "Knowledge skill" (or social skill for that matter!) people who handle knowledge or social encounters?
I guess the idea is to simplify characters having extensive background knowledge, sort of like how Gandalf can sit down, think for a few seconds, and suddenly remember what way to go in some random stairwell-maybe he was there three centuries ago or something or read the blueprints when he went library prowling. That's what most knowledge checks are supposed to be modeling in general-that the character is well read or has knowledge through other sources, and may have noticed this three months ago in a book or through some contact they talked to seven years ago.

But in general the idea that the DCs of these checks is somehow related to CR is still a complete absurdity. And in general, using this system only really makes sense when you'd rather abstract away a potential roleplaying opportunity that could be rather interesting. I'm not saying its wrong, but it ain't for me or my groups.

[cutlery]

Enh, it’s fine for DMs that need guidance.

As for not being able to figure out what “everyone” knows about a monster, think about every vampire movie where the human rattles off what they think should be a litany of vampire banes and the vampire, in a very bored voice, say “no” over and over.

[Unoriginal]

If you just suddenly, on the fly (pun intended) meet a dragon and are doing it spur-of-the-moment, why in the world do you believe that you'd have any relevant information about this particular dragon?

If I just suddenly, on the fly, meet a dragon, then I won't be able to use a rule meant to represent researching a monster.


Monster Research
Adventurers can research what a creature is likely to desire. The Monster Research table suggests which skills can be used to learn about a creature of a particular type.



I have a strong dislike for mechanics that promote a "one person pushes a button to win" mentality. In this case "push the Knowledge Check button to receive the answers."

How do you rule WIS (Insight) checks, out of curiosity? Or the spell Legend Lore?




If it's important enough to roll for, it should be part of a larger, multi-person scenario. Everyone turning to the person with the high skill numbers and saying "here, solve this" is horrible (IMO) scenario design. Everyone should have some role to play in every "encounter". We don't have dedicated "combat people" who handle combat encounters while everyone else sits back; why should we have designated "Knowledge skill" (or social skill for that matter!) people who handle knowledge or social encounters?

You do realize that the ONLY effect of learning what the monster like is the book telling the DM: "Consider granting the characters advantage on any ability check they make to communicate with a creature if they offer something it wants", right?


Heh. This is an interesting exploit

There is no exploit here. Knowing what a creature desires has no inherent impact on what another creature desire. At best you can make a guess based on their similarities, but that's not an exploit it's having pattern recognition.


why CR is a bad proxy for obscurity.

CR is indeed a bad proxy for obscurity, but it isn't for satisfiability. It's much harder to find something an Adult Black Dragon would consider a suitable gift than something a Young Black Dragon would, as the more powerful dragon knows there is much more they can simply take in impunity or obtain in other ways.


I guess the idea is to simplify characters having extensive background knowledge, sort of like how Gandalf can sit down, think for a few seconds, and suddenly remember what way to go in some random stairwell-maybe he was there three centuries ago or something or read the blueprints when he went library prowling.

That's not what the Tasha's rule is about, though. It's literally called Monster Research. If anything it's more like in an heist movie one of the robbers go "one of my contacts gave me a great info, the guy we're stealing the diamond from is crazy for this wine from the region of Spain he goes once a year."


Seriously I'm simply *puzzled* by this whole thread. It's an anecdotal rule to let you use a check to MAYBE make some other social checks easier, and just let the DM add some RP stuff to the interaction. Nothing more.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I guess the idea is to simplify characters having extensive background knowledge, sort of like how Gandalf can sit down, think for a few seconds, and suddenly remember what way to go in some random stairwell-maybe he was there three centuries ago or something or read the blueprints when he went library prowling. That's what most knowledge checks are supposed to be modeling in general-that the character is well read or has knowledge through other sources, and may have noticed this three months ago in a book or through some contact they talked to seven years ago.

But in general the idea that the DCs of these checks is somehow related to CR is still a complete absurdity. And in general, using this system only really makes sense when you'd rather abstract away a potential roleplaying opportunity that could be rather interesting. I'm not saying its wrong, but it ain't for me or my groups.

Yeah. My big problem still remains that it imposes really harsh requirements on the world--as soon as you step away from things that are basically static (ie long-lived dragons, layout of ancient, uninhabited places, etc), the probability that you know anything relevant about this specific thing in any usable level of detail beyond basic lore is zero. Studying the map of a slum isn't going to get you anything 6 months from now--that changes daily. And the maps are wrong. Studying about the habits of the king only works if there hasn't been a change since then. Or if you're getting a present for the king, you have to have up-to-date info about what he's into right now. What he liked when those bios were written a decade ago doesn't help.

So you either have to have a completely static world or a completely generic one. Both of which I hate.

And about CR, tying rarity to CR only works if the correlation between the two is essentially perfect. Even a few exceptions cause verisimilitude issues. And it's not. It's all over the map. By those standards, a common, unlettered slave in the northern wastes knows everything about what a jungle lizard wants (ok, fails half the time because DC 10), despite never having seen or heard of such a thing. While they have a pretty darn good chance of failing to know what their overseer (a CR 3 knight) wants, despite seeing them every day (and usually getting beaten by them for failing to deliver).

Oh, and a standard herder has a 50% chance of not knowing what his dog wants. Or his cow. You know, the ones he raised from infancy and knows better than they know themselves. Because 10 + 0 = 10, and he's got a +0 in the relevant skill.

Tying a linear parameter (DC = X + CR) to a non-linear, badly-correlated metric (CR vs rarity) is worlds of pain and kludge. And doesn't help the DM come up with what they want in the first place. Which is the hard part here.


If I just suddenly, on the fly, meet a dragon, then I won't be able to use a rule meant to represent researching a monster.

How do you rule WIS (Insight) checks, out of curiosity? Or the spell Legend Lore?

You do realize that the ONLY effect of learning what the monster like is the book telling the DM: "Consider granting the characters advantage on any ability check they make to communicate with a creature if they offer something it wants", right?


You can only research that which is written down. And that covers...basically nothing about any individual who isn't extremely famous. Or, if you're researching by asking people, isn't an Intelligence check in the first place.

As far as Wisdom (Insight) or legend lore--it gives you a little hint. That then you have to follow up on by doing other things. That other people get to participate in. It's not mind reading or "tell me everything about X". Insight gets used during conversations with people. Which then can influence how you approach the conversation from there on. It's not a "push button, win encounter" thing.

And if all it does is grant advantage on ability checks in communication...wow. That's pointless then. Even less use in that entire section. Sure. Then I don't care. But it's a total waste of space. It gives bad guidance (using CR) to do something that didn't need mechanics to do anyway (seriously, just read the skills. All that stuff is there anyway.), for a benefit that's laughable.

[Pex]

If you just suddenly, on the fly (pun intended) meet a dragon and are doing it spur-of-the-moment, why in the world do you believe that you'd have any relevant information about this particular dragon? Unless he's so famous that...wait for it...CR makes a bad metric. Because being famous enough that you'd have already heard about it usually means that you've already heard and thus it's an easier (or trivial) check.

If you want to know about a specific dragon (or other creature) ahead of time (ie during the research/planning phase), finding out shouldn't be as simple as just one-check-and-done. It should be part of the adventure, doing a bunch of things that everyone can get involved in. At least if it's important. If it's not important...why even roll for it?

The adventure might involve
* the scholar-type hitting the books and researching the history of that dragon (and having to deal with getting access to the books and figuring out fact from fiction).
* the schmoozer type talking to other people who might have encountered the dragon. Or to the dragon themselves.
* etc.

I have a strong dislike for mechanics that promote a "one person pushes a button to win" mentality. In this case "push the Knowledge Check button to receive the answers." If it's important enough to roll for, it should be part of a larger, multi-person scenario. Everyone turning to the person with the high skill numbers and saying "here, solve this" is horrible (IMO) scenario design. Everyone should have some role to play in every "encounter". We don't have dedicated "combat people" who handle combat encounters while everyone else sits back; why should we have designated "Knowledge skill" (or social skill for that matter!) people who handle knowledge or social encounters?

Sure. A check would be for the monster race in general, not specifically that monster over there looking at you while drooling. If a 20th level party is to fight an Ancient Black Dragon I expect the party to be doing legwork to learn about that particular dragon, not roll a d20 to Know Everything. That's the adventure. A check would be good for knowing generic information about Black Dragons in general - combat statistics and lifestyle. At much lower levels the math is more reasonable for the typical foes parties face, still only giving generic information not the exact specific life story of the monster about to pounce on you.


Heh. This is an interesting exploit illustrating why CR is a bad proxy for obscurity. If you want to know something about the lifecycle or diet of CR 7 Mind Flayers, ask about CR 0ish baby Mind Flayers, which are much less obscure by virtue of having fewer HP.

It would probably be better just to bucket them into four groups (Common Knowledge/Uncommon Knowledge/Obscure/Unknown), give DMs a handful of tips on how to extrapolate rarity if they aren't sure (e.g. "Buy an AD&D or Hackmaster Monster Manual and check the Frequency in that stat block", only half-kidding because it's a good idea but WotC would never do it), and give DCs and example info for each rarity category. E.g. T-Rexes might be Uncommon Knowledge, but their primary trait of "eats meat" might be common knowledge while "can see you even when you're not moving" might be Obscure since many people falsely believe misinformation saying the opposite.

No argument from me it's possible to have provided a better mechanic, but I'm glad a functional mechanic exists at all.

[lukethecat2003]

It works for every other ding-dang edition quite well, I'm not clear on why there's pushback.

Knowledge on dragons would be much higher than other things BECAUSE they are strong.

[JonBeowulf]

This quickly became one of my favorite threads. I've gotta remember to come back here to steal some stuff the next time I make a fun/silly campaign.

Thanks all.

[rel]

Which is how we ended up with Bear Lore.

No, bear lore is a problem that comes up under a scaling difficulty system.

Under the static system that I'm referring to, that problem is explicitly negated.

Under a static system a trivial DC nets you the basic information so you never have the 'what's a bear?' situation.

e.g. DC 5: brown bear, large shaggy woodland animal, usually angry and hungry, hibernates in caves in winter, faster than a human

[ZZTRaider]

Ironically it's contra intuitive.

More people will be able to answer "What's the God of evil dragons" over "what's the god of goblins"

Likewise, "this a ancient dragon has recentily burned entire villages." What breath weapon do you think it has?
*roll check*
maybe, poison? :smallconfused: if only it was a wyrmling that hasn't done anything noteworthy. That would be much easier :smallconfused:

Typically, the higher in CR , the more visible it's actions are - or in the case of the hidden lich - the more calculated it's actions are.

If your CR 18 mastermind boss sits in his throne room without armor or weapons.
*roll check*
Maybe he's a fighter? :smallconfused:

(while you could argue that if you find a goblin underling somewhere, you might have cought 'm off guard without his weapons)

I don't know, I think it isn't as cut and dry as that. I mean, yes, some things about the infamous dragon that has been burning down villages will be pretty well known, like the fire breath. But there's going to be a ton of exaggerated stuff and outright misinformation, too. Part of the difficulty of the check, I think, is sorting through that information and determining what's credible and what isn't.

[Witty Username]

I would assume because bounded accuracy concerns could push information on certain high-power monsters to unknowable levels. An ancient Red Dragon is CR-24, and a DC 34 check sounds a bit high to learn basic information like them liking gold and jewels.

Not to mention the most mythical iconic monsters are the hardest to hear about. I don't know about you but Orcus should have reputation.

[MaxWilson]

There is no exploit here. Knowing what a creature desires has no inherent impact on what another creature desire. At best you can make a guess based on their similarities, but that's not an exploit it's having pattern recognition.

Sorry, I got confused by the context of the discussion, forgot we were specifically discussing Tasha's rules, which are specifically about discerning the desires of a type of creature.

I do think it's silly that researching the desires of obscure creatures like Chwingas is easier than researching the desires of famous creatures like Red Dragons, but my example certainly didn't illustrate that point: if the DM rules that baby Mind Flayers ARE a different "kind" of creature than adult Mind Flayers, they'll probably rule that they have different desires too. Hence no exploit, just simple illogic.

Thanks for the correction.

[Tanarii]

No, bear lore is a problem that comes up under a scaling difficulty system.

Under the static system that I'm referring to, that problem is explicitly negated.

Under a static system a trivial DC nets you the basic information so you never have the 'what's a bear?' situation.

e.g. DC 5: brown bear, large shaggy woodland animal, usually angry and hungry, hibernates in caves in winter, faster than a humanIt has nothing to do with scaling. In 5e, any DC you set above -1 is a potential failure for an off stat. Setting DCs to determine state-of-a-characters is problematic. Especially for potentially common knowledge things. Codifying them is terrible. That's why 5e has generic DC scales in the first place, and only if the DM determines a check is even necessary.

[JoeJ]

It works for every other ding-dang edition quite well, I'm not clear on why there's pushback.

It certainly did not work for every other edition because that mechanic didn't appear at all until 3e. It broke verisimilitude then, and it does it now.

The likelihood of knowing something about a monster logically should be related to how common that monster is (with exceptions for especially active, and therefore famous, individuals). Unfortunately, the devs made the mistake of removing the Frequency stat from the MM, so there's nothing to base a mechanic off of.

[Rynjin]

It certainly did not work for every other edition because that mechanic didn't appear at all until 3e. It broke verisimilitude then, and it does it now.

My bad, let me amend: it worked just fine for the last four editions of the game.


It has nothing to do with scaling. In 5e, any DC you set above -1 is a potential failure for an off stat. Setting DCs to determine state-of-a-characters is problematic. Especially for potentially common knowledge things. Codifying them is terrible. That's why 5e has generic DC scales in the first place, and only if the DM determines a check is even necessary.

If you have a negative Int score, you SHOULD have gaps in your common knowledge, to an extent.

It's too bad 5e did away with the Take 10 rules for reasons I've never been entirely clear on, though.

[JoeJ]

My bad, let me amend: it worked just fine for the last four editions of the game.

For a very peculiar definition of "worked fine," perhaps. It's a mechanic that is substantially inferior, IMO, to having no mechanic for that at all and making the DM just wing it.

[Pex]

It has nothing to do with scaling. In 5e, any DC you set above -1 is a potential failure for an off stat. Setting DCs to determine state-of-a-characters is problematic. Especially for potentially common knowledge things. Codifying them is terrible. That's why 5e has generic DC scales in the first place, and only if the DM determines a check is even necessary.

Then your problem is solved. You can still do that. If you think it's common enough knowledge that dragons like gems and red dragons breathe fire then no roll is needed. The DC of 10 + CR is for things you don't find common enough knowledge. Having DC numbers does not prevent autosuccess or autofail where it's warranted. That's DM fiat which I quibble about, but now when the DM is willing to let the dice determine whether a PC knows something he has a reference point to work with so I'll take the compromise and let the DM determine whether a roll is needed at all.

[Rynjin]

For a very peculiar definition of "worked fine," perhaps. It's a mechanic that is substantially inferior, IMO, to having no mechanic for that at all and making the DM just wing it.

Pretty much no mechanic is worse than a rulebook basically just going "We don't know, just make it up lmao". That kind of defeats the purpose of having a rulebook in the first place, to me.

[Waazraath]

The best approach to knowledge checks to learn about monsters came at the tail end of the 3.5 by which time everyone had stopped paying attention so sadly it never made it into any later editions;
Static DC's that slowly reveal more and more about a creature as part of the monsters stat block.

I personally think anything that detailed isn't appropriate for 5e but a generic table is helpful for the GM to refer to when considering what to reveal.


DC 5 basic / well known facts
e.g. red dragon, big flying lizard, smart, evil, lusts for treasure, born of flame

DC 10 As above and the less well known but iconic or particularly relevant features
e.g. can track a mouse by its heartbeat, terrifying aura, beast of legend, preternaturally resistant

DC 15 as above and ask a few of specific questions and get accurate answers

DC 20 as above but a few more questions and more precise answers

DC 25 as above but the biggest danger is explicitly explicitly called out
e.g. a dragon can fly and climb exceptionally well and has effective ranged options

I also really like the suggestion that any skill can be used and they all tell you different things. This really plays to the strength of 5e. Arcana might tell you the monsters signature supernatural powers while history might reveal people with a grudge against the monster or treasures you might find in its hoard.

Yes, this worked fine. And in no way interferes with the DM's call to have knowledge be so common that no roll is needed, is impossible to know, or the ability to deviate from this guideline in specific cases. So yes please.

I don't know what 'bear lore' means, but from the context I get the impression that 4e (which I skipped) had a botched 'knowlege' system. Too bad, but I don't understand the conclusion which some seem to draw from there that every guideline on knowledge checks is bad.

Characters know stuff about te world they live in. Players want to know what their characters know. Some guidelines on this for the DM are good. I don't really see how people can make an issue out of this.

[JackPhoenix]

It's too bad 5e did away with the Take 10 rules for reasons I've never been entirely clear on, though.

It's because it was replaced with the superior "No pressure? You just succeed." rules. It's more of a replacement for Take 20, but in the end, it's the same thing: you would Take 10 when you're not threatened and you're reasonably sure it'll be enough to succeed. If 10 wasn't enough, you would have to roll anyway.


I don't know what 'bear lore' means, but from the context I get the impression that 4e (which I skipped) had a botched 'knowlege' system. Too bad, but I don't understand the conclusion which some seem to draw from there that every guideline on knowledge checks is bad.

Then behold what basing knowledge on CR (or level) leads to:
https://1d4chan.org/images/7/7d/Bear_lore.png
To quote the site that image (which is a real thing from 4e MM) comes from: "For the same DC regarding manticores, you get to know it has 3 rows of teeth and that it can speak common and that it can be tricked easily. "

[Tanarii]

For a very peculiar definition of "worked fine," perhaps. It's a mechanic that is substantially inferior, IMO, to having no mechanic for that at all and making the DM just wing it.Exactly. It didn't work. So then we were given a superior system, a mechanic with a rought generic guideline that vaguely worked. Set DC of 5, 10, 15, 20, based on DM judgement.

Now they've apparently forgotten their history, and have been doomed to repeat it.


Then your problem is solved. You can still do that. If you think it's common enough knowledge that dragons like gems and red dragons breathe fire then no roll is needed. The DC of 10 + CR is for things you don't find common enough knowledge. Having DC numbers does not prevent autosuccess or autofail where it's warranted. That's DM fiat which I quibble about, but now when the DM is willing to let the dice determine whether a PC knows something he has a reference point to work with so I'll take the compromise and let the DM determine whether a roll is needed at all.
Not setting detailed specific information for a creature type aka Bear Lore is what I was arguing about by that point in the thread.That's like having a detailed table for picking locks or climbing, it just doesn't work. Monster Knowledge tables don't work.

But not setting a single DC of 10+CR across the board because the number doesn't work is a separate argument. Basically, I'm also quibbling with the mistake of using CR. If, as it appears to be reported, this is a rough guideline like the Downtime DCs in Xanathars for accomplishing a specific task, not a general monster knowledge check, it might be workable with some DC. Just not one involving CR.

There's a difference between the concept being wrong and the numbers being wrong. (Please note that wasn't my argument in my first post. This is based on the ongoing discussion revealing more info on the rule. Originally I assumed it was both Bear Lore AND 10+CR)

[Pex]

Exactly. It didn't work. So then we were given a superior system, a mechanic with a rought generic guideline that vaguely worked. Set DC of 5, 10, 15, 20, based on DM judgement.

Now they've apparently forgotten their history, and have been doomed to repeat it.


Not setting detailed specific information for a creature type aka Bear Lore is what I was arguing about by that point in the thread.That's like having a detailed table for picking locks or climbing, it just doesn't work. Monster Knowledge tables don't work.

But not setting a single DC of 10+CR across the board because the number doesn't work is a separate argument. Basically, I'm also quibbling with the mistake of using CR. If, as it appears to be reported, this is a rough guideline like the Downtime DCs in Xanathars for accomplishing a specific task, not a general monster knowledge check, it might be workable with some DC. Just not one involving CR.

There's a difference between the concept being wrong and the numbers being wrong. (Please note that wasn't my argument in my first post. This is based on the ongoing discussion revealing more info on the rule. Originally I assumed it was both Bear Lore AND 10+CR)

The rule only gives a DC formula and which Knowledge Skill to use. What specific information is learned by a success is up to the DM, so you can have your campaign specific information that wouldn't apply to another DM's campaign the next town over.

As for the implementation of it, basing it off CR, as I wrote above I don't disagree a better mechanic could have been used. In past threads I mentioned the idea of using DC 10 + CR, but I was never married to it. I admit to being pleased that's what they used, but I'm ready to acknowledge another mechanic would have been better if presented to me. My main happiness is they have Something at all and will disagree with any notion they should never have done it.

[JoeJ]

Pretty much no mechanic is worse than a rulebook basically just going "We don't know, just make it up lmao". That kind of defeats the purpose of having a rulebook in the first place, to me.

This is one of the few exceptions to that general rule. Most DM's making it up themselves would probably come up with something that doesn't hurt verisimilitude to the degree that this particular mechanic does.

Is the rule in Tasha's intended to decide whether or not players can utilize their own OOC knowledge IC, or simply to determine when the DM provides information that the players don't have? If it's the former, then in addition to breaking verisimilitude it also forces players to metagame and try to guess, for example, how many failed attempts the DM will require before allowing them to "discover" that fire shuts down troll regeneration.

[Garhi]

This is one of the few exceptions to that general rule. Most DM's making it up themselves would probably come up with something that doesn't hurt verisimilitude to the degree that this particular mechanic does.

Is the rule in Tasha's intended to decide whether or not players can utilize their own OOC knowledge IC, or simply to determine when the DM provides information that the players don't have? If it's the former, then in addition to breaking verisimilitude it also forces players to metagame and try to guess, for example, how many failed attempts the DM will require before allowing them to "discover" that fire shuts down troll regeneration.

The rule presented in Tasha's is specifically about researching "what a creature is likely to desire" within the context of "Parleying with Monsters." It's not about general knowledge or knowing specific monster capabilities.

Presenting a creature with something they want might get you advantage on checks to communicate with it.

It's a table of monster types and then a suggested skill to use for the check, and then a series of tables, one for each monster type with examples of what they might desire.

[Waazraath]

It's because it was replaced with the superior "No pressure? You just succeed." rules. It's more of a replacement for Take 20, but in the end, it's the same thing: you would Take 10 when you're not threatened and you're reasonably sure it'll be enough to succeed. If 10 wasn't enough, you would have to roll anyway.



Then behold what basing knowledge on CR (or level) leads to:
https://1d4chan.org/images/7/7d/Bear_lore.png
To quote the site that image (which is a real thing from 4e MM) comes from: "For the same DC regarding manticores, you get to know it has 3 rows of teeth and that it can speak common and that it can be tricked easily. "

Lol. This is hilariously bad. I still fail to understand though how one could see this as the logical end point of where codifying knowledge behind DC's lead to. Obviously this is incompetent design and editing, but other editions did this better.

To be fair: I don't mind, as a DM. I can make up on the fly if a check is needed, and if so, what a decent DC would be (and no, I don't use CR or level then). But I also have DM's who have less experience, and for who it keeps more than enough effort to keep the game running, and who really don't want to think about this stuff and would like a guideline in a table. It would make games with those DM's better, since they can focus on story, combat, running NPC's or whatever it is they need to focus on.

[Tanarii]

My main happiness is they have Something at all and will disagree with any notion they should never have done it.
Oh I'm well aware. We didnt really need to rehash that point, especially if this isnt even a classic "Knowledge Check".

[CornfedCommando]

I like at least having some general guidance as to what skills are applicable for specific monster types. Per the PHB, knowledge of the outer planes and its inhabitants falls under Arcana. But if your character is a Cleric, you’d certainly like to be able to apply your Religion skill to know something of angels and demons. Probably undead as well, since one of your base features is the ability to turn them. However, the undead just as easily fall under Arcana since they are the product of necromany and/or are associated with the Shadowfell plane.

If I’m a Ranger with Survival but not Nature, I’d certainly like to apply my proficiency in Survival to know about beasts and plants, even if that seems to be more suited to Nature per the PHB.

Having this sort of a list codified in an official rulebook makes it easier to argue for those kinds of overlaps, especially if your DM prefers to go “by the book.”

As for the DC of such matters, I will agree with those who argue against a CR-based difficulty scale. General knowledge of a given monster is a lower DC while more esoteric checks should have a higher degree of difficulty.

[KorvinStarmast]

Tasha Settled an Important Debate
Tasha's didn't settle a darned thing.
1. If you are a DM and can't figure out a DC for {any skill check} without looking it up in a table ... you are doing it wrong. Pick a number an play on. I just got done with a 4 hour session and that's how it worked.
Fun? We had. They are chomping at the bit for our next session.

2. If you are a player and you want to argue with your DM about what the DC is for this check you are about to do .. you are doing it wrong. Whatever DC it is that the DM sets, try to beat it. Sometimes you will, sometimes you won't. That's the whole point of rolling a die. You don't know the outcome until after the die stops rolling.
If that bothers you

You don't know the outcome until after the die stops rolling.

Go back to video games. Let the computer tell you how to play.

PS: if you don't trust your DM, that's an issue that you really need to resolve before your next session. Without that trust, fun will be scarce to non existent.
We don't do this for pay.
We do this for fun ... Together!