Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sucineri 10-11-04, 07:36 PM	I got the idea to write this based on a different thread that got me asking a question to myself.."would the average commoner know that a silver dragon is a good dragon?". Let me give a real world example here..the average person on earth still thinks all snakes are poisonous..unless they watch Animal Planet/Discovery Channel..but that doesn't count since they didn't have those during "D&D times". So to me I would think the only things the average commoner (upto about level 3 in an NPC class [other than expert]) would only know these things about monsters.. 1) What orcs/goblins/kobolds look like from first hand experience, and that they should be feared. 2) What dragons look like through children's stories, and that they should be feared, and that they have the power of the elements in their breath. 3) MAYBE legends of the Tarrasque..but have no clue what it looks like or where it comes from or anything else. And that's pretty much it..obviously they would know about common animals and some of the vermin, but they shouldn't know much beyond what that. There are still quite a few people on these boards that truly believe that the average commoner should show pretty much EVERYTHING from the monster manual, and realistically that shouldn't be the case.
Lordofthebean 10-11-04, 07:41 PM	I don't really understand what point you are trying to make. Sure the average commoner wouldn't know the specific powers of a silver dragon, or the best way to kill a hydra. However, an adventurer isn't an average commoner. If you are trying, as the title of your thread suggests, to differentiate between player and PC knowledge, be more succinct.
Sucineri 10-11-04, 08:08 PM	Okay..well then..a level 1 fighter shouldn't know the weakness and stats or even what every monster in the manual looks like. There is no way that living in the middle of a barren desert..obtaining the rank of level 10 fighter by fighting scorpions and spiders and whatever is in the desert..should you have any clue what a dragon turtle is..much less what it's stats are. If you live in a swamp..maybe you know what a black dragon (or is it green? I forget) looks like and what it's weakness might be, but you shouldn't know the weaknesses or anything of a silver dragon just because you have experienced ONE type of dragon. People come up with the excuse of "but I was trained as a fighter, so I should know every enemy I will ever come up against even if they are from different campaign settings or different planes of existance entirely..because well, I need to fight them." An adventure doesn't START his/her life as a fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric/etc..adventurers are formerly commoners (or nobles sometimes)..so they should know what a commoner knows..as well as better fighting techniques..or how to cast a spell..or pick a lock..etc. You can't know what a troll is unless you have had some kind of experience with one. And the average person most likely doesn't know what a troll is, so there is little chance you do as well. Heck..even look back in our own history..they used to think that certain animals sprayed combustable feces at people when they were attacked..or that certain animals breathed fire. And more than half the time their physical description of an animal was completely wrong..so why should an adventurer know every monster if the info on them tends to be wrong in books? Some people also think that since their level 25 wizard fought a half-demon half-vampire twigblight that their new level 1 cleric should know what a half-demon half-vampire twigblight's weaknesses are. Just because YOU know everything in the Monster Manual doesn't mean your level 2 fighter/rogue should have a clue to 5% of the stuff in there. THAT is Player Knowledge vs Character Knowledge.
Daydreamer 10-11-04, 08:17 PM	None of my pcs ever have or ever will read the mm. None of them have ever read the realm book either. Just the section of it that i print out and hand to them. None of them own or will buy these books. Roleplaying=500% better cause of it. Whatever they discover in game is all that they know. and nothign else. Wow theres a novel concept, even the best roleplayers metagame subconsioulsy a little from time to time. My pcs arent even capable of it. Complaints thus far=0.
MortalPlague 10-11-04, 08:25 PM	My solution to this is to create new monsters every now and then, and frequently throw oddballs into the regular monster formulas. For instance, make a L4 barbarian orc with weapon finesse, and nobody will look at an orc the same way again.
Talanall 10-11-04, 08:48 PM	I'd go so far as to suggest that in a "standard DnD" setting (that is, vaguely medieval European), the average commoner should know at least that creatures exist which correspond to the Types listed on the Ranger's favored enemy list. This isn't to say that they should know the difference between, say, Outsider (evil, lawful) and Outsider (chaotic, evil, water), or any such fine distinction. But for them to be credibly superstitious or religious, they need to have some idea that there are otherworldly beings out there which are the embodiment of evil (demons and devils). They might be sketchy on the distinction between the various groups of evil outsiders, but I'd say they ought to know that things like that exist. Likewise, I'd imagine that they should know that there are "nature spirits" (fey/elementals/plant creatures), though probably not many should have any idea what they're really like. And if you're a shepherd, you might very well know the difference between a mountain lion, a displacer beast, a dire wolf, a monstrous scorpion, and an ankheg. They'd all represent dangers to your livestock. And undead include ghosts, of course. Lots of people, even in the real world, believe those exist! Those'd be undead, naturally. And of course the assorted giants/humanoids/monstrous humanoids/which may inhabit any given border of your homeland would be known to you -- you might even speak their language. This isn't to say that the average commoner would know that holy water hurts undead, or that dragons have blindsense, spellcasting, and DR/magic. But he or she might very well know that gold dragons are good-aligned, because a kindly gold dragon has adopted his or her village as a protector against the vicious tribe of ogres in the next valley. Unless you make a blanket statement to the effect that all monsters are extremely rare, dwell far off in the wilderness, days from the nearest human village, and take pains to avoid humans at all costs, you have to at least give the average commoner credit for knowing about the existence and general goodness or badness of a lot of things, and most of them ought very well to have a pretty good first-hand knowledge of many creatures that inhabit the same climate as they do. There's really no good reason why a commoner who makes his living as a shepherd shouldn't know about a displacer beast -- the things have probably run off with his sheep before, if they live in the same regions. A woodcutter probably SHOULD know what a treant is, at least by reputation. Those things are the sort of thing that, if a woodcutter's ever met one and lived, would spark conversation. I know that if I were out logging, and a tree walked up to me, took my axe away from me, broke it over its knee, and told me that it'd do the same to me next time it caught me felling trees in the area, I'd tell people what happened.
Kitt-su 10-11-04, 08:55 PM	What about wizards? Before they adventure, they study. Some classes could include such things as "Mentality of Dragons" or "Phisiology of the Undead" (For all the necromancers out there). They should have a pretty good understanding of some things.
WCH 10-11-04, 08:58 PM	As much as I hate to roll-play instead of role-playing, you could always use Knowledge checks to see if the character knows the creature/its weaknesses. If it's an animal, use Knowledge (nature), if it's a magical beast maybe Knowledge (arcana), if it's an Outsider either Knowledge (the planes) or Knowledge (religion) for angels, demons and devils... just Knowledge (the planes) for other Outsiders. The DC of course would be determined by the rarity/infamy of the creature (like the Tarrasque is uber-rare, but more likely to be known than, say, Driders, in a human society, anyway) in the area(s) the character has spent a substantial amount of time, or how obvious a weakness is (like throwing water on an Azer is pretty obvious, but sundering Hydra heads takes a little more thinking through).
CzarGarrett 10-11-04, 09:14 PM	Perhaps if 2e and 1e stuff is available, the DM can look in there for the frequency. The common and maybe some of the uncommon, and probably a fair amount of the uniques, the players could know about. Not necessarily that 40% of a goblin lair is female, but knowing what orcs, goblins, trolls, etc look like in general as well as some vague habits of them is understandable. Also, for a player to know at least the existance of Orcus and his rod, is understandable. How often would the name of Orcus be whispered in dark corners and all.
FriendoftheDork 10-11-04, 10:01 PM	what exactly is the problem? If a PC or NPC, commoner or wizard, doesen't have the required knowledge skill to identify a creature, he doesen't know much about it. Dragons require knowledge arcana (thus the wizard would probably know). The NPC commoner wouldn't automatically know that a silver dragon is good, and would probably be as terrified of it as if it was red. But, he could know a dragon if he saw one, that's common knowledge (untrain DC 10 skill check). Of course, said commoner could know about this one dragon if everyone in the village knew about it and that it lived nearby. But that's a special case. Likewise, if a PC has seen a dragon breathe fire, he could assume that others does as well, without any knowledge check (but he could not just guess that a green dragon breathes gas). Strict use of knowledge skills is essential at my gaming table, as most of the players have read the MM, owns the MM or are experienced players that have experienced creatures from the MM with other characters.
Cantankerous 10-12-04, 04:23 AM	Players, especially old players, have been there, and done that a few dozen times, but as anyone with any life experience will tell you, no matter what you study , do don't know squat until you too have been there, done that. The average villager probably wouldn't have clue one what a Displacer Beast is. He, on seeing one, would likely think: "Panther Demon!", if he knows what a panther is, which is unsure as well. On seeing a Black Dragon he's likely to think: DRAGON! Assuredly he's not going to be thinking, acid spitting dragon, maybe the least dangerous of the chromatic type. And adventurerers? The Wizard who has Knowledge/Arcana, according to the PHB, will have NO advantage over the peasant because of that specific skill, unless the DM really stretches it. Geography, Local, or Historical Knowledge might apply under the right circumstances, but probably won't He might glean a few clues here and there, but usuable knowledge, damned little. In a game world that makes any sense a young person is not training to go out and be a monster slayer. They are simply living their lives. They aren't taking courses on the comparative anatomical differences between the Displacer Beast and the Catalobepas. They're probably learning, in the case of a young fighter for instance, for years at time, simply to maneuver in armor, care for himself and his weapons in a reasonably efficient fashion, master the bare basics of staying on the back of a horse, how to read a few words aybe and perhaps the most basic mathematical skills, how to correctly honor their god(s), their lord(s) and their immediate leige, and very little else before they are shoved off out into the world. Now, the above example was what a young Squire, a nobleman's son in training to be a Knight, received. The son of the free townsman or other more well to do sort, recieved far less and the son of the average peasant recieved FAR less than that. At best they've heard a few wild tales in a local tavern, or from a wandering minstrel, hardly the way to become educated. What makes a difference in the PC is not what they know; it is far more simple and far more profound, both. The difference in an adventurerer lies in his attitude and his mind set. He is a risk taker. He is an obsessive. He is an adrenaline junkie. THAT, not training or superior education, is what makes him a potential hero or villian. Isshia
Naeron 10-12-04, 06:36 AM	I disagree, people in a D&D world should know the basics about all the creatures that inhabit thier lands. While medieval europeans came up with some wonderful creatures for their bestiaries the didn't make that many mistakes with local creatures, only with the ones that were mythical due to their distance from home. This misinformation will always be far less in a D&D world because magic allows travel far beyond the distances that were undertaken in our world during that period. So travel, literacry and communication are far more common than in our medieval world and these creatures are real and share the same lands. So commoners will have the knowledge to identify native creatures and to know the very basic levels of information about them. The point that the average person thinks all snakes are poisonous is also completely untrue. The average person who still lives as close to the land as a D&D person did knows that "a proportion" of snakes are poisonous and, even though they know not all snakes are poisonous (and even keep varieties as pets in some areas) they treat all snakes with great care because it could be poisonous.
Sphyre 10-12-04, 06:41 AM	None of my pcs ever have or ever will read the mm. None of them have ever read the realm book either. Just the section of it that i print out and hand to them. None of them own or will buy these books. Roleplaying=500% better cause of it. Whatever they discover in game is all that they know. and nothign else. Wow theres a novel concept, even the best roleplayers metagame subconsioulsy a little from time to time. My pcs arent even capable of it. Complaints thus far=0. Interesting... so are you saying anyone that has DMed is unallowed to join your game? Just because you know of things doesn't mean you aren't a role player.... And to say that "even the best roleplayers metagame subconsciously" assumes that you can see their subconscious... and that they cannot. I'd find that more of an exception than the rule... I'd say this is a little too much of a blanket statement...
Cantankerous 10-12-04, 07:17 AM	I disagree, people in a D&D world should know the basics about all the creatures that inhabit thier lands. While medieval europeans came up with some wonderful creatures for their bestiaries the didn't make that many mistakes with local creatures, only with the ones that were mythical due to their distance from home. This misinformation will always be far less in a D&D world because magic allows travel far beyond the distances that were undertaken in our world during that period. So travel, literacry and communication are far more common than in our medieval world and these creatures are real and share the same lands. So commoners will have the knowledge to identify native creatures and to know the very basic levels of information about them. The point that the average person thinks all snakes are poisonous is also completely untrue. The average person who still lives as close to the land as a D&D person did knows that "a proportion" of snakes are poisonous and, even though they know not all snakes are poisonous (and even keep varieties as pets in some areas) they treat all snakes with great care because it could be poisonous. People in some, extremely high magic use D&D worlds maybe. People in worlds where there is Ye Olde Magicke Shoppe on every other corner, sure. People in a D&D world even like the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawke, both of which are still VERY high in their proliferation of magic, are usually fairly ignorant of anything outside their immediate area unless they are pretty well educated. Even within their areas they are liable to confuse folk lore from lore a heck of alot. Hey, in the 20th century especially, and even today, there are people ignorant enough to think that wolves are man eaters, that leemings commit mass suicide when threatened with over population in an area and that as long as the skunk is facing towards you you're safe. Compared to today even in the Forgotten Realms there is all but no communication base, yet these and other stupidities are still common place in the most educated countries on the planet. In a society that rests on a peasant base, they, the peasants, HAVE TO BE kept ignorant and superstious to be kept in control. Read some of the better written FR Or WoGH novels. The average peasant knows bupkis. The average adventurer even, knows darned little and even VERY powerful adventurers are quite often surprised. Isshia
Gemstone 10-12-04, 08:32 AM	I solved this by changing a lot of facts in the DnD manual... for example, I gave a VERY ancinet black dragon, the same powers (even some more) that the oldest Gold dragon in the MM... I actually thinks about giving it DvR 0, since it was a challenge for the god Odin... Another idea is to describe monsters in the MM as something else. Try to make the players realize they're facing an orc, when he is welldressed and you just describe him ^_^
Sucineri 10-12-04, 09:44 AM	I like the replies. This is the kind of discussion I was trying to get into precisely. Peasants shouldn't know anything unless it is within their borders..and even then they shouldn't know everything within the borders. Take Forgotten Realms for example..people that live in Dambrath shouldn't have a clue what exists in Neverwinter. But there are some people on these boards that think that some new adventurer should know every monster from Faerun/Hordelands/Maztica/KaraTur/etc because they are on the planet and for some reason they should "know" what they are facing. I do like that people mentioned the Knowledge skills, because these same DMs think these skills are a dump skill like they think charisma is a dump stat. I don't care if YOU are the best roleplayer in the world..if your character has a CHA of 3 he wouldn't even be that great with talking to a rock, much less impressing the local magistrate. Anyway..keep up the discussion if you will. :)
psionichamster 10-12-04, 10:04 AM	as a general rule, my players dont really know what they're fighting most of the time...with a bard in the party, along with a cleric and a wizard, though, they can figure out most of them after a little bit... one of the most fun things i did was use the trolls in the Brightstone Keep adv. from WoTC...one had a ring of fire res. 10 and the other had a chain shirt +1...nasty little surprises there... not that the pc's knew what a troll was, really, (exc. for the bard, but he wasn't telling- good player knows enough not to blow the game with meta-BS...) so far, it's been relatively easy to keep throwing new stuff at them, and it allows for some good RP opp's, too... the party went to this old temple in the jungle, looking for an artifact that would be payment for some info they needed... at the temple, the run into a megaraptor. big, two legged, thick skinned, and huge teeth/jaws. none of the PC's had ever encountered anything even similar before, and their reactions were pretty good. but the best was yet to come...back in town, the party's bard was speaking to the commoners, telling of their exploits and adventurers. what was that great, predatory beast they slew? a dragon. all in all, great fun and a realistic view of monster knowledge... i can't wait till i ambush em on their horses with a pair of griffons...knowing them, they'll not track the nest down and NOT get the eggs/young which would be SO very very useful/worthwhile!!! hehehe anyways, if you are looking to incorporate the "knowledge skill" rules in your game ( or are just looking for an awesome DnD webcomic) check out Rich Burlew's site here Knowledge Skill rules! (http://www.giantitp.com/Func0019.html) (click "comic" link on left to read and laugh!) enjoy, the hamster
Sucineri 10-12-04, 10:12 AM	I love Order of the Stick! So far the D&D related comics I read (which actually get into these type topic sometimes as well) are.. Order of the Stick (http://www.giantitp.com/index.html) 8-Bit Theatre (http://www.nuklearpower.com/index.php) Dungeon Crawl Inc (http://www.dungeoncrawlinc.com/index.html) Dungeons & Dorks (http://www.dndorks.com/default.aspx) Full Frontal Nerdity (http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/nodwick/ffn/ffn.htm) Nodwick (http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/nodwick/gamespyarchive/newnodwick.html) These are good comics to show your stupid friends because in my experience it causes quite a bit of them to see how stupid they have been. :)
Naeron 10-12-04, 10:49 AM	People in some, extremely high magic use D&D worlds maybe. People in worlds where there is Ye Olde Magicke Shoppe on every other corner, sure. People in a D&D world even like the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawke, both of which are still VERY high in their proliferation of magic, are usually fairly ignorant of anything outside their immediate area unless they are pretty well educated. Even within their areas they are liable to confuse folk lore from lore a heck of alot. Why do people always ignore the single thing that I always include in my posts on this subject i.e. that live in their lands. A native creature such as an Ankheg is not a mythical being, its a natural predator that coexists with the humanoid population. Yes a peasant would be stumped on the subject of a Succubus other than relying on the Folklore. But ask them about a creature that eats their livestock and you would get a better answer. Hey, in the 20th century especially, and even today, there are people ignorant enough to think that wolves are man eaters, that leemings commit mass suicide when threatened with over population in an area and that as long as the skunk is facing towards you you're safe. Compared to today even in the Forgotten Realms there is all but no communication base, yet these and other stupidities are still common place in the most educated countries on the planet. And the 20th century is a completely invalid comparison because the educated people you are talking about have lives that are remote and insulated from the natural world and these creatures are no longer native to their lands. But when they are native people do have a basic knowledge and ability to identify the creature (e.g. Foxes that live in cities). In a society that rests on a peasant base, they, the peasants, HAVE TO BE kept ignorant and superstious to be kept in control. Read some of the better written FR Or WoGH novels. The average peasant knows bupkis. The average adventurer even, knows darned little and even VERY powerful adventurers are quite often surprised. Isshia It is a blanket, and erroneous, assumption that all D&D societies rest on an oppressed peasant base and an even worse one to assume that people who work the land cannot identify native wildlife. And please not that I use the term identify, which does not in any way imply any knowldedge other than gross physical classification and the most obvious and widely known characteristics (such as those available on an untrained DC10 knowledge check). And of course it would be a strange idea indeed that someone whose profession is travelling the wilderness and fighting "monsters" (i.e. an adventurer) would express and interest in hearing and remembering details of "monsters" from any source that recounts them. If any DM tries to enforce this level of ignorance on my PC's I usually turn round and insist that they start listing all the snippets of monster lore that my PC's get from the NPC's that they meet because from that time forward my PC will specifically ask those questions and write down the answers.
FriendoftheDork 10-12-04, 11:23 AM	cantankerous, the wizard with the appropriate knowledge skill WOULD know more about the creature. See the PBH, on knowledge skills. When it comes to local creatures, well the knowledge local skill should be very common among NPCs of all classes, and even an untrained character can seperate an orc from a goblin. If there are Ankhegs nearby, they could also go into knowledge local, or at least nature. Other than that, most monsters stay hidden far from civilization. (or hidden within) This makes knowledge skills something else than a dump skill and very sueful to have. And, it has been proven countless times that knowledge, even that learned through books and tutors, can be very useful. Experience is something else, but theres' a whole other system for that!
Cantankerous 10-12-04, 12:00 PM	A native creature such as an Ankheg is not a mythical being, its a natural predator that coexists with the humanoid population. and And of course it would be a strange idea indeed that someone whose profession is travelling the wilderness and fighting "monsters" (i.e. an adventurer) would express and interest in hearing and remembering details of "monsters" from any source that recounts them. If any DM tries to enforce this level of ignorance on my PC's I usually turn round and insist that they start listing all the snippets of monster lore that my PC's get from the NPC's that they meet because from that time forward my PC will specifically ask those questions and write down the answers. In an area where an Ankheg exists side by side with the populous it won't survive long. The people will be obliged to kill it and quick. Irregardless of whether or not the book thinks that tunnels large enough for a bear sized creature are beneficial to the soil or not (And good god, where did they get that lame brained idea?) a creature of that size will have to be taken care of quickly or soon you won't get any farmers out of their houses to go near their fields. So, the average peasant in such a situation would likely say; Yes, we had one back a few years ago. (but now, with the normal penchant for exageration) It was pretty near thirty feet long, with dozens of legs, each ending in a two foot long claw that could pierce that breast plate like a knife through warm butter. It had two heads at each end, one which breathed fire and another that had poisonous fangs the size of scimitar blades. Get the point? You mentioned beastiaries before. You should check out some of the wonderful illuminated bestiaries of medeival England wherein lions (yep, the great maned African kind) were supposed to be common in the Welsh countryside and many of them could speak and Jalierin horses (horses who's hoofs were bathed in calf's blood prior to shoeing) could gallop over water if it was still and calm. Yep, they were pretty accurate in those old beastiaries. And the 20th century is a completely invalid comparison because the educated people you are talking about have lives that are remote and insulated from the natural world and these creatures are no longer native to their lands. But when they are native people do have a basic knowledge and ability to identify the creature (e.g. Foxes that live in cities). Actually, the 20th century people do make for a valid comparison in that they are infinitely better educated about even minutia than would be possible in any but a mega high magic use enviroment. Computers man. Television. Telephones. EVERYWHERE! There are more ways and means to communicate and educate yourself about what exists now in the most howling wildernesses or existed in the in the last century for the AVERAGE PERSON in a modern country in todays world than there would be for most scholars in any half way reasonable or vaguely workable fanatsy setting, never minding what the average shmoe would know. It is a blanket, and erroneous, assumption that all D&D societies rest on an oppressed peasant base And no one said they did. But show me one published one that doesn't. Actually, any game that has peasants will have an oppressed base. If you know what the term peasant means, you'll know that any peasant is by definition, oppressed in his educational possibilities at the very least. The most common usage of the term was sometimes rendered as "land slaves", that is, slaves to the land and not to men. It IS an amazing and depressing point, but it is also a true one, that even today, very many famers in third world nations that have tigers in them still believe that any old tiger is a man eater, when there have been but a handful of reported cases of this in the last century. Domesticated animals the average peasant farmer would know well, but wild animals were still (and are still in some places) subjected to any number of outright falsehoods concerning their habits. It's just a sad fact of human nature. Isshia
Cantankerous 10-12-04, 12:11 PM	cantankerous, the wizard with the appropriate knowledge skill WOULD know more about the creature. See the PBH, on knowledge skills. Hi FotD, Direct quote from the PHB concerning the specific example (Knowledge,Arcana) that was cited: . Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, cryptic phrases) What I said earlier was The Wizard who has Knowledge/Arcana, according to the PHB, will have NO advantage over the peasant because of that specific skill, . That was the reason why I listed those other possibilities instead. Isshia
funnymanmike 10-12-04, 12:15 PM	if my players use their knowledge of monsters that their charater hasn't learned yet to win the fight, there is no XP gained. and no Role plaing XP awarded that night. They are pretty good, example my druid last night wanted to know if he knew what a troll was in some detail, i told him to roll wilderness lore, and that was the end of it. he knew they regenerated and you need fire to kill them. Bards should also be great to know about monsters. If you want allow a Knowledge (Monster/type) the type would be if its a huminaode, or magical beast, etc this way your players can use some of the info they know.
Xenocide 10-12-04, 12:38 PM	The class is usually called commoner in my game and they are not slaves of the land (in many countries). I don't expect my players to be able to 'forget' what they know about a monster just because their knowledge skill is low. I try to make my campaigns metagame-proof. You change a monster here or there, alter a deity's goals, and always confuse your players a little by creating some seeming inconsistency. As for locals, they should have a working knowledge of surrounding predators if they show up at least once a generation (unless area is newly settled). On top of that, I would think the local ruling body would sponser a Monster Manual style book to be given to all militia commanders and governors to guarantee that a troll doesn't march into a village and eat everyone, regenerating continuously when no one puts it on fire. If you cross the gorge of eternal peril and the Mountains of Inherent Misfortune on your way to the Forgotten Catacombs of Bob then yes, you might find a monster that's only in a few legends.
Sucineri 10-12-04, 12:45 PM	I was in a game once where I (as the player) knew that plants and undead were immune to subdual damage..and so my party and my character ran into a shambling mound and some skeletons. Well, my rogue was into using saps (to knock people out) and whips (for disarming/tripping). So I used my sap on the skeletons and shambling mound..and my group (players) called me an idiot. Well..I just explained that I (player) knew all about the immunity to subdual, but my character never came up against an undead or plant before so he wouldn't know. Yet my group just could get past the fact that I (player) knew about it yet insisted on trying subdual. I don't play with that group anymore though..so that solved my problem. :) I don't expect my players to be able to 'forget' what they know about a monster just because their knowledge skill is low. Well, the way I play is that the players make a knowledge check (if they want to) to see what they know beforehand about a monster that they come up against. And from then on, they remember that monster..if their knowledge was so low that they thought fire healed a troll..and they witnessed a party member burninate the troll and kill it, then they now know they were wrong about it healing them. But he still might not know that trolls are WEAK against it. But yeah..if your character comes up against a monster..he will forever remember (unless his wisdom is hideously low) what he learned through the encounter.
The Shaman 10-12-04, 01:26 PM	Like a number of other posters, I don't really worry too much about player knowledge of monsters. I plan my setting, my campaign, and my adventures expecting the players to know as much about the published critters as I do, so if I want to spring something on them that's a surprise, I homebrew a new monster or create variants of what's in the existing books. I agree that most adventurers would have a better-than-average (and arguablly better than skill ranks might reflect) knowledge of monsters. I think this would come from training as well as interest - sitting in the corner of the local pub as a child, listening to the stories told by travellers with bright swords and crooked staves; quizzing the master after practice or study until sent off to chores and bed; sharing stories with other trainees, initiates, or apprentices. It seems like that would be the bread-and-butter of a nascent adventurer's life. If a player chooses to roleplay a higher level of ignorance, such as the wizard who spent his time at study and not swapping stories with the others in the academy, that's fine too. With respect to the rest of the populace, I agree with both Naeron and Cantankerous: people who make their living off the land (as hunters, farmers, herders, foresters, miners, and so on) probably have a decent knowledge of the monsters in their environ, while townsfolk (and arguably many aristocrats) would be more susceptible to believe exaggerated claims about different critters (possibly fostered by those same farmers, hunters, &c on their creduless brethren in the market towns). This would also vary by region: the farmers of the Great Glen are familiar with ankhegs, but the herders in the mountain pastures of the Greystone Mountains hear stories of great insectile beasts bigger than a castle that can swallow villages whole in its great pincers (perhaps a confusion of ankhegs and the tarrasque?). As to the prevalence of large dangerous monsters, I imagine that subject will get a full treatment in Agressive Ecologies when it's released by Expeditious Retreat Press next year. In the meantime, I suggest a book called Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare - while some of the science in the book is a bit dated, it does provide a lucid introduction to population ecology for the layperson. If you have any interest at all in creating a game world that functions at least in part by ecological relationships, it's very helpful.
danielinthewolvesden 10-12-04, 01:34 PM	If you want allow a Knowledge (Monster/type) the type would be if its a huminaode, or magical beast, etc this way your players can use some of the info they know. The PHB lists each type of monster on the list of Knowledge skills, thus no new "Knowledge Monster" skill is nessesary. For example- Undead is "Ks Religion". It's right there in the rules. Really. There is no real need for this thread if you have the PHB and have read it.
The Shaman 10-12-04, 02:03 PM	It's right there in the rules. Really. There is no real need for this thread if you have the PHB and have read it. If that were true, there would be no need for these boards! ;)
wdarkk 10-12-04, 02:13 PM	Hi FotD, Direct quote from the PHB concerning the specific example (Knowledge,Arcana) that was cited: My copy of the PHB includes "Dragons" and "Magical Beasts" under "what Knowledge Arcana covers". Maybe you have a 3.0 book? Edit: Here's a direct quote from the SRD: • Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, cryptic phrases, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)
funnymanmike 10-12-04, 02:19 PM	The PHB lists each type of monster on the list of Knowledge skills, thus no new "Knowledge Monster" skill is nessesary. For example- Undead is "Ks Religion". It's right there in the rules. Really. There is no real need for this thread if you have the PHB and have read it. Original PHB or 3.5 PHB? beacuse i was going by 3.0 and just sharing my experience and what i do with others.
Cantankerous 10-12-04, 02:22 PM	Yep, old 3.0 book that I got four years ago and didn't start using until last week. Thanks for the update. Isshia
wdarkk 10-12-04, 02:36 PM	For benefit of Cantankerous and anyone else with a 3.0 book, here's the list of which skills cover which beasties: • Arcana (constructs, dragons, magical beasts) • Dungeoneering (aberrations, oozes) • Local (humanoids) • Nature (animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, vermin) • Religion (undead) • The planes (outsiders, elementals)