Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Evil O 11-30-05, 10:41 AM	I was reading a post on this forum and thought, What do a character know? according to monsters? History?(I know that also have to do with background but still), Areas? (Like Jungles of Chult), or any other things a character might know. The thing is most of us have been playing for many years anfd know what a troglodyte(spelling?) is but what about a cha. what will he know about them? Everyone have heard of a dragon but seen one, never! And how come we dont play with "fear" in D&D? I know the characters are sopossed to be heros but they still have to face a Troll for the first time in their(most likely, short) life and they do not show fear?!?! What if you took a DC of 5 + Int bonus + level = monster knowledge? I know that favors the Int using classes( Wizard etc.) but most have points in Int to gain skillpoints. And it could be made a fighter class skill. What say you? A good idea, or is it totally f***dŽup? Evil O
WayneTheGame 11-30-05, 10:57 AM	Its not a bad idea... my gripe with the whole "metagaming" BS is that you penalize yourself if you deliberately use a weapon you KNOW won't work on a monster just because "[your] character doesn't know that Trolls regenerate". It's an excuse; in the round or two that you're doing absolutely nothing to the monster in question for the sake of having your character "learn" about its weakness, said monster is smacking you down, so when you actually DO "figure it out" in character and REALLY try to win the fight, the party is already weakened and the monster is at full (or nearly full) strength.
Some_call_me_Tim 11-30-05, 11:19 AM	And how come we dont play with "fear" in D&D? I know the characters are sopossed to be heros but they still have to face a Troll for the first time in their(most likely, short) life and they do not show fear?!?! That is the difference between brave and foolhardy. A brave character will fight a troll without fear despite being afraid of it. A foolhardy character will fight a troll because he is too stupid to know to be scared. As for not playing with it that is in the realm of roleplay and should be left there. What if you took a DC of 5 + Int bonus + level = monster knowledge? I know that favors the Int using classes( Wizard etc.) but most have points in Int to gain skillpoints. And it could be made a fighter class skill. I suggest you reread the knowledge skills, they allow you to identify and determine properties of various monsters. Specifically it is 10+HD using the below knowledge skills: Arcana (constructs, dragons and magical beasts) Dungeoneering (aberrations and oozes) Local (humanoids) Nature (animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants and vermin) Religion (undead) The planes (outsiders and elementals) If the characters don't make the knowledge check they don't know what it is or what it can do, if they meta-game either don't allow them to take actions based on outside knowledge or penalize them some roleplaying xp. The one thing I don't like about this system is common monster like orcs are just as hard to ID as lets say Aasimir or Tiefling. Under the RAW you need to have at least one rank in knowledge nature and only still a 50/50 to ID a mule! So, you definately need to apply some common sense and circumstance bonuses to those rolls. That is why I usually house-rule that when you try a knowledge check if you fail you can retry by taking 10. The roll represents the six-second process of seeing a monster trying to recall what it is and what is special about it while under pressure. While the take 10 represents what everyone of you education level knows.
Throg 11-30-05, 11:45 AM	Common Knowlage I would say is different then obsure knowlage such as a Trolls ability to regenerate and the affectiveness of fire. Or that certain things won't work on certain dragons, or what kind of breath weapon it may have, and that will be decided by the Knowlage roll. Common Knowlage would be something the charector would know, but that is worked into their past and also known from the setting the DM has. If orcs are really common, then yea, you might know a good deal without needing a roll. If you grew up on a farm, you'd know a good deal about horses, cows, chopping trees the right way, what kind of foods animals like, that sort of thing, but just the basics. A dwarven miner would probably know a good deal about mules, without needing a roll. If Tieflings and Assamairs roam the streets, you'd know about them. If not, then you'd need a roll. Sure it's 50/50, but maybe what you read to gain that knowlage taught you a little about the plane touched? If you fail, then you won't know and that's that. Funny story about knowlage rolls.. I once played a campain where one of the group was a Paladin, but every time he got a knowlage (religion) roll to see if he knew about demons or gods or the such... always a Nat 1. You'd think he'd end up forgetting his own god if it wasn't painted on his shield..
Thorak 11-30-05, 01:27 PM	Its not a bad idea... my gripe with the whole "metagaming" BS is that you penalize yourself if you deliberately use a weapon you KNOW won't work on a monster just because "[your] character doesn't know that Trolls regenerate". It's an excuse; in the round or two that you're doing absolutely nothing to the monster in question for the sake of having your character "learn" about its weakness, said monster is smacking you down, so when you actually DO "figure it out" in character and REALLY try to win the fight, the party is already weakened and the monster is at full (or nearly full) strength. Exactly. Using out of character knowledge is poor gaming. Your character shouldn't have a sweet clue, minus a rolled Knowledge: Nature check, that Trolls regenerate, or are vulnerable to Fire. Or that Zombies are hurt best by slashing weapons. It doesn't matter if the monster seems common to you, the player, the character doesn't have a sweet clue what they are or what their abilities might be. Unless they have the Knowledge to represent study in that area. This is a good thing. You see it as "penalizing" your character, but the rest of us see it as "not outright cheating to avoid a penalty". That is the difference between brave and foolhardy. A brave character will fight a troll without fear despite being afraid of it. A foolhardy character will fight a troll because he is too stupid to know to be scared. As for not playing with it that is in the realm of roleplay and should be left there. Case in point; my current character is a Halfling Ranger, focusing on archery. We were exploring a desecrated tomb, and are level 3-4. My character had not, to this point, encountered undead. The zombies were freaky, but not too bad, though he quickly realized his arrows were pretty much useless. When the Shadows came out of the walls, though, and killed one of the party in that first round (two hits, max damage, character only had 12 Str), he still had the gumption to stand there and take a shot. Hit the beast right in the head, natural 20. And watched that arrow pass right through. At which point, he ran. There's a difference between bravely facing new and frightening monsters, and there's the stupidity of standing there and letting things you cannot injure drain the life force out of you. Of course, the Dwarf Cleric and Half-orc Barbarian now think he's a coward, but they were stupid enough to stand there and keep hacking. A few more bad rolls, and the halfling might have been the only one to survive. He wasn't taking that chance. And yet, when we'd escaped and recuperated, and had to go back in, the Cleric reviewed that we needed enchanted weaponry (good Knowledge: religion check), so when they handed him an enchanted rapier, albeit one too big for him, he was content. Scared, but at least willing to confront things if he could affect them. Bravery is about being scared and still doing something. If you're not scared, then either there's nothing courageous about what you're doing, or you're stupid. Not brave.
CzarGarrett 11-30-05, 02:11 PM	When it comes to some things, I let it fall into the common knowledge department. Trolls aren't exactly a rare creature, and plenty of stories probably are told about them. For players to know that you need to use fire to truly kill it, its a reasonable bit of knowledge that the players can have without issue. Some of the more specific details or general details of rarer creatures, then those I will require knowledge checks for the characters to know, even if the players might know. But a lot of time, at least for outside of combat knowledge, player and character knowledge can merge, so long as the character knows how to do things using the available technology.
Evil O 11-30-05, 04:27 PM	It is not only using knowledge the pc have that the chr cant have. It is also the thing of having played for some 16 years and gained knowledge of monsters even a seasoned chr cant have. I know of monsters in Jungles of Chult, Sandworms in Anauroch(spelling?) but what will/can a 1st level chr have of monsters? That will depend on where he grew up(area), what race he is and how he grew up(was he listening to the elder people's stories or fooling around with his friends?) A lot of knowledge depend on how we grow up! As for me i knew more of midwifing(again, spelling) than meny of my friends since my mother is a midwife. I also knew alot on carpentry and masonworking due to my father. So, how would a chr in Faerun gain knowledge?: By listening to the elders, working with their father in his shop or what ever! My point is that eventhough I started this post I cant find a logical solution to this issue, because it also depends on the chr I make. Is he a flamboiant boy in the Upper-upper class of Waterdeep or is he from a lowermiddle class from Luskan? The Waterdeep kid might know a lot from the uppercalss peoples his parents dated with, but can he trust that info/knowledge - it might be just lies from semi-adventurers trying to get inside of the upperclass in Waterdeeep?!?! On the other hand the kid from Luskan can most likely trust the info he gained at any inn from any throughpassing adventurer since there is no reason to lie there, too many might have been through a given area and be able to call the adventurer's bluff!? Do you see what I mean, or did I complicate things, Again!? Have fun, Evil O
Sythorn 11-30-05, 07:43 PM	It is not only using knowledge the pc have that the chr cant have. It is also the thing of having played for some 16 years and gained knowledge of monsters even a seasoned chr cant have. I know of monsters in Jungles of Chult, Sandworms in Anauroch(spelling?) but what will/can a 1st level chr have of monsters? That will depend on where he grew up(area), what race he is and how he grew up(was he listening to the elder people's stories or fooling around with his friends?) A lot of knowledge depend on how we grow up! As for me i knew more of midwifing(again, spelling) than meny of my friends since my mother is a midwife. I also knew alot on carpentry and masonworking due to my father. So, how would a chr in Faerun gain knowledge?: By listening to the elders, working with their father in his shop or what ever! My point is that eventhough I started this post I cant find a logical solution to this issue, because it also depends on the chr I make. Is he a flamboiant boy in the Upper-upper class of Waterdeep or is he from a lowermiddle class from Luskan? The Waterdeep kid might know a lot from the uppercalss peoples his parents dated with, but can he trust that info/knowledge - it might be just lies from semi-adventurers trying to get inside of the upperclass in Waterdeeep?!?! On the other hand the kid from Luskan can most likely trust the info he gained at any inn from any throughpassing adventurer since there is no reason to lie there, too many might have been through a given area and be able to call the adventurer's bluff!? Do you see what I mean, or did I complicate things, Again!? Have fun, Evil O I see what you're trying to say. The problem, in my mind, is that it's difficult for a player to map out those tiny details about a character and keep the game fair. For instance, there's tons of isolated incidents that could occur that would give a a character advanced insight on a particular enemy, a nobleman might have been attacked by trolls while traveling, a kid could have had an uncle who's a retired adventurer, always telling the child stories of battles he's fought. If a player showed up with such a character most DM's would step in because it wouldn't be quite fair, at least in most people's minds, to have an uncle who has already told you vital information on half the creatures in the monster manual. That's why in most cases, at least from my own personal experiences, DM's tend to put all characters on even ground in regards to what they know and don't know, no matter what the character's background is.
WayneTheGame 11-30-05, 08:07 PM	And again I state that in my opinion it's totally foolish to hurt yourself (or depending on the circumstances, kill your own character) due to acting like you don't know a monster's weakness. I don't consider it cheating, I consider it not acting like a fool and potentially getting a character you've spent time on get killed because you want to play "in character" and use a normal weapon against a troll or pretend that you don't know looking at a Basilisk is a bad idea. That's not enriching the experience, it's screwing yourself over. It's nearly as bad as letting a character fall prey to a puzzle trap because "[your] character doesn't have a high enough Intelligence to solve the problem" or standing and dying because a character has too low a Wisdom score to know when to run away. I'm sorry, but I don't consider that good roleplaying at all, I consider that a handicap. While on the subject, let me say that I strongly believe that the strengths and weaknesses of most monsters SHOULD be common knowledge. These are, after all, mythical creatures that people have heard tales of for years and years. For example, it SHOULD be common knowledge that a troll is vulnerable to fire and that they regenerate. It should be common knowledge that sanctified (i.e. good-aligned) weapons are a good idea when confronting most types of demons. It should be common knowledge that a medusa can turn you to stone with a gaze. It should NOT be common knowledge exactly how strong monsters are (i.e. AC, hit points, etc.) except in very relative terms (e.g. "I saw a troll rend two burly lumberjacks to pieces like it was cutting through butter!"). Game terms should be off-limits, I agree, but most of a creature's special abilities should be known in game terms. If people have never seen a monster, then it stands to reason that it wouldn't be common knowledge (or there would be a lot of BS rumors going around about it), but in that case it should be ultra-rare for the PCs to encounter said monster, anyways. Just my two cents.
Thorak 11-30-05, 08:47 PM	And again I state that in my opinion it's totally foolish to hurt yourself (or depending on the circumstances, kill your own character) due to acting like you don't know a monster's weakness. I don't consider it cheating, I consider it not acting like a fool and potentially getting a character you've spent time on get killed because you want to play "in character" and use a normal weapon against a troll or pretend that you don't know looking at a Basilisk is a bad idea. That's not enriching the experience, it's screwing yourself over. It's nearly as bad as letting a character fall prey to a puzzle trap because "[your] character doesn't have a high enough Intelligence to solve the problem" or standing and dying because a character has too low a Wisdom score to know when to run away. I'm sorry, but I don't consider that good roleplaying at all, I consider that a handicap. You may as well say "In my opinion, it's totally silly to not give yourself a massive interest-free loan when you're the banker in Monopoly." It's called metagaming. You are taking what you the player knows and confusing it with what your character knows. You may well know a basilisk turns people to stone. Your character is likely wondering what that weird looking 8 legged lizard is. And the DMG specifically says metagaming is bad, because it ruins roleplay. Because the point of the game is playing a role. Not yourself. It's as inane and ridiculous as Romeo, in a presentation of Shakespeare's play, saying at the big climax "Oh, but I doth bet she is not truly dead, so instead of taking this poison, I shall merely wait a few moments until she waketh on her own." While on the subject, let me say that I strongly believe that the strengths and weaknesses of most monsters SHOULD be common knowledge. These are, after all, mythical creatures that people have heard tales of for years and years. Quick. Without googling, you see a sickly looking chicken with a lizard's tail. What do you do? Or how about brownies? What happens if you offer them clothes? These are mythical creatures people have heard tales of for years and years. But I'm willing to bet that, put on the spot and without researching, you'll be stumped. Not to mention, even if you do have some idea, this likely has a great deal to do with our information-loaded world. D&D doesn't have elementary schools and the Internet. You'd know what you heard in stories told by your elders, and that's about it. Which means most of the information will be twisted beyond anything useful and riddled with misinformation, like any urban legend. For example, it SHOULD be common knowledge that a troll is vulnerable to fire and that they regenerate. It should be common knowledge that sanctified (i.e. good-aligned) weapons are a good idea when confronting most types of demons. It should be common knowledge that a medusa can turn you to stone with a gaze. Why? Who says the areas the characters come from were ever affected by those creatures? And who says they can tie what they heard about in a story to the creature in front of them on the spot? And who says they haven't heard misinformation? Maybe they've heard stories about trolls who had to be crushed under a landslide because weapons wouldn't work. Just because they've heard tales doesn't mean the tales were right. Game terms should be off-limits, I agree, but most of a creature's special abilities should be known in game terms. If people have never seen a monster, then it stands to reason that it wouldn't be common knowledge (or there would be a lot of BS rumors going around about it), but in that case it should be ultra-rare for the PCs to encounter said monster, anyways. Why? Your average peasant won't survive meeting an orc. If the PCs had ever seen these creatures, they would likely be dead. This is why your character starts knowing nothing; because if he'd ever been faced by a troll before level 1, he wouldn't have reached level 1. Besides, the rules on Knowledge checks and creatures are there for a reason. Feel free to houserule and disregard them, but don't claim that your views are therefore inherently right, especially when they absolutely require metagaming, something most of us see as outright cheating. It is as offensive an act as looking at the DM's maps to figure out where the traps and secret doors are.
WayneTheGame 11-30-05, 08:55 PM	Feel free to houserule and disregard them, but don't claim that your views are therefore inherently right, especially when they absolutely require metagaming, something most of us see as outright cheating. I never recall saying that my views were right, and that others were wrong. I'm not trying to start a flame war here, just stating that my opinion is you purposely handicap yourself and risk letting your character die. EDIT: For the record, let me state that I am normally opposed to metagame thinking, just not when it's going to cause you to get your character killed by purposely handicapping yourself.
BoringInfoGuy 11-30-05, 09:48 PM	Try taking a world view to consider what your character knows. In a standard D&D setting, there's no mass communication available to the general populas. No radio, newspapers, TV or Internet. Yes, there is magic, but how available is it to the common man? There's also no mass transit. No cars, trains, planes, or motor boats, not to mention a highway / freeway to drive them on. And forget about institutionalized education. Some form of schooling of course exists, but it wouldn't be standardized. From one location to the next you could have wildly different levels of education. And who says everyone is learning the same types of courses? To break it down: Without mass transit, most people do not travel far beyond there home town. Those who do travel must takes days, weeks or months to travel the same distance we can in less than a day. Without mass communication, the only source of news from outside town for the common man is from those who travel. Which means that "current" news can be about something that happened months ago. Remember also that the further information has to travel, the less reliable it becomes. Also, without a standard of education, the man on the street may not have the knowledge to figure out which news is accurate, and which has become muddled. So, generally, a person will have good knowledge of things that are local to him, and probably exponentialy worse knowledge of things further away. Now, consider who is likely to travel. Merchants, Settlers, Bards, and adventurers. Merchants are likely to travel a set route, revisting the same towns year after year. Probably they won't travel too far geographicly, but they would be a good source of direct information (the things the trader saw himself) and indirect information (those things he only heard about). Not very far reaching, but probably your best bet. Settlers are those who leave there home for a new and better life. Typically, they can tell you about where they came from, what they saw on there journey, and what they have learned about their new home. Settlers tend to travel once and then settle down, so the information you can get from them is limited. Bards, the travelling storyteller. Since they can travel all over, you can learn a lot about the world from them. There's no doubt about that. But that doensn't mean you can learn a lot about the world that's true from a bard. They are travelling entertainers, not historians. They will tell the stories that people will pay them to tell. Yes, some will only tell things as they are, and are talented enough to enthrall there audience with history. However, others will tell only interesting lies, and are talented enough to make you believe what they tell. And without any form of direct verification, how can you tell which is which? Which leaves adventurers. They are, by definition, people who travel and see the world. And since they aren't dependent on people paying for there stories like a bard, then they don't need to worry about making stories more interesting. Of course, adventurers are also, almost by definition, glory seekers, they are prone to embellish their adventures to make themselves look more heroic, the villians more sinister, the danger greater and completely neglect to mention when they got stuck in the mountain pass during winter and had to eat the torch bearer Timmy to survive. On the other hand, even if the adventurer is honest, that doesn't mean that anyone is going to believe him. Marco Polo, the famous explorer was thought to be a lier. And all he did was travel to, China was it? and tell people what he found there. On his death bed, a priest asked him to renounce his "lies" so that he could enter heaven. His reply was "I didn't tell the half of it." Okay, that's all nice, but how does it relate to figuring out what my character would know? If your DM has done any work on his world, or you are playing a set campaign world, figure out where he's from. Any monsters that are local to the area he's likely to be familar with. Common monsters he is likely to know very well without a need for any ranks in a knowledge skill. Even a creature that he's never seen directly he may have heard enough descriptions of to know at first sight. The rarer the creature, the less that will be known about it. But even rare monsters that live locally you can expect to know something about. But not necessarily everything, and maybe with a few fake facts mixed in. But for monsters that are not local, you need to have Knowledge ranks to tell fact from fiction. Knowledge skills represent what true facts you've maganged to gain, as opposed to something some guy in a bar told you. Maybe you've heard that the medusa can't hurt you if you don't look in her eyes. But maybe you've heard that Beholders also don't hurt you if you close your eyes. Maybe the bard told you a story where the hero tossed the troll into the lava to kill it. But perhaps he didn't mention (or didn't know) that the reason that the hero threw the troll into the fire was becuase you have to burn trolls to kill them. When playing low levels in particular, figure out what your character would know. Use that as your base. If you come across a creature that you know like the back of your hand, but your character couldn't, then try to think on how he would act based on what he did know. If you really can't stand not grabbing the best weapon for every encounter, then put your ranks into knowledge skills. Otherwise you are just metagaming. BTW, it also helps if you don't read the Monster Manuals cover to cover unless you are the DM.
WayneTheGame 11-30-05, 10:06 PM	I see where you're coming from (don't want you to think I'm just stirring up trouble :) ). I just would have a very hard time, for example, NOT saying my character is looking away when talking to someone who is a Medusa because my character wouldn't necessarily know that a Medusa's gaze turns you to stone. In my opinion/mind, that's throwing away a character that I've spent time developing, because as a player I know exactly what'll happen when I look at the medusa.
BoringInfoGuy 11-30-05, 10:30 PM	I have also seen the reverse played as well. I observed another group playing (not one I've gamed with myself) near the end of a campaign. The story, was - as I understood it - that the players were teamed up with their ancestors from the past to defeat an ancient evil that was threatening the world again. Don't ask me the how of it, but the reasons they had gained their ancestors help was because thier ancestors are the ones who defeated the evil in the past. So everyone is playing two characters. Now, for the combat I observed, the fighter type attacks a monster, and can tell it has DR. The view everyone around the table was taking is that there is no way he can tell what type of DR it has. That would be require OOC knowledge. (The fighter doesn't have knowledge skills, natch). Appearantly, neither did anyone else. Now me, I was thinking a little differently. I was thinking that in character, my character would've said something like "Gramps, you've done this before. How do you kill this thing." Or even better, "Hey gramps, what can we expect to face in the pit of doom (or whatever)? Any suggestions of particular weaknesses we can exploit? Special attacks we need to prepare defenses for? You know, that sort of thing so we can buy the right gear while we are here in town?" I kept my mouth shut though. My impression of the group told me that would be a good way to not get my head bitten off. Remember, there's more ways to learn about something than just rolling a knowledge check. BTW, yeah, it's hard to actually RP your character to death. I've done some things that came close though. Like delibrately breaking the wizard's staff. In 2nd edition. It blew up real good.
Thorak 11-30-05, 11:12 PM	I never recall saying that my views were right, and that others were wrong. I'm not trying to start a flame war here, just stating that my opinion is you purposely handicap yourself and risk letting your character die. And I never said you claimed others were wrong. I was pointing out why your opinion is horribly flawed. EDIT: For the record, let me state that I am normally opposed to metagame thinking, just not when it's going to cause you to get your character killed by purposely handicapping yourself. In other words, you're opposed to metagame thinking, except when it's advantageous to you? How . . . convenient. I see where you're coming from (don't want you to think I'm just stirring up trouble ). I just would have a very hard time, for example, NOT saying my character is looking away when talking to someone who is a Medusa because my character wouldn't necessarily know that a Medusa's gaze turns you to stone. In my opinion/mind, that's throwing away a character that I've spent time developing, because as a player I know exactly what'll happen when I look at the medusa. And this is also a perfect example of both metagame thinking, and exactly why it is frowned upon so hard. How does your character know not to look at the medusa? He doesn't. You're artificially changing what your character does based on what you, the player, know. This is in no way different from having your character "conveniently" search the 10' section of wall you noticed had a secret door on the DM's map. In both cases, you are using knowledge your character does not have to affect how that character chooses to act.
stranger_654 12-01-05, 12:52 AM	Now this is how i played or ruled it when i was a DM. I guessed that most people knew what a troll was from legends and such, and what abilities it had in general terms, but i also figured that during combat or when they actually run into the monster, the adrenaline and fear would make you actyually have to recall the knowledge, = knowledge check... I equate this to a live combat situation, sure you know how to fire your weapon, but when your being shot at yourself and theres shells and bombs, you freeze up and actually have to think about it.... Just my two copper peices anyway....
digoraccoon 12-01-05, 08:54 AM	The INT check is a good idea. I do something similar in my game if a PC asks if his/her character knows about a certain creature. One thing I like to do is ask all my players to write up a one page background on their characters. where they were raised, who they know, what their parents do for a living. I give them a simple list of questions to work with and from there I can gather info on what kind of creatures their character would be familiar with. Requires a little work on both sides, ubt I usually give them free EXP for it as an incentive.