I have two questions about Flameskull.
1. After it rejuvenates, does it recover all spent spell slots?
2. When do I award XP for defeating it? After first time, or only after it is prevented from rejuvenation.
My players have encountered one, three times already. It used its fire ball on them in all cases, and I am unsure whether to award XP, as they have just smashed it with an axe, and then left.
1. It's up to the DM. I wouldn't have it recover the spell slots.
2. Also up to the DM. You can say that it's not worth XP unless it is prevented from rejuvenating. Or you can just reward XP one time and that's it, no matter how many more times they smash it. Or you can give them XP every time. Or only every time they deal with it in a significantly different way. Or... you get the idea.
My thoughts:
1. Rejuvenation doesn't say it regains spell slots, so I wouldn't add that in.
2. I'd award XP for defeating the flameskull any and every time that it poses a meaningful obstacle to the party and they overcome that obstacle (so they would get the XP for rendering it inert in order to get past the area it is guarding, and again from the same flame skull after it had rejuvenated and presented as an obstacle again, such as by hunting the party down and interrupting a rest or complicating another encounter or by lying in wait to ambush them on the return trip - but if a group of players were trying to "spawn camp" the flameskull and gain repeated XP for it, that doesn't actually present any kind of obstacle so it would no longer have an XP value).
...but really, my players keep holy water with their characters whenever possible for just such an occasion as needing it to keep an unruly undead dead for real (much like how they always carry some source of fire).
1. First rejuvenation was after long rest, so I guess it should regain spell slots then (as any other creature should). Second was after short rest, and technically it didn't use any extra spell slots that were consumed previously. I like the idea of getting spells back after long rest.
2. My party mentioned farming the flameskull as they felt it is easy 
That will never happen. So far the first encounter with the skull was a part of bigger encounter, and they killed it easily. Since then it was mostly a pest. XP to award is 1100. I am thinking splitting this value into two parts. First would be awarded after the first encounter, second after they kill it properly. Maybe 700+400 ?
3. At this moment they have no idea how to kill it properly. Should Cleric roll some check about the monster knowledge? They know it is undead.
It might be important to note that creatures can't take rests while they don't have hit points - that's how you recover from 0 hit points to 1 hit point in 1d4 hours, rather than being able to spend hit dice after that first hour.
As for the characters figuring out that holy water would keep this creature down for the count... I think deciding that they should know (and thus telling them outright), deciding they shouldn't know (and thus requiring them actually stating that they go find out, and spend downtime researching or tracking down somebody that knows), or just letting the players decide whether they want to experiment or ignore it are all better options than having their be a roll and if the roll is high enough someone (cleric or otherwise... why do people always assume all cleric's religious studies involve learning all the ins and outs of undead? Channeling the power of something that undead abhor doesn't immediately impart the desire to learn anything else about undead) knows the right little detail.
I've been telling my players basically every detail about monsters (in broad terms like "it has nasty fire breath, but not as nasty as a dragon's" rather than specifics like "it's breath weapon is a 15' cone that deals 7d8 fire damage with a DC 15 Dex save for half") since we started playing 5th edition and I realized there weren't any monster knowledge roll rules - it has improved our enjoyment of the game because I don't have to watch my players talk themselves out of doing something useful because they don't know for sure if their character would know, and they don't wind up feeling like they wasted a limited resource by spending it on doing something that had reduced or no effect.
1. I would set it up where the flameskull got its spell slots back by going to the place of its creation. The characters could learn of this place and disturb it sufficiently that the flameskull would no longer regain spells and might possibly be destroyed. The area where it was created would tell its own story and would have clues that lead to future adventure opportunities. This rewards players for engaging with the exploration pillar of the game.
2. With a fly speed of 40 feet and plenty of ranged attacks, it should be easy for the flameskull to stay out of reach and nuke ranged PCs, terrain permitting. Consider giving them full XP on time for defeating it and additional XP if they take the time and effort to discover how to destroy it and do so. Again, this is a reward for engaging with the exploration pillar of the game. (Or the social interaction pillar if they find out how to destroy the flameskull by talking to an NPC.)
3. Only if the cleric's play describes an action that he wants to recall or deduce information about the flameskull and the result of his or her action to do so has an uncertain outcome. My notes on "Monster Knowledge Checks:"
Basic Rules, page 61:
"An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning. The Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, and Religion skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Intelligence checks."
Basic Rules, page 58:
"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."
"If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success—the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it’s a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."
Therefore, if a player wants to know something about a monster, he must tell the DM that his character is taking a fictional action to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning to learn or recall something about a particular monster. Then the DM must decide if the outcome of that fictional action is certain or uncertain. If it is certain - say, because it's a common monster or the character's background and experiences would reasonably make them knowledgeable about it - then the DM can just give them the information. If it is uncertain - say, because the monster is rare or obscure or the character's background and experience would not reasonably give them knowledge about it - then the DM asks the player to make an appropriate ability check, usually Intelligence. Almost any Intelligence-based skill can apply depending on the nature of the monster and the approach the player has stated for his character. For example, the acolyte cleric might try to recall something in his or her religious texts that referred to the monster (Religion). Or an observant rogue might watch how the monster does its thing, deducing from its behavior what its strengths and weaknesses are (Investigation).
The DC of the check varies, depending on the character's approach and the rarity of the monster and obscurity of information about it. If you only ever use 10, 15, or 20, however, it'll work fine. But what does success and failure on an ability check mean? The most common binary stakes are you either know (success) or don't know (fail). I, however, find that terribly boring and prefer to offer something on failure and sometimes a setback. So here's an easy go-to:
- Success: The character identifies the monster, its type, and some lore about it that can be used to deduce its motivations, strengths, and weaknesses. If the player beats the DC by 5, the character also knows the monster's resistances and vulnerabilities and abilities.
- Failure: The character identifies the monster and some lore about it that can be used to deduce its motivations, strengths, or weaknesses.
- Alternative Failure: As per Success, but the character's sudden revelation leaves him frightened until the end of his or her next turn. (Use this basic alternative failure condition as a model for variations on this theme.)
As with all stakes, I recommend making them transparent before the roll so the player knows what he or she is getting into when making that check. Some reasonable negotiation is acceptable.
Finally, if a player knows information about the monster, they can just say their character knows it and justify that knowledge in any reasonable way they like. However, since there is no guarantee that the DM hasn't changed the monster's stat block, it's smart play to confirm one's assumptions with in-game actions.
janosicek wrote: