I am trying to understand something that happened in game play.
encounter starts, we are facing undead, my cleric knows how to turn undead and cast spells that does radiant damage. I asked the dm if my cleric would know of these undead? She asked me to make a nature check. I look at my skills and noticed i have a -1 because it is int check. Clerics don't use int as ability scores.
I am trying to see the logic behind this.. He knows how to blast undead but has a penalties for trying to know what it is.
How do you resolve this or is there another check?
1) everyone uses Intelligence as an abiilty score, that's why it's on the sheet and why important skills are attached to it.
2) your DM calling for an ability check in order to determine if your character knows about undead is a DM interpretation and adjudication of the situation, not the mechanic laid out in the book (of which there isn't one related to determining a character's knowledge of monsters)
3) why would you ask if you know of those undead? If you can tell they are undead, then you know everything that is relevant to whether or not trying to turn them or if use radiant damage is likely to work, so there is no info to gain - and if you can't tell they are undead, there is no reason to expect that they are.
The Int check is to see if you know specific facts about a specific undead creature. You don't need to know those details to try to turn it.
1. It seems a fair use of the nature skill to have it used to determine what kind of undead you face and their characteristics.
2. The DM doesn't always have to ask for checks to determine if you know something.
I'm not sure why you needed to know anything about them other than if they were undead.
I use religion to identify undead.
And it really depends on what your facing.
You might not be able to tell a wright from a wraith from a ghost from a specter from a banshee from a ghast.
But you can know that the floating semi-transparent thing filled with evil intent is undead.
Likewise with skeletons. Pretty obvious. (DC 0). You might not know what kind they are, but you'll see that they are dead.
Zombies might be a DC 5. Depending on how much they are decayed and dressed up. You might think he's just sick.
You might also falsely think a bone devil was undead. Probably a DC 10.
A vampire could be DC 15, since they look pretty human.
ect...
I would argue that it would be an investigation check to determine if it is undead, and a religion or nature check to determine what kind of undead it is. All you have to do is roleplay and present your reasoning to the DM as to why you should use a certain check, and he should allow it.
Solovar42 wrote:
Few undead are immune to turning (Demilich is only one off the top of my head). I think your cleric can safely assume he can attempt to turn almost any undead he meets. I don't think any undead even exist which are resistant or immune to radiant damage, so your cleric can also assume that damage type will be effective. Granted, some undead are vulnerable to radiant damage, like the Shadow. I would ask for a nature or religion check (either works) to know this much.
However, to simply identify an opponent as the undead monster type, I wouldn't require a check at all (except maybe with the vampire, as noted above).
Also, your cleric doesn't necessarily know how to 'blast undead.' He does know how to release radiant energy (e.g. cast sacred flame). Incidentally, sacred flame also works against orcs. Should he then have some knowledge of orcs because he can blast them too? Of course not.
Besides, I don't think an 8 Int would qualify as stupid... maybe a bit slow....Maybe your Cleric is Learning Disabled.....
Hey everyone,
The Orc and I are going to be cleaning up this thread. Some content will go away. If you don't get an email from us then you aren't in any trouble; sometimes we have to remove content for reasons of continuity or we are trying to diminish disruption with as little trouble as possible. For the record, the term that was being debated is considered unacceptable in our forums.
Just a friendly reminder: Please do not engage in off-topic discussions or debates about conduct. If you have questions or concerns about conduct, please contact us via the help site. If you see something that you see as violating our conduct policies please just report it and then move on. Continuing the discussion just furthers the disruption.
Thanks for understanding,
Monica
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Clerics don't use Int? 
The premise that is central to the 'Minmaxing Bible for Devout Cookiecutters' is that stats that don't add to the effectiveness of a classes skills and abilities are 'dump stats'. They are not worth investing anything in and should be minimised and then pretty much ignored.
In actuality - most players don't roleplay these self-imposed limitations - low Charisma characters being socially inept; Low Intelligence characters not being able to work stuff out; Low Constitution characters being actively averse to running around outdoors...
... so I can't say I'm surprised that the OP is not entirely happy wiith their DMs ruling.
If you take low stats, then there will be times in a well-rounded campaign where you are disadvantaged by them. If you build 'Hodor the Cleric', then he might fight undead all his life, but he'll never really understand them, and will be at best blunt instrument for his church in such fights.
If you want a character who doesn't suffer from a lack of wit and whose analytical skill are closer to your own... you know, so you can enjoy roleplaying figuring problems out and stuff... then don't create a lackwitted character.
If however you are prepared to proactively roleplay being poor in the reasoning department, and don't question the logic of a DM who thinks a low Intelligence character needs to roll to see if they know stuff... then knock yourself out...
You really shouldn't be struggling to understand the DMs ruling on your characters knowledge, unless of course your character was trained as an undead slayer, in which case despite sitting the 'which undead is this' exams three times before a pass, the character would likely know about undead anyway and in more complex cases, be rolling against religion as it would be an integral part of their God's dogma.
Personally, when I run a game and see a low Int, Wis or Cha like this, I don't treat the character with any favouritism, and I don't avoid planning or running encounters etc. where that character is going to do poorly because the best stats for the murder investigation, getting the Baron's advisor on-side or intuiting the deeper meaning of the faerie lords otherwise 'generous' offer isn't the usual contributor to 'how to kill it fast'. After all, a character with low Str, Con or Dex is going to suffer from a range of combat penalties... but you don't hear players who take 8 Con complaining theiir characters have low HP now do you?
Caliburn wrote:
Caliburn wrote:
Caliburn's analysis, while on the mocking side, does have a point. Intelligence is technically a dump stat for warlocks. You don't need it to be good at casting magic, or sneaking around, or going on whatever quest you are in exchange for your Patron's magics.
Realistically, warlocks tend to like having at least one Knowledge skill to reflect their Patron, at minimum. Religion for Fiend, Nature for Fey, perhaps. Book warlocks would like more, since they'll constantly be on the hunt for new rituals. And so on. There's a reason why warlocks are offered every Int skill in the game, even if its a "dump stat." Because it just makes sense for the characters when role playing them. Especially in a balanced party of four. You almost -need- some of those knowledge skills at that point, if you're expected to fill in for the wizard as the main arcanist.
FrogReaver wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Caliburn wrote:
I always wondered what it would feel like to be a wizard with a 20 int in a party of people with all 8 int. That has happened to my gnome wizard recently. Paladin, Cleric, Monk, Warlock all 8 int..
arnwolf666 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
People sometimes experience a brain fart. They go cold trying to recall something they know they know. This is how I've sometimes explained a wizard's low roll on arcana, or a druid's low roll on nature checks, rather than simply not knowing whatever fact they attempt to recall. Also a good way to fail forward on knowledge checks.
The DM might not have described it as such, but it's a plausible explanation. Depending on how future knowledge checks go, and the circumstances surrounding them, it could even be a character development opportunity. What if you roll poorly on lore about undead frequently when you encounter them? Maybe it means your character loses his cool when the undead are around, and his analytical mind takes a back seat to a smash-it-and-see mentality.
Also, mechanically speaking... A very bright person (lets say 15 int, +2 mod) only has a 15% higher chance of recalling lore than a below average person. Not a huge difference. The die roll may only reflect a very particular hole in this undead slayer's body of knowledge.
FrogReaver wrote:
A number of games gives an untrained penalty for knowledge skills that you have no proficency in, to reflect that very issue. There are times I don't allow untrained rolls.
Why is there this assumption by some that a holy man should know more about undead than a highly intelligent studier of magic? Where is that coming from? I'm just curious how that line of reasoning goes. Just seems a bit odd to me.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
A commoner has 10 int according to the monster manual. A Gnoll Pack Lord has 8 intelligence, they are described as cunning. A Bugbear also has 8 intelligence they can strategize but are bound to their primal desires. Centuars have 9 intelligence, and you can't say their dumb, cyclops have 8 intelligence.
So all in all I say 8 intelligence is indeed more power (not I did not say brawn) over brains, but definatley room for cunning when needed. You just probably arent the best at solving complex puzzles, but you are a more powerful force to reckon with because of this.
You can rp as a non-stupid character, but you shouldn't go around expecting that you will succeed in investigation roles anytime soon.
However, I would of ruled as a DM that identifying those undead would be a religion roll since you were a cleric. If I didnt I would of been open to you suggesting it.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
WanderingBard wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Intelligence seems to be a dump stat that people forget is actually useful. My buddy was telling me a story from his game this past weekend. He plays a Bard with a decent Int and everyone else in the party has an 8 int.
Fighter: They're goblins. It's not like they are super smart and have advanced tactics.
Bard: They are probably smarter than all you guys.
GM: Yup, goblins are Int 10.
The party all simultaneously hung their heads in shame as it sunk in that they all are playing characters dumber than goblins.
I think everyone should ponder that for a moment whenever they want to make an 8 int character. Do you want to be playing a character that is dumber than a goblin?
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Jamwes wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion, I believe you are allowing the fear of metagaming to force you to constantly demand your players metagame.
In the campfire example, it should not be relevant whether there is a "better" weapon at hand, or whether regeneration has been seen or not. If the course of action would be fine used against an ogre or a particularly tall human, then it should be equally fine to attempt against this unknown creature that happens to be a troll. The very distinction of "the greatsword will do more damage than the fire will" is this metagaming you insist is bad and should be avoided - the character should be thinking more along the lines of "the sword and the fire are both dangerous and potentially lethal." and nothing further.
In the vampire example... have you never seen a piece of art and said "that looks like a vampire to me"? Have you no idea what elements are commonly present in a vampire costume besides blood and fangs? I've been on the receiving end of "Hey, cool vampire costume" when dressed in my everyday clothes and it happening to be near Halloween, so I don't think it takes as specific of details as you are insisting in order for someone who has heard of vampires to think someone looks like a vampire.
In fact, I think the "Well, he doesn't have a glass of blood in hand, so he probably isn't actually a vampire" is another example of this metagaming thing you are seeking to avoid because it is bad - why can't the character think the guy looks like a vampire just because that's his entirely unfounded opinion on the matter instead of bringing out-of-game knowledge into his decision of what to think?
Or just uneducated. Technically, a low Int could represent a character who is a natural genius but never got any real education because she spent her entire life working on the farm.
In my games, if the player knows something and there is some uncertainty about whether the character would know, I just ask the player to decide. "Do I know anything about vampires?" "I dunno, do you?"
You'd think this would be a vehicle for abuse, but whenever that kind of dialogue happens, I'd say more often than not the player comes back with "hmm. probably not." And if the answer is "yes" it is invariably accompanied with an explanation that deepens the character's history. Either way, win win, I think.
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Regardless of Intelligence, I'd let a cleric attempt to turn anything he likes. Any minor justification would be fine and I can see all sorts of great story coming out of this cleric. Maybe the cleric is very undead-paranoid or his god is extremely anti-undead. Maybe the cleric is just a little off or the campaign has featured lots of the undead. Maybe the wizard that the character assumed was a vampire acts like the cleric "turned" him, or just laughs at the foolishness of the divine. Besides, I don't think it requires too much suspension of disbelief to imagine a deeply religious person seeing "evil" or the enemy of their god, everywhere!
Now if the cleric wants some specific piece of information then maybe a roll, but otherwise just say "yes", and let the player wonder when the creature isn't turned whether it was too powerful or simply not undead.
RenoGM wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Jamwes wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
If the OP wants too play a dumb undead slayer, then the GM already has the perfect rule at their disposal for allowing this without any counteruntuitive house rules.
Simply have the character go back to their church, tell of their experiences and spend a downtime learning the relevant lore which translates to proficiency on Int roles on undead. With time, effort and downtime focus into the future, it might even turn into expertise on this specialism. So the 'dumber than a Goblin' Cleric may one day be regarded as an undead hunting guru - with +10 to the roll!
It should not however make them more Intelligent, or indeed change the rules mechanics on what Int roles are for. That's just metagaming from the player side, or houseruling where none is necessary on the GM side.
Open up the 'any stat can be used for any skill check' can of worms and you will probably regret it at some point, because if you allow one player to benefit from it, they will all want it, and min-maxing will become the norm, with character backgrounds replete with 'why my character is an exception to the skill rules' explanations, unless your players are the forgiving type...
MechaPilot wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Caliburn wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Caliburn wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Having just read the last two pages of this thread...
Orethalion wrote:
BRJN wrote:
In 4E, we had monster knowledge checks based on a certain skill such as Arcana, Religion, Nature.
In 5E, monster knowledge checks are replaced by Intelligence checks. As a DM, I usually set the DC at 10 + CR and reduce or increase the DC based on situational modifiers, like a cleric trying to identify undead or the creature is from another plane.
I'm currently playing an Int 8 Wis 16 Cleric.
He's proven less reliable in succeeding at tasks that involve deduction, recall and/or abstraction. Whether this is because he's rotted/rotting his brain with copious amounts of booze or due to a 'natural' lack of mental oomph is up to the observer to decide. The end results, as far as any outsider can quantifiably measure, are the same.
Determining and recalling information relating to the undead?
Something something eats brains something.. KILL IT WITH FIRE! Or was that giants? Bleurgh. Too many shapes and sizes. I...
There's no reason he'd be better at deducing a zombie from a leper, coming up with the best way to drop a vampire or how to appease a ghost, any better than the barbarian, simply due to his character class - and the skill Religion doesn't mention anything about the undead. Sure, he might know about the gods associated with death, the dead/undead, that some folks gather together and do stuff that creates undead and/or who's the ranking religious official to contact when he wants to know about the undead.
However, he's never bothered swotting up on the undead and his religion, as much as we can call it a religion, doesn't hunt or study them and he doesn't have access to body of knowledge regarding them (..well, aside from the party's bard). He doesn't even (nor does he need to) pray, so divine inspiration isn't coming any time soon.
Still, he's pretty good at detecting when things are coming round the corner and lurking in the undergrowth and can spot a skeleton, crawling corpse and ethereal figure with the best of them. He's also proven to be the go-to guy when folks really want the lowdown on the motives of people and ...things (Actually, no, it doesn't want to eat us. Yes I realise it's trying to bite us. We've also ransacked its home and its probably a little annoyed. Maybe even a little scared. Regardless, lets all focus on not dieing, ok? Oh and yes, the landlord lied to us.)
Of course, if you insist on asking him to recall information about the undead (or any monster, group, theory or practice etc) he'll likely reply, 'Dunno. Not my thing. Got a book on it? What's the bard say?'
And regarding the, 'blasting of undead'? He knows the theory - present symbol, loud, stern voice. BAM! - thanks to his, albiet less-than-reliable, knoweldge of religious rites. But he's never done it himself (he's 3rd level). However, he has seen one other person manage to pull off the whole 'smiting of the dead' and was very impressed. For now though, he's given up on it since the last time he gave it a go he got horribly molested by three ghouls.
He's hoping he'll bump into someone that'll stick around to show him where he's going wrong - the sooner the better!
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Ignoring the bulk of this, the actual question seems pretty simple to answer.
Is the cleric in question dumb? Well, let's look at the numbers. 10 is defined as average human, and the player chose to have an 8 in that score. So they are definitely below average Intelligence. Compared to the average untrained person, they have a 5% lower chance of hitting a given achievable Intelligence DC with a check. The maximum achievable Intelligence DC is also one lower than the average untrained person. Clearly the cleric is less intellectually capable than average. So the question becomes "does being less intellectually capable than average make one dumb?"
No, you can still speak just fine. Some people with no brains do an awful lot of talking, as a wise construct once said.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
randl wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
randl wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EmpactWB wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
randl wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Personally when I DM I ask for
Religion check for celestial, undead, fiend (demon and devil)
Arcana check for aberation, dragon, fey, undead, fiend (demon and devil)
Nature check for fey, beat, monstrous beast, dragon, elemental.
History check for giant, humanoid, dragon and legendary monster
If a monster appear on 2 list, then I allow the player to use which ever he want to use (usually his best skill)
Those are MY PERSONAL distribution, and if one of my player can convince me that he should know something about the monster using a different check, for example, knowing something about dragon using his religion (especially if he's an devout follower of Bahamut / Tiamat) then I might allow my player to use religion for dragon knowledge for example.
But yes if you want to KNOW something about a subject it should be an Intelligence check and it's up to your DM to determine what kind of knowledge it should be, and if you put 8 in Intellect then yes you will know less then the wizard who took 16 in his Intellect. You can alway "work hard" to learn more about a subject and this is represented by profiency in that knowledge skill (Religion, Arcana, Nature, History).
I stopped following this thread awhile ago, just skimmed the last 30 or so posts. It seems people are focusing on the wrong mechanics here, as it relates to the OP. Many fine points were made among those arguing the implications of an Ability score and Proficiency. It has been implied a few times ("8 intelligence is only 5% less likely to succeed than average person) yet I didn't see anyone directly call out the real culprit that creates a "cleric who doesn't know stuff about undead," among other things: the swinginess of the d20.
It's a huge range for a lore check in particular, and for most skills in general. Too much of the chance of success or failure of skills is weighted on the d20, rather than Ability Scores and Proficiency, where it belongs.
It's something I've disliked for awhile, and there's no easy fix for this. I have a skill system overhaul...
Rather than roll a d20 on a skill check, you roll d10.
If you have proficiency in a skill, add half your Ability Score (not your AS mod) to the d10.
If you do not have proficiency in a skill, only add your Ability Score modifier.
Add your proficiency bonus to all skills. This reflects the 'worldliness' of adventurers, picking up a broad range of skills in their journies.
Rolling 1: Roll d10 again. Rolling a second 1 creates a catastrophic failure. 2-9 is a major failure. 10 is a normal failure.
Rolling 10: Roll d10 again. Rolling a 1 creates a normal success. 2-9 is a major success. 10 is a spectacular success.
Ah yes, back to the OP. I think a case can be made for not even requiring a check. In general, I only do checks for the more rare and extreme monsters. For example, put a group together, and they would have heard enough about Dragons to get the basics. Same with a Cleric and Undead. Most the common/famous ones shouldn't require a roll. Of course this becomes DM dependant, but what isn't. If the DM decides a particular undead is rare enough the Cleric's training may not have included much information about it. Wisdom (Religion) or Wisdom (Insight) may also be used to determine an Undead creatures nature or if it attempting to hide its nature, without providing specific details.
Now, how the player defines his 8 INT is up to player, just so long as he understand that he shouldn't start showing MM level knowledge of every Undead/Fiend/Celestial they meet.
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
randl wrote:
EmpactWB wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
EmpactWB wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote: