My DM has decided that we the players cannot use knowledge skills to identify monsters. He claims that we, as a party of 2nd/3rd level characters wouldn't know anything about these creatures because we haven't encountered them before. Now, the way I see it, we have knowledge of them because of what our characters would have read in books pertaining to the specific knowledge we are trained in and such. I'm not too happy about this nerfing of the skill, and I know that my fellow players who decided to train in knowledge skills such as nature, arcana and religion are now regretting taking them. What should we do about this?
well remember that he is the DM and he could house rule that.
I think your DM is wanting to make it more realistic. A bunch of 2nd and 3rd level characters shouldn't know everything about monsters they have never seen.
I would talk to your DM ,before the next game if possible, with the PHb, already bookmarked to the skills sections, and see if you can get him to change his mind. But you need to remember it depends on what your are trying to use monster knowledge on. Religion is for immortal and undead origins, arcana is for elemental, fey, or shadow origin, dungeoneering allows you to identify monsters of the aberrant origin while nature allowes to see if the monsters are of the natural origins.
If you are looking for an effective counterarguement...I've never personally seen an elephant, kangaroo, or humpback whale. But I could probably identify one on sight based purely on the books I read to my toddler at night (I'll leave information sources like Discovery channel and the internet out of this since those are out of the league of a fantasy game).
I would argue that if you grow up in a dangerous point of light fantasy setting, you learn at least a little bit about dragons and beholders and mind flayers and drow and ogres and orcs etc etc etc just as a point of survival. And if you specifically train in a knowledge skill, that would imply you have actually read books about them instead of just hearing bedtime stories from your parents.
From a practical perspective, adults in a D&D world would teach their children about dangerous stuff the same way we teach our kids to not cross the street without looking, don't play with electricity or fire, stay away from 3-leaf plants, etc. If there were a chance a blue slime that would eat your face were lurking in a storm drain, we would teach our kids about those too.
Training in a knowledge skill represents having studied books, and anything your character has already experienced before play starts.
Tell the DM that you want to use the skills as they are written in the book. House rules should be open to discussion, since the game is about having fun and not about the DM defeating the players as if it were a contest.
Explain that the character succeeding on the knowledge check is more like the character thinking "hey, that looks like those slimes I read about... they typically [insert info]. Let's try that out and see if I'm right!"
But, yeah, he's being very wrong and nonsensical.
So then the Fighter shouldn't be automatically proficient with weapons he has never actually encountered in play either. *bandwidth snip*
Depends on how far you take it. If they can use, say, a longsword and a scimitar, and get their hands on a katana, it's not much of a leap. If they've used a polearm, a spear's pretty simple to pick up on the finer points. (Don't slash, POKE.) However, if you've got, say, a crossbow, and they've never seen anything like that (bows, sure, but the trigger mechanism's tricksy), they wouldn't automatically know how to use one. That's one I'd say use your best logic.
However, nailing your skills as written just because he doesn't like them... I'd ask him that, since he's changed the skills after they were decided on, if he'll give the option to re-select your skills.
Well, he did it midgame when one of us tried to use knowledge to figure out what a blue slime was. Our wizard declared that he was going to use knowledge, rolled over 20 but under 25, so that would give us name, type, keywords and powers. He immediately said that we can't do that, which turned into a bit of a discussion right there and then, with him deciding that we just can't do it.
He's a wizard, an EDUCATED individual... he probably had a text book: "slimes and their alchemical uses, illustrated edition"
and that is how he would know 1st level, and 3rd level.
not to mention cultural heritage of stories about this creature or that and rumors.
the propper response should be "you remember it clearly from your textbook, page 95: blue slimes"
However, nailing your skills as written just because he doesn't like them... I'd ask him that, since he's changed the skills after they were decided on, if he'll give the option to re-select your skills.
... and then, when he wants you to use the Arcane Knowledge skill, or whatever it is, point out to him that you trained it away because it was useless as implemented, and blink innocently as the party walks blithely by (arcane) clues.
I've been told that I'm passive-aggressive.
Instead, ask him how, precisely, Knowledge skills are to be used. Show him the pages in the Player's Handbook which explicitly describe how Knowledge skills can be used to identify various monsters. Ask politely what his reasoning is, give him the arguments presented above if necessary, but overall ask why this house rule (and it is very obviously a house rule) wasn't communicated during character creation.
Then ask for the rest of his house rules, preferably in writing.
Personally, I think this is a poor decision on his part. It's certainly not been thought through. If he wants to make it harder for you to identify monsters, he should boost the Check DC by 5.
I don't quite agree with him, but he's the DM. He did allows us to change our knowledge skills when the issue came up and he ruled the way he did.
Time for the hammer gun.
My DM has decided that we the players cannot use knowledge skills to identify monsters. He claims that we, as a party of 2nd/3rd level characters wouldn't know anything about these creatures because we haven't encountered them before. ...
Ask your DM if he knows anything about boa constrictors or elephants. Odds are he does even though he hasn't actually fought them because he learned about them in school. Then explain that taking skill training in a knowledge skill is equivalent to being educated in the subject and learning about things you haven't necessarilly directly encountered. If your DM doesn't allow you to use your knowledge skill to identify monsters unless you've TRAINED in the skill, that's probably ok, but if you've taken skill training in a knowledge skill then he should allow you to identify monsters of the corresponding type with it.
Also remind your DM that 1st level characters are assumed to have done some amount of adventuring prior to the start of the campaign. That's why they have 20-30 hit points, for example, and can do things ordinary people can't.
The suggestion that house rules be in writing is good, with the caveat that "it's a new system, we may need to add to these as we go along, with discussion as appropriate." Springing a house rule on unsuspecting players, not cool.
I had knowledge of Lions Tigers and Bears when I was 4, still never encountered one. Your DM is being unreasonable.
Hell, when I was 4 I could tell you all about Dinosaurs!
. I was a dumb child. Hell, when I was 4 I could tell you all about Dinosaurs!
Hey, wait a sec. I know about dinosaurs coz my GI Joes fought them. They breathed fire and flew, rite? :D
The use of the knowledge skill check to determine monster traits is a surrender to the types of players who used to read through the MM and use the OOC knowledge they'd gained to get an unfair advantage. Basically, it's catering to cheaters. Still, that kind of cheating was endemic, as reading through the MM is actually kind of fun. Now, at least, the players have to sacrifice something (a trained skill) to enable them to use the illicit knowledge.
Hey, wait a sec. I know about dinosaurs coz my GI Joes fought them. They breathed fire and flew, rite? :D
Only some of them, and then only during the cretaceous period.
The use of the knowledge skill check to determine monster traits is a surrender to the types of players who used to read through the MM and use the OOC knowledge they'd gained to get an unfair advantage.
Or to the Idea characters Might have schooling or pre-adventure knowledge.
The skill check represents the probability they have accurate knowledge of it.
Wizards have text books; druids have the teachings of their mentor; and clerics can have both. Everybody has stories they were told as a kid, and in a fantasy society they probably have some truth to them. That is what its giving in to, so don't call players cheaters because they think a knowledge check can determine if their characters know about a monster.
I figure your DM thought it would be more fun to have your characters discover the monster's traits organically, through play, than to have you roll a die and read through the Monster Manual.
The use of the knowledge skill check to determine monster traits is a surrender to the types of players who used to read through the MM and use the OOC knowledge they'd gained to get an unfair advantage. Basically, it's catering to cheaters. Still, that kind of cheating was endemic, as reading through the MM is actually kind of fun. Now, at least, the players have to sacrifice something (a trained skill) to enable them to use the illicit knowledge.
I don't agree with that view. No one is saying that the dm should give out the exact stats of the monster's power. A general, fluffy description of the monster's special attributes like: a wolf is good at tripping, or this zombie blows up at death, or guard drakes are more powerful when close together, is all that's required. Often, it's nothing that the party won't find out as they're fighting it.
I can think of several non-mechanical benefits to ID'ing monsters and giving the PCs some clues about their special powers:
1. Giving out some creature lore and abilities makes the monster "come to life" rather than just being a stat block that's gonna be killed. Warning PCs about monster's special attacks is gonna make them perk up and pay attention when the monster does use the special attack. It can be good at providing imagery that goes beyond "burst 5, everybody takes X damage". It allows for said monster to be famous for its "Quill Blast Attack" rather than "it can do a lot of damage to everyone around it."
2. By giving out some abilities beforehand, it can make those abilities feel like stuff that's always belong to that monster rather than haxxes that the DM pulled out of his a$$. So, telling the PCs that "zombie A blows up at death" makes the PCs feel like they're facing a timed bomb while just having the zombie just blow up at death can sometime make it feel like "the DM is mad we killed his pet zombie and is punishing us."
3. Some abilities are purely statistical changes that PCs won't figure out just by fighting the monsters. An example are the "mob" abilities where monsters get bonuses when close together. Giving this type of information out to the players allows them to feel that they're actually fighting a mob or hive and that there's an actual benefit to using tactics to seperate the monsters. If the DM never gives out this information, the players would just think the DM is rolling insanely well and is reduced to cursing their bad luck.
In general, giving out some monster information allows the players to feel they have more control over the fight. It makes them feel that they can chalk their hardships/difficulties in the fight to poor planning or tactics rather than just blaming their bad luck or feel like the DM is rigging a whole bunch of "gotchas" just to get them.
Lots of players don't read the Monster Manual, and of those who do, very few have memorized the abilities and special powers of every single monster.
If anything checks discourage cheating, as even without reading the MM you can get the lowdown on what makes one monster different from another. It also provides an in-game measure of what the character really does know, so they can RP appropriately.
I DM a game so I know a lot of monster abilities. If my character fails a Knowledge check though, I'm going to try to act as if I didn't know the monster would blow up when he died.
My own DM went too far the other direction. Whenever we encounter a monster, he has us roll knowledge checks. Inevitably someone rolls well, and he reads the bloody statblock out of the monster manual entry. It's so metagamey, so distracting. It really rips me out of any immersion I had been able to get into. And it doesn't follow the rules at all - since the Monster manual and PHB both tell you specifically what information successful checks reveal, and it isn't "X hit points, Y ac, Z reflex defence, +N to hit" etc.
My own DM went too far the other direction. Whenever we encounter a monster, he has us roll knowledge checks. Inevitably someone rolls well, and he reads the bloody statblock out of the monster manual entry. It's so metagamey, so distracting. It really rips me out of any immersion I had been able to get into. And it doesn't follow the rules at all - since the Monster manual and PHB both tell you specifically what information successful checks reveal, and it isn't "X hit points, Y ac, Z reflex defence, +N to hit" etc.
Just ask him to not do that much, and state your reasons.
Keeps the players on their toes, and teaches 'em not to rely TOO much on book knowledge.I had knowledge of Lions Tigers and Bears when I was 4, still never encountered one. Your DM is being unreasonable.
However, there was one time at a petting zoo the owner had a Zebra and there was a 8 year old calling "come her giraffe, Come here giraffe.." while a small 3 year old was saying "ZEEBRAUH!" :D
However, there was one time at a petting zoo the owner had a Zebra and there was a 8 year old calling "come her giraffe, Come here giraffe.." while a small 3 year old was saying "ZEEBRAUH!" :D
The 8 year old failed his/her Knowledge (nature) check, obviously. >:3
> the previous posts. He agreed to allow the knowledge checks, but he rolls
> them behind the screen, which is just fine with me.
Given the initial event, I would be very dubious about this particular solution - I have a feeling that he'll roll the die for show, ignore it, and then just tell you whatever he feels like, whether it's correct or anything at all.
However, there was one time at a petting zoo the owner had a Zebra and there was a 8 year old calling "come her giraffe, Come here giraffe.." while a small 3 year old was saying "ZEEBRAUH!" :D
he rolled a natural one.
Now, the way I see it, we have knowledge of them because of what our characters would have read in books pertaining to the specific knowledge we are trained in and such.
This is true, but on the otherhand, How much information would you have and how much is actually true and not just myth, rumours and superstition?
Your DM's mistake is that with such skills he gives too much information, rather then only what your character would know. Which is what the skills represent is what your character would know. He should allow the skills, but only give information that he beleives your character would likely know.
For example, tell the DM that most people know of Vampires through books and movies, and know that Vampires can be killed by staking them through the heart. What they don't know however is that it is only with certain types of wood. Most people know that a werewolf turns during a full moon, but very few realize that they are also active during the moon before and after the full moon, for three nights.
The PCs might know that Trolls regenerate and are weak against fire, but not know that they will get up again if brought down to the final 0 hps without fire. Then again they might believe a common superstition from their books that trolls will turn to stone if immersed in water and instead try and get the troll to follow them to a nearby river.
This is what modifiers are for, the DM can simply give out what information he thinks the characters would know based upon their roll, their background and their levels and expereince. Some of which might be inacurate and even wrong, which can be interesting if not overused.
On another note, since the nerf effects these skills, then the DM should allow the players the option of allocating those points to other skills.
Well, we addressed the situation, and I had used a couple of examples from the previous posts. He agreed to allow the knowledge checks, but he rolls them behind the screen, which is just fine with me.
I'd still suspect even if he rolls a 20 he'll pretend he rolled a 4 and give you little to no information anyway and use the excuse he rolled low. How coincidental this happens on the "important" monsters. You'll know lots about cannon fodder and real world game time filler monsters.
I figure your DM thought it would be more fun to have your characters discover the monster's traits organically, through play, than to have you roll a die and read through the Monster Manual.
The use of the knowledge skill check to determine monster traits is a surrender to the types of players who used to read through the MM and use the OOC knowledge they'd gained to get an unfair advantage. Basically, it's catering to cheaters. Still, that kind of cheating was endemic, as reading through the MM is actually kind of fun. Now, at least, the players have to sacrifice something (a trained skill) to enable them to use the illicit knowledge.
I don't believe this is the case at all. Bear in mind that a 1st level character was not born yesterday, he has been around the block, hence backgrounds. Knowledge checks are flavored to represent encounters and information gleaned during your characters life before you started playing him. From a gaming standpoint the knowledge skills give you the opportunity to know something about what you are fighting so that you may gain a tactical advantage. Sometimes you do not pass the check and that is fun too, but making this the case all the time will make players feel as though they are simply wandering and stabbing blindly... it is much more fun when you discover they have a weakness or strength and can exploit it in tactical combat.
Come back and let us know how things work out!