Monster knowledge checks…make them.
Well, that was a short article. I suppose it might be helpful if I explained what the heck I’m talking about. It occurred to me that there are very specific rules for players to help them figure out what they know and what they don’t know about monsters. This solves the long standing problem of the following scenario:
Player: “The troll is down? Awesome, burn it.”
DM: “Why would you do that?”
Player: “Everyone knows that you have to burn a troll.”
DM: “Well you’ve never encountered a troll before, you don’t know that.”
Player: “Well then how the heck are we going to ever beat the thing?”
Having a monster knowledge check system in D&D means that you don’t have to have the debate. It can be a simple matter of make a skill check and the DM will tell you exactly how much you do and don’t know about the monster. Done. No discussion, no debate, problem solved.
That said, I have it on some authority that many of you out there aren’t making monster knowledge checks. Why wouldn’t you want to know what attacks, resistances, vulnerabilities, and keywords that a creature has. It’s going to make your chances of survival better, in some cases MUCH better. You know what attacks to use, what not to use, what resistances to set up, even which tactics to use. If a creature has a lot of blasts or bursts then don’t group together close. If not then feel free to rush in together. It makes perfect sense in a game mechanics level that one would make a monster knowledge check at the start of every single combat for every monster on the field.
Of course, that’s also a great way to ruin the game. There’s no surprise, it all becomes very mechanical and mathematic and the combat loses a lot of it’s flavor, descriptions start to feel pointless. It can break the suspension of disbelief and discourage a person from using their imagination. I would rather hear about how “The savage creature leaps upon Vert, tear into him with it’s claws and leaving him bleeding on his back.” If I’ve made the check all I’m hearing is “Charge attack at +14 vs Fort for 2d6+4 damage and target is prone”. One of these is much more evocative than the other.
So what’s a person to do to keep their game full of awesome but not lose the tactical advantage that the game assumes when it has rules of this sort?
My first suggestion is for DMs and it’s a bit of a house rule, but I think it’s worth considering and can be applied on the fly. That is, adjust the check DCs. Use the normal rules as a baseline for the DCs but if a creature is rare in your game world add a +5 to those DCs and if it’s unique add a +10. Why should the PCs have an equal chance of knowing about an orc, of which there are countless hordes of on the world, as they would an otyugh, of which there might be 500 on the entire planet? And even more so if it’s Glargak the Dragon of Arcane Fire? They may have heard stories about Glargak, however, being unique means that such a being might have stories, legends, and the like told about them and some of that information might be useful.
Second, I would say that despite what the rules may say I would make taking a monster knowledge check take some time in the battle. I know it doesn’t always make a ton of sense. If you know it you know it, if you don’t you don’t and it doesn’t take time to figure these things out. However, I’m a teacher by day and I see students sit and stare at a single test question for 5 minute. So taking a fraction of a 6 second round of D&D to have to search your memory about what you know about a monster and then share that information in a way that makes sense to your party…well, I think you can justify a standard action for the roll, or at least a move action. If the players have to make a choice between doing a monster knowledge check or taking a move or making an attack then they’re going to do it when it matters. Research before a big fight can make a big difference in this regard as well.
My last suggestion is for players. Even if your DM doesn’t make you give up an action in the fight to make a check, think carefully if you want to go there in your game or not. If it’s a big battle that’s already dynamic and interesting and the climax of the story then go for the check. You might need it to survive. If it seems like it’s going to be a quick and easy battle then don’t bother taking the time. Reserve the monster knowledge checks for the fights that are really going to matter.
So to summarize, if you’re not using monster knowledge checks USE THEM. But don’t go too far and allow them to seep the imagination out of your fights. And DMs, make sure they matter and feel free to differentiate between the monsters. The rules are a great guideline, but go beyond that and make it make sense for your world, your game, and your story.
How do you handle monster knowledge checks? Do your players use them too little? Too much? Is it a problem for your game that you’ve even considered? What other ways could a person resolve monster knowledge checks? And what the heck is the difference between a monster knowledge check and a monster lore check (which I didn’t even talk about…maybe that will be for another article)?
Similar Posts:
- Divinely Challenged: Our Houserule for Paladins
- Solo Acts: The Worldbreaker
- The Song of Flame: Savis Rayn
Jeff Greiner has hacked his way through 2nd edition in his youth. Became a paragon of virtue in 3e. Found a home in 3.5 and is permanently vacationing in 4e. He produces the longest running unofficial D&D podcast, 
My players hardly ever ask what they know about creatures, so when they do I nearly always give them something. We have had a few disastrously failed monster knowledge checks, to which the correct reply is always “It’s a kitty!”
Given their reluctance to spend even free (!) or minor actions on monster knowledge, I’m with Gabe on keeping them cheap. At least around my table, I know my players aren’t about to give up a standard action to figure out how to beat a monster, especially when “damage it until hp = 0″ is nearly always a correct but inelegant solution.
I do like the idea of using Perception and Insight checks as an ongoing set of cooperative minor actions — a background Skill Challenge — to deduce some weakness in a particular monster’s fighting style. Something like:
“You notice he’s favoring his left leg, so his ability to dodge attacks from that direction is probably weak.” (-1 to REF on weak side)
“He can twist and turn to keep his armor pointed at the weak side, but a ranged attack might get through there.” (AC on weak side still high)
“The more you press on that weakness, the faster he’s going to tire out.” (-1 to FORT for each attack that targets REF from the right direction)
You could boost the encounter XP for this, or let the players’ lower use of surges compensate them for smart play, or even (gasp!) fudge a die roll to ensure that the players who are fighting smart come out unscathed.
Those are some great thoughts, JR, thanks for sharing.
Yeah, if your players aren’t using monster knowledge checks totally don’t make them cost a standard of move action. For those players the big advice of this article is “use monster knowledge checks, it could save your life”.
I didn’t write about one other solution that I often use. When a monster knowledge check is made in my games I will give them the name, keywords, resistances, vulnerabilities, etc. straight up. But when it comes to powers I often give them a name and then I sort of describe what the attack looks like, rather than saying it’s a “+14 vs. Fort for 2d6 damage and the target is prone” I will instead say something like, “this creature is known for pouncing on it’s prey, knocking them on their backs the throwing their weight at them”.
I like your mini-skill challenge concept, but I think I would use it in very limited ways. Maybe for special NPCs, etc. I think if I tried to use it with every fight or even every session it could become tedious and complex enough that people (myself, the DM included) will forget the details of what we’re supposed to do, what we know or don’t know, etc.
Monster Lore checks talk about the monsters origin, or place it lives. Its habits and other story elements are also “Lore”.
The Knowledge check is the attacks, name, vulnerbilities, ect.
I am currently considering implementing the following house rule:
Everyone gets a free monster knowledge check at the beginning of combat, but this is a “passive” check (i.e., 10 + their skill modifier). Since this is a set number, the DM can determine the results in advance and just give the information out as part of the description.
The player can make an active check during combat, but it costs a standard action to do so.
The difficulty can be modified by rarity or other story elements.
I think this will solve a lot off issues surrounding monster knowledge checks.
I give out the info regarding monster knowledge in character-appropriate terms rather than player-appropriate terms. I don’t say “It has resist 15 acid,” but “You’ve heard that this creature shrugs off acid.”