TL;DR Do I Recognize This Creature? How do you handle this question from rolls to information provided?
Do you get this question often in your games when the party faces something new
Setup:
In my last game, I set the party against some Xvart, a bigger, uglier version of smurfs. I never named the creature but during combat, the Wizard asked if he recognizes the creature, based on appearance, and if so would he know anything about them. I thought for a moment, quickly looking at the 'backstory' of Xvarts', which turns out to be a LOT of material. I said sure and asked him to make an Arcana check based on the Xvart somewhat magic creation. I gave a DC 17 because, again the nature of the creature, but not too impossible because the player background was a Sage, Researchers rationalizing it's possible the Wizard would have stumbled across this information at one time or another.
He rolled a 25.
I copied and pasted the relevant parts from the book, close to all, of the backstory for the Xvart in the chat for the Wizard to read. I had no intention of giving the stat block for the creature let alone any creature for that matter if the situation comes up but just revealing backstory text.
After the game, I thought more about the creature identification and looked back at the roll and thought did I just open a door that basically could turn players into a walking MM history buff? Sure, the information is as good as what the DM provides but it's still out there as an action.
Question:
I feel like I handled this ok but you may have a different opinion on how I should have been managed situation. So I'm asking how do you handle players when they are trying to identify a creature and what limitations, if any, do you impose on the information provided?
I think you did really well, if the wizard is an in-world expert on this topic (really good roll), he should know tons of things, most being actually irrelevant by the way.
My main problem now in 5e is the absence of knowledge skills, Arguably, there were too many before but now, there are so few applicable. Now, I'm sort of stuck with:
Arcana if it's magical
Religion if it's undead
Nature if it's natural
History if it's a kind of civilised race
And that's it.
After that, I would not assign a DC, I would modulate the amount of information provided depending on the roll, that's all.
But in general I want to really favor in game information, what is known by the characters anyway.
Yeah, that is sort of where I was going with the core Intelligence skill checks.
Just typing 'out-loud' here. I look if the players run into certain creature types but take a categorized as a monstrosity like [Tooltip Not Found] where it may not slot as well with those core four checks so it becomes a base Intelligence roll.
But in general I want to really favor in game information, what is known by the characters anyway.
So an alternative, as I did, would have been the players would need to visit a library or archive to gather the information I gave on ugly blue things.
The ultimate question is this: Did the Wizard, prior to seeing that creature, have had the opportunity to read some tome describing the creature, assuming the Wizard had never seen one live before?
If the answer is no, then no ability check can conjure Nature knowledge like that out if thin air. The table I run has 6 players. 3 of them are DM's of their own tables. The combined amount of meta-knowledge all 6 possess encompasses pretty much the entire game. Sometimes, you just have to say "no" to a player.
I would not copy-paste blocks of information. Lore is often spotty and incomplete.
I try to summarize what people know. A couple of sessions ago my group came across some Carrion Crawlers up on the surface in a cursed forest area. The gnome with Nature asked if she recognized what they were after the battle. They're monstrosities so Nature is the appropriate check. She rolled nice and high. I told her the basics about them (some of which they had already observed) and that they are almost never found on the surface, but rather found underground. She relayed this information to the rest of the party. I did not use the term "underdark" because (a) they would never have heard of such a place, and (b) it doesn't really exist in my world. (There are tons of "underground" areas but there is nothing equivalent to "the underdark.")
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think you, the OP, handled it pretty well. I agree with biowizard on not pasting in a big block of text, I would have given them a summary, with more relevant info depending on how high the roll was. You might want to set up a system to use going forward, since your players will likely keep trying this sort of thing. Firstly, that check should be their action for the turn, and you should make that clear to them. Then something Like, if the roll is under a DC of 15, they know nothing, 15-20, they know some basic information, 21-25, more and above 26, most everything. I imagine the real thing the players were after, in meta game terms in the middle of a fight, are resistances and vulnerabilities, so that’s the main thing you need to decide on, how high do they roll before you tell them. If they roll high enough, I think it’s reasonable for them to have somewhere heard that “non magical weapons are not fully effective against these creatures” or “cold seems unusually powerful against them” kind of thing. I’d also probably allow for lower numbers for more “famous” monsters. e.g. I bet most peasants in the fields know fire doesn’t work on a red dragon. That can get a bit subjective, but it kind of needs to be, depending on how common various creatures are in your game world.
I think you, the OP, handled it pretty well. I agree with biowizard on not pasting in a big block of text, I would have given them a summary, with more relevant info depending on how high the roll was. You might want to set up a system to use going forward, since your players will likely keep trying this sort of thing. Firstly, that check should be their action for the turn, and you should make that clear to them. Then something Like, if the roll is under a DC of 15, they know nothing, 15-20, they know some basic information, 21-25, more and above 26, most everything. I imagine the real thing the players were after, in meta game terms in the middle of a fight, are resistances and vulnerabilities, so that’s the main thing you need to decide on, how high do they roll before you tell them. If they roll high enough, I think it’s reasonable for them to have somewhere heard that “non magical weapons are not fully effective against these creatures” or “cold seems unusually powerful against them” kind of thing. I’d also probably allow for lower numbers for more “famous” monsters. e.g. I bet most peasants in the fields know fire doesn’t work on a red dragon. That can get a bit subjective, but it kind of needs to be, depending on how common various creatures are in your game world.
I never had the intention or willingness to divulge any information from a stat-block but just the information described below the box, ie, the flavor text. The question posed to me by the player was 'Do I Recognize This Creature?' which was general enough for me to give a name but his roll, 25, was gave him the mass detail.
If they are ever to learn any content from the stat-block it would have been through actions on their own discovery.
I would not copy-paste blocks of information. Lore is often spotty and incomplete.
I try to summarize what people know. A couple of sessions ago my group came across some Carrion Crawlers up on the surface in a cursed forest area. The gnome with Nature asked if she recognized what they were after the battle. They're monstrosities so Nature is the appropriate check. She rolled nice and high. I told her the basics about them (some of which they had already observed) and that they are almost never found on the surface, but rather found underground. She relayed this information to the rest of the party. I did not use the term "underdark" because (a) they would never have heard of such a place, and (b) it doesn't really exist in my world. (There are tons of "underground" areas but there is nothing equivalent to "the underdark.")
The Xvart background text is 744 words and pretty much of it is fluffy about their creation and devotion to the being who did say creating. The Xvart content was more lore than tactic which is 90% of the Carrion Crawler text. (Carrion Eaters, Patient Predators bullet points) something that I would not provide to the players. It was that 25 roll that I felt the mass of content somewhat was justified, at least in my head. Still getting feedback like what you provided was what I was looking for different opinions.
Totally cool to make a call on the spot, and decide how you'll distribute information. It's probably good to (if you haven't already) let the players know that all information on different creatures will need to come from trial and error, and not knowledge checks.
One thing to note for fairness: if your wizard put proficiency points into arcana, hoping to gain insight on monsters (like basic vulnerabilities and resistances), and you intend to keep this knowledge as 100% trial and error, you might give them the opportunity to change where they place their proficiency skills. Or in any case, let them know what you'll allow them to learn with a knowledge roll, such as identifying items or magical traps, but no stat block info about monsters.
I personally like the system Xalthu proposed, and think I might use that going forward. I've never really used knowledge checks, but that sounds interesting. I would imagine that someone who read a bunch might not know AC/damage/HP, but surely resistance/vulnerabilities would be listed along with the monster. I would also allow players to ask potentially knowledgeable NPCs, or pay for tidbits of knowledge, if such an occasion arose.
I think you, the OP, handled it pretty well. I agree with biowizard on not pasting in a big block of text, I would have given them a summary, with more relevant info depending on how high the roll was. You might want to set up a system to use going forward, since your players will likely keep trying this sort of thing. Firstly, that check should be their action for the turn, and you should make that clear to them. Then something Like, if the roll is under a DC of 15, they know nothing, 15-20, they know some basic information, 21-25, more and above 26, most everything. I imagine the real thing the players were after, in meta game terms in the middle of a fight, are resistances and vulnerabilities, so that’s the main thing you need to decide on, how high do they roll before you tell them. If they roll high enough, I think it’s reasonable for them to have somewhere heard that “non magical weapons are not fully effective against these creatures” or “cold seems unusually powerful against them” kind of thing. I’d also probably allow for lower numbers for more “famous” monsters. e.g. I bet most peasants in the fields know fire doesn’t work on a red dragon. That can get a bit subjective, but it kind of needs to be, depending on how common various creatures are in your game world.
I forgot to respond to this suggestion when I posted my other comment. I do like this idea and I will give it a try on the next time this situation occurs so thank you for the suggestion.
I think this was a good learning example and you all provided some good perspectives and suggestions on more 'efficient' means how to manage situations when they occur and what to look out for in terms of information sharing.
Just to give some context here is what I dumped on the player with his 25.
Xvarts are cruel, cowardly humanoids spawned by a cowardly, renegade demigod. They have blue skin, vivid orange eyes, and receding hairlines, mirroring their creator’s appearance. They stand about 3 feet tall.
Xvarts live in remote hills, forests, and caves. Each tribe is led by a speaker, who is usually the brightest one among them. The speaker serves as the tribe’s ambassador, and often dons short wooden stilts and heavy robes to look taller and more imperious. The rest of the tribe hunts for food, plundering crops and livestock from nearby farms if the hunt goes poorly. Xvarts aren’t much of a threat to civilized locations because they are somewhat fearful of humans, dwarves, and elves.
Raxivort’s Betrayal. All xvarts are the degenerate offspring of an entity named Raxivort, who once served Graz’zt the Dark Prince as treasurer. Raxivort spent long centuries watching over the treasury, and in time he grew to lust after his master’s riches. In one bold move, he plundered a treasure vault and fled to the Material Plane. One of the treasures he stole was the Infinity Spindle, a crystalline shard from the early days of the multiverse that could transform even a creature as low as Raxivort into a demigod.
After he ascended to godhood, Raxivort forged a realm called the Black Sewers, within Pandesmos, the topmost layer of Pandemonium. He enjoyed his divine ascension only briefly, though, before Graz’zt unleashed his vengeance. The demon prince had no need to regain the Infinity Spindle, since he already possessed power greater than what it could grant. Instead, he dispatched agents far and wide to spread news of what the spindle could do and the puny, pathetic creature that claimed its ownership. Soon enough, Raxivort was pursued by a variety of enemies, all eager to claim the Spindle as their own.
In the face of his imminent destruction, Raxivort hatched a plan. Fleeing to the Material Plane, he wandered across a variety of worlds and spawned creatures that were his exact duplicate. These are the xvarts, creatures that not only look identical to Raxivort in appearance but also foil any magic used to track him down. Spells, rituals, and other effects that could reveal Raxivort’s location instead point to the nearest xvart.
Although the initial rush of enemies against him has subsided, Raxivort knows that the planar powers are patient. He remains in hiding, a wretch of a demigod who does little more than wander the planes, spawning ever more xvarts to ensure his continued safety.
Greedy Thugs. Xvarts have all of their creator’s flaws and few redeeming qualities. They lack the physical equipment to reproduce, as well as the inclination to do so. They are greedy, conniving, and obsessed with the acquisition of valuables — the more ornate or bizarre, the better. They know they are flawed, and this minor amount of self-awareness only magnifies their other deficiencies. They hate almost any creature they perceive as better than they are, which includes almost anyone, but they lack the courage or wherewithal to act on their hatred most of the time. Their fear has led them to dwell either in gloomy places on the far fringes of civilized lands or in areas neglected or forgotten by mightier creatures. In other words, xvarts usually live in places where normal vermin might flourish.
Despite their muddled nature, all xvarts have an unshakable devotion to Raxivort. The desire to please Raxivort weighs heavily on all their decisions. When things aren’t going well for them, xvarts naturally assume that Raxivort is angry. To appease their troubled lord, they stage kidnappings. They fashion nets to capture their enemies, which are dragged back to the lair and sacrificed on a makeshift altar. Raxivort can hear their supplications, but he’s too afraid to come out of hiding most of the time. Occasionally, he does appear before a tribe of worshipers as a 9-foot-tall xvart carrying an empty sack. In every such instance, Raxivort takes all of the treasure that the tribe has accumulated, stuffs it in his sack, and disappears, leaving nothing behind as compensation.
I think this was a good learning example and you all provided some good perspectives and suggestions on more 'efficient' means how to manage situations when they occur and what to look out for in terms of information sharing.
Just to give some context here is what I dumped on the player with his 25.
Xvarts are cruel......
Sure thing! It's awesome that you are always looking for new ways to do things.
Here is what I would have done upon receiving that info dump.
1. Looked through it 3 times for obvious vulnerabilities/resistances.
2. Grumped for a moment.
3. Noted they might be bribed in the right circumstance.
4. Noted that they could potentially be tricked by a fake Raxivort, and run with that idea + serious illusion magic!!!
For a knowledge check during combat, I wouldn't give more information than you can reasonably pull up to the front of your mind during combat, so a one or two sentence summary. Outside of combat, sure, I'd let them have the infodump.
I think you handled it just fine! As many pointed out, this isn't something with a set answer in the rules, so you're kind of on your own to figure this out. I'll often ask the player for a reason they might know this creature....do they have a history studying underdark creatures? Are they a ranger with a favorite enemy or terrain? Did they have some backstory that might help? Then I can ask for a relevant check depending on what makes sense for the character and the creature. It just offers more options.
At the time I justified a lot of the information on the Wizards' Sage/Researcher background.
Though the questions you posed to ask the player I realized that long term I don't think the character backstory lines up with creature knowledge. While on the fly it all made sense but looking back, with more time on my hands, and taking the feedback from this thread I see a more tiered approach on how to allow such a check and the level of information to presented back to the player.
I had a player try to tell me that he knew about every single creature that the group encountered because as of a Sage background, being a High Elf at least 100 years old, and being brought up in a library, he had been reading for a century and focused on the Undead and Nature.
I had a player try to tell me that he knew about every single creature that the group encountered because as of a Sage background, being a High Elf at least 100 years old, and being brought up in a library, he had been reading for a century and focused on the Undead and Nature.
It was all I could do not to laugh in his face.
Wow! I guess I was lucky when my player just asked "Do I recognized this creature?". So how did you handle the situation, a simple no?
I had a player try to tell me that he knew about every single creature that the group encountered because as of a Sage background, being a High Elf at least 100 years old, and being brought up in a library, he had been reading for a century and focused on the Undead and Nature.
It was all I could do not to laugh in his face.
Wow! I guess I was lucky when my player just asked "Do I recognized this creature?". So how did you handle the situation, a simple no?
I had to argue with the kid for 15 minutes after the session essentially saying' you can't have everything".
Also consider how common the creature is that they are asking about, both in myth and in their reality. Myths may offer insight into what a creature might be weak or strong to, though not always true (think real-world mythologies surrounding vampires, and how often movies and books come out that ignore one or more "famous" weaknesses, etc.).
An average person might not know the stat blocks of something as obscure as a Berbalang no matter how good they roll, but they might know enough about the Kobolds in the area around their town to get some good information on a weak roll.
TL;DR Do I Recognize This Creature? How do you handle this question from rolls to information provided?
Do you get this question often in your games when the party faces something new
Setup:
In my last game, I set the party against some Xvart, a bigger, uglier version of smurfs. I never named the creature but during combat, the Wizard asked if he recognizes the creature, based on appearance, and if so would he know anything about them. I thought for a moment, quickly looking at the 'backstory' of Xvarts', which turns out to be a LOT of material. I said sure and asked him to make an Arcana check based on the Xvart somewhat magic creation. I gave a DC 17 because, again the nature of the creature, but not too impossible because the player background was a Sage, Researchers rationalizing it's possible the Wizard would have stumbled across this information at one time or another.
He rolled a 25.
I copied and pasted the relevant parts from the book, close to all, of the backstory for the Xvart in the chat for the Wizard to read. I had no intention of giving the stat block for the creature let alone any creature for that matter if the situation comes up but just revealing backstory text.
After the game, I thought more about the creature identification and looked back at the roll and thought did I just open a door that basically could turn players into a walking MM history buff? Sure, the information is as good as what the DM provides but it's still out there as an action.
Question:
I feel like I handled this ok but you may have a different opinion on how I should have been managed situation. So I'm asking how do you handle players when they are trying to identify a creature and what limitations, if any, do you impose on the information provided?
Yeah, that is sort of where I was going with the core Intelligence skill checks.
Just typing 'out-loud' here. I look if the players run into certain creature types but take a categorized as a monstrosity like [Tooltip Not Found] where it may not slot as well with those core four checks so it becomes a base Intelligence roll.
So an alternative, as I did, would have been the players would need to visit a library or archive to gather the information I gave on ugly blue things.
The ultimate question is this: Did the Wizard, prior to seeing that creature, have had the opportunity to read some tome describing the creature, assuming the Wizard had never seen one live before?
If the answer is no, then no ability check can conjure Nature knowledge like that out if thin air. The table I run has 6 players. 3 of them are DM's of their own tables. The combined amount of meta-knowledge all 6 possess encompasses pretty much the entire game. Sometimes, you just have to say "no" to a player.
I would not copy-paste blocks of information. Lore is often spotty and incomplete.
I try to summarize what people know. A couple of sessions ago my group came across some Carrion Crawlers up on the surface in a cursed forest area. The gnome with Nature asked if she recognized what they were after the battle. They're monstrosities so Nature is the appropriate check. She rolled nice and high. I told her the basics about them (some of which they had already observed) and that they are almost never found on the surface, but rather found underground. She relayed this information to the rest of the party. I did not use the term "underdark" because (a) they would never have heard of such a place, and (b) it doesn't really exist in my world. (There are tons of "underground" areas but there is nothing equivalent to "the underdark.")
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think you, the OP, handled it pretty well. I agree with biowizard on not pasting in a big block of text, I would have given them a summary, with more relevant info depending on how high the roll was.
You might want to set up a system to use going forward, since your players will likely keep trying this sort of thing. Firstly, that check should be their action for the turn, and you should make that clear to them. Then something Like, if the roll is under a DC of 15, they know nothing, 15-20, they know some basic information, 21-25, more and above 26, most everything.
I imagine the real thing the players were after, in meta game terms in the middle of a fight, are resistances and vulnerabilities, so that’s the main thing you need to decide on, how high do they roll before you tell them. If they roll high enough, I think it’s reasonable for them to have somewhere heard that “non magical weapons are not fully effective against these creatures” or “cold seems unusually powerful against them” kind of thing.
I’d also probably allow for lower numbers for more “famous” monsters. e.g. I bet most peasants in the fields know fire doesn’t work on a red dragon. That can get a bit subjective, but it kind of needs to be, depending on how common various creatures are in your game world.
I never had the intention or willingness to divulge any information from a stat-block but just the information described below the box, ie, the flavor text. The question posed to me by the player was 'Do I Recognize This Creature?' which was general enough for me to give a name but his roll, 25, was gave him the mass detail.
If they are ever to learn any content from the stat-block it would have been through actions on their own discovery.
The Xvart background text is 744 words and pretty much of it is fluffy about their creation and devotion to the being who did say creating. The Xvart content was more lore than tactic which is 90% of the Carrion Crawler text. (Carrion Eaters, Patient Predators bullet points) something that I would not provide to the players. It was that 25 roll that I felt the mass of content somewhat was justified, at least in my head. Still getting feedback like what you provided was what I was looking for different opinions.
Totally cool to make a call on the spot, and decide how you'll distribute information. It's probably good to (if you haven't already) let the players know that all information on different creatures will need to come from trial and error, and not knowledge checks.
One thing to note for fairness: if your wizard put proficiency points into arcana, hoping to gain insight on monsters (like basic vulnerabilities and resistances), and you intend to keep this knowledge as 100% trial and error, you might give them the opportunity to change where they place their proficiency skills. Or in any case, let them know what you'll allow them to learn with a knowledge roll, such as identifying items or magical traps, but no stat block info about monsters.
I personally like the system Xalthu proposed, and think I might use that going forward. I've never really used knowledge checks, but that sounds interesting. I would imagine that someone who read a bunch might not know AC/damage/HP, but surely resistance/vulnerabilities would be listed along with the monster. I would also allow players to ask potentially knowledgeable NPCs, or pay for tidbits of knowledge, if such an occasion arose.
I forgot to respond to this suggestion when I posted my other comment. I do like this idea and I will give it a try on the next time this situation occurs so thank you for the suggestion.
I think this was a good learning example and you all provided some good perspectives and suggestions on more 'efficient' means how to manage situations when they occur and what to look out for in terms of information sharing.
Just to give some context here is what I dumped on the player with his 25.
Sure thing! It's awesome that you are always looking for new ways to do things.
Here is what I would have done upon receiving that info dump.
1. Looked through it 3 times for obvious vulnerabilities/resistances.
2. Grumped for a moment.
3. Noted they might be bribed in the right circumstance.
4. Noted that they could potentially be tricked by a fake Raxivort, and run with that idea + serious illusion magic!!!
For a knowledge check during combat, I wouldn't give more information than you can reasonably pull up to the front of your mind during combat, so a one or two sentence summary. Outside of combat, sure, I'd let them have the infodump.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
InsiderI think you handled it just fine! As many pointed out, this isn't something with a set answer in the rules, so you're kind of on your own to figure this out. I'll often ask the player for a reason they might know this creature....do they have a history studying underdark creatures? Are they a ranger with a favorite enemy or terrain? Did they have some backstory that might help? Then I can ask for a relevant check depending on what makes sense for the character and the creature. It just offers more options.
Find me on Twitter: @OboeLauren
At the time I justified a lot of the information on the Wizards' Sage/Researcher background.
Though the questions you posed to ask the player I realized that long term I don't think the character backstory lines up with creature knowledge. While on the fly it all made sense but looking back, with more time on my hands, and taking the feedback from this thread I see a more tiered approach on how to allow such a check and the level of information to presented back to the player.
I miss the 4e Monster Lore sections where they had the DCs and the Skill needed to use. Why didn't they do that now too?
I had a player try to tell me that he knew about every single creature that the group encountered because as of a Sage background, being a High Elf at least 100 years old, and being brought up in a library, he had been reading for a century and focused on the Undead and Nature.
It was all I could do not to laugh in his face.
Wow! I guess I was lucky when my player just asked "Do I recognized this creature?". So how did you handle the situation, a simple no?
I had to argue with the kid for 15 minutes after the session essentially saying' you can't have everything".
Oh, the picture is becoming my clear now. It sounds like you handled it well.
Just to add in one additional consideration:
Also consider how common the creature is that they are asking about, both in myth and in their reality. Myths may offer insight into what a creature might be weak or strong to, though not always true (think real-world mythologies surrounding vampires, and how often movies and books come out that ignore one or more "famous" weaknesses, etc.).
An average person might not know the stat blocks of something as obscure as a Berbalang no matter how good they roll, but they might know enough about the Kobolds in the area around their town to get some good information on a weak roll.