Monster Identification

[buzzard]

Is it just me or does the rule where skill checks being dependent on monster HD seem stupid?

I mean say you're fighting a skeleton, ok that's a nice easy knowlege religion check. Make it a really big skeleton, which acts in pretty much the same fashion and looks the same, and all of a sudden, it's a much harder check. This just doesn't pass on the common sense meter to me.

Personally I think it ought to be something based on scarcity of the critter in question. I'll probably try to cook up a house rule to this effect. I've just seen to many examples of an advanced version of something fairly common being impossible to identify to like this rule.

buzzard

 

[Liquidsabre]

You're not alone there mate. Many DMs keep it simple but beautifuly functional thus (or some variation thereabouts):

Common = DC 10
Uncommon = DC 15
Rare = DC 20
Unique = DC 30+

Leaving the rarity of the creature entirely up to the DM and the circumstances of their game world.

 

[Klaus]

More powerful creatures are supposedly more rare, and those that are encountered don't leave many survivors to report it back. Hence, higher HD = harder info.

You see a skeleton, and it's pretty easy to say "that's an animated skeleton". You see a 10-foot tall skeleton and you're no longer certain of what the hell that thing is. Is it a skeleton? A bonescratcher? A [insert Large skeletal creature]?

I see no problem with the way the identification works. For monsters that have progressions (like dragons), I base it off the lowest HD the creature can have (so you can say "that's a vampire" by rolling against 5HD, which is the minimum for a vampire).

 

[shilsen]

You're not alone there mate. Many DMs keep it simple but beautifuly functional thus (or some variation thereabouts):

Common = DC 10
Uncommon = DC 15
Rare = DC 20
Unique = DC 30+

Leaving the rarity of the creature entirely up to the DM and the circumstances of their game world.

That's precisely how I do it.

 

[buzzard]

You're not alone there mate. Many DMs keep it simple but beautifuly functional thus (or some variation thereabouts):

Common = DC 10
Uncommon = DC 15
Rare = DC 20
Unique = DC 30+

Leaving the rarity of the creature entirely up to the DM and the circumstances of their game world.

This I like. I think I'll run with this.

buzzard

 

[Li Shenron]

If only HD matters, it makes no sense at all. How many people can identify an elephant and how many can identify any insect that is not obvious?

What is it harder to tell that it is actually a real dragon? A dragon-sized dragon or a human-sized dragon (wyrmling)?

Also identify doesn't necessarily mean that you have actually seen/encountered the creature before, and some rare and big creatures can be more famous (through books or folklore) than obscure little rodents living in thousands underground.

The HD-dependent CR is just a (silly) game artifact coming from the assumption than the difficult must necessarily scale with PC's level.

 

[Klaus]

How many people can identify an elephant? In the regular D&D world, not many, unless they come from an area where elephants are common.

For the dragon, I base the Knowledge DC on the wyrmling HD. Dragonhunters that have faced wyrmlings have returned to tell the tale (with descriptions, corpses for authopsy or what have you), so it's pretty common knowledge that red dragobns breathe fire. It is *not* common knowledge that great wyrm red dragons can locate a creature through magic, because very few dragonslayers have returned from an encounter with one.

Some creatures are specially famous in the area, or the character has a very good reason to know one? Great, give him a +2 or +4 circumstance bonus on the Knowledge check to correctly identify that creature.

 

[ElectricDragon]

As far as the elephant, remember LotR where the oliphant is recognized by a hobbit who has never seen one? Large and terrorifying creatures are more well known for the stories engendered about them. Blame the bards.

Ciao
Dave

 

[mvincent]

Is it just me or does the rule where skill checks being dependent on monster HD seem stupid?

From the designers (in a [url="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060414a']Proud Nails[/url] article):
'One thing that's always bugged me concerns the Knowledge skill. From the SRD:

"In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster."

Evidently, the tougher a monster, the more difficult it is to identify! I can just see it now, applied to the real world:

—"That? That's a species of butterfly, Anartia amathea. And that's clearly Goliathus scarabaeidae, a type of dung beetle."
—"Hmmm. And what's that large... thing, over there?"
—"I... I don't know, it's just... too big for me to identify. Could be a bear, maybe, or a whale. No way to tell. We'd better summon the head of the faculty, I hear he can identify bears, sometimes, if they're small enough."

Other amusing consequences of this rule:

—No one, no one can identify the Tarrasque. Maybe a sagely demi-god could, but certainly no mere mortal.
—Dragons start off fairly easy to identify when they're born, but they quickly start contorting themselves into weird, non-Euclidian shapes as they age.'

 

[Li Shenron]

How many people can identify an elephant? In the regular D&D world, not many, unless they come from an area where elephants are common.

Exactly It depends how common they are, not how big they are.