Is knowledge about monster types inherent?
$begingroup$
Does my character inherently know what the traits of each monster type are (such as vermin or undead being immune to mind-affecting spells) or do I need to make a knowledge roll for that?
pathfinder monsters knowledge-check
edited 5 hours ago
V2Blast
23.4k375148
asked 5 hours ago
NejosanNejosan
276210
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Does my character inherently know what the traits of each monster type are (such as vermin or undead being immune to mind-affecting spells) or do I need to make a knowledge roll for that?
pathfinder monsters knowledge-check
edited 5 hours ago
V2Blast
23.4k375148
asked 5 hours ago
NejosanNejosan
276210
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Does my character inherently know what the traits of each monster type are (such as vermin or undead being immune to mind-affecting spells) or do I need to make a knowledge roll for that?
pathfinder monsters knowledge-check
edited 5 hours ago
V2Blast
23.4k375148
asked 5 hours ago
NejosanNejosan
276210
$endgroup$
Does my character inherently know what the traits of each monster type are (such as vermin or undead being immune to mind-affecting spells) or do I need to make a knowledge roll for that?
pathfinder monsters knowledge-check
pathfinder monsters knowledge-check
edited 5 hours ago
V2Blast
23.4k375148
asked 5 hours ago
NejosanNejosan
276210
edited 5 hours ago
V2Blast
23.4k375148
asked 5 hours ago
NejosanNejosan
276210
edited 5 hours ago
V2Blast
23.4k375148
edited 5 hours ago
V2Blast
23.4k375148
edited 5 hours ago
V2Blast
23.4k375148
23.4k375148
asked 5 hours ago
NejosanNejosan
276210
asked 5 hours ago
NejosanNejosan
276210
asked 5 hours ago
NejosanNejosan
276210
276210
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is not spelled out in the rules, and will come down to table conventions. Some GMs may treat anything in any Bestiary as confidential info during a game session, others might treat it as open knowledge.
At my own tables, I treat all general rules information (i.e. monster type details, universal monster rules mechanics etc) as public knowledge, and any monster-specific information as being off-limits without a check. Even knowing for sure what monster type a given creature is should require a basic monster knowledge check.
In a similar fashion, Spellcraft covers knowledge of what spells do and are capable of, but players generally need to know the mechanics for their spells, and so access to this information is normally allowed without restriction. But, if an NPC is using an unusual or rare spell, I might not allow players to look the information up without a check.
answered 4 hours ago
YogoZunoYogoZuno
11.4k22867
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Would this imply a reasoning like "Okay, that guy's flesh is rotten so he's probably some kind of undead and I shouldn't cast color spray" would be unacceptable?
$endgroup$
– Nejosan
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@nejosan It's difficult to say without more details, but maybe...if the character in question has never encountered any undead, and has no training in Religion, then it's hard to justify as anything other than player knowledge.
$endgroup$
– YogoZuno
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142526%2fis-knowledge-about-monster-types-inherent%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is not spelled out in the rules, and will come down to table conventions. Some GMs may treat anything in any Bestiary as confidential info during a game session, others might treat it as open knowledge.
At my own tables, I treat all general rules information (i.e. monster type details, universal monster rules mechanics etc) as public knowledge, and any monster-specific information as being off-limits without a check. Even knowing for sure what monster type a given creature is should require a basic monster knowledge check.
In a similar fashion, Spellcraft covers knowledge of what spells do and are capable of, but players generally need to know the mechanics for their spells, and so access to this information is normally allowed without restriction. But, if an NPC is using an unusual or rare spell, I might not allow players to look the information up without a check.
answered 4 hours ago
YogoZunoYogoZuno
11.4k22867
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Would this imply a reasoning like "Okay, that guy's flesh is rotten so he's probably some kind of undead and I shouldn't cast color spray" would be unacceptable?
$endgroup$
– Nejosan
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@nejosan It's difficult to say without more details, but maybe...if the character in question has never encountered any undead, and has no training in Religion, then it's hard to justify as anything other than player knowledge.
$endgroup$
– YogoZuno
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is not spelled out in the rules, and will come down to table conventions. Some GMs may treat anything in any Bestiary as confidential info during a game session, others might treat it as open knowledge.
At my own tables, I treat all general rules information (i.e. monster type details, universal monster rules mechanics etc) as public knowledge, and any monster-specific information as being off-limits without a check. Even knowing for sure what monster type a given creature is should require a basic monster knowledge check.
In a similar fashion, Spellcraft covers knowledge of what spells do and are capable of, but players generally need to know the mechanics for their spells, and so access to this information is normally allowed without restriction. But, if an NPC is using an unusual or rare spell, I might not allow players to look the information up without a check.
answered 4 hours ago
YogoZunoYogoZuno
11.4k22867
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Would this imply a reasoning like "Okay, that guy's flesh is rotten so he's probably some kind of undead and I shouldn't cast color spray" would be unacceptable?
$endgroup$
– Nejosan
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@nejosan It's difficult to say without more details, but maybe...if the character in question has never encountered any undead, and has no training in Religion, then it's hard to justify as anything other than player knowledge.
$endgroup$
– YogoZuno
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is not spelled out in the rules, and will come down to table conventions. Some GMs may treat anything in any Bestiary as confidential info during a game session, others might treat it as open knowledge.
At my own tables, I treat all general rules information (i.e. monster type details, universal monster rules mechanics etc) as public knowledge, and any monster-specific information as being off-limits without a check. Even knowing for sure what monster type a given creature is should require a basic monster knowledge check.
In a similar fashion, Spellcraft covers knowledge of what spells do and are capable of, but players generally need to know the mechanics for their spells, and so access to this information is normally allowed without restriction. But, if an NPC is using an unusual or rare spell, I might not allow players to look the information up without a check.
answered 4 hours ago
YogoZunoYogoZuno
11.4k22867
$endgroup$
This is not spelled out in the rules, and will come down to table conventions. Some GMs may treat anything in any Bestiary as confidential info during a game session, others might treat it as open knowledge.
At my own tables, I treat all general rules information (i.e. monster type details, universal monster rules mechanics etc) as public knowledge, and any monster-specific information as being off-limits without a check. Even knowing for sure what monster type a given creature is should require a basic monster knowledge check.
In a similar fashion, Spellcraft covers knowledge of what spells do and are capable of, but players generally need to know the mechanics for their spells, and so access to this information is normally allowed without restriction. But, if an NPC is using an unusual or rare spell, I might not allow players to look the information up without a check.
answered 4 hours ago
YogoZunoYogoZuno
11.4k22867
answered 4 hours ago
YogoZunoYogoZuno
11.4k22867
answered 4 hours ago
YogoZunoYogoZuno
11.4k22867
answered 4 hours ago
YogoZunoYogoZuno
11.4k22867
11.4k22867
$begingroup$
Would this imply a reasoning like "Okay, that guy's flesh is rotten so he's probably some kind of undead and I shouldn't cast color spray" would be unacceptable?
$endgroup$
– Nejosan
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@nejosan It's difficult to say without more details, but maybe...if the character in question has never encountered any undead, and has no training in Religion, then it's hard to justify as anything other than player knowledge.
$endgroup$
– YogoZuno
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Would this imply a reasoning like "Okay, that guy's flesh is rotten so he's probably some kind of undead and I shouldn't cast color spray" would be unacceptable?
$endgroup$
– Nejosan
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@nejosan It's difficult to say without more details, but maybe...if the character in question has never encountered any undead, and has no training in Religion, then it's hard to justify as anything other than player knowledge.
$endgroup$
– YogoZuno
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Would this imply a reasoning like "Okay, that guy's flesh is rotten so he's probably some kind of undead and I shouldn't cast color spray" would be unacceptable?
$endgroup$
– Nejosan
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Would this imply a reasoning like "Okay, that guy's flesh is rotten so he's probably some kind of undead and I shouldn't cast color spray" would be unacceptable?
$endgroup$
– Nejosan
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@nejosan It's difficult to say without more details, but maybe...if the character in question has never encountered any undead, and has no training in Religion, then it's hard to justify as anything other than player knowledge.
$endgroup$
– YogoZuno
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@nejosan It's difficult to say without more details, but maybe...if the character in question has never encountered any undead, and has no training in Religion, then it's hard to justify as anything other than player knowledge.
$endgroup$
– YogoZuno
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142526%2fis-knowledge-about-monster-types-inherent%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
