Most amusing failed knowledge check results

[deadkitten]

So if a player fails a knowledge check to identify a monster, and fails horribly, what is the most amusing. misinformation you can think of to tell the character?

[Stratovarius]

He has discovered the dreaded dire chicken!

Or all that he has learned is the shape and size of the creature's diarrhea. Or its sexual habits. Or what it looks like from behind, upside down, while drunk on blood wine.

[Slippery_Chicken]

This is a jelly. Jellies are edible, sugary, harmless, and sometimes contain treasure. Spelunkers say the deliciousness is enhanced by completely immersing oneself in the jelly.

Cave Bears don't live in caves, and don't use their claws or teeth when attacking. It's only growling because it needs a hug.

[SorO_Lost]

Wolverines were domesticated almost 9,000 years ago, they are a peaceful animal enjoying naps and chasing bits of coiled string.

Edit - Someone needs to make a failed Knowledge Check archive of all the SRD Monsters. lol.

(click to show/hide)

Your torch reveals brown bug-like creature in front of you, it turns and begins coming your way.
*Check* It reminds you of a giant termite. Several sticks with gnawed on ends litter the floor confirming your suspicions, it is likely after your torch and probably immune to fire.

[Raineh Daze]

If you turn around and close your eyes, it will leave you alone.

[Gazzien]

From a Doctor-Who-cameo-game:

DM: "That is called a 'Fangirl Statue'. If you close your eyes, it will give you wonderful warm hugs."
Other character, who passed his knowledge check: "HE LIES!"

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Your avatar ... literally.


Near the start of 4e, I figured out the Umber Shadow Hulk was awesome.  The "debate" about it was depressingly stupid, and 4e C.O. never followed that nifty rabbit hole.  I got a Hello Kitty pic with graphics to represent the Umber Hulk.  M-Kay ;  so that became a default Knowledge check fail result for quite a while.

 

[Hades]

When fighting a tanar'ri "ok, that's TOTALLY a baatezu, and you remember that they've no resistance or immunity to electricity. Also, smite them with the power of Chaos"

Or the good old "you remember that dragons can breath only once per day"

[Leviathan]

Amusing to whom? If a failed knowledge check gets a character killed, it will probably amuse the DM, and might amuse other players, but the player who died won't think it's very funny.

If you want to be mean, a good paradigm is to describe a weakness as a strength, or a strength as a weakness:

• "Dragons are extremely dextrous; if you want to kill them with ability damage, go for Strength instead."
• "Beholders are most vulnerable to spells cast directly into their central eye."
• "Drow are always happy to meet surface elves, their long-lost cousins."

[Hades]

Another one is to play about monster that looks similar, but are hated enemies, like mistaking a githyanki for a githzerai.

It can lead to "nice" things like prising the legend of Zerthimon to a 'yanki.

Or telling things like "These are svirfneblin, deep gnomes. And since you know that drows ("deep elves") are utterly evil, duergars ("deep dwarves") are utterly evil, even those "deep gnomes" must be utterly evil!"

A very amusing one imho is the "reverse thing", like telling that a normal chest is actually a mimic, or that a statue is a gargoyle or a stone golem. It could be like "Eric and the Gazebo 2.0".

[Mortadelas]

Some time ago my party ventured through hell and the abyss with the unluckiest rolls ever.
5) "This is NOT a succubus, it is a cross-dressing Efreeti, it trades wishes for kisses"
4) "You pitty the fools that tried to fool you! This is obviously to small to be the river Styx and there are no other rivers in Hell...Disbelief requires interaction btw"
3) "The man inside the ice is called Levistus, the Crusader. Part of the Celestial Hebdomad Archons or CHA."
2) "These are fiendish bats. As everyone knows bat guano is the material compoment for fireball, fiendish bat guano is rare and gives fireball the "Hellfire" subtype, start gathering."
1) "Mephistophele's Truename is Arthur Brown"

[ZhonLord]

Meet an inevitable.  Roll knowledge, get "He's a large-sized Warforged with several augments.  Warforged are normally very calm friendly beings, but this one seems to be unusually angry about something.  Perhaps if you could find a way to hold it still for a few minutes and talk to it, it will explain what is going on."


They held it still.  And it lumped them in with the being it was sent to kill for interfering.  It became a recurring chase-villain for a lot of the campaign afterwards until they got strong enough to fight back.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I don't think a specific ruling was ever made about this sort of thing.

I've allowed a passive Knowledge check every round.
Some monsters are never i.d.'ed.
Others on say round 3 get a:  "It's a Feral-Skunk!!"

I prefer a 3.0e style special fail on a Natural 1.
That gets results like this thread.
Somebody gets it wrong, with possible very bad effects.

[Jackinthegreen]

"You know that this creature is in possession of a large club.  Chances are you're going to be hit with it."  Or simply "You don't recall anything relevant about this creature."

Do keep in mind that skill checks are not guaranteed lost on a nat 1 nor successful on a nat 20.  As the rules at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm read:

"Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure."

[Mortadelas]

I actually enjoy a catastrophic failure in things that can be RPed, like knowledge checks.
A Bard's failed knowledge check can spawn encounters and questlines searching for a spoon, that is funny.
A failed save can cause you to die/wipe, that is not really funny.

[deadkitten]

Amusing to whom? If a failed knowledge check gets a character killed, it will probably amuse the DM, and might amuse other players, but the player who died won't think it is very funny.

Probably should have clarified my group is perfectly fine with it.

Do keep in mind that skill checks are not guaranteed lost on a nat 1 nor successful on a nat 20.  As the rules at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm read:

"Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure."

My group prefers to play wit a nat 20 giving a +10 and a nat 1 giving a -10. I should have mentioned that so my bad.