Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I'm going to work this from both sides.
Should a player have access at the table to the PHB for information about their character? I think we can all say this is yes.
Should a player have access at the table to the adventure the DM is running? I think that we'll also get the consensus the answer is no.
So we have valid cases on both sides, and a lot of gray in the middle about player vs. DM information.
Should a player have as access at the table to the PHB to look up a spell a foe cast on their rogue? Very light gray - some DMs may not like it for some spells as it gives things away, but I'm firmly of the idea that the social contract says the PHB is a player book and they can know anything in it. (As players - their characters may not.) The PHB even includes common beasts that the player's should know, like low level wildshapes, their horses or pony's, familiars, etc.
Now, there are some valid points in the MM (and DMG) for players either explicitly or with DM permission. For example, summons, wildshape, and polymorph need to be able to reference. But by the same token the PHB reprints some information in Appendix D to keep this to a minimum. I feel that the intent here is that the MM is not a general player reference at the table, but may have specific needs.
On a personal side though ... I've been playing for the majority of my life. Even when I separate player knowledge from character knowledge, I know that a troll regenerates, the hierarchy of giant toughness, dragon's by color. Claiming that newer players shouldn't be able to take a look seems to be pushing them away.
On the gripping hand, last year we had a medusa encounter, and there was a question about resolving it's gaze attack that the DM asked the players their thoughts on (it is a really bad save-or-suck), and from that we learned it had a range limit. And at least one player's character "just happened" to be just outside that limit for the rest of the combat. So not everyone is good at separating player and character knowledge and is removing the temptation to metagame in that way a good thing?
I'm not sure there is a universal answer about unfettered MM access. Personally I tend towards restricted use of anything but the PHB at tables I'm at. And as a player I have pre-printed out polymorhs or wildshapes or whatever so I don't need the book. But half of that is not having to stick it in my bag and carry it.
I am about to run a game for all D&D newbies and since they are on the same playing field I'm asking them not to read anything in the MM so they can experience it first-hand - but because they are the same level there's no system masters vs. new player issues going on.
Should a player have access at the table to the PHB for information about their character? I think we can all say this is yes.
Should a player have access at the table to the adventure the DM is running? I think that we'll also get the consensus the answer is no.
So we have valid cases on both sides, and a lot of gray in the middle about player vs. DM information.
Should a player have as access at the table to the PHB to look up a spell a foe cast on their rogue? Very light gray - some DMs may not like it for some spells as it gives things away, but I'm firmly of the idea that the social contract says the PHB is a player book and they can know anything in it. (As players - their characters may not.) The PHB even includes common beasts that the player's should know, like low level wildshapes, their horses or pony's, familiars, etc.
Now, there are some valid points in the MM (and DMG) for players either explicitly or with DM permission. For example, summons, wildshape, and polymorph need to be able to reference. But by the same token the PHB reprints some information in Appendix D to keep this to a minimum. I feel that the intent here is that the MM is not a general player reference at the table, but may have specific needs.
On a personal side though ... I've been playing for the majority of my life. Even when I separate player knowledge from character knowledge, I know that a troll regenerates, the hierarchy of giant toughness, dragon's by color. Claiming that newer players shouldn't be able to take a look seems to be pushing them away.
On the gripping hand, last year we had a medusa encounter, and there was a question about resolving it's gaze attack that the DM asked the players their thoughts on (it is a really bad save-or-suck), and from that we learned it had a range limit. And at least one player's character "just happened" to be just outside that limit for the rest of the combat. So not everyone is good at separating player and character knowledge and is removing the temptation to metagame in that way a good thing?
I'm not sure there is a universal answer about unfettered MM access. Personally I tend towards restricted use of anything but the PHB at tables I'm at. And as a player I have pre-printed out polymorhs or wildshapes or whatever so I don't need the book. But half of that is not having to stick it in my bag and carry it.
I am about to run a game for all D&D newbies and since they are on the same playing field I'm asking them not to read anything in the MM so they can experience it first-hand - but because they are the same level there's no system masters vs. new player issues going on.