D&D 5E How do you handle monster knowledges in your game?

[Hriston]

If the player rolls high on an Intelligence check to recall information about a monster, meaning they succeed on the check, then their PC remembers the particular details are true that the player stated as having been those the PC was trying to recall.

 

[Smackpixi]

I relay info in plain text, not stats. I use A5e lore info for checks (if available) where appropriate, sometimes the party can’t know anything, then they don’t roll. I’m not super finicky about who asks for a check if they know anything, “Bob” may ask for a knowledge check, but if “Eric” is the the one holding the Draconomicon, I suggest he would know the most and role, we’re not doing 4 roles. They can ask mid combat.

I’ll ask if anyone thinks there’s a reason they would know about this particular monster, good answer lowers the DC, or eliminates it, if your backstory includes, “I witnessed my mom get eaten by an owlbear” then, I allow you know about owlbears.

General rule is I have to be able to imagine a way they might know a thing about a monster, then it’s posssibly knowable on an awesome roll. And I have a good imagination. They don’t need past experience, or past experience with someone that might know. Like, “oh, you did notice some of the rocks along the hallway into the room looked like they’d been eaten by acid”.

In short, I wing it and make up on the spot, unless I have a more prepared answer (A5e MM).

 

[GMMichael]

A monster is immune to something? Then one of the players figures it out when they attack and it doesn't do anything. All that means is that one player loses a turn's worth of action but then everyone is now up-to-date. Not a big loss for anyone to worry about.

Erm, it could also mean that none of the PCs' attacks will do anything. Does a Knowledge check have retcon powers? "You've heard that these creatures can't be cloven," ::looks at a whole party of axe-wielding dwarves:: "so you brought a stiletto, just in case."

I like the idea of having a chart with, say, 6 things on it about the monster -- 2 of which are false. If the PC rolls an appropriate check DC 10+CR, they learn one thing, plus an additional thing for every 5 points above. These are rolled randomly and may include the false information.

of course, this requires a bunch of prep or being able to do it on the fly.

Good call noting that study is different from experience. It would still suck to roll 82 and act on the false information.

What if the Knowledge check doesn't determine what you know, and instead determines if you figure it out fast enough to still take a combat action that round? What if a good roll means that you gather enough info about the creature to jog your memory without aggravating it?

Why do that? Just read about the rules fights here. AND WE ALL HAVE THE BOOKS!

I mean, this is the easiest way to go. If your check is high enough, you get to open your copy of the Monster Manual. And the result is how many seconds you have until the DM ends your turn.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Erm, it could also mean that none of the PCs' attacks will do anything. Does a Knowledge check have retcon powers? "You've heard that these creatures can't be cloven," ::looks at a whole party of axe-wielding dwarves:: "so you brought a stiletto, just in case."

In my 40+ years of playing I have never once ever had or seen a party of PCs that have all wielded the same exact style of weapon or type of magic and thus were all unable to attack a creature with a specific immunity. So around my neck of the woods your comment is an extreme corner case that I'm never going to have to deal with.

If others have seen that, then stalker0 is more than welcome to use their suggestions for monster checks rather than mine. Doesn't matter to me none.

 

[Stalker0]

So the jist from the e summary is I give out WAY WAY WAY more monster info than most people here. Looks like the majority of posters only give basic info and very little actual stat notes

 

[Micah Sweet]

So the jist from the e summary is I give out WAY WAY WAY more monster info than most people here. Looks like the majority of posters only give basic info and very little actual stat notes

Yeah, that's how I do it. But then, in my game there are class features some PCs have that explicitly let them find out more about the creatures they're facing, so just giving them mechanics wouldn't serve my needs.

 

[Reynard]

One of my "bucket list" campaigns is one in which every single monster is a unique entity. In that campaign, which would be built around hunting those monsters, research and theory would be big parts of it. And sometimes the sources would be wrong, and many would certainly be incomplete.

I don't think I would use "skill checks" at all in that case. What would be the point? Instead, I would probably use tables with various kinds of info, and how and where the PCs went looking would determine which table to use. Like, you might go consult an oracle and ask 3 yes/no questions. Or, you might find a bard who wrote stories about the monster and hope they did not exaggerate and invent too much.

Edits: grammar, do you speak it?

 

[GMMichael]

One of my "bucket list" campaigns is one in which every single monster is a unique enttity. In that campaign, which would be built around hunting those monsters, research and theory would be big parts of it. And sometimes the sources would be wrong, and many would certainly be incomplete.
i don't think i would use "skill checks" at all in that case. What would be the point. instead I would probably use tables with various kinds of info, and how and where the PCs went looking would determine which table. Like, you might go consult an oracle and ask 3 yes/no questions. or, you might find a bard who wrote stories about the monster and hope they did not exaggerate and invent too much.

My preference is a good, old-fashioned reconnoiter, preferably while the creature is eating another party of heroes.

 

[Reynard]

My preference is a good, old-fashioned reconnoiter, preferably while the creature is eating another party of heroes.

That's step 2.
Step 3: profit?

 

[Horwath]

if they roll 30+, I basically hand over the MM.