To answer 2 questions at once: Yes, three people at the table have maxed out the relevent knowledge skills. As for seperating character knowledge from player knowledge, how on earth do you expect to enforce that? Once you know a troll will die if you set it on fire, the players aren't very well going to just lie back and have the crap kicked out of them.
Consistency is the refuge of small minds, I never said I indulged in it. But, I do see slapping a new appearance over an old monster as lazy rather than creative. Players, you see, are smart. After about 30 seconds of being shot at by disintegrating rays, they're going to get the jist and smash your crystal birdie from behind with a .50 Sorcerer Special. When the many-tentacled horror starts pulling itself back together, they're going to set it on fire like they would the Troll you based it on. Then, they're going to wonder why it didn't have fourteen attacks, and ponder on the believeability that the crystal bird had all-round vision and wasn't effected by shatter spells.
Plus, there's a lazyness factor. If you can come up with the visual of a cool-looking diamond bird with razor claws that, say, uses the sun's rays to focus heat blasts on its enemies then eats the carbon-based deposits left over from the flame afterwards (and probably lives in a desert), why can't you give it statistics yourself? It's not hard, the hardest part is deciding on a CR. And, for all your 'hard' work, you have a damn fine and memorable encounter that your PCs will absolutely LOVE. They may also feel a greater sense of achievement from solving the problem without the aid of the books.
And yes. my players do know all four monster manuals back to front, by virtue of more than 100 years of gaming experience between the five of us. Back when we were playing 1st edition, I knew almost every monster, it's basic capabilities and generally the best way to kill it. Players are smart, they read the books too and they know when you're trying to pull a fast one.
Consistency is the refuge of small minds, I never said I indulged in it. But, I do see slapping a new appearance over an old monster as lazy rather than creative. Players, you see, are smart. After about 30 seconds of being shot at by disintegrating rays, they're going to get the jist and smash your crystal birdie from behind with a .50 Sorcerer Special. When the many-tentacled horror starts pulling itself back together, they're going to set it on fire like they would the Troll you based it on. Then, they're going to wonder why it didn't have fourteen attacks, and ponder on the believeability that the crystal bird had all-round vision and wasn't effected by shatter spells.
Plus, there's a lazyness factor. If you can come up with the visual of a cool-looking diamond bird with razor claws that, say, uses the sun's rays to focus heat blasts on its enemies then eats the carbon-based deposits left over from the flame afterwards (and probably lives in a desert), why can't you give it statistics yourself? It's not hard, the hardest part is deciding on a CR. And, for all your 'hard' work, you have a damn fine and memorable encounter that your PCs will absolutely LOVE. They may also feel a greater sense of achievement from solving the problem without the aid of the books.
And yes. my players do know all four monster manuals back to front, by virtue of more than 100 years of gaming experience between the five of us. Back when we were playing 1st edition, I knew almost every monster, it's basic capabilities and generally the best way to kill it. Players are smart, they read the books too and they know when you're trying to pull a fast one.
