D&D 5E Is looking in the books O.K

[TallIan]

No, as others have died the players should play according to the characters experience.

I had a game where the BBEG was a wearboar. Despite knowing his weapon was useless the barbarian charged him recklessly and continued to hit him through the whole fight despite all the IC evidence that he wasn't hurting it. His character is supposed to be simple and loves hitting big things with his axe, so guess who got inspiration that session.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[Dausuul]

I am DMing a game in 5e and was wondering if it was "allowed" or "O.K" for the players to look at the stats of the monster they are fighting in the Monster Manual....i am leaning toward not allowing it because seeing its stats and knowing what can hurt it more or what will do less damage i consider meta-gaming.

I homebrew a lot of the monsters in my campaign. When I do use monsters out of the MM, I often tinker with their stats. And I don't immediately announce the name of the thing they're fighting.

So, if my players want to guess what the monster is, look it up, and rely on the stats in the book to guide their strategy... all I can say is, they're welcome to try.

 

[Helldritch]

Players already have access to some monsters via the PHB. Otherwise, it is a loud noway. I have a player that has memorized the MM. Guess what? I simply changed some monsters. He used to often say: It can't do that. My answer was you bet it can and I showed him the modified stat which could be only one shot, or recurring. He simply stopped arguing with me on monsters' stats.

The monsters in the MM are simply guidelines. Use them as you see fit.

 

[Queer Venger]

I am DMing a game in 5e and was wondering if it was "allowed" or "O.K" for the players to look at the stats of the monster they are fighting in the Monster Manual....i am leaning toward not allowing it because seeing its stats and knowing what can hurt it more or what will do less damage i consider meta-gaming.

as a DM I strongly discourage my players from opening the DMG or the MM; if necessary, (polymorph or Druid shape shift) I'll allow the player to reference the appropriate stats, beyond that I do not allow players at my tables to use those 2 books.

My table, my rules ;-)

 

[jasper]

hMM. At the Table depends on player. I would allow it on say DC 18 nature etc check. BUT you only know what your pc would be worried about. AC yes for all. Spellcasting yes for all. Exact spells only spell casters with same spell on lists.
Off table I don't care.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

One thing I feel I should add:
I normally tend to tell my players if an attack is especially effective or uneffective barring special circumstances.

I also relate near hits or misses so my players can gauge the strength a bit and tell if a shield spell may help.

I roll hidden usually so the can only guess the attack bonus however and only roughly tell about the hp. Bloodied and tumbling etc.

Its about fairness. I am better telling my players how the fights look like in theater of mind modus because i don't have to focus on the board... fights are more alive there.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Only exception where it's possibly allowed is in PBP. We often post monster blocks in a spoiler block or the Rogue's Gallery. It allows for better narrative flow in writing to know whether you hit or miss or make the save.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[Beleriphon]

At the table when I'm playing? No, that's bad form sir, bad form indeed.

Otherwise, I'm a big fan of who cares. Once the players fight a monster once, the mystery is gone and fighting the same monster in the future requires the DM to try a bit harder to come up with a move interesting environment for the fight to take place.

Lets look a troll for example, maybe just maybe what makes the troll interesting as an opponent is the regeneration. Using fire can over come this, but what if the fight happens in a place where fire is a bad idea, a coal mine full of coal dust for example.

 

[pdzoch]

One thing I feel I should add:
I normally tend to tell my players if an attack is especially effective or uneffective barring special circumstances.

I also relate near hits or misses so my players can gauge the strength a bit and tell if a shield spell may help.

I roll hidden usually so the can only guess the attack bonus however and only roughly tell about the hp. Bloodied and tumbling etc.

Its about fairness. I am better telling my players how the fights look like in theater of mind modus because i don't have to focus on the board... fights are more alive there.

This is an important point. The adventure is not only about achieving goals, but about the exploration and discovering that moves the story along in the game. Just as new fantastic sights are discovered and learned and just as new magic items are discovered and learned, so should new monsters be a discovery and learning experience. Unfolding the monster capabilities to the players is part of the story telling. Even simple clues that indicate their attacks appear more or less effective are important story telling items that the DM should always be prepared to provide the players. This is REALLY how the characters learn that the enemy is vulnerable to fire, or immune to sleep, etc. This is really how they learn the monster has spell casting ability, has blindsense, or can speak!

I homebrew a lot of the monsters in my campaign. When I do use monsters out of the MM, I often tinker with their stats. And I don't immediately announce the name of the thing they're fighting.

So, if my players want to guess what the monster is, look it up, and rely on the stats in the book to guide their strategy... all I can say is, they're welcome to try.

I also make lots of changes to the monsters as necessary to the story. Many years ago I had a player or two who attempted to exploit their knowledge of the monsters during the game. They were horribly disappointed when they decided to slice open the roper (an act they never done before to any other monster) to NOT find some gem they expected to be inside. There was a frustrating moment when the monster they were fighting had class levels and a magic weapon, raising the threat of the monster higher than the monster manual and changing its attacks. One players stood up indignantly "They are not supposed to have that!" because of what he read in the monster manual.


Players need to interact with the world as it is presented to them and play accordingly; not rely on other material to gain an advantage in the game the character would not have or game the DM's world. No good come from allowing players access to the monster manual during the game (or more specifically, during an encounter with a monster).

 

[pdzoch]

At the table when I'm playing? No, that's bad form sir, bad form indeed.

Otherwise, I'm a big fan of who cares. Once the players fight a monster once, the mystery is gone and fighting the same monster in the future requires the DM to try a bit harder to come up with a move interesting environment for the fight to take place.

Lets look a troll for example, maybe just maybe what makes the troll interesting as an opponent is the regeneration. Using fire can over come this, but what if the fight happens in a place where fire is a bad idea, a coal mine full of coal dust for example.

I'm not sure I agree that once a monster is fought, then the players know about a monster. I've seen players use fire against a monster not because of a tactical decision based on the monster's weakness, but instead based on their default method of attack. I will described the effectiveness of the attack, but I will also allow the players to make whatever conclusion they draw from it. Generally, the group figures out a parts of a monster's capabilities and failings, but they seldom learn everything about a monster with just one encounter.

In the past, I've had encounters go so well for a group that the monster never got to employ some of the special capabilities. I'm not about to let on that the monster still has the undiscovered capability without there being a rational story base reason for it. Maybe the next encounter against the same type of monster will go very differently.

Once exception to monster knowledge, the Ranger's preferred enemy trait. For humanoids, I will allow access to the monster manual in those unique instances where the ranger is encountering their preferred enemy. For the other categories, I will provide generous details about commonalities of each type and allow the ranger to roll an easy DC skill check for the more specific details about the specific monster in the category.