Monster Knowledge: How much info?

[OchreJelly]

My players have enjoyed making use of the monster knowledge check. I think it's a nice built in feature and a good way to use "scholarly skills" in a combat encounter. The PHB says a DC 20 check reveals the creatures powers (for Heroic tier). Typically I won't just hand them the MM and say read the powers. I tend to paraphrase it. Like:

"You know that ghouls have a debilitating touch. It causes your limbs to go rigid, holding your legs in place. Its bite is worse, which causes further paralysis."

I'm beginning to wonder if I should be more explicit like saying "the ghoul can immobilize and then stun on subsequent attacks". I'm curious to see how other DMs are handling this.

 

[Nebulous]

My players haven't used this much yet, although they're aware of it. I think that in the heat of battle they just tend to forget, and i don't remind them.

I imagine that when they come across their first solo monster (like the Blue Slime in KotS) they'll be scrambling for some sort of advantage before someone dies.

 

[James McMurray]

I usually pick a power or two and describe them in flavor terms, but in a way that knowing the game mechanics isn't too hard. For instance, an Evistro "goes into a frenzy when it smells blood, and hunts in packs that work with each other to quickly bring down prey." This tells the players that you don't want to get bloodied or surrounded by Evistros without saying "they get extra minor action bite attacks if you're bloodied and +3 to hit when there's another Evistro adjacent to you."

 

[ExploderWizard]

It really does depend on the monster. A relatively common beasty might be known about rather well but a powerful creature that few (if any!) have faced and lived might be unknown. In the most extreme case the PC's may never have even heard about such a creature much less its abilities.

 

[James McMurray]

Isn't that what the Lore check is for, to determine if they've heard about it?

 

[Mr. Teapot]

"You know that ghouls have a debilitating touch. It causes your limbs to go rigid, holding your legs in place. Its bite is worse, which causes further paralysis."

If you told me that, I'd assume that the claw makes me immobilized and that the bite causes Helplessness/weakened/Dazed/something similar.

Which is pretty good. What I'd do as GM is say something more or less like what you say, and then clarify in rules terms if the players asked "Does that mean immobilized?" or the like. They should get enough information that they can make intelligent tactical decisions based on the information (since they payed for it by being trained in Knowledge skills and such).

 

[OchreJelly]

If you told me that, I'd assume that the claw makes me immobilized and that the bite causes Helplessness/weakened/Dazed/something similar.

Which is pretty good. What I'd do as GM is say something more or less like what you say, and then clarify in rules terms if the players asked "Does that mean immobilized?" or the like. They should get enough information that they can make intelligent tactical decisions based on the information (since they payed for it by being trained in Knowledge skills and such).

Yeah that's about the direction I go with it. It's kind of a balance between immersion/flavor and crunch presentation. Often they don't push for more information beyond the flavorful approach.

 

[Gort]

If you told me that, I'd assume that the claw makes me immobilized and that the bite causes Helplessness/weakened/Dazed/something similar.

Which is pretty good. What I'd do as GM is say something more or less like what you say, and then clarify in rules terms if the players asked "Does that mean immobilized?" or the like. They should get enough information that they can make intelligent tactical decisions based on the information (since they payed for it by being trained in Knowledge skills and such).

Agreed. I like to keep "in character" as a GM, but if someone asks me a rules question I'll answer it. As you say, they took the trouble to learn about monsters specifically so they'd get a tactical advantage they can use, and the rules (and the way they're implemented) should reflect that.

 

[Staffan]

I'd give them general information, but no hard numbers. For example, if they're fighting an adult white dragon, I'd say "It can breathe frost that will slow and weaken you," not "Its breath weapon is a close blast 5 that recharges on a 5 and does 4d6+6 cold damage and makes you slowed and weakened until you save."

 

[demonking1]

I would give them a rough sketch of the power, for example, "Specters have a barrage that can knock people over".