Monstet Knowledge

[KahlessNestor]

When I was starting out playing D&D as a kid, I never asked "what do I know about these monsters?"

I was at the edge of my seat, looking at older kids to figure out what they knew, asking the DM what it looked like, what it smelled like, did it notice me, was it standing in oil, etc. It never would have occurred to me to ask...it would probably have taken the fun out of figuring it out for myself

The whole idea of monster knowledge checks are predicated upon your players even knowing that's a thing, usually for players conscious of meta-gaming to separate player-knowledge from character-knowledge.

But for new players? Nah, don't worry about it. If it is important for your story, just tell them flat out, otherwise don't worry about it until the moment in play comes up (and it may not for quite some time).

Well, I figure some of them might know. The paladin has played 5e. The rogue has played Pathfinder, though not 5e. The fighter and wizard are new. And I'm considering prompting when seeing a new creature, since I think that would be a fairly natural response to check what one knows before engagjng in conflict.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I've done different things for different campaigns. In my current 5e game, the setting is very much "Points of Light" with the land literally overrun by monsters. Outside of your well-fortified town is the UNKNOWN. Thus, it's very fitting to keep the players and their PCs in the dark about monster abilities. A previous campaign was set around a league of know-it-all wizards in a bog-standard D&D realm, so I was pretty free with the info.

At the same time, I tend to give out the likely capabilities of monsters which are more or less accurate. "This thing looks extremely dangerous" or "It might be able to grab you with its tentacles/swallow you in one bite/shoot spines at you/leap great distances". I tend to give this info out to fighter-types a lot, since sizing up the enemy is something fighters should be able to do.

 

[iserith]

How do you telegraph this stuff? Sure, maybe shifty goblins goblins can be telegraphed a bit, but how is a player to know that's not just fluffy description from a flowery DM and actual knowledge he should glean? Hoe do yo I telegraph immunity to fire? Have him burn himself with a cigarette? Why? Or a troll vulnerability to acid? Player characters should have some recourse to knowledge apsrt from just trusting the DM. Heck, I'm a newbie DM, so I don't even trust myself! [emoji6]

A player should know that listening to the DM's descriptions is worthwhile because he or she can make informed decisions based on that description. On the DM's side, the DM must ensure that the player's informed decisions have an actual impact on the character's chances of success, be it automatically successful, advantage on a check, or a lower DC.

Immunity to fire is easily telegraphed by having the monster walk through fire. It's both dramatic and useful. You should probably include fire hazards in the challenge since it probably hurts the PCs and not the monster.

You could telegraph a troll's vulnerability to acid by describing that the only scars visible on this brute are burn scars. From there, the player can try to deduce what that means.

 

[Imaculata]

I usually just tell my players right away if their character knows something. For example, with Aberrations and magical creatures, I inform any spell casters of the basics that their class would know about such creatures. No roll required. Clerics and Paladins will know things about undead, Rangers and Druids know things about plants and animals, and bards will have heard a thing or two about legendary creatures.

When it comes to specific weaknesses and powers, I usually ask for a knowledge check. Sometimes my players even ask me directly if they can make a knowledge check to figure something out about a creature. Which is totally fine by me.

So what happens if they fail the check? Well, I never give them wrong information, but the knowledge may be incomplete.

For example, in one of my campaigns the party stumbled upon a group of skeletal guards with bright green glowing eyes, in an underground lair. The cleric wanted to know if the skeletons could hear them, so I figured that would be a knowledge check.

Since he failed his check, I informed him that as far as he could tell the skeletons were at least able to see, despite not having actual eyes. The magical green glow in their eye sockets seemed to give them the power to see, even in complete darkness. But there was no glow around their ears. It was not impossible that they could also hear. I told him that he knew that some undead could hear, such as zombies and mummies. But the only way to figure out for sure if the skeletons could also hear, would be to test it.

So right there I give them incomplete information on a failed check. There are hints towards the answer (the skeletons were deaf btw), and there is also a hint towards a possible solution to find out the answer. I give them options, even if the information is a bit lacking. But I never give them wrong information.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

How do you telegraph this stuff?

One part having told my players that there aren't going to be rolls to determine what they do or don't know about monsters, the determination will be made entirely by the characters knowing anything consider common folk lore by the setting (and establishing that short-list of info that consists of things like poison not working on anything not living, silver and magic being needed to harm the supernatural, and creatures from other planes of existence being resistant or immune to certain elements because the elements are only in balance on the material plane), anything that their specific character backgrounds suggest knowing (such as a librarian probably knowing a bunch of stuff in general, a sailor being familiar with aquatic and coastal creatures, a warlock having knowledge relevant to the variety of creature they made a pact with, and so on), and anything that they'd not have had any chance at all to have learned.

And one part me describing creatures as well as I can, plus being more overt about a detail if a player has obviously missed a hint I thought I'd made clear.

...how is a player to know that's not just fluffy description from a flowery DM and actual knowledge he should glean?

Because the DM has said "I'll be describing things so that you have the knowledge you need, it's not just me being flowery."

Hoe do yo I telegraph immunity to fire?

Depends on the origin of said immunity. Some creatures it is as simple as "these creatures seem comfortable despite the sweltering heat here," because I use those creatures in their preferred habitat rather than somewhere that leaves them entirely out of context (i.e. flame snakes encounter in hot places, near/in fire/lava).

Other creatures don't need any more telegraphing than to describe their appearance (look at a fire elemental or a magmin for example).

Many creatures also have a coloration that resembles fire or evokes the idea of fire, so that helps a player think just like one would when playing a video game that has elemental affinity/weakness and seeing a creature colored in reds, oranges, and yellows.

Then, there are the creatures that I don't need to telegraph the specific resistance to fire - just their fiendish nature, which implies the elemental resistance on its own.

If you'd like a more specific answer, just pick me out a monster and I'll explain how I'd telegraph it's details to my players.

Or a troll vulnerability to acid?

Trolls are a thing which fall into common folk knowledge in my campaigns because they are common enough in the world and near enough to normal civilization, plus unique enough in their appearance as to be easily identified (no other green, rubbery, giants with nasty teeth and sharp claws to confuse them with), that everybody living near where trolls live knows to bring fire and/or acid to deal with them.

Player characters should have some recourse to knowledge apsrt from just trusting the DM. Heck, I'm a newbie DM, so I don't even trust myself! [emoji6]

Some recourse, certainly. Recourse in the form of a roll? I much prefer recourse in the form of not having to roll for most things because it is already known, entirely unknowable, or "I go do research on local monsters so that I'm not caught unaware of their capabilities when faced with them" making things known over the idea that even after background or action suggests knowledge has been gained a die roll is called for.

 

[Imaculata]

My players battled a creature a while back that simply had a very high armor class. So I simply told them that the creature was heavily armored, with some soft spots in between the joints. The creature would be hard to hit, but didn't look invulnerable to damage, as long as their weapons would hit their mark.

That is but an example of foreshadowing the abilities or statistics of a creature. You could do the same with immunity to fire, or damage resistance.

For example, when one of my players struck a monster with damage resistance, I told him that despite hitting the monster in a vulnerable area, it was very difficult to get through the thick skin of the creature. It would require a very powerful blow to make more than just a scratch.

 

[Quickleaf]

Well, I figure some of them might know. The paladin has played 5e. The rogue has played Pathfinder, though not 5e. The fighter and wizard are new. And I'm considering prompting when seeing a new creature, since I think that would be a fairly natural response to check what one knows before engagjng in conflict.

Ah, I took your OP to mean they were new to tabletop gaming. Well, especially if they have experience in 3e or Pathfinder, then yes, definitely you'll want to let them know your decision to include monster knowledge checks and what the parameters you're using are.

 

[biotech66]

I'd give that out at DC20 with the rest of the stat block. Also, things might get a bit easier as the players fight more stuff. You spent the last three levels fighting demons and the next thing you fight is a demon and you only hit a DC10? You know its a demon and you get all the base demon things. All the other fun, I reserve for about DC20.

I think with the base idea of DnD 5e, don't sweat too much. Higher gets you more, but the game doesn't try to hid as much about the monsters as say DCC RPG. Not that that's bad, but its more game philosophy.