Player's Owning the Monster Manual?

[Angcuru]

Why do I feel the sudden urge to spray this problem with febreez?

 

[Nikchick]

Re: Re: Re: Player's Owning the Monster Manual?

It's not the fact that they're in the book I didn't like. It's the fact that there are so many of them that it didn't leave room for more spells, any PrCs and any magic items.

Celestial summoning is the primary focus of the book. I have to admit, Joe, I find it kind of weird to harp on the fact that the book didn't include things it wasn't ever intended to include. It's a class of celestial summoners, and the celestials they summon.

Besides, the GM should have stats for this stuff too. In my opinion, there's so much focus on evil that we have very few references to how strong the forces of good are. The old Role Aids boxed set Sentinels covered this material in excellent detail too.

Well, yeah, but it's not like GMs can't buy the Avatar's Handbook or get use out of it as it is. If the GM wants celestials, they're in there. If they want to have NPC avatars (fighting the good fight alongside the PCs, or fighting the good fight against evil PCs) it's all there.

Ah well, I have to go to Vegas for GTS in a few hours, so I'm unlikely to have any more comments on this, but really, I think Chris and Jeff have the right attitude on this one.

Regards,
Nicole

edited to fix typos and make the darn post make sense!

 

[Gunslinger]

I countered with the logic behind that means that every player needs to own the DMG then for when they cast summoning spells.

In the games I play in, the players DO need at least at least 1 DMG between them so they can make informed decisions about which magic items to buy.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Is there really a huge problem with the players knowing the stats of what they (think they) face?

I DM. Because of that, I've read all the core books. I've pretty much memorised some 75% of the MM. (not exact stats, but certainly immunities, special attacks and defenses etc)

That means that other DM's have to trust me not to abuse that knowledge, or work with creatures which are different to those listed in the book.

If you really can't trust your players with that much, then can you trust them to hold their own character sheets?

 

[Janos Antero]

Well, if they've memorized the monster stats, so be it, ideally I wish they didn't, but I also can't control that. But I don't believe players should have access to every single monster statistic specifically because metagaming almost always rear's it's ugly head.

In an ideal world (or campaign in this case) that wouldn't be an issue, but otherwise I'd rather rule out situations entirely where this sort of thing can happen. It's a simple precaution. I can't think of any situation off hand where a character specifically needs to be looking at a monster as they fight it that doesn't involve metagaming.

Whereas with their sheet, that is information they are supposed to have.

Do you like your players reading a module as you play the module? Same situation in my mind.

 

[Starman]

It's so easy to change monsters in 3e, though, that I don't see the big deal in players knowing the MM in and out. You can add classes, put a different description on it (Monte Cook described once how he used a Winter Wolf but changed how it looked and gave it a different breath weapon. Voila!), be mysterious as to what the creature is (describe it vaguely in terms of what their character would know, not "You see a roper.")

As long as they aren't thumbing through the MM during play, you should be fine.

Starman

 

[hong]

Well, if they've memorized the monster stats, so be it, ideally I wish they didn't, but I also can't control that. But I don't believe players should have access to every single monster statistic specifically because metagaming almost always rear's it's ugly head.

I wouldn't like the players flipping through the MM during a battle, but that's because it slows the game down, not necessarily for metagaming reasons. As a compromise between practicality (you can't stop people reading the rulebooks on their own) and plausibility (PCs fighting a beholder for the first time shouldn't know what its abilities are), I generally assume that the PCs know all the book stats on monsters up to their CR. They've come across this information during campaign downtime, from talking to NPCs, doing research, divination spells, etc. However, I also reserve the right to _change_ the stats from what's in the book....

 

[Olive]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Player's Owning the Monster Manual?

...harp on the fact that the book didn't include things it wasn't ever intended to include. It's a class of celestial summoners, and the celestials they summon.

celestials... harping... there's a pun in there somewhere!!!

 

[Janos Antero]

As long as they aren't thumbing through the MM during play, you should be fine.

That was basically exactly what I meant. Honestly I could change monsters if I was so inclined, but I'd rather avoid that situation entirely, and just use the book ones for some encounters. As I said in my first post, my only complaint with players having and using the MM is characters checking the stats of monsters they are currently fighting.

If they do it after the fact, I don't care at all, and in fact it's often fun and a learning experience to discuss how they could have used different tactics to compensate for it's abilities overall.

 

[Olive]

more on topic, i've instituted a vague knowledge role kinda deal, where the players can look up their creatures summoned by succeding at a role... 20 + summon monster spell level or something like that.