Does anyone know how much a character knows about certain monsters? If you say it's a common monster. Does he know the chalance rating or resistances or does my char always have to attack / spallatack and see if it does dmg?
Or say an army/monster could easily kill you. Does my character then get a hint about it?
Are there any rules or is it up to the DM to decide how much my character knows about it?
It's all up to the DM. There aren't really standardized rules for that kind of thing. Your DM might allow you to make an Arcana, Nature, or Religion check to let you know things about a certain monster. Maybe even History or something else entirely. It doesn't hurt to ask, as long as you're prepared to accept being denied.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
There is, in one of the expansion books, a list of skills associated with each type of monster (History for giants, Nature for beasts, etc). However, I don't think it includes any rules or advice for when to call for these checks or what to do if they succeed or fail.
It's one of the weaknesses of 5e in my opinion, though I'll admit I'm too deeply entrenched to have an unbiased opinion. I already know most common monsters, plus I know the general design tendencies needed to extrapolate the monsters I don't know. (Ex: If a monster uses a sword but it's standing alone against a party of 5th level heroes, I know that it will be dealing extra elemental damage with its weapon, probably necrotic damage or perhaps psychic or force damage. That extra damage will hurt more than the sword, probably 2 or 3 dice's worth.)
It’s not really something that universal rules can be made about, as it depends so much on your DM’s world and your character’s story. The questions are: are the facts I’m interested in common knowledge in this world? In my character’s culture? Does my character have reasons in their backstory to know about this creature?
The possible answers are: yes, you know; no, you can’t know; maybe you might know, in which case, roll a History/Arcana/Nature/Religion check.
The best approach is to ask the DM, "Would my character know anything about this?". This is a very common phrase at my table, and generally I use these as guidelines (unwritten until now):
Reasons you might know:
- Proficient in a relevant skill (nature, history, arcana, survival). - Backstory involves these creatures, or where they are from - Character did research something similar and may have found information then
If you might know, you roll a check of my choosing and I will narrate to you what you know. If you roll low, then you may know something if there are more than one reason to know, EG if you researched Yetis and your parents were killed in the icy north, and you're proficient in Nature, then even a nat 1 is going to get some info on a Yeti!
This also represents what you can recall in a split second. It's not that you don't know trolls are vulnerable to fire, it's that you can't recall if it's fire or ice or poison before they hit you.
One of the things I have for my extremely customized, original world, is a "booklet" of basic knowledge about certain common creatures encountered. It doesn't have pictures or anything, and it doesn't give them stats. It describes the monsters from the perspective of someone who lives in that world and has encountered them. The one for my next has about 40 entries right now, and it really doesn't tell them anything about stats.
It describes what worked in encounters with those beings for that person (or group of people). It is considered in the lore to be a common enough book that it has been heard of and seen, though the PCs may not have a copy of it when they start (but might acquire one).
Outside of that, it is a Nature check based on the character's background.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
As always ask your DM, most of my current games assume some basic knowledge of basic monsters like trolls and fire damage. This is under the assumption that in a world where trolls are a threat most races would have folk lore/kids stories about basic things like this. It is very game/setting dependent and I try to bring it up at session 0 because of this.
"Would my character know anything about this?" is a great way to handle it in game!
The more you play the harder it is not to metagame.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
As always ask your DM, most of my current games assume some basic knowledge of basic monsters like trolls and fire damage. This is under the assumption that in a world where trolls are a threat most races would have folk lore/kids stories about basic things like this. It is very game/setting dependent and I try to bring it up at session 0 because of this.
"Would my character know anything about this?" is a great way to handle it in game!
The more you play the harder it is not to metagame.
This, to me, really sums up what a character in game should have access to so far as knowing about monsters, regions, factions and everything else. Your character might have had a history of studying fiends, and the DM might, as a result, offer a lot more info on demons or devils when you encounter them. If you're a Grave Cleric, the DM might give you a boost on checks to recall or know things about undead (same for a Necromancy Wizard) Dwarves might bet advantage to know something about monsters found in the underdark, Elves might bet a boost to Fey creature knowledge and so on. Asking the DM what your character might reasonably know about a situation is usually best. In our group, we usually ask, in context, for example, my Monk has the Sage background and in his backstory I had him fascinated with Fiends, Demons and such. So when we encounter something Demon-like, I will sometimes ask if my background as a Sage and my interest in Fiends might have exposed me to some knowledge of this creature. Most times, it depends on how common the creature is. Something rare, I usually get some brief tidbits of info that I remember, while a more common fiend, I know a lot about.
Ask your DM is the answer, IMO.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
This is a little bit of a tangent, but, when y'all play video games, like let's say even the new D&D video game, do you try and act like you don't know your Fire Bolt cantrip is gonna be worthless against the imps in the first fight? Do you intentionally waste a turn shooting fire at the freaky little flying guys because it makes sense in your character's background that they don't know about imps?
I mean, it's a rough example because in BG3 you can just right click any monster and see if it's immune to fire, but still. I know I don't do that, myself. D&D's the only game I play where I don't brazenly carry in every ounce of tactical and lore knowledge I've picked up in my life.
Is it just because of the abstraction? Like, there's no DM you can ask, so you just kinda go, "eh, maybe he knows about imps, it's possible" and proceed? Or is it because there's no one else there who might get disappointed or annoyed by it? Or what?
Does anyone know how much a character knows about certain monsters? If you say it's a common monster. Does he know the chalance rating or resistances or does my char always have to attack / spallatack and see if it does dmg?
Or say an army/monster could easily kill you. Does my character then get a hint about it?
Are there any rules or is it up to the DM to decide how much my character knows about it?
Thx :)
You are into the world of meta-gaming, which is a form of cheating. And it is a grey, murky world. Does a 1st level PC know that a Rat bite may cause Disease? Sure, that would be reasonable. Would a 2nd level PC that has never had contact with a Shadow know that the Shadow incurs half-damage with non-magical weapons. The player might. The char should never know that.
A bad DM allows the player knowledge to become the char knowledge. A good DM watches carefully for that, adjudicates carefully, and when needed, reminds a player that "No, your char does not know that." That kind of thing annoys bad players. Good players never have to be reminded. The one thing I have seen time and time again is when the player wants to morph into some Beast the char has never had any contact with, and therefore should never be allowed to assume that form and abilities.
Does anyone know how much a character knows about certain monsters? If you say it's a common monster. Does he know the chalance rating or resistances or does my char always have to attack / spallatack and see if it does dmg?
Or say an army/monster could easily kill you. Does my character then get a hint about it?
Are there any rules or is it up to the DM to decide how much my character knows about it?
Thx :)
You are into the world of meta-gaming, which is a form of cheating.
A bad DM allows the player knowledge to become the char knowledge. A good DM watches carefully for that, adjudicates carefully, and when needed, reminds a player that "No, your char does not know that."
The above is entirely dependent on the preferences of the Table, and is not applicable to the game as a whole, nor is it accurate to say, and seeks to define for others how they play a game, which is, to use the words in play...
cheating.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Does anyone know how much a character knows about certain monsters? If you say it's a common monster. Does he know the chalance rating or resistances or does my char always have to attack / spallatack and see if it does dmg?
Or say an army/monster could easily kill you. Does my character then get a hint about it?
Are there any rules or is it up to the DM to decide how much my character knows about it?
Thx :)
You are into the world of meta-gaming, which is a form of cheating.
A bad DM allows the player knowledge to become the char knowledge. A good DM watches carefully for that, adjudicates carefully, and when needed, reminds a player that "No, your char does not know that."
The above is entirely dependent on the preferences of the Table, and is not applicable to the game as a whole, nor is it accurate to say, and seeks to define for others how they play a game, which is, to use the words in play...
cheating.
It is entirely dependent on the DM, not "The Table". The DM decides what is allowed at a table in such matters. The player does not get to say "My char's grandmother used to tell my char Annis Hags have resistance to Cold".
I think, as well, players and DM's usually agree on learned mechanics and details on monsters. The Shadows example above, the characters would notice the resistance on the first few swings of non-magical weaponry. In our games, we are told, after rolling the damage as the DM narrates the attack, it "didn't seem as effective as you expected" kind of things. We get an indicator that the blow looked and seemed like it should have been a solid smack, but seemed to flow through, or not have the solid impact you usually feel. Spells hit, but don't seem to bother the creature as much as the caster expects. Each party's knowledge of specific monsters or creatures is going to vary a lot, early on, depending on what they actually face. As well, there is always a chance that somoene's character background would offer a reason for them to know something about THAT monster.
We all seem to agree that circling back to "The DM decides if you'd know something" as the right answer.
**EDITED to add: When a lot of us say "The Table" we are referring to everyone, players and DM at the table. Everyone playing should agree on things. Players can propose reasons for things and the DM can agree or disagree as they see fit. The game is a group effort, so agreement on all fronts is what makes it the right call.
Does anyone know how much a character knows about certain monsters? If you say it's a common monster. Does he know the chalance rating or resistances or does my char always have to attack / spallatack and see if it does dmg?
Or say an army/monster could easily kill you. Does my character then get a hint about it?
Are there any rules or is it up to the DM to decide how much my character knows about it?
Thx :)
You are into the world of meta-gaming, which is a form of cheating.
A bad DM allows the player knowledge to become the char knowledge. A good DM watches carefully for that, adjudicates carefully, and when needed, reminds a player that "No, your char does not know that."
The above is entirely dependent on the preferences of the Table, and is not applicable to the game as a whole, nor is it accurate to say, and seeks to define for others how they play a game, which is, to use the words in play...
cheating.
It is entirely dependent on the DM, not "The Table". The DM decides what is allowed at a table in such matters. The player does not get to say "My char's grandmother used to tell my char Annis Hags have resistance to Cold".
My Gran told told me a tale of Annis the Hag when i was wee tot, twas a the winter she Married me Grandad . twas just afore the Feast of winter there was nary a snowflake to be found it twas so cold the trees shattered in the gale. Annis the Hag came to the edge of the village dressed in rags she unleashed her minions killing full half the village only to be driven off by a Cleric of Erek taking the storm with her...
There is no reference to resistance of any kind and it actually sound like lore and not metagaming Prove me wrong JustAfarmer
Does anyone know how much a character knows about certain monsters? If you say it's a common monster. Does he know the chalance rating or resistances or does my char always have to attack / spallatack and see if it does dmg?
Or say an army/monster could easily kill you. Does my character then get a hint about it?
Are there any rules or is it up to the DM to decide how much my character knows about it?
Thx :)
You are into the world of meta-gaming, which is a form of cheating.
A bad DM allows the player knowledge to become the char knowledge. A good DM watches carefully for that, adjudicates carefully, and when needed, reminds a player that "No, your char does not know that."
The above is entirely dependent on the preferences of the Table, and is not applicable to the game as a whole, nor is it accurate to say, and seeks to define for others how they play a game, which is, to use the words in play...
cheating.
It is entirely dependent on the DM, not "The Table". The DM decides what is allowed at a table in such matters. The player does not get to say "My char's grandmother used to tell my char Annis Hags have resistance to Cold".
My Gran told told me a tale of Annis the Hag when i was wee tot, twas a the winter she Married me Grandad . twas just afore the Feast of winter there was nary a snowflake to be found it twas so cold the trees shattered in the gale. Annis the Hag came to the edge of the village dressed in rags she unleashed her minions killing full half the village only to be driven off by a Cleric of Erek taking the storm with her...
There is no reference to resistance of any kind and it actually sound like lore and not metagaming Prove me wrong JustAfarmer
I once played with a kid. He was maybe 17. He told the DM, at the table, that his background was that as an Elf he had spent his "youth" of 100 plus years reading everything in a library, and now knew everything there was to know about Undead. The DM laughed. Everyone else at the table laughed. So, no, your background does not include some story that is conveniently targeting knowledge about ANY monster. You can twist it any way you like. It is still meta-gaming.
Edit: I also find it fascinating about all this chatter about role playing a char and immersion within that char suddenly comes to a screeching halt when combat tactics and monster knowledge are discussed.
Does anyone know how much a character knows about certain monsters? If you say it's a common monster. Does he know the chalance rating or resistances or does my char always have to attack / spallatack and see if it does dmg?
Or say an army/monster could easily kill you. Does my character then get a hint about it?
Are there any rules or is it up to the DM to decide how much my character knows about it?
Thx :)
You are into the world of meta-gaming, which is a form of cheating.
A bad DM allows the player knowledge to become the char knowledge. A good DM watches carefully for that, adjudicates carefully, and when needed, reminds a player that "No, your char does not know that."
The above is entirely dependent on the preferences of the Table, and is not applicable to the game as a whole, nor is it accurate to say, and seeks to define for others how they play a game, which is, to use the words in play...
cheating.
It is entirely dependent on the DM, not "The Table". The DM decides what is allowed at a table in such matters. The player does not get to say "My char's grandmother used to tell my char Annis Hags have resistance to Cold".
Cheating, again!
Some DMs do allow that, and DMs and Players are needed to make any of this work, so it is always the table.
Do not apply your limited experience with games and your personal preferences to everyone else as some kind of default.
You treat meta-gaming as a bad thing -- without realizing that some entire campaigns are built on metagaming. As I have said before, I get that you don't like anything unless it is done your way, but that's against a core precept, an inherent creed of the game as a whole.
But just as importantly, one has to remember that monster lore and the details of monsters and the details of the rest of the world, all of it is wholly dependent on the particulars of that table -- and I do mean table -- because over half of the game worlds are not "published", they are personal creations, and the amount of knowledg, the way that someone plays theri table, is always going to be dependent on how they collectively and cooperatively want to do it.
That doesn't make them good or bad, it doesn't make them cheating or not cheating. It makes them different and equally as valid (though maybe not as equally as interesting or desirable to play in) as any other group table.
IMO, if a DM doesn't want players metagaming, it falls to them to arrange for situations where they cannot do so.
I mentioned above how I provide a hand out -- been doing that for a very long time. In book straight D&D, a Troll is able to regenerate. That is a fairly well known bit of metagame information.
But that information is for the worlds published, with the option/choice/decision to include them as is. Some players like it when they have an idea already of what works. Others will hate it. Still others will want to know a little bit about some monsters and nothing about others. ANd if the players don't like the things the DM dos they will leave.
In a different thread you talk about the rapidity and constancy of death. For you are the folks you lay with -- the table -- that is fun. FOr others, that is as far from fun as it gets. This is the same way -- some tables don't have a problem with metagaming, and there's nothing wrong with that. If one plays a game where the plyers themselves are sucked into the D&D world, that metagaming becomes a part of the game as a whole.
I've known DMs who say that the Monster manual is a book you can find and study. According to you, that's cheating, but it isn't -- it is an intentional setup.
Which is why I mention inexperience -- not in terms of length of time playing, but in terms of breadth of play styles and types, in terms of flexibility and freedom, in terms of ways to play the game. That isn't bad, either -- if you are having fun, more power to you.
But like myself, your style of fun is neither popular nor common. It is an outlier.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Does anyone know how much a character knows about certain monsters?
If you say it's a common monster. Does he know the chalance rating or resistances or does my char always have to attack / spallatack and see if it does dmg?
Or say an army/monster could easily kill you. Does my character then get a hint about it?
Are there any rules or is it up to the DM to decide how much my character knows about it?
Thx :)
It's all up to the DM. There aren't really standardized rules for that kind of thing. Your DM might allow you to make an Arcana, Nature, or Religion check to let you know things about a certain monster. Maybe even History or something else entirely. It doesn't hurt to ask, as long as you're prepared to accept being denied.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
There is, in one of the expansion books, a list of skills associated with each type of monster (History for giants, Nature for beasts, etc). However, I don't think it includes any rules or advice for when to call for these checks or what to do if they succeed or fail.
It's one of the weaknesses of 5e in my opinion, though I'll admit I'm too deeply entrenched to have an unbiased opinion. I already know most common monsters, plus I know the general design tendencies needed to extrapolate the monsters I don't know. (Ex: If a monster uses a sword but it's standing alone against a party of 5th level heroes, I know that it will be dealing extra elemental damage with its weapon, probably necrotic damage or perhaps psychic or force damage. That extra damage will hurt more than the sword, probably 2 or 3 dice's worth.)
It’s not really something that universal rules can be made about, as it depends so much on your DM’s world and your character’s story. The questions are: are the facts I’m interested in common knowledge in this world? In my character’s culture? Does my character have reasons in their backstory to know about this creature?
The possible answers are: yes, you know; no, you can’t know; maybe you might know, in which case, roll a History/Arcana/Nature/Religion check.
The best approach is to ask the DM, "Would my character know anything about this?". This is a very common phrase at my table, and generally I use these as guidelines (unwritten until now):
Reasons you might know:
- Proficient in a relevant skill (nature, history, arcana, survival).
- Backstory involves these creatures, or where they are from
- Character did research something similar and may have found information then
If you might know, you roll a check of my choosing and I will narrate to you what you know. If you roll low, then you may know something if there are more than one reason to know, EG if you researched Yetis and your parents were killed in the icy north, and you're proficient in Nature, then even a nat 1 is going to get some info on a Yeti!
This also represents what you can recall in a split second. It's not that you don't know trolls are vulnerable to fire, it's that you can't recall if it's fire or ice or poison before they hit you.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
It absolutely could have universal rules. Here:
'If so, the DM should tell the player everything in the Knowledge section of the stat block, no check required.'
(Ex: 'Knowledge: Resistant to necrotic, cold and acid damage, Frightening Scream forces a WIS save.')
'If so, make an Intelligence check with advantage. The DC equals [whatever]. On a success, the DM tells you the Knowledge section etc.'
I believe it was in one of the early 1DD UAs.
Edit: Found it—
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So, for default stuff, it is the Nature skill.
One of the things I have for my extremely customized, original world, is a "booklet" of basic knowledge about certain common creatures encountered. It doesn't have pictures or anything, and it doesn't give them stats. It describes the monsters from the perspective of someone who lives in that world and has encountered them. The one for my next has about 40 entries right now, and it really doesn't tell them anything about stats.
It describes what worked in encounters with those beings for that person (or group of people). It is considered in the lore to be a common enough book that it has been heard of and seen, though the PCs may not have a copy of it when they start (but might acquire one).
Outside of that, it is a Nature check based on the character's background.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
No no, I was referring to a table in the back of either Tasha's or maybe Xanathar's.
It's looking like 6e might actually fix this though. The Study action has potential.
Yes, I quite like the Study action. Even if it doesn’t make it into R5e next year I’ma still use it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
As always ask your DM, most of my current games assume some basic knowledge of basic monsters like trolls and fire damage. This is under the assumption that in a world where trolls are a threat most races would have folk lore/kids stories about basic things like this. It is very game/setting dependent and I try to bring it up at session 0 because of this.
"Would my character know anything about this?" is a great way to handle it in game!
The more you play the harder it is not to metagame.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
This, to me, really sums up what a character in game should have access to so far as knowing about monsters, regions, factions and everything else. Your character might have had a history of studying fiends, and the DM might, as a result, offer a lot more info on demons or devils when you encounter them. If you're a Grave Cleric, the DM might give you a boost on checks to recall or know things about undead (same for a Necromancy Wizard) Dwarves might bet advantage to know something about monsters found in the underdark, Elves might bet a boost to Fey creature knowledge and so on. Asking the DM what your character might reasonably know about a situation is usually best. In our group, we usually ask, in context, for example, my Monk has the Sage background and in his backstory I had him fascinated with Fiends, Demons and such. So when we encounter something Demon-like, I will sometimes ask if my background as a Sage and my interest in Fiends might have exposed me to some knowledge of this creature. Most times, it depends on how common the creature is. Something rare, I usually get some brief tidbits of info that I remember, while a more common fiend, I know a lot about.
Ask your DM is the answer, IMO.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
This is a little bit of a tangent, but, when y'all play video games, like let's say even the new D&D video game, do you try and act like you don't know your Fire Bolt cantrip is gonna be worthless against the imps in the first fight? Do you intentionally waste a turn shooting fire at the freaky little flying guys because it makes sense in your character's background that they don't know about imps?
I mean, it's a rough example because in BG3 you can just right click any monster and see if it's immune to fire, but still. I know I don't do that, myself. D&D's the only game I play where I don't brazenly carry in every ounce of tactical and lore knowledge I've picked up in my life.
Is it just because of the abstraction? Like, there's no DM you can ask, so you just kinda go, "eh, maybe he knows about imps, it's possible" and proceed? Or is it because there's no one else there who might get disappointed or annoyed by it? Or what?
You are into the world of meta-gaming, which is a form of cheating. And it is a grey, murky world. Does a 1st level PC know that a Rat bite may cause Disease? Sure, that would be reasonable. Would a 2nd level PC that has never had contact with a Shadow know that the Shadow incurs half-damage with non-magical weapons. The player might. The char should never know that.
A bad DM allows the player knowledge to become the char knowledge. A good DM watches carefully for that, adjudicates carefully, and when needed, reminds a player that "No, your char does not know that." That kind of thing annoys bad players. Good players never have to be reminded. The one thing I have seen time and time again is when the player wants to morph into some Beast the char has never had any contact with, and therefore should never be allowed to assume that form and abilities.
The above is entirely dependent on the preferences of the Table, and is not applicable to the game as a whole, nor is it accurate to say, and seeks to define for others how they play a game, which is, to use the words in play...
cheating.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
It is entirely dependent on the DM, not "The Table". The DM decides what is allowed at a table in such matters. The player does not get to say "My char's grandmother used to tell my char Annis Hags have resistance to Cold".
I think, as well, players and DM's usually agree on learned mechanics and details on monsters. The Shadows example above, the characters would notice the resistance on the first few swings of non-magical weaponry. In our games, we are told, after rolling the damage as the DM narrates the attack, it "didn't seem as effective as you expected" kind of things. We get an indicator that the blow looked and seemed like it should have been a solid smack, but seemed to flow through, or not have the solid impact you usually feel. Spells hit, but don't seem to bother the creature as much as the caster expects. Each party's knowledge of specific monsters or creatures is going to vary a lot, early on, depending on what they actually face. As well, there is always a chance that somoene's character background would offer a reason for them to know something about THAT monster.
We all seem to agree that circling back to "The DM decides if you'd know something" as the right answer.
**EDITED to add:
When a lot of us say "The Table" we are referring to everyone, players and DM at the table. Everyone playing should agree on things. Players can propose reasons for things and the DM can agree or disagree as they see fit. The game is a group effort, so agreement on all fronts is what makes it the right call.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
My Gran told told me a tale of Annis the Hag when i was wee tot, twas a the winter she Married me Grandad . twas just afore the Feast of winter there was nary a snowflake to be found it twas so cold the trees shattered in the gale. Annis the Hag came to the edge of the village dressed in rags she unleashed her minions killing full half the village only to be driven off by a Cleric of Erek taking the storm with her...
There is no reference to resistance of any kind and it actually sound like lore and not metagaming Prove me wrong JustAfarmer
I once played with a kid. He was maybe 17. He told the DM, at the table, that his background was that as an Elf he had spent his "youth" of 100 plus years reading everything in a library, and now knew everything there was to know about Undead. The DM laughed. Everyone else at the table laughed. So, no, your background does not include some story that is conveniently targeting knowledge about ANY monster. You can twist it any way you like. It is still meta-gaming.
Edit: I also find it fascinating about all this chatter about role playing a char and immersion within that char suddenly comes to a screeching halt when combat tactics and monster knowledge are discussed.
Cheating, again!
Some DMs do allow that, and DMs and Players are needed to make any of this work, so it is always the table.
Do not apply your limited experience with games and your personal preferences to everyone else as some kind of default.
You treat meta-gaming as a bad thing -- without realizing that some entire campaigns are built on metagaming. As I have said before, I get that you don't like anything unless it is done your way, but that's against a core precept, an inherent creed of the game as a whole.
But just as importantly, one has to remember that monster lore and the details of monsters and the details of the rest of the world, all of it is wholly dependent on the particulars of that table -- and I do mean table -- because over half of the game worlds are not "published", they are personal creations, and the amount of knowledg, the way that someone plays theri table, is always going to be dependent on how they collectively and cooperatively want to do it.
That doesn't make them good or bad, it doesn't make them cheating or not cheating. It makes them different and equally as valid (though maybe not as equally as interesting or desirable to play in) as any other group table.
IMO, if a DM doesn't want players metagaming, it falls to them to arrange for situations where they cannot do so.
I mentioned above how I provide a hand out -- been doing that for a very long time. In book straight D&D, a Troll is able to regenerate. That is a fairly well known bit of metagame information.
But that information is for the worlds published, with the option/choice/decision to include them as is. Some players like it when they have an idea already of what works. Others will hate it. Still others will want to know a little bit about some monsters and nothing about others. ANd if the players don't like the things the DM dos they will leave.
In a different thread you talk about the rapidity and constancy of death. For you are the folks you lay with -- the table -- that is fun. FOr others, that is as far from fun as it gets. This is the same way -- some tables don't have a problem with metagaming, and there's nothing wrong with that. If one plays a game where the plyers themselves are sucked into the D&D world, that metagaming becomes a part of the game as a whole.
I've known DMs who say that the Monster manual is a book you can find and study. According to you, that's cheating, but it isn't -- it is an intentional setup.
Which is why I mention inexperience -- not in terms of length of time playing, but in terms of breadth of play styles and types, in terms of flexibility and freedom, in terms of ways to play the game. That isn't bad, either -- if you are having fun, more power to you.
But like myself, your style of fun is neither popular nor common. It is an outlier.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds