I'm DMing a group of first time players, so this isn't a situation where you've got a group that has memorized (or even seen) the Monster Manual.
I'm kind of at a loss as to how to handle the knowledge the characters might have regarding monsters. What a goblin or orc is seems like it would be common knowledge. But how would you handle other things? For example, the fact that ghouls can paralyze you. Would you assume that this is general knowledge, or that the characters wouldn't know this until they encounter one, or would you use an ability check (Arcana or Nature) to determine if the character knows this?
Same question as to more esoteric things, like the fact that green dragons are deceitful liars, or what more esoteric monsters even are?
The first thing to do is ask yourself why you are trying to figure out what the characters do or don't know.
For example, if you are trying to figure out what information you should be making sure the players have because it is actually important for them to know in order to take the actions you want them to be able to take, then the answer is to give the players the knowledge via their characters (whether that is informing them of things their characters already learned in their life before the campaign, or it is information they encounter during the adventure).
If you are trying to figure out what information the players can use to determine what their character is allowed to try doing, that's not a very effective thing to do, and often will result in forcing players to make what they know to be poor choices for their characters. It's a lot more effective, without causing player experience rising to result in character good choices falling proportionately, to evaluate whether or not a declared action is possible as a guess or on a whim (i.e. acknowledge that it doesn't actually matter whether or not the character knows green dragons are liars, the character might choose to distrust what the creature says just because they aren't in a mood to believe the creature no matter how reasonable it sounds - the character doesn't even have to know it's a dragon, let alone a green dragon, to say "I'm not buying it." regardless of whether the dragon is or isn't even lying.)
My approach on this topic is to have the characters possess every bit of knowledge that helps engage them into the story (i.e. recognizing the "bad guys'" holy symbol because knowing they are up against worshipers of a particular evil deity is more engaging than having not even a hint at what ideals and deific portfolio motivate the "bad guys" to action), and let the players have ever bit of knowledge that helps them make informed decisions about how to use their characters' limited resources (i.e. creatures that have a resistance or immunity to a damage type or condition have some clear clue that is apparent to the characters even if they've never heard of the creature before, so that the players don't feel like they wasted an action or spell slot or whatever when they try something that won't work), leaving only information that isn't directly relevant to making important choices or engaging with the story at hand up to chance (i.e. information like who originally built the structure that is, as of the adventure at hand, a stronghold in possession of the enemy - because stuff like "dwarves built this place, but abandoned it when the mines were tapped out" doesn't really matter, but might be known and might inspire some idea in a player).
The first thing to do is ask yourself why you are trying to figure out what the characters do or don't know.
I guess the reason I'm asking this question is because allowing all characters a general knowledge of monsters seems like a disservice to the classes that have this as a class feature, like a ranger's favored enemy. I have no problem with a ranger knowing the particulars of his favored enemies. Having a rogue that knows just as much would seem to diminish this.
Since you speak of first-timers, if the characters have acquired the knowledege either by a roll or because of their character background or class feature, then they know. But if they’ve had no prior reason to know something, then let them find out “the hard way”. Who knows, a few good rolls (for them) and they never find out at all! Generally, I give as much info as the degree of success of the associated roll gives them, and perhaps give clues during the battle.
e.g Wizard: I cast fireball.
me: your fireball impacts the group of monsters, but as the fire haze clears, you see that they continue to close on you, seemingly unfazed by the smoke and fire around them.
cleric: i cast guiding bolt on the nearest one *rolls* and hits
me: you reach out and cast your guiding bolt at the closest one. It strikes, and as the radiant light of divine guidance shines as a beacon to your allies, the creature appears to reel agony.
cleric: they must be vulnerable to radiant, but resistant to fire
I'm a big fan of using ability checks to confirm knowledge upon first sight/encounter with something fresh. This keeps my players in the dark if they decide to completely disregard intellect/widsom when crafting a character. Plus, it gives you the ability to offer incorrect information if they botch the roll. :D
The first thing to do is ask yourself why you are trying to figure out what the characters do or don't know.
I guess the reason I'm asking this question is because allowing all characters a general knowledge of monsters seems like a disservice to the classes that have this as a class feature, like a ranger's favored enemy. I have no problem with a ranger knowing the particulars of his favored enemies. Having a rogue that knows just as much would seem to diminish this.
I get where you are coming from, but I also have to point out that the rogue doesn't know "just as much" even if they get told all the same information about a creature as you would be comfortable telling a ranger - because on top of all that information, the ranger still also knows enough more to give them the mechanical advantages presented by the Favored Enemy trait.
The rogue isn't as likely to speak the creature's language, doesn't get advantage on checks to track the creature, and also doesn't have advantage on intelligence checks to recall information - so if handling these things in the way that I do, both the rogue and ranger would be able to say "that creature is a goblin" when they see one and would know that goblins are as goblins are (sneaky, cowardly, destructive little nuisances that aren't much of a threat without something bigger and scarier motivating them to a particular goal), but the ranger is more likely to be able to point out other details that aren't directly important to the story or necessary to make informed decisions about how to engage the goblins, such as which tribe these particular goblins are from, their societal structure, their holidays, preferences for music, their marital and/or funerary procedures, etc.
Think simply. If they wanna know, make them roll a check they think will help/you think makes the most sense. Consider classes, backgrounds, and backstory especially to consider how likely it is and make your DC appropriate for such. Celtics may more more about celestials and fiends, warlocks may know abberitions or fey depending on patron, dwarves may know things from the Underdark better, things like that. It's okay to ballpark the DC so long as a modicum of thought is put in.
If they role well enough, it's something they've read quite a bit about. If not, they have as much lore as anyone else (everyone knows vamps hate sunlight, or that doppelganger read thoughts, etc.) Give them a couple tidbits to give them something to grasp while they fight, even if the roll is less then favourable. Just knowing one thing, a resistance or ability, will embolden players to engage more enthusiasticly. Maybe chose some monsters from real world cultures to experiment with, things we know weaknesses and info about due to pop culture, before attempting with things like mind flayers and gelatinous cubes.
I understand your problem here. I run into it a lot with my group. It can even get to the point of "do I tell them what the monster is called?" For example, dire/celestial/fiendish animals. They're much harder than their normal counterparts, but can be difficult to distinguish. For example, if they're up against dire wolves, do I say "a pack of dire wolves runs towards you" or "a pack of surprisingly large and vicious-looking wolves runs towards you". Usually, I stick with the second option, but give them enough information to figure it out on their own. Usually this happens when one party member says something along the lines of "Why won't they die!!!" and another member figures it out, or asks to make a check. But that works as well as it does because I have such a big party (7-9 people). In smaller parties, I'd suggest having them make a Nature or similar check at the start of each combat, or using passive Perception scores to determine what they see and figure out.
My general approach is to treat Knowledge skills as a passive skill (unless characters are researching something or applying the knowledge in some way), because generally, you either know something or you don't.
For monster lore, this means picking which knowledge skill a monster is associated with, checking what bonus the characters have in that skill, and then sharing information about the monster based on the typical DCs in the Dungeon Master's Guide. You can set a DC to know everything about a monster and/or individual details about that monster (resistances, vulnerabilities, attacks, and so on).
Using the Ghoul as an example: in most settings, this is a common undead creature. Since they're undead, I would associate them with Religion (or perhaps Arcana). Knowing about Ghouls is probably an easy check (DC 10 in the DM's Guide), so anyone proficient in Religion would know most details about them with a +0 bonus or higher. You might decide that their paralyzing touch is more specific information, and say it requires a slightly higher bonus.
If the characters are researching ghouls (say in preparation to clear out an infested tomb), you could have them make an active Religion check to learn about ghouls; but when coming face to face with the creatures, without preparation, I think it's easier to treat this as a passive check. If none of your players have a relevant Knowledge skill, they might learn similar details through passive Perception, either before or during an encounter.
When sharing details about a monster, I usually just give players everything that's immediately important in combat, up to and including resistances, vulnerabilities, attacks, and even a creature's AC (as players can generally figure this out in a few rounds anyway).
When determining how to set DCs about monster lore, you want to consider how common the creature is in your campaign setting (or in the specific region where the campaign is set). For something like a undead-infested wasteland, it might be the case that almost anyone knows about ghouls and their capabilities (a very easy DC 5). Generally, lower CR creatures are also more common, so you can use this as a rough benchmark. You might also give a character advantage if they, say, had a background as a undead hunter (equivalent to a +5 bonus on a passive check).
A note on meta-knowledge: there are some creatures that are so iconic or so common in roleplaying games that trying to separate player knowledge from character knowledge is next to impossible. For example, almost everyone knows that trolls are weak to fire and vampires to sunlight, and people familiar with D&D lore will know the difference between chromatic and metallic dragons. It's best to just accept this and treat these facts as common knowledge in the setting as well.
I'm using the following Table Rule on my campaigns:
Monster Check
Once the player actually finds the monster or sees the result of his actions (disadvantage in roll if he does not see the monster directly) he does an automatic monster check. The Skill required follows depends against which type of creature the player is dealing with, you can find the necessary skill for each type in the table below. The check is vetoed when the DM believes that players have no way of hearing about a creature.
Usually only players proficient with the required skill can go beyond the Intermediary knowledge level (at the DM discretion).
Knowledge LevelDC Piece of Information
Basic 5+CR Basic description and information giving cues about the general monster sheet.
Intermediary 10+CR Resistances, Immunities, Vulnerabilities, and Legendary Features
Advanced 15+CR General Features, Senses, Skills, Languages and Superficial Behavior
Expert 20+CR Actions and Deep Behavior
Type Skill roll required
Aberrations Arcane
Beasts Nature
Celestials Religion
Constructs Arcane
Dragons Arcane or Nature
Elementals Arcane
Fey Arcane and Nature
Fiends Religion
Giants Nature or Medicine
Humanoids Medicine
Monstrosities Nature
Oozes Nature
E.g. Shadow (M.M. p.269) DC 5, General Description
"It is a creature of the threshold between life and death in a dark resemblance of humanoid shadows with no need for air, food or sleep. You have heard of these creatures sneaking into impossible places to feed on a living creature’s life force. As a shadow drains its victim's strength and physical form, the victim's shadow darkens and begins to move of its own volition. I’ve only heard of a few that could injure such creatures ..."
I like it, but shouldn't the intermediary and advanced pieces of information be swapped? Seems like you'd know "general features" and "superficial behaviors" before you'd know resistances and legendary actions.
One of the things you could also do, being that it is an entirely new group, is to design encounters to teach them that some of the monsters they fight have resistances and vulnerabilities. If you know that they will face something more challenging later on that they will need this type of knowledge, you can put them up against something during the hook part of the adventure that will at least strongly encourage them to understand that they should probably not use fireball against certain types of devils for example. Put them up against the weaker types early to prep them for facing your nastier ones later. This way, you gently prompt them without breaking immersion and don't risk a TPK out of ignorance because your wizard only prepped fire damage spells today.
I assume that Legendary Actions are stuff of stories and ballads, so people would talk about and write in books. I can see what you mean about resistances vs behavior, though I think behaviors are much more difficult to understand versus features... like, we know bats can move easily in darkness, but people usually don't know how it searches for food, hunts, how they usually behave.
I suggest adapting the Pieces of Information to your DM style, the Campaign and to the Players.
I also have a new group. Sometimes I in conversation slip in information on monsters. But when my players see a beast, even if it's my advanced player in a different group allow them to make an intelligence check, nature check, or arcana check depending on the monster to see if they recognize it. I'm guessing your players are pretty low level so maybe they won't know a whole lot about monsters. You can use the check idea and based on how high the roll was they get more information. There are just some things that (almost) all know. I once had a player who met a red dragon and he used fire against it. Not knowing that it's immune to it. I at the time gave him back the action as his character would probably have known that but now looking back, I would probably have asked him what he thought a fire spitting flying red lizard of death would do against fire. As I feel it would be kinda obvious. So I guess that depends on how much you want them to know. In one of the campaigns I have necromancy is dead and there are still undead lingering but it's been a long time since that people have actively seen dead people rise from the ground and so they wouldn't know a ghoul would **** you over. But dragons they would know they are resistant towards their breath weapon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm DMing a group of first time players, so this isn't a situation where you've got a group that has memorized (or even seen) the Monster Manual.
I'm kind of at a loss as to how to handle the knowledge the characters might have regarding monsters. What a goblin or orc is seems like it would be common knowledge. But how would you handle other things? For example, the fact that ghouls can paralyze you. Would you assume that this is general knowledge, or that the characters wouldn't know this until they encounter one, or would you use an ability check (Arcana or Nature) to determine if the character knows this?
Same question as to more esoteric things, like the fact that green dragons are deceitful liars, or what more esoteric monsters even are?
The first thing to do is ask yourself why you are trying to figure out what the characters do or don't know.
For example, if you are trying to figure out what information you should be making sure the players have because it is actually important for them to know in order to take the actions you want them to be able to take, then the answer is to give the players the knowledge via their characters (whether that is informing them of things their characters already learned in their life before the campaign, or it is information they encounter during the adventure).
If you are trying to figure out what information the players can use to determine what their character is allowed to try doing, that's not a very effective thing to do, and often will result in forcing players to make what they know to be poor choices for their characters. It's a lot more effective, without causing player experience rising to result in character good choices falling proportionately, to evaluate whether or not a declared action is possible as a guess or on a whim (i.e. acknowledge that it doesn't actually matter whether or not the character knows green dragons are liars, the character might choose to distrust what the creature says just because they aren't in a mood to believe the creature no matter how reasonable it sounds - the character doesn't even have to know it's a dragon, let alone a green dragon, to say "I'm not buying it." regardless of whether the dragon is or isn't even lying.)
My approach on this topic is to have the characters possess every bit of knowledge that helps engage them into the story (i.e. recognizing the "bad guys'" holy symbol because knowing they are up against worshipers of a particular evil deity is more engaging than having not even a hint at what ideals and deific portfolio motivate the "bad guys" to action), and let the players have ever bit of knowledge that helps them make informed decisions about how to use their characters' limited resources (i.e. creatures that have a resistance or immunity to a damage type or condition have some clear clue that is apparent to the characters even if they've never heard of the creature before, so that the players don't feel like they wasted an action or spell slot or whatever when they try something that won't work), leaving only information that isn't directly relevant to making important choices or engaging with the story at hand up to chance (i.e. information like who originally built the structure that is, as of the adventure at hand, a stronghold in possession of the enemy - because stuff like "dwarves built this place, but abandoned it when the mines were tapped out" doesn't really matter, but might be known and might inspire some idea in a player).
Since you speak of first-timers, if the characters have acquired the knowledege either by a roll or because of their character background or class feature, then they know. But if they’ve had no prior reason to know something, then let them find out “the hard way”. Who knows, a few good rolls (for them) and they never find out at all! Generally, I give as much info as the degree of success of the associated roll gives them, and perhaps give clues during the battle.
e.g Wizard: I cast fireball.
me: your fireball impacts the group of monsters, but as the fire haze clears, you see that they continue to close on you, seemingly unfazed by the smoke and fire around them.
cleric: i cast guiding bolt on the nearest one *rolls* and hits
me: you reach out and cast your guiding bolt at the closest one. It strikes, and as the radiant light of divine guidance shines as a beacon to your allies, the creature appears to reel agony.
cleric: they must be vulnerable to radiant, but resistant to fire
I'm a big fan of using ability checks to confirm knowledge upon first sight/encounter with something fresh. This keeps my players in the dark if they decide to completely disregard intellect/widsom when crafting a character. Plus, it gives you the ability to offer incorrect information if they botch the roll. :D
Think simply. If they wanna know, make them roll a check they think will help/you think makes the most sense. Consider classes, backgrounds, and backstory especially to consider how likely it is and make your DC appropriate for such. Celtics may more more about celestials and fiends, warlocks may know abberitions or fey depending on patron, dwarves may know things from the Underdark better, things like that. It's okay to ballpark the DC so long as a modicum of thought is put in.
If they role well enough, it's something they've read quite a bit about. If not, they have as much lore as anyone else (everyone knows vamps hate sunlight, or that doppelganger read thoughts, etc.) Give them a couple tidbits to give them something to grasp while they fight, even if the roll is less then favourable. Just knowing one thing, a resistance or ability, will embolden players to engage more enthusiasticly. Maybe chose some monsters from real world cultures to experiment with, things we know weaknesses and info about due to pop culture, before attempting with things like mind flayers and gelatinous cubes.
#OpenDnD. #DnDBegone
I understand your problem here. I run into it a lot with my group. It can even get to the point of "do I tell them what the monster is called?" For example, dire/celestial/fiendish animals. They're much harder than their normal counterparts, but can be difficult to distinguish. For example, if they're up against dire wolves, do I say "a pack of dire wolves runs towards you" or "a pack of surprisingly large and vicious-looking wolves runs towards you". Usually, I stick with the second option, but give them enough information to figure it out on their own. Usually this happens when one party member says something along the lines of "Why won't they die!!!" and another member figures it out, or asks to make a check. But that works as well as it does because I have such a big party (7-9 people). In smaller parties, I'd suggest having them make a Nature or similar check at the start of each combat, or using passive Perception scores to determine what they see and figure out.
Stella Diamant, Human Rogue 17 (Swashbuckler), The Exploits of Misfit Company
Kat, Medtech, Cyberpunk: Red
Shi, Changeling Bard 4 (College of Spirits), Tyrant's Grasp
Dani, Human Artificer 9 (Armorer), Skulls and Starships
DM, Project Point (Teams Scimitar and Longsword)
Everything Else!
My general approach is to treat Knowledge skills as a passive skill (unless characters are researching something or applying the knowledge in some way), because generally, you either know something or you don't.
For monster lore, this means picking which knowledge skill a monster is associated with, checking what bonus the characters have in that skill, and then sharing information about the monster based on the typical DCs in the Dungeon Master's Guide. You can set a DC to know everything about a monster and/or individual details about that monster (resistances, vulnerabilities, attacks, and so on).
Using the Ghoul as an example: in most settings, this is a common undead creature. Since they're undead, I would associate them with Religion (or perhaps Arcana). Knowing about Ghouls is probably an easy check (DC 10 in the DM's Guide), so anyone proficient in Religion would know most details about them with a +0 bonus or higher. You might decide that their paralyzing touch is more specific information, and say it requires a slightly higher bonus.
If the characters are researching ghouls (say in preparation to clear out an infested tomb), you could have them make an active Religion check to learn about ghouls; but when coming face to face with the creatures, without preparation, I think it's easier to treat this as a passive check. If none of your players have a relevant Knowledge skill, they might learn similar details through passive Perception, either before or during an encounter.
When sharing details about a monster, I usually just give players everything that's immediately important in combat, up to and including resistances, vulnerabilities, attacks, and even a creature's AC (as players can generally figure this out in a few rounds anyway).
When determining how to set DCs about monster lore, you want to consider how common the creature is in your campaign setting (or in the specific region where the campaign is set). For something like a undead-infested wasteland, it might be the case that almost anyone knows about ghouls and their capabilities (a very easy DC 5). Generally, lower CR creatures are also more common, so you can use this as a rough benchmark. You might also give a character advantage if they, say, had a background as a undead hunter (equivalent to a +5 bonus on a passive check).
A note on meta-knowledge: there are some creatures that are so iconic or so common in roleplaying games that trying to separate player knowledge from character knowledge is next to impossible. For example, almost everyone knows that trolls are weak to fire and vampires to sunlight, and people familiar with D&D lore will know the difference between chromatic and metallic dragons. It's best to just accept this and treat these facts as common knowledge in the setting as well.
I'm using the following Table Rule on my campaigns:
Monster Check
Once the player actually finds the monster or sees the result of his actions (disadvantage in roll if he does not see the monster directly) he does an automatic monster check. The Skill required follows depends against which type of creature the player is dealing with, you can find the necessary skill for each type in the table below. The check is vetoed when the DM believes that players have no way of hearing about a creature.
Usually only players proficient with the required skill can go beyond the Intermediary knowledge level (at the DM discretion).
Knowledge Level DC Piece of Information
Basic 5+CR Basic description and information giving cues about the general monster sheet.
Intermediary 10+CR Resistances, Immunities, Vulnerabilities, and Legendary Features
Advanced 15+CR General Features, Senses, Skills, Languages and Superficial Behavior
Expert 20+CR Actions and Deep Behavior
Type Skill roll required
Aberrations Arcane
Beasts Nature
Celestials Religion
Constructs Arcane
Dragons Arcane or Nature
Elementals Arcane
Fey Arcane and Nature
Fiends Religion
Giants Nature or Medicine
Humanoids Medicine
Monstrosities Nature
Oozes Nature
E.g. Shadow (M.M. p.269) DC 5, General Description
"It is a creature of the threshold between life and death in a dark resemblance of humanoid shadows with no need for air, food or sleep. You have heard of these creatures sneaking into impossible places to feed on a living creature’s life force. As a shadow drains its victim's strength and physical form, the victim's shadow darkens and begins to move of its own volition. I’ve only heard of a few that could injure such creatures ..."
I like it, but shouldn't the intermediary and advanced pieces of information be swapped? Seems like you'd know "general features" and "superficial behaviors" before you'd know resistances and legendary actions.
One of the things you could also do, being that it is an entirely new group, is to design encounters to teach them that some of the monsters they fight have resistances and vulnerabilities. If you know that they will face something more challenging later on that they will need this type of knowledge, you can put them up against something during the hook part of the adventure that will at least strongly encourage them to understand that they should probably not use fireball against certain types of devils for example. Put them up against the weaker types early to prep them for facing your nastier ones later. This way, you gently prompt them without breaking immersion and don't risk a TPK out of ignorance because your wizard only prepped fire damage spells today.
I assume that Legendary Actions are stuff of stories and ballads, so people would talk about and write in books. I can see what you mean about resistances vs behavior, though I think behaviors are much more difficult to understand versus features... like, we know bats can move easily in darkness, but people usually don't know how it searches for food, hunts, how they usually behave.
I suggest adapting the Pieces of Information to your DM style, the Campaign and to the Players.
I also have a new group. Sometimes I in conversation slip in information on monsters. But when my players see a beast, even if it's my advanced player in a different group allow them to make an intelligence check, nature check, or arcana check depending on the monster to see if they recognize it. I'm guessing your players are pretty low level so maybe they won't know a whole lot about monsters. You can use the check idea and based on how high the roll was they get more information. There are just some things that (almost) all know.
I once had a player who met a red dragon and he used fire against it. Not knowing that it's immune to it. I at the time gave him back the action as his character would probably have known that but now looking back, I would probably have asked him what he thought a fire spitting flying red lizard of death would do against fire. As I feel it would be kinda obvious. So I guess that depends on how much you want them to know. In one of the campaigns I have necromancy is dead and there are still undead lingering but it's been a long time since that people have actively seen dead people rise from the ground and so they wouldn't know a ghoul would **** you over. But dragons they would know they are resistant towards their breath weapon.