So I've never liked the way that learning about monsters works. The player declares they want to learn, they do the appropriate check, and then the DM decides on what information to share. I've made a change that both me and my players love, I thought I'd share it with you all, and its really simple.
Method Players make the same check they always would, but the information they learn is based off of what characteristics they WANT to know, rather than what the DM just tells them. I think it's a far better system. So the player studies the creature and then can say "I want to know its AC" or "I want to know its HP" "I want to know its resistances" "I want to know its weaknesses".
Here's what I'm currently doing
Player rolls to study the creature:
9 or less: Player learns creature type, but nothing more. "You recall the creatures name and that you were absent that day..."
10-15: Player can choose to know 1 aspect of the creature of their choice, with a 50/50 chance to learn two characteristics.
16-21 2 characteristics
22-23 3 characteristics
24+: 4 characteristics and any additional the DM decides.
(modify the upper limits as would suit your party)
Why this works well As DM's know, often players will do multiple investigation checks. (or other checks) if they see that other players have rolled poorly, or if a study action is poor, 3 other players will then use the study action to get more information, and when one does well--they get an information dump. This system works very well in these cases, and even encourages them to make checks, because it will require teamwork to actually learn about the creature. Additionally, it adds another strategic layer.
In practice, all of my tables likes this a lot better than vanilla RAW: it allows them to choose what they want to know and encourages them to work together. Additionally its a homebrew change that won't effect balance while makes it more fun for the players.
It's working so well that I thought I'd share it with you all here.
Why this works well As DM's know, often players will do multiple investigation checks. (or other checks) if they see that other players have rolled poorly, or if a study action is poor, 3 other players will then use the study action to get more information, and when one does well--they get an information dump. This system works very well in these cases, and even encourages them to make checks, because it will require teamwork to actually learn about the creature. Additionally, it adds another strategic layer.
This to my mind is where Pathfinder 2e has a mechanic that is worth borrowing: Recall Knowledge.
- It's an action which dissuades wasting everyone's checks on it. - The creature type requires different (but sensible types of checks). Identifying a celestial is going to require a religion roll for example - What you can learn is limited (a 'best-known attribute'). - Difficulty scales with creature rarity. - On a crit success you get a subtle additional piece of information (like a weakness).
To make it fit in 5e you'd have to make it a bonus action however, but it is a system that works well in Pathfinder. Having run that, and tried different monster ID systems in 5e, I'd strongly advise against giving away more than 1 piece of information per roll were this kind of system ever to become 'official'. The fact you've designed it for your table is great, but it won't work for every table of course.
At my tables I'm judicious about what checks can be made by more than one person. If trying to study a creature that they won't have seen before, there are only two ways they could have come across said creature - in a book, or in a story told by a person who has come across said creature. So if a character background is someone whose always been living in the underdark, their DC will be FAR higher than a character from a desert wilderness will need to identify a T-Rex. Like I say I've seen a lot of systems in action. Do what works best for your table. It's certainly a cool system if it's helped your players have more fun.
Method Players make the same check they always would, but the information they learn is based off of what characteristics they WANT to know, rather than what the DM just tells them. I think it's a far better system. So the player studies the creature and then can say "I want to know its AC" or "I want to know its HP" "I want to know its resistances" "I want to know its weaknesses".
If that works for you and your players, more power to you, but it's not at all the kind of thing I would allow with a knowledge check. AC and HP are meta-game knowledge that wouldn't be a part of the lore you learned at all; resistances and weaknesses are more likely but the DC depends on the monster.
It's an interesting point--but how precisely are you defining metagaming? Because I wouldn't classify AC or HP as metagaming.
You're saying AC and HP are metagaming, but then what stats, exactly, are or are not? Is it the degree of specificity that defines this for you? Like "It has 250hp vs it is very beefy"? Then what about: Resistances? Vulnerabilities? Abilities? Attacks? Legendary actions? Stats?
D&D typically uses euphemisms to dodge encroaching upon metagaming. For example, "the creature is bloodied" literally means "The creature has passed 50% hp". Players can determine AC often within 1 round, so wouldn't this 'bloodied' status also just be metagaming?
I think every aspect of a creature would be viable as knowledge that the players could know, within the context of the world. If I were to change AC and HP
AC = general resistance to damage. HP = damage endurance
Would then that not be metagaming from your view?
I like your note about altering DC depending on the monster. This could be modified easily with CR--I think I'll say +DC to rolls for each CR above 6. Appreciate the idea!
It's an interesting point--but how precisely are you defining metagaming? Because I wouldn't classify AC or HP as metagaming.
You're saying AC and HP are metagaming, but then what stats, exactly, are or are not? Is it the degree of specificity that defines this for you? Like "It has 250hp vs it is very beefy"? Then what about: Resistances? Vulnerabilities? Abilities? Attacks? Legendary actions? Stats?
D&D typically uses euphemisms to dodge encroaching upon metagaming. For example, "the creature is bloodied" literally means "The creature has passed 50% hp". Players can determine AC often within 1 round, so wouldn't this 'bloodied' status also just be metagaming?
I think every aspect of a creature would be viable as knowledge that the players could know, within the context of the world. If I were to change AC and HP
AC = general resistance to damage. HP = damage endurance
Would then that not be metagaming from your view?
I like your note about altering DC depending on the monster. This could be modified easily with CR--I think I'll say +DC to rolls for each CR above 6. Appreciate the idea!
With respect, I think a lack of experience of other GM styles is showing here. That's not a criticism of you, but you are making assumptions here.
AC and HP are most definitely considered meta-gaming by the majority of players I've encountered over the last 30+ years. They are pieces of information that do not exist in the world of the game. The characters do not walk round saying 'I have 12hp'. You are correct that players can work out the AC number, but player knowledge does not equate to character knowledge. There are ways and means of narratively describing hits and misses. Perhaps the weapon deflects off the armour, perhaps you describe the attack going wide of the mark, perhaps you describe that the character didn't put enough strength into the swing of the sword so it's ineffective.
A tortoise or turtle for example can be described as having resistances. A creature trying to peck the shell is going to have a tough time. So using real world examples a tortoise might be said to have resistance to 'peck' damage. The way in which some animals stalk prey, or employ camouflage might be akin to a creature's abilities or attacks.
'Bloodied' isn't a universal. In fact I've never used the term. I know that popular internet DM Rob Hartley uses the term, but it really isn't universally used. For example, I will attempt to describe damage to skeleton in terms of bones cracking...the size of the fissures, the noises. All of it in a generic way from which you can make some assumptions about level of damage, but not in any way specific. I've never seen a GM use 'bloodied' and I've never had a player expect it. I did in fact have one player who is a fan of VLDL ask about bloodied, but understood that it wasn't RAW in any system but 4e.
Clearly, I philosophically disagree with your viewpoint - and that's awesome - variety spice of life and all that jazz. I would only ever grant flavour text to a player. In fact just last night I had players make a nature check to see if they'd ever heard of a Roc. My description was as fearsome birds of prey known to grasp prey in its talons and drop them from the sky in order to kill them, before swooping back down to eat. That was it. That was all that was available to the players. In combat with the Roc they saw a lightning damage spell crackle around the creature, and I described how the attack seemed to be less impactful as a mosquito bite. This particular Roc was immune to Lightning damage, but nowhere did I say that. My players might well have arrived at that assumption, but they also had a clear description that allowed their character to conclude that the attack had little impact which did not reference rules or game mechanics.
This I think is where we get to the core of where the line gets drawn when discussing meta-gaming.
Is it reasonable that a zoologist in this world could observe a Roc in the wild clutching prey in its talons, swooping up, and dropping the creature to its death? Yes. It is reasonable that a zoologist in this world has any way to ascertain that a Roc is immune to lightning? Not unless the zoologist witnessed such a creature survive a lightning strike, or absorbing a lightning based magic attack.
Gaming vs. meta-gaming is in the description. And that description is fairly straightforward.
Meta-Gaming - Discussion of, inclusion of, or consideration for a game's rules and mechanics that impact the choices that characters make.
Let me be clear there is nothing wrong with Meta-Gaming if that is the desire of the table. You don't need permission from anyone to run a table differently. Terms like this though have long since been defined and codified.
Is it reasonable that a zoologist in this world could observe a Roc in the wild clutching prey in its talons, swooping up, and dropping the creature to its death? Yes. It is reasonable that a zoologist in this world has any way to ascertain that a Roc is immune to lightning? Not unless the zoologist witnessed such a creature survive a lightning strike, or absorbing a lightning based magic attack.
However, that just means the information might be high DC (only recorded in a few unusual places), not that it's metagaming.
Maybe I should clarify more--I actually don't tell the players the AC or HP, I narrative it or describe it; they're able to request it however. The key point to this change is giving them the option to choose what they want to know, rather than the DM dictating those responses. This makes knowledge of strategic value and increases agency.
For other things, I'll narrate that the players recall from one of their classes that X creature has a weakness to X. I also think they don't need to be zoologists to know about creatures. By low levels, they're already regional heroes and would likely know basic information about a variety of creatures. If there's any players that have gone to a school for their knowledge, it's not a stretch at all that they might know quite a bit about a lot of creatures. In fact, it would make far more sense that a highly intelligent or high wisdom character would know an exceptional amount about most of the creatures of the land, including the Roc. Like "You wouldn't know that skeletons are vulnerable to blunt weapons" seems illogical.
Regarding Bloodied: "bloodied is not universal" But it is, RAW 2024. It's a RAW condition now. This is my point exactly about health status--it's actually explicitly stated in the 2024 edition, and in Foundry it is an automatically applied condition to players and mobs alike. It is specifically a condition in which enemies and players have which can be acted upon/used for action. I've seen a number of DM's use this as a description.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I've never liked the way that learning about monsters works. The player declares they want to learn, they do the appropriate check, and then the DM decides on what information to share. I've made a change that both me and my players love, I thought I'd share it with you all, and its really simple.
Method
Players make the same check they always would, but the information they learn is based off of what characteristics they WANT to know, rather than what the DM just tells them. I think it's a far better system. So the player studies the creature and then can say "I want to know its AC" or "I want to know its HP" "I want to know its resistances" "I want to know its weaknesses".
Here's what I'm currently doing
Player rolls to study the creature:
9 or less: Player learns creature type, but nothing more. "You recall the creatures name and that you were absent that day..."
10-15: Player can choose to know 1 aspect of the creature of their choice, with a 50/50 chance to learn two characteristics.
16-21 2 characteristics
22-23 3 characteristics
24+: 4 characteristics and any additional the DM decides.
(modify the upper limits as would suit your party)
Why this works well
As DM's know, often players will do multiple investigation checks. (or other checks) if they see that other players have rolled poorly, or if a study action is poor, 3 other players will then use the study action to get more information, and when one does well--they get an information dump. This system works very well in these cases, and even encourages them to make checks, because it will require teamwork to actually learn about the creature. Additionally, it adds another strategic layer.
In practice, all of my tables likes this a lot better than vanilla RAW: it allows them to choose what they want to know and encourages them to work together. Additionally its a homebrew change that won't effect balance while makes it more fun for the players.
It's working so well that I thought I'd share it with you all here.
Cheers!
This to my mind is where Pathfinder 2e has a mechanic that is worth borrowing: Recall Knowledge.
- It's an action which dissuades wasting everyone's checks on it.
- The creature type requires different (but sensible types of checks). Identifying a celestial is going to require a religion roll for example
- What you can learn is limited (a 'best-known attribute').
- Difficulty scales with creature rarity.
- On a crit success you get a subtle additional piece of information (like a weakness).
To make it fit in 5e you'd have to make it a bonus action however, but it is a system that works well in Pathfinder. Having run that, and tried different monster ID systems in 5e, I'd strongly advise against giving away more than 1 piece of information per roll were this kind of system ever to become 'official'. The fact you've designed it for your table is great, but it won't work for every table of course.
At my tables I'm judicious about what checks can be made by more than one person. If trying to study a creature that they won't have seen before, there are only two ways they could have come across said creature - in a book, or in a story told by a person who has come across said creature. So if a character background is someone whose always been living in the underdark, their DC will be FAR higher than a character from a desert wilderness will need to identify a T-Rex. Like I say I've seen a lot of systems in action. Do what works best for your table. It's certainly a cool system if it's helped your players have more fun.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
If that works for you and your players, more power to you, but it's not at all the kind of thing I would allow with a knowledge check. AC and HP are meta-game knowledge that wouldn't be a part of the lore you learned at all; resistances and weaknesses are more likely but the DC depends on the monster.
Re-Metagaming:
It's an interesting point--but how precisely are you defining metagaming? Because I wouldn't classify AC or HP as metagaming.
You're saying AC and HP are metagaming, but then what stats, exactly, are or are not? Is it the degree of specificity that defines this for you? Like "It has 250hp vs it is very beefy"? Then what about:
Resistances?
Vulnerabilities?
Abilities?
Attacks?
Legendary actions?
Stats?
D&D typically uses euphemisms to dodge encroaching upon metagaming. For example, "the creature is bloodied" literally means "The creature has passed 50% hp". Players can determine AC often within 1 round, so wouldn't this 'bloodied' status also just be metagaming?
I think every aspect of a creature would be viable as knowledge that the players could know, within the context of the world. If I were to change AC and HP
AC = general resistance to damage.
HP = damage endurance
Would then that not be metagaming from your view?
I like your note about altering DC depending on the monster. This could be modified easily with CR--I think I'll say +DC to rolls for each CR above 6. Appreciate the idea!
It's a number that the characters would not know, and doesn't even exist in-world.
With respect, I think a lack of experience of other GM styles is showing here. That's not a criticism of you, but you are making assumptions here.
Clearly, I philosophically disagree with your viewpoint - and that's awesome - variety spice of life and all that jazz. I would only ever grant flavour text to a player. In fact just last night I had players make a nature check to see if they'd ever heard of a Roc. My description was as fearsome birds of prey known to grasp prey in its talons and drop them from the sky in order to kill them, before swooping back down to eat. That was it. That was all that was available to the players. In combat with the Roc they saw a lightning damage spell crackle around the creature, and I described how the attack seemed to be less impactful as a mosquito bite. This particular Roc was immune to Lightning damage, but nowhere did I say that. My players might well have arrived at that assumption, but they also had a clear description that allowed their character to conclude that the attack had little impact which did not reference rules or game mechanics.
This I think is where we get to the core of where the line gets drawn when discussing meta-gaming.
Is it reasonable that a zoologist in this world could observe a Roc in the wild clutching prey in its talons, swooping up, and dropping the creature to its death? Yes.
It is reasonable that a zoologist in this world has any way to ascertain that a Roc is immune to lightning? Not unless the zoologist witnessed such a creature survive a lightning strike, or absorbing a lightning based magic attack.
Gaming vs. meta-gaming is in the description. And that description is fairly straightforward.
Meta-Gaming - Discussion of, inclusion of, or consideration for a game's rules and mechanics that impact the choices that characters make.
Let me be clear there is nothing wrong with Meta-Gaming if that is the desire of the table. You don't need permission from anyone to run a table differently. Terms like this though have long since been defined and codified.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
However, that just means the information might be high DC (only recorded in a few unusual places), not that it's metagaming.
Martin,
Maybe I should clarify more--I actually don't tell the players the AC or HP, I narrative it or describe it; they're able to request it however. The key point to this change is giving them the option to choose what they want to know, rather than the DM dictating those responses. This makes knowledge of strategic value and increases agency.
For other things, I'll narrate that the players recall from one of their classes that X creature has a weakness to X. I also think they don't need to be zoologists to know about creatures. By low levels, they're already regional heroes and would likely know basic information about a variety of creatures. If there's any players that have gone to a school for their knowledge, it's not a stretch at all that they might know quite a bit about a lot of creatures. In fact, it would make far more sense that a highly intelligent or high wisdom character would know an exceptional amount about most of the creatures of the land, including the Roc. Like "You wouldn't know that skeletons are vulnerable to blunt weapons" seems illogical.
Regarding Bloodied: "bloodied is not universal"
But it is, RAW 2024. It's a RAW condition now. This is my point exactly about health status--it's actually explicitly stated in the 2024 edition, and in Foundry it is an automatically applied condition to players and mobs alike. It is specifically a condition in which enemies and players have which can be acted upon/used for action. I've seen a number of DM's use this as a description.