So I'm still playing through Lost Mine of Phandelver. Possible spoilers ahead!
What do you let your players know about monsters during your campaigns? Like, do you just tell them what they look like, what weapons they have? Do you tell them how many HP they have? Do you give them the whole stat block?
Until now I've been keeping the exact abilities of the monsters secret. Of course, the players pick up on some things, like how much HP the goblins have, and sometimes they'll count the dice I roll for HP. However, yesterday, having worked out there's a dragon at some point (it's on the box and adventure book cover) they asked me how strong it was. I just said, "stronger than you."
What would you do?
My players are told only what their characters would or should know. Sometimes, this means giving them lore or insight that they, the players, couldn't possibly have. The 18 INT Wizard, though, who lives in this imaginary world, most certainly may. If that is the case, then the player is told what the character should or would know.
I do not, though, give them metagame info like hp totals, AC figures, or the like. Smart players will pick up on these numbers by experience. I know I pay attention to such things when I'm playing. That's to be expected, and is no different, in my opinion, than the characters gaining knowledge through experience. I never tell them in advance, though. I just don't like to do that. Let them experience the world through their characters, I say. Isn't that why many of us play?
The one exception would be that early on with 4E's minion monsters (who had 1hp), I'd clue them in via description that they were looking at minions. I didn't want them whipping out the big guns on minions. I eventually quit doing this, as we all adjusted to the game's resource management.
I generally describe the monsters (or show a picture if available) and if someone wants to know, I'll allow an Int Check as a Bonus Action. Depending on the roll, I've give some information, and then refer to the creature by name.
Common Creature DCs (add +5 for Uncommon, +10 for Rare)
DC 5: Name and general difficulty
DC 10: Type and general behavor (Aligment)
DC 15: Tactics and Society
It depends on the monster. If it is common, they are likely to know more about the creature than a rare monster. I also enjoy mixing up monster abilities and attributes to keep my players on their toes. For instance, Mind Flayers in my world do not all have the same psionic abilities.
Intelligent characters who have studied about monsters and lore may have a chance to know more about the enemies they encounter than what they see. Shiroiken's scale above is quite reasonable to use. On a failed role, feel free to give incorrect information about a creature as the character may have remembered something wrong or be basing their assumptions upon myth and legend about a monster.
I don't initially give my players an enemies AC but after a few attacks, I will tell my players what the creature's AC is in order to speed up play. I don't find giving away AC to be that big of a deal for us. With regards to creature alignment, I don't give away that info as I'm more interested in the motivations and reasons for actions of the creatures in my world. I have had characters align temporarily with creatures that are typically evil as their goals may align for a short amount of time. I've found that if you tell groups, "these creatues are evil" then partys are highly reluctant to even engage in meaningful conversation with said creatures.
I also create or reskin a fair number of monsters so my players are kept guessing for monsters. On another hand, I've always been of the opinion that the most evil creatures in a world are the sentient humanoid races, especially organizations with specific agendas. So, if you describe an enemy as wearing chain mail and a shield wielding a long sword, smart players are going to have a pretty good idea what that AC of their enemy is anyway.
I let my players know what I feel their characters would know from growing up in a world where those creatures exist (about as much as I could personally say about a bear, wolves, various fish, or other animals of our world).
That is to say, I give them the general data - anything their character can see, plus whatever "folks say" about the creatures.
Goblins are nimble little jerks, bugbears are brutal, trolls regenerate (and fire trumps regeneration in general), dragons have breath weapons, tough hides, and natural magical abiltiies, fey creatures will seduce you or lead you astray but cold iron hurts them, and that sort of stuff.
But for creatures that are not naturally occuring on the material plane or extremely rare, they don't know anything besides potentially being able to identify "that's not off this world!" unless they have specifically consulted a sage (i.e. gone on the adventure to find the knowledge).
The one thing that I will never do again is have a die roll determine what a character knows about a creature - the players don't need specific numbers for its abilities, but the characters either get the info by default (ogre's hit hard) or have to search it out on purpose (vrock, or "vulture demons", have [list of special abilties])
Nothing, unless they ask for it. Then I'll tell them whatever they want to know.
Steeliie wrote:
I don't usually reveal the name of the creature and they have to make Int (Nature) rolls to learn more about the creature. I will describe it though, and after fighting that creature type a bit, I will start referring to it by name once they recognize it on sight.
The creature's armor and weapons are readily visible and told to the players if they ask. I will also describe their wounds and general level of health or wounds. Players usually figure out what the AC is eventually... Missed on a 15 but hit on a 16 is pretty obvious if you are paying attention.
Finally, I never give away the hit points or attributes, or stat block data in general. The most players get is "this goblin is severely wounded" but I'd never say "this goblin is down to his last 2 hit points". I dislike metagaming, as it tends to disrupt the immersion for me, even as a DM.
Character Background reveals to me what they know of monsters in the world. A Sage who takes various knowledge-based skills clearly knows more about the world of monsters by books than the Folk Hero - who might know more based on actual interactions with specific monsters.
I also always consider my personal experience in the world of music when communicating knowledge to characters/players. Anyone can pick up a manual of Music Theory, but until you play an instrument and listen to the interaction of theory and sound... it means nothing. Until you face a dragon, "they breathe fire" means jack to your character. Only when you feel the heat of the flame on your face as you raise your shield and hide behind a broken wall do you know the full power of the dragon flame.
As for the knowledge skills, they exist in the game for a reason and I always reward players who "think smart" and use those skills. Instead of a roll, I usually work on their Passive Knowledge (10+mod+prof (if any)). Only if they're really digging for some secret information on the monster do I make them roll. Alternatively, "high wisdom" characters can "intuit" what a monster might be capable of (following the Myers-Briggs personality type indicators for "sensing" and "intuiting" personalities).
In Combat, I never reveal numbers to players because I want them to feel the abstraction of the interaction rather than the mechanical function. From years of breaking down monster ACs into "10+ Dex + armor + shield," I always stack the numbers from 'active' defense to 'passive' defense. So 10 + Dex + Shield + Armor. In descriptions of missing - pretend AC 18 (chainmail - 16, and shield - 2). If the characters hit 17, the armor deflects the blow. If characters roll 12, the blow is deflected by the shield. If below a 10, they 'wiff' and miss entirely because of something else. If there is a dexteirty modifier in the armor class, it falls below the shield threshold. That's all very complicated and a fancy way to say "things defend themselves in the best way possible."
What I've tried lately is to not describe "hits" as anything beyond wearing down their opponent until it breaches the 0 threshold. A monster with 22 hp who takes 2 damage is just as well off as one who takes 20 damage, per RAW. I like to describe the monsters defenses dropping and their reactions just not being able to catch up with the character as the HP pool drops.
What I do that really gets the players, in some 'mystery/horror' games, is that I do not tell them their current hp. I withhold how much damage they have taken, which makes their activity much more tentative and in line with the theme of the game.
When it comes to saves, depending on the type of monster, they either expertly avoid Dexterity based saves or, if it was all the d20's roll that helped them avoid... dumb luck - like the kobold who drops his sword and tries to pick it up at the exact time that sacred flame strikes down at him.
Have fun with it, reveal what you want - if it's a mystery based game, make them work for the information and talk it out without letting numbers win them information; if you're playing a power-action game, maybe one character already knows all the monster weaknesses? (Navi in Zelda, Ocarina of Time). Make it yours.
My group never asks, so I don't tell.
ivstin wrote:
If it's a common monster, I assume they know or are able to deduce information about it.
If it's a less common moster, or something they've never seen in person, I'll have them make an appropriate check to determine if they can recall any info on the monsters attacky types and special abilities. If they don't ask for the check or fail the check, they generally learn through what happens during the encounter.
I generally just give descriptions of what it looks like at first. One or more of my players will usually make a skill check to find out more info. I do it like knowledge checks from past editions, arcana for monstrosities and outer planar creatures since there's no knowledge planes anymore, religion for undead, nature for non magical beasts etc. Depending on the rarity I'll assign a DC to identify it, and for each 5 points they exceed the DC I'll let them ask me 1 question.
These are the kinds of questions I'll usually answer:
How many hit die? (so the players can ballpark it's overall difficulty)
What are it's special attacks?
What are it's special defenses?
But I never give too much detail, no AC, HP, attack damage or anything like that. I'll give things like it's reistances and immunities, if it regenerates, that kind of thing.
I find that allowing my players to make tactical decisions is more fun for everybody than forcing them to make random "decisions," so I give them any information they ask for and then some.
During play, I do not tell them the name of the monster or any of its stats; I describe what the PCs sense. I try to give plenty of description as desired as far as that, because if I'm not clear and they can't visualize it, problems occur and everyone's frustrated. Even first-time players were quick to realize, "it must have tough hide" or "those are the things the soldiers mentioned earlier", and there's more curiosity and experimentation toward things they meet, and I think that's good. It's also apropopriate, as my monsters don't always look or act the same as the MM says.
Once, when showing a new player the image in the MM of a very odd-looking animal, she read that its alignment was Evil, so she ceased trying to catch and soothe it and told everyone to attack it. Oh well.
Once while playing 4e, a player spent his daily power on a minion, and I should have kept my mouth shut; slicing an ogre in half height-wise is fun until you realize it only had 1 hp. I could have, alternatively, told them which were minions beforehand, or even given him his daily back in that instance.
I do things a bit different to most (I think). I'll describe what a monster looks like, it's armour, what weapons it wields etc, every time. I'll also describe its demeanor, attitude etc at a basic 'first impression' sort of level. Then it's up to the pc's to deduce anything further. I allow my pcs to use ' Nature' , 'Religion', or 'Arcana' to know more based on a dc roll.
Nature- beasts
Religion-undead/demons/devils
Arcana- magical creatures/summoned monsters etc.
dc's range from 10-20 based on rarity of said nasty....works well in that they can glean small tid-bits to help them know resistances/ vulnerabilities based on the success over the dc.
i apologise for the crappy sentence structure, on tablet.
peace
Nerd
btw- these checks I ideas bonus actions if they wish to use them. I also allow insight rolls, if they want to let pcs know if the critter is acting involuntarily or under duress....
Nerdrage88 wrote: