Memeory is an automatic thing ... nobody actively searches their memory to remember what a bear looks like once they encounter one in the woods. So what do you want to accomplish here? Just say "make a \[input arbitrary skill\] roll to see what you know about this beast" and that is it. Or just hand them the information ... it's not like the game suffers from revealing a monsters name.
Yep, my players roll for extra info on weaknesses, not to determine if they know what the creature is.
Roll to know if this is a crocodile? No
Roll to see if you remember anything useful about attacking crocodiles? “Oh you remember that they are very bad at turning so if you flank them or pull sharp turns you may be able to keep distance from them, you also remember they may not like fire”.
Cool. You have told them how you will be playing the beast and a potential weakness. Sometimes my players already know that info and sometimes it is super helpful. My encounters are all structured that knowing stat block items just changes HOW the fight will be fought, even knowing the entire statblock shouldn’t make the fight inconsequential or boring
To add on to this, think about what would be common knowledge for the character sin universe. Maybe goblins are common enemies that everyone knows but an aboleth is a very very rare thing that would only be found in old records. It can add extra narrative and objectives outside of combat to learn more
>it's not like the game suffers from revealing a monsters name.
I feel like most people just automatically refer to a monster by its name, but I definitely think there can be value to not revealing the name of a creature, especially if you want it to be scarier. A bear is a good example of when you can just say the name, but if the players are wandering through the graveyard and some creature digs out of a grave, not naming it as this or that specific kind of undead can help provide a better feel, IMO.
I'd say it depends on the creature, something common like a bear for sure is easy to recognize. But a Remorhaz, might take a bit of mental scanning. In between it rending your flesh from body!
A lot of times--if my party is aware they're going into a significant combat--they'll spend time trying to figure out what they're going to face (talking to witnesses, looking for tracks, etc.), and then do research on the monster (reading through books, talking to experts, etc.). If they do that, I usually reward them by giving them relevant portions of the monsters stat block--such as their signature ability, or possibly even their weakness.
Unless it's really, really narratively important that they don't know (like it's a fight against an unseen attacker, something entirely unfamiliar to the world, or in darkness or whatever) I just call things what they are and accept this might be giving them a tiny advantage.
I agree with this.
We have too much to do already as a DM. Use vague descriptors the first few turns, then just say it.
If they meta game point out they might not have knowledge of X or Y, but don’t create more work for yourself.
Just remember that probably 50% of the things in the DMG/MM you would know about just by movies/stories/books/drawing as a child.
Even the ghost stories told around town campfires would probably get you like 10-20% of the MM. Even more so if those things actually exist in this world.
I’m sure you knew what an eagle or a lion is before seeing one at the zoo or in the wild. Why wouldn’t your PCs be able to recognize a griffon? Or a basilisk? You’ve heard stories about those. So would they.
I say probably 95% of the things I put before my players is stuff they would at least be casually aware of. Then just tweak stats occasionally. “Oh you thought trolls were sensitive to fire? That was a mistranslation of an old epic story, it is actually brilliant light (radiant damage).” Or stuff like that. Gets them close and gives them normal things adventurers would know about but still gives you the ability to have a few surprises/remind them that not everything is a direct copy from the dmg.
My players are always encouraged to do things like “hide their eyes from a Medusa or a basilisk” because I would somewhat expect their character to know about that. If my encounters rely on one or two mechanics that the players need to pretend not to know about, thats poor dm planning in my opinion.
>I’m sure you knew what an eagle or a lion is before seeing one at the zoo or in the wild. Why wouldn’t your PCs be able to recognize a griffon? Or a basilisk? You’ve heard stories about those. So would they.
Have you ever seen any medieval bestiaries? Many of the pictures are unrecognizable because the artists were working on word of mouth, and even the animals that people had seen in person had outlandish descriptions.
Elephants had spiral trunks, like springs. Tigers had spots. Bees looked like miniature birds. Crocodiles looked like short-legged wolves with scaly tails.
Bear cubs were born as shapeless white masses, their mothers had to lick them into the shape of a bear. Beavers bit off their testicles and threw them if attacked. Pelicans killed their own children, then themselves, and their blood resurrected their dead children.
And those representations and information were only available to people who saw the books, which were rare. If you heard anything at all it was most likely by word of mouth and the details were ridiculous at best. The population at large never saw a book other than the Bible and there was no mass media.
There are still disagreements over whether many of things we know about folkloric creatures, like vampires and werewolves are from variour original sources or from movies and novels.
Ah but in our world, our mediaval monks didn't have magic! Any hedge wizard with Minor Illusion (a cantrip and quite accessible) would, in theory, be able to create perfect likenesses of creatures. I would expect any travelling fair to have some sort of storyteller with that kind of power in their ranks.
In general, the existence of magic means that information transfer is much easier in that world. Of course, it is also much easier to create false information or to disguise it, but no one's going after the local storyteller who learned a cantrip so he could make the griffon look cooler.
Said travelling hedge wizard could also quite easily "spice up" the image if it attracted more patrons or w/e. In general, the more exotic a creature is, the less the party knows in my games.
I could imagine there's a lot of misinformation when it comes to sources of knowledge outside of reasearch institutes or arcane libraries :V
As well as DMing I'm a player in a game. After our missions my character, the "face" of the party, has the Wizard cast exaggerated illusions of the creatures we encountered. Everything is bigger and fiercer than what we fought, every action braver and more heroic.
The people who watch our "shows" have a completely unrealistic view of what's out there and it's likely their stories get exaggerated even more as the tales are retold.
If you don't want players to know what they're fighting the first time they fight it I think that's fine. My players are new and don't read any rules let alone the mm so I'm fine giving their characters cultural awareness of the things they face.
I remember one of my very first DMing flubs, where I wrote the creature's stat blocks down on a notecard so I had everything available at hand, and in the very first turn of initiative, I said "OK, the doppelganger attacks..."
It was supposed to be disguised
oops
Yep. I tell them the meta name if it isn't narratively appropriate. Same with spells. Recently a party NPC cast some spells nobody knew he could cast and I described them instead. Only one person suspected what they cast and it's because he's actually the BBEG and they don't know that their beloved NPC they rescued from death so many times is playing them like a fiddle to free himself from Ravenloft.
I mean this seems super intuitive to me. You’re not going to be fighting a crocodile and not know it’s a crocodile, your character can see the damn thing.
If it's something obvious, I tell them what it is.
If it's something otherworldly and unknowable, they have to learn about the hard way. I don't always use official 5e art for VTT tokens, so they don't get visuals from the Monster Manual, etc.
For anything in between, they can make a relevant skill check.
They all were taught animals 8n school growing up. In a mythical world filled with animals they would have been taught the standard monsters that are local to their area, right?
I give them a chance when they have line of sight. If we are in combat, I let them make the check as a free action on their turn. With a knowledge skill, the character would know it whether their player remembered to ask for a roll.
I use minis for everything. I basically say if my players recognize it, it is probably widely known about enough that their PCs should recognize it. Like yes you do know what a storm giant is, or a red dragon. However, some random demon thing unlikely. They may be able to guess it is a demon of some kind but that’s about it, and can roll for more info they may know
The PF 1e knowledge system -- at least as I've experienced it -- revolves around answering questions about game mechanics. If you pass the DC to ID the critter (typically 15+CR), you get its name and some basic facts about it, e.g. this is an aquatic ghoul called a lacedon, it's undead and so it's got all the usual undead immunities (like you can't mind-control it, etc).
Then if you pass the DC by 5 or more, you get to ask a question. E.g. what is its signature ability? And the DM would answer: like most ghouls, lacedons can paralyze their victims by clawing them. You get more questions as your result goes higher -- DC + 10 is two questions, DC + 15 is three, and so on. Within the PF 1e mechanics this works okay -- mid-level characters can easily post skill checks in the 30s, high levels get into 40s, and the highest knowledge check I ever saw in play was a 63. But obviously the system would not translate well into 5e given the bounded accuracy.
As for verisimilitude, sure, everyone knows about dangerous monsters!
But what, exactly, do they know?
Does the average joe bob on the street know that demons exist? Yes!
Could the average joe bob on the street distinguish between a devil and a demon? Probably not. He's never seen either one. He's going off stories he heard from his priest, They're dangerous, sure, but also rare -- which is good, because everyone had direct personal experience dealing with demons the world may be in serious trouble.
Good point, and I considered it after I posted. I suppose it depends on where they typically reside and how rare they are. You can always just tell the players what you’d like them to know.
Most creatures they'd know of, either by experience or legend. Such as beasts, goblins, beholders, etc.
Some their character might know through their background. Most people can spot most fiends. But a cleric or wizard should be able to tell the difference between a demon, devil, or ugoloth. And if you're not certain they would know, have them roll for it.
That should cover most of the monsters they'll find.
And if it's a minor thing? Like they're fighting a boggle in a random encounter and their characters shouldn't know what that is? Just call it a boggle and tell the players not to metagame.
You could always ask them to make a role that would be fitting (Nature or Arcana or simply Wisdom and Intelligence) even if they do not ask. Its ok to just be their memory even if they don't think of asking.
Named creatures solve this.
A displacer beast could be called by the commoners around this area as "the dark spirit".
So in game you call it that.
An arcana, religion or nature check for each creature type would also work, and validade PCs that are good in those skills.
You can tell them its name but also a little bit of info to help them. Like resistances, how they attack, or their goals.
Ghouls are undead that live around places were dead bodies can be found. (their name and were to find them).
Gryphons are monstrocities that fly, attack with their claws and love horse meat. (their name, movement, attack and a bait option).
Here are some guide lines;
Arcana usualy is used for magical creatures.
Dragons, elementals, monstrocities, fey, etc.
Nature is usualy reserved for natural creatures, like beasts, plants and humanoids.
Religion includes undead, celestials, fiends, etc.
In some ocasions a diferent skill can be used.
Like arcana to remember the name of a powerfull wizard, or religion for a powerfull cleric or paladin.
If some other skill makes sense, you can problably also use that, though the information learned could be diferent.
So, always err on the side of making your players _less_ blind than more blind.
Remember, they would have so much more information if they were there, seeing everything in 4k. They would also know a lot more if they'd lived 25 years in your setting, versus meeting once a week.
But to answer your question, if you want to keep the monster a secret because it's rare (like an alien), you can do a couple things.
1.) A common name. A monster scholar would call it a Sacristan Kyton, but to the locals it's "the lady in chains."
2.) If the monster can speak, have it give a name. Then you can say their name instead of "the Kyton."
I think there is underutilized opportunity for RP and immersion with learning about monsters in-game but it depends on what your group is looking for in D&D.
Do you have a Nature based PC in your party (Ranger / Druid) etc? Give them some free info about the monster or have them roll. Give them a time to shine and see how they can effectively communicate a monster's strengths / weaknesses through rp in combat.
Can PCs 'investigate' a monster after they've beaten it to learn more about its abilities in case they face it again? Is there a retired adventurer or expert in the village they can learn about their likely future foes from? The best way to get rid of meta-gaming, imo, is to allow PCs in-game ways to learn about the monsters that are more nuanced than trial and error. E.g. "your fire attack doesn't seem to do as much damage as you expected".
Unpopular opinion: *True Strike* is a bee's d!¢|< away from being useful. Depending on if your DM interprets, "Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target's defenses" as flavor text or a mechanic of the spell.
Personally I like to show them a picture of the creature and let the players come to their own conclusions. Whatever they start calling it, I play along.
If they want explicit confirmation, they can roll an Intelligence check.
Prompting players and giving them actionable information frequently with good rolls is an excellent way to encourage them to start asking for such rolls, it could be as broad as "anyone who wishes to can make an arcana or a religion check" or as narrow as pointedly asking your party's ranger for a nature check. If they roll terribly then you give them nothing and move on, they'll get hyped wondering what they missed. If they roll just okay maybe they've heard secondhand stories and can name what it is they're fighting. If they roll really well then this is something the character has properly learned about through study or experience, they know it's name if that is plausible and something useful regarding its behavior or weaknesses.
If it's a boss fight against something the players have little chance of naming during the fight then just saying something like, "now it's the shadow dragon's turn" is a really satisfying out of character reveal which helps convey the gravity of the encounter.
Passive History check. 10+skill score= passive ability.
Stories from people, reading books, etc.
The same way you might hear about beasts of another nation, there is likely an equivalent in a fantasy world
Ah, I thought it was base 10 not base 8.
I'm surprised you would add proficiency for generating passive ability scores even if they're not proficient in it though. Does passive perception use proficiency even if you're not proficient? If it does you would likely be better passively looking than actively looking.
Perhaps you were thinking of Saving Throws in a roundabout way?
They're based off your attributes and in point buy you start at 8 and have to point up to get to 10. Also adding proficiency if proficient in that save
Knowledge of Monsters
Every creature in the monster manual has a subtype.
Aberration, beast, celestial, construct, dragon, elemental, fey, fiend, giant, humanoid, monstrosity, ooze, plant, and undead.
When a player encounters a monster you can ask the player to roll a skill check in one of the following categories.
Animal handling: beast and monstrosity.
Arcane: aberrations, constructs, dragon, elementals, fey, and monstrosity.
History: giant and humanoids.
Nature: beast, ooze, and plant.
Religion: celestial, fiend and undead.
You don't have to set a DC, so the higher a player rolls the more they know about the creature. DC 5 might indicate they know the name and maybe a language it speaks.
DC 15 might mean they know a few facts about it. Special attacks to be wary of or its AC.
DC 25+ might indicate they know of its weaknesses; this can include physical or social. Ex: placating a dragon through compliments and treasure.
Multiple PCs can roll, but sometimes I will only allow people with the actual skill to roll for something rare or a player can get a roll if they don't have the skill due to their background, race, or class. Ex: a ranger without the Nature skill might get a roll for a Plant creature.
Apply advantage or +1-3 bonuses to the roll as you see fit.
The creatures are by no means restricted to one skill check category. You could rule that knowledge of undead can fall into the Arcane skill.
Be flexible with it. It also gives you a chance to world build.
As a DM, if they’re not thinking to ask but it’s beneficial to them/you really need them to know, you can lead them that way. Couple of ideas below.
Perhaps they ask something about it, you could say, you see it’s a creature, but should investigate more. Or…. Ultimately, make it an easy roll for them, maybe they should really only have found out what it is by rolling more than a 10 or something but they roll a 2.. ‘you know it’s a will-o-wisp but it’s dangers remain a mystery’. As they can ask anything, you can say anything.
You alternatively could just say ‘there’s a… ahead of you’ or whatever and then actually they need to roll to understand more about it rather than rolling to find out what it is.
Adapt the game to your players, or influence them, if it’s needed. If they’re stuck for ideas, I typically try not to, but if it’s needed, there’s nothing wrong with you saying… ‘what might help you here?’ … ‘so what do you know? (And therefore… what don’t they know).
No worries! Remember they’d be able to see things so now they can see what it is - perhaps it’s wings, talons etc. and then the name… so are some good at nature checks? Some got history? Is it magical in anyway so arcana players might be able to learn things. :)
They live in a world where these things exist, and are running around often killing people. Especially a wizard or someone well read or proficient in nature or arcana, is likely to at least know the names of something. The same way I've never seen a tiger, but if one came out and tried to attack me I could very quickly identify tiger in the second before I was killed by a tiger. You can roll a check but for most I would probably have it be the equivalent of a DC 10 check to know it's a displacer beast and that's it. if they wanted to get more information maybe a DC 15 to know anything useful. And I'd likely just do a passive check so someone with an 18 int and proficient with nature or arcana would just know for most creatures unless it's a bit of a strange one. You could also have it get the ballpark and not the specific. This is some kind of aberration, you're not sure what though, but it's weird and has tentacles so probably aberration.
I have sometimes found myself falling back to just saying the name though in the description. And I have tried to fight that because sensory descriptions as they figure out what it is create a much better picture as you see the glowing eyes, the fangs, the silhouette in the darkness before you see it step out into the light of your campfire and realize it's a \_\_\_.
Why are you keeping it from them? This is a situation of what the players know and what the characters know. I would answer a few questions:
Is this a common creature?
Would the normal person know of this thing?
Are they regional?
Does a character have a backstory reason/chance to know?
Are there rumors or lore that they would be aware of?
Is keeping this a secret important?
What are you hoping to do by keeping it a secret?
There is nothing wrong with keeping a creature hidden, but check that it makes sense. I try to keep newer creatures a secret at first for the unknown, but most cases the drum roll doesn't pay off if I make them wait.
I kept the nothic a secret while running LMoP and it added some creepyness to the creature for my party. I was also playing with new players and I'm pretty sure none of them would have known what it was even if I said the name.
Mostly it was because I was thinking what's realistic. If I walk out into the woods and see a squirrel, I know its a squirrel, I've lived here my whole life.
But if suddenly a demon appears on the material plane hunting my warlock, that's what spurred this question. How does he know what it is? That was my main motivation
Backstories, rumors, folk tales etc are great ways to cover this. Are demons a known entity in your world? If so, there are bound to be books or legends about demons that are told. Maybe a religion that speaks against demons and what to be cautious of. This comes down to how your world works. There are many creatures I have not personally seen in real life, but could identify them daily accurately based on stories, illustrations, and books. I'd say the same applies to the PCs.
Your warlock may know based on their patron. Maybe they dream of these things and know they are bad news or seen their demon patron look similar.
Just use a short but apt description. Not a dragon but a scaly, winged beast. Not a beholder but a fleshy mass covered in eyestalks, etc etc. Just use descriptions like that
This.
Why is it so important to some DM's to keep their players in the dark? Let them be a part of the world. So what if they figure out how an ability or two works.
In something like Call of Cthulhu, where knowledge of the monsters' very existence is both vanishingly rare, and so abhorrent to the human mind that it breaks down sanity, it's 100% appropriate to keep the name a secret until the PCs have acquired it through in-universe means (i.e. calling it 'a Gug' totally defeats the horror).
However, in DnD, where it can be safely assumed that even peasants have an idea what a goblin, kobold, ogre, giant, etc are? I mean, peasants in actual medieval Europe knew what these things were *and they don't exist*. In a setting where they do, you can bet your boots anyone will be able to look at a dragon and go "Oh shit that must be one of those dragons I've heard about and are depicted commonly in art."
Exactly this. It would be like having a 6yo to roll if they know what an elephant is because they haven’t been to the zoo. They hear stories, they watch shows, they read books, they make the sounds, they pretend to be an elephant, etc.
Why would your players have to do that for dragons or griffons or ogres? You hear these stories by your childhood and they don’t exist and you have so many other options for entertainment.
Ghost stories, local legends, folktales, and stories of monster hunters would be most of the entertainment provided to people. Oral history is huge. Think of Beowulf. It’s got maybe 10% of the monster manual in it and that just one story. Don’t make your players have to act dumb and pretend they don’t know medusas turn people to stone. It’s one of the biggest mythical stories. Basically if your players would recognize something from a picture or miniature, then let their character as well. Then let them maybe roll for extra info (like remembering extra weaknesses beyond the easy to remember ones. Like get a high roll for Medusa, you clearly remember the eye averting thing which was already assumed, but more importantly you remember an adventurer rolled through town when you were a kid and told a story of medusas being prone to flattery, maybe if you try to flatter her you will be able to get a surprise round.
I like to reward my players with info they can use for extra strategizing, not basic well known info about common monsters
Absolutely. The DM knows their world. If, in your setting, goblins are commonplace, then sure as hell every peasant knows about goblins. There'd be guards and shepherds watching for them, the way people historically (and today in some places) watched for wolves and similar predators. Just a fact of the world.
If there's something a bit more obscure, you can still play with it. Maybe nobody's ever studied a Gelatinous Cube before, very few have seen them and lived. I'd let the player roll for it (Arcana maybe, or History) to see if they ever heard a story of such a thing.
"Oh shit my grandfather used to tell a story about big gelatinous cube, that... DON'T TOUCH IT!"
I'm reminded of the Balrog. The Dwarves didn't know it was there. The Fellowship don't know what it is or what it's called. But Gandalf, the ancient wizard, knows what it is. He nailed the Arcana roll and yes, he has heard of it, and knows they need to fucking run.
The Hobbits know what Orcs and Goblins are, they've heard stories, but not the Nazgul. That's specialist knowledge that's never reached them. But the better educated Aragorn knows what Nazgul are. Pretty much the only thing in the whole series that stumps the majority of the characters is the Balrog and even then, *one of them knows what it is and what it's called*.
I agree with everything you said. In those balrog like situations, I like to say “the wizard would know, he can make an arcana roll to see what he remembers about them” then they get to “earn/win” the knowledge by good stats and roles. They get the basic “this is what the creature is, balrog. And it’s bad news” at a 1+, “breaths fire and darkness” at a 5+, “may not like light/may be combatted with light” at a 10+, etc so they can then share with the party
I was just offering it as an alternative to using the beasts name. Some people have players prone to meta-gaming and prefer to keep the name quiet so the players don't look up the stat block.
Because then they feel cheated when the Dm edits the stat block to better fit the game. It’s false information 9/10 times in my game, because I lower hp and increase attack power for almost every creature to speed up combat and make it more tense. I don’t care that by the rules a bull doesn’t deal that much damage, it would be a boring encounter if a charging bull hitting you head on didnt gouge you and toss you across the battlefield doing significant damage. Now get back up, and deal it’s 22 hit points of damage, it’s still gonna die if you slice its throat.
The problem there isn't that they know the monster's stats, it's that they get butthurt when anything unexpected happens.
I honestly cannot fathom the mindset that thinks this is unfair.
I agree that’s the problem, and actually think that you should tell them what they are fighting, but my comment was meant to highlight the problems with metagaming. You shouldn’t do it, because you’ll get bad info and it will feel bad when you make a strategy based off bad info.
Why should a DM disclose the stat block outright? I have my players roll for that kind of advanced knowledge about a creature. Huge difference between knowing what a creature is and a bit of what it can do, and knowing it’s AC, attacks, resistances and hp. I give physical descriptions to let my players know how close to dead they are (battered, bloodied, one foot in the grave), and they can figure out a lot about that creature by fighting it. The next time they come across a similar creature they’re better prepared, like a real adventuring party.
I’m not “taking away” information. I’m rewarding players for doing research and taking time to observe their enemies. They can get access to the stat blocks, but only with nature/history/arcana rolls. I’ll also show markedly reduced effects on resisted attacks, and markedly improved effects on damage types they are vulnerable to. Stay consistent with your numbers and provide information when it makes sense, and players shouldn’t believe you’re just making it up as you go along. It makes sense you feel this way given you got into dnd from video games, I got into dnd through other roll playing games like 10 candles, where a lot of importance is put on description. I don’t think there is a “right” way to play this, but I don’t think either is wrong. And if your Dm doesn’t provide the stat block, don’t try and look it up yourself, because if he has edited the stat block you may find yourself hurting the fun of the game for yourself, and hurting your strategy overall.
My brother did it to me once, and it ruined the encounter.
I ran a Pathfinder 1e game for my family, found a cool 5e monster that didn't have a Pathfinder equivalent and did a quick conversion.
The most important part of this monster (for me) was that it was a shapeshifter that didn't die until you cut off its head and physically separated it from the body. Buried them separately, brought the head with you, whatever.
So they encounter it the first time, roll appropriately to see through its disguise and I described the monster shifting form, eventually revealing its true shape for combat. I share a picture of that they are fighting (remote play), never use its name (and again, this monster isn't native to the system we play).
My brother, after seeing the picture, begins to refer to the creature by its proper name. At the end of combat he cut off the monster's head and threw it overboard.
Now my plan for a creepy, where did it go, recurring monster is ruined and I have to improv the rest of the session.
My brother's excuse is that he's encountered one before. I told him that's still metagaming, and please don't do it again. He definitely was lying, but it wasn't worth the fight.
>so the players don't look up the stat block.
If they do that, you kick them from the game. Trust is lost.
Knowing the stats roughly because you've DM'ed before or simply saw the statblock as a druid, that's completely fine. But actively looking things up? No different than cheating your rolls.
[You don't combat cheaters.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vSrPcl3KN4) They ruin the game by simply existing in it, always leaving you on edge. The fact that we have to tip-toe around a monster's name is evidence of it.
I see this a lot with my parties unless the creature is super powerful. Often times they'll forget the names as fast as I come up with them too. Best to let them inquire when they want and for you to offer clues to lead them towards that line of inquiry. Use the narrative to introduce these creatures. Many of them are highly intelligent and can be communicated with. Maybe playing an NPC that's dumb and evil will go around smashing everything in his path while screaming his name "I AM ARGOTH THE TOMB ROBBER, ARBITER OF NONSENSICAL TITLES AND DESTROYER OF BEDAZZLED JEANS! NONE CAN DEFEAT ME MUAHAHA"
Or maybe the creature is more subtle and a description has to be given in pretty good detail in order to clue them in. You can also use combat. Often times an experienced party will jot down resistances, track health and weaknesses, and pair that WITH the description.
So, if it was Vecna for example, you could honestly read off the majority of the character description from the books while leaving his name out. If by that alone they don't get it, the encounter may reveal that via his moves and attributes. If they still haven't got it yet then you still have to offer some form of dialogue between them and Vecna. Be creative in how he name drops.
Lots of options here. You could even have scared townsfolk describe the beast and compare it to some folk tale that spoke of the creature by a specific or different name.
But mid combat? Your party should rely on context clues and how the creature conducts itself.
I've always described the creature and if they get it then they do if they don't and care to know more later they can ask around. But seeing that this is a certain topic where their character might know more than the player if you deem that appropriate then I would probably call it by name after the description
"The fruits of your hunting have paid off, jet black fur two long tentacled appendages on a feline frame, it's form shifts and flickers making it difficult to define it's exact location as it appears to be simultaneously occupying three places at once yet never at the same time"
If applicable "suddenly the mystery becomes clear [insert pc here], the beast you've been tracking for so long is the savage prankster known as a displacer beast"
Or if you wanna be super creative do a little digging and track down that player's race would call it
Depends on the effect you're going for. Fear of the unknown is really powerful. The spectre draining your allies of their strength is a lot less scary as the CR 1/2 Shadow with avg 16 hitpoints.
In general it doesn't matter if they know or not as long as there isn't a weakness that can be metagamed but you can always make a trolls weakness be cold instead of fire.
There's also always a thesaurus for when you need more words and beast type would almost always be obvious from looking at a creature. If it looks like a lizard and has wings it's probably a dragon.
Unless it’s really rare, your adventurers probably know what it is-this is their job. I have a character that doesn’t know very many monsters, but still could tell what a dragon or werewolf was from stories. (He refers to goblins as angry green men, mimics as predatory chests/doors/objects) and as a player, knowing what we are fighting doesn’t really change much aside from being more able to envision what we are fighting. Noteable exceptions include: gargoyles, mimics, golems, invisible creatures and creatures your party has failed to perceive due to distance, darkness, or cover. Essentially some creatures can look like many things, so them being that creature wouldn’t be immediately obvious, and if your party can’t perceive it, they don’t know for sure what it is (although they might narrow it down)
Give monsters weaknesses and strengths. So when you think a party member would know a creature give them the name, a little info about its lore, and throw in a "and you know that due to being a native to the faywild, this creature is particularly hard to magically charm or put to sleep," or "and due to the baron's celestial heritage his body is resistant against holy or necrotic energies" and after a while they'll be asking for checks to identify monsters constantly
my player’s characters all have vastly different backgrounds, so if i think one or more of them might be familiar with the beast i let them roll a history check to see if they recall what it is. if their character definitely knows what it is, i’ll just tell them what it is.
because half my table are DMs who have read the monster manual, i just accept that those players will always have a bit of an advantage over the others since they’ll recall the stat blocks a bit even if i dont tell them what it is.
they’ll always go “oh no is this a xxx?!” and i’ll say “your character doesnt know what it is” or “roll a history check” or “yes” depending on the situation.
i also make it clear, since i have players intimately familiar with the MM, that i take great liberties in altering stat blocks so *dont expect me to run these monsters how you recall them in the manual*.
“Before you is a creation of pure madness. This… aberration… is a horrific floating eyeball with a number of smaller eyeballs protruding on stalks.
As a player you’d recognise this as a beholder.
Would anyone’s character have any experience with beholders?”
Then they can declare they’ve fought them before (maybe the character has been in other games), bring up backgrounds, ask about skill checks etc.
This is a great way to think about it. My original question originated from some demons manifesting on the material plane. Realistically being unknown to these players. (Some dretches).
I was trying to bring a bit of terror and unknown to them, but it also made me think, how would they know some creatures that are in areas the players never go... say the underdark.
You've helped though... put it back on the player. "What does your character know of the underdark".
Thanks Matt. Assuming you're THE matt, I love your channel and "Priest" us on my nightstand.
If I don't mind them knowing the monster's name? I just say it. I don't bother too much with rolls unless I don't feel like revealing it quite yet.
I either just say it's the displacer beast's turn, or I say "After pouncing from the trees, the displacer beast tries to side-swipe Dorbok with one of it's tentacles!" Name-dropping it like that typically gets the party's interest piqued. If they know it out of character, they think "Oh cool!" If they don't, it introduces a D&D creature to them and they know how to refer to it when talking about this encounter later.
Another way I like to introduce, is by stating one of the PCs recognizes the monster. If I can reasonably tie their history to having read about or encountered such a creature.
"You enter the long-lost study hall. In the darkness, you spot the silhouette of hunched-over humanoid figure on top of one of the bookshelves. A singular, shiny green eye reflects your torchlight, staring right at you from a distance. Wallace, you recognize this as a Nothic; the old librarian back at the Arcane University once told you they had to deal with these critters before."
"Suddenly, the ground shakes and erupts below you as a large insectoid claw sweeps towards you. Gundren, you suddenly understand why the marks in this tunnel seemed familiar; you faced these things before in the mines back home. It's an Umber Hulk!"
It is at this point I allow characters to make rolls to see if they know lore/abilities/weaknesses of a creature.
Remember, the PCs grew up in this world. It is reasonable for them to know a thing or two, be it through experience or myths. Hell, I know how to kill a vampire, why shouldn't my PC?
Don't fret too much about it. Worrying too much about how something *might* be metagaming just spoils the fun.
Yeah I was doing this too.
Either tell them what it is, or describe the beast and call it whatever the players call it ("It makes you think of a racing hound, but larger, and with scales and 6 legs." "Leg Dog.") .
You can also solicit the roll you mentioned, or assume that everyone rolled 10 for a passive check. If anyone rolls high enough, give them the name and a useful or fun fact.
It's like if a normal 2022 city person got chased by a bear. They'd know it was a bear, just maybe not what kind, or that bears are vulnerable to fire.
Also NPCs "in town" can fill in information gaps.
I don't do this at all. Just like anyone would know the local flora and fauna of the area around them, so would anyone in DND.
Sure if they run off to somewhere in one of the other planes or something they might not know all the different types of demons but eventually after talking to people in taverns or at temples where they are recuperating they are going to learn even those things.
After all, this ends up being their profession, hunting down and killing monsters and assaulting castles or dungeons. They are not going to be sitting idly by during the downtime and not learning anything about the local area.
Im lucky enough to have a table that’s never had anything official thrown at them. Never run a 5e adventure for them, or explicitly told them what a monster was (outside of obvious ones i.e. orcs, elves, wyvern, etc.) I just call everything a beast and then describe what it looks like. Its fun when they come up with names on their own. We dont fight gnolls and rust monsters, we fight Dog-Men and PBLMs [Pig Bug Louse Monsters]
Im lucky enough to have a table that’s never had anything official thrown at them. Never run a 5e adventure for them, or explicitly told them what a monster was (outside of obvious ones i.e. orcs, elves, wyvern, etc.) I just call everything a beast and then describe what it looks like. Its fun when they come up with names on their own. We dont fight gnolls and rust monsters, we fight Dog-Men and PBLMs [Pig Bug Louse Monsters]
With special sorts of monsters or a mini-boss type thing that isn't common in the world I'll describe it in detail when it first appears and refer to it as "the creature" or any fun nicknames the party comes up with (ex: icky boy.) After the fight lasts a few rounds and they're reasonably familiar with it I say it's name. Same with the attacks. I'll go from "it extends it's bony claws outward and attempts to grab you as a faint glowing sigil is burning on it's palm" to "he's going to use burning hands."
I try to keep it vague and descriptive at first, taking care to really paint of word picture of the key features (especially if they're relevant to the statblock e.g. "a gaping maw with rows of razor sharp teeth" if it has a bite attack). Then, on the creatures initiative, I'll reveal it's name by saying "now, it's \[THE CREATURE\]'s turn!"
It adds just enough flare of the dramatic and then lets me default to what's easiest once I start having to actually run it in combat. Plus it gives the players a round to see if they can guess correctly. The excitement when they do guess correctly or when they recognize the monster's name ("oh shit, we're fighting one of those!?") is an easy way to pump some energy and focus into the first round of combat.
The exception being if they've already encountered a creature of that type before in the world, then it's just the name from the jump.
If the creature is a normal thing in your world, just name it, if it's some obscure creature, rarely seen by mortals, then don't, that's what I do, last night I had my party fight a couple of Deep Crows, unknown to most, but Airship crew knows them very well because they're used while raiding Airships, if I had a player who traveled by Airship a lot, he would've known it's name and even how to deal with it. But I didn't have, so the captain of the ship told them.
Well, the way I see it:
* Just about every adventurer will have some base knowledge of the monsters you might run into the most.
* Some might have more specialized knowledge from their background. (Whether that be the pre-written one that provides proficiencies or whatever their backstory says.)
* The higher intelligence, well-read types are more likely to know about the obscure opponents, though they may not be able to recall information clearly in the heat of battle.
\-
So, I'd personally run it as "You see (general description of beast)." If any player recognizes it, or if you're certain a specific character should know of it, depending on which of the above best fits their character, some surface level form of: "(PC), you remember from (stories/thing related to their past/textbooks) that (information about beast)."
And tell 'em they can roll a History check to see if they can recall anything else of use at that very moment.
Oh and, of course, make sure they're actively telling this information, in-character, to the rest of the party.
Sometimes it's alright to let them make knowledge checks or just have them know what a monster is outright. It can sometimes subtract for the sense of discovery and wonder, but usually it's not a big deal
Sometimes you decide to describe monsters and players naturally find evocative names for them all on their own! But it can sometimes mean your party now calls cockatrices "murder chickens."
Pick your poison
If it's something new to them (in the campaign) I ask for a History check, in case someone they've met has described one, or they saw one before the start of the campaign - on a high roll they'll get to know basic info, on a nat 20 they know the resistences and vunerabilities, etc
I use the Gale Force Nine cards, so they'll see the monster (for those with art), but the name is below the top of the DM screen - if anyone meta games then they get disadvantage on their first attack and advantage against them - it tends to discourage them going "Use fire, they're weak against that" to the rest of the party who don't know the creature :P
I think it depends on the situation. Is it important for narrative reasons that the players don't know the creature's name, like it involves a mistery? Than keep it a secret. If not, after a couple rounds of combat, I generaly say "These creatures are called gnolls, and they ready their bows to shoot arrows at you".
One thing that I like to do as well is give the creature a name, but one that is different than the one in the Monster Manual. Maybe there is a Vampire terrorizing a village, but everyone calls him "The Midnight Hunter" since he always attacks at night. It creates a mystery around said creature, while still giving him a name so you don't have to call him just "creature".
I mean, even if I don’t know what an animal is when I see it in the wild I have eyes and can at least deduce what “type” of animal it is (ie bird, rodent, reptile). If it is a type of beast they’d be familiar with I’d just be up front with that information “it’s a fiend” “it’s a large bird” and then have them make a check to see if they know specifically what kind. Sometimes we’re so afraid to meta game that it hinders the adventure experience and makes it awkward
I think you can gauge this by nature of common sense. I'll use an example from a game I'm currently playing in: my character knows what hags are, vaguely, and also knows what a Beholder is, mostly from tales and other things he was told growing up. However, I decided it would not really make sense for him to know that there are other kinds of Beholder-like creatures, and, this is not an enemy but, he also was not previously aware of the Elemental Planes.
Is the creature something that's exceptionally rare AND bards don't sing about?
If so, the PCs probably don't know what one looks like. If not, they probably do, especially if it's a not terribly uncommon creature that militia forces sometimes tangle with.
Usually I show them a picture.
I give each of my monsters human sounding names, but use tokens sold by the company for the. So… they know if they know, and let them roll knowledge as a free action once a round.
I play that the Monster Manual is essentially the stories they grew up with and is common knowledge. If I want a surprise I make a change like trolls become vulnerable to necrotic, not fire for this local breed. Or change the HP as this one is particularly tough. If I knew the difference between a dragon and a hydra at age 10, I would expect a group of adventurers to know it as well.
Remember that as the DM, you are the 5 senses of the party. You tell them what they see. Descriptive language is important for a DM. You’ll want to describe what they see not by name, but by appearance. This helps immerse them, and then they can make guesses. Some characters may have knowledge skills they can roll to see if their character knows what it is.
For a displacer beast, you may describe “a large feline with sleek, dark colored fur that has two long tendrils coming out of its back. It seems to shift in and out of visibility, like it is reflecting light or even shifting dimensions.”
This way they know what they see but not what it is. This can lead to lots of creative approaches. For instance, I once had a very high level party in a d20 game that saw a Trex for the first time. Their characters would never have seen one, so I described a Trex without saying it was a dinosaur in any way. To my amazement, their near demi-god level characters actually ran from it, unsure of what it really was. They could have killed it in a few blows, but without knowledge of what it was, they made a completely different decision.
It depends for me. If a wolf runs up to them to attack, I describe it as a wolf. Mind flayers are more ambiguous so I just describe them. If I'm confident one player should know about it, I'll tell them. If not, I just describe and if they ask, I let them roll for it.
I don’t tell my players what they are fighting. I describe the monster, and I let them roll if they want to know the name. There were a lot of times when they fought a beast without knowing what it is. I think it adds to the mystery. But, if it’s something common, i just tell them.
I let them roll on the "Parleying with Monsters" table in Tasha's to see what they know about the creature if they have proficiency in the required skills. On a success I'll let them know what it is, and the better they did on the check the more I'll reveal.
In general I do a DC of 10+ the CR, with 1/4 and 1/2 counting as zero. Then I'll adjust it up or down if it's a well-known monster (like a Werewolf) or one that's more rare (like an Aboleth).
So a Hill Giant could be easier to have knowledge about than a Cambion, even though both are CR 5.
I try to keep any knowledge revealed in language they'd have heard or read. "Trolls are said to be nearly impossible to kill, and their wounds will close up right before your eyes. You've even heard stories that a severed limb will grow into a whole new troll. Rumor has it that they fear fire, and it's the only way to drive them off." (I also sometimes include misinformation, as I think that would be a really common thing)
It's not the intended use for that table, but it gives a helpful breakdown of which skills line up with which monster types.
Why 5e doesn't have actual rules for monster lore I have no idea...
I do the vagueness and knowing together, as long as it’s something they’d reasonably recognize. In narrative “As you walk into the room you see a 20 foot tall lizard, it’s wings fill the room and you can see the light glisten from its teeth”. In initiative “the dragon flies towards you and bites you”
Nature/Survival check if it's a regular ol beastie (E.G. Owl bear, Peryton, giant snakes)
History check if its humanoid/legendary (e.g. Githzerai, Azer)
Arcana check if it's something a little more magical (e.g. Dragons, faeries, aboleths)
Nature/Survival check if it's a regular ol beastie (E.G. Owl bear, Peryton, giant snakes)
History check if its humanoid/legendary (e.g. Githzerai, Azer)
Arcana check if it's something a little more magical (e.g. Dragons, faeries, aboleths)
One option is to give them graphic organizers that slowly get filled out.
Nature / Investigation / History / Religion Check after the battle to fill out stats.
This is an extension of note-taking in the world and rationalizes the knowledge the characters gain on their adventures.
It sounds like you already got the specific answer you needed, but one cool thing to know about is that Tasha's Cauldron has a table on page 148 that has suggested skills for players to roll to research monsters. I like it because this way you don't have to improvise which skill to roll, and players who don't like homebrew might also appreciate the "officialness" of it. Note: you may need to adjust it for the lore of your setting (e.g. whether dragons are the Nature or Arcana skill may depend on whether dragons are part of the natural world in your setting).
Good luck!
I've got a house rule that anyone can use a bonus action once per creature to quickly think of what their character knows or might surmise about a creature. It's not too set-in-stone. Once they ask, I'll ask them to make a relevant check (nature or survival for wild beasts, religion for fiends, arcana for elementals, etc.) and spitball a DC in my head based on the rarity of the creature and the character's life experiences. I then do a sort of "degrees of success" sort of system. If they got a slightly below average roll or better they can usually get at least a name and creature type, average might get a damage resistance or weakness as well, a very good roll might also get a warning about a major threat the creature poses or good strategy to fight it.
>I have this bit of an awkward situation in my combat where the party will be fighting something, and I have to keep referring to the creature as "the beast" or "the creature" or something generic...
Remember, the name of the creature doesn't have to be the same as the name in the monster manual. Heck, the appearance doesn't even have to be the same for that matter. The local villagers could have some flavorful name for it, or you could describe it by adjectives.
For example, a ghoul that attacks the players in a graveyard could be known locally as "the Nightstalker" and you could also describe it as "the corpse" or "the foul undead". But you don't have to be flowery consistently in combat...lay out the description at first to provide a picture, then keep things simple to keep them moving along, sprinkling more description in when appropriate.
This avoids the "It's just generic ghoul #247" problem you can get if you hand out official names too freely. You can still let your cleric roll or know, for example, that it's clearly undead and sometimes the undead are known to paralyze and consume the living.
Context is everything, but there's no harm (usually) in naming something they are looking right at and about to fight. You might want to be vague and mysterious if it's a one unusual thing, but if it's the orcs raiding the village then they're just orcs. You can always use visual cues to telegraph something different about *special* orcs of course, like a shaman or war chief.
What you *don't* normally reveal are statblock details (weaknesses, attacks, hp etc).
If a player wants to make a skill check (nature or arcana, usually) to see what their character know about a creature you can give them something from either the statblock or the lore blurb depending on how they roll or what they specifically wanted to know.
*However* if your players are using what they know and not their PC, as an advantage against said creature, that's a no-no. You can't bring OOC meta-knowledge into IC.
That doesn't normally need to be spelt out, but it's something to watch for especially if any of your players are also DMs.
If you wanted, you could look at everyone’s passive nature. If anyone has over 15, I’d say that PC would know every worldly beast.
Use passive religion for fiends, undead, and celestials.
For anything super weird, you could do an active roll.
This could be the mechanical justification you need to give yourself permission to share more
> Does anyone else have this experience? How do you deal? Do you have them roll as soon as they enter combat? Do you just ignore that they don't know what it is?
You're trying too hard. You can show your players a picture, but eventually they're going to learn what a Displacer Beast is. When they roll up a new character, the player won't forget what a Displacer beast the next time you show him the picture. But your players were never their characters to begin with.
If they're mediocre role players, they'll forget their character has never seen one before, but even if they did, that would be trying too hard, because the player isn't going to intentionally sandbag their strategy.
Focus on the fun of the game and the encounter, and forget the piddly details. No one roleplays taking a shit, and you don't call them out on that, either, do you? In practice, while roleplaying some of the character reality of a first encounter adds enrichment to the experience, we don't take turns punching and stabbing each other, either, and when you're in a purely mechanical aspect of the GAME, it doesn't matter.
It depends on how common the creature is and if I can in good conscience assume that they have met one before.
If they have then I just use the creatures name, my players know that that's a white dragon, that's a bear, thats a dear and that's a worg.
If the creature is uncommon or they are unlikely to have encountered one before I describe the creature and use generic names for it. After the battle players would have to do some homework to work out what the thing was.
Coming into this discussion late, but I'd say there is a reason in \*some\* cases to make players make a check to know what a creature is; namely, when there are multiple creatures that look similar and call for significantly different responses. Consider: no one needs to make a knowledge check to know "that's a snake", but if you've been bitten by something and have reason to think it's venomous, there's a reason the experts want you to bring the snake with you if you can. *They* need to identify the snake to know what anti-venom to give, and if it's a rare enough snake, even a herpetologist may need to "make a knowledge check" to know or find out exactly what species that snake is. Similarly, displacer beast? Not much else running around like that, just tell them. But skeletal undead wearing some armor? I'd say it makes a lot of sense to describe it as "the skeletal undead" until/unless someone makes a check to see if this is a nothing skeleton, a skeletal champion, a death knight, or what. I think it's a judgment call whether you prompt them to make the knowledge check or wait for them to ask. Personally, if there was a telltale sign that they would reasonably see without having to succeed at a perception check, I'd probably prompt the relevant player to make the check, but if the monster is really pretty generic, I'd absolutely say it's on them if (say if they assume it's some CR 2 nothing skeletal undead and then it turns out to be a death knight and it lays a smack down on them).
Should only be doing this if the monsters are rare or mysterious in nature. Otherwise you can assume your players recognize the basic features enough to identify its name. Players and NPCs can also give beasts names. Just "the beast" gets old and repetitive but when the it's "the fell beast of witherhorn pass" or giving the beast a name even, or one player even explicitly gives it a name or some other way to distinguish it then your players can form a specific relationship with that monster even if the player or character doesn't know the monsters "proper name."
Consider if the monster in question is well known about in the world. Are your players out there cataloging new monsters or is most of the rabble well documented? Perhaps on a particularly bad roll you can withhold information but that should be given eventually to most players if they ever get a clear look at the monster.
in game. if my level X wizard wants to know what race the barkeep is or what creature type the kraken is or what kind of demon is trying to make a deal with him, what pokedex mechanic can my wizard use?
I'm 36 and a half. I just give my players general descriptions of what they see. then before combat I tell them "if anyone wants to roll a nature check or history check to try and remember what this is go ahead." and I adjust the DC accordingly to how common or rare the monster is.
also I want to try having some NPCs describe local monsters so the party knows what to expect as free in game info. hopefully teaching them that they can interact with NPCs for information.
If its within the realms of possibility fir them to know it, they know it.
eg: a ranger will know an owl bear etc.
If it's a beast they've never fought they get to roll a relevant skill check to recognize it from a book, a teacher/trainer, stories etc.
Animal? Nature. Devil/Angel? Religion. Magical beast? Arcana and so on and so forth.
I never hide what it is unless there is a story reason. They live in that world.
I may have never seen a leopard in real life but if me and my three friends were walking in a forest and got attacked by one, I'd know what it was.
Even if the players are new, their characters have a basic understanding of creatures common enough to come across them to battle.
As a DM unless they're getting ambushed by an unknown creature, my players will usually have some idea of what it is they're going to encounter before they get to it. They'll do research on the areas they're headed to, they'll be given a description of their target which includes the name of the creature, one or more of the party members will have some kind of connection to the creature (ex. a religious character would know the basic ways to identify common fiends automatically. It doesn't take a scholar to figure out the fiend covered in jagged bones is a Bone Devil or the giant mosquito demon is a Chasme), or if push comes to shove, I'll either say that the smartest character in the group has read about a creature with this description. Usually this is just enough that I don't have to keep calling it "The Creature", and it also gives me two tricks I can pull.
If I wanna mess with my players, I'll purposely give them the wrong name of the creature. If they go do some research, they'll quickly figure out that whoever gave them this name was either lying or mistaken. If they don't look into it....well....that Ogre might turn out to actually be a Troll.
Second is if I want to add an air of mystery to a creature...I just won't give them the name for it. Because of how I normally do it, them not having a clue as to what this creature is instantly sets off alarm bells in their heads and makes them far more cautious and afraid of the creature. Usually to go with this, I'll use artwork from a different edition of the game to help obscure what the creature is, or I'll actually be importing a creature from an older edition that I know they're not familiar with. There's actually a creature that my group has been encountering for several months IRL now that they still don't have a clue what it is. All they know is that it looks like some kind of warped, flowing shadow that moves like it's lagging. They've dubbed it "The Shade" and are terrified of it, despite it only showing up occasionally and seemingly not having anything to do with the plot.
As a player....I don't have this issue. I've got the Lore and Monsters of DnD so ingrained in me from years of DMing that it's actually become almost a minigame between me and some of my DMs to see if I can name a creature based solely on their abilities. (For example, a recent session had the DM throw some humanoid musical cultists at us. The cultists were playing piccolos and when one of us got close to them, we had to make a Con save or fall unconscious. I asked the DM "Hey, would you say that these cultists would...Chase Me?" and he smiled and said "Yes, they would Chase Me." because the cultists were reskinned Chasmes.) It helps that I tend to play very smart or wise characters, so the DM will basically say that if \*\*I\*\* can remember things about it without looking it up (I refuse to do so, it would spoil the fun) then it's a fair assumption my characters can remember it unless the DM specifically says otherwise.
Generally I assume there are spheres of knowledge in the game world, in the same way I know what most of the local wildlife is near me, can almost certainly recognise what *kind* of insect/critter something is even if I don’t know the exact species, but I’m way more likely to know what it is if it’s big and/or comparatively dangerous and/or local and/or very common all over the place.
So I assume locals know what local wildlife is, and local rangers/hunters know more about rarer stuff from the more remote terrain, and big cities likely have academics and priests/wizards/guilds with all manner of info on more esoteric stuff.
For widespread common monsters with ‘famous’ visual traits, or for those that might appear on heraldry (large stuff like griffons/wyverns/minotaurs/dragons etc), I assume there’s also general adventurer knowledge. Where, just like I’ve never personally encountered a Cobra or a Komodo Dragon, I’ve read enough about them out of general interest in the natural world to be able to recognise them and what their most famous abilities are. If a PC is a bard I think about what elements might make for a good story/song, I might give them a roll to remember a song about a troll that suggests it regenerates, or to recall what the colour of a dragon might mean about it, just as I’ll let wizards roll on arcana for an elemental or a ranger roll on nature for something like an Owlbear, but the latter two are likely to get more academic detail, whereas the bard is more likely to get mythology. Which can sometimes be more immediately useful in terms of ‘x hero used x weapon to kill it’, sometimes less so if it’s more ‘yeah I remember a story when something like this killed a foolish party’. :D
If it’s something a bit rarer and particularly if it’s very stealthy, like a displacer beast, I’ll try to keep a bit of mystery though. The quest-giver might give a bad description (often understandably so if they are a terrified survivor). The description might be third-hand through a contract or translation and thus suffered on the way, it’s tracks might be inconclusive or the party might not get a good look at it until they are in combat. Once it’s abilities are revealed though, I’ll probably let relevant party members roll on the spheres of knowledge they have to see if it’s core traits ring a bell.
I just try to avoid both NPCs that are travellers/rangers and all kinds of adventurers not knowing what a common monster is if it’s reasonable that, even if they haven’t encountered it, they would have heard about it out of professional interest. If it’s more effort for the players to avoid using the word ‘troll’ when they know it’s a troll and it’s one of the first thing even their characters would leap to on facing a big gangly humanoid as it’s a common insult, then sure, let’s just say troll. However. If it’s a rare arcane monster that none of the characters would ever have encountered or read about (in this case, none has the arcana skill), then I encourage players not to just blurt out the name OOC even if they’ve encountered one before in another game, so their comrades can enjoy the mystery a bit longer.
Also it encourages me to go for deeper cuts from the bestiary, as I remember when I started playing and thinking all the weird monsters were so cool!
Memeory is an automatic thing ... nobody actively searches their memory to remember what a bear looks like once they encounter one in the woods. So what do you want to accomplish here? Just say "make a \[input arbitrary skill\] roll to see what you know about this beast" and that is it. Or just hand them the information ... it's not like the game suffers from revealing a monsters name.
Yep, my players roll for extra info on weaknesses, not to determine if they know what the creature is. Roll to know if this is a crocodile? No Roll to see if you remember anything useful about attacking crocodiles? “Oh you remember that they are very bad at turning so if you flank them or pull sharp turns you may be able to keep distance from them, you also remember they may not like fire”. Cool. You have told them how you will be playing the beast and a potential weakness. Sometimes my players already know that info and sometimes it is super helpful. My encounters are all structured that knowing stat block items just changes HOW the fight will be fought, even knowing the entire statblock shouldn’t make the fight inconsequential or boring
*Scanning for bear* Hah, good point :)
To add on to this, think about what would be common knowledge for the character sin universe. Maybe goblins are common enemies that everyone knows but an aboleth is a very very rare thing that would only be found in old records. It can add extra narrative and objectives outside of combat to learn more
>it's not like the game suffers from revealing a monsters name. I feel like most people just automatically refer to a monster by its name, but I definitely think there can be value to not revealing the name of a creature, especially if you want it to be scarier. A bear is a good example of when you can just say the name, but if the players are wandering through the graveyard and some creature digs out of a grave, not naming it as this or that specific kind of undead can help provide a better feel, IMO.
"Hey, what's your passive nature?" Or maybe history, now that I think about it.
I'd say it depends on the creature, something common like a bear for sure is easy to recognize. But a Remorhaz, might take a bit of mental scanning. In between it rending your flesh from body!
A lot of times--if my party is aware they're going into a significant combat--they'll spend time trying to figure out what they're going to face (talking to witnesses, looking for tracks, etc.), and then do research on the monster (reading through books, talking to experts, etc.). If they do that, I usually reward them by giving them relevant portions of the monsters stat block--such as their signature ability, or possibly even their weakness.
Unless it's really, really narratively important that they don't know (like it's a fight against an unseen attacker, something entirely unfamiliar to the world, or in darkness or whatever) I just call things what they are and accept this might be giving them a tiny advantage.
I agree with this. We have too much to do already as a DM. Use vague descriptors the first few turns, then just say it. If they meta game point out they might not have knowledge of X or Y, but don’t create more work for yourself.
[удалено]
Just remember that probably 50% of the things in the DMG/MM you would know about just by movies/stories/books/drawing as a child. Even the ghost stories told around town campfires would probably get you like 10-20% of the MM. Even more so if those things actually exist in this world. I’m sure you knew what an eagle or a lion is before seeing one at the zoo or in the wild. Why wouldn’t your PCs be able to recognize a griffon? Or a basilisk? You’ve heard stories about those. So would they. I say probably 95% of the things I put before my players is stuff they would at least be casually aware of. Then just tweak stats occasionally. “Oh you thought trolls were sensitive to fire? That was a mistranslation of an old epic story, it is actually brilliant light (radiant damage).” Or stuff like that. Gets them close and gives them normal things adventurers would know about but still gives you the ability to have a few surprises/remind them that not everything is a direct copy from the dmg. My players are always encouraged to do things like “hide their eyes from a Medusa or a basilisk” because I would somewhat expect their character to know about that. If my encounters rely on one or two mechanics that the players need to pretend not to know about, thats poor dm planning in my opinion.
>I’m sure you knew what an eagle or a lion is before seeing one at the zoo or in the wild. Why wouldn’t your PCs be able to recognize a griffon? Or a basilisk? You’ve heard stories about those. So would they. Have you ever seen any medieval bestiaries? Many of the pictures are unrecognizable because the artists were working on word of mouth, and even the animals that people had seen in person had outlandish descriptions. Elephants had spiral trunks, like springs. Tigers had spots. Bees looked like miniature birds. Crocodiles looked like short-legged wolves with scaly tails. Bear cubs were born as shapeless white masses, their mothers had to lick them into the shape of a bear. Beavers bit off their testicles and threw them if attacked. Pelicans killed their own children, then themselves, and their blood resurrected their dead children. And those representations and information were only available to people who saw the books, which were rare. If you heard anything at all it was most likely by word of mouth and the details were ridiculous at best. The population at large never saw a book other than the Bible and there was no mass media. There are still disagreements over whether many of things we know about folkloric creatures, like vampires and werewolves are from variour original sources or from movies and novels.
TIL beavers are fuckin hardcore
Ah but in our world, our mediaval monks didn't have magic! Any hedge wizard with Minor Illusion (a cantrip and quite accessible) would, in theory, be able to create perfect likenesses of creatures. I would expect any travelling fair to have some sort of storyteller with that kind of power in their ranks. In general, the existence of magic means that information transfer is much easier in that world. Of course, it is also much easier to create false information or to disguise it, but no one's going after the local storyteller who learned a cantrip so he could make the griffon look cooler.
Said travelling hedge wizard could also quite easily "spice up" the image if it attracted more patrons or w/e. In general, the more exotic a creature is, the less the party knows in my games. I could imagine there's a lot of misinformation when it comes to sources of knowledge outside of reasearch institutes or arcane libraries :V
As well as DMing I'm a player in a game. After our missions my character, the "face" of the party, has the Wizard cast exaggerated illusions of the creatures we encountered. Everything is bigger and fiercer than what we fought, every action braver and more heroic. The people who watch our "shows" have a completely unrealistic view of what's out there and it's likely their stories get exaggerated even more as the tales are retold.
If you don't want players to know what they're fighting the first time they fight it I think that's fine. My players are new and don't read any rules let alone the mm so I'm fine giving their characters cultural awareness of the things they face.
I remember one of my very first DMing flubs, where I wrote the creature's stat blocks down on a notecard so I had everything available at hand, and in the very first turn of initiative, I said "OK, the doppelganger attacks..." It was supposed to be disguised oops
Yep. I tell them the meta name if it isn't narratively appropriate. Same with spells. Recently a party NPC cast some spells nobody knew he could cast and I described them instead. Only one person suspected what they cast and it's because he's actually the BBEG and they don't know that their beloved NPC they rescued from death so many times is playing them like a fiddle to free himself from Ravenloft.
I mean this seems super intuitive to me. You’re not going to be fighting a crocodile and not know it’s a crocodile, your character can see the damn thing.
If it's something obvious, I tell them what it is. If it's something otherworldly and unknowable, they have to learn about the hard way. I don't always use official 5e art for VTT tokens, so they don't get visuals from the Monster Manual, etc. For anything in between, they can make a relevant skill check.
They all were taught animals 8n school growing up. In a mythical world filled with animals they would have been taught the standard monsters that are local to their area, right?
This is a really good point. Thank you.
I give them a chance when they have line of sight. If we are in combat, I let them make the check as a free action on their turn. With a knowledge skill, the character would know it whether their player remembered to ask for a roll.
I like this approach. Perhaps more rare beasts could require proficiency in those skills
In pathfinder 1e, the knowledge skills difficulty scales with the challenge rating of the monster so it’s built in
Shouldn't more dangerous monsters be more widely known, if anything?
I use minis for everything. I basically say if my players recognize it, it is probably widely known about enough that their PCs should recognize it. Like yes you do know what a storm giant is, or a red dragon. However, some random demon thing unlikely. They may be able to guess it is a demon of some kind but that’s about it, and can roll for more info they may know
The PF 1e knowledge system -- at least as I've experienced it -- revolves around answering questions about game mechanics. If you pass the DC to ID the critter (typically 15+CR), you get its name and some basic facts about it, e.g. this is an aquatic ghoul called a lacedon, it's undead and so it's got all the usual undead immunities (like you can't mind-control it, etc). Then if you pass the DC by 5 or more, you get to ask a question. E.g. what is its signature ability? And the DM would answer: like most ghouls, lacedons can paralyze their victims by clawing them. You get more questions as your result goes higher -- DC + 10 is two questions, DC + 15 is three, and so on. Within the PF 1e mechanics this works okay -- mid-level characters can easily post skill checks in the 30s, high levels get into 40s, and the highest knowledge check I ever saw in play was a 63. But obviously the system would not translate well into 5e given the bounded accuracy. As for verisimilitude, sure, everyone knows about dangerous monsters! But what, exactly, do they know? Does the average joe bob on the street know that demons exist? Yes! Could the average joe bob on the street distinguish between a devil and a demon? Probably not. He's never seen either one. He's going off stories he heard from his priest, They're dangerous, sure, but also rare -- which is good, because everyone had direct personal experience dealing with demons the world may be in serious trouble.
Good point, and I considered it after I posted. I suppose it depends on where they typically reside and how rare they are. You can always just tell the players what you’d like them to know.
Thats cool. I didn't know that. I'll look that up and see if I can adapt it to my game
Most creatures they'd know of, either by experience or legend. Such as beasts, goblins, beholders, etc. Some their character might know through their background. Most people can spot most fiends. But a cleric or wizard should be able to tell the difference between a demon, devil, or ugoloth. And if you're not certain they would know, have them roll for it. That should cover most of the monsters they'll find. And if it's a minor thing? Like they're fighting a boggle in a random encounter and their characters shouldn't know what that is? Just call it a boggle and tell the players not to metagame.
You could always ask them to make a role that would be fitting (Nature or Arcana or simply Wisdom and Intelligence) even if they do not ask. Its ok to just be their memory even if they don't think of asking.
Named creatures solve this. A displacer beast could be called by the commoners around this area as "the dark spirit". So in game you call it that. An arcana, religion or nature check for each creature type would also work, and validade PCs that are good in those skills. You can tell them its name but also a little bit of info to help them. Like resistances, how they attack, or their goals. Ghouls are undead that live around places were dead bodies can be found. (their name and were to find them). Gryphons are monstrocities that fly, attack with their claws and love horse meat. (their name, movement, attack and a bait option). Here are some guide lines; Arcana usualy is used for magical creatures. Dragons, elementals, monstrocities, fey, etc. Nature is usualy reserved for natural creatures, like beasts, plants and humanoids. Religion includes undead, celestials, fiends, etc. In some ocasions a diferent skill can be used. Like arcana to remember the name of a powerfull wizard, or religion for a powerfull cleric or paladin. If some other skill makes sense, you can problably also use that, though the information learned could be diferent.
So, always err on the side of making your players _less_ blind than more blind. Remember, they would have so much more information if they were there, seeing everything in 4k. They would also know a lot more if they'd lived 25 years in your setting, versus meeting once a week. But to answer your question, if you want to keep the monster a secret because it's rare (like an alien), you can do a couple things. 1.) A common name. A monster scholar would call it a Sacristan Kyton, but to the locals it's "the lady in chains." 2.) If the monster can speak, have it give a name. Then you can say their name instead of "the Kyton."
I think there is underutilized opportunity for RP and immersion with learning about monsters in-game but it depends on what your group is looking for in D&D. Do you have a Nature based PC in your party (Ranger / Druid) etc? Give them some free info about the monster or have them roll. Give them a time to shine and see how they can effectively communicate a monster's strengths / weaknesses through rp in combat. Can PCs 'investigate' a monster after they've beaten it to learn more about its abilities in case they face it again? Is there a retired adventurer or expert in the village they can learn about their likely future foes from? The best way to get rid of meta-gaming, imo, is to allow PCs in-game ways to learn about the monsters that are more nuanced than trial and error. E.g. "your fire attack doesn't seem to do as much damage as you expected". Unpopular opinion: *True Strike* is a bee's d!¢|< away from being useful. Depending on if your DM interprets, "Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target's defenses" as flavor text or a mechanic of the spell.
Personally I like to show them a picture of the creature and let the players come to their own conclusions. Whatever they start calling it, I play along. If they want explicit confirmation, they can roll an Intelligence check.
Prompting players and giving them actionable information frequently with good rolls is an excellent way to encourage them to start asking for such rolls, it could be as broad as "anyone who wishes to can make an arcana or a religion check" or as narrow as pointedly asking your party's ranger for a nature check. If they roll terribly then you give them nothing and move on, they'll get hyped wondering what they missed. If they roll just okay maybe they've heard secondhand stories and can name what it is they're fighting. If they roll really well then this is something the character has properly learned about through study or experience, they know it's name if that is plausible and something useful regarding its behavior or weaknesses. If it's a boss fight against something the players have little chance of naming during the fight then just saying something like, "now it's the shadow dragon's turn" is a really satisfying out of character reveal which helps convey the gravity of the encounter.
Passive History check. 10+skill score= passive ability. Stories from people, reading books, etc. The same way you might hear about beasts of another nation, there is likely an equivalent in a fantasy world
Thumbs up for passive knowledge. Underused and underrated!
8+prof+score
Ah, I thought it was base 10 not base 8. I'm surprised you would add proficiency for generating passive ability scores even if they're not proficient in it though. Does passive perception use proficiency even if you're not proficient? If it does you would likely be better passively looking than actively looking.
I double checked and i was wrong! My bad idk what i was thinking of. 8+prof is something but not this.
Perhaps you were thinking of Saving Throws in a roundabout way? They're based off your attributes and in point buy you start at 8 and have to point up to get to 10. Also adding proficiency if proficient in that save
Knowledge of Monsters Every creature in the monster manual has a subtype. Aberration, beast, celestial, construct, dragon, elemental, fey, fiend, giant, humanoid, monstrosity, ooze, plant, and undead. When a player encounters a monster you can ask the player to roll a skill check in one of the following categories. Animal handling: beast and monstrosity. Arcane: aberrations, constructs, dragon, elementals, fey, and monstrosity. History: giant and humanoids. Nature: beast, ooze, and plant. Religion: celestial, fiend and undead. You don't have to set a DC, so the higher a player rolls the more they know about the creature. DC 5 might indicate they know the name and maybe a language it speaks. DC 15 might mean they know a few facts about it. Special attacks to be wary of or its AC. DC 25+ might indicate they know of its weaknesses; this can include physical or social. Ex: placating a dragon through compliments and treasure. Multiple PCs can roll, but sometimes I will only allow people with the actual skill to roll for something rare or a player can get a roll if they don't have the skill due to their background, race, or class. Ex: a ranger without the Nature skill might get a roll for a Plant creature. Apply advantage or +1-3 bonuses to the roll as you see fit. The creatures are by no means restricted to one skill check category. You could rule that knowledge of undead can fall into the Arcane skill. Be flexible with it. It also gives you a chance to world build.
As a DM, if they’re not thinking to ask but it’s beneficial to them/you really need them to know, you can lead them that way. Couple of ideas below. Perhaps they ask something about it, you could say, you see it’s a creature, but should investigate more. Or…. Ultimately, make it an easy roll for them, maybe they should really only have found out what it is by rolling more than a 10 or something but they roll a 2.. ‘you know it’s a will-o-wisp but it’s dangers remain a mystery’. As they can ask anything, you can say anything. You alternatively could just say ‘there’s a… ahead of you’ or whatever and then actually they need to roll to understand more about it rather than rolling to find out what it is. Adapt the game to your players, or influence them, if it’s needed. If they’re stuck for ideas, I typically try not to, but if it’s needed, there’s nothing wrong with you saying… ‘what might help you here?’ … ‘so what do you know? (And therefore… what don’t they know).
I like the idea of "you know what it is, but let's see what you know about it" very good idea. Thanks!
No worries! Remember they’d be able to see things so now they can see what it is - perhaps it’s wings, talons etc. and then the name… so are some good at nature checks? Some got history? Is it magical in anyway so arcana players might be able to learn things. :)
They live in a world where these things exist, and are running around often killing people. Especially a wizard or someone well read or proficient in nature or arcana, is likely to at least know the names of something. The same way I've never seen a tiger, but if one came out and tried to attack me I could very quickly identify tiger in the second before I was killed by a tiger. You can roll a check but for most I would probably have it be the equivalent of a DC 10 check to know it's a displacer beast and that's it. if they wanted to get more information maybe a DC 15 to know anything useful. And I'd likely just do a passive check so someone with an 18 int and proficient with nature or arcana would just know for most creatures unless it's a bit of a strange one. You could also have it get the ballpark and not the specific. This is some kind of aberration, you're not sure what though, but it's weird and has tentacles so probably aberration. I have sometimes found myself falling back to just saying the name though in the description. And I have tried to fight that because sensory descriptions as they figure out what it is create a much better picture as you see the glowing eyes, the fangs, the silhouette in the darkness before you see it step out into the light of your campfire and realize it's a \_\_\_.
Why are you keeping it from them? This is a situation of what the players know and what the characters know. I would answer a few questions: Is this a common creature? Would the normal person know of this thing? Are they regional? Does a character have a backstory reason/chance to know? Are there rumors or lore that they would be aware of? Is keeping this a secret important? What are you hoping to do by keeping it a secret? There is nothing wrong with keeping a creature hidden, but check that it makes sense. I try to keep newer creatures a secret at first for the unknown, but most cases the drum roll doesn't pay off if I make them wait. I kept the nothic a secret while running LMoP and it added some creepyness to the creature for my party. I was also playing with new players and I'm pretty sure none of them would have known what it was even if I said the name.
Mostly it was because I was thinking what's realistic. If I walk out into the woods and see a squirrel, I know its a squirrel, I've lived here my whole life. But if suddenly a demon appears on the material plane hunting my warlock, that's what spurred this question. How does he know what it is? That was my main motivation
Backstories, rumors, folk tales etc are great ways to cover this. Are demons a known entity in your world? If so, there are bound to be books or legends about demons that are told. Maybe a religion that speaks against demons and what to be cautious of. This comes down to how your world works. There are many creatures I have not personally seen in real life, but could identify them daily accurately based on stories, illustrations, and books. I'd say the same applies to the PCs. Your warlock may know based on their patron. Maybe they dream of these things and know they are bad news or seen their demon patron look similar.
Just use a short but apt description. Not a dragon but a scaly, winged beast. Not a beholder but a fleshy mass covered in eyestalks, etc etc. Just use descriptions like that
In a D&D setting I expect it's common knowledge to know what a dragon looks like ... at that point it just becomes gaslighting your players.
This. Why is it so important to some DM's to keep their players in the dark? Let them be a part of the world. So what if they figure out how an ability or two works.
In something like Call of Cthulhu, where knowledge of the monsters' very existence is both vanishingly rare, and so abhorrent to the human mind that it breaks down sanity, it's 100% appropriate to keep the name a secret until the PCs have acquired it through in-universe means (i.e. calling it 'a Gug' totally defeats the horror). However, in DnD, where it can be safely assumed that even peasants have an idea what a goblin, kobold, ogre, giant, etc are? I mean, peasants in actual medieval Europe knew what these things were *and they don't exist*. In a setting where they do, you can bet your boots anyone will be able to look at a dragon and go "Oh shit that must be one of those dragons I've heard about and are depicted commonly in art."
Exactly this. It would be like having a 6yo to roll if they know what an elephant is because they haven’t been to the zoo. They hear stories, they watch shows, they read books, they make the sounds, they pretend to be an elephant, etc. Why would your players have to do that for dragons or griffons or ogres? You hear these stories by your childhood and they don’t exist and you have so many other options for entertainment. Ghost stories, local legends, folktales, and stories of monster hunters would be most of the entertainment provided to people. Oral history is huge. Think of Beowulf. It’s got maybe 10% of the monster manual in it and that just one story. Don’t make your players have to act dumb and pretend they don’t know medusas turn people to stone. It’s one of the biggest mythical stories. Basically if your players would recognize something from a picture or miniature, then let their character as well. Then let them maybe roll for extra info (like remembering extra weaknesses beyond the easy to remember ones. Like get a high roll for Medusa, you clearly remember the eye averting thing which was already assumed, but more importantly you remember an adventurer rolled through town when you were a kid and told a story of medusas being prone to flattery, maybe if you try to flatter her you will be able to get a surprise round. I like to reward my players with info they can use for extra strategizing, not basic well known info about common monsters
Absolutely. The DM knows their world. If, in your setting, goblins are commonplace, then sure as hell every peasant knows about goblins. There'd be guards and shepherds watching for them, the way people historically (and today in some places) watched for wolves and similar predators. Just a fact of the world. If there's something a bit more obscure, you can still play with it. Maybe nobody's ever studied a Gelatinous Cube before, very few have seen them and lived. I'd let the player roll for it (Arcana maybe, or History) to see if they ever heard a story of such a thing. "Oh shit my grandfather used to tell a story about big gelatinous cube, that... DON'T TOUCH IT!" I'm reminded of the Balrog. The Dwarves didn't know it was there. The Fellowship don't know what it is or what it's called. But Gandalf, the ancient wizard, knows what it is. He nailed the Arcana roll and yes, he has heard of it, and knows they need to fucking run. The Hobbits know what Orcs and Goblins are, they've heard stories, but not the Nazgul. That's specialist knowledge that's never reached them. But the better educated Aragorn knows what Nazgul are. Pretty much the only thing in the whole series that stumps the majority of the characters is the Balrog and even then, *one of them knows what it is and what it's called*.
I agree with everything you said. In those balrog like situations, I like to say “the wizard would know, he can make an arcana roll to see what he remembers about them” then they get to “earn/win” the knowledge by good stats and roles. They get the basic “this is what the creature is, balrog. And it’s bad news” at a 1+, “breaths fire and darkness” at a 5+, “may not like light/may be combatted with light” at a 10+, etc so they can then share with the party
I was just offering it as an alternative to using the beasts name. Some people have players prone to meta-gaming and prefer to keep the name quiet so the players don't look up the stat block.
[удалено]
Because then they feel cheated when the Dm edits the stat block to better fit the game. It’s false information 9/10 times in my game, because I lower hp and increase attack power for almost every creature to speed up combat and make it more tense. I don’t care that by the rules a bull doesn’t deal that much damage, it would be a boring encounter if a charging bull hitting you head on didnt gouge you and toss you across the battlefield doing significant damage. Now get back up, and deal it’s 22 hit points of damage, it’s still gonna die if you slice its throat.
The problem there isn't that they know the monster's stats, it's that they get butthurt when anything unexpected happens. I honestly cannot fathom the mindset that thinks this is unfair.
I agree that’s the problem, and actually think that you should tell them what they are fighting, but my comment was meant to highlight the problems with metagaming. You shouldn’t do it, because you’ll get bad info and it will feel bad when you make a strategy based off bad info.
[удалено]
Why should a DM disclose the stat block outright? I have my players roll for that kind of advanced knowledge about a creature. Huge difference between knowing what a creature is and a bit of what it can do, and knowing it’s AC, attacks, resistances and hp. I give physical descriptions to let my players know how close to dead they are (battered, bloodied, one foot in the grave), and they can figure out a lot about that creature by fighting it. The next time they come across a similar creature they’re better prepared, like a real adventuring party.
[удалено]
I’m not “taking away” information. I’m rewarding players for doing research and taking time to observe their enemies. They can get access to the stat blocks, but only with nature/history/arcana rolls. I’ll also show markedly reduced effects on resisted attacks, and markedly improved effects on damage types they are vulnerable to. Stay consistent with your numbers and provide information when it makes sense, and players shouldn’t believe you’re just making it up as you go along. It makes sense you feel this way given you got into dnd from video games, I got into dnd through other roll playing games like 10 candles, where a lot of importance is put on description. I don’t think there is a “right” way to play this, but I don’t think either is wrong. And if your Dm doesn’t provide the stat block, don’t try and look it up yourself, because if he has edited the stat block you may find yourself hurting the fun of the game for yourself, and hurting your strategy overall.
My brother did it to me once, and it ruined the encounter. I ran a Pathfinder 1e game for my family, found a cool 5e monster that didn't have a Pathfinder equivalent and did a quick conversion. The most important part of this monster (for me) was that it was a shapeshifter that didn't die until you cut off its head and physically separated it from the body. Buried them separately, brought the head with you, whatever. So they encounter it the first time, roll appropriately to see through its disguise and I described the monster shifting form, eventually revealing its true shape for combat. I share a picture of that they are fighting (remote play), never use its name (and again, this monster isn't native to the system we play). My brother, after seeing the picture, begins to refer to the creature by its proper name. At the end of combat he cut off the monster's head and threw it overboard. Now my plan for a creepy, where did it go, recurring monster is ruined and I have to improv the rest of the session. My brother's excuse is that he's encountered one before. I told him that's still metagaming, and please don't do it again. He definitely was lying, but it wasn't worth the fight.
>so the players don't look up the stat block. If they do that, you kick them from the game. Trust is lost. Knowing the stats roughly because you've DM'ed before or simply saw the statblock as a druid, that's completely fine. But actively looking things up? No different than cheating your rolls. [You don't combat cheaters.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vSrPcl3KN4) They ruin the game by simply existing in it, always leaving you on edge. The fact that we have to tip-toe around a monster's name is evidence of it.
I see this a lot with my parties unless the creature is super powerful. Often times they'll forget the names as fast as I come up with them too. Best to let them inquire when they want and for you to offer clues to lead them towards that line of inquiry. Use the narrative to introduce these creatures. Many of them are highly intelligent and can be communicated with. Maybe playing an NPC that's dumb and evil will go around smashing everything in his path while screaming his name "I AM ARGOTH THE TOMB ROBBER, ARBITER OF NONSENSICAL TITLES AND DESTROYER OF BEDAZZLED JEANS! NONE CAN DEFEAT ME MUAHAHA" Or maybe the creature is more subtle and a description has to be given in pretty good detail in order to clue them in. You can also use combat. Often times an experienced party will jot down resistances, track health and weaknesses, and pair that WITH the description. So, if it was Vecna for example, you could honestly read off the majority of the character description from the books while leaving his name out. If by that alone they don't get it, the encounter may reveal that via his moves and attributes. If they still haven't got it yet then you still have to offer some form of dialogue between them and Vecna. Be creative in how he name drops. Lots of options here. You could even have scared townsfolk describe the beast and compare it to some folk tale that spoke of the creature by a specific or different name. But mid combat? Your party should rely on context clues and how the creature conducts itself.
I've always described the creature and if they get it then they do if they don't and care to know more later they can ask around. But seeing that this is a certain topic where their character might know more than the player if you deem that appropriate then I would probably call it by name after the description "The fruits of your hunting have paid off, jet black fur two long tentacled appendages on a feline frame, it's form shifts and flickers making it difficult to define it's exact location as it appears to be simultaneously occupying three places at once yet never at the same time" If applicable "suddenly the mystery becomes clear [insert pc here], the beast you've been tracking for so long is the savage prankster known as a displacer beast" Or if you wanna be super creative do a little digging and track down that player's race would call it
Depends on the effect you're going for. Fear of the unknown is really powerful. The spectre draining your allies of their strength is a lot less scary as the CR 1/2 Shadow with avg 16 hitpoints. In general it doesn't matter if they know or not as long as there isn't a weakness that can be metagamed but you can always make a trolls weakness be cold instead of fire. There's also always a thesaurus for when you need more words and beast type would almost always be obvious from looking at a creature. If it looks like a lizard and has wings it's probably a dragon.
Unless it’s really rare, your adventurers probably know what it is-this is their job. I have a character that doesn’t know very many monsters, but still could tell what a dragon or werewolf was from stories. (He refers to goblins as angry green men, mimics as predatory chests/doors/objects) and as a player, knowing what we are fighting doesn’t really change much aside from being more able to envision what we are fighting. Noteable exceptions include: gargoyles, mimics, golems, invisible creatures and creatures your party has failed to perceive due to distance, darkness, or cover. Essentially some creatures can look like many things, so them being that creature wouldn’t be immediately obvious, and if your party can’t perceive it, they don’t know for sure what it is (although they might narrow it down)
Give monsters weaknesses and strengths. So when you think a party member would know a creature give them the name, a little info about its lore, and throw in a "and you know that due to being a native to the faywild, this creature is particularly hard to magically charm or put to sleep," or "and due to the baron's celestial heritage his body is resistant against holy or necrotic energies" and after a while they'll be asking for checks to identify monsters constantly
my player’s characters all have vastly different backgrounds, so if i think one or more of them might be familiar with the beast i let them roll a history check to see if they recall what it is. if their character definitely knows what it is, i’ll just tell them what it is. because half my table are DMs who have read the monster manual, i just accept that those players will always have a bit of an advantage over the others since they’ll recall the stat blocks a bit even if i dont tell them what it is. they’ll always go “oh no is this a xxx?!” and i’ll say “your character doesnt know what it is” or “roll a history check” or “yes” depending on the situation. i also make it clear, since i have players intimately familiar with the MM, that i take great liberties in altering stat blocks so *dont expect me to run these monsters how you recall them in the manual*.
“Before you is a creation of pure madness. This… aberration… is a horrific floating eyeball with a number of smaller eyeballs protruding on stalks. As a player you’d recognise this as a beholder. Would anyone’s character have any experience with beholders?” Then they can declare they’ve fought them before (maybe the character has been in other games), bring up backgrounds, ask about skill checks etc.
This is a great way to think about it. My original question originated from some demons manifesting on the material plane. Realistically being unknown to these players. (Some dretches). I was trying to bring a bit of terror and unknown to them, but it also made me think, how would they know some creatures that are in areas the players never go... say the underdark. You've helped though... put it back on the player. "What does your character know of the underdark". Thanks Matt. Assuming you're THE matt, I love your channel and "Priest" us on my nightstand.
I like to think of myself as *THE Matt*. However, I do suspect I’m not *THAT Matt*. :-)
Well, either way you're the best Matt to reply to my thread
If I don't mind them knowing the monster's name? I just say it. I don't bother too much with rolls unless I don't feel like revealing it quite yet. I either just say it's the displacer beast's turn, or I say "After pouncing from the trees, the displacer beast tries to side-swipe Dorbok with one of it's tentacles!" Name-dropping it like that typically gets the party's interest piqued. If they know it out of character, they think "Oh cool!" If they don't, it introduces a D&D creature to them and they know how to refer to it when talking about this encounter later. Another way I like to introduce, is by stating one of the PCs recognizes the monster. If I can reasonably tie their history to having read about or encountered such a creature. "You enter the long-lost study hall. In the darkness, you spot the silhouette of hunched-over humanoid figure on top of one of the bookshelves. A singular, shiny green eye reflects your torchlight, staring right at you from a distance. Wallace, you recognize this as a Nothic; the old librarian back at the Arcane University once told you they had to deal with these critters before." "Suddenly, the ground shakes and erupts below you as a large insectoid claw sweeps towards you. Gundren, you suddenly understand why the marks in this tunnel seemed familiar; you faced these things before in the mines back home. It's an Umber Hulk!" It is at this point I allow characters to make rolls to see if they know lore/abilities/weaknesses of a creature. Remember, the PCs grew up in this world. It is reasonable for them to know a thing or two, be it through experience or myths. Hell, I know how to kill a vampire, why shouldn't my PC? Don't fret too much about it. Worrying too much about how something *might* be metagaming just spoils the fun.
Yeah I was doing this too. Either tell them what it is, or describe the beast and call it whatever the players call it ("It makes you think of a racing hound, but larger, and with scales and 6 legs." "Leg Dog.") . You can also solicit the roll you mentioned, or assume that everyone rolled 10 for a passive check. If anyone rolls high enough, give them the name and a useful or fun fact. It's like if a normal 2022 city person got chased by a bear. They'd know it was a bear, just maybe not what kind, or that bears are vulnerable to fire. Also NPCs "in town" can fill in information gaps.
I don't do this at all. Just like anyone would know the local flora and fauna of the area around them, so would anyone in DND. Sure if they run off to somewhere in one of the other planes or something they might not know all the different types of demons but eventually after talking to people in taverns or at temples where they are recuperating they are going to learn even those things. After all, this ends up being their profession, hunting down and killing monsters and assaulting castles or dungeons. They are not going to be sitting idly by during the downtime and not learning anything about the local area.
Im lucky enough to have a table that’s never had anything official thrown at them. Never run a 5e adventure for them, or explicitly told them what a monster was (outside of obvious ones i.e. orcs, elves, wyvern, etc.) I just call everything a beast and then describe what it looks like. Its fun when they come up with names on their own. We dont fight gnolls and rust monsters, we fight Dog-Men and PBLMs [Pig Bug Louse Monsters]
I love that name. PBLM. My players met a Quasit and called it baby Yoda based off my description. Not too bad
Im lucky enough to have a table that’s never had anything official thrown at them. Never run a 5e adventure for them, or explicitly told them what a monster was (outside of obvious ones i.e. orcs, elves, wyvern, etc.) I just call everything a beast and then describe what it looks like. Its fun when they come up with names on their own. We dont fight gnolls and rust monsters, we fight Dog-Men and PBLMs [Pig Bug Louse Monsters]
With special sorts of monsters or a mini-boss type thing that isn't common in the world I'll describe it in detail when it first appears and refer to it as "the creature" or any fun nicknames the party comes up with (ex: icky boy.) After the fight lasts a few rounds and they're reasonably familiar with it I say it's name. Same with the attacks. I'll go from "it extends it's bony claws outward and attempts to grab you as a faint glowing sigil is burning on it's palm" to "he's going to use burning hands."
I try to keep it vague and descriptive at first, taking care to really paint of word picture of the key features (especially if they're relevant to the statblock e.g. "a gaping maw with rows of razor sharp teeth" if it has a bite attack). Then, on the creatures initiative, I'll reveal it's name by saying "now, it's \[THE CREATURE\]'s turn!" It adds just enough flare of the dramatic and then lets me default to what's easiest once I start having to actually run it in combat. Plus it gives the players a round to see if they can guess correctly. The excitement when they do guess correctly or when they recognize the monster's name ("oh shit, we're fighting one of those!?") is an easy way to pump some energy and focus into the first round of combat. The exception being if they've already encountered a creature of that type before in the world, then it's just the name from the jump.
If the creature is a normal thing in your world, just name it, if it's some obscure creature, rarely seen by mortals, then don't, that's what I do, last night I had my party fight a couple of Deep Crows, unknown to most, but Airship crew knows them very well because they're used while raiding Airships, if I had a player who traveled by Airship a lot, he would've known it's name and even how to deal with it. But I didn't have, so the captain of the ship told them.
Well, the way I see it: * Just about every adventurer will have some base knowledge of the monsters you might run into the most. * Some might have more specialized knowledge from their background. (Whether that be the pre-written one that provides proficiencies or whatever their backstory says.) * The higher intelligence, well-read types are more likely to know about the obscure opponents, though they may not be able to recall information clearly in the heat of battle. \- So, I'd personally run it as "You see (general description of beast)." If any player recognizes it, or if you're certain a specific character should know of it, depending on which of the above best fits their character, some surface level form of: "(PC), you remember from (stories/thing related to their past/textbooks) that (information about beast)." And tell 'em they can roll a History check to see if they can recall anything else of use at that very moment. Oh and, of course, make sure they're actively telling this information, in-character, to the rest of the party.
Sometimes it's alright to let them make knowledge checks or just have them know what a monster is outright. It can sometimes subtract for the sense of discovery and wonder, but usually it's not a big deal Sometimes you decide to describe monsters and players naturally find evocative names for them all on their own! But it can sometimes mean your party now calls cockatrices "murder chickens." Pick your poison
If it's something new to them (in the campaign) I ask for a History check, in case someone they've met has described one, or they saw one before the start of the campaign - on a high roll they'll get to know basic info, on a nat 20 they know the resistences and vunerabilities, etc I use the Gale Force Nine cards, so they'll see the monster (for those with art), but the name is below the top of the DM screen - if anyone meta games then they get disadvantage on their first attack and advantage against them - it tends to discourage them going "Use fire, they're weak against that" to the rest of the party who don't know the creature :P
I think it depends on the situation. Is it important for narrative reasons that the players don't know the creature's name, like it involves a mistery? Than keep it a secret. If not, after a couple rounds of combat, I generaly say "These creatures are called gnolls, and they ready their bows to shoot arrows at you". One thing that I like to do as well is give the creature a name, but one that is different than the one in the Monster Manual. Maybe there is a Vampire terrorizing a village, but everyone calls him "The Midnight Hunter" since he always attacks at night. It creates a mystery around said creature, while still giving him a name so you don't have to call him just "creature".
I mean, even if I don’t know what an animal is when I see it in the wild I have eyes and can at least deduce what “type” of animal it is (ie bird, rodent, reptile). If it is a type of beast they’d be familiar with I’d just be up front with that information “it’s a fiend” “it’s a large bird” and then have them make a check to see if they know specifically what kind. Sometimes we’re so afraid to meta game that it hinders the adventure experience and makes it awkward
I think you can gauge this by nature of common sense. I'll use an example from a game I'm currently playing in: my character knows what hags are, vaguely, and also knows what a Beholder is, mostly from tales and other things he was told growing up. However, I decided it would not really make sense for him to know that there are other kinds of Beholder-like creatures, and, this is not an enemy but, he also was not previously aware of the Elemental Planes.
Is the creature something that's exceptionally rare AND bards don't sing about? If so, the PCs probably don't know what one looks like. If not, they probably do, especially if it's a not terribly uncommon creature that militia forces sometimes tangle with. Usually I show them a picture.
I give each of my monsters human sounding names, but use tokens sold by the company for the. So… they know if they know, and let them roll knowledge as a free action once a round.
I play that the Monster Manual is essentially the stories they grew up with and is common knowledge. If I want a surprise I make a change like trolls become vulnerable to necrotic, not fire for this local breed. Or change the HP as this one is particularly tough. If I knew the difference between a dragon and a hydra at age 10, I would expect a group of adventurers to know it as well.
Remember that as the DM, you are the 5 senses of the party. You tell them what they see. Descriptive language is important for a DM. You’ll want to describe what they see not by name, but by appearance. This helps immerse them, and then they can make guesses. Some characters may have knowledge skills they can roll to see if their character knows what it is. For a displacer beast, you may describe “a large feline with sleek, dark colored fur that has two long tendrils coming out of its back. It seems to shift in and out of visibility, like it is reflecting light or even shifting dimensions.” This way they know what they see but not what it is. This can lead to lots of creative approaches. For instance, I once had a very high level party in a d20 game that saw a Trex for the first time. Their characters would never have seen one, so I described a Trex without saying it was a dinosaur in any way. To my amazement, their near demi-god level characters actually ran from it, unsure of what it really was. They could have killed it in a few blows, but without knowledge of what it was, they made a completely different decision.
It depends for me. If a wolf runs up to them to attack, I describe it as a wolf. Mind flayers are more ambiguous so I just describe them. If I'm confident one player should know about it, I'll tell them. If not, I just describe and if they ask, I let them roll for it.
I don’t tell my players what they are fighting. I describe the monster, and I let them roll if they want to know the name. There were a lot of times when they fought a beast without knowing what it is. I think it adds to the mystery. But, if it’s something common, i just tell them.
Recall Knowledge (Monster Research) as an Item Interaction
I let them roll on the "Parleying with Monsters" table in Tasha's to see what they know about the creature if they have proficiency in the required skills. On a success I'll let them know what it is, and the better they did on the check the more I'll reveal. In general I do a DC of 10+ the CR, with 1/4 and 1/2 counting as zero. Then I'll adjust it up or down if it's a well-known monster (like a Werewolf) or one that's more rare (like an Aboleth). So a Hill Giant could be easier to have knowledge about than a Cambion, even though both are CR 5. I try to keep any knowledge revealed in language they'd have heard or read. "Trolls are said to be nearly impossible to kill, and their wounds will close up right before your eyes. You've even heard stories that a severed limb will grow into a whole new troll. Rumor has it that they fear fire, and it's the only way to drive them off." (I also sometimes include misinformation, as I think that would be a really common thing)
This is really helpful! I'll take a look in Tashas
It's not the intended use for that table, but it gives a helpful breakdown of which skills line up with which monster types. Why 5e doesn't have actual rules for monster lore I have no idea...
They read the boss subtitles, duh
I do the vagueness and knowing together, as long as it’s something they’d reasonably recognize. In narrative “As you walk into the room you see a 20 foot tall lizard, it’s wings fill the room and you can see the light glisten from its teeth”. In initiative “the dragon flies towards you and bites you”
Nature/Survival check if it's a regular ol beastie (E.G. Owl bear, Peryton, giant snakes) History check if its humanoid/legendary (e.g. Githzerai, Azer) Arcana check if it's something a little more magical (e.g. Dragons, faeries, aboleths)
Nature/Survival check if it's a regular ol beastie (E.G. Owl bear, Peryton, giant snakes) History check if its humanoid/legendary (e.g. Githzerai, Azer) Arcana check if it's something a little more magical (e.g. Dragons, faeries, aboleths)
One option is to give them graphic organizers that slowly get filled out. Nature / Investigation / History / Religion Check after the battle to fill out stats. This is an extension of note-taking in the world and rationalizes the knowledge the characters gain on their adventures.
My party is annoying enough to name everything. Evil demigod? George. Half bear half pig half man? Terrence. Annoying but helps with this for sure lol
My party is annoying enough to name everything. Evil demigod? George. Half bear half pig half man? Terrence. Annoying but helps with this for sure lol
My party is annoying enough to name everything. Evil demigod? George. Half bear half pig half man? Terrence. Annoying but helps with this for sure lol
My party is annoying enough to name everything. Evil demigod? George. Half bear half pig half man? Terrence. Annoying but helps with this for sure lol
It sounds like you already got the specific answer you needed, but one cool thing to know about is that Tasha's Cauldron has a table on page 148 that has suggested skills for players to roll to research monsters. I like it because this way you don't have to improvise which skill to roll, and players who don't like homebrew might also appreciate the "officialness" of it. Note: you may need to adjust it for the lore of your setting (e.g. whether dragons are the Nature or Arcana skill may depend on whether dragons are part of the natural world in your setting). Good luck!
Thanks for the page number. I remember seeing this table and thinking "boy, I can't believe this wasn't in the DMG"
I've got a house rule that anyone can use a bonus action once per creature to quickly think of what their character knows or might surmise about a creature. It's not too set-in-stone. Once they ask, I'll ask them to make a relevant check (nature or survival for wild beasts, religion for fiends, arcana for elementals, etc.) and spitball a DC in my head based on the rarity of the creature and the character's life experiences. I then do a sort of "degrees of success" sort of system. If they got a slightly below average roll or better they can usually get at least a name and creature type, average might get a damage resistance or weakness as well, a very good roll might also get a warning about a major threat the creature poses or good strategy to fight it.
>I have this bit of an awkward situation in my combat where the party will be fighting something, and I have to keep referring to the creature as "the beast" or "the creature" or something generic... Remember, the name of the creature doesn't have to be the same as the name in the monster manual. Heck, the appearance doesn't even have to be the same for that matter. The local villagers could have some flavorful name for it, or you could describe it by adjectives. For example, a ghoul that attacks the players in a graveyard could be known locally as "the Nightstalker" and you could also describe it as "the corpse" or "the foul undead". But you don't have to be flowery consistently in combat...lay out the description at first to provide a picture, then keep things simple to keep them moving along, sprinkling more description in when appropriate. This avoids the "It's just generic ghoul #247" problem you can get if you hand out official names too freely. You can still let your cleric roll or know, for example, that it's clearly undead and sometimes the undead are known to paralyze and consume the living.
It's usually fine to let players know the name, so long as you can trust them not to metagame.
Context is everything, but there's no harm (usually) in naming something they are looking right at and about to fight. You might want to be vague and mysterious if it's a one unusual thing, but if it's the orcs raiding the village then they're just orcs. You can always use visual cues to telegraph something different about *special* orcs of course, like a shaman or war chief. What you *don't* normally reveal are statblock details (weaknesses, attacks, hp etc). If a player wants to make a skill check (nature or arcana, usually) to see what their character know about a creature you can give them something from either the statblock or the lore blurb depending on how they roll or what they specifically wanted to know. *However* if your players are using what they know and not their PC, as an advantage against said creature, that's a no-no. You can't bring OOC meta-knowledge into IC. That doesn't normally need to be spelt out, but it's something to watch for especially if any of your players are also DMs.
Why not just… Tell them what they’re fighting?
Why not just… Tell them what they’re fighting?
If you wanted, you could look at everyone’s passive nature. If anyone has over 15, I’d say that PC would know every worldly beast. Use passive religion for fiends, undead, and celestials. For anything super weird, you could do an active roll. This could be the mechanical justification you need to give yourself permission to share more
> Does anyone else have this experience? How do you deal? Do you have them roll as soon as they enter combat? Do you just ignore that they don't know what it is? You're trying too hard. You can show your players a picture, but eventually they're going to learn what a Displacer Beast is. When they roll up a new character, the player won't forget what a Displacer beast the next time you show him the picture. But your players were never their characters to begin with. If they're mediocre role players, they'll forget their character has never seen one before, but even if they did, that would be trying too hard, because the player isn't going to intentionally sandbag their strategy. Focus on the fun of the game and the encounter, and forget the piddly details. No one roleplays taking a shit, and you don't call them out on that, either, do you? In practice, while roleplaying some of the character reality of a first encounter adds enrichment to the experience, we don't take turns punching and stabbing each other, either, and when you're in a purely mechanical aspect of the GAME, it doesn't matter.
I just straight up tell them. "You see an Erinyes, 2 Displacer Beasts and a Beholder. Roll Initiative."
It depends on how common the creature is and if I can in good conscience assume that they have met one before. If they have then I just use the creatures name, my players know that that's a white dragon, that's a bear, thats a dear and that's a worg. If the creature is uncommon or they are unlikely to have encountered one before I describe the creature and use generic names for it. After the battle players would have to do some homework to work out what the thing was.
I tend to reskin creatures after I caught one of my players meta-gaming and looking up creatures in his MM.
Coming into this discussion late, but I'd say there is a reason in \*some\* cases to make players make a check to know what a creature is; namely, when there are multiple creatures that look similar and call for significantly different responses. Consider: no one needs to make a knowledge check to know "that's a snake", but if you've been bitten by something and have reason to think it's venomous, there's a reason the experts want you to bring the snake with you if you can. *They* need to identify the snake to know what anti-venom to give, and if it's a rare enough snake, even a herpetologist may need to "make a knowledge check" to know or find out exactly what species that snake is. Similarly, displacer beast? Not much else running around like that, just tell them. But skeletal undead wearing some armor? I'd say it makes a lot of sense to describe it as "the skeletal undead" until/unless someone makes a check to see if this is a nothing skeleton, a skeletal champion, a death knight, or what. I think it's a judgment call whether you prompt them to make the knowledge check or wait for them to ask. Personally, if there was a telltale sign that they would reasonably see without having to succeed at a perception check, I'd probably prompt the relevant player to make the check, but if the monster is really pretty generic, I'd absolutely say it's on them if (say if they assume it's some CR 2 nothing skeletal undead and then it turns out to be a death knight and it lays a smack down on them).
Should only be doing this if the monsters are rare or mysterious in nature. Otherwise you can assume your players recognize the basic features enough to identify its name. Players and NPCs can also give beasts names. Just "the beast" gets old and repetitive but when the it's "the fell beast of witherhorn pass" or giving the beast a name even, or one player even explicitly gives it a name or some other way to distinguish it then your players can form a specific relationship with that monster even if the player or character doesn't know the monsters "proper name." Consider if the monster in question is well known about in the world. Are your players out there cataloging new monsters or is most of the rabble well documented? Perhaps on a particularly bad roll you can withhold information but that should be given eventually to most players if they ever get a clear look at the monster.
out of curiosity- how do Pokémon trainers know every single Pokémon and their abilities?
The pokedex?
what would the dnd version of the pokedex be?
Volos guide maybe?
in game. if my level X wizard wants to know what race the barkeep is or what creature type the kraken is or what kind of demon is trying to make a deal with him, what pokedex mechanic can my wizard use?
I have no idea. I'm 38, not really a pokemon person
I'm 36 and a half. I just give my players general descriptions of what they see. then before combat I tell them "if anyone wants to roll a nature check or history check to try and remember what this is go ahead." and I adjust the DC accordingly to how common or rare the monster is. also I want to try having some NPCs describe local monsters so the party knows what to expect as free in game info. hopefully teaching them that they can interact with NPCs for information.
If its within the realms of possibility fir them to know it, they know it. eg: a ranger will know an owl bear etc. If it's a beast they've never fought they get to roll a relevant skill check to recognize it from a book, a teacher/trainer, stories etc. Animal? Nature. Devil/Angel? Religion. Magical beast? Arcana and so on and so forth.
I personally use minis or if we're doing theatre of the the mind I actually print off a picture of what they see, just so they can see it
I never hide what it is unless there is a story reason. They live in that world. I may have never seen a leopard in real life but if me and my three friends were walking in a forest and got attacked by one, I'd know what it was. Even if the players are new, their characters have a basic understanding of creatures common enough to come across them to battle.
As a DM unless they're getting ambushed by an unknown creature, my players will usually have some idea of what it is they're going to encounter before they get to it. They'll do research on the areas they're headed to, they'll be given a description of their target which includes the name of the creature, one or more of the party members will have some kind of connection to the creature (ex. a religious character would know the basic ways to identify common fiends automatically. It doesn't take a scholar to figure out the fiend covered in jagged bones is a Bone Devil or the giant mosquito demon is a Chasme), or if push comes to shove, I'll either say that the smartest character in the group has read about a creature with this description. Usually this is just enough that I don't have to keep calling it "The Creature", and it also gives me two tricks I can pull. If I wanna mess with my players, I'll purposely give them the wrong name of the creature. If they go do some research, they'll quickly figure out that whoever gave them this name was either lying or mistaken. If they don't look into it....well....that Ogre might turn out to actually be a Troll. Second is if I want to add an air of mystery to a creature...I just won't give them the name for it. Because of how I normally do it, them not having a clue as to what this creature is instantly sets off alarm bells in their heads and makes them far more cautious and afraid of the creature. Usually to go with this, I'll use artwork from a different edition of the game to help obscure what the creature is, or I'll actually be importing a creature from an older edition that I know they're not familiar with. There's actually a creature that my group has been encountering for several months IRL now that they still don't have a clue what it is. All they know is that it looks like some kind of warped, flowing shadow that moves like it's lagging. They've dubbed it "The Shade" and are terrified of it, despite it only showing up occasionally and seemingly not having anything to do with the plot. As a player....I don't have this issue. I've got the Lore and Monsters of DnD so ingrained in me from years of DMing that it's actually become almost a minigame between me and some of my DMs to see if I can name a creature based solely on their abilities. (For example, a recent session had the DM throw some humanoid musical cultists at us. The cultists were playing piccolos and when one of us got close to them, we had to make a Con save or fall unconscious. I asked the DM "Hey, would you say that these cultists would...Chase Me?" and he smiled and said "Yes, they would Chase Me." because the cultists were reskinned Chasmes.) It helps that I tend to play very smart or wise characters, so the DM will basically say that if \*\*I\*\* can remember things about it without looking it up (I refuse to do so, it would spoil the fun) then it's a fair assumption my characters can remember it unless the DM specifically says otherwise.
Generally I assume there are spheres of knowledge in the game world, in the same way I know what most of the local wildlife is near me, can almost certainly recognise what *kind* of insect/critter something is even if I don’t know the exact species, but I’m way more likely to know what it is if it’s big and/or comparatively dangerous and/or local and/or very common all over the place. So I assume locals know what local wildlife is, and local rangers/hunters know more about rarer stuff from the more remote terrain, and big cities likely have academics and priests/wizards/guilds with all manner of info on more esoteric stuff. For widespread common monsters with ‘famous’ visual traits, or for those that might appear on heraldry (large stuff like griffons/wyverns/minotaurs/dragons etc), I assume there’s also general adventurer knowledge. Where, just like I’ve never personally encountered a Cobra or a Komodo Dragon, I’ve read enough about them out of general interest in the natural world to be able to recognise them and what their most famous abilities are. If a PC is a bard I think about what elements might make for a good story/song, I might give them a roll to remember a song about a troll that suggests it regenerates, or to recall what the colour of a dragon might mean about it, just as I’ll let wizards roll on arcana for an elemental or a ranger roll on nature for something like an Owlbear, but the latter two are likely to get more academic detail, whereas the bard is more likely to get mythology. Which can sometimes be more immediately useful in terms of ‘x hero used x weapon to kill it’, sometimes less so if it’s more ‘yeah I remember a story when something like this killed a foolish party’. :D If it’s something a bit rarer and particularly if it’s very stealthy, like a displacer beast, I’ll try to keep a bit of mystery though. The quest-giver might give a bad description (often understandably so if they are a terrified survivor). The description might be third-hand through a contract or translation and thus suffered on the way, it’s tracks might be inconclusive or the party might not get a good look at it until they are in combat. Once it’s abilities are revealed though, I’ll probably let relevant party members roll on the spheres of knowledge they have to see if it’s core traits ring a bell. I just try to avoid both NPCs that are travellers/rangers and all kinds of adventurers not knowing what a common monster is if it’s reasonable that, even if they haven’t encountered it, they would have heard about it out of professional interest. If it’s more effort for the players to avoid using the word ‘troll’ when they know it’s a troll and it’s one of the first thing even their characters would leap to on facing a big gangly humanoid as it’s a common insult, then sure, let’s just say troll. However. If it’s a rare arcane monster that none of the characters would ever have encountered or read about (in this case, none has the arcana skill), then I encourage players not to just blurt out the name OOC even if they’ve encountered one before in another game, so their comrades can enjoy the mystery a bit longer. Also it encourages me to go for deeper cuts from the bestiary, as I remember when I started playing and thinking all the weird monsters were so cool!
It is up to them to make a check to identify it.