Libraries.

[SlashRunner]

I was wondering, how much information can a library give to the players? A few sessions ago, my players were trying to figure out a way to kill a green dragon. They already knew it was Juvenile, so they just said "We go to the library and read about Juvenile Green Dragons". Now, they seem to think that this entitles them to knowing all of the monster's stats (as in, being able to just read the monster's entry). Is this true?

[Hecuba]

I seem to recall something about research checks. Give me a few to ask around and look at books.

[Squiggles]

Eberron has a research feat here: http://dnd.savannahsoft.eu/feat-2433-research.html

You can just adapt it and use the knowledge checks without the feat and use the guidelines they've set within the feat...

[Apophis]

SRD
In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.

For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

Relevant part about Knowledge checks in relation to monsters.

As for being in a library, I give a +2 to +5 bonus on the check, depending on the size of the library.

[Hecuba]

Ahh. Complex Knowledge checks, Unearthed Arcana page 84.

Or the srd here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/complexSkillChecks.htm)

P.S. I think there's also something on hierlings for this, will look more.

Edit: Squiggles' suggestion has better delineated rules-- you can certainly use them without the feat. You can find it on page 59 of the Eberron Campaign Setting.

[Zonugal]

Stronghold Builder's Guide has rules on libraries. Depending on their size and focus they can give anywhere from +2 to +6 on a specific knowledge check.

[SlashRunner]

Yeah, they seemed to think that being in a library pretty much entitled them to being able to just read the monster's entry.

[Allanimal]

In the library, as others have said, should allow a modifier, but I would also let them take a 20 when in the library, as opposed to when they stumble upon the dragon in it's lair...

[HappyBlanket]

You can't just give them the entire entry. Like, don't give them numeric values for anything; that's far too metagamey. But the ability to breath acid? To breathe underwater? Their spell lists? That's well within the range of what a character can research. The skill lists, maybe.

But really, enough time and Take 20s should give them everything within the realm of belief.

[Zonugal]

Just follow as an example what the latter Monster Manuals did regarding researching relevant information pertaining to monsters. Set certain bench marks for creatures based on whichever knowledge category they fall into.

[SlashRunner]

I just gave them some basic information that amounted to:
It is huge
It can breathe cones of corrosive gas
It can use it's natural weapons more effectively than they can use their weapons
It has tons of health

[JaronK]

Remember that in midevil times, libraries were privately owned if they existed at all, so you can't just pop down to the public library.

Anyway, Stronghold Builder's Guide has the rules... the best libraries give a +6 to the Knowledge check.

JaronK

[begooler]

In addition to the rulebooks mentioned that have some mechanics laid out, here are things I would think of:
Does the culture your players are in have libraries? How much information would any library actually have? (You have different access to information in Boston, MA than a small town in Kansas for example.) Are the libraries public or privately owned? Do they have to pay to look at the books? Do they have to be part of an elite group of people to use the library? (For example, students at a college.) Do the players have enough knowledge on the subject to be able to walk into a library and get the answers they need? (I wouldn't be able to walk into a medical library and find out how to remove someone's appendix for example.)

As a DM, I would also take advantage of the player's spending time to research this subject by planting something else they can discover. (A side quest they have to complete in order to get access to the library, a person they have to find who can research an answer for them, insight into local politics that could begin a new plot thread...)

[Kansaschaser]

How much information would any library actually have? (You have different access to information in Boston, MA than a small town in Kansas for example.)


Hey! :smallannoyed: I'll have you know we have a pretty big selection of books compared to some libraries. Instead of only books on farming, trucks, hunting, and guns, we also have books on Monster Trucks and Shotguns. Oh, and I almost forgot we have lots of Bibles and Farmer Alminacs (Farmers Bibles).

As for the original poster, you could tell them that the library only has a small selection of books on dragons, giving you only a +2 bonus. They certinly won't get numbers from the Monster Manual.

[Bhaakon]

Remember that in midevil times, libraries were privately owned if they existed at all, so you can't just pop down to the public library.

Anyway, Stronghold Builder's Guide has the rules... the best libraries give a +6 to the Knowledge check.

JaronK

In medieval times, particularly on obscure subjects, there was a good chance that any research would turn up a bunch of contradictory or flatly false info.

Because, you know, elephants worship the celestial bodies and hippos neigh like a horse. (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/holland/pliny8.html)

[myancey]

I'm of the opinion that players should never know the exact stats of any creature. A ballpark range is something I'd be willing to entertain giving--provided enough studying was done--but never down to the exact number.

[maysarahs]

does anyone else think that bonus is a little too small? a library, the BEST of them will at most guarantee ONE more little fact than what a character would know themselves? I seriously doubt the difference between a library and no library would be "they can breathe underwater"

of course I guess it would hinge on how well documented things are in the world, but if my characters knowledge check lets it "recall" general knowledge about health, attack types, maybe general location (within a 5 mile radius or something) a library should at least have a little more than one little fact

though in any case there should be no reason why they'd get numerical (crunch) knowledge at all

[shadow_archmagi]

Also keep in mind that libraries would not be a given. It's possible that the local lord could have a Private Collectione, and the capital city will probably have a famous and huge library, and there miiight be a monastery nearby, which would probably have a fairly limited selection.

But the idea of a public library isn't going to exist.

[Moriato]

does anyone else think that bonus is a little too small? a library, the BEST of them will at most guarantee ONE more little fact than what a character would know themselves?

Well, the information being in the library and the characters being able to find that information are two different things. They didn't have the Dewey decimal system in ye olde lybraries. Bigger library? Oh boy even more books that... may or may not have the information we're looking for in them.

"Oh, green dragons? I think I remember something about them.. in one of those books... over there. I think it was bound in red leather... or was it brown?"

[Ernir]

does anyone else think that bonus is a little too small? a library, the BEST of them will at most guarantee ONE more little fact than what a character would know themselves? I seriously doubt the difference between a library and no library would be "they can breathe underwater"

Nah, I think it's fine.

When I envision characters trying to look up information about an obscure monster, I don't see them looking the statblock up on Wikipedia, or going through a Manual of Monsters Olde and New. They'd be reading old poems, cross-referencing mentions of sightings of mysterious monsters with an ability called X with mentions of monsters going by a certain name, and finding out which of the information they can find is useless. And this is from a personal book collection that probably isn't even indexed.

[SlashRunner]

I have another problem then. What happens when the players just pull out their laptops/iPods/other internet-enabled devices and just look up the statblock? I try to stop them, but it often doesn't work.

[Pink]

In medieval times, particularly on obscure subjects, there was a good chance that any research would turn up a bunch of contradictory or flatly false info.

Because, you know, elephants worship the celestial bodies and hippos neigh like a horse. (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/holland/pliny8.html)

I agree with this concept. Sure, maybe give them most of the special abilities, but throw a few red herrings in there. Green Dragons won't touch those who carry no metal. They are drawn to large quantity of cooked vegetables, and this can be used to set up an ambush. On a full moon they lose their resistence and ability to breath acid. Stuff like that. This should be especially true if they're 'taking twenty' as that assumes failures as well as successes.
For that matter, if your players already know most of a dragon's abilities, tweak things a little and throw them in with the misinformation to keep them on their toes, so that if they meta-game and disregard all the information they 'know is false', there's a little trick up your sleeve.

Edit: If they are outright metagame cheating, that's a bit of a problem. I'd ask them to stop, and if they refuse you, you may need to consider why you're playing with guys like that. It's fairly disrespectful to do that to a gm, especially if you've been asked not to.

[Ernir]

I have another problem then. What happens when the players just pull out their laptops/iPods/other internet-enabled devices and just look up the statblock? I try to stop them, but it often doesn't work.

Healthy way: Confront them about it, have a heart-to-heart about what the game you are playing is supposed to be about.

Passive-aggressive way: Change the statblocks behind the DM screen. Don't tell them.

[myancey]

I have another problem then. What happens when the players just pull out their laptops/iPods/other internet-enabled devices and just look up the statblock? I try to stop them, but it often doesn't work.

Set ultimatums, meng. If my players openly do something like that, I'd ask one of them to begin DMing a campaign--because obviously they think they can handle making the rules better than I could.

Or...

Change the stat block. Max out the creatures HP, increase and decrease certain stats, make a dragon's breath ability at will instead of 1d4 rounds. If you do this periodically, they'll quickly learn that cheating in this particular form isn't going to get them anywhere.

Players should only use the monster manuals and monster sections in other books when they're using summoned creatures, animal companions, or polymorph/shapechange (the last one being contingent on successful checks to see if you even know of the monsters existence).

[Othniel Edden]

I have another problem then. What happens when the players just pull out their laptops/iPods/other internet-enabled devices and just look up the statblock? I try to stop them, but it often doesn't work.

modify your monsters. Add class levels, change abilities around, and do it based on legends they found in the library that doesn't fit with the monster manual. If they are going to pull that stuff, well you deserve to make the encounter more interesting for them.:smallwink:

[shadow_archmagi]

I have another problem then. What happens when the players just pull out their laptops/iPods/other internet-enabled devices and just look up the statblock? I try to stop them, but it often doesn't work.


I solved the problem by telling my players that anything they looked up would change.

Later in the fight, one of them said "It only has 30 HP left" and I got out my d100.

I can't remember any issues after that

[Ceaon]

I have another problem then. What happens when the players just pull out their laptops/iPods/other internet-enabled devices and just look up the statblock? I try to stop them, but it often doesn't work.

Tell them what they're doing is very disrespectful. And that it's metagaming. And if they still do it, have the monsters have knowledge of the player's stats (strengths/tactics/weaknesses) as well.

[myancey]

I solved the problem by telling my players that anything they looked up would change.

Later in the fight, one of them said "It only has 30 HP left" and I got out my d100.

I can't remember any issues after that

Yeah, good way to handle it. I'm lucky to have a great group of players who respect the rules of the game. We'll have metagaming issues occasionally--but mostly players giving advice OoC on what to do combat wise in order to sync up better. I don't get them looking up the creature stats much-if at all. It's cheating.

Heck, show your players this thread so they'll see how most DMs and players feel about this issue.

[Squiggles]

I have another problem then. What happens when the players just pull out their laptops/iPods/other internet-enabled devices and just look up the statblock? I try to stop them, but it often doesn't work.

Given the ranks of knowledge that my players have if they do happen to know specific details like hit dice, exact damage from abilities, the monsters SLA's and the like, I'll just use a high DC check and if they happen to roll well enough, then sure, they may know that Adult Red Dragons are rumored to have been seen casting spells as potent as Forcecage or Prismatic Spray. Say they had Knowledge Arcana at +14, I would probably use a DC 31 or 32 so that only a decent roll would allow them to glean such knowledge via meta-gaming and if they insisted that no, no, it can do it without making the check, then I'd punish them by changing the caster levels to psionic abilities and adding feats, to gently remind them that meta-gaming isn't always fun.

This doesn't really come up all that often for us though, everyone in my group is a DM for another game, or has DM'd before, so they tend to keep their information to themselves, as they've encountered situations such as these in their other games and know the hassles that it can produce.

[Reficule]

In medieval times, particularly on obscure subjects, there was a good chance that any research would turn up a bunch of contradictory or flatly false info.

Because, you know, elephants worship the celestial bodies and hippos neigh like a horse. (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/holland/pliny8.html)

Good thing not a single D&D setting remotely resembles medieval Europe in any way. Seriously, it doesn't, so referencing historical facts doesnt help. It's going to be DM fiat either way, just remain consistent. thats the difference between fiat and worldbuilding. In my settings, for example, there would be public libraries with organized, detailed, descriptions (Not stat blocks, but pretty close) because thats what my settings are like. Your's may be different.

[SlashRunner]

Healthy way: Confront them about it, have a heart-to-heart about what the game you are playing is supposed to be about.

Passive-aggressive way: Change the statblocks behind the DM screen. Don't tell them.

I think I'll go with the passive-aggressive way (=
In all seriousness, they aren't really doing it to cheat, they're just used to playing video games, where going online and looking up a monster's abilities before facing it is expected.

[myancey]

Good thing not a single D&D setting remotely resembles medieval Europe in any way. Seriously, it doesn't, so referencing historical facts doesnt help. It's going to be DM fiat either way, just remain consistent. thats the difference between fiat and worldbuilding. In my settings, for example, there would be public libraries with organized, detailed, descriptions (Not stat blocks, but pretty close) because thats what my settings are like. Your's may be different.

I was torn in trying to decide whether you were joking or not with this post...

But in seriousness, referencing historical fact is a great way to realistically influence DM fiat.

[Reficule]

I was torn in trying to decide whether you were joking or not with this post...

But in seriousness, referencing historical fact is a great way to realistically influence DM fiat.

I was exaggerating a bit, but I was mostly referring to the fact that no published settings and hardly any homebrewed ones are anything like medieval Europe. At all. If you want to make your setting like medieval Europe, well, all I can say is that it is nothing like Greyhawk. As for realism, do you mean realism as in "Resembles Earth history" or realism as in "This is what would logically happen in a world where dragons attack settlements regularly?" Very different things.

[myancey]

I was exaggerating a bit, but I was mostly referring to the fact that no published settings and hardly any homebrewed ones are anything like medieval Europe. At all. If you want to make your setting like medieval Europe, well, all I can say is that it is nothing like Greyhawk. As for realism, do you mean realism as in "Resembles Earth history" or realism as in "This is what would logically happen in a world where dragons attack settlements regularly?" Very different things.

Well, realistic as in--the original point that brought this argument up, in basic form, referenced the fact that species capable of forming in-depth hypotheses generally have multiple ideas on a particular subject. Through use of mental tools like the scientific method we're able to narrow down these hypotheses to theories, and then to fact. Bhaakon was simply referencing a time in medieval Europe where there existed an inability to achieve scientific fact in many issues--leaving numerous and often incorrect hypotheses to thrive.

In this regard, medieval Europe most certainly could mirror your generic fantasy setting. As you said of this fantasy world, 'dragons attack settlements regularly'. This chaotic setting would be devastating to any scientific community.

In reality, the only real grudge I had against your argument was that I feel historical fact goes a long way in determining fantasy settings. Yes, we don't really have dragons or goblins or even other sentient species capable of waging war against us. But we have conflict, strife, intrigue, and many other factors that definitely show a sometimes logical, historical progression. Creating worlds becomes much easier and more logical when referencing historical points.

Also, take Cormyr from FR. The kingdom is based on a medieval feudal state. Yes, there are magicians and dragons--but the governance is similar to that of medieval Europe.

[Bhaakon]

I was exaggerating a bit, but I was mostly referring to the fact that no published settings and hardly any homebrewed ones are anything like medieval Europe. At all. If you want to make your setting like medieval Europe, well, all I can say is that it is nothing like Greyhawk. As for realism, do you mean realism as in "Resembles Earth history" or realism as in "This is what would logically happen in a world where dragons attack settlements regularly?" Very different things.

If the creature in question is rare enough that the PCs have to consult a library to find information on it, then they're probably rare enough that any information is spotty and unreliable. And it's not just Medieval Europe, it's pretty much all of human history (even today, woe to those who rely too heavily on wikipedia, or too small a cross section of written sources). If there are mortals managing a library, it's almost certain to contain a certain percentage of misleading or contradictory info.

Of course I'd still give a bonus for consulting a library, and tell them some useful info if they pass it (after all, recognizing and discarding false info is a big part of knowledge) but I'd also feel free to let them think they passed and provide them with false info if they fail the check badly.