Determining character knowledge

[MaxWilson]

Sorry to go off topic, but I don't get this. A level 1 pc almost certainly doesn't have a magic weapon, so they probably can't damage the tarrasque anyway.

It could be e.g. a 1st level Forge Cleric with a Light Crossbow +1 (possibly a Dex 18ish Aarakocra Forge Cleric so mobility isn't a concern). +7 to hit for d8+5 damage per hit means ~1.65 DPR, so the Tarrasque should be dead after about 40 minutes and 400 crossbow bolts. Stupid 5E Tarrasque--without regeneration it's unworthy of the (A)D&D Tarrasque legacy.

Yeah with a mastiff you can't do it, you need anything that has a 50 movement feet or more (so the tarrasque can't outrun it).
(A) Though to be precise the opportunity attack wouldn't kill the PC because it's the mastiff that provokes it (end result being the same).

But besides that any random schmuk with a magical weapon can do it. And that's the point- if you KNOW you can do it, what's stopping you? Rise the level a bit and suddenly it's actually a reliable plan (to get magical weapons).

If you don't know that who's going to think 'I can kite the monster devourer of nations to death with my sparkly bow'?

RE: (A), it could indeed kill you instead of your mount. Mounted combat rules say (emphasis mine):

While you're mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently.
You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training. The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.
An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.
In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you're on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.

[Valmark]

In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you're on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.[/I]

Oh. Good to know, regardless of the fact that I was already trying to avoid AoOs in general.

[MaxWilson]

Oh. Good to know, regardless of the fact that I was already trying to avoid AoOs in general.

One implication: scaring or Dominating someone's mount could be a very, very strong tactic in some cases, because it could let you force lots of opportunity attacks. E.g. you're fighting a Narzugon and you cast Dissonant Whispers on the mount, and now all of the Shepherd Druid's conjured animals get opportunity attacks on the Narzugon.

[Valmark]

One implication: scaring or Dominating someone's mount could be a very, very strong tactic in some cases, because it could let you force lots of opportunity attacks. E.g. you're fighting a Narzugon and you cast Dissonant Whispers on the mount, and now all of the Shepherd Druid's conjured animals get opportunity attacks on the Narzugon.

That. Is extremely good to know, hadn't thought about that.

Especially when we are playing Descent Into Avernus (nevermind that we are running around like headless chickens in Baldur's Gate) and we have a bard in the group, so that specific example could very well happen (dunno if Narzugons are there).

[JoeJ]

Title says it all.

How do you veteran players or DMs who play in this system seperate your characters knowledge of monsters, traps, gods, planes etc from what you know? Does that make sense?

As a DM, I don't decide that. I let the players decide how much of their own knowledge their characters know. After all, they know better than I do how many bards tales their characters listened to while they were growing up. If it's important that the characters not know about something, I'll create it myself so the players won't know either.

[Malinthas]

As a rule of thumb, if a player wants to bring their knowledge into the game via their character, they just have to justify it to me in-world. (For small stuff I don't bother, but for important information I do.) How, exactly, does your Noble background Paladin know that trolls are vulnerable to acid? His elven nanny used to tell him stories of forest creatures when he was a boy, you say? Done and done, and we have another bit of backstory for role play!

[MaxWilson]

As a rule of thumb, if a player wants to bring their knowledge into the game via their character, they just have to justify it to me in-world. (For small stuff I don't bother, but for important information I do.) How, exactly, does your Noble background Paladin know that trolls are vulnerable to acid? His elven nanny used to tell him stories of forest creatures when he was a boy, you say? Done and done, and we have another bit of backstory for role play!

I would have so much fun with that, giving my PC incorrect knowledge from nanny which he confidently asserts as truth. "Nanny says trolls are afraid of small, low, dark spaces. If there were only a bed here we could hide under it and be completely safe from the troll."

"Nanny says trolls can't see you when your eyes are closed."

"Nanny says if you eat candy after midnight, and don't share it with anyone else, you might turn into a troll."

(After all, Nanny was only 87, basically still a child herself.)

[Wizard_Lizard]

On a dnd server (Mostly player driven), I've had another person accuse me of metagaming because my magic-detective knew sorcerers existed and people can cast spells without verbal and somatic components...
EDIT: I would also like to specify that they had +11 arcana.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would have so much fun with that, giving my PC incorrect knowledge from nanny which he confidently asserts as truth. "Nanny says trolls are afraid of small, low, dark spaces. If there were only a bed here we could hide under it and be completely safe from the troll."

"Nanny says trolls can't see you when your eyes are closed."

"Nanny says if you eat candy after midnight, and don't share it with anyone else, you might turn into a troll."

(After all, Nanny was only 87, basically still a child herself.)

I had an NPC from a culture that in-world did everything by the book. Literally. There was a many-volume set of "The Book" that defined exactly all the proper ways of doing everything). The party ran an exhibition match against this NPC's group. I had him quoting things like "The book says 'kill the squishy first'" right before he took action on each of his turns.

I also had an idea for a PC from that culture who was sure that his "Adventuring Guidebook" had all the answers. More as a gag/quirk than anything.

[Malinthas]

I had an NPC from a culture that in-world did everything by the book. Literally. There was a many-volume set of "The Book" that defined exactly all the proper ways of doing everything). The party ran an exhibition match against this NPC's group. I had him quoting things like "The book says 'kill the squishy first'" right before he took action on each of his turns.

I also had an idea for a PC from that culture who was sure that his "Adventuring Guidebook" had all the answers. More as a gag/quirk than anything.

The title of the book was "Rules as Written and How To Break Them."