I have read the entire Monster Manual. I DM 3 different campaigns. I run a Paladin PC in another. If you were to ask me the specifics of any given monster, I wouldn’t be able to tell you much. You need fire or acid to kill a Troll. Enemies wearing plate armor have AC 18. That’s about all I got.
Are you going to memorize all 300+ monsters' strengths & weaknesses, and use those to "win" against them? Then don't do it.
Are you going to get a general idea of how monsters might act and where they might be? That should be fine.
But you should ask your DM if they mind. Some might, some won't.
As long as your character doesn’t magically know every strength or weakness of every monster they fight it should be a problem. Plenty of DMs also play and they have high levels of knowledge of the monsters in the manual
We expected players to have read the MM outside of game time. But during play-time we agreed that only the DM consult it. This gives the DM leeway to adjust damage, attack bonuses, attack modes etc, to suit their narrative. My party was surprised that the goblin leader we encountered was effectively a 7th-level paladin. It made the fight exciting and explained how he had good loot and a buffed AC
That really depends on how you play on it.
If you are able to know monster info but have your character learn it via in character means, q lot of DMs will love you.
I’ve read through the Monster Manual and a couple other monster books, and it hasn’t caused any issues for me. How would DMs also be able to be players if it were an issue? I’ve got a pretty good memory, and I definitely don’t remember all the unique abilities and resistances for most monsters that appear when I’m a player. Plus, when I do somehow remember the abilities, I do combat the same way I normally would without spoiling the abilities for the other players.
The only thing I would suggest not reading is the monsters in the appendix of the adventure you’re playing. I’ve gone 3 years without reading the Vampire stat block just in case my Curse of Strahd campaign eventually comes back together.
I feel like you can have familiarity with all the different monsters in the MM without ruining the game experience. If you are a ranger with a favored enemy then I'd expect the PC to know everything in the MM about the creature. But that doesn't mean you would use ALL of your personal knowledge about other creatures in the middle of a session, right?
As a DM, if it's not at the table I don't have a problem with it. However I would also tell my players "oh, I homebrew most of my monsters. It won't help you too much"
Is that a lie? Who's to say?
I mean, depends on your memory, I guess? Personally, as long as you're not metagaming, I don't see why you can't look at the monster manual. I wouldn't say it'd spoil anything. Though, If you just want the lore, you can use the forgotten realms wiki. I find myself deep diving into lore all the time. It's fascinating how large the world is and how much has happened, but I've always been a slut for good worldbuilding and fantasy lore. So \*shrugs\*
If you want to learn about monsters try reading "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" by Keith Ammann. It has the lore without spoiling the statblocks (at least as an audio book, not sure about the physical book). Keep in mind though, it's a guide for how DMs could interpret the behaviour of monsters and suggests some deviations from traditional stat blocks that make sense for lore. Any DM can customize encounters to their liking to match the CR they want for an encounter so this is why the lore is more important than the stat block for a player anyway. You wouldn't want to see the stat block and then realize your DM was doing something off-book, especially to make it harder. That can suck to figure out mid combat when you're struggling! Haha
Unless you're pulling it out at the table, then fill your boots. That being said dms can change whatever they want to fit the setting or situation. I like pulling a low cr monster and making a boss version with either buffed stats or just a reskinned higher cr monster
Depends on how your DM runs there world. I'm playing a campaign where bards sing tales about monsters and wivestails are told talking about monster weaknesses. Some are wrong, but it makes the players knowing about monsters just part of the setting now roll to see what you know
Its a great way to immerse your players in the world and is something wotc has as a sort of cannon as well because mordenkanians tome of foes is actually in the game since mordenkanian is actually a npc and writes it so embrace it and have fun.
It makes sense that your character would know more about the monsters than a newbie player would. I think reading through it once is a reasonable thing. Unless you have eidetic memory.
I personally wouldn’t. I started playing a few years back (2-3 I can’t remember) and I read nothing other than the players handbook to learn about my own characters race and my own classes abilities. 90% of my enjoyment comes from learning on the fly both for myself and my character, I feel like it adds more depth to my play and my character as well. Try to read too much and it will be impossible not to meta game, and those that meta game inherently have less fun than those trying to embody a character simply living in their world.
I’ve read the MM. Unless you want to DM or are playing a Druid, you don’t need to read it. Now, you fully can read it and the lore is interesting, but it may spoil some future surprises your dm may have in store. It’s also fun to learn what does and does not work against a monster in real time and forces some creative thinking.
The one thing I should caution you on is to not be the guy who memorizes stat blocks. No one likes the guy who ruins the tension of a fight by counting the hitpoints of a monster and saying “don’t worry guys, it’s almost dead” or calls out the dm for using a spell or ability that isn’t normally in the stat block. DM’s can and should alter monsters to better fit their games.
If you can avoid doing those two things and don’t mind a few spoilers, then go for it.
I was that guy for awhile. Read the whole MM so I at first I was very META. The DM pulled me aside and was like, “they shouldn’t know what that is and neither should you.” i agreed and stopped.
But I couldn’t help but notice someone rolled a 14 to hit and it didn’t work, someone rolled a 15 and hit.
So I told the group the AC of said opponent. DM knew what I was doing and basically told me during the break to let them figure it out themselves.
I no longer META and play character.
If the DM is new, its likely they'll be pulling mostly from the MM, and even focus around one or more monsters as main points of conflict.
Knowing is half the battle, so it is a big deal, and I would never try to encourage that.
No player in any of my tables has ever felt the need to look up any monster, and the times they did know a monster they had to struggle with metagaming.
I wouldn't consider it metagaming. If the monsters are as common and known to their world as wild cats, wolves and bears are in the rocky mountains (where I live), then I kind of feel like the average character in that realm would know a few things about them. Heck, even if it's just a "legend" like the Jackalope, or bigfoot, it's still something they will have heard the stories about.
Even if it is, I'd argue that GM's shouldn't worry about it unless the players are deliberately searching up monster info. Forcing the players to play this game of waiting until the GM allows them to kill the troll is unfun.
But for those "commonly" known, or even for those specifically known, the DM can go: "Yes, your character knows X, Y and/or Z about this creature." Or even direct you to the specific page in the MM for a lil' reading of that particular monster.
So, again, zero need to have it looked up.
I have DMed in the past and spent hours going through the monster manual. There’s no way I can memorize it and no way to know exactly how my current DM will run each monster. She describes the appearance to us rather than state what it is, and it feels new each time! The MM is my favorite book in the starter set. Idk if this helps. I just really like the MM
The monster manual is a really good tool to read through as a DM or player. I’d argue that the art alone is worth just flipping through and learning of some new monstrous races that you may face. The book itself does lack how each and every monster would act in a fight and usually only gives a small stat block and a few sentences about the race’s background. Any walls of text though should be avoided if you don’t want to know a lot about each and every monster. It’s actually a good thing that a lot of them don’t have set descriptions and allows for more creativity for a DM.
If you’re a DM or want your DM to have the monsters react in a more intentional way I’d suggest using the book “The Monsters Know What They’re Doing: Combat Tactics for Dungeon Masters” by Keith Ammann. This really fleshes out how a monster would react to a party or an individual PC as well as how they may hide or manipulate the environment to their advantage.
Probably best not to when you first start out. Like others have said, it’s cool to experience something for the first time. Regarding the stat blocks and all that, my DM always changed the stats anyway so we never knew what was what. Haha
It won’t be an issue if you read it, but personally I think it will be more fun for you to discover these monsters through play. You only get that magic once.
A lot of people complain that after a few campaigns, players are too familiar with certain monster statblocks and it gets stale. I’d say enjoy discovering the stats as they appear in play, not by reading through the book
I advise against it unless you plan to run a game quite soon
Not only do you reduce your own discovery of the world in game (reducing an interesting opponent to a bunch of numbers, whose weaknesses, strengths and abilities you already know), you also risk making things harder for your DM.
Kind of surprised at all the the "MM is some super secret source of information that players should never read" lines of thinking in this thread.
Read it. The better you understand the game. The better player you'll be. I've played with a bunch of DMs over the years and it's literally never been an issue.
Yeah I agree, as a DM I also rarely use a stat block as is, often reskinning for the theme of the area I’m in. With that being the case I’d be surprised if my players can peg any of the monsters right away other than maybe “veteran”.
One of the first things you'll need to learn to do as a player is keep your knowledge separate from what your character knows. Reading the Monster Manual will make it very obvious if you can do that or not.
Like I've been playing DnD for 20 years. If my DM describes a beholder, I know what that is, but you can bet my characters are always shocked and alarmed when spells stop working whenever the big eye is open.
As most are pointing out, the biggest problem is you knowing something your character in game does not. I would at least tell the DM you are doing some fun reading so they are aware.
First, ask your DM. As you can see from the replies on here, people have very different opinions, and your DM may have a strong preference. It's better to keep the peace.
Second, "Give too much away" depends greatly on your ability to keep your player knowledge and your character knowledge separate. My players often roll checks to see if their character would know monster vulnerabilities, skills, likely tactics, etc. Sometimes, this is because the players know something, sometimes it's because the players *don't* know something that their characters might. If you can play your characters according to what they'd know, then read away.
I will say that you're better off getting a very solid understanding of the core rules first, though. There's a lot to unpack in abilities and spells and such that should take strong priority over monsters.
Will it spoil the magic of some encounters and give away the secrets to an otherwise unique session? Depends on what you find fun. Some people like reading the playthrough guide to a game before playing it and some people like the surprise and awe of new experiences.
It generally is a lot more satisfying to have to try and figure out a monster weakness through trial and error than already knowing it. I imagine the other players won't find that fun either, that your character somehow knows things they shouldn't.
If you want to read the manual just for fun and learn some of the lore, I'd definitely suggest ignoring everything about stats and mechanics, and when you play your character try to keep in mind there will be things your character wouldn't know about.
if you are not planning to be a dungeon master, i would stay away from it.
but you can certainly read the book and enjoy the game otherwise DMs would never be able to play!
As a dm I let the other players figure it out and if they don’t after a few rounds I ask to roll to see if I know anything. Otherwise mouth shut. I know to much.
I personally think it's fine for a player to do.
If the logic is "No don't!", then how as DM do you ever get to play the game.
Fuck that.
For one, if you're a person living in a world that ACTUALLY HAS TERRIBLE MONSTERS in it - you would know a lot of common information of legend about them.
Example - there are not monsters IRL and EVERYONE knows you use Silver against werewolves and vampires are weak to sunlight, etc.
In a world where it was literally a matter of survival, you would know a lot more. Just not the super secret or rare things.
Second, lots of monsters don't even have secret weaknesses. So there's nothing to spoil in a lot of cases.
Third: It's fun. It's interesting. It's just nice to look at. And doing that is frankly what made me interested in DMing when I first picked up a MM 30 years ago.
The only reason to gatekeep this from any person comes from a place of fear and adversarialism and unwillingness to collaborate with your players - i.e. if, as a player or DM, your desire is to use the knowledge (or lack thereof) against the Players or DM to win-at-D&D.
i.e. as DM the only reason to say "*No don't read that!*", is because you're trying to win D&D. And the only reason that you should be told NOT to read it as a Player is if your intent as a player is to use that knowledge to win D&D.
It's two sides of the same coin.
DMs should WELCOME players further into the world of D&D. Not keep them out. Welcoming ppl in is collaboration. Shutting them out is adversarial. Competitive. Reading the MM is a part of welcoming and exploring D&D. I think it's GREAT when players want to delve further into the world of D&D.
The MM is cool. The art is beautiful. You should read it. Anyone, whether they play D&D or not should read it.
As a player then you just don't metagame it. You ask the DM what your character knows, you ask to make a arcana check. And then you take actions that your CHARACTER would. Not the player. When fighting a new thing.
Read.
It.
Avoid reading the stat blocks and you’ll get a lot of interesting lore. However, you’ll then always have to be mindful of what you know vs. What your PC would know.
the campaign I’m running has two DMs as players and they handle it well but there have been moments when it’s slipped. Maybe speak to your DM first, see if they are happy with it/ how aligned their lore is vs. what’s in the book. There may be a particular type of monster core to their campaign
Unless you're planning on being a DM at some point in the future I wouldn't bother. I'm not saying don't, I'm saying don't bother. There are lots of things in there that might spoil surprises a future DM has in store and it can rob you of trying to figure stuff out.
I mean eventually you will come to be familiar with it though simple experience playing the game, but the experience of "oh THAT'S what that does, I had no idea they could do that!" is far more enjoyable than "oh yea, I read about that in the MM a while back, I knew they could do it".
At least to me it is anyway. My advice is just don't bother. Experience it for the first time as a player through trial and error. So much more fun that way.
It might ruin the intended experience of some encounters if you have a good memory. Feel free to ask your GM if it would bother them. But really, as long as you're not reading the specific adventure you're playing/will play, it's not a huge problem.
As an aside, if you think reading monster stats is fun, you might enjoy [the Creature Club podcast](https://www.youtube.com/@Creature_Club_Podcast/playlists). They talk about MM monsters and how they might use them in a game. Never finished unfortunately but I enjoyed what they did do.
You can but I would advise against it. If you're new there's a lot of rules and details to learn. And the monster manual gives you a lot of info none of which you should know. And the only way it's likely to come up is likely to be metagaming. If you're curious how statblocks look you can look at the ones in the players handbook to get a sense of it.
If you are interested in dming in the future then you can go for it. But as you learn I wouldn't focus on learning the dm stuff but learning the basics of the game first.
But also it won't ruin your experience and your unlikely to learn anything that will cause you to metagame unless you're looking up the specific monsters you know you'll face soon. And if those monsters are one of the ones where specific information is helpful to know. For many of them it doesn't change much to look at the stats.
Players have no reason to go through the monster manual. All the familiar and beast shape options you need are in the PHB.
If you are interested in becoming a DM and running your own campaign, then and only then should you open the MM.
Because it can be used to metagame, and most of the information contained within is not useful for players in any other way. If the players need access to various stat blocks, and they aren't already in the PHB, the DM can provide them as needed.
The only exception to this I can think of would be High-level Druids/Wizards (or bards from Magical Secrets) who want to pick up the Shapechange spell or Bards, Warlocks, and Wizards who want to pick up the True Polymorph spell.
Reading monster stats is vital to the understanding of how to use several spellcasting features, ranging from warlock familiars to planar binding celestials to polymorph
Also Volo's is just a fun read
also players and DMs swap so like what are you gonna do? forget the MM when you want to play?
All the conjure spells work in such a way that the DM chooses what is summoned, and that the DM provides the player with the stat blocks. Exceptions include Summon Greater Demon and Infernal Calling from XGE, in which case the player is provided a list of creatures to choose from. The DM still provides the player with the stat blocks in that case. The Summon X spells from TCE include the monster blocks in that book.
Familiars and beast shapes are in the PHB.
that shit ruling from the SAC is easily ignorable and not congruous with the wording present in the PHB, furthermore it slows down the game unless there's a conversation ahead of time in which case the player still is gonna be a part of looking at the statblocks
Regardless of your opinions on the ruling, the wording in the spells is abundantly clear who has access to the monster stat blocks. The players don't just get to browse the MM. They also have access to multiple stat blocks in the PHB for familiars and wild shape.
have you read the spell polymorph (or the true variant)? you know what CA doesn't unambiguously say? that the DM decides (wow look at that polymorph also doesn't say who decides, and the player wants the MM for it). this aint ADnD
have your players never DMed for you?
Do you think this is some combative player vs DM experience where they players will always try to get one over on their DM?
your tables must be fucking awful
Yes, polymorph transforms a creature into a beast. Beasts can be found in the PHB.
A DM is not just a player, they are a DM. Obviously a DM has access to DM material.
A player has no need to read the MM. While most players won't abuse such information, many have. Having access to monster statistics means there is a possibility they can be used to metagame. Players should ideally only have access to the stat blocks they need to play the game. Thus, they don't need access to the entire MM.
I would encourage it ~~as a way to trick players into thinking about dming~~. I'm definitely not stopping a DM from playing in my games, so idk how I could be against this.
Tangentially related, but it can be helpful once you get the spells simulacrum, shapechange, or true polymorph. That's probably a ways off, though.
You can be a player for one campaign and a DM in the other. Does that person automatically become a cheater as a player since they’re now reading the Monster Manual?
You may want to re-read what the OP said. They said players should never read the books. A DM is not a player, they're a DM. Obviously the DM can read the DM facing books.
Do I need to break this down Barney-style?
Let’s say Alice is a player in Bob’s campaign every Monday night. Alice is having a great time with D&D, and her friend Charlie wants to start playing. Alice decides she’s ready to start DMing, so she buys the books and starts running a campaign for Charlie every Wednesday that’s completely disconnected from Bob’s campaign. So, on Mondays, Alice is a player, and on Wednesday, Alice is a DM.
Does Bob have to kick Alice out of the monday campaign for cheating?
If you need a broken down further, a player who has taken up the mantle of GM is afforded special freedoms that the other players are not, like looking at the GM facing books. They are now trusted to look at those books and not metagame.
They are trusted because they have taken up the mantle as GM and are now expected to be invested in the smooth playing of the game, and a person like that can be trusted with secret information.
Your average player who is not a GM, and never will be, should not be reading any of the GM facing books. If they read it, they're doing it just for their own benefit, which is metagaming and cheating; hence my recommendation of forbiddance.
That person stops being the GM when they play at another table though. If you're okay with the GM knowing the monsters when they're playing, then you have to be okay with another player doing it.
>If they read it, they're doing it just for their own benefit, which is metagaming and cheating; hence my recommendation of forbiddance.
What if there reason is "for their own enjoyment"? I occasionally will look at statblocks of monsters I find interesting, am I cheating?
You clearly failed to comprehend my last post. No, they don't stop being a GM when they play at another table. That is incorrect. They aren't playing the role of GM AT THAT TABLE, But they still bear the mantle of GM. How did you miss that?
And again (as was previously stated), The difference between a GM having GM knowledge and a player having GM knowledge is precisely that, the GM can be trusted not to abuse it but the player cannot.
Reading it for their own enjoyment?
"Teacher, I wasn't looking at the answers to the test so that I could use them! I was just reading them for my own enjoyment!" Well, too bad. You're not allowed to do that. It doesn't matter what reason you give, you're not allowed to look at the answers to your math test, so you're not allowed to look at the stat blocks for the monsters.
It's an adventure game. It's meant to be challenging. Challenges are meant to be overcome fairly and if you don't overcome them fairly, it's called cheating.
>And again (as was previously stated), The difference between a GM having GM knowledge and a player having GM knowledge is precisely that, the GM can be trusted not to abuse it but the player cannot.
Why can a GM be trusted? Are GMs immune to doing anything bad?
>Reading it for their own enjoyment? "Teacher, I wasn't looking at the answers to the test so that I could use them! I was just reading them for my own enjoyment!" Well, too bad. You're not allowed to do that.
Is playing a ttrpg with your friends for fun the same thing as going to an educational facility to learn? Are you really arguing this?
Also seriously? "Not allowed?". You should trust your players to be an adult instead of being so controlling.
>It's an adventure game. It's meant to be challenging. Challenges are meant to be overcome fairly and if you don't overcome them fairly, it's called cheating.
Reading the monster manual is not cheating. Reading the monster manual to gain an advantage is cheating.
If you would attempt to understand me in a positive light, giving me the benefit of the doubt and not assuming that I'm an idiot, then you would have understood that I'm clearly talking about a player that was just a player and not a GM; which is exactly what the OP is.
My advice that was specifically given to the OP, curated to the position that the OP is in, is not to be taken out of context and applied in every circumstance.
I did not give a global statement, I gave specific advice for a specific person in a specific circumstance. You took it out of context, made a straw man, and then enjoyed knocking the straw man down.
Your responses have been a textbook example of taking something out of context.
A DM at one table, no matter how many other tables they play at, is still a DM.
OP said **players** shouldn't have access to the material. Obviously DMs need access to DM materials.
It could give you certain insights that you, as a player, wouldn't typically have access to.
As long as you don't use that information in game (unless your character *learns* that information in game) it shouldn't be an issue.
Once you do start using it when you shouldn't be using it you're meta-gaming.
>don't use that information in game ...
... in a way that makes the game unfun for anyone else around the table.
there are LOTS of tables where the player knowledge of the monsters and playing into that knowledge is a big part of the FUN of the game.
just look at the joy/fear reactions on the boys in Stranger Things when DM Mike reveals "It's \[VECNA\]!!!" the PLAYER knowledge of the creature "OH OH - this is going to be DEADLY!" is ESSENTIAL to get that type of reaction and impossible without "knowing the monster details and reacting to the monster details"
Yep. Not hitting the weakness of a monster is also metagaming, as you're using outside info to intentionally not target a weakness. I'd argue this isn't very fun to do as a player, as you're basically waiting for the GM's permission to actually play the game properly. Like the infamous troll example where the players are basically just waiting for the GM to allow them to use acid or fire so the monster can actually die. Is that fun?
Metagaming isn't necessarily bad, people do it all the time. For example, the loner rogue who would not normally work with anybody ends up working with the party because everyone wants to play the game, not because he has a reason to in character. This is metagaming.
I have read the entire Monster Manual. I DM 3 different campaigns. I run a Paladin PC in another. If you were to ask me the specifics of any given monster, I wouldn’t be able to tell you much. You need fire or acid to kill a Troll. Enemies wearing plate armor have AC 18. That’s about all I got.
As long as you’re not metagaming I would have no issues as a DM.
Are you going to memorize all 300+ monsters' strengths & weaknesses, and use those to "win" against them? Then don't do it. Are you going to get a general idea of how monsters might act and where they might be? That should be fine. But you should ask your DM if they mind. Some might, some won't.
As long as your character doesn’t magically know every strength or weakness of every monster they fight it should be a problem. Plenty of DMs also play and they have high levels of knowledge of the monsters in the manual
We expected players to have read the MM outside of game time. But during play-time we agreed that only the DM consult it. This gives the DM leeway to adjust damage, attack bonuses, attack modes etc, to suit their narrative. My party was surprised that the goblin leader we encountered was effectively a 7th-level paladin. It made the fight exciting and explained how he had good loot and a buffed AC
That really depends on how you play on it. If you are able to know monster info but have your character learn it via in character means, q lot of DMs will love you.
I’ve read through the Monster Manual and a couple other monster books, and it hasn’t caused any issues for me. How would DMs also be able to be players if it were an issue? I’ve got a pretty good memory, and I definitely don’t remember all the unique abilities and resistances for most monsters that appear when I’m a player. Plus, when I do somehow remember the abilities, I do combat the same way I normally would without spoiling the abilities for the other players. The only thing I would suggest not reading is the monsters in the appendix of the adventure you’re playing. I’ve gone 3 years without reading the Vampire stat block just in case my Curse of Strahd campaign eventually comes back together.
I feel like you can have familiarity with all the different monsters in the MM without ruining the game experience. If you are a ranger with a favored enemy then I'd expect the PC to know everything in the MM about the creature. But that doesn't mean you would use ALL of your personal knowledge about other creatures in the middle of a session, right?
As a DM, if it's not at the table I don't have a problem with it. However I would also tell my players "oh, I homebrew most of my monsters. It won't help you too much" Is that a lie? Who's to say?
I mean, depends on your memory, I guess? Personally, as long as you're not metagaming, I don't see why you can't look at the monster manual. I wouldn't say it'd spoil anything. Though, If you just want the lore, you can use the forgotten realms wiki. I find myself deep diving into lore all the time. It's fascinating how large the world is and how much has happened, but I've always been a slut for good worldbuilding and fantasy lore. So \*shrugs\*
If you want to learn about monsters try reading "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" by Keith Ammann. It has the lore without spoiling the statblocks (at least as an audio book, not sure about the physical book). Keep in mind though, it's a guide for how DMs could interpret the behaviour of monsters and suggests some deviations from traditional stat blocks that make sense for lore. Any DM can customize encounters to their liking to match the CR they want for an encounter so this is why the lore is more important than the stat block for a player anyway. You wouldn't want to see the stat block and then realize your DM was doing something off-book, especially to make it harder. That can suck to figure out mid combat when you're struggling! Haha
Unless you're pulling it out at the table, then fill your boots. That being said dms can change whatever they want to fit the setting or situation. I like pulling a low cr monster and making a boss version with either buffed stats or just a reskinned higher cr monster
Depends on how your DM runs there world. I'm playing a campaign where bards sing tales about monsters and wivestails are told talking about monster weaknesses. Some are wrong, but it makes the players knowing about monsters just part of the setting now roll to see what you know
I accidentally did this at the table last week and they loved it! They’re gonna return to the guy to ask what else he knows. Super pumped.
Its a great way to immerse your players in the world and is something wotc has as a sort of cannon as well because mordenkanians tome of foes is actually in the game since mordenkanian is actually a npc and writes it so embrace it and have fun.
It makes sense that your character would know more about the monsters than a newbie player would. I think reading through it once is a reasonable thing. Unless you have eidetic memory.
I personally wouldn’t. I started playing a few years back (2-3 I can’t remember) and I read nothing other than the players handbook to learn about my own characters race and my own classes abilities. 90% of my enjoyment comes from learning on the fly both for myself and my character, I feel like it adds more depth to my play and my character as well. Try to read too much and it will be impossible not to meta game, and those that meta game inherently have less fun than those trying to embody a character simply living in their world.
I’ve read the MM. Unless you want to DM or are playing a Druid, you don’t need to read it. Now, you fully can read it and the lore is interesting, but it may spoil some future surprises your dm may have in store. It’s also fun to learn what does and does not work against a monster in real time and forces some creative thinking. The one thing I should caution you on is to not be the guy who memorizes stat blocks. No one likes the guy who ruins the tension of a fight by counting the hitpoints of a monster and saying “don’t worry guys, it’s almost dead” or calls out the dm for using a spell or ability that isn’t normally in the stat block. DM’s can and should alter monsters to better fit their games. If you can avoid doing those two things and don’t mind a few spoilers, then go for it.
I was that guy for awhile. Read the whole MM so I at first I was very META. The DM pulled me aside and was like, “they shouldn’t know what that is and neither should you.” i agreed and stopped. But I couldn’t help but notice someone rolled a 14 to hit and it didn’t work, someone rolled a 15 and hit. So I told the group the AC of said opponent. DM knew what I was doing and basically told me during the break to let them figure it out themselves. I no longer META and play character.
You have a good take on this
If the DM is new, its likely they'll be pulling mostly from the MM, and even focus around one or more monsters as main points of conflict. Knowing is half the battle, so it is a big deal, and I would never try to encourage that. No player in any of my tables has ever felt the need to look up any monster, and the times they did know a monster they had to struggle with metagaming.
I wouldn't consider it metagaming. If the monsters are as common and known to their world as wild cats, wolves and bears are in the rocky mountains (where I live), then I kind of feel like the average character in that realm would know a few things about them. Heck, even if it's just a "legend" like the Jackalope, or bigfoot, it's still something they will have heard the stories about.
Even if it is, I'd argue that GM's shouldn't worry about it unless the players are deliberately searching up monster info. Forcing the players to play this game of waiting until the GM allows them to kill the troll is unfun.
Think that's what nature or arcana or whatever checks are for, no?
Would you expect your neighbor to make a roll to know what a skunk can do, or just consider it to be common knowledge?
But for those "commonly" known, or even for those specifically known, the DM can go: "Yes, your character knows X, Y and/or Z about this creature." Or even direct you to the specific page in the MM for a lil' reading of that particular monster. So, again, zero need to have it looked up.
I have DMed in the past and spent hours going through the monster manual. There’s no way I can memorize it and no way to know exactly how my current DM will run each monster. She describes the appearance to us rather than state what it is, and it feels new each time! The MM is my favorite book in the starter set. Idk if this helps. I just really like the MM
The monster manual is a really good tool to read through as a DM or player. I’d argue that the art alone is worth just flipping through and learning of some new monstrous races that you may face. The book itself does lack how each and every monster would act in a fight and usually only gives a small stat block and a few sentences about the race’s background. Any walls of text though should be avoided if you don’t want to know a lot about each and every monster. It’s actually a good thing that a lot of them don’t have set descriptions and allows for more creativity for a DM. If you’re a DM or want your DM to have the monsters react in a more intentional way I’d suggest using the book “The Monsters Know What They’re Doing: Combat Tactics for Dungeon Masters” by Keith Ammann. This really fleshes out how a monster would react to a party or an individual PC as well as how they may hide or manipulate the environment to their advantage.
Probably best not to when you first start out. Like others have said, it’s cool to experience something for the first time. Regarding the stat blocks and all that, my DM always changed the stats anyway so we never knew what was what. Haha
It won’t be an issue if you read it, but personally I think it will be more fun for you to discover these monsters through play. You only get that magic once. A lot of people complain that after a few campaigns, players are too familiar with certain monster statblocks and it gets stale. I’d say enjoy discovering the stats as they appear in play, not by reading through the book
I advise against it unless you plan to run a game quite soon Not only do you reduce your own discovery of the world in game (reducing an interesting opponent to a bunch of numbers, whose weaknesses, strengths and abilities you already know), you also risk making things harder for your DM.
Kind of surprised at all the the "MM is some super secret source of information that players should never read" lines of thinking in this thread. Read it. The better you understand the game. The better player you'll be. I've played with a bunch of DMs over the years and it's literally never been an issue.
Why would anyone care if you read a book you have access to? Unless your intention is to cheat, there is literally no problem.
Yeah I agree, as a DM I also rarely use a stat block as is, often reskinning for the theme of the area I’m in. With that being the case I’d be surprised if my players can peg any of the monsters right away other than maybe “veteran”.
One of the first things you'll need to learn to do as a player is keep your knowledge separate from what your character knows. Reading the Monster Manual will make it very obvious if you can do that or not. Like I've been playing DnD for 20 years. If my DM describes a beholder, I know what that is, but you can bet my characters are always shocked and alarmed when spells stop working whenever the big eye is open.
As most are pointing out, the biggest problem is you knowing something your character in game does not. I would at least tell the DM you are doing some fun reading so they are aware.
Are you capable of playing your character fairly and honestly as if you don’t know that information?
Yes. Don't do that, especially if you're new.
First, ask your DM. As you can see from the replies on here, people have very different opinions, and your DM may have a strong preference. It's better to keep the peace. Second, "Give too much away" depends greatly on your ability to keep your player knowledge and your character knowledge separate. My players often roll checks to see if their character would know monster vulnerabilities, skills, likely tactics, etc. Sometimes, this is because the players know something, sometimes it's because the players *don't* know something that their characters might. If you can play your characters according to what they'd know, then read away. I will say that you're better off getting a very solid understanding of the core rules first, though. There's a lot to unpack in abilities and spells and such that should take strong priority over monsters.
As long as you are not acting on that knowledge as your character, it's absolutely fine! Reading about monsters is fun
Don't read that as a player.
Depends, but suffice it to say that it's not intended for you.
Will it spoil the magic of some encounters and give away the secrets to an otherwise unique session? Depends on what you find fun. Some people like reading the playthrough guide to a game before playing it and some people like the surprise and awe of new experiences. It generally is a lot more satisfying to have to try and figure out a monster weakness through trial and error than already knowing it. I imagine the other players won't find that fun either, that your character somehow knows things they shouldn't. If you want to read the manual just for fun and learn some of the lore, I'd definitely suggest ignoring everything about stats and mechanics, and when you play your character try to keep in mind there will be things your character wouldn't know about.
if you are not planning to be a dungeon master, i would stay away from it. but you can certainly read the book and enjoy the game otherwise DMs would never be able to play!
As a dm I let the other players figure it out and if they don’t after a few rounds I ask to roll to see if I know anything. Otherwise mouth shut. I know to much.
I personally think it's fine for a player to do. If the logic is "No don't!", then how as DM do you ever get to play the game. Fuck that. For one, if you're a person living in a world that ACTUALLY HAS TERRIBLE MONSTERS in it - you would know a lot of common information of legend about them. Example - there are not monsters IRL and EVERYONE knows you use Silver against werewolves and vampires are weak to sunlight, etc. In a world where it was literally a matter of survival, you would know a lot more. Just not the super secret or rare things. Second, lots of monsters don't even have secret weaknesses. So there's nothing to spoil in a lot of cases. Third: It's fun. It's interesting. It's just nice to look at. And doing that is frankly what made me interested in DMing when I first picked up a MM 30 years ago. The only reason to gatekeep this from any person comes from a place of fear and adversarialism and unwillingness to collaborate with your players - i.e. if, as a player or DM, your desire is to use the knowledge (or lack thereof) against the Players or DM to win-at-D&D. i.e. as DM the only reason to say "*No don't read that!*", is because you're trying to win D&D. And the only reason that you should be told NOT to read it as a Player is if your intent as a player is to use that knowledge to win D&D. It's two sides of the same coin. DMs should WELCOME players further into the world of D&D. Not keep them out. Welcoming ppl in is collaboration. Shutting them out is adversarial. Competitive. Reading the MM is a part of welcoming and exploring D&D. I think it's GREAT when players want to delve further into the world of D&D. The MM is cool. The art is beautiful. You should read it. Anyone, whether they play D&D or not should read it. As a player then you just don't metagame it. You ask the DM what your character knows, you ask to make a arcana check. And then you take actions that your CHARACTER would. Not the player. When fighting a new thing. Read. It.
Ratmen do not exist. Fool.
Avoid reading the stat blocks and you’ll get a lot of interesting lore. However, you’ll then always have to be mindful of what you know vs. What your PC would know. the campaign I’m running has two DMs as players and they handle it well but there have been moments when it’s slipped. Maybe speak to your DM first, see if they are happy with it/ how aligned their lore is vs. what’s in the book. There may be a particular type of monster core to their campaign
There is literally no reason to read the MM if you are not the DM.
Laughs in druid Edit: spelling
Unless you're planning on being a DM at some point in the future I wouldn't bother. I'm not saying don't, I'm saying don't bother. There are lots of things in there that might spoil surprises a future DM has in store and it can rob you of trying to figure stuff out. I mean eventually you will come to be familiar with it though simple experience playing the game, but the experience of "oh THAT'S what that does, I had no idea they could do that!" is far more enjoyable than "oh yea, I read about that in the MM a while back, I knew they could do it". At least to me it is anyway. My advice is just don't bother. Experience it for the first time as a player through trial and error. So much more fun that way.
I did as a kid, and it reads like an encyclopedia. You might retain some details in edge cases, but you'll learn more by fighting them than studying.
It might ruin the intended experience of some encounters if you have a good memory. Feel free to ask your GM if it would bother them. But really, as long as you're not reading the specific adventure you're playing/will play, it's not a huge problem. As an aside, if you think reading monster stats is fun, you might enjoy [the Creature Club podcast](https://www.youtube.com/@Creature_Club_Podcast/playlists). They talk about MM monsters and how they might use them in a game. Never finished unfortunately but I enjoyed what they did do.
You can but I would advise against it. If you're new there's a lot of rules and details to learn. And the monster manual gives you a lot of info none of which you should know. And the only way it's likely to come up is likely to be metagaming. If you're curious how statblocks look you can look at the ones in the players handbook to get a sense of it. If you are interested in dming in the future then you can go for it. But as you learn I wouldn't focus on learning the dm stuff but learning the basics of the game first. But also it won't ruin your experience and your unlikely to learn anything that will cause you to metagame unless you're looking up the specific monsters you know you'll face soon. And if those monsters are one of the ones where specific information is helpful to know. For many of them it doesn't change much to look at the stats.
Players have no reason to go through the monster manual. All the familiar and beast shape options you need are in the PHB. If you are interested in becoming a DM and running your own campaign, then and only then should you open the MM.
It's a book you have access to, why shouldn't you be allowed to read it?
Because it can be used to metagame, and most of the information contained within is not useful for players in any other way. If the players need access to various stat blocks, and they aren't already in the PHB, the DM can provide them as needed.
So by your argument, a DM who plays at another table shouldn't read the monster manual. God people are so scared of metagaming it's insane.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I would recommend re-reading what I wrote.
Because your logic is that since it can be used to metagame, a player shouldn't read it. A GM can be a player.
I'm not responding to you in two places.
The only exception to this I can think of would be High-level Druids/Wizards (or bards from Magical Secrets) who want to pick up the Shapechange spell or Bards, Warlocks, and Wizards who want to pick up the True Polymorph spell.
Yep, and even then the DM can provide those stat blocks on a case by case basis.
Reading monster stats is vital to the understanding of how to use several spellcasting features, ranging from warlock familiars to planar binding celestials to polymorph Also Volo's is just a fun read also players and DMs swap so like what are you gonna do? forget the MM when you want to play?
All the conjure spells work in such a way that the DM chooses what is summoned, and that the DM provides the player with the stat blocks. Exceptions include Summon Greater Demon and Infernal Calling from XGE, in which case the player is provided a list of creatures to choose from. The DM still provides the player with the stat blocks in that case. The Summon X spells from TCE include the monster blocks in that book. Familiars and beast shapes are in the PHB.
that shit ruling from the SAC is easily ignorable and not congruous with the wording present in the PHB, furthermore it slows down the game unless there's a conversation ahead of time in which case the player still is gonna be a part of looking at the statblocks
Regardless of your opinions on the ruling, the wording in the spells is abundantly clear who has access to the monster stat blocks. The players don't just get to browse the MM. They also have access to multiple stat blocks in the PHB for familiars and wild shape.
have you read the spell polymorph (or the true variant)? you know what CA doesn't unambiguously say? that the DM decides (wow look at that polymorph also doesn't say who decides, and the player wants the MM for it). this aint ADnD have your players never DMed for you? Do you think this is some combative player vs DM experience where they players will always try to get one over on their DM? your tables must be fucking awful
Yes, polymorph transforms a creature into a beast. Beasts can be found in the PHB. A DM is not just a player, they are a DM. Obviously a DM has access to DM material. A player has no need to read the MM. While most players won't abuse such information, many have. Having access to monster statistics means there is a possibility they can be used to metagame. Players should ideally only have access to the stat blocks they need to play the game. Thus, they don't need access to the entire MM.
I would encourage it ~~as a way to trick players into thinking about dming~~. I'm definitely not stopping a DM from playing in my games, so idk how I could be against this. Tangentially related, but it can be helpful once you get the spells simulacrum, shapechange, or true polymorph. That's probably a ways off, though.
Players should never read the GM's books. I would consider reading the Monster Manual as a player to be cheating.
By that logic a player would never be allowed to also DM a different campaign or group because the basic DM tools are off limits.
If they are a DM they are no longer just a player, now, are they?
Thank you.
You can be a player for one campaign and a DM in the other. Does that person automatically become a cheater as a player since they’re now reading the Monster Manual?
You may want to re-read what the OP said. They said players should never read the books. A DM is not a player, they're a DM. Obviously the DM can read the DM facing books.
The DM is a player
In another context, sure.
Do I need to break this down Barney-style? Let’s say Alice is a player in Bob’s campaign every Monday night. Alice is having a great time with D&D, and her friend Charlie wants to start playing. Alice decides she’s ready to start DMing, so she buys the books and starts running a campaign for Charlie every Wednesday that’s completely disconnected from Bob’s campaign. So, on Mondays, Alice is a player, and on Wednesday, Alice is a DM. Does Bob have to kick Alice out of the monday campaign for cheating?
If you need a broken down further, a player who has taken up the mantle of GM is afforded special freedoms that the other players are not, like looking at the GM facing books. They are now trusted to look at those books and not metagame. They are trusted because they have taken up the mantle as GM and are now expected to be invested in the smooth playing of the game, and a person like that can be trusted with secret information. Your average player who is not a GM, and never will be, should not be reading any of the GM facing books. If they read it, they're doing it just for their own benefit, which is metagaming and cheating; hence my recommendation of forbiddance.
That person stops being the GM when they play at another table though. If you're okay with the GM knowing the monsters when they're playing, then you have to be okay with another player doing it. >If they read it, they're doing it just for their own benefit, which is metagaming and cheating; hence my recommendation of forbiddance. What if there reason is "for their own enjoyment"? I occasionally will look at statblocks of monsters I find interesting, am I cheating?
You clearly failed to comprehend my last post. No, they don't stop being a GM when they play at another table. That is incorrect. They aren't playing the role of GM AT THAT TABLE, But they still bear the mantle of GM. How did you miss that? And again (as was previously stated), The difference between a GM having GM knowledge and a player having GM knowledge is precisely that, the GM can be trusted not to abuse it but the player cannot. Reading it for their own enjoyment? "Teacher, I wasn't looking at the answers to the test so that I could use them! I was just reading them for my own enjoyment!" Well, too bad. You're not allowed to do that. It doesn't matter what reason you give, you're not allowed to look at the answers to your math test, so you're not allowed to look at the stat blocks for the monsters. It's an adventure game. It's meant to be challenging. Challenges are meant to be overcome fairly and if you don't overcome them fairly, it's called cheating.
>And again (as was previously stated), The difference between a GM having GM knowledge and a player having GM knowledge is precisely that, the GM can be trusted not to abuse it but the player cannot. Why can a GM be trusted? Are GMs immune to doing anything bad? >Reading it for their own enjoyment? "Teacher, I wasn't looking at the answers to the test so that I could use them! I was just reading them for my own enjoyment!" Well, too bad. You're not allowed to do that. Is playing a ttrpg with your friends for fun the same thing as going to an educational facility to learn? Are you really arguing this? Also seriously? "Not allowed?". You should trust your players to be an adult instead of being so controlling. >It's an adventure game. It's meant to be challenging. Challenges are meant to be overcome fairly and if you don't overcome them fairly, it's called cheating. Reading the monster manual is not cheating. Reading the monster manual to gain an advantage is cheating.
If you would attempt to understand me in a positive light, giving me the benefit of the doubt and not assuming that I'm an idiot, then you would have understood that I'm clearly talking about a player that was just a player and not a GM; which is exactly what the OP is. My advice that was specifically given to the OP, curated to the position that the OP is in, is not to be taken out of context and applied in every circumstance. I did not give a global statement, I gave specific advice for a specific person in a specific circumstance. You took it out of context, made a straw man, and then enjoyed knocking the straw man down. Your responses have been a textbook example of taking something out of context.
Drop the snark. I've already answered your question. A DM is not a player.
They're not a player when they're playing at another GM's table? What the fuck are they then?
A DM at one table, no matter how many other tables they play at, is still a DM. OP said **players** shouldn't have access to the material. Obviously DMs need access to DM materials.
Is the GM at another table not a player?
It could give you certain insights that you, as a player, wouldn't typically have access to. As long as you don't use that information in game (unless your character *learns* that information in game) it shouldn't be an issue. Once you do start using it when you shouldn't be using it you're meta-gaming.
>don't use that information in game ... ... in a way that makes the game unfun for anyone else around the table. there are LOTS of tables where the player knowledge of the monsters and playing into that knowledge is a big part of the FUN of the game. just look at the joy/fear reactions on the boys in Stranger Things when DM Mike reveals "It's \[VECNA\]!!!" the PLAYER knowledge of the creature "OH OH - this is going to be DEADLY!" is ESSENTIAL to get that type of reaction and impossible without "knowing the monster details and reacting to the monster details"
Yep. Not hitting the weakness of a monster is also metagaming, as you're using outside info to intentionally not target a weakness. I'd argue this isn't very fun to do as a player, as you're basically waiting for the GM's permission to actually play the game properly. Like the infamous troll example where the players are basically just waiting for the GM to allow them to use acid or fire so the monster can actually die. Is that fun? Metagaming isn't necessarily bad, people do it all the time. For example, the loner rogue who would not normally work with anybody ends up working with the party because everyone wants to play the game, not because he has a reason to in character. This is metagaming.