Are monsters with Sunlight Sensitivity supposed to have disadvantage when attacking or perceiving a target that is in direct sunlight?

Certain subterranean-dwelling monsters, such as drow and duergar, have the Sunlight Sensitivity trait, which is consistently worded as follows:

While in sunlight, the [monster] has disadvantage on attack rolls, as well as on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.

Of course, drow and duergar are also playable races for PCs. These playable races have an identically-named Sunlight Sensitivity trait, but its wording is different:

You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight when you, the target of your attack, or whatever you are trying to perceive is in direct sunlight.

This is a significant difference. A drow PC attacking a target that stands in sunlight has disadvantage where a drow monster would not. One can imagine a drow PC traveling with a group of his monster drow kinsfolk and ending up the butt of jokes (or worse): "Poor Drew, for some reason he just can’t hit the broad side of a barn when we’re up on the surface. The rest of us, we just find some shade to snipe from and we’re set. Even that doesn’t seem to help Drew. I don’t know what his problem is."

Am I missing something? Has this difference been either explained or errata’d somewhere?

Are there any monsters or races that can cast spells without verbal components

So a while back I saw the piper race in their list of racial traits they have the following

Mystic Voice (Su): Piper spellcasters have a natural magic in their voice and must use it as an element of all their spellcasting. The additional magic imbued in their voice means a spellcasting piper never has to worry about somatic components, and ignores the somatic component of any spell. However, pipers cannot cast spells without singing out verbal components. Even spells that normally do not have verbal components gain them when cast by a piper, and pipers cannot use the Silent Spell feat. Further, a piper cannot cast such spells quietly. It is not possible for a piper to make a Stealth check when casting.

I was wondering if there was a race or monster that can do that but with verbal components. We have the obvious silent spell metamagic but I’m looking for something innate. My DM approves 3PP as well as Paizo products. Homebrew is on a case by case basis, and I don’t want to bother him over something that won’t come up right away since I don’t plan to use this character immediately unless I really have to. I can use characters that are half-monster allowing them to access 1 or 2 of their monster parent’s abilities as long as I’m not doing something like claiming they inherited the power of Cthulhu or something. Let’s say CR 4 max to give a hard limit, probably a bit low but better safe than sorry.

So my question is are there any monsters (max CR 4) or races (including 3pp) that can cast spells without verbal components.

How should i balance my monsters

I have created a few new classes and races for my game they all have the strengths and weaknesses but are still very powerfull.What is the best way to balance monsters or if I should simply put in more powerful creatures.My players are currently playing my campaign were they are traveling to the astral plane to kill an empyrean as a favor for having a devil save them in battle.I don’t want to keep throwing out powerful creatures but don’t want them obliterating all the weaker ones so how should I balance these monsters either give me tip on the best way to balance monsters or send me custom rules and monsters that can be fought at a medium difficulty.This game is in 5e

Does D&D 5e have a rule for character knowledge about monsters?

In the 3rd and 4th editions of D&D, there were explicit rules for determining if a character knew anything about a monster before them. In 3rd edition, for example, use of the Knowledge skill with a general DC of 10 + the monster’s HD allowed for determining one fact, plus one fact per 5 points over the check.

Looking at the Intelligence section of the 5e PHB, I don’t see any similar notation. Does 5e provide any guidance as to when a player could use their out-of-game knowledge about a monster, or when the player might be told things their character would probably know in-game?

How much do I tell new players about new monsters?


Background

I am a brand-new DM, about to lead a game for brand-new players. I have a lot of knowledge of rules from playing Baldur’s Gate and Neverwinter Nights over and over, leafing through a friend’s books, and finally buying the three basic books for myself.

Question

How much information should I give to my players about monsters they encounter?

Should I essentially read the entire MM entry to them, or let them figure out how the enemies operate through experience, or (as I assume), something in the middle? Keep in mind, only one of them has even peripheral experience with D&D (they are very good sports for giving it a shot!), so they won’t be bringing background knowledge to the table. For example, do DMs generally let players know what immunities creatures have, or do they let them figure it out by trial and error? What about offensive abilities? For example, if a player has a potion of fire resistance, should I give them a heads-up about the fact that the chimera they’re facing has a fire breath attack?