|
You shouldn't use the beastiary much if your players are too familiar with it.
.
.I can't disagree more. There are many times when a player separates out of game knowledge from in-game knowledge.
Let's just keep in mind that different groups play different ways and enjoy different things.
I've shared this story before on these Boards but it's been a couple years:
Back in the mid 90's EVERYONE in my group had MEMORIZED the Monstrous Compendium and all the Annuals. Throwing monsters at the Players in an attempt to rattle them or catch them off guard or whatever always failed pathetically. We all knew everything.
THAT is when I first started redesigning monsters.
The first was an encounter with a Brown Mold -- a Cold-radiating ooze that grows with Fire Damage, freezing the PCs to death, and dies with Cold damage.
I decided I would switch it.
(And I didn't tell the Players.)
So when they encounterd a dark brownish, fungus-like plant-thing in the Dungeon corridor that was cold enough to deal them damage, the PCs backed away and did their best to come up with a non-metagame reason for using a cold-based attack.
one Player said. They all thought that made sense for their PCs to conclude, and they threw a cold-based spell at it.
When the Brown Mold quadroupled in size and hurt the PCs LOTS and LOTS, the Players were furious at me, vehemently reminding me that BROWN MOLDS DIE FROM COLD!!!!
We were all younger back then, less mature -- and an argument ensued -- I did not back down from my redesigned monster nor the reason behind redesigning it.
.... Of course, within hours after the session ended everyone agreed that my solution to metagame monster knowledge was a good one (even though the term "metagame" hadn't been coined by Monte Cook yet) and we stuck to redesigning monster stat blocks forever.
But the fact remained that the session was RUINED. We play to have fun and arguing about changing monster stats IS NOT fun.
So now I always tell Players joining my games that I change the monster stats so don't assume that Red Dragons breathe fire, etc., etc., and it has worked out well.
That sort of story is exactly why Knowledge checks exist--making the check tells the players whether their characters know the useful things about the monster or hazard that they do, and a tool for them to catch on to variations from the written examples.
Well here is what I did, just to give you guys an idea of how I am dealing with knowledge checks, since I was really asking if they felt over powered or not I really Foots idea and that makes a lot of sense. It was my first game dealing with a Monster Lore Player type so I was caught off guard since my usual group doesn't ever use it.
But I took a generic Skeleton and when they appeared he Knowledge checked and I said you see an ordinary Skeleton... As soon as they made an action against the skeletons they burst into flames. And he said I would of known that. I made a call as a GM that know you wouldn't based on what you saw, you had no idea they were a different type based on how they appeared in the beginning. I allowed him a second knowledge check at a higher DC.
So anyone feel that he should of known regardless? This is the main reason it seems overpowered, if based on their argument they know what is regardless even it looks like something or did I handle this correctly?
To be fair, this trick can work every once in a while, but don't rely on it on a regular basis. It dilutes the effect of variant monsters as well as irritates the players unnecessarily. Still, I don't see anything that you did particularly wrong, as you did allow the second check when it became clear it was not normal.
To be fair, this trick can work every once in a while, but don't rely on it on a regular basis. It dilutes the effect of variant monsters as well as irritates the players unnecessarily. Still, I don't see anything that you did particularly wrong, as you did allow the second check when it became clear it was not normal.
The problem is if it were somthing that one action against the normal version would hurt it while the alternate version would benifit.
To be fair, this trick can work every once in a while, but don't rely on it on a regular basis. It dilutes the effect of variant monsters as well as irritates the players unnecessarily. Still, I don't see anything that you did particularly wrong, as you did allow the second check when it became clear it was not normal.The problem is if it were somthing that one action against the normal version would hurt it while the alternate version would benifit.
Which isn't entirely a bad thing if encountered very rarely. It can keep players on their toes. It can be a good trick to make a particular encounter stand out if used sparingly. The key is to make sure not to overuse it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As both a DM and a player that to me is just the DM needing to have a gotcha moment on the players. I have never seen a time when making it Impossible to know the difference is good if you watn to make it harder then go for it that is but the chance for success should be there even if its just out of reach.
As both a DM and a player that to me is just the DM needing to have a gotcha moment on the players. I have never seen a time when making it Impossible to know the difference is good if you watn to make it harder then go for it that is but the chance for success should be there even if its just out of reach.
Note I did say "very rarely." If backed up with an appropriately dramatic plot point at a key spot in the campaign, it could work once, maybe even twice, without upsetting me. Having your skill canceled out occasionally is not a end of the world scenario when the DM can back it up with a good reason, even if that reason is not immediately clear.
EDIT: The key is to make sure that it is the story, not the DM, providing the gotcha moment. The former is not only necessary from time to time, but can be used by a smart player to their advantage. The latter, or perception of the latter, is where the problems arise.
Very rarely maybe guess i'm not a big fan of total shutdowns. They way i see it they took ranks in that skill for a reason and even if i add 10 or 20 to the dc they may still have a chance of knowing somethings not right.
Very rarely maybe guess i'm not a big fan of total shutdowns. They way i see it they took ranks in that skill for a reason and even if i add 10 or 20 to the dc they may still have a chance of knowing somethings not right.
I can understand that, but I also tend to dislike the use of the word "never" as well. DMing is challenging enough that I tend to be hesitant to completely remove options from my set of available tools, even if I don't use most of them most of the time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I recall playing a low level fighter PC in 3e when he encountered a Grick... I hit and did no damage with my longsword.
=D
I pulled out the warhammer I had.. promptly crit'd it and killed it.
=(
Have you ever DMed? When there are five brains working on a problem that one person came up with, they can provide challenges and surprises constantly, and coming up with something that will hold up to that level of scrutiny requires having tools in at your disposal that sometimes bend the rules enough to keep them on their toes. It has nothing to do with "DM vs players.' It has everything to do with having enough tricks up your sleeve to keep the players from becoming pure rules lawyers at the expense of your own fun.
Sunshadow dont take this the wrong way but I would not run for that group i have over the years had to cull people with that mind set. Had one guy who would tell me the monster was dead because its MM entry had x hp and they had done x+12 on the last attack. Instead of penalizing everyone else i gave him a chance to tone back on such things and enjoy the RP aspect when he didnt i had to replace him.
To clarify the monster was a specific troll NPC with +con item on which gave hm about 12 more hp nothing brutal and no they were 3d6 drop lowest add 6 so stats were no biggie.
Sunshadow dont take this the wrong way but I would not run for that group i have over the years had to cull people with that mind set. Had one guy who would tell me the monster was dead because its MM entry had x hp and they had done x+12 on the last attack. Instead of penalizing everyone else i gave him a chance to tone back on such things and enjoy the RP aspect when he didnt i had to replace him.
For people who are willing to work with you, you don't need to use the nuclear options, or if you do, you only need to do it once to remind them. That doesn't mean the having the nuclear options is a bad thing. Note I am not advocating their frequent use, just advocating having them there as an option for that key point in the story or as a final reminder before further action is taken against the player rather than the character.
It is my opinion that a GM who does not tell me the creature's name, type, subtype, and all abilities associated with its creature type when I succeed at making the minimal DC is screwing me out of (a) valuable skill(s).
Take the land shark for example. If I make a DC 17 check, I know it is a bullete (or land shark), that it is a magical beast (which in itself tells me little more than it eats sleeps and breathes).
Had my check been a 27, I might also have learned it's sensory capabilities and common attack forms.
If I was fighting an undead monster and made the minimum DC, I would expect to learn its name, type, and all the resistances and immunities common to ALL undead. A better roll would go on to tell me about its strengths, weaknesses, and unique abilities.
This attitude primarily stems from my time playing v3.5 (on which Pathfinder is based) where this kind of thing was the norm.
It doesn't make sense to me that it would require a DC 45 (near impossible) check to know that a land shark "leaps on its victims." I imagine some farmers could tell you that much if they'd ever seen it.
Another reason why I require this "minimal" information, is I have had FAR too many GMs jip me out of my many knowledge ranks and 20+ intelligence by telling me blatantly obvious things.
I once rolled a 38 total, only to have a GM tell me that the flying creature breathing fire in front of me was a dragon that could fly and breathe fire.
Whuh!? I can clearly see that it is flying and breathing fire! Tell me something I can't so readily observe!
I can't stand such GMs as that!
I recall playing a low level fighter PC in 3e when he encountered a Grick... I hit and did no damage with my longsword.=D
I pulled out the warhammer I had.. promptly crit'd it and killed it.=(
IT'S ANOTHER GRICK! KILL IT KILL IT KILL IT!
Knowing things is the entire purpose of the knowledge skills.
Common monsters really don't seem like things that people going into the monster-killing business wouldn't know anything about.
"Yeah, those tall buggers there, we fought them in four different wars in the last 15 years. I stood up to them more often than I talked back to my mother, and I was a bad boy."
"Whoa! What are they called, how do they fight? Do they have any special strengths or weaknesses?"
"I have no idea, I'm not a loremaster."
As for "tricking" or "surprising" your players, I think that's generally just silly. When do they get to "trick" you?
I don't know about trick, but surprise? We once walked away from the BBEG fight. No, strike that. We TWICE walked away from the BBEG fight. With the same GM. In consecutive campaigns. "Fool me once..."
We have had more than our fair share of "what." moments.
And tricking? You can totally do that.
Why shouldn't they know the rules of the game they are playing?
That I can get on board with. It's like those guys who invent a game and never tell you all the rules and they're smiling all the time and you win up until they suggest playing for higher stakes.
Let's face it: Those kinds of GMs only want to see their players playing in their underwear. Yuck!
It also means that since we're talking about a game that tells stories and basically simulates a fantasy world, the players not knowing the rules means the characters they play don't know how the world works. They step off the roof and are astonished when they fall down and break their ass on the bottom.
I think the whole "GM vs. the players" arbitrary death-trap of the week thing should have died in the '70s and stayed dead.
One more banner I can flock to. If you want to win a game, go play Monopoly.
There's better ways to challenge players.
It's closer to having the DM describe a room but leave out details like the open spiked pit in the center that the PC could readily see. Then when the player has the PC move forward suddenly say 'ah so you walked into the spiked pit! Ah ha! Gotcha!'.
Or (actual example following) the GM puts you in a labyrinth and requires you to solve it in 10 minutes. When you fail, he laughingly tells you the solution: Just step over the walls, they're only a foot high.
No, we weren't told they were only one (!!!) foot tall. We never asked that.
Not every surprise is a DM screwing players, for instance any of the polymorph school spells could cause a misidentification. And what of certain creatures that intentionally mislead? A dragon in human form, a doppleganger, etc. A DM has every right to say a knowledge check fails on a creature... if the player gets upset because of a single instance then they are the ones that are metagaming, not the DM. If the DM does it a lot, they are screwing the player, but if I as a DM create a variant skeleton that has the ability to hide its specific variance, and I factor that into the CR, then that's how it works, period. There are lots if opportunities for a player to succeed of their K: checks, just because it doesn't work once in a while is not a DM failing, in the same way that having a super high perception check does notmake you immune to surprise. I as a DM can throw whatever I feel is appropriate at a party and fully expect to not be complained at just because the person expected a creature to function a certain way outside of their K: check result.
(Editing in example, also my phone is being an ass, sorry for any random words that creep in.)
I once created an encounter that involved a pack of dire wolves stalking the party for 3 days. The party had passed the wolves while they were feasting, and they knew they were being stalked. When it came time for the encounter, a perception check said something was wrong, but no amount of K: rolls would have said what was wrong (troll DNA taking over their bodies.) This is not me screwing over players, this is a case that a knowledge roll just doesn't cover this sort of thing.
Well said. There are plenty of things a DM can do within the rules to challenge the use of knowledge skills. Everything has a counter somewhere that if used properly can add entertainment to the game for everyone. Especially when it comes to monsters, DMs have a certain amount of latitude that players have to respect. If the DM is consistently restricting the use of a particular ability or skill, that becomes problematic, but the occasional restriction isn't bad, and can help add to the game if used properly. Saying, "You can't figure anything out about this creature" or using a perfectly legal trick like polymorphing still gives the character information. It may not be the information they were looking for, and it may not come immediately, but it is still information that the character can eventually act upon.
Polymorphing is fine as a confusion technique it has its own way of being detected. However lets say i decide to create lesser flesh golems that look exactly like zombies except they are given haste by positive energy. Now the players see them and roll knowledge and i tell them they are zombies. What do you think the players will do?
Polymorphing is fine as a confusion technique it has its own way of being detected. However lets say i decide to create lesser flesh golems that look exactly like zombies except they are given haste by positive energy. Now the players see them and roll knowledge and i tell them they are zombies. What do you think the players will do?
Well, when the cleric fails to affect them at all with a burst/turn undead, they quickly realize that these are not, in fact, undead zombies and beat the snot out of them with any and all available weapons, not worrying at all about what they were in actuality (at least that's what my group would do).
Polymorphing is fine as a confusion technique it has its own way of being detected. However lets say i decide to create lesser flesh golems that look exactly like zombies except they are given haste by positive energy. Now the players see them and roll knowledge and i tell them they are zombies. What do you think the players will do?
If that was the only thing you did, with no other measures taken to justify what you said, despite the player's rolling high enough to know the difference, it would be problematic. However, just a slightly different phrasing would resolve most of the conflict. "They look like zombies" would be a perfectly legitimate response for someone rolling religion without tipping your hand that they are actually flesh golems. When working with knowledge skills, semantics becomes very meaningful. If the player chooses to equate "looks like" with "are," than they have no one but themselves to blame. They still get to use their skill, but they have to understand that it may not always work exactly as intended or how they expect it to. As long as you are consistent in your language, the players will learn to pick up on the hidden clues, and everyone can have a richer experience.
Or a successful check may go more like this: "The creatures in front of you look and act in all ways like a zombie (give info about zombies based on knowledge roll) but something is wrong. With your intimate knowledge of zombies, you know this creature to be something else entirely, though know not its true lineage."
If they rolled high enough, sure, at least for the first part. The second part would depend on exactly how how well the character actually knew zombies. If they had first hand experience with lots of different kinds, sure, if they are relying just on book knowledge or second hand knowledge, probably not.
Or do you mean calling the three doniglobs and calling for initiative?That's what I meant.
It's the DM's job to help the players immerse themselves in the world through their character's eyes.
Since the players and the characters are separate in what they know, its the DM's job to help the player understand what their character knows.
The character doesn't know that the 3 small creatures are named Bob, Mutt and Jeff (unless they conveniently are wearing nametags "Hi My Name Is __Mutt") or even what they are potentially. But the character does know what they look like.
Given a reasonable knowledge check the character knows what they potentially are. The DM should convey this to the player.
In the OP's case his player's character would know that the creatures looked like normal skeletons, but the character would also know that burning skeletons ALSO look like normal skeletons until engaged in melee.
The DM failing to impart this is akin to the DM not mentioning that say Mutt, Jeff and Bob also happened to have reach weapons out, or that they were behind an open pit.... things the character would clearly perceive while the Player could not because the DM denied it to him.
-James
I agree, I prefer my players to have knowledge of what they are fighting and what is going on. I dont try to have 'gotcha' moments, and I dont want them walking around blind. Players generally have more fun and the game is more memorable when they have some knowledge of what is going on, so I try to give as much as possible with knowledge checks.
I like the use of knowledge checks because it prevents metagaming in my view. Your character has a REASON to know x is immune to electricity so dont cast lightning bolt or y is really hard to hurt without a magic weapon. It keeps my players in their character's heads and out of the bestiary.
I don't know about trick, but surprise? We once walked away from the BBEG fight. No, strike that. We TWICE walked away from the BBEG fight. With the same GM. In consecutive campaigns. "Fool me once..."We have had more than our fair share of "what." moments.
And tricking? You can totally do that.
I suspect we agree here, and it's just semantics getting in the way.
-Kle.
I also noticed I wasn't making any sense. The first and last sentences don't match.