Its not unreasonable to expect players to run away, you just have to beat them over the head with it. In my game we have something called a 'gut check' which is character level + wis + int against a knowledge like dc. Its our way of the dm clueing in the players on things they are missing. I usually call for one when i know the party isnt able to handle the thing they are picking a fight with.
The problem is, as someone stated its actually really hard to run from most things. Unless you can callaps a passage behind you, SOMEONE in the party is probably slower then the other, (im looking at you heavy armor fighter, dwarf, small character etc). If you cant outrun the enemy, and the enemy generally wants you dead, its kind of hard to make them not kill you. And if you have turned tail to run, you are not devoting actions to keeping yourself alive.
Now there is a such a thing as a tactical retreat. And it can even be done in game, but you need to have the right resources (control spells usually or speed enhancing spells). But usually when the party is overmatched its because they are OUT of resources. So its not so easy for the wizard to web the doorway behind you and throw a pit too when he is out of spells and thats why you ran in the first place.
Its actually a very difficult thing to manage in many cases. If the enemy has no reason to persue them its usually not a problem, but if the fight has started, its going to be messy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think any half-way competent adventuring party should recognize that being out of resources should be high time to go home. They shouldn't keep pressing on only to turn around once they meet more enemies. I also think a competent wizard would keep a few spells reserved for such exit procedures. Otherwise, the party may need to look for a new wizard, just saying. How would they treat each other if they were hired "expert" NPCs, of which, PCs outclass 90% of the time, who acted similarly unprepared? I would wager they would fire the NPC and get someone else.
Of course that assumes that there's no pressing reason to push on. In some cases there are plot or strategic reasons to keep going. Sometimes pushing on right now before the enemy can reorganize and prepare for you is safer, even if you're low on resources.
Of course the wizard is to blame if he doesn't have the spells left to escape. Assuming you have a wizard and he has access to spells that will let you escape. He's also to blame for wasting spell slots on escape spells rather than using them to win the fights sooner and with less damage so you don't have to run in the first place. Catch-22.
That's all true.
Planning for retreat should be part of planning for battle. Usually all it takes is a few delaying tactics such as caltrops, flasks of oil, obscuring mist, entangle, etc. Usually retreating can be coordinated among team members so that more than one technique is used to delay the enemy. Entangle coupled with caltrops and obscuring mist is usually a pretty good technique outdoors.
In a dungeon it's not a bad idea to have a wall spell prepared, or even something like web.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been in a few "you should run away" encounters. And generally, it hasn't been apparent to me that I should run away.
In the one that stands out, ok, I hadn't bothered to memorize things like the CR of a cryohydra. So I had a sense that this was a tough or impossible fight, but no certainty. And the DM certainly had no intention of saying "yeah you guys aren't going to win". We were supposed to realize we needed to abandon the ship.
Of course, abandoning the ship in half-plate when most of our gear is below decks... doesn't sound like a winning proposition. And I didn't think the DM would put an encounter in front of us that would force us to abandon our equipment, flee, and probably drown in the river because I was a 2nd level character in half plate with no ranks in Swim (and it was 3.5, so double ACP was the Swim penalty). So rather than drowning (I could not make a DC 10 Swim check even taking 20), I hit the hydra. And went from full hp to dead in a single round. Fortunately the replacement character was, well, just better.
Basically, between the expectations of winnable combat set up by the rules, the pigheadedness of players who don't want to run away, and lack of clarity that it's feasible and advisable to run, fleeing is very rare. (About the best our knowledge checks could get us on that cryohydra were "it has 5 heads and breathes cold", which were clearly apparent by looking at it, and its first action. CR something that DM would never give out.)
Actually, that brings up a potentially useful idea. Provide a reference point. One of my DMs (the same one above) often involves custom monsters. And our knowledge checks will tell us something about them; perhaps history, weaknesses, strengths... but what they never give is a reference point as to the threat level of the creature. Which leaves us sometimes massively overestimating the capabilities of a monster. I recall one creature we thought was going to be a real fight. I destroyed it with one (x2) crit. If you're describing monsters or foes with the benefit of a knowledge check, provide some sort of reference point as to how dangerous they are. Not the out-of-character information of CR (unless you have no choice), but in some other, in-character context. Perhaps the bard has heard of when one of these demons killed an entire squad of the elite guard (and the party has a feel for the elite guard's capabilities).
Often I see people saying they've hinted that it's ok and smart to run. But players are notoriously obtuse, and possibly even skilled at not picking up on hints. Explicitly suggesting to run away may be the thing. Very low DC Wisdom or Intelligence checks (or knowledge checks) (that you call for, not on player request) to help that come from the characters, not the GM on high.
What a great thread.
I'm adding this to my list of "gaming culture expectations" to be on the lookout for with players I'm not used to gaming with.
I'm personally of the "always try to have an escape route" sort of mentality, both as a player and as a GM. I do a lot of sandbox games and most of the time the players tend to tell me where they are going and I tell them what they encounter. I've not had PCs need to make a tactical withdrawl in combat yet since I've been running PF, so thanks OP for posting this one. I may need to look at the viability of tactical withdrawls and see what I can do to tweak the system if it's not possible.
-TimD
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
See and there is the problem. If I tell you that a spider the size of an elephant is moving towards the corpse of the giant bull you have just killed. I should have to have these folks have any greater level of information than it is a spider the size of an elephant.
If this were real life, "it's an enormous spider" would be an excellent reason to run away. If this were real life, I'd also consider "it's a pair of goblins armed with spears" an excellent reason to run away. But this isn't real life, it's a fantasy game about heroes whose job involves constantly fighting monsters, and they're never going to run from a mere pair of goblins. How do they know that "big spider" is the one line that can't be crossed?
That's where these problems arise with encounters the GM expects the players to flee. Sure, from your perspective, sitting behind the screen, looking at the monster's statblock and CR, it may be "obvious" that it's too big a threat. But the players don't have the statblock, they just have a brief description saying it's a scary monster. Yeah, but everything they fight is a scary monster. How do they know which scary monsters have the biggest numbers?
It might seem obvious to you that the level 7 PC's have no business taking on a couple of Storm Giants. But to the PC's, who just see a funny-colored giant and just killed a couple of Bone Devils the day before? Unless they've memorized monsters in the bestiary by CR, what makes the giants "obviously" too strong to fight, but the literal devils "obviously" a reasonable target? Should they know from life experience in the real world that heroes of this level can fight demons of this type but not giants of that type? What does that even mean? Or should the heroes have run in terror from CR-appropriate threats as well, because man demons are scary and you shouldn't need to say anything more than "it's a devil" to get them to run away?
Throw in Pathfinder's rocket-tag math where an overpowered opponent can probably kill a PC in one round, so there's no chance to realize it's too strong a threat in combat and escape before suffering major losses, and this is the result you get.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Little non-demonic spider is not as scary as big demonic spider. And that's useful information assuming your PC's have so far fought nothing but little non-demonic spiders and have found those to be about as much as they can handle. But comparing a big demonic spider to ice golems or whatever else they've been fighting? Which of those is "obviously" a regular encounter and which is "obviously" worth fleeing? If they ran away from the spider two levels ago and now see it again, can they fight it or do they need to flee?
In a game about heroes becoming stronger than regular humans and killing freaky monsters, there's no real grounding that makes any particular monster "obviously" too strong once you get beyond the "housecats are life-threatening" stage.
Now, if you come right out and say, "This thing is too strong for you, you should run away," then that's a different story. Now you're not killing your players for not realizing that a fiendish giant spider was obviously far scarier than a shambling mound, but there's not a lot of meaningful decisions to make. "GM says we should run, I guess we run." Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a good way to get the PCs to know something is big and scary and they should run away is to show them.
Here's what I mean by this:
Let's say our party just killed a giant bull, and they had a rough time of it. Suddenly, another bull shows up. They know that just one bull was tough, and they're running low on resources. They may be considering, "should we fight, or should we run?"
Now enter the giant spider and have it capture and kill the live bull. The PCs now know without question that the giant spider is not to be messed with. What required most of their resources the giant spider is able to handle without much trouble. Now the PCs would most likely decide to turn tail and run. In addition, the giant spider would likely not chase them, because it already has its meal.
Let's do another example:
The storm giant. He's not to be trifled with by our mere level 7 party, but they don't know that. A great way to show this is to let them see just how deadly the storm giant is. Perhaps the party is coming out into the open from a forest, and they see the storm giant battling Sir Ian the Great (a knight they know from back in town, who is revered as a hero and they have personally witnessed his prowess) and his capable entourage. The party can see that most of his men are dead. Then they witness the storm giant pick up the knight, toss him into the air, and with a baseball bat swing hit Sir Ian with his club, sending Sir Ian flying across the land, only to land right next to the players - his body broken and his life gone. They have now seen the storm giant destroy the knight without much trouble. They now know to either flee in that situation, especially once they see the storm giant start headed their way (because that's where Sir Ian landed). They are still hidden, and can easily flee back into the forest.
Of course, PCs can and will make excuses. Maybe Sir Ian has injured the giant during the fight. We should charge in and avenge him!
But for the most part, if the PCs have been able to handle every combat up until now, and they have no reason to think that this battle is the one we should flee from, they won't flee. You need to make it *really* obvious, such as showing them just how deadly that particular opponent can be. Or simply tell the party, "This looks like it is too much for you. You should probably flee."
No. If you build an encounter with the expectation that the players should run it's likely they won't be able to. Pretty much anything that the party can't hope to kill risks killing someone on round one if played fairly.
If monsters are played with all their abilities running is almost never an option. Most monsters are faster than PCs and once an equally fast enemy threatens you it's almost impossible to get away by the normal movement rules. You withdraw they charge. You run they get an AoO against your flat footed AC. Probably a trip if they're smart.
The rules just don't make running practical unless you're something like an all druid and monk party.
Potential antagonists don't need to chase the PCs. They may be guarding something (their lair, their young, MASSIVE TREASURE), or have better things to do elsewhere.
Sometimes an evil monster just wants to be left alone, mkay?
I had my players awhile back roll up an encounter that was way beyond them (3x CR). A Jabberock was the first thing I found of the right CR, so I put one out on the side of the trail leading into the forest they were going. It was hiding and pretending ot be a moss covered rock. The jabberwock had a 12 on his 'hide' check to pretend to be a rock. But at 300 ft, they couldn't beat a 12 (distance penalties).
They had 2 PCs with +18 or better base stealth rolls (a rogue and a monk), and both had +18 or better perceptions so I expected one or both to sneak a little closer, figure out what it was, and warn everyone else.
The new witch character said 'Oh no, don't worry, my new familiar will figure it out for us, it's a fairy dragon and it can invisible at will'. I blinked, but said ok. The fairy dragon in question didn't have a good perception check, but small and invisible I figured it could still pull it off.
ME : So, it flies stealthfully through the grass and pops up from time to time to get it's bearings and see what's going on?
Player : No! It's got invisibility, it just flies down the path and looks to see what it is.
ME : So... it's not trying to be stealthy at all? It's flying out in the open?
Player : Look, it's invisible, ok? I'm not stupid enough to tell it to fly visible...
ME : <sigh> Ok, give me a perception roll at 250 ft.
Player : I rolled a 1, got a 9.
ME : <sigh> Ok, give me a perception roll at 150 ft.
Player : Da**, I rolled another 1, same 9.
ME : <sigh> Ok, give me a perception roll at 50 ft.
Player : Man! I can't win today, 2 for 10.
ME : <sigh> The jaberwock wakes up, looks around, see's the fairy dragon, and fires an eye beam at it. 15d6, Fairy Dragon fails save, taken to -30 something hitpoints. Fairy Dragon turns into dust in mid-air, with a small 'poik' sound.
Player : You're ******* me! Seriously?
Other Players : After laugh for 10 minutes. "Hey let's go back to town and find a new caster, our current one seems to have let her spell book get poik'd."
I had my players awhile back roll up an encounter that was way beyond them (3x CR). A Jabberock was the first thing I found of the right CR, so I put one out on the side of the trail leading into the forest they were going. It was hiding and pretending ot be a moss covered rock. The jabberwock had a 12 on his 'hide' check to pretend to be a rock. But at 300 ft, they couldn't beat a 12 (distance penalties).They had 2 PCs with +18 or better base stealth rolls (a rogue and a monk), and both had +18 or better perceptions so I expected one or both to sneak a little closer, figure out what it was, and warn everyone else.
The new witch character said 'Oh no, don't worry, my new familiar will figure it out for us, it's a fairy dragon and it can invisible at will'. I blinked, but said ok. The fairy dragon in question didn't have a good perception check, but small and invisible I figured it could still pull it off.
Why would the players ever do that to begin with? Did they know a big dangerous beast was just down the trail? Or do they always stealth down trails before walking down them?
Edit: And more to the point, did they know that the potential big scary monster that they couldn't see and may or may not have been there have true seeing?
Why would the players ever do that to begin with? Did they know a big dangerous beast was just down the trail? Or do they always stealth down trails before walking down them?Edit: And more to the point, did they know that the potential big scary monster that they couldn't see and may or may not have been there have true seeing?
Because at 1000ft they heard a loud noise that sounded like a goblin screaming, which got cut off mid-scream. The jaberwock was 'ambush hunting' things using the trail.
As a GM, I don't like throwing them cold into something without any warning what was going on. And yes, they knew there were big nasty things out in the world they couldn't fight. In fact, earlier in the game, they avoided a bullet 3 times in the same area, then came back to fight it when they got a couple of levels under their belt.
Why would the players ever do that to begin with? Did they know a big dangerous beast was just down the trail? Or do they always stealth down trails before walking down them?Edit: And more to the point, did they know that the potential big scary monster that they couldn't see and may or may not have been there have true seeing?
Because at 1000ft they heard a loud noise that sounded like a goblin screaming, which got cut off mid-scream. The jaberwock was 'ambush hunting' things using the trail.
As a GM, I don't like throwing them cold into something without any warning what was going on. And yes, they knew there were big nasty things out in the world they couldn't fight. In fact, earlier in the game, they avoided a bullet 3 times in the same area, then came back to fight it when they got a couple of levels under their belt.
So yes, they do stealth down every single trail (in that area only) before walking down it. It's a dangerous and ever-changing area.
Even with that, though, a goblin? Really? That's enough to frighten your level 6 or 7 party? Now maybe if they saw/heard a young dragon have a scream cut off mid yelp, then yeah.
If I am going to throw an almost certain TPK encounter at the party, I try to telegraph it in ways that are very clear.
Of course sometimes no warning is taken seriously.
Still, it's not uncommon for me to have the monster in question ripping a troll in half or something as the party comes within sight of it...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm saying is--is it reasonable to expect players to understand when they are outmatched and to expect them to run away. I only ask because I've had situations where the characters were obviously completely outmatched from the very beginning of the encounter--had options to run and simply chose not to.
I would argue that it was probably not completely obvious that they were outmatched.
As a GM, don't be afraid to literally say: "Seriously guys, if you attack this guy, you will die. You have no chance of beating him." Big hints are not enough!
|
It might seem obvious to you that the level 7 PC's have no business taking on a couple of Storm Giants. But to the PC's, who just see a funny-colored giant and just killed a couple of Bone Devils the day before? Unless they've memorized monsters in the bestiary by CR, what makes the giants "obviously" too strong to fight, but the literal devils "obviously" a reasonable target? Should they know from life experience in the real world that heroes of this level can fight demons of this type but not giants of that type? What does that even mean? Or should the heroes have run in terror from CR-appropriate threats as well, because man demons are scary and you shouldn't need to say anything more than "it's a devil" to get them to run away?
Fortunately there is an in-game way for characters (and players) to quickly gather information about the various monsters they face:
A knowledge check.
The player doesn't have to know anything about giants. They don't have to memorize, or even touch a bestiary. They just have roll a 20-sided die and add some skill modifiers to get a general idea of how challenging the monster will be.
Many GMs dial up or down the HP of monsters behind the screen, fudge rolls, etc, to ensure that the party is almost-but-not-quite beaten in every combat, on the false pretense that such combats are more exciting.But it is important that the players sometimes feel as though they could have died, just as much as it is important they get to feel like bad asses sometimes. Isn't that correct?
Absolutely. I have had times when I throw a horde of 50-100 goblins at a level 7 or 8 party. It may look scary, but they are mostly stock goblins with at most 1 or 2 actually worthy challenges. A few fireballs clear out the weak, the martial PC target anything that survives the fireballs. within 2 rounds anything that isn't dead is running like hell. I make sure that the players get a few moments here and there to realize just how strong they have gotten.
It might seem obvious to you that the level 7 PC's have no business taking on a couple of Storm Giants. But to the PC's, who just see a funny-colored giant and just killed a couple of Bone Devils the day before? Unless they've memorized monsters in the bestiary by CR, what makes the giants "obviously" too strong to fight, but the literal devils "obviously" a reasonable target? Should they know from life experience in the real world that heroes of this level can fight demons of this type but not giants of that type? What does that even mean? Or should the heroes have run in terror from CR-appropriate threats as well, because man demons are scary and you shouldn't need to say anything more than "it's a devil" to get them to run away?Fortunately there is an in-game way for characters (and players) to quickly gather information about the various monsters they face:
A knowledge check.
The player doesn't have to know anything about giants. They don't have to memorize, or even touch a bestiary. They just have roll a 20-sided die and add some skill modifiers to get a general idea of how challenging the monster will be.
I like that idea, but I'm not sure it's commonly used. Usually you'd get "It's a storm giant" and then things like "immune to lightning" or "breathes water". Do most GMs give out CRs or reasonable hints to them with a Knowledge roll?
Of course, making a Know roll for a inappropriately high CR monster might be hard. Though that could be a sign in itself.
Player - Wait, I rolled a natural 20 on my knowledge check, and you are telling me I don't know what this thing is....
DM - Well, it is a rare monster, so the DC is 5 higher than normalPlayer - But I got a total of a 30 with all my bonuses
DM - Yes, yes you did.
Player - That means the CR is.... oh, crap!
PS - This also works when a player gets a really good roll, and they get only 1 or 2 pieces of information. That will give them an idea of the CR as well.
|
The player doesn't have to know anything about giants. They don't have to memorize, or even touch a bestiary. They just have roll a 20-sided die and add some skill modifiers to get a general idea of how challenging the monster will be.
Well ... sort of.
Unfortunately, a Knowledge check doesn't realy distinguish beyween "hill giant" and "hill giant barbarian 10."
Or, for a "really happened" example, back when 3.5 first came out, Dragon published a "ghoul template" that they vastly under-CRed for high-hit die, high-BAB monsters. When I put a single hill giant ghoul in my game against players who could reasonably handle hill giants, it resulted in a TPK ... despite the players knowing exactly what they were facing.
We reset and tried it again. TPK. We reset the combat five times ... five TPKs.
Normal ghouls aren't exactly weak, but they're not all that impressive when compared to stuff a CR or two under them. But, it turns out, when you scale up the chance of hitting to "high" and the chance of making the saving throw versus paralysis to "low," they become pretty hard to stop.
It didn't just fool my PCs, it fooled me, and I had the damn stat-block in front of me.
Unlike a lot of folks, I like the monster lore rules for Knowledge, but they're not always enough. (Of course, my example was kind of pointless -- sorry about that -- because in this case, nothing would have been enough for the PCs to know they couldn't handle it.)
Player - Wait, I rolled a natural 20 on my knowledge check, and you are telling me I don't know what this thing is....
DM - Yes, it is a rare monster, so the DC is 15 + CR
Player - But I got a total of a 30 with all my bonuses
DM - yes, yes you did.
Player - that means the CR is.... oh, crap!Now, is it metagaming to use that?
More seriously, if the character doesn't know which type of knowledge the monster falls in, he won't know how high it must be.
The character would know that despite being knowledgeable about the type of monster in question, they have no clue what they are facing.
Imagine you have been studying monsters all your life(+10 or +15 knowledge check), and you come across something you don't know. The fact that you don't recognize it is a piece of important information to your character. How much you can metagame off of that will vary from group to group.
Note, i also use a group knowledge checks with aid another, so this would be a case of no one in a seasoned group of adventurers recognizes it. That should at least be a warning to be cautious.
Planning a way to retreat is only sensible for the characters. Not all combats can be won, and some can only be won with the proper information and equipment. (dang we need to go get some fire to take that on! back to town we go!)
On the other hand though, I'm absolutely 100% against the DM deciding to give us an encounter where he's decided the appropriate thing for us to do, is run away.
I'm not at the table to be taught a lesson by the DM. I'm at the table to play the game. If he wants to be a teacher, let him go teach a class or something- somewhere that isn't the gaming table. Trying to force the PC's to flee because the DM thinks the group needs to "learn that lesson" is just going to end in frustration for the DM and the Players alike.
I can just envision the convo after the TPK.
PC1: "Wow. How were we ever supposed to kill that thing?"
DM: "well.. you weren't. You should have run away. That was what i was intending. You guys never run away- you really should consider adding it to your strategy list."
PC2: "so.. you designed it so we had to run away? we didn't miss something?"
DM: "Yep."
PC3: "where'd my CRB go? It doubles as a club. You guys hold him down."
Design the counters. Design how you want the monster to act and react.
Don't try to *dictate* how and what the PC's are going to do. Thats our job. If the entire encounter is designed just to make the PC's run away, then you need to go back to the drawing board.
Note: not saying the OP was doing this- its just general commentary.
-S
The character would know that despite being knowledgeable about the type of monster in question, they have no clue what they are facing.
Imagine you have been studying monsters all your life(+10 or +15 knowledge check), and you come across something you don't know. The fact that you don't recognize it is a piece of important information to your character. How much you can metagame off of that will vary from group to group.
Remember that because of the way knowledge DC's work, a legendary hero whose deeds should be widely renowned is harder to recognize than a random dirt farmer nobody should ever have heard of. "I don't recognize it = it's way too strong for us" makes zero sense outside of metagaming.
Planning a way to retreat is only sensible for the characters. Not all combats can be won, and some can only be won with the proper information and equipment. (dang we need to go get some fire to take that on! back to town we go!)
On the other hand though, I'm absolutely 100% against the DM deciding to give us an encounter where he's decided the appropriate thing for us to do, is run away.
I'm not at the table to be taught a lesson by the DM. I'm at the table to play the game. If he wants to be a teacher, let him go teach a class or something- somewhere that isn't the gaming table. Trying to force the PC's to flee because the DM thinks the group needs to "learn that lesson" is just going to end in frustration for the DM and the Players alike.
I can just envision the convo after the TPK.
PC1: "Wow. How were we ever supposed to kill that thing?"
DM: "well.. you weren't. You should have run away. That was what i was intending. You guys never run away- you really should consider adding it to your strategy list."
PC2: "so.. you designed it so we had to run away? we didn't miss something?"
DM: "Yep."
PC3: "where'd my CRB go? It doubles as a club. You guys hold him down."Design the counters. Design how you want the monster to act and react.
Don't try to *dictate* how and what the PC's are going to do. Thats our job. If the entire encounter is designed just to make the PC's run away, then you need to go back to the drawing board.Note: not saying the OP was doing this- its just general commentary.
-S
That is a good point. Usually, when my players encounter something they should run away from it is either....
A. a completely random encounterB. They somehow reached the an encounter before they are ready for it
This can happen a lot in more open campaigns like Kingmaker.
Player - Wait, I rolled a natural 20 on my knowledge check, and you are telling me I don't know what this thing is....
DM - Yes, it is a rare monster, so the DC is 15 + CR
Player - But I got a total of a 30 with all my bonuses
DM - yes, yes you did.
Player - that means the CR is.... oh, crap!Now, is it metagaming to use that?
More seriously, if the character doesn't know which type of knowledge the monster falls in, he won't know how high it must be.
Skill checks are pretty much entirely a metagame game... Players know the typical DCs to shoot for and will place as many points into the skill as they need to beat those DCs. Knowledge skill rolls don't take any time essentially so a character can roll all possible skills to figure out what a particular creature is.
In game, a character with high ranks of a knowledge skill 'knows' their stuff, they know they know it. When a character rolls well, they 'know' they did well. When they roll well and have high ranks and they still don't know what it is... it isn't metagaming to take a step back and consider why that might be at all.
Remember that because of the way knowledge DC's work, a legendary hero whose deeds should be widely renowned is harder to recognize than a random dirt farmer nobody should ever have heard of. "I don't recognize it = it's way too strong for us" makes zero sense outside of metagaming.The character would know that despite being knowledgeable about the type of monster in question, they have no clue what they are facing.
Imagine you have been studying monsters all your life(+10 or +15 knowledge check), and you come across something you don't know. The fact that you don't recognize it is a piece of important information to your character. How much you can metagame off of that will vary from group to group.
And later I specifically said, "We don't recognize it = We should be cautious" is a pretty safe assessment for a character to make without any metagaming.
Further, you are imposing your idea of what knowledge checks represent onto the rules. The rules specifically say that higher CR = harder to know about. Any character who trains in a knowledge skill will know you start by studying the common and weakest threats first, and move to the less common and more dangerous threats later, because that is how the skill works, thus it is not metagaming to guess that one possible reason you do not recognize a monster is because it it is so dangerous that very few who face it live to tell the tale. It is not exactly like the PF Bestiary exists as an actual book in world that a PC can walk up to and read.
The character would know that despite being knowledgeable about the type of monster in question, they have no clue what they are facing.
Imagine you have been studying monsters all your life(+10 or +15 knowledge check), and you come across something you don't know. The fact that you don't recognize it is a piece of important information to your character. How much you can metagame off of that will vary from group to group.
Note, i also use a group knowledge checks with aid another, so this would be a case of no one in a seasoned group of adventurers recognizes it. That should at least be a warning to be cautious.
As a point that's not true. Just because you don't know what something is shouldn't serve as a warning. Scientists find new forms of life very often but that doesn't make all of them dangerous.
However you should be cautious but that's just on the general principle that anything you don't know about warrants caution, if your party aren't that kind of people they probably wouldn't be cautious about the new beasty unless it looks like something they ought to be afraid of.
Again, how knowledge works in our world is not how it works in PF. Are you going to say that all maps in PF should be 100% accurate and up to date because we have satelite mapping and GPS systems in our world? No, of course not.
PF tells us exactly how knowledge works in that world. It is reasonable to assume that a character in that world who has studied anything also understands how knowledge works.
|
Yes, but you should warn the real life players not every encounter will be tailored to their level or that sometimes they may have to pick the when, where, and how often they fight if they expect to overcome everything. This is especially true for new p[layers. Even seasoned players may not realize the CRs and ELs they face, they might require a heavy hint.
Many GMs dial up or down the HP of monsters behind the screen, fudge rolls, etc, to ensure that the party is almost-but-not-quite beaten in every combat, on the false pretense that such combats are more exciting.But it is important that the players sometimes feel as though they could have died, just as much as it is important they get to feel like bad asses sometimes. Isn't that correct?
Sure. But players aren't dumb. If the monsters routinely take twice the damage they should take to die, or routinely start falling over after the first PC goes down, then players easily figure out that the GM is encounter scaling everything. At which point they quit trying to be clever or interesting or play their characters in any tactful way, since their tact is pointless. Better tactics just leads the monsters to have more HP. Terrible tactics just leads them to fall over sooner.
In my opinion, encounters should not be scaled to the party at all, they should be scaled to the situation. And if the party is not on par with the situation, they don't need to attack the situation head on. They need to think about alternates before getting themselves in such a pickle in the first place. It's a shame how little PC groups actually "scout" in this game, given the fantastically useful abilities granted to some classes to scout.
For that situation I mentioned before, where the player who'd been "trained" by poor GMing to expect all encounters to be scaled on the fly to be winnable, I told him to retreat. My PC told him, in game. Repeatedly. He still stayed and got munched, and still got ticked about it. I don't fault him, his expectations about the game were different because he'd been playing under a poor GM.
I have much more fun if I know that the encounters aren't scaled at all, that they're purely a function of the situation and the situation doesn't change with my own level of competence, because that's how "real life" would be. I like that. I'd rather have some snoozer combats and some unwinnable combats in the name of increased realism.
Sure. But players aren't dumb. If the monsters routinely take twice the damage they should take to die, or routinely start falling over after the first PC goes down, then players easily figure out that the GM is encounter scaling everything. At which point they quit trying to be clever or interesting or play their characters in any tactful way, since their tact is pointless. Better tactics just leads the monsters to have more HP. Terrible tactics just leads them to fall over sooner.
In my opinion, encounters should not be scaled to the party at all, they should be scaled to the situation. And if the party is not on par with the situation, they don't need to attack the situation head on. They need to think about alternates before getting themselves in such a pickle in the first place. It's a shame how little PC groups actually "scout" in this game, given the fantastically useful abilities granted to some classes to scout.
For that situation I mentioned before, where the player who'd been "trained" by poor GMing to expect all encounters to be scaled on the fly to be winnable, I told him to retreat. My PC told him, in game. Repeatedly. He still stayed and got munched, and still got ticked about it. I don't fault him, his expectations about the game were different because he'd been playing under a poor GM.
I have much more fun if I know that the encounters aren't scaled at all, that they're purely a function of the situation and the situation doesn't change with my own level of competence, because that's how "real life" would be. I like that. I'd rather have some snoozer combats and some unwinnable combats in the name of increased realism.
Generally speaking, the only reason I scale an encounter on the fly is because I screwed up. If I meant an encounter to be hard, and due to a miscalculation on my part(like thinking that 16 level 1 goblin warriors really is a CR 7 encounter), it is way too easy, I will scale it up a bit. If I meant an encounter to be easy, and it is turning out to be a lot harder than I planned(like finding out that hill giants + dire wolves is a nastier than expected combination), I will scale it down. Either way, I view this as a failure on my part to properly assess the party's and monster's strengths and weaknesses.
More importantly, if the encounter is exactly the difficulty I meant it to be, then I will not adjust it at all.
I've only had a character run once....ever....it was after running into a battlefield and realizing if he stayed, in a short amount of time he would be overwhelmed and unable to escape. I think players generally just expect to win every encounter. Or it may be the, if I try to run, they May be able to run faster and kill me anyways. I may as well stand my ground. Also, I have one player notorious for starting fights above his paygrade...if he does, he just writes up an identical character and says it's the twin brother etc. he seems to use this technique to metagame through the campaign, or at least try to.
One Conan themed game started with us running away. The job as mercs had been great, unfortunately the host we were attached to had just experienced a massive defeat. Collapse of the Persian hordes in the face of Rome in the time of Mithradates defeat.
Run!